posted on June 7, 2006 01:31:21 PM new
I thoughtI was the only one who was absolutely sick and tired of hearing about the 9/11 widows. Every other day is something new from these government millionaires. They don't like the new site layout, they don't like this, they don't like that. My thought were always "who the hell cares?" Well I see that Ann Coulter is jumping into the pc fire:
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much."
posted on June 7, 2006 01:50:21 PM new
I think it is a media thing.
Your point about enjoying their husbands death. But after nearly 5 years, they all should have had enough time to move on with their lives and yes, enjoy their current situation.
I am assuming you are talking about ground zero and what is happening to that space. I agree. Who Cares? Just build something and move on with life.
Ever wonder what 45 year old terrists are doing? No one will ever know. They all commit a suicide bombing before they get that old.
posted on June 7, 2006 02:10:07 PM new
Not being local, you have no idea how silly it all becomes. Let's see, the widows don't like the location of the memorial. Oh, my goodness! One site plan had them using some of the ground the towers stood on!
I wonder if it is a personal or hereditary thing? I mean 40yrs from now when they renovate the bathrooms in the new tower, do the children get a veto on the tile color.
posted on June 7, 2006 02:20:25 PM new
Actually Stone - he is talking about Ann Coulters latest tirade in her new book to get the attention of the media by acting like a shrill b*tch insulting the widows of 9/11 who pushed for the 9/11 investigation and are continuing to push for security measures at our ports etc that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission to actually be enacted.
You see, they had the nerve to say that the president and this government are dragging their feet and in Ann Coulters world, this is the equivalent of reveling in the death of their husbands who probably were going to divorce them anyway and they should just take the money and shut the hell up.
Of course had a republican senator said the same things she would be singing his praises and using it as an opening to attacks dems.
Ann Coulter is a media whore. She'll say anything and do anything and sacrifice anyone that will get her attention so that she can sell more books and get more paid speaking engagements.
These are the issues these women are continuing to speak out on. The issues that Ann Coulter for some reason feels that they have no right to speak out on and therefor should be insulted for doing so....
1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.
4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.
5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.
6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.
7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.
8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the Presidents NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.
Now - call me kooky - but aren't these common sense things? Shouldn't anyone be allowed to speak out on them? Why is it that Ann Coulter thinks that she has more right to speak her mind than anyone else in this country?
I think it's ironic that she's bitching that people are are granted a platform because their husbands were killed by terrorists when the only reason she was ever given one is that she is an attractive blond.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 7, 2006 02:22 PM ]
posted on June 7, 2006 02:44:45 PM new
Neither Ann or I mentioned anything about these people's personal theories about Homeland Security. I couldn't care less if they consulted with the Dixie Chicks about world peace or cured cancer.
The point is that this pc created group has to be APPEASED about ANYTHING, or is endowed with special insight about ANYTHING, except gravytrain riding.
My Friday night card group has come up with a solution for the Mideast. I'll post as soon as we run it by the NSA.
posted on June 7, 2006 03:11:51 PM new
And my point is - why do you think they have less right to speak out than any other talking head? Why should they remain silent? because they were given money? I don't recall it ever hearing that the funds given to the survivor came with a caveat that they must remain silent.
People are frequently driven to fight for causes they were previously uninvolved in when faced with great tragedy. Do you think that John Walsh should have also just shut up and gone on with his life? What about Mothers Against Drunk Drivers?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on June 7, 2006 03:28:51 PM new
I'll repeat once more, I could not possibly care less about them "speaking out".
I am talking about their demands and veto power about ANYTHING.
If it's your building, you listen politely as to why the lobby should have blue tile and then put whatever damn tile you please there.
The last clerk at McDonald's shot in the head did not have relatives get a few million from the gov, force MCDonalds to tear down the restaurant and put in a park and decide the "appropriate" bushes for the park. They're just relatives of a dead person. PERIOD.
posted on June 7, 2006 03:37:24 PM new
Des - the women that Coulter is going off on have nothing to do with the Ground Zero mess.
I actually agree that that group is getting out of hand. They absolutely have the right to express their opinions on it but yes, I agree that they should not have the final say.
