There are lots of dangerous left-wing loons out there. The main difference, as I said before, is that in the United States far less people listen to them than they do to the dangerous right-wing loons.

RPGPundit

Seriously though, intelligent and rational people should be able to make a strong distinction between:

a) A person who engaged in revolutionary guerrilla terrorism against military and political representatives of government that was flagrantly abusing the human rights of large numbers of citizens and engaging in criminal violation of its own constitution and isn't fully repentent...

b) A person making outrageous and hate-filled public statements that could enflame unwarranted violence against innocent people for attention, ratings and money who isn't remotely repetent.

This is a ludicrous.

Quote from: Jackalope;231033Defending Ann Coulter's outrageous behavior by pointing to Bill Ayers is a red herring, a digression and diversion away from the actual topic: Ann Coulter.

The problem is that I'm not really defending Ann Coulter.  As I've said several times, some of the things she says cross the line and are inexcusable.  You, on the other hand, have tried to downplay what Ward Churchill said and refuse to state without qualifications that he was wrong.  You also refuse to condemn Ayers, which is simple enough to do.

Quote from: Jackalope;231033If Spike started a thread about Bill Ayers, demanding to know how liberals could tolerate him, and I entered that conversation and demanded that Spike defend Adolph Hitler -- who was a right-winger and far worse than Bill Ayers by any measure -- before I would acknowledge any criticism of Bill Ayers, that would clearly be a red herring argument.

If you asked me if Hitler was worse than, better than, or about the same as Bill Ayers, I'd have no problem telling you that Hitler was worse.  Why is that so hard for you?

Quote from: Jackalope;231033There are plenty of left/liberal analogues to Ann Coulter:  Al Franklin comes immediately to mind.  James Carville is another.  Of course, none of them comes close to spewing the sort of hate-filled invective that Coulter spews, so right-wingers don't point to these actual analogs, they point to fringe weirdos like Ward Churchill and people like Bill Ayers who aren't prominent, aren't representative, and don't purport to speak for the liberal establishment.

There is plenty of hate-filled invective on the left directed at all sorts of groups that they consider enemies including the religious right, Republicans, businessmen, and so on but if I gave you examples, I'm sure you'd tell me that it wasn't hate-filled invective but reasonable and warranted political commentary, so what's the point, especially when you can't even bring yourself to condemn Ward Churchill or Bill Ayers?

Quote from: Jackalope;231038Seriously though, intelligent and rational people should be able to make a strong distinction between:

a) A person who engaged in revolutionary guerrilla terrorism against military and political representatives of government that was flagrantly abusing the human rights of large numbers of citizens and engaging in criminal violation of its own constitution and isn't fully repentent...

b) A person making outrageous and hate-filled public statements that could enflame unwarranted violence against innocent people for attention, ratings and money who isn't remotely repetent.

And by simply saying that you think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter, you will demonstrate that you are an intelligent and rational person who can make a strong distinction between the two.  What's so hard about that?

Quote from: John Morrow;231061The problem is that I'm not really defending Ann Coulter.  As I've said several times, some of the things she says cross the line and are inexcusable.  You, on the other hand, have tried to downplay what Ward Churchill said and refuse to state without qualifications that he was wrong.  You also refuse to condemn Ayers, which is simple enough to do.

...but it's entirely irrelevant.  One does not have to jump through hoops to make criticisms of Ann Coulter.  One does not have to disavow Bill Ayers to make criticisms of Ann Coulter.

QuoteThere is plenty of hate-filled invective on the left directed at all sorts of groups that they consider enemies including the religious right, Republicans, businessmen, and so on but if I gave you examples, I'm sure you'd tell me that it wasn't hate-filled invective but reasonable and warranted political commentary, so what's the point, especially when you can't even bring yourself to condemn Ward Churchill or Bill Ayers?

Stop playing tit-for-tat you fucking jackass.  Stop polarizing the discussion with this fucking bullshit.  You seem like a reasonable person sometimes John.  Try acting like it now.

Quote from: John Morrow;231063And by simply saying that you think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter, you will demonstrate that you are an intelligent and rational person who can make a strong distinction between the two.  What's so hard about that?

I don't think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter.  I don't think Bill Ayers is comparable to Ann Coulter.  I personally think that given the direction that the government was progressively moving during the time that the Weathermen radicalized and became violent, their actions are more comparable to the Jeiwsh terrorism (such as the Stern Gang, which is very comparable) in Palestian before the creation of the state of Israel.  or the terrorism committed by the American Revolutionary Army before and throughout the American Revolutionary War.

