Cynical Nation

She's such a moron.

On the contrary- your reactions prove her point.

I believe Anne Coulter is way over-the-top, that seems to be her niche.

Unfortunately for her, she's an excelelnt historian, but her penchant for insult hurts her.

It's turned her into a carnival act. She's descended to the level of a Paul Krugman 9the economic idiot, who saved his failed career in economics by writing poisonous, Coulteresque commentary for the Ny Times.

In fact, Coulter is fairly bland compared to some of the vile hate-mongers on the left, from Ted Rall to Maureen ("the hair twirler") Dowd, from Al Franken to Michael Moore.

While simpletons on the Left seek to inanely lump in moderate voices like Bill O'Reilly and Steve Hayes with Coulter, they fail to even notice the far more extreme and disgusting hate-mongers on the Liberal side of the spectrum.

O'Reilly in particular (a moderate to slightly Left of center commentator, from my perspective, has been excoriated for heaving the despicable Jeremy Glick who disgraced his father's memory (his father was killed in the WTC on 9/11) by insinuating the Bush administration planned 9/11.

On that score O'Reilly was right and the Glick supporters wrong.

He's also been attacked for "bullying" Paul Krugman on Tim Russert's show.

Again, it wasn't O'Reilly's fault that Krugman couldn't debate the issues. He's a failed economist. It also wasn't O'Reilly's fault that Krugman shrunk away when O'Reilly got in in his face.

Krugman made himself into a loser on a neutral venue.

I disagree with O'Reilly on gay Marriage (he supports Civil Unions), on the border (though he supports enforcement, he also sees a need for an "orderly guest worker program") and on the death penalty (he opposes, I support), BUT I DO agree with him on terrorism and on stricter child-predator laws.

There's been no better champion of stricter child-predator laws then O'Reilly. Because of his efforts Jessica's Law (mandatory sentencing) has been passed in about 40 states and Megan's Law (sex-offender registries) has been popularized across the country.

Even NY just passed a Bill that would place convicted sex offenders in mental institutions AFTER they did their jail time.

Ergo, there are really no other "Anne Coulter's" on the Right, but quite a few clones/clowns on the Left.

JMK, love ya brother but the issue here is Coulter, not O'Reilly.

The woman has got a mean mouth on her as she repeatedly shows.

This was particularly egregious and disgusting.

Let's see how Hannity spins this clunker.

> ...her penchant for insult hurts her.

Problem is, it doesn't just hurt her, it hurts the rest of us by extension.

I'm just glad this happened in early 2007 instead of late 2008. That will give prominent conservatives and Republicans time to grow a brain and STOP INVITING HER TO THESE THINGS!!!!!!

What the HELL are these people thinking?!? I don't even blame Coulter. She did absolutely nothing but be Ann Coulter. And you know what? If someone offered *me* a million dollars to be deliberately outrageous and provocative, I'd probably do it. I can't even blame Ann so much as the idiots who continue to give the woman a platform and a megaphone after they already know she's nucking futs.

Argh! Just my $0.02.

I love Anne Coulter.

Since we're pretty sure Edwards isn't gay, I think she may have been going for a different point.

The fact is that "faggot" and "faggoty" (meaning like a faggot) is getting a good bit of public use these days. Dennis Leary uttered the words "faggoty Irish" with no apparent embarassement on Rescue Me last year.

I think we're being just a bit disingenuous to say it's OK for Dennis Leary, but not for Anne Coulter.

And besides, Edwards is kind of a faggot -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

Barry,
Of course I agree with you. Ann Coulter is not just a lunatic. She is an anti-american lunatic. She pretty much hates everyone and everything in this country. But the problem is not just her. Is Fox News and the rest of the media outlets that allow this bizzare figure to speak in their shows.

"The woman has got a mean mouth on her as she repeatedly shows." (Mal)


I agree with that and even said as much, "Unfortunately for her, she's an excellent historian, but her penchant for insult hurts her.

"It's turned her into a carnival act. She's descended to the level of a Paul Krugman the economic idiot, who saved his failed career in economics by writing poisonous, Coulteresque commentary for the NY Times."

OK, some may quibble with my Krugman comparison, but he's close to as insulting and far more insipid in his assessments. His economic commentary are actually humerous at this point.

Look, every single day there is far more vile invective thrown from the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, the DU, etc. The posters and online diarists in those places make Coulter look positively tame.

That doesn't make Coulter's use of invective a positive thing, but in my view, it's more a case of her "responding in kind," than launching unwarranted attacks.

"Problem is, it doesn't just hurt her, it hurts the rest of us by extension." (BNJ)


I have to respectfully disagree here, Barry.

Why would Coulter's intemperate shennanigans reflect upon you, Mal and other Conservatives, when BW, for instance, a self-avowed Kos-fan, isn't "tainted" by the vile opinions that predominate on Kos.

Or ALL Liberals hurt by the comments of Ted Rall, Mike Moore, Al Franken, etc, etc, etc???

No, I can't agree with that.

Coulter has a right to her outrageous opinions, just as surely as Ted Rall and Michael Moore do...and she SELLS more books and things than either Rall or Moore do, so I can understand a businessman/publisher giving her an outlet - she SELLS books!

The likes of Rall, Franken and Moore don't have to sell so many books, since so many Libs in the media agree with their inane views and seek dolts like that to publish.

"Ann Coulter is not just a lunatic. She is an anti-american lunatic. She pretty much hates everyone and everything in this country." (BW)


Why do you continue to do this, BW???

You're not really stupid, in fact, you're not stupid at all....just very, very misguided. (Probably too much Daily Kos)

Coulter is a Conservative, plain and simple.

She's also a somewhat obnoxious, insulting and in-your-face presence and a woman to boot and thus a lightening-rod for Liberal anger.

Here are the facts about Coulter's background; "As an undergraduate at Cornell, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review, and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity. She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984, and received her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.

"After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Kansas City. After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, and helped craft legislation that made it easier to deport aliens convicted of felonies. She later became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights."

Say you don't like her style.

Say you think she's a horrific person and a terrible front-person for Conservatism, but when you say her Conservstive views make her "an anti-American lunatic," that leads me to believe that perhaps the appx. 65% of the country that is Conservative, should just up and beat down these the rest of these "All-American Liberal, non-America haters."

In short your critique in that vain is just plain DUMB, and what's more, ironically enough, it's as inflammatory and over-the-top as any Anne Coulter piece. Only she tends to actually make full and reasoned arguments for her positions, as over-the-top and ill-tempered as many (most?) of them are.

Hey JMK,
Ann Coulter is anti-american and filled with hatred. Why do I say that? Do you remember what she said about the widows of the victims of 9/11? Try to refresh your memory. Only an anti-american lunatic would say things like that. It is not her conservative views that make her anti-american. There are many conservatives that I respect (i.e. Buchanan, Gingrich) despite the fact that I strongly disagree with them. There are other conservatives that I even really like (i.e. George Will or Scarborough) and carefully listen to them. Ann Coulter is not a conservative. I believe that she has no ideology or real beliefs. All she cares is to create controversy and sell her books. But she has recently crossed many lines. And when she attacks the families of the victims of 9/11 she is beyond dispeakable, she is an anti-american lunatic.

"but when you say her Conservative views make her "an anti-American lunatic"

By the way JMK, and just for the record, I never said that. It is not the first time you interpret things incorrectly, but in the previous post I clarified why I believe she is anti-american.

"but when you say her Conservative views make her "an anti-American lunatic" (JMK)


"By the way JMK, and just for the record, I never said that. It is not the first time you interpret things incorrectly, but in the previous post I clarified why I believe she is anti-american." (BW)


I ONLY do that when you post things like, "Ann Coulter is not just a lunatic. She is an anti-american lunatic. She pretty much hates everyone and everything in this country," leaving why you consider her "anti-American" (which she is not) open to interpretation.

It sounded to me, like you felt her views made her "anti-American."

"Do you remember what she said about the widows of the victims of 9/11? Try to refresh your memory. Only an anti-american lunatic would say things like that." (BW)


Her assailing the "Jersey Girls" does not make Coulter "anti-American," as the Jersey Girls (1) do not represent America and (2) they put themselves out there endorsing a specific political viewpoint and attacks from the other side come with the territory once you do that.

Remember Jeremy Glick???

He was that punk who O'Reilly cut off and tossed off the set for claiming the Bush administration knew of and probably planned the 9/11 attacks.

Not one of my finer moments, but I found young Mr Glick's address and wrote him a short letter inviting him to my firehouse, promising him that if he repeated those views he'd be "spitting out his teeth like chicklets."

Again, I don't regret the sentiment, I still feel the same way, though I do regret having sent that note....but "un-American?"

No way!!!

In fact, neither Mr. Glick nor the "Jersey Girls" have any more standing as "Americans" for their loss.

In fact, I lost about fifty guys I'd worked with, or taught in the Fire Academy that day...and I have no more standing as an "American" because of that fact either.

No one's views are beyond reproach because of what they've gone through, or who they are.

You don't like Coulter's style, so what?

It's not my favorite either.

But I really don't like Moore's, Franken's, Krugman's, or Rall's either...again, so what?

My disliking someone's style, or your disliking someone's style DOES NOT make them un-American.

That's why I naturally figured it was her Conservative views you felt made her "un-American."

I'm happy to hear it was merely a matter of style.

"That's why I naturally figured it was her Conservative views you felt made her "un-American."
I'm happy to hear it was merely a matter of style."

Well you figured it wrongly, and I am glad we clarified this. However, I should point out that the right (i.e. Fox News and rest) has been routinely labeling liberals as unpatriotic because of their views. That is certainly a shame, and I am sure you agree with this.

Regarding Ann Coulter, I still believe she is anti-american because she attacked in a disgusting way the widows of victims of 9/11. It has nothing to do with the views of the Jersey girls. It has to do with what Ann Coulter said. She did not attack their positions, she attacked them personally and the memory of their dead spouses. Sorry, but to me this makes her VERY anti-american.

Independently of that, Barry made an important point. Why would anyone invite in their show that mean spirited person who never ever offers anything positive?

I have to disagree with you about FoxNews...I'm happy to say it's been the favored news channel in every firehouse I've ever worked...at least since about 1996.

I myself have called various people NOT "unpatriotic," NOT even "un-American," BUT ANTI-AMERICAN for crossing the line from disagreement/dissent to sedition, actually close to treason, via things like likening the Bush administration to the Third Reich and calling G W Bush "the world's biggest terrorist."

Such views are NOT mere dissent.

Such views give aid and comfort (via their rooting interest) to the enemy during a time of war.

If anyone on FoxNews took people to task for saying those kinds of things, or for embracing various enemies of America (ie Hugo Chavez) I'd only disagree with them to this point, "I'd say such people are NOT merely "unpatriotic," or even "un-American," they are anti-American and such speech and action is seditious, at the least, and very possibly treasonous at worst.

As to "Why would anyone invite in their show that mean spirited person who never ever offers anything positive?"

I don't know, but I'd say the very same goes for the likes of Michael Moore, Al Franken, Alec Baldwin, Ted Rall and other extremists on the Left, as well...and their appearances are not exactly in short supply.

Saying all that, BW, I'll add that that is merely MY opinion and I can see where some folks would see some/most/or all of my opinions to be "over-the-top" and at times "insulting" as well, though I don't intend them that way.

I acknowledge and admire the reasonable dissent of the likes of Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and others.

I think that those like Franken, Moore, Rall and Baldwin do their side a dis-service when they move beyond dissent to ad hominum attack.

You can certainly say the same for Coulter.

She can...and often does make a solid argument for her position, but almost never fails to cross over into the the realm of insult, invective and ad hominum attack.

P.S.

Sorry about misinterpreting your view, though it was left kind of unclear...but I wasn't intending to insult you by assuming the worst.

Sometimes I just figure you for being in full Kos mode and just presume the worst - my bad.

JMK,
No problem. Just remember that you may be wrong sometimes :) Cheers.

A few things from the above posts.

BW, I watch FoxNews every day and can assure you that no Democrat has ever been called 'unpatriotic'. Given that you probably have never watched it, I am not surprised. However, feel free to rebut me with actual quotes from the boadcasts.

Second, as JMK said, would you folks from the left please stop misrepresenting what Coulter said about 'the Jersy Girls' by claiming that she tarred all widows of 9/11. It's pathetic liberal boilerplate replete with intended inaccuracy designed to smear with a broad brush of BS. Those widows lost their protective aegis when, again as JMK represented, they became partisans in an election year.

JMK, Coulter was fired by NRO Online in 2001 ago because she has a vicious mouth and is unstable. Read it here from Jonah Goldberg:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml

The fact is that I grow tired of hearing 'yeah, but your side does it too!'. I expect vitreol from my old party and its minions as evidenced most recently by the Huffington Post wingnuts who lamented that the Taliban didn't kill Cheney and hoped they would try again before he left Afghanistan. Despite what the left thinks, none of us ever wanted Clinton dead. Or Gore. That kind of hate is reserved for the left.

Coulter has made a living by being incredibly rude. I bought her first book and promptly threw it out after suffering through its sophmoric semantics (all liberals are awful/all conservatives are great).

Surprisingly, she is a lousy debater. I have heard her up against a number of liberals and her modus operandi is to laugh which somehow seems rather witless.

One last thought inculcated into me by a man who was a mentor to me. He was a conservative, former CIA, who watched me trying my best to don my new Republican clothes in 1995 by referring to the GOP as 'we'. Richard said this:

"Mal, I have a great many friends who are Democrats. I also know of many Republicans whom I wouldn't walk across the room to shake hands with."

Amen.

Ok Mal. Here is what Ann Coulter wrote in her book (word by word) about the widows of 911:

"I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much"
She also wrote: "How do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?"

Thats not misrepresenting anything. These are the exact words from her book. So, do you find that acceptable? Yes or No? Simple question that deserves simple answer.

As for Fox News, I watch often O'Reilly and Hannity. Why? It is entertaining in a way. Let me assure you that comments like "(the liberals) provide comfort to the enemy" are quite frequent at least in the Hannity show. Or aren't they? Remember me next time you watch him (or hear his radio show).

This clip isn't of Fox News itself, but on a stage where Mark Levin speaks with Fox News contributers Hannity, Coulter, Oliver North, and others standing behind him. There are many other clips that I've seen that are similar to this where Hannity, as one example, lays into liberals in front of a friendly crowd.

In this clip, tell me that Levin is not saying that liberals don't love their country and are not patriots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io21NFNqQKs

As far as the comments on the blogs regarding Cheney, I have read similar statements regarding Supreme Court justices. Sadly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has received death threats, as has Clarence Thomas. Also, there was an attempt on Clinton's life, if I recall correctly.

"JMK,
No problem. Just remember that you may be wrong sometimes :) Cheers." (BW)


Of course...any opinion CAN be wrong.

Am I confident that MORE liberty (personal responsibility), especially ECONOMIC liberty (a more free & open market) works best, in terms of delivering the MOST prosperity to the most people and allowing for the greatest amount of human advancement over the shortest amount of time?

YES.

The evidence on that is clear.

Just as the evidence is clear that more government spending, especially social spending (Keynesianism) results in fiscal calamity. We had unbridled Keynesianism from the start of LBJ's reign, through Nixon's ("We are all Keynesians now") through Ford's and Carter's terms and the result was the bottom fell out during Carter's ill-fated tenure - STAGFLATION: doble digit interest, inflation and unemployment rates.

My antipathy for Socialists/Communists probably comes from my Mom's side of the family (I was very close to my maternal grandfather) and they abhored all those they called "communistas."

I don't believe that there are ANY socialists/communists whose beliefs are rooted in good intentions.

I believe they want widespread poverty so that they can gain power. Now that is an opinion, but one that I've never been open to changing and one that quite frankly, no socialist/communist/far-Left Liberal has ever disabused me of.

BW, Coulter has an acid tongue.

The "Jersey Girls" were way out of line by joining the political fray and then looking for a kind of "protected status" via their widowhood.

Many, many other 9/11 families had a huge problem with them over that.

There are many 9/11 families who've channeled their grief into some form of advocacy - many have made better communications for First Repsonders, or after-care for those who worked the pile their focus. Some have supported politicians across the political spectrum.

Should Giuliani win the GOP nomination, there will no doubt be many 9/11 families opposed to him, and many others supporting him. That's how divided te families of those victims are.

Mark Levin is allowed to be partisan PE.

He's a commentator.

He's not a journalist, not a news anchor and not a public official.

Moreover, his statements are mild compared to others made by the likes of Randy Rhodes, Al Franken, etc. and they are ALL commentators, paid for their opinions.

The only thing is that no one listens to Franken and Rhodes.

Unfortunately death threats kind of go with the territory in politics now-a-days.

Thomas and Ginsburg aren't the only SC Justices to have had death threats.

I couldn't find anything on any assassination attempt on President Clinton, though Ronald Reagan had an almost successful one against him and Gerry Ford faced two.

There are those who'd say "There's intolerance on both sides," but I say you can't just leave it at that.

There is demonstrably more intolerance, more malevolence on the Left! You can see it every day on Kos, the HuffPo, the DU and MoveOn's sites.

The rage on those sites puts even the most rabid talk on places like Free Conservatives ("Freepers") to shame.

In the not too distant past, some have said, "Chalk that up to being enraged at feeling marginalized and out of power," but the Democrats have had a victory this past November and that rage hasn't subsided one bit.

It seems to me that assasination attempts have a history of targeting both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_assassination_attempts

I could list many liberals who have been assasinated: the talk show host Allen Berg, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, not to mention Gandhi and Rabin after he negotiated for peace in Israel.

There is a lot of sickness out there, but there is sickness on both sides. I don't know anyone who wants Bush or Cheney to die. I sure as hell don't.

However, if you want to consider your "side" morally superior on this point, all I can say is that is your fantasy.

I have listened to Randi Rhodes and I have listed to Mark Levin. I do not respect either because of their disrespect for those who disagree with them.

It seems to me that assasination attempts have a history of targeting both sides." (PE)


Never said they didn't. Although of the four successful Presidential assassinations, three were of Republicans (Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley) and JFK was far from a modern Liberal. In fact, Ronald Reagan was a Kennedy Democrat who used to always say, "I never left the Democratic Party, the Democratic Part left me."

I liked JFK's vehement anti-Communism and his going after Unions to ferret out Communist influence.

I also liked 1950s Bobby a lot better...the RFK who worked along side Roy Cohn with "Tail-gunner Joe McCarthy."

I know they listed the Corder plane crash as an "assassination attempt" on Bill Clinton, but I see that as a huge stretch.

"September 13, 1994: Frank Eugene Corder crashed a two-seat, propeller-driven aircraft into the White House grounds...

"Eugene Corder had lost his wife to cancer several weeks prior to the incident, which is thought to have driven him towards suicide. Friends claim he bore no ill will towards President Bill Clinton and likely only wanted the publicity of the stunt.

"The President was not even in the mansion at the time due to renovations, but was instead staying at Blair House."

It's not a matter of either side being "morally superior," it's about kooks and fringe wackos.

There certainly seem to be far more kooks, weirdos and fringe wackos drawn to Liberalism because so much of that ideology is tainted by a fringe and radical element.

Michael Moore speaks to a radical fringe, so do many of the Hollywood Liberals (those who embrace Castro and Chavez).

The point I made about Levin and Rhodes is that they are both commentators. If either were actual news people, or public officials, their behavior would be unacceptable for those positions.

I personally find Levin's style more grating than Coulter's actually never listen to Levin....if I'm driving home late (and Mike & the Dog are off), I've found that Mike Savage is FAR more entertaining.

Quickly as we are going out:

BW, read this from the Daily News:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/424405p-
358034c.html

Only libs tried to extend her attacks to all 9/11 widows. Didn't work.

The question was FoxNews and whether it called libs unpatriotic. I saw no evidence other than Mark Levin who has asyndicated radio show. Hardly the same as a news network broadcast doing something.

The assassination argument is specious on all sides.

Booth hated Lincoln for wanting to free slaves and for presiding over the defeat of his Confederacy.

Guiteau was a disappointed office seeker who was insane.

Czogosz was an anarchist.

Oswald was a wannabe communist.

My point was as the Huffington Post revealed, there is sheer hatred on the far left for both Bush and Cheney to wish for a man's death (in multiple posts).

I never saw anything similar to this with the right wing when Clinton was in office. Feel free to correct me.

Great article Mal.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/424405p-358034c.html

There has been varied reaction to the families of 9/11, from those close to them and from the public at large.

I've known some of those families and a few folks to this day see 9/11/01 as though it happened yesterday.

They're obsessed with the minutia and want to blame someone for the deaths of their loved ones.

OBL is half a world away and so some have taken to blaming Giuliani, von Essen, the Clintons, the CIA, etc., etc.

It's sad, but for those close by it's difficult because there is no closure for them and it often seems like there can be no closure.

What Coulter said, "These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them," is true for many 9/11 families and if you aren't aware of the resentment that others have held for them, you're being naive.

In the Fire Department, the fmilies of other firefighters killed in fires have remarked how they were not compensated in any way close to the way the 9/11 families were.

And that's true...and most of that was to protect the airline industry, which might have gone under in this country under the weight of such awards.

Still, many in the public got sick of the 9/11 families wanting to dictate how the site was going to be rebuilt, complaining, as some did, that the money ran out, or wasn't enough to sustain their lifestyles for life.

The 9/11 families have been human and as humans they've made some mistakes and engendered some resentment.

Coulter gave vent to some of that resentment, in response to four women taking on a blatantly political stance in an election year.

The status of "9/11 family member" does not protect you from being attacked over your political views.

Again, and PE may disagree, but the Left seems to do this far more often - they'll get hold of a disgruntled soldier (a few times even a "pretend soldier") who says things they like, and uses that to inanely claim that "much of the Military feels this way."

The reality is that the U.S. military recruits folks who are more likely than not to become "company people." Somewhat over 80% of the military is either Conservative or Conservative/Libertarian. That's why the Democrats fought so hard against counting the overseas absentee ballots in 2000, claiming they weren't date-stamped.

Same with the 9/11 families. I know many who support Giuliani and who are even more Conservative than they initially were, but the Left uses folks like Jeremy Glick and the "Jersey Girls" to "prove" that the 9/11 families are largely Liberal.

Anecdotal evidence and individual accounts is NO "proof" at all and shouldn't be used to bolster a particular political viewpoint.

Ok,
JMK you convinced me. Ann Coulter is not that bad. I hope Rudy picks her up as his Vice Presidential candidate. It would be a win-win situation. She is fully qualified to replace Dick Cheney.

Coulter's NOT a politician BW, neither is Michael Moore nor Al Franken...at least NONE of them should be.

They're all intemperate people...who as commentators, have a right to their own opinions...and temperment.

I'd like to see Rudy go with someone like Duncan Hunter as VP and find a top policy-making position for Gingrich, if he'd take it.

Coulter is a commentator, same as that fellow you lauded (booman23) on your blog...only she makes slightly more sense, makes more full and rational arguments and, of course, almost certainly sells more copy than booman23.

But they're both commentators.

Should she, or Al Franken ever cross the line into politics then they'll rightfully be held to a very different standard.

Well, as just one example, when a plane carrying then-Commerce Secretary Ron Brown crashed, Bob Grant wished on the air that Brown was among those that perished.

"My point was as the Huffington Post revealed, there is sheer hatred on the far left for both Bush and Cheney to wish for a man's death (in multiple posts).

"I never saw anything similar to this with the right wing when Clinton was in office. Feel free to correct me." (Mal)


"Well, as just one example, when a plane carrying then-Commerce Secretary Ron Brown crashed, Bob Grant wished on the air that Brown was among those that perished." (Anon)


Actually Grant's comment was, "My hunch is that he [Brown] is the one survivor. I just have that hunch. Maybe it's because at heart I'm a pessimist." Somewhat insensitive, but not exactly "wishing that Brown was killed," more lamenting the fact that he figured with his (Grant's) luck, Brown would be the lone survivor.

Grant was an honest guy and a true showman. You had to love the way he called a savage a savage and a mutant a mutant.

Many of the same Liberals that publically clucked their teeth over such honesty ate it up privately.

I've yet to hear anyone make an argument like, "Look, just because a person commits a horrific crime is no reason to call that person a savage and dehumaize them like that. Crimes like these don't happen in a vacuum, they're caused by things - poverty, mental illness, racism, drug abuse. We should all have a little more compassion for our fellow man."

If someone/anyone ever did make such an argument, I'd have to straighten up and respectfully consider it before breaking into a fitful series of loud guffaws.

Cause bottom-line, I'm down with the great "Frank from Queens" who once said, "Did you see the picture of those two quasi-humanoid mutants they arrested down there, Bob Grant? That's 450 pounds of food stamps for ya!"

That's New Yawk man!

And that's reality, not that touchy-feely pablum about "having compassion for the 'marauders' and 'enemies of society' among us."

There were actually Kos & HuffPo commenters lamenting that al Qaeda missed Dick Cheney!

You know where I stand on that - that's TREASON (giving aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime) and they should promptly be tried and hung for that.

I know there are those who'd disagree.

Here's what Grant said:

"My hunch is [Brown] is the one survivor. I just have that hunch. Maybe it's because at heart I'm a pessimist."

Now that's nasty enough but not exactly as you presented his comment, is it anonymous?

Again though, Bob Grant is a conservative radio personality. The question is not whether he, Mark Levin or Randi Rhodes say vicious things. We know they do. Don't like it (and I don't) don't tune in or change the channel which is what I do at 6 p.m. when Levin comes on.

IT is whether FoxNews, specifically Brit Hume or Jim Angle, has ever done so as was presented as fact by BW in an earlier post above.

I think we all know the answer, don't we?

Toss out the big lie and the left will stand and salute because they despise Fox.

Side bar: Disney fired Bob Grant from WABC immediately following his comment.

Mal,
Reading the statement of Grant, it is exactly what anonymous wrote. What makes you think it was different? That guy (Grant) was obviously wishing that Brown was killed. I did not know that, and I learned it for the 1st time now from the anonymous comment. That was sick. Very sick.

Funniest line in this thread thatveered so off topic was the one right near the top:

Ann Coulter "is an excellent historian." (JMK)

Thanks for the good laugh.

You guys can be such a bunch of faggots sometimes.

