My Favorite Ann Coulter Quote

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Lemme put this in big, huge, font, because one of my points is STILL being overlooked:

I do NOT believe that Dick Cheney should be assassinated. I believe that anyone who assassinates him should be punished as a terrorist and a first-degree murderer.

Thing is, though, if I'm your average Iraqi citizen, and I'm witnessing my friends, brothers, sisters, wife, and kids have their lives that much more endangered because of Cheney's influence (not command, but influence) in the war, the question now shifts from one of preference to one of survival. If you were in this predicament, and you believed that one man was largely behind all of this, would not all be fair in love and war? Would you sacrifice your close family members to keep someone who you considered to be a threat to them, alive?

So, it amounts "I believe it is wrong, but if somebody else believes that they may have their reasons." Again, WOW!

If you were in this predicament, and you believed that one man was largely behind all of this, would not all be fair in love and war?

You would be completely wrong which would make the belief in assassination completely wrong.

Again, if O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes claim to be Fair and Balanced, which they do, then this claim goes out the window. But it's good to see that you understand that Brit Hume leans well to the Right.

I couldn't care less about the slogan, "Fair and Balanced." O'Reilly, Hannity, and Colmes give their opinions in the news, thus excluding them from being news reporters.

"Tolerance." That'd take a whole thread to discuss.

It probably would. But if we accept your premise that Foxnews is a conservative channel why do you care so much? Why can't conservatives have one channel?

The thing is, most progressives, libertarians, Marxists, and centrists are commonly labeled as "liberals" by the Far-Right, yet there are fundamental differences between all four groups. "Liberal" is simply too sweeping a word, and I'll be honest here, it just sounds like childplay to keep using it like this.

I indicated the positions of "liberals" in my last post to you. And I believe that would exclude Marxists (they wouldn't bother with the Constitution), libertarians (they wouldn't be advocates of state power as iberals are), and centrists (I assume centrists are not for socializing major aspects of our economy).

So, I think I was being pretty specific when I was using the term 'liberal.'

On the allegations of "liberal media bias," I made a comment on RF some time ago:

When the media holds the Left* under the spotlight, it's called honest reporting.
When the media holds the Right under the spotlight, it's called liberal bias.

I don't agree. When the media ignores a comment by a liberal (Bill Maher) that assassinating Dick Cheney would make the world safer that is liberal media bias. When the media focuses on Ann Coulter who jokes about the media's double standard (in ignoring Maher's assassination comment) that is liberal media bias.

Quote:
Not really, the left-wing of the Democratic Party has some pretty set positions:
What about the right wing?

We have our set positions too. This wasn't meant to criticize, just an observation.

Are you assuming that everyone not associate with the Right is a Democrat?

No.

You do realize that there are those on the Far Left who hate the Democratic Party, right?

I am very aware of this (like when Hillary Clinton said our troops did a good job but the Iraqis didn't, she got booed at some left-wing bloggers convention), but these far left groups think they own the Democratic Party now and Democratic candidates feel the need to pander to them.

See, this is what gets me about the Right. If one of your own does something this bad, you use PC language to justify it (that's right, Joe, the Big Bad Liberals do not have a monopoly on "PC" language.). However, if the Big Bad Liberals do something that is even mildly out of line, you raise hell.

THAT, my man, is bias.

I don't think calling the mistake on Iraq a "global intelligence failure" is using PC language.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

So, it amounts "I believe it is wrong, but if somebody else believes that they may have their reasons." Again, WOW!

Alright, then, I was hoping to avoid going this route, but your complete unwillingness to acknowledge (not accept, but acknowledge) different points of views requires that I make this note:

What you're saying is actually quite on the money...from a White male, middle-class, American, conservative Christian point-of-view. All of those factors not only shape, but dictate, your frame of reference. How would a fairly well-off, non-White, Iraqi, moderate Muslim man approach the dilemma? Quite differently, in all likelihood. He is shaped by cultural values that differ markedly from yours.

Choosing to not see this is choosing not to understand why such a difference in opinions is made.

You would be completely wrong which would make the belief in assassination completely wrong.

Again, spoken from a White, male, middle-class, American, conservative Christian point-of-view. That, and an understanding of if-then logical statements--particularly questions--is well off the mark.

I couldn't care less about the slogan, "Fair and Balanced." O'Reilly, Hannity, and Colmes give their opinions in the news, thus excluding them from being news reporters.

