Even More Ann Coulter...

[Lyion]

http://anncoulter.com/

It's always important to get liberals to stop complaining long enough to make a hard prediction. This week we will review liberal predictions on bringing democracy to Iraq.

When they weren't claiming the Iraq elections would not take place at all — and, even if they did, the people wouldn't participate — liberals were telling us that if we let those crazy Arabs vote, the Iraqi people would elect extremist Islamic mullahs hostile to the United States.

Well, the Iraq National Assembly completed filling out the cabinet this week, and it can now be said that this was liberals' laughably wrong prediction No. 9,856. (Or No. 9,857 if you count their predictions of ruinous global cooling back in the 1970s, which I don't because that could still happen.)

Iraq's first democratically elected government in half a century has a Shia prime minister and a Kurdish president and several Sunni cabinet ministers. In fact, toss in a couple of dowdy lesbians from the Green Party and it would look a lot like Vermont's state house.

Fat Muqtada al-Sadr saw his radical Shiite movement humiliated in the January elections. According to a recent poll by the International Republican Institute, two-thirds of Iraqis say Iraq is on the right track.
The minority Sunnis, who once held sway under Saddam Hussein and were told by American liberals to expect major payback from the Shiites under a democracy, were chosen by the majority Shia government for four cabinet positions — including the not insignificant position of defense minister. Plus, the Sunnis might get a fifth if they can convince Rep. Ali Abu Jeffords to switch parties.

One of the Sunnis picked for a cabinet post turned it down on the grounds that he thought he was chosen simply to fill a Sunni quota. "I don't believe in sectarianism," he said, "I believe in democracy." So I'll be moving to Iraq soon to live in a country that forcefully rejects quotas.

Also this week, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said he would like a woman as his fourth deputy prime minister. It's as if the Taliban has risen from the dead!

Apparently — like John Kerry and the Democrats — I guess the Muslim extremists just didn't get their message out. Although "Green Zone Veterans for Truth" were also a factor.

What we've learned from this is: Talking to liberals is much more fun now that we have Lexis-Nexis.

In a Nov. 9, 2003, news article, The New York Times raised the prospect that "democracy in the Middle East might empower the very forces that the United States opposes, like Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt."

Democracy in the U.S. might have put John Kerry in the White House, too, but you'll notice we didn't abandon the idea.

One difference is that the Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not democratically elected. Still, the Times said that "something similar" happened in Iran when "domestic pressures" installed the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. By "domestic pressures" in Iran, I gather the Times meant "the Carter presidency."

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin claimed to be talking about "grim Iraq realities," explaining to her readers that if elections were held, the new Iraqi government "will likely be dominated by religious parties. If the economy stays bad, radical Islamic parties could do well." So you can see how leaving the tyrannical Hussein dynasty (slogan: "We're the rape room people!") in place was preferable to that.

Winning the category of Most Wrong Predictions in the Fewest Words, Joe Conason predicted in the Sept. 27, 2004, New York Observer: "a series of horrifically violent confrontations in Iraq's cities, a postponement of the January elections, a wider call-up of National Guard and Reserve units, or even a renewed military draft." And if Bush won a second term, Conason said: "Beware the 'November surprise' that will begin to bring home the true costs of his feckless adventure."

Conason's feeble litany of harebrained predictions reads like a haiku of bum steers. No increase in "horrific" violence, no postponement of elections, no draft, no "November surprise." (OK, there was one "November surprise" — but only for the Democrats. It happened on Nov. 2.)

Winning the category of Most Wrong Predictions, Lifetime Achievement Award, Katrina vanden Heuvel (Queen of the May at the fun-loving Nation magazine) said invading Iraq would lead to "more terrorist retaliation, undermine the fight against al-Qaida and make America less secure and possibly unleash those very weapons of mass destruction into the hands of rogue terrorists in Iraq."

What weapons, Katrina? (Katrina lied, kids died!) Hey! Wait a minute! How can rogue terrorists in Iraq detonate bombs? They're all too busy flying kites with their children! Hasn't she seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

After we invaded Iraq, Katrina predicted the U.S. would stay in Iraq as a colonial power — as the only nonimperialist superpower in the history of the world is wont to do. As we paved the way for elections, she said, "You know, if there are elections in Iraq, it's very likely it will not be secular democracy."

But it's not fair to quote Katrina. She still thinks the Soviet Union's planned economy failed because the farmers had 70 years of bad weather. Liberals' current prediction is that Hillary will be able to do a planned economy right.

[Jimmy Durante]

Liberals

[Narrock]

It's always important to get liberals to stop complaining long enough to make a hard prediction.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[brinstar]

So I'll be moving to Iraq soon to live in a country that forcefully rejects quotas.

goodbye, you knock-kneed nazi piece of shit!!!!

[Yamori]

Has she written anything that isn't about liberals? She seems terribly boring.

[Darcler]

Much like a certain poster on here than spouts the same crap about liberals.

[Narrock]

If liberals would start acting appropriately then we conservatives would stop bitching about them.

[Zanchief]

If liberals would start acting appropriately then we conservatives would stop bitching about them.

Yea, that's the problem with this board.

