Coultergeist gets her head handed to her

[strandinthewind]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0206-23.htm

Published on Sunday, February 6, 2005 by Doug Ireland
Ann Coulter Sticks Her Entire Leg in Her Mouth
by Doug Ireland

Ann Coulter is a loudmouth ignoramus who spouts her outrageous nationalist inaccuracies on American television with little challenge from the empty talking heads who interview her. But she finally found someone to stand up to her, in Canada--and she was exposed for the arrogant fool she is. Interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Company's Bob McKeown for the investigative TV broadcast "The Fifth Estate," which devoted an hour-long January 26 special to how U.S. media have been highjacked by conservative bullies, Coulter was berating Canada for not sending troops to Iraq when she displayed her empty-headedness in the following exchange:

Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter: "I don't think that's right."

McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"

McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."

Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."

McKeown: "No."

Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."

McKeown tags out in script:

"Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."

You can see the entire exchange by clicking here.

Of course, Coulter was dead wrong. In fact, Canada's attitude toward America's war in Vietnam was extremely critical under several governments of our neighbor to the north. For example, when Prime Minister Lester Pearson--who'd won a Nobel Peace Prize for his role in defusing the '50s Suez crisis-- gave an April 2, 1965 speech at Temple University calling for a pause in U.S. bombing of Vietnam, he was the subject of rather notorious treatment by Lyndon Johnson at their subsequent meeting: LBJ grabbed the much smaller Canadian by the lapels, lifted him off the floor, and hollered, "You pissed on my rug!"

Pearson's successor, Pierre Trudeau, signaled his attitude toward the war in Vietnam when he granted political asylum to tens of thousands of draft-age Americans who fled to Canada to avoid having to fight in Vietnam, saying: "'Those who make the conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war ... have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism." (How one wishes the current prime minister, Paul Martin, would take the same position with regard to those war resisters in uniform who have gone to Canada because of their opposition to what the U.S. is doing in Iraq.)

This is hardly the first time Coulter has invented "facts." To take just one more example, David Corn last year wrote a Nation web-post recounting how Coulter claimed, on the Chris Matthews Show, that George C. Scott had turned down his Oscar for the movie "Patton" because he was protesting the "critical" treatment of the general by Hollywood liberals. And even when Matthews challenged her on it and told her why she was wrong, she persisted in her falsehood.

The historically ignorant Coulter should be hiding in shame, and owes the Canadians an apology for insisting on her blatant untruth--while network bookers who continue to invite her to guest on their shows should be hiding under their desks if they maintain this empty-headed, epithet-throwing fictionalist on their rosters. (Thanks to the Canadian correspondent of This Is Rumor Control for spotting and providing the transcript of Coulter's on-air comeuppance).

[wondergirl9847]

Is everybody on drugs today or what? I just read a story about a girl getting scalped (yes, you read that right, SCALPED) and now this. Sheebus!! :mad:

Stupid people make me sick.

[heyjupiter678]

:nod: I saw that a few days ago . . . The look on her face is priceless! :laugh:

(Here's a <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/Coulter.mov">direct link</a> to the video, on Michael Moore's site.)

[GateandGarden]

Thanks for posting that, Jason! That is hilarious. Here's a link to the video I found--http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/01/29.html#a1447

I wish someone would expose her ignorance about homosexuality to the masses, but that would be harder to do. But it still pisses me off that people buy into what she says when she blatantly lies.

EDIT: Whoops! Mikki beat me to posting the video! :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

:nod: I saw that a few days ago . . . The look on her face is priceless! :laugh:

(Here's a <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/Coulter.mov">direct link</a> to the video, on Michael Moore's site.)

Bless her heart :laugh:

Thanks for the link!!!!

[dissention]

http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/laughing/astrosmiley2.gifhttp://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/laughing/astrosmiley2.gifhttp://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/laughing/astrosmiley2.gif

What a dumbass.

[strandinthewind]

http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/laughing/astrosmiley2.gifhttp://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/laughing/astrosmiley2.gifhttp://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/laughing/astrosmiley2.gif

What a dumbass.

and ya KNOW I posted that just for you :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[dissention]

Remember when she went on O'Lielly last year and said "The war is going magnificently well"? I see she's still smoking crack. Too bad McKeown didn't have a lemon maringue on hand.

[dissention]

and ya KNOW I posted that just for you :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

I found it so funny that I went and got an emoticon from another site. Her panties (or jocks) must have been in quite the knickertwist in that moment!

[dissention]

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/heyjupiter678/fpd.jpg">

http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gifhttp://smilies.jeeptalk.org/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gifhttp://smilies.jeeptalk.org/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gif

Waking up next to that thing in the morning is one surefire way to get rid of morning erections permanently.

[gldstwmn]

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. :lol:

[dissention]

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. :lol:

Remember last year when she published a column after the Superbowl and likened Janet's tit to broadcasting a pap smear and a pelvic exam? :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v490/heyjupiter678/fpd.jpg">

Will the REAL Ann Coulter please stand up!

http://www.anncoulter.com/photos/annblack.jpg

http://www.anncoulter.com/photos/ann_berlin.jpg

http://www.anncoulter.com/photos/ann_al.jpg Shocker!

[dissention]

http://www.anncoulter.com/photos/ann_berlin.jpg

How much? :shocked:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

How much? :shocked:

;) lol

No, just supporting one of her fav. bands "The Greatful Dead"

[dissention]

;) lol

No, just supporting one of her fav. bands "The Greatful Dead"

Jerry Garcia is rolling in his grave right now.

She acts like an ill-tempered barroom floozy and has the mouth to match. If she ever made a truthful comment, I'd vote Republican.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0206-23.htm

Published on Sunday, February 6, 2005 by Doug Ireland
Ann Coulter Sticks Her Entire Leg in Her Mouth
by Doug Ireland

Ann Coulter is a loudmouth ignoramus who spouts her outrageous nationalist inaccuracies on American television with little challenge from the empty talking heads who interview her. But she finally found someone to stand up to her, in Canada--and she was exposed for the arrogant fool she is. Interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Company's Bob McKeown for the investigative TV broadcast "The Fifth Estate," which devoted an hour-long January 26 special to how U.S. media have been highjacked by conservative bullies, Coulter was berating Canada for not sending troops to Iraq when she displayed her empty-headedness in the following exchange:

Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter: "I don't think that's right."

McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"

McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."

Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."

McKeown: "No."

Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."

McKeown tags out in script:

"Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."

You can see the entire exchange by clicking here.

Of course, Coulter was dead wrong. In fact, Canada's attitude toward America's war in Vietnam was extremely critical under several governments of our neighbor to the north. For example, when Prime Minister Lester Pearson--who'd won a Nobel Peace Prize for his role in defusing the '50s Suez crisis-- gave an April 2, 1965 speech at Temple University calling for a pause in U.S. bombing of Vietnam, he was the subject of rather notorious treatment by Lyndon Johnson at their subsequent meeting: LBJ grabbed the much smaller Canadian by the lapels, lifted him off the floor, and hollered, "You pissed on my rug!"

Pearson's successor, Pierre Trudeau, signaled his attitude toward the war in Vietnam when he granted political asylum to tens of thousands of draft-age Americans who fled to Canada to avoid having to fight in Vietnam, saying: "'Those who make the conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war ... have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism." (How one wishes the current prime minister, Paul Martin, would take the same position with regard to those war resisters in uniform who have gone to Canada because of their opposition to what the U.S. is doing in Iraq.)

This is hardly the first time Coulter has invented "facts." To take just one more example, David Corn last year wrote a Nation web-post recounting how Coulter claimed, on the Chris Matthews Show, that George C. Scott had turned down his Oscar for the movie "Patton" because he was protesting the "critical" treatment of the general by Hollywood liberals. And even when Matthews challenged her on it and told her why she was wrong, she persisted in her falsehood.

The historically ignorant Coulter should be hiding in shame, and owes the Canadians an apology for insisting on her blatant untruth--while network bookers who continue to invite her to guest on their shows should be hiding under their desks if they maintain this empty-headed, epithet-throwing fictionalist on their rosters. (Thanks to the Canadian correspondent of This Is Rumor Control for spotting and providing the transcript of Coulter's on-air comeuppance).

The entire episode has been a heated exercise in semantics. Coulter was mistaken but the interviewer knew full well that Canadians volunteered to serve as US Soldiers in the Vietnam War. He could've offered those details when he corrected her but elected to let her dig herself in deeper.

Canadians were there fighting against the North Vietnamese, just not as Canadian Soldiers.

Also Canadian Soldiers were in Vietnam and Indo China ostensibly as non-combatant observers but some claim they directly supported the US war effort.

here is what the CBC says about Canadian involvement in Vietnam:

The Helpful Fixer:
Canada and the Vietnam War
A special series on
As It Happens (6:30 PM 7:00 PM NT)
April 24-27, 2000

April 30th marks the 25th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon. Now is the time to tell the little known and disturbing story of Canada's role in the Vietnam war.

"Many Canadians, if they think of the Vietnam War at all, think of it as the U.S. war in Vietnam," says As It Happens host Mary Lou Finlay.

"Canada was just the 'helpful fixer', taking in American draft dodgers and trying to rein in the warring parties and bring about a peace settlement. But our role was more complicated than that, and we weren't always very candid about it."

This series looks at several aspects of Canada's involvement in the Vietnam war including stories about:

The Canadian man who oversaw the closing of the embassy in Saigon in April 1975
The Canadian woman whose efforts to help orphans in Indo-China were met with disaster
The Canadian who went on a secret mission to Hanoi in the days before the U.S. bombing began
The former head of research for the company that produced Agent Orange in Canada
Part One - The Fall of Saigon, Monday, April 24
Part Two - Quiet Diplomacy or Quiet Complicity, April 25
Part Three - Partners in Conflict, April 26: : Part 1 Part 2
MPEG Gallery - brief videos from the As It Happens Vietnam trip



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES

Twenty five years ago this April, American helicopters hovered over the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. The humiliating final retreat of U.S. involvement in Vietnam had begun. It was an ugly and chaotic scene. A scene that has since become a symbol of not only the biggest military defeat in U.S. history, but of all that was wrong with America's post-war attitude toward the rest of the world. The final message from the CIA to Washington that April morning concluded with a simple plea: "It has been a long and hard fight and we have lost. Those who fail to learn from history are forced to repeat it. Let us hope that we have learned our lesson."

In the intervening years, much has been said about the legacy of the Vietnam
War and about the lessons learned. But very little has been said about Canada's role in that war. Very little has been said about Canada's role in the death of more than two million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. And precious little has been said about the lessons Canadians should have learned.

To be sure, Canada did not initiate America's war with the people of Vietnam, and some Canadians made great sacrifices in trying to stop the war. But behind the scenes a very different Canada was at work. A Canada that was anything but peaceable.

For example. Did you know that Canada was one of the chief U.S. arms suppliers during the Vietnam era (some say "the" chief supplier). From l964 to 1973, Canadian companies, with the blessing of the Federal government, sold more than $12.5 billon worth of ammunition and asorted instruments of war to the U.S. military. Bombs dropped by B-52s over civilian targets in North Vietnam during so-called carpet bombing raids were made out of Sudbury's finest nickel.


In the mid-l960's, unemployment in Canada fell to a record low of under 4 per cent. Much of the country's good fortune was attributed directly to Canada's connection to the U.S. war machine. Jean Marchand, then Liberal Minister of Manpower when questioned by a Montreal reporter about the morality of such a "devil's bargain" and the ignorance of the Canadian public to such a pact is quoted as saying: "Do you want to be the one to tell 150,000 Canadian workers that they are out of work 'because' we discontinued producing war material for the USA under the defence contracts we hold with them?"

Another example of Canada's direct role in the war with Vietnam was Agent Orange. This highly carcinogenic defoliant was sprayed indiscriminately over soldiers and civilians alike throughout the war. But how many Canadians know that Agent Orange was tested in Camp Gagetown, New Brunswick? Or that it was produced in Elmira, Ontario? Imagine if American protesters knew then where one of the most deadliest of weapons used during the war actually came from. Imagine if Canadians knew.

Twenty five years after the war, the poison sprayed over Vietnam is victimizing a new generation of Vietnamese. Twenty five years later, Washington still refuses to accept responsibility for its actions. If the U.S. is to be held accountable, what about Canada?

THE BOAT PEOPLE

Perhaps the most dramatic and positive memory Canadians have of Canada's role in the Vietnam war is when this country opened its arms to welcome what turned out to be 130,000 Vietnamese refugees.


The exodus began in earnest on that April morning, 25 years ago, when Saigon fell to Vietnam's communist insurgents. Canadians remember the plane loads and boatloads of refugees that eventually washed up on our shores. They remember the lengths Canada went to accomodate these hapless souls. It was a moment of great national pride. But the question, "Why were these people fleeing Vietnam in the first place?" was never asked. You would be hard pressed to find a Canadian news article over the past 25 years that makes the connection between the Vietnamese flight from bombed-out houses and villages, and the Canadian made weaponry that helped bring about the destruction of the countryside and cities of Vietnam.

[GateandGarden]

http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gifhttp://smilies.jeeptalk.org/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gifhttp://smilies.jeeptalk.org/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gif

Waking up next to that thing in the morning is one surefire way to get rid of morning erections permanently.:laugh::lol::laugh:

She acts like an ill-tempered barroom floozy and has the mouth to match. If she ever made a truthful comment, I'd vote Republican.Er...I don't know if you should say that, diss. Odds are, she's bound to say something truthful. Not every word out of her mouth is a lie, just too much for comfort, certainly. But don't register as Republican! We need you! :wavey: :laugh:

[dissention]

The entire episode has been a heated exercise in semantics. Coulter was mistaken but the interviewer knew full well that Canadians volunteered to serve as US Soldiers in the Vietnam War. He could've offered those details when he corrected her but elected to let her dig herself in deeper.

What a nice way to say she's full of ****. I applaud you.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Jerry Garcia is rolling in his grave right now.

She acts like an ill-tempered barroom floozy and has the mouth to match. If she ever made a truthful comment, I'd vote Republican.

The Ramones are her other fav. band (which also contains conservative republican memebers.)

[GateandGarden]

The entire episode has been a heated exercise in semantics. Coulter was mistaken but the interviewer knew full well that Canadians volunteered to serve as US Soldiers in the Vietnam War. He could've offered those details when he corrected her but elected to let her dig herself in deeper.So, he could've offered more information. Some might say he twisted the facts to look like he knew was he was talking about, or he just oversimplified things. If so, that's exactly what she does in her books, anyway!!!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

What a nice way to say she's full of ****. I applaud you.

No, Im just saying that the interviewer knew that she was not completley incorrect in what she was trying to say, but yet instead of offering that up he wanted to prove Ann wrong, when in fact she wasn't completley wrong. Ann is only human you know, allowed to be wrong on a statement (even though she wasn't really wrong in what she said.)

[dissention]

Er...I don't know if you should say that, diss. Odds are, she's bound to say something truthful. Not every word out of her mouth is a lie, just too much for comfort, certainly. But don't register as Republican! We need you! :wavey: :laugh:


Darling, this is the woman who said Iraq was going "magnificently well" and that Katie Couric called Reagan an "airhead." She's so full of **** that you can see it dribbling down her chin. She throws around all kinds of numbers and "quotes" from Lexis Nexis in her awful books, but log into Lexis for five minutes, research them for yourself, and you'll be positively shocked that she can get away with so many lies. She's truly evil and the fact that there is a small portion of people out there who believe her is scary. :nod:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

So, he could've offered more information. Some might say he twisted the facts to look like he knew was he was talking about, or he just oversimplified things. If so, that's exactly what she does in her books, anyway!!!


