Shooting elephants in a barrel
March 7th, 2007
Italics by Coultergeist
Logic and Reason by Billie Shears
Research Assistance by Jack Mumby
Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.
That is just such a shame. I mean, all the resources wasted, all the time spent, all the media coverage, tearing apart this poor man's life over something with absolutely no legal consequence? Let us hope this is the first and last time in our history that every happens. Just think, this could lead the slippery slope into the investigation of one's sex life as grounds for impeachment.
It was not a crime to reveal Valerie Plame's name because she was not a covert agent. If it had been a crime, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald could have wrapped up his investigation with an indictment of the State Department's Richard Armitage on the first day of his investigation since it was Armitage who revealed her name and Fitzgerald knew it.
Actually, Annie, you're completely wrong. You see, Plame was under non-official cover, making what Scootah did illegal. (Ruh-roh!) And Armitage and Cheney will most likely end up in the "hot seat" during the civil suit being filed.
As a result, Libby is now a convicted felon for having a faulty memory of the person who first told him that Joe Wilson was a delusional boob who lied about his wife sending him to Niger.
This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.
I don't think it's illegal, but it certainly is harmful to your health. Just think of all the Republicans with faulty memories: Reagan, Bush, Scootah.
Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.
A Chappaquiddick reference? You know what that means! It's time for the death toll round up!
Chappaquiddick: 1 death
The ramifications of Libby's getting back at the Wilsons to get revenge on the criticisms of false intel would be ignored and we would go to war: Over 3,000 deaths
Picking and choosing which deaths you care about: Priceless.
There are some things logic can equate. For everything else, there's Coultergeist.
As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.
Oh, Annie. Annie, Annie, Annie. Let's go through this. We already proved that all of the Democrats that took bribes were convicted, and John Murtha wasn't one of them. Lying under oath is, by your definition at the very beginning of this alleged "column", a crime of no legal consequence. Engaging in sex with underage girls sounds suspiciously as bad as making sexual advances on underage boys, and driving under the influence? You really want to bring that up with Bush's history?
Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.
My bleeding liberal heart is, well, bleeding! These poor Republicans. It's amazing that they had any money to investigate big, bad Clinton, but apparently they had over forty million for that. Maybe Ken Starr could lend them some money? Or they could sell some more weapons to the Iranians? Just throwing stuff out there, trying to help.
Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh was subjected to a three-year criminal investigation for allegedly buying prescription drugs illegally to treat chronic back pain. Despite the witch-hunt, Democrat prosecutor Barry E. Krischer never turned up a crime.
I know, "Whitewatergate" is so upsetting, what a waste of resources, I still can't belie- oh, wait. That wasn't what you were referring to? Oh, right, you were saying that drug addicts only get convicted for being republicans.
Even if he had, to quote liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz: "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted." Unless they're Republicans.
The vindictive prosecution of Limbaugh finally ended last year with a plea bargain in which Limbaugh did not admit guilt. Gosh, don't you feel safer now? I know I do.
So, Ann, I'm a little slow. What you're arguing is that since the prosecution fails when it comes to drug addicts and you don't feel personally harmed by Limbaugh, he should not have been investigated for drug charges he ended up pleading guilty to? I should have guessed, given your lenient stance on drug addicts, and the fact that you went to law school, where they teach you that you need to pick and choose criminals for prosecution based on "feewings".
In another prescription drug case with a different result, last year, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Democrat), apparently high as a kite on prescription drugs, crashed a car on Capitol Hill at 3 a.m. That's abuse of prescription drugs plus a DUI offense. Result: no charges whatsoever and one day of press on Fox News Channel.
Actually, Annita, that's provably false. Kennedy had taken legally obtained prescription drugs, unlike your buddy boy Rush, and a police report was filed. So you're advocating equal punishments for completely different crimes? I agree with you, I often advocate the death penalty for minor traffic violations.
I suppose one could argue those were different jurisdictions. How about the same jurisdiction?
More importantly, different crimes. He's guilty, but of something different. Reckless driving, a DUI. Maybe he can hire Bush's attorney for this one.
In 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was nabbed in Palm Beach in a massive police investigation into his hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex, which I'm told used to be a violation of some kind of statute in the Palm Beach area.
The police presented Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer with boatloads of evidence, including the videotaped statements of five of Epstein's alleged victims, the procurer of the girls for Epstein and 16 other witnesses.
But the same prosecutor who spent three years maniacally investigating Limbaugh's alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Enraging the police, who had spent months on the investigation, Krischer let Epstein off after a few hours on a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The Clinton supporter walked, and his victims were branded as whores.
First of all, comparing a campaign contributor to the vice-president's right hand man is ridiculous. Scootah outranks Epstein a thousand times over. And the affidavit against the man never even alleged that the victims were minors. Also, once again your hypocrisy is stunning.
The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to empanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges — and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).
That final grand jury was so eager to indict DeLay that it indicted him on one charge that was not even a crime — and which has since been tossed out by the courts.
After winning his primary despite the indictment, DeLay decided to withdraw from the race rather than campaign under a cloud of suspicion, and Republicans lost one of their strongest champions in Congress.
Tom DeLay isn't the innocent little man you make him out to be. He'd been rebuked three times previously on the campaign finance violations, and this "liberal jury" was in Texas. Can you even FIND twelve Democrats in Texas?
Compare DeLay's case with that of Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson, Democrat. Two years ago, an FBI investigation caught Jefferson on videotape taking $100,000 in bribe money. When the FBI searched Jefferson's house, they found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. Two people have already pleaded guilty to paying Jefferson the bribe money.
Am I wrong in assuming that these bribe payers were social liberals? Wouldn't that debunk your assertions?
Two years later, Bush's Justice Department still has taken no action against Jefferson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently put Rep. William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee.
Actually, he's still under investigation. Dry your eyes.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, engaged in a complicated land swindle, buying a parcel of land for $400,000 and selling it for over $1 million a few years later. (At least it wasn't cattle futures!)
