|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
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
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
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.
Thank you for correcting all those things I never said, Pariah. Conservative cowardice in the face of REAL enemies is not in doubt, however.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
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.
Funny that niether of you read teh book in question and even know what point was being made, you just jump on something you don;t like and sounds nasty, but in acctuallity you're making her point for her. Her point was that teh left puts up human shields of suffering, that people who have suffered can say what ever they want in the public sphere and we can't quetion it or challenge them.
If people choose to enter the public debate then they can be challenged. Suffering does not give you a "get out of debate free card"
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
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.
Funny that niether of you read teh book in question and even know what point was being made, you just jump on something you don;t like and sounds nasty, but in acctuallity you're making her point for her. Her point was that teh left puts up human shields of suffering, that people who have suffered can say what ever they want in the public sphere and we can't quetion it or challenge them.
If people choose to enter the public debate then they can be challenged. Suffering does not give you a "get out of debate free card"
It's America, you can choose to question, challenge & yes even accuse somebody of enjoying their husbands deaths. The last one isn't even close to being debate though. It was a vile nasty comment. If you & other conservatives want to defend such vileness, it's a free country. The thing is, when you do something evil or defend it, people tend to make judgements on your choices. Remember it's a free country.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
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.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
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.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Thank you for correcting all those things I never said, Pariah. Conservative cowardice in the face of REAL enemies is not in doubt, however.
Wow. I don't think that response could have been anymore non-sequitur.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
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.
I'll take these seperate, but you and Ray continue to make her point ( a point you aren;t familiar with since you haven;t read the book ) By refering to her statement as "indefenceable". Enjoy and capitalise are in many ways synonomouse. She is not saying they enjoyed the act of thier deaths, that's just absurd. What they enjoy is the popularity and noteriety they recieve as a result.
*edited to add: Are her statements any more "indefensable" than the implication that it is Bush's policy to kill our troops?
Last edited by wannabuyamonkey; 2006-06-24 5:47 AM.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
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.
You make her point better than MEM. You condem her mean spirited attacks, because those attacks are directed towards widdows. When those widows use thier experience as a means of entering the public debate then that experience becomes part of the debate.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
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.
I'll take these seperate, but you and Ray continue to make her point ( a point you aren;t familiar with since you haven;t read the book ) By refering to her statement as "indefenceable". Enjoy and capitalise are in many ways synonomouse. She is not saying they enjoyed the act of thier deaths, that's just absurd. What they enjoy is the popularity and noteriety they recieve as a result.
*edited to add: Are her statements any more "indefensable" than the implication that it is Bush's policy to kill our troops?
I saw the interview & a couple of articles. It's very clear that Coulter meant what she said. Your just doing word substitution with what she actually said to make it more palatable.
As for Bush's policy, the key word is implication. In that case you moved away from what was actually posted to something absurd.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The full 8 and a half minutes can be viewed :
You obviously didn't watch the full 8 and 1/2 minutes, M E M.
Or simply chose to omit the part that proves false your assertion.
Coulter does literally say the wives "enjoy" their husbands' deaths on 9-11.
But expands, both in the book and in the Leno interview, to explain precisely how they enjoy their husbands' deaths, in their actions after 9-11, where they have exploited their husbands' deaths in pursuit of their own liberal/anti-Bush agenda.
I stand by what I said before:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
That's funny because all I've heard anyone do is trash Ann w/out actually 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.
That's a deliberate misrepresentation, or at the very least a distorted narrowing of what Coulter said.
Coulter said the 9-11 wives are part of a class of sacrificial cows of the Democrat viewpoint. (John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame...) Where they are used by Democrats to accuse Bush of things, and because they are a widow/goldstar-mom/Veteran/CIA-agent, etc., they have a status that liberals maintain protects them from scrutiny, and we should all just shut up and accept their views, unexamined for credibility flaws, just because of who they are.
In the specific case of the 9-11 widows (who attacked Bush, demanded an independent investigation into 9-11, and publicly used their celebrity status to endorse Kerry's 2004 campaign, by the way), Ann Coulter asserts that they got rich off their husbands' deaths, and after exploited and enjoyed the celebrity status that they chose to cultivate after husbands died on 9-11.
