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) .

 

So saying I like Huntsman is a backhanded slap?

Saying Mitt should be proud of his success is a backhanded slap?

Saying that Mr. Cain has not shown he is committed to running is a backhanded slap?

Saying that Mr. Ailes has decided to change his approach is a backhanded slap?

 

Do I need to post my threads about my overall support for President Bush? How it is disrespectful to call him "Georgie?" How I think Gov Christie should run? How the original Sen. McCain would get my support? That President Bush's idea to privatize Social Security should be looked into seriously? That I voted for President Bush twice?

 

Are you really saying I need to establish my R cred? Come on. Hate the topic all you want. I'm not for everyone. Don't fall into the "generalization" trap though.

 

I take shots at people. Not parties.

LN, I’m confused by your post. On one hand, you say that it was underhanded for Clyde to make this thread because Coulter does not represent the right, but then you go on to rebut Clyde’s post about what she said. If what she said was defensible then why attack Clyde for being unfair? Why not just disagree with him intellectually and civilly?

 

You also complain that this forum has devolved into people taking “low blows” and “pot shots” at one another instead of intellectual and civil discussions, then go on to say that whites and Republicans are unfairly stereotyped as racists, when no one here has made that claim, not even about Coulter, and also go on to compare Al Sharpton to David Duke to suggest that people who listen to Al Sharpton are racists. Do you really believe that those are the best ways to convey your points, that they live up to your standard of non-hyperbole and intellectually oriented discussion? I strongly disagree with much of the rest of your post, particularly the belief that it is white people who are victims of racism nowadays and the grievances made concerning black people are about things that “happened 150 years ago” that they need to “quit blaming whites” for. But, do you honestly want to hear a different perspective or have a discussion about those things? It seems from the anger and castigating in your post that you aren’t interested.

 

For the record, I enjoy leatherneck’s posts, hearing his perspective, and think this forum would be better with him around more often (I’ve said so before, though I’m probably one of the posters he was talking about). But, I think if you want the forum to have a different tone, then participating more, not less, would be the way to affect that. I also think Clyde is one of the best posters here and can always be counted on to back up what he says and hear the other side of a debate out. I don’t think LN’s ire is directed at the right person here.

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.

 

No problem here. I learned 90% of my accounting from a professor you remind me of.

 

I don't miss him though.

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.

 

She has some very interesting and valid ideas and I do get her sarcasm. I just can't stand the way she has to insult someone at some point in her comments. I do feel it is for sheer shock value and to make the news.

She has some very interesting and valid ideas and I do get her sarcasm. I just can't stand the way she has to insult someone at some point in her comments. I do feel it is for sheer shock value and to make the news.

 

Apparently, to most on this thread, that is why they don't like her. I have to say, I don't find it overly offensive. If I stopped listening or watching people who insult, comedy would be a non factor in my life. I don't think she does it out of spite and I don't think she over does it.

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

 

I buy her books so I would disagree with you.

I buy her books so I would disagree with you.

 

Had I said "any" instead of "well"......

Had I said "any" instead of "well"......

 

My mistake.

My mistake.

 

No sweat, my man.

I buy her books so I would disagree with you.

 

Begs the question, of course, as to how accurate your self-assessment is.

Begs the question, of course, as to how accurate your self-assessment is.

I am the type of person that will turn around and buy Bill Maher's book as well though. If you don't read or pay attention to both sides, you aren't going to challenge your own thinking. I think you should but Coulter's book. You are a writer, correct? She may teach you a thing or two

I am the type of person that will turn around and buy Bill Maher's book as well though. If you don't read or pay attention to both sides, you aren't going to challenge your own thinking. I think you should but Coulter's book. You are a writer, correct? She may teach you a thing or two

 

My book collection is well-endowed with writings from conservatives, thank you very much. Hell, I own two by Pat Buchanan.

 

I agree that not enough people dare to challenge themselves by exploring other viewpoints.

My book collection is well-endowed with writings from conservatives, thank you very much. Hell, I own two by Pat Buchanan.

 

I agree that not enough people dare to challenge themselves by exploring other viewpoints.

:thumb:

^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.

People like Rush are who drive the Republican party and the reason why someone like Palin was considered a necessary VP candidate.

After reading LN's post it is clearly obvious that racism obviously still need to be discussed and I don't care how the conversation is started but there is a need for one. IMO,(at least my perspective of his latest post) LN wants to turn a blind eye as to why things are the way they are. If people truly think the effects of what happened 150 years ago aren't still present today and still affecting the world we live in the there needs to be a discussion.