You know what?  I also think the Molly Maguires were more justified in their use of violence than the Pinkertons, and I think the Black Panthers were more justified in their use of violence than the Klu Klux Klan, and that the United Mine Workers of America was more justified in its use of violence at the Battle of Blair Mountain than the US Government.

None of that has fuck-all to do with Ann Coulter and what is wrong with her, and turning a critique of Ann Coulter's particular form of hate-as-entertainment  into a digression on the relative legitimacy of the radical movements of the sixties, and how guilty participants in those groups should feel is really fucking ridiculous.

It's a RED HERRING.

From this page:

   Other than humans, beavers have done more to shape and reshape the North American landscape than any other mammals. At one time or another, the estimated 200 million beavers that once lived in the continental United States probably modified almost every watershed in the country. In building their dams and turning forestlands into fertile valleys and wetlands, the big rodents have created habitat for hundreds of other species. One 1990 U.S. Forest Service study, for example, found that beaver ponds in central Idaho support three times more songbirds than adjacent stream areas with no beaver ponds.

Another site claimed the 400 million figure that I mentioned earlier, which may include all of North America.  Still, bear in mind that the human population of the United States did not top 200 million until around 1970 and that the current beaver population is only around 10 million.

Quote from: John Morrow;231079From this page:

   Other than humans, beavers have done more to shape and reshape the North American landscape than any other mammals. At one time or another, the estimated 200 million beavers that once lived in the continental United States probably modified almost every watershed in the country. In building their dams and turning forestlands into fertile valleys and wetlands, the big rodents have created habitat for hundreds of other species. One 1990 U.S. Forest Service study, for example, found that beaver ponds in central Idaho support three times more songbirds than adjacent stream areas with no beaver ponds.

Another site claimed the 400 million figure that I mentioned earlier, which may include all of North America.  Still, bear in mind that the human population of the United States did not top 200 million until around 1970 and that the current beaver population is only around 10 million.

Which has fuck all to do with anything John.  exactly what point are you trying to refute with this?

I say Rush Limbaugh used a gross distortion of fact to discredit environmentalists, as an example of a general trend towards gross dishonesty and general lack of credibility, you rebut the point by saying beavers have a major impact on watersheds.  

:huhsign:

There is no fucking logic there.  
There is a big fat RED HERRING though.

Quote from: Jackalope;231073I don't think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter.  I don't think Bill Ayers is comparable to Ann Coulter.  I personally think that given the direction that the government was progressively moving during the time that the Weathermen radicalized and became violent, their actions are more comparable to the Jeiwsh terrorism (such as the Stern Gang, which is very comparable) in Palestian before the creation of the state of Israel.  or the terrorism committed by the American Revolutionary Army before and throughout the American Revolutionary War.

Then I don't think you have the moral standing to criticize Ann Coulter or the people on the right who excuse her because you are clearly willing to excuse worse from your side of the political fence.

Quote from: Jackalope;231073None of that has fuck-all to do with Ann Coulter and what is wrong with her, and turning a critique of Ann Coulter's particular form of hate-as-entertainment  into a digression on the relative legitimacy of the radical movements of the sixties, and how guilty participants in those groups should feel is really fucking ridiculous.

It has everything to do with your criticism of Ann Coulter because it reveals that your problem with her is not that you disapprove of someone demonizing or provoking attacks on their political opponents as a general principle but that you simply don't like it when it's done against your side.  Your problem with Coulter isn't her tactics (because you are willing to excuse far worse) but her politics.

Damn, someone is onsessed with seafood around here....


Also....

 WOW, talk abiut your thread drift.

This will be interesting because I think Morrow has more stamina than Jackalope does .


 Popcorn anyone?



- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;231080Which has fuck all to do with anything John.  exactly what point are you trying to refute with this?

This:

   So what, the beavers all got killed by trappers, and then the forests overgrew? Do....do you have any idea how incredibly stupid that sounds? I dunno, my step-mother was the curator of education at a zoo, and I grew up around biologists, and love critters of the pacific northwest, of which the beaver is a fine and prominent representative. And the notion that you would blame poor lowly mr. beaver when there is US to consider is pretty fucking ridiculous.

Since you clearly don't have a clue about beavers and their impact on the environment, I figured I'd offer you one.

Quote from: Jackalope;231080I say Rush Limbaugh used a gross distortion of fact to discredit environmentalists, as an example of a general trend towards gross dishonesty and general lack of credibility, you rebut the point by saying beavers have a major impact on watersheds.

No.  I said that beavers had a major impact on forestation.  I even highlighted "turning forestlands into fertile valleys and wetlands" so you wouldn't miss it.  I guess gross distortions, gross dishonestly, and a general lack of credibility are bad for Limbaugh but just fine for you, right?

