In Her Newly-Written, Can't-Miss Best- Seller Ann Coutler Attacks Americas's Leftist, Corrupt Media
Crap Detector
ideologically corrupt and biased).
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25A-4F23-919D-B218D284CA6C
--
What is called "capitalism" might more
accurately be called consumerism. It is the
consumers who call the tune, and those
capitalists who want to remain capitalists
have to learn to dance to it.--Thomas Sowell
("Basic Economics", p.178)
za...@construction-imaging.com
> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is not
> ideologically corrupt and biased)
WTF??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
Iarnrod
> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is not
BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
"Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
Aid!!!"
Ann the Man has only written one book with one idea. She just keeps
reissuing it to you suckers under different titles.
Dayz - Bye Bye Bush@capt.titanic.net Pfc Bush - 7th Cav
"Crap Sniffer" <sniff it, ah...@live.ca> wrote in message
news:1l39l.134817$jv1....@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
> not ideologically corrupt and biased).
Annie's attempts at writing is best done with a word processor or text
editor and not the crayons Hannity gave her. If you believe FOX "is not
ideologically corrupt and biased", I have a bridge in Alaska for sale.
klunk
"Crap Detector" <dete...@live.ca> wrote in message
news:1l39l.134817$jv1....@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
> not ideologically corrupt and biased).
AH-BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
now THIS statement truly epitomizes the sheer idiocy that an idiot like you
would descend to in order to convince yourself that people truly don't
regard you as the drooling idiot you are...
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25A-4F23-919D-B218D284CA6C
> --
> What is called "capitalism" might more
> accurately be called consumerism. It is the
> consumers who call the tune, and those
> capitalists who want to remain capitalists
> have to learn to dance to it.--Thomas Sowell
> ("Basic Economics", p.178)
and of course... an idiot like you would support an idiot like coultergeist
who is so clearly entrenched in her bigoted idiocy that you fawn idiotically
over her every word like an idiot is wont to do... it apparently doesn't
matter just how much of an idiot you make yourself out to because it's
become rather apparent that you truly have no self-respect in your idiot
life and that the sole goal left to you is to cultivate more idiocy in our
society by spreading it like the mental idiocy disease you embody...
TEJ
news:f976ad92-f449-4666...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 7, 7:52 am, "Crap Detector" <detec...@live.ca> wrote:
>> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that
>> is
> not
>> ideologically corrupt and
>> biased).http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr
> intable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25...
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
>
> "Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
> Aid!!!"
Juden run media
Jim Alder
nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com:
> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is not
> ideologically corrupt and biased).
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25A-4F23-
919D-B218D284CA6C
Now you've done it. Your comments will bring out the literary mavens of the
Left, who will bring all their intellectual acumen to refute your opinion.
For instance;
From: za...@construction-imaging.com
WTF??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
From: Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com>
BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
"Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
Aid!!!"
- - - -
Now aren't you ashamed?
--
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Dayz - Bye Bye Bush@capt.titanic.net Pfc Bush - 7th Cav
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B8C7EB826CA6...@216.196.97.142...
> "Crap Detector" <dete...@live.ca> wrote in
> news:1l39l.134817$jv1.85306@en-
> nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com:
>
>> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
>> not
>> ideologically corrupt and biased).
>> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25A-4F23-
> 919D-B218D284CA6C
>
> Now you've done it. Your comments will bring out the literary mavens of
> the
> Left, who will bring all their intellectual acumen to refute your opinion.
>
> For instance;
>
> From: za...@construction-imaging.com
> WTF??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
>
> From: Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com>
> BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
>
> "Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
> Aid!!!"
>
> - - - -
>
> Now aren't you ashamed?
With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look good
for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP representative.
we_bak...@yahoo.com
> Ann recently appeared on Fox News http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25...
> --
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for
bitter. Isaiah 5:20
Iarnrod
> "Crap Detector" <detec...@live.ca> wrote innews:1l39l.134817$jv1.85306@en-
> nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is not
> > ideologically corrupt and biased).
>
> 919D-B218D284CA6C
>
> Now you've done it. Your comments will bring out the literary mavens of the
> Left, who will bring all their intellectual acumen to refute your opinion.
>
> For instance;
>
> From: za...@construction-imaging.com
> WTF??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
>
> BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
>
> "Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
> Aid!!!"
The fact that this was all a made-up lie by Ann the Man to gin up
publicity for her eighth iteration of the same stupid book doesn't
seem to deter you from uttering stupid opinions, does it!
Crap Detector
> --
> What is called "capitalism" might more
> accurately be called consumerism. It is the
> consumers who call the tune, and those
> capitalists who want to remain capitalists
> have to learn to dance to it.--Thomas Sowell
> ("Basic Economics", p.178)
It certainly tells us something about the anti-American bias of NBC
when they would welcome former terrorist and bomb
thrower Chicago's William Ayers, Obama's former friend, to a cream
puff interview, but would ban Ann Coulter, a patriot and very
successful author of new book "Victims", which Sean Hannity calls her
best yet.
Jeff George
news:e557583e-ba57-46bb...@v31g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> It certainly tells us something about the anti-American bias of NBC
> when they would welcome former terrorist and bomb
> thrower Chicago's William Ayers, Obama's former friend, to a cream
> puff interview, but would ban Ann Coulter, a patriot and very
> successful author of new book "Victims", which Sean Hannity calls her
> best yet.
Ayers is the true patriot, someone that was willing to actually do
something for what he believed in rather than just give it lip service.
Obsidian
> Ayers is the true patriot, someone that was willing to actually do
> something for what he believed in rather than just give it lip service.
Then there is right wing hero Timothy McVeigh.
klunk
"Crap Detector" <cice...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:e557583e-ba57-46bb...@v31g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
william ayers may have made idealistically based mistakes in his youth, but
he's apparently learned how to tone down his rhetoric whereas coultergeist
just gets more shrill... and his attitudes are at least guided by higher
ideals that are critical of corruption which is a far cry different from
that hate-mongering gutter-trash whore you worship...
Jean Naimard
> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
> not ideologically corrupt and biased).
I hope your crap detector is not recursive…
It must work like one cannot smell his own bad breath…
Jim Alder
news:GQ59l.13130$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
Jim Alder
@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 7, 10:27 am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> "Crap Detector" <detec...@live.ca> wrote innews:1l39l.134817$jv1.85306@en-
>> nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com:
>>
>> > Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
not
>> > ideologically corrupt and biased).
>> > http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25...
>>
>> 919D-B218D284CA6C
>>
>> Now you've done it. Your comments will bring out the literary
>> mavens of the Left, who will bring all their intellectual acumen
>> to refute your opinion.
>>
>> For instance;
>>
>> From: za...@construction-imaging.com
>> WTF??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
>>
>> From: Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
>> BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
>>
>> "Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
>> Aid!!!"
>
> The fact that this was all a made-up lie by Ann the Man
Why don't you supply some smidgeon of evidence that she IS a man before
you start shreiking "LIAR!" at the top of your lungs like so many other
leftwing harpies who can't admit that a woman can do such damage with her
opinions?
> ...to gin up publicity for her eighth iteration of the same stupid book...
For me to give the slightest weight to your opinion here, I would have to
believe that you read all eight books. Is this your contention?
> ...doesn't seem to deter you from uttering stupid opinions, does it!
I didn't offer an opinion of my own. So at least you admit that your
opinion (that I uttered) was a stupid one. I guess that shows some grasp of
self-realization.
Clay
...
> "Crap Detector" <detec...@live.ca> wrote innews:1l39l.134817$jv1.85306@en-
> nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is not
> > ideologically corrupt and biased).
> >http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25...
>
> 919D-B218D284CA6C
>
> Now you've done it. Your comments will bring out the literary mavens of the
> Left, who will bring all their intellectual acumen to refute your opinion.
>
> For instance;
>
> From: za...@construction-imaging.com
> WTF??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
>
> From: Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
>
> "Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
> Aid!!!"
>
> - - - -
>
> Now aren't you ashamed?
Amazing, isn't it?
Too fucking funny.
-C-
Right Justice
> Amazing, isn't it?
>
Eminent conservative historian Jonah Goldberg, author of the best selling
book "Republican Fascists: The Rise And Fall Of The Bush Reich" says that
Ann Coulter is never wrong and that all true patriot Republicans are
obligated to buy her books and believe everything she says.
Coulter prays to God, the Conservative one. She says that Jesus was a
Republican who preached the values of tax cuts for the wealthy, greed,
crony capitalism through deregulation, disdain and contempt for the poor,
racism, that Obama is a Muslim from Kenya and that the path to
righteousness is through hegemony and using our military as a paradigm for
diplomacy.
She tells us that Bush is president and leftists should not forget that and
that it's a conservative country, always will be and that anything the MSM
says is always a big, socialist leftist lie; and that the patriotic party
faithful should get their opinions and free thoughts from Newsmax,
Worldnetdaily, National Revue, The Hal Turner Show and only approved Fox
News talk shows like O'Reilly and Hannity. She says that she has been
banned for eternity from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Al Jazera because all
leftists tremble in fear in front of her new right wing truths. When Ann
stated that she wished how the terrorists would strike the New York Times
building with a car bomb, she echoed the sentiments of all Republicans,
including Timothy McVeigh.
Buy her books or you will be expelled from the party of free thought, the
GOP.
Jim Alder
4bee65...@q37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
I wish it was funnier. I keep waiting for a Leftie that can keep up his
side of an argument, but they're eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepretty
much non-existent.
John Paul
Summary: Media Matters has examined a copy of Ann Coulter's new book,
Guilty, and presents a sampling of the book's numerous falsehoods. These
falsehoods include her defense of claims made against Sen. John Kerry by
the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; her assertion that "Fox News has never
been caught promoting a fraud"; and her claim that President-elect Barack
Obama was referring to Gov. Sarah Palin when he said "you know, you can put
lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig."
Media Matters for America has examined a copy of author and syndicated
columnist Ann Coulter's new book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their
Assault on America, which Media Matters obtained in advance of the book's
release, and presents a sampling of the book's numerous falsehoods,
including misrepresentations of the sources she cites. These falsehoods
come on a wide-ranging list of subjects including her defense of the claims
made against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
during the 2004 presidential campaign; her assertion that "Fox News has
never been caught promoting a fraud"; her claim that President-elect Barack
Obama was referring to Gov. Sarah Palin when he said "you know, you can put
lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig"; and attacks she makes against New
York Times columnist Frank Rich. Coulter has announced that she is
scheduled to appear on the January 6 broadcast of NBC's Today to promote
Guilty.
Media Matters has also documented that Coulter made numerous inflammatory
and offensive comments in Guilty.
Below are examples of the numerous falsehoods in Guilty.
Liberals' purported "praise[]" for hoaxers for staging hate crimes
Coulter claims that two black students who engaged in a hoax by hanging a
black doll from a noose were "immediately praised" by "liberals," but the
sources she cites do not support this claim. Coulter writes:
In 1997, at Duke University, a black doll was found hanging by a noose from
a tree at the precise spot where the Black Student Alliance planned to hold
a rally against racism. Two black students later admitted they were the
culprits and were immediately praised for bringing attention to the problem
of racism on campus. Which is why I'm thinking about knocking over a liquor
store to focus attention on the problem of big-city crime.
Rather than "institutional racism," what we are witnessing is
"institutional racial hoaxism" committed by liberals. [Page 10]
Coulter cites two articles to back up her assertion that the students were
"immediately praised," neither of which support such a claim. One of the
sources Coulter cites is a January 8, 1999, Chronicle of Higher Education
article, which does not report that the students were "praised" but rather
that "[s]ome classmates defended the two students." The sole student quoted
in the article discussing the incident criticized both the students and the
university:
Some classmates defended the two students, whose names were not released.
In a letter to The Chronicle, Duke's student newspaper, Worokya Diomande
called the act "tasteless," but said "the idea behind the act ... is being
overlooked."
"The idea is that the university has not changed," wrote Ms. Diomande, who
graduated last spring. "Blacks are allowed to be enrolled here, but the
idea is the equivalent of the transition from field slave to house slave."
Coulter's other source for her claim that the students were "immediately
praised" is a January 31, 2000, article in The Weekly Standard (accessed
from Nexis), which cites the Chronicle article in writing that "some at
Duke defended the act, claiming it high-lighted the problem of race
relations on campus."
Fox News Channel
On Page 15, Coulter writes, "Fox News has never been caught promoting a
fraud -- unlike CBS (Bush National Guard story), ABC (tobacco industry
report), NBC (exploding GM trucks), CNN (Tailwind), and MSNBC (Keith
Olbermann)." In fact, as Media Matters has documented, on several occasions
since 2004, Fox News has issued a retraction and apology for airing a news
report that repeated false information, one of which led Fox News' Vice
President for News John Moody to reportedly warn staff in January 2007 that
"seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it
is ready for air on FNC."
On the April 24, 2007, edition of Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and
Brian Kilmeade repeated as fact an online parody news report of a school
prank that included fabricated quotes attributed to the superintendent.
Doocy issued an on-air retraction and apology during the May 16, 2007,
edition of Fox & Friends First, but the superintendent brought suit against
the Fox News Channel, Doocy, and Kilmeade. In a June 3, 2008, decision
dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby wrote:
The facts in this case -- a morning cable news show derisively reporting
events and statements obtained unwittingly from an online parody -- should
provide grist for journalism classes teaching research and professionalism
standards in the Internet age. But First Amendment principles developed
long before the Internet still provide protection to the gullible news
program hosts against this public official's claims for defamation and
false light invasion of privacy. Poetic justice would subject the
defendants to the same ridicule that they accorded the plaintiff. But in
real life, the aggrieved school superintendent must be satisfied with their
later retraction and a professional reputation sullied less than theirs.
The lawsuit was filed by Leon Levesque, a school superintendent in
Lewiston, Maine. According to The Associated Press, "[t]he case was an
outgrowth of an April 2007 prank in which a middle school student tossed a
slab of leftover Easter ham onto a table surrounded by Somali Muslim
youngsters, knowing the Muslims would be offended." Freelance writer
Nicholas Plagman later published a fabricated news report about the
incident at Associated Content in which he attributed numerous made-up
quotes to Levesque, including one in which Levesque was alleged to have
said: "These children have got to learn that ham is not a toy." On the
April 24, 2007, edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy and Kilmeade reported on
Plagman's story as though it were fact and repeated several of the made-up
quotes attributed to Levesque. In discussing the parody report, Doocy
repeatedly asserted: "We are not making this up." Indeed, when Kilmeade
asserted: "You know, I hope we're not being duped," Doocy replied, "We're
not being duped. I've looked it up on a couple of different websites up
there."
