[marden]

Do We Insist On Being Pandered To, Like Elvis Did?

pan·der (pndr)
intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders
1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism" New York Times.

It's accepted that some occupations and people in public life MUST give us what we want. It's their JOB. They live by the mission statement 'keep the customer satisfied.' Merchants. Actors. Musicians. Pro Athletes. Workmen. Maybe your job?

If you are paid to do a job and you don't satisfy the customer you'll soon be out of a job.

But there are SOME occupations where practitioners must achieve two goals at once. They must keep the customer satisfied AND they must tell the customer the truth, which sometimes means giving the customer bad news.

Medical doctors. Attorneys. Contractors. Others, too.

If they don't tell us the bad news straight it would do us more harm than good. In fact they could be found legally negligent if they did not tell us the bad news they knew to exist.

At the end of his life Elvis was a fat addict who surrounded himself with people who wanted to keep their jobs and wanted to keep Elvis happy more than they wanted to tell him the truth and do the right thing. They catered to his lower tastes and desires by allowing him to take pills and drink alcohol. It's been said the doctor or doctors who prescribed the pills was/were willing to exploit his weakness because they liked having an association with "The King" and they hoped he wouldn't go too far in abusing the drugs.

These folks pandered to his excesses.

I believe we, as a people, have gotten to the point where we expect to be pandered to and woe be it to anyone in any occupation who dares to deny us what we want or we will quickly try to find someone who will tell us what we want to hear and give us what we want whether it's bad or not. Our attitude seems to be that if we have the money and we Googled the information to inform ourselves about our decision then that's all we need to know. We are the customer.

"The customer is ALWAYS right."

Well, I don't believe that. I think sometimes there are difficult truths in life that we don't like but we must accept.

It's not good weed if you don't choke.
Chris Rock

I believe there are some people in public life who believe in the Harry Truman philosophy, to 'give em hell.'

During a speech by Truman in, Harrisburg, Illinois attacking the Republicans during the 1948 Presidential election campaign a supporter yelled out, "Give 'em Hell, Harry!". Truman replied, "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

I think Ann Coulter is someone who gives us the truth but we think it's hell.

There may be others.

So, this thread can go in any number of ways:

Who else in public life does/doesn't pander to us?
Do we really like being pandered to?
Is that good/bad?

Or maybe other thoughts come to mind. It's all good. I just believe we are being ill served because of our insistence in having our own way all the time and there's a danger that comes from always getting ONLY what we want.

[Big Mac]

I'm not sure most people want to be pandered to, as much as most people desire to get good news when it comes to themselves. I think there's a difference. However, a certain amount of pandering to the masses does go on - from sleazy politicians particularly (class warfare Dems, I'm looking at you), as well as from the tabloid media.

[Chuckit]

I wonder where this is going.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I wonder where this is going.

I'm wondering where you'll take it.

[Big Mac]

To continue on the theme of my previous post, I think the most dangerous form of pandering in America is pandering to the masses' desire for government hand-outs. Entitlements and transfer payments of all sorts - Social(ist) "Security," Medicare and its new drug benefit boondoggle, massive pork barrel projects and earmarks - these are the greatest self-imposed threats to America's survival and prosperity. They are also very popular in certain quarters. We gave the politicians sufficient taxation power to tax us incessantly, and as long as they can appeal to the baser desires of the ignorant masses, things will only get worse.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm not sure most people want to be pandered to, as much as most people desire to get good news when it comes to themselves. I think there's a difference. However, a certain amount of pandering to the masses does go on - from sleazy politicians particularly (class warfare Dems, I'm looking at you), as well as from the tabloid media.

I think the news media in the mid to late 90's failed to really give us the information we needed (they pandered to our appetite for the salacious and so they focused on Clinton & Lewinsky instead of OBL's attacks and the growth of the Islamist terrorism around the world) and in the film, "Broadcast News" this danger was brought to light when the network (mirroring the real life changes in network news) decided to force the News Department to compete for ratings just as if it were a sitcom.

