mudcat.org: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]


BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom

Ron Davies 28 Mar 07 - 09:10 PM
GUEST,Bardan 26 Mar 07 - 10:20 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 25 Mar 07 - 11:08 PM
Ron Davies 25 Mar 07 - 09:06 PM
Amos 25 Mar 07 - 08:37 PM
Ron Davies 25 Mar 07 - 08:12 PM
Amos 24 Mar 07 - 08:20 PM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 07 - 04:16 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 24 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM
Amergin 24 Mar 07 - 03:03 PM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 07 - 02:52 PM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 07 - 02:51 PM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 07 - 02:42 PM
Thomas the Rhymer 24 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM
Donuel 24 Mar 07 - 11:56 AM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 07 - 10:47 AM
GUEST,beardedbruce 24 Mar 07 - 08:32 AM
Riginslinger 23 Mar 07 - 10:04 PM
Ebbie 23 Mar 07 - 02:57 PM
beardedbruce 23 Mar 07 - 02:54 PM
Don Firth 23 Mar 07 - 02:52 PM
beardedbruce 23 Mar 07 - 01:53 PM
Don Firth 23 Mar 07 - 01:47 PM
beardedbruce 23 Mar 07 - 01:43 PM
beardedbruce 23 Mar 07 - 09:09 AM
beardedbruce 23 Mar 07 - 08:16 AM
Bill D 22 Mar 07 - 12:11 PM
Bill D 22 Mar 07 - 11:58 AM
Amos 22 Mar 07 - 09:40 AM
Don Firth 21 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM
Don Firth 21 Mar 07 - 07:00 PM
Dickey 21 Mar 07 - 05:08 PM
beardedbruce 21 Mar 07 - 03:03 PM
Don Firth 21 Mar 07 - 02:40 PM
beardedbruce 21 Mar 07 - 02:39 PM
dianavan 21 Mar 07 - 02:05 PM
beardedbruce 21 Mar 07 - 01:48 PM
Don Firth 21 Mar 07 - 01:39 PM
beardedbruce 21 Mar 07 - 01:34 PM
dianavan 21 Mar 07 - 01:24 PM
beardedbruce 21 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM
Ebbie 21 Mar 07 - 01:05 PM
Amos 21 Mar 07 - 12:56 PM
beardedbruce 21 Mar 07 - 12:06 PM
Peace 21 Mar 07 - 11:44 AM
beardedbruce 21 Mar 07 - 11:43 AM
Peace 20 Mar 07 - 08:16 PM
Don Firth 20 Mar 07 - 08:09 PM
beardedbruce 20 Mar 07 - 04:29 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 09:10 PM

Haven't had a chance to get to this for a while. Interested to note, that, as Amos and I predicted, for some reason nobody--including our more rabid Bushites-- has managed to come up with a remark by Al Franken which compares--in viciousness and in the target--with the attack by dear Ann Coulter on the widows.

So much for "they're both guilty".

QED


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: GUEST,Bardan
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 10:20 PM

I'd say it's nigh on impossible to get an objective view on the TV. Ann Coulter is just at the really bad end of the spectrum. I'd be interested to hear opinions on English language Al Jazeera. I only saw it a few times before I moved and I can't get it over here. Seemed good to me though. On a par with the BBC quality wise and less obsessed with English Domestic news which isn't all that interesting if you're not living there. Just an opinion mind.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 11:08 PM

Ouch! Please don't ask me to think, Ron...

Good point, though... Ann's comment about the 9/11 widows was well over the line, and showed us what 'bad humor' is all about. I guess it was part of the 'with us or against us' mentality that prevailed in the administration at the time. Seems the 'hawks' didn't appreciate all the clamoring about that a full investigation into 9/11 promised... in that it would be very distracting to a nation at war. From what I've read, The Jesrsey Gals were essentially the force behind the creation of the 9/11 commission...

