Would you?  

rm_kelli4u2dew 41F
7028 posts
6/8/2006 7:48 pm

Last Read:
6/14/2006 6:49 pm

Would you?


Headline: Coulter Calls 9/11 Widows "The Witches of East Brunswick" *

Would you take Ann Coulter to a dogfight?

Suppose she was the headliner?

Suppose she was favored to lose?


*From her new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", in which she accuses the widows of 9/11 of capitalizing on their husband's deaths, and says they are millionaires so they should be happy.

Why don't they have a selection for mood: disgusted?

Late Note: I wonder why the picture that was posted with this was removed?

BigIrish100 42M

6/8/2006 8:30 pm

That woman has serious issues. There are times when I think she is more over the edge than Rush or O'Riley or anyone else on that far end of the spectrum that doesn't call himself or herself a preacher or a pastor. She's probably not as far over the edge as Pat Robertson and friends but she's still deranged. Frankly, I wouldn't take her anywhere; regardless of the reason.


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/9/2006 6:55 am:
I reserve a special distaste for Coulter, Michael Savage, and Pat Robertson. All are so far over the edge that it's amazing anyone listens to them.

JuicyBBW1001 54F

6/8/2006 8:34 pm

Money can't replace a lost love or years of future memories shame on her.

Juicy


Djeeper1987 47M

6/8/2006 9:18 pm

Money is the root of all evil

Carpe Diem


puntachueca 105M

6/8/2006 9:20 pm

Some people will do almost anything to get attention.

Now regarding taking her to a dog fight...I really care about animals, and it would be cruel to the dogs.

There is a good side to all this... these self proclaimed "conservatives" are really exposing their true identities.


rm_bk2nrml 57M

6/8/2006 9:30 pm

i'll probably get jumped on with both feet, but, she said a lot more than that. to be fair though, one quote doesnt say it all. ive read the first 2 chapters. the first is available on line for free. anybody can pull a single quote or 2 and make it sound the way they want. what she says is the truth. the left is busy right now making coulter's point for her. there is a small set of 9/11 victims whose loved ones were tragically killed on that day....who have chosen to step into the arena of politics. they criticize the bush administration at every turn and they showed up at the 9/11 Commission meetings to try and back richard clarke. these widows are the perfect spokesmen for the left. think about it ... they're set up as icons for no reason other than their husbands happened to have a job at the world trade center. once they have been established as untouchable icons, they start parroting the leftist anti-bush, anti-war line. the difference here is that you're just supposed to sit here and take it. the rules of politically correct engagement dictate that you are not allowed to criticize them or what they say because they are 9/11 widows! ann coulter crossed that line, as only ann coulter can ... and now the left is playing their cards exactly the way the play book says they should. thats not unlike cindy sheehan. some say she shouldn't be criticized because her son was killed in iraq. when she chose to become an activist and push her cause, she opened herself up to debate. all bets are off. this is the same thing. a very small group of 9/11 widows are milking what happened. did they want their husbands to die? of course not. but now they're perfectly willing to wrap themselves in the shield of 9/11 widowhood while they take their shots at bush and our country's efforts in iraq and afghanistan.
would i take her to a dog fight ? i dont know. but i sure would go to war with her and stand beside her.

a.j.


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/9/2006 7:02 am:
In the book, Coulter said, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

You don't think this is cruel?

I take it from your reply that anyone who disagrees with the current administration has forfeited any right to be treated with common decency? If someone is "parroting the leftist anti-bush, anti-war line" then "all bets are off."

Interesting. You seem to enjoy your free speech rights, but don't wish to extend those same rights to anyone who disagrees with you.

tootsiedippin 53M/53F
1078 posts
6/8/2006 9:34 pm

Bread and Circuses...it's It Rome with the internet and TV in its place

Dippin


007sexy40plus 51F  
7603 posts
6/8/2006 9:34 pm

The part that got me was when she said that they were probably getting divorced and now they are getting rich off their husbands deaths. Basically what she is saying is that they they are capitalizing on failed marriages except the husbands are dead. And that is about the cruelest thing to say to someone.

How in the hell does she know if these women marriages had failed or were failing? Is she even married? and if so why hadn't he divorced and left her ignorant ass yet? 9-11 was the worst of the worst and I wouldn't wish that heartache on anyone, whether they were single or divorced. These people lost their lives for nothing and for this woman to suggest something like this over money, then she is the biggest money hungry fool there is.

I am the real deal! "Come Get Me!!!"


hereforyou6217 43M
912 posts
6/8/2006 11:14 pm

Fucking Ann Coulter.

She heads my list of "People most likely to be hit by something heavy if I ever meet them". Grr.