I love watching the shock troops of both the right and left throwing their hand-grenades. Each grenade illuminates more about both sides than Frankenesque droning commentary about Peabody versus Polk awards.

We need more, not less bare-knuckle political discourse in this country. Let everybody get their true feelings on the table even if it means getting those feelings hurt from time to time.

I presume this episode means I will never have to hear the pejorative Manne Coulter again.

Funniest line in this thread thatveered so off topic was the one right near the top:

Ann Coulter "is an excellent historian." (JMK)

Thanks for the good laugh.

Fred,
LOL. Good point.

>Since we're pretty sure Edwards isn't gay...

We are?

"Reading the statement of Grant, it is exactly what anonymous wrote. What makes you think it was different? That guy (Grant) was obviously wishing that Brown was killed. I did not know that, and I learned it for the 1st time now from the anonymous comment. That was sick. Very sick." (BW)


For starters, you didn't "learn it from anonymous's comment," you "learned it" from mine...as I was the one who posted the actual comment, rather than merely claiming something was said, that actually wasn't.

Grant never actually wished Ron Brown dead.

Grant's comment was acerbic and insensitive...exactly the way his reported 12 million listeners liked him.

Often he'd cut off someone with a heavy accent demanding, "How long have you been in MY country?!"

Or when a real streety black guy would call and give him grief over his opposition to qutas, etc, Grant would invariably say something like, "Try taking the bone out of your nose so maybe we can all understand you."

It was theater, it was schtick! And he was great at it!

He was a true humorest and a real satarist, not the fake "Al Franken kind," but a real on-air satarist, with an incredible skill for lampooning the abusrdities and anomalies of every day life.

Disney was looking for a reason to shit-can Grant, because they didn't want to be associated with his overall act. In short, the Disney folks were a bunch of business school dunces.

WOR snapped up Grant almost as soon as WABC let him go.

Today Grant is 78 y/o and he still does some short-take commentary pieces for radio and there's been talk that WABC may re-hire him as soon as the sale of that station by Disney is finalized.

If you're not familiar with "the great Bob Grant," then you're not familiar with New York.

He was a NY institution!

First, "anomynous" was me. I forgot to type in my name. I just noticed it now.

Second, why is Fox News limited to Brit Hume and Jim Angle? Of course, Hume is a professional as I remember him and respected him back when he worked for ABC News.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I assumed that Blue Wind said Fox News he meant the Fox News Channel which includes the commentators, which includes very frequently people like Levin and Coulter in addition to the hosts.

When Levin spoke on that stage, there were many Fox News Channel contributors right behind him.

I understand, though, that someone like Brit Hume keeps his distance from the Hannity crowd as I don't think I've ever seen Hume on the Hannity/Colmes show.

Didn't see it here, but over at Balloon Juice someone pointed out that Ann wasn't calling Edwards a faggot but, instead was making a reference to the Grey's Anatomy actor who recently had to go to rehab because he called a fellow actor on the show a faggot.

In other words she was inferring that she couldn't talk about Edwards without using language that might require her to attend rehab.

If that's true, and it sounds plausible, (doesn't it?) she simply made a pop culture reference that very few people caught.

I never cared much for Bob Grant and I think you two are defending the indefensible in light of the fact that Grant's comments came when news was arriving that a plane was down and that many people could be dead as a result.

Sorry, I should correct the record as Mal did not defend Grant's comments.

Dan, I'll admit that I was a bit slow on the uptake. It was several hours after reading Coulter's quote that I "got" it -- meaning the reference to the Grey's Anatomy dude.

So yes, I'll buy that it was a pop culture reference, but she still makes it sound as if she couldn't discuss Edwards without the term "faggot" in her arsenal, doesn't it?

"In other words she was inferring that she couldn't talk about Edwards without using language that might require her to attend rehab. "

Dan,
No, thats obviously NOT the case. If she meant it as you say, she would have simply explained that and apologized. But she did not. In fact, watching the video, it is obvious that she was enjoying the reaction of her audience. Sorry but Ann Coulter is most definitely a lunatic. She is indefensible.

BW, the guy was being subtle in his sarcasm. He did not say that he hoped Brown had died. Rather that he was afraid he might have been the lone survivor of the aircraft. You may not see the difference but I do. Either way, it was reprehensible.

PE, I am dealing strictly with FoxNews which means Hume, Angle and Chris Wallace who cover the news beat for Fox. Commentator, either left or right, do not come under the definition, IMO. Still, if you chose this road, show me which commentator said that liberals were unpatriotic while on Fox. Fair enough?

Now that we seem to have cleared up Coulter's reference (I admit I missed it) two things:

a) I still don't like her because she makes everything black hat and white hat which I hate.

b) Since the libs here have their bowels in a twist over a faggot comment, try these from Randi Rhodes of AA and feel free to comment:

On May 12, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin wrote a piece criticizing Air America, saying he had listened to the liberal radio network one day for 10 hours.

Air America's Randi Rhodes

"The queen of venom, Randi Rhodes, followed [Al] Franken in the host slot," Goodwin wrote. "Her imitation of a cracker military type telling a soldier to 'insert this fluorescent light bulb into that man's buttocks' was revolting. She compared U.S. prisons in Iraq to the 'Nazi gulag' and said, 'The day I say thank you to Rumsfeld is the same day I'll say thank you to the 12 people who raped me.'

[Michael] Goodwin [of the NY Daily News] then notes Rhodes compared Bush and his family to the Corleones in the "Godfather" saga.

A review of the show's recording reveals Rhodes said the following in a discussion with a caller:

"The Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn't his father or his brother … take him out for a little fishing, and let him say some Hail Marys – he loves God so much. … You know, Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee – pow [gunshot sound] – works for me."

As WorldNetDaily reported, on Monday Rhodes opened her show with an audio skit.

The announcer said: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of four gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

Faggot vs. killing the president.

Your thoughts?

Commentators on both sides have an equal right to hyperbole and invective...it's part and parcel of the craft of commentary, in a world where they're competing for public attention.

Personally, I like that kind of "rip your face off" kind of commentary, others do not.

As for the commentors at places like Kos & HuffPo, I don't think there's "more" of them (since there are significantly fewer people on the Left), I don't even know if there is more vitriol on that side, as it's most likely the same kooks posting comments on Kos & HuffPo.

As for Rhodes, I'm pretty sure she could do her show in a phone booth and reach as many people as she does now.

That's probably a very good thing.

"Dan,
No, thats obviously NOT the case. If she meant it as you say, she would have simply explained that and apologized." (BW)


Coulter has NOTHING to apologize for!

She's paid for her commentary/opinions, so those opinions can be as nasty and vitriolic as she wants.

An elected public official would probably have to apologize, because their constituents are often people on BOTH sides of the political aisle.

A commentator is NOT beholden to such standards. Just as Rhodes viscious commentary is directed toward a Liberal base, Coulter's is directed toward a Conservative one.

As much as such people occassionaly embarass others on "their side," they're still entitled to be hyperbolic and over-the-top....we expect that, on both sides.

"Coulter has NOTHING to apologize for!

I guess bigots dont have to apologize for anything.

Again, a commentator can express opinions that you and I feel are bigoted.

You feel coulter is a bigot and I feel Krugman is a bigot.

If they were in public office, they'd probably have to apologize for endorsing "non-inclusive," or disciminatory views.

The great thing about commentators is that they can express vitriolic, even offensive views without being forced to self-censure or to back-off those views.

Bottom-line, neither Edwards nor anyone who'd support his right to be offended has a leg to stand on, over this, because Edwards refused to immediately fire two overt anti-Christian bigots.

Now if someone could make an argument along the lines that anti-gay bigotry is more serious and more damaging to society that anti-Christian bigotry, i'd love to hear that...of course no one anywhere or at any time has yet to make such an argument.

"You feel coulter is a bigot and I feel Krugman is a bigot.

So you dont feel Coulter is a bigot? Wow....

I don't really CARE whether either Krugman or Coulter are bigots!

My understanding is that EVERY American soldier who's ever fought for this country fought for, among other things, the 1st Amendment protected right of people to be able to say unpopular, obnoxious, offensive, even bigoted things. I'm sure you'll either agree, OR cite the law that has superceded the 1st Amendment and outlawed bigoted speech.

Krugman has a right to peddle his misinformed economic agenda so long as he can find an outlet - he has a right to his opinions and the responsibility to deal with the attacks that come from those who disagree and know a lot more about economics than he does.

Same with Coulter. She has a right to her own opinions and to peddle them, so long as she can find outlets.

Beyond that, I'm not convinced that merely being anti-gay is actually "bigoted."

I mean, if you despise child molesters are you an "anti-pedarist bigot?"

If you oppose bestiality, are you an an "anti-bestiality bigot?"

If you despise bigamists, are you an "anti-bigamist bigot?"

These are ALL sexual deviations, in that they deviate from the norm.

It seems that not only does the 1st Amendment protect offensive, even bigoted speech, but that it's doubtful that reviling any kind of deviant behavior can be considered "bigoted."

JMK wrote:

"Beyond that, I'm not convinced that merely being anti-gay is actually "bigoted."

I mean, if you despise child molesters are you an "anti-pedarist bigot?"

If you oppose bestiality, are you an an "anti-bestiality bigot?"

If you despise bigamists, are you an "anti-bigamist bigot?"

These are ALL sexual deviations, in that they deviate from the norm.

JMK,
I am really sorry you consider gay people the same with child molesters and other things. That is obviously crazy. I hope you realize how wrong and intolerant your thinking is on this issue. Ann Coulter is most certainly a bigot. Bigotry is a terrible thing.

BW, it is clear to everyone now that Coulter was trying to show her contempt for the idiocy of people going into rehab because of using a non-PC term as we saw (and which I had forgotten) with the actor on an ABC program who did so regarding a co-star on his show during the Grammy's (I believe).

Apparently, if all of us had heard the full context we would have caught it rather than jumping to conclusions.

Being anti-gay is not bigoted despite what some would have you or me believe. It doesn't have to mean you hate them, only that you recognize their behavior as a deviancy from the norm which is what JMK was commenting upon.

BTW, haven't heard your condemnation about Randi Rhodes comments which I cited verbatim earlier.

Nor about my Daily News article correcting your misrepresentation of Coulter vs. the 9/11 widows.

How about it?

I did not hear the comments of Randi Rhodes and I can not comment. As for Coulter, she is not just a bigot. She is the definition of the word bigot. It is hard to believe that there are people defending that anti-american lunatic (Coulter).

JMK,
I am really sorry you consider gay people the same with child molesters and other things. That is obviously crazy. I hope you realize how wrong and intolerant your thinking is on this issue. Ann Coulter is most certainly a bigot. Bigotry is a terrible thing. (BW)


Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy, in that it deviates from the norm, as do all those things I mentioned.

I don't despise gays...nor necrophiliacs either, nor bigamists, nor even those who engage in bestiality, but ALL of those practices deviate from the norm.

So does pedophilia, though that is a criminal act. Still I have no doubt that those who engage in that particularly abhorent act are probably "born that way," just as gays, bigamists, necrophiliacs, etc., are most likely "born that way too."

Still, being born with a specific prediliction or a compulsion does not always make acting upon that OK.

While homosexuality, necrophilia, bestiality and bigamy have no living, human victims, pedophilia does, thus it's criminal status.

I oppose overt discrimination against bigamists, homosexuals, necrophiliacs and those who engage in bestiality - people shouldn't be fired from a job or denied the opportunity to rent or buy property due SOLELY to a given victimless deviancy, so long that is kept behind closed doors and not taught about in schools, nor lauded as just as "normal" as...

However, I do oppose gay adoption (and adoption by bigamists, necrophiliacs, etc., as well), because I believe those situations create a poor environment for any child and I oppose gay marriage based on the disaster it's created in Europe - once gay marriage was given equal status with heterosexual marriage, fewer heterosexual couples marries and more children were born out of wedlock, spiking illegitimacy numbers.

Moreover, the word "faggot" is actually a "schoolyard slur," generally used against non-gay males, mocking their manhood.

And beyond THAT is the fact that John Edwards has no standing in opposing anti-gay bigotry, when he refused to confront two blatant anti-Christian bigots he'd hired and CHOSE to associate with, UNTIL Bill O'Reilly's program was set to go public with examples of their (especially Amanda Marcotte's) blatant anti-Christian bigotry.

If you don't see the irony in John Edward's selective outrage, now wallowing in proclaimed personal victimhood, while he arrogantly and steadfastly refused to re-consider his close association with two extremely bigoted bloggers who regularly referred to Christians as "Christo-fascists" and the like, until it became a major issue for his campaign, you have a problem.

And again, the 1st Amendment protects mean, obnoxious, offensive, even bigoted speech....and thank God it does, for all our sakes.

So, to sum up, it is all agreed that liberals are smarter, nicer, and are better cooks than conservatives. Conservatives are better at fly fishing.

>I did not hear the comments of Randi Rhodes and I can not comment.

You can hear them
here.

> So, to sum up, it is all agreed that liberals are smarter, nicer, and are better cooks than conservatives.

I resent that. Liberals do not cook better than I do.

Heh, I must admit that I underestimated JMK. He's even willing to defend Ann "The Man" Coulter. An excellent historian? LOL!

This crude malnourished tranny does little more than verbally Photoshop history to match her wildly deluded ideas of conservatism, which apparently in her eyes, and the eyes of JMK, equates to racism, sexism, hatred, intolerance, and bigotry in all forms, all wrapped in a nice, flaky crust of sophistry.

Thanks JMK, by defending her, you lose any credibility ... hell, wait a sec, you never had any credibility!

Carry on!

"She's also a somewhat obnoxious, insulting and in-your-face presence..." (JMK)


"I believe Anne Coulter is way over-the-top, that seems to be her niche..." (JMK)


"...her penchant for insult hurts her.

"It's turned her into a carnival act. She's descended to the level of a Paul Krugman the economic idiot, who saved his failed career in economics by writing poisonous, Coulteresque commentary for the Ny Times." (JMK)


"Coulter has a right to her outrageous opinions, just as surely as Ted Rall and Michael Moore do..." (JMK)


Actually what I've defensded is the 1st Amendment Barely Hanging. It's not at all surprising that you'd fail to understand the all too obvious distinction.

The writings of ALL of America's Founders would seem to indicate exactly what I've said here, that "the likes of Anne Coulter have as much right to voice their opinions as do people like Michael Moore, Paul Krugman and other extremists on the Left.

Morfeover, there are no various "brands of Conservatism." There is ONLY the tough on crime, pro-welfare reform, anti-illegal immigration, smaller government, lower tax more market-oriented economy Conservatism and those half-wits who don't believe in any of those things and yet, inanely call themselves "Conservatives."

Why do you continue to do this to yourself?

You invariably make idiotic arguments and then seemed stunned when even the things you post as "proofs" - like the link that proved that H-1B visas grew from under 50,000 in 1993 to appx 1 million by 2001, during which time, a Democratic President signed onto two consecutive increases in the H-1B Visa limit, while the current occupant of the WH actually lowered it back down to its default position in 2002, his first opportunity, turn out to prove your own argument wrong.

Why do you do that to yourself?

"Why do you do that to yourself?"

JMK,
Have you considered asking yourself this question? Afterall, you are the one who wrote that Ann Coulter is an "excellent historian". Not Bailey.

You are trying to defend a bigot. And the funny thing is that all Ann Coulter cares about is to create controversy and make money. She is a bigot without ideology.

Couleter is indeed an excellent historian, BW...she has written cogently on post-WW II's "Communist menace" in America.

She's also a lawyer and was apparently a very promising law student, as well, "(Coulter) received her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.

"After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Kansas City.

"After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, and helped craft legislation that made it easier to deport aliens convicted of felonies. She later became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights."

She was also fired from NRO in 2001 because they found her style offensive and counterproductive.

Again, I've merely rightfully claimed that Anne Coulter has as much a right to be offensive and obnoxious, as do Ted Rall, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and Al Franken...that doesn't imply that any of them be taken seriously, but any clear thinking person would agree that you can't pick and choose between ideological "bomb throwers" - Coulter, Moore, Maher and Franken should be viewed as what they are, "birds of a feather."

There are some people apparently trying, inarticulately to make the argument that Liberalism holds some sort of moral high ground that protects over-the-top and offensie Libs in ways that over-the-top Conservatives cannot be protected.

It's a ridiculous argument, and that's probably why those who've attempted to make it have come off so inarticulate in the attempt.

It's 11:30 p.m. and BW has still not responded to Randi Rhodes comments which Barry conveniently provided.

Blue, you owe it to this thread to listen. If you chose to ignore them then your comments become merely hypocritical and political and, hence, have no worth whatever in this discussion.

Should you disappear from this thread and reappear in a newer one, I will gladly repost Barry's audio along with her transcribed words for all to see.

It's your call.

Hey Mal,
Now is 8.30 AM and I still have not responded :) Thank you for providing me with 2 options. I think I will choose the second one. I will disappear from this thread and reappear in a newer one and I will look for your link there, so I can finally listen to it :) Cheers.

Mal,
Ok, I finally listened to it. I think her statement was unacceptable. It sounds that she was trying to make some sort of a joke? No matter what, what she said was idiotic, unacceptable and offensive. I normally like Randi Rhodes, and I am disappointed thats she would say something like that. Feel better now?

Is it really news that pundits of all political stripes are assberets a lot (if not all) of the time?

"Is it really news that pundits of all political stripes are assberets a lot (if not all) of the time?" (K)


It certainly shouldn't be, after all their paid to draw attention/ratings/readers, so the more "controversial," even outlandish they are, the better they do.

That's all I asked.

Thanks!

Heh, since JMK can't defend his stupid "excellent historian" remark he runs around like a headless chicken, trying to AGAIN bring up the H1-B visa thing that I was ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT about, yet insisting that I was somehow wrong.

Here is what JMK likes to try, hoping idiots will fall for it.

When a Repug congress passes something, and a Dem president signs it, and it turns out poorly -- the Dem president did it. Blame Clinton!

When a Dem congress passes something, and a Repug president signs it, and it turns out poorly -- the Dem congress did it! Blame the dirty Dems!

Do we see a pattern?

What he can never escape is the horrifying SIX YEARS of Repug President and Repug congress devastasting this country, trashing the constitution, lying and murdering our soldiers in an illegal war for profit, allowing corporations to rape and plunder the middle class of this country, and causing such alarm with their arrogance and rampant corruption that the public VOTED THEIR ASSES OUT.

LOL! Even now the Repugs try to continue their abuse of power, and in 2008 they will be swept away, like a bunch of dead roaches, fumigated by the light of truth.

I never said Coulter had no right to be offensive, in fact, I called "her" a tranny myself. You are defending her as a HISTORIAN, that is YOUR POSITION in this argument.

Need I begin to quote History according Ann Coulter? Is that REALLY necessary, JMK?

I think you should just concede that AGAIN you are wrong.

My sole position regarding Coulte ris that she has a 1st Amendment right to be offensive.

You disagreed with THAT. Not any other characterization of her.

My ONLY argument regarding her is that she needn't apologize for offending people, because she has a 1st Amendment right to do so.

There's nothing at all "controversial" about my saying she's an excellent historian. What have you posted that shows she isn't?

I've heard Coulter interviewed on post-WW II American history and she was very astute. That's good enough for me.

That's not at all surprising, since she was obviously a brilliant law student who clerked for a federal appeals court judge and then worked for M-R Senator Spencer Abraham.

The H-1B Visa issue was your Little Big Horn, only in this case, it was the issue upon which you massacared yourself.

I NEVER condemned Clinton for signing onto those increased limits, you dolt, in fact, I lauded Clinton (a Democrat) for THAT and for getting NAFTA through and I lauded the Dems for pushing for an expanded GATT - I SUPPORT Free Trade!

How much clearer can I be on that?!

Free Trade is GOOD for America!

Clinton did exactly the right thing in signing onto those H-1B Visa limit increases and G W Bush had to drop them due to the slow down in demand due to the Tech Bubble Bust.

You oppose Free Trade (that puts you on the wrong side of history) and now you've opposed the 1st Amendment right of pundits to be offensive (that puts you on the wrong side of history as well).

"You are trying to defend a bigot. And the funny thing is that all Ann Coulter cares about is to create controversy and make money. She is a bigot without ideology." (BW)


There is no 1st Amendment exception for offensive or obnoxious speech, BW.

You're demand for Coulter or anyone else to apologize for offending people, demonstrates not just a disregard for, but an antipathy for the 1st Amendment, which is very troubling.

The late Khalid Mohammed was a truly offensive speaker on many levels, but even though he was filled with a self-righteous hatred, he maintained a sense of humor and a certain...how can I say this...aplomb.

I recall one memorable exchange between him and a group of so-called "Liberal whites."

One woman stood up and said, "As a Jewish woman, I want to be able to support your struggle against the racism and imperialsm that has infected America, but I find that impossible when you'd refer, even to me, as a devil."

Well, after excoriating the Jewish faith for a few minutes, he ended his harangue with, "...and I don't call you A devil, I call you THE devil!!!"

Priceless.

Khalid Mohammed had an inviolate 1st Amendment right to free speech too. That's how free speech works...I tolerate offensive speech from the likes of Bill Maher, Ted Rall, Al Franken and others on the Left, just as you must tolerate offensive speech from those on the Right.

That's how that works.

JMK,
I can tolerate offensive speeches from intelligent people. But not from idiots like Ann Coulter. I have better things to do than listening to an idiot giving hate speeches.

No one has to listen to her...or any of the other "bomb throwers" (Maher, Rall, etc).

I understand why media (which is a BUSINESS) uses these folks - controversy = ratings.

A while back there was a commnetary writer in the NY Daily News named Earl Caldwell. I disagreed with nearly every position he took.

I used to read Caldwell all the time, like I now often read Krugman, to help me formulate arguments against the views with which I disagree.

Reading or listening only to those who agree with your position doesn't help you do that.

And bottom-line, the folks we disagree with have as much of a 1st Amendment right to say things offensive to us as we do to say things offensive to them.

The 1st Amendment is almost an absolute, with very few exceptions - libel, slander, threatening, treasonous, incitful and reckless (that yelling "fire in a crowded theater" kind of speech).

One of te very few times the Giuliani administration crossed the line (all administrations occassionally do), in my view, was the time he sought to file charges against the now, late Khalid Mohammed, for "inciting a riot," at Harlem's "Million Youth March."

Mohammed was deliberately provacative and confrontational, but I have a huge problem with trying to blame other people's behavior on another person's words.

Ann Coulter: Excellent Historian

15. “(Liberals say) (t)he death penalty does not deter. How do liberals know? This is an article of faith, not a statement of empirical fact. If the death penalty doesn’t deter murder, how come Michael Moore is still alive and I’m not on death row?”

I’m not even entirely sure what this means; is she trying to prove some sort of point through two examples of anecdotal evidence?

14. “When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

This is an incredibly bold statement that I fear hints at an underlying theme in today’s society; rule through fear as opposed to good policy. Also, to add to the hilarity, John Walker was a fundamentalist Muslim, about as far from liberal as one gets.

13. “They’re [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let’s do it. Let’s repress them. Frankly, I’m not a big fan of the First Amendment.”

I have to wonder if she truly hates the First Amendment, or merely wants to apply it according to her standards? She doesn’t seem to be in any rush to limit “her” speech anytime soon.

12. “Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of ‘kill everyone who doesn’t smell bad and doesn’t answer to the name Mohammed’)”.

This one is just ironic. Agree with her political position or not, I don’t think that anyone is in any rush to label Ann Coulter as “nice.”

11. “Press passes can’t be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President.”

There are many quotes displaying Coulter’s propensity towards racial profiling, so this one is merely representative.

10. “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”

Seems a rather disrespectful thing to say about a gift, if you ask me.

9. “The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man’s dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet–it’s yours. That’s our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that’s the Biblical view.”

This indignant attitude about human beings possessing dominion over the entire Earth is too prevalent in religious institutions for comfort. Have these people not given half a thought to preservation, both for our generation and generations to come? Or are they excited to hasten the Rapture?

8. “I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn’t.”

Hmm.

7. “I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting — and your Communists will back me up on this — is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.”

Now this one is truly bizarre; who would even joke about having their right to vote taken away? Especially someone so involved in politics … Susan B. Anthony is most certainly rolling over in her grave (if you believe in that sort of thing).

6. “When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we’re up against absolutely insane savages.”

Joking or not, this is a frightening display of white supremecy. The assumption inherent in this quote is that any person of non-Caucasion origin is a “savage.”

5. “Our book is Genesis. Their book is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the original environmental hoax.”

There is certainly a healthy debate as to the cost / benefit of prohibiting the use of DDT for environmental conservation versus the preventative effects of DDT on the spread of malaria, I just can’t seem to remember it being addressed in Genesis. Why must some people involve the Bible in so many contemporary debates?

4. “I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”

There is so much wrong with this statement: abandon of human rights, racism and racial profiling, torture, and the threat of arrest for particular political ideals. She seems surprisingly willing to abandon basic and fundamental American ideals for a Conservative.

3. “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”

Welcome back to the Dark Ages, complete with a Holy Crusade! How does this woman get air-time?

2. “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

She later amended this quote, and added “after everyone but the reporters and editors had left the building.”

1. “I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed ”airport towers“ out of bamboo and ”headphones“ out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.”

OK – I’m coming to the game late so here are my comments.

“Since we're pretty sure Edwards isn't gay, I think she may have been going for a different point. The fact is that "faggot" and "faggoty" (meaning like a faggot) is getting a good bit of public use these days.” –withoutfeathers

Are you serious? I mean really ARE YOU SERIOUS? Forget about whether it’s offensive or not – let’s discuss meaning. The intent behind of calling someone who is obviously not gay either gay or a faggot or any other similar name is to insult them by attributing the characteristics and/or mannerisms of a gay person to them. So what’s your point? It seems to me that if it’s offensive to call someone a faggot because you think they’re gay, it’s equally offensive to call them a faggot because you’re ascribing “gay” attributes to them.

“Dennis Leary uttered the words "faggoty Irish" with no apparent embarassement on Rescue Me last year.
I think we're being just a bit disingenuous to say it's OK for Dennis Leary, but not for Anne Coulter.” –withoutfeathers

Dennis Leary was reciting dialogue, Anne Coulter was speaking from the hip. If you want to blame anyone blame the scriptwriter.

