Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

No response to the 'wonderful' economy, MM?

Here's another indicator that things aren't going very well:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=1946250&page=1

Quote:

RealtyTrac, a California organization that tracks foreclosed properties nationwide, found that the foreclosure rate in March of this year was up 63 percent compared with last year. The company's foreclosure data includes a variety of categories: homes that enter the foreclosure process, homes that are actually foreclosed on and homes that are returned to the banks.

---

When home prices soared at double-digit rates during the recent red-hot housing market, many Americans stretched themselves financially to purchase a home. The use of lower-interest adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs, interest-only mortgages or option-ARMs that allowed home buyers to choose how to pay each month soared during the same period.

According to the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, ARMs now represent 25 percent of the more than $8.5 trillion in outstanding loans.

Economists with Moody's Economy.com forecast that the interest rates on $2 trillion of those mortgage loans could be reset in 2006 and 2007.

Housing has been the prime mover of our economy over the last five years, by far. And it only is going to get worse. Do yourself a favor and stop denying reality; there are difficult times ahead.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Events at Haditha don't change need for victory

June 4, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Here are a couple of observations from two parents of American heroes fallen in Iraq. The first is from Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Army Spec. Casey Sheehan, a brave man who enlisted in 2000, re-upped for a second tour and died in 2005 after volunteering for a rescue mission in Sadr City:

"We've been talking about Martin Luther King Jr. this night. My son was killed the same day he was killed, on April 4. I don't believe in any coincidences. Casey was born on John F. Kennedy's birthday. He was born on the day, and died on the day, of two people who were assassinated by the war machine in my country."

The second observation is from Martin Terrazas, the father of Marine Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas of El Paso, who was killed by a roadside bomb at a town called Haditha:

"I don't even listen to the news."

The New York Times' Maureen Dowd, the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist of the most important newspaper in America (well, OK, the most self-important newspaper in America), has written that "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." She wrote this in a column about Sheehan. She doesn't seem to have found the time to write any columns about any other parents of fallen soldiers and their absolute moral authority. Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of "moderate" "mainstream" Democratic Party vice presidential nominee John Edwards, sent out a letter headlined: "Support Cindy Sheehan's Right To Be Heard." Mrs. Sheehan doesn't have much difficulty being heard. The remarks above were made a week ago at a meeting in Melbourne. That's to say, dozens of organizations pay to fly her around the United States and Canada and over to Britain and Europe and all the way to Australia to ensure her "right to be heard," now and forever. She is the subject of a forthcoming movie, in which she will be played by Susan Sarandon.

But I would hazard that Martin Terrazas is far more typical of the families of American forces in Iraq: A man who can't bear to pick up an American newspaper, or listen to a radio news bulletin, or watch a political talk show, because every square peg of an event is being hammered into the round hole of the same narrative, the only narrative our culture knows: This is Vietnam, it's a quagmire, we can't win, and the longer we delay losing and scuttling and getting the hell outta there, the more wicked things we will do. And, lookie here, whaddaya know, here comes the Sunni version of the My Lai massacre.

I don't know any more than you do about the precise nature of events triggered in Haditha by Cpl. Terrazas' death. But assume every dark rumor you've heard is true, that this was the murder of civilians by American service personnel. In the run-up to March 2003, there were respectable cases to be made for and against the Iraq war. Nothing that happened at Haditha alters either argument. And, if you're one of the ever swelling numbers of molting hawks among the media, the political class and the American people for whom Haditha is the final straw, that's not a sign of your belated moral integrity but of your fundamental unseriousness. Anyone who supports the launching of a war should be clear-sighted enough to know that, when the troops go in, a few of them will kill civilians, bomb schools, torture prisoners. It happens in every war in human history, even the good ones. Individual Americans, Britons, Canadians, Australians did bad things in World War II and World War I. These aren't stunning surprises, they're inevitable: It might be a bombed mosque or a gunned-down pregnant woman or a slaughtered wedding party, but it will certainly be something. And, in the scales of history, it makes no difference to the justice of the cause and the need for victory.

For three years, coalition forces in Iraq behaved so well that a salivating Vietnam culture had to make do with the thinnest of pickings: one depraved jailhouse, a prisoner on a dog leash with a pair of Victoria's Secret panties on his head and an unusually positioned banana. "Just look at the way U.S. army reservist Lynndie England holds the leash of the naked, bearded Iraqi," wrote Robert Fisk, the dean of the global media's Middle Eastern correspondents. "No sadistic movie could outdo the damage of this image. In September 2001, the planes smashed into the buildings; today, Lynndie smashes to pieces our entire morality with just one tug on the leash."