Exactly, because of your point-of-view. It appears to be a common American conservative theme to excuse the sins of those on "their side."

It probably would. But if we accept your premise that Foxnews is a conservative channel why do you care so much? Why can't conservatives have one channel?

If (1) they'd stop claiming to be "Fair and Balanced," which progressive talk radio shows do not do to my knowledge, and (2) get rid of hate-mongers such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, then I would have a LOT more respect for Fox News. Not acceptance of their views, but at least respect.

I indicated the positions of "liberals" in my last post to you. And I believe that would exclude Marxists (they wouldn't bother with the Constitution), libertarians (they wouldn't be advocates of state power as iberals are), and centrists (I assume centrists are not for socializing major aspects of our economy).

So, I think I was being pretty specific when I was using the term 'liberal.'

Again, this is your point-of-view and nothing more. Many people on the Far-Right have been known to lump them all into the L-group; in fact, this administration and FOXNews does that all the time.

I don't agree. When the media ignores a comment by a liberal (Bill Maher) that assassinating Dick Cheney would make the world safer that is liberal media bias. When the media focuses on Ann Coulter who jokes about the media's double standard (in ignoring Maher's assassination comment) that is liberal media bias.

Again, nothing but an unsubstantiated point-of-view.

We have our set positions too. This wasn't meant to criticize, just an observation.

Granted, but it was somewhat of a strawman to lump all Democrats into one pot. As it is to lump all Republicans into one pot.

No.

OK good.

I am very aware of this (like when Hillary Clinton said our troops did a good job but the Iraqis didn't, she got booed at some left-wing bloggers convention), but these far left groups think they own the Democratic Party now and Democratic candidates feel the need to pander to them.

I don't think calling the mistake on Iraq a "global intelligence failure" is using PC language.

You know what? You're right, Joe. It's a FLAT OUT LIE. Now why can't you own up to this? Is it impossible for conservatives to?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Alright, then, I was hoping to avoid going this route, but your complete unwillingness to acknowledge (not accept, but acknowledge) different points of views requires that I make this note:

What you're saying is actually quite on the money...from a White male, middle-class, American, conservative Christian point-of-view. All of those factors not only shape, but dictate, your frame of reference. How would a fairly well-off, non-White, Iraqi, moderate Muslim man approach the dilemma? Quite differently, in all likelihood. He is shaped by cultural values that differ markedly from yours.

Choosing to not see this is choosing not to understand why such a difference in opinions is made.

I would hope that person that doesn't share my background wouldn't endorse assassinations of Democratically elected leaders. I'm crazy like that.

Again, spoken from a White, male, middle-class, American, conservative Christian point-of-view. That, and an understanding of if-then logical statements--particularly questions--is well off the mark.

I am saying regardless of your background you shouldn't advocate for the assassinaton of Dick Cheney. I guess I am on the finge on this issue.

If (1) they'd stop claiming to be "Fair and Balanced," which progressive talk radio shows do not do to my knowledge, and (2) get rid of hate-mongers such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, then I would have a LOT more respect for Fox News. Not acceptance of their views, but at least respect.

This is the problem. It is not enough to disagree with Foxnews, you want people removed from airing their views because you disagree with them. I haven't advoated that Bill Maher be taken off the air or Al Franken and I really disagree with them.

You really can't tolerate people with different views than you, you want them removed from certain channels. That is wrong.

Again, this is your point-of-view and nothing more. Many people on the Far-Right have been known to lump them all into the L-group; in fact, this administration and FOXNews does that all the time.

I've already stated who I was talking about and what their positions are.

Quote:
I don't agree. When the media ignores a comment by a liberal (Bill Maher) that assassinating Dick Cheney would make the world safer that is liberal media bias. When the media focuses on Ann Coulter who jokes about the media's double standard (in ignoring Maher's assassination comment) that is liberal media bias.
Again, nothing but an unsubstantiated point-of-view.

No, that actually happened.

Quote:
I am very aware of this (like when Hillary Clinton said our troops did a good job but the Iraqis didn't, she got booed at some left-wing bloggers convention), but these far left groups think they own the Democratic Party now and Democratic candidates feel the need to pander to them.

Are you suggesting this is did not happen?

You know what? You're right, Joe. It's a FLAT OUT LIE. Now why can't you own up to this? Is it impossible for conservatives to?

