Posted by: Boxman
- [571114225] Fri, May 23, 2008, 06:23
IF WE COULD TALK TO THE ANIMALS May 21, 2008
You always know you've struck gold when liberals react with hysteria and rage to something you've said. So I knew President Bush's speech at the Knesset last week was a barn burner before even I read it. Liberals haven't been this worked up since Rev. Jerry Falwell criticized a cartoon sponge.
Calling the fight against terrorism "the defining challenge of our time" -- which already confused liberals who think the defining struggle of our time is against Wal-Mart -- Bush said:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
The way liberals squealed, you'd think someone had mentioned Obama's ears. Summoning all their womanly anger, today's Neville Chamberlains denounced Bush, saying this was an unjustified attack on Obambi and, furthermore, that it's absurd to compare B. Hussein Obama's willingness to "talk" to Ahmadinejad to Neville Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler.
Unlike liberals, I will honestly report their point before I attack it.
The New York Times editorialized: "Sen. Obama has called for talking with Iran and Syria," but has not "suggested surrendering to these countries' demands, which is, after all, what appeasement is."
"Hardball's" Chris Matthews gloated all week about nailing a conservative talk radio host with this brilliant riposte: "You don't understand there's a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Neville Chamberlain did wrong ... is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia."
Liberals think all real tyrants ended with Hitler and act as if they would have known all along not to appease him. Next time is always different for people who refuse to learn from history. As Air America's Mark Green said: "Look, Hitler was Hitler." (Which, I admit, threw me for a loop: I thought Air America's position is that Bush is Hitler.)
This is nonsense. Ahmadinejad looks a lot like Hitler did when Chamberlain agreed to meet with him at Munich, except that Hitler didn't buy his suits from ratty thrift shops. Much of England reacted just as today's Democrats would because, like today's Democrats, they feared nothing more than another war. (Lloyd George lied, kids died!)
Lots of Britons cheered when Chamberlain returned from Munich and announced "peace in our time." Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, what on earth makes Chris Matthews think he would not be among them?
As Bush said at the Knesset, "There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words." That was Chamberlain. And that is today's Democratic Party.
What Matthews and the Times are saying is this: We can have a Munich, but we promise to be tougher than Chamberlain was. Therein lies the flaw in their logic. Yes, in the abstract, it is technically possible to "talk" without giving up Czechoslovakia (or in today's case, Iraq or Israel).
But in reality, when talking to a lunatic without having first bombed him into submission, the only possible result is appeasement. Any talk with Hitler, or a McHitler like Ahmadinejad, that does not include handing over Czechoslovakia or Israel, like a game show parting gift, is going to be a relatively brief chat.
Churchill knew that before Chamberlain went to Munich. But a lot of Britons then, like a lot of Americans today, refused to see that blindingly obvious point.
Liberals think the way to deal with dangerous tyrants is to send in a sensitive president who will make Ahmadinejad fall in love with him. They imagine Obama becoming Ahmadinejad's psychotherapist, like Barbra Streisand in "The Prince of Tides."
President Bush described such people perfectly with his reference to Sen. William Edgar Borah, the one who said World War II could have been avoided if only he could have talked to Hitler.
Liberals refuse to learn from history because they put their hands over their ears and tell themselves over and over again: "Hitler was different."
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
449
sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 12:39
On politics? Probably. On day to day life for the average American? She wouldnt have a prayer in hell.
450
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 12:46
Which of course is why her opponents don't dare let her speak, the pusilanimous weak-kneed p-----s.
451
tree on the treo
ID: 287212811 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 13:08
if coulter had to remain honest and stick to the facts, she wouldn't stand a chance.
but she is neither honest, nor does she stick to the facts.
452
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 13:17
"Which of course is why her opponents don't dare let her speak"
For someone that isn't allowed to speak, she sure does talk a lot.
453
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 13:28
If we actually do have a right not to be offended, where is Ann and my right to not be offended by you two?
454
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 13:49
It's there. I'm pretty sure that if I was spewing racial epithets at you instead of merely pointing out the gaping holes in your "logic", you'd be well within your rights.