Doocy has also retracted his false assertion on the January 19, 2007, Fox &
Friends, that Barack Obama "spent the first decade of his life, raised by
his Muslim father -- as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa." According
to the washingtonpost.com blog The Sleuth, Moody subsequently "issued this
missive to staff in his daily editorial note on Jan. 23 [2007]: 'For the
record: seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it
mean it is ready for air on FNC.' " Moody also criticized the hosts of Fox
& Friends in a January 29, 2007, New York Times article, saying, "The hosts
violated one of our general rules, which is know what you are talking
about. ... They reported information from a publication whose accuracy we
didn't know."
Further, on October 1, 2004, Fox News issued a retraction and an apology
for a news story written by chief political correspondent Carl Cameron that
falsely attributed quotes to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in an attempt to
ridicule him over a purported manicure.
John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Coulter advances several falsehoods about Kerry in defending the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth, an organization which spread numerous falsehoods and
smears regarding Kerry's military record in the six months leading up to
the 2004 presidential election.
Membership of Swift Boat Veterans
Coulter writes that "nearly three hundred veterans who served with Kerry
said he was lying about his war record [Page 109]" and also states: "Only
14 Swift Boat Veterans sided with Kerry, while 294 sided with O'Neill.
Let's see, would it be more difficult to get 14 people to tell the same lie
or to get 294 people to tell the same lie? [Page 99]" But contrary to
Coulter's assertion, among the roughly 300 she referred to, who signed a
letter critical of Kerry, were people who subsequently admitted they had no
firsthand knowledge of the claims they made; who contradicted their
statements opposing Kerry both before and after they made them; and who
reportedly said they joined with the Swift Boat Veterans not because they
believed Kerry had "l[ied] about his war record" but because they
disapproved of Kerry's subsequent statements opposing the Vietnam War.
Retractions by Swift Boat Veterans
Coulter falsely claims that "the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth weren't
forced to retract any part of their story. [Page 100]" In fact, the
organization altered its website's account of the December 2, 1968, mission
for which the U.S. Navy awarded Kerry his first Purple Heart three days
after Media Matters noted that the account was inconsistent with that of
the group's star witness -- retired Rear Admiral William L. Schachte Jr.,
who claims he was the commander on that mission.
According to Schachte, Kerry did not deserve the award because the
"skimmer" he supposedly commanded that night did not receive enemy fire,
and Kerry's wound was the result of Kerry's own improper use of an M-79
grenade launcher. But in an April 2003 interview with The Boston Globe,
"Schachte described the action as a 'firefight' and said of Kerry: 'He got
hit,' " the Globe reported on August 28, 2004. According to the Globe,
Schachte "did not challenge Kerry's Purple Heart" during that interview.
The original version of the account on the Swift Boat Vets website begins:
The action that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart occurred on December
2, 1968, during the month that he was undergoing training with Coastal
Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. While waiting to receive his own Swift boat
command, Kerry volunteered for a nighttime patrol mission commanding a
small, foam-filled "skimmer" craft with two enlisted men [emphasis added].
As Media Matters documented, this description matches Kerry's own account,
as well as the account of Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis, two
enlisted men who have stated that: (1) Schachte was not on the skimmer; (2)
Kerry was in command; and (3) Runyon and Zaladonis were the only other
people besides Kerry on the small craft.
The updated version of the Swift Boat Vets account -- now consistent with
Schachte's version of events -- reads:
The action that led to John Kerry's first Purple Heart occurred on December
2, 1968, during the month that he was undergoing training with Coastal
Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. While waiting to receive his own Swift boat
command, Kerry volunteered for a nighttime patrol mission on a small, foam-
filled "skimmer" craft under the command of Lt. William Schachte. The two
officers were accompanied by an enlisted man who operated the outboard
motor [emphasis added].
Several other Swift Boat Veterans made statements during the 2004
presidential campaign that were inconsistent with their previous accounts,
or subsequently reportedly retracted comments they made during that
campaign, including:
John O'Neill. Unfit for Command (Regnery, 2004), co-authored by Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth co-founder John O'Neill, asserted that "Kerry was never
in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War"
because "[a]reas closer than 55 miles from the Cambodian border in the area
of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and
not by Swift Boats." However, as Media Matters noted, according to White
House recordings, in 1971 O'Neill told President Richard Nixon that he
himself had been in Cambodia and answered in the affirmative when Nixon
asked if it had been on a swift boat.
Alfred French. In the first Swift Boat ad, then-Clackamas County (Oregon)
senior deputy district attorney Alfred J. French announced: "I served with
John Kerry. ... He is lying about his record." In preparation for the ad,
French signed a sworn affidavit for the Swift Boat Veterans asserting that
Kerry had received his Purple Heart "from negligently self-inflicted wounds
in the absence of hostile fire." The affidavit French signed declared, "I
do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit
are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief" (emphasis
added).
But in an interview with The Oregonian, French admitted he was "not a
witness" to the events surrounding Kerry's medals and that his information
came secondhand from "friends."
George Elliott. In an April 12, 2004, article, USA Today reported that Lt.
Cmdr. George Elliott, Kerry's division commander, said of the actions for
which Kerry received a Silver Star: "This was an exemplary action. There's
no question about it." Elliott subsequently appeared in a Swift Boat ad in
which he asserted that "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened
in Vietnam," and, according to an August 6, 2004, Boston Globe article,
"sign[ed] an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver
Star" which the Swift Boat Veterans gave to the Globe "to justify
assertions in their ad and book."
But in an interview with the Globe for that August 6, 2004, article,
Elliott said that his involvement in the Kerry attack was "a terrible
mistake" and said, "I'm the one in trouble here. ... I knew it was wrong.
... In a hurry I signed [an affidavit] and faxed it back. That was a
mistake." The Globe further reported that "Elliott said he regretted
signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver
Star."
Finally, in an August 7, 2004, article, the Globe reported:
Elliott released another affidavit yesterday backing away from his comments
this week to the Globe, saying the reporter, Michael Kranish, misquoted
him.
Globe Editor Martin Baron released a statement saying "the Globe stands by
the article. The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and
absolutely accurate."
In 1996, when Kerry was running for Senate reelection and faced questions
about the circumstances in which he shot the Viet Cong fighter, Elliott
came to Boston and defended Kerry, saying he deserved the Silver Star.
In yesterday's new affidavit, Elliott said, "had I known the facts I would
not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star simply for pursuing and
dispatching a single wounded Viet Cong." He added, "I do not claim to have
any personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet
Cong."
Media coverage of Swift Boat Veterans
Coulter also suggests that the media ignored the allegations of the Swift
Boat Veterans, writing, "The only way they could have gotten less attention
would have been to be interviewed on Air America Radio. [Page 101]" In
fact, as Media Matters senior fellow Eric Boehlert wrote in Lapdogs: How
the Press Rolled Over for Bush (Free Press, May 2006):
By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings
leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth --
hereafter, Swifties -- in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more
than 100 New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties.
And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post
mentioned the Swifties in page 1 stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate
articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. [Page 177]
Boehlert further wrote:
[I]n the month of August, 2004, NBC network news alone covered the Swift
Boat story on August 8, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29. CBS covered the
story on August 8, 22, 23, 24, 25 26 and 30, while ABC devoted airtime to
it on August 6, 8, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26. Some of the networks,
using different morning and evening news programs, returned to the topic
several times in one day. For instance on August 23, CBS reported on the
Swifty controversy four different times, which of course, represented four
more times than the CBS News division reported on question surrounding
Bush's Guard service during the entire 2000 campaign. [Page 189]
Kerry's Bronze Star
Coulter also falsely suggests that no witnesses supported Kerry's account
that his convoy came under enemy fire during the March 13, 1969, actions
for which he was awarded the Bronze Star. Coulter wrote:
Larry Thurlow was the Swiftee who, according to the Times's account,
"earned a medal for bravery in a gun battle he accused Mr. Kerry of
concocting." But Thurlow didn't think he had won his medal for coming under
enemy fire for the simple reason that there had been no enemy fire. What
happened was the first boat in the five-boat convoy, PCF-3, hit a mine that
blew up the boat and tossed the sailors into the water. The Swiftees fired
on the shore as a precautionary measure, but stopped when they realized
there was no return fire. That is according to eleven crew members and
three commanders on that mission -- or all living commanders, except Kerry.
[Page 105]
Coulter provided no citation for her claim that "eleven crew members and
three commanders on that mission" agreed with her description of "[w]hat
happened." In fact, several crew members on the convoy boats have stated
that the convoy did come under enemy fire:
The crew of Patrol Craft Fast 94 (PCF-94). In a 2008 letter to Swift Boat
Veterans funder T. Boone Pickens debunking the group's "lies," Del
Sandusky, Fred Short, David Alston, Michael Medeiros, and Eugene K. Thorson
-- Kerry's crewmates on PCF-94 during the Vietnam War -- wrote that "[t]he
innuendo that Kerry 'put himself in' for his Bronze Star Medal on a mission
where there was no hostile fire, is completely disproved ... by all of the
other crew members who were actually on the boat in this ambush."
Jim Rassmann. In an August 10, 2004, Wall Street Journal op-ed, Rassmann
wrote:
I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift
boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese
Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South
Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his
leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.
On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.
While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine
detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both
banks of the river [emphasis added], and a second explosion followed
moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94,
throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over,
I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold
my breath.
When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire
from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire [emphasis added], I repeatedly
swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it
to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds
were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of
the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me
in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat
around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to
climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck.
But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of
the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John,
already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto
the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and
pulled me aboard.
Robert E. Lambert. An August 26, 2004, Mail Tribune (Oregon) article
reported that Lambert, "a crew member on swift boat PCF-51" during the
March 13, 1969, action, said of Thurlow, his commanding officer, "He and
another officer now say we weren't under fire at that time. Well, I sure
was under the impression we were." The Mail Tribune also reported that
Lambert "doesn't plan to vote for John Kerry" and quoted him referring to
Kerry's "opposition to the Vietnam War once he returned to the states" as
"absolutely reprehensible."
Wayne D. Langhofer. In an August 22, 2004, article, The Washington Post
reported:
Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only
from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a
participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who
remembers coming under enemy fire. "There was a lot of firing going on, and
it came from both sides of the river," said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned
a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry's.
Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy
AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks. Langhofer, who now
works at a Kansas gunpowder plant, said he was approached several months
ago by leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but declined their requests
to speak out against Kerry.
Jim Russell. In an August 23, 2004, article, the Post reported:
In Colorado, Jim Russell, who participated in Swift boat operations when
Kerry did, wrote a letter to the editor of the Telluride Daily Planet to
angrily dispute the claim that Kerry was not under enemy fire when he
rescued Jim Rassman from the water, a feat that brought Kerry a Bronze Star
and Purple Heart.
"I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz, who was later that year
killed by enemy fire," Russell wrote in the letter. "Forever pictured in my
mind since that day over 30 years ago [is] John Kerry bending over his boat
picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water.
All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although
because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very
accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon
must have been on a different river."
Coulter also writes that during the actions for which he was awarded the
Bronze Star, "Kerry had nothing to do with saving the boat that had been
hit because -- again according to the accounts of all three living
commanding officers, except Kerry -- Kerry fled on his boat the moment the
first boat hit a mine [Page 105]." But Coulter's suggestion that Kerry's
boat fled while the other boats remained is inconsistent with Rassmann's
firsthand account and with the account of Kerry's actions in his Bronze
Star citation. Rassmann stated: "[A]ll the swift boats had left, and I was
alone taking fire from both banks," before Kerry returned to rescue him
from the water.
Kerry's "home-movie camera"
Coulter writes that Kerry "carrie[d] a home-movie camera to war in order to
reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with himself" during his
tour in Vietnam [Page 100]. Coulter was repeating a discredited charge
previously made by Internet gossip Matt Drudge and subsequently echoed by
The New York Times and numerous cable and radio outlets during the 2004
presidential election. Drudge's report cited a 1996 Boston Globe article,
Unfit for Command, and Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson's
book, "Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undermine Our Military,
Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security (Regnery Publishing,
2004). But in his September 7, 2002, column, the Times' current executive
editor and then-columnist Bill Keller took up the issue of Kerry's wartime
films and debunked the reenactment charge, which he wrote that he believed
at first: "[R]elying on a report in the usually dependable Boston Globe, I
mocked him for pulling out a movie camera after a shootout in the Mekong
Delta and re-enacting the exploit, as if preening for campaign commercials
to come."
Contrary to Coulter's assertion that Kerry "carrie[d] a home-movie camera
to war in order to reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with
himself," after spending 40 minutes watching the movies Kerry shot in
Vietnam, Keller wrote:
The first thing to be said is that the senator's movies are not self-
aggrandizing. Mr. Kerry is hardly in the film, and never strikes so much as
a heroic pose. These are the souvenirs of a 25-year-old guy sent to an
exotic place on an otherworldly mission, who bought an 8-millimeter camera
in the PX and shot a few hours of travelogue, most of it pretty boring if
you didn't live through it.
Keller also wrote that, according to the Swift Boat Sailors Association, "a
group of veterans who manned" the kind of riverboat that Kerry commanded,
"lots of enlisted men did the same." Keller further wrote: "Senator Max
Cleland has hours of film from his service in the First Air Cavalry, which
he has had edited into a three-minute meet-the-senator video."
As Media Matters documented, a July 30, 2004, New York Times article
reporting on the Drudge charge noted that "people who have viewed his
[Kerry's] film from the war have said they have seen no re-enactments," but
the paper did not report that Keller had been among those "people."