Are you kidding me? How is this even remotely a crime? You're reaching into the bucket of tomfoolery in which "Whitewatergate" resides. Any responsibility for those pension funds you're referring to falls on his friend, not on Reid. And if we're looking at the friends of politicians as moral measuring sticks, let's closely examine Bush's friend "Kenny Boy" Lay.
Reid also received more than four times as much money from Jack Abramoff (nearly $70,000) as Tom DeLay ($15,000). DeLay returned the money; Reid refuses to do so. Why should he? He's a Democrat.
Here's the thing: Harry Reid had no apparent conflict of interest, because Abramoff's CLIENTS from whom he received donations did not sway his votes. He voted numerous times against bills his alleged "shady" donors were for. Besides that, the fundraising was deemed completely legal.
Former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger literally received a sentence of community service for stuffing classified national security documents in his pants and then destroying them — big, fat federal felonies.
Amazing that you bring this up when Ollie North, who was indicted on sixteen charges and the main man on the Iran-Contra scandal served a three-year suspended sentence, two-year probation, and $150,000, which was then overturned.
But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo's wife.
Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000.
Bill Clinton was facing being forced out of office for not wanting to reveal his sexual exploits. Come on, Ann. I know you possess at least a singular iotum of common sense.
By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag and then declining to perjure herself, spent millions on lawyers to defend a harassment prosecution based on far-fetched interpretations of state wiretapping laws.
That and being a partisan hack bent on bringing down a president for her fifteen minutes of fame. And here, yet another incident where conservative hacks have no regard for Constitutional privacy, but no time for that exploration here.
Liberal law professors currently warning about the "high price" of pursuing terrorists under the Patriot Act had nothing but blood lust for Tripp one year after Clinton was impeached (Steven Lubet, "Linda Tripp Deserves to be Prosecuted," New York Times, 8/25/99).
Translation.
Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers.
Bush has got to pardon Libby.
Good luck, Annie. Libby will have to fill out a Federal Pardon Application, on which he will have to describe in detail the nature of and his involvement in his conviction. Which means going into detail about Armitage, Cheney, and Bush. That's a risk your boys won't be willing to take. The only way to make the close of this thorough Ann-kicking is to polish off some liberally fattening ice cream.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Sunday, March 4, 2007
HOW'D WE GET SO LUCKY ON A SUNDAY?!
Well, it's simple. Coultergeist made headlines.
Apparently, Coulter was way out of line on a gay slur at the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference. Surprise, surprise. What is surprising is that even the Republicans are upset about it. Says one of the sponsors of the conference, Amy Ridenour, "We conservatives have enough trouble overcoming the false things that are said about us without paying for a platform upon which we shoot ourselves annually in the foot."
If you give an Ann a shotgun, she's going to want her right to vote taken away. And if you give her a microphone, well Amy, you better have some pies on hand.
But back on topic.
Annie Ohcrap called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot". Edwards retaliated, saying, "The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large", but went a step further. Edwards's website now is calling for his supporters to raise $100,000 in Coulter Cash to "combat bigotry".
I don't really have much to say in this post, the fact that Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain have all condemned her quotes speaks for itself.
It's nice every now and then to let Coultergeist do my job for me.
Apparently, Coulter was way out of line on a gay slur at the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference. Surprise, surprise. What is surprising is that even the Republicans are upset about it. Says one of the sponsors of the conference, Amy Ridenour, "We conservatives have enough trouble overcoming the false things that are said about us without paying for a platform upon which we shoot ourselves annually in the foot."
If you give an Ann a shotgun, she's going to want her right to vote taken away. And if you give her a microphone, well Amy, you better have some pies on hand.
But back on topic.
Annie Ohcrap called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot". Edwards retaliated, saying, "The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large", but went a step further. Edwards's website now is calling for his supporters to raise $100,000 in Coulter Cash to "combat bigotry".
I don't really have much to say in this post, the fact that Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain have all condemned her quotes speaks for itself.
It's nice every now and then to let Coultergeist do my job for me.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
February Ends With a Bang
LET THEM EAT TOFU!
Italics by Coultergeist
Logic and Reason by Billie Shears
Research Assistance by Jack Mumby
Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.
Ever get that feeling that there just aren't enough hours in the day? This is going to be a looooong AntiCoulter.
Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."
Yeah, those loons. Those damned scientists, setting up websites with detailed, accurate, and proven explanations on how this is possible! You tell 'em Ann, you with your degree in...wait no science whatsoever? Ah, well I'm sure you're still an expert. Please, do prattle on.
Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.
Actually, Ann, neither Gore nor Etheridge are climatologists. They are simply concerned citizens, one was actually the vice president. Not to offend you, sir, but I hold Gore in slightly higher regard than someone who amounts to a two bit novelist, railing on with no factual evidence in a column not worthy of town paper's "Letters to the Editor" section. And what you are claiming is absurd. Gore merely wants greater efficiency standards for automobiles, because, while I know you are stuck in the next few years, eventually fossil fuels will run out and an alternative would be, you know, imperative. Things such as replacing regular bulbs with CFL bulbs would be equivalent to taking millions of cars off the road. But, you're right, as always. Disastah, disastah!
There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.
And here, observed in its natural environment, we can see the Coultergeist revert to its old tricks. It states something provably false with no sources or backup, just pure conjecture. The Coultergeist definition of reputable scientist can be found here.
They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton — with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)
Actually, poor inner city governments are largely liberal. So I'm pretty certain that the liberals, you know, want Detroit and Trenton. And won't the manufacturing of the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels provide the sort of material growth that you said earlier would come to a halt if environmentalists triumphed? I'm also not seeing the connection between gutting the fossil fuel industry and more environmentally friendly housing, but do carry on.
Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us. There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.
I'm a liberal living in a suburban three bedroom townhouse. The assumption that all liberals are living on beaches, the assumption that all environmentally aware citizens living in the real world are shacking up with Leo is ridiculous. And an ACTOR is your resident expert on global warming? You realize he's not part of the scientific community, yes? Making these generalizations is like making the generalization that all conservative women are nasally, unattractive, and possessing Adam's apples while refusing to listen to an iota of, well, fact.
Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter — luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.
So by reducing carbon emissions, Americans must give up flicking on light switches? Highly unlikely. And the fact is, America could vastly reduce, not eliminate, merely reduce, the per capita as well as overall pollution. There's no need to be number one on the list. We don't even have the largest population.
Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants –- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.
That's fine. So why don't we reduce emissions and use fancy bulbs so that our fossil fuels can go to the factories that you know so much about?
Because of the industrialization of agriculture –- using massive amounts of fossil fuel — only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?
Are you truly so ignorant of truth that you believe the fossil fuels we burn do anything in Darfur? That is both disgusting, disturbing, and indicative of why this website was created. And once again, since there will be no material growth in your vision, we'll have a lot more potential farmers.
"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us — not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess — are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.
I'm not going to even address and point out the fact that the majority of liberals are Christians because it is irrelevant. OK, couldn't resist. And again, your original premise is flawed. No one but you is so ignorant of the situation to suggest that the appropriate solution is to eliminate our industrial waste. Nothing is as black and white, or as nice and simple as you would make it seem. Reducing energy consumption is possible, even in today's world.
Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.
Are you serious? People suggesting that we drive cleaner cars, breathe cleaner air, live in a better, preferably not melted world, are equivalent to Hitler? Are you kidding me? Hitler wasn't even an atheist, he was a Christian. This entire article is a study in insanity, this paragraph is simply more extreme. Conservatives have always had a thing or two in common with fascists, especially you, considering you would like to eliminate a woman's right to, not abort, but VOTE.
But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas — 299 million of you are going to have to go.
No one said pure. No one said natural. No one is suggesting we go back to the ways of the Native American ways, though we could take some tips.
Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.
Humanity is what it is to be human. Humans, as a hierarchical step above beasts, are prone to logic and reason. By that definition, this column is more of a campaign of hatred of humanity than environmentalists. And the nuclear power industry is far from destroyed, but also far from harnessed, which is why it is not more widely used, along with the economic ramifications you were so gung ho about only two paragraphs or so earlier.
If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.
Maybe they were just intending that for you. And they are not suggesting this! Stop with the flawed premise! Reduce, reduce, reduce, not something that eliminates NO carbon dioxide at all. The fact that you don't understand the theory you're disputing is mind boggling. How are you published?
"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.
Yeah, if that were the vision we "liberals" had, we'd be up in the arctic with lighters. Oh wait, liberal policies are notably more beneficial to the "middle class", whereas your buddies in the White House, who by the way are on the global warming bandwagon, screw them while passing up pork to their corporate buddies.
It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.
I cannot wait to know what occurs to you when you begin your slow drown.
Italics by Coultergeist
Logic and Reason by Billie Shears
Research Assistance by Jack Mumby
Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.
Ever get that feeling that there just aren't enough hours in the day? This is going to be a looooong AntiCoulter.
Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."
Yeah, those loons. Those damned scientists, setting up websites with detailed, accurate, and proven explanations on how this is possible! You tell 'em Ann, you with your degree in...wait no science whatsoever? Ah, well I'm sure you're still an expert. Please, do prattle on.
Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.
Actually, Ann, neither Gore nor Etheridge are climatologists. They are simply concerned citizens, one was actually the vice president. Not to offend you, sir, but I hold Gore in slightly higher regard than someone who amounts to a two bit novelist, railing on with no factual evidence in a column not worthy of town paper's "Letters to the Editor" section. And what you are claiming is absurd. Gore merely wants greater efficiency standards for automobiles, because, while I know you are stuck in the next few years, eventually fossil fuels will run out and an alternative would be, you know, imperative. Things such as replacing regular bulbs with CFL bulbs would be equivalent to taking millions of cars off the road. But, you're right, as always. Disastah, disastah!
There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.
And here, observed in its natural environment, we can see the Coultergeist revert to its old tricks. It states something provably false with no sources or backup, just pure conjecture. The Coultergeist definition of reputable scientist can be found here.
They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton — with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)
Actually, poor inner city governments are largely liberal. So I'm pretty certain that the liberals, you know, want Detroit and Trenton. And won't the manufacturing of the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels provide the sort of material growth that you said earlier would come to a halt if environmentalists triumphed? I'm also not seeing the connection between gutting the fossil fuel industry and more environmentally friendly housing, but do carry on.
Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us. There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.
I'm a liberal living in a suburban three bedroom townhouse. The assumption that all liberals are living on beaches, the assumption that all environmentally aware citizens living in the real world are shacking up with Leo is ridiculous. And an ACTOR is your resident expert on global warming? You realize he's not part of the scientific community, yes? Making these generalizations is like making the generalization that all conservative women are nasally, unattractive, and possessing Adam's apples while refusing to listen to an iota of, well, fact.
Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter — luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.
So by reducing carbon emissions, Americans must give up flicking on light switches? Highly unlikely. And the fact is, America could vastly reduce, not eliminate, merely reduce, the per capita as well as overall pollution. There's no need to be number one on the list. We don't even have the largest population.
Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants –- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.
That's fine. So why don't we reduce emissions and use fancy bulbs so that our fossil fuels can go to the factories that you know so much about?
Because of the industrialization of agriculture –- using massive amounts of fossil fuel — only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?
Are you truly so ignorant of truth that you believe the fossil fuels we burn do anything in Darfur? That is both disgusting, disturbing, and indicative of why this website was created. And once again, since there will be no material growth in your vision, we'll have a lot more potential farmers.
"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us — not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess — are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.
I'm not going to even address and point out the fact that the majority of liberals are Christians because it is irrelevant. OK, couldn't resist. And again, your original premise is flawed. No one but you is so ignorant of the situation to suggest that the appropriate solution is to eliminate our industrial waste. Nothing is as black and white, or as nice and simple as you would make it seem. Reducing energy consumption is possible, even in today's world.
Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.
Are you serious? People suggesting that we drive cleaner cars, breathe cleaner air, live in a better, preferably not melted world, are equivalent to Hitler? Are you kidding me? Hitler wasn't even an atheist, he was a Christian. This entire article is a study in insanity, this paragraph is simply more extreme. Conservatives have always had a thing or two in common with fascists, especially you, considering you would like to eliminate a woman's right to, not abort, but VOTE.
