Bro64 on: Rosie/Elisabeth; Left/Right Debate

Every future employer will Google search our name before they hire us. It might be best if my brothers' names are untarnished by familial association with this blog! Thus, the alias: Bro64. The following commentary was prompted by my post on Rosie-Elisabeth.

Bro64 writes:

I find it very interesting if you read media coverage of the Rosie-Elisabeth spat, and if you read Internet blogs. Nobody is neutral on the spat; they either fall into the Rosie camp or the Elisabeth camp. I generally fall into the Elisabeth camp, for a couple of reasons:

1. Rosie doesn't fight fair. Rosie uses distorted facts to support her arguments, and not every discerning listener is able to pick out the exaggerations. The distorted facts give her arguments falsely earned momentum, like jumping offsides gives a defensive lineman an advantage to the QB, and has to be penalized.

2. My super condensed oversimplified Cliffs Notes version of their latest, famous argument is:

Rosie: You didn't defend me when a journalist asked you if I thought our troops were terrorists, and I thought that was cowardly. You know I don't think our troops are terrorists.

Elisabeth: A journalist asked me to explain your philosophical position based on something you wrote on your blog, and I said I don't really know what she was thinking, why don't you ask Rosie.

If I'm the judge of this trial, I side with Elisabeth's position. Why should Elisabeth have to go around defending Rosie's blog posts, especially when that blog post questions "who are the terrorists?"

3. I'm far more sympathetic to Elisabeth, because:

a. she's hot. I really don't know how much this plays into my sympathy vote for her, but to deny that I think she's hot is dishonest. I'd much rather watch her talk on tv than watch Rosie.

b. she's happy. As you mentioned in The End Zone, Elisabeth radiates happiness. Ten years ago, when Rosie hosted her "Mike Douglas-like" show, Rosie also radiated happiness. Somehow she has evolved over the last ten years into someone who is too frequently angry, abrasive, and political.

c. Elisabeth is at a huge disadvantage on that panel. I do not believe that Elisabeth is stupid, as she has been too easily dismissed by many Internet writers. I do believe that she was not hired to be a political commentator, she was hired to be one of the four chicks on a women's coffee talk show. It just so happens that she is the only conservative viewpoint, and the political discussions on the show are You Tubed the world over because they are so deliciously catty. To make matters worse, she finds herself in debates with Rosie and Joy. Rosie and Joy spent years honing their talking skills in front of an audience doing stand up comedy. They are quick thinking, funny, concise, and good with a sound byte. Nothing about Elisabeth's education or experience prepared her to play at the level of Rosie or Joy in a political/comedic dialogue. It is not her strength, but she is called upon to do it frequently.

d. Rosie has home field advantage. The crowd at the The View is definitively liberal, and waits to cheer for every dramatic liberal statement made by Rosie, Joy, or a guest host. This is the same phenonmenon as Bill Maher's "Real Time" show or Jon Stewart's "Daily Show". If you are a conservative, you've got to be nuts to go into those lion's dens. It's like the Michigan Wolverines going into Columbus to play Ohio State. When I watch You Tube clips of the View spats, I find myself cheering for Elisabeth much like I cheer for an underdog in a big sports game, because it's damn hard enough for her to win the debate against 2 or 3 co-panelists, but then that poor hot chick has got to take on the 100 audience members also?!?


These points lead to another thought about liberal vs conservative debates in the media. I know that there are many smart, articulate people who are Democrats. There are many smart, articulate people who are Republicans. But why does it always seem to me that the Republicans who end up on tv are the ones who don't articulate their thoughts very well? Elisabeth is one example. Or, they are cartoonish figures like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Or maybe the only ones who will take a gig on a show like "Real Time" or "The Daily Show" are the ones on the fringe who are trying to advance their careers. Even Michelle Malkin; I know she is a revered conservative blogger and media watchdog, and she is very effective in that medium. However, there are a couple of time I've seen her on tv, and I've thought "wow, I kinda agree with what she's saying, but she really didn't say it very well".


