Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: weazel on February 03, 2003, 10:00:30 PM
-
Crossfire. (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/31/cf.00.html)
Lol, compared to AnnCoulter, Jerry Springer is a genius.
And I thought Springer was a handsomehunk.
-
Too bad she didn't get to talk more, hilarious...
BEGALA: Ann, welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's always good to have you here. This should be fun.
Let me begin with your current column.
ANN COULTER, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST: Excellent.
BEGALA: At Humaneventsonline. We'll plug the Web site for you.
It concludes with a suggestion -- not a suggestion, an allegation that Democrats are guilty of treason for insufficient applause when the president talked about missile defense.
COULTER: Correct.
BEGALA: Let me test your definition of the word treason. I gather that's the name of the new book, by the way.
COULTER: It is.
BEGALA: Let's check out another -- just to test your definition of treason. Take a look at this from "The Washington Post."
"According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney" -- that would be Dick Cheney, now vice president -- "was chairman and CEO of the Dallas-based company. Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiary say that as far as they know, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq."
Is that treason too?
COULTER: We weren't at war with Iraq.
BEGALA: So that's not a problem. He wasn't a bad guy two years ago?
COULTER: In fact to the contrary -- no, to the contrary it was actually quite useful to have Iraq and Iran fighting one another, I might add.
BEGALA: But they weren't. This was 1998, Ann.
COULTER: No, but I'm just saying...
BEGALA: 1998.
COULTER: Right, we weren't at war then.
I don't know of the details this. But this is just, you know, the classic liberal scandal. Some, you know, precious technical little point. I think my was really clear in that people can understand. Not that somebody worked for a corporation that sold equipment that ended up someplace at somewhere we're going to war with now.
BEGALA: He was the CEO, not the parking garage guy.
COULTER: George Bush announced that this year we're deploying a shield to defend America from incoming ballistic missiles. Only one side of the aisle stood up and gave that a standing ovation. The Democrats don't stand for defending America from incoming missiles. Yes.
BEGALA: If Al Gore had sold oil field equipment to Saddam Hussein would you say the same thing?
COULTER: He wasn't trying to sell this. You're complicated little legal points really are not -- makes no --
SPRINGER: This is kind of like my show.
BEGALA: Yes.
-
hmm I see no way Iraq can shoot oil field equipment back at us. (Anyway the sale of such to Iraq was apparently permitted at the time by the prior administration, yet I dont hear these people accusing that administration of malfeasance.)
But those opposing missile defense systems might prevent us, well meaning or not, from having *any* means of stopping some much nastier stuff from hitting us, from say, the Democratik Peoples Asylum of Extreme Korea. I dont think Begala and Springer really want to get into a detailed comparison of the relative potential harms of the one with the other.
Ms. Coulter is a bit too edgy in style for me at times, but anyone calling a former editor of the Michigan Law Review a bimbo is obviously not familiar with her.
-
She comes off as a bit of a crackpot.
-
Er.......so according to Annie here, if you dont clap loud enough when Chimpy speaks then you're guilty of treason?
Does this ring any bells with anyone.......any very old German people for example........?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
She just wants to sell some books.
-
I still maintain that if she looked like the back of a bus no one would care what she says, and she certainly wouldn't be selling any books.
The US doesn't need a missile defence shield. Apparently the North Koreans with their ICBM program and nuclear weapons are not a threat and can be pacified through diplomacy, whereas Iraq which has no ICBM capability and no nuclear weapons is a huge threat and must be tackled immediately with force of the extreme prejudice kind.
It proably all makes sense after a couple of bottles of vodka and a few days sat in front of the box watching CNN, I should think. Maybe I'll try it, and when Bush appears on the screen I'll be sure to clap as loud as I possibly can. To do otherwise would be ungrateful for the sacrifices made in WW2 by the US - maybe it's even treason.
-
About Cheney selling equipment to Iraq in 1998. First Coulter says there was a war going and it was a good thing. Then she's reminded that in 1998 there wasn't a war. The she's asked whether she'd consider it treason if it had been Gore that sold the stuff:
BEGALA: If Al Gore had sold oil field equipment to Saddam Hussein would you say the same thing?
COULTER: He wasn't trying to sell this. You're complicated little legal points really are not -- makes no --
SPRINGER: This is kind of like my show.
LOLOL Springer is pretty funny. He ain't stupid, even though he has a stupid show. Which he says is, you guessed it, stupid.
I got more respect from Springer now :D. Ann Coulter comes across as not knowing what she's talking about on Crossfire. Maybe she had a bad day.
-
I love her just because the fits that she gives the liberal left. :D Go ANN! (Wish she'd dress more like a redneck, maybe even wear alittle camoflage!) :)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
She just wants to sell some books.
Ah - there it is.
I was starting to wonder...
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I still maintain that if she looked like the back of a bus no one would care what she says, and she certainly wouldn't be selling any books.
The US doesn't need a missile defence shield. Apparently the North Koreans with their ICBM program and nuclear weapons are not a threat and can be pacified through diplomacy, whereas Iraq which has no ICBM capability and no nuclear weapons is a huge threat and must be tackled immediately with force of the extreme prejudice kind.