Still, if you're actually offended because I disagree with your views on Ann Coulter, please by all means send an email to the highlighted address on your screen so that you may be mocked by a higher authority than me.
455
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 14:09
Just how 'high' of an authority do you imagine that you are?
456
sarge33rd
ID: 280311620 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 14:12
I have no problem Boldwin, with you being offended by me. I find you offensive more often than not. *shrug*
457
Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 14:40
We certainly do have a right to be offensive, and Ann exercises it with just about every word she utters or types.
I guess people (canadians in this case) are getting tired of raging, impotent offensiveness.
458
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 14:48
"Just how 'high' of an authority do you imagine that you are?"
Not sure what you mean there, would you mind spelling out your ridiculous implications?
As far as this board goes, we are equals, though I'm not nearly as prolific in the ability to spew hate speech as you. I guess I can work on it.
459
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 15:27
I know of no "right" to not be offended. You all played right into the hands of B's strawman in #438.
That Coulter's hate-rhetoric is offensive has nothing to do with anyone's rights, except for her right to preach it.
But that doesn't mean decent people aren't or shouldn't be utterly disgusted by her.
460
Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 15:40
If we actually do have a right not to be offended, where is Ann and my right to not be offended by you two?
post 441, second paragraph, third sentence. you absolutely have to right to be offended by anyone or anything you want - it's because we're in a free country, not a Socialist one that you have that right.
so, be offended. no skin of my teeth.
doesn't change the bigger issue of Coulter's bigotry, and those who approve of it by supporting her. they're no better than she is when it comes to hatred of their fellow man, and some VERY un-Christian values.
461
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 11:19
it's because we're in a free country, not a Socialist one that you have that right.
Tell that to Ann Coulter or David Horowitz at a university.
BTW there is no hate in telling muslims they are the reason air travel is dangerous. When they get their collective act together there will be no more Muhammed's flying into buildings or commonplace wearing of suicide belts. It's not something anyone else can fix. It's just a fact, not hatred.
463
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 12:05
The bottomline is that in this now socialistic country AC and David Horowitz cannot speak at a university without being greeted by violence. Universities now exist outside the democratic principles this country was founded on.
And Canada never did have freedom of speech. Not part of their founding documents.
464
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 12:12
BTW there is no hate in telling muslims they are the reason air travel is dangerous.
That's twisted logic Baldwin. That's like saying all Christians are to blame because some Catholic priests are pedophiles.
Or all fundamentalists are sex addicts because Jerry Fallwell liked to troll for hookers.
Every time a Christian does something wrong you want to be lumped in with them and treated the same way?
Besides you don't think Muslims were responsible for 9/11, you think it was the US Government so how does that relate to your point. You can't have it both ways.
Why should a University be forced to have a speaker who is telling a group of their students they shouldn't fly and should ride a camel instead? They have every right to keep that garbage off campus.
If she just came an talked pure politics THAT would be different, but that's not what she does, she categorizes people based on religion and mocks them. She insults people and inflames things because that sells books and she is making money being a bigot.
She is fueling the reactionary bigoted tendencies in a certain group within the right wing in the country and is using it to make money.
Who needs that in an intellectual environment like a University?
What type of psychic damage would it do to their reputation as a place of higher learning if it allowed a group of it's students to be mocked like that solely based on their religion?
The student hasn't done anything wrong and you are using some sort of twisted logic to think it's OK to tell her to ride a camel simply because of her religion.
It's twisted but you don't eve realize how bigoted and outrageous it is.
Should they let Nazis speak and say it's time to discriminate against Jews again?
Should they let Satanists come on campus and speak about discriminating against Christians?
465
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:00
A) I categorically deny your every use of the term bigoted.
That's twisted logic Baldwin. That's like saying all Christians are to blame because some Catholic priests are pedophiles.
If I didn't condemn it I would be collectively guilty.
Or all fundamentalists are sex addicts because Jerry Fallwell liked to troll for hookers.
Every time a Christian does something wrong you want to be lumped in with them and treated the same way?
Not if I can demonstrate a difference in governing principles.
I don't know that for a fact. If I condoned it I would be collectively guilty.
Besides you don't think Muslims were responsible for 9/11, you think it was the US Government so how does that relate to your point. You can't have it both ways.