And with that change we stopped getting news based SOLELY on what we NEEDED to know but on news that we LIKED.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Things are not as good now.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

To continue on the theme of my previous post, I think the most dangerous form of pandering in America is pandering to the masses' desire for government hand-outs. Entitlements and transfer payments of all sorts - Social(ist) "Security," Medicare and its new drug benefit boondoggle, massive pork barrel projects and earmarks - these are the greatest self-imposed threats to America's survival and prosperity. They are also very popular in certain quarters. We gave the politicians sufficient taxation power to tax us incessantly, and as long as they can appeal to the baser desires of the ignorant masses, things will only get worse.

It's true. They are trying to buy our votes.

But a certain amount of this is legitimate. If their job is to represent their constituency and a certain project could increase employment for their home district then how can you blame them for not proposing projects that will return some of their voters' federal tax $$ to the home district?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by marden 

But a certain amount of this is legitimate. If their job is to represent their constituency and a certain project could increase employment for their home district then how can you blame them for not proposing projects that will return some of their voters' federal tax $$ to the home district?

And that has always been a classic debate concerning Congress, the "two Congresses" debate: Are Congressmen to act as an assembly of ambassadors representing primarily the narrow interests of individuals constituencies, or are they to act as delegates representing broader interests of the country as a whole? While there has to inevitably be a balance between the two approaches, it is my view that Congress exists first to represent national interests, second to represent state interests and a distant third to represent the narrow interests of various constituencies (including interest groups). I realize that one constituency's pork is another's bacon (as in, "bringing home the bacon"), but I think that instinct is a very dangerous one. When America was debt free and leaders did not foresee massive budgetary and account shortfalls, one could have made the case that such largess was permissible. That is no longer the case; it hasn't been the case for a long time, and such thinking today is irresponsible if not reckless.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'm not sure most people want to be pandered to, as much as most people desire to get good news when it comes to themselves. I think there's a difference. However, a certain amount of pandering to the masses does go on - from sleazy politicians particularly (war-mongering neocons, and a president who has declared war on the working class, and the environment, and who has gutted worker safety regulations, and who has placed industry insiders into positions of enormous influence (to the point that they often write regulations benefitting the industries they came from), and who ran as a "compassionate conservative" (of which he is neither), and who was susceptible to manufactured "evidence" that got us into invading a country that was no threat to us, and who chose people like Alberto Gonzales, who has no comprehension of the document he's supposed to enforce, and, as a convenient little side affect, it's all to benefit his rich buddies), as well as from the tabloid media, like Faux News, which is the largest cable news provider.

There. Fixed it for you.

Of course we're being pandered to. America is becoming what it's always been destined to be; a society of me, me, and me, who's main concern is immediate gratification, and everyone else be damned. Anna Nicole Smith was mentioned far more often in the media than the shameful and embarrasing Walter Reed Medical Center fiasco, and even more so by Faux News, although all media did cover the event far more than it deserved to be covered. We are a nation of narcissists, and it's going to be our downfall. We seem to think the world revolves around us, and in a few decades, or less, we're going to find out that just isn't true.

[wallinbl]

Pandering causes me to lose respect for the people on both ends. If you're willing to pander to someone just to get ahead (in a job or whereever), then I have no use for you. If you actually reward those who pander to you, then I have even less use for you.

Pandering is the ruin of a great many things. Politics have been ruined by it. Many businesses suffer from the same thing. When the senior management is full of people pandering to the CEO, the company turns to hell.

