is Ann Coulter

“"All the DNA is the same, and lack of teeth prevent dental record ID's.”

”

“Kleetn: No substance, just irrelevant emotional drivel and personal attack.

Riiiiiiight.

Let's see if anyone here lives in a glass house:

"...so that you’re not such a know-nothing"
"...vast ignorance, kleetn"
"These fools are just funny, Nigal"
"I’ll bet none of them read over a third grade level."
"Freakin’ educate yourself so that you’re not such a know-nothing."
"It’s hard to go back and read the depth of intelligent discussion that followed from the likes of kleetn, Y2, marko, sacco, et. al. without lapsing into a coma."

[sarcasm]You've certainly elevated the level of discourse with your rational, respectful, unemotional responses.[/sarcasm]

I leave it to you to decide whether behavior like this reflects best on those to whom it is directed, or on those from whom it comes.”

“You’re still entitled to your opinion, mulepacker. And considering the variety of Rand’s writings with which you are so intimately familiar (such as the familiarity you show in spelling her name), I respect it greatly.

Shuh-up. You’ll ruin my street cred.






The glaringly obvious difference between us, kleetn, is that I offer substance as well as ridicule. The ONLY thing you post is mindless opinionated drivel.

A psychiatrist friend tells me that talking about crazy nonsense (such as your posts) is a way to seek control. People like you usually just figure that the craziest one wins. Well most “liberals” are control freaks, so that fits.

But I love to see you posting regularly. It gives us all such a clear example of the truth that there, but for a childhood full of emotional abuse, go I.




News-Ocala story calling for government protection while leaving out NRA legislation.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/LOCAL/206290349/1078

One of the main points of this article is that government needs to increase staffing levels in order to protect us. What it leaves out is mention of the bill (HB-1029) the Florida Legislature recently passed. This new law actually allows people to protect themselves. What a concept!!!

Now why do you suppose they left out that critical fact? And why haven’t I seen any newspaper articles about this new law? Nor has there been coverage of the law (HB-285) that would prevent “liberals” from setting up their totalitarian regimes by ignoring the Constitution during an emergency. Inquiring minds want to know.

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2262




The sorry state of leftist philosophy shows in the fact that, even though George W. was such a mediocre choice, the Dems couldn’t get their boy elected.






The actions of leftys tell all we need to know about their beliefs: Publicly elected leftys can make all sorts of nasty remarks towards those who disagree with them, but only “conservatives” such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh degrade public discourse.

But wait…there may be hope. The Democrats (one Democrat at least) are up in arms. Obama came down hard on his party for attacking religion:

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/WIRE/206290334&SearchID=73249158216630

Funny, I seem to remember a book with a related title: Godless: The Church of Liberalism

Could there be truth in what Coulter says? Did the book stimulate this introspection? Not on this site, but perhaps it stimulated some long dormant little gray cells within some leftys.

And here’s the good news for those godless unbelievers. Even if they can’t fathom that the media may be biased, surely they can grasp this concept: When nasty “liberals” try to trash their opposition, the media may realize that it’s only so much emotionally dysfunctional tripe, and not worth quoting. But when “conservatives” speak it’s worth the time to create controversial news stories because the clear logic of the arguments may actually stimulate leftys to examine their deviant behavior. Think about it.




Poll: Americans Love Coulter Columns!

by Ann Coulter
Posted Mar 22, 2006


Bush has lost his momentum, Americans' support for the Iraq war is dwindling, and opposition to Bush policies is hardening. That's according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll being covered as if it were a real news story.

Like callers to talk radio claiming to be Republicans angry with Republicans, liberals love to pretend public opinion is always in the process of shifting in their direction. They can't win elections -- Democrats have gotten a majority vote in a national election only two times since FDR was president (Lyndon Johnson in '64 and Jimmy Carter in '76). But they're always experiencing an upswing in the polls.

Clinton could never get a majority of Americans to vote for him but, according to the polls, as soon as the public found out about his sex romps with Monica, his support shot up to above 80 percent. Bush did get a majority of the country to vote for him less than two years ago. Now we're told 70 percent of Americans hate the man.

Indeed, according to the polls, the public's feeling about the war in Iraq began three years ago with fear, skepticism and dread -- and steadily went downhill.

If these poll results were accurate, support for the war should be about negative 3,000 percent by now. The public would have stormed the White House, seized the president and flogged him to death.

