In who's mind? Certainly not mine. Honestly, it's folks like you that seem to give her that title, not any Conservatives I know.

 

Fine. She sells way too many books and has way too many appearances on Fox and too many speaking engagements to tell me she doesn't have an impact on many.

In who's mind? Certainly not mine. Honestly, it's folks like you that seem to give her that title, not any Conservatives I know.

 

Haven't met a single conservative that thinks she's any more relevant than any other Joe Schom. :thumb:

Haven't met a single conservative that thinks she's any more relevant than any other Joe Schom. :thumb:

 

Why is she always on?

 

Who is buying her books?

 

Who is paying to hear her speak?

We all have issues that are very high in importance to us. Race is mine.

 

That's a generational thing that thankfully will soon be very minimal IMO.

 

Sure for my grandparents and parents generations that's a hot topic issue, but for the younger crowd (30 and under), race is completely irrelevant for the most part (from my experiences).

That's a generational thing that thankfully will soon be very minimal IMO.

 

Sure for my grandparents and parents generations that's a hot topic issue, but for the younger crowd (30 and under), race is completely irrelevant for the most part (from my experiences).

 

Good for you. Blacks of your age would disagree.

Why is she always on?

 

Who is buying her books?

 

Who is paying to hear her speak?

 

Lots of people write books, sell them too. That doesn't make her relevant. Some people buy books, even political commentary ones (like Coulter's) for entertainment or humor. I've got a couple Michael Moore books, that I bought for shear laughter. Does that mean I think he's relevant on the political spectrum? Hardly

Lots of people write books, sell them too. That doesn't make her relevant. Some people buy books, even political commentary ones (like Coulter's) for entertainment or humor. I've got a couple Michael Moore books, that I bought for shear laughter. Does that mean I think he's relevant on the political spectrum? Hardly

 

So 5 million people are buying her book for humor? Come on.

 

Duly noted that she has no influence over you.

So 5 million people are buying her book for humor? Come on.

 

Duly noted that she has no influence over you.

 

Certainly not all, but even that number is pretty irrelevant isn't it? I mean 5M out of 300+M....Let's say 90% of them actually do agree with her (which I think is a much lower number in reality). That's 4.5M people in a country with over 320M people....She reaches roughly 1.5% of the population. Pretty irrelevant if you ask me.

Certainly not all, but even that number is pretty irrelevant isn't it? I mean 5M out of 300+M....Let's say 90% of them actually do agree with her (which I think is a much lower number in reality). That's 4.5M people in a country with over 320M people....She reaches roughly 1.5% of the population. Pretty irrelevant if you ask me.

 

Duly noted. I am making a notation that she doesn't sell well to children, non-voters, Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans.

 

By your definition Rush Limbaugh has no influence either.

^Nope. The people that agree with Rush, much like Coulter are idiots and are in the extreme minority of the far right. They are irrelevant to all but maybe 1% of the right.

 

Liberals always talk about scare tactics with the right, but the constant association of the right with idiot wackjobs like Coulter and Rush is the same exact thing. They're no different than Michael Moore or Al Franken on the left, but no one talks about that. Heck I'd be even more scared of Franken, that nutjob even got elected to office. Now that's a scary thought.

^Nope. The people that agree with Rush, much like Coulter are idiots and are in the extreme minority of the far right. They are irrelevant to all but maybe 1% of the right.

 

Liberals always talk about scare tactics with the right, but the constant association of the right with idiot wackjobs like Coulter and Rush is the same exact thing. They're no different than Michael Moore or Al Franken on the left, but no one talks about that. Heck I'd be even more scared of Franken, that nutjob even got elected to office. Now that's a scary thought.

 

I do not believe that Moore nor Franken have the following that Rush and Coulter do.

 

The far right drives the R party. So any one that has influence or credibility with that group by definition has power.

