A right wing Conservative who had seen Stephanie Miller on Hannity and Colmes has written a letter to her threatening to tell "certain friends" about his idea that the world would be better off without her. Miller, whose program is very popular, especially in the Los Angeles area but plays across the country, is the daughter of William Miller, the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 1964. Her show, which I listen to several times per week is a cross between comedy and criticism from a liberal perspective.
What is unusual about the situation is that the conservative, instead of being interested in debating the issues that Miller and he disagree on simply wants to have her silenced as being Anti-American when, in fact, Miller is about as American as someone can be. What has the country come to when "death threats" are the be all and end all of the political debate?
I understand that the country is very divided and the emotions around election time run high as we choose a Congress in what has been a very contentious situation. People on both sides of the aisle are confident in their beliefs and while the Republicans are defending 12 years of governing America, Democrats in 1994 found themselves in a very similar situation, scandal in their ranks and difficulty finding new ideas.
However, let us make one thing very clear. Republicans and Democrats are both Americans, both want what is best for the country and believe they will lead the country towards a better future. What that future is depends on the priorities of the party and the Republicans seem to be out of ideas about a direction, not having passed social security reform, ethics reform, or controlling a deficit that is spiraling out of control and is the fastest growing budget item (payments on the $8.5 trillion deficit).
Democrats offer a new direction, oversight of the Bush administration, a rise in the minimum wage, social security reform and balancing the budget. Democrats also think homeland security has been compromised because we don't inspect containers, control of the airports leaves much to be desired and money is allocated to non-terrorist targets like Wyoming while New York and Washington face cuts in funds.
They are different visions of where America should go. No one is denying that. However, the discourse between Americans is not about hate, but rather understanding what each side is about. Both sides are frustrated. Both sides believe in their own ideas. But it's time to lighten up and relax with the ideas of fellow Americans. You are entitled to disagree, you may even punch a wall if you think it will relax you but stay away from other people's noses.
When the feelings you have are so strong that you might threaten others, when the discussion is not about the issues but about the person, when the hate inside you makes you ill from the sense of despair you feel, you need a vacation. Get help and seek counseling because your hate hurts you and the country that you say you love.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51
Hopefully, this election will prove to be the demise of the radical Left. We need the grownups running government.
Sure, I think all liberals are political idiots, and I believe all liberals feel the same about conservatives. However, partisan aside... To threaten anyone with physical violence because of their political beliefs is just stupid.
With that being said, Conservatives never came out with a movie depicting a sitting President being assassinated. Where is your outrage over that?
I mean, it's one thing to be against the threat of physical violence… it's another to tentatively throw rocks when you live in a glass house as well. If your article would have condemned this new movie playing in theaters right now, I would have rated this article a 10. But, instead you focus on some nut case, regardless of political affiliation, without showing hate on both sides. Well I am rating this a 4 and ask you in all fairness. If you're going to condemn, condemn the acts on all sides and not play partisan politics with something as serious as this!
I understand you are trying to be fair, in a liberal sort of way... I just ask you show both sides of this extremely disparaging issue.
--Charles Marcello
Many conservatives 'become offended' when you do not share their views. Some resort to insults. At that point, I would stop debating them cause it gets out of hand.
Is that whats meant by wanting to limit free speech?
At any rate, most on the left can tell you about the stories of vile righties becoming possessed when you disagree with them. This is no joke. They go crazy calling you a pinko-commie, terrorist supporting peacenik.
The reason for this is simple: people on the right tend to look at issues "too shallowly". For example, wanting to accuse ACLU of supporting pedophilia for their defense of NAMBLA.
The minute you try to tell them facts, they become irritated. They dont feel like THINKING more than they want to. That is why they came up with the term "Politically Correct".
This has been my observation. To be fair, I have met honest conservatives who have solid beliefs and understand debating and differences of opinion. I would like to meet more, in fact. It is just that, even on Gather, there are people that dont care to understand reality and choose, instead, to be settled in their beliefs. Unbelievable.
The student body at Columbia is around 20,000, that is twenty thousand.
