• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY ... FOR A BOOK BURNING

passin thru

Well-known member
GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY ... FOR A BOOK BURNING
June 21, 2006
Ann Coulter


I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.

For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.

How about these pungent points:

— No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time — undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals — the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over — except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

— Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.

Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."

— Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

— While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.

In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd — before she was elevated to the cartoon pages — wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex — oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy — to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.

Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I predict however that every last one of you will be made uncomfortable by her before she's through hawking her book.

Not a chance for me. I will only be uncomfortable if she doesn't piss off every Democrat/Liberal in the world before she is through.

Only problem is..........the Democrats/Liberals down here can't read. :mad:
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Yes I will agree her tone is HARSH but we have gotten so far away from our core beliefs that it takes a rude awakening to get people moving.
Look at the Un trying to ban guns??? Is anyone other than me outraged?
If I need to stand on my roof and scream and beat the drums I am willing.
She feels the need to stand on her roof and beat her drums to wake up the country up. Sometimes the facts are not pretty without their sugarcoating we like to put on them to make them agreeable.
Sorry brass tacks are not pretty but we all need to know the truth they are there.
What is sad is my daughter can tell you more ways to catch AIDS then she can tell you about Newton.
What is harsher ....the rape and light sentence for the preditor or the fact of calling attention to the fact?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Painting either conservatives or liberals as monolithic stereotypes ideologues is ridiculous and polarizing.

I'll look over the fact that you don't have to live in/around/amongst what we do down here. I'll bet you wouldn't live close to it and have no idea what it's like.

The Liberals down here aren't "Monolithic".....they're "Paleolithic".

When you take a class of people who vote strictly Democrat, no matter the competence or ability of the candidate, the other people MUST polarize them selves to vote the other way or get trounced on in every election.

Racism is alive and well in the USA. But it's completely turned around backwards as you know it. Polarizing huh?

I wish Ann could say what she REALLY thinks but "political correctness" has her muffled.
 

Mike

Well-known member
floyd said:
So, Mike, it is ok to STRICTLY vote republican?

In the primary's here you have no choice but to vote for one party or the other.

I voted for one Democrat in the last general election, but it has become the norm for the candidates here to pander to one race or the other.

There is no middle ground any more as the "other" race feels all Republicans are completely against them, no matter the track record of that candidate.

The other side votes strictly Democrat. Every single time without a doubt. Without fail.

Now I ask you, who is doing the "Polarizing"?
 

passin thru

Well-known member
R2................sorry you feel that way. I would like to suggest a vacation, a nice one to a quiet place like a ranch. Those other places some people go to have too many uppity people to do anyone any good. :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Mike said:
floyd said:
So, Mike, it is ok to STRICTLY vote republican?

In the primary's here you have no choice but to vote for one party or the other.

I voted for one Democrat in the last general election, but it has become the norm for the candidates here to pander to one race or the other.

There is no middle ground any more as the "other" race feels all Republicans are completely against them, no matter the track record of that candidate.

The other side votes strictly Democrat. Every single time without a doubt. Without fail.

Now I ask you, who is doing the "Polarizing"?

I think it is much the same way in MS where my aunt and uncle live. At least that is what they say. Pretty sad.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY ... FOR A BOOK BURNING
June 21, 2006
Ann Coulter


I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.

For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.

How about these pungent points:

— No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time — undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals — the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over — except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

— Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.

Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."

— Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

— While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.

In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd — before she was elevated to the cartoon pages — wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex — oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy — to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.

Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Passin, here is the backlash from your post:

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Coulter's cruelty knows no bounds

CATHY YOUNG
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

Several years ago, left-wing cartoonist Ted Rall published a cartoon mocking the "terror widows" -- the bereaved of the Sept. 11 attacks as well as Marianne Pearl, the widow of kidnapped and slain journalist Daniel Pearl -- as a bunch of greedy and shallow attention-seekers.

The outrage was universal.

A number of press outlets, including The New York Times Web site, pulled the cartoon. Subsequently, when The Times and The Washington Post stopped carrying Rall's work, conservatives called it a victory for decency.

Now, the right has its own Ted Rall in the infamous Ann Coulter. In her new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," Coulter takes a whack at the "Jersey Girls," four Sept. 11 widows who have been highly critical of the Bush administration.

She refers to them as "self-obsessed women" who "believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony," and then concludes with this zinger: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."

A number of conservatives, including prominent Republican blogger and radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, have denounced Coulter's statement. Unfortunately, many others have rallied to her defense.

Radio and Fox News talk-show host Sean Hannity mildly has suggested that she may have gone too far, but has avoided condemning her outright and has given her plenty of airtime on his show.

Bill O'Reilly, the host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor," has been harshly critical of Coulter's comments. Yet several of his conservative guests vigorously defended her.

Republican strategist Karen Hanretty said, "I think that if you read some of what Ann Coulter is saying and you put it into context, I don't think it's mean-spirited ... a lot of it is sort of tongue-in-cheek. And Ann's own personal style probably wouldn't be my style ... but it's certainly Ann's style." Conservative activist Sandy Rios asserted that "while everybody else is making nice, Ann's words are laser-focused on truth ... they are like a clarion wake-up call." Author and activist David Horowitz called her "a national treasure."

Even O'Reilly has tempered his criticism by saying that, unlike left-wing satirist Al Franken, "Coulter doesn't lie." Yet the Web site spinsanity.org, equally tough on prevaricators whether on the left or right, has documented a number of egregious distortions and misstatements in Coulter's earlier books, "Treason" and "Slander."

