www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The "Real" Anti-Americans

Excellent article that many here could learn from by reading and taking to heart.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0113-21.htm

Dear Moe,

Excellent article - thanks for sharing.

But the notion of name-calling isn't just with the "rightie-tighties."

"Liberal-wiberals" have that market cornered too.

And when are we going to have a truly democratic discussion on this matter? Is that possible?

Are you not telling, rather than asking us, to read the article and accept it for our own good etc.?

Alex

I've noticed the same thing. I used to listen to some of those guys and I realized they're crazy. They all tell people to "quit their whining" and such, when people say things like "I can't get a job" -- "quit your whining, welfare crack mom, Bush has made our country safer"

sorry to get political there. Thanks for the link. to be fair, I think Michael Moore and Al Franken give the Left just as bad a name.

Has anyone seen Team America: World Police? Though Tray Parker and Matt Stone offend EVERYONE, their satire usually speaks the honest, sick, truth. and other stuff you might not want to sit through...

Professor Alex,

I went through a phase when I believed the government ought to address every need long before we knew we had it. I was a Democrat and figured that even if I had no particular needs that it was the government's responsibility to make some up and tax the devil out of everyone. What did any of us need with money anyway?

Than it began to dawn on me. The govenment tended to do a very poor job of caring for my or my communities needs. If they would just leave me the money and show me how to get educated then we could do a better job of caring for people and have more money for our own needs than ever before.

The most frightening words the government ever says it, "We're here to help." Run for your lives.

Dan L

The triumph of Gingrich. Make a list of names that are derogatory and always use them in association with liberals, progressives, Democrats. Well he succeeded when at the beginning he made those speeches on the floor of congress before an empty house.
I, for one, am not so ready to accept a label. Am I conservative, liberal, traditionalist, progressive? Guess it depends on the definition and the issue. I am a Democrat--for many reasons--among which are civil rights, social security, the support of workers' rights, etc. etc. I didn't like the way my ancestors were treated by the so-called conservatives when they came to this country. I could go on and on, but I'll end by saying that I recognize that the Democratic party is not what it was years ago, but at least it won't give tax breaks to millionaires and moan that there isn't enough money for your grandmothers.

Vito,

How does allowing Social Security to be destroyed make the Democrats supportive of it? I think you'd better do some more thinking on this matter. Moreover, I don't see how a Christian supports the killing of babies. Maybe you have some rational for that. And again, the Democrats are the ones who supported slavery. It was the Republicans who ended it.

I bought the Democrat rhetoric for years until it became clear that they are all talk and no action.

Dan L

and all those Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights tooth and nail now find a home in the GOP.

Dan, Your opinion about Social Security insurance is one with which I disagree. I am a Christian and a registered Democrat and I don't support baby killing. Brian has explained to you the facts about the Dixiecrats. As I said earlier, the Democrats have changed from my father's day and grandfather's day; but in my opinion they still are the party of the "common man" in comparison to the rightist Republicans. I think, as we become older and less idealistic and have accumulated stocks and bonds; it's natural to tend toward political conservatism. Another thing, it seems to me that those rightist non-mainline protestants with whom Catholics have been aligning with on some social issues were and still are among the most virulent anti-Catholics.

Vito,

New Gingrich is actually from my hometown (Carrollton, Georgia)- - -well, he's actually from somewhere like Ohio but lived here and was one of my dad's professors in college and in high school. His Ohio (or whatever it is) accent bothers me so much, and it kills me to think that some people might mistake him for a Georgian.

His ex-wife is very good friends with my grandmother and I see her quite often. Incidentally, my grandmother hates Newt. LOL

I hate to disappoint you, Dan, but it seems you did not fully comprehend what the Democratic Party is all about! I wouldn't call those viewpoints Democratic as much as, well, individual.

Logos Teen

National Defense.
Civil rights.
Workplace safety.
Enormous strides in Public Health, not just in medicine but in sanitation, air and water quality.
Access to higher education.
Enabling initiatives in high technology - the aerospace industry, the computer industry, electrification, ...
...

Dear Teen, The murmurings are already being heard: "Newt for president in 08!" He's ex-wife is from a town here not far from mine. Vito P.S. I think Gingrich originally from PA.

Friends,

As I've noted before I wish we had a Catholic king. I don't like any of the other candidates very much. But I guess we're stuck.

Dan L

What have the Romans ever done for us?