“she's an excellent historian” – JMK

You just won the award for the funniest damn thing I’ve heard in 2007.

“that leads me to believe that perhaps the appx. 65% of the country that is Conservative” – JMK

What do figures like this even mean? Number one where’s the source for that figure? Number two regardless of whether it’s accurate or not what does it mean to say that 65% of the country is conservative? Does that mean they all wear matching t-shirts? Do they all have identical beliefs? Are they all Socially Conservative? Morally Conservative? Fiscally Conservative? All of the above? Some of the above? The same on every issue? That’s the problem with a lot of what you spout out, it’s nothing more than platitudes. What is a liberal? Does every liberal want to burn the flag? Does every liberal hate capitalism? Etc., etc., etc. People are a lot more complex than you give them credit for, and this arbitrary labeling of people and assigning them into groups is misleading and ultimately irrelevant.

“Not one of my finer moments, but I found young Mr Glick's address and wrote him a short letter inviting him to my firehouse, promising him that if he repeated those views he'd be "spitting out his teeth like chicklets."
Again, I don't regret the sentiment, I still feel the same way, though I do regret having sent that note....but "un-American?"” – JMK

Very disturbing. It’s nice to know that you have such great self control. Also a wonderful thing to know that you are enticing people to come to a public facility (aka your firehouse) under threat of physical duress. It’s almost a shame that young Mr. Glick didn’t show up after all as I’m sure that you’d have had to have found employment off the public dole once you physically assaulted him. Who do you think you are? I’m trying man but really the macho-man act is really starting to get tiring.

“Mark Levin is allowed to be partisan PE.
He's a commentator.
He's not a journalist, not a news anchor and not a public official.” – JMK

The problem with that is that while what you say is literally true the perception conveyed by Levin Hannity and the rest of them is that they are giving you the news – even if they admit their partisanship and bias out of one side of the mouth, they convey a sense that they are giving you the news out of the other. It also doesn’t help when the WABC station address labels itself as newsradio, or your source for news, or whatever the latest gimmick is. The overall effect to the listener is that it is a news program.

“Moreover, his statements are mild compared to others made by the likes of Randy Rhodes, Al Franken, etc. and they are ALL commentators, paid for their opinions.” – JMK

I don’t think anything is gained by saying yeah he’s over the top but so are those guys. The point is that as a whole the rhetoric has to stop if people are ever going to be truly informed. The other night I listened as Levin gave an hour long diatribe on the Libby trial. To listen to him you’d think noone did anything wrong except Patrick Fitzgerald – the evil prosecutor. Now what do you think a guy driving on the road is going to think after listening to that over and over again without anyone stepping in to bring some balance and restate the facts? The reality is that this becomes news for many people regardless of the disclaimer, and everyone knows that include the guy making the disclaimer.

“There is demonstrably more intolerance, more malevolence on the Left! You can see it every day on Kos, the HuffPo, the DU and MoveOn's sites.” – JMK

You’ve said this in different ways several times. Basically you seem to be attributing the same weight to the words of bloggers – and even random posters on blog sites to someone paid to speak at a political fund raiser (like Coulter) or paid to speak for 3 hours a day on the radio (like Levin). In essence you are equivocating your words and my words on this blog to their words, they aren’t the same thing at all. The blogosphere is largely a joke, a series of closed rooms (like this one) where largely stagnant groups argue amongst themselves with little or no effect (which begs the question why am I even writing this – the answer is I’m bored). There are exceptions to be sure – but most of it is just wasted bandwidth.

“I never saw anything similar to this with the right wing when Clinton was in office. Feel free to correct me.” – Mal

Mal, one thing that came to mind was Dick Foster. I read and heard many extreme right winger’s theorizing that not only did Clinton know how he died, but that he ordered the hit. There was a lot of venom from the right at that time. I don’t really want to go research the details, what’s the point? It doesn’t make either action right, as I know you’d agree. And it goes without saying that I don’t blame all Conservatives for that hatred at all. As I mentioned above that’s the danger you run into when ascribing beliefs to a large group as a whole. Such as 65% of the population.

“Funniest line in this thread thatveered so off topic was the one right near the top:
Ann Coulter "is an excellent historian." (JMK)
Thanks for the good laugh.” – Fred

Fred you beat me to the punch – that’s what happens when I’m incommunicado for any length of time. It is a side-spliter though isn’t it?

“Grant never actually wished Ron Brown dead.” – JMK

Sounds an awful lot like “it depends on what the definition of is is.”
How do we define a pessimist? Pessimist – a person who expects the worst.
“"My hunch is [Brown] is the one survivor. I just have that hunch. Maybe it's because at heart I'm a pessimist." – Bob Grant.
So if we replace pessimist with the definition in context it becomes: My hunch is [Brown] is the one survivor. I just have that hunch. Maybe it's because at heart I’m a person who expects the worst.
Which means that according to Grant the worst thing would be if Brown was the sole survivor, it follows that it would be better if everyone died including Brown. So it’s not exactly as if he wished Brown to be dead, but it’s pretty close, so why make excuses for him?

I enjoyed listening to Grant, but I’ll never sit here and claim he was justified in some of what he said. You might think the “take the bone out of your nose” comment was funny but it’s insulting to a certain group of people. You’re within your rights to say it to someone as an insult but it’s obviously fight provoking. To say it on air shouldn’t be defended at all.

“Since the libs here have their bowels in a twist over a faggot comment, try these from Randi Rhodes of AA and feel free to comment:” – Mal

I can only speak for myself, I could care less about the faggot comment, Coulter has said far more insulting things. I’ll only say that either it’s insulting to use the term or not, trying to justify the context as an excuse is akin to what the definition of is is. As to Randi Rhodes, I don’t defend her. I don’t think anyone’s comments should justify anyone elses, that smacks of “but mommie she did it too.”
I could care less about the insults – I only care when they obfuscate the facts. As they often do with the famous historian Anne Coulter.

“I don't really CARE whether either Krugman or Coulter are bigots!” – JMK

And now you’ve managed to equivocate Krugman with Coulter somehow. Like him or not he is certainly not in the same category as Coulter. You may not agree with Krugman’s analysis but it is at least based on economics. Coulter’s is pure fluff from the talking points memo.

“Beyond that, I'm not convinced that merely being anti-gay is actually "bigoted."
I mean, if you despise child molesters are you an "anti-pedarist bigot?"
If you oppose bestiality, are you an an "anti-bestiality bigot?"
If you despise bigamists, are you an "anti-bigamist bigot?"
These are ALL sexual deviations, in that they deviate from the norm.” – JMK

This is where you really shine. Since you seem unable to divine the difference in the 4 categories above I’ll help you out. Pedophiles victimize children, it’s non-consensual. Bestiality victimizes animals, again non-consensual. Bigamy is consensual, homosexuality is consensual.

In a consensual act as long as all parties are adults and aware of the situation noone is victimized. This is not the case in non-consensual acts. I’m not sure why you continuously try to equivocate homosexuality with perversions like pedophilia and bestiality. If I were a shrink perhaps I’d think you were compensating. (Sorry I am only human and you make it too easy sometimes).

The defining line here is consent. An animal cannot consent, a child cannot consent. I don’t understand why two people of the same sex can be attracted sexually, but I do understand that if they both feel that attraction then it’s akin in some ways to a heterosexual feeling of attraction. I also understand that if an adult male engages in sex with a 13 year old girl he is using her and despite what she may think she is unable morally and legally to give consent no matter what either of them believes they feel.

In a different way it’s the same if a firefighter engages in fellatio with the firehouses dalmation. As right as it might feel, it’s still wrong. Because the firefighter may believe the dog wants it as much as him, but ultimately the dalmation is a pack animal and is just obeying his master. I’m sorry it’s true. It’s also illegal and like it or not that is part of the definition of morality. So put down that firehose big boy.

Sorry again for the humor but c’mon man you are trying to equivocate bestiality and pedophilia with homosexuality. You deserve a smackdown.

“I don't despise gays...nor necrophiliacs either, nor bigamists, nor even those who engage in bestiality, but ALL of those practices deviate from the norm.” – JMK

Here’s a thought why don’t you marry up some statisitics as you throw out these terms. What’s the number of necrophiliacs as opposed to gays? How about pedophiles? Dalmation lovers? Me thinks you are skewing the stats a bit.

“Morfeover, there are no various "brands of Conservatism." There is ONLY the tough on crime, pro-welfare reform, anti-illegal immigration, smaller government, lower tax more market-oriented economy Conservatism and those half-wits who don't believe in any of those things and yet, inanely call themselves "Conservatives." – JMK

So help me out here which one is the “65% of the country that is Conservative” by your reckoning?

“There are some people apparently trying, inarticulately to make the argument that Liberalism holds some sort of moral high ground that protects over-the-top and offensie Libs in ways that over-the-top Conservatives cannot be protected.” – JMK

Actually I have to say that since I just came into this thread and read all of the posts I don’t see that at all. At best I’ve seen someone say they can’t comment on Randi Rhoades because they don’t listen to her, that’s hardly the same. All I’ve seen here is you trying to repeatedly defend Coulter by saying that “liberals do it too” Your best example of these liberals was Bill O’Reilly – Mal helped you out by mentioning Randi Rhoades. I haven’t seen anyone defending any of these “libs” not even that commie O’Reilly. All I’ve seen is you defending Coulter, Levine, and Grant by saying libs do it too. The only person claiming moral high ground as I see it is you.

“There's nothing at all "controversial" about my saying she's an excellent historian. What have you posted that shows she isn't?
I've heard Coulter interviewed on post-WW II American history and she was very astute. That's good enough for me.” – JMK

What exactly did you hear? Since you seem to need posts to explain what’s pretty self-evident here are a few:

The historian speaks on McCarthyism:
"The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name." – Anne Coulter , Treason

“One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. "I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument." Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap." - Andrew Sullivan The London Sunday Times (July 5, 2003)

I could go on but why bother – if you want to learn more about the most pre-eminent contemporary american historian this side of the firehouse just Google Anne Coulter historian. I got 472,000 hits so it must be true.

Hilarious retort, zilla.

I, too, have long questioned the "two-thirds of America is conservative" bullcrap, but the best I have received is that some poll showed something like 40% saying they were conservative and 20% were liberal and, using newfangled math, that equates to a 2-1 margin that can be extrapolated out to 66%-34%, which is pure nonsense.

Perhaps JMK meant to type 'great polemicist' but mistyped 'historian.'

I tend to regard those who speak in absolutes 100% of the time as mostly full of it anyway. I'll have to do a word search when I have time, but my hunch is that JMK, unlike everyone else who posts, has probably never typed the phrases "I believe this is true..." or "I can see your point..." or "I may be wrong but..."

Thanks Fred. Sometimes the easiest way to debunk something is to show how ridiculous it really is.

I’ve seen the types of polls you refer to as well. They are all meaningless. The same guys who want you to believe that 65% of the country is conservative complain in the next breath about people being conservatives in name only, which is a clear contradiction (for an example of this you only need to read JMK’s posts in this very thread).

There was an interesting case study in Freakonomics that illustrates one of the mechanisms at work here.
They decided to analyze data from online dating services to study bigotry.
It turns out that amongst white men and women when setting up their profiles as to dating preferences a very high percentage (almost all) listed other races such as black, Hispanic, etc. as acceptable characteristics in a potential date. However when you compile the requests sent out by and accepted by these same people something like 99% of them were to people of the same race.
The conclusion was that in this day and age people do not wish to appear as bigots, so they said one thing in order to appear a certain way while their actions told a different story.
Now the claim isn’t that they’re all bigots, the claim is that societal pressure caused them to say something for the sake of appearance.

This is a factor in every poll that really can’t be factored ever unless you have enough ancilliary data to make a reasonable deduction.

If you have enough data you soon begin to realize that there is no such thing as an absolute, it’s a myth, a construction.

As to those phrases…well I don’t think his programming chip allows for them.

"I tend to regard those who speak in absolutes 100% of the time as mostly full of it anyway. I'll have to do a word search when I have time, but my hunch is that JMK, unlike everyone else who posts, has probably never typed the phrases "I believe this is true..." or "I can see your point..." or "I may be wrong but..." (Fred)


Now that is pretty ironic Fred, especially given that my first post in THIS thread begins, “I believe...” a phrase that is almost never uttered by those on the Liberal part of the spectrum.

So, it seems you’re wrong on that presumption Fred
(you're main point, no less), as it’s very rare that I don’t add, “in my opinion,” Or “I believe” to anything I post...as rare as say, the Liberals around here doing that.

For instance, BW has not used the phrase IMO or “I believe” at all in this thread, and he rarely, if ever does anywhere. Moreover, BW, is prone to make wild, declarative pronouncements (apparently, a Liberal trait) like, “Ann Coulter is anti-american and filled with hatred.”

Of course, that IS an opinion, but is NOT prefaced as one, I’ve rarely seen Liberals offer “opinions,” they tend to offer pronouncements.

Now, it is my opinion that you have no right to hold me to a standard you fail to hold those you agree with to and I believe, that in the spirit of fairness, you’d also agree that doing that would be wrong.

In fact, I must INSIST that you now hold every poster to that same standard...a standard I can happily live with, as I tend to live up to it far more often than not (it IS indeed rare that I don’t preface my remarks in such a way).

Hey! Ironically enough, you're own post was all pronouncement without any such qualifier!

You have to admit, THAT really IS pretty funny.

""The myth of 'McCarthyism' is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name." – Anne Coulter, Treason (GZ)


I've never read her books, interesting to see that you have. Not a bad thing, I prefer to read those I disagree with, because it helps me formulate my arguments.

I SAW her interviewed and she correctly (In my view) stated that McCarthyism was overblown and went on to enumerate a long littany of instances of communist involvement in labor unions and the U.S. government at that time.

If McCarthyism were really a "scourge," RFK's political career would've been ruined.

The Kennedy's (at least both JFK & RFK) passionately reviled communism (as any good America did...and does) and sought to ferret it out of both Union and government involvement.

I know there are many respected scholars who believe and sadly teach that the McCarthy hearings" were a "witch hunt," and that they terrible damage to America.

I disagree strongly with that view and therefor do not consider such people "excellent historians," as their worldview contradicts what is known about that period - there indeed was significant communist infiltration in U.S. Labor Unions and in parts of the government.

From an Americanist perspective, communism is not an ideology, but rather a disease.

Hmmm. I think I found a bunch of less-than-pronouncement words in my posting:
PERHAPS JMK meant to type...

I TEND to regard those who speak in absolutes... ...but my HUNCH is that JMK, unlike everyone else who posts, has PROBABLY never...

"I’ve seen the types of polls you refer to as well. They are all meaningless." (GZ)


The POLL that stat was based on is from a Liberal polling group (Penn, Schoen & Berland); “A 2005 nationwide survey by pollsters Penn, Schoen, and Berland -- who represent Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, among other clients -- found that self-described liberals make up only 16 percent of the population, compared with 36 percent who call themselves conservatives and 47 percent who say they are moderates.”

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/2536-Emboldened-Democrats-Court-Partys-Left-Wing.html

A 2006 Battleground Poll showed that there are actually few ideological moderates in the currently polarized political atmosphere.

Battleground Poll 2006
(Few Real Moderates)


D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be:

Very conservative 18%
Somewhat conservative 41%
Moderate 2%
Somewhat liberal 28%
Very liberal 8%
Unsure/refused 3%

The fact that Democrats abandoned running more Liberal candidates in races down South and out West, running slates of Conservative Democrats instead, tends to indicate that sensible Democrats, like Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer also see that reality.

Wait a minute....she's an excellent historian but you never read any of her screeds, I mean, books? You saw her interviewed on TV and based your evaluation on that?

Hey JMK,
Let me repeat my statement for additional emphasis: "Ann Coulter is anti-american and hates essentially everyone and everything in this country".

By the way, you have the tendency to defend the indefensible. Beyond Ann Coulter who is a lunatic, you have even been a defender of a fascist dictator, Augusto Pincochet, that killed thousands and made his country suffer for many years. Or is n't that so? Please reconsider who you defend next time. Cheers.

"There was an interesting case study in Freakonomics that illustrates one of the mechanisms at work here.
They decided to analyze data from online dating services to study bigotry.
It turns out that amongst white men and women when setting up their profiles as to dating preferences a very high percentage (almost all) listed other races such as black, Hispanic, etc. as acceptable characteristics in a potential date. However when you compile the requests sent out by and accepted by these same people something like 99% of them were to people of the same race."

"The conclusion was that in this day and age people do not wish to appear as bigots, so they said one thing in order to appear a certain way while their actions told a different story." (GZ)


I have Freakonomics, a great book, but lots of junk-science. You can't read something like that without a good degree of critical thinking...OK, appartently YOU can, but I don't believe it should be read that way - as gospel.

Of course having a dating preference for those of the same race, or even preferring to live among people of a given background are mere "personal choices," that do not imply any racial animus, or bigotry on the part of those who hold those preferences.

Claiming you are open to other races, while preferring your own, is neither bigoted, nor even hypocritical.

MOST people tend to hold those from other races to a higher standard. That is, they'd probably date a person of the same race who is less accomplished, etc., but would have to be "wowed" by someone of a different race. That's merely people preferring the familiar to the unfamiliar.

That is not indicative of "racism," in my view, but of a deep pragmatism, one that cuts across ALL racial groups. People tend to be reticent, absent ancillary reasons, to commit to people from very different groups.




"As to those phrases (absolutes)...well I don’t think his (JMK's) programming chip allows for them." (GZ)


And GZ amplifies yet another proven falsehood.

Typical, I guess, and kind of funny to boot, the last such conundrum I caught you in was your assailing me for being too verbose, before I pointed out that every one of your posts in that particular thread were much wordier than mine...and I had excerpted your quoting me!

Now that's hillarious!!!

And again, ironically enough, YOU haven't qualified a single utterance of yours in any of your posts in this thread.

I guess "The national debt went down during President Clinton's tenure," wasn't an opinion?

OK, then it was a mis-statement of fact, or, more aptly an erroneous declaration, as the national debt actually INCREASED during every one of Bill Clinton's years in office and only the deficit decreased once Gingrich and the Republicans took office and cut federal spending to which Clinton signed on.

That wouldn't be a problem, everyone makes mistakes...but you continued to defend it, despite it being shown to be a mis-statement.

Clinton was a shrewd politician. He glad-handed Libs and signed onto things like Welfare Reform and reining federal spending.

But how about this, "The problem with that (calling Mark Levin a mere commentator) is that while what you say is literally true the perception conveyed by Levin Hannity and the rest of them is that they are giving you the news – even if they admit their partisanship and bias out of one side of the mouth, they convey a sense that they are giving you the news out of the other. It also doesn’t help when the WABC station address labels itself as newsradio..." (GZ)


I believe WABC Radio bills itself, "News-Talk Radio," the 0'clock news period, being the "NEWS" and the Limbaugh, Hannity, etc portions being the "TALK" or commentary.

Yes, "News Talk Radio 77 WABC-AM when searched as "News-Talk Radio." Their new moniker, is "News, Opinion, Passion," which seems to positively highlight the commentary angle of the station.

Moreover, it's very clear that Hannity is a GOP partisan and that he is giving his COMMENTARY on the news events of the day. None of those guys (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc) pretend to be newscasters, they're pure commentary on current and political events.

For instance on FoxNews, O'Reilly makes clear that he is a COMMENTATOR, and NOT a newscaster. He gives you his opinions on the events of the day.

Only a dolt would mistake an O'Reilly or a Limbaugh for a newscaster, any more than a person of normal intelligence would mistake a John Stossel (a commentator and news-magazine host) for a Brian Williams (a newscaster).

Journalists MUST never be allowed to sneak commentary into their news accounts and newscasters must be barred from doing that as well, as it's a violation of the "news ethic."

Commentators are rightly held to a very different standard.

Coulter does not do commentary for any network that I'm aware of, but William ("the troops are fortunate that they're not spit on and called baby-killers when they come home") Arkin IS a commentator and contributor for NBC Nightly News, which saw its ratings plummet earlier this month as over 400,000 viewers voted with their remotes taking NBC Nightly News out of the top spot for broadcast news outlets for the first time in over ten years.

Personally, I find ALL of William Arkin's statements more offensive than I find even the most inane Coulter pronouncements, but that's just me....oh yeah, and apparently those 400,000+ others who bailed on NBC in light of Arkin's comments.

"Let me repeat my statement for additional emphasis: "Ann Coulter is anti-american and hates essentially everyone and everything in this country".

"By the way, you have the tendency to defend the indefensible. Beyond Ann Coulter who is a lunatic, you have even been a defender of a fascist dictator, Augusto Pincochet, that killed thousands and made his country suffer for many years. Or is n't that so? Please reconsider who you defend next time. Cheers. (BW)


Thankyou for proving my point BW! And before either Fred or GZ could object, no less.

Again, thanks.

I understand that THAT is not merely your opinion, so it is a pronouncement. Still, in reality, it is your opinion.

As for Pinochet, I DEFENDED Milton Friedman's economic policies, which must be separated from the dictatorial abuses of that government, or risk being tarred as "intrinsically related to tyranny."

There are a number of brain-dead morons in the world who do indeed link Capitalism to fascism!

Can you believe that?!

At any rate, Friedman's Supply-Side and free market economic reforms were so successful in Chile, that it went from "Allende's basketcase" to the "Jewel of South America" in less than half a decade!

In fact, those reforms have NOT been eradicated even by the current "socialist" Prime Minister, because they work too well!

Such is the genius of free market reforms.

"Wait a minute....she's an excellent historian but you never read any of her screeds, I mean, books? You saw her interviewed on TV and based your evaluation on that?" (Fred)


In a word, yes.

In fact, that was a simple aside, jumped on by those apparently unable to take issue with my primary point, which was that as a commentator Coulter owed no one an apology, and had a First Amendment right to be as offensive as she wants to be, so long as she can find an outlet for it.

In fact, I believe those that took issue with that single aside, did so, ostensibly because they couldn't disagree with what I said about Coulter's right to be offensive and about there being "no other "Anne Coulter's" on the Right, but quite a few clones/clowns on the Left."

New Rule: One can only disagree with JMK if we disagree with every single thing he says. Otherwise, it's not allowed.

Hmmm. I think I found a bunch of less-than-pronouncement words in my posting:
PERHAPS JMK meant to type..."

"I TEND to regard those who speak in absolutes... ...but my HUNCH is that JMK, unlike everyone else who posts, has PROBABLY never..." (Fred)


You claimed, erroneously, that Imy hunch is that "JMK, UNLIKE everyone else who posts, has probably never typed the phrases "I believe this is true..." or "I can see your point..." or "I may be wrong but..."...and you were wrong, on TWO fronts.

While I almost always qualify my opinions, with "In my view," or "I believe," or "in my opinion," virtually no Liberals here do.

In fact, it appears that you have that exactly reversed...and BW was quick to prove my point, yet again.

Your better argument would be, "I rarely post a real opinion, so those qualifiers don't apply to one or two line snipes."

That's certainly a more acceptable defense, though it doesn't defend holding those others here who rarely qualify their opinions, to a diffferent standard than you seem to hold me, who almost always does.

JMK: "...because they couldn't disagree with what I said about Coulter's right to be offensive and about there being "no other "Anne Coulter's" on the Right, but quite a few clones/clowns on the Left."

Well, I'd stick Michael Savage among the clones/clowns on the right, for starters.

"New Rule: One can only disagree with JMK if we disagree with every single thing he says. Otherwise, it's not allowed." (Fred)


You can disagree with any portion of what I said....and you chose to disagree with a piece of minutia, an opinion, based on a TV interview that Coulter had a firm grasp of the "Communist menace" in post-WW II America.

What I objected to was your claiming that I never qualified my opinions with phrases like "I believe," when, in fact, I started off my first post in this thread with those very words.

That is clearly NOT a standard you hold any others to, as you seemed to fail to notice that neither GZ nor BW, nor yourself qualified your opinions in such a way.

"I tend..." is a declaration, not a qualifier of an opinion..and the statement, "I tend to take a dim view of..." is NOT an opinion, so it doesn't require such a qualifier.

Check out any BW or GZ or any of the more Liberal posters here and you'll find few, if any such qualifiers.

Check out mine, and you'll find them there far more often than not.

I believe I've shown that assessment of yours to be grossly unfair (probably based on a flawed perception of me) and I merely insisted that you hold everyone to that very same standard.

JMK says: "While I almost always qualify my opinions, with 'In my view,' or 'I believe,' or 'in my opinion,' virtually no Liberals here do."

JMK: I believe Anne Coulter is way over-the-top, that seems to be her niche.

Unfortunately for her, she's an excelelnt historian, but her penchant for insult hurts her.

It's turned her into a carnival act. She's descended to the level of a Paul Krugman 9the economic idiot, who saved his failed career in economics by writing poisonous, Coulteresque commentary for the Ny Times.

In fact, Coulter is fairly bland compared to some of the vile hate-mongers on the left, from Ted Rall to Maureen ("the hair twirler") Dowd, from Al Franken to Michael Moore.

While simpletons on the Left seek to inanely lump in moderate voices like Bill O'Reilly and Steve Hayes with Coulter, they fail to even notice the far more extreme and disgusting hate-mongers on the Liberal side of the spectrum.

O'Reilly in particular (a moderate to slightly Left of center commentator, from my perspective, has been excoriated for heaving the despicable Jeremy Glick who disgraced his father's memory (his father was killed in the WTC on 9/11) by insinuating the Bush administration planned 9/11.

On that score O'Reilly was right and the Glick supporters wrong.

He's also been attacked for "bullying" Paul Krugman on Tim Russert's show.

Again, it wasn't O'Reilly's fault that Krugman couldn't debate the issues. He's a failed economist. It also wasn't O'Reilly's fault that Krugman shrunk away when O'Reilly got in in his face.

Krugman made himself into a loser on a neutral venue.

I disagree with O'Reilly on gay Marriage (he supports Civil Unions), on the border (though he supports enforcement, he also sees a need for an "orderly guest worker program") and on the death penalty (he opposes, I support), BUT I DO agree with him on terrorism and on stricter child-predator laws.

There's been no better champion of stricter child-predator laws then O'Reilly. Because of his efforts Jessica's Law (mandatory sentencing) has been passed in about 40 states and Megan's Law (sex-offender registries) has been popularized across the country.

Even NY just passed a Bill that would place convicted sex offenders in mental institutions AFTER they did their jail time.