Of course the muslims did it. The mystery religionists/secret societies allowed it.
Why should a University be forced to have a speaker who is telling a group of their students they shouldn't fly and should ride a camel instead? They have every right to keep that garbage off campus.
A university should be forced to allow the factual point that airline travel is unsafe because the religion of jihad considers planes full of innocent people, righteous weapons.
If she just came an talked pure politics THAT would be different, but that's not what she does, she categorizes people based on religion and mocks them. She insults people and inflames things because that sells books and she is making money being a bigot.
The most effective weapon against speech codes is defiant resistance.
She is fueling the reactionary bigoted tendencies in a certain group within the right wing in the country and is using it to make money
Common sense doesn't ignore the fact that the terrorists on a plane are usually named Muhammed.
By thumbing their noses at common sense and the values of their audience the MSM is bankrupting traditional news media. This does not portend well for the future.
What type of psychic damage would it do to their reputation as a place of higher learning if it allowed a group of it's students to be mocked like that solely based on their religion?
Not enuff to get either the university or that girl to disown muslim extremists apparently.
The student hasn't done anything wrong and you are using some sort of twisted logic to think it's OK to tell her to ride a camel simply because of her religion.
The girl might as well be a member of CAIR. She was there for a fight and got it.
It's twisted but you don't eve realize how bigoted and outrageous it is.
I do realize how bigoted muslim extremists are. When will you? They are outraged when people have the stones to oppose them? Too bad.
Should they let Nazis speak and say it's time to discriminate against Jews again?
Just who is telling Isreal whether they can build buildings in their own capitol? The whole world feels that's ok these days. Who keeps telling that nation to open their gates to suicide bombers and guerilla attacks? Who calls them apartheid? Open your eyes to the new social democrats.
466
walk
ID: 342381316 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:00
Bam! Nothing wrong with generalizing and stereotyping.
467
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:04
Forgot one:
Should they let Satanists come on campus and speak about discriminating against Christians?
It's ok with our moderators.
468
walk
ID: 342381316 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:05
Lumping an entire religion with radical extremists is not fair, and you know it. There are radicals in every religion who do radical things. For me, no religion is the answer, so that's my view. After reading over and over about priests raping (disabled) children, and the vatican covering it up, I find an argument about radical islam pretty selective. It's all messed up.
469
Mith
ID: 58136177 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:08
this now socialistic country AC and David Horowitz cannot speak at a university without being greeted by violence.
?
#1 There was no report of violence that I read.
#2 Ottawa isn't in this country.
470
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:16
MITH
Just let the pedantic wave roll off your back when you feel it coming on.
471
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:17
"A) I categorically deny your every use of the term bigoted."
And you have the right to be laughably wrong.
473
Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:39
Just let the pedantic wave roll off your back when you feel it coming on.
in other words, stop being so concerned with truth and accuracy.
Only just as in America where 'real americans' aren't socialists...maybe in the muslim world 'real muslims' aren't in support of the salafists. The audience response is interesting. I'm none too sure the 'real muslims' will get their way any more than the 'real americans'.
482
Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 15:42
Now here is an inspiring young muslim women.
and this is where the problem lies with much of what you say about Muslims. THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS feels as if this woman does, yet you proclaim they are nearly all terrorists, and you support the offensive statement of someone telling them to "ride a camel."
i'm glad you and the the Huffington Post can come to a common ground, and while i think it's nice to see you praising a Muslim, you do tend to paint them with a very broad brush.
483
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 18:55
"If I didn't condemn it I would be collectively guilty."
Exactly and Muslims do condem acts of terrorism.
Are you even aware that the Pakistan government is sending troops to the militant parts of the country and attacking Al Queda as we speak, even though there are bomb blasts going off weekly, in major metropolitan areas of Pakistan killing hundreds of people at a time since they started the campaign?
I don't know that for a fact. If I condoned it I would be collectively guilty.
Agreed
And this student who was told by Coulter to ride a camel "condones" terrorism? You make that leap?
Of course the muslims did it. The mystery religionists/secret societies allowed it.
Therefore Americans should not be allowed to fly on planes either since we were also involved in 9/11 (mystery religionists/secret societies allowing it) and we "aren't doing anything to stop it"?
