Illustrating Ann Coulter's Point

[musicman]

Really? So the NYT wants Americans to die? Holy heck. I think that is reprehensible on their part. They should hang their heads in shame.

The NYT has made it abundantly clear that liberals don't care how many Americans have to die in order for the left to regain power. Please don't misrepresent my words again. It's wrong, for one thing, and - for another - you're not particularly good at or clever about it.

Gimme a look at the link you have, just to make sure...

Look it up yourself, will you? It shouldn't be too hard. It's only the most famous news story since Rathergate.

Ah, yes, Ward Churchill! That bastion of credible left-wing rhetoric that most average liberials says speaks for them...:happy2: . They were for the war because they believed the intel was correct (saps). They were against it when they found out at worst the Bush admin was lying (which is virtually impossible to prove in any way, shape or form), at best (IMO) they took what they were told without delving into it, not because they believed the sources but because it told them what they wanted to hear. Pardon the skeptics, cynics and non Bush butt kissers for having an opinion on the subject and vocalising it...

Oh - I'm sorry! It's just that this conversation is fast approaching the level of the riveting, thrill-a-minute page-turner you displayed in your rebuttal to David Limbaugh. Do you have anything of substance to say?

Riiiigghhhttt. I love that last little beauty. Here's a little advice for free: Nobody will EVER win a war on terrorism so how you think can be won would be amusing to read. I wouldn't call it cutting and running so much as "Is one American/coalition life worth defending that shithole known as the ME?". I say, no.

So - to hell with it, huh? Cut 'em all loose, go home, and hope for the best? Amazing.

Really? For you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You continue to dazzle me, man. You can misapply a term with its definition sitting right in front of you! I'm impressed...

True. Which is why it will never be won.

Oh, it can be won. When these murdering bastard savages finally figure out that the American people will stand up for American interests over the long haul, and that - therefore - all of these Islamo-atrocities are to no good purpose - they'll crawl back into their spider-holes. Decent people around the world will once again dare to dream of freedom. Boy - if only we could get the NYT on America's side; wouldn't that be neat?

No MM the Normandy of the WOT is/was Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia.

OK, I give up - what the hell are you TALKING about?

And why do they wish to see Americans dead? You answer that question, and find a solution, then you might get an end to the WOT (pssssttt and it ain't because they think the west if full of infidels, nor are they jealous of the western way of life - so think on it a little)...

Please enlighten me. I am truly looking forward to this.

 

[Dr Grump]

The NYT has made it abundantly clear that liberals don't care how many Americans have to die in order for the left to regain power.

No they have not. They have not done any such thing...Only in the eyes of conservatives and neocons who march lock-step with the Bush admin. How unusual!!

Please don't misrepresent my words again. It's wrong, for one thing, and - for another - you're not particularly good at or clever about it.

Yeah, well, the closest thing to a sarcasm emoticon is the eye roll, and I couldn't be shagged using it...One doesn't need to be clever when using sarcasm. However the irony of you accusing me of misrepresenting you, all the while you sticking up for Limbaugh who did exactly the same to Obama, then you got into your little rant mode about me not saying anything of substance, is not lost on me.

Look it up yourself, will you? It shouldn't be too hard. It's only the most famous news story since Rathergate.

Oh, that one <sarcasm emoticon>...Yeah MM, that really proves the NYT wants Americans to die <sarcasm emoticon>...

Oh - I'm sorry! It's just that this conversation is fast approaching the level of the riveting, thrill-a-minute page-turner you displayed in your rebuttal to David Limbaugh. Do you have anything of substance to say? .

Well it certainly offered a lot more than you are at the moment. Weak attempts at petty put downs and one liners doesn't really cut the mustard with me. Just makes me think you have nothing of substance to say, which seems to be proven with every post you have made since my rebuttal. Go figure! A conservative attacking the person not the post (and weakly trying to make out said post held nothing of substance in the first place) is hardly indicitive of great debating skills. (now Grump waits for MM's "it was such a crappy rebuttal in the first place yadda yadda yadda"...)