If you have looked at video clips of that meeting, there were only about 200 people present.
Of those only about 20 seemed to be actively disruptive.
And here you are condemning an entire University for the behavior of a few.
The Minutemen were invited to speak by the Campus Republican Club. Interesting, yes? Looks an awfully lot like a set up performance to me. This is only my opinion of course, I will stand by it.
If you look at the comments on Gather you will see as many conservatives shouting down liberals as the other way.
Take a look at Greg Shiller's comments, or Road King who used to be Abu, who used to be Yes Man, David T, and many others. If anyone of these, including you smell liberal you are quick to condemn.
Your own comments are often scathing and leave no room for debate, including the one above. - - - - --"Unfortunately, Liberals are the first to shout down someone's free speech rights, even though they say they are FOR free speech"---
I would have been more impressed if you ever, even once politely disagreed and even explained why?
Right now I think it would be useful for you to define what you label as a "Liberal"
and what you consider to be "radical left."
Do you think all Democratic voters are Liberal and radical?
Do you think religious conservatism and zenophobia are naturally and historically Republican?
What is you definition of conservative?
How do you define a grownup pollitician,
Is it a Cunningham, a Tom Delay, a Foley?
You are condemning U.S. Democrats for a movie made in England, by English filmmakers.
Do you think that gives any credibility to anything you say?
The entire Minutemen episode was set up. The Republicans knew exactly what they were doing.
Necronic - you make a good point. Many people are not capable of having a civilized discussion with someone with whom they disagree. The "discussion" quickly devolves into name-calling and over-generalizations. This is how our government functions now, unfortunately - go to the extreme, rile up the emotions. I wish everyone could take a deep breath and approach these issues with respect. Of course, when someone is being extreme and/or violent, then no amount of respectful, reasonable discourse will work.
The issue is not just a difference of opinion, though. When Bush was able to suspend habeas corpus for any citizen he deems to be an enemy of the state ("If you are not for us, you are for the terrorists") it became very personal!!! For those who supported the Nazi party and those who opposed it, it was not just a matter of opinion! It is why the political discourse has grown so heated.
I have met the same from the other side, your side, who act the exact same way you describe here. As a matter a fact, I receive that type of response all the time, whether it's here or on some other message board, so now I expect it!
Why would you purposely omit that from your statement? "that liberals do it all the time as well?" I will tell you, because you are a partisan liberal! And that's fine... (BTW I would really love to read "your reasons" why the ACLU supports man on boy love.) However, you must admit it happens on all sides and not just from conservative.
Hell I admit it! Sometimes I am even the one throwing mud. Mostly receiving it... But I do enjoy giving back from time to time. I don't see a problem with that, its call emotion. However when it switches to physical threats of violence, well that is unacceptable regardless of which side of the aisle that threat comes from!
Just my two cents!
--Charles Marcello
Of all the programs most cities, and states cut - its always the schools...this is proving not to be a good thing....
There are many people who do politics in this manner. They make inflammatory remarks and then act surprised when others don't accept their rhetoric. This is the problem with Miller.
I believe both radical wings should go, the neosheep are not grown-ups either.
I have heard Gilchrest speak, and he is not evil. He just believes that illegal immigration should stop, which is certainly not a cause without merit. We can have all the immigration we want or don't want if its legal. On that basis I agree with him.
Here is why the radical right are not grown-ups either. Illegal immigration is a cash windfall for many sections of employment in this country. How so, you ask?
Well, by paying people wages that only immigrants take! The bottom line here is money, like most everything in politics. Wine, produce, construction, janitorial work is all so undercompensated in this country to help private industry's bottom line. The result is that while these industries remain profitable, the governmental services, like healthcare, schooling, and welfare-public assistance, are billed at exorbitant rates, thus raising government spending.
Bottom line is that illegal immigration is a form of corporate welfare. Corporations circumvent paying fair wages while the taxpayer picks up the rest of the tab. Basically all this does is funnel money to the rich, because 'active' stock-holders in this country number about 35%, while the remaining 15% (50% are vested in our stock markets) are in pension plans and the like.
