quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
She seems a little.... fucking crazy extreme, doesn't she?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PJP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
The thing with Coulter is she's just promoting the conservative agenda by using patriotism as a means to that end. During Clinton's bombing of Iraq she had no problem (along with Tom Delay) dogging the then President. Patriotism seems to be only in play if it's a Republican to protect. Why should anyone give her words any weight?

---

Because she's hot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the G-man:
I have to admit, now that she's forty Ann has hit the wall a bit as far as her looks go.

---

quote:

---

No serious person thinks that we are in the middle of a civil-liberties crisis. We have just seen thousands of fellow Americans slaughtered by legal immigrants to this country. And John Ashcroft has detained several hundred illegal immigrants?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Is Ann really forty though?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
On Kyoto: I'm firmly of the opinion that the rejection of Kyoto was to appease Californian voters and American industry.[/QUOTE}

The Senate rejected Kyoto almost unanimously, meaning that Senators from every state rejected it. Why would, for example, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy need to appease California voters?

[quote]G-man points out that China and India are let off the hook as developing nations, and this is true. Their argument is that strict pollution controls would stifle their economic development. I don't know that I agree with that, given I suck in polluted air floating south from the properous Guangzhou province every day. Some pollution regulation would go a long way.

---

quote:

---

In any event, the US, as the world's principal polluter, has no excuse of being a developing country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Disco Steve:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:
She seems a little.... fucking crazy extreme, doesn't she?

---

Understatement of the year.

I, for one, can't stand her. And this was from one viewing on TV. A second will most likely cause me to border on misogyny and make an attempt to castrate myself. Then mail the results to our Annie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
...after alot of thought and introspection, i would like to say i would still nail Ann....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gladiator X:
That uniform makes her even saucier!

Do you have a pic of her in jack-boots with a riding crop?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/index.asp

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
mmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

---

quote:

---

Ann Coulter:


"Donations to the Odai and Qusai Hussein Memorial Fund can be submitted directly to the Dean campaign."

---

• of trashing America's credibility worldwide, and leveraging the U.S. to prematurely leave Iraq,
• and/or cause the mission to end in failure,
• and liberals' constantly diverting attention from the rapid progress occurring in Iraq,
  despite the incredible pace of reconstruction,
• support of a majority of the Iraqi people --(see the Wall Street Journal article I posted on the WMD topic, on a poll of Iraqis, and accounts of imbedded reporters in Iraq)
• and the rapid move toward free elections in Iraq, less than a year after Hussein was overthrown, DESPITE the ongoing attacks and suicide-bombings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:


Ann Coulter has a way with expressing herself in clear hyperbole, while even as it's a clear exaggeration, PERFECTLY captures the spirit (and absurdity) of liberal rhetoric she criticizes.

An example I saw today in an article where Coulter was mentioned:

quote:

---

Ann Coulter:


"Donations to the Odai and Qusai Hussein Memorial Fund can be submitted directly to the Dean campaign."

---

While clearly, the Dean campaign is not literally making a donation to a Hussein memorial, the rhetoric of Dean (and many other vocal Democrats) is serving the cause of the opposition in Iraq.


Ann Coulter manages to capture all that, in a single hard-hitting and playfully hyperbolic sentence.

---

So your'e now saying that the ridiculous Coulter is all satire??

Well, that's one opinion...

That explanation also helps to soften the fact that she's a joke that not even Republicans take seriously anymore.

I mean, calling anyone who disagrees with the Administration "traitors"??? Talk about overplaying your hand! Notice how it was in the wake of that fascistic book that the floodgates of opposing viewpoints cascaded into the bestseller lists.

Thanks Ann.

quote:

---

I mean, calling anyone who disagrees with the Administration "traitors"??? Talk about overplaying your hand! Notice how it was in the wake of that fascistic book that the floodgates of opposing viewpoints cascaded into the bestseller lists.
Thanks Ann.

---

quote:

---

...execute people... to physically intimidate liberals... making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn into outright traitors. - Ann Coulter

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:

quote:

---

...execute people... to physically intimidate liberals... making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn into outright traitors. - Ann Coulter

---

Well, you're right. i think I was confusing her with DTWB.

Still, the actual quote (one of many) isn't any less disturbing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PJP:
I still want to fuck her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Another conservative hottie is radio pundit Laura Ingraham.

You can see photos of her at :

www.lauraingraham.com

Her commentary recently focuses around the phrase "Shut Up and Sing !"
Which is what members of the audience shouted at the Dixie Chicks when one of them started Bush-bashing on stage at a concert.

Ingraham focuses on the fact that the Hollywood elite proselytizes a message that goes against the grain of the values and perceptions of a majority of Americans.
And the frustration many Americans feel that this leftist Anti-Americanism is awkwardly wedged into our entertainment, that most of us would prefer was wedged out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Thanks for the link G-man, it was fun to look at a few of the gals who support the GOP.

Some that surprised me...Patricia Heaton

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whomod:
I see rabid right-wingers at say a U2 concert singing happily along to "one", totally oblivious to the fact that it's a song about a gay son wanting the acceptance of his homophobic father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
that cant be correct, perhaps the U2 bandmember hadnt talked to whomod yet?


back on subject http://talkingpresidents.com/products-af-coulter.shtml



I know what i want for christmas!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
girls have vaginas, boys have penises....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
that cant be correct, perhaps the U2 bandmember hadnt talked to whomod yet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
dont let political views get in the way of oggling fine pussy!