[Arlos]

If conservatives would stop with the "Me First!" attitude and start having some actual compassion for the rest of humanity, and were actually open and accepting of people with different religions and viewpoints, we liberals might stop bitching about conservatives.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

If conservatives would stop with the "Me First!" attitude and start having some actual compassion for the rest of humanity, and were actually open and accepting of people with different religions and viewpoints, we liberals might stop bitching about conservatives.

-Arlos

You're forgetting a big part of the picture. It's more important to do what is generally more acceptable by society as a whole... the majority. You're focusing too much on the minority and their agenda. It would not be right for activist lawmakers and judges to make laws and interpret laws that cater to the minority of the population and have that supercede what the majority of the people want. You just can't have it that way.

A few months ago I told people (who want that kind of life here in America) to go move to Canada or France or some other socialistic country because you would feel more comfortable there, and then we wouldn't have to listen to the whining anymore either. DO NOT think, under any circumstances, that America will EVER become a liberal/ socialist country like Canada or France. It will NEVER happen. So you might as well stop trying.

[Arlos]

Mindia, back in the late 50s, early 60s, opinion polls ran 90+% against mixed-race marriages being legal, at least in the south. That was the majority. So, were the civil rights people wrong to fight against the will of the majority? That's what you're claiming.

The Constitution promises equal protection under the law for ALL citizens, regardless of whether or not they are part of the majority or the minority. Indeed, judicial review was conceived as a way to protect the minorities from "The tyranny of the majority"

Here's some quotes about it by some people you might've heard of:

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.

It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.

The executive power in our government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come.

Now, if you want to say the Majority should always have its way over the minority, regardless of any other considerations, you're going directly contrary to the framers of the Constitution's wishes. Just because the majority wants something, doesn't make it right or proper. The minority has just as much right to live their life as they see fit as the majority does.

-Arlos

[Yamori]

It's more important to do what is generally more acceptable by society as a whole... the majority.

Imagine how stupid the average person is. Half the people in this country are dumber than that. Thats your majority. Thats why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

The majority of the south wanted slavery for some time. Should those states' majorities have been respected? Food for thought there.

DO NOT think, under any circumstances, that America will EVER become a liberal/ socialist country like Canada or France. It will NEVER happen.

Hate to break the news to you, but we're sure as hell headed down that path. Look how entrenched in the economy the government is. Income tax, forced social security, total government control over currency (no gold standard), forcing employees and employers to deal with unions, government determining who a business should hire (affirmative action), and oodles of economic regulatory organizations exist, just to name a few.

That is the essence of the left: economic control. And Republicans have done not a thing to stop it. Shame on them.

[Narrock]

We do not have a "Tyranny of the majority" right now. Yes, back in the 1700's-1800's during the slavery times, that was a "Tyranny of the majority." But there is no such thing going on in today's day and age in which you can juxtapose a comparison to.

In case you were going to try... banning of gay marriage is not a tryannical oppression, especially when gay couples can get the same benefits as hetero married couples can anyway (and they do.) My own company, Blue Shield of California, allows for any domestic partnerships to get health care.

[alezrik]

Drug Prohibition is "Tyrany of the majority" no?

[Gidan]

We do not have a "Tyranny of the majority" right now. Yes, back in the 1700's-1800's during the slavery times, that was a "Tyranny of the majority." But there is no such thing going on in today's day and age in which you can juxtapose a comparison to.

In case you were going to try... banning of gay marriage is not a tryannical oppression, especially when gay couples can get the same benefits as hetero married couples can anyway (and they do.) My own company, Blue Shield of California, allows for any domestic partnerships to get health care.

The idea of "Tyranny of the majority" all comes down to whom you are talking to. People who do not agree with the majority and are having the views of the majority pushed upon them will see it as "Tyranny of the majority". You also do not understand domestic partners and why its an issue for them (but thats a different argument for a different place)

When you are in the majority, you do not see it as "Tyranny of the majority". The people who lived in the south durring slavery didn't see slavery as "Tyranny of the majority". They saw it as the will of the people.

[Themosticles]

If conservatives would stop with the "Me First!" attitude and start having some actual compassion for the rest of humanity, and were actually open and accepting of people with different religions and viewpoints, we liberals might stop bitching about conservatives.

-Arlos

HAHAHAH....*breath*...HAHAHA

You made my day. What's the old saying? Something about pointing a finger...you get the rest.

[mofish]

Right. The Republican party, bastion of tolerance and inclusion. Unless youre gay. Or non christian. Or poor.

[Diabolik]

Right. The Republican party, bastion of tolerance and inclusion. Unless youre gay. Or non christian. Or poor.

[Themosticles]

Right. The Republican party, bastion of tolerance and inclusion. Unless youre gay. Or non christian. Or poor.

Not the point. No where in my post did I comment on Arlos' political views. No where did I mention D's or R's. You did that.

The point here is that you and others like you (On both fucking sides) are bitching and whining that those opposed to your views are so, simply because they are intolerant or un-educated or a religious nut, etc. Yet you are the exact same, perfectly intolerant of anyone who doesn't share your view. You're not at all interested in actually debating the merrits of the multiple sides of any issue unless those you're talking with totally agree with you, and can then just avoid debate all together.

