[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I heard stuff that I can see you disagreeing with, but I don't think I heard anything "crazy." Care to elaborate?

Well, that stupid crap about how Clinton or Obama winning the general election would aid the terrorists, not to mention how we need to stop the liberal fronted attack on faith and religion, their tolerance for pornography and sexual promiscuity, and how we need to solve these problems by fortifying marriage with a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. He also said that America could become the "France of the 21st century" (wonderfully diplomatic there). He claimed that Europe is facing a "demographic disaster" due to a "weakened faith in the creator", and that the problem with the jihadists is that "citizens, and not God shape the law". Sorry, I'm not into laws being established based solely on religious beliefs.

That enough for you?

[Chuckit]

Aside from the bit about gay marriage (which seemed to be kind of thrown in and odd), I didn't see much to disagree with there. I think it's pretty well-known that Obama and Clinton both want to give up on Iraq, right?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Aside from the bit about gay marriage (which seemed to be kind of thrown in and odd), I didn't see much to disagree with there. I think it's pretty well-known that Obama and Clinton both want to give up on Iraq, right?

1) The connections between Iraq and the war on terror now are pretty loose and nebulous, especially in comparison to other countries.

2) How are the liberals supporting pornography and sexual promiscuity, and how is this a presidential issue?

3) Who is he to provide a commentary on the troubles with Europe and their lack of faith? Does his belief in God hold a monopoly on any sort of morality?

4) Why should his belief in God shape our laws?

5) His claims about gay marriage - WTF? This is just retarded...

6) Is this really productive discourse? Would we have wanted another 4/8 years of this sort of nonsense?

7) It is offensive to imply that Liberals support terrorism

[tie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Rumsfeld is a hero.

Rumsfeld has done more damage to this country than Osama Bin Laden. He may be a hero, but not for the good guys.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So, maybe slavery is a good parallel after all. Perhaps you would prefer if the court had simply "read into" the constitution differently? Perhaps they should have saved themselves the trouble of the amendment process?

You're right - I don't think from a strict legal point of view that a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery was necessary - the constitution already prohibited it. But, given that law is a political issue, it was necessary to act because that was not the reading that was being used, an amendment cleared up any possible grey areas. In the case of abortion, the court ruled that the right already existed in the constitution - if there was the same degree of political agreement about abortion that there was about slavery, it would be possible to pass an amendment to inform the legal process of the electorate's will. Since there isn't, that reading of the constitution stands, and libertarians should rejoice that they have the liberty to make that decision free of government involvement.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

1) The connections between Iraq and the war on terror now are pretty loose and nebulous, especially in comparison to other countries.

I would say the opposite. The war was a stupid idea to begin with, but now we are in fact fighting terrorists there. That's why I was against the war but am also against pulling out prematurely. It's like calling a girl who's way out of your league and then freaking out and just breathing heavily into the phone — by that point it's too late to change your mind, so you're just taking a bad situation and making it worse.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

2) How are the liberals supporting pornography and sexual promiscuity, and how is this a presidential issue?

I didn't get that he was accusing the liberals of that (although I am not listing to the speech right now). My impression is that he feels like there is a problem with too many poor people starting broken families and creating a vicious cycle for their children, and our welfare program only serves to feed this cycle. I hope you can see why the welfare of the poor is a presidential issue.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

3) Who is he to provide a commentary on the troubles with Europe and their lack of faith? Does his belief in God hold a monopoly on any sort of morality?

I don't recall him saying that exactly. He said that many countries are facing a demographic problem, and this is true. He reasoned that it's the abandonment of traditional family values that has caused this, and that seems true to me. I readily admit that I am part of the "problem" here, but I don't think he's wrong.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

5) His claims about gay marriage - WTF? This is just retarded...

I agree, it seemed weird and perfunctory to me as well.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

6) Is this really productive discourse? Would we have wanted another 4/8 years of this sort of nonsense?

