Self Editor

Forum: pol
Page 3120
Subject: Where Is A Good Ann Coulter Thread?

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

Tree
ID: 50434235
Fri, May 23, 2008, 06:37

well, the subject of this thread is probably the truest of all oxymorons.

Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 06:41

One link to Ann and it's a golden thread.

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Fri, May 23, 2008, 08:25

Only in the eyes of those who value fools gold.

Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 08:46

What a perfect title to her piece. Does she not have liberals pegged? The naivete, the childish emotionalism, they give good intentions a really bad name.

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, May 23, 2008, 09:00

The first two paragraphs alone in that article should be bronzed.

Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, May 23, 2008, 09:09

One link to Ann and it's a golden ~~thread~~ shower.

fixed that for ya.

Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 09:13

To the unclean everything is a sewer.

Perm Dude
ID: 3345239
Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:12

You always know you've struck gold when liberals react with hysteria and rage to something you've said

This is actually as good a summary of Coulter as anything else. On this issue, so is this:

But in reality, when talking to a lunatic without having first bombed him into submission, the only possible result is appeasement.

Worked well so far?

Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:43

Asking genocidal maniacs to 'pretty please leave Isreal alone' has worked better?

Perm Dude
ID: 3345239
Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:55

You can't possibly be that stupid, Baldwin. Diplomacy is not talking with just your friends.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:57

The accuracy of the first statement above, is apparently questionable.

Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, May 23, 2008, 11:00

Asking genocidal maniacs to 'pretty please leave Isreal alone' has worked better?

Israel's survived 60 years, hasn't she? and she's done so, against incredible odds.

Perm Dude
ID: 3345239
Fri, May 23, 2008, 11:01

Apparently Coulter is a bigger friend to Israel than, well, Israel.

walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, May 23, 2008, 14:19

Yeah, who does Israel think she is talking to Syria. Coulter, bomb them now! They are not Christians!

Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, May 23, 2008, 15:06

Jews are not perfect :)

Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 19:17

You can't possibly be that stupid, Baldwin. Diplomacy is not talking with just your friends. - PD

You can't be so historically uneducated as to believe effective diplomacy can be all talk and no stick. But then you are a liberal so you self-evidently aren't learning from history.

Tree
ID: 174252316
Fri, May 23, 2008, 20:17

You can't be so historically uneducated as to believe effective diplomacy can be all talk and no stick. But then you are a liberal so you self-evidently aren't learning from history.

but that's not at all what you or Coulter are advocating. You're advocating that we should talk things out only after we've bombed him into submission.

wonder if Jesus would take that tact of violence. i highly doubt it.

any idiot can use a weapon to kill.

it takes a better man than that to use that weapon for peace, and apparently, neither Bush, Coulter, you, or much of the radical right in this nation understand that.

if you have the brains to back up the muscle that is backing up the mouth, you'll never need to use that big stick.

Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, May 24, 2008, 01:34

The people we are talking about believe it is their reigious duty to kill every last Jew off the face of the earth. They think it is going to happen for sure. They think they must participate. Exactly what are you gonna talk about with them? They aren't afraid to die, don't care about threats, don't have a speck of mercy or human fellow feelings towards Jews. They'd rather kill Jews than get their own state handed to them. They'd rather live in refugee camps than recognize Isreal and get their own state. Tell me what the world's best negotiator is gonna do with that?

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, May 24, 2008, 10:36

#18

So its back to the claim that Obama wants to sit down with Hamas? I guess when you believe that all Muslims are the same and interchangeable, such details are irrelevant.

Perm Dude
ID: 3345239
Sat, May 24, 2008, 10:57

Don't forget the ticking time bomb, the the elctrical cords. So long as you are making up worst-case scenerios for everyday actions you might as well go whole hog.

If Isreal, whose very existence depends upon dealing with Islamic terrorism, isn't a good role model for you then you're really hopeless in this regard. Good luck in continuing to throw up swallowed RNC talking points. Political bulemia isn't pretty, but at least many moderate Republicans can now see how impoverished they have become with a diet of fear for years now.

Tree
ID: 22442249
Sat, May 24, 2008, 11:05

The people we are talking about believe it is their reigious duty to kill every last Jew off the face of the earth.

i'm going to point out here that through out history, different religions have felt it was their duty to kill or convert jews. while toning down the rhetoric of kill, many still feel it is their duty to convert jews.

eventually, many people in these religions came around to a more modern, sensible approach. and it happened through dialogue and understanding.

yea, is it a stretch that every radical muslim will come around? yea, it is. but i firmly believe that both my god, and YOUR god, would not want us to bomb anyone into oblivion to show that our way is the right way.

it makes us no better than those terrorists who also want to kill to get their point across.

They'd rather kill Jews than get their own state handed to them. They'd rather live in refugee camps than recognize Isreal and get their own state.

so, how many Palestinians have YOU spoken with personally.

yea, that's what i thought.

while i don't claim to have spoken to any that represent anything but the tiniest of sample sizes, i have spoken to a few of them, and they are all the same. they want peace. they want the killing to stop. and they want a little piece of land to call their own.

your above statement represents the minority, and it's spoken by someone with limited knowledge of actually interacting with Palestinians, and someone who has a pretty small stake in the whole deal.

my brother still lives israel, and he is making his life there. he's on reserve duty for the next 20+ years. he doesn't live in fear, but i worry for him.

and my biggest worry isn't that he'll get caught up in a suicide bombing or get kidnapped off his bike as he rides it, but rather some idiot who believes killing is the only way, will attack those who think my brother is the enemy, and as a result, they'll go full bore against israel, and he'll die as a result of that.

pre-emptive war does not work. it is the way of people who have less morals than us, and is the way of those who eventually lose the war they started.

the HISTORY that you constantly speak of has shown us that.

Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, May 24, 2008, 11:19

while i don't claim to have spoken to any that represent anything but the tiniest of sample sizes, i have spoken to a few of them, and they are all the same. they want peace. they want the killing to stop. and they want a little piece of land to call their own.

your above statement represents the minority, - Tree

[........] - PD

Tree

My statement represents every last person a negotiator would have to talk to. They don't have the option of talking past the leaders to the average palestinian on the street to work a deal.

PD

Your response contains not one word of how a negotiator would approach the facts as they are, not as we wish they were. My 'talking points' do not come from fear nor from any party. They come from realism.

Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, May 24, 2008, 13:06

You response doesn't actually rebut anything, Baldwin. And I know reality can be a bitch, but you don't have any examples of your "realism" actually working, while there are huge numbers of examples going the other way. Including examples from Reagan, Baker, and many others.

Is isn't "realism" to take a hard line stance and stick with it. It is realism to have a stance with historical and pragmatic roots.

Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Sat, May 24, 2008, 21:15

There are no historical examples of palestinian leaders negotiating peace with Isreal in good faith.

Their religion specifically describes how they should falsely negotiate with those they view enemies of Islam, especially the Jews.

There is no pragmatic approach other than to keep them too weak to carry out their mission to destroy the jews.

I haven't said turn them their area to glass, as I think some here are arguing against for some unknown reason. But that wall can't be high enuff.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, May 29, 2008, 19:30

Her Greatness speaks again.

YOU CAN'T APPEASE EVERYBODY
May 28, 2008

After decades of comparing Nixon to Hitler, Reagan to Hitler and Bush to Hitler, liberals have finally decided it is wrong to make comparisons to Hitler. But the only leader to whom they have applied their newfound rule of thumb is: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

While Ahmadinejad has not done anything as starkly evil as cut the capital gains tax, he does deny the Holocaust, call for the destruction of Israel, deny the existence of gays in Iran and refuses to abandon his nuclear program despite protests from the United Nations. That's the only world leader we're not allowed to compare to Hitler.

President Bush's speech at the Knesset two weeks ago was somewhat more nuanced than liberals' Hitler arguments. He did not simply jump up and down chanting: "Ahmadinejad is Hitler!" Instead, Bush condemned a policy of appeasement toward madmen, citing Neville Chamberlain's ill-fated talks with Adolf Hitler.

Suspiciously, Bush's speech was interpreted as a direct hit on B. Hussein Obama's foreign policy -- and that's according to Obama's supporters.

So to defend Obama, who -- according to his supporters -- favors appeasing madmen, liberals expanded the rule against ad Hitlerum arguments to cover any mention of the events leading to World War II. A ban on "You're like Hitler" arguments has become liberals' latest excuse to ignore history.

Unless, of course, it is liberals using historical examples to support Obama's admitted policy of appeasing dangerous lunatics. It's a strange one-sided argument when they can cite Nixon going to China and Reagan meeting with Gorbachev, but we can't cite Chamberlain meeting with Hitler.

There are reasons to meet with a tyrant, but none apply to Ahmadinejad. We're not looking for an imperfect ally against some other dictatorship, as Nixon was with China. And we aren't in a Mexican stand-off with a nuclear power, as Reagan was with the USSR. At least not yet.

Mutually Assured Destruction was bad enough with the Evil Empire, but something you definitely want to avoid with lunatics who are willing to commit suicide in order to destroy the enemies of Islam. As with the H-word, our sole objective with Ahmadinejad is to prevent him from becoming a military power.

What possible reason is there to meet with Ahmadinejad? To win a $20 bar bet as to whether or not the man actually owns a necktie?

We know his position and he knows ours. He wants nuclear arms, American troops out of the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. We don't want that. (This is assuming Mike Gravel doesn't pull off a major upset this November.) We don't need him as an ally against some other more dangerous dictator because ... well, there aren't any.

Does Obama imagine he will make demands of Ahmadinejad? Using what stick as leverage, pray tell? A U.S. boycott of the next Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran? The U.N. has already demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has ignored the U.N. and that's the end of it.

We always have the ability to "talk" to Ahmadinejad if we have something to say. Bush has a telephone. If Iranian crop dusters were headed toward one of our nuclear power plants, I am quite certain that Bush would be able to reach Ahmadinejad to tell him that Iran will be flattened unless the planes retreat. If his cell phone died, Bush could just post a quick warning on the Huffington Post.

Liberals view talk as an end in itself. They never think through how these talks will proceed, which is why Chamberlain ended up giving away Czechoslovakia. He didn't leave for Munich planning to do that. It is simply the inevitable result of talking with madmen without a clear and obtainable goal. Without a stick, there's only a carrot.

The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of Obama's proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously imagine crazy foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose legs tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as "sciatica").

Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?

There is no possible result of such a meeting apart from appeasement and humiliation of the U.S. If we are prepared to talk, then we're looking for a deal. What kind of deal do you make with a madman until he is ready to surrender?

Will President Obama listen respectfully as Ahmadinejad says he plans to build nuclear weapons? Will he say he'll get back to Ahmadinejad on removing all U.S. troops from the region? Will he nod his head as Ahmadinejad demands the removal of the Jewish population from the Middle East? Obama says he's prepared to have an open-ended chat with Ahmadinejad, so I guess everything is on the table.

Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, Obama could agree to let Iran push only half of Israel into the sea. That would certainly constitute "change"! Obama could give one of those upbeat speeches of his, saying: As a result of my recent talks with President Ahmadinejad, some see the state of Israel as being half empty. I prefer to see it as half full. And then Obama can return and tell Americans he could no more repudiate Ahmadinejad than he could repudiate his own white grandmother. It will make Chris Matthews' leg tingle.

There is a third reason to talk to dictators, in addition to seeking an ally or as part of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Gen. Douglas C. MacArthur talked with Japanese imperial forces on Sept. 2, 1945. There was a long ceremony aboard the USS Missouri with full press coverage and a lot of talk. It was a regular international confab!

It also took place after we had dropped two nukes on Japan and MacArthur was officially accepting Japan's surrender. If Obama plans to drop nukes on Ahmadinejad prior to their little chat-fest, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's what liberals have in mind.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Thu, May 29, 2008, 22:00

Are we to assume that Boxman uses Her Greatness in the same cynical manner that he uses The Great Leader for Obama?

I'm especially enamored with this statement:

If Obama plans to drop nukes on Ahmadinejad prior to their little chat-fest, I'm all for it.

Nice to know that Boxman thinks Ann lusting for a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Iran is a Great idea. It makes me a bit more sympathetic to Rev. Wright's "God Damn America" quip, at least the America that Boxman and Ann Coulter occupy.

Now, for the sane people in the room, consider the following:

Roughly six weeks ago, Iran brokered a cease-fire between Shiite factions in Iraq(basically the Badr government forces and the Sadrists) that eased tensions in Sadr City and Basra. During the cease-fire, US air strikes were called in almost daily into heavily urban areas, killing about an equal number of civilians and insurgents.
**Cue the sound of Coulter and Boxman, The Great Christian, cheering the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqi citizens of Sadr City and Basra. "The Surge !! The Surge!!"

Within the past year, the leaders of Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, China, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, India, most of the European Union and, of course, Iraq, have held high level talks with Iran.

Currently,
Iran, Pakistan and India are finalizing an energy deal which will bring Iranian natural gas through Pakistan to India.

Iran's ambassador to New Delhi said Tehran hopes to finalise a gas pipeline deal with India and Pakistan by mid-year, in an interview released on Wednesday.

The 7.5-billion-dollar project which aims to transport natural gas from Iranian oilfields to Pakistan and India was discussed during a visit to India last month by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"It is hoped the trilateral agreement will be signed by the middle of summer this year," Iran's ambassador to India Sayed Mahdi Nabizadeh was quoted as saying in an interview in the latest issue of India's Hardnews magazine.

The project was first mooted in 1994 but has been stalled by a series of disputes over prices and transit fees.

"After the president's recent visits (in April) to India and Pakistan, we have witnessed positive progress regarding implementation," the envoy said.

Indian and Pakistani energy ministers met in Islamabad last month and said they had made "significant progress" in discussions on transit fees and were hopeful work could start next year.

Also last month, Iran and Pakistan said they had ironed out hurdles delaying the 2,600-kilometre (1,615-mile) scheme.

India has been under pressure from the United States not to do business with Iran, viewed in Washington as a state sponsor of terrorism and seen as bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.

But India, which imports more than 70 percent of its energy needs, has been trawling for new supplies of oil and gas while ramping up domestic production to sustain its booming economy.

"This project will be the biggest economic project based on energy in the Asian region and these three important countries (India, Pakistan and Iran) will be united with each other and their economic interests will be tied up with each other," the Iranian envoy said.

Earlier this year New Delhi told the US not to interfere in its dealings with Iran after a State Department spokesman said Washington would like India to put pressure on Tehran over its nuclear programme.

India replied Iran had the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy but has asked Tehran to cooperate with the United Nations nuclear watchdog.

India in 2005 signed another deal with Iran, which has the world's second largest known gas reserves after Russia, for the supply of five million tonnes of gas annually for 25 years.

However that agreement, estimated at over 20 billion dollars, has also stalled over price disputes.

Iran was still interested in pursuing the deal but "it is necessary that every agreement be considered and finalised on the basis of the current international market situation and on the basis of a win-win formula," the Iranian envoy said.

One might think that cooperation between long time foes India and Pakistan(both nuclear capable) in conjunction with Iran would contribute to stabilization in the area.

Wonder how nuclear India and nuclear Pakistan(not to mention nuclear Russia and nuclear China) would react to a pre-emptive US nuclear strike on Iran?

Next time Coulter speaks of dangerous lunatics, she should be looking in a mirror.

Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Fri, May 30, 2008, 00:30

Anyone who maligns Scott McClellen for making outrageous claims for money should never be permitted to quote Ann Coulter approvingly.

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Fri, May 30, 2008, 01:06

Let a Girl Work

Tree
ID: 9452917
Fri, May 30, 2008, 01:18

a bitch got books to sell.

damn if that probably ain't the truth.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 06:11

OBAMA WAS SELECTED, NOT ELECTED
June 4, 2008

Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).

Unbeknownst to liberals, who seem to imagine the Constitution is a treatise on gay marriage, our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all. (Don't fret Democrats: According to five liberals on the Supreme Court, you do have a right to sodomy and abortion!)

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

When you vote for president this fall, you will not be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain; you will be voting for an elector who pledges to cast his vote for Obama or McCain. (For those new Obama voters who may be reading, it's like voting for Paula, Randy or Simon to represent you, instead of texting your vote directly.)

Any state could abolish general elections for president tomorrow and have the legislature pick the electors. States could also abolish their winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors -- as Nebraska and Maine have already done, allowing their electors to be allocated in proportion to the popular vote. And of course there's always the option of voting electors off the island one by one.

If presidential elections were popular vote contests, Bush might have spent more than five minutes campaigning in big liberal states like California and New York. But under a winner-take-all regime, close doesn't count. If a Republican doesn't have a chance to actually win a state, he may as well lose in a landslide. Using the same logic, Gore didn't spend a lot of time campaigning in Texas (and Walter Mondale campaigned exclusively in Minnesota).

Consequently, under both the law and common sense, the famed "popular vote" is utterly irrelevant to presidential elections. It would be like the winner of "Miss Congeniality" claiming that title also made her "Miss America." Obviously, Bush might well have won the popular vote, but he would have used a completely different campaign strategy.

By contrast, there are no constitutional rules to follow with party primaries. Primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election.

Hillary's argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn't exist. That's a station that depends entirely on "superviewers.")

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was "selected, not elected," this is a shocking about-face. Apparently unaware of the new party line that the popular vote amounts to nothing more than warm spit, just last week HBO ran its movie "Recount," about the 2000 Florida election, the premise of which is that sneaky Republicans stole the presidency from popular vote champion Al Gore. (Despite massive publicity, the movie bombed, with only about 1 million viewers, so now HBO is demanding a "recount.")

So where is Kevin Spacey from HBO's "Recount," to defend Hillary, shouting: "WHO WON THIS PRIMARY?"

In the Democrats' "1984" world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 06:19

anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

LOL. Sure, Ann, keep dreaming them up. Truth means about as much to Ann as she claims words mean to liberals.

Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 06:29

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was "selected, not elected," this is a shocking about-face.

Man, she just doesn't care about actual facts at all, does she? The point of "selected, not elected" refers to the Bush campaign's refusal to see a manual recount to the end, not about Gore winning the popular vote.

Boxman, do you post columns like this because you really think Coulter has a valid point or just to try to piss people off?

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 07:22

Mith, you and the likes of Zen, Sarge and Tree have no tolerance for dissent around here. I view myself and Boldwin as political missionaires here out to educate the natives.

You are one of the, if not THE, most lopsided poster here. You are guilty of hypocrisy in starting your Fox News thread and you dare pass judgement on anyone for objectivity at all.

Boldwin goes off on a tangent about Schiavo or the Texas situation and Tree chastizes him for it. You spout off on Fox News ad nauseum and where is the same condemnation?

It's truly laughable and look to your limp defense of Obama as proof positive. When you make comments like there are "at least one or two" things about him you shouldn't have defended but come up with one weak thing when I call you on it, it exposes you as nothing other than another bitter partisan; no different than the people you yourself criticize.

Perhaps if I was a drug addict like Zen, you would laugh off my posts too and point to links excusing my behavior.

Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 07:34

you and the likes of Zen, Sarge and Tree have no tolerance for dissent around here.

It's a sad state when that's the best you've got in response to the glaring factual holes I poke in the column you post.

The first way to know a solid poster is how well he defends arguments he espouses, be they in the form of his/her own assertions or in offering someone else's work.

When those positions are challenged and the poster can only respond with a personal attack, you have your answer.

Madman, Steve Houpt, Toral and Myboyjack would never have written #33 in response to #32. Of course none of them would ever have embarrassed themselves by posting that Coulter column in the first place.

Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 07:40

I view myself and Boldwin as political missionaires here out to educate the natives.

You know exactly what you're dealing with when the passing of blatent factual inaccuracies are promoted as a kind of religious education.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 06:25

I forgot to give you all your Thursday Treat. Apologies.

BUSH'S AMERICA: 100 PERCENT AL-QAIDA FREE SINCE 2001
June 11, 2008

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.

Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 07:44

JUSTICE KENNEDY: AMERICAN IDLE
June 18, 2008

After reading Justice Anthony Kennedy's recent majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, I feel like I need to install a "1984"-style Big Brother camera in my home so Justice Kennedy can keep an eye on everything I do.

Until last week, the law had been that there were some places in the world where American courts had no jurisdiction. For example, U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over non-citizens who have never set foot in the United States.

But now, even aliens get special constitutional privileges merely for being caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans. I think I prefer Canada's system of giving preference to non-citizens who have skills and assets.

If Justice Kennedy can review the procedures for detaining enemy combatants trying to kill Americans in the middle of a war, no place is safe. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court steps in to overrule Randy, Paula and Simon.

In the court's earlier attempts to stick its nose into such military operations as the detainment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo, the court dangled the possibility that it would eventually let go.

In its 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court disallowed the Bush administration's combatant status review tribunals, but wrote: "Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority (for trial by military commission) he believes necessary."

So Bush returned to Congress and sought authority for the military commissions he deemed necessary -- just as the court had suggested -- and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. But as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in the Boumediene case last week: It turns out the justices "were just kidding." This was the legal equivalent of the Supreme Court playing "got your nose!" with the commander in chief.

The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy in Boumediene held that it would be very troubling from the standpoint of "separation of powers" for there to be someplace in the world in which the political branches could operate without oversight from Justice Kennedy, one of the four powers of our government (the other three being the executive, legislative and judicial branches).

So now even procedures written by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch have failed Kennedy's test. He says the law violates "separation of powers," which is true only if "separation of powers" means Justice Kennedy always gets final say.

Of course, before there is a "separation of powers" issue, there must be "power" to separate. As Justice Scalia points out, there is no general principle of separation of powers. There are a number of particular constitutional provisions that when added up are referred to, for short, as "separation of powers." But the general comes from the particular, not the other way around.

And the judiciary simply has no power over enemy combatants in wartime. Such power is committed to the executive as part of the commander in chief's power, and thus implicitly denied to the judiciary, just as is the power to declare war is unilaterally committed to Congress. As one law professor said to me, this is what happens when the swing justice is the dumb justice.

Kennedy's ruling thus effectively overturned the congressional declaration of war -- the use of force resolution voted for by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, 75 other senators as well as 296 congressmen. If there's no war, then there are no enemy combatants. This is the diabolical arrogance of Kennedy's opinion.

We've been through this before: Should the military run the war or should the courts run the war?

I think the evidence is in.

The patriotic party says we are at war, and the Guantanamo detainees are enemy combatants. Approximately 10,000 prisoners were taken on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Of those, only about 800 ended up in Guantanamo, where their cases have been reviewed by military tribunals and hundreds have been released.

The detainees are not held because they are guilty; they're held to prevent them from returning to the battlefield against the U.S. Since being released, at least 30 Guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield, despite their promise to try not to kill any more Americans. I guess you can't trust anybody these days.

The treason party says the detainees are mostly charity workers who happened to be distributing cheese to the poor in Afghanistan when the war broke out, and it was their bad luck to be caught near the fighting.

They consider it self-evident that enemy combatants should have access to the same U.S. courts that recently acquitted R. Kelly of statutory rape despite the existence of a videotape. Good plan, liberals.

The New York Times article on the decision in Boumediene notes that some people "have asserted that those held at Guantanamo have fewer rights than people accused of crimes under American civilian and military law."

In the universal language of children: Duh.

The logical result of Boumediene is for the U.S. military to exert itself a little less trying to take enemy combatants alive. The military also might consider not sending the little darlings to the Guantanamo Spa and Resort.

Instead of playing soccer, volleyball, cards and checkers in Guantanamo, before returning to their cells with arrows pointed toward Mecca for their daily prayers, which are announced five times a day over a camp loudspeaker, the enemy combatants can rot in Egyptian prisons.

That may be the only place left that is safe from Justice Kennedy.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 06:22

YOU CAN'T FUEL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME
June 25, 2008

Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are "anti-choice."

For the same reason, no one should believe the Democrats' "energy" policies.

Democrats couldn't care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles.

Environmentalists are constantly clamoring for higher gas taxes as the cure-all to their insane global warming theory. Clinton proposed a 26-cent tax on gas. John Kerry said it should be 50 cents. Gore endorsed the Malthusian proposal of Paul and Anne Ehrlich in "The Population Explosion" that gas taxes be raised gradually to match prices in Europe and Japan.

The result is consumers now pay about 46 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes. That's not including taxes paid directly to the government by the oil companies and passed onto consumers. As the inestimable economist John Lott has pointed out, in the past 25 years oil companies have paid more than three times in taxes what they have made in profits.

B. Hussein Obama's response to soaring gas prices is to have the oil companies collect even more money from us at the pump, proposing a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies. "Corporate taxes" sound like taxes on rich people, but all they do is force corporations to collect taxes on behalf of the government.

Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished!

In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, "We can't drill our way out of this crisis."

What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, "You can't eat your way out of being hungry!" "You can't water your way out of drought!" "You can't sleep your way out of tiredness!" "You can't drink yourself out of dehydration!"

Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn't going to increase the supply of oil?

It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan. Their plan is: the permanent twilight of the human race. It's the only solution they can think of to deal with the beastly traffic on the LIE (Long Island Expressway).

How do liberals propose we acquire the energy required for the economic activity and production that results in light appearing when they flick a switch? The larger enterprise involved in producing that little miracle eludes them.

Liberals complain that -- as B. Hussein Obama put it -- there's "no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road."

This is as opposed to airplanes that run on woodchips, which should be up and running any moment now.

Moreover, what was going on five years ago? Why didn't anyone propose drilling back then?

Say, you know what we need? We need a class of people paid to anticipate national crises and plan solutions in advance. It would be such an important job, the taxpayers would pay them salaries so they wouldn't have to worry about making a living and could just sit around anticipating crises.

If only we had had such a group -- let's call them "elected representatives" -- they could have proposed drilling five years ago!

But of course we do pay people to anticipate national problems and propose solutions. Some of them -- we'll call them Republicans -- did anticipate high gas prices and propose solutions.

Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska's barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill!

We'd be gushing oil now -- except the Democrats stopped us from drilling.

Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR's 19 million acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot of oil.

The other party -- plus John McCain -- ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else. Instead of Drill! Drill! Drill!, their motto could be: Kill! Kill! Kill!

They refuse to believe our abortion studies? I refuse to believe they care about Americans having to pay high gas prices.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 06:32

Every word true. Every word golden.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 06:47

This week's column was particularly GOOOOOOOD.

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 09:32

Every word true.

Actually, no.

Alaska's barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Of couse it's very habitable for the locals that call it home - the wildlife. You would think that the name Wildlife Refuge would have been Ann's first clue.
Beyond that, if it's unihabitable, how will men survive there to get the oil? Won't there be a need to set up a community of engineers, surveyors, truck drivers, road makers, and any number of different types of workers and support staff in order to get the oil out of the ground and to market?
The area is just as habitable as Barrow, Nome, Inuvik, or, if the pattern of Arctic Ice melting continues, Murmansk(population 350,000).

Ann states:

The other party -- plus John McCain -- ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else. Instead of Drill! Drill! Drill!, their motto could be: Kill! Kill! Kill!

yet, just prior to this claim, she admits:

From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year.

How could we currently produce 1.8 billions of oil per year domestically if Democrats --plus John McCain--ferociously opposed drilling anywhere? The fact is that there are currently thousands of active drilling leases, and opposition to some drilling proposals, off-shore specifically, has not been limited to the opposition party. One of the most stringent opponents to drilling off the coast of Florida while he was governor was the President's brother Jeb. Current Republican Florida governor Crist and California Republican governor Schwarzenegger have also expressed opposition.

Their[liberals] plan is: the permanent twilight of the human race

This statement , of course, is neither true, golden, nor GOOOOOOOD. It's simple Ann trying to be cute with a moronic characterization, and does absolutely nothing to advance the debate regarding our future energy needs.

Conservatives hate the environment and hate wildlife. They hate clean water, clean beaches and trees, especially old growth redwoods and sequoias. They want the extinction of every polar bear, cougar, beaver, eagle, well, every animal except their pet dogs and cats while demanding that every human fetus be brought to term because doubling the human population of the planet every 40 years is their plan.

See, just like Ann, I can make moronic characterizations that do nothing to advance civil debate.

Seward Norse
ID: 58082219
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 10:23

ANWR is the size of South Carolina. The drilling area is 1/5 the size of Dulles Airport. Not exactly making a big dent in the "wildlife" area.

I've been to Barrow and Nome. People live there, but they sure don't go out much in the winter. :) They definately could use the financial assistance that the oil would bring.

Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 14:28

So many holes in your counter-argument PV, but I'll start with the most glaring...

How could we currently produce 1.8 billions of oil per year domestically if Democrats --plus John McCain--ferociously opposed drilling anywhere?

1. Maybe because they weren't in power the entire time between now and 1865, Rolling Meadows, NJ. But if they had you can be sure they'd have been pretty excersized about those verdant unspoiled rolling meadows.

2. Why stop at 1.8 when we could have 3.6 billion and I could actually afford to drive to work?

The fact is that there are currently thousands of active drilling leases, and opposition to some drilling proposals, off-shore specifically, has not been limited to the opposition party.

1. The odds are better in ANWR and offshore. Many of those leases are on land where it's better odds than zero but less than optimal.

