Why liberals are not hyprocrits - by Ann Coulter

[Berzerker]

Ned -

I must tell you, that high-definition is great. I am watching the Bronco-Viking game HD. It is amazing!

What brand? What kind of signal? Cable, satellite, or antenna?

Addiction to this drug has become a national problem. Apparently, its manufacturer, Purdue, pushed the pills for a long time after it became aware of the problem.

Lawsuits are soon to be filed.

What is your opinion on such a lawsuit?

Throw it out of court or we'll see lawsuits against Pepsi and every other manufacturer who sells an "addictive" product. I don't even support lawsuits against big tobacco even though they lied.

[Ned]

Originally posted by uh Clem
I'm sure everyone remembers shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing when Bill Clinton said that his only regret was that Timothy MacViegh hadn't bombed the Wall Street Journal instead. It was big news on Planet Ned. Of course, here on Earth it got less play.

Thanks, uh Clem. The WSJ certainly hammered Clinton hard, day in and day out. I used to read it daily at lunch.

But the WSJ was the hardly in Bill Clinton's league in hammering the opposition, was it?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Of course, Ramo. Democrats have never accused Republicans of trying to kill kids.

And, Teddy Kennedy has never used harsh rhetoric when criticizing Bush's policies.

And in this very post you get to the heart of the difference: when Teddey critizeces Bush's [policies, again, he is going after the POLICIES It is not an attack on an individual to say "his policy will lead to more poverty" or "more hunger". This is an attack on the policy being implemented, and the prez can always take it back. It was rep.s who begun en mass not only critizising policy, which is fair game period by both sides, but the actual persons: actually calling an individual a criminal, accusing them of crimes. It was the Reps. and the right under gingrich that begun that. Only now has the left ebgun to go after Bush with some of this vitrol.

You seem to class saying his policy is wrong to saying he is a criminal: newsflash Ned, these are not even in the same league. Only one is actually Slander, or Libel. And your friend Ann plays along with the people who begun this trend.

[Odin]

I hate it when the Clinton was nearly impeached because of lying about a blowjob and Shrub isn't getting his head handed to him because his lies have caused the death of 100's of our service men and women and using Nazi-like populism to scare people into believing him and ignoring his corporate connections. Mark my word, a scandal bigger than Watergate will tear the Republican Party apart in the next 10 years, mark my word.

[johncmcleod]

And, John, I think your post was a little over-the-top.

And the conservative opions aren't? Who cares if I use harsh language when talking about it? There is a serious problem in America right now, and it is because of conservatives, and I'm not allowed to speak my mind on what I believe in? Why should I dilute the anger of my posts when I am angry and angry at something that I deserve to be angry about? If you can't handle me being very harsh and critical of idiotic positions then you have serious problems.

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by MrFun
Speaking of which -- why weren't all white men profiled immediately after the Oklahoma bombing??

Yeah, and I want to know how many Asian female terrorists have been smuggling bombs in their underwear. Every time I have to get on a plane, I am subject to a 10-minute investigation - and I mean THOROUGH search - of each and every pair of underwear and bra I bring with me. They never look at my shoes or other clothes, but apparently I am a high-risk flyer.

[Q Classic]

The Democrat harsh rhetoric has long been there and commentators like Limbaugh have long lambasted Republican leaders for not responding in kind or at least objecting to it. When Clinton and Gore used to say that Republicans were killing children, and they usually had an exact number, by taking such and such position on policy issues, Republican largely remained silent about the unacceptability of the rhetoric.

Now, for the very first time in history of the Republican Party it seems, we have a commentator that can sling it just as well as the Democrats. All I can say to the leftist complainers here is, "You started it."

really? is that so? except that in all honesty, the attacks on clinton's **** were quite vitriolic, laced with hate and pandering to the collective outrage of the most conservative family-value members of the public.

if you do want to go back further, what of mccarthy? or do you buy into coulter's rehabilitation of a man whose misguided crusade led to the destruction of many innocent peoples' careers? the means are never justified by the ends, no matter whose side the ends are for. even if mccarthy cleared the state department of "communists", the willful slander and character assassination is an unconscionable act.

and so it is with coulter. i have no problem with her pointing out the bile spewed by the left. i have an enormous problem with the means that she chooses to do it. so what if she's giving the liberals a dose of their own medicine? that does not make it right.

some believe it's ok to fight fire with fire. all it does is show that you're as primitve and reptilian as they are.

