WashingtoneBayer
|
posted on June 11, 2006 10:51:08 PM new
What book have you written kiara?
You seem to espouse your given right to an opinion but don't like it when someone like Ann Coulter gives hers? Don't like what she says, don't buy the book it is that simple.
peepa's assumptions that America is comeing back to the left is very mistaken. Overall Americans are as far right as they ever have been. Illegals, pampering prisoners, etc... will continue to drive Americans further right.
What you see as hatred, intelligent people see as truth.
Ron
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 11, 2006 11:04:30 PM new
I think Ann has started a new 'revolution'. lol
No longer will the liberals be able to use their 'victims' to promote their own agenda....more and more will speak out against what they say...challenge what they spew....and all because of Ann's bravery to do so FIRST. To brake into that 'no go/untouchable' area. lol
It's already begun. ------------
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15461
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 11, 2006 11:17 PM ]
|
kiara
|
posted on June 11, 2006 11:10:35 PM new
I never said that Ann Coulter couldn't give her opinion or that she shouldn't write books, washingtonebayer. Just because you hate so many others that you disagree with and want to silence them or you prefer to kill them please know it's just not that way with me. She can write all the books she wishes to and she can say what she wants to, I just don't agree with her. It's that simple. Get it?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 11, 2006 11:24:29 PM new
And on the link above...you might want to also read Ann's
Exclusive Interview:
Coulter Says Book Examines 'Mental Disorder' of Liberalism
|
kiara
|
posted on June 11, 2006 11:26:54 PM new
Who are you talking to? Who is 'you'?
|
classicrock000
|
posted on June 12, 2006 05:18:02 AM new
who-who, who are you...
who-who...who are you.
who-who.....who the f*ck are you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
|
WashingtoneBayer
|
posted on June 12, 2006 06:28:05 AM new
Just like I don't agree with you it's just that simple.
Ron
|
desquirrel
|
posted on June 12, 2006 06:54:57 AM new
This thread is absolutely hilarious. Nobody answers to the basic point, what is Ann saying that is incorrect?
You have a group of people with no validation other than as Ann calls it: worship by grief-arattzis. But she's "mean".
Mike Moore goes and edits film so that people are portrayed as saying things they never said and not only do the people who bring up Coulter not say anything, they genuflect at his very name. I guess he must be "nice", and "better looking" than most people think.
[ edited by desquirrel on Jun 12, 2006 07:04 AM ]
|
WashingtoneBayer
|
posted on June 12, 2006 06:56:45 AM new
Mike Meyers? Do you mean Michael Moore?
Ron
|
desquirrel
|
posted on June 12, 2006 07:04:46 AM new
yup, little quick on the keys, wrong clown.
[ edited by desquirrel on Jun 12, 2006 07:05 AM ]
|
bebeboom
|
posted on June 12, 2006 07:51:25 AM new
Come on people...how can one NOT admire this woman?
Personally I think she has done a marvelous job. She wrote an inflammatory book that she knows will appeal to a certain sector of the population, they react as planned and not only go out in droves to buy the book, but help her advertise it as well on the Internet!
Genius marketing if you ask me! LOL
She panders to those who's needs she fulfills by telling them what they want to hear... she becomes richer, they are content..superb manipulation.. ha! Bloody Genius!
|
WashingtoneBayer
|
posted on June 12, 2006 08:07:41 AM new
Just as an savvy author would do maggie or is that concept foriegn to you also?
Remember fatass moore's movie? Well probably not.
Ron
|
bebeboom
|
posted on June 12, 2006 08:13:14 AM new
Exactly! That is what I was saying, Ron. Same thing with MM movie. Genius marketing.
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 12, 2006 11:54:03 AM new
::fenix, I have no clue as to how you drew the conclusion you did.::
I thought I explained my process but I'll be hapy to go thru it again.
::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....::
In other words, you and Ann have come to the conclusion that these women have no free will or ability to form an independent thought of their own and are being manipulated by people you do not agree with rather than entertaining the possibility that the stands they havbe taken are their own.
::believing they can then 'get away with' those same people not being challenged BECAUSE they suffered the losses they have.::
Who said they cannot be challenged? I think the real problem Ann has with them is that the issues that the have brought up are real and valid and since she knows she can't attack the message, she decided to attack the messenger.
Tell me Linda - what is it that they are saying that is wrong? Are you saying that we don't need to stop dragging our feet on implemented suggested national security measures? That our ports are secure?
::Because as they've been doing...when the right DOES challenge their views....call them liars, etc.....::
No Linda - no one has called Ann a a liar, and had she disputed the message, she would not be under attack. Instead she called them bitches, stated that they had no right to excercise their freedom of speech, stated that the were reveling in their husbands death....
You think the dems were using them? The only person using those women is Ann Coulter and she's doing it to sell books.
::then the left comes back and says 'you're being so very MEAN to them'.::
You mean calling them bitches and saying that their husbands were probably going to divorce them is not mean or has any part in an adult exchange in conversations regarding national security?