But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas — 299 million of you are going to have to go.
No one said pure. No one said natural. No one is suggesting we go back to the ways of the Native American ways, though we could take some tips.
Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.
Humanity is what it is to be human. Humans, as a hierarchical step above beasts, are prone to logic and reason. By that definition, this column is more of a campaign of hatred of humanity than environmentalists. And the nuclear power industry is far from destroyed, but also far from harnessed, which is why it is not more widely used, along with the economic ramifications you were so gung ho about only two paragraphs or so earlier.
If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.
Maybe they were just intending that for you. And they are not suggesting this! Stop with the flawed premise! Reduce, reduce, reduce, not something that eliminates NO carbon dioxide at all. The fact that you don't understand the theory you're disputing is mind boggling. How are you published?
"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.
Yeah, if that were the vision we "liberals" had, we'd be up in the arctic with lighters. Oh wait, liberal policies are notably more beneficial to the "middle class", whereas your buddies in the White House, who by the way are on the global warming bandwagon, screw them while passing up pork to their corporate buddies.
It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.
I cannot wait to know what occurs to you when you begin your slow drown.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Debunking Coulter: This Time on the 21st
JOHN MURTHA: CAVING IN TO ARABS SINCE 1980
February 21, 2007
Italics by Ann "Lunacy's My Middle Name" Coulter
Logic and reason by Billie Shears
Rumored ex-Marine John Murtha, Democrat congressman from Pennsylvania, has become the darling of the cut-and-run crowd for trying to place absurd restrictions on our troops, amounting to withdrawal from Iraq. Were Arab sheiks whispering into his ear?
OK, Annie, I'm going to stop you right here. Just for a moment. What exactly do you mean "rumored ex-Marine"? His military service is not disputed. He really did volunteer for a year's worth of service in Vietnam. He didn't opt to have his rich and powerful Daddy get him a cushy spot in the National Guard like Bush, a position the man didn't even show up for, mind you. You see Ann, since practically no powerful Washington republicans served in Vietnam, the way they discredit those who do is by attacking their honors. They did it with Kerry and they've done it with Murtha. Carry on.
In case you missed the video on "I Love the '80s," Rep. Murtha was caught on tape negotiating bribes with Arab sheiks during the FBI's Abscam investigation in 1980. The Abscam investigation was conducted by Jimmy Carter's Justice Department, not right-wing Republicans. On tape, Murtha told the undercover FBI agent: "When I make a f***in' deal I want to make sure that I know exactly what I'm doing and ... what I'm sayin' is, a few investments in my district ..."
I'm not going to bother explaining this situation until your tantrum starts winding down.
It is a profound and shocking fact that Murtha even showed up at this meeting, knowing he was going to be negotiating bribe money with Arabs.
Actually no, he wasn't negotiating bribe money at all. He was negotiating the investment of Arab sheiks into his district, because the district was, at the time, in 24% unemployment. When he was offered $50,000, he turned it down. If you want to talk being in deep with the middle east, why don't you take a look at the Bush dynasty? Or the Iran-Contra scandal? And "Arab sheiks" are not the same as "terrorist sheiks".
Murtha added that he wanted the investment in his district to look like it was done "legitimately ... when I say legitimately, I'm talking about so these bastards up here can't say to me ... 'Jesus Christ, ah, this happened,' then he (someone else), in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people and then the son of a bitch all falls apart."
The fact that you started the quote off at "legitimately" instead of "I want this shady stuff to look like it was done legitimately" made me extremely suspicious, so I looked up the transcript myself. Even the clips played on Hannity and Colmes are far from damning.
For those of you just joining us, no, this isn't a scene from "The Sopranos." It's an actual conversation between a U.S. congressman and an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik offering a bribe.
Murtha further said that although he was not prepared to accept cash at that time, "after we've done some business, then I might change my mind." You know, just what you or I or any American might say when offered a cash bribe by an Arab.
Actually, what he said was as follows:
THE TERRIST - Let me ask you now we're here together, I was under the impression, OK, and I told Howard we were willing to pay. And OK, I went out and got the fifty thousand. From what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that's not what, you know, that that's not what you...
THE MURTHA - I'm not interested.
THE TERRIST - OK.
THE MURTHA - At this point.
THE TERRIST - OK.
THE MURTHA - You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't, you know.
Ohhh yeah. That is so damning. Wow. He doesn't take money.
The ever-helpful media exposed the Abscam investigation before it could be completed, and consequently we were deprived of the possibility of seeing Murtha on tape stuffing cash in his trousers like the other Democratic congressmen (and one "moderate" Republican) convicted in the Abscam investigation. Or, as Al Gore used to call such a fund-raising procedure, "community outreach."
You know Ann, I love your articles, but I was wondering if it would be humanly possible for you to base your article more than 100% on speculation and unjustified outrage. No? Well, I guess that's understandable, I won't feel too let down. How convenient that you are up in arms about the Abscam scandal of the seventies as opposed to the Abramoff scandal of, well, right now.
But Murtha was willing to trade favors in return for investment in his district — and suggested he might take cash down the line. In other words, Murtha wasn't calling for an immediate surrender of his scruples and principles, but rather a phased withdrawal of them.
The unbridled hypocrisy of all of this is just absolutely blinding. Murtha is, in this "scandal", that has by the way, not kept him from getting re-elected thirteen times, trying to bring business into his district, taking no money at all for himself. What would you rather he do, Ann? Sell weapons illegally? I'm pretty sure your boy Reagan had the market cornered on that one. And besides, that didn't benefit the American economy, the funds from those sales went to fuel guerrilla warfare in Nicaragua. Although, Reagan probably jumpstarted the economy when he had to employ all those paper shredders and arsonists to get rid of the evidence after the fact.
