Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you find everything Coulter writes to be offensive and/or disgusting and/or hate filled?

Everything as in "every single sentence"? No.

Everything as in "every single paragraph she writes"? Yes.

Can you pull a paragraph from any of the articles Tico posted today and explain why you find it offensive and/or disgusting and/or hate filled? Please pull one with context that isn't modified by the rest of the article.

0 Replies

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070102/thompson.jpg

0 Replies

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/070102/allie.jpg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The other thing is that if Coulter was directing her barbs at conservatives, the Lefties would be applauding her and defending her every word for the most part.

This may or may not be true, depending on who you mean by "the lefties". For a couple of A2K examples, I can't see that nimh, sozobe, or blatham would applaud a left-wing Anne Coulter.

Foxfyre wrote:

Chomsky's 'screeds' however are mostly in the form of tedious writings or transcripts of speeches not devoted to a single topic and not as conducive to casual reading. They therefore are not as easy to cut and paste as an Ann Coulter column. So noboby is probably posting Chomsky in the same way as Coulter has been posted. The one I've been aware of who regularly quotes or praises Chomsky is Blatham who is then generally supported with the small or large accolades of his adoring fans.

So your answer to my question is, "I can't name any A2K posters who can quote Chomsky's screeds approvingly." Correct?

Foxfyre wrote:

Out of curiosity, do you find everything Coulter writes to be offensive and/or disgusting and/or hate filled? Or can you see the wit that some of the rest of us see?

No, I can't see much wit in what Coulter writes anymore. I will give you that she has a knack for soundbity one-liners. You're welcome to call that wit if you want to. But as I read more and more citations people post, I found her soundbites more and more predictable. Since wit, to me, means among other things that an author can surprise me, I don't find Anne Coulter all that witty.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The other thing is that if Coulter was directing her barbs at conservatives, the Lefties would be applauding her and defending her every word for the most part.

This may or may not be true, depending on who you mean by "the lefties". For a couple of A2K examples, I can't see that nimh, sozobe, or blatham would applaud a left-wing Anne Coulter.

Applaud? Maybe not. Defend/quote from/laugh with? Absolutely, especially if any from the Right should criticize the content.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Chomsky's 'screeds' however are mostly in the form of tedious writings or transcripts of speeches not devoted to a single topic and not as conducive to casual reading. They therefore are not as easy to cut and paste as an Ann Coulter column. So noboby is probably posting Chomsky in the same way as Coulter has been posted. The one I've been aware of who regularly quotes or praises Chomsky is Blatham who is then generally supported with the small or large accolades of his adoring fans.

So your answer to my question is, "I can't name any A2K posters who can quote Chomsky's screeds approvingly." Correct?

Blatham quotes Chomsky now and then yes, probably as often as Coulter is quoted. I explained why an entire speech or transcript doesn't get posted. You yourself said Chomsky is the Leftwing equivalent to Coulter, but I believe you will not find a single instance in which Blatham has criticzed Chomsky in anything and will be able to find numerous instances in which he referenced Chomsky approvingly.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you find everything Coulter writes to be offensive and/or disgusting and/or hate filled? Or can you see the wit that some of the rest of us see?

No, I can't see much wit in what Coulter writes anymore. I will give you that she has a knack for soundbity one-liners. You're welcome to call that wit if you want to. But as I read more and more citations people post, I found her soundbites more and more predictable. Since wit, to me, means among other things that an author can surprise me, I don't find Anne Coulter all that witty.

Okay, that's fair. I would be interested though to see if you would accept the same challenge I offered OE. Take a paragraph from any of the columns Tico posted today--a paragraph that the content is not modified by other content in the column--and explain why you think it is hate filled/disgusting/offensive/or objectionable.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:
This may or may not be true, depending on who you mean by "the lefties". For a couple of A2K examples, I can't see that nimh, sozobe, or blatham would applaud a left-wing Anne Coulter.

Applaud? Maybe not. Defend/quote from/laugh with? Absolutely, especially if any from the Right should criticize the content.

Nonsense. You are projecting your own mentality on us. Havent you seen me rant about the empty rhetorics and duplicitous set-ups of Michael Moore? And I'm hardly the only leftie who reviles Moore and his tactics, other leftists on this board have spoken up against him too. Wish more conservatives would take responsibility for the agitprop from their side as well.

0 Replies

Strange goings on here. Tico posts page after page of pastes that I doubt any will read. Blatham expresses his disguist with credulous right wingers posting on this thread for "Bush Supporters..." and announces he will post here no more. Snood announces that Baltham is the best of all possible posters (Hey , that's me !) . Nimh congratulates himeslf for his numerous and scathing (but, sadly, unremembered) criticisms of Michael Moore. And more....

Something in the air or water?

