Coulter says John Edwards is gay [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

View Full Version : Coulter says John Edwards is gay

Easy Mac

03-03-2007, 03:08 PM

Of course, she's also said the same about Gore and both the Clintons. Am I the only one who finds it funny that all 3 main Republican candidates are practically Democrats, but they feel the need to pander to people like Coulter so they can get elected? If ever there was a campaign season that actually required the label of flip-flopper, its whoever comes out of the Republican party.

Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), prior to Coulter’s appearance: “I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!”

st.cronin

03-03-2007, 03:13 PM

In other news, John Edwards turned down Ann Coulter's offer of sex.

JonInMiddleGA

03-03-2007, 03:28 PM

Actually, I think the rap on the Clintons is more that she's bisexual and that he's trysexual. And in Owl's case, it's usually overlooked since being married to Tipper could cause a lot of people to seek alternatives.

Pumpy Tudors

03-03-2007, 03:29 PM

And people wonder why I think politics is a fucking joke.

Young Drachma

03-03-2007, 03:31 PM

Amen

Toddzilla

03-03-2007, 03:33 PM

Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.Ever so classy, those neocons...

MrBigglesworth

03-03-2007, 03:55 PM

Am I the only one who finds it funny that all 3 main Republican candidates are practically Democrats...
Giuliani doesn't hate gay people, but he has been one of the biggest Bush cheerleaders for 6 years in the Great War on Terror. McCain went even further, somehow squeezing in to the right of Bush on foreign policy. McCain is also a pretty much standard conservative on social issues, with a strong anti-abortion record, voting against gay marriage, supporting school vouchers, etc. So while Giuliani has some un-extreme views, he is definitely a Republican, and McCain, despite his maverick image, is a typical Republican. I think people are so used to the extremes of the Bush administration that anything more moderate is being seen as 'liberal'.

Dutch

03-03-2007, 04:45 PM

Giuliani doesn't hate gay people, but he has been one of the biggest Bush cheerleaders for 6 years in the Great War on Terror.

The enemy killed three thousand people in the city he was mayor of and you call him a cheerleader. Classy.

st.cronin

03-03-2007, 04:50 PM

Note that he phrased it so that it sounds like a slam. Like its a bad thing to be against terrorism. *shakes head in disbelief*

MrBigglesworth

03-03-2007, 05:28 PM

The enemy killed three thousand people in the city he was mayor of and you call him a cheerleader. Classy.
It was Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16458783/site/newsweek/page/2/) where I got it from. And yeah, he has been a cheerleader:

On Iraq in October: "If we were to pull out of Iraq, we would give the terrorists a great victory"

On the detainee bill legalizing torture: "We passed this legislation about detainees and prisoners so that we can get the information we need to prevent another attack. He [McGavick] understands that. Doesn't look like his opponent does"

At the Republican National Convention in 2004: "Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and I said to him, "Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president." I say it again tonight. I say it again tonight: Thank God that George Bush is our president, and thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background, is our vice president."

Typical GOP cheerleading. It's tough to say that a person that by 2004 was thanking God that Bush and Cheney were Pres and VP is 'practically a Democrat'.

Note that he phrased it so that it sounds like a slam. Like its a bad thing to be against terrorism. *shakes head in disbelief*
Does the 'rational middle' frequently create straw men such as by insinuating that people they don't agree with support terrorism? I though that was the kind of thing that rabid ideologues did.

Anyway, you know that the Republican 'brand' is in a sorry state when the trolls come out just because I said a registered Republican has Republican views.

st.cronin

03-03-2007, 05:35 PM

Does the 'rational middle' frequently create straw men such as by insinuating that people they don't agree with support terrorism? I though that was the kind of thing that rabid ideologues did.

Anyway, you know that the Republican 'brand' is in a sorry state when the trolls come out just because I said a registered Republican has Republican views.

1. "Cheerleader" for the Democratic party describes Giuliani as a conservative because he supports the war on terror - not the war in Iraq, the war on terror.

2. I express incredulity that somebody would be so impervious to the tone of their words.

I created no straw man, attacked nobody. But I will now: You are a nitwit.

cartman

03-03-2007, 05:37 PM

What better, liberal calling conservative 'cheerleader', or conservative caling liberal 'faggot'?

flere-imsaho

03-03-2007, 05:43 PM

The enemy killed three thousand people in the city he was mayor of and you call him a cheerleader. Classy.

If you operate from the viewpoint that Bush's War on Terror hasn't done anything to make us more safe from terrorism, then it's perfectly consistent to call people like Giuliani out for continuing to support it.

Shkspr

03-03-2007, 05:46 PM

What better, liberal calling conservative 'cheerleader', or conservative caling liberal 'faggot'?

Mmmmm....lesbian cheerleaders.

M GO BLUE!!!

03-03-2007, 05:53 PM

The enemy killed three thousand people in the city he was mayor of and you call him a cheerleader. Classy.

The saddest thing is when I first read this I thought you were one of the conspiracy people, calling Guiliani the enemy and blaming him! :D

And not everybody in NYC is a rah-rah Bush boom-bah type. I personally feel that this nation is not doing nearly enough in the so-called "War on Terror." We are treating it like any other "War" we wage, whether it be against drugs, poverty... We create another level of burocracy to study it and make it a political issue rather than dealing with the problem at hand.

Oh, and Ann Coulter only knows that John Edwards is gay because he sucked her d*ck.

st.cronin

03-03-2007, 05:59 PM

Oh, and Ann Coulter only knows that John Edwards is gay because he sucked her d*ck.

I wish I had said that.

M GO BLUE!!!

03-03-2007, 06:08 PM

I wish I had said that.

Well, someone had to! :D

st.cronin

03-03-2007, 06:09 PM

You how I know you're gay? Cause you like Coldplay.

MrBigglesworth

03-03-2007, 06:11 PM

1. "Cheerleader" for the Democratic party describes Giuliani as a conservative because he supports the war on terror - not the war in Iraq, the war on terror.
This sentence doesn't makes sense. However, what I think you are trying to do is separate Iraq from the war on terror, however Republicans (ie, Bush, Giuliani) make no distinction between them, hence why I used the term Great War on Terror. Giuliani has supported everything that Bush has supported, Republicans have supported everything Bush has supported, therefore Giuliani's views on GWOT can be described as Republican.

2. I express incredulity that somebody would be so impervious to the tone of their words.
I don't understand the charge. When did I say that I was writing a glowing endorsement of Giuliani's foreign policy views? I think in your quest to attack me (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=57098) at every opportunity, you've lost touch with reality.

I created no straw man...
I'm not sure that you know what a straw man is. "Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted." By saying that I was attacking Giuliani for being against terrorism, you created an obvious straw man.

st.cronin

03-03-2007, 06:16 PM

I'm not sure that you know what a straw man is. "Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted." By saying that I was attacking Giuliani for being against terrorism, you created an obvious straw man.

Whatever. This was a fun thread before you showed up, surprise.

WVUFAN

03-03-2007, 06:19 PM

I've lost respect for Coltier on this one.

... ack ... dammit, this place is slowly draining away my neocon beliefs. I hate you all. ;)

Oilers9911

03-03-2007, 06:37 PM

I've lost respect for Coltier on this one.

... ack ... dammit, this place is slowly draining away my neocon beliefs. I hate you all. ;)

The scary thing is you had respect for her in the first place. :)

vtbub

03-03-2007, 07:07 PM

Mmmmm....lesbian cheerleaders.

Ann Coulter-Hillary Clinton...Hustler Centerfold.

If you haven't gouged your eyeballs out after that, you are a better man than I Gungadin.

Raiders Army

03-03-2007, 07:48 PM

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4849/canofwormsaq4.jpg

duckman

03-03-2007, 08:26 PM

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/N/N/hillary_kfcspecial.jpg (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-hillarypsycho.htm)

Subby

03-03-2007, 09:47 PM

Franky NoBallz has to go to rehab?

DanGarion

03-03-2007, 11:18 PM

Do people actually listen to her? I mean really what the hell has she ever done to earn the respect to listen to anything she says?

BrianD

03-03-2007, 11:24 PM

ISiddiqui

03-03-2007, 11:41 PM

Whatever. This was a fun thread before you showed up, surprise.

Actually it was a fun thread before people started to go all ape shit crazy over Bigglesworth's non-incindiary comments.

st.cronin

03-03-2007, 11:46 PM

Actually it was a fun thread before people started to go all ape shit crazy over Bigglesworth's non-incindiary comments.

I apologize. I have a short fuse with him.

M GO BLUE!!!

03-04-2007, 12:16 AM

Flasch186

03-04-2007, 07:08 AM

stare into my wildly freakish non-gay eyes.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/storyvert.coulter.ed.gi.jpg

JPhillips

03-04-2007, 07:35 AM

Just further proof that there's nothing that a conservative can say that will get them kicked off of the TV/radio pundit circuit.

astrosfan64

03-04-2007, 10:01 AM

It still bothers me that people throw around variations of the word 'gay' as if it is some great insult. It also bothers me that there were apparently plenty of people in the audience that were shocked by the insult and then cheered because it was such a good slam of the opponent.

Well, I could care less if people are gay.

But, it isn't "Good" to be gay. At a very basic level, being "gay" isn't a good thing. So, yes being called gay, could still be considered an insult.

I mean no parent says at birth, "Oh, please let me my son/daughter grow up and be gay". Lets face it.

flere-imsaho

03-04-2007, 11:22 AM

I mean no parent says at birth, "Oh, please let me my son/daughter grow up and be gay". Lets face it.

Lesbians having a child via artificial insemination might.

