Ann Coulter: Hillary Clinton is Smarter & Lies Less Than John McCain

I can't make such a drastic departure from my sense of justice {something the Clintons have yet to face}.

The Clintons are McCain's only hope in the end.

I can't make such a drastic departure from my sense of justice {something the Clintons have yet to face}.

Any real proof of the Clintons' criminal behavior or just more smear on your part?

Any real proof of the Clintons' criminal behavior

Yes, plenty. Check out Pamela's seed

We are calling that proof? I hope none of the millions of conservatives who would like to prosecute the Clinton's knows how to read. They might try to prove one or two of those ridiculous claims. (You are clown.)

I think this just furthers my will to vote Obama... if the Bride of Liberal-Hate (with her drooling, blood-dripping maw) is endorsing Clinton, there is definitely something wrong with Clinton. I always said she was a conservative in liberals clothing. Now I know my instincts were right. Or is that left?

I tend to look at what Coulter writes and think the opposite.

I tend to look at what Coulter writes and think the opposite.

That could also be her evil plan...

I tend to look at what Coulter writes and think the opposite.

Because that is easier than forming your own opinions?

Because that is easier than forming your own opinions?

No, it's because Ann Coulter has proven herself time and time again to be full of @!$%#. But thanks for the Coultereske twisting of words and deriving meaning from something that was not intended. It only strengthens TJG's point.

Now that I've slept, I can analyze this. Coulter is trying everything she can think of to get her base to vote Romney instead of McCain. There is no way in HELL she would ever vote for Clinton ... but she does want us Dems to THINK that she will. She knows we don't watch Fox, but she also knows that all her @!$%# winds up on the Internet anyway, and that we will see it.

To quote the male Ann Coulter, "Nice Try."

Kevin: That is a masterful piece of spin.

No, it's because Ann Coulter has proven herself time and time again to be full of @!$%#.

Therefore, she could not possibly ever be right. So, just think the opposite like TJG.

I understand that TJG's comment was probably tongue in cheek. It does not appear that yours is though.

Spin? LMFAO. You're telling ME about spin while defending Ann Coulter? ROFLMFAO. What's next, you're going to claim there's really no spin in the "no spin zone"?

There was no spin in my comment. It was pure, unvarnished truth as I see it. Spin is when you know damn well what you are saying is false but you twist peoples words to MAKE them fit what you want them to, even though you know that's not what they meant.

I believe what I said, therefore it is not spin. So you'll just have to call me insane, if you feel what I wrote is false.

What do you believe is incorrect?

Ann Coulter prefers Romney over McCain and would like to see her fans vote Romeny? Is that false? Is that spin?

That Ann Coulter would never in a million years cast a vote for a Clinton? You believe she will cast a vote for Clinton? That's just naive.

That she prefers Clinton get the Nom over Obama? Is that false? Is that spin?

That she knows liberals don't watch nor trust Fox News? Is that incorrect?

That all of her stuff winds up on the Internet and she knows it? Am I wrong about that?

Please, please do tell me where I spun anything at all. Please point out here my statement was not a logical interpretation of what she said. You think any one of my above points is deniable?

You sit there and twist MY words and call ME a spinner? Jesus Christ, that's so typical.

Show me where I said I think the opposite of everything Ann Coulter says? Show me where I said that I hear what Ann Coulter says and then think the opposite?

For your information, I happen to agree with Ann Coulter when she says that Clinton is more Conservative than McCain. I've been saying it myself for a while now. And just because Ann Coulter made a comment that agrees with my view, you're suggesting that I should change my opinion. Before you ask me where you said that, here, let me show you your spin:

Therefore, she could not possibly ever be right. So, just think the opposite like TJG.

And then you contradict yourself! "Just think the opposite like TJG" and then, like a true flip flopper who can't make a point, you go on to say, "I understand that TJG's comment was probably tongue in cheek." Would you make up your mind? Does she or doesn't she? First you contend that she DOES think the opposite, then go right on to say that she most likely doesn't.

"Therefore, she could not possibly ever be right." Would you oh so kindly point out where I said, or even suggested that? You can't. You know why? Because that type of statement is so typical of you people. You bring whatever anyone else says out to a wildly illogical conclusion and then pretend that is what they said. Well, guess what, bucko? That kind of stuff doesn't work on me.

Wow, I always suspected that libs just looked at what Ann Coulter says and say the opposite, but to have it said so clearly and admitted to.

just

Wow.

while defending Ann Coulter?

Where? On this thread, my comments have been limited to responses to other comments.

you people

Using a phrase like that is usually the sign of a closed mind. Bucko. Yawn.

Using a phrase like that is usually the sign of a closed mind.

No, it isn't. You'd just like to think that it is because you don't want to feel like your comments are predictable, short, non-informative, non-expansive rhetoric. By "You People", whatever you may take it to mean, I mean people who make those short generalized "points" that don't do anything to open anyone's mind because they don't actually say anything at all.

Your opposition to anti-Coulter comments is an indirect defense of Ann Coulter. A monkey could see that. My pet monkey agrees.

I see you have no real answer to any of my points. Predictable from "YOU PEOPLE." Care to prove me wrong? I highly doubt it. Until you say something of substance, you will always be "YOU PEOPLE" to me.

Yawn? Oh, no, have I bored you? Have I exceeded your little attention span? Am I too verbose for your comprehension? Would you prefer I limit my comments to "Nuh Uh, You are!"?

Well tough titties. Try having a point next time you begin an argument with someone prepared to have an actual argument with actual points.

Wow, I always suspected that libs just looked at what Ann Coulter says and say the opposite, but to have it said so clearly and admitted to.

just

Wow.

Anne Coulter looks at the principles of America and says the opposite. Liberals correct her on the mistake.

No, DA, it is simply that Coulter is so filled with hate and anti-American sentiment that anyone intelligent knows that the opposite of her words is what is right.

Feel free to justify it any way you like.

Anne Coulter may have the heart of a rabid dog but she is one smart cookie. As a pretend surrogate for Sen Clinton, she helps out the Republicans who are salivating at the mouth and other places to get Clinton, with all her baggage,as their opponent. they know what Clinton dowplays: That just as many who adore her, who she thinks will trot out and vote for her enmasse because she is female and shouts "It's MY Turn" will not vote for her.
I am on the opposite pole -- and then some -- of anyone like Coulter who uses what slim talent she has to make most of us throw up, and I am a card carrying feminist.
However, I will never vote for Sen. Clinton for President even if she wins the nomination. Here is why:
1. Our forefathers considered and rejected a plural presidency. Their reasons were valid and their decision is implanted in the United States Constitution. A fan of Sen Clinton said it well. "With her, we'll get President Clinton, too; It's like getting a clone of him." How scary is that?
2. More than two batches of emails painting Sen. Obama as a Muslim [not true] out to destroy our country admittedly came from her campaign workers. Yes, she fired them; in Washington, that's a common ploy. Shoot the messenger you sent with a rubber bullet. Her use of her husband and surrogates, particularly black surrogates who can sidestep the accusation of racism, to vilify her opponent says "Same ole, Same ole to me." I feel that after Bush Junior, we NEED a morally clean government and administration.
3. As a life-long front line feminist, and former member of NOW, I recall that we worked for years to gain access for women based on a no gender workforce hiring policy. So now we have a female job candidate who cries, whines and falls back on "I know how a woman feels so I should get the job?" How feminist, how liberated, how PHONY!
4. She's too desperate to be in this for the public's sake. Her campaign dirty tricks shout "I deserve this plum. I will have it at any costs." She or her surrogates have said clearly, "It's MY Turn. He's younger than I am. He can wait." How greedy. How shallow. Again, How scary.
5. SHE CANNOT WIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. The Republicans are salivating at the chance to run against her. Does that not tell you something?
I will give my vote to a one-president ticket, to a candidate with integrity, to the candidate who will inspire us to change our current morally bankrupt administration to a new high ground, not the same ole, same ole.
JMB, a gal who knows weasel words when I hear them. And I say, Billary's campaign is spinache and I say to H --- with it. Texas Women and Veterans for Obama for President

@ #4.1 PJ - I totally agree with everything you said.

I agree that most feminists (myself included) will not be voting for Hillary because we know she has this belief (I think it's just in the way she talks) that she's entitled to be president just because she is a woman. That is not what we're about. We're for equality not some "affirmative action" female president. Why the hell did Russ Feingold not run for president?! Now is the time we need an honorable person in the white house (though he's friends with McCain).

Andimia I am with you. I just moved to Kenosha WI and have been reading up on Feingold. I really like what I see.

I am a feminist. HRC is a feminist. Many feminists are voting for HRC because she is right for the job, she has experience and has been a good public servant for a long time. She is calmer than McCain and more experienced than Obama.

HRC is for health care reform, immigration reform and getting out of Iraq.

She is the one.

You don't have to agree, but I have a right to give my opinion.

Good comment, Andimia

Andimia I am with you. I just moved to Kenosha WI and have been reading up on Feingold. I really like what I see.

Feingold makes me proud to be a Wisconsinite. He's like a superhero fighting for civil liberties from the senate floor. Okay maybe not a superhero but he's pretty awesome.

Annie, Annie, Obama cleared the forest from the bushes explaining Hillary what means:

Military Use of Force (endorsed after the second time of GWB explaining to our Congress)

Therefore, Evita is not ready for the job since the first day. She knows where the loos are in the WH, no doubt, but that's all.

I see you wasted no time running over here epi; what does that say?

I don't hate her.
I love her.
She serves a valuable psycho-social function in that she's someone everyone can look down upon.
There, but for the grace of God, and a few i.q. points, go I.
That sort of thing.

jdoyle @ 5.1

It says that I am a fan of Ann Coulter's.

Many here are fans of Keith Olbermann, who is every bit as, if not more, over the top than Annie. Yet, somehow, I don't feel the need to show up on every Olbermann seed and pronounce what a scummy human being he is.

Your opinion of Annie doesn't matter to her fans and it is just a way of disrupting the threads. I think you and those like you should stop it.

Olbermann doesn't practice the bigoted hate speech Coulter does.
I don't show up on Coulter boards, this may be my first, and my comments certainly fit in with the rest of the comments here.
I think you may be just a bit upset that I pointed out errors on one of your boards, so I apologize for hurting your feelings.

It says that I am a fan of Ann Coulter's.

Ann is a leading purveyor of hate. Odd, that you find criticism of her so distastefull.

Heck even this seed is a good example, its just a statement about who she hates more or at least claims to hate more in order to get attention.

Many here are fans of Keith Olbermann, who is every bit as, if not more, over the top than Annie.

No he isnt. You cannot even begin to match up Coulter's parade of over the top hate. Then again if you buy a lot of the Bush administrations rherotic of down is up and up is down, its not surprising you might be confused.

epi,

I've never heard Olbermann call for the death of conservatives as Coulter has for the death of liberals. Nor have I seen Olbermann ever say that McCain wanted to get tortured in Vietnam so he'd have something to run on, as Coulter said the 9/11 victims wives wanted their husbands dead so they could berate the Gov't. I could go on, but I doubt I'll change your mind.

If you find Coulter to be a decent voice of the conservative moevement, then the conservative moevement really should just whither away as quickly as possible.

Epi, it's odd that you are whining about "hating Annie" and then you go on to speak with hatred about Keith Olbermann. Are you a card carrying member of the "Hate Keith" club, then?

biggerthebetter,

I am not "whining" about "hating Annie" - I am complaining about the childish people who must repeat over and over and over again how much they hate Ann. Ann's supposed "hatred" is terrible, but theirs is somehow good in their minds. They get on their sanctimonious soapboxes about the "hateful" things that Ann says and then tomorrow you can see these same people on other threads wishing President Bush ill, calling him vile names, and of course, saying how all that hatred being expressed by them is justified.