That doesn't say that they enjoyed their husbands' deaths.
Only that they exploited and cheapened their husbands' deaths with their own actions after the fact.
And certainly enjoyed the celebrity status of that exploitation.
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 "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
Again, that's the shorthand of what Coulter said, ignoring the full context of precisely what she meant and expanded on that initial sentence to say.
How the Widows' Club exploited their husbands' deaths in pursuit of fame, fortune and partisan liberal advocacy, using their dead husbands unfairly as a shield against any criticism of their very public remarks.
A shorthand that deliberately narrows and misrepresents the full context and insight of what Coulter said about the 9-11 widows who criticized Bush, who publicly demanded an independent 9-11 investigation, and who publicly advocated Kerry's 2004 candidacy.
I think WBAM summed it up very well:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a and M E M both said:
bla bla bla ...
Funny that neither of you read the book in question and even know what point was being made, you just jump on something you don't like and sounds nasty, but in actuality you're making her point for her. Her point was that the left puts up human shields of suffering, that people who have suffered can say what ever they want in the public sphere and we can't quetion it or challenge them.
If people choose to enter the public debate then they can be challenged. Suffering does not give you a "get out of debate free card"
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Strap-on Veterans for Truth
Ann Coulter is actually a former drag queen from Key West named Pudenda Shenanigans. Ms. Shenanigans was famous for her renditions of “Dude Looks Like a Lady” “I will Survive” and “You Shook Me All Night Long” as well as an extensive Barbra Streisand repertoire. We who used to work with her are concerned for her as well as upset by the vile hatred she has spewed towards her former friends in the gay community. We feel that by bringing the truth to light perhaps Ann will come to grips with her past and change her wicked ways. 
As Pudenda Shenanigans, she was well known on the drag circuit in Key West. Whether she actually had a full sex change or not is a matter of debate, although her adam’s apple is still visible in photos, under the appropriate light. We who laughed, cried, worked and danced with her feel her story should be told. We are not out to punish her, but feel it’s time she owned up to what she really is.
Background
The person known today as Ann Coulter was born Jeremy Levinsohn in the village in New York in 1960. His parents were typical latte-drinking liberals, religiously conservative, but socially and politically radical. His father taught Russian Literature at CUNY and his mother was a social worker. His childhood friend Rodger Mihalot described him, “The Levinsohns were nice people, but his father was distant, so Jeremy seemed to seek a strong male figure in his life. Although they were Jewish, he often hung out at our church, and really seemed to spend a lot of time with Fr. Donatella Nowunn. I also think he was really looking to rebel against his overly liberal parents. Otherwise he was a typical kid, he liked to play cowboy, sailor and gladiator a lot. His favorite movie was always The Sheik, he really seemed to have a fascination with Arabs, I don’t know why.”
Ms. Coulter, a.k.a. Pudenda Shenanigans, in an undated photo taken in Key West.
In the 70’s Jeremy went to Brandeis, where he majored in Sociology, with a minor in comparative religions. His lifelong fascination with Muslims really seemed to take root at Brandeis. But college roommate Ima Gaiboyye described an unhappy man, “He was never really interested in women, but did go see the theater company’s production of “The Wizard of Oz” 10 times, I thought he liked the girl who played the lead, he really talked about her outfit a lot. After college Jeremy just dropped off the face of the earth, we never heard from him again.”
Jeremy drifted for awhile before finding himself in Key West. Co-worker Licky Dickenstein described these early years, “Jeremy was a natural, I never saw anyone take to drag so quickly. Once he found his persona, he was Pudenda Shenanigans. For most of us drag was a part time thing, but Pudenda was 24-7, always in character, always in costume. She really shook things up, she was a goddess on stage.”
Ms. Shenanigans and companion in New Orleans during Mardi Gras, 1987. 
Former boss Phil Yoras recalled those heady days, “Pudenda was really popular with all the celebrities who came in. She really worked the Republicans. Dennis Hastert, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Dick Cheney, they all used to sit right up front for her shows. Arnold Schwarzenegger used to be her favorite, but once she dressed in lederhosen and tried to do “My Favorite Things” while sitting on his lap. That was the last time Arnold came in. Of course he left holding a plate in front of his pants, I don’t know why.”
