or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberal Media Bias - Ann Coulter Drinking Game Version
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liberal Media Bias - Ann Coulter Drinking Game Version - Page 6

post #201 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes, the editorial page is news.

Yes, it is. Being on the editorial page doesn't mean blatant falsehoods are allowed.


The point being that this bizarre tit for tat game can be played endlessly; no one will ever win it.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #202 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

On a complete side note, the Flesch in Flesch–Kincaid, has the first name of Rudolf and I own several books by him due to his very strong opinions on the teaching of reading.

He also has some strong views on colloqual language and plain writing.

You own the books because he has strong opinions or because you agree with his opinions?

because, you know, there is a difference between supporting someone because they have opinions and you know, supporting them when you agree with those opinions...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #203 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes, the editorial page is news.

The editorial page, in and of itself, is not news, the editorial page editorializes the news.

In other words, it is an edited version of the actual news.

It makes no claim to be objective news reporting, because it can't by it's very nature of editorializing.

Also known as bias with intent.

Those that read editorials, those that post editorials, only want to present half the actual objective facts, their half of the actual objective facts.

Those that read editorials, need those editorials to buttress their own biased opinions or POV.

Those that read editorials, seem to be incapable of coming to, and/or forming, their own conclusions sans said editorials.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #204 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

You own the books because he has strong opinions or because you agree with his opinions?

because, you know, there is a difference between supporting someone because they have opinions and you know, supporting them when you agree with those opinions...

I agree with his opinions on the teaching of reading. I discovered his views on other subjects mentioned in this thread years later. His opinions on those matters I can leave be neither agreeing nor disagreeing strongly with them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #205 of 253
post #206 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Yes, it is. Being on the editorial page doesn't mean blatant falsehoods are allowed.

Uh...yes, it does.

I've seen any number of unresearched idiotic commentary from actually smart and respected people that are so off the wall you think they made this shit up as a parody. But alas, no.
post #207 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Uh...yes, it does.

I've seen any number of unresearched idiotic commentary from actually smart and respected people that are so off the wall you think they made this shit up as a parody. But alas, no.

Yes, I probably spoke a little incorrectly. The better phrase would have been blatant falsehoods shouldn't be allowed.

I mean, it's one thing to intimate there was scientific consensus on global cooling in the 70's due to aerosols, when in fact already a majority of climate scientists thought this would be overcome by a warming trend. A distortion, sure, but one you'd expect in an editorial.

Saying that the Arctic Climate Research Center have found sea ice levels the same as 1979, when that organization has said no such thing, but rather has found decreased levels of sea ice is what gets my goat.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #208 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Yes, it is. Being on the editorial page doesn't mean blatant falsehoods are allowed.


The point being that this bizarre tit for tat game can be played endlessly; no one will ever win it.

A couple points... one has anyone ever "won" the editorial page?

Second, I'm pretty sure George Will, who has been around quite a while, didn't intentionally just make up numbers. Perhaps he took it from a non-primary source, or something of that nature, but there have been websites like http://www.climateaudit.org/ that have found flaws in the data of primary sources.

EDIT:
I think I found the source for what George Will claims.


I'm not going to run everything on that blog to prove it right or wrong, but the point that he wasn't just making it up stands. A second point of serious consideration should be that you don't disprove someone by citing a single day in a year. It is clear the amount of ice cycles up and down by approximately 5 million to 7 million sq. km a year. The fact that they don't match on a particular day really doesn't appear to mean squat. I would suggest it is using some sort of rolling averages.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #209 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

A couple points... one has anyone ever "won" the editorial page

You have misread my sentence. I'm not talking about "winning" in terms of content on an editorial page (and who ever "wins" the other pages in the newspaper?)

I am talking about your specious arguments of the liberal media and being "in the tank."

For every tit you present (tenuous though most of them are) there is a tat.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #210 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

You have misread my sentence. I'm not talking about "winning" in terms of content on an editorial page (and who ever "wins" the other pages in the newspaper?)

I am talking about your specious arguments of the liberal media and being "in the tank."

For every tit you present (tenuous though most of them are) there is a tat.

Yeah! I was going to bring that up as it's always trumptman and certain others that harp on the fact that the " Liberal Media " presented a slanted ( editorialized ) version of what's happening. I've always maintained that it's mainly ratings that dictated what they say.

Now he's saying it's ok and that's real news?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #211 of 253
Guys -- I love you all to death, but the only thing that AI is missing is a full-on JonesTown Kool-Aid festival.


Good night and good luck!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #212 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Guys -- I love you all to death, but the only thing that AI is missing is a full-on JonesTown Kool-Aid festival.

