Local Dems have words of their own for Coulter

[jillian]

I think the issue here is who is an dis not a liar, and this can go on forever. Conservatives don't think Coulter is a liar because we agree with her on most issues. You think she's a liar because you have your liberal (and incorrect) viewpoint.

Not that I'm above calling people "liar," but I personally believe that calling someone a liar simply for believing other than I do, no matter how incorrect I feel it is, is wrong.

For instance, I haven't called you a liar. But I think you're misguided as Hell.

And I think if you agree with her then you take lies and half truths overrun by opinion as fact, since near as I can tell that's all Annie does. And I don't call most people who disagree with me liars. My assumption is, generally, they have drawn different conclusions than I have based on available evidence, commentary and their own life experience. That doesn't mean when someone tells out-and-out lies about something that I won't say something about it. For example, the whole premise of Annie's book...that anyone to the left of Atilla is godless, well, that's just plain silliness, no?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And I think if you agree with her then you take lies and half truths overrun by opinion as fact, since near as I can tell that's all Annie does. And I don't call most people who disagree with me liars. My assumption is, generally, they have drawn different conclusions than I have based on available evidence, commentary and their own life experience. That doesn't mean when someone tells out-and-out lies about something that I won't say something about it. For example, the whole premise of Annie's book...that anyone to the left of Atilla is godless, well, that's just plain silliness, no?

No. Liberalism is faith based, because there are not tangible successes it can point to. It's an alternative moral system where the highest good is equality of outcome by any means necessary, eschewing any and all forms of individual rights.

 

[jillian]

No. Liberalism is faith based, because there are not tangible successes it can point to. It's an alternative moral system where the highest good is equality of outcome by any means necessary, eschewing any and all forms of individual rights.

Liberalism has no tangible successes? WWII was run by a "liberal" president; wage and hour laws got people decent pay; the schools are desegregated; people can intermarry without government interference; workplaces are safer and children aren't working in sweat shops; old people don't starve to death because of social security....

should I go on?

You're so invested in your conspiracy theories that you confuse your issues.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Liberalism has no tangible successes? WWII was run by a "liberal" president; wage and hour laws got people decent pay; the schools are desegregated; people can intermarry without government interference; workplaces are safer and children aren't working in sweat shops; old people don't starve to death because of social security....

should I go on?

You're so invested in your conspiracy theories that you confuse your issues.

I'm talking anti-american modern liberalism, not the past "liberals" who would be conservatives in the modern climate.

 

[jillian]

I'm talking anti-american modern liberalism, not the past "liberals" who would be conservatives in the modern climate.

You talk about fringe elements...not the mainstream and use that as your prototype. If I did that I'd base my view of all conservatives on Pat Robertson.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You talk about fringe elements...not the mainstream and use that as your prototype. If I did that I'd base my view of all conservatives on Pat Robertson.

No. The mainstream of the left is kook, all the way, just like you, blinded from reality by your own hubris.

 

[jillian]

No. The mainstream of the left is kook, all the way, just like you, blinded from reality by your own hubris.

I know you have a brain in there somewhere...perhaps if you oxygenated it by removing your head from your butt?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I know you have a brain in there somewhere...perhaps if you oxygenated it by removing your head from your butt?

Good one.

I shall proceed. For instance, you dismiss out of hand any possible negative effect of daycare because you see it as a sinister plot to supress women. That's kooky.

 

[jillian]

Good one.

I shall proceed. For instance, you dismiss out of hand any possible negative effect of daycare because you see it as a sinister plot to supress women. That's kooky.

Thank you. :happy2:

Any possible negative effects? I'm sure there can be, but that's not what you asked. I think there are great moms who work and lousy moms who work. By the same token, there are great stay at home moms and horrible ones. My ex-sister in law spends her days having her nails done, getting her hair colored, going to the gym and seeing her boyfriend while her kids get delivered to my brother unshowered. So...she's home, but she's as useless as tits on a bull. Capice? It's the generalizations that I take issue with. Plus, there are some very bad daycare facilities and some very good ones. You have to be careful about the choices you make for your kids.

So...if you can break it down and not lump all situations together, there may be a discussion to be had on the subject.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Thank you. :happy2:

Any possible negative effects? I'm sure there can be, but that's not what you asked. I think there are great moms who work and lousy moms who work. By the same token, there are great stay at home moms and horrible ones. My ex-sister in law spends her days having her nails done, getting her hair colored, going to the gym and seeing her boyfriend while her kids get delivered to my brother unshowered. So...she's home, but she's as useless as tits on a bull. Capice? It's the generalizations that I take issue with. Plus, there are some very bad daycare facilities and some very good ones. You have to be careful about the choices you make for your kids.

So...if you can break it down and not lump all situations together, there may be a discussion to be had on the subject.

You don't want a discussion. You will always destroy any valid generalization with hysterical anecdotal evidence.

 

[jillian]

You don't want a discussion. You will always destroy any valid generalization with hysterical anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is absolutely appropriate because that's factored in to your "negative effects".

Now...who is it that doesn't want discussion? lol...

You know you're hopeless, right?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Anecdotal evidence is absolutely appropriate because that's factored in to your "negative effects".

Now...who is it that doesn't want discussion? lol...

You know you're hopeless, right?

It's not appropriate. Generalizations are valid, but you keep citing anecdotal information as a rebuttal. That's just stupid. But you're a liar, I mean lawyer. Tricks are your thing.

 

[jillian]

It's not appropriate. Generalizations are valid, but you keep citing anecdotal information as a rebuttal. That's just stupid. But you're a liar, I mean lawyer. Tricks are your thing.

So, in other words, you have no rebuttal to the fact that your generalization was proven invalid... :cof:

Cool...

back to work for me.

Laterz.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So, in other words, you have no rebuttal to the fact that your generalization was proven invalid... :cof:

Cool...

back to work for me.

Laterz.

You don't get it. Anecdotal exceptions don't disprove a generalization.