| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ken [NY" |
| Date: |
24 Jul 2004 05:17:22 PM |
| Object: |
Never Trust A Liberal Over 3 |
Never Trust A Liberal Over 3
Ann Coulter
July 21, 2004
In the '80s, a friend of mine knew a Russian dissident who was always
heatedly denouncing the Soviet Union and assuring everyone that he had
been completely immune to Soviet propaganda. Then one day, after
returning from the Wright Brothers museum in North Carolina, he smugly
informed my friend that Americans have their own propaganda: "You
think the Wright brothers invented flight -- ha ha -- everyone knows
that was the Mozhaisky brothers!"
This is what Republicans are like today. They swear up and down not to
trust the liberal media, but as soon as that very media demonize some
Republican, half our party is ready to dump him. Currently the
Republican liberals would most like to see gone is ***** Cheney.
There's a basketful of Republicans I'd be very pleased to see removed
from office. ***** Cheney ain't one of them.
Another candidate liberals told us was a disaster for the party was
Ronald Wilson Reagan. In 1976, Newsweek's Hal Bruno said Republican
"party loyalists" feared that Reagan would produce "a Goldwater-style
debacle from which there is no comeback." Though the "Republican right
wing" was gleeful at the prospect of a real conservative like Reagan
purifying the party, Bruno wrote, "it could be a purification
indistinguishable from suicide."
In polls of the Democratic and Republican National Committees taken by
U.S. News and World Report in early 1980, Democrats overwhelmingly
claimed to believe George Herbert Walker Bush was a more formidable
candidate than Reagan. "We HOPE they'll run Reagan," liberals said.
Taking their cue on "electability" from the Democrats -- always a
great idea! -- a majority of Republican committeemen also thought
future one-termer Bush was more "electable." (If only Al D'Amato had
been around, he could have recommended dropping Reagan and replacing
him with Colin Powell or John McCain.)
Pay attention to what happened next: Reagan went on to win two
landslide elections for president, transform the nation's politics,
and dismantle the Democrats' favorite country, the USSR. He not only
never lost a general election, Reagan also never won by less than a
landslide margin. Reagan's triumph was then promptly jettisoned by Mr.
"Electable," who broke his "read my lips" pledge and unceremoniously
ended the Republicans' 12-year control of the White House.
Other Republicans we've been told were a disaster for the party are
Newt Gingrich -- who produced the jaws-of-life to tear Congress from
the Democrats -- and Ken Starr -- who was responsible for the
impeachment and utter humiliation of Bill Clinton.
Like Thomas Sowell's definition of a "racist" ("a conservative winning
an argument with a liberal"), the definition of an "unpopular
Republican" is "a Republican the Democrats would like to be rid of."
Whenever liberals are being hysterical about a Republican, it's
because that Republican is not good for the Democrats.
I promise you, if McCain, Powell or even Rudy Giuliani were put on the
ticket, the liberal lovefest would come to a screeching halt. We'd
finally get a little investigative reporting on liberals' favorite
Republicans -- and who knows what's in those closets. (Let's just hope
McCain and Giuliani don't have any messy divorces in their past!)
Heaven help us if any of them have ever worked for a successful
corporation.
Liberal love lasts just long enough to get the job done. The most
famous instance of a Republican taking advice from Democrats occurred
when former President Bush broke his pledge and raised taxes. The
instant Bush capitulated, a staffer at the DNC hit a stopwatch and,
for one hour, liberals showered Bush with affection. Maureen Dowd,
then-reporter for The New York Times, compared Bush to Eisenhower and
gushed he had dropped "the slash-and-burn approach" and was "trying to
take a moderate, bipartisan approach."
But as Friedrich Schiller wrote, "Once the Moor has done his duty, the
Moor can go." Having tricked the dolt into raising taxes, liberals
soon turned on Bush with a vengeance. No longer a bipartisan
Eisenhoweresque statesman, Bush became merely an impediment to the
Democrats getting a real tax-raiser like Bill Clinton in the White
House. Soon Dowd was describing Bush as one of the "elite males in
possession of large fortunes" who lacked "empathy with middle-class
and poor Americans hurt by a recession."
Liberals even taunted Bush for being so unprincipled as to raise
taxes. Dowd said of Bush: "Will he learn the power of fixed principles
in leadership, or will he continue to engage in waffling and expedient
stances on issues like abortion, civil rights and taxes?"
