Ann Coulter on Leno

[Baculus]

I do agree with some of your sentiments, MSF.

Sorry, there hasn't been an honest Senator, Representative, or President on any side of the political spectrum since before the Civil War.

I respectfully disagree. Read about such members as Robert Lafollette or members of Congress such as Ren. Ron Paul, who I feel is one of the most principled Representatives that we have as an elected official. I think we have to be wary about the "old days" syndrome, where we forget about Congressional corruption that did indeed exist in the early days of our history, or members of Congress being beat on the head by other members of Congress. I do believe, though, and you probably agree, that a certain idealism has been lost - that is why Robert Lafollette was one of my favorite members of Congress, as far as his viewpoints in honesty in government and in personal action.

First off, let me say that I don't believe "hate" is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. In many cases I believe it is a very good thing.

The problem with hatred is that it creates tunnel vision - trust me, I see hatred that is so narrowly defined, based upon cliches and a lack of vision. Personally I find little use for hatred since I really have to dislike something to "hate" it. And, from past experience, with hatred, one becomes "stuck in the mud" and closed to reason.

And this for folks on both sides of the aisle that "hate" each other.

I believe we are creatures of reason, and not just mere creations of emotion, aka "hate."

I hate liberals because I believe that their philosophy, values and ways of looking at the world are DEAD WRONG and DANGEROUS. There is nothing good to be found in the liberal philosophy or lifestyle so far as I am concerned. No redeming factors whatsoever.

There are aspects of Liberalism which you probably partake every day. Do you own property? What about this message board for which partake, enjoying the abstract concept of "Freedom of Speech," espoused by early Liberal thinkers. Much of what we hold for such abstract freedoms, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," flows from Classic Liberalism. Of course, such thoughts have been intertwined with other political systems that are parallel with some of the Classical Liberal foundations.

Of course, if you do not believe in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," nor in Property rights, the Second Amendment (early Liberal thinkers often espoused private firearms ownership), etc., then I do not know what to tell you. We would then probably have too opposite of opnions to discuss this issue.

I will note this: The SCA lifestyle that you enjoy is very much based upon liberalism, so I would think that there are aspects of the SCA, especially in regards to its somewhat hedonistic lifestyle, that you would hate. After all, much of the SCA was started by West Coast "hippies" and more liberal history students.

Yes, I realize that the US is considered a Western Liberal nation. It disgusts me, because I don't believe that's what this country was intended to be.

We should be aware of what that term means before you become disgusted. A Liberal Democracy, by defitiontion of Wikipedia:

"Liberal democracy is a form of government. It is a representative democracy where the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised.

These rights and freedoms include the rights to due process, private property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. In liberal democracies these rights (also known as "liberal rights") may sometimes be constitutionally guaranteed, or are otherwise created by statutory law or case law, which may in turn empower various civil institutions to administer or enforce these rights."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Once again, if you do not agree with such a political system, then we probably have too little in common politically to discuss this issue. I suspect you would then probably support some type of Authoratative system.

I don't want to comment too much on the women's rights thing. I'll just point you back to my earlier comment in this thread about one reason I dislike Ann Coulter being that I am against women in the media. I think that should put you on the right track towards my "women's rights" beliefs.

I am not sure if I saw your post regarding this - could you explain further?

Bac, I have a hatred for a vast majority of humanity. I always have and always will. The species is quickly becoming nothing more than a huge waste of genetic material so far as I'm concerned. I've discussed it in other threads so I'll step down off my soap-box.

I don't think one has to love every human to see the value of many of your fellow citizens of species representatives.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

You are too defensive bud.

No such thing. When you distrust everyone and assume that all others are there to attack you and your ideas you never miss someone who is there for that reason.

I don't have a problem with you thinking that a more traditional way of doing things is better. Like I said I disagree but I don't view your opinion as being all that horrible.

Alright. That's fine. We can agree to disagree on the topic like relatively civilized people.

As long as you don't want it imposed on others I don't see any harm in it.

Well, my legal counsel has suggested that I should take advantage of my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination here; but I'm going to ignore him, at least for a moment.

