|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
girls have vaginas, boys have penises....
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
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!
Oh My God!!! I would masturbate every night to that if I had that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
girls have vaginas, boys have penises....
Ann Coulter has neither
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif) dont let political views get in the way of oggling fine pussy!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15 |
quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
that cant be correct, perhaps the U2 bandmember hadnt talked to whomod yet?
LMAO!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
dont let political views get in the way of oggling fine pussy!
You're right. But they're not political views, her columns are so pathetic that it makes me laugh. She's like Moore or Limbaugh but 10 times worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,053 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,053 Likes: 31 |
Coulter editorial
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Here. Maybe you and Ann Coulter can work double-time to smear these guys and call them traitors, LIBERALS (gasp!), and unAmerican and what-not. Then you can parade the vast stockpiles of WMD's, mobile weapons labs, underground facilities, nuclear bombs, and a fleet of wormhole warping drone planes to deliver their deadly cargo at our doorstep, for all of us to marvel at. You may want to bring the Iranian spy, Ahmed Chalabi to back you up on this one.
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
Last edited by whomod; 2004-06-13 1:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
The problem here is that you have to agree with these diplomats that the U.S. should allow itself to be governed in matters of its own national security by foreign powers.
This is, sadly, not an uncommon view of the modern diplomat, who seems to take the view that being liked is better than being right.
Also, looking at the employment histories of most of these officials, it appears that they typically in office during the rise of bin Laden and Al Quaeda.
If we assume, as whomod and others have asked us to do, that it was a failure to not recognize his threat prior to 9/11 then aren't these diplomats and military also part of that failure?
If so, then aren't we being asked to take the advice on the war on terror of the very people who failed in that war previously?
Or, perhaps their ire is caused not so much by President Bush's failings but their own inability to realize that the world has changed since they held office and their own methods are outdated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
I just love this part:
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.
Right, we lost the Vietnam war....because we thought we were losing the Vietnam war.
Those dirty liberal history books must be all wrong!
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.
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.
Actually, I recall Clinton received a lot of criticism for the military action in Kosovo, especially after it was reported a majority of the bombs missed.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
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! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,053 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,053 Likes: 31 |
There was a lengthy aside about Bush's rejection of the Kyoto agreement on page 2 of this topic.
Bush is vilified for rejecting it, but as G-man said earlier (quoted below), and as George Will details in the quoted column that follows, Bush is not alone in his assessment that it was/is not a good agreement:
Quote:
the G-man said:
.
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.
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:
Dave said:
.
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.
.
Exactly. When nearly everything we own is "made in China," the idea that China is "developing" and should be exempted is ludicrous. The fact that China is exempted is further evidence that this treaty is simply some sort of anti-US rule.
.
Quote:
Dave said:In any event, the US, as the world's principal polluter, has no excuse of being a developing country.
.
No, but they have the 'excuses,' or more accurately 'reasons' cited previously: that the treaty would be ineffectual at everything except crippling the US economy and sending millions to the unemployment line.
If, as you say, Europe and Japan are implementing Kyoto then let's wait and observe things for a few years. Let's see if they actually cut emissions and let's see how their economy is effected. Then the United States can make an informed decision.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29861-2004Jun9.html
.
CRITICAL MASS FOR KERRY
By George F. Will
.
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A19
.
John Kerry recently stopped in Las Vegas to say: "Rest assured, Nevada. If I'm president, Yucca Mountain will not be a depository."
Back to mind comes Chic Hecht, a one-term Republican senator elected in 1982, who said he opposed using Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a nuclear waste "suppository."
.
Also to mind comes the French sovereign known as Henry of Navarre (1553-1610). More about him anon.
.
The problem of nuclear waste has been studied for 50 years. Twenty-two years ago Washington took responsibility for that waste --there are 49,000 metric tons of it-- stored at 131 sites in the 39 states with nuclear power plants.
.
Seventeen years ago Congress selected Nevada --the federal government owns 86 percent of the state-- for the repository.
Beginning in 2010, the waste is to be put 1,000 feet underground, on 1,000 feet of rock, in steel containers in 100 miles of storage tunnels within the mountain.
.
