Ann Coulter and Hillary!

I don't know which one is really better they both have strengths and weaknesses but you know no candidate has ever been perfect. As a conservative they both make me want to take a few Tylenol and go to bed and hope in the morning my headache will be gone, but it won't be. I would like to say this isn’t some huge change in the ideology of the party. This is just the way this thing has unfolded in the choices of candidates and when the states primary came up and that candidate dropped out leaving us with the final candidates to choose from, I wish we had a Reagan we don’t, we have the person we end up with and that’s the way it is, and at least we get to choose.  I think they may have McCain whipped into shape by the time he is ready for the big fight.
 
Forbes was on the Fox channel talking about McCain’s Tax plans and he seems to be moving more in the right direction. On Amnesty the same thing, there are other things to consider but there are with Romney. I don’t think the MSM is really letting Romney’s message out but he needs to sweep up the Conservatives and he’s not. Romney should be up in Illinois with media; unless it’s in the collars I have not seen it.
 
You know I don't mind Ann Coulter, she is just pushing McCain to the right as is Romney. The idea that I am going to vote for Hillary, well there just isn't any torture that anyone can even imagine to make me do that. :-)
 

Sean Hannity is hardly the lowest form of life in the MSM and that statement says more about you then him DBoon. I don't know who is going to win the Dem. primary but who ever does win they will be much more Liberal then most of the country. I think in elections were the candidates differences are defined in a way that allows the American people to see the differences between the parties, the more conservative party wins.

Another Anon with a worthless opinion, why does that matter.

Xain-Your response is to the Anon right, but still confusing? Which issues are the America voter more liberal then Hillary or Barack, not the campaign models but the real ones?

Arvid you have no creditability judging conservatives, I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification. But you can put yourself in that boat if you want too, I think you were already there though.

I have been outed on this site before and have used my name on this board before so I am not an anon to the people I care to be. I choose not to now because of people like you who take pot shots at people and hide behind their anon. I have been to blogger nights out and people know me in the community and on my job. Back to Hannity you still haven't given me a reason for your vitriol other then your liberal hatred of all conservatives. See I don’t mind anon's I just don’t like the attack and hide posts.

"I suppose people are allowed to just slam people on this site and not back it up their reason for it."

I did back up my reasons for not liking Hannity and Coulter.  I realize you disagree, but I stated pretty clearly why I don't like them. 

That said, I'm just one person, and it's just my opinion.  But I hate that people think that somehow all conservatives love or agree with Hannity and Coulter.  They're embarrassing.

IP:

My #1 reason for not liking Ann Coulter has nothing to do with the fact that she gives conservatives a bad name, it has to do with her ability to persuade people who are too stupid to see that she's recycling some very old and very dangerous ideologies.  (The same goes for Hannity, to a lesser extent... he's not quite so blatantly evil and frightening in my book.)

I scored fairly well on that test, but that's only because I have a working knowledge of German.  I'm morbidly curious about how her fans would do on it, and how they feel about that when they finish.

I suspect it doesn't bother them too much, and that's the real reason why I dislike her so strongly.

Kem

"My #1 reason for not liking Ann Coulter has nothing to do with the fact that she gives conservatives a bad name, it has to do with her ability to persuade people who are too stupid to see that she's recycling some very old and very dangerous ideologies.  (The same goes for Hannity, to a lesser extent... he's not quite so blatantly evil and frightening in my book.)"

It's not my primary reason, either, but it's incredibly frustrating when even some on the right think that Hannity/Coulter are representative of thoughful conservatism.

They're entertainers who care more about attention than about advancing a cause or winning elections.  They're PT Barnum.

Xian-"Might" is a big word and of course that’s honesty for you and the way you slime people with out actually using a single fact to back up what you’re saying is worse. I think it's even worse how you use words likes "concentration camps" to try and attack conservatives and compare them to Hitler. 
Really you have said nothing, except as I agreed that you have a right to your biased and sometimes offensive opinion. 
I never said I agree with Hannity or Coulter, I have only said that I think debate is better when people are allowed to debate freely without attack, you’re the one being as I said offensive, by more broadly attacking a whole group of people. 
Xian, you only have a very small circle of people you move in with a left leaning veiw point. Hannity has millions of viewers and people that support him and agree with his point of view and that he must try to stay current with  all over the United State, whether you like it or not. 