The women that Coulter is freaking out on, calling names and acting like such a shrew about is a group of four women from New Jersey that have become outspoken activists on security issues such as those suggested in the 9/11 report.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on June 7, 2006 05:45:54 PM new
Last time I saw Ann Coulter she looked terrible and all I could think of was that the constant hate she spiels was taking its toll on her looks more than ever. Anyone that has that much bitterness reeking from within daily, eventually has it showing on their face. It's impossible to hide.
posted on June 7, 2006 06:07:32 PM new
A good wind could blow her away she is so anorexic looking. Poor thing probably does not get any nourishment for her feeble mind. Maybe she is jealous, but am betting she is doing it for sells of her book that was said to be Amazon #1 seller today.
**************
I married my wife for her looks...but not the
ones she's been giving me lately!
posted on June 7, 2006 08:32:14 PM new
She's a man. Betcha.
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
posted on June 7, 2006 10:24:43 PM new
The women she called "names" (the "witches of East Brunscwick" is a separate issue and she's correct there also.
It is not that they have opinions, it is that they are given a soapbox for no personal merit and use it to enhance their credibility.
I don't care if the Dixie Chicks have an opinion. I do find it annoying to listen to some dope like Natalie Maines give me her personal take on the Iraq situation. Eye make-up maybe.
Ann is quite attractive. The Lefties are just used to those wart hog with sombrero types.
[ edited by desquirrel on Jun 7, 2006 10:47 PM ]
posted on June 7, 2006 10:55:04 PM newdon't care if the Dixie Chicks have an opinion. I do find it annoying to listen to some dope like Natalie Maines give me her personal take on the Iraq situation. Eye make-up maybe.
desquirrel, I didn't realize that eye make-up would interest you more than the Iraqi situation....... learn something new here every day. All this time I thought you were a guy.... though I guess there are some that do wear eye make-up also.
posted on June 9, 2006 09:33:21 AM new
ROFLOL....how funny.
Yep...Ann's new book, GODLESS, is getting a TON of free advertizing...because she's upset the liberals so much by speaking out the truth.
And here, if I remember correctly - [and I DO]
the liberals had said before that when 'we' on the right go nuts about some book/movie/etc the liberals write/make/etc....that does nothing but GOOD things for what we are so objecting too.
But here they're now doing the exact same thing themselves.
---
Another point I would like to make is that MANY are 'MISQUOTING' what Ann actually SAID in her book. Typical....
I've seen her on TV again and again on talk shows where she continues to correct mis-statements the liberals are making about her book.
So...please only believe ACTUAL quotes from Ann...or what she, herself says, or buy her book, because, as is usual, the liberals are TWISTING her words.
--
Her point, in Chapter 5 of Godless is that the liberals/dems USE these 4-5 women from NJ as 'human shields' - much as saddam did with women and children.
And she's correct, they do. As pointed out many times before, they USE the deaths and injuries of our soldiers; they used the grief of cindy sheehan in much the same way; they'll find a couple of soldiers that have been injured and who also agree with THEM [anti-Bushites] and use THEIR injuries to further their agenda.
And what ANN has made a point of proving....THEN, because these people have 'suffered some kind of serious loss' NO ONE is supposed to dispute what they say....or they'll blame them for attacking the poor "xxx".
Imo, when these widows/these NJ 4 or cindy sheehan put THEMSELVES out in public and in a political way....then we all have the RIGHT to question/disagree with their political positions; have the right to CHALLENGE what they say and the liberals can't say 'hands off - they've suffered - and you're picking on these poor people' as an excuse to silence their opposition.
So...to me it sounds, again, like the left wants to silence Ann Coulter's OPIONION/positions and censor her statements....why?....because these are 'special human shields for the dem party'...that's why.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 9, 2006 09:42 AM ]
posted on June 9, 2006 12:57:46 PM new
LInda - i completely disagree with you. Ann Coulter has descided that these women are being used and you have decided to disagree with her. By making the statements that she has made and you have agreed with you are basically saying that these women have no ability nor right to stand on their own, form their own opinions and speak their mind.