How again is this shining through as representation of the "bastion of tolerance and inclusion" that you imply your belief system preaches?

I see people comment DAILY on their desire to NOT have to have other people's views crammed down their throat, then in the very next sentence they don't even hesitate to tell me that what I think is wrong. Perhaps you'd like to explain how its NOT pushing YOUR agenda when the state of Nebraska votes in a 70% majority against same-sex marriage, only to have a judge basically throw out that VOTE with one swing of a hammer on Thursday?

This crap reminds me of the line from Goldmember that went something like, "There are only two things I hate in this world. Intolerant people and the Dutch." Everyone knows why this line is funny. This is why the post I highlighted is also funny.

But that flew right by you in your rush to prove just how smart, whitty, and in the know you are.

[Arlos]

Themo: I am absolutely open and accepting of anyone's religion, as long as (and this is an important caveat), it is THEIR religion, and they're not trying to push it on anyone else. I don't care what religion you are, you have no right to try and force other people to believe like you do. If there was the Buddhist equivalent of the Jehovah's Witnesses, I would be speaking out against them, too. Oddly enough, at least in this country, it is mostly just the Christians who feel the need to denigrate anyone of another religion, and to try and convert them. (odd cults like Scientology, the Hare Krishnas and the Moonies, notwithstanding)

You are absolutely free to believe in whatever god or gods you wish. Worship Jehovah, Lucifer, Gaia, The Green Man, The Sun, your own left foot, Joe Pesci, or who or whatever you wish. That is your absolute inalienable right. What you don't have the right to do is to attempt to force anyone else to follow your particular belief or moral code, whether by legalistic means or by any other way, as that other person has just as much right to their belief system as you do yours.

That's what a lot of conservative wingnuts seem to get mixed up with. We're not trying to tell you not to have faith or not to believe in God, we're telling you to not try and force those who DON'T believe to follow your religion's teachings. That's a HUGE and fundamental difference.

Also, for example, look at the conversation I and Donnel had about abortion in a previous thread. We're at polar opposites of the spectrum on it, yet we were absolutely able to have a civil discussion on the issue, and actually use real arguments and logical basing for our discussion. I may disagree with him, but I respect his position and his right to his beliefs; and as far as I could tell, he was the same way towards me.

Compare that to, say, Mindia, who comes in here and starts damning everyone and calling them fags or whores or spawns of satan when they disagree with him. Which one of us is open and accepting, hmmm?

-Arlos

[veeneedefeesh]

So Mindia is Dutch?

[Diabolik]

So Mindia is Dutch?

I guess?

[Lyion]

You completely missed the point of what Themo was saying, Arlos.

Most of us are guilty of what he's saying, some just more abrasively than others.

[Arlos]

Show me where I've said someone's religious beliefs are "Wrong". Show me where I've told someone they were "wrong" for having specific moral or political views. The ONLY thing I've said is "wrong" is attempting to force your beliefs onto other people who believe differently.

I may DISAGREE with them, and offer arguments to support my position as to why, but that is in no way the same thing as telling someone they shouldn't be of a certain religion, etc. Discussion, debate and argument is NOT an attempt to force beliefs. Sometimes it is just an attempt to understand WHY someone believes something.

Using the Donnel discussion as an example again: Show me where I told him his faith or interpretation of the scriptures was wrong. I pointed out some things that looked like possible inconsistencies to me, or spots where his supporting logic looked weak, and he came back with counter-arguments to reinforce his position. That's debate. That's what happens. Each side has a position, each side argues their position, and each side uses support and logic to make their point, defend their position and show the weaknesses in the other side's arguments. That is the entire POINT of debate. Even if neither side convinces the other, the very act of discussing it can promote self-reflection on the issue.

Debate != "cramming views down other people's throats". If you can't defend your position with something other than "Because!", then you shouldn't even be discussing it. If you can't come up with any reasons why you believe something, maybe it's time to examine that belief, hrm?

-Arlos

[Narrock]

Compare that to, say, Mindia, who comes in here and starts damning everyone and calling them fags or whores or spawns of satan when they disagree with him. Which one of us is open and accepting, hmmm?

I guess I wasn't here when I did this.

Themo, yes I did take an abrasive route with my viewpoints on Christianity. I did so because I studied various Christian denominations, and I know that many people here are Christians and I just wanted to point out a few things that their particular sect may be doing that is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ, and in what we see the Bible teach us. I have not condemned anybody here. I do care about people, and that is precisely the point that Arlos and his ilk consistently choose to miss. I probably know more about religion/Christianity/the Bible/etc. than 99% of the members of this board. I do believe there are 2 or 3 here that know as much as I do, and one or two that know more based on foreign language knowledge.

I also base my political opinions on my life experiences, my knowledge, education, and peer groups. It's very frustrating arguing with 19 year olds because they think they know everything, yet when you look at their life experience, you can't help but to /giggle at their outlook on life because of their limited experiences, and they have such a huge adventure ahead of them... so they have just touched the tip of the iceberg of knowledge and understanding.