This shifting of wealth has started and gained momentum on the Republican's watch of congress.
Illegal immigration is about shifting money to the wealthy, which is really what the radical right and the remaining republobots are about, even if they don't know it, and like to talk about how they are morally upright. But, as usual, its about the money stupid!
Well, to begin with, the concept of the article was that the political rhetoric is becoming way too personal. So you condemn me for not mentioning what you feel is people becoming way too personal....which is what I was pointing out.
Secondly, consider that it is much different to threaten a life than to boo someone down, right?
Finally, are you suggesting there is only hypocrisy on the left? Do you really want to get into that?
I am for free speech and if you make a movie that you charge money for, then people vote on that movie with their ticket price. I am neither outraged by any subject and if Saw III doesn't outrage us, a British mockumentary isn't going to do it either.
BTW: This "nutcase" as you refer to him is a retired insurance and investment advisor living in Ohio. The thing is, he has listened so much and so heavily to the right wing propaganda machine that he thinks EVERY liberal should go missing.
Secondly, you call this a disparaging issue but the issue isn't the political argument, which I'm all for, but rather ending the argument by resorting to violence.
Finally, rating an article should not be on whether you agree with it or not. It should be about writing style, did the article make sense, and did it express a viewpoint in a manner that suggests the writer knows what he is talking about.
I thought it was the Al Frankin effect
You are condemning U.S. Democrats for a movie made in England, by English filmmakers.
Do you think that gives any credibility to anything you say? ***
Yes I do, seeing how the director is a self-proclaimed liberal. The person who made the threat, your article is talking about, is a voter and not a politician or a person running for public office. Do you believe posting your article is really exposing the conservative agenda and their "hating" ways while absolving you liberals and your warped sense of reality and the hate you spew on a daily basis towards the President and all things conservative?
What about all the death threats Bill O'Reilly has received from lunatic liberals? Is that a better example for ya?
Come now…. enough with the partisan politics on such a serious issue.
--Charles Marcello
The ACLU is not interested in the advocates in a legal question, only moving the question in front of a court so that there can be a legal basis for decision making in our country. They do not "defend" anyone's actions but get involved when a point of law is in question. For example, they did not "defend" Rush Limbaugh but wanted "doctor's confidentiality" established by court ruling.
They don't defend NAMBLA either, but there are issues involved in their activities that need to be tested in court.
That's their issue, nothing more, nothing less.
I find it interesting that conservatives are so misinformed on Al Franken. Take a listen to him. Today, for example, he did an hour with Norm Ornstein who is a conservative fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (which Newt Gingrich is also at) and he has interviewed many many conservatives including Juan Williams and Pete Peterson.
You want to tell me who Limbaugh has interviewed from the left?
You said, ***...The thing is, he has listened so much and so heavily to the right wing propaganda machine that he thinks EVERY liberal should go missing.
Secondly, you call this a disparaging issue but the issue isn't the political argument, which I'm all for, but rather ending the argument by resorting to violence.***
That happens on all sides. And you think all the hate from the liberal/progressive movement does not incite violence? Come now...
You finished with
***Finally, rating an article should not be on whether you agree with it or not. It should be about writing style, did the article make sense, and did it express a viewpoint in a manner that suggests the writer knows what he is talking about. ***
I didn't know I was limited with my vote by the narrow view you just described... Hmm, I guess I am the only one rating someone's comments off my own belief that what they wrote is either wrong, one sided, or I simply don't agree with it!
I feel so alone!
--Charles Marcello
(PS. I should have said in my previous statement to Today's Illusion, the article he/she is responding too, not the article he/she wrote.)
Most people on the left think O'Reilly is a joke and we're glad he's around, he's too much fun to laugh at.
If you re read Joels comment to which I was responding you will note that the topic of interviewees wasn't not broached. Are yopu starting a new topic>?
If you think I was narrow in my viewpoint that would fit within the criteria I noted. I'm okay with that. I disagree but at least we are talking about an issue.