Choozmi 50M

6/9/2006 12:47 am

Bush is a criminal. He even admits to breaking the law. Half his administration are criminals. Criticizing his administration is what every thinking American should be doing right now. Our freedoms are being taken away on a daily basis.

As far as anything that Ann Coulter says... I hear she's a crimiinal, too. Something about attempting to vote in a district other than her own. Whatever. She says horrible things and sells books and keeps people like the gentleman above believing that Bush and his thugs are taking our country somewhere other than down the drain.

Rush Limbaugh is a criminal (how'd he get his drugs?)

Bill O'Reilly's a criminal (sexual harassment).

You see, I'm not anti-Bush or even anti-right.

I'm anti-criminal.

There's a big difference.

(Oh, and please no one waste their energy bringing up Clinton getting his dick sucked. That's not the same thing as spying on Americans unlawfully, lying to Congress and the UN to get us into a war, sanctioning torture of prisioners, etc.)


rm_pleasuresex3 52M
520 posts
6/9/2006 1:51 am

When did liberal become such a dirty word to some people? And why do I often see it being confused with/taken to be the same as left/leftist?

I quote from my dictionary,

liberal 1 willing to tolerate behaviour, opinions, etc different from one's own; open to new ideas 5 (politics) favouring or based on policies that promote free trade, freedom of choice for individuals and moderate social and political change

liberalism liberal opinions and principles, esp in politics.

Sounds good to me.

One other thing. From what I understand, two of the main reasons for the Bush administration to decide on invading Iraq, was to destroy the terrorist networks responsible for 9/11 and to promote democracy in the country.

That sounds right and I'm all for that. But the other day I was reading Spiegel magazine's special edition on the World Cup (no less). Here's what I found on Saudi Arabia in the team section:

"Saudi women have very few rights; they are barred from driving cars and attending football matches. In political terms, Saudi Arabia remains an underdeveloped country. Instead of the principles of human rights, it applies sharia law. Fifteen of the 19 terorists involved in 9-11 were Saudis".

Has the Bush administration focus on the wrong country in the middle east?


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/9/2006 7:10 am:
Something the Republicans do very well and consistently is to define the terms of debate in such a way that it demonizes their opponents and dismisses their positions from the beginning.

Democrat = Liberal
Liberal = Leftist
Leftist = Marxist
Marxist = Communist
Communist = Anti-American, unpatriotic, godless

Ok, with those definitions firmly in place, let's debate.

ironman2769 55M  
12661 posts
6/9/2006 2:57 am

It goes to show boooks whther hurtful.....pliagarized.....sell just as long as there's plenty of hype. Two miles from East Brunswick

Help Save My Blog, Please Stop By !


rm_JohnMacLaine 50M
585 posts
6/9/2006 3:59 am

Ann Coulter, the poster child for birth control...

she is not worthy of my time, energy, or money. Anyone that thinks she is right in what she says (no pun intended) is as blind as she is.

She calls people that criticize the Bush administration criminals, Anti-American, and extreme leftists. In case Ann has forgot, the Constitution allows us the freedom to criticize our government and the elected officials in the government if we do not agree with them.

The last time we were denied certain rights and freedoms, I believe a revolution occurred and our occupiers were sent home crying in their Earl Gray.

A war that was started based on lies, The Patriot Act, wire tapping of citicenzs, basic freedoms being taken away, yeah I would say that is cause for criticism.

I would not take Ann to a dogfight, thats just plain cruelty to animals..

Scott

"I can retain neither respect or affection for a government which has been moving from wrong to wrong in order to defend its own immorality" Mahatma Ghandi


rm_macallan4u 46M
968 posts
6/9/2006 4:14 am

I don't know how Bill Maher could talk to her! People like her are so closed minded that talking to them is pointless. No matter how good a point you make, they refuse to listen.


im_your_man77 39M
961 posts
6/9/2006 4:18 am

Some ignorant people deserve to lose their voice in some horrible, painful, tongue-eating disease. Wait was that mean?


rm_gorilla062 50M
232 posts
6/9/2006 6:27 am

While, at times I have agreed with Ann Coulter on some issues... this ranks as one of the dumbest, most vile things someone could. Certainly a time that she was better off keeping her mouth shut!


caressmewell 53F

6/9/2006 7:07 am

Some people really need to just not say or write anything. Even suggesting this is worse than what she accuses the widows of doing.


RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/9/2006 7:17 am

    Quoting rm_bk2nrml:
    i'll probably get jumped on with both feet, but, she said a lot more than that. to be fair though, one quote doesnt say it all. ive read the first 2 chapters. the first is available on line for free. anybody can pull a single quote or 2 and make it sound the way they want. what she says is the truth. the left is busy right now making coulter's point for her. there is a small set of 9/11 victims whose loved ones were tragically killed on that day....who have chosen to step into the arena of politics. they criticize the bush administration at every turn and they showed up at the 9/11 Commission meetings to try and back richard clarke. these widows are the perfect spokesmen for the left. think about it ... they're set up as icons for no reason other than their husbands happened to have a job at the world trade center. once they have been established as untouchable icons, they start parroting the leftist anti-bush, anti-war line. the difference here is that you're just supposed to sit here and take it. the rules of politically correct engagement dictate that you are not allowed to criticize them or what they say because they are 9/11 widows! ann coulter crossed that line, as only ann coulter can ... and now the left is playing their cards exactly the way the play book says they should. thats not unlike cindy sheehan. some say she shouldn't be criticized because her son was killed in iraq. when she chose to become an activist and push her cause, she opened herself up to debate. all bets are off. this is the same thing. a very small group of 9/11 widows are milking what happened. did they want their husbands to die? of course not. but now they're perfectly willing to wrap themselves in the shield of 9/11 widowhood while they take their shots at bush and our country's efforts in iraq and afghanistan.
    would i take her to a dog fight ? i dont know. but i sure would go to war with her and stand beside her.

    a.j.
Well I guess we know where you hang out. Why do y'all spout the EXACT same bullshit? You drinking Missouri water? You're as much a low life as she is, and that's pretty low. My snakes would barf both of you up. Coulter wouldn't know the truth if it got rammed up her ass. Whcih come to think of it, wouldn't be a bad idea. Wouldn't take either one of you to a dog fight, I'd just be confusing the dogs. Wouldn't go to war with either of you. I've been there and done that with men and women I RESPECT. Wouldn't want to dishonor them. Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/9/2006 7:28 am

Sorry kel, i did it again. I'm a BAAAAAD BOY. Spank me?

In answer to your questions:

!. Yes I'd take her to a dog fight. Last time I looked, she was still an attractive woman, even if she IS a raving sociopath. I'd have to figure out how to keep her mouth shut for the most part, but yeah, I'd take her. (see 2 & 3 below)

2. If she was the headliner? Bet on her, the other dog wouldn't touch her once she opened her mouth.

3. If she was favored to lose? Take the money and smile. See # 2

BTW. Bill Maher is just thinking about fun ways to shut her up.

Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


rm_agathon12 46M
1311 posts
6/9/2006 8:21 am

Strictly speaking, classical liberalism (ala John Locke) bears little resemblance to what is being espoused in popular left-of-center circles. Classical liberalism did, indeed, emphasize religious tolerance and a certain amount of political and economic freedom. (It also sanctioned a certain amount of repression which Ann Coulter would probably find odious.) It was rooted in the belief that man is an imperfect creature and to expect perfection from him or to attempt to perfect him via political solutions was inhumane.

Contemporary liberalism seems to insist that man can be perfected through political and economic solutions e.g. collective economics will defeat the natural scarcity of resources (read: poverty), radical egalitarianism will defeat the natural distribution of talent (read: social stratification), and so on. This has much more to do with Marx and his intellectual progeny than Locke, Adam Smith, and Montesquieu. It's true that current political discourse reduces these differences to absurd tropes or cliches but there is enough accuracy in them that they can be traced back to their ultimate roots in differing conceptions of man. Michael Walzer is one of the shrewdest voices on the Left and he fully recognizes the dead end of the Left right now because it is still mired in marxism of one form or another.


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/9/2006 10:12 am:
Have you ever read Marx? To say that modern liberalism is an extension of Marx is so absurd. I notice that you didn't address modern "conservatism", as espoused by the current Republican party. Keynesian economics gone wild on the basis of the Laffer curve and his "trickle-down" theory. Imperialism from the party that called WWII "Mr. Roosevelt's War". Telling people how to worship and what they can do in their bedrooms.

I don't think anyone with a brain believes that "man can be perfected". What we can do is structure a rational society that clothes and feeds and educates everyone and gives them an opportunity to find a productive place in that society.

The Social Darwinism, clothed in whatever rhetoric you choose, espoused by the "right" now, which sanctions a huge gap between rich and poor, I find odious.

And to say that Coulter would find any amount of "repression" odious if it was practiced against her opponents is absolutely laughable.

RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/9/2006 8:57 am

    Quoting rm_agathon12:
    Strictly speaking, classical liberalism (ala John Locke) bears little resemblance to what is being espoused in popular left-of-center circles. Classical liberalism did, indeed, emphasize religious tolerance and a certain amount of political and economic freedom. (It also sanctioned a certain amount of repression which Ann Coulter would probably find odious.) It was rooted in the belief that man is an imperfect creature and to expect perfection from him or to attempt to perfect him via political solutions was inhumane.