Down, boy.

But now at last the media have their story. They're off the leash. And, if the worst rumors are true, those 10 Marines will come to symbolize the 99.99 percent of their comrades who every day do great things for the Iraqi and Afghan people. In 2004, in the wake of Abu Ghraib, I wrote that "there is something not just ridiculous but unbecoming about a hyperpower 300 million strong whose elites -- from the deranged former vice president down -- want the outcome of a war, and the fate of a nation, to hinge on one freaky jailhouse; elites who are willing to pay any price, bear any burden, as long as it's pain-free, squeaky-clean and over in a week. The sheer silliness dishonors the memory of all those we're supposed to be remembering this Memorial Day."

Two years on, it's even worse. If you examine the assumptions underlying speeches by professors, media grandees, etc., it's hard not to agree with the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, that these days America can only fight Vietnam, over and over: Every war is "supposed to become a quagmire, which provokes opposition and leads to American withdrawal.'' That's how the nation demonstrates its "moral virtue" -- i.e., its parochial self-absorption.

Last week, Cindy Sheehan said in Melbourne that "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated by the war machine in my country." This week, Bobby's son, Robert Kennedy Jr., said in Rolling Stone that Bush stole the 2004 election. Next week, it'll be something else.

But there is more pain and more truth about America in those seven words of Martin Terrazas. A superpower that wallows in paranoia and glorifies self-loathing cannot endure and doesn't deserve to.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
Events at Haditha don't change need for victory

June 4, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

...

But there is more pain and more truth about America in those seven words of Martin Terrazas. A superpower that wallows in paranoia and glorifies self-loathing cannot endure and doesn't deserve to.

A superpower that fails to accurately and honestly acknowledge its misdeeds and abuses of that same power really isn't a superpower at all and isn't deserving of such a name.

With power comes responsibility, not just to take and destroy at will. That's merely the definition of a bully.

There is no sane reason that countries should not be held to the same measure of responsibility that individuals are held to. The USA has not be held accountable for their war crimes and misdeeds. In fact, the USA specifically opted out of the procedure designed for that in order to avoid such accountability.

0 Replies

Probably no government, super power or not, no matter how much it tries will ever be able to be perfect, will not have missteps, and will not make mistakes, some minor, some serious. There has never been a war conducted by anybody in which some innocents were not harmed, some unrelated property destroyed, or errors in judgment, mistakes in orders, or fatigue did not result in unnecessary deaths and injuries. These are all a fact of life.

What the article Tico posted suggests, and what is being ignored I think, is the irresonsibility and/or meanspiritedness of the "loyal opposition" who use exaggeration, revised history, mistruths, untruths, and flat out lies in their opposition.

Honorable people use honest criteria and honorable means in dissent. Dishonorable people do not. And depending on whose ox is intended to be gored, a huge double standard applies in how issues are portrayed in the press.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What the article Tico posted suggests, and what is being ignored I think, is the irresonsibility and/or meanspiritedness of the "loyal opposition" who use exaggeration, revised history, mistruths, untruths, and flat out lies in their opposition.

Honorable people use honest criteria and honorable means in dissent. Dishonorable people do not. And depending on whose ox is intended to be gored, a huge double standard applies in how issues are portrayed in the press.

I think it is obvious some people just don't love our country that much. They either have some chip on their shoulder or have been thoroughly indoctrinated concerning all of our flaws and how unfair the world appears to them.

Part of the honor and goodness of our society is that we are not a closed society and therefore our dirty linen gets put on display for all the world to see, and some people like to point fingers at that. It is almost getting to the point that wars have to become so sanitary and so politically correct that they are becoming virtually unwinnable. The opposition has no honor or political correctness whatsoever, so we essentially are fighting with a built-in handicap.

0 Replies

Part of loving someone means telling them the truth, and not lying to spare their feelings.

I love this country as much as either of you, I guarantee; I'm just unwilling to lie about our problems the way that you people are.

Only by exposing our problems to the light of day can we begin to fix them. Pretending they aren't there, or that they shouldn't be talked about, is a sure path to not fixing problems. Anyone can realize this, yet rather than discuss and work on our problems you would rather pretend that they don't exist.