---

Quote:

---

IRAQ WAR GOING BETTER THAN MEDIA PORTRAYS
by Ann Coulter
6/13/2004
.
Abu Ghraib is the new Tet offensive.
.
By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war.
.
And people say reporters are lazy.
.
The immediate consequence of the media's lies [regarding the 1968 Tet Offensive] was a 25 percent drop in support for the [Vietnam] war.
The long-term consequence for America was 12 years in the desert until Ronald Reagan came in and saved the country.
.
Now liberals are using their control of the media to persuade the public that we are losing the war in Iraq.
.
Communist dictators may have been ruthless murderers bent on world domination, but they displayed a certain degree of rationality.
.
America may not be able to wait out 12 years of Democrat pusillanimity now that we're dealing with Islamic lunatics who slaughter civilians in suicide missions while chanting "Allah Akbar!"
.
And yet, the constant drumbeat of failure, quagmire, Abu Ghraib, Bush-lied-kids-died has been so successful that merely to say the war in Iraq is going well provokes laughter.
The distortions have become so pervasive that Michael Moore teeters on the brink of being considered a reliable source.
.
If President Bush mentions our many successes in Iraq, it is evidence that he is being "unrealistically sunny and optimistic," as Michael O'Hanlon of the liberal Brookings Institution put it.
O'Hanlon's searing indictment of the operation in Iraq is that we need to "make sure they have some budget resources that they themselves decide how to spend, that are not already pre-allocated."
.
So that's the crux of our challenge in Iraq: Make sure their "accounts receivable" columns all add up.
.
Whenever great matters are at stake, you can always count on liberals to have some pointless, womanly complaint.
.
We have liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator who gassed his own people, had weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbors, harbored terrorists, funded terrorists and had reached out to Osama bin Laden.
.
Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.
.
So far, we have found chemical and biological weapons -- brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, ricin, sarin, aflatoxin-- and long-range missiles in Iraq.
.
The terrorist "stronghold" of Karbala was abandoned last week by Islamic crazies loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who slunk away when it became clear that no one supported them.
Iraqis living in Karbala recently distributed fliers asking the rebels to please leave, further underscoring one of the principal remaining problems in Iraq --the desperate need for more Kinko's outlets.
Last weekend, our troops patrolled this rebel "stronghold" without a shot being fired.
.
The entire Kurdish region --one-third of the country-- is patrolled by about 300 American troops, which is fewer than it takes to patrol the Kennedy compound in Palm Beach on Easter weekends.
But the media tell us this means we're losing.
.
The goalpost of success keeps shifting [shifted by liberal reporters] as we stack up a string of victories.
Before the war, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned that war with Iraq would be a nightmare: "(W)e won't kill Saddam, trigger a coup or wipe out his Republican Guard forces." ("Unless", he weaseled his way out, "we're incredibly lucky.")
We've done all that!
.
How incredibly lucky.
.
Kristof continued: "We'll have to hunt out Saddam on the ground, which may be just as hard as finding Osama in Afghanistan, and much bloodier. "
.
We've captured Saddam!
And it wasn't bloody!
Indeed, the most harrowing aspect of Saddam's capture was that he hadn't bathed or been de-liced for two months.
.
Kristof also said: "Our last experience with street-to-street fighting was confronting untrained thugs in Mogadishu, Somalia. This time we're taking on an army with possible bio- and chemical weapons, 400,000 regular army troops and supposedly 7 million more in Al Quds militia."
.
And yet, somehow, our boys defeated them in just six weeks!
Incredibly lucky again!
.
And just think: all of this accomplished without even having a "Plan."
.
Now we're fighting directly with Islamic loonies crawling out of their rat holes from around the entire region. Which liberals also said wouldn't happen.
Remember how liberals said the Islamic loonies hated Saddam Hussein --hated him!-- because he was a "secularist?"
.
As geopolitical strategist Paul Begala put it, Saddam would never share his weapons with terrorists because "those Islamic terrorists would use them against Saddam Hussein because he's secular."
Well, apparently, the crazies have put aside their scruples about Saddam's secularism to come out in the open where they can be shot by American troops rather than fighting on the streets of Manhattan (where the natives would immediately surrender).
.
The beauty of being a liberal is that history always begins this morning.
Every day, liberals can create a new narrative that destroys the past as it occurred.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
To be sure, Iraq is not a bed of roses. As the Brookings Institution scholar said, we have yet to give the Iraqis "budget resources" that "are not already pre-allocated."

I take it back: It is a quagmire.
____________________________
.
Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist.

.

---

I couldn't agree more. Liberal coverage hypes relatively small losses (as compared with other wars), while liberal coverage simultaneously downplays the vast progress.

Through liberal coverage, wars are expected to be fought without bloodshed. But only wars begun under Bush.

While wars under Clinton (Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, no-fly zones over N. and S. Iraq under Saddam, etc. ) are not given the same scrutiny, and these prior Clinton wars are instead labelled "wars of liberation". And no mention is made of their cost, or of the morale of troops who were under Clinton --and are still there, post-Clinton, far past the dates Clinton said these other police actions would last-- were pushed to the limit by extended periods overseas with undefined missions.

No liberal coverage questions how long troops will be in Bosnia or Kosovo (wars begun under Clinton). No network coverage highlights that Clinton said these troops were only to be abroad for a year.

