RE: Poor Steve

I should have titled this, "Poor Strother," but never mind...

Do you ever admit when you're wrong? I guess that's why you defend silly statements from someone like Coulter. She doesn't either.

Of course I admit when I'm wrong, just as soon as it is demonstrated that I am wrong. Sorry about that, Strother. I'm not in the habit of rolling over and offering up a mea culpa just because you disagree with me. You're going to have to demonstrate that I am wrong about something, and you're going to have to provide logic and evidence to back up your claim. If you succeed, I'll be happy to dress in sackcloth and cover myself with ashes.

Of course, it would help if you identified exactly what it was that you think I'm wrong about. You made a vague generalization about me defending silly statements from "someone like Coulter." Perhaps you would care to offer an example of my defense of one of these statements. I know you're setting yourself up for patented Strother dodge (you know, just in case I corner you), but you're going to have to be a little more specific.

Again, what Coulter said was nothing more than an attempt to get her name back in the news by riding the momentum of a presidential candidate.

Anyway, she didn't address the audience, she used the audience to gain a few headlines and increased buzz in the political blog world.

Well now, which is it, Strother? Was she throwing bombs for her personal glorification and gratification, or was she doing it to generate buzz? There's a pretty important distinction there. And that last sentence in patently silly. Of course she addressed the audience. She wasn't standing in a box somewhere or facing away from them. Your attempt to anthropomorphize the audience into a single entity put up for abuse is cheap rhetoric.

"In defense of homosexual PC"? Huh? How's that? BTW, I'm registered unaffiliated — not a Democrat — and won't vote for Edwards.

And here comes the patented Strother dodge. Let's step through this. You posted in high dudgeon about Coulter's remarks. Giving you the rational benefit of the doubt, your wrath was incurred at least partially by the content of those remarks. The content of the remark in question involved homosexuals, Hollywood, and John Edwards. Since you are a regular defender of both Edwards and Hollywood, it can be assumed that you bridled at the association with homosexuals. Since you are on record here as not having any problem with homosexuals, the part that must have chapped you so badly was her use of the word, "faggot." Therefore, your response can only be rationally evaluated as being in defense of homosexual PC. Clear?

As for your political affiliation and voting plans, I don't recall mentioning either. I called you a closet Democrat. By extension, it is logical to assume that you are not registered as such and that I am aware of that. Further, I called you an Edwards supporter, I said nothing about voting for him. Your frequent defense of him on this blog qualifies you for that characterization. Also clear?

Steve, you still haven't explained how John Edwards is a metrosexual.

Well actually I offered some explanation and noted that this was probably an attempt to hijack the thread onto a side topic (they must have taught that discussion method up at North Stokes High School, all of you guys do that), but I'll offer some more and then I will put a "road closed" sign up on this side trip. Aside from the obvious physical characteristics Edwards displays (effeminate movements, hair perfection, completely non-threatening dress, etc.), he also displays the behavioral characteristics, insofar as we can see them in public. As I mentioned before, he constantly kowtows to feminism, a key trait of metrosexuals, and he ever strives to prove that he is "sensitive" and "caring." To some extent, I believe that to be a put-on, since I don't think he really cares about anything or anyone but himself, but put-on sensitivity is also a hallmark of the metrosexual.