Never, in the history of the Democratic Party, have they taken advice
from us. I thought the Democrats should run Dennis Kucinich for
president. I even promised them that a lot of Republicans would vote
for a Kucinich-Sharpton ticket! But I didn't see any Democrats taking
my advice. Of course, Democrats have never had to face the sound
chamber of an all-conservative media. (They will in my gulag.)
We don't have to adopt all the Democrats' traits -- incessant lying,
utter shamelessness, criminal behavior and lots of crying -- but
Republicans need to tattoo this truism on their arms: It's never a
good idea to take advice from your enemies.
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department®
___________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
GO GO LANCE!
How does "Le Tour de Lance" sound?
"Definition of a racist: a conservative
winning an argument with a liberal"
-Thomas Sowell
spammers can send mail to and
my favorite spammer,
.
|
|
| User: "torresD" |
|
| Title: Re: Never Trust A Liberal Over 3 |
24 Jul 2004 05:28:46 PM |
|
|
Ann Coulter, why isn't she in the Military, assigned to Iraq?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Bradley" |
|
| Title: Black & right: Black Americans almost uniformly opposed to homosexual marriage |
24 Jul 2004 09:13:53 PM |
|
|
Black & right: Black Americans almost uniformly opposed to homosexual
marriage
http://www.worldmag.com/newsite/content/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=9425
THE METHODISTS FOUGHT, THE PRESBYTERIANS (USA) dithered, and the
Episcopalians gave in as their national conventions struggled over
what to do about homosexuality. But the African Methodist Episcopal
Church (AME), the largest black church in the country with 2.5 million
members, voted in its national convention unanimously not to allow
pastors to perform same-sex marriages.
Black Americans tend to be liberal politically. They are the most
reliable components of the Democratic Party's base, with the possible
exception of gays, whose causes Democrats and liberals are
championing. And yet, black Americans are among the demographic groups
most opposed to gay marriage.
This frustrates gay activists and their allies. African-Americans have
experienced terrible discrimination. Why aren't they more sympathetic
with the discrimination that gays experience? There used to be laws
against blacks marrying whites. Just as those racist laws needed to be
repealed, surely the laws against men marrying men also need to be
repealed. Blacks and gays should be natural allies, liberals are
saying.
Of course, some black leaders -- like former presidential candidate
and ordained minister Al Sharpton -- follow the party line of the
liberal establishment. But across the country, black pastors have been
staging rallies against gay marriage. African-Americans bitterly
resent the attempt by homosexual activists to appropriate the
civil-rights movement for their cause. Even the extremely liberal
Congressional Black Caucus has denounced comparisons of the
gay-marriage movement to the civil-rights struggles of the 1960s.
"Why are blacks, who know so well the reality of discrimination, so
uniformly unsympathetic to the case that the gay community is making?"
That question is raised by Star Parker, a black evangelical, in a
column for Scripps Howard News Service. She says that the main reason
is that the civil-rights movement depended on objective moral truth.
Homosexual marriage, on the contrary, depends on a rejection of
objective moral truth.
"It is not just that they know when their movement is being hijacked,"
she quotes Wilfred McClay, history professor at the University of
Tennessee, as saying. "It is that the religious sensibility that
animated the civil-rights movement, and that is still very much alive
in the American black community today, is bound up in a biblical
worldview that would no more countenance the radical redefinition of
marriage than it would the re-imposition of slavery."
"Blacks know instinctively that the debate on gay marriage is the
symptom and not the problem," says Ms. Parker. "They know that the
root problem is the implicit de-legitimization and marginalization in
the United States today of traditional standards of right and wrong."
She argues that it was just such a marginalization of right and wrong
that allowed slavery. "Without an anchor in ultimate standards, blacks
know that the best politics and law, even in as great a country as
ours, can lead anywhere."
Concepts such as justice, freedom, and human rights depend on a
worldview that recognizes transcendent, objective, moral truths. If
morality is just something that we can construct and reconstruct
according to our own preferences, as postmodernists believe, then
justice, freedom, and human rights will be in jeopardy. To reject
universal teachings about sexual morality and to presume to redefine
marriage to include homosexual relationships may seem kind and
tolerant. But that comes with a horrible price, the repudiation of the
very moral framework that makes kindness and tolerance possible.
One might say that black Americans are suffering the consequences of
the sexual revolution. The whole culture has drifted away from sexual
morality, and African-Americans have been paying the highest price, in
the troubled children, the crime, and the poverty that accompany
communities that do without marriage. But whites as well as blacks are
affected by the moral breakdown. Among white women, Ms. Parker points
out, the incidence of out-of-wedlock births is 25 percent -- what it
was for black women 40 years ago.
