Perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy is the insane doctrines of political correctness that, quite literally, allow the liberal lies to become dogma and then conventional wisdom. Today plain old Ann Coulter may have become the conservative Jeanne d’Arc in the culure war of emancipation from mental slavery.
As most of you know, Ann Coulter has been involved in quite a dust up with the John Edwards clan. The latest outburst came in response to Coulter’s statement that she could have avoided criticism in the liberal press by wishing that Edwards had been killed in a terror attack in the same way that Bill Maher had wished for Vice President Cheney's death in an Afghani terror attack.
Most of the media began publishing quotes of Coulter’s statements the following day. A very good example of the distortion appears on YouTube. Watch this video and then read the actual words Saint Ann used.
Matthews then allowed Elizabeth Edwards, perhaps the nastiest political wife this side of Madame Ceauşescu to call in to the show and ambush St. Ann. We’re trying to find the complete transcript but the excerpts linked above provide a sufficient example of the degree of the ambush. I linked CBS’s coverage of the embattled, dying Elizabeth Edwards pleading for the brutal oppressor to “stop her attacks”. The factually accurate title would have been “MSNBC host contrives venue to spread vicious lie, allows Elizabeth Edwards, millionaire lawyer, to falsely attack Coulter”. Since the Edwards are using the Coulter fight as another manifestation of their “victimization” (because America wants a whiny President) as a fundraising device it’s pretty fair to say that Matthews conduct just might have run afoul of the “fairness doctrine”.
Joe Scarborough regained a little of his old esprit de corps and decided that it was, perhaps, time to fight back, which we Republicans have not done since the Dems tried to steal Florida in 2000. Scarborough gave Coulter the forum to respond to Matthews and Lizzie Edwards' ambush by untruth. Coulter did, tuning this morning’s Morning Joe into her Battle of Orleans. Hopefully it will have the same effect on all Americans who are simply longing for a champion to fight back against the unreal and self loathing nihilism that the liberal nanny state forces down our throats.
Coulter was an inferno of righteous indignation. The Democrat’s reliable Media Running Dogs in the AP, NBC and others had simply slandered Coulter by deconstructing her actual words, that had the opposite context of a wish that Edwards was, in fact, actually killed in a terror attack. Coulter called them out by fact and by name. Moreover, the juxtaposition of media silence if not approval of Maher’s statement and the dramatic distortion of Coulter’s statement should provide vision to even the most benighted of those who deny media bias. No other conclusion is possible.
An important question arises-what do we have to lose by fighting back. The mainstream media that hates Republicans, and never forget that journalists are Dem or lib over R or conservative by margins of 4 and 5 to 1 in virtually every survey done since the mid 60s, finds Maher’s commentary, at worse, humorous and lionizes people like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame as truth tellers. The jabberwocky simply could not be worse. We have nothing to lose by calling them out.
As most of you know, Ann Coulter has been involved in quite a dust up with the John Edwards clan. The latest outburst came in response to Coulter’s statement that she could have avoided criticism in the liberal press by wishing that Edwards had been killed in a terror attack in the same way that Bill Maher had wished for Vice President Cheney's death in an Afghani terror attack.
Most of the media began publishing quotes of Coulter’s statements the following day. A very good example of the distortion appears on YouTube. Watch this video and then read the actual words Saint Ann used.
Matthews then allowed Elizabeth Edwards, perhaps the nastiest political wife this side of Madame Ceauşescu to call in to the show and ambush St. Ann. We’re trying to find the complete transcript but the excerpts linked above provide a sufficient example of the degree of the ambush. I linked CBS’s coverage of the embattled, dying Elizabeth Edwards pleading for the brutal oppressor to “stop her attacks”. The factually accurate title would have been “MSNBC host contrives venue to spread vicious lie, allows Elizabeth Edwards, millionaire lawyer, to falsely attack Coulter”. Since the Edwards are using the Coulter fight as another manifestation of their “victimization” (because America wants a whiny President) as a fundraising device it’s pretty fair to say that Matthews conduct just might have run afoul of the “fairness doctrine”.
Joe Scarborough regained a little of his old esprit de corps and decided that it was, perhaps, time to fight back, which we Republicans have not done since the Dems tried to steal Florida in 2000. Scarborough gave Coulter the forum to respond to Matthews and Lizzie Edwards' ambush by untruth. Coulter did, tuning this morning’s Morning Joe into her Battle of Orleans. Hopefully it will have the same effect on all Americans who are simply longing for a champion to fight back against the unreal and self loathing nihilism that the liberal nanny state forces down our throats.
