This is SO wrong - but SO funny... [Archive]

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 02:56 PM

What happened to your self-professed outstanding ability to appreciate humor on harsh topics?

I just fail to see the humor at the expense of all those who have lost their lives in this travesty. I also find it quite funny that people who are so quick to lay the blame on someone...saying that Bush has "blood on his hands"... are then so quick to show disrespect to those affected by this tragedy.

I have humor, and at times it can be crude...but down right disgusting and disrespectful to thousands of people...no.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 02:59 PM

I just fail to see the humor at the expense of all those who have lost their lives in this travesty. I also find it quite funny that people who are so quick to lay the blame on someone...saying that Bush has "blood on his hands"...and then are also so quick as to show disrespect to those affected by this tragedy.

I have humor, and at times it can be crude...but down right disgusting and disrespectful to thousands of people...no.

Well, you have yet to even acknowledge that even W was forced to admit that FEMA's response was "unacceptable" much less face the facts that W's self professed position of the manly man who will protect America at all costs was proven to be untrue last week. Thus, I think that blind allegance to W is far worse than some idiot's bad taste photoshop ploy. But, you will never admit that and want only to antagonize.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:01 PM

. . . I have humor, and at times it can be crude...but down right disgusting and disrespectful to thousands of people...no.

Give it rest - you worship Coulter and she all but made fun of the fact that Max Cleland got his limbs blown off while serving his country in Nam - she said he was lucky - and you venerate that sow's opinion. Hypocrite.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 03:04 PM

Well, you have yet to even acknowledge that even W was forced to admit that FEMA's response was "unacceptable" much less face the facts that W's self professed position of the manly man who will protect America at all costs was proven to be untrue last week. Thus, I think that blind allegance to W is far worse than some idiot's bad taste photoshop ploy. But, you will never admit that and want only to antagonize.

What planet are you living on.

I thought I had already posted here that I agree with you that FEMA's response was slow and for all intensive purposes "unacceptable", perhaps I didn't post that here...I apologize if I didn't.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 03:07 PM

Give it rest - you worship Coulter and she all but made fun of the fact that Max Cleland got his limbs blown off while serving his country in Nam - she said he was lucky - and you venerate that sow's opinion. Hypocrite.

You mean to tell me you find it so disrespectful that Ann truthfully points out HOW Mr. Cleland lost his limbs, and you find it so disgusting...

But you turn around and laugh at a photo like the one posted above...

Well you know, a little hypocrisy goes both ways.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:09 PM

What planet are you living on.

I thought I had already posted here that I agree with you that FEMA's response was slow and for all intensive purposes "unacceptable", perhaps I didn't post that here...I apologize if I didn't.

I am living on the planet the fool in the WH that you have blind allegiance to has managed to injure in his six years of utter hell.

Moreover, don't try to pull that "for all intensive purposes 'unacceptable'" fence sitting crap with me or anyone else around here. I mean even W said it was "unacceptable" without your Coulteresq. qualifiers.

trackaghost

09-09-2005, 03:11 PM

This was on Sky News last week. The caption writer must have a sense of humour. How true.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v117/trackaghost/SkyNews.jpg

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 03:13 PM

I am living on the planet the fool in the WH that you have blind allegiance to has managed to injure in his six years of utter hell.

Moreover, don't try to pull that "for all intensive purposes 'unacceptable'" fence sitting crap with me or anyone else around here. I mean even W said it was "unacceptable" without your Coulteresq. qualifiers.

Look, all I am saying is that I do agree with you with that FEMA's response was slow and unacceptable.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:16 PM

You mean to tell me you find it so disrespectful that Ann truthfully points out HOW Mr. Cleland lost his limbs, and you find it so disgusting...

But you turn around and laugh at a photo like the one posted above...

Well you know, a little hypocrisy goes both ways.

She said he was lucky to have lost them. Do you not understand that is an insulting thing to say? Moreover, he lost his limbs while on duty in Nam. So, it is accurate to say that even though he was not in battle at that time. Finally, as a blind supporter of W, she refuses to turn that high powered "wit" on W's pathetic record (whats left of it :rolleyes: ) and Cheney's pitiful excuse that he had better things to. Unlike these two pathetic creatures, Cleland was there, he was highly decorated for valor, and he lost his limbs while there. I mean that to me is so obvious. But, you blindly support W in the face of every contrary fact out there. Perhaps Bill Maher should envy your ability not to face facts as well.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:20 PM

Look, all I am saying is that I do agree with you with that FEMA's response was slow and unacceptable.

Well, that is not what you said, but now that you change it not to include the qualifiers - so be it.

