Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/8/06 03:59 PM, -JoS- wrote: Now pretty much everyone can agree that both of these poeple are totally off the reservation. There is probally only one thing Karl Rove or Howard Dean agree on, and it would be that both these poeple are fucking nuts.

Umm...no? Ann Coulter isn't nuts at all.

My question is, who is more fucked up and why?

Robertson. He believes everything he says and he can't go two months without saying something totally assinine. I don't even know you can compare the two.

Said it in the other Robertson post. But it deserves repeating.

Coulter is alright in my book. She may be a little farther right than I'd like, but at least she's not spewing racial epithets (every minority liberal except Obama that walks into the picture), calling for violence (Al Sharpton), spewing insane conspiracy theories about how Clinton orchestrated the FIRST WTC attacks (Moore, Dean, etc), or calling for the assassination of liberal politicians (Sheenan). Generally, I think she's right on. She cracks me up most of the time, and though she's a very angry chick, that doesn't mean she's a wacko. Her most controversial statement "Let's kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", was made after the 9/11 attacks, when she lost a very good friend. She wasn't necessarily using tact, and I don't blame her. Actually, I'll go out on a limb and say she DOES represent the conservative ideal. Anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, etc. She's just so outrageous about it, most people can't tell when she's joking or being satirical.

Robertson however, is a complete and utter jackass.

And as for people on the left I think are crazy, here's the short list: Kennedy, Sheenan, Moore, Cho, Flint, Streisand, Cloony, and Franken (such a shame, I liked his first two books, but he's becoming, angry, bitter, and more than a tad unstable).

I think ann coulter can make some innapropriate jokes at times (I think we should take over canada....not all of canada, just the good vacation spots), but overall, she's a solid political analyst.

Now pat robertson....I'm a republican, and pat robertson makes even ME feel uneasy.

At 1/10/06 09:09 AM, Pandaman64 wrote: I think ann coulter can make some innapropriate jokes at times (I think we should take over canada....not all of canada, just the good vacation spots), but overall, she's a solid political analyst.

Now pat robertson....I'm a republican, and pat robertson makes even ME feel uneasy.

I actually thought that Ann Coulter joke was kinda funny.

As for inappropriate jokes, how bout all the ones Al Franken made about Terri Schiavo? Hell, inappropriate jokes seem to be part of the playing field.

Pat Robertson is way crazyer than Ann Coulter. He is no different from Oasama except that in this county we are able for the most part to keep our religious extremest under control.

Ann Coulter poses no real danger to America, and its funny to see her get pies tossed at her.

At 1/10/06 11:08 AM, SIMPLYB wrote: Pat Robertson is way crazyer than Ann Coulter. He is no different from Oasama except that in this county we are able for the most part to keep our religious extremest under control.

Ann Coulter poses no real danger to America, and its funny to see her get pies tossed at her.

What's worse about Robertson, is that he was a serious contender for the presidency of the U.S. at one time--he got something like 35% of the votes for the primary, I think it was, and the reason it was that low is that the big PTL scandal, involving Jim and Tammy Baker, had just broke at the time, making right wing evangelicals look very sleazy. It's scary that we actually almost had him as a president. But what's even scarrier, is that Bush is of the exact same neo-conservative, right wing Christian evangelical ilk as Robertson!

What's worse about Robertson, is that he was a serious contender for the presidency of the U.S. at one time--he got something like 35% of the votes for the primary, I think it was, and the reason it was that low is that the big PTL scandal, involving Jim and Tammy Baker, had just broke at the time, making right wing evangelicals look very sleazy. It's scary that we actually almost had him as a president. But what's even scarrier, is that Bush is of the exact same neo-conservative, right wing Christian evangelical ilk as Robertson!

I don't like to defend KING GEORGE, but i don't think that he is as bad as Pat Robertson. He just has to pander to the right wing idelogs so that he can keep control of the Republican party.

At 1/9/06 10:27 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/8/06 03:59 PM, -JoS- wrote: Now pretty much everyone can agree that both of these poeple are totally off the reservation. There is probally only one thing Karl Rove or Howard Dean agree on, and it would be that both these poeple are fucking nuts.

Umm...no? Ann Coulter isn't nuts at all.