By 1985 Ms Shenanigans was dating a Lebanese businessman, Ustahav Toubohls and the two were believed to be deliriously happy. Friends report Pudenda always had a fetish for Muslims and was considering a marriage proposal. But then she opened up the New York Times one day and saw a picture of Mr. Toubohls with a famous actress in New York. Former friend Gaivit Tuhym described the result, “Pudenda was devastated, she couldn’t stand seeing her Toubohls with another woman. She cried and cried, ‘I miss my Toubohls, I want my Toubohls back!’ I don’t think she ever forgave him, the New York Times, or Muslims in general.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
If it's a case of the widows taking advantage of their husbands death in 9/11 for political advantage as being argued, then there is also a President & his party who have "enjoyed" 9/11 also. Still want to follow that line of reasoning guys?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
If it's a case of the widows taking advantage of their husbands death in 9/11 for political advantage as being argued, then there is also a President & his party who have "enjoyed" 9/11 also. Still want to follow that line of reasoning guys?
Yes, I want to follow the line of reasoning, bucause frankly the left has been making that claim for a LONG time. We can debate the validity of the claim on Bush and I think our side could come out on top, but that's the debate. What you're saying is that to even make the claim about the widows is off limits and indefenceable. I'll point out again that Kerry claimed that it's the Bush administrations policy to kill the troops and yet no outrage. We can have the debate about who's capitalisining on what and our side won't call it off bounds.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
Why WBAM, I said that Coulter can make all the nasty statements she wants. You however seem to think that nobody should judge her & that we have to buy your rationalizations.
Personally I hope conservatives continue to gush & fawn all over Coulter.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Why WBAM, I said that Coulter can make all the nasty statements she wants.
No you didn;t, sure I'm sure somewhere along the line you said she had the legal right to say what she wants, but never once have you responded to the argument. Everytime you say that it's wrong and indefencceable that she's attacking their character simply because they are widows. You make the same arguments about Bush and conservitives, but use the suffering of people as a human shield. You're speaking outside of both sides of your mouth and find every excuse not to debate the issue.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 74
Bitchswitch 25+ posts
|
|
Bitchswitch 25+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 74 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
There are people in the world who capitalise on tradgedy, some even capitalise on thier own. To point that out is hardly evil.
I cmpletely agree here.
Rosey Palm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
I gotta admit, I don't really read Coulter (although I did think Treason was a good read).
I'm more into Tammy Bruce.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Why WBAM, I said that Coulter can make all the nasty statements she wants.
No you didn;t, sure I'm sure somewhere along the line you said she had the legal right to say what she wants, but never once have you responded to the argument. Everytime you say that it's wrong and indefencceable that she's attacking their character simply because they are widows. You make the same arguments about Bush and conservitives, but use the suffering of people as a human shield. You're speaking outside of both sides of your mouth and find every excuse not to debate the issue.
I just don't buy the rationallizations you & WB have put forth. It seems to me that Coulter is the one that wants to sidestep debate & just engage in character assasination. What we come down to is there are just lines people don't cross. If Coulter wants to make lots of money taking potshots at 9/11 widows instead of engaging into any type of debate, I think it's fair to judge her for it. If it had been a liberal making the same nasty evil comment Coulter made at a group of conservative 9/11 widows, it would still be evil nasty comments. Basic human decency just isn't defined along partisan lines.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
I just don't buy the rationallizations you & WB have put forth. It seems to me that Coulter is the one that wants to sidestep debate & just engage in character assasination.
Really? Have you read the book or are you basing your entire opinion on the quote teh media has decided to circulate? She does engage in teh debate and does it quite well. But instead of engaging her in the debate, the left finds it easy to cry victim and point out that one of her quotes was mean and uncalled for.
Quote:
If it had been a liberal making the same nasty evil comment Coulter made at a group of conservative 9/11 widows, it would still be evil nasty comments. Basic human decency just isn't defined along partisan lines.
