 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Were Coulter's influence confined to book sales, you might have a point. But as usual, you fail to do any research.
Coulter appears on TV far more than most conservative pundits (excepting those with their daily shows, but those guys are also of the "troll" variety). She's a constant feature on Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, talk radio, etc. She's also a nationally syndicated columnist whose writing appears in newspapers and magazines across the country. She's been featured on the cover of Newsweek, for pete's sake. When was the last time George Will could say that?
|
It's all a measure of what you consider influential. I don't consider the number of tv appearances you make to be influential, because I don't ever watch this sort of television.
As for being a nationally syndicated columnist, you are closer to being 'influential' but I am asking for ideas. What ideas has she brought that cause other people to cite her as an authority? That is the influence I tend to regard more than the number of books sold or television appearances.
This is why I go back to my point that she is the dessert, and the others are the meat and potatoes. Conservatives rely on the others in order to articulate their ideas, while they indulge in Ann Coulter who says what they would love to say themselves.
quote:
Hahaha, funny. I did a google search on coulter quotes, and I found literally thousands of websites in which conservatives were quoting her in arguments and such. Do it yourself and see! So instead of relying on your (uninformed) opinion, you might want to actually research such things before making such pronouncements.
|
Oh they do? If you found thousands than surely you can find the time to cite one. I am curious as to how they cite her.
Secondly, if they do cite her, then clearly, she has some substance to her arguments, no? 
quote:
Oh, one that was supported by facts, free of distortions and based on original scholarship on her part. Now, she does like to take things other, more sober analysts are saying and repeat them with added vitriol...but that doesn't make one substantive, you know.
|
So unless the facts are presented in a style you refer to as sober, they cannot be substantial? Wrong. Style can assist or conceal substance, but does not denote the absence of substance.
quote:
" However, I do agree with her and with you, that the only way for liberals to counter her arguments is to throw pies, which should give you a clue right there, that her arguments must have merit."
|
Nope. If they felt that the earlier efforts to counter Ms. Coulter's arguments were successful, why would they bother to resort to pieing her? The key here is in the word 'counter'. I did not say, that the only way for them to 'reply' to Ms. Coulter was to throw a pie, but the only way to counter her is to throw a pie.
quote:
Why do extremists on either side do what they do? It's not Alterman or Krugman who are throwing pies, you know. The point is that the pie-throwing isn't representative of the arguments opposing Coulter.
|
Then surely Alterman, and Krugman will decry, and distance themselves from the pieing as the prolifers do when a nutjob shoots an abortion doctor. Have they?
quote:
I've seen plenty of celebrating of the shooting of doctors. Have you forgotten the website that had a "tally" of abortion doctors and had the big red X through the doctor murdered in Pensacola?
I've seen people all over the net glorifying in violence against abortion doctors. They think it's a righteous cause.
|
And do these people represent themselves as prolifers? You cite examples of people who do celebrate the shootings, yet you deliberately evade using the term that I used, prolifer, because the evidence does not support your argument.
I am a prolifer, and I have worked for a variety of prolife organisations, of all different missions and stripes. Yet, each of these organisations have a specific clause, that not only do they publicly condemn violence against abortion doctors, they also will not associate with those who either support the shootings, or refuse to condemn them.
quote:
So one non-partisan site amongst several liberal ones is an issue for you? Man, talk about insubstansive criticism...
|
Why bother to cite a 'non-partisan' site? You lost track of your argument, which was trying to show how liberals attempt to refute Ms. Coulter. When you throw in a non-partisan site, you are padding your argument with fluff.
quote:
But it's a vacuous point. Prove first that pie-throwing is indicative of a lack of such refuation on one side or the other. As I said, extremists throwing pies says nothing about what the actual liberal pundits and commentators are doing.
If Michael Moore has been decisively refuted, why threaten to kill him at all?
|
Answer the question, Boris. If Ms. Coulter has been decisively refuted, why should she be pied, and why do these liberal columnists approve of the pieing? I think her point has merit, that the liberals have not, in fact, refuted her argument.
quote:
Which, as I said, isn't relevant when concerning whether one is popular or not, since one need not have 51% of the general populace loving you to be popular.
|
To be popular overall is to be approved by at least half of the population. To be popular among a segment of society, is to be popular among less than half.