This leads to my final, wild-ass really out there thought. Making an argument to support a liberal position is more easily suited to a quick sound byte, or a thought process that only goes shallow into the issue. It's easier to package on tv, and may be a pleasing thought initially, but it doesn't always consider the long term repercussions. A conversation to support a liberal position may go:

A: What should we do about health care?
B: Let the government solve it.
A: What about the homeless?
B: The government.
A: What about inflation?
B: The government.
A: Social Security?
B. The government.
A: Cool.

Quick, easy, simple answers. Relatively painless solution, because surely the government has the resources. It's analagous to a conversation with an 8 year old that goes like this:

Child: What are we going to do this morning?
Parent: Play video games.
Child: Aftenoon?
Parent: Watch tv.
Child: Evening?
Parent: Go to a movie.
Child: What will we eat and drink?
Parent: Popcorn, cookies, ice cream and root beer.
Child: Cool.


This is a dream day for an 8 year old, but they don't have the foresight to understand how that kind of day impacts their physical fitness, health, mental stimulation/education, etc. They just know it sounds like fun. A conservative, on the other hand, may have a political thought analogous to a conversation with an 8 year old like this:

Child: What are we going to do this morning?
Parent: Play outside, to get some exercise and fresh air.
Child: Afternoon?
Parent: Some housecleaning chores.
Child: Evening?
Parent: Cook dinner.
Child: What will we eat?
Parent: Some fresh things we'll pick up from the farmer's market.
Child: Aww, darn it. I want to play video games and watch tv.
Parent: You may not understand it now, but the things we are doing today are better for you in the long run.

The conservative position does not sound like it is as much fun to an 8 year old. It is not immediate gratification. It sounds a little bit like work and sacrifice. However, any one who is mature enough and smart enough to reason through these issues can see that the conservative day is far more productive and beneficial than the liberal day, it is just a much harder sell.

I'm done. Good night.


Greg's Notes: Valentine to Elisabeth

This TV Guide biography of the former Elisabeth Filarski is amusingly relevant

This former shoe designer entered the entertainment biz through the reality backdoor — she was America's sweetheart when she competed on the second season of Survivor....

Other tidbits I find attractive:

• An avid runner who has completed the Boston Marathon.


• Has Celiac Sprue disease.


• Once listed her favorite smell as "breakfast smells."


• A favorite food: Cashews.


• Walked-on to Boston College's softball team as a semi talented freshman, making the team only b/c she was fast, and could pinch run. Doggedly improved herself until she became, in her senior year, a starter and a Captain.
  
  

We've all been Elisabeth Hasselbeck

We've all been Elisabeth: accosted by some fool who is spouting memorized nonsense.

However, we haven't all looked super hot on the very day we were being photographed and watched more than any other day of our lives. Elisabeth scored with that dress.

I once mentioned, in a now deleted post, how often women of the right look happy vs. how often women of the left look angry.

Look at Elisabeth's face holistically, if you will. Use your intincts. Sense the inner Elisabeth. You can do it. You have studied faces since the very moment you came into the world. Study the entirety of her face. What does it say about the inner Elisabeth?

Now, look at Rosie holistically. What do you see? What does it say about the inner Rosie?

I submit that some of Elisabeth's happiness likely results from her right side principles/philosophy/religious belief. In my observation, people of the right tend to be happy and optimistic more often than people of the left.

I submit that some of Rosie's ... angst ... likely results from her left-side principles/philosophy. If Rosie converts:

1. to conservative principles;
2. to more Aristotle/Plato/Jefferson, and to less Heidegger/Kant/Foucalt;
3. to true and deep belief in a loving power who is wiser and greater than herself, and who actually hears her prayers,

then Rosie might acquire more of Elisabeth's inner contentment. Rosie was not born angry and paranoid and frustrated. Her principles and philosophies have pushed her further and further in that direction.