My beef is with 'infotainment' in general. It just doesn't make good sense to get one's 'point of view' from entertainers... they are still just sound bytes.
ttr


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:06 PM

I would tend to agree with you, Amos. Then the question becomes why her apologists on Mudcat never seem to think before they hit "send". I suppose we'll never learn that either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 08:37 PM

I am pretty sure that is not gonna happen, Ron. They are different classes of human.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 08:12 PM

The question is whether Al Franken has said anything comparable to Ann Coulter--as far as vicious attacks on the vulnerable--as in the case of her attacks on the widows. I'm still waiting patiently for Coulter apologists--or anybody who alleges "they're both guilty" to provide even one remark which can be seen as evidence that he has done so.

So far, the silence is deafening.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 08:20 PM

The difference between Al Gore and Ann Coulter is that Al Gore is constrained by a sense of decency and decorum in his comportment; while Ms Coulter does not believes such things make any difference.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM

Sorry about my typos. I should proofread better--especially if I expect others to do so. Mea culpa (No, Thomas, this does not mean you can assume I'm Catholic, just literate.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 04:16 PM

No, Thomas, it's not Italian. Try again. I'm surprised you haven't heard it before. Poor boy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

Pobrecito? Oh Dio Mio!!! Desiderate parlare me della legittimità? Fantastico!
ttr


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Amergin
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 03:03 PM

She looks like the the end result of a sex change operation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 02:52 PM

Pobre cito.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 02:51 PM

That's right, Thomas. I quote your own words to you. That's not fair, I admit. It's not reasonable that somebody should have to actually defend what he writes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 02:42 PM

More like Father Coughlin.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

The liberal demagogue is back... and he's treating us to his religious roots. Love and godspeed to your faith and religious life, Ron Davies.

Your steadfast determination to insult me and put me down are pheneomenal to witness, and your motives are transparent. You fight dirty, and use passive agressive techniques to appear the winner in what are obvious to most people as ad-hominem B.S.

I think you are *quite* a creep... like the inside joke is on anyone who isn't you... Funny... but when Ann does this, you go pat yourself on the back, never realizing how similar you and she are.

Ann Coulter... reaches a lot of people. It behooves us to figure out why... ESPECIALLY when and if we don't understand (the nice way to say 'hate' in this context) her rants or her propinquity to neo-con sensibilities...

Lot's of the time, I don't agree with her... mostly because she isn't much of a peace maker. She's more of a rable rouser... speaking in an esoteric tounge to an adoring crowd of 'like minded thinkers'.That's O.K. with me, because she's 'sharp as a tack', and she's got convictions that amount to more than 'sexual preference' and 'the normalization of sleaze'. Don't you get it? She's making the jokes...

... and Ron... ...you're the punchline.

I was once like you... and if you smoke next to a ex-smoker... you're probably gonna get an earfull...;^)
ttr


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 11:56 AM

She's just a father Flanigan in a new wrapper.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 10:47 AM

Fans of Ann--

Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to Mudcat for a while--lots of rehearsals--doing thte Poulenc Stabat Mater, among other pieces, this Sunday. You'll have to accept my apology that responding to your arguments is somehow not the most burning issue in my life.






Thomas, Ron O and any other giant intellects who see parallels between Ann's attack on the widows and what Al says---

Please be so good as to cite just one remark by Al which is on a par with Ann's treatment of the widows--which you may have forgetten, is the genesis of this thread.

In vicious attacks on vulnerable individuals Ann beats Al handily.

It's fine for her to attack Bill Clinton--just as Al attacks Bush. It's not fine for her to attack widows--especially in the way she did.


This is the diffference I speak of.   If you have evidence against it, I'd like to hear it.

If you cannot find any such citations by Al, that will confirm that, as I've said, you are being sloppy thinkers--indeed, amazingly like the fuzzy-headed stereotype constantly being lampooned in the WSJ.

Thomas-- I don't think you're stupid--just lazy--and you have duped yourself into thinking that you can imitate Ann yourself--saying things you don't believe just for the reaction. The difference here however, is that some of us feel a poster should say what he or she believes--or be prepared to be called on it. And we don't care about our "ratings".

