Is freedom of speech destructive to liberals?

[TimPoet]

http://www.anncoulter.org/
This article, Shock And Awe Campaign Routs Liberals will only be up for another week on this site.
But I'm afraid our poor liberal friends are facing retribution (some are even losing their jobs). Maybe freedom of speech is overrated.

[morriswindgate]

Freedom of Speech also means the Freedom to Disagree.
If you are in a position like the people mentioned in these articles and you practice your freedoms then you must be prepared for others to practice THEIR FREEDOMs. In this case, as with other star type, people expressed their freedom by not purchasing their product or by boycott. The liberals have, since vietnam, taken the attitude that free speech and truth only comes from their mouths and to disagree or boycott them is somehow a violation of their constitutional rights. The liberals have used this over the years in the areas of race relations, welfare, religion, abortion, affirmative action, and taxes, whereby if you disagreed with them you were a racist, bigot, rich, stupid jesus freak, or a greedy unsensitive person.
It is about time these people learn that the Constitution applies to all citizens and not just to people who agree with their views.

[avx]

I know...the way 300 of them bum rush someone just cause they are not protesting from the same point of view as them, and they put the loud speaker inyour face...throw things at you...Id beat them all down...

[Paul Victorey]

Bah, I think all the liberal vs. conservative crap is sickening, on both sides. Neither side can admit that the other has a valid point, so we get such great things as the person in that article calling people who disagree with him traitors. Liberals criticizing conservatives, conservatives criticizing liberals, and all it does it drive the wedge further and further into our government, until nothing can be accomplished because of partisan bickering. Neither group will ever see the positive work that the other does, each sees only the worst in the other, and neither side is willing to compromise. Each group believes they are working for the "good of the people", but the nonstop arguing benefits nobody.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Bah, I think all the liberal vs. conservative crap is sickening, on both sides. Neither side can admit that the other has a valid point, so we get such great things as the person in that article calling people who disagree with him traitors. Liberals criticizing conservatives, conservatives criticizing liberals, and all it does it drive the wedge further and further into our government, until nothing can be accomplished because of partisan bickering. Neither group will ever see the positive work that the other does, each sees only the worst in the other, and neither side is willing to compromise. Each group believes they are working for the "good of the people", but the nonstop arguing benefits nobody. This noble sounding, "Let's be non-partisan" would be a good thing, except for one problem, the truth: modern day liberals are wrong, they slander honest conservatives (which is mainstream America), they distort the truth and they are fearmongers. The column by Ann Coulter proves how war coverage by honest conservatives is starting to show disturbing results, if you are a liberal. The arguments of the conservatives benefit all of America and as we are seeing, the Iraqi population.

[avx]

Is anyone else noticing that the list of reason to argue of this war is getting shorter and shorter?? I mean look at the big picture. We have practically won this thing, with very low casulties, very little dmg to the Iraqi cities, and Iraqi civilians. W are bringing over food and aid, we are giving them jobs to help, they seem happy to see us, some of our troops are already ont heir way home...Hussien has just up and vanished(Might be dead) and America hasnt even been hit at all...Its great...I know some of you are gonna say "The war is far from over" and start talking about how we must trestore order, reestablisha governmnet...this that and the other thing...but I mean the REAL war, not the psychological war, or the metaphorical war, or the inner war...JUST THE REAL WAR! How do people even find a way to argue about it anymore??

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by TimPoet
This noble sounding, "Let's be non-partisan" would be a good thing, except for one problem, the truth: modern day liberals are wrong, they slander honest conservatives (which is mainstream America), they distort the truth and they are fearmongers. The column by Ann Coulter proves how war coverage by honest conservatives is starting to show disturbing results, if you are a liberal. The arguments of the conservatives benefit all of America and as we are seeing, the Iraqi population.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Each side will only look to the most extreme members of the other group, and each will only see the flaws of the other group, never their strengths.