Very wrong, she presents the truth in her books and to those who doubt it she provides sources for you to look at it for yourself.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Darling, this is the woman who said Iraq was going "magnificently well" and that Katie Couric called Reagan an "airhead." She's so full of **** that you can see it dribbling down her chin. She throws around all kinds of numbers and "quotes" from Lexis Nexis in her awful books, but log into Lexis for five minutes, research them for yourself, and you'll be positively shocked that she can get away with so many lies. She's truly evil and the fact that there is a small portion of people out there who believe her is scary. :nod:

Small portion? I doubt it, she has a lot more supporters then you give her credit for.

Lexis Nexis is a awsome, it contains so much truth.

And Couric did infact call Regagan an "airhead".

And if you don't the capturing Saddam and providing elections for Iraq as going well...then I don't know what is.

[dissention]

No, Im just saying that the interviewer knew that she was not completley incorrect in what she was trying to say, but yet instead of offering that up he wanted to prove Ann wrong, when in fact she wasn't completley wrong. Ann is only human you know, allowed to be wrong on a statement (even though she wasn't really wrong in what she said.)

Of course she was completely incorrect. Canada never sent troops over to Vietnam and anyone with half a brain could tell you that relations between Canada and the US soured back then because Canada welcomed American draft-dodgers with open arms. Just this past year they held a parade for those Americans who went to Canada in opposition of Vietnam. Private Canadian citizens who volunteered to go over there were not the issue, especially since the numbers are so miniscule. She flat-out claimed that Canada sent troops. She was 100% wrong, per usual.

[GateandGarden]

Darling, this is the woman who said Iraq was going "magnificently well" and that Katie Couric called Reagan an "airhead." She's so full of **** that you can see it dribbling down her chin. She throws around all kinds of numbers and "quotes" from Lexis Nexis in her awful books, but log into Lexis for five minutes, research them for yourself, and you'll be positively shocked that she can get away with so many lies. She's truly evil and the fact that there is a small portion of people out there who believe her is scary. :nod:No argument there, certainly. But, hey, she at least knew we were at war. :laugh: I was being nit-picky just for the hell of it. I might just agree with gldstwmn--she's mentally ill. I'm inclined to agree with her philosophy about Coulter--anyone who's that evil must be mentally ill. :shrug: Could be.

[dissention]

Small portion? I doubt it, she has a lot more supporters then you give her credit for.

Lexis Nexis is a awsome, it contains so much truth.

And Couric did infact call Regagan an "airhead".

And if you don't the capturing Saddam and providing elections for Iraq as going well...then I don't know what is.

Too bad she wouldn't know how to use Lexis Nexis if her life depended on it. She quotes it as a source knowing full well that her typical readers don't have access to it, nor the desire to research any of it because she presents falsehoods as facts. I could go on for ages about how she misuses Lexis, or oyu could sav eme some time and go log into it yourself and see how she lies.

Couric never called Reagan an "airhead," either. ;) Here's what she said:

"Good morning. 'The Gipper was an airhead.' That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today."

As for her "magnificently well" quote, she said this back in the spring. Surely you realize that nothing was going "magnificently well" at that time and even O'Lielly told her she was full of it.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Of course she was completely incorrect. Canada never sent troops over to Vietnam and anyone with half a brain could tell you that relations between Canada and the US soured back then because Canada welcomed American draft-dodgers with open arms. Just this past year they held a parade for those Americans who went to Canada in opposition of Vietnam. Private Canadian citizens who volunteered to go over there were not the issue, especially since the numbers are so miniscule. She flat-out claimed that Canada sent troops. She was 100% wrong, per usual.

No she wasn't 100% wrong.

There were no "Canadian soldiers" in Vietnam. There were Canadians, but they served in American uniforms under American command. These are facts.

[GateandGarden]

Very wrong, she presents the truth in her books and to those who doubt it she provides sources for you to look at it for yourself.I'm at least educated on gay issues. She said in her HTTAL (IYM) book that gay people can see anyone in ICU whenever they want to. She knew that was a complete lie. If you're not legally married to your partner and the family (people who are actually related to the person) don't want you to see him or her in the ICU and you have no legal documentation that grants you permission, tough ****. It doesn't matter if you've been with the person for forty years and have done everything for him or her. If the family doesn't approve, he or she can waste away and you don't get to say goodbye. Coulter trivializes it by saying something like 'Gay people can see anyone, partners, neighbors, or complete strangers.' Last time I checked, you can't see complete strangers in the ICU anyway, but that's not the point. She trivialized something really devastating that she will never have to experience and she knows nothing of that particular kind of pain. Lucky for her she wasn't born gay. If she were gay, she wouldn't find all of that amusing. And she would represent the issue accurately, I would imagine.

[strandinthewind]

Darling, this is the woman who said Iraq was going "magnificently well" and that Katie Couric called Reagan an "airhead." She's so full of **** that you can see it dribbling down her chin. She throws around all kinds of numbers and "quotes" from Lexis Nexis in her awful books, but log into Lexis for five minutes, research them for yourself, and you'll be positively shocked that she can get away with so many lies. She's truly evil and the fact that there is a small portion of people out there who believe her is scary. :nod:

not only that, but she said Canada "sent" troops, which was 100% incorrect. Canada sent no troops at all despite others going if they chose to. I mean choosing to go and being sent are two wildly different things.

Also, she was using this point to show that Canada had historically supported all the US efforts, which was, once again, incorrect as she pretty much always it. She takes the truth and twists it to support her nonsense. but, hey, why take my word for it:

http://slannder.homestead.com/

[dissention]

Very wrong, she presents the truth in her books and to those who doubt it she provides sources for you to look at it for yourself.

Yes, Hillary, she provides sources. :rolleyes: But I'd even be willing to give you my log-in info for Lexis just so you can how see how the sources she lists never pan out.

Any idiot can produce a source and misquote them, it doesn't take a genius (obviously).

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Too bad she wouldn't know how to use Lexis Nexis if her life depended on it. She quotes it as a source knowing full well that her typical readers don't have access to it, nor the desire to research any of it because she presents falsehoods as facts. I could go on for ages about how she misuses Lexis, or oyu could sav eme some time and go log into it yourself and see how she lies.

Couric never called Reagan an "airhead," either. ;) Here's what she said:

"Good morning. The Gipper was an airhead. That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today."

As for her "magnificently well" quote, she said this back in the spring. Surely you relaize that nothing was going "magnificently well" at that time and even O'Lielly told her she was full of it.

That is true most people can't access Lexis Nexis...I can only because I'm going to be a paralegal and we have started using it.

She called him an airhead, a perfect chance for Ms. Couric to take a jab a Reagan, not only once but twice in another episode. Transcripts prove it. Liberal bias is all over Ms. Couric.

[GateandGarden]

There were no "Canadian soldiers" in Vietnam. There were Canadians, but they served in American uniforms under American command. These are facts.There were Canadians fighting. They were not sent; they choose to fight. They were fighting under American command. So, what she was saying is incorrect. She has woefully oversimplified the subject, as I've seen her do quite a few times.

[dissention]

not only that, but she said Canada "sent" troops, which was 100% incorrect. Canada sent no troops at all despite others going if they chose to. I mean choosing to go and being sent are two wildly different things.

Also, she was using this point to show that Canada had historically supported all the US efforts, which was, once again, incorrect as she pretty much always it. She takes the truth and twists it to support her nonsense. but, hey, why take my word for it:

http://slannder.homestead.com/

One of my favorite sites. There are plenty more, too:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020923&s=alterman

http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/

[GateandGarden]

Yes, Hillary, she provides sources. :rolleyes: But I'd even be willing to give you my log-in info for Lexis just so you can how see how the sources she lists never pan out.

Any idiot can produce a source and misquote them, it doesn't take a genius (obviously).Dude--that so totally was not me who said that! :laugh: Or are you making a joke?

[dissention]

No she wasn't 100% wrong.

There were no "Canadian soldiers" in Vietnam. There were Canadians, but they served in American uniforms under American command. These are facts.

She was 100% wrong. She stated that Canada "sent" troops. That is a lie. I am providing the facts.

[dissention]

Dude--that so totally was not me who said that! :laugh: Or are you making a joke?

No, you were being quoted and I was being sarcastic. :D

[strandinthewind]

Too bad she wouldn't know how to use Lexis Nexis if her life depended on it. She quotes it as a source knowing full well that her typical readers don't have access to it, nor the desire to research any of it because she presents falsehoods as facts. I could go on for ages about how she misuses Lexis, or oyu could sav eme some time and go log into it yourself and see how she lies.

Couric never called Reagan an "airhead," either. ;) Here's what she said:

"Good morning. 'The Gipper was an airhead.' That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today."

As for her "magnificently well" quote, she said this back in the spring. Surely you realize that nothing was going "magnificently well" at that time and even O'Lielly told her she was full of it.

Even Nancy R. liked ole Katie C. and specifically requested Katie C.

Here is a cool take on the whole airhead incident:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071702.shtml

Couric v. Coulter: The facts

WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2002

COULTER V. COURIC—THE FACTS: No doubt about it, the topic is stupid. And the background to the tale is complex. But Ann Coulter’s attacks on Katie Couric have been getting big play on TV and talk radio. Coulter is steam-rolling unprepared hosts, telling them tales of how Katie Couric went on TV and called Ronald Reagan an airhead. If Coulter’s host knows that isn’t true, she then amends her bogus tale, saying that Katie Couric falsely claimed that Edmund Morris called Reagan an airhead. One way or another, readers and viewers are led to believe that Couric went out and trashed Reagan. And our pundits are simply too lazy and careless to see this tale properly told.

Here’s what actually happened:

Back in September 1999, Morris’ new biography, Dutch, was being closely guarded as publication drew near. And uh-oh! The Washington Post—one of the only outlets to get an advance copy—ran an inaccurate quote. On September 22, the book was reviewed by Linton Weeks; few other pundits had seen the real text. Here’s the passage from Weeks’ review that led to the current confusion:

WEEKS: At points in the book, however, Morris is more dismissive of Reagan’s intellect. He writes that he could not believe how shallow Reagan’s “hidden depths” appeared to be. He refers to Reagan’s frequent use of cue cards, to his deference to aides on matters of substance, and to the often rambling answers the president gave to interviewers.
After following him around for seven months, making friends with Reagan insiders such as Michael Deaver, Donald Regan, George Shultz and Caspar Weinberger, Morris writes that he was stumped. “Dutch remained a mystery to me, and worse still—dare I entertain such a heresy, in the hushed and reverent precincts of his office?—an airhead.”

Weeks slightly misquoted the book; it actually said “an apparent airhead” at the end of the passage he quoted. But no one else had seen the book, and the story spread throughout the press. In his long-awaited bio, pundits said, Edmund Morris calls Reagan an airhead!
It wasn’t just Couric who thought this was true. The Weeks misquote gained wide circulation; pundits began to criticize Morris for having called Reagan an “airhead.” For example, Tim Russert used the one-word quote on the September 26 Meet the Press; on the program, Ed Meese, Marlin Fitzwater and Mike Deaver all insisted that Ronald Reagan clearly wasn’t an “airhead.” Later that day, the AP ran a story on the Meet the Press session, also using the single word “airhead.” When Couric went on the air the next day, at least six major papers were running stories in which Reagan’s friends pummeled Morris because he’d called Reagan an airhead. Although the Post had corrected its error on September 24, it had done so in standard, buried format. Almost no one in the press—and none of Reagan’s friends and associates—seemed to know that the quote wasn’t right.

But make no mistake—though Morris hadn’t exactly called Reagan an “airhead,” he had come pretty close in some interviews. Newsweek had an early exclusive; it hit the wire on September 26. “After three or four meetings [with Reagan], I realized that culturally he was a yahoo and extremely unresponsive in conversation,” Morris said. “When you asked him a question about himself, it was like dropping a stone into a well and not hearing a splash. I never got anywhere in interviews, except for odd moments of strangeness, like the time I showed him a leaf and he began talking about his boyhood.” The boisterous biographer had more to say as he batted his subject around: “The surface reality of Reagan was boring. His everyday conversation was boring. His documents were boring. He was a mystery that had to be plumbed.” Indeed, Morris told Newsweek that Reagan had seemed “shatteringly banal” when they lunched in 1982. The political world was flogging these statements as Couric went on the air. Indeed, Morris was still talking the talk in a Meet the Press session on October 3. “I have no doubt whatsoever that Reagan was a great man and a great president,” he said. “But some of his conversation, as you may possibly have noticed yourself, in private was quite astonishingly banal.” It was in this context—armed with the Post’s faulty quote—that Couric said Morris called Reagan an “airhead.” In fact, he hadn’t called Reagan an “airhead” at all. He had called him a “yahoo” and “banal.”

Why did Couric say what she did? Because everyone thought it was true. Indeed, despite the picture painted in Slander, many conservatives were slamming Morris for what he had said about Ron. The result? When Morris did the Today show on September 29, Couric gave him a difficult time, challenging him for his rough rap on Ronnie. When Couric and Coulter did battle last month, Couric described the session:

COURIC (6/26/02): I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with [Morris] because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book. It was a very, very unflattering portrayal. The Reagans were very unhappy with it. Conservatives were very unhappy with it. Afterwards, Edmund Morris was unhappy with the interview, and Nancy Reagan called to thank me for my line of questioning. So I’m just wondering how that jives with your contention that somehow I’m a Ronald Reagan basher?
In response, Coulter dissembled, as always. “Well, I didn’t call you a Ronald Reagan basher,” she said—although that was the obvious meaning of every word that she wrote on the subject. At any rate, Couric said that Nancy Reagan thanked her for her approach to Morris. If you’ve read the text of the Morris interview, there’s no reason to doubt this is true.
How dishonest can Coulter be? “Stunningly” might be a start. Everyone thought that Edmund Morris had called Ronald Reagan an “airhead.” (Given what he said to Newsweek, it isn’t real clear that he hadn’t.) Many pundits, not just Couric, made such statements on the air. As we saw last Friday, Sean Hannity said it two times on Fox (September 27 and 30).

But Coulter had a tale to tell, in which “the left” was trashing Reagan. So she said that Couric was calling him “airhead,” and didn’t mention anyone else. At Slate, Mickey Kaus swore that she had it just right. Why do such oddball things happen?

FACTS AREN’T STUBBORN THINGS AFTER ALL: Why should readers be careful with Harken stories? Because pundits are frequently wrong on the facts. Here is Michael Kelly in this morning’s Post. According to Kelly, this is “[t]he story, as told reasonably fairly from the Democratic point of view:”

KELLY: In June 1990, Bush sells 212,000 shares of Harken stock at $4 each, shortly before revelations of a sham transaction force a restatement of profits and drive the stock down. He uses the proceeds to pay off his Texas Rangers loan. Bush’s partners in the Rangers later make him a gift of an increased share of the profits. His insider-status investment of $500,000, which derived from his insider-Harken stock, which derived from his insider status as a Bush son, eventually nets him a decent-sized fortune of $14 million.
But that isn’t the story at all; Kelly has two different situations mixed up. In June 1990, Bush sold his 212,000 shares of stock shortly before Harken announced surprisingly large second-quarter losses. This wasn’t a “restatement of profits,” forced or otherwise. And it wasn’t due to a “sham transaction.” But it isn’t surprising that Kelly has these facts wrong; this confused presentation has been common. For example, David Broder made this same mistake in his column last Sunday. On July 10, Spencer Ackerman bungled the same facts for the New Republic on-line. “At issue is Bush’s conduct during 1990, when he served on the board of the Harken Energy Corporation,” Ackerman wrote. “Bush sold about $850,000 in Harken stock just two months before the company, under orders from the SEC, announced that it was restating its balance sheet, revealing a $23 million loss.” But Harken didn’t “restate its balance sheet” in August 1990, it simply announced its 2Q losses. And it didn’t do so “under orders from the SEC.” Like Kelly, Ackerman seems to be thinking of the restatement of earnings regarding Aloha, which occurred in 1991.
There is no sign that these scribes are trying to gimmick the facts; they simply don’t seem to understand them. But you should never assume that pundits know even the simplest facts of a high-profile case. In the past, Kelly has boasted about how little time he spends on his weekly column. Last week, he chided Bush for making “easy money.” “Look who’s talking,” we mordantly said.