2. Do you think there are any environmentalist anti-buisiness/anti-progress/socialist in environmentalist clothing whack jobs in California and Florida? You think they exert political pressure on Crist/Bush/Schwartzeneger? Does them bowing to that pressure mean the whole republican party should bow down to those special interests at the expense of everyone else? Crist [who pulled out all the stops personally to murder Terri Schiavo] is weighing environmentalist pressure vs tourism interests. Tourists have to fly/drive there or there goes his states's economy.

Their[liberals] plan is: the permanent twilight of the human race

This statement , of course, is neither true, golden, nor GOOOOOOOD.

Merely sardonic wit, but we can show you that exact sentiment expressed so it isn't that big a stretch.

They'd be perfectly happy to pen us into tiny hyper-crowded communities with no more than bicycles for transportation. Tho I suppose Travolta would still get to keep his fleet of jets parked outside his home.

Having accomplished that the whack jobs pushing for it might then feel free to carry out the rest of their 'heaven's gate-like' urge.

The urge? What urge?

"Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon Earth. Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature (by wearing natural fibers and living in trees?) some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." - 1986, David Graber, then a biologist with the National Park Service [part of the liberal whack jobs packed into the permanent government]

"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but its just as bad not to say it." - Jacques Cousteau

A speaker at Gorbachev's 1996 State of the World Forum in San Francisco called for cutting the global population by 90%. He did not specify the method.

"Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only would the Earth's community of Life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence in short is not needed," - Paul Taylor in "Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental Ethics."

"We have no problem in principle with humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It's an excellent way of making humans extinct," - a spokes-creature for the Gaia Liberation Front.

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs," - John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First.

In the book "The World Without Us," Alan Weisman celebrates what he sees as the inevitable extinction of humanity, as vine and branch, deer and bear, reclaim our cities.

There's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which describes itself as "the humanitarian alternative to human disasters." VHEMT explains that "the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us."

Well maybe even PV could do without that fringe element?

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 15:14

Baldwin logic:

Fearing another doubling of the world's population within a generation, and the associated stress on the planet's resources

=

wanting most of the world's human population to die

And though you fear liberals would be perfectly happy to pen us into tiny hyper-crowded communities with no more than bicycles for transportation

explain to me what kind of communities we can look forward to as we reach the end of the oil era without a viable alternative and twice the current world's population.

And any Republican who is concerned about the preservation and conservation of the country's resources, and a quality of life that evolves beyond Monster Truck shows and driving around in circles at high speeds(you call them anti-buisiness/anti-progress/socialist in environmentalist clothing whack jobs is not really a conservative, the old RINO/CINO accusation.

Why stop at 1.8 when we could have 3.6 billion and I could actually afford to drive to work?

Why even have any environmental considerations? You certainly didn't think about them when you were extolling the virtues of domestic oil shale production as surpassing Saudi reserves. I suppose if every sqaure inch of public and private land were mined, the Green, Yampa and White Rivers destroyed(and, in conjuction the Colorado, which would devastate the economies of downriver Nevada, Arizona, Southern California and Southern Utah). The river is already so degraded that by the time it reaches the Gulf of California, it is no longer a viable source for farming. But that's in Mexico, and we already know you and Ann don't consider them real people.

Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 17:48

Talk about reaching...since when does an oil pump destroy a river? Only when you are straining to find racism? Was that closest life-preserver for you drowning argument you could find?

Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 18:01

You might enjoy this.

I'm actually all for eco-friendly but keep the socialists out of the planning or I totally suspect the motives.

azdbacker
ID: 175212617
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 18:39

For a self admitted right-winger, Pancho spends a lot of time attacking right-wingers. Methinks you could expend some of that energy on the people you claim to disagree with more.

Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 18:43

He's a liberal with libertarian leanings and not real locked into the zeitgeist so at least there is that. Left/right dichotomy doesn't really work describing him.

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 18:55

...since when does an oil pump destroy a river?

When it takes 3 barrels of water to make 1 barrel of oil, which has been the process proposed for oil shale(which is more mining than pumping) until recently.

Shell is developing a technique that looks very promising using freeze walls.

Shell's current plan involves use of ground-freezing technology to establish an underground barrier called a "freeze wall" around the perimeter of the extraction zone. The freeze wall is created by pumping refrigerated fluid through a series of wells drilled around the extraction zone. The freeze wall prevents groundwater from entering the extraction zone, and keeps hydrocarbons and other products generated by the in-situ retorting from leaving the project perimeter.

Shell's process is currently unproven at a commercial scale, but is regarded by the U.S. Department of Energy as a very promising technology. Confirmation of the technical feasibility of the concept, however, hinges on the resolution of two major technical issues: controlling groundwater during production and preventing subsurface environmental problems, including groundwater impacts.

But the idea that 1 trillion barrels of oil can be extracted without extreme environmental degradation is a myth, evn with the new technology. The question is whether or not the environment-haters can scare enough people into not caring whether or not the environment in the tri-state area is completely degraded.

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 19:17

For a self admitted right-winger

Where did you get that? I said I was more of a Ron Paul Republican than a leftist. I've made it perfectly clear that I have no use for the Limbaugh/Coulter version of conservatism.

Coulter completely exposed herself as the fraud she is when she said she'd campaign for Hillary against McCain because Hillary is more conservative.

Hillary is more socialist than Obama. She has outright called for the redistribution of wealth with no apologies.

I don't understand why issues can't be discussed without a prerequisite political labeling.

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 00:09

Where Is A Good Ann Coulter Thread?

To address the opening question...When AC writes something good we'll write a good Ann Coulter thread.

Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 01:24

I would have said that they all are but I am sure Tree and Sarge have managed to polute and spam some to the point of uselessness.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 11:46

I would have said that they all are but I am sure ~~Tree and Sarge~~ I have managed to polute and spam some to the point of uselessness.

There ya go, remedied your typo for you.

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 11:53

Further proving Boldwin's point. Thanks Sarge...I guess.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jul 03, 2008, 06:36

Ann's timing on this column could not have been more appropriate based on our discussions in the oil thread.

MCCAIN: PUMP THIS!
July 2, 2008

Well, I guess we're all pretty relieved we didn't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge back in 2002. What a disaster that would have been.

The vote on ANWR was almost entirely along partisan lines, with all Republicans, except a handful of "moderates," voting for drilling, and all Democrats, except a handful of sane Democrats like Zell Miller, voting against drilling.

John McCain opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because he polled soccer moms and found out they were against drilling. They thought it sounded too much like going to the dentist. McCain wanted to ensure that he remained beloved by the two pillars of his base: "centrists" and New York Times reporters.

Even Sen. Chuck Hagel voted for drilling in ANWR. But John McCain, "our" candidate, voted against it.

I guess we're beginning to see the problem of basing a political platform on the passing fancies of "centrists." These are people who have no opinions because they know nothing about national issues. They're the ones who check the "not sure/no opinion" box on polls regarding the legalization of cannibalism.

You can't blame them: They're not being paid to know something about national issues. Those people we call "senators" and "representatives."

But now, astronomical gas prices have forced even soccer moms to spend 10 minutes looking at a problem that their leaders were supposed to be thinking about for years. And the soccer moms are saying: Drill! Drill! Drill! Bobby, come down off of there! Stop hitting your sister! Where was I? Oh, yeah ... Drill! Drill! Drill!

Consequently, McCain recently switched his position to go along with the centrists. See, that's the downside of having chosen all your political positions by polling centrists: The moment they acquire any knowledge, they'll realize you're an idiot.

It's always the same argument. Year after year, the "moderate Republicans" so respected at The New York Times harangue us to dump the Christians, the conservatives, the Swift Boat Veterans, the "right-wing extremists," the gun-and-God clingers and the fanatical pro-lifers from our party so we can repel every American who voted for Ronald Reagan in order to win the votes of people like Christine Todd Whitman.

Yes, by all means let's clear out all that deadwood and pave the way for a 49-state landslide! (For the Democrats.)

McCain followed the Times' strategy to a T. He called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance." He called the Swift Boat Veterans "dishonest and dishonorable." He has denounced every Christian minister who tries to endorse him. Over the years, McCain has ostentatiously attacked every issue of importance to conservatives and embraced every crackpot liberal idea, including the left's latest plan to exterminate the human race, called "global warming."

Two weeks ago, McCain skipped the capitol prayer breakfast in California, instead appearing with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an environmental event in nearby Santa Barbara. Schwarzenegger's absence marked the first time a governor skipped what has come to be known as "the governor's prayer breakfast." I guess in the world of moderate Republicans an environmental event qualifies as a religious observance.

The keynote speaker at the breakfast, Hollywood producer Mark Joseph, quoted a recent cover article in Christianity Today by professors Daniel Taylor and Mark McCloskey that said:

"In premodern times, the courage of a leader often had to be physical. In the last 500 years it is more often moral. Moral courage is the ability to do what's right even when it is deeply unpopular, even dangerous. Courage is only found where there is the genuine possibility of loss -- loss of friends, reputation, status, power, possessions or, at the extremes, freedom or life."

No wonder McCain and Schwarzenegger skipped it.

Moderate Republicans like McCain have taken to heart liberals' admonition that Ronald Reagan's appeal had absolutely nothing to do with his conservative philosophy. Don't be like him! You'll lose the soccer moms! Liberals assure us that Reagan won landslide elections because Americans were mesmerized by his sunny disposition and corny jokes. If that's true, why isn't Al Roker president?

The irony is, the only people McCain can count on to vote for him are the very Republicans he despises -- at least those of us who can get drunk enough on Election Day to pull the lever for him. In fact, we should organize parties around the country where Republicans can get drunk so they can vote for McCain. We can pass out clothespins with his name as a reminder and slogan-festooned vomit bags. The East Coast parties can post the number of drinks necessary for the task to help the West Coast parties. For more information, go to getdrunkandvote4mccain.com.

Not being ignorant "centrists," we know what a world-class disaster B. Hussein Obama will be. Meanwhile, the centrists McCain spent years impressing with his outraged denunciations of conservatives, Swift Boat Veterans and Christians will be voting for Obama. They think he's cute.

How many times do we have to run this experiment?

Taking the advice of Democrats, Republicans ran "moderates" for president in 1944, 1948, 1976, 1992 and 1996. All lost. Republicans also ran a "moderate" for president in 1988, but that was unwittingly -- both to us and, fortunately, to the voters. In other words, in the language of the market, the best tip on "moderate Republicans" is: SELL!

But now, apparently, we have to run the experiment again. This year, moderate Republicans have hit the jackpot. John McCain is the Platonic ideal of a "moderate Republican."

To paraphrase Richard Nixon on George McGovern in 1972: Here we have a situation where moderate Republicans finally have a candidate who almost totally shares their views. Now we'll see what the country thinks.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Thu, Jul 03, 2008, 09:51

the left's latest plan to exterminate the human race, called "global warming."

Whether satire, hyperbole or serious, statements like these illustrate why Ann Coulter is increasingly irrelevant in today's political arena.

For many of us, this irrelevance became front and center exactly one year ago today, when she endorsed
Duncan Hunter for the Republican nomination. While Baldwin screams Rezco! Ayers! at every opportunity, never does he scream Wilkes! Foggo! Cunningham!(just to name a few), and the subversion of the defense appropriations process that flourished under Hunter's term as House Defense Appropriation committee chair, as his friends and associates fleeced the American taxpayer.

But Hunter's candidacy turned out to be a disaster anyway(it's hard to raise money when your main financial backers are in prison) as Hunter never even garnered 5% in any primary. Nice pick, Ann. A crook and a loser. You've really got your finger on the pulse of America.

But you can't really blame Ann. She's not paid to know something about national issues.

Boldwin
ID: 3363215
Thu, Jul 03, 2008, 11:46

Yeah, that's right. I'll give you a lead-pipe cinch. Bet her next book becomes a number one best seller. And the one after that. And the one after that.

tree on the treo
ID: 40842210
Thu, Jul 03, 2008, 12:50

exactly baldwin. she's not out to be honest. she's out to sell books, no different than 1000 hacks out there.

selling books does not equal writing ability nor knowledge of topic..

Perm Dude
ID: 296439
Thu, Jul 03, 2008, 13:11

I think predicting that her shrill books will be number one time after time after time is like predicting, in the middle of the housing bubble, that your house will continue to appreciate without end.

The Ann Coulter bubble will burst, just like Morton Downey Jr.

biliruben
ID: 52561217
Thu, Jul 03, 2008, 13:27

Well, if Baldwin buys a million copies...

Also, you underestimate how low she'll stoop. I'm sure she's not above dropping in a photo of her in a schoolgirl outfit or holding and M-16 in a well-padded bathing suit to give all her geriatric, sexually repressed, conserv-perv fans a little jump in the shorts when her sales start to flag.

tree on the treo
ID: 40842210
Thu, Jul 03, 2008, 15:34

exactly baldwin. she's not out to be honest. she's out to sell books, no different than 1000 hacks out there.

selling books does not equal writing ability nor knowledge of topic..

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jul 03, 2008, 17:59

selling books does not equal writing ability nor knowledge of topic

Writing off everything an author says just because it comes from a specific author says nothing about the author; it says everything about your own closedmindness.

You should listen to her for the same reasons why I actually took the time to start going thru the Obama book.

Tree
ID: 261031
Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 01:34

Writing off everything an author says just because it comes from a specific author says nothing about the author; it says everything about your own closedmindness.

that is really dumb, dumb thing to say. if i don't like an author, i don't like an author. i used to love Stephen King, but, over time, my tastes changed, and i no longer enjoyed reading his books. but i should continue to do so in hopes of....something??

coulter is the same thing time and time again. she keeps shoveling $hit. i should continue to read her $hit in hopes she finds gold?

i suppose you read every Danielle Steele book?

You should listen to her for the same reasons why I actually took the time to start going thru the Obama book.

i read her columns when you post them. each time, it's the same hate-filled, ill-informed, ignorant crap that only a fool or a fool would worship.

she does nothing to contribute to the greater good, just the greater hate.

Boldwin
ID: 3363215
Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 20:14

she does nothing to contribute to the greater good, just the greater hate. - Tree

See, I think that would describe you to a tee, Tree.

Tree
ID: 261031
Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 22:08

See, I think that would describe you to a tee, Tree.

then you shouldn't spend so much time thinking.

you won't see me use the same hateful "raghead" style language that your blow up doll uses.

Boldwin
ID: 386359
Sat, Jul 05, 2008, 23:54

Let's see, that makes Tree's count using he words r*ghe*d and bl*wup d*ll @ 100 and mine still at zero.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 06:10

THE NEW YORK TIMES VS. HELMS, PART 529,876
July 9, 2008

Last Friday, on the Fourth of July, the great patriot Jesse Helms passed away. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson also went to their great reward on Independence Day, so this is further proof of God.

Helms is now the second great American patriot I've always wanted to meet and never will, at least in this lifetime. The only other one is the magnificent Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger. (Wikipedia quote: "I sometimes lie awake at night trying to think of something funny that Richard Nixon said.")

After a week of hundreds of Helms obituaries -- one or two of which were not completely dishonest -- I will mention just a few items that were not addressed or given sufficient attention.

The two most obsessively discussed topics among Senate staffers are: (1) Who is the stupidest senator? (Sen. Barbara Boxer pulled into the lead when Sen. Lincoln Chafee retired), and (2) which senators are beastly and which are wonderful to their staff?

When I worked in the Senate in the '90s, the two senators famous for being absolute princes to work for were Sen. Helms and -- it pains me to tell you this, so you know it has to be true -- Sen. Teddy Kennedy. (He was so nice to his staffers, he frequently offered them rides home in his car after parties.)

I never knew -- and you never knew, unless you read one of the two honest obituaries this past week -- that in 1962 Helms and his wife "Dot" adopted a 9-year-old orphan with cerebral palsy. They already had two daughters and Helms was 41 years old at the time. But it was Christmastime and they read about Charlie in a newspaper. He said all he wanted for Christmas was a mother and father.

In the 1976 North Carolina Republican primary, Helms engineered Ronald Reagan's upset victory over Gerald Ford, the sitting president. That victory carried Reagan to the convention and made him the front-runner in 1980. The night Reagan won the 1980 presidential election, Helms famously uttered the beautiful words: "God has given America one more chance."

In 1984, Helms' re-election campaign was the then-most expensive Senate race in history. His Democratic opponent, Gov. Jim Hunt, received campaign contributions from the usual dotty liberals: Barbra Streisand, Phil Donahue, Marlo Thomas, Paul Newman, Woody Allen -- all, no doubt, steeped in North Carolina politics.

Shockingly, Hunt also received a donation from Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the nonpartisan, totally objective, straight-down-the-middle New York Times. Which I guess explains the nasty obituary last week.

Meanwhile, Helms received contributions mostly from America's two most dangerous fringe groups: housewives and businessmen. His few celebrity supporters included Gene Autry and Ellin Berlin, wife of composer Irving Berlin, the patriotic Jewish immigrant who wrote "White Christmas" and "God Bless America."

Other Republicans loved to run in years when Helms was up for election because, like a Marine exposing himself to enemy fire to let his comrades escape, all the Hollywood money would be dedicated to defeating Helms.

On election night 1984, a friend of mine was at a Republican victory party in Michigan when suddenly a group of Hasidim broke out in cheering and dancing. Was "Fiddler on the Roof" being made into a major motion picture? He looked up at the mammoth TV screen. It read: "Jesse Helms Wins North Carolina."

Helms was viciously and falsely portrayed as a racist -- including in the totally objective New York Times obituary last week. In January 1963, a decade before Helms would run for office, he editorialized about Harvey Gantt, the first black student to be admitted to Clemson University in South Carolina.

Helms praised Gantt to the skies, saying he had "stoutly resisted the pose of a conquering hero" and had "turned away from the liberal press and television networks which would glorify him." Gantt, Helms said, just wanted to be an architect and "Clemson is the only college in South Carolina that can teach him how to be one."

Funny how that little tidbit didn't make the Times obituary. They must have cut it for "space."

Helms was for integration; he was simply against "movements." He would later hire James Meredith, who was the first black to attend the University of Mississippi -- with the assistance of federal troops. By 1989, Meredith's views had come around to those of Helms, not the other way around.

After years of reading and studying and attending law school at Columbia University, Meredith concluded that blacks had been better off when they worked for themselves and not for white liberals. (Having worked for white liberals myself, I couldn't agree more.) Meredith claimed Helms fired him as domestic policy adviser after a year because he was too right-wing for Helms.

Which reminds me: I'll have to try to meet Meredith before the next Fourth of July.

Liberals discount Helms' hiring of Meredith on the grounds that Meredith had wandered off the reservation. (Blacks are allowed to have only one set of political views.) It just shows you how stupid liberals are: Blacks don't live on reservations; Indians do.

It's pretty much the same thing liberals are accusing B. Hussein Obama of right now. In its July 4 editorial, the Times harangued Obama for his diversions from the liberal line on Iraq, the domestic surveillance bill, capital punishment and guns. I believe the editorial was titled something like, "Get in Line, N-word."

To paraphrase Dan Quayle, to be called a racist by these people is a badge of honor. Rest in peace, Jesse Helms: New York Times stock was recently lowered to a notch above junk bond status.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 09:34

Coulter makes the claim that the NY Times obit is a nasty obituary.

She claims he is viciously and falsely portrayed as a racist in the obit, and gives proof by providing quotes Helms once made about Harvey Gantt.

As is usually the case with Ann, it pays to go to the source rather than trusting her to provide any type of objectivity, something she cynically accuses the Times of lacking - in the totally objective New York Times obituary last week .
NY Times Helm's obituary

Here is the segment where Ann accuses the Times of being vicious and false:

Trailing in a tough re-election fight in 1990 against a black opponent, Harvey B. Gantt, the former mayor of Charlotte, Mr. Helms unveiled a nakedly racial campaign advertisement in which a pair of hands belonging to a white job-seeker crumpled a rejection slip as an announcer explained that the job had been given to an unqualified member of a minority. Mr. Helms went on to victory.

Of course the ad was nakedly racial, so it is neither false, nor vicious to report one of Helm's most famous moments as such. Now, one might agree with the premise of the ad without being a racist, as could be the case with Helms. But the claim is not that Helms is a racist, but that the ad is racist.

Ann laments that the Times left out the tidbit about Helm's praise for Gantt in 1963. Then she claims I never knew -- and you never knew, unless you read one of the two honest obituaries this past week -- that in 1962 Helms and his wife "Dot" adopted a 9-year-old orphan with cerebral palsy.

From the Times obit:

But as tough as he could be in the political theater, Mr. Helms could exhibit a softer, warmer, even impish side in his personal dealings, even with political adversaries.

In 1963, after 21 years of marriage, Mr. Helms and his wife, Dorothy, adopted a disabled child, Charles, after they read a newspaper article in which the child, who was 9 at the time, plaintively said that he wanted a mother and a father for Christmas.

Ann says 1962. The Times obit says 1963. Turns out, Ann is right.

Now, being off by a year is false, but hardly vicious. Ann Coulter even using the word objective in a column is comical, as is her insistence on using B Hussein Obama, which is really more immature and irrelevant than comical.

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 13:56

More from Ann, the objective..

the usual dotty liberals:.....Paul Newman

I'm not sure what the adjective "dotty" implies, and how it relates to Paul Newman, but it's hard for most sane people not to have a lot of respect for the man.

>the founder of Newman's Own, a food company from which Newman donates all profits and royalties to charity.[1] As of May 2007, these donations have exceeded US$220 million

>Newman served in the Navy in World War II in the Pacific theater.[9] Newman was sent to the Navy V-12 program at Yale, with hopes of being accepted for pilot training. But this plan was foiled when a flight physical revealed him to be colorblind.[9][11] He was sent instead to boot camp and then on to further training as a radioman and gunner. Qualifying as a rear-seat radioman and gunner in torpedo bombers, in 1944 Aviation Radioman Third Class Newman was sent to Barber's Point, Hawaii, and subsequently assigned to Pacific-based replacement torpedo squadrons (VT-98, VT-99, and VT-100). These torpedo squadrons were responsible primarily for training replacement pilots and combat air crewmen, placing particular importance on carrier landings.[11] He later flew from aircraft carriers as a tail gunner in the Avenger. As a radioman/gunner, he served aboard the USS Bunker Hill during the battle for Okinawa in the spring of 1945. He was ordered to the ship as radioman/gunner in an Avenger with a draft of replacements shortly before the attack, but by a fluke of war was held back because his pilot had an ear infection. The rest of his detail died.

>One beneficiary of his philanthropy is the Hole in the Wall Gang Camp, a residential summer camp for seriously ill children, which is located in Ashford, Connecticut. Newman cofounded the camp in 1986; it was named after the gang in his film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969). Newman's college fraternity, Phi Kappa Tau, adopted "Hole in the Wall" as their "national philanthropy" in 1995. One camp has expanded to become several Hole in the Wall Camps in the U.S., Ireland, France and Israel. The camp serves 13,000 children every year, free of charge.[1]

In June 1999 Newman donated $250,000 to the relief of Kosovo refugees.

On June 1, 2007, Kenyon College announced that Newman had donated $10 million to the school to establish a scholarship fund as part of the college's current $230 million fund-raising campaign. Newman and Woodward were honorary co-chairs of a previous campaign.[16]

>Newman married actress Joanne Woodward on January 29, 1958. Married to the same woman over 50 years, Newman has lived away from the Hollywood environment. He makes his home quietly in Westport, Connecticut, takes a monogamous stance toward marriage, and has been devoted to his wife and family.

Paul Newman is dotty?

To paraphrase Dan Quayle, to be called a racist by these people is a badge of honor.

And in that vein, being called dotty by Ann Coulter is a badge of honor. You'd think that someone like Paul Newman, who will leave a legacy of achievement, virtue and philanthropy, would be immune from Coulter's venom, which is a pretty good indication of the legacy she'll leave.

Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 14:24

again, Coulter isn't interested in accuracy or honesty. she's interested in how much money she can make, and if being accurate and honest stand in the way of that, then they get tossed by the wayside.

what is sad is how many men, probably otherwise at least moderately intelligent, are made to look like fools.

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 21:30

Now see, I never knew Newman would be the kind of guy who would fund the guy running against Reagan.

Up to now I had nothing but the highest respect for Newman, a man who could stay loyal to one woman while swimming in the ink-stained waters with those Hollywood squids.

But he donated against Reagan...a hidden flaw in his character. And here I had bought so much of his product.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 19:13

THIS IS NOT A DRILL
July 16, 2008

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she is called on the Big Dogs blog, "the worst speaker in the history of Congress," explained the cause of high oil prices back in 2006: "We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect."

Yes, that would explain why the price of oral sex, cigars and Hustler magazine skyrocketed during the Clinton years. Also, I note that Speaker Pelosi is a hotelier ... and the price of a hotel room in New York is $1,000 a night! I think she might be onto something.

Is that why a barrel of oil costs mere pennies in all those other countries in the world that are not run by "oilmen"? Wait -- it doesn't cost pennies to them? That's weird.

In response to the 2003 blackout throughout the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada, Pelosi blamed: "President Bush and Rep. Tom DeLay's oil-company interests." The blackout was a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing to do with oil. And I'm not even "an oilman."

But yes -- good point: What a disaster having people in government who haven't spent their entire lives in politics! That explains everything. A government official with relevant experience or knowledge about an issue is obviously a crisis of gargantuan proportions.

This must be why the Democrats are nominating B. Hussein Obama, who finished middle school three days ago and has less experience than a person one might choose at random from the audience of "American Idol."

Announcing the Democrats' bold new "plan" on energy last week, Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "is one alternative." That's not an energy plan. It's using what we already have -- much like "conservation," which is also part of the Democrats' plan.

Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It's as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: "Just eat a little less every day." Great! We'll die a little more slowly. That's not what we call a "plan." We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.

But there's more! Pelosi announced that the Democrats also plan to push for "an historic investment in biofuels, efficiency, conservation and the rest." The "rest" is apparently what she called our "important and essential" investment in alternative energy.

That certainly would be historic: We would make history by throwing our money away on unproven energy boondoggles that have eaten up untold billions since the 1960s without producing a single net kilowatt of power while we all starve to death.

The proposal to use energy sources that don't yet produce any energy is like the old New Yorker cartoon with Obama in Muslim garb -- no wait, that was a different cartoon. The cartoon is: A scientist has written out his extremely complicated theory on a blackboard and is showing it to another scientist. The theory consists of numbers and characters and takes up the entire blackboard. About two-thirds of the way across, reading left to right, appear the words, "then a miracle happens," followed by more numbers and characters.

That's the Democrats' plan to run cars on biofuels, solar and wind power: Then a miracle happens. The current Democratic mantra on energy is: "We can't drill our way out of this problem." Apparently their plan is to talk our way out of this problem.

Democrats are also alleging that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil but are refusing to drill -- presumably because oil company executives hate the American people and perversely don't want to make money. Manifestly, those acres are being explored for oil or have already come up dry.

If the Democrats really wanted oil companies to find more oil, they'd allow oil companies to drill offshore and to drill in ANWR, which we happen to know is bursting with oil.

But they don't. They don't want drilling. They don't want more oil. They want humans to ride bicycles and then to die. We deserve it: We were mean to the polar bears.

It's good to know that in the middle of a crisis, the Democrats are still liars. As long as we're fantasizing about "alternative" energy sources, what we really need is a car that runs on Democrats' lies.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 02:35

Apparently their plan is to talk our way out of this problem. - AC

THe scary part is that they really DO believe talk is the same as substance. Since at least as far back as 'we levitated the Pentagon' days.

Maybe they could stick those lies in their cars and boogie on down to deconstruction site.

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 12:14

Maybe they could stick those lies in their cars and boogie on down to deconstruction site.

It's actually a good thing that Coulter and her fans have illuminated their position in crystal clear fashion, renedering her and them more irrelevant with each passing day.

Coulter denounces conservation and efficiency. She denounces the search for technological advances that will be necessary for the energy security of our future.
She denounces everything except drilling in ANWR and offshore, which is her example of "Then a miracle happens."

It's good to know that in the middle of a crisis, the Democrats are still liars.

What crisis? What lies?

Anyone who thinks that the current price of fuel affects Ann Coulter in any way is in deep denial. She's a multi-millionaire whose absortion of the extra price of gasoline is non-existent.
Additionally, no where in this country is there a place where gasoline isn't readily available, so there's no supply crisis at present. The price of gas probably affects me, dependent on covering a huge geographical metro area as an outside sales and installer(as well as providing free estimates where I can make absolutely no money)more than Baldwin or Boxman and certainly more than Ann Coulter. The credit crisis(a real one) has dropped my business by one half this year, due to the critical drop in new houses being built and purchased needing window coverings.
The rise in fuel costs is financially painful for me, but it is not a crisis. Not being able to get fuel at my local gas station would be a crisis. That may very well be the case sometime down the road, which is why we need to look beyond short term band aid miracles like ANWR and off shore drilling, which will extend, but not solve our energy needs.

Coulter fixates on calling Democrats liars. She may have a point, as we will need to to dramatically increase domestic production, in part because of decades of incompetent leadership, in an attempt just to keep up, much less grow. But she is also a liar if she truly believes that conservation, efficiency, renewable energy sources and other technologies aren't vital elements to the future economic health of this country and the planet.

