OT - Ann Coulter Column
 

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

Link: http://www.anncoulter.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow. Good call USA today.

Kneecap with hair...

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

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

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

Nice.

I'd hit it.

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

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

Tonya Harding!

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

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

Were you abused as a child?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I totally agree with you Arles.

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

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

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

Yikes that scares me

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

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

Apparently someone there has a sense of humor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I probably shouldn't admit this but...

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

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

You don't read the AJC much then.

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

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

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

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

I'm assuming you mean the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for this bit:

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

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

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

I'd have to agree.

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

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

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

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

So what you're saying is can't or won't find an equivalent comment. I figured as much. No offense, but that's typical. I'm saying "prove it" and you probably can't.

Probably just as well, as:

1. We'd end up debating the semantics on why one is as bad as the other.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you could find an article that said "George Bush is a devil worshipper" in the opening line, it still doesn't mean it's the proper thing to do. As much as I hate the guy, that kind of crap doesn't belong in any semi-nonpartisan newspaper.

So it is, then, just a matter of personal interpretation.

Even I thought the remark was exaggerated for effect but honestly not all that far from the mark.

And yet I've seen more examples of remarks that were insulting in the extreme, intentionally inflammatory, and bore no resemblence to reality in more op-ed pieces than I could count. Hell, I'd lose count of ones fitting that description in a week's worth of AJC's alone.

But I take them for what they are -- opinion pieces designed to do nothing moreso than sell newspapers, either by currying favor with those who agree or by enciting those who disagree. Both will accomplish the same goal.

There's a "token conservative" columnist in the AJC that I particularly enjoy reading. I find his observations & insights both entertaining & informative, often even thought-provoking. But at no time do I believe the column is published for any reason other than to encourage me to buy another newspaper. AFAIC, the thoughtful stuff is just a happy by-product as far as the publisher is concerned. (Or maybe even an unhappy by-product as far as they're concerned).

Why does everyone pile on Fox News...especially when you have ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN to counterbalance? I think that is precisely why Fox has become the most popular cable news outlet. They recognized an empty niche and filled it.

Then I feel very sorry for you if you think Democrats are even close to the "spawn of Satan".

If that's the case, I have nothing more to say beyond I pity you. I hope God takes pity on you as well.

But it happens all the time. Op-ed is not the journalistic side of the paper, but for heavily partisan, opinionated writers to sound off. I'm saying this article looks no worse than many I've seen. (BTW, I'm far from a fan of Coulter).

Oh, I know I was just paraphrasing.

I've had the exact quote as my sig file on a couple of forums on & off for at least a year now. For the purposes of this thread, I really didn't feel it was neccessary to go pull the precise quote verbatim (for example, I always have trouble recalling whether the word "either" was included as the 3rd word in the quote or not), I figured everybody would know the quote I was referring to.

(And yeah, I know you knew what I meant -- I was just taking a shortcut & you caught me ;) )

About the closest I can think of is Michael Moore standing next to a democratic party candidate for president and proclaiming the "President of the United States is a deserter". Not written in a paper, and initially all of the candidates distanced themselves from him for such rhetoric. Now however as proof that if you repeat something, no matter how outlandish, enough times it will become front page news, it has actually become a story in the mainstream media.

I am not defending what Coulter said in her article. It just seemed to me that you were intimating that the left doesn't make irresponsible statements, and this came to mind.

Not really what he is saying. He talking about editoral pieces in newspapers, not just a "the left never/the right always" thing.

None of those have "liberal" leanings - they walk the middle of the road.

- This means Republicans think they lean left and are the "liberal media".
- This means Democrats think they promote "big business" and stifle real discussion.
- This means those of in the middle know both groups are full of shit and "big media" is just protecting itself and maximizing their audience (and ratings).

The FOX station has been smart in that more Republicans (than Democrats) watch the news, so it's good business to have a channel dedicated to their causes. But their news is shit. I won't even patronize a business that has the FOX channel on. Not because I'm a liberal, but because I just don't want to hear the partisan bullshit. Just because FOX is "right" doesn't mean the others are "left".

Well, that was sure one heck of an interesting article. And the contents of it will stay with me for oh, about 3 minutes (I don't pay any attention to Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. either).

Except the term "pie wagons". That elicited some imagery.

There's a substantial difference between saying the "President of the United States is a deserter" and saying "Democrats are the spawn of Satan". One is attacking an action or policy. It's also only attacking one individual. The other is attacking the people directly and it's personally attacking an entire group of people. Sorry, but it's not even CLOSE to the same thing.