Frank J:

A political ambush is hard to respond to in a reasonable fashion, because the crank controls the battlefield by spouting out "facts" you are ill-prepared for. Any idiot can read some article or some internet ramblings and then recite them to the unsuspecting
[...]
This is why many sympathized with poor Elisabeth Hasselbeck who was met with this scenario constantly and on live television with no escape.
[...]
How the now despised Rosie lashed out at little Hasselbeck, a warthog snarling at a bunny. [Rosie's] attempts to look smart and gain love and respect had failed horribly, and her only consolation was batting around the blond woman in front of a studio audience. But finally Hasselbeck struck back, meeting the blubbering intensity of Rosie with equal passion.
[...]
And cheer we all did, for Hasselbeck, no greater than the rest of us, struck a blow for all those ever cornered by an obnoxious idiot....

Heart

Link.

Memorial Day Tributes

Included the Day by Day cartoon because part of honoring our military is honoring what they accomplish. Double click the cartoon to see it larger, or click the link.

Further honoring what our military is accomplishing:

The Scotsman:

INFANT mortality in Afghanistan has fallen dramatically since the demise of the Taleban, according to a new study, with 40,000 fewer babies dying every year.
[...]
"It's a conservative estimate. This is the situation two and a half to three years ago ... It should be better than that now," Mr Loevinsohn said.

Ace of Spades evokes "carbon offsets":

Did America buy itself a big, verifiable pile of Collateral Damage Offsets?
[...]
It's a point that seems glib but isn't -- how do 40,000 fewer infant deaths per year factor into the left's "war never solved anything" and "war is bad for the health of puppies and flowers and other living things" slogans?

I really love the drawing of the 9/11 fireman handing off the flag to the military.

Re: the Lincoln Memorial pic: several months ago, military veterans heard of an anti war rally in which some participants were threatening to make a scene in front of the Lincoln Memorial. The veterans traveled to the Lincoln Memorial and positioned themselves between it and the anti war rally. That is what you see in that picture. Of course: zero press coverage of the military veterans; much press coverage of the anti war rally. What else is new.

The Four Chaplains.

James Stockdale. Heroism personified.

Lt Mark Daily.

Pictures of Gathering of Eagles/Rolling Thunder Rally today in D.C. Thousands showed up to peaceably honor our veterans. They report no signs of media coverage of their event.

Scrappleface.

Vietnam Stories. Excerpt:

At the water's edge, one of the men, [Navy Seal] Mike Thornton, looked back and saw Tom Norris get hit. As the enemy moved in, he ran back through heavy fire and killed two North Vietnamese standing over Norris's body. He lifted the officer, barely alive with a shattered skull, and carried him to the water and then swam out to sea where they were picked up two hours later. The two men have been inseparable in the 30 years since.

He ran through enemy fire. Killed two NVA. Carried an unconscious man into the ocean, then kept him afloat and alive for 2 hours, until they could get picked up. Holy moly. Salute.

What the Internet is for

(bumped to top)

Catalina knows exactly what the Internet is for.

These girls know what the Internet is for.

Democracy; Famous Cousin Jeff; Possibility of Man

Famous cousin Jeff is convinced of this:

Democracy is not the answer in Iraq.

He might be correct. Certainly Iraqis have little or no experience of living in liberal democracy. neo-neocon recently speculated that liberal democracy may take a biblical 40 years in the wilderness to seep into the consciousness of Iraqis. Or longer.

And we are not just talking "democracy". The Palestinians recently had a democratic election: they elected Hamas to rule them.

Rather, we are talking "liberal democracy", i.e. a culture of respect for Western concepts of human rights and free exchange of ideas. "Liberal democracy" is part of our strategy for transforming our enemies into allies. Or, maybe more accurately, it is part of our strategy for transforming the children of our enemies.

Gagdad Bob, proprietor of One Cosmos, agrees with Famous Cousin Jeff that democracy cannot be successfully "given", as a gift can be given:

From Plato to Nato: The Idea of the West and its Opponents. Gress believes that we have been misled by scholars who [...] came up with the idea of the "grand narrative" of Western history extending back to its roots in ancient Greece.

But Gress believes that such critical ideas as liberty, democracy, and the free market were not so much ideas as behaviors that people lived out and only later reflected upon[...]. In other words, no one invented capitalism, or liberty or democracy, and that's sort of the point. These things had to first be lived and experienced in order to be valued.