Spewing hatred is never right, although I can't say I'm guilt free, I am human. I think, for me, it is the people Ann chooses to target with her vitriol. I do spout hateful things about George Bush. I don't think I've publicly wished him ill, as I'm terrified the secret service would be busting my door down if I did ... I could be wrong about that, though, I may have wished him ill before in a ranting blog at some point or another. But Bush has enacted policies that have affected me adversely. He has enacted policies that have affected my girlfriend adversely. I feel that I have a personal right to hate him, as he is directly responsible for making my life more difficult.

But what has Barack Obama done to Ann Coulter? Why should she hate him? Why should she resort to calling him childish grade-school taunts, accuse him of being a Muslim when she knows he's not? What did he do to her to deserve her hatred aside from being a liberal? Why does she continually call liberals stupid, when we are not? I don't call her stupid, on the contrary, I believe she is very intelligent. But I'm a liberal, and I'm sure I could compete with her very well in a battle of wits. I can't respect Ann Coulter because she doesn't always use her brain, and I know she's smarter than many of the things she says. Yes, I understand that she says many of those things simply to sell books, and on some level that is extremely smart, but it's not good for our country.

She says hateful things about many people who have never personally offended her, and I can't respect that. If it's all to sell books, I find that extremely shallow.

I would love to go head to head with Ann Coulter, and I hope that someday I get the chance on national TV.

Ann has called for the death of SCOTUS judges.

It simply isn't healthy to hate as Ann does.

Ann has called for the death of SCOTUS judges.

Really? There is a difference between a joke (even a bad one) and calling for someone's death.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."

(Kevin, if you're keeping score, you can count that one as a defense of Coulter.)

Oh, well, then, I wish that the grenade that was tossed at Bush in Georgia several years ago had killed him. Don't get your panties in a bunch, that's just a joke. Ha ha ha ha ha ha , what a funny joke. Ah, Bush killed by a grenade. Hy-@!$%#ing-sterical, Ain't it?

Anyone else know any good ones about killing public officials? Those are so damned funny!

1

I am complaining about the childish people who must repeat over and over and over again how much they hate Ann.

Actually you just threw out an insult not clearly addressed to any particular comment.
Why not respond to an actual comment? "I am complaining about the childish people who must repeat over and over and over again how much they hate hate people who allegedly hate Ann."
Yes, you "need to get over it." Some people do not like Ann Coulter and there are a lot of very good rational reasons. Not many to be a fan or to be so upset that many people do not like her.
You complain about this alleged "hate club" and just throw a "childish" tantrum. Its not addressed to anyone in particular, its not clear which people you imagine are being childish. It doesnt add anything to the topic of discussion. Why do you imagine that your comment adds anything?

Kerry pointed outsome facts about what was going on, and he was a war hero who was smeared by the right.
When Bush ran against McCain Rove's people smeared McCain.
I guess you dont see the pattern from the supposed patriotic far right, who put yellow magnets on their cars for those fighting for oil, but smear those who come back from war.

Kerry posed some "facts" on what was going on?

Read what he said back then. He can't back up one statement, one accusation that he made, which he made against the whole group.

If Kerry is a war hero in the minds of some besides in his own mind, so be it. I never really cared about that. What I do care about is more lying from a politician, on the backs of those millions who served honorably in Vietnam.

I'm sure Kerry would have never made the comments he did if he knew that the anti-war movement of the 60s-70s was going to fail, ultimately, in its attempt to paint U.S. Vietnam veterans as Baby-Killers. But he doesn't get a 'redo' on this. In fact he still wears it on his sleeve as proudly as his questionable purple heart.

questionable purple heart.

So now you are smearing him again?
The US Navy said he deserved it, why should you doubt it? Because of some bitter Swiftboaters who use hate instead of facts to make their point?

I'm sure Kerry would have never made the comments

You can read minds too? wow you are almost like God!!

What are you saying about the U.S. Military then, if you say they give out purple hearts like candy?

That could also be her point.

The problem is, those "high profile true conservatives" are for the most part also still Bush supporters, and have little credibility with the general public or it seems the majority of Republicans. Bush ended up being a uniter after all--uniting his party and the majority against him and his supporters.

TJG @ 11.1

McCain is getting the same 35% of the vote that he got in 2000 - that means that 65% of the Repubs don't want him as their standard bearer.

and blue @ 11 - there are just so many independents to go around - Hillary and McCain would be competing for the same pool of voters. The difference is that McCain would be bringing a knife to a gunfight as he wouldn't have the GOP base voting for him.

It also means that a large portion of Republicans aren't enamored enough with any of their candidate pool to bother voting. That is another advantage to the Dems this year, they are motivated and excited to get out and vote.

TJG @ 11.3

No, it means that the Repub primary process got screwed up by the home schoolers and the media. Huckabee's surprise win in Iowa and the media's blanket coverage of him, smothered many of the other contenders, as the media intended. McCain has been the MSM's candidate from the GOP from the gitgo. Do you remember how the media screwed things up for Howard Dean in 2004?

Huckabee has no reason to be in the race anymore. One wonders what McCain promised him to get him stay in so that he can continue "winning" with his 35% pluralities.

No matter how you slice it, ES, your party isn't motivated by your candidates it seems. Otherwise, you'd have Repubs out voting in droves for one candidate.

No matter how you slice it, ES, your party isn't motivated by your candidates it seems.

Even if they are and they stay that way, I would bet that they would be motivated to cast a vote in order to prevent a Clinton Presidency.

your party isn't motivated by your candidates it seems. Otherwise, you'd have Repubs out voting in droves for one candidate.

while it is possible to claim the party is not motivated by the candidates, this statement is just patently false. Why would they have to all be voting for the same candidate to be motivated? Which Dem voters are unmotivated then. (using your own logic). Are the Hilary voters or the B. Hussein Obama voters the ones that are unmotivated?

B. Hussein Obama

That's a pathetic Coulterism. You have no real points against him so you make fun of his name and liken him to terrorists because his father happened to be from Kenya. Immature, unintelligent, pointless, grade-school taunts. Pathetic. He doesn't go by B. Hussein ... he goes by Barack, Barry to his friends and family. Have some respect for Christ's sake.

You don't see me calling her "Ann @!$%#er" or "Ann @!$%#ler" or "Ann @!$%#licker" do you? No, you don't. While you're at it, why don't you just make fun of my name, too. Oh, ha ha ha, he has a funny name. oooohhhoohoooo ...

That is not making fun of his name at all. it is his name. it IS B. Hussein Obama.
it is not name calling. (yes I have seen plenty of people calling Ann names particularly here on the vine). I could have called him names. I could have even provided examples thereby giving me the chance to do so and yet deny that I had actually done so much like you have done in your comment. but of course I have not done so.

Why do you have such a hard time accepting the man's name?
B. Hussein Obama

Because he goes by Barack Obama. Some people choose to go by their middle names, he does not. You only use his middle name because it is the same as Saddam's last name. You do it intentionally, as does Ann, to try to make him look like those we are fighting, and you know it, so don't try to play innocent about it.

You don't do that with anyone else's name, do you? I've never seen you write A. Hart Coulter, or W. James O'Reilly, G. Walker Bush, R. Hudson Limbaugh. Why don't you write their names that way, then, if it's all so innocent? How about K. Christian Rove? Seems you'd be jumping to use that one if it's "Just the man's name".

You don't have to answer that, because I already know the answer, and so does everyone else. It's to make fun of his middle name and to liken him to people most Americans believe are terrorists.

I don't have a problem with Barack Hussein Obama's name. In fact, I'd be proud to say, "President Barack Hussein Obama". What I have a problem with is people using his name as an insult, as you have clearly done by eliminating his first name and emphasizing his middle name.

As far as the names I could call Ann Coulter but do not, as you won't find a single instance of me saying any of those names outside of that single comment I made, I said them only to get my point across, not to actually call her those things. You will not see a post from me in the past where I have used those names, nor will you in the future, so don't try to play it off as if I'm the name caller. I wrote them to prove a point, and that point was to show you how stupid and immature it looks when someone stoops to that level. I see that my point escaped you, however.

Yes, he goes by his first name. I used his middle name. You then compared it to calling Ann Coulter a name like Ann @!$%#ler. I am still trying to see how you can justify that.

I've never seen you write A. Hart Coulter, or W. James O'Reilly, G. Walker Bush, R. Hudson Limbaugh. Why don't you write their names that way, then, if it's all so innocent? How about K. Christian Rove? Seems you'd be jumping to use that one if it's "Just the man's name".

So what. I have no problem with any of those names and if you choose to use them, big deal. that is why I am curious why you are so bent out of shape when I use B. Hussein Obama's name. If you don't like it, take it up with his parents.

You don't have to answer that, because I already know the answer, and so does everyone else. It's to make fun of his middle name and to liken him to people most Americans believe are terrorists.

Actually I dont' know any Terrorists named Hussein off the top of my head. Do you?

As far as the names I could call Ann Coulter but do not, as you won't find a single instance of me saying any of those names outside of that single comment I made, I said them only to get my point across, not to actually call her those things

and do you think you got your point across? I mean it made me think you believed his name was something else and I was using Hussein the same way you used @!$%#. I am pretty sure it really is his name and is in no way the same as the word @!$%#. Am I missing something?

As far as the names I could call Ann Coulter but do not, as you won't find a single instance of me saying any of those names outside of that single comment I made, I said them only to get my point across, not to actually call her those things. You will not see a post from me in the past where I have used those names, nor will you in the future, so don't try to play it off as if I'm the name caller. I wrote them to prove a point, and that point was to show you how stupid and immature it looks when someone stoops to that level. I see that my point escaped you, however.

Ahh, yes. the old 'I don't use terms like that. well I did but only that once to prove a point' LOL. You are correct that I cannot think of a time off the top of my head when you have used those names before. My point (which you seem to be missing) is that you had no reason or call to use them now either. I think you used them because it is how you really feel about Ann Coulter. I think it is what you truly want to say about her. I am sorry to hear you have such feelings.

I think that if you read any number of my posts and comments that you know I say what I mean, and if I wanted to call Ann Coulter a @!$%# then I would call her that whenever I wanted. I don't have a desire to call her that, so instead of saying, "You know what, Ann Coulter is a ... " I instead said I could call her that if I wanted to. It turns out, I don't want to, so I put the ... there.

So what. I have no problem with any of those names and if you choose to use them, big deal. that is why I am curious why you are so bent out of shape when I use B. Hussein Obama's name. If you don't like it, take it up with his parents.

My point, which you know very well, is that YOU don't choose to use any of those names, and you only do it with Barack's name, and it is quite obvious why you do it. Why are you wasting my @!$%#ing time with this. We both know your intent. It's ridiculous for you to deny your intent. You don't even have the courtesy to use his full name, Barack Hussein Obama. I have no problem with is name, and even if I did, I couldn't take it up with his parents as they are both deceased.

Actually I dont' know any Terrorists named Hussein off the top of my head. Do you?

Oh, I'm sorry, wasn't Saddam Hussein a major target in the "War On Terror?" Doesn't that make him a "terrorist"? It doesn't ... oh, well, now, then, I'm confused. If he wasn't a terrorist, what does he have to do with the "War On Terror?"

it made me think you believed his name was something else and I was using Hussein the same way you used @!$%#.

It made you think no such thing. You understood my point perfectly and you are mincing words.

Am I missing something?

Oh, yeah, it would seem you're missing quite a bit. But you aren't really, so I'd appreciate it if you would stop playing stupid when we both know you aren't. And if you aren't just playing stupid, then I apologize for overestimating your intelligence. But I don't think that apology is necessary, as you know exactly what I've been saying all along.

Why are you wasting my @!$%#ing time with this

Why would you let me have such control over your time?

Why do you keep claiming you don't want to call Ann a @!$%# right after you do it? Why am I sure you will find some way to blame me for it?

