Considering she called out JFK *by name* as being anti-communist, I'm frankly baffled by your conclusion that she claims he's pro-communist.
Meh. She "called out JFK *by name*", as you say, for saying anti-communist things. "John F. Kennedy's pronouncements on communism could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy." Then she says he and Truman are a different breed from today's Democrats, but then again she also said all liberals even back then were liars.
Since I supplied the damn reference to you in my last post, it's obvious you don't bother reading anything before making an opinionated statement.
I read it. Apparently it's impossible for someone to read the same article and reach a conclusion, in your thinking.
"But after World War II, the Democratic Party suffered a form of what France had succumbed to after World War I. The entire party had lost its nerve for sacrifice, heroism and bravery." Once again, just because she previously gave Kennedy faint praise, I don't think that means she's considering him NOT a part of the Democratic party. Remember, this is also the woman who said she would vote for Hilary Clinton if McCain got the '08 nomination. I don't take that as any form of endorsement for Clinton.
Really, has Microsoft had a trend-setting new product (not an update or sequel) since Steve Ballmer took the helm?
I wanted him to say "developers" 37 times, but he only wanted to say "developers" 35 times. I told him it just didn't make sense without those last two developers!
Apple makes, on the whole, the best of the breed when it comes to personal computers and you need to compare the complete package (OS, build quality, tech specs, weight, battery life, etc) if you are to compare apples to Apples. Pun intended.
Dude, you're making me wish there was a '-1, bad pun'. I have mod points right now, but that mod doesn't exist and I'm not gonna give you something inappropriate. Better watch yourself, though.
If you think she criticized JFK for being pro-communist, then you obviously haven't read what she said, and are just repeating shit you heard some idiot say.
Coulter did not criticize Kennedy by name for being pro-communist. Other than that, you're completely wrong and I have the quotes to prove it. "Liberals weren't cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis." (from Treason). There you have it; unless Ann Coulter considers JFK a non-liberal (and he was the last president to proudly apply that title to himself) then she has accused him of being pro-communist. It seems the only way you have of defending her is to accuse people of generalizing and not being familiar with her work who in fact have read her work and are specifically rebutting her.
I won't disagree with you about the wide paintbrush and hyperbole she uses, but if you're going to criticize her for something that is the opposite of what she said, then you're guilty of what you imagine she is doing.
Yeah, too bad for you I'm criticizing her for what she actually said and wrote, not for the opposite of it. "So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly." --Ann Coulter
Since when is gun registration violating innocent until proven guilty?
Is it the same way as driver and vehicle licensing violates it?
That is... not at all?
Just because the courts have ruled that vehicle licensing doesn't violate the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't necessarily make it so...It may have been reasonable to require license tags on vehicles when the only real application was for identifying drivers who have been involved in an accident. But now that cameras are pervasive and the databases linking license tags to owners/drivers are too...
Yeah, because finding out information about people is totally the same as locking them in jail. You haven't provided any evidence that what you decry is equivalent to treating people as "guilty".
And just because there was a Red Scare doesn't mean that there weren't actually communist inflitrators.
No shit, sherlock. Didn't you even read my last post where I totally acknowledge this? Quit trying to confuse the issue. There were communist infiltrators. There was a Red Scare. Ann Coulter tries to convince readers that every liberal was a communist infiltrator. The third of those three statements is the issue at hand.
This is the dominant / mainstream notion in American history now (in my AP US History class back in the day, we were taught that it was all paranoia and hoopla).
So you went to a HS with a shitty history program, and suddenly that constitutes a dominant notion?
Coulter corrects a very fundamental error in our society's memory. I'm not sure how any small mistakes (such as?) make up for correcting this very large one.
She corrects it by insisting that all liberals were either communist sympathizers or communist spies (need I remind you that Kennedy was one of the fiercest anti-communists who stood up to enemy missiles in the Cuban missile crisis) and by letting us know that McCarthy's blank sheet of paper was legit? I'd hardly call that a correction, or a small mistake. It's a large, opportunistic, willful misrepresentation.
As for Woodie Guthrie and the rest, I don't have much respect for anyone who trends socialist or communist.
Well, here's the problem right here. You don't have much respect for anyone who doesn't think like you. At this point, why should I even bother debating? You've just informed me you will come out on a particular side no matter how much evidence is presented.
As for the patriotism and the like, the true believers of the communist party put the interests of the USSR (and their Nazi allies before Hitler broke off the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) ahead of that of their home country.
That's what a communist international gets you, you know.
