Don’t forget the nativist-isolationist-populist paleoconservatives (a different group from “Christian Right / Social Conservatives” although there is considerable overlap; the two groups take very different positions on foreign and military policy, especially WRT America’s relationship with Israel). Some of them have joined Pat Buchanan’s America First Party, but I’m sure they usually vote Pub in the actual elections. They are the most openly racist (though they generally use euphemisms like “culture” or “language”) element of American conservatism, and, despite alienation over Bush’s immigration policies, they are an important force within the Republican Party. (At least, that’s the impression I get from lurking on Free Republic.)
Underneath many hard core Union voters you will find a white supremacist - they just swallow their racism in favor of the Union. Redefining Cuban-Americans as white is a fun way to deflect from the anti-Cuban statements. “Oh, that isn’t racist - those people are white!” :rolleyes:
Coulter is insulting; but so is Rosa Brooks, Paul Krugman, Molly Ivins, and I am sure a few others from the editorial pages (the OTHER funny pages!). Coulter takes it to a new level, but she is far from being alone on the asshole end of polemics.
Except, and here I’m repeating myself for the umpteenth time, what prominent liberal pundit wrote a best-selling book whose entire message, from its title on, is that all conservatives (not just Bush or Cheney, but ALL conservatives) are fascists? And then what SDMB liberals kept saying things like “oh, sure, that book goes a bit far, but you have to admit it has some funny lines”?
If that is true, and I see no reason to believe it, so what? Crypto-racism, if not expressed in voting behavior or social discrimination, is mostly harmless.
You lie. I am redefining nothing. I have lived in Tampa and Miami. Most Cuban-Americans are white. You would never confuse them with mestizo Mexicans. And the way Democrats regard them has nothing whatsoever to do with race. Democrats are opposed to Republicans; most Miami Cubans are Republicans. That’s all there is to it.
Dunno much about Brooks and Krugman, but Molly Ivins, at her most insulting, was never in any sense an asshole.
I’ve never heard of Rosa Brooks, have only very vaguely heard of Paul Krugman, and know very little about Molly Ivins. Care to explain in greater detail?
As I recall, all her best ‘material’ was founded anecdote (like the famous ‘dick touching an asshole’ comment) rather than hypotheticals and hyperbole.
You picked out the good bits. Those lines, while sharp, are in context with this:
A denunciation of a Jewish organization objecting to the suggestion that all public officials swear an oath of office on a Christian Bible follows. :dubious:
Cite for it being a leftwing idea? Or is it held by the GOP & other, smaller parties to their right?
The latest proposal is to drop the top rate below 35%, which is hardly equivalent. The Laffer Curve is not on the government’s side below 50%, & a 30% tax rate is disturbingly close to proposed flat taxes.
It’s bad physics. It’s waste of energy to put stuff all the way into low orbit when you can fire it as effectively from the ground.
Gotcha. Republicans don’t have an issue with Blacks, just Black Democrats. Nothing racist about it.
I think it depends on the “Republican.”
And that tarantula’s already been called back for followup. (Doesn’t look good.)
No no no, you misunderstand me (or I wasn’t clear). I’m not saying that there’s nothing to enjoy in Franken’s writings except the partisan righty-bashing. Yes, he does have wit and intelligence and knowledge and a likeable self-deprecating style. I’m just saying that he’s not really much of a humor writer, any more than Moore is, or any more than Coulter is. Like most other political essayists, they are fundamentally lecturers, not jesters. What makes them seem funny is primarily the fact that they are making fun of the people that their readers are already predisposed to laugh at.
(I should note that in contexts other than their political writing, Franken and Moore can be much funnier. Some parts of Franken’s “Stuart Smalley” shtick are really comic, and so is Moore’s “American Candide” naive-schlub persona in his movies.)
For a very literal answer to the OP’s question, let’s look at the Amazon reviewers who gave Coulter’s Godless: The Church of Liberalism five stars. Here’s one gem out of many:
Gosh, she’s a scientist, too!
Doubtful. I recall a Boondocks strip, from Alan Keyes’ 2000 presidential bid, riffing on the fairly obvious fact that most white Republicans, even while agreeing enthusiastically with everything Keyes says, would consider voting for him “When monkeys fly out of my butt!”
Anti-intellectual is the second favorite insult meme of the Left (after fascism). This is echoed by Ms. Ivins (RIP - I liked her work, and miss her biting comments):
Where I think we disagree is the degree to which Coulter is responsible for the coarsening of the dialogue. From where I sit, the ugliness started on the streets, from protestors on the left. Though, I guess it’s impossible to pinpoint when. I think the Clinto impeachment riled a lot of the left and some of them thought that it excused any behavior.
