Originally Posted by ballz2wallz I'd say she's more than qualified to have valid opinions of what's going on politically. Certainly if Krugman is, she is too. But, if you cannot respect her opinion, then you cannot respect his. You can't have it both ways can you? It has nothing to ...
12-25-2007, 11:29 PM
| #41 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist Greensboro, NC 
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz It has nothing to do with her qualifications, it has to do with her being nutjob. I personally hope that it's all an act for ratings and publicity, but who knows.
I have no respect for her because of her outrageous comments, Krugman is an admitted partisan, so I keep that in mind obviously when I'm linked something he's written, but he's no where near as bad as Coulter. Not even close. | ||||
     |
|
12-26-2007, 10:05 AM
| #42 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim Are you serious? Come on now.
__________________ No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks. | ||||
| |
|
12-26-2007, 10:14 AM
| #43 | ||||
| Banned  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by JaJae You posted paragraphs on Democrats racist past, did I misquote you? Are the bolded parts not your post?
| ||||
| |
|
12-26-2007, 10:35 AM
| #44 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim I cannot fathom how any logical or reasonable person can read my post and think it wasn't about Reagan. Was there parts in the article that I didn't touch on or care to mention? Sure, but that wasn't what my post was about. It had a clear purpose and a clear intent that anyone who read it could pick up on. If you wish to change the subject, by all means you are free to do so. But even after all this back and forth you have not gone back to discuss the issue that I brought up in my post. You are bringing up the issue you want to bring up out of my post and completely ignoring what the post was about. I really don't see much of a point in continuing this back and forth banter. There's really no purpose in debating someone who is debating with themselves...
| ||||
| |
|
12-26-2007, 10:52 AM
| #45 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by JaJae Here is your post:
1) Reagan made a speech where civil rights workers were murdered 2) He used code words like "states rights", a strategy long apologized for by the GOP as wrong 3) The ONLY offered defense in your post is to quickly say "Reagan said states rights...in the past...Democrats did Jim Crow!" (A Reagan biographer and conservative are not quoted, nor are any other defenses) 4) More talk about Democrat's past, with a link into a length list into statements by democrats in the past Now, someone, there is point 3.5 or 1.5...that somehow articulates a defense of Reagan that is found nowhere in your post If you can, go back to your post, and underline and bold the part that proves Reagan was innocent Or heck, even a part that says "Reagan wasn't using the southern strategy in 1980 because..." please highlight the part of your post which I can use to finish that sentence, it doesn't even have to be solid proof, it just has a to be a logical point that isn't one big "well hey...look at the democratic party's history!" Also, I'll note that you could edit parts of the article you didn't like out, as you provided a link...you could have bolded a section that was the core essence of your post...instead you simply cut and paste something that is 99% an attack on Democrats and the other 1% isn't anything I'd call a real defense of Reagan | ||||
| |
|
12-31-2007, 12:18 PM
| #46 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by motivez Coulter is an admitted partisan too
 | ||||
| |
| vBulletin 3.7.2 -- Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. | Custom Artwork and Theme (TM) 2006, Liberty Lounge |