And despite U.S. troops having been there 5 years (Kosovo) and ten years (Bosnia), no media questions if there is an exit strategy from these two countries, or when our troops will be called home.
And no liberal coverage questions the tens of billions spent on reconstruction of these nations.
According to TIME, it cost 10 billion to rebuild Kosovo, post-war in 2000, a nation of 1 million people. So proportionate to population, a reasonably proportionate reconstruction cost in Iraq and its population of 25 million would be 250 billion. If liberals had no problem with Kosovo's reconstruction cost, they should have none with Iraq. But they do, and the biased double-standard is clear.

As I said in prior posts to other Iraq and Bush-bashing topics:
I'm glad Clinton intervened in Kosovo and Bosnia.
And I'm glad Bush intervened in Iraq.

I'm just pointing out the liberal double-standard.

As Coulter said before, liberals in knee-jerk fashion leap to support whatever position is least advantageous for our nation. And after 40 years infiltrating our media, universities and other institutions, they are presently in unique position to corrupt and undermine the rest of the nation with their poisonous partisan liberal rhetoric.

For liberals to generate --through skewed and one-sided argument-- widepread sympathy to U.N. and European Union perspectives, over what the United States is doing precisely because of the self-serving inaction, impotence and apathy of those two organizations, is a dangerous first step toward loss of U.S. sovereignty.

Condemn America, undermine American popular resolve, take the side of our enemy, and then dare to call it patriotism.
Today's liberalism.
Just amazing.

Quote:

---

Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go

2 hours, 14 minutes ago


By Ronald Brownstein Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush (news - web sites) has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November.

The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Bush's foreign policy, according to several of those who signed the document.


"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C. Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under President Bush's father and one of the group's principal organizers.


Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former U.S. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including Israel, the former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia.


Others are senior State Department officials from the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations and former military leaders, including retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East under President Bush's father. Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq (news - web sites).


Some of those signing the document — such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak — have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said.


It is unusual for so many former high-level military officials and career diplomats to issue such an overtly political message during a presidential campaign.


A senior official at the Bush reelection campaign said he did not wish to comment on the statement until it was released.


But in the past, administration officials have rejected charges that Bush has isolated America in the world, pointing to countries contributing troops to the coalition in Iraq and the unanimous passage last week of the U.N. resolution authorizing the interim Iraqi government.


One senior Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said he did not think the group was sufficiently well-known to create significant political problems for the president.


The strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said the signatories were making an argument growing increasingly obsolete as Bush leans more on the international community for help in Iraq.


"Their timing is a little off, particularly in the aftermath of the most recent U.N. resolution," the strategist said. "It seems to me this is a collection of resentments that have built up, but it would have been much more powerful months ago than now when even the president's most disinterested critics would say we have taken a much more multilateral approach" in Iraq.


But those signing the document say the recent signs of cooperation do not reverse a basic trend toward increasing isolation for the U.S.


"We just felt things were so serious, that America's leadership role in the world has been attenuated to such a terrible degree by both the style and the substance of the administration's approach," said Harrop, who served as ambassador to four African countries under Carter and Reagan.


"A lot of people felt the work they had done over their lifetime in trying to build a situation in which the United States was respected and could lead the rest of the world was now undermined by this administration — by the arrogance, by the refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organizations," Harrop said.


Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained in the post by President Bush's father during the final years of the Cold War, expressed similar views.


"Ever since Franklin Roosevelt, the U.S. has built up alliances in order to amplify its own power," he said. "But now we have alienated many of our closest allies, we have alienated their populations. We've all been increasingly appalled at how the relationships that we worked so hard to build up have simply been shattered by the current administration in the method it has gone about things."





The GOP strategist noted that many of those involved in the document claimed their primary expertise in the Middle East and suggested a principal motivation for the statement might be frustration over Bush's effort to fundamentally reorient policy toward the region.

"For 60 years we believed in quote-unquote stability at the price of liberty, and what we got is neither liberty nor stability," the strategist said. "So we are taking a fundamentally different approach toward the Middle East. That is a huge doctrinal shift, and the people who have given their lives, careers to building the previous foreign policy consensus, see this as a direct intellectual assault on what they have devoted their lives to. And it is. We think what a lot of people came up with was a failure — or at least, in the present world in which we live, it is no longer sustainable."

Sponsors of the effort counter that several in the group have been involved in developing policy affecting almost all regions of the globe.

The document will echo a statement released in April by a group of high-level former British diplomats condemning Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) for being too closely aligned to U.S. policy in Iraq and Israel. Those involved with the new group said their effort was already underway when the British statement was released.

The signatories said Kerry's campaign played no role in the formation of their group. Phyllis E. Oakley, the deputy State Department spokesman during Reagan's second term and an assistant secretary of state under Clinton, said she suspected "some of them [in the Kerry campaign] may have been aware of it," but that "the campaign had no role" in organizing the group.

Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director, also said that the Kerry campaign had not been involved in devising the group's statement.

The document does not explicitly endorse Kerry, according to those familiar with it. But some individual signers plan to back the Democrat, and others acknowledge that by calling for Bush's removal, the group effectively is urging Americans to elect Kerry.

"The core of the message is that we are so deeply concerned about the current direction of American foreign policy … that we think it is essential for the future security of the United States that a new foreign policy team come in," said Oakley.

Much of the debate over the document in the days ahead may pivot on the extent to which it is seen as a partisan document.

A Bush administration ally said that the group failed to recognize how the Sept. 11 attacks required significant changes in American foreign policy. "There's no question those who were responsible for policies pre-9/11 are denying what seems as the obvious — that those policies were inadequate," said Cliff May, president of the conservative advocacy group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

"This seems like a statement from 9/10 people [who don't see] the importance of 9/11 and the way that should have changed our thinking."

