Coulter Right Again!

[uscitizen]

I refuse to listen to anyone whose main points are spreading hatred and fear.

 

[BDBoop]

Ann Coulter Gets Owned - YouTube

I mean..there's no harm in admitting you were wrong about something.

Apples and Oranges.

Just because Ann is wrong about something else in no way determines her correctness or error in another thing.

That's faulty thinking....

Not the point. The point is, she is apparently physically incapable of owning her own (when she is clearly wrong. She never called back and said y'know what? Turns out Canada didn't go to Viet Nam!)

 

[Ropey]

I mean..there's no harm in admitting you were wrong about something.

Apples and Oranges.

Just because Ann is wrong about something else in no way determines her correctness or error in another thing.

That's faulty thinking....

Not the point. The point is, she is apparently physically incapable of owning her own (when she is clearly wrong. She never called back and said y'know what? Turns out Canada didn't go to Viet Nam!)

Yes, it is the point. You need to prove her wrong on the OP. Otherwise it is simply obfuscation that does not pointedly reference the OP statement and premise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I refuse to listen to anyone whose main points are spreading hatred and fear.

You sure pegged that Obama guy!

Bravo!

 

[BDBoop]

Apples and Oranges.

Just because Ann is wrong about something else in no way determines her correctness or error in another thing.

That's faulty thinking....

Not the point. The point is, she is apparently physically incapable of owning her own (when she is clearly wrong. She never called back and said y'know what? Turns out Canada didn't go to Viet Nam!)

Yes, it is the point. You need to prove her wrong on the OP. Otherwise it is simply obfuscation that does not pointedly reference the OP statement and premise.

The OP? Teal deer. And I get shit for 'regurgitating ideas'? Too funny!

 

[Ropey]

^ Yes, the OP.

The discussion point BD...

 

[BDBoop]

Already answered, Ropey.

 

[Ropey]

But not supported.

 

[Sallow]

Ann Coulter Gets Owned - YouTube

I mean..there's no harm in admitting you were wrong about something.

Apples and Oranges.

Just because Ann is wrong about something else in no way determines her correctness or error in another thing.

That's faulty thinking....

He's wrong about almost everything.

 

[Ropey]

I mean..there's no harm in admitting you were wrong about something.

Apples and Oranges.

Just because Ann is wrong about something else in no way determines her correctness or error in another thing.

That's faulty thinking....

He's wrong about almost everything.

And what if the "almost" is the OP?

Hmmm?

 

[BDBoop]

Sorry, I couldn't get past "The Pee Party." End of reading, not going to respond to what I didn't read. But I did see the name Ann Coulter, and I did respond to that.

You really can't control what people do or don't say on this board. Surely Del taught you that much.

 

[Bfgrn]

2. The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Ropey]

Sorry, I couldn't get past "The Pee Party." End of reading, not going to respond to what I didn't read. But I did see the name Ann Coulter, and I did respond to that.

You really can't control what people do or don't say on this board. Surely Del taught you that much.

I don't need to control. I just need to express myself. Just like you are doing.

Now if the OP was challenged and shown to be in error....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah..so you support the French Aristocracy that let the straving people know they had no interest in their plight.

Heck..if you think that hoarding all the resources is a good thing, you'd better be able to have to muscle to push back when people come for them.

Oh, so you support the Terror, and the resulting 600,000 deaths in France, an advanced nation of the time, becoming an abattoir?

In that case, you had better have "muscle to push back when" government, directed by the Committee of Public Safety decides it's your turn.


(Don't you wish you had an education, so you could understand this post...?)

Your pithy comment about education notwithstanding, history shows that almost every time a country has huge wealth imbalances, a revolution generally follows.

So....you're giving up on the premise of which of us supports an aristocracy, and which supports terror?

Wise move...

Far wiser than ever bringing it up, though.

"Your pithy comment about education notwithstanding..."
Of course, it is totally understandable that education would be 'notwithstanding' to your side....

...'notwithstanding' your disregard of education, let me refine what ever understanding you have about revolutions.

1. The French Revolution was only superficially about wealth. The rabble, led by the Jacobins proceeded to smash every trace of the past- religion, law, the social order, even the weights and measures system, and even the calendar.

