georgesbluegirl

Guess you have a point - when Bill O makes blunders, they get edited (see: Malmedy. That was a disgrace). However, this has been pretty well covered and the video doesn't show signs of being edited (and wasn't it live? I didn't see the original broadcast so I can't weigh in on that). Sure, Matthews isn't shy about interjecting, but Coulter was interrupting Edwards the whole time she was trying to make her point. If Coulter had a better response to make, she's not one who would be deterred from making it by Matthews cutting off her response time. This is what she had to say. She said it. She turned a wife and mother's polite request into a call to "stop speaking" and refused to back down an inch.

I am talking about liberalism in the general sense, not just American liberalism, but I say again that even for American liberals Obama is still middling (but a liberal, I'm not arguing that, obviously). As far as I'm aware, he's still a supporter of gay rights. Like I said, a candidate's positions and thoughts about issues are the first qualifications I use to decide how I feel about them. The other stuff just means I like him as a character, although I'm definitely voting for "smart" in this coming election.

Actually, I just watched the whole thing on YouTube again, and there are a few minor errors but it's pretty much verbatim what Coulter, Edwards and Matthews said. Edwards asked in a reasoned, polite tone for Coulter to lay off personal attacks that, apparently, started when Coulter made the joke about the Edwards' late young son. Coulter is all arrogance and sniping, and doesn't even begin to consider Edwards's point. Of course, who expected she would? Watch her try to spin it - Edwards wasn't asking her to "stop talking." She merely asked her to talk about the important things - the issues - and stop degrading the dialogue surrounding politics. Coulter doesn't even respond respectfully to Edwards, she just smirks.

I can't stand Michael Moore, although I did like Bowling for Columbine. He's a nutty windbag. Al Franken is pretty sweet though.

Well, obviously I have to agree with most of his positions or like his policy proposals - I thought that went without saying (by the way, I don't know how you got the idea he's anti-gay). His intelligence, candor and what I perceive to be actual interest in the well-being of the nation are the reasons why I feel comfortable with him as an individual beyond his position statements. And I am right to point out that he's not that far to the left. It's not that shocking. The Democratic party in and of itself is pretty middling left in the scheme of things. Further to the left would be the British Labor party, or at least the party before Tony Blair was PM. No, in the political spectrum, Obama is left, but moderate. About Levitical law - not going to argue the point because I'm too tired. Even if I take your explanation, my original point still stands, that a radical Christian theocracy could go around killing whores and homosexuals with solid Biblical justification if they so desired.

Well, I'm pretty sure Clinton is not a rapist, for one thing. An adulterer, obviously, but rape is a different matter. Sorry, you might agree with what Coulter stands for (if you do, I'm praying hard for you), but the bottom line is that the personal attacks she makes on others are often just mean, and E. Edwards is right to point out that it lowers the standard for political discourse. Is it too much to ask intelligence? The day she attacked 9/11 widows was too much for me to even stomach. I avoid listening to her when possible now.

No, it was a follow-up to a comment Bill Maher made in passing that if Cheney had died, lots of troops' lives would have been saved. Had nothing to do with Edwards.

I don't understand why still think Coulter is a reasonable individual. I mean, beyond the obvious political stuff, what's she doing in a black cocktail dress every time I see her?

Leonard: "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." - Leviticus 21:9 Now that's out of the way. Obama isn't really that far to the left, actually. Anyway, while I think that he's young and sometimes his inexperience shows through, he doesn't strike me as insincere (or at least he's more sincere than any other mainstream politician I can think of...Mike Gravel notwithstanding, haha). This is a man who got himself a good education, then took a low-paying job as a community organizer in Chicago. He joined a Christian church long before he was involved in politics, so I don't see how one can point to his faith as insincere. He's smart - and God, we need smart (yes that is a prayer) - and he knows how to speak. Have your doubts, but I find him passionate and driven. And I support him.

Too bad Elizabeth Edwards isn't running for President.

Yes, and most of them will be articles debunking the claim. Obama's father was born and raised a Muslim but had become an atheist. His mother had no clear religious background. His stepfather was a non-practicing Muslim. Obama describes rather candidly his experiences of doubt and his call to faith. He is a Christian.

Anyway, I've been flipping through the Koran to some other cited passages referencing apostasy that an article I read referred me to, and so far no actual instances of people being put to death. Regardless, a radical Judeo-Christian theocracy could take Levitical law as a jumping off point and start burning everyone who has premarital sex. Our own religion is not without its moments of execution....remember in Psalms when children have their heads bashed in?