Ergo, there are really no other "Anne Coulter's" on the Right, but quite a few clones/clowns on the Left."

Other than that brave assertion about Coulter being over the top at the outset, still searching for 'In my view,' or 'I believe,' or 'in my opinion.'

Congratulations, too, on that funny little thing you did with Jeremy Glick ('Not one of my finer moments, but I found young Mr Glick's address and wrote him a short letter inviting him to my firehouse, promising him that if he repeated those views he'd be "spitting out his teeth like chicklets."') You did this as an adult? Speaks volumes...I'd expect it of a 16 year old, but...

And Olbermann's first name is spelled kEIth. The I before E rule doesn't apply here.

"Other than that brave assertion about Coulter being over the top at the outset, still searching for 'In my view,' or 'I believe,' or 'in my opinion.' " Fred)


Uhhh, that's because there were no other OPINIONS given in the rest of that post.

I refuse to qualify, for instance, the FACT that " disagree with O'Reilly on gay marriage, the death penalty, etc. since I KNOW that I disagree with his stances on those issues, it is NOT an opinion.

See how that works.

Or do you feel that in my case, I should qualify even such factual statements as assertions of my aggreing/disagreeing with someone else?

Don't answer that, you'll probably hurt yourself trying.

Again, my main point is that no one does that on the Left, and I believe that you can clearly see that if I accept that standard (and I will, so long as it becomes a universal one - in other words, so long as FRED can be counted on to call EVERY SINGLE opinion offered to that standard), as accepting that as only applying to me, would place an unfair burden on me. One that I'm unwilling to accept.

If you somehow, for some reason, feel that I should be held to a different standard because you personally find my views so (A) reprehensible (HOW?)and (B) too well crafted to actually deal with (OK, guilty), please, by all means articulate that.

What Jeremy Glick said on that O'Reilly Show was, in my view, HIGH TREA-SON (yes, it has to be pronounced in that Olde English style, the way they did in Braveheart).

Voicing the view that "the Bush administration knew about and wanted 9/11 to happen...." is NOT an OPINION.

Opinions must be based on an interpreatation of existing fact.

There are no existing facts that support that treasonous viewpoint.

I still support the likes of Jeremy Glick be charged with, and tried with HIGH TREA-SON...and when found guilty hung.

The fact that you'd (1) defend the treasonous rantings of J Glick and (2) jump in with those who assailed Coulter's 1st Amendment protections (claiming she should have to apologize for being offensive) is more than a little troubling to me.

NO to the 1st Amendment and YES to treason, or at the very least sedition???

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that you're being forced into those positions by some unfounded personal animus toward me, but I can't see that being the case.

Did the whole firehouse roar with laughter when they became aware of your threat to the guy (who I think has just as much 1st Amendment right to speak his mind as does Coulter or anyone else)? Your poor judgment should have been questioned, at the very least, and noted in your personnel file. Had a public employee where I live acted similarly in inviting a citizen down to a public facility for a "Chicklets-spitting beating," he'd have been suspended w/o pay at least.

I certainly don't buy any part of the line of thinking that the government was behind 9/11 (as a matter of fact, I spent the better part of a day last week e-mailing a friend with such beliefs). But tried and hung? Why? You sound like an extremist version of Archie Bunker.

I guess it's the absolute absolutism of much of your postings--with very little wiggle room left for possible counterpoints or other POVs--the 'I'm right/you're an idiot/dolt/moron/traitor' style that lends itself not to much serious debate but to derisive laughter and head-shaking, at least on my part.

JMK,
Already let me revise my question:

Do you think it was morally correct for Friedman or Kissinger or anyone else to support financially of a fascist dictator like Pinochet? I am glad that you agree that Pinochet was a criminal and a mass murderer of thousands of Chileans. But do you think it was ok to financially support him then?

“For instance, BW has not used the phrase IMO or “I believe” at all in this thread, and he rarely, if ever does anywhere. Moreover, BW, is prone to make wild, declarative pronouncements (apparently, a Liberal trait) like, “Ann Coulter is anti-american and filled with hatred.” – JMK

Just out of curiousity, since you only engage in giving us fact based opinions where are the other liberals aside from BW that exhibit said trait? And you are sure this is solely a “liberal trait” right? You are sure that “conservatives” don’t engage in this as well right? You’ve certainly never done it right?

“I've never read her books, interesting to see that you have. Not a bad thing, I prefer to read those I disagree with, because it helps me formulate my arguments.” – JMK

I haven’t read them completely, I’ve browsed through them. I’m not one to jump on the Anne Coulter is an idiot bandwagon, I only did that after examining what she’s actually written myself.

“I know there are many respected scholars who believe and sadly teach that the McCarthy hearings" were a "witch hunt," and that they terrible damage to America.
I disagree strongly with that view and therefor do not consider such people "excellent historians," as their worldview contradicts what is known about that period - there indeed was significant communist infiltration in U.S. Labor Unions and in parts of the government.” – JMK

Upon what basis do you disagree? I’m sure the soviets tried to plant agents inside the US and use them to exploit communist movements, but that’s the price of a free and open society. I’m not a supporter of communism, it’s a nice idea on paper as Marx conceived of it, but it’s unworkable in reality for numerous reasons. Having said that as an American you have every right to be a communist and vote for the communist party, just as you have a right to be a libertarian. What’s wrong is for you to be brought up on charges and blacklisted from your profession because of your desire to exercise your rights as an American. I don’t fault the government monitoring and infilitrating communist groups, at the time they could clearly be an inroads for the soviets – but so could a lot of things. The difference is that you don’t prosecute someone based on hearsay, you don’t conduct public investigations that ruin someone’s standing professionally and civically. That is what McCarthy did. Once again I seem to have to remind you that we do not live in a police state and like it or not individual rights come first, even if it is a security risk.

So where is your basis to disagree? You deny that people were pursued on flimsy leads? That innocent people were blacklisted? Do you agree with Coulter that the democrats were the real villains actively working to subvert our nation and help our enemies? I’ve given you a few snippets – you didn’t answer if you’re view of her has changed. Is she still a great historian as you’ve concluded apparently solely on the basis of one interview she gave? Or do you agree that she clearly is not. This has no bearing on you, you didn’t have the facts before and despite your ability to do research when it does suit you you seem to have missed it here. Fair enough. You’ve been brought to the well, what do you say now that you’ve had the chance to drink?

“The POLL that stat was based on is from a Liberal polling group (Penn, Schoen & Berland); “A 2005 nationwide survey by pollsters Penn, Schoen, and Berland -- who represent Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, among other clients -- found that self-described liberals make up only 16 percent of the population, compared with 36 percent who call themselves conservatives and 47 percent who say they are moderates.” – JMK

OK – and as I already explained it’s meaningless, I’m not sure why you’d think that telling me that it came from a “Liberal” polling group would make any difference to me. I’ve explained why it’s meaningless as well. What is a conservative? You yourself mentioned self-styled conservatives, how do they play into your 65% figure? How does this poll support it? Unless perhaps you were temporarily dyslexic (36 flipped becomes 63 which is close to 65 after all) which I doubt so I’m still confused. Even adding 47 and 36 doesn’t give us the number. ???

“The fact that Democrats abandoned running more Liberal candidates in races down South and out West, running slates of Conservative Democrats instead, tends to indicate that sensible Democrats, like Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer also see that reality.” – JMK

All it says is that currently the demographics in that area show that more people identify themselves as republicans. How do you account that it was the other way a few decades ago? Have people fundamentally changed? Or have the labels changed? Nope, people are not cookie cutters, they are liberal on some issues, conservative on others, and while there are trends along certain lines, there are variations throughout the mix. Labels are meaningless when they are absolute.

“I have Freakonomics, a great book, but lots of junk-science. You can't read something like that without a good degree of critical thinking...OK, appartently YOU can, but I don't believe it should be read that way - as gospel.” – JMK

Hey does that count as a “wild, declarative pronouncement”? I guess you can extrapolate my entire interpretation of that book based upon my reference to one case study that was applicable. Nope don’t think so. Once again you’ve shown yourself to be somewhat of a hypocrite. Or maybe you saw me interviewed on a cable “news” show like Hannity and Colmes. While we’re on the subject care to give an example of what you label as junk science? Since you clearly did your fact checking on what it takes to be a great historian, I’m waiting with baited breath to have you explain to me exactly what portions of the book I should be burning.

“Of course having a dating preference for those of the same race, or even preferring to live among people of a given background are mere "personal choices," that do not imply any racial animus, or bigotry on the part of those who hold those preferences.
Claiming you are open to other races, while preferring your own, is neither bigoted, nor even hypocritical.
MOST people tend to hold those from other races to a higher standard. That is, they'd probably date a person of the same race who is less accomplished, etc., but would have to be "wowed" by someone of a different race. That's merely people preferring the familiar to the unfamiliar.
That is not indicative of "racism," in my view, but of a deep pragmatism, one that cuts across ALL racial groups. People tend to be reticent, absent ancillary reasons, to commit to people from very different groups.” – JMK

I think I was clear in that I never said they were bigots, the book was clear on that as well. The point of it (which you’ve clearly missed even though it was spelled out both in the book and by me) is that people often say one thing or describe themselves in one way when there’s an audience and do another thing and act another way when there’s not. Not because they (in this case) are closet bigots, but because societal pressure and political correctness cause them to overcompensate to show they are not. That’s why the numbers are so skewed in one direction. There’s nothing wrong with a white person being more attracted to a white mate (or a black person to a black mate, etc., etc.), for whatever reason, maybe it’s esthetic, maybe they’ve never known anyone from another race well and they’re more comfortable with what they know, etc. Those are the most likely causes, and sure there are certainly some who are bigots as well, likely a small number.

It shouldn’t take a genius to understand how this correlates to people who identify themselves as a member of any type of “absolute.”

As to your claim that “MOST people tend to hold those from other races to a higher standard,” where is your documentation for that? Or is that junk science as well? You really believe that the reason there aren’t more inter-racial marriages in some areas is because white people generally hold black people to a higher standard?

"As to those phrases (absolutes)...well I don’t think his (JMK's) programming chip allows for them." (GZ)

”And GZ amplifies yet another proven falsehood.” – JMK

And JMK once again provides evidence that he is devoid of a funnybone. Lighten up Robocop, do you really believe that I was serious. Here this will help you, chalk it up to that irascible liberal trait of making personal attacks (aka jokes). Now go out there and beat up an islamo-fascist, you’ll feel better.

“Typical, I guess, and kind of funny to boot, the last such conundrum I caught you in was your assailing me for being too verbose, before I pointed out that every one of your posts in that particular thread were much wordier than mine...and I had excerpted your quoting me!” – JMK

It’s funny actually, I was just remarking to Barry offline that what drew me into this thread initially was that there were 80 some odd postings and the majority was you. The immediate visual analogy was a bear covered in honey surrounded by a swarm of bees.

“Now that's hillarious!!!” – JMK

Even moreso then and now when you realize that word for word you’re consistently above everyone else.

“And again, ironically enough, YOU haven't qualified a single utterance of yours in any of your posts in this thread.” – JMK

Now that is hilarious. Let’s see how many qualifiers I can find in my post:

1. It seems to me that if it’s offensive to call someone a faggot because you think they’re gay, it’s equally offensive to call them a faggot because you’re ascribing “gay” attributes to them.
2. I don’t think anything is gained by saying yeah he’s over the top but so are those guys.
3. Basically you seem to be attributing the same weight to the words of bloggers
4. I can only speak for myself, I could care less about the faggot comment,
5. I don’t think anyone’s comments should justify anyone elses, that smacks of “but mommie she did it too.”
6. Since you seem unable to divine the difference in the 4 categories above I’ll help you out.
7. I’m not sure why you continuously try to equivocate homosexuality with perversions like pedophilia and bestiality.

There’s some qualifiers. A lot of times I’m clearly expressing my own opinion, there’s no need for a qualifier there it’s implied, adding one is just bad writing. I often pose questions, no need for one there either. Many times’s I’m just stating the obvious or citing facts – you don’t qualify those either. Once again you apparently (look another qualifier) cannot see the noe on your face.

“I guess "The national debt went down during President Clinton's tenure," wasn't an opinion?” – JMK

Man you are a one trick pony sometimes (that’s my opinion since you seem to need qualifiers for the obvious – and I’m sorry to say I’m going to have to stop helping you out buddy). That’s way off-track but I’ll bite. I’m not going to argue that with you again, and I said as much. We both know it went down as a percentage of GDP and that is the true measure, anything else is taking one statistic out of context. I know you enjoy doing that, but it’s what’s the word….oh yeah “junk science.” You enjoy referencing debt as a percentage of GDP only when it helps you, then you like to ignore GDP where it’s convenient. That’s why you decided to showcase the Italian economy as a shining example of the positive side of deficit spending. Because you really don’t take the time to understand everything before you say it – then you stubbornly refuse to ever admit you might have been mistaken. (That’s why you concluded that Anne Coulter was an excellent historian after watching an interview she gave on Fox news at the firehouse and still refuse to acknowledge that she’s not even after being shown exactly why she’s not).

“OK, then it was a mis-statement of fact, or, more aptly an erroneous declaration, as the national debt actually INCREASED during every one of Bill Clinton's years in office and only the deficit decreased once Gingrich and the Republicans took office and cut federal spending to which Clinton signed on.” – JMK

I guess I should have read on – see above and achieve enlightenment.

“That wouldn't be a problem, everyone makes mistakes...but you continued to defend it, despite it being shown to be a mis-statement.” – JMK

Now that (to quote you) is indeed HILARIOUS! And believe me or not I wrote the exact thing about you above before reading this. The difference is that what I defended was that I was consistently discussing the debt as a percentage of GDP, which is the only way to make a comparison over any extended period do to factors such as inflation. In fact I’m the one who showed you how you were being inconsistent and you true to form continued to defend your inconsistent “analysis” while refusing to acknowledge what I was saying. See the problem was that you were just hell bent on proving me wrong, you weren’t content to merely argue against my methodology, you instead futilly tried to prove that I was wrong. The truth is that every single thing I said was backed up by statistics going back to the 1800’s. When you view debt over that length of time it should be obvious that quoting one set of figures out of context will skew your results – clearly the economy has grown and the dollar buys less than it did 200 years ago. It’s not so obvious over a decade – but it’s still statistically relevant. I know you understand this and I said as much in that post which is why I finally ended it. Because it was clear that you were more concerned with proving yourself correct than actually being correct. But hey thanks for mentioning this yet again where people can actually have a chance to see how wrong-headed your thinking is on this issue. I was content to let it fade into obscurity.

“I believe WABC Radio bills itself, "News-Talk Radio," the 0'clock news period, being the "NEWS" and the Limbaugh, Hannity, etc portions being the "TALK" or commentary.
Yes, "News Talk Radio 77 WABC-AM when searched as "News-Talk Radio." Their new moniker, is "News, Opinion, Passion," which seems to positively highlight the commentary angle of the station.” – JMK

Are you intentionally missing the point? I said as much, my belief is that the real impact of them mentioning the word “news” and in the one sided commentary dovetailing off the news so often is that the overall impact to many listeners is that what they are getting IS news, and not commentary. News and opinion is being blended across many media outlets so much these days that it’s often hard to find raw unopinionated news, it’s hard to draw a line. That situation makes it even easier for someone to mistakenly perceive talk radio as news, perhaps unwittingly. I understand that you get the difference, but some of the people who listen? Some of the callers – it doesn’t appear so.

“Moreover, it's very clear that Hannity is a GOP partisan and that he is giving his COMMENTARY on the news events of the day. None of those guys (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc) pretend to be newscasters, they're pure commentary on current and political events.
For instance on FoxNews, O'Reilly makes clear that he is a COMMENTATOR, and NOT a newscaster. He gives you his opinions on the events of the day.” – JMK

I think I was clear in saying as much – but my point is that despite making these claims the perception of many viewers is different and my belief is that the hosts of these shows and the producers know it, they also know that it’s part of the machine that keeps people listening.

“Journalists MUST never be allowed to sneak commentary into their news accounts and newscasters must be barred from doing that as well, as it's a violation of the "news ethic." – JMK

I agree – but we both know it happens a lot. I hope you’re honest enough to admit that it’s not isolated to “the liberal media” either.

“Personally, I find ALL of William Arkin's statements more offensive than I find even the most inane Coulter pronouncements, but that's just me....oh yeah, and apparently those 400,000+ others who bailed on NBC in light of Arkin's comments.” – JMK

It’s more accurate to say that those 400,000+ others were offended, not that they find it more offensive than Coulter. There’s no means for an objective comparison and there won’t be unless Coulter somehow manages to garner a regular slot opposite him. Then there’d be a basis for comparison. You can speak for yourself, but you can’t speak for anyone else unless you’ve got more data.

“Thankyou for proving my point BW! And before either Fred or GZ could object, no less.” – JMK

Hey does this one count as a “wild, declarative pronouncement”? I guess you can read minds and predict the future. Nostrodomus is in the house!
I can’t speak for Fred, I’ll leave that to you, but I never intended to object. In fact if you go back to the top you’ll see that all I did was ask you how the actions of one person (BW) allow you to define a trait for all liberals, I also assumed that since this is a liberal trait it stands to reason that it must not be seen among conservatives. It also struck me that calling this a “liberal trait” (for those who are lost said trait is making “wild, declarative pronouncements”) is itself somewhat of a “wild, declarative pronouncement. Which I guess makes you a liberal? (Since that’s the third time it’s been cited that you’ve done it).

“In fact, that was a simple aside, jumped on by those apparently unable to take issue with my primary point, which was that as a commentator Coulter owed no one an apology, and had a First Amendment right to be as offensive as she wants to be, so long as she can find an outlet for it.” – JMK

What sayeth thou? You say that someone jumped on an aside and ignored the main point? You believe it’s because they were unable to seriously take issue with your main point? The gall!!! I know you would never do that I daresay. You’ve never done that before. Not you my friend. In fact you haven’t done exactly that at all by failing to address whether or not you still believe she is a great historian. ( I know it’s a difficult concept but try to view the side discussion of Dame Coulter Historian as the main argument in and of itself, and all of the side discussions of how you learned of her abilities as the new side tangents – it seems as if on that level you may be succumbing to evading the primary point…dear heavens if it happened to you then my god it could happen to any other liberal, even that commie O’Reilly).

“In fact, I believe those that took issue with that single aside, did so, ostensibly because they couldn't disagree with what I said about Coulter's right to be offensive and about there being "no other "Anne Coulter's" on the Right, but quite a few clones/clowns on the Left."” – JMK

I think most people took issue because it was ludicrous, at least that’s my reason. I still find it hilarious that in the face of the evidence you still refuse to admit you might have been wrong. You’re close – you admit you made your evaluation based solely upon a television interview without even attempting to read anything she read (and for that I almost can’t blame you, it’s painful reading).

“You can disagree with any portion of what I said....and you chose to disagree with a piece of minutia, an opinion, based on a TV interview that Coulter had a firm grasp of the "Communist menace" in post-WW II America.” – JMK

See you just continue to downplay it rather than just admit you were wrong. At first you cried to the sky what a great historian Anne Coulter is. You even went so far as to ask: “What have you posted that shows she isn't?” So now that it’s been posted, you just want it to go away. It’s really easy, just admit you were mistaken. You can do it. I know you can.

“That is clearly NOT a standard you hold any others to, as you seemed to fail to notice that neither GZ nor BW, nor yourself qualified your opinions in such a way.” – JMK

You know research is a glorious thing. Easy to do to especially if the research consists merely of reading the posts in a thread before posting them. I’ve already cited above several instances where I use qualifiers and explained exactly where and why they are uncalled for at other times. But it is entertaining to see you consistently hammer away on the same fantasy issues.

“Check out any BW or GZ or any of the more Liberal posters here and you'll find few, if any such qualifiers.” – JMK

Gee, been there done that for myself and you’re clearly wrong. I suspect you’d be wrong with regard to others as well. And I’m sure no conservatives forget them. Dude the song is getting old.

“I refuse to qualify, for instance, the FACT that " disagree with O'Reilly on gay marriage, the death penalty, etc. since I KNOW that I disagree with his stances on those issues, it is NOT an opinion.” – JMK

But I guess that same rule doesn’t apply to me, Bill O’Reilly or any of the other liberals of the world….

“Or do you feel that in my case, I should qualify even such factual statements as assertions of my aggreing/disagreeing with someone else?” – JMK

Well you did call for an even standard…and since that seems to be what you require of me and Bill, I guess you’re going to have to. Maybe you can write a little macro program to do it for you.

“Don't answer that, you'll probably hurt yourself trying.” – JMK

KAPOOOWIEEEEE!!!!! Yeah oh YEAH now that is a zinger! Hey I’ve got one don’t think too hard you might blow a gasket! Or maybe you’ve got half your brain tied behind your back!! Woo Hoo! Funny Funny!

“Again, my main point is that no one does that on the Left” – JMK
That’s right NOONE on the left EVER qualifies ANYTHING. It’s a vast amorphous cloud of unqualified assumption, opinion and nebulous beliefs posing as facts. It’s far removed from that orderly symmetric island of qualified opinion synonymous with fact that the conservatives live on.
It’s quite funny how you’ve moved from one person not doing it (BW) to most liberals not doing it as a trait, to “no one does that on the Left”. You are if nothing else the living embodiment of hyperbole.

“If you somehow, for some reason, feel that I should be held to a different standard because you personally find my views so (A) reprehensible (HOW?)and (B) too well crafted to actually deal with (OK, guilty), please, by all means articulate that.” - JMK

Isn’t there a C) Simplistic or D) Inconsistent or E) Sadly Misguided?

“I guess it's the absolute absolutism of much of your postings--with very little wiggle room left for possible counterpoints or other POVs--the 'I'm right/you're an idiot/dolt/moron/traitor' style that lends itself not to much serious debate but to derisive laughter and head-shaking, at least on my part.” – Fred

I’ve gotta say that in all honesty that’s what does it for me too. I’ll also say that I know you’re not stupid, but in all honesty that’s what makes the pig-headedness so much more frustrating. I don’t expect to change your views, but when you can’t even acknowledge an error in something as blatant as your initial claim that Anne Coulter is a great historian, then you make it very hard to take you seriously. For my part that’s where I start poking fun at you. I can’t help it you’re a great straight man. We could make a lot of money together kid. All of the macho bravado has to go too. I mean really, I don’t know what’s worse if you did send that letter or you’re just puffing up internet feathers to look tough. It’s disgusting. It’s also weak. Violence is the last refuge of someone who can’t solve a problem without it. What would it prove if you beat up Glick? That you’re right? What if he kicked your ass? Does that prove he’s right? Like it or not he has the right to say what he wants, you believe Coulter does so why doesn’t he? Why are they different? I don’t believe GWB planned 9-11 or knew it was going to happen. There are a lot of unanswered questions about what did happen and there are certainly enough gaps to allow conspiracy theorists to construct logically plausible (albeit extremely unlikely) scenarios that make the government complicit. Are they traitors? No, just misguided. By your rationale they should be executed. What if there was a government coverup of something in the future, if conspiracy theorists uncovered it would they be traitors? Depends on the nature of the coverup, depends on perspective. The fact that we can have this conversation is because we have these freedoms. Freedoms you seem very willing to give away.
It’s a recurring theme with you.
I want to suggest something to you. You’re not a conservative. A Conservative doesn’t want to give away his rights to the government so freely. A true conservative wants the government out of his affairs, not entwined in them. I’m more conservative then you in this regard. It’s not liberal to want government out of our business, it’s conservative. The true extension of the extreme liberal, a communist (you’re avowed enemy) wants government in every facet of their life. That’s the logic behind Coulters connecting the Democratic party to the Soviets. She’s trying to connect the extremely liberal concept of communism with the milder liberal concept that is our government. An extreme conservative would have no government at all – a religious conservative would have religious law above all, a moral conservative would want a moral council. A pure conservative however would want nothing, just the bare bones.

So when’s the next flag burning party? You bring the matches and I’ll bring that commie O’ Reilly.

zilla: "OK – I’m coming to the game late so here are my comments."

...

"Are you serious? I mean really ARE YOU SERIOUS? Forget about whether it’s offensive or not – let’s discuss meaning. The intent behind of calling someone who is obviously not gay either gay or a faggot or any other similar name is to insult them by attributing the characteristics and/or mannerisms of a gay person to them. So what’s your point? It seems to me that if it’s offensive to call someone a faggot because you think they’re gay, it’s equally offensive to call them a faggot because you’re ascribing “gay” attributes to them."

Yes, I'm serious. I am really SERIOUS.

You don't know many gay guys, do you.

zilla:

...

"Dennis Leary was reciting dialogue, Anne Coulter was speaking from the hip. If you want to blame anyone blame the scriptwriter."

I'm sorry I was a little to subtle there for you. Believe me, I am well aware of how scripted television operates. I wasn't suggesting that I believed it to be Dennis Leary's opinion. I was trying to point out that the term was used by a mainstream actor on a mainstream (albeit cable) television drama.

"Faggoty" would not have been used on a commercial television program if the producers thought for a moment that viewers or advertisers would have been offended by the use of the word. Obviously they thought "faggot" or "faggoty" were acceptable in civil society.

Dennis Leary is very conscious of his liberal bona fides. I doubt very much that he would have been willing to utter the word on national television if he thought it would offend the liberal establishment.

"In fact if you go back to the top you’ll see that all I did was ask you how the actions of one person (BW) allow you to define a trait for all liberals"

Zilla,
Wow...what did I do?? I hope that JMK did not convince you that I am really bad. Anyway, I am glad that my actions (I am not sure what they were) generated controversy! Cool.

By the way Zilla, I am impressed! Your post was the longest I have ever seen. It made JMKs posts look short. And clearly ended all his arguments.

Fred, the entire firehouse felt the same way I did, though none of them knew about a private message, why would they?

And NO, it's not "an opinion" when there are no existing facts that could be used to back up that opinion.

Accusing your own government of doing to you what a foreign enemy had done, IS providing aid and comfort to that enemy.

In MY view that is treason.

I can understand the view that it does not rise above the level of sedition, but not the idea that it is a "valid opinion."

And as I've noted, I've ALWAYS posted my opinions AS SUCH.

You won't many (if any) examples where I didn't.