I do not dispute that among a segment of the population, Ms. Coulter is popular, but overall, she is less popular than unpopular.
quote:
Wrong again. I clearly stated it on the previous page, so you're "forgetting" it here is baffling:
|
quote:
Being "popular" doesn't necessitate being loved by 51% of the general population. It just means one has a large enough following to sustain a highly public image and to peddle one's wares to a significant number of people. I'll use Tom Cruise again as an example: I'd wager that fewer than 50% of the population cares for him as an actor, but he has enough fans to keep a good career going. Likewise, Coulter has folks like you and Ned to keep her aloft.
|
Nowhere do you confine this significant number of people to 'rightwingers' until the final point. If you meant rightwingers, why didn't you say rightwingers?
quote:
It's not contradictory at all. Why should I care about the opinions of someone on issues of morality when that person doesn't abide by their own pronouncements? If Warren Buffet said it was smart not to invest in company X but then did so anyway, why would I believe what he said and not consider what he did?
|
First of all, I agree, why should you listen to someone who does not practice what they preach? However, that does not change the fact that something is right or wrong. Your problem is that you do not want to come to the conclusion that anything can be right or wrong in an objective sense, which is what is implied behind my statement that the character of the person is irrelevant to whether their argument is right or wrong.
Secondly, if you hold Ms. Coulter to one standard, why should we listen to anyone? We are all hypocrites as soon as we call ourselves Christians, because none of us live as we ought to live.
quote:
Coulter has an ulterior motive with her moral claims, and that's just to throw more red meat to her fans while she continues to live in contradiction of those morals. I can only believe that what she really believes is shown in how she acts, ergo she doesn't really think it's wrong to live out of wedlock with someone.
|
And I have to agree with you here. Personally, she doesn't believe in what she is saying, because she does not choose to live this way. However, be very careful of the standard you are setting, and not to hold Ms. Coulter to a standard above that of anyone else to whom you put your trust upon.
However, even if she doesn't believe what she is saying, that does not change the fact that it is wrong to live with someone out of wedlock, and that it is right for people to live with each other when they are married. Regardless of what Ms. Coulter does, that does not change whether her argument is true or false.
quote:
First, I'm not sure Moore hasn't been pied--I've seen references to the occasion floating around the web.
|
Then show them.
quote:
Second, regardless of that, one pie-throwing is hardly indicative that Coulter is subjected to really worse treatment than Moore. After all, as I showed, he has conservative commentators threatening to kill him. Not a nut on a message board, mind you, but a radio show host. Has Al Franken said he'd kill Coulter, if given half the chance?
|
Which is the whole centre of the debate. You notice I did not say, Ms. Coulter has obviously had the better of it, I merely said, that the point was debateable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's all a measure of what you consider influential. I don't consider the number of tv appearances you make to be influential, because I don't ever watch this sort of television. |
So you don't consider it influential because it's not something you like? Wow, what a revelation. I don't watch baseball, ergo it must not be a popular sport. 
What you watch and personally like has no bearing on the rest of the world.
quote:
As for being a nationally syndicated columnist, you are closer to being 'influential' but I am asking for ideas. What ideas has she brought that cause other people to cite her as an authority? That is the influence I tend to regard more than the number of books sold or television appearances. |
I'm curious how you can ask me this when I said from the beginning that she's vacuous--devoid of ideas. But that doesn't preclude her from being influential. As I said, it's her style that is influential. She has taken political bile and vitriol, culled from Limbaugh and others, to a whole new level, and many have followed suit in imitation. That's where she has influence. And she can be credited above most for poisoning the debate.
quote:
This is why I go back to my point that she is the dessert, and the others are the meat and potatoes. Conservatives rely on the others in order to articulate their ideas, while they indulge in Ann Coulter who says what they would love to say themselves. |
Very few conservatives, overall, rely on reading folks like Will, Buckley, Brooks, etc. That's because most Americans get their news and commentary through major media outlets--cable news--and the internet. So most of these folks are seeing the Coulter-types pontificating, not the Will types. So what is it they dine on most? Coulter and her ilk.
quote:
Oh they do? If you found thousands than surely you can find the time to cite one. I am curious as to how they cite her. |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/809110/posts
An easy first hit on that.