Please do not claim that I know your point. I am still trying to understand how calling B. Hussein Obama by his name is the same as you calling Ann Coulter Ann @!$%#ler.

wasn't Saddam Hussein a major target in the "War On Terror?" Doesn't that make him a "terrorist"?

Yes he was, and no it does not.

He did support terrorists however and he was an enemy of the USA.

you know exactly what I've been saying all along.

Yes, I do. but I am not so sure about you...

Why would you let me have such control over your time?

I'm not.

Please do not claim that I know your point.

I overestimated you, then. I won't make the same mistake again.

Kevin-

dont let daweb waste your time as such.. he likes to use the well wore tactic of distraction.. he'll skirt the issue at hand and tie up your cycles with nonsense as often as you let him.. everyone here sees exactly what he is doing by with obama's name.. even the wing nuts know it, they just can't admit the truth..

the best way to handle him is to laugh to yourself and tell you dog what you think..

:-)

Kevin,
You in your reply to me you said

Why are you wasting my @!$%#ing time with this

I merely point out to you again that I cannot waste your time. You have to make the decision to waste it.

I overestimated you, then. I won't make the same mistake again.

I am convinced you will continue to miss-estimate me. I am not yet convinced you are capable of estimating my intellect. You have not yet been able to justify your own reaction to my words.

Thanks tschreck. In the past, I did have one or two exchanges with DAWeb where he was not acting in this manner and actually had a point or two. I thought he might act like a man and admit what he was doing and possibly give some lame excuse as to why he was doing it, but I guess I "misunderestimated" his chutzpa.

DAWeb: Argue with yourself, I'm busy writing a program, and it's painfully obvious to me that I'm communicating above your comprehension level.

LOL, let me help you with that. it is spelled 'Hello World'.

If you want to have a serious conversation with you me you have to actually be making a point. comparing my use of B. Hussein Obama's middle name to the use of the word @!$%# when talking about Ann Coulter is hardly a point and not worthy of a serious discussion with you.

By the way Kevin, I just realized. In all your harping on me about my use of B. Hussein Obama's name, you never did in any way address the point I made. Any reason for that?

Any reason for that?

Yeah, there is a good reason. Since you refuse to man-up and admit what you were doing, I refuse to debate our differing opinions on the matter of @!$%# V. Hussein. Sorry, I just don't have time to "make you smarter" today.

LOL, let me help you with that. it is spelled 'Hello World'.

If that were the case, I would have said "I'm busy learning how to program," rather than, "I'm busy writing a program." Or perhaps I would have said, "I'm jacking off," as writing a "hello world" app takes about the same amount of mental capacity.

Your weak attempt at insults has no affect on me, as I never feel insulted by people for which I have no respect ... especially when they don't know me from Adam.

So no, you don't really want to have an actual discussion, you are much happier bitching at me about how I choose to type the correct name of B. Hussein Obama instead. LOL.

I will have to remember this exchange for the next time you want to claim I didn't want to discuss the issue at hand as you have avoided it at all costs.

Thanks and good luck with your 'program'. I am sure you have it well in hand...

Actually, I already explained it to you. If you really want to know, go dig it out of what I already wrote. If you don't understand it, too damn bad.

Please do keep it in mind, and avoid conversations with me at all costs.

There is no "luck" in programming.

This is my last post on the subject. I don't care what the hell you say from this point on.

Why is it that you insist on getting so petty and personal? If you just keep your head you will do much better here. (probably better at programming as well) It should help you with your logic in fact.

probably better at programming as well

If you're going to accuse people of being petty and personal, you should probably avoid doing it yourself. I would also point out that this entire "aside" began when you made a personal reference about Obama by emphasizing "Hussein" rather than the name he actually uses (no one is stupid, everyone knows why you chose to do so -- deny it all you like) and if you want people to argue the issue -- stick to the issues.

Is that what you want people to do?

Sorry brian, did you have a comment about the point I made above? If so I did not see it here.

Mr. Ford,

Why to be whatever to use the middle name of Hussain?

Obama has to face that music after he talked about his foreign policies about Cuba and Iran to talk to them

Come on. I know why the strategy but a man that wants to be President has a harder path to follow than having thin skin about his middle name.

We can't have PC electing our President that we have to support after 1/20/2009, regardless.

Sorry brian, did you have a comment about the point I made above? If so I did not see it here.

Yeah. It's there for all to see in #11.25.

If ever you made a point, it's hard to say, because there were 24 comments spun off of your decision to make a dumb joke about Obama's name. That's what happens. If you wanted your points to be addressed, why did you humor Kevin Dicks (justifiable) indignation, instead of saying:

"Fine, if it will help you address my points, I'll call him Obama, rather than Hussein."

You could have then restated your comment, using his name as he actually uses it, and I'm willing to bet just about anything that the next comment would have returned to the point you (allegedly) care so much about. If it hadn't, I might even sympathize with your later complaints about people avoiding your points to make personal jabs at your rhetoric. As it stands, you seem to be as interesting in arguing about your dumb jokes as others seem to be in pointing them out. You don't seem interested in admitting that, though. Once again, you expect people to be naive: You think that so long as you deny the slur against Obama, we have to accept that it's not a slur. Similarly, because you act upset that people go off on a tangent about the slur, you expect us to believe that you want a real dialogue.

You sidelined your own commentary by making a stupid joke, and considering you don't like it when people do it to Coulter, I'm pretty sure you know what you're doing when you do it.

Now, if you want to tell me that I'm getting personal or that I'm insulting you, that's fine. I don't think I am -- I'm responding to your concerns about the way people react to your comments with an honest evaluation. But, if that is an insult, or if you find it insulting; so be it.

If you want people to address your points, instead of your rhetoric: Drop the inflammatory rhetoric. It's really not that hard.

Why to be whatever to use the middle name of Hussain?

I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but do you want to know why it's a bad idea to refer to Obama as Hussein?

Because, as I say in greater detail in #11.28 -- the dumb joke, the obvious effort to draw allusions to muslims, and then to terorrism -- overshadows his point. The 24 comments that followed his Hussein remark are proof enough of that.

If people want their points to be addressed, they should make their points without all the window dressing. If they refuse to do that, time after time, they should spare everyone else the righteous indignation.

so in other words, No you don't want to address my point, you would rather insult me and complain about the use of a man's name. B. Hussein Obama is actually his name.

Your point appears to have been a rhetorical question. But, okay.

I'll be right back. This may take a minute, because I have to scroll up past 24 comments (half of which are yours) about the topic you apparently don't want to discuss...

while it is possible to claim the party is not motivated by the candidates, this statement is just patently false. Why would they have to all be voting for the same candidate to be motivated? Which Dem voters are unmotivated then. (using your own logic). Are the Hilary voters or the B. Hussein Obama Obama voters the ones that are unmotivated?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not Democrats who are contemplating voting for a Republican because they aren't happy with their candidates, is it? I hear McCain does best in the primaries where Independent voters factor in. I can find articles on Newsvine, by conservatives, who can't see themselves voting for any of the front running Republican candidates at this point.

So, yes -- I think it's fair to say that Republicans are unmotivated by their candidates (why else would I read serious articles about conservatives contemplating a vote for a Democrat) whereas Democrats are strongly motivated, but split between two possible candidates.

There you go. That's a present, just for you, but it doesn't change anything I said in either of my other comments. You refuse to see that, so I expect we'll see more of your comments followed up by 20 or so digressions in the future.

So, you can continue to feel insulted if you like. Report me, I don't care. I'm right, though.

Brian,

DAWeb just wants to keep this going. He's not interested in having his non-existent "points" addressed at all. He wants to attempt to personally insult others and then accuse them of personally insulting him. He wants to scream about not getting his points addressed when he won't properly address the original point in the first place. He wants you to keep arguing with him, as he wanted me to keep arguing with him. Personally, I've chosen to quit humoring him. He must be bored. It's obvious he has nothing better to do.

I think his main objective is to attempt to manipulate us into continuing to fight with him. I think it gives him some sick sense of feeling that he is controlling us in some way. So, it's probably best to let him be childish and have his last, immature word. He's going to continually return to his same non-existent "point" no matter how clearly it is explained to him. For some people, the only way to "win" an argument is to ignore everything the other person says and keep demanding that they repeat themselves, and then when they give up, they claim victory. Well, I say, let him feel like he's won if it makes him feel better. Regardless of what he thinks, reality will remain intact. ;)

So, once I do address your points, you're nowhere to be found? You were quick to respond to my other comments (which I still stand by, btw) -- and your response was "why won't anyone address my points, instead focusing on my name calling..."

So, I address your points. Two hours later. Nothing.

Not only do I stand by my other comments, you validate them.

Two hours later. Nothing.

Hmm.

This may shock you. Some people do stuff outside of Newsvine. It is a Saturday afternoon and, occasionally, people do real world things instead of responding to comments.

Mr. Ford,

Don't be afraid of a stab in the back because it wasn't. I addressed the point because I am interested, I lived 26 yrs in the ME and have Muslim friends.

I don't think that the intention of the poster was a joke about the middle name of the Senator, I think that is a fair point like we are questioning the senatorial credentials of the Senator McCain but Never Ever his as a POW/Hero.

Why the Senator does not come clean why his middle name is omitted in mostly all the ads?

I don't think that the Senator Obama is a shrinking violet if asked.

And remember, I had to put on with "Dubya" for a very long time.

Fair enough.

Most people don't go around using their middle names, determined. I know I don't, and I don't know most actors and actresses middle names. What is John McCain's middle name, and why is it not in his ads? Mitt Romney, what's his middle name? Ron Paul? Duncan Hunter? John Edwards? Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich? Hillary Clinton? Most would probably answer that her middle name is Rodham, but they would be wrong, that's her maiden name. Her middle name is Diane.

Why don't all these people just come clean about why their middle names are omitted from their ads?

This may shock you.

Right. I have no doubt that will be his explanation as well, but I will have my doubts, and they're not really based on this comment thread alone.

I don't think that the intention of the poster was a joke about the middle name of the Senator,

What do you think his intention was, then?

Why should his middle name be included in ads? Middle names are largely meaningless in America. Frankly, I'm surprised I can remember mine. But, ultimately, it's people who think it's clever to refer to him as "B. Hussein" (har har, it sounds middle-eastern) who make it clear that sticking with Obama is a smart choice.

And remember, I had to put on with "Dubya" for a very long time.

If I call George Bush "Dubya" -- I promise you I won't pretend that it's not intended to be an insult, nor will I expect you to ignore it.

Sorry Brian, I was out of town for the night. Just got back. I have a few other things that are more important for me to do but i will get back to you.

OK, Brian, my comment was in response to this comment from TJG.

your party isn't motivated by your candidates it seems. Otherwise, you'd have Repubs out voting in droves for one candidate.

Do you not see here clear claim that if Republicans were motivated they would be voting in droves for one candidate. As I asked her then (and no you have not actually addressed it.) if based on her logic in order to be motivated they had to all be voting for one candidate, WHICH of the dem candidates supporters (Clinton's or Hussein Obama's) were the ones that were unmotivated. You have not addressed the question at all and instead have launched into an entirely different explanation for why you think Republicans are unmotivated. Please, if you can't even address my comment, then quit bitching.

(yes it would be acceptable to say that you just don't agree with TJG. I don't)

Hey Kevin, I thought you had said you were done. I go away for the night and when I get back there are multiple new comments from you on this subject again. LOL

In answer to your question above, if any of them did use their middle names, or perhaps more accurately if any candidate began using their opponents middle names, would you be all up in arms about that? How bout Hillary and her changing name from Hillary Clinton to Hillary Rodham Clinton back to Hillary Clinton. I have not seen any comments from you about this. (I also have not looked). Does this bother you? How come you have not done as little as Brian Ford has done and even attempted to address the point I was making?