I'll ask the question again.,this time of you since Des has decided to ignore it. Since you feel that these women have no right to speak out and use the attention focused on them as a result of 9/11 to to get their message out, do you believe that others such as John Walsh and the woman that fomed MADD also had no right to do that.
Why is it that you feel that they have less right to speak out on issues of national security than any other person?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
People put their hand on the bible, and swear to uphold the constitution. They do not put their hand on the constitution, and swear to uphold the bible.
posted on June 9, 2006 05:28:13 PM new
I answered your question directly.
And I have not seen anything saying these women "were used". She said "they use" their status to promote whatever as if such status gives them any more insight than the grocery clerk next door.
posted on June 9, 2006 05:59:25 PM new
The other night when that he/she or she/he wombnone came on the Lou Dobbs show it was the first time I ever turned the show off.
If I wanted it look at a horse faced wombnone with skinny legs and mens feet. I could find a freak show at the local carnival.
Did you know there was no baby girl by the name Ann Coulter born in Connecticut in the year she has said she was born there.
No wounder LIAR_K likes Coulter they are both LIARS
posted on June 9, 2006 07:23:07 PM new If I wanted it look at a horse faced wombnone with skinny legs and mens feet. I could find a freak show at the local carnival or just look at the woman sleeping next to me.
posted on June 10, 2006 07:03:35 AM newAnother point I would like to make is that MANY are 'MISQUOTING' what Ann actually SAID in her book. Typical..
Here are some more "misquotes"
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." - Her column December 21, 2005
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars that's the Biblical view."[39].
"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly". MSNBC March 22, 1997
"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 except Goldwater in '64 the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."[1]
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." (from Slander, pp. 56; published June 2002)
"The Times was rushing to assure its readers that 'prominent Islamic scholars and theologians in the West say unequivocally that nothing in Islam countenances the Sept. 11 actions.' (That's if you set aside Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill nonbelievers whenever possible.)" How to Talk to a Liberal, 2004.
"In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today's Democrats. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc." Jan 12, 2006 [40]
"One [cartoon] showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop we ran out of virgins!" which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence ... Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back." February 8, 2006 [41]
"Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran." February 15, 2006 [29]
"I'd build a wall. In fact, I'd hire illegal immigrants to build the wall. And throw out the illegals who are here. [...] It's cheap labor." April 14, 2006
____________________________________________
Now We Know... Uninformed People Elect Uninformed Presidents
posted on June 10, 2006 10:33:05 PM new
Tell ya something--Ann Coulter is riding for a Big Fall. She's mean AND strange looking, hard to watch--and I agree with Kiara that she's developing a face to go with her meanness. It's hard to watch her--or listen to her voice.
I happened to catch someone (forget who) on Fox of all places interviewing Ann C. this evening. The interviewer had the NERVE to start out by saying that his wife agrees with what Ann says but wonders why she has to be so mean. I could see that Ann did NOT expect that from a Fox man. She came unglued, misunderstood what the wife meant, and spewed and spewed. It was the first time I've heard a Fox "star" do or say something like that to Ms. Coulter.
Like wolves in the forest--circling the prey--one of them draws first blood. I've personally witnessed it in politics even at the city level. Ann wants to call herself a comedian--but she's really not funny, as shown by the quotes from her book in an earlier post here.
posted on June 10, 2006 11:21:43 PM new
roadsmith CLAIMS:
"I could see that Ann did NOT expect that from a Fox man. She came unglued, misunderstood what the wife meant, and spewed and spewed. It was the first time I've heard a Fox "star" do or say something like that to Ms. Coulter."
AND here's what ACTUALLY happened....without roadsmith's own personal leftie BIAS in the mix.
She didn't 'come unglued'....LOL. She simply ASKED him IF he OR his wife had EVEN READ HER BOOK. LOL
He said NO, neither had.
Then she said she felt the reason his wife MIGHT feel she's MEAN....is because SHE, like a lot of others, were taking what they'd **heard "OTHERS say she said"**....NOT what she ACTUALLY HAD SAID".
