i forgot the postscript.
would it have made any difference?
William Coleman wrote:
>> Coleman:
>>
>>> I am not suggesting you impose you conduct standards on Coulter or anyone
>>> else. I am suggesting that it is perfectly proper for you to use your
>>> own
>>> moral standards to make moral judgements about others. That is not
>>> imposing
>>> your moral standards on others.
>>
>>> I assume Ayn Rand is your great hero. She used to be mine, and I still
>>> admire her and many of her ideas greatly. One of her most profound
>>> statements is "You should never fail to pronounce moral judgement." That
>>> is, if you are a truly moral person and you witness conduct which you
>>> consider immoral, you should not be tolerant of this immoral behavior.
>>> You
>>> should condemn it. The only way we can ever live in a moral world is if
>>> everyone condemns evil when they see it.
>>
>> Your distinction here is a bit thin, but fair. My answer is that there
>> are no Howard Roarks. Is Coulter always moral? Surely not. I find
>> her to be much nearer to my views of morality than most,
>
> So your view of morality is that it is appropriate to poison public
> discourse by lying about everyone who disagrees with you and calling for
> their deaths?
>
>> however, and so tolerate her lapses.
>
> In other words, if you agree with someone's political views, they can do
> anything and you won't condem them.
>
>>> When I call someone a Nazi, it is because
>>> they meet specific criteria --
>>>
>>> hypermilitarism
>>>
>>> hypernationalism
>>>
>>> extreme right-wing political views
>>
>> I believe your application of these criteria is skewed.
>
> Not at all.
>
>> It is my
>> subjective view that Coulter's columns hit far closer to reality than
>> your views.
>
> Howard, you have officially lost it. Coulter is completely out of contact
> with reality, as exemplified by her views on evolution.
>
> Ann Coulter is a liar.
>
> I am a truthteller.
>
> There is really nothing more to say.
>
>> It is likewise true that unpacking the myriad of factual
>> debates raised in that one sentence is utterly impossible. But let's
>> take one: Coulter's column on Kwanzaa, link here:
>>
>>
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=93
>>
>> Her thesis is 1) that Kwanzaa is made up; 2) that the principles of
>> Kwanzaa are socialist and racist and 3) that liberals have successfully
>> persuaded much of our society, including public schools, to sign on to
>> the legitimacy of Kwanzaa.
>
> LOL. Yes. Kwanzaa is one of the burning important issues of the day. This
> liberal does not give a fuck about Kwanzaa, and has not promoted it in any
> way.
>
>> I think she's right on all three counts. Have I scrubbed down the
>> historical record myself? No, I have not. But I perceive Kwanzaa as a
>> fraud and an intellectual joke, and have for many years before Coulter
>> wrote her column. I know nothing of your views on the subject, but I
>> believe Coulter is exactly on target. And I like her very direct
>> writing style.
>
> Listen, Howard. Coulter is such a foaming at the mouth Nazi that USA Today,
> which hired Coulter to write columns about the 2004 Democratic National
> Convention, yanked her column after one day. One hate filled irrational
> screed was enough for the editors of USA Today.
>
>>>> I tend to not pass judgment,
>>>
>>> That is a moral lapse on your part, as I indicated above. And yes, I am
>>> passing judgement on you.
>>
>> That point is fair in theory, but the world is an imperfect place. If
>> I passed judgment on every dissembler, I'd hate the world.
>
> And you should. Hating the world is the only rational position.
>
>> I am both too lazy and too optimistic to do so.
>>
>>>> if only to encourage wide bounds of free debate.
>>>
>>> But it doesn't encourage free debate, Howard. It creates an environment
>>> where people like Coulter can do evil things and no one calls them on it.
>>
>> I disagree with the premise to the extent you're claiming Coulter is an
>> outlier with respect to the scope and extent of her dissembling.
>
> Then you are completely blinded by your political agreement and sexual
> attraction.
>
>> I generally view Coulter as a deliberately amusing exaggerator.