JonInMiddleGA

03-04-2007, 11:37 AM

Lesbians having a child via artificial insemination might.

See, I was gonna say that but figured it would just lead to someone getting all worked up to argue the point.

EagleFan

03-04-2007, 11:41 AM

Note that he phrased it so that it sounds like a slam. Like its a bad thing to be against terrorism. *shakes head in disbelief*

Look at the source, what else would you expect?

flere-imsaho

03-04-2007, 11:48 AM

See, I was gonna say that but figured it would just lead to someone getting all worked up to argue the point.

I'm profoundly disturbed that you & I were thinking the same thing. ;)

nilodor

03-04-2007, 12:10 PM

I think what she did is much worse than just calling him gay, she called him a fa**ott, which is a hate word, plain and simple. If you have to resort to tactics like that for political gains, maybe you should find another line of work. I'm ashamed for people who cheered that remark at that dinner. These comments should be met with the same uproar as Kramers. Maybe it should even be worse because she planned to make this remark.

Tekneek

03-04-2007, 12:45 PM

Please tell me... Why should anybody care what Ann Coulter thinks?

Dutch

03-04-2007, 12:47 PM

Please tell me... Why should anybody care what Ann Coulter thinks?

Thank you.

Klinglerware

03-04-2007, 01:26 PM

Please tell me... Why should anybody care what Ann Coulter thinks?

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8

Beacause the episode may end up reflecting badly on the Republican party.

As some others here might have implied, it's not really so much what Coulter said that is really damaging (she is a known quantity at this point, we all know what her schtick is all about). What could hurt more is the reaction of the crowd (aka "the party base"). What is the mainstream going to think when they see that the people in that room do clearly care about (and apparently support) what Coulter thinks? Whether deserved or not, some people are going to think that this is a "true colors" kind of moment...

JPhillips

03-04-2007, 03:26 PM

Please tell me... Why should anybody care what Ann Coulter thinks?

Because she's a best selling author. She's praised by Republican presidential candidates. She's a featured speaker at the most important Conservative gathering of the year. She's a regular guest on rightwing radio. She's a regular guest on both rightwing and mainstream television. She's a prominent player among conservatives.

EagleFan

03-04-2007, 03:34 PM

She's a regular guest on both rightwing and mainstream television. She's a prominent player among conservatives.

There's a difference between self promoting bitch and prominent player. She's a circus act so who really gives a damn what she says. You know going in that she's going to say something stupid one way or another so where is the big surprise.

A regular guest on television; again that just goes along with the self promoting bitch part.

JonInMiddleGA

03-04-2007, 03:37 PM

What is the mainstream going to think when they see that the people in that room do clearly care about (and apparently support) what Coulter thinks?

Whoa there. If you think the majority of the country (how I'm interpreting "mainstream") is going to be particularly bothered by her characterization then I believe you're mistaken.

More likely IMO that about 1/3rd will hate it, about 1/3rd will get at least a chuckle out of it, and the other 1/3rd largely doesn't give a shit one way or another (and aren't likely to ever realize it happened).

Easy Mac

03-04-2007, 03:40 PM

so then why have her speak at a prominent meet and greet with all the potential Presidential candidates?

Of course, then Bill Maher opens his mouth and ruins anything. We know the media will jump on him more than Coulter, since they know if they take on the right its a losing battle, being labeled "liberal" if they did. That being said, I don't really see how people get calling for Cheney's assassination from what he said, but the Conservative spin machine is a million times better than the Liberal.

Maher: What about the people who got onto the Huffington Post – and these weren’t even the bloggers, these were just the comments section – who said they, they expressed regret that the attack on Dick Cheney failed.
Joe Scarborough: Right.
Maher: Now…
John Ridley: More than regret.
Maher: Well, what did they say?
Ridley: They said “We wish he would die.” I mean, it was (?) hate language.
Barney Frank: They said the bomb was wasted. (laughter and applause)
Maher: That’s a funny joke. But, seriously, if this isn’t China, shouldn’t you be able to say that? Why did Arianna Huffington, my girlfriend, I love her, but why did she take that off right away?
Ridley: It’s one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney, which applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion." And I think, you know…
Maher: But you should be able to say it. And by the way...
Frank: Excuse me, Bill, but can I ask you a question? Do you decide what the topics are for this show?
Maher: Yeah, I decide the topics, they don’t go there.
Frank: But you exercise control over the show the way that she does over her blog.
Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)
Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…
Frank: I think he did.
Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…
Maher: No, no. I quoted that.
Frank: You don’t believe that?
Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

Klinglerware

03-04-2007, 03:47 PM

Whoa there. If you think the majority of the country (how I'm interpreting "mainstream") is going to be particularly bothered by her characterization then I believe you're mistaken.

I'm not talking about what Coulter said, I'm talking about the CPAC audience reaction to it. As much as the Republican intelligentsia is going to disavow Coulter, the reaction of the crowd will be perceived as more telling--the perception will be (again rightly or wrongly) that the base loves her and takes her seriously, because she represents their views.

EagleFan

03-04-2007, 03:48 PM

Desmond

03-04-2007, 03:50 PM

I'd pay good money for a video of Ann Coulter sucking Bill Mahers dick.

EagleFan

03-04-2007, 03:53 PM

I'd pay good money for a video of Ann Coulter sucking Bill Mahers dick.

Give me some time with a video editor and you've got it.... :D Just how much money are we talking?..... ;)

Easy Mac

03-04-2007, 03:53 PM

I already celebrated my birthday many times over. I'm not really a fan of getting drunk and what not on a Sunday, especially during lent. What did I say wrong, that the media of the current age are scared? They're far more vocal when someone on the left side says something stupid. Maybe it has to do to the idea that the right is considered less "cultured" and therefore uncouth thinking is expected, but the media are far more willing (outside of Bush) to jump on something a liberal says than a conservative.

EagleFan

03-04-2007, 03:57 PM

Like I said, it's your birthday. Not getting into it.

How about playing a few seasons of FOF instead of the beers and 151? Or we could at least send you that "Coulter cake"... ;)

JonInMiddleGA

03-04-2007, 04:00 PM

I'm not talking about what Coulter said, I'm talking about the CPAC audience reaction to it. As much as the Republican intelligentsia is going to disavow Coulter, the reaction of the crowd will be perceived as more telling--the perception will be that the base loves her and takes her seriously, because she represents their views (again rightly or wrongly).

I don't think you just said anything I didn't say. Maybe you did, but I don't think so at this point.

Let's be honest here -- how many likely GOP voters do you really believe have a real problem with what she said except for the opportunity for negative spin that she gave up? Hell, even as big a fan of Coulter's as I am, I'll say it wasn't a homerun line but it was probably at least a solid double into the gap when you consider that with a single swing she managed to:
1) take a swipe at one of the liberal legion
2) annoy one of the liberals most annoying fanbases
3) poke at the whole p.c. convention of virtually any strong statement requiring rehab

When you look at it from that perspective, of course it got a positive reaction.

BrianD

03-04-2007, 04:39 PM

Well, I could care less if people are gay.

But, it isn't "Good" to be gay. At a very basic level, being "gay" isn't a good thing. So, yes being called gay, could still be considered an insult.

I mean no parent says at birth, "Oh, please let me my son/daughter grow up and be gay". Lets face it.

There is nothing good or bad about being gay. Sadly being gay means that they will have to put up with small minded people who would care more about their child's sexuality than their happiness.

st.cronin

03-04-2007, 04:45 PM

The number of people who will be convinced either to vote for or against John Edwards because of this: 0

JPhillips

03-04-2007, 05:55 PM

There's a difference between self promoting bitch and prominent player. She's a circus act so who really gives a damn what she says. You know going in that she's going to say something stupid one way or another so where is the big surprise.

A regular guest on television; again that just goes along with the self promoting bitch part.

She's a hell of a lot more than a circus act. She sells tons of books. She's cheered by conservative audiences. She's on TV and radio because she brings in ratings. You may not pay attention to her, but a sizable portion of conservatives do.

Toddzilla

03-04-2007, 06:14 PM

Beacause the episode may end up reflecting badly on the Republican party.Not a dig at the GOP (well, yeah a small one, I can't help it). but seriously, when has anything any Republican said reflected badly on the Republican Party in the last 7 years?

EagleFan

03-04-2007, 06:22 PM

She's a hell of a lot more than a circus act. She sells tons of books. She's cheered by conservative audiences. She's on TV and radio because she brings in ratings. You may not pay attention to her, but a sizable portion of conservatives do.

You give her WAY too much credit. It's like Giants fans cheering a Bonds homerun, that doesn't mean they support a-holes on steroids in general.

JPhillips

03-04-2007, 06:27 PM

TroyF

03-04-2007, 06:44 PM

Whoever said that nothing can get a Republican fired from a radio station, no matter what they say, REALLY needs to listen to some more Air America.

Randi Rhodes is every bit as wacko as Coulter and she's said some horrific things on the air. I think both sides are guilty of saying inappropriate things. I don't think either party can stand up say that some of their supporters haven't acted in a classless manner.

As for "the media", lets be honest here. Neither of these incidents are going to be heavily covered. CNN has a link on the website talking about the Coulter comment right now.

All they are doing is giving her what she wants. Lets not act like five year olds and kid ourselves here. There is a reason she cracks a gay joke and why Mahr doesn't back down from the comment he wishes Cheaney dead.

It helps sell those books, it helps create hype for them. Coulter knows that when she tells a bunch of people that Edwards is gay, all hell is going to break loose. Just like Mahr knows that saying he'd be happy if Cheaney were toast it's a PI thing to say.