::They're no different than anyone else who the right doesn't agree with....their loss DOESN'T give them 'protection'....like human shields.::
Linda, the only person that has been called to the mat for disagreeing with them is Ann Coulter and that's because of her choice of language and the message. The funny thing is that you think that Ann has ever right to call the widows a bunch of bitches but no one has the right to call her one.
::She's telling the dem party they need to QUIT doing that....::
No she's not. She's launched an age old smear and deflect campaign. She's trying to intimidate victims into silence because someone might actually listen to what they are saying and recognize that they have a valid message
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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 12, 2006 11:55 AM ]
|
desquirrel
|
posted on June 12, 2006 12:30:58 PM new
You really don't know what you're talking about.
You should live in NYC and see if you can paint the fire hydrants at the WTC without "running it by" the "9/11 Survivors".
Like I said, you'd think these people cured cancer rather than being related to a dead person.
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 13, 2006 05:05:40 AM new
No Des - you don't know what you are talking about. For some reason you started a thread about Ann Coulter going off on 9/11 widows without knowing who she was talking about.
Sorry Des but you actually managed to start a thread that had nothing to do with what you want it to be about.
Maybe you should start a new thread where you can complain about the Ground Zero fights. 
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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.
|
WashingtoneBayer
|
posted on June 13, 2006 07:18:21 AM new
Ok fenix please do tell us all about Ann Coulter's book; that you obviously must of read to be such a knowledgable person on this subject.
Ron
|
desquirrel
|
posted on June 13, 2006 07:20:33 AM new
Since I supplied the quote, you'll have to show me where she complains about them "giving their opinion".
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 13, 2006 08:48:20 AM new
Ron - sorry - the store was all out of troll food. Check back with me later.
Des - Are you for some reason under the impression that your snipet quote at the beginning of this thread is the only thing Coulter has had to say on the matter? She has stated in at least two interviews I have seen her do that that their should just take the money and shut up. That just because their husbands died doen't mean that they have the right to complain about the actions of this president, etc.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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 13, 2006 09:21 AM ]
|
desquirrel
|
posted on June 13, 2006 09:26:40 AM new
That their husbands died gives them no greater validation on anything than my cat. They capitalize on their "fame" like ghoulish vultures, playing on what Ann termed "grief-aratzzis".
Nobody, not even Ann, cares about their "opinion". It's been a slow month, they haven't been in our papers for a while.
|
WashingtoneBayer
|
posted on June 13, 2006 09:32:57 AM new
Just what I thought fenix, you really don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Ron
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 13, 2006 10:58:44 AM new
But Des - I notice that you have pointedly ignored when I ask you if you also thought that John Walsh or the founders of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers had the right to stand up and speak out and become activists on the topics that touched their lives.
Why is it that John Walsh becoming activist for child safety was OK, a mother that lost a child becoming an activist againdst drunk driving is OK but that a woman that lost a husband to a terrorist attack becoming an activist regarding national security is suddenly sucking up to cameras and reveling in notoriaty?
No one is saying that you have to agree with them, or that you even have to listen to them. What is being said is that attacking them and calling them names is uncalled for. The women being attacked are not griping about the architechture of a building. They are talking about increasing security measures. Are you saying that they are wrong?
As for you Ron. I think it is quite clear that I know what I am talking about. And I am more than willing to engage in a thoughtful discussion. It's just that I don't believe you have shown any propensity for such a thing and I don't feel like wasting my time on arguing just for the sake of argueing.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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.
|
desquirrel
|
posted on June 13, 2006 12:13:58 PM new
Nobody is going to John Walsh to ask if they can sell the house where the guy chopped up his kid.
John does not have to give his approval to the landscaping.
John does not pester the FBI with his personal theories of profiling.
You really don't get the difference do you? Sheeesh
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 13, 2006 12:27:25 PM new
Des - Do you HONESTLY not get that the ones you are complaining about and the ones that Ann Coulter is complaining about are not the same. Has the fact that I have stated that 3 times still not yet caught on? We are not referring to the group that are complaining about the architecture and landscaping at ground zero.
Here are the issues the women Coulter Attacked are speaking out on...
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.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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 13, 2006 12:28 PM ]
|
desquirrel
|
posted on June 13, 2006 12:40:46 PM new
You and they have no idea if any of these "issues" have any validity. I just don't see you on TV.
A US Senator MAY have factual info on SOME of these topics.
I think cars should be safer. Why? Do I know an unsafe model? No. Am I an engineer? No, but cars should be safer, dadgummit! Where's the camera?
Hooray for me!
|
fenix03
|
posted on June 13, 2006 02:07:10 PM new
Oh come on Des - now you are just grasping at straws.
Our own Border Control has complained about the fact that there are 8 seperate watch lists rather than one integrated so thorough checks are not possible.
Our goverment admits that most of our ports are not secured, that most do not have proper screening of trucks leaving the ports and that they do not have enough manpower.
It takes one trip on a train to know that security on them is largely non existant.
All of the issues that they are fighting for are fixes that were suggested by the 9/121 commission. Are you telling me that they didn't have the info to know what needs to be fixed?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
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.
|