In fact, according to a co-conspirator's affidavit, it didn't take long for Murtha to warm to the idea of a cash bribe. About a month after the taped meeting with Murtha, the co-conspirator, lawyer Howard L. Criden, wrote in his affidavit: "Yesterday, Feb. 1, (Democrat Congressman Frank 'Topper') Thompson called and told me that Murtha was ready to go," adding that Murtha had indicated "during January that he was not ready to do business but would be willing to do so in the future."
Criden said: "Congressman Murtha of Pennsylvania would be willing to enter into an agreement similar to that of the other congressmen" — i.e., taking $50,000 cash from the sheiks for legislative favors.
I find that extremely difficult to believe that what you're saying has to do with taking $50,000 from the sheiks. Because, as you see, of all the Congressman involved in the scandal, fewer than 10 were found to have engaged in the taking of monetary bribes. Furthermore, the fact that this was "a month later" also makes it hard for me to believe the validity of your statement, being as Murtha found out that the man he had been talking to was an FBI agent a few weeks after the incident occurred.
February 21, 2007
Italics by Ann "Lunacy's My Middle Name" Coulter
Logic and reason by Billie Shears
Rumored ex-Marine John Murtha, Democrat congressman from Pennsylvania, has become the darling of the cut-and-run crowd for trying to place absurd restrictions on our troops, amounting to withdrawal from Iraq. Were Arab sheiks whispering into his ear?
OK, Annie, I'm going to stop you right here. Just for a moment. What exactly do you mean "rumored ex-Marine"? His military service is not disputed. He really did volunteer for a year's worth of service in Vietnam. He didn't opt to have his rich and powerful Daddy get him a cushy spot in the National Guard like Bush, a position the man didn't even show up for, mind you. You see Ann, since practically no powerful Washington republicans served in Vietnam, the way they discredit those who do is by attacking their honors. They did it with Kerry and they've done it with Murtha. Carry on.
In case you missed the video on "I Love the '80s," Rep. Murtha was caught on tape negotiating bribes with Arab sheiks during the FBI's Abscam investigation in 1980. The Abscam investigation was conducted by Jimmy Carter's Justice Department, not right-wing Republicans. On tape, Murtha told the undercover FBI agent: "When I make a f***in' deal I want to make sure that I know exactly what I'm doing and ... what I'm sayin' is, a few investments in my district ..."
I'm not going to bother explaining this situation until your tantrum starts winding down.
It is a profound and shocking fact that Murtha even showed up at this meeting, knowing he was going to be negotiating bribe money with Arabs.
Actually no, he wasn't negotiating bribe money at all. He was negotiating the investment of Arab sheiks into his district, because the district was, at the time, in 24% unemployment. When he was offered $50,000, he turned it down. If you want to talk being in deep with the middle east, why don't you take a look at the Bush dynasty? Or the Iran-Contra scandal? And "Arab sheiks" are not the same as "terrorist sheiks".
Murtha added that he wanted the investment in his district to look like it was done "legitimately ... when I say legitimately, I'm talking about so these bastards up here can't say to me ... 'Jesus Christ, ah, this happened,' then he (someone else), in order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people and then the son of a bitch all falls apart."
The fact that you started the quote off at "legitimately" instead of "I want this shady stuff to look like it was done legitimately" made me extremely suspicious, so I looked up the transcript myself. Even the clips played on Hannity and Colmes are far from damning.
For those of you just joining us, no, this isn't a scene from "The Sopranos." It's an actual conversation between a U.S. congressman and an FBI agent posing as an Arab sheik offering a bribe.
Murtha further said that although he was not prepared to accept cash at that time, "after we've done some business, then I might change my mind." You know, just what you or I or any American might say when offered a cash bribe by an Arab.
Actually, what he said was as follows:
THE TERRIST - Let me ask you now we're here together, I was under the impression, OK, and I told Howard we were willing to pay. And OK, I went out and got the fifty thousand. From what you're telling me, OK, you're telling me that's not what, you know, that that's not what you...
THE MURTHA - I'm not interested.
THE TERRIST - OK.
THE MURTHA - At this point.
THE TERRIST - OK.
THE MURTHA - You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't, you know.
Ohhh yeah. That is so damning. Wow. He doesn't take money.
The ever-helpful media exposed the Abscam investigation before it could be completed, and consequently we were deprived of the possibility of seeing Murtha on tape stuffing cash in his trousers like the other Democratic congressmen (and one "moderate" Republican) convicted in the Abscam investigation. Or, as Al Gore used to call such a fund-raising procedure, "community outreach."
You know Ann, I love your articles, but I was wondering if it would be humanly possible for you to base your article more than 100% on speculation and unjustified outrage. No? Well, I guess that's understandable, I won't feel too let down. How convenient that you are up in arms about the Abscam scandal of the seventies as opposed to the Abramoff scandal of, well, right now.
But Murtha was willing to trade favors in return for investment in his district — and suggested he might take cash down the line. In other words, Murtha wasn't calling for an immediate surrender of his scruples and principles, but rather a phased withdrawal of them.
The unbridled hypocrisy of all of this is just absolutely blinding. Murtha is, in this "scandal", that has by the way, not kept him from getting re-elected thirteen times, trying to bring business into his district, taking no money at all for himself. What would you rather he do, Ann? Sell weapons illegally? I'm pretty sure your boy Reagan had the market cornered on that one. And besides, that didn't benefit the American economy, the funds from those sales went to fuel guerrilla warfare in Nicaragua. Although, Reagan probably jumpstarted the economy when he had to employ all those paper shredders and arsonists to get rid of the evidence after the fact.
In fact, according to a co-conspirator's affidavit, it didn't take long for Murtha to warm to the idea of a cash bribe. About a month after the taped meeting with Murtha, the co-conspirator, lawyer Howard L. Criden, wrote in his affidavit: "Yesterday, Feb. 1, (Democrat Congressman Frank 'Topper') Thompson called and told me that Murtha was ready to go," adding that Murtha had indicated "during January that he was not ready to do business but would be willing to do so in the future."
Criden said: "Congressman Murtha of Pennsylvania would be willing to enter into an agreement similar to that of the other congressmen" — i.e., taking $50,000 cash from the sheiks for legislative favors.