A small sampling of others:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...24/171128.shtml
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/coultertreason.php
http://www.americandaily.com/article/4019
And is a glowing article from that oh-so-unimportant conservative rag, the Wall Street Journal, perhaps evidence enough that conservatives find her influential?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110003713
quote:
Secondly, if they do cite her, then clearly, she has some substance to her arguments, no? |
No, Ben, already covered this: that doesn't mean anything is substantive. Popular does not equate to substantive.
quote:
So unless the facts are presented in a style you refer to as sober, they cannot be substantial? Wrong. Style can assist or conceal substance, but does not denote the absence of substance. |
Funny how you singled out the one word "sober" and ignored the rest. Typical. No, that was just one aspect of the whole. In order to be substantive, one must present original ideas that merit discussion. Coulter doesn't--she just presents old ideas with new vitriol, and the few supposedly "new" ideas she's had (or at least, "unique") are hardly revelatory or worthy of debate (like, McCarthy was a swell guy, or we should be forcibly converting Muslims to Christianity, or conservatives should be threatening liberals with violence to shut them up).
quote:
Nope. If they felt that the earlier efforts to counter Ms. Coulter's arguments were successful, why would they bother to resort to pieing her? The key here is in the word 'counter'. I did not say, that the only way for them to 'reply' to Ms. Coulter was to throw a pie, but the only way to counter her is to throw a pie. |
More hairsplitting. Pardon me if I see little different between "refute" (which is what I said) and "counter." At any rate, they have "countered" her, as the links I gave show. Your harping on pie-throwing by a very small handful of people as somehow indicative of a lack of counterargument is one of the more ludicrous fallacies I've seen you come up with.
quote:
Then surely Alterman, and Krugman will decry, and distance themselves from the pieing as the prolifers do when a nutjob shoots an abortion doctor. Have they?
|
Who knows? Frankly, pie throwing is a world of magnitude away from shooting people. And Alterman and Krugman generally concern themselves with weightier affairs. And I don't see why they have to address what are minor incidents that occur very seldomly, and are perpetrated by extremists. For all they know, the pie-throwers are radical anarchists or communists. Why would a liberal need to distance himself from thier actions? Oh, because some stupid conservatives might not know the difference, right...
I can present you with many choice quotes from Coulter that I would hope, at least, you would find repugnant. But all I see here is adulation from you for her. Should I take it you agree with her more purient notions, since you've not bothered to disagree with them yet?
quote:
And do these people represent themselves as prolifers? |
Do the pie throwers represent themselves as liberals or Democrats? I know a few conservatives who loathe Coulter enough to want to give her a pie in the face.
But it's pretty obvious to any thinking person that someone who goes out and murders an abortion doctor or bombs an abortion clinic is "prolife" in the sense of being against abortion. That's a big duhh. However, you can't make the same claim about pie-throwers. As I said, even a conservative could pie another conservative if he found him repugnant enough.
quote:
You cite examples of people who do celebrate the shootings, yet you deliberately evade using the term that I used, prolifer, because the evidence does not support your argument. |
Huh? I used the term prolifer. What the hell are you talking about? False accusations of deliberate evasions on my part from you are funny, considering your own evasion. See below.
quote:
I am a prolifer, and I have worked for a variety of prolife organisations, of all different missions and stripes. Yet, each of these organisations have a specific clause, that not only do they publicly condemn violence against abortion doctors, they also will not associate with those who either support the shootings, or refuse to condemn them. |
Great.
I'm a liberal, have worked with a variety of liberal, progressive organizations of all different missions and stripes. Yet, none of these groups has ever condoned pie-throwing or any other form of assault, minor or otherwise.
But I also don't feel the need to overtly distance myself from pie-throwers, because only an idiot would assume that pie throwing by a few individuals of radical bent is somehow indicative of overall liberal sentiments. Most liberals aren't throwing pies, after all.
quote:
Why bother to cite a 'non-partisan' site? You lost track of your argument, which was trying to show how liberals attempt to refute Ms. Coulter. When you throw in a non-partisan site, you are padding your argument with fluff. |
No, Ben. Simple logic--you claim that, out of frustration of their not being a refutation of Coulter's arguments, liberals resort to throwing pies. So any refutations of her arguments--from liberals or otherwise--counters your claims. Even if the author is non-partisan, the existence of the refutations would diffuse the pie-throwing, were your ludicrous "hypothesis" to be correct. The point of showing a site that was non-partisan was also to show that refutations of her noxious writing exist outside of a supposed liberal bias against her.