Look, I'm not even American and I know she has said a lot of fairly wacko things

On 9/11 - "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

On Women - "Women are not as bright as men" and "It would be a much better country if women did not vote"

I could go on, but I think the point is made

My question is, who is more fucked up and why?

Robertson. He believes everything he says

Ann Coulter - "I believe everything I say."

Robertson

At 1/10/06 11:17 AM, H-Dawg wrote:

:But what's even scarrier, is that Bush is of the exact same neo-conservative, right wing Christian evangelical ilk as Robertson!

Oh, he is not. Shut up. Bush doesn't go around saying "You rejected God, die of a tornado." You sound like an idiot. Let's start comparing Kerry to al Zarquawi just because we disagree with him. The two men are nothing alike. What do Bush and Robertson have in common? The both live in America. They are both men. They are both right of center. The similarities end.

At 1/10/06 12:33 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/9/06 10:27 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/8/06 03:59 PM, -JoS- wrote: Now pretty much everyone can agree that both of these poeple are totally off the reservation. There is probally only one thing Karl Rove or Howard Dean agree on, and it would be that both these poeple are fucking nuts.

Umm...no? Ann Coulter isn't nuts at all.

Look, I'm not even American and I know she has said a lot of fairly wacko things

On 9/11 - "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

On Women - "Women are not as bright as men" and "It would be a much better country if women did not vote"

I could go on, but I think the point is made

My question is, who is more fucked up and why?

Robertson. He believes everything he says

Ann Coulter - "I believe everything I say."

I addresses the Ann Coulter 9/11 quote earlier up. Read it. She's one hundred percent accurate. As for the other two quotes, they are not even remotely close to what she said. About women not voting, the quote you are referring to was from an article about PPS (Post Pardom Depression) in which she said:

And the left would have us believe that women are so incapable of moral decision, so fragile, that for a year after giving birth that they are absolutely unable to determine right from wrong. That they are so far gone that we should give them a free pass on murdering their own children because for a whole year they are not in their right mind. I think that if women are really that crazy, perhaps it was a mistake to give us the right to vote.

She's being satirical, but she has a point. Who in the hell in their right mind gives someone the right to vote who they believe to be in that condition. She finishes by saying that of course women don't go off the deep end after giving birth. That it's just a group of apologists trying to make mothers who murder their children seem the norm, and she be ridiculed as the disgusting deception it is.

Actually try and read the shit you quote ok?

At 1/10/06 02:06 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/10/06 12:33 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

Actually try and read the shit you quote ok?

I apologise for not reading the whole article. Maybe you would like to explain the following quotes in a similar fashion?

"I think [women] ... should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted"

And further to the 9/11 quote, although you defend her by saying 'she lost a friend in the attack', the following quote seems to suggest otherwise

"If Chicago had been hit, I assure you New Yorkers would not have cared. What was stunning when New York was hit was how the rest of America rushed to New York's defense. New Yorkers would have been like, 'It's tough for them; now let's go back to our Calvin Klein fashion shows.'"

And, just to ram home my point

"Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do"

"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages."

Now, even I can see she is being flippant with a number of these comments, but some of them are downright racist. For that reason, I believe her to be, as originally stated "just plain nuts"

Although Pat Robertson is worse

Now, even I can see she is being flippant with a number of these comments, but some of them are downright racist. For that reason, I believe her to be, as originally stated "just plain nuts"

Although Pat Robertson is worse

Right on. Plus you dont have to act like a bitch to get any point across. Like her book "How to talk to a liberal if you must." Like liberals are not even people. Libral is not a bad thing. It's realy the only thing that defends the rights and privilages we all enjoy today. If it were not for librals we would still be having race riots in the stree.

At 1/10/06 02:59 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/10/06 02:06 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/10/06 12:33 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

Actually try and read the shit you quote ok?

I apologise for not reading the whole article. Maybe you would like to explain the following quotes in a similar fashion?

"I think [women] ... should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted"

Didn't read it. Therefore won't defend it. That's my policy. Link me to the actual article and then after I read it, we'll converse.

And further to the 9/11 quote, although you defend her by saying 'she lost a friend in the attack', the following quote seems to suggest otherwise. Before I got kicked offline, I typed up this huge thing defending her that I'm too lazy to retype. However, she does defend women, gays and black all the time, so take that for what it's worth.