All his God talk doesn't sit well with me either, but I would much rather have four years of somebody with a proven record of fiscal responsibility and competent leadership than a guy whose platform is basically, "Hey, I'm black and I talk about 'change' a lot!" Maybe I'm more dulled to it from having a Mormon family, though — I've come to realize that talking like that is almost a nervous tick with some of them. Doesn't mean they're actually off their rockers.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

7) It is offensive to imply that Liberals support terrorism

Your personal offense aside, do you think his claim was anything but factual? Hillary and Barack do both want to give up fighting the terrorists in Iraq, right?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The war was a stupid idea to begin with,

Score one for Chuckit!

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

but now we are in fact fighting terrorists there.

Not really - we're fighting an insurgency we created whose goal is to free their country from occupation. The solution is pretty simple.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Your personal offense aside, do you think his claim was anything but factual? Hillary and Barack do both want to give up fighting the terrorists in Iraq, right?

See above - it's not 'surrender' to decide to stop an illegal war whose main effect right now is to create armies of people pissed off enough with the US to take up arms against them, just to get their country back.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Your personal offense aside, do you think his claim was anything but factual? Hillary and Barack do both want to give up fighting the terrorists in Iraq, right?

I've snipped everything else out because I don't feel like digging up a transcript of his speech, he's history regardless...

Addressing this though, yes they want to pull out of Iraq, but it is important to qualify this by saying that they want to do so *as soon as they safely can*. They have acknowledged the responsibility of pulling out at an appropriate time. The only difference seems to be that they are in favor of timetables.

Regardless, it's also a stretch to say that both Democratic candidates want to give up on fighting terrorism in general. This is a simple matter of resource allocation - we don't have infinite resources to invade any country we want, and war is not a cheap operation. It is not abating to terrorists to say that our resources would be best spent elsewhere. Both Clinton and Obama have payed plenty of lip service to Afghanistan and Pakistan, for instance.


The God stuff is just absolutely hypocritical and corrosive. I would be much happier with connecting God to politics if it were more in line with somebody like Jim Wallis or perhaps Jimmy Carter where Christianity provided a moral compass and inspiration to do truly great things in this world like combat poverty, deal with the crisis in Darfur, the environment, Africa, etc. Instead, it is about oppressing gays, trying to keep brain dead people alive in Florida, and folding on preventing the mortgage crisis and aiding victims in New Orleans.

What is so God-like about any of this? When are people going to wake up and realize that these politicians are manipulating Christians by paying lip service to stuff they care about without actually doing much, and then simultaneously crapping over others in their neglect and lack of caring in a way that surely does not please God.

I'm glad that the right-wing Christian lobby is fractured now, because this is all really stupid.

[vmarks]

[Dakar the Fourth]

Is there a contest in place for the moderators to use those images as much as possible?

[vmarks]

Yes. And I can't tell you which one of us started it.

McCain. Why. Nomination.

Next?

[Chuckit]

Request for clarification: Is the topic of Romney's resignation (which would be the sole reason McCain deserves the nomination in my eyes) considered a derail, or just war thing?

(To be clear, I'm not trying to argue with vmarks. It just seems relevant to me, but I could see why he might decide differently.)

[chris v]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Rumsfeld is a hero.

Wow.


*backs slowly away from computer*

*whistles*


How 'bout that McCain guy, huh?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Request for clarification: Is the topic of Romney's resignation (which would be the sole reason McCain deserves the nomination in my eyes) considered a derail, or just war thing?

(To be clear, I'm not trying to argue with vmarks. It just seems relevant to me, but I could see why he might decide differently.)

I just don't want us to get lost talking about abortion, slavery, and other topics I'm seeing pop up.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, that stupid crap about how Clinton or Obama winning the general election would aid the terrorists, not to mention how we need to stop the liberal fronted attack on faith and religion, their tolerance for pornography and sexual promiscuity, and how we need to solve these problems by fortifying marriage with a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. He also said that America could become the "France of the 21st century" (wonderfully diplomatic there). He claimed that Europe is facing a "demographic disaster" due to a "weakened faith in the creator", and that the problem with the jihadists is that "citizens, and not God shape the law". Sorry, I'm not into laws being established based solely on religious beliefs.

That enough for you?

I agree with most of what he said. And so did at least a few million other people in America. There are a lot of different views in this country, but that doesn't mean that any one is more right than another. It just means you have a different opinion than other people do.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Wow.