But in 1996 President Bill Clinton promised to veto any attempt to make Nevada even a temporary repository. That promise helped him beat Bob Dole there by just 4,730 votes, the smallest state margin that year.
.
In 2000 George W. Bush promised not to make Nevada a temporary repository, but he said "sound science" would guide him regarding establishing a permanent repository there.
He beat Al Gore 50 to 46 (301,575 votes to 279,978).
A switch of 10,799 votes would have made Gore president.
.
In 2002 Bush approved Yucca Mountain as the permanent site. Congress said Nevada's governor could veto the selection but that his veto could be overridden by majorities in both houses.
He [ Nevada's governor ] vetoed it; Congress overrode him.
.
By this protracted dance of democracy the interests of an American majority --161 million live within 75 miles of today's storage sites-- prevailed, respectfully, over the objections of an intense minority, the approximately 2 million people who live in southern Nevada.
.
Kerry's willingness to overturn this accommodation reflects a cold, and factually correct, calculation having nothing to do with the national interest: For the intense and compact Nevada minority, unlike for the diffuse American majority, this is a vote-determining issue.
.
Kerry's message to Nevadans --essentially, "I feel your hypothetical pain"-- testifies to his readiness to do whatever it takes to win.
As does his vow last month that, if elected, he would renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
.
He would try to force signatory nations (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and, soon, the Dominican Republic) to adopt labor and environmental standards more pleasing to him.
The ostensible purpose of this would be to improve the lot of labor in those nations. But the primary purpose of the re-negotiation would be to raise production costs in those countries, thereby making imports from them less competitive with U.S. products.
.
Time was, Kerry was a free-trader. Now he favors "fair trade," as defined by his labor allies. But he still is a critic of what he and like-minded people consider the administration's obnoxious tendency to tell other nations how to behave.
.
The Wall Street Journal reports that "it would be unprecedented for a newly elected president to turn his back on a major trade deal negotiated by his predecessor."
Unprecedented and, in Kerry's case, inconsistent.
.
When Kerry and kindred spirits criticize what they consider the Bush administration's hubris and bad diplomatic manners, they often cite its withdrawal from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
It is understandable that they do not dwell on the fact that the Clinton administration refused to submit it for Senate ratification, or that the Senate voted 95 to 0 for a resolution against proceeding with the protocol as negotiated.
The junior senator from Massachusetts said "no one in their right mind" would favor it as it is.
.
As far as Yucca Mountain and CAFTA are concerned, Kerry's comportment reflects toughness -- call it Navarrean toughness -- about subordinating all considerations of principle to the exigencies of winning power.
.
Someone in the White House has naughtily said that Kerry "looks French." The scalding truth is that he wears Hermes neckties, which are French, and, worse still, he speaks French.
But his real French connection is his spiritual kinship with Henry of Navarre.
.
Henry was raised a Protestant but converted to Catholicism -- twice -- for political reasons. His explanation still resonates with those politicians -- a large tribe -- who believe, as Kerry does, in doing whatever is necessary:
"Paris is well worth a Mass."
_______________________________
.
georgewill@washpost.com
.
Staying more on-topic, here's a recent Ann Coulter column on the media portrayal of Reagan's death, and retrospective of Reagan's Presidency:
Quote:
So Now They Think He Was Charming
by Ann Coulter
June 9, 2004
.
America's greatest president has gone home.
.
God worked through Ronald Reagan on Earth and now He's taken him back. Reagan is survived by his wife, three children, and the hundreds of millions of people he saved by winning the Cold War.
Thanks to him, the United States of America never ceased to be, as Reagan said, "a place to escape to" -- the last stand on Earth.
.
No thanks to liberals, I might add. More enraging than their revisionist history of Reagan, is liberals' revisionist history about themselves. Now liberals claim they liked Reagan at the time. This is extremely believable -- aren't we all fond of someone who regularly exposes us as liars, cowards and hypocrites? It's just human nature.
.
In fact and of course, liberals loathed Reagan.
.
Their European friends loathed Reagan -- the protests against our current president are positively anemic compared to the massive protests against President Reagan when he went to visit our dear "allies," whose sorry asses we spent billions of dollars defending against the Soviets for 50 years.
