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: Suma who wrote (21188)	6/16/2006 9:36:51 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541326

I do not put much credence on what he has to say. Are you saying that because he operates as a basher, this particular bit of his piece, the one I highlighted, must be a lie? "the firestorm does not revolve around the book's main thrust, that liberalism (as opposed to all liberals, she would tell you) has become radically secular. It is instead about observations she has made about the so-called "Jersey Girls,"" We're back to the pearl in the pile of crap question. Can there never be a pearl? If Mark Davis were to mention in his piece that the Mavericks really stunk up the joint last night against the Heat, would that be a lie? I can only wish it were. <g> In fact when I listen to him I get knots in my stomach. I have never heard him but I know that ilk and I don't question your reaction. My purpose in posting that quote, though, was to document that others have noticed that the thrust of the criticism was over the treatment of the Jersey girls, not the "godless" labeling. I suppose he could be lying about that, or simply misjudging it, but it conforms to my own observations and research so I have no reason to question it.

To: Suma who wrote (21188)	6/16/2006 10:24:39 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541326

Davis stated Coulter's point better than she did IMO. She loaded it with so many attacks that people will focus on them and get angry instead of thinking about the point, in fact even people who like Coulter and didn't get angry might miss the point in the midst of all the words used for the attack. Davis stated the point without the vicious attack - "We have learned that they question President Bush's leadership, which they are entitled to do. Some campaigned for John Kerry, which they are entitled to do. They have criticized the priorities of the war on terror, which they are entitled to do. What they are not entitled to is one speck of credibility on 9/11 issues beyond any other women in New Jersey – or men in Idaho, or anyone of any sex in between. There is nothing in bereavement that yields additional wisdom on the nuts and bolts of how our nation has responded since 9/11." I also think there is some truth in his statement - "Ms. Coulter does in prose what editorial cartoonists do with pictures: artful exaggeration with the goal of crystallizing a political point." For some reason people often find it less offensive as a cartoon, but political cartoons can get hostile reactions as well but usually not as much of one (except perhaps cartoons about Mohamed or Islam). I'm not sure why cartoons usually get less reaction.