And I'm no more "absolute" in my views than any Liberal here.

I've been asking you to hold the likes of BW and GZ and others to this same standard.

Look, if you don't that's fine, but then don't even try and hold me to it....that's unfair and morally and ethically wrong.

"Do you think it was morally correct for Friedman or Kissinger or anyone else to support financially of a fascist dictator like Pinochet? I am glad that you agree that Pinochet was a criminal and a mass murderer of thousands of Chileans. But do you think it was ok to financially support him then?" (BW)


Friedman's assitance to Chile was spectacular.

It saved thousands of Chilean lives!

Socialism = starvation.

Friedman's reforms not only saved Chile, they created prosperity that has lasted right up to the present day and made life a lot beeter for an awful lot of Chileans.

Friedman was able to prove that capitalism (free market reforms) work, even where socialist policies had turned the place into a disaster.

I think it's more than safe to say that Capitalism saved more Chilean lives than Pinochet's dictatorial abuses cost.

JMK,
You did not answer my question. Let me repeat:

"Do you think it was morally correct for Friedman or Kissinger or anyone else to support financially of a fascist dictator like Pinochet?"

Yes or no? Was it ok to support a criminal fascist dictator that killed thousands of innocent civilians and defenders of democracy? Yes or no? I think the question is clear and deserves a creal answer.

I fully answered that question (1) It was indeed right for Friedman to help guide that country toward economic liberty and prosperity and (2) Neither Friedman nor Kissinger financially supported Pinochet - show me a record of either of those two gentlemen ever donating money to Augosto Pinochet.

Friedman's economic policies turned that nation around from a "socialist basketcase" to the "breadbasket of South America" in less than half a decade.

The U.S. government has a Constitutional duty to protect "America's interests abroad," including our business and banking interests.

Many South American countries use over 40% of their budgets to finance what amounts to U.S. controlled debt. People like Che Guevara, Castro, Chavez and other socialists call that "imperialism."

Of course, we call it "good business."

The ousting of Allende and the installing of Pinochet by the U.S. was done to protect vital U.S. interests, BUT I don't believe that either Friedman nor Kissinger ever personally supported Pinochet financially...I don't know where you're getting that.

Again, Friedman's economic reforms turned that country from disaster to dynamo, and in the process made the lives of millions of Chileans infinitely better.

I’m not going to respond to your novella point by point GZ, but I’ll try and address your main points as best I can.

First, and I feel most important, is the fact that although I have very strong opinions, they are no more so, and thus posed, in no less absolutes than any of those who disagree with me.

In FACT, I’ve noted how seldom (in BW’s & BH’s cases never) the phrases “I believe,” “in my view,” “in my opinion” and “from my perspective,” which pepper almost all my posts, is missing from most others who I’ve disagreed with. In fact, within that last paragraph of yours, which is ALL personal opinion (our statements on what we disagree with are facts, not opinions as we know what we agree/disagree with), there isn’t a single qualifier as such. I also noted that Fred, when he does post an opinion, rarely, if ever prefaces them with such qualifiers.

My personal problem with Fred’s inane and ironically enough, demonstrably false presumption that “JMK never uses such phrases,” despite the fact that the very FIRST PHRASE I uttered in my very first post in this thread, was indeed, I believe...”

Virtually all my posts are peppered with such phrases.

Yes, I do find such things amusing (as I think Fred was actually merely mistaken and not trying to be deliberately dishonest) and sometimes even worthy of a little gloating (OK, I’m venal), but unlike BH (always), Fred (sometimes) and increasingly yourself, I haven’t resorted to personal ad hominum, character assassination (the above example on Fred’s part is precisely that), nor even engaged in that favored Lefty past time of challenging sources. Any time a Conservative uses a Conservative source, that’s supposedly tainted by some kind of bias, while the actual and demonstrable taint of tried and true “Liberal sources,” like the NY Times, which still carries the all too obvious taints of Blair, Duranty and Krugman among others and I include the commentary writer Krugman because his views on economics (his purported specialty) are so consistently and abysmally wrong, is ignored.

In my view McCarthyism itself was waaaay overblown.

Did the U.S. government have a right to protect itself from “the communist menace,” even to the point of rooting out such people from labor unions and government?

I believe they did. I am thus at an impasse with those who disagree.

My response to you on Freakonomics “a great book, but lots of junk-science. You can't read something like that without a good degree of critical thinking... was not a “wild, declarative pronouncement” because I gave you an example of what I considered junk-science (the exact case you touted, no less), their miscasting personal preferences for misrepresentation (and in the book indeed some lingering vestige of “racism”). I believe that that was a poor example to use to make a contrived point. You could also argue against their claiming that legalized abortion helped reduce the crime rate was at the least overblown. I certainly believe they overstated its impact.

That example given was not even an example of people actually misrepresenting themselves, but as I said, people tend to hold the familiar to a lower standard than they do the unfamiliar – that’s a very different thing.

If it were an example of the impact of societal pressures” and “political correctness,” it would be witnessed across the board, and it is not. That was something that whites apparently did far more frequently than other groups. The talk show host Bob Grant observed this phenomenon decades ago, noting, "When whites call up to excoriate an example of minority bigotry, they always preface their remarks with things like,"I'm not talking about all minorities," and things like, but you know what, no other ethnic group does that!"

I believe that your view that the South & West are NOT “peopled with Republicans,” is also somewhat naïve. I don’t know how you can make that assumption (again without a clarifier), those areas were once Democratic (Reagan himself remained a “JFK Democrat” supporting Supply-Side, tax cutting and holding to a vehement anti-Communist ideology) and remained traditionalists (ie. most of those folks supporting gun rights and opposing gay marriage) and socially conservative. What Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer did was run Conservative and traditionalist candidates in those areas to be able to compete with Republicans.

The people in those areas, seem to have stayed ideologically consistent. They were indeed Democrats when the Democratic Party itself was more socially Conservative and have apparently only moved to the Republican Party when the choice came down to a Democratic Liberal versus a Republican who’d at least mouth a Conservative and traditionalist message.

“News-Talk Radio” and “News, Opinion, Passion” are, I believe, both very apt descriptions of WABC and WOR radio, in my view. They are indeed “News-Talk,” with the “NEWS” segment coming at the top of the hour and the TALK segment with the “TALK Show hosts.

Their NEWS segments are generally straight news, just as 1010 WINS gives. The TALK is quite clearly OPINION or Commentary.

Same with the MSM – John Stossel is a news magazine Commentator, while Brian Williams is a newscaster. Stossel, because of his position is given a lot more latitude than Williams is. Stossel is paid, in effect, for his opinions, just as Limbaugh and O’Reilly are.

And no, “Thankyou for proving my point BW! And before either Fred or GZ could object, no less,” is not “a wild pronouncement” either, since BW proved for me that Fred’s insinuating that my opinions went largely unqualified by the phrases I mentioned (they generally do not) was wrong, while my assertion that many on the Left never offer mere opinions, just “pronouncements,” as BW then attested to doing, was right.

For the record, I agree with Coulter’s assessment of the Cold War period. She is close to the view of the person I most agree with (a John Bircher, who used to call into a number of Talk Shows, “Jimmy from Brooklyn”). For that reason I hold the opinion that she is “an excellent historian.” I believe her views on that era are more in line with those that I’ve believed for as long as I can recall.

I view communism and socialism as “economic terrorism.”

What Stalin did is no more, no less than any and every socialist must do to enact socialism (the eradication of private property) – you must first kill all the property owners, because they will never surrender their hard-earned property over in the name of some nebulous common-good.

It’s why socialism never works and why ALL of Western Europe has a form of Corporatism (the same form of economy as the U.S. does), but with more social spending, and generally higher inflation and higher unemployment – ie. more “economic distress.”

While I tend to support those who’d violently eradicate socialists, communists and anarchists within their midst and I recognize that that’s not the same place most Americans come from.

Still, it’s a free country and as such, I have a right to hold that viewpoint. While I believe many people may disagree with that, there is never a basis for being overly disagreeable about such things.

But back to those qualifiers, your last paragraph is entirely opinion about what YOU believe “Conservatism really is,” absent any such qualifiers.

Well, it is my belief that Conservatism is rooted in Law & Order and that it’s Libertarianism that’s rooted in smaller, less intrusive government.

In that regard, America’s Founders were all social and economic Libertarians and “Law & Order” Conservatives, because despite restricting government access to, and control over, our social and economic lives at every turn, they enshrined the Military (“to provide for the common defense”) and Police Powers (“to ensure domestic tranquility”) as two of the primary, out of only a hand-full, of legitimate government functions.

In my view, Bill Bratton (Giuliani’s first Police Commissioner) was a true “Law & Order” Conservative, of the mold of many of America’s Founders.

I don’t see where police powers are generally any threat to individual rights, so long as they are guided by the constraints of the Constitution. Bratton’s intrusive “Community Policing” with street blockades and random “stop & frisks” in “high crime neighborhoods” did a lot to reduce violent crime in NYC without trampling the Civil Rights of average citizens.

Bratton’s Community Policing, like the Patriot Act have stood up to court/Constitutional scrutiny and what’s more Bratton’s intrusive police procedures made NYC a better place, just as have the provisions of the Patriot Act made America a better place as well.

The reason, perhaps the sole reason that I refer to you (GZ) as a “Liberal” is that you exhibit the primary trait of all Liberals – negativity.

Virtually every Left-wing post here or anywhere else begins with a complaint or statement about the negative aspects of one thing or another, whether it’s “the economy sucks,” or “the war in Iraq was based on lies” (ironically a lie itself), to “you can’t simply deport millions of illegal aliens,” it seems Liberals view everything in negative terms. So it’s left to folks like myself to defend the prosperous and productive status quo.

The problem from my view with this constant embracing of the negative is that the kinds of people attracted to embracing such negativity tend to be “control freaks” – people who want to control the behaviors of others. People like BW, who laud all manner of government “social controls,” from seat-belt laws, to bike helmet laws, to cigarette bans to bans on trans-fats, from folks like BW’s stance that’s “all good.”

That’s disturbing, because the one trait common to virtually all abusers (spousal and child abusers ) is a reliance on using the negative (“Your world and you are doomed unless you follow my plan and do as I say”) to seek control over other people.

I want the government out of our social and economic lives, BUT I recognize government’s proper place in the regulation of disputes (the court system) and of course in foreign policy (the Military) and in crime control (police powers).

Violent crime makes domestic peace/tranquility and prosperity impossible to attain and that’s almost certainly why America’s Founders, who were all well-heeled property owners, felt police powers were so important as to enshrine them in our Constitution.

Someone’s got to shout down the “nattering nabobs of negativity” and I guess it might as well be me.

JMK, where in the US Constitution does it state that "the U.S. government has a Constitutional duty to protect 'America's interests abroad,' including our business and banking interests."?

JMK wrote:
" show me a record of either of those two gentlemen ever donating money to Augosto Pinochet."

and then, he also wrote:

"The ousting of Allende and the installing of Pinochet by the U.S. was done"

JMK, your statements contradict each other. Did Kissinger and/or Friedman support the regime of Pinochet in any way (financial or political or any way)? Of course they did.

Now, when you claim that the "US installed Pinochet", that is not true. It was not the US, it was the republican administration at the time. The republican administration at that time under the leadership of Henry Kissinger might have helped Pinochet in his military coup. No republican administration "is the US". It is just a republican administration.

Of course, independently of his positions and beliefs, Allende was the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED president of Chile at the time. Pinochet was a fascist dictator that killed thousands, including Allende. He was a mass murderer not much different than Saddam Hussein. He even tortured the CURRENT PRESIDENT of Chile, Michele Bachelet, who was in the resistance againt the fascist junta of Pinochet then.

You may find it ok that the republican administration then supported one of the worst fascist regimes in history. I dont. It was a huge mistake. As I said before, you can not have it both ways. Your are either for democracy and freedom or you are not. The fact that you can not recognize that supporting a horrible dictator then was a terrible mistake of the republican administration at the time, implies that you dont think elections are necessary. Why have elections if we will not respect the will of the voters? Your views on this issue are clearly antidemocratic. Am I wrong?

This government is duty-bound by both our LAWS and by the natural RIGHT of every government to pursue their own interests.

If you're claiming that there is no basic and fundamental duty of a government (America's, China's, England's etc) to do that....then you're proclaiming that there is no UNDERLYING need for government al all.

An interesting proposition, to be sure.

I'd agree in so far as I accept no rightful governmental social functions (save the courts and criminal justice system) and if a government is not going to protect its global economic interests, (the lifeblood of the country)...then we SHOULD agree that a government that fails that probably should be dissolved in its entirety.

Personally, if I had to choose between safety in the streets of NYC (where I live and work) and Citibank's (and by extension the entire nation's economic viability) interests abroad, I'd sacrifice the basics here at home, before I'd see the Citibank's, Exxon-Mobil's, etc., go down and reduce the entire country to a Third World status overnight.

BW, you CLEARLY implied that both Kissinger and Friedman personally supported Pinochet financially, when you said, "Do you think it was morally correct for Friedman or Kissinger or anyone else to support financially of a fascist dictator like Pinochet?"

I believe that that's an erroneous statement, as you've offered no proofs that either Friedman or Kissinger ever personally supported Pinochet financially.

From 1945 to 1991 the U.S. government was involved in a righteous struggle against communism.

You probably heard it referred to as the Cold War.

In that struggle we rightfully overthrew socialist and pro-Soviet regimes and replaced them with pro-American regimes that were sadly, often eqaully non-Democratic and sometimes even more brutal than the previous tyrants.

It served America's purposes and WE ALL (that's YOU, ME and every other American) benefited from that process.

We also did things to undermine legitimate socialist economies to ensure their failure, but that's no reason for Leftists to now claim, "Socialism was never given a chance to work."

Through the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, socialism was given many chances to work.

Bottomline, property owners NEVER surrender their property willingly...they tend to surrender only "over their dead bodies."

But therein lies the problem that ALL those socialist thugs ran up against, when you kill off all the property owners, you've also killed off your entreprenurial class and most of your most educated and productive citizens and that leads to the inevitable and overnight transformation to Third Worldism.

Of the above mentioned socialist tyrants, only Hitler averted some of the impact of that by allowing homeowners to still retain ownership over their homes and already established businesses to continue, so long as they accepted their "new silent partner" government.

I still support America's "Cold War strategy" of undermining socialist regimes to ensure that fetid ideology never works anywhere and I strongly support our government, even today, protecting our many vital foreign interests around the world, via economic control (foreign aid diplomacy) where possible and with military force (when necessary).

I support America BW, so of course I also support Capitalism...what are you suggesting you support with this line of questioning?

Democratic socialism?

Not when it would undermine U.S. holdings and interests in that region!

"In that struggle we rightfully overthrew socialist and pro-Soviet regimes and replaced them with pro-American regimes that were sadly, often eqaully non-Democratic and sometimes even more brutal than the previous tyrants."

This is a false statement. Chile had democracy and a democratically elected president who respected democracy. The Pinochet regime was a fascist dictatorship that killed thousands. If you want to be taken seriously, do not distort the facts so obviuously.

Most elected goverments that call themselves "socialist" or "social-democrat" in europe or South America support free market economy. Tony Blair's party in England is a "workers party" with "socialists" in the executive committee. Does that make Tony Blair a communist?

As to what I support, of course and I support free market economy. That's the system that works. Most of all I support democratic freedoms and rights, and I dont like dictators of any color. You seem to be thinking that variations in the color of dictators makes a difference. I dont.

BW, Chile's economy tanked and it tanked badly way before the U.S. cut off it's aid and the CIA began undermining its trade.

Allende barely won election and his policies were widely unpopular with the business owners, professional class and property owners throughout Chile.

When the economy tanked under ALlende, even the poor turned against him.

A coup was all but assured.

Pinochet was a mere garrison commander, whom the CIA approached about being the lead man in the upcoming coup, which the U.S. government merely supplied air and some tactical (CIA) support for.

A "socialist" government that retains private property rights and a market-based economy IS a "Corporatist" economy."

That's what all of Western Europe's economies are.

Some of those erroneously call themselves "socialist," because they regulate business and commerce more and support higher across the board tax rates to pay for things like a lavish welfare program and other social programs "enjoyed" (I'd say suffered under) by all.

As a result ALL of these economies have much higher unemployment rates, higher inflation and higher interest rates, as well as poor worker productivity, making them extrremely non-competitive in the increasingly global economy.

A free market implies government doing LESS, a LOT LESS in the way of social programs. It also means accepting wide disparities in income and wealth creation.

Europe does the free market very poorly - the U.S. does it better, but still, almost certainly not as well as Hong Kong.

Like I said, I support America and America's interests.

Do I care about what happens to sub-Saharan Africa, for instance?

Not at all.

I DO very much care about America's interests there and if/when our interests collide with the indigenous people there, I support our interest over there own.

Look, I'm certain they feel the same way...and they SHOULD.

Like I said, I supported our Cold War policies and still do.

Of course I'm fortunate not to have to live in one of those places impacted negatively by all that.

It would've probably had been better if Patton had been allowed to turn on the Red Army in Germany, taking them by surprise and hopefully destroying them, but that did not happen and we embarked on that looooong Cold War.

America's done what it's had to in order to support its own global interests.

JMK,
Ok, from your answer I assume that you support dictators as far as they are our "friends" and you believe that it is ok to overthrow democratically elected goverments, if someone like Nixon or Kissinger thinks they are making wrong decisions. If you can not see the problem with your way of thinking, what can I say?

JMK, you clearly stated that the US Constitution state that "the U.S. government has a Constitutional duty to protect 'America's interests abroad,' including our business and banking interests."

Again, I ask you where this is. My copy of the Constitution is in my other pants' pocket, so I can't get to it right now.

Please quote me that part, or else I'll have to assume it's yet another one of your assertions with absolutely no basis in fact--like two-thirds of America is conservative, believing the government planned 9/11 is tantamount to treason, Olbermann's first name is spelled KIETH, etc.--and, therefore, is pure nonsense. Unless you believe the old saw that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Ha ha ha ha ha...

You don't have a copy of the Constitution, Fred?

Well, here's an online copy;
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Section 8 states;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

My "assertion" here is that absent that most basic of all governmental duties - protecting that nation's business and financial interests abroad from "Offences against the Law of Nations," there is no government because there is no more basic need for a government than that.

What part of that do you find objectionable?

As I said, there's no more basic reason for a government. I firmly believe that most Americans would be more than willing to sacrifice a little domestic security (if need be) to ensure that our business, commercial and banking interests abroad are not violated.

Reason being, that those international business interests are what will asure ALL of America's standard of living for generations to come....there is NOTHING that is as vital as that.

That's an interesting thing to read, and one I was honestly unaware of.

I did some brief reading on the interpretation by some of that sentence and there are varying views of what that clause means. And whether it applies solely stuff happening on 'the high seas.'

Interesting stuff, though.

“Yes, I'm serious. I am really SERIOUS.
You don't know many gay guys, do you.” – withoutfeathers

I’m not sure how it’s relevant whether I’ve known any gays or not, but for the record I’ve known several. Here’s what you said: “Since we're pretty sure Edwards isn't gay, I think she may have been going for a different point. The fact is that "faggot" and "faggoty" (meaning like a faggot) is getting a good bit of public use these days.”

I don’t think it was an eye opener to anyone to point out that Coulter probably doesn’t believe that Edwards is literally gay. It’s pretty clear that the intent is to assign stereotypical gay mannerisms and/or behavior to him through that comment. You seem to be implying that while it might be offensive to call him a “faggot” because he is gay, it’s not offensive to call him a “faggot” because he acts gay.

My point wasn’t that either was offensive, but that if one is the other is as well.

“"Faggoty" would not have been used on a commercial television program if the producers thought for a moment that viewers or advertisers would have been offended by the use of the word. Obviously they thought "faggot" or "faggoty" were acceptable in civil society.“ – withoutfeathers

I don’t think that’s necessarily true, I didn’t see the show so I don’t know the context, however it’s one thing for a character to utter it, another thing for Dennis Leary to utter it during a press conference. Neither you or I make up the ridiculous rules of political correctness that exist, however you’d surely have to concede that the standard for a fictional character is different than for a real person.

“Zilla,
Wow...what did I do?? I hope that JMK did not convince you that I am really bad. Anyway, I am glad that my actions (I am not sure what they were) generated controversy! Cool.” – Blue Wind

Nothing at all. I don’t think you’re bad. I just wanted to point out to JMK that he can’t take the actions of one person in one instance (in this case you were his example) and extrapolate it out to an entire group (in this case “liberals”). He has a tendency to do that if you’ve noticed.

“Accusing your own government of doing to you what a foreign enemy had done, IS providing aid and comfort to that enemy.” – JMK

No, it’s just an accusation. For example let’s imagine that our enemy blew up two buildings, and then after the fact evidence points to the possibility (even a remote possibility) that the government was involved in the destruction of one of them.

Accusing the government does not mean that you open the door for your other enemy as well. Now it might be misguided or paranoid to accuse the government, but it does not equate to what you claim above.

“I've been asking you to hold the likes of BW and GZ and others to this same standard.
Look, if you don't that's fine, but then don't even try and hold me to it....that's unfair and morally and ethically wrong.” – JMK

What’s wrong is to continue to imagine that I’m held to any other standard than you, as I’ve already shown.

“I’m not going to respond to your novella point by point GZ, but I’ll try and address your main points as best I can.” – JMK

LOL – That is priceless. If we were to print out your posts for any given calendar month and stack them end to end I wonder how far it would reach…..

First and foremost there are a number of questions you evaded. Please answer them as I will restate them here first:

1. Just out of curiousity, since you only engage in giving us fact based opinions where are the other liberals aside from BW that exhibit said trait?
2. Are sure this is solely a “liberal trait” right? You are sure that “conservatives” don’t engage in this as well right? You’ve certainly never done it right?
3. How do the self-styled conservatives, that you mentioned play into your 65% figure? (you know the one where 65% of Americans are conservative). How does the poll you cited claiming that 36% of respondents self-identified as conservatives support it?
4. Where is your support for the claim that 65% of Americans are conservative, and what does that mean? Are they all in lockstep as you’d have us believe?
5. Can you document your claim that “MOST people tend to hold those from other races to a higher standard”?
6. Do you really believe that the reason there aren’t more inter-racial marriages in some areas is because white people generally hold black people to a higher standard?
7. You claim that I never use qualifiers, I gave you seven specific examples, why do you continue to claim that I don’t ever use them?
8. Why did you decide to showcase the Italian economy as a shining example of the positive side of deficit spending?
9. Why are you inconsistent when applying a standard specifically why do you enjoy referencing debt as a percentage of GDP only when it helps you, only to ignore it when it’s inconvenient?
10. Why haven’t you spoken to any of your ““wild, declarative pronouncements”? Do you disagree that they exist?
11. Why is this not a personal attack? “Don't answer that, you'll probably hurt yourself trying.” (after all you supposedly don’t engage in them).
12. What is your support for the statement that noone on the left ever qualifies anything?
13. If Glick kicked your ass would it prove he was right?

“In FACT, I’ve noted how seldom (in BW’s & BH’s cases never) the phrases “I believe,” “in my view,” “in my opinion” and “from my perspective,” which pepper almost all my posts, is missing from most others who I’ve disagreed with. In fact, within that last paragraph of yours, which is ALL personal opinion (our statements on what we disagree with are facts, not opinions as we know what we agree/disagree with), there isn’t a single qualifier as such. I also noted that Fred, when he does post an opinion, rarely, if ever prefaces them with such qualifiers.” – JMK

I’ve already addressed that. Qualifying the obvious is just bad writing. Certain things are clearly opinion, clearly “in my view” etc. It’s onerous to write it all the time. I’m confident that when I write that’s pretty clearly evident. When it’s appropriate I add qualifiers.

“My personal problem with Fred’s inane and ironically enough, demonstrably false presumption that “JMK never uses such phrases,” despite the fact that the very FIRST PHRASE I uttered in my very first post in this thread, was indeed, I believe...” – JMK

I’m sorry but I find this rather funny. I don’t know Fred’s intentions but I think they were merely jabs to get your goat – which clearly worked. That’s how I understood it. I really don’t think you understand the concept of humor sometimes.

“nor even engaged in that favored Lefty past time of challenging sources” – JMK

So let me understand, the “righties” never question sources? Never discredit the whole of traditional “Main Stream Media” because it’s “liberally biased”? You really out to stop and think before you go into juggernaut mode.
“Any time a Conservative uses a Conservative source, that’s supposedly tainted by some kind of bias, while the actual and demonstrable taint of tried and true “Liberal sources,” like the NY Times, which still carries the all too obvious taints of Blair, Duranty and Krugman among others and I include the commentary writer Krugman because his views on economics (his purported specialty) are so consistently and abysmally wrong, is ignored.” – JMK

Well I should have waited, because in the very next sentence you decided to engage in “that favorite Lefty pastime of challenging sources.” You really don’t see it do you? What’s the deal are you just blind to what you don’t want to see or are you a bleeding heart commie?

“In my view McCarthyism itself was waaaay overblown.” – JMK

OK, so is that your final answer regarding Anne Coulter, historian? Or will you actually address the question directly somewhere below. We’ll see.

