Ann Coulter - Do you believe this?

[billvon 3,119]

>The left has Al Franken who is certainly funnier than she is . . .

"Funnier" <> "best" - and it's silly to suggest that it does.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In any case, it's somewhat silly to argue that the right's angry bile-spouting extremist is better/worse than the left's angry bile-spouting extremist.

Says the man who previously posted:
"The left has Al Franken who is certainly funnier than she is"

You can't possibly be serious in suggesting that Ann Coulter is more of a comedian (comedienne?) than Al Franken?
This would fall into the category of "delusional."

But...it's all just semantics.

And missing the point.

[johndh1 0]

I wouldn't even compare Al Franken with Ann Coulter - perhaps Michael Moore instead, and I can't stand to even look at him.

Al Franken is more satire (in spite of how seriously he may want to be taken, no one does), while the other two are really trying to push an agenda.

Speaking of Moore, "60 Minutes" did an excellent story on the inaccuracies of his "Sicko" masterpiece, and they are hardly part of the right-establishment.

Roll Tide Roll

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Well, if you'll look at it, the right in the US has both historically as well as currently been a driving force in the support of Israel, not the left.

And what does that have to do with the price of fish?

Were we talking about the Coulter woman, or the history of the US right?

Were we talking about her anti-semitism, or US political support of Israel?

Can we keep to one topic at a time?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,119]

>Al Franken is more satire (in spite of how seriously he may want to
>be taken, no one does), while the other two are really trying to push an
>agenda.

A fair point, although I'd suggest that he does have more of an agenda than a pure satirist would (since he's running for office.)

[johndh1 0]

Quote

A fair point, although I'd suggest that he does have more of an agenda than a pure satirist would (since he's running for office.)

I agree completely, but how he wants to perceived and how he is perceived by the (hopefully rational) voting public are two different things.

It's in a way like he's been typecast from his SNL gig, and now he wants everyone to forget that he was ever "in character," in hopes that he will be taken seriously now. I see him, and when I hear him talk, all I picture is Stuart Smalley.

Not exactly a paradigm for leadership for any cause or demographic.

Roll Tide Roll

[billvon 3,119]

>Not exactly a paradigm for leadership for any cause or demographic.

Agreed. Of course that cuts both ways; hoping someone will be just like they were on Law and Order is a poor paradigm for selecting a leader as well.

[johndh1 0]

I agree - I want to like Thompson. I do, personally (as much as my impression of him is), and I want to think his acting and being somewhat around a mostly-liberal environment causes him to not be so fundamentalist in his policy approach, and to see other viewpoints from respected peers. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and I'd like to think he is, but I'm not certain.

It may come as a surprise to some, but I don't think Hillary's being elected would be the end of the US, because the things she proposes that I am against will most likely never pass anyway. To further puzzle, I actually think Hillary would be a better President than the Ann Coulter I have been defending here.

Now Edwards & Obama? No way.

Sorry for changing the topic again.

Roll Tide Roll