Ann Coulter

[kamiller42]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1303919' date='Jun 27 2007, 11:33 PM']I would have vetoed it too, so what?[/quote]
The so-what is the current republican president did veto it and a democrat president likely would have not. That is what is called contrast, a difference between the two parties. That is something you said does not exist.

[quote]I would dismantle the Federal Reserve, which neither Democrat or Republican has done.
I would put prayer back into the schools, which neither Democrat or Republican has done.
I would get American out of the UN, which neither Democrate or Republican has done.
I would revoke the Patriot Act, which no Democrate or Republican has done, or will do.
I would make laws making it illegal to use biometric scanners, which no Democrate or Republican will do.
I would make laws making it illegal for the government to read e-mails or listen to private phone calls, which no Democrate or Republican will do.[/quote]
These are great bumper sticker stands, but what is the rationale for each?

What is wrong with the Federal Reserve? Why do you want to abolish it? What will replace its function?

Prayer in schools. Do you know what would be required to reinstate this? The president and the congress cannot change this. Party does not matter. If you were president, you could not change this. It requires reversing some Supreme Court decisions. The best you could do is get some good judges on the bench. Again, look at what Bush has provided and compare to what the democrats wanted. More contrast in the picture.

America out of the UN is not likely. Reform from within and not without is more likely.

Biometric scanners. What's wrong with that?

Illegal to read e-mails and tap phone calls. Do you mean this under any circumstance? Crime fighting agencies need some tools to gather evidence and prosecute criminals.

[quote]Wow, see all the similarities, when you don't just scratch the surface. Republicans are a bunch of communists, who don't care how much tax payers money go to Johnsonville brat Cheney and their internationalist banker friends. So are the Democrats.

The only person who is worthy to be President of the United States right now is Ron Paul![/quote]
When put into simplistic terms, it would appear the two are the same. However, blurring the picture to prove a point is to make a non-sequitur.

Ron Paul is a republican, which makes him ineligible for president according to you. Did you forget that republicans and democrats are the same?

Reza, Ann's point is the Edwards have used their son's death for political gain. She has some valid points to back up the opinion. Edwards is from the party known for turning funerals into political rallies.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1304025' date='Jun 27 2007, 11:29 PM']Reza, Ann's point is the Edwards have used their son's death for political gain. She has some valid points to back up the opinion. Edwards is from the party known for turning funerals into political rallies.[/quote]

Point or no point it's plain disrespectful and crossing the line.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1304028' date='Jun 28 2007, 01:47 AM']Point or no point it's plain disrespectful and crossing the line.[/quote]
It is disrespectful and crosses a line. It is simply terrible how the Edwards have exploited their son's death.

You see? What's more disrespectful? The ones exploiting the death or the one pointing out the exploitation?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1304031' date='Jun 27 2007, 11:57 PM']It is disrespectful and crosses a line. It is simply terrible how the Edwards have exploited their son's death.[/quote]

How do you know that he exploited his son's death? You might see it like that, but that doesn't make it fact. If his son died, and he believes that his son's death could have been prevented, he has every right to use his son's death as motivation to help the situation, so that it never happens to another child again. You might not agree with his particular political position, but to say that he's using it for his own benefit [as if the two aren't tied] is ridiculous.

Mr. Bush's wife [Laura] during the last election, went around from state to state saying that if you believe women in Afghanistan should still be oppressed under the taliban, then you should vote for Kerry but what she doesn't tell you is that it wasn't a democratic administration [but a republican one] that funded the Taliban, allowed them to keep their theocracy, etc. She also doesn't tell you that the US didn't go into Afghanistan to "liberate" the Afghan women, but because of 9-11. Is that not using the women of Afghanistan for political gain? These are possibly the most oppressed women on the face of the earth, in our times, and yet she exploited them for political gain, yet republicans want to accuse Edwards of such? This is ridiculous...

Reza

Edited June 28, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Winchester]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1303381' date='Jun 27 2007, 03:14 PM']Ok did anyone see where Ann Coulter said Senator Edwards should have been assignated by terrorists? How is that being pro-life?[/quote]
Do they use anesthesia when they cut out your sense of humor and replace it with extra knee-jerk nerves?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1304157' date='Jun 28 2007, 10:52 AM']Do they use anesthesia when they cut out your sense of humor and replace it with extra knee-jerk nerves?[/quote]

Maybe I wasn't raised correctly, but I do not joke about assignation attempts.

[GodChaser]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1304025' date='Jun 28 2007, 12:29 AM']The so-what is the current republican president did veto it and a democrat president likely would have not. That is what is called contrast, a difference between the two parties. That is something you said does not exist.
These are great bumper sticker stands, but what is the rationale for each?

What is wrong with the Federal Reserve? Why do you want to abolish it? What will replace its function?