Here's a sample of New York Times headlines on stories discussing poll numbers since before the Iraq war began in March 2003:

-- Poll Finds Most in U.S. Support Delaying a War (2/14/03)

-- Opinions Begin to Shift as Public Weighs Costs of War (3/26/03)

-- World's View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds (6/4/03)

-- Study Finds Europeans Distrustful of U.S. Global Leadership (9/4/03)

-- Despite Polls, Pataki Backs Bush on Iraq All the Way (10/3/03)

-- Poll Finds Hostility Hardening Toward U.S. Policies (3/17/04)

-- Support for War Is Down Sharply, Poll Concludes (4/29/04)

-- Rising Casualties, One Falling Poll (5/2/04)

-- Polls Show Bush's Job-Approval Ratings Sinking (5/14/04)

-- Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point, New Survey Finds (6/29/04)

And then -- despite the fact that every single man, woman and child in America opposed the war in Iraq and despised George Bush -- a few months later, Bush won re-election against well-respected war hero John Kerry.

Immediately after the election, public opinion polls showed Americans turning once again against the war and against George Bush, according to the Times:

-- Americans Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda (11/23/04)

-- Public Voicing Doubts on Iraq and the Economy, Poll Finds (1/20/05)

-- Bad Iraq War News Worries Some in GOP on '06 Vote (8/18/05)

-- Support for Bush Continues to Drop as More Question His Leadership Skills, Poll Shows (9/15/05)

-- Iraq's Costs Worry Americans, Poll Indicates (9/17/05)

-- Most Americans Find Cindy Sheehan Attractive, Interesting (2/8/06). OK, I made that one up. The rest were made up by the Times.

The media are constantly telling Americans what they believe: You are dissatisfied ... You are getting more dissatisfied ... You are slowly becoming utterly dissatisfied ... Your dissatisfaction is now reaching a fever pitch!

News coverage of public opinion polls is barely justifiable in an election year. When there's no horse race, these cooked-up polls are nothing more than the mainstream media's long, monotonous brainwashing of the public.

At least the old subliminal ads for popcorn in movie theaters operated by stealth. Today's mainstream media engage in open conditioning of the public in a fantastical scheme to shift public opinion.

Noticeably, there's always an odd disconnect between what the polls say and what people actually do.

Despite the fact that -- according to the polls -- the "American people" are fed up with the war Iraq, only a few hundred anti-war protesters showed up in New York City last weekend. The naked cowboy in Times Square gets a bigger crowd than that.

Despite the fact that polls show the public is ready to throw in the towel on Iraq, members of the House of Representatives, or "the people's house," recently voted 403-3 against withdrawing the troops.

Despite the fact that 70 percent of the public thinks Bush is doing a lousy job, when they had a chance to put someone else in the White House a mere 15 months ago, they decided to keep him.

There is, however, one poll taken by millions of Americans every day, year in, year out. Based on plummeting viewers, circulation numbers and ad rates, we can say with some certainty, the American people are beginning to loathe the liberal media.
last edited: 6/29/06 3:23:26 PM”

“Bwahahahahah!!!”

“somebody say "uncle" so this guy will shut up already”

“The glaringly obvious difference between us, kleetn, is that I offer substance as well as ridicule.

Another glaringly obvious difference is that I know when I'm beating a dead horse.
last edited: 6/29/06 5:30:48 PM”

“Kleety's all potatoes and no meat.”

“And I'll bet he's got a tiny deck.”

“But if he trims the hedges around the deck it will make it look larger”

“Uncle Ream Us??”

“He's probably got a soft wood problem.”

“The hardwoods are lookin' pretty tough!!

”

“It's good to see the 3 Stooges took the high road, and haven't resorted to childish personal attacks.



Flog away, boyz!
last edited: 6/30/06 11:52:52 AM”

“Aw Amy, I do love ya!!”

“Kleetn, we admire your thoughts so much that we want to emulate them.




Amy, that certainly shows the low class of most lefties... but it's pretty dang funny!


I'm pretty computer illiterate. How do I post a picture?


[img]BushVacay.jpg[/img]



Because this ain't working.
last edited: 6/30/06 3:00:32 PM”

“you have to pull your pic from a website, left click, click properties, copy image link, come back here, type [img src=(paste link here)]

Try not to screw it up, like your vote.”

“So buddah, what were the choices?”

“Freakin’ educate yourself so that you’re not such a know-nothing. Who cares whether we agree in the end, but you can’t even post a picture without doing some research. Maybe the political parties would actually offer us some good candidates if it weren’t so obvious that so many people are arrogantly ignorant and don’t take personal responsibility for researching how to post a picture.
”

“[img src=http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbusheatcake.htm]

Kleetn, we definitely have the thirst for improving our knowledge as a common thread here. You research how to post pictures to the internet. I research things like economics and media bias. You research things that you feel will make you look cool and funny to other people. I research things that I feel make me a better member of society.