Let's face, only the Romans could keep order in a place like this!

Don't forget the wine, Reg.

Had to google to find out what you were talking about. Walked right into that!

Always look on the bright side of life.

Forget about the tax breaks. Think about the tax loop holes, and you'll find the real billionaires. Our whole system is off, and very unjust.

Now some say that we should have a flat tax, and stop the loop holes. But then, what would happen to mortagages and charities? Everything would have to be considered.

Others say that we should do what they do in many European countries, and tax only the goods that people buy. The more expensive something is, the higher the taxes on it.

That sounds great, after all if some rock star wants a Rolls Royce, why shouldn't he be taxed higher than someone buying an average car.

The problem though with that is that it might cut production, and people will end up losing jobs.

Whatever the problem, at least Pres. Bush is going to try to make some changes. They are sorely needed. Somehow though, I feel the accountants that are so dependant on making money figuring out all those loop holes for their clients, will put up a big propaganda fight...and they are bound to have the Democrat support.

Zenovia

Zenovia,

"Whatever the problem, at least Pres. Bush is going to try to make some changes. They are sorely needed. Somehow though, I feel the accountants that are so dependant on making money figuring out all those loop holes for their clients, will put up a big propaganda fight...and they are bound to have the Democrat support."

I raised this issue with out accountant. He said don't worry about us. Even if they eliminate the Income Tax there will always be a job for us.

Dan L

Dear Dan,

Ha! That's what they say now.

Zenovia

Many, many Republicans are not on the side of these pundits. Yet party affilitation and the "blue-state/red-state" dichotomy has colored our thinking. We are being divided by the lies of the right-wing pundits.

Oh come on...you mean people can't think for themselves. Do you really believe that? "Blue state/red state" America spoke. Middle America said loud and clear, enough is enough!

That article definately lays out the far lefts agenda, you got that right.

Pani Rose

Pani,

I agree with you. It will be nice to have that "right wing" pundit, Dan Rather, off the TV screen. Such an honest man. :rolleyes:

Dan L

[/b][/QUOTE]I hate to disappoint you, Dan, but it seems you did not fully comprehend what the Democratic Party is all about! [/QB][/QUOTE]

Logos Teen -

I recently read Coulter's book entitled "Treason". After reading it, I felt that I was the one who had not fully comprehended what the Democratic party was all about! She certainly makes a compelling historical case, although the leftward leaning members of this forum on any blood pressure meds should not read her text.

Two links of interest:

http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/coulter.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33645

As to Newt, I certainly don't find him appealing as a candidate either. Keyes strikes me as too much of a hot head, although I am sympathetic to many of his views.

Pray for me and forgive me for I am a sinner!

Gordo

A Catholic King, mmmmmm. as long as he is Eastern Catholic.
Much Love,
Jonn

Rather like reading Jack Chick to find out about the Cathiolic Church. :rolleyes:

It seems to me that the Jack Chick analogy is better suited to the article that Moe linked when he started this thread. I think that Maureen Dowd would be the liberal counterpart to Ann Coulter. The analogy is not exact, I admit, but certainly closer than Jack Chick. :p

The article that Moe linked reduces the conservative arguments to incorrect one-liners and then attacks them. Surely there is some false accusation in that?

Another problem it has is that it advocates special rights for homosexuals. As Christians we are obligated to reject that position in favor of the teaching of the Church.

One of my major problems with the more extreme liberal and conservative pundits is that they seem to forget that both sides share many of the same goals: a good economy with lots of jobs, health care, civil rights, helping those in need, quality education, an equitable tax system and etc. The differences on these issues are in how to secure these goals.

After reading the article twice I concluded that the author was successful only in showing himself to be the flip side (the liberal counterpart) of everything he accuses the conservatives of.

Well as I mentioned before, I am unfamiliar with Dowd's writings. Does she realy charge Republicans with treason and such crimes? I will have to read her, then.

Coulter is probably as anti-Democrat as Chick is anti-Catholic. And a quick tour of the net reveals many errors of fact (legion compared, e.g. to Rather). Not unlike Chick. My suspicion: with both it's all schtick; there's good money to made in such enterprises. So maybe Dan Brown is a better comparison.

More irenicism! Unfortunately, it's far easier to "win" by demonizing opponents, than to demonstrate the better merits of one's arguments. And it works!