Middle names are largely meaningless in America. Frankly, I'm surprised I can remember mine.

Funny, I have never had any trouble remembering mine. I am not sure what this means mind you

DAWeb its pretty clear to everyone here you are just using Baraks's middle name in a childish attempt to irritate people.
Why go on? You made your point:everyone with a brain thinks you are an irritating child. That was your point wasn't it?

Brian, it has been over an hour since I posted and no response? OH NO. You must have no response to me. You will I am sure claim to have not been online or some other lame excuse...

[/sarcasm]

I don't think I've ever seen a less substantive conversation than the one about Obama's middle name. What, 'Barack' and 'Obama' aren't odd enough for you? I understand it's the Muslimness of the name 'Hussein,' but I kind of think he was born, and named, way before that name had such baggage for Americans.

If you don't like his middle name talk to his mother. He had nothing to do with it. And for goodness sake, please find something substantive to object to.

jdoyle, it is painfully obvious to everyone here that you are just annoyed by the use of B. Hussein Obama's middle name. Why go on? Why not just grow up and accept that he has a middle name and that I am usiing it? I suspect most people are wondering why you are speaking for everyone.

Prospero1Its the right's attempt to make a non issue about a non topic.
The right has a tendency towards bigotry when it comes to religion other than protestant Christianity, as shown by many of Coulter's remarks, and DAWeb is just following the leader.

The point I am making is: he has nothing else; the repeated issue of using Barak's middle name is a symptom of the fact the right is lost, morally and ethically bankrupt due to years of following corrupt and useless leaders.

If you don't like his middle name talk to his mother. He had nothing to do with it. And for goodness sake, please find something substantive to object to.

I agree. I do not understand why so many people are upset about it. It does not bother me at all. If it did I probably would not use it.

DAWeb LOL sounds a lot like you are saying " I know you are but what am I"!!!

Jdoyle, the actual fact is that you, brian, kevin, etc. have chosen to bitch moan and complain about my use of 'Hussein' rather then to address my comment at all. I don't know why you have chosen to do so, but don't blame me for your decision.

Funny, I reread my comment and do not see that at all. of course I am not the one that has been complaining about his middle name either.

I don't care if you use it or not: what I care about is you disrupting yet another board with your childishness.

I don't care if you use it or not: what I care about is you disrupting yet another board with your childishness.

considering that I have merely defended myself here after making a legitimate point, I would think you would be upset with those that have been arguing the point. I am still waiting for anyone here (yourself included) to address my point. You have instead posted yet another comment that does not address my point and does not make a point.

A simple question for you:
(I have the feeling you will not answer)
Why do you repeatably use his middle name when he doesn't go by it, his backers don't go by it and you know it irritates people?

Why not? I use it because I like the way it sounds. I first heard it from the subject of this seed, Ann Coulter, so to me it even makes sense here in this seed in particular.

Now a question for you. Why do you on the one hand continue to extend this thread by arguing further about the use of Hussein rather then actually responding to the point I made here and remade 32 comments later here ?

Why not? I use it because I like the way it sounds. I first heard it from the subject of this seed, Ann Coulter, so to me it even makes sense here in this seed in particular.

No it doesn't makes sense to use it here since you know it irritates people. If you were really interested in an honest discussion you would not be using it You would rather disrupt the board by its continued use.

As for your question: you are just game playing here.
The democrats are out backing their candidates, backing them for one reason or another while the Republicans are out smearing their opponents.
The far right extremists like Coulter are smearing McCain. In other words your people are not backing a candidate, they are just smearing those they don't like.

Brian, it has been over an hour since I posted and no response?

Oh, I'm sorry. It had been an entire day since I last heard from you, after 3 or 4 rapid fire responses, so I assumed the conversation was over.

Just a minute. I (once again) have to scroll up through a dozen or so comments in which you defend your decision to use "Hussein" instead of "Obama" to find the part where you actually address a point.

Be right back...

Hrm. Well, I see you posted some words, left an insulting comment about how I'm "bitching" when I did as you so feverishly desired -- addressed your point -- and made a point to call Obama "Hussein" again. (Man, it just gets cleverer and cleverer each time you do it.)

I think it's pretty clear who wants to have a dialogue and who doesn't, here.

To quote the male Ann Coulter, "Nice Try."

Coulter is so filled with hate and anti-American sentiment that anyone intelligent knows that the opposite of her words is what is right.

Ann, I'll be sending you an icicle dildo for your birthday. Just tuck it away between your legs 'cause, you wouldn't want it to melt now would you?

She serves a valuable psycho-social function in that she's someone everyone can look down upon.

Now, I could continue going through the article, but these are all things that are said here in this comment area about Ann that many would find annoying. (heck one is even collapsed) and yet you choose to focus on my use of Hussein for your time. I think you are singling me out and attempting to avoid the issue. I will agree with you on one thing. it doesn't make sense to YOU. At least not the aspect of you that you are allowing to be seen here.

You say 'as for your question' and then you ignore it and do not answer it in any way shape or form. Makes me wonder why you are having so much trouble...

I think it's pretty clear who wants to have a dialogue and who doesn't, here.

well, as we are both replying obviously we both want to have a dialogue. I keep asking you to address the point and you keep avoiding it and steering it back to the use of 'Hussein'. I guess it is very clear that you are either unable or unwilling to address the point and would rather complain about my use of the man's name. Enjoy.

Man, it just gets cleverer and cleverer each time you do it.

Dude, you really need to get out more.

DAWeb: your continued use of his middle name is a lame attempt to irritate, and you admit you doing in response to those who insult Coulter.
So it is not as you stated earlier because you "like the way it sounds"; its to annoy.
So you were lying when you said that.
You are an admitted liar.

jdoyle, I have not admitted to lying about anything here. You have instead demonstrated that you are more interested in discussing the middle name Hussein then in addressing the point I made above. You are so offended by that name it appears that you have sat at your keyboard and responded only about that again and again and again. You started strangely enough by complaining that we were discussing that middle name rather then addressing the issues and yet that seems to be all you want to talk about.

Do I care that it annoys you? not at all. is that why I use that name? not at all. I explained my use of it and I did not even need to do that. your choice to call me a liar is a direct violation of the CoH. question is whether or not you can own up to that fact or not. So, can you? or instead will you come back with a 'but you violated the CoH here...' garbage? we will see.

Brian Ford, with your permission (or even without it) I will be going to watch the game and may or may not get back to Newsvine before tomorrow. I hope that my schedule is OK with you...

You are not calling me a Racist Brian. That has been reported in the past and it has been made clear that it is not acceptable. It is also hardly accurate.

DAWeb your own words say your a liar, so if there is a violation of the C of H it is from you.
I did address your original post, but I guess you would rather not admit that: it would go against your agenda here of disruption. post
Sorry but you got nailed by your own childish posts.
As for the rest, I made my point: all you try to do is disrupt boards, and drive away good honest posters.

Everyone should just not response to DA when he gets like this. Why give him the attention?

Everyone should just not response to DA when he gets like this. Why give him the attention?

You are right of course; I let the child get to me.
I say why respond to him at all until he stops disrupting any boards.

As neither of you have responded to my point, I hope you can live up to your own thoughts here. TJG has promised it in the past but...

The greatest fallacy of democracy is that everyone's opinion is worth the same.

Robert Anson Heinlein

As neither of you have responded to my point,

I did, but you ignored that.

No, jdoyle, you did not.

I did: were you looking for a specific answer, or my opinion?

You offered an opinion, just not in response to my question.

So if I did not give the answer you were looking for, I didn't answer?

To quote the male Ann Coulter, "Nice Try."

What does that comment mean to you? Are you insinuating that I was calling Coulter a male? "The Male Ann Coulter" is referring to W. James O'Reilly. I call him "The male Ann Coulter" because he says the same types of things as she does. I could call her, "The Female Bill O" But I happen to think that she is smarter than he is, and he is more a cheap male imitation of her. It was a slam on Bill O ... not on Ann Coulter.

Your reading comprehension was way off on that one.

But at least I admit I was slamming someone. Takes a real man (or woman) to say, "Yeah, I insulted that person and I meant it." Rather than saying, "Oh? What? Whatever do you mean? My comment was innocent."

So if I did not give the answer you were looking for, I didn't answer?

No, if the answer you gave (whether I agree or not) does not address the same point it was not an answer.

I answered the way I wanted, and did address you rquestion.
If you don't like it its not my fault.

This is a perfect example of how you like to disrupt boards.
I guess I will take the advise offered by TGJ and just ignore your childish attitude.

I can't help it if your question was so vague no one can figure it out.

You shouldn't talk down about yourself.
My question was quite specific and the issue is one that was raised by TGJ not me.

TJG,

Get over it.

You are not calling me a Racist Brian.

Actually, my interpretation of the comment you made is that it was racist. I doubt I'm alone on that.

If you persist in calling a man by his middle name when he doesn't go by it, when its not on his campaign stickers, and when it just so happens to be middle-eastern, I'm going to interpret your comments based on the ideology you've espoused elsewhere. The only interpretation that makes any sense is that you're making a disparaging remark about the fact that his middle name sounds Islamic, tying it to Saddam Hussein, and making an offhand joke about how similar it is to the sort of name a terrorist might have.

It's the sort of thing you expect from Ann Coulter (ironic that it happens on a thread about her) or Rush Limbaugh, and it comes across as racist, and with intent -- it wouldn't only come across as racist, it would actually be racist. Now, anyone can tell me that we can't judge intent, but that's absurd, especially in this case. If it were true, anyone could say anything they want, and simply deny that what they were saying was racist.

Report away.

As part of that, please mention that the first thing I did on this thread was try to explain why it was derailed. You refused to listen to that. I finally sighed and addressed your point like you asked me to, against my better judgement. You accused me of bitching. You returned again and again to a defense of your choice of words and if you don't want people to analyze what you mean, don't go to such great lengths to make "what you mean" the center of discussion, and don't be so antagonistic when people actually do give in and address the points you bury amongst your mudslinging.

Especially when "what you mean" couldn't be more obvious.

Get over what, det?

Why should people waste time on someone like DA?

For what it's worth, I don't particularly feel like I'm wasting my time, but I sure hope that if anyone feels as though their time is wasted, they either stop following the comment thread, or de-track the entire article.

The conversation was about "why" the thread was derailed when I jumped in, and as I'm interested in that topic and have an opinion about the answer, my time is not wasted by offering said opinion.

When I feel my time is wasted, I won't bother telling people that's the case, I simply won't comment.

I also offered an opinion on the apparent "point" -- but it was dismissed.

When the topic turned back to the derailing, I offered further, more specific, thoughts on why the thread was derailed, an honest evaluation. I would like to reiterate that I haven't reported the comment, nor am I attempting to have it taken down. I merely find it interesting that someone who is no stranger to this sort of commentary -- and the effects it can have on a discussion -- could be unaware of the consequences of making a comment that many people are going to consider racist.

There's just no excuse to be shocked when a comment like that results in a lengthy discussion about the comment, rather than about any worthwhile point.

And I just wanted him to man-up and admit his intent. He can stand by his insult all he wants, but to argue that he wasn't even attempting an insult is a pretty weak position.

Put DaWeb and the rest of those of his ilk on your ignore list then you do not have to read anything they say. Issue resolved. I highly recommend using that feature Kevin. You will find out who the people like DaWeb are. I learned quickly last year. It does not take long.

Just to weigh in on Barack's middle name. I happen to think that Muslims may see it in a much more positive light than the people in this country. There are also Muslim people who are Americans and they deserve more respect than this.

Open up your minds people. I think we ALL know that whatever Barack's middle name is it will never, ever receive the amount of HATRED the name GEORGE W. BUSH illicits. NEVER. GWB hated around the world and in his own country.