Happy New Year guys!

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Strange goings on here. Tico posts page after page of pastes that I doubt any will read. Blatham expresses his disguist with credulous right wingers posting on this thread for "Bush Supporters..." and announces he will post here no more. Snood announces that Baltham is the best of all possible posters (Hey , that's me !) . Nimh congratulates himeslf for his numerous and scathing (but, sadly, unremembered) criticisms of Michael Moore. And more....

Something in the air or water?

Happy New Year guys!

LOL. Happy New Year, George.

(I don't know why Tico re-posted those Coulter columns either, but I did re-read a couple of them and remembered why they were selected to be posted. They are quite good. Also nobody has yet ventured to accept my challenge to pluck a paragraph out of any one of them and explain why it is offensive/hateful/objectionable, etc. Could it be possible that....gasp....they couldn't find anything as objectionable in them as what some members have volunteered on this thread in the last couple of days?)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Something in the air or water?

Sure there is - Blood.

It seems to me that all of those on the right must realize down deep just how painful the next few years will be. I think it is leading to more angsty posts by them in general.

On the other hand, the libs (myself included) are champing at the bit to get to the bottom of literally dozens of different issues we've been stymied on these last few years. I think it is leading to more provocative and agressive posts by them (us) in general.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It is decided -- more troops to Iraq.

IRAQ
Down the Rabbit Hole

CNN reports that President Bush is "expected to announce his new Iraq strategy in an address to the nation early next week." According to the BBC, "The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq." The Pentagon is already drafting plans "extending U.S. military units already in Iraq and moving troops from other locations" in anticipation of the announcement. One thing that hasn't been decided: what the extra troops would do in the middle of a civil war. The BBC reports "The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion." Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) says Bush's plan for escalation in Iraq is "Alice in Wonderland," adding, "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

OPERATION BEEN THERE, DONE THAT: The Washington Times reports, "One official who was sent the briefing slides for various surge options said he was struck with the lack of new ideas after an intense three-month review process inside the Bush administration." Indeed, during "the last six months the United States has increased, or 'surged,' the number of American troops in Baghdad by 12,000, yet the violence and deaths of Americans and Iraqis has climbed alarmingly, averaging 960 a week since the latest troop increase." From Feb. 2004 to March 2005 we increased the number of U.S. troops from 115,000 to 150,000. There was no impact on the amount of violence in Iraq. Since June, we've increased the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by about 14,000, from 126,000 to 140,000. Violence has only increased.

GENERAL DISMISSAL: Just weeks ago, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid told Congress, "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no." Abizaid explained, "[T]he reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future." Now both Gen. Abizaid and Gen. Casey are on their way out.

--AmericanProgressAction

0 Replies

I think this strategy is called 'More of the same with a new spin'.

It's the "I ain't talk'in; I ain't gettin out; I gonna kill more people" method of helping the terrorist by making the Muslims hate us more than ever.

Works great for our enemies. They've done quite well by Bush's strategy so far.

I bet Osama's out there in the mountains of Pakistan screaming; "Bring em on!"

He doesn't care how many people die. He knows as long as Bush stays in Iraq there will never be a recruitment problem.

0 Replies

Foxy,

You are a resourceful and competent defender of a point of view that I share to a large degree, but not completely. Better yet, you avoid bitterness and mean-spirited personal attacks on others, and usually bounce back from such things yourself with grace and good cheer. I admire all that greatly.

OK I read the Coulter pieces. I'll confess to never having read any of her books or more than a couple of her columns. I didn't see anything equivalent to calling liberals SOBs or truly evil, but couldn't miss the mocking tone of most of her references to them. They are such a core element of her style that they may pass unnoticed before the eyes of a sympathetic reader. However I suspect that liberals note them quickly and sorely - and find them offensive as a result.

Overall I believe that many of her arguments are sound, but that she is a good deal too stridently theoretical for my political taste. Her essay on former Justice O'Connor is a case in point. O'Connor was a middle-of-the-road figure on the Rhenquist Court who espoused several pragmatic resolutions of contentious issues. In that, she did us all a good service in continuing the British tradition of pragmatic muddling through such issues, as opposed to the more strident, abstract, and theoretical approach historically taken in continental Europe. The historical track record for British democracy is a hell of a lot better than that of continental Europe (in my view) precisely because of that difference. Like Coulter, I found some of O'Connor's decisions a bit too contorted. However, unlike Coulter, I don't fault her for attempting to compromise on such contentious issues.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure there is - Blood.

It seems to me that all of those on the right must realize down deep just how painful the next few years will be. I think it is leading to more angsty posts by them in general.

On the other hand, the libs (myself included) are champing at the bit to get to the bottom of literally dozens of different issues we've been stymied on these last few years. I think it is leading to more provocative and agressive posts by them (us) in general.