BTW - that is not agreeing with me as I think they should figuratively put W's head on a pike. I mean he ran on the promise that he could keep us safe like no other could. Then, it takes him five days to get supplies to an American City when his team (FEMA) was turning away countless offers of supplies all the while. That is an outrage that goes well beyond slow and unacceptable.

Nixxxed

09-09-2005, 03:22 PM

Look, all I am saying is that I do agree with you with that FEMA's response was slow and unacceptable.
In all sincerity: I certainly hope you have your hurricane supplies ready, considering Ophelia is sitting off your coast and is now projected to do a loop and head into South Carolina (with the "dirty" side possibly going into North Carolina).

AliceLover

09-09-2005, 03:23 PM

In all sincerity: I certainly hope you have your hurricane supplies ready, considering Ophelia is sitting off your coast and is now projected to do a loop and head into South Carolina (with the "dirty" side possibly going into North Carolina).

Thats not good news. :distress:

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 03:27 PM

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 03:28 PM

This was on Sky News last week. The caption writer must have a sense of humour. How true.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v117/trackaghost/SkyNews.jpg

I love this. When I first saw it I thought it was Photoshopped. But it is real! I saw so on snopes.com. :lol: :lol:

See my sig in above post. Plus I think Jazmenflowers is using it. :laugh:

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 03:31 PM

I am living on the planet the fool in the WH that you have blind allegiance to has managed to injure in his six years of utter hell.

Moreover, don't try to pull that "for all intensive purposes 'unacceptable'" fence sitting crap with me or anyone else around here. I mean even W said it was "unacceptable" without your Coulteresq. qualifiers.

I want to marry you, seriously! :lol: :xoxo: Also, I think that is "intents and purposes". I'm sure you knew this though and that was a typo. ;)

trackaghost

09-09-2005, 03:36 PM

I love this. When I first saw it I thought it was Photoshopped. But it is real! I saw so on snopes.com. :lol: :lol:

See my sig in above post. Plus I think Jazmenflowers is using it. :laugh:

Like Homer Simpson says: "It's funny cos it's true!"
It's definitely real, I saw them using it myself.

Have you had it as your sig for long? I don't know cos I have the sigs turned off :o

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 03:36 PM

She said he was lucky to have lost them. Do you not understand that is an insulting thing to say? Moreover, he lost his limbs while on duty in Nam. So, it is accurate to say that even though he was not in battle at that time. Finally, as a blind supporter of W, she refuses to turn that high powered "wit" on W's pathetic record (whats left of it :rolleyes: ) and Cheney's pitiful excuse that he had better things to. Unlike these two pathetic creatures, Cleland was there, he was highly decorated for valor, and he lost his limbs while there. I mean that to me is so obvious. But, you blindly support W in the face of every contrary fact out there. Perhaps Bill Maher should envy your ability not to face facts as well.

Oh on the contrary, I am very well aware of facts - the actual facts - not the sensationalized-facts.

About Cleland - she never argued that this man was not a "war hero". Her POINT was all about how he lost his limbs, because Democrats were portraying him as a war hero who lost his limbs while taking enemy fire on a battlefield...which is just untrue. She wasn't saying that he was "lucky" for losing his limbs...she simply stated that he was lucky he happened to do it while in Vietnam. Ann points out that no one ever challenged "Cleland’s 'patriotism'. His performance in the Senate was the issue." She goes on to say that

"Senator Cleland had refused to vote for the Homeland Security Bill unless it was chock-full of pro-union perks that would have jeopardized national security. ("OH MY GOD! A HIJACKED PLANE IS HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE!" "Sorry, I'm on my break. Please call back in two hours.")".

A big fuss was made out of nothing. The point of her column was the way Democrats were portraying Mr. Cleland and his performance in the senate.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 03:38 PM

Well, that is not what you said, but now that you change it not to include the qualifiers - so be it.

BTW - that is not agreeing with me as I think they should figuratively put W's head on a pike. I mean he ran on the promise that he could keep us safe like no other could.

Well you know if people would stop relying on the federal government for every little thing...

Mari

09-09-2005, 03:38 PM

Oh on the contrary, I am very well aware of facts - the actual facts - not the sensationalized-facts.

:lol: You're funny.

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 03:40 PM

Like Homer Simpson says: "It's funny cos it's true!"
It's definitely real, I saw them using it myself.

Have you had it as your sig for long? I don't know cos I have the sigs turned off :o

Hehe, no I haven't had it on there for long, just put it up today. A smaller version though.

