I think President Chavez and Ann Coulter would make a cute couple, don't you?


>If the folks at Fox News are such supper patriotic Americans, why don’t they enlist for Iraq, clean up the insurgency, and end the War On Terror? Actions speak louder than words but the words used by Fox News are venomous!
>
>Listening to Fox News discussing those terrible liberals and how they have destroyed and continue to destroy our country is like watching President Chavez of Venezuela talk about the United States.
>
>
>
>>Unfortunately, I think this is a very nieve view of current events.
>>
>>As an example, I don't know if you've heard about "fox news" in your neck of the woods. They bill themselves as a news station on tv. But they are a mouthpiece for the whitehouse, or republican party if the whitehouse is not staffed by repubs.
>>
>>In many cases, as a mouthpiece for the administration, they spew hatred at those who voice displeasure or disagree with the president. One of the worse is ann coulter.
>>
>>She was hired to give a speech to a group of republicans this week. She used some derogatory words in describing a popular democrat, John Edwards. Many, many have come out to voice displeasure with her over this.
>>
>>I just read an article talking about how even though many are upset with her, the people she was hired to give the speech too loved her. A group called CPAC. Something to do with a branch of the republican party. Hatred is what gets them going.
>>
>>>>You have to be willing to believe that there would be no fallout from bombing Tehran in order to by into the idea that it would be a great idea. It appears your friend has convinced you of that.
>>>
>>>My replies to Walter were not arguments that fit with my personal opinion. It were merely arguments that the pro-bombing wing may (or may not) use. I think it is important to analyze the pro-bombing arguments, consider its strong points and make clear where they fail.
>>>
>>>Often people need a whole set of arguments to justify a certain choice. It sometimes is enough to show that only one or two of those arguments are incorrect, to effectively undermine the justification of the choice.
>>>
>>>In case of bombing Tehran, the pro-bombing argument that it will prevent that the Iranians can further develop a bomb is probably true and therefore cannot really be undermined. So, forget that one, or admit it's probably true. It may be a better strategy to proof, let's say, that a major group of muslims and even many non-muslims will show anger (justified or not) about this act and will gonna seek revenge (justified or not) underground. The costs of such an aftereffect may convince many in the initially pro-bombing wing that it is a too risky endeavour and that it's indeed best to seek an alternative way of handling the issues.