I think we can understand Gress's point in analyzing the difficulty of transplanting "the idea of freedom" to the Middle East. Frankly -- and this is a little alarming to contemplate -- you can't just unproblematically transplant such an idea, because it is a value rooted in centuries of collective experience. I remember Dennis Prager discussing this on his radio program, and it came as a bit of a jolt to me. Like President Bush, I had had it in my mind that the desire for liberty was a universal human wish, something built into us. Therefore, all you have to do is "give" it to people, and that will be that.

Quite the opposite. Liberty is not a built in -- much less universal -- value, and I think you can see how this is a major part of understanding the motivations -- or shall we say, the deep structure -- of leftism. Classical liberals wonder why leftists do not value freedom, but they shouldn't. Rather, the question is why we do value it, because it is an obvious aberration in the human race. Most humans value security over liberty, predictability over change, conformity over individuality, and authority over self-rule.
[...]
To finish up with Prager's thought, he noted that it was God who wanted humans to have freedom, not humans. For the vast majority of human beings, liberty is not a particularly important value, much less the most important one. They would just as soon barter it away for security, as they have done in western Europe.
[...]
In reality, [the welfare state] simply reveals man for what he is -- a lazy, frightened, selfish, superstitious, instinct-loving and lowdown rascal. Leftism aims low and always reaches its target.

Only liberty unleashes the possibility of man and reveals what man can be, as an alternative to the unimpressive specter of what he is.

I don't know what will be the outcome in Iraq, but I hope 40 to 200 years will not be necessary for Iraqis to take to democracy. I hope modern communications: TV, radio, internet, movies, can speed the process. I hope this for the sake of us, and of Iraqis, and of the people of Teheran and Damascus.

Within 40 years, the U.S. may be hit by multiples of WMD attacks. If terrorists can do it once, there is no reason for them not to launch a dozen attacks, two dozen attacks, three dozen attacks. What would the U.S. response be to 100,000 dead Americans? 500,000 dead Americans? 5 million dead Americans?

Pointing to actual truth is controversial territory. Many people prefer fantasy to truth. If you point to truth, they accuse you of being filled with hatred. What would be the U.S. response to a series of attacks which claimed, say: 8 million American lives? 12 million American lives? Better minds than mine speculate that our response would be to level Teheran and Damascus - for starters. We would follow with more destruction after that. We likely would not wait around, trying to specifically and prettily target the guilty parties, while millions more American children stood at risk. We would strike - decisively, repeatedly, horribly - in self-defense. We would make things so horrible that any Jihadis who remained alive would not dare strike us again.

These are the stakes. For real. We are not playing a fantasy game in Iraq, nor in the larger region. It is much better if liberal democracy provides structure for tribal Arabia to modernize itself.

I should mention that Famous Cousin Jeff is in favor of installing an America-friendly, Jihad-unfriendly ruler in Iraq. Jeff would be shocked to know that in this he is simpatico with Donald Rumsfeld.

The problem would be the world-wide political repercussions: when the Jihad-unfriendly ruler cracked down on domestic Jihadis - with prejudice - as he would have to do - there would be political repercussions. We once supported a Jihad-unfriendly head-cracking ruler: the Shah of Iran. We supported him, that is, until Jimmy Carter threw him overboard due to "human rights violations."

Still, Famous Cousin Jeff's idea merits mulling. It's a serious idea. We ought not worry too much about political repercussions, as much of the world already detests us. If the the Jihad-unfriendly ruler would step aside, over time, and gradually allow a democratic/parliamentary government to take power, that would be ideal. Yet history tells us that may be too much to hope for. Power is seductive. People hang onto it with everything they can muster.

Practicing non-attachment

"annika" is on the left. Much as I love annika's journal, life moves on, inexorably. annika's journal ended Sunday night. This is Wednesday. annika's journal is now delinked. It remains, for how much longer I do not know, as a work of blog art which is accessible at http://annika.mu.nu/.

annika's journal no longer exists as a living, breathing blog. I am grieving an appropriate thimbleful of grief; and am adjusting to the new, present moment reality. annika's journal - though loved and fondly remembered - is now like a painting. It no longer plays in our game.

