Rath said:
Sqrl said:
See from where I'm sitting the article has a few contentious points and certainly some boorish comments but even so nothing really offensive ...maybe I missed something though, feel free to point it out. But even if you should find something terribly insensitive it still doesn't mean that that single comment outweighs everything else and removes all merit from what was written. To think that way is truly just a cop-out so you don't have to think. Everyone of course has the right to do this if they should want to (within the boundaries of the forum rules anyways), but if that is their choice then I have the right to call them on it as well. However I think there are far better things to spend my time replying to than to a woman who fills her articles with hate-filled and bigoted comments. For example your post that I'm now replying to. Thats not to say that its entirely without merit but it doesn't have enough merit for me to spend my time writing out a rebuttal. I think there are absolutely some valid points made in the article. For instance she is absolutely correct that nobody thought we would avoid another attack for 7 (almost 7 anyways) years and thanks in large part to an aggressive ant-terrorism effort we have been. I honestly don't see why liberals don't admit this and move on, particularly with the way things are going in Iraq right now (ie extremely well). Although in fairness there are a number of things both parties need to admit to and move on. Really? You thought there would be more attacks? I mean there were never many incidents of radical Islamic terrorism in the USA, the 9/11 attacks were the first major ones since the 1993 attack on the WTC I think. I haven't checked the accuracy of her numbers but her proposal that Iraq is safer than Detroit is somewhat of an ironic one when you consider that Iraq is a war-torn nation and Detroit is a major US city. Which is of course why people respond so strongly to her saying so, but if she is correct that Chicago had 5 deaths per day last year then I wouldn't be surprised if the 19 deaths of May represented a lower death count for our troops in Iraq than the citizens of Detroit. You are correct however that the comparison still leaves out civilians, so the comparison is absolutely skewed (for a number of reasons beyond just this one actually)...but it still makes a valid point that Iraq is safer than most people believe. Or do you dispute what practically everyone who has visited Iraq in the last 3 months has said (I'm seriously asking not trying to be a dick)? Safer for heavily armed soldiers, for civilians (who are the people dieing in Detroit) not so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties Over a million civilian deaths, though of course Coulter wouldn't really care about them = Edit: Looking at that again it means current deaths in Iraq, I can't find statistics on that at the moment but I'm dead certain its a hell of a lot more than the number of people dieing in Detroit. She then goes on to list a number of accomplishments that are a result of our work in Iraq according to a variety of sources she lists and please keep in mind that according to your statement those things are somehow without merit since they are part of her article. This is really my underlying point, that by disregarding it you miss out on what is there. There is plenty of stuff people say that I disagree with but it doesn't mean I ignore everything they have to say, to be blunt that would be petty. The near defeat of Al-Qaeda has very little to do with Iraq considering they never had a presence there under saddam (whose government was secular), they only emerged due to the Iraq war. Now the war in Afghanistan, that has something to do with the current state of Al-Qaeda. She is also correct that there are a ton of lies that are spread about Bush all over (and not just on the internet), I'm honestly more disgusted with the alacrity with which people throw away their critical thinking in favor of mob mentality than I am with what Coulter said...but thats because I expect it from Coulter where as I still think it is fairly amazing people are so quick to throw reason out the window. Perhaps I shouldn't be that surprised... Its the same sort of thing as when Jack Thompson accuses a video-game of being completely unacceptable and stating it should be banned. Like it or not most people are going to ignore or attack him because he is a nut serving his own biased agenda and you can basically trust nothing that he says. Same thing here. I want to point out I'm not talking about somehow who merely believes different than I do with my comment in the last paragraph. Its the way people default to hatred mode when a person or group they don't like is brought up. No matter what the circumstances they will find fault. Its not just the person I don't like, its her ideas ideals and personality. She has suggested that America nuke North Korea as a warning to the world and said that the USA should force Islamic people to become Christian. That is about as far up on the 'piss me off' scale as its possible to go. This article itself isn't her worst piece and I still find it putrid the way it talks about Muslims and how it treats USA as the only country in the world worth a damn. I have on several occasions on this forum discussed what I dislike about what Bush has done during his presidency and perhaps my greatest gripe with this article is Coulter claiming Bush to be a great president. But I still look at every decision Bush makes on the merits of that decision alone and I don't get caught up with how much I'm supposed to hate him according to the Democrats and Liberals the same as I don't get caught up with how much I'm supposed to like him according to the Conservatives and Anne Coulter. I don't like Bush and I think he has indeed screwed many things up - the Iraq war being the most glaring one. That doesn't however mean that everything he's done in his presidency is bad. I agree that not every action that Bush makes should be hated just because its Bush, even the worst man can do good things and Bush is by no means the worst man. |
|
In order:
- Your not actually responding to her though, unless she reads this forum lol. The point of a response here is to convey to your fellow board members what is so glaringly wrong about her article and explain why Anne Coulter is not to be listened to (and I agree there are some things worth ripping apart in the article). I think Rubang was on the right idea with the quotes, but those don't really have anything to do with the article. The problem is that although they are fine examples of why Coulter is disliked (ie hated) by so many people, they are in no way a rebuttal of the article or an explanation of why it is wrong/misleading/etc...
