Ann Coulter On Media's Breitbart Smears...

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

Whining about negs? How fucking embarrassing for you.

idiot.

Uhm, no. Not whining at all. Just find it funny that Warrior consistently emails me the same message every time he can.

You could set your clock to it.

It's not an 'email', twit... it's a PM... or Private Message. And you have the option to turn those off if they offend you.

I can set my clock by your idiocy.... but it would be wrong... because you always are.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-N5dQwpyEQ]Talking Shit Fail - YouTube[/ame]

 

[GuyPinestra]

Perhaps when confronted with evidence that he had aired selectively edited clips of Sherrod, Briatbart offer something of an apology. Like Sen. Kennedy did.

"I felt morally obligated to plead guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. No words on my part can possibly express the terrible pain and suffering I feel over this tragic incident. This last week has been an agonizing one for me and for the members of my family, and the grief we feel over the loss of a wonderful friend will remain with us the rest of our lives."

But no, the rabid right wants to draw an equilence to a man who served in the Senate with distinction with this guy.

Not going to happen.

Please provide some proof that the video Breitbart posted was "selectively edited". Here is the video posted and it's accompanied blog post.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_xCeItxbQY&feature=player_embedded]NAACP Bigotry in their ranks - YouTube[/ame]

Crickets??? THAT figures...

 

[BlindBoo]

So, does me honestly saying that is Warrior did, does that make me "evil" and "dishonest" in your eyes?

I personally don't think you're evil or dishonest.
A pussy, yes, but not evil or dishonest

The fact that someone is pathetic and ineffectual doesn't mean they aren't evil. Lots of losers would slit your throat if given the chance. Liberals are the kind of people who would happily volunteer for the job of herding people into gas ovens if that's what their masters told them they wanted.

A pathic lie.

 

[bripat9643]

Pointing and raising your hand is not the equivalent of the Roman salute that both the Communists and the Nazis used.

 

[Listening]

Did we ever hear about the Coulter/O'Donnell debate ?

While I like Ann, I don't take her to seriously.

O'Donnell is a better preacher than Al Sharpton. But his basis for argument has no place in the reality he keeps claiming the right is missing.

 

[BlindBoo]

So here we are on page 8 and still not one of Breitbart's fans has posted as to what he did to help the country. What did he do to make things better?

Anyone?

He destroyed ACORN, Shirley Sherrod and Anthony Wiener. For those achievements alone he deserves the thanks of every taxpayer in America.

Wiener caught himself. He's a dick (like warrior) . The others were destroyed by edited tapes and lies. Sherrod will one day own biggovernment.com.

 

[BlindBoo]

The fact that someone is pathetic and ineffectual doesn't mean they aren't evil. Lots of losers would slit your throat if given the chance. Liberals are the kind of people who would happily volunteer for the job of herding people into gas ovens if that's what their masters told them they wanted.

Please. It's the liberals who are largely against the death penalty, guns, etc.

I've seen liberals calling for global warming "deniers" to be executed. Scratch a liberal, and underneath you'll find a goose stepping Nazi eager to kill for the cause.

Ah, you loved Andy didn't ya?

 

[GuyPinestra]

So long as you're in this thread Mr. PlasticBalls, please show us where Brietbart edited that Shirley Sherrod video...

That goes for you, too, BlindBoo...

 

[Uncensored2008]

A pathic lie.

Do you think that Shallow or Syndi would hesitate even a second from marching enemies of the party into the showers?

Honestly?

 

[Synthaholic]

Pointing and raising your hand is not the equivalent of the Roman salute that both the Communists and the Nazis used.

Both of your examples are illustrations, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

So here we are on page 8 and still not one of Breitbart's fans has posted as to what he did to help the country. What did he do to make things better?

Anyone?

He destroyed ACORN, Shirley Sherrod and Anthony Wiener. For those achievements alone he deserves the thanks of every taxpayer in America.

Wiener caught himself. He's a dick (like warrior) . The others were destroyed by edited tapes and lies. Sherrod will one day own biggovernment.com.

When you're capable of admitting the truth, perhaps I'll bother with a substantive response. Until that time, it's utterly pointless to debate you.

