Larry Elder: Worse than Coulter?

[20score]

Yes, that’s right, I used the Fox question. Kind of. You see the Fox question, by definition, is not only inflammatory, but the reader/listener has to come away with an impression that is not true. Like ‘Civil War in Iraq: Could it be a Good Thing?’ a la Cavuto. In this case, even though Larry Elder is not as purposely divisive as Ann Coulter, he is more damaging. Everyone knows Coulter and most people hate her, but no one who is thoughtful or who takes our world seriously takes Coulter seriously; she’s a joke, even if she does manage to enrage. She spews her bile for morons.
That said, Larry Elder puts forth the same ideas as Coulter, but couched in a much more expectable language. What Elders does when pushing or justifying war, instead of a Coulteresque ‘kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity’ he lies about the underlying facts. To prove that the Iraq war was the correct thing to do and that Bush didn’t lie, he will site the Robb- Silberman and the 9-11 Commission Reports as proof everything Bush said was true. Neither of which proves his point. They say nothing concerning the lies, or state the opposite. The 9-11 Commission did not look at lies told to get us into Iraq, and stated that Iraq was not involved with the 9-11 attacks, and the Robb-Silberman Report stated they where not allowed to look into how the intelligence was used. Never the less he sites these reports and others, like the Butler Report, (from England) to prove Bush didn’t lie. Elders changes the facts to allow for a seemly logical conclusion. This is the same technique he uses to lie about the economy, privatization, and global warming. Which is how he has been able to convince his listeners that Bush is smart, the economy is doing great, the war with Iraq was a wonderful idea and corporations should have no taxes or restraints.
Much more dangerous than Coulter, in my opinion.

[calimary]

1. Welcome to DU! larry elder is nauseating.

Los Angeles has had to put up with his bullshit for years now, on the second wanna-be knuckle-dragger radio station here. I WON'T give them an undeserved plug by repeating their call letters.

Dear Lord, where do they find these assholes? And, he's another one of those who insists, INSISTS!, he's NOT a republi-CON. He's a "libertarian" (because he believes in legalized marijuana). He's nothing more than an unabashed republi-CON who knows it's kinda not-cool these days so he doesn't want to call himself by that label.

[20score]

2. Thank you, and thanks for mentioning that he backs

republicans all the time, but calls himself a libertarian. Forgot that.

[calimary]

4. I have found, for the most part, that those who back republi-CONS but are too

chickenshit to admit it will call themselves libertarians. Because basically they're cowards. Don't even want to own their own party.

[20score]

3. Oops, acceptable.! Damn, should have caught that.