USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[PlayadelSoul]

Ann Coulter doesn't speak for me, nor do I speak for the GOP.

The woman is nuts. She has no filter. Sometimes, I read her stuff and I cringe. Other times, I look at it and say "wow, thank God someone had the balls to say that."

JL, I am sorry that you are offended by me pointing out that Edwards has used personal tragedy for political gain. Now, I am going to look for the web page that Coulter was referring to. If it is what I think it is, then this conversation is going to go into overtime.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Why not get some ideas that will sell in the free market of ideas?

When the Fairness Doctrine was introduced, it forced radio and TV stations to present opposing ideas. Many media outlets found it to be impossible to comply due to a government official deciding what was fair and what wasn't. In essence, they were forced to change formats. This is the aim of those in Government, especially on the left. Just as an aside, Nixon used the Fairness Doctrine to counter political attacks and spread disinformation.

Do you seriously believe that the Government should dictate what you can listen to? The very idea that Lott is complaining shows you that talk radio is a counter to the power of the Government. Just what free speech was meant to do.

Should the NY Times and Washington Post be forced to give opposing editorials? I don't think so, and they run counter to my ideological beliefs.

In short, liberals can use the power of the radio, as well. Problem is that no one wants to listen, as evidenced by the bankruptcy of Air America.

Wonderful if it were a free market. Unfortunately today we have a few huge conglomerates owning ,controlling and programming the media. I'm sure you agree with the sentiment "money talks".

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Democratic pundits do the same thing, quit being so hypocritical.

I think it would be pretty obvious that the level of political discourse takes place at a MUCH higher level with most Democratic pundits than with many on the right.

But this is one of those things that I couldn't prove with empirical evidence, so I'm not even going to bother trying to persuade you.

[ryberg]

Oh, kirbyfan. I think this may be a red card in the world if uncareful reading on your part.

Check your quotes and you'll see it's all perfectly clear. All I did was point out that we should note that Elizabeth Edwards didn't say anything about a crime (because, as you note, Melliedee did).

So case not corrected, thank you very much, unless you mean your misunderstanding of the case.

Your comment later about hypocrites on the Dems' side is happily nullifed. At least to the extent that that conclusion was drawn from your uncareful reading of my comments.

Steve

P.S. Here's to hopin' your foot tastes better to you than you might have though mine would to me.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Is she a Democrat? I don't know. Again I'm looking for Democratic party spokespeople or representatives speaking the way Coulter does.

I gave you two examples, earlier, where Kerry referred to our troops as "terrorists in the night" and Murtha called them "cold blooded killers." I have more, but am busy on Edwards right now.

Here is the original article by Coulter, written in 2003. I guess the Edwards' family is just cleaning up their "Things to Do" list. Only 4 years after the fact.

Ann Coulter

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by StewartG

I think it would be pretty obvious that the level of political discourse takes place at a MUCH higher level with most Democratic pundits than with many on the right.

But this is one of those things that I couldn't prove with empirical evidence, so I'm not even going to bother trying to persuade you.

How bout a few examples then of this as you dont have empirical evidence. Seems pretty vain to say that your side has a "MUCH higher level of political discourse".

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Oh, kirbyfan. I think this may be a red card in the world if uncareful reading on your part.

Check your quotes and you'll see it's all perfectly clear. All I did was point out that we should note that Elizabeth Edwards didn't say anything about a crime (because, as you note, Melliedee did).

So case not corrected, thank you very much, unless you mean your misunderstanding of the case.

Your comment later about hypocrites on the Dems' side is happily nullifed. At least to the extent that that conclusion was drawn from your uncareful reading of my comments.

Steve

P.S. Here's to hopin' your foot tastes better to you than you might have though mine would to me.

Uh, Steve, I was responding to Melliedee. Want some ketchup?

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

How bout a few examples then of this as you dont have empirical evidence. Seems pretty vain to say that your side has a "MUCH higher level of political discourse".

Honestly, I couldn't THINK of a less productive use of my time than to try to persuade you of this point. Consider it a victory if you wish, you have my blessing.

(But in your secret little heart of hearts, I suspect you know I'm correct about this.)

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by StewartG

Honestly, I couldn't THINK of a less productive use of my time than to try to persuade you of this point. Consider it a victory if you wish, you have my blessing.

(But in your secret little heart of hearts, I suspect you know I'm correct about this.)

Yay!

I win! Thanks Stew! I knew i liked you!!!

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by StewartG

Honestly, I couldn't THINK of a less productive use of my time than to try to persuade you of this point. Consider it a victory if you wish, you have my blessing.

(But in your secret little heart of hearts, I suspect you know I'm correct about this.)

Ya, you guys use dem fancy computer thingees. Watchacallems? Intersexnet or sumthin.

The higher place being college dorm rooms where the kids are talking policy in between bong hits.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Wonderful if it were a free market. Unfortunately today we have a few huge conglomerates owning ,controlling and programming the media. I'm sure you agree with the sentiment "money talks".

So, how do you explain the fact that 19 of the top 21 newspapers in the country have an editorial bent to the left?

Money does talk. Ratings are money. Conservative talk radio makes lots of money and helps keep the Government in check. Liberal newspapers make money, as well. And, they help keep the Government in check.

I seriously can't believe that you would want to put the power of deciding who gets how much time to say what, to a Government flunkee. I am surprised by anyone, left or right, who would support any government control over the market of free speech. That is some scary stuff.

[melliedee]

PDS, if you are linking us to the Coulter article to prove a point about Edwards, I don't get it? How a candidate reacts to personal tragedy is not a reason to vote for that person; however, it can speak volumes about that candidate's character in the face of adversary. He wears a pin in rememberance of his son? Choose to disclose the event rather than go the stoic politician route? Doesn't even sound close to the vote-mongering that Coulter implies in the article. Sounds like a Dad with a dead kid who is also running for president.

Btw, I think that personal issues politicians choose not to disclose also speaks to thier character. Like having a gay daughter but not speaking of it in an election year because your party's platform doesn not recognize the rights of that population?

I will concede only this: Edwards IS a Breck Girl!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Uh, Steve, I was responding to Melliedee. Want some ketchup?

Ah, you guys...

There is a thing called CONTEXT, you know... You, Mark, persisted in presenting in a harsh light Elizabeth Edwards and her actions in this incident involving of course her comments to and criticism of Anne Coulter, and then answered Melliedee (do you and kirbyfan both really think I didn't get that?!?), continuing with criticism only this time of Melliedee's comments regarding whether such was a crime or whatever. I simply clarified that for her part, Elizabeth Edwards did not say that (whatever Melliedee may have said), and that Elizabeth Edwards' point was just that it lowers the quality of the political dialog at a time when if anything, it should be higher.

(Probably this move on my part was fundamentally misguided for this forum, as it was effectively an attempt to return to the topic. )

Listen, you guys don't want to respond to that key point from the whole incident, that's fine, I understand. It would in fact be a hard point for you to argue against, obviously, and as such Elizabeth Edwards would win that point. But your weird, over the top reading into my words suggest that you're just in some sort of weird denial about the fact that she even said it!

Sheez...

Steve

[melliedee]

Return to the topic, Steve? I think it would take a linguistics professor at this point!

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Return to the topic, Steve? I think it would take a linguistics professor at this point!

Well either you know more about me than I thought or you're just very lucky, there, given my background.

Steve