I find that extremely difficult to believe that what you're saying has to do with taking $50,000 from the sheiks. Because, as you see, of all the Congressman involved in the scandal, fewer than 10 were found to have engaged in the taking of monetary bribes. Furthermore, the fact that this was "a month later" also makes it hard for me to believe the validity of your statement, being as Murtha found out that the man he had been talking to was an FBI agent a few weeks after the incident occurred.
Criden's affidavit went unsigned, according to his lawyer, Richard Ben-Veniste, solely because of the resulting publicity when the press blew the investigation, leading Criden to believe the prosecutors had broken the deal.
Criden was later convicted and sentenced to six years in prison, along with seven members of Congress (six of them Democrats). Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator. (Would that Patrick Fitzgerald were prosecuting the case!)
So your frame of reference is an unsigned affadavit from one of the ones who DID take bribes? Oh, that's reliable. And if they were just hauling Democrats away left and right, why not indict Murtha too? Oh what's that, Ann? They didn't have a case? You don't say. Actually, no, you didn't say, because you have this way of being absolutely obtuse when it comes to common sense.
As an attorney, let me give you the technical legal description of what occurred: John Murtha was as guilty as O.J. Simpson.
Of course. That's the logical conclusion, given the fact that he was never even put on trial.
Now Murtha issues high moral pronouncements on the war and denounces our troops, calling the U.S. military "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth." Gee, too bad there aren't any Arab sheiks offering them cash bribes. Sounds like they could really use the money.
Murtha probably could use the money too. I don't know if you've heard...but he didn't take the money.
Murtha accuses Marines of killing "innocent civilians in cold blood" during an ongoing investigation. Semper Fi, Mr. Dirty Congressman.
And of course, even if they did kill innocent civilians in cold blood, it's not nearly as bad as not taking bribe money.
Instead of toppling brutal dictators and spreading democracy in the Middle East, Murtha apparently prefers the old way of doing business with Arabs, where he gets juice from the sheiks.
Spreading democracy? If I make you mad, Ann, say, by starting a website that debunks your flaming rhetoric with logic and supported evidence, will you spread democracy to me? Oh, please don't, I can't handle it. Please don't turn me into a breeding ground for terrorists.
The Democrats' cheat-sheet on Murtha demands that it be shouted out: "He didn't take a bribe on tape!" That's their defense. There is not even a pretense that he didn't talk to Arabs about a bribe.
Quote me one Democrat that shouted out, "He didn't take a bribe on tape!" Actually, don't bother, I did my research. Not one Democrat has said that. And what's worse is that you're accusing Murtha of taking a bribe off the record from an FBI agent, and not getting convicted while eight other men did. Beautiful, Ann. Beautiful.
He negotiated with a prostitute at the bar, but never consummated the deal. He's a saint! Let him be my congressman!
As a rumored attorney, you should know that negotiating with a prostitute at a bar is not a crime.
It's the Clintonian "incompetency" defense: Murtha was willing to be bribed; he just never got his act together enough to pick up the cash. I may not be honest, but I'm way too disorganized to actually take bribes!
Fine, Murtha was never convicted. Neither was Nixon. Venal hack John Murtha was willing to sell his country's interests to Arab sheiks. This is the man Democrats have put up to lead the anti-war charge today, demanding that the commander in chief stop deploying troops against his Arab friends.
Here's the difference: Nixon resigned and was pardoned by the crony he appointed. Murtha, on the other hand, was investigated and never so much as indicted, whereas eight other men were. Since then, Murtha has won 13 elections in his district. And furthermore, the fact that John Murtha was involved with negotiations with Arab sheiks has absolutely no effect on his credibility as an anti-war Congressman. In fact, since he actually served honorably in not one, but two wars, one would say that this is a distraction tactic. What are you so concerned with that you have to use distraction tactics, Ann? The fact that your commander-in-chief is a no good draft dodger who couldn't show up for the National Guard?
If only this whole war thing would blow over, maybe that Arab is still waiting out there with a deal for him.
Don't you worry, Ann. The way this administration has set up the country for failure, the war may never end.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
February 14th
JONATHAN LIVINGSTON OBAMA
February 14, 2007
Italics by Coultergeist
Logic and Reason by Billie Shears
I've caught Obama fever! Obamamania, Obamarama, Obama, Obama, Obama. (I just pray to God this is clean, renewable electricity I'm feeling.)
Oh, I get it, I get it, you think you're incredibly witty because you're making fun of those who are concerned about our oil consumption and both the foreign policy and environmental ramifications of this. That's a good one, really high caliber right there.
Only white guilt could explain the insanely hyperbolic descriptions of Obama's "eloquence." His speeches are a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides.
Yeah tell me about it, I was wincing each time he searched for the end of the expression, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." Oh wait, no, that was the man we elected president. You see, I was confused by your new dedication to the syntax and delivery of presidential candidacy speeches, given the fact that Bush's molestation of the English language has never before bothered you.
In announcing his candidacy last week, Obama confirmed that he believes in "the basic decency of the American people."
You do realize that it's YOUR base, not his, that voted mainly on "moral values", and that you championed Bush's "moral values"? And yet, when a Democrat speaks about decency, you're up in arms.
And let the chips fall where they may! Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" — deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
I know you don't understand metaphors so good but let me help you out: he wasn't, in fact talking about the actual size of politics, but the obvious lack of diversity in politics. I know you don't think women should have the right to vote, so diversity in politics probably doesn't bother you (see Treason), but it's actually a valid concern. Unlike latent homosexuality, your area of apparent expertise.
He took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary!
God, that is so weird! He's taking a shot at an opponent! Next thing you know, Obama will be running ads slandering Hilary's heroic military record when he's in actuality a Vietnam draft dodger! Oh, sorry, I seem to have a bout of dementia, I'm stuck in Shrub's '04 policies again.
