Guy, would you consider abandoning name-calling as a debate technique?

You seem to rely on it pretty heavily in your articles and comments.

It's getting to the point where I dread seeing your contributions, since they so often focus on saying mean things about people, rather than saying interesting things about facts and ideas.

It's especially embarassing here, in an article decrying hate speech, to see you characterize the opposition as "mental midgets", "loons", "stupid", and, ironically, "hypocrites".

I know you believe the facts support this characterization. I might even agree with you on that. But please, if conservatives really are better debaters, then give us some better debate. Present the facts, and let them speak for themselves. If all you're going to do is say "ha ha, look at the stupids", then just let it go, man. Seriously.

Sometimes it seems like even COL Gene, as wrongheaded as he can be, is doing a better job presenting his arguments than you are.

Guy, would you consider abandoning name-calling as a debate technique?

When I write an article, I am not debating.  The debate comes in the comment section.  However, when I write an article, I am 'on a horse' so to speak, and so speak my mind.  We can debate wether the people here are all the terms I said (and stupid and hypocrites dont count in my book - they are just observations of the facts and drawing conclusions from them), or not.  That is fine.  However, it does offend me that they would be so arrogant (another name) as to deny her the right to speak while proclaiming their own nobility.  That happens all too often for my likings.

Editorials are not debates.

"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,"

Which means that is a very small group of people indeed. That being said, I think she certainly should have been able to speak at that school. I LOVE this gem from an interview she did for some Canadian news program(I've actually seen this, not just read it).

Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam." Coulter: "I don't think that's right." McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam." Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?" McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No." Coulter: "I think you're wrong." McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam." Coulter: "I think you're wrong." McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada." Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops." McKeown: "No." Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."

And others were denied the pleasure of seeing such an exchange. That being said, Ms. Coulter certainly has a lot of contemporaries on the opposing side... and I would sling as much mud on them as well.

And others were denied the pleasure of seeing such an exchange. That being said, Ms. Coulter certainly has a lot of contemporaries on the opposing side... and I would sling as much mud on them as well.

Well, this is the forum to do that.  as far as her Canada spiel, I have to say that I dont think Canada did.  That was a French operation, badly bungled and then the US stepped in (in it some would say) to bail out the French.

Apparently, Canada's participation was mostly diplomatic, supporting U.S. policy in the region under the cover of "neutral peacekeeping" and "negotiating liason". They also sent lots of aid and aid workers, but no actual troops (although thousands of Canadian citizens did volunteer for duty in the U.S. armed forces, and served in Vietnam as U.S. soldiers).

I am waiting for someone to start a diatribe about Hilary Clinton using the video game industry the same way McCarthy used communism.... for political gain only.

At least one UConn student saw the protests outside for what they were: intolerant behavior! Rather than the words going on inside the auditorium...

UConn junior Kareem Mohni, 20, said he was disgusted by his peers' reaction to Coulter. "It really appalled me that we're not able to come together as a group and listen to a different view in a respectful environment," Mohni said.

I LOVE this gem from an interview she did for some Canadian news program

Oh yeah, and you've never misspoke or been flat out wrong before. Hopefully no camera crews are around. I'm just glad no camera crews have been around when I've been wrong. And that happens frequently enough, if I do say so myself.
I file this example under "people looking for fault".

To sum up, I quote the immortal words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

They also sent lots of aid and aid workers, but no actual troops (although thousands of Canadian citizens did volunteer for duty in the U.S. armed forces, and served in Vietnam as U.S. soldiers).

Was that part of the lend lease deal?  We send them a bunch of draft dodgers, and they send us a bunch of willing recruits?

I am waiting for someone to start a diatribe about Hilary Clinton using the video game industry the same way McCarthy used communism.... for political gain only.

Well, I would compare it to the Tipper Gore thing and Song Lyrics, instead of McCarthy.

But I am also willing to admit that I am wrong. I don't think I've ever seen, heard or read her do that, and given her persona, I don't really see her doing that(unless it suited her interests). Again, people on the other side do the exact same thing.

To sum up, I quote the immortal words of Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

Sure!  After we roast a few turkeys over the flame of debate.

Well, I would compare it to the Tipper Gore thing and Song Lyrics, instead of McCarthy.

I don't think Tipper had designs on the White House... or another well known moral crusader rival in the same state she had to try to outdo.

I used McCarthy's name because of opportunism, not because of scope, because I don't really believe that it is an issue that she believes strongly in... she is just using it because it looks like it has a hook to it and it will get her a lot of press... and it is something she can ride for a long time to come.

I used McCarthy's name because of opportunism, not because of scope, because I don't really believe that it is an issue that she believes strongly in... she is just using it because it looks like it has a hook to it and it will get her a lot of press... and it is something she can ride for a long time to come.

I agree, I think that Hillary is just using it as a stepping stone.  But I was always under the impression that McCarthy was a rabid anti communist, and not just doing it as an attention getter.

But I am also willing to admit that I am wrong. I don't think I've ever seen, heard or read her do that, and given her persona, I don't really see her doing that(unless it suited her interests). Again, people on the other side do the exact same thing.

I dont think she ever has.  I personally find her somewhat too right for me, but then I take her with a grain of salt.  She is fun to listen to, as she does not hold back on her barbs of the denizens of the left.  That being said, I would not go to see Michael Moore speak, but I would not try to shut him up either.

Liberal ideology has long since ceased to be liberal in any sense of the word.