Coulter was an inferno of righteous indignation. The Democrat’s reliable Media Running Dogs in the AP, NBC and others had simply slandered Coulter by deconstructing her actual words, that had the opposite context of a wish that Edwards was, in fact, actually killed in a terror attack. Coulter called them out by fact and by name. Moreover, the juxtaposition of media silence if not approval of Maher’s statement and the dramatic distortion of Coulter’s statement should provide vision to even the most benighted of those who deny media bias. No other conclusion is possible.
An important question arises-what do we have to lose by fighting back. The mainstream media that hates Republicans, and never forget that journalists are Dem or lib over R or conservative by margins of 4 and 5 to 1 in virtually every survey done since the mid 60s, finds Maher’s commentary, at worse, humorous and lionizes people like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame as truth tellers. The jabberwocky simply could not be worse. We have nothing to lose by calling them out.
As for St. Anne, you go girl. You are now an official Real Hero here at the Real Sporer.
44 comments:
I think the Left has been exposed on this one and those of us on the Right can identify their tactics without even hearing the entire story. In the case of Ann I saw part of her interview with Matthews and she was eating him for lunch. Next thing I know Ann's under attack on the internet for stating she wished Edward's had died. My fellow Conservatives in Iraq talked about it and we all came to the conclusion Ann was quoted out of context. Little did we know just how right we were until the rest of the story started coming out.
I guess it comes down to the fact the Liberal Left has no shame and will resort to anything to distort reality. The real crime is that nobody is prosecuting a man who wished DEATH on the serving Vice President of the United States!
I guess I should point out I did not watch the part of the show when pandering Elizabeth Edwards called.
I heard part of it. Edwards asked Coulter to stop the personal attacks. Coulter took offense, claiming she had been asked to stop speaking.
No, she had been asked to stop personal attacks. But that is really all she has, so to stop would be to stop speaking altogether. I guess Coulter realized that, so she mischaracterized Edwards's request on purpose.
Anyone who calls Coulter a Saint is really hard up for heroines.
Why don't libs address the statement that caused it all? How can the ignore the context of her original response to Bill Maher's statement about murdering our Vice President?
The hypocrisy of liberals staggers the imagination.
Did anyone see her on that blowhard O'Reilly's program?
"Bill, you're as bad as Chris Matthews."
the reason why libs want to shut down free speech, even for corporations, as spotlight wishes, is because they want to everyone to have to listen to the edited version of the news that they are accustomed to hearing.
If you listen to the whole interview..with complete sentences and all, you will find that Ann DID NOT attack Edwards. She was highlighting that Bill Maher was not admonished for saying Dick Cheney should be killed.
Why no outrage at Bill Maher?
Democrats never get their own news. They just listen to Jon Stewart, cause they think that's really the news.
Well well well, another person connected to CIETC finds himself in trouble with the law for misappropriating taxpayer funds from his bogus non-profit.
He had a little money maker called Three Rivers Independent Living. Instead of doing what he said he was going to do with the money, he spent a third of the annual budget on porn and personal items for himself. He apparently loves the "Girls Gone Wild" series.
He has plead not guilty to a charge of first degree theft.
Dave Vaudt - the only person with character in the executive branch, caught it.
How many other such bogus non-profits are there out there with the mission to "help people", that only help themselves to our cash? His nine-member board rubber stamped everything and used no oversight. One board member didn't even remember if he WAS on the board.
He had a contract with IWD and was paid through CIETC.
And Central Iowans are expected to give a 15 member unaccountable board $75 million dollars a year to dole out as they see fit without citizen input?
what's wrong with the supreme court ruling that race based laws are bad for society. Who gets to decide that some race based laws are good and some are bad? Do blacks REQUIRE use of their race to achieve some 40+ years after all other race based laws were eliminated? I would think they'd be offended by that. The supreme court knows that any law based on race is a bad thing.
The soft bigotry of low expectations is on display with libs who really do believe that blacks cannot achieve without government assistance.
How sad.
Spotlight (on the real news) said...
Who cares?