    Contemporary liberalism seems to insist that man can be perfected through political and economic solutions e.g. collective economics will defeat the natural scarcity of resources (read: poverty), radical egalitarianism will defeat the natural distribution of talent (read: social stratification), and so on. This has much more to do with Marx and his intellectual progeny than Locke, Adam Smith, and Montesquieu. It's true that current political discourse reduces these differences to absurd tropes or cliches but there is enough accuracy in them that they can be traced back to their ultimate roots in differing conceptions of man. Michael Walzer is one of the shrewdest voices on the Left and he fully recognizes the dead end of the Left right now because it is still mired in marxism of one form or another.
Another way of calling liberals Marxist? The term is SO 80'S. So passe. So tiresome. So boring.

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/9/2006 10:13 am:
Yes. Another attempt to define the terms and frame the argument.

rm_agathon12 46M
1311 posts
6/9/2006 10:04 am

Not at all. Just pointing out that contemporary liberalism gets a strong bit of it's intellectual capital from marxist ideas about the alienation of labor and the self-destructive tendencies of capitalism (c.f. Walzer's "Can There Be a Decent Left?"). It isn't the same thing as marxism because contemporary American liberalism still retains, albeit uncomfortably, some of its allegiance to classical liberal principles of freedom and self-determination. It's interesting to note that Marx was a big fan of free trade but his intellectual grandchildren in Europe are most certainly not. The current craze on the Left for state sponsored censorship of hate speech is closer to 19th century European conservatism than classial liberalism. (Ironically, so is the Right's push for greater surveillance by the government.)

Sorry, K. Didn't mean to hijack the comments.


rm_agathon12 46M
1311 posts
6/9/2006 10:06 am

Not at all. Just pointing out that contemporary liberalism gets a strong bit of it's intellectual capital from marxist ideas about the alienation of labor and the self-destructive tendencies of capitalism c.f. Walzer's "Can There Be a Decent Left?". It isn't the same thing as marxism because contemporary American liberalism still retains, albeit uncomfortably, some of its allegiance to classical liberal principles of freedom and self-determination. It's interesting to note that Marx was a big fan of free trade but his intellectual grandchildren in Europe are most certainly not. The current craze on the Left for state sponsored censorship of hate speech is closer to 19th century European conservatism than classial liberalism. (Ironically, so is the Right's push for greater surveillance by the government.)

Sorry, K. Didn't mean to hijack the comments.


concupiscentKid 40M

6/9/2006 10:14 am

Her take on evolution is so twisted that I don't even know where
to begin. She starts with truths and filters them through some of the most amazing logical fallacies and omissions to come up with completely false and irrelevant conclusions.
Her hindsight analysis of the Scopes trial is unoriginal and poorly done given all the great primary and secondary resources including some great presentations on law school websites. Her research is such shit that I cannot believe she is a lawyer. She throws in some sources for statistics but conveniently leaves out others.
I would like to see her in a debate against Stephen Jay Gould and Steve Pinker (author of The Blank Slate--an excellent book). She would be torn to shreds.
She's also the idiot who says--in reference to muslims--"We should kill all their leaders and convert them all to Christianity." Many terrorist websites used this quotation to great effect. I believe that even though she is a complete idiot, she is dangerous. We don't need to bolster terrorist recruitment.


rm_bk2nrml 57M

6/9/2006 10:48 am

I take it from your reply that anyone who disagrees with the current administration has forfeited any right to be treated with common decency? If someone is "parroting the leftist anti-bush, anti-war line" then "all bets are off."

Interesting. You seem to enjoy your free speech rights, but don't wish to extend those same rights to anyone who disagrees with you.


kelli, nowhere in my post did i try to deny her/them the right to speak their mind. what i said and still stand by is that because they are 9/11 widows, it does not give them any sort of protection from anything that anybody says back to them. THAT was the complete point that that ann was making in the 2nd chapter and that i wholeheartedly agree with. again, a single quote does not an entire chapter make ! as for common decency, do i really need to spend the next hour listing left quotes that show the same the same common lack of decency and ask where the outrage is to those ?? politics is a dirty business and if anybody is going to jump in it, theyre going to get dirty.


rm_agathon12 46M
1311 posts
6/9/2006 11:01 am

Indeed, I have read Marx. Is there some work in particular to which you are referring that might render my gross overgeneralization problematic? The perfection of man is something Marx inherited from Rousseau from whom he also inherited his passionate loathing of the alienation inherent in modern societies. The current attempt to alleviate the conditions of natural scarcity of resources through wealth redistribution is based in Marx, not Locke or Adam Smith. It is part-and-parcel with Marx's apothesis of man. A religious conservative like Orestes Brownson just shrugged his shoulders and pointed out that poverty is no proof of the Almighty's disfavor. And yes, I am quite familiar with the libertarianism to which you are referring; also an ideology based upon naive assumptions about the social order.

