Try this, Tico...
With the understanding that positive is being meant here as "generally uplifting", and "giving hope and encouragement", can you think of anything Coulter says that either is intended to provide, or provides, that effect?
...I 'm kinda interested in how far you'll take this game.
He'll invent something just as Coulter does. In fact, he probably is Coulter.
snood wrote:Try this, Tico...
With the understanding that positive is being meant here as "generally uplifting", and "giving hope and encouragement", can you think of anything Coulter says that either is intended to provide, or provides, that effect?
...I 'm kinda interested in how far you'll take this game.
Is that a pundit's role? To lift up? To give hope and encouragement? In any event, I found this in a recent column:
"Take note, conservatives: No American need ever fear the liberal establishment again. It's all over but the sobbing. "
I think that qualifies as giving hope and encouragement, don't you?
Plain Old Me wrote:
"Can one find an instance of her being positive about anything?
Yes! She was positive that William Jefferson Clinton LIED when he appeared on 60 Minutes on Jan. 26, 1992.
Coulter wrote that Clinton categorically denied that he ever had an affair with Gennifer Flowers insisting "I have absolutely leveled with the American people" and then in his deposition on Jan. 17, 1998, Clinton was asked:
Did you ever have sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers?
Clinton's answer--"The answer to your question is yes.
COULTER WAS POSITIVE that Clinton had lied on Jan. 26th 1992 with an eye on his possible election in November!
What did I tell you?
Coulter has a split personality.
Advocate, Light Wizard -- These respondents do themselves no favor by answering a question with words defined not as asked, but twisted, to suit the respondents inane sense of humor. The respondents show how childish they are.
Tico does have a sense of humor -- BernardR zero.
Tico and, especially, Mystery are literalists who have difficulty in comprehending conventional language.
Tico evidently infers that it is not the role of pundits to lift up. But he evidently feels that it is their role to viciously attack the victims of war and terrorism.
Wikipedia defines pundit as an expert or opinion leader, particularly in the area of politics.
That's interesting, because in no way does Coulter exhibit expertise, just sarcasm.
However, taking this definition as it stands, there is no reason why a pundit could not be uplifting.
A few years back, I began a campaign to compliment people as often as I could. It started when a woman whose business I liked was forced to go out of business. That was in the early 1980s, before the internet and at a time when photocopying wasn't as common as it is now. To help her, I wrote her a letter of recommendation to help her in a job search; made ten copies and mailed them to her in a large envelope, with my address and phone letter on my cover letter.
If she ever used them, I do not know: I never received a phone call on the matter.
However, I have tried to do things like that as often as possible since. I also email columnists when I agree with their writing and usually just ignore the bad pieces.
What Would Annie Do? Level them with insults! After all, she isn't supposed to be uplifting. And she isn't.
Advocate wrote:Tico and, especially, Mystery are literalists who have difficulty in comprehending conventional language.
Tico evidently infers that it is not the role of pundits to lift up. But he evidently feels that it is their role to viciously attack the victims of war and terrorism.
Dont drag me into this,I havent responded to the question at all.
I'm wondering if he meant to include BernardR rather than you, MM. Being he is a clone of Massagatto, Italgato and gawd knows how many more handles, I don't even take anything he write seriously. His style emulates Coulter so I assume he is either her or another tacky, dumb blonde who talks through her nose. Coulter could actually do a sinus medicine commercial and be the before. After would be when her head cleared and her brain drops out of one of her nostrils.
I want you to know, Lightwizard, that I have completely abandoned my defense of Ms. Coulter. She is a hateful person. She has come out in support of the shameful decisions made by the court in the state of Washington that decided that only a male and female can be legally married.
Why does she hate people so much? People in this country should be free to marry who they love. What is wrong with that??
This is the prelude to statements about laws being done away with preventing brothers and sisters to marry, multitle marriages, people marrying their pets, including a python, or a pet monkey, and a father marrying his son. Also slippery slope nonsense which also supposes that a chimpanzee should be able to marry another chimpanzee. At least if it were possible for each of them to communicate that desire. They could just show off, getting all lovey dovey. Oooopss, wait a minutes, that's a male chimpanzee showing off with another male chimpanzee. Oh, what to do, what to do.
Hiding affairs from the public isn't a crime -- not having the social intelligence to not expect these dumb broads to waggle their tongues isn't even a crime. Recognizing that one has poor social intelligence and working on it like we all should work on character flaws is a virtue. Sometimes it is too little too late. I personally don't care where any male successfully is able to insert his dick into a willing partner. It's just none of my business. But if you aspire to be a public figure, one has to accept the further errosion of one's privacy. It just goes with the territory.
Since I am reading here that some posters suppose they have never told a lie is a lie in itself. That they expect their leaders to never tell a lie is a fantasy that makes Beowolf, The Lord of the Rings and the Bible seem like documentaries.
Light, an extension of your logic would mean that siblings, monkeys, snakes, etc., may marry provided one is a male and the other is a female.
I see no damage to the typical family should society allow single sex marriages.
Wrong. Although I didn't list every possibility like a brother marrying a brother, I included a father marrying a son. Go back two spaces and you can't collect $200.00 for passing GO. BernardR will recognize this as a sarcasm from his previous posts where is is trying to be the master baiter and fails miserably, unless one is a fool. Read before your write.
Sorry! I skim pretty quickly and failed to pick up the gist of your statements.
That's okay and I didn't mean to be curt and cold to someone who obviously agrees with me on nearly everything although we've not been interacting. I mostly stay in the Film category as it is virtually stressless, well, except for the silly dissents on "Brokeback Mountain." Homophobia is difficult to hide under pedestrian rhetoric.
Question:
Can a person be opposed to gay marriage without being a homophobe in your opinion, LW?
Yes, but that's not the only example of disguised prejudice. True, it would be difficult to tell if they were a homophobia -- you have to add up a lot of parts and be able to read between the rhetorical lines. There's not a good, rational reason to be against gay marriage in the first place unless one is devoutly and fundamentally religious and swallows all the contradictory "laws" of the Old Testament, which, incidentally Christ endorsed. There is no doubt about this. Nobody can come up with any good reason why two people who love each other shouldn't be able to get legally "married" (a euphemistic word in the first place) and therefore have the same rights and privileges as a heterosexual couple. It's going to end up in the USSC and I don't see that they have any choice but to realize there is nothing in the Constitution about giving the right to marry and there is not enough votes to add the supercilious, unnecessary amendment. The states are passing laws that are not going to hold water in the future. Mark my word.
