I Love This......

[Mike S]

Liberals meet unexpected resistance
Ann Coulter
May 1, 2003

Though many had anticipated a cakewalk for the media in undermining the war on terrorism, instead liberals are caught in a quagmire of good news about the war. Predictions that liberals would have an easy time embarrassing President Bush have met unexpected resistance. They're still looking for the bad news they said was there. Experts believe the media's quagmire results from severely reduced troops. The left's current force is less than half the size of the coalition media that undermined the Vietnam War.

It's been a tough few weeks all around for the anti-war crowd. On Sunday, the London Telegraph reported that documents had been discovered in Baghdad linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Hussein and bin Laden had a working relationship as far back as 1998, based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. As we go to print, it's Day Four of the New York Times' refusal to mention these documents.

Government documents have also been found in Iraq showing that a leading anti-war spokesman in Britain, Member of Parliament George Galloway, was in Saddam Hussein's pay. Scott Ritter, former U.N. arms inspector turned peacenik turned suspected pederast, immediately defended Galloway in a column in the London Guardian. With any luck, Tariq Aziz will now step in to defend Ritter.

At least Tariq Aziz knows he lost the war. American liberals are still hoping for a comeback. But the war was so successful, they don't have any arguments left. They can't even sound busy. In their usual parody of patriotism, liberals are masters of the long-winded statement that amounts to nothing. They can't go on TV and say nothing. But all they have are some broken figurines to complain about.

They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen. They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen. They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen. They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen. Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen.

Now the biggest mishap liberals can seize on is that some figurines from an Iraqi museum were broken – a relief to college students everywhere who have ever been forced to gaze upon Mesopotamian pottery. We're not talking about Rodins here. So the Iraqis looted. Oh well. Wars are messy. Liberalism is part of a religious disorder that demands a belief that life is controllable.

At least we finally got liberals on the record against looting. It seems the looting in Iraq compared unfavorably with the "rebellion" in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. When "rebels" in Los Angeles began looting, liberals said it was a sign of frustration – they were poor and hungry. As someone noted at the time, apparently they were thirsty as well, since they hit a lot of liquor stores. Meanwhile, the Iraqis were pretty careful about targeting the precise source of their oppression. Their looting concentrated on Saddam's palace, official government buildings – and the French cultural center.

However many precious pots were stolen, it has to be said: The Iraqi people behaved considerably better than the French did after Americans liberated Paris. Thousands of Frenchmen were killed by other Frenchmen on allegations of collaboration with the Nazis. Subsequent scholarship has shown that charges of "collaboration" were often nothing more than a settling of personal grudges and family feuds. This was made simple by the fact that so many Frenchmen really did collaborate with the Nazis. The French didn't seem to resent the Nazi occupation very much. Nazi occupation is their default position. They began squirming only after Americans came in and imposed democracy on them.

Despondent over the success of the war in Iraq, liberals tried to cheer themselves up with the politics of personal destruction – their second favorite hobby after defending Saddam Hussein. Responding to the question of whether the Supreme Court should hold sodomy to be a fundamental constitutional right, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum made the blindingly obvious point that a general right to engage in consensual sex would logically include adultery, polygamy and any number of sex acts prohibited by the states.

For the limited purpose of attacking Santorum, liberals agreed to stipulate that adultery is bad. After spending all of 1998 ferociously defending adultery as something "everyone" does and "everyone" lies about, liberals claimed to be shocked to the core that anyone would compare homosexuality to such a morally black sin as adultery. (While we're in a sensitive mood, how about the name "the DIXIE Chicks"? Isn't that name provocative to African-Americans?)

When you get liberals to come out against both looting and adultery in the same week, you know the left is in a state of total disarray. They shouldn't feel so bad. Their boys put up a good fight in Iraq for 17 days.


Good ol' Ann...

LOL
MS

[Meghann C]

haha that ruled! i emailed it to my favorite way-too-liberal teacher from high school....

[Mike S]

She might like this one too.