Personal violence is something I disagree by anyone, regardless of faction or issue. The American system was based on the idea that issues should be discussed and then decided by majorities. When the majority is ignored, such as in Iraq, governments are peacefully overthrown by elections.
When violence occurs it is a sad comment on the failures of that system or the result of someone who has lost perspective and needs help. I believe that is the case here and since it is a conservative doing the threats, I believe he has gotten this viewpoints by radical conservatives.
And whether you agree with that or not is not important to me at all.
Joel said Rush Limbaugh who is a radical conservative commentator and who should not be compared to Al Franken, which is mostly interviews from a liberal perspective. However, I find that many on the right (you tell me whether I can include you in that group) love to think Al Franken and Stephanie Miller are akin to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh from the opposite direction.
I don't agree that they are at all. It's apples and oranges.
As for Al and Rush they are part of the same cloth although I think Al is much more vicious in his approach than Rush...................and isn't Stephanie a girl?
You said, ***When violence occurs it is a sad comment on the failures of that system or the result of someone who has lost perspective and needs help. I believe that is the case here and since it is a conservative doing the threats, I believe he has gotten this viewpoints by radical conservatives. ***
Or it could be all the nonsense that person was subjected too by the liberal elites in this country that drove him mad enough to want to hurt another person. Either way, I agree, it's a sad state of affairs when someone resorts to violence simply because they disagree with another person's point of view, or they feel they must resort to violence because they can't take liberal propaganda for what it is... (As you can see both sides can play with demagoguery with this issue. However I feel it should not be a partisan issue, more so then an issue that transcends both sides of the political arena. That needs to be addressed by both sides in completely harmony with the other. This is unacceptable behavior.)
Regarding this statement of yours, ***And whether you agree with that or not is not important to me at all. ***
I couldn't agree more... No wait, I voted for this, before I voted against it!
--Charles Marcello
I have watched O'Reilly many times over the years and heard his radio show also. As I said, he is comical and I would ask you to consider why you would think Franken was serious in the same way from the other side. O'Reilly is a man who talks about values but sexually harrassed an employee. He sued Franken and lost because the judge said he had no case. He says he is "behind the troops 100%" but doesn't do USO tours (which, btw, Franken does EVERY year).
Now, don't you see the humor in that?
Franken is viscious? Hardly. He's a humorist who has enough insight (whether you like him or not) to see politics as being important.
Sure, Stephanie is a girl. Why?
There are many influences on people today but since it has been the "conservative elite" that has controlled the dialogue for the past 12 years I doubt that our man in this case has listened to 5 minutes of the liberal argument.
It's sort of like the Michael J. Fox bruhaha. When Fox was making ads for Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, how many liberal commentators did you hear questioning his perspective or alliance with a Republican?
But, let him do an ad for a Democrat and Limbaugh, with FOX news backing him up 100% is all over him for being a pawn of the left.
Excuse me for asking, but didn't the REPUBLICAN Congress pass a stem cell research bill that was vetoed by Bush just this year? So, is it really ONLY a Democratic issue?
You said, ***There are many influences on people today but since it has been the "conservative elite" that has controlled the dialogue for the past 12 years I doubt that our man in this case has listened to 5 minutes of the liberal argument. ***
The Republicans haven't controlled the dialogue for the past 12 years, the fact is, people decided liberals are not worthy of holding power in Washington for the past twelve years. And second, if as you say that man has not listened to 5 minutes of liberal broadcasting (which btw is enough time to drive just about anyone insane if they are not mentally strong), how in the heck did he know he hated what said she strong enough to want to hurt her? That statement of yours makes zero sense in light of your arguments.
Now I agree this should stop, no one should be threatened by other person just because of their political views. However, if partisan politics is all we are going to play here, then fine. Tell liberals to stop lying and physically attacking us, and I'll tell conservatives to hit only when you liberal lunatics attack us first, just like you liberals are doing to our returning soldiers who are coming home from Iraq. (Physically attacking in some cases and Spitting in their faces and calling them baby killers in others, just like you lunatics did during the Vietnam War.) Then I believe we will all be on the same page.
