Coulter skewers liberals at Stony Brook -- Newsday

Noticer wrote:

<quoted text>
Mmmmmm....I've always thought of myself as a liberal in the FDR tradtion. If "liberal" today is defined as anti-American, pacifist (as opposed to peace seeking & considering war a ruinous evil to be undertaken as a last resort), and anti-business (as opposed to pro-labor & anti-corporate-abuse)- well, then, guess I'll just have to start calling myself a "Progressive" after all.
But first I'll look up "liberal" in the dictionary.

Ann fan wrote:

<quoted text>
What's your point?

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Don't give me this "might have" routine.I might have done something else if I hadn't spent 4 years in the service. He Got 5 deferments. Don't you think his draft board wanted him? You don't get 5 deferments unless you have influential contacts that have pull.

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>You need some remedial reading courses. What does a deferment on a student loan have to do with draft deferments when we were in the middle of the Vietnam War?

Noticer wrote:

<quoted text>
Noam Chomsky is a highly esteemed authority in linquistics. He could get more than his full of listening to himself talk about that and receiving adulation for it.
So again, what are his motives - that is, what does he GAIN - by criticizing the government of his homeland? Does he get kickbacks? Are there conflicts of interest between his study of linquistics and his speaking out against governmental hypocrisy and abuse? You know - I'm talking about the sort of illuminating conflicts of interest that lie between, let's say, petroleum and weaponry interests and government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
What the Neocons at the top levels of our government have to gain by their own actions and by dismissing and smearing people like Noam Chomsky is clearly evident. I don't see such an obvious bottom line in Chomsky's critiques.

cat wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe that for one minute. I think Monica was much more 'willing' than Bill. OK, play with the words-the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. I think Oreilly harrassed this woman. I think Bill didn't and again, I don't believe he would have told her her job depended on sex with him (any kind of sex). She would have speed dialed her 'Attorney Bernie'.

Jack wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure explains a lot me....go look in the mirror and see if your nose in still in place?

Ann fan wrote:

<quoted text>
I watched it. O'Reilly was pretty nasty but I would have liked to see the whole interview unedited rather than Franken chiming. I've only started watching O'Reilly in the last few months so I was really surprised by your clip. I think he's mellowed since those days because I still think he is (currently anyway) very respectful in his interviews.

Lost Rights James Bovard wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh, right , because Bill NEVER did that before. right?
Are you serious here? Does the name Paula Jones mean nothing to you?
Look It doesn't matter what YOU think or what anyone thinks or what Lewinsky did consentually. Having sexual relations with a subordinate is Sexual Harassment.

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Like Cheney, what don't you get about this? And Clinton did't start a war, Bush did.

Judged:

1

harmonious wrote:

<quoted text>
you no doubt notice microbrain strays off the subject when he doesn't want to answer. his latest post to me accuses me of not serving, apparently his puerile brain can't retain information he's received only recently. i guess he thinks he's the re-incarceration of Audey Murphy or someone. Maye he inhaled a little too much agent orange.

Judged:

1

Azjaeger wrote:

<quoted text>You must be pretty far, far left to feel that the mainstream media is corporate and right wing driven, and the "alternative" papers are reliable and non-biased. That would be like me saying National Review is non-biased and has no agenda, and Fox is basically leftist.

Lost Rights James Bovard wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh, right , because Bill NEVER did that before. right?
Are you serious here? Does the name Paula Jones mean nothing to you?
Look It doesn't matter what YOU think or what anyone thinks or what Lewinsky did consentually. Having sexual relations with a subordinate is Sexual Harassment.

roger43 wrote:

<quoted text>
wow, when you responded to my post you sounded as if you knew something i didn't know. but you only just started watching him. this is very oreillyesque actually. you should change your handle to oreilly fan.
this clip is nothing compared to the others. there's tons of them. unedited. Trying to explain how he bows out of challenges is like explaining the punchline of a joke. if you don't get it, you don't get it.

Dr A Degall wrote:

)Clinton is a chickenhawk
(see Bosnia, Iraq bombing, etc ). He sent military personnel into harms way and went bye bye when it was his turn.