'Arabian mights' that never were
Paul Greenberg

Some of my favorite things these days are the clips I've saved of various politicians and pundits predicting that the war in Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster for America, the world, the universe ... .
Just to open the folder and watch the black prophecies spill out is a comfort. The Italians say there is nothing sadder in misery than recalling happy times. Just so, there's nothing cheerier than recalling dire forebodings when they have proven unfounded.
I would especially recommend Al Gore's last prewar speech, the one in which he predicted the war would have "disastrous consequences for the United States and the world," to quote the Associated Press' summary.
Remember all the things that were going to go wrong?
• We were going to get bogged down in an endless, yes, Quagmire. (How long did this late unpleasantness last — 26 days?)
• Terrorist attacks would mount, undermining Americans' security at home. (Instead, the outcome has demoralized terrorists everywhere.)
• The home front would come apart as massive protests divided the American people a la the 1960s.
• Iraq's oil fields would go up in flames — just as Kuwait's did during the first Gulf war.
• Baghdad was going to be another Stalingrad. Tikrit was going to be Saddam's last and greatest stand. The Kurds and Turks would go to war against each other.
• All of Iraq's cities would have to be conquered street by street, house by house.
• Israel would be inundated with Scuds, and war would engulf the Middle East.
• The fabled Arab Street would revolt, overthrowing regimes left and right and setting the entire region ablaze. (Which proved another fable.)
• North Korea's always dangerous dictatorship would take advantage of our preoccupation with Iraq to proceed with its nuclear armament, maybe even start a war. (Instead, Pyongyang began making conciliatory sounds as soon as the Allied victory in Iraq became unmistakable.)
By now a succession of wars in the Middle East should have taught readers interested in maintaining some psychic balance this much:
Put aside your daily copies of the New York Times at the beginning of any conflict. Let 'em stack up unopened, like Pandora's Box, lest all the Furies inside be unleashed.
Then, once it's safe to read again, go through America's paper of dubious record, savoring each and every gloomy prediction that never materialized, lingering over every sad assessment that was never borne out. It's immensely cheering. From first to last:
"Hussein rallies Iraqi defenders to hold Baghdad/Leader says Allies will be dragged Into a 'quagmire' by guerrilla warfare" — Page One, March 25, 2003.
"Bush peril: Shifting sand and fickle opinion" — Page One, March 30, 2003. This headline is over a story by the Times' redoubtable R.W. (Johnny) Apple. There hasn't been a cheerier prophet since Cassandra. Here's a sample of his applesauce: "Street-by-street fighting in the rubble of Baghdad and other cities — an eventuality that American strategists have long sought to avoid — now looks more likely. Mr. Hussein's aides have promised savage resistance."
"Rumsfeld's design for war criticized on the battlefield" — Page One, April 1, 2003.
"The skeptics, who include some of the leading former Army commanders from the last war with Iraq, say the force the United States has deployed is not large enough to begin a decisive battle in Baghdad while simultaneously guarding ever-lengthening supply lines." — Page One, April 1, 2003.
"Iraq is planning protracted war/threat of guerrilla fighting in cities and in summer heat" — Page One, April 2, 2003.
"Defiant Iraqis say U.S. advance has been broken" — Page One, April 6, 2003.
The Times' coverage didn't quite measure up to the ceaseless flow of victory proclamations from the Iraqi information minister, but there were days when it came close.
Reviewing these old clips sheds light on the current stream of warnings that the American occupation, like the war, will prove disastrous: "True cost of hegemony: Huge debt" — cover story, the Times' Week in Review April 20. "All in all, Mr. Bush faces a daunting task." — R.W. Apple in the same edition.
But here and there, even at The Times, the light is breaking through: "Yet in the 26 days of American warfare it took to bring [Saddam Hussein´s] era down, the hallmark of Mr. Hussein's rule was revealed not as one of grandeur, but of gangsterism and thuggery." — John F. Burns, Page One, April 20, 2003.

There's hope for the Times. As for CNN, I have my doubts.