This continuing LIBERAL twisting/lying is getting REAL old. People need to see their statements for what they are: LIES.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 10, 2006 11:26 PM ]
posted on June 10, 2006 11:36:29 PM new
fenix, I have no clue as to how you drew the conclusion you did.
But just to be VERY clear....I agree with Ann and with what SHE said about the dem party constantly using these 'people who have suffered a loss' to state the party's political agenda....believing they can then 'get away with' those same people not being challenged BECAUSE they suffered the losses they have.
Because as they've been doing...when the right DOES challenge their views....call them liars, etc.....then the left comes back and says 'you're being so very MEAN to them'. Like they're somehow 'protected' from having their views challenged.
They're no different than anyone else who the right doesn't agree with....their loss DOESN'T give them 'protection'....like human shields.
She's telling the dem party they need to QUIT doing that....or don't whine...because they're fair game...just like someone else who HASN'T suffered their loss.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on June 11, 2006 04:03:59 AM new
"She's mean AND strange looking, hard to watch--and I agree with Kiara that she's developing a face to go with her meanness."
Ya know for a minute, I thought she was talking about crowfart......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
posted on June 11, 2006 10:15:00 AM new
LIndaK--What the interviewer was saying was that his wife generally found Ann mean. Frequently it's not the WORDS Ann uses but the snide tone of voice. I watched that interviewer--I know the words Ann spoke, but I actually HEARD the tone of voice and she was as disturbed as I've ever seen her--in shock, I think, from getting that on Fox of all places.
And she kept asking if the interviewer's wife had READ HER BOOK, missing the point that the wife was commenting generally on the way Ann attacks things with her demeanor and voice. It had nothing to do with the book. She doesn't do well when personally attacked, bless her heart.
Ann was using a straw man argument and trying to knock the man down.
I'm not stupid, honey. I'm saying that Ann is losing her base, and if a Fox commentator dares say such a thing to her, look out Annie.
posted on June 11, 2006 10:31:13 AM new
Instead of all the silly crap about Ann is mean, or Ann really isn't pretty, or ......
Why don't you simply answer the questions involved.
1) If you were the wife of a famous dead person (say the manager of the last Exxon Quickmart some junkie held up), would the government give you a few mil?
2) After you got the couple of mil, would Exxon have to check with you about a design of future Quickmarts?
3) In your spare time, should you call press conferences and announce your personal opinions on string theory, never having taken a Physics course in your life?
The sole qualification of having a dead husband gives these people no more validation than Paris Hilton's dog.
And Ann may be "mean" but at least she AND WE paid a few hundred million for the privledge and the qualification to say "enough".
posted on June 11, 2006 01:57:45 PM new
I don't know about anyone else....but the hypocrisy in saying 'she's so MEAN'.....lol
after all the things that have been said about this President. Comparing him to Nazis, hitler, he lied, he did this, he did that....
...and all those who don't like Ann's SUCCESS because of what and HOW she calls the liberals on their OWN actions can say is ...'she's so mean'.
LOL
------
roadsmith - Those who HAVE read Ann's OWN words don't feel that way. Can you understand that the interviewer you're speaking about...NOR his wife had READ Ann's OWN words....but rather were going off the the FALSE statements of her opposers. LOL
------
Maybe THIS will explain it better to you and your ilk.
Liberal infallibility: Why Ann Coulter is right
By Kevin McCullough
Jun 11, 2006
Liberals in America have been staging a new strategy on winning public policy debates. Simply provide spokespeople that no one is allowed to respond to. Ann Coulter had the gall to challenge that and let loose with some direct observations in her newest best-seller "GODLESS" and true to form liberals have been fomenting in response.
The reason they do is not because it breaks some sacred respect that one should have for a grieving mother, wife, or relative. Rather the reason they are so outraged by this is because it simply stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who 'can't be criticized'.
Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Colmes have been laughable in the trumped up outrage that they share for the statements Coulter makes in GODLESS in reference to the 'Jersey Girls'. The Jersey Girls are four wives who lost their husbands on 9/11, they jumped into the 2004 election debate early on, they cut commercials for John Kerry, and they are on record for saying some rather hideous remarks about Condoleezza Rice and Karl Rove, not to mention President Bush.