[dissention]

She called him an airhead, a perfect chance for Ms. Couric to take a jab a Reagan, not only once but twice in another episode. Transcripts prove it. Liberal bias is all over Ms. Couric.

I just took Couric's quote from the transcript, not once does she call him an "airhead." And even if she did, Coulter referred to Couric as Hitler's lover, so your bitch of a hero is a piece of work.

Your conservative lies are very unbecoming and are getting more desperate.

[strandinthewind]

and here is Katie C.'s interview with the Coultergeist, which is a hoot!!!!

Katie Couric: To a right-wing telebimbo but one thing Ann Coulter has not been called is underneath stated in her latest book slander, liberal lies about the American right the controversial author takes on big media, big government, and most of all liberals. Ann Coulter, good morning, nice to see you.

Ann Coulter: Nice to see you.

Katie Couric: So your main thesis, Ann, is that liberals really misrepresent conservatives and the conservative movement. Isn't that accurate?

Ann Coulter: Yes, a little bit more than that, and that is that political debate, with liberals is basically impossible in America today because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments. And when every one of your arguments is characterized as an attempt to bring about slavery or resegregate lunch counters, it's a little hard to have any sort of productive debate. I mean I have no problem with invective, obviously. But the name of my book isn't invective, it's slander, and I think there ought to be a point to the invective.

Katie Couric: What are some of the big liberal lies that are out there, in your estimation?

Ann Coulter: I don't rank them, but --

Katie Couric: I'm not asking you to, either, but just tell me what you think they are.

Ann Coulter: I would say it's really all the same lie, which is conservatives are either stupid or scarily weird and therefore you don't have to deal with their ideas, just set them aside. This is a crazy person, it's a Nazi, someone who wants to engage in racism, sexism, homophobia, so don't listen to that person's ideas, take a quote out of context and dismiss that idea, the idea that Ronald Reagan was stupid, which I document at great length in my book. I mean that is a stunning, stunning fact. The man, the (unintelligible) guy who won the Cold War war, he was demeaned and attacked as being stupid, meanwhile winning a second term, a spate of special interest articles on senility, and senility, growing senility, and how old Ronald, encroaching Senility, meanwhile (wordd)(unintelligible) liberal media asking that justice Thurgood Marshall or justice Brennan or Blackmon resigned, life and death issues from the Supreme Court.

Katie Couric: I think I do have to bring up a section of the book where you talk specifically about me, and this is not where you call me the Eva Braun of liberalism, that makes me feel so much better, but you talk about the media bias against Ronald Reagan, and you useless a quote and open from The Today Show where we say an airhead, Ronald Reagan is an airhead and we're quoting Edmund Morris but frankly in the book you make it sound as if I was saying that rather than Edmond Morris and I guess one of your problems with even using that that he said he was an apparent airhead and we failed to say apparent airhead. And during the course of the interview with Edmond Morris I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with him because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book, it was a very, very unflattering portrayals of Reagan, they were very unhappy with it, conservatives were very unhappy with it. Afterwards Edmond Morris was unhappy with the interview and Nancy Reagan called to thank me for me line of questioning. So I'm just wondering how that jibes with your contention that somehow I'm a Ronald Reagan basher.

Ann Coulter: Well, I didn't call you a Ronald Reagan basher.

Katie Couric: Well, you used me as an example of liberal bias against Ronald Reagan, and I'm just curious why you took it so out of context.

Ann Coulter: Well, I don't think I did. You're taking it out of context.

Katie Couric: No, no.

Ann Coulter: What I said was, which is true, that The Today Show opens, I believe it was three days in a row with the announcement, Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmond Morris, when Edmond Morris came on for that interview with you he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his point.

Katie Couric: Well, we should also point out, though --

Ann Coulter: The entire book was contradicting that, so when the author himself and George Bush, the vice president, was interviewed about this, also that that affs a grossly unfair characterization, whose characterization was it, it wasn't Edmond Morris --

Katie Couric: Well, actually he backpedaled considerably, if you would have read the book by Edmond Morris --

Ann Coulter: I didn't like the book --

Katie Couric: You called him an apparent airhead. You did call him an apparent airhead, I have the quote right here if you'd like me to read it.

Ann Coulter: No, I read the quote and in it's in my book.

Katie Couric: He said that young Ken Timmons, panting brace played occasional hookey from the White House speech writing department to help me build a chronology, and I was about to hire a full-time assistant, yes, it is the magic of Geneva had faded. Judge remained a history to and worst still that I entertained such heresy in the hushed and reverent precincts of his office an apparent airhead. So these are Edmond Morris --

Coulter: It was also in his words when he came on your show, that that was a grossly unfair characterization, and that was at the beginning of the book, you said he described them as an apparent airhead on the very first meeting and that the entire course of the rest of his book was contradicting that, so for the today show to be opening three days in a row, Ronald Reagan was an airhead --

Katie Couric: It was one day.

Ann Coulter: -- dishonest.

Katie Couric: And also just for your information --

Ann Coulter: No you said it one day, Matt Lauer said it another day.

Katie Couric: No, it was just one day and we'll get the transcript for you. Anyway he said commond Morris beyond mazement I was fressed by the relent finalities not to say incoherence of his interviews. I didn't really switch in the book but we don't want to get too hired --

Ann Coulter: This was not only solely not about this quote, it is not solely about the today show --

Katie Couric: Let's move on then and talk about it, let's just talk about the religious right, actually, since I'm conducting this interview, one of the things you say is the religious right is misrepresented by the liberal media, that it isn't some organization that has --

Katie Couric: Since I'm conducting this interview, one of the things you say is the religious right is misrepresented by the liberal media, that it isn't some organization that has club members, and that it's used to sort of freely buy liberals in the media. What do you mean by that? Can you elaborate? Because I think that's an interesting point.

Ann Coulter: Well, it's more than the religious right is misrepresented. It's the idea that it's this Orwellian totemic symbol for people to hate, I mean you try to figure out what the religious right is, it ultimately comes down either to one man, Pat Robertson, or anyone who believes in a higher being and wants his taxes cut. As The New York Times apparently describes the religious right, I mean I'm searching through transcripts, and newspaper articles to figure out exactly what they're talking about, it seems to me anyone who wants his taxes cut and wants to eliminate the national endowment of the arts. So you're either talking about half of America or one man, and still this is used is an example to frighten Americans, it's -- the religious right is presumed to be self-evidently fanatical, intolerant, and, for example, the quote that has so captured the imaginations of gossip columnists, my calling you the affable Eva Braun of morning TV, taken in context, but the context was that speech in which you blamed the dragging death of James Byrd on these intolerance created by evangelical Christians, which is just an astonishing statement.

Katie Couric: Actually I didn't, but I'll have to get the exact transcript --

Ann Coulter: Luck would have it both of these quotes are in my book, that is in the footnote.

Katie Couric: Okay, we'll look at that, but the real problem you have is with the Matthew Shepherd interview, and again, I don't want to do a tit-for-tat, because there are a lot of broader issues in your book that I want to talk about. One of them is that you take Walter Cronkite to task for criticizing Jerry Falwell for the remarks he said after September 11th. You write about what Falwell said. Falwell it seems had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. In fact, here is what Falwell actually said, something he incidentally later apologized for. He said, I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say you helped make this happen. Do you agree with Jerry Falwell, and shouldn't you have focused, perhaps, some of your attention on those remarks rather than on Walter Cronkite's, you know, distaste for what Jerry Falwell said?

Ann Coulter: Not after September 11th. I did find it quite astonishing that after September 11th liberals seem to be in overdrive watching out for the statements of Christians. I mean what Jerry Falwell said there, whether you agree with it or not, is really fairly standard Jerry Falwell Christian doctrine. Yes, he's against abortion, he's against --

Katie Couric: But to blame them for the events of September 11th, you didn't find that a little disconcerting?

Ann Coulter: No what he said was that the almighty had stopped protecting America because America was no longer asking for God's help, this is straight Christian doctrine, and even if it had been some sort of peculiar sect of Christianity, as opposed to straight Christian doctrine, I think it's a little bit peculiar that everyone was jumping on the statement of a Christian minister after thousands of Americans were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists.

Katie Couric: You were also fired, I guess, because you wrote in the National Review that we should -- when it came to fighting terrorism, we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Do you still believe that that's the best way to combat terrorism worldwide?

Ann Coulter: Well, that's a somewhat dishonest quote. I was referring to the people in the previous sentence of that column, cheering and dancing in the streets right now, and, in fact, this -- the way that was so widely misquoted is an example of what I described in my book, which is the constant mischaracterizations, which is a small word, picking out the word of parents. It makes a big difference. And these subtle differences that are then glossed over as if there's absolutely no difference. To try to portray conservatives as crazy people, as Nazis, slave owners, (unintelligible), homophobic, how about dealing with our ideas? I mean I've written two books now, I've written hundreds of columns, I've been on TV hundreds of times. The idea that someone can go out and find one quote that will suddenly, you know, portray me just dismiss her ideas, read no more, read no further, this person is crazy --

Katie Couric: Well, obviously --

Ann Coulter: -- is precisely what liberals do all the time.

Katie Couric: But obviously the National Review had a problem with these articles and some of the pieces you did because you were fired from that job. Can you elaborate or at least tell us what you exactly meant?

Ann Coulter: That also isn't quite true. I mean I write a syndicated column, I write for Human Events. That's the newspaper that hires me. People buy a syndicated column, and they dropped the column. But a lot of people don't like me for a lot of different reasons, including --

Katie Couric: Why don't you explain what you meant, then.

Ann Coulter: -- that they're my competitors.

Katie Couric: What do you think is the best way to battle terrorism?

Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity.

Katie Couric: Well, Ann Coulter, it's always interesting to talk to you, to say the least. The book is called Slander, Liberal Lies about the American right. Thank you.

[GateandGarden]

No, you were being quoted and I was being sarcastic. :DOkay, I got ya. It's that blonde hair impairing my intelligence. :lol:

[dissention]

and here is Katie C.'s interview with the Coultergeist, which is a hoot!!!!

I was cracking up when I saw it live!!!!! My favorite was when Katie said "It's always interesting talking to you, to say the least." :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I was cracking up when I saw it live!!!!! My favorite was when Katie said "It's always interesting talking to you, to say the least." :laugh:

I was late for work so I could see it live :laugh:

I thought that NYC woman come by way of Alabama soriety girl was going to rip off the Countergeist's throat by her Adam's Apple and defecate down her neck. That scene was a lesson in Southern women let me tell you. And - poor Anne - I LOVE her justification for Falwell. What a "brand of ketchup" :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Katie Couric: What do you think is the best way to battle terrorism?

Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity.

The best line. GO ANN!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Thanks for posting that, Jason! That is hilarious. Here's a link to the video I found--http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/01/29.html#a1447

I wish someone would expose her ignorance about homosexuality to the masses, but that would be harder to do. But it still pisses me off that people buy into what she says when she blatantly lies.

EDIT: Whoops! Mikki beat me to posting the video! :wavey:

REAL VIDEO ON ANN COULTER! ;) :wavey:

<a href=http://asjewelers.com/FRstuff/11/Coulter_montage_small.wmv><img src=http://asjewelers.com/FRstuff/11/Coulter_montage.jpg></href>

The Best of Ann (http://asjewelers.com/FRstuff/11/Coulter_montage_small.wmv)

[strandinthewind]

Oh just because - here are more lies (in bold) from the "brand of ketchup" in the KC interview:

Katie Couric: To a right-wing telebimbo but one thing Ann Coulter has not been called is underneath stated in her latest book slander, liberal lies about the American right the controversial author takes on big media, big government, and most of all liberals. Ann Coulter, good morning, nice to see you.

Ann Coulter: Nice to see you. [no one is that stupid so they believe that :laugh: ]

Katie Couric: So your main thesis, Ann, is that liberals really misrepresent conservatives and the conservative movement. Isn't that accurate?

Ann Coulter: Yes, a little bit more than that, and that is that political debate, with liberals is basically impossible in America today because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments [no liberal ever makes an actual argument and no right winger ever calls anyone a name - hmmm what was that about Eva Braun :laugh: ] . And when every one of your arguments is characterized as an attempt to bring about slavery or resegregate lunch counters, it's a little hard to have any sort of productive debate. I mean I have no problem with invective, obviously. But the name of my book isn't invective, it's slander, and I think there ought to be a point to the invective.

Katie Couric: What are some of the big liberal lies that are out there, in your estimation?

Ann Coulter: I don't rank them, but --

Katie Couric: I'm not asking you to, either, but just tell me what you think they are.

Ann Coulter: I would say it's really all the same lie, which is conservatives are either stupid or scarily weird and therefore you don't have to deal with their ideas, just set them aside. This is a crazy person, it's a Nazi, someone who wants to engage in racism, sexism, homophobia, so don't listen to that person's ideas, take a quote out of context and dismiss that idea, the idea that Ronald Reagan was stupid, which I document at great length in my book. I mean that is a stunning, stunning fact. The man, the (unintelligible) guy who won the Cold War war, he was demeaned and attacked as being stupid, meanwhile winning a second term, a spate of special interest articles on senility, and senility, growing senility, and how old Ronald, encroaching Senility, meanwhile (wordd)(unintelligible) liberal media asking that justice Thurgood Marshall or justice Brennan or Blackmon resigned, life and death issues from the Supreme Court.

Katie Couric: I think I do have to bring up a section of the book where you talk specifically about me, and this is not where you call me the Eva Braun (NAME CALLING :wavey: ) of liberalism, that makes me feel so much better, but you talk about the media bias against Ronald Reagan, and you useless a quote and open from The Today Show where we say an airhead, Ronald Reagan is an airhead and we're quoting Edmund Morris but frankly in the book you make it sound as if I was saying that rather than Edmond Morris and I guess one of your problems with even using that that he said he was an apparent airhead and we failed to say apparent airhead. And during the course of the interview with Edmond Morris I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with him because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book, it was a very, very unflattering portrayals of Reagan, they were very unhappy with it, conservatives were very unhappy with it. Afterwards Edmond Morris was unhappy with the interview and Nancy Reagan called to thank me for me line of questioning. So I'm just wondering how that jibes with your contention that somehow I'm a Ronald Reagan basher.

Ann Coulter: Well, I didn't call you a Ronald Reagan basher. [then what did you call her you nitwit]

Katie Couric: Well, you used me as an example of liberal bias against Ronald Reagan, and I'm just curious why you took it so out of context.

Ann Coulter: Well, I don't think I did. You're taking it out of context. [no - she is quoting you directly - you nitwit]

Katie Couric: No, no.

Ann Coulter: What I said was, which is true, that The Today Show opens, I believe it was three days in a row with the announcement, Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmond Morris, when Edmond Morris came on for that interview with you he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his point.

Katie Couric: Well, we should also point out, though --

Ann Coulter: The entire book was contradicting that, so when the author himself and George Bush, the vice president, was interviewed about this, also that that affs a grossly unfair characterization, whose characterization was it, it wasn't Edmond Morris --

Katie Couric: Well, actually he backpedaled considerably, if you would have read the book by Edmond Morris --

Ann Coulter: I didn't like the book --

Katie Couric: You called him an apparent airhead. You did call him an apparent airhead, I have the quote right here if you'd like me to read it.

Ann Coulter: No, I read the quote and in it's in my book.

