[ October 02, 2007, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: The Silverblue Sun ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
"Oh please, please LOOK AT ME!!!!!!"
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Back to raise the level of discourse again, Thor?
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oh, and MrSquicky is a big, old poopy-head for beating me to the punch.
-Bok
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Her new book out today says
"What's the best way to talk to a Liberal?"
"With a baseball bat."
uh.
Ask the President of Iran, what's the best way to talk to a Jew?
"with a baseball bat"
Ask the head of the KKK, what's the best way to talk to a Black man?
"with a baseball bat"
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Hey, Thor, it's been a long time. What have you been up to?
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
Well, in that case, I agree with Thor that she is not a nice woman, although...what a way to put it.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Another brilliant quote of hers...
"Liberals hate religion, except for Islam, and they didn't like Islam until after 9/11."
Seriously, how on God's green Earth can ANYONE make such a stupid ass statement? I was raised Lutheran, a liberal religion by nature, and believing in God and Jesus was probably the most natural thing that ever happened to me. It has always felt right, and I have never wavered in my belief.
So just because I don't worship George W. Bush as a god, that means i am godless and i hate religion? that's retarded.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course she isn't a nice woman. The people who buy her stuff like her because she is not a nice woman. They also support her because she provokes such as response from the people they dislike.
She wants you to get outraged and attack her, preferribly in an infantile style, which, you, Thor, are great at. It's money in the bank to her.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: "Liberals hate religion, except for Islam, and they didn't like Islam until after 9/11."
Although you can't lump all liberals into a single group anymore than you can lump all conservatives into a group, that's certainly the impression that liberals AS A GROUP give off.
Just like conservatives, AS A GROUP give off the impression that they all hate gay people.
A liberal over here fights against christianity in schools while a liberal over there fights to have children in public school all pick islamic names and pray to mecca 5 times a day (YES, that REALLY happened!) The gestalt impression is that "Liberals hate christianity and love islam."
Ms Coulter just oversimplifies it for the purposes of $$$.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Although you can't lump all liberals into a single group anymore than you can lump all conservatives into a group, that's certainly the impression that liberals AS A GROUP give off.
Just like conservatives, AS A GROUP give off the impression that they all hate gay people.
I don't think that's an apt comparison. Conservatives, as a group, actively support legislation that is counter to gay interests. There is no equivalent broadly-supported liberal activity in support of Islam.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But there's broadly-supported liberal activity against the war and President Bush, which must mean they all support Islam since absurd either-or dichotomies are all that idiot political commentators can hear.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun: Seriously, how on God's green Earth can ANYONE make such a stupid ass statement?
Because Colter's smart enough to realize that inspiring strong feelings, whether positive or negative, is an excellent way to attract attention. And the key to being successful in her field is to attract attention.
Look at how much success Rush Limbaugh's had, and a large portion of his daily audience tune in only to yell at their radios.
They're narcissists.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun: I was raised Lutheran, a liberal religion by nature,
I need to introduce you to some Wels Synod Lutherans. Hardly liberal, they.
By the by, welcome home, brother.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Ann Coulter is a left-wing provocateur. No one could be that insane in real life.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Thor!!!! *tackle-hugs*
are you still selling books?
AJ
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Although you can't lump all liberals into a single group anymore than you can lump all conservatives into a group, that's certainly the impression that liberals AS A GROUP give off.
Just like conservatives, AS A GROUP give off the impression that they all hate gay people
I may be biased since I guess I'm a "liberal", but to me there seems to be a fundamental difference. Liberals seem to be against the mixing of church and state or of "pushing" religion. I don't know many liberals that are out to abolish/crimilize religion in general - the attitude seems to be one of "do what you want and believe what you want but leave the rest of us out of it".
On the other hand some/many concervatives don't seem content to take the "you live your life and I live mine" approach when it comes to homosexuality.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun: I was raised Lutheran, a liberal religion by nature..
My Grandfather is a Lutheran pastor and is about as liberal as Sean Hannity.
And I agree. I have strong conservative leanings, and I find Ann Coulter a disgrace.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote: "Liberals hate religion, except for Islam, and they didn't like Islam until after 9/11."
Although you can't lump all liberals into a single group anymore than you can lump all conservatives into a group, that's certainly the impression that liberals AS A GROUP give off.
Just like conservatives, AS A GROUP give off the impression that they all hate gay people.
A liberal over here fights against christianity in schools while a liberal over there fights to have children in public school all pick islamic names and pray to mecca 5 times a day (YES, that REALLY happened!) The gestalt impression is that "Liberals hate christianity and love islam."