You also claimed that liberals responding to her only went after her style, not what she wrote about. All the links I gave refuted that claim of yours, since they all address specific points she has made.
quote:
Answer the question, Boris. If Ms. Coulter has been decisively refuted, why should she be pied, and why do these liberal columnists approve of the pieing? I think her point has merit, that the liberals have not, in fact, refuted her argument. |
I answered the question, Ben. You ignored it, as usual. First, pieing by a few radicals is in no way indicative of their being a lack of refutation. The logical connection just isn't there, since those who are in the trenches of political discourse don't have a jot of control over free-wheeling radicals and what they choose to do.
Second, you haven't shown in any fashion that the liberal columnists do approve of pieing. Whether or not they've addressed it (and I, frankly, don't find it important enough to do any research on the matter) is quite irrelevant. Columnists usually have more important things to worry about than a once-in-a-while pieing.
Thirdly, now to your own evasion. You didn't answer the question. If, as you have claimed, Michael Moore has been so cogently rebutted, to conservatives still issue death threats to him? If you think pie-throwing is indicative of a paucity of argument, I would only hope you would think at least the same of death threats.
quote:
To be popular overall is to be approved by at least half of the population. To be popular among a segment of society, is to be popular among less than half. |
Bullshit. Is Tom Cruise popular? I would say so. Does he enjoy popularity amongst 50+% of the population? Highly doubt it. As I said, popularity is just having a large enough following to sustain a visible persona and peddle one's identity and wares. I'd say having four NYT best-sellers is indicative that one is popular.
At any rate, by your standard, there's no such as a popular conservative, anyway. So Coulter still comes out ahead of the rest in the popularity stakes.
quote:
I do not dispute that among a segment of the population, Ms. Coulter is popular, but overall, she is less popular than unpopular.
Nowhere do you confine this significant number of people to 'rightwingers' until the final point. If you meant rightwingers, why didn't you say rightwingers?
|
This is still hairsplitting. She's popular enough to have four massive best-sellers, be featured on the cover of magazines, have columns published in conservative sources all over the country (including, until she behaved like a total spoiled brat, the NRO). Of course, she's only going to be popular with conservatives, though. That's a given. But isn't the entire point of this that I was saying she's very popular with conservatives? And you accuse me of losing sight of arguments?
quote:
Your problem is that you do not want to come to the conclusion that anything can be right or wrong in an objective sense, which is what is implied behind my statement that the character of the person is irrelevant to whether their argument is right or wrong. |
No, the problem is that I don't give a rat's ass what Coulter says about morality because she doesn't even live up to her own standards. I'll listen to the Pope, though I disagree with what he says. I never said a thing about Coulter's arguments being wrong because of her behavior--merely that it means she has no moral authority on which to make such statements.
quote:
Secondly, if you hold Ms. Coulter to one standard, why should we listen to anyone? We are all hypocrites as soon as we call ourselves Christians, because none of us live as we ought to live. |
Well, I can't argue with that.
Glad you agree with me. 
You seem to once again lost sight of the argument. Agathon mentioned her out-of-wedlock deliances just to show she was a hypocrite. Nobody said it was indicative of her being wrong about something (there's plenty else for that), just that it made her a hypocrite. You're the one trying to turn the statement into something it wasn't.
As I said, they're merely references, made on blogs and such. Not much substantial. The point was that I honestly don't know whether or not he has been pied--maybe he has, if those references are correct. Yet you seem so definitive.
I do know he HAS received death threats. And that one from a radio host was pretty prominent. This to me seems to be the conservative mode of attack. Helms gave a vague threat to Clinton should he visit NC, Right-wing nuts blow up federal buildings and shoot abortion doctors, or they send death threats (see how many Judge Greer in the Schiavo case got).
Now, if I were in the mood for being infantile and judgmental, I could say that this indicates that the only counter conservatives have to liberal arguments is to try to kill them. When weighed against pie-throwing...well, I can't say I see an occasional pieing as something so horrible, as wrong as it may be!
quote:
Which is the whole centre of the debate. You notice I did not say, Ms. Coulter has obviously had the better of it, I merely said, that the point was debateable. |
Er, and I'm debating it... I don't think she's had the worse of it. I never said Moore had the better of it, either. However, you seem to be engaging in dishonesty, here. Your first posts were very much indicative of your feeling that Coulter had more attacks against her than Moore (hence your asking if anyone had mentioned more "shacking up" with someone). Looks to me like you're backpeddaling once again.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
So you don't consider it influential because it's not something you like? Wow, what a revelation. I don't watch baseball, ergo it must not be a popular sport.