*backs slowly away from computer*

*whistles*


How 'bout that McCain guy, huh?

You and I disagreed sensibly enough about some of the other posts and topics in this thread, we can disagree on Rumsfeld also. If I'm going to bother explaining why he's a hero, (it's obvious to me, but not apparent to some folks here) I'll do it in another thread (may not get around to it, time commitments, etc.)

McCain is a source of frustration for me. He's who the Republicans have managed to get themselves this year, but he's no conservative. His hero qualifications from 40 years ago don't make him a good candidate for President. His legislative successes in the Senate don't make him a good candidate. Conservatives are disappointed in him as a candidate, and I don't imagine that conservative voters are going to hold their collective noses to elect him. Sure, it beats voting for a Democrat, but when Coulter is out saying she'll vote for Hillary Clinton because Clinton is more conservative, Republicans have a problem on their hands.

Here's my thinking: All the conservative voters that have decided McCain isn't their guy, or that they might not vote, need to be prepared to work towards getting conservatives into Congress.

This isn't likely to happen soon (look for more liberal and Democrat gains in both Senate and House) - but know that a McCain presidency is one that is going to be marked by the following: Presidents these days measure success by how much legislation they can take credit for passing. It's not a good measure in my eyes, but they do.

John McCain crosses the aisle to sponsor or pass legislation at any opportunity, and he doesn't mind putting on the ideological jersey of the opposing team to do so. Remember, this is the man who was liberal enough to be approached to be John Kerry's running mate.

If conservatives wish to get conservative policy enacted, they need to get conservatives elected to Congress. Think back to Clinton's second term, when Clinton measured success by legislation he could take credit for; He reached across the aisle and signed off on the legislation passed by conservatives.

That's the sort of work that lies ahead for Republicans.

[driven]

Someone listened to Limbaugh today. (The jersey comment.)

That said: There *WERE* conservatives running. People didn't vote for them. People went for electability this year as opposed to their "Conservativeness". Now ... he's what we got. He is what a majority of the folks going to the primary wanted. It seems to dishonor the democratic way that we decide a candidate if we stay home, vote for an even worse person to spite ourselves, etc.

I'm getting behind McCain. I think he'll be a good president.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by driven 

Someone listened to Limbaugh today. (The jersey comment.)

That said: There *WERE* conservatives running. People didn't vote for them. People went for electability this year as opposed to their "Conservativeness". Now ... he's what we got. He is what a majority of the folks going to the primary wanted. It seems to dishonor the democratic way that we decide a candidate if we stay home, vote for an even worse person to spite ourselves, etc.

I'm getting behind McCain. I think he'll be a good president.

I'm glad you know he's your candidate.

Please point out to me who among the GOP candidates was the conservative?

Giuliani, who had a difficult time speaking before the NRA because we all know how much gun legislation he likes?
McCain, with his anti-first amendment legislation?
Romney, with his tax friendliness?
Huckabee, with his tax friendliness?
Ron Paul, ok fiscally, but withdrawing from the world and deserting our allies is not a conservative foreign policy, and it's not an acceptable one.

So, which was the conservative again?

Again, McCain is your candidate. But he's not mine. I'm beginning to think about who I want for a GOP nomination in 2012, and who I'd like to support for Congressional races.

[driven]

Fred Thompson
Tom Tancredo (Just off the top of my head)

[driven]

Also: Don't forget that the next president will appoint up to 3 persons to the supreme court. Are you sure you want Obama or Hillary doing that?

[vmarks]

Good reminder!

I'll give you Tancredo, but Thompson was iffy for me due to his taking advice from Spencer Abraham.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by driven 

Also: Don't forget that the next president will appoint up to 3 persons to the supreme court. Are you sure you want Obama or Hillary doing that?

My god, yes

[peeb]

Oh yes.

[Chongo]

Be careful what you ask for

[nonhuman]

Dude! Bill looks awesome in that pic. I would totally smoke up with him!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Dude! Bill looks awesome in that pic. I would totally smoke him!

[subego]

Originally Posted by driven 

Are you sure you want Obama or Hillary doing that?