2. The killings went on, without reason. Saint-Just demanded that people be guillotined not just for being traitors, but for being “indifferent as well.” And, more than passing interesting, this roving indictment was adopted by key Obama advisors William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in the SDS anti-war pamphlet called “The Opposite of Moral is Indifferent.” William Ayers, “Fugitive Days,” p. 130.

Still think it was about wealth?

3. No, these rabid revolutions were not designed to 'equalize' wealth...that bumper-sticker was designed to suck the idiots in!
The purpose was to change human nature!! To destroy was was, to usher in a new utopia....that is what Leftist revolutions are always about.

a. Contrary to the view of America’s Founders, Marxist-communist thinking is predicated on the idea that there really is no ‘human nature,’ and given the right stimulation,” the New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082” could be produced. Gramsci said it this way: “Man is above all else, consciousness…That is, he is a product of history, not nature. There is no other way of explaining why socialism has not come into existence already.” Christopher Lasch, “Heaven in a Heartless World,” p. 86.

4. Psychopaths like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and Chavez use a mob of rabble to gain power, with the same justification, the same objectives, and the same bloody results. And, might then notice that all were praised in the pages of the New York Times, and all were supported by the Democratic Party.

(You should pick up a copy of "Demonic." Just keep it a secret...I won't tell.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

(Preamble)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Think ya' got me, eh, BoringFriendlessGuy??

Watch me get out of your trap:

IT'S THE EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE!

Snopes says it's true...
snopes.com: Etymology of Exception Proves the Rule

exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis ("the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted")


Nyah- nyah-na-na-na!


(good try!)

 

[Sallow]

Oh, so you support the Terror, and the resulting 600,000 deaths in France, an advanced nation of the time, becoming an abattoir?

In that case, you had better have "muscle to push back when" government, directed by the Committee of Public Safety decides it's your turn.


(Don't you wish you had an education, so you could understand this post...?)

Your pithy comment about education notwithstanding, history shows that almost every time a country has huge wealth imbalances, a revolution generally follows.

So....you're giving up on the premise of which of us supports an aristocracy, and which supports terror?

Wise move...

Far wiser than ever bringing it up, though.

"Your pithy comment about education notwithstanding..."
Of course, it is totally understandable that education would be 'notwithstanding' to your side....

...'notwithstanding' your disregard of education, let me refine what ever understanding you have about revolutions.

1. The French Revolution was only superficially about wealth. The rabble, led by the Jacobins proceeded to smash every trace of the past- religion, law, the social order, even the weights and measures system, and even the calendar.

2. The killings went on, without reason. Saint-Just demanded that people be guillotined not just for being traitors, but for being “indifferent as well.” And, more than passing interesting, this roving indictment was adopted by key Obama advisors William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in the SDS anti-war pamphlet called “The Opposite of Moral is Indifferent.” William Ayers, “Fugitive Days,” p. 130.

Still think it was about wealth?

3. No, these rabid revolutions were not designed to 'equalize' wealth...that bumper-sticker was designed to suck the idiots in!
The purpose was to change human nature!! To destroy was was, to usher in a new utopia....that is what Leftist revolutions are always about.

a. Contrary to the view of America’s Founders, Marxist-communist thinking is predicated on the idea that there really is no ‘human nature,’ and given the right stimulation,” the New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082” could be produced. Gramsci said it this way: “Man is above all else, consciousness…That is, he is a product of history, not nature. There is no other way of explaining why socialism has not come into existence already.” Christopher Lasch, “Heaven in a Heartless World,” p. 86.

4. Psychopaths like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and Chavez use a mob of rabble to gain power, with the same justification, the same objectives, and the same bloody results. And, might then notice that all were praised in the pages of the New York Times, and all were supported by the Democratic Party.

(You should pick up a copy of "Demonic." Just keep it a secret...I won't tell.)

And again..you simply ignore the point made and go on with some babbling cut and paste lark filled with incoherent analogies from multiple sources.

The bottom line is..if you make people miserable enough..the will go after what they percieve is making them miserable. And it's ridiculous to assume that the results of a revolution will be better or worse then status quo. Often times results are worse.

But the point is..wealth disparity generally leads to revolts.

Like it or not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your pithy comment about education notwithstanding, history shows that almost every time a country has huge wealth imbalances, a revolution generally follows.

So....you're giving up on the premise of which of us supports an aristocracy, and which supports terror?

Wise move...