The real thing that frightens me is that, on both ends of the spectrum, people are getting more and more extreme. Moderate liberals and moderate conservatives are both pretty decent, but the ultra-left or ultra-right wings are, quite frankly, each quite scary, and each is growing a little too fast for me to be comfortable. We're really starting to see an "us vs. them" mindset, where each side does nothing but slander the other.

There's a middle ground between the extremes, and people seem to forget that. I tend to be on the conservative side, but I despise the far right as much as the far left, and I recognize that moderate liberals, although I don't always agree with their policies, are usually pretty level-headed and their ideas and their goals are rooted in the same underlying principles as my own. Thus far, in recent history, they tended to both be small and they tended to negate each other out, so neither side really was a big problem. But as more and more people get more and more polarized, this could take a rather disturbing trend. People don't even listen to those whose viewpoints differ from their own, except to attack them later, and the conservatives are no better (nor worse) than the liberals at the mudslinging.

And this isn't just about the war, although the war brought these problems to the light more than before. It's really a growing trend in America, and it's not a good one. Thinking that someone is unpatriotic because they disagree with you is horrible. Most often they disagree because they LOVE their country, not because they hate it. There is more than one viewpoint in America, and much of the time, neither is any more correct than the other.

[TimPoet]

Posh, if one side has hit upon the truth on an issue then that side is right. If you think the conservatives are just as bad as the liberals regarding unfair arguing, then you need to read Ann Coulter's book, Slander. It would take a lot of courage, though.

[morriswindgate]

Democrat = 18 to 40 (Time that it takes the average person to go from ignorant to halfway smart, finally learns that most people who do not make it in the USA are not willing to work for it.)

Republican = 40 to 65 (Time at which most people make the largest amount of money and have the highest living costs)

65 and Over = Soliciting signitures for Ross Perot outside supermarkets wearing Hawiian Shirts, Bermuda Shorts, Black over-the-calf socks, and brown Wingtip shoes.

[Paul Victorey]

Tim, there's more than one "truth" to any issue. Every set of facts is interpreted, and there is more than one way to correctly interpret most situations. Also, being as issues are almost never black and white, and there are thousands of possible positions one might take, saying your one single interpretation is the ONLY correct interpretation is a little arrogant, to say the least.

Don't interpret this as an argument for total relativism -- I recognize that often, there is one correct answer. But I also recognize that more often, the facts are open to interpretation, and ten different people can analyze the same situation, come to ten different conclusions, and each of them could be as correct as any of the others.

Further, to think that one group of people can be 100% in the right all the time, and another group 100% in the wrong, is a ridiculously stupid idea. To fail to recognize the validity of other viewpoints is the worst kind of ignorance. Hell, even if you personally disagree with the viewpoint, understanding that many people hold it, and why, is required to truly understand the situation.

And I'm sure there are tons of instances of slander from liberal to conservative, but I'm equally sure there are as many equally good counterexamples on the other side. I don't want to read any books about partisan whining, quite frankly I've seen more than enough of that already, without the need to deliberately expose myself to more. I also wouldn't read any book from a conservative point of view without also reading about the same thing from the liberal point of view (as I always seek to understand both sides of every issue) and reading TWO books about partisan bickering would drive me insane.

[TimPoet]

Paul, honest conservatives don't slander liberals in a debate. They don't need to, all they have to do is objectively argue the point. But the liberals in power these days, i.e. the media and political leaders, constantly revert to ad hominem attacks. If you read the book you would see the whole problem clearly in an objective manner.
One would have no choice but to agree with the author if one was capable of critical thinking.

[Strider]

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. What I can't understand why would the Dixie Chicks and the Lead Singer of Pearl Jam make those comments in the first place, they are performers not politicians. Making those comments serves them no purpose, except put their careers in the toilet. For me it's better to stay in the middle of the road, than to be too conservative or too liberal, pick out what really concerns you but don't go to the extreme. I wasn't for this war, not because I didn't think it was the right thing to do, but I thought President Bush didn't know what he was doing and to some degree I still do. However, I respect the positon of President and wouldn't say what the Dixie Chicks said about him. If you don't like the President then cast your vote when there is an election (happens every 4 years), even if your canidate didn't win - you can always say "I didn't vote for such and such".