The civil-rights movement of the 1960s was moral. The gay-rights
movement is not. It is that simple. Perhaps African-Americans and
their churches could start exerting the moral leadership that our
whole country desperately needs.
----------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken [NY" |
|
| Title: Re: Never Trust A Liberal Over 3 |
25 Jul 2004 08:55:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:28:46 GMT, "torresD" <torresD30@hotmail.com>
claims:
Ann Coulter, why isn't she in the Military, assigned to Iraq?
The UN has declared her writing to be a weapon of mass
destruction to liberals.
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department®
___________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
GO GO LANCE!
How does "Le Tour de Lance" sound?
"Definition of a racist: a conservative
winning an argument with a liberal"
-Thomas Sowell
spammers can send mail to and
my favorite spammer,
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JJWHITEJR" |
|
| Title: Re: Never Trust A Liberal Over 3 |
24 Jul 2004 09:10:12 PM |
|
|
torresD wrote:
Ann Coulter, why isn't she in the Military, assigned to Iraq?
More to the point why are you asking such an asinine question?
JJWHITEJR
.
|
|
|
| User: "torresD" |
|
| Title: Re: Never Trust A Liberal Over 3 |
25 Jul 2004 12:52:55 AM |
|
|
"JJWHITEJR"
Ann Coulter, why isn't she in the Military, assigned to Iraq?
More to the point why are you asking such an asinine question?
JJWHITEJR
If you bang the war drum.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Bradley" |
|
| Title: The SICK, TWISTED Mind of Noam Chomsky! |
25 Jul 2004 03:52:27 AM |
|
|
The SICK, TWISTED Mind of Noam Chomsky
WITHOUT QUESTION, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this
hour of his nation's grave crisis - the most treacherous intellect in
America belongs to MIT professor Noam Chomsky. On the 150 campuses
that have mounted "teach-ins" and rallies against America's right to
defend herself; on the
streets of Genoa and Seattle where "anti-globalist" anarchists have
attacked the symbols of markets and world trade; among the
demonstrators at Vieques who wish to deny our military its training
grounds; and wherever young people manifest an otherwise
incomprehensible rage against their country, the inspirer of their
loathing and the instructor of their hate is most likely this man.
There are many who ask how it is possible that our most privileged and
educated youth should come to despise their own nation - a free, open,
democratic society - and to do so with such ferocious passion. They
ask how it is possible for American youth to even consider lending
comfort and aid to the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins (and
the Communists before them). A full answer would involve a search of
the deep structures of the human psyche, and its irrepressible
longings for a redemptive illusion. But the short answer is to be
found in the speeches and writings of an embittered academic and his
intellectual supporters.
For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet
after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one
message alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in
the world. In Chomsky 's demented universe, America is responsible not
only for its own bad deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including
those of the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all those who now
search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the American
dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them.
One little pamphlet of Chomsky's - What Uncle Sam Really Wants - has
already sold 160,000 copies (1), but this represents only the tip of
the Chomsky iceberg. His venomous message is spread on tapes and CDs,
and the campus lecture circuit; he is promoted at rock concerts by
superstar bands such as Pearl Jam, Rage Against the Machine, and U-2
(whose lead singer Bono called Chomsky a "rebel without a pause"). He
is the icon of Hollywood stars like Matt Damon whose genius character
in the Academy Award-winning film Good Will Hunting is made to invoke
Chomsky as the go-to authority for political insight.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Noam Chomsky is "the most often
cited living author. Among intellectual luminaries of all eras,
Chomsky placed eighth, just behind Plato and Sigmund Freud." On the
Web, there are more chat room references to Noam Chomsky than to Vice
President ***** Cheney and
10 times as many as there are to Democratic congressional leaders
Richard Gephardt and Tom Daschle. This is because Chomsky is also the
political mentor of the academic left, the legions of Sixties radicals
who have entrenched themselves in American universities to
indoctrinate students in their anti-American creeds. The New York
Times calls Chomsky "arguably the most important intellectual alive,"
and Rolling Stone - which otherwise does not even acknowledge the
realm of the mind - "one of the most respected and
influential intellectuals in the world."(2)
In fact, Chomsky's influence is best understood not as that of an
intellectual figure, but as the leader of a secular religious cult -
as the ayatollah of anti-American hate. This cultic resonance is
recognized by his
followers. His most important devotee, David Barsamian, is an obscure
public radio producer on KGNU in Boulder Colorado, who has created a
library of Chomsky screeds on tape from interviews he conducted with
the master, and has converted them into pamphlets and books as well.
In the introduction to one such offering, Barsamian describes
Chomsky's power over his disciples: "Although decidedly secular, he is
for many of us our rabbi, our preacher, our rinpoche, our pundit, our
imam, our sensei."(3)
The theology that Chomsky preaches is Manichean, with America as its
evil principle. For Chomsky no evil however great can exceed that of
America, and America is also the cause of evil in others. This is the
key to the mystery of September 11: The devil made them do it. In
every one of the 150 shameful demonstrations that took place on
America's campuses on September 20, these were the twin themes of
those who agitated to prevent America from taking up arms in her
self-defense: America is responsible for the "root causes" of this
criminal attack; America has done worse to others.
In his first statement on the terrorist attack, Chomsky's response to
Osama bin Laden's calculated strike on a building containing 50,000
innocent human beings was to eclipse it with an even greater atrocity
he was confident he could attribute to former president Bill Clinton.
Chomsky's infamous September 12 statement "On the Bombings" began:
The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not
reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the
Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical
supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because
the US blocked an inquiry
at the UN and no one cares to pursue it).(4)
Observe the syntax. The opening reference to the actual attacks is
clipped and bloodless, a kind of rhetorical throat clearing for
Chomsky to get out of the way, so that he can announce the real
subject of his concern - America's crimes. The accusation against
Clinton is even slipped into the text, weasel fashion, as though it
were a modifier, when it is actually the substantive message itself.
It is a message that says: Look away, America, from the injury that
has been done to you, and contemplate the injuries you have done to
them. It is in this sleight of hand that Chomsky reveals his true
gift, which is to make the victim, America, appear as an even more
heinous perpetrator than the criminal himself. However bad this may
seem, you have done worse.
In point of fact - and just for the record - however ill-conceived
Bill Clinton's decision to launch a missile into the Sudan, it was not
remotely comparable to the World Trade Center massacre. It was, in its
very design, precisely the opposite - a defensive response that
attempted to minimize casualties. Clinton's missile was launched in
reaction to the blowing up of two of our African embassies, the murder
of hundreds of innocent people and the injury to thousands, mostly
African civilians. It was designed with
every precaution possible to prevent the loss of innocent life. The
missile was fired at night, so that no one would be in the building
when it was hit. The target was selected because the best information
available indicated it was not a pharmaceutical factory, but a factory
producing biological weapons. Chomsky's use of this incident to
diminish the monstrosity of the terrorist attack is a typical Chomsky
maneuver, an accurate measure of his instinctive mendacity, and an
index of the anti-American dementia, which infuses everything he
writes and says.
This same psychotic hatred shapes the "historical" perspective he
offered to his disciples in an interview conducted a few days after
the World Trade Center bombing. It was intended to present America as
the devil incarnate - and therefore a worthy target of attack for the
guerilla forces of "social justice" all over the world. This was the
first time America itself - or as Chomsky put it the "national
territory" - had been attacked since the War of 1812. Pearl Harbor
doesn't count in Chomsky's calculus because Hawaii was a
"colony" at the time. The fact that it was a benignly run colony and
that it is now a proud state of the Union counts for nothing, of
course, in Chomsky' s eyes.
During these years [i.e., between 1812 and 1941], the US annihilated
the indigenous population (millions of people), conquered half of
Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered
Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of
Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its
resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is
colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other
way. That is a dramatic change.(5)
Listening to Chomsky, you can almost feel the justice of Osama bin
Laden's strike on the World Trade Center.
If you were one of the hundreds of thousands of young people who had
been exposed to his propaganda - and the equally vile teachings of his
academic disciples - you too would be able to extend your outrage
against America into the present.
a.. According to Chomsky, in the first battle of the postwar struggle
with the Soviet Empire, "the United States was picking up where the
Nazis had left off."
a.. According to Chomsky, during the Cold War, American operations
behind the Iron Curtain included "a 'secret army' under US-Nazi
auspices that sought to provide agents and military supplies to armies
that had been established by Hitler and which were still operating
inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the early 1950s."
a.. According to Chomsky, in Latin America during the Cold War, U.S.
support for legitimate governments against Communist subversion led to
US complicity under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, in "the
methods of Heinrich Himmler's extermination squads."
a.. According to Chomsky, there is "a close correlation worldwide
between torture and U.S. aid."
