Who hates the most?
- Thread starter zoofer
- Start date
Did someone mention Ann? Can you feel the love of the Treason Times?
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13635&o=ANN001
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13635&o=ANN001
I don't know if you ask me, the extreme right and the extreme left hate each other about the same. As you move away fromt he extremes lets say socialists and ultra conservatives it becomes a little less, social democrats and conservatives, even less still untill you hit the centre left and right were it pretty much becomes just an inconvince. *shrugs*
What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way: "Demagoguery beats data."
And which political extremist ideologues pretended that WMD were in existence in Iraq, that this country had 45 minute attack capability, and was in imminent danger of attacking the West? The same ideologues who have arrested tens of thousands of people in overseas prisons without charge and which have included innocent civilians who are totally unrelated to or involved with terrorism. The same ideologues who have now killed over 100 thousand civilians in a bloody war on Iraq so that Iraqis citizens are today saying that they were better off under Saddam?
Yes, extremist punditry is a menace to society and to the world at large. But it is the present regime in the White House that has set the example that some are imitating. Since this regime has failed to be accountable for its erroneous action, others have taken it upon themselves to imitate its pathetic examples and the result have been unfavorable to say the least.
Society needs responsibility and accountability. But responsibility flows to the top.
[edited for spelling error]
And which political extremist ideologues pretended that WMD were in existence in Iraq, that this country had 45 minute attack capability, and was in imminent danger of attacking the West? The same ideologues who have arrested tens of thousands of people in overseas prisons without charge and which have included innocent civilians who are totally unrelated to or involved with terrorism. The same ideologues who have now killed over 100 thousand civilians in a bloody war on Iraq so that Iraqis citizens are today saying that they were better off under Saddam?
Yes, extremist punditry is a menace to society and to the world at large. But it is the present regime in the White House that has set the example that some are imitating. Since this regime has failed to be accountable for its erroneous action, others have taken it upon themselves to imitate its pathetic examples and the result have been unfavorable to say the least.
Society needs responsibility and accountability. But responsibility flows to the top.
[edited for spelling error]
The only problem I see in fundamentalism per se, is that it so often, precedes facism. Which is a problem. A Big Problem.
Bush on the other hand really, is just a Problem, a Royal Pain In The Arse type of problem...
but because a pain in the arse could also be linked to haemorroids, this undoubtedly could be a serious catch 22 situation... war against fundamentalism might cause the haemorroids to flare up, and you wouldn't want that... conversely, war against Bush might stop the haemorroids, but not without them becoming a bigger pain in the arse first. and then there is of course, still a problem left to be dealt with - the fundamentalist issue.
catch 22?
almost... maybe those iranian233mph torpedoes in a perfectly timed impact, could cauterize the haemorroids, without being too much of a pain in the arse, and if a couple backfired on the Fundamentalists firing them, the situation might be bearable...
Of course, if anyone is taking these statements seriously, they need to see a proctologist ASAP. It might be a Tumor.
Bush on the other hand really, is just a Problem, a Royal Pain In The Arse type of problem...
but because a pain in the arse could also be linked to haemorroids, this undoubtedly could be a serious catch 22 situation... war against fundamentalism might cause the haemorroids to flare up, and you wouldn't want that... conversely, war against Bush might stop the haemorroids, but not without them becoming a bigger pain in the arse first. and then there is of course, still a problem left to be dealt with - the fundamentalist issue.
catch 22?
almost... maybe those iranian233mph torpedoes in a perfectly timed impact, could cauterize the haemorroids, without being too much of a pain in the arse, and if a couple backfired on the Fundamentalists firing them, the situation might be bearable...
Of course, if anyone is taking these statements seriously, they need to see a proctologist ASAP. It might be a Tumor.
I believe the short answer to the question posed in the thread title is: Ann Coulter. She’s a vicious hack with no respect for facts, a sloppy researcher who cheerfully makes things up to suit her purposes, and doesn’t understand the difference between legitimate criticism and abuse. And the one time I saw her interviewed, it was clear she has the instincts of a bully. I’ve read one book of hers, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, and that’s more than enough. Fortunately, it was a library book, I didn’t buy it personally.