[shuckthecorn]

According to a University of Chicago study,

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett040203.asp

the cost of not going to war to the U.S. and Iraq far exceed the cost of the war. If the current political situation was allowed to continue the cost to just the U.S. alone for it's containment policies would easily eclipse what the war cost today. It is estimated that the Baath Party would kill another 200,000 Iraqis on top of the 500,000 they have already killed. It seems so much better to deal with a problem then let it fester.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by TimPoet
Paul, honest conservatives don't slander liberals in a debate. They don't need to, all they have to do is objectively argue the point. But the liberals in power these days, i.e. the media and political leaders, constantly revert to ad hominem attacks. If you read the book you would see the whole problem clearly in an objective manner.
One would have no choice but to agree with the author if one was capable of critical thinking.

Well, of course honest conservatives don't slander liberals, anymore than honest liberals slander conservatives. Honest people, by definition, don't slander.

And there are people equally objective who come to the opposite conclusion; I'm sure there are equally good books from the other side, that are equally well thought out. There is more than just a single conclusion that can be drawn from any given set of facts, and sometimes, it's not clear that any single interpretation is any better than the others.

[SARGE]

Originally posted by morriswindgate
...wearing Hawiian Shirts, Bermuda Shorts, Black over-the-calf socks, and brown Wingtip shoes.

Actually I prefer white socks with wingtips. I ain't near 65 but I was out there getting sigs.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Well, of course honest conservatives don't slander liberals, anymore than honest liberals slander conservatives. Honest people, by definition, don't slander. I misstated my point. Let me clarify.
There are far more liberals who publicly slander conservatives in debates than the opposite. It's verifiable and it's because those liberals have no substantive argument to defend their position, because it is a wrong one. Liberalism doesn't work.
And, to get the gist of Ann Coulter's position, you don't have to read her book, Slander, just click on the link on that page for the book (where her column is, that I linked to in the first post) and it will take you to Amazon's page on it and you can read some excerpts, there you'll find good evidence of the truth.

[glc]

Folks - please don't take advantage of this forum to start political and religious discussions that would otherwise be discouraged as per our FAQ. That's what Forumclick is for. I don't see what this topic has to do with the war.

No harm, no foul, it's been respectful - just consider the topic before starting threads like this. Thanks!

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by TimPoet
Liberalism doesn't work.


I'm sorry, but it is hard to believe that someone who says a blanket statement like that honestly believes in objectivity.

As for noble conservatives like Ann Coulter, she says things like her only problem with Tim McVeigh is that he didn't blow up the New York Times building, or that we should invade almost all Middle Eastern countries, kill their leaders, and convert the people to Christianity. If you were going to pick out a conservative who was not an extremist, it would probably be best to stay away from Coulter.

There are more than enough conservatives who slander liberals. Most of the conservative talk show hosts, like Limbaugh et al., have resorted to immature name calling or have made fun of the sexual preferences or physical appearances of liberals when pressed. It's all about ratings and pandering to their listeners, and has nothing to do with rational debate.

Tim, I honestly hope you aren't buying too much into Coulter's book. The number of factual errors in that book is so large that it has embarassed the publisher.

[Paul Victorey]

Also, I'm not overly impressed by Coulter in that article. She blanketly calls the people who disagree with her traitors, as if her opinion is the only possible correct one.

[doctorgonzo]

Coulter called Today co-host Katie Couric "the affable Eva Braun of morning TV" in her book. Also in her book, Christie Todd Whitman is a "birdbrain" and a "dimwit," while Senator Jim Jeffords is a "half-wit." In an interview, she said "Liberals are too stupid, they will never give in. They are implacable. They don’t read. They hate America."

:confused:

[drisley]

I fail to see how her statements are much different that some equally brash statements by some notable leftists towards conservatives. It flows both ways - I see no reason to get worked up over it.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by drisley
I fail to see how her statements are much different that some equally brash statements by some notable leftists towards conservatives. It flows both ways - I see no reason to get worked up over it.