Most weirdly, he said: "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this — a certain audacity — to this announcement." What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
That is SO TRUE. Any idiot CAN run for president, and if his daddy has friends on the Supreme Court, he can steal the title! To my knowledge, no Democrat has suggested "a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender", but, unlike the Republicans, recognize that perhaps we should not stay in Iraq until the polar ice caps melt and change the face of the earth, making it a non-issue. But I get it, if you want our troops to stop dying, you're anti-American and pro-Democrat!
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters. And those were just the reporters.
Aww, did ickle Annie not get invited to big bad Obama's speech? Poor wittle Annie!
There were about 400 more reporters at Obama's announcement than Mitt Romney's, who, by the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B. Hussein Obama.
OH MAN, HIS MIDDLE NAME IS THE LAST NAME OF THAT GUY WE OVERTHREW! WE CAN'T VOTE HIM IN! And by what polls do you think Mitt Romney's even going to get the Republican ticket? Keep dreaming, crazy.
Obama has locked up the Hollywood money. Even Miss America has endorsed Obama. (John "Two Americas" Edwards is still hoping for the other Miss America to endorse him.) But Obama tells us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president. And if life gives you lemons, make lemonade! I don't want to say that Obama didn't say anything in his announcement, but afterward, even Jesse Jackson was asking, "What did he say?"
That's shocking. Presidential candidates use MONEY to run their campaigns? I thought they used beads, is that just the natives? As for the lemons, lemonade thing, if you're going to knock that, I expect you were upset when the "liberal media" focused on the fact that Bush was a born again, highly religious man after being a shameless drunk? No? Odd. And what exactly did you want him to say? He's running. That's all he said. And now you know. Mission accomplished. I don't want to say your books didn't say anything logical in the slightest, but I will say that every time I'm in Barnes & Noble I take the ones on display and hide them in various and sundry obscure sections of the store.
There was one refreshing aspect to Obama's announcement: It was nice to see a man call a press conference this week to announce something other than he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby. B. Hussein Obama's announcement also included this gem: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."
You do realize that the Hussein thing is getting old, right? And you really think that Washington doesn't need a change? Of course you don't. The Jack Abramoff thing wasn't a big deal, who cares if some commie CIA agent gets outed, and as long as Haliburton has contracts, the whole dead soldier thing is no biggie. And, according to you, Afghanistan is going swimmingly, yes?
As long as Obama insists on using Hallmark card greetings in his speeches, he could at least get Jesse Jackson to help him with the rhyming. If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years. There was also this inspirational nugget: "Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more, and it is time for our generation to answer that call." Is this guy running for president or trying to get people to switch to a new long-distance provider?
Apparently, if the speech isn't just "STAYTHECOURSESTAYTHECOURSESTAYTHECOURSETERROR
TERROTERRORSTAYTHECOURSE" it doesn't register on your radar
He said that "we learned to disagree without being disagreeable." (There goes Howard Dean's endorsement.) This was an improvement on the first draft, which read, "It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice." This guy's like the ANWR of trite political aphorisms. There's no telling exactly how many he's sitting on, but it could be in the billions. Obama's famed eloquence reminds me of a book of platitudes I read about once called "Life Lessons." The book contained such inspiring thoughts as: "When was the last time you really looked at the sea? Or smelled the morning? Touched a baby's hair? Really tasted and enjoyed food? Walked barefoot in the grass? Looked in the blue sky?" (When was the last time you fantasized about dismembering the authors of a book of platitudes?) I can't wait for Obama's inaugural address when he reveals that he loves long walks in the rain, sunsets, and fresh-baked cookies shaped like puppies.
You're so right, I love hearing things like "The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate -- excuse me --with an ideology of hope." and "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." Oh yeah, and I love when Bush talks about his "eck-a-lectic" reading list! Oh, Obama, when are you going to stop inspiring people and start being a complete idiot?
The guy I feel sorry for is Harold Ford. The former representative from Tennessee is also black, a Democrat, about the same age as Obama, and is every bit as attractive. The difference is, when he talks, you don't fantasize about plunging knitting needles into your ears to stop the gusher of meaningless platitudes. Ford ran as a Democrat in Republican Tennessee and almost won — and the press didn't knock out his opponent for him by unsealing sealed divorce records, as it did for B. Hussein Obama.
Notice how Ann never mentions the fact that Harold B. Ford's campaign was completely sabotaged by his Republican opponent. An interesting omission. Also, she fails to mention the fact that Harold Ford has never expressed a desire to run for president, and certainly did not speak about running, nor is he even in the Senate anymore.
Yet no one ever talks about Ford as the second coming of Cary Grant and Albert Einstein. Maybe liberals aren't secret racists expunging vast stores of white guilt by hyperventilating over B. Hussein Obama. Maybe they're just running out of greeting card inscriptions.
Or maybe Harold Ford:
1. Is no longer in the Senate
2. Is not running for president
3. Was on each and every political talk show going up to and shortly after the presidential race speaking about the dirty and nearly pornographic political tricks of his opponent.
That's all for this week. Tune in next week for Debunking Ann: The February 21st one.
February 14, 2007
Italics by Coultergeist
Logic and Reason by Billie Shears
I've caught Obama fever! Obamamania, Obamarama, Obama, Obama, Obama. (I just pray to God this is clean, renewable electricity I'm feeling.)
Oh, I get it, I get it, you think you're incredibly witty because you're making fun of those who are concerned about our oil consumption and both the foreign policy and environmental ramifications of this. That's a good one, really high caliber right there.
Only white guilt could explain the insanely hyperbolic descriptions of Obama's "eloquence." His speeches are a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides.
Yeah tell me about it, I was wincing each time he searched for the end of the expression, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." Oh wait, no, that was the man we elected president. You see, I was confused by your new dedication to the syntax and delivery of presidential candidacy speeches, given the fact that Bush's molestation of the English language has never before bothered you.
In announcing his candidacy last week, Obama confirmed that he believes in "the basic decency of the American people."
You do realize that it's YOUR base, not his, that voted mainly on "moral values", and that you championed Bush's "moral values"? And yet, when a Democrat speaks about decency, you're up in arms.