Thanks, Mary. I was using my ignore list for a while. I had four people on it, I even wrote an article about it, but I found, as some people warned in my article, that it kind of messes up the tracking a bit. Also, it collapses the entire thread, so if the ignored person made a comment that actually had a point and a long thread emerges from it, the entire thread is collapsed. Sure, I can expand it and participate in it, but I still have to expand all of the collapsed comments to see if there is a valid thread there ... so ignore doesn't work so well for me.

Also, I don't have a problem with Barack's name at all. First, middle, or last. My only argument was against the poster's intent. Barack Hussein Obama is fine to write, B. Hussein Obama is disrespectful. IMO.

Brian, you were pretty clear. You called me racist. You do not have any basis other then your personal disagreement with my use of the man's name. His name IS B. Hussein Obama. As I noted above, I am aware that some of you might not like that name. So what. for you to allow that fact to prevent you from discussing the issue is pretty funny actually. For you to claim that the use of it is 'racist' is just way out there and has no basis in reality at all. It really re-enforces the idea that you use terms like racism as an attack on those idea's you have no other argument against and that is rather sad.

What does that comment mean to you? Are you insinuating that I was calling Coulter a male?

Kevin, please keep up. That quote had no purpose other then to demonstrate that there is plenty of language that has the potential to 'annoy' people and that jdoyle was only concerned about me. Please do not attempt to spin that into something entirely different. One might think you would discuss anything other then the actual issue.

When a politician announces his wishes to be President of the United States he or she has to have enough thick skin to be subject to our scrutiny.

We are at war at this moment and the same way that all the Presidents had been subject to bring DUI charges longer than 30? years ago, President Clinton I to be ridiculed for his scandal with women, etc. the US Senator can't and should not escape because we might look "racist".

It's not a race problem because I lived in countries where black and olive are predominant and I would vote for Dr. Rice or C. Powell any minute because they earned their badges. In the South we are integrated with the black, admire them for their achievements.

Therefore, Obama is not special, Obama is an American citizen and he has to be search inside out like the Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama's father is from Kenya, Kenya had been having some shaking lately and we don't know if for the Senator Obama calling our troops from Iraq means that we are going to put our men and women wearing the uniform to be shipped to the troubled continent.

The Senator Obama's position of "talking to Cuba and Iran" is baloney. Those countries wait that we change President every 4/8 years and they continue in power. They sit down in their tent to wait the body of the enemy to pass by.

There is not racism having a black or a woman in our Presidency but.....both of them or better all of them are going to have to be subject to heavy scrutiny, we don't want surprises because then we have to go through the process of an impeachment. We don't have tyrants or dictators in our system.

If Obama has a very thin skin toward criticism or answering questions, he better raise his white flag because then he does not have what is needed to face a very difficult situation.

We aren't in the same situation than 16 years ago that we believe to the dot the NYT and If Hillary has more steel........so be it.

No one is going to get a free ride.

That quote had no purpose other then to demonstrate that there is plenty of language that has the potential to 'annoy' people and that jdoyle was only concerned about me.

Hmmm, interesting, all the other quotes there were about Ann Coulter, while mine was not. It would appear you have a problem admitting things.

You're the only one I see here avoiding issues, DAWeb. As far as what point you want us to address, why don't you just spell it out for us and tell us exactly what you want us to say? Eh? None of us know what "Point" you're talking about.

Oh, and you keep saying that B. Hussein Obama is his name, but it isn't, it is only part of his name, not the whole thing. If you find a copy of his birth certificate, you would not find his first name listed as "B." You will find it listed as "Barack". So, no matter how many times you claim it, "B." is not his name.

the US Senator can't and should not escape because we might look "racist".

Even if "looking racist" serves no purpose other than to look racist? (At this point, it doesn't even matter if the intent was to BE racist, though I think that can be argued.) Determined, tell me the point of referring to him by his middle name, please. So far as I can see, the only result is to derail a thread.

That's fine by me, but if the person doing the calling wants to claim he'd prefer to stay on point, he should know better than to make a comment like that.

As for the rest of your comment, I'm not even sure how it relates, but you somehow got to not wanting to have a tyrant as President, and if that's the case, I hope you're as relieved as I am that George W. Bush is coming to the end of his term.

As this thread has gotten so long, I am not sure if this was mentioned before. The "B. Hussein Obama" reference has at least two connections to the current seed.

First, Ann Coulter made the news last year when she used the name. If you do a little digging, you could even find the seed on Newsvine. Secondly, the current seed is about a video clip from Hannity & Colmes, the show where Coulter made the remark using the name.

I know that. I read Ann's column. I never agree with it, but I read it. That's why in my very first comment I called it a Coulterism.

Mr. Ford.

Mr. Butler answered pretty well and in better English my same thoughts.

Everything was related.

It doesn't particularly matter if it was related. DAWeb didn't "reference Coulter calling Obama 'B. Hussein'", DAWeb co-opted her "joke" and I would have said it was racist when SHE said it, if I had known she said it.

The fact of the matter is, people took offense, it doesn't take a genius to know that people will take offense when it comes to something like that, and THAT is why the thread is off on a tangent, a tangent which DAWeb has participated in, I might add.

If people want to have a discussion around a reasonable topic, it's probably a good idea to avoid throwing in stupid comments, especially stupid comments that are arguably racist, and that comment's ties to Coulter are irrelevant. DAWeb hasn't ever mentioned the relationship to Coulter, and his excuse is "I like the way it sounds..." So, for you to claim, some 90 comments later, that the comment is justifiable because it was first uttered by Coulter, as vile a person as you're likely to find on the punditry circuit, is laughable.

If someone lobs a grenade into a crowd and later claims "I didn't know what would happen" I sure hope people would be more incredulous about that denial than they are being about the verbal grenade that DAWeb lobbed into his first comment, and his subsequent claims.

You never answered my question, Jay:

What do YOU think a person means by calling Obama "B. Hussein Obama", if you honestly believe it's not to stir up trouble?

In other words: You honestly believe that?

Honestly?

So, for you to claim, some 90 comments later, that the comment is justifiable because it was first uttered by Coulter, as vile a person as you're likely to find on the punditry circuit, is laughable.

What is laughable is that you and a few others keep this whole thing going and going. Yet, you want the thread to get back on track.

What do YOU think a person means by calling Obama "B. Hussein Obama", if you honestly believe it's not to stir up trouble?

I do not care. I can look past the reference without being offended by whatever you believe the intent to be.

Look at all of the other name calling that goes on here at NV. Coulter herself is the victim of much of it as is President Bush. How many times does a reference to one of them throw a thread off on a tangent about the name calling?

Brian, it is not even arguable. To call a person by their given name is not racist. Sorry to disappoint you. I don't care how often you say it, it won't make it true.

The fact of the matter is, people took offense

People take offense to many many things. So what. Learn to argue without letting your emotions pile in and your arguments will improve. You are having an emotional response to my using the name B. Hussein Obama. To me it is an irrational response.

If someone lobs a grenade into a crowd and later claims "I didn't know what would happen" I sure hope people would be more incredulous about that denial than they are being about the verbal grenade that DAWeb lobbed into his first comment, and his subsequent claims.

so now you are equating the use of a man's name with throwing a grenade into a crowd. This explains a lot. It is however an inaccurate comparison. Think instead of someone in a crowd eating roasted Garlic. Some might hate the smell and leave, others might like the smell and stay. it is not a bad smell or a good smell, it is just a smell. You on the other hand I think, would stick around and complain loudly and repeatedly about the smell and claim the person with the roasted Garlic was racist...

How many times does a reference to one of them throw a thread off on a tangent about the name calling?

Fairly often. In fact, look through DAWebs history, and see how many times he's gotten upset that someone makes fun of Coulter when he seeds her content.

I bet that you will not find a 98 comment "tangent".

Naw, you'll just find a lot of restored comments that DA deleted in violation of the CoH.

Naw, you'll just find a lot of restored comments that DA deleted in violation of the CoH.

Okay. I am not a proponent of deleting off-topic comments. I do not do it. But, different people moderate their seeds differently. If a seeder announces that all off-topic comments will be deleted and then deletes them, I have no problem with that.

My question for you is: how exactly is deleting off-topic comments (especially after you have announced that you will do so) violate the CoH?

It is not, it is merely something they shout when they are upset over being deleted. Also, I have not been the one that has kept a tangent going, I have merely defended myself here and waited for anyone to actually address the point I made when responding to TJG's comment way way above. So far no one has bothered to respond, only to complain that we are off topic. :-)

Well, for one thing, the comments he deletes are often on-topic, but he just doesn't like what they say. As for how it violates the CoH, I'd direct that question to staff, who have restored comments DA deleted and I think, warned him about his improper deletions.

As for how it violates the CoH, I'd direct that question to staff, who have restored comments DA deleted and I think, warned him about his improper deletions.

Absolute conjecture.

You stated that it was a CoH violation ("that DA deleted in violation of the CoH."). How do you think it does?

It isn't conjecture that comments he deleted were restored by staff and that he was warned for deleting too many valid comments.

DAWeb:

Using that name is a demagogic appeal to prejudice and bigotry. While you have every right to use it, and if your using it loses votes for Obama because ignorant citizens are easy prey for prejudiced and bigoted remarks, well, Obama is just going to have to try to win without those votes.

Obama does have a few parries, though.

I bet that you will not find a 98 comment "tangent".

Perhaps not. But, possible. I would point out that at least twice in the middle of this tangent, his points were addressed, and both times, the comments were dismissed because, according to DAWeb, they didn't adequately address his points.

Earlier, you said:

Yet, you want the thread to get back on track.

If you're going to expect it of TJG, I'm going to expect it of you:

Find somewhere where I've argued that I want this thread to get back on topic, or that I care -- if you're going to assert that this is my position. I have argued that if a person wants a thread to be on topic, they should be more careful about the rhetoric they throw around. I could care less if the thread gets back on topic.

And, as DAWeb doesn't like my grenade analogy, I'll make another one.

If I am discussing something with a person, and if I slap them across the face during that discussion, it's absurd for me to expect that person to ignore the slap in favor of continuing the original discussion. It's even MORE absurd for me to expect that person to believe me when I say that there was no malicious intent behind my slap.

In short: If you want to have a discussion that stays on topic: Leave out the slaps. If you won't leave out the slaps, save the righteous indignation.

p.s. everyone: If I'd know that I was going to be comment 105 in this sub-thread, I would've stayed away.

I think my tracker picked up a comment by my Pu-Pu pal.

:^{)>

staff, who have restored comments DA deleted and I think, warned him about his improper deletions.

Not conjecture?

If I'd know that I was going to be comment 105 in this sub-thread, I would've stayed away.

LOL Nice.

Jack, we dont' always agree but i do love ya.

Using that name is a demagogic appeal to prejudice and bigotry.

I am sorry, but I will disagree with you on this point. using his actual name is not an atempt to be demogogic or to appeal to prejudice or bigotry. If you think it is, you have to assume I do not know at all the audience here on the vine. I would be AMAZED if anyone here has changed their decision to vote for B. Hussein Obama as a result of my use of his name. Do you honestly think it has made any difference? Be honest (yes, you usually are). All it seems to have done is to give Brian the impression he has been slapped. not sure I see that one, I liked my analogy far better as it was much more accurate.

Re: comments I have deleted that have been restored.

Actually it is a very small number. (there are some I have requested be restored as I had an issue at one point restoring them myself.

The vast majority of comments I have deleted have stayed deleted. there is a reason for that. As for the ones that the staff has restored, well, the staff and I do not always agree 100% of the time. Big deal. Talk about going off topic. LOL

The vast majority of comments I have deleted have stayed deleted.

While I'm certain some stay deleted for valid reasons, my bet is that MOST comments are never restored because MOST people never contest the deletion. MOST people prefer to bitch and moan about it on the thread instead of following the official channels, usually resulting in more deletions, and an even more successful derailing of the thread.