So - to hell with it, huh? Cut 'em all loose, go home, and hope for the best? Amazing.

Nope. Never said that. They are there now and they have to finish the job. This part of the conversation started because you asserted that non-conservatives wanted folk to die in Iraq and that somehow the US is winning the WOT.

You continue to dazzle me, man. You can misapply a term with its definition sitting right in front of you! I'm impressed..

I was getting in before your attempt at a set up. Same thing IMO...

Oh, it can be won. When these murdering bastard savages finally figure out that the American people will stand up for American interests over the long haul, and that - therefore - all of these Islamo-atrocities are to no good purpose - they'll crawl back into their spider-holes. Decent people around the world will once again dare to dream of freedom. Boy - if only we could get the NYT on America's side; wouldn't that be neat?

Oh dear. You have no idea how these people think do you? They are not scared of the US. They do not respect the US. They have already figured your above statement out....and guess what? They don't care. Do I wish they cared? Yep. Do I wish they could be stopped? Yep. Will they be stopped? Using current tactics, no.

OK, I give up - what the hell are you TALKING about?

Those are the three countries where the beachhead into terrorism should have been made, not Iraq. Quite simple really.

Please enlighten me. I am truly looking forward to this.

Two things. 1) I said for you to think on it for a while, take your time. 2) Because you didn't refute the reasons I thought you were going to give, please don't tell me you actually believe them? Do you???

 

[musicman]

Yeah, well, the closest thing to a sarcasm emoticon is the eye roll, and I couldn't be shagged using it...One doesn't need to be clever when using sarcasm. However the irony of you accusing me of misrepresenting you, all the while you sticking up for Limbaugh who did exactly the same to Obama, then you got into your little rant mode about me not saying anything of substance, is not lost on me.

I'm glad to hear that, cause I'm lost as all hell. What were you saying again?

Oh, that one <sarcasm emoticon>...Yeah MM, that really proves the NYT wants Americans to die <sarcasm emoticon>...

I'm asking you - nicely - for the second time - not to misrepresent my words. Please, now.

Well it certainly offered a lot more than you are at the moment. Weak attempts at petty put downs and one liners doesn't really cut the mustard with me. Just makes me think you have nothing of substance to say, which seems to be proven with every post you have made since my rebuttal. Go figure! A conservative attacking the person not the post (and weakly trying to make out said post held nothing of substance in the first place) is hardly indicitive of great debating skills. (now Grump waits for MM's "it was such a crappy rebuttal in the first place yadda yadda yadda"...)

Nah - not so much crappy as meandering, convoluted, and ultimately without substance.

Nope. Never said that.

Ah, well - maybe it's just my perception, then. I can't help it, though...

Riiiigghhhttt. I love that last little beauty. Here's a little advice for free: Nobody will EVER win a war on terrorism so how you think can be won would be amusing to read. I wouldn't call it cutting and running so much as "Is one American/coalition life worth defending that shithole known as the ME?". I say, no.

...sounds - to me - suspiciously close to "hell with it", and "cut and run". You know what I mean? I'm just having a hard time gleaning "damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!" out of that post.

They are there now and they have to finish the job. This part of the conversation started because you asserted that non-conservatives wanted folk to die in Iraq and that somehow the US is winning the WOT.

Ummm...the U.S. IS winning the war on terror. Documents captured when they incinerated that fuckprick Daiquiri, or whatever his name was, confirm it. You wouldn't have heard about it, though. The NYT buried that story right away, so they could run the important stuff on page one - you know - like a detailed analysis of the means by which we're kicking Islamofascism's ass. Gotta keep that playing field level, I guess!

I was getting in before your attempt at a set up. Same thing IMO...

You're scaring me, man. Say something that makes sense RIGHT NOW, or I'm calling the police!

