| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ann Coulter's Version of the Truth | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 9 2006, 08:33 PM (1,352 Views) | |
| Daniel\ | Aug 11 2006, 01:35 AM Post #76 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
![]() (IT, I was editing my last post when I saw you reponded to it, so I deleted what I wrote. I don't think it said anything new anyway.) |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Aug 11 2006, 06:19 AM Post #77 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Do you think the average reader was treating that subjunctively, IT? That book has sold hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of copies. If your point is that she was blatantly misleading, rather than outright lying, I'm not sure that raises her to a higher circle of hell. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Aug 11 2006, 09:25 AM Post #78 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
You will forgive me, but I have chuckled everytime I have read each continuation of this thread. The ability iof the right to rationalize their love affair with this media wh*re and their inability to reject her as one of their prime spokespersons is really fun to watch! Now we are in to the more arcane aspects of English grammar to explain why she is right and those who see her for what she is are wrong. You conservatives really crack me up sometimes! |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 11 2006, 09:30 AM Post #79 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Of course we do. You don't even have the ability to figure out who is and who is not a terrorist, and you just posted that "there is not an Muslim country or even collection of Muslim that has the military strength to take on the West and the rest of the world -- for even a day." With that kind of ignorance, there's no way one could expect you to understand this. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Aug 11 2006, 09:53 AM Post #80 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Rick, your ability to see what you want to see astounds me. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Aug 11 2006, 10:54 AM Post #81 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
First of all, I must say I appreciate IT's deconstruction of the text under discussion. Second of all, I haven't read the thread where Rick's statement was quoted from, but I do think that if the rest of the world combined to annihilate one or more muslim countries, they wouldn't last very long. If the nuclear powers chose to use that weaponry, it would be much less than a day, and it may come to that yet. The really difficult problem is how to avoid annihilating all of them without leaving opportunity for some of them to kill some of us. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Aug 11 2006, 11:16 AM Post #82 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Yeah well, it's actually how to avoid annihilating all of them so none of them will be left to kill some of us. |
![]() |
|
| big al | Aug 11 2006, 11:22 AM Post #83 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I'm not sure I'm parsing your statement correctly, Mr. Burton. If I were to rephrase it, would it come out "The only good muslim is a dead muslim"? If so, I think I've heard that sentiment in a different context before. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 11 2006, 01:25 PM Post #84 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Probably not, due to the dumbed down educational system most Americans have thanks to the NEA. ![]() However, as you occasionally have to correctly point out, you must argue against what the author actually write, not what you think they wrote or wanted them to write.
Yes, she is very canny rhetorician. Even if one vehemently disagrees with her politcs and her style, there is no doubt that she is intelligent and making a nice living at doing what she does. Punditry is a rather benign occupation in the scheme of things
No, that is not my point. I don't think it is blatantly misleading, nor do I know that it was deliberately misleading. She made a shorthand argument regarding the implications of value free education. In terms of social and cultural criticism, that sort of connect the dots does not warrant eternal damnation. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 11 2006, 01:28 PM Post #85 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Well, Al, there are a lot of extreme muslims who would hold that the only good Christian/westerner/non muslim is a dead one. The difference being that they think that ideologically, and we are being driven to that defensively. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Aug 11 2006, 01:29 PM Post #86 |
|
MAMIL
|
Isn't that basically what the Black Panthers said? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Aug 11 2006, 01:47 PM Post #87 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I think that's totally wrong- but we can disagree. When it came to fighting the war on terrorism- there would be no holding back on employing the weapons at their disposal. Guns, tanks, fighter planes, etc. - all of this would be employed in order to secure the liberty of free people. There is nothing in this construction- that you can point to as having a gramatically "correct" (only) meaning: conditional/ in the future. It COULD and easily be talking about the past. It "could" be read the way you suggest- the point remains it is confusing- and purposely. It is insinuating a lot of unpleasant things- and manipulating someone else's viewpoint (i.e. straw man fallacy). But I like the way you attack every issue from every possible angle. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 11 2006, 01:48 PM Post #88 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You'll have to flesh that one out for me, John. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Aug 11 2006, 02:02 PM Post #89 |
|
MAMIL
|
They were driven to kill white people defensively since white people had been killing, enslaving and mistreating black people for so long. It's not quite the same situation, I grant you, but it's a similar justification for behaving abominably. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 11 2006, 04:19 PM Post #90 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