.
Even the moderate Republicans currently trying to insinuate themselves onto Reagan's legacy weren't especially fond of Reagan at the time --especially when attacking him publicly would get them invites to the tonier Georgetown cocktail parties. Only authentic Americans loved Reagan.
.
From the descriptions in the media, you would think the reason Reagan was beloved by Americans was that he was an affable fellow who could tell a good joke. That's a description of Bob Dole, not Ronald Reagan.
.
Reagan was a March hare right-winger. He had enough faith in the American people to know that as long as the facts were clear, they would rise to the occasion and be March hare right-wingers, too.
As Reagan himself said, back in 1964: "Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and me believe that this is a contest between two men ... that we are to choose just between two personalities."
.
Reagan forced Americans to confront the real ideological divide between conservatives and, as he said, "our liberal friends."
.
But now liberals are trying to muddy the political waters by passing off Reagan's popularity as a result of his personal magnetism.
I note that liberals were strangely immune to that magnetism at the time. Only now do they talk about Reagan's outsized personality as if he worked some sort of beguiling magic over the electorate and tricked them into supporting policies they never quite understood.
.
While Reagan had undeniable magnetism, what set him apart was that he had the courage to speak the truth and trust the American people.
In the 1964 speech that launched his political career, "A Time for Choosing," Reagan never smiled. He told no jokes -- though he did say some amusing things inasmuch as he was talking about "our liberal friends."
.
In the throes of the Cold War --still hot in Vietnam-- Reagan forthrightly said liberals refused to acknowledge that the choice was not between "peace and war, only between fight and surrender."
.
In words that would have come in pretty handy in Spain just a few months ago, he said liberals tell us "if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us." All who disagree with the "peace" crowd, he said, "are indicted as warmongers."
To this, Reagan said: "Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender."
.
This wasn't sunny old grandpa carrying candy around in his pocket for children.
.
After watching Walter Cronkite's coverage of the Vietnam War in December 1972, Reagan told President Richard Nixon, "under World War II circumstances, the network (CBS) would have been charged with treason."
.
Reagan quoted "Mr. Democrat himself," Al Smith, for the proposition that the Democratic Party was no longer the party of Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland, but was now the party of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. (And that was 30 years before they tried to push Hillarycare on us.)
.
Reagan was a bulldog, completely, implacably right-wing on every issue. He was the right-wing Energizer Bunny. He never quit and he kept beating liberals.
.
He cut taxes 25 percent across the board his first year in office;
he walked away from Gorbachev at Reykjavik;
he fired all those air traffic controllers -- and wouldn't let them come back even when they wanted to;
he gave speeches about "welfare queens" and polluting trees;
he nominated Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork to the Supreme Court;
and he enraged grim liberals when he warmed up his radio mike by saying, "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
.
But now they're telling us Reagan was a "pragmatist."
Well, not according to him.
.
As he was wrapping up the Republican primaries in 1980 and moderate weenies in the Republican Party were trying to move him to the "center," Reagan said: "No, I'm not moving my positions any. ... I believe the same things that I've been speaking on for years, and I don't see any reason to change."
Thank God he didn't. Because Reagan lived, the world is a better place.
- 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: 25,053 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,053 Likes: 31 |
Ann Coulter will be interviewed on Scarborough Country on CNBC at 10 P.M. (Eastern time), in a few minutes, for those interested.
I've never seen her talk prior to this, I've only read her columns in print. It'll be interesting to see what contrast there is, if any.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
She is reaaaallllly annoying, she gets away with it because she is pretty attractive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
She's attractive? Maybe in a wanna be eithiopian way.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
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 many people, thin leggy & blonde equals pretty. Perhaps we should just merge this thread with the anarexia one?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
To put things into perspective, a lot of people think Paris Hilton is sexy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,053 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,053 Likes: 31 |
Well, I didn't really know what to expect. I thought she came across as quite intelligent, and spouted off a nice salvo of one-liners.
Similar to Rush Limbaugh, there was a lot of playful humor in her comments, and she didn't come across with the angriness that I see liberals repeatedly vilify her for.
