McNabb does suck. And yes, the media has overhyped this guy for years. The Eagle's defense is why they make it to the playoffs every year not McNabb. I think what Rush was commenting about was this general adulation of the media to sports figures that are, well let's say, different, or that stand out. Example, if Tiger Woods was white, he would still be the best golfer in the world, but come on, would he even be getting 10% of the attention he gets today? What about Annika Sorensterm (sp)? Look at the attention she got for playing with the boys. Sure it was a historical event and I was happy to see that but I think the media got way too excited covering it. I don't think this is so much a race issue as much as it is the media selecting athletes that stick out in any given sport. Remember all the hype when Michael Jordan played baseball? I mean come on give me a break. He absolutely sucked. But then ESPN was broadcasting minor leage baseball games in primetime to show it. Now what is that? Does the media play up Mcnabb? You bet they do. Why is then when the Eagles beat somebody 13-3 the first highlight they show is a Mcnabb pass when it was the defense's 8 sacks and 4 turnovers that won the game. Mcnabb will go 10 for 20 with 120 yards passing and we see a highlight of him completing a 15 yard pass to start the game. No bias there? Come on, of course there is.
I many instances legal definitions can vary from other usage. Be that as it may, do you really think Ann Coulter is stating that the legal definition of "sodomy" took place? I think not.
No, she is stating that to emphasize her own minority opinions on the issue, issues that come from riding on her high moral pony. It is simply one of her never ending digs on Clinton, and preaching her own flavor of morality, rather than taking a live and let live perspective. It is not enough for her just to live within her own moral code of behavior, she has some sick need to preach it upon others in our democracy. What is obvious to most non-partisans, is that the reason Rush is catching so much flack, just as we saw with Bill Bennett, is that when a self-appointment moralist preacher is found indulging in their own human weakness, the hypocrisy or their moralist position shines through like the gleam off of the headlights on a new BMW. She is in the wrong to do so, it is divisive, and useless.......and is only preaching from her own pulpit to her own audience. The stupidity of her comments are illustrated by the concept of sodomy, which is an act involving a perpetrator and a victim (or an active and passive participant). In the case of Monica and Bill, is Coulter saying that Monica sodomized Bill? Last time I checked, it was the woman who was doing the blowing and sucking, not the passive man on the receiving end.
I cannot help but recall the old joke : After dating for 6 months, a guy tells his girl, "Man, I'd really love a blow job." She refuses saying, "You wouldn't respect me if I did that." They eventually marry and, on their wedding night, the man asks again. "No," she says. "You wouldn't respect me." At every anniversary of their wedding day, he would ask again, but the answer was always the same: "You wouldn't respect me." On their 50th anniversary, the man says to his wife, "Darling, I've been waiting all these years for a blow job. I ask every year. How much longer do we have together, anyway? You know I love you. You've got to know I'll still respect you. Please, do this for me." She was touched by the speech and finally gave in. While she's doing it to him, the phone rings. The man answers it. "Hello?... hold on...it's for you, cocksucker!"
Oh, please! From Coulter's moral perspective? The issue is the "do as I say, not as I do" basic perpetual whine of the liberals. For example, they're on Limbaugh like white on rice, yet when their man in the Oval office does his thing, that's relatively glossed over. Her "concept of sodomy," errant or not, is exactly what occured. Because it doesn't conform to your legal definition, her alleged misuse of the word hardly causes that act of Clinton's to have any degree of moral acceptance (unless you're a liberal).
Coulter has as much right to an opinion as anyone else, even if it is legally and socially wrong in context of today's world. She can call Clinton a fag or Adolph Hitler if she wants, but her inflammatory use of words do not educate, nor do they inspire people, instead they simply divide and polarize people rather than advance our society. Sodomy did not occur in the oval between Monica and Bill. Simply stated Coulter is wrong with that judgment, and you are equally wrong to defend the improper use of inflammatory language. Of course I am not surprised at your attempt to defend her/your position in the face of legal definitions, dictionary definitions, facts, and overwhelming public opinion that point our your error, admission of wrongs is something most neo cons are unable to do.
How can someone's opinion be "legally" wrong? And you say it's "socially" wrong. This contradicts your first premise that she has a right to an opinion in the first place. But I understand, you're saying she has a right only to an opinion that agrees with yours. As far as your pal Clinton-- He lied about his financial dealings in Arkansas. Lied about his draft evasion, lied about his endless sexual misconduct, he lied to a grand jury, he lied to a federal judge. He lied to Congress. He lied to the American people. And he lied to his family. So I guess Ann Coulter's opinion about Clinton must be "legally and socially" wrong. How does pointing out the lopsided double standard of the liberal press, "divide and polarize people?" Clinton's actions-- now that's something that divided and polarized people. "Sodomy," according to Webster's number two definition, did occur. But, again, do you think that Coulter is trying to hoodwink the public into believing that it was anal sex? Do you think anyone on the planet believes that Coulter meant anal rather than oral sex? I kind of doubt it. First, I already conceeded that the alleged misuse of the word "sodomy" is moot. Secondly, what do I have to do with the interpretation of Ann Coulter's article?
"First, I already conceeded that the alleged misuse of the word "sodomy" is moot. Secondly, what do I have to do with the interpretation of Ann Coulter's article?" What do you have to do with Ann Coulter's article? You have tried to argue in defense of her use of the word sodomy as it relates to Clinton. For some reason, you have attempted to support Coulter's beliefs. I don't know why, perhaps you agree with them. However, the question is she right, or are you right supporting her claims that: "At least Rush wasn't walking into church carrying a 10-pound Bible before rushing back to the Oval Office for sodomy with Monica Lewinsky." 1. Your argument to support her claims consists of the following: that a couple of dictionaries define sodomy as oral copulation. 2. My argument is that the majority of dictionaries don't define sodomy as oral copulation. Legally speaking, oral copulation is not sodomy. The majority of people don't in this country don't consider oral copulation sodomy. The majority of western society worldwide doesn't consider oral copulation sodomy. A study of the origin of the word sodomy does not support the idea that oral copulation is sodomy. So, the question is this? Is the minority opinion wrong? In this country, the concept is that majority rules and is in the right, and the majority is right until such time that the majority changes its position. Change has happened in this country from the beginning, as definitions and mores have changed and progressed. This happens all the time, it is called evolution of society. Certainly Coulter knew that her use of word sodomy was not legally, nor socially accurate or correct. Of course, we all know her agenda as a hatchet woman for the extreme right wing. Why you try to defend her untenable position is the unanswered question, are you a hatchet man for the extreme right wing?