Kerry and LexisNexis
After detailing retractions Kerry purportedly made in response to the Swift
Vets' claims, Coulter writes: "By contrast, the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth weren't forced to retract any part of their story. There's a reason
it was Kerry -- and not the Swift Boat Veterans -- who told the Washington
Post, 'I wish they had a delete button on LexisNexis' [Page 100]." But
contrary to Coulter's suggestion, Kerry did not make that comment to the
Post in response to the Swift Boat Veterans' claims. The Washington Post
article which Coulter cites for the quote was a profile of Kerry published
on June 1, 2003, and Kerry was not referring to LexisNexis' documenting
falsehoods, but to its documenting his having "be[en] a little brash when I
first got into politics":
Kerry stepped into the crowd, planting his big hands on workingmen's
shoulders, quizzing students about their majors, telling a woman about the
time his daughter's pet frog jumped on his nose. He waved, hugged, guffawed
and sat knee to knee with a grandmother. Boland said: "This guy's not
personable? What a phony issue."
Yet it has been an issue, especially with journalists, all the way back to
yellowing newspaper clips of 1971, which describe Kerry in such terms as
"slick," "too pretty," "ambitious," "opportunistic."
John Norris, Kerry's state director in Iowa, said he isn't worried: "The
East Coast press uses the word 'aloof.' It's been an asset, because Iowans
come with low expectations."
Kerry appreciates the irony. "I'll say thank you to every journalist who
wrote [expletive] articles about me," he joked. Then he added, "I plead
guilty to being a little brash when I first got into politics. I wish they
had a delete button on LexisNexis."
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker's Palin criticism
Coulter took conservative columnist Kathleen Parker out of context to
suggest that Parker made only stylistic criticisms against Gov. Sarah Palin
when Parker called for Palin to withdraw as the vice-presidential nominee.
In fact, Parker criticized Palin for what Parker said was a lack of
substance. Coulter wrote:
Meteoric rises are available to any Republican who claims to be disgusted
with the Republican Party for one or another reason. The heretofore unknown
Kathleen Parker was the media's favorite Republican in 2008, after she
called on Sarah Palin to withdraw from the campaign on the grounds that:
She "filibusters. She repeats words, filling up space with deadwood." This
might not have been manifestly insane if Palin's Democratic counterpart had
been anyone other than Joe Biden -- who filibusters, repeats words, and
achieves a personal coup every time he merely fills space with "deadwood,"
rather than one of his usual deranged pronouncements. [Page 114]
Coulter's suggestion that Parker's' criticism of Palin was limited to style
rather than substance is false. In fact, in the syndicated column Coulter
cited, Parker wrote, "Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space
with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there
[emphasis added]." Parker further wrote:
If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
If Palin were a man, we'd all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe
Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she's a
woman -- and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket -- we are
reluctant to say what is painfully true.
Lipstick on a Pig
Coulter devotes four pages of Guilty [173-176] to discussing her false
assertion that "Obama himself compared Palin to a pig and then denied doing
so." In fact, Obama's September 9, 2008, statement, "you know, you can put
lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig," did not refer to Palin, but rather to
how a "list" of Sen. John McCain's policies were, according to Obama, no
different from President Bush's. Obama did not mention Palin in at least
the 65 words preceding his "lipstick on a pig" comment, as Media Matters
noted. Moreover, the expression "lipstick on a pig" is common political
rhetoric -- Obama had reportedly used the expression in the past, and
McCain used it in 2007 in reference to Sen. Hillary Clinton's health-care
proposal.
Former acting Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift -- a national member of the
McCain campaign's "Palin Truth Squad" -- falsely accused Obama of making
"disgraceful comments comparing our vice presidential nominee, Gov. Palin,
to a pig," but later backtracked on her assertion, saying that she "can't
know" if Obama's comment "was aimed at Governor Palin."
Frank Rich's column on "Jeff Gannon"
Coulter misrepresents a quote by New York Times columnist Frank Rich about
former Talon News "Washington Bureau Chief" Jeff Gannon -- whose real name,
James Guckert, was uncovered by bloggers in February 2005 -- to assert:
"The entire scandal that Frank Rich complained was not getting enough
attention was that Gannon was a gay Republican [Page 200]."
Coulter writes: "Another story that the mainstream media denounced the
mainstream media for ignoring was the Jeff Gannon mystery scandal. It was a
mystery scandal because it was a mystery why it was a scandal. In 2005,
Frank Rich bitterly complained that the ' 'Jeff Gannon' story was getting
less attention than another media frenzy -- that set off by the veteran
news executive Eason Jordan.' " She continues:
Rich, who became qualified to comment on U.S. foreign policy, national
security, and presidential politics after spending a childhood dancing his
favorite numbers from Oklahoma! in his mother's panties and then spending
twelve years reviewing theater for the New York Times, attacked Gannon for
not being a "real newsman." Not only that, but, Rich breathlessly reported,
there were "embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking [Gannon] to sites
like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-
rated $200-per-hour 'escort.' " In Rich's estimation, $200 an hour was way
too much to pay a male escort who wasn't Latino. Now, if there's anybody in
this world who knows what a real man is, it's Frank Rich. But as for
knowing what a real newsman is, that's another story. [Page 198]
But Rich did not say that the scandal consisted of Gannon's "embarrassing
blogosphere revelations" or his status as a "gay Republican." Rather, Rich
focused on the fact that Gannon was a "fake[]" journalist. In the February
20, 2005, column to which Coulter refers Rich wrote:
[F]or nearly two years the White House press office had credentialed Mr.
Guckert, even though, as Dana Milbank of The Washington Post explained on
Mr. Olbermann's show, he "was representing a phony media company that
doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership."
How this happened is a mystery that has yet to be solved. "Jeff" has now
quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but
because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites
like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-
rated $200-per-hour ''escort [emphasis added]."
Rich added: "If Mr. Guckert, the author of Talon News exclusives like
'Kerry Could Become First Gay President,' is yet another link in the
boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases, that's not without
interest. But it shouldn't distract from the real question -- that is, the
real news -- of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House
propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day."
Rich continued: " 'Jeff Gannon' is now at least the sixth 'journalist'
(four of whom have been unmasked so far this year) to have been a
propagandist on the payroll of either the Bush administration or a barely
arms-length ally like Talon News while simultaneously appearing in print or
broadcast forums that purport to be real news." Rich went on to discuss
Armstrong Williams, Karen Ryan, and Alberto Garcia and wrote: "Such
'reports,' some of which found their way into news packages distributed to
local stations by CNN, appeared in more than 50 news broadcasts around the
country and have now been deemed illegal 'covert propaganda' by the
Government Accountability Office.
Media Matters has documented several instances in which Gannon lifted text
directly from Republican materials and sources.
From Frank Rich's February 20, 2005, New York Times column:
''Jeff Gannon's'' real name is James D. Guckert. His employer was a Web
site called Talon News, staffed mostly by volunteer Republican activists.
Media Matters for America, the liberal press monitor that has done the most
exhaustive research into the case, discovered that Talon's ''news'' often
consists of recycled Republican National Committee and White House press
releases, and its content frequently overlaps with another partisan site,
GOPUSA, with which it shares its owner, a Texas delegate to the 2000
Republican convention. Nonetheless, for nearly two years the White House
press office had credentialed Mr. Guckert, even though, as Dana Milbank of
The Washington Post explained on Mr. Olbermann's show, he ''was
representing a phony media company that doesn't really have any such thing
as circulation or readership.''
How this happened is a mystery that has yet to be solved. ''Jeff'' has now
quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but
because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites
like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-
rated $200-per-hour ''escort.'' If Mr. Guckert, the author of Talon News
exclusives like ''Kerry Could Become First Gay President,'' is yet another
link in the boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases, that's
not without interest. But it shouldn't distract from the real question --
that is, the real news -- of how this fake newsman might be connected to a
White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day. Though Mr.
McClellan told Editor & Publisher magazine that he didn't know until
recently that Mr. Guckert was using an alias, Bruce Bartlett, a White House
veteran of the Reagan-Bush I era, wrote on the nonpartisan journalism Web
site Romenesko, that ''if Gannon was using an alias, the White House staff
had to be involved in maintaining his cover.'' (Otherwise, it would be a
rather amazing post-9/11 security breach.)
By my count, ''Jeff Gannon'' is now at least the sixth ''journalist'' (four
of whom have been unmasked so far this year) to have been a propagandist on
the payroll of either the Bush administration or a barely arms-length ally
like Talon News while simultaneously appearing in print or broadcast forums
that purport to be real news. Of these six, two have been syndicated
newspaper columnists paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to
promote the administration's ''marriage'' initiatives. The other four have
played real newsmen on TV. Before Mr. Guckert and Armstrong Williams, the
talking head paid $240,000 by the Department of Education, there were Karen
Ryan and Alberto Garcia. Let us not forget these pioneers -- the Woodward
and Bernstein of fake news. They starred in bogus reports (''In Washington,
I'm Karen Ryan reporting,'' went the script) pretending to ''sort through
the details'' of the administration's Medicare prescription-drug plan in
2004. Such ''reports,'' some of which found their way into news packages
distributed to local stations by CNN, appeared in more than 50 news
broadcasts around the country and have now been deemed illegal ''covert
propaganda'' by the Government Accountability Office.
- H.D., M.G., J.H., & G.L.
Posted to the web on Sunday, January 04, 2009 at 07:44 PM ET
Iarnrod
> Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:27a6e24c-a103-4476-bbaf-4b8246e335d5
> @z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 10:27 am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> >> "Crap Detector" <detec...@live.ca> wrote innews:1l39l.134817$jv1.85306@en-
> >> nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> >> > Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
> not
> >> > ideologically corrupt and biased).
> >> >http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25...
>
> >> 919D-B218D284CA6C
>
> >> Now you've done it. Your comments will bring out the literary
> >> mavens of the Left, who will bring all their intellectual acumen
> >> to refute your opinion.
>
> >> For instance;
>
> >> From: za...@construction-imaging.com
> >> WTF??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
>
> >> From: Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> >> BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
>
> >> "Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
> >> Aid!!!"
>
> > The fact that this was all a made-up lie by Ann the Man
>
> Why don't you supply some smidgeon of evidence that she IS a man before
> you start shreiking "LIAR!" at the top of your lungs like so many other
> leftwing harpies who can't admit that a woman can do such damage with her
> opinions?
BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!! How about you first providing evidence that she's
a woman, Alderloon?
> > ...to gin up publicity for her eighth iteration of the same stupid book...
>
> For me to give the slightest weight to your opinion here, I would have to
> believe that you read all eight books. Is this your contention?
No need to; their titles are all the same.
You're not contending, I hope, that she's had a single original
thought in any of them? She's a whiner and insult artist. She adds no
value to the debate. We're glad she's on your side. Gives us the
advantage.
> > ...doesn't seem to deter you from uttering stupid opinions, does it!
>
> I didn't offer an opinion of my own. So at least you admit that your
> opinion (that I uttered) was a stupid one. I guess that shows some grasp of
> self-realization.
Are you mental? It seems so from your incoherent rambling. But then,
you're a rightard, so that's being redundant.
Iarnrod
> Clay <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote in news:ea74a102-ec6d-4c82-8074-
> 4bee65cb3...@q37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
Ironic coming from a moron who's yet to construct a coherent argument,
Alderbuffoon!
SilentOtto
Yep...
And, if this book is anything like her other books, she'll insult
every group in the country who aren't brain dead Limbots or FOXombies.
And then, come 2010 or 2012, all you rightards will wonder why hardly
anyone supports the Republicans.
And me?
I'll just be laughing and laughing...
Heh heh...
Rightards.
The Democrats best friend.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> >> "Crap Detector" <detec...@live.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that
is
>> >> > not ideologically corrupt and biased).
>> >> > http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-
E25...
>>
>> >> Now you've done it. Your comments will bring out the literary
>> >> mavens of the Left, who will bring all their intellectual acumen to
refute
>> >> your opinion.
>>
>> >> For instance;
>>
>> >> From: za...@construction-imaging.com WTF??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
>>
>> >> From: Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
>>
>> >> "Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
>> >> Aid!!!"
>>
>> > The fact that this was all a made-up lie by Ann the Man
>>
>> Why don't you supply some smidgeon of evidence that she IS a man before
>> you start shreiking "LIAR!" at the top of your lungs like so many other
>> leftwing harpies who can't admit that a woman can do such damage with her
>> opinions?
>
> BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!! How about you first providing evidence that she's
> a woman, Alderloon?
http://www.yuricareport.com/Images3/CoulterNYPost.jpg
>> > ...to gin up publicity for her eighth iteration of the same stupid
book...
>>
>> For me to give the slightest weight to your opinion here, I would have
to
>> believe that you read all eight books. Is this your contention?
>
> No need to; their titles are all the same.
Sheesh. Do you just say anything that pops into your stupid fucking head?
> You're not contending, I hope, that she's had a single original
> thought in any of them?
Yes, that's why she keeps selling books. You, having only COLORED books,
wouldn't know that.
> She's a whiner and insult artist. She adds no value to the debate. We're
> glad she's on your side. Gives us the advantage.
Your only advantage is your oblivious mind. Ignoring reality allows you to
believe whatever crap you want to.
>> > ...doesn't seem to deter you from uttering stupid opinions, does it!
>>
>> I didn't offer an opinion of my own. So at least you admit that your
>> opinion (that I uttered) was a stupid one. I guess that shows some grasp of
>> self-realization.
>
> Are you mental?
No.
> It seems so from your incoherent rambling. But then,
> you're a rightard, so that's being redundant.
Too many big words, eh?
michael ellis
about his navy buddies for his own political benefit. He said
his buddies killed villagers..which they didn't. John Kerry is a
total liar. Why he lost the 04 Pres election. Reason why Ann Coulter's
book is getting attention. Is the leftist knows she's telling the truth
about
them. Which they don't want the average person to know what they do.
The dems promises. They never deliver or keep their words.
"John Paul" <jp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.23ceee183...@news.individual.net...
Kickin' Ass & Takin' Names
> Well John Paul. John Kerry is a scum. Back in the day..he lied
> about his navy buddies for his own political benefit.
No, he did not. It was a small rightwing gang of Republicons who lied
about Kerry.
> He said
> his buddies killed villagers..which they didn't.
Kerry never said that his buddies killed villagers.