Along with Hoar and McPeak, others who have signed it are identified with the Democratic Party.

Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., though named chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan, supported Clinton in 1992. Crowe has endorsed Kerry. Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner served as Carter's director of central intelligence and has also endorsed Kerry. Matlock said he was a registered Democrat during most of his foreign service career, though he voted for Reagan in 1984 and the elder Bush twice and now is registered as an independent.

Several on the group's list were appointed to their most important posts under Reagan and the elder Bush. These include Matlock and Harrop, as well as Arthur A. Hartman, who served as Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1981 through 1987; H. Allen Holmes, an assistant secretary of state under Reagan; and Charles Freeman, ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the elder Bush.

Many on the list have not been previously identified with any political cause or party. Several "are the kind who have never spoken out before," said James Daniel Phillips, former ambassador to Burundi and the Congo.

Oakley, Harrop and Matlock said the effort began this year. Matlock said it was sparked by conversations among "colleagues who had served in senior positions around the same time, most of them for the Reagan administration and for the first Bush administration."

Oakley said frustration over the Iraq war was "a large part" of the impetus for the statement, but the criticism of President Bush "goes much deeper."

The group's complaint about Bush's approach largely tracks Kerry's contention that the administration has weakened American security by straining traditional alliances and shifting resources from the war against Al Qaeda to the invasion of Iraq.

Oakley said the statement would argue that, "Unfortunately the tough stands [Bush] has taken have made us less secure. He has neglected the war on terrorism for the war in Iraq. And while we agree that we are in unprecedented times and we face challenges we didn't even know about before, these challenges require the cooperation of other countries. We cannot do it by ourselves."

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

The signatories

Although not explicitly endorsing Sen. John F. Kerry for president, 26 former diplomats and military officials, including many who served in Republican administrations, have signed a statement calling for the defeat of President Bush in November. Their names and some of the posts they have held are:

Avis T. Bohlen — assistant secretary of State for arms control, 1999-2002; deputy assistant secretary of State for European affairs, 1989-1991.

Retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. — chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Committee, 1993-94; ambassador to Britain, 1993-97; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985-89.

Jeffrey S. Davidow — ambassador to Mexico, 1998-2002; assistant secretary of State for inter-American affairs, 1996.

William A. DePree — ambassador to Bangladesh, 1987-1990.

Donald B. Easum — ambassador to Nigeria, 1975-79.

Charles W. Freeman Jr. — assistant secretary of Defense for international security affairs, 1993-94; ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1989-1992.

William C. Harrop — ambassador to Israel, 1991-93; ambassador to Zaire, 1987-1991.

Arthur A. Hartman — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1981-87; ambassador to France, 1977-1981.

Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar — commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, overseeing forces in the Middle East, 1991-94; deputy chief of staff, Marine Corps, 1990-94.

H. Allen Holmes — assistant secretary of Defense for special operations, 1993-99; assistant secretary of State for politico-military affairs, 1986-89.

Robert V. Keeley — ambassador to Greece, 1985-89; ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1980-84.

Samuel W. Lewis — director of State Department policy and planning, 1993-94; ambassador to Israel, 1977-1985.

Princeton N. Lyman — assistant secretary of State for international organization affairs, 1995-98; ambassador to South Africa, 1992-95.

Jack F. Matlock Jr. — ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987-1991; director for European and Soviet affairs, National Security Council, 1983-86; ambassador to Czechoslovakia, 1981-83.

Donald F. McHenry — ambassador to the United Nations (news - web sites), 1979-1981.

Retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak — chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, 1990-94.

George E. Moose — assistant secretary of State for African affairs, 1993-97; ambassador to Senegal, 1988-91.

David D. Newsom — acting secretary of State, 1980; undersecretary of State for political affairs, 1978-1981; ambassador to Indonesia, 1973-77.

Phyllis E. Oakley — assistant secretary of State for intelligence and research, 1997-99.

James Daniel Phillips — ambassador to the Republic of Congo, 1990-93; ambassador to Burundi, 1986-1990.

John E. Reinhardt — ambassador to Nigeria, 1971-75.

Retired Air Force Gen. William Y. Smith — deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83.

Ronald I. Spiers — undersecretary-general of the United Nations for political affairs, 1989-1992; ambassador to Pakistan, 1981-83.

Michael Sterner — deputy assistant secretary of State for Near East affairs, 1977-1981; ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, 1974-76.

Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner — director of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites), 1977-1981.

Alexander F. Watson — assistant secretary of State for inter-American affairs, 1993-96; deputy permanent representative to the U.N., 1989-1993.

*

Source: Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change

---

Quote:

---

By lying about the Tet offensive during the Vietnam War, the media managed to persuade Americans we were losing the war, which demoralized the nation and caused us to lose the war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
No liberal coverage questions how long troops will be in Bosnia or Kosovo (wars begun under Clinton). No network coverage highlights that Clinton said these troops were only to be abroad for a year.

---

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
We were never going to win a landwar in Vietnam. It's the most well known fact in history, even moreso than never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

---

Inconceivable!

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Coulter basically said that the liberal professor is a coward pretending to be a radical, because as a college professor he can say whatever he wants without risk of being fired, and that if he were a true radical, he'd make his inflammatory comments from a pundit where he stood a chance of being fired or taken off the air for his views, or having people not choose to buy his books, such as an author or radio/television commentator.