Good night and good luck!

We will try and manage without you.
post #213 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

We will try and manage without you.

He posted the same thing in a four year old zombie thread about french translations.

Maybe he's just walking down the hall, sticking his head into every door he sees.

And people in the offices are saying "Who the hell was that?"
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #214 of 253
I was assaulted at an Ann Coulter lecture last night.

Quote:
Ann Coulter spoke at The College of New Jersey in Ewing, NJ on Wednesday, 2/18. I am a student at the university and was in attendance. During the Q&A portion of the event, I asked a question that referred to a remark Coulter had made earlier in the evening. She said something along the lines of Republicans being justified in their attempts during the 2008 campaign to brand the Democratic party as soft on terror because its presidential nominee's middle name was Hussein.

So I asked Coulter if she meant to suggest that everyone with a Muslim sounding name should thereby be considered sympathetic to terrorists. She responded, "You can't possibly be that stupid," and went on to say something about Dan Quayle. In short, she did not address my question. I believe there is a video, which hopefully will be uploaded to YouTube soon.

After the event had concluded, she was signing books on stage. Here's where the story really begins.

Long story short...and the winner is: Ann Coulter

Her modus operandi is controversy and spectacle and he handed it to her on a platter.

The best thing to do I guess is ignore her as much as she'd wish one such as this dude should have himself. I'm sure Coulter laps such liberal tolerance up. It'll probably be in her next book, talking about how liberals only like to hear a speech from people with opinions they like.
post #215 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I was assaulted at an Ann Coulter lecture last night.



Long story short...and the winner is: Ann Coulter

Her modus operandi is controversy and spectacle and he handed it to her on a platter.

The best thing to do I guess is ignore her as much as she'd wish one such as this dude should have himself. I'm sure Coulter laps such liberal tolerance up. It'll probably be in her next book, talking about how liberals only like to hear a speech from people with opinions they like.

Reading that diary I'm struck by the strange tone in it that I have read so many times in pieces from a liberal perspective. It amounts to, "I know I broke the rules, didn't comply with requests and that a lay person might interpret these actions as aggressive but I don't get what their fucking problem happens to be."

I would call it getting smacked in the face with the real life outcomes of the "intent" game.

We've seen it on these forums and so many times in liberal pieces, the actions are wrong, the conclusions can't be justified, but the intentions are good so all must be well.

Deficit spending under Bush and a surge in Iraq = bad because Bush has bad intentions.

Voting for FISA, incredibly massive deficit spending and a surge in Afghanistan = good because Obama has the right intentions.

This dude got smacked by his own intentions.

I did not find her response to be satisfactory. When it was my turn in line, I walked onto the stage, and toward Coulter. I was immediately cut off by two security officials, one a police officer, one in plainclothes. They said that I could not come up to her table if I did not have a book. I said I just wanted to ask a question, and approached the table. At no point did I make physical contact with anyone on stage. I simply side-stepped the individuals that obstructed me.

The actions are threatening to anyone else. He thinks they aren't because well, he knows his intentions when physically approaching her.

Coulter, apparently startled by the commotion caused by the two officials, jumped backwards in her chair, as if she thought I was on the verge of attack. I suppose Coulter is used to that kind of threat, but it was certainly not my intention whatsoever. I did not lunge at her, nor yell anything at her; I only calmly walked up to her table. But, as it happened, I did not utter more than three words of my question before I was forcibly escorted to the end of the stage, led down the stairs, told "you're outta here", and again pushed in the direction of the building's exit without so much as a pause or an explanation.

Coulter is startled (but not by me I swear even though I am failing to comply with the rules and I am physically approaching her) and every other person, officers, and her interpret my actions as being on the verge of an attack, even though that isn't my INTENTION. I'm told to leave and I choose not to do so.

Not allowing myself to be physically removed without even being able to comment on what was going on, I then began to walk in the opposite direction, back toward the center of the auditorium where I had been sitting and mingling with people after the lecture. The officer suddenly started to pull my coat and grab at my shoulders. Instinctively, I didn't simply allow him to do this, and kept moving forward. I did not resist, nor did I shove or strike the officer in any way.

I'm not leaving. I'm heading back toward where I am told not to go. The officer is trying to prevent this and I do not comply but this is okay because it is "instinctual" and thus isn't really resistance.

The rest isn't worth going into but this is why I sometimes laugh and harp on reality here. Good intentions don't change bad actions in the real world.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #216 of 253
It was just dumb. Confronting, or even attempting a follow up question to one that she already deemed "stupid" is like asking a five year old why they don't like something. You can't martyr yourself.
post #217 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

It was just dumb. Confronting, or even attempting a follow up question to one that she already deemed "stupid" is like asking a five year old why they don't like something. You can't martyr yourself.