Cycloptichorn

I'm on the right, and I don't feel any particular angst over the next few years. I have great confidence in the forces operating on the Democrats that will constrail their most lunatic voices and issue groups. Moreover, I am confident of the ability of their lunatics to self-destruct as they have done repeatedly in the past.

Your professed political blood lust is hardly a thing to recommend your wisdom and understanding to an objective observer. If indeed this becomes a central element of Democrat strategy (and I thinkl it won't). they will have set themselves up for yet another ten years in the political wilderness. OK by me.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

There are, as a consequence of this administration's desire to begin a war with Iraq, now perhaps 200,000 people dead, perhaps half a million. We'll never know because we don't really care very much. That is the truth.

War is ugly. But it is also occasionally necessary and justified.

Quote:

The wounded. How many women and children with no arms? Faces horridly deformed? Sightless? 3000 American soldiers (with many more civilian personnel) dead and more wounded and more to come and they are really just a drop in this ocean of blood. That is the truth.

And your argument that this war is unnecessary is not made by citing to the statistics of the war dead and wounded. Even if the US had lost this war, it would not have meant that the war was unnecessary. That the insurgency has continued to this point does not mean the war was unjustified or unnecessary. Had the terrorists/insurgency been ineffective and relatively inconsequential, would that change your opinion on the necessity or justification of the invasion? I think not.

Quote:

A while past, I went back and read many of the discussions held here near the onset of this war. I was repulsed and shamed by my contributions. I thought I was in a drawing room discussing over tea various theories on butterfly migration.

You must find a way to live with yourself now.

Quote:

There is a hungering appetite in many of you to find and smite 'evil'. It is a manifest destiny which rises out of your nationalist and religious arrogance. It is the unreflected mental device with which you define yourselves, individually and collectively, as the 'good'. And it all just happens to flow down the same river as many corporate interests and your military industrial economy.

There is a complacency in many of you to sit idly and appease terrorism and its supporters. This arises out of your leftist, euroweenie nature.

Quote:

tico and foxfyre...How many Japanese citizens or German citizens or Italian citizens in 1935 were truly bad people? Not many. Probably really only a very few. But those citizens rallied, they swallowed the narratives, they were moved by the sophisticated and unperceived manipulation of their cultural and national mythologies. "We need a strong heroic man at the helm". "We are the diamond of the world and they would tear us down." "They are like rats". "How could the land of Johnny Appleseed do bad things!?"

What is your point? I recognize this as a fight between islamic terrorism and its supporters, and those who have the courage and fortitude to fight it and them. So you can take your pacifistic, idealistic, leftist notions and pound sand, as far as I'm concerned. However, we discuss these ideas at this forum, we do not change political ideology. For no matter how convinced you are of the superiority of your beliefs, I will remain as equally convinced in the superiority of mine. And you can get incensed at me for not "seeing the error of my thinking" and converting to your leftist ideology if you want, but you ought to get upset at the ideas, and not the person espousing them here.

Quote:

I don't care much about civility and drawing room manners any longer. The hatred in your political discourse and your apprehension of others in the world is not emerging from a canadian mennonite poster on a2k.

While we can disagree politically and with regard to the justification for the Iraq War, we ought to still be able to interact with a degree of civility on this board. The extension of your approach here would be that because some of us disagree vehemently with your opposition to the Iraq War, we ought to treat you rudely and with disdain. Your approach is stupid, when applied at this forum. I shall continue to only treat posters at this site rudely and with disdain after they have demonstrated that behavior towards me. (With the possible exception of conspiracy theorist posters ... they occasionally get full bore from the get go.)

Quote:

And I'll hand in my self-issued licence to post on this thread. I don't know what the hell else I can say to you guys.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out. Come back after you pull your head out of your @$$.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Strange goings on here. Tico posts page after page of pastes that I doubt any will read. Blatham expresses his disguist with credulous right wingers posting on this thread for "Bush Supporters..." and announces he will post here no more. Snood announces that Baltham is the best of all possible posters (Hey , that's me !) . Nimh congratulates himeslf for his numerous and scathing (but, sadly, unremembered) criticisms of Michael Moore. And more....

Something in the air or water?

Happy New Year guys!

Right on, George. I didn't expect many, if any, to read that page and a half (does that qualify as "page after page"?) of articles. Every single leftist poster will probably scroll on by (... and every single conservative poster as well, of course). Plus I was curious to see what I'd posted to cause blatham to hold me in such disdain. I rather suspect it's not so much what I posted, but the fact that I dared to post anything written by Coulter.

