Author Topic: More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!  (Read 2284 times)

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2002, 04:00:22 PM »
Coulter's article posted above is so full of misquotes and make believe that I am shocked anyone would admire the woman or her writing. For those of you with the ability to discern the facts on your own HERE is the speech she is misquoting.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2002, 04:35:04 PM »
Quote
Coulter is self-consciously inflammatory. As she told the Sunday Times of London recently, "I am a polemicist. I am perfectly frank about that. I like to stir up the pot. I don't pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do." It is exactly that kind of invective which has earned her so much publicity.


She does pretend to speak the truth though!

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2002, 04:50:16 PM »
Keep all your Coulter bashing in one thread at a time please.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2002, 05:07:37 PM »
Oh and Midnight, tell me if any part of this quote is untrue:

[Clinton] perjured himself, hid evidence, suborned perjury, was held in contempt by a federal court, was disbarred by the Supreme Court, lied to his party, his staff, his wife and the nation. The ethics of that president included having staff perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office as he chatted on the phone with a congressman about sending American troops into battle.

How the f*ck an you defend such an outrageous amazinhunk?

Clinton's lies under oath in a judicial proceeding were such a shock to the legal system that just weeks before every Senate Democrat would vote to keep him in office, the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address—one of many historical firsts in the Clinton years. That stunning rebuke was meaningless. Liberals were impervious to any logic beyond Clinton's mantra that his opponents were "right-wing Republicans."

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
*Spin...Spin...Spin*
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2002, 05:09:02 PM »
The old "tell a lie enough times and it becomes true" scheme in action.

http://www.georgetown.edu/admin/publicaffairs/protocol_events/events/clinton_glf110701.htm


The so called "conservative" wing of the Republican party has become the very thing they condemn....and pretend to oppose.

They have become a gang of low brow thugs, liars and spin doctors whose lust and obsession for power has plunged them to new lows in their lack of moral integrity, dignity, or common decency.....for sale to the highest bidder.

Beginning with the criminal regimes of Reagan/Bush, the last two decades have consistently demonstrated "conservatives" are not concerned with the best interests of "we the people", the truth, or personal accountability.
 
During the last 8 years these *so called* conservatives did everything in their power to disgrace and remove a president elected twice by voters, this demonstrates the depth of the contempt they feel for our country and it's citizens.

During this period while wrapping themselves in God and the American flag in an attempt to disguise their hypocrisy, they betrayed and trampled the concepts of "Duty, Honor, and Country" during their seditious crusade.


"Conservatives".....I think not, the *correct* terminology is "Utilitarians".



Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.  This fundamentally hedonistic concept is further elaborated to equate happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain.
 
This sounds good in theory, until you consider the real necessity of pain in the process of growth, both as individuals and as societies.

Utilitarianism fails to address fundamental processes of human development, is excessively simplistic, myopic, and seeks to place the "Greatest Happiness Principle" of the "upper class" over that of the common citizen.

The ideal of individualism and individual liberties play a large role in our society.  These individual liberties include liberty of conscience, thought, opinion, and pursuits.

After 9/11he "conservatives" have decreed that individual liberties may be violated as they feel neccesary, individually or collectively, interfering with the liberty of anyone in the name of their self-preservation or pursuit of their agenda.

Eventually this means that many types of rebellious behavior against the government or status quo will be regulated and restrained. Therefore, the population is not allowed to express their desire for individual freedoms if those freedoms pose a threat to the prevailing system. In the light of such restrictions, the idea of individual liberty becomes secondary at best.

But when these problematic ideals of individual liberty are applied to economic entities. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, they are indeed restraints, and all restraint...is an evil.

The "freedom" implied is one-sided. This is due to the fact that in those instances where the liberty of the individual clashes with the liberty of the economic entity, according to the doctrine of utilitarianism, the economic entity will predominate, in that it presumably provides the greater amount of happiness to society, and is, hence, more useful.

In short, the rights of the individual are put on the back burner, individual liberty is co-opted by economic interests which assume the ideological place initially reserved for the individual in the first place.