And let the chips fall where they may! Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" — deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
I know you don't understand metaphors so good but let me help you out: he wasn't, in fact talking about the actual size of politics, but the obvious lack of diversity in politics. I know you don't think women should have the right to vote, so diversity in politics probably doesn't bother you (see Treason), but it's actually a valid concern. Unlike latent homosexuality, your area of apparent expertise.
He took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary!
God, that is so weird! He's taking a shot at an opponent! Next thing you know, Obama will be running ads slandering Hilary's heroic military record when he's in actuality a Vietnam draft dodger! Oh, sorry, I seem to have a bout of dementia, I'm stuck in Shrub's '04 policies again.
Most weirdly, he said: "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this — a certain audacity — to this announcement." What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
That is SO TRUE. Any idiot CAN run for president, and if his daddy has friends on the Supreme Court, he can steal the title! To my knowledge, no Democrat has suggested "a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender", but, unlike the Republicans, recognize that perhaps we should not stay in Iraq until the polar ice caps melt and change the face of the earth, making it a non-issue. But I get it, if you want our troops to stop dying, you're anti-American and pro-Democrat!
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters. And those were just the reporters.
Aww, did ickle Annie not get invited to big bad Obama's speech? Poor wittle Annie!
There were about 400 more reporters at Obama's announcement than Mitt Romney's, who, by the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B. Hussein Obama.
OH MAN, HIS MIDDLE NAME IS THE LAST NAME OF THAT GUY WE OVERTHREW! WE CAN'T VOTE HIM IN! And by what polls do you think Mitt Romney's even going to get the Republican ticket? Keep dreaming, crazy.
Obama has locked up the Hollywood money. Even Miss America has endorsed Obama. (John "Two Americas" Edwards is still hoping for the other Miss America to endorse him.) But Obama tells us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president. And if life gives you lemons, make lemonade! I don't want to say that Obama didn't say anything in his announcement, but afterward, even Jesse Jackson was asking, "What did he say?"
That's shocking. Presidential candidates use MONEY to run their campaigns? I thought they used beads, is that just the natives? As for the lemons, lemonade thing, if you're going to knock that, I expect you were upset when the "liberal media" focused on the fact that Bush was a born again, highly religious man after being a shameless drunk? No? Odd. And what exactly did you want him to say? He's running. That's all he said. And now you know. Mission accomplished. I don't want to say your books didn't say anything logical in the slightest, but I will say that every time I'm in Barnes & Noble I take the ones on display and hide them in various and sundry obscure sections of the store.
There was one refreshing aspect to Obama's announcement: It was nice to see a man call a press conference this week to announce something other than he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby. B. Hussein Obama's announcement also included this gem: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."
You do realize that the Hussein thing is getting old, right? And you really think that Washington doesn't need a change? Of course you don't. The Jack Abramoff thing wasn't a big deal, who cares if some commie CIA agent gets outed, and as long as Haliburton has contracts, the whole dead soldier thing is no biggie. And, according to you, Afghanistan is going swimmingly, yes?
As long as Obama insists on using Hallmark card greetings in his speeches, he could at least get Jesse Jackson to help him with the rhyming. If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years. There was also this inspirational nugget: "Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more, and it is time for our generation to answer that call." Is this guy running for president or trying to get people to switch to a new long-distance provider?
Apparently, if the speech isn't just "STAYTHECOURSESTAYTHECOURSESTAYTHECOURSETERROR
TERROTERRORSTAYTHECOURSE" it doesn't register on your radar
He said that "we learned to disagree without being disagreeable." (There goes Howard Dean's endorsement.) This was an improvement on the first draft, which read, "It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice." This guy's like the ANWR of trite political aphorisms. There's no telling exactly how many he's sitting on, but it could be in the billions. Obama's famed eloquence reminds me of a book of platitudes I read about once called "Life Lessons." The book contained such inspiring thoughts as: "When was the last time you really looked at the sea? Or smelled the morning? Touched a baby's hair? Really tasted and enjoyed food? Walked barefoot in the grass? Looked in the blue sky?" (When was the last time you fantasized about dismembering the authors of a book of platitudes?) I can't wait for Obama's inaugural address when he reveals that he loves long walks in the rain, sunsets, and fresh-baked cookies shaped like puppies.
You're so right, I love hearing things like "The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate -- excuse me --with an ideology of hope." and "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." Oh yeah, and I love when Bush talks about his "eck-a-lectic" reading list! Oh, Obama, when are you going to stop inspiring people and start being a complete idiot?
The guy I feel sorry for is Harold Ford. The former representative from Tennessee is also black, a Democrat, about the same age as Obama, and is every bit as attractive. The difference is, when he talks, you don't fantasize about plunging knitting needles into your ears to stop the gusher of meaningless platitudes. Ford ran as a Democrat in Republican Tennessee and almost won — and the press didn't knock out his opponent for him by unsealing sealed divorce records, as it did for B. Hussein Obama.
Notice how Ann never mentions the fact that Harold B. Ford's campaign was completely sabotaged by his Republican opponent. An interesting omission. Also, she fails to mention the fact that Harold Ford has never expressed a desire to run for president, and certainly did not speak about running, nor is he even in the Senate anymore.
Yet no one ever talks about Ford as the second coming of Cary Grant and Albert Einstein. Maybe liberals aren't secret racists expunging vast stores of white guilt by hyperventilating over B. Hussein Obama. Maybe they're just running out of greeting card inscriptions.
Or maybe Harold Ford:
1. Is no longer in the Senate
2. Is not running for president
3. Was on each and every political talk show going up to and shortly after the presidential race speaking about the dirty and nearly pornographic political tricks of his opponent.
That's all for this week. Tune in next week for Debunking Ann: The February 21st one.
Welcome to Anti Coulter
Every time I am subjected to reading a piece of writing by Ann Coulter, I find myself rebutting it in my head constantly, with little tidbits I tend to refer to as logic. So, here at Anti-Coulter, I decided to publicly rebut every nonsensical word that this woman insists on subjecting the world to. In any other field besides journalism, one cannot simply spew ill-founded premises, and I am not about to allow this partisan hack to do so.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)