Search This Blog

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Ann Coulter versus Hilary Clinton

I think a lot of things are, well, maybe stupid is the wrong word. Some things are just kind of inexplicable to me, like..

1) Wooden silhouettes of a woman's fat, pantied butt posted in your garden
2) For that matter, concrete geese with clothes on. Wow...
3) Covering bumpers with bumper stickers
4) Or those fake bullet holes on your trunk
5) Ray Nagin being re-elected in New Orleans. What, people want swimming pools for their buses again?
6) American Idol.
7) San Francisco
8) Hilary Clinton

There are more, but that is a start. There are some things that are so cool, I don't understand why everyone doesn't just get it?

1) The TV show - 24 Jack Bauer, baby!
2) The NBA Playoffs
3) Dogs
4) Marriage to the right person
5) Jesus (Always did good, never did wrong, lived entirely for others- what's not to like, seriously???)
6) Your own kids (Yeah, some people hate their own kids, go figure?)
7) Abalone fresh from the sea
8) Ann Coulter

Anyway, someone some people love and some hate is Ann Coulter, who is kind of a conservative attack dog of a female author/humorist. Unlike Al Franken, she tells the truth and she is funny. But she isn't necessarily nice. Ann never sees an envelope she doesn't want to push. In her latest book, Godless, Ann takes on some liberal icons with gloves off. Wa-a-a-a-a-a-ay off!

Now, unlike myself, Ann really doesn't seem to care if she is nice or not. I try to go for truth without going for the jugular. Ann thinks the jugular is where debate begins! But that is one incredibly witty and intelligent woman...very hot, too, in a tall and lanky way.

Meanwhile, there is Hilary Clinton, erstwhile Presidential candidate for 2008, who has excoriated Ann since the publication of Godless. Hilary thinks she can get some political mileage out of attacking the attack dog herself. It made me think...

Ann versus Hilary

I want to see it. No speeches prepared in advance, just Ann and Hilary brought without advisors into a room filled with randomly selected people who will ask questions and allow the two of them to begin a dialogue/debate. Let them go head to head and see who has wit and wisdom and can think on her feet.

Yeah, I'm being nice, since Condi would likely wipe out both of them. But then Condi and Ann would agree on too many things so that would be boring. With Hilary and Ann, we get fireworks and fun!

That's what I want for Father's Day.

50 comments:

Jake said...

2 questions:

1) why don't you like Hillary Clinton?

2) why is it necessary to only compare female political figures to each other, and not to male political figures? Why single them out?

Middle_America said...

Dude, that would be great! However, I would have to lean toward Ann as the winner of that race.

I have only read one of Ann Coulter books. It was basically filled with references to all her tatements. She definitely does research.

Anonymous said...

Man, what's with all the San Francisco hatred? This place is great. Perfect weather, stunning scenery, great economy, smart people AND abalone fresh from the sea.

Now Texas, that's a godforsaken place.

...and Jake, *I* don't like Hillary Clinton, though I doubt it's for the same reasons that Radar dislikes her.

Anonymous said...

Damnit, that last post was from scohen

chaos_engineer said...

I don't see a Clinton/Coulter debate as all that productive. Their rhetorical styles are incompatible.

Basically you'd have one side reciting meanlingless political platitudes and the other side screaming hysteria about traitors and devil-worshippers.

(Think about having a "Battle of the Artists" between a painter and a musician. How could either of them win?)

If you want to see a good debate, you need to establish a rhetorical context. Like maybe Ann Coulter debating Howard Stern? That's a bad example because she'd be running out of the room in tears after 10 minutes, but you can see the general idea.

I've gotta say that I agree with you about bumper stickers. Why would anyone use a car bumper to share their political views with strangers? That's what the Internet is for!

A Hermit said...

Ann Coulter isn't just a vicious hack, she's also one of the stupidest people on the planet.

Her "research" consists of inventing references, misquoting and taking out of context the statements of others. She wanders off into these outrageous outbursts in interviews to divert attention from the fact that she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.

And I have to say, much as Michael Moore and Al Franken might be annoying, pompous asses at times and prone to exageration, I don't see them, or anyone else on the left, routinely advocating violence against their political opponents in the way Coulter does, or calling for the assassination of a President or sitting Supreme Court justices, as Coulter has done. (And don't tell me she's "just joking" Radar; you wouldn't buy that excuse from a liberal.)

She's a sick, stupid little fascist hypocrite. Why anyone on the right would want to be associated with her is beyond me, especially after this latest bout of hatemongering.

Never mind Hilary Clinton (whom I have little use for either) I'd love to see Little Moron Annie forced to sit down face to face with a couple of those 9/11 widows on live TV. Of course she'd never have the guts.

A Hermit

Jake said...

Hermit, I disagree. Ann Coulter is anything but stupid. Her goals, as far as I can tell, are to make a lot of money and get a lot of attention. And she's doing fabulously at that. She's relying on the fact that her target audience is stupid, so it's not like she needs to put a lot of effort into quality argumentation, but I doubt very much that she is stupid. She knows exactly what she is doing.

dave said...

Sean Hannity invited anyone of the Jersey twits to appear and debate Ann on his show, but (and no surprise) they all declined. Ann said she would be glad to debate anyone of them and said she would not be nice (another surprise). She would eat anyone of them alive.

oriolebird38 said...

i don't think anyone can argue that Ann Coulter is great at debating someone or making money. She obviously is very proficient at it. But as Socrates would show us, being better at oratory doesn't make someone right. Even if Ann humiliated Hilary on stage, what does that prove?

I still don't get why you hate San Francisco either. Don't get me wrong, I do too. But, I'm a Dodgers fan. What's your excuse?

And you're killing me here Radar. Go back in your comments and e-mails, and you will find that I was the one who originally thought of the idea of a Hillary-Ann-Condi no-holds-barred cage match. Please, credit where credit is due.

Ann Coulter is very hot? What? Radar, check yourself here. You are getting far too carried away. Ann Coulter is attractive as far as political figures go, sure. Jessica Alba is very hot. Halle Berry is very hot. Ann Coulter is not.

highboy said...

"1) why don't you like Hillary Clinton?"

She's a Clinton, she's a liar, she's pro-abortion, she did a terrible job in her last presidency... those are just starters.

" Man, what's with all the San Francisco hatred? This place is great. Perfect weather, stunning scenery, great economy, smart people AND abalone fresh from the sea."

And stupid officials who think you can survive without a military. Hope you sleep safe out there Anon. Now Texas, the "godforsaken place", with its great economy, low crime rate, (compared to CA anyway) law enforcment, low taxes. That's America.

"or calling for the assassination of a President or sitting Supreme Court justices, as Coulter has done."

Other than Randi Rhodes openly calling for the assasination of President Bush on the ultra-liberal-soon-to-be-under Air America radio station. Michael Moore didn't threaten violence, he just made stuff up as he went along, and misrepresented actual events, one of the many reasons he's being sued by an Iraqi veteran as I write this. Ann Coulter is vicious, but she's honest, and none of her references are "misquotes", or taken out of context. One can listen to the liberals she attacks themselves and see the whole picture. Liberals don't like her because she exposes how dumb the ideology really is.

Its amazing to me to hear liberals call Ann Coulter a fascist and any other name when they so openly trash anyone who opposes them. But the minute someone on the right does it, he/she is a fascist, racist, or a bigot. The above comments are proof, as myself and radar (who are apart of Anne's audience)are being called stupid. Seems to me liberals should deal with their own intolerant hatred before they attack Anne for hers. She hasn't done or said anything that left-wing nut hasn't said/done publicly.

"2) why is it necessary to only compare female political figures to each other, and not to male political figures? Why single them out?"

Why do you care? What difference does it make to you if two females or two males are compared? Are you going to go all feminazi now?

"Sean Hannity invited anyone of the Jersey twits to appear and debate Ann on his show, but (and no surprise) they all declined. Ann said she would be glad to debate anyone of them and said she would not be nice (another surprise). She would eat anyone of them alive."

Yup. They know they'd lose. But of course they all have the "balls" to run on stage and throw pies at her and run back off again. That's those tolerant, non-violent libs for you.

By the way Radar, about your list:

1. 24, as most cable shows are, is boring, and totally unrealistic.

2. Basketball is crap compared to football.

3. Dogs are awesome

4. marriage is great.

5. So why is Jesus HALFWAY down the list radar?

6. I love my boy.

7. abalone's good

8. ann coulter is good, but radar, she is NOT hot. Not at all.