Arvid-That was my point there was no debate, have one why don't you like Hannity? Great now I got your point you hate them for who they are good luck with that.

Okay, Run, what's the difference between an "internment camp" and a "concentration camp"?

Is "internment" preferred because the Americans (one of the WWII victors) did it?

Is "internment" preferred because Americans weren't actively seeking to kill their Japanese-American citizens?  Initially, the Nazis used their concentration camps for "political  re-education" (mid 1930s to approximately 1939-40).  Later they (Nazi) were changed over to killing facilities.

Is "internment" preferred because the American camps didn't have "Arbeit mach frei" over their entrance gates?  The Americans, at least, were pretty honest; they were interning people based on the faulty notion that national origin presupposes whom you will support during an attack by that other nation on America.  The Nazis told the Jews they were being sent to these camps to "build a Jewish nation away from Germany".

Is "internment" preferred because when the Japanese-Americans were released, they were allowed to go back to their ransacked homes and farms to restart their broken lives?  How many Jews went back to their homes, and how many emigrated to America, Israel, or somewhere else in the world?  In regards to my 2nd sentence, I would guess the number is pretty flipping small on the first part and much, much larger on the 2nd part.

Is "internment" preferred because the Japanese-Americans were allowed to challenge their internment up to the Supreme Court in the 1940's,  and were awarded compensation for their losses in the early 1980's?  I would be willing to bet that $20,000 per person doesn't even begin to touch the compound value of their lost earnings and lost property.

Some days, I suppose, it's just a matter of degrees, and who's the speaker...

Okay, Run, what's up this weekend?  You seem a bit...cranky.

the only parallel I can draw is the weekend the troll had Gordy tied in knots, and Gordy was exceptionally cranky with the rest of us.  Gordy came back the next Monday or  Tuesday and apologized.

So, is really the Run4cvrlib, or is this someone who's hijacked that identity?

"the only parallel I can draw is the weekend the troll had Gordy tied in knots, and Gordy was exceptionally cranky with the rest of us.  Gordy came back the next Monday or  Tuesday and apologized."

Yeah - I've since learned that he's really not worth getting all that worked up about.  No matter what he tries to post, it only takes me a moment to click "unpublish." 

:-)

I used concentration camp because the term was designed to describe exactly the set up that we put our own citizens in during WWII.

I would guess that you responded so harshly because you forgot that Malkin spent a great deal of time and energy twisting facts and making up stuff to defend the practice.

If we can no longer use the word "concentration camps" anymore simply because you associate them with the Nazis, then I nominate you for the king of Political Correctness.

I think there's a much clearer distinction to be made. The German camps were "death camps" as I witnessed firsthand when I visited Poland. The American camps were not "death camps", they, like our facilities for immigrants coming to the country who were the wrong color and coming to the wrong coast were "concentration" facilities and that's the most accurate description one could possibly give them.

If that evokes outrage or shame, that's the hope. Perhaps it will help us resist people like Malkin, Coulter and Hannity the next time people call for concentration camps. (I don't imagine any of them except Coulter would ever call for "death camps".) I would love for us to avoid repeating one of the most shameful episodes in our nation's history.

So I don't see how I was using horrible mass murder in a dishonest way. In fact, I have a wager who would win a vote if we elected the person whose misframed the most in this thread.

I would agree with above post about concentration v. internment, except I would use death v. concentration. I agree with most of your analysis. I would just say that the primary research I've done would contradict this:

Is "internment" preferred because the American camps didn't have "Arbeit mach frei" over their entrance gates?  The Americans, at least, were pretty honest; they were interning people based on the faulty notion that national origin presupposes whom you will support during an attack by that other nation on America.  The Nazis told the Jews they were being sent to these camps to "build a Jewish nation away from Germany".