Quote:

It is almost getting to the point that wars have to become so sanitary and so politically correct that they are becoming virtually unwinnable.

Hmm, yeah, that would suck not to have more wars going on because we care too much about killing innocents, wouldn't it? If only we could go back to the glory days where non-American lives simply didn't matter.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AND NOW FOR SOME GOOD NEWS

By Peter Wehner
Monday, June 5, 2006; A15

By now Americans know the litany: The nation is engaged in a difficult and costly war in Iraq; Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon; gas prices are high; the costs of reconstructing the Gulf Coast region are huge; illegal immigration is a major problem -- and more.

These issues are real and pressing. But they aren't the whole story -- and they ought not color the lens through which we see all other events. We hear a great deal about the problems we face. We hear hardly anything about the encouraging developments. Off-key as it may sound in the current environment, a strong case can be made that in a number of areas there are positive trends and considerable progress. Perhaps the place to begin is with an empirical assessment of where we are.

Social Indicators: We are witnessing a remarkable cultural renewal in America. Violent crime rates remain at the lowest levels in the history of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' survey (which started in 1973). We are experiencing the sharpest decline in teen crime in modern history. Property crimes are near the lowest levels in the history of the federal survey. Welfare caseloads have declined almost 60 percent since 1996. Both the abortion rate and ratio are at the lowest levels we have seen in the 30-year period these data have been tracked. African American and Hispanic fourth-graders posted the highest reading and math scores in the history of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test. The use of illegal drugs by teens has dropped 19 percent since 2001, while the use of hallucinogens such as LSD and ecstasy has declined by more than half.

The teen birth rate has fallen for a dozen consecutive years. The percentage of high school students who reported having had sex is significantly lower than in the early 1990s. The divorce rate has fallen steadily for over a decade. And teen smoking has dropped by almost 50 percent since the late '90s.

There are areas of concern, to be sure. Births to unmarried women are at an all-time high, and in many respects our popular culture remains a cesspool. But context is important. Between 1960 and the mid-'90s virtually every social indicator got worse -- and in many cases staggeringly worse. Then things began to turn around, almost as if a cultural virus created its own antibodies.

The Economy : The American economy is the strongest in the world and growing faster than that of any other major industrialized country. It grew at an annual rate of 5.3 percent in the first quarter -- the fastest growth in 2 1/2 years. It has added more than 5.3 million jobs since the summer of 2003, and employment is near an all-time high. The unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is well below the average for each of the past four decades. Mortgage rates remain near historical lows, homeownership remains near a record high, and sales of new and existing homes reached record levels in 2005. Real disposable personal income has risen almost 13 percent since President Bush took office; and core inflation rose just 2.3 percent over the past 12 months. The Dow Jones industrial average has risen from under 7300 in 2002 to above 11,000 for most of this year. Tax revenues are at an all-time high -- and so is total household net worth.

National Security : Perhaps no nation has ever been as dominant as the United States is today -- and we are using our military power to promote great purposes. As a reference point, it's worth recalling that the 1930s and early-'40s were regarded by many as the twilight of freedom. Democratic societies were threatened both internally (by a depression) and externally (by Nazism and fascism). There were only a dozen or so democracies on the planet.

Today we are witnessing one of the swiftest advances of freedom in history. In the past four years more than 110 million people have joined the ranks of the free -- and for the first time freedom is taking root in the Middle East. Once ruled by cruel dictatorships, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are now governed by constitutions and are participating in national elections. The governments of the two countries once provided safe haven to terrorists; now they are engaged in a mortal struggle against them. This struggle is longer and harder than any of us would wish, but by any standard or precedent of history, Afghanistan and Iraq have made remarkable political progress.

Kuwait's parliament has granted full political rights to women. Arab intellectuals are pushing for a rapid acceleration of democratic reform. After almost 30 years, Syrian troops left Lebanon in response to the Cedar Revolution. And Libya has abandoned its program of weapons of mass destruction. The biggest nuclear-smuggling ring in history, run by Pakistan's A.Q. Khan, is being rolled up. The government of Pakistan has cast its lot with us against al-Qaeda.

Islamic terrorists have been denied sanctuaries, their networks are being broken up, their leaders are being incapacitated and they are on the run. Our homeland has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. And we have set aside decades of mistrust to put relations with India, the world's most populous democracy, on a new and fruitful path.