A university should be forced to allow the factual point that airline travel is unsafe because the religion of jihad considers planes full of innocent people, righteous weapons
How is being outraged, that a speaker on campus tells one of their students they shouldn't be allowed to fly on a plane, and should ride a camel instead, solely based on her religion, somehow connected to blocking students from learning that muslim terrorists have tried to blow up planes?
using the same logic it's a factual point that airline travel is unsafe because the religion of mystery religionists/secret societies (Many of them Americans) considers planes full of innocent people, righteous weapons
Again Americans should ride donkeys?
Common sense doesn't ignore the fact that the terrorists on a plane are usually named Muhammed.
But when American soldiers kill people in their own land by the hundreds of thousands, and their name is John, Paul, Matthew or...David?
The people who "allowed" 9/11 (this is according to you, mystery religions) were named John, Matthew, Paul, and David...not Mohummad.
Perhaps everyone named "David" should be stopped from flying on planes?
Not enuff to get either the university or that girl to disown muslim extremists apparently.
LMAO is that what you believe? You believe this girl in an American college who is Muslim doesn't disown terrorism? Are you that delusional? I mean really? You think the average Muslim wants people to fly planes into skyscrapers? Is that really your world view?
So sad.
I do realize how bigoted muslim extremists are. When will you? They are outraged when people have the stones to oppose them? Too bad.
Your questioning whether or not I think Muslim extremists are bigoted??? They are beyond bigoted. They are one of the greatest plagues on the planet. At least once a week in the Muslim newspaper I read here in Dubai, there are outraged stories about people being stoned to death by extremists for adultery, or girls in Afghanistan having acid thrown on them for trying to go to school. You have nothing to teach me about extremism, whether that of the Muslim extremism or Anne Coulter version.
Who keeps telling that nation to open their gates to suicide bombers and guerilla attacks? Who calls them apartheid? Open your eyes to the new social democrats.
When was the last suicide bombing in Israel? We know from testimony of multiple Israeli solders they intentionally shot women and children in the last invasion of Gaza, I heard the interviews on BBC, we know they used illegal chemicals, white phosphorus artillery shells, no one is arguing that, Israeli officers were even dismissed over the issue. Israel are the terrorists now and they have completely lost any moral ground they may have had.
484
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 21:04
Exactly and Muslims do condem acts of terrorism.
Not the CAIR activist variety like that girl.
Therefore Americans should not be allowed to fly on planes either since we were also involved in 9/11 (mystery religionists/secret societies allowing it) and we "aren't doing anything to stop it"?
Note the words secret and mystery. Americans don't even have a clue, let alone are they responsible for the actions of the Skull&Bones writ large.
LMAO is that what you believe? You believe this girl in an American college who is Muslim doesn't disown terrorism? Are you that delusional? I mean really? You think the average Muslim wants people to fly planes into skyscrapers? Is that really your world view?
She's an activist in a Canadian college, not an average muslim. Yes I think she has more in common with CAIR than the average muslim.
Your questioning whether or not I think Muslim extremists are bigoted??? They are beyond bigoted. They are one of the greatest plagues on the planet.
So then you side with their enablers in the west instead of AC.
So sad.
485
Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 21:24
an average muslim
Neither you nor Ann Coulter have a clue what constitutes an average Muslim, because there's no such thing, just like there's no such thing as an average Christian, much as you'd like to stereotype.
486
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 21:45
That is so profound....hmmmmm.
487
Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 23:07
Here's your opportunity to be profound. Give us your definition of the average Muslim, since you've travelled extensively throughout the Muslim world, drinking in the culture, breaking pita and weaving prayer rugs.
Really, what credibility do you have to make honest characterizations about Muslims?
And no, reading jihadwatch.com doesn't make you an expert on Muslims.
488
nerveclinic
ID: 105222 Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 00:59
Sarge 436 Ottawa students turn away AC and her hate speech
you got suckered into posting a false headline.
Which of course is why her opponents don't dare let her speak, the pusilanimous weak-kneed p-----s.
They didn't stop her from speaking, she just turned tail and ran like a weak kneed chicken. I won't stoop to the level of miming p-----s.