"If Chicago had been hit, I assure you New Yorkers would not have cared. What was stunning when New York was hit was how the rest of America rushed to New York's defense. New Yorkers would have been like, 'It's tough for them; now let's go back to our Calvin Klein fashion shows.'"

I'm sure you're proud of yourself here, though for the life of me, I can't figure out why. How does this suggest otherwise? It was written after the one I mentioned by a couple of weeks. And there's absolutely no contradiction. None. Drag out a couple of sentences from here and there and I can make you look like an asshole. For example:
Somewhere I'm sure you've said something of a personal nature. Somewhere else you've said "Who cares?" Put them together and you look like a jackass. And to make matters worse, the wuote is 100% true. The writings of several NY editorials, professors and the like almost suggest that they didn't care what happened to THEIR OWN CITY. So, really, what's your point here?

And, just to ram home my point

You have yet to make one, but ok.

"Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do"

After the Columbine murders, people blamed the music, the movies, the parents, everyone but the kids. After the LA riots, people blamed everyone but the rioters. After Matthew Shepard, conservative talk show hosts were blamed, as were chsritians, when it was some sick fucks who decided to kill a gay guy. (Conincidently, Rush Limbaugh was the first guy to call for the death penalty for the Matthew Shepard crimes, but whatever). And after 9/11, the same b.s. went on again. Coulter just said simply "hey guys, wasn't us, it was the terrorists". This one actually hurts your argument.

"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

Not all Christians are abortion clinic bombers, but all abortion clinic bombers are Christians. Don't care how much you dislike the statement, it's true.

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages."

Now, even I can see she is being flippant with a number of these comments, but some of them are downright racist. For that reason, I believe her to be, as originally stated "just plain nuts"

OK, I've decided to be lenient here, because it's obvious you haven't read Ann Coulter, let alone anyone else. ReadMargaret Cho "I have Chosen to Stay and Fight", every other word is a racial slur. Ann Coulter says the truth about our situation and you call her racist. People on the left who utter the same bullshit are called heroes. Sorry, I'm not feeling like debating this with anyone. The left doesn't have room to call anyone racist.

Although Pat Robertson is worse

At least we agree on something.

At 1/10/06 03:09 PM, SIMPLYB wrote::

Right on. Plus you dont have to act like a bitch to get any point across. Like her book "How to talk to a liberal if you must." Like liberals are not even people. Libral is not a bad thing. It's realy the only thing that defends the rights and privilages we all enjoy today. If it were not for librals we would still be having race riots in the streets.

I'm tired and I've dealt with stupid people all day so I have no patience for you.

You haven't read the book, so don't comment on it. Cause she never once says liberals aren't people. Yes, liberal IS a bad thing. Every single race riot has been initiated by a liberal, usually Jackson or Sharpton. If you look back through history, every single right given to minorities came throug the Republicans. End to slavery, voting rights for blacks, affirmative action, all came from Republicans. Everytime there has EVER been a race riot (even if it killed minorities), the liberals have sided with the rioters and the Republicans with the victims. There has never been a single exception to this. Liberals love race riots. Conservatives end them. So shut the hell up and actually learn some history.

Now, I'm never against anyone just for being Christian, though I have been accused of such . . . but still, Pat Robertson should never be allowed office.

Why? Ask Wikipedia.

Here's some fun excepts:

Claim that some denominations contain the spirit of the Antichrist
On January 14, 1991, on "The 700 Club", Pat Robertson attacked a number of Protestant denominations when he declared: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

Claims about the power of his prayers
Robertson claims to have used the power of prayer to steer hurricanes away from his companies' Virginia Beach, Virginia, headquarters. He took credit for steering the course in 1985 of Hurricane Gloria, which caused millions of dollars of destruction in many states along the U.S. east coast. He made a similar claim about another destructive storm, Hurricane Felix, in 1995. In 2003, Robertson called on God to prevent Hurricane Isabel from hitting Virginia Beach. In 2005, Robertson launched Operation Supreme Court Freedom, a televised nationwide 21-day prayer campaign asking people to pray for vacancies on the Supreme Court, where "black-robed tyrants have pushed a radical agenda". Robertson declared that "God heard those prayers"[6], after the announced resignation of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Opposition to feminism, homosexuality, and liberalism
Among his more controversial statements, Robertson has described feminism as a "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Many of Robertson's views mirror those of the evangelical activist Jerry Falwell, who has made frequent appearances on The 700 Club. He agreed with Falwell that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were caused by "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and the People for the American Way." After public outcry regarding the dialogue, which took place only days after the attacks, Robertson stated that he had not understood what Falwell was saying during the interview, which was conducted via television monitor.