But it's impossible to know what Ann Coulter truly believes when week after week she regales us with distortion and dishonesty masquerading as commentary and satire.

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 12:48

The price of gas may not be a crisis to you but it certainly is to most Americans.

Do you really believe we can conserve our way out of this? The price is going to outstrip any gains in conservation many many times over.

Do you really believe that every time you guys use that tired line, 'any new sources would take ten years to come online, that we don't remember you said that ten years ago?

Do you really think that when Pelosi leaps to the strategic oil reserve as the first trick in her bag of tricks, that she has a clue?

Do you really think alternative technologies will help now? There is where your talk of 'that won't help until ten years out' would ring true, but instead you trot it out as today's solution.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 13:42

There is no "todays" solution Boldwin. There is NOTHING that could happen in the "here and now", which would cause a $1.00/gal price decline tomorrow. (Well OK, I suppose there is...an alien spacecraft could land, and turn out to be a full fledged production/refinery facility, which takes absolutely nothing in and turns out 100 billion barrels/day of refined petrol. That would probably cause an immediate drop in gas proces.)

PV is absolutely correct when he says it isnt a 'crisis'. A runaway epidemic...would be a crisis. Sudden unavailability of gasoline at ANY price...would be a crisis. A massive EMP knocling out our communications, would be a crisis. Gasoline selling in the US today, for the same price it sold for in Europe 20 years ago...is inconvenient, but not a crisis.

Razor
ID: 545172413
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 13:52

The price of gas may not be a crisis to you but it certainly is to most Americans.

Read PV's post again.

Do you really believe we can conserve our way out of this? The price is going to outstrip any gains in conservation many many times over.

Strawman. No one believes we are going to conserve are way out of it, but conservation, where possible can help. Haven't you noticed the huge increase in public transit numbers?

Do you really believe that every time you guys use that tired line, 'any new sources would take ten years to come online, that we don't remember you said that ten years ago?

Well, when it's posed as an immediate solution, as it has been lately in order to win votes, of course that line is going to be used.

Do you really think that when Pelosi leaps to the strategic oil reserve as the first trick in her bag of tricks, that she has a clue?

Do you really believe that releasing 10% of the reserve jeopardizes our national security?

Do you really think alternative technologies will help now? There is where your talk of 'that won't help until ten years out' would ring true, but instead you trot it out as today's solution.

Another strawman. No one believes alternative technologies will help now. If both drilling for new oil and developing alternative energy sources are going to take a while, many would choose the latter instead of prolonging our dependence on an increasingly limited and pricey resource.

DWetzel at work
ID: 278201415
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 14:18

Do you really believe we can conserve our way out of this?

I don't. However... Do YOU really think we can just drill our way out of this?

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 19:57

Do you really believe we can conserve our way out of this?

Didn't say that.

Do you really believe that every time you guys use that tired line, 'any new sources would take ten years to come online, that we don't remember you said that ten years ago?

Never used that line., so when you say "you guys" you obviously aren't talking to me.

Do you really think that when Pelosi leaps to the strategic oil reserve as the first trick in her bag of tricks, that she has a clue?

Again, something I never even addressed in my post.

Do you really think alternative technologies will help now? There is where your talk of 'that won't help until ten years out' would ring true, but instead you trot it out as today's solution.

I did not trot it out as today's solution. So when you say "your talk," you're obviously not talking to me. Here's what I did say:

She may have a point, as we will need to to dramatically increase domestic production, in part because of decades of incompetent leadership, in an attempt just to keep up, much less grow.

Notice how I didn't say incompetent Republican or Democratic leadership or conservative or liberal leadership? I barely recognize your political parties, much less your perceived notions of conservatism and liberalism and the perceived principals. Ann Coulter(and you) use the price of gas, which probably costs the average American around 50 to a hundred bucks more per month as evidence of a crisis in America, but steadfastly refuse to accept that tens of millions of Americans with no health insurance(roughly $700 bucks a month)is a crisis.

Why?

Not principles, politics.

And the mere mention of environmental degradation is met with scorn and ridicule, as if every environmental issue is on the level of saving the desert tortoise or the snail dart.

Why?

Not principles, politics.

I can understand you not wanting to give an honest evaluation of my comments concerning Ann Coulter, because rather than objectively confronting and debating issues, you've taken it as your duty to defend whatever blather she puts forth each week.

Why?

Not principles, politics.

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 02:09

PV

You said 'what lies?'.

I pointed out the dishonest 'solutions' and evasions of responsibility engaged in by people like Pelosi and discussed in AC's piece. We are discussing AC's piece, no? What's with all this 'I never used that line'? This is not all about you.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 04:29

And the mere mention of environmental degradation is met with scorn and ridicule, as if every environmental issue is on the level of saving the desert tortoise or the snail dart.

Why?

Not principles, politics.

That's horse crap. The Fortune Magazine article I posted hinted at a legitimate point. Industry is making huge strides in the southwest to implement alternative energy, but that by itself is not enough to placate the environMENTALists. They have to have it all, no compromise.

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 10:14

The Fortune Magazine article I posted hinted at a legitimate point. Industry is making huge strides in the southwest to implement alternative energy, but that by itself is not enough to placate the environMENTALists. They have to have it all, no compromise.

That's horse crap. In your feeble attempt to group all environmental concerns under one radical banner, the gist of the article escaped you, which is speculators driving the price of private desert land into the stratosphere and a rush to lease every avaliable acre of public land, much of it by speculators who will end up abandoning their schemes before one commercial solar panel is ever installed. The trick is to find the companies that are properly capitalized and serious about building and maintaining top quality facilities, as opposed to having hundreds of Bill's Solar Energy ghost towns dotting the Mojave.

And it also escaped you that there were several different positions taken in regard to the environmental issues, another example of your desire to lump all those concerned into a radical group of environmentalists. From the article:

"We've had our share of conflicts over endangered species in this state, no doubt about it," says Kevin Hunting, a biologist and a deputy director of the California Department of Fish and Game, which enforces the state endangered-species laws. "We're actively looking to strike that critical balance between the state's renewable-energy goals and conserving species that are vulnerable. It's challenging."

Your interpretation of that statement is "They have to have it all, no compromise."? Most people would interpret "looking to strike that critical balance" as a crystal clear example of the willingness to compromise.

Are you really so jaded? I'm not denying that there is a contingency of no-compromisers like Phil Klasky, but your wish is to portray all concerned(including me) as Phil Klaskys, as evidenced by your use of the environMENTALists and They.
You've completely abandoned the conservative principle of individualism in favor of collective accusatory rhetoric.

When I fully outlined some of the environmental issues concerning the wholesale production of oil shale in the Green River basin, your response wasn't measured with any effective counterpoint. Your response was to call me an obstructionist and an environMENTAList, as if name calling is an acceptable replacement for intelligent debate.

It's your choice if you want to ally yourself with the radical Ann Coulter version of conservatism, the type where you challenge her about her claims of Democratic lies and Baldwin responds with I pointed out the dishonest 'solutions' and evasions of responsibility engaged in by people like Pelosi as if a differing position is automatically a lie.

It's your choice if you want to portray Ann Coulter as a shining example of conservative principles and it's my choice to point out her dishonesty and distortions every week.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 11:07

You've completely abandoned the conservative principle of individualism in favor of collective accusatory rhetoric.

I'm the only one here (Boldwin may also.) that preaches individual rights in the respect of states rights on a myriad of left and right wing set of issues. It's completely legit to call out those who block progress that is completely reasonable.

If that article is correct and we are able to produce 60 gigawatts of power and California requires 33 by comparison, isn't it worth an animal habitat? The potential is there to power an overwhelming segment of the American southwest.

Isn't that a sacrifice worth making to eliminate God knows how many tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, create thousands of good American jobs, significantly lessen our need for fossil fuels which would also improve other animal habitats?

There's give and take in every compromise, hence the word. Industry would be moving away from fossil fuels and the environMENTALists would have to figure something out for the desert tortoise.

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 11:48

isn't it worth an animal habitat?

From the article:

Nearly 80% of the land that White's office oversees is federally protected wilderness or endangered-species habitat. That leaves about 700,000 acres for solar power plants

So, you're saying that 700,000 acres isn't nearly enough land to produce the 60 gigawatts projected. What is the basis for this claim, other than your obvious distaste for federally protected wilderness and wildlife habitat?

It doesn't make a very good case that you are willing to compromise. It makes the case that you are promoting industry be allowed to escape any regulatory restrictions that involve environmental concerns.

Here's an idea. Before we abandon federally protected wilderness and wildlife habitat, let's allow the solar industry to develop the 700,000 acres that are currently available. That way, we might be able to harness the renewable power and maintain a healthy population of endangered species.

And, of course, that 700,000 acres is only the available land that White's California BLM office oversees. Millions more acres of available land, with the same type of solar exposure, exists in Arizona, Nevada, Southern Utah and other sections of California.

Perm Dude
ID: 346481910
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 11:48

I think it would be best, if you really think that compromise is necessary in this area, not to call people names.

As for your points, I'm very surprised that you would swallow whole the claims of people who are interested in taking public lands for their own private purposes, even if those claims have a public benefit. As a conservative, you are supposed to approach things (many things, but business claims no less) with a touch of caution. That caution got thrown overboard with the "animal habitat."

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 15:56

Who's calling who names?

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 16:53

From the article.

Meanwhile, the land rush is setting the stage for a showdown between solar investors and those who want to protect a fragile environment that is home to the desert tortoise and other rare critters. The Southwest is on the cusp of what could be a green revolution. And the biggest obstacle of all may be ... environmentalists.

I can't take the environmentalists seriously anymore when it comes to their desire to develop alternative energy.

Drill for oil = they complain about the atmosphere

Build solar arrays = they complain about the desert tortoise

What will appease this group? Do they all want to see us live in communes or tent cities?

What is the greater good? Taking California off of fossil fuels for electricity or saving the desert tortoise? What would really do more good for the environment?

Pancho, you are the same guy who said the world would be better off with fewer people and more spotted owls (IIRC) so I'm not really surprised you have this stance under the guise of compromise.

azdbacker
ID: 26651915
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 17:10

It's actually a good thing that Coulter and her fans have illuminated their position in crystal clear fashion, renedering her and them more irrelevant with each passing day.

Irrelevant? With each passing day more and more Americans agree that more drilling is a good idea. In fact, if McCain would compromise his position further and take it as his own, I have no doubt he would win the election in a landslide.

Anyone who thinks that the current price of fuel affects Ann Coulter in any way is in deep denial. She's a multi-millionaire whose absortion of the extra price of gasoline is non-existent.

Oh, so people who have tons of money aren't allowed to notice problems that affect much of the population besides themselves? Cool. Say goodbye to the Hollywood left.

She may have a point, as we will need to to dramatically increase domestic production, in part because of decades of incompetent leadership, in an attempt just to keep up, much less grow.

Yes, you just have a problem with Ann Coulter pointing out that one party shares the vast majority of the blame on this issue. Bill Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling. The Democrat Congress continues to refuse to allow increased drilling today. Dems defeated Bush's 2002 plans for increased drilling. Do you not see the pattern here?

But it's impossible to know what Ann Coulter truly believes when week after week she regales us with distortion and dishonesty masquerading as commentary and satire.

Your problem is that you just don't understand what makes conservative satire funny. From the posts of yours I've read, you don't seem to have a funny bone at all.

The Colbert Report is probably the best example of conservative satire out there, except it's done by a liberal. Frank J. of IMAO.us is probably the next. Conservative satire is best done by taking what liberals think of conservatives as evil stupid people and then amplifying it times ten. accentuating every stereotype to its extreme, with a touch of truth to it. Like my "it's Time to Soak the Poor" piece.

Like I said, Colbert is the best at it, except he's a liberal and his audience is liberal, so the bits of truth in his message go right over his audience's head. No humor is funny without a bit of truth, and he and his audience miss the point. If he were conservative, and his audience were conservative, he'd be the best comic in the business.

That's what makes almost anything funny. You take a piece of truth and then blow it up to extreme proportions. Your objection to Ann Coulter would basically be your objection to humor of all types.

Do YOU really think we can just drill our way out of this?

Yes. Absolutely. All we did this week was TALK about increasing drilling, and we're seeing 30 cents a gallon drops in Phoenix alone since Wednesday. And an 11% drop in crude oil futures.

Ann Coulter (and you) use the price of gas, which probably costs the average American around 50 to a hundred bucks more per month as evidence of a crisis in America, but steadfastly refuse to accept that tens of millions of Americans with no health insurance(roughly $700 bucks a month)is a crisis.

Now who's out of touch? $50-$100 a month. What, the average person fills up once a month? Most people NEED gasoline. Nobody NEEDS health insurance. When the government steps in to pay the gas bills of people who can't afford to pay it, including illegal aliens, then I will: A) move my family to a free country and B) accept the comparison between health insurance and oil prices.

It's your choice if you want to portray Ann Coulter as a shining example of conservative principles and it's my choice to point out her dishonesty and distortions every week.

Your lack of a sense of humor must make you an enjoyable person to be around. Ann Coulter is no shining example of conservative principles, but she's the funniest critic of liberalism this side of Rush Limbaugh.

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 21:46

What is the greater good? Taking California off of fossil fuels for electricity or saving the desert tortoise? What would really do more good for the environment?

Boxman, are you daft? There are 700,000 acres available for lease to solar energy in the Needles BLM district alone.
This BLM map shows current and applied for leases not only for solar projects, but wind and geothermal as well in the Needles, Ridgecrest, Palm Springs and El Centro districts.

The available land for lease far exceeds the necessity to protrude on protected wilderness and wildlife habitat. You may also note the thousands of square miles(not acres) that accomodate military installations. I wonder how wildlife habitat friendly the Mojave bombing range(150 sq miles), the China Lake Naval Air Base bombing range(750 sq miles), the Fort Irwin training center(over 1,000 sq miles), the Marine combat center in 29 Palms(932 sq miles) as well as Edwards and March Air Force bases are? The Coast Guard must feel slighted missing out on the Mojave bomb-a-thon.

As for
Nevada

The opening of Ausra’s solar thermal power factory earlier this week in Las Vegas is a prime example. As the largest plant of its kind in the world, it employs 50 factory workers. At full capacity, the plant can generate 700 MW of solar panels, which could produce enough power for 500,000 homes. This quantity of panels would create an estimated 1,400 solar plant construction jobs.

“Nevada is poised to be a leader in the clean energy revolution,” said U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). “This facility will help position our state as the premiere place to invest in these new technologies. As the factory expands operations and we continue to invest in clean energy, we’ll create thousands of good-paying jobs and keep our outdoors pristine for future generations.”

Speaking of Harry Reid, it's odd to see that Reid and Boxman, as well as the Sierra Club, are on the

same page.

WASHINGTON(7/03/08) - The government said Wednesday it is calling off a recently announced moratorium on applications to build solar plants on public lands.
The Bureau of Land Management made the announcement after public opposition to its original decision, reached at the end of May.
The BLM had wanted to put new applications for solar plants on federal land on hold while undertaking a comprehensive review of potential environmental impacts from such plants. That review was not scheduled for completion until May 2010.
Meanwhile, BLM planned to keep processing the applications it's already received for 125 proposed solar projects on about 1 million acres in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.

Just this week, while officiating at the opening of a solar manufacturing plant in his home state of Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had vowed to get BLM to overturn the moratorium.

Solar industry officials and environmental groups agreed that BLM, which has granted numerous leases to the oil and gas industry, needs to move faster on the solar proposals.
"The real problem here is that the Bush administration is starving key government agencies of the resources they need to effectively do their jobs," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club executive director

So the solar industry will flourish, the desert tortoise will survive and Ann Coulter?

The "rest" is apparently what she called our "important and essential" investment in alternative energy.

That certainly would be historic: We would make history by throwing our money away on unproven energy boondoggles that have eaten up untold billions since the 1960s without producing a single net kilowatt of power while we all starve to death.

Like I said. Irrelevant. And Ann, you already look like you're starving to death.

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 07:33

What will appease this group? Do they all want to see us live in communes or tent cities? - Boxman

What a great great question.

It grades depending what sort of radical they are.

Most radical: Literally their dearest wish is that we all commit suicide. The ultimate liberal self-loathing. The victim class, other life-forms really eating the rich. Entirely.

Up from liberalism level 2: Pick up that 'Whole Earth Catelogue and gaze in wonderment at the Yurt lifestyle. If only I could get me some of that! Theeeen I'd be happy.

Globalism: mankind compacted into tiny corridors of allowable living-space. Only walking and biking and public transport allowed. We're getting their faster than any of you are aware. The UN has already been ceded much of the land outside those habitation zones. The intellectual work has already been done. The implimentation documents have already been agreed on by anti-democratic elites. The NGO's and semi-governmental bodies, the governmental bodies stealthily working their way around democracy are boiling you slowly like a frog even as I type.

The nascent globalist: Led by the spirit of the age, to attack all things industrial. They'll call me a crackpot today for writing the previous paragraph until it dawns on them that the previous paragraph is suddenly their own non-crackpot dearest desire, they being sheep and all.

bibA
ID: 366281415
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 08:54

So Baldwin - when you catergorize "this group" as you have done, are you referring to the wacko nutjobs that the likes of Rush, Hannity and Ann often highlight, or are you talking about mainstream, thoughtful individuals who are represented on these boards, such as Pancho Villa, MITH, Walk, Perm Dude etc.?

Many believe that these guys represent the masses of open minded among us who are searching for answers that are fair to as many people as possible, not just a core of very conservative Americans.

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 10:42

What part of 'it grades' don't you understand?

Either the posters will fall out of that conglomerate group and become conservatives or they will eventually fall somewhere along those grades I posted.

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 11:29

black or white eh boldwin?

Either the posters will fall out of that conglomerate group and become conservatives or they will eventually fall somewhere along those grades I posted.

wrong.

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 14:02

OMG, it's a pandemic! Another poster who cannot grasp the concept of gradation!

biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 14:11

I understand gradation. Conservatives range from killing the poor on one end, all the way to the squishy gentle aproach of simply enslaving them for profit. ;)

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 14:35

Either the posters will fall out of that conglomerate group and become conservatives or they will eventually fall somewhere along those grades I posted.

The main problem with that statement is a clear and concise definition of what determines a conservative. If the measure of a conservative is that either you are one, or you fall into the grades Baldwin hysterically characterizes, then conservatism has failed and will be replaced with a more mainstream philosophy that isn't based on insulting the intelligence of the average American.
I thank Baldwin for his brilliant example of this when the question is posed.

What will appease this group? Do they all want to see us live in communes or tent cities? - Boxman

Literally their dearest wish is that we all commit suicide.

gaze in wonderment at the Yurt lifestyle

Only walking and biking and public transport allowed.

to attack all things industrial

These grades aren't conservative, they're reactionary. Now, let's review what led us to the point where Boxman asked the question and Baldwin gave us his "grades."

A Fortune magazine article detailed the land rush by speculators anticipating a boom in solar energy projects. Within the article is coverage of some entities that were restrained because of federally protected wilderness and endangered species habitat. However, as the article pointed out, 700,000 acres of public land within the Needles,Ca. BLM jurisdiction alone are available for lease for solar projects.
I later posted a map of the entire California Mojave, as well as a link to liberal Harry Reid promoting solar projects, and the BLM processing applications for 125 solar projects on about a million acres in 5 western states. My hope was to heighten the debate that expansion of energy projects in the West can develop while maintaining areas reserved for wilderness and wildlife habitat. The response?

Do they all want to see us live in communes or tent cities? - Boxman

What a great great question. - Baldwin

The indication is that the "they" includes me.
Let's ignore the fact that neither Boxman nor Baldwin actually attemted to reasonably respond to the points I made regarding land available and land protected. Let's ignore that Boxman's response was Build solar arrays = they complain about the desert tortoise as part of his all-encompassing philosophy that I can't take the environmentalists seriously anymore when it comes to their desire to develop alternative energy in the face of promotion of the solar projects by none other than Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.

Let's ignore the fact that their response was based on insults and accusations that I want to either commit suicide, live in a yurt, only want to walk, bike or take public transportation or attack all things industrial.

How do you expect anyone to take you guys seriously as conservatives, much less spokesmen?
You're not even really conservatives.

biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 14:42

Your attempts to educate have been heroic, PV. As you continuously get ignorance and drivel in response, I would at some point just start to return in-kind (see post 95).

Just wanted you to know that this reader appreciates your efforts, even if the "conservatives" continue to embarrass themselves with their nonsense in the face of your overwhelming evidence, patience and reason.

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 14:50

These grades aren't conservative, they're reactionary. - PV

Those are gradations of the 60's liberal mindset. Of course they aren't conservative in any sense I understand and they aren't reationary in the sense people who use that word actually mean that word. I don't know what dictionary you are using but your response makes no sense to me.

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 16:25

I don't know what dictionary you are using but your response makes no sense to me.

I'm not using a dictionary, but I will attempt to explain as succintly as possible.

I have in the past attempted to explain my views on environmentalism, much of which comes from the influence of my father, a conservative, Republican, worldwide adventurer, world- renouned ornithologist and wildlife advocate.
link

I have attempted to explain that many of his associates, those you would call environmentalists or simply "they", are political conservatives. Additionally, my father made his living in the printing business, an industry using paper products, inks and heavy machinery. He hobnobbed with executives from Weyerhauser, Dow Chemical and other industries that aren't exactly environmentally friendly. But he was fully capable of understanding that the relationship between business and industry and a healthy environment revolves around mutual respect for each.

So when I see statements like:

I can't take the environmentalists seriously anymore

Literally their dearest wish is that we all commit suicide.

gaze in wonderment at the Yurt lifestyle

Only walking and biking and public transport allowed.

to attack all things industrial

gradations of the 60's liberal mindset

I can only conclude that these are reactionary positions that are at odds with the conservative principles of conservation. I can only conclude that attempts to defend wilderness and wildlife habitat on any level being met with belittlement, scorn and ridicule are the product of a reactionary position at odds with conservatism. I can only conclude that attempts to portray environmentalists as all being of the same mindset as Phil Klasky, as opposed to James Clements, or me, is a reactionary position that has no basis in reality.

Your characterizations of environmentalists, based on the most radical of examples, is based on distortion and dishonesty, a disturbing pattern we see more and more from Ann Coulter-style conservatives, who, I reiterate, are more reactionary than conservative.

your response makes no sense to me

Your gradations make no sense to me. How many environmentalists do you know and associate with that makes you an expert to the extent that you can make these statements as to their wishes?

100

Perm Dude
ID: 17656208
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 16:28

Nice, PV. Many "conservatives" are still fighting the 60s. Thanks for your efforts to make them face their own principles.

101

bibA
ID: 366281415
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 17:24

102

Perm Dude
ID: 17656208
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 17:31

I wouldn't put MBJ in with those others, biba. Certainly conservative, but hardly a radical conservative like the others.

I've even seen MBJ admit to a mistake on these boards. Hardly the hallmark of conservatives these days.

:)

103

bibA
ID: 366281415
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 21:46

I actually can't see anyone else who posts here wacko enough or as radically fringed on the right as to place you guys within Baldwin's "grades".

104

azdbacker
ID: 26651915
Sun, Jul 20, 2008, 23:14

I wonder if Myboyjack, Boxman and azdbacker would agree that the posters in this forum such as Pancho Villa, MITH, Walk, Perm Dude fall within the "gradations" that Baldwin apparently places them in, in post 90.

No, I wouldn't. Not to my knowledge, at least.

I think you need to allow a leeway to begin with though. In a thread that looks at satirical work, I think overstating one's point is certainly to be expected.

I thought he was being fairly funny.

105

boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 11:37

I wonder how wildlife habitat friendly the Mojave bombing range(150 sq miles), the China Lake Naval Air Base bombing range(750 sq miles), the Fort Irwin training center(over 1,000 sq miles), the Marine combat center in 29 Palms(932 sq miles) as well as Edwards and March Air Force bases are? The Coast Guard must feel slighted missing out on the Mojave bomb-a-thon.

you would be surprised how well they do, bombs do not do the damage that roads do to wild life.

106

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 11:39

yea..its pretty easy to recover from being blown to bits. ;)

107

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 17:09

It's really easy to see where sheep are going. Just look at their shepherd.

It's a gradation now but you'll all either be conservatives or lockstepping globalist troopers before long. When the change in your perception comes you'll go from calling me a crackpot now to thinking this stuff is the greatest idea ever and as far as you can remember you sorta came up with the idea yourself.

When you get overtaken by Agenda 21 and fall in love with it, just remember who showed it to you. It isn't the solution and I am ahead of you there too.

108

Perm Dude
ID: 116162212
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 17:14

Yes, Baldwin. Sustainability should be fought with every fiber in our being. Because if the UN proposes it, it must be wrong--can't trade in our independence, can we?

Coming from a non-voting guy who ducks the question of his own group belonging every time, this unnatural focus of yours on maintaining our "sovereignty" against perceived "threats" is just perverse.

109

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 17:37

re 107...

define please "before long". 1 lifetime? 2? 3?

define "conservative" because it certainly isnt tofdays Rep party. If in point of fact "liberal" is bad and "conservative" is good....what conservatives??????? which brand of conservative????? where do we find this mystical "goodness"??????

you're so full of blatant crap these days....I'm really beginning to pity your narrow, confined, locked in view on the world and its inhabitants.

110

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 17:44

Sarge

Sounds like PD took a look and loved it.

111

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 17:49

PD

Nothing perverse about it. The coming global Orwellian dictatorship will be no picnic. Dictatorships never are.

112

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 17:50

...you'll all either be conservatives or lockstepping globalist troopers before long.

There is the part of oyur post I was addressing Boldy. Your contention of "either or" as an absolute.

113

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 17:53

anticommunitarian vs communitarian

No middle ground.

114

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 18:01

IOW..you wont abide with any compromise, wherein "both sides" get something and "both sides" give something?

115

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 18:30

It is in the nature of dictatorships to not compromise. 'We' won't get anything but slavery at best.

116

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 18:33

Closest thing I've seen or read about re a "dictator" in this country over the past 200 years or so, would be the current administration. (Yes, the Japanese Americans of the 1940s would probably disagree.)

117

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 18:46

Well strangely enuff he too is a communitarian in sheep's clothing.

118

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 19:51

You truly adore labels dont you Boldy?

Communitarian...is that your latest "catch all" for those who disagree with you? Do you deny, that the economy is/has become gloabl and what happens in Argentina, S Africa, East Asia; has a direct impact on our own economy and vice versa? That with instant communications, and near instant travel (relatively speaking), the globe has "shrunk" in ways almost inconcievable to those on the planet 200 years ago? Would you honestly deny, that the globe is becoming more and more a singular community and less and less of a collection of nationalities? And this is "bad" how precisely? Isnt it really the same thing that has happened to human societies/civilizations, throughout human history? Absorbed, assimilated, conquered. They either become a "part of" the new whole, or they cease to exist entirely.

This is neither new, nor evil, nor by definition "bad". Its just reality.

119

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 20:05

Global dictatorship is not the 'same old thing'. No.

120

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 20:43

and why do you assume a global dictatorship vs a global republic?

121

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 20:49

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

122

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 20:58

as in...the Pope or a similar figure of "absolute" authority? Its beyond comprehension, that perhaps some good men/women could possibly find themselves in such a global leadership position?

You must loather your fellow man, to be so certain that only harm can come from such an utterly inevitable societal movement.

123

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 21:05

Here is the disrespect towards democratic wishes of the people demonstrated by a precursor to the new world order.

That is the disrespect they show when they don't entirely control everything including the media. When they have a death-grip on power they won't even ask your opinion.

A dictatorship by the power elite of which I have spoken many times is most assuredly coming.

124

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 21:10

I also love it when you try and have it both ways. I'm a crackpot for pointing out the 'utterly inevitable societal' evolution.

So which is it? Tell everyone on the board that I am right about where the power elite are going with this, or retract your 'inevitible' statement.

125

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 21:14

Neither Boldy. That society must, is and will move ultimately toward a global civilization; I have no doubt. That said civilization MUST be a dictatorship; is where we part company on the topic. A dictatorship, is not inevitable.

126

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 21:21

Spoken like a car salesman.

127

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 21:24

Or perhaps, one whose hopes aren't pinned to a 2000 yr old work of fiction.

128

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 21:29

It's a no recourse deal. No backing out, but hey...only one owner.

129

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 22:22

Carfax has no data as to the veracity of Revelations. No CARFAX, no deal. Sorry.

130

Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 06:06

Would you buy a global dictatorship from that man?

131

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 07:12

That society must, is and will move ultimately toward a global civilization; I have no doubt.

The "must" comment is interesting given your stance on the offshoring of jobs and practices of companies like Wal-Mart. Do you see this global government stopping that? Why would they?

132

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 09:03

What does wally worlds use of illegal immigrants and the public funds for medical care, have to do with globalization?

Yes, as time passes and borders become less than they are today, laws, norms and mores will change too. Until then, labor laws are what they are and deliberately violating those laws is not something that should get a free pass.