Maureen Dowd writes a weekly column in the New York Times. Yes, her style is similar to Ann Coulter�s, but Coulter is much more organized and Dowd seems to float from one subject to another. She writes mostly stuff accusing the president of wanting to put old people on the street to die and how Christians are stupid for not accepting �reproductive rights� and homosexual marriage, as well as yearning for the �free love� lifestyle of the 1960s.

There is much to be learned from the Jack Chicks of the world. As a Byzantine Catholic I know that he misrepresents the Catholic Faith. I can learn from that the need to always strive to present the Gospel in terms that those who hate us can understand. Most won�t agree or accept, but occasionally you�ll find someone who will first respect what you say and then accept it.

I haven�t read The Da Vinci Code (and don�t plan to) so I can�t comment on Dan Brown. The type of fiction I prefer is mysteries, and I like my fictional characters to have names like Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, Thomas and Charlotte Pitt, Jim Chee and Joe Leaphorn, or Jim Qwilleran.

One of the many, many, differences between Maureen Dowd and Ann Coulter is that Dowd dumps on everybody, not just one side.

After the first presidential debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore, she described it as "the tantric debate between the Insufferable and the Insufficient," which is as equal-opportunity an insult as you can make.

She got much criticism on the leftward side of the political spectrum for what some saw as her obsession with the Monica Lewinsky mess.

I wouldn't be surprised if she's personally more liberal than conservative, but her writing is mean to pretty much anybody in power.

You can check out Coulter yourself at http://www.anncoulter.org/

And Dowd's column, which runs Wednesdays and Sundays in The New York Times, can be found here

http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html

But you have to register.

--tim

Dear Gordo,

I haven't read Ann Coulter's book, but I love her. She is certainly a fighter.

As for Newt, they say he is absolutely brilliant, but I doubt that he could become president. He tends to lack leadership qualities.

He had problems in Congress, and removed from his leadership position by the Dems. because of some previous action on his part towards a (dishonest though likable) Dem. congressional leader. It was pay back time.

As for Alan Keyes, I consider him the most brilliant man in our nation today. I personally adore him, but he doesn't stand a chance because he is (I believe) a Minister, and highly devout....and worse, he doesn't hide it.

Zenovia

I spent about 5 seconds on the Coulter site before sighing: more geese than swans now live, ...
Is there anything cogent there? What some people will do for a living.

Go to her interview here for better fun.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

(Transcipt and comment here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0206-23.htm )

Wow! I guess she got her facts wrong in an interview about Canadian foreign policy. I didn't even know Canada had a foreign policy, beyond enjoying the protection of a stronger neighbor to the South. If they do, does anyone really care? She must have spent 5 seconds reading their Foreign Policy website too. :p

As to the Jack Chick comparison, I find the comparison itself to be typical of liberal bias. Throw out a familiar, emotionally loaded label and you are never forced to understand the contentions of others who hold views opposite to your own. Coulter's assertions are well researched and worth exploring (for more than 5 seconds). Anyone who has even a basic interest in the country's past and future should seek to understand where the Democratic party's loyalties lie, and I think she has asked very challenging questions that need to be explored further, not superficially dismissed with labels.

Many years -

Gordo

I have less respect for Dr. Keyes after his concession to his party to become an obvious carpetbagger candidate for the state of Illinois. It was an ineffectual move which if anything may have hurt his career.

I would have respected him far more had he taken a stance as an independent candidate for President instead of bowing to the wishes of a party who has such pro-choice luminaries as Schwartzenegger, Specter and McCain in its ranks.

Diak -

Although I know the country is moving in a more pro-life direction, I fear for the Republican party's future as more life "moderates" are raised to higher levels.

The recent Gonzales appointment as AG is particularly troublesome, given Bush's recent statements on building a "culture of life" and Gonzales' stance on life issues including torture and abortion (the two are not, of course, morally equivalent). IMHO, the Democrats were right to oppose him. I think it was primarily a pay-off for a long-time Bush loyalist...and I say that as a Bush supporter.

Many years -

Gordo

Dear DJS,

My, my, Coulter made a mistake. It can't be too often, or they wouldn't be making such a big fuss about it.

I guess we'll have to throw out all her fact filled books, :rolleyes: rather than giving her credit for having the courage to stand up to you guys.