And the fact is, as Jon said above, who is really going to care about this? A handfull of die hards from either side with care and believe that crap. A handfull of people from either side will look in horror at both statements. (where I sit on the issue)

A large % of people will say, "that's politics, who gives a $%#@" and a large % will never know either comment happened. I'd say the 1/3 is even a bit high.

Even if it is, what impact will this have? Will a die hard Rep. vote for a Dem. now because he's upset at Coulter? Is someone going to say, "I was gonna vote for that Obama fellow, but after Mahr's comment, I don't respect the party anymore."

Please. . . this is nothing. For either side. I think it should be something for the two individuals involved, but all that will happen is they'll sell more books and their shows will garner higher ratings. (while I continue to stay away from both, because I think they are both idiots)

Warhammer

03-04-2007, 07:17 PM

The sad things about some of the people that make these comments is that they could be far more influential if they would stop the ad hominem attacks. Coulter can make some eloquent points when she wants to, the problem is she feels its better to make petty remarks about people because it will make headlines rather than actually debate people.

JonInMiddleGA

03-04-2007, 07:20 PM

No, you aren't giving her enough credit. Her product sells, so that means people are buying. She's one of the hottest speakers for younger conservatives. Presidential candidates make a point of praising her. She's not the face of all conservatives, but she sure as hell is a face of a sizable block of conservatives.

She's at least a hell of a lot more influential than boogeymen of the left like Ward Churchill or Huffington Post commenters.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here but have to quibble at least a little bit with the conclusion. I'm just not really sure how "influential" I think she is.

I'm an unabashed fan of Coulter's. I own every book she's written but the first one (not really interested in rehashing a Clinton impeachment at this point), I don't read her columns everyday but periodically read them in batches online, as I've mentioned here before there's no one I can think of in recent years who more often leaves me thinking "damn, I wish I had come up with that phrase", and she pretty easily makes my list of the 10 hottest women alive. In short, I'm quite a fan of her work, but I don't really follow her for her "influence" ... I read her stuff because I find it entertaining.

More often than not she articulates some sentiment better than I could have expressed it myself (something I say about damned few people) and leaves me at least a little encouraged that somebody else "gets it".

But "influential" doesn't really apply very often. I don't usually come away from reading her columns with some new perspective or anything more than an occasional tidbit I didn't already know. But I'm entertained, and that's primarly what I was reading it for and I suspect a lot of her fans would say the same.

JPhillips

03-04-2007, 07:48 PM

I guess influential may not be the right word. What she's done is popularize a vicious style that is now often copied. The casual ease with which she throws around slurs has really appealed to the younger conservative crowd in a way that others don't.

Troy: I'm not a listener to AA so I don't know what Randi Rhodes says. I will point out though that Rhodes doesn't do regular guest appearances on network news shows. If there were some sort of exposure-toxicity measure I think Coulter would run away with the prize.

JonInMiddleGA

03-04-2007, 08:05 PM

I guess influential may not be the right word. What she's done is popularize a vicious style that is now often copied.

Again, as I often argue about phrases like "divisive politics", I'd say she's just a reflection of what already existed. Trust me, I'd wager that her average column is kinder than many conversations I've had on various subjects with a number of people. Out of curiosity, I checked the archive of her weekly columns for the past few weeks.

Topics include noted climatologist Al Gore, John Murtha, Obama, and a couple of takes on Libby/Wilson/et al. On at least 3 of those 4 subjects, she's at least arguably milder in her criticism than I've heard in everyday conversation.

oykib

03-04-2007, 08:59 PM

and she pretty easily makes my list of the 10 hottest women alive.

:confused:

JPhillips

03-04-2007, 09:04 PM

Jon: What people say in private conversation and what gets published/broadcast are two different things. She's on the outer edge of toxic for someone who gets paid to be an author/columnist/TV talking head. I doubt she even believes half of what she says, but her style has pushed the line of what's acceptable further towards vile.

JonInMiddleGA

03-04-2007, 09:10 PM

:confused:

A 6' blonde with brains, wit, humor, and who is right almost as often as me?
Damn, what's not to love?

JonInMiddleGA

03-04-2007, 09:11 PM

... but her style has pushed the line of what's acceptable further towards vile.

{shrug}
I just see her style as being more honest than most people have the guts to be.

JPhillips

03-04-2007, 09:17 PM

{shrug}
I just see her style as being more honest than most people have the guts to be.

I'd argue that she's far from honest. I know of several people who claim she's quite friendly with gays in social environments. She's also far from honest about her stance on morals when she herself has admitted to enjoying drinking and sex.

I think she's more of a performer than anything. She'll say or do anything that gets her PR. My problem isn't so much with her as it is with media outlets who keep paying her. At some point all the whining about "civility" needs t apply to the worst of the lot.

cuervo72

03-04-2007, 09:53 PM

A 6' blonde with brains, wit, humor, and who is right almost as often as me?

You're in love with Mister Ed??

Galaxy

03-04-2007, 10:12 PM

A 6' blonde with brains, wit, humor, and who is right almost as often as me?
Damn, what's not to love?

Sorry, John..This picture doesn't make her the blonde I would want.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17458248?GT1=9145

Shkspr

03-04-2007, 10:33 PM

A 6' blonde with brains, wit, humor, and who is right almost as often as me?
Damn, what's not to love?

Her penis?

In all seriousness, I have to say that as a bookseller in a pretty conservative town, I was disappointed in the performance of Godless when compared to sales of Treason and Slander. The book garnered a fairly respectable national ranking, but dropped like a rock once the deep discount sales wore off. I'm fully expecting boxfuls of remaindered copies to show up fairly soon, which didn't happen with her earlier books. (Come to think of it, I ended up pulling my backlist depth last month too.) I think her sell-by date may be closer than a lot of folks are expecting.

SFL Cat

03-04-2007, 10:38 PM

If you operate from the viewpoint that Bush's War on Terror hasn't done anything to make us more safe from terrorism, then it's perfectly consistent to call people like Giuliani out for continuing to support it.

Last time I looked, we haven't been hit in the states since 9-11. With a Dem congress and president, I think it will happen again sooner rather than later.

Swaggs

03-04-2007, 10:40 PM

Last time I looked, we haven't been hit in the states since 9-11. With a Dem congress and president, I think it will happen again sooner rather than later.

Dick Cheney?

SFL Cat

03-04-2007, 10:41 PM

SFL Cat

03-04-2007, 10:42 PM

Wow...Al Qaida took a shot at Cheney in DC? I thought that happened over in Afghanistan...where even the libs say we should be.

Dick Cheney?

kcchief19

03-04-2007, 10:46 PM

Last time I looked, we haven't been hit in the states since 9-11. With a Dem congress and president, I think it will happen again sooner rather than later.
You do realize 9-11 happened under a Republican Congress and president, right? It's this kind of garbage that makes the right look idiotic -- if you think Democrats care less about protecting this country than Republicans, then congratulations on being gullible enough to buy into the spin.

You have to love Republicans who love Coulter but think Michael Moore is the anti-christ. Two sides of the same coin.

SFL Cat

03-04-2007, 10:50 PM

I'm not saying it wouldn't happen again under a Republican President or Congress. I'm saying based on the Dems track record, it seems a lot more likely to happen with them in total control.

Since neither party seems very serious about controlling the U.S. borders, we're pretty much screwed anyway.

kcchief19

03-04-2007, 10:52 PM

Even if it is, what impact will this have? Will a die hard Rep. vote for a Dem. now because he's upset at Coulter? Is someone going to say, "I was gonna vote for that Obama fellow, but after Mahr's comment, I don't respect the party anymore."
No, and that's why this stuff happens. Coulter isn't going to drive any Republican into the arms of the Democrat. What she does is rabble rouse more Republicans to vote and make contributions. She certainly generates some aggitation in the liberal base as well, but it's still a net for conservatives because she motivates her base more than the agitates the liberal base.
Please. . . this is nothing. For either side. I think it should be something for the two individuals involved, but all that will happen is they'll sell more books and their shows will garner higher ratings. (while I continue to stay away from both, because I think they are both idiots)
That's what's it's all about. If there were was no money or cameras involved in talking politics, Coulter would be a low-grade stripper in small town America.

kcchief19

03-04-2007, 10:53 PM

I'm not saying it wouldn't happen again under a Republican President or Congress. I'm saying based on the Dems track record, it seems a lot more likely to happen with them in total control.
You clearly don't know the Democratic track record, since you don't seem to know about the Republican track record either.

SFL Cat

03-04-2007, 10:55 PM

Well, I obviously don't know the perceived track record that exists in your mind, but I do know their public one.

TroyF

03-04-2007, 11:12 PM

As for Coulter's looks, I've seen images where she can look hot as can be and other where she looks like some hideous beast out of a cheap horror flick.

I know a women IRL who is just like this. I see here about 10 times a year at various functions. At half of them, she's the girl everyone wants. She's supermodel looking. At the other half, she looks like hell.

TroyF

03-04-2007, 11:16 PM

SFL Cat

03-04-2007, 11:18 PM

I don't think she's hot, but I don't think she's hideous either.

Actually, for some reason, she makes me think of the seductress in the typical horror flick who lures the victim into her bedroom before turning monster on him.

She's okay looking outside, but there's definitely something underneath that is kind of scary.

MrBigglesworth

03-05-2007, 03:16 AM

Wow...Al Qaida took a shot at Cheney in DC? I thought that happened over in Afghanistan...where even the libs say we should be.
He wasn't saying that Dick Cheney was the target of a terrorist attack in DC. He was asking if you, SFL Cat, were in fact Dick Cheney, because you used the same scare tactics that Dick is famous for, ie, "If Kerry wins the election, it's my belief that we are going to get hit again."