The subject of the program segment was Ward Churchill, the Colorado professor who made some outrageous comments about Americans needing "another 9-11", and the professor vocally expressing an over-sympathetic viewpoint toward Islamic terror, and a distortedly negative opinion of the U.S., for which the board of regents of that university is weighing whether to deny the professor tenure and fire him.
Although some of Coulter's comments were a little more vulgar than I would have liked. The "it's like farting in a church" comment I could have done without.
I actually think they should let this professor jerk keep his job, rather than glorify him as a martyr to liberals nationwide by firing him.
Then can his sorry ass later, quietly, for other academic (rather than political) reasons.
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, as would an author or radio/television commentator who runs that risk.
Mention was given to a recent New York Times survey, showing an average 7 out of 8 surveyed professors identify themselves as "liberal".
Demonstrating the views thrust on students are disproportionately one-sided, with no attempt made at academic balance.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
They should plant cocaine and pot in his office.....alot of it.....and then make a phone call.................if you know what I mean. 
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Unfortunately, if they did that, the Professor would claim to be "disabled" with a "Substance Abuse Problem" and then they couldn't fire him as a person covered by the "Americans with Disabilities Act."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
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.
While I get her point regarding accountablility, I don't see how this is actually practical. You can't just wake up one day and say and get hired as a pundit that easily. So he's a coward just because he isn't a pundit. I'm not following the train of logic!
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Perhaps what she meant was that true radicals would oppose tenure in academia?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
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.
One of the basic tenets of the tenure process is so that academics can feel free to express themselves without fear of termination on the grounds of simply being controversial or radical.
Now, this may sound surprising, but I do not favor the tenure process. It can allow poor educators to keep jobs they no longer deserve. A radical professor keeping his/her job doesn't concern me. A poor professor keeping his/her job does.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
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: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Speaking of Ward Churchill, I found an interesting editorial about him, and you guys may want to keep it in mind as we continue to hear about this case (read it carefully). It's from the Chicago Tribune
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."
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
No one is saying Churchill doesn't have the right to speak his mind. The question is whether or not the State has to pay him to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
The article comments on that at the end.
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."
So according to the editorial, professors should not be fired for saying something revolting and offensive.
As for me personally, I also don't think college professors should be fired for saying something radical and controversial (although this is not absolute - under certain extreme circumstances, I wouldn't have a problem). Mostly because people have different barometers for what they consider to be offensive. In this case, everybody can agree that Churchill's comments are revolting. But what happens in cases where it's not so clear or drastic? Or if only one single person is offended? Or if a professor relays information that is completely true and accurate, but a student finds it to be offensive somehow?
Not every instance of a professor saying something radical and controversial is going to be a Ward Churchill. So I just think that there is potential to set a precedent that will be dangerous to college professors and their ability to teach and share their ideas.
Last edited by Darknight613; 2005-02-11 4:09 AM.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
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.
Ah...I haven't read any of that. I kinda popped into this thread in the middle of the Ward Churchill discussion. When I came across this editorial, I thought that since you guys were talking about him, you'd find it interesting.
Anyways...
If Ann Coulter is merely saying that newspapers, columnists, and politicians ought to be able to speak their minds just as college professors can, I'll agree with that. There should be non-biased journalism as well, but I have no objection to columnists and editorials and politicians speaking their minds. And if I disagree, then I disagree.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
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.
I agree with it not being couragous, but that doesn't necessarily make it cowardly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 193
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 193 |
America, love it or leave it!
[url=http://www.robkamphausen.com/ubbthreads/...e=0&fpart=2 ]the G-man said[/url]
Wednesday and I have an open relationship. And we believe in sharing.
G-Man "G-gay" points: 2,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
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 can't believe a house hasn't landed on this woman yet. http://mediamatters.org/items/200502280009Universal 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."
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
omg she called someone an arab? does she have no soul? and oily, that is low. oily, i have to wash after typing that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
The above post is why bsams is a super moderator and we can only hope to aspire to his level. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
Quote:
PJP said:
The above post is why bsams is a super moderator and we can only hope to aspire to his level.
im glad you made this post i was about to change my title to oily arab.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
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."
Goddamn first amendment. Always getting in the way.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Get PJP a soda, or something.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
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 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