That really depends on how you look at things. I'm not talking about using the military to remove every female employee from every job I don't believe they should be employed at. I'm not talking about laws banning women from driving cars and showing their faces in public. HOWEVER, if I were to be married there would have to be certain understandings in place regarding the separation of powers and responsibilities in the relationship. Likewise, if I were to have a daughter, she'd definitely have a different upbringing from her male siblings and her friends from school.

I hope that's answered your concerns.

In truth I hope you find a woman that shares your beliefs.

Unfortunately they stopped making that model in the early 1950's and since I'm a 1974 model myself, I'm pretty much sh*t out of luck in that regard.

[bigbaby]

that girl looks like a ragdoll, she needs to be taught a lesson in respect.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I do wonder, MSF would you use coercion to instill "traditional values" back into American society?

That really depends on how one defines "coercion", Liberty.

If by coercion you mean a strict definition of the US Constitution and the values of that time period, then the answer is yes.

If by coercion you mean armed force, then the answer is no.

The one exemption to that being the force necessary to bring about the first part of the above explaination.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I respectfully disagree. Read about such members as Robert Lafollette or members of Congress such as Ren. Ron Paul, who I feel is one of the most principled Representatives that we have as an elected official. I think we have to be wary about the "old days" syndrome, where we forget about Congressional corruption that did indeed exist in the early days of our history, or members of Congress being beat on the head by other members of Congress. I do believe, though, and you probably agree, that a certain idealism has been lost - that is why Robert Lafollette was one of my favorite members of Congress, as far as his viewpoints in honesty in government and in personal action.

What you have to understand Bac is that I don't believe there's been a legitimate US Federal government since 1860. Therefore nobody involved in the US Federal government since then has any standing towards honesty in my mind.

The problem with hatred is that it creates tunnel vision - trust me, I see hatred that is so narrowly defined, based upon cliches and a lack of vision. Personally I find little use for hatred since I really have to dislike something to "hate" it. And, from past experience, with hatred, one becomes "stuck in the mud" and closed to reason.

And this for folks on both sides of the aisle that "hate" each other.

I believe we are creatures of reason, and not just mere creations of emotion, aka "hate."

I am exceptionally closed minded. I have been for my entire life. You are correct that one must have a closed mind to buy into the doctrine of "hatred". I disagree that most people are creatures of reason. Especially nowadays.

There are aspects of Liberalism which you probably partake every day. Do you own property? What about this message board for which partake, enjoying the abstract concept of "Freedom of Speech," espoused by early Liberal thinkers. Much of what we hold for such abstract freedoms, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," flows from Classic Liberalism. Of course, such thoughts have been intertwined with other political systems that are parallel with some of the Classical Liberal foundations.

Of course, if you do not believe in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," nor in Property rights, the Second Amendment (early Liberal thinkers often espoused private firearms ownership), etc., then I do not know what to tell you. We would then probably have too opposite of opnions to discuss this issue.

I do not own land, but I do own a motor vehicle and other personal property. I am not really for an all consuming "Freedom of Speech" either. I am a very large proponent of the RTKBA, and am a gun owner of the "from my cold dead hands" mentality. As for "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", that's a topic that I don't ahve a nice simple answer for you on. Personally, I don't believe that we are a nation devoted to those ideals anymore. Nor do I believe that the quest for those things is useful under every set of circumstances or philosophy out there.

I will note this: The SCA lifestyle that you enjoy is very much based upon liberalism, so I would think that there are aspects of the SCA, especially in regards to its somewhat hedonistic lifestyle, that you would hate. After all, much of the SCA was started by West Coast "hippies" and more liberal history students.

Actually, I do not partake in many of the more "liberal" aspects of the SCA. Especially the more hedonistic ones. I have no problem with others pursuing them, so long as they do not attempt to force my inclusion in them (which is something that has never occured in my decade+ in the society) or to denegrate me because I choose not to involve myself in them.

We should be aware of what that term means before you become disgusted. A Liberal Democracy, by defitiontion of Wikipedia:

"Liberal democracy is a form of government. It is a representative democracy where the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised.