Anonymous said...

Tim,
You mean Texas's economy that's a mere fraction of California's? See it for yourself if you don't believe me.
Also, I do feel safe, because San Francisco is safer than Houston . Scroll down for crime stats. Fewer murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, way fewer burglaries and auto thefts. Do you just make things up when you post, or do you actually look it up first? I'm just asking, because you're way off here.

San Francisco is also better educated and has lower unemployment (again from the city links above), which means less drain on social services than Houston. Also, the mayor implemented a "Help, not Handouts" program to cut down on homelessness, and it's had remarkable success. How's that for pragmatic Liberalism?

Tim, have you ever been to Texas? Last time I was there, it was hot, humid, polluted and featureless. I went to the beach in Galveston and came back with oil all over my feet. Maybe it's changed since then, but I doubt it.

You can't deny that San Francisco is a uniquely American world-class city. I understand disagreeing with the politics, but you should separate that from your opinion of the city itself, which while being decidely urban is absolutely stunning.

-scohen

P.S. I was the anonymous poster above. I even posted right after that telling you so.

P.P.S. San Francisco is not the same as LA. That's a horrible place too, though in a different way than Texas.

P.P.P.S Anne Coulter is not even remotely hot.

highboy said...

schoen: No, I don't make things up before I post them, you argue against points no one is making. In all that research you do, maybe you could "research" the posts above and see that I said Texas' economy is better that CALIFORNIA. Do your googling now for crime rates, and economic stability now, between TEXAS and CALIFORNIA. Not Houston and San Francisco. Last time I checked, California's debt was $68 billion. That's A LOT schoen.

"Last time I was there, it was hot, humid, polluted and featureless"

Yes, I was there, in good old Fort Meade and in Fort Hood. Texas has some of the best scenery, but I could care less about that anyway. San Francisco may be nice looking, but that hardly eliminates the long long list of negatives. When teen-age Christians can't even have a peaceful youth rally without a bunch of dumb San Franciscans yelling "Fascist!" at them it speaks volumes of how classless SanFran can be.

IAMB said...

2. Basketball is crap compared to football.

Nah. The only sport worth watching at all is poker...

4. marriage is great.

Totally depends on the situation. Mine? Wasn't so great, but I guess that's where the "to the right person" comes in. Call it "lesson learned".

5. So why is Jesus HALFWAY down the list radar?

Doesn't matter. The fact is He's on the list. Position is of no consequence when you're not ranking.

8. ann coulter is good, but radar, she is NOT hot. Not at all.

Definitely not hot at all. Looks waaayyy to much like the forty year-old barflies I see every week while moonlighting as a doorman.

As for "good", I wouldn't say that but I do prefer her to Cal Thomas (which isn't really saying much).

Anonymous said...

"I said Texas' economy is better that CALIFORNIA"

And you are flat wrong.

Texas's economy is not larger than California's. It's only 60% as big.

I gave you a link, all you have to do is enter a couple of items in a form, which you obviously didn't do.
Her's a direct link to the form

CA's 2005 GSP: $1,621,843
TX's 2005 GSP: $982,403

(both are in millions of dollars)
California's is larger. A LOT larger. And Texas has money that literally comes out of the ground (oil), which is very expensive now. Don't throw debt numbers out either unless you want to concede the national debt of the United States means we have a bad economy. A lot of right wingers like to compare the size of the debt to GDP. In this case, the debt is only 4% of our GSP (not that I favor that argument, I despise debts).

Radar said that he didn't like SF. You asked if I felt safe because our crime rate was higher than Texas's. Since that statement doesn't make much sense (I live in San Francisco, not the entire state of California), I took two cities and compared them. You're just upset that San Francisco is so safe. Heck, it's safer than my old city, Cleveland, OH. That surprised me when I moved, but it's something that's pretty impressive. A large city that's safe.

Ahh yes, the peaceful Battle Cry rally. Was it shut down, or were people protesting it? The fact is they were able to hold the rally, just people didn't like the message. Would a pro-homosexual rally generate any protesters in Kansas City? Would homosexuals be called names by the protesters? Why should we be tolerant of intolerance?

Jeez. Looks like the old Tim is back.

-scohen

tim or radar said...

"You're just upset that San Francisco is so safe."

Yes, that's it, I'm just mad everyone isn't dying over there. (I could get into abortion at this point, but I can see where that would get me)

Yes, debt is going to be thrown around. California is controlled by liberals, not right-wingers, so why you'd try to connect this to the overall economy is beyond me.

Intolerant? Yes, I forgot, you libs like to call Christians "intolerant", even though they clearly tolerate quite a bit. Why is it when people disagree with a certain practice or lifestyle, liberals scream "intolerant?" Where do you guys get your logic? Liberals are the most intolerant people in the world. The peaceful Battle Cry, was not screaming at another group of people "Go away!" It wasn't calling others fascists, anti-gay, racist, or any other name that really doesn't apply to a Christian youth rally unless you heard these Christians yell "faggot", "nigger", or any other negative remark.

"Would a pro-homosexual rally generate any protesters in Kansas City? Would homosexuals be called names by the protesters"

Not by any real Christians. (leaving Westboro aside) You can try to defend your city all you want, but as long as SanFran quacks scream for Bush's impeachment, call for a shut-down of the U.S. Military, undermine their police force, scream obscenities at anyone that disagrees with them, and lets illegals congregate by the thousands and protest US with impunity, I'm afraid SanFran will continue to be on America's crap-list. A pretty bridge does not make a great city. Even the 49ers suck anymore.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, debt is going to be thrown around. California is controlled by liberals, not right-wingers, so why you'd try to connect this to the overall economy is beyond me."

Because there's an obvious parallel to the national debt --You know the one that's exploding under the watchful eye of Republicans? If you're going to make a claim that California's economy is not as healthy as it looks because of the debt, how can you honestly make the claim that the United States's economy is good in light of the country's debt? You can't have it both ways. That said, I agree that California's debt is a big problem, and I haven't heard anything from either side --especially our oh-so-republican governor -- to remedy this problem. Also, fiscal responsibility is not a right/left liberal/conservative position. I'm very socially liberal, yet fiscally responsible.

I believe I proved my point that you weren't correct in either your crime statistics or your claim that Texas has a bigger economy than California. Dissemble all you want, but I provided hard numbers which you really cannot refute, so instead you change the subject.

"Why is it when people disagree with a certain practice or lifestyle, liberals scream "intolerant?"

tolerance n.The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

In case the above definition doesn't make the answer self-evident, it is because the reason you disagree with the lifestyle has no basis in rationality. A book written 5000 years ago (that never condemns slavery, btw) decrees that a specific lifestyle is 'immoral' and you're permanently immune to discussion on the subject. That's textbook intolerance.

"as long as SanFran quacks scream for Bush's impeachment, call for a shut-down of the U.S. Military, undermine their police force, scream obscenities at anyone that disagrees with them, and lets illegals congregate by the thousands and protest US with impunity"

Have you ever been here? By these statements, it's obvious you haven't. Too bad, it's a nice place to live, and not at all like you describe. I've not heard any one of those sentiments put forward by anyone I have come into contact with. Undermine our police force? Where do you get off? Furthermore, where do you get this information? It's wildly inaccurate.

"A pretty bridge does not make a great city"
No, it doesn't, but a diverse and intelligent population, low crime, good employment prospects, excellent public services, a great climate, a wealth of activities, arts, beautiful scenery, effective public transportation, worldwide recognition and a live and let live attitude do. The scenery only makes it more so.

-scohen

highboy said...

Oh yeah, about the economy in good old SanFran:

"Astoundingly, San Francisco has the lowest population of children of any major city in the United States. Currently only two of every ten people are children. This statistic portrays how difficult it is for a middle class family, let alone a low income family to afford the cost of living in San Francisco. “The city is hemorrhaging families,” said a representative from the Living Wage Coalition, pointing out that those who cannot afford to leave are essentially forced to become homeless."

I'll ignore the comments in this article regarding San Fran's crime. I'll refer you here for that.

Just some examples from 2000:

Violence

Texas:113,653
California:210,531

Murder

Texas:1,238
California:2,079

Rape

Texas:7,856
California:9,785

So far, I'm not seeing California as that much safer than Texas. Quite the contrary. Look farther down on the site and you'll get the per capita statistics, that don't show CA much safer either. They even out pretty well.

Houston is also not the only city in Texas. Lets compare SanFran's crime rate to San Antonio's crime rate. See the difference? Or how about Fort Worth? Austin? Notice which crimes are bigger in which cities while you're at it. Its pretty interesting.