In recent years liberal spokespersons have grown infamous for self destruction when they are put into arenas where free debate, give and take response, and actual dialogue take place. As Ann argues rather convincingly in her new book, this sets up the structure of "liberal infallibility." In other words liberals use of victims of tragedies would never be criticized. So the plan is to find as many victims to become the mouthpieces for the left as possible.
An interesting point, when the GOP invited widows of 9/11 to participate in their national convention, the memes went up from the left of "pure political posturing." Yet any observer of those who participated would be hard pressed to know of a single critical thing they said about the President's opponents. The presentation they made dealt with the need for America to remain strong in its stand against terrorism. Kerry's name was never even invoked. And their involvement in the public debate ended that night.
The Jersey Girls on the other hand have consistently spoken out and advocated on behalf of leftist interests through the 9/11 Commission’s findings, to the operation of the global War On Terror, the elections of 2004, etc. In other words - they chose, or the liberal Democratic Party chose for them - to enter the fray, to don the gloves, and to mix it up.
But what if they're wrong?
What if, even in as much pain as they have endured at the hands of terrorists, the substance of what they argue for is as loony as the day is long? Even if Cindy Sheehan lost her heroic son in the War on Terror - does that now mean that everything Cindy Sheehan says is correct?
Which is Ann's point.
Ann's criticism is legitimate - if liberals in America wish to truly have a debate on the issues that we all have strong emotions about - then stand and make the point, but don't hide behind those who are ineffective, unskilled, and often wrong in their views, simply because they're a victim.
For the last few weeks Congressman Murtha has been criss-crossing the television pundit circuit criticizing the brave marines who fell under attack via an improvised explosive device and as a result tragically some women and children ended up dead. The marines claimed that they were then fired upon and that those firing upon them did so from behind women and children being used as human shields. The jury is still out - but thus far Murtha has yet to present evidence that contradicts the marines' account.
Liberals are using the exact same tactics today.
Firing upon people of faith, who believe in God, who believe God's model for marriage is what society should promote - but they do so from behind victims that they believe no one would fire back to. People like the Jersey Girls, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, and Jack Murtha. They do so knowing that they would lose on substantive, equitable, fair debates.
Coulter's critics have tried to turn her book into a verbal Haditha. Hillary Clinton was excessively unwise in doing so. Coulter decided to do the brave thing and do something that nobody else would. In doing so she is again undergoing every ounce of scorn and vehemence that the left can pour out, but she is doing so for the well being of political discourse in general.
By paying the price for us she also challenges us to not be so timid, to fight for the integrity of substance, and to not fall for the idea that a victim can never be disagreed with.
What a twisted world it would become otherwise...
------
Kevin McCullough's
[townhall.com]
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on June 11, 2006 07:11:13 PM new
Well....Ann's really gone and done it now.
Her statements about these 4-5 widows....has caused the STATE of N.J to discuss/to call for the banning/boycotting of her book, GODLESS.
Have they voted in a communist yet? I hadn't read about them doing so....but it appears FREE SPEECH is now OUT.
The elected reps in their legislature...THREE DEMOCRATS - probably liberals, are calling for people to not buy her book....[b]BUT for book stores in their STATE, to not even STOCK her book. If they already have them on their shelves they're calling for them to REMOVE THEM.
Now...that SURE appears to be censorship to me.
And here I THOUGHT the liberals were all for free speech. You know...the kind of GARBAGE that is anti-American and all the rest.
But Ann's got them peeing all over themselves now.
lol
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 11, 2006 07:16 PM ]
posted on June 11, 2006 10:05:07 PM new
lindak, Ann Coulter is a hateful whack-job and she uses ignorant people such as yourself that worship her and take her seriously so she's laughing all the way to the bank at your expense. She uses people like you to spread her hatred because she realizes that you have very little independent thought of your own and will label others just as easily as she does and preach whatever she sets forth so you fit her agenda perfectly. Her misfortune is that she's too dumb to realize that she's also destroying herself along the way.
is a separate issue and she's correct there also.