I'm curious to know whether you still think Ann would be "a great match for me---in real life". And if so, why this does not mean you "identify with her".

Awaiting your next brilliant posting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 08:32 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/ap_on_en_tv/ap_on_tv_ann_coulter_2


A reasonable article on AC...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 10:04 PM

Ann Coulter doesn't have any bottom to scrape.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:57 PM

Y'all are on the same page, even if not necessarily in the same book. :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:54 PM

Absolute, 100% agreement, Don.


8-{E


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 02:52 PM

"You have a right to your own opinions—but not your own facts."
                                     —the late Senator Patrick Moynihan

Words to live by. But the important thing is knowing which is which.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 01:53 PM

Fair enough. I am willing to let the facts speak for themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 01:47 PM

BB, I am not going to bother to respond to your constant attempts to divert the discussion from the subject by attacking me, other than to say the following:   Let others read what I have posted, then, if they chose to, read your editorial comments about what you claim I have said, and make up their own minds. Fair enough?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 01:43 PM

BTW, Don, when quoting for evidence be aware that people might just bring in the entire post...

------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:07 PM

Don,

"Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb "

If the shoe fits....

Your blame of the Bush administration for all the evils of the world demonstrate your bigotry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 09:09 AM

Don,

You have missed my point, or are deliberatly using a strawman argument, as you accused me of.

I NEVER STATED that
"... intolerance of dishonesty, lying, and fraud constituted "bigotry?""

I stated that your hypocracy in BLAMING the Bush administration for doing nothing WHEN IN FACT THEY DID WHAT YOU SAID THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE was bigotry, demonstrating YOUR intolerance and unwillingness to even look at the facts before pronouncing Bush to be wrong.

Feel free to be intolerant of of dishonesty, lying, and fraud, but try to avoid it in your own statements as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:16 AM

BillD,

"Well, Bruce, I have to say that I DO find you guilty of using various forms of the "straw man" fallacy on a number of occasions."

This is true, and I admit having done so. But in this case, could you look at the arguments presented, and inform me if this is one of those times. Perhaps I just don't see what Don is seeing.

If the consensus* is that I am wrong, I will of course apologise- But IMO I have not in this case acted as I have been accused of acting.


*of those judging on the logic, and not the viewpoint


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 12:11 PM

**note**...I do realize that showing the use of fallacious arguments does not 'prove' one is wrong in about some conclusions, but only that they have not been properly supported....and since, bb, one of the things you are often trying to do, is to show that someone else's arguments are bad, this is a major issue to be explored.

More next week, maybe........


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 11:58 AM

I had not been keeping up with this thread, but started to read it this morning and saw MY name tossed in as a trustworthy judge of arguments. Geeeze....it's about time! *grin*
Well, Bruce, I have to say that I DO find you guilty of using various forms of the "straw man" fallacy on a number of occasions. As Don Firth's little list notes, the 'straw man' is often composed of little truths, arranged...restated...and emphasized differently to characterize someone's points in a bad light.....and I have tried to point out where you have done this on several occasions.

I simply do not have time to go collect examples right now and dissect them word by word and show how your occasional use of several types of "informal fallicies" make conducting these discussions harder. "Straw Man" is just the most common. It is VERY easy to assemble several 'sorta' true facts and come up with a conclusion that is not supported by them. It can be a very subtle and hard to clarify point...which is why people fall into it easily.

   (The first time I remember trying to show the problem was regarding Teresa Kerry's use of language on TV...yes, Democrats DO also spout off sometimes...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 09:40 AM

It's okay, Don. I am bigoted against liars, frauds, manipulators, and other members of the genus Weasel sapiens just like you are. Given that we share the smae prejudices and are both bigots of the same sort, let's start a whole collection of weasel jokes. Didjas hear the one about the weasel who was half-Italian? He made himself an offer he couldn't understand. When he took himself up on the deal, he double-crossed himself and ran off with the money. Haahhahha.