Far wiser than ever bringing it up, though.

"Your pithy comment about education notwithstanding..."
Of course, it is totally understandable that education would be 'notwithstanding' to your side....

...'notwithstanding' your disregard of education, let me refine what ever understanding you have about revolutions.

1. The French Revolution was only superficially about wealth. The rabble, led by the Jacobins proceeded to smash every trace of the past- religion, law, the social order, even the weights and measures system, and even the calendar.

2. The killings went on, without reason. Saint-Just demanded that people be guillotined not just for being traitors, but for being “indifferent as well.” And, more than passing interesting, this roving indictment was adopted by key Obama advisors William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in the SDS anti-war pamphlet called “The Opposite of Moral is Indifferent.” William Ayers, “Fugitive Days,” p. 130.

Still think it was about wealth?

3. No, these rabid revolutions were not designed to 'equalize' wealth...that bumper-sticker was designed to suck the idiots in!
The purpose was to change human nature!! To destroy was was, to usher in a new utopia....that is what Leftist revolutions are always about.

a. Contrary to the view of America’s Founders, Marxist-communist thinking is predicated on the idea that there really is no ‘human nature,’ and given the right stimulation,” the New Soviet man or New Soviet person (Russian: новый советский челове&#1082” could be produced. Gramsci said it this way: “Man is above all else, consciousness…That is, he is a product of history, not nature. There is no other way of explaining why socialism has not come into existence already.” Christopher Lasch, “Heaven in a Heartless World,” p. 86.

4. Psychopaths like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and Chavez use a mob of rabble to gain power, with the same justification, the same objectives, and the same bloody results. And, might then notice that all were praised in the pages of the New York Times, and all were supported by the Democratic Party.

(You should pick up a copy of "Demonic." Just keep it a secret...I won't tell.)

And again..you simply ignore the point made and go on with some babbling cut and paste lark filled with incoherent analogies from multiple sources.

The bottom line is..if you make people miserable enough..the will go after what they percieve is making them miserable. And it's ridiculous to assume that the results of a revolution will be better or worse then status quo. Often times results are worse.

But the point is..wealth disparity generally leads to revolts.

Like it or not.

Here's my fav part of your whining, Shallow...

"...from multiple sources..."

Oh, man....I mean dog....if there was a better evidence of your lack of education....I don't know what it would be!!!!


"...from multiple sources..."

How about the number of syllables???

You should change your avi to Dumbo.

 

[geauxtohell]

So, your main point...aside from the one on your head, is that you are deathly afraid of reading stuff that might differ from the your preconceptions???

Deathly afriad? Um, no. What I have is an aversion to having my time wasted. I've got enough "reading material" to last me a lifetime. Politics is just a side interest. So, If I am going to read a book by a conservative, I don't want to waste my time with a sideshow.

And Coulter is just that, a sideshow.

You, apparently, are the child that is easily amused by the sideshow.

Great technique..and quite a time-saver!
And you claim that you actually went to school, public or otherwise????

That depends on if you are talking about high school, college, or medical school.

High School was public. As I grew up in a rural farming community in the midwest, that was the norm. I suppose I could have gone to some snotty boarding school if I wanted too, but I really didn't. Aside from that, I had a farm to co-manage with my father. College was private. Medical School is at a state institution in the midwest. I suppose that is "public".

At any rate, what is your point? Are you one of those dorks that's highest accomplishment in life was going to some prep school that no one gives a fuck about? That's about as lame as claiming Mensa membership makes you destained for greatness.

At any rate, my public school education was certainly sufficient for me. When I got to college I learned the secret of life: hard work overcomes the other guy's talent.

So what is your excuse for not being a product of the public schools and displaying the intellectual acuity of a freshman in college?

BTW...Coulter has pointed out that your "non-reading technique" is in full effect in
Liberal bastions, she said this:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"


She nailed ya,' huh?

You know, it's a funny thing.....

When I applied to medical school, political affiliation wasn't seen as an indicator of intellectual ability. In fact, I wasn't even asked. - Shocking, I know.

Now that I am applying for residency, guess what? They forgot to ask me again! You should notify Ann Coulter that the National Residency Match Program is contributing to poor patient care by not automatically screening out liberals!

You know what's sad about you? Despite your education (Was it Columbia? Do I remember that correctly?), you continue to be one of the most banal voices on this board.