Really? Because if I were to define the line I would place it at comparing terrorists to our founding fathers or comparing our troops to terrorists or Nazis or accusing someone of desireing thier deaths for political gain. Yet the left does that all the time. You just want to define the line and you want to put people in the public debate whome you define as untouchable.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 1
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Really? Because if I were to define the line I would place it at comparing terrorists to our founding fathers or comparing our troops to terrorists or Nazis or accusing someone of desireing thier deaths for political gain. Yet the left does that all the time.
When.... (and dear gob, I do NOT want to be part of this debate)...and who has ever said that? Someone in power said our troops were Nazis and terrorists?
And, honestly, I think "rebels" or "insurgents" would better describe the Founding Fathers more than "terrorists". They weren't out to invoke "terror"...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Prometheus said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Really? Because if I were to define the line I would place it at comparing terrorists to our founding fathers or comparing our troops to terrorists or Nazis or accusing someone of desireing thier deaths for political gain. Yet the left does that all the time.
When.... (and dear gob, I do NOT want to be part of this debate)...and who has ever said that? Someone in power said our troops were Nazis and terrorists?
And, honestly, I think "rebels" or "insurgents" would better describe the Founding Fathers more than "terrorists". They weren't out to invoke "terror"...
Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, for one, compared U.S. soldiers in Iraq to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags and the Pol Pot regime..."
Comments for which he received so much heat, Durbin finally retracted the remarks. And when it is brought up in interviews now, he alleges he never said this and was "misrepresented".
John Kerry made the same allegations about U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, to the point that the Vietnam Veterans Against the War ( V V A W ) finally distanced themselves from Kerry. Years later, Kerry finally relented, and admitted things he claimed to have witnessed first-hand, he never actually saw. But liberals nationwide still perpetuate these myths.
Plus many other prominent liberals and liberal Bloggers. Here on RKMB, at least once a week some liberal on these boards likens Bush to the Nazis.
There is certainly no shortage of rope that liberals have produced to hang themselves on this charge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
For how strongly some of you guys feel that liberals say things comparable to Coulter's, nobody has yet provided a direct quote. Wonder Boy comes the closest to talking about Senator Durbin who did apologize for the below comment... Quote:
When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
So we have one quote by a liberal that he later apologized for. Care to back up your claims a bit more?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
I noted that Kerry refered to the presidents plan as "lie and die" clearly implying that it's the presiden;t POLICY to see troops killed int the field. That quote and the one you posted above are both by ELECTED. OFFICIALS. If I wanted to go looking for the quotes by commentators I could come up with much dishier dirt. From Michael Moore calling the passangers on the planes of 9-11 white cowards to Randy Rhodes making jokes about killing the president, but I don;t have the time to go searching for the exact quotes nor do I think they're as important as the ones you've posted by elected officials. Ann is a commentator, she's not a leader. Some things she says are rediculouse and some are spot on, but she doesn;t form policy.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
So we have one quote by a liberal that he later apologized for. Care to back up your claims a bit more?
Quote:
the G-man said:
Then there's these pictures from recent American anti-war protests:
[image]http://www.frontpagemag.com[/image]
Quote:
the G-man said:
From a San Francisco Chronicle report on a Saturday "antiwar" protest:
"The only way the United States is going to leave Iraq... is if the Iraqi resistance militarily wins," said Joshua Deutsch, 22, a public health student at UC Berkeley with a "Long Live Fallujah" sign.
Deutsch said he hoped as few U.S. troops are killed as possible, but "There is a right side to this conflict, and the Iraqis are fighting for their freedom."
Is it OK if I question this "dissenter's" patriotism?
Quote:
the G-man said:
From MainToday.com
For a moment or two, right around the time he heard himself called a "fascist" and a "Nazi," Bill Whitten began to wonder if it was all worth it.
The ex-Marine from Yarmouth had tirelessly spent the last 18 months raising what now stands at $14,000 and counting to erect a U.S. flag over Fort Gorges. Now here he sat Monday evening seeking final approval from the Portland City Council and, right out of the red, white and blue, a young man stood up to the microphone and linked Whitten's good name to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler.