However, I can tell you for fact, if I ever see anyone attack one of our soldiers and calling them those despicable names… I am going jail and that person is going to the hospital. No if's and's or but's… I kicking that persons ass!
Other then that, nothing but love for you liberals.
--Charles Marcello
As some one who had a brother serve in Viet Nam and a father and 3 uncles who served in World War II I am the wrong one to talk to about how U.S. soldiers should be treated. When I say that the Republicans have controlled the dialogue I was referring to the established media and the FACT that there isn't a major advertiser that supports anything but the Republican money machine. Even though FOX news lost massive amounts in it's first several years, the media in general has been increasingly supportive of Republicans for the past 12. (Look up the K Street Project, for example).
I do not represent anyone but myself and have many friends, both conservative and liberal who I am proud to say would never spit on or say one bad word against a soldier. I do know first hand from news reports about a group of right wing conservatives (Fred Phelp's group) that protests at funerals and I would, if this were not a country that enjoys free speech look to be silencing them, but no liberal group that I know wants anything but the best for the troops.
Where do you hear such stories about liberals and please link me to said stories so I can read them for myself. I know that there have been abuses in Iraq (Abu Gharib, etc.) but those troops have been punished by the United States military and rightfully so.
Now as for "our man" he hates all liberals because he believes they hate America, want to turn over the country to terrorists, and indeed, called Stephanie Miller a Benedict Arnold. That is exactly the propaganda of the right. You know it. I know it. It is a philosophy of hate that rolls off the lips of Shaun Hannity every night.
No liberals needed to learn hate. He's a one man army in that battle.
How can you exhibit an estute sence of ironic spin finding humor in half truths and mischaracterizations and then totaly miss my separation of Stephanie from the group on sexual basis with out the slightest nod or wink of acknowledegement. I guess I'll have to sharpen my rapier.
I'm glad you enjoyed it. The comment threads do take on a life of their own depending on who comments and what their interests are. Tough to keep them centered as people follow the thread.
If the Minutemen at Columbia was a set-up, then the Left Wingers of Columbia University fell right into it.
If it was a set-up, how did these supposedly smart people NOT see it?
I just thought it was an entertaining exercise in how to see through the nonsensical rhetoric of the Left Wing. They say they want freedom of speech, but then they can't wait to shout down someone on the Right. I don't see this same behavior by Conservatives.
Beyond that, it is one thing to call people names in the course of a discussion and quite another to prevent someone of the opposite viewpoint from speaking at all as these children did.
Ok, let's consider a few examples. Fred Phelp's group calls dead soldiers at military funerals fags and says they are going to hell and worse. They shout this as close as they can to the funeral in order to stop the funeral. Are they your right wing free speech advocates?
How about the right wingers that line up at anti-war parades that I've been at shouting "if you don't love America, leave it!" and "Support the President you stupid people." I endured that kind of "free speech" from right wingers too. And yes, they were organized to do exactly what they were doing.
Both sides have people who wouldn't know what free speech was or how important it is to listen in the debate as well as get your chance to speak. You are horribly informed if you don't know that.
Many have asserted that the situation at Columbia was a "set up" in order to get people riled up. Still, I think your use of the term "children" is entirely appropriate.
I deplore extremists from both sides of the spectrum. However, when I hear about rallies, it generally isn't a bunch of angry Conservatives holding banners................its the Left Wing holding pitchforks and torches (LOL).
Conservatives are conservative. That means they are usually quieter and calmer about their politics, as a rule. Sure, there are some loudmouths, but those are few and far between. You can't say that about the Left Wing. Mantra in the Left Wing tells you to picket, scream, and say anything to get your point across - no matter how obnoxious you have to be.
Hey, I live in Chicago. This stuff happens two or three times a week, a block away from my office. As the resident Conservative on staff, people in my office would alert me if there was a march or rally about Conservative issues.