Toddzilla

03-05-2007, 07:19 AM

A 6' blonde with brains, wit, humor, and who is right almost as often as me?I concede your point, but we greatly differ as to the extent :D

Subby

03-05-2007, 07:24 AM

HEY GUYS LET'S FORGET ALL THIS PARTISANSHIP AND GO OUT FOR QUEER MAKEOVERS! AND GELATO!

SFL Cat

03-05-2007, 07:46 AM

He wasn't saying that Dick Cheney was the target of a terrorist attack in DC. He was asking if you, SFL Cat, were in fact Dick Cheney, because you used the same scare tactics that Dick is famous for, ie, "If Kerry wins the election, it's my belief that we are going to get hit again."

Don't think its scare tactics...I think it is a very likely scenario.

Honolulu_Blue

03-05-2007, 08:13 AM

Please tell me... Why should anybody care what Ann Coulter thinks?

They shouldn't. She's ridiculous. She's simply theater. A caricature. She started to once again fade from our collective consciousness so decided it was time to say something "outrageous". I reckon book sales were waning or something.

As I stated in the past

I take anything Coulter says to be about as relevant as anything "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Trish Stratus, Kurt Angle, Vince McMahon, or any other "professional" wrestler would say while "in character." She's nothing more than theater. She says outrageous shit just to say it and stiry up faux controversey, so that she can sell more books/make more TV appearances. She's fucking ridiculous. She should be dressed in motley and have loud theme music and pyrotechnicss whenever she makes an appearance.

ISiddiqui

03-05-2007, 10:42 AM

dola,

KC, you may be right about Coulter, but the sad thing to me is that Mahr might actually be a decent comedian again. I actually used to love his work until he went on the "Republicans suck ass" rampage.

If you are the type of person to side with one party 98%+ of the time, I'm probably not interested in discussing politics with you and I'm certainly not going to spend money on your book or waste my time with your TV show.

I think Maher just got incredibly pissed off and went crazy. Early on in the term he was pretty amusing doing the how dumb can Bush be jokes. But with the PATRIOT Act, the War in Iraq, etc, Maher just seemed to get more and more angry and just became a ball of rage instead of remembering that he's supposed to be a comedian.

However, I do believe that since he's in LA, that sort of stuff works better than than everywhere else.

astrosfan64

03-05-2007, 10:45 AM

I actually did a LOL when I heard she called him a faggot. I mean if you had to pick someone running for president this year and call them a faggot, it would have to be him or Hilliary.

albionmoonlight

03-05-2007, 10:56 AM

Well, I obviously don't know the perceived track record that exists in your mind, but I do know their public one.

By all means, please quote it here and educate us.

JPhillips

03-05-2007, 11:00 AM

I actually did a LOL when I heard she called him a faggot. I mean if you had to pick someone running for president this year and call them a faggot, it would have to be him or Hilliary.

Can't you go back to making stupid sports predictions?

JPhillips

03-05-2007, 11:01 AM

SFL Cat

03-05-2007, 11:07 AM

^^^ They probably just sleep together. Mary Matalin and James Caraville prove its possible.

st.cronin

03-05-2007, 11:08 AM

Bill Maher is gay? Who knew.

BrianD

03-05-2007, 11:12 AM

I actually did a LOL when I heard she called him a faggot. I mean if you had to pick someone running for president this year and call them a faggot, it would have to be him or Hilliary.

Wow, you really are an ass.

ctmason

03-05-2007, 11:33 AM

I actually did a LOL when I heard she called him a faggot. I mean if you had to pick someone running for president this year and call them a faggot, it would have to be him or Hilliary.

Okay this TOTALLY has to get me off the hook for the cornrows thing...

SFL Cat

03-05-2007, 11:33 AM

By all means, please quote it here and educate us.

Okay...during the part of my life I've been paying attention to politics...

Jimmy Carter believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and pardoned draft evaders.

President Carter also stopped B-1 bomber production, gave away our strategically located Panama Canal and made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.

That led Carter to withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran because Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

The Soviets,with close military ties to Iraq aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII.

Carter thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious man. With U.S. support withdrawn, the Shah was overthrown, and the ayatollah returned and promptly proclaimed Iran an Islamic nation.

Iran's ayatollah then introduces the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to attack and kill as many Israeli citizens as possible by blowing themselves up.

The ayatollahnext created and financed with Iran's oil wealth Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that later bombed our barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and sailors. With Iran's encouragement last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel and started a war that damaged Lebanon and diverted the world's attention from Iran's nuclear bomb program.

In late 1979, Iranians, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their current madman president, stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444 days.

Carter, after nearly six months, belatedly attempted a poorly executed rescue with only six Navy helicopters (three were lost or disabled in sandstorms) and Air Force planes with Delta Force commandos. The mission was aborted, but foul-ups on the ground resulted in a loss of eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines.

The bungled plan was never put down on paper for the Joint Chiefs to evaluate. There were practice sessions, but no full dress rehearsal, and pilots weren't allowed to meet with their weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security.

Shortly after a meeting at which Carter kissed Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on each cheek, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter the appeaser was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied to me," he said.

During the Carter Democrat period, communists took over Ethiopia, South Yemen, Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua.

Carter's defense budgets resulted in a 45% reduction in fighter aircraft, a 75% reduction in naval ships, an 83% reduction in attack submarines and a 90% reduction in helicopters. During the Carter administration, the Soviets spent 15% of their GDP on defense; compared to just 5% for the US. As a percentage of our government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor.

For eight years congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought with Ronald Reagan and were on the opposite side of nearly all his defense and economic policies. They said he wasn't bright — an "amiable dunce." They were worried he had insulted the Soviets by labeling them the "Evil Empire" and that he was going to start World War III by putting missiles in West Germany to counter new Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles installed in East Germany.

John Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze that would guarantee the Soviets overwhelming tactical nuclear superiority in Europe.

Democrats waffled on Reagan's request for support of Contras who were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50 million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

Democratic leaders all dismissed as a ridiculous pipe dream Reagan's plan for the U.S. to develop a missile that could shoot down incoming enemy missiles. Democrats mockingly called it Star Wars.

Reagan never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

Years later, a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later Gorbachev himself said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

The current terrorist threat to U.S. national security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected November 1992. The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000. Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

October 1993. A Somali warlord, with help from weapons and top trainers sent by al-Qaida, shot down two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. Clinton, under pressure from a Democratic Congress, ordered retreat and withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Said Osama bin Laden: "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame." This emboldened bin Laden since he didn't think America had the stomach for fighting.

January 1995. Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

Bin Laden tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon that would kill on a mass basis — like Hiroshima. In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a Saudi-U.S. joint facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans.

June 1996. Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up by Saudi Hezbollahs with help from Iran and some al-Qaida involvement. Nineteen Americans were killed and 372 wounded.

July-August 1996.The U.S. received from senior level al-Qaida defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and intentions of al-Qaida.

February 1998. Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

May 29, 1998. Finally, after a long series of deadly bombings carried out since 1992, and bin Laden calls to attack the U.S., Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture the al-Qaida leader at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. After months of planning, consultations with senior officials in other departments and numerous full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off at the last moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden didn't survive.

Aug. 7, 1998. Al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, five minutes apart, killing 200, injuring 5,000.

Now Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a Sudan aspirin factory. But the administration gave up to 48 hours notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

Dec. 20, 1998. Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential collateral damage and the risk of failure. Clinton approved a plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

Next, the Pentagon created a plan to use an HC 130 gunship, a more precise method, against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense, told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

Feb. 10, 1999. The CIA knew bin Laden would be at a desert hunting camp the next morning, the 11th. But the military failed to act because an official airplane of the United Arab Emirates was there and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

May 1999. Detailed reports from several sources let the CIA know that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. Everyone agreed it was the best chance to get bin Laden. But word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were again concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours.

October 2000, the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

The Clinton administration had at least 10 chances to get bin Laden, but it repeatedly could not make the decision to act. There were too many people and departments involved, too much confusion and no strong leader to make the tough decisions to act. They were too timid and concerned about repercussions if they failed.

Contrast this inability to take action with Democrat Harry Truman's ability to make decisions and get results on complex defense issues — from dropping the A-bomb to end WWII to helping Iran and Turkey stave off the Soviets, from defending Greece from communist takeover following WWII to confronting and beating the Soviet's Berlin blockade with a 14-month night-and-day Berlin airlift, from taking on the North Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.

Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick built a legal barrier that in effect prevented the CIA from sharing intelligence with the FBI before 9/11.

Democrats in the Clinton administration allowed the selling of important defense technology and secrets to the Chinese, who are now engaged in a massive military buildup.

Estimates are that 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained in bin Laden's many camps in the years before 9/11.

Oil is also vital for our national defense. In 1952 we produced 93% of the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%. Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

Democrats in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

JPhillips

03-05-2007, 11:40 AM

What a bullshit list.

I hope it's comforting for you to believe that Democrats are responsible for everything bad in the world.

SFL Cat

03-05-2007, 11:54 AM

Nope...not every bad thing.

Guys like FDR and Truman were pretty kick-a$$ from what I've read.

The problem with today's Democrat Party is the people who came up with the term "military-industrial complex" as a derisive description of American society are the one's who are running it now.

JPhillips

03-05-2007, 12:10 PM

You do know that military-industrial complex was a term coined by a Republican general?