The demands for a completely rational society are, indeed, grounded in the belief that man can govern himself entirely through reason. Even Locke and his 18th century children wouldn't agree with that. I believe that can be traced to Comte, Robespierre and those guys but I'd have to check to be certain. It is really quite utopian and, in the end, highly destructive because man is only a partially reasonable creature.

Social Darwinism is a 19th and 20th century idea which bears little resemblance to Locke or Adam Smith. It hardly contains enough intellectual heft to be taken seriously.

You've hit the nail on the head: Ms. Coulter would probably be happy with the repression of her political adversaries but not be happy if that repression were turned back upon her. That's just political partisanship. Guys like Locke would probably have suppressed written work across the spectrum which means that both Ann and her enemies would be silenced. I don't think she be too keen on that.


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/9/2006 11:49 am:
At least in my case, while Marx made some astute observations on the problems of the emerging industrial states, his solutions were utopian fantasies. Leninist/Stalinist modifications of his theories to shoehorn Russia into them were quite creative, but went wide afield of anything Marx would have imagined.

Social systems have always imposed distribution of resources and wealth through some means. How it is done and who decides are the primary differences between the politics you promote and what I promote. You, or anyone else, would have a difficult time finding someone more capitalist in either basic nature or actions than I am. The welfare state is something I am knee-jerk opposed to. Someone who will not work, or study, or attempt to better themselves can just crawl in a ditch and die before I'll lift a finger to help them.

That said, I do not believe that a society where 1/10 of a percent of the populace controls 20% of the wealth, while 20% of the population (and growing) controls only 1% of the wealth, is viable in the long term. See the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, etc. for historic precedents. The Bolsheviks were opportunists, but they didn't start the 1917 revolution, nor did it start because of any idealistic notions. It is common sense that well-fed, satisfied people don't revolt. They're too busy playing with their kids and going to the lake on Sunday.

Currently, the world produces an over abundance of food, while millions are starving. We throw food away. We have poor nations in states of constant warfare that interfere with access and utiliztion of resources. We have poor nations breeding terrorists. I simply advocate that since trying to kill them all hasn't worked in spite of over 50 years of trying, perhaps we should try something a bit different and more in line with the so-called "Christian Values" that I hear so much about.

Social Darwinism is a 19th and 20th century idea which bears little resemblance to Locke or Adam Smith. It hardly contains enough intellectual heft to be taken seriously.

I agree, but that is the predominant thinking in the current Republican Party, no matter what they call it.

RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/9/2006 11:24 am

    Quoting rm_bk2nrml:
    I take it from your reply that anyone who disagrees with the current administration has forfeited any right to be treated with common decency? If someone is "parroting the leftist anti-bush, anti-war line" then "all bets are off."

    Interesting. You seem to enjoy your free speech rights, but don't wish to extend those same rights to anyone who disagrees with you.


    kelli, nowhere in my post did i try to deny her/them the right to speak their mind. what i said and still stand by is that because they are 9/11 widows, it does not give them any sort of protection from anything that anybody says back to them. THAT was the complete point that that ann was making in the 2nd chapter and that i wholeheartedly agree with. again, a single quote does not an entire chapter make ! as for common decency, do i really need to spend the next hour listing left quotes that show the same the same common lack of decency and ask where the outrage is to those ?? politics is a dirty business and if anybody is going to jump in it, theyre going to get dirty.
Politics doesn't have to be a dirty business, it's the practitioners who make it so. Unfortunately the current leadership and following of the Republican party seem to revel in playing in the mud. Ask Max Cleland or John Kerry, two legitmate heros of the Viet Nam war who were smeared. Or perhaps you might check out some of our resident neocons, who delight in calling any dissenter marxist, communist, and/or anti-American. Or maybe the current regime's most virulent supporters, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, et al. But OMG, if a liberal is willing to utilize the same tactics! Can anyone say Hypocrisy? There is a new breed of liberal emerging, one with fangs and claws, large brass balls, and the willingness to use them.

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


MaggiesWishes 60F

6/9/2006 11:51 am

I was only a few blocks away from the tragedy of 9-11.
What was lost there, money can never replace. Countless children are without parents and no matter what $$$ was received ... it's not enough to replace what was lost.

Some people thrive on other's misery, making a buck and still bitchin'.
Some people just totally disgust me.

Well done, Kelli.

warm huggies 2ya Sis.


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/9/2006 1:09 pm:
The company I work for had offices in the WTC. I didn't work for them at the time, but many people I work with still have very stark memories of that. Two of the people I work with now were on vacation from our office there at the time.

rm_agathon12 46M
1311 posts
6/9/2006 1:11 pm

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. Marx was a good polemicist but his theories weren't even accurate in his own time, much less now. Leszek Kolakowski wrote a very good book on how Marx was preaching the impoverishment of the proletarian at a time when real wages were on the rise. From an economic standpoint his ideas are bunk. His thoughts about alienation are interesting but hardly novel. They get a much deeper articulation in Rousseau and Hegel, who also point out the near insuperable problems of alienation in modern societies.

And, yes, all states engage in a certain amount of property redistribution as they engage in a certain amount of coercion. You'll get no argument from me about that. Where we might disagree is in the details but that's just politics at that point. I don't really know your political persuasion so it would be asinine of me to tell you what you believe.

The difference between 18th century France and the U.S. today is one of political representation. So long as that bottom 20% votes, they will get something of the pie, even if it's in the form of bread and circuses. That wasn't possible in France so there was a revolution ditto with Russia. That the bottom 20% may not vote the way you or I want them to vote doesn't mean that they are not getting what they think they want. It's politics, after all. People do funny things.

Not all of the Republican party thinks that way. What about that Republican governor in Alabama who wanted to raise taxes because he felt that it was the christianly duty of the state to help redistribute the wealth? I think he was brutally mocked by the right-leaning opinion magazines but I'm not sure. I don't pay very close attention to these things.


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/9/2006 6:17 pm:
I didn't say Marx's theories held water, I said he made some astute observations. Whether he drew the correct conclusions or not ...

It's difficult to know who is voting in this country, or if they have any idea what they're voting for. We've had less than 60% voter turnout for presidential elections in my lifetime. School board elections most places get 10-20% turnout. Some say that Bush only got 25% of the eligible votes, but if you figure 50% or so saw no reason to vote ... because they were happy with the status quo, or because they didn't like the alternative, or because they're numb between the ears ... pick a theory.

I know many Republicans and Christians who are decent people who want to do the right thing. The Republican Party is a cess pool. The Democratic Party is vacuous, with plenty of greedy, corrupt office holders. I'd prefer to hang all the politicians along with the lawyers and start over.

But the point of my post was the incredible cruelty, and loathsome political pandering of Ann Coulter. If a "liberal" had said something similar about the wife of a general killed in Iraq, I'd feel the same way.

rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/9/2006 6:17 pm:
And btw, glad you stopped by.

rm_agathon12 46M
1311 posts
6/9/2006 7:26 pm

Indeed it was. And my purpose for writing so many words was to point out that, in the end, she doesn't represent any one but herself. I get testy when idiots are taken for the "real deal" so I was being a gadfly by doing as I did. No harm intended. I just didn't want Hershey to be taken for Godiva or, even better, artisanal chocolate made by the fabulous chocolatier down the street. I doubt that we disagree upon the truly important issues. It's the peripheral stuff that ends up getting people to go bonkers. And, btw, it is my pleasure.


blueguy1051 60M

6/9/2006 11:36 pm

Oh, bitch, bitch, bitch. You just don't like her because she's blonde and rich ...

I've never quite understood Coulter. I'm positive she's not that stupid, and that she purposely says the most extreme things just as a sick joke. But she's so consistent ...

And I really don't understand those who take her seriously. She's so off base that she makes Rush look honest. And we know that he just makes it up as he goes along ... junkies are like that.


sillyperv 54M

6/10/2006 7:33 am

Noam Chomsky pointed out that arguing with deniers of the Holocaust gives their position legitimacy. I think the same applies to spew by Coulter, Limbaugh, The Toronto Sun. Arguing with them and their "opinions" gives their opinions a false merit.

Not that this makes them any less annoying.


rm_cjbreach 56M

6/10/2006 9:40 am

Once in a lifetime issue. There are some many other issues that happen on a daily basis. But our society have learned to turn their
heads on such ambiguous melancholy


RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/10/2006 2:03 pm

I like your idea the best, Kelli. Let's just throw out the lot of them and start from scratch. I've said before, neither party speaks for me, hasn't for years, and I don't believe either one now speaks for the majority of Americans. The fanatics of both sides have taken over, and the moderates seem to be left out in the cold. Not all Republicans are facists, not all Democrats are leftist. Not all Christians are fanatics. The great majority of these groups are good people, and we need to get all of them together and take back our country from the extemes of both sides. We really need to end the partisan bickering (me too) and work together to make this country what it SHOULD and COULD be. There's a lot of intelligent people posting here (and then there's me). Wouldn't it be nice if they could work together? Uncle Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/10/2006 11:22 pm:
Damn, Joe, moderation? You're going to ruin your reputation.

The problem with our system is that it's been captured by two parties (a system with no mention in the Constitution) who make the rules to ensure their perpetuation in power. No one votes because they don't believe anything will change. That leaves the elites and extremists to battle it out.

