Author Topic: Coulter-ese  (Read 1840 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Coulter-ese
« Reply #60 on: November 05, 2004, 12:12:21 PM »
Mini D,

Yes, I understood that.  I think it shows in the poll numbers I posted of what people felt was important and why they voted the way they did.


I will readily admit that the gay marriage issue is one that makes no sense to me.  I just can't understand why what other people do matters to people when it harms nobody.  The best I can come up with is that they disagree with me on the "harms nobody" conclusion.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Coulter-ese
« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2004, 12:18:28 PM »
karnak... you are probably right... the democrats should look for an even more liberal candidate for 08...

lazs

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Coulter-ese
« Reply #62 on: November 05, 2004, 12:42:29 PM »
Some neoconservatives like William Kristol freely accept the term, some like Wolfowitz feel it is a bit academically imprecise. Conservatives like Novak and Buchanan freely use the term. It does describe a political philosophy that is fundamentally different in a variety of areas from traditional conservative philosophy. If you don’t know the differences, then they may be worth looking into if you consider yourself a conservative.

Quote
The term was coined by socialist Michael Harrington, who wanted a way to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right -- people he had been deriding as "socialists for Nixon."

Many of the men and women to whom the neoconservative label is applied to reject the title, arguing it is an artificial and abstract creation. The fact that its use has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long-term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

    "Neo-conservatism" is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today "neo-conservatism" identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as meaningless label, saying:

    "[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles -- both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not."

Other "traditional" conservatives (e.g., Jonah Goldberg) have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative." Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistant use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumseld are often identified as leading "neocons" despite the fact that both men have been life-long conservative Republicans. Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism.

Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of the "neocons." Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."

On the other hand, some of those identified as neoconservatives embrace the term. For example, Irving Kristol (who once famously defined a "neoconservative" as "a liberal who got mugged by reality") published a collection of his essays under the tile Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (paperback ISBN 1566632285, hardcover ISBN 0028740211). Use of the term enables neoconservatives to distinguish themselves from conservatives when they find it advantageous to do so. In addition, neoconservatives who were once leftists can soften the implication that they have "defected" to the side they once opposed.


As for “dixiecrat” it doesn’t seem to have been much of a slur:

Quote
For decades, a favorite item on the breakfast menu at Cogburn's Grill in Columbia was the Dixiecrat -- link sausage wrapped with a slice of plain white bread. A Charlotte News headline writer coined the term for the States' Rights Democratic Party, Strom Thurmond's presidential vehicle in 1948.


http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:L05wB3omZtIJ:[url]www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/6201401.htm+Dixiecrat+coined+the+term&hl=en[/url]

The Charlotte News was the Democratic paper, and had been for 60 years at the time. I imagine it was just a case of coming up with a clever definition for the course the party was taking at the time. I don’t know if the paper went with the flow afterwards or kept its focus. Regardless, being a “Dixie Democrat” was something Thurmond’s supporters were proud of in the day and whose opponents found objectionable.

As to the sneering, that’s no different than the way “Dem” or “Libs” is used on the board. The people who consider themselves to be Democrats or liberal leaning do not see the terms as an insult, but the people who are doing the sneering just might.

Charon
« Last Edit: November 05, 2004, 12:44:30 PM by Charon »

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
Coulter-ese
« Reply #63 on: November 05, 2004, 01:01:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Mini D,

Yes, I understood that.  I think it shows in the poll numbers I posted of what people felt was important and why they voted the way they did.
Actually, the polls you posted were just that... polls.  You need to look at what the voters actually voted on.  Not what those willing to stop and be interviewed said they voted on.
Quote
I will readily admit that the gay marriage issue is one that makes no sense to me. I just can't understand why what other people do matters to people when it harms nobody. The best I can come up with is that they disagree with me on the "harms nobody" conclusion.
I've heard this stated many times and feel it is completely trivializing the fundamental family beliefs in regards to homosexuality.  Once again... a fatal flaw with the democratic party.

Offline TweetyBird

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1775
Coulter-ese
« Reply #64 on: November 05, 2004, 03:21:53 PM »
>>I've heard this stated many times and feel it is completely trivializing the fundamental family beliefs in regards to homosexuality.<<

A few direct questions.

What are the "funamental family beliefs"
on homosexuality?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on pornography?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on racism or bigotry?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on tolerance?

Edit:

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on getting drunk?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on gambling?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on glottony?




I am dead serious. I just want a score card to refer to as it seems to me that "family fundamental beliefs" change whenever it's convenient, or I just don't get them.

Please elaborate on "fundamental family beliefs' and "traditional values. "

If its Biblical beliefs please say so.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2004, 03:28:50 PM by TweetyBird »

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12689
Coulter-ese
« Reply #65 on: November 05, 2004, 05:09:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>I've heard this stated many times and feel it is completely trivializing the fundamental family beliefs in regards to homosexuality.<<

A few direct questions.

What are the "funamental family beliefs"
on homosexuality?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on pornography?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on racism or bigotry?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on tolerance?

Edit:

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on getting drunk?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on gambling?

What are the "fundamental family beliefs" on glottony?




I am dead serious. I just want a score card to refer to as it seems to me that "family fundamental beliefs" change whenever it's convenient, or I just don't get them.

Please elaborate on "fundamental family beliefs' and "traditional values. "

If its Biblical beliefs please say so.


Nothing mysterious about "fundamental family beliefs" Tweety. Just ask yourself how each of those questions affect a family. By family I mean parents and child(ren).
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Coulter-ese
« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2004, 05:26:52 PM »
AKIron,

OK, you've got me stumped.  How does gay marriage, or even just gay civil unions, affect a family in a negative way?