It proably all makes sense after a couple of bottles of vodka and a few days sat in front of the box watching CNN, I should think. Maybe I'll try it, and when Bush appears on the screen I'll be sure to clap as loud as I possibly can. To do otherwise would be ungrateful for the sacrifices made in WW2 by the US - maybe it's even treason.
After the US invades and jails/kills Sadaam, some American troop casualties, many more Iraqi military and civilian casualties, install a new pro-US dictator, we'll probably turn our attention towards the "new threat to world peace."
We'll use N. Korea as an example of a "reason" to have a missile "defence" shield that will probably run into the multi-trillion dollar mark. We won't use China or Pakistan as examples as they're our "allies."
Question is, how many warheads are we willing to let pass our defensive shield and be called a failure? One, two, three.....?
Let's say we spend all that money (at the expense of other programs) for a "Star Wars" type weapons system. Won't it just force our potential enemies to develop advanced bio weapons that can be delivered by an individual? What about compact nukes that could be delivered via a car or truck? "Star Wars" type weapon system is a waste of money. The very same rockets and/or bombers that deliver present nukes can be tracked for country of origin, allowing a massive counter-attack (M.A.D.).
A Star Wars type anti-ballistic missile system can turn out to be an offensive weapons system in that it will allow the owner of such system to threaten other major nuke bearing countries. The idea of striking other nations (wiping them out) is scary. We may at some point elect a leader too willing to sacrifice a few warheads (those that get through the Star Wars "safety net") in order to blackmail/wipe out another sovereign nation. We can definitely use that money to better programs.
-
So lets get this straight....you don't care about the truth since the end justifys the means.
You want the truth about trailer trash Ann then read Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of
an Ex-Conservative, it exposes the political right wing as filth who will stop at nothing to gain power, the author was a friend of the bimbo Coulter, she took up the mantle of right wing yellow journalism after he saw what kind of scum makes up the right wing.
The author David Brock was behind "Troopergate" and "The Real Anita Hill". Clarence Thomas owes his present posistion to him.
He probably did more to blacken Bill and Hillary Clintons reputations than any other "conservative" ever.....and has admitted how he fabricated and twisted the truth to accomplish his "conservative" mission.
Anyone who could "love" white trash like Coulter makes a strong statement about their own lack of character and morals.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I love her just because the fits that she gives the liberal left. :D Go ANN! (Wish she'd dress more like a redneck, maybe even wear alittle camoflage!) :)
-
It does seem like a waste of money, Saurdaukar. And the problem is that it relies on a radar station about 60 miles from this computer screen. Take that out with a nuclear strike, or even a big conventional bomb, and the whole system falls flat on its face.
But Blair has sneaked the agreement through with little commotion, so everything must be fine and dandy.
-
quote
_______________
hmm I see no way Iraq can shoot oil field equipment back at us.
_______________
no but they can make money off it. acording to the latest gov't propaganda, the guy who buys an 1/8 of weed is treasonous, and suporting terrorists because maybe 1% of this countries weed comes frome guys who might have a conection to terrorism.
I'd say if that counts, then a guy who sold parts to a country so they could make money off of oil- that could be spent on terrorism - would also be considered treasonous. even though we haven't really shown a clear cut link to terrorism from that country either
-
But under the existing sanctions, the proceeds of pemissable sales of oil by Iraq must go toward food and other humanitarian purposes, not weapons. If facilitating such sales are treason, then the Administration that permitted such facilitation must also be accused.
But getting back to Ann Coulter, I do think that some of her more extreme sounding statements are actually tongue-in-cheek statements that she likes to use to set off the leftists/liberals, for her entertainment or ours. :)
-
Quote: "He probably did more to blacken Bill and Hillary Clintons reputations than any other "
Hmmm, I thought "Slick Willie" did a very nice job of that himself.:D
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
Quote: "He probably did more to blacken Bill and Hillary Clintons reputations than any other "
Hmmm, I thought "Slick Willie" did a very nice job of that himself.:D
-
Bill and Hillary are poor victims of the right wing conservative conspiracy.
Listen....for every book you quote, I can offer it's counter.
The real issue is that very few of either Republicans or Democrats care about the people....we are known in Washington as polling data. This won't change and the best I hope for personally, is that from time to time an actual leader with the stones to turn it all upside down, will step up and fight for what they believe is right.
I think Bush is at least trying....he may not be right, time will tell.
To live your lives with only faith in mankind is a giant exercise in futility....even someone who does not believe in God, should have enough common sense to realize that it's only a matter of time before mankind turns in on it's self.
Weaz....why don't ya spend some of that energy of yours trying to help someone in Tulsa, rather than participating in efforts which yield no fruit?
Just a thought:)
-
But under the existing sanctions, the proceeds of pemissable sales of oil by Iraq must go toward food and other humanitarian purposes,
_________________________
I love that, 'we aren't using the money for weapons we are using it for food and other 'humanitarian relief'.
it reminds me of several years ago. my nephew was having hard times (mostly self inflicted) and was often very short on cash. so he calls me up and says he's out of cash and needs to borrow $20 for cigs. I don't loan money for cigs, drugs, or gambling. (you're not really helping). and tell him so.
the next week he buys enough cigs to get through the week first thing after cashing his check, then calls me up mid-week and wants to borrow money for food.
so would my money be going for food or cigs?