Federal reserve prints cash from nothing, and charges interest for the cash it prints. BAD IDEA, because its stealing money from Americans! Wow, I want to prevent people being robbed blind!

Prayer in schools. Do you know what would be required to reinstate this? The president and the congress cannot change this. Party does not matter. If you were president, you could not change this. It requires reversing some Supreme Court decisions. The best you could do is get some good judges on the bench. Again, look at what Bush has provided and compare to what the democrats wanted. More contrast in the picture.

America out of the UN is not likely. Reform from within and not without is more likely.


Get out of it now, and it would be very good for any country. The UN is for globalization and destruction of the soverginty of every nation.


Biometric scanners. What's wrong with that?


MY, yours, and every persons privacy. Unless, of course, you don't really care about privacy. We don't need Biometric scanners to be safe!


Illegal to read e-mails and tap phone calls. Do you mean this under any circumstance? Crime fighting agencies need some tools to gather evidence and prosecute criminals.
When put into simplistic terms, it would appear the two are the same. However, blurring the picture to prove a point is to make a non-sequitur.


Currently, the president can listen to any phone call, and read any e-mail without a warrent. I would at least make it so you need to get a warrent to do so!


Ron Paul is a republican, which makes him ineligible for president according to you. Did you forget that republicans and democrats are the same?


Ron Paul is for the rule of law, and stands behind the constitution, not like the other Republicans and Democrats.[/quote]

I hope my answers give you why I would want these things.

Every single one of those things are destroying the sovergnity of the nations, and making us just pieces of meat in the eyes of politicians.

[rollingcatholic]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1304365' date='Jun 28 2007, 01:37 PM']Maybe I wasn't raised correctly, but I do not joke about assignation attempts.[/quote]

Why are you against the assignation of Edwards? I thought as a liberal you'd like him to make appointments.



as·sig·na·tion [as-ig-ney-shuhn] –noun

1. an appointment for a meeting

[kujo]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1304365' date='Jun 28 2007, 02:37 PM']Maybe I wasn't raised correctly, but I do not joke about assignation attempts.[/quote]

Yeah I think you mean assassination attempts.

Edited June 28, 2007 by kujo

[kujo]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1304365' date='Jun 28 2007, 02:37 PM']Maybe I wasn't raised correctly, but I do not joke about assignation attempts.[/quote]
Ann Coulter is the right-wing equivalent of Michael Moore. I agree with her politics, but don't agree with the way she expresses them, in a sardonic, hurtful way. But I do so love to see the Dem's squirm when she "crosses the line." Afterall, "the line" which we cannot "cross" is criticizing Dems and libs. It's okay to lambast Bush at all hours of the day, but make a joke about Kerry looking like the tree from Pocahontas, or crack-wise about Ted Kennedy's fondness for hookers and homicide, or mention that Hillary's smile is just about as scary as any Halloween mask you'll ever see...that's when you've "crossed the line."

Hypocrisy smells like donkey-carp!

[img]http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5807/democratdonkeyhg3.jpg[/img]

Edited June 28, 2007 by kujo

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.breitbart.com/anncoultercolumn.html"]That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband [/url]
Jun 28 03:11 PM US/Eastern
By Ann Coulter


The Edwards campaign is apparently still running low on donations, so this week they went back to their top fundraiser: me.

I doubled the ratings of the lowest-rated cable news show on Tuesday by agreeing to go on for a full hour to promote my new paperback version of "Godless" -- a mistake I won't make again. As I was walking to the set, minutes before airtime, it was casually mentioned to me that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, might call in.

For the first time in recorded history, the show's host did not interrupt a guest, but let Elizabeth Edwards ramble on and on, allowing her to browbeat me for being mean to her husband. (This delicate flower is very sensitive to rough words, having hired the Edwards' campaign staffer who wrote this: "What if... [mod]too blasphemous not to edit -777[/mod])

Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits?

I think I may have tuned out at some point, so I can only speak to the first 45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards' harangue, but it mostly consisted of utterly dishonest renditions of things I had said on my "Good Morning America" interview this week and a column I wrote four years ago. (You can't rush Edwards' "rapid response team"!) She claimed I had launched unprovoked attacks on the Edwards' dead son and called for a terrorist attack on her husband.

These are bald-faced lies, and the mainstream media knows they are lies. Yet they were repeated ad nauseam on Wednesday by The Associated Press, the AOL pop-up window, CNN, NBC and -- stunningly -- the host of the lowest-rated cable show himself, who personally told me he knew the truth.

So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.

Here is my full sentence on "Good Morning America," which the media deceptively truncated, referring to a joke I told about Edwards six months ago that made liberals cry: "But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Johnsonville brat Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack -- so I've learned my lesson: If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

The usual nut Web sites posted a zillion denunciations of my appearance on "Good Morning America" immediately after I appeared Monday morning. But it didn't occur to any of them to simply lie about what I had said. No, it took them nearly 36 hours to concoct a version of that quote that included the Edwards part, but not the Maher part, or what English language speakers call: "the point."

