By 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress.
Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they're against it.
Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror.
Have we been cryptic? Right-wingers said Clinton was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. It turned out he was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. Now liberals scratch their heads demanding to know: So what was it about him you didn't like?
If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?
Ann Coulter
Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties - provided we're only talking about criminals.
The New York Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control.
Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.
Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.
Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they're against it.
Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror.
Have we been cryptic? Right-wingers said Clinton was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. It turned out he was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. Now liberals scratch their heads demanding to know: So what was it about him you didn't like?
If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?
Ann Coulter
Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties - provided we're only talking about criminals.
The New York Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control.
Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.
Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.
#juan said:Extremists always talk in absolutes
Said1 said:I just wish she'd eat something.....like a stick of butter, maybe?
Colpy said:I think the radicals on both sides of the political spectrum serve a useful purpose by saying the things that can not be said by folks in the mainstream.......
I think Ann Coulter serves the same purpose on the right that Naom Chomsky serves on the left........looking at political life from a different perspective, and sharing their view with the rest of us......hopefully making us think!
Both are NUTS, BTW.
aeon said:Colpy said:I think the radicals on both sides of the political spectrum serve a useful purpose by saying the things that can not be said by folks in the mainstream.......
I think Ann Coulter serves the same purpose on the right that Naom Chomsky serves on the left........looking at political life from a different perspective, and sharing their view with the rest of us......hopefully making us think!
Both are NUTS, BTW.
You can't compare the 2, sorry but in a memo of fox news, back in 2002, says, if Noam chumsky is invited to a any tv shows, then fox will have to invite 86 hard righ wingers to balance what noam chumsky says, it means a lot.