Feel free to compare SanFran with other red state cities. SanFran isn't as safe as you claim. But if it makes you feel better, the city of Pittsburgh, where I grew up (and moved out of) doesn't have half of your population and almost twice the crime rate.

For a more updated view of California's crime rate compared to Texas, go here.

According to that site, violent crime wins in CA at 551.8 as opposed to Texas' 540.5. Murder wins in CA at 6.7 to 6.1. The only crime Texas seems to commit more than CA is rape. As you can see, I DO research before I post, and you hardly have anything to brag about out there, and you certainly have nothing on Texas. This and this and and this is how I feel about San Francisco.

highboy said...

"and I haven't heard anything from either side --especially our oh-so-republican governor"

Don't go thinking that because someone is Republican that I automatically agree with their policy. I'm not impressed with either party at the moment. How could I be?

"I believe I proved my point that you weren't correct in either your crime statistics or your claim that Texas has a bigger economy than California. Dissemble all you want, but I provided hard numbers which you really cannot refute, so instead you change the subject."

Actually, as you can see, I provided hard numbers of my own. Go ahead and try again.

"it is because the reason you disagree with the lifestyle has no basis in rationality."

According to who?

"A book written 5000 years ago (that never condemns slavery, btw) decrees that a specific lifestyle is 'immoral' and you're permanently immune to discussion on the subject. That's textbook intolerance."

First, it doesn't condemn slavery in the Biblical sense, which if you did a little research, would know that a slave in the Hebrew culture at that time is nothing like you make it out to be. They were paid, only served a set amount of time, and were REQUIRED to be treated well. Second, no one is "permanently immune" to discussion on the subject. Homosexuality is wrong, according to Christianity. Christians aren't setting homosexuals on fire, or anything like that. The only thing we protest is same sex marriage, because ITS NOT MARRIAGE. Once again, liberals misrepresent an argument.

"tolerance n.The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."

Which you clearly do not do, as typically liberal. Calling Christians "fascist" and "anti-gay" simply because they believe a certain lifestyle to be wrong is not exactly tolerant. Christians tolerate gays. They believe its wrong but they tolerate their presence and their lifestyle. Liberals have no tolerance for anyone or anything not liberal.

"Have you ever been here? By these statements, it's obvious you haven't."

Yes, I have. You apparently have been asleep the whole time you have lived there if you haven't heard these remarks, or remarks like them. But no matter, I've posted link already so you can see for yourself how ridiculous SanFran really is. My father was also there, when he was a member of the NSA Blackwatch. Unfortunatley for him, he had is Air Force uniform on proudly. It didn't take long for SanFran American haters to corner him and spit on him and try to rip his uniform off of him. Afterwards, he had the pleasure of having someone toss a burning flag into his car as he pulled away. Nice way to pay my dad back for his service.

Like I said, I do my research, as I've shown above. You are only fooling yourself when it comes the San Francisco.

tim or radar said...

Yo, I am 53 years old, guys! Ann Coulter is hot to my generation, okay? But Pammy is way hotter!

Anonymous said...

*sigh*

"First, it doesn't condemn slavery in the Biblical sense, which if you did a little research, would know that a slave in the Hebrew culture at that time is nothing like you make it out to be."

The mere act of treating a person as property is immoral. It is irrelevant if they were paid or treated well, they were still at the mercy of their masters, and unable to leave. They fact that you see some kind of distinction is quite troubling.

"Which you clearly do not do, as typically liberal. Calling Christians "fascist" and "anti-gay""

I never said fascist, you're putting words in my mouth. Saying homosexuals are immoral is by definition anti-gay, and it's intolerant, which is what I said. Your quote:

"Homosexuality is wrong, according to Christianity"

proves my point --that is an intolerant statement. You might believe it's immoral with all your heart, but it's still intolerant when viewed by those who don't share your particular religious belief.

I'm sorry that your dad had a bad experience, but frankly, it's so hyperbolic, I can't believe that it's all true. This happened recently? I've never seen anything like that *ever* happen in my entire life (except in the truly terrible movie, The Prisidio). If it happened in the 60's you should realize that cities, people, times and ideas change and that you're holding the children responsible for their fathers' crimes.

You also said that "You apparently have been asleep the whole time you have lived there if you haven't heard these remarks"

Maybe you're just wrong?

I also noticed that your statistics are not normalized, and that when they are, California and Texas are within spitting distance of each other. Let me explain:

Murders:
Texas: 1,238
California: 2,079

California population: 33,871,648
Texas population: 20,851,820

CA per 100k 6.14
TX per 100k 5.94

A difference of 1 person for every 1,000,000 --which is not significant.

Regardless, I live in San Francisco, not the entire state. Statewide stats don't tell you much about how 'safe' where I live is and you only provided them *after* I challenged you to do so, so you shouldn't get mad. San Francisco is safe, and none of your stats do anything to prove otherwise. Comparing a global city like SF to third-tier texas towns like San Antonio and Fort Worth don't help your arguments one bit. The bay area has 7,000,000 residents, and functions as a city. Do any of the cities you mention have that many people living in such a small area? You should compare apples to apples. The only two cities in Texas that come close to San Francisco's caliber are Houston and Dallas, and they are both more 'dangerous' and they're not too bad --but I didn't say Texas was crime ridden.

That you can't seem to separate the city from its politics is quite amusing, I must say. I thought Atlanta was a vibrant city, even if I can't stand its politics. One of the high schools had its first integrated prom in 2003 --not my kind of place. I wouldn't move there, but it's a nice place to visit. It's a shame you can't appreciate San Francisco in the same way.

You know, you accuse me of fooling myself about where I live, which I think is interesting behavior considering this crowd also claimed to know more than I do about the religion that I was brought up with. It's amazing that you know so much more about my life and where I live than I do.

-scohen

highboy said...

"The mere act of treating a person as property is immoral."

Once again, slavery in the Bible and Hebrew culture was NOT what you are STILL trying to make it out to be. Slaves were not considered "property." Perhaps you can provide some evidence. And don't lecture me on what is "immoral". Apparently morality is a matter of opinion, and not absolute.

""Homosexuality is wrong, according to Christianity"

Yeah, that's what I said. I fail to see how that makes me "anti-gay." It makes me against homosexuality, but not against homosexuals. There is a difference.

"You also said that "You apparently have been asleep the whole time you have lived there if you haven't heard these remarks"

Maybe you're just wrong?"

So let me get this straight: despite the fact that San Fransiscan officials have went on live T.V and said they want to shut down our military, the fact that ALL media has quoted those statements, not to mention everything else I've been posting about, you are claiming that nothing of the sort is happening there, and no one is talking like that? Are you just in denial about all of this or what? The fact that the majority of your city is calling for Bush's impeachment? You're just flat denying all of this? Wow. The undermining of the police force? What planet are you on that you would just ignore all of this?

"I'm sorry that your dad had a bad experience, but frankly, it's so hyperbolic, I can't believe that it's all true. This happened recently?"

No, it was during Vietnam, and admittedly, when I was warned about San Francisco it was currently the year 2000. I'm sure the city has changed drastically since then.

"I also noticed that your statistics are not normalized, and that when they are, California and Texas are within spitting distance of each other"

Duh. I'm pretty sure I said they'd even out. You said California had a lower crime rate. You were wrong. Acknowledge that since this has now been established.

"Regardless, I live in San Francisco, not the entire state. Statewide stats don't tell you much about how 'safe' where I live is and you only provided them *after* I challenged you to do so, so you shouldn't get mad. San Francisco is safe, and none of your stats do anything to prove otherwise."

Sounds like you are the one getting mad. I showed you hard data, you are flat ignoring it. Just another one of your "take my word for it" arguments. Nice coming from an atheist. The stats DID prove how "safe" San Francisco is, and you sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't change that. Quit pouting.

"You know, you accuse me of fooling myself about where I live, which I think is interesting behavior considering this crowd also claimed to know more than I do about the religion that I was brought up with. It's amazing that you know so much more about my life and where I live than I do."

So do I, but apparently its true, since you can't even acknowledge statements and overwhelming opinion of your city no matter how much its proven to you.








"

A Hermit said...

"Other than Randi Rhodes openly calling for the assasination of President Bush on the ultra-liberal-soon-to-be-under Air America radio station."

