Ann Coulter fun

Real Life Events.

Go off topic and I will break you!

Moderator: Dictators in Training

Postby Lyion » Mon May 09, 2005 1:10 pm

Just to get this thread back on tangent, Ann's lastest column from her website. Enjoy!

http://anncoulter.com/
Liberals have been unusually hysterical the past few weeks. But we're not getting much in the way of details — which is odd because the devil is usually found in the details. As we reviewed vis-a-vis the judiciary in last week's column, whenever liberals won't give you details, it's because the details don't help them.

We keep hearing Tom DeLay's name uttered in angry, accusatory tones, but I still don't know what law he's supposed to have broken. As far as I can tell, DeLay didn't even cheat at golf during that trip to Scotland. But you know what liberals always say: "Where there's nothing, there's fire."

As long as liberals can keep repeating "Tom DeLay" and "ethics violation" in the same sentence and get the media to throw a grade-A hissy fit –- and it's so hard to tease that out of the mainstream media when it comes to a Republican — and they've got themselves a scandal!

Close your eyes and even now you can hear Aaron Brown saying: "Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay came under fire again today when it was disclosed that his Permanent Record showed he refused to take a nap once while in kindergarten. We turn now live to Wolf Blitzer with former kindergarten teacher Louise Millicuddy in Livingston, Texas. Wolf, could this bombshell spell the end for the combative Tom DeLay?"

How about asking the Democrats — I would recommend asking Rep. Rosa DeLauro this -– to explain precisely which law they believe DeLay broke? People will have already left the building before we get the most basic outline of the allegation. These are the same legal geniuses who looked at dozens of Whitewater-related felony convictions and said, "Crime? What crime?"

DeLay's own constituents seem to like him, unless you include Democrats claiming to be Republicans. Liberals never tire of this trick or imagine that it could ever become any less believable. Turn on talk radio right now and you'll hear some liberal caller claiming to be a lifelong Republican scandalized by the Bush tax cuts — or some other policy that has been a mainstay of the Republican Party for at least a century. The callers are always teachers. (No wonder our kids aren't learning — their teachers are always on the phone with talk-radio shows pretending to be Republicans.)

A ringleader of the DeLay witch-hunt in Texas is Patricia Baig, who took out a full-page advertisement in a Texas newspaper calling for DeLay's resignation. Baig signed her letter, "A Texas Republican for Ethical Reform."

There is no record of Baig ever voting in a Republican primary, belonging to any Republican clubs or contributing to any Republican politicians in Texas or anywhere else.

To the contrary! Baig contributed to the Democrat who ran against DeLay in his last election. She used her maiden name for the ad, calling herself "P.A. Perine (Texas Republican)." She is a substitute teacher.

All of that was duly noted by a New York Times reporter. (If we are good and decent people, conservatives will put that reporter on a 24-hour watch to make sure he isn't killed in the middle of the night.) But liberals think they can fool normal people with their road-to-Damascus "I used to be a Republican" conversion stories. They can't even fool The New York Times!

Baig's entire retort to the absence of any evidence that she is a Republican was to say that lots of Republicans don't vote in Republican primaries or contribute to Republican candidates (which, in her defense, is at least a better excuse than Kevin Phillips'.)

So, like their theories on "global warming," a liberal's claim to be a Republican is a non-disprovable assertion involving a lot of hot air.

Another conservative getting the Emmanuel Goldstein treatment is John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations. The charge against Bolton consists of the allegation that he is an absolute beast to his co-workers.

Have the Democrats heard about Katie Couric? As The New York Times described it last week: "America's girl next door has morphed into the mercurial diva down the hall. At the first sound of her peremptory voice and clickety stiletto heels, people dart behind doors and douse the lights." (Funny, I do the same thing when I'm watching the "Today" show at home by myself.)

Things have gotten so bad at "Today," sometimes they show that videotape of Katie's lower bowel exam just to lighten things up.

Can't Barbara Boxer do something to protect the staff of NBC's "Today"? They're at least Americans. First they had to live through the horrors of the Bryant Gumbel years, and now this. Also, I can't be completely clear here, because somebody could get killed, but why isn't a certain lamp-throwing junior senator from New York helping them out? Oh wait — I think I know why ...

I repeat: Bolton has been nominated to be ambassador to the United Nations. It's not like it's an important job. Get a grip, people! He's not replacing Paula Abdul on "American Idol."

The U.N. is an organization with thousands of people from all over the world with one thing in common: They badly need to be yelled at, preferably by a guy who looks like Wilford Brimley. When did collegiality with representatives from North Korea and Syria become a pressing national issue?

Why just imagine if Bolton raised his voice in front of Sudan's ambassador, or (gasp!) Burma's! I mean, Myanmar's! (Sorry, military junta that runs Myanmar!)