I believe that the Democratic Party, with its current leadership, aims, and goals, constitutes the greatest threat to the progress, the maintenance, and ultimately the existence of the United States on the planet today. Off-hand, I'd say only an extremely angry China comes close at this point, and they don't seem particuarly motivated to tackle us at that level right now, while I see the Democratic Party making every effort to systematically destroy most of the values this country has.

Phrased another way, that guy over there may have an RPG in his trunk, but I'm a little more concerned about the one who is pointing his pistol at me right now.

If that doesn't qualify for a bit of hyperbole such as "spawn of Satan", then I'm not sure what would, short of the literal anti-Christ.

*shakes head at such intolerance and hatred*

*shakes head at such lack of judgement*

This is why the Democrats have been getting their collective butts kicked in most national elections. This is why they lost control of the Congress in the mid-nineties after forty-years of unbroken power. Today's Democrats don't answer any of the charges. Charges that many see as legitimate. Instead of presenting a counter point, you throw up such cliches as this.

If you want to talk about intolerance and hatred, then watch the Pual Wellstone Memorial service. What I saw there scared me a lot more than anything I've ever seen or heard from the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh or O'Reilly.

Personally, I don't think Limbaugh takes himself seriously half the time he's on the air and he makes me laugh more times than not when I listen to him. I don't read Coulter, but she's never said anything more outrageous than what I've heard from the likes of Al Franken, Michael Moore, Johnny Depp, Rosie O'Donnel...insert your favorite liberal entertainer here.

If a liberal offers his/her opinion, it's free speech and must not be censored...when something comes out of the mouth of a conservative, its bigotry and hate speech and it must be silenced. Seems like an obvious double-standard, and based on election results from the past decade, I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

*Gets ready to clean up with his new FOFC chiropractor business*

Trust me on this Blackie, if you think it's "middle of the road", it ain't. :)

LOL

I honestly don`t see the point in getting worked up about this.

Coulter writes what she does because that`s how she makes money. I can almost bet that she tried doing other things in her middle years to earn a buck and get noticed, get some fame, but it wasn`t working so she switched to "Liberals are Satan" stuff.

A chicks gotta earn, too, you know. As long as you realize its all an act, you get over it pretty quick. If you`ve ever seen her try to defend her writing during an interview you`ll understand how flimsy it all is.

Her writing this stuff is no different than a comedian going into shock-humor in order to make a name for himself. I`m pretty sure Andrew Dice Clay doesn`t live the life he portrays, why would Anne Coulter be any different?

To qoute Vonnegut, "Anyone who criticizes a piece of writing is like a knight who puts on a full suit of armor to attack a hot fudge sundae."

Liberals have been comparing Republicans as racists and nazis for years. They do it on the radio. They do it on the TV and they certainly do it in the newspaper. I've never seen ay of it get "spiked", though I could be wrong. Want examples? Here's an editorial from 1998 that talks about the liberal hate speech and gives many examples:

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/29/...ive_123198.htm

What Coulter wrote up above wasn't news. It was an opinion peice. Her opinion on most of the topics she discussed is wrong, but it doesn't say anything so offensive it should be pulled either. If the USA Today wants to pull it, so be it. I'd have never read the article if they hadn't pulled it.

When I read that they had spiked the thing, I read it to see exactly how far she went. To be honest, I'm surprised. Not only have I seen liberal op eds just as nasty, I've seen conservative op eds that make Coulter's peice above look like a childrens novel.

There isn't any controversey here, other than the one USA Today created by pulling the article.

As for Jon. . . he's only sounding off about most of our worst fears. At some point a line WILL be crossed and things will get ugly. It may take a dirty bomb blowing a state off the map. It may take another five 9/11's. It may take more than that.

At some point, Israel or the US will snap after an extremist attack. God forbid we find out a foreign governement helped fund that attack. We'll determine the only way to effectively eliminate the threat of more attacks is to start eliminating countries.

I'm not saying I want to do it. I'm not saying I look forward to it happening. I don't say I'm excited about it either. But dont' treat Jon as if he's some hate monger because he sees a sadly realistic scenario headed our way if things aren't changed. I pray he's wrong and that it never happens. I pray that it's really just some psychotic, right wing lunatics doing this and that they don't have state supported help. I have my doubts my prayers will be answered. :(

For some reason, this reminded me of Leonard Goldberg's comment in Bias

It may be hard to believe, but liberals in the newsroom, pretty much, see
NOW and Tribe and even left-wing Democrats as middle of the road. Not coincidentally, just as they see themselves. When you get right down to it, liberals in the newsroom see liberal views as just plain…reasonable.