While it initial reports seemed to imply that the organizers made the decision to cancel the speech (hinting that Coulter was the innocent victim of some nefarious experiment in Canadian censorship) it later came to light that Coulter's bodyguard made the decision to cancel the speech in consultation with on-site security when someone pulled a fire alarm in the building.
and...
First, contrary to what Coulter seems to suggest in a brief phone interview with Macleans.ca scribe Colby Cosh, it was not the police who "shut it down." I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was her security team that made the decision to call off the event. "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision."
Coulter told newsmax.com that: "The Provost of the u. of Ottawa is threatening to criminally prosecute me for my speech there on Monday--before I've even set foot in the country!"
Coulter neglected to add that the Provost had no authority to "criminally prosecute" her, or that the letter had been intended to advise her, for her own sake, of what the Charter actually said and where she might be vulnerable given her penchant for gay-baiting and Muslim-baiting.
That night and the next day, Coulter indulged in a media orgy of invective.
According to Coulter, a significant part of the blame for the protest--during which there were no arrests, no violence, and no reported threats of violence--belonged to Francois Houle (whom she referred to in the media as "A-Houle") for creating a "climate of hate" on campus with his letter--a private letter to her that was mysteriously leaked to Coulter-friendly venues like the National Post, Canada's most conservative national newspaper and to newsmax.com, the website that bills itself somewhat wordily as "the leading independent online news site with a conservative perspective."
If she's a chicken the libs around here wouldn't be so shaken up by her.
But I'll play along. God help you when the brave ones show up.
490
Tree
ID: 248472317 Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 05:25
If she's a chicken the libs around here wouldn't be so shaken up by her.
no one is shaken up by her. it's the absolutely mindless sheep that follow her blindly that are worrisome.
she's harmless, but the imbeciles who follow her are less so.
491
Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 10:13
Afetr sarcastically chiding me for saying there's no such thing as an 'average Muslim' or 'average Christian', I gave Baldwin the chance to clarify his definition.
There's a distinct indication, based on numerous posts over the years, that the average Muslim in Baldwin's view, is a Salafist radical either bent on creating terrorism or sympathetic to the cause of killing all infidels. Besides the obvious attempt to create bias and hatred against Muslims in general, there are other factors that negatively affect geo-politics.
One of the primary problems with associating the average Muslim as a terrorist enabler or sympathizer(besides being false) is that it takes our eye off the ball. Nobody denies the contingency in the Muslim world bent on causing mayhem in the west and their own societies. It's important to identify the "hot" spots, but even then, the roots of radical Islam are based on different conditions. The problems in Nigeria are different than the problems in Somalia. The problems in Yemen are different than the problems in Chechnya. The problems in Palestine are different than the problems in Pakistan. Many Muslim-dominated countries have virtually no problems at all. Is the average Muslim in Morocco the same as the average Muslim in Iran?
Blanket assessments of Muslims, based on hatred and bias, are wonderful recruitment tools for the radical element. President Obama should be applauded for his address to the Muslim world, instead of villified for bowing and scraping to our enemies. In a global business sense, Muslims are an important and growing factor, not only in energy, but in other commodities and services. Ask yourself if Azerbaijan is our enemy, then ask yourself if the Baku/Tblisi/Cehan pipeline could have been accomplished by telling Azeri representatives to ride camels to negotiations instead of fly.
And what of the 10 million Muslims in this country? You and Ann Coulter seem to agree that they should be treated as an underclass of citizen, not worthy of the rights and privileges afforded 'real Americans.' How do you think that view sits with the Muslims who are vulnerable to recruitment by radical factions? How do you square that view with our Constitution, which you profess to hold in deep regard?
And, finally, what is your 'final solution' to the average Muslim menace?
492
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 10:57
Your memory isn't so good. I'm the guy who responded to the comment someone made that 'Iran should be turned into a sea of radioctive glass' with the comment that the Iranian people were some of the most pro-American people in the entire muslim world.
I am one of the most informed people on this board when it comes to Muslims and their religion and you can keep on dehumanizing me into a knuckle-dragging know-nothing all you like to maintain your prejudices. It doesn't impress at all. It just shows how fearful you are to deal with reality.