What you watch and personally like has no bearing on the rest of the world.
|
Granted, but it also exposes some of the narrowness of the definition that influence is in being a nationally syndicated columnist and being the best seller. I think my definition is broader, and less subject to the vagarities of current popularity.
Above most? So she isn't the only one who poisons the debate. Looking at gepap's list, there are plenty of liberals, and it confirms Ming's statement that the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives. Who is to say that Ann imitated Rush anymore than she has imitated Al Franken?
As a sidenote, Dennis Miller a conservative?
quote:
Very few conservatives, overall, rely on reading folks like Will, Buckley, Brooks, etc. That's because most Americans get their news and commentary through major media outlets--cable news--and the internet. So most of these folks are seeing the Coulter-types pontificating, not the Will types. So what is it they dine on most? Coulter and her ilk.
|
Through mainstream media? I say ask again, and ask that you ask the majority of conservatives here on Apolyton. Since you aren't one yourself, how do you know that conservatives get their news from the mainstream media? Most of the ones that I know have checked out and rely upon independent sources that are more representative of their viewpoints than the mainstream.
A quote of an entire article? That's not what I had in mind.
Better, but this would be better evidence right here, something I am going to do now.
quote:
The reason I liked it is that Grove quotes me – and the quotes are things I actually said! That is stunningly rare.
|
Whereupon Coulter goes on to demonstrate how many folks decline to actually quote her because they feel tainted by doing so.
quote:
And is a glowing article from that oh-so-unimportant conservative rag, the Wall Street Journal, perhaps evidence enough that conservatives find her influential?
|
For her style, or for what she has to say? It seems to me they quote her because of her points, rather than just for her style.
Thank you Boris. 
quote:
No, Ben, already covered this: that doesn't mean anything is substantive. Popular does not equate to substantive.
|
Thank you. Then the fact that she is popular among conservatives says nothing about whether there is more substance than style. It is entirely irrelevant.
quote:
Funny how you singled out the one word "sober" and ignored the rest. Typical. No, that was just one aspect of the whole.
|
People use words like that for a reason, they aren't throwaway words.
quote:
In order to be substantive, one must present original ideas that merit discussion. Coulter doesn't--she just presents old ideas with new vitriol, and the few supposedly "new" ideas she's had (or at least, "unique") are hardly revelatory or worthy of debate (like, McCarthy was a swell guy, or we should be forcibly converting Muslims to Christianity, or conservatives should be threatening liberals with violence to shut them up).
|
 I know she didn't say that because I actually read the article you are alluding to. Where did she say that Christians ought to forceably convert Muslims?
quote:
More hairsplitting. Pardon me if I see little different between "refute" (which is what I said) and "counter." At any rate, they have "countered" her, as the links I gave show. Your harping on pie-throwing by a very small handful of people as somehow indicative of a lack of counterargument is one of the more ludicrous fallacies I've seen you come up with.
|
Once again, answer the question! Why would they feel the need to pie Ms. Coulter, if they felt she had already been decisively refuted? All you have given here is a BAM, that because you posted links claiming to refute Ms. Coulter, that therefore it must be true.
quote:
Who knows? Frankly, pie throwing is a world of magnitude away from shooting people.
|
Thank you. Than your comparision of pie throwing to shooting abortion doctors is inflammatory and without merit.
quote:
I can present you with many choice quotes from Coulter that I would hope, at least, you would find repugnant. But all I see here is adulation from you for her. Should I take it you agree with her more purient notions, since you've not bothered to disagree with them yet?
|
An argument from silence? That since I have not disagreed with Ms. Coulter that I must agree with her. Cite one of these more 'prurient' and offensive comments, and see what I have to say.
As for adoration of Ms. Coulter, I think I have been rather evenhanded.
quote:
But it's pretty obvious to any thinking person that someone who goes out and murders an abortion doctor or bombs an abortion clinic is "prolife" in the sense of being against abortion.
|
Excuse me, but that's a double standard. If the liberals get to decide who counts as 'liberal' and who counts as a commie anarchist, then so do the prolifers. The prolifers say that it makes no sense to defend life by killing other people. Prolife is not about being against abortion, as they are labelled by the media. It would be the same as saying that if the prolifers are anti choice, or anti abortion, that the pro choice folks are anti life. You can't have it both ways. If the prolife folks are anti abortion, then the prochoice folks are pro abortion.
quote:
That's a big duhh.
|
Not at all.
quote:
Huh? I used the term prolifer. What the hell are you talking about? False accusations of deliberate evasions on my part from you are funny, considering your own evasion. See below.
|
You even use quote marks around prolifer in your last statement? Why?
quote:
No, Ben. Simple logic--you claim that, out of frustration of their not being a refutation of Coulter's arguments, liberals resort to throwing pies. So any refutations of her arguments--from liberals or otherwise--counters your claims. [quote]
Actually, I claimed that liberals did not have a refutation of Ms. Coulter's argument. Get it right. Non partisan sources are irrelevant.