LEt's celebrate our bigotry against assholes, frauds, crims, perjurers, self-serving double-dealers, nutballs and whack jobs and corruption engineers, wherever they may be found.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM

I can't imagine any reason that a clone might delete my post, but it was there on the "Popular views of the Bush Administration" thread yesterday. I had cut-and-pasted the definition of "bigotry" from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary and then proceeded to parse it for beardedbruce's enlightenment and edification.

The definition read in part ". . . a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

Okay, let's do it again. I stated first that I don't hate anyone, but I am intolerant of greed, lies, and corruption on the part of anyone, particularly elected officials. Greed, lies, and corruption are not a matter of race or ethnicity (which are not matters of choice), they are matters of character and integrity, which are matters of choice. Hating or being intolerant of people because of their genes or the background into which they were born is bigotry. Adopting a philosophy or political viewpoint, along with certain principles of individual or group behavior and joining a group of like-minded people is a matter of choice.

Since when has intolerance of dishonesty, lying, and fraud constituted "bigotry?"

Since, for some unfathomable reason, my post disappeared, I ask that question again.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:00 PM

BB, the Bush administration didn't pay a helluva lot of attention the the U. N. when they invaded Iraq. You are conveniently forgetting that in your eagerness to attack me. If they were going to do something the U. N. hadn't sanctioned anyway, they could have saved the lives of a lot of innocent people in Darfur instead of "collaterally damaging" tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that they, presumably, were trying to save from Saddam's tyranny.

Now if you want to try to jump me on the basis of tactics, and try to claim that we would have killed as many Sudanese as we have killed Iraqis, then have at it. I've got lots of data and I'm all ready for you.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:08 PM

Amos:

"I thought you had made it pretty plain that you wanted to promote the war in Iraq."

No. I am just pointing out the fallacies in the arguments against it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:03 PM

"There is quite a bit more there, "

Pity you did not bother with MY reply to Amos:

******************************************************
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:47 PM

Amos,

Because, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, with supporting info, in THIS case the Bush administration TRIED to do exactly what Don suggested that they should have ( with the implication they did not) and was rebuffed by the UN in its ( the Bush administration's) efforts.


Hardly a case of "Even in one instance missing some mitigating detail?"

I have no problem with his, or your comments on other topics, regardless of whether I agree with your conclusions, but in THIS he is out of line, and beyond reasonable debate.
****************************************************************

"When I objected to being called a "bigot" by you—with no foundation at all—you responded thus:"

I stated the basis of my opinion- YOUR intolerance of the Bush administration, and irrational blaming of them FOR DOING WHAT YOU WANTED THEM TO DO!


"After all, I did post a dictionary definition of the word on that thread."

FACT- *I* was the one to post the definition of bigot, and later, bigotry-


. . a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

I have presented what I consider your intolerance- If you have any facts other than you do not like being held to account for demonstrating bigotry here, please present them.

Did you say that

"And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point? If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue."

Did you say that

"By the way, BB, if the Bush administration is so all-fired concerned about human rights, why aren't we in Darfur? Now there we could do a lot of good by stopping the slaughter.

But I hear diddly squat from both Bush and the Bush apologists about that."

Did you present any evidence that my quote

"Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:10 AM


From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution." "

Was NOT a true representation of what the Bush Administration tried to do?

Is THAT NOT an attempt to put together the coallition that YOU claim
"would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation)" ?

WAS that attempt blocked by France, Germany, and China, nations that also blocked the attempt to have a UNR to force Iraq to comply with the previous UNRs?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:40 PM

Okay, let's look at the evidence. How about the following exchange?
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:03 PM

Bruce:

Do not vent your bitterness on me with false assumptions. It is a bottomless pit of woe not worth the falling itno, to start that kind of a slanging match. Based on these petty forum scribblings you have no gauge or metric of what I feel about what.

A
*****************
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:13 PM

Amos,

That was the post from 2005 that I had posted. I was pointing out to Don that his blame of the Bush administration was not justified, and merely an example of his ( perhaps justified in other cases, but not this one) bigotry.