> John Kerry is a
> total liar. Why he lost the 04 Pres election.
John Kerry is an honorable man who was screwed by a gang of thugs, not
one of whom is qualified to carry his jockstrap.
>Reason why Ann Coulter's
> book is getting attention.
Two reasons:
-- Rightwingnutters will believe anything that she spews out.
-- The Conservative Book Club will buy her book by the caseload,
thereby making it a bestseller -- for a week after which it will be in
the 99 cent bargain bin -- then it will be pulped for recycle.
Gord Palmer
screed.
What a mindless sheep. Go back to reading your Ann Coulter Bibles, little
man. She tells you what to think.
Iarnrod
That appears to support MY contention she's a man, Alderkook. I mean,
LOOK at him!
So that's the "best" you got?
> >> > ...to gin up publicity for her eighth iteration of the same stupid
> book...
>
> >> For me to give the slightest weight to your opinion here, I would have
> to
> >> believe that you read all eight books. Is this your contention?
>
> > No need to; their titles are all the same.
>
> Sheesh. Do you just say anything that pops into your stupid fucking head?
I thought I'd try the usual rightard tactic. But in this case, it's
true.
> > You're not contending, I hope, that she's had a single original
> > thought in any of them?
>
> Yes, that's why she keeps selling books.
BWAHAHAAAHAHAAAA!!! You moron, she sells books to kooks like you
because **she tells you what you want to hear!!** Holy CRAP, I had
been giving you FAR too much credit for at least having at least ONE
working brain cell. She feeds your biases so you assholes eat it up.
> > She's a whiner and insult artist. She adds no value to the debate. We're
> > glad she's on your side. Gives us the advantage.
>
> Your only advantage is your oblivious mind.
Got it all over you, Alderkook. I've wiped the floor with your kooker
ass here.
> Ignoring reality ...
Is the rightards' specialty.
> >> > ...doesn't seem to deter you from uttering stupid opinions, does it!
>
> >> I didn't offer an opinion of my own. So at least you admit that your
> >> opinion (that I uttered) was a stupid one. I guess that shows some grasp of
> >> self-realization.
>
> > Are you mental?
>
> No.
Then you're simply stupid?
> > It seems so from your incoherent rambling. But then,
> > you're a rightard, so that's being redundant.
>
> Too many big words, eh?
What, you don't understand them? I can try to dumb it down for ya,
fuzznuts, but I thought you could function at a third grade level.
Apparently not.
Beowulf Farukstein
> I didn't offer an opinion of my own.
Bein' one o' them oh-so-wrong wing
corporatists-calling-themselves-conservatives, It really really really
goes without saying that you didn't offer an opinion of your own.
I mean what the heck would you have that you could base a personal
opinion on?
Beowulf Farukstein
> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
> not ideologically corrupt and biased).
>
Just shortly after it's announcement, the internet is ablaze with
discussions about her new book.
You just have to buy this book to see what the whole world is talking
about!!!!
Beowulf Farukstein
uh... aren't there certain basic requirements to being "mental"?
Beowulf Farukstein
>> BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA!!! How about you first providing evidence that she's
>> a woman, Alderloon?
>
> http://www.yuricareport.com/Images3/CoulterNYPost.jpg
>
OH MY GOD !!
Those eyes -- so vacant and soul-less, unfeeling. cold. I've seen more
warmth on the porn sites.
And why are they looking in different directions??
For the love of God! Is it Human???
cake_and_...@yahoo.com
> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is not
> --
> What is called "capitalism" might more
> accurately be called consumerism. It is the
> consumers who call the tune, and those
> capitalists who want to remain capitalists
> have to learn to dance to it.--Thomas Sowell
> ("Basic Economics", p.178)
da biotch is losing ALL her jobs. soon she will be out tricking in
Cali again, going up and down the street on roller skates, braless,
trolling for whatever she can get!
SilentOtto
> Crap Detector wrote:
> > Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
> > not ideologically corrupt and biased).
>
> Just shortly after it's announcement, the internet is ablaze with
> discussions about her new book.
>
> You just have to buy this book to see what the whole world is talking
> about!!!!
Maybe you do.
But, I sure as hell don't.
Once you've seen one pool of puke, you've seen them all.
Beowulf Farukstein
Oh, my ears and whiskers! once more my sarcasm has been mis-identified
(my other posts speak for themselves.)
I was presenting an example of how the spin-machine would likely use the
fact that there have been a LOT of posts regarding her book in a short
time to boost publicity --- of course disregarding the fact that most of
the posts seem to center around the theme of whore, succubus, and
transvestite.
SilentOtto
Got ya.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with your other posts or I'd have caught it.
Bush Worshiper
>
> Just shortly after it's announcement, the internet is ablaze with
> discussions about her new book.
>
> You just have to buy this book to see what the whole world is talking
> about!!!!
>
>
believe every word of her book, parrot it to everybody they know and buy it
are left wing fascists who deserve to die in a domestic terrorist attack
along with their children. Communist David Horowitz, the Prophet of
Frontpagemag.com agrees, saying "this is another reason why we can safely
shut down the colleges of the nation and replace what they learn with right
wing lies and propaganda." Frontpagemag's Horowitz continues "Education
is the enemy and anthesis of conservative dogma because colleges and
universities are breeding grounds of liberal thinking. They must be shut
down if the GOP is to survive into the 21st century."
Praise Bush!
Bush Worshiper
--
"Bush is the new Messiah!"
- Dr. Rush Limbaugh as told to black economist Thomas Sowell
Crap Detector
> On Jan 7, 9:52 am, "Crap Detector" <detec...@live.ca> wrote:
>
> > Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is not
> > --
> > What is called "capitalism" might more
> > accurately be called consumerism. It is the
> > consumers who call the tune, and those
> > capitalists who want to remain capitalists
> > have to learn to dance to it.--Thomas Sowell
> > ("Basic Economics", p.178)
>
> when they would welcome former terrorist and bomb
> thrower Chicago's William Ayers, Obama's former friend, to a cream
> puff interview, but would ban Ann Coulter, a patriot and very
> successful author of new book "Victims", which Sean Hannity calls her
> best yet.
Sorry for mistake. Her new book is titled "Guilty"
WBY...@ireland.com
wrote:
>"Pfc Bush - 7th Cav" <13 Dayz - Bye Bye Bu...@Capt.Titanic.net> wrote in
>news:GQ59l.13130$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>>
>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B8C7EB826CA6...@216.196.97.142...
>>> "Crap Detector" <dete...@live.ca> wrote in news:1l39l.134817$jv1.85306
>@en-
>>> nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com:
>>>
>>>> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
>>>> not ideologically corrupt and biased).
>>>> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25A-
>4F23-
>>>> 919D-B218D284CA6C
>>>
>>> Now you've done it. Your comments will bring out the literary mavens of
>>> the
>>> Left, who will bring all their intellectual acumen to refute your opinion.
>>>
>>> For instance;
>>>
>>> From: za...@construction-imaging.com
>>> WTF??? ROFLMAO!!!!!
>>>
>>> From: Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com>
>>> BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
>>>
>>> "Kook Aid, getcha Kook Aid, right heah!! Five cents a cup!! Kook
>>> Aid!!!"
>>>
>>> - - - -
>>>
>>> Now aren't you ashamed?
>>
>> With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look good
>> for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP representative.
>
>All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
>Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
So is Coulter the result of plastic surgery - or simply a transgender
patch job?
WB Yeats
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>"Pfc Bush - 7th Cav" <13 Dayz - Bye Bye Bu...@Capt.Titanic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look good
>>> for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP representative.
>>
>>All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
>>Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
>
> So is Coulter the result of plastic surgery - or simply a transgender
> patch job?
Do you have any reason to believe she has had surgery of any kind? Or do
you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to invent a
reason?
Iarnrod
> WBYe...@Ireland.com wrote innews:fdacm41nc0urdq7n2...@4ax.com:
>
> > Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> >>"Pfc Bush - 7th Cav" <13 Dayz - Bye Bye B...@Capt.Titanic.net> wrote:
>
> >>> With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look good
> >>> for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP representative.
>
> >>All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
> >>Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
>
> > So is Coulter the result of plastic surgery - or simply a transgender
> > patch job?
>
> Do you have any reason to believe she has had surgery of any kind? Or do
> you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to invent a
> reason?
It's not possible to hate her without a good reason, Alderloon.
Hating her without a good reason isn't possible.
WBY...@ireland.com
wrote:
>WBY...@Ireland.com wrote in news:fdacm41nc0urdq7n2...@4ax.com:
>
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>"Pfc Bush - 7th Cav" <13 Dayz - Bye Bye Bu...@Capt.Titanic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look good
>>>> for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP representative.
>>>
>>>All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
>>>Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
>>
>> So is Coulter the result of plastic surgery - or simply a transgender
>> patch job?
>
> Do you have any reason to believe she has had surgery of any kind? Or do
>you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to invent a
>reason?
Do you have any reason to live or is it just a reflex? BTW - I guess
they botched your lobotomy for the third time?
WB Yeats
Jim Alder
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:15:27 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>WBY...@Ireland.com wrote in news:fdacm41nc0urdq7n20hkq1v1r21jd41l9c@
4ax.com:
>>
>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>"Pfc Bush - 7th Cav" <13 Dayz - Bye Bye Bu...@Capt.Titanic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look
good
>>>>> for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP representative.
>>>>
>>>>All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
>>>>Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
>>>
>>> So is Coulter the result of plastic surgery - or simply a transgender
patch
>>> job?
>>
>> Do you have any reason to believe she has had surgery of any kind? Or do
>>you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to invent a
>>reason?
>
> Do you have any reason to live or is it just a reflex? BTW - I guess
> they botched your lobotomy for the third time?
So yes, you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to
invent a reason. No surprises there. And rather than admit it, you toss a
cheap shot in my direction. Typical.
Iarnrod
> WBYe...@Ireland.com wrote innews:rm5dm4puni9si3ppt...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:15:27 -0600, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>WBYe...@Ireland.com wrote in news:fdacm41nc0urdq7n20hkq1v1r21jd41l9c@
> 4ax.com:
>
> >>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> >>>>"Pfc Bush - 7th Cav" <13 Dayz - Bye Bye B...@Capt.Titanic.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look
> good
> >>>>> for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP representative.
>
> >>>>All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
> >>>>Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
>
> >>> So is Coulter the result of plastic surgery - or simply a transgender
> patch
> >>> job?
>
> >> Do you have any reason to believe she has had surgery of any kind? Or do
> >>you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to invent a
> >>reason?
>
> > Do you have any reason to live or is it just a reflex? BTW - I guess
> > they botched your lobotomy for the third time?
>
> So yes, you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to
> invent a reason. No surprises there. And rather than admit it, you toss a
> cheap shot in my direction. Typical.
There is no good reason not to hate her, Alderloon.
klunk
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B8DCD56CDA6A...@216.196.97.142...
as much as there may be plenty of reason to hate that hate-monger, to do so
would be the same as catching her disease... she is a pitiable creature...
an attention whore who will stir hatred for the sole purpose of making a
buck... she cares not a whit how crude or callous or mean-spirited or
self-centered or denigrating or shallow or just downright ignorant she can
be... she will lie through her teeth to smear good people for the sole
purpose of whoring herself out to rabid, mindless, knuckle-dragging freaks
who look to her as a symbol which crystallizes their own hate-filled
sentiments within a package which resembles a gender they can wank over...
Jim Alder
You almost had a point going there for a couple lines, but like most of
your ilk, you turned into the very thing you were calling her. Yes, she's
caustic to the Nth degree and even mean sometimes. She's not a liar in my
experience and she has more than her share of insights and she's funny
sometimes.
Of course, none of that was the point of this thread. I get tired of the
losers who accuse her of being either ugly or a transexual. It's childish.
Doug Reese
> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote innews:nfy9l.2$3_...@newsfe10.iad:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jim Alder" <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9B8DCD56CDA6A...@216.196.97.142...
> >> WBYe...@Ireland.com wrote in
> >>news:rm5dm4puni9si3ppt...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:15:27 -0600, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>WBYe...@Ireland.com wrote in news:fdacm41nc0urdq7n20hkq1v1r21jd41l9c@
> >>>>4ax.com:
>
> >>>>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
She's not a liar? Of course she is, Jim.
In her recent response to MMFA's article on her, she replied:
Coulter: “No one - not even Kerry - now supports Kerry's original "no
man left behind" story in his Iowa ad, which was also told by
Rassmann. As I say, the only three living officers from that mission
other than Kerry himself - Pees, Thurlow, Chenoweth – as well as 11
enlisted men say there was no return fire for Kerry to come under. I
am not making a ‘suggestion,’ I am stating facts.”
Problem with that statement, Jim, is that it is a lie.
The fact is, there are precisely THREE enlisted guys who said there
was no
return fire and/or disagreed with some part of what Kerry said
happened.
If there was 11, I would invite her, or anyone for that matter, to
come forward with their names.
Coincidentally, the number "11" does come up in some circles in
regards to this incident. That is the number of guys present that day
who say there was return fire.
I have recently stumbled across another (no friend of Kerry's, I might
add) who says there was return fire, making the total 12.
Furthermore, there were two officers (Jim Rassmann and Jim Russell),
in addition to Kerry, who say there was return fire, making another
claim of coulter's in her response bogus.
She chooses her words carefully ("only three living officers"),
because she knows one of the officers, Don Droz, was killed a month
later. He was perhaps the closest friend to Kerry of all the Swift
Boat officers, and she apparently knew that, and excluded him with
that phrase. I have no problem with that, but she manufactured the
rest of her nonsense.
Doug Reese
> Of course, none of that was the point of this thread. I get tired of the
> losers who accuse her of being either ugly or a transexual. It's childish.
>
> --
> A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
> and won't change the subject.
> An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
> hoping it will eat him last.
> Sir Winston Churchill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Iarnrod
> She's not a liar in my experience ...
Well, Alderloon, that's because YOU'RE a liar too.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>> > "Jim Alder" <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>> >> WBYe...@Ireland.com wrote:
>> >>> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted men who say
or said that Kerry was not fired upon? But you invite her to name them. That
tells me that you don't know for sure either way.
> Coincidentally, the number "11" does come up in some circles in
> regards to this incident. That is the number of guys present that day
> who say there was return fire.