Democrats have never accused Republicans of trying to kill kids.

and republicans have never hesitated not to paint pro-choice activists as baby-killers.

[Q Classic]

Yeah, and I want to know how many Asian female terrorists have been smuggling bombs in their underwear. Every time I have to get on a plane, I am subject to a 10-minute investigation - and I mean THOROUGH search - of each and every pair of underwear and bra I bring with me. They never look at my shoes or other clothes, but apparently I am a high-risk flyer.

they never search my underwear, and i don't have any bras.

they do, however, open up every single electronic device that i have and try to turn it on, then get suspcious when it doesn't come on because i've removed the batteries before packing.

[Odin]

Originally posted by st_swithin


Yeah, and I want to know how many Asian female terrorists have been smuggling bombs in their underwear. Every time I have to get on a plane, I am subject to a 10-minute investigation - and I mean THOROUGH search - of each and every pair of underwear and bra I bring with me. They never look at my shoes or other clothes, but apparently I am a high-risk flyer.

They don't want to be sued for "racial profiling". PC is going way too far.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by st_swithin


Yeah, and I want to know how many Asian female terrorists have been smuggling bombs in their underwear. Every time I have to get on a plane, I am subject to a 10-minute investigation - and I mean THOROUGH search - of each and every pair of underwear and bra I bring with me. They never look at my shoes or other clothes, but apparently I am a high-risk flyer.

I also want to know why beavers are never profiled when a tree "conveniently" falls, and crashes into power lines.

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

Ah, now I understand. You're one of those guys who doesn't think Jesus had a sense of humor.
That's the problem with your type: you take the Bible too literally.

You must be one of these people who don't understand what debates are about - you make a point, I try to refute it, I make a point, you ignore it and run off in another direction and act like you scored a point. Where in that passage do you see Jesus' attempt at humor?

Excuse me, but the premise of a title "Why Liberals are not Hypocrites" is that it mocks them. She explains why they and their supporters turn a blind eye to hypocrisy on the left, and how that plays as being "honest" in the liberal mindset. But the universal caveat in a conservative analysis of liberalism is that the liberal mindset is fundamentally flawed.

I've explained what point she was making. How are "conservatives" any different? If we're using generalisations, then conservatives are ignoring Rush's hypocrisy and going after the people who don't ignore it instead. Very strange behavior for people who spend alot of time moralising about others...

No, their hypocrisy is that they never come right out and say, "Hey, some of best friends are adulterers." What they do is camoflage their own dissolute behavior behind their accusations of hypocrisy against conservatives.

I don't hear liberals condemn adultery much, that condemnation comes mostly from conservatives. So when a conservative commits adultery, where are the conservatives and their condemnation? Of course many liberals ridicule conservatives when they commit adultery (the ridicule targets their hypocrisy, not adultery), because it's the conservatives who make a fuss about adultery when liberals are guilty. The difference is that the liberals don't huff and puff about adultery and conseravtives do... Ann's point is that by not condemning behavior like adultery, liberals have exempted themselves from charges of hypocrisy when they turn a blind eye to liberals who commit adultery... She's simply confused as to what liberals are condemning when they catch a moralising conservative committing an offense...

The conservatives can make a big deal of their actual goals as in the Contract With America, and then live up to their promises.

You mean a balanced budget? I guess that promise had a sunset clause - Bill Clinton's term in office.

Your example is bogus. I don't see strident anti-gun Reps and Senators request that their Secret Service detail carry no guns.

What are you talking about? You need to re-read my example.

Then we have various Hollywood anti-gun loudmouths hiring armed private security, or even owning handguns themselves. This is OK "because they need protection" (and the rest of us don't because we aren't celebrities).

And that's called hypocrisy.