SFL Cat

03-05-2007, 12:13 PM

Wasn't aware of that tidbit, but you can't deny it has become synonomous with the 60's counter-culture radicals who, it is safe to say, didn't use the term with the same intent as a general would.

albionmoonlight

03-05-2007, 12:14 PM

This guy also seems to support SFL_Cat's position.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=244423511626964

That said, I asked for a list and you provided it. Thank you for that. That puts you ahead of 99% of people who argue in large BlueState/RedState terms on the Internet.

JPhillips

03-05-2007, 12:17 PM

SFL: You're wrong. The general and President in question was Eisenhower and he was specifically warning of the dangers of the military industrial complex.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address January 17, 1961

SFL Cat

03-05-2007, 12:23 PM

JPhillips, I stand corrected then.

albion...I would love to hear counters to prove otherwise. The Democrats have had a problem on defense since JFK, and the party seems to realize it.

Maple Leafs

03-05-2007, 12:28 PM

I think Maher just got incredibly pissed off and went crazy. Early on in the term he was pretty amusing doing the how dumb can Bush be jokes. But with the PATRIOT Act, the War in Iraq, etc, Maher just seemed to get more and more angry and just became a ball of rage instead of remembering that he's supposed to be a comedian.
See, I disagree. I think he's been better as a comedian. Even moreso, I think he's one of the best political commentators around today. And I'm a conservative.

This idea that he's some sort of left-wing nut isn't really backed up by his work. Yes, he's liberal on a lot of issues -- he's anti-Bush, pro-drugs, anti-gun, pro-prostitution, etc. And he's certainly anti-religion. But he's very conservative when it comes to his views on big government, raising children, and overall values. He's very pro-military, going as far as arguing that we need to use the threat of nuclear annihilation against enemy states.

He thinks that Bush and his cronies have distorted traditional values to fit their agenda, and are beholden to their corporate sponsors moreso than to their country. That makes him anti-Bush, not anti-conservative.

albionmoonlight

03-05-2007, 12:35 PM

JPhillips, I stand corrected then.

albion...I would love to hear counters to prove otherwise. The Democrats have had a problem on defense since JFK, and the party seems to realize it.

I don't think that posting a competiting list would be that productive. I will let your list stand on its own, in part out of respect for you having found some hard data to back up your general assertions.

I will leave you with one thought, though. Just because people disagree with the best methods through which to effectuate national defense does not mean that they disagree about the goal of defending the nation.

MrBigglesworth

03-05-2007, 01:25 PM

1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.

1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.

1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.

2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
I'm not going to quote a biased list, but just give some facts. This site said it listed all terrorist attacks of the past 80 years. 23 of the 30 happened during a Republican administration, and doesn't include the dozens of acts against US forces in Iraq. That track record doesn't jive with the theory that the Dems are worse than the GOP at stopping terrorism.

Galaxy

03-05-2007, 01:56 PM

Can't you go back to making stupid sports predictions?

Those Colts are way overrated.

TroyF

03-05-2007, 01:59 PM

With all due respect, the list above is terrible. I think the point the person making the comment had a couple of key words you seem to have missed. Those would be "On US soil"

Galaxy

03-05-2007, 02:00 PM

They shouldn't. She's ridiculous. She's simply theater. A caricature. She started to once again fade from our collective consciousness so decided it was time to say something "outrageous". I reckon book sales were waning or something.

As I stated in the past

Didn't she called all Muslims "ragheads" and said we should invade all Islamic countries and convery them, or something along those lines, a few weeks ago?

TroyF

03-05-2007, 02:04 PM

Oh, one other note. I don't buy into a lot of the "if you vote for that guy everything will go to hell" type of thing either. I'm just pointing out the list is flawed. That's it.

Honolulu_Blue

03-05-2007, 02:06 PM

Didn't she called all Muslims "ragheads" and said we should invade all Islamic countries and convery them, or something along those lines, a few weeks ago?

I think that was Sgt. Slaughter.

Drake

03-05-2007, 02:08 PM

I like Maher, but David Mamet absolutely ate his lunch on the Feb. 23 episode when Maher went after him for supporting the "collectivism of religion".

st.cronin

03-05-2007, 02:11 PM

I like Maher, but David Mamet absolutely ate his lunch on the Feb. 23 episode when Maher went after him for supporting the "collectivism of religion".

David Mamet eats everybody's lunch.

Drake

03-05-2007, 02:13 PM

I would share my lunch with David Mamet.

Toddzilla

03-05-2007, 02:32 PM

David Mamet could eat me.

MrBigglesworth

03-05-2007, 02:38 PM

With all due respect, the list above is terrible. I think the point the person making the comment had a couple of key words you seem to have missed. Those would be "On US soil"
SFL Cat's list wasn't confined to domestic terror, nor was it even confined to terrorism. In any case, on attacks on US soil it's 2-2.

SFL Cat

03-05-2007, 02:54 PM

Klinglerware

03-05-2007, 03:02 PM

One could ask the same of Reagan's decision to pull out the troops after the 1983 Marines barracks bombing in Beirut.

If we are going to play the counterfactual game, then one could postulate that the key takeway of the Beirut bombing for terrorist observers was that terrorist action can work against America (setting the stage for more bold action down the road).

John Galt

03-05-2007, 03:03 PM

Didn't she called all Muslims "ragheads" and said we should invade all Islamic countries and convery them, or something along those lines, a few weeks ago?

Actually, she used the term "raghead" a few times at the exact same conference a year ago (and got a fair amount of applause then as well). The people issuing the invitations for the CPAC conference knew exactly what to expect when they invited Coulter back and they got exactly that.

Vinatieri for Prez

03-05-2007, 03:06 PM

MrBigglesworth

03-05-2007, 03:07 PM

The question becomes, if Clinton had responded with more force in retaliation to the First Word Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our African embassies, the attack against the Cole, would the enemy have even attempted a 9-11 type attack?

If Clinton had signed off on taking out bin Laden, public opinion be damned, would Al Qaida even have the resources or leadership to plan such an attack.
If the GOP hadn't impeached Clinton, would more time have been spent on terrorism? If the GOP controlling congress wasn't against every military action Clinton tried to take, would more have been done? If Bush hadn't taken a casual attitude towards terrorism for his first few months in office, could he have prevented it? If Reagan hadn't armed and trained the mujaheeden in Afghanistan, would they have been able to carry out later attacks on the US? If Bush I had taken out Saddam in the early nineties, would we need the Saudi bases that pissed off bin Laden so much? If there wasn't a screw-up in communication between Iraq and the US, would Kuwait have even been invaded?

There are many, many questions about our history and what we could have done different. And those questions aren't just about what Democrats did, but what Republicans did to.

TroyF

03-05-2007, 03:18 PM

Hmm, the same Bin Laden that the Bush Administration has been intent on (and successful in) finding?

And I don't think you can in any way draw a correlation between more agression on the prior attacks and 9-11 not happening. Show me. Explain to me what force you would have liked to see and what it would have done.

Bin Laden is "irrelevant" now as he was 3 years ago. Remember?

In all fairness here, Clinton HAD Bin Laden. He was ready to be delivered and Clinton said "nah, we don't need him"

Does that stop 9/11 from happening? Pretty doubtful I think. And then people here are screaming that Clinton caused more problems because he took him in.

It's the beauty of a good political discussion. If MY guy had been there, that never happens. If MY guy had been there when YOUR guy was in there, we'd have stopped this thing before it all started.

And really we just have a bunch of guys doing what they think is right and screwing up horribly sometimes (Bush on our Southern border, Clinton not taking Bin Laden when he had the chance) and sometimes they get it right.

The war on "terror" centers on our being allies with Israel. Any candidate that would support the end of that friendship is someone who would never get a vote from me. And then end of this war on terror is probably going to happen when Israel feels the line has been crossed and there is no turning back.

When they make the decision to strike, it's going to make our attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan seem like a company picnic.

At the end of the day, so long as our ties our strong with Israel, we'll be hated by the radical Muslims and we will be attacked. It's a fact of life and the sooner we realize that fact, the better off we'll be.

SFL Cat

03-05-2007, 03:45 PM

If the GOP hadn't impeached Clinton, would more time have been spent on terrorism? If the GOP controlling congress wasn't against every military action Clinton tried to take, would more have been done? If Bush hadn't taken a casual attitude towards terrorism for his first few months in office, could he have prevented it? If Reagan hadn't armed and trained the mujaheeden in Afghanistan, would they have been able to carry out later attacks on the US? If Bush I had taken out Saddam in the early nineties, would we need the Saudi bases that pissed off bin Laden so much? If there wasn't a screw-up in communication between Iraq and the US, would Kuwait have even been invaded?

There are many, many questions about our history and what we could have done different. And those questions aren't just about what Democrats did, but what Republicans did to.

I'll grant you the point that it is easy to look back and Monday morning QB decisions. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I always felt Bush I should have gone ahead and taken out Saddam in the first Gulf War, even though that wasn't the UN mandate and it would have cost us the support of our other Arab "allies."

I can't feel too sorry for Clinton. He's the one who chose not to exercise self-control and then lie about it. If he was preoccupied during this time...well, he made that bed so-to-speak.

The Republican Congess was overly scandal-happy during Clinton's term, but then I'm sure a lot of that was probably payback for the endless Dem Congress investigations of the Reagan/Bush administration -- you reap what you sow.

I do fault the Republicans for trying to make too much hay out of matters that were relatively trivial on the national level, and letting things like campaign funny money from China, and Chinese espionage during Clinton's watch slide by under the radar.