>
> I have recently stumbled across another (no friend of Kerry's, I might
> add) who says there was return fire, making the total 12.
>
> Furthermore, there were two officers (Jim Rassmann and Jim Russell),
> in addition to Kerry, who say there was return fire, making another
> claim of Coulter's in her response bogus.
>
> She chooses her words carefully ("only three living officers"),
> because she knows one of the officers, Don Droz, was killed a month
> later. He was perhaps the closest friend to Kerry of all the Swift
> Boat officers, and she apparently knew that, and excluded him with
> that phrase. I have no problem with that, but she manufactured the
> rest of her nonsense.
Yeah, but see, I have you telling me what she said, then telling me that it
is a lie because of things you know. That really doesn't get me anywhere. But
thanks anyway.
Doug Reese
> > man left behind" story in his Iowa ad, which was also told by
> > Rassmann. As I say, the only three living officers from that mission
> > enlisted men say there was no return fire forKerryto come under. I
> > am not making a ‘suggestion,’ I am stating facts.”
>
> > Problem with that statement, Jim, is that it is a lie.
>
> > The fact is, there are precisely THREE enlisted guys who said there
> > was no
> > return fire and/or disagreed with some part of whatKerrysaid
> > happened.
>
> > If there was 11, I would invite her, or anyone for that matter, to
> > come forward with their names.
>
> But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted men who say
> tells me that you don't know for sure either way.
No, Jim, that's not correct.
I know, for sure, that there were NOT 11 guys (enlisted or otherwise,
for that matter), who said there was return fire.
No question, without a doubt.
The private investigator hired by the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth"
tried as hard as he could, but other than the four guys who were
originally on-board with the SBV"t" -- officers Pees, Chenowith &
Thurlow, and enlisted guy Van Odell -- he was only able to scrounge up
two more guys who disputed that there was return fire. I don't recall
their names, but there were just two.
In all this time, no one, save coulter, has come up with 11 enlisted
guys who have said there was no return fire. In particular, the SBV"t"
have not said this, ever.
The reason I asked for names is to show that this bit about 11
enlisted guys is totally bogus. If it were not, someone would be able
to come up with names. They won't, of course, because those 11 guys do
not exist.
> > Coincidentally, the number "11" does come up in some circles in
> > regards to this incident. That is the number of guys present that day
> > who say there was return fire.
>
> > I have recently stumbled across another (no friend ofKerry's, I might
> > add) who says there was return fire, making the total 12.
>
> > Furthermore, there were two officers (Jim Rassmann and Jim Russell),
> > in addition toKerry, who say there was return fire, making another
> > claim of Coulter's in her response bogus.
>
> > She chooses her words carefully ("only three living officers"),
> > because she knows one of the officers, Don Droz, was killed a month
> > later. He was perhaps the closest friend toKerryof all the Swift
> > Boat officers, and she apparently knew that, and excluded him with
> > that phrase. I have no problem with that, but she manufactured the
> > rest of her nonsense.
>
> Yeah, but see, I have you telling me what she said, then telling me that it
> is a lie because of things you know. That really doesn't get me anywhere. But
> thanks anyway.
"Things I know"? Hardly. A number of these guys are on record -- the
11 I'm talking about.
The only one that I know personally (# 12) -- that others don't know
about -- I don't ask you to accept. I only mentioned it because it was
interesting to me, and would be to some others.
The others, such as LTJG Jim Russell, Lt Jim Rassmann, Kerry and his
entire crew (that's 8 so far), and a guy on Thurlow's crew -- Lambert
(9) I can mention off the top of my head. There's also LTJG Don Droz,
the guy coulter was referring to when she mentioned "living officers",
as he backed Kerry -- that was in a letter to his wife. Don was
probably Kerry's best friend of all the Swift Boat officers, and was
killed soon after this incident -- April 12, 1969.
Doug Reese
> --
> A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
> and won't change the subject.
> An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
> hoping it will eat him last.
> Sir Winston Churchill- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
klunk
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B8DE41CD83E7...@216.196.97.142...
well... I certainly don't find her attractive on any level... intellectually
or physically or spiritually... I find her rather to be all-around
repugnant... but, to address your response about not seeing that she lies...
well, you just aren't either paying attention or you are simply refusing to
take an objective look at the shit she spews because john paul posted a long
list of her lies from her latest book... although, I do find it interesting
how you can say I almost had a point at the beginning of your sentence but
then changed into labeling me as one of some sort of "ilk" in much the same
manner that she does with her sweeping generalizations...
and if you truly do find some of her "humour" funny, then I will simply
submit that you are suffering from some psychological issues yourself...
because I've sampled enough of her "caustic nature" to find it repulsive,
and not at all funny... most definitely, not even witty in the least... only
insulting, coarse, crude and vulgar... and if you find raw vulgarity
humourous, then you've just supported my suspicion about your own nature...
now... lewis black is raw and crude and funny... and if you want to compare
their two types of humour, you should see the difference... if you are not a
vulgar person yourself... because I have known people who find it funny to
call someone a fag because of their appearance... and that may be you as
well... and it would be precisely because of such a view of humour that I
would submit you have some psychological issues of your own to resolve....
The Idiot
> There is no question Coulter can stir up controversy and I'm a long
> way from an admirer, but criticize her words and philosophy if you
> want, but only an adolescent would find fault with her appearance,
> rather than an intelligent comment about what she has to say. But,
> what the hell, not much else to do a recess, I guess.
>
LOL! A rightist pretending to take the "high road". What's next? A
demnocrat in the white house?
Jeff George
news:8v8em41or50c47n0a...@4ax.com:
> There is no question Coulter can stir up controversy and I'm a long
> way from an admirer, but criticize her words and philosophy if you
> want, but only an adolescent would find fault with her appearance,
> rather than an intelligent comment about what she has to say. But,
> what the hell, not much else to do a recess, I guess.
Yeah, but she's fugly.
Jeff George
> That just brings up the question of who the hell bought Bill &
> Hillary's 'books'. Surely, Al Franken couldn't have afforded all of
> them.
Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them' was quite entertaining,
and he actually supported his assertions with facts (dates and places).
Coulter doesn't do that.
Iarnrod
> E. Barry Bruyea <lobbyi...@goaway.com> wrote innews:161dm4t17p0p0kaig...@4ax.com:
>
> > That just brings up the question of who the hell bought Bill &
> > Hillary's 'books'. Surely, Al Franken couldn't have afforded all of
> > them.
>
> Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them' was quite entertaining,
> and he actually supported his assertions with facts (dates and places).
> Coulter doesn't do that.
Coulter CAN'T do that!!
WBY...@ireland.com
wrote:
>WBY...@Ireland.com wrote in news:rm5dm4puni9si3ppt...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:15:27 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>WBY...@Ireland.com wrote in news:fdacm41nc0urdq7n20hkq1v1r21jd41l9c@
>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Pfc Bush - 7th Cav" <13 Dayz - Bye Bye Bu...@Capt.Titanic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look
>good
>>>>>> for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP representative.
>>>>>
>>>>>All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
>>>>>Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
>>>>
>>>> So is Coulter the result of plastic surgery - or simply a transgender
>patch
>>>> job?
>>>
>>> Do you have any reason to believe she has had surgery of any kind? Or do
>>>you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to invent a
>>>reason?
>>
>> Do you have any reason to live or is it just a reflex? BTW - I guess
>> they botched your lobotomy for the third time?
>
> So yes, you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to
>invent a reason. No surprises there. And rather than admit it, you toss a
>cheap shot in my direction. Typical.
Actually I'm farting in your general direction, luser. Coulter has yet
to make a cogent point in any of her writings or rants.
WB Yeats
Iarnrod
It tells the rest of us that you have a reading comprehension problem.
His challenge for her or you to name the others if you believe they
exist does not in anyway imply that HE believes they exist. He's just
set the trap for you, which you cannot escape.
Jim Alder
>> > Coulter: “No one - not even Kerry- now supports Kerry's original "no
>> > man left behind" story in his Iowa ad, which was also told by
>> > Rassmann. As I say, the only three living officers from that mission
>> > other than Kerry himself - Pees, Thurlow, Chenoweth – as well as 11
>> > enlisted men say there was no return fire for Kerry to come under. I am
not
>> > making a ‘suggestion,’ I am stating facts.”
>>
>> > Problem with that statement, Jim, is that it is a lie.
>>
>> > The fact is, there are precisely THREE enlisted guys who said there
>> > was no
>> > return fire and/or disagreed with some part of what Kerry said happened.
>>
>> > If there was 11, I would invite her, or anyone for that matter, to come
>> > forward with their names.
>>
>> But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted men who
say
>> or said that Kerry was not fired upon? But you invite her to name them.
That
>> tells me that you don't know for sure either way.
>
> No, Jim, that's not correct.
>
> I know, for sure, that there were NOT 11 guys (enlisted or otherwise,
> for that matter), who said there was return fire.
>
> No question, without a doubt.
But that's not what I said. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I said "But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted men
who say or said that Kerry was not fired upon?"
You said "I know, for sure, that there were NOT 11 guys (enlisted or
otherwise, for that matter), who said there was return fire."
> The private investigator hired by the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth"
> tried as hard as he could, but other than the four guys who were
> originally on-board with the SBV"t" -- officers Pees, Chenowith &
> Thurlow, and enlisted guy Van Odell -- he was only able to scrounge up
> two more guys who disputed that there was return fire. I don't recall
> their names, but there were just two.
>
> In all this time, no one, save coulter, has come up with 11 enlisted
> guys who have said there was no return fire. In particular, the SBV"t"
> have not said this, ever.
>
> The reason I asked for names is to show that this bit about 11
> enlisted guys is totally bogus. If it were not, someone would be able
> to come up with names. They won't, of course, because those 11 guys do
> not exist.
See, here's the thing. You say one thing, Coulter says another. If you want
to ask Coulter for the names, that would be just swell. Bringing this up in a
thread and asking ME for the names gets you nothing. And it's not even the
point of the thread, so I can't get too excited about it. Not to mention that
this is a four year old story about a 30 year old story. Even less to get
excited about.
>> > Coincidentally, the number "11" does come up in some circles in
>> > regards to this incident. That is the number of guys present that day who
>> > say there was return fire.
>>
>> > I have recently stumbled across another (no friend of Kerry's, I might
Jim Alder
@newsfe06.iad:
> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>>>> WBY...@Ireland.com wrote:
>>>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
I'm sure she'd be crushed to hear that.
> but, to address your response about not seeing that she lies...
> well, you just aren't either paying attention or you are simply refusing to
> take an objective look at the shit she spews because john paul posted a long
> list of her lies from her latest book...
The Pope? Now that would carry some weight. Sorry I missed it. But it's not
like I'm a big follower of that kind of thing. In other words, I'm not one of
those "rabid, mindless, knuckle-dragging freaks" you find so contemptible.
> although, I do find it interesting
> how you can say I almost had a point at the beginning of your sentence but
> then changed into labeling me as one of some sort of "ilk" in much the same
> manner that she does with her sweeping generalizations...
Just read the rest of your vitriolic diatribe against her and anyone who
dares to not share your opinion of her. That's the 'ilk' I'm talking about -
people who can't stand a different opinion to the point that they have to
accuse her of everything they can dream up.
> and if you truly do find some of her "humour" funny, then I will simply
> submit that you are suffering from some psychological issues yourself...
Heh heh heh. Thanks, Doc. I'll file your diagnosis in the circular file.
Libs aren't known for their sense of humor, especially when the joke is on
them.
> because I've sampled enough of her "caustic nature" to find it repulsive,
> and not at all funny... most definitely, not even witty in the least... only
> insulting, coarse, crude and vulgar... and if you find raw vulgarity
> humourous, then you've just supported my suspicion about your own nature...
> now... lewis black is raw and crude and funny... and if you want to compare
> their two types of humour, you should see the difference...
I see lots of differences in their approaches. Doesn't mean they aren't
both funny.
> if you are not a
> vulgar person yourself... because I have known people who find it funny to
> call someone a fag because of their appearance... and that may be you as
> well... and it would be precisely because of such a view of humour that I
> would submit you have some psychological issues of your own to resolve....
Like I said, Doc...
Doug Reese
> >> > man left behind" story in his Iowa ad, which was also told by
> >> > Rassmann. As I say, the only three living officers from that mission
> >> > enlisted men say there was no return fire forKerryto come under. I am
> not
> >> > making a ‘suggestion,’ I am stating facts.”
>
> >> > Problem with that statement, Jim, is that it is a lie.
>
> >> > The fact is, there are precisely THREE enlisted guys who said there
> >> > was no
>
> >> > If there was 11, I would invite her, or anyone for that matter, to come
> >> > forward with their names.
>
> >> But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted men who
> say
> That
> >> tells me that you don't know for sure either way.
>
> > No, Jim, that's not correct.
>
> > I know, for sure, that there were NOT 11 guys (enlisted or otherwise,
> > for that matter), who said there was return fire.
>
> > No question, without a doubt.
>
> But that's not what I said. Quite the opposite, in fact.
>
> I said "But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted men
> who say or said thatKerrywas not fired upon?"
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that the same thing?
Ok, let's put it this way . . . . there were not 11 enlisted guys who
said "there was no return fire forKerryto come under."
There were three . . . just three.
> > The private investigator hired by the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth"
> > tried as hard as he could, but other than the four guys who were
> > originally on-board with the SBV"t" -- officers Pees, Chenowith &
> > Thurlow, and enlisted guy Van Odell -- he was only able to scrounge up
> > two more guys who disputed that there was return fire. I don't recall
> > their names, but there were just two.
>
> > In all this time, no one, save coulter, has come up with 11 enlisted
> > guys who have said there was no return fire. In particular, the SBV"t"
> > have not said this, ever.
>
> > The reason I asked for names is to show that this bit about 11
> > enlisted guys is totally bogus. If it were not, someone would be able
> > to come up with names. They won't, of course, because those 11 guys do
> > not exist.
>
> See, here's the thing. You say one thing, Coulter says another. If you want
> to ask Coulter for the names, that would be just swell. Bringing this up in a
> thread and asking ME for the names gets you nothing.