Because I don't believe it happened. This would be like a conservative asking a liberal why don't they just accept that Ronald Reagan was a great president. They won't because they don't believe he was a great president.

 

[gnomon]

When did Bill Maher state that Dick Cheney should be assassinated?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121198.html

Doesn't look like he said such a thing. And defending a blogger's right to make such a statement along with pointing out the belief that if Cheney wasn't in office, dead or alive, fewer people would die does not equate to the assassination of Dick Cheney.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi gnomon,

When did Bill Maher state that Dick Cheney should be assassinated?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121198.html

Doesn't look like he said such a thing. And defending a blogger's right to make such a statement along with pointing out the belief that if Cheney wasn't in office, dead or alive, fewer people would die does not equate to the assassination of Dick Cheney.

He agreed with the comments that if Dick Cheney was killed in a terrorist attack (terrorists tried this in Afghanistan) "more people would live."

And the point was not that bloggers made this comment or that Maher seemed to agree with them. The point was that this was basically ignored by the MSM, but if Coulter jokes about the coverage of it she's engaging in 'hate' speech.

 

[gnomon]

Hi gnomon,



He agreed with the comments that if Dick Cheney was killed in a terrorist attack (terrorists tried this in Afghanistan) "more people would live."

And the point was not that bloggers made this comment or that Maher seemed to agree with them. The point was that this was basically ignored by the MSM, but if Coulter jokes about the coverage of it she's engaging in 'hate' speech.

I agree. The MSM is completely whack when it comes to what stories matter as opposed to pure banality.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I would hope that person that doesn't share my background wouldn't endorse assassinations of Democratically elected leaders. I'm crazy like that.

Some would hope that we wouldn't dream of electing Cheney in the first place. They're crazy like that.

I am saying regardless of your background you shouldn't advocate for the assassinaton of Dick Cheney. I guess I am on the finge on this issue.

Claim of value. POV.

This is the problem. It is not enough to disagree with Foxnews, you want people removed from airing their views because you disagree with them. I haven't advoated that Bill Maher be taken off the air or Al Franken and I really disagree with them.

You really can't tolerate people with different views than you, you want them removed from certain channels. That is wrong.

Again, you choose to misunderstand me. It is not a change of airwaves or even position that I demand (unless they broadcast hate--that's different), but honesty. For FOXNews to claim to be "Fair and Balanced" is a lie, Joe, and I think that deep down inside, you know it.

Case in point. Go search my post history and find more than one single post where I speak harshly of The 700 Club. Yet by many measures, The 700 Club is to the right of FOXNews! I wonder why I'm not calling them out, Joe?

If you're going to debate me, let alone convince me that any of your points are worth accepting as true, at the very least you need to better understand where I am coming from.

I've already stated who I was talking about and what their positions are.

Joe. Stop it. Seriously. Save a little face and drop this point. It's borderline childish to keep repeating the "L" word when I've clearly demonstrated how misused it is.

No, that actually happened.

Joe, "liberal media bias" is a claim of value. It all hangs on the definition of "liberal", which can be suited for one's own purpose. (and again, you need to drop this point, I've already shown just how bad it is) Thus it all comes down to personal opinion.

No offense, but it is not easy for a conservative to see that so-called "liberal media bias" is complete bull****, particularly when Faux News continues to feed the lie that it's a fact.

Are you suggesting this is did not happen?

What's even more interesting is that your quote implies that, yes, different "liberals" have different POV's. Which is it?

Because I don't believe it happened. This would be like a conservative asking a liberal why don't they just accept that Ronald Reagan was a great president. They won't because they don't believe he was a great president.

Now, "the President lied" is a claim of fact.
(1) The president repeatedly told the public that Iraq had WMD's.
(2) The president knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq.
(3) Because of #1 and #2, Bush lied.

It's documented FACT, Joe. And I'm very sorry, it's a big, big thing to call the President of the United States a liar. But it's not like it hasn't happened before.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Some would hope that we wouldn't dream of electing Cheney in the first place. They're crazy like that.

How is this relevant? I am arguing that it is wrong to advocate for the assassination of Dick Cheney and your response is, "some people wish we didn't elect him." Who cares what other people wish? Especially those people that may be inclined to believe assassinating Dick Cheney wold be a good thing. These are not people we should be pandering too (although you feel the need to).

Quote:
I am saying regardless of your background you shouldn't advocate for the assassinaton of Dick Cheney. I guess I am on the finge on this issue.
Claim of value. POV.