Katie Couric: He said that young Ken Timmons, panting brace played occasional hookey from the White House speech writing department to help me build a chronology, and I was about to hire a full-time assistant, yes, it is the magic of Geneva had faded. Judge remained a history to and worst still that I entertained such heresy in the hushed and reverent precincts of his office an apparent airhead. So these are Edmond Morris --

Coulter: It was also in his words when he came on your show, that that was a grossly unfair characterization, and that was at the beginning of the book, you said he described them as an apparent airhead on the very first meeting and that the entire course of the rest of his book was contradicting that, so for the today show to be opening three days in a row, Ronald Reagan was an airhead --

Katie Couric: It was one day.

Ann Coulter: -- dishonest.

Katie Couric: And also just for your information --

Ann Coulter: No you said it one day, Matt Lauer said it another day.

Katie Couric: No, it was just one day and we'll get the transcript for you. Anyway he said commond Morris beyond mazement I was fressed by the relent finalities not to say incoherence of his interviews. I didn't really switch in the book but we don't want to get too hired --

Ann Coulter: This was not only solely not about this quote, it is not solely about the today show --

Katie Couric: Let's move on then and talk about it, let's just talk about the religious right, actually, since I'm conducting this interview, one of the things you say is the religious right is misrepresented by the liberal media, that it isn't some organization that has --

Katie Couric: Since I'm conducting this interview, one of the things you say is the religious right is misrepresented by the liberal media, that it isn't some organization that has club members, and that it's used to sort of freely buy liberals in the media. What do you mean by that? Can you elaborate? Because I think that's an interesting point.

Ann Coulter: Well, it's more than the religious right is misrepresented. It's the idea that it's this Orwellian totemic [ I dare her to deine much less spell this word :laugh: ] symbol for people to hate, I mean you try to figure out what the religious right is, it ultimately comes down either to one man, Pat Robertson, or anyone who believes in a higher being and wants his taxes cut. As The New York Times apparently describes the religious right, I mean I'm searching through transcripts, and newspaper articles to figure out exactly what they're talking about, it seems to me anyone who wants his taxes cut and wants to eliminate the national endowment of the arts [ a lie - the religious right wants more than that Anne ] . So you're either talking about half of America or one man, and still this is used is an example to frighten Americans, it's -- the religious right is presumed to be self-evidently fanatical, intolerant, and, for example, the quote that has so captured the imaginations of gossip columnists, my calling you the affable Eva Braun of morning TV, taken in context, but the context was that speech in which you blamed the dragging death of James Byrd on these intolerance created by evangelical Christians [ a lie and she knows it ] , which is just an astonishing statement.

Katie Couric: Actually I didn't, but I'll have to get the exact transcript --

Ann Coulter: Luck would have it both of these quotes are in my book, that is in the footnote.

Katie Couric: Okay, we'll look at that, but the real problem you have is with the Matthew Shepherd interview, and again, I don't want to do a tit-for-tat, because there are a lot of broader issues in your book that I want to talk about. One of them is that you take Walter Cronkite to task for criticizing Jerry Falwell for the remarks he said after September 11th. You write about what Falwell said. Falwell it seems had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. In fact, here is what Falwell actually said, something he incidentally later apologized for. He said, I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say you helped make this happen. Do you agree with Jerry Falwell, and shouldn't you have focused, perhaps, some of your attention on those remarks rather than on Walter Cronkite's, you know, distaste for what Jerry Falwell said?

Ann Coulter: Not after September 11th. I did find it quite astonishing that after September 11th liberals seem to be in overdrive watching out for the statements of Christians [a lie or at least spin - Falwell put himself in it when he accused anyone who does not believe like he does for helping 9/11 happen ]. I mean what Jerry Falwell said there, whether you agree with it or not, is really fairly standard Jerry Falwell Christian doctrine. Yes, he's against abortion, he's against --

Katie Couric: But to blame them for the events of September 11th, you didn't find that a little disconcerting?

Ann Coulter: No what he said was that the almighty had stopped protecting America because America was no longer asking for God's help [ LIE - the word help was not in Falwell's bigotry ] , this is straight Christian doctrine, and even if it had been some sort of peculiar sect of Christianity, as opposed to straight Christian doctrine, I think it's a little bit peculiar that everyone was jumping on the statement of a Christian minister after thousands of Americans were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists.

Katie Couric: You were also fired, I guess, because you wrote in the National Review that we should -- when it came to fighting terrorism, we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Do you still believe that that's the best way to combat terrorism worldwide?

Ann Coulter: Well, that's a somewhat dishonest quote. I was referring to the people in the previous sentence of that column, cheering and dancing in the streets right now, and, in fact, this -- the way that was so widely misquoted is an example of what I described in my book, which is the constant mischaracterizations, which is a small word, picking out the word of parents. It makes a big difference. And these subtle differences that are then glossed over as if there's absolutely no difference. To try to portray conservatives as crazy people, as Nazis, slave owners, (unintelligible), homophobic, how about dealing with our ideas? I mean I've written two books now, I've written hundreds of columns, I've been on TV hundreds of times. The idea that someone can go out and find one quote that will suddenly, you know, portray me just dismiss her ideas, read no more, read no further, this person is crazy --

Katie Couric: Well, obviously --

Ann Coulter: -- is precisely what liberals do all the time.

Katie Couric: But obviously the National Review had a problem with these articles and some of the pieces you did because you were fired from that job. Can you elaborate or at least tell us what you exactly meant?

Ann Coulter: That also isn't quite true. I mean I write a syndicated column, I write for Human Events. That's the newspaper that hires me. People buy a syndicated column, and they dropped the column. But a lot of people don't like me for a lot of different reasons, including --

Katie Couric: Why don't you explain what you meant, then.

Ann Coulter: -- that they're my competitors.

Katie Couric: What do you think is the best way to battle terrorism?

Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity.

Katie Couric: Well, Ann Coulter, it's always interesting to talk to you, to say the least. The book is called Slander, Liberal Lies about the American right. Thank you.

[SuzeQuze]

not only that, but she said Canada "sent" troops, which was 100% incorrect. Canada sent no troops at all despite others going if they chose to. I mean choosing to go and being sent are two wildly different things.

Also, she was using this point to show that Canada had historically supported all the US efforts, which was, once again, incorrect as she pretty much always it. She takes the truth and twists it to support her nonsense. but, hey, why take my word for it:

http://slannder.homestead.com/

Honestly, to try to backpedal by saying there were volunteer Canadian troops and that's what she meant is regoddamdiculous. Thanks for posting this strand, I'm having a really bad day but his is grrreat for a chuckle! :laugh:

[DrummerDeanna]

It boggles my mind that someone, when called out on lying or getting things wrong is still too thick to admit they're wrong or anything...she's a lowlife plain and simple :nod:

[SuzeQuze]

I was late for work so I could see it live :laugh:

I thought that NYC woman come by way of Alabama soriety girl was going to rip off the Countergeist's throat by her Adam's Apple and defecate down her neck. That scene was a lesson in Southern women let me tell you. And - poor Anne - I LOVE her justification for Falwell. What a "brand of ketchup" :laugh:

No kidding. I love how she says she was misquoted when she said "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity". Even taken out of "context" this statement speaks for itself. Just because people didn't clarify that she was reacting to the people dancing in the streets after 9/11 doesn't mean she didn't say something heinous. And the quote is word for word because I have heard the recording of her saying it! How is that a misquote? :shrug:

And every time she says Katie is being dishonest I just want to laugh. Pot. Kettle. Black. As Stephanie Miller says, "there is really something wrong with that woman".

[estranged4life]

Is everybody on drugs today or what? I just read a story about a girl getting scalped (yes, you read that right, SCALPED) and now this. Sheebus!! :mad:

Stupid people make me sick.


try finding out that all the rumors of having an older sibling are true...Then add to it that you now dont only have one new older sibling, but two older half-sisters !!!

What other secrets my Mother has been keeping from me all my life (She was married once before? WTF!!! :mad: )

Hell, I am starting to wonder who the f**k I really am :mad:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Hell, I am starting to wonder who the f**k I really am :mad:

From my view - I see a great and generous guy with a lovely wife who loves him some metal - all the rest is just gravy my friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

And the quote is word for word because I have heard the recording of her saying it! How is that a misquote? :shrug:


Ok first off you are acting if Anne denies saying the "We should invade their countries..." line. She not only acknowledges that she said it but wishes she had said it louder.

BTW...there is NO recording of her saying it. It's is from her "This is War" column writen September 12, 2001

[dissention]

She not only acknowledges that she said it but wishes she had said it louder.

So she could be dropped from even more newspapers? :lol:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

So she could be dropped from even more newspapers? :lol:

All the newspapers can drop if they wish. She doesn't care about that. Her booksells speak for themself.

[dissention]

All the newspapers can drop if they wish. She doesn't care about that. Her booksells speak for themself.

That's why her last one was an outright flop.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

That's why her last one was an outright flop.

Hmmm...check the again my friend. It still is on the NYT bestseller list after all of these months. And going to the #2 spot isn't that bad. It's not #1 (like all her other books have been in the past) but it's not a flop!

[GypsySorcerer]

Hmmm...check the again my friend. It still is on the NYT bestseller list after all of these months. And going to the #2 spot isn't that bad. It's not #1 (like all her other books have been in the past) but it's not a flop!

But look at Britney Spears....her albums top the charts.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

But look at Britney Spears....her albums top the charts.

And that matters why?

[dissention]

Hmmm...check the again my friend. It still is on the NYT bestseller list after all of these months. And going to the #2 spot isn't that bad. It's not #1 (like all her other books have been in the past) but it's not a flop!

Check the sales figures in comparison to other trashy "books." Miss Coulter is on her way out.

[irishgrl]

Will the REAL Ann Coulter please stand up!

http://www.anncoulter.com/photos/annblack.jpg

http://www.anncoulter.com/photos/ann_berlin.jpg

http://www.anncoulter.com/photos/ann_al.jpg Shocker!

do those photos remind one of a low end call girl?
:shocked:

[dissention]

And that matters why?

Trash sells. :woohoo:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Check the sales figures in comparison to other trashy "books." Miss Coulter is on her way out.

In your "America hands the country over to the left" dream world! Ann is hear to stay.

[dissention]

do those photos remind one of a low end call girl?
:shocked:

They do. :laugh:

It's the stripper hair that seals the deal. She needs to realize that the Melrose Place roots look is old hat.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Trash sells. :woohoo:

You just said Ann wasn't selling? Im confused? :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Ann is hear to stay.

Yeah, and I have only one testicle. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Im confused? :rolleyes:

You're a conservative, that's a given. :shrug:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

do those photos remind one of a low end call girl?
:shocked:

More Ann Pics...lol

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2002/07/19/wmed19.jpeg

http://www.urnerbarry.com/executive/2004/images/Coulter.jpg

http://www.ann-coulter.net/images/ann-coulter.jpg

http://www.directcon.net/pharmer/ann_coulter/8____ann.jpg

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Yeah, and I have only one testicle. :rolleyes:

Id bet you everything I have that in 5 or 10 years from today that Ann will still be selling books.

[dissention]

The resemblance to Mister Ed is uncanny.

A horse is a horse
Of course, of course
And no one can talk to a horse, of course...

[ontheEdgeof17]

Id bet you everything I have that in 5 or 10 years from today that Ann will still be selling books.


No one will be alive to read them in 10 years.

[amber]

The resemblance to Mister Ed is uncanny.

A horse is a horse
Of course, of course
And no one can talk to a horse, of course...
I was thinking of some sort of weird giraffe/horse hybrid that needs a snack and some pigment...or at least some nylons :)

[dissention]

Id bet you everything I have that in 5 or 10 years from today that Ann will still be selling books.

No way. She'll be gone in less than ten years, you watch.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

No one will be alive to read them in 10 years.

Well if end times is that soon. I'm hope I'm ready for Jesus. :shrug:

[irishgrl]

More Ann Pics...lol

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2002/07/19/wmed19.jpeg

http://www.urnerbarry.com/executive/2004/images/Coulter.jpg

http://www.ann-coulter.net/images/ann-coulter.jpg

http://www.directcon.net/pharmer/ann_coulter/8____ann.jpg
pic #1 STILL a callgirl, but she borrowed from some LIBERAL closet I see
:woohoo:

pics # 2-4 only head shots, (why I wonder? what's she hiding?) I notice roots in two of the three and in the last one she strategically hides her part with highlights and carefull camoflage techniques, smart! :lol:

btw: I see in that last one a telltale excess of top, and a hunching of shoulders, possibly to expose a little (LITTLE) something and distract the interviewer? how EVA BRAUN-like :thumbsup:

[GypsySorcerer]

Id bet you everything I have that in 5 or 10 years from today that Ann will still be selling books.

No. The backlash of this Administration will be great, mark my words.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

No way. She'll be gone in less than ten years, you watch.

Oh trust me I will be watching. If she has been around for this long. And just a few years ago hitting it big with her first book (also her first bestseller) she is here to stay.

[dissention]

I was thinking of some sort of weird giraffe/horse hybrid that needs a snack and some pigment...or at least some nylons :)

Those legs are scary. Don't shave with a sickle, baby!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

No. The backlash of this Administration will be great, mark my words.

Ann is not linked to any administration or really any party. She has critized republicans too, for not being conservative enough! The only president of the past century that Ann really loved was Mr. Ronald Reagan. Ann isn't going anywhere, she still has an audience, American loving citizens.

http://www.townhall.com/acimgs/webimages/annreagan.jpg

[dissention]

Ann is not linked to any administration or really any party. She has critized republicans too, for not being conservative enough! The only president of the past century that Ann really loved was Mr. Ronald Reagan. Ann isn't going anywhere, she still has an audience, American loving citizens.

http://www.townhall.com/acimgs/webimages/annreagan.jpg

:lol::lol::lol:

Two equally disgusting pieces of **** in one awful picture. Priceless.

[irishgrl]

:lol::lol::lol:

Two equally disgusting pieces of **** in one awful picture. Priceless.

and me without my DARTS! dang! Im sure glad Ronnie is DEAD, but his Gawdawful legacy lives on with the Bumbler unfortunately.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:lol::lol::lol:

Two equally disgusting pieces of **** in one awful picture. Priceless.

Mr. Reagan is the best president of the last century.

Exactly who do you suppose is the best president of the last century? Please don't say Clinton... :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

and me without my DARTS! dang! Im sure glad Ronnie is DEAD, but his Gawdawful legacy lives on with the Bumbler unfortunately.

Wow, and Im bad for wanting Muslim U.S. hating terrorists dead.

You actually are glad a former U.S. president is dead....yea, I'm the heartless one!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

<a href=http://asjewelers.com/FRstuff/11/Coulter_montage_small.wmv><img src=http://asjewelers.com/FRstuff/11/Coulter_montage.jpg></href>

The Best of Ann (http://asjewelers.com/FRstuff/11/Coulter_montage_small.wmv)

bumping an actually good Ann video clip. Versus the other one in the initial post :cool:

[dissention]

Mr. Reagan is the best president of the last century.

You? Are delusional. He sure was stupid, but he was evil just the same.

Exactly who do you suppose is the best president of the last century? Please don't say Clinton... :laugh:

Clinton was another ****ty one, he won't get any love from me. He's Republican-lite. I liked Carter a lot and I liked Ford (not because of his politics but because he was genuine and caring).

[dissention]

<a href=http://asjewelers.com/FRstuff/11/Coulter_montage_small.wmv><img src=http://asjewelers.com/FRstuff/11/Coulter_montage.jpg></href>

The Best of Ann (http://asjewelers.com/FRstuff/11/Coulter_montage_small.wmv)

bumping an actually good Ann video clip. Versus the other one in the initial post :cool:

No thanks, I try to only vomit when it's absolutely necessary. :wavey:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

You? Are delusional. He sure was stupid, but he was evil just the same.