[Big Mac]

Karl, I think it's plainly apparent that you're a deficient debater. The points you raise have little to nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

(war-mongering neocons,

Off-topic, inaccurate historical revisionism.

and a president who has declared war on the working class,

Off-topic troll. Just how has President Bush "declared war" on the working class?

and the environment,

Off-topic unfounded allegation. Bush isn't a green, but that's a far cry from being an anti-environmental warrior.

and who has gutted worker safety regulations,

Off-topic, unfounded allegation.

and who has placed industry insiders into positions of enormous influence (to the point that they often write regulations benefitting the industries they came from)

Off-topic, unfounded allegation.

who was susceptible to manufactured "evidence" that got us into invading a country that was no threat to us

Off-topic, but for the sake of argument America's policy extending from the Clinton administration was regime change. Iraq was far out of compliance and remained intransigent despite repeated warnings, and America had made a commitment to enforce the international mandates against Iraq. The rationale for the war did not rest on the evidence you claim was manufactured. And while I do not dispute that Bush had a personal reason for wanting the war, that fact does not change the more important fact that the former president and Congress had been preaching regime change for a long time. Bush simply followed through on what had previously amounted to rhetoric.

and who chose people like Alberto Gonzales, who has no comprehension of the document he's supposed to enforce,

Off-topic. I don't love Gonzales, but you're either naive or a hack if you wish to contend there haven't been abuses by AGs under previous presidents. Power corrupts, and the federal government's law enforcement arm is very powerful.

as a convenient little side affect, it's all to benefit his rich buddies)

Off-topic. To whatever extent that's true, it's just another manifestation of abuse of power that could occur with any AG under any administration.

as well as from the tabloid media, like Faux News, which is the largest cable news provider.

Leftists hate Fox News because it leans right. Yet, they rarely if ever raise any substantive complaints faulting specifics of the coverage found on Fox News. At least when the right criticizes CNN, it faults the network on specific points.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Of course we're being pandered to. America is becoming what it's always been destined to be; a society of me, me, and me, who's main concern is immediate gratification, and everyone else be damned.

This is probably the closest you've gotten in your post to anything resembling truth, but I disagree with your cynical outlook on Americans. A lot of Americans are into self-gratification, but if that's the only thing you've seen from Americans you must be living in a terrible isolated pocket. I contend Americans are, for the most part, good natured people who aren't excessively greedy. To the extent that the masses are sucked in by pandering or demagoguery, it's due, IMO, more to ignorance than to malice.

Anna Nicole Smith was mentioned far more often in the media than the shameful and embarrasing Walter Reed Medical Center fiasco, and even more so by Faux News,

True of all the big networks, including Fox News. The mass media does a poor job of covering the truly salient issues of the day, choosing instead to focus on sensational stories.

We seem to think the world revolves around us, and in a few decades, or less, we're going to find out that just isn't true.

I don't share your gloomy forecast, but I'm sure you'll be rooting for that outcome.

[marden]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Pandering causes me to lose respect for the people on both ends. If you're willing to pander to someone just to get ahead (in a job or whereever), then I have no use for you. If you actually reward those who pander to you, then I have even less use for you.

Pandering is the ruin of a great many things. Politics have been ruined by it. Many businesses suffer from the same thing. When the senior management is full of people pandering to the CEO, the company turns to hell.

I agree!

Although there is a difference between pandering and just being a "Yes" man to one's boss. IMO the difference is that when someone panders it is when they allow a harmful thing to occur so they can benefit at the expense of others' well being.

[ghporter]

I have never wanted a business to pander to me because I'm a customer. I DO want businesses to pay attention to me, to listen to my concerns, and to deal fairly and professionally with me. "The customer is always right" used to mean that "if the customer says he's not satisfied, we need to do something to fix that," not "if the customer says the sky is bright pink with yellow spots, we'll agree with him." I get far more frustrated when a salesdrone tries to smarm his way into my heart with fake and insincere "personal experiences" than I do if he simply says "I don't have a clue about you or what you want, but I can show you the products I have."

Oh, and Elvis only insisted on the kind of pandering he got because "the Colonel" taught him to demand it. He was apparently a nice guy before he was turned to the "celebrity side" by his management.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

I think Ann Coulter is someone who gives us the truth but we think it's hell.

No, Ann Coulter is someone who pander's to the some people's in the right's paranoia and immaturity to sell books.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No, Ann Coulter is someone who pander's to the some people's in the right's paranoia and immaturity to sell books.