For me, the big elephant in the room is that when I say 'our blacks' or 'their blacks' it takes on an entirely different meaning than when Ann Coulter says it in front of a national audience because I am black. Right or wrong that's the way it is. She's smart enough to know the controversy her words will cause. That's why she said it. If I was on a national news channel or writing for a paper I would censor myself appropriately. It's not hard at all. She could have used the words black republicans instead of our blacks and this thread wouldn't be as popular as it is now.

 

I understand Clyde's shock at 75's post but I know what 75's intention is behind the post. At least I think I do anyways. It's all good. I love going back and forth with 75 and this time we are going back and forth and not even participating. :lol:

 

Back at ya, I'm just sitting back with a cold one right now. When Clyde and LN start going at it I have to go get my dictionary so I can understand all the big words.

There is no issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

Why some of you want to make idiots like Ann Coulter relevant and voices for conservatives is beyond me.

 

Actually it's quite clear why some people want to do that; just like it's quite clear why some Rs on here want to make some of the actions and statements of extreme liberals appear to be relevant and the voices of liberals: it's to make political points and advance personal agendas.

 

 

99% of the stuff on here is the same stuff repeated in thread after thread.

 

We already know that some blacks interpret certain phrases as offensive that whites do not. Do we have to start another thread every time someone makes an ambiguous comment and rehash that fact? What is enlightening about that?

 

I'd hope that 100% of the regular posters in this forum would agree that racism is still present in the US to some degree. Is that news?

 

Most people would agree that the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world no more speak as the authority for the R party any more than Olbermann speaks for the D party. Yet that's re-hashed and re-posted thread after thread.

 

I once regularly reviewed and posted in this site because there was some original and intellectual discussion to be found (and that's still possible on rare occasions). Heck, as an indicator of the respect I have for Clyde, when I come on here I generally only look at threads he starts. I rarely open the ones started by the far right posters criticizing President Obama because I know what the thread is going to be like without even opening it. Same holds true of threads started by the more extreme Ds on here. I'd bet if most of you answered the question honestly, you'd agree with that. Perhaps that's enjoyable to you. PP92, you are right. I am serious. Then again I find the topics intended to be in a Politics and Religion Forum kind of serious stuff.

 

But this thread by Clyde disappointed me and obviously frustrated me. Perhaps I'd have felt differently if the OP was to the affect: "While I believe Coulter meant blacks in the R party when she said "our blacks", should she have said "our blacks" knowing that some blacks would be offended by it?" or perhaps: "How far should each of us limit our comments if we believe it could offend others" or perhaps: "Are some blacks today too sensitive to comments that may have a racist overtone?" or perhaps "Does the sensitivity of blacks today to comments having a racist overtone and do thinly supported claims of racism do more to bring the races together or to separate them further?" But the OP, while obviously indicating that Clyde knew what Coulter meant, was inflammatory (at least in my opinion) by questioning what world she lived in and because Clyde starts more critical of R threads than he does critical of D threads (of the threads you listed in a prior post, a large majority were directly or back handedly critical of Rs; one was critical of President Obama) it was likely to result in the same old stuff being regurgitated once again. If we used a phrase that was intended to be racist but could or even was likely to be offensive, we live in another world? Wow. Talk about having a chilling affect on free speech and needing to feel like you're walking on egg shells at all times. Unless people have evidence that I'm a racist, no one has a right to attempt to guess what I mean in some ambiguous comment. If they do, they are guilty of the same exact behavior that they are alleging me to be doing (prejudging others based on skin color). If a white person says something ambiguous, he is insensitive, racist or offensive. If a black person says the same thing, it's okay. If that's not pre-judging someone or their intent based on skin color, I don't know what is.