Democrats are enflamed at the idea of Bolton mistreating representatives of slave-traders and dictators, but won't lift a finger to help the staff of "Today." We used to be a country that cared about ratings genocide.

The only silver lining to the Democrats' efforts to kill Bolton's nomination is that if they succeed, Bush could nominate Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council instead. (Alan Keyes!) Maybe then we could finally get on with the important work of quitting the U.N. and kicking them out of New York. Isn't it somebody else's turn to host those guys yet?
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Narrock » Mon May 09, 2005 1:20 pm

hehe Ann Coulter just owns. Plain and simply put.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Postby mofish » Mon May 09, 2005 1:36 pm

Donnel wrote:Homosexuals are not protected by hate crime laws in all states. They are in fact no more a minority then people who chose to drive BMW's.


Such appalling willful ignorance. What a ridiculous analogy. You think sexual orientation is as shallow as someone deciding what car to drive? You seem like an intelligent guy. Cognitive dissonance I guess.
mofish
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:53 pm

Postby mofish » Mon May 09, 2005 1:40 pm

More fun ann coulter super-bitch quotes! Enjoy!

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00

Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."---Rivera Live 5/1/00

On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---MSNBC 9/12/97

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time

"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.

"Clinton is in love with the erect penis."---This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01

"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00

"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."---TV Guide 8/97

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99

"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."---Washington Post 8/1/00

On Rep. Christopher Shays (d-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain."---Hartford Courant 6/25/99

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."---Washington Post 10/16/98
You were right Tikker. We suck.
mofish
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:53 pm

Postby mofish » Mon May 09, 2005 1:44 pm

And then of course, there was the embarrasment of her being fired from The National Review, our countries premier CONSERVATIVE journal. Nice work Ann! :

Dear Readers,

As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.

Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around.

This is what happened.

In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst — emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person — as all her critics on the Left say — she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.

Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.

No response.

Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.

By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship.

What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it — on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?

And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?

So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.

What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.

On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?

Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.

Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.

Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" — if we didn't like it?

Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad.

Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" — or they're so much absurd bombast.

For example:

Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.

She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.

And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says — over and over and over again — that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.

Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.

The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.

To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes.

We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure.

— Jonah Goldberg
You were right Tikker. We suck.
mofish
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:53 pm

Postby Captain Insano » Mon May 09, 2005 2:20 pm

hahaha that bitch is entertaining.
Tossica: No, you're gay because you suck on cocks.

Darcler:
Get rid of the pictures of the goofy looking white guy. That opens two right there.

Mazzletoffarado: That's me fucktard
Vivalicious wrote:Lots of females don't want you to put your penis in their mouths. Some prefer it in their ass.
User avatar
Captain Insano
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 8368
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby Gidan » Mon May 09, 2005 2:33 pm

I find her rather entertaining myself. I may not agree with her but she USUALLY is very well spokena nd defends her side well. From time to time she is way out there though.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
User avatar
Gidan
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:01 am

Postby Lueyen » Mon May 09, 2005 4:52 pm

Here is a quote for you mofish:

"There is no god"-The Holy Bible
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
User avatar
Lueyen
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:57 pm

Postby Narrock » Mon May 09, 2005 7:26 pm

Lueyen wrote:Here is a quote for you mofish:

"There is no god"-The Holy Bible



That from a JW bible or something?
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Postby Eziekial » Mon May 09, 2005 8:52 pm

..before me. It's taken out of context see. She was making a point about "qoutes" but it sailed over your head. :(
User avatar
Eziekial
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 3282
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: Florida

Postby Tossica » Mon May 09, 2005 9:36 pm

She should change her name to Ann Cunt and then shut the fuck up.
User avatar
Tossica
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm

Postby Zanchief » Mon May 09, 2005 9:39 pm

Lyion wrote:Just to get this thread back on tangent, Ann's lastest column from her website. Enjoy!

http://anncoulter.com/
Liberals have been unusually hysterical the past few weeks. But we're not getting much in the way of details — which is odd because the devil is usually found in the details. As we reviewed vis-a-vis the judiciary in last week's column, whenever liberals won't give you details, it's because the details don't help them.

We keep hearing Tom DeLay's name uttered in angry, accusatory tones, but I still don't know what law he's supposed to have broken. As far as I can tell, DeLay didn't even cheat at golf during that trip to Scotland. But you know what liberals always say: "Where there's nothing, there's fire."

As long as liberals can keep repeating "Tom DeLay" and "ethics violation" in the same sentence and get the media to throw a grade-A hissy fit –- and it's so hard to tease that out of the mainstream media when it comes to a Republican — and they've got themselves a scandal!

Close your eyes and even now you can hear Aaron Brown saying: "Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay came under fire again today when it was disclosed that his Permanent Record showed he refused to take a nap once while in kindergarten. We turn now live to Wolf Blitzer with former kindergarten teacher Louise Millicuddy in Livingston, Texas. Wolf, could this bombshell spell the end for the combative Tom DeLay?"