Hillary: No
Obama: Calculated risk, probability good
McCain: Sure
Huckabee: No

Of course, all of this is really equally dependent on who's in charge of congress and by how much. They could, in theory, nullify the (vastly different) problems of the least desirable candidates.

Just for giggles...

Romney: Calculated risk, probability bad
Biden: Sure
Paul: FTW, despite his other problems
Richardson: Si
Giuliani: **** no

Kucinich: No, but i'd be too stoned to care

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Be careful what you ask for

i see my people...i guess unlike you do...

i see the opportunities with the "love generation" in power...78 million baby boomers taking charge. moving forward

leaving bush w supporters in the dust....


Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

[driven]

Originally Posted by subego 

Richardson: Si

ROFL

[driven]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Good reminder!

I'll give you Tancredo, but Thompson was iffy for me due to his taking advice from Spencer Abraham.

It didn't matter anyway.

With his clout, if he wanted the nomination he could have had it. I really liked Fred ... but he was the biggest disappointment I can remember. I'll be honest, he was my #1 choice. That said I respect what the electorate has chosen ... and I still stand by my statement that we could have done a lot worse.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i see my people...i guess unlike you do...

Drugs are bad mmkay?

Your people... well the one pictured to the right of Bill anyway, was once president of Wellesley College's Young Republicans before she got all "enlightened" or is it just "lit up". Reminds me of the 'faces of meth' website.

[Uncle Skeleton]

People can't change their minds? Are you this vindictive against W for his let's just say questionable past activities? Or is it that people can't "go straight" unless they wrap Jesus around it?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

, but when Coulter is out saying she'll vote for Hillary Clinton because Clinton is more conservative, Republicans have a problem on their hands.

Republicans have a problem on their hands named Ann Coulter. She's been so ridiculously over-the-top-(can I use the word here in reference to a conservative, or is it only to be applied to liberals?)-shrill and hateful, that she's doing nothing but harm to her supposed cause, amongst the non-knuckle-dragging-mouth-breathing wing of the Republican party, anyway, which I would still hope is at least the bare majority of it.

She has been so wrong about everything that she has said for the last 15 years, that I can automatically gainsay whatever vitriol she spews, and know pretty much where I stand, so I think I'll just take it on faith that McCain is more conservative than Clinton.


That, and their voting records might suggest the same. She's friggin' bonkers, (no, no, she's an entertainer -- the death threats are a joke. ha ha. Gettit? hah... uh...) and I have no clue what she's hoping to accomplish by this absurd attack on McCain, who really doesn't deserve the broadside from his own party.

[besson3c]

Perhaps the far right that are seeing the grip their ideology has on this country rapidly waning, they are essentially having a spoiled kid-like temper tantrum?

You can't always have it your way, guys...

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Republicans have a problem on their hands named Ann Coulter. She's been so ridiculously over-the-top-(can I use the word here in reference to a conservative, or is it only to be applied to liberals?)-shrill and hateful, that she's doing nothing but harm to her supposed cause, amongst the non-knuckle-dragging-mouth-breathing wing of the Republican party, anyway, which I would still hope is at least the bare majority of it.

She has been so wrong about everything that she has said for the last 15 years, that I can automatically gainsay whatever vitriol she spews, and know pretty much where I stand, so I think I'll just take it on faith that McCain is more conservative than Clinton.


That, and their voting records might suggest the same. She's friggin' bonkers, (no, no, she's an entertainer -- the death threats are a joke. ha ha. Gettit? hah... uh...) and I have no clue what she's hoping to accomplish by this absurd attack on McCain, who really doesn't deserve the broadside from his own party.

I don't see many people who take Coulter's commentary seriously. She's like a Colbert Report. She claims she means what she says, but I can't tell if that's also a part of her shtick.

Limbaugh, Steyn, Walter Williams, these are serious folks who you can tell when they're joking and when they're serious.

McCain does deserve whatever broadside he gets, he's been deserting conservative principles at every opportunity.

You don't have to take it on faith, his record is clear.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Perhaps the far right that are seeing the grip their ideology has on this country rapidly waning, they are essentially having a spoiled kid-like temper tantrum?