Excepting our souls, everything in this life is temporary. It is perfect that annika's journal no longer plays in our game. It is perfect that annika's journal is de-linked. It is all part of God's perfect blog design! "annika" may re-join the game in the future. But not annika's journal.

I feel like a monk who appreciates the beauty of a sand picture. Even so: when the utility of that beauty wanes, the monk destroys the sand picture and uses that space for something else. The utility of linking annika's journal is low. Time to use the space for something else. I am practicing non-attachment. I need a lot of practice.

Pic h/t

Respect the right to conceive and express the idea

... but not necessarily the idea itself.

Sometimes it is argued: "We must respect their ideas." Uh: no. Stoning people for homosexuality? No. Burning one's daughter for committing adultery? No. These are evil ideas.

Rent control? No. Affirmative action? No. These ideas hurt the very people they are designed to help. These ideas are as discredited as Communism.

I respect your right to believe, but I do not myself respect immoral or foolish concepts.

Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom:

Kamm takes issue with the metaphor of “respecting” ideas, noting—correctly—that respect is something earned, and that certain ideas, having been vanquished in the discursive or philosophical marketplace, have no cause to demand our respect.
[...]
We “tolerate” certain ideas that we don’t respect; [...] that is at the heart of free speech.

The gambit of those who’ve engaged in an attempt to undermine free speech [...] has been to usurp the meaning of “tolerance” and reposition the object of respect onto the idea rather than onto the right to hold it.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Moral equivalency is our Western sickness

In the course of writing the best profile I've seen of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Carolyn Glick throws in poignant examples of recent outrages againt Muslim girls. Ms. Hirsi Ali cries out, in her soft voice, that moral equivilancy is our Western sickness. She is correct. When we extend it's protections to Islamic fundamentalist murderers, we lose our souls.

Carolyn Glick:

Sunday Muslims shot up the Omariyah elementary school in Gaza.[...] The murderers attacked because the UN-run school in Rafah had organized a sports day ... in which little boys would be playing with little girls.

The idea that that boys and girls might play sports together ... was an insult to Islam, they said. And so they decided to kill the little boys and girls.

On May 3, in Gujrat, Pakistan, Muslims detonated a bomb at the gate of a girls' school. Their righteous wrath was raised by the notion that girls would learn to read and write. That too, they felt, is an insult to Islam.

On April 28, US soldiers in Iraq discovered detonation wires across the street from the newly built Huda Girls' school in Tarmiya, north of Baghdad. They followed the wire to its source and discovered the school had been built as a deathtrap. The pious Muslims who constructed the school had filled propane tanks with explosives and buried them beneath the floor. They built artillery shells into the ceiling and the floor. To save the world for Allah, they decided to butcher little girls.

[...] Last month in Oslo, Norway, Norwegian-Somali women's rights activist Kadra was brutally beaten by a crowd of men piously calling out "Allah Akhbar." She was attacked for exposing the fact that inside their mosques in Norway, Norwegian imams praise female genital mutilation in the name of Allah.

Wretchard:

Maybe the reason why the Left hates Sarkozy and that renegade "woman of color" Hirsi Ali so much is ... because both remind [the Left] of the principles they have betrayed.

This secret guilt may stand at the center of the inexplicable hysteria with which the Left regard the neocons and President Bush in particular. [...] the extreme demonization of George W. Bush and the neocons is psychologically necessary in order to restore a feeling of moral superiority to the Leftist universe. They would be guilt stricken without it.

The more intelligent Leftists must be subconsciously aware of how monstrous the enemy is and secretly cognizant of how great is the betrayal of their own ideals. They can't confront this fact; cannot accept that they are delivering children, as Caroline Glick's example above shows, to cruel murderers. And in order to obtain some kind of solace ... it is necessary for them to invent something worse; to make a caricature devil of GWB [...] George Bush must be made nothing less than the moral equivalent of Hitler or else their ethical universe would collapse.