I am no scholar of the Quran, but I have read much of it in the last several years and since you raised this I've done a little more research. My impression - which seems at the moment to be correct, from what I've read - is that the idea of the death penalty for apostasy comes from tradition rather than Quranic directive. Surah 2:256 - "Let there be no compulsion in religion." A detailed wiki on this - perhaps not the best source outright, but I'm looking into it - asserts that apostates receive punishment in the afterlife rather than being sentenced in life in every instance of apostasy occuring in the Quran. And regardless, even if the Quran DID say that giving up your Muslim faith was worth the death penalty, that doesn't change the fact that one is still free to do so, whether or not he or she would fear repercussions (mostly within an Islamic or Islamo-fascist state, I'd imagine).

First of all, can you explain to me why anyone "cannot" leave any religion at any point for any reason? Freedom of choice and all. Why would a Muslim be any less able to decide that they don't believe in the tenets of Islam any less than a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu, etc.? Or an atheist, for that matter. Second, kat, saying something is "wrong" as a blanket statement doesn't lend itself to reasonable discussion. I'd love to debate the issues. What, specifically, don't you like about his different positions?

I think the country will tell what it is "ready for" when it elects someone. There have been surprises before. And if now is not the time for a black man or a woman, then when do we say we're ready?

Same. Oh, but I found some bilious Ann Coulter along the way, too. Just the thing to lift my spirits...heh. As a light-hearted addendum to Forrest's mention of Snopes, you can also go there for some fun urban legend debunking. It's particularly good for inbox glurge. "Fauxtography" is entertaining as well.

Nicely put. (Although I am a Christian who does not believe in YEC, so "because the Bible says so" isn't the be all and end all of this issue for me, either ).

I don't think it's "liberals" who call out those who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change as "deniers" (I think it's a stretch to involve the Holocaust in this, too), it's scientists and people of reason who look at the information that we have and realize that the overwhelming body of evidence just MIGHT be pointing to carbon emissions as a problem. Forrest is quite right - climate models factor in volcanic and solar forcing (and you can construct a climate model for the last several thousand years using a number of techniques, including examining trees and tree remains and ice core data, so to say all our data is rooted in the "recent" is erroneous, although it's only been in the last couple of decades that we've figured out how to do it). And WHAT is so awful about raising standards for fuel efficiency and renewable energy? Who gets hurt? If anyone, Detroit and Big Oil fat cats - their profits decrease. But efficiency is pretty much good for everyone in the long run.

For discussion here, sure. But he is NOT a Muslim, much less a Muslim extremist, a fact that is well-documented and that has been proven and rehashed many times over. So can we move on?

This is all silly. Barack is not Muslim, and the idea that he spent time in a "radical Muslim school" was debunked months ago. Have you even seen the visits various media outlets did to the alleged "madrassa?" Come on, folks. If we are going to debate the candidates then let's do so in an intelligent way rather than rely on boldly false statements and spin. How about we talk about Obama's position on health care, education, the war? You know...things that matter?

In defense of the Quakers, there's no zero touch policy anymore. Quakers hug too! I still agree mostly with Marnie. Kids have to learn what's appropriate - it's very hard to make rules specifying behavioral codes and boundaries, certainly not something you'll ever be able to totally codify. I still think it's best to leave it up to kids to learn about the complicated nature of human interaction on their own, and make sure teachers know they should step in if any consistent inappropriateness is causing problems for other students.

I went to an all-girls high school, so the boy-girl tension wasn't really an issue. I can see how they'd want to discourage inappropriate touching. But sometimes someone is having a really awful day and what they need is a hug or two. Apparently, that's against the rules. We're made to interact through contact...I agree that it teaches an ethic of standoffishness and isolation to outlaw all touching. And I do agree that most kids understand and respect personal boundaries, mostly because they have their own.

Marnie, for once, we agree! Well put. And for that, you get a....

This is so depressing.

As a student at a college with a very active social scene, I will say that, while I've heard of students considering hiring strippers, it's hardly common (there is one young man who strips on campus to earn money on the side, but that's more of a joke than anything else). Granted I go to a smaller school, but it's the same story at larger universities where my friends go. Regardless, apparently the players (I'm not speaking of the three indicted men here but those present at the house) did harass the strippers. There was a level of respect that was missing from the whole picture. Note AGAIN - I'm putting this out there as a seperate issue from the legal stuff. Obviously it was a huge miscarriage of justice and I feel awful for the three guys who had to go through it.