DAWeb, your analogy doesn't work very well because Garlic is awesome, and anyone who doesn't like it isn't allowed to have an opinion.

More conjecture.

DAWeb, your analogy doesn't work very well because Garlic is awesome, and anyone who doesn't like it isn't allowed to have an opinion.

This is funny, unfortunately you are approaching this discussion in the same way. You don't agree with my comment and therefore you are reacting as if I did not like Garlic. I love Garlic.

Gotta get back to the stinking rose in San Fran for dinner soon...

Don't go to tourist traps like that, DA! Yikes.

More conjecture.

No, actually, it's not.

You don't agree with my comment and therefore you are reacting as if I did not like Garlic. I love Garlic.

You're eating poop and expecting me to believe that your breath smells like garlic.

But TJG, when I am in San Fran, I am a Tourist. :-)

While I'm certain some stay deleted for valid reasons, my bet is that MOST comments are never restored because MOST people never contest the deletion.

Yes that is conjecture.

Sorry, I don't eat poop. Not sure who you hang around that does that you would come up with that analogy here, but I can assure you I do not. I dont' even like mushrooms.

DAWeb:

using his actual name is not an atempt to be demogogic or to appeal to prejudice or bigotry.

Bull@!$%#. His ACTUAL NAME is the name he ACTUALLY uses. Anybody ever call President Bush "G. Walker Bush"? Anybody ever call Reagan "R. Wilson Reagan"? Since you've adopted the artifical affectation you have, you've done so for a reason. Tell me what that reason is.

Why not grant him the same respect everyone gets to call themselves by the name they choose?

I would be AMAZED if anyone here has changed their decision to vote

How do you know? Two points: 1. Some lurker could drift by, in fact, probably has.

2. But in the larger sense, doing so on the Vine--even if noine of the regulars change their vote--adds to the cumulative discourse on the presidential race should Obama win the Dem nomination. You're adding to the sensibility that sends around the Obama's-a-Muslim e-mails by creating the feeling that Obama may be one of the enemy.

So fine. You want to create the impression that Obama is the enemy, I want to create the impression that people who do that are bigots.

We understand each other?

Tell me what that reason is.

I tried this line of questioning. The official (but somewhat hard to believe) answer was:

"I like the way it sounds."

But, like you, I think it sounds bigoted.

How "Dubya" or "Dubia" sounded to you in 2000 plus the nice compliments like

DUI

Not going to VN in a capacity as pilot

Ignorant

Grammar and Spelling - Disaster, etc.?

Speeches - He does not know how to read.

det:

Until he assumed the Oval Office, Bush called himself "Dubya." That's an ACTUAL name that he ACTUALLY used.

Everything else you say is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

People have been referring to President George W. Bush by his middle initial for a long time and I have not heard you complain about that. I also have not seen your complaints when the talking heads refer to him as Mr. Bush. He is the President of the USA and as such his title is President Bush and the use of Mr. Bush is (imho) a calculated effort to lower opinions, to not grant him the respect he deserves. With all of that going on, you want to give me a hard time and call me a bigot for using the name B. Hussein Obama? it is not an example of bigotry to start with, and you are wasting your time. Why Bother? How bout some of the other names that have been used in reference to President Bush.

LOL

Brian Says

But, like you, I think it sounds bigoted.

after Jack called me a biggot for using the name B. Hussein Obama.

Lets look at the definition of Bigoted

* bigoted (blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others) "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"

I am not blindly attached to any creed, I am merely using a man's name. I am not even doing that blindly as I am conversing with people on an Ann Coulter seed (no not an Ann Coulter column, an Ann Coulter Seed. ). I do not demonstrate any intolerance at all toward others either.

Sorry guys, but you happen to be wrong on this. I do understand that you do not like my use of the reference, I do not understand why you allow it to bother you so much, nor do I honestly care.

nor do I honestly care.

That much is clear.

DAWeb:

I just explained that. Bush himself used that name. It was family name to distinuish him from his father. and nobody objected to it because it was not an

ARTIFICAL AFFECTATION

Now. You've adopted an artifical affectation to refer to Obama. I say you're doing so as an appeal to bigotry due to the random fact that Obama's middle name is the same as the surname of the dictator we deposed in Iraq five years ago.

As I said--you have every right to do so. But you may NOT justify it by claims that the usage is innocuous or benign without me objecting to your claim (increasingly vehemently the longer you continue, btw, just so you know). That's because your usage is intended as a demagogic appeal to prejudice and bigotry. If you say your usage means nothing, then don't use it. Show the man the fundamental respect we all are owed of calling him by the name he prefers.

You're actually wrong about the "Mr. Bush" thing, but that's a technical matter. I don't want to argue it on this sub-thread. We're alreaduy WAY past the usual limits.

:^{)>

Jack. You called me a bigot for the use of B. Hussein Obama. I demonstrated clearly that you were wrong. You then tell me what my use of it is intended for. Sorry, but I am confident that I am more aware of the 'purpose' then you are. You then tell me what to do and you threaten me if I don't listen to you.

But you may NOT justify it by claims that the usage is innocuous or benign without me objecting to your claim (increasingly vehemently the longer you continue, btw, just so you know).

I don't really care how vehemently you object to my use of the man's name. You continue to accuse me of things that you have no understanding of. (I base that on your continued misuse of the Bigot accusation). Please move on to something that you understand better if you can't get a better understand this issue.

If I am wrong on the Mr. Bush thing, show me. I know that of all those here that are arguing this stupid point rather then discussing my original point you are the most likely to have remained (and argued for others to remain) respectful of the office of the President, but I am not aware of it.

Show the man the fundamental respect we all are owed of calling him by the name he prefers.

Many people get called by names they don't prefer even here on the vine. When he asks me to change it I will give it consideration. Not for you tho.

Thank you Emily, I agree. (and yes I realize I have also been guilty at times). I would like the newsvine opinion of Brian Ford's decision to call me a racist above. I the past this has been considered to be unacceptable and I am of the opinion it is unacceptable here as well.

And I would like to protest DAWeb's continued attempts to derail boards with off topic comments.

DAW:

I demonstrated clearly that you were wrong.

You did no such thing. You can only do that by proposing a better reason for adopting the artifical affectation for referring to Obama than the one I proposed. That you have not done. Until then, I take it as established that your usage is an appeal to ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

To take the NYT as one example, they're simply using almost exactly the same stylebook they've used for over a hundred years. It's "President Bush" or "President George W. Bush" in the first iteration, then "Mr. Bush" thereafter. If it's good enough for "Mr. Lincoln" it's good enough for "Mr. Bush."

And I would like to protest DAWeb's continued attempts to derail boards with off topic comments.

It takes two to tango. You have been an accomplice in this derailment.

Until then, I take it as established that your usage is an appeal to ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

You are more then welcome to take it any way you like. I really have no problem with you being flat out wrong. I just take umbrage with you stating your opinion as fact and calling me a bigot when you can't back it up. (see definition above.)

I would like the newsvine opinion of Brian Ford's decision to call me a racist above.

I too would welcome this. I said he made a racist comment, and I stand by that. jfxgillis seems to agree, as do a few others.

I think if people are going to provide politically charged comments -- especially if that comment is arguably racist -- the subject should be open for debate. Once again, I don't particularly care if it gets removed, but when I jumped in, the discussion was already on the topic of "why are we focusing on one thing I said, instead of on a point I want to discuss" and I think I offered a pretty fair answer to that question. And, I would point out, again, that an attempt to address the point was dismissed as inadequate.

Frankly, on a thread about Ann Coulter, I can't think of a more "on topic" discussion than one centered around the way loaded rhetoric can completely overshadow any attempt at having a focused discussion.

Emily:

I'm about to reply to DAWeb (and Brian).

Write comments that actually are on topic.

Sounds good to me.
Now the topic of the article was about the fact that Coulter, a known bigot and trouble maker has thrown in for Hillary rather than have a moderate like McCain in office.
Why did she do this?
Who knows what twisted logic such a sick mind has, but she did.
It would seem that she would rather have her party loose the election than have a moderate in office.
Now I don't care much for McCain because of the way he rolled over for Bush even have the smear job done to him, but in fact he is the most moderate of those running.

It only seems that way. Being as basically dishonest as Coulter is I can only guess that she knows Barak would be a candidate the Republicans might not unite to defeat if their own guy isn't running ( they might want to vote a 3rd party), and he would get in but Hillary is so hated by the Republican party that she knows the Republicans would do anything to stop her.

There it is: Coulter in a nut shell; dishonest, deceitful, and willing to see her own country destoyed for partisan politics.

DAWeb:

When I engage in an exchange which I know in advance is going to be both highly charged and require sophisticated argumentation, I'm typically extremely careful, even meticulous about my language. I did not call you a bigot or a racist. I don't know if Brian did, but I didn't.

Here's my charge from a variety of the comments above:

That's because your usage is intended as a demagogic appeal to prejudice and bigotry.

I take it as established that your usage is an appeal to ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

I say you're doing so as an appeal to bigotry due to the random fact that Obama's middle name is the same as the surname of the dictator we deposed in Iraq five years ago.

Using that name is a demagogic appeal to prejudice and bigotry.

Note. My charge went to your usage--the words you decide to use--and the audience for those words. I did not call you a bigot or a racist. In fact, I doubt very much that you are. You are simply employing a convenient (and randomly lucky) confluence of names as a weapon in the discourse surrounding the election of the next President of the United States in an attempt to weaken Obama's chances of winning.

As I said, that's fine. You have every right to do so.

Now. I would much prefer Obama won, therefore, in rebuttal to your attempt to appeal to ignorance and bigotry to weaken Obama, I'm confronting your USAGE in an attempt to stop you from weakening him.

I can't stop you from employing that usage. I can expose it's real purpose, though.

Wow, Dan. You have one comment directly calling someone a racist deleted (I would assume by Emily). Then, you repost a similar comment as an indirect reference.

Let's stay on topic!!

The topic is Coulter's insanity!!

Now the topic of the article was about the fact that Coulter, a known bigot and trouble maker

See, now this is not a comment is accurate or 'on topic'. it is inflamatory. The topic I had attempted to address several thousand comments ago was in direct response to this comment from TJG.

No matter how you slice it, ES, your party isn't motivated by your candidates it seems. Otherwise, you'd have Repubs out voting in droves for one candidate.

I took, and still take exception to the idea that if the party is not voting for ONE candidate then they are unmotivated and asked which of the democrat candidates supporters were therefore unmotivated. I am still curious to see if anyone wants to take a shot at actually answering.

See, now this is not a comment is accurate or 'on topic'. it is inflamatory.

The comment is on topic and quite accurate.

I did answer you but I guess you did not like my answer: the democrats are voting for their favorite person while some of your Republicans seem dead set on voting against McCain, becuase he is a moderate and not a fanatic.

I already did, so I'll just point you to my previous comment.

the democrats are voting for their favorite person while some of your Republicans seem dead set on voting against McCain, becuase he is a moderate and not a fanatic.

and that is fine, but it does NOT address the premise that I am questioning. TJG insinuated that because they were not voting for 'one' candidate they were unmotivated. she did NOT claim that because they were voting against a candidate they were unmotivated. I think in some cases that is likely to be accurate.

is not only not accurate, it is written for only one purpose, to inflame anyone that is a fan of Ann Coulter.

I have to assume that when Emily asked people to stop talking about the appropriateness of people's comments, she didn't mean that she wanted you to simply start talking about someone else's comments, and whether they are appropriate. (The same comment applies to 11.146.)

It took less than two comments to switch back to an off-topic meta discussion, after being told to stay on topic. New record? Hopefully, Emily will come through with her twitchy fingers and rectify that.