And that's why all the patriotic American commies I mentioned either left the communist party-USA after they saw what the international was up to, or never joined in the first place. They weren't true believers in the communist party, they were true believers in America and true believers in a more just economic structure, which didn't bind them to a particular party. But if you insist on putting everything into binary opposition where categories can't overlap, then yeah, I guess I can see how you could never find patriotism and communism to be compatible within that mindset. Every communist is a drone for Moscow, historical evidence be damned!! Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, and Mao Zedong never existed!!! Yay!
where I work is a place where people regularly hang pictures of Obama and Pelosi in their offices.
Seriously? Look, Obama I can see. Not that I agree with that sort of thing but his is a charismic, photogenic personality.
But Nancy Pelosi? Where exactly do you work? Hell?
That's how you know he's trolling. It can't possibly be true.
Wait, who have you ever heard say that humans are the only thing affecting climate? I have literally never ever heard that, except perhaps from deniers mis-characterizing their opponents.
From the link you posted, right at the beginning: "Scientists have determined that a number of human activities are contributing to global warming by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." Contributing means there are other causes. Also, they probably didn't mention we are coming out of an ice age because it isn't actually true...we came out of an ice age thousands of years ago, the global temperature reached a peak during the medieval warm period, and then it began trending downward, bottoming out in the "little ice age" (not a true ice age) whose end followed the onset of the industrial revolution. Since industrialization, we've far exceeded the peak of post-ice-age adjustment.
Funny thing, that book you refer to, it doesn't seem to refer to destroying economies at all. Destroying crops, babies, reproductive capacity, and old trees are all mentioned, but not the economy. The closest he comes is stating that a high rate of profit due to monopoly will "destroy that parsimony which, in other circumstances, is natural to the character of the merchant." I think we can all agree that environmental regulation is a very different thing from a mercantile monopoly. Care to try again?
How about just suck it up and deal with it. Unless you need to look up "Tiananmen Square" every 10 minutes, it really shouldn't be a problem. They filter state secrets and political opinions, not your twitter traffic.
Actually, when I was there Facebook and Youtube were the big site being blocked. Twitter has been blocked, off and on, for the last 8 months or so.
Like the conspiracy theory that a trace gas measured in parts per million used by plants to grow is going to cause worldwide catastrophe and kill us all?
Yeah, people used to think bacteria were some crazy imaginary monsters too. Besides which, a theory about behavior of a gas is not a conspiracy theory; conspiracy theories are by definition theories about people.
Global warming denial is like creationism, it's based on blind faith and its supporters will never give up.
No it's not, it's based on other research that says man's contribution to a natural process is mostly insignificant.
You mean like how creationism is based on other research that says there must have been a creator? Of course it's real science, they even have their own institute!
Tell me, can you apply some of your good old common-sense reasoning to the search for the Higgs boson?
Step one: turn that damn supercollider off. We all know one of these days you'll make a black hole. The chance of completely destroying the world is 50-50.
These start with the claim that the Earth is warming and end with the claim that therefore catastrophe will result. (Well, and more frequently these then pass on from that to claims that if we undertake to destroy the economy in a particular way, the catastrophe will be prevented or attenuated.)
I like how you accuse one group of alarmism, and then go on immediately to blithely dismiss all manner of regulation as attempts "to destroy the economy". In other words, you start with the claim that some people are trying to regulate, "and end with the claim that therefore catastrophe will result." I'd say impending wholesale destruction of an economy is an extraordinary claim, and like you say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So where's your evidence that environmentalists are trying to destroy the economy? Where's your evidence that environmental regulations will even come close to destroying the economy if passed?
I'm sorry, but isn't getting sick with dieases like cancer from a contaminated environment deserving more funding for research than climate research?
That depends. If we find out by experience that there's a tipping point where global warming becomes a positive-feedback loop and then we all go extinct, I don't think we'll be very worried about who has cancer.
No kidding. ALL -- every last one -- of the "investigations" subsequent to the release of the Climategate data were whitewashes. This one is no different.
That's some conspiracy. Maybe you should look into Occam's Razor?
Slashdot Mirror
Considering she called out JFK *by name* as being anti-communist, I'm frankly baffled by your conclusion that she claims he's pro-communist.
Meh. She "called out JFK *by name*", as you say, for saying anti-communist things. "John F. Kennedy's pronouncements on communism could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy." Then she says he and Truman are a different breed from today's Democrats, but then again she also said all liberals even back then were liars.
Since I supplied the damn reference to you in my last post, it's obvious you don't bother reading anything before making an opinionated statement.
I read it. Apparently it's impossible for someone to read the same article and reach a conclusion, in your thinking. "But after World War II, the Democratic Party suffered a form of what France had succumbed to after World War I. The entire party had lost its nerve for sacrifice, heroism and bravery." Once again, just because she previously gave Kennedy faint praise, I don't think that means she's considering him NOT a part of the Democratic party. Remember, this is also the woman who said she would vote for Hilary Clinton if McCain got the '08 nomination. I don't take that as any form of endorsement for Clinton.