[Pler]

Ann Coulter: A lunatic if ever there was one...her analysis is utterly flawed, and completely one sided and narrow minded...this article is utterly deviod of objectivity...she's a borderline fascist

[booboo69]

Yeah, see, when someone tries to compare the looting in Iraq to the Rodney King riots, that's where the credibility goes out the window. Not like Coulter had much to begin with...:rolleyes:

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Pler
Ann Coulter: A lunatic if ever there was one...her analysis is utterly flawed, and completely one sided and narrow minded...this article is utterly deviod of objectivity...she's a borderline fascist

Hahahahahaha oh man you make me laugh pler thank you.

We'll if what you say is true thyen she'll make a great balance to any of these liberal writers

Paul Krugman
Eric Alterman
Katha Pollit
Nicholas Kristof
Maureen Dowd
Geov Parrish
And my favorite rabid fascist -
Susan Sontag
More of course but where there is one Ann Coulter on the right just about every popular writer on the left fits your discription of - "analysis is utterly flawed, and completely one sided and narrow minded...article is utterly deviod of objectivity... a borderline fascist"

Guess we need a few more Coulters to counter the all the freaks you have on the left.. dont we.

MS

[What time?]

Originally posted by Pler
Ann Coulter: A lunatic if ever there was one...her analysis is utterly flawed, and completely one sided and narrow minded...this article is utterly deviod of objectivity...she's a borderline fascist

You are entitled to your opinion.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by booboo69
Yeah, see, when someone tries to compare the looting in Iraq to the Rodney King riots, that's where the credibility goes out the window. Not like Coulter had much to begin with...:rolleyes:

Oh c'mon booboo the same liberal scum that ranted and raved about the looting of Baghdad made excuses fro the looting of LA. Don't you find that just a little inconsistent? Is it only a damn shame if the looting effects poor brown people.. when it effects white folks or white, yellow or brown people with their own businesses its just "the poor venting their frustrations" :rolleyes:

Speaking of which.. according to NPR it seems that the looting of Baghdad was a bit over blown.. they're finding some of these "stolen" artifacts stashed in the museum. Imagine that - some (bw)Liberal(pos) writer overblowing the story.

(bw)=bed wettting
(pos)=piece of shit

MS

[Hookups]

Originally posted by Mike S


Hahahahahaha oh man you make me laugh pler thank you.

We'll if what you say is true thyen she'll make a great balance to any of these liberal writers

Paul Krugman
Eric Alterman
Katha Pollit
Nicholas Kristof
Maureen Dowd
Geov Parrish
And my favorite rabid fascist -
Susan Sontag


MS

Thank you for providing a list of writers I have never quoted, Mike. I don't take any of those writers seriously, but you're quoting (apparently with a straight face) someone who said about muslim nations(also with a straight face) "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

It only serves to reveal you as a complete hypocrite when you start threads like this one. The next time you declare me a leftist wingnut I'll give an extra-satisfied smirk.

[186k\sec]

the same liberal scum that ranted and raved about the looting of Baghdad made excuses fro the looting of LA. Don't you find that just a little inconsistent? Is it only a damn shame if the looting effects poor brown people.. when it effects white folks or white, yellow or brown people with their own businesses its just "the poor venting their frustrations"
excused rioting: :who are you refering to specifically? I suspect you have missed booboo's point.. the looting in Baghdad was part of civilian retaliation against saddam & the years of oppression - looting was directed primarily at regime inhabited buildings. whereas in LA, the looting was a by-product of the rioting.. , which was a spontaneous backlash against the justice system in LA & in particular the LAPD.. . .& their reputation for discrimination on blacks in low income areas of LA... *profiling, etc... to compare Baghdad to LA misses, or at best, poorly correlates the fundemental motivation behind the crimes in ea. case..

You are entitled to your opinion.
just be prepared to get chastized by the pro-warheads for expressing it.
:eek: :p

[Pler]

Originally posted by Mike S

Hahahahahaha oh man you make me laugh pler thank you.