Secondly, if I were to post that Ann Coulter sucks, would that be considered a refutation? No. Yet you say here:
[quote]
The point of showing a site that was non-partisan was also to show that refutations of her noxious writing exist outside of a supposed liberal bias against her.
|
What refutations? It's easy to demolish a strawman as you have done in this thread by quoting what you wish Ann Coulter said, rather than what she actually said.
quote:
I answered the question, Ben. You ignored it, as usual. First, pieing by a few radicals is in no way indicative of their being a lack of refutation. The logical connection just isn't there, since those who are in the trenches of political discourse don't have a jot of control over free-wheeling radicals and what they choose to do.
|
Ah, so all these pie throwers are just free wheeling radicals with no connections to the established liberals who are above that sort of thing. Like Dennis Miller I suppose, eh?
What are the motivations behind those throwing pies? To express frusteration? To try to silence Ms. Coulter? What are they thinking Boris?
quote:
Second, you haven't shown in any fashion that the liberal columnists do approve of pieing.
|
Seeing as you have said my tacit lack of statements in favour of Ann Coulter means that I must accept her, I also do not see any condemnation of the pieing by the liberal columnists. Therefore, in their silence, they must really think pieing her was a good thing.
quote:
Thirdly, now to your own evasion. You didn't answer the question. If, as you have claimed, Michael Moore has been so cogently rebutted, to conservatives still issue death threats to him? If you think pie-throwing is indicative of a paucity of argument, I would only hope you would think at least the same of death threats.
|
Agreed. I didn't know they had issued death threats against him, and that is completely out of line.
quote:
Bullshit. Is Tom Cruise popular? I would say so. Does he enjoy popularity amongst 50+% of the population? Highly doubt it. As I said, popularity is just having a large enough following to sustain a visible persona and peddle one's identity and wares. I'd say having four NYT best-sellers is indicative that one is popular.
At any rate, by your standard, there's no such as a popular conservative, anyway. So Coulter still comes out ahead of the rest in the popularity stakes.
|
Are their any popular liberals? That's an interesting question. I would suspect fellows such as Ronald Reagan would be considered popular even my by more stringent definition.
quote:
No, the problem is that I don't give a rat's ass what Coulter says about morality because she doesn't even live up to her own standards. I'll listen to the Pope, though I disagree with what he says. I never said a thing about Coulter's arguments being wrong because of her behavior--merely that it means she has no moral authority on which to make such statements.
Nope. You said she was wrong because she didn't live up to her own standards. But now that you have changed your statement, then I have nothing further left to say. Saying that she has no moral authority, I can't very well disagree.
[quote]
I do know he HAS received death threats. And that one from a radio host was pretty prominent. This to me seems to be the conservative mode of attack. Helms gave a vague threat to Clinton should he visit NC, Right-wing nuts blow up federal buildings and shoot abortion doctors, or they send death threats (see how many Judge Greer in the Schiavo case got).
|
Don't forget the unabomber, or how every single terrorist in the united states is a card carrying conservative. How liberals all have their hands clean of such atrocities, and never would do anything wrong to their opponents. 
I have said earlier, and I will continue to say it. Violence achieves nothing. Violence cannot further any cause, rather it will hinder things in the long run. When Malcolm X says that the time has come for radical change, that change is not happening fast enough, I am not inclined to brand him a conservative.
All the prolifers condemn the bombing of abortion clinics, and the violence against abortion providers, and yet, you have, in one statement, condemned all of them, tarred them with the same brush, because of the actions of one person.
You say it is indicative of conservatives to issue death threats, and I say that you are fooling yourself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I know she didn't say that because I actually read the article you are alluding to. Where did she say that Christians ought to forceably convert Muslims?
|
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." - Anne Coulter, September 13, 2001 National Review Column
-------
"ALAN COLMES (co-host): Would you like to convert these people [Muslims] all to Christianity?