A banner week of the crazy conservative Supreme Court telling students to shut up, telling school boards to get lost, telling the local storekeeper she can't price her own inventory, telling us corporations have free speech rights, and Sporer forgets all about our liberties, instead distracting us with Tancredo's views on Mexicans.
Well! I will say what high school students dare not say: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."
The districts "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals," Roberts said.
Yet Justice Anthony Kennedy would not go as far as the other four conservative justices, saying in a concurring opinion that race may be a component of school plans designed to achieve diversity.
To the extent that Roberts' opinion could be interpreted to foreclose the use of race in any circumstance, Kennedy said, "I disagree with that reasoning."
He agreed with Roberts that the plans in Louisville and Seattle violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection.
Attorney Teddy Gordon, who argued that the Louisville system's plan was discriminatory, said, "Clearly, we need better race-neutral alternatives. Instead of spending zillions of dollars around the country to place a black child next to a white child, let's reduce class size.
All the schools are equal. We will no longer accept that an African-American majority within a school is unacceptable."
I want to know which check box Tiger Woods brand new baby will check? Which race is she? How will the school board know which school to send her to? Is she black, is she white, is she yellow?
Maybe she's just a plain ole human being and can achieve wherever she wants to achieve based on her own free will and determination.
We don't have any separate but equal crap going on since Brown. Time to recognize that the goal is achieved and the promise was kept.
The Edwards went after Ann Coulter because they are going to have a bad fundraising report for 2nd quarter. They used it deliberately to raise money. They have a track record for that.
Kind of like when they used Elizabeth's cancer to raise money.
..And, kind of like how they use their dead son to raise money.
..And, kind of like how they attacked Bob Shrumm for exposing Edwards hypocrisy on his war vote.
..and Kind of like how Elizabeth attacked Hillary Clinton for not being a stay at home wife baking cookies.
..and Kind of like how she attacked their neighbor for actually having a legal hunting rifle. They chased this economically poor neighbor off the land he'd owned for decades. They didn't think he was an appropriate neighbor to their 30,0000 square foot energy waster. I guess they only care about poor democrats with nicer houses.
Elizabeth Edwards is a mean person. She says mean and spiteful things all the time.
Elizabeth Edwards fights her husbands battles like he's a little kid that can't stand up for himself.
I've never seen a potential first lady be so vicious towards people.
June 29, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Don’t Mourn Brown v. Board of Education
By JUAN WILLIAMS
Washington
LET us now praise the Brown decision. Let us now bury the Brown decision.
With yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling ending the use of voluntary schemes to create racial balance among students, it is time to acknowledge that Brown’s time has passed.
It is worthy of a send-off with fanfare for setting off the civil rights movement and inspiring social progress for women, gays and the poor.
But the decision in Brown v. Board of Education that focused on outlawing segregated schools as unconstitutional is now out of step with American political and social realities.
Desegregation does not speak to dropout rates that hover near 50 percent for black and Hispanic high school students. It does not equip society to address the so-called achievement gap between black and white students that mocks Brown’s promise of equal educational opportunity.
And the fact is, during the last 20 years, with Brown in full force, America’s public schools have been growing more segregated — even as the nation has become more racially diverse.
In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that the average white student attends a school that is 80 percent white, while 70 percent of black students attend schools where nearly two-thirds of students are black and Hispanic.
By the early ’90s, support in the federal courts for the central work of Brown — racial integration of public schools — began to rapidly expire.
In a series of cases in Atlanta, Oklahoma City and Kansas City, Mo., frustrated parents, black and white, appealed to federal judges to stop shifting children from school to school like pieces on a game board.
The parents wanted better neighborhood schools and a better education for their children, no matter the racial make-up of the school.
In their rulings ending court mandates for school integration, the judges, too, spoke of the futility of using schoolchildren to address social ills caused by adults holding fast to patterns of residential segregation by both class and race.
The focus of efforts to improve elementary and secondary schools shifted to magnet schools, to allowing parents the choice to move their children out of failing schools and, most recently, to vouchers and charter schools.
More from Juan:
The federal No Child Left Behind plan has many critics, but there’s no denying that it is an effective tool for forcing teachers’ unions and school administrators to take responsibility for educating poor and minority students.
More from Juan:
It was an idealistic Supreme Court that in 1954 approved of Brown as a race-conscious policy needed to repair the damage of school segregation and protect every child’s 14th-Amendment right to equal treatment under law.