"I couldn't believe what I was hearing," Whitten said after the council unanimously approved his plan. "I was just totally dumfounded."
And with good reason. For all we hear these days about the political rantings of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Rabid Right, this week's City Council meeting offered a glimpse at the opposite - but equally mind-numbing - end of the spectrum.
Call them the Livid Left.
"Fort Gorges is at the entrance to Portland Harbor - it's the first thing people see coming in on the Scotia Prince. What's wrong with flying an American flag out there?" Whitten said. "I just can't comprehend how someone could hate something so much - when that same thing has given them so much."
That someone would be Shawn Loura. You may have seen him in recent months standing atop the rounded stone barriers on the edge of Monument Square, flashing the peace sign to motorists as they wait at the Congress Street stop light and wonder if he ever loses his balance.
Make no mistake about it. Monday evening, Loura took a tumble.
While a handful of others objected to the Fort Gorges flag for reasons ranging from the practical (the city needs a formal policy for accepting gifts) to the political (the Bush administration has so co-opted the flag that it is now synonymous with support for the war), it was Loura who left everyone slack-jawed with his two-cents worth: Whitten's flag doesn't signify democracy and freedom. It reflects Nazism and fascism.
"I'm sitting there thinking, 'Gosh, sometimes we make things more complicated than they are.' " recalled City Councilor Peter O'Donnell, who opposes the war himself but had no problem telling Loura he'd gone "way over the line."
Quote:
the G-man said:
From the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Thistle, self-described as “an alternative news collective,” here’s a cartoon that seems to dispute the notion of “support our troops, not the war” Victory to the Iraqi Resistance.
And this lovely little article, " Hold Your Head High, You are in Fallujah!":
The debate during the Vietnam war was built around the question, “Can we win in Vietnam” rather than, “Why are we attacking a defenseless nation?” This time, in Iraq, if the debate admits the obvious moral question, “How are we freeing Iraqis by bombing them with cluster bombs?” then less excuses will be available to people like bin Laden to justify another September 11. If this doesn’t happen, then the American public need no longer ask “why do they hate us?” They will know why. At the very least, this public can demand to hear a clear statement from the so-called Democratic opposition candidate, John Kerry, that he opposes the war and would withdraw the forces from Iraq, as did the new Prime Minister of Spain?
As far as the progressive and radical elements of the US opposition, can they be brave and take the side of the victims of Uncle Sam? Can they build their argument on something more than expressing concern for the safety of US military personnel? Can they take their position further than opposing the war simply because of the horror of soldiers returning in body bags? Can they instead openly support the right of the Iraqis to resist?
This time, Rambo, Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Hollywood will have to do a lot of acting and lying to restore the image of the American military hero and his adventures abroad.
The US can lie all it wants about those who are resisting in Iraq and about what is really happening, but one thing is for sure: Uncle Sam knows what kind of losses he is suffering. The bigger the lie, the harder the downfall will be.
The whole world owes Fallujah a tribute. Through the sacrifice of Iraqi fighters, the entire world has been shown the bloodsucking nature of US empire. The resistance in Fallujah is a lesson to all who choose to resist a life of oppression.
During a TV interview , one of the resistance members of Fallujah said: “We will fight until our last bullet, our last drop of blood. We hold our heads high in the sky, because we are in Al-Fallujah.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
The examples are abundant, G-man, to be sure.
It seems to me that M E M's best defense is to allege:
"Well, the Republicans do it too. Look at what Ann Coulter says."
But my point is that the Republicans (including Coulter) never take it as far as Democrats do. At their very worst, Republicans turn the same rhetoric back on the Democrats, turning their own mischaracterizations back on them. Such as the MoveOn.org ad that morphed Bush into a Nazi. The Republicans responded with a similar ad that was a clear reference to the ad it responded to.
I've said again and again what Ann Coulter's central point was about the 9-11 wives. These weren't women who innocently sat by and passively made remarks that favored Democrats. These were women who held press conferences and cavorted with the elite of the Democrat party, who were clearly assisted in an organized campaign to attack President Bush and the war itself.