OK, that a hundred years had passed between Emancipation and the Black Panthers weakens that connection, but I see your point. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Aug 11 2006, 04:50 PM Post #91 |
|
MAMIL
|
Despicable treatment of blacks was stopped with emancipation? What was Martin Luther King going on about then? There's always an excuse. Ian Paisley marches through Catholic Belfast wearing the colours of William of Orange, and it drives people as mad as Paisley himself is. When did William of Orange die? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Aug 11 2006, 04:53 PM Post #92 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
John: me mudder was Irish ancestry- County Mayo and County Cork. I'm only half Yorkshireman |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Aug 11 2006, 05:10 PM Post #93 |
|
MAMIL
|
Even Ian Paisley wouldn't be stupid enough to walk through County Cork dressed up like a can of Tango. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 11 2006, 06:07 PM Post #94 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I do not see how the sentence can be describing a future event. Nor is it a conditional statement, which is usually identified by the "if/then", "unless", "in the event that" or similar construction. A conditional is a more precise form of the subjunctive. You could make the sentence a conditional, but it would have to be rewritten. I don't see how the sentence you offer can be anything but talking about the past. "When it came to fighting..." clues the reader in to a past event. There is some ambiguity as to whether it is describing a past action or a past intention, but only because it is poorly written to be intentionally confusing. Without your telling me this, however, I would have assumed (assuming proper grammar), since it is in the subjunctive and not indicative, that it was either a utopic statement regarding a general principle, or as describing a past intent (the willingness to do X without having actually done X). The subjunctive is often misapplied on history shows (esp by military historians) to build suspense when telling stories about things that already occured. It much more interesting to hear "It would be a day that would live in infamy" than to hear "It was a day that lives in infamy". It seem that your sentence could be that sort of construction. That, however, is a bad use of the subjunctive (acceptable in the context of a TV documentary but poor if it has to stand on its own) since as you readily note it causes confusion. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Aug 11 2006, 06:09 PM Post #95 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
didn't get the memo? I'll send it again ![]() |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 11 2006, 06:14 PM Post #96 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You seem to be making my point for me regarding ideologically driven vs self defense driven considerations. Paisley and Seale and Newton were ideologically driven (the latter two by Che and Mao). The BPs are ambiguous precisely because of that. The very real and growing need of the West to keep itself free of terrorist attacks is not ideologically driven: Moslems are quite welcome here if they abide by the laws of the land. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Aug 11 2006, 06:46 PM Post #97 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
But in contrast to liberal preachiness about IQ, there would be no moralizing when it came to sex. Anal sex, oral sex, fisting, dental dams, "birthing games" -- all that would be foisted on unsuspecting children in order to protect kindergarteners from the scourge of AIDS. As one heroine of the sex education movement told an approving New York Times reporter, "My job is not to teach one right value system. Parents and churches teach moral values. My job is to say, 'These are the facts,' and to help the students, as adults, decide what is right for them." Any person reading this would know that it meant (strangely) that these things have happened. If you want it to be anything else- replace the word "came" in the first line with "comes". This is more attention than this deserves; Ann Coulter is laughing all the way to the bank. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 11 2006, 07:38 PM Post #98 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I sort of see your point, but I have to disagree on two accounts: first, I think either "came to" or "comes to" can indicate a utopic understanding. It is not time or event contingent. Secondly, and more importantly, there is a key difference that your sentence places the phrase "when it came to... there would be" in the protasis which is the introductory clause and sets conditions for understanding the concluding clause. AC's sentence places the phrase in the apodosis, which is concluding the thought. The reason the two uses of the same phrase in different clauses produces different meaning has to do with the sequence of moods. In your sentence, since it is in the protasis, there is no difference. In hers, since it is in the apodosis, the meaning changes. This can be shown by inverting the two sentences: "There would be no holding back on employing the weapons at their disposal when it came to fighting the war on terrorism" continues the same thought. "There would be no moralizing when it came to sex, in contrast to liberal preachiness about IQ." would lead the reader to want to know about liberal preachiness about IQ or the differences in the way the two things were treated. (and it has nothing to do with Ann Coulter) ![]() |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Aug 12 2006, 01:13 AM Post #99 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
If she made her point subjunctively ... and if she's as smart as you say she is ... then she knew that the average reader would not treat the point subjunctively. As even you admit. Therefore, she was smart enough to know that her phrasing would be misleading. Yet she didn't change it to make herself more clear, she left the phrasing that she presumably knew would be misleading. That suggests deliberate intent. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Aug 12 2006, 01:48 AM Post #100 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |












10:41 PM Jul 12