In 1971, Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for a unanimous court still embracing Brown, said local school officials could make racial integration a priority even if it did not improve educational outcomes because it helped “to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society.”
But today a high court with a conservative majority concludes that any policy based on race — no matter how well intentioned — is a violation of every child’s 14th-Amendment right to be treated as an individual without regard to race. We’ve come full circle.
Juans' conversation with Thurgood Marshall -
Had Mr. Marshall, the lawyer, made a mistake by insisting on racial integration instead of improvement in the quality of schools for black children?
His response was that seating black children next to white children in school had never been the point.
It had been necessary only because all-white school boards were generously financing schools for white children while leaving black students in overcrowded, decrepit buildings with hand-me-down books and underpaid teachers.
He had wanted black children to have the right to attend white schools as a point of leverage over the biased spending patterns of the segregationists who ran schools — both in the 17 states where racially separate schools were required by law and in other states where they were a matter of culture.
If black children had the right to be in schools with white children, Justice Marshall reasoned, then school board officials would have no choice but to equalize spending to protect the interests of their white children.
Racial malice is no longer the primary motive in shaping inferior schools for minority children.
Many failing big city schools today are operated by black superintendents and mostly black school boards.
And today the argument that school reform should provide equal opportunity for children, or prepare them to live in a pluralistic society, is spent. The winning argument is that better schools are needed for all children — black, white, brown and every other hue — in order to foster a competitive workforce in a global economy.
Dealing with racism and the bitter fruit of slavery and “separate but equal” legal segregation was at the heart of the court’s brave decision 53 years ago.
With Brown officially relegated to the past, the challenge for brave leaders now is to deliver on the promise of a good education for every child.
Juan Williams, a senior correspondent for NPR and a political analyst for Fox News Channel, is the author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America.”
Just hours after the Supreme Court handed down a decision restricting public school districts' use of race in most school-acceptance decisions, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) described the ruling as "a major step backwards." He added: "And as president of the United States, I would use whatever tools available to me to see to it that we reverse this decision today."
June 29, 2007
Revisiting Brown Using Common Sense
By Dennis Byrne
"The premise is laid for the resegregation of America and the denial of opportunity. ... Inheritance and access will not be counterbalanced by equal protection." - the Rev. Jesse Jackson on the Supreme Court decision that race alone cannot be used to assign students to schools.
Oh, baloney. It does nothing of the sort, and Jackson knows it.
So do the ideologues that are piling on the court's 5-to-4 majority with veiled predictions of a return to the days of Jim Crow and the intentional legal discrimination against African-Americans.
According to these doomsayers, the landmark case, Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which banned racial segregation in schools, has been knifed. Hooded cross-burners to follow.
If anything, the Court's decision voiding racial assignment plans in Louisville and Seattle affirms and polishes Brown by extending the equal protection provisions of the Constitution's 14th Amendment beyond minorities, to everyone, including white students. The clarification was long in coming.
If anything is jeopardized by Thursday's high court decision, it is a number of nutty decisions following Brown, such as Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, which found nothing wrong with busing children miles away from their neighborhood schools to achieve a bureaucratic will-of-the-wisp of complete racial integration.
One faulty federal court decision followed another, turning federal judges into local school administrators, a job surely never foreseen by the Founding Fathers.
Brown removed obstacles to equal educational opportunity for African-Americans, an admirable and highly contentious goal at the time. It was absolutely the right decision.
In that decision, Warren wrote that the times required desegregation, rejecting the argument that the 14th Amendment didn't apply to public school desegregation because its drafters didn't have public education in mind.
In actuality, they didn't because the whole idea of public and compulsory education was just aborning.
Just so, today's Supreme Court justices had to consider the context of today; Brown's justices could never conceive of a day when American society would be inflicted by a proliferation of government-mandated racial quotas.
Today's circumstances--the undeniably improved racial climate and the mainstreaming of significant numbers of African-Americans--required a purer reading of the 14th Amendment.
Common sense suggests, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, that the way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating.
If that's not plain enough, we might just listen to each other. In the days of Brown, liberals were the ones who argued that there should be no discrimination based on skin color.
Racists said discrimination was just fine. Today, conservatives are upholding the principle of equal protection under the law, while liberals sound as if they would, well, return to the days when skin color mattered a lot.
Talk about role reversals.