Call centers staffed by non-English speaking people, doesnt help a company whose primary market is one where English is the predominant language. Off-shoring those jobs, is stupid and ultimately I think, counter-productive. Now, like in Air Traffic Control, perhaps one day a single language will be the default language spoken by our species. That day however, if its indeed coming, is a long ways off.

133

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 09:44

Sustainability should be fought with every fiber in our being.......

I have experience dealing with sustainability consultants and those movements within companies. I even helped plan an event for a company trying to foster sustainability initiatives within their industry. From first hand knowledge, these people are generally left wing ideologues of the worst kind and are environMENTALists not environmentalists.

I do believe corps have a responsibility to the community to clean up the mess it makes; no more than what we'd expect from our children in the 1st grade. I can tell from my own experience that some companies are purely interested in the "press release" aspects of sustainability to make headlines, appear in the WSJ, and appear to be "pioneers in their industry".

There's a book out called The Triple Bottom Line. You would swear it was the new Bible with the way some people speak about it and tout it's "teachings".

These consultants or "Sustainability Officers" within orgs are an interesting lot. Either they demand to save the environment, profits be damned or they just want the press release. Telling them that unless if it's profitable to do so, business will not save the environment, falls on deaf ears.

It IS very possible to enact sustainability reforms AND increase profits. I've seen it done. It's just that the fine line between the ideologues and the press release crowd is so thin it would make even the most astute tightrope walker jittery.

134

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 10:25

Telling them that unless if it's profitable to do so, business will not save the environment, falls on deaf ears.

Thats a laughable statement, or would be if I didnt know you believed it 150%. Your apaprent preference, is to hell with the environment and UP woth profits!!! Nevermind, its the environment that keeps your buying market A-L-I-V-E. Thats OK though...kill off our market in pursuit of this quarters ROI and the upcoming annual stockholders meeting.

Hows this for a counter point? DONT clean up the environment, and profits will cease to matter, as the species finds itself unable to sustain its very existance.

NOW, what is the relevance of your ROI?

135

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 10:39

Walk into a meeting sometime and propose a project, any project, that doesn't have a positive ROI or that does not meet the strategic ROI floor and see what happens.

136

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 10:47

I'm not sure how you derived this, "Your apaprent preference, is to hell with the environment and UP woth profits!!!" from post 133.

137

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 10:47

I'm not disputing the shortsightedness of the American businessman Box. I'm merely pointing out the potentially self-destructive processes being employed, in search of this qtrs financial reports.

138

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 13:01

BTW Sarge, the company you HATE (Wal-Mart), takes the topic of Sustainability dead serious...dead serious.

Their true motivations are what you'd expect (cut costs), but the side effects of what they do cannot be denied.

True story I was told by a Wal-Mart head office employee that I'm fairly certain was published and is not proprietary or confidential information. They encourage their store managers to come up with ways to reduce energy consumption. One idea they implemented was removing the light bulbs from the vending machines in the employee breakrooms except for one light that indicates if the machine is in order. By doing this (I was told it's 100% implementation.) they save tens of millions of dollars worldwide in annual energy costs. There are also environmental benefits to that because the odds are the power that lights those bulbs is done with non-renewables.

139

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 13:09

They still dont pay their people well enough to keep them off assistance. Those savings, are simply more $$ for the Walton family. Like they need another qtr mill or so.

IOW, 1 or 2 or 3 or even a dz good things that company has the means to do, doesnt offset the BS they refuse to STOP doing.

140

Perm Dude
ID: 53620239
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 13:24

Boxman, you're 100% right on Wal-Mart's efforts. They really are leading the way to sustainability, and since their profit motive can't be denied I think that they will really effect some changes in the business marketplace. Regardless of Wal-Mart's efforts to squeeze their employees, their energy-saving efforts (which reduce their carbon footprints) can't be denied.

141

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 13:55

PD: In the lens of sustainability, Wal-Mart has unfathomable power to be a change agent and they are doing it or at least making a large effort. They are often chided for their heavy handed tactics with vendors over pricing.

Imagine if they approached their vendors and flat out said, "Reduce plastics by 15% in your packaging or we're going with someone else." A big thing with them is squaring off the palates and maximizing units per palate. They hate wasted palate space and understandably so. Just the reforms they can do in packaging alone would be amazing. They may already be doing this, I don't know.

Wal-Mart has the size to implement that sort of change and has the volume sales track record to pretty much demand whatever they want. Yeah their vendors margins are squeezed very tightly in dealing with Wal-Mart, but the volume is enormous and can't simply be shoed away easily or at all.

142

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 14:05

see Kosher pickles

143

Perm Dude
ID: 53620239
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 14:24

Sarge: I certainly don't fault Wal-mart for leveraging its size to get lower prices. I also don't fault them for forcing vendors to be more profitable themselves (either through having to make due with smaller per-item prices or through forced integration into more efficient pricing and distribution systems).

Where Wal-Mart fails is through its treatment of its employees, particularly when it is clearly exploitive and/or breaking the law.

But there are no purely evil companies out there. On the issue of environmental awareness and sustainability, Wal-Mart is dead right.

145

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jul 24, 2008, 06:10

BUT WILL THEY RESPECT HIM IN THE MORNING?
July 23, 2008

Back before the Republican Party was saddled with John McCain as its nominee, The New York Times called him "the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe." The paper praised him for "working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation" and predicted that he would appeal to "a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."

At the same time, the Times denounced "the real" Rudy Giuliani as "a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man" and Mitt Romney as "shape-shifting," claiming it's "hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts."

Here are a few issues I found that Romney hadn't switched positions on, and it wasn't "hard": tax cuts, health care, same-sex marriage, illegal immigration and the surge in Iraq. The only issue on which Romney had changed his position was abortion, irritating people who would prefer for Republicans to refuse to run in places like Massachusetts and New York City in order to preserve their perfect pro-life credentials.

Times columnist Nicholas Kristof echoed the editorial page in early February with a column titled: "Who Is More Electable?" In the very first sentence, Kristof concluded that McCain is "the Republican most likely to win the November election." Kristof touted McCain's "unusual appeal among swing voters" and cited polls that showed McCain would do "stunningly well" in a general election.

Also in February, CNN produced polls showing McCain doing better than "generic Republican" in a general election, which Jeffrey Toobin said was a tribute to how "well respected" McCain is. Hey, is it too late for us to nominate "generic Republican"?

And on MSNBC's "Hardball," from the way Chris Matthews carried on about McCain, you'd think he had caught a glimpse of Obama's ankle. Matthews said that McCain was "the real straight talker ... a profile in courage ... more seasoned than the current president, a patriot, of course ... honest and respected in the media. He has all the pluses in the world of a sort of a, you know, an Audie Murphy, if you will, a real war hero."

I guess the party's over.

Now the Times won't even publish McCain's op-ed. I wouldn't have published it either -- I've read it twice and I still can't remember what it says -- but I also wouldn't have published McCain's seven op-eds in The New York Times since 1996.

Since McCain has gone from being a Republican "maverick" who attacks Republicans and promotes liberal causes to the Republican nominee for president, he's also gone from being one of the Times' most frequent op-ed guest columnists to being an unpublishable illiterate.

I looked up McCain's oeuvre for the Times, and if you want unpublishable, that's unpublishable. In one column, McCain assailed Republicans for their lack of commitment to the environment, noting that polls -- probably the same ones showing him to be the most "electable" Republican -- indicated that "the environment is the voters' number-one concern about continued Republican leadership of Congress."

McCain concluded with this ringing peroration: "(O)ur nation's continued prosperity hinges on our ability to solve environmental problems and sustain the natural resources on which we all depend." That's good writing -- I mean assuming you're writing hack press releases for an irrelevant environmentalist think tank.

The rest of McCain's op-eds in the Times bravely took on -- I quote -- "unnecessary regulation" and "pork-barrel spending." It's that sort of courage and clear-headedness that tells me we're going to be OK this fall.

In coming out four-square against "unnecessary regulation" and "pork-barrel spending," McCain threw down the gauntlet to those who favor "unnecessary regulation" and "pork-barrel spending." Actually, I think there's a rule that says you're not being brave if there is not a single person in the world who would publicly disagree with you.

While the media are busy telling McCain that "It's not you, it's us," Al Gore, a recent Democratic candidate for president, has become certifiably nuts. Gore's increasingly bizarre public statements are a reminder of the dangers of going off carbs cold turkey.

On "Meet the Press" last weekend, Gore called on America to be carbon dioxide-free within 10 years. In the same spirit of pointlessness and futility, I call on America to be 100 percent oxygen-free within 10 years.

Say, how do "hot lap dances" affect global warming? Last week, a Gore supporter, Louis Posner, enraged over the result of the 2000 presidential election and founder of the Democratic voter organization Voter March, was arrested in New York on charges of prostitution and money laundering.

According to the police, in addition to sponsoring events with Vincent Bugliosi about Bush stealing the 2000 election, Posner ran a prostitution ring out of his club, the Hot Lap Dance Club, where employees say they were required to have sex with Posner in order to work there. No wonder Posner was so testy about the 2000 election -- he wanted to preserve the glory of the Clinton years.

Imagine the important reporting we could have gotten on the Hot Lap Dance Club story if only the entire American media weren't with the Messiah on his "Ich Bin Ein Berlitzer" Tour!

But a two-week vacation in Europe is just what B. Hussein Obama needs to polish up his speech about how all our geopolitical challenges are due to American boorishness and stupidity. That ought to make for a boffo op-ed in The New York Times.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

146

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Jul 31, 2008, 06:54

A BABY DADDY FOR BOTH AMERICAS
July 30, 2008

The mainstream media really seem to imagine they can prevent Americans from knowing information by refusing to mention it in newspapers or on TV.

For those few Americans without an Internet connection and to whom I have not faxed the National Enquirer stories: Evidence is accumulating that John Edwards is right -- there really are "two Americas." There's one where men cheat on their cancer-stricken wives and one where men do not cheat on their cancer-stricken wives.

To put it another way, it would appear that ambulances aren't the only things John Edwards has been chasing lately.

Last year, the National Enquirer broke the story about New-Age divorcee Rielle Hunter, formerly Lisa Druck, telling friends she was having an affair with Edwards and that she was pregnant with his "love child."

Who knew that "my father was a mill worker" could be such a great pickup line? In his defense, Edwards had to do something to kill time between giving $50,000 speeches on poverty.

I guess the Enquirer is lucky Edwards isn't a trial lawyer! A sleazy carnival sideshow trial lawyer wouldn't even need to start channeling unborn children before a jury -- as Edwards did in the junk-science cases that made him a multimillionaire -- to win a defamation case if these charges are false. The "love child" allegation could be easily disproved by DNA testing.

Which brings up a fascinating legal question: Would it be admissible for Edwards to channel the very love child at issue during such a proceeding? Reminiscent of his performances in medical malpractice cases, he could say: She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you, she's saying: "John Edwards ain't my daddy!"

When the National Enquirer story first broke last year, the Edwards campaign denied that Edwards was the father, pawning the affair off on an apparently very loyal Edwards campaign official, Andrew Young. Like Edwards, Young was married with children, but also like Edwards, Young is a Democrat, so it was possible.

Except that, not only has Young's wife not left him, but she was perfectly copacetic with her husband's mistress moving into their gated community for the duration of her pregnancy, and even joining her, Andrew and the kids for dinner.

Back on Earth, that doesn't happen. The Edwards campaign better start looking at its backup plan of claiming Nathan Lane is the father.

It also didn't smack of innocence that the Edwards campaign stripped Hunter's videos from the Edwards Web site when the story broke.

Soon after Edwards met Hunter in a bar in New York, the Edwards campaign began paying her more than $100,000 to make "hip" videos of him for the campaign Web site. Unfortunately, Edwards' hair stylists ate up most of the budget.

As Herculean a task as it would be to make John Edwards look hip, the videos can't be worse for the campaign than the Edwards staffer who said of the Catholic church's position on birth control: "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?" So why did they take down Hunter's videos?

With the MSM still pretending the Internet doesn't exist, last week the Enquirer staked out the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles after receiving a tip that Edwards would be going there to visit Hunter and the love child, who reportedly has her mother's eyes and her father's dramatic flair in front of a jury.

According to the Enquirer, Edwards entered Hunter's hotel room around 9:45 p.m. and left at 2:40 in the morning. Seeing reporters as he left Hunter's room, Edwards sprinted to a hotel bathroom and blockaded himself in until hotel security came to rescue him. Even more suspicious, while Edwards was barricaded in the bathroom, no one reported hearing sounds of a blow dryer.

When asked about the Enquirer story at a press conference a few days later, Edwards looked as flustered as Rep. Robert Wexler did after being asked if he really lives with his mother-in-law in Florida while running for office in that district.

First Edwards pretended to be unfamiliar with the story, a preposterous pose even if the story were false. Then Edwards dropped eye contact and said: "That's tabloid trash. They're full of lies. I'm here to talk about helping people." He couldn't have looked more guilty if he had broken into a cold sweat and lit a cigarette. Britney Spears has responded more credibly to questions about tabloid stories.

Meanwhile, the only way consumers of the old media might ascertain that Edwards is embroiled in some sort of scandal is that, starting last Thursday, his name was summarily dropped from lists of possible vice presidential candidates.

If only Republican Larry Craig had been in the bathroom, the MSM might have covered it.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

147

boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Jul 31, 2008, 10:23

I do find this interesting that this did get less main stream media attention, if it acctaully somewhat true. then again it really is not news worthy inless you acctaully say you care about "family" values.

148

Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jul 31, 2008, 10:36

too funny.

the MSM wouldn't sit on this story if it were true, and able to be confirmed. Edwards wouldn't be the first, and certainly not the last, politician to be brought down by a cheating scandal.

Presidental bids - by DEMOCRATS even (Gary Hart anyone?) - have been ruined by cheating scandals, so Coulter is so off base here to think there is some MSM cover up.

but the MSM does seem to wait for more verifiable facts than papers like the Enquirer. and sometimes, it bites them in the ass, because the Enquirer's willingness to go "less is more" sometimes pays off for the,

oh, and it should be noted, the most main of the MSM has reported on this story - Fair and Balanced FOX NEWS is on the case!

this is not to say that Edwards did not do what he is being accused of, but just to say that Coulter, again, shows what a clueless hack she is.

149

Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jul 31, 2008, 10:43

oh, and i find it...i don't know...really bothersome that in a week where a man shoots up a church and kills people because of his hatred of their perceived liberal views, Coulter, who is an enabler of the first degree for murderers like this, makes no mention of it.

Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and the whole lot of them bear at least a bit of responsibility, and not even the briefest mention sickens me.

then again, we've already seen members of this board who fellate her every word acknowledge that they have no problem with americans being left to die for their political beliefs, so what's a few more dead liberal christians...

150

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jul 31, 2008, 11:20

She's quoting the friggin National Enquirer as a source for crying outloud. Whats next? She starts blaming liberals for the two-headed goatboy born in some remote Peruvian village, the name and location of which noone knows, yet they will have 'photos'?

151

bibA
ID: 146452817
Thu, Jul 31, 2008, 11:57

Can't wait to see what family values guy Newt Gingrich has to say.

152

Perm Dude
ID: 156503111
Thu, Jul 31, 2008, 13:10

I look forward to Ann's next column: "Brad begs Jen to take him out of the arms of that frog-loving Angie"

153

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jul 31, 2008, 13:49

roflmfao Honestly, how far does one have to "fall" before using rags like the NE as a source?????????

154

Boldwin
ID: 522221114
Sun, Aug 03, 2008, 03:26

Just one precise point...do you hyenas believe the Edwards story? Willing to promise mea culpas to Ann when shes proven true on this one?

155

Perm Dude
ID: 272312
Sun, Aug 03, 2008, 13:03

I neither believe nor disbelieve it, Baldwin. If a legitimate source (even FOX) does some original reporting on it then I'm prepared to look it over.

156

Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 15:53

and now, coverage from the MSM on Edwards' affair...

157

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 15:55

Just curious if you guys are planning a group letter or individual communiques to Coulter regarding ripping her for using the National Enquirer?

Then I also wonder why there was such a long delay. I'm sure the reasons are legit.

158

Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 17:08

Just curious if you guys are planning a group letter or individual communiques to Coulter regarding ripping her for using the National Enquirer?

well, never mind the fact that Edwards denies an important part of the Enquirer's claims.

if you'd actually read any of the posts above yours, you'd have seen that many of us don't consider the Enquirer legitimate enough to be considered an indisputable source.

certainly, the Enquirer has had other scoops before, which brings us to:
Then I also wonder why there was such a long delay. I'm sure the reasons are legit.

it's called standards. the MSM requires more proof and evidence than the Enquirer. this is nothing new, and something the Enquirer will readily admit. they are willing to risk being wrong, because the damage to them is relatively minimal.

if the Enquirer is wrong, they get sued, and everyone laughs about it.

if the NY Times is wrong, people like you jump down their throat and rip them a new a$$hole.

159

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 18:24

Willing to promise mea culpas to Ann when shes proven true on this one?

Well, as for the "he nailed this Hunter chick" part of the story, the bitch was right. Still a whole 'nother thing about a having a kid.

I'm still not going to read her.

160

bibA
ID: 7744416
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 19:52

So am I getting this straight, she is reporting something based in reality? I had understood that she was grounded in satire, so whatever she was writing or talking about, one was supposed to search out the wit and humor from her works of imagination.

161

Perm Dude
ID: 397487
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 20:07

No no no no, bibA. It is satire when she is factually wrong.

162

bibA
ID: 7744416
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 20:50

Just had to chuckle: turned to each of the following over a 2 minute period: CNN, MSNBC, and ABC, CBS, and NBC national news. EACH of them were going over the Edwards scandal in detail. Then I turned to Fox, and Laura Ingram was saying that if it were not for her network, no one would have ever heard about this situation!

163

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 21:23

As Rush pointed out today, much of the MSM quickly ran with unsubstantiated, and later shown to be false, info on his drug problem taken from the tabloids.

They clearly do not "rush" to judgment as quickly when it's someone they are more sympathetic to. And the fact is they are more sympathetic to an "egocentric and narcissistic," lying, ambulance-chasing class-warfare-monger. And they wonder why they are increasingly irrelevant.

164

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 21:24

Oh, and the New York Times John McCain story on the front page with zero substantiation? Have you folks forgotten that one already?

165

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 21:46

Oh, and the New York Times John McCain story on the front page with zero substantiation? Have you folks forgotten that one already?

What do you mean zero substantiation?

The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance. The Times did not offer independent proof, like the text messages between Detroit’s mayor and a female aide that The Detroit Free Press disclosed recently, or the photograph of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap.

It was not for want of trying. Four highly respected reporters in the Washington bureau worked for months on the story and were pressed repeatedly to get sources on the record and to find documentary evidence like e-mail. If McCain had been having an affair with a lobbyist seeking his help on public policy issues, and The Times had proved it, it would have been a story of unquestionable importance.

But in the absence of a smoking gun, I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

link

The Times article did not make unsubstantiated claims as Coulter, at least at this point has, about the paternity of the child.
Now, when Coulter has less ethics than the NY Times, what does that tell you?

166

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 21:57

Ann Coulter has been ripping Edwards for anything she can think of for years. She did not have any reason to believe that he was a faggot when she called him one. Well, ok, maybe a little reason.

(It certainly makes her appear to possess better judgment than the people that ate up everything this charlatan had to say for the last decade, however.)

The point is, that is what she does. She is not a journalist. She is a satirist. How do you keep missing the distinction?

"The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”"

Such utter BS. Nobody in the media felt it was newsworthy except the NYT, and his close aides were having nightmares about it? I find that laughable.

167

Perm Dude
ID: 397487
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 22:02

How do you keep missing the distinction?

Because Ann Coulter herself specifically says that she is not writing satire.

How can it be that you believe everything Ann says, except when she says she is not being satirical?

168

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Fri, Aug 08, 2008, 22:09

I don't believe everything she says. I agree with her sentiment in most of the things she says, and I appreciate her for her humor.

Why do liberals like the Daily Show or Colbert? Do we accuse you of thinking everything said on it is the God-spoken truth? No, we don't. We, for the most part, can laugh at ourselves.

How do you keep missing the distinction?

169

Tree
ID: 3977819
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 00:34

(It certainly makes her appear to possess better judgment than the people that ate up everything this charlatan had to say for the last decade, however.)

he had an affair. that makes him a charlatan? no more so than any of the teats you suck on as a conservative, at least in respect to extra marital affairs.

170

Perm Dude
ID: 397487
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 00:39

The Daily Show and Colbert are humor shows. Coulter might throw in some "Edwards is gay" "humor" but it is hardly the same thing. Her "humor" is the same as her non-humor: Intended to inflict damage.

171

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 00:40

No, channeling the spirit of a dead kid in a courtroom made him a charlatan. This is simply the logical continuation of the deceitful mind at work.

Don't forget, though, he also lied repeatedly to the media when confronted with the accusations, as he admitted today. Simply shows that he is not to be trusted when speaking to the public. Which is what Coulter and many of us have been saying for years.

172

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 00:46

PD - I'm disappointed to see you using that common tactic of the left: claiming the power to decide for everyone else what "funny" is. You saying that she is not funny does not make it so.

Nearly every sentence she writes had an element of humor in it. You say it is all intended to inflict damage, I say it is intended to make you laugh. She has typically sided with me.

Either way, I don't think you are allowed to decide for me what funny is. I certainly would never be arrogant enough to do the same to you.

173

Perm Dude
ID: 397487
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 01:03

What are you talking about? I certainly would never be arrogant enough to do the same to you. That's exactly what you are doing. I'm claiming no "power" except to tell you what I think is funny to me. Are you making a power grab yourself, to take away the ability for people to say that they don't find someone funny?

Coulter is the humor of a bully. Typical among today's conservatives, who measure themselves in how much they score political points on "liberals" (whoever they are). Enjoy the "humor." Just don't expect others, of any political stripe, to agree that it is such.

174

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 01:30

PD -

I take you as trying to tell me that I can't find her funny, not as arguing that she isn't. You certainly haven't touched on an in-depth analysis of whether or not she uses certain elements of humor. You just say, no, she isn't funny. And then you mock me continually for appreciating her satire. You make absurd accusations like, "How can it be that you believe everything Ann says, except when she says she is not being satirical?" when you clearly have no idea what I believe.

Why do you think it is it that you leftist humor police feel the need to rip Ann Coulter every week? If there were a Jon Stewart thread, I either wouldn't bother looking in it, or if I did, I would probably find much of it funny. I certainly wouldn't rip on you for thinking he's funny. He is. But you don't see the similarity, because you like him.

The Daily Show and Colbert are humor shows... Coulter('s)... "humor" is the same as her non-humor: Intended to inflict damage.

Yes, and Stewart and Colbert intend no damage towards the Bush administration, conservatives and conservative beliefs?

Do you ignore the beam in favor of the mite in Coulter's eye?

You people also seem have some odd inability to distinguish between different types of writing or speech. I have never had a problem figuring out when Stewart is simply trying to be funny, trying to be serious, or trying to be serious while being funny at the same time. Yet you people marvel over me recognizing the difference between when she is using overstatement as an element of humor, or quoting a proper source in a statement of fact. I must just be that much smarter than all of you.

You know I don't think that of myself. So to me, you must be purposefully being obstinant here, or you really can only see one viewpoint as funny. Either way, I find that sad.

So I guess this leads to my biggest question. Why is it so important to you "liberal" people to spend time each week denouncing what someone else thinks is funny?

175

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 08:46

funny? You find hate-speech, to be "funny"? Too many of her readers, dont find her funny at all, but eat what she says as if they were 4 months old and being spoon fed from a jar. THAT, is the problem.

176

Tree
ID: 87998
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 09:16

Yes, and Stewart and Colbert intend no damage towards the Bush administration, conservatives and conservative beliefs?

vast differences. Stewart and Colbert are satire and parody. very little of what Coulter does fits into that vein, and she couldn't even carry their jockstrap in the humour department.

she has to use so much venom, spite, and hatred to get people interested in her. Colbert and Stewart are more than gentle elbow to the guy, as opposed to smashing you over the head with a bat.

a good example related to the wrestling business.

there are heels (bad guys) who can get the crowd to absolutely hate them, because they have an instant charisma and an aura that just makes you hate that dirty, cheating, no good sonuvabitch.

then there are the guys who have to resort to saying "f*ck you! you people suck! i hate you!". that's called "cheap heat", because the natural, innate ability, isn't there.

Stewart and Colbert have a nature innate ability. Coulter, well, if it wasn't for cheap heat, she'd have none at all.

177

Razor
ID: 42663019
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 12:14

When was the last time Stewart or Colbert were brought on a cable news channel to talk about serious subjects? I would say Coulter's an idiot, but she is smart enough to have found a nice that makes her millions of dollars. That counts for something. But it doesn't make her a credible journalist, nor does it make her funny.

178

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 12:30

Again, why is it so important to you "liberal" people to spend time each week denouncing what someone else thinks is funny?

179

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 12:43

again; see 175

180

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 12:57

Yes. And if I put up a Rush Limbaugh story every week, you would say the same thing. It's how you attempt to silence opposing views.

I repeat, I, and I seriously doubt any of my ideological friends on this board would differ, would never spend so much time and energy denouncing whatever you thought was funny.

But then again, you are a noted humorist.

You all keep saying she isn't funny. Yet nobody who's said so has shown any understanding of the different humor devices she uses regularly.

Just call it hate, then you don't have to think about it.

181

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 13:00

if/when she says anything WORTH any thought, I'll give her some thought.

182

Perm Dude
ID: 397487
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 13:13

#178: Why is it that you want to force your own views of what is funny on us? You are seriously projecting here---you think she's funny, and we don't. Yet we're in the wrong for not finding her funny.

You might appreciate her satire, but you refuse to confront that fact that, when asked directly by Matt Lauer if what she writes and says is satire, that she specifically denies it is such. So you appreciate her for what she says she's not doing.

You know--that doesn't surprise me. You also appreciate her for her humor which isn't funny.

183

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 13:13

You make my point for me.

184

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 13:17

Good job, PD. I said quite a bit in #174 that would cause a normal person to pause and think about the rationality of their behavior.

Yet you come back with some nonsense about me forcing my views on you instead of answering my question.

"Why is it so important to you "liberal" people to spend time each week denouncing what someone else thinks is funny?"

185

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 13:22

Meanwhile, I'll actually address your points.

You might appreciate her satire, but you refuse to confront that fact that, when asked directly by Matt Lauer if what she writes and says is satire, that she specifically denies it is such. So you appreciate her for what she says she's not doing.

Does Colbert open each show by saying, "You know, I'm not really a conservative, and some of my statements are going to be embellishments of fact and outright distortions of what my political opponents and Bill O'Reilly actually say" ?

No. It wouldn't be nearly as funny if he did. I've heard him in serious interviews as well, off of his show, and he's very coy about what he actually does. It would cease to be funny to half his audience the second he explained it (the stupid half). Same thing with Coulter.

186

Perm Dude
ID: 397487
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 13:32

Colbert is clear that he's doing satire. Coulter says she is not (and there's a big different between saying so in the middle of a joke and a response om an otherwise serious interview). I can see why you are so desperate to say she is--if she were serious your support for a wacko would look kinda bad.

So you try to cherry pick--she's not doing satire when she's making serious points in her books, columns, and TV appearances, except when her points go over some line and then she's suddenly satire.

You've become that which you mock. In this case, a defense lawyer trying to get a guilty client off by twisting words, making half-arguments, and trying to explain away clearly bad and irresponsible behavior as being "jokes." I agree that you are properly a Conservative these days. Too bad Conservatives don't act altogether conservative anymore. Used to be that cheering on gay jokes was at least considered bad form.

187

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 13:35

Used to be that cheering on gay jokes was at least considered bad form.

And oh how you long for a return to those days, Officer Humor.

188

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 13:44

Yet nobody who's said so has shown any understanding of the different humor devices she uses regularly.

Fine. Let's look at one of her "humor devices from this week's column - lying.

Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants

Haggard was elected by the board of the National Association of Evangelicals as president in 2003.
Outside of his own parish, the NAE member churches include as of 2008:

* Advent Christian General Conference (joined 1986)
* Assemblies of God (joined 1943)
* Baptist General Conference (joined 1966)
* The Brethren Church (joined 1968)
* Brethren in Christ Church (joined 1949)
* Christian Catholic Church (Evangelical Protestant) (joined 1975)
* The Christian and Missionary Alliance (joined 1966)
* Christian Church of North America (joined 1953)
* Christian Reformed Church in North America (joined 1943-51; 1988)
* Christian Union (joined 1954)
* Church of God (Cleveland) (joined 1944)
* Church of God Mountain Assembly, Inc. (joined 1981)
* Church of the Nazarene (joined 1984)
* Church of the United Brethren in Christ (joined 1953)
* Churches of Christ in Christian Union (joined 1945)
* Congregational Holiness Church (joined 1990-92; 1994)
* Conservative Baptist Association of America (joined 1990)
* Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (joined 1951)
* Conservative Lutheran Association (joined 1984)
* Elim Fellowship (joined 1947)
* Evangelical Church of North America(joined 1969)
* Evangelical Congregational Church (joined 1962)
* Evangelical Free Church of America (joined 1943)
* Evangelical Friends International of North America (joined 1971)
* Evangelical Mennonite Church (joined 1944)
* Evangelical Methodist Church (joined 1952)
* Evangelical Presbyterian Church (joined 1982)
* Evangelistic Missionary Fellowship (joined 1982)
* Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches (joined 1948)
* Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas (joined 1978)
* Free Methodist Church of North America (joined 1944)
* General Association of General Baptists (joined 1988)
* Great Commission Churches (joined 2007)
* International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (joined 1952)
* International Pentecostal Church of Christ (joined 1946)
* International Pentecostal Holiness Church (joined 1943)
* Mennonite Brethren Churches, USA (joined 1946)
* Midwest Congregational Christian Fellowship (joined 1964)
* Missionary Church, Inc. (joined 1944)
* Open Bible Standard Churches (joined 1943)
* Pentecostal Church of God (joined 1954)
* Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church, Inc. (joined 1988)
* Presbyterian Church in America (joined 1986)
* Primitive Methodist Church USA (joined 1946)
* Reformed Episcopal Church (joined 1990)
* Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (joined 1946)
* Regional Synod of Mid-America (Reformed Church in America) (joined 1989)
* The Salvation Army, National Headquarters (joined 1990)
* The Wesleyan Church (joined 1948)
* University Bible Fellowship (joined in 2008)
* Worldwide Church of God (joined 1997)

Thanks for insulting our intelligence, Ann. No one in those member churches ever heard of Ted Haggard. Sure. Pope of the Protestants is actually more the truth. And it wasn't a gay sex scandal, it was a gay sex and drugs scandal.

So blatantly lying is funny. She should be given latitude for artistic license, I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that she's inherently dishonest.

189

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 13:48

Wow. So we see that it really is personal, as I thought. And very bitterly personal, I might add.

Had she insulted the head of my church, I would say she doesn't know what she's talking about on the subject. I might write her a letter.

I wouldn't attack her readers in message forums.

Please, seek help.

190

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 14:00

1) We attack her, not her readers.
2) YOU attacked us, for being devoid of understanding of her humor. When called out on her lack of humor but presence oflies, you attack us for attacking you and tell us we need help. All of which, takes place in a post where you atatck us.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

191

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 14:03

Why do you have such a hard time staying on topic, azdbacker?

I very clearly took a piece of Ann Coulter's most recent column and gave overwhelming evidence of dishonesty. Your response, again, is not only weak, it's designed to distract from my post and even included a personal insult - seek help

Seek help for what, not being a partisan hack with little debating skills like yourself? I suggest if you desire to be considered a flagbearer for your brand of conservatism, you search the archives for some posts by Steve Houpt. Now Steve is also a partisan hack, but he is a very effective one, who uses reasoned and measured arguements that force one to be at their best level if they intend to counter with him.

Your posts don't even make sense. Try responding to my post #188. Does Coulter believe that no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year.

Do you?

Is it a lie?

Do you support her in this lie?

192

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 14:18

Why do you have such a hard time staying on topic, azdbacker?

Perhaps because it's me against about ten of you in five different threads. Yet I can still tell I'm the one who can laugh.

I actually think I do OK for a partisan hack with no debating skills. And I can laugh at myself. Have you ever?

Sorry that I mistook that post for you being upset about it personally. As you know, she does that all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I at least am not afraid to admit that sometimes it does at.

What difference does it make if I support a given post of hers? If I didn't I wouldn't talk about it, and I haven't ever mentioned, or even seen, the column you are referring to.

I'm still more interested in the viewpoint of someone like Perm Dude, who thinks it's a good thing when certain segments of the community are not allowed to be the subject of jokes, and therefore take themselves so seriously that they can't laugh at themselves. I mean, come on, the gay man that works closely with my wife has some of the best gay jokes I've ever heard. I detest his lifestyle choice, but he's a great guy all around. He doesn't take himself so seriously as to demand that I, or himself, can't joke about it.

Mock me as a partisan hack, mock my God, joke about my family, joke about my penis size. I don't care. I just ask that you do it well so I can share in the laugh.

193

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 14:21

And I can laugh at myself. Have you ever?

I think it safe to say, we've been laughing at you too. :)

194

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 14:24

I'm big enough to say I'm OK with that.

195

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 14:55

For Perm Dude, who keeps saying that Coulter always denies being a humorist, have you ever watched her on Hannity & Colmes?

Her number one stock answer to Alan Colmes questioning something she's written is:

"It's called a joke, Alan."

196

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 14:57

A line she only uses, when she is otherwise pinned down and exposed as the hack she is.

197

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 15:05

A line she uses when she is clearly joking.

198

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 15:06

Yet I can still tell I'm the one who can laugh.

This whole focus on "laughing" is really unfortunate. Politics should not be a laughing matter and I think it debases discourse when it happens. I don't watch or even like The Daily Show or The Corbert Report for this reason. Sure, when you are throwing back beers with your like-minded buddies, there's nothing wrong with cracking jokes at Bush or Cheney's expense, but when you are talking with people from a wide spectrum, poor jokes, nasty comments such as calling a great Senator a "charlatan" only embitters people.

I strongly believe that it is a common Rovian tactic to be as nasty, snide and libelous as possible for it makes the opposition respond and most importantly, it TURNS PEOPLE OFF. People who are turned off don't listen any more and don't vote.

So, azdbacker, if you want to napalm these threads and claim victory, mocking beliefs and institutions most of us hold dear, don't be surprised that people will just tune you out.

If, however, you acknowledge the humanity of your fellow posters, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both conservative programs/policies as well as liberal, in short, be engaging without mocking, you might even get to a space where you can joke with good nature and get laughs from everyone. You haven't shown any such skill yet.

199

azdbacker
ID: 14713820
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 15:14

SZ - I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that politics should not be a laughing matter. It's the only thing that keeps me from crying half the time. But I respect your opinion.

Speaking of laughs, that was a good one you had there about John Edwards being a great Senator.

I'm guessing you don't read many of Rove's columns, or watch his appearances on Fox, because even many on the left have commented about how reasonable and well-informed his discourse on political analysis is.

It is the others in this conversation who attempt to "napalm" a thread that was put up for a discussion of Ann Coulter's columns.

200

Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Sat, Aug 09, 2008, 15:46

I wasn't talking about Rove's discourse on politics, for I agree that he is informative, polite, well reasoned when acting as a member of the media. I was speaking about his strategies as a paid political consultant.

201

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 02:44

PV

For the record I couldn't have picked Haggard out of a lineup or told you anything about him.

202

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 02:49

Too many of her readers, dont find her funny at all, but eat what she says as if they were 4 months old and being spoon fed from a jar. THAT, is the problem. - Sarge

I would venture to say that all of her best selling book readers find her both dead-on accurate and funny as hell with the exception of liberals reading what their sworn enemy has to say.

203

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 03:09

For the record I couldn't have picked Haggard out of a lineup or told you anything about him.

So you're admitting you're a no one?

204

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 03:45

I'm part of the everyone outside of his narrow corner to never have heard of him. Or the no one to ever have heard...your insignificant choice.

205

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 13:10

I'm part of the everyone outside of his narrow corner to never have heard of him.

That's your story and you're sticking to it. Are you really so glued to the altar of Ann Coulter worship that rather than just silently allowing her lie to go away, you feel the need to defend the indefensible? Do you really think "I never heard of him" changes the volumes of evidence that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year is an intentional lie?

Let's start at the top in 2004, 3 years before the scandal.

Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has met with the president and advised the Bush White House. ï¿½I sat down with [Bush],ï¿½ he told me. ï¿½What I do know is that ï¿½ [the president] is an honest guy who really believes what he says.ï¿½

The following year Haggard was interviewed by another no one, Tom Brokaw.

On October 28, 2005, NBC aired "In God they trust -- NBC's Tom Brokaw goes inside the world of Christian Evangelicals." Brokaw interviews Ted Haggard, President of the National Association of Evangelicals representing some 45,000 churches. Haggard makes a claim I've heard often: "We're not talking about theocracy."
Here's the interview with Brokaw's very subtle, ironic response.

Ted Haggard: Well, I think all of us have a responsibility to advance God's will through government. But we are in a pluralistic society. We're not talking about theocracy. We're not talking about some group of religious leaders dictating to the government how to write law. I'm not a power broker. I don't call presidents. I don't harangue the White House.
Brokaw: You don't have to call him. He calls you.
Haggard: I'll be talking to the White House in another three and a half hours.

Need more?

In 2005, Haggard was listed by Time magazine as one of the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America.[14] Haggard is a firm supporter of President George W. Bush, and is sometimes credited with rallying evangelicals behind Bush during the 2004 election.[15] Author Jeff Sharlet reported in 2005 that Haggard "talks toï¿½ Bush or his advisers every Monday" and stated at that time that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism."[16] In a June 2005 Wall Street Journal article, "Ted Haggard, the head of the 30-million strong National Association of Evangelicals, joked that the only disagreement between himself and the leader of the Western world is automotive: Mr. Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas he prefers a Chevy."[17]

Haggard has appeared on several broadcast network programs, including Dateline NBC and ABC's 20/20. He also appears in the documentary Jesus Camp[24][25], the History Channel documentary The Antichrist, [26] as well as the HBO documentary Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi.[27]

In early 2006, University of Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins interviewed Haggard as part of a British television documentary entitled The Root of All Evil?.

Let's tally up so far.

>The President of the United States not only had heard of him, but had met him face to face and spoke to him frequently.
>Tom Brokaw not only heard of him, but interviewed him.
>ABC and viewers of 20/20 heard of him.
>Time Magazine and their readers heard of him.
>The Wall Street Journal and its readers heard of him.
>The History Channel and its viewers heard of him.
>HBO and its viewers heard of him.
>Viewers of Dawkin's documentary heard of him(that's the first time I really remember hearing him - the scene is unforgettable)

Is it really necessary to list the Congressmen he lobbied in support of SCOTUS nominees or the TV news from Colorado covering Haggard's support of Colorado Amendment 43, the reason Jones ratted him out?

Tens of millions had heard of Ted Haggard prior to his scandal including George W Bush. It's not only a lie, it's one of the most stupid remarks ever written by a political columnist, and an insult to anyone with even a modicum of objectivity.

206

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 13:41

...dead-on accurate...

You still maintain such, even after her blatant lies and falsehoods are exposed? No wonder you're a right-wing lunatic apologist who doesnt vote or participate but cant restrain himself from talking sh*t.

207

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 16:22

If memory serves there are 37,000 denominations claiming to be Christian. You have demonstrated that you have no grasp on the definition of hyperbole and not much else. There isn't anything AC has said of a hyperbolic or ironic or sardonic or sarcastic or harsh nature that we couldn't find an analogue among the writings of the sainted Molly Ivins. The only thing that has you excersized is the target. You want two sets of rules. One for right and one for left.

208

Razor
ID: 42663019
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 16:34

So in the span of 2 posts, you went from saying "no one has ever heard of him, that fact is obvious," to "of course it was hyperbole and not meant to be taken seriously"?

209

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 17:19

You have demonstrated that you have no grasp on the definition of hyperbole and not much else.

A hyperbole is an exaggeration that is not to be taken seriously. So Ann Coulter is not to be taken seriously. I get that.

If Coulter would have written:

"the Christian minister no one had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year"
that could have been considered hyperbole. It would have been an obvious exaggeration and not to be taken seriously. But she intentionally added "outside of his own parish."

The specifics of that phrase are not meant to minimize Haggard's relationship with the President; to minimize his celebrity on national news shows, cable documentaries, British documentaries; to minimize his celebrity as the leader in the state of Colorado as an opponent of gay marriage; to minimize his influence as president of the largest Evangelical organization in the country; or to minimize his influence as a congressional lobbyist. The purpose is to deny these relationships, his influence and his celebrity ever existed, that he was just a poor nobody minister from nowhere that the media pounced upon because they hate religion, conservatives and America. That's not hyperbole. That's propoganda and it's a lie.

Glad I could clear up that pesky definition thing for you.

210

Tree
ID: 7761017
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 18:23

So in the span of 2 posts, you went from saying "no one has ever heard of him, that fact is obvious," to "of course it was hyperbole and not meant to be taken seriously"?

it's called the Coulter defense. Generally speaking, it's used by conservatives who don't have a leg to stand on, or have been caught in a lie.

Basically, they say something absurd, claim it to be true, then when confronting with reality, say it was sarcasm, hyperbole, or some other device of the english language.

it's cute, but doesn't make the user look any less foolish.

211

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 01:12

Yeah, PV. So what, he represents 20 out of 37,000 denominations. Big Whoop. I've heard of his name but that's it.

212

Tree
ID: 28735115
Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 06:46

Boldwin
Sun, Aug 10, 2008, 03:45
I'm part of the everyone outside of his narrow corner to never have heard of him. Or the no one to ever have heard...your insignificant choice.

Boldwin
Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 01:12
Big Whoop. I've heard of his name but that's it.

less than 24 hours previously, you'd never heard of him. now, you've heard his name.

tomorrow, i suspect you'll have seen some his speeches on youtube, a day later you'll have actually attended one of his speeches, and by this time next week, considering his "secret" life and your unnatural loathing of such a lifestyle, well, we'll see.

but, the fact remains, a day previously, you hadn't heard of him at all, and you're acknowledging now that you have.

i'm sure you'll chalk this up as sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, or perhaps it was just an error in context... ::eye roll::

(queue up me being called a troll or some such nonsense)

213

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 16:06

To be precise if my life had been dependent on it I would have chosen the 'televangelist' box in a multiple choice. But the more that I think about it, that would only be if I had a clue the test was about religious leaders. If I was asked out of the blue who a guy by that name was I would prolly have been stumped.

I think we see just how loosely they are calling lies when that goes as a lie. Why would anyone take your charges that AC lies seriously?

214

Razor
ID: 545172413
Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 16:23

LOL. See post 205.

215

Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Aug 11, 2008, 17:09

I think we see just how loosely they are calling lies when that goes as a lie.

well, right now, i'm accusing you of lying.

here - lately it seems you've needed this.

although, my guess is that you'll just dig yourself in deeper...

216

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 06:14

What part of my religious education would have led me accross Haggard's path, Tree? I haven't followed the specific attendee list at Bush's 'faith based initiative' meetings because my religion is no part of that. So you have no reason to believe I would have run across him from a political vector. In your hallucinations I may be in some kind of dominionist club but that is entirely false. You have zero basis to call me a liar.

217

Tree
ID: 34754125
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 06:56

What part of my religious education would have led me accross Haggard's path, Tree?

the fact you keep up on current events and scour the blogosphere.

You have zero basis to call me a liar.

post 212.

218

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 07:28

the fact you keep up on current events and scour the blogosphere.

Boldwin, please purchase a phone book of the entire United States. Get familiar with it and spend the next 2 or 3 years calling people in there you don't know in the event it comes up on these boards.

219

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 10:16

Boldys 'golem', or Boldys shadow?

220

Tree
ID: 30738129
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 10:41

Boldwin, please purchase a phone book of the entire United States. Get familiar with it and spend the next 2 or 3 years calling people in there you don't know in the event it comes up on these boards.

stop being absurd. to compare Ted Haggard to an average name in the phone book is just silly. i realize that conservative icons in the past have used "i don't recall" and the sheep believed them, but the fact remains Ted Haggard was a common name to those who keep up with current events, particularly in the religious world.

and of course, your mindless self indulgence of a post doesn't even address the fact that Baldwin clearly changed his tune within 24 hours.

221

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 11:32

Boldys 'golem', or Boldys shadow?

Yawn.

stop being absurd. to compare Ted Haggard to an average name in the phone book is just silly.....

As far as I know Ted Haggard and I share the same religion and I've seen him once and that was on the History Channel talking about the Bible. If not for that I probably never would have heard of him. I surf the net and read blogs and I don't know every prominent religious figure out there.

I think Haggard was the guy involved in some sort of gay thing, but really, is that all that uncommon in Christianity and Catholicism?

So if you were to ask me about prominent rabbis or clerics, odds are I wouldn't have the slightest clue because that's not my religion. Just like how I wouldn't expect you as a Jew to know who Ted Haggard is.

I didn't realize what a litmus test Haggard is for poli-knowledge.

222

Tree
ID: 30738129
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 11:40

Haggard was the leader of the largest christian organization around.

i know who haggard is. fallwell. bakker. swaggart. the pope. schneerson. etc etc

i just don't buy ignorance as an excuse here. granted, i can understand someone like you wanting to ignore and sweep under the rug YET ANOTHER conservative scandal, but just because you put your head in the sand doesn't mean it didn't happen.

223

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 11:44

Or maybe it's because you have a fixation on homosexual scandals? You have talked about sodomy at length.

As far as putting Haggard in the same league as the pope in terms of recognition I think that's laughable.

224

Tree
ID: 67581211
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 13:05

Or maybe it's because you have a fixation on homosexual scandals? You have talked about sodomy at length.

i'm not the Republican coming out against homosexuality getting caught in the scandal. those are the folks YOU support.

regarding Haggard and the Pope - both are/were leaders of religious groups. but you're right - they don't belong together - Haggard's lineage doesn't include centuries worth of murder in the name of God.

as for sodomy, not only do i talk about it at great length, i participate in some of it.

odds are most of us here do. and if you're not one of the majority of people on earth who do, you're missing out.

225

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 13:25

and if you're not one of the majority of people on earth who do, you're missing out.

Which explains why you like being a Democrat, you don't mind being bent over and having the gov't stick it to you.

226

Tree
ID: 67581211
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 13:36

Which explains why you like being a Democrat, you don't mind being bent over and having the gov't stick it to you.

no, i voted against GW Bush. he's your man.

227

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 15:15

Boxman is right of course. Unless they have made themselves available and pushed themselves onto the news channels like Falwell did, these guys aren't that recognizable. For example I have no idea who 'schneerson' is among the names Tree mentioned. That one I couldn't even get right on a multiple choice test if my life depended on it.

228

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 15:26

you mean like this?

>The President of the United States not only had heard of him, but had met him face to face and spoke to him frequently.
>Tom Brokaw not only heard of him, but interviewed him.
>ABC and viewers of 20/20 heard of him.
>Time Magazine and their readers heard of him.
>The Wall Street Journal and its readers heard of him.
>The History Channel and its viewers heard of him.
>HBO and its viewers heard of him.
>Viewers of Dawkin's documentary heard of him(that's the first time I really remember hearing him - the scene is unforgettable)

229

Tree
ID: 67581211
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 15:38

For example I have no idea who 'schneerson' is among the names Tree mentioned.

clearly the least well known name on the list. he's also been dead for nearly 15 years, so he's not exactly a "current event"...

i threw him on there because he was an influential religious leader to a small sect, and i was curious if anyone else had heard of him...

230

Perm Dude
ID: 19751117
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 15:42

I remember the Dawkins film (a classic, by the way). Even though Dawkins was a bit of an ass, somehow those he was featuring looked even worse.

But the fact is that, despite "leadership" positions among umbrella evangelical groups, protestantism in the United States is still a very fragmented thing. The head of a church with tens of thousands of people would have little to no effect on another church's denomination.

Tree seems intent on catching Baldwin in a "gotcha" moment about whether Baldwin has ever heard of Haggard. With all due respect, this seems a little small minded.

Baldwin and Haggard share a public dismay, rooted in their Biblical studies, about the fact of homosexual behavior. This is where the similarity ends.

Meanwhile, the Right's obsession with male anal sex continues...

231

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 15:51

The right's obsession?

I'd call it the left's obsession with normalizing every deviant behavior including infanticide.

232

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 16:02

Tree

If you had said 'Lubavitch movement' I could have identified it as a Jewish movement of the last century. The name Schneerson would have remained beyond the tip of my tongue however.

233

Perm Dude
ID: 19751117
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 16:03

On a post in which I take your side, you can't help yourself and have to confront a perceived problem, can you?

234

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 16:12

Considering the last sentence in #230...

You and your strange way of taking my side?

235

boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 17:20

this seems like a kind of silly arguement but just for the record i fall into this category Time Magazine and their readers heard of him. and i had never heard of him, with that said i really could have cared less when story broke outside of ironic hilarity of it all. I really liked the part where he was just trying to help them come clean and give up drugs by buying there drugs from them. I mean really i do not think you could make this stuff up.

236

Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 17:49

I remember him from this flick. "I know what YOU were DOING last night". Yeah, you've been trolling the back alleys for the past four nights without sleep, you pole smoking Tweaker. I guess if you are going to fall from grace, make it a rocket fueled decent through the atmosphere!

Baldwin's right, outside of a few meth dealers and male prostitutes, few people had ever heard of this evangelical leader.

237

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 19:18

Baldwin's right, outside of a few meth dealers and male prostitutes, few people had ever heard of this evangelical leader.

But that's not what Coulter said. She said,
no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of, knowing full well that the President of the
United States not only had heard of him, but knew him personally and frequently sought his council, possibly as often as weekly.

There's no debate here. The only question is how far into the depths of dishonesty Baldwin is willing to travel in his quest to defend said maiden.

238

Perm Dude
ID: 19751117
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 19:36

Is that what they call his church, a "parish"? I thought that was limited to Catholic & Episcopal churches.

239

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 20:30

no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of

Seriously help me out here with the vocabulary. Isn't that hyperbole?

I could write a column about a Chinese basketball player and say "no one outside of his own country had ever heard of" and even though a few people actually may be familiar, for the most part I am right.

240

Tree
ID: 507261219
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 20:39

Tree seems intent on catching Baldwin in a "gotcha" moment about whether Baldwin has ever heard of Haggard. With all due respect, this seems a little small minded.

fair enough portrayal. it is what it is.

I'd call it the left's obsession with normalizing every deviant behavior including infanticide.

i like the cute subject change.

anal sex between consenting adults isn't deviant. if done properly and safely, with the health and happiness of your partner (as well as yourself) at the foremost, it can be a grand old time.

not to mention oral sex. if you're considering that deviant....oy....

241

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 21:02

I could write a column about a Chinese basketball player and say "no one outside of his own country had ever heard of" and even though a few people actually may be familiar, for the most part I am right.

If those few people included Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neal as well as NBA commissioner David Stern, and were much more than just familiar, as is the case here, then for the most part, you would be lying.

242

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Aug 13, 2008, 10:54

The Daily Show and Colbert are humor shows. if so why this post? post #225 seems like your the pot calling the kettle black. Either everything is fair game or nothing...

243

Perm Dude
ID: 537311310
Wed, Aug 13, 2008, 11:35

They are humor shows--Colbert's more so than the Daily Show, particularly the "fake news" that Stewart does. Haven't you seen them? If so, then you know that many of the interviews by Jon Stewart are not comedy bits.

If you knew that then why go for the "gotcha" moment? It reeks of intellectual vacuousness. If you didn't then how can you say, with any certainty enough to post, what they are?

244

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Aug 13, 2008, 12:05

I have no idea what your point is and wont try and guess, clearly you believe in a double standard. it is ok to post the daily show's serious moments and disregard the rest as comedy but if AZD does the same with AC it is called into question. I have seen the interviews he has done and yes they are serious and yes they are comedy bits, just as the interviews on the tonight show are. im sure we could post interviews for ali g show too.

245

Perm Dude
ID: 537311310
Wed, Aug 13, 2008, 12:51

There's no "double standard." Only your insistence on black and white. Obviously you didn't bother to even check out the interview, otherwise you wouldn't be calling it a "comedy bit."

Your reaction is quite typical of the Right, however. Rather than debate even whether the points being made in the Stewart interview are correct or relative (or anything, in fact), you concentrate on whether Stewart's show is a "humor" show or not. Like McCain complaining about Obama being a celebrity, has being conservative boiled down to projecting your own worries onto others?

246

Perm Dude
ID: 537311310
Wed, Aug 13, 2008, 13:10

Coulter approves of personal attacks, then tries to change the definition, then goes after John Edwards, etc etc.

O'Reilly actually makes some sense, that name calling hurts their own candidate, and that calling Obama "Hussein" all the time is "dopey."

247

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Aug 13, 2008, 13:12

248

Perm Dude
ID: 537311310
Wed, Aug 13, 2008, 13:24

boikin, did you even bother reading my posts to azd? Or did you just get hooded eyes and start mentally composing a rebuttal?

I said that I don't believe Coulter to be funny. Azd did. I also stated that Coulter herself stated that she does not write satire.

I don't have any idea of what you think a "double standard" is but I can assure you that the points you are trying to make are not an example of one.

249

boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Aug 13, 2008, 13:45

I did read all of them, just not till this week. I was trying to figure out what started the whole i knew/did not know haggard arguement. I also thought that AZD missed the point too. AC is no more a journalist than i am, she is an entertainer. She writes and says what she thinks people want to hear. Sometimes it is funny some times it is more serious. She is for most part indistinguishable to the daily show. try to pass of either as something else is false. You tell me how they are different and why the daily show is somehow more credible that AC?

250

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 04:45

EVEN BY TRIAL LAWYER STANDARDS, EDWARDS A REAL SLEAZEBAG
August 13, 2008

The good news: DNA testing has confirmed that John Edwards is not the father of Rielle Hunter's baby.

The bad news: The father is Bill Clinton.

Ha ha -- just kidding! It's almost impossible to get pregnant by having the type of sex Bill Clinton prefers.

Also, by now, everyone has heard the news that Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, has refused to grant a paternity test.

I wonder if Edwards knew that when he was making his chesty offer to take a paternity test? Edwards gushed to ABC's Bob Woodruff: "I would welcome participating in a paternity test, be happy to participate in one ... happy to take a paternity test and would love to see it happen."

As Edwards knows, our paternity laws were written by Gloria Steinem, so if the mother doesn't want a paternity test, it can't happen. So when Woodruff asked if he was going to actually take the paternity test soon, Edwards quickly noted, "I'm only one side of the test."

With Rielle in on the scam, Edwards could boldly demand a paternity test and then self-righteously defend his mistress's decision to refuse a paternity test. How dare you gainsay this woman's right to her privacy! Because if there's one person who's gone the extra mile to keep Hunter from becoming a public figure, it's John Edwards.

Edwards is closely following the Kennedy model of responding to charges of misconduct. First, admit only as much as can be currently proved. Second, get the other party to block any further investigation. I guess he really is "Kennedy-esque"!

For example, when the cops found DNA on the murdered body of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Conn., the Kennedy suspect, Michael Skakel, suddenly remembered he had been up in a tree that night masturbating! (Talk about a tree-hugger.) You can see how something like that could slip your mind.

After Teddy Kennedy plunged his car off the Chappaquiddick Bridge with Mary Jo Kopechne in it and then failed to report the accident for nine hours, Kennedy admitted he had driven off the bridge -- but said he was in a state of shock for the next nine hours, preventing him from reporting the submerged car with a woman trapped in it.

Indeed, Kennedy was so disoriented he was barely able to dream up a highly unlikely alibi.

The historical parallel to Edwards' pincer move with Rielle Hunter is that Kennedy ostentatiously demanded a full investigation –- while the Kopechne family stoutly objected to an autopsy of their daughter.

According to Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up by Leo Damore, the evidence suggested that Kopechne died gasping for breath in the car while Teddy Kennedy was busy trying to convince various people to say that they were driving his car.

There were lots of houses nearby with lights on, but Kennedy avoided them after he escaped from the car, so he could sneak back to his hotel undetected and begin establishing an alibi. Evidently, Kennedy is better than Edwards at sneaking into and out of hotels.

If Mary Jo had suffocated, then she had been alive for hours after the car plunged into the water. But an autopsy was required to determine whether Kopechne had drowned or suffocated.

Both the coroner and the diver who retrieved Mary Jo's body from the car believed Mary Jo had suffocated, not drowned. The diver found her body contorted in the back of the submerged car as if she had been trying to press her face into the last air pocket in the car. The coroner concluded there wasn't enough water in Mary Jo's body to indicate a drowning.

But for the first time in Massachusetts history, no autopsy was performed in a possible manslaughter case. Mary Jo was buried within about an hour of her body being pulled out of the channel under the Chappaquiddick Bridge.

Naturally, Kennedy wanted a thorough investigation -- to clear his name! -- but the Kopechnes absolutely refused to consent to an autopsy of their daughter. What more could he do? The Kopechnes' lawyer, Joseph Flanagan, refused to say who was paying him to fight the autopsy.

Similarly, Edwards aggressively offered to take a paternity test, knowing that the New Age hippie chick who still thinks she's going to marry him would not hurt him by allowing a paternity test. Edwards certainly is adept at reading stupid women, or as his campaign called them, "the base."

Democrats are always claiming to have the Kennedy magic, but, once again, another Kennedy-wannabe falls short. To be a real Kennedy, John, you have to kill her.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

251

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 05:37

Never hammer in a nail when a sledgehammer and a large wooden stake to the heart will do.

252

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 06:37

Yeah really. Ann, tell us how you really feel. I dare people to defy that column though with anything other than standard left wing hate.