TJG insinuated that because they were not voting for 'one' candidate they were unmotivated.

My reading of TJG's comments is:

Republicans seem fractured over their candidates, and I don't see any strong pull one way or the other. They don't seem motivated about "winning the election" or "beating democrats" because they seem preoccupied with the conservativeness of their own candidates. As such, you see a wildly diverse field, and following the conversations here on Newsvine, I have no idea what the consensus is, or if there is one. Some won't even vote Republican, apparently. Others appear torn between having to choose the "most" conservative of a "not very conservative" slew of choices. So, yes, I do get a sense that interest is spread out thin, and I don't get any sense of motivation.

Democrats, to address your point, are motivated to pick the person who is most likely to win the Presidency. Votes seem to be split pretty evenly between two candidates, and the only real debate, so far as I can see, is who will polarize voters the most. The goal seems to be to avoid that candidate. The motivation is win, no matter what, and to avoid 4 more years just like the past 8.

I think there are many reasons for voting for a candidate. Voting 'against' a candidate does NOT mean you are unmotivated. You will see this if Hillary gets the nomination as that will motivate many to vote against her.

You will see this if Hillary gets the nomination as that will motivate many to vote against her.

I don't buy it. I think George Bush will be enough to motivate Democrats around whichever candidate gets the nomination. Frankly, I'd prefer Obama, but I don't hate the idea of Hillary, and there's no way my slight disinclination towards one candidate would erase the memory of the last 8 years under Republican leadership.

I believe people will say otherwise during the primaries, but the base will mobilize once they have a single candidate to back.

JEEBUS people! Please, Emily -- if I tap my heels together twice will you come back and throw the @!$%#-hammer down on those who can't discuss the point? (Not that I don't enjoy the validation of my earlier comments.)

You will see this if Hillary gets the nomination as that will motivate many to vote against her.

I doubt many Democrats will cross over to the Republicans to vote if she gets the nomination; as Brian said 8 years of republican misrule and mismanagement is enough.
We will be paying for this last 8 years for generations to come.

maybe maybe not. You will see many motivated Conservatives tho, voting AGAINST someone rather then for anyone. That along (which you seem to be agreeing with) invalidates your opinion that voting against a candidate rather then for a candidate indicates an unmotivated voter.

And that does not even come close to addressing TJG's indication that to be motivated conservatives needed to all vote for ONE candidate.

I think the inference TJG was making is that they're not motivated about their own candidates. To say that they ARE motivated to vote against their own candidates only validates her point.

To say that they ARE motivated to vote against their own candidates only validates her point.

Sorry but since her point was that they were unmotivated then showing that they are motivated hardly proves it.

You will see many motivated Conservatives tho, voting AGAINST someone rather then for anyone.

Thats the problem with the so called conservatives: they are motivated by hate rather than by a candidate they can back.

They don't seem motivated about "winning the election" or "beating democrats" because they seem preoccupied with the conservativeness of their own candidates.

My reason for not supporting McCain is because of his

a) Bad temper - bad for sensitive negotiations w/countries not friendly to the US.

b) McCain being in the bed with the Dems.

c) Having one of the exclusive Club of the US Senate in the WH

d) Only trusts his wife - who can work with a personal like that.

e) I am concern about his age and health

Thats the problem with the so called conservatives: they are motivated by hate rather than by a candidate they can back.

Did you say that with a straight face? Are you trying to tell me that the liberals are not motivated by BDS, or any other negative feelings toward converative candidates?

Brian said 8 years of republican misrule and mismanagement is enough.
We will be paying for this last 8 years for generations to come.

Hard to believe that you typed these words just a few comments up the thread...

BDS is something that people who still support Bush suffer from. It is the rest of us, the majority of us, 70% of us, who are not delusional.

Actually Kevin, BDS is defined as liberals that blame Bush. sounds to me like it may apply to some here in this thread even...

Jay being honest and seeing the damage done by Bush is hardly BDS.
That term was invented by Republican to excuse Bush's failures.
It is not a real; it is a delusional fantasy invented by the right.

The Republicans hate things that have not happened out of their paranoia; those of us who do not like Bush do so because of his actions.

Hard to believe that you typed these words just a few comments up the thread...

Why is that hard to believe? Just be honest and look at the last 7 1/2 years: unjustified war in Iraq, but Osama is still free, a sinking economy.
What positive thing has Bush done?

Did you say that with a straight face? Are you trying to tell me that the liberals are not motivated by BDS, or any other negative feelings toward converative candidates?

I'm not motivated by negative feelings towards conservative candidates, I'm motivated by negative feelings towards the way this country has been run for almost 8 years now.

BDS is a convenient scapegoat for the failure of so many of the President's policy decisions, though.

I know what your definition is. I was giving you a more accurate, more common sense definition.

And it's not just liberals who blame Bush. That's why I differentiate between conservatives, republicans, and Bush supporters. Three wholly different breeds.

What positive thing has Bush done?

He deposed a tyrant who posed no threat to America?

He deposed a tyrant who posed no threat to America?

At the cost of trillions of dollars and hundereds of thousands of Iraqi and US lives.

I was being sarcastic.

I know what your definition is. I was giving you a more accurate, more common sense definition.

Translation: I was making a new definition up...

DAW:

You gotta be kidding.

Okay. Let me make up a syndrome. Let's say, "DAWebophrenia."

It's suffered by people who think they can invent a disease, imagine they diagnosis it, then demand that the people they diagnosis as having the disorder accept the diagnosis.

I think they have medication for it now, so there's hope.

I was being sarcastic.

I know you were but there are many on the right who think that just wanting to remove a tyrant ( and steal his country's oil) justifies the lives and money.

Translation: I was making a new definition up...

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Translation: I was making a new definition up...

Yes, I was making a new definition up for a previously made up syndrome which has no basis in reality. My made up definition is just better than the one made up by you people.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

This "is" a dumb debate, but it "is" a pretty good way to avoid discussing the point, though I'm not sure how much more discussion the point can entertain, as I still believe the phrasing of the original question made it rhetorical.

Well, all depends of the meaning of "conservative" for you.

Romney meets my requirements. If Huckabee wasn't so illiterate about foreign policy for being a past Governor, I could voted for him. He is tooooooooo smarty pants like he knows that he does not have a chance and continue in the middle like the fifth leg of a table.

I want that McCain and Romney to be grilled before the nomination and not because there are a couple of two extreme ambitious candidates that are obstructing the view in the forest for the trees.

I don't know who is advising Huckabee but he is getting a bad one. One thing is to rip the oponent in the merit but Huckabee or the Spoiler is going over and over again w/the same point that Mitt has money, so Obama, so Hillary, so Paul, so McCain and so himself.

He sounds greener than all the green vegetables in the Produce Dept.

Let me specify that the green is for envy.

Huckabee is getting more obnoxious than McCain.

Poor nominees have complexes and the shoes are big for them.

Carter increased the thermostat in the WH and his Staff could not think how to get our Americans during 444 days in Iran.

Clinton I, kept the AF-1 in the tground holding the commercial flights until he got a haircut by Christophe in California.

Prospero @ 17

One of the things I like about Ann is how she can send Democrats into a tizzy with just a word or two. Look at all the people trying to parse what she said. Ann is a polemicist and very good at it.

Epi- if Ann will campaign for Hillary....so will I.

What an odd thing to like, even if it happened.

Me, when I see someone go into a tizzy about something someone else has said, what I do is look at the thing that was said. Could be the tizzy response was utterly appropriate and when we're talking about Ann Coulter, if you don't go into a tizzy about what she says, I don't know. I think your outrage response must need tweaking.

But it is indeed odd to rejoice that she upsets people. I appreciate that tidbit. It helps me put the puzzle together.

And epi, I don't see anyone trying to parse what she said. It's not even the slightest bit necessary. She's very easy to understand.

Now, hold on there, Prospero .... I just wrote a program to parse the statements of Ann Coulter using a very complex mathematical formula that can rip the truth out of any statement, I fed in everything she has ever publicly said or written, and now I'm awaiting the results. Ah, here they are now!!

"I am completely full of @!$%#. I say things the right wants to hear because I sell a lot of books that way. I'm also evil and vindictive like Kathleen Turner's character in 'The Man With Two Brains' and I love to piss off Liberals. I like to watch the veins in their temples throb. Now gimme all your money, Sheep!"

Hmm, guess there's not that much too her after all. What a waste of programming.

Oh I don't think it was a waste. Some people don't believe their own minds -- they need hard core scientific evidence. So I'm putting you up for the Nobel prize for elimination of self-doubt! (If there isn't one, there should be.)

It would be interesting to see, that's for sure (although I do think Obama is going to take the nomination).

The Republican party is fractured right now, and they need to pull the only rallying thread they have anymore, and the one that has worked so well for the past decade - uniting against a common enemy. Clinton would fit perfectly into that role, Republicans hated her husband. The only chance the Republicans have in this election is a McCain v Clinton race. Coulter knows this, which is why she will shell for Clinton at this point.

But I think it's a slight chance. A lot of the Republican base isn't going to show up at the polls at all if McCain is the candidate. Moderates and independents could balance this out if they turned out in large numbers for McCain, but I think McCain has damaged himself in their eyes at this point with some of his more absurd pandering, and the Democrats are going to work very hard to discredit his rebel status. I have a feeling if he gets the nomination the Democrats are going to work very hard of tying McCain to the Bush administration. And to an extent they will be very successful, he has sold out to that the current administration's base in the past. Although this pandering will not be enough to appease the hard-core right wingers, it could be enough to affect the independents and moderates.

There's also the aspect of third party candidates as well, this election season they could hit the Republicans harder then it would the Democrats. It's very possible the more moderate and independent voters will go for a third party instead.

And there are also rumors that the GOP doesn't even really want to win - the country is a mess right now, it's going to take longer then four years to fix. And it would be very convenient to throw a Democrat in the White House so that we can come back in four years and say "Damn, our country is a total mess right now, that democrat really screwed things up". Republicans have always been really good at projecting their own failures on Democrats.

Stacey, Stacey, Stacey

McCain is not the only one that can take a Dem to the mat.

Remember how the lsota demonized GWB that he wasn't for the job, the Is our kids learning? by Begala, that he did not know about the name of the President of Pakistan at that time, etc.,

Well, he won twice.

Don't underestimate our will. If a Dem wins is because we want to send a message loud and clear to the RNC to clean their act. Remember, we know how to vote, we know how to punch a card, we sent Gore and Kerry (the intellectuals) to a long vacation.

If a Dem wins is because we want to send a message loud and clear to the RNC to clean their act.

The best way to win is to claim that you win no matter the outcome

The best way to win is to claim that you win no matter the outcome

that is what the Dems do all the time. The Republicans recognize when they lose and the base at least recognizes why.

No, I still believe firmly that GWB won in 2000 and 2004.

The baloney of not having "mandate" is applied now to our Congress.

I am accepting already the win win of Hillary or Obama, but let's be clear teaching a 4 years lesson to my party that I did not renew my membership is not easy.

I think about my children and the future of my children and I have to make the sacrifice. Charity begins at home.

So be it!

The best way to win is to claim that you win no matter the outcome

When I said that, I was not referencing Bush. I was referencing your assertion that if a Democrat is elected, it's only because Republicans wanted it to happen.

Convenient cop-out, isn't it?

Not at all, in fact your comment would lead someone to assume that Republicans in that case would claim to have won. I on the other hand disagree with you on this matter. I would admit that the Republicans had lost, I would also understand WHY they had lost.

Well, he won twice.

He didn't win the popular vote in 2000, and it's becoming more apparent that he didn't win the electoral vote, either.

In 2004, he won by scaring the hell out of the populace, I haven't forgotten the perfectly timed "threat level" elevations right before the election, or the "wolves" scare ad approved by Bush.