Dennis Byrne is a Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist. dennis@dennisbyrne.net.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first female candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, drew the night's largest cheer when she suggested there was a hint of racism in the way AIDS is addressed in this country.
"Let me just put this in perspective: If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country," said the New York senator.
In their third primary debate, the two leading candidates and their fellow Democrats played to the emotions of a predominantly black audience, fighting for a voting bloc that is crucial in the party's nomination process.
Obama, the only black candidate in the eight-person field, spoke of civil rights leaders who fought for Brown v. Board of Education and other precedents curbed by the high court. "If it were not for them," he said, "I would not be standing here."
By William Douglas
MCCLATCHY WASHINGTON BUREAU
Contra Costa Times
Article Launched:
WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.
The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.
Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also Clinton-haters of both genders.
Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.
"Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."
Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.
On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.
That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable recognition.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
Obama said he would not back such a move, although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.
"There's a way to bring an end to those practices, you know: vote the bums out," the presidential candidate said, without naming Bush or Cheney. "That's how our system is designed."
Obama said impeachment should not be used as a standard political tool.
"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.
"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added.
"We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus."
this thing with ann coulter is part of the entire anti-free speech initiative now under way in the democrat party. They want to kill off all opposing view. No wonder they all love Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
The want to shut down Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and anyone else that the Thought Police Wing of the DNC thinks ought to be silenced.
It won't be long before Billary becomes dictator. First, they have to round up all the guns.
A single African American mother endeavored to send her child to a magnet school, but was turned away because the student would upset the “racial balance.”
She began the lawsuit, which was later taken over by Crystal Meredith.
Meredith is another single mother, whose child was not allowed to attend the neighborhood school around the corner from his house, but instead was bussed to a lower-performing school a long distance away, solely because he would upset the racial balance of the neighborhood school, which had empty seats.
The Supreme Court said Thursday that Louisville could not use such crude implements to assign students to schools and to fight de facto segregation.
It struck down the Louisville system, as well as a more egregious system designed by Seattle that did not endeavor to integrate all the schools, and indeed specifically provided for a nearly all black “African American Academy.”
The best way to quit discriminating based on race is to quit discriminating based on race.
April 9, 2007 |
Apparently the wife of Presidential Candidate John Edwards, doesn’t have many nice things to say about her neighbor Monty Johnson who lives across the way from their Orange County home.
You see, Mr. Johnson is a “rabid, rabid, republican” and he owns a gun… so he HAS to be an evil person and… well we know how scared of guns most of our Democrat politicians and their families are.
According to Edwards, Mr. Johnson recently chased off some workers who were investigating a right of way near his property with one of his guns in hand.
I can only assume (since no ACTUAL information was presented outside of her recollection of the incident) that the workers were either intentionally or unintentionally trespassing on his property.
When commenting on the fact that they’ve never actually MET Mr. Johnson himself Elizabeth said,
“I wouldn’t be nice to him, anyway. I don’t want my kids anywhere near some guy who, when he doesn’t like somebody, the first thing he does is pull a gun out. It scares the business out of me.”
Ok, Elizabeth… so you’ve never met the guy, you’ve seen him (as far as we know) chase a trespasser off of his property with a gun… ONE TIME and you assume his usual greeting for strangers is 12-guage buck shot?
Not to mention that based on you’re observations of his behavior, were you to actually MEET the man, you would not be nice to him right off the bat?
Damn, you’re one cold lady!
When asked about the incident that Edwards brought up in her diatribe on his reaction to trespassers, Mr. Johnson stated that the workers in question were in fact on his property without his prior approval and that and by his point of view, brandishing a weapon (showing intent but not ACTUALLY aiming at anyone) was his way to run them off quickly.
The Edwards family also makes it a point to complain to the local authorities on a regular basis about the “slummy” appearance of his property although Johnson and his “slummy” property have resided on that same location for some 40 years prior to their arrival.
I guess some people are never truly happy.
Ann Coulter as the poster girl for the GOP????? Go right ahead Sporer - cannonize that skank and get her as the spokeswoman for the Repubs and you'll see the independents flock away in droves. She might do as good a job as Rush did in throwing the last election to the Dems. Call her for what she is - a spiteful bitch who would do a lot better to keep her mouth shut - just like Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore.
Re: Ann Coulter, amen to anon 1:41’s comments. Coulter as an R hero and poster girl can only mean good things for my D side.