Ms Coulter just oversimplifies it for the purposes of $$$.
There's a huge difference between fighting prayer in school and hating religion, and it's a stretch to generalize that liberals appear to love Islam over actions that, quite frankly, I doubt most people have even heard about. I don't think anyone can, in the interest of intellectual honesty, claim that liberals appear to hate religion.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Sure they can claim it. I must have read a dozen stories over the past few years of how Democrats are losing people that would otherwise vote for them because of the perception that they are contemptuous of religion. One of the main stories of the 2004 election was that if you went to church more than twice a year, you probably voted for Bush.
Whether or not it is true I am not prepared to say, but it is absolutely possible for someone to "claim that liberals appear to hate religion" and be completely honest (ESPECIALLY with the "appear" in there). I'm a little puzzled that you would think otherwise. Did you miss all those multiple news stories?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Sure they can claim it. I must have read a dozen stories over the past few years of how Democrats are losing people that would otherwise vote for them because of the perception that they are contemptuous of religion. One of the main stories of the 2004 election was that if you went to church more than twice a year, you probably voted for Bush.
Whether or not it is true I am not prepared to say, but it is absolutely possible for someone to "claim that liberals appear to hate religion" and be completely honest (ESPECIALLY with the "appear" in there). I'm a little puzzled that you would think otherwise. Did you miss all those multiple news stories?
What I meant to say was that nobody can honestly (honestly as in objectively) analyze the facts and conclude that liberals hate religion. There is just no evidence to support the claim.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Maybe it isn't a good idea to label those who disagree with you as "dishonest."
You can disagree with the conclusion, but someone coming to a different conclusion than you doesn't mean they are stupid or dishonest. It means they came to a different conclusion.
I'm not going to argue the case, but an honest case could certainly be made.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Just like conservatives, AS A GROUP give off the impression that they all hate gay people
They do? The impression is that they hate gay people? Your statement is different than Ann Coulter's statement of "liberals support Islam" how?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: What I meant to say was that nobody can honestly (honestly as in objectively) analyze the facts and conclude that liberals hate religion. There is just no evidence to support the claim.
If a connservative opposes gay marriage then the conservative hates gays. When a liberal opposes the Ten Commandments being posted then they must hate religon. Blanket statements don't work in either case
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"I must have read a dozen stories over the past few years of how Democrats are losing people that would otherwise vote for them because of the perception that they are contemptuous of religion."
Perhaps there's a little more to this, but as stated, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Anyone willing to retract their vote for a party because of a perception of that party's collective motives is just plain stupid.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:One of the main stories of the 2004 election was that if you went to church more than twice a year, you probably voted for Bush.
I think you may have misunderstood the stories, because that statement is not true. Link Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That doesn't make sense. It is ALL perception.
quote:Anyone willing to retract their vote for a party because of a perception of that party's collective motives is just plain stupid.
Did you read this before you posted? Of COURSE people will change their votes if they percieve a party's or candidate's motives to be hostile to something important to them. I'd be a little ashamed of them if they didn't.
If you don't want people to vote on their perceptions of the candidates/parties, then what would you prefer? Ouji boards? Tarot cards? Randomness?
It is all perception.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Ideally, I'd like for candidates to lay out their specific plans and stances and stick to them afterward, and I'd like for voters to study those plans and stances when they decide who to vote for.
Most don't - on both sides. I'm guessing because of pragmatism on one side based on the laziness of the other.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Most don't - on both sides. I'm guessing because of pragmatism on one side based on the laziness of the other.
I don't think I quite follow. Can you elaborate?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The more than twice a year part is obviously hyperbole, but it's no secret that Bush won the Bible Belt and the Bible thumpers.
The problem with liberals and religion isn't that they aren't religious or that they hate religion, it's that liberal politicians are out of practice with being honest about their faith in public. For awhile now, maybe just since Kennedy, they haven't talked about religion the way that FDR did, when he spoke of "righteous might" and said God in every other statement.
So now whenever you do get a Democratic candidate who actually does speak about their faith with openness and honesty, they are pinned as being fake by the Right. I think to many of them, it's a combination of wanting to keep their faith a private personal thing, and honestly not knowing how to share it with people or weave it into speeches and make it sound natural because they A. Don't talk that way on a daily basis and B. Aren't from a place where people conversationally talk like that. That's going to naturally make it kind of awkward.
John Edwards and Barack Obama are the only two candidates I've seen since Bill Clinton that are even marginally good at weaving their religion into their speeches. And I think a lot of that has to do with the communities they grew up in.