I think there is good evidence that since the US didn't aggressively retaliate against the Al Qaida attacks during the 90s, they were emboldened to plan ever more grandiose schemes to prosecute their holy war against "the Satan" United States.

If we had taken out bin Laden, would there still have been attemped reprisals? Most likely...I just don't think the scope would have been as disastrous as it was for us on 9-11.

BTW, this is still the John Edwards is gay thread, is it not? :)

JPhillips

03-05-2007, 04:10 PM

The brilliance of the 9-11 attacks was how simple they were. Less than two dozen guys killed over three thousand. They got lucky that the towers fell, but the basic premise was simple.

Given the ease and limited cash/people needed to carry it out I don't see how any military action could have guaranteed no 9/11.

SFL Cat

03-05-2007, 04:21 PM

The 9-11 attacks weren't simple by any means. They weren't like the first WTC attack or the OKC bombing, where someone simply drives an explosive laden van or small truck to an area and sets it off.

9-11 involved extensive planning and resources. These guys lived here for six months to a year, had to go to school to learn how to control and fly commercial airliners, had to bypass airport security to get their box-cutters aboard and then use precise timing to commandeer and fly the planes to their respective destinations.

This was a sophisticated special ops military style assault.

Raiders Army

03-05-2007, 07:32 PM

What's SFL mean?

JPhillips

03-05-2007, 10:30 PM

All I'm saying is that a group of nineteen non-pilots with a fairly small amount of money carried out the plan. These weren't trained Special-Ops guys. They were just reasonably educated, highly motivated average-Joes.

And my point still stands. What could a military strike do that would have stopped this attack?

ISiddiqui

03-05-2007, 10:51 PM

the people who came up with the term "military-industrial complex" as a derisive description of American society

You mean that Commie, Dwight Eisenhower?

Ah, I see I've been beaten to it... though I must add, it is amusing how the Democrats are blamed for taking on the mantle of one of the most respected generals in US history. And in EXACTLY the way he spoke about it.

King of New York

03-06-2007, 08:49 AM

David Mamet could eat me.

Why the hate for David Mamet?

He's a better writer than Ann Coulter.

Toddzilla

03-06-2007, 09:59 AM

Well, so long as this thread is 'jacked to oblivion, here is Max Blumenthal at CPAC:

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByLqJD36F7E

(some NSFW language)

Fighter of Foo

03-06-2007, 10:21 AM

Maple Leafs

03-06-2007, 12:13 PM

"The underlying premise of the modern conservative movement is that the entire Democratic party consists of a bunch of fags and dykes who are both too effeminate and too masculine to properly lead the nation. Coulter says it out loud. Dowd hints at it broadly. And the entire press corps giggles and swoons at this shallow, sophomoric concept like a bunch of junior high pom pom girls." - John Digby

More here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/06/cult/index.htmlGood article.

So basically, Coulter's defense is that nobody should be offended because she didn't mean "faggot" as in gay, she meant "faggot" as in wimpy. So it's OK!

Hmm... where have I heard that defense before. Damn, I feel like it's right under my nose.

NoMyths

03-06-2007, 12:53 PM

Good article.

So basically, Coulter's defense is that nobody should be offended because she didn't mean "faggot" as in gay, she meant "faggot" as in wimpy. So it's OK!

Hmm... where have I heard that defense before. Damn, I feel like it's right under my nose.

Word.

*shakes head*

Aardvark

03-06-2007, 02:04 PM

Democrats in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

Yeah, more strawmen.

"Attempts to intercept terrorist phone calls" -- don't know about this one. I do know that there were objections raised (including by some Republican's) to the administration's insistance that they they didn't need to use the FISA courts (who almost never, if ever, turn down a request, which, BTW, doesn't have to be filed until after the tapping has started) and didn't need to present the leaders of the Intelligence Committees with any information as to the scope of the wiretapping.

"Special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield" -- don't know about this one. I was under the impression that Democrats, as well as some Republicans, and most of the military judiciary, wanted some form of habeus corpus, and were against indefinite imprisonment with no ability to force a review of the prisoners status. The Geneva convention actually does cover every type of person who can be captured on a battlefield, and does cover unlawful combatants, but it does say that you have to have a judicial procedure to determine that someone is an unlawful combatant.

I suppose that the evil liberals are also either behind the conditions at Walter Reed, or should have kept quiet about it, because from people I know in the military that expose is a lot more demoralizing than issues about prisoners at Guantanamo, opposition to wiretapping etc.

TroyF

03-06-2007, 02:13 PM

It's not an excuse and she's not making a defense. She's taking another shot and is going to get away with it if people try to this into a "what did she really mean?" arguement.

If she wanted to call him a wimp, she would have called him a wimp. She chose the verbage for a reason. She's "defending" herself in this way for a reason.

I'm not a fan of the woman at all, but she's playing the press and the public for fools.

rkmsuf

03-06-2007, 02:17 PM

I'm not a politic type guy but honest question:

Why does anyone care what Coulter says?

JPhillips

03-06-2007, 02:23 PM

Simply put, she's a leading figure in the conservative movement.

rkmsuf

03-06-2007, 02:25 PM

Simply put, she's a leading figure in the conservative movement.

I guess I get that but how did this come to be? I think that is my question...where did she come from?

I guess I could wiki it.

JonInMiddleGA

03-06-2007, 04:10 PM

I guess I could wiki it.

If you haven't done that already, her first media job was with CNBC, who hired her as a legal correspondent back in 1996.

Fighter of Foo

03-06-2007, 04:11 PM

I'm not a politic type guy but honest question:

Why does anyone care what Coulter says?

Read the article I linked to above.

Raiders Army

03-06-2007, 06:55 PM

I'm not a politic type guy but honest question:

Why does anyone care what Coulter says?

She's got nice legs.

BrianD

03-06-2007, 06:57 PM

She's got nice legs.

Where does she keep them?

SFL Cat

03-06-2007, 08:35 PM

Simply put, she's a leading figure in the conservative movement.

I thought it was Rush Limbaugh??? Damnit, where is my dispatch from the RNC?

Easy Mac

03-06-2007, 08:37 PM

I thought it was Rush Limbaugh??? Damnit, where is my dispatch from the RNC?

There's a very simple lingustic difference between "a" and "the", with "a" meaning "one of" and "the" meaning, well, "the"

See the difference between: "John has a ball" and "John has the ball"

JPhillips

03-06-2007, 09:14 PM

SFL: You're right. Nobody reads her columns. Nobody buys her books. Nobody watches her on television. Nobody listens to her on radio. Nobody pays her speaking fees. Nobody cheers her at appearances. Presidential candidates don't praise her.

She's a nobody.

Drake

03-06-2007, 09:21 PM

I don't know. I'd say that Coulter has the same standing with Republicans that Al Franken has with Democrats -- which is to say that they're good for a few crude laughs, but nobody who thinks seriously about their own personal politics takes either one very seriously.

More than anything, I think Coulter's main demographic is Dems, just like Franken's is Republicans. The folks on the other side of the aisle are the only ones who seem to take them seriously.

JPhillips

03-06-2007, 09:33 PM

Not at all true. She's one of the most in demand speakers for conservatives, especially college aged conservatives. She may look and sound like a clown, but the fact is that she's an important player in the conservative movement.

Drake

03-06-2007, 09:47 PM

Schmidty

03-06-2007, 09:50 PM

See, I disagree. I think he's been better as a comedian. Even moreso, I think he's one of the best political commentators around today.

Damn.

ML, you've always been one of the only people who have made me laugh.

Damn. Just damn. :(

SFL Cat

03-06-2007, 10:09 PM

JPhillips

03-06-2007, 10:13 PM

The fact that she's popular with college aged conservatives would tend to reinforce what I was saying, I'd think. If college aged conservatives are the heart and soul of the movement, the Republicans are in trouble.

:)

But you said that Dems are her main demographic and that just isn't true. She's a best selling author many times over. She's very popular among conservatives. She's not some fringe character that we should ignore.

She's not popular in spite of her toxicity, but because of it. She's a symptom of a general rot in a certain portion of the conservative movement.

Drake

03-06-2007, 10:14 PM

I don't pretend that I'm an expert on party politics by any stretch of the imagination, but I do live in a very red state and work in a very blue setting, and the only people I ever hear talking about Coulter are my very Dem co-workers. Truth be told, I think Coulter's biggest turn off with folks in the Midwest is that she's too crass. Midwesterners tend to distance themselves from crass as much as possible.

Drake

03-06-2007, 10:16 PM

She's not popular in spite of her toxicity, but because of it. She's a symptom of a general rot in a certain portion of the conservative movement.

I find it interesting that you completely ignore that I was conflating her with Franken here. They're really flip sides of the same coin.

Vinatieri for Prez

03-06-2007, 10:17 PM

Look, I am on the blue side of things, and I simply couldn't care less what Ann Coulter says. It doesn't bother me and she isn't going to sway any kind of election or viewpoint in the country which is all I care about. She gets off on riling liberals -- put her on your ignore list.

Drake

03-06-2007, 10:23 PM

triple dola...