You haven't read the book, so don't comment on it. Cause she never once says liberals aren't people. Yes, liberal IS a bad thing. Every single race riot has been initiated by a liberal, usually Jackson or Sharpton. If you look back through history, every single right given to minorities came throug the Republicans. End to slavery, voting rights for blacks, affirmative action, all came from Republicans. Everytime there has EVER been a race riot (even if it killed minorities), the liberals have sided with the rioters and the Republicans with the victims. There has never been a single exception to this. Liberals love race riots. Conservatives end them. So shut the hell up and actually learn some history.

Actually I have read the book. Also I never said that the contents of the book claim that liberals aren't even people. I was reffering to the title dumb ass. Also claiming that the Republican party is responsible for solving race problems in this this contry is totaly obsured. Republicans only went along with the End to slavery, voting rights for blacks, affirmative action, because things looked so bad for them that if they didn't there would be no republicans left. And if it is true that the Republican party cares about minorities why have they been trying to get rid of affimative action, and other laws that help minorities.
So you can just shut the hell up and actually learn some history.

Ann Coulter is a bitch
Pat Robertson is crazy

At 1/8/06 08:45 PM, TehBlueBullet wrote: Please don't say anything bad about Pat. He is older and alot smarter than all of us put together.
Why do you guys have a personal vendetta with Christians?

Do you really want to be grouped with Pat? He's a hateful man. I dilike him like anyone else who behaves in that manner reguardless of religion. That's like the lame argument "Why do you hate America?" when someone brings up a point of dilike about the country. Frankly the stuff he's been spouting off recently is beyond ridiculous, and anti-christian. He's a perfect example of toxic faith.

And just to keep with the topic:
Ann just says whatever will get her attention, because she's an attention whore. So I don't take her very seriously. She's like any other extremist, they just rant to hear their own voice. I wouldn't group either of these individuals with conservatives.

At 1/11/06 04:42 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/10/06 02:59 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/10/06 02:06 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/10/06 12:33 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

Didn't read it. Therefore won't defend it. That's my policy. Link me to the actual article and then after I read it, we'll converse.

Here. While I appreciate your integrity enough to know you'll read it, it pretty much backs up my point perfectly (its about 3/4 of the way down). Although she does say it "laughingly", she also states "its a fact"

Before I got kicked offline, I typed up this huge thing defending her that I'm too lazy to retype. However, she does defend women, gays and black all the time, so take that for what it's worth.

Sorry to make you retype it, but could you give me a source or something? Particularly about defending gays, since I was under the impression she was very anti-homosexuality

I'm sure you're proud of yourself here, though for the life of me, I can't figure out why. What's your point here

My point is that she seems to write stuff without considering its impact on other people. If you believe I took this article out of context, that's fine. I have plenty of other quotes which you are struggling to legitimately attack.

"Bumper sticker idea for liberals: News magazines don't kill people, Muslims do"

After the Columbine murders, people blamed the music, the movies, the parents, everyone but the kids.

I disagree. While I appreciate the point you are making, I feel it is irrelevant. What I was trying to point out was that she was prepared to make a blanket statement like that. Contrary to your apparent belief, you are still more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a Muslim extremist. Hence, while she is correct to say "News magazines don't kill people," it is racist to then say "Muslims do", since Muslims do not drink, and hence don't drink-drive.

"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

Not all Christians are abortion clinic bombers, but all abortion clinic bombers are Christians. Don't care how much you dislike the statement, it's true.

FFS! Do you honestly believe this? What about ETA in Spain, or SHAC in England? The statement is obviously false. Not all terrorists are Muslims.

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages."

No comeback to this?

OK, I've decided to be lenient here, because it's obvious you haven't read Ann Coulter, let alone anyone else. ReadMargaret Cho "I have Chosen to Stay and Fight", every other word is a racial slur.

I'm not saying racism is acceptable, I'm just saying that Ann Coulter is either nuts, or a racist. Since I feel some of her other comments are plainly mad, I am choosing to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I decided she is nuts

objectively, pat robertson is crazier. He is using the same principal as the terrorists, and look at the deaths they have caused. I'm not comparing their actions, just thier motives.

W/ political beliefs? pat robertson can suck it for all I care

At 1/10/06 09:53 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/10/06 09:09 AM, Pandaman64 wrote:

As for inappropriate jokes, how bout all the ones Al Franken made about Terri Schiavo? Hell, inappropriate jokes seem to be part of the playing field.

When did franken mock schaivo??

Pat hands down on crazy, this guy is about five gridders short of a picnic. The reason why? He honestly believes his own silly ass, Anna on the other hand is just playing the game (there is reasonibly evidence to make a case against her intelligence.) , but she ain't a nut.

At 1/11/06 01:32 PM, Pandaman64 wrote:

At 1/10/06 09:53 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/10/06 09:09 AM, Pandaman64 wrote:

As for inappropriate jokes, how bout all the ones Al Franken made about Terri Schiavo? Hell, inappropriate jokes seem to be part of the playing field.

When did franken mock schaivo??

I think they are refering to this

He skewers Republican leader Tom DeLay for saying proper medical care might have revived Schiavo as she remained in a vegetative state while politicians debated her fate.

"In other words, given proper treatment, there was no reason Terry Schiavo couldn't live out her lifelong dream of being a Rockette," Franken quipped.

It wasn't a joke at Terry, it was a joke at people like Delay pretty much making up their own medicle theories, considering it was pretty obvious Terry would not "get better" with any treatment.

At 1/11/06 09:04 AM, SIMPLYB wrote:

Actually I have read the book. Also I never said that the contents of the book claim that liberals aren't even people. I was reffering to the title dumb ass. Also claiming that the Republican party is responsible for solving race problems in this this contry is totaly obsured. Republicans only went along with the End to slavery, voting rights for blacks, affirmative action, because things looked so bad for them that if they didn't there would be no republicans left. And if it is true that the Republican party cares about minorities why have they been trying to get rid of affimative action, and other laws that help minorities.
So you can just shut the hell up and actually learn some history.

Pat Robertson is crazy

'Because things looked so bad for them?' You admit that it was the republicans that did all those things for minorities then, correct? Does the purpose really matter as long as they help? Intentions don't change the nature of the actions made.

Also, affirmative action is no longer needed. There is no massive and rampant racism issue in our job market. It's in the company's best intrest to hire the BEST GUY. and if all the people that are qualified are white, then so be it. I can't imagine going "Hooray, I got hired over some more qualified white guy because I'm black (or some other minority)! Awesome!" If anything, AA makes bosses impose a sort of quoda system. "whoops, better go find me a black guy to shut up jesse jackson."

Also, Abe lincoln created the republican party specifically to end slavery. Otherwise he would have run with the democratic party. Watch the history channel.

'Because things looked so bad for them?' You admit that it was the republicans that did all those things for minorities then, correct? Does the purpose really matter as long as they help? Intentions don't change the nature of the actions made.

Yes the purpose does matter. If you do something to save your ass insted of beliving in what your doing it does matter. Also after they so graciously gave the black people there right to vote the repbulicans came out with a lot of Jim Crow laws to limit the number of blacks who could actually vote.

Also, affirmative action is no longer needed. There is no massive and rampant racism issue in our job market. It's in the company's best intrest to hire the BEST GUY. and if all the people that are qualified are white, then so be it. I can't imagine going "Hooray, I got hired over some more qualified white guy because I'm black (or some other minority)! Awesome!" If anything, AA makes bosses impose a sort of quoda system. "whoops, better go find me a black guy to shut up jesse jackson."

Also, Abe lincoln created the republican party specifically to end slavery. Otherwise he would have run with the democratic party. Watch the history channel.

Go back to the history book the republican party was not created by Abe Lincoln.

Also, Abe lincoln created the republican party specifically to end slavery. Otherwise he would have run with the democratic party. Watch the history channel.

Trying times spawn new forces. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 divided the country at the 36° 30' parallel between the pro-slavery, agrarian South and anti-slavery, industrial North, creating an uneasy peace which lasted for three decades. This peace was shattered in 1854 by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Settlers would decide if their state would be free or slave. Northern leaders such as Horace Greeley, Salmon Chase and Charles Sumner could not sit back and watch the flood of pro-slavery settlers cross the parallel. A new party was needed.