This account does not mean that everything is going smoothly. Every day we are reminded that hardships are real. Grave threats persist. Missteps have been made along the way. And more can always be done. But we are witnessing significant progress on many different fronts, and there are authentic grounds for optimism.

The Sept. 11 attacks, two wars, a recession and the worst natural disaster in our history have been turbulent and draining events. History-shaping periods often are -- and so, not surprisingly, the nation is unsettled. Yet the United States is a deeply resilient and hopeful country. The trajectory of events is in our favor -- and with the passage of time, all this will become clear enough.

The writer is deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives.

0 Replies

Quote:

In February 2004, Michael Oppenheimer stated the situation plainly. "If you believe in a rational universe, in enlightenment, in knowledge, and in a search for the truth," he said, "this White House is an absolute disaster."

[from Crimes Against Nature by Robert F Kennedy, JR]

The facts so clearly bear this out. Why, why oh why are there so many delusion people still out there and in here. Can you answer me that, Tico, McG, Foxy, ...

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Quote:
In February 2004, Michael Oppenheimer stated the situation plainly. "If you believe in a rational universe, in enlightenment, in knowledge, and in a search for the truth," he said, "this White House is an absolute disaster."

[from Crimes Against Nature by Robert F Kennedy, JR]

The facts so clearly bear this out. Why, why oh why are there so many delusion people still out there and in here. Can you answer me that, Tico, McG, Foxy, ...

Oppenheimer is a good liberal who was advocate for the Kyoto Protocol and refuses to acknowledge any other possible cause for any global warming other than human caused greenhouse gasses. I would expect him to say nothing other than such as you posted. I also think it puts him squarely in the tunnel-visioned left wing environmental wacko group who think anybody with a different point of view is delusional.

0 Replies

Keep the good news coming SierraSong. I think a least some Americans know its out there and is grossly underreported. But we can all do what we can to remedy that.

Ann Coulter's new book is out and it is her most controversial ever. She even got slammed by O'Reilly!!! But he, and others, focus on a couple of key comments in the book and largely ignore the larger thesis which is pure Coulter and is why her fans love her even when they disagree with her:

I am not sure of the source of the following, but it is obviously her stuff. Coulter fans, enjoy.

Hey you, browsing 'Godless' -- buy the book or get out!
By Ann Coulter

Jun 7, 2006

The long-anticipated book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" was finally released this week. If The New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.

"Godless" begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted -- with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner -- even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift -- especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!

The main problem with "Godless" is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find "Godless" without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

"Godless" examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)

The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals -- who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? -- is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with "Slander" or "Treason," and it's not going to work now.

It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. "Godless" goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of "Godless" is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion -- otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."

Even the left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where -- thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU -- the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).

If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

0 Replies

Why Ann Coulter is right

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 9, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Liberals in America have been staging a new strategy on winning public-policy debates: Simply provide spokespeople that no one is allowed to respond to. Ann Coulter had the gall to challenge that and let loose with some direct observations in her newest best seller, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," and true to form, liberals have been fomenting in response.

The reason they are is not because Ann has broken some sacred respect that one should have for a grieving mother, wife or relative. Rather, the reason they are so outraged by this is because it stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who "can't be criticized."

Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton and Alan Colmes have been laughable in the trumped-up outrage that they share for the statements Coulter makes in "Godless" in reference to the "Jersey Girls." The Jersey Girls are four wives who lost their husbands on 9-11. They jumped into the 2004 election debate early on, cutting commercials for John Kerry, and they are on record for saying some rather hideous remarks about Condoleezza Rice and Karl Rove, not to mention President Bush.

In recent years, liberal spokespeople have grown infamous for self-destruction when they are put into arenas where free debate, give-and-take response and actual dialogue take place. As Ann argues rather convincingly in her new book, this sets up the structure of "liberal infallibility." In other words, liberals' use of victims of tragedies would never be criticized, so the plan is to find as many victims to become the mouthpieces for the left as possible.

An interesting point: When the GOP invited widows of 9-11 to participate in their national convention, charges went up from the left of "pure political posturing." Yet any observer of those who participated would be hard-pressed to know of a single critical thing they said about the president's opponents. The presentation they made dealt with the need for America to remain strong in its stand against terrorism. Kerry's name was never even invoked, and their involvement in the public debate ended that night.