How about asking the Democrats — I would recommend asking Rep. Rosa DeLauro this -– to explain precisely which law they believe DeLay broke? People will have already left the building before we get the most basic outline of the allegation. These are the same legal geniuses who looked at dozens of Whitewater-related felony convictions and said, "Crime? What crime?"

DeLay's own constituents seem to like him, unless you include Democrats claiming to be Republicans. Liberals never tire of this trick or imagine that it could ever become any less believable. Turn on talk radio right now and you'll hear some liberal caller claiming to be a lifelong Republican scandalized by the Bush tax cuts — or some other policy that has been a mainstay of the Republican Party for at least a century. The callers are always teachers. (No wonder our kids aren't learning — their teachers are always on the phone with talk-radio shows pretending to be Republicans.)

A ringleader of the DeLay witch-hunt in Texas is Patricia Baig, who took out a full-page advertisement in a Texas newspaper calling for DeLay's resignation. Baig signed her letter, "A Texas Republican for Ethical Reform."

There is no record of Baig ever voting in a Republican primary, belonging to any Republican clubs or contributing to any Republican politicians in Texas or anywhere else.

To the contrary! Baig contributed to the Democrat who ran against DeLay in his last election. She used her maiden name for the ad, calling herself "P.A. Perine (Texas Republican)." She is a substitute teacher.

All of that was duly noted by a New York Times reporter. (If we are good and decent people, conservatives will put that reporter on a 24-hour watch to make sure he isn't killed in the middle of the night.) But liberals think they can fool normal people with their road-to-Damascus "I used to be a Republican" conversion stories. They can't even fool The New York Times!

Baig's entire retort to the absence of any evidence that she is a Republican was to say that lots of Republicans don't vote in Republican primaries or contribute to Republican candidates (which, in her defense, is at least a better excuse than Kevin Phillips'.)

So, like their theories on "global warming," a liberal's claim to be a Republican is a non-disprovable assertion involving a lot of hot air.

Another conservative getting the Emmanuel Goldstein treatment is John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations. The charge against Bolton consists of the allegation that he is an absolute beast to his co-workers.

Have the Democrats heard about Katie Couric? As The New York Times described it last week: "America's girl next door has morphed into the mercurial diva down the hall. At the first sound of her peremptory voice and clickety stiletto heels, people dart behind doors and douse the lights." (Funny, I do the same thing when I'm watching the "Today" show at home by myself.)

Things have gotten so bad at "Today," sometimes they show that videotape of Katie's lower bowel exam just to lighten things up.

Can't Barbara Boxer do something to protect the staff of NBC's "Today"? They're at least Americans. First they had to live through the horrors of the Bryant Gumbel years, and now this. Also, I can't be completely clear here, because somebody could get killed, but why isn't a certain lamp-throwing junior senator from New York helping them out? Oh wait — I think I know why ...

I repeat: Bolton has been nominated to be ambassador to the United Nations. It's not like it's an important job. Get a grip, people! He's not replacing Paula Abdul on "American Idol."

The U.N. is an organization with thousands of people from all over the world with one thing in common: They badly need to be yelled at, preferably by a guy who looks like Wilford Brimley. When did collegiality with representatives from North Korea and Syria become a pressing national issue?

Why just imagine if Bolton raised his voice in front of Sudan's ambassador, or (gasp!) Burma's! I mean, Myanmar's! (Sorry, military junta that runs Myanmar!)

Democrats are enflamed at the idea of Bolton mistreating representatives of slave-traders and dictators, but won't lift a finger to help the staff of "Today." We used to be a country that cared about ratings genocide.

The only silver lining to the Democrats' efforts to kill Bolton's nomination is that if they succeed, Bush could nominate Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council instead. (Alan Keyes!) Maybe then we could finally get on with the important work of quitting the U.N. and kicking them out of New York. Isn't it somebody else's turn to host those guys yet?


That girl uses liberal more then Mindia. She should get a prize.
Zanchief

 

Postby Narrock » Mon May 09, 2005 10:32 pm

haha you liberals are just pissed because Ann Coulter exposes you for who you really are. I'm lovin this. :boots:
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Postby mofish » Mon May 09, 2005 11:04 pm

Lueyen wrote:Here is a quote for you mofish:

"There is no god"-The Holy Bible


Ok, so your point being, that somehow these quotes have been taken out of context, and paint her in a bad light? Please, explain to me how poor Ann is being misunderstood.
mofish
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:53 pm

Postby mappatazee » Mon May 09, 2005 11:12 pm

Ann Cuntflaps
User avatar
mappatazee
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:54 am
Location: au Eugene

