This discussion should be about Rush's morality, not Jack Kennedy's, Clinton's, Nixon's, etc., shouldn't it? The defense of Rush seems to be "he isn't as bad as so and so." That still doesn't make him right in this case, does it? Try defending Rush on the basis of his own actions, not trying to minimize his wrong doings by comparison to others. That is unless you cannot actually defend what he did, and would be left with the simple admission that Rush was clearly in the wrong, and hypocritical in the gap between his rap and his act.
I refuted her use of the term sodomy to describe Clinton's actions in the white house. Historical fact doesn't need to be refuted, if it is fact, and not opinion. I did not take the time to go through her piece point by point, unless you are needing me to do so. Clearly the article, it is not really about Rush, nor really about the media, but just about another opportunity to bash those with a different point of view than hers. Consequently, I disagree that it was an opinion piece on the liberal press, it was simply an attack on liberals, and her opinion that the press is liberal in everything it does. I disagree that today's press is necessarily liberal beyond convenience of selling newspapers, magazines, advertising, etc. Their number one bias is being number one in the ratings, number one in circulation, etc. One example of the proof of this can be seen by MSNBC, who were struggling in ratings and brought aboard Michael Savage. Coulter has an audience which she plays to, sells books to, writes to, etc. Her primary motivation is about making money in my opinion, not really advancing conservative issues. She is full of piss and vinegar, but were she truly interested in conversion of thought to a different point of view, she would do so in a less than inflammatory method. You catch flies with honey, not vinegar. We have a large group of people in this country who don't want to hear different points of view, who don't really want to think through issues issue by issue, but rather just want to join in to another form of thought control where some leader can neatly package solutions to all complicated problems with dividing this country into and "us and them" "liberal versus conservative" type of conflict. We have a society who is just looking for someone to blame, and Coulter is a master of the blame game. The blame gamers like Coulter, Rush, Hannity, Franken, Carville, etc. know this, and play on their respective harps. Their method is attack, attack, attack....not to present calm and unemotional arguments that would persuade any reasonable person. That someone would support this type of journalism is indicative of some pathology in my opinion.
Who cares? It's a non-issue. Then do your own LexisNexis search and tell me what you come up with. Whose point of view is she attacking? She backed up her opinion with facts, its up to you to examine those facts, come to a logical conclusion and produce a rebuttal. How do you disagree? You dispute the facts she presented in this or other articles she authored? Do you claim the NYT to be a producer of unbiased news? I think you're misinformed. One example of the proof of this can be seen by MSNBC, who were struggling in ratings and brought aboard Michael Savage.[/B][/QUOTE]Simply not true, for example, the conservative talk shows have the highest ratings while the liberal oriented cannot keep from getting canceled. I'm sorry, but this is not even remotely true. So you want ol' Annie to be nicer. LOL! Where do you get this bizarre idea from? Or this one? Then it would, according to your opinion, seem that most of the population "indicative of some pathology." The demographics of the successful conservative programing show an across the board viewer/listner base from liberals and conservative alike.
Quote from max401: Who cares? It's a non-issue. Goes to personal bias, thus is an issue. Whose point of view is she attacking? She backed up her opinion with facts, its up to you to examine those facts, come to a logical conclusion and produce a rebuttal. She is attacking the point of view of those who are criticizing Rush for his hypocrisy. I have already rebutted her opinion in previous posts. If you wish you can go back and refute my points if you don't agree. How do you disagree? You dispute the facts she presented in this or other articles she authored? Do you claim the NYT to be a producer of unbiased news? Facts are not in dispute, her opinion on the facts and the conclusions she draws are opinion, not fact. All media is biased toward subscriber, advertiser, and money, asked and answered previously. I think you're misinformed. Irrelevant opinion. Simply not true, for example, the conservative talk shows have the highest ratings while the liberal oriented cannot keep from getting canceled. Proof the MSNBC is interested in ratings more than anything else, more than advancing a liberal or conservative bias, or they would not have hired Michael Savage. Ratings are the primary motivator. I'm sorry, but this is not even remotely true. Opinion, you don't know her real intent and or true motives. So you want ol' Annie to be nicer. LOL! She would be more effective if she were not so mean spirited in my opinion. Where do you get this bizarre idea from? Useless ad hominem attack. Then it would, according to your opinion, seem that most of the population "indicative of some pathology." The demographics of the successful conservative programing show an across the board viewer/listner base from liberals and conservative alike. It is my opinion that the pathology of hate and polarization that is so prevalent in today's professional political opinion makers has perpetrators in both liberal and conservative camps, and is supported by society at large.