We'll if what you say is true thyen she'll make a great balance to any of these liberal writers

Paul Krugman
Eric Alterman
Katha Pollit
Nicholas Kristof
Maureen Dowd
Geov Parrish
And my favorite rabid fascist -
Susan Sontag
More of course but where there is one Ann Coulter on the right just about every popular writer on the left fits your discription of - "analysis is utterly flawed, and completely one sided and narrow minded...article is utterly deviod of objectivity... a borderline fascist"


My comment was specifically in regards to my opinion of Ann Coulter, and her article. I am under no obligation to critiscize nor defend anyone, especially the names you listed, many of wich I am unfamiliar with. I disagree with her opinion, but not based upon some sort of knee jerk reaction to her convervativism as you seem to imply, but rather the content of her article and my past reading/listening of her commentary. Had this thread been created so as to display the lunatic rantings of a democrat I would have no doubt spoken against them as well if I disagreed with the authors view, feeling no responsiblity to chime in with "I dislike Ann Coulter if that makes you feel better". Ann Coulter is in my opinion, and illogical, hate filled woman, I dislike her and find the article you posted laughably inept. I wasn't aware that I was supposed to critiscize other people that had nothing to do with this thread, my bad.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Pler
Originally posted by Mike S
[b]


My comment was specifically in regards to my opinion of Ann Coulter, and her article. I am under no obligation to critiscize nor defend anyone, especially the names you listed, many of wich I am unfamiliar with. I disagree with her opinion, but not based upon some sort of knee jerk reaction to her convervativism as you seem to imply, but rather the content of her article and my past reading/listening of her commentary. Had this thread been created so as to display the lunatic rantings of a democrat I would have no doubt spoken against them as well if I disagreed with the authors view, feeling no responsiblity to chime in with "I dislike Ann Coulter if that makes you feel better". Ann Coulter is in my opinion, and illogical, hate filled woman, I dislike her and find the article you posted laughably inept. I wasn't aware that I was supposed to critiscize other people that had nothing to do with this thread, my bad.

For what its worth I usually file Coulter under political satire. I tend to put her and Dowd in the same boat. Fun to read. a good laugh.. and occasionally - underneath the sarcasm - you might find a point.

That being said she still doesnt hold a candle to the likes of Sontag. That woman is insane imho.

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Hookups


Thank you for providing a list of writers I have never quoted, Mike. I don't take any of those writers seriously, but you're quoting (apparently with a straight face) someone who said about muslim nations(also with a straight face) "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

It only serves to reveal you as a complete hypocrite when you start threads like this one. The next time you declare me a leftist wingnut I'll give an extra-satisfied smirk.

Ooooh.. Yes and I believe at any given time the above listed kooks have stated - with a straight face - we live in a police state, theocracy, etc so on.. If Annie wants to go nuclear and make some idiot statement about invading Muslim nations - I'll give her a pass that once - as compared to the idiot statements made by these fruit cakes on a weekly basis her two year old rant is rather tame.

And hookups being called a hypocrite by some nut like you is the best compliment a person like me could ever receive. thanks loony baby.

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec

excused rioting: :who are you refering to specifically? I suspect you have missed booboo's point.. the looting in Baghdad was part of civilian retaliation against saddam & the years of oppression - looting was directed primarily at regime inhabited buildings. whereas in LA, the looting was a by-product of the rioting.. , which was a spontaneous backlash against the justice system in LA & in particular the LAPD.. . .& their reputation for discrimination on blacks in low income areas of LA... *profiling, etc... to compare Baghdad to LA misses, or at best, poorly correlates the fundemental motivation behind the crimes in ea. case..


just be prepared to get chastized by the pro-warheads for expressing it.
:eek: :p

Here let me clarify.
Baghdad looting. Venting frustrations over years of oppression.

LA looting. thugs and scum taking advantage of a situation to do what they do best. Be thugs and scum.

MS

[ZupanGOD]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Most of the bullshit she writes is satire, it's pretty funny to see those who know better quote her bullshit as if it wasn't satire at all. Instead of trying to find truth in her satire that isn't there, why don't we all just move on and ignore her bullshit satire alltogether?

:rolleyes:

[186k\sec]

Here let me clarify.
Baghdad looting. Venting frustrations over years of oppression.

LA looting. thugs and scum taking advantage of a situation to do what they do best. Be thugs and scum.

theres a difference between real clarification, and simplistic re-iteration.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Most of the bullshit she writes is satire, it's pretty funny to see those who know better quote her bullshit as if it wasn't satire at all. Instead of trying to find truth in her satire that isn't there, why don't we all just move on and ignore her bullshit satire alltogether?