Postby brinstar » Tue May 10, 2005 1:05 am

Mindia wrote:haha you liberals are just pissed because Ann Coulter exposes you for who you really are. I'm lovin this. :boots:


actually, we're dismayed because she exposes people like YOU for who YOU really are
compost the rich
User avatar
brinstar
Cat Crew
Cat Crew
 
Posts: 13142
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: 402

Postby Narrock » Tue May 10, 2005 1:24 am

brinstar wrote:
Mindia wrote:haha you liberals are just pissed because Ann Coulter exposes you for who you really are. I'm lovin this. :boots:


actually, we're dismayed because she exposes people like YOU for who YOU really are


That made no sense whatsoever, but if it makes you feel better to think that then I'm happy for you.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Postby Lueyen » Tue May 10, 2005 6:15 am

mofish wrote:
Lueyen wrote:Here is a quote for you mofish:

"There is no god"-The Holy Bible


Ok, so your point being, that somehow these quotes have been taken out of context, and paint her in a bad light? Please, explain to me how poor Ann is being misunderstood.


"somehow" and "misunderstood" interesting choice of words... oh it was all accidental... yea right. But yes the intent, and I believe it was very much not accidental, was to paint her in a bad light.

I'm sure not every one of these was taken out of context, and while I'm not going to take the time to try to sift through transcripts and books to find them, I think it is fairly obvious that by the quotes only part of the story is being told.

For instance this one.

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

I'm pretty sure she wasn't blaming Vietnam vets for the loss of the war, yet the quote does not reference the opinion, speech or action she was refering to. I think I do remeber seeing this one though, and while I don't remember the conversation in in depth detail I can tell you that suggesting that it was the soldiers in Vietnam who lost the war would infuriate me and that is something I would remember.

I think many of the others were meant as humor and sarcasim, something that doesn't come across in short quotes taken out of the context they were in.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
User avatar
Lueyen
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:57 pm

Postby Lueyen » Tue May 10, 2005 6:18 am

Eziekial wrote:..before me. It's taken out of context see. He was making a point about "qoutes" but it sailed over your head. :(


Fixed ;-)
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
User avatar
Lueyen
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:57 pm

Postby brinstar » Tue May 10, 2005 6:31 am

Mindia wrote:
brinstar wrote:
Mindia wrote:haha you liberals are just pissed because Ann Coulter exposes you for who you really are. I'm lovin this. :boots:


actually, we're dismayed because she exposes people like YOU for who YOU really are


That made no sense whatsoever, but if it makes you feel better to think that then I'm happy for you.


the type of people who get whipped up in a lusty frenzy (i.e. you) by the crazy things she says are precisely the type of people whom america should largely ignore (i.e. you)

there, does it make sense now? or should i dumb it down even further?
compost the rich
User avatar
brinstar
Cat Crew
Cat Crew
 
Posts: 13142
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: 402

Postby Lueyen » Tue May 10, 2005 8:11 am

brinstar wrote:the type of people who get whipped up in a lusty frenzy (i.e. you) by the crazy things she says are precisely the type of people whom america should largely ignore (i.e. you)


Would you group people who throw pies at her, or ones who ask vulgar questions and make rude gestures in this same category?
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
User avatar
Lueyen
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:57 pm

Postby Themosticles » Tue May 10, 2005 9:18 am

Of course not, those people are saints fighting the good fight.
"The war in Afghanistan is over." — Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
User avatar
Themosticles
NT Froglok
NT Froglok
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 12:50 pm
Location: Denver, Co

Postby Narrock » Tue May 10, 2005 9:47 am

brinstar wrote:
Mindia wrote:
brinstar wrote:
Mindia wrote:haha you liberals are just pissed because Ann Coulter exposes you for who you really are. I'm lovin this. :boots:


actually, we're dismayed because she exposes people like YOU for who YOU really are


That made no sense whatsoever, but if it makes you feel better to think that then I'm happy for you.


the type of people who get whipped up in a lusty frenzy (i.e. you) by the crazy things she says are precisely the type of people whom america should largely ignore (i.e. you)

there, does it make sense now? or should i dumb it down even further?


You're just wrong, so shut up please.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Narrock
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 16679
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Folsom, CA

Postby Gidan » Tue May 10, 2005 10:01 am

Lueyen wrote:
brinstar wrote:the type of people who get whipped up in a lusty frenzy (i.e. you) by the crazy things she says are precisely the type of people whom america should largely ignore (i.e. you)


Would you group people who throw pies at her, or ones who ask vulgar questions and make rude gestures in this same category?


I agree with brinstar, and yes I would lump the pie throwing people and such into that group also. They are just on the other extreme end which is just as bad.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
User avatar
Gidan
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:01 am

Postby Tossica » Tue May 10, 2005 10:03 am

Except pies in the face are always funny.
User avatar
Tossica
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests