BTW..apologies for not linking the column. It was my goal, but I was having issues.

What's this have to do with being a liberal as opposed to, say, a neocon? Not a whole lot. I take it from this article that we should start rounding up and detaining all professed Muslims. And while we're at it all liberals. "Extremely biased" is putting it lightly.

I have read quite a bit of her book "Treason". Equating liberals to commiting treason made me sick, and showed her complete and total ignorance of what a real democracy is.

But I felt it important, for some reason, to read something published by the people that I cannot stand. Then I returned to Franken's "Lying, lyers,....". Good book!

There are some "great" Coulter quotes at http://www.anticoulter.com/. Some examples:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Maybe we should start making Arabs pin a crescent on their jackets and restrict them from taking an public transportation. To be entirely safe, we should probably restrict them from having bank accounts and being able to own property.

Thanks for that one Ryan...man I love her. Of course you could just judge that statement for it's emotional courseness, but I prefer to look at the substance, the context, and the greater point made in the controversial column that was taken from.

As far as what a real "democracy" is...if you have no country to defend it makes the lofty ideal of demmocracy a little difficult to acheive. Personally, I prefer to use the term "Representative Republic", as apposed to the fairly recent idea (post WW II) that we are somehow a democracy (read "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich A. Hayek). One you get over that notion, it's a little harder to justify laying down on your back for all enemies in the name of "democracy".

Arabs shouldn't be allowed to wear jackets. They could hide bombs under them.

Brette: That would be going much to far.. we should just throw them in internment camps while we are at war with the terrorists.

Simply recognizing the fact that the terrorists we are looking for are Arabic does not equate to detaining all professed Muslims or "making them pin a crescent on their jackets and restricting them from taking public transportation."

What vivid imagination that looking for terrorists in the groups of people that terrorists are found in equates to this type of oppression. Beam me up.

I am grinning ear-to-ear as I read your comments, I do appreciate your good hearts and intentions. However, I would like to congratulate you all on missing the point entirely.

Dude, Can't believe that you are even TRYING to defend those statements by Coulter. They are inexcusable. Ok, so someone that disagrees with Bush would be fine talking about eliminating all neoconservatives??? That McVeigh should have bombed the Bush family??? Ha, under any context it is WRONG. Seems that everything is "taken out of context" when defending fellow neocons.

As for my comments on a democracy, I believe that representation is specifically referred to in the definition:

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) (d-mkr-s)n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Also, definition #5 REQUIRES us to always see how we can make it better and improve it. ADMIT mistakes, and try to fix them. As how a successful business would analyze their follies and weaknesses and then fix them. Look at competitors and see how they have succeeded and failed (ie. health care, Japan's bubble break), not just waive the company flag, stick one on their SUV, on there shirt, kid, dog, cat, gerbil, and then move on as though they were #1 in EVERYTHING. That business would do as well as, well.....Aloha Petrolium did.

The suggestion that we should treat Arabic citizens with more scrutiny because of their physical characteristics is hardly any different than marking them with a crescent. The idea of the crescent was to disinguish a group of people by using a visable sign -- genetics does that naturally in the case with Arabs.

As for restricting their use of public transit: I would consider it to be a restriction if I was harassed everytime I tried to pass through airport security.

You say we have vivid imaginations, I say you have closed eyes.

We should all thank the Dude for giving us something to talk about after VillageIdiot left us.

what happened to jt?

He just got sick of having to defend his views to all of the more leftist people here, so he quit stopping by. He was kind of a sole conservative back in the day. You'd agree with him a lot Dude.

:(

You had a conservative that actually CALLED himeslelf VillageIdiot? Talk about putting yourself at a disadvantage right off the bat.

Micro...thanks for making my point. If you want a democracy, let's have it. Starting with #4, "majority rule". The majority of Americans think we should look for the terrorists in places where terrorists are. The majority of Americans think that having a statue of the ten commandments in any public place (including a courthouse or park) does not violate the constitution. The majority of Americans think that marriage should be preserved as it always has been, between a man and a woman. These are random examples...and you can agree or disagree, but they are majority opinion. What if the majority of Americans took Ann Coulter literally and wanted to invade all Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity? Would that be acceptable? No...of course not.

For the record, I think that was a horrible way for her to make her point. I only think that when you consider the context of her dry-sarcastic message in that column...it shouldn't discredit every other thing she says.

He also went by jt. I asked him to start coming around again and to try and just ignore any political posts, but he said that would be too difficult. :/

I totally understand where he's coming from. It IS too difficult. I am only here because I am enjoying these political discussions right now. When that changes...I'm gone, even if there are other topics of interest to discuss.

I made your point? You didn't even comment on anything I said!

Majority of the Americans elected GORE. Not Bush. You seem to forget this, well maybe just over look it. Although I respect your opinion as an American and, as I deduce, a service man, I believe you have confused what the majority wants with what Bush and his administration's right wing, religious agenda are.

VillageIdiot is sorely missed. I suppose I should get off my ass and finally get the categories working so he could ignore the political posts.

"#4 - Majority Rule"...its right in your post, man. How is it did I not comment on anything you said? I also addressed your comments about my comments about the Coulter comment (whew). Um... I was also not arguing for majority rule in all circumstances, I was arguing against it.

Bush's social agenda, unfortunately, is not conservative. That is my biggest gripe with him. Its amazing to me because he has somehow managed to create the illusion among left-wing idealogues that he is this right-wing nutcase, and then politicked his way out of getting anything conservative done. Seems to me that if he is going to have that perception anyway, he might as well clean house. What a waste.

Urgh....have a good night all.

Sometimes a good "urgh" is the best medicine.

I think I'm out for the day too. Glad I could stir up some trouble...24 comments, nice!

For the record, we do not live in a democracy. And majority rule obviously must have limits. So even if today a majority thinks it's rational to enslave black people it does not make it okay. Also, we do not make (most) government decisions collectively by voting, they are made by elected representatives who, as MicroMan just mentioned, may even be elected when the majority voted for someone else.

I enjoy these political posts now and then, in moderation. But everyday is a bit overwhelming.. and annoying. Let's vary it up.

Wasn't aware it was everyday. First one I've started, in fact.

If you're annoyed, don't participate.

I don't think he is speaking of you specifically Dude as this was your first post. But certainly this site has been overrun with politics as of late.

If anything I have enjoyed your posts as they give us something to argue over. Every good website needs a villain. It is the everyday posts of how Bush sucks and then a few responses that are along the lines of, "yeah, he sure does" that are getting a little boring to me.

I seems there has been a very good variety lately, but the political posts are drawing the most comments...by far. Maybe its because I piss everyone off, which is fine, but that's why I took it to be directed at me.

"Villian"...ouch. Good to see I have a place, at least. I keep leaving with good intentions of closing this thread. How about now?

"If you're annoyed, don't participate."

"If you hate this country so much, why don't you move to a different one."

The villain thing was a joke. ; )

I know Ryan.

I think the post before that from agent was a joke too...at least I really hope so.