She once shrieked at a disabled Vietnam veteran, “People like you caused us to lose that war.” She routinely referred to Bill Clinton as a pervert, a liar, and a felon, and Hillary Clinton as pond scum and white trash. Upon seeing anti-American demonstration in Arab nations following 9/11 she suggested the appropriate response was to invade those countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Presumably she meant at the point of a gun. She’s compared Katie Couric to Eva Braun, and later added Joseph Goebbels when Couric challenged her in an interview. She routinely dismisses her critics as dimwits, birdbrains, half-wits, and worse, without actually dealing with their criticisms.
In a column at Townhall.com, she described Robert Kennedy’s assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, as “the first Muslim to bring the classic religion-of-peace protest to American shores, when, in support of the Palestinians, he assassinated Robert Kennedy.” Sirhan was in fact a Christian of Arab descent, not a Muslim, which renders her point irrelevant. In Slander she perpetuates mythology about Al Gore being a lying boaster because of his claim that he was at least partly the inspiration for George Segal’s novel Love Story. She refers to it four times, on pages 145, 154, 159, and 160. But according to Segal himself, it’s actually true. She makes much in Slander of Ronald Reagan’s supposedly single-handed victory in the Cold War, when in fact the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR collapsed during the elder Bush’s administration; she never explains how they were Reagan’s doing. She generally argues that Reagan exhausted the USSR with huge increases in American military spending and forcing the Soviets to keep pace, when the facts are that Reagan’s policies had almost no effect on Soviet spending. The USSR was about to collapse under its own weight regardless of anything Reagan did. Coulter doesn’t produce any historical evidence or argument to support her claim, she just keeps repeating it like a mantra, as if mere repetition would make it true.
Well, there’s no need to multiply examples indefinitely. Coulter’s a liar and a bully who invents facts and falsifies the record to support her inflammatory views, and since I read Slander and did a little fact checking I see no reason to ever take her seriously or pay any attention at all to anything she says. She has nothing of any value to say.
She once shrieked at a disabled Vietnam veteran, “People like you caused us to lose that war.” She routinely referred to Bill Clinton as a pervert, a liar, and a felon, and Hillary Clinton as pond scum and white trash. Upon seeing anti-American demonstration in Arab nations following 9/11 she suggested the appropriate response was to invade those countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Presumably she meant at the point of a gun. She’s compared Katie Couric to Eva Braun, and later added Joseph Goebbels when Couric challenged her in an interview. She routinely dismisses her critics as dimwits, birdbrains, half-wits, and worse, without actually dealing with their criticisms.
In a column at Townhall.com, she described Robert Kennedy’s assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, as “the first Muslim to bring the classic religion-of-peace protest to American shores, when, in support of the Palestinians, he assassinated Robert Kennedy.” Sirhan was in fact a Christian of Arab descent, not a Muslim, which renders her point irrelevant. In Slander she perpetuates mythology about Al Gore being a lying boaster because of his claim that he was at least partly the inspiration for George Segal’s novel Love Story. She refers to it four times, on pages 145, 154, 159, and 160. But according to Segal himself, it’s actually true. She makes much in Slander of Ronald Reagan’s supposedly single-handed victory in the Cold War, when in fact the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR collapsed during the elder Bush’s administration; she never explains how they were Reagan’s doing. She generally argues that Reagan exhausted the USSR with huge increases in American military spending and forcing the Soviets to keep pace, when the facts are that Reagan’s policies had almost no effect on Soviet spending. The USSR was about to collapse under its own weight regardless of anything Reagan did. Coulter doesn’t produce any historical evidence or argument to support her claim, she just keeps repeating it like a mantra, as if mere repetition would make it true.