But George Bush is not Hitler. And one day the better men among the Left will face up to the fact that they have failed a huge moral and historical test. And from that memory, there will be no redemption.

Well said.

Dr. Sanity:

Wretchard rightly perceives that the degree of the left's moral and intellectual bankruptcy is so great; the betrayal so profound, that it is simply impossible they are not aware on some level of the nihilistic traitors they have become to all that is good and worth fighting for in the world.

Like a deer caught in the headlights of reality, they are paralyzed because there is no way to escape their fate; instead they try to make their paralysis a moral virtue; their betrayal an heroic stance. And the rage they feel toward all who remind them of what they have betrayed distracts them from the rush of reality that will overwhelm and destroy them eventually.

The final psychological touch to all this is the projection--where they take the rage they feel and imagine that the object of their rage actually feels it toward them--is that it breeds the paranoia and the utterly nonsensical and histrionic conspiracy theories.

But no matter how carefully they construct their fantasies; no matter how much information they choose to ignore; how tightly they close their eyes; the headlights of the reality train--and not the peace train, I fear--as it rockets toward them only highlights the bankruptcy of the ideology they now profess.

Also well said.

Classic example of protecting one's worldview

I sometimes play Yahoo Chess with an interesting and smart woman. We instant message as we play. This weekend, she tossed out a line about the war in Iraq, and the conversation below ensued.

It's a classic example of a leftist denying reality to herself. She is smart. She knows what is going on with Islamic fundamentalists, yet she cannot admit it - especially to herself - because of the implications and the impact such an admission would have on her worldview. That's my speculation, but my gut tells me it is likely correct.

Meantime, she threw out one off-topic piece of bait after another - though she probably believed some of it was relevant. The effect was to try and draw me away from the one question I was asking. I was truly and genuinely interested in her opinion on the subject. I wanted to hear her out - nothing more. When she evaded answering - and evaded and evaded - I became determined to hang in for an answer. I appreciate Maria for being principled enough to hang in there. She really, really didn't want to answer the question. But she didn't bail. She hung in.


Transcript:


gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:25:16 PM): what do you think is the threat against America, from the Middle East? I am very curious, b/c I think Americans cannot agree on what the threat is. We have big disagreements about what is threatening us. I am curious what you think?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:26:05 PM): i think the US has distressed the terrorist, but there are still threats, need to be alert at all times

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:26:52 PM): what are the threats which still threaten the U.S.? in your opinion?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:27:13 PM): home grown terrorist!!! this s a big headache, even in other countries, such as UK

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:28:58 PM): do you think the U.S. still faces a threat from the Middle East?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:29:14 PM): they find it difficult to meet raise money, organize etc, thx to satellite images.

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:29:44 PM): do you think anything in the Middle East continues to threaten the U.S.?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:29:44 PM): middle east is a theat to the world as a whole. take for instance Iran and its nuke

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:30:59 PM): I agree. What is the major threat from the Mid East? to the world? and to the U.S?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:31:28 PM): a gun in a crazy man's hand is something to worry about

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:31:56 PM): so, the major threat is Iran and it's nuke. fine. what is the next largest threat from the Mid East? do you think?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:32:51 PM): i really cant pinpoint a threat

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:33:06 PM): can you give a generalization?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:33:18 PM): as i told u, the military has been doing a great job.

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:34:18 PM): what about the Jihadis who wish to kill everyone who doesn't agree with their version of Sharia? do you think they are a threat? or, do you think they might easily grow into a threat? either to the world, or specifically to the U.S.?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:34:45 PM): i'm not an expert on Middle east affairs. i don't like sharia. i think it's better to leave that to the govt to do. they have been doing great

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:35:45 PM): the people are the government

Maria (5/5/2007 8:35:56 PM): sort of. veto power remember

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:36:15 PM): the people elect the man who has veto power. the people run the government

Maria (5/5/2007 8:36:29 PM): selected pple. not u and me

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:36:56 PM): that is propaganda. that my voice is not stronger is not an indictment of democracy, so much as a comment on my level of influence in the marketplace of ideas.