You can't always have it your way, guys...

Well, you might think it's waning, but I think you're mistaken.

I think it's growing. I think the commotion over McCain not being conservative is an indicator of this. If the country were drifting leftward, there would be no commotion on the whole. Instead, there's a large amount of conservative voters who have to consider whether they'll vote for the liberal democrat, the liberal republican, or stay home.

As for me, I'm going to start looking into conservatives running for Congress and seeing who I can support. That's what will matter next. With a liberal president in office, the bills being put forth will depend on the makeup of Congress.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Well, you might think it's waning, but I think you're mistaken.

I think it's growing. I think the commotion over McCain not being conservative is an indicator of this. If the country were drifting leftward, there would be no commotion on the whole. Instead, there's a large amount of conservative voters who have to consider whether they'll vote for the liberal democrat, the liberal republican, or stay home.

As for me, I'm going to start looking into conservatives running for Congress and seeing who I can support. That's what will matter next. With a liberal president in office, the bills being put forth will depend on the makeup of Congress.

I disagree. Any political scientist will tell you that there are more moderates than there are extreme wingers. This Bush presidency has been an enigma in this respect. We are starting to see things return to normal.

The reason we have been hearing so much about people that are unhappy with McCain is because political extremism is far sexier than being moderate. Rallying behind people urging us to be more reasonable is not as sexy a sell as crazies like Ann Coulter, at least as far as the media is concerned.

You guys (if it is appropriate to include you as a far right-winger) are just noisy, that's all, just like the far left wingers are similarly noisy. It creates a lot of noisy dialog that I hope will be stifled now that it seems clear that there is great demand for political moderation right now.

[peeb]

I don't really think there are any far-lefters in the US - the debate is between the extreme right and the off-the-scales right wing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

People can't change their minds? Are you this vindictive against W for his let's just say questionable past activities? Or is it that people can't "go straight" unless they wrap Jesus around it?

Wow, I must've touched a nerve. I was actually just trying to be silly toward the one talking about "his people" then went on to talk about the "love generation" and baby-boomers... blah, blah, blah.

C'mon, like you think the folks in their 50's and 60's right now aren't truly screwed in the head.

Besides, people usually become more conservative as they marry and have children and I might add, her "change" is a little more than a small change. She went from fronting a young Republican group to running for President of the US as a (D).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You guys (if it is appropriate to include you as a far right-winger) are just noisy, that's all, just like the far left wingers are similarly noisy. It creates a lot of noisy dialog that I hope will be stifled now that it seems clear that there is great demand for political moderation right now.

Naw. I'm not really being that noisy. McCain is just not the person I want running for President. I think he'll implode. Regarding Hillary, I just don't want someone who opens her debate with "you always..." and I think Dems are absolutely crazy putting her up. Personally, I'd much rather see Obama as the frontrunner because I want a good debate on the issues and I believe he'd actually be more difficult to beat.

I'm one of the few moderate voices left in this place. Only the noisy far left-wingers would lump me in (not saying you did necessarily) with "far right-wingers".

[driven]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Perhaps the far right that are seeing the grip their ideology has on this country rapidly waning, they are essentially having a spoiled kid-like temper tantrum?

You can't always have it your way, guys...

Both sides have their extremists. Somewhere in the middle is where the rest of us are.
As for Coulter ... I consider her more of an entertainer than a serious political analyst. (Sort of like a shock jock for the right.)

... and I could care less who she votes for.

[driven]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Naw. I'm not really being that noisy. McCain is just not the person I want running for President. I think he'll implode. Regarding Hillary, I just don't want someone who opens her debate with "you always..." and I think Dems are absolutely crazy putting her up. Personally, I'd much rather see Obama as the frontrunner because I want a good debate on the issues and I believe he'd actually be more difficult to beat. .

I have yet to see obama say anything of substance. He's all with "Let's make changes" (how?) "Let's all feel good with hope" ... I've watched him speak many times, but I don't get the JFK or MLK chills that all his people tell me are there.