It happens to everyone.

When you don't follow the rules for a crowd, you constitute a threat. Someone doesn't have to wait until you have assaulted them or even tossed shoes at them when they are in a private location.

The real point though is this guys disconnect from reality and how the intent game leads helps that disconnect.

The first post you made on this said it was wrong not because of what he did, but because he "gave her what she wanted."

That is still the intent game. It isn't wrong because she wanted it anymore than rape is right or wrong because "she was asking for it." It is wrong because he wanted to physically approach her and she didn't want that. She doesn't have to feel threatened in a private location just because he wants to ask a question.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #218 of 253
If she answered his question thoughtfully, without calling him [edit: insulted him], maybe none of this would have never happened.

Think about that.
post #219 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

If she answered his question thoughtfully, without calling him [edit: insulted him], maybe none of this would have never happened.

Think about that.

I will think about it. First she called the question stupid, not him (by his own account which also includes him not being threatening by sidestepping security and "instinctually" avoiding police and security grasp while returning to the scene.) Second not liking the answer to a question isn't grounds for assault or even physical intimidation.

Again, the intent game is at play. The actions are threatening and nothing can or should discount that.

It is akin to saying a woman deserved rape because she told the man propositioning her to "fuck off."

The intent game needs to go away. Good intentions never justify bad actions.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #220 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I will think about it. First she called the question stupid, not him (by his own account which also includes him not being threatening by sidesteping security and "instinctually" avoiding police and security grasp while returning to the scene.) Second not liking the answer to a question isn't grounds for assault or even physical intimidation.

Again, the intent game is at play. The actions are threatening and nothing can or should discount that.

It is akin to saying a woman deserved rape because she told the man propositioning her to "fuck off."

The intent game needs to go away. Good intentions never justify bad actions.

"You can't possibly be that stupid."
post #221 of 253
Thread Starter 
Go punch the next guy in the nose who calls you stupid or even threaten to do it and see how you are dealt with Art.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #222 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Go punch the next guy in the nose who calls you stupid or even threaten to do it and see how you are dealt with Art.

I certainly wouldn't call him a bitch.
post #223 of 253
Also, I would only call a person a "faggot" to their face.
post #224 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Again, the intent game is at play. The actions are threatening and nothing can or should discount that.

What actions are threatening?

Quote:
After chatting with some people in the audience for a few minutes, I got in line to speak to Coulter. I was planning on introducing myself and following up to my question that I'd asked earlier; I did not find her response to be satisfactory. When it was my turn in line, I walked onto the stage, and toward Coulter. I was immediately cut off by two security officials, one a police officer, one in plainclothes. They said that I could not come up to her table if I did not have a book. I said I just wanted to ask a question, and approached the table. At no point did I make physical contact with anyone on stage. I simply side-stepped the individuals that obstructed me.

That he didn't have a book in his hands?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The intent game needs to go away. Good intentions never justify bad actions.

Who is implying intent here?
post #225 of 253
Trumptman. The man who's never wrong. And the man in love with Ann Coulter.
post #226 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post

What actions are threatening?

That he didn't have a book in his hands?

Who is implying intent here?

Sidestepping security when they have stopped you is threatening. According to the report on the campus newspaper linked to from the diary, there was a Q&A session and then a book signing. He claimed to want to question her, but the reality is that he wanted to get physically close to her. He was told to leave and refused to do so.

Go to your neighbor's house. Knock on the door and ask a question. Then stick your foot in the door and keep it there declaring a good intention and a desire to see them answer the question to your satisfaction. Then when the police come to remove you, "instinctually" roll out of their grasp and circle back to the home of your neighbor.

See if they feel you aren't harassing and threatening that neighbor.

He was told not to get close to her and he ignored that. A quick search of both Google and the article notes that people were turned away from the talk due to Kendall Hall being at capacity which is 837 people. When a person clearly desire to circumvent the crowd control measures put in place to ensure security, they constitute a threat.

People on these forums and in various articles I cite use intent for faulty reasoning. You present them with evidence and they ignore it declaring "Yes but that doesn't matter because we know their true intentions on those matters."

So for example when Bush pushes FISA, it is because he is an evil son of Satan and wants to control us all. Bush declares an axis of evil and he is a warmonger.

When Obama votes for FISA, well, he is just playing the political winds, satisfying the wingers and we know he will fix it later on. Obama demands NATO tear down all the invisible walls around the world and he is bringing on peace. I suppose his surge into Afghanistan is just a peaceful gesture as well.