- Yes I did, as did damn near everyone else, "experts", politicians, pundits, and grandma included. In fact the article I linked to shows that those fears were well-founded and if you're saying you didn't think we would be attacked again then you're only admitting that you thought so incorrectly.
- I was fairly explicit in labeling the soldiers versus the civilians, so I'm not sure why you repeated it. In any case you are correct and it was, and is again, noted. I hope you will take note of my point that I believe her real intention with the comparison was to highlight that the casualties were not nearly as bad in recent months as many believe them to be and that things are getting better in Iraq.
As for the civilian deaths I'm honestly not sure what it has to do with this comparison. They are certainly more than a mere cold hard statistic to me, but this comparison is about Iraq in the month of May not Iraq since the beginning of the conflict.
- I don't think Al-Qaeda is the only terrorist threat we face, let alone the primary reason we should have gone there. No matter where Al-Qaeda was at and/or where they would or wouldn't have been, the fact is this course has lead to a number of victories against them. We can second guess how we got here but thats not going to change, the only thing we can choose is the road forward.
- I like your analogy, unfortunately Thompson mentioned on FreeTalkLive that the only game he has said should be flat out banned is Manhunt (can't remember if it was one or two). He went on to also say that his position was to prevent children from purchasing these "objectionale" games. A gross mischaracterization of his position on your part, and one that highlights the pitfalls of letting your assumptions about someone run wild.
JT may be extreme in the way he goes about his business the same as Coulter is but I think you would agree children shouldn't be playing GTA IV or Mass Effect, the same way you share the same goal as Anne Coulter (ie to win the war on terror). It all comes down to a disagreement on how you do that...and maybe even whether or not it can be done....but at the very least you both want it.
To me a person who is hurling an insult at Anne Coulter is just as much a part of the problem as Coulter herself. She shreiks so her position is heard and in response they hurl insults to ratchet up the rhetoric. The result is nobody can get their point across because everyone is too stubborn to listen.
You saying that this is the way it is "whether I like it or not" only tells me that people prefer it this way..which of course implies nobody wants to fix the problem because they're just so happy arguing. I don't really buy that but it seems to be the case for the time being. You're correct in saying that there is nothing I can do to forcefully stop people from doing this (and I don't want to), all I can do is pity those who think ratcheting up the rhetoric is a good idea and hope that their stubbornness isn't the undoing of us all (which I don't think it will be).
- So your answer to dealing with people you really don't like is to ignore them? By that reasoning it was perfectly acceptable for Bush to ignore the protests of other UN nations in dealing with Iraq. After all he didn't really like them so he should just ignore them right?
Everyone recognizes at some point that you need to deal with other people to solve problems, and those other people are going to include people who you disagree with. Obviously none of us are in a position to solve these problems but really your attitude towards Coulter is just an example of political climate that prevents things from getting done. And while you can't fix the problem you can help change the political climate.
- I'm honestly not trying to start a drawn out argument. I'm just trying to illustrate how the mainstream positions are creating an impasse. I doubt I will change anyone's mind from their current thinking. But I think you understand where I'm coming from just the same and you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that these extreme and irreconcilable views are not only unhealthy but damaging to the nation as a whole.