This coming from someone who's so far right on the road that you're in the breakdown lane...like you're in any way qualified to evaluate.

LMAO

Remember, Dutch, I'm an independent and hate both parties.

Take off that Kerry/Edwards pin and say that.
:p

After 9/11, I was for threatening to nuke Mecca if such an attack was ever repeated. Drastic measures like that may be what's necessary to eliminate such attacks. If we can prove that a country gave substantial aid in the event of one of these attacks (a la Afghanistan), then let's nail 'em. I love the fact we took out the Taliban. I think we really need to look at the Saudis and others as well. But I don't think we will because of politics.

Frankly, I consider the 9/11 attacks weapons of mass destruction (what would you call 3,000 people dead?) and that we have every right to respond in kind. I'm not an apologist for our nuking Japan in WWII. They deserved it and it was the quickest way to end the war with the minimum loss of life on both sides. I truly believe that.

That's not a liberal view. It's a pragmatic one.

But if we start restricting our own freedoms because we're worried about terrorism, then the terrorists win. That's where Bush and Company have really lost their way. Trying to spy on and jail US citizens without trial or court review is not permissible. That is the sole reason I'm voting for Democrats this election.

What aims and goals might those be that have you so worried?

And, as far as your Muslim nation remark, what about Turkey? You think we're going to have to do away with it as well?

If I had one, I'd stab you in the eyeball for that comment. But I don't...so you're safe for now. :)

Jon: Just a few reminders,

Someone in the Bush White House outed a CIA agent

The Justice Department of the Bush Admin wrote a memo arguing the President could in effect ignore laws because he's at war

The White House Chief Counsel's office wrote a memo arguing that Bush could violate the Geneva Convention if he wanted

The GAO said that "Medicare" ads paid for with taxpayer money were really Republican advertising and probably illegal

The Bush Admin has used taxpayer money to ad statements praising Bush policies on official treasury documents

The Dept. of HHS kept the chief Medicare actuary from presenting acurate figures to Congress on at least four seperate occasions. Again, the GAO has ruled that this was probably illegal

The Defense Sec. has admitted to keeping a prisoner hidden from the Red Cross, a war crime as defined by the Geneva Convention

Republican senate staffers were caught breaking into files on Democratic servers, a clear violation of the law

House Majority Leader Delay used Homeland security assets to track political opponents

In at least two seperate states Republicans have broken a one hundred year precedent and redistricted outside of census concerns

A Republican committee chair called Capitol police to arrest democrats who disagreed with the chair

A Republican congressman has accused his leadership of trying to bribe him for a vote

On numerous occasions Republicans have violated voting rules and extending the time allowed for voting until they have acquired all the votes they need

Now why are Democrats such a big threat again?

Troy, I supported the war in Iraq because of the WMD I (and everyone else) was lead to believe existed in Iraq- I even thought the war justified as a moral act, given what Iraq was under. hell, If I had a vote, I would have voted Republican in every election in my lifetime except Clinton (why the democratic party runs away from its most marketable leader surprises me). Im no liberal. That being said, Jon's statement equating every Muslim state to a terror state (in some form) and that opposition of the US is a justifiable prextext for war (again, read the statement I highlighted earlier) is earily Strauss-like; and remarkly ridiculous. At some point, someone has to call him on statements like this- he does conservatives and the American cause more disservice when he says things like this. Maybe its because Im not American, and that I've actually lived my life in places with a significant Islamic presence, but this kind of shit bothers me a lot. Bigotry is bigotry, from the left (the Sharpton, McKinney's and a hell of a lot more) or the right. Hell, I hold the right to higher standards, because its closest to my perception of the "Best" way and I do not want it to fall prey to the idiocies I associate with much of left.

Or possibly start a world-wide united Islamic jihad in earnest. Do you think even the Mulims in the U.S. would sit still for something like this? Man, talk about scary. :rolleyes:

Even if Kerry wins, things will continue as they are, at least on the domestic front. Of this I have no doubt. Quite frankly, how many more 9/11s or dirty bombs are you willing to risk to be P.C.? In my book, any citizen who throws his lot in with the enemy (in this case the terrorists) is a traitor, deserving of a traitor's reward. Simply jailing them without trial is too good for them.