Unlike Coulter, Rhodes apologized for that joke, and unlike the mainstream conservative audiences that applaud Coulter's fascist rhetoric mainstream Liberals condemned Rhodes's comment. You also didn't see the Secret Service investigating Coulter after she joked about assassinating Clinton while he was still President, but they went after Rhodes...no double standard there I guess.

Rhodes has also served her country in uniform, unlike the pampered Coulter who has never had to work a day in her life. She's the epitome of the spoonfed East Coast elite, utterly separated from reality. And she really is stupid; you don't have to be smart to figure out that controversy sells, especially when you package it in a little black cocktail dress. But on those rare occasions when the muppets on the cable news shows actually ask her a difficult question she gets flustered, looks confused and throws out another outrageous comment to derail the conversation.

""Sean Hannity invited anyone of the Jersey twits to appear and debate Ann on his show, but (and no surprise) they all declined."

Of course they did; why wold anyone agree to walk into an ambush? I'd like to see an actual debate with a neutral moderator, not a controlled situation where some right wing blowhard has his finger on the mike switch and the chance to edit the show before it airs.

And I call Coulter a fascist because she happily encourages it. She deserves no sympathy because she offers none. You folks on the right really want to make her kind of witless hatemongering your public face? I hope the folks here at least are better than that...

A Civil Hermit

Jake said...

Are you going to go all feminazi now?

Wow. Didn't realize I was arguing with a 12 year old. Get back to me when you can use grown-up words.

highboy said...

"the Secret Service investigating Coulter after she joked about assassinating Clinton while he was still President, but they went after Rhodes...no double standard there I guess."

Yeah, the Secret Service are just so partisan. And she only apologized AFTER she thought she was going to jail. Kind of like Clinton. Liberals have a habit of apologizing AFTER they get caught.

"And I call Coulter a fascist because she happily encourages it. She deserves no sympathy because she offers none. You folks on the right really want to make her kind of witless hatemongering your public face? I hope the folks here at least are better than that..."

Whoa, whoa, slow down. Anne is a hard woman for me to defend. I agree with most of the things she says, just not the way she says them. I'm only saying that liberals have a lot of nerve calling her "fascist" among other things when they play the same game. She just plays it better. Liberal left-wing blowhards like those at Air American pull/say the same type of crap, and no one on the left says a peep.

"Wow. Didn't realize I was arguing with a 12 year old. Get back to me when you can use grown-up words."

What makes you think I want to get back to you? Go misrepresent me on your blog. I've read your blog and your comments here, and as you would say to Radar, my characterization stands, let the viewers decide for themselves.

Anyway, back to Hermit: Trust me, Anne Coulter, while I agree with her on almost every issue, is not someone I want representing my ideology. She is mean for the sake of being mean. I'm only saying don't single her out as if no one on the left says/does the same stuff to the opposite side, because I'm sure you know better than that.

highboy said...

"The bay area has 7,000,000 residents, and functions as a city. Do any of the cities you mention have that many people living in such a small area?"

San Francisco does not have a population of 7,000,000 residents. We are talking about San Francisco, the crime statistics I've cited deal with San Francisco, not the whole bay area. Try to stay on point.

Anonymous said...

"Duh. I'm pretty sure I said they'd even out. You said California had a lower crime rate. You were wrong. Acknowledge that since this has now been established."

No, you said this:

"Now Texas, the "godforsaken place", with its great economy, low crime rate, (compared to CA anyway) law enforcment, low taxes. That's America."

Which implied that California has a higher crime rate. Which when normalized, it doesn't. Also, you didn't need the Duh in there, it's childish and so very "old tim". You were making such progress too.

"San Francisco does not have a population of 7,000,000 residents."

No it doesn't, and it can't since it can't physically grow. The third tier rinky-dink towns don't have metro areas with that many people, and as such aren't fair comparisons. Houston or Dallas are, and when you compare apples to apples, San Francisco compares favorably. When you compare it to a small city, it doesn't --but neither do Texas's large cities. The fact is, SF is safer than either Houston or Dallas, which kind of shreds your original argument regarding how safe I feel. As for taxes, Texas is largely funded by land use fees paid by the oil companies --a luxury California doesn't have. I moved here from Ohio, and California's taxes compare favorable to Ohio's (actually, I come out a little ahead because there's no city-level income tax).

I guess you were just saying that Bush is unpopular here in your own hyperbolic way, and that's true. However, he's unpopular almost everywhere. That must really limit the places you can go on vacation. I can't imagine not liking a city because its population likes or doesn't like a president.

One city official makes a hyperbolic statement about the military and you feel that you can judge an entire city? That's a hell of a projection. What about the statements of Roy Moore? Can I judge the whole of Alabama now? I read your blog post on how we 'undermine the police', and the system you talk about was needed to maintain compliance and funded by a ballot measure. The money couldn't go to anything else --plus, the SF police seem to be doing a great job. They're some of the best cops I've ever met. They're approachable, friendly, helpful and understanding, but you wouldn't know that because you probably have never talked to one.

It's also worth noting that the illegal immegration debate (which you brought up) seems most heated the further you get from the problem, and it's not an issue that I feel I can effectively discuss save for the fact that it just doesn't seem to be that urgent. I think our country has more pressing issues to discuss.

-scohen

highboy said...

"Which implied that California has a higher crime rate. Which when normalized, it doesn't"

Yes, it does, according to the crime statistics per 100,000 residents, showing San Fran much higher than most cities in Texas, and certainly proves CA as a state has more crime than the state of Texas.

"One city official makes a hyperbolic statement about the military and you feel that you can judge an entire city? That's a hell of a projection."

Not really considering the majority of San Franciscans support him. Show me a SanFran native speaking out about it and I'll retract my statement. (besides you)

"I guess you were just saying that Bush is unpopular here in your own hyperbolic way, and that's true. However, he's unpopular almost everywhere. That must really limit the places you can go on vacation. I can't imagine not liking a city because its population likes or doesn't like a president."

I agree, and since that was not posted by me anywhere as a reason for not liking San Francisco I wonder why its relevant?

" plus, the SF police seem to be doing a great job. They're some of the best cops I've ever met."

and if they were treated that way I'd applaud that. I'm glad you respect your police force, but that doesn't prove anyone else in SanFran does.

"It's also worth noting that the illegal immegration debate (which you brought up) seems most heated the further you get from the problem, and it's not an issue that I feel I can effectively discuss save for the fact that it just doesn't seem to be that urgent. I think our country has more pressing issues to discuss."

More pressing than millions of illegals streaming across the border unchecked every year? More pressing than the 12 million illegals already here getting WIC, welfare, and healthcare, while my authentic, U.S. citizen son can't even get immunization shots or any kind of healthcare? Hardly.

Anonymous said...

"the muppets on the cable news shows "

Oh, I so wish we had actual muppets on the cable news shows! Not only would they be more fun to look at, they'd probably do a much better job. That Kermit was one heck of an investigative reporter . . and the Count's a natural for the business/economy segments (how many dollars for a gallon of gas? . . .)

"I fail to see how that makes me "anti-gay." It makes me against homosexuality, but not against homosexuals. There is a difference. "

Ok, college consciousness-raising101 - the mirror world scenario!

Imagine we live in a mirror world, where everything's the same, just reversed. Homosexuality is the priviledged, religiously and culturally endorsed norm, and the sexual preference of the overwhelming majority of people. However, some people are just born straight (although many folks insist that heterosexuality is a choice, one that could - should - be cured, or resisted.

(Remember back - for those of us who are straight - to that time around fifth or sixth grade when we suddenly realized that some of our classmates weren't just the opposite sex but, well, the opposite sex?)

In this mirror world, heterosexuals who come out risj angry or anguished scenes with family - sometimes even being thrown out or cut off; endless, brutal 'teasing' when young, and straight-bashing - physical harm or even death - when older. Nevertheless, straights have made impressive strides towards public acceptance in recent years, and are currently fighting for the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (despite many folks insisting that marriage is only between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, and letting straights marry would - in some way never quite explained - weaken the institution.

Now - imagine someone saying 'I fail to see how that makes me "straight." It makes me against heterosexuality, but not against heterosexuals. There is a difference. '

And there is, but is it a especially meaningful one? Imagine someone saying that they're fine with heterosexuals -as long as they don't (for guys, let's say) can't help noticing a really cute girl, or go out on a early-teenage holding hands & kissing date with her, or make love with a member of the opposite sex, or have some special woman that they want to spend the rest of their life with (and especially not if they try go ahead and do it in a formally and legally recognized manner!) and so on . . .