The Japanese Americans were told that they had to be taken away to "protect them from other Americans". That's why many commented on "the guns pointing in". Furthermore, much of the support for internment came from straight up racists like DeWitt:

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/freedom/2004/06/29/korematsu/

Korematsu's lawyers charged that the evacuation orders were transparently racist and denied an entire class of people due process and equal protection under the law. They pointed out that not a single episode of espionage or sabotage had taken place during the four months between Pearl Harbor and General DeWitt's first evacuation order. (This fact did not faze DeWitt, who in his "Final Report: Japanese Evacuation From the West Coast" boldly made the Orwellian argument that "the very fact that no sabotage or espionage has taken place to date is disturbing and confirming indication that such action will take place.") They argued that DeWitt was himself a racist, citing this statement he made in 1943 before a congressional committee:

"A Jap's a Jap. It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen or not. I don't want any of them ... They are a dangerous element, whether loyal or not."

DeWitt's viewpoint was probably shared in some form by most Americans. At bottom, the fear was of a racially tinged "clash of civilizations": the Japanese were mysterious and opaque, not "real" Americans, and when the chips were down they were likely to betray their new nation in favor of their race. This belief was eloquently expressed by none other than Earl Warren, the California attorney general who was later to become the famously liberal chief justice of the United States. Testifying in 1942 before a House committee, Warren said, "the consensus of opinion among the law-enforcement officers of this State is that there is more potential danger among the group of Japanese who are born in this country than from the alien Japanese who were born in Japan. We believe that when we are dealing with the Caucasian race we have methods that will test the loyalty of them, and we believe that we can, in dealing with the Germans and Italians, arrive at some fairly sound conclusions because of our knowledge of the way they live in the community and have lived for many years. But when we deal with the Japanese we are in an entirely different field and we can not form any opinion that we believe to be sound."

There was strong motive for such action among non-Asian American farmers who were in some cases being out competed by Japanese American farmers. This was a golden opportunity for them to destroy property rights and forcefully steal other Americans' land.

It's always shocking to me that fake conservatives that Gordy is always distancing himself from somehow justify to themselves the complete distruction of property rights because the citizens in question were the wrong color.

So I would argue that there was plenty of deception about the reality and also the motive of our concentration camps. That's not the same as telling people they were building a new Germany and then mass murdering them and stealing their shoes to give to good pure Germans, but it's still not a good thing.

And it scandelizes me that some Americans think that we are judging ourselves TOO harshly on this chapter of our history.

"I hate Gooks and I always will hate Gooks"  -  John McCain

Aflac.

That quote above isn't quite accurate, but close enough to what he said.  It appropriately caused some outrage that led him to stop using the term in regards to his captors... even when being accused of being a Manchurian Candidate for communists who supposedly brainwashed him, as was happening when he so bluntly described his former captors.

``For 5 1/2 years, I was mistreated by Ho Chi Minh's henchmen. My fellow prisoners were treated even worse,'' McCain said in his statement. ``Although I will never forgive my prison guards for the atrocities they committed against my cellmates, I have always held the people of Vietnam in the highest regard and have worked in support of the Vietnamese-American community in this country at every opportunity.

 

``I will continue to condemn those who unfairly mistreated us. But out of respect to a great number of people whom I hold in very high regard, I will no longer use the term that has caused such discomfort.

 

I deeply regret any pain I may have caused by my choice of words. I apologize and renounce all language that is bigoted and offensive, which is contrary to all that I represent and believe,'' McCain said.

His retraction may not be enough to satisfy some.  But understanding the background behind it a bit may make his apology more tolerable.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Yeah, I actually have a great deal of respect for McCain. He suffered those horrific experiences fighting in an unjust war that was not his making doing what he believed was right--fighting on behalf of our country.

So I give him some latitude. That being said, it does make me wonder whether I can trust him to have Asian Americans' best interests at heart.

But a lot of that worry is eased by his sincere apology--we get used to the "I apologies if you were thin-skinned enough to be offended." apologies and thus it's refreshing to hear an actual heartfelt apology.

JRR, I agree with your analysis. That's how I chose my use of the word. Of course, your specifics are more precise than what I posted above. I think it's an important distinction to make.

Glock--I would agree with you as well, but I would say the only reason why we are reasonably good on these issues is we do not allow the "those guys are bad on history, too!" argument justify the base inclination to bury our shameful episodes. I do think we should praise ourselves but only in midst of continuing to improve and certainly not supporting those who, if they had their way, would re-whitewash our history.

Arvid-Just done wasting my time with people with an offensive agenda.