Here, let me spell it out for you.  My point is that Rush Limbaugh's statement was not necessarily a gross distortion of the facts and there may be some truth to it, since estimates of the pre-European forestation of the continental United States is just that, an "estimate", that may not be taking the impact that Native Americans and beavers had on the forestation of various parts of the United States before the Europeans arrived into account.  I don't know what Limbaugh's source was.  You claimed he was talking only about the original 13 colonies and I asked you for a source for that claim, since I couldn't find one.

And, yes, when environmentalists exaggerate and lie, they deserve to be discredited every bit as much as Limbaugh does when he exaggerates or lies.  Again, your outrage seems to be less about the moral principles involved (exaggerations and lies) and more about politics and whether you agree with them or not.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;229149Oh, yes, I didn't mean to suggest he went after Unitarians because he hated Christians. At this stage it sure looks like he was a "right-wing nut". It's just that, contrary to popular perceptions (which I don't think are entirely unjustified) there was apparently in his case no correlation between anti-liberal attitudes and an attachment to traditional religion.

So he was just bitter and clinging to guns...

Quote from: John Morrow;231081Then I don't think you have the moral standing to criticize Ann Coulter or the people on the right who excuse her because you are clearly willing to excuse worse from your side of the political fence.

And you have successfully turned this into an entirely different discussion.  Good job of deflecting there, you disingenuous fuckwit.

I don't consider Bill Ayers and the Weathermen to be on "my side of the fence" John, that's why I think it's ridiculous that you bring him up.  I think it is exactly these sort of bullshit polarizing tactics that drag political discussions down.

Just because someone is one your left doesn't mean they are in the same group as everyone else to the left of you.

QuoteIt has everything to do with your criticism of Ann Coulter because it reveals that your problem with her is not that you disapprove of someone demonizing or provoking attacks on their political opponents as a general principle but that you simply don't like it when it's done against your side.  Your problem with Coulter isn't her tactics (because you are willing to excuse far worse) but her politics.

Bullshit!  That is total bullshit.  You are entirely ignoring that my criticism of Coulter do not apply to Ayers at all!  Ayers and Coulter are not even in the same realm, and you are using ayers to carefully avoid actually addressing the real criticisms of Coulter.

FUCKWIT!

Quote from: John Morrow;231090Here, let me spell it out for you.  My point is that Rush Limbaugh's statement was not necessarily a gross distortion of the facts and there may be some truth to it, since estimates of the pre-European forestation of the continental United States is just that, an "estimate", that may not be taking the impact that Native Americans and beavers had on the forestation of various parts of the United States before the Europeans arrived into account.

Yeah, I get it John, you are offering a post hoc justification for Limbaugh's comments that doesn't actually justify his comments, even though you don't know what he was talking about.  You are a disingenuous fuckwit, a lying mendicant and pestiferous sophist and apologist. Since I don't actually own a copy of The Way Things Ought to Be and can't put his full comment into context, why don't we drop this.

Quote from: Jackalope;231101I don't consider Bill Ayers and the Weathermen to be on "my side of the fence" John, that's why I think it's ridiculous that you bring him up.  I think it is exactly these sort of bullshit polarizing tactics that drag political discussions down.

If you don't have any sympathy for his politics, then why are you understanding about what he did yet condemn Coulter for doing a lot less?

Quote from: Jackalope;231101Just because someone is one your left doesn't mean they are in the same group as everyone else to the left of you.

But it does seem to mean that you are willing to step up and defend them or excuse them, which is exactly what you are complaining people on the right do with Coulter, Limbaugh, and others.  

Quote from: Jackalope;231101Bullshit!  That is total bullshit.  You are entirely ignoring that my criticism of Coulter do not apply to Ayers at all!  Ayers and Coulter are not even in the same realm, and you are using ayers to carefully avoid actually addressing the real criticisms of Coulter.

Your complaint about Ann Coulter was:

   Ann Coulter, in the opening paragraph of her book, makes the claim that all liberals are born to become liberals, cannot help be anything but liberals, and are all traitors by their very nature. Traitors are, of course, punished by death. She doesn't mention this, but it's implied in the charge. If she had made the same claim about Jews she'd be called a Nazi -- and keep in mind, she claims liberalism was congential trait, thus she posits that liberals are a race of people.

In other words, you are upset because you feel she's arguing that liberals deserve to die because they are a danger to America.  But when I offer you an example of a liberal who actually did try to murder his political opponents and their innocent families, you compare him to the "American Revolutionary Army".  What that tells me is that your problem isn't with the idea of people murdering their political opponents but with you being on the receiving end of it.  You think it's just fine to murder innocent people for politics as long as you agree with the cause.