OT - Ann Coulter Column

[NoMyths]

Because The Drudge Report is up in arms about Ann Coulter's column for USA Today being spiked (reportedly calling it "unusable" and "not funny"), I thought that since it was the first day of the Democratic Convention I'd do my part for equal time and publish it here, so that at least the FOFC crew would be able to hear what one of the more vocal conservative mouthpieces has to say about the event.

Link: http://www.anncoulter.com

Full Text:
Put the Speakers in a Cage
by Ann Coulter

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. W've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital "Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gore's Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

[SirFozzie]

Wow. Good call USA today.

[Subby]

Kneecap with hair...

[yabanci]

I can't believe people like to read this crap.

And not because I disagree with her political views, but because it's just crap.

[Glengoyne]

Over the top, but she does makea few poignant points. Not that I agree with everything she says in there, but it did generate a few grins.

[Maple Leafs]

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Nice.

[Franklinnoble]

I'd hit it.

[Ksyrup]

I'm a conservative and this is the first thing I've ever read from this woman. And likely the last.

I know it sorely disappoints people like NoMyths to hear this, but the truth is, many of us don't just take our cues from entertainers such as Rush, Coulter, and O'Reilly. They are what they are - a little bit truth (from my perspective, anyway) and a whole lot of outrageousness, because that's where they make their money.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I'd hit it.

Originally Posted by Subby

Kneecap with hair...

Tonya Harding!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

...I know it sorely disappoints people like NoMyths to hear this, but the truth is, many of us don't just take our cues from entertainers such as Rush, Coulter, and O'Reilly...

The difference between republicans/moderates and the whacko left is that, if this article were written from a left wing point of view, you'd have folks claiming there were actual facts all of the women at the democratic convention are ugly, and that Dennis Kucinich actually lost all of the money in his till at a seven eleven.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I know it sorely disappoints people like NoMyths to hear this, but the truth is, many of us don't just take our cues from entertainers such as Rush, Coulter, and O'Reilly. They are what they are - a little bit truth (from my perspective, anyway) and a whole lot of outrageousness, because that's where they make their money.

Actually, you're incorrect. Your statement doesn't sorely dissapoint me.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The difference between republicans/moderates and the whacko left is that, if this article were written from a left wing point of view, you'd have folks claiming there were actual facts all of the women at the democratic convention are ugly, and that Dennis Kucinich actually lost all of the money in his till at a seven eleven.

Were you abused as a child?

[Ksyrup]

Why else would you post this, then? I don't see any conservatives rushing (no pun intended) to post the latest inane, inflammatory rhetoric from Al Franken, as if his comments speak for all liberals (which is precisely why you continue to post stuff like this).

Well, Franken's probably a bad example, since no one can even GET his show. But I think you get my point.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm a conservative and this is the first thing I've ever read from this woman. And likely the last.

I know it sorely disappoints people like NoMyths to hear this, but the truth is, many of us don't just take our cues from entertainers such as Rush, Coulter, and O'Reilly. They are what they are - a little bit truth (from my perspective, anyway) and a whole lot of outrageousness, because that's where they make their money.

Then you my friend, are a conservative who deserves my respect. Nice to hear a comment like this.

More towards the Coulter article, this is her normal crap as it is for many "mouth pieces" of each political party, dems and repubs. My favorite is when they try to depict the other of doing nothing but creating fear in order to win votes, when they both do it. Democrats want you to think all Republicans are super-religious nuts, that are racist and classist. While Republicans want you to think that Democrats are all trying to reform the Soviet Union in the U.S. and that all Dems hate people like troops and soldiers.............it's all so very old and tiresome. Third party voter for life here...............

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Why else would you post this, then? I don't see any conservatives rushing (no pun intended) to post the latest inane, inflammatory rhetoric from Al Franken, as if his comments speak for all liberals (which is precisely why you continue to post stuff like this).

Well, Franken's probably a bad example, since no one can even GET his show. But I think you get my point.

I posted this because at one point it was one of Drudge's top news stories, and once the column became available I wanted to read it to find out why it got spiked. I figured some other folks around here might feel the same way. Drudge is now linking the story from his site as well.

I made no comment that would indicate I believed the statement you made. I'm merely providing today's controversial column by a big-name conservative.

It's unfortunate that you have a skewed idea of my motives. I don't "continue to post stuff like this" -- I'd once again suggest reading through my past OT posts, but that's obviously not going to happen. My political posts are almost entirely restricted to posting news reports, and hardly ever opinion columns. Reading this got me thinking about how I've been accused of never posting anything from "the other side," though, so I thought this would be a good time to do so.

[Arles]

Why is it that people are surprised that as the population becomes increasingly more partisan and inflamatory that the pundents follow suit?