DrummerDeanna

09-09-2005, 03:40 PM

DrummerDeanna

09-09-2005, 03:42 PM

Well you know if people would stop relying on the federal government for every little thing...

UMM>..HELLO! who else were some people going to rely on? You realize that some people lost EVERYTHING?

It's not just the poor who are relying on the federal government right now.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:42 PM

Well you know if people would stop relying on the federal government for every little thing...

It amazes me how little you actually know and then you still make idiotic and cruel statements like that. The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) was created for that exact purpose and Bush said Americans would be able to rely on it when he incorporated it in the the Department of Homeland Security.

FYI - here is the history of FEMA http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

If you want to have a political argument - it helps if you know what you are talking about.

DrummerDeanna

09-09-2005, 03:44 PM

It amazes me how little you actually know and then you still make idiotic and cruel statements like that. The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) was created for that exact purpose and Bush said Americans would be able to rely on it when he incorporated it in the the Department of Homeland Security.

FYI - here is the history of FEMA http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

If you want to have a political argument - it helps if you know what you are talking about.

Ok -you said it better than I did.....

I should have put a "no offense" disclaimer or something with the first pic - but one I'm of those people who sometimes use humor as a way to deflect other things lol....anyway - I did say the photo was wrong...I STILL find it funny :shrug:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 03:45 PM

UMM>..HELLO! who else were some people going to rely on? You realize that some people lost EVERYTHING?

It's not just the poor who are relying on the federal government right now.

Yes I realize that. I'm just making an observation. I simply feel that in the future this country is going to have to learn to rely on the government less. I think that has always been the case in American...you see too many people always relying on the government for EVERYTHING. And, before you get all testy, I'm not talking about the poor.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:46 PM

Oh on the contrary, I am very well aware of facts - the actual facts - not the sensationalized-facts. .

Nice try - should we take a vote and see who here thinks you know one fact much less many :laugh:

About Cleland - she never argued that this man was not a "war hero". Her POINT was all about how he lost his limbs, because Democrats were portraying him as a war hero who lost his limbs while taking enemy fire on a battlefield...which is just untrue. She wasn't saying that he was "lucky" for losing his limbs...she simply stated that he was lucky he happened to do it while in Vietnam. Ann points out that no one ever challenged "Cleland’s 'patriotism'. His performance in the Senate was the issue." She goes on to say that

"Senator Cleland had refused to vote for the Homeland Security Bill unless it was chock-full of pro-union perks that would have jeopardized national security. ("OH MY GOD! A HIJACKED PLANE IS HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE!" "Sorry, I'm on my break. Please call back in two hours.")".

A big fuss was made out of nothing. The point of her column was the way Democrats were portraying Mr. Cleland and his performance in the senate.

If you had bothered to read up on the facts, you would know that that statement about unions is untrue. W and his cronies wanted no unions because they wanted to pay less and offer less if not no benefits such as health insurance. Keep your eye on the ball.

Also, isn't it interesting that after all the restructuring and the creation of TSA, every report indicates airport securtity is no safer than before and in some instances it is worse.

I mean can you honestly name ONE thing W did well. I cannot.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 03:47 PM

It amazes me how little you actually know and then you still make idiotic and cruel statements like that. The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) was created for that exact purpose and Bush said Americans would be able to rely on it when he incorporated it in the the Department of Homeland Security.

FYI - here is the history of FEMA http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

If you want to have a political argument - it helps if you know what you are talking about.

Actually I already am well aware of the history of FEMA, and despite what you might think I am not an idiot. I was simply giving my opinion that we the people of the USA, should not always rely on the government for everything.

trackaghost

09-09-2005, 03:47 PM

Sorry - but If Bush could have done what is pictured - I'm farily certain he would have.

HE is so uncaring about the thousands who have lost everything.

The tragedy of Katrina is NOT lost on me - but when there is no hope there is nothing...and to add a wrinkle...if you don't have humor you have nothing.

Let's consider the facts, yes the actual facts:

Bush was on holiday when the hurricane hit, but didn't return for two whole days after it hit.

THEN he didn't fully engage with the crisis for a further 36 hours after that.

That doesn't sound too caring to me.

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 03:48 PM

Yes I realize that. I'm just making an observation. I simply feel that in the future this country is going to have to learn to rely on the government less. I think that has always been the case in American...you see too many people always relying on the government for EVERYTHING. And, before you get all testy, I'm not talking about the poor.

Who? I don't know anyone who relies on the government. Everyone I know is hard working and independent, and most of them are liberal! Yes, liberals work hard!!!