Okay, yes that is my point of view. Do you think that I am out of line for believing that people (regardless of background) shouldn't be advocating for the assassination of Dick Cheney? Are you saying that we can't agree on this point?

Again, you choose to misunderstand me. It is not a change of airwaves or even position that I demand (unless they broadcast hate--that's different), but honesty. For FOXNews to claim to be "Fair and Balanced" is a lie, Joe, and I think that deep down inside, you know it.

Case in point. Go search my post history and find more than one single post where I speak harshly of The 700 Club. Yet by many measures, The 700 Club is to the right of FOXNews! I wonder why I'm not calling them out, Joe?

If you're going to debate me, let alone convince me that any of your points are worth accepting as true, at the very least you need to better understand where I am coming from.

Well you said: get rid of hate-mongers such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.

So, if O'Reilly and Coulter are not allowed to voice their opinions (because you don't like their opinions), then really no conservative is allowed to voice their opinions (because I am sure you think conservatism is hate-speech).

You want people that you disagree with not allowed on air. This is disgusting but an all to familiar liberal position.

And again, why does the slogan "Fair and Balanced" bother you so much. You really have to lighten up. It is slogan for a television channel (can you put that into perspective?). Chill out.

Joe. Stop it. Seriously. Save a little face and drop this point. It's borderline childish to keep repeating the "L" word when I've clearly demonstrated how misused it is.

I will not stop it. Read my posts. I gave a rather detailed description of what the positions of the "liberals" that I am talking about. If you take issue with that, then we can discuss, if not, then tough luck.

Joe, "liberal media bias" is a claim of value. It all hangs on the definition of "liberal", which can be suited for one's own purpose. (and again, you need to drop this point, I've already shown just how bad it is) Thus it all comes down to personal opinion.

No offense, but it is not easy for a conservative to see that so-called "liberal media bias" is complete bull****, particularly when Faux News continues to feed the lie that it's a fact.

So, your rebuttal is to call "liberal media bias" ********? I'm sorry Mercy, but Aristotle you are not.

I gave you a concrete example of liberal media bias and I don't think you answered it.

1. Media ignores Bill Maher agreeing with left-wing bloggers that a Dick Cheney assassination would be a good thing.

2. Media pounces on Coulter for joking about the lack of media coverage of Bill Maher agreeing with left-wing bloggers that a Dick Cheney assassination would be a good thing.

Let's talk about this specific example.

What's even more interesting is that your quote implies that, yes, different "liberals" have different POV's. Which is it?

Ranging from the war is immoral to our soldiers are immoral. The diversity of the liberalism, you go to love it!

Now, "the President lied" is a claim of fact.
(1) The president repeatedly told the public that Iraq had WMD's.
(2) The president knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq.
(3) Because of #1 and #2, Bush lied.

It's documented FACT, Joe. And I'm very sorry, it's a big, big thing to call the President of the United States a liar. But it's not like it hasn't happened before.

This is a distortion of the truth. Saddam had WMD, but he didn't have the stockpiles we thought he had (thus the intelligence failure).

 

[Smoke]

Doesn't look like he said such a thing.

And yet the news media don't even mention all those false accusations that he did. Shameful.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi MidnightBlue,

And yet the news media don't even mention all those false accusations that he did. Shameful.

The news media didn't really cover it at all.

And Bill Maher only agreed with some left-wing bloggers that the assassination of Dick Cheney would be a good thing.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

How is this relevant? I am arguing that it is wrong to advocate for the assassination of Dick Cheney and your response is, "some people wish we didn't elect him." Who cares what other people wish? Especially those people that may be inclined to believe assassinating Dick Cheney wold be a good thing. These are not people we should be pandering too (although you feel the need to).

POV.

Okay, yes that is my point of view. Do you think that I am out of line for believing that people (regardless of background) shouldn't be advocating for the assassination of Dick Cheney? Are you saying that we can't agree on this point?

I think I already answered this.

Well you said: get rid of hate-mongers such as Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.

So, if O'Reilly and Coulter are not allowed to voice their opinions (because you don't like their opinions), then really no conservative is allowed to voice their opinions (because I am sure you think conservatism is hate-speech).

My god, Joe. Calm the **** down. I said "unless"; did you miss that?

And can you please show me where I equate every single facet of conservatism to hate speech?