Really, has Microsoft had a trend-setting new product (not an update or sequel) since Steve Ballmer took the helm?
I wanted him to say "developers" 37 times, but he only wanted to say "developers" 35 times. I told him it just didn't make sense without those last two developers!
...the more young developers will slip through your fingers.
Apple makes, on the whole, the best of the breed when it comes to personal computers and you need to compare the complete package (OS, build quality, tech specs, weight, battery life, etc) if you are to compare apples to Apples. Pun intended.
Dude, you're making me wish there was a '-1, bad pun'. I have mod points right now, but that mod doesn't exist and I'm not gonna give you something inappropriate. Better watch yourself, though.
If you think she criticized JFK for being pro-communist, then you obviously haven't read what she said, and are just repeating shit you heard some idiot say.
Coulter did not criticize Kennedy by name for being pro-communist. Other than that, you're completely wrong and I have the quotes to prove it. "Liberals weren't cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis." (from Treason). There you have it; unless Ann Coulter considers JFK a non-liberal (and he was the last president to proudly apply that title to himself) then she has accused him of being pro-communist. It seems the only way you have of defending her is to accuse people of generalizing and not being familiar with her work who in fact have read her work and are specifically rebutting her.
I won't disagree with you about the wide paintbrush and hyperbole she uses, but if you're going to criticize her for something that is the opposite of what she said, then you're guilty of what you imagine she is doing.
Yeah, too bad for you I'm criticizing her for what she actually said and wrote, not for the opposite of it. "So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly." --Ann Coulter
Since when is gun registration violating innocent until proven guilty?
Is it the same way as driver and vehicle licensing violates it?
That is... not at all?
Just because the courts have ruled that vehicle licensing doesn't violate the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't necessarily make it so...It may have been reasonable to require license tags on vehicles when the only real application was for identifying drivers who have been involved in an accident. But now that cameras are pervasive and the databases linking license tags to owners/drivers are too...
Yeah, because finding out information about people is totally the same as locking them in jail. You haven't provided any evidence that what you decry is equivalent to treating people as "guilty".
Maybe a new law to outlaw double standards?
Please. You know if they do that, the anti-double-standard law will just not apply to the police, either.
And just because there was a Red Scare doesn't mean that there weren't actually communist inflitrators.
No shit, sherlock. Didn't you even read my last post where I totally acknowledge this? Quit trying to confuse the issue. There were communist infiltrators. There was a Red Scare. Ann Coulter tries to convince readers that every liberal was a communist infiltrator. The third of those three statements is the issue at hand.
This is the dominant / mainstream notion in American history now (in my AP US History class back in the day, we were taught that it was all paranoia and hoopla).
So you went to a HS with a shitty history program, and suddenly that constitutes a dominant notion?
Coulter corrects a very fundamental error in our society's memory. I'm not sure how any small mistakes (such as?) make up for correcting this very large one.
She corrects it by insisting that all liberals were either communist sympathizers or communist spies (need I remind you that Kennedy was one of the fiercest anti-communists who stood up to enemy missiles in the Cuban missile crisis) and by letting us know that McCarthy's blank sheet of paper was legit? I'd hardly call that a correction, or a small mistake. It's a large, opportunistic, willful misrepresentation.
As for Woodie Guthrie and the rest, I don't have much respect for anyone who trends socialist or communist.
Well, here's the problem right here. You don't have much respect for anyone who doesn't think like you. At this point, why should I even bother debating? You've just informed me you will come out on a particular side no matter how much evidence is presented.
As for the patriotism and the like, the true believers of the communist party put the interests of the USSR (and their Nazi allies before Hitler broke off the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) ahead of that of their home country.
That's what a communist international gets you, you know.
And that's why all the patriotic American commies I mentioned either left the communist party-USA after they saw what the international was up to, or never joined in the first place. They weren't true believers in the communist party, they were true believers in America and true believers in a more just economic structure, which didn't bind them to a particular party. But if you insist on putting everything into binary opposition where categories can't overlap, then yeah, I guess I can see how you could never find patriotism and communism to be compatible within that mindset. Every communist is a drone for Moscow, historical evidence be damned!! Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, and Mao Zedong never existed!!! Yay!
A gun loaded with blanks isn't unloaded, is it. :-)
True, but it's another weird happening that, if I weren't familiar with that case, would seem equally ridiculous. Though I concede your point.
That being said, honestly truly believing a gun can just "go off" even when unloaded is...well, that's just special.
Well, a gun can potentially fire a real bullet while loaded with blanks. That's how Brandon Lee died.