>
> This is the root of the problem. You are willing to dismiss the vilest
> vitriol, such as calling for people's deaths, as joking around.
>
> Can't you see that people like Coulter completely poison the public
> discourse? She routinely demonizes liberals, a class which includes tens of
> millions of people. You don't think we get tired of being demonized by this
> twisted Nazi bitch?
>
> Not to mention crazies on the right who are encouraged to kill the Editor of
> the New York Times and a Supreme Court Justice. Sorry Howard, suggesting
> that people who disagree with you need to be killed is not acceptable
> political discourse.
>>
>>>>> I still would like an explanation of how you can condone Coulter's
>>>>> antics,
>>>>> which clearly violate your own sense of what is proper conduct toward
>>>>> someone with whom you disagree politically.
>>
>> As a technical matter, sure. But if I called foul on every one of
>> these I can find, I'd sour on quite literally everyone.
>>
>>>> I find Coulter sufficiently insightful
>>>
>>> Please offer any example of a Coulter insight.
>>
>> See the Kwanzaa example, above.
>
> Howard, the Kwanzaa example is profoundly irrelevant to all but extreme
> right-wingers.
>
>>>> and sufficiently amusing
>>>
>>> You have a sick sense of humor. Consistently lying about people,
>>> demonizing
>>> them based on those lies, and calling for the deaths of those who
>>> disagree
>>> with you is not funny at all, and cannot be excused as joking around.
>>
>> I did not say that I found those particular responses from her amusing;
>> that is a straw man and I suspect you know it.
>
> How can you be amused by anything she says when she lies about liberals and
> calls for the death of a Supreme Court Justice because she disagrees with a
> judicial opinion?
>
>> Today, I found her
>> column amusing because it agreed that Israel's response to Hezbollah is
>> indeed disproportionate, but went on to argue that Israel's response is
>> disproportionaly lenient. I find that sort of intellectual
>> misdirection to be amusing, if somewhat predictable.
>
> Please explain why it is amusing to suggest that Israel should be killing
> even more innocent civilians.
>
>> I also think she
>> happens to be correct, although I have absolutely no interest in
>> entering that debate. I know you think differently.
>
> Correct about what? That Israel's response to Hizbollah is too lenient?
> That Israel should be killing even more innocent civilians?
>
> Israel's response is disproportionate, irrational, over the top, and
> counterproductive. Any suggestion to the contrary is nonsense which cannot
> be rationally supported.
>
>>>> that I
>>>> can tolerate what I regard as occasional lapses in proper conduct.
>>>
>>> Occasional??? You are really into understatement, aren't you? You know
>>> she
>>> consistently lies about liberals by characterizing us as traitors,
>>> terrorist
>>> sycophants, and Godless. You know none of that is true.
>>
>> Actually, it is sometimes true. I believe Jane Fonda was a traitor,
>
> Then you are an idiot whose opinion doesn't even merit consideration.
> Please look up the constitutional definition of treason, focussing on the
> definition of "adhering".
>
>> and I believe many among the left are Godless.
>
> As are many on the right. What is your point?
>
> I do not consider you
>> personally to be either godless or a traitor, but unless I'm wrong,
>> Coulter has never directed those statements at you personally. They do
>> certainly apply to some liberals, just as the term fascist fairly
>> applies to some number of the lunatic religious right in this country.
>>
>>> What about her
>>> calling for the deaths of those who disagree with her? Are those
>>> excusable
>>> lapses of proper conduct?
>>
>> Yep, because I don't believe she'd actually carry through on them.
>
> Howard, she is calling for the deaths, not saying that she will perform the
> executions personally. Apparently you are discounting the possibility that
> some right-wing crazy will follow her advice and actually kill someone.
>
>>>> Same goes for most people. Quite frankly, I'm more troubled by her
>>>> insane defense of creationism
>>>
>>> Why should that bother you? I think it is her honest belief. Does it
>>> bother you at all that most of the people who agree with you politically
>>> think evolution is a lie and creationism is true? It should. These
>>> people
>>> are totally out of contact with reality.