O'Reilly also argues that despite her hyperbole and nastiness, Coulter makes a valid point about liberals using sympathetic victims, such as the "Jersey Girls" or bereaved mother-turned-antiwar-activist Cindy Sheehan, as "human shields" to deflect criticism of their arguments.

But, as New York Times columnist John Tierney points out, that's a legitimate point that applies across the political spectrum. Republicans have used war veterans, mothers of slain soldiers and Sept. 11 widows to bolster their moral authority as well.

Parents of murdered children often have turned their grief to activism for tougher anticrime policies, generally a conservative cause. One might add that Coulter and her ilk waged political war on Bill Clinton using his alleged victims -- such as Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick -- as their own "human shields."

Besides, just how effective is the "liberal infallibility" of victims? Sheehan got plenty of criticism for her extreme political statements.

Even columnist Michelle Malkin, who offers a partial defense of Coulter's argument, asks, "When was the last time anyone paid attention to the Jersey Girls?"

Precisely. Coulter, however, commands plenty of attention. Of course, the attacks in Coulter's book are indeed her "style."

In the past, she has crudely mocked disabled war veterans whose politics she dislikes. She is also notorious for such witticisms as, "My only regret with (Oklahoma City bomber) Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times Building," and "Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."

For years, Coulter's fans have dismissed such hateful comments as satirical hyperbole. As author Bernard Goldberg has remarked, "Coulter always has that twinkle in her eye when she calls some liberal 'pond scum.' "

While Ted Rall is a marginal figure on the left, Coulter is a star of right-wing punditry and a regular speaker at conferences of the Conservative Political Action Committee.

One would think that her vile remarks about the Sept. 11 widows would have given conservatives a perfect opportunity to distance themselves from her venom.

Apparently, they have no desire to do so. As someone who considers herself right of center, it makes me ashamed to be on the same side.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in The Boston Globe.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
OK, now back to this post. Ralls has been over the top for ages.

Now Ann Coulter condemns four(4) widows who turned this experience into a political circus. Which is their right to do so...........but it does not make them imune to criticism. Now remember the number four.............out of how many 911 widows..............over a thousand wasn't it. Hardly a condemnation of 911 widows................only a handfull of of the many widows. She wasn't condemning them for being widows.........only politicizing the issue.

Sure Ann Coulter seems over the top at times, just as Rush might, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and the list goes on. I learned it is all a peformance of the issues.

So in closing I still am amazed at the people that are so sensitive to what someone says. I take it all and weigh each statement, turn it around and look at it from the opposite direction. It makes me challenge my opinions.............isn't that what it all about. That is unless a person follows the crowd and only does what they are told.........that is not for me. In spite of a few on here that think I am a Bush man..........I probably cuss him as much as they do........maybe on different issues, but I do condemn many of his actions. Would I vote for him over Kerry............you bet, until someone comes along better.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I think I recognize that band R2. (I used to be in the entertainment business - booking clubs, etc.)

Is that "Jabbo Stokes and the Jive Rockets" or is it "Vince Vance and the Valiants"? :wink:

R2:Here's a shot of my garden party from last Sunday (band, food, fun, friends, family, great weather, tent shelter).
 

Econ101

Well-known member
passin thru said:
OK, now back to this post. Ralls has been over the top for ages.

Now Ann Coulter condemns four(4) widows who turned this experience into a political circus. Which is their right to do so...........but it does not make them imune to criticism. Now remember the number four.............out of how many 911 widows..............over a thousand wasn't it. Hardly a condemnation of 911 widows................only a handfull of of the many widows. She wasn't condemning them for being widows.........only politicizing the issue.

Sure Ann Coulter seems over the top at times, just as Rush might, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and the list goes on. I learned it is all a peformance of the issues.

So in closing I still am amazed at the people that are so sensitive to what someone says. I take it all and weigh each statement, turn it around and look at it from the opposite direction. It makes me challenge my opinions.............isn't that what it all about. That is unless a person follows the crowd and only does what they are told.........that is not for me. In spite of a few on here that think I am a Bush man..........I probably cuss him as much as they do........maybe on different issues, but I do condemn many of his actions. Would I vote for him over Kerry............you bet, until someone comes along better.

You do have a point here, passin. More often than not the issues of why we dislike someone has little to do with the particular issue, but more on the interpretation of all the issues wrapped together as a whole.

I like staying with the individual issues, if they are the important issues, instead of the giant stickyball. Too many times the things we are induced to talking about have little to do with the substantive issues. They are mere reflections of the essence. We judge the essence. Some of us judge the essence by the company kept, and some by the talk. I find it more helpful to judge by the actions. After all, the actions are the essence in motion.

I think we are all just passin thru.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Ugly talk and polarizing discourse?

I thought that was initiated 20 years ago by Ted Kennedy charging "Republicans want to wheel old people out into the streets." Anyone charging AC with raising ugly talk or polarizing discourse has credibility problems.

Ugly talk is liberal code for attack the messenger when ya just can't refute the message.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Maybe one thing I didn't get across about Ann Coulter is her presentation is one thing..........substance of her book is another. What I find is the left tries to demonize her and distort the widows aspect(4..hardly a condemnation of 911 widows) in order to negate and silence her. It even happened in this very thread.
 

Latest posts

Top