Figleaf

I suspected not. As you have declined the invitation to elucidate the supposed irony, I suspect there may be none.

Reported.

Presumably, then, you would have every heterosexual married couple fertility-tested to determine their proper tax status, and you would terminate any advantages to couples after the woman has passed menopause. Right? If not, why not?

The definition you tendered was substantially wrong. A satirist is a person who produces satire. Here is a definition of satire from a real dictionary: Coulter doesn't comply with the first, because she holds up human virtues to scorn, not vices or follies. She doesn't comply with the second for the same reason, PLUS she doesn't use wit, irony, or sarcasm. She uses lies and abuse.

I don't suppose you notice the irony here? In fact, no. Go ahead and elucidate.

Phoquing stupid comment.Care to explain, without profanity? Or is that beyond what you're capable of? What's to explain? Your statement was totally phoquing stupid in so many ways it almost beggars description. But okay, since you ask... First, you claim to be an attorney. Presumably, then, you know what it means to act on someone's 'behalf'. But despite this knowledge you write the stunning inconsistency that Carter somehow negotiated 'on behalf' but with 'no authority'. That's a stupid statement. Second, it's stupid to pretend that Carter's negotiations could 'force' a sitting president to accept a deal he doesn't want to. If you know the first thing about U.S. constitutionality (as presumably you would claim to) , you'd know that that's a total misconstruction of the nature of presidential authority. Third, you suggest, without any foundation whatsoever, that Carter's good faith negotiation efforts were somehow maliciously motivated. That's a pretty stupid thing to suggest, frankly. Finally, the suggestion that acknowledging the tragedy visited on the Palestinians is somehow treacherous to the United States is totally disconnected and illogical.

D.O.P., master of the non-sequitur! I have no idea whether it's inaccurate, but I do know it's not responsive. Where is the citation that supports your contention that scriblett was right? Did you quote me by mistake? How does your answer respond to my question???

Ah, here we are piling one fallacy on top of another ... Oh, and what 'fallacy' does your imagination reveal?

Typical silver spoon socialist response. This little law-breaker needed a good lesson. I only regret that some commie judge somewhere will probably give her credit for time-served, when what she needs is to spend her entire youth in a good harsh institutional setting.

Maybe because there is absolutely zero point in being 'outraged' at a child of six throwing a rang. You might as well be upset that dogs don't scoop their own poop. Once she was away from the other children they could have waited for her to calm down. What would make you think that? The article gave no mention of abuse of that sort. She was arrested, seemingly under 'normal' police procedure. The article suggests that these police have zero sensitivity to the context of the situation, so I'm guessing they would have applied their regular practices. Here was a 'young black perpetrator' being taken into custody ... why wouldn't they strip search her? Maybe bounce her head off a few door-frames for good measure. Even if she's innocent of these charges, she's sure to be guilty of something else, right?

The Phelp's are the only 'Christian' group with the courage of their convictions. They've read "The Bible" and instead of flinching like most 'Christians' and pretending it doesn't say what it says, they've stared into the abyss and accepted that the book actually says what it says. I find their lack of self-deception about the contents of their religion refreshing. I find their consistency admirable. Sure, their beliefs are utterly absurd, but so are all religions. At least they aren't faking it.

Oh yeah. Nothing good will come of this.

Well, obviously I can't speak for 'the left', but observing from the center, it's pretty clear that Coulter is a rightwing stalking-horse whose 'humor' consists of slandering and victimizing anyone who falls afoul of right wing prejudices. As much as rightwingers relish that sort of thing, it's really not satire or humor.

Well, so far these poll results are pretty clear. I wonder if I should email them to the Conservatives so they get a sense of where people stand on this issue. (Or, maybe 'Michael Bluth' will call the results in to them.)

Except without the satire or the wit part. She's a professional scold, attackdog, and haridan, not a satirist.

The year of the seventh slor was the time of Gozer the Great and his deliverance wrought a mighty tale, (truly) worthy of a remark in the tomes of our dominating cultured pearls, Western and bright.

You can't be serious? What country do you live in? I don't want to get hung up on the any particular terminology here, but the Globe is so tory it bleeds blue. Tax cutting, pro-Israel, classist, economic reductionist, soft on civil rights, deferential to authority ... you name it.

If you have a subscription it's easy enough to look up what they wrote. If you don't then providing links won't help. So you've proved nothing. Congrats. Ten selected columns from five columnists over a year of columns tells you nothing about the editorial stance of a newspaper.

Bastards probably strip searched her too. Sick world.

Because it is denying voters a choice and subverting the process. If I were a Liberal I would be upset that I couldn't vote for an actual Liberal candidate, who would I vote for. If I were a liberal in that position I would probably vote NDP. Even Duffy says he's never seen anything like it before, and Monte Solberg has it right when he said "It's telling when the first election-related move of the Liberal leader is to concede defeat." What happens to the riding association war chest, will it go to fund May, or back to Liberal HO, or kept until the next election. http://www.wernerpatels.com/ The latest deal between Elizabeth May and the Liberals is disappointing news for the voters of Central Nova, Jack Layton said today. The NDP leader said Stéphane Dion and Ms. May have decided to deny ordinary Canadians the fair range of choice available to voters everywhere else in the country. “This is the kind of backroom wheeling and dealing that ordinary Canadians are fed up with. When the Liberal Party was in power, they generated a lot of cynicism about Canadian politics with their behind-closed-doors ways. It seems not much has changed under their new leader,” said Layton. Over a month ago, senior New Democrats, including Stephen Lewis, were approached by Ms. May to help broker a backroom deal to not run candidates against one another in certain ridings. Lewis rejected the notion outright. Hm. Well that's an interesting take on it.

I prefer a benevolent dictatorship over a crony oligarchy. No moderators! No moderators!

We're out of time for this session, Scott. Book your next appointment at the desk and we'll discuss it then.

This is like a paranoia-tennis match... YOU'RE DESTROYING CIVILISATION!<=!poc!==!poc!=>NO! YOU'RE DESTROYING CIVILISATION!

So what IS it with the drive by taunts? Anyway, oh lord, here we go again, no, you are wrong. I always had an appreciation for the Reform accountability/democratic deficit thing. I felt some of their remedies were wrongheaded (referenda), and some trickier than they seemd to think (senate reform), but they were right about the problems. Unfortunately, as time went by, the party's evolution drew it away from this part of it's thinking and way off into rightwingdom. Now under Steve it's just Mike Harris, or Margaret Thatcher recycled for Ottawa.

He said she was a shill for the fascist right, not the Whitehouse. Those positions tend to confirm that characterization.