“My response to you on Freakonomics “a great book, but lots of junk-science. You can't read something like that without a good degree of critical thinking... was not a “wild, declarative pronouncement” because I gave you an example of what I considered junk-science (the exact case you touted, no less), their miscasting personal preferences for misrepresentation (and in the book indeed some lingering vestige of “racism”). I believe that that was a poor example to use to make a contrived point. You could also argue against their claiming that legalized abortion helped reduce the crime rate was at the least overblown. I certainly believe they overstated its impact.” – JMK

OK – first off you never responded to any of my questions about how you choose to make “wild declarative pronouncements” yourself. A supposed “liberal trait” that you want to take others to task for yet not yourself. Specifically you said “You can't read something like that without a good degree of critical thinking...OK, appartently YOU can, but I don't believe it should be read that way - as gospel.”
So are you actually going to address this “wild declarative pronouncement” and borderline personal attack (since you claim to be above them)?
As to your comment about the case I touted I already addressed that. Initially your problem with the case study was that you misunderstood it and believed they were implying racism on the parts of the participants as can be seen in your initial posting below:

“Of course having a dating preference for those of the same race, or even preferring to live among people of a given background are mere "personal choices," that do not imply any racial animus, or bigotry on the part of those who hold those preferences.
Claiming you are open to other races, while preferring your own, is neither bigoted, nor even hypocritical.
MOST people tend to hold those from other races to a higher standard. That is, they'd probably date a person of the same race who is less accomplished, etc., but would have to be "wowed" by someone of a different race. That's merely people preferring the familiar to the unfamiliar.
That is not indicative of "racism," in my view, but of a deep pragmatism, one that cuts across ALL racial groups. People tend to be reticent, absent ancillary reasons, to commit to people from very different groups.” – JMK

Now since I debunked that you’ve changed course. Apparently bigotry is no longer the problem, no longer the reason it’s junk science. Now the reason is “their miscasting personal preferences for misrepresentation”. I’ll admit that sounds fancy, doesn’t mean much. In fact it doesn’t mean anything. Here’s an idea, why don’t you explain what that sentence actually means in the context of this case study. The case study was sound, you just can’t admit you were wrong (surprise).
As to the case study showing a correlation between legalized abortion and the crime rate I can’t speak to with 100% accuracy as I don’t have the book handy. If I recall correctly they were showing that there was a mathematical correlation between the two numbers. That’s not junk science, that’s pure mathematics. There is a correlation, what’s indeterminate is whether it’s a meaningful correlation. If you believe that math alone is ever enough to make a decision then you miss the point of the book. The math is a lever opening the door to new ideas. Sometimes those ideas are immediately self-evident, others not. The whole point is that the math will sometimes show a correlation in an area you’d have never thought to look for a connection. Once you see the correlation you still need to validate it. Sorry that wasn’t spelled out in the book for you.

“I believe that your view that the South & West are NOT “peopled with Republicans,” is also somewhat naïve. I don’t know how you can make that assumption (again without a clarifier), those areas were once Democratic (Reagan himself remained a “JFK Democrat” supporting Supply-Side, tax cutting and holding to a vehement anti-Communist ideology) and remained traditionalists (ie. most of those folks supporting gun rights and opposing gay marriage) and socially conservative. What Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer did was run Conservative and traditionalist candidates in those areas to be able to compete with Republicans.” – JMK

When did I say that? I was addressing the whole concept of labeling and assigning people to groups (something you love to do). I asked what a conservative is, what a republican is, etc. I asked if they were all universally the same as you like to imagine they are. I also asked whether the people who voted democrat in those areas 30 years ago are inherently different than those who vote republics now.

“The people in those areas, seem to have stayed ideologically consistent. They were indeed Democrats when the Democratic Party itself was more socially Conservative and have apparently only moved to the Republican Party when the choice came down to a Democratic Liberal versus a Republican who’d at least mouth a Conservative and traditionalist message.” – JMK

Well there’s your answer, so you did understand my point to a degree. If it’s true (as implied) that they have stayed ideologically consistent then it seems clea that the parties themselves are just largely interchangeable masks.

““News-Talk Radio” and “News, Opinion, Passion” are, I believe, both very apt descriptions of WABC and WOR radio, in my view. They are indeed “News-Talk,” with the “NEWS” segment coming at the top of the hour and the TALK segment with the “TALK Show hosts.
Their NEWS segments are generally straight news, just as 1010 WINS gives. The TALK is quite clearly OPINION or Commentary.” – JMK

You aren’t big on subtle points are you?
My point wasn’t whether they are obvious to you or me, I already said they were. My point was that the average listener views it as news even if he’s been told

“And no, “Thankyou for proving my point BW! And before either Fred or GZ could object, no less,” is not “a wild pronouncement” either, since BW proved for me that Fred’s insinuating that my opinions went largely unqualified by the phrases I mentioned (they generally do not) was wrong, while my assertion that many on the Left never offer mere opinions, just “pronouncements,” as BW then attested to doing, was right.” – JMK

I won’t argue that with you, I will ask about all the other examples I gave of you making “wild pronouncements”, are you going to address them or should I just assume you agree with me, but again refuse to admit you were wrong?

“For the record, I agree with Coulter’s assessment of the Cold War period. She is close to the view of the person I most agree with (a John Bircher, who used to call into a number of Talk Shows, “Jimmy from Brooklyn”). For that reason I hold the opinion that she is “an excellent historian.” I believe her views on that era are more in line with those that I’ve believed for as long as I can recall.” – JMK

Well then you’ve effectively shown anyone reading this that you don’t know what you’re talking about. What else can I say. I used to think you were somewhat intelligent, I’m not sure if you are anymore, or maybe you’re just so pig-headed that you’d rather sit here and tell us that you agree with the following:

“The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't hiding under the bed during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself, while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.” – Anne Coulter Treason

“While I tend to support those who’d violently eradicate socialists, communists and anarchists within their midst and I recognize that that’s not the same place most Americans come from.
Still, it’s a free country and as such, I have a right to hold that viewpoint. While I believe many people may disagree with that, there is never a basis for being overly disagreeable about such things.” – JMK

So then should someone be sending you threatening letters about losing your teeth just for espousing those views? I don’t think so, how about you?

“But back to those qualifiers, your last paragraph is entirely opinion about what YOU believe “Conservatism really is,” absent any such qualifiers.” – JMK

“I want to suggest something to you.” & “in this regard” are both qualifiers actually. And regardless of opinion that is what a pure conservative is. Social conservatives, religious conservatives, military conservatives, etc. are all offshoots that are conservative along specific lines. This was also supposed to illustrate to you what’s wrong with absolutes.

“The reason, perhaps the sole reason that I refer to you (GZ) as a “Liberal” is that you exhibit the primary trait of all Liberals – negativity.” – JMK

Negativity is a relative concept. You really don’t know me at all after all this time. I come off as negative to you purely because I’m inspired to respond to the things that I find repugnant or wrong. I’m not one to post absent minded high fives for things I agree with. Honestly what does that even mean, liberals are the only ones with negativity? Another abasolute, should I assume “conservatives” always speak in absolutes?

“Virtually every Left-wing post here or anywhere else begins with a complaint or statement about the negative aspects of one thing or another, whether it’s “the economy sucks,” or “the war in Iraq was based on lies” (ironically a lie itself), to “you can’t simply deport millions of illegal aliens,” it seems Liberals view everything in negative terms. So it’s left to folks like myself to defend the prosperous and productive status quo.” – JMK

Let’s address your last one “you can’t simply deport millions of illegal aliens,” as it’s the one that seems the easiest to debunk. How is that statement an example of negativity? How is it wrong either? The fact is that while the logistics are difficult it is possible to round up every illegal, millions of them. It might require troops banging down doors, and innocent people being inconvenienced, but yes it’s possible. But what does the statement really mean? If you take those millions and throw them over the border, more will come to take their place, those you send away will return – because the incentive is here. There is no practical way to deport them all, that’s just a fact. It’s not negativity. It’s naivety on your pat to believe we can. How about all of your statements about collateral damage to innocent civilians being acceptable in the war on terror, is that negative? How about when you want to cut aid to the homeless, is that negative? Etc. It’s all relative, and to make the claim that so-called liberals are the only ones espousing “negativity” shows either dishonesty or a serious problem with your ability to reason.

“That’s disturbing, because the one trait common to virtually all abusers (spousal and child abusers ) is a reliance on using the negative (“Your world and you are doomed unless you follow my plan and do as I say”) to seek control over other people.” – JMK

It’s somewhat ironic because your quoted passage immediately brought to mind the current war on terror with all the orange alerts, false threats, talk of WMD’s, fighting them there so it’s not over here, etc. That’s the whole basis behind the way fear has been used to manipulate people. It just proves that you’re wrong when you claim that negativity is a “liberal trait.”

“Accusing your own government of doing to you what a foreign enemy had done, IS providing aid and comfort to that enemy.” JMK


“No, it’s just an accusation. For example let’s imagine that our enemy blew up two buildings, and then after the fact evidence points to the possibility (even a remote possibility) that the government was involved in the destruction of one of them.

“Accusing the government does not mean that you open the door for your other enemy as well. Now it might be misguided or paranoid to accuse the government, but it does not equate to what you claim above.” (GZ)


No it’s NOT.

An UNFOUNDED accusation is libelous, absent at least some evidence that points to the possibility (even a remote possibility) that that accusation has merit.

You acknowledge that yourself, “let’s imagine that our enemy blew up two buildings, and then after the fact evidence points to the possibility (even a remote possibility) that the government was involved.”

The key word there is evidence. Absent any evidence an accusation is a reckless and unfounded allegation that can, and often does rise to the level of libel.

For instance, my claiming that Mal shot JFK would be such an “unfounded accusation.” It’s libelous because there isn’t a shred of evidence that I can produce to support that accusation.

That charge by itself would self-evidently demonstrate a “reckless disregard for the truth.” Evidence, at least some shred of evidence is what separates an accusation from a reckles, unfounded allegation.




“What’s wrong is to continue to imagine that I’m held to any other standard than you, as I’ve already shown.” (GZ)


I gave you a number of examples of you stating opinions absent the appropriate qualifiers, in fact an entire paragraph of one post that was all opinion without a single qualifier.

As I noted BW virtually never uses such qualifiers and Fred himself rarely...enough said on that, I’d guess.

“If we were to print out your posts for any given calendar month and stack them end to end I wonder how far it would reach...” (GZ)


That’s an invidious comparison.

I respond to those who wish to engage me on any topic.

The fact is, that when you called me on being too wordy, a comparison of our one-to-one exchanges showed that your posts in that thread were far more wordy than my own...even absent any of your quoting myself.


“1. Just out of curiousity, since you only engage in giving us fact based opinions where are the other liberals aside from BW that exhibit said trait?” (GZ)


Again, when you try and paraphrase me or put words in my mouth, you always seem to come up short.

For the record, I SAID, “Check out BW or GZ or any of the more Liberal posters here and you'll find few, if any such qualifiers,” and I stand by that.

You’ve given me examples of non-qualifiers, “I want to suggest something,” and “In that regard,” and you’ve given examples of statements that do not have to be qualified.

My statement, for instance, that “I disagree with O’Reilly on the death penalty and other issues,” needs NO qualification, as it is clearly a statement of fact, as only I know what I believe.

Your view on what is and is not Conservative, however requires a qualifier because it’s ALL opinion.

For the sake of visualization, think of opinion as ass and facts as pants, in the statement “I disagree with Bill O’Reilly on the death penalty,” there’s no ASS, it’s all pants (facts) and no ass (opinions). However, the statement, “I want to suggest something to you, those views are not conservative, Conservatism is rooted in...” is ALL ASS and no demonstrable facts (pants)...we must qualify (cover up) ASS, we don’t have to cover up facts/pants.


“2. Are sure this is solely a “liberal trait” right? You are sure that “conservatives” don’t engage in this as well right? You’ve certainly never done it right?” (GZ)


Here’s my quote, “Check out BW or GZ or any of the more Liberal posters here and you'll find few, if any such qualifiers,” and I believe that is demonstrably true, in fact, BW showed that to be so in his case. I NEVER said anything like, “ALL Liberals tend to exhibit that trait,” let alone the phrase “All liberals exhibit that trait.”


“3. How do the self-styled conservatives, that you mentioned play into your 65% figure? (you know the one where 65% of Americans are conservative). How does the poll you cited claiming that 36% of respondents self-identified as conservatives support it?
4. Where is your support for the claim that 65% of Americans are conservative, and what does that mean? Are they all in lockstep as you’d have us believe?” (GZ)


I’ve given this many, many times since this Battleground Poll of 2006 came out;

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be
Very conservative 18%
Somewhat conservative 41%
Moderate 2%
Somewhat liberal 28%
Very liberal 8%
Unsure/refused 3%

Conservatives = 59% of those polled.

Close enough off the top of my head, I’d say.


“5. Can you document your claim that “MOST people tend to hold those from other races to a higher standard”? (GZ)


It’s a clearly observable phenomenon – the vast majority of people prefer the familiar and put a preference/premium toward/on familiarity and hold the unfamiliar to a higher standard.


“6. Do you really believe that the reason there aren’t more inter-racial marriages in some areas is because white people generally hold black people to a higher standard?” (GZ)


No.

That’s clearly NOT implied in what I wrote.

I wrote that BOTH blacks and whites hold the other to higher standards then they would hold someone more familiar.

I’m somewhat surprised you didn’t get that not at all subtle point.


“7. You claim that I never use qualifiers, I gave you seven specific examples, why do you continue to claim that I don’t ever use them?” (GZ)


Uhhhhh, actually I never used the word NEVER in that case.

AND I clearly showed that (1) you seem to misunderstand what a qualifier IS (“I want to suggest something” is NOT one) and (2) when they should be used (ass and pants again).


“8. Why did you decide to showcase the Italian economy as a shining example of the positive side of deficit spending?” (GZ)


Wrong again!

You’re not even trying now.

I mentioned Italy (and NOT as any “shining example” of anything) as I mentioned Japan’s debt ratio (well over 100% of GDP and Israel’s (just over 100% of GDP), while mentioning how few developed nations have a debt ratio under 50% of GDP (Australia, Denmark and England, the last two, pretty close to 50% of GDP)...which combine to show that a debt ratio of 68% of GDP (our current debt ratio) is not at all out of sync with the rest of the industrialized world.

And that certainly seems to be what those relative debt ratios show to be true.


“9. Why are you inconsistent when applying a standard specifically why do you enjoy referencing debt as a percentage of GDP only when it helps you, only to ignore it when it’s inconvenient?’ (GZ)


The National Debt is as different from the debt ratio (its percentage of GDP) as it is different from the deficit.

I explained all that in another thread!

The U.S. national debt has NOT gone down over the past four decades, while the debt ratio has fluctuated as a percentage of GDP due mostly to GDP growth.

Comparative debt ratios don’t “help me,” what they really do is they show exactly what such a ratio is supposed to show, how a given debt ratio (ours) stacks up against other industrialized nations (there are a number of nations very close to ours (France & Germany), some significantly higher (Canada and Italy) and some much higher (Japan and Israel).

The national debt itself is a given NUMBER. The debt ratio is an entirely different concept.


“10. Why haven’t you spoken to any of your ““wild, declarative pronouncements”? Do you disagree that they exist?
11. Why is this not a personal attack? “Don't answer that, you'll probably hurt yourself trying.” (after all you supposedly don’t engage in them).” (GZ)


What I actually said was, and I believe this to be demonstrably true, that I rarely fail to use qualifiers when offering opinions and “BW almost never does, and you rarely.” I haven’t found much evidence to the contrary for either.

In fact, “I want to suggest something to you,” is a declarative statement, the same as “Let me set you straight” and as such is NOT a qualifier.

“In this regard,” is also NOT a qualifier, as it doesn't to make clear that what follows is an opinion, but a preface that makes clear that “in this regard,” or “under these circumstances” what follows is true.

You seem unsure of both what qualifiers are and when qualifiers are appropriate. They are not appropriate when discussing (1) known/accepted facts, (2) documentable stats or information and (3) our own likes/dislikes.

For instance it is not “my opinion” that I dislike Jimmy Carter,” I KNOW I revile Jimmy Carter, just as it’s not merely BW’s opinion that he despises G W Bush, he knows that he does – no qualifier needed.

But when asserting an opinion, such as, “I believe most Democrats support big government,” that “I believe” (opinion signaling qualifier) is necessary.


“Negativity is a relative concept. You really don’t know me at all after all this time. I come off as negative to you purely because I’m inspired to respond to the things that I find repugnant or wrong. I’m not one to post absent minded high fives for things I agree with. Honestly what does that even mean, liberals are the only ones with negativity? Another abasolute, should I assume “conservatives” always speak in absolutes?” (GZ)


That’s not an individual assessment (you may well be an outwardly jolly guy), but I believe it’s a fairly accurate assessment of your posts and that’s not about your tone or tenor, but your consistently and in my view wrong-headedly post in favor of “compromise positions," which favor a slower slide to the same bad result.

For instance, those who rationalize large cities like New York being “sanctuary cities,” where one’s citizenship status is never questioned by any city agency is absurd.

It’s justified as “rational” because it allows illegal aliens to register their kids in school, get medical care and vaccinations, etc., but what it really does is that it makes it virtually impossible to tell who is here legally and who is not.

That’s NOT a good thing for America and what’s good for America must always trump what’s good for someone here illegally.

So what if they don’t register their kids in school?!

A large group of idle kids on the streets would then be a clear sign that there may well be some illegal aliens among them.

The free medical care required to be given by local hospitals is wreaking havoc on NYC’s budget and is threatening to bankrupt that of border States like Arizona’s and New Mexico’s.

Sensible legislation making it a felony to knowingly rent to or hire illegal and requiring both employers and landlords to thoroughly check a person’s status would be the far more humane thing to do. For one, it wouldn’t give millions of illegals a false hope and second it would do what that oath of office all those politicians swore to uphold requires – put the needs and concerns of America and Americans before all other concerns.

You GZ, seem to consistently come down in favor of those sorts of “compromise” solutions that actually result in a slower descent rather than any improvement and that’s not “being sensible,” it often amounts to being short-sighted.


“Let’s address your last one “you can’t simply deport millions of illegal aliens,” as it’s the one that seems the easiest to debunk. How is that statement an example of negativity? How is it wrong either? The fact is that while the logistics are difficult it is possible to round up every illegal, millions of them. It might require troops banging down doors, and innocent people being inconvenienced, but yes it’s possible. But what does the statement really mean? If you take those millions and throw them over the border, more will come to take their place, those you send away will return – because the incentive is here. There is no practical way to deport them all, that’s just a fact. It’s not negativity. It’s naivety on your pat to believe we can. How about all of your statements about collateral damage to innocent civilians being acceptable in the war on terror, is that negative? How about when you want to cut aid to the homeless, is that negative? Etc. It’s all relative, and to make the claim that so-called liberals are the only ones espousing “negativity” shows either dishonesty or a serious problem with your ability to reason.’ (GZ)


That argument does not “debunk” either (1) that statement being a negative, or a complaint or (2) show its impracticality and here’s why; those opposed to ANY form of amnesty or guest worker program have never sought to achieve immigration control and border security merely through mass deportations.

So that statement is a “negative,” or a complaint, in fact, a “bogus complaint” because it claims those with whom they disagree have posited something they haven’t.

Bolstering the border security (a series of dual fences along with National Guard backup) coupled with going after businesses that knowingly hire illegals with heavy fines, one for hiring “undocumented workers and another for hiring workers “off the books” (as most do) would dry up that job pool for illegal aliens here and the vast majority of those here illegally would self-deport.

That statement IS a “negative” because it tries to make that problem appear intractable, in order to bolster the wrong-headed and very “negative” (for American workers economically and for America’s security overall) position of supporting a “sensible guest worker program, along with some increase in “border enforcement.”


“That’s disturbing, because the one trait common to virtually all abusers (spousal and child abusers ) is a reliance on using the negative (“Your world and you are doomed unless you follow my plan and do as I say”) to seek control over other people.” (JMK)


“It’s somewhat ironic because your quoted passage immediately brought to mind the current war on terror with all the orange alerts, false threats, talk of WMD’s, fighting them there so it’s not over here, etc. That’s the whole basis behind the way fear has been used to manipulate people. It just proves that you’re wrong when you claim that negativity is a “liberal trait.” (GZ)


You’re implying that the terror threat here has been overblown for political reasons.

I don’t know what information your basing that on.

That is not the view of any law enforcement agencies, the NSA, the FBI, or the military. The FDNY’s HazMat has trained with most of those groups (except the NSA) and have seen many PD and FBI alerts that never went public.

I know it’s fashionable to say things like” those colors are being manipulated to cause fear and help those in power keep it,” but, it seems, if anything, the actual terror threat has been under-played – there were many cases of real existing intelligence indicating a possible attack, even a number where NYC anti-terror cops and FBI broke up such threats when the alert levels were not raised.

In fact, Bush has been, on the whole too optimistic. Even his twenty year war scenario is considered a best case scenario, that seems less and less likely.

The current administration has also been too politically correct in defining who the enemy is, but that’s another story altogether.

That may be somewhat incompetent on their parts, but it's not "negative."

When will the preceding post be available in paperback?

And I'm long-winded? I was almost going to respond until I saw you call me a dolt. So much for the absence of personal attacks. And I was actually starting to believe we'd reached some common ground.

What a jackass. It's a waste of time to even discuss things with you, you don't have an open mind, you can't accept that you're ever wrong about anything. Rather than own up to it you prefer to write a book about it in the hopes that your error will be lost under the tidal surge of septic fluid.

I've already proved that you're wrong and I'm honestly too busy to tear apart your latest dissertation for contextual errors and outright bullshit. Perhaps in a few days, if I'm feeling masochistic.

You have absolutely no standing to call me on a personal attack after this egregious and despicable example of maliciously taking a sentence of mine out of context and lying about its intent!

You claimed I said, “Again, my main point is that no one does that on the Left,” in relation to those on the Left qualifying their opinions...when it was clear that that was said about being asked to qualify facts, like whether I agree with someone else or not.

I do not believe it was done in error and so I am convinced that it was done maliciously – possibly out of frustration, more likely out of anger.

No reasonable or even decent person could take this statement; “I refuse to qualify, for instance, the FACT that I disagree with O'Reilly on gay marriage, the death penalty, etc. since I KNOW that I disagree with his stances on those issues, it is NOT an opinion...

“...Or do you feel that in my case, I should qualify even such factual statements as assertions of my agreeing/disagreeing with someone else?...

“...Again, my main point is that no one does that on the Left,” and extract that last line and assign it to another and unrelated point, without being motivated by a personal animus or malice.

A “dolt” was too mild, as that implied a recklessness, prone to errors of ignorance (foolishness), and this was NOT an example of that. It was far, far worse. It was an example of the most vile form of personal attack.

I know I don’t know you, and I prefer to always reserve judgment on people until I know them, but this example alone, makes you a despicable and disgusting person to me...one I’m glad I don’t know.

The two traits I revile most are cowardice and deliberate dishonesty and of those two the lowest is deliberate dishonesty and that’s what you’ve exhibited here.

There’s nothing more to say about this.

“You have absolutely no standing to call me on a personal attack after this egregious and despicable example of maliciously taking a sentence of mine out of context and lying about its intent!” – JMK

A personal attack is a personal attack. You claim to be above them – you’re not. It’s as simple as that.

“You claimed I said, “Again, my main point is that no one does that on the Left,” in relation to those on the Left qualifying their opinions...when it was clear that that was said about being asked to qualify facts, like whether I agree with someone else or not.” – JMK

As I said yesterday I really don’t have the time right now to get into this. The fact that you wrote a book makes it especially difficult with my current time constraints. Since you seem so adamant about it I will take a look when I have more time. That might not be until Sunday or Monday as I just moved and still don’t have internet access in my new house. Sometimes the answers aren’t as cryptic as you’d like to believe.

“I do not believe it was done in error and so I am convinced that it was done maliciously – possibly out of frustration, more likely out of anger.” – JMK

You can believe whatever you wish, that doesn’t make it real nor does it justify your behavior. I doubt I made an error, it’s more likely you’re misunderstanding some nuance, and/or jumping on it to make a point; that is after all what usually happens. It’s of course possible that the error was mine, and once I have time to read your novella I’ll be able to address it directly, for now all I can say is that I didn’t misstate anything intentionally or maliciously. In addition I don’t get angry or frustrated over internet message boards, I find them entertaining and always good for a laugh. Don’t ever believe that you anger or frustrate me, generally you make me laugh, sometimes you manage to teach me something despite yourself, and other times I pity you.

If I was wrong I’ll admit it, after all I’m not you.

“A “dolt” was too mild, as that implied a recklessness, prone to errors of ignorance (foolishness), and this was NOT an example of that. It was far, far worse. It was an example of the most vile form of personal attack.” – JMK

You are priceless, that’s why I like these little chats so much. You’re so indignant at this “most vile form of personal attack” I suppose because in your mind it somehow is a character assault? But all of these grandiose assumptions on your part about my character, that I intentionally misstated your words, that I did it “maliciously” that I was “lying about it’s intent,” that it was done out of “frustration” and/or “anger.” None of that counts as a personal attack right?

“I know I don’t know you, and I prefer to always reserve judgment on people until I know them, but this example alone, makes you a despicable and disgusting person to me...one I’m glad I don’t know.
The two traits I revile most are cowardice and deliberate dishonesty and of those two the lowest is deliberate dishonesty and that’s what you’ve exhibited here.
There’s nothing more to say about this.” - JMK

That’s right you don’t know me. I don’t know you either, all I know of you is what you post.
You revile cowardice? You’ve bragged online about kicking someone when he was down in a fight after your bigger friend did the work for you. Cowardice.
You threaten a man through the mail and ask him to come to your firehouse where you’ll knock his teeth in - if you had any real balls you’d put your money where your mouth is and go find him yourself and do it alone one on one, not at the firehouse where you’re safe with backup. – Cowardice.
When that innocent man had his head blown off in the London tube your response was that it was ok, it’s too risky to actually put anyone at risk in order to be sure he was a threat. – Cowardice.
You say collateral damage to innocent civilians is ok, it’s too dangerous to try and take out terrorists without civilian casualties. – Cowardice.
You believe it’s ok to exterminate all Muslims “100,000 bullets” remember that one JMK? I do coward.

Deliberate dishonesty is your bread and butter as well. I can’t even keep track of how many times you’ve been proven wrong and then slightly altered your argument in order to avoid admitting the error – and then even deny altering your position. I can’t count how many times you’ve been shown to be wrong and then just ignore it by bulldozing ahead with 10,000 words a minute. I can’t count how many times you’ve done something – had it pointed out to you, and then later in the thread accuse someone else of doing it in your place.

You strike me as the guy everyone knows who wasn’t especially tough, wasn’t especially smart, wasn’t especially talented but had friends who were – and you lived in their shadow. You know the kind of guy who talks about someone behind their back with one guy and then talks smack about the guy he was just with another guy later.
You know the kind of guy who can’t fight but likes to start them anyway – as long as his tough friend is around. The kind of guy that isn’t actually smart, just bright enough to get himself into trouble. The kind of guy that likes to tell stories about himself, you know to sound tougher than he is. Even the ones with some truth to them are bound to be exaggerated, like the one of yours about the guy in the car trunk. I’m sure it’s true to a point, but it’s been tweaked to sound better.
You are like a peacock fluffing his feathers, so proud, so indignant, looking so big and imposing, yet it’s all fluff. It’s laughable.