I look at pundits and commentators as entertainers that sometimes make a point. People like Rush, Coulter, Moore, Franken,... are often over the top. But, if they weren't, nobody would listen.

I'm not aware of the market for cautious, moderate and safe political commentators. Maybe when one arises, we'll get more.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's unfortunate that you have a skewed idea of my motives...Reading this got me thinking about how I've been accused of never posting anything from "the other side," though, so I thought this would be a good time to do so.

Maybe if you hadn't chosen this as your "fair access policy" coming-out post, I wouldn't be so suspicious. Honestly, I don't know what "side" you think most conservatives are on, but this kind of stuff doesn't represent the majority of "our side."

[Easy Mac]

I concur with Arlie... *wait for it*... no its not a joke. Most conservies (easier than writing conservatives) think the left all agree with everything moore says. We don't, he can make good points sometimes, and most people can make good points more often than not. But these people who are on TV either don't know how or just don't want to stop there. They want or have to be extravagant to get their point across. If I have to say that Bush eats babies so I can get on TV, then so be it, as long as I get to express my more exact views on specifics that I disagree. You have to rope them in somehow.

However, if the opinion media people really believe all the stuff they say, then so help us GOd from all sides.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Maybe if you hadn't chosen this as your "fair access policy" coming-out post, I wouldn't be so suspicious. Honestly, I don't know what "side" you think most conservatives are on, but this kind of stuff doesn't represent the majority of "our side."

Then don't assume that I'm trying to make a statement like that. I realize that this column doesn't represent the majority of conservatives. If I wanted to make a statement to the contrary, I would have.

[Sharpieman]

I totally agree with you Arles.

On a side note, I would hit it and then pull an R. Kelly. lol.

[Dutch]

Ann Coulter (who ever that is) does not represent my beliefs either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Once again, I find Ann Coulter to be the best female writer in America today, at least in terms of making me say "damn, I wish I had written that". Although this isn't what I'd call her best work (seemed more like Ann doing a characiture of her own writing), there's no columnist I've found that I believe is spot on more often.

[Sharpieman]

Yikes that scares me

[Franklinnoble]

Coulter has definately had better stuff - but perhaps she WANTED to get kicked off the USA Today gig. I'd have never read this column otherwise.

[Ryan S]

Why are USA Today sending Coulter to the Democratic convention and Michael Moore to the Republican convention?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Why are USA Today sending Coulter to the Democratic convention and Michael Moore to the Republican convention?

Apparently someone there has a sense of humor.

[Arles]

I find Coulter, Moore, Franken and Limbaugh all entertaining. I probably gravitate more to what Coulter says as I tend to agree with her premise more often. But, all routinely go over the top. I think it's done to get an issue into debate. Columnists have an ability to dictate political discourse, even if that means setting it up with a somewhat outrageous comment.

All I can say to those outraged is that it is entertainment. Those on the left have as much a right to get outraged by Coulter and the right does by Moore. But, quite honestly, I'm glad both are there to allow outlets for debate and shift the "major media" focus to areas it may not normally go.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Why are USA Today sending Coulter to the Democratic convention and Michael Moore to the Republican convention?

Their attempt at being "Fair and Balanced" just like good 'ole Foxnews...

[GrantDawg]

I've read much worse from her before, and have read much worse in major newspapers (I never read USA Today so I can't say that I have read worse in there). Why is this article so terrible?

[Blackadar]

I didn't get past the first paragraph and I'm glad.

I wouldn't "hit" Coulter - I probably actually HIT her instead. No-talent ass-clown hack.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Once again, I find Ann Coulter to be the best female writer in America today, at least in terms of making me say "damn, I wish I had written that". Although this isn't what I'd call her best work (seemed more like Ann doing a characiture of her own writing), there's no columnist I've found that I believe is spot on more often.

A woman who calls for America to invade all the Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity is "the best writer in America today?" ? She got fired from the national Review (more specifically- Jonah Goldberg) for it - Most people here are probably familiar with it, and its one of the most respected conservative viewpoints out there. Im conservative/libertarian (Rockefeller Republican), and I think Coulter's crap is abosultely disgusting, and Im disgusted (but not completely surprised) that there are conservatives who find her racist, incoherent, ramblings to be valid.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I concur with Arlie... *wait for it*... no its not a joke. Most conservies (easier than writing conservatives) think the left all agree with everything moore says. We don't, he can make good points sometimes, and most people can make good points more often than not. But these people who are on TV either don't know how or just don't want to stop there. They want or have to be extravagant to get their point across. If I have to say that Bush eats babies so I can get on TV, then so be it, as long as I get to express my more exact views on specifics that I disagree. You have to rope them in somehow.