Would that distinction make all that much sense? After all, for most of us straight people, heterosexuality is a major part of our lives, except for when we're very young and perhaps very old. Someone who claimed to oppose heterosexuality yet not heterosexuals - wouldn't they be opposing something that, in a fundamental way, helps make us us?

Imagine they came up with a pill that turned off one's sexual/romantic desires. Would you take it?

-Dan S., wishing we lived in a world that didn't need mirrors.

Anonymous said...

"Now - imagine someone saying 'I fail to see how that makes me "straight."

For anyone going 'what is he talking about?," what I meant to say was

"Now - imagine someone saying 'I fail to see how that makes me "anti-straight.'"

-Dan S.

tim or radar said...

Dan: Your cute little illustration is irrelevant, because no one is born homosexual. I have yet to see the hard evidence that proves this. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, as you have said in your post. The problem with saying "they are born like that", is that rapists and child molestors then fall under the same category. Child molestors PREFER children. By your logic, they are born with that sexual preference and we therefore have no right to tell them to stop, and should even then tell them they can marry the children they are molesting. You can't just label the non-violent sexual preferences as sexual preferences which can't be helped. If that is the case, you have to make ALL sexual preference fair game.

Amy Proctor said...

Hermit's comments are predictible. Thanks for proving Ann Coulter's point.

Mess with liberal ideogloy, protected with the human shields of victims like Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Girls or Christopher Reeves, and you're called "a vicious hack", "one of the stupidest people on the planet", "She's a sick, stupid little fascist hypocrite" and the ever popular "hatemonger". (Hermit, you left out "homophobe")

Why not argue against her on the basis of what she's saying? What's that?? Because you'd lose the argument? That's what I thought.

Ann Coulter is the conservative equivelent of Howard Dean. She's a renegade spokesperson for a party too afraid to say what they REALLY believe. And libs hate that; can't have a conservative being HONEST. I guess Ann would of be better use in the kitchen with an apron serving you dinner? I thought you were for women's rights and freedom of speech? She certainly doesn't say anything as inflammatory as Howard Dean, John Murtha or Jesse Jackson.

Ann Coulter fights fire with fire. And the opponent not only isn't used to that, they can't stand the fact that she outsmarts them. (**hate it when that happens!)

As for Ann being "one of the stupidest people on the planet", here's her bio:


" She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.

Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review."

I'd say she's a bit more intelligent thatn *some* people in this room.

cranky old fart said...

"By your logic, they are born with that sexual preference and we therefore have no right to tell them to stop, and should even then tell them they can marry the children they are molesting"

Say what?

Condoning consensual acts by adults requires condoning and non-consensual acts with minors?

Come on. Stop making up straw men to tear down and address your own homophobia.

Anonymous said...

"because no one is born homosexual. I have yet to see the hard evidence that proves this. "

No one is born hetereosexual! After all, I have yet to see the hard evidence (ahem) that proves this - right?

You're right - it's not known for certain - but there's certainly research that suggests this is the case. Definitely gay people's reported experience all seem to indicate that homosexuality has very deep roots. Whether it turns out to be influenced by genetics, prenatal environment, a mix of the two, or even some socialization thrown into the mix, I dunno (certainly socialization, among other things, is going to shape how people's inherent sexualiity is expressed and experienced)

It shouldn't even matter, of course - anymore than whether somebody's preference for a certain individual of the opposite sex - or general body type, hair color, whatever - is inherent, learned/socialized, or consciously choosen (and there's some research suggesting attraction really, literally, does have a lot to do with chemistry and even possibly the immune system, of all things!) should matter, but that's the world we live in.

"The problem with saying "they are born like that", is that rapists and child molestors then fall under the same category."

That's not proven, either, but it might be a possibility (although a hypothethical genetic predisposition to being likely to commit rape - very controversial - would probably be more general - ie, strong sex drive, impulsive behavior, etc., perhaps? Certainly rape is a very different category from sexual orientation: you don't generally get people who grow up knowing they want to rape folks, and it's definitely much more fundamentally entangled with social attitudes about women, men, power, etc.
That's just a weird comparison. Pedophilia - I don't know of any research, but it's possible to imagine that - if not a 'learned' psychological maladjustment during development - it could be an inherent trait, perhaps something screwy with evolutionary psych. mate choice stuff (it's been argued that, basically, men have evolved to prefer young, fertile-looking women; perhaps if that goes haywire? - not saying I necessarily buy any of this!)

So?

"You can't just label the non-violent sexual preferences as sexual preferences which can't be helped. If that is the case, you have to make ALL sexual preference fair game."

To quote Cranky, say what? No way. It's plausible that introversion 'can't be helped,", rather than a choice. (Actually, it's true, rather than plausible - the question involves untangling the various possible factors.) That's fine. It's all good.
It's also plausible that violent sociopathology 'can't be helped,' but we don't have any problem realizing that this isn't fine.

Some guy has a preference for tall leggy blondes? However this is - inherent, choice, early experience - whether or not he acts on it - ok, fine, it's all good! Some guy has a preference for tall leggy blondes under the age of 12? No way.

See? Easy.

That's because we're using a model of acceptable sexual relationships built around meaningful consent (little kids and animals, for example, inherently can't give consent) and lack of harm.

Try it!

If you get into slippery-slope (adult) plural marriage fun (three or more people, a justice of the peace, and a slip-n-slide?), then it becomes a different matter, But in terms of actual abuse and stuff, there's no difficult questions here.

I'm assuming we're all working with basically similar (if sometimes more limited) frameworks. If not - well, how - on what grounds - do you recognize rape and child molestation as wrong?

______

"Ann Coulter is the conservative equivelent of Howard Dean. "

I missed when Dean joked about people dying, I guess. The funny thing is that in actual reality Dean's pretty moderate, that edited little yelp aside/ Do you have examples of some sort? Murtha talked about an alleged atrocity commited by our troops. Whatever you think of his decision to do so, he didn't "joke" about wishing that the latest suicide bomber or IED had detonated in Fox News headquarters. If this is what the Republican Party really believes . . . get me AWAY from you CRAZY PEOPLE!!

Although I don't know if she is technically a fascist, in any particularly meaningful sense. She's certainly a rhetorically violent extremist, something that you can get on the fringes of any side, really. Interestingly, our guys - the rhetorically violent extremist ones - when they exist, tend to be utter, utter fringe figures that wouldn't be taken seriously if any liberals actually knew about them (we generally hear about anybody like this, such as they are, after you guys raise a ruckus about what some moron nobody's ever heard of said).

They're not on the cover of major magazines, cavorting on cable news shows, or selling piles of books.

To find equivalents, you have to travel many, many miles from the violent rhetoric pole until you get to folks like dry, academic Chomsky, with his little NY Times quotes, or Michael Moore with his little pranks, or Al Franken, with his little 'mock O'Reilly' obsession' - not just a different neighborhood, but a whole 'nother state.

It's one thing to disagree with people (although obviously, anyone who disagrees with me is just being foolish!), or advocate policies that one thinks are radical, unworkable , bad, etc. It's another to 'joke' about one's political opponents being threatened, injured, or killed, or screech about 9/11 widows whose big sin - when you really, really get down and think about it - was pushing the administration to have the 911 Commission.

That's why liberals really dislike her, and why, in the end, even a lot of conservatives have been saying she's finally stepped over the line (at least, that was the impression I got).

Hmm. When you get down to it - looking at both parts of this comment - it's really all about lines, isn't it?

-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

Tim,
First off, thank you for the civil reply, I really appreciate it.

"Not really considering the majority of San Franciscans support him. Show me a SanFran native speaking out about it and I'll retract my statement. (besides you)"

Well, to be honest, your article on it was the first time I had even heard about this guy or his statment. Maybe, since he's not even important enough to be carried on the local news or papers, that's the reason you don't see an outcry. I don't think a lack of response in this case means widespread agreement. Widespread apathy perhaps, but not agreement.

About the police:
"and if they were treated that way I'd applaud that. I'm glad you respect your police force, but that doesn't prove anyone else in SanFran does."

Tim, all I have to go with regarding the police are my observed interactions with them. I've never seen anyone behave in an inappropriate manner with the police, and I've seen numerous interactions. At the Fillmore St. Jazz Festival, I had a very nice conversation with one of the police, and not one of the revellers had a problem with the cop being there. San Francisco cops are really different than most other cops I've seen, first off, there's a lot of foot patrols, and the cops become a part of the neighborhood. It's not uncommon to see them having extended (and friendly) conversations with local business owners and merchants. I think once you see how actual San Franciscans treat actual SF police, your opinions will change. The links Radar posted don't present SF in the best light (and most of them were taken in Berkeley, not SF), and aren't what we'd call "balanced".