Noticer wrote:

<quoted text>
Without question I am significantly farther left than what is generally considered the "middle" in American politics. For instance, I considered Bill Clinton too conservative for my tastes and a sellout to the right in many important ways. On many issues I'm really more a liberatrian than a liberal.
But hey, I recognize that representative government is - or, should be - all about compromise. It's just that the influence of moneyed interests in the political process has sickened the democratic system and severely impaired representation of ordinary people. Compromise is all but dead.
No doubt you've heard the old adage: "Always follow the money." With the mainstream media increasingly owned by fewer and fewer conglomerates, how can you seriously suggest that it is NOT corporate? Consider, too, that those congomerates ALSO have holdings in energy, military contracting, and big business in general, do you really think you can trust the "news" that comes out of their media mouthpieces to be anything like objective?
Common sense tells you to be leery of anyone too beholden to moneyed interests, to take with several grains of salt anything they say. So, when it comes to subscription- and publicly funded media, ask yourself there: What motivation have they for coloring the truth? I'm not saying there is definitely NO underlying agenda or slant, but if so it certainly isn't as clear-cut as it is with what passes for mainstream "news" today. I think that's the main reason that the best the right wingnuts can often come up with as a motive is that such sources are "anti-American." Riiiiiiight.
I'm not saying to entirely ignore all news that appears on mainstream media. I'm only saying to realize that it is indeed slanted, that it's slant is pro-international corporations and decidedly NOT liberal, and that there are many things afoot that you simply won't see reported there, period.
By a simliar token, when I read something in, say, Mother Jones or The Nation, I'm fully aware that there's a leftist slant, all in all. However, those publications feature investigative reporting of things you just don't read about in mainstream publications. And it isn't as if you can't do some research to verify facts contained in those pieces, if you care to. I't a helluva lot more informative than the AP pap you read or hear, typically regurgitated word for word, in daily newspapers and on nightly news reports.
Out of curiousity, you naturally wouldn't say that Fox is basically leftist; but would you agree that it IS basically rightist?

Dr A Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Believe me I've noticed. I asked him several point blank questions which he conveniently dodged, then he puts forth his definition of a chickenhawk which would immediately disqualify you or I as neither of us is in a position to authorize or wage war , yet we are, according to him, both chickenhawks. He is a quintessential schmuck.

cat wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, it's S H ...some frightening women I'll admit. I suppose it's because I really can't stand Bill-O (Fu cks News). Talk about frightening--Coultergeist will continue being ugly, nasty, biting and lonely-but snickering all the way to the bank because of those people that support her ugliness and are just like her.
She won't be anything more than what she is. Sell some books to Coultergeist groupies.

Noticer wrote:

<quoted text>
Without question I am significantly farther left than what is generally considered the "middle" in American politics. For instance, I considered Bill Clinton too conservative for my tastes and a sellout to the right in many important ways. On many issues I'm really more a liberatrian than a liberal.
But hey, I recognize that representative government is - or, should be - all about compromise. It's just that the influence of moneyed interests in the political process has sickened the democratic system and severely impaired representation of ordinary people. Compromise is all but dead.
No doubt you've heard the old adage: "Always follow the money." With the mainstream media increasingly owned by fewer and fewer conglomerates, how can you seriously suggest that it is NOT corporate? Consider, too, that those congomerates ALSO have holdings in energy, military contracting, and big business in general, do you really think you can trust the "news" that comes out of their media mouthpieces to be anything like objective?
Common sense tells you to be leery of anyone too beholden to moneyed interests, to take with several grains of salt anything they say. So, when it comes to subscription- and publicly funded media, ask yourself there: What motivation have they for coloring the truth? I'm not saying there is definitely NO underlying agenda or slant, but if so it certainly isn't as clear-cut as it is with what passes for mainstream "news" today. I think that's the main reason that the best the right wingnuts can often come up with as a motive is that such sources are "anti-American." Riiiiiiight.
I'm not saying to entirely ignore all news that appears on mainstream media. I'm only saying to realize that it is indeed slanted, that it's slant is pro-international corporations and decidedly NOT liberal, and that there are many things afoot that you simply won't see reported there, period.
By a simliar token, when I read something in, say, Mother Jones or The Nation, I'm fully aware that there's a leftist slant, all in all. However, those publications feature investigative reporting of things you just don't read about in mainstream publications. And it isn't as if you can't do some research to verify facts contained in those pieces, if you care to. I't a helluva lot more informative than the AP pap you read or hear, typically regurgitated word for word, in daily newspapers and on nightly news reports.
Out of curiousity, you naturally wouldn't say that Fox is basically leftist; but would you agree that it IS basically rightist?