COULTER: The ones that we haven't killed, yes.
COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?
COULTER: That would be a good start, yes."
- Anne Coulter, October 4, 2004 on Hannity and Colmes
Edit: Oops, here's another one:
"I am often asked if I still think we should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!" - Anne Coulter, in How to Talk Like a Liberal
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Granted, but it also exposes some of the narrowness of the definition that influence is in being a nationally syndicated columnist and being the best seller. I think my definition is broader, and less subject to the vagarities of current popularity. |
Your position is unsubstantiated to this day, however, by anything other than your assertion. And you just dismiss my support for my position because you don't want to believe it. Do you have any support for what you say?
quote:
Above most? So she isn't the only one who poisons the debate. Looking at gepap's list, there are plenty of liberals, and it confirms Ming's statement that the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives. Who is to say that Ann imitated Rush anymore than she has imitated Al Franken? |
Barring the fact that Franken is a humorist, not a pundit--when has Franken ever attacked the children of people on the other side, as Limbaugh has? When has ever called conservatives traitors?
I don't think any of those liberals on the list can hold a candle to Coulter, Limbaugh and Hannity in the vitriol department.
quote:
As a sidenote, Dennis Miller a conservative?
|
 Do you even watch him? He's a staunch Republican.
quote:
Through mainstream media? I say ask again, and ask that you ask the majority of conservatives here on Apolyton. Since you aren't one yourself, how do you know that conservatives get their news from the mainstream media? Most of the ones that I know have checked out and rely upon independent sources that are more representative of their viewpoints than the mainstream. |
Most of the ones I know watch Fox News, read the Drudge Report and listen to Limbaugh on the radio. Considering these sources outperform all other conservative opinion outlets by miles, just what, besides personal incredulity, do you have to base your argument on?
quote:
For her style, or for what she has to say? It seems to me they quote her because of her points, rather than just for her style. |
So will you admit the WSJ quoting her is a sign she is an influential conservative, finally?
quote:
Thank you. Then the fact that she is popular among conservatives says nothing about whether there is more substance than style. It is entirely irrelevant.
|
I never said it did--so this is yet another straw man. I emphatically said this wasn't the case.
quote:
People use words like that for a reason, they aren't throwaway words. |
I didn't say otherwise, but you took the word out of it's context. That's dishonest.
quote:
I know she didn't say that because I actually read the article you are alluding to. Where did she say that Christians ought to forceably convert Muslims? |
Once again your "knowledge" is circumspect. Thank you, Kontiki, for the actual quotes. Tell me, what weaseling will you have for that? That even though she's advocating invading them and killing their leaders, the conversion itself will be peaceful? Right.
quote:
Once again, answer the question! Why would they feel the need to pie Ms. Coulter, if they felt she had already been decisively refuted? All you have given here is a BAM, that because you posted links claiming to refute Ms. Coulter, that therefore it must be true.
What are the motivations behind those throwing pies? To express frusteration? To try to silence Ms. Coulter? What are they thinking Boris?
|
A BAM to refute a BAM is so bad for you? You've offered nothing but your own assertion--sans any proof--that this is the reason for pie-throwing, and you've refused to answer the same question as it relates to people making death threats on Moore.
I don't know what motivates the pie-throwers (we're talking, what, 5-6 people? Maybe 10, tops?). Nor do I care. It's probably different for each thrower. The point is, whatever it is has little relation to the status of existing refutations to Coulter's arguments, and you've failed to show any connection.
quote:
Thank you. Than your comparision of pie throwing to shooting abortion doctors is inflammatory and without merit. |
Oh please. I don't think
quote:
An argument from silence? That since I have not disagreed with Ms. Coulter that I must agree with her. |
 You really have gall. This is EXACTLY what you're accusing the liberal pundits of doing! And it's exactly why I mentioned it! Your own logic leads to the above conclusion, not mine.
quote:
Excuse me, but that's a double standard. If the liberals get to decide who counts as 'liberal' and who counts as a commie anarchist, then so do the prolifers. The prolifers say that it makes no sense to defend life by killing other people. Prolife is not about being against abortion, as they are labelled by the media.
You even use quote marks around prolifer in your last statement? Why?
|
Blame the media for what MOST people who call themselves Pro-life believe? That's rich. Richly absurd.