I agree entirely. Tim does not, however. He claims that vitriol only comes from liberals, because conservatives never need to resort to ad hominem attacks. That is just not true.

[drisley]

If it were said that there are more liberals who tend to be that way towards conservatives than vice versa, I might agree though. I've noticed that libs tend to be a lot more negative and have a more pessemistic outlook on life than do conservatives - especially those in the media. It kind of goes hand in hand with the name-calling. But, personally, I think Ann Coulter's biggest fault is that she fails to differentiate between liberals. She lumps them all into one big pot, so thus finds herself saying stupid things sometimes.

[Paul Victorey]

I don't think liberals have a more negative outlook, actually. I think people just tend to notice insults directed at people who they care about more than they notice insults directed at people they hate. People, in general, also tend to be very willing to dish out insults but not take them.

[TimPoet]

Boy, after what George said, I don't know how much retorting I should do. Let me tread lightly. I guess I started this thread because there is a crystallization of the actions of the right and the left taking place before our very eyes as we all watch the unfolding of the war.


Regarding Ann Coulter, the Empress of Invective who never slanders, I must point out that there is an important distinction between invective and slander.
Merriam Webster says invective is 1 : an abusive expression or speech and slander is 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.
It is witty and creative and roughshod to use invective but it is immoral and illegal to slander. One doesn't lie when calling Cutie Couric an affable Eva Braun of morning TV. One just has to know what Eva Braun and Katie Couric are truly about....
I find Ann Coulter not only genius in her piercing way of expressing her worldview, but wonderfully fearless in pursuing some liberals who really, really deserve to be publicly humiliated, as she so often does. And only because she is correct in her point of view and keen in her discernment of the ridiculousness of the liberals I've seen her thrash.

(Dr. G., not that I doubt you, but I would like to see the source of the NY Times statement. Thanks in advance)

[drisley]

I disagree, Paul, and I don't make that judgement based on any insults. I do it based on knowing many liberals, having watched many on the news, etc. They are much more pessemistic. Tend to see things as a potential worse-case scenario. Since this forum has to do with the war, we'll just use that as an example. Those who lean left typically were telling everyone that the US would lose thousands of troops, that we'd be stuck in a vietnam-like "quagmire", that the Iraqis would put up a strong fight that we'd have a hard time with, etc etc. They said the Arab world would be inflamed, that's we'd see more terrorism here at home. Get the picture? All doom and gloom, and almost all of it was wrong, I might add.

I have a couple of hard-core lefties in my family, and they always think the sky is about to fall. The fact that a Republican is in the White House magnifies it. Also, look at Ted Turner is doing a documentary on the end of the world. That's just cheery of him. ;)

Anyway, its just a pattern I notice. Obviously, you can't place them all into the same category.

[Paul Victorey]

And Ann Coulter calling people who are against the war traitors isn't slander? She's accusing them of a criminal activity, indeed, a capital crime, without any basis for that statement. That certainly qualifies as slander.

Personally, Coulter and people like her make me ashamed to admit I'm a conservative. Her writing serves no purpose except to inflame. Nothing constructive comes from anything she writes; her writing serves only to divide, to criticize, to SLANDER, and to tear down anyone who does not share her views. Her style of self-masturbatory rhetoric is no different from a billion others I've seen, on both sides. Nothing but trying to divide the world into "my side" and "your side" and trying to make "your side" look foolish. People like her give conservatives a bad name. Simply having read the articles on her website makes me think I'd rather drink varnish than ever read her writing again -- it was painful how terrible it is. I'm halfway tempted to become a liberal simply so I could say I have nothing whatsoever in common with people like her (although, there are too many liberals I despise equally much for me to be happy with that).

And Drisley, sure, some people on both sides are doom and gloomers. It sells. But no intelligent person would really think Iraq would be a hard war. It'll be a hard peace, though. We've only taken the first step in Iraq, and the first step was by far the easiest.