She also panders to people's love of controversy and people's attraction to arguments that are presented forcefully regardless of their validity.

[brassplayersrock²]

hyperbole!!!!!

[marden]

Ted Koppel Tells Shocking Truth About Iraq and War on Terror (Updated w-videos) | NewsBusters.org

This is a REMARKABLE AND HISTORIC turn in American history!

As far from pandering as you can get!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No, Ann Coulter is someone who pander's to the some people's in the right's paranoia and immaturity to sell books.

Very few people on the right like her. She panders to those that want to hate her.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No, Ann Coulter is someone who pander's to the some people's in the right's paranoia and immaturity to sell books.

Actually, she tells us the truth as she sees it and says it in a way that entertains, and for those who are perceptive enough, instructs.

And occasionally she uses HERSELF to demonstrate her point.

She is a BRILLIANT woman and has a biting sense of humor. Those who criticize her only dig holes for themselves to be thrown into when her brilliance is explained to them.

She is an agent of change and an American treasure!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

She also panders to people's love of controversy and people's attraction to arguments that are presented forcefully regardless of their validity.

You are misusing the word "pander."

She appeals to people's love of controversy. And you are right that there are some people who love a fight no matter who, what, how or why and her arguments are entertaining on that score, for sure.

But she is an extremely important commentator on the events and people of the day. Few can match the service she provides America. In fact, no one else comes to mind that does what she does.

Ann Coulter is well deserving of her success and good reputation.

She is courageous and absolutely brilliant!

[shifuimam]

Part of it is a cultural thing, at least in American society. We've been raised to believe that we are all unique flowers with fragile self-esteems, and each of us is supremely important and others should acknowledge that. It used to be that if someone didn't cater to your every whim, you learned to get over it, brush yourself off, and move on in life. Now we have activist groups, web communities, and God knows what else for everything under the sun, and everyone expects to be satisfied with everything all the time.

Whatever happened to the attitude that life isn't perfect, so get over it?

Also: "right's paranoia" made me LOL. Everyone's favorite commie, Michael Moore, is a hell of a lot more paranoid than any Republican I know.

[marden]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Part of it is a cultural thing, at least in American society. We've been raised to believe that we are all unique flowers with fragile self-esteems, and each of us is supremely important and others should acknowledge that. It used to be that if someone didn't cater to your every whim, you learned to get over it, brush yourself off, and move on in life. Now we have activist groups, web communities, and God knows what else for everything under the sun, and everyone expects to be satisfied with everything all the time.

Whatever happened to the attitude that life isn't perfect, so get over it?

Also: "right's paranoia" made me LOL. Everyone's favorite commie, Michael Moore, is a hell of a lot more paranoid than any Republican I know.

I agree with you.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by marden 

You are misusing the word "pander."

She appeals to people's love of controversy. And you are right that there are some people who love a fight no matter who, what, how or why and her arguments are entertaining on that score, for sure.

But she is an extremely important commentator on the events and people of the day. Few can match the service she provides America. In fact, no one else comes to mind that does what she does.

Ann Coulter is well deserving of her success and good reputation.

She is courageous and absolutely brilliant!

I won't debate whether or not her arguments are valid. With the amount of vitriol that has spewed out of her mouth, some of it, perhaps by chance, is on target. The problem with Ms. Coulter is that she is a hateful evil person. I say this not because I disagree with what she has to say... I say that because she says things not to prove a point in a "brilliant" way... but to say things to hurt. She seems to get some sort of perverse satisfaction out of it.

Anne is pandering to her own base (which apparently includes you). She will NEVER change anyone's mind with her "courageous" observations. If she were to present her arguments in a civil manner, she may even win a few converts. But as it stands now she's just preaching to the choir and making plenty of enemies along the way. I feel you have a peculiar definition of "courageous" and "brilliant".

So you seem to have answered your own question. Yes... we insist on being pandered to.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

Actually, she tells us the truth as she sees it and says it in a way that entertains, and for those who are perceptive enough, instructs.

And occasionally she uses HERSELF to demonstrate her point.

She is a BRILLIANT woman and has a biting sense of humor. Those who criticize her only dig holes for themselves to be thrown into when her brilliance is explained to them.

She is an agent of change and an American treasure!

She's a hate monger. There's nothing brilliant about calling anyone a faggot; it's a clear display of how low she'll go to "entertain" those who sink to her level. There's nothing constructive about her, and it doesn't surprise me that you'd think she's brilliant.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Very few people on the right like her. She panders to those that want to hate her.

That's why she got cheers and applause when she made the comment about Edwards at the recent CPAC meeting! In case you haven't been paying attention (which is rather obvious), those are conservatives.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

That's why she got cheers and applause when she made the comment about Edwards at the recent CPAC meeting! In case you haven't been paying attention (which is rather obvious), those are conservatives.

Those people who went to see her usually are... wait for it.. FANS OF HER.

Imagine that. People that dislike her more than likely wouldn't go to hear her speak.

She also got boo's BTW.

Not that the left isn't as obnoxious. They just do it "politically correct"

[marden]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I won't debate whether or not her arguments are valid. With the amount of vitriol that has spewed out of her mouth, some of it, perhaps by chance, is on target. The problem with Ms. Coulter is that she is a hateful evil person. I say this not because I disagree with what she has to say... I say that because she says things not to prove a point in a "brilliant" way... but to say things to hurt. She seems to get some sort of perverse satisfaction out of it.

Anne is pandering to her own base (which apparently includes you). She will NEVER change anyone's mind with her "courageous" observations. If she were to present her arguments in a civil manner, she may even win a few converts. But as it stands now she's just preaching to the choir and making plenty of enemies along the way. I feel you have a peculiar definition of "courageous" and "brilliant".

So you seem to have answered your own question. Yes... we insist on being pandered to.

Consider exactly what she said with the Edwards comment.

Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.

Political correctness is creeping toward completely restricting what we can say. Free Speech is what the War on Terror is about (in addition to other freedoms). When you don't exercise your rights they will eventually atrophy.

She boldly stepped into the 'offensive' territory using the "F" word to reclaim OUR right to offend. To offend Edwards (who has shown himself to be less than the kind of leader we need at this point in time. And for this ALONE we should thank her!) and anyone else while firmly if figuratively clutching the Constitution.

And the small minded among us fall into the the trap of focusing on how politically incorrect she was. But in doing so they have played into the hands of the hundreds of thousands who caused deaths, injury and untold damage in the cartoon riots of a year ago. What we said to the Muslim world was that freedom of speech does not guarantee there won't be offensive speech.

And so now that you have flip flopped on the subject of freedom of speech Coulter is holding you to your principle.

And thank God she is!

If she didn't, then who would?

No one else has come forward yet to speak up for free speech in NYC's symbolic "N" word ban.

She is courageous and brilliant.

[marden]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

She's a hate monger. There's nothing brilliant about calling anyone a faggot; it's a clear display of how low she'll go to "entertain" those who sink to her level. There's nothing constructive about her, and it doesn't surprise me that you'd think she's brilliant.

You can thank her if you ever decide to say something that might be politically incorrect.

She's got more and bigger balls than many of her critics.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by marden 

Consider exactly what she said with the Edwards comment.....

Did you even read my post? Did I ever mention the Edwards comment?

I was speaking in general terms. Ms. Coulter is doing exactly what you are lamenting in your original post. She is pandering. Her statements are neither engaging nor insightful. They are divisive and made to elicit reaction from specific groups of people. If she is intending to sway people's opinions she is failing valiantly. So maybe you are right... she is courageous... in her failure as an effective and competent debater.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by marden 

She boldly stepped into the 'offensive' territory using the "F" word to reclaim OUR right to offend.

...

No one else has come forward yet to speak up for free speech in NYC's symbolic "N" word ban.