>>
>> Yes, it does bother me. I consider those folks to be lunatic nut jobs,
>> as I think I've stated before. But I also think that anyone who
>> believes Islam is a religion of peace
>
> Howard, have you actually read the Koran? If not, then shut the fuck down
> and shut the fuck up.
>
> Why don't you go to the source, rather than relying on hateful screeds
> written by non-Muslims, such as "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam"
> by Robert Spencer.
>
> Howard, throughout history some Christians have interpreted the Bible to
> mean that we should kill all those who are not Christian. The Roman
> Catholic Church has taken it so far as to kill 100,000,000 Christians who
> rejected Catholic dogma.
>
> Similarly, some Muslims use the Koran to justify killing non-Muslims. What
> is your point?
>
>> is the modern equivalent of
>> Neville Chamberlain -- another lunatic nut job in my own view. Both
>> the creationists and the appeasers deny reality.
>
> Oh please. The Islamofascists are not going to take over the world. They
> are not a serious threat, except to commit acts of terrorism. Terrorism is
> the tactic of the powerless. Enough said.
>
>>>> than I am about her deliberately inflammatory comments,
>>>
>>> Howard, it isn't just that they are inflammatory, practically everything
>>> she
>>> says is a lie.
>>
>> Huh? I myself saw no lies in the Kwanzaa column, nor in today's column
>> about Lebanon.
>
> Mainly because Coulter's columns are mostly fact free. And "factual"
> statements like "Liberals are traitors" cannot be fact checked, yet such
> statements are the most pernicious of lies.
>
>>> But she lies all the time. How can you condone lying about other people,
>>> especially when the lying is done for the purpose of demonizing them?
>>
>> I disagree with the premise.
>
> Howard, she is a pathological liar. There are hundreds of documented
> examples of Coulter deliberately misrepresenting the facts. I have given
> you links. Your only response was that Paul Krugman is just as much a liar
> as Coulter.
>
>> And I don't think you can know her purpose, nor can I.
>
> LOL. That's funny. Her purpose is transparently obvious to all but her
> most obtuse supporters, such as yourself.
>
>>> Howard, you are completely glossing over the fact that Coulter basically
>>> tells nothing but lies about people with whom she disagrees, and she
>>> calls
>>> for their deaths.
>>
>> Nope. See above.
>
> LOL. You think the Kwanzaa example can redeem the hundreds of other blatant
> lies she has told?
>
> Google Ann Coulter lies. Do you think the 4,130,000 hits are all smoke and
> no fire? Please read some of the links. All of her books have been
> completely deconstructed and shown to be filled with lies.
>
>
>>> I, on the other hand, tell the truth about my political enemies, and you
>>> know it. I can back up everything I say with reputable sources. And I
>>> do
>>> not call for the deaths of anyone in the Bush Crime Family or anyone
>>> else.
>>
>> You are honest about what I think are your extreme beliefs.
>
> You are a blatant liar and I have just lost all respect for you. I no
> longer consider you my friend. You are a shameless liar, just like Coulter.
> The only reason you think my views are extreme is because you yourself hold
> such extreme views. I have previously explained to you that the political
> center is far to the left of where you think it is. I have given you a list
> of my major political positions, each of which a majority of the American
> people agree with. Here is the list, in case you have forgotten --
>
> Raise the minimum wage NOW.
>
>
> The federal government should provide universal single payer health care.
>
>
> The Social Security system is doing just fine, thank you, and does not need
> to be destroyed by privatizing it. It must have been a tremendous shock to
> you when polls showed an overwhelming majority of the American people were
> opposed to Bush's plan to destroy Social Security.
>
>
> Balance the budget and pay off the national debt.
>
>
> I am pro choice.
>
>
> I am opposed to gun control.
>
>
> I am opposed to same sex marriage.