These rights and freedoms include the rights to due process, private property, privacy, and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. In liberal democracies these rights (also known as "liberal rights") may sometimes be constitutionally guaranteed, or are otherwise created by statutory law or case law, which may in turn empower various civil institutions to administer or enforce these rights."

Once again, if you do not agree with such a political system, then we probably have too little in common politically to discuss this issue. I suspect you would then probably support some type of Authoratative system.

My most serious grievance with that definition of the system (and with our system in general) is the ability of legislators to vote THEIR opinion and not the will of their consituents. I have some other issues with the definition, in that very few of the items mentioned are the interests of the majority of liberals that I have ever met in the nearly thirty-two years that I have been alive. But that's probably better saved for another discussion.

Personally, I'm for a much LESS Authoritarian system of government. In fact, my prefered style is much closer to anarchism than it is to fascism (as some have claimed I would prefer).

I am not sure if I saw your post regarding this - could you explain further?

I had commented that part of the reason I don't pay much attention to Ann Coulter is that I don't believe women have a place in the media. I also don't believe that they have a place in many other jobs and avenues of employment. I hold to a much more traditional balance of power between the genders.

I don't think one has to love every human to see the value of many of your fellow citizens of species representatives.

Unfortunately we've gotten to the point where the humanity's barrel has more than a handful of bad apples in it and we all know what happens at that point.

[Mufumonk]

[Baculus]

What you have to understand Bac is that I don't believe there's been a legitimate US Federal government since 1860. Therefore nobody involved in the US Federal government since then has any standing towards honesty in my mind.

Interesting thoughts, but not out of the realm of my own thinking in some matters regarding where or not the current govermnent is Constitutional, especially in regards to the Incorporation of the U.S. government, vis a vis the Government of the District of Columbia.

I am exceptionally closed minded. I have been for my entire life. You are correct that one must have a closed mind to buy into the doctrine of "hatred". I disagree that most people are creatures of reason. Especially nowadays.

You may be more open minded then which you give yourself credit. Trust me - even being in the SCA, to some, is the dorkiest thing possible to some who would never see the organization's virtutes no matter how it was explained. A lot of us are closed-minded to a degree: That does not mean it is bad, per se, if some of the ideas aren't worthy of consideration. For example, I would probably be closed to the idea of onion guzzling, since I hate onions; it is a matter of deducting what is worthy of consideration. At least that is my thinking on the matter. Even the most open-minded person tends to think in a range that precludes some thoughts.

But I always figure that you may miss some really neat stuff if something is immediately dismissed.

I do not own land, but I do own a motor vehicle and other personal property. I am not really for an all consuming "Freedom of Speech" either. I am a very large proponent of the RTKBA, and am a gun owner of the "from my cold dead hands" mentality. As for "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", that's a topic that I don't ahve a nice simple answer for you on. Personally, I don't believe that we are a nation devoted to those ideals anymore. Nor do I believe that the quest for those things is useful under every set of circumstances or philosophy out there.

I would agree to a point; once again, everything is not worthy of consideration. But it is your choice in such a belief as what you have - as long as it does not "tread on me" or anyone else, it is your belief to keep. That is the beauty of a libertarian, classic liberal belief: You can own that belief and it is yours to keep as long as you do not interfere with someone else. Of course, arguments regarding the "Greater Good" always comes into play with certain belief systems.

But, again, and not to continually harp a point, many of us do not realize the effect that liberalism has had upon Western culture. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not always such an obvious notion, especially in a Western and feudal based society. The period of Enlightment helped to lead mankind to ponder the idea of the individual as "the state," and cooperations between individuals as opposed to older, more coercion based systems.

Ok, I am going on a tangent - my apologies.

Actually, I do not partake in many of the more "liberal" aspects of the SCA. Especially the more hedonistic ones. I have no problem with others pursuing them, so long as they do not attempt to force my inclusion in them (which is something that has never occured in my decade+ in the society) or to denegrate me because I choose not to involve myself in them.