So, how do we get there from here?

reverend21 49M
1913 posts
6/10/2006 10:27 pm

I've looked for that mood selection a few times myslef


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/10/2006 11:28 pm:
Ain't it the truth?

RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/11/2006 9:21 am

Despite what some would think Kelli, I have always been a moderate. I don't follow any party line blindly, and I disagree with a number of things the current democrats espouse. More than anything I'm tired of seeing the majority of our population getting screwed on a daily basis. Even moderates can get angry. I'm tired of the name calling and slander of the neocons. You're aboslutely right in pointing out how fascist some of their ideas and rhetoric can be. How do we get there from here? I dunno. We can go by violent revolution, which I fear but DO NOT espouse. Or we can do it by the ballot box, which would cause a lot of Americans to actually DO something. Gee, will I be called Unamercian for that one? I don't know the answers Kel. People smarter than I will have to figure them out. All I know is that someone better do some thinking soon, before the bottom 80% get totally fed up. A third party? A fourth party? Not out of the question, and perhaps what we need. God knows the 2 party system isn't working for the people of this country at the moment. At least not for the great majority. You're absolutely righ, they DO NOT believe their vote matters. Because it DOESN'T! (Ohio 2004, Florida 2000)

Back to Ann, You have to understand my situation. I think she's attractive. The Republicans have been fucking me for 6 years, I want to return the favor. I'm not gay. What can I do? Libby Dole? Uncle Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/11/2006 9:30 am:
But aren't ya afraid of catching cooties?

StaynHardnHot 42M
305 posts
6/11/2006 9:30 am

Hey Kel, have been away for a while, was i missed? Just wanted to drop by and say i missed you much and hope to talk to you soon. I left some posts on your 100th blog(congrats) and the Tahoe one too...that was was just too damn spooky when i read it.Luv ya...oh and the Coulter bitch obviously has never lost any one who was close to her from the way she talks...just my take on it.

Chris


RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/11/2006 9:58 am

Nah, I carry "OFF". Besides, "STUPID" isn't contagious. If it was there are people here who would be infecting EVERYONE. Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/11/2006 10:08 am

    Quoting RevJoseyWales:
    Nah, I carry "OFF". Besides, "STUPID" isn't contagious. If it was there are people here who would be infecting EVERYONE. Joe
Not on this post specifically. I meant on AdultFriendFinder. Actually the tone here is decidedly polite and intellectual. I feel lost! Gee, I wanna play too. Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/11/2006 10:18 am:
What a nice compliment. I think it's been rather civilized. I like things that way. It would be such a boring world if we all agreed on everything, but that doesn't mean we have to fight and call names.

RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/11/2006 11:57 am

But it's what I'm best at. You're right tho', and I guess it would be best if my talents were not needed. Quieter for sure. But honestly, as long as there ARE fanatics and lawyers out there, I'll have a job. Humans will always keep me busy. I do have faith in them.

Getting close to #100. Do I really have to post 100 things about me? Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/11/2006 12:08 pm:
Either that or kiss a lawyer - and I'll want pics!

MillsShipsGayly 51M

6/11/2006 12:43 pm

Coulter is laughing all the way to the bank. Did you know she once wrote for the National Review but was asked to leave because her views were too far afield.

She is an easy target and the conservatives love using her to make themselves appear more mainstream. She fights hard and dirty and of course is smart as hell. God, having a throw or three with her would be fantastic ... blood, sweat and tears (not mine .. I hope).

Seems ironic to me that the hardcore Karl-Rovians won't let even moderate Republicans 'debate' the war as they continually pitch negative comments as anti-american or worse yet, against the very troops that serve.

They are just as guilty of putting up 'human shields' to deflect actual debate? I'd actually pay to see James Carville and her do mud wrestling ....


MissAnnThrope 56F
11488 posts
6/13/2006 4:11 pm

That woman's cocaine habit is an open secret, her boozing is known to get out of control and her slutting around... Well, she's very proud of it and uses it to prove she doesn't have an eating disorder because, "anorexics can't get boyfriends." Yeah, tell that to Karen Carpenter, who got married while battling anorexia.

The woman screams about family values, the June Cleaver lifestyle, but is a hypocrite who refuses to live it herself. She could take a few lessons from Michelle Maklin, who cooks and cleans for her family, does all sorts of crafting and STILL has time to spout hate speech in her columns.


