Yuk. Yuk. Let’s just look at how stupid she is. Her success as a commentator and author aside…
Is everyone you disagree with as stupid? May want to check the meaning of the word.
Well, let’s see…here we have (in no particular order):
A United States Vice President
A U.S. Senator
A U.S. Congressman
A former U.S. Congressman and Speaker of the House of Representatives
Former U.S. Congressman and House Majority Leader
Various and sundry political columnists radio personalities and pundits.
Now, unless you want to also categorize the likes of Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, Terry Gross and virtually any 3 of 4 panelists plus the moderator on any political talk show presented by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. as trolls as well, I’d say you’re a tad off the mark there, chum.
It was Dear Scylla who categorized Coulter as a troll. No one, except possibly you, appears to have disagreed with him. Do you wish to claim that Coulter is not a troll? If so, please explain your reasoning.
All these other folk you mention are irrelevent to the status of Coulter, who is the person under discussion in this thread.
Completely ignoring your inablilty to comprehend the written word in the post you were replying to, do you sincerely believe that Vice President Cheney, and former Speaker of the House Gingrich cannot properly be termed “combative”?
While you’re thinking, please name the Democratic “trolls” comparable to Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly.
But I didn’t ask you for their credentials, “chum”. I simply pointed out that these CPAC invitees include a number of hatchetmen (and women), a point which you’ve yet to refute.
Your pointing out the fact that many of them have attained high status within the Republican hierarchy only undermines your original “refutation” of Squinks’ post.
Scuse moi, Mssr. Idgit! You yourself referred to the CPAC lineup as trolls in your own post #109 just above.
Nope. Never denied it.
Then why did you refer to them as trolls in the very last line of the aforementioned post? As you may recall, you said “Trolls should be banned, but the GOP habitually invites them into their heart” and you then linked to the CPAC lineup of people I listed. Note your use of “Trolls,” which is plural and not limited to Ann Coulter…and “invites them”, which is plural and not limited to Ann Coulter…in the post you made, and to which I was referring in my response.
Please see my post just above which will demonstrate that it is you who has problems with reading comprehension.
I never said it and I don’t care. What difference does it make? There is nothing wrong with a politician or spokesperson being combative. That doesn’t make them trolls anymore than the lefties I listed.
Why should I? What does it have to do with anything I’ve said in this thread? You’re gonna have to see if that strawman will hold up somewhere else 'cause I’m not gonna bite. I have said nothing in this thread in defense of Ann Coulter and I’m not going to respond to erroneous implications by those with reading comprehension problems of their own who seem to feel I have.
There’s nothing to refute…and there’s nothing wrong with their being hatchetpersons ( 
), anymore than it’s wrong for the lefties I mentioned to be hatchetpersons. Are you suggesting that no one should rightfully be allowed to participate in politics unless they’re nice, non-combative, non-confrontational, and don’t ruffle anyone’s feathers? If so, good luck with that!
:: Le sigh :: :rolleyes:
The post I made pointing out the fact that many of them have attained high status with the Republican hierachy was in response to your post #120, and was intended to demonstrate that “combativeness” exists on both sides and is nothing more than the rough and tumble of normal political process. There’s a difference between combativeness and trollery, a distinction that seems lost on certain posters to this thread.
Nope, I provided a link to their website, which prominently featured said troll Coulter.
Try saying ‘Troll should be banned.’ It doesn’t work very well does it? Trolls are a class. Coulter is the instance of the class under discussion. She is a troll. She is also a member of the class of trolls. In general, trolls, as a class, should be banned. The specific instance of the class, Coulter, should be banned.
See, it’s not all that complicated. Why are you having trouble understanding?
Trolls is a label, it’s a fucking pointer, which in the context of this discussion points to Coulter. See?
Well, I’d prefer it, but I’m not so naive as to expect it.
What bugs me is the increasingly common use of gratuitous inflammatory rhetoric and demogoguery which Coulter and her ilk seem to specialize in. To me, this is a defining characteristic of a political “troll”. The GOP has no monopoly on this phenomenon, but it’s not for the lack of trying.
Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave.
He can do what he likes in his grave, so long as he stays in it. :mad:
The point I came here to make. Thanks, Miller. Liberals don’t pay her bills, Scylla.
How 'bout Lynne Stewart and Ward Churchill? I await your rationalizations of how these are either not “true” Democrats or else don’t compare.
To what extent are either one Democrats? I thought Lynne Stewart was associated with groups to the left of the Democratic Party, and while I’m not sure about Ward Churchill, I suspect the same about him.
I don’t think either one represents leftism well, but I don’t think the Democrats necessarily suffer from that, except to the degree that they defend their terrible behavior.
What prominent Democratic conferences did they speak at again? Do you have any outrageous quotes from their speeches at these conferences?
Personally, I think a more apt comparison might be Markos Moulitsas, who made an inflammatory comment on his blog after some American contractors were killed in Iraq in 2004:
He did apologize for these comments afterward.
The YearlyKos convention in 2006 attracted as speakers Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and Barbara Boxer. Four Democrats then considering running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination also appeared, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack, and Mark Warner.
So the question is, is Kos a troll? Is he a bombthrower? Is he a “combative” personality, like some of those described above? And if he falls into any of these categories, why would the Democrats want to attend his party and then accuse the Republicans of harboring mean spirits themselves?
I think we all need to grow up here. Most of the nicer people I know are the least political, and there is probably a reason for that.
I’m not sure you can have it both ways. You both want to pull some quote from Kos about mercenaries in Iraq to somehow mitigate (but not defend, no never defend) Coulter’s comments, while also calling for greater maturity from everyone.
Which do you want - to raise hackles and increase defensiveness by broadening the front to include all sorts of nasty comments from different people on different topics, or to bring maturity and perspective to the discussion?
Frankly, it seems to me that your whole purpose for returning to the boards was to amp up the level of partisan defense of things like this issue, where you can’t even really just come out and say that Coulter said an awful, stupid, hateful thing. You have to couch an exceptionally mild rebuke of what she said in the context of a defense of who the crowd is, what they represent, whether they laughed or applauded and what in your mind it is akin to from “the other side.”
I’m not proclaiming “maturity” on my part, but at least I know I’m being straight with myself and others about what my interests and goals are. You are not.
That’s what I thought you’d say: “They’re not ours, and if they are, they haven’t said anything bad.”
Sorry, but I can’t seem to find that particular translation of my words in the current edition of the Liberal-To-English, English-To-Liberal Dictionary.
I can’t see that either. Tough as I’ve been on both, and their sad defenders here, it isn’t strictly speaking a Democrat thing.