I've never been dishonest with where I stand. :)

I'd say you're confusing bigotry with discernment. It seems to be a common mistake.

Come on Blackie...give peace a chance!
;)

Seriously, I'd probably nuke Mecca after a public warning. If violence is the only thing some Islamic groups want to understand, then that's what they'll get. But then again, I know I'm in the minority on this. Fine. Don't want to nuke Mecca? Then we start precision bombing their holy sites. Better?


This bothers me to no end. This is typical right-wing BS. You can't defend your position, so you need to label it PC. This isn't PC and if you label it as such, then you have no understanding of the issue at all. This is the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. And it DOES NOT PERMIT the President or anyone else to deprive a US citizen a fair trial. PERIOD.

When you talk about jailing people without trial, then you're jailing them without proving they're a traitor. Without that proof, without that check and balance, they can jail anyone they want at any time. That's not a reach and it's not scare tactics. It's a pure and simple reasonable conclusion. And that's not supposed to be the country we live in.

I'd risk EVERY dirty bomb or 9/11 to prevent this from happening. Because one it happens, then you don't live in the USA. You live in a police state.

If they come for me, you'll see me exercise my right (more proof that I'm not a liberal) to keep and bear arms when my house becomes another Ruby Ridge.

I'm a patriot, not a parrot.

No, but from where you stand, you don't have a very good angle of the action. You can see only half the field. :)

No, Jon, in your case it's not a mistake. You're a bigot.

I wouldn't read any Maureen O'Dowd in the Times anytime soon then.

You're a real piece of work, Jon, cloaking your intolerance and personal attacks against those who disagree with you in what appear to be reasoned words. But many of us discern the hate-filled, genocidal policies you advocate, and are not fooled by the facade.

If you don't patronize a business that has it on, I take it then that you don't watch Fox News. If that's the case, how on Earth would you know "their news is shit"?

I can tell you when I became convinced that "their news is shit" rather than simply biased - when I spent a day in early 2003 with parents, and my mother was watching "coverage" of the Scott Peterson case. The quality of reporting and analysis was so sensationalistic, and quite frankly, horribly written that it was pretty much National Enquirer-level journalism. I had never seen such lack of professionalism on a high-budget, national newscast before. And I didn't really have position on the Peterson case at the time, so my reaction wasn't because I was ideologically opposed to the Fox viewpoint on the issue.

hell, you could say that about any of the news networks covering that case, especially the 24-hour must have content at all costs cable news outlets.

Well, yes, especially back then, but Fox went far beyond the rest in the bit that I saw. It was basically one "expert" after another arguing for hanging the guy now (this was back even before the bodies were found), interspersed with the kind of anchor commentary you might expert from your local, super-low budget independent TV station news. At least, that's how I remember it.

Glad to see you gave it a fair shake.

To think, I only needed 5 years of watching CNN in the 90s to see that there were better odds of Bin Laden walking up to the White House lawn than CNN ever hiring a competant conservative comentator. It's pretty easy to make the conservative angle look silly when you trot that group of blowhards they had back then. That is, if you actually watched during the 20 minutes a day when they would allow a conservative to speak.

Personally, I am not all that concerned about Fox having a conservative slant, and the conservatives want to watch it, that's fine with me. But now that you guys have your conservative news outlet, I wish you would shut up about the "liberal" news media. Like here in Sacramento - for years, all the conservatives complained about the #1 newspaper in the market, the Bee, when there was a conservative alternative, the Union. Eventually, the Union died because nobody was buying it. The conservatives seemed to prefer buying the Bee and complaining. I actually had a conservative co-worker tell me that he hoped the Union would go under, because that would force the Bee to become more conservative (it didn't, and the conservatives are still complaining).

To the point of Democratic Party only having ugly woman... Liz Phair. Scarlet Johansen. Natalie Portman. Minnie Driver. Liz Phair. Eliza Dukshu. We win. :-)

I take it you like Liz Phair? ;)

Obviously, because I've seen it before. Duh. :rolleyes:

Obviously, because I've seen it before. Duh. :rolleyes:

Obviously, because I've seen it before. Duh. :rolleyes:

Obviously, because I've seen it before. Duh. :rolleyes:

Man, reading crap like this really makes me embarassed by the fact that this psychopathic, horse-faced bitch of the apocalypse actually went to the same law school I did... :(

For shame.