Clinton was another ****ty one, he won't get any love from me. He's Republican-lite. I liked Carter a lot and I liked Ford (not because of his politics but because he was genuine and caring).

Ford was OK. Carter was a joke, I think a good person, but I joke for a president, hince the elected only once.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

No thanks, I try to only vomit when it's absolutely necessary. :wavey:

Well I suppose it would like be a clip of me watching Michael Moore's greatest moments...(if he actually had any). So I understand. :laugh:

[dissention]

Ford was OK. Carter was a joke, I think a good person, but I joke for a president, hince the elected only once.

By that scale, the same could be said for that piece of human scum known as Poppy Bush. And if Reagan wasn't a joke, I don't what was.

[irishgrl]

Wow, and Im bad for wanting Muslim U.S. hating terrorists dead.

You actually are glad a former U.S. president is dead....yea, I'm the heartless one!

Im sorry Hinckley MISSED! (GASP!)

Reagan singlehandedly began the decline for women and children and the elderly and the poor and the vets and students the INSTANT he and Nancy got into the White House, all the while Nancy was busy refurbishing White House decor and sprucing up the dinnerware at $1000 a place setting! When I recall the Carters WALKING up to the White House to save gas during the gas shortage and being frugal their entire tenure, it makes me GAG to see such decent people vilified whilst the likes of Ron (evil empire) Reagan spend on themselves and shortchange the rest of the country. PUH LEEZ. Of course, you were probably in diapers when all this happened or you wouldnt be putting that jerk on a pedestal. (EDIT: I forgot to add: the strange reliance on Nancy who relied on an astrologer are among the things about that man that "make me go hmmmmmmmm")

ps: Ford was ok as a PERSON, but I can NEVER forgive him for Pardoning NIXON. Carter was genuine, and wouldnt scruple to "play ball" with the rest of the politicians on the Hill. THAT was his undoing, not the failed rescue attempt (which btw, I think was deliberately botched to get Reagan into office....the string pulling and manipulation that the Republican Party has stooped to began with Reagan IMO)

[dissention]

Im sorry Hinckley MISSED! (GASP!)

Reagan singlehandedly began the decline for women and children and the elderly and the poor and the vets the INSTANT he and Nancy got into the White House, all the while Nancy was busy refurbishing White House decor and sprucing up the dinnerware at $1000 a place setting! When I recall the Carters WALKING up to the White House to save gas during the gas shortage and being frugal their entire tenure, it makes me GAG to see such decent people vilified whilst the likes of Ron (evil empire) Reagan spend on themselves and shortchange the rest of the country. PUH LEEZ. Of course, you were probably in diapers when all this happened or you wouldnt be putting that jerk on a pedestal.

:xoxo:

Let us not forget how he turned his back to the AIDS crisis. Or how he supposedly ended the Cold War (what a joke). His evil knew no bounds.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Im sorry Hinckley MISSED! (GASP!)

Reagan singlehandedly began the decline for women and children and the elderly and the poor and the vets the INSTANT he and Nancy got into the White House, all the while Nancy was busy refurbishing White House decor and sprucing up the dinnerware at $1000 a place setting! When I recall the Carters WALKING up to the White House to save gas during the gas shortage and being frugal their entire tenure, it makes me GAG to see such decent people vilified whilst the likes of Ron (evil empire) Reagan spend on themselves and shortchange the rest of the country. PUH LEEZ. Of course, you were probably in diapers when all this happened or you wouldnt be putting that jerk on a pedestal.

Reaganomics...where I want to be! The 80's rocked because of Reagan and "Tango In the Night" :]

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:xoxo:

Let us not forget how he turned his back to the AIDS crisis. Or how he supposedly ended the Cold War (what a joke). His evil knew no bounds.

Yea just like liberals, blame AIDS on Reagan :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Reaganomics...where I want to be! The 80's rocked because of Reagan and "Tango In the Night" :]

Yeah, Reaganomics worked really well. *sarcasm*

[dissention]

Yea just like liberals, blame AIDS on Reagan :rolleyes:

Just like conservatives, deflect the truth by rolling your eyes and playing dumb. ;)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

By that scale, the same could be said for that piece of human scum known as Poppy Bush. And if Reagan wasn't a joke, I don't what was.

Well I never said I was a huge fan of Bush Sr. he was way to moderate.

[dissention]

Well I never said I was a huge fan of Bush Sr. he was way to moderate.

Moderate? The same man who said that atheists should not be called Americans? :confused:

[GypsySorcerer]

Well I never said I was a huge fan of Bush Sr. he was way to moderate.


:lol: :shocked: :lol:

[irishgrl]

you say Liberals blame AIDS on Reagan, thats not what Diss said: he said Reagan TURNED HIS BACK on AIDS.
another thing: Reagan/Bush had their hands dirty up to their eyeballs in Iran/Contra but claimed "deniability".......and let ol whats his name (GAD, having a senior moment!) take the fall (and YES I KNOW you think he was dirty too Diss!)


aha! Ollie North! it just came to me, but I left the other in because its funny!

:nod:

[dissention]

you say Liberals blame AIDS on Reagan, thats not what Diss said: he said Reagan TURNED HIS BACK on AIDS.
another thing: Reagan/Bush had their hands dirty up to their eyeballs in Iran/Contra but claimed "deniability".......and let ol whats his name (GAD, having a senior moment!) take the fall (and YES I KNOW you think he was dirty too Diss!)


aha! Ollie North! it just came to me, but I left the other in because its funny!

:nod:

Ollie.North. :eek:

The only two words next to "Ann Coulter" that make the hairs on my arms stand straight up on end.

[irishgrl]

Ollie.North. :eek:

The only two words next to "Ann Coulter" that make the hairs on my arms stand straight up on end.
Ive seen your posts on him in the past! I personally dont think hes as bad as you do, but then I like Clinton too! so just cover your ears and go lalalalalalalala whilst you read this!
:nod:

[dissention]

Ive seen your posts on him in the past! I personally dont think hes as bad as you do, but then I like Clinton too! so just cover your ears and go lalalalalalalala whilst you read this!
:nod:

Oliver North is a treasonous, drug-addicted bastard. He should have been banished from this country and forced to live with very people he helped by arming them with weapons. He made a mockery out of everything and he got off without even so much as a slap on the wrist. If I saw him lying in the middle of the road and dying of thirst, I wouldn't even spit on him.

[strandinthewind]

By that scale, the same could be said for that piece of human scum known as Poppy Bush. And if Reagan wasn't a joke, I don't what was.

I think RR was a nice guy I could have been friends with outside of politics. But, although I think he did a few good things like ending the cold war (certainly not on his own and Russia was failing anyway, but he had a hand in it and he befriended Russia afterward) and the deregulation of the banking industry (though the final result of that was not quite what it should be) - almost all of his other policies were either heartless or a pander to the neocons (who were emerging in full force then). I mean he allowed people to buy companies and then force them into a pseudo sort of banruptcy so they could sell them off in peices and also raid the pension plans and essentially STEAL money from the participants. A good example of this is Eastern Airlines. Plus, he negelected the medically needy, insane, and poor in this country in a way that would have made Christ get off of the cross and slap him upside his head while opining "I did not die for this" :mad: What did you NOT get about "Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me?"

So, in the end, I cannot see any conclusion other than as a whole RR's Pesidency was a failure and many died because of the neglect he advocated.

[strandinthewind]

Oliver North is a treasonous, drug-addicted bastard. He should have been banished from this country and forced to live with very people he helped by arming them with weapons. He made a mockery out of everything and he got off without even so much as a slap on the wrist. If I saw him lying in the middle of the road and dying of thirst, I wouldn't even spit on him.

ITA (though maybe not legally treasonous) - and he was never convicted - sadly so :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

His lack of conviction on a technicality makes me ill. As noted by one as wise as moi - even the appellate court went out of their way to note that he was guilty but the conviction must be overturned :mad:

[strandinthewind]

. . . ps: Ford was ok as a PERSON, but I can NEVER forgive him for Pardoning NIXON . . .

Like he had a choice - he had no such thing.

[irishgrl]

Plus, he negelected the medically needy, insane, and poor in this country in a way that would have made Christ get off of the cross and slap him upside his head while opining "I did not die for this" :mad: What did you NOT get about "Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me?"

aha: he had priors! he did the very same thing whilst he was the CA GOV.
our streets are teeming with homeless people, most of whom are mentally challenged, and need monitoring.

[dissention]

ITA (though maybe not legally treasonous)

I was going to :xoxo: you, but not after that little edit.

:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

I was going to :xoxo: you, but not after that little edit.

:wavey:

I think treason is a whole other ball of wax. Moreover, it would be hard to be treasonous when the govt. sanctions your actions :shrug: He is a jerk nonetheless!!!!

Actually, you may know more than I about the treason allegation. Let's here it!!!!!!

[irishgrl]

Like he had a choice - he had no such thing.
and just WHY do you say that? could it be that it was a DEAL the fallen Pres had with his underling? hmmmmm? I cant imagine the PRESIDENT not having a choice.

[dissention]

A recruiter for the army just called me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol::lol::lol:

[strandinthewind]

aha: he had priors! he did the very same thing whilst he was the CA GOV.
our streets are teeming with homeless people, most of whom are mentally challenged, and need monitoring.

I always think the mentally challanged have it bad. They go to clinics and begin the meds, which make them (many but not all) lucid and they check out and get off of the meds and then go back in. Then, there are the posers. It is a shame that these bad apples spoil the access or at least the gen. public's willingness to pay for the access for the bunch.

[strandinthewind]

A recruiter for the army just called me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol::lol::lol:

that POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRR poor poor poor person!!!!! I think you should have given them Oillie North's number :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

and just WHY do you say that? could it be that it was a DEAL the fallen Pres had with his underling? hmmmmm? I cant imagine the PRESIDENT not having a choice.

He made a deal. That is why he went gracefully or at least as gracefully as one can in that situation :cool:

[irishgrl]

that POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRR poor poor poor person!!!!! I think you should have given them Oillie North's number :laugh:
Jason! the ultimate comeback! Kudos to you! Barkeep, another round for my friend here!

[irishgrl]

He made a deal. That is why he went gracefully or at least as gracefully as one can in that situation :cool:
and that is why I dont forgive him for THAT. Making deals with the devil is never a good practice. Of course, now we dont have Tricky Dick to pick on any more....we have much smellier fish to fry

[dissention]

I think treason is a whole other ball of wax. Moreover, it would be hard to be treasonous when the govt. sanctions your actions :shrug: He is a jerk nonetheless!!!!

Actually, you may know more than I about the treason allegation. Let's here it!!!!!!

Reagan possibly committed acts of treason himself by negotiating with the Lebanese in 1980, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Just because he and his administration approved of what North was doing, it doesn't make it any less treasonous in my eyes.

[strandinthewind]

Reagan possibly committed acts of treason himself by negotiating with the Lebanese in 1980, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Just because he and his administration approved of what North was doing, it doesn't make it any less treasonous in my eyes.

that is why I used the phrase "legally treasonous" :cool:

[dissention]

that POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRR poor poor poor person!!!!! I think you should have given them Oillie North's number :laugh:

He asked me if I had thought of joining and I said no. And then he asked me why. :eek:

I think he'll take a personal day tomorrow to regroup...

[strandinthewind]

He asked me if I had thought of joining and I said no. And then he asked me why. :eek:

I think he'll take a personal day tomorrow to regroup...

oooo to have been a fly on the wall :laugh:

You should have told them you were a flaming homosexual ready willing and able to serve - when they said that was a prohibition to serving your country - you should have pointed out that Great Britian and Australia allow gay people to serve openly and the US has no problems serving in the same coalition with them :rolleyes:

[GateandGarden]

You should have told them you were a flaming homosexual ready willing and able to serve - when they said that was a prohibition to serving your country - you should have pointed out that Great Britian and Australia allow gay people to serve openly and the US has no problems serving in the same coalition with them :rolleyes::laugh: :thumbsup:

[SuzeQuze]

No. The backlash of this Administration will be great, mark my words.

I also believe this and have said it. People will wake up to it. :nod:

[SuzeQuze]

A recruiter for the army just called me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol::lol::lol:

Ask him if it's okay to wear lipstick and skirts on your down time. :laugh: ;)

[markolas]

He asked me if I had thought of joining and I said no. And then he asked me why. :eek:

I think he'll take a personal day tomorrow to regroup...

You have to tell us what you told him. :blob2:

How old are you? The recruiters stopped calling me when I was 19...

[SuzeQuze]

You have to tell us what you told him. :blob2:

How old are you? The recruiters stopped calling me when I was 19...

I think Diss is 25, perhaps recruiters have been given a new age limit.

[ontheEdgeof17]

I think Diss is 25, perhaps recruiters have been giving a new age limit.


My parents still get calls from them for me and I am almost 23. Thank goodness they don't have my own home's phone. :o

[markolas]

My parents still get calls from them for me and I am almost 23. Thank goodness they don't have my own home's phone. :o

Hmm...I wonder how much trouble they go to to track people down. My parents have moved and changed phone numbers since then, while I live in a whole other state now.

[GateandGarden]

Recruiters call your homes? So the government is asking you to be willing to die for them but they're not willing to let you enjoy civil rights and share a simple bit of love.Pretty ridiculous, huh? If I hadn't been a repressed homosexual back when I was getting called constantly at my house, I would've taken the opportunity to say, "Well, I'm gay, is that okay?...No, well, um, I don't know why you're asking me to die for a government that can't accept who I am." :shrug:

[ontheEdgeof17]

Recruiters call your homes? So the government is asking you to be willing to die for them but they're not willing to let you enjoy civil rights and share a simple bit of love.


BINGO!!!!!

[strandinthewind]

I also believe this and have said it. People will wake up to it. :nod:

I guess I am more of a cynic because I think not. I mean people stilkl think Regean did nothing wrong and was the greatest Pres. we ever had. Granted RR was a likeable guy as opposed to W - so maybe that will be the diffrerence :cool:

[cliffdweller]

Well if end times is that soon. I'm hope I'm ready for Jesus. :shrug:

huh?

furthermore, and if I'm reading through the typos correctly,... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all morning.

[estranged4life]

how long before the draft is instituted since the military has seen a decline in the number of those who are volunteering?

[GateandGarden]

huh?

furthermore, and if I'm reading through the typos correctly,... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all morning.Oh, but the best one was "themself" earlier on in this thread. :nod: :laugh: The only thing better would have been hisself. :lol:

[DrummerDeanna]

Oh, but the best one was "themself" earlier on in this thread. :nod: :laugh: The only thing better would have been hisself. :lol:

hmm...all these typos and such....perhaps it's ACTUALLY Dumb-ya who's started posting on the board :p

[estranged4life]

Oh, but the best one was "themself" earlier on in this thread. :nod: :laugh: The only thing better would have been hisself. :lol:

could have said pisself; Example:

"I need to change my drawers I think I've done pisself" :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

hmm...all these typos and such....perhaps it's ACTUALLY Dumb-ya who's started posting on the board :p

Jesus is coming and here's the transcript as per my crystal ball:

Dubya: Jesus! It's the end of times!
Jesus: Yes it is.
Dubya: Oh I knew it was coming, now we will all be saved and live in paradise forever.
Jesus: Not "all" just you.
Dubya: Wha??
Jesus: God told me just to get you. The human race is not done evolving yet and without you they may have a chance to finish.