And if the Dems were smart, they should really be much more worried about the political mind-molding that goes on every Sunday morning from the pulpit rather than a fringe speaker like Coulter. I go to church every Sunday. I was raised in churches all over the Midwest. It absolutely astounds me that so few churches ever get nailed for crossing the fuzzy line between appropriate and inappropriate political speech from the pulpit. (Not that anyone is saying directly "vote for x", but anyone missing the implication that it would be a moral lapse to vote for anyone other than x clearly isn't paying attention. And yes, I realize I'm painting a bunch of churches with a pretty broad stroke here. I'm sure it doesn't happen everywhere. Maybe I'm just attending the wrong sorts of churches. I've got to admit, though, that there's nothing funnier than a seventy year old preacher breaking off his topic in midstream to rant about the homosexual agenda and how it MUST BE STOPPED!!!11)

Drake

03-06-2007, 10:24 PM

JonInMiddleGA

03-06-2007, 10:24 PM

She gets off on riling liberals

You almost hit the nail on the head regarding her popularity there, but you left it a little short.

She likes to rile liberals and she's good at it.
That (and the aforementioned legs) accounts for her popularity.

JonInMiddleGA

03-06-2007, 10:27 PM

And if the Dems were smart, they should really be much more worried about the political mind-molding that goes on every Sunday morning from the pulpit

You say that as though there's no politicizing in black churches across much of the U.S., only in the opposite direction.

And yes, I realize I'm painting a bunch of churches with a pretty broad stroke here.

Sort of, but at the same time, it seemed like a pretty damned narrow brush too.

Drake

03-06-2007, 10:32 PM

Might be true. I've only been to a black church (AMC) in the South once, so I don't think I'm qualified to characterize them. I have to admit that I did find the Selma-to-Montgomery anniversary speeches by the political candidates an oddity. Politicians directly addressing the congregation from the pulpit isn't something I see in my neck of the woods...or maybe I just go to churches that aren't large enough to attract politicians.

Edit: I also don't want to make it sound like I think this is a huge deal in general. I don't have much sympathy for people who can't tell when they're being politically manipulated by their religious or social leaders. I also don't think that most of the religious leaders are doing it intentionally. Preachers are used to sharing their convictions about stuff with the congregation. That's sort of what they get paid for. If a parishioner isn't bright enough to figure out that they don't have to believe everything the pastor tells them as the Gospel Truth(tm), that's not my concern.

Vinatieri for Prez

03-06-2007, 10:50 PM

Ah, I am actually ok with political preaching (I couldn't care less about yanking their tax-free status because of it either). No big deal. Look, let people talk, just talk smarter and more convincing than your opponent.

EagleFan

03-06-2007, 11:08 PM

She gets off on riling liberals -- put her on your ignore list.

and it looks like she keeps striking gold here....

JPhillips

03-07-2007, 07:40 AM

Klinglerware

03-07-2007, 07:44 AM

Drake: I don't think Franken and Coulter are the flip sides of the same coin. Can you find examples of Franken's speech that are are toxic as Coulter's? Where are Franken's "raghead" or "faggot" moments? He's a partisan no doubt, but he isn't in the same league with Coulter.

A much more apt comparison would be Michael Moore.

I would say that Randi Rhodes is Coulter's equivalent.

Edit to add: she's as shrill as Coulter, but certainly doesn't have Coulter's influence. So maybe Moore is a better analogue...

Drake

03-07-2007, 07:48 AM

A much more apt comparison would be Michael Moore.

I'll agree with that. Moore is a much better choice than Franken.

In any event, I try not to get too worked up about political entertainers, whichever side of the aisle they come from.

Oilers9911

03-07-2007, 07:51 AM

A 6' blonde with shit for brains, an adams apple the size of a baseball, witless, humorless, and who is right almos never just like me?
Damn, what's not to love?

Fixed. And it is seriously frightening to know there are people out there that agree with the vile garbage that comes out of that "woman" on a weekly basis.

JPhillips

03-07-2007, 07:51 AM

I would say that Randi Rhodes is Coulter's equivalent.

I don't listen to AA, so I don't know much about Rhodes.

Finally on Coulter, I don't care what she says, but I'd like the MSM to treat her like the vicious extremist she is. I want them to stop legitimizing her by putting her on talk shows and news segments. Let her be the circus monkey that she is and I'm fine.

Drake

03-07-2007, 08:02 AM

I will publicly concede, however, that Coulter likely has nicer legs than Moore or Franken.

Fighter of Foo

03-07-2007, 08:10 AM

I would say that Randi Rhodes is Coulter's equivalent.

Edit to add: she's as shrill as Coulter, but certainly doesn't have Coulter's influence. So maybe Moore is a better analogue...

Republicans tend to be much more single minded and apt to parrot and follow, hence the large followings for Coulter, Hannity, Malkin et al. "They're our leaders and must be right," goes the thought process. Most Republicans don't agree with the specific statements, but will clap and agree anyway.

Dems generally won't follow someone they don't agree with, and tend to have much less group think. This makes them less organized and prevents a parallel talk radio/tv figure from emerging.

JonInMiddleGA

03-07-2007, 08:19 AM

Fixed. And it is seriously frightening to know there are people out there that agree with the vile garbage that comes out of that "woman" on a weekly basis.

And she says such nice things about you.

Ah well, play again sometime when you or your opinions actually matter.

dime

03-07-2007, 08:27 AM

Republicans tend to be much more single minded and apt to parrot and follow, hence the large followings for Coulter, Hannity, Malkin et al. "They're our leaders and must be right," goes the thought process. Most Republicans don't agree with the specific statements, but will clap and agree anyway.

Dems generally won't follow someone they don't agree with, and tend to have much less group think. This makes them less organized and prevents a parallel talk radio/tv figure from emerging.

this is a parody post, right? there's so much stupid in there it's hard to know where to start. they're all sheep. democrats/liberals aren't "more independent" than any other political group. for god's sake, NOW didn't even cough after the clinton/lewinsky affair or any of the rape accusations other women leveled against him. how's that for groupthink?

both parties are full of whores. the stakes are too high for them to trade even an inch of ground to preserve their integrity. one of the many weaknesses of a two-party system.

Fighter of Foo

03-07-2007, 08:40 AM

Honolulu_Blue

03-07-2007, 08:44 AM

Drake

03-07-2007, 08:44 AM

Fighter of Foo

03-07-2007, 08:58 AM

Simple answer? The Republicans have done a much better job of breaking down their ideas into concrete selling points than the Democrats have. It's much easier to reach consensus with your constituents if you're selling them one plan than a dozen competing plans that are frequently just variations on a theme.

I'm not a particular fan of the Republicans, but they kick the Dems ass when it comes to packaging and PR aimed at the average joe.

Absolutely. No argument whatsoever here.

Still, how come so many nonpolitical figures wield such massive influence on the R's side but not on the D's?

I think it's because R followers, in general, follow their leaders much more closely than D followers and everything else is an offshoot of that.

Drake

03-07-2007, 08:59 AM

Either that or (as painful as it is to say), the R's have better leaders in general.

Fighter of Foo

03-07-2007, 09:09 AM

Yup.

JonInMiddleGA

03-07-2007, 09:17 AM

... so many nonpolitical figures ...

A point to ponder: how many times have you seen me mention that pretty much everything "is political"?

(I think) I get what you meant here, something along the lines of "non-elected" or something like that, but it made me wonder if your choice of phrase might indicate a fundamental difference in the way the two sides tend to view the "actors" on this particular stage?

Like I said, I'm pretty sure I knew what you meant so I'm not really quibbling about the description, I'm just wondering if it might be more telling than we might think at first blush. I know this much, never in a million years would I have used the phrase "non-political" to describe Rush/Sean/Ann/etc (which I'm pretty sure are the people you were referring to).

Fighter of Foo

03-07-2007, 09:29 AM

A point to ponder: how many times have you seen me mention that pretty much everything "is political"?

(I think) I get what you meant here, something along the lines of "non-elected" or something like that, but it made me wonder if your choice of phrase might indicate a fundamental difference in the way the two sides tend to view the "actors" on this particular stage?

Like I said, I'm pretty sure I knew what you meant so I'm not really quibbling about the description, I'm just wondering if it might be more telling than we might think at first blush. I know this much, never in a million years would I have used the phrase "non-political" to describe Rush/Sean/Ann/etc (which I'm pretty sure are the people you were referring to).

I did mean non-elected and that's what I first wrote, but it looked awkward. I'm a disgruntled L on most issues if it matters.

JonInMiddleGA

03-07-2007, 09:57 AM

I'm a disgruntled L on most issues if it matters.

To some extent it might, but maybe it still keeps us on the same path that I was starting down, basically that strong (R)'s tend to connect politics to non-elected faces more strongly than others.

TroyF

03-07-2007, 10:37 AM

Not saying Dems don't do this, only that it's more pronounced with the R's.

For example, if you ask many republicans they'll say they have little/no problems with gays personally, but then go and support statements from republican leaders saying the exact opposite. It's one issue and one example.

You'll find fewer double standards on the dems side.

If you've got a better theory as to why talk radio/TV and religous leaders have massive influence on the republican party and there's no parallel on the democrats side from NOW or other groups then let's hear it.

Before I get into some of the reasons, I'm going to say some of your premise is false. There is no parallel on the democratic side of religious leaders? You mean like the Rev. Al Sharpton or the Rev. Jesse Jackson?

Now, some reasons for the radio split:

1) The language. Democrats are still looking for better wording on their side of the issues. Air America is trying the "progressive talk" label to see if that works. It's not. They simply aren't getting their message out.

2) The dems just aren't entertaining at the moment. I'm sorry, but it's true. Take off the blinders and listen to Rush or O' Reilly and then listen to Randi Rhodes and any other show you want on Air America.

I equate this to soccer. Even if you HATE soccer, you could watch an EPL game and then a MLS game and realize where the better players are playing.