I will go on record as disagreeing with NYC's "symbolic" ban. I don't like it when any form of free speech is banned or censored, even that which personally offends me. But I also don't understand what reasonable people hope to gain by calling someone a faggot or a n igger. It seems to me it is the last resort of people who have no other valid argument.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

You are misusing the word "pander."

She appeals to people's love of controversy. And you are right that there are some people who love a fight no matter who, what, how or why and her arguments are entertaining on that score, for sure.

Right. She knows she appeals to some people's love of controversy and she panders to that crowd.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

You can thank her if you ever decide to say something that might be politically incorrect.

Why? I was able to say un-PC things before Coulter and I'll continue to be able to long after she's forgotten. The only thing we have to thank Coulter for is dragging the quality of debate in this country even lower.

Originally Posted by marden 

She's got more and bigger balls than many of her critics.

Finally something I can agree with.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by marden 

She boldly stepped into the 'offensive' territory using the "F" word to reclaim OUR right to offend.

Yes, you have a right to it, and no, nothing has been done to take that away. What's happening is that as a people, we're saying that we'd rather not hear it. You're welcome to offend any time you want, but people will lose respect for you when you do it. Quit with the crap about the terrorists winning - outlawing something and not liking something are two different things.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

You can thank her if you ever decide to say something that might be politically incorrect.

She's got more and bigger balls than many of her critics.

I'm not saying she doesn't have the right to say it. What I am saying is that, by saying it, she shows how little character she has, and how she appeals to the lowest common denominator, in that the people who idolize her do so because they have nothing constructive to add to a debate, so they attempt to "win" their argument by debasing their opponents. She's well known as a hate monger, because she shoots from the hip, and that's because she has nothing to say. Anyone can run around and call people names; the people on Jerry Springer do it every day. You are right, in that she has bigger balls than many of her critics, because many of her critics don't need to resort to name calling to make their argument, as they realize that having bigger balls means nothing.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Those people who went to see her usually are... wait for it.. FANS OF HER.

Imagine that. People that dislike her more than likely wouldn't go to hear her speak.

She also got boo's BTW.

Not that the left isn't as obnoxious. They just do it "politically correct"

That's rather obvious, and it shows that some people never go past 8th grade level in character development, as they think that, in order to win a debate, you have to call your opponent names. The guests of people on Jerry Springer are obviously physically much more mature than they are emotionally, but I certainly wouldn't brag about being in that state. As to your "politically correct" statement; you, like many others obviously are confused with the differentiation of the ability to practice free speech and the ability to discern what appropriate speech is. Just because you're allowed to talk at junior high level, doesn't mean you should.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

To continue on the theme of my previous post, I think the most dangerous form of pandering in America is pandering to the masses' desire for government hand-outs. Entitlements and transfer payments of all sorts - Social(ist) "Security," Medicare and its new drug benefit boondoggle, massive pork barrel projects and earmarks - these are the greatest self-imposed threats to America's survival and prosperity. They are also very popular in certain quarters. We gave the politicians sufficient taxation power to tax us incessantly, and as long as they can appeal to the baser desires of the ignorant masses, things will only get worse.

Are you against Social Security and Medicaid?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

She also panders to people's love of controversy and people's attraction to arguments that are presented forcefully regardless of their validity.

You said it!

If I say it loud enough, it must be true!


I do understand what you are saying Marden, and I agree with a lot of what you said, I just didn't care for this particular example...

[osiris]

Big Mac is pandering the military industrial complex, at all cost.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by marden 

You are misusing the word "pander."

She appeals to people's love of controversy. And you are right that there are some people who love a fight no matter who, what, how or why and her arguments are entertaining on that score, for sure.

But she is an extremely important commentator on the events and people of the day. Few can match the service she provides America. In fact, no one else comes to mind that does what she does.

Ann Coulter is well deserving of her success and good reputation.

She is courageous and absolutely brilliant!

Do you not see any sort of downside to the way she presents her opinions, and the forcefulness of the way she communicates?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you against Social Security and Medicaid?

Pain medication doesn't fix a broken leg.