:rolleyes:

It is Zup.. but ya see if its satire at the expense of the libs then its not funny. BUT MoDo (Maureen Dowd) can get drunk and write a viscous hit piece on anybody in the administration -or Krugman can lie like a mother fucker ..as is usually the case.. and ya don't hear a damn thing from the self righteous liberal (pos).

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by 186k\sec


theres a difference between real clarification, and simplistic re-iteration.

whats so simplistic.. its the truth.

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S


It is Zup.. but ya see if its satire at the expense of the libs then its not funny. BUT MoDo (Maureen Dowd) can get drunk and write a viscous hit piece on anybody in the administration -or Krugman can lie like a mother fucker ..as is usually the case.. and ya don't hear a damn thing from the self righteous liberal (pos).

MS

So what! Yeah Ann is exactly like them when it comes to vigurous critisism of their political opponents, but unlike her I didn't think Modo and Krugman wrote satirist opinion pieces. Anyhow, Modo and Krugman represent the NY Times well so lay off!

:D

-Jason

[booboo69]

Originally posted by Mike S


Oh c'mon booboo the same liberal scum that ranted and raved about the looting of Baghdad made excuses fro the looting of LA. Don't you find that just a little inconsistent?

I'm sorry, did I, somewhere in my one sentence post, claim that the (so called) Liberal media is any more credible than Coulter? No I didn't. *adds a tally to the number of times Mike has put words in other people's mouths*


Speaking of which.. according to NPR it seems that the looting of Baghdad was a bit over blown.. they're finding some of these "stolen" artifacts stashed in the museum. Imagine that - some (bw)Liberal(pos) writer overblowing the story.

Well, good. Maybe the looters realized that the stuff they were stealing wasn't really worth anything to anybody but some archeologists from Oxford. :p
BTW - You know as well as anybody here that there are just as many (bw)Conservative(pos) writers blowing stuff out of proportion too.

[Ishkur]

Using Ann Coulter to prove a point.

That's fucking hilarious.

That's like using a Chris Farley movie to explore the deepest recesses of man's inner soul.

[Justin]

FUCK YOU ISHKUR!!!! DON'T U UNDERSTAND THAT THE LIBERALS HATE OUR FREEDOM!!!!!?

[bungle bliss]

"They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen."

I don't remember anyone claiming that would happen, but since it didn't, I'm inclined to believe Iraq didn't have any on hand...why *wouldn't* they use them if they did?

"They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen."

What are the official numbers of casualties? Is it hundreds, thousands, what? I guess it doesnt matter. hey're just pesky sand-niggers, right Ann? Maye she should go over there and start converting them to Christianity. :rolleyes:

"They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen."

That's because most Americans were against the war to begin with. Doh.

"They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen."

Hellooo!!! ::waves arms:: SADDAM AND OSAMA AREN'T BUDDIES! We know that. Either way, both were *our* buddies at one time. Christ. We just invaded Iraq. She sounds as if she finds the connection between American foreign policy and terrorism to be false, but oh well.

"Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen."

Blah blah blah...zzzzz....

"Now the biggest mishap liberals can seize on is that some figurines from an Iraqi museum were broken – a relief to college students everywhere who have ever been forced to gaze upon Mesopotamian pottery."

Yeah, because, yanno, studying cave drawings is a useless waste of time. And they're ugly too. :rolleyes: Let's just scrap historical relics from the dawn of civilization and write our own history!

"We're not talking about Rodins here. So the Iraqis looted. Oh well. Wars are messy. Liberalism is part of a religious disorder that demands a belief that life is controllable."

Well, at least she makes an attempt to appear as if she wants to be a sophisticated elitist.

What a dreadful fucking bore this woman is. Crotchety sexually dysfunctional bigoted unworldly uncultured booooring hag.

I have no idea why I just wasted 5 to 7 precious minutes reading and responding to Ann Coulter. Never again.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by bungle bliss
"They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen."