Umm, I didn't ask you for names. I said: "If there was 11, I would
invite her, or anyone for that matter, to come
forward with their names."
>And it's not even the
> point of the thread, so I can't get too excited about it.
Don't . . . . . I'm not. Simply pointing out she's a liar.
>Not to mention that
> this is a four year old story about a 30 year old story. Even less to get
> excited about.
It's a four year old story about a 35 year old story.
For some of us, the date is hard to forget. The guy who was killed
that day was so messed up from a command detonated mine that he had to
be carried in a pancho back to the boat.
Doug Reese
> >> > Coincidentally, the number "11" does come up in some circles in
> >> > regards to this incident. That is the number of guys present that day who
> >> > say there was return fire.
>
> >> > I have recently stumbled across another (no friend ofKerry's, I might
> add)
> >> > who says there was return fire, making the total 12.
>
> >> > Furthermore, there were two officers (Jim Rassmann and Jim Russell), in
> >> > addition toKerry, who say there was return fire, making another claim of
> >> > Coulter's in her response bogus.
>
> >> > She chooses her words carefully ("only three living officers"), because
> she
> >> > knows one of the officers, Don Droz, was killed a month later. He was
> >> > perhaps the closest friend toKerryof all the Swift Boat officers, and she
> >> > apparently knew that, and excluded him with that phrase. I have no
> problem
> >> > with that, but she manufactured the rest of her nonsense.
>
> >> Yeah, but see, I have you telling me what she said, then telling me that
> it
> >> is a lie because of things you know. That really doesn't get me anywhere.
> But
> >> thanks anyway.
>
> > "Things I know"? Hardly. A number of these guys are on record -- the
> > 11 I'm talking about.
>
> > The only one that I know personally (# 12) -- that others don't know
> > about -- I don't ask you to accept. I only mentioned it because it was
> > interesting to me, and would be to some others.
>
> > The others, such as LTJG Jim Russell, Lt Jim Rassmann,Kerryand his
> > entire crew (that's 8 so far), and a guy on Thurlow's crew -- Lambert
> > (9) I can mention off the top of my head. There's also LTJG Don Droz,
> > the guy coulter was referring to when she mentioned "living officers",
> > as he backedKerry-- that was in a letter to his wife. Don was
> > probablyKerry'sbest friend of all the Swift Boat officers, and was
> > killed soon after this incident -- April 12, 1969.
>
> > Doug Reese
>
> --
> A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
> and won't change the subject.
> An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
> hoping it will eat him last.
Jim Alder
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:11:08 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>WBY...@Ireland.com wrote in news:rm5dm4puni9si3pptq79b7u9dhlgd2sqfi@
4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:15:27 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>WBY...@Ireland.com wrote in news:fdacm41nc0urdq7n20hkq1v1r21jd41l9c@
>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>"Pfc Bush - 7th Cav" <13 Dayz - Bye Bye Bu...@Capt.Titanic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look
>>>>>>> good for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP
>>>>>>> representative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
>>>>>>Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
>>>>>
>>>>> So is Coulter the result of plastic surgery - or simply a transgender
>>>>> patch job?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any reason to believe she has had surgery of any kind? Or
do
>>>>you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to invent a
>>>>reason?
>>>
>>> Do you have any reason to live or is it just a reflex? BTW - I guess they
>>> botched your lobotomy for the third time?
>>
>> So yes, you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to
>>invent a reason. No surprises there. And rather than admit it, you toss a
>>cheap shot in my direction. Typical.
>
>
> There is no question Coulter can stir up controversy and I'm a long
> way from an admirer, but criticize her words and philosophy if you
> want, but only an adolescent would find fault with her appearance,
> rather than an intelligent comment about what she has to say. But,
> what the hell, not much else to do at recess, I guess.
For these guys to come up with an intelligent comment about her writing,
they would have to be intelligent. So they call her names and insult her
looks. She's too painfully thin for my taste, but still good looking.
Jim Alder
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:11:08 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>WBY...@Ireland.com wrote in news:rm5dm4puni9si3pptq79b7u9dhlgd2sqfi@
4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:15:27 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>WBY...@Ireland.com wrote in news:fdacm41nc0urdq7n20hkq1v1r21jd41l9c@
>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>"Pfc Bush - 7th Cav" <13 Dayz - Bye Bye Bu...@Capt.Titanic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With ppl like Coulter claiming America for the neocons, the Dems look
>>>>>>> good for 30 years, plus. haha, couldn't ask for a better GOP
>>>>>>> representative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All the spin doctors in Washington DC and all the plastic surgeons in
>>>>>>Hollywood couldn't make the Dems look good.
>>>>>
>>>>> So is Coulter the result of plastic surgery - or simply a transgender
>>>>> patch job?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any reason to believe she has had surgery of any kind? Or
do
>>>>you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to invent a
>>>>reason?
>>>
>>> Do you have any reason to live or is it just a reflex? BTW - I guess they
>>> botched your lobotomy for the third time?
>>
>> So yes, you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to
>>invent a reason. No surprises there. And rather than admit it, you toss a
>>cheap shot in my direction. Typical.
>
> Actually I'm farting in your general direction...
Which I'm sure we can all agree is a personal best on your part.
pyjamarama
>
> >> Do you have any reason to live or is it just a reflex? BTW - I guess
> >> they botched your lobotomy for the third time?
>
> > So yes, you just hate her so much without a good reason that you have to
> >invent a reason.
>
> people up---in support of HIS rightwing conservative
> agenda.
>
> Isn't that a good reason to hate a snide racist slut?
So...you're going to "put a bullet between her eyes" then, you scummy
douche-bag?
Dickless Roselles just can't help himself from spouting vile, 9/11
terrorist-praising, America-hating, death-loving sociopathy, thusly:
> > Olsen was a major supporter of Bush's election stealing
> > as was her husband--who ignored the Clinton
> > administration warning---preferring to work on "tax
> > cuts" for the wealthy.
> > She set america up for a disaster.
> > She paid
> You sir are scum.
He'd be funny if he weren't such an absolute atrocity...
He never quite ceases to digust, does he?
___________________________________________________
Roselles takes time out of his "busy" day to once again praise Al
Queda's 9/11 efforts, thusly:
<pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> quoted Roselles who wrote:
> >"That slut Barbara Olsen (9/11 victim) is dead? GOOD!"
Dickless once again answered:
> Which is the truth
Thanks for proving yet again what a vile, cocksucking, terrorist-
praising asshole you really are, Roselles...
And so much for all this being "forged" eh, fuckface?
> Her husband "gave us", or was significantly
> instrumental giving us a weak, lying, cokeaddled fool
> as president---and anyone with half a brain would know
> (according to the theology of Pat Robertson)---God took
> care of her (like he did your drooling, lying sack of
> shit Reagan)
So "God" flew those planes into the WTC?
You are one sick asshole, you know that?
You make this too easy...
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> Doug Reese <dre...@erols.com> wrote:
>> > Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> >> Doug Reese <dre...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > She's not a liar? Of course she is, Jim.
>>
>> >> > In her recent response to MMFA's article on her, she replied:
>>
>> >> > Coulter: “No one - not even Kerry- now supports Kerry's original "no
>> >> > man left behind" story in his Iowa ad, which was also told by
>> >> > Rassmann. As I say, the only three living officers from that mission
>> >> > other than Kerry himself - Pees, Thurlow, Chenoweth – as well as 11
>> >> > enlisted men say there was no return fire for Kerry to come under. I
am not
>> >> > making a ‘suggestion,’ I am stating facts.”
>>
>> >> > Problem with that statement, Jim, is that it is a lie.
>>
>> >> > The fact is, there are precisely THREE enlisted guys who said there
>> >> > was no
>> >> > return fire and/or disagreed with some part of what Kerry said
happened.
>>
>> >> > If there was 11, I would invite her, or anyone for that matter, to
come
>> >> > forward with their names.
>>
>> >> But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted men who
>> >> say or said that Kerry was not fired upon? But you invite her to name
them.
>> >> That tells me that you don't know for sure either way.
>>
>> > No, Jim, that's not correct.
>>
>> > I know, for sure, that there were NOT 11 guys (enlisted or otherwise, for
>> > that matter), who said there was return fire.
>>
>> > No question, without a doubt.
>>
>> But that's not what I said. Quite the opposite, in fact.
>>
>> I said "But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted
men
>> who say or said that Kerry was not fired upon?"
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that the same thing?
The word "not" when referring to return fire. Above you're counting men
"who said there was return fire". Just an oversight, I guess.
> Ok, let's put it this way . . . . there were not 11 enlisted guys who
> said "there was no return fire for Kerry to come under."
"Anyone" would include me. My point was, you didn't pursue her statement
further. Why don't you ask her? Directly, that is, not in a post in a
newsgroup.
>>And it's not even the
>> point of the thread, so I can't get too excited about it.
>
> Don't . . . . . I'm not. Simply pointing out she's a liar.
That would be saying that you know she knows that she is wrong in her
statement. You do know the difference between a lie and a mistake, right?
Doug Reese
I intend to do that.
> >>And it's not even the
> >> point of the thread, so I can't get too excited about it.
>
> > Don't . . . . . I'm not. Simply pointing out she's a liar.
>
> That would be saying that you know she knows that she is wrong in her
> statement. You do know the difference between a lie and a mistake, right?
I sure do. This isn't a mistake, it's a lie.
Doug Reese
klunk
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B8E88E714285...@216.196.97.142...
considering how little regard she shows toward principles like basic human
dignity and respect, I couldn't give a shit how she would feel such a
statement... she is in dire need of hearing MUCH MORE such commentary in
order to provide incentives to have her grow as a human being...
>> but, to address your response about not seeing that she lies...
>> well, you just aren't either paying attention or you are simply refusing
>> to
>> take an objective look at the shit she spews because john paul posted a
>> long
>> list of her lies from her latest book...
>
> The Pope? Now that would carry some weight. Sorry I missed it. But it's
> not
> like I'm a big follower of that kind of thing. In other words, I'm not one
> of
> those "rabid, mindless, knuckle-dragging freaks" you find so contemptible.
no stupid... john paul is another poster on this very thread... try not to
prove yourself to be a totally disingenuous ass in your responses... ;-)
>> although, I do find it interesting
>> how you can say I almost had a point at the beginning of your sentence
>> but
>> then changed into labeling me as one of some sort of "ilk" in much the
>> same
>> manner that she does with her sweeping generalizations...
>
> Just read the rest of your vitriolic diatribe against her and anyone
> who
> dares to not share your opinion of her. That's the 'ilk' I'm talking
> about -
> people who can't stand a different opinion to the point that they have to
> accuse her of everything they can dream up.
LMAO... calling my, by comparison to her spew, very calm description as
vitriol is only proof of psychological dysfunction on your behalf... and
people who view criticism as an inability to "stand a different opinion" is
a vast misapprehension on your behalf of what constitutes the difference
between criticism and outright vitriol... in fact, to generalize in the
fashion you have by categorizing me as "ilk", you have not only demonstrated
such a characteristic within yourself, you have also failed to account for
the fact that the criticisms leveled against her and her audience are valid
observations of the nature of the personalities at play... your entire set
of responses to me are entirely a manifestation of a psyche which "cannot
stand a different opinion" because you downplay her vulgarity whilst you
over-exaggerate the calm descriptors I've been providing you... you do know
that such behaviour only makes you a hypocrite, don't you...?....
>> and if you truly do find some of her "humour" funny, then I will simply
>> submit that you are suffering from some psychological issues yourself...
>
> Heh heh heh. Thanks, Doc. I'll file your diagnosis in the circular
> file.
> Libs aren't known for their sense of humor, especially when the joke is on
> them.
well... this is exactly what I'm talking about because psychologically
dysfunctional people laugh at others whereas psychologically healthy people
laugh with others... but, thanks for confirming my diagnosis about you...
;-)
>> because I've sampled enough of her "caustic nature" to find it repulsive,
>> and not at all funny... most definitely, not even witty in the least...
>> only
>> insulting, coarse, crude and vulgar... and if you find raw vulgarity
>> humourous, then you've just supported my suspicion about your own
>> nature...
>> now... lewis black is raw and crude and funny... and if you want to
>> compare
>> their two types of humour, you should see the difference...
>
> I see lots of differences in their approaches. Doesn't mean they
> aren't
> both funny.
well... your second statement is true... black is funny but coulter is a
crude and vulgar hate-monger...
>> if you are not a
>> vulgar person yourself... because I have known people who find it funny
>> to
>> call someone a fag because of their appearance... and that may be you as
>> well... and it would be precisely because of such a view of humour that I
>> would submit you have some psychological issues of your own to
>> resolve....
>
> Like I said, Doc...
LMOA... "like you said" is merely a confirmation of my diagnosis of your
dysfunctionality... ;-)
> --
> A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
> and won't change the subject.
> An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
> hoping it will eat him last.
> Sir Winston Churchill
you should spend some time meditating over this quote because it's quite
apparent you don't comprehend it... ;-)
Jim Alder
> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> well... I certainly don't find her attractive on any level...
>>> intellectually
>>> or physically or spiritually... I find her rather to be all-around
>>> repugnant...
>>
>> I'm sure she'd be crushed to hear that.
>
> considering how little regard she shows toward principles like basic human
> dignity and respect, I couldn't give a shit how she would feel such a
> statement... she is in dire need of hearing MUCH MORE such commentary in
> order to provide incentives to have her grow as a human being...
Oh, I'm sure she's heard plenty of them. Libs aren't exactly shy with their
vitriol. Sometimes it seems like that's all they have.
>>> but, to address your response about not seeing that she lies...
>>> well, you just aren't either paying attention or you are simply refusing
>>> to take an objective look at the shit she spews because john paul posted a
>>> long list of her lies from her latest book...
>>
>> The Pope? Now that would carry some weight. Sorry I missed it. But it's
>> not
>> like I'm a big follower of that kind of thing. In other words, I'm not one
>> of those "rabid, mindless, knuckle-dragging freaks" you find so
>> contemptible.
>
> no stupid... john paul is another poster on this very thread... try not to
> prove yourself to be a totally disingenuous ass in your responses... ;-)
No, you're just proving my point (in another thread)about the Liberal and
his sense of humor.