---

Quote:

---

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Coulter basically said that the liberal professor is a coward pretending to be a radical, because as a college professor he can say whatever he wants without risk of being fired, and that if he were a true radical, he'd make his inflammatory comments from a pundit where he stood a chance of being fired or taken off the air for his views, or having people not choose to buy his books, such as an author or radio/television commentator.

---

Quote:

---

A Contemptible Professor's Rights

Published February 9, 2005

It's impossible to feel sympathy for a character as vicious and stupid as Ward Churchill, so we won't bother trying. The University of Colorado professor was invited to speak at Hamilton College in upstate New York--until someone found an article he had written claiming that the people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks richly deserved their fate.

Churchill compared the victims to Adolph Eichmann, one of the Nazis chiefly responsible for the Holocaust, because their work supposedly helped finance America's alleged atrocities abroad. They failed to grasp their complicity, he insisted, "because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions," heedless of "the starved and rotting flesh of infants."

Of course, that lunatic description hardly applies to the flight attendants, firefighters, busboys, secretaries and janitors killed in the terrorist attacks. And if you can argue that stockbrokers contribute to and profit from America's alleged crimes abroad, you could say the same thing about university professors. Does that mean they deserve killing?

The college president, in the face of an avalanche of complaints, insisted on honoring the invitation but gave up when threats of violence became too great. Those who issued the invitation say they didn't know about the article when they invited Churchill, who teaches ethnic studies, to talk about American Indian issues. In light of the new information, the school can hardly be faulted for deciding not to furnish a forum for someone with such vile opinions. A private institution like Hamilton has every right to choose not to inconvenience itself for the sake of someone whose views it finds contemptible.

But it's worth remembering that the 1st Amendment's free speech guarantee is not about protecting the expression of popular ideas--it's about permitting unpopular, infuriating and even thoroughly despicable ideas. Those, after all, are the ones most likely to be suppressed if the majority had its way.

That point apparently escapes some politicians back in Colorado, who were not happy to find the state has been paying the salary of someone with these views. Gov. Bill Owens has urged the University of Colorado to fire Churchill, who has already given up his job as chair of the ethnic studies department. State Sen. Tom Wiens objected to having "someone on our state payroll who believes" what Churchill does.

But repellent though Churchill's views are, they should not be grounds for firing a university professor. The spirit of academic freedom requires ample space for scholars to entertain and advocate controversial and even outrageous ideas. Unless the professor has failed to fulfill his obligations as a teacher and scholar, he should be retained in his post, regardless of his personal opinions. The state doesn't have to operate a university, but if it does, it can't punish or reward academics according to the acceptability of their political views.

That is not easy to stomach when the views are as vile as these. But as state Sen. Peter Groff said, "Democracy and freedom are hard work."

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:
The spirit of academic freedom requires ample space for scholars to entertain and advocate controversial and even outrageous ideas. Unless the professor has failed to fulfill his obligations as a teacher and scholar, he should be retained in his post, regardless of his personal opinions. The state doesn't have to operate a university, but if it does, it can't punish or reward academics according to the acceptability of their political views.

That is not easy to stomach when the views are as vile as these. But as state Sen. Peter Groff said, "Democracy and freedom are hard work."

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But that gets back to what Ann was saying.

A college professor is supposed to be able to share his ideas, no matter how offensive, and keep his job. However, a newspaper columnist, or politician, is not given that same protection.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
But that gets back to what Ann was saying.

A college professor is supposed to be able to share his ideas, no matter how offensive, and keep his job. However, a newspaper columnist, or politician, is not given that same protection.

So, as long as there is tenure/academic freedom/etc., a professor is hardly being couragous to spout this hate filled drivel.

---

Quote:

---

PJP said:
The above post is why bsams is a super moderator and we can only hope to aspire to his level.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
I can't believe a house hasn't landed on this woman yet.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502280009

Universal Press Syndicate not the first to edit inflammatory Coulter columns

When Universal Press Syndicate (UPS), which syndicates right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's weekly columns, reportedly* removed a race-based attack on Hearst Newspapers columnist and White House correspondent Helen Thomas from Coulter's February 24 column, it would not have been the first time a Coulter column was cleaned up prior to publication. While the syndicate did not edit Coulter's reference to "oily Jews" in an October 20, 2004, column, at least two publications removed it before printing her column.

Prior to syndication on February 24, UPS replaced Coulter's reference to "that old Arab Helen Thomas" with "that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas," as the weblog Crooks and Liars documented. Thomas's parents were Lebanese immigrants.

In her October 20, 2004, column, Coulter attacked Democrats as "crazy people" and wrote:


There's no consensus position, but the Democrats are pretty sure the real reason we went to Iraq was one of the following:

* Bush family's connections to the Saudis,
* Halliburton,
* the Carlyle Group,
* something about the Texas Rangers needing more left-handed pitching,
* the neoconservatives,
* the Straussians,
* oil,
* the Jews,
* oily Jews.



UPS syndicated this version of the column, and several websites, including the Heritage Foundation's Townhall.com, Jewish World Review, WorldNetDaily, and David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com picked it up. But a Nexis search revealed only two newspapers -- the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and The Calgary Sun -- that published the column, and both removed "oily Jews" before printing it. (Media Matters for America has documented the Tribune-Review's right-wing history.) Human Events Online, a right-wing online news site, also published the edited version.

USA Today commissioned Coulter to provide conservative commentary on the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, but the paper spiked her first column, which referred to the event as the "Spawn of Satan convention," and replaced Coulter with National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg for the rest of the convention over what the executive editor described as "editorial differences." National Review also fired Coulter as a contributing editor in October 2001 after she wrote of Muslims: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

UPS has syndicated Coulter since 1999.