Randi Rhodes may very well be the host of the worst radio show I've ever listened to. I do it because it's so bad it's amusing. A couple of weeks ago I'm in the car and she has an interview with someone talking about how the election was stolen in 2004 because of bad ballot boxes. Ummmm. . . Randi, we have a war to talk about, we have foreign policy issues to debate, we have an election ON THE WAY. . . and you are talking about a ballot box from Ohio?

3) Now, here is the biggie. Because of #2, Republicans don't listen or call to left wing shows. Look at this thread. We have a ton of people throwing fits over a dumb ass comment. To get ratings, you need listeners and viewers. There is really only one left wing guy who fits the bill. Talent, egotistical, smart with the media, and knows how to hit a republican's hot button.

That's be Michael Moore. I can't stand the guy (keep in mind, I can't stand virtually ALL of the political talk show hosts, left or right) But he has talent and he knows which buttons to push to get the Reps riled up.

He has a talk show, a ton of reps would be listening, pounding their steering wheels and calling in. Others would agree with him and others would listen because of the entertainment value.

Randi Rhodes and a majority of Air America? A joke. It's simply horrible radio. Only someone far, far, far to the left would have any interest in listening to a lot of their rants. The person in the middle? Please. . .

MrBigglesworth

03-07-2007, 10:42 AM

for god's sake, NOW didn't even cough after the clinton/lewinsky affair or any of the rape accusations other women leveled against him. how's that for groupthink?
Here is one statement on the Lewinsky affair:

http://www.now.org/press/08-98/08-17-98.html
We have said from the beginning that no CEO and no elected official, including the president, should take advantage of the aphrodisiac of power to have sex with interns or staff.

Consensual sex with a White House intern is an abuse of power by the president; but consensual sex is not illegal harassment and it is not an impeachable offense. Nor is it in the best interest of our country for the president to resign.

Whatever Congress decides to do, in all fairness the only ones who should vote on this issue are members who themselves have never had sex outside of marriage and never lied about their sex lives -- either denying or exaggerating!

After all this time and money, it appears Ken Starr has found nothing to pin on the Clintons – nothing on Whitewater, nothing on Filegate, nothing on Travelgate – nothing more than some sort of consensual relationship between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

As for the other accusations, here is NOW's page on the Jones thing:

http://www.now.org/issues/harass/jones.html

NOW's statement on Juanita Broaddrick:

http://www.now.org/press/02-99/02-25-99.html

Now that she has come forward with her story, the National Organization for Women urges everyone to treat Juanita Broaddrick fairly and respectfully and to take her charges seriously. She must not be besieged by attacks on her mental state or character.

NOW calls on President Clinton to denounce this "nuts or sluts" defense, the argument that she either made it up or asked for it. The president should pledge publicly not to seek, or leak, irrelevant sexual history or other parts of Ms. Broaddrick's personal or work life, and not to let anyone do so on his behalf.

st.cronin

03-07-2007, 11:07 AM

Drake

03-07-2007, 11:09 AM

Do press releases that have no impact really count as press releases?

Drake

03-07-2007, 11:14 AM

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you defend this point?

Defend it how? Twenty-something college kids aren't the intellectual core of any thoughtful movement. They just don't have the practical experience for it. (My God, have you ever read the editorial page of a college newspaper -- it makes me fear for the future of our country.)

My point (mostly) is that Coulter is rowdy entertainment. She appeals to college republicans (or so JPhillips told me -- I personally have no clue how college Reps look at her. I'm taking his assertion as true.), who tend to be more rowdy than old fart Republicans. Of course, that has less to do with Republicanism than with just young/inexperienced/easily-excited versus old/mature/been-there-seen-that.

Or am I missing your point?

st.cronin

03-07-2007, 11:18 AM

Defend it how? Twenty-something college kids aren't the intellectual core of any thoughtful movement. They just don't have the practical experience for it. (My God, have you ever read the editorial page of a college newspaper -- it makes me fear for the future of our country.)

My point (mostly) is that Coulter is rowdy entertainment. She appeals to college republicans (or so JPhillips told me -- I personally have no clue how college Reps look at her. I'm taking his assertion as true.), who tend to be more rowdy than old fart Republicans. Of course, that has less to do with Republicanism than with just young/inexperienced/easily-excited versus old/mature/been-there-seen-that.

Or am I missing your point?

Agree with this, but to me it doesn't translate to it being a bad thing if the "heart and soul" of something is made up of college aged kids. Heart and soul is not the same thing as intellectual core.

Anyway, it was just a post that I couldn't really make sense of what you were trying to say. Now I understand.

Pumpy Tudors

03-07-2007, 11:23 AM

People think Ann Coulter has nice legs? They're like sticks. They look like mine, only without all the hair. Jumping into bed with this woman would be like falling on a bicycle. I don't see the appeal.

Fighter of Foo

03-07-2007, 11:28 AM

Before I get into some of the reasons, I'm going to say some of your premise is false. There is no parallel on the democratic side of religious leaders? You mean like the Rev. Al Sharpton or the Rev. Jesse Jackson?

They don't speak for the party. That's a very big difference. Rush and Hannity and Coulter will have a very significant effect on who gets nominated. They will individually or collectively decide who they like, and their masses will almost blindly follow. Comparatively, Jackson and Sharpton have a minimal impact.

Agreed on the rest.

And off this topic, but what does Jesse Jackson actually do?

Vinatieri for Prez

03-07-2007, 12:16 PM

I will publicly concede, however, that Coulter likely has nicer legs than Moore or Franken.

Doubtful.

Drake

03-07-2007, 12:35 PM

I've seen Michael Moore's legs. They're not pretty.

JonInMiddleGA

03-07-2007, 01:15 PM

They will individually or collectively decide who they like, and their masses will almost blindly follow.

I think you're taking too far a leap here, or maybe you're just misjudging the dynamic.

The first thing that the quoted snippet brought to my mind was a question of who is leading who. The talking heads you mentioned are all, I think we can agree, skilled at connecting to their chosen audience. And part of that is knowing what will appeal to those listeners/readers. Although it's probably cynical of me to say it, it seems naive to think that they don't have some concern/consideration for what endorsements will be received well by their audience. In other words, the predisposition of the audience influencing the position of the personality. In a generous moment, I'll even add the phrase "at least subconsciously".

In any case, absent any other factors, I think an endorsement might have some serious weight on a voting decision. It would probably also be weighed as a factor in & of itself, mixed with other inputs. But it seems like you're dramatically oversimplifying to suggest that backing from any of the people we're talking about is enough to automatically convert a listener/reader into a voter.

rkmsuf

03-07-2007, 01:32 PM

Is she sincere or is her thing all schtick and shock value?

Just curious as to people's perception of her in this vein.

Honolulu_Blue

03-07-2007, 01:37 PM

Is she sincere or is her thing all schtick and shock value?

Just curious as to people's perception of her in this vein.

To repost:

She's ridiculous. She's simply theater. A caricature. She started to once again fade from our collective consciousness so decided it was time to say something "outrageous".

As I stated in the past:

I take anything Coulter says to be about as relevant as anything "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Trish Stratus, Kurt Angle, Vince McMahon, or any other "professional" wrestler would say while "in character." She's nothing more than theater. She says outrageous shit just to say it and stiry up faux controversey, so that she can sell more books/make more TV appearances. She's fucking ridiculous. She should be dressed in motley and have loud theme music and pyrotechnicss whenever she makes an appearance.

JonInMiddleGA

03-07-2007, 01:40 PM

Is she sincere or is her thing all schtick and shock value?

How's both grab you? The underlying premise I'd say is generally sincere, the phrasing is called making a living.

Fonzie

03-07-2007, 01:43 PM

John Edwards is gay? Can we get a thread title edit to indicate this thread contains a SPOILER, please?

I mean, really.

Oilers9911

03-07-2007, 02:31 PM

And she says such nice things about you.

Ah well, play again sometime when you or your opinions actually matter.

You mean my opinions as compared to a right-wing moronic wingnut that talks just to hear the sound of his own voice? Not much trouble topping you there buddy boy. Go crawl back into your cave.

Klinglerware

11-13-2008, 12:33 PM

I was searching for something else ("Geneva", and for some reason this came up).

I got a chuckle out of the headline, due to more recent developments.

Kodos

11-13-2008, 01:12 PM

Thinking about how the last election must make Coulter feel makes me smile.

PackerFanatic

11-13-2008, 01:14 PM

Okay, so when I thought this thread title, I swear to God it said "Culter says John Elway is gay."

WTF is going on in my head...

Big Fo

11-13-2008, 01:17 PM

When the Democratic primaries were beginning I was briefly rooting for Edwards, thinking Obama, Clinton, and he were similar enough policy-wise and figuring that in a sure fire Democratic year why not just run the safe white dude? I'm glad that didn't work it. The cheating on your wife with cancer thing probably wouldn't have polled well.

Klinglerware

11-13-2008, 01:23 PM

"Culter says John Elway is gay."

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

chesapeake

11-13-2008, 01:28 PM

Thinking about how the last election must make Coulter feel makes me smile.

Finally having a Democrat back in the White House makes her smile too, infortunately. She will make far more money attacking the President than she has the past several years with nothing more than straw men to tilt with.

Maple Leafs

11-13-2008, 01:43 PM

I loved Bill Maher's take on this.

"I didn't know what she meant. I wasn't offended, I was just confused. He's a faggot? Why? Because he combs his hair?"

Crim

11-13-2008, 07:44 PM

Okay, so when I thought this thread title, I swear to God it said "Culter says John Elway is gay."

WTF is going on in my head...

I think you're just suffering from the recurring nightmares from XXXII. It's starting to impact the way you see the very world around you. Seek help.