DK -
I sympathize with your point. Saying conservatives give off the impression that they all hate gay people is similar to what Coulter said, but not the same thing. She states things as fact, whereas Pix I think was stating, generally, an oft held and voiced concern about the Right. Personally I don't think they "hate gays," but as a group, I think they have a very well earned reputation for being anti-homosexual. Take that as you will, but if they aren't, why do they keep supporting legislation that limits gay rights? At some point your track record catches up with you.
But I agree with you in that hyperbole serves no purpose. Pix could probably have said "give off the impression that they are anti-homosexual" and I think it would have rang a lot truer and been much easier to defend, but she was close enough to the public perception anyway.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I mean, most voters don't do extensive research and base their votes on the material found there, so most politicians campaign in a manner that hopefully appeals to the voting decision-making process of most voters - casual perceptions, group loyalties, personableness. Image and group ties, basically, I think.
So, the politicians are pragmatic because voters are generally not extensive researchers.
Alternatively, maybe it's all the economy. Or the war. There's a world of theories about this and many people, including my roommate, spend their lives studying how to influence the way people vote.
Whatever the details, I do NOT think that changing one's vote because the party or candidate seems hostile to something important to you is stupid. I think it's very normal and understandable, and it makes more sense changing your vote because of a candidate's laugh.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ah, okay, that makes more sense; I was misunderstanding what you meant by "on both sides".
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Kat, I think our disconnect is in the use of the term "perception". I also wasn't talking about the candidates themselves, but of generalizing perceptions of a particular party, as if that party is some entity that exists solely for its own sake.
I prefer that people vote for the person that best represents their ideals. Period. Allegience to a party should depend solely on those common ideals. I don't think we disagree on this. But what I got from your statement is that people would abandon a party, and thus any candidate associated with that party, based on a public perception (not their own) that that party promotes some ideal that they disagree with.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, right - the sides being the policticians/voters, not left/right.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Maybe it isn't a good idea to label those who disagree with you as "dishonest."
You can disagree with the conclusion, but someone coming to a different conclusion than you doesn't mean they are stupid or dishonest. It means they came to a different conclusion.
Yes, and evolution and creationism are, after all, just theories.
I understand your point in the general sense, but it's fallacious to assume that all viewpoints deserve equal merit. The idea "liberals hate religion" has a lot of baggage to overcome before it can be taken seriously. There aren't nearly enough atheists in this country to account for all the liberals, and there are very few atheist liberal congressmen (I don't even know of any offhand). Those two facts alone should be good indicators that the idea is dubious.
You don't even need to look very deeply to realize that the cases that cause this idea to be raised don't support it at all (I feel I could phrase this sentence much better but thats life).
Here are some examples: (1) No dedicated prayer time in school (2) Removing "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance. (3) Removing the ten commandments from a courthouse
Freedom from religion is very different from hatred of religion. There is nothing in any of those cases that would suggest that liberals hate religion in general. Maybe you can find a person who supports one of those examples and does hate religion. Whatever. That doesn't justify a sweeping generalization of liberals.
Sorry if I come off as very aggressive but I've seen this issue come up many times and it makes no sense to me. I can name over thirty liberals from various clubs in my school and I don't know of any that hate religion. Obviously personal experience is not proof of anything but I think my case is very strong when combined with the points above. The idea that somehow my town is just a bubble of weird liberals who don't hate religion just doesn't click.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I am uncomfortable in general with people voting for a party instead of a candidate, but I can't deny that people do it and there's a long and storied history of it.
I'm guessing that when people abandon a party because of a public perception of hostility to something important to them, it is because they agree with/have bought into that public perception.
It all comes back to the problems of a large republic and an imperfect press and politicians who mold their views to fit in with a party or change their views to fit in with what they think voters want and generally there is mistrust and miscommunication on all sides. Candidates and voters have to fight through the noise to be heard and to hear, and sometimes it's too hard or impossible and so voters fall back on general stereotypes and general perceptions and they are in the voting booth and remember reading that a "liberal" spokesperson said relgious people were stupid and THEY'RE religious and that's not cool and then: they voted for someone who isn't liberal.
It happens. It's messy. It's regretable, but I don't like calling that voter stupid for doing so.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:makes more sense changing your vote because of a candidate's laugh.
Is that a reference to Hillary's recent laugh-capade?
To be perfectly honest...she creeped me out a little bit. The laughs didn't necessarily sound fake, but some of them seemed a little out of place, and further, I kind of thought she was high on something. Even Wolf Blitzer looked confused and amused at one point.
I think she spends way too much time forcing her personality into a mold of what she thinks voters want and not enough just being herself. I think she was fine as First Lady, and she was fine even up to the 2004 DNC when she introduced Bill, but ever since then I think you can see a lack of natural spontanaity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't like calling that voter stupid for doing so.