Bullshit is bullshit. Intend to crap out roses doesn't change the smell.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #227 of 253
"You can't possibly be that stupid."
post #228 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sidestepping security when they have stopped you is threatening. According to the report on the campus newspaper linked to from the diary, there was a Q&A session and then a book signing. He claimed to want to question her, but the reality is that he wanted to get physically close to her. He was told to leave and refused to do so.

Go to your neighbor's house. Knock on the door and ask a question. Then stick your foot in the door and keep it there declaring a good intention and a desire to see them answer the question to your satisfaction. Then when the police come to remove you, "instinctually" roll out of their grasp and circle back to the home of your neighbor.

See if they feel you aren't harassing and threatening that neighbor.

He was told not to get close to her and he ignored that. A quick search of both Google and the article notes that people were turned away from the talk due to Kendall Hall being at capacity which is 837 people. When a person clearly desire to circumvent the crowd control measures put in place to ensure security, they constitute a threat.

I have to mostly agree with trumpt here. It's difficult to tease out without video, but the chances are high this guy did something inappropriate that warranted getting thrown out. Beyond that the speculation starts to get fuzzier. I'd say chances are also fairly good security/police did not handle things in the most professional manner possible, although I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

When you specifically ignore the instructions of the police, a knee in the head isn't too surprising.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #229 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

I have to mostly agree with trumpt here. It's difficult to tease out without video, but the chances are high this guy did something inappropriate that warranted getting thrown out. Beyond that the speculation starts to get fuzzier. I'd say chances are also fairly good security/police did not handle things in the most professional manner possible, although I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

When you specifically ignore the instructions of the police, a knee in the head isn't too surprising.

I haven't disagreed with Trumpt on the after events. Clearly he stepped over the line. Yet it was an open forum (at least he was there within the time before they turned people away), he asked an intelligent question, and Coulter was an ass first.

Like I said, her modus operandi is controversy and spectacle and he did hand it over to her on a platter by overstepping the boundaries of this type of event.

Question: Did he deserve to be called "stupid" for his question?

She didn't as trumptman so inaptly put it, call the question stupid, she called the questioner stupid for asking a question she not couldn't, but wouldn't answer.

edit: One other thing I dug up. He was on public property. It was a lecture hall at a public university.
post #230 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I haven't disagreed with Trumpt on the after events. Clearly he stepped over the line. Yet it was an open forum (at least he was there within the time before they turned people away), he asked an intelligent question, and Coulter was an ass first.

Like I said, her modus operandi is controversy and spectacle and he did hand it over to her on a platter by overstepping the boundaries of this type of event.

Question: Did he deserve to be called "stupid" for his question?

She didn't as trumptman so inaptly put it, call the question stupid, she called the questioner stupid for asking a question she not couldn't, but wouldn't answer.

edit: One other thing I dug up. He was on public property. It was a lecture hall at a public university.

Well of course she was an ass first. That's all part of her shtick. Certainly I agree calling a questioner stupid at a open forum isn't constructive or useful, even if the questioner uses intemperate language themselves (I haven't read any indication of that here). That goes for people of both politician persuasions, but as it is her shtick, it's not surprising.

In life, the answer "they're all idiots" is often applicable
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #231 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I haven't disagreed with Trumpt on the after events. Clearly he stepped over the line. Yet it was an open forum (at least he was there within the time before they turned people away), he asked an intelligent question, and Coulter was an ass first.

Like I said, her modus operandi is controversy and spectacle and he did hand it over to her on a platter by overstepping the boundaries of this type of event.

Question: Did he deserve to be called "stupid" for his question?

She didn't as trumptman so inaptly put it, call the question stupid, she called the questioner stupid for asking a question she not couldn't, but wouldn't answer.

edit: One other thing I dug up. He was on public property. It was a lecture hall at a public university.

A couple points...

First, I did misread his claimed response to the Coulter question.
Second, it wasn't an open forum. It was a presentation with a Q&A and then a book signing.
Third, playing into her modus operandi, I'll consider you right, but you are naming the wrong means of operation. Coulter was claiming that liberals play the victim card. This guy has played right into that by claiming the fact he could act like a complete ass and endanger her means he is the "victim" who has had his rights assaulted.

Coulter is under no obligation to treat his question with any sort of respect. He is the VP of the College Democrats who had already taken up seats for the speech and then left them in a mass walkout per the college newspaper.

Being public doesn't mean all rules/laws go out the window. I won't be inviting myself to the Lincoln bedroom tonight nor will we both be wandering in to whatever room we desire in the Supreme Court. The group got their protest. They even got their questions. What they didn't get was the ability to get close enough to assault or harm her. He was clearly misrepresenting his actions and wouldn't follow directions. He got what he deserved and wasn't willing to extend the same courtesy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #232 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

He got what he deserved and wasn't willing to extend the same courtesy.