As to the Arab world inflamed, they ARE. Two weeks ago, a poll (conducted by a respected US polling firm) showed 90% (plus or minus one percentage point) of the citizens of 5 Arab nations thought unfavorably of the US. As to more terrorism, it may well yet happen -- certainly nobody thinks we've heard the last of Al Quaida, and their pattern, so far, has been one of a single strike and then a period of inactivity, but the strikes are also steadily increasing in severity. Anyone who thinks there will never be another terrorist attack is insane.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Also, I'm not overly impressed by Coulter in that article. She blanketly calls the people who disagree with her traitors, as if her opinion is the only possible correct one. Where in that article does she do that? I just read it and didn't find it. Please quote it.Originally posted by Paul Victorey
And Drisley, sure, some people on both sides are doom and gloomers. It sells. It sells? Ann Coulter's books are bestsellers, the American public loves her cuz she ain't afraid of making a fool look like a fool.
And isn't self-masturbatory not only kinda graphic but also redundant?
And I found the source of those quotes of Ann Coulter that Dr G brought up and read them in context and they are entirely appropriate.
One can find them here http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6258

[doctorgonzo]

Tim, you think calling people birdbrains, dimwits, half-wits, stupid, or America-haters isn't "slander," just being accurate? Give me a break. I don't care if those quotes are just fine "in context," as you put it. It does not add anything to do the debate to call people names in this way.

Unless Ann Coulter has proof that Katie Couric is, indeed, the "Eva Braun of morning television," then comparing a person to Hitler's mistress can't be anything but slander.

drisley, I don't think that pessimist=lefty, unless you are willing to venture that the many military folks at the Pentagon who also worried about going into Iraq with a lower number of troops than they wanted are hard-core, dope-smoking hippies. I have friends who are as left as me and are optimists. I have conservative friends who don't think humans are much more than dumb brutes. I don't think there is much correlation.

Besides, while I don't have hard numbers in front of me, it seems that before the war less than a majority of people thought the country was "heading in the right direction." Unless the majority of people suddenly became liberals in this country (sorry to give you heart palpitations, dris :)), I don't think the correlation would work too well. I think people are more pessimistic these days because things aren't going well. Compared to a few years ago, the economy is worse, there are fewer jobs, people feel less safe, and civil liberties are disappearing. Kinda hard to remain cheery.

As for the media, we all know that doom and gloom sells, not happiness, so looking there is pointless.

Edit: yeah, I was more pessimistic than reality when it came to the war. First, I don't think there's anything wrong with that; I'm happy that things went better than I thought. Second, we got off way too easy. I don't think the Iraqis blew up one single bridge. Their defense of Baghdad wasn't a defense at all, and ill-equipped as the Iraqi army is, when you defend a large urban area in a hostile climate, you are going to inflict some damage if you try at all. I also thought that things would be worse because I thought that if Iraq actually had chemical and biological weapons, Saddam would use them; that also didn't happen. What happened in Iraq was, by far, the best-case scenario that was possible, probably second only to Saddam and his army disappearing outright the day before the war started. Iraq folded with a vengeance, and if that hadn't happened, then things would have gone on a bit longer.

In any case, my objection to the war had nothing to do with losing it militarily, but everything to do with the aftermath. That is just beginning.

[TimPoet]