I've never gotten a straight answer out of anybody on that.  Only a bunch of insinuations and attacks of gay people because what they do is gross.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline TweetyBird

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1775
Coulter-ese
« Reply #67 on: November 05, 2004, 05:27:49 PM »
No you see thats where you are wrong - it is quite confusing.

From http://www.traditionalvalues.org/defined.php

>>While other pro-family groups may have their own specific definitions of what "traditional values" means, here's what we consider to be traditional values<<

Its confusing as hell if each group has its own definition of "traditional values."

So what, one group decides they LIKE porn, so they just decide not to include it in THEIR "traditional values"??

Another hates blacks, so they decide not to include racism in THEIR "traditional values"???

Another likes to gamble so they cross that one off THEIR "traditional values"

Another like to drink whisky so - snip - that comes off THEIR "traditional values."

Well it isn't traditional values anymore is it? Its agendas.

What is "traditional values"? An easily demonstrated code word(s) for intolerance.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2004, 05:40:11 PM by TweetyBird »

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Coulter-ese
« Reply #68 on: November 05, 2004, 06:40:16 PM »
"What is "traditional values"? An easily demonstrated code word(s) for intolerance."

Intolerance isn't always a bad thing.   Should we tolerate murderers?  Obviously not.  Should we tolerate child porno?  Once again, reasonable people would say "no".  So why use "intolerance" as though it's a dirty word?  

A common argumet tactic both sides like to use is the attempt to villify the opposing side as bigoted.  This is not beneficial to the discussion at all.  


Some would argue that there is no reason to be tolerant of the "normalization" of homosexuality any more than we should happily tolerate increased teen pregnancy.   My own opinion?  I do not in any way support bigotry against gays (seems most gays don't choose to be such so why hold it against them), but at the same time I don't feel society should normalize what is clearly abnormal behavior.  


J_A_B

Offline TweetyBird

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1775
Coulter-ese
« Reply #69 on: November 05, 2004, 06:43:12 PM »
My mistake..

Traditional values is a euphemism for white archaic America. Hope thats more clear.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Coulter-ese
« Reply #70 on: November 05, 2004, 06:50:08 PM »
J_A_B is right that there is a lot of anger and intolerance on both sides.  It is certainly a knotty issue.

Thanks for the discussion guys.  I'm bowing out at this point.

all.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline TweetyBird

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1775
Coulter-ese
« Reply #71 on: November 05, 2004, 06:50:09 PM »
>>..but at the same time I don't feel society should normalize what is clearly abnormal behavior.
<<

Again - which abnormal behaviors? Sexual addiction? Man the advertising world feeds on sex. Sexual deviancy - like voyeuristic addiction to internet porn. The overuse of alcohol - ever see a football game without a Budweiser commercial?? Gambling - POWERBALL!!

I've got news for you. American business IS normalizing abnormal behavior.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Coulter-ese
« Reply #72 on: November 05, 2004, 06:50:09 PM »
Oops.  Double post.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2004, 06:54:32 PM by Karnak »
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
Coulter-ese
« Reply #73 on: November 05, 2004, 06:51:46 PM »
May all your daughters grow up to be like Ann. You will be so proud.
Or as a wife she would be a treasure beyond compare!

  :rolleyes:


"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."


"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

"The only beef Enron employees have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle. If Enron executives had shouted, "Head for the hills!" the employees might have had time to sucker other Americans into buying wildly over-inflated Enron stock. Just because your boss is a criminal doesn't make you a hero. "

"Cheney is my ideal man. Because he's solid. He's funny. He's very handsome. He was a football player. People don't think about him as the glamour type because he's a serious person, he wears glasses, he's lost his hair. But he's a very handsome man. And you cannot imagine him losing his temper, which I find extremely sexy. Men who get upset and lose their tempers and claim to be sensitive males: talk about girly boys. No, there's a reason hurricanes are named after women and homosexual men, it's one of our little methods of social control. We're supposed to fly off the handle."


 "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." (Ann Coulter in a New York Observer interview, 8/20/2002)

"Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research...
But you can't blame Nancy. As everyone saw once again last week, she's still madly in love with the guy. She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie. Of course, I thought it was cute and not creepy that she consulted an astrologer about Reagan's schedule after he was shot."


"Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do..."
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Coulter-ese
« Reply #74 on: November 05, 2004, 08:52:45 PM »
Ann Coulter is a right-wing extremist wacko, IMO.   But that's her right, same as the leftist wackos have their right to their own brand of wierdness.  In the overall signal-to-noise ratio, they seem to cancel each other out.



"American business IS normalizing abnormal behavior."

Indeed it is.  That's the reality of the situation.  Does that automatically make it a good thing?   I would suggest that in many cases business is permitted to go too far.  Indeed, the whole gay marriage thing is extremely minor compared to some other social issues affecting society.

I don't care much what people do sexually in their own homes.  Homesexuality, groupsex, porno, BDSM, whatever wierd stuff you can think of...doesn't make a bit of difference to me.  Well, not as long as it's adults we're talking about anyway.  What you do with your free time is up to you.   I've heard that some states actually ban certain types of sex and/or sexual devices inside people's own homes....I view such laws as draconian and entirely un-American.  At the same time, I don't feel society should necessarily encourage or normalize certain behaviors--and I DON'T only mean gays.

Sadly, we HAVE normalized a belief that getting married/divorced repeatedly is okay.  Talking about messed up!   Is a pair of gay men living together so horrible, while a man who marries and divorces 6 times represents "good family values"?  What a joke.  Even hetrosexual couples need stronger restrictions on access to marriage.    It's one of those things which needs to be a privledge, not a right.  Otherwise, government needs to get its nose out of the marriage business entirely.    I am NOT happy with the status quo.

Oh and before you get any ideas, I am not religious in any way, shape, or form.  In fact, extremely religious people worry me in a way that gays never will.  


J_A_B