253

Tree
ID: 22713146
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 07:35

I dare people to defy that column though with anything other than standard left wing hate.

well, never mind the fact it's not terribly relative, and it shows that Coulter's holster is largely filled with blanks, but it's definitely got some mis-truths that she oughta at least cite...

for example:
But for the first time in Massachusetts history, no autopsy was performed in a possible manslaughter case. Mary Jo was buried within about an hour of her body being pulled out of the channel under the Chappaquiddick Bridge.

her funeral was four days after the incident.

her body was discovered the next morning. an hour later, Kennedy hadn't even made a statement to the media, much less had time to bury the body.

in fact, the M.E. did look at the body, and signed a death certificate with "accidental drowning" being the cause of death, and the body was released to the family.

i have little doubt there is more to this whole thing than meets the eye, and we may never know the truth, but Coulter's constant manufacturing of "facts" doesn't help - although in the eyes of fools, she can do no wrong.

254

boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 08:39

tree, you missed this one:

According to Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up by Leo Damore, the evidence suggested that Kopechne died gasping for breath in the car while Teddy Kennedy was busy trying to convince various people to say that they were driving his car.

There were lots of houses nearby with lights on, but Kennedy avoided them after he escaped from the car, so he could sneak back to his hotel undetected and begin establishing an alibi. Evidently, Kennedy is better than Edwards at sneaking into and out of hotels.

how can one both be secretly sneaking around and asking people to say they were driving?

Maybe something happened and I am sure things were not handled in the same matter as if you or me had been driving. But if you want to show a conspiracy at least show logical evidence.

255

Tree
ID: 67581211
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 10:13

thanks boikin. yea, facts mean little to Coulter and those who continue to orally please her.

256

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 10:21

254...nice catch boikin. Bit of a logic problem there with her *ahem* "facts".

257

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 14:43

how can one both be secretly sneaking around and asking people to say they were driving?

How are those two things remotely mutually exlusive? Criminals have snuck around behind the backs of the police and prosecution, asking friends and family to provide an alibi since forever.

And Sarge ever investigated anything. That must have been Keystone.

258

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 14:45

The lie gets exposed, and all you can muster are personal insults? Really Boldy, time was you gave better than that. Indications of advancing senility, are appearing undeniable.

259

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 14:47

How are those two things remotely mutually exlusive?

260

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 14:49

Maybe because talking to others about the incident, belies being secretive about the incident?

261

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 14:52

That depends on who you talk to, now doesn't it? See post #257 and read it this time.

262

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Aug 21, 2008, 06:08

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR OBAMA QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF SLAVERY BAN
August 20, 2008

This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.

The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate.

Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.

After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.

Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people."

If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.

Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly!

The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.

Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"

This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one!

In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn."

By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.

Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations."

He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president.

But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court.

I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

263

azdbacker
ID: 387182118
Thu, Aug 21, 2008, 19:20

I can't wait to see what they find to criticize in this one.

I'm guessing the number 30.

264

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Aug 21, 2008, 19:23

They'll call Coulter a bigot for saying Obama has big ears.

265

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Thu, Aug 21, 2008, 19:23

Kevin Federline...tan, rested and available.

266

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Thu, Aug 21, 2008, 19:39

Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said:

When completely unnecessary and irrelevant physical insults are beyond criticism, then the degeneration of conservative principles is complete.

On the other hand, Jon Stewart interviewed Republican Mel Martinez on his show last night, resulting in an informative and respectful discourse.

267

biliruben
ID: 38751812
Thu, Aug 21, 2008, 19:42

Jeezus. How do you expect the Republicans to stand a chance with pansy-ass "...informative and respectful discourse".

Get a grip, PV.

268

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Aug 21, 2008, 20:03

Boldwin:Kevin Federline...tan, rested and available.

Do you think K-Fed majored in int'l relations too?

269

Tree
ID: 36782116
Thu, Aug 21, 2008, 21:44

actually, i don't think Coulter's a bigot. she's a $hit stirrer who knows she has a kingdom of fools making her rich.

it is entertaining to watch this conservative hand wrangling and circle jerking over the soon-to-implode republican party.

270

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 04:01

Yeah, I remember informative and respectful discourse back before Sarge and Tree showed up.

271

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 11:51

You mean the good ol days when MITH was here?

272

Tree
ID: 13714198
Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 12:18

Yeah, I remember informative and respectful discourse back before Sarge and Tree showed up.

i've been here for several years Baldwin, and i've watched your level of discourse sink to new depths with each passing day, something that has been pointed out to you by several long time posters, and something your hubris won't allow you to accept.

273

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 12:26

Well at least you didn't deny what Boldwin said Tree. In fact you fell further into the definition he laid out. You're past denial and onto the next step of whatever 12 step plan you're on.

274

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 12:50

Tree

Since you are the problem poster, you are the only one who gets treated completely without respect. Sarge to a lesser degree, he being the lesser troll of the board.

bibA

MITH and I get along just great. Just ask him. Last I heard he was using a picture of my wife and I as a screensaver. The wierd and wonderful thing is that about 9 months ago while perusing old old threads I rediscovered that MITH started out as an 'ankle ferret'. But he responded by dramatically raising the level of his game.

Tree? Not so much.

I may not have the patience I once had for trolls but I lay out as much quality posting as anyone and I don't think I treat anyone disrespectfully just because we disagree. I hold Bili in the highest regard tho he wouldn't admit we have ever agreed on anything. SZ treats me pretty harshly but there is an underlying tone of congeniality in our reparte. I always thot I treateed you just fine.

275

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 13:31

And just why should you try and have a respectful argument with an idiot?

They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

276

Tree
ID: 13714198
Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 13:53

i was going to respond to the above comments point by point, but, there really is no point. the negative comments from people who claim to be above that are so fascinating to me, and it'll be fun to see the look on your faces when we're in hell together, and you're like "what did i do!?!?!"

me? i know what i did, and by god, i am loving life.

277

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 15:57

It's just that I really miss MITH (say that 5 times in a row). Your comment re "informative and respectful discourse" just made me think of him. That dude had an open mind, and possessed the patience of Job. Along with a couple others around here - Pancho and Madman for instance, he really put a lot of thought into most of his posts.

278

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Fri, Aug 22, 2008, 16:10

Not to mention time googling.

279

sarge33rd on Topsail
ID: 40754239
Sat, Aug 23, 2008, 11:05

Am I alone, in finding it ironic how Bodlwin and his shadow devolve into virtually meaningless regurgitation of talking heads soundbites and then denigrade others as being trolls?

I too miss MITHs frequent participation. The time he took to compose his thoughts and put forth intelligent, cognizant points...was and is to be admired.

Box....quite honestly most of what you have to say, could be best summarized by your simply creating a macro and after Boldy posts, with just 1 keystroke you could follow it with.."yeah, what he said".

280

Tree
ID: 18747238
Sat, Aug 23, 2008, 11:29

no Sarge, you're not. but even discussing the matter with a hypocrite like Baldwin is worthless.

for a man who claims to be religious, his hubris is astonishing and his haste to insult is fairly disgusting. i mean, he's got a hard-on to insult MITH, who doesn't even post here anymore.

i think a lot of that comes from being a scared little man with a dissatisfied life, but hey, what are you gonna do.

281

Boldwin
ID: 176322815
Sat, Aug 23, 2008, 12:55

I complimented MITH.

282

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Thu, Aug 28, 2008, 11:39

Allow me.

This is actually one of Coulter's better columns. She doesn't wander into ridiculous attempts at satire or the obigatory B Hussein Obama nonsense that has permeated her work for at least a year.

It's focused and actually written in a manner that would lead one to think that she actually has skills as a political analyst without resorting to the outrageous and fallacious techniques that her ardent fans clamor for.

283

Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 08:20

Advice from our queen:

Hunt down everyone who voted to nominate McCain and punish them.

Nominating Dem lites never works. How many times do republicans need to prove this lesson before it sinks in?

284

Tree
ID: 121035316
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 08:59

your queen, is an idiot.

had McCain stayed HIS course, and done what he had done for the past few decades, he would have had a shot.

had the McCain who gave that amazing concession speech been the McCain we saw on the campaign trail, this would have been a VERY tight election.

but he allowed the idiots to overtake his campaign, and they made mistake after mistake, until the fatal roll of the dice produced Sarah Palin.

285

Perm Dude
ID: 3410658
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 09:08

Keep it up, Ann! The longer you blame Democrats for your own problems (and refuse to self-reflect on your defeats) the longer Democrats will remain in power.

Great concession speech by McCain. Very classy. And exactly what gets under the skin of the Baldwin/Coulter/RedState types.

286

Tree
ID: 121035316
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 09:11

redstate types, and where they'll go the way of.

the guy with the yellow shirt is one of those red state types...

287

Razor
ID: 141049220
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 10:16

McCain's concession speech seemed to disgust the McCain supporters that were in attendance. Ha. I guess when you run a campaign full of vitriol and dishonesty, when you finally come clean, people don't recognize you.

John McCain's a good man, and since he ran his campaign on all the wonderful things he has done in the Senate and pretty much only that, I hope that he will continue to do those things in the years to come.

288

Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 10:32

Hit the viagra advertising circuit, John.

289

C1-NRB
ID: 588421510
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 10:35

Hit the viagra advertising circuit, John.
I think this is uncalled for, especially considering his wife.

290

Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 10:39

There's that.

291

Baldwin
ID: 201045320
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 10:41

Republicans take note:

You nominated someone whose senate record was rated wonderful by Razor.

Is a postmortem even neccessary?

292

Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 030792616
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 10:43

No. Please continue in your denial state. You've gotten your butts handed to you two elections in a row. No need to self-examine yourselves.

293

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 11:07

Republicans take note:

You could have nominated a conservative leader with a proven track record in the private financial sector and as clean a social lifestyle(no divorces, no skeletons)as there is in the party.
But he didn't pass the religious test.

You could have promoted a solid conservative like Bobby Jindal, who looks like the future of America's changing demographics, instead of a female maverick with a distorted and narrow view on what constitutes the 'real America.'

Take note that the rhetoric of Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, and even Rush has been rejected by all those except the fringe. That should be obvious by the incredible number of young voters participating in this election and where their votes went.

A postmortem is necessary if Republicans want to regain relevancy as the demographics continue to move in an unfavorable direction for them. Thinking that moving farther to the right is the answer will only further isolate the party.

Another young, dynamic up and comer in the Republican ranks is my governor, Jon Huntsman, who was re-elected with 80% of the vote. Will he be seriously considered as a conservative even though his environmental positions are balanced and researched?

294

Tree
ID: 121035316
Wed, Nov 05, 2008, 11:49

Hit the viagra advertising circuit, John.
I think this is uncalled for, especially considering his wife.

Baldwin has shown himself to be a petty, disgusting, little man, with no regard for anyone other than himself. this sort of comment from him is nothing new, as he runs around proclaiming his virtues, principles, and desire for "God's Kingdom".

Another young, dynamic up and comer in the Republican ranks is my governor, Jon Huntsman, who was re-elected with 80% of the vote. Will he be seriously considered as a conservative even though his environmental positions are balanced and researched?

not by the radical right, who would rather eat their own then even compromise a tiny bit.

295

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 11:19

THIS IS THE DOWNER WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!
January 7, 2009

After NBC canceled me "for life" on Monday -- until seven or eight hours later when the ban was splashed across the top of The Drudge Report, forcing a red-faced NBC to withdraw the ban -- an NBC insider told The Drudge Report: "We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now," explaining that "it's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."

In point of fact, I'm not particularly critical of Obama in my new book. I'm critical of the media for behaving like a protection racket for Obama rather than the constitutionally protected guardians of our liberty that they claim to be. So I think what the NBC insider meant to say is that NBC is not interested in anyone so highly critical of NBC right now. It's such a downer, it's just not the time, and it's not what their audience wants right now, either.

In fact, I think my book is the downer America has been waiting for! So herewith, I present an excerpt from the smash new book out this week, "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America":

When the Obama family materialized, the media was seized by a mass psychosis that hadn't been witnessed since Beatlemania. OK! magazine raved that the Obamas "are such an all-American family that they almost make the Brady Bunch look dysfunctional." Yes, who can forget the madcap episode when the Bradys' wacky preacher tells them the government created AIDS to kill blacks!

Still gushing, OK! magazine's crack journalists reported: "Mom goes to bake sales, dad balances the checkbook, and the girls love Harry Potter" -- and then the whole family goes to a racist huckster who shouts, "God damn America!"

Months before network anchors were interrogating vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on the intricacies of foreign policy, here is how NBC's Brian Williams mercilessly grilled presidential candidate Barack Obama: "What was it like for you last night, the part we couldn't see, the flight to St. Paul with your wife, knowing what was awaiting?"

Twisting the knife he had just plunged into Obama, Williams followed up with what has come to be known as a "gotcha" question: "And you had to be thinking of your mother and your father." Sarah Palin was memorizing the last six kings of Swaziland for her media interviews, but Obama only needed to say something nice about his parents to be considered presidential material.

The media's fawning over Obama knew no bounds, and yet, in the midst of the most incredible media conspiracy to turn this jug-eared clodhopper into some combination of Winston Churchill and a young Elvis, you were being a bore if you mentioned the liberal media. Oh surely we've exploded that old chestnut. ... Look! Look, Obama just lit up another Marlboro! Geez, does smoking make you look cool, or what! Yeah, Obama!.

The claim that there's no such thing as a left wing press is a patent lie said to enrage conservatives. Newspapers read like the press under Kim Jung Il, which, outside of a police state, looks foolish. The prose is straight out of The Daily Worker, full of triumphal rhetoric with implicit exclamation points. Still, their chanted slogans fill your brain, like one of those bad songs you can't stop humming.

There is no other explanation for the embarrassing paeans to Obama's "eloquence." His speeches were a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark card bromides. It seemed only a matter of time before Obama would slip and tell a crowd what a special Dad it had always been to him.

The major theme of Obama's campaign was the audacity of his running for president. He titled his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, "The Audacity of Hope" –- named after a sermon given by his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, whom we were not allowed to mention without being accused of playing dirty tricks. (Rejected speech titles from sermons by Rev. Wright included "God Damn America!," "The U.S. of K.K.A." and "The Racist United States of America.")

What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Every U.S. Senator has run for president or is currently thinking about running for president. Dennis Kucinich ran for president. Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly.

But the media were giddy over their latest crush. Even when Obama broke a pledge and rejected public financing for his campaign -- an issue more dear to The New York Times than even gay marriage -- the Times led the article on Obama's broken pledge with his excuse. "Citing the specter of attacks from independent groups on the right," the Times article began, "Sen. Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election."

So he had to break his pledge because he was a victim of the Republican Attack Machine.

When Obama broke his word and voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill (FISA), the Times' editorial began: We are shocked and dismayed by Sen. Obama's vote on ... oh, who are we kidding? We can't stay mad at this guy! Isn't he just adorable? Couldn't you just eat him up with a spoon? Is he looking at me? Ohmigod, I think he's looking at me!!!! Couldn't you just die?

It has ever been thus.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

296

boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Jan 08, 2009, 11:38

What has the world come too, I actually sorta agree with a Coulter Piece.

297

astade
ID: 191134222
Mon, Jan 19, 2009, 21:17

I contemplated putting this into the "Is There Really Liberal Media Bias?" thread, but I believe it belongs here:

Ann Coulter on SNL

299

klaus
ID: 5156316
Tue, Feb 03, 2009, 17:56

MJZsFN h1! oxyumelno!

300

Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319
Wed, Feb 25, 2009, 10:09

Considering the media coverage Coulter received for "Guilty" as well as the performance of some of her earlier books, "Guilty" can be considered an extreme disappointment.

Yes, it debuted at #2 on the NY Times bestseller list 5 weeks ago, but has fallen every week since.
Keep in mind that the NY Times list includes sales figures of the thousands of free copies distributed by subscribing to Townhall magazine.

This campaign has been going on since early December, so the first week sales figures for the week of 1/5 - 1/12 are artificially inflated.

In terms of real sales, a better barometer is Amazon.com. "Guilty" debuted at #16, fell into the mid 20s for two weeks, then the 60s, the 80s and fell out of the top 100 after 5 weeks.

Granted, the Amazon list contains all books sold, but in Coulter's 1.29 column she referred to the book as a rocketing bestseller.

That description would apply to Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell, released in November, Currently #9 in

Amazon.com's top 100 bestsellers and currently #2 on the NY Times non-fiction list after more than a month at #1.

As for Never never trust a liberal meme, this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, it has to do with business and real numbers.
The only person claiming this book is a rocketing bestseller is the author. Never trust a self-serving media whore.

301

Baldwin
ID: 9123198
Wed, Feb 25, 2009, 16:04

That book is #8 in it's NYT category of hardback non-fiction.

Her book is dragging Townhall subscriptions up, not the other way around. Perhaps you actually believe she needs to include free Townhall magazine subs with the sale of her book...as if.

302

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Mar 01, 2009, 09:38

Ann Coulter At CPAC

303

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 19:12

ARE 'HOPE' AND 'CHANGE' STILL TAX-DEDUCTIBLE?
March 11, 2009

Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollar spending bill by raising taxes on "the rich." I know, I know ... I was pretty shocked, too.

The bad news is, by hiking taxes in a recession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there's good news, too. The "rich" include most of Obama's biggest supporters!

While liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don't want talked about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.

No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they're giving up the poor's mantle of angry self-righteousness. This is especially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or the taxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.

Democrats' claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.

At the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" -- which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as "working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for $300,000 a year."

Seriously, even with a company car, full medical benefits and six weeks' paid vacation thrown in, how do people live on that?

Meanwhile, the average salary for a lawyer with 20 years or more experience in the U.S. is a little more than $100,000. If Michelle Obama doesn't lay off all this "giving back" stuff pretty soon, she's going to find herself in Warren Buffett's tax bracket.

During the campaign, Joe Biden was also praised by the Democrats for being the poorest U.S. senator -- as if that were a major accomplishment.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, touted Biden as "a good example of a working-class kid," adding that, to this day, Biden was "one of the least wealthy members of the U.S. Senate." Only a Democrat would list "never really made anything of myself" on his resume.

On the Huffington Post, operated by a woman who acquired her wealth by marrying a rich gay guy connected to Big Oil, liberal blogger Steven Clemons gloated that, unlike John McCain, Biden wouldn't "forget the number of houses he owns," adding that, in 2006, Biden was ranked the poorest U.S. senator.

And at his high school reunion Biden was voted "most likely to try to bum a ride off of somebody." Vote Biden!

According to tax returns for Biden and his public schoolteacher wife, in 2006, their total income was $248,459; in 2007, it was $319,853 -- putting the couple in the top 1 percent of all earners in the U..S.

This, my friends, is the face of poverty in America. At least in the Democratic Party. It's located just below that row of hair plugs. The Bidens are yet another heart-rending example of America's "hidden poor" -- desperately needy families hidden behind annual incomes of a quarter million dollars or more paid by the taxpayer. My fellow Americans, we can do better.

The national median household income was $48,201 in 2006 and $50,233 in 2007. Working for the government pays well.

If liberals are going to show how in touch they are with normal Americans by demanding a Marxist revolution against the rich every time they control the government, how about taking a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the little guy?

According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

304

Taxman
ID: 3985420
Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 20:15

And what's the point Ann. The tax increase on high income taxpayers will be assessed against conservatives and liberals, the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and those w/ political affiliation.

How does this turn into a catastrophy? Just because you say so? Mindless gibberish. T Boone Pickering gifts to his alma mater doesn't help alleviate conditions suffered by the poor and disadvantaged. What charities did Herr Cheney give to. Possibly a charitable foundation he and family control and will receive management payments for in future years.

Article is a good example of mindless fact "cherry picking". If Obama makes so much more money, doesn't this mean Obama will be paying more income tax than the disadvantaged Bush and Cheney.

305

Baldwin
ID: 10258919
Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 20:35

OMG, taxman, what would ever convince you? Every last Obama appointee being a tax cheat? Tax cheat Charles Rangel, head of the Ways and Means committee, promising to ctack down on tax cheats? It doesn't strike you as odd that he is in charge of making sure other people pay their taxes?

Dude, let the truth sink in. Dems have no intention of helping people with their own money, only with money they stole from other people Robbinhood style.

306

Baldwin
ID: 10258919
Thu, Mar 12, 2009, 20:41

When I discovered [was being sold] the most brazen tax avoidance scheme in the book, living trusts, it was explained to me that this was how the Kennedy fortune had been preserved. Something so brazen no one but the connected power elite would even dare use to the full.

307

Taxman
ID: 3985420
Fri, Mar 13, 2009, 14:59

re 305 and 306

Do you not have any pride? Can you not give reference to your rants? "it was explained to me" totally lacks veracity. How about a real cite. Again..you overstate "Every last Obama appointee being a tax cheat?" and, like Coulter, you make an all encompassing statement without a reference.

Yep, some of them there appointees owed addittional taxes after IRS scrutiny. Having been a tax lawyer for 30 years..let me tell ya...that ain't no surprise. Virtually every return filed on other than a 1040A will likely be adjusted during an IRS audit. In my career and with over 3oo audits suffered through, I can't remember any that didn't result in additional taxes owed. These tarnished appointees make a lot of money, thus the adjustments seem large, but the relativity (what % is the change) is unknown and leaves us in a vacumn.

Let's be truthfull, as a tax professional, my job was to take every interpretation in favor of taxpayer that did not constitute criminal fraud (see..you can get more money, you can't get more time). If I hung my clients out there exposed to additional assessments were they to get audited, I damn well explained it and why and what I thought chances of success was. Knowing they were to go through the scrutiny, these poor souls had not been advised by their tax preparers of the potential holes in their respective tax returns.

Difference now is, this administration discloses it's screw ups, as opposed to the last, which didn't.

Back to my point...what is Coulter's point (and your point for that matter). Are you saying that IRS will know a tax filer's party or failure to support non ultra-right wing agendas and thus assess more taxes than those not meeting that criteria. What a load of BS.

308

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Fri, Mar 13, 2009, 16:45

Are you saying that IRS will know a tax filer's party or failure to support non ultra-right wing agendas and thus assess more taxes than those not meeting that criteria. What a load of BS.

You assume they're altering the back end of the taxation process and not the front. It is the other way around.

309

Baldwin
ID: 10258919
Fri, Mar 13, 2009, 22:37

Taxman

"it was explained to me" totally lacks veracity

Oh the thousand or so I lost was real when the government shut them down.

If I ever had anything from them to show you, I don't what it would have been. "Come into the backroom of the site where the real secrets to wealth will be revealed".

There are actually such a thing as living trusts but I'd be afraid to use them to any significant extent. Nothing I couldn't afford to be disallowed.

And you are not going to disallow hyperbole from the board. There have been an amazing number tax cheats nominated for such a public spirited bunch of happy ~~givers~~ redistributors. This is undeniable. This is well deserving of sarcasm and hyperbole.

What's Ann saying? You can't figure that out?

That liberals don't really believe in giving. They think charity is stealing money and handing it out.

310

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 10:56

GORDON GEKKO IS A DEMOCRAT
March 25, 2009

How did Republicans get saddled with Wall Street? Obama just got the biggest campaign haul from Wall Street in world history, and Republicans still can't shake the public perception that they are tied at the hip to Wall Street bankers who hate them.

It's as if National Rifle Association members conspired with Republicans to bankrupt the country and everyone blamed the Democrats for being shills of the NRA.

Maybe if the financial capital of the nation were located in Salt Lake City, rather than Manhattan, the financial community would support Republicans. But Wall Street is a street located in New York City.

No one in the top echelons of the financial industry who has a weekend place in the Hamptons is a Republican.

No, there is one. Teddy Forstmann. He has to throw his own parties and fly guests in. Otherwise, if they want to go to any half-decent parties, bankers must be Democrats. At their income bracket, multimillionaires will trade a little extra tax money for good cocktail parties.

Even the "Republicans" on Wall Street don't care about national defense or social issues. They just want to trade with China and hire illegal aliens.

Last September, The New York Times reported that individuals associated with the securities and investment industry had given $9.9 million to the Obama campaign, $7.4 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign and only $6.9 million to the McCain campaign. Either they're all Democrats or some commodity named "hope" was going through the roof last year.

Employees of Lehman Bros. alone gave Obama $370,000, compared to about $117,000 to McCain. (No wonder Bush let them go under.)

According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records by the Center for Responsive Politics, the top three corporate employers of donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan. Six other financial giants were in the top 30 donors to the White House Dream Team: UBS AG, Lehman Bros., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse Group.

Since 1998, the financial sector has given a total of $37.6 million to Obama, compared to $32.1 million to McCain. But Obama ran for his first national office only in 2004. So McCain got less from the financial industry in a decade that included two runs for president than Obama did in four years.

As we've seen in recent weeks, Wall Street gets what it pays for. Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd included language in the stimulus bill allowing executives of the bailed-out banks to collect million-dollar bonuses.

And yet the Democrats' endless favors for their Wall Street friends never sticks to them because everyone treats Democrats' shilling for their own contributors as if it's a Nixon-goes-to-China moment.

On the March 23 edition of MSNBC's "Hardball," The Nation's David Corn said: "Remember -- What was it? A year or two back when there was talk about taxing hedge fund managers at the rate that the rest of us pay? Who intervened in that? Chuck Schumer."

But Corn then quickly added that this "got a lot of Democrats really mad. Here was a Democrat, you know, getting in the way of a populist issue at a time when the economy was already heading in the wrong direction."

Which Democrats got "really mad"? Chris Dodd? George Soros? Warren Buffett? Jon Corzine? Tim Geithner? Roger Altman? Bob Rubin? Jamie Dimon? Lloyd Blankfein?

Corn's formulation was wonderfully subtle: Admit that a Democrat preserved a sweetheart deal for hedge fund managers -- but then claim that his fellow Democrats were furious with him.

People are more likely to believe something if they think they came to it themselves. Hearing a liberal muse on TV that it was an aberration for Chuck Schumer to intervene to protect hedge fund managers -- risking the wrath of other Democrats -- the average person thinks: So Democrats must be the party of the people. I always thought George Soros was a Democrat, but he must be a Republican.

Democrats take care of the financial industry -- and the financial industry takes care of Democrats. After honing his financial skills as the bagman for Bill Clinton's White House, Rahm Emanuel was hired by the investment bank Wasserstein Perella, where he worked for 2 1/2 years.

For that, Emanuel was paid more than $18 million. (Maybe Rahm Emanuel was the Democrat livid at Schumer for preserving a sweet tax deal for hedge fund managers!)

Democrats have a beautiful system: They're showered with Wall Street money, but they also get to pillory Republicans for being the party of "Wall Street." The bankers don't care if Democrats attack them. They still get their bailout money.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

311

Tree
ID: 61411921
Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 12:45

i'm still wondering when someone is going to find the answer posed in this thread's title, because lord knows it's not contained anywhere within.

312

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 13:00

Then you should be able to refute her points.

313

Pancho Villa
ID: 02372521
Thu, Mar 26, 2009, 18:52

America refutes Coulter

314

Boldwin
ID: 392192513
Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 05:11

Do you really think that link has any merit. PV?

What goes thru your mind when you read the disclaimer therein, 'While that number far surpasses most politically themed books'?

That isn't any different than liberals who have been spying Rush's imminent fall from atop the broadcast hill forever.

It's just wishful thinking.

It is an attempt at self-fulfilling prophecy, 'if only we can convince enuff people it might be happening, it might actually happen'.

It isn't any more true than Newsweek publishing the headline, 'We're all socialists now'. They really really wish it were so, and they hope they can make the meme stick, but there isn't an iota of truthful substance to it.

315

Pancho Villa
ID: 02372521
Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 15:18

Related to the ongoing discussion in the Postmodernism for the masses thread.

Coulter on Fox News' Glenn Beck Show last night

"...the Democrats. Oh, no. They have a Nazi collaborator, literally, international financier George Soros funding their phony grassroots organizations."

Literally, which according to Dictionary.com means "actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy" obviously doesn't apply here, since the statement if based on exaggeration and inaccuracy.

We know that Coulter has no shame, but what about fair and balanced Fox News? Will they stand up and do the right thing like KSFO radio in San Francisco?

During the February 26 broadcast, Program Director Ken Berry retracted their remarks:

BERRY: During our February 8th broadcast, the hosts of this program mistakenly stated that financier George Soros "cheerfully" and "willingly" went to work for the Nazis after his native Hungary was occupied during World War II, when Mr. Soros was 13 years old. The hosts also mistakenly stated that Mr. Soros "ran around Hungary with Nazi officials, serving eviction notices to people who were going to be shipped out on the death trains," and that he did so "to further his own career." These statements are not accurate, and KSFO regrets that they were broadcast.

Of course, Coulter doesn't work for Fox(it just seems like it), but Glenn Beck does. Maybe next week we can hear Coulter call the current Pope a Nazi collaborator, which would be much closer to the truth.

316

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 18:41

At least nobody around here would stoop so low as to make an exaggeration such as claiming Soros collaborated with the Nazis in Hungary.

317

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 19:40

Do you actually know what he did during WWII? Don't go making any bar room bets on that issue.

318

Perm Dude
ID: 312102714
Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 20:08

Baldwin's been reduced to: "Prove he wasn't a Nazi collaborator!!"