Do you see just how pointless this discussion is becoming as you continue to decide not to understand what I'm really saying? Do you realize that you and I are effectively speaking two different languages, two different POV's, yet you are choosing to ignore that fact?

You want people that you disagree with not allowed on air. This is disgusting but an all to familiar liberal position.

And again, why does the slogan "Fair and Balanced" bother you so much. You really have to lighten up. It is slogan for a television channel (can you put that into perspective?). Chill out.

Um, I'm not worked up about this. But again, it just puts a bad taste into Faux News' mouth when they claim to be neutral yet it is easy to demonstrate that they are not. I mean come on, can't we have a little honesty from them?

I will not stop it. Read my posts. I gave a rather detailed description of what the positions of the "liberals" that I am talking about. If you take issue with that, then we can discuss, if not, then tough luck.

Well, you've made your intent and your choice to not understand my POV clear enough. That, I cannot refute, so it appears this particular point has reached a stalemate.

So, your rebuttal is to call "liberal media bias" ********? I'm sorry Mercy, but Aristotle you are not.

I gave you a concrete example of liberal media bias and I don't think you answered it.

1. Media ignores Bill Maher agreeing with left-wing bloggers that a Dick Cheney assassination would be a good thing.

2. Media pounces on Coulter for joking about the lack of media coverage of Bill Maher agreeing with left-wing bloggers that a Dick Cheney assassination would be a good thing.

Argumentum ad hominem. That, and I pretty effectively demonstrated why it wasn't an example of "liberal media bias." I realize that the explanation was difficult to accept, but I put it forth nonetheless.

Let's talk about this specific example.

Ranging from the war is immoral to our soldiers are immoral. The diversity of the liberalism, you go to love it!

I have no idea what the heck this has to do with anything.

This is a distortion of the truth. Saddam had WMD, but he didn't have the stockpiles we thought he had (thus the intelligence failure).

You do realize my underlined comments were URLs, right? Which ones did you read?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

My god, Joe. Calm the **** down. I said "unless"; did you miss that?

And can you please show me where I equate every single facet of conservatism to hate speech?

Do you see just how pointless this discussion is becoming as you continue to decide not to understand what I'm really saying? Do you realize that you and I are effectively speaking two different languages, two different POV's, yet you are choosing to ignore that fact?

Yes, we have two different points of view.

A simply yes or no question: do you believe O'Reilly and Coulter have the right to expres their opinions on air.

Well, you've made your intent and your choice to not understand my POV clear enough. That, I cannot refute, so it appears this particular point has reached a stalemate.

You said that I shouldn't use the word 'liberal' because liberal can mean many different things. Then I posted a list of positions of the 'liberals' I was talking about

Please Read:

Not really, the left-wing of the Democratic Party has some pretty set positions:

1. High taxes (socialized healthcare, and I am not sure they would stop there).

2. Cuts in defense.

3. Retreat from the War on Terror (actually the war on terror is a 'bumper sticker' and is a Republican creation).

4. Pro-abortion, not just pro-choice, but against any restriction of abortions such as the partial birth abortion.

5. Pro-gay marriage (I am with them on this one, but only through the legislatures of the states not through the judiciary).

6. More campaign finance reform (or a restriction on the first amendment).

7. Gun control laws (or a restriction on the second amendment).

8. Among many other positions.

Argumentum ad hominem. That, and I pretty effectively demonstrated why it wasn't an example of "liberal media bias." I realize that the explanation was difficult to accept, but I put it forth nonetheless.

First, there was no personal attack there. Second, please show me where you demonstrated the Maher coverage was not a case of liberal media bias.

I have no idea what the heck this has to do with anything.

There is some confusion. The specific example was me referring to the Maher coverage. The second point was in response to your response to the lef-wing bloggers booing Hillary Clinton when she said our troops did a good job in Iraq. She believes the war is immoral and the left-wing bloggers believe the our soldiers are immoral. That is the diversity of opinion in the left-wing of the Democratic Party .

You do realize my underlined comments were URLs, right? Which ones did you read?

Yes. Both.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Yes, we have two different points of view.

A simply yes or no question: do you believe O'Reilly and Coulter have the right to expres their opinions on air.

Giving a straightforward answer to this question is like trying to know what the current color a traffic light is on without actually seeing it. In both cases, for the same reason, the answer depends on what is there.