I re-assert my previous belief : Left Wingers are loud and obnoxious, and love shouting down those that don't agree with them............and free speech can go to hell as far as most of them are concerned. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy we all know exists in this group.
Did you notice that when they were planning to go to the Amish town where those young girls were about to be buried after the devastating tragedy in Nickle Mines, a conservative talk show host gave them an hour of his radio time to spew their filth and hate in order to protect the Amish families? He didn't do that because they espoused the usual conservative rhetoric that we all kinow and love. He did it out of compassion for these families who needed to mourn their children unaccosted.
You cannot place the Phelps tribe into either the mainstream Conservative movement of the Evangelical Christian movement. Most of us are hoping there is a special place in Hell reserved for them.
Most progressives (of which I am and support in either party) understand the need for understanding, dialogue and process. I don't place Phelps or others like him in the mainstream of anyone's thought process.
However, I do take issue with what conservatives have done to the Christian green movement to protect the environment which has been very much shouted down by Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Land, and others who have done some pretty underhanded things against churches that don't toe their philosophy. They have shunned at times their Christian brothers and sisters and caused a real split in the Christian movement.
I do commend Gallagher for his action on the part of the Amish, but I think the fact that I rarely hear anything from conservatives condemning Phelps is a bit hard to understand.
I have nothing against conservatives, some of my best friends are conservative. However, both sides get "emotionally involved" in their positions and it is unfair to say one side is worse than the other.
However, I do think that if you look historically, then there are many examples of extremist conservatives. You don't consider Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, Timothy McVeigh right wing extremists? How about the Salem Witch Trials?
Just a few examples.......
A good place to start is a Bill Moyer's program called "Is God Green" broadcast this fall on PBS. You might also look into the Boise Vineyard Church and their activities in Idaho. There is a good sized movement also in West Virginia and there is a Christian environmental organization in Washington.
If I haven't said it on this thread, I've said it many times elsewhere : extremists of all kinds are not good. They usually lead their followers down a rat hole. I'm much more concerned with the larger portions of the Bell Curve.
Fox Up, Liberal Press circulation Down, Air America BANKRUPT.
2) "Racial" attack on Harold Ford: NO ONE complained EVER out loud about Nike commericial that showed a white, blond girl walking down the school hallway and turns and coos to the black football player High (whoever) all breathy. Later she is sitting a game in the stands with another black guy with his arm around her.
Message: Wear NIKES and get WHITE, BLOND BABES!
3) Depised Coulter and Riley: Compare to Franken and any number of Liberal talking heads. The liberals just wish they had someone as bright, funny, and dare I say attractive, and well spoken- Pundit envy.
4) Columbia: the saddest part was that a few weeks later the Republican students sponsered another event featuring a former terrorist and a former Muslim to speak about the Islamic mindset and terrorism goals. FEW attended because of lack of interest, controversial 'meat' and screening entrance to avoid another embarrasing blackeye on the Admin.
5) I am reminded daily by the MSM and Liberal Press about the wholesale moral collapse of Republicans because some gay activists ( and a network of closeted gay republicans) manipulated the release of the IM's. Pediophile constantly used (term applies to children under age of puberty (growth of pubic hair) and girls mensus. 14 for boys and 12 or so for girls defined biologically and legally in most states).
6) I am reminded daily by same outlets that is fruitless for me to even bother to vote because it's a done deal and ther Dems have won. If they don't I'm told it's because the voting machines are 'rigged' and another election was stolen. (No possibility the Dems are morally bankrupt and want our daughters to obtaing the morning after pill, take them accross state lines for abortions and not bother to have to disturb their parents, kill babies that are hanging half-way out of their mothers vagina - just so they don't take that first breath. Support the decimation of the black populace by paying for their abortions (over 1/3 of all 1 1/5 million baby killings are black, 3 times their population percentage. (SEE 1922 Book by Margeret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood "Pivot of Civilization": !939 essay "Birth Control and the Negro": she complained about too many blacks born in the South. Forcing acceptance of homosexual marriage as a "right" to be accepted by churches if they have their way to legitimize their agenda. It is okay to force churches to accept gays in the church schools, sunday schools, and office staffs. And so on.