*On February 28 at 4:50 p.m. ET, Editor & Publisher reported that Universal "isn't even sure the phrase appeared in the version Coulter submitted to the syndicate" and "is trying to determine what was in the Feb. 23 column Coulter transmitted to Universal."

---

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
for the record matter guy, havent you refered to bush as a hick texan( or something approximate) i would hate to think that you find offense with the term oily jew, or arab columnist but not in using the term hick or texan. i know you prolly never have, that would make you a hypocrite.

---

Actually I've never referred to Bush as a "hick texan" but accuracy doesn't really matter with your kind

Quote:

---

rex said:
No, I'm a capitalist.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Actually I've never referred to Bush as a "hick texan" but accuracy doesn't really matter with your kind

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
for the record matter guy, havent you refered to bush as a hick texan( or something approximate) i would hate to think that you find offense with the term oily jew, or arab columnist but not in using the term hick or texan. i know you prolly never have, that would make you a hypocrite.

---

Actually I've never referred to Bush as a "hick texan" but accuracy doesn't really matter with your kind

---

Quote:

---

klinton said:

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
you admit defeat easier than most of the gay guys around here. (rob excluded)

---

That was not a defeat Britney...it was outright rape...

---

I wouldn't say rape, after all BSAMS seemed to enjoy it.

Quote:

---

Captain Sweden said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Some people just can't handle a strong, intelligent, opinionated woman.

---

Some people question whether she is a women or not. Look at the Adam's apple.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Captain Sweden said:
....

I also think it is more than a bit ironic that many of the same people who normally claim to support feminism and strong female voices suddenly think those voices should be silenced when they speak from the right, or that it's suddenly okay to call them "she-males", "bitches" and other terms that they would never tolerate someone abscribing to equally opinionated women on the left.

---

I don't usually drag out the "bitch" word or take pot shots about she-men but when it comes to Coulter she gets as much respect as she gives. Since you knew her in person you have a much better balanced view of who she really is but all I know is the venom she spouts.

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
IMHO a lot of what Ann is saying is a lot more tongue in cheek than people give her credit for.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
IMHO a lot of what Ann is saying is a lot more tongue in cheek than people give her credit for.

---

Quote:

---

Chris Oakley said:
She seems pretty serious to me.

---

Based on my experience with Ann as a writer (and, trust me, I was experiencing Ann's writing before some of you were born) she has a tendency to try and make serious points through a writing style that has a fair amount of tongue in cheek, humorous, exaggeration.

As I've noted before, I actually think its less effective than she could be. On the other hand, she's making seven figures writing books and I'm coming home and posting on RKMBs.com, so what do I know?

Quote:

---

Animalman said:
Saying ridiculous crap makes you a lot more money than being level-headed and fair.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:
okay, here's one of her quotes.

Quote:

---

On the environment
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view." - from her column "Oil Good; Democrats bad" October 12, 2000

---

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter101300.asp

---

Quote:

---

unrestrained id said:

Quote:

---

magicjay said:
Then you'll have to trust me, there's a joke in there someplace!

---

I got it.



Now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to pray for that big raise.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:
why is everyone who disagrees with you considered "whomod?"

we don't see all the gay posters being called G-man.

---

Acctually the fact that PaulWelllerhur is Whomod was proven by none other than MajicJay.

---

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
Whomod....Do you still even bother with trying to pose as a Christian?

You're broadcasting in the negative, but I just wanna hear it from you.

---

I don't know who you're adressing there Pharisee (You call me whomod, then I can call you Pharisee) but since your post immediately follows mine, I'll assume it's directed at me. It's sure hard to tell since you tend to adress anyone who challenges you with a opposing viewpoint as whomod.

Now pharisee, what's that hair up your arse? That I laughed at r3x29yz4a
's cartoon? Or maybe that you think he's whomod too and thus "I" posted a mocking cartoon and then laughed at it as 'PaulWellr'?

Regardless, Ann Coulter is full of shite with her perverted interpretations of Christianity and i'm assuming you agree with her so that makes you full of shite as well. Which is what the cartoon was about in the 1st place. The way Christ's teachings have been perverted or the inconvenient parts just flat-out ignored by right wingers.

here's some more teachings of the Supply Side Jesus. Man he's full of shite! Whatever happened to the real Jesus? He was a more reasonable, moral, and righteous fellow IMO.

Quote:

---

If Jesus Were a Bush Republican:

Select Sayings

Why take the beam of out your own eye, when the spin doctors can keep people talking about the speck in the other guy's eye?

Consider the lilies of the field, then plow them under and drill for oil.

If a man strikes you on the right cheek, you must be a fool. You should have killed him and anyone around him before he got anywhere near you.

If a man asks for your coat, tell him to find a job. If he asks you to go with him a mile, tell him you don't pick up hitchhikers.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a corporation. Though you see its right hand, you know not what its left hand does.

Do not resist an evil man. For probably he can make a large campaign contribution.

The unworthy are like a virgin forest on a mountainside. They grow for thousands of years, then the righteous come along and cut them to the ground and sell their bones for profit. And then they will strip mine the sides of the mountain for precious metals, so that where the unworthy once grew there will be but rubble and erosion. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Those who die for a cause shall receive their death. And those who send them to die shall receive everlasting life.

When one white son dies it shall be worth seventy black or brown sons in payment. And so the righteous man gets his due.

