.................
Posted on 02/24/2013 8:36:33 PM PST by jimsin
Edited on 02/24/2013 9:33:36 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I have read two of her books. Her writing style is pedantic.
The fact that she’s sold a lot of the tripe doesn’t change the fact that it’s tripe. Coulter is the Oprah of the RINO class, nothing more. She is the Dr. Phil of the country club Republican set, period.
Try reading something by a real conservative sometime, say Russel Kirk or Bill Buckley. The you’ll realize you’ve been wasting both your time and your money and this harpy.
Then you are not really into politics. I know many pro-lifers who will never, ever vote for a pro-abort. They are not into politics either. But I give you all credit. You are the ballast that keeps us from tipping over into utilitarian.
Here’s my rule: Go for the conservative while there’s still a chance. If the election is upon you and there are no other choices, go with the best of the lot.
That’s pragmatic but a little different from saying Vote for the best conservative who can win.
Being from a very blue area, I find that my rule is often necessary, barring just not voting at all.
Pedantic. That is not quite the word I would use to describe Ann’s prose.
She often has me laughing, sometimes out of sheer appreciation. Her political memory is the rival of the WSJ editorials and she can make an analogy or a comparison or a satirical jab like no one else. Her diction, in the sense of word choice, is spot-on. Her throwaway one-liners at the end of the paragraph are a patented talent that cannot be imitated.
I don’t know how you can say pedantic. There are some conservative writers I can barely slog through. Save it for them.
Where's the evidence that government can make people moral and just by banning immoral behavior? The War on Drugs has done far more to enrich criminals than to reduce drug use.
“the government takes 60% of your money”
lol, delusional
“Then you are not really into politics.”
I always thought I was into politics, but there are degrees of that, I suppose. The last time I was a “party” man was in the days of President Reagan. Since then, the republicans have broken my conservative heart too many times for me to trust them fully. In general, I use some variation of your rule as well - The “hold your nose” or “broken glass” rule - but I use abortion as my red line. As I get older, I feel more and more like the party needs to earn my vote. It’s not enough anymore to pay lip-service to my issues and go your merry way.
But the danger of being too rigid is that the party mechanism seizes up and splinters. We may be in the midst of that now in this moderate vs. conservative republican battle that is unfolding. We have a lot of folks here on FR who are basically parties of 1 - people to whom nobody, except themselves of course, is ideologically pure enough to vote for. On the other hand, one can’t be for just anything with an “R” by it either. There has to be principles at your core to rally people and provide reasons to join you. We’re all mixtures of ideology and pragmatism and too much of one or the other doesn’t always serve us well. Remember, the goal is to convince others, not just ourselves.
I think it’s a fine rule to, “Go for the conservative while there’s still a chance...” A lot of us grouse and complain (me included), but then I stop and think, “How many of these people complaining and denouncing and criticizing actually did something on behalf of their candidates?” Talkers are a dime a dozen, but doers are gold.
Cheers
lol, you think just adding up all those different rates will get you anywhere near what the true rate is? Your “analysis” doesn’t take into account wage base limits, the deductibility of state and local taxes from federal taxes, marginal rates, etc., etc.
I’ve asked a bunch of times and no one has yet been able to prove with one concrete example of someone having to struggle to keep half of their income from taxes.
C’mon guys, there’s ten bucks on the line for the FReepathon!
Yup.
Personally, I don’t favor the federal regulation of all drugs. I would leave only class A and B up to the federal government. The states should decide the rest. Also, so-called ‘wars on drugs’ have had varied successes depending on where they have been tried. They were successful in Japan and Singapore, for example. On most fronts, it hasn’t worked in America, although I think cocaine use has decreased dramatically since the 70s and 80s.
jimmy jimmy jimmy, thanks for the non-sequitor.
What are "class A and B" (I know of "Schedule I and II") and exactly what text in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce in them?
Also, so-called ‘wars on drugs’ have had varied successes depending on where they have been tried. They were successful in Japan and Singapore, for example. On most fronts, it hasn’t worked in America, although I think cocaine use has decreased dramatically since the 70s and 80s.
And from 1980 to 1995, alcohol consumption dropped by 23% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm), while from 1973 to 2006 cigarette smoking dropped by 59% (http://www.lung.org/finding-cures/our-research/trend-reports/Tobacco-Trend-Report.pdf) - all while alcohol and cigarettes remained legal. Correlation is not causation - that is the ancient logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this") - like the rooster who claimed his crowing caused the sun to rise.
I got it, since you can’t prove it you’ll just try to bluster your way out of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.