I don't remember anyone claiming that would happen, but since it didn't, I'm inclined to believe Iraq didn't have any on hand...why *wouldn't* they use them if they did?

If you don't know than your not paying attention.

"They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen."

What are the official numbers of casualties? Is it hundreds, thousands, what? I guess it doesnt matter. hey're just pesky sand-niggers, right Ann? Maye she should go over there and start converting them to Christianity. :rolleyes:

Haha.. thought you'd try to shake loose that one. Way to dodge the point. [thumbs up]

"They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen."

That's because most Americans were against the war to begin with. Doh.

Maybe over there on the left coast. :D

"They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen."

Hellooo!!! ::waves arms:: SADDAM AND OSAMA AREN'T BUDDIES! We know that. Either way, both were *our* buddies at one time. Christ. We just invaded Iraq. She sounds as if she finds the connection between American foreign policy and terrorism to be false, but oh well.

Still spinning that "we created them" nonsense? [lafs]

"Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen."

Blah blah blah...zzzzz....

:D

"Now the biggest mishap liberals can seize on is that some figurines from an Iraqi museum were broken – a relief to college students everywhere who have ever been forced to gaze upon Mesopotamian pottery."

Yeah, because, yanno, studying cave drawings is a useless waste of time. And they're ugly too. :rolleyes: Let's just scrap historical relics from the dawn of civilization and write our own history!

haha.. why did I know you were going to say that?

"We're not talking about Rodins here. So the Iraqis looted. Oh well. Wars are messy. Liberalism is part of a religious disorder that demands a belief that life is controllable."

Well, at least she makes an attempt to appear as if she wants to be a sophisticated elitist.

Ann Coulter wants to be a liberal?

What a dreadful fucking bore this woman is. Crotchety sexually dysfunctional bigoted unworldly uncultured booooring hag.

I have no idea why I just wasted 5 to 7 precious minutes reading and responding to Ann Coulter. Never again.

Damn you and Ann are so alike.

:D

-Jason

[Mike S]

Originally posted by bungle bliss
"They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen."

I don't remember anyone claiming that would happen, but since it didn't, I'm inclined to believe Iraq didn't have any on hand...why *wouldn't* they use them if they did?

"They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen."

What are the official numbers of casualties? Is it hundreds, thousands, what? I guess it doesnt matter. hey're just pesky sand-niggers, right Ann? Maye she should go over there and start converting them to Christianity. :rolleyes:

"They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen."

That's because most Americans were against the war to begin with. Doh.

"They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen."

Hellooo!!! ::waves arms:: SADDAM AND OSAMA AREN'T BUDDIES! We know that. Either way, both were *our* buddies at one time. Christ. We just invaded Iraq. She sounds as if she finds the connection between American foreign policy and terrorism to be false, but oh well.

"Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen."

Blah blah blah...zzzzz....

"Now the biggest mishap liberals can seize on is that some figurines from an Iraqi museum were broken – a relief to college students everywhere who have ever been forced to gaze upon Mesopotamian pottery."

Yeah, because, yanno, studying cave drawings is a useless waste of time. And they're ugly too. :rolleyes: Let's just scrap historical relics from the dawn of civilization and write our own history!

"We're not talking about Rodins here. So the Iraqis looted. Oh well. Wars are messy. Liberalism is part of a religious disorder that demands a belief that life is controllable."

Well, at least she makes an attempt to appear as if she wants to be a sophisticated elitist.

What a dreadful fucking bore this woman is. Crotchety sexually dysfunctional bigoted unworldly uncultured booooring hag.

I have no idea why I just wasted 5 to 7 precious minutes reading and responding to Ann Coulter. Never again.

Ya know I finally realized why I enjoy reading Bungles posts. Because her style, delivery and substance is just like Coulters - only politically progressive.

No I'm not being sarcastic.





MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ishkur
Using Ann Coulter to prove a point.

That's fucking hilarious.

That's like using a Chris Farley movie to explore the deepest recesses of man's inner soul.

You of all people Ish should be able to recognize good, pointed political commentary as satire when you see it.

Ann's job isn't to prove points.. her job is to make progressives more miserable than they already are.

A noble endeavor.