Courtesy? Where did Coulter begin, much less extend some courtesy here?

Quote:
So I asked Coulter if she meant to suggest that everyone with a Muslim sounding name should thereby be considered sympathetic to terrorists. She responded, "You can't possibly be that stupid," and went on to say something about Dan Quayle.

Quote:
Coulter was claiming that liberals play the victim card. This guy has played right into that by claiming the fact he could act like a complete ass and endanger her means he is the "victim" who has had his rights assaulted.

She provoked this incident. Much in the way you seem so adept in doing here.

It's unfortunate that you can't see that your party is the victim. Your party is without identity and your party are the ones who follow dolts like Coulter, Palin and Limbaugh. Good luck with that.
post #233 of 253
Hippy fascists must get roughed up by the freedom loving police. It's the only way to keep Obama's thugs from silencing dissent.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #234 of 253
Conservatives and orgasms.

I cant remember where I heard this, but apparently smarter women don't orgasm as easily because their minds are thinking of different things. So if it is true that liberal women don't orgasm as much, this could be due to them being smarter than conservative women.

I have found two conflicting studies about this. I deem the result of these studies inconclusive and also just plain useless.

Much like this thread, again...\
post #235 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Courtesy? Where did Coulter begin, much less extend some courtesy here?

Have you been to any political events? There is a reason most of them do not have protests going on during them and that is because they require tickets to them instead of just going open to the public. This was open to the public. He got in and that is courtesy number one.

Quote:
She provoked this incident. Much in the way you seem so adept in doing here.

She answered his question. If you don't like an answer to a question, then don't ask it. He makes it sound innocent in his own account and gives her response as a partial quote. What did the VP of the College Democrats think he was going to get in terms of a response from Ann Coulter? Did he think his question would just drop her to her knees and have her be awakened with some of incredible new enlightenment thanks to him?

Also (thanks for the ad-hom) merely existing isn't provoking. If you go to an Ann Coulter speech about what is wrong with liberals, and you happen to be a strident and activist liberal, you better expect to hear a message that is a bit antagonistic to your own worldview.

That isn't a provocation. He choose to go to her speech and Q&A. The point is about as ridiculous as someone walking into a strip club and complaining about all the nudity and suggestiveness. In otherwords, complete bullcrap.

Quote:
It's unfortunate that you can't see that your party is the victim. Your party is without identity and your party are the ones who follow dolts like Coulter, Palin and Limbaugh. Good luck with that.

You you you... blah...blah..blah... caricature...caricature...caricature.

I'll worry about the Ann Coulters in my party and you can worry about your party being totally corrupt and spending trillions.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #236 of 253
That uh lady get's around.

Let's all sing this together!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye_2a7Lrl80

Also : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8-CW3dStKc

Hey Ann I'm a liberal and I drive a Mustang GT!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #237 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll worry about the Ann Coulters in my party and you can worry about your party being totally corrupt and spending trillions.

I'm confused. He's not a Republican.

All of a sudden corruption and spending have become really, really bad things. All of a sudden.

You waited eight years to say anything. Suddenly you're Really Outraged.
post #238 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

I'm confused. He's not a Republican.

All of a sudden corruption and spending have become really, really bad things. All of a sudden.

You waited eight years to say anything. Suddenly you're Really Outraged.

I'll tell you what Hassan. There are dozens of posts on here where I complain about Republicans and specifically the spending of Bush.

Here is one from 2006 for example.


Quote:
Past 2006, you will see Republicans facing challenges from... Republicans. People who want to stop the spending for example.

I've also said I think 2008 will be a primetime shott for a third party. I've noted repeatedly that it is easy to split the Republican party. The folks like Bush are actually very moderate with their spendy, nation-building, easy on immigration ways. The populist wing of the party, previously represented by the likes of Pat Buchanan or a Perot, might have to grab their pitchforks again.

If I really cared, I'm sure I could dig further back than that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #239 of 253
And the corruption. Tell us about the corruption.

Who cares about the spending. I mean, it wasn't as if the American economy was in danger of collapse in 2006 or anything.

Tell us about the corruption.
post #240 of 253
Thread Starter 
I've already done part of the work for you. You claimed the criticism didn't start until after Bush was out of office and I showed I was criticizing before they had even lost the Congress.

Be your own search slave. I know what I post thank you and if you contend different then offer your own proof.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberal Media Bias - Ann Coulter Drinking Game Version