Ah, the beauty of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: One can partake, or not, as one sees fit. And this is something that even many of today's liberals forget: You cannot use coercion for such notions. The SCA, in some ways, is one of the more libertarian, traditional liberal organizations in which one may join. A lot of what you can do in such an organization is up to you, and you can participate to the extent of one's wishes. And this includes the social aspect of the society, as you indicated.

And that is a good model for society, IMHO.

My most serious grievance with that definition of the system (and with our system in general) is the ability of legislators to vote THEIR opinion and not the will of their consituents. I have some other issues with the definition, in that very few of the items mentioned are the interests of the majority of liberals saved for another discussion.

That is probably one of the flaws of a Representative Democracy, but a direct Democracy for nation decisions would be a madhouse. But, yes, that is the reason why we have to careful with our vote and to change the affect of influence, such as political action committees as lobyists. Keep in mind, too, that you are talking to someone that has been accused of being a conspiracist with certain notions of control entitires and power blocks in our government.

Regaring Liberals and the previous defintion of a Liberal Demoracy, many of today's liberals are defined as Neo-Liberals, and even forget their own roots. They attempt to use coercion for their views and do not remember that such roots included the notion of "That government is best which governs least," as stated by Thomas Paine. In fact, many libertarians and some conservatives consider themselves to be the true liberals, which is interesting. Being socially open-minded is usually referred to as being "socially liberal," but does not mean Liberal, per se, in its entirety.

I had commented that part of the reason I don't pay much attention to Ann Coulter is that I don't believe women have a place in the media. I also don't believe that they have a place in many other jobs and avenues of employment. I hold to a much more traditional balance of power between the genders.

I can understand the need for gender balance, though my feeling is that too many skilled minds are lost when you do not include women as productive members of the workforce and the brainpool. But that does not mean, to me, that there is anything wrong with women fulfilling traditional roles as homekeepers.

Unfortunately we've gotten to the point where the humanity's barrel has more than a handful of bad apples in it and we all know what happens at that point.

I am glad you understood my somewhat mangled sentence. But, though I have some hope in mankind, it is more of a "science fiction, Babylon 5 / Gene Rodenberry" hope that often keeps me motivated. That, inspite of our flaws, we'll stumble forward into something productive and actually progress. But, to me, progress does not always mean something new, but also something that simply works.

But yeah, there are a lot of bad apples that may hinder such a somewhat utopian vision.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Interesting thoughts, but not out of the realm of my own thinking in some matters regarding where or not the current govermnent is Constitutional, especially in regards to the Incorporation of the U.S. government, vis a vis the Government of the District of Columbia.

I'm not really up to speed on the topic of the District's government. I do know it has been an ongoing question for quite a while and that there are people on both sides of the issue. My problems are more based on the spending and legislature of our Congress over the last century and a half.

You may be more open minded then which you give yourself credit. Trust me - even being in the SCA, to some, is the dorkiest thing possible to some who would never see the organization's virtutes no matter how it was explained. A lot of us are closed-minded to a degree: That does not mean it is bad, per se, if some of the ideas aren't worthy of consideration. For example, I would probably be closed to the idea of onion guzzling, since I hate onions; it is a matter of deducting what is worthy of consideration. At least that is my thinking on the matter. Even the most open-minded person tends to think in a range that precludes some thoughts.

But I always figure that you may miss some really neat stuff if something is immediately dismissed.

Actually, I got introduced to the historical aspects of the SCA first, not the social/lifestyle aspects of the group. I've done my damndest to stay out of the political part of the Society for as long as possible, though that's becoming much more difficult now and at the end of Pennsic will become impossible as I take on the position of the East Kingdom's Central Region Siege Marshal.

I really think a lot of people and our society as a whole would be better served by being more closed minded at times. All too often we (as a society) allow ourselves to buy the snakeoil vender's product simply because we're so open-minded about it's possible results. Like the customers of those old west conmen, we get nothing in the way of results and walk away reminding ourselves we should have known better. At least until the next snakeoil salesman shows up at our door.