However, if the opinion media people really believe all the stuff they say, then so help us GOd from all sides.

I'm more conservative than liberal and I don't think every liberal gets their facts from Michael Moore. The people who do scare the living hell out of me.

The thing that surprises me here is that the article was spiked. I don't see any reason it should have been. Does it cater to my beliefs? No. Many parts of the article offended me. But really, what did it say that was "out of bounds?" That liberal females are ugly? Whoop de do. She calls some protesters wacko? so what.

There wasn't anything there that was deserving of the article being clipped. I've never read a Coulter book and I doubt I ever will. But I have read some scathing liberal columns where you'd think every Republican was a goose stepping, gun toting racist sleazeball. I've never heard of one of those editorials being "spiked."

[JPhillips]

She's a cunt, but not the endearing sort.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm more conservative than liberal and I don't think every liberal gets their facts from Michael Moore. The people who do scare the living hell out of me.

The thing that surprises me here is that the article was spiked. I don't see any reason it should have been. Does it cater to my beliefs? No. Many parts of the article offended me. But really, what did it say that was "out of bounds?" That liberal females are ugly? Whoop de do. She calls some protesters wacko? so what.

There wasn't anything there that was deserving of the article being clipped. I've never read a Coulter book and I doubt I ever will. But I have read some scathing liberal columns where you'd think every Republican was a goose stepping, gun toting racist sleazeball. I've never heard of one of those editorials being "spiked."

Troy, I think it should have been spiked. I won't read the rest of it, but there's no journalism or news involved. It's a flame, pure and simple. Starting off at the "Spawn of Satan" convention and continuing from there, it has no redeeming value whatsoever. I have NEVER seen a liberal column in any newspaper that said flatly that "Republicans are goose-stepping Nazis" in so many words. If you can find a copy, I'd love to see it.

To call Democrats the "spawn of Satan" has no business being in any reasonable newspaper. It's an insult of the highest degree.

Coulter is nutcase and USA Today had every right - in fact, the DUTY - to spike this drivel.

[CamEdwards]

I probably shouldn't admit this but...

I typically don't read Ann Coulter. I've never been able to get into her writing.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I probably shouldn't admit this but...

I typically don't read Ann Coulter. I've never been able to get into her writing.

'Bout time you showed up again. I'll look forward to seeing you in a thread again next month.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Troy, I think it should have been spiked. I won't read the rest of it, but there's no journalism or news involved. It's a flame, pure and simple. Starting off at the "Spawn of Satan" convention and continuing from there, it has no redeeming value whatsoever. I have NEVER seen a liberal column in any newspaper that said flatly that "Republicans are goose-stepping Nazis" in so many words. If you can find a copy, I'd love to see it.

To call Democrats the "spawn of Satan" has no business being in any reasonable newspaper. It's an insult of the highest degree.

Coulter is nutcase and USA Today had every right - in fact, the DUTY - to spike this drivel.

You don't read the AJC much then.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Aadik

A woman who calls for America to invade all the Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity is "the best writer in America today?" ?

I'm not much on the involvement of the military in any sort of "conversion" mission, Christian or otherwise. That isn't a military mission.

But for the notion of eliminating hostile governments? Well, invasion is definitely one method to acheive that end.

Point blank -- I don't believe there's a "Muslim country" that I trust not to be knee-deep in supporting various terrorist groups and sooner or later, they will have to be dealt with. Not randomly, not without proper timing & planning, but eventually.

I don't believe "You're either with us or against us" was a remark made lightly, I believe it was meant rather literally, and I support pretty much everything that phrase implies.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You don't read the AJC much then.

I'm assuming you mean the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Show me some place in that newspaper that says something along the lines of "Republicans are baby-killing Nazis" - some statement equivalent to even just the first line of what Coulter wrote. Give me a link. Scan an article. Please. I'd love to see it.

Even if you're able to produce this, and I'm not sure you can, it still doesn't mean it's right.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Because The Drudge Report is up in arms about Ann Coulter's column for USA Today being spiked (reportedly calling it "unusable" and "not funny"), I thought that since it was the first day of the Democratic Convention I'd do my part for equal time and publish it here, so that at least the FOFC crew would be able to hear what one of the more vocal conservative mouthpieces has to say about the event.

Link: http://www.anncoulter.com

Full Text:
Put the Speakers in a Cage
by Ann Coulter

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. W've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital "Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gore's Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

So speaks one of the voices of the Republican Party. Kerry-Edwards '04, baby!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

... but there's no journalism or news involved.

Just out of curiosity ... how is distinguishable from the vast majority of op-ed writers in any publication, regardless of slant?

