Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (21096)	6/15/2006 2:32:07 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541374

A while back there was a discussion on this thread about Ann Coulter and whether or not she was funny. I have found her funny at times so I made a mental note to post the next funny bit I saw from her. For a change, my mental note worked so here's a bit from her latest column, which I found on PfP. It cracked me up. Party of rapist proud to be godless By Ann Coulter Jun 14, 2006 I thought I'd put off that column on ethanol subsidies I'd been planning to write this week and instead address the topic that has so riveted the nation -- the hot new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." First of all, I'm getting a little fed up with people trying to make money off my book. Worthless little cable TV shows with teeny-tiny audiences, ridiculous legislators and tabloid newspapers are all trying to make a name for themselves off the profundity of "Godless." Second, let's pause for a moment to observe that two facts are now universally accepted: Liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist. My book makes a stark assertion: Liberalism is a godless religion. Hello! Anyone there? I've leapt beyond calling you traitors and am now calling you GODLESS. Apparently, everybody's cool with that. The fact that liberals are godless is not even a controversial point anymore. <Snip>

To: Lane3 who wrote (21096)	6/15/2006 2:37:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541374

Not just that but its also a stretch to say that "conservatives mostly acknowledge that Bush's tenure has been a disaster" If you changed it to "even a few conservatives say that Bush's tenure has been a disaster", or "a number of conservatives have problems with Bush", or "conservatives mostly acknowledge that there have been difficulties and problems during Bush's tenure" or something like that, then it would probably be accurate. But implying that most conservatives think Bush's term in office has been a disaster is overstating the argument enough to make it false. Many conservatives might be disappointed, but "disaster" is a lot more than just "disappointing". Some conservatives consider it a disaster but not anywhere close to "most".

To: Lane3 who wrote (21096)	6/15/2006 2:47:06 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541374

I don't buy this guy's argument. Bush is not, IMO, a "real" conservative in too many ways that it's not valid to generalize to conservatism from Bush's failures. Ah, that's the point. The argument is not simply about Bush. Self-identified conservatives ran the government. This is about Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and DeLay and Hastert and Frist and Wolfowitz and Feith and Boehner and, well, you get the point. These are the conservatives who were electable. And . . . .