You are a joke. You want to call me a liar and a coward based upon what you extrapolate from an internet post? Hilarious. Look in the mirror if you want to see a coward.
Of course I could be wrong, I don’t know you either – that’s just my armchair summation from the body of evidence at hand. But As I said that’s what I enjoy about the internet and the forums. I enjoy pushing buttons to make little men like you dance for me.
I suspect that you’re fuming over this because you take it so damn seriously. Do yourself a favor and lighten up. I don’t know you so just shrug it off and let it go. It’s easy to do – if you can’t then you take this box in front of you way too seriously.

As I said I’ll examine your complaint when I have more time. In the meantime stop jumping to conclusions, or not. I could care less, but you should realize that you’re intuitive abilities are sadly lacking.

LOL!!!!!

I CALLED you a LIAR, because the taking of that sentence out of its proper context and assigning a completely different point to it, demonstrates that you are indeed a LIAR.

You are deliberately dishonest.

I didn't call you a coward (yet another misread on your part), since I don't know you....though that egregious act makes clear your a liar.

I've called you on that kind of thing before and chalked it up to "the heat of the moment," but that's clearly not the case, certainly not here.

I'll admit, I almost missed this one, until I saw you keep on insisting that I said something I never did - "Liberals never do that (qualify their opinions)."

That deliberate misuse of my own words makes you visciously dishonest. I can't put it any more straight than that.

I am convinced that instead of misunderstanding, you've also lied about your believing the national debt to be "interchangable" with the debt ratio (the national debt as a percentage of GDP).

I've clearly explained why that's wrong.

The national debt is the numerical value of the national debt. That's all, just that specific number.

The debt ratio is the national debt as a percentage of GDP (a completely different concept).

If a couple have $400,000 in total debt and both earn a combined $200,000/year, their debt is $200,000 and their debt ratio is 200% of their income, if they take on another $100,000 in debt, but their incomes increase to a combined $300,000/year, their debt jumps to $500,000, while their debt ratio DROPS to 167% of earnings, but their debt RISES by $100,000.

Two very different and NOT at all interchangable concepts.

AND I've NEVER said that "I'm above personal attack," I'd prefer not to engage in it, but I almost ALWAYS respond in kind.

I believe that's fair.

Anyway, enough on this...I wasn't going to respond at all until I saw you again claim I said things I didn't.

I'm done exchanging views with you, that one act of deliberate dishonesty on your part makes it very clear that there's no way to honestly exchange opinions and views with you.

You seem to think this is some form of actual debate with someone keeping score of points, while I'm merely looking to give my opinions and offer why I believe the things I do.

And believe me, you don't have to "examine" anything....I clearly showed you what you did (as though YOU weren't being deliberately dishonest there)....please!!

It's pointless for me to try and discuss things with you....you don't discuss, you attempt to lecture and scold. I could deal with that annoyance, but NOT the deliberate dishonesty.

"It's pointless for me to try and discuss things with you....you don't discuss, you attempt to lecture and scold."

Were you looking in the mirror as you typed that?

“I CALLED you a LIAR, because the taking of that sentence out of its proper context and assigning a completely different point to it, demonstrates that you are indeed a LIAR.
You are deliberately dishonest.” – JMK

You really are dim aren’t you? Hey genius, how can you “prove” I was deliberately dishonest? I already told you I could have been mistaken, I also told you quite clearly that if I did take you out of context it wasn’t deliberate. So now who is REALLY being deliberately dishonest me or you? Or are you just a “dolt” as well since you don’t understand? I still haven’t been able to devote the time to read your book. When you continue to argue nonsense it doesn’t exactly make it any easier.

“I didn't call you a coward (yet another misread on your part), since I don't know you....though that egregious act makes clear your a liar.” – JMK

That’s right I called you one. Why? Because you claimed it’s one of the two traits you revile most. So I felt it was important that you begin the self-loathing process. I didn’t mis-read anything my fire-fighting friend.

“I am convinced that instead of misunderstanding, you've also lied about your believing the national debt to be "interchangable" with the debt ratio (the national debt as a percentage of GDP).” – JMK

The one who misunderstands is you as anyone can see that has a few free vacation weeks to spend reading through your historical postings. First off you are misusing the term debt ratio (understandable as you are grasping at straws to prove me wrong). Debt ratio is defined as debt capital divided by total assets. It’s a measure used to determine how much a company is using debt to finance it’s assets as opposed to equity. I realize it’s almost the right definition but it’s not here. The difference is in the Assets JMK. GDP is all the goods and services produced nationally in a given year. Those aren’t assets on the books, many have been sold off. A true debt ratio is only concerned with current Assets on the books. That’s the difference.Got that? Why do you think we use the Debt Ratio to compare companies? Why not just compare raw debt numbers, you know the way you wish to compare raw numbers for the national debt?
Still thinking? The answer is that using ratios allows us to make a meaningful comparison between to completely different sets of data, be they different years, different companies…different national economies..etc.
You chose to reference debt as a percentage of GDP in instances where it supported what you were saying, then in true inconsistent JMK fashion chose not to reference it in cases where it did not support your conclusions. I understand why you did this, it’s the way it was done by the man who wrote the articles on the webpage you sourced did it. So in a sense you were being consistent in your inconsistency. Still with me?
Bottomline is that if you wish to compare today’s debt to the debt level in 1970 you need to view it as a percentage of GDP. If you want to view America’s debt in comparison to Chile’s you need to view it as a percentage of GDP. Because if you don’t your results are skewed by the substantial differences in scale.
I used to think you were being intentionally duplicitous, I’m now convinced myself that you really know absolutely nothing about this subject and you are truly just parroting what you’ve read in a few places. Here’s some advice, read as much as you can, not just the right wing bible kind of stuff, but all of it. If you decide to filter your input your results will always be skewed as well.

“I've clearly explained why that's wrong.
The national debt is the numerical value of the national debt. That's all, just that specific number.
The debt ratio is the national debt as a percentage of GDP (a completely different concept).
If a couple have $400,000 in total debt and both earn a combined $200,000/year, their debt is $200,000 and their debt ratio is 200% of their income, if they take on another $100,000 in debt, but their incomes increase to a combined $300,000/year, their debt jumps to $500,000, while their debt ratio DROPS to 167% of earnings, but their debt RISES by $100,000.” – JMK

Your math is right but your definitions are wrong. And it’s pretty clear to anyone who read any of what I posted on this that I understand the simplistic concept above. If you take the two scenarios as a side by side comparison of 2 couples; couple A making 300k/year with 500k debt - , couple B making 200k/year with 400k in debt.
Couple A’s percentage is167%, B is 200%. If you were calculating Debt Ratios you wouldn’t divide debt by salary, you would divide it by total assets. So in other words at the end of the year they have x dollars in debt divided by y assets (cash on hand, any receivables due, current assets (less accumulated depreciation) – house, cars, etc.). But let’s imagine your earnings figures represent GDP and the debt is the debt. Couple A is in a better position, which is shown clearly by the percentage. Raw numbers taken alone also seem to show that Couple B is in a better position since they have less debt (400k vs. 500k). Your own example shows why it’s important to view debt as a percentage of GDP whenever you are performing a comparative analysis.
Now do you understand?

“Two very different and NOT at all interchangable concepts.” – JMK

Which is why I consistently used one, and still don’t understand why you did not unless as I stated you really don’t know what you are talking about.

“AND I've NEVER said that "I'm above personal attack," I'd prefer not to engage in it, but I almost ALWAYS respond in kind.” – JMK

You imply that your above it, and you’ve said as much before, but I don’t have the quote handy. You also engage in it quite spontaneously as well.

“Anyway, enough on this...I wasn't going to respond at all until I saw you again claim I said things I didn't.” – JMK

If we all did that with regard to you the posts would never end.

“I'm done exchanging views with you, that one act of deliberate dishonesty on your part makes it very clear that there's no way to honestly exchange opinions and views with you.” – JMK

That’s a convenient way out, how do you reconcile it with the fact that I’ve said in the last post and this one that I may have in fact been wrong although I doubt it, but if I was it wasn’t deliberate? How do you also reconcile that with your astounding intuitive leaps at my character and intent? Or are you not going to answer now?

“You seem to think this is some form of actual debate with someone keeping score of points, while I'm merely looking to give my opinions and offer why I believe the things I do.” – JMK

No I think I was pretty clear in that I find it entertaining. Who’s keeping score the invisible man who lives in the Ethernet? The one who sees everything, even the posts comment posts relegated to back pages where noone is reading them but me and you? The one’s I stopped because it was pointless?

“And believe me, you don't have to "examine" anything....I clearly showed you what you did (as though YOU weren't being deliberately dishonest there)....please!!” – JMK

Even if that was true I would still have to “examine” your post to see where you “clearly showed” me anything wouldn’t I? The fact is that I honestly don’t know. It’s pretty weak for you to make assumptions about my intentions.

“It's pointless for me to try and discuss things with you....you don't discuss, you attempt to lecture and scold. I could deal with that annoyance, but NOT the deliberate dishonesty.” – JMK

What’s so annoying the light of reason? I’m sorry you see clarification of the facts as lectures and scolding. This is an internet forum. You post your opinion and people comment upon them. You don’t just post opinion however, you often cite things as “facts”. For example you misused the term debt ratio above. Should I ignore that if I know it’s incorrect? Other people read your posts and they could potentially be misinformed as well.
To this day you clearly don’t understand why it’s important to view the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Instead you get hung up on proving you understand it better than me. Should I just let that go? You’re wrong. It’s a matter of interpretation as to whether our current debt levels will be detrimental to the economy long term – we can disagree on that, we cannot disagree on raw numbers and definitions.

You get hung up on nuance, intentionally or not I don’t know. You’re so focused on this supposed intentional slight of mine that you see nothing else now. You won’t even discuss whether your initial claim that Anne Coulter is an “excellent historian” might have been wrong. It’s ok if it was, but you can’t accept it. I can’t remember you ever admitting you were ever wrong about anything. That’s hard to believe.

If you want to ignore me be my guest, it’s a shame but it’s your choice. I’ll continue to correct mistakes as I see them, and it’s not a point game to me, it’s an accuracy game.
I tried to get you to see it in my last post but it went over your head. You need to lighten up, and not take things so seriously. You also need to learn how to admit a mistake. You’re no dummy and I know that if you’d never said that Anne Coulter is an excellent historian earlier in this thread, that based upon the new evidence you’ve seen you wouldn’t phrase it that way now. You may not believe as I do that she’s an imbecile, but I doubt you’d have touted her historical skills so strongly.

In any event I still do plan to examine your post, I should have internet access at hom in the next few days. I’ve already spent too much time on this post.

“You claimed I said, “Again, my main point is that no one does that on the Left,” in relation to those on the Left qualifying their opinions...when it was clear that that was said about being asked to qualify facts, like whether I agree with someone else or not.” – JMK

You’re right, I misread your meaning. However in my defense it wasn’t actually clear, which is why I made the mistake.

I also happen to think that’s a minor point to focus on amongst everything else.

As I said I don’t ever intentionally misrepresent anything, and if it turns out I’m wrong I’m the first to admit it. So I was wrong about your meaning. You ought to know me well enough to know that it’s not something I’d do intentionally.

I do believe however that a number of other things you said imply that your belief is that failing to qualify opinions is a liberal trait.

“Here’s my quote, “Check out BW or GZ or any of the more Liberal posters here and you'll find few, if any such qualifiers,” and I believe that is demonstrably true, in fact, BW showed that to be so in his case. I NEVER said anything like, “ALL Liberals tend to exhibit that trait,” let alone the phrase “All liberals exhibit that trait.” – JMK”

See this is an example, I’m not sure what the point is in making such a statement unless the implication is that it’s a liberal trait. Again in my defense when you make statements like this it seems to imply that you believe that no one on the left uses qualifiers, or at least they have a propensity not to as opposed to conservatives whom it seems you believe do.

I’m not sure if I really buy the outrage, since it really seems to me that while in the statement you’re so indignant about you were talking about qualifying facts, yet in other statements you were clearly discussing the qualification of opinion.

In any event I still apologize for the error.

“No it’s NOT.
An UNFOUNDED accusation is libelous, absent at least some evidence that points to the possibility (even a remote possibility) that that accusation has merit.” – JMK

If I make an unfounded accusation against an individual lit might be libelous. For example if I claimed that you were a child molestor, that would be libelous. I don’t agree that the same standard holds up with entities. When someone says the government was involved that’s a nebulous statement. If they say GWB ordered it that’s specific. Forget 9-11 for a minute, think about the JKF assassination. There have been conspiracy theories going around forever about that, documentaries, movies, books, etc. making all sorts of claims, some that the CIA was involved or the FBI, or Lyndon Johnson, etc. Are they all guilty of libel? Guilty of treason?

“You acknowledge that yourself, “let’s imagine that our enemy blew up two buildings, and then after the fact evidence points to the possibility (even a remote possibility) that the government was involved.”
The key word there is evidence. Absent any evidence an accusation is a reckless and unfounded allegation that can, and often does rise to the level of libel.” – JMK

Yes but to the people who believe that the government was involved do believe they have evidence. They believe there’s evidence of a controlled demolition in the towers, evidence of residue from the charges, evidence that the plane in PA was shot down, etc. I don’t agree that all of that “evidence” is really valid, but they do and it’s the basis for their theories. They’re hardly treasonous, they believe they’re being patriotic. It’s not as if asking those questions equates to them aiding terrorists.

“For instance, my claiming that Mal shot JFK would be such an “unfounded accusation.” It’s libelous because there isn’t a shred of evidence that I can produce to support that accusation.” – JMK
Yet people have accused Lyndon Johnson of potentially being involved based on nothing either. And you realize accussing him is different then accusing Mal right? It’s not treasonous do accuse Johnson, it’s stupid IMO, but not treasonous.

“I gave you a number of examples of you stating opinions absent the appropriate qualifiers, in fact an entire paragraph of one post that was all opinion without a single qualifier.” – JMK

And I already discussed at length why it’s ridiculous to use them all the time. I see in the next post you argue pretty much the same for yourself (yet somehow don’t recall that I said essentially the same thing). You see I’m not saying you are required to qualify every statement anymore then I am, I’m just saying that your seeming assumption that a lack of qualifiers is a “liberal” trait is a flawed one as qualifiers are often implied by context.

You keep on insisting that the debt ratio (the national debt as a percentage of GDP) is an acceptable way of defining the national debt, when it is NOT.

That figure is merely a comparative tool and it has many flaws even in that capacity.

For instance, while 40% of America’s national debt is “owed to itself” (ie. all those “IOUs for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) and the other 60% owed on the interest on T-Bills and other government bonds, that is NOT the same level of debt that impacts a nation like, say Brazil, which has a debt ratio of 50% of GDP, about 15 or 16% LESS than that of the U.S., but they have almost a quarter of that debt ($177 Billion) in “External Debt” (to the IMF and the World Bank), which translates into a much HIGHER annual debt servicing cost. That’s one of the reasons why Brazil has 31% of its population living below the poverty level (as opposed to about 12% in the U.S.) with an unemployment rate of about 10%.

It’s like comparing New York’s police budget as a percentage of its budget to a small town’s. While New York may be able to afford spending $8 of out every $100 tax dollars on policing, most small tows probably could not, because they don’t have the Wall Street money machine that can generate the revenue needed to do that.

So just as a straight one-to-one comparison of New York’s fiscal budget, with say, Woodbridge, New Jersey’s would be a very flawed comparison (two very different economic dynamics), a straight comparison of America’s debt ratio OR its defense budget (a budget that would swamp most other nations) to other nations is similarly flawed.

Despite that, the U.S. debt ratio (currently about 66% of GDP) is NOT significantly higher than most industrialized nations, only Australia (14.1%), Denmark (28.1%), Finland (37.7%), England (42.2%), Norway (44.8%) and Sweden (46.4%) are among the few industrialized nations with debt ratios below 50% of GDP.

Even Switzerland has a debt ratio of 51% of its GDP, France, Canada and Germany all have debt ratios similar to our current one, while Israel, Italy and Japan all have debt ratios significantly higher.

So there is no evidence to justify your view that our current debt ratio is reckless or unstable, even using the above comparison, let alone taking into account the very different economic conditions and debt conditions (we have virtually no “external debt” owed to the World Bank or the IMF – in a sense, we ARE the World Bank & the IMF).

That said, without any evidence that the current U.S. public debt load is dangerously unstable, there is nothing to rationalize the view that the current debt ratio undermines our current economy!

There is no comparison between the JFK assassination conspiracies and believing that the Bush administration = Hitler, or that “Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist,” or even that “the Bush administration knew about in advance and wanted 9/11 to happen.”

Take only the last one, as the first two are clearly examples of people rationalizing/justifying terrorism directed at the U.S. and the West, via vilification of the victim.

The third is NOT akin to conjecture about the Kennedy assassination, but more in line with those that supposed that “FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and wanted it to happen, going so far as to sacrifice those 2800 American servicemen’s lives for a larger goal – an excuse to go to war with Nazi Germany and Japan.”

That too is calumny and without incontrovertible proof, it comes very close to treasonous, even today.

Without a doubt, if uttered by ANY American during WW II, it WOULD, in my view, have amounted to treason and would be something I’d have supported punishing...yes, even if fifty or a hundred years down the line, those folks were proven right by history.

It’s not about mere “right and wrong,” it’s about supporting the national interests of your nation.

Like I’ve said, I don’t THINK, I KNOW that we jumped in on the wrong side (morally) in the Balkans. The Albanian Muslims were the first to engage in genocide in that region and all Milocevic did was respond in kind (no crime at all, in my view), but we had overriding national interests at stake there and morality had to take a back seat.

Again, dissent is protected (ie. “I believe the war in Iraq is unjust and has been poorly planned, weakening our military”) – that’s a mere opinion.

Comparing the current U.S. administration to the Third Reich and calling the current President “the world’s biggest terrorist” amount to justifying international terrorism directed against the U.S. as it posits America and its Allies as the villains and the terrorists as justified freedom fighters, and THAT is NOT protected speech.

“Here’s my quote, “Check out BW or GZ or any of the more Liberal posters here and you'll find few, if any such qualifiers,” and I believe that is demonstrably true, in fact, BW showed that to be so in his case. I NEVER said anything like, “ALL Liberals tend to exhibit that trait,” let alone the phrase “All liberals exhibit that trait.” (JMK)


“See this is an example, I’m not sure what the point is in making such a statement unless the implication is that it’s a liberal trait. Again in my defense when you make statements like this it seems to imply that you believe that no one on the left uses qualifiers, or at least they have a propensity not to as opposed to conservatives whom it seems you believe do.” (GZ)




The above statement of mine, “Check out...any of the more Liberal posters here and you'll find few, if any such qualifiers,” does NOT imply that (I) believe that no one on the left uses qualifiers, it clearly states that I believe they rarely do, and I gave examples.

You yourself acknowledged that you seem to think that phrases like, “I want to suggest something,” and “In that regard,” are qualifiers, when they are, in fact, declarative openings. “In this regard” purports that what follows under “these conditions” is true, (that’s NOT a qualifier) and “I’d want to suggest something,” is akin to saying, “I want to set you straight on something,” clearly a declarative statement and not an opinion qualifier. Qualifiers are phrases like, “I believe,” “in my opinion,” “in my view,” etc.

Our own statements of agreeing/disagreeing with various editorials, articles, or news sources are NOT opinions, as we KNOW whether we agree or not.

However, the view that “McCarthyism was overblown,” or “McCarthyism was one of the worst things that ever happened to the country” are both opinions and BOTH would require a qualifier, such as “I believe,” or “IN my view,” etc.

BW offered up a statement that clearly showed his disdain for qualifiers. Fred I didn’t count because he tends to limit himself to drive-by snippets that don’t usually offer much in the way of informed opinion.

In fact, I only took issue with Fred over a demonstrably false declarative statement of his, that I never use such phrases as “I believe,” “in my opinion,” etc., when in FACT, the very first phrase I posted in this thread began with “I believe,” and that the phrase “in my view” routinely peppers most of my posts going back to when I first posted here.

Fred should’ve been a better sport about being caught like that – the irony of that statement of his, given that I began the first post of this thread with one of the exact phrases he mentioned, should’ve been funny (amusing) to anyone who read that.

As far as you taking that one phrse out of a completely different context goes, there’s a history here, GZ. You’ve constantly engaged in the penchant for redefining my words for me, and since I don’t re-arrange other people’s words, I use direct quotes, I resent someone else taking liberties that I don’t.

In another thread, BW claimed that “socialized medicine works great in England,” I asked him how he defined “great,” as I thought that a system where 50% of the dialysis centers don’t take patients 65 years and over, isn’t particularly “great.”

If he’d have said “workable,” or manageable,” I’d have accepted that adjective as a better, or more apt one, even though I would’ve still disagreed with his main point.

That’s not what you do. You routinely re-interpret a statement to make it fit your own argument and yeah, that’s dishonest, because a re-interpretation is, more often than not, a mis-interpretation and that’s what creates problems.

“You keep on insisting that the debt ratio (the national debt as a percentage of GDP) is an acceptable way of defining the national debt, when it is NOT.” – JMK

It’s not the debt ratio, that’s the wrong definition. Viewing the debt as a percentage of GDP is the only acceptable way of viewing it for comparative purposes, unless your model includes the total debt AND the total GDP for each given period and or entity that you wish to compare. You ought to realize that comparing only the raw amount of debt absent of any qualifying data is essentially meaningless – unless it’s understood that GDP is a flat figure, which it isn’t.
I realize the models are even more complex than this in reality as you mention yourself in the example involving Brazil and “External” vs. “Internal” debt. Long term vs. short term is another factor, interest rates are another, scale is another etc. etc. Viewing debt as a percentage of GDP is just a benchmark, to give a rough idea, obviously there are other factors as well. The point is that using just the flat debt figures gives you no means to make any comparisons, while using the percentage can at least begin to show trends.

“It’s like comparing New York’s police budget as a percentage of its budget to a small town’s.” – JMK
Exactly, this is where scale comes in. I realize that if you had no knowledge of the differences in scale between NYC and Levittown, NY then your analysis could be skewed – but it would be even more skewed if you used nothing but the raw debt dollars. NYC certainly has more debt than Levittown, but it certainly has a higher GDP as well. Same goes for Brazil vs. the US. Debt and GDP alone don’t tell the whole story, however they are two solid reference points to start with, and enough to make general assumptions.
“New York may be able to afford spending $8 of out every $100 tax dollars on policing, most small tows probably could not, because they don’t have the Wall Street money machine that can generate the revenue needed to do that.” – JMK

Yes that’s true, however the absence of the Wall Street money machine would be reflected in the overall GDP figure for most small towns. This is key to understanding the data, without the GDP figure you have no means to even begin to understand why the difference exists in the amount of debt. With it things begin to make sense. It’s akin to taking a statistical sample, you can relate the ratios in the smaller sample to those in the larger whole.

“So just as a straight one-to-one comparison of New York’s fiscal budget, with say, Woodbridge, New Jersey’s would be a very flawed comparison (two very different economic dynamics), a straight comparison of America’s debt ratio OR its defense budget (a budget that would swamp most other nations) to other nations is similarly flawed.” – JMK

I disagree – as I said the “debt ratio” (still the wrong term) will always be a better means of comparison because it will always cancel out differences in scale.

“So there is no evidence to justify your view that our current debt ratio is reckless or unstable” – JMK
I don’t believe I ever called it reckless or unstable, I merely said that it’s trending unfavorably. I already posted links to both the raw debt numbers as well as the comparative view as a percentage of GDP going back 100 years and more. When viewed in that context it’s clear that we’ve been trending unfavorably for most of the Bush presidency, while that is not an immediate issue it is a trend that will have to be reversed by future administrations, otherwise it will continue to trend unfavorably. The longer it does the more difficult it becomes to reverse, and the more adverse the effects of financing the debt will eventually become.

That’s been my position all along, it’s not sustainable indefinitely, and when it’s time to pay the piper GWB will be back on the ranch shoveling hay, it will be someone else’s problem.

“There is no comparison between the JFK assassination conspiracies and believing that the Bush administration = Hitler, or that “Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist,” or even that “the Bush administration knew about in advance and wanted 9/11 to happen.”” – JMK

I tend to agree, however whether I agree with their logic or not, I realize that in some cases there is a reasoned approach behind their claims – flawed reason IMO, but reason nonetheless. There’s also a difference between the 9-11 truth crowd and your typical “Bush is a terrorist” groupie. The 9-11 truth people are conspiracy nuts, however there are unanswered questions about that day. I wouldn’t be surprised myself if the government had shot down the plane over Pennsylvania, or the Pentagon. I understand why they would keep that secret, however that doesn’t mean I believe that the government planned this, or let it happen. It doesn’t mean I believe any planes were shot down either, just that I see it as a possibility.

Your typical “Bush is a terrorist” guy is just jumping on the bandwagon. They generally can’t support their argument. Neither is a treasonous position however.

“That too is calumny and without incontrovertible proof, it comes very close to treasonous, even today.” – JMK

Implicating FDR without proof is perhaps closer to treasonous, but it falls far short. I realize it’s sometimes a fine hair to split, however we live in a free society. The president is not the king. We all have the right to question our government. Treason is a big thing JMK. Treason is the crime of disloyalty to one’s nation – not to one’s president, there’s a big difference. In the past the king was synonymous with the nation, not today. The fact is that suggesting that FDR knew, or suggesting that GWB knew is suggesting that they might be guilty of treason – misguided or not. So clearly there is no treasonous intent. Ridiculing the president is not treason either – burning the flag is not, so likening GWB to Hitler is not treasonous either. Treasonous would be leaving your country to join Hitler in the Fatherland to fight against your country. There’s a big difference.

“It’s not about mere “right and wrong,” it’s about supporting the national interests of your nation.” – JMK

That’s right and misguided or not they believe they are supporting the interests of their nation. It’s not treasonous. I never said it wasn’t distasteful. I agree with you on that.