Other than the blunt nature of the remarks, how is this really any different?
I certainly see no requirement for fact, rhyme, reason, or logic to the majority of commentaries in many publications, so how is this really so different from them?

The only thing I can figure is that you're drawing some distinction by "degree" of hyperbole, but if that's the case, who sets the standard for an "acceptable" level?

FTR, I've got no problem with USA Today spiking the column, it's their paper, they've got the right to do what they want. When I ask "who sets the standard", I guess I'm really asking where do you personally draw the line, is that done "by degree" or something else?

I guess this is almost a tangent to the thread, but your comment made me curious enough to inquire a little deeper.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

'Bout time you showed up again. I'll look forward to seeing you in a thread again next month.

Sorry I haven't been around much. Between ghostwriting Al Gore's speeches, helping to edit Fahrenheit 9/11, and licking the soles of George Soros's boots... I've been a busy kitty. I promise to try and post here more often (that is, if Mistress Hillary lets me).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not much on the involvement of the military in any sort of "conversion" mission, Christian or otherwise. That isn't a military mission.

But for the notion of eliminating hostile governments? Well, invasion is definitely one method to acheive that end.

Point blank -- I don't believe there's a "Muslim country" that I trust not to be knee-deep in supporting various terrorist groups and sooner or later, they will have to be dealt with. Not randomly, not without proper timing & planning, but eventually.

I don't believe "You're either with us or against us" was a remark made lightly, I believe it was meant rather literally, and I support pretty much everything that phrase implies.

Jon, nothing personal, but I hope you're never in power to implement the idea that any government that's "different" ought to be invaded. Point blank - as long as the attitude exists that Islam is a belief that needs to be wiped of the planet methodically (or deprived of any power), and that opposition to US policy equates to terrorism, I don't think you have a voice at a reasonable table.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

some statement equivalent to even just the first line of what Coulter wrote. Give me a link.

I'm not paying for their "Stacks" access, but an equivalent would not be hard at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Aadik

... as long as the attitude exists that Islam is a belief that needs to be wiped of the planet, ... I don't think its reasonable to take your opinion as reasonable.

And as long as people are willing to delude themselves into believing that Islamic government are willing to peacefully coexist with non-Islamic nations, they will remain a threat to the rest of the world ... until they are eliminated. And I don't believe it's even remotely realistic to believe otherwise.

As for this bit:

and that opposition to US policy equates to terrorism

I don't believe I said that. There's a gap between "opposition to policy" and active terrorism. I acknowledge that, although I don't believe you think I did/do.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just out of curiosity ... how is distinguishable from the vast majority of op-ed writers in any publication, regardless of slant?

Other than the blunt nature of the remarks, how is this really any different?
I certainly see no requirement for fact, rhyme, reason, or logic to the majority of commentaries in many publications, so how is this really so different from them?

The only thing I can figure is that you're drawing some distinction by "degree" of hyperbole, but if that's the case, who sets the standard for an "acceptable" level?

FTR, I've got no problem with USA Today spiking the column, it's their paper, they've got the right to do what they want. When I ask "who sets the standard", I guess I'm really asking where do you personally draw the line, is that done "by degree" or something else?

I guess this is almost a tangent to the thread, but your comment made me curious enough to inquire a little deeper.

Jon, because she flat out in the first line, calls Democrats the "spawn of Satan". That's not journalism in any form. Blunt? More like insulting in the extreme and inflamitory. And we're not talking about the end of an discussion and drawing a comparison. We're talking about the opening line.

There are degrees of acceptability. Much like on this board, there's things that are acceptable and things that aren't. Yes, it's always subjective. But that goes WAY over the line of what's permissable or acceptable in responsible journalism. Of course, Coulter doesn't know a thing about journalism either, so I'm glad USA today does.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

... but an equivalent would not be hard at all.

I'd have to agree.

A certain Cynthia McKinney wanna-be is an easy bet for just about anything you'd need.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

...
I don't believe "You're either with us or against us" was a remark made lightly, I believe it was meant rather literally, and I support pretty much everything that phrase implies.

I don't believe that was a remark that was actually ever said. It is semantics I understand but he said "You are with us or you are with the terrorists". There is a difference, though not to some.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't believe "You're either with us or against us" was a remark made lightly, I believe it was meant rather literally, and I support pretty much everything that phrase implies.

Jon, what exactly is this line meant to imply if not that ?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And as long as people are willing to delude themselves into believing that Islamic government are willing to peacefully coexist with non-Islamic nations, they will remain a threat to the rest of the world ... until they are eliminated. And I don't believe it's even remotely realistic to believe otherwise.

OK, before I blow a fuse over this, how are defining an "Islamic government"?