USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well just to sum up, here, Anne Coulter is whacko and has no filter and says things that make even conservatives cringe. And she doesn't speak for conservatives, anyway. but on the other hand, conservatives applaud her en masse when she calls a candidate a faggot. However she continues to be popular only because liberals make her so by misrepresenting her as being someone who benefits from support from conservatives. And getting back to the candidate, he and his wife are bad because his wife said Coulter's actions and language degraded the level of political dialog while calling Coulter on her behavior, even though that candidate's wife was the mother of a boy who died and who Anne Coulter talks about disrespectfully (incidentally in ways similar to how she talked about wives of others who died previously, but that's a whole nother story, you know). And Coulter decided it would be better to say on national TV that she hoped the candidate would be assassinated by terrorists, and then smiled pleasantly. Also the candidate is preferably referred to as a p***y than a faggot. And reaction against language and actions of the Coulter exhibits is just knee jerk reaction, not thoughtful or sincere.

I think that gets at least most of what we've covered here, doesn't it? Although remarkably when you read through it, the point that seems the most lost is Elizabeth Edwards' about how we really would benefit from a bit higher level of political dialog.

Steve

Oh, here we go.

OK, first. I heard the audience at the speech where she called Edwards a "faggot". To use the term "en masse" is a huge stretch. There was quite of bit of uneasy laughter.

There is now, in American politics, an attempt to use "untouchables" as spokespeople. The idea is that you find a victim and then use that victim to say what you want them to say. Then, when someone argues the merits of what they said, you can claim that the person arguing back is not respecting the victim. Its a BS ploy, and very apparent when used.

John Edwards has his wife jump down Coulter's throat, knowing that if I, or anyone else, questioned her motives, we could be hit with the "insensitive" label. Guess what? If you don't want to have your opinions challenged on the merits, then STFU. You don't get a coat of victim teflon.

The widows of 9/11 (the vast majority who supported the President, not included). Cindy Sheehan. John and Elizabeth Edwards. Gore (his son and his sister). Gephardt. The list grows. That ploy only works if someone lets it. If you have thin skin, don't get in the game.

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by sctx

can we get off the Coulter kick???........it's just gonna make Rissask use her Freaky Ann avatar again and that thing really disturbs me

I don't remember this. What did it look like?

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Oh, here we go.

OK, first. I heard the audience at the speech where she called Edwards a "faggot". To use the term "en masse" is a huge stretch. There was quite of bit of uneasy laughter.

There is now, in American politics, an attempt to use "untouchables" as spokespeople. The idea is that you find a victim and then use that victim to say what you want them to say. Then, when someone argues the merits of what they said, you can claim that the person arguing back is not respecting the victim. Its a BS ploy, and very apparent when used.

John Edwards has his wife jump down Coulter's throat, knowing that if I, or anyone else, questioned her motives, we could be hit with the "insensitive" label. Guess what? If you don't want to have your opinions challenged on the merits, then STFU. You don't get a coat of victim teflon.

The widows of 9/11 (the vast majority who supported the President, not included). Cindy Sheehan. John and Elizabeth Edwards. Gore (his son and his sister). Gephardt. The list grows. That ploy only works if someone lets it. If you have thin skin, don't get in the game.

Please allow me to sum this up for you. If you can't attack a candidates ideas attack them individually along with their families whether living or not. Did I get it right?

[melliedee]

Victim teflon? I think that's in the I Asked My Husband To Murder Me Aisle. Your defense of Coulter grows weaker by the minute...

JL, your avatar is seriously freakin me out!

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Victim teflon? I think that's in the I Asked My Husband To Murder Me Aisle. Your defense of Coulter grows weaker by the minute...

JL, your avatar is seriously freakin me out!

Sorry! It had that effect on me too when Riss used it originally. I hope this one is better.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

O
John Edwards has his wife jump down Coulter's throat, knowing that if I, or anyone else, questioned her motives, we could be hit with the "insensitive" label. Guess what? If you don't want to have your opinions challenged on the merits, then STFU. You don't get a coat of victim teflon.

Didn't Elizabeth Edwards say her husband did not know she was going to call Coulter? Do I have that right?

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by roni

Didn't Elizabeth Edwards say her husband did not know she was going to call Coulter? Do I have that right?

Don't be silly Roni. In some folks minds women only do as their menfolk tell them.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

Sorry! It had that effect on me too when Riss used it originally. I hope this one is better.

Thanks! She's scary enough in real life.

Oh, Democrats forum Q&A on PBS tonight at 9!

[Cosmo]

Roni, start the party thread dude...

Originally Posted by roni

Didn't Elizabeth Edwards say her husband did not know she was going to call Coulter? Do I have that right?

[melliedee]

Anyone watching the Dems debate? Finally, some discourse on domestic issues. Kuchinich is looking less like a fringe upstart everyday, imo...

[Seakony]

Just listening to the dems complaining about the slow recovery in New Orleans...duh.. don't they have control of congress? Why don't they shut up and do something now while they can... Yep..great leadership I see here..not.
Of course they don't take in consideration that people need a job, a house, stores, etc..which comes first? If you have no jobs..you have no money, if you have no place to live, then you can't live there..it's a catch 22. Doctors, nurses, teachers, and everybody else needs homes and places to shop..but if there is no demand for services, then there will be a slow down of building. It's a vicious circle.
Lots of raise the taxes on the rich..as usual..even though they pay a whole lot more than anybody already.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Seakony

Just listening to the dems complaining about the slow recovery in New Orleans...duh.. don't they have control of congress? Why don't they shut up and do something now while they can... Yep..great leadership I see here..not.
Of course they don't take in consideration that people need a job, a house, stores, etc..which comes first? If you have no jobs..you have no money, if you have no place to live, then you can't live there..it's a catch 22. Doctors, nurses, teachers, and everybody else needs homes and places to shop..but if there is no demand for services, then there will be a slow down of building. It's a vicious circle.
Lots of raise the taxes on the rich..as usual..even though they pay a whole lot more than anybody already.

Given that they are broadcasting from an historically black university, I think it's entirely appropriate to discuss the mismanagement of Katrina at the federal level. At least it's on the Dem's radar and they chose to talk about it rather than treat it like another embarrassment to best swept under the rug in an election season.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Seakony

Just listening to the dems complaining about the slow recovery in New Orleans...duh.. don't they have control of congress? Why don't they shut up and do something now while they can... Yep..great leadership I see here..not...

Yeeeeesss, New Orleans is the fault of the D e m o c r a t s ...

It's the D e m o c r a t s who have shown so little leadership in the wake of Katrina...

Now when I snap my fingers, you will awake with no memory of this conversation, but you will go out onto Internet forums and post that those do-nothing D e m o c r a t s are to blame for New Orleans...



Bush doesn't need to be a teflon President -- his followers provide all the teflon he needs, thank you!

Steve

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Yeeeeesss, New Orleans is the fault of the D e m o c r a t s ...

It's the D e m o c r a t s who have shown so little leadership in the wake of Katrina...

Now when I snap my fingers, you will awake with no memory of this conversation, but you will go out onto Internet forums and post that those do-nothing D e m o c r a t s are to blame for New Orleans...



Bush doesn't need to be a teflon President -- his followers provide all the teflon he needs, thank you!

Steve

[ryberg]

Of course President Bush, the leader of the national at the time of such a clear emergency,
had n o t h i n g . . .

n o t h i n g to do with any of it . . .

Very good . . .



Steve