So I am interested in Foxy's challenge. Not everything Coulter pens resonates with me ... nor do I like everything I read of Coulter ... nor do I read Coulter on a regular basis. But I have posted 15 articles of hers in my time at A2K, and I would be interested to find out what leftists find so objectionable in them. (Other than the fact that they excoriate leftists, of course.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Something in the air or water?

Sure there is - Blood.

It seems to me that all of those on the right must realize down deep just how painful the next few years will be. I think it is leading to more angsty posts by them in general.

On the other hand, the libs (myself included) are champing at the bit to get to the bottom of literally dozens of different issues we've been stymied on these last few years. I think it is leading to more provocative and agressive posts by them (us) in general.

Cycloptichorn

I've not noticed any more "angsty posts" by conservative posters, but I have noticed the increasingly nasty and agressive posts of you leftists.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure there is - Blood.

It seems to me that all of those on the right must realize down deep just how painful the next few years will be. I think it is leading to more angsty posts by them in general.

On the other hand, the libs (myself included) are champing at the bit to get to the bottom of literally dozens of different issues we've been stymied on these last few years. I think it is leading to more provocative and agressive posts by them (us) in general.

Cycloptichorn

I'm on the right, and I don't feel any particular angst over the next few years. I have great confidence in the forces operating on the Democrats that will constrail their most lunatic voices and issue groups. Moreover, I am confident of the ability of their lunatics to self-destruct as they have done repeatedly in the past.

Your professed political blood lust is hardly a thing to recommend your wisdom and understanding to an objective observer. If indeed this becomes a central element of Democrat strategy (and I thinkl it won't). they will have set themselves up for yet another ten years in the political wilderness. OK by me.

While I realize and appreciate the tendency for the 'lunatic voices and issue groups' to get shoved to the side - and realize that it isn't exactly a bipartisan occurance; the 'fringe' Republicans got pretty much zero of what they wanted out of the last 6 years from congress - I'm afraid we aren't talking about the fringe or issue groups. Opposition to things such as the War in Iraq is a centrist position, not a fringe one; same goes for our budget woes (taxes are going up one way or another) and for balances of power between the executive branch and the legistlative branch. These will be the key issues over the next two years and none of them rely upon liberal moonbattery to succeed.

I wasn't especially recommending either our nor the Right-wing angsty posts as good material for any objective readers, btw. I feel the majority of posters on A2K would construct far different arguments for an 'objective' reader then they actually do here, because our readers are pretty much non-objective; there are few truly centrist voices here and the purpose of the A2K politics forum certainly isn't to disseminate information or educate people on political issues in a non-partisan manner. Rather, the 'lively discussion of the day.'

Just because you don't feel particularly angsty doesn't mean that others on the Right don't feel that way as well. And if they did, they wouldn't admit it...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:

Something in the air or water?

Sure there is - Blood.

It seems to me that all of those on the right must realize down deep just how painful the next few years will be. I think it is leading to more angsty posts by them in general.

On the other hand, the libs (myself included) are champing at the bit to get to the bottom of literally dozens of different issues we've been stymied on these last few years. I think it is leading to more provocative and agressive posts by them (us) in general.

Cycloptichorn

I've not noticed any more "angsty posts" by conservative posters, but I have noticed the increasingly nasty and agressive posts of you leftists.

Of course you haven't noticed them; you've been busy writing them.

Putting up a brave front is a central tenet of Conservatism; you wouldn't admit angst in a million years, so your above comment is basically useless.

My point stands untouched.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:

Something in the air or water?

Sure there is - Blood.

It seems to me that all of those on the right must realize down deep just how painful the next few years will be. I think it is leading to more angsty posts by them in general.

On the other hand, the libs (myself included) are champing at the bit to get to the bottom of literally dozens of different issues we've been stymied on these last few years. I think it is leading to more provocative and agressive posts by them (us) in general.

Cycloptichorn

I've not noticed any more "angsty posts" by conservative posters, but I have noticed the increasingly nasty and agressive posts of you leftists.

Of course you haven't noticed them; you've been busy writing them.

Putting up a brave front is a central tenet of Conservatism; you wouldn't admit angst in a million years, so your above comment is basically useless.

Then, by all means, point out an example of one of my many angsty posts of late.

Quote:

My point stands untouched.

Cycloptichorn

I wouldn't touch your point with your hands.

0 Replies

Quote:

Don't let the door hit you on your way out. Come back after you pull your head out of your @$$.

Of course, no matter what I point out as 'angsty,' you will argue until the cows come home (probably to your barn) that it isn't 'angsty' and that I don't understand the definition of 'angsty' and that I am nothing but a terrorist sympathizer anyways. Let me go ahead and circumvent your probable several-post long denials by pre-emptively telling you that you are full of sh*t if you think that Conservatives and Republicans are just hunky-dory with the reversal of their political fortunes over the last few months.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know