[GateandGarden]

hmm...all these typos and such....perhaps it's ACTUALLY Dumb-ya who's started posting on the board :pI like to think it's CarneVaca pulling our legs. :laugh:
"I need to change my drawers I think I've done pisself":laugh::laugh::laugh:

[DrummerDeanna]

Jesus is coming and here's the transcript as per my crystal ball:

Dubya: Jesus! It's the end of times!
Jesus: Yes it is.
Dubya: Oh I knew it was coming, now we will all be saved and live in paradise forever.
Jesus: Not "all" just you.
Dubya: Wha??
Jesus: God told me just to get you. The human race is not done evolving yet and without you they may have a chance to finish.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Except I think it may be more appropriate that they'd go ahead and send Satan to get him :p

[SuzeQuze]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Except I think it may be more appropriate that they'd go ahead and send Satan to get him :p

I left out the part where he doesn't exactly go to heaven ;) :laugh:

[cliffdweller]

Oh you're naughty, but in that case:
If come apocalypse the shall soon, I hope I'm ready for the Prince of Darkness.


:laugh: :laugh:

Man, I really hate those those bumper stickers that say something to the effect of, "in case of rapture car will be umanned" or some such nonsense. That's what her post reminded me of.

[SuzeQuze]

Oh you're naughty, but in that case:
If come apocalypse the shall soon, I hope I'm ready for the Prince of Darkness.

Ozzy's gonna be there? ;) :lol:

[GateandGarden]

:laugh: :laugh:

Man, I really hate those those bumper stickers that say something to the effect of, "in case of rapture car will be umanned" or some such nonsense. That's what her post reminded me of.http://img236.exs.cx/img236/2341/scomerapturecar0lw.jpg
http://img230.exs.cx/img230/6645/searthtoourselves3ac.jpg

:laugh: :lol: :laugh:
www.evolvefish.com

[estranged4life]

Oh you're naughty, but in that case:
If come apocalypse the shall soon, I hope I'm ready for the Prince of Darkness.

your name isnt on my VIP list...Guess you'll have to go elsewhere :lol:

Brian "The true PRINCE of darkness" j.

[cliffdweller]

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/2341/scomerapturecar0lw.jpg
http://img230.exs.cx/img230/6645/searthtoourselves3ac.jpg

:laugh: :lol: :laugh:
www.evolvefish.com

:laugh: :laugh: Exactly!!

[estranged4life]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Except I think it may be more appropriate that they'd go ahead and send Satan to get him :p

why would I want Bush when I can have Stevie instead :rolleyes:

Brian "Lucifer should've been my middle name" j.

[estranged4life]

<div align=center>
<img src="http://img236.exs.cx/img236/2341/scomerapturecar0lw.jpg">
<br>
<img src="http://img230.exs.cx/img230/6645/searthtoourselves3ac.jpg"></div>

:laugh: :lol: :laugh:

www.evolvefish.com

Those are sweet bumperstickers, Especially the second one...

Here's my fave bumper sticker:

<div align=center>
<img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Hell-O-Satan.gif">
</div>

Go to http://www.stickergiant.com if ya want a good laugh, Their stickers are f**kin' sweet!!!!

[skcin]

I always think the mentally challanged have it bad. They go to clinics and begin the meds, which make them (many but not all) lucid and they check out and get off of the meds and then go back in. Then, there are the posers. It is a shame that these bad apples spoil the access or at least the gen. public's willingness to pay for the access for the bunch.


Mentally challenged refers to the developmentally disabled, not mentally ill. (Sorry, it's a peeve of mine.) But you're right, it's a really bad system & it's getting worse by the day.

Carry on.

[strandinthewind]

Mentally challenged refers to the developmentally disabled, not mentally ill. (Sorry, it's a peeve of mine.) But you're right, it's a really bad system & it's getting worse by the day.

Carry on.

mea culpa!!!!! :cool:

[skcin]

Wow, and Im bad for wanting Muslim U.S. hating terrorists dead.



What about the Christian U.S. hating terrorists? Or the atheists? I'm sure there are people of several different religions who hate the U.S. And not all terrorists are Muslim.

Come on, if you're gonna hate, be an equal opportunity hater! :rolleyes:

[irishgrl]

mea culpa!!!!! :cool:
and you a counselor too! Barkeep, I think my friend's had enuff! milk from here on out! :blob1: :blob2: :blob1: :blob2: he looks lonely all by himself on this line.....

[GateandGarden]

Come on, if you're gonna hate, be an equal opportunity hater! :rolleyes:That's a great line! I should put that in my sig. :nod:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

huh?

furthermore, and if I'm reading through the typos correctly,... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all morning.

LOL. I actually had to laugh at that one. :lol:

I guess sometimes the words that I type on the screen aren't the words that are going through my head! LOL

"I'm hope I'm ready" WTF!

Blonde moments.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:laugh: :laugh:

Man, I really hate those those bumper stickers that say something to the effect of, "in case of rapture car will be umanned" or some such nonsense. That's what her post reminded me of.

I hate those too. The rapture is a whole bunch of crap! To think that only good christians will leave the world before the tribulation is crazy! And Catholics do not believe in that, only certin protestant groups.

I like the bumper sticker that says:

"In case of rapture I get Benny Hinn's Mercedes." :angel: LOL

[wondergirl9847]

And not all terrorists are Muslim.

Two words: Timothy McVeigh.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Two words: Timothy McVeigh.

Exactly, you don't see him breathing anymore do you?

[ontheEdgeof17]

Exactly, you don't see him breathing anymore do you?


I don't think that was the point. :shrug:

[GateandGarden]

I don't think that was the point. :shrug:I didn't think so, either. Now I'm lost. Originally, I thought the point was that select Muslims are not the only ones who kill lots of people. :shrug:

[wondergirl9847]

Um, no, that wasn't my point. :rolleyes: My point is, Timothy was a WHITE, "CHRISTIAN" MALE....a NON-MUSLIM. Don't judge.

The fact he's dead had nothing to do with it.

[estranged4life]

Two words: Timothy McVeigh.

wins my first ever "Asshat/Asstard of the decade" barely beating the likes of Empty-Vee, Me-Tallica, The whiny ass music industry, O.B.L., Tipper "Al's wife" Gore-Whore, Slick Willy Clinton, The mighty biblical burning shrub, Dickhead Cheney, Bill O'Really & Assleak Simplytarded (It will be ten years since the Murrah Bombing this April 19th) :

So here's yer award ya useless "pile of ash in urn" murdering piece of ****:

<div align=center>
Tim <img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/****tard.gif"> McVeigh
</div>

I always hated the footage of McVeigh sitting on his yellow Mercury in Waco (During the Branch Davidians stand) stating directly to the news-reporter (In a smug voice) "Payback is coming"...

Hey, F**k You Timmy boy & yer buddies Nichols & Fortier...Oh wait, The Feds already f**ked ya...My bad!

[gldstwmn]

here is what the CBC says about Canadian involvement in Vietnam:


Got a link for that?

[gldstwmn]

The Ramones are her other fav. band (which also contains conservative republican memebers.)

He's dead. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

No she wasn't 100% wrong.

There were no "Canadian soldiers" in Vietnam. There were Canadians, but they served in American uniforms under American command. These are facts.

Again, do you have a link?

[gldstwmn]

That is true most people can't access Lexis Nexis...I can only because I'm going to be a paralegal and we have started using it.

Wrong. Anyone with a credit card can use Lexis Nexis. I've used it many times.

[gldstwmn]

and me without my DARTS! dang! Im sure glad Ronnie is DEAD, but his Gawdawful legacy lives on with the Bumbler unfortunately.

He ruined this country. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

Mr. Reagan is the best president of the last century.

Exactly who do you suppose is the best president of the last century? Please don't say Clinton... :laugh:

FDR. :nod: :nod: :nod:

[gldstwmn]

I liked Ford (not because of his politics but because he was genuine and caring).

Ford appointed one of the better Supreme Court Justices-Justice John Paul Stevens. May he live a long, long time.

[strandinthewind]

my word - you are on a tear - AND - I agree with ya!!!!!!! :D

[gldstwmn]

Carter was a joke, I think a good person, but I joke for a president, hince the elected only once.

Then I guess the same could be said for George H.W. Bush. :shrug:
Also and kindly, your continuous spelling mistakes only serve to undermine your points. Is there a spell check function on this board?
Hear is not the same as here, their is not the same as there, too is not the same as to and the word you are grasping for in the above paragraph is "hence."
A poor speller does not a good paralegal make.

[gldstwmn]

Reaganomics...

Care to elaborate?

[gldstwmn]

Ive seen your posts on him in the past! I personally dont think hes as bad as you do, but then I like Clinton too! so just cover your ears and go lalalalalalalala whilst you read this!
:nod:

Oh darling, if you think North is okay then you just don't know enough about him. He is scum.

[gldstwmn]

ending the cold war .

Happened in 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis.

[gldstwmn]

He asked me if I had thought of joining and I said no. And then he asked me why. :eek:

I think he'll take a personal day tomorrow to regroup...

Sigh...We're going to Iran. :distress:

[strandinthewind]

Happened in 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis.

That and other things were the beginning. RR saw it to the end and provided Russia with guidance, etc. To say RR did nothing is not supported by history. Again, I am not saying RR was the sole cause of the end of the cold war or that any Pres. in his place and at that time would not have witnessed it or befriended Russia. I am just saying RR did it and I think that is a plus for him - not as huge of a plus as if he did it all on his own, but a plus nonetheless. AND - that does not mean I liked his politics :cool:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Then I guess the same could be said for George H.W. Bush. :shrug:
Also and kindly, your continuous spelling mistakes only serve to undermine your points. Is there a spell check function on this board?
Hear is not the same as here, their is not the same as there, too is not the same as to and the word you are grasping for in the above paragraph is "hence."
A poor speller does not a good paralegal make.

Sorry for the mistakes, a lot of it is bad typing, but some is spelling problems. When I am writing memos, papers, and such I am not in a hurry and don't make such careless mistakes.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

FDR. :nod: :nod: :nod:

I do think that FDR was a good president, not the best, but still a good American and a pretty good war time president.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Wrong. Anyone with a credit card can use Lexis Nexis. I've used it many times.

Isn't it great! I said that the only reason that I have access to it is because I can get on it for free because I'm in the paralegal program. I never said that not everyone could access it. That was dissention

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Again, do you have a link?

I posted an article earlier in this thread, if you would like to go back and look. If not I can post again.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

He's dead. :wavey:

Yes he is. His funeral was recently (My girl LMFP was there!)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Got a link for that?

Well let me get the link. Because you know I would write that entire article and make it up because I have that time :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

Well let me get the link.

Yes, please do. I'd like to see where that came from and if it's being taken out of context. :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

I posted an article earlier in this thread, if you would like to go back and look. If not I can post again.

There was no link.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Um, no, that wasn't my point. :rolleyes: My point is, Timothy was a WHITE, "CHRISTIAN" MALE....a NON-MUSLIM. Don't judge.

The fact he's dead had nothing to do with it.

Yes it does, he killed thousands of Americans in a terrorist act, and he was killed for it!

This man was by no means "Christian", just because you label yourself, as something doesn't make it true. It could be said about any extremist who goes by any label and misrepresents them. These "Muslim" extremists don't represent all Muslims, but they sure do make up a large portion. Rarely do I see an Muslims standing up for what the propose their religion teaches, which is peace. My point is that they are extremists (regardless of what label they go by) and those extremists hate America.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Yes, please do. I'd like to see where that came from and if it's being taken out of context. :wavey:

It was a whole damn article how could it have been taken out of context. It IS the context! :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

It was a whole damn article how could it have been taken out of context. It IS the context! :rolleyes:

How do you know? Where's the link to the original article?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/asithappens/vietnam/

[gldstwmn]

I never said that not everyone could access it.

Really? See post #166.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

How do you know? Where's the link to the original article?

It's posted above me.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Really? See post #166.

I said that most people don't have access to it. To be honest most people don't know what Lexis Nexis is (outside of the political/legal community that is). That's the point that dissention was trying to make earlier when he said "most people don't have access to Lexis..."

[SuzeQuze]

How do you know? Where's the link to the original article?

It's probably a Coultergeist "footnote" :rolleyes: :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

It's probably a Coultergeist "footnote" :rolleyes: :laugh:

Yes that entire long article that was posted about from CBC is a "footnote" do you know what a footnote is dear?

[gldstwmn]

That's the point that dissention was trying to make earlier when he said "most people don't have access to Lexis..."

Don't drag dissention into this. Stand on your own two feet.

[gldstwmn]

Yes that entire long article that was posted about from CBC is a "footnote" do you know what a footnote is dear?

I've seen longer.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Don't drag dissention into this. Stand on your own two feet.

Thats the point that HE made, Im not dragging any one into this.

Why should this even be an argument about whether most of us have access to Lexis or not, facts are most people don't!

[Highway Woman]

Wrong. Anyone with a credit card can use Lexis Nexis. I've used it many times.

Or anyone with a library card.

[Serrart]

These "Muslim" extremists don't represent all Muslims, but they sure do make up a large portion.

On what basis are you saying this?

Rarely do I see an Muslims standing up for what the propose their religion teaches, which is peace.

Well, you haven't looked enough. Try reading Tahar Ben Jelloun books, listening to Cheb Khaled's music or watch movies by Kiarostami, Makhmalbaf, Jafar Panahi, and you'll see a lot of muslims and getting to know stories of muslisms standing for peace and wanting only peace.
Besides could anyone please inform Bush of this religion-peace connection? I'm not sure he's aware. :shrug:

Romy

[heyjupiter678]

This man was by no means "Christian", just because you label yourself, as something doesn't make it true. I'm confused. How can you say that he wasn't a Christian? Do you know what his personal beliefs were?

[heyjupiter678]

You were getting called constantly at your house by army recruiters, Hilary? When you were a teenage girl? How odd. I got phone calls and mail all the time from the Air Force during high school, and even for a few years after I'd graduated.

[dissention]

I got phone calls and mail all the time from the Air Force during high school, and even for a few years after I'd graduated.

I still get mailings every other week, it's ridiculous. :laugh:

[GateandGarden]

You were getting called constantly at your house by army recruiters, Hilary? When you were a teenage girl? How odd.Well, I was of age. I was a senior in high school. I guess I just figured my classmates were getting those calls, too. :shrug:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I'm confused. How can you say that he wasn't a Christian? Do you know what his personal beliefs were?

Hello, what he did, not very Christian like. Maybe I'm wrong. He may have very well had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and he could very much be in Heaven (or at least purgatory) right now. That's not my call. I should just clerify myself and say that his action wasn't very "Christian" (and that's putting it lightly).

[Miss Vicky]

On what basis are you saying this?



Well, you haven't looked enough. Try reading Tahar Ben Jelloun books, listening to Cheb Khaled's music or watch movies by Kiarostami, Makhmalbaf, Jafar Panahi, and you'll see a lot of muslims and getting to know stories of muslisms standing for peace and wanting only peace.
Besides could anyone please inform Bush of this religion-peace connection? I'm not sure he's aware. :shrug:

Romy

Oh god, people. Have we not learned from the KFC thread? It's quite obvious that brwneyes does not look at his sources with an intelligent eye and consequently (like Ms. Coulter and for that matter Dubya) winds up speaking out of the wrong end. His is a hopeless cause. He will never see the error of his ways and instead will continue to spout untruths despite anyone's best efforts. Unless everyone here thrives on friction and confrontation, its probably best to stop such hopeless arguments. Nobody will ever win.

That being said, I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Oh god, people. Have we not learned from the KFC thread? It's quite obvious that brwneyes does not look at his sources with an intelligent eye and consequently (like Ms. Coulter and for that matter Dubya) winds up speaking out of the wrong end. His is a hopeless cause. He will never see the error of his ways and instead will continue to spout untruths despite anyone's best efforts. Unless everyone here thrives on friction and confrontation, its probably best to stop such hopeless arguments. Nobody will ever win.

That being said, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Please, do get off, before you fall off! ;)

We are not fighting, we are just talking. This is NOT the KFC thread and we are not going to go down that road again.