I think we also disagree on whether Coulter is a net good or a net bad (evil). While I acknowledge that she has negatives, to both her own side and the tenor of the dialogue in general, I feel she is a net benefit. She brings up issues and says things that need to be said. For example, I think her main point on the 9/11 widows was right on. I also think that benefits everyone. Now, she brings to the fore a lot of issues that I agree with her on, so I’m sure there’s some bias at work.
Regarding your point about liberals being traitors, I don’t see the problem. Aren’t the two words synonyms? 
Seriously, I don’t get the problem with what is overt hyperbole. If anyone takes that statement as one of fact, there obvioulsy an idiot. Which gets to the haeart of a problem that I think we both agree on. There are an awful lot of morons around. Some of them might take things literally. This happens on both sides. And I just don’t kow what to do about it. It tends to lend credence to the idea that maybe we should allow people to vote only after to they prove themselves to be 1) engaged enough to understand the issues and 2) not morons. If you have any ideas on how to accomplish this, sign me up.
Our third favorite is “buttmunch.”
? You agree with Coulter that they were “enjoying their husbands’ death”?
What makes you think that Coulter intended that statement as “hyperbole”? She has repeatedly asserted that liberals are traitors. She has never disclaimed any of those assertions or said that they were intended as “hyperbole”.
If Coulter herself says that her “liberals are traitors” comments are just “hyperbole”, I’m willing to believe her. I see no reason why I should believe you on the subject of whether Coulter actually meant her remarks literally or not.
Yeah. There are apparently even some people who take Der Trihs’ anti-American diatribes literally, although they are clearly nothing but “overt hyperbole”:
By your own reasoning, Der Trihs was merely engaging in “overt hyperbole” which it was “moronic” to take literally; anyone who takes his statement as “one of fact” is “obviously an idiot”.
Yup, I know that Der Trihs has never claimed that his anti-American statements are meant as hyperbole: he presents them in what appears to be absolute earnest, extreme and over-the-top as they are. Likewise, Coulter has never claimed that her “liberals are traitors” statements are meant as hyperbole: she presents them in what appears to be absolute earnest, extreme and over-the-top as they are.
Clearly, if anyone who interprets Coulter’s statements as intended literally is an idiot, anyone who interprets Der Trihs’s statements as intended literally must be an idiot too.
Yeah, that’s it. That’s why I posted this, which you chose to ignore:
One would think that if you’re so interested in my thoughts you would take the trouble to read what I write. One would be wrong I guess. :rolleyes:
For one, because stating liberal=traitor is dumb. And she’s not dumb. Do you really think that she thinks the two words are even remotely synonymous? Seriously? That ALL liberals are traitors? Her point, as I take it, is that those who do demonstrate traitorous behavior are on the left side of the spectrum. Far left. Not near the Joe Leiberman right side. Now if you want to define liberals to be a tiny, tiny set of what I and most others take to be meant by “liberals”, then you could make yourself right. But that would be your doing. Also, she is dating a liberal right now. So, hyperbole and broad-brushing for effect seems logical, no?
Then don’t. That was easy, wasn’t it?
:rolleyes: So they’re hyperbole, even though they’re not. Even though he has had ample opportunity to comment on his own statements and claim hyperbole, yet defends them at every turn. Look, sweetie, I appreciate all the work you’re going through on my behalf, I had no idea I was that important to you, but you’re schtick is getting as old as it is lame.
But that’s exactly my point regarding Coulter’s “liberals are traitors” statements. She has had ample opportunity to comment on them and claim hyperbole, yet she defends them at every turn.
If we’re justified in taking Der Trihs’s outrageously extreme statements as intended literally, then by the same reasoning, we’re also justified in taking Coulter’s outrageously extreme statements as intended literally.
If she doesn’t actually mean them literally, it’s up to her to say so. You don’t get to be the one to decide which of her reiterated and apparently earnest claims are meant seriously, and which are just “broad-brushing for effect”.
You’re welcome, but don’t worry, I’m not doing it for you. Fighting ignorance is the mission of this board, and it’s my responsibility to do my share. Although you’re right that it’s an awful lot of work.
So it’s now OK to make seeming blanket statements of the form “All X do/are Y”, where Y is some truly vile and despised quality or action, if the tiny fraction of people who actually ARE Y are more similar to X than they are to not-X?
Well, in that case…
All Republicans are nazis
All Republicans hate the poor and want them to die
All Republicans are racists
All Republicans are closeted gay hypocrites
Wheee, this is fun!