"More pressing than millions of illegals streaming across the border unchecked every year? More pressing than the 12 million illegals already here getting WIC, welfare, and healthcare, while my authentic, U.S. citizen son can't even get immunization shots or any kind of healthcare?"

Yes, we have numerous issues more important than this. The reason your son can't have adequate health care is not about illegal immigrants. It's about the rapidly spiralling costs of our health care system. Costs that businesses, who provide coverage, aren't willing to pay. It's broken, it's been broken for a long time, and I haven't heard anything from either party that even remotely sounds like a solution. Blaming the problem on immigrants ignores the multiple complex roots of the problem. My father, who has been in healthcare for over 40 years will talk your ear off on this issue if you let him. I can only speak to my insurance failing to pay for my bloodwork because it wasn't covered under 'maintenance' costs. It took me three months and an appeal to rectify this problem. I'd like to see this issue, the budget deficit, the debt and rational global and energy policy dealt with before we get to the immigrant problem. Again, my point was that the people who are irritated about this problem (which I don't really have an opinion) are furthest from the border --you're from PA, and radar is from Indiana, so it kind of proves my point. That's not saying it doesn't need to be dealt with, just not right this second.

-scohen

GeezWhiz said...

Does Ms. Coulter's actions and statements align with the teachings of Christ?

Does she have any interest in the issues facing the world other then to capitalize on them?

Would a debate between a person in government and running for office (President or otherwise) and a private citizen (nice or not) serve any purpose whatsoever?

Is Ms. Coulter anything other than an incendiary voice-for-cash in a world already on fire?

Why would anyone want this firey world for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren should it last that long?


Why is Ann Coulter critical in a way that would never invite one to reconsider their beliefs, values or behavior? (apparently neither can I but I can refrain from publishing, speaking engagements or guest appearances of any kind)

This is the first blog I came across in a Google search for Hilary Clinton, who, like it or not is an effective participant in the national government--to what end I remains to be fully realized hence my need to inquire. For the first hit in a long list, these are scary opinions that do not seem based on much rational thought by people seemingly fond of Jesus, if only as a badge of righteousness and a very selective alignment with the His teachings.

Geez, what's up with that?


GEEZWHIZ

GeezWhiz said...

Does Ms. Coulter's actions and statements align with the teachings of Christ?

Does she have any interest in the issues facing the world other then to capitalize on them?

Would a debate between a person in government and running for office (President or otherwise) and a private citizen (nice or not) serve any purpose whatsoever?

Is Ms. Coulter anything other than an incendiary voice-for-cash in a world already on fire?

Why would anyone want this firey world for their children, grandchildren and their children should it last that long?


Why is Ann Coulter critical in a way that would never invite one to reconsider their beliefs, values or behavior? (apparently neither can I but I can refrain from publishing, speaking engagements or any other kind of paid public appearance)

This is the first blog I came across in a Google search for Hilary Clinton--who like it or not is an effective participant in the national government--to what end remains to be seen hence my need to search. For the first hit in a long list, these are scary opinions that do not seem based on much rational thought by people seemingly fond of Jesus, if only as a badge of righteousness and a very selective alignment with His teachings.

Geez, what's up with that?


GEEZWHIZ

highboy said...

"Condoning consensual acts by adults requires condoning and non-consensual acts with minors?"

YOU are the one who is against legislating morality, are you not? YOU are the same liberal who believes that homosexual behavior is perfectly natural, which would HAVE to mean that so is child molestation. Both are sexual preferences. Show me, logically, why homosexual behavior is more natural than child molestation? You can't.

"Come on. Stop making up straw men to tear down and address your own homophobia."

I'm not homophobic, nor do I need to be. Homosexual marriages are banned in my state and will remain so for a very long time. If you have an argument against my point, please give it.

"I have yet to see the hard evidence (ahem) that proves this - right?"

I wouldn't have been able to resist either.

"Definitely gay people's reported experience all seem to indicate that homosexuality has very deep roots."

So does child abuse. That doesn't mean it should happen.

"It's also plausible that violent sociopathology 'can't be helped,' but we don't have any problem realizing that this isn't fine."

Good. So why then is homosexuality any different? Basically, all I'm getting is that pedophilia is just wrong (of course I agree, I hope everyone knows that)and that homosexual behavior is right. Just because. Neither are natural. I don't see any evidence that they are. The evidence that heterosexual behavior is natural would be the idea that the REPRODUCTIVE organs used in heterosexuality actually REPRODUCE.

"Some guy has a preference for tall leggy blondes under the age of 12? No way."

So explain why if a guy has a thing for other guys, its okay, but not for other boys? What if the boy was at the age of consent, like 14, in some states? What then?

"That's because we're using a model of acceptable sexual relationships built around meaningful consent (little kids and animals, for example, inherently can't give consent) and lack of harm.

Try it!"

Um, try what Dan?

"Murtha talked about an alleged atrocity commited by our troops."

And declared them guilty already, even without a trial. Thank you for saying "alleged", because Murtha sure as hell didn't.

"he didn't "joke" about wishing that the latest suicide bomber or IED had detonated in Fox News headquarters."

Oh, please, like none of the liberal pundits EVER make "jokes" like this huh Dan? C'mon, you know better. Turn on Air America and start being honest with yourself.

"They're not on the cover of major magazines, cavorting on cable news shows, or selling piles of books."

You're kidding right? So in other words, "she's better at it than the left looney's so let's get her." Don't blame her if more people in America agree with her than they do with liberals.

"It's another to 'joke' about one's political opponents being threatened, injured, or killed,"

Like Randi Rhodes. Yes, I'll bring that up all the live long day because I have yet to hear a liberal condemn HER in making remarks like that. Hermit even went as far as to try and gloss over it by stating that she apologized, so lets pretend it didn't happen. Nope, sorry, liberals should clean up their own hate filled backyards before attacking Anne. And by the way, Anne's latest remarks were about 9/11 widows exploiting their loved ones deaths. Not quite what you are making it out to be.

"Maybe, since he's not even important enough to be carried on the local news or papers,"

He appeared on Fox News, CNN.

"Tim, all I have to go with regarding the police are my observed interactions with them."

I totally respect and appreciate that. Let me break it down another way, without incriminating average everyday Joe's: Your media. Your newspapers. The San Francisco Chronicle. I'll get links. Local authorities and media in your city have been trying to incriminate good cops in San Francisco for numerous outrageous things, cut funding, cut personel, and treat them with disdain. The same hag whose name will never cross my lips that keeps harping on the San Francisco police departement on the O'Reilly Factor all the time really steams me up.

"Yes, we have numerous issues more important than this. The reason your son can't have adequate health care is not about illegal immigrants."

I didn't say my situation was CAUSED my illegal immigration. I'm saying that if my legal citizen son can't get healthcare, then the healthcare being dished out to illegals needs to STOP. But as far as healthcare goes, be grateful you live in America. You don't even want to play with socialized healthcare.

"Does Ms. Coulter's actions and statements align with the teachings of Christ"

Depends on the mood I guess.

"Does she have any interest in the issues facing the world other then to capitalize on them?"

She's a comedian, who, though I agree with her on the issues, says what she says for the money, fame,...

"Would a debate between a person in government and running for office (President or otherwise) and a private citizen (nice or not) serve any purpose whatsoever?"

It would show how ridiculous average humans get whenever they enter the political arena.

"Is Ms. Coulter anything other than an incendiary voice-for-cash in a world already on fire?

Nope. And neither are her liberal counter-parts.

"Why would anyone want this firey world for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren should it last that long?"

They don't. That is why they are trying and fighting to change it. Peace can be found on the other side of war.

"Why is Ann Coulter critical in a way that would never invite one to reconsider their beliefs, values or behavior? (apparently neither can I but I can refrain from publishing, speaking engagements or guest appearances of any kind)"

I'm not sure she's totally interested in changing anyone's beliefs. I'm not going to judge that.

"This is the first blog I came across in a Google search for Hilary Clinton, who, like it or not is an effective participant in the national government--to what end I remains to be fully realized hence my need to inquire."

She'll run and lose, if she even gets the nomination. She has really ticked off a lot of her home base, and as so many incumbents in my own state are finding out, that is bad.

"For the first hit in a long list, these are scary opinions that do not seem based on much rational thought by people seemingly fond of Jesus, if only as a badge of righteousness and a very selective alignment with the His teachings.