Hillary ... sorta know what I'm getting. (Good or bad). McCain ... sorta know what I'm getting (good or bad). Obama still seems too nebulous (at least to me.)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Republicans have a problem on their hands named Ann Coulter.

What office was Ann Coulter elected to? I must have missed it.

I think it's mainly Democrats that have "problems on their hands" with private citizens expressing opinions, and can't seem to make the distinction between public and private. They've even used the bully pulpit of Congress trying to silence private citizens. (See Harry Reid abusing his power against Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh-with a blatant lie at that.)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What office was Ann Coulter elected to? I must have missed it.

I think it's mainly Democrats that have "problems on their hands" with private citizens expressing opinions.

QFT.

SHE'S DANGEROUS!!! We need to attach a little left-wing nut to her side to temper everything she says to make her less dangerous. In fact, let's just get one of those voice boxes to attach to her larynx or something. That way every right-wing thing she says will come out leftist.

[driven]

She's not dangerous. No more than Al Sharpton is dangerous.

What's dangerous is when people buy into things others say without doing the most basic research and formulating their own opinion. THAT is dangerous.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by driven 

I have yet to see obama say anything of substance. He's all with "Let's make changes" (how?) "Let's all feel good with hope" ... I've watched him speak many times, but I don't get the JFK or MLK chills that all his people tell me are there.

Hillary ... sorta know what I'm getting. (Good or bad). McCain ... sorta know what I'm getting (good or bad). Obama still seems too nebulous (at least to me.)

I don't understand the notion that he has never said anything of substance. He is extremely clear and articulate in his viewpoints, and he has made them clear, at least to me... He is *far* clearer than John Kerry was, although perhaps that's not saying much

[besson3c]

Ann Coulter is dangerous.

She's contributing to discourse in this country going down the shitter. Mind you, she is far from the only contributor to this problem, so she certainly isn't single-handedly destroying anything, but she's a definitely a part of it, as is Fox News.

Those in power benefit from a dumb electorate, it makes as more manipulable and susceptible to political theater.

This is a danger though. I don't even want to think what this country would be like if we had another 8 years of retarded partisan football.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He is extremely clear and articulate in his viewpoints...

Careful, if you were a Republican this statement would be viewed as racist.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I disagree. Any political scientist will tell you that there are more moderates than there are extreme wingers.

Any political scientist will tell you a lot of things, and any other political scientist will likely contradict the first one's claims.[quote[This Bush presidency has been an enigma in this respect. We are starting to see things return to normal.[/quote]The Bush presidency is not an extreme right wing presidency. Bush is not a conservative. Bush is a moderate.

The reason we have been hearing so much about people that are unhappy with McCain is because political extremism is far sexier than being moderate.

Yes, never let the neutral middle of the road go undefended.

Rallying behind people urging us to be more reasonable is not as sexy a sell as crazies like Ann Coulter, at least as far as the media is concerned.

Ron Paul was urging people to be reasonable, and he managed to get some internet folks to rally around him. Of course, he also helped the media make him appear crazy.

But why are you concerned with what the media does? The media is irrelevant, and tries to focus on making the story to make themselves relevant, rather than reporting.

You guys (if it is appropriate to include you as a far right-winger) are just noisy, that's all, just like the far left wingers are similarly noisy. It creates a lot of noisy dialog that I hope will be stifled now that it seems clear that there is great demand for political moderation right now.

There is no great demand for political moderation. There is demand for political principles, and standing for those principles. This has always been what people respond to, rather than some wishy-washy notion of middle-of-the-road undecidedness that is 'moderate'.

The fact that you hope dialog will be stifled is scary and offensive to the very depths of my being. You're following McCain's notion of doing away with the First Amendment, in favor of orderly government.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ann Coulter is dangerous.

You know how you get torqued off when people say that dissent against the war is helping the terrorists?

Calling Coulter dangerous is really the same sort of thing, it's only pertaining to a less important subject.


P.S. I'm using a proposition that I'm confident will be understood by my intended audience. It likely isn't worth it to get into it with me on whether dissent helps the terrorists because it's only relevant within the analogy I'm making, and I probably half agree anyways.

Besson knows what I mean when I make the proposition, and that is the point in its entirety.