a.. According to Chomsky, America "invaded" Vietnam to slaughter its
people, and even after America left in 1975, under Jimmy Carter and
Ronald Reagan, "the major policy goal of the US has been to maximize
repression and suffering in the countries that were devastated by our
violence. The degree of the cruelty is quite astonishing." (6)
a.. According to Chomsky, "the pretext for Washington's terrorist wars
[i.e., in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, etc.] was
self-defense, the standard official justification for just about any
monstrous act, even the Nazi Holocaust." (7)
a.. In sum, according to Chomsky, "legally speaking, there's a very
solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second
World War. They've all been either outright war criminals or involved
in serious war crimes."(8)
What decent, caring human being would not want to see America and its
war criminals brought to justice?
According to Chomsky, what America really wants is to steal from the
poor and give to the rich. America's crusade against Communism was
actually a crusade "to protect our doctrine that the rich should
plunder the poor."(9) That is why we busied ourselves in launching a
new crusade against terrorism after the end of the Cold War:
Of course, the end of the Cold War brings its problems too. Notably,
the technique for controlling the domestic population has had to
shift. New enemies have to be invented. It becomes hard to disguise
the fact that the real enemy has always been 'the poor who seek to
plunder the rich' - in particular, Third World miscreants who seek to
break out of the service role.(10)
According to Chomsky, America is afraid of the success of Third World
countries and does not want them to succeed on their own. Those who
threaten to succeed like the Marxist governments of North Vietnam,
Nicaragua and Grenada America regards as viruses. According to
Chomsky, during the Cold War, "except for a few madmen and nitwits,
none feared [Communist] conquest - they were afraid of a positive
example of successful development. "What do you do when you have a
virus? First you destroy it, then you inoculate potential victims, so
that the disease does not spread. That's basically the US strategy in
the Third World.".(11)
No wonder they want to bomb us.
Schooled in these big lies, taught to see America as Greed Incarnate
and a political twin of the Third Reich, why wouldn't young people -
with no historical memory - come to believe that the danger ahead lies
in Washington rather than Baghdad or Kabul?
It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in
every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the
political context is distorted (and often inverted) and the historical
record is systematically traduced. Every piece of evidence and every
analysis is subordinated to the overweening purpose of Chomsky's
lifework, which is to justify an idée fixe - his pathological hatred
of his own country.
It would take volumes, however, to do this and there really is no
need. Because every Chomsky argument exists to serve this end, a fact
transparent in each offensive and preposterous claim he makes. Hence,
the invidious comparison of Clinton's misguided missile and the
monstrous World Trade Center attack.
In fact the Trade Center and the Pentagon targets of the terrorists
present a real political problem for American leftists, like Chomsky,
who know better than to celebrate an event that is the almost
predictable realization of their agitations and their dreams. The
destroyed buildings are the very symbols of the American empire with
which they have been at war for fifty years. In a memoir published on
the eve of the attack, the 60s American terrorist Bill Ayers recorded
his joy at striking one of these very targets:
"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The
sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally
going to get what was coming to them."(12) In the wake of September
11, Ayers - a "Distinguished Professor of Education[!] at the
University of Illinois - had to feverishly backtrack and explain that
these revealing sentiments of an "anti-war" leftist do not mean what
they obviously do. Claiming to be "filled with horror and grief,"
Ayers attempted to reinterpret his terrorist
years as an effort to explore his own struggle with "the intricate
relationships between social justice, commitment and resistance."(13)
Chomsky is so much Ayers' superior at the lie direct that he works the
same denial into his account of the World Trade Center bombing itself.
Consider first the fact that the Trade Center is the very symbol of
American capitalism and "globalization" that Chomsky and his radical
comrades despise. It is Wall Street, its twin towers filled on that
fateful day with bankers, brokers, international traders, and
corporate lawyers - the hated men and women of the "ruling class," who
- according to Chomsky - run the global order. The twin towers are the
palace of the Great Satan himself. They are the belly of the beast,
the object of Chomsky's lifelong righteous wrath. But he is too clever
and too cowardly to admit it. He knows that, in
the hour of the nation's grief, the fact itself is a third rail he
must avoid. And so he dismisses the very meaning of the terrorists'
target in these words:
The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors,
secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to be a crushing blow to
Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people.
Chomsky's deception which attempts to erase the victims who were not
merely "janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc.," tells us more than we
might care to know about his own standard of human concern.
That concern is exclusively reserved for the revolutionary forces of
his Manichean vision, the Third World oppressed by American evil.