I said you were either ignorant about the law, or deliberately ignoring the law because your point would be gutted. Either you are fooling yourself or trying to fool others into accepting your premise without informing them correctly. I'm sorry if I incorrectly assumed the latter instead of the former. I stand corrected, I guess you are fooling yourself…

Actually, you're the only one in this thread who thinks there is a relevant distinction between illegal drug use and the illegal use of a prescription drug. No one else here is complaining about my choice of words, just you. And a couple people have taken my side against your silly "distinction" but you keep ignoring them.

No, I don't think so. That is how the libs characterize conservatives. For the most part the term "junkie" is not used for those who hold down jobs, take care of their families, and use drugs to an extent that doesn't interfere with such responsibilities. And celebs who get caught in the prescription painkiller trap are usually not called junkies. Homeless drug addicts that the libs love to hold up as noble sufferers of life's misfortune who should be protected from prosecution and given stipends to support their habits, yeah, I bet you can find lots of times Rush has called them junkies.

What does the word "junkie" mean? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, a junkie is an addict or peddler of narcotics. By that definition, Rush is a junkie. All your caveats are designed to make another meaningless distinction to conveniently put Rush in a non-junkie category.

Again, he mocks people like Al "pothead" Gore, Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton, and Marion "the b1tch set me up" Barry. Those who believe that recreational drug use is OK but can't stand up for it and win elections. That's what makes hypocrisy.

Rush used pot, is he guilty of hypocrisy for mocking others? Gore apparently used pot way back during the Vietnam War, does that mean he now thinks it's okay? God only knows what drugs Bush used more recently (he used something but wouldn't give us the details), is he guilty of hypocrisy?

[Berzerker]

Odin -

I hate it when the Clinton was nearly impeached because of lying about a blowjob

He was impeached, but not over a bj. He went into a court of law after being sued by Paula Jones for alleged sexual harassment and lied about Monica to deflect the plaintiff's attempt to show a pattern of behavior. He was impeached because of his lie under oath - a lie that had the effect of denying a possible victim of his behavior her day in court. Big difference, especially for a Presdient who stood for women's rights.

St Within -

Yeah, and I want to know how many Asian female terrorists have been smuggling bombs in their underwear. Every time I have to get on a plane, I am subject to a 10-minute investigation - and I mean THOROUGH search - of each and every pair of underwear and bra I bring with me. They never look at my shoes or other clothes, but apparently I am a high-risk flyer.

Maybe airport employees have a fetish and you really turn them on. But there are millions of asian muslims, so it isn't entirely illogical.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ned


Thanks, uh Clem. The WSJ certainly hammered Clinton hard, day in and day out. I used to read it daily at lunch.

But the WSJ was the hardly in Bill Clinton's league in hammering the opposition, was it?

Ned, you are aware that Clem is referencing what Ann Coulter said about the New York Times following Oklahoma City, aren't you?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ned -

What brand? What kind of signal? Cable, satellite, or antenna?

I have and Hitachi 42HD50 and DirectTV through a Sony SAT-200. I also have the NFL Sunday Ticket, so I get all the games, although just a few are HD.

The Hitachi is a plasma display TV with a new sort of technology that does not rely on individual pixels, but can be painted like tubes.

Also, all the connections use DVI between the STB and the TV and also between the DVD player and the TV. DVI is a must if you are considering a new HDTV. This is an entirely digital connection so you get the signal with the same quality as it is originally broadcast. The colors are so good, for example, that I have to keep the color level at between 1 and 16 percent. A color level of zero is black and white.

Plasma displays are still a bit expensive, but worth it, IMO. The Sony SAT-200 goes for $800. So it too is a bit pricey. But it is the only satellite receiver out there now that has both DVI and HDCP.

[Ned]

Bezerker, the lawsuit aspect of legalization is not trivial. If the problem is not addressed in the legalization legislation, drug companies will be sued continuously for by distraught parents and spouses and recovering addicts who loved ones or their own lives were destroyed by drug addiction. If one substitutes a tax on the drugs for these social costs to provide a compesantion fund for victims (an immunized drug companies from lawsuits), the tax itself will again create a black market for lower-priced, tax-free drugs.

Regardless, legalization will not be simple.

Also, how do you deal with presciptions. Simply allow anyone to walk into a phamacy and order anything? What about the lawsuits that would follow that?