Originally Posted by MLK, Jr

True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

[osiris]

This thread should be in the Political Lounge.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Pain medication doesn't fix a broken leg.

You're saying that Medicaid only pays for pain medication? I'm confused as to what you mean?

[::maroma::]

Ann Coulter brilliant?

"Wow" is all I can come up with in reaction to that notion.

She's on par with the KKK. They throw around hate speech all the time. They have small (minded) crowds cheer for them as they spout their "brilliance" to the world. Apparently, they're just misunderstood, or most of us are just too dumb to understand them.

Marden, I can never really tell when you're being serious, and when you're fishing for something. I truly hope you're fishing here.

[marden]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you not see any sort of downside to the way she presents her opinions, and the forcefulness of the way she communicates?

Sure it is going to piss off some folks. But even the most mild mannered conservatives piss off some folks just because of their political opinions. Furthermore, those more politically correct pundits aren't as entertaining as Coulter. And because they aren't as entertaining fewer people are exposed to their punditry.

Coulter's comments and remarks helps to assure her wisdom will actually be heard. She attracts attention so that people will fill the tent.

Hey, if Jay and Dave and Bill Mahr and Jimmy and Conan and the Daily Show and the Colbert Report and the NBC Nightly News and the CBS Evening News and ABC World News and CNN's Wolf Blitzer and FNC can do it why shouldn't Ann?

Yes. She is brilliant. If anyone is hung up with the color of her comments rather than the content of her comments they are missing the more important messages.

[invisibleX]

Poor marden. Always trying to blur the lines to, I assume, convince whoever you can.

Pander? Well of course. I don't want people telling me what to do. I want them to tell me whatever pertinent information they have. Making decisions and deciding what I need/is important is my job.

Ever notice marden likes to skirt around the general removal of rights and freedoms?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

She attracts attention so that people will fill the tent.

Ah, so she panders to gain attention.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Ann Coulter brilliant?

"Wow" is all I can come up with in reaction to that notion.

She's on par with the KKK. They throw around hate speech all the time. They have small (minded) crowds cheer for them as they spout their "brilliance" to the world. Apparently, they're just misunderstood, or most of us are just too dumb to understand them.

Marden, I can never really tell when you're being serious, and when you're fishing for something. I truly hope you're fishing here.

Yes, I'm fishing for signs of intelligent political consumerism.

We can go on and on about the merits of Apple's technology and wax poetic about Star Wars and the like, but when we have a unique political social commentator in our midsts, the likes of which we may never have seen before, the only thing we can say is that she's like the KKK?

She is assuming that America is intelligent. Her detractors' protests argue the other side of that debate.

And they can't see that the more they criticize her the more they indict themselves.

And she just smiles.

[mitchell_pgh]

IMHO, the problem with most people (and this is a global problem) is that they like things to be simple and logical... and most things aren't.

Also, many people feel that laws and rules aren't meant for them... but rather for "bad people." Oh, and everyone thinks they are "good people"

[goMac]

I think Stephen Colbert is someone who gives us the truth.

People need to stop criticizing him for hating bears.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ah, so she panders to gain attention.

pan·der (pndr) 2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses

By that definition, no she doesn't pander. What she does is to assume that you are an intelligent and sensible people. With that assumption then everything she says and does makes sense.

But if you are superficial, politically correct or dim witted then she is letting you identify yourself as such by the way you react to her comments.

For example, in this Edwards flap, what does freedom of speech really mean? And what happens when we bow to concerns of political correctness in limiting what we can say?

Or think about the Jersey Girls flap. When these widows were taking unfair advantage of their sainted status to endorse candidates and measures in political races who could afford to risk their own candidacy to expose the unfair advantage the Girl's endorsement provided by attacking these 'Sacred Cows' actions?

And anyone who says that Ann said the Girls were HAPPY their husbands died on 9/11 are the biggest fools of all!

She said no such thing and if you want to be exposed as being stupid, contest this point.

Or, for that matter, contest any of her more well publicized comments. She sets you up and then you walk into it and hang yourselves.

She is brilliant.