Seriously? Look, Obama I can see. Not that I agree with that sort of thing but his is a charismic, photogenic personality. But Nancy Pelosi? Where exactly do you work? Hell?
That's how you know he's trolling. It can't possibly be true.
Wait, who have you ever heard say that humans are the only thing affecting climate? I have literally never ever heard that, except perhaps from deniers mis-characterizing their opponents.
Bullshit! First result on google.com http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm Notice that there is no mention of the fact that some warming is happening because WE ARE COMING OUT OF AN ICE AGE! Fucking Morons!
From the link you posted, right at the beginning: "Scientists have determined that a number of human activities are contributing to global warming by adding excessive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere." Contributing means there are other causes. Also, they probably didn't mention we are coming out of an ice age because it isn't actually true...we came out of an ice age thousands of years ago, the global temperature reached a peak during the medieval warm period, and then it began trending downward, bottoming out in the "little ice age" (not a true ice age) whose end followed the onset of the industrial revolution. Since industrialization, we've far exceeded the peak of post-ice-age adjustment.
I like how you accuse one group of alarmism
[citation needed]
Very funny. The citation was my quote from you at the beginning of the post.
...Where's your evidence that environmental regulations will even come close to destroying the economy if passed?
Start here.
Funny thing, that book you refer to, it doesn't seem to refer to destroying economies at all. Destroying crops, babies, reproductive capacity, and old trees are all mentioned, but not the economy. The closest he comes is stating that a high rate of profit due to monopoly will "destroy that parsimony which, in other circumstances, is natural to the character of the merchant." I think we can all agree that environmental regulation is a very different thing from a mercantile monopoly. Care to try again?
How about just suck it up and deal with it. Unless you need to look up "Tiananmen Square" every 10 minutes, it really shouldn't be a problem. They filter state secrets and political opinions, not your twitter traffic.
Actually, when I was there Facebook and Youtube were the big site being blocked. Twitter has been blocked, off and on, for the last 8 months or so.
"Shell out a lot of money for a VPN service..." $9.95US for 1 month is a Lot of money?
In China it is. Have you seen that exchange rate? Damn...
Like the conspiracy theory that a trace gas measured in parts per million used by plants to grow is going to cause worldwide catastrophe and kill us all?
Yeah, people used to think bacteria were some crazy imaginary monsters too. Besides which, a theory about behavior of a gas is not a conspiracy theory; conspiracy theories are by definition theories about people.
Global warming denial is like creationism, it's based on blind faith and its supporters will never give up.
No it's not, it's based on other research that says man's contribution to a natural process is mostly insignificant.
You mean like how creationism is based on other research that says there must have been a creator? Of course it's real science, they even have their own institute!
Tell me, can you apply some of your good old common-sense reasoning to the search for the Higgs boson?
Step one: turn that damn supercollider off. We all know one of these days you'll make a black hole. The chance of completely destroying the world is 50-50.
the global warming [scientists] haven't really provided much evidence
You obviously pay very close attention. Kudos for your attention to available information.
Be alert! The world needs more lerts!
Global warming denial is like creationism, it's based on blind faith and its supporters will never give up.
And the assumption that the Earth has some type of natural temperature from which is it not supposed to deviate, what is that belief based on?
Nothing. Because nobody believes it.
These start with the claim that the Earth is warming and end with the claim that therefore catastrophe will result. (Well, and more frequently these then pass on from that to claims that if we undertake to destroy the economy in a particular way, the catastrophe will be prevented or attenuated.)
I like how you accuse one group of alarmism, and then go on immediately to blithely dismiss all manner of regulation as attempts "to destroy the economy". In other words, you start with the claim that some people are trying to regulate, "and end with the claim that therefore catastrophe will result." I'd say impending wholesale destruction of an economy is an extraordinary claim, and like you say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So where's your evidence that environmentalists are trying to destroy the economy? Where's your evidence that environmental regulations will even come close to destroying the economy if passed?
I'm sorry, but isn't getting sick with dieases like cancer from a contaminated environment deserving more funding for research than climate research?
That depends. If we find out by experience that there's a tipping point where global warming becomes a positive-feedback loop and then we all go extinct, I don't think we'll be very worried about who has cancer.
No kidding. ALL -- every last one -- of the "investigations" subsequent to the release of the Climategate data were whitewashes. This one is no different.
That's some conspiracy. Maybe you should look into Occam's Razor?
We aren't assholes, and we have proved our claims. It is not our problem that you have not read or understood the proof.
I dunno man, John Scopes was found guilty largely because Darwin's books were inadmissable as evidence...
You don't deserve a refutation. You deserve to be sent to the corner and made to wear a pointy hat.
A dunce cap or a cornuthaum? If binarylarry's a wizard then it makes a big difference.