MS

[Ishkur]

I never said Ann's job is to prove points. But you're certainly trying to use her to prove points when you know full well her hot air is nothing more than political fodder. You do this all the time, too. want me to recite what I said the last time you did?

No one takes Coulter seriously. No one. Why are you?

But Mike, can you explain something to me?

Why do you keep referring to "progressive" as left? I thought it was the conservatives who call themselves progressive (the official federal conservative party here in Canada is known as the PC Party, or "Progressive Conservative"). At least that's what it is in Canada. But we could be wrong about these incredibly astute political words that have so much meaning and weight behind them, right? Sure. That's why our provincial party, the BC Liberals, are such Marx-loving socialists.

You are the only person I know who clings to these words as if they are these magic spells that can deflate any argument that disagrees with yours. No one else does that. They all debate ideas and events. You don't.

Why is that? Do you just not have the mental maturity to think rationally or something? Heh. I guess that explains why you read Ann Coulter.

[Mike S]

"Progressive" in the United States is a marketing tool Ish. The Left - at least its extreme - cant call itself what it is in this country because it would be rejected en mass by the majority of the populous.
They're Socialist.
They aren't liberal in the western sense of the word. That better describes what are commonly called conservatives these days and blue dog democrats.
The Left in this country isn't really liberal.. not in terms of Jeffersonian liberalism. They are socialists. Or as they prefer to call themselves. Progressives.

I, of course, call them all sorts of creative things.

Let me explain something to you Ish. I have absolutely no respect for these people or their political philosophy. I think they are one of the most destructive political forces on the planet and their kind have been responsible for more people being murdered than anybody in the past century.
Socialist, Communist, Statist. Same thing. Central control. Death.
They dont describe themselves honestly or come out and say what they really want.
They hate this system of government and would prefer to tear it down and replace it with something more closely resembling yours or a European model or something more extreme.

I despise them with a passion and I think it is in the best interest of the country to see them totally politically defeated and completely marginalized.

I make this joke .. but it gets my point across... a great day in The US will be when, in the house of representatives, the budget battle is raging between the libertarians and the conservatives and the only "progressive" in the building is the guy serving tea.

MS

[Mike S]

Ann Coulter is a riot Ish. She does a great job satirizing The Left.
A bunch of people who shouldn't be taken too seriously anyway.
Subsequently she gets reactions such as yours.
That means she's doing a great job.

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Mike S
"Progressive" in the United States is a marketing tool Ish. The Left - at least its extreme - cant call itself what it is in this country because it would be rejected en mass by the majority of the populous.
They're Socialist.

That's what I been saying for years..

And this doesn't just pertain to politicians ie: Democrats.. but to left wing journalists as well.. if they were upfront and refrained from lying to their audience they would also be shit up a creek to the majority of the populous.

Later!

-Jason

[Ram]

I actually think the greatest threat to American freedoms are those who use and adopt labels like "republican", "democract", "liberal", "conservative". All such labels are objectifying.

--Ram

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ram
I actually think the greatest threat to American freedoms are those who use and adopt labels like "republican", "democract", "liberal", "conservative". All such labels are objectifying.

--Ram

People collect in groups of other like minded people. "Scenes" so to speak.
House-heads, junglists, conservatives, progressives, anarchists, ravers...

you get my point.
MS

[Ram]

I know they do. I think it's a very destructive tendency for humanity, especially when they do it in a top-down manner. It makes people lazy in terms of thinking with themselves.

--Ram

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ram
I know they do. I think it's a very destructive tendency for humanity, especially when they do it in a top-down manner. It makes people lazy in terms of thinking with themselves.

--Ram


I can see how that might happen but on the other hand wouldn't it be through experience and the process of contemplating philosophies that you might come to realize you identify with one group or another? OR even if you didn't really care to identify yourself - others always will do it for you. You can see it on this board. Specifically in this forum. Example being Carley. She disagreed with certain aspects of the anti war movement and was instantly classified as having "sold out" to the right for daring to think for herself on the matter.