Clearly the only thing different is our priorities.
last edited: 6/30/06 4:18:56 PM”

“

this one arclite?”

“No Y2, this one:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushfishingvacation.htm

It’s a bit out of context now, but I couldn’t stop laughing when I first saw it. Of course that is New Orleans. Someone sent it to me pretty close after Katrina.




Maybe I’ll learn how to do it some day. In the meantime, thanks Buddha, for trying to teach this decrepit old dog.”

“The really sad part is HOW far most of the nation has come. At one time we had the Yellow Dog Democrats...today there are people who will vote becuase the guy has an R. after his name.
I would prefer to see one party stand FOR SOMETHING. Heck given any day you can have a swing. Probably the best Senator out of Georgia in the past few years was Zell Miller. Now....what do we have?”

“Yeah and I heard they had a photo of some woman Clinton RAPED...oh wait...that was not photoshop it was real”

“Next thing you'll tell us is Bush went AWOL during his time in the National Guard.”

“Since that is the STORY BLAND BLATHER got fired over....NOPE”

“Figured”

“i did not know that getting out of going to war was equivalent to raping a woman”

“arclite really is a serious intellectual guys. For example, he just sent me some lame pee-pee and booby jokes. He's the real deal!”

“Um....I will go over this ONE more time. GW was a FIGHTER INTERCEPTOR PILOT....see when he was in there just weren't a whole S load of a lot of FIGHTERS TO INTERCEPT.
In fact the GOOKS didn't have aircraft in any major force. That was before multi role aircraft and the fighter he flew was not a Air to Ground combat jet.
OH..but the way, you do know that the interceptor crews in the US had one mission in case of a nuke attack?

Their standing orders were to use thier aircraft to "eliminate" incoming...this means hit it with your jet. Kinda a one way ride.

But hey lets talk other heroes of that war...ALGORE (newspaper in Siagon) with BODY GUARDS 24/7 so Daddy's (SENATOR DADDY) little boy wouldnt get hurt.
SKerry - three wounds (falsified as we now learned) to get that "combat status" and get home...4 months? I think that is worse...And from what the VETS with him said...he bordered on cowardice.

The one I particularly like is how you picked on HW Bush.....you do know in your VAST knowledge what a Torpeado Pilot did...? Yeah another suicide job.
And there was BOB Dole...um want to talk heroics.

Sorry Won't fly, your attacks have nothing to do with wanting to change policy...just destroy the administration.”

“LOL, you call that an attack?

No wonder the Right is beginning to look foolish.
last edited: 7/02/06 4:18:46 PM”

“You Libbies are so Silly.”

“Keep it up this is great! LOL. The left is falling apart and the rest of the country is giggling at you. The only friends you have left are the major media...and they have the same "respect level" as a Plaintiff Attorney.”

“You were picked on a lot as a kid....huh?”

“I must say that I have finally heard an interview with Ann that I really enjoyed and I was not offended by her in the least.

Ann on the Adam Corolla. pg-13”

“Kristen Breitweiser delivers a solid rebuttal to Ann Coulter in an afterward in her book, "Wake-Up Call: The Political Education of a 9/11 Widow".

You complained to many interviewers that they hadn't taken the time to read your book. But did you take the time to look at the Family Steering Committee Web site (www.911independentcommission.org)? You might discover that we shared some of the same disappointments, concerns, and grievances that you have expressed with regard to the 9/11 Commission. The difference is that we made those concerns known while the Commission was doing its work--that is, when it could have made a difference. Why didn't you?”

“Reading the comments was more enlightening.”

“LMAO!!!!!!!!

A few months back, 9/11 widow Kristin Breitweiser suggested that former CIA Director George Tenet and named FBI agents are as deserving of the death penalty as Zacarias Moussaoui.

I keep forgetting just how many libbies lost their silly little minds after 9/11.”

“Joe Wilson: The End of an Error
by Ann Coulter
Posted Sep 06, 2006

As National Public Radio described the story behind Joe Wilson's amusingly titled book, "The Politics of Truth" (available on the $1 table in fine bookstores everywhere), in May 2004:

"Last July Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times saying that this particular intelligence regarding Iraq was false. A week later, columnist Robert Novak revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative."

This is like saying: "John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan; Reagan later died." Every word of that is true, but what it implies -- that Hinckley killed Reagan -- is false.

In the exact same way, the grand White House conspiracy promoted by Wilson and the mainstream media cites chronological events to prove causation.

The media's conspiracy theory is:

Wilson said Bush's famed "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address -- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- were a lie.