Add to this already murky philosophy the overt elitism present throughout the conservative ditto heads like Coulter, Limbaugh, et al, and what is revealed is an attitude of contempt towards the principles of democracy,

The "conservative" attitude toward democracy is that one of the main conditions essential to good government is that it be government by a select body, not by the public mandate, that political questions not be decided by established process, either direct or indirect, or influenced by the judgement or will of a (purposely) uninformed public, but by the deliberately formed opinions of a the few.

They clearly advocate an oligarchical system wholly suited to an imperialistic ruling class, yet not terribly concerned with liberty on an individual to individual basis.

In truth the "conservative party" is a cynical elitist group which combines utopian concepts of utilitarianism and free trade.

The hidden reality is their veiled contempt for the masses and general lack of confidence in the principles of democracy, privately they operate as an oligarchy ruled by an political aristocracy, the "public party line" is scripted towards the sentimental side, expressing confidence in a population whose own drive for happiness will lead it inevitably towards that perfect society in which, if not interupted by outside interference, the greatest good will come to the greatest number.

The overriding flaw in this "conservative" vision is the most superficial reading of history shows it for what it really is. It is interesting to note that modern "conservatives", while paying lip-service to established doctrines, (such as free trade) have just the opposite opinion of the average citizen, namely that law and order and strict obedience to the edicts of society are the way to go.

The endowment of individual liberties upon economic entities has become the cornerstone of modern capitalism. In the United States this concept has been adopted and sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Bellotti ruling of 1980 granted corporations first amendment free speech rights, thus equating, in the realm of expression, the corporation with the individual.

In effect,  this ruling makes it a foregone conclusion that the corporate speaker will be the loudest voice in town.

With the enhancement of corporate power by such Supreme Court rulings, the inevitable consequence is the diminishment of the liberty of the individual.

Another consequence of this is the current state of affairs brought about by a decade of relatively unrestrained free trade. "Economic freedom' is a euphemism for private enterprise unfettered by social accountability."

This same social unaccountability has left us with the Enron and WorldCom scandals, corporate domination of the media, and a vast concentration of wealth at the top of the economic food chain the likes of which this country has never seen.

Trailer park trash like Ann Coulter are the "conservative" equivelant of the Jerry Springer show, shallow entertainment for other trailer park residents....watching her beat straw man Bill up makes for good entertainment while Chimpy and his gang of thugs operate.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2002, 05:13:28 PM »
Just a quick question...
Why do you call the Reagan years "a criminal regime" and  Clinton "elected twice by voters"?

Wasnt Reagan elected twice by voters too?

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2002, 05:22:49 PM »
And they want you to spy on your neighbours for them, and report any suspicious activity to the Party...I mean Gastapo...I mean the government.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2002, 05:24:49 PM »
The "conservative" attitude toward democracy is that one of the main conditions essential to good government is that it be government by a select body, not by the public mandate, that political questions not be decided by established process, either direct or indirect, or influenced by the judgement or will of a (purposely) uninformed public, but by the deliberately formed opinions of a the few.

The liberal philosophy is that Daschle and Gephardt know how to spend our money better than we do, so we should give it to them.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2002, 05:37:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh and Midnight, tell me if any part of this quote is untrue:

[Clinton] perjured himself, hid evidence, suborned perjury, was held in contempt by a federal court, was disbarred by the Supreme Court, lied to his party, his staff, his wife and the nation. The ethics of that president included having staff perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office as he chatted on the phone with a congressman about sending American troops into battle.

How the f*ck an you defend such an outrageous amazinhunk?

Clinton's lies under oath in a judicial proceeding were such a shock to the legal system that just weeks before every Senate Democrat would vote to keep him in office, the entire Supreme Court boycotted Clinton's State of the Union address—one of many historical firsts in the Clinton years. That stunning rebuke was meaningless. Liberals were impervious to any logic beyond Clinton's mantra that his opponents were "right-wing Republicans."