Zenovia

She was called to task for having having warned Canada to toe the line or risk being crushed. In her explanation she launched an argument that she was unable to support. The issue was not the inherent significance of the seeming error, it was the significance to her: it was central to her own argument. Clearly it's better to base one's arguments on facts over which you have sure command, at least if one is interested in making a true and valid argument.

And as I mentioned this was an exemplary case - fun - owing to the deer-in-the-headlight expression of one who had spoken so mightily of crushing Canada. But the web is full of dissection of her fact-challenged work. Includign her scurrilous charge of treason. While her tone may be excting to those who like fighters, my own preference is for valid arguments made with sure facts. And it really doesn't take more than 5 seconds to see that she what she's up to. I frequently disagree respectfully with Buckley, Will, Friedman, etc. Coulter is not respectable.

Dear Gordo,

The Democrats opposed him as AG because they knew that the next step for him would have been the Supreme Court.

He is only the first of the pro-life candidates that the Democrats will oppose, remember they have to answer to their pro-choice constituents. They will 'spin' something in every candidate that is pro-life... as they have up to now.

I wonder just how many of Bush's pro-life candidates for the 'bench' the Dems have opposed so far.

Zenovia -

My understanding is that Gonzales is not pro-life, and at least one of the stories out of Texas seem to back this assertion. The questions around the torture "memos" are still, at best, unresolved and at most, damning. If all this is true, thank goodness he was not nominated for the Supreme Court.

As to Bush's other nominees, more power to them! I enjoy watching Democrats scramble to make cases against the Constitution they swore to protect and uphold.

Peace -

Gordo

Crush Canada? Does Alex know about this?

Dear DJS,

One's opinion of respectability or not, should be left up to each person's personal discernment. It is not each individual fact per ce that is important, but rather the experiences one has acquired throughout their life, and the connection of those different 'knowledges' in forming their individual reasoning.

Of course that reasoning can go anyway it wants, depending on their personality...and the discernment we have been gifted with, or not.

Zenovia

And what precisely do you think she is up to?

And have you read any of her works to discern this?

Her wit can be sardonic at times, no doubt, but I think it is part of her charm. And she is certainly fiesty, but I am one who is decidedly more impressed with logical arguments (laid out over the course of mutiple chapters with corraborating evidence and citations)than platitudes and passion.

Many Years -

Gordo

PS: And I will gladly do penance for insulting the many friendly Canadians (Alex included) who inhabit this forum! :p

Actually, I heard differently. The best way though to find out, is by finding some Christian News web site. They are usually accurate and honest.

Zenovia

DJS is saying that Ann Coulter is the conservative version of Ted Kennedy. That's an insult to Ann Coulter since nothing true comes out of Ted Kennedy's mouth.

Dear Gordo,

I receive E-mails every so often from the "Religious Freedom Coalition." They mention every legislation and who is voting for what, etc.

Their address is: RFCUpdates<mail@rfcnet.org>

They mention Gonzales as having passed, and by how many votes. They also said that legislation is being passed so that the judge appointee's can be brought to a vote.

The problem is that once that happens, the Dems will find ways to close down Washington. It will be a game of who will buckle first.

Zenovia

Thanks, Zenovia. I will definitely check it out.

No doubt the dem spin cycle will be in full force!

Peace -

Gordo

Here you go, after I said I would resist...

Condi for prez and Jeb for VP 2008

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. (And taste in writers, as I noted above.) And the truth and validity of that opinion is certainly independent its holder's ability to articulate it.

But Coulter is a pundit, who ISTM, should be held to some professional standards of accuracy, logic, and cogency. I hope that we could agree on this, and not stoop to outcome-based standards of argumentation. On the other hand, perhaps punditry has degenerated too far into mere thought-thuggery. A lie convincingly delivered, or a smear that successfully infects the body politic are more highly regarded than truth or validity. I see this as a serious threat to our country. Not that pundits do it, but that people accept it and even champion it.

Would that this were so; but, really, it simply cannot be reconciled with this:
What part of "false witness" don't you understand?
Why is lying amusing?

For some background on Gonzales:

http://www.orboston.org/News_current/Gonzales_on_AB.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41386
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/

Thanks for the posts, djs. This is what happens when people abandon principle in the interest of party. One wonders - what is the purpose of a platform?!?

Of course, I realize that Democrats are far worse on this issue, but, apart from a few pro-life Dem's, at least they are consistently worse.

Heaven help us if we abandon solidarity with the poorest of the poor. Where will we go?

Many years -

Gordo