By tomorrow it will be: "Ann Coulter tried to kill John Edwards on 'Good Morning America'!"

Judging by his fundraising efforts so far, I gather most of you don't know who John Edwards is -- unless you're an overpriced hair dresser. He's the trial lawyer who pretended in court to channel the spirit of a handicapped fetus in front of illiterate jurors to scam tens of millions of dollars off of innocent doctors. According to The New York Times, Edwards told one jury: "She speaks to you through me ... And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Let me also quote from campaign consultant Bob Shrum's book "No Excuses":

"(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."

Apparently every time Edwards began a story about his dead son with "I've never told anyone this before," everyone on the campaign could lip-sync the story with him.

As a commentator, I bring facts like these to the attention of the American people in a lively way. Thus, for example, in a column about the Democratic candidates for president written in 2003, I pointed out that the Democrats refused to discuss the economy or the war, but had recently "discovered a surprise campaign issue: It turns out that several of them have had a death in the family."

(The full column is available at www.jewishworldreview.com, www.humanevents.com and www.townhall.com.)

Among several examples of Democrats talking about a death in the family on the campaign trail was this one:

John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.

Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."

If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage.

Manifestly, I was not making fun of their son's death; I was making fun of John Edwards' incredibly creepy habit of invoking his son's tragic death to advance his political career -- a practice so repellant, it even made John Kerry queasy.

I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings off of my coattails, particularly when they use their afflictions or bereavement schedules to try to silence the opposition. From now on, I'm attacking only serious presidential candidates, like Dennis Kucinich.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/NEWS09/706280382/1056"]Edwards defends her call to Coulter[/url]
She confronted the pundit Tuesday about insults aimed at her husband.

By TONY LEYS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

June 28, 2007
121 Comments


Elizabeth Edwards said Wednesday that she hopes other Americans will do what she was trying to do when she confronted conservative pundit Ann Coulter on national television this week.

Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, said in an interview that it's time to put the brakes on the hateful speech spewed by people like Coulter. "It may take a while, but if we don't start, it'll take forever," she said.

The confrontation came Tuesday while Coulter was appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball." Elizabeth Edwards called the show and asked Coulter to refrain from using insulting language. Coulter laughed and accused Edwards of telling her to stop speaking.

Among other things, Coulter has referred to John Edwards as a "flower" and recently said she wished he had died in a terrorist attack. In her call to the show, Elizabeth Edwards said Coulter once wrote that John Edwards probably had a bumper sticker on his car saying, "Ask me about my dead son." That was a reference to the Edwardses' teenage son, Wade, who was killed in a traffic accident.

Coulter smiled and wondered aloud why a candidate's wife was making such a call.

Edwards responded: "I'm the mother of that boy who died."

In a phone interview from her North Carolina home Wednesday, Edwards said people like Coulter trade in hurtful insults instead of honest debate. "At some point, somebody has to stand up and say, 'That's enough,' " she said.

Edwards said she did not consult her husband before making the call, though she said campaign aides tracked down the phone number for her. She was sitting in an airport between campaign visits when she saw Coulter on television and called the show.

Edwards said she knows that many people would advise her to ignore the insults instead of dignifying them with a response. But she said that is not the way to change things. She said she has been inspired by a cultural shift in the South. When she moved there decades ago, she said, it was acceptable for people to use racist language. But then people who disliked such language started making their objections known, and eventually it became unacceptable. She said she hopes the same will happen with the things Coulter and others say.

Coulter's publicist did not immediately respond to a request for a comment.

Peverill Squire, a University of Iowa political science professor, said it's unusual for a candidate's spouse to make such a public challenge to a critic. But he said she risked little in making the call. "Certainly, among Democrats, going after Ann Coulter is not going to raise any concerns," he said.

Elizabeth Mehren, a Boston University journalism professor who has followed the Edwardses, said Elizabeth Edwards' effort is admirable. Mehren said, however, that the Edwards campaign jumped to use the confrontation as a fundraising tool, which she said could be seen as "tacky."

"Aren't they just lowering themselves to Ann Coulter's level by doing this?" Mehren said. "Isn't the best way to handle bullies to ignore them?"

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/28/131441.shtml?s=al&promo_code=3679-1"]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/...omo_code=3679-1[/url]

[kamiller42]

And if anyone was wondering what she said during her Good Morning America interview, [url="http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2258.html"]here's the video[/url]. If you look real close, you can see the horns in her head.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1304722' date='Jun 28 2007, 05:33 PM'][url="http://www.breitbart.com/anncoultercolumn.html"]That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband [/url][/quote]
thanks for posting