Chomsky's message to his disciples in this country, the young on our
college campuses, the radicals in our streets, the moles in our
government offices, is a message of action and therefore needs to be
attended to, even by those who will never read his rancid works. To
those who believe his words of hate, Chomsky has this instruction:
The people of the Third World need our sympathetic understanding and,
much more than that, they need our help. We can provide them with a
margin of survival by internal disruption in the United States.
Whether they can succeed against the kind of brutality we impose on
them depends in large part on what happens here.(14)
This is the voice of the Fifth Column left. Disruption in this country
is what the terrorists want, and what the terrorists need, and what
the followers of Noam Chomsky intend to give them.
In his address before Congress on September 19, President Bush
reminded us: "We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of
all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human
life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except
the will to power, they follw in the path of fascism, Nazism and
totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where
it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."
President Bush was talking about the terrorists and their sponsors
abroad. But he might just as well have been talking about their fifth
column allies at home.
It's time for Americans who love their country to stand up, and defend
it.
By David Horowitz
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Never Trust A Liberal Over 3 |
24 Jul 2004 09:27:35 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Never Trust A Liberal Over 3
From: JJWHITEJR
Date: 7/24/2004 10:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <8EEMc.2243$AY5.952@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
torresD wrote:
Ann Coulter, why isn't she in the Military, assigned to Iraq?
More to the point why are you asking such an asinine question?
Ann Coulter was the ***** who made claims that Max Cleland received wounds no
worse than one would expect in a bar fight. Ann Coulter, the *****, made the
statement that Max Cleland received his wounds on a beer run. Max Cleland lost
both legs and and arm in combat in Vietnam. It was not known if it was his own
granade which caused the damage but in combat mistakes happen. Ann Coulter
should be ashamed for making such statements but she got another republican
elected. Btw Chamblis who was elected avoided the Vietnam war because of a a
tennis elbo. How so typical of republicans. They allow the woman to be the
fighters because they fight in the gutter. BTW I wonder what types of bars the
***** Ann Coulter was doing tricks if two lost legs and a lost arm is a common
injury in a bar fight were she attends.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bobbyhaqq" |
|
| Title: Re: Never Trust A Liberal Over 3 |
25 Jul 2004 03:59:45 AM |
|
|
JJWHITEJR <JJWHITEJR@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message news:<8EEMc.2243$AY5.952@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
torresD wrote:
Ann Coulter, why isn't she in the Military, assigned to Iraq?
More to the point why are you asking such an asinine question?
Why is it asinine. I have meet dozens of people who could be working
or fighting in Iraq who actively and passionately support the war but
won't put their money where their mouths are.
I wish Coulter would go to Iraq, or maybe some of the hospitals where
our troops come back with destroyed bodied, and speak to the forces
about the conditions and the growing resistance.
They call it character. They call it wanting to know if you are
right. Saddly the fascists, yourself highly included, are certain
that they know everything and ignoring Iraq is essential to keeping
your world view going. Iraq, and just about everything else under
Bush, has not gone to plan. Answer? Ignore everything else. In the
worst economy in 50 years talk about the boom caused by tax cuts, as
death tolls mount in Iraq and the rebels get better and better talk
about Kerry. No WMD, talk about Wilson and something about him and
his wife in Niger.
The American people suffer, just about everyone is worse off today
than they were in 2000, and I am sure that includes you. Our future
as a nation is far less secure, the economy and security have been
utterly devistated by Bush and it is utterly and objectively clear
that this is the case, and everyone on this planet ACCEPT for
Republicans in the US see it. Everyone everywhere. Democrats and
Independents in America and all people everyone on the planet see this
administration for what it is. Only members of one party in one
country refuse to see reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken [NY" |
|
| Title: Re: Never Trust A Liberal Over 3 |
25 Jul 2004 08:56:38 PM |
|
|
On 25 Jul 2004 01:59:45 -0700, (bobbyhaqq)
claims:
torresD wrote:
Ann Coulter, why isn't she in the Military, assigned to Iraq?
More to the point why are you asking such an asinine question?
Why is it asinine. I have meet dozens of people who could be working
or fighting in Iraq who actively and passionately support the war but
won't put their money where their mouths are.
When is John Edwards leaving for Iraq?
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department®
___________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
GO GO LANCE!
How does "Le Tour de Lance" sound?
"Definition of a racist: a conservative
winning an argument with a liberal"
-Thomas Sowell
spammers can send mail to and
my favorite spammer,
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