Oh dear. You have no idea how these people think do you? They are not scared of the US. They do not respect the US. They have already figured your above statement out....and guess what? They don't care. Do I wish they cared? Yep. Do I wish they could be stopped? Yep. Will they be stopped? Using current tactics, no.

Unfortunately, I know EXACTLY how these people think, Dr Grump. They consider us fat, decadent, and weak. They have failed to understand that the America of Vietnam, Watergate, and the MSM/DNC monopoly is a dim memory. One can almost forgive their confusion; we've got some people HERE who haven't figured that out yet!

Those are the three countries where the beachhead into terrorism should have been made, not Iraq. Quite simple really.

I warned you, Dr Grump. I'm on the line with the 911 dispatcher now...

Two things. 1) I said for you to think on it for a while, take your time. 2) Because you didn't refute the reasons I thought you were going to give, please don't tell me you actually believe them? Do you???

Indulge me. I really want to hear your answer.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Will they be stopped? Using current tactics, no.

What tactics do you suggest? Please don't say diplomacy or I will smack you through the internet.

 

[jillian]

This is a perfect example of why liberal arguments drive me nuts.

I could say it's a perfect example of why neo-con arguments drive *me* nuts.

All politicians, and all partisians on both sides, will argue their case. But liberals are always so sure they are right, and have good on their side. When it comes to liberals on message boards, they are all so sure that they are the ones who are fighting the good fight, and the other side is, by it's nature, the bad guy.

Ummm...no. The world isn't as black and white as neo-cons try to make it.

So they listen to nobody but themselves and other liberals. They always consider the source of ANYTHING they disagree with, but never question the motives of the left about anything. And the worst part is, they are so sincere in their belief that their attitudes and views of life, religion, and politics are the only correct and moral ones, that they don't even realize they consider themselve so superior, in every way, from conservatives.

And right wingers listen to no one but right wingers and ignore all evidence contrary to their pov.

To them, there is no double standard when it comes to how Bush, or the Republicans behave vs how Dean, Obama, and Democrats behave. Leaks? Hell, if a leak hurts Bush, or the country, it's just the press doing it's job. Valerie Plame? OH MY GOD BUSH NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED! LET'S HAVE AN INVESTIGATION! Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs Wilson extend their 15 minutes by posing for a photo spread in Vanity Fair magazine while Scooter Libby probably had to refinace his house to pay his lawyers.

And right wingers don't care what their people do so long as they continue to spout off the things they want to hear. And it's ok for the admin to leak classified info, but if the WSJ and NYT BOTH run the same story, they try to shut down the NYT like they do all dissent with their agenda.

Bush's presidency is a perfect example of how liberals really don't have any clear allegience to any real ideals.

What a bunch of Annie Coulter-type garbage. Perhaps the 2/3 of this country who thinks Bush is an incompetent have it right?

Their loyalty is more personal, so they tend to give it to people, rather than the cause. They claim they don't hate America, they just hate Bush. Those that will admit to hating anything, that is. Many refuse to admit they hate because to them it isn't hate, it's the truth. They also have a really hard time understanding how people who DO hate, like Ann, can express it so freely. So they call her a liar and defend John Kerry, who has been caught in more lies than any other politican of recent memory.

Once again, I'm not going to re-educate you on John Kerry since you choose to ignore fact and like your swift-boat liars better. And saying that anyone who doesn't share your view doesn't "love" America while not caring what kind of mess her president makes of our rights and our safety and our standing in the world is just buying a lot of hateful garbage that isn't deserving of a response.

But that's what liberals do.

Glad you had your rant, nt.... hope you enjoyed it.

 

[red states rule]

Jillian is a perfect example as to why libs are the minority and will be for many more elections

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Jillian, what's your proof the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were lying? Kerry said so?

 

[nt250]

And right wingers listen to no one but right wingers and ignore all evidence contrary to their pov.