If they broacast hate against homosexuals, religions or lack thereof, etc., then absolutely no, nobody on the Right, Left, Center, Back, Front, or Sideways has the right to broadcast this.

If they can abstain from this sort of behavior, then yes they do. Even then, it is in bad taste to lie and say that their coverage is "Fair and Balanced." But to regulate impartiality in the Press by law would be massive overkill and certain fodder for corruption of power, thus it should not be done.

You said that I shouldn't use the word 'liberal' because liberal can mean many different things. Then I posted a list of positions of the 'liberals' I was talking about

I'm sorry, I've already addressed this.

First, there was no personal attack there. Second, please show me where you demonstrated the Maher coverage was not a case of liberal media bias.

Er, yeah the Aristotle comparison was a flame, but I didn't take it personally.

Anyway, the second point begs the question of what "liberal" means. Again, I've already addressed it.

There is some confusion. The specific example was me referring to the Maher coverage. The second point was in response to your response to the lef-wing bloggers booing Hillary Clinton when she said our troops did a good job in Iraq. She believes the war is immoral and the left-wing bloggers believe the our soldiers are immoral. That is the diversity of opinion in the left-wing of the Democratic Party .

Again, Joe, I've got to point out that you're going back on yourself here. First you give a specific set of beliefs that you believe that "liberals" have, then you say that within a specific subset of a specific party in a specific nation, there is diversity of opinion!

Now see why I can't answer your questions yet? One can't put a satellite into orbit without launching it first!

Yes. Both.

Cool.

 

[rocka21]

If they broacast hate against homosexuals, religions or lack thereof, etc., then absolutely no, nobody on the Right, Left, Center, Back, Front, or Sideways has the right to broadcast this.

If they can abstain from this sort of behavior, then yes they do. Even then, it is in bad taste to lie and say that their coverage is "Fair and Balanced." But to regulate impartiality in the Press by law would be massive overkill and certain fodder for corruption of power, thus it should not be done.



just becasue YOU interpet certian things as " hate speech". it is still FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

we still have a right to SPEAK!!!


i don't like what howard stearn says on his radio show, but he has the RIGHT to say it!

 

[Bishka]

just becasue YOU interpet certian things as " hate speech". it is still FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
!

It may be freedom of speech, but it is still hate.

 

[rocka21]

It may be freedom of speech, but it is still hate.

to you!

i interpet howard stearn as hate speech. others say he is funny.


and your point is?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Giving a straightforward answer to this question is like trying to know what the current color a traffic light is on without actually seeing it. In both cases, for the same reason, the answer depends on what is there.

If they broacast hate against homosexuals, religions or lack thereof, etc., then absolutely no, nobody on the Right, Left, Center, Back, Front, or Sideways has the right to broadcast this.

If they can abstain from this sort of behavior, then yes they do. Even then, it is in bad taste to lie and say that their coverage is "Fair and Balanced." But to regulate impartiality in the Press by law would be massive overkill and certain fodder for corruption of power, thus it should not be done.

Please define this further. What if a person thinks that homosexuality is immoral? Are they allowed on the air?

So, people should or shouldn't be on the air because of your definition of 'hate speech.' That is delightful.

There are a number of people that say hateful things on air, but I believe they have the right to say them.

Which again goes back to my point: you want people that you disagree with off the air. This is disgusting.

Quote:
You said that I shouldn't use the word 'liberal' because liberal can mean many different things. Then I posted a list of positions of the 'liberals' I was talking about
I'm sorry, I've already addressed this.

Where?

Er, yeah the Aristotle comparison was a flame, but I didn't take it personally.

The 'Aristotle comment' was in response to this:

No offense, but it is not easy for a conservative to see that so-called "liberal media bias" is complete bull****,

So, this was your refutation of liberal media bias. Call it Bullsh-t. I then pointed out that in debating skills you fell behind Aristotle (who I am sure wouldn't respond in that sophisticated and articuate fashion as you did).

Again, Joe, I've got to point out that you're going back on yourself here. First you give a specific set of beliefs that you believe that "liberals" have, then you say that within a specific subset of a specific party in a specific nation, there is diversity of opinion!

Yes, groups of people that share the same ideology can have some diverstiy of opinion. I can't believe you are questioning this. This doesn't mean they don't have reliable positions, they all just don't have the same exact position.I was going out on a limb on that one!

 

[Booko]

*** MOD POST ***

This thread has been closed.