And yet Ann Coulter and others are not allowed to comment on that public display, and the exploitative nature of their widow status that they ride on ??!?!?
How dare she !" you say.
Well I say: How dare you !
It is not a matter of these women (and Cindy Sheehan, and Richard Clarke, and Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame) wrapping themselves in the flag. But is instead a matter of these assholes cloaking themselves in the flag, hiding their bitter partisan motives that, far from defending this country, are targeted to weaken and divide the country, for their own selfish and political objectives.
But Ann Coulter and other conservatives are not allowed to question their intentions? These widows aren't grieving, they're campaigning !
Your argument against Coulter (for her criticizing 9-11 widows who exploit their widow status to attack, then hide behind their widow image as a shield from criticism) is bullshit.
A lowest common denominator emotionally charged smokescreen that (as Coulter points out, but you constantly try to distract from) Democrats hide behind and say "These people are widows/goldstar moms/CIA agents/etc. , how dare you question their motives or what they say"
Well, if these people were grieving quietly (or regarding Clarke and Wilson, just doing their jobs instead of playing partisan games), that would be another story.
But when they go in front of TV cameras, allege Bush was complicit in a 9-11 conspiracy, demand independent investigations, publicly bash the president, publicly bash the Iraq war, publicly endorse Kerry's 2004 campaign, then they have waived my sympathy, and they deserve to be questioned, commented on and scrutinized, just as publicly.
Which is all Coulter has done. And more fucking power to her.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
For how strongly some of you guys feel that liberals say things comparable to Coulter's, nobody has yet provided a direct quote. Wonder Boy comes the closest to talking about Senator Durbin who did apologize for the below comment...
Quote:
When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
So we have one quote by a liberal that he later apologized for. Care to back up your claims a bit more?
You say this like it somehow disproves what I've said. But Durbin's remarks instead corroborate my point.
These were remarks for which he got such a backlash that he retracted them. They weren't misquoted and/or misrepresented. They were dead wrong.
You act like they were correct, and just misrepresented.
Durbin himself retracted them.
And when he's asked about these remarks, he now feigns as if he never made them.
Durbin is among the poster boys for the misguided tactics of the Democrat party, who use misrepresentative emotionally charged rhetoric to divide the country, turn the public against the war, shake our resolve, demoralize our military to make them think the public does not support them... when they know in their hearts that staying in Iraq, as long as it takes till the Iraqi military and government is strong enough, is the correct course of action.
Any other course condemns members of the Iraqi government and all other participants in Iraq's democracy to slaughter.
John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats posture in front of the TV cameras and say they oppose Bush's "stay the course" policy in Iraq, that we should leave Iraq ASAP, and publicly press for a withdrawal deadline. But when pressed in interviews, every one of them says that it would be a mistake to pull out prematurely, and any deadline should be extended if more time is needed. So what these assholes publicly advocate is meaningless, and serves no purpose but to divide public opinion, and undermine support for the war, while they score political points at Bush's expense, and make it that much harder to do what needs to be done militarily.
Once again, Al Qaida and the Iranians call these assholes "useful idiots".
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
I see this being the difference between me & some of you. I don't support bashing the troops. Like Coulter, those protesters have a right to express their nastiness but I'm not buying books or making posts defending them. I'm not trying to make that nastiness acceptable. You guys are.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I see this being the difference between me & some of you. I don't support bashing the troops.
You'll have to explain long and hard how I or any other conservative here "supports bashing the troops". Nice bit of smear on your part.
I just got finished explaining that Coulter is not saying what she has about the 9-11 widows to be "nasty".
Ann Coulter's remarks are deconstruction of how liberals/Democrats set up high-profile "victim" spokespersons who say "nasty" things about Bush and American policy, but because of who they are (victims), the simple act of questioning their propaganda remarks and credibility is considered an outrage by Democrats like yourself.
Is it finally starting to sink in ? I've said it at least 5 times.
So Coulter is not saying "nasty" things.
Coulter is responding to nasty things said by victim spokespersons on the Left. And deconstructing how any conservative who questions their liberal propaganda and hate rhetoric is, ironically, labelled as "nasty".