Nixxxed

09-09-2005, 03:51 PM

I mean can you honestly name ONE thing W did well. I cannot.

He does the bait-and-switch tax cut thing very well.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:53 PM

Actually I already am well aware of the history of FEMA, and despite what you might think I am not an idiot. I was simply giving my opinion that we the people of the USA, should not always rely on the government for everything.

You make statements that are idiotic because they are uninformed. Then, when someone corrects you by noting the facts, you get all in a huff and make these general statements like people should stop relying on the Feds for every little thing. I think everyone agrees with that very broad statement. However, we were talking about the specific, not general, topic of FEMA and its unacceptably delayed response, which people had a right to rely on an earlier response. Do you see that difference?

BTW - It is okay to be wrong. I certainly have been and will be again.

macfanken

09-09-2005, 03:53 PM

("OH MY GOD! A HIJACKED PLANE IS HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE!" "Sorry, I'm on my break. Please call back in two hours.")".

Hmmm... Ann's quote reminds me of a pesky memo Dubya couldn't be bothered with during the summer of 2001 while he was on one of his five week vacations. I think the title was Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S., but I'm going totally off topic here.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:55 PM

He does the bait-and-switch tax cut thing very well.

He even screws that up. I was not for the actual percentages, but the tax cut worked in that most experts agree it provided a spark in spending to ignite the economy - however those same experts also agree that whatever spark was created, it was extinguished by the unprecedented amount of debt spending by W. Interestingly, both the tax cuts and the debt spending benefitting the richest of the rich most of all.

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 03:56 PM

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:56 PM

Hmmm... Ann's quote reminds me of a pesky memo Dubya couldn't be bothered with during the summer of 2001 while he was on one of his five week vacations. I think the title was Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S., but I'm going totally off topic here.

LOL - W does need his union break because he rarely is at work :laugh:

But, and in all fairness, I still maintain that that memo. was not specific enough to have prevented 9/11. But, maybe if they had been concentrating more on OBL instead of Iraq, they could have prevented 9/11. The odds IMO are 60/40 they could have if they had concentrated more on OBL.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 03:56 PM

Also, isn't it interesting that after all the restructuring and the creation of TSA, every report indicates airport securtity is no safer than before and in some instances it is worse.

I agree with you about airport security, it is no safer now then it was before. And I think it has something to do with the fact that they seem to be more obsessed with checking little old ladies or white paraplegics, than men named "Mohamad" with large back packs. I don't think George Bush has handled the airport security issue well at all.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 03:59 PM

I agree with you about airport security, it is no safer now then it was before. And I think it has something to do with the fact that they seem to be more obsessed with checking little old ladies or white paraplegics, than men named "Mohamad" with large back packs. I don't think George Bush has handled the airport security issue well at all.

THUD!!!!!!

You are crossing over from the dark side - I can see you a comin :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

BTW - they are not concentrating more on little old ladies - that is a myth. Everyone is subject to search if they set off the magnetometer, which women tend to do more often because they wear more jewelry and forget to take it off. Trust me on this one, I fly weekly.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 03:59 PM

You make statements that are idiotic because they are uninformed. Then, when someone corrects you by noting the facts, you get all in a huff and make these general statements like people should stop relying on the Feds for every little thing. I think everyone agrees with that very broad statement. However, we were talking about the specific, not general, topic of FEMA and its unacceptably delayed response, which people had a right to rely on an earlier response. Do you see that difference?

BTW - It is okay to be wrong. I certainly have been and will be again.

Yes, I understand what you are saying...I should have been more clear in my original post that it was simply a general opinion and I wasn't specfically talking about FEMA. Sorry.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 04:01 PM

THUD!!!!!!

You are crossing over from the dark side - I can see you a comin :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

George Bush is not the PERFECT man, he has made decisions that a lot of conservatives don't agree with. Even Ms. Coulter has called him on several of his decisions.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 04:02 PM

. . . Even Ms. Coulter has called him on several of his decisions.

:laugh: not too ludly I can assure you :laugh: :rolleyes:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 04:07 PM

:laugh: not too ludly I can assure you :laugh: :rolleyes:

Actually she has written several columns and been on many shows talking about some of, what she feels, are bad decisions on Bush's part. Such as his nomination of John Roberts, and like I stated above his handling of airport security.

strandinthewind

09-09-2005, 04:14 PM

Actually she has written several columns and been on many shows talking about some of, what she feels, are bad decisions on Bush's part. Such as his nomination of John Roberts, and like I stated above his handling of airport security.

Well, I think she feels Roberts is a poor choice because he believes on some level with the right to privacy, which she wants to erradicate from the law, which is a little scarier than agreeing with W on the Roberts nomination :eek:

Also, she want racial profiling in airport security, which many, though not I, feel is a violation of Const. rights if done correctly which I have little faith the TSA could do. If I had my way, the devices that can scan beneath the clothing would be in every airport. If people do not like being scanned that way because out of some twisted senst of modesty and vanity they think the poor schlub who sees thousands of these a day is somehow going to remember their shadowy naked body - then don't fly. Flying is not a Const. right. Also, I promise you that if right before they crashed you asked the people on those four planes if they would have minded such a scan, I think the answer would have been a unanimous "no, we prefer the scan over death." Now who is showing their truly conservative (as opposed to W's brand) roots :laugh:

dissention

09-09-2005, 04:30 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/DeannaRG/image001.jpg

Saw it on CrooksandLiars.com and laughed my ass off.

dissention

09-09-2005, 04:33 PM

Also, I think that is "intents and purposes".

I was just scratching my head over "intensive purposes," too. :lol:

dissention

09-09-2005, 04:36 PM

Sorry - but If Bush could have done what is pictured - I'm farily certain he would have.

Pfft. Nero played the fiddle when Rome was burning. George W. Bush played the guitar when New Orleans was drowning.

DrummerDeanna

09-09-2005, 04:37 PM

Pfft. Nero played the fiddle when Rome was burning. George W. Bush played the guitar when New Orleans was drowning.

:nod: there ya go.

dissention

09-09-2005, 04:38 PM

than men named "Mohamad" with large back packs.

Wow. That is such a vile statement.

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 04:44 PM

I was just scratching my head over "intensive purposes," too. :lol:

:lol: BTW, Jon Stewart's sidekick was on Morning Sedition this morning and he made a crack about Anderson Cooper and his sexy way of delivering the news and wishing he could be like that. :laugh:

wondergirl9847

09-09-2005, 04:45 PM

He didn't even spell Mohammed right. :rolleyes:

I keed.

Anyways, I agree. That was ridiculous. I remember coming home from London, and they were checking some people's bags who were obviously not...and I HATE this word in this context...white. They let me go right through with no search. Now, I am a midget and look non-threatening, but who knows WHAT I could have done if I hadn't gotten bumped from coach! :mad:

:laugh:

dissention

09-09-2005, 04:55 PM

:lol: BTW, Jon Stewart's sidekick was on Morning Sedition this morning and he made a crack about Anderson Cooper and his sexy way of delivering the news and wishing he could be like that. :laugh:

:laugh::laugh::laugh: (It's all in the gray hair.)

Did you hear about Stephen Colbert getting his own show on Comedy Central? It's supposed to be a news oriented show like The Daily Show and starts in, I believe, October. It should be good, I think he's so bloody funny.

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 05:10 PM

:laugh::laugh::laugh: (It's all in the gray hair.)

Did you hear about Stephen Colbert getting his own show on Comedy Central? It's supposed to be a news oriented show like The Daily Show and starts in, I believe, October. It should be good, I think he's so bloody funny.

Ah, this was probably why he was on there! I didn't hear if he was promoting it. He was so funny this morning! I look forward to the show.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 05:57 PM

I was just scratching my head over "intensive purposes," too. :lol:

I knew I was going to get that. Believe it or not I'm not a total nut...I do know that it is "intents and purposes", I am very well aware of that phrase. I actually used intensive....ohh never mind.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 05:59 PM

He didn't even spell Mohammed right. :rolleyes:

I didn't realize there was a correct way of spelling "Mohammed", although if you would like to get picky about it I can find you examples of people who have the name spelled like that.

There does happen to be different ways of spelling names...

ex. Alanna, Alaina, Elaina, etc...

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 06:01 PM

Wow. That is such a vile statement.

It can be called vile, but I think we need to be realistic here. I am thinking that racial profiling is kind of OK with the airport situation.

Mari

09-09-2005, 06:06 PM

really? you think it's necessary to pick out my friend's 65+ father in law named Mohammed and do extra search on him?

He lives in the States for more than 15 years, by the way.

(edit because I got the tense wrong)

(a ps on edit, I wonder why I even give a serious reply to this person)

lagringader&r

09-09-2005, 06:16 PM

Actually she has written several columns and been on many shows talking about some of, what she feels, are bad decisions on Bush's part. Such as his nomination of John Roberts, and like I stated above his handling of airport security.

I picked a random post of yours but can I just say that it's one thing to laugh at or scorn one president (Bush) and another to laugh at or scorn an entire group of people (liberals)? I'm liberal, yes, but do you think you could judge peeps individually and not by their political party? Look at your sig. You seem like a nice person and all but don't you think that's limiting?

DrummerDeanna

09-09-2005, 06:46 PM

I picked a random post of yours but can I just say that it's one thing to laugh at or scorn one president (Bush) and another to laugh at or scorn an entire group of people (liberals)? I'm liberal, yes, but do you think you could judge peeps individually and not by their political party? Look at your sig. You seem like a nice person and all but don't you think that's limiting?

His sig is the title of one of Ann the Man's books...she's a real winner :rolleyes:

dissention

09-09-2005, 07:07 PM

It can be called vile, but I think we need to be realistic here. I am thinking that racial profiling is kind of OK with the airport situation.

Believe what you want about racial profiling, I disagree with most of the uses of it, anyway. What I found so vile about your statement was the way in which you degraded those of Middle Eastern descent by labeling them "Mohamad's" and implying that they had bombs in their luggage. It wasn't a nice thing to say and I can assure you that were the shoe on the other foot, you wouldn't enjoy being searched and humiliated for no other than reason than because of your race. Nor would you take kind to people like yourself who seem to have such disrespect for others in terms of race that they don't care what they say to offend.

amber

09-09-2005, 07:18 PM

His sig is the title of one of Ann the Man's books...she's a real winner :rolleyes:
People! Please! Can't we just shorten it to Man Coulter????

:laugh:

dissention

09-09-2005, 07:20 PM

People! Please! Can't we just shorten it to Man Coulter????

:laugh:

Nope. I get much joy from calling her Ann The Man. Or Coultergeist. :thumbsup:

amber

09-09-2005, 07:26 PM

Nope. I get much joy from calling her Ann The Man. Or Coultergeist. :thumbsup:
I think Ann the Man is needlessly lengthy, especially as Ann rhymes with Man so well. Mine's a bit sharper and more pithy, IMO. :laugh: :p Coultergeist is golden. Carry on.

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 07:42 PM

Nope. I get much joy from calling her Ann The Man. Or Coultergeist. :thumbsup:

One of Steph's listeners came up with a new one: Manny Annie. :lol:

dissention

09-09-2005, 07:43 PM

One of Steph's listeners came up with a new one: Manny Annie. :lol:

:laugh:

I've heard Tranny Annie, too.

amber

09-09-2005, 07:47 PM

Oh well let's put you in charge then, that's the right spirit! Have you any social skills or knowledge? Get back in your hole.
uh, judging from the current regime, those skills aren't actually necessary...
*I LOVE calling it a regime!*

SuzeQuze

09-09-2005, 07:51 PM

:laugh:

I've heard Tranny Annie, too.

Good one. Man she sucks. Steph is always getting hate mail from transexuals or transvestites saying not to make fun of them that way. Even though she isn't poking fun at them at all, just the evil-doer Ms. Coultergeist.

wondergirl9847

09-09-2005, 08:27 PM

I didn't realize there was a correct way of spelling "Mohammed", although if you would like to get picky about it I can find you examples of people who have the name spelled like that.

There does happen to be different ways of spelling names...

ex. Alanna, Alaina, Elaina, etc...

Obviously, you missed where I wrote "I keed" after that. Jokey joke. It was in response to what Diss said to you.

Oh and two friends of mine got treated like garbage at the DFW airport because of their race. They were detained in a tiny room for hours with no food, water and couldn't even use the restroom while they were being questioned why they were here. :mad:

eclipse

09-09-2005, 08:56 PM

Made me laugh !!! :D

tynan88

09-09-2005, 09:38 PM

Wow. That is such a vile statement.

I'm sorry but I have to defend Brown Eyes here. I think that although his statement was made poorly I think the meaning is pretty clear and that to me is that the Bush administration have totally screwed up on airport security by focussing on the wrong issues and threats.

For once I think if you look beyond the pre-conceptions that are often placed on him, he is trying to say something worthwhile and in that basic concept pretty close to the truth.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 11:06 PM

I picked a random post of yours but can I just say that it's one thing to laugh at or scorn one president (Bush) and another to laugh at or scorn an entire group of people (liberals)? I'm liberal, yes, but do you think you could judge peeps individually and not by their political party? Look at your sig. You seem like a nice person and all but don't you think that's limiting?

I didn't say I HATED Liberals or that I couldn't be friends with them. I actually have a lot of liberal friends! When it comes to politics though, I am very right wing and most issues.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 11:17 PM

I'm sorry but I have to defend Brown Eyes here. I think that although his statement was made poorly I think the meaning is pretty clear and that to me is that the Bush administration have totally screwed up on airport security by focussing on the wrong issues and threats.

For once I think if you look beyond the pre-conceptions that are often placed on him, he is trying to say something worthwhile and in that basic concept pretty close to the truth.

Thanks tynan88 (sorry don't really know your name :wavey: )

I just really don't see how searching "little old ladies" or "blonde bimbos" is an effective way to go about this. I mean obviously most everyone should be checked, but I think it's quite obvious that most terrorists fit a specific look.

wondergirl9847

09-09-2005, 11:26 PM

...but I think it's quite obvious that most terrorists fit a specific look.

Yep, Timothy McVeigh sure did look like a terrorist, didn't he? Would he have been stopped at the airport.....probably not.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-09-2005, 11:28 PM

Yep, Timothy McVeigh sure did look like a terrorist, didn't he? Would he have been stopped at the airport.....probably not.

Well he isn't exactly a Muslim extremist that enjoys flying airplanes into buildings. True he was a terrorist, but not the kind that seems to be "in demand" at the moment.

wondergirl9847

09-09-2005, 11:38 PM

They change their strategy at every turn. 9-11 was about flying planes into buildings, recently it's been bombs on subways, what the frick is up next? :(

My point? Just because Muslim extremists are what they are looking for these days, doesn't mean they are the ONLY groups to look out for. We have many enemies....even our own people.

GateandGarden

09-10-2005, 12:53 AM

strandinthewind

09-10-2005, 02:28 AM

Well he isn't exactly a Muslim extremist that enjoys flying airplanes into buildings. True he was a terrorist, but not the kind that seems to be "in demand" at the moment.

a distinction without a difference :shrug:

and that you made it belies your credibility :shrug:

remember that conversation earlier :wavey:

lagringader&r

09-10-2005, 04:58 PM

I think it's quite obvious that most terrorists fit a specific look.

I have a friend who is a Muslim and since 9/11, flying for him has been HORRIBLE. Checked, rechecked, searched again and again while everybody else (who is white) breezes by him. Not fair coz he couldn't swat a fly. I know what you're saying but please don't stereotype.

strandinthewind

09-10-2005, 05:05 PM

Thanks tynan88 (sorry don't really know your name :wavey: )

I just really don't see how searching "little old ladies" or "blonde bimbos" is an effective way to go about this. I mean obviously most everyone should be checked, but I think it's quite obvious that most terrorists fit a specific look.

Everyone is checked - everyone has to walk through that magnetometer and their stuff x-rayed. Thus, once again, you are unsupported by the facts and are sputing off right wing BS talking points despite being told once before that the facts do not support that. The only way you could be correct is if not everyone had to walk through that magnetometer and their stuff x-rayed and if the TSA employees that operated that part of security purposefully accosted little old ladies and blonde bimbos, which I never see happen and I fly weekly. Again, you have to set off the magnetometer or have something illegal in your carry on to be searched more than everyone else.

Also, don't you think the minute they start targeting Middle Eastern looking people for security other than what everyone does, that is when the terrorists will get people not fitting that description.

Finally, Timothy McVeigh certainly was not wearing a turban, nor was Rudolph and they were terrorists. So, that hardly supports your argument :shrug:

The Chain

09-10-2005, 06:14 PM

I have a friend who is a Muslim and since 9/11, flying for him has been HORRIBLE. Checked, rechecked, searched again and again while everybody else (who is white) breezes by him.

Now THAT is disgusting :mad: :distress: :shrug:

Brwn_eyes0511

09-10-2005, 08:19 PM

Everyone is checked - everyone has to walk through that magnetometer and their stuff x-rayed. Thus, once again, you are unsupported by the facts and are sputing off right wing BS talking points despite being told once before that the facts do not support that. The only way you could be correct is if not everyone had to walk through that magnetometer and their stuff x-rayed and if the TSA employees that operated that part of security purposefully accosted little old ladies and blonde bimbos, which I never see happen and I fly weekly. Again, you have to set off the magnetometer or have something illegal in your carry on to be searched more than everyone else.

Also, don't you think the minute they start targeting Middle Eastern looking people for security other than what everyone does, that is when the terrorists will get people not fitting that description.

Finally, Timothy McVeigh certainly was not wearing a turban, nor was Rudolph and they were terrorists. So, that hardly supports your argument :shrug:

I'm not talking about the magnetometer, I know everyone walks through that. I'm talking about the "random" searches they perform right before you get on the airplane. Where they pick someone "random" out of the crowd for extra searching.

strandinthewind

09-10-2005, 08:23 PM

I'm not talking about the magnetometer, I know everyone walks through that. I'm talking about the "random" searches they perform right before you get on the airplane. Where they pick someone "random" out of the crowd for extra searching.

They have not performed those in several years. Moreover, every one I saw back then (and we are talking over 100) was random and I saw all types of people searched, thus the def. of the word randon :shrug:

Again, please get your information correct before posting and stop listening to Ann Coulter as she rarely will give it to you straight.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-10-2005, 08:28 PM

They have not performed those in several years. Moreover, every one I saw back then (and we are talking over 100) was random and I saw all types of people searched, thus the def. of the word randon :shrug:

Again, please get your information correct before posting and stop listening to Ann Coulter as she rarely will give it to you straight.

hmmm...I do not fly often, so I could be very well wrong. But the last time I flew (about 4 months ago), I seem to recall the "random" searches, but then again I could be wrong. If they have indeed totally stop them, then they should bring them back!

And no I will not stop reading, listening to Ann.

strandinthewind

09-10-2005, 08:31 PM

. . . And no I will not stop reading, listening to Ann.

Then do yourself a favor and check up on her facts lest you continue to quote her here and look like a repeatedly incorrect and out of touch fool.

Brwn_eyes0511

09-10-2005, 08:40 PM

Then do yourself a favor and check up on her facts lest you continue to quote her here and look like a repeatedly incorrect and out of touch fool.

Actually I do check out her sources...in her books at least, I have done that. I am actually in the process of writing a paper defending her and her sources. I am checking all of her sources, because I have access to LexisNexis being a Paralegal student. I have already read several responses tearing Al Franken's book to shreds, where he claim Ann lies in her footnotes and sources :rolleyes:

strandinthewind

09-10-2005, 08:55 PM

Actually I do check out her sources...in her books at leat, I have done that. I am actually in the process of writing a paper defending her and her sources. I am checking all of her sources, because I have access to LexisNexis being a Paralegal student. I have already read several responses tearing Al Franken's book to shreds, where he claim Ann lies in her footnotes and sources :rolleyes:

That you defend Coulter at all lessens your credibility.

Also, you have to look at how Coulter says it as well. The Cleland thing is a good example. Though some may have had it confused in the beginning, no one now is disputing Cleland lost his limbs off of the battle field. But, Coulter's conclusion that the loss of his limb off of the battle field somehow belittles Cleland's hero status is incorrect. Moreover, she reaches the conclusion but refuses to tell the whole story and instead spins it to sound like Cleland was some oaf who picked up a gernade and now he wants everyone to call him a hero. Contrary to Coulter's BS - the facts are:

1. Cleland went to Nam, which automatically elevates him above those who did not go.

2. He was awarded the Bronze Star and Silver Star, which further elevates his hero status.

3. He lost his limbs while serving in Nam, which interestingly those attacking him did not.

Can't you see the viciousness of Coulter's attack is a clever attempt to take the heat off of W and Cheney for their shall we say lacking service records :shrug: Same with Kerry. Sadly, the D's do not know how to get in someone's face and say something like:

Look you stupid bi*ch - I was there, while your guy got his dad to get him out of it was not. So, shut the f**k up before I backslap your bony smug a$$ into tommorow for speading lies about me.

Actually - :laugh:

In the end, don't you think it is hypocritical for Coulter to say things like questioning the Pres. in a time of war is treasonous and disrespectful to the troops - yet he calls a man who lost three limbs in Vietnam lucky for losing there instead of Fort Dix or whereever she said. Why is she allowed to assault decorated war heros but when someone dares to question a deserter who is now President, they are treasonous? Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

Finally, you worship a woman who says that the war in Iraq is a bed of roses - surely you are not that idiotic as to believe that no matter how valient Maher thinks Coulter is for sticking to her guns a la Bagdad Bob.

irishgrl

09-10-2005, 08:57 PM

Also, I think that is "intents and purposes". I'm sure you knew this though and that was a typo. ;)
ya beat me to it girl! but I can see why he typed it that way...that is how it sounds :)

btw: I cant imagine Bill Maher identifies with Ann Coulter on a philosophical level but rather was trying to find something positive to say. That was obviously the BEST he could come up with (Im surprised he came up with that!)
I mean, if he really admired her for sticking to her guns in the face of facts to the contrary, then he must REALLY admire the Monkey Boy....talk about Mulish!
Ann Coulter's attacks on Clelland sound like ad hominem reasoning....as well as other critical fallacies. She obviously engages in all the WRONG types of critical thinking: straw man, red herring, ad hominem etc....