[Sugar]

Please, do get off, before you fall off! ;)

We are not fighting, we are just talking. This is NOT the KFC thread and we are not going to go down that road again.

So you're going to answer Serrart's question then?

[heyjupiter678]

So you're going to answer Serrart's question then? And Lux's?

[strandinthewind]

About 27% of the world population is Muslim and you believe the extremists "make up a large portion"?. You "rarely see (any) Muslims standing up for the purpose of their religion"? Exactly how many of this extraordinary percentage have you encountered? That is incredibly insulting.

And on another note, are their any more Christians "standing up" for this purpose of peace? When Christians bomb nations' civilians with "God on their side", is that spreading a Christian message of peace? The majority of Muslims are spreading this message (if that's how you want to put it) no less than the majority of Christians.

Not to mention Chistianity is replete with Holy Wars which were nothing more than the Roman Catholic Church's attempt to assert power and control and gain financial means to do so. I mean thousands if not hundreds of thousands if not millions of Muslims and other people have been slaughtered in the name of the Roman Catholic Church. THEN - when you take into account the Reformation and all that died then - the amount of people killed in Christ's name is horrifying. Thus, I have to conclude Chritianity has killed many times more people than the Muslim faith in the same relative period. Sad - very true.

[Miss Vicky]

Please, do get off, before you fall off! ;)

We are not fighting, we are just talking. This is NOT the KFC thread and we are not going to go down that road again.

Obviously you've shown once again that you cannot read things with an intelligent eye. I did not say that you are "fighting," I said there was an "argument" and they are not the same thing. Any literate person who owns or has access to a dictionary can tell you that.

[wondergirl9847]

Yes it does, he killed thousands of Americans in a terrorist act, and he was killed for it!

This man was by no means "Christian", just because you label yourself, as something doesn't make it true. It could be said about any extremist who goes by any label and misrepresents them. These "Muslim" extremists don't represent all Muslims, but they sure do make up a large portion. Rarely do I see an Muslims standing up for what the propose their religion teaches, which is peace. My point is that they are extremists (regardless of what label they go by) and those extremists hate America.

Do you know any Muslims personally?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Do you know any Muslims personally?

Actually I do know a former Muslim. But not one who is currently practicing; She actually told me about the truths of Islamic teaching, and although I don't agree with the theology, it is a very beautiful religion. But It seems that it has been taken over by these extremists.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Obviously you've shown once again that you cannot read things with an intelligent eye. I did not say that you are "fighting," I said there was an "argument" and they are not the same thing. Any literate person who owns or has access to a dictionary can tell you that.

I know the difference. I'm just saying that neither is going on here. I'm not mad, and I don't think anyone else is either! :shrug:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

So you're going to answer Serrart's question then?

Which was what, what facts are there to prove that most of the Muslim population is extremists? Well, there are none because I wasn't stating it as a fact, but rather as my observation. I said that I don't see any of the real Muslims taking a stand for what their religion really represents, all I see are the American-hating extremists. I guess I should start tacking the "IMO" onto the end of those kind of statements.

[Miss Vicky]

I know the difference. I'm just saying that neither is going on here. I'm not mad, and I don't think anyone else is either! :shrug:

Do you really know the difference? I made no mention of anyone being mad and I don't see why you use that word now. And since the answer to my question is clearly "no," let me define argument for you, as per Webster's:

argument 1. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate

[estranged4life]

Do you know any Muslims personally?

of the Muslim faith I think back to April 19,1995 and how some Muslims in OKC were scared for their lives after the Murrah Bombing, Especially after the "slip of the tongue" by a certain US Government higher up who stated that "We will catch those Muslim extremists who caused this tragedy" to only recant later that afternoon that "their information was wrong."

Kinda too late for some in the OKC community who were beaten, threaten, had their mosque's vandalized and one innocent lady of the Muslim faith had a mis-carriage after having her house burgularized/vandalized/retaliated due to her family being of a faith that had NOTHING whatsoever to due what happened in our backyard.

[wondergirl9847]

We all know what the first three letters of assume are, don't we? ;)

[gldstwmn]

Actually I do know a former Muslim. But not one who is currently practicing; She actually told me about the truths of Islamic teaching, and although I don't agree with the theology, it is a very beautiful religion. But It seems that it has been taken over by these extremists.

Like the Catholic church has been taken over by gay or pedophile priests?

[estranged4life]

Like the Catholic church has been taken over by gay or pedophile priests?

as a button, on stickergiant.com says, "Abstinence makes the Church grow Fondlers" :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Like the Catholic church has been taken over by gay or pedophile priests?

no - they just dent there is problem so they can maintain control - thus passing these sick freaks off on unsuspecting communites by relocating them instead of putting them behind bars to wit:


Pedophile priest problem blamed on church leadership

Sunday, March 24, 2002

By Ann Rodgers-Melnick, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Last week's declaration by Pope John Paul II that priests who sexually abuse minors have betrayed their ordination is unlikely to quiet critics who say Rome has done little to rid the church of predators.

It was not an order for action, but was added to the end of his annual letter to priests.

"In my opinion, the reasons that the American bishops are mired in a scandal that grew into a crisis is because they have gotten little if any leadership from Rome," said Jason Berry, a Catholic journalist who has tracked the issue of priests who molest minors since 1984.

"The pope, God bless him, has been detached and even impassive on this issue for years."

For years, as some U.S. bishops asked Rome to help them remove offenders from ministry, Vatican officials viewed child molestation as "an American problem," said Nicholas Cafardi, a canon and civil lawyer who is dean of the Duquesne University School of Law.

But scandals erupted globally. In 1995, the archbishop of Vienna was forced to resign amid allegations that he had molested children. Belgium and France had scandals. Huge financial verdicts in lawsuits from Canada, Ireland and Australia forced attention to the issue.

"Throughout the entire common law world, every place where you had tort liability and the injured party could sue, you had huge problems," Cafardi said.

"It took awhile for Rome to see the seriousness of the issue because they were used to a different legal system without the huge tort liability. Rome's original response, whenever they were confronted with huge tort verdicts in the United States was, 'Why don't you get the law changed?' It took awhile to sink in that this was a very serious problem that needed to be dealt with seriously."

A few changes

Rome has made incremental changes. A key one allows bishops to petition the Holy See to laicize -- or remove from the obligations of priesthood, including celibacy -- a priest against his will. Previously, a priest could be laicized only if he requested it, and even then, the process was slow and difficult.

Bishop Joseph Adamec of Altoona-Johnstown is one of a handful of bishops to have forcibly laicized a priest. But because he was able to send Rome all of the documentation from the civil trial of the Rev. Francis Luddy. whose molestation of an altar boy brought a $2.6 million judgment against the diocese, he did not have to conduct a lengthy church trial in Altoona, which would otherwise have been required.

Such a trial would "take a long time. It's onerous and bishops are reluctant to do it," he said.

The Vatican office that handled the matter took a month to do it.

"When they had a question, instead of writing a letter, they called me on the phone. That was rather unusual," Adamec said.

The most recent change in Vatican policy came last year.

Previously, cases against diocesan priests were handled first by the diocese, but could be appealed to the Vatican's Congregation for Clergy, and finally to the Vatican's highest court, the Signatura. Now cases will go to a court in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from which there is no appeal to the Signatura.

The new policy says bishops must report probable cases of child molestation to the doctrinal congregation, which will decide whether to allow the local diocese to handle it or take it directly in Rome. These cases concern removing priests from ministry and have no bearing on whether the diocese notifies police.

A high-ranking Vatican official told Catholic News Service, however, that dioceses in the United States would continue to handle their own cases, which will go to the doctrinal congregation only on appeal. Accusations against religious order priests, however, must be sent straight to Rome.

Bishop Donald W. Wuerl believes that the transfer of power to the doctrinal congregation will make it easier to remove molesters. He speaks from experience.

In 1993, the Signatura ordered him to reinstate an accused child molester who had not been convicted of a crime, but who Wuerl believed was guilty. The Signatura suggested that Wuerl was persecuting a faithful priest, and concluded that he had not followed the proper procedure for removing him.

Wuerl refused to reinstate the priest and asked for an almost unheard-of rehearing. Two years later, the Signatura reversed its opinion.

The Signatura can consider only whether proper procedures were used to protect the rights of the priest, Wuerl said. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can consider the impact of the priest's actions on others.

"This places it in the context of pastoral judgment, not solely of legal judgment," he said.

But Berry said that just three years ago, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refused to hear a case against a priest whom the pope holds in high esteem, the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican founder of the Legion of Christ, a fast-growing, conservative order.

In 1997, nine priests, former priests and former seminarians accused Maciel of molesting them when they were as young as 10. They told the Hartford Courant that since 1978, they had tried and failed to get Rome to investigate.

Maciel and the order have repeatedly denied the allegations and said the accusers were conspiring against him.

In 1998, the accusers filed a case at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It did not charge him directly with sexual abuse, because the canonical statute of limitations had expired. Instead, it accused him of violating the sacrament of penance by granting absolution to victims of his own sexual misconduct. The charge carries the penalty of excommunication.

According to the National Catholic Reporter, the Congregation first agreed to take the case, then dropped it without a hearing or any official explanation.

The Signatura at least took the trouble to hear the Pittsburgh pedophile case -- twice, Berry said.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "refused to allow the accusers in the Maciel case to even give testimony," he said.

"To me, the litmus test on Vatican adherence to the integrity of canon law is the Maciel case. If they do not allow that proceeding to move forward, the integrity of the canonical system is called into question."

A member of the family

The Pittsburgh case contributed to changes in Vatican policy. Because the diocese had not been allowed to have a representative at the first hearing, no one presented the evidence that Wuerl had against the priest. After that case, bishops were allowed to present evidence in cases from their dioceses.

In visits to Rome during the months after the Signatura ordered the priest reinstated, many U.S. bishops protested. John Paul then made his first public statement of concern about priests who sexually abuse minors, and called for a review of canon law on the issue.

As a result, the U.S. bishops got two special exceptions to canon law. One changed the age of adulthood from 16 to 18. Another changed the statute of limitations from five years after the last molestation to the victim's 28 th birthday. Last year, those changes were applied worldwide.

Although the Vatican began to grant forced laicization of priests, most bishops have chosen to remove child molesters in other ways. The church teaches that a priest always remains a priest, but laicization frees him from obligations such as celibacy and obedience.

A simpler process, called administrative leave, bans the priest from ministry and means he can no longer wear a collar, call himself Father or even lead the rosary. But he is not free to marry, and the diocese must pay him.

During Wuerl's 14-year tenure, all priests removed due to accusations of child molestation were first placed on administrative leave. Of the six cases that became public, one priest was later voluntarily laicized.

Another was declared by the Vatican to be "impeded from ministry" due to a mental disorder, although the practical effects are the same as those of administrative leave. One priest who had faced a less serious charge that was dropped due to the statute of limitations was required to retire 15 years early and now lives in a convent.

Wuerl said he was reluctant to forcibly laicize any of the men because priesthood is forever.

"You can fire a member of your family from a job, but you can't fire them from being a member of your family. I can remove a priest from ministry. I cannot remove him from being a priest," Wuerl said.

Wuerl said he doubted that leaving them on the payroll would make the diocese vulnerable to a lawsuit if one of them abused again.

"When someone is no longer assigned by any bishop, when that person is on leave and off on their own, they have left the jurisdiction of the church and can do what they want. I cannot be held responsible for their actions. ... And I am not going to let them starve."

Cafardi believes that Rome should allow another option: A declaration that a child molester was never validly ordained. He argues that ordinations could be annulled in the same way that marriages are. Even though the children of the marriage remain legitimate, a marriage may be declared null if one of the spouses is found to have entered the marriage with problems that made it impossible to live up to the standards of a sacramental marriage.

"I think you could make a very good argument that a person who is a pedophile, who seeks ministry in order to cover or hide or pursue their pedophilia, sought ordination for improper reasons or motivations. And there might be a problem with the validity of their ordination," Cafardi said.

"I think that possibility should be pursued."
http://www.post-gazette.com/world/20020324priests0324p1.asp
_____________________________________________________________

so much for being as much like Christ as a human can :rolleyes:

[sparky]

Well if end times is that soon. I'm hope I'm ready for Jesus. :shrug:

Is that before or after the tortoise races the hare ?

[sparky]

Im sorry Hinckley MISSED! (GASP!)

Reagan singlehandedly began the decline for women and children and the elderly and the poor and the vets and students the INSTANT he and Nancy got into the White House, all the while Nancy was busy refurbishing White House decor and sprucing up the dinnerware at $1000 a place setting!



I WILL DANCE ON HIS GRAVE BEFORE I DIE.
That man was a garbage heap with a scriptwriter.

[estranged4life]

Is that before or after the tortoise races the hare ?

It could before or after solo releases from Mr.Buckingham & Ms.Nicks and another studio Fleetwood Mac album :lol: :nod:

Brian "The Second Coming...Of Christ or Fleetwood Mac releases, You decide :lol: " j.

[gldstwmn]

so much for being as much like Christ as a human can :rolleyes:

Er, I was trying to illustrate the statement was a sweeping generalization. :o

[strandinthewind]

Er, I was trying to illustrate the statement was a sweeping generalization. :o


I know - but I took it and ran with it :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I know - but I took it and ran with it :laugh:
And inadvertently validated the statement that all Muslims are extremists.
I know, you can't help yourself sometimes.

[strandinthewind]

And inadvertently validated the statement that all Muslims are extremists.
I know, you can't help yourself sometimes.


I did not think I was doing that :sorry: :sorry: :sorry: :sorry: :sorry:

I was merely pointing out that Christians have no right to call anyone extremits and anti-peace people when they (though certainly not all) have killed more than anyone else :eek:

I truly believe the vast majority of Muslims are good peace loving people. If I implied the contrary I herein calirfy my stance :cool:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Of course you only see these extremist Muslims. Nobody's going to fill the nightly news with images of peaceful Muslims doing their laundry and whatnot. Does logic ever occur to you? The ones flying planes into buildings, surprisingly, make the news. The same is for the reverse situation. They will not see footage of the peaceful Christians in their daily life, they will see the Christians who terrorise their own people with the casual offloading of napalm. So if Muslims are largely extremists and are not to be seen spreading peace, if this is true, then nobody can deny that most Christians are mass murders spreading pain, suffering and empires aswell. We know that the latter is not true, there are some and they are the prominent ones who affect many of their lives, but we know the sweeping statement it's not true. In the very same way the accusation about Muslims is not true. I mean seriously, do you think that 27% of the world are extremists willing to kill randomly? We'd all be dead! Your statements are incredibly racist, demonising all races of Muslim, which I am not, but I am human so they offend me.

I was just observing that there seems to be a bit more "muslims" out there who want to slaughter Americans, more so than "christians". These people are extremists and if you don't think that there are large numbers of them, look at the news (what Iraq city has been destroyed today do to some "extremist" driving a bomb through a US military base, etc...).

[gldstwmn]

The ones flying planes into buildings, surprisingly, make the news.

That is, to me, a question that is still open for debate. They were Saudi Nationals, the majority of them but I don't think much can be established beyond that.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

That is, to me, a question that is still open for debate. They were Saudi Nationals, the majority of them but I don't think much can be established beyond that.

They were savages, regardless of where they came from or what they believed.

[gldstwmn]

(what Iraq city has been destroyed today do to some "extremist" driving a bomb through a US military base, etc...).

Nope. What Iraqi national wants the US occupation to end so he/she is part of a resistance force? This "insurgent" bull**** is a euphemism concocted for the folks at home.
If someone came into your country and shut off the electricity and water and bombed the living daylights out of you, are you telling me you wouldn't fight back?

[gldstwmn]

They were savages, regardless of where they came from or what they believed.

Some of them trained on our military bases.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Some of them trained on our military bases.