If your right eye offends you, talk about Clinton's left eye. If your right hand is covetous, talk about Clinton's social spending. And then freely spend much, much more; for your cronies deserve their due.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law. I have not come to abolish it, but to erase it piece by piece, until the Law shall be me, and I shall be the Law.

My father's house has many rooms in it, as is only right. I will have many rooms too some day.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a European to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Follow me. My yoke is light. The more you have, the bigger your tax cut will be.

Do not think that have I come to bring peace. No, I have come to bring corruption on a grand scale. And where there is corruption, there is injustice. And where injustice reins, there wars must be waged. And when war is waged, we cut a healthy profit.

Do unto others as much as you like, as long as they are helpless and have no voice.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a tax shelter.

Approach like a dove, then devour like a snake. And then, digesting, put on the dove act again.

There was a man who owned a small vineyard. And he hired men from his village to labor therein, and they did labor honestly for him. And the man became richer and richer, so that finally he owned all the vineyards around that village. And then did the man kick out all his original laborers, and hired foreigners to labor in his vineyards. For the foreigners worked for almost no wages. And the villagers, the first laborers, did cry unto him that they had no land to themselves, and no wages with which to live. And the man said: "You should have thought of that before. For many must labor in the vineyard, so that one may enter the Kingdom."

Woe to you, academics and intellectuals! You carp on and on about justice and truth, while the world's riches are there for the taking! You neither use your wits to grab what you can, nor will you let others grab what they can!
Woe to you, academics and intellectuals! You quote from laws and statutes as if men were made to follow laws, when it is otherwise, law was made to be changed by the righteous!
Woe to you, academics and intellectuals! You trouble yourselves washing the inside of the cup, when all the customer sees is the outside of the cup! Your ventures will sink under such unprofitable scruples!

Blessed are the selfish and grasping, for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are the rich, for they shall become much richer, and shall keep their riches to the last penny. For such is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Blessed are those who think themselves righteous, for they will dictate unto the others, and the others will find themselves without rights.

Blessed are those who find loopholes for their misdeeds, for their misdeeds will be overlooked.

Blessed are those who are well placed, for they shall receive protection.

Blessed are the liars, for their lies repeated often and loudly enough will become truth.

Blessed are you when people criticize you and point to your crimes, for you shall be given dodges to evade any truth. For God sees your shrewdness, and you shall be rewarded.

---

BTW, when did I ever "pose" as a Christian? Judging from 'Supply Side Jesus' though, there are people posing as Christians, but they aern't who you think...

---

Quote:

---

Coulter caught cribbing from conservative magazines

This article was written by John Byrne and researched by Ron Brynaert.

A column penned by the doyenne of right-wing rhetoric Ann Coulter has come under fire for alleged plagiarism, RAW STORY has learned.

Much of Coulter's Jun. 29, 2005 column, “Thou Shall Not Commit Religion,” bears a striking resemblance to pieces in magazines dating as far back as 1985—and a column written for the Boston Globe in 1995.

A RAW STORY examination found Coulter's work to be at worst plagiarism and at best a cut-and-paste repetition of points authored by conservative religious groups in the early 1990s. These groups sought to de-fund the National Endowment for the Arts, detailing projects paid for by the NEA they dubbed “obscene.”


The campaign traces back to an assault on the NEA mounted by the American Family Association in 1989. After press conferences held by the group's leader Rev. Donald Wildon, then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) slipped an amendment into a Senate bill that would have axed federal funding for “obscene art.” It never passed the House.

Coulter employs the same NEA talking points in her Jun. 29 column written in the wake of a ruling barring the Ten Commandments from public places. She lists various identical “obscene” projects she says taxpayers have funded. All of the excerpts below compare this column with earlier texts.

The piece was first questioned by The Rude Pundit on Jul. 1. His post noted that Coulter appeared to have cribbed from a defunct 1993 magazine called The Flummery Digest.

Quote:

---

Coulter : "A photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open titled to suggest the infant was available for oral sex."

The Flummery Digest: "The title of a photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open suggested that the infant was available for oral sex."

Coulter: "A photo of a woman breastfeeding an infant, titled ' Jesus Sucks.'"

The Flummery Digest: "… photograph of a woman breastfeeding an infant was titled 'Jesus Sucks.'"

Coulter: "A show titled 'DEGENERATE WITH A CAPITAL D' featuring a display of the remains of the artist's own aborted baby."

The Flummery Digest: "'Degenerate with a Capital D'...included 'Alchemy Cabinet' by Shawn Eichman, featuring the remains of the artist's own aborted baby."

Coulter: "Performance of giant bloody tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot feces and vibrators."

The Flummery Digest: "[T]he performance art of Johanna Went...relies upon props such as giant body tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot turds, and dildos."

---

The she appears to lift directly from one written by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby in 1995 for the same column.

Quote:

---

Coulter: "...inserting a speculum into her vagina and inviting audience members on stage to view her cervix with a flashlight."

Jacoby: "...inserted a speculum into her vagina and called up audience members to examine her cervix with a flashlight..."

Coulter: "Christ submerged in a jar of urine."

Jacoby: "...photographs of a crucifix submerged in his urine..."

---

The 1992 MIT-based magazine Counterpoint included similar items.

Quote:

---

Coulter: "A photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open titled to suggest the infant was available for oral sex."

Counterpoint: 3. (1984) "The title of a photo of a newborn infant suggested the infant was available for oral sex."

Coulter: "A show titled 'DEGENERATE WITH A CAPITAL D' featuring a display of the remains of the artist's own aborted baby."