>
>
> The Iraq War was a major mistake.
>
>
> We should get out of Iraq ASAP.
>
>
> I am a strong supporter of Israel.
>
>
> I am opposed to corrupt lobbyists buying the votes of corrupt Congressmen.
> Please do not tell me Republicans oppose this. They have done absolutely
> nothing to curb the excesses exposed by the latest Republican corruption
> scandal as exemplified by Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Grover
> Norquist, and Ralph Reed. Please do not tell me they have. The new House
> Majority Leader, John Boner, or whatever the fuck his name is, has raised
> money from lobbyists at a greater rate than Tom Delay ever did. Meet the
> new boss. Same as the old boss.
>
>
> By the way, how does it feel to find out that your great hero, Grover
> Norquist, turns out to be just another greedy, corrupt asshole with no moral
> principles whatsoever?
>
>
> I would add support for free trade and NAFTA to the list, but I haven't seen
> any polls on that.
>
> And I might also add my opposition to all quotas and racial preferences. As
> well as my support for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
>
>> You also
>> have much too much time on your hands, and have a generally relentless
>> personality.
>
> Yes, Howard. I do not suffer fools and liars lightly. You are both.
>
>
>
>> I suspect you may have called for the deaths of some of
>> the contractors (what you call mercenaries)
>
> Howard, "mercenaries" is accurate. "contractors" is a euphemism.
> Euphemisms are used to hide reality.
>
>
>
>> in Iraq, although I may well be wrong on this point.
>
> Yes, you are wrong. They were already dead before I said anything about
> them.
>
>> I believe you have certainly expressed indifference towards their lives.
>
> I said they were asking to be killed and got what they asked for. True
> statement.
>
>
>>> As long as you dismiss Coulter's lies and hatred as joking around, you
>>> have
>>> a defect in your moral character. You are tolerating evil and refusing
>>> to
>>> make a moral judgement about evil.
>>
>>> You will always be my friend, and I will always respect your intellect
>>> and
>>> your general decency and fairness, but if you expect me to have any
>>> respect
>>> for your moral integrity, you need to pronounce moral judgement on Ann
>>> Coulter.
>>
>> I understand the former observations,
>
> I retract all those former observations. You have now shown me your true
> face. You are a foaming at the mouth liar, just like your twisted Nazi
> bitch.
>
> Until your retract your statement that my political views are extreme and
> acknowledge they are mainstream, I do not even want to talk to you.
>
> Until you condemn Ann Coulter and her lies, I do not even want to talk to
> you.
>
>> and reciprocate. On the latter
>> issue, we very much disagree about certain views of the world. I
>> genuinely do believe that significant majorities of Arab and Islamic
>> populations would affirmatively agree to kill every Jew on the planet.
>
> Then you are clinically insane. Please stop poisoning your mind with
> Islamophobic propaganda.
>
>> At the same time, I genuinely believe that the majority of Jews would
>> be entirely willing to permit a Palestinian state so long as
>> recognition is mutual.
>
> Gee, Howard, polls consistently show that a majority of Palestinians want
> peace with Israel. What is your point?
>
>> More generaly, I believe that Coulter sees the reality of the world
>
> This is because you are just as insane as she is. To suggest that most
> Muslims want to kill all the Jews is insane. To suggest that my political
> views are extreme is insane.
>
>> more effectively and more accurately than, for
>> example, Dan Rather, Dan Froomkin, or Al Franken -- just to take the
>> first three examples that come to mind.
>
> This is too funny. All three of these men are exemplars of rationality and
> sanity compared to you and Coulter. That's right, Howard, I am now lumping
> you in the same category with the She Wolf of the SS.
>
> The Coulter example illuminates a key difference between liberals and
> conservatives. When a left-wing crazy like Ward Churchill speaks up,
> liberals condemn him and distance themselves from him.
>
> On the other hand, the right not only does not condemn insane hatemongers
> like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity, the right
> actually embraces these whackjobs.
>
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