 

Much like blacks don't like the black stereotypes, I don't like whites or Rs being stereotyped as racists. I'm not a fan of affirmative action plans or any program that gives preferential treatment to any race, religion or sex. I'm no more responsible for the slavery imposed by whites 150 years ago than PP92 is responsible for the African leaders that sold blacks to the slave traders 150 years ago. My forefathers didn't step foot on this continent until the early 1900s. Quit blaming whites today for slavery abolished as a result of many whites dying 150 years ago. Quit denying a person or their kids a spot in a university or a job or a construction contract because of what some whites did over 150 years ago or for that matter what some racist white did 5 minutes ago. Judge each person by his or her character. Perhaps I'm dreaming to expect differently. But it's a dream that I share with some pretty smart and courageous fellow whom stated:

 

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

 

Folks, we will continue to have some people judge people by the color of their skin as long as we: have programs and policies that provide preferential treatment to a person because of skin color and provide negative treatment to a person because of skin color; or allow people of certain skin color to use certain words freely but consider it to be offensive when people of a different skin color use the exact same words; or when we get offended by comments that we aren't certain are intended to be racist (and in Coulter's case, quite easily could be determined by the context used, as not having a racist intent at all).

 

I am absolutely convinced that we have the level of racism that we do today partially because many whites think that a. diversity attainment policies (or thinly disguised affirmative action quotas and plans), b. minority set aside programs, and c. harsh employment decisions taken against people who say things that are taken out of context as offensive to some minorities, is nothing other than reverse discrimination. Those things actually create more racism in an attempt to remedy or right wrongs done by whites a long time ago or a short while ago because they are not directed at the specific people that did wrong; they are directed at the wrongdoers' race. I wonder if people like Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpeton bear some responsibility for the level of racism present in the US (yet still remain extremely popular with large numbers of blacks). A white person goes to a rally by David Duke and that white person is flat out and automatically a racist. Yet black people going to a rally by Jesse or Al are not? Does that make sense? In my opinion, Al and Jesse are racists by attempting to exploit race problems for financial gain. Are they helping or hurting? I think they are hurting and as long as they remain popular and funded, racism will be even higher than it otherwise would be.

 

When will enough diversity acceptance, affirmative hiring, set aside programs and preferential disciplinary treatment be enough? When will that smart man's dream of people being treated based on their character and not skin color become a reality?

 

When the number of black CEOs of major businesses match the percentage of blacks in America? When the percentage of partners in my firm match the percentage of blacks in America (and for the record, there are multiple blacks in my firm. Every one of them that I've worked closely with has impressed the heck out of me. I don't believe that a single one of them are here simply because they are black; but rather they are here because they are dang good attorneys)? When the number of blacks in Harvard match the percentage of blacks in America? Why does there have, by federal decree, to be 2 blacks on the KHSAA Board of Control? Aren't they able to get elected based on their own character? If blacks can't understand how some whites really resent preferential programs for blacks and how that resentment helps fuel racism, how can they claim its wrong that some whites just can't understand how the "our blacks" comment is offensive to some blacks?

 

I'm done. Fire away. Clyde you've admittedly gotten me to express some observations on race relations in the US. I just wish we'd have gone a different route to get there than saying Coulter had to be from a different world to use the comment "our blacks".

 

And PP92, you are right. I've expressed in tirade fashion my dislike for the threads in this forum on multiple occasions. I've been stupid in hoping that I could convince people to make this a forum of original, intellectual conversation and discussion in a civil tone by expressing my disgust. Hopefully my optimism won't once again overtake my rational thinking and I'll stay away even longer this time. All the best to each of you.

Back at ya, I'm just sitting back with a cold one right now. When Clyde and LN start going at it I have to go get my dictionary so I can understand all the big words.

 

I almost made a post about making sure 75 knew I didn't have a problem with him (same with LN.) Then I realized how silly that would be as they both knew we're always cool.

I guess I'm in the minority when I saw I buy and read Coulter's books. People need to realize that a lot of what she says, including in her book, is in extreme sarcastic form. Almost comedic. There is a reason she is best friends with Bill Maher. Two people on the opposite extremes but I like them both. She is a smart woman who I always thoroughly enjoy watch debate people on the far left. People can say she is divisive but she is willing to take it. She speaks her mind and is no more outlandish than Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews (and if you are on here throwing shots at Coulter about being divisive and how you loath her for it, I take it you don't watch the last three I mentioned). Coulter sticks up for the right-often in the most unorthodox form- and she is great at it.