The Jersey Girls, on the other hand, have consistently spoken out and advocated on behalf of leftist interests through the 9-11 commission's findings to the operation of the global War on Terror, the elections of 2004, etc. In other words, they chose, or the liberal Democratic Party chose for them, to enter the fray, to don the gloves and to mix it up.

But what if they're wrong? What if, even in as much pain as they have endured at the hands of terrorists, the substance of what they argue for is as loony as the day is long? Even if Cindy Sheehan lost her heroic son in the War on Terror, does that now mean that everything Cindy Sheehan says is correct?

Which is Ann's point.

Ann's criticism is legitimate. If liberals in America wish truly to have a debate on the issues that we all have strong emotions about, then stand and make the point, but don't hide behind those who are ineffective, unskilled and often wrong in their views, simply because they're victims.

For the last few weeks, Rep. Jack Murtha has been crisscrossing the television pundit circuit criticizing the brave Marines who fell under attack via an improvised explosive device, after which some women and children tragically ended up dead. The Marines claimed that they were fired upon and that those firing upon them did so from behind women and children being used as human shields. The jury is still out, but thus far Murtha has yet to present evidence that contradicts the Marines' account.

Liberals are using the exact same tactics today - firing upon people of faith who believe in God, who believe God's model for marriage is what society should promote, but they do so from behind victims against whom, they believe, no one would fire back. People like the Jersey Girls, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan and Jack Murtha. They do so knowing that they would lose in substantive, equitable fair debates.

Coulter's critics have tried to turn her book into a verbal Haditha. Hillary Clinton was excessively unwise in doing so. Coulter decided to do the brave thing and do something that nobody else would. In doing so, she is again undergoing every ounce of scorn and vehemence that the left can pour out, but she is doing so for the well-being of political discourse in general.

By paying the price for us, she also challenges us to not be so timid, to fight for the integrity of substance and not to fall for the idea that a victim can never be disagreed with.

What a twisted world it would become otherwise.

0 Replies

I think McCullough nailed it, McG. Coulter is the very best political analyst out there exposing the amazing double standard in what points of view are 'politically correct' as imposed by the members of the "Religion of Liberalism." Coulter is far more blunt and to the point than I could probably be when it comes to sensitive issues, but its very hard to fault her facts or accuracy in observation.

0 Replies

It is interesting how the article argues that Coulter is right without citing a single word she actually wrote. Wouldn't citations help in assessing just what she was right about?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

It is interesting how the article argues that Coulter is right without citing a single word she actually wrote. Wouldn't citations help in assessing just what she was right about?

I think the author probably thinks what she wrote is easily accessible to anybody interested and is being widely discussed in the media this week. There is no real need to quote her as the book itself follows one general theme and he did touch on some key components in it that are being publicly excoriated by the Left.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the author probably thinks what she wrote is easily accessible to anybody interested and is being widely discussed in the media this week.

Maybe it is, but I don't think that's the reason he isn't citing any of the text he defends. I don't expect us to agree on this.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I think the author probably thinks what she wrote is easily accessible to anybody interested and is being widely discussed in the media this week.

Maybe it is, but I don't think that's the reason he isn't citing any of the text he defends. I don't expect us to agree on this.

Well we don't seem to agree on much Thomas. Smile

I haven't read Coulter's book, but I've seen the reviews, the screed from Hillary Clinton and others re the content, and I have been watching the talk show circuits in which Coulter and/or her thesis have come up quite a bit. So McCullough didn't have to explain to me what he meant in his piece, nor did Coulter have to explain to me what she meant in hers. His piece was to agree with her thesis by expressing his own thoughts on various issues. I don't think quoting her was necessary to do that. Both are writing primarily for an American audience.

0 Replies

I which I was able to judge something, what I haven't read and with that knowledge even judge an article who doesn't use any citations but is just 'pro'.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Both are writing primarily for an American audience.

Oh, I see, foreigners can't. Genetically, I suppose. :wink:

0 Replies

Gee Walter, some of us can actually agree with something without being told by somebody else what to believe. And some of us can actually understand and agree or disagree with the intent and thesis of a written review without having to read the document that is reviewed. I doubt this is an American phenomenon only, but then you never know.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And some of us can actually understand and agree or disagree with the intent and thesis of a written review without having to read the document that is reviewed. I doubt this is an American phenomenon only, but then you never know.

I find this amazing. If I'd been able to do so as well, it would have shortened my time at university by years.

(On the other hand, that may be a reason why many Americans don't speak another language than American, ehem, English.)

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know