Oh no, not her again…between her and Sarah Palin this site is going to go down the tubes. Divisiveness is getting us nowhere. We can all turn off the TV if we do not agree with the programming. I’m not sure what a refusal to comment on AC/SP stories would mean. Certainly if enough spurious positive claims about her appear and go unsupported, they should be answered. And just because we don’t agree with or like something doesn’t mean we should ignore it. Both AC and SP were in the news recently, so it does make sense to cover them, and I appreciate the coverage in a news sense, but whenever their names pop up, it just feels like a cheap attempt at…well, it just feels cheap. Not speaking up when you don’t agree with something is a dangerous practice. This is how society’s evils grow. Ignorance is not always bliss. But in the future I am going to ignore coverage on this site of AC and SP, because I consider it gratuitious. I am already fairly sure I do not support either of them, but should I feel compelled to change my opinion, there are other sources I can find. I did learn a lot from these threads, some things enlightening, other things disheartening, especially as related to human nature. I love this website and will continue to post on other threads, including political ones. But these topics don’t need my input. I urge you to think about the issues I have raised and take similar action. If you feel you must speak up and defend your viewpoint, I applaud you and support your decision. But I think one sends a much greater message about what you think about AC/SP by not giving them the time of day. They may become famous because of supporters, but they become infamous, near superstars because of conflict, which of course only inflames their supporters. (I know posting this message at all may seem hypocritical but I have to make my initial point some way, don’t I?)

It appears you have rarely encountered over-enthusiastic new mothers with camera-phones, but I respect your right to profit!

I originally felt bad for the man, thought he was just being used as our good ol’ guv’s scapegoat, but then it dawned on me that he had said yes to the nomination…and that he certainly didn’t have to. He doesn’t seem that inherently bad—just perhaps a little clueless (not to mention desperate) to have accepted Blago’s offer. Just because I doubt toxic Blago at this late stage of the game could get Al Capone to agree to be Senator, I doubt Burris is tainted by anything other than his bad judgement and associations. I don’t know if that’s a good excuse not to seat him. I’ve heard the whole sign-off thing is just a technicality—if Burris would actually get the signature I’ll bet he’d go back there and get denied on some other grounds. I really don’t know how I feel about the whole thing. I do think the Senate can act in principle and hold this up for a while, but there’s really little legal ground for their actions. I also wish we would just seat a Senator, and Burris would be a better choice than Al Capone. This is an unfortunate, damaging sideshow, not so much for Obama but for IL. What everyone really should have focused on was 1. Either the Special Election, or 2. Impeaching Blago already. What is the hold-up? The tapes?

That would be funny to watch. Though, I still don’t know if she accomplishes the same effect in writing.

Ouch…in that case, she sounds kind of unoriginal. Shouldn’t she be the one to bend the person over and/or bury them in the sand? But nice image anyway. Didn’t expect her to pull them up out in the sand….

Just as a comment on selling your baby pictures/not selling your baby pictures…if you’re so eager for the world to see your baby, why not show them to everyone for free? Most parents do!

That is the problem with 99% of the world’s problems…that people see things in black and white and thus, talk in absolutes. That is part of the problem in Gaza, that is the problem with organized religion, and that is the problem here. Thanks for being a proud “gray matter” person!

Touche!

See my above post, and thanks for pointing the “satire” thing out. The more I think about that possibility the less I object to her—except that satire is usually much more well-reasoned then this. Plus, a lot of people really don’t get satire. I hate to say some people are stupid, but, well, you know…and I don’t say this about liberals, I say this about people who might follow her blindly like the first-time posters who followed her here. And, there is such a thing as simply being not funny after a certain point.

term OR possibility. Sorry.

I have to wonder, though, does she believe all she is saying or is she doing it to get a laugh? Not to argue ad hominem and/or, bring in pathos, but I’m sure she would feel differently if her child had a terminal illness, an orphan disease perhaps. Oh wait, I forgot she’s not married. I think we can see why. On some very, very low, basic level, I think she may have a point. All the fundraisers haven’t seemed to produce tangible cures yet, but medical research is slow, who knows where the fundraising money goes, and some advances have been made. It’s not been a total wash. It goes without saying that no child or parent wants to have a dread disease—how crass and rude of her. If she had positioned it from the viewpoint of Hollywood stars at the fundraisers, she might have something. I’m sure a lot of them do truly care about the causes they support, but sometimes you wonder if every so often one doesn’t stick her name to a cause to look good. Satire involves poking fun at society to cause it to change, usually for the better. Most satirists are well-informed, passionate people—Vonnegut, Heller, et al. The problem is that Coulter here pokes at parts of society that don’t need to be criticized—they need help. Autism is a national epidemic we don’t quite understand. Her lancing is obviously not informed or helpful. She is sort of going along the lines of Swift’s “Modest Proposal”, but much less eloquently, and in the end, we all figure out Swift is joking. Once again, I’m really afraid she’s not joking. Until we figure out if she is, we need to keep her as far away from the networks as possible so people not familiar with the term possibility of satire don’t flood message boards with a poor understanding of her nefarious agenda.

Were this satire…this would be funny. I fear it is not satire and therefore, not funny.

yeah, not so yee-haw anymore.

If she did get angry it would be with righteous indignation.

Oh, thank you! If I ever get sick of my blue lizard, I would post a Lennon pic. Do you believe some people change the words to “one religion too”? Horrible. I often wonder what John Lennon would be like, act, say, or think now had he lived. I could def see him and Coulter going at it for some reason.