I find it hard to get all excited about the school integration decision. I have to agree with Juan Williams (no right winger for sure) and our feisty anon (a right winger for sure) here. This from Juan summarizes the reality quite well:
“Racial malice is no longer the primary motive in shaping inferior schools for minority children. …
With Brown officially relegated to the past, the challenge for brave leaders now is to deliver on the promise of a good education for every child.”
The person who implies that Obama has gone to a foreign Muslim school all his life should do his/her homework a bit better. - And BTW, we could really use a person in the White House that had some first hand experience with the Muslim world.
Rush caused the D's to win? Wow, now, that's some power. Tell me again why the D's want to silence Rush if he's so useful to them?
funny - no one ever tells Rosie or Michael Moore, or Bill Maher, or any of the other "spiteful bitches" to shut up. You embrace them. You never hear a word of criticism about their hate speech. Why just Ann?
I think we know. She makes too much sense and no one can create a cogent enough argument to derail her, so you just call her names and distort what she says in a malicious and deceitful manner.
obama, Mr. pander #1 please...you went to a muslim school. this never applied to you. said...
Obama, the only black candidate in the eight-person field, spoke of civil rights leaders who fought for Brown v. Board of Education and other precedents curbed by the high court. "If it were not for them," he said, "I would not be standing here."
Friday, June 29, 2007 9:43:00 AM CDT
Councilmember Loretta Sieman, an avid support of "Yes to Destiny", states "We need to look to our vision for our children & grandchildren as to what will be our future quality of life.
When we go to other towns to visit or vacation, we don't question the sales tax we pay to go to the zoo, ballgame, or a play. Why can't we have the same quality of life for people and visitors in our own community?"
Bill Moyers from PBS went on a rant about Fox recently. Did we all know that he was/is a democrat political operative? He was Democrat President Lyndon Johnson's Press Spokesman, probably during the time that Johnson was escalating the Viet Nam War.
rf, I know you're just be a devil's advocate because you have demonstrated an ability to discourse without the name calling.
how can you justify the gross distortion of st. anne's words? moreover, while i will concede she's snotty and quite bitchy at times, her rhetoric really does pale in comparison to what your people say. in the current issue, bill maher really did say that the world would be better if dick cheney had been killed and coulter was actually attacking that statement, not endorsing or reiterating it. the chair of the dnc really did trade on the bush orchestrated 9.11 slander-orderingi the murder of thousands of americans. that's pretty f***ing bad stuff to have to hear.
you will be hard pressed to ever find an attack of coulter's, however much capital B bitch went into the manner of speech, that is not literally and contextually completely factually accurate. if so, however much you dislike her, you should consider rethinking your position if you cannot refute that factual premise of her arguments.
and yes, she is also a humorist as well, frannkly much wittier than Maher. so, to end on a fun note, how much would you pay to see coulter/o'reilly vs. stewart/colbert tag team death match, two hour limit.
if you haven't seen the o'reilly/colbert shows watch the replays, they are wet your pants funny.
Seman is, of course, a democrat.
Loretta, if it is about fleecing the visitors why not a hotel motel tax?
Sporer,
"her rhetoric really does pale in comparison to what your people say"
I don't really track that closely what the nutty people on either side say, so I can't say too much about it. But my overall take on this is that you will always feel this way, and I suspect I'll always feel the opposite. We are both so biased that we are unable to compare the nastiness of the attacks in any kind of objective manner.
Based on my limited reading of Coulter's writings and seeing her on TV a few times, I have made one observation. She seems pretty witty in writing. But on TV, she seems extremely dumb. And I'm not talking about her general stands or views. I'm talking about her reasoning skills. I have never heard her actually make a logical argument. Every time I have seen her she has just repeated certain comments without any ability to elaborate, explain or respond - to think on her feet. This has always made the interviews I've seen seem very odd. On the other hand, she's obviously brilliant in getting exposure to her views and commentary.
But most importantly and related to my earlier point about wanting her as the R poster girl, I think she may be the only woman in public life - certainly in politics - with a higher unfavorable rating than Hillary. So please, stick with her!!
9:43
I said “implies.” Check it in the dictionary and read your own post again.
I doubt Obama was trying to imply he was a son of the South - even though I believe he lived in TX for a while when growing up. Past Supreme Court decisions have surely benefited people of color everywhere in this country.
Post a Comment