Oh, Coulter has had some very excellent points both on McCarthy and the Scopes Trial, but her actual books are much more detailed and thoughtful, when she does interviews or Human Events Articles I think she's really just advertising the books by taking a deliberately confrontational stance. I've never really fact-checked Moore myself, I know that I won't be able to make it through his movies based on my response to Fahrenheit 9/11, so I simply list him as controversial and avoid his work. I'd not be surprised if both were very accurate in their facts. But they sell outrage, I've no problem with that but I know better than to watch Moore and I don't advise liberals to read coulter. Every choir needs somebody to sing to them. Coaches rallying their team aren't known for being especially accurate either "I want 110%, we will win this thing!" vs "I want you to go out there and give a slightly above average performance compared to normal which may increase our odds of victory"





I'd hesitate to call it damaging or dangerous, I nominally consider the left-wing takeovers of civil rights and environmentalism less than ideal but not exactly cyanide in the veins of liberty.



I view both as poor debate questions, though I'd say the one aimed at Dukakis was worse. I think he could have answered the question in a way that would have scored some points, but it would take a very good delivery thrown together on short notice, of course, I would have been expecting that style of question on any POV I held that was unpopular so I'm not too sympathetic for him. If you can't prepare a decent defense for an unpopular stance, it's an indicator it's a bad stance, at least politically.



I think the ACLU stepped over the fine line encouraging someone to break the law. But I certainly agree, there's nothing wrong with two advocates taking opposing sides on an issue and being cordial, so long as it doesn't interfere with their case, and there is a school of thought that says it does.




Both sides have people who use BS to gather votes, note all the dems who told endless sob stories that wouldn't really fit normally into the current system, the proposed one, or the GOP alternative. By and large though, the sudden appearance of proposed unnecessary kneejerk laws tends to be more weird, IMHO, from the left. Right-wing ones tend to be formal banning something already illegal or favoring something previously legal, so we already know what the fallout is going to be. A constitutional ban on gay marriage - which I do not favor - is very predictable in it's consequences, banning salt or adding a cap and trade tax are not.



Well, I don't believe the evidence supports that statement about price controls, I must object to the fundamental assumption that price controls on a universally needed commodity are necessary. I do favor limited regulation but there are a number of items which are life necessities and by and large operate fine under levels of free market and regulation well below what is already in place on health insurance. Food, clothing, etc ll have little to no price controls on them, in terms of federal regulation. Milk, juice, shoes, coats, these are all necessities whose price is almost entirely controlled by free market, the gov't can step in, and should have the power to step in, if a wrench is tossed in to the gears but it's actions when stepping in are not necessarily preferable. "Obamacare" and healthcare reform are not synonymous, anymore than mammal and cat are, and a lot of times gov't attempts to fix blips and muck ups in the free market amount to milking a cat and sending a cow to hunt mice.