I would agree to a point; once again, everything is not worthy of consideration. But it is your choice in such a belief as what you have - as long as it does not "tread on me" or anyone else, it is your belief to keep. That is the beauty of a libertarian, classic liberal belief: You can own that belief and it is yours to keep as long as you do not interfere with someone else. Of course, arguments regarding the "Greater Good" always comes into play with certain belief systems.

The "Greater Good" arguement has been so overused in this country to coerce us into acceptance of unConstitutional measures that it's mention alone tends to turn me off to a concept. I have a very different and much more reserved view of what that clause means than most do.

Ah, the beauty of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: One can partake, or not, as one sees fit. And this is something that even many of today's liberals forget: You cannot use coercion for such notions. The SCA, in some ways, is one of the more libertarian, traditional liberal organizations in which one may join. A lot of what you can do in such an organization is up to you, and you can participate to the extent of one's wishes. And this includes the social aspect of the society, as you indicated.

And that is a good model for society, IMHO.

Yes the SCA can be viewed as a very libertarian organization, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. The problem I have with modern libertarian organizations is their acceptance of certain permissive agenda items that I do not believe are in the best interest of individuals or the society as a whole.

That is probably one of the flaws of a Representative Democracy, but a direct Democracy for nation decisions would be a madhouse. But, yes, that is the reason why we have to careful with our vote and to change the affect of influence, such as political action committees as lobyists. Keep in mind, too, that you are talking to someone that has been accused of being a conspiracist with certain notions of control entitires and power blocks in our government.

Direct Democracy is a wonderful Utopian concept that has no place in any discussion of logic or reason. It's just not possible. HOWEVER, what would be possible is the creation of an Informed and Educated electorate as a proof against what I consider Rogue Legislators. I also believe that there needs to be some check against the bold-faced lies (from both sides) that pervade every election campaign in this country. When John Kerry is allowed to air ads claiming he is a friend of hunters and gun owners, the system is seriously broken.

Bac, I'm not sure what entities you're refering to, but I'd be interested in knowing. Especially since I've been called everything from a pawn of the administration, to an anarchist and a terrorist over my years on different message boards.

Regaring Liberals and the previous defintion of a Liberal Demoracy, many of today's liberals are defined as Neo-Liberals, and even forget their own roots. They attempt to use coercion for their views and do not remember that such roots included the notion of "That government is best which governs least," as stated by Thomas Paine. In fact, many libertarians and some conservatives consider themselves to be the true liberals, which is interesting. Being socially open-minded is usually referred to as being "socially liberal," but does not mean Liberal, per se, in its entirety.

This may be a huge part of our disagreement. What you're referring to as liberalism or classic liberalism sounds very much like what I have always thought of as the basis of conservatism.

I can understand the need for gender balance, though my feeling is that too many skilled minds are lost when you do not include women as productive members of the workforce and the brainpool. But that does not mean, to me, that there is anything wrong with women fulfilling traditional roles as homekeepers.

That's understandable and reasonable. My problem is that society currently looks down on those women who choose not to become involved in the business world and instead (for whatever reason) become involved in a more traditional lifestyle. Additionally, to promote (read: force) the inclusion of women in certain segments of the workforce, we give them special allowances that no man would ever be allowed. In effect we make them "more equal" (to use a term from a popular high school reading list selection) than their male counterparts. That's what gets me the most upset.

I am glad you understood my somewhat mangled sentence. But, though I have some hope in mankind, it is more of a "science fiction, Babylon 5 / Gene Rodenberry" hope that often keeps me motivated. That, inspite of our flaws, we'll stumble forward into something productive and actually progress. But, to me, progress does not always mean something new, but also something that simply works.

But yeah, there are a lot of bad apples that may hinder such a somewhat utopian vision.

I'm not sure I understood the sentence itself so much as the idea you were trying to convey with it. I don't have as much hope for mankind as you do. Even in the short time I've been alive, I believe the quality of humankind has decreased. Both in my generation and in the one following me. Short of some major "miracle", I truly believe our society on this planet is doomed to failure. Oh, we'll survive for eons, but what good is survival when the life you live is devoid of all that is good and right?