Counterpoint: 7. (1990) "...a show called Degenerate With a Capital D...featuring the remains of the artist's own baby."

Coulter: "A novel depicting the sexual molestation of a group of 10 children in a pedophile's garage, including acts of bestiality, with the children commenting on how much they enjoyed the pedophilia."

Counterpoint: 4. (1985) "...a novel titled Saturday Night at San Marcos relates the sexual molestation of 10 children in a pedophile's garage, including acts of bestiality, and how much they enjoyed the pedophile's games."

Coulter: "A female performer inserting a speculum into her vagina and inviting audience members on stage to view her cervix with a flashlight."

Counterpoint: 6. (1989-1990) "Annie Sprinkle...inserting a speculum into her vagina, invites members on stage to view her cervix with a flashlight."

---

Out of seven examples listed in “Counterpoint,” Coulter snapped up four.

Rude Pundit traced one of the magazines to a 1995 piece, “Art Lessons: Learning from the Rise and Fall of Public Arts Funding ” as the source for the list. As expected, items from Coulter's list appeared in Marquis' book as well (Marquis, “Art Lessons,” pp. 212-214).

Quote:

---

Marquis: “The show exhibited explicit photographs of group sex, of priests in sadomasochistic poses, and of an infant at the breast titled Jesus Sucks.”

Marquis: “Various performances in “Carnival Knowledge” included a lesbian inserting her foot into another lesbian's vagina, an eighty-six-year-old woman boasting of sexual adventures with teenagers, and two women discussing fellatio and swallowing human semen.”

Marquis: “In 1985, Thunder's Mouth Press received $25,000 to publish experimental novels, including Saturday Night at San Marcos, which described a pedophile molesting ten children in his garage and the victims' pleasure in sex games.”

Marquis: “Johanna Went was funded in 1983, 1985, and 1987 for a series of performances with props such as dildos, giant bloody tampons, and three-foot turds.”

---

Coulter caught the public eye after allegations that she had carried the Linda Tripp tapes between Tripp and Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr during the Clinton impeachment. Coulter, who admitted to having heard the tapes before Starr was even aware of them, was also implicated in several other controversies involving the Clintons ', including the Paula Jones case.

The right-wing pundit was fired in 1997 from MSNBC for verbally attacking a Vietnam vet on air. She was dropped from The National Review in 2002 for slandering the publication on the national talk show circuit. Coulter went on to write a book titled Slander.

Coulter has drawn fire lately from both conservatives and liberals for her verbal attacks on victims of 9/11, women's groups and Muslims. On Wednesday, she savaged President Bush's Supreme Court pick John Roberts.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think a more apt comparison is that liberals love America the way an abusive spouse loves their partner.

They constantly belittle and criticize it, they try to endanger it, they exploit it and then say "but I love you."

---

Pointing out flaws and working to improve them is not abusive (especially since the metaphor doesn't work the way you use it). There's a big difference in saying "we're doing this wrong, lets figure a better way" and your idea that criticizing the president is the same as supporting terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
yup, sounds about right.

---

you know its disgusting how the liberals are the more intellectual but the conservatives are able to use fear to win out.
Al Franken said in response to the idea of liberals hating america (and i'm paraphrasing):
Of course liberals don't hate america, they love america. and so do conservatives. but its different kinds of loves. conservatives love america like a child loves its parent, a blind love where they refuse to accept that the parent can do anything wrong. liberals love america the way an adult loves, where we see the flaws and want the one we love to address and improve their failings.

its a good way of putting it, and an accurate way of showing that liberals often have a smarter way of putting things.
of course coulter's "liberals hate america more than bin laden" is easier to fit in a soundbite.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
That's funny because all I've heard anyone do is trash Anne w/out acctually debating the points she makes.

---

So her saying 9/11 widows are enjoying their husbands deaths is OK in your book because you feel that she's been trashed?

I guess I don't understand.

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:
If you'll recall Dave, USA participation in WWII was the policy of FDR, a liberal, and the Democrats. Earlier entry was prevented by the Republicans who preferred isolation. Republican presidential candidate Robert Taft was a leader of the America First movement. Any problem with liberal rhetoric on WWII?

---

You do realize that FDR baited the Japanese to attack us yes? In effect, his hindsight for Pearl Harbor was 20/20. Considering his brand of "rhetoric," he's not such a balanced example of pro-war liberalism.

Furthermore, I don't recall that Taft objected to a war after Pearl Harbor--Which is the very opposite of the Liberals of today who object even after 9/11.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Here's what she said in her book...

Quote:

---

...
Coulter writes in a new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.”

She also wrote, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”

---

For those that are rationalizing Coulter's cheap shot, exactly what would be crossing the line into unacceptable? Is this how you would like to be treated if somebody doesn't agree with you? CBSNews

---

We must never forget 9/11, unless family members of victims want to ask questions.

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
What if what she said was true, would it still be vile? There are people in the world who capitalise on tradgedy, some even capitalise on thier own. To point that out is hardly evil. But please, keep arguing against Ann Coulters use of personal attacks by calling her evil.

---

She didn't use the word capitalise though. Coulter said "enjoy". It's highly unlikely any of the widows enjoyed their husbands being burned alive on 9/11. Your trying to rationalize the indefensible.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
What if what she said was true, would it still be vile? There are people in the world who capitalise on tradgedy, some even capitalise on thier own. To point that out is hardly evil. But please, keep arguing against Ann Coulters use of personal attacks by calling her evil.

---

Its a mean spirited attack upon widows. And you know she isn't saying the same for the flag waving widows.

---