>>> although, I do find it interesting
>>> how you can say I almost had a point at the beginning of your sentence
>>> but then changed into labeling me as one of some sort of "ilk" in much
>>> the same manner that she does with her sweeping generalizations...
>>
>> Just read the rest of your vitriolic diatribe against her and anyone
>> who
>> dares to not share your opinion of her. That's the 'ilk' I'm talking
>> about -
>> people who can't stand a different opinion to the point that they have to
>> accuse her of everything they can dream up.
>
> LMAO... calling my, by comparison to her spew, very calm description as
> vitriol is only proof of psychological dysfunction on your behalf...
You can keep saying that until your head explodes. It means nothing.
> and people who view criticism as an inability to "stand a different
opinion" is
> a vast misapprehension on your behalf of what constitutes the difference
> between criticism and outright vitriol... in fact, to generalize in the
> fashion you have by categorizing me as "ilk", you have not only demonstrated
> such a characteristic within yourself, you have also failed to account for
> the fact that the criticisms leveled against her and her audience are valid
> observations of the nature of the personalities at play... your entire set
> of responses to me are entirely a manifestation of a psyche which "cannot
> stand a different opinion" because you downplay her vulgarity whilst you
> over-exaggerate the calm descriptors I've been providing you... you do know
> that such behaviour only makes you a hypocrite, don't you...?....
I didn't downplay hers, and in fact said she was caustic and cruel. Nor
did I 'over-exaggerate' your comments, such as "hate-monger, pitiable
creature, attention whore, crude or callous or mean-spirited or self-centered
or denigrating or shallow or just downright ignorant, rabid, mindless,
knuckle-dragging freaks".
>>> and if you truly do find some of her "humour" funny, then I will simply
>>> submit that you are suffering from some psychological issues yourself...
>>
>> Heh heh heh. Thanks, Doc. I'll file your diagnosis in the circular
>> file. Libs aren't known for their sense of humor, especially
>> when the joke is on them.
>
> well... this is exactly what I'm talking about because psychologically
> dysfunctional people laugh at others whereas psychologically healthy people
> laugh with others... but, thanks for confirming my diagnosis about you...
> ;-)
What are you smiling about? Your insults at my expense?
I heard once that every joke has a victim. I have yet to think of an
exception.
>>> because I've sampled enough of her "caustic nature" to find it repulsive,
>>> and not at all funny... most definitely, not even witty in the least...
>>> only
>>> insulting, coarse, crude and vulgar... and if you find raw vulgarity
>>> humourous, then you've just supported my suspicion about your own
>>> nature... now... lewis black is raw and crude and funny... and if you
>>> want to compare their two types of humour, you should see the
>>> difference...
>>
>> I see lots of differences in their approaches. Doesn't mean they
>> aren't both funny.
>
> well... your second statement is true... black is funny but coulter is a
> crude and vulgar hate-monger...
People who present their opinions as fact are pompous fatheads.
>>> if you are not a
>>> vulgar person yourself... because I have known people who find it funny
>>> to call someone a fag because of their appearance... and that may be you
>>> as well... and it would be precisely because of such a view of humour
>>> that I would submit you have some psychological issues of your own to
>>> resolve....
>>
>> Like I said, Doc...
>
> LMOA... "like you said" is merely a confirmation of my diagnosis of your
> dysfunctionality... ;-)
Like I said, Doc...
klunk
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B8EBA89E583E...@216.196.97.142...
> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>>> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> well... I certainly don't find her attractive on any level...
>>>> intellectually
>>>> or physically or spiritually... I find her rather to be all-around
>>>> repugnant...
>>>
>>> I'm sure she'd be crushed to hear that.
>>
>> considering how little regard she shows toward principles like basic
>> human
>> dignity and respect, I couldn't give a shit how she would feel such a
>> statement... she is in dire need of hearing MUCH MORE such commentary in
>> order to provide incentives to have her grow as a human being...
>
> Oh, I'm sure she's heard plenty of them. Libs aren't exactly shy with
> their
> vitriol. Sometimes it seems like that's all they have.
LMAO.... funny how you continue to perpetuate lies in order to downplay the
crude and vulgar vitriol she consistently indulges in...
>>>> but, to address your response about not seeing that she lies...
>>>> well, you just aren't either paying attention or you are simply
>>>> refusing
>>>> to take an objective look at the shit she spews because john paul
>>>> posted a
>>>> long list of her lies from her latest book...
>>>
>>> The Pope? Now that would carry some weight. Sorry I missed it. But
>>> it's
>>> not
>>> like I'm a big follower of that kind of thing. In other words, I'm not
>>> one
>>> of those "rabid, mindless, knuckle-dragging freaks" you find so
>>> contemptible.
>>
>> no stupid... john paul is another poster on this very thread... try not
>> to
>> prove yourself to be a totally disingenuous ass in your responses... ;-)
>
> No, you're just proving my point (in another thread)about the Liberal
> and
> his sense of humor.
nope... you've just made a feeble attempt to dodge a point by resorting to a
disingenuous response... and you've just done it again with this response...
it is rather typical of a dishonest and disingenuous person to take the tact
of diverging away from a point or an issue in order to convolute the
discussion with obfuscation and inveiglement as you've just done... ;-)
>>>> although, I do find it interesting
>>>> how you can say I almost had a point at the beginning of your sentence
>>>> but then changed into labeling me as one of some sort of "ilk" in much
>>>> the same manner that she does with her sweeping generalizations...
>>>
>>> Just read the rest of your vitriolic diatribe against her and anyone
>>> who
>>> dares to not share your opinion of her. That's the 'ilk' I'm talking
>>> about -
>>> people who can't stand a different opinion to the point that they have
>>> to
>>> accuse her of everything they can dream up.
>>
>> LMAO... calling my, by comparison to her spew, very calm description as
>> vitriol is only proof of psychological dysfunction on your behalf...
>
> You can keep saying that until your head explodes. It means nothing.
of course it means nothing to you... but, that's not the point of my raising
it... ;-)
>> and people who view criticism as an inability to "stand a different
> opinion" is
>> a vast misapprehension on your behalf of what constitutes the difference
>> between criticism and outright vitriol... in fact, to generalize in the
>> fashion you have by categorizing me as "ilk", you have not only
>> demonstrated
>> such a characteristic within yourself, you have also failed to account
>> for
>> the fact that the criticisms leveled against her and her audience are
>> valid
>> observations of the nature of the personalities at play... your entire
>> set
>> of responses to me are entirely a manifestation of a psyche which "cannot
>> stand a different opinion" because you downplay her vulgarity whilst you
>> over-exaggerate the calm descriptors I've been providing you... you do
>> know
>> that such behaviour only makes you a hypocrite, don't you...?....
>
> I didn't downplay hers, and in fact said she was caustic and cruel. Nor
> did I 'over-exaggerate' your comments, such as "hate-monger, pitiable
> creature, attention whore, crude or callous or mean-spirited or
> self-centered
> or denigrating or shallow or just downright ignorant, rabid, mindless,
> knuckle-dragging freaks".
ya... actually you have over-exaggerated my comments because I've not
indulged in vitriol in my posts to you... but, I sincerely doubt you'll be
honest about this... simply because you look at the harshness of such
statements as being the equivalent of lying whilst demonstrating such
harshness... and there's a HUGE difference... the closest thing in those
words to vitriol is the characterization of "knuckle-dragging freaks"
because that's the only characterization which isn't literally true... every
other word in that excerpt is literally true about her... whereas, I doubt
your knuckles actually drag on the ground... you ARE behaving like a freak
because you completely avoid any sort of objective rationality to view the
issue of coulter's destructiveness on our society and political
discourse....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak
In current usage, the word freak is usually used to refer to a person with
an something unusual about their appearance or behaviour. ...
>>>> and if you truly do find some of her "humour" funny, then I will simply
>>>> submit that you are suffering from some psychological issues
>>>> yourself...
>>>
>>> Heh heh heh. Thanks, Doc. I'll file your diagnosis in the circular
>>> file. Libs aren't known for their sense of humor, especially
>>> when the joke is on them.
>>
>> well... this is exactly what I'm talking about because psychologically
>> dysfunctional people laugh at others whereas psychologically healthy
>> people
>> laugh with others... but, thanks for confirming my diagnosis about you...
>> ;-)
>
> What are you smiling about? Your insults at my expense?
>
> I heard once that every joke has a victim. I have yet to think of an
> exception.
I am smiling in the manner that a parent smiles knowingly at a child who has
yet to learn the simple lesson they are struggling with... and the only
reason you would believe such a thing about jokes is because of your own
sociopathic nature... ;-)
>>>> because I've sampled enough of her "caustic nature" to find it
>>>> repulsive,
>>>> and not at all funny... most definitely, not even witty in the least...
>>>> only
>>>> insulting, coarse, crude and vulgar... and if you find raw vulgarity
>>>> humourous, then you've just supported my suspicion about your own
>>>> nature... now... lewis black is raw and crude and funny... and if you
>>>> want to compare their two types of humour, you should see the
>>>> difference...
>>>
>>> I see lots of differences in their approaches. Doesn't mean they
>>> aren't both funny.
>>
>> well... your second statement is true... black is funny but coulter is a
>> crude and vulgar hate-monger...
>
> People who present their opinions as fact are pompous fatheads.
people who ignore facts in order to remain entrenched in their opinions are
delusional...
>>>> if you are not a
>>>> vulgar person yourself... because I have known people who find it funny
>>>> to call someone a fag because of their appearance... and that may be
>>>> you
>>>> as well... and it would be precisely because of such a view of humour
>>>> that I would submit you have some psychological issues of your own to
>>>> resolve....
>>>
>>> Like I said, Doc...
>>
>> LMOA... "like you said" is merely a confirmation of my diagnosis of your
>> dysfunctionality... ;-)
>
> Like I said, Doc...
ya... you've said nothing more than the minimum required to continue to
reinforce the validity of my diagnosis... ;-)
> --
> A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
> and won't change the subject.
> An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
> hoping it will eat him last.
> Sir Winston Churchill
and you still haven't the slightest clue on the meaning of this statement...
and, I'm quite certain you will continue to prove this is the case.... ;-)
Jim Alder
> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> ...
>> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>>>> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> well... I certainly don't find her attractive on any level...
>>>>> intellectually
>>>>> or physically or spiritually... I find her rather to be all-around
>>>>> repugnant...
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure she'd be crushed to hear that.
>>>
>>> considering how little regard she shows toward principles like basic
>>> human dignity and respect, I couldn't give a shit how she would feel
>>> such a statement... she is in dire need of hearing MUCH MORE such
>>> commentary in order to provide incentives to have her grow as a human
>>> being...
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure she's heard plenty of them. Libs aren't exactly shy with
>> their vitriol. Sometimes it seems like that's all they have.
>
> LMAO.... funny how you continue to perpetuate lies in order to downplay the
> crude and vulgar vitriol she consistently indulges in...
Perpetuate lies? Downplay vitriol? How am I doing that by accusing you of
the same things?
>>>>> but, to address your response about not seeing that she lies...
>>>>> well, you just aren't either paying attention or you are simply
>>>>> refusing to take an objective look at the shit she spews because john
>>>>> paul posted a
>>>>> long list of her lies from her latest book...
>>>>
>>>> The Pope? Now that would carry some weight. Sorry I missed it. But
>>>> it's not
>>>> like I'm a big follower of that kind of thing. In other words, I'm not
>>>> one of those "rabid, mindless, knuckle-dragging freaks" you find so
>>>> contemptible.
>>>
>>> no stupid... john paul is another poster on this very thread... try not
>>> to prove yourself to be a totally disingenuous ass in your responses...
>>> ;-)
>>
>> No, you're just proving my point (in another thread)about the Liberal
>> and his sense of humor.
>
> nope... you've just made a feeble attempt to dodge a point by resorting to a
> disingenuous response... and you've just done it again with this response...
Nope. Wrong again. I make no claim to have memorized every poster in these
newsgroups. "The Pope" was a joke, plain and simple. You, as a humor-impaired
Leftie, didn't get it. I'm used to that.
> it is rather typical of a dishonest and disingenuous person to take the tact
The word is "tack". It's a sailor's term, meaning direction. "Tact" is
something else about which you know nothing.
> of diverging away from a point or an issue in order to convolute the
> discussion with obfuscation and inveiglement as you've just done... ;-)
I haven't diverged from any point, I've merely followed along as you and a
couple others of your ilk took the topic in various directions to cover the
fact that you gave no point to make here.
>>>>> although, I do find it interesting
>>>>> how you can say I almost had a point at the beginning of your sentence
>>>>> but then changed into labeling me as one of some sort of "ilk" in much
>>>>> the same manner that she does with her sweeping generalizations...
>>>>
>>>> Just read the rest of your vitriolic diatribe against her and anyone
>>>> who
>>>> dares to not share your opinion of her. That's the 'ilk' I'm talking
>>>> about -
>>>> people who can't stand a different opinion to the point that they have
>>>> to accuse her of everything they can dream up.
>>>
>>> LMAO... calling my, by comparison to her spew, very calm description as
>>> vitriol is only proof of psychological dysfunction on your behalf...
>>
>> You can keep saying that until your head explodes. It means nothing.
>
> of course it means nothing to you... but, that's not the point of my raising
> it... ;-)
Sure it is. It's a pathetic attempt to shore up your flaccid ego by
feigning superiority, convincing no one.
>>> and people who view criticism as an inability to "stand a different
>>> opinion" is a vast misapprehension on your behalf of what constitutes the
>>> difference between criticism and outright vitriol... in fact, to
>>> generalize in the fashion you have by categorizing me as "ilk", you have
>>> not only demonstrated such a characteristic within yourself, you have
>>> also failed to account for the fact that the criticisms leveled against
>>> her and her audience are valid observations of the nature of the
>>> personalities at play... your entire set of responses to me are entirely
>>> a manifestation of a psyche which "cannot stand a different opinion"
>>> because you downplay her vulgarity whilst you over-exaggerate the calm
>>> descriptors I've been providing you... you do know that such behaviour
>>> only makes you a hypocrite, don't you...?....