And right wingers don't care what their people do so long as they continue to spout off the things they want to hear. And it's ok for the admin to leak classified info, but if the WSJ and NYT BOTH run the same story, they try to shut down the NYT like they do all dissent with their agenda.

How would you know? Seriously? How would you know what conservatives say about other conservatives? You are certainly not the type to ever read anything written by ANY conservative. So correct me if I'm wrong. Have you ever read an article by any one of the following people:

Patrick J. Buchanan
Phyllis Schafly
George Will
Michelle Malkin
David Horowitz
Walter E. Williams

Here's a link to Human Events. It's about as conservative as you can get:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/view-all.php?type=columnists

Try looking at the archives of Pat Buchanan. See what he has to say about George W. Bush.

Here's something you liberals also don't seem to understand: not hating Bush as a man is not the same thing as supporting him and his actions as president. And showing respect for the office of the President Of The United States does not depend on who happens to occupy it at the moment. If one more liberal tells me "It's not America, it's Bush" I'm going to hurl. I can't wait until Bush is out of office so liberals won't have him as an excuse to say the most hateful things about my country anymore.

I'm not going to argue with you about The Swifties again. You're wrong. They are not liars. They told the truth, and liberals did what they always do when face with facts they don't like. They attack the source.

But you wouldn't know the truth because being a liberal, you only get half the story. The other half doesn't matter to you because you trust your liberal sources to tell you what you should believe. And that's always good enough.

 

[Abbey Normal]

This is a perfect example of why liberal arguments drive me nuts.

All politicians, and all partisians on both sides, will argue their case. But liberals are always so sure they are right, and have good on their side. When it comes to liberals on message boards, they are all so sure that they are the ones who are fighting the good fight, and the other side is, by it's nature, the bad guy.

So they listen to nobody but themselves and other liberals. They always consider the source of ANYTHING they disagree with, but never question the motives of the left about anything. And the worst part is, they are so sincere in their belief that their attitudes and views of life, religion, and politics are the only correct and moral ones, that they don't even realize they consider themselve so superior, in every way, from conservatives.

To them, there is no double standard when it comes to how Bush, or the Republicans behave vs how Dean, Obama, and Democrats behave. Leaks? Hell, if a leak hurts Bush, or the country, it's just the press doing it's job. Valerie Plame? OH MY GOD BUSH NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED! LET'S HAVE AN INVESTIGATION! Meanwhile, Mr. and Mrs Wilson extend their 15 minutes by posing for a photo spread in Vanity Fair magazine while Scooter Libby probably had to refinace his house to pay his lawyers.

Bush's presidency is a perfect example of how liberals really don't have any clear allegience to any real ideals. Their loyalty is more personal, so they tend to give it to people, rather than the cause. They claim they don't hate America, they just hate Bush. Those that will admit to hating anything, that is. Many refuse to admit they hate because to them it isn't hate, it's the truth. They also have a really hard time understanding how people who DO hate, like Ann, can express it so freely. So they call her a liar and defend John Kerry, who has been caught in more lies than any other politican of recent memory.

But that's what liberals do.

Very well-reasoned writing, NT. And the beauty of it is that any response you get from the left will just reinforce your arguments.

 

[red states rule]

How would you know? Seriously? How would you know what conservatives say about other conservatives? You are certainly not the type to ever read anything written by ANY conservative. So correct me if I'm wrong. Have you ever read an article by any one of the following people:

Patrick J. Buchanan
Phyllis Schafly
George Will
Michelle Malkin
David Horowitz
Walter E. Williams

Here's a link to Human Events. It's about as conservative as you can get:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/view-all.php?type=columnists

Try looking at the archives of Pat Buchanan. See what he has to say about George W. Bush.

Here's something you liberals also don't seem to understand: not hating Bush as a man is not the same thing as supporting him and his actions as president. And showing respect for the office of the President Of The United States does not depend on who happens to occupy it at the moment. If one more liberal tells me "It's not America, it's Bush" I'm going to hurl. I can't wait until Bush is out of office so liberals won't have him as an excuse to say the most hateful things about my country anymore.