Geez, what's up with that?"

I know I'm as guilty, if not more so, than most when it comes to stuff like this. Hillary already made a lousy president, I have no desire to see her in the White House again. (Like she didn't get enough furniture the first time?)




GEEZWHIZ

Anonymous said...

Tim, were you talking about this?

If so, this is a pretty huge public relations scandal, especially in Bayview.

-scohen

highboy said...

Yeah, that's one of them.

cranky old fart said...

"That's because we're using a model of acceptable sexual relationships built around meaningful consent (little kids and animals, for example, inherently can't give consent) and lack of harm.

Try it!"

Um, try what Dan?"

I think what Dan was saying by "Try it" was try using the model he presented. You know, meaningful consent.

That was pretty obvious, of course. Why are you avoiding it?

Anonymous said...

"So explain why if a guy has a thing for other guys, its okay, but not for other boys?"

You really don't get this? OK, think about the relationship a grown man (say 24, 34, whatever, years old) could have with another grown man vs the relationship a grown man could have with a 14 year old boy (much less a younger child). It's exactly parallel with: the relationship a grown man could have with a grown woman, vs a 14 year old girl (much less a younger child). In each case, the second can be assumed to be exploitative and harmful to the younger party. And that's bad,

You can make it more complicated, but really, that's what it boils down to. What's the problem?

-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

Tim,
Couple of questions about the link. Since the videos were made by the police, were found by internal affairs, and the Chief of Police brought them to the Mayor's attention, how can this be blamed on anyone other than the police?

Did you see the videos? Do you think that this is an appropriate way for police to behave?

-scohen

highboy said...

"That was pretty obvious, of course. Why are you avoiding it?"

Nobody is avoiding anything Cranky. Let Dan and I, the grown ups, talk now.

What is this model based on Dan? Whose idea of morality? If its society's, or what you might call the majority, then homosexual marriage is immoral. I still have yet to hear how Christians are asked to explain why homosexuality is immoral while heterosexuality is not, while liberals don't seem to have to answer anything concerning the morality THEY legislate. What do you base the fact that child molestation is immoral? What if the child says okay? What do you base the idea that children can't give consent? So far, the only answer I'm getting on this subject is

"In each case, the second can be assumed to be exploitative and harmful to the younger party. And that's bad,"

Key word: Assumed. (not good to do that)
Key word: and that's bad. (theory)
And yet liberals still avoid the slippery slope argument. Keep in mind, as I've stated, that the legal age of consent in many states is 14. LEGAL Dan. Gay marriage is only the tip of the ice berg. With "progress" like that, the slippery slope argument is valid and pretty obvious to anyone with a brain. The fact is neither child molestation OR homosexuality is natural, or morally sound at all. But liberals want to allow same sex marriages, and they are becoming increasingly (alarmingly) tolerant and accepting of adult/child relationships. I've posted links in the past concerning this, middle age women LEGALLY marrying 14-15 year old boys, and yet liberals still deny the slippery slope. Whether or not you/they want to admit it/know it, liberals are heading toward a country where all sexual preference is acceptable, and where everyone, man woman child, all have a "right" to their sexuality. The fact is neither child molestation OR homosexuality is natural, or morally sound at all You'll have to prove otherwise. Heterosexuality is natural since we use the REPRODUCTIVE organs to have sex and we can actually REPRODUCE through heterosexuality. That is why the state endorses hetero marriages. There is no reason for a state to recognize gay marriage and the burden is still on liberalism to provide us with a valid reason as to why they should. Until then, only one or two states in the whole country are going to allow these immoral marriages.

"Did you see the videos? Do you think that this is an appropriate way for police to behave?"

Absolutely not. But does the WHOLE police department have to get railed and degraded by your media? Does the nameless hag have to smear the whole department on t.v. and radio every day? And she is not the only one.

Anonymous said...

Tim,
You're going to have to help me with the nameless hag. I only listen to NPR on my 3 minute commute. Unless it's the girl on the California Report, I'm at a loss.

Also, I don't think the entire department was punished, just the 20 or so officers involved. However, the SF police department has been under a black cloud since the 2002 report that named it one of the least effective large departments in the country. Looks like we're just lucky that San Franciscans have shed their barbary coast past. Then again, maybe liberals are just too wimpy to commit crimes.

-scohen

Jake said...

Regarding the question of whether homosexuality is natural, PZ Myers of Pharyngula has a timely article addressing this very issue.

I think the following statement, from the second (first quoted) paragraph clears up the "is it natural?" question handily:

homosexuality [has] been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species.

Well that settles that, then.

The rest of the post talks about possible explanations for why/how organisms end up with homosexual inclinations. I found it very interesting.

Tim, I have to say, your inability to distinguish between and mutual, consentual activity between two adults, and an abusive, non-consentual action of an adult on a child is extremely distressing.

Jake said...

What is this model based on Dan? Whose idea of morality? If its society's, or what you might call the majority, then homosexual marriage is immoral. I still have yet to hear how Christians are asked to explain why homosexuality is immoral while heterosexuality is not, while liberals don't seem to have to answer anything concerning the morality THEY legislate. What do you base the fact that child molestation is immoral? What if the child says okay? What do you base the idea that children can't give consent? So far, the only answer I'm getting on this subject is

Okay, the model is quite simple. It looks like this:

In deciding whether an action is ethical or unethical, I ask myself the following question:

Is anyone harmed?

The decision follows pretty straightforwardly from the answer.

(To be honest, it does get more complicated than that, because there can be grey areas, and questions of weighing harm and benefit against each other, but the above gives the basic idea.)

Anonymous said...

Hey, I consider Cranky's comments to be quite grown up!

And interesting stuff, Jake.

" What do you base the idea that children can't give consent? "

Um - they're chilldren. We don't let 'em vote or drive (up to a certain age) for much the same reason. Emotional, intellectual maturity. Recent research supports this, not surprisingly, but also sheds light on how much growing even the high school brain has yet to do.

"With "progress" like that, the slippery slope argument is valid and pretty obvious to anyone with a brain."

Must've left mine on the train, again . . . Darn it, I keep doing that!

"But liberals want to allow same sex marriages, and they are becoming increasingly (alarmingly) tolerant and accepting of adult/child relationships."

I must have missed that memo, then, because this is news to me. And this stuff about middle-aged women marrying 14 year olds, I don't know what you're talking about, but I certainly don't support it!

"There is no reason for a state to recognize gay marriage and the burden is still on liberalism to provide us with a valid reason as to why they should. "

a) discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Two hetero opposite-sexed adults who (presumably) love each other in that way can have the state not only recognize their union, but additionally provide a vast package of incentives, advantages, privileges, etc - from tax benefits to hospital visiting issues. In the absence of any secular, compelling reasons why gays shouldn't be able to marry (ie, God says no! just doesn't cut it, you need more than that), this is just simple fairness.

b) Countless gay couples are in relationships together, in many cases raising or planning to raise adopted or part-biological children. Given that state and societal recognition of this relationship presumably confers some additional measure of stability, it would be advantageous to society (again, given that there seems to be no compelling reasons not to) that this be an option for those couples.

c) Why not? You'll make lots of people happy. Sure, some other folks will grumble, but frankly, it's not clear why they should even care, except perhaps overlong noses.

Imagine if folks were agitating against redheadedness or lefthandedness. The first important thing to realize is that isn't hurting anyone (and certainly lefthandedness had a major and highly irrational stigma attached to it). A second or parallel thing would involve the anti-redhead or anti-left-handers claiming that it was just a choice, and why didn't they just stop bothering everyone? (sometimes folks seem to believe that gay people are basically straight folks pretending, choosing to be 'gay', essentially - sorta like a much more involved variation on (straight) college girls kissing each other for attention (from guys, or to shock the grownups, or cause they drank too much and it seemed like a good idea, or whatever) In this case, it's relevent to point out that in many cases (all, I'd guess for handedness, less so for hair) that's how they are, and demands that prejudice against them on these grounds continue to be law - in the absense of any compelling reasons otherwise - is just, well, a pointless preujudice against their very nature.

Actually, I'm interested in how you'd define 'natural'. It tends to have two related but different senses - roughly, how things are, and how they're meant to be - and they tend to get mixed up and cause confusion . . .

-Dan S.

highboy said...

"Um - they're chilldren. We don't let 'em vote or drive (up to a certain age) for much the same reason."