Where was the party born? Following the publication of the "Appeal of Independent Democrats" in major newspapers, spontaneous demonstrations occurred. In early 1854, the first proto-Republican Party meeting took place in Ripon, Wisconsin. On June 6, 1856 in Jackson, Michigan upwards of 10,000 people turned out for a mass meeting. This led to the first organizing convention in Pittsburgh on February 22, 1856.

The gavel fell to open the Party's first nominating convention, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on June 17, 1856, announcing the birth of the Republican Party as a unified political force.

At 1/11/06 09:04 AM, SIMPLYB wrote: Actually I have read the book. Also I never said that the contents of the book claim that liberals aren't even people. I was reffering to the title dumb ass. Also claiming that the Republican party is responsible for solving race problems in this this contry is totaly obsured. Republicans only went along with the End to slavery, voting rights for blacks, affirmative action, because things looked so bad for them that if they didn't there would be no republicans left. And if it is true that the Republican party cares about minorities why have they been trying to get rid of affimative action, and other laws that help minorities.
So you can just shut the hell up and actually learn some history.

The title doesn't infer that liberals aren't people either. It flat out says "Why in the hell would you want to talk to them?" In other words, she thinks talking to liberals is a waste of time. Coulter is not a subtle lady, and doesn't infer anything. She comes out and says it.

And as for the history book, you are the only person I have EVER met who thought Jim Crow laws were written by the Republicans. The South was primarily Democrat, when the Jim Crow laws were inacted, and they were confined strictly to the South. Wallace, the famous Democrat governer is the one who turned the fire hoses and dogs loose on peaceful protestors. Republicans authored the Amendment ending Slavery, and then again giving them voting rights. And they forced the Southern states to go along with them. Richard Nixon helped author the affirmative action laws. And you do know that a growing number of black people are speaking out against affirmative action, right?
As for all these laws that we're trying to roll back, name some. Affirmative action...yes, most Republicans want that gone. It's no longer necessary. Republicans in conjunction with Clinton reformed welfare, and black employment rates soared. But Bush, ever the white supremicist, came up with the brilliant idea that maybe we should hand out visas to illegal immigrants. And also came up with a plan to bring Mexican citizens across the border in record numbers and hand them American jobs on a temporary visa program. Jeez, it's obvious the man hates hispanics. Oh yea, he has the most diverse cabinet in the history of the country. Guess he brought Condi and Powell on board because he hates blacks...give me a break.
Don't preach about history, you don't seem to know anything about it. Want racism? Read a Margaret Cho book. She's a nice racist liberal.

As for the Ann Coulter article. I read it, and was left unimpressed. Since all the quotes from the article were straight from either her books or columns, I don't think he actually talked to her. That's just me. The only quote I was unfamiliar with was the "women shouldn't vote" one. I just don't buy this. With as much hatred as this guy obviously has for her, it would've come through in the actual interview and she would've turned hostle QUICK. This article was b.s. And I'm unconvinced of anything here. This guy went in with the intent to make her look bad and he did. If you can find the column she wrote where she said that "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" line, I'll give that one a go over. I don't always agree with the woman. But parts of this don't even sound like Coulter, such as her comparing herself to a character off Sex and the City, a show which she has repeatedly bashed and says she hates..
But onto her defending gays. Yes, she is very anti-gay marriage, but that hardly means she hates gays. In Treason she writes of Roy Cohn (paraphrased) "And just because he happened to side with McCarthy, they (liberals) brought out all the dirt they could on him, including his private sex life, that he was gay. It had nothing to do with the issue of the day, whether or not there were communists in the government. It was simply to discredit him, to bring his dirty laundry out in public, to ashame him. It was a cowardly move and it was shameful." And she often talks about how liberals will slam a Gay Republican, but outing them, or talking extensively about their sex lives for daring to "not know their place and vote Democrat":
http://www.anncoulte..ticle.cgi?article=43

http://www.anncoulte..ticle.cgi?article=44

Here are two articles.