I'm not going to argue with you about The Swifties again. You're wrong. They are not liars. They told the truth, and liberals did what they always do when face with facts they don't like. They attack the source.

But you wouldn't know the truth because being a liberal, you only get half the story. The other half doesn't matter to you because you trust your liberal sources to tell you what you should believe. And that's always good enough.

Jillian needs serious therapy. May I suggest 3 hours per day with Rush and 3 hours a day with Sean

It will do wonders to stir what few brain cells she has ever being subjected to liberal garbage for God knows how long

 

[nt250]

Jillian needs serious therapy. May I suggest 3 hours per day with Rush and 3 hours a day with Sean

It will do wonders to stir what few brain cells she has ever being subjected to liberal garbage for God knows how long

What people like Jillian need to do is to realize that not all conservatives are like Ann, Rush, and Sean. Unfortunately most liberals are like Michael Moore and Al Franken.

George Will, Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Schafly all write thoughtful, well reasoned pieces about issues. None of them are fond of George W. Bush, but they don't call him names. Their columns are interesting to read (although I will admit I need a fucking dictionary to get through the average Will column).

I don't know how any liberal can get through a Maureen Dowd column. And Helen Thomas sucks as a columnist. She's still too much of a real reporter to write a good opinion piece. Her columns are all over the place. My favorite liberal columnist is Anna Quidlen. She's a good writer and she's not nearly as neurotic as Dowd.

But nobody beats Ann Coulter as far as writing a great political opinion column. I look forward to Ann's latest column like I used to look forward to Dave Barry's. She's that funny.

 

[Dr Grump]

But nobody beats Ann Coulter as far as writing a great political opinion column.

You set you sights far too low.

And your previous post re political commentators, the only one I've read plenty of is David Horowitz. I think he's a pretty good writer, however a right-wing nut job is a right-wing nutjob, good writer or no....:cof:

 

[Annie]

You set you sights far too low.

And your previous post re political commentators, the only one I've read plenty of is David Horowitz. I think he's a pretty good writer, however a right-wing nut job is a right-wing nutjob, good writer or no....:cof:

Did you like him better when he was a left wing nutjob?

 

[Dr Grump]

Did you like him better when he was a left wing nutjob?

ha! Good call. And, no.

 

[nt250]

You set you sights far too low.

And your previous post re political commentators, the only one I've read plenty of is David Horowitz. I think he's a pretty good writer, however a right-wing nut job is a right-wing nutjob, good writer or no....:cof:

I don't think so. I think she's hilarious. There is a rare Ann Coulter column that doesn't make me laugh out loud at least once. She really is very funny. Sarcasm is very difficult to get accros on the page and I think she does a good job of it. The fact that liberals have no sense of humor isn't Ann's problem.

But she's more of an entertainer than a true political pundit. Most conservatives don't take her seriously, either.

 

[Dr Grump]

Most conservatives don't take her seriously, either.

Glad to hear it....

 

[007]

I'm trying to think when was the last time I read such a piss-weak column. Then I realised, I don't often read right-wing nutjob blogs. And after reading such a load of crap, I remembered why I avoid such BS....

Then was in the hell are you doing here?

 

[007]

Most conservatives don't take her seriously, either.

Bull fucking shit skippy. Her book is number one in the country, and for good reason. She's the "uncensored" voice of conservatism. I agree with her whole-heartedly.

 

[Dr Grump]

Then was in the hell are you doing here?

Putting across a POV. Is that OK with you, or are you trying to prove Obama's point for him?

 

[007]

Putting across a POV. Is that OK with you, or are you trying to prove Obama's point for him?

Your point was, that you can't stand reading conservative writings, so I ask you again, then what are you doing here?

You think you can answer that this time, or is the question to hard?