7) God is NOT DEAD! PC's demand acceptance of Darwinism only, still seeking the missing fosil records or remains of a trace of "misssing link" after 150 years. Denial of any MENTION of a creator or 'intelligent design" is apostic to Liberal agenda.
8) Sensitivety of Liberals is somewhere around the equalvalancy of a suger cube in a rain storm. PC prevails, and apologists abound.
9) God is not dead - See Pelosi and Kerry and what happens when they open their mouths.
10) Seeing or being near a CROSS will not burn your eyes or skin Liberals, just might sear your soul if you ponder it too long.
Civil Enough for ya?
I only intervene in drastic situations, so here goes.
Here is why you have been brainwashed.
1) So what you're saying is that Fox has more loyal sheep. Baa.
2) God forbid advertisers equate their product to beautiful women. I mean, no one but liberals do that. We'll address this again in point 4. (Honestly, if your problem is the black and white thing, well, I can't say much about that)
3) Coulter and Reilly have insulted the relatives of people that have died in September 11. Although they are no different from the liberal talking heads in the inuendoes they throw around, I don't believe anyone has pundit envy. That would just be sad.
4) The students at Columbia were retarded, bottom line. I fail to see what no one showing up for the muslim and the terrorist had to do with anything. I think anyone informed on the subject should have known what the terrorist mindset is by now.
5) You are so brainwashed, you try to semantically deflect the meaning of the term pedophile, and while, technically you are correct, it doesn't mitigate the actions of 50 year olds picking up on teenagers. But it does in Republicana, where you hate small-talk unless it serves your propaganda/belief system.
6) Once again you are just sputtering ridiculous Fox talking points. No one can even begin to tell a church to marry gays. Thats what separation of church and state means. Its the basis this country was founded upon. Everything you mention is legislatively an issue of privacy and equality, but you use whatever disturbing mental image you can, including the lovely baby hanging from women's vaginas. I know, all the unwanted pregnancies in this country can go straight to you to take care of. Sound fair? You want to save the babies, so save them already.
7) PC (I guess politically correct). I guess you are upset that intelligent design or mention of a creator in Science class is somehow part of the liberal conspiracy. Well, its really because neither theory is very scientific. Whereas religion is based on stories, faith and requires belief before proceeding to the conclusion, science requires facts, evidence and a theory before proceeding to a conclusion. But again, its just us godless liberals.
8) I agree with the political correctness thing, but I will tell you right now, what you are saying is just as bad.
9) I guess Pelosi and Kerry speak when they open their mouths. Why God is being debated in any presidential campaign is downright retarded in the first place, but hey, its important to you.
10) It sears my soul Grateful, that a philosopher who extolled loving everyone equally has been so bastardized by the mindless sheep that follow their modern leaders, that you can only follow him if you hate gays, science, and war. You are being manipulated in the name of the greatest human ever, by some of the scummiest ever. Modern religion is nothing but a pyramid scam, that has no end because God isn't ever going to come down and settle the issue.
Grateful 1-Echo; Congratulations, you are going to the Island!
Grateful 1: Look up how well FOX did in it's first 5 years. Then come back and tell me about how bad Air America (still alive, still ok) is doing.
Coulter and O'Reilly are 2 different issues. Let's examine. Al Franken and O'Reilly have the same kind of jobs. If O'Reilly was so good, why does Limbaugh beat him in every market doing the same kind of radio show? Why does Franken beat him in many markets with much smaller stations? (Check the arbitrons for data).
Both are literate but who sells more books? Franken When O'Reilly sued Franken for slander, who won? Franken Who has gone on 4 USO Christmas Tours while O'Reilly has gone on none? Franken
I think that comparison is easy.
Coulter: Apologist for everything Republican. That's ok, she's just one more in a boat full. Franken: So well respected that he is being asked to run for Senator in 2008 in Minnesota. Coulter: Not doing so well. Last book: bomb Previous book: bomb I guess Franken is better there too. Sorry.