Stupid, no. Irresponsible, yes.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm not a big fan of Hillary necessarily, but the laugh-capade is driving me crazy.
I think that it makes her MORE human than otherwise. People laugh at the weirdest times. We laugh when we're nervous, we laugh to fill empty space, we laugh when we can't think of what to say, we laugh to buy ourselves social time, and we laugh hysterically at our own jokes.
I also think the criticism is a little sexist.
There's nothing harder to pull off when you're in the spotlight than "natural spontaneity."
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:makes more sense changing your vote because of a candidate's laugh.
Is that a reference to Hillary's recent laugh-capade?
To be perfectly honest...she creeped me out a little bit. The laughs didn't necessarily sound fake, but some of them seemed a little out of place, and further, I kind of thought she was high on something. Even Wolf Blitzer looked confused and amused at one point.
I think she spends way too much time forcing her personality into a mold of what she thinks voters want and not enough just being herself. I think she was fine as First Lady, and she was fine even up to the 2004 DNC when she introduced Bill, but ever since then I think you can see a lack of natural spontanaity.
The Daily Show episode on her laughs was hilarious. They placed robot voices in the pauses between her laughs and had a funny montage of all her laughs Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: It happens. It's messy. It's regretable, but I don't like calling that voter stupid for doing so.
Why not? Is it simply because of the word's socially evolved connotations? I suppose I can respect that. But they are being stupid.
Stupid: lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
They're making a decision stupidly. They are not necessarily stupid themselves.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Why not? Is it simply because of the word's socially evolved connotations? I suppose I can respect that. But they are being stupid.
No, it's lazy. Lazy does not equal stupid.
Seriously - it is many things, and maybe you can wander around and come back to stupid if you consider that it's our government we are talking about and it's dumb to not take it seriously, but really - that's stretching it.
It's like calling an embezzler stupid. Well, maybe, but that's a remarkably unprecise assessment. There is something more complex going.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Just because they’re stupid in that respect doesn’t mean they’re stupid in every respect. Nor does it mean they have to continue to be stupid.
The difference between being stupid and acting stupid is just semantics, but I won’t argue any more about that. It's not a big deal, really. I'm sorry if my first post sounded like an aggressive assertion. It was just a comment.
"and come back to stupid if you consider that it's our government we are talking about and it's dumb to not take it seriously"
That's more or less where I stand, especially when it's a voting citizen that chooses to be so ignorant.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
ignorant != stupid
Lazy does not equal stupid.
If stupid means almost everything, then it means practically nothing. There are also a load of connotations connected to it that should maybe make not want to use it when talking about people who vote in part based on their religion. It's... lazy to use that word when a more precise one would do.
But we don't have to argue about it anymore. I think I like political discussions better when terms like 'stupid' and 'dishonest' are not tossed around casually.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I disagree that "lazy" is necessarily a more precise descriptor than "stupid". Also, while I agree with your last statement when those political discussions are intellectually honest, when a person is being stupid or dishonest, I think it's practically our obligation to call them out on it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think changing a political discussion about ideas into ad hominem attacks of 'stupid' and 'dishonest' changes the discussion from a useful and interesting one to yet another tiresome polemic.
There are better ways to discuss ideas. Ad hominem attacks are not necessary.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Again, I agree. But if a person is being stupid or dishonest, exactly what kind of discussion do you think is going to take place?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Then prove their ideas wrong - show contrary evidence, make a better argument, bring up other examples, put their comments in context.
All or any of that would be better than just calling them names. Name-calling is not an argument.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Then prove their ideas wrong - show contrary evidence, make a better argument, bring up other examples, put their comments in context."
Of course. I never disagreed with this. This is essentially what I mean by calling them out on their stupidity.
"All or any of that would be better than just calling them names. Name-calling is not an argument."
And again...of course. Calling someone stupid to their face may not be very effective, tactful, or polite. But I don't go around calling people stupid (though I don't deny I might resort to it if I feel being blunt might be effective. But such a scenario isn't very likely.).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I had gotten the impression that you were initially talking about talking about people who were acting stupidly, not talking to them directly. Is that incorrect?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Calling them stupid is not calling them out on anything. It isn't proving anything and doesn't expose holes in their argument. It is hurling an ad hominem in place of an argument.
"[Blank] is true." "You're/That's stupid!"
That is not an effective or interesting discussion.
"[Blank] is true." "[Blank A] and [Blank B] contradict that, and from this evidence we can conclude that [Blank C] is true instead."
