Redefining Rockel

“Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’ ”


What a stupid cunt.

 

I'm sorry Ryan, I know this will probably make for another akward meeting when I come see you guys in the upcoming play but don't you think that is an incredibly repulsive comment? Why would you have to stoop to name calling and then such an incredibly disgusting and vulgar name like that? I'm just glad my little girl can't read such a horrible statement.

 

Can you guess who said:

"Bush's defense of the port deal is to say that 'those who are questioning it' need to 'step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.'
First of all, it's not 'all of a sudden.' The phrase you're searching for, Mr. President, is 'ever since the murderous attacks of Sept. 11.' The Bush administration's obstinate refusal to profile Middle Easterners has been the one massive gaping hole in national security since the 9/11 attacks — attacks that received indirect support from the United Arab Emirates."

or

"I have finally hit upon a misdeed by the Bush administration so outrageous, so appalling, so egregious, I am calling for a bipartisan commission with subpoena power to investigate: Who told the president to nominate Harriet Miers? The commission should also be charged with getting an answer to this question: Who was his second choice?
Things are so bad, the best option for Karl Rove now would be to get himself indicted. Then at least he'd have a colorable claim to having no involvement in the Miers nomination."

or

"...He is David Hackett Souter, only the most recent reason Republican presidents — especially Republican presidents named "Bush" — have lost the right to say "Trust me" when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.
The other reasons are: Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy."

 

I don't typically use that word, Chuck. I'm not even that big a fan of it. But, when the shoe fits...

 

So the "shoe fits"? Meaning she is in actuality a part of the female anatomy? I don't mean to sound judgmental and please forgive me if I do, I just think that you could have made that point much more strongly had you not ended it with that comment. But that's my opinion, and certainly not one shared by others.

 

Ryan, in response to what you said about Coulter's statement, here's the thing, everyone has their own take on religion. In fact, each person interprets much of the same religion differently. Find me two Christians who completely agree on every single point about the Bible, how it works in modern life, and how it influences life in America (including politics), and I truly believe it will be the rare find to have two people respond exactly alike. The thing is, the liberal side does have much of what Coulter pointed out, so does the Conservative side. I find myself quite often moderate, but that the Conservatives more often make more sense than the liberals. You may tag me something different than moderate, but that's where I see myself. I find Coulter to be intriguing and thought provoking, but I also find Al Franken to be similar. One thing in addition to all of this I would like to point out, the backlash to Coulter has been much more personal and mud-slinging than the response to Franken's last book.

 

Coulter has criticized Bush, therfore every word she speaks I should agree with.

Is that the point you were trying to make, Chuck?

 

Yes

 

I wonder why you guys seem to dislike her so much. Is it because she says things you don't agree with? Does that make it ok to compare her to the Devil and to call her vile and repulsive names? Is that any better of a point?

 

Excellent point.

---

Is it because she says things you don't agree with?
-No.

Does that make it ok to compare her to the Devil and to call her vile and repulsive names?
-I always forget that hyperbole and sarcasm are devices only you are authorized to employ. (This answer is in response to the "compare her to the Devil" remark, as it was the one I made. Obviously, from his defense of his choice, Ryan was not engaging in either literary device when he called her the "vile and repulsive" name.)

Is that any better of a point?
-Yes.

I wonder why you guys seem to dislike her so much.
-You shouldn't have to wonder, I think Ryan pretty much spelled it out.

Why don't you like Michael Moore, Chuck? Is it because he's fat? Is it because he's from the Mid-west? Is it because he's a succesful film director/producer and you're not? Is it because his political views just happen to not allign 100% with your own? Is it because he doesn't bathe as regularly as one should?

 

Regardless of whether you have the stomach for words (those loathsome, vile, detestable creatures)your attempts at defending Anne Coulter fall far short.

"The Bush administration's obstinate refusal to profile Middle Easterners has been the one massive gaping hole in national security since the 9/11 attacks..."

Have you been in an airport recently? Have you read the articles about middle-eastern citizens being detained for questioning without being charged for crimes? Here's a cool Newsweek article all about it.

"I have finally hit upon a misdeed by the Bush administration so outrageous, so appalling, so egregious, I am calling for a bipartisan commission with subpoena power to investigate: Who told the president to nominate Harriet Miers?"

Oh my freaking goodness you have to got to be totally effing kidding me. Harriet effing Miers. THAT is what gets the president subpoenaed? Have you seen this list of "outrageous," "appalling," and "egregious" acts?

And David Souter? Throw me a freakin' bone. He got voted in 90-9 by Dubyah's daddy's Senate. She's just pissed that he voted against Bush in Bush v. Gore.

Try harder.

 

Matt, your missing one clear point which I'm surprised at. When you talk about people badly, even in hyperbole, it's about people who I may like. When I do it it's about people I don't like. I hope that clears things up and that you'll stop now.

Ryan, the reason for those quotes was to show that it would be rediculous for you to say, "Oh, she doesn't like some things Bush did so I like" as it is for you to say, "She says things I don't agree with so I hate her". I don't know if your "loathesome, detestable..." comment was sarcastic or not, but are you honestly trying to convince yourself that words cannot be vile and detestable? I wonder if you would feel the same way if I spoke of your girlfriend in the same way which you spoke of Ann Coulter in your first comment? Yes, I too am sorry that I have not learned to be desensitized to vulgar and ignorant language, maybe I'll learn one day.

By the way, I don't think Michael Moore makes me as angry as Ann Coulter seems to make Ryan. So I'm not sure that the analogy stands, but I'm sure you'll show me how it still does, I'll be back in search for it.

 

"surprised at" meaning that I'm surprised you missed it. Not that I"m surprised at the point.

 

Crystal clear.

As to Moore/Coulter, I'm gonna need Ryan to give me a rating (1-10 should be fine, whole numbers only, 1 being this person does not make me angry at all, 10 being just looking at his/her face makes me want to vomit up my own liver and beat him/her to death with it) pertaining to Ms. Coulter, and then, of course, Chuck to do likewise with Mr. Moore. Once I've collected and analysed this data I can then begin to search for a more suitable candidate for my analogies. I may need some follow up information, so please, don't either of you leave the country any time soon.

(or you could just come to terms with the fact that analogies - even, gasp, yours - can "stand" without being 'exact')

 

11

 

1, he has to at least talk first, then it probably spikes to about an 8.

And actually I disagree, analogies have to be dead on 99.9% accurate, the only thing which is allowed to change in an analogy is the thing being compared.

I'm trying to help you out by figuring out who would make me as angry as A.C. seems to make Ryan but I can't think of anyone, I'll continue looking. There has to be someone.

 

"the thing being compared"

or... dare we say.. the person?