That's correct, Dr G, it isn't slander, it is the use of political invective. Look at the definitions again. Coulter uses the terms to make a point in the debate, not as an attempt to replace a substantive argument. She explains it in the article I just linked to a couple posts back.
Slander and ad hominem attacks aren't just rough treatment by my opponent in a debate. They are when I make a valid argument and their only response is "you are a thief!"
Invective would be, "you are a half-wit, you didn't even think that argument through, don't you realize if we did what you suggested we'd be ignoring 4 amendments in the bill of rights?"
This thread and several others in this forum on the war have survived scrutiny because we have been civil and polite (no invective here) and our arguments have been substantive. But it does violence to the English language if we blur the distinction invective and slander.
The left by and large slanders, that is why they can't write NY Times bestsellers, the American mainstream is tired of their empty, offensive propaganda. They like Miss Coulter's invective though, like bees on honey, because of her invective's intelligence, it's accuracy and the substantive things she uses to back up her creative, intelligent harsh words.
And you must admit when you look at the national debate that conservatives are optimistic in general and liberals are pessimistic in general. It boils down to the premise of their political positions. Conservatives are positive that the individual and the million-decisions-a-day free market can overcome all obstacles and fashion a well ordered and powerful beautiful nation. Liberals are pessimistic about the strength of the individual, seeing them as too weak to make their own decisions and life to be too hard and therefore must have help, a boost up from larger institutions and a centralized government to achieve any kind of worthy lifestyle.

[doctorgonzo]

The bottom line is that you like Coulter, so you don't think there is anything wrong with the language she uses. That is perfectly fine. But it is far better to simply admit it than to start getting into the minutiae of what is "slander" and what is "invective." Calling somebody the mistress of Adolf Hitler simply doesn't accomplish anything, regardless of how it is used in context. Just because it sells books doesn't make it right, either. Especially if it is in a wholly inaccurate book like hers.

If I say to somebody, "Listen, birdbrain, you aren't thinking this through," they probably aren't going to think that it is fine because it is "invective" as opposed to "slander." You don't need the negativity of calling a person a name. Whether you are arguing that a person is a birdbrain, and thus their arguments are invalid, or you are just comparing them to a birdbrain doesn't really matter.

I disagree with your characterization of what liberals believe, because there is no such thing as a plain "liberal," any more than there is such a thing as a "conservative." I know of a lot of "conservatives" who believe that the individual is too immoral to make their own decisions, and thus it is the role of the government to put Christian theology into law so people make the "right" decisions. I know leftists who are anarchists. Personally, I tend towards the less government side, preferring that the government do a few things that need to be done well, instead of doing a bunch of things in a mediocre fashion.

[Paul Victorey]

Tim, she called liberals "fifth columnists". During the Spanish civil war, Gen. Emilio Mola was advancing on Madrid with four columns of men, but claimed he had a "fifth column" made up of people from the city of Madrid itself who would fight for him.

So, from the beginning, the 5th column has meant people who take up arms against their own government, and actively work to destroy it. That IS a capital crime, and blanketly accusing people of treason (there is no possible definition of fifth columnist that doesn't imply the person is a traitor to their government) is most certainly slander.

If I wanted to hear childish namecalling, I'd go to any playground in America. Any good arguments she could ever make are nullified by the juvenile manner of her writing. If she can't intelligently debate and win arguments by thought, and not namecalling, she should keep her drivel to herself instead of subjecting the rest of the world to it.

If she truly is intelligent enough to win arguments directly, then she should, because the namecalling adds nothing and subtracts a lot. The only person I think less of due to her namecalling is her.

Personally, I think it's sad that people never seem to outgrow the love of namecalling, and sadder still that people want to read that kind of thing.

[bigpuma]

Originally posted by TimPoet
It is witty and creative and roughshod to use invective but it is immoral and illegal to slander.

Let me get this straight it is ok to call people names if you disagree with them but only immoral if you slander them? I think you and I have a different opinion of morality. I am not a religious person Timpoet but what do you think a priest would say if you asked him if it is ok to call someone a name like birdbrain if you disagree with his/her point of view? You may be right when you say Coulter is invective and not slanderous but I think they are both immoral if not both illegal.

[drisley]

The fact that you guys are debating Coulter like this is proof of her success. Keep it up - it keeps her in business.

BTW, was Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot?" slander, too? Hell, at least Coulter can use adult words to insult someone rather than playground talk. :)

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by drisley
BTW, was Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot?" slander, too? Hell, at least Coulter can use adult words to insult someone rather than playground talk. :)

Sure it was, and I will freely admit that I found it funny. I also freely admit that it isn't nice to refer to somebody in that way. I'm not perfect, and I am not above lowbrow humor. But at least I don't get into debates about what the definition of "slander" or "invective" or "is" is. I don't need to rationalize my immature moments.