“Comparing the current U.S. administration to the Third Reich and calling the current President “the world’s biggest terrorist” amount to justifying international terrorism directed against the U.S. as it posits America and its Allies as the villains and the terrorists as justified freedom fighters, and THAT is NOT protected speech.” – JMK

That’s a big leap. Again I think the comparison is extreme and unfair. However it doesn’t equate to justifying terrorism. Many say that about this administration because of the way they handle the detainees in Guantanamo, the inmates in places like Abu Ghraib, some of the actions taken here at home in the Patriot Act, etc. While I don’t believe any of these actions merit the comparison to the Third Reich – that is the reason they are made. The people making those comparisons do not necessarily support terrorism or it’s proliferation, or a do-nothing attitude as a result. I myself have problems with all of those things and I’m not supporting terrorists, I just wouldn’t seriously make the Third Reich comparison. I simply believe that the way we are going about it is wrong. I realize you disagree with me on that, however that doesn’t make either of us traitors, it just means we believe in different approaches, targets, etc. It’s the same way for many if not most of those making the Hitler comparisons. I can’t of course speak for them all, but it’s enough to show that there’s no implicit connection between their remarks and an act of treason.

“The above statement of mine, “Check out...any of the more Liberal posters here and you'll find few, if any such qualifiers,” does NOT imply that (I) believe that no one on the left uses qualifiers, it clearly states that I believe they rarely do, and I gave examples.” – JMK

I know you did. I happen to think that it’s splitting hairs to say they rarely do and they never do, especially when the implication seems to be that you believe the opposite to be true with conservatives. I mean really what is the difference between suggesting that it’s the rare exception and never.

“However, the view that “McCarthyism was overblown,” or “McCarthyism was one of the worst things that ever happened to the country” are both opinions and BOTH would require a qualifier, such as “I believe,” or “IN my view,” etc.” – JMK

I think that at times the qualifier is still implied. The syntax of both those lines tell me that it’s an opinion. In the same way when you call certain acts “treasonous” I believe that the context implies that they are opinion. It’s certainly not fact.

“In fact, I only took issue with Fred over a demonstrably false declarative statement of his, that I never use such phrases as “I believe,” “in my opinion,” etc., when in FACT, the very first phrase I posted in this thread began with “I believe,” and that the phrase “in my view” routinely peppers most of my posts going back to when I first posted here.” – JMK
Yes that was a bit of an absolute, for my part I wasn’t serious – it was more of an opportunity to playfully bust your chops – that was my intent. I think it was Fred’s as well, although I can’t speak for him.

“As far as you taking that one phrse out of a completely different context goes, there’s a history here, GZ. You’ve constantly engaged in the penchant for redefining my words for me, and since I don’t re-arrange other people’s words, I use direct quotes, I resent someone else taking liberties that I don’t.” – JMK

This isn’t intended to start a fight, however I see the same thing from you. IMO it’s probably something that happens with both of us when these discussions become bigger and bigger, often we start discussing one thing that plays of another and so on and so on and it’s easy to put an unintended twist on it. I also go out of my way to directly quote you. It’s usually only after we’ve gone around in circles for a while that I begin to paraphrase as I feel that going through the motions of searching out your quotes again is monotonous.

“That’s not what you do. You routinely re-interpret a statement to make it fit your own argument and yeah, that’s dishonest, because a re-interpretation is, more often than not, a mis-interpretation and that’s what creates problems.” – JMK

Again, this is something I’ve accused you of before, and if you think back on it you’ll probably remember. One discussion that comes to mind is the guy who was killed in the London tubes. I don’t want to rehash it, just want you to think on it. You had one position consistently up until the point where more information was released by the police about what actually happened. At that point you subtly revised your position and acted as if it had been that way all along.

Look believe it or not this isn’t about me besting you, it’s about discussing issues. When I believe someone’s position is flawed, or their reasoning is flawed or their facts are incorrect I call them on it.

Viewing the debt as a percentage of GDP is the only acceptable way of viewing it for comparative purposes, unless your model includes the total debt AND the total GDP for each given period and or entity that you wish to compare. (GZ)


It IS of comparative value, as flawed as that comparison can sometimes be, for instance Brazil’s debt at 50% of its GDP is actually more burdensome than America’s at 66% of GDP, because of Brazil’s large “external debt” (to the IMF & World Bank) makes their debt servicing cost much larger than America’s. Ours is currently under 5% of GDP.

The reason that the debt ratio can’t define the debt itself is the same reason we can’t use the age ratios to define age disparities. For instance, say my son was born when I was twenty years old, in ten years, he’d be 1/3 my age, in twenty, he’d be half and if I lived to 100, he’d then be 80% my age, but the actual twenty year disparity would have remained constant throughout that entire period. It’s the same with the national debt. If we were somehow able to freeze deficit spending, while doubling the GDP over the next five years, the debt ratio would be reduced to 33% of GDP, BUT the national debt itself would remain $8 Trillion!

That’s what happened when Clinton signed onto the Gingrich agenda post-1994. They DID get the deficit under control, and the GDP grew, especially in the late 1990s, but the national debt also grew, slower, but it still grew during that period.




“I don’t believe I ever called it reckless or unstable, I merely said that it’s trending unfavorably.” (GZ)


Well, I’d agree that any rise in the debt’s percentage of GDP is “trending unfavorably,” BUT again, this entire topic started as a disagreement over the state of the current economy, which looking at current economic indicators (inflation 2.4%, unemployment 4.6%, low interest rates, rising personal income, 7.6 million new jobs created over the past six years, etc) I still feel is as strong as any over the past 25 years.

You seemed to base your disagreement on our national debt. It just seemed an arbitrary point of disagreement, considering that until 1995 the national debt rose under Clinton and that economy was called “improving” by the media at that time. The debt never went down, though the ratio, relative to GDP, decreased, the debt itself continued to grow even in the late 1990s.




“...as I said the “debt ratio” (still the wrong term) will always be a better means of comparison because it will always cancel out differences in scale.” (GZ)


Well, there’s at least one point of disagreement. Looking at Brazil’s public debt (50% of GDP) and ours (66% of GDP) does not seem to cancel out the differences in the kind of debt leveraged by both countries.

About 40% of our debt is owed to the government BY the government (all those Social Security IOUs), while most of the other 60% is due in interest on T-Bills, other government bonds and other such implements, while almost 20% of Brazil’s public debt is “external debt” owed to the IMF & the World Bank (mainly to American banks like Chase & Citi Group) and the servicing of Brazil’s debt is much more expensive than is our own.

I believe that when you look at any factor, ie. public debt, national defense budget, etc as a percentage of GDP, you’re looking at a ratio of D (debt) to G (GDP), rendering a comparative number.

All I’m saying is that there are flaws in this one-to-one comparison, as noted in Brazil’s different kind of debt (its “external debt”) and even between economies.

The “debt” we owe as a matter of paying interest on government bonds (even to foreign holders) isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it shows a faith, on their parts, in the U.S. economy and it gives them a vested interest in the continued health of that economy.

"Implicating FDR without proof is perhaps closer to treasonous, but it falls far short. I realize it’s sometimes a fine hair to split, however we live in a free society. The president is not the king. We all have the right to question our government. Treason is a big thing JMK. Treason is the crime of disloyalty to one’s nation..."


I’d think the reason you find the FDR example to be “closer to treason” is that you (1) like FDR and (2) mistake my view as thinking the “treason” implied is about one’s views about the President.

The reason BOTH examples are very close to treason, in my view, is not at all because of what those charges imply about either FDR or G W Bush (they personally don’t matter at all), but that they imply, in BOTH cases, that the U.S. was wrong, ergo “more evil” than the enemy - in FDR’s case, more evil than Hitler and Hirohito and in G W Bush’s case, more evil than the Islamo-fascists.

ANY view that rationalizes terrorism against the U.S. as a “reasonable response” (it certainly WOULD be a rational response if the current administration were comparable to the Third Reich, or if G W Bush were “the world’s biggest terrorist").

While today’s historians reviewing whether or not the Lusitania was carrying munitions, or whether FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, poses no national security threat now, as those days are as much ancient history as are the days of Roman rule, during WW II, they certainly would have been a national security threat during WW II and as a result would've amounted to treason, in my view, because they are statements that rationalize support for our enemies (Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan) by implying that FDR was even more duplicitous, even more evil than either Hitler or Hirohito.

Same with remarks that imply that the Islamo-fascists are, in any way, justified in their attacks on the U.S.

It implies that there is no “clash of cultures,” that we might be able to negotiate our way out of this confrontation, when there is no evidence that that view is correct.

The fact that much of it may be motivated by severe BDS, is actually immaterial to me. The only pertinent question, from my vantage, is, “Does this harm America’s rightful national interests (oil & Israel), or do they put them in jeopardy?

There’s no question that any viewpoint that posits America or this administration (which represents America through 2008) as “the bad guy,” supports the actions of the Islamo-fascist jihadists and terrorists, by condemning America’s current administration as “even worse.”

One of the areas we seem to strongly disagree is the domestic WoT, for instance the Patriot Act, Camp X-Ray, etc.

I am of the opinion that our domestic actions haven’t gone far enough.

I also believe that one more attack on American soil would result in law enforcement being unable to effectively protect the safety of many decent Arab-Americans. If that would be regrettable, it would also have to be seen as expected.

More scrutiny of Arab-Americans and more infiltrations of Mosques within the U.S. is actually one of the best ways to proactively protect the safety of that population, at least those who aren’t supporters of groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, etc.

There is certainly room for disagreement, but in this matter, it’s my opinion that views that portray America as “more evil” during wartime, certainly deliver aid and comfort via rationalization to that enemy during wartime/conflict and that would rise to the level of treason, from my perspective.

“The above statement of mine, “Check out...any of the more Liberal posters here and you'll find few, if any such qualifiers,” does NOT imply that (I) believe that no one on the left uses qualifiers, it clearly states that I believe they rarely do, and I gave examples.” (JMK)


“I know you did. I happen to think that it’s splitting hairs to say they rarely do and they never do, especially when the implication seems to be that you believe the opposite to be true with conservatives. I mean really what is the difference between suggesting that it’s the rare exception and never. (GZ)


There’s a HUGE difference between “rarely” and NEVER. The latter is an absolute, while the former is not.

When you responded, your response made it clear that we even degree on (A) what a qualifier is and (B) when they should be used.

That makes it very difficult to communicate when we don’t even define our terms in the same way.




“I think that at times the qualifier is still implied. The syntax of both those lines tell me that it’s an opinion. In the same way when you call certain acts “treasonous” I believe that the context implies that they are opinion. It’s certainly not fact.” (GZ)


Yes, that should be obvious, but correct me, if I’m wrong here, but I haven’t challenged anyone’s opinions as being termed as facts (BW, for instance, does that all the time)...I merely openly disagree and I go out of my way (as many here have complained) to painstakingly explain why I disagree.

I always TRY to put my disagreements in as straightforward a manner as possible.

I do tend and always have, to respond in kind to ad hominum and personal attacks. That can be regrettable, but it’s even more regrettable when someone else feels it necessary to add personal attacks to their initial disagreements to begin with.

That became so pervasive on another board (RB’s) that I felt it was just better for me not to post there because it always seemed to result in personal attacks and increasingly venomous posts on all our parts.




“In fact, I only took issue with Fred over a demonstrably false declarative statement of his, that I never use such phrases as “I believe,” “in my opinion,” etc., when in FACT, the very first phrase I posted in this thread began with “I believe,” and that the phrase “in my view” routinely peppers most of my posts going back to when I first posted here.” (JMK)


“Yes that was a bit of an absolute, for my part I wasn’t serious – it was more of an opportunity to playfully bust your chops – that was my intent. I think it was Fred’s as well, although I can’t speak for him.” (GZ)


GZ, that wasn’t couched as a jocular comment by Fred. It was left there as a particularly noxious declarative statement and one I couldn’t resist responding to, given that the first phrase I used in that thread was “I believe.”

For better, or worse, GZ, I took that as a personal attack from Fred and I saw that as malicious. I guess it bothered me because I don’t take issue with HOW people frame their opinions. There are many posters whose styles I find annoying, but I don’t believe I’ve ever made that an issue. The only issue, in my view, should be the topic itself and why we agree/disagree.

Unfortunately, that comment set a pretty toxic tone. Maybe I should’ve tried to “rise above that,” but no, I just found that to be too malicious...at least that’s how I took that.

If it had been couched as a jocular comment, I believe I would’ve reacted very differently. I’ll take you at your word and acknowledge that I was already angered by that initial comment (one I took as a smear, a personal attack) and reacted badly to that.




“As far as you taking that one phrase out of a completely different context goes, there’s a history here, GZ. You’ve constantly engaged in the penchant for redefining my words for me, and since I don’t re-arrange other people’s words, I use direct quotes, I resent someone else taking liberties that I don’t.” (JMK)


“This isn’t intended to start a fight, however I see the same thing from you. IMO it’s probably something that happens with both of us when these discussions become bigger and bigger, often we start discussing one thing that plays of another and so on and so on and it’s easy to put an unintended twist on it. I also go out of my way to directly quote you. It’s usually only after we’ve gone around in circles for a while that I begin to paraphrase as I feel that going through the motions of searching out your quotes again is monotonous.” (GZ)


Fair enough, I find that many of our discussions tend to devolve into semantics, which is probably natural since we often find ourselves defining our terms somewhat differently – and sometimes using the same words to mean different things. That’s nobody’s fault and I certainly imply no malice just because I define some terms differently than you do.

For my part, I think that it was my initial confusing over where you were getting that quote and when I finally found it and saw that it was part of my asking Fred if he thought that I should then qualify even things I know, such as when I agree/disagree with a given POV, I felt that it had to be a deliberate mis-use of that phrase by you. At that moment, I suspected the worst from you. I shouldn’t have ascribed motives to you, since there’s no way I can know your actual motives.




“Again, this is something I’ve accused you of before, and if you think back on it you’ll probably remember. One discussion that comes to mind is the guy who was killed in the London tubes. I don’t want to rehash it, just want you to think on it. You had one position consistently up until the point where more information was released by the police about what actually happened. At that point you subtly revised your position and acted as if it had been that way all along.

Look believe it or not this isn’t about me besting you, it’s about discussing issues. When I believe someone’s position is flawed, or their reasoning is flawed or their facts are incorrect I call them on it.” (GZ)


I do recall that discussion and I still believe we came to an honest disagreement.

I still hold that if a suspected terrorist, emerges from a house that’s under surveillance and then runs from police as they move in to question him/her and that suspect then runs toward a public transit facility, I’d support “taking the shot,” to possibly harm a single innocent to potentially save thousands from the ravages of a terrorist attack.

Emergency responders (especially law enforcement) can’t allow a suspected terrorist to bolt from police interdiction and head toward a public facility (likely target) and allow those in that facility to be put at extreme risk.

While I can understand people questioning why the police weren’t able to make a better on scene analysis, or how they let a “serious suspect” simply bolt from them and get so far, I disagree with those who feel that they should’ve waited until they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were dealing with a terrorist before acting.

Saying that, I am and was perplexed over the fact that the fellow was shot on the train and at close range.

Initial reports were that he was snipered as he sought to enter the ques. Once he was subdued on the train, it’s questionable why he was shot, when already down.

Again, that new information added questions that I had about the way the situation was handled, but it didn’t change my opinion about the parameters of when it’s OK to “take down” a suspected terrorist. I’d still say, that that guy never should’ve been allowed to get anywhere near that transit station, whether the initial suspicion was ultimately justified or not.

Similarly, there were many people outraged by the man who had a bomb locked around his neck and forced to rob a bank supposedly by another man, who’d directed the victim to rob that bank and follow further directions.

The PA police took cover, while the guy pleaded with them to cut the device from around his neck. They called in the bomb squad, but the device went off before that Unit arrived, killing the victim.

I believe that those police on the scene, unfortunately couldn’t have done much else. They weren’t bomb techs and they had no way of knowing (1) if that was really a bomb and (2) if it was (and it obviously was) what would set it off. I’m not discounting that individual life in either instance, but instead taking into account Emergency Responder safety is also a factor that must be considered in such matters.

We are both pretty dogmatic in our opinions and we both seem to come to them after some consideration and it’s natural that we’d clash over some of them.

I don’t consider exchanging views “besting another person,” and I don’t expect to “convert” anyone else or change other people’s minds. I DO try to explain, as best as I can, why I believe what I do and try to find why others believe what they do.

“It IS of comparative value, as flawed as that comparison can sometimes be, for instance Brazil’s debt at 50% of its GDP is actually more burdensome than America’s at 66% of GDP, because of Brazil’s large “external debt” (to the IMF & World Bank) makes their debt servicing cost much larger than America’s. Ours is currently under 5% of GDP.” – JMK

I’d agree it doesn’t give the whole picture by any means, but it gives far more than just the raw debt dollars (pesos). It’s a better method of comparison across time periods, although that can be skewed as well for similar reasons.

“The reason that the debt ratio can’t define the debt itself is the same reason we can’t use the age ratios to define age disparities.” – JMK

I think we may have run into a wall that shouldn’t even be there. I never intended to convey that the “ratio” can define the debt. Remember this all began because I disagreed with you when you said something akin to (and I have to paraphrase as I don’t have the original quote) judging by the economy GWB ranks up there amongst the best presidents (I forget how many presidents, or the specific length of time – however it shouldn’t matter for our immediate purposes). I had a problem with the increasing size of the debt year over year as well as the increasing size of the deficit.
I don’t want to rehash all the specifics, the bottom line is that I only define it in relation to GDP, as a ratio for purposes of comparing it as a trend. I don’t disagree that you can’t substitute a ratio for the actual amount. My point has always been that it’s impossible to make a meaningful comparison of the debt without comparing it to other figures – most importantly GDP. Now you could lay out all the values and build a complex model – providing you had all the data, and to do a true analysis that’s what you’d need, but absent of that data the relationship between the two major variables is enough to begin an analysis of the trend.

“You seemed to base your disagreement on our national debt. It just seemed an arbitrary point of disagreement, considering that until 1995 the national debt rose under Clinton and that economy was called “improving” by the media at that time. The debt never went down, though the ratio, relative to GDP, decreased, the debt itself continued to grow even in the late 1990s.” – JMK

I hope I clarified exactly what my disagreement was above. To go further my concern was always the future. I was concerned with the rising debt - when viewed as a percentage of GDP and the increasing deficits. I realize the deficits have started being reined in – which is a good thing, but my overall concern was the long term effect on the economy, not the state of it today.

“Well, there’s at least one point of disagreement. Looking at Brazil’s public debt (50% of GDP) and ours (66% of GDP) does not seem to cancel out the differences in the kind of debt leveraged by both countries.” – JMK

I don’t think we disagree really. I said that it’s better (not complete) because it cancels out differences in scale while the raw debt alone speaks nothing of scale, if you knew nothing of Brazil or the US, if you were from another planet you’d have no idea that the scale was different. I already said that there are other factors like the ones you mention that further define it.

“All I’m saying is that there are flaws in this one-to-one comparison, as noted in Brazil’s different kind of debt (its “external debt”) and even between economies.” – JMK

Certainly, and I don’t disagree.

“I’d think the reason you find the FDR example to be “closer to treason” is that you (1) like FDR and (2) mistake my view as thinking the “treason” implied is about one’s views about the President.” – JMK

No, that’s not it, in fact I went back and forth on that one before writing it. In the end I really shouldn’t have worded it quite that way because when I say closer, I don’t mean that it’s close at all really. I really don’t believe it’s treasonous. Treason is giving away national secrets, betraying your country, aiding the enemy etc.

“The reason BOTH examples are very close to treason, in my view, is not at all because of what those charges imply about either FDR or G W Bush (they personally don’t matter at all), but that they imply, in BOTH cases, that the U.S. was wrong, ergo “more evil” than the enemy - in FDR’s case, more evil than Hitler and Hirohito and in G W Bush’s case, more evil than the Islamo-fascists.” – JMK

I disagree. If you think about it don’t they actually imply something about either FDR or GWB and NOT the US? I mean in both cases IF they were true, and that is a HUGE if (please don’t think I believe either is true), then it means that a small group of people within the government either withheld information, and/or covered it up from the rest of the government. That seems to imply IMO that the US as a whole isn’t wrong or evil – merely that a small group of people are and that they misled the US. That’s why I don’t see it as treasonous, only misguided.

“There’s no question that any viewpoint that posits America or this administration (which represents America through 2008) as “the bad guy,” supports the actions of the Islamo-fascist jihadists and terrorists, by condemning America’s current administration as “even worse.” – JMK

I think anyone who seriously believes that isn’t rational. Most people who say that type of thing would have to admit it was rhetoric if they were called to substantitate it. Let’s face it there are a lot of people that say and do things for shock value. That doesn’t make them treasonous. Actions make them treasonous – for example hiding a terror cell because of a misguided belief that they were helping the good guys would be treasonous, making ridiculous statements isn’t the same thing.

“I am of the opinion that our domestic actions haven’t gone far enough.” – JMK

I do disagree with you there. Despite what I might say I don’t believe you are heartless and hate all muslims, in fact your next line proves as much. I do think however it’s still easier for you to suggest heightened security that will affect muslims to a greater extent since you don’t run the risk of suffering as much. I also believe our liberties are an important thing and I’m not willing to surrender them to live in a police state.

“I also believe that one more attack on American soil would result in law enforcement being unable to effectively protect the safety of many decent Arab-Americans. If that would be regrettable, it would also have to be seen as expected.” – JMK

No doubt you’re right – just like on 24 (the tv show). Right or wrong I’m sure there’d be trouble.

“More scrutiny of Arab-Americans and more infiltrations of Mosques within the U.S. is actually one of the best ways to proactively protect the safety of that population, at least those who aren’t supporters of groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, etc.” – JMK

I’m not opposed to that, the FBI ought to be infiltrating groups. The fact is that a certain degree of profiling has to be done, I know it’s not PC to suggest this but it’s the reality. Police profile all the time, even though they have to deny it out of political correctness. The fact is that a detective investigating a crime has to profile, not just based on race, on whatever characteristics are applicable. The process of detective work is eliminating these profiles as greater detail clears them from the suspect list. I just believe that it has to be done with more trepidation than I believe you do.

“There’s a HUGE difference between “rarely” and NEVER. The latter is an absolute, while the former is not.” – JMK

Yes and no. In a strictly literal sense yes, however in the context you used it it appeared to me to be almost synonymous.
For example Someone might say “that guy never stops eating.” Clearly he does, the implication is that he eats a lot and rarely stops, as opposed to never. I interpreted your statement in a similar fashion. That’s all I meant.

“Yes, that should be obvious, but correct me, if I’m wrong here, but I haven’t challenged anyone’s opinions as being termed as facts” – JMK

I don’t believe you have, certainly not intentionally. I think there have been times that the line between fact and opinion gets blurred and those are the times where either of us, or others may have done that unintentionally. Although I can’t give specific examples.

“That became so pervasive on another board (RB’s) that I felt it was just better for me not to post there because it always seemed to result in personal attacks and increasingly venomous posts on all our parts.” –JMK

Yes, and for what it’s worth I did try to defend you from a lot of them, you may not have seen that defense. Some of those guys admitted they never read your posts because they were too long – yet they still attacked you on the “substance.” A lot of your points are nuanced and whether I agree or not with you it’s often that nuance that shows that you aren’t for example a sociopath as some would have called you.

“GZ, that wasn’t couched as a jocular comment by Fred. It was left there as a particularly noxious declarative statement and one I couldn’t resist responding to, given that the first phrase I used in that thread was “I believe.” – JMK

No you’re right it wasn’t, what can I say, I didn’t see it as serious. If I was in your shoes I’d probably have viewed it differently. It’s easy to poke fun from the sidelines, not so easy when you’re the but of the joke so to speak.

“If it had been couched as a jocular comment, I believe I would’ve reacted very differently. I’ll take you at your word and acknowledge that I was already angered by that initial comment (one I took as a smear, a personal attack) and reacted badly to that.” – JMK

Thanks for that, to be honest it wasn’t very civil of me. My only defense is that I’m a wiseass by nature, and I have a tendency to flip back and forth between serious discussion and making jests. It doesn’t always translate that way on the written page. That’s one of the problems with internet message boards, you can’t always tell the context, or see if someone is trying to hold back a laugh.

“Fair enough, I find that many of our discussions tend to devolve into semantics, which is probably natural since we often find ourselves defining our terms somewhat differently – and sometimes using the same words to mean different things. That’s nobody’s fault and I certainly imply no malice just because I define some terms differently than you do.” – JMK

Couldn’t have said it better myself. I’d add that a lot of times we do see things in a similar fashion – it’s typical that we have a different point in the sand that we find acceptable. Like the debt/deficit discussion. We pretty much agree on terms, but we wind up arguing semantics over what a specific term means. The real main point of disagreement is over how far out it’s safe to push deficit spending before it has negative future impacts. I think most of the time everything else is ancilliary.

“At that moment, I suspected the worst from you. I shouldn’t have ascribed motives to you, since there’s no way I can know your actual motives.” – JMK

Thanks again, as I said I confused your meaning which is easy enough to do when these posts keep spiraling back and forth, in the same way it’s easy enough to get confused over motivations.

“Again, that new information added questions that I had about the way the situation was handled, but it didn’t change my opinion about the parameters of when it’s OK to “take down” a suspected terrorist. I’d still say, that that guy never should’ve been allowed to get anywhere near that transit station, whether the initial suspicion was ultimately justified or not.” – JMK

This was the area I saw as the change. Initially you were discussing the specific example, then you shifted to talk about the parameters in a theoretical one. As I said I don’t want to get into it again, but that was the area of divergence as I saw it.

“We are both pretty dogmatic in our opinions and we both seem to come to them after some consideration and it’s natural that we’d clash over some of them.
I don’t consider exchanging views “besting another person,” and I don’t expect to “convert” anyone else or change other people’s minds. I DO try to explain, as best as I can, why I believe what I do and try to find why others believe what they do.” – JMK

I don’t expect to convert or best anyone, I do hope to learn from others as I learn why they think as they do, I hope they’ll learn from me in a similar fashion. There are times when a different perspective changes my own, so while it’s not my goal to change others minds, I’m sure it happens on occasion. I don’t set out to best anyone, the closest I come to that is correcting their facts if I see something posted that’s incorrect. It’s sometimes difficult because as I said above sometimes the line between fact and opinion becomes a wavy one. While a fact is always a fact, people often objectify that fact via opinion, sometimes without realizing it.

Anyway, I’m glad you believe that my actions weren’t malicious.