Look, Ben: Like it or not, most people who call themselves "pro-life" aren't "pro-life" in the sense you mean. Most of these people are perfectly happy about the death penalty and also happily supported Bush's march to war. That's the difference, because commie anarchist's aren't considering themselves liberals. These people *do* consider themselves pro-life, and they make up the majority. Sorry, you don't get to decide that--it's the truth about the movement. Randall Terry, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed--these are all the posterboys of pro-life in America, and they are also pro-Death Penalty. Whining about it changes nothing.
So a guy shooting an abortion doctor who believes he's doing God's work to save unborn babies can certainly be "pro-life." After all, he believes his crime will ultimately save more than it harms.
Does his act mean the entire pro-life movement is wrong? Of course not, since a movement can't control what a few individuals do. (Ding ding ding, that's a major point there, if you missed it.)
quote:
It would be the same as saying that if the prolifers are anti choice, or anti abortion, that the pro choice folks are anti life. You can't have it both ways. If the prolife folks are anti abortion, then the prochoice folks are pro abortion. |
This is absolutely stupid logic. Care to try again? Research "false dichotomy."
quote:
What refutations? It's easy to demolish a strawman as you have done in this thread by quoting what you wish Ann Coulter said, rather than what she actually said.
|
This isn't about the actual refutations, and I have no desire to delve into them, given how long and pointless this is already. I let the links I provide, and more that exists on the net, as they are. Read them instead of just whining about them. Unless your purpose here isn't to actually, you know, fairly consider her points, but just to score argumenting points.
That's why your complaining about the ONE (out of several) non-partisan link just doesn't hold up. If, as you believe, pie-throwing is dependent on whether or not there are refutations to Coulter's arguments, then it simply doesn't matter WHO makes the refutations. That you demand it just be from liberals is a senseless goalpost.
quote:
Ah, so all these pie throwers are just free wheeling radicals with no connections to the established liberals who are above that sort of thing. Like Dennis Miller I suppose, eh? |
Do you have any evidence as to who or what they are? You whine about associating abortion doctor shooters to your movement sans evidence (which I only did to illustrate a point, not to say I really believed it), but just assume the pie-throwers are all of a particular stripe. But you don't know, do you?
Anarchists, communists, socialists, libertarians--all are also possible candidates, since Coulter represents values they all find repugnant. How do you know the aren't pie-throwers?
quote:
Seeing as you have said my tacit lack of statements in favour of Ann Coulter means that I must accept her, I also do not see any condemnation of the pieing by the liberal columnists. Therefore, in their silence, they must really think pieing her was a good thing. |
Oh man! How on earth could you lose track of the argument so badly? Do you even read before posting?
Ben, I will yet again spell it out for you: YOU first claimed that the lack of condemnation from liberal pundits meant tacit approval. I countered that by saying that such logic would mean you therefore must accept all of Coulter, since you don't condemn the bad things she says. Same law of tacit approval. BUT I don't really believe it, I was just illustrating why YOUR logic was quite, quite flawed. That you've now turned around and said this is just the proof I needed! Thank you so much!
quote:
Are their any popular liberals? That's an interesting question. I would suspect fellows such as Ronald Reagan would be considered popular even my by more stringent definition. |
Reagan's dead--sorry to break the news to you. And he hadn't been making any waves for a while, anyway. This is completely irrelevant to who is the most influential among current conservative pundits.
quote:
Don't forget the unabomber, or how every single terrorist in the united states is a card carrying conservative. How liberals all have their hands clean of such atrocities, and never would do anything wrong to their opponents.
I have said earlier, and I will continue to say it. Violence achieves nothing. Violence cannot further any cause, rather it will hinder things in the long run. When Malcolm X says that the time has come for radical change, that change is not happening fast enough, I am not inclined to brand him a conservative.
All the prolifers condemn the bombing of abortion clinics, and the violence against abortion providers, and yet, you have, in one statement, condemned all of them, tarred them with the same brush, because of the actions of one person.
You say it is indicative of conservatives to issue death threats, and I say that you are fooling yourself. |
You do it again! I challenge your own logic by simply reversing it to the other side, and now you get in a hissy over it! Could you shoot yourself in the foot any worse?
No, Ben, I don't really think it's indicative of conservatives. I was simply illustrating the point that flipping your logic to the other side yields these results. But you obviously can't hack it when the shoe's on the other foot!
I honestly didn't intend this as a trap for you, but it seems you've made it one just the same. I never knew you couldn't grasp hypotheticals at all...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-06-2005 01:22
11)
|