493
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 11:16
I further was the only one on the board able to explain why the burkha wasn't designed to oppress women and why it was designed. The only one to present where in the Koran al qeada was drawing their strength from specific prophecies. The list of where I was the first on this board to explain something about salafism is nearly endless. To pretend I am riffing on baseless prejudices when I explain muslim realities is demonstrably ridiculous.
494
Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 11:23
Don't blame me for dehumanizing you into a knucle-dragging know-nothing when it comes to Muslims. You're the one who uses the term 'average Muslim', a term you haven't even attempted to define. Instead, you attack me for questioning something that you instigated.
As far as you being one of the most informed people on this board when it comes to Muslims, that's not your call, unless you think self-aggrandizement is the basis for respect.
WND, jihadwatch.com, and the like, do not make for an informed concept about Muslims. I gave you plenty of rope to explain your use of the term 'average Muslim.' Yet the only response has been to tell us how informed you are. Where's the beef?
495
Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 11:26
I was the first on this board to explain something about salafism is nearly endless. To pretend I am riffing on baseless prejudices when I explain muslim realities is demonstrably ridiculous.
Is this your attempt to explain what constitutes an 'average Muslim?' If so, you're confirming my contentions in #491.
496
Boldwin
ID: 362262121 Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 12:10
Ya'know just pretend that saying 'No generalization is worth a damn' is some brilliant deep insight that no one ever thot of before.
No you can't exactly average a Sunni with a with a Shia or any number of other irrelevent objections you can raise to what was simply shorthand for 'the majority of muslims' who you and I both presume are not remotely as extremist as suicide bombers and al qeada members.
497
Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Sat, May 08, 2010, 11:59
Fox News host and conservative talker Glenn Beck is firing back after New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner issued a report critical of Goldline International, a gold retailer and one sponsor of Beck's cable show. Goldline is among several gold concerns that advertise with Beck while Beck offers testimonials about gold — an arrangement that's sparked some conflict-of-interest complaints about the pundit.
For the past two days, Beck has hit back at the congressman, claiming on the air that Weiner's tactics evoke the late red-baiting Sen. Joe McCarthy. "Now we have a congressman actually trying on the shoes of McCarthy," Beck said Wednesday morning. On Tuesday he railed that "we are in full-fledged McCarthy Land now." Beck requested Wednesday that his radio listeners submit photos showing Weiner with "his nose as a weiner," possibly to prepare for a segment devoted to the congressman's charges on a Fox television broadcast later Wednesday.
well, that about sums up the Coulter/Beck/Limbaugh crowd right there.
500
Mith
ID: 482583111 Wed, May 19, 2010, 18:07
Beck's request to his radio listeners is pretty tame when compared with a highly sexualized characterization of a twenty year old girl as a morally vacuous thug-whore selling pregnancy for profit.
The Coulter/Beck/limbaugh/Tree crowd?
501
Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, May 19, 2010, 18:21
Beck's request to his radio listeners is pretty tame when compared with a highly sexualized characterization of a twenty year old girl as a morally vacuous thug-whore selling pregnancy for profit.
oh jesus christ. it was an attempt at humour, and no different than what you see in a million other places, as i pointed out.
502
Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138 Thu, May 20, 2010, 05:17
million other places dont have civilty and respect policy. As Dave says post the way you would talk to your kids and family.
503
Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, May 20, 2010, 08:34
my family has told many a joke at expense of the Palins. and many other things we find funny and peculiar.
blue humor has been around for generations.
504
Mith
ID: 482583111 Thu, May 20, 2010, 08:59
Does it really somehow escape you that fantasizing about the daughter of a politician graphicly craving for anonymous sex and flaunting her pregnancy and child as cheap money schemes is like a thousand times more vile and juvenile than asking listeners to submit dicknosed images of a politician named Weiner?
You know it takes a very rare combination of highly obscene and highly stupid for someone to manage to unwittingly align himself for an unfavorable comparison to Gleen Beck from me. But there you go. Well done.
505
Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, May 20, 2010, 09:36
there's ZERO fantasy going on on my part. it was an attempt at humour. apparently, it wasn't as funny as i had hoped.
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com