Quote:
Matter Eater man said:
Like Coulter, those protesters have a right to express their nastiness but I'm not buying books or making posts defending them. I'm not trying to make that nastiness acceptable. You guys are.
Funny how opinion of the protestors you allegedly condemn gels so perfectly with your own.
At any point in this war on terror, I've never once heard you say anything in support of defending the United States, in defense of Bush policy in that direction, or for that matter, in support of the troops or their families.
You don't support "nastiness", right.
You just Google up media matters propaganda and similar liberal venom every other post.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
If I wasn't clear I meant that I don't support the protesters bashing the troops while you support Coulter claiming the 9/11 widows enjoyed their deaths.
You can keep on repeating your rationalization of Coulter's character assasinations, I'll keep repeating my dissagrement & distaste for her nastiness.
I support the troops. There are posts in the past where I've voiced that support.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,051 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
If I wasn't clear I meant that I don't support the protesters bashing the troops while you support Coulter claiming the 9/11 widows enjoyed their deaths.
Again, that's your own spin, that completely bypasses the larger point Coulter was making.
When widows repeatedly hold press conferences slamming the President, they have made vicious allegations, and can no longer hide behind "grieving widow" status to protect them from answering a dialogue that they initiated on their motives and allegations.
"Grieving" widows don't hold press conferences and launch partisan attacks.
Quote:
Matter Eater Man said:
You can keep on repeating your rationalization of Coulter's character assasinations, I'll keep repeating my dissagrement & distaste for her nastiness.
You keep giving partisan distortion of what Ann Coulter actually said , and I'll keep redirecting the discussion to the true situation and facts.
Coulter is responding to "nastiness" from the Left, not initiating it.
Quote:
Matter Eater Man said:
I support the troops. There are posts in the past where I've voiced that support.
You hate the mission but support the troops?
It's hard to remember who (among liberals) said what here on RKMB after almost three and a half years of war. But I'd like if you could detail how you support the troops when you're, by all appearances, so opposed to every aspect of the war in Iraq.
It seems to me that in wanting to withdraw them prematurely, you want their sacrifice over the last three-plus years to have been for nothing.
I know that comes across as mocking, but it's not. How do you reconcile the two (opposing the war, supporting the troops). I'd just like to understand that perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
If I wasn't clear I meant that I don't support the protesters bashing the troops while you support Coulter claiming the 9/11 widows enjoyed their deaths.
You can keep on repeating your rationalization of Coulter's character assasinations, I'll keep repeating my dissagrement & distaste for her nastiness.
I support the troops. There are posts in the past where I've voiced that support.
Do you also reject Kerry's saying that it is the Bush policy to wantenly see our troops die?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
If I wasn't clear I meant that I don't support the protesters bashing the troops while you support Coulter claiming the 9/11 widows enjoyed their deaths.
You can keep on repeating your rationalization of Coulter's character assasinations, I'll keep repeating my dissagrement & distaste for her nastiness.
I support the troops. There are posts in the past where I've voiced that support.
Do you also reject Kerry's saying that it is the Bush policy to wantenly see our troops die?
I would disagree with that. I think Bush doesn't care about the troops really, but I don't think he wants them to die.
I do think Kerry cares more for their welfare because he's been in their position.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,816 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
...
I support the troops. There are posts in the past where I've voiced that support.
Do you also reject Kerry's saying that it is the Bush policy to wantenly see our troops die?
I would disagree with that. I think Bush doesn't care about the troops really, but I don't think he wants them to die.
I do think Kerry cares more for their welfare because he's been in their position.
Kerry didn't say it was Bush's policy to "wantenly see our troops die" , unless you buy WBAM's translation of the original quote.
Quote:
"'Cut and run' — that's their phrase," he said. "They found their three words. They love to do that. And they're going to try to make the elections in November a choice between 'cut and run' and 'stay the course.' That's not the choice."
"My plan is not 'cut and run,'" he said. "Their plan is 'lie and die.' And that's what they are doing. They lie to America, what's happening on the ground. They lie about why we're there. They lie about what's happening. And our plan is very simple. It's redeploy to win the war on terror. Change to succeed."
- Kerry
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