Where is there conveyed an attack on the person presenting the premise/argument? Simply explain, on a factual basis, the logic behind this statement: "We have a large group of people in this country who don't want to hear different points of view, who don't really want to think through issues issue by issue, but rather just want to join in to another form of thought control where some leader can neatly package solutions to all complicated problems with dividing this country into and "us and them" "liberal versus conservative" type of conflict. We have a society who is just looking for someone to blame, and Coulter is a master of the blame game."
You call the idea bizarre, but provide no argument or basis for conclusion. It is assumed that if someone calls an idea bizarre without providing a logical reason for that conclusion, that the attack is ad hominem, as it is an attack on the person de facto. I made a statement, and your response was to call the idea bizarre. You do not counter the opinion, you simply labeled the idea bizarre, and this type of behavior is common among those who are flamers or unable to communicate effectively. Flame wars are a waste.
Excuse me, I did not refute your opinion, I simply opined that it was a "bizarre idea" and I asked you to relate your opinion to some sort of factual finding. Can you do that or is your statement: "We have a large group of people in this country who don't want to hear different points of view, who don't really want to think through issues issue by issue, but rather just want to join in to another form of thought control where some leader can neatly package solutions to all complicated problems with dividing this country into and "us and them" "liberal versus conservative" type of conflict. We have a society who is just looking for someone to blame, and Coulter is a master of the blame game." simply based on a feeling?
You are entitled to make statements, or state opinions, but the approach of calling an idea "bizarre" or "stupid" etc., is still essentially an ad hominem response in nature. It really doesn't address the ideas or issues put forth in an effective communicative manner. It is just a classic low brow trick to attempt to smear a speaker espousing ideas differing in nature than one's own. When someone calls a complex idea bizarre without providing a reasonable explanation for doing so, it demonstrates some prejudice or lack of reasoning ability, or maybe just some visceral response to a thought or idea that is in opposition to the listener's ideology. Maybe it was simply based on a feeling on your part. Whatever the case, it is rude to respond in such a fashion without a proper explanation. What is bizarre about the statement to you? The statement, which was never categorized as a statement of fact by me, seems quite clear and lucid from where I type. Most people with average intelligence could see that it was an opinion, an observation, and a take on our society. If you respond to something as bizarre, that is indicative that you may have a counter belief system which you assume to be normal, which I did not see you outline. Since you claim the idea to be bizarre, the responsibility is on you to explain why you believe it to be so, for if you do not, you plainly fall into that most common category known as internet flamers who are unable to think, incapable of postulating ideas of their own, impotent in the skills of reasoning logically and or argumentation, and or unwilling to respond properly. Are you just another common run of the mill internet flamer?
Ok, let me try this approach: I retract my "bizarre idea" label and call upon you now to relate your opinion to some sort of factual finding. Can you do that or is your statement: "We have a large group of people in this country who don't want to hear different points of view, who don't really want to think through issues issue by issue, but rather just want to join in to another form of thought control where some leader can neatly package solutions to all complicated problems with dividing this country into and "us and them" "liberal versus conservative" type of conflict. We have a society who is just looking for someone to blame, and Coulter is a master of the blame game." simply based on a feeling?
I have nothing to add except another Re: in the subject line. This surely must be a record for ET. Edit : I see the maximum is 25 Still a record, I'm sure