And finally, someone asked about Al Franken's little jokes on Terry Schiavo. Despite the ones he made on his radio show, refering to her repeatedly as "the vegetable", there's also "The Truth with Jokes": In other words, given proper treatment, there's no reason Shiavo couldn't live out her life-long dream of being a rockette. (p 149) In fairness, Frist was not giving Terri Shiavo false hope. ...She was as incapable of false hope as she was of real hope. Or for that matter, blinking on command. (p 150). Not that I believe it makes him a bad person or anything, but it does kind of hurt his contention that he's the more compassionate one, since he's making jokes about it.

At 1/11/06 04:58 PM, WolvenBear wrote: In Treason she writes of Roy Cohn (paraphrased) "And just because he happened to side with McCarthy, they (liberals) brought out all the dirt they could on him, including his private sex life, that he was gay. It had nothing to do with the issue of the day, whether or not there were communists in the government. It was simply to discredit him, to bring his dirty laundry out in public, to ashame him. It was a cowardly move and it was shameful." And she often talks about how liberals will slam a Gay Republican, but outing them, or talking extensively about their sex lives for daring to "not know their place and vote Democrat"

Hypocrisy has a way to come out-- this guy was a huge fag basher, and yet this man had a way to take things in the ass. What kind of credit did this guy have? What was cowardly and shameful about telling the truth?

He was a high profile "human" who was in the spotlight for a long time. Did Coulter think his death from AIDs, then a sopposedly gay disease, wouldn't catch the attention of the world?

That's is so retarded.

It would be like Janet Jackson blaming Liberals for having a high profile nipple gaurd plate.

And as for the history book, you are the only person I have EVER met who thought Jim Crow laws were written by the Republicans. The South was primarily Democrat, when the Jim Crow laws were inacted, and they were confined strictly to the South.

The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. Initially, it referred to a 1948 splinter from the party: for over a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but that year many bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States. Over the next several decades, as the white South slowly re-aligned from the Democrats to the Republicans, the term came to have a broader usage, including, for example, with reference to the members of the Electoral College who in the election of 1960 voted for Harry Flood Byrd rather than John F. Kennedy, or the white Southern voters and electors who in 1968 supported Wallace.

The term has also been used to refer to conservative white Southerners who remain within the Democratic Party, and those who were formerly Democrats but now identify as Republicans.

Into the twenty-first century, the South has changed from a Democratic monolith to a majority Republican sector of the country with GOP gains in state legislatures. Many of the political ideologies of the Dixiecrats have been so totally adopted by the Republicans that these principles are now considered to be the core values of the modern Republican Party. This change, which began in 1972 with Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", was followed up by the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the reconquest of the House of Representatives in 1994 by Newt Gingrich, reached its ultimate pinnacle in 2000 with the election of George W. Bush, giving religiously motivated former Dixiecrats total control over all three branches of the federal government. It has also caused significant friction with the few remaining paleo-conservatives in the GOP as they see the Dixiecrat transplants to be openly hostile towards limited-government conservatism and in favor of more authoritarian government.

So I hope you can see what I mean. The same type of people to wright Jim Crow laws in the past are the people who left the democratic south.

At 1/10/06 12:33 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/9/06 10:27 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/8/06 03:59 PM, -JoS- wrote: Now pretty much everyone can agree that both of these poeple are totally off the reservation. There is probally only one thing Karl Rove or Howard Dean agree on, and it would be that both these poeple are fucking nuts.

Umm...no? Ann Coulter isn't nuts at all.

Look, I'm not even American and I know she has said a lot of fairly wacko things

On 9/11 - "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

I don't even understand why these words were so controversial. We should kill terrorists whenever we get the chance. Converting them to Christianity is probably too good for most of them.

On Women - "Women are not as bright as men" and "It would be a much better country if women did not vote"

I don't remember that one. I remember she said that she didn't think women should vote because they don't know what it's like to make money, which I thought was pretty hilarious.

Ann Coulter - "I believe everything I say."

She also said, "liberals pretend that they don't understand hyperbole."

At 1/9/06 10:27 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Robertson. He believes everything he says and he can't go two months without saying something totally assinine. I don't even know you can compare the two.

You're saying that Coulter doesn't believe everything she says? Well that's a relief.

At 1/11/06 10:07 PM, red_skunk wrote: You're saying that Coulter doesn't believe everything she says? Well that's a relief.

I'm sure she believes everything she says in the ideological sense. But when she says that women shoudn't be politically involved...I give her the benefit of the doubt.