>>
>> I didn't downplay hers, and in fact said she was caustic and cruel. Nor
>> did I 'over-exaggerate' your comments, such as "hate-monger, pitiable
>> creature, attention whore, crude or callous or mean-spirited or
>> self-centered or denigrating or shallow or just downright ignorant, rabid,
>> mindless, knuckle-dragging freaks".
>
> ya... actually you have over-exaggerated my comments
I quoted them exactly.
> because I've not
> indulged in vitriol in my posts to you... but, I sincerely doubt you'll be
> honest about this... simply because you look at the harshness of such
> statements as being the equivalent of lying whilst demonstrating such
> harshness... and there's a HUGE difference... the closest thing in those
> words to vitriol is the characterization of "knuckle-dragging freaks"
> because that's the only characterization which isn't literally true... every
> other word in that excerpt is literally true about her... whereas, I doubt
> your knuckles actually drag on the ground... you ARE behaving like a freak
> because you completely avoid any sort of objective rationality to view the
> issue of coulter's destructiveness on our society and political
> discourse....
Well, if THAT is your stance, then Coulter is also mostly accurate with
her brand of vitriol, give or take a little humorous hyperbole. Sure, she hits
hard and with some low blows, but her targets usually have it coming.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak
> In current usage, the word freak is usually used to refer to a person with
> an something unusual about their appearance or behaviour. ...
I looked up "bloviating blowhard" and all it had was your picture.
>>>>> and if you truly do find some of her "humour" funny, then I will simply
>>>>> submit that you are suffering from some psychological issues
>>>>> yourself...
>>>>
>>>> Heh heh heh. Thanks, Doc. I'll file your diagnosis in the circular
>>>> file. Libs aren't known for their sense of humor, especially when the
>>>> joke is on them.
>>>
>>> well... this is exactly what I'm talking about because psychologically
>>> dysfunctional people laugh at others whereas psychologically healthy
>>> people laugh with others... but, thanks for confirming my diagnosis about
>>> you... ;-)
>>
>> What are you smiling about? Your insults at my expense?
>>
>> I heard once that every joke has a victim. I have yet to think of an
>> exception.
>
> I am smiling in the manner that a parent smiles knowingly at a child who has
> yet to learn the simple lesson they are struggling with...
Once again, by tolerating the verbosity of yet another longwinded
leftwinger, I have fed your delusion of adequacy. You can go now.
klunk
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B8F2776F5B4j...@216.196.97.142...
> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> ...
>>> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>>>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>>>>> "klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> well... I certainly don't find her attractive on any level...
>>>>>> intellectually
>>>>>> or physically or spiritually... I find her rather to be all-around
>>>>>> repugnant...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure she'd be crushed to hear that.
>>>>
>>>> considering how little regard she shows toward principles like basic
>>>> human dignity and respect, I couldn't give a shit how she would feel
>>>> such a statement... she is in dire need of hearing MUCH MORE such
>>>> commentary in order to provide incentives to have her grow as a human
>>>> being...
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm sure she's heard plenty of them. Libs aren't exactly shy with
>>> their vitriol. Sometimes it seems like that's all they have.
>>
>> LMAO.... funny how you continue to perpetuate lies in order to downplay
>> the
>> crude and vulgar vitriol she consistently indulges in...
>
> Perpetuate lies? Downplay vitriol? How am I doing that by accusing you
> of
> the same things?
exactly.... by accusing me of the same things... ;-)
>>>>>> but, to address your response about not seeing that she lies...
>>>>>> well, you just aren't either paying attention or you are simply
>>>>>> refusing to take an objective look at the shit she spews because john
>>>>>> paul posted a
>>>>>> long list of her lies from her latest book...
>>>>>
>>>>> The Pope? Now that would carry some weight. Sorry I missed it. But
>>>>> it's not
>>>>> like I'm a big follower of that kind of thing. In other words, I'm not
>>>>> one of those "rabid, mindless, knuckle-dragging freaks" you find so
>>>>> contemptible.
>>>>
>>>> no stupid... john paul is another poster on this very thread... try not
>>>> to prove yourself to be a totally disingenuous ass in your responses...
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> No, you're just proving my point (in another thread)about the Liberal
>>> and his sense of humor.
>>
>> nope... you've just made a feeble attempt to dodge a point by resorting
>> to a
>> disingenuous response... and you've just done it again with this
>> response...
>
> Nope. Wrong again. I make no claim to have memorized every poster in
> these
> newsgroups. "The Pope" was a joke, plain and simple. You, as a
> humor-impaired
> Leftie, didn't get it. I'm used to that.
no one said or expected you to memorize every poster... such a claim is a
rather transparently pathetic form of claiming ignorance which only serves
to demonstrate disingenuousness on hour behalf in a feeble effort to
continue to dodge a point you will continue to refuse acknowledging because
you clearly have no interest in such things as truth or integrity...
>> it is rather typical of a dishonest and disingenuous person to take the
>> tact
>
> The word is "tack". It's a sailor's term, meaning direction. "Tact" is
> something else about which you know nothing.
the word is "tact" and yours is pathetically transparent which serves to
only highlight your dishonest and disingenuous nature.... ;-)
>> of diverging away from a point or an issue in order to convolute the
>> discussion with obfuscation and inveiglement as you've just done... ;-)
>
> I haven't diverged from any point, I've merely followed along as you
> and a
> couple others of your ilk took the topic in various directions to cover
> the
> fact that you gave no point to make here.
lol... actually you have avoided the point altogether and you continue to
attempt to do so whilst feigning ignorance of it entirely in the hope that
proof of coulter's outright lies will eventually be buried in nonsensical
irrelevancies... such is the tact of the dishonest and disingenuous mind and
is a hallmark of the psychologically dysfunctional sociopath... which is why
you seek to defend a hatemonger like coulter because you are by extension,
defending your own depravity.... ;-)
>>>>>> although, I do find it interesting
>>>>>> how you can say I almost had a point at the beginning of your
>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>> but then changed into labeling me as one of some sort of "ilk" in
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> the same manner that she does with her sweeping generalizations...
>>>>>
>>>>> Just read the rest of your vitriolic diatribe against her and
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> who
>>>>> dares to not share your opinion of her. That's the 'ilk' I'm talking
>>>>> about -
>>>>> people who can't stand a different opinion to the point that they have
>>>>> to accuse her of everything they can dream up.
>>>>
>>>> LMAO... calling my, by comparison to her spew, very calm description as
>>>> vitriol is only proof of psychological dysfunction on your behalf...
>>>
>>> You can keep saying that until your head explodes. It means nothing.
>>
>> of course it means nothing to you... but, that's not the point of my
>> raising
>> it... ;-)
>
> Sure it is. It's a pathetic attempt to shore up your flaccid ego by
> feigning superiority, convincing no one.
lol... now THAT was an expression of insecurity on your behalf... but, to
drive the point further home, I ALWAYS write with the awareness that my
words are subject to being viewed by others besides those with whom I am
exchanging posts with... and you are also well aware of this component of
usenut discourse and thus, your expression of insecurity.... no stupid...
what you are interpreting as my expression of superiority is merely my
expression of YOUR inferiority.... BIG difference.... ;-)
yes, within a context of your colouring... in media terms, it's called
"spin".... ;-)
>> because I've not
>> indulged in vitriol in my posts to you... but, I sincerely doubt you'll
>> be
>> honest about this... simply because you look at the harshness of such
>> statements as being the equivalent of lying whilst demonstrating such
>> harshness... and there's a HUGE difference... the closest thing in those
>> words to vitriol is the characterization of "knuckle-dragging freaks"
>> because that's the only characterization which isn't literally true...
>> every
>> other word in that excerpt is literally true about her... whereas, I
>> doubt
>> your knuckles actually drag on the ground... you ARE behaving like a
>> freak
>> because you completely avoid any sort of objective rationality to view
>> the
>> issue of coulter's destructiveness on our society and political
>> discourse....
>
> Well, if THAT is your stance, then Coulter is also mostly accurate with
> her brand of vitriol, give or take a little humorous hyperbole. Sure, she
> hits
> hard and with some low blows, but her targets usually have it coming.
nope... she lies her ass off whilst hurling caricaturistic hyperbole which
not only runs contrary to reality, but also serves only one singular purpose
of cultivating polarizing hatred...
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak
>> In current usage, the word freak is usually used to refer to a person
>> with
>> an something unusual about their appearance or behaviour. ...
>
> I looked up "bloviating blowhard" and all it had was your picture.
LMAO.... yet another expression of insecurity on your behalf.... ;-)
>>>>>> and if you truly do find some of her "humour" funny, then I will
>>>>>> simply
>>>>>> submit that you are suffering from some psychological issues
>>>>>> yourself...
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh heh heh. Thanks, Doc. I'll file your diagnosis in the circular
>>>>> file. Libs aren't known for their sense of humor, especially when the
>>>>> joke is on them.
>>>>
>>>> well... this is exactly what I'm talking about because psychologically
>>>> dysfunctional people laugh at others whereas psychologically healthy
>>>> people laugh with others... but, thanks for confirming my diagnosis
>>>> about
>>>> you... ;-)
>>>
>>> What are you smiling about? Your insults at my expense?
>>>
>>> I heard once that every joke has a victim. I have yet to think of an
>>> exception.
>>
>> I am smiling in the manner that a parent smiles knowingly at a child who
>> has
>> yet to learn the simple lesson they are struggling with...
>
> Once again, by tolerating the verbosity of yet another longwinded
> leftwinger, I have fed your delusion of adequacy. You can go now.
LMAO.... the sound of yet another egotistical balloon being popped... ;-)
a fanatic is also someone who perpetually repeats a mantra they have not
learned to comprehend.... ;-)
Reese
> > Nope. Wrong again. I make no claim to have memorized every poster in
> > these
> > newsgroups. "The Pope" was a joke, plain and simple. You, as a
> > humor-impaired
> > Leftie, didn't get it. I'm used to that.
>
> no one said or expected you to memorize every poster... such a claim is a
> rather transparently pathetic form of claiming ignorance which only serves
> to demonstrate disingenuousness on hour behalf in a feeble effort to
> continue to dodge a point you will continue to refuse acknowledging because
> you clearly have no interest in such things as truth or integrity...
>
>
for a few years. Seriously I call every one I know by the name of John
Paul a Pope because I forgot that the old Polish guy has been dead since
2004.
That's just the way it goes sometimes.
Doug Reese
I must have missed this comment, or it went over my head.
Ok, got it now.
There were six guys (three officers and three enlisted) who said there
was NO return fire. Actually, I think one of them disputed something
else, but let's just say he said there was no return fire.
There were 11 guys who said there WAS return fire. That number (11) is
probably a coincidence. Anyway, those 11 I listed below.
No one, with the exception of ms coulter, ahs claimed there were 11
enlisted guys who said there was no return fire. Those 11, in addition
to the three officers she alluded to (and I named), would make the
total 14.
In fact, the total was six . . . . just six.
And while I'm thinking of it, are you a VN vet? If yes, where were you
over here? I can't remember if this has been mentioned/discussed
before or not. The reason I ask has nothing to do with this thread,
but with where I'm going this week, and next month.
Doug Reese
WBY...@ireland.com
wrote:
>>Actually I'm farting in your general direction, luser. Coulter has yet
>>to make a cogent point in any of her writings or rants.
> Which I'm sure we can all agree is a personal best on your part.
Nope - but it's all you're worth.
WB Yeats
Jim Alder
7a06dc...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
Actually you deleted it. I printed both statements one after the other
thusly;
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
But that's not what I said. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I said "But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted men
who say or said that Kerry was not fired upon?"
You said "I know, for sure, that there were NOT 11 guys (enlisted or
otherwise, for that matter), who said there was return fire."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
You deleted your comment before replying.
>
> Ok, got it now.
>
> There were six guys (three officers and three enlisted) who said there
> was NO return fire. Actually, I think one of them disputed something
> else, but let's just say he said there was no return fire.
>
> There were 11 guys who said there WAS return fire. That number (11) is
> probably a coincidence. Anyway, those 11 I listed below.
And you're saying Coulter said there were 11 who went with story A? And
it's not possible she just got it wrong in the interview? It was a deliberate
lie? How do you know?
> No one, with the exception of ms coulter, ahs claimed there were 11
> enlisted guys who said there was no return fire. Those 11, in addition
> to the three officers she alluded to (and I named), would make the
> total 14.
>
> In fact, the total was six . . . . just six.
>
> And while I'm thinking of it, are you a VN vet?
No. Does that alienate me from future discussion?
> If yes, where were you
> over here? I can't remember if this has been mentioned/discussed
> before or not. The reason I ask has nothing to do with this thread,
> but with where I'm going this week, and next month.
How cryptic. I was in college.
Governor Swill
history to discuss?
Swill
--
" Because I wasn't working your plebian 9 to 5 work schedule? Leave it to a
liberal to take pride in something so vacuous." -- jima...@ssnet.com
Jim Alder
news:ui0im4pv492rf6evb...@4ax.com:
> You guys can't come up with something fresher than forty year old
> history to discuss?
>
> Swill
I can. Doug is kind of a one-topic guy.
Doug Reese
> Doug Reese<dougrees...@gmail.com> wrote in news:2357ee41-63d7-4139-9a59-
> 7a06dc8c0...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
I've been having some trouble posting -- off and on. To complicated to
explain (at least for me), but now I see what happened.
> > Ok, got it now.
>
> > There were six guys (three officers and three enlisted) who said there
> > was NO return fire. Actually, I think one of them disputed something
> > else, but let's just say he said there was no return fire.
>
> > There were 11 guys who said there WAS return fire. That number (11) is
> > probably a coincidence. Anyway, those 11 I listed below.
>
> And you're saying Coulter said there were 11 who went with story A?
Yes.
>And
> it's not possible she just got it wrong in the interview? It was a deliberate
> lie? How do you know?
Well, I guess it could be exceptionally sloppy research on her part.
The nonsense she came up with regarding Max Cleland shows me she has
no scruples at all about twisting things to suit her screwball agenda.
> > No one, with the exception of ms coulter, ahs claimed there were 11
> > enlisted guys who said there was no return fire. Those 11, in addition
> > to the three officers she alluded to (and I named), would make the
> > total 14.
>
> > In fact, the total was six