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/13/2006 6:15 pm:
Well, the god that she and Rush and the others worship doesn't care about their personal lives. Money has no morals.

rm_bk2nrml 57M

6/13/2006 8:40 pm

    Quoting RevJoseyWales:
    Despite what some would think Kelli, I have always been a moderate. I don't follow any party line blindly, and I disagree with a number of things the current democrats espouse. More than anything I'm tired of seeing the majority of our population getting screwed on a daily basis. Even moderates can get angry. I'm tired of the name calling and slander of the neocons. You're aboslutely right in pointing out how fascist some of their ideas and rhetoric can be. How do we get there from here? I dunno. We can go by violent revolution, which I fear but DO NOT espouse. Or we can do it by the ballot box, which would cause a lot of Americans to actually DO something. Gee, will I be called Unamercian for that one? I don't know the answers Kel. People smarter than I will have to figure them out. All I know is that someone better do some thinking soon, before the bottom 80% get totally fed up. A third party? A fourth party? Not out of the question, and perhaps what we need. God knows the 2 party system isn't working for the people of this country at the moment. At least not for the great majority. You're absolutely righ, they DO NOT believe their vote matters. Because it DOESN'T! (Ohio 2004, Florida 2000)

    Back to Ann, You have to understand my situation. I think she's attractive. The Republicans have been fucking me for 6 years, I want to return the favor. I'm not gay. What can I do? Libby Dole? Uncle Joe
i'll 2nd your comments. ive yelled it from the rafters. they ALL need to go. they serve nobody but themselves. 3rd party would be fantastic. but who ? libertarians ? something about basic constitutionally mandated requirements of government and the govrenment OUT of everything else sounds pretty good to me. cant be any worse than now


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/13/2006 9:49 pm:
LOL!!! Sounds like you two have common ground!

I think that 50% voter turnout shows that a large portion of America is disgusted with what we have. How do we change it?

Nightguy_1961 55M
4866 posts
6/14/2006 12:49 am

Kelli,

To be quite honest, I find Ann an amusing read, just like Al Franken...but to take both of them seriously? Hardly.....

I try to take the Jeffersonian approach of critical thinking when it comes to politics...and most things in modern society. Read/listen to what's being said, critique what was read/said, ask questions/research what was said, form my own opinion. Simple, right?

Unfortunately, this is not being taught anymore. I was fortunate that I had a college professor who taught me how to 'take everything with a grain of salt'. Add that to my natural cynicism...and there you go.

I have read Hitler's Mein Kampft(sp), along with Marx, Stalin, and others; as well as Churchill, Kennedy, Gandhi, and the like....to get a balanced view. Plus, the strategist Sun Tzu said, "To know one's enemy, you must become your enemy." So I studied those whose views I completely disagree with, in order to debate with those ideas.

You and I have had great discussions in IM...with the understanding that (1) It's not personal and (2) neither one of us is going to change the other's mind. I've enjoyed it....hope you have as well.

Bottom line....both sides have demagogues and talking heads. Logic and reasoning will always outweigh rhetoric...imho...

Just my viewpoint....

NG61...quietly slipping back into the darkness...


rm_kelli4u2dew replies on 6/14/2006 6:16 am:
As I said on your other comment, it doesn't bother me that you don't agree with me. You're willing to listen, and that gives me hope that you might be convinced to re-think some of your positions. I'm sure you would be pleased if I re-think some of mine. But neither of us is going to have a coronary if we cancel each other's votes.

I used to listen to Rush for the entertainment value, then came to the realization that he wasn't just spinning things, but making them up. Intellectual dishonesty appalls me. When I have read Coulter's writings, it's like watching a train wreck. I just can't believe that anyone can take her seriously, I would be shocked if she takes herself seriously. For her to write on religion is a joke. I think Franken is more honest, and more credible than, for instance, Michael Moore.

I had a business professor who suggested I read Sun Tzu, Clausiwitz, and Muriyama, so I did one summer. Blue turned me on to The Prince, which is awesome when viewed from a business perspective. I think all capitalists should read The Communist Manifesto, but Das Capital is a waste of time.

Blue told me a definition of a cynic (I don't remember where he got it): A cynic is someone who doesn't believe all those other people's damned lies.

RevJoseyWales 69M/66F
14393 posts
6/14/2006 5:53 pm

    Quoting rm_bk2nrml:
    i'll 2nd your comments. ive yelled it from the rafters. they ALL need to go. they serve nobody but themselves. 3rd party would be fantastic. but who ? libertarians ? something about basic constitutionally mandated requirements of government and the govrenment OUT of everything else sounds pretty good to me. cant be any worse than now
Kel, Republicans/conservatives are not necessarily my sworn enemies. I even agree with them on a bunch of things. NOT with the current regime tho' obviously. The far left of the Democratic party scares me almost as much as the far right does. Notice I said ALMOST. We desparately need a centerist party, one that will speak for the "average" person. Neither party really gives a flying rats ass about me, or anyone else not in a higher socio-economic level. It's all about the Benjamins. Maybe if enough of us, Republican and Democrats alike realize that, we can make something happen. This country has been, andd should be great. A beacon of light for the world. I want that to be again. Does that make me unamerican? Joe

"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


Become a member to create a blog