See what happens when you combine an unerring religious literalism with a soul-less PINO?

319

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 20:14

I asked him to check the facts for himself because he is wrong on that.

I've seen people who know, try and make situation ethics excuses for him, but he did indeed collaborate.

320

Pancho Villa
ID: 02372521
Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 20:34

he did indeed collaborate.

You make up definitions when it suits your agenda.

Calling Soros a Nazi collaborator is like calling a 13 year old girl raped by an adult a sexual collaborator.

321

Pancho Villa
ID: 02372521
Fri, Mar 27, 2009, 21:10

Do you actually know what he did during WWII?

Do you? Where did you get your info?

David Horowitz? He's the one who's most often credited with the claim. When responding to Media Matters claim that he was misleading in his book, "The Shadow Party", Horowitz responds:

Similarly MediaMatters’ commentary leaves a reader with the impression that we present Soros as having an affinity for Nazism or as actually having been a Nazi. In fact, we say nothing of the kind. Our focus in this passage is on Soros’ strategy of assimilation in connection with his identity as a Jew. Soros himself explains (as we quote him in our text) “I come from an assimilationist family.” He makes this statement in the context of discussing his Jewish identity. His father changed the family name from Schwartz to Soros in 1936. The family was living in fascist Hungary. Not very many Jews survived the Nazi era in Hungary. The full quote from our book referred to (doctored?) by MediaMatters is “Soros survived by assimilating to Nazism.” In fact, by Soros’ own account given during an interview on a public television program and again in a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Soros came under the protection of an official in the Nazi government of Hungary: “I was adopted by an official of the ministry of agriculture, whose job was to take over Jewish properties, so I actually went with him and we took possession of these large estates. That was my identity.” We do not say – as the MediaMatters snippet implies -- that Soros was a Nazi or approved of Nazism, and we note that he was only 14 years old at the time, which also would exculpate him from any charge like that. Our purpose was to discuss his lifelong strategy of assimilation as a Jew. This purpose is very clear in our text, yet MediaMatters deliberately misreads it in order to falsely claim that we misrepresent and “doctor” quotes.

Where is the word collaborate? Where are the accusations of collaboration? What Nazi officials did he collaborate with? Soros haters who researched to the end of the Earth to dig up every bit of dirt on him that they could don't claim he collaborated with Nazis.

But Ann Coulter does't just say he collaborated with Nazis, he literally did, as if to remove the obvious exaggeration in her plunge into dishonesty.

And Baldwin laps it up, and, as if he's the ultimate seer of all real knowledge, asks,

Do you actually know what he did during WWII?

as if only he and Ann really do.

322

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 03:33

Well he once handed out notes designed to trick Jews into reporting for deportation to concentration camps and was sent by his father to be raised by a German official whose job it was to confiscate Jewish property.

Not exactly Anne Frank.

323

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 03:47

Extended quotation from the 60 Minutes transcript follows:

When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)

KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros' friends and neighbors.

(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew...

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

KROFT: (Voiceover) ...who escaped the Holocaust...

(Vintage footage of women walking by train)

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

(Vintage footage of people getting on train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) ...by--by posing as a Christian.

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.

(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)

KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.

KROFT: In what way?

Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and--and anticipate events and when--when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a--a very personal experience of evil.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not--not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't--you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c--I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was--well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets--that if I weren't there--of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would--would--would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the--I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt. (George Soros, 60 Minutes interview transcript, December 20, 1998)

Wait for it...

Now is the time PV pats me on the head and tells me Soros is a biased source with respect to Soros.

324

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 03:57

PV

Please make your apology to Ann and myself proportional to your sneering in your last five posts.

325

tree on the treo
ID: 55220277
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 08:58

what a weird post by baldwin.

you just completely confirmed everything PV was saying, and you're acting like a sad little puppy who wants a treat despite peeing all over the floor.

I don't see any evidence that soros was a nazi collaborator, even in the words you used to attempt to prove he was.

so weird, but I guess your god complex allows you to judge all.

326

Pancho Villa
ID: 02372521
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 09:11

he once handed out notes designed to trick Jews into reporting for deportation to concentration camps - unsourced

I thoroughly went through the 60 minutes interview before you posted it, as it is a major component of Horowitz's response to Media Matters, as posted by me in #321:

“Soros survived by assimilating to Nazism.” In fact, by Soros’ own account given during an interview on a public television program and again in a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Soros came under the protection of an official in the Nazi government of Hungary: “I was adopted by an official of the ministry of agriculture, whose job was to take over Jewish properties, so I actually went with him and we took possession of these large estates. That was my identity.”

The evidence we have shows that Soros' protector collaborated with the Nazis. Keep in mind that Soros didn't seek this man out and ask him to provide protection for him during this chaotic time. Soros father did. So there was no collaboration between Soros and his protector.
And there is no evidence that Soros met with Nazi officials and collaborated with them.
The evidence shows that Soros accompanied his Nazi collaborator protector in the seizure of Jewish estates. Soros didn't instigate these seizures. He didn't seek out Nazi officials(and they didn't seek him out) with information that identified these people and their properties.

Soros admits to accompanying his protector on these seizures as part of his identity, an identity that was arranged for him, not that he instigated.

Now is the time PV pats me on the head and tells me Soros is a biased source with respect to Soros.

Now is the time where I ask you to highlight the part in that interview where Soros admits to being a Nazi collaborator, as opposed to what Soros actually says - "I was only a spectator"

Soros was a child thrust into a situation which neither you, Ann Coulter, nor I will ever be able to comprehend. You seem to think that because Soros is an evil person, you can make any unsubstantiated claim you want, since it's more important to make the Democrats/Nazi connection and smugly claim moral high ground, than to honestly present facts.

When Coulter tells a national TV audience

They have a Nazi collaborator, literally, international financier George Soros funding their phony grassroots organizations"

what's the agenda? Democrats=Nazis.

You and Ann should be ashamed instead of calling for me to apologize. You'll abandon ethics in a second if you think it will advance your partisan positions.

327

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 16:38

OMG you are shameless, PV. His argument would exhonerate a concentration camp executioner. 'Well someone else would have done it if I hadn't so it was almost as if I was just a spectator'.

I clearly stated in #319 that some would make a situational ethics excuse for what he did, but there is no denying what he himself, his body, his hands, his brain, objectively did, which was collaborate and participate in the extermination and expropriation of the Jews.

328

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 17:28

Baldwin - had you been in a position of influence at Nuremberg, what would you have recommended as punishment for this war criminal? Anything less than hanging?

329

Pancho Villa
ID: 20234289
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 21:50

there is no denying what he himself, his body, his hands, his brain, objectively did, which was collaborate and participate in the extermination and expropriation of the Jews.

Well, you obviously don't know the meaning of collaborate, so what's the use of continuing the conversation?

330

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 23:07

It had a negative spiritual effect on him. He took a wrong lesson from the experience. And now whole nations suffer from it.

331

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Sat, Mar 28, 2009, 23:13

Nazi asks you to fool jews into reporting for deportation to death camp. You do it. But that's not collaborating in your mind. What pray tell would he have had to do to collaborate short of dropping the gas canister?

332

Perm Dude
ID: 172582810
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 00:41

Baldwin continues to use the edited 60 Minutes transcript upon which to build his house of cards.

Stop with the lies. Really. Just stop.

333

Pancho Villa
ID: 20234289
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 03:52

OMG you are shameless, PV. His argument would exhonerate a concentration camp executioner

I'm shameless? You elevate Soros to the level of death camp executioner, but I'm shameless? WOW!

Nazi asks you to fool jews into reporting for deportation to death camp. You do it.

You've provided no evidence to support that claim, Just like your unsourced accusation earlier

he once handed out notes designed to trick Jews into reporting for deportation to concentration camps

But I'm shameless.

Even tough radio station KSFO publicly issued a retraction that

During our February 8th broadcast, the hosts of this program mistakenly stated that financier George Soros "cheerfully" and "willingly" went to work for the Nazis after his native Hungary was occupied during World War II, when Mr. Soros was 13 years old. The hosts also mistakenly stated that Mr. Soros "ran around Hungary with Nazi officials, serving eviction notices to people who were going to be shipped out on the death trains," and that he did so "to further his own career." These statements are not accurate, and KSFO regrets that they were broadcast.

But I'm shameless.

Good luck with that shall not bear false witness thing.

334

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 04:08

From PD's link with no edits in between.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

No sneaky edits...open and shut case. It's a natural fact.

You won't even take Soros' own words as acceptible evidence.

It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a -- a very personal experience of evil. - Soros

Hell yeah it was. It doesn't get any more personal than doing the evil yourself.

335

Pancho Villa
ID: 20234289
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 04:46

helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews

Let's put aside for a moment that you've claimed
that

Nazi asks you to fool jews into reporting for deportation to death camp. You do it.

and

he once handed out notes designed to trick Jews into reporting for deportation to concentration camps

Evidently you've abandoned those claims and have retreated to the one statement in the 60 minutes interview where he admits to helping in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
So the question becomes, does this 'help'(undefined)rise to the level of
collaboration and in a literal sense?

Since the Second World War the term "Collaboration" acquired a very negative meaning as referring to persons and groups which help a foreign occupier of their country—due to actual use by people in European countries who worked with and for the Nazi German occupiers. Linguistically, "collaboration" implies more or less equal partners who work together—which is obviously not the case when one party is an army of occupation and the other are people of the occupied country living under the power of this army.
In order to make a distinction, the more specific term "Collaborationism" is often used for this phenomenon of collaboration with an occupying army. However, there is no water-tight distinction; "Collaboration" and "Collaborator", as well as "Collaborationism" and "Collaborationist", are often used in this pejorative sense—and even more so, the equivalent terms in French and other languages spoken in countries which experienced direct Nazi occupation.

There was no equal partnership between 14 year old Soros and the Nazis or his 'godfather'. There was no partnership at all. There was a young boy whose identity(in order to stay alive and instigated by his father)required him to accompany his godfather on these seizures.

There was no collaboration in a linguistic or classical sense. And since there's no water-tight distinction, claiming it's literal is further dishonesty, especially as it relates to a child under adult supervision and protection.

Coulter distorts the word and Baldwin defends it. Case closed.

336

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 05:39

I used the term in exactly the same way as everyone else who uses the term with respect to WWII.

Are you angling for a grant from Open Society?

Is an apology that painful for you?

Are you Soros' love child? What's the deal?

337

Perm Dude
ID: 172582810
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 11:05

Do you really have to be led to it, Baldwin? What, exactly, did Soros do? Exactly?

338

Perm Dude
ID: 172582810
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 11:07

Save me a little time. Is the part about "bearing false witness" removed from the JW Bible?

339

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 13:11

PD - The problem you and Poncho have is that you don't KNOW what has motivated Soros all his life, and you surely don't KNOW what affects him spiritually. Were you lucky enough to have this knowledge, maybe you would realize that Soros was a war criminal and is desirous of ruling the world as a surrogate of Satan.

340

Tree
ID: 61411921
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 13:23

this whole conversation from Baldwin's end is so disgusting. his hatred is so blind, so encompassing, he's more than willing to condemn a 14 year old child as a nazi collaborator because of the actions of the man who "adopted" him.

it's disgusting Baldwin, and it whittles away significantly at any credit you may have left here.

i'm sorry, but it needs to be called out. to call someone a nazi collaborator is a big deal. and it's something that really should have some completely documented facts with it, not a snippet of an interview of a man who says, "yes, as a child, i accompanied my adopted father on his rounds as he sent people to their deaths."

it's just so vile and gross that your hatred allows to cling to this as some proof, and i shudder to think what lengths you would go to to condemn your rivals, and that you apparently would be more than comfortable to send someone to their own death because of your opinions of them as a person, and nothing more.

341

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 14:46

i'm sorry, but it needs to be called out. to call someone a nazi collaborator is a big deal. and it's something that really should have some completely documented facts with it

Why should he? You call him a racist without documented facts. Try telling me that calling someone a racist isn't a big deal.

342

Pancho Villa
ID: 242522912
Sun, Mar 29, 2009, 14:57

I don't blame Baldwin. He's hardwired to believe and defend anything Ann Coulter says or does.
But the irony abounds.

In this country, a 14 year old is held blameless if he/she has sex with an adult, even if he/she is cooperative and willing, because a 14 year old is too young to give consent. The penalties for the adult increase if they're in a position of trust, such as a teacher, coach, counselor, guardian or 'protector.'

One also has to consider what the alternative would have been had Soros not cooperated with the seizures. And one has to question the willingness of Soros' participation, since he didn't volunteer. He was basically forced to participate.

These elements must be brought into any discussion of Soros as a Nazi collaborator, but when Ann Coulter says,

" They have a Nazi collaborator, literally, international financier George Soros funding their phony grassroots organizations."

on national TV, she knows there will be no discussion of these crucial elements, it's said and gone and left to the Baldwins of the world to abandon any pretense of fairness, because, after all, this is George Soros, the man who is free game to say anything about, true or not.

In the Kroft interview,
Soros claims,

"I had no role in taking away that property."

Yet that translates into:

Soros helped his Uncle load Jews on Nazi death trains there is nothing too low for that man to be involved in

link

George Soros, a Jew who proudly worked for the Nazis rounding up Jews and sending then to their deaths right wing pundit Debbie Schlussel

There's really too many to list, but I was hoping and prodding Baldwin to source his:

Nazi asks you to fool jews into reporting for deportation to death camp. You do it.

and

he once handed out notes designed to trick Jews into reporting for deportation to concentration camps

It appears even Baldwin is too embarrassed to admit that his source is convicted felon, perennial Presidential candidate and all-around fruitcake
Lyndon LaRouche.

As a young man[young man? Soros was 13 at the time], in Budapest, George Soros was a courier for the Jewish Council, the Nazi-established and Nazi-run organization that ran the Jewish community. The Jewish Council was ultimately controlled by Adolf Eichmann, the man known as the "architect of the Holocaust," who was in charge of the mass deportation of the Jews of Poland and Hungary to the extermination camps.

The smoking gun of collaboration?

Soros was thirteen years old in March 1944 when Nazi Germany took military control over Hungary[8]. Soros worked for the Jewish Council for two days[5], which had been established during the Nazi occupation of Hungary to forcibly carry out Nazi and Hungarian government anti-Jewish measures. Soros later described this time to writer Michael Lewis:

The Jewish Council asked the little kids to hand out the deportation notices. I was told to go to the Jewish Council. And there I was given these small slips of paper...It said report to the rabbi seminary at 9 a.m....And I was given this list of names. I took this piece of paper to my father. He instantly recognized it. This was a list of Hungarian Jewish lawyers. He said, "You deliver the slips of paper and tell the people that if they report they will be deported.[9]

There's no evidence that, in those two days, he ever delivered even one letter, with or without his father's warning.

It's cute how Baldwin tries to turn this around on me.

Are you angling for a grant from Open Society?

Is an apology that painful for you?

Are you Soros' love child? What's the deal?

What's the deal? It sounds like you've been hanging out with my 14 year old, since that's about the level of maturity she usually displays. But she's more honest.

link

343

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 12:13

There is more than enuff if Soros' biography and in his own words in his own interview to justify calling him a nazi war collaborator. It's an open and shut case.

If you want to make a situational ethics free pass for him doing so, that's one thing. To call me a liar for pointing out the undeniable objective truth is quite another.

That you would be so desperate to wiggle out of your shameless position as to redefine war collaborator so strangely that only Hirohito, and Mussolini would qualify for the title shows just how lame your attack on Ann and myself was.

344

Razor
ID: 371502414
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 12:15

Would you care to share excerpts from these interviews and biography?

345

Perm Dude
ID: 172472916
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 12:20

Good luck with that, Baldwin.

Razor: It is terribly important to Baldwin and others on the fringe Right to have their devils upon which to blame everything. It comes from their deep immersion into endtimes theology, in which literally everything it viewed through the lens of their interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

Without someone to blame or demonize, Baldwin and others like him would feel unmoored since they've chosen to disconnect themselves from the rest of the Bible.

346

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 12:21

Give him a few minutes while he makes stuff up.

347

Tree
ID: 61411921
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 12:23

There is more than enuff if Soros' biography and in his own words in his own interview to justify calling him a nazi war collaborator. It's an open and shut case.

If you want to make a situational ethics free pass for him doing so, that's one thing. To call me a liar for pointing out the undeniable objective truth is quite another.

it's not situational ethics. it's called being a child.

i realize that in your eyes, someone you disagree with is guilty of anything you want them to be, and you'll shout it from the hills until you're blue in the face, no matter how wrong you are.

your attitude here is disgusting, and it shows the lengths you'll go to to discredit someone.

348

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 12:51

i realize that in your eyes, someone you disagree with is guilty of anything you want them to be, and you'll shout it from the hills until you're blue in the face, no matter how wrong you are.

your attitude here is disgusting, and it shows the lengths you'll go to to discredit someone.

Sounds a lot like the rants DWetzel goes on. At least we agree on something Tree.

349

DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 13:05

Waah. Want a hankie?

350

Pancho Villa
ID: 242522912
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 15:07

That you would be so desperate to wiggle out of your shameless position as to redefine war collaborator so strangely that only Hirohito, and Mussolini would qualify for the title shows just how lame your attack on Ann and myself was.

Hirohito? Mussolini? And I'm desperate and lame?

You're the one who claimed

Nazi asks you to fool jews into reporting for deportation to death camp. You do it.

and

he once handed out notes designed to trick Jews into reporting for deportation to concentration camps

I even had to source it for you AND debunk it for you yet I'm shameless for calling you on your false claims.

You need psychiatric help.

351

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 17:47

I was called in by the Jewish Council [at age 13] to serve as a runner. I was given little slips of paper, which were addressed to four or five people. They were requested to report to the rabbinical seminary with food and a blanket. I went home to my father, and he saw that it was a list of Jewish lawyers who were being summoned for deportation. My father was also a lawyer. So, he told me to deliver the notes but tell the people that if they followed the order, they would be deported. So I delivered them. And there was one lawyer who said, ‘I’ve been a law-abiding citizen all my life. As long as I follow orders, they can’t do anything to me.’ And he reported. And those who reported were deported.

- Quote from George Soros' autobiography which was excerpted in 'Foreign Policy' which is...

Founded in 1970 by Samuel Huntington and Warren Demian Manshel, and now published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC, in Washington, D.C., FOREIGN POLICY is the premier, award-winning magazine of global politics, economics, and ideas. Our mission is to explain how the world works—in particular, how the process of globalization is reshaping nations, institutions, cultures, and, more fundamentally, our daily lives.

And now liberasls are so weak in the knees that they dare not read George Soros' own words if they learn that Lyndon LaRouche has read them!!! I demand Lyndon LaRouche stop reading at once!

352

dwetzel on BB
ID: 590182120
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 17:59

Oh, he used THREE exclamation points. That must make his nonsensical ramblings more meaningful.

Seriously, thanks for removing whatever tiny shred of dignity you thought you might have had.

353

Pancho Villa
ID: 30203016
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 18:18

So, he told me to deliver the notes but tell the people that if they followed the order, they would be deported.

So, leaving out the all-important part that he alerted the lawyers to the trickery(by his father's instructions) is inconsequential to you, because it completely explodes your entire premise.

Thanks for playing.

354

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 18:52

In truth I didn't catch that because he was working for an organization deporting Jews and I assumed this was during the period where his 'father' would have been a nazi foster father actively persecuting Jews.

Nevertheless, he working for an organization tricking jews into reporting to be taken to concentration camps isn't the stuff profiles in courage are made of.

Collaborators are people who work for the enemy to save their own skin or profit. He still qualifies. Stay away from 14 yr olds like that.

355

Pancho Villa
ID: 30203016
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 19:16

IOW, he collaborated with his father against the Nazis.

And, you're interpretation of 'working for an organization' runs counter to the truth, which you can find in the LaRouche link I posted in #342.

According to Soros' father,

Tivadar Soros described his son George's role. "As Jews couldn't go to school any more and their teachers couldn't teach, they were ordered to report to council headquarters. The children were enlisted as couriers under the command of their teachers. My younger son, George, also became a courier. On the second day, he returned home at seven in the evening.

"'What did you do all day?' 'Mostly nothing. But this afternoon I was given some notices to deliver to various addresses.' 'Did you read what they said?' 'I even brought one home.' He handed me a small slip of paper, with a typewritten message [a summons]. 'Do you know what this means?' I asked him. 'I can guess,' he replied, with great seriousness. 'They'll be interned.'"

Most rational people understand the difference between "working for an organization" and "ordered to report" and "enlisted...under the command."
The same holds true for accompanying his protector on property seizures. He didn't work for the Nazis, and you don't even know to what extent he helped.

But you continue to be a beacon of irrationality in this thread.

356

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 20:21

If everyone under the Nazi jackboot did what George Soros did, would the Nazi movement have been more successful? I don't see how it could've wound up worse for the Nazis.

The same society produced inspirational people like Anne Frank that also produced disgusting people like those who knowingly knocked on the doors of their neighbors so that they'd wind up in cattlecars on their way to the gas chamber or worse.

Not so sure I'd be proud defending Soros on this topic.

357

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 20:22

And you are going to hang your hat on that and ignore him confiscating Jewish property.

358

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 20:28

You are a sick, sick person.

BTW, Anne Frank died in a concentration camp. No doubt you'd wish that on Soros as well, of course, but if the alternative is dying in a concentration camp, there is no alternative.

You can try to weasel around that by calling it "situational ethics". But you are scum for doing so.

359

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 20:31

So where does this slavish loyalty to Soros spring? He delivered Obama for you?

360

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 20:32

He would have been just as happy with McCain in there.

361

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 20:39

I don't particularly care about the guy one way or the other, to be honest.

What's with your slavish loyalty to smear him in any way possible, damn the truth?

362

Pancho Villa
ID: 30203016
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 21:29

Not so sure I'd be proud defending Soros on this topic.

I'm not really defending Soros.
I'm saying that calling him literally a Nazi collaborator, given the entirety of the circumstances is an unfair and exaggerated claim, and one done only to demonize the Democratic Party in 2009.

How easy to be judgemental and make slanderous claims for those of us whose 14th birthday consisted a trip to the amusement park, the zoo or the arcade. Ann Coulter and Baldwin have no clue what it was like in Budapest in 1944 and 1945 when the German Army invaded in March 1944(Soros was 13), and the Red Army invaded in October 1944(Soros turned 14 in August).

They have no idea what it's like to be in such a chaotic circumstance that

On 13 February 1945, the remaining defenders finally surrendered. Budapest lay in ruins, with more than 80 percent of its buildings destroyed or damaged, and historical buildings like the Hungarian Parliament Building and the Castle in ruins. All five bridges spanning the Danube were destroyed.

Some 40,000 civilians were killed, with an unknown number dying from starvation and diseases. Mass rapes of women between ages of 10 and 70 were common.[3] In Budapest alone 50,000 are estimated to have been raped by Red Army and Romanian soldiers.

>ignore him confiscating Jewish property

He didn't confiscate the property. He didn't sit down with the Nazis and decide what to confiscate, and where to put it. He helped his protector under duress and instructions from his father , and to what extent he helped is not clear anywhere I've found, but all you've documented is that admission by Soros. It could be no more than opening a a gate.

If surviving Hungarian Jews wanted to claim Soros was a Nazi collaborator then they would have made that claim. But Ann Coulter, Baldwin and Lyndon LaRouche have no place making that determination, especially since it's only used as polarizing political rhetoric 65 years after the fact.

363

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 21:30

Well said.

364

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 23:14

There you sit in your cubicle erasing history and making sure no one learns from it, just like

All to the glory and preservation of the party.

365

dwetzel on BB
ID: 590182120
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 09:16

You really are insane.

366

Pancho Villa
ID: 30223316
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 09:26

#364 - Nothing in that post applies to me or this discussion.

Why would you post something so incoherent?

367

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 11:30

I'm saying that calling him literally a Nazi collaborator, given the entirety of the circumstances is an unfair and exaggerated claim, and one done only to demonize the Democratic Party in 2009. - PV

I'm saying that Soros was a literal nazi collaborator as a natural fact. His hands did those things. Excuse away but it's an objective fact. It's as undeniable as the sun coming up in the morning.

I'm saying your attempt to erase that fact from the record is one done only to promote and protect the Democratic Party in 2009.

368

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 12:00

Then there's nothing more to discuss. You're wrong.

369

Perm Dude
ID: 4921319
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 12:10

How funny. When asked to prove his charges, Baldwin resorts to saying the same things, just in a more assertive voice.

370

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 12:24

Things like facts don't matter to him any more, so I can't see why you're surprised.

371

Tree
ID: 61411921
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 12:37

IT MUST BE!!!!!!!!! (because i said so...)

372

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 12:52

collaborator

noun
1. someone who assists in a plot [syn: confederate]
2. someone who collaborates with an enemy occupying force
3. an associate in an activity or endeavor or sphere of common interest; "the musician and the librettist were collaborators"; "sexual partners"

373

DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 14:18

Aha! Now I get it. Thanks for clearing it up.

Soros was fornicating with the Nazis, consentually of course (even though he was only 13).

374

Perm Dude
ID: 12283111
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 14:25

There is no evidence that Soros actually did anything. The whole house of cards has already fallen, but the fringe Right keeps picking them off the floor, holding them up saying "AHA! Soros!!"

They sounds more and more like mumbling homeless guys. But their signs aren't as good..

375

Tree
ID: 61411921
Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 14:59

the right keeps getting more and more irrelevant, and keeps bringing the stupid in this thread. amazing.

376

Baldwin
ID: 122332717
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 06:22

Pure projection.

377

Tree
ID: 61411921
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:14

right. last night i hung out with my mom, and two old friends of mine who are about 15 years older than me. lifelong republicans, texas residents for 30+ years. give lots of money to republican and right-wing causes. he earned more money last year than i'll likely see in my life time.

but they get it.

they see the folly of Palin.

they see the absurdity of McCain trying to be Bush instead of himself.

they see the tragedy of Limbaugh leading Republicans to the eve of destruction.

they see hail mary passes like Texas Governor Rick Perry refusing to take stimulus money further separating the GOP from real people.

they get it. unfortunately, people like you don't, and if you continue to speak the loudest, you'll eventually have no one left to listen.

378

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:34

they see the tragedy of Limbaugh leading Republicans to the eve of destruction.

What makes you believe Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party? Because Emmanuel/Bagala/Carville say so?

379

Perm Dude
ID: 4831617
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 14:34

Don't even try, tree. At this point the hard core Right is strictly in denial, and will now start blaming the American voters for their own problems (probably by calling them "stupid").

Let them wander in the wilderness for awhile. The more they speak, the better Democrats look.

380

Tree
ID: 61411921
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 15:41

What makes you believe Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party? Because Emmanuel/Bagala/Carville say so?

i'm not going to spend an eternity debating this point with you, but i'll bet anything he's amongst the most oft-quoted right wingers on any message board, this one or others...

ask Baldwin who he follows more, Limbaugh or the last guy to run for president from the Republican party...

381

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 17:53

i'm not going to spend an eternity debating this point with you, but i'll bet anything he's amongst the most oft-quoted right wingers on any message board, this one or others...

So message board quotes = party leadership status?

382

Tree
ID: 61411921
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:48

So message board quotes = party leadership status?

yes.

383

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 18:54

That's hysterical. That isn't worth a retort.

Boldwin, please wait five minutes so I can grab a bowl of popcorn and a Dr. Pepper before I read your response to what Tree just said. Talk about hanging curveballs down the plate.

384

Tree
ID: 61411921
Wed, Apr 01, 2009, 22:32

exactly.

385

Pancho Villa
ID: 49316117
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 08:52

From Coulter's column this week:

If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure"?

I suppose this is another example of a natural fact, an objective fact, as undeniable as the sun coming up in the morning.

My kids go to public schools. They aren't forced to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads".

Anyone else have kids in public schools? Are any of them forced to do these things?

Didn't think so.

She lies so easily and so often, you could almost call it a pattern.

386

dwetzel on BB
ID: 590182120
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 09:17

What I find most noteworthy is the need to cloak the "enemy" in terms designed to evoke the worst, most hateful emotions in the reader. Nazis, Stalin, an Islamic jihad.

It is a sometimes useful technique, of course, but mostly when you don't feel you can argue the case on its merits.

387

Razor
ID: 371502414
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 09:36

I expect Coulter and Limbaugh to up the vitriol in their rhetoric to keep the ratings up as they become increasingly marginalized.

388

Tree
ID: 61411921
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 11:12

she lies, because the sheep bleat and nod yes.

389

Boldwin
ID: 2033111
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 13:40

PV

It has already happened in some public schools. I'd make a bet with you, that this is so, with you apologizing when I prove you wrong, but we've already seen you don't pay up.

390

bibA
ID: 432273014
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 14:23

It has already happened in some public schools.

Well why don't you just name the schools? Unless you have something to gain from a bet with PV.....but he doesn't pay up anyway.

391

Boldwin
ID: 2033111
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 14:29

Will I get an acknowlegement from you that Ann has a perfectly legitimate point and wasn't lying, when I show you?