Wilson's wife was then revealed to be an "undercover" spy at the CIA, exposing Wilson and his family to danger.


Therefore, she was "outed" by the White House as retaliation against Wilson for calling Bush a liar.

Point No. 1 of liberals' conspiracy theory has been proved false since Britain's Butler Commission reviewed its government's pre-war intelligence on Iraq and concluded that "the British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium."

It was again proved false when our own Senate Intelligence Committee also concluded, in July 2004, that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger.

So there went the White House's motive for muddying up Wilson: Government fact-finding commissions, here and in the United Kingdom, were muddying up Wilson on their own simply by finding facts.

Point No. 2, that Wilson's wife was an undercover agent, has been proved false even to the willfully blind since Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced the conclusion to his pointless investigation last year, saying that Plame's employment with the CIA was not undercover, but merely "classified."

Everything is "classified" at the CIA. They have no idea when 19 terrorists are about to hijack commercial aircraft and slaughter 3,000 Americans, but the CIA is very good at play-acting James Bond spy games.

How covert was Valerie Plame at the CIA? Her top-secret code name was "Valerie Plame."

All this should have been enough to end conspiracy theories of White House skullduggery. But the nation's newsrooms simply continued asserting that someone in the Bush White House had "outed" Valerie Plame, despite the fact that revealing her employment with the CIA was not illegal.

Thus, as recently as January of this year, a New York Times editorial said the issue of the "leak" about Wilson's wife, whom the Times called "a covert CIA operative whose identity was leaked" (two strikes already), concerned "whether the White House was using this information in an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband, a critic of the Iraq invasion."

Wilson was more precise about the White House "leaker," variously naming Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Dick Cheney as the source. He even described "a meeting in the suite of offices that the vice president occupies, chaired by either the vice president or Mr. Libby," where, Wilson said, the decision was made to destroy him.

(If the secret plan hatched in the vice president's office was to send evil spirits to enter Wilson's body and make him act like a fool, the plan worked brilliantly.)

Now it turns out, even point No. 3 of liberals' conspiracy theory was false: The original "leaker" of Plame's name to columnist Bob Novak -- not a crime -- was not in the White House at all. It was Richard Armitage, a State Department official and opponent of the Iraq war.

The information that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA had nothing to do with harming Wilson. It did not come from the White House. It did not even come from someone who supported the war in Iraq.

The rest of the world found out Armitage was Novak's source last week, something Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew from the first week of his investigation. So what was Fitzgerald investigating?

Even people who think the president should not be subject to civil suits in office do not deny that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and lied about it in a civil suit brought by Paula Jones. However irritating it is to liberals that lying about sex under oath is a crime, there was a crime that Ken Starr was investigating.

What was Fitzgerald investigating? Not only was there no underlying crime, there was not even -- as the Times put it -- "an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband" (or an attempt "to respond to people calling you a liar in the New York Times," as normal people put it).

Fitzgerald's entire investigation was nothing but a perjury trap from beginning to end for anyone who misremembered anything about who told whom what about a low-level nobody at the CIA who happened to be married to a Walter Mitty fantasist.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16896”

“Dang! She done good.

edit: Ms. Breitweiser that is.
last edited: 9/07/06 12:34:03 PM”

“LMAO! Did you read Kristin Breitweiser's actual quote, SS? I didn't think so. Here it is. Please point out to me exactly where she says that:

"I would appreciate someone asking either Senator Biden or former Mayor Giuliani, if their standard for death is withholding information from the FBI that could have have prevented the 9/11 attacks, how then are we excusing FBI agents Maltbie and Frasca who were accused or allegedly accused in the Moussaoui penalty phase itself of being criminally negligent with regard to giving a FISA warrant? How would you explain George Tenet who withheld information about two of the 9/11 hijackers for 18 months from the FBI, information that certainly would have gone a long way into preventing those attacks? And I'd like to know where we are drawing the line here, what is the threshold, and why are we not holding those types of people in our own government accountable?"
last edited: 9/07/06 12:34:47 PM”

“LMAO!

Yeah, you libbies are great about picking far left nutcases as your spokespeople.
Next you'll be quoteing Peace Mom Cindy.
LMAO!”

“Yeah - nice smear SS. You are as pathetic as your hero Coulter.”

“[VBG]”

“[VBG] translates to, "I can't find where she says it, because she never said anything of the sort. I guess my right-wing blog source was full o'chit."”

“well she did say that they should be held accountable. naturally, that translates to the death penalty”

“Now, now...one of the original Jersey Girls, Kristin Breitweiser, surely would not say anything like that.
Far Left Dem nutcase activist women wouldn't do that kind of thing.
[VBG]”