I am sure we slang enough at the time to fulfil both of our desires.
When I objected to being called a "bigot" by you—with no foundation at all—you responded thus:
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:07 PM

Don,

"Main Entry: big•ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
- big•ot•ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big•ot•ed•ly adverb "

If the shoe fits....

Your blame of the Bush administration for all the evils of the world demonstrate your bigotry.
To which, Amos responds:
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos - PM
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

Bruce:

This is a bit like saying that accusing a killer of killing is bigoted. [Exactly, Amos--DF] The instantiations of the over-secretive, repressive, and destructive policies imposed on the nation by the current executive suite are legion. Their lies are legion; their economic blunders, legal evasions, and poor decisions are legion. Wherefore would it be bigotry to say so? Even in one instance missing some mitigating detail?

A
There is quite a bit more there, but it would seem that you like to accuse people of "bigotry" quite a bit. Do you even know what the word means? After all, I did post a dictionary definition of the word on that thread. But you seem to think it means "anyone who disagrees with what I believe." I guess that includes the Merriam-Webster dictionary too. So let's let other people decide, okay?

I'd suggest that you leave the epithets alone and stick to the discussion itself.

Now, back to the subject of this thread—

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:39 PM

"Ann Coulter intentionally uses stereotypes and slander and she reaches a very wide audience. "

Slander she can be held accountable for- as for other speech, I would think that Obama, Hilary, and Gore also reach a very wide audience- Do you want for me to be able to censor THEIR words, in regards to stereotypes, to remove what I don't LIKE? How about if we let someone to MY right do so?

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:05 PM

bb - Using television as a medium to spread hate is much more harmful than using the internet for discussion. If, however, the purpose of this forum was to spread hate, then I think that it, too, should be held accountable. Ann Coulter intentionally uses stereotypes and slander and she reaches a very wide audience.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:48 PM

Don,

YOUR lack of presenting facts, and stating your opinion and judgement as FACT we all must accept, because YOU say it, is getting a little tedious.

I've said what I have to say and I'm not backing off on any of it. If you can't handle it, that's your problem.

I would call for an outside group to determine who is correct because, while I BELIEVE I am right, there always exists the posibility I am wrong and owe you an apology. Obviously, your worldview does not allow you to ever be wrong.

Must be nice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:39 PM

BB, your "nyaa nyaa, same to you!" responses are getting a little tedious.

I've said what I have to say and I'm not backing off on any of it. If you can't handle it, that's your problem.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:34 PM

"She's welcome to her own opinion but she should not be free to spread hate. "


Free speech as long as YOU agree with it?

Defamation and slander are offences defined in law. "Spreading hate" could be used to describe a lot of what is presented here on Mudcat, in political discussions. I would no more limit what she can say ( though I do find it often crude and beyond what I would LIKE to hear said) than I would limit any other speech.


"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:24 PM

I do not watch Ann Coulter so I didn't realize how she makes her point by using negative stereotypes. This may be considered free speech to some but by using televison as your medium, I would consider it defamation or slander. I'm surprised she hasn't been sued.

She's welcome to her own opinion but she should not be free to spread hate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth - PM
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 10:33 PM

By the way, BB, if the Bush administration is so all-fired concerned about human rights, why aren't we in Darfur? Now there we could do a lot of good by stopping the slaughter.

But I hear diddly squat from both Bush and the Bush apologists about that.

Don Firth
**********************************************************************
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: Don Firth - PM
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:39 AM

Okay, BB.

"There you go, making judgments."

Exactly so! I don't buy the precept (no matter who said it) of "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I say, "Use your judgment. Judge—and be prepared to be judged for the judgments you make."

Point:   I don't recall the Bush administration considering much of anything that the U. N. said or did prior to our invasion of Iraq. Since when has that stopped the Bush administration from doing whatever it damn well pleased? And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point? If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue.
....

******************************************************************

Subject: RE: The Horrors of Darfur
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:10 AM


From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution."

*******************************************************************

Of course, those WERE the same countries that would not act against Iraq, in regards to UNR 1441. But:

EITHER the invasion of Iraq was wrong, in which case action in Darfur would be wrong, as it is opposed by the same countries,

OR the US SHOULD (have) take(n) action in Darfur, which implies the invasion of Iraq might be correct or wrong, but the opposition of those countries cannot be used to determine that.