Well, there’s no need to multiply examples indefinitely. Coulter’s a liar and a bully who invents facts and falsifies the record to support her inflammatory views, and since I read Slander and did a little fact checking I see no reason to ever take her seriously or pay any attention at all to anything she says. She has nothing of any value to say.
Seeing further quotes from Ms. Ann Coulter would lead me to believe that she believes left-wing persons to be the inherent enemy of the United States of America, or any free and democratic nation, for that matter. Furthermore, she doesn't seem to have based her arguments on fact — rather, she appears to launch baseless insults across the bows of her opponents. I would wonder whether or not there is any basis to the things that she says.
I am a Conservative and I find Ann Coulter to be a disgusting overated uneducated idiot who on National Television claimed Canada was in Vietnam as a Nation.
She later went on to recant and say she meant Canadians who had come South to sign up.
But she really didn't know.
She is as insulting as she is ignorant.
M
She later went on to recant and say she meant Canadians who had come South to sign up.
But she really didn't know.
She is as insulting as she is ignorant.
M
You would actually have to read her stuff Five.
Dexter…
She is a product of exactly the same use of above from Democrats....For some reason (unknown to me) the right is to hold itself up to higher ideals than the left. Why? She is defiantly not hack…I mean if she is, the words people must use against her opponents must be hideous.
She is right to point out that Democrats in America are in opposition to American values and security....does she use wit and humour to do so, sure.....but it is far better than crying us a river (as the left does) and providing only three resolves to any issues Americans seem to have...1.) Raise taxes. 2.) Step on free speech. 3.) Gun control.
The Ronald Regan bit is sort of how you look at it. Did Ron do it single handily? No, but would the left take all the credit if Bill Clinton had won the cold war? Yes. It’s the game we play with the Dems….but Ron did put enormous amounts of pressure on the Soviets, that’s a fact. Did the Democrats lend their hand in supporting these measurements or did they whine and complain and call Ron dumb?
Is she right on every point she makes? No, but she has a better track record than her opponents and she is good at nailing the Dems with their own psychosis. Geesh, at least she loves and respects her country and doesn’t support Iran, can her counter parts say that? No.
I think she sums up the Liberal mentality quite nicely with this gem….
More of the goods.
Dexter…
She is a product of exactly the same use of above from Democrats....For some reason (unknown to me) the right is to hold itself up to higher ideals than the left. Why? She is defiantly not hack…I mean if she is, the words people must use against her opponents must be hideous.
She is right to point out that Democrats in America are in opposition to American values and security....does she use wit and humour to do so, sure.....but it is far better than crying us a river (as the left does) and providing only three resolves to any issues Americans seem to have...1.) Raise taxes. 2.) Step on free speech. 3.) Gun control.
The Ronald Regan bit is sort of how you look at it. Did Ron do it single handily? No, but would the left take all the credit if Bill Clinton had won the cold war? Yes. It’s the game we play with the Dems….but Ron did put enormous amounts of pressure on the Soviets, that’s a fact. Did the Democrats lend their hand in supporting these measurements or did they whine and complain and call Ron dumb?
Is she right on every point she makes? No, but she has a better track record than her opponents and she is good at nailing the Dems with their own psychosis. Geesh, at least she loves and respects her country and doesn’t support Iran, can her counter parts say that? No.
I think she sums up the Liberal mentality quite nicely with this gem….
More of the goods.
Re: RE: Who hates the most?
This is the number one excuse people use to criticize Ann in Canada. Me? I think we need to do better than that, I think she thought since Canadians were in the war, we as a nation did it....big deal.
Retired_Can_Soldier said:
This is the number one excuse people use to criticize Ann in Canada. Me? I think we need to do better than that, I think she thought since Canadians were in the war, we as a nation did it....big deal.
Her reference to 911 Widows who disagreed with the invasion of Iraq was equally insulting. She referred to them as WEEPY WIDOWS.
She is lower than pond scum and I have read some of her literature. She is a boney assed idiot.
M
She is lower than pond scum and I have read some of her literature. She is a boney assed idiot.
M