[Paul Victorey]

Her adult speech only makes it worse -- it shows she is intelligent enough that she could probably be a good writer if she just gave up the namecalling.

An unintelligent person insults because they can't come up with a real argument; for an intelligent person to stoop to that level is sad, because they should be capable of so much more.

[drisley]

Good Call. You and I have a little more in common than I thought. :)

Ann Coulter doesn't bother me, although as a conservative, I will admit I sometimes cringe at some of her statements. Calling people "traitor" at the drop of a dime just pisses me off. But, I get a real charge out of left-wingers getting all up in arms in response to her. Their reaction is why she gets paid so much! The best thing they could do for themselves if to shut up and let her vent.

[Paul Victorey]

As a conservative, I cringe at ALL of her statements. She makes conservatives look like idiot naysayers who can't think for themselves, who can't create anything or do anything besides try to mock other people. She never tries to build anything, she never works to try to bring people together by highlighting the shared values of differing groups. She never tries to work towards a compromise or bring people to see her point of view. All she does is destroy things. Instead of trying to unify the people, she tries to divide them even more. Instead of working with people who disagree with her, she mocks them and tries to work against them.

Instead of benefitting the conservative cause, she makes conservatives look like fools, and she harms the conservative cause more than she helps it. Nobody benefits from a nation that is divided against itself. Nothing positive comes from driving the wedge between liberal and conservative deeper. Nobody wins when everybody loses.

[doctorgonzo]

She doesn't bother me either. To me, she is the four-year old who yells swear words in public to get attention. She can do that as much as she wants, and if she can get rich off of it, that says something bad about our population, not her. She is just fulfilling a demand that is obviously there.

The only thing that bothers me is when people take her stuff seriously, especially in the face of her more obvious lies. It is one thing to say, "Yeah, I like her. Sure, she twists facts to her own viewpoint, but she makes me laugh and that's entertainment." It is quite another to take her word as gospel. That is no good, liberal or conservative.

I like her too. She makes it easy to argue against conservatives. I disagree with just about everything she believes, but I also hope that she keeps on opening her mouth. The treasures that come out! ;)

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by doctorgonzo
Sure it was, and I will freely admit that I found it funny. I also freely admit that it isn't nice to refer to somebody in that way. I'm not perfect, and I am not above lowbrow humor. But at least I don't get into debates about what the definition of "slander" or "invective" or "is" is. I don't need to rationalize my immature moments. So it's funny to say Rush Limbaugh is stupid and fat, neither of which are true anymore, but it is terrible to say Whitman is a birdbrain or Jeffords :rolleyes: is a half-wit? Ya can't have it both ways.
There is no debate about invective and slander, that was settled for us by Webster, they are called facts, useful things, those. But bringing up the crafty and arrogant definer of what is is was a big mistake. Clinton has nothing on Webster.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by TimPoet
So it's funny to say Rush Limbaugh is stupid and fat, neither of which are true anymore, but it is terrible to say Whitman is a birdbrain or Jeffords :rolleyes: is a half-wit? Ya can't have it both ways.

Sure you can. Something can be both funny and terrible at the same time. That's what a lot of comedy is based upon. Yes, it is terrible to call people birdbrains or big fat idiots, but it certainly can be funny at the same time. I just wouldn't defend it by trying to say that one kind of insult is more appropriate than another. No, invective and slander aren't the same thing, but neither are appropriate in civil discussion, and I wouldn't use either of them.

At least Al Franken was a bona fide comedy writer. What else would you expect from an SNL writer?

[WJWheels]

The right to free speech is no more important than the right not to listen. Also the right to free speech is just that; not to be confused with the right to speak any place or at any time. Those variables may be contolled by someone else.

Slander is a legal term and is actionable. If not actionable (whether action is taken or not), it's not "slander".