I'll adderss that a little further down. Funny you brought up driver's license's. Another privelage, not a right, and one that can be revoked. Which is why it requires a LICENSE. See the parallel?

"homosexuality [has] been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species.

Well that settles that, then."

Yeah, okay Jake. I want a list of the species, picture, documentation, who did the research, and more than just one name in an article. How many different species do we find practicing rape Jake? Or do you just assume that the female gorilla gave her consent before Big Foot jumped on? Would that make it natural? What about all the species that eat their own poo? Does that make it natural, and okay for us to do it too? Feel free. Why not polygamy? Some species practice that rather well. (Lions for example) Why can't we?

"Tim, I have to say, your inability to distinguish between and mutual, consentual activity between two adults, and an abusive, non-consentual action of an adult on a child is extremely distressing."

I am able to distinguish, I'm just still not getting on what grounds you seem to think homosexuality is on the same level of morality as heterosexual behavior. You have yet to give evidence that its natural in the slightest. Quoting one article doesn't prove your case.

"I ask myself the following question:

Is anyone harmed?

The decision follows pretty straightforwardly from the answer."

Well, can you prove that a victim of child molestation is harmed? How? (Obviously I believe the same thing, but I want your reasons.) If you have hard data, good. Send it to NAMBLA and tell them to shut up.

"Emotional, intellectual maturity. Recent research supports this, not surprisingly,"

So why are the same liberals who push for gay marriage (ACLU is a perfect example) also push for a younger age of consent? I'll remind you again, since you keep ignoring it, that the age of consent can be as low as 14 AS OF NOW in many states. How can both of these ideas come out of the same social leaning without someone putting two and two together?

"I must have missed that memo, then, because this is news to me. And this stuff about middle-aged women marrying 14 year olds, I don't know what you're talking about, but I certainly don't support it!"

Allow me to enlighten you:



Note that while they are TRYING to punish the two of them, that "Georgia law allows children of any age to marry — without parental consent — if the bride-to-be is pregnant. The law dates to the early 1960s and was written to discourage out-of-wedlock births."

Kansas sets minimum age to marry at 15

and this.

That last link is particularly interesting because the woman involved is not being charged because of the age of her groom, but because she may have already been married.

65 year old marries 15 year old girl

Get the picture? This is becoming more and more acceptable, and its not separate from the issue of homosexual marriage. Liberals have been claiming all along that its not a slippery slope issue, and obviously, if you can do research with a shred of honesty, we are headed there.

Also, it is claimed by the left that homosexuality is not a decision, but a sexual preference that they are born with, and are unable to do anything about. This is why I keep comparing it to pedophilia. Because its only a matter of time before, if we are going to buy into the idea that homosexuality can't be helped and therefore should not be condemned, we find ourselves allowing pedophile behavior as well. Here is a good example from the Skeptic's Dictionary: (which I know Jake loves.

"To the teleological supernaturalist, pedophiles and sexual predators exist for some sort of divine purpose. To the mechanistic naturalist, child molesters and child murderers are purposeless. Their desires may be natural but that does not mean that they should be fulfilled. Both the supernaturalist and the naturalist may hold pedophiles and sexual predators accountable for their evil behavior, but not necessarily. There are some supernaturalists and some naturalists who are determinists and who do not hold anyone accountable for anything, except God or nature. The naturalist, however, need not feel any need to try to explain why such evil exists. Some naturalists might seek causal explanations that deny that evil acts are chosen behaviors by evil persons with evil desires. All naturalists might agree that the desires themselves are explicable entirely by causal mechanisms outside the scope of personal responsibility. But, not all would agree that acting on the desires is completely explicable without reference to the freedom and responsibility of the evildoer."

For now, I won't even get into the just shear wrongness of acknowledging someone's helplessness to act a certain way and then still punish them for doing so, as the naturalist view here is clealry asserting. That is another debate. The point is, homosexuality and pedophile behavior, according to this view, are on the same wave length. Both are born this way, and both are powerless to change it. So how do we condemn either one? We Christians would condemn both, but liberals under the logic that it is completely natural, do we have the right to condemn? Now this backfired on me before, because the person I was debating said "You know, you have a point, we can't condemn pedophile behavior." That is not the reaction I'm going for here.

The debate still rages whether or not homosexual activity is natural or not. But you are claiming that homosexual marriage will benefit society based on the idea that there is no reason not too. Actually, there is no reason for the state to recognize homosexual marriages at all. I'm still waiting on the productivity of this idea.

Anonymous said...

"Funny you brought up driver's license's. Another privelage, not a right, and one that can be revoked. Which is why it requires a LICENSE. See the parallel?"

But we recognize that below a certain age, people are not equipped to participate. Additionally, this license is based on practical considerations, rather than whether they llke station wagons or SUVs, or whether they're going to ferry neighborhood kids to soccer games or selfishly drive around the country all by themselves, wasting gas.

What's bizarre is that you don't need a license to raise a kid, given that some folks really are not suited to do so. But we recognize that this isn't something the government could be involved in without massively trambling on human liberty in a way judged to way outweigh any benefit. (Well, something like that.)

" I'm just still not getting on what grounds you seem to think homosexuality is on the same level of morality as heterosexual behavior"

On what secular grounds (since this is a matter of legislation) do you judge that homosexuality isn't on the same level of morality as heterosexuality?

I've never, ever gotten this.

"So why are the same liberals who push for gay marriage (ACLU is a perfect example) also push for a younger age of consent? . . . Allow me to enlighten you:"

None of these links indicate any liberal or ACLU involvement in pushing for a younger age of consent. In the first three, people involved are being prosecuted or jailed or etc. The Kansas case involves setting a minimum age to marry - as opposed to not having one (!), so they're raising the bar.

The fourth case is in Zambia.



"For now, I won't even get into the just shear wrongness of acknowledging someone's helplessness to act a certain way and then still punish them for doing so"

Ok, you have a point, but that's life, y'know. A rabid dog isn't responsible for its actions; rather, a virus is damaging its brain, etc., causing it to act in a certain way (presumably shaped through evolution to maximize the chance of the virus spreading to a new host before the old one dies. As they say, nature is a mother- . . .) It's a mad dog, rather than a bad dog. But that doesn't help (except in terms of getting rabies shots, etc. - bizarrely, there was, wayway back, a hydrophobia-denial movement, insisting that it was caused by human action and mistreatment of the poor animals, rather than being a nonhuman-caused illness). It still has to be put down, for safety and even mercy.

"That is another debate. The point is, homosexuality and pedophile behavior, according to this view, are on the same wave length. Both are born this way, and both are powerless to change it. So how do we condemn either one?"

Ok, I see what's going on. Thanks for clarifying this.
If the argument was solely that homosexuality was natural and therefore this alone meant that it shouldn't be condemned - in fact, should be accepted - you'd have a point.

But it isn't. For example, dying a rather horrible death after being bitten by a rabid animal, or stepping on a rusty nail is natural, but liberals have no problem with vaccines [public service announcement: if you ever wake up to find a bat flying around the room (or in a room with some other sleeping person) contact a doctor or (if not possible), city/county/state disease people). They can gve almost undetectible bites which can spread rabies. Most bats don't have rabies, of course, but once symptoms show up, it's too late, so better safe than dead. (It looked as if they might have found a desperate, last ditch way to save such patients, but it sounds like maybe not, or at least not reliably)]

Instead, it's that homosexuality isn't actually bad.

Ok - we recognize that for the state (or even parents) to decide who heterosexuals can love, sleep with, or marry is generally wrong - it's a major infringement of our rights, our liberty. But there are limits. For example, we don't get to have sex with people (or otherwise) who can't or won't consent to it - even if they're our spouses (in almost all cases, wives), an innovation which basically only came into existence during my lifetime.

Same sort of thing. Drawing lines isn't that hard in these kinds of cases. The fact that homosexuality probably is a natural state for gay people reinforces how this is these silly rules are an even more emphatic denial of liberty, equivalent to not letting straights marry (or have heterosexual sex, or whatever, depending on your particular stance), rather than not letting them dye their hair funny colors- but this matters because, unlike, say, raping kids, it isn't a bad, harmful thing. If pedophilia turns out to be a natural state for pedophiles, it doesn't matter (except perhaps in terms of treatment or something) - the harm done far outweighs any denial of liberty for the pedophile.

You can keep asking how we can judge this (although it can't help but sound kinda creepy!), but that's a different issue. It's like, how can we judge consensual sex between consenting adults as ok, but rape bad?

highboy said...

Check this out.