392

Perm Dude
ID: 4831617
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 14:33

Just show us where public school students are forced to plan jihads.

393

Boldwin
ID: 2033111
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 15:24

I'm not looking for that which I know I will find because I've already read it, until you slanderers agree to take your slander back when I prove it.

394

dwetzel on BB
ID: 590182120
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 15:47

No fair boldwin. I answered your question. Now you answer mine.

395

Pancho Villa
ID: 5538210
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 16:28

until you slanderers agree to take your slander back when I prove it.

You can't prove it because it's a lie.

Read the statement.

First off, she completely embarrasses herself with the NASCAR claim.

In her April 1 column, Ann Coulter fell for a fake April Fools' Day article by Car and Driver magazine that claimed that President Obama has ordered General Motors and Chrysler to cease their participation in NASCAR because it is an "unnecessary expenditure." Coulter wrote, "If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an 'unnecessary expenditure,' isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan 'jihads' also an 'unnecessary expenditure'?" Car and Driver originally posted an April 1 story online -- since removed -- with the headline, "Obama Orders Chevrolet and Dodge Out Of NASCAR," and the text, "With their racing budgets deemed 'unnecessary expenditures,' GM and Chrysler are ordered to cease racing operations at the end of the season." However, Car and Driver later clarified that the story was an April Fools' Day joke, then removed the story from its website.

HAHAHA!

The Muslim thing in public schools is too ridiculous to even evoke further response.

396

bibA
ID: 432273014
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 18:25

Tell you what Baldwin. I would be willing to visit and confirm your allegations re students being forced to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan jihads if they are geographically realistic. I'm sure that others here will be willing if these schools are within their areas. Then, I for one will agree to give you the acknowlegement you seek.

Just give the names of these public schools and the cities they are in.

397

tree on the treo
ID: 55220277
Thu, Apr 02, 2009, 18:35

wow...baldwin is so cute defending his maiden's honor...

take it back you big meanies!!!

398

bibA
ID: 432273014
Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 12:58

Thought I would check in to ascertain whether Baldwin was willing to name the schools he is aware of that force their students to follow radical Muslim practices.

Possibly he is busy composing a response admitting that he is guilty of using exaggeration and hyperbole when discussing issues that are dear to him.

399

Boldwin
ID: 1234847
Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 14:16

Byron California had a segment where children would [for educational purposes...of course *roll*] actually take the oath that, in the eyes of muslims, makes a person a muslim and are irrevocable on pain of death. They asked their students to make their own jihad plan.

Imagine your child facing a 'reasonable' wahabi muslim imam, and explaining, 'Yeah, I actually took the oath..."In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of Creation, The Compassionate, the Merciful, King of Judgment day! You alone we worship, and to You alone we pray for help, Guide us to the straight path."... but I was only kidding, I'm not actually a muslim'.

Some classes in California demand children simulate a conversion to Islam, recite the Koran, including this prayer of worship to Allah:

"In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of Creation, The Compassionate, the Merciful, King of Judgment day! You alone we worship, and to You alone we pray for help, Guide us to the straight path."

In a letter written to Dr. Daniel Pipes, internationally reknowned expert on militant Islam, a parent from Scottsdale, Arizona wrote of what his seventh grade son had experienced in a unit on Islam.

The school has spent approximately 5 weeks of the third quarter grading period teaching Islam to 12 and 13 year olds. The children had to write a full biography on the life of Muhammad, using the information from the textbook - an extremely indoctrinating exercise. This biography will be a large portion of their grade for the 8 week period. Michael H. Hart's top 100 list of the most influential people in the history of the world was presented to teach that Muhammad was #1, Sir Isaac Newton was #2 and Jesus was #3. The school hosted two professional Muslim speakers, from the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona, to speak to all 7th grade social studies classes. This took one whole day. The Muslim speakers brought prayer rugs and taught the children to pray the Muslim way. I also believe that there were recitations from the Koran and possibly an Islamic "fashion show".

What is most frightening is that this is done with the endorsement of the federal courts. A federal judge, in a case brought by parents, endorsed the right of the school in Byron, CA, to bring in Muslims to “educate” others about Islam in the public schools. The seventh grade students were taught Islamic prayers, and were required to wear Muslim clothing for the lessons and to go without candy for a day to get an idea of what fasting feels like.

The curriculum included 25 Islamic terms that must be memorized, six Islamic (Arabic) phrases, 20 Islamic Proverbs to learn along with the Five Pillars of Faith and 10 key Islamic prophets and disciples to be studied.

World Net Daily reported that U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said Excelsior is not indoctrinating students about Islam when it requires them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah as part of a history and geography class, but rather is just teaching them about the Muslim religion.

Can students simply opt out? In most schools, they do not have that option. US President Bill Clinton said:

“Students generally do not have a Federal right to be excused from lessons that may be inconsistent with their religious beliefs or practices.”

400

Boldwin
ID: 1234847
Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 14:36

How this situation developed.

401

Balrog
Dude
ID: 02856618
Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 15:20

Boldwin's links in [399] and [400] are more self-referential than a Ward Churchill essay.

402

Pancho Villa
ID: 28321321
Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 17:11

#399

I see the problem now.

When Coulter falsely and embarrassingly accused Obama of telling GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," the implication was that Obama also promoted having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure", since it's all one sentence.

There's no evidence of jihad planning, and it's questionable whether students were/are actually forced to participate at certain levels, given the sources cited.

After all, in the Scottsdale letter to Pipes:

I also believe that there were recitations from the Koran and possibly an Islamic "fashion show"

is a perfect example of hearsay.
Regardless, a few isolated incidents in individual school districts does not a federal mandate make(despitr thre Clinton link) which is what Coulter implies.

That said, there is reason for concern, too bad Coulter isn't more honest in her accusations.

For instance, from the link in #399:

in December 2003, attorneys for the New York City schools directed that public school classrooms may display the crescent-and-star symbol of Islam during Ramadan and the Jewish menorah candlestick at Hanukkah. But these same schools were not allowed to display the Nativity scene depicting the birth of Jesus during the Christmas season.

The rationale was that Islamic and Jewish symbols have historic and secular dimensions, but the “suggestion that a creche is a historically accurate representation of an event with secular significance is wholly disingenuous.”

I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than discrimination against Christian traditions.

I also don't see the need to hire a “multicultural trainer”, Afeefa Syeed, during Ramadan unless we're also willing to hire rabbis during Hannukah or Christian pastors during Easter.

Another issue of concern is Afeefa Syeed's consulting with a range of organizations including public school systems in the DC metro area, Simon & Schuster Children's Book Division, the U.S. State Department, and MTV/Nickelodeon Productions since she is the founder and director of an Islamic community school in Herndon, VA.

There would be screams of protest if a Catholic, Mormon or Baptist founder of a religious school were so involved in shaping public education, and rightfully so. Even here in Utah, where the Mormons hold most every position of influence with the school boards, they are sensitive to the philosophy of a secular public school curriculum.

I see no problem with a study of Islam, or any other religion, as part of a social studies or world history curriculum. I can also understand that Muslims want a measured interpretation of their beliefs that aren't influenced by the Islamophobic sensibilities of Daniel Pipes, WND, Neswmax and Ann Coulter.

403

Balrog
Dude
ID: 02856618
Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 18:01

Don't worry Pancho, there's no evidence that anything in the linked articles actually happened. I can't believe that a post-911 Fox News wouldn't have reported this stuff, and yet there are no links. The sources all reference each other, but no one has an original source. The Clinton quote at the end is a complete fabrication by the same sources that are referenced for the other stuff. Even if it were true, Bush could have changed it, but again, no links. The creche thing supposedly occurred in 2003, well after the rise of the internet, yet there are no links other than the usual suspects. I'm calling shenanigans.

405

Boldwin
ID: 1234847
Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 20:07

These are courses that are sold to school districts all over the country. They were written in some cases by people who have since been convicted of financially supporting terrorism. The fact that I and Fox news have not been screaming bloody murder about this is not evidence against. There are just so many idiotic things liberals do that we can't get around to them all.

406

Razor
ID: 41323216
Sun, Apr 05, 2009, 03:58

Baldwin has no supporting evidence because it's not true. He has resorted to outright lying.

407

Boldwin
ID: 1234847
Sun, Apr 05, 2009, 06:00

None so blind as those who don't want to see.

408

Baldwin
ID: 132854
Sun, Apr 05, 2009, 06:53

Let's look at a few characters and the role they have had on teaching in american public schools...

Susan Douglass

Principal researcher and textbook review for the Council on Islamic Education (CIE)

Educational consultant at the Georgetown Center, Georgetown is one of a few universities that receive money from the federal government under Title VI of the Higher Education Act for Middle East Studies centers to develop approved K-12 Middle East curriculum.

The United States government gives money — and a federal seal of approval — to [CIE] a university Middle East Studies center. That center offers a government-approved K-12 Middle East studies curriculum to America’s teachers.

But perhaps the most important point concerning Susan Douglass’ past work is her role as the principal researcher and textbook review for the Council on Islamic Education (CIE), which has been pressuring American textbook publishers to revise their respective curricula to promote an extremist and revisionist view of Islam. One CIE campaign was directed at Houghton Mifflin Publishers, which resulted in a number of changes to their public school curriculum, including open promotion of Islam and requiring students to participate in Islamic worship activities. Gilbert Sewall of the American Textbook Council has documented the changes to textbooks resulting from CIE’s efforts, and the changes made to textbooks under CIE’s direction has been criticized by former Secretary of Education William Bennett. One published estimate states that Douglass and CIE have also trained more than 8,000 public school teachers.

Ever heard of Houghton Mifflin Publishers, Razor? Of course you have. They wrote your textbooks you used when you were young and stupid.

They trained 8,000 public school teachers. This isn't an isolated incident here and there.

--------------------

Hadia Mubarak

CIE senior researcher

Not only is Mubarak the former president of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), but she is also a former national board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Both organizations were identified last year by the Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators and as front organizations for the international Muslim Brotherhood in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial.

----------------

Abdullah Al-Arian

Georgetown’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding employee directory

Oldest son of convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader and fundraiser, Sami Al-Arian. Abdullah’s uncle, Mazen Al-Najjar, was also detained for three years during the Clinton Administration and later deported from the US for his alleged terrorist ties.

409

Baldwin
ID: 132854
Sun, Apr 05, 2009, 08:39

Tracking Riyad's endrun around traditional safeguards of teaching materials.

Martin Kramer13 and Stanley Kurtz have taken the lead in investigating and exposing the Islamist take-over of K-12 teacher training within colleges and universities. As Kurtz recently wrote (July 2007) in National Review Online:

Saudis have figured out how to make an end-run around America’s K-12 curriculum safeguards, thereby gaining control over much of what children in the United States learn about the Middle East. While we’ve had only limited success paring back education for Islamist fundamentalism abroad, the Saudis have taken a surprising degree of control over America’s Middle-East studies curriculum at home.

How did they do it? Very carefully…and very cleverly. It turns out that the system of federal subsidies to university programs of Middle East Studies (under Title VI of the Higher Education Act) has been serving as a kind of Trojan horse for Saudi influence over American K-12 education. Federally subsidized Middle East Studies centers are required to pursue public outreach. That entails designing lesson plans and seminars on the Middle East for America’s K-12 teachers. These university-distributed teaching aids slip into the K-12 curriculum without being subject to the normal public vetting processes. Meanwhile, the federal government, which both subsidizes and lends its stamp of approval to these special K-12 course materials on the Middle East, has effectively abandoned oversight of the program that purveys them (Title VI).

Enter the Saudis. By lavishly funding several organizations that design Saudi friendly English-language K-12 curricula, all that remains is to convince the “outreach coordinators” at prestigious, federally subsidized universities to purvey these materials to America’s teachers. And wouldn’t you know it, outreach coordinators or teacher-trainers at a number of university Middle East Studies centers have themselves been trained by the very same Saudi-funded foundations that design K-12 course materials….

Kurtz goes on to state:

Yet the full extent of Saudi curricular funding, and the magnitude of its influence over university outreach programs funded under Title VI, was only revealed in late 2005 by a special four-part investigative report by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA). As the JTA put it: “Saudi Arabia is paying to influence the teaching of American public schoolchildren. And the U.S. taxpayer is an unwitting accomplice. Often bypassing school boards and nudging aside approved curricula. These materials praise and sometimes promote Islam, but criticize Judaism and Christianity. Ironically, what gives credibility to…these distorted materials is Title VI of the Higher Education Act. Believing they’re importing the wisdom of places like Harvard or Georgetown, they are actually inviting into their schools whole curricula and syllabuses developed with the support of Riyadh.

Just close your eyes and call anyone who points this out a liar.

410

Tree
ID: 61411921
Sun, Apr 05, 2009, 16:59

None so blind as those who don't want to see.

this is your perpetual refrain. "i see the truth. you don't. neener."

411

Razor
ID: 371502414
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 10:03

Did I miss the part where students were being forced to recite prayers and plan Jihads?

I wish I had a dime for every time an argument of yours shifted direction.

412

Baldwin
ID: 132854
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 14:30

Yes. Those are part of the programs.

requiring students to participate in Islamic worship activities.

Part of my ongoing program of reading to the emotionally challenged who are blocking so badly that they cannot comprehend the truth. Perhaps Obama will count that towards my compulsory voluntary service.

413

Baldwin
ID: 132854
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 15:33

In 1994, Valerie Moore took her daughter to school one day.

Valerie Moore says her daughter "was indoctrinated in the Islamic religion for over four months while in the seventh grade" in 1994. Moore expressed shock in arriving at Joseph Kerr Junior High School in Elk Grove, Calif., one day and being greeted by a "huge banner on the front grounds of the school that read 'There is one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.'" Moore also recounts witnessing "children dressed in Muslim attire, chanting from the Koran and praying while marching around the cabala. [sic]" Moore recalls the banner being up all day.

"What if we put up a sign that says 'Jesus is Lord' for 30 minutes? Oh, no. You can't do that – separation of church and state," Moore laments. "They aren't just teaching them about Islam; they have them practicing it. They have them kneeling down and praying to Allah. I have a problem with that. That's more like inculcation." Moore says when she complained to the school officials she was ridiculed and yelled at.

414

Razor
ID: 41323216
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 20:58

Our arguments are bound to go nowhere when you continue to link to websites I wouldn't wipe my hind parts with.

Here is what written DIRECTLY after the excerpt you just posted:

This was in 1994. This excerpt is from the fanatical Christian website blessedcause.org, which I won't link to.

Well, I will link to blessedcause.org . I'll let everyone else decide if that website and the people who post to it have an agenda.

You spend a lot more time reading and researching your arguments, Baldwin. I will give you that. The problem is that you either don't care to or are unable to discern bullshit from fact.

415

biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 21:04

I started my day every day for 3 years reciting the lord's prayer (fortunately it didn't stick).

That's indoctrination.

One day of teaching about Islam is learning another culture.

416

Baldwin
ID: 132854
Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 21:17

Of course, Bili, you didn't realize that the context of that model prayer says not to say that prayer repetitiously. It was merely the pattern...the themes to pray along the lines of.

417

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 16:04

One of my all time favorites...

LET'S ALL SURRENDER OUR WEAPONS -- YOU FIRST!
April 8, 2009

The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn't know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns. To be sure, it's hard to find any factor in these shootings that could be responsible -- other than the gun.

So far, this year's public multiple shootings were committed by:

-- Richard Poplawski, 23, product of a broken family, expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who killed three policemen in Pittsburgh.

-- Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41, who told co-workers "America sucks" yet somehow was not offered a job as a speechwriter for Barack Obama. Wong blockaded his victims in a civic center in Binghamton, N.Y., and shot as many people as he could, before killing himself.

-- Robert Stewart, 45, a three-time divorcee and high school dropout with "violent tendencies" -- according to one of his ex-wives -- who shot up the nursing home in Carthage, N.C., where his newly estranged wife worked.

-- Lovelle Mixon, 26, a paroled felon, struggling to get his life back on track by pimping, who shot four cops in Oakland, Calif. -- before eventually being shot himself.

-- Twenty-eight-year-old Michael McLendon, child of divorce, living with his mother and boycotting family funerals because he hated his relatives, who killed 10 of those relatives and their neighbors in Samson, Ala.

It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack and Mixon got a gun.

After being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, Lovelle Mixon did exactly what they teach in driver's ed by immediately shooting four cops. Mixon's supporters held a posthumous rally in his honor, claiming he shot the cops only in "self-defense," which I take it includes the cop Mixon shot while the officer was lying on the ground.

I guess Mixon also raped that 12-year-old girl in "self-defense." Clearly, the pimping industry has lost a good man. I wish I'd known him. I tip my green velvet fedora with the dollar signs all over it to him. Why do the good ones always die young? Pimps, I mean.

Liberals tolerate rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers in Binghamton, N.Y., from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted America-haters like Jiverly Wong.

It's something in liberals' DNA: They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control.

The demand for more gun control in response to any crime involving a gun is exactly like Obama's response to North Korea's openly belligerent act of launching a long-range missile this week: Obama leapt to action by calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament.

If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: "The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________."

Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons.

Obama explained that "the United States has a moral responsibility" to lead disarmament efforts because America is "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon."

So don't go feeling all morally superior to a country whose business model consists of exporting heroin, nuclear bombs and counterfeit U.S. dollars, and of importing Swedish prostitutes, you yahoo Americans with your little flag lapel pins.

On the other hand, the Japanese haven't acted up much in the last, say, 64 years ...

Fortunately, our sailors didn't wait around for Obama to save them when Somali pirates boarded their ship this week. Stop right now or I'll ask the U.N. to remind the "international community" that "the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates."

Gun-toting Americans are clearly more self-sufficient than the sissy Europeans. This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who's always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.

Police -- whom I gather liberals intend to continue having guns -- and intrepid U.N. resolution drafters can't be everywhere, all the time.

If a single civilian in that Binghamton community center had been armed, instead of 14 dead, there might have only been one or two -- including the shooter. In the end, the cops didn't stop Wong. His killing spree ended only when he decided to stop, and he killed himself.

"The shooter will eventually run out of ammo" strategy may not be the best one for stopping deranged multiple murderers.

But it's highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York's restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a need for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Instead of having Planned Parenthood distribute condoms in schools, they ought get the NRA to pass out revolvers. It would save more lives.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

418

Pancho Villa
ID: 2834196
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 16:50

Another week, another embarrassing column.

You'd think after exposing herself as punditry's poorest excuse for a researcher by offering up an April Fool's joke as a fact last week, she would have been a bit more coherent this week.

As if!

The rash of recent shooting incidents has led people who wouldn't know an AK-47 from a paintball gun to issue demands for more restrictions on guns.

What people? There was this from the obscure Freedom States Alliance, which Huffington Post used as a source.

They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.

So what does that say about the state of gun control laws in this country? One thing appears certain: the regulations aren’t getting stricter. Many recent efforts to change weapons laws have been about easing them.

Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, “it hasn’t sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it’s going the other way,” said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.

Even President Barack Obama has felt that sway. Last month, 65 House Democrats said they would block any attempt to resurrect an expired federal ban against assault weapons.

The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, wrote Attorney General Eric Holder saying they opposed not only a ban on military-style guns, but also efforts “to pass any similar law.”

Gun control issues would only produce “a long and divisive fight,” they said, at a time when Congress should be focused on the roiling economy.

But it's not like we don't know who Ann means when she refers to 'people.' Just in case, though, she reminds us.

Liberals tolerate rallies on behalf of cop-killers, but they prohibit law-abiding citizens working at community centers in Binghamton, N.Y., from being armed to defend themselves from disturbed, crack-addicted America-haters like Jiverly Wong.

Hard as I searched, I could find no evidence that anyone working at the community center in Binghamton had been prohibited from being armed.

Which leads to the 'crack-addicted Jiverly Wong.'

Ann can't seem to make up her mind on this one.

Initially, she refers to him as Former crack addict Jiverly Wong, 41

Then,

It might make more sense to outlaw men than guns. Or divorce. Or crack. Or to prohibit felons from having guns. Except we already outlaw crack and felons owning guns and yet still, somehow, Wong got crack

Then, as referenced above,

crack-addicted Jiverly Wong

before her final allusion,

But it's highly unlikely that any community center in the entire state would be safe from a disturbed former crack-addict like Wong because New York's restrictive gun laws require a citizen to prove he has a need for a gun to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Again, no evidence that any citizen at the center was turned down for a weapons permit, but let's examine her fixation on crack and Wong. It's confusing. Was he on crack? Was he formerly on crack? Did crack make him crack?

According to the initial AP story:

State police got tips suggesting that Wong may have been planning a bank robbery in 1999, possibly to support a crack-cocaine addiction, Zikuski said. But the robbery never happened, and Zikuski had no other information.

From a follow up story in

NY Times.

Officials said Mr. Wong was arrested two times in California in the early 1990s: once in September 1992 on a charge of bouncing a check, and earlier, in August 1991, though the details of that case remain unclear.

Chief Joseph Zikuski of the Binghamton police said earlier that Mr. Wong also caught the attention of law enforcement officials in Binghamton in 1999, after they received a tip that he was planning a bank robbery and had a crack cocaine habit.

So the whole 'crack addict' claim is based on a 10 year old tip that may very well be false. What's ironic is that this is the very type of person that Ann and the NRA are adamant should have unfettered access to guns, since, not being a convicted felon, he is, to them, a law-abiding citizen, whose gun ownership was perfectly legal. She pretty much admits that by closing her column with this gem:

Instead of having Planned Parenthood distribute condoms in schools, they ought get the NRA to pass out revolvers. It would save more lives.

419

Pancho Villa
ID: 2834196
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 16:56

You see, Boxman, some of us are actually capable of making comments about an article...beyond

One of my all time favorites

Now, is it grape or cherry kool aid that's
your favorite?

420

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:06

Hard as I searched, I could find no evidence that anyone working at the community center in Binghamton had been prohibited from being armed.

What are the conceal and carry laws out there?

421

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:08

You see, Boxman, some of us are actually capable of making comments about an article...beyond

So says a guy that posted about three sentences outside of the articles he posted in the prior post.

422

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:10

I found the NY State firearm laws here.

Handguns: A license is needed to possess a handgun in one's home or place of business. Application is made to the "licensing officer" of the city or county where the applicant resides, is principally employed or where his principal place of business as a merchant or store keeper is located.

So based on that regulation they'd have to own the business in order to have a handgun there.

So how are they allowed to be armed then?

423

Boxman
ID: 3821468
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:13

Strike the last two sentences in #422. My bad.

Is it legal to own and carry a handgun in public in New York State?

424

Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:15

Read your own link, Boxman:

Carrying:

A license to possess a handgun serves also as a license to carry unless restricted. If there are no restrictions written on the license, the licensee is permitted to carry a handgun, loaded or unloaded, concealed, on or about his person. An applicant for a license to carry must be required to show, in addition to the requirement for possession, that "proper cause exists" for the issuance of such a license; for example, for target shooting, hunting, or self-defense. The license can be amended to include one or more additional or different handguns. The licensee is required to carry the license on his person at all times when carrying a handgun. Possession of any "loaded" rifle or shotgun in a vehicle is illegal. A loaded handgun may be carried in a vehicle by a properly licensed individual. ("Loaded" means loaded in magazine or chamber. A loaded handgun means one for which the person possesses ammunition.)

425

Perm Dude
ID: 336813
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:16

Yes.

New York State gun laws

426

Mith
ID: 2894309
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:16

I posted 424 before I saw 423.

423 Is it legal to own and carry a handgun in public in New York State?

Yes, if you have a license.

427

Pancho Villa
ID: 2834196
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:28

So says a guy that posted about three sentences outside of the articles he posted in the prior post.

That's a profound criticism, but obviously there was enough in those three sentences to send you scurrying about to find out about NY carry/conceal laws, which, interestingly enough, is more research than Coulter did.

428

Pancho Villa
ID: 2834196
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 17:30

In fairness to Ann I found

This is great news for everyone except Barney Frank, who's always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.

to be very funny, which shows once again that Ann is a much better comedian than political analyst.

429

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 18:28

Good finds guys. Clearly Coulter is wrong. I never knew that New York State allowed conceal and carry. C&C should be legal nationwide and too bad nobody had a handgun on them during that massacre. It might have turned out differently. I'm surprised/disappointed that she missed that one given that the right is usually stanchly in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

430

biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 18:31

It's very hard for someone to be legally licensed to own a handgun in NY state. At the time my dad was building lasers to blow missiles out of the sky (in Ronnie's mind), and hence held a very high federal security clearance, he was denied a carry permit and had to sell all his handguns.

So there is a very active interstate trade in illicit firearms.

431

Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 19:04

That's true, it's not easy for most people outside of law enforcement unless they are business owners. But there is no prohibition, as the lich queen claims.

432

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 20:24

Define it's not easy for most people outside of law enforcement unless they are business owners please.

What does a regular law abiding citizen have to do to C&C in New York State?

433

biliruben
ID: 461142511
Tue, Sep 22, 2009, 17:32

Top of the forum banner ad:

My office mate is probably wondering why I yelped.

434

Boldwin
ID: 1185237
Wed, Sep 23, 2009, 08:23

A gasp of pure joy?

435

biliruben
ID: 461142511
Thu, Jan 14, 2010, 19:21

436

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 07:05

Ottawa students turn away AC and her hate speech

"What Ann Coulter is practicing is not free speech, it's hate speech," he said. "She's targeted the Jews, she's targeted the Muslims, she's targeted Canadians, homosexuals, women, almost everybody you could imagine."

Seems she didn't much appreciate that several students practiced what she preaches. Just aimed at her instead of her usual targets:

Coulter expressed her outrage, calling the University of Ottawa a "bush league" institution in an interview for The Washington Times.

437

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:20

A muslim University student asked her during a Q and A how she
should travel if, as Anne suggested, no Muslims should fly. Anne's
answer? take a camel.

Sadly ignorant. Not even worth the trouble to ridicule the level of
ignorance.

438

Boldwin
ID: 362262121
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:26

Just how much help are we receiving from the muslim world in making air travel safe, and why do people think they have a right not to be offended?

439

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:34

So the safety of US citizens, is now in your mind the responsibility of the Muslim world and calls for hate-mongering rhetoric towards those same people?

Shameful. And you DARE to call yourself a "man"?

ACs books, are little more than 2 lbs of hatred, for which her followers gleefully shell out $30/pop, all while calling themselves moral Christians. Me? I call them hypocrites.

440

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 10:10

why do people think they have a right not to be offended?

You really believe Muslims shouldn't be offended being told they should take a camel instead of fly? Pray tell, how are Muslims who live in Indonesia or India, where there are no camels, supposed to travel? Elephants? Ann Coulter's conservative principles apparently allow her to be insulting and offensive on such a large scale that it's no suprise she has been rendered a novelty act in the political arena. The Marilyn Manson of politics.

441

Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 10:36

Baldwin's observations on race and bigotry - from approving of Coulter's comments here to his "lol" at Rush Limbaugh's portrayal of David Patterson as a slave to various other comments he's made over the years on this board - is not something that should shock anyone here anymore.

This is America. He's allowed to be a bigot. that's his right. since we don't live in a Socialist country or anything really even close to it, he's allowed to think as he wants, no matter how offensive it is.

442

Razor
ID: 57854118
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 10:50

No one should be offended by Ann Coulter because she's a brainless twit, as are her followers. She has gotten rich by riling people up, but she's not to be taken seriously by anyone with a brain.

443

Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 11:02

she's a brainless twit

Hardly. She's capable of being brilliant. Every now and then she actually exposes her potential when her obsession with being controversial and provocative is overridden by her natural talents.

444

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 11:05

I would have to agree that she is far from "brainless". No doubt at all, her financial success is carefully contrived from an acute understanding of the gullibility of her adherents.

445

Razor
ID: 57854118
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 12:07

Re: 443 - Ann Coulter the person might have some intelligence, but Ann Coulter the talking head rarely says anything of value.

446

sarge33rd
ID: 280311620
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 12:28

Now THAT, I will agree with 100%!

447

Boldwin
ID: 362262121
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 12:31

Canadians angry with the cancellation.

448

Boldwin
ID: 362262121
Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 12:35

And AC could hand any one of you your head in a debate so cleanly sliced off you wouldn't even realize it was no longer attached ala Bill Buckley.

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.

476

Tree
ID: 248472317
Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 14:39

Frog FAIL - watch more funny videos

477

boikin
ID: 532592112
Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 14:47

thanks tree, finally something that made this thread worth reading.

478

Boldwin
ID: 362262121
Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 15:10

Now here is an inspiring young muslim women. Contrarians need incredible courage.

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."

All points taken from here
target="_blank">link and referenced with sources.

Chicken.

489

Boldwin
ID: 362262121
Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 01:14

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

The national embarrassment that is Ann Coulter

498

Tree
ID: 248472317
Sat, May 08, 2010, 15:44

see you next tuesday.

499

Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, May 19, 2010, 17:17

same difference.

Glenn Beck feuds with congressman over gold investigation

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.

Forum: polPage 3120Subject: Where Is A Good Ann Coulter Thread?

Forum: pol
Page 3120
Subject: Where Is A Good Ann Coulter Thread?