Wouldn't that be better? You might even persuade the original person as well instead of putting them on the defensive.
quote:This is essentially what I mean by calling them out on their stupidity.
That's just it - if you can show why they are wrong, that's a million more times effective than just tossing an insult at them. If you CAN'T show or explain why you think the statement is wrong, then calling them stupid isn't going to change that. When you can't back it up, especially, then tossing insults like that doesn't do anything to change the perception of them and instead brings down the insult-hurler.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
No, you're right.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It seems a weird jump from the first to the second. I'd imagine that very different rules would apply.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Kat...I'm not really sure what you're missing here - or if perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
Okay, I just looked over my last post to you. That one at least presents what I'm trying to convey pretty clearly - enough so that your last post is completely unwarranted - at least as far as I can tell. Maybe you're taking something I said out of context?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Okay, just saw your edit. What we disagree on is whether or not the term "stupid" is just an insult or a factual assessment.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm telling you that the word 'stupid' has no place in an interesting, effective political discussion, and if it appears, then the conversation has degraded into an exchange of ad hominems.
You are not the grand arbiter of factual assessments, and tossing around 'stupid' like you were does not make you look like one. It makes you look like you don't have an actual coherent argument yourself and so are resorting to pejoratives because you have nothing left. I don't think that's the impression you want to convey.
Additionally, it degrades the discussion.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I'm telling you that the word 'stupid' has no place in an interesting, effective political discussion, and if it appears, then the conversation has degraded into an exchange of ad hominems.
And what I was telling you was that if a person is being stupid or dishonest or both, then that discussion is certainly no longer effective, and in my opinion no longer interesting.
But that's beside the main point that we seem to be missing each other on: I don't (generally) call people stupid. But in describing a person who is being stupid, I have no qualms using the term because it is applicable.
I'm not just tossing the term around. I'm using it appropriately in context.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But in describing a person who is being stupid, I have no qualms using the term because it is applicable.
I think Kat's point is that you'll have more luck convincing others of the stupidity of your opponent if you refrain from actually calling them stupid, whether you think it is justified or not.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Calling them stupid is not calling them out on anything. It isn't proving anything and doesn't expose holes in their argument. It is hurling an ad hominem in place of an argument.
"[Blank] is true." "You're/That's stupid!"
That is not an effective or interesting discussion.
"[Blank] is true." "[Blank A] and [Blank B] contradict that, and from this evidence we can conclude that [Blank C] is true instead."
Wouldn't that be better? You might even persuade the original person as well instead of putting them on the defensive.
Of course, there's also this:
"[Blank] is true." "[Blank A] and [Blank B] contradict that, and if you don't see that [Blank C] is true instead, you're an idiot."
That's a lot more common, actually.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Conservatives have successfully labeled liberals as "anti religious" because they have successfully defined religion as being about traditional sexual mores and traditional gender roles. Many religious concepts are really quite liberal: care for the poor, stewardship of natural resources, worker's rights, peace, social justice - all straight from Catholic social teaching. Jesus wasn't conservative; he was a radical. He hung out with hippies and hookers - and women, advocated overturning the social order and giving away all your possesions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry. Double posting from my phone.
(I'm at church.)
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I understand your point, Matt. I didn't have to be so blunt. Perhaps in using the term as I initially did, I was unconsciously promoting a pet peev of mine that people should generally take better care to understand words in context. Words aren't emotions. They're tools used for communication - that's all. So while a particular word can be used to convey insult, degradation, or condescension, that does not mean every use of the word is insulting, degrading, or condescending.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:makes more sense changing your vote because of a candidate's laugh.
Is that a reference to Hillary's recent laugh-capade?
To be perfectly honest...she creeped me out a little bit. The laughs didn't necessarily sound fake, but some of them seemed a little out of place, and further, I kind of thought she was high on something. Even Wolf Blitzer looked confused and amused at one point.
I think she spends way too much time forcing her personality into a mold of what she thinks voters want and not enough just being herself. I think she was fine as First Lady, and she was fine even up to the 2004 DNC when she introduced Bill, but ever since then I think you can see a lack of natural spontanaity.
The Daily Show episode on her laughs was hilarious. They placed robot voices in the pauses between her laughs and had a funny montage of all her laughs
Yeah that's where I first saw it.
"Humorous remark detected. Engaging laugh response."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is why I deliberately avoid any Ann Coulter (or Michael Moore, for that matter) media: it is quite difficult to refrain from using the same sorts (though not the same degree) of labels as they use, and once you've done that, you've ceded the discussion to them for all intents and purposes.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think I like political discussions better when terms like 'stupid' and 'dishonest' are not tossed around casually.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)