You state that :

"If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue."

The BUSH ADMINISTRATION went to the UN, and tried that. (Just like about Iraq). YOU are now complaining that the Bush administration did not act: Yet you complain that they DID act in the case of Iraq.

The conclusion I see is that the approval of the UN IS NOT REQUIRED, when it is determined that action is needed. IN BOTH CASES.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:05 PM

But if they did that, Amos, the woman would completely disappear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:56 PM

Well, I think you should embark on a jint project, the two of you, to scrape Ann Coulter's bottom.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:06 PM

Peace,

Probably. But as long as *I* am being accused, I will reply with my viewpoint.

Can I call on a panal of others ( say, you, BillD, and Wolfgang, all of whom I disagree with politically, but have some faith in your judgement of fact)) to look at our arguements, and see WHO is making the straw man arguements?

Or should I just let people think Don is right, when I have presented his own words saying that the Bush administration ( in regards to Sudan) HAS acted just as he wished?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:44 AM

You know, you two guys would likely get along in real life. Just thought I'd mention that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:43 AM

Don,

You state: "BB, There is an argument technique that I've noticed you use a lot, and it's pretty transparent."

1. YOU are the one using the straw man argument- When I state YOU are a biogot, it is NOT because of your hate of the Bush administration- it IS because of YOUR statements about what Bush SHOULD have done, and DID. You hold him to blame when he DID WHAT YOU WANTED HIM TO.

2. If you have any examples here of my using that arguement, perhaps you would care to show me.

MY post was

"" because I am critical of the Bush administration, that somehow makes me a "bigot.""


No, I have never claimed that because you are critical of the Bush administration you were a bigot- I stated that your unreasonable blame of the Bush administration for not acting as you stated they should have in Sudan, when I pointed out that they had done EXACTLY what you said they should have done in that specific instance, was bigotry. Perhaps I should have used the words " unreasonable, insane and unjustified hate and intolerance" . "

YOUR statement that I was responding to is a classic case of the straw man arguement. I have noted some people here who blame anyone opposed to them with acting in the manner that they themselves have been acting. I guess I will have to number you among them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: Not to change the subject or anythin' . . . .
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:16 PM

"RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom"

but if the thread title is true, she's having to stretch her arms waaaay up to do the work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:09 PM

BB, There is an argument technique that I've noticed you use a lot, and it's pretty transparent. Perhaps you are not aware—but many others here are—that you use it as much as you do. You might profit be reading the following:
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:
1.   Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2.   Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy*)
3.   Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4.   Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.   Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
Some logic textbooks define the straw man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.

*Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning, a practice commonly (and erroneously) referred to as the "fallacy of quoting out of context." The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. Comparing this practice to surgical excision, historian Milton Mayer coined the term "contextomy" to describe its use by Julius Streicher, editor of the infamous Nazi broadsheet Der Stürmer in Weimar-era Germany. To arouse anti-semitic sentiments among the weekly's working class Christian readership, Streicher regularly published truncated quotations from Talmudic texts that, in their shortened form, appear to advocate greed, slavery, and ritualistic murder (Mayer, 1966). Although rarely employed to this malicious extreme, contextomy is a common method of misrepresentation in contemporary mass media (McGlone, M.S., Contextomy: The art of quoting out of context. Media, Culture, & Society, 27, 511-522).
In the interest of keeping this and other discussions honest.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter scrapes bottom
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:29 PM

Don,

You state "You may not have made the claim yourself, but you are currently busy defending someone who does."

My post was

"She has the same freedom of speech that you do. Shall I point out the number of times here on Mudcat that I have been told
"If you don't hate Bush and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." ?

I guess the problem is you don't believe that anyone should be allowed an opinion that you do not agree with. "


How is that "defending" HER? I AM defending her, and YOUR, RIGHT to make unreasonable comments. There is no requirement that I agree with either of you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 31 October 8:11 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.