It worked like a charm at that point in time. But as Rudy 9ui11iani has shown, fear isn't going to be as useful to the GOP this time. You guys played it out, and the public doesn't trust it.

As for the elitism goes, most people that dislike Bush don't do so because we think he flubs his speeches. That's just kind of silly. And outdated - the right wing has pretty much lost that talking point with their constant elitist bashing of Huckabee. Or perhaps I should say "Huckleberry", the nickname many on the right have given him in order to invoke an image of an uneducated, backwards hick.

Remember, we know how to vote, we know how to punch a card

Great! It's a good thing I never claimed they didn't.

But if you really want to try to play that card, you might not want to start of your posts with a condescending "Stacy, Stacy, Stacy".

Just sayin'.

in fact your comment would lead someone to assume that Republicans in that case would claim to have won.

In a post above, determined claims that:

If a Dem wins is because we want to send a message loud and clear to the RNC to clean their act.

Note that the reason a Democrat will win is not because their ideas resonate with the country, or that they ran the best campaign. No, the only reason, according to determined, that the Democrats could win is because the right wingers will "let" them win because they want to send a message.

It's like the little kid in gym class that can't admit defeat at the hands of another kid while playing kickball, so he falls back on the excuse that he "let" the other team win. This way, he doesn't have to admit that he's the loser, he can keep this image that he always wins.

That's not accepting defeat, that's rationalizing defeat.

DAWeb, perhaps you didn't notice, but my comments apply to comments posted by determined, and therefore, your attempt to apply them to your arguments is silly, as they don't pertain to your arguments.

You're not arguing the same points she's arguing, and I'm not interested in addressing your points.

He didn't win the popular vote in 2000

If we are using different measurements to determine the outcome, the NY Giant should not be in the Super Bowl. The Cowboys had far more net yards. It is just a minor technicality that the Giants had more points. That should make Tony Romo happy...

Stacey,

He didn't win the popular vote in 2000, and it's becoming more apparent that he didn't win the electoral vote, either.

Oh, dear. If Al Gore did not demanded a recounting of the votes milked for him by the FSC is because he either did not know what was he doing or.....he was sured that he lost. If Gore won really, why the DNC did not give another try?strong>>

What a mess, I just dislike long posts.

He didn't win the popular vote in 2000, and it's becoming more apparent that he didn't win the electoral vote, either

.

Oh, dear. If Al Gore did not demanded a recounting of the votes milked for him by the FSC is because he either did not know what was he doing or.....he was sured that he lost. If Gore won really, why the DNC did not give another try?

In 2004, he won by scaring the hell out of the populace, I haven't forgotten the perfectly timed "threat level" elevations right before the election, or the "wolves" scare ad approved by Bush

Oh, dear #2. Even Billy shut up the hackers or heckers that were shouting that 9/11 was a conspiracy. I don't believe the fatso of Michael Moore, fat in weight and fat in his pocket making movies to be better than Mandrake.

Pretty Hair (Kerry) lost for about 3M votes and still ysota was crying wolf : No Mandate, No Mandate.

It worked like a charm at that point in time. But as Rudy 9ui11iani has shown, fear isn't going to be as useful to the GOP this time. You guys played it out, and the public doesn't trust it.

Well, the ball will be in the court of your nominee and he/she will be judged according w/the cost of the pants sends to the cleaners. It happened in 10/2000. Nothing achieved

Note: I had to go and look in the dictionary elitism

As for the elitism goes, most people that dislike Bush don't do so because we think he flubs his speeches. That's just kind of silly. And outdated - the right wing has pretty much lost that talking point with their constant elitist bashing of Huckabee. Or perhaps I should say "Huckleberry", the nickname many on the right have given him in order to invoke an image of an uneducated, backwards hick

.Not in my particular case. Huckabee was very hard for me at first to remember but I remember when I used to tell my babies Pick-a-boo and they laughed.

Believe me, Pick is mild in comparisson with Chicharra noise maker for Schumer

But if you really want to try to play that card, you might not want to start of your posts with a condescending "Stacy, Stacy, Stacy".

Oh, not a problem. Now I know that you are sensitive. Just sayin'

Eh, I'm not a football fan, Jay. So that went right over my head. As far as the popular vote goes, the fact is that Gore did receive more of it. I realize this isn't enough to hand him the presidency (although I think it does make a statement about the problems with the electoral system). But the popular vote is not my only reason for claiming that Gore probably won that election.

If Gore won really, why the DNC did not give another try?

Because at that point, the GOP was screaming about whiny liberals in an attempt to make the Democrats look like the bad guys. So we let it go. In hindsight, I really wish we didn't, because at the time we had no idea how many things the GOP would want us to "let go" in the future.

We won't be making that mistake again.

Oh, dear #2. Even Billy shut up the hackers or heckers that were shouting that 9/11 was a conspiracy. I don't believe the fatso of Michael Moore, fat in weight and fat in his pocket making movies to be better than Mandrake.

Huh? I didn't claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy or say anything about Michael Moore. Can we have a discussion without you putting words in my mouth?

I'm saying that the Bush administration used the general fear about terrorism after 9/11 to their advantage in the 2004 election. Do you remember the "Wolves" ad, determined? Do you remember the increase in terror alerts before the 2004 election? Do you remember Tom Ridge coming out after the election and confirming that most of these threat level raises were bogus?

Pretty Hair (Kerry) lost for about 3M votes and still ysota was crying wolf : No Mandate, No Mandate.

There was no "mandate". 51% out of 100% can hardly be considered a "mandate".

.Not in my particular case. Huckabee was very hard for me at first to remember but I remember when I used to tell my babies Pick-a-boo and they laughed.

Great. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how Huckabee is being attacked by right-wing pundits, a lot of it is based in sneering at his roots and his religion.

Oh, not a problem. Now I know that you are sensitive.

I don't think you got the point of that statement. I'm just saying that you can't really fall back and play the offended victim with statements like "Remember, we know how to vote, we know how to punch a card", especially when you are the only one actually making statements that attempt to paint your opponents as simple-minded.

KD

I only vote when I am convinced that the candidate/nominee is not shaky and Mr. US Senator represents the shame that is our Congress not getting done for what we sent them to Washington.

And, one man endorsing another :-)

You mean Mitt, the Bush supporters' third choice, now that Fred and Rudy are gone?

Mitt is the substitute for Fred and Rudy and hopefully for Pick-a-boo and Paul.

You know, a pitcher that is called because the pitcher pitching is giving one more base w/the bases full.

More like those that the remaining Bush supporters like are dropping like flies due to lack of general republican support. Wonder why that is? Oh, yes. I know why.

prospero---didn't he withdraw? Oh -that's right no....I had him confused with Kucicnich for a second. My bad.

Wonder if everyone who won't vote for McCain or Hillary under any circumstances could band together and vote for Ron Paul.

I have not ruled out a 3rd party option....NO to Bloomberg.....YES to Gingrich....Ron Paul?---please throw your support behind someone who can actually win----and of course I DO NOT MEAN SENATOR MCCAIN.......McCain must be stopped and if not in 08----then by '12 by all means....YES!

I'm with you Prospero. Ron Paul is the only human being running!

Obama is very much a human being. Actually, all of the candidates are human beings as they do have feelings and opinions all their own. If you cut them, they will bleed. Hell, even George W. Bush is a human being (christ that hurt to say, but he is a human being).

But Barack Obama cares alot about this country, and he cares alot about the people who inhabit it. Barack Obama is our only hope of getting this country back on track.

Ron Paul seems like a nice enough guy, and he is inspiring, but he wants to eventually cut all social programs that millions of Americans depend on for basic survival. I cannot now, nor will I ever support that position, and I don't see how that makes him more human than Barack Obama.

even George W. Bush is a human being

Any proof? :-)

Well, no. No, I don't have any proof. lol.

Maybe we could get someone to stab him and see what he bleeds?

Would it be too obvious to guess "blue" blood?

"blue" blood?

That's giving him too much credit. I'd wager he'd bleed bile and boogers.

Exactly.

Republican politicians will do to the Dems what the Dems did to W.

Yeah, Bush came into a country so fractured and terrible, with all that peace, prosperity and good feelings about the US.

Oh, wait...

Enron, Adelphia, et al. Like bubbles that bursted.

Prosperity?

Sure, I gained 5 pounds with the Marzipan economy of Bill.

Peace?

Oh, dear. Another poster that can't keep track of the "peace" that we had around the world.

Good feelings?

When the Germans told us about the Hamburg er that was pre cook in their soil. Schroeder really let soil our NY.

Det, do you honestly think the country is better off now than in 2000?

Please detail how it is better and be specific.

Please detail how it is better and be specific.

I would just be happy with "coherent"; I am not holding my breath waiting for that.

I started a book called THE APPEAL by Grishman.

If Romney wins I have to be mentally prepared for another run to the SCOTUS.

Obama & our Evita are excellent lawyers, Pick-a-boo knows how to deliver a great speech, Ron Paul will be having the Constitution book in his hand and McCain will be kicking the floor w/another TTT.

You ignored my question, Det. How is the country better off now than in 2000?

No, I did not ignore the question is that your question does not make any sense to me.

One makes our own happiness and not waiting for our Evita to complete her wet dream increasing the taxes to push an Universal Health Care that her and her own family aren't going to use it.

It makes perfect sense, Det. You claim that Bush inherited a mess from Clinton, and I am simply wondering how Bush has made things better in his 7.2 years in office. Your dodging an answer and bringing up Hillary says all I need to know, though, since you cannot give any specifics as to how Bush's presidency has made the country better.

a) The Marzipan economy of WJC started having a recess 3 months before GWB took office.

b) When 9/11/01 hit NY our country was in the final phase of the budget. The Stock Market did not sink to 0. Recovered and had been in a high ground letting new people to join.

c) The baloney of the WHC "Surplus" there were words only, I remember WJC giving his "presentation". He knew that he was bluffing. The bubble bursted badly and the Senator Clinton forgot how ENRON, ADELPHIA and another companies inflated their stock to the point that their CEOs got prosecuted for fraud.

d) Why are you thinking that my life was better under the Clinton I era?. I was living overseas and yes I miss my good friends.

e) Oh, yes, I had been improving my written English since 2000, not even moi understood what I posted.

No, det, there was a surplus. Your guy, Bush, squandered it as well as goodwill of other countries and countless lives of Americans and Iraqis with his little war.

Our economy has not recovered, far from it. Look at the real estate bubble, people afraid for their jobs...yes, det, some of us have to actually work.

And it is your VP, Cheney, with the ties to ENRON and the like...I love how you try to pin that on Clinton.

Oh, I forgot--Clinton was evil and caused all the bad that happened under Bush...right.

TJG,

The "Surplus" was in paper and in the words of WJC/Rubin.

If the "Surplus" was real, why wasn't spend in better intel and safety "gadgets" in the US and be prepared that a 9/11/01 never happened?

Please......

I'm sorry, determined, but your comment is just not correct. I know that you believe it is, but it truly is not. Please see this issue on factcheck.org, a non-partisan, non-biased site which is only interested in the truth. All the figures are there, and even a chart, and an explanation.

why wasn't spend in better intel and safety "gadgets" in the US and be prepared that a 9/11/01 never happened?

Det ignoring the facts doesn't change them

The Clinton administration's use of force (or lack thereof ) may be controversial, but the Clinton Pentagon oversaw the most successful defense drawdown in U.S. history—cutting military personnel by 15 percent more than the previous administration had planned while retaining a high state of readiness and a strong global deterrence posture. It enacted a prescient modernization program. And the military it helped produce achieved impressive successes in Bosnia and Kosovo and, more significant, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although these victories were primarily due to the remarkable dedication and skill of U.S. troops, credit is also owed to Clinton's defense policy.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/11defense_ohanlon.aspx

No need - We're becoming a Banana Republic as this is written.