First you get on Montezuma about "cut and pasting" then you place quotes in here without identifying which is yours and which isn't. Bad form Steve.
Legally Clinton did not commit perjury or Suborn Perjury. He was aquitted of those charges.
The fact that he lied to many people is without question. I would like you to name ONE conservative politician that has NEVER lied. But that is beside the point isn't it. Because we are talking about Ann Coulter's lies. Am I saying that Clinton's lies are OK because all politicians lie? Or are you saying that Ann Coulter's lies are OK because Clinton was caught lieing? It seems we have a moral conundrum here doesn't it?

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Bill Clinton lied about a blow job...
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2002, 05:43:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
Just a quick question...
Why do you call the Reagan years "a criminal regime" and  Clinton "elected twice by voters"?

Wasnt Reagan elected twice by voters too?



For 12 years, from 1981-1993, the United States was governed by Reagan and Bush who merged the power of the state with criminality to a degree possibly unmatched in modern American history.

The "crack" epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities was due to massive shipments of cocaine smuggled by elements of the CIA-organized Nicaraguan contra army in the early-to-mid 1980s.

Danilo Blandon Reyes, a former contra leader and drug dealer, testified during a cocaine trafficking trial in San Diego that the smuggling was given a green light by the late Enrique Bermudez, who commanded the FDN, the largest contra force and the one most closely associated with the CIA

A wealth of evidence, collected by federal drug agents and congressional investigators during the 1980s, corroborated that the Reagan-Bush administrations knew about the drug trafficking and mounted a determined cover-up to protect the contras from exposure.

Senior administration officials apparently shared Enrique Bermudez's situational ethics. After all, President Reagan had hailed the contras as the "moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers." They could not be unmasked as drug dealers.

The disgraceful  filth we had in the White House not only allowed *tons* of cocaine to be imported and sold in the US... they also blew billions of dollars on fighting the "drug war" and imprisioned  people for long prison terms for cocaine related offenses.  

Both them and involved cabinet members should have gotten life prison sentences....and don't forget, one of the main persons implicated is now the US vice president.

I guess crime really does pay, if your a Bush or friend of one. :rolleyes:

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2002, 05:55:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target


First you get on Montezuma about "cut and pasting" then you place quotes in here without identifying which is yours and which isn't. Bad form Steve.
Legally Clinton did not commit perjury or Suborn Perjury. He was aquitted of those charges.
The fact that he lied to many people is without question. I would like you to name ONE conservative politician that has NEVER lied. But that is beside the point isn't it. Because we are talking about Ann Coulter's lies. Am I saying that Clinton's lies are OK because all politicians lie? Or are you saying that Ann Coulter's lies are OK because Clinton was caught lieing? It seems we have a moral conundrum here doesn't it?


Clinton found in civil contempt for Jones testimony

April 12, 1999
Web posted at: 7:24 p.m. EDT (2324 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 12) -- U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

Wright has referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if any disciplinary action should be taken, CNN has learned.

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition.


So Clinton was not found guilty of perjury, just lying... or more correctly, his statements were "intentionally false"
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2002, 06:08:29 PM »
I guess you agree with me then HM.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2002, 06:11:18 PM »
from bill
"This is not easy to do, but I'm telling you, no terrorist campaign has ever succeeded, and this one won't if you don't give it permission"

lol
did blondy point that retarded statement out...Terrorist campaigns actually have a pretty fair track record when compared to pasifist campaigns... Especialy when the liberal press can support them.

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2002, 06:44:56 PM »
A. What's the difference between 700 confidential FBI files found in the Oval office and the Watergate break-ins?

B. And just for you, Weazel, after that masterpiece of garbage... what's the difference between a conservative and a liberal?


















A. Nixon was about to be impeached, and for the sake of the country and his reputation resigned.

B. Conservatives wait until people are born, grown, and screwed up their lives to pronounce a death sentence. Liberals make the death sentence hereditary.

Offline KG45

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
More Ann Coulter Nonsense!!
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2002, 06:59:33 PM »
mT - i can't stand that skanky RW harpie hatemonger, anthrax coulter either.

but give it rest already, no need to reprint the demented squeakes' hateful spew.

she's a nobody, who can't get over the fact that she'll never get a chance to suck the big dog's enormous noodle, and it's made her insane. :(
all you fascists, you're bound to lose...