 

[bripat9643]

Pointing and raising your hand is not the equivalent of the Roman salute that both the Communists and the Nazis used.

Both of your examples are illustrations, moron.

What difference does that make? They were officially approved illustrations. Are you claiming that Communists didn't use the Roman salute?

And you call me a moron?

 

[BlindBoo]

Then we may no longer BE a nation, should such a insane idea be true.

They like to forget that it was the Facists, the Far Right in Germany, who did that every thing.

Nope, the Fascists were in Italy, it was the National Socialists, or Nazis, that herded their 'lesser people' into the ovens.

And with that said I must ask those people reading, "Which side demonstrates the greater willingness to use violence and intimidation to further their agenda? Which side would be more likely to 'purge' our population of it's 'defectives'? Which side supported eugenics in America?

So they had socialist in their name huh?

Authoritarians!

 

[BlindBoo]

He destroyed ACORN, Shirley Sherrod and Anthony Wiener. For those achievements alone he deserves the thanks of every taxpayer in America.

Wiener caught himself. He's a dick (like warrior) . The others were destroyed by edited tapes and lies. Sherrod will one day own biggovernment.com.

When you're capable of admitting the truth, perhaps I'll bother with a substantive response. Until that time, it's utterly pointless to debate you.

Who expects a debate from a moroonie/loonie toony like you?

 

[Jroc]

Fascism, said one of its leading spokesmen, Alfredo Rocco, stresses:


...the necessity, for which the older doctrines make little allowance, of sacrifice, even up to the total immolation of individuals, on behalf of society... For Liberalism (i.e., individualism), the individual is the end and society the means; nor is it conceivable that the individual, considered in the dignity of an ultimate finality, be lowered to mere instrumentality. For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.


"The higher interests involved in the life of the whole," said Hitler in a 1933 speech, "must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." Men, echoed the Nazis, have to "realize that the State is more important than the individual, that individuals must be willing and ready to sacrifice themselves for Nation and Fuhrer." The people, said the Nazis, "form a true organism," a "living unity", whose cells are individual persons. In reality, therefore -- appearances to the contrary notwithstanding -- there is no such thing as an "isolated individual" or an autonomous man.


Just as the individual is to be regarded merely as a fragment of the group, the Nazis said, so his possessions are to be regarded as a fragment of the group's wealth.


"Private property" as conceived under the liberalistic economy order was a reversal of the true concept of property [wrote Huber]. This "private property" represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard for the general interests... German socialism had to overcome this "private", that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.


Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.


If "ownership" means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a content-less deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property DEJURE. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership DE FACTO.

During the Hitler years -- in order to finance the party's programs, including the war expenditures -- every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White-collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and "special contributions" of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy. At the same time the income of the farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities -- where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours (up to 60 or more per week).


But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, SOCIALISM. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. "Socialism" for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism -- in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics.


"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."By this definition, the Nazis practiced what they preached. They practiced it at home and then abroad. No one can claim that they did not sacrifice enough individuals.


Excerpted from Chapter 1 of THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, by Leonard Peikoff... most probably the most important book written in modern times.

Socialism = NAZI (Hitler was a socialist)

 

[Uncensored2008]

So they had socialist in their name huh?

Authoritarians!

Say sparky;

Is there a name to describe those who seek to have the means of production controlled by the state? You know, the way Mussolini and Hitler controlled it?

Some sort of name or label?

 

[GuyPinestra]

So they had socialist in their name huh?

Authoritarians!

Say sparky;

Is there a name to describe those who seek to have the means of production controlled by the state? You know, the way Mussolini and Hitler controlled it?

Some sort of name or label?

Ummm... Progressives?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ummm... Progressives?

LOL

Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership or administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

[bripat9643]

So they had socialist in their name huh?

Authoritarians!

Say sparky;

Is there a name to describe those who seek to have the means of production controlled by the state? You know, the way Mussolini and Hitler controlled it?

Some sort of name or label?

Ummm... Progressives?

Liberal, Progressive, fascist, Nazi, communist - it's all the same thing. Expand the state at the expense of the individual - turn us all into groveling serfs.