I know there are people out there that are one way or another due to the influence of family or friends but I think most people come to realize who and what they are through contemplation and personal experience. a lot of people dismiss those who don't agree with them as having not thought for themselves as a means to avoid the possibility that they are wrong. (speaking from experience of course)

Or maybe I'm just perceiving things through the filter of my own political evolution. Who knows.

MS

[Ram]

I can see how that might happen but on the other hand wouldn't it be through experience and the process of contemplating philosophies that you might come to realize you identify with one group or another?


If you really do the contemplation, there's no need to identify, and you'll realise such identification is actually erroneous. Every individual is FAR more complex, and any identification only serves to reduce that complexity.


OR even if you didn't really care to identify yourself - others always will do it for you. You can see it on this board. Specifically in this forum.


I've seen it done by a lot of people on this forum, holding all kinds of viewpoints.

But if someone does it, it only reflects on them, rather than the person it is addressed to.

I think it's destructive no matter who does it, but you can only change yourself. I think thinking in terms of "right" and "left" is very primitive.

--Ram

[Ishkur]

Might I make a suggestion, then:

Stop using those words. I seriously doubt you can find a single person who embodies whole-heartedly what YOU think they mean, and I doubt anyone else has the same idea of what THEY think they mean.

For now on, discuss with people issue for issue. Listen to them, understand them, know them. Find out who these people are, rather than what you think they represent (for doing so is haughty and insulting). See their point of view, and talk to them about it and offer yours. That's what well-meaning, constructive debate is all about.


I think they are one of the most destructive political forces on the planet and their kind have been responsible for more people being murdered than anybody in the past century.


Holy shit. NOW who's the batshit loony conspiracy theorist? You think their aim is to destroy mankind or something? Give your head a shake. For what it's worth, its actually the political right who crush freedoms and want to mold moral opinion, and its the political left who are fearful of dwindling freedoms, which is why they always protest concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands.

For that is what the left has always done: rooted for the underdog. In the classical tradition, championing labour and the working man. What's so wrong with that? I for one am glad we don't have industrial revolution conditions anymore. Unions, holidays, minimum wage, good salaries....everything down to government standards, regulations and warning labels on cans of soup. All that has to do with the efforts of the labour movement and consumer advocacy groups, not the generosity of industrial superiors.

"....that labour spent the first half of the nineteenth century learning the rules of the capitalist game and the second half applying them, then the first half of the twentieth century saw the apparently irresistible triumph of labour, and the second half its eclipse and fall – or almost."
--Eric Hobsbawm

Simple affluence has all but annihilated the political left from acquiring any stable basis of power, so its hardly necessary anymore. But that doesn't mean it should be vanquished outright. As history has shown, man can never be trusted, no matter what system he's shackled to. That's the fundamental truism behind our modern system of checks and balances. It's only when one side is entirely defeated that the other grows too fat and inefficient, and becomes a system of torrential abuse as it refuses to let go of its power and keeps gripping tighter. This happened in Ancient Rome. This happened in Revolutionary France. This happened in Imperialist Europe. This happened in Stalinest Russia. And its happening now, in the good ole USA.

There must always be an opposition. It keeps people, places, things, and systems honest. At least for awhile.

Anyways, this backyard garbage dumping you do based on your own personalized definitions for pet newspeak terms gets us nowhere, and helps no one. Please stop it.

[Ishkur]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD

And this doesn't just pertain to politicians ie: Democrats.. but to left wing journalists as well.. if they were upfront and refrained from lying to their audience they would also be shit up a creek to the majority of the populous.


The same can be said, word for word, about the Bush administration.

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Ishkur


The same can be said, word for word, about the Bush administration.

Ohh yeah forgot round here he's a facist in sheeps clothing. :D

-Jason

[Ram]

I usually don't use the words, and if I do, it's usually some form of laziness. And when I do, I think it's stupid. I rarely argue on anything other than views. You'll be hard pressed to find me insulting people in recent years (though it could happen, again, when I'm lazy and associate a person with a view, but I try to make sure this doesn't happen).

And Ishkur, I hope you were being facetious with your post. (:

I'm not suggesting there is a conspiracy. Just like I think violence is bad for humanity's progress, I think this tendency to label people wholesale is also bad.

--Ram