Maria (5/5/2007 8:37:13 PM): yeah

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:37:20 PM): I enjoy our conversation - do not think I am angry. just demonstrative! do you consider Sharia a threat?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:37:51 PM): but u need to yell b/4 washington can hear u talk less of listening to u. sharia is BS

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:38:09 PM): I can yell. is Sharia a threat to you and me?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:38:28 PM): doesnt respect human rights

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:38:41 PM): is it a threat to murder you and I?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:38:49 PM): an eye for an eye. u should be a politician

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:40:07 PM): so, you do not think Sharia is a threat to murder us? correct?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:40:38 PM): sharia is not the threat, but the pple behind it. sharia is just a law

gcotharn(5/5/2007 8:41:36 PM): Okay, so the people who believe a fundamentalist interpretation of the BS Sharia law - do they want to kill us?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:42:01 PM): look out the window, anyone after u???

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:42:13 PM): do they want to kill us?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:42:16 PM): the US is safe

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:42:18 PM): yes or no? would they kill us if they could?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:42:44 PM): not if we kill them first

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:43:10 PM): good. so you say those people do want to kill us. they would kill us if they could? correct?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:43:28 PM): dont put wds in my mouth. or better in my keyboard

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:43:54 PM): what does "not if we kill them first" mean?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:44:17 PM): what the US is doing in Iraq and Afghan. we aren't there for a picnic, are we?

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:45:36 PM): look, you are not being genuine here: I understand your opinion that the U.S. can protect itself. I am asking: do the people who believe in fundamentalist Sharia wish to kill us? that is a yes or no question... you are not being fair. you are evading a clear and simple question

Maria (5/5/2007 8:46:08 PM): that's a million dollar question

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:46:22 PM): okay, so you say you do not know the answer?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:46:32 PM): kind of

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:46:47 PM): wtf does "kind of" mean?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:46:53 PM): it's difficult to say, cause i really don't know. fanatics a re sick.

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:47:57 PM): okay, so you do not know if they want to kill us. Do you know if anyone in the Middle East wants to kill us? and if so, how many do you think would lend support to those who wish to kill us?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:48:50 PM): i'm being genuine with u

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:49:04 PM): Do you know if anyone in the Middle East wants to kill us? and if so, how many do you think would lend support to those who wish to kill us?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:49:12 PM): have u ever been to the middle east?

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:49:18 PM): irrelevant

Maria (5/5/2007 8:49:32 PM): do u have a muslim friend? do u respect islam?

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:49:41 PM): I will not be sidetracked. my questions are simple, yet you are evading them

Maria (5/5/2007 8:50:03 PM): Ok. easy. dont get worked up. send me ur questionaire for ur project and i'll answer ur questions truthfully

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:51:40 PM): NO! I am on my last, or my next to last question. you are evading my questions, and we really are still on THE FIRST QUESTION. my questions are completely simple and fair. your evasion is disgraceful

Maria (5/5/2007 8:52:03 PM): repeat ur question

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:52:18 PM): Do you know if anyone in the Middle East wants to kill us? and if so, how many do you think would lend support to those who wish to kill us?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:52:59 PM): i don't know anyone who might want to kill us, from the middle east

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:53:29 PM): I didn't ask that. I asked this: Do you know if anyone in the Middle East wants to kill us? and if so, how many do you think would lend support to those who wish to kill us?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:53:57 PM): No one in the middle east want to kill us

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:54:25 PM): okay. thank you for answering the question. my last question: why the #$%& did it take so long for you to answer?

Maria (5/5/2007 8:55:31 PM): cause it's a difficult question. next time ask simpler questions.

gcotharn (5/5/2007 8:56:42 PM): okay. I disagree with you. I think literally millions of people in the Mid East would support efforts to kill Americans. But, we now understand each other, and we can respectfully disagree with each other's opinions. Thank you for answering the difficult question.

Maria (5/5/2007 8:57:01 PM): fair enough. you are welcome.