I know, which is very sad. Others learned how to fly at schools here in America!

which leads to my thought of...

CLOSE OFF THE BORDERS!

[gldstwmn]

I know, which is very sad. Others learned how to fly at schools here in America!

which leads to my thought of...

CLOSE OFF THE BORDERS!

It was an inside job.

[strandinthewind]

Some of them trained on our military bases.

Well, not only that - but if you look at the reasons why they do not like us, it is hard to say they are not somewhat justified in their dislike (not the violence though - the extremist are wrong to do that and they should stop).

I mean we have been raping their lands and becoming HUGELY rich while the vast majority of them live in poverty and horrible poverty at that. We suport regimes that tolerate us and our oil lust and stifle any other regimes (can you say Iraq). Then, there is a two or so thousand year history of warring with the "Holy Land" in the name of Jesus when what was really wanted was, as now, their treasure - then it was holy artifacts - now its oil. Then, Israel is created and bankrolled by the US and they are, according to the UN, far from a friendly neighbor - in fact some would call Israel a terrorist state - and there is no end in sight to the violence there (this is Israel in general and not all Israelis or Israel supporters). Then, we have religious crackpots here in the US that want Israel to succeed at any cost because Jesus cannot come again until the Jews hae returned to Zion and the Temple rebuilt - so they encourage Israel. Finally, we invade Iraq and let the country run wild and have the gall to say it is not our fault and that blowing up more innocent civilians is A OK because Democracy is what they need even though they are too dumb to know it.

If any nation did ONE of these to the US, they would be nuked with little to no hesitation.

Yet, do we try to find a way to stop the foregoing bad acts. No, we do not. We just act chocked when those people act up and dare to raise their hand against us - and we reply in kind, which will solve nothing.

Food for Thought.

[gldstwmn]

Well, not only that - but if you look at the reasons why they do not like us, it is hard to say they are not somewhat justified in their dislike (not the violence though - the extremist are wrong to do that and they should stop).

I mean we have been raping their lands and becoming HUGELY rich while the vast majority of them live in poverty and horrible poverty at that. We suport regimes that tolerate us and our oil lust and stifle any other regimes (can you say Iraq). Then, there is a two or so thousand year history of warring with the "Holy Land" in the name of Jesus when what was really wanted was, as now, their treasure - then it was holy artifacts - now its oil. Then, Israel is created and bankrolled by the US and they are, according to the UN, far from a friendly neighbor - in fact some would call Israel a terrorist state - and there is no end in sight to the violence there (this is Israel in general and not all Israelis or Israel supporters). Then, we have religious crackpots here in the US that want Israel to succeed at any cost because Jesus cannot come again until the Jews hae returned to Zion and the Temple rebuilt - so they encourage Israel. Finally, we invade Iraq and let the country run wild and have the gall to say it is not our fault and that blowing up more innocent civilians is A OK because Democracy is what they need even though they are too dumb to know it.

If any nation did ONE of these to the US, they would be nuked with little to no hesitation.

Yet, do we try to find a way to stop the foregoing bad acts. No, we do not. We just act chocked when those people act up and dare to raise their hand against us - and we reply in kind, which will solve nothing.

Food for Thought.

And people actually doubt we will be in Iran? I just want to scream WAKE UP PEOPLE!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

It was an inside job.

Yes it was, but they had to get INTO the Country to make it an INSIDE job!

[gldstwmn]

Yes it was, but they had to get INTO the Country to make it an INSIDE job!
I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

[irishgrl]

If any nation did ONE of these to the US, they would be nuked with little to no hesitation.
It's so enraging to even imagine. You're right that if a nation did one of these things to the US, the uproar would be phenomenal, yet they're not allowed the same response.

Actually, the WTC comes to mind, and we didnt nuke anyone.....so I guess thats a moot point, eh? personally, I am all FOR closing the borders. Living in CA, we deal with issues of illegal aliens all the time and our Public Assistance funds are more and more being used to help these people who arent even supposed to be here! While our own kids are increasingly denied!

I think it highly hypocritical that people badmouth the US but its the first place they think of coming when things get rotten in their own lands.

[irishgrl]

I think it would detrimentally hypocrtical to invade nations on the grounds that they are ruled by fascist regimes, or to openly criticise these regimes and claim to act with sympathy for its citizens and yet to deny these people the freedom to seek asylum. My government was oh-so critical of the Taliban regime, used the plight of its women to warm us to their agenda and yet refused entry to refugees fleeing that regime. Um....knock knock, anyone in there?

I think that when people are forced into desperate situations, partially caused by the actions and policies of the US government, then it's not hypocritical of people to criticise the US and also seek asylum there. I would have no trouble allowing government-bashing East Timorese people into Australia. We owe it to them if it is their desire.

Closing the borders is one of the most inhumane policies I can think of.

I see we are comparing apples and oranges: you are speaking of situations where one country CREATES the dire situation and the people in the affected country try to move elsewhere. For the record I dont condone what the US does in many other nations. But, as I said, no one consulted me!

I am speaking of closing borders in general. We share borders north and south and the southern border is problematic. We in the US are inundated by illegal aliens flooding our public assistance programs, especially here in CA.
people who arent born here yet have the right to our tax dollars? or our medical assistance? It seems grossly unfair that children who are born here have less right to assistance than those whose parents ONLY came here for the free medical (to pay for their babies) or cash aid or foodstamps. THAT is my point. We need to close our borders to stop this hemorrhaging influx.
That isnt inhumane at all. It merely recognizes that resources are finite and charity should begin at HOME.

[irishgrl]

I have no idea how it works over there but perhaps instead of sending them away there should be stricter criteria for benefits, involving obligated work efforts. I'm of the belief that the wealthier nations should act to help those whose plight is beyond what we experience in the developed world. Whether we drilled their oil fields or not, I don't believe that those in need of refuge should be turned away without question.

Actually the problem is, there is only a finite amount of money available for assistance, and the population is artifically growing because of these illegal aliens. Persons who apply for citizenship are a different matter. Persons who come ONLY to get benefits and then go back home once the host country has paid for their newborn's birth should be stopped. period.

Also, you should know that the US DOES help distressed families whose plight is our fault, the most notable example being the Hmongs, from Laos and Cambodia. These peoples, farmers mostly, helped our troops during the Vietnam war and as a result were severely punished by the Khmer Rouge for doing so. The US Government made a deal with the Laotians and Hmong peoples that any persons who can prove they assisted (they served in their military at that time) are welcome to come over and live, and many of the normal aid requirements are waived for them. In the town where I work, there is a growing Hmong community (also Sudanese btw) who are settling. These people have HUGE families and more come every day as they get the money together to bring over more of their number. Its not unusual to have 10 or more family members all in one household....most of the time, mom or dad or both are on SSI, and one or more of the family members works for an in-home healthcare organization earning $$$ taking care of mom/dad. The good news is, these people WILL work, and many of the young go on into college and become employed in Public agencies providing translation services for the growing Hmong community. THEY are one good example of when asylum WORKS. Asylum is completely different from what I am talking about.
The other incidents I am talking about are when outsiders illegally take advantage of services they have no right to and yet we taxpayers foot the bill. THAT has to STOP.

[GateandGarden]

I guess I should start tacking the "IMO" onto the end of those kind of statements.You say that often and it seems to be sarcastic, but I don't think it's a bad idea. When I'm not sure of something and suspect that it is more so my opinion than an understood fact, I add the IMO because I certainly realize that I don't know everything, unlike Coulter, who can just say "I think you're wrong" thirty times and then it doesn't matter if she's wrong.

[cliffdweller]

Of course you only see these extremist Muslims. Nobody's going to fill the nightly news with images of peaceful Muslims doing their laundry and whatnot. Does logic ever occur to you?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:

[dissention]

I see we are comparing apples and oranges: you are speaking of situations where one country CREATES the dire situation and the people in the affected country try to move elsewhere. For the record I dont condone what the US does in many other nations. But, as I said, no one consulted me!

I am speaking of closing borders in general. We share borders north and south and the southern border is problematic. We in the US are inundated by illegal aliens flooding our public assistance programs, especially here in CA.
people who arent born here yet have the right to our tax dollars? or our medical assistance? It seems grossly unfair that children who are born here have less right to assistance than those whose parents ONLY came here for the free medical (to pay for their babies) or cash aid or foodstamps. THAT is my point. We need to close our borders to stop this hemorrhaging influx.
That isnt inhumane at all. It merely recognizes that resources are finite and charity should begin at HOME.

Maybe instead of going to the extreme degree of actually sealing the border, California should implement stricter qualifications for public assistance. I don't think it's right to deny anyone health care, food, a job, or a place to live, regardless of their citizenship, but if the issue lights a fire under the asses of so many Californians, they should start mobilizing and try to change something instead of sitting around and bitching that someone from the "South of the border" got their kids' food stamps.

Regardless of where you were born, be it Mexico or the United States, no life is more important than another and to say that US citizens should have access to good healthcare (that's kind of an oxymoron these days in America) and food while people from impoverished nations suffer from such a lack of both is pretty shocking to me. Heaven forbid if one of us went over to a foreign country and were refused healthcare, then I'm sure people would change their tune pretty damn quickly.

[dissention]

Also, you should know that the US DOES help distressed families whose plight is our fault, the most notable example being the Hmongs, from Laos and Cambodia. These peoples, farmers mostly, helped our troops during the Vietnam war and as a result were severely punished by the Khmer Rouge for doing so. The US Government made a deal with the Laotians and Hmong peoples that any persons who can prove they assisted (they served in their military at that time) are welcome to come over and live, and many of the normal aid requirements are waived for them.

The US government also invaded states on the West Coast during WWII, gathered up thousands upon thousands of Japanese, gutted entire neighborhoods of them, seized all of their assets, and put them into "internment camps." In your state of California, they passed a law in the earlier part of the last century that prohibited Asians from owning land (it's been rescinded, obviously).

For every good thing this country does, it turns around and commits a despicable act. I find it rather sickening that this country can preach about human rights and bigotry and what is good for the human race when it has had a hand in some of the most atrocious things I can think of. This country is tops when it does something good, but it's the pits when it doesn't. And the rest of the world can see the hypocrisy for what it is.

[DrummerDeanna]

I have mixed feelings on the sealing the border issue...because mostly people mean - lets not let any more Mexicans or Muslims in....it's okay if we let Canadians, Brits etc in....

I am making a general statement here - knowing that not everyone who wants the border sealed feels that way.

I also know the numerous illegal Mexicans in the US right now are causing a strain on systems in California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona especially.

But - not all of these people are coming here to sponge off the government for nothing - a lot of these people are hard working folks looking for honest work and a way to support their family.

There are large cultural differences - and I've been hearing/reading a lot of things about how in the beginning days of the country etc a lot of immagrants would assimilate into the American Culture but nowadays people aren't doing that so much - they're bringing their culture and customs with them etc...and a lot of Americans resent that and don't like it so much...I know there's a huge debate over language in some areas right now.

anyway - haha..I'll stop rambling now :D

[dissention]

I have mixed feelings on the sealing the border issue...because mostly people mean - lets not let any more Mexicans or Muslims in....it's okay if we let Canadians, Brits etc in....

But - not all of these people are coming here to sponge off the government for nothing - a lot of these people are hard working folks looking for honest work and a way to support their family.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There are large cultural differences - and I've been hearing/reading a lot of things about how in the beginning days of the country etc a lot of immagrants would assimilate into the American Culture but nowadays people aren't doing that so much - they're bringing their culture and customs with them etc...and a lot of Americans resent that and don't like it so much...I know there's a huge debate over language in some areas right now.

anyway - haha..I'll stop rambling now :D

What really chaps my ass are the people who say 'If you're going to come into this coutnry, learn the language or stay home.' Those people need to be throttled. :laugh:

[cliffdweller]

I have mixed feelings on the sealing the border issue...because mostly people mean - lets not let any more Mexicans or Muslims in....it's okay if we let Canadians, Brits etc in....

I am making a general statement here - knowing that not everyone who wants the border sealed feels that way.

I also know the numerous illegal Mexicans in the US right now are causing a strain on systems in California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona especially.

But - not all of these people are coming here to sponge off the government for nothing - a lot of these people are hard working folks looking for honest work and a way to support their family.

There are large cultural differences - and I've been hearing/reading a lot of things about how in the beginning days of the country etc a lot of immagrants would assimilate into the American Culture but nowadays people aren't doing that so much - they're bringing their culture and customs with them etc...and a lot of Americans resent that and don't like it so much...I know there's a huge debate over language in some areas right now.

anyway - haha..I'll stop rambling now :D

No, I think you make some really good points...no rambling! And you're right, when most people talk about "sealing borders" they're talking about our neighbors south of the border. But Europeans? Come on over....

It's blatantly racist imo.

[cliffdweller]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:



What really chaps my ass are the people who say 'If you're going to come into this coutnry, learn the language or stay home.' Those people need to be throttled. :laugh:

Yeah, and then when stupid, obnoxious Americans go abroad they expect everyone to know English and spend NO time learning the language, culture, etc. of the country(ies) they visit. It's disgusting.

[estranged4life]

Yeah, and then when stupid, obnoxious Americans go abroad they expect everyone to know English and spend NO time learning the language, culture, etc. of the country(ies) they visit. It's disgusting.

most people I know can barely even speak AMERICAN English themselves..."Hello Mr.Black Kettle...Paging Mr.Black Kettle"

Last time I looked Redneck, Hick & Backwoods Inbred Yokel are not languages :nod:

[DrummerDeanna]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:



What really chaps my ass are the people who say 'If you're going to come into this coutnry, learn the language or stay home.' Those people need to be throttled. :laugh:

That is a huge fight in the area from which I came in New Mexico - people are constantly complaining about Spanish speakers....and what I find interesting is the overall perception that people with a Mexican accent are less educated than someone with say a British accent...

I would always remind myself that these folks with the Mexican accents know more than I - they know two languages....which is more than I can say for myself :)

Anyway - I also hate the "they should learn English" argument...

[DrummerDeanna]

No, I think you make some really good points...no rambling! And you're right, when most people talk about "sealing borders" they're talking about our neighbors south of the border. But Europeans? Come on over....

It's blatantly racist imo.

:nod: :nod: That's basically what I was trying to say but I was nervous bringing in the "R" word - but when someone says something like, "CLOSE THE BORDERS" I do take it as an insult and am offended. I am not white - and a statement like that is offensive and I deem it racially insensetive. :shrug:

[GateandGarden]

What really chaps my ass are the people who say 'If you're going to come into this coutnry, learn the language or stay home.' Those people need to be throttled. :laugh:But, how can one expect to survive in America without knowing English? I just have to ask. I'm not one of those assholes who gets mad when I hear people speaking Spanish to each other in a supermarket, though. I'm far from that. But, if I were planning to move to France, I would most certainly learn French. :confused:

[GateandGarden]

:nod: :nod: That's basically what I was trying to say but I was nervous bringing in the "R" word - but when someone says something like, "CLOSE THE BORDERS" I do take it as an insult and am offended. I am not white - and a statement like that is offensive and I deem it racially insensetive. :shrug:I agree. It's hard not to look at it as a racist comment.

[DrummerDeanna]

But, how can one expect to survive in America without knowing English? I just have to ask. I'm not one of those assholes who gets mad when I hear people speaking Spanish to each other in a supermarket, though. I'm far from that. But, if I were planning to move to France, I would most certainly learn French. :confused:

I wonder the same thing....my mom's husband doesn't speak a lot of English - and he's done well in this country for more than 40 years :shrug: But in New Mexico it's common - but I know if I were going to a foreign country I would want to know the language lol....so I don't know...I really don't have a good answer for that....but the people I know who've been living here for a long while do know some English - when they have kids it's a whole different bigger issue - we get into bi-lingual education etc...and a lot of times kids become the interpreters for their parents...