Some of the smartest people I've ever known never finished high school. Paradoxically, some of the most idiotic people I've ever met are products of high powered schools. You fall in the latter.

However, I suggest you continue to bash public education. Maybe it will wake up "fly over" country to the fact that country club conservatives like you really view them as a bunch of yokels who are only good for suckering out of a vote.

I mean, damn, I don't agree with 99% of the people I went to "public school" with, but I still consider them my neighbors.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, your main point...aside from the one on your head, is that you are deathly afraid of reading stuff that might differ from the your preconceptions???

Deathly afriad? Um, no. What I have is an aversion to having my time wasted. I've got enough "reading material" to last me a lifetime. Politics is just a side interest. So, If I am going to read a book by a conservative, I don't want to waste my time with a sideshow.

And Coulter is just that, a sideshow.

You, apparently, are the child that is easily amused by the sideshow.

Great technique..and quite a time-saver!
And you claim that you actually went to school, public or otherwise????

That depends on if you are talking about high school, college, or medical school.

High School was public. As I grew up in a rural farming community in the midwest, that was the norm. I suppose I could have gone to some snotty boarding school if I wanted too, but I really didn't. Aside from that, I had a farm to co-manage with my father. College was private. Medical School is at a state institution in the midwest. I suppose that is "public".

At any rate, what is your point? Are you one of those dorks that's highest accomplishment in life was going to some prep school that no one gives a fuck about? That's about as lame as claiming Mensa membership makes you destained for greatness.

At any rate, my public school education was certainly sufficient for me. When I got to college I learned the secret of life: hard work overcomes the other guy's talent.

So what is your excuse for not being a product of the public schools and displaying the intellectual acuity of a freshman in college?

BTW...Coulter has pointed out that your "non-reading technique" is in full effect in
Liberal bastions, she said this:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"


She nailed ya,' huh?

You know, it's a funny thing.....

When I applied to medical school, political affiliation wasn't seen as an indicator of intellectual ability. In fact, I wasn't even asked. - Shocking, I know.

Now that I am applying for residency, guess what? They forgot to ask me again! You should notify Ann Coulter that the National Residency Match Program is contributing to poor patient care by not automatically screening out liberals!

You know what's sad about you? Despite your education (Was it Columbia? Do I remember that correctly?), you continue to be one of the most banal voices on this board.

Some of the smartest people I've ever known never finished high school. Paradoxically, some of the most idiotic people I've ever met are products of high powered schools. You fall in the latter.

However, I suggest you continue to bash public education. Maybe it will wake up "fly over" country to the fact that country club conservatives like you really view them as a bunch of yokels who are only good for suckering out of a vote.

I mean, damn, I don't agree with 99% of the people I went to "public school" with, but I still consider them my neighbors.

1. "Politics is just a side interest. So, If I am going to read a book by a conservative, I don't want to waste my time with a sideshow."
So...which conservatives have you read?

"High School was public. As I grew up in a rural farming community in the midwest, that was the norm. I suppose I could have gone to some snotty boarding school if I wanted too, but I really didn't. Aside from that, I had a farm to co-manage with my father. College was private. Medical School is at a state institution in the midwest. I suppose that is "public".

At any rate, what is your point?"

My point?

Simple,...I see big bucks in your future!

With your posts as evidence, you sue those "High School" "College" "Medical School " for failure to educate....

Open and shut case!!


2. Summary: when you post a critique of an author, one would expect you to have some expertise in the area....to have at least read that author.

In actually, you have seen some interview, some vid....and have never read the works about which you propound......

you don't think that that describes your character?

3. By character, I mean that you are one of those folks who "talks through his hat," to put it kindly.
I recall how important your guarantees of being ‘knowledgeable” were in the past:

You disputed my assertion that many of the Ivy's banned ROTC.
So, you brought out the 'Big Guns' (note the military lingo, here)...the NYTimes!
"...in all my research on the subject, I have found no universities that ban R.O.T.C., nor has the military initiated action against any institution for banning the program."


But you said " I am a little bit knowledgeable about as I was commissioned through ROTC (meaning I was in ROTC for four years of college and wore a uniform on campus and the whole nine yards..."
Wow! A personal guarantee...based on 'expertise'...
Who could argue...
Oh, how about this:

"After months of debate, Columbia University is poised to reverse its 42-year ban on military recruiters and training programs on campus. On Friday, the University Senate approved a resolution to explore inviting back the Reserve Officers Training Corps program to campus. The resolution now goes to the University’s Board of Trustees for final approval."
The Return of ROTC to Columbia - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice

But...but....NYTimes 'all my research'...and you so knowledgeable!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...d-yes-i-am-considering-it-21.html#post4047556


Really pathetic. Aren’t you ashamed?

 

[geauxtohell]

1. "Politics is just a side interest. So, If I am going to read a book by a conservative, I don't want to waste my time with a sideshow."
So...which conservatives have you read?

I'll read most anything from George Will, Kristol, or Krauthammer.

I don't really agree with them, but I respect that they can make their points without evoking stupidty like "pee party".

"High School was public. As I grew up in a rural farming community in the midwest, that was the norm. I suppose I could have gone to some snotty boarding school if I wanted too, but I really didn't. Aside from that, I had a farm to co-manage with my father. College was private. Medical School is at a state institution in the midwest. I suppose that is "public".

At any rate, what is your point?"

My point?

Simple,...I see big bucks in your future!

With your posts as evidence, you sue those "High School" "College" "Medical School " for failure to educate....

Open and shut case!!

I think my public school did a good job. I can quantify that by what I have done and where I am at right now.

What the hell did you ever do with your life after your (assumedly) awesome prep school experience?

2. Summary: when you post a critique of an author, one would expect you to have some expertise in the area....to have at least read that author.

In actually, you have seen some interview, some vid....and have never read the works about which you propound......

you don't think that that describes your character?

3. By character, I mean that you are one of those folks who "talks through his hat," to put it kindly.
I recall how important your guarantees of being ‘knowledgeable” were in the past:

You disputed my assertion that many of the Ivy's banned ROTC.
So, you brought out the 'Big Guns' (note the military lingo, here)...the NYTimes!
"...in all my research on the subject, I have found no universities that ban R.O.T.C., nor has the military initiated action against any institution for banning the program."


But you said " I am a little bit knowledgeable about as I was commissioned through ROTC (meaning I was in ROTC for four years of college and wore a uniform on campus and the whole nine yards..."
Wow! A personal guarantee...based on 'expertise'...
Who could argue...
Oh, how about this:

"After months of debate, Columbia University is poised to reverse its 42-year ban on military recruiters and training programs on campus. On Friday, the University Senate approved a resolution to explore inviting back the Reserve Officers Training Corps program to campus. The resolution now goes to the University’s Board of Trustees for final approval."
The Return of ROTC to Columbia - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice

But...but....NYTimes 'all my research'...and you so knowledgeable!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...d-yes-i-am-considering-it-21.html#post4047556


Really pathetic. Aren’t you ashamed?

This again? You really hold a grudge for looking so silly on this subject, don't you?

ROTC was never "banned" from any university. I fully admit the universities made it difficult for ROTC, but they never officially "banned them". The writer for the village voice is incorrect, as demonstrated by the other NY Times piece.

ROTC Advocacy at Columbia

Again, all your attempts at distortion are addressed in this article, which is purely dedicated to the notion that there was ever a "ban".

The Myth of the R.O.T.C. Ban - NYTimes.com

Per federal law, federal funding is withdrawn from universities that "ban" ROTC. To date, no university has been sanctioned under this law.

Here:

It is true that many Ivy League colleges do not have R.O.T.C. detachments today. Forty years ago, the military started to close detachments in the Northeast and establish programs in the West and South.

This shift stems from a disagreement in the late 1960s between the Ivy League colleges and the military. Should R.O.T.C. have to comply with the host college’s rules for academic course content and professor qualifications? R.O.T.C. said no, colleges said yes, and the two had to agree to disagree. R.O.T.C. then walked away from Northeastern campuses.

While Harvard is often described as “expelling” R.O.T.C. in 1969, the story is more nuanced. After the military refused to meet Harvard’s standards on academic coursework, the faculty voted to relegate the program to an extracurricular activity, and the military decided to leave. But Harvard did not abolish the program, and it was only much later that people began to talk of a ban.

On occasion, some faculties have approved resolutions recommending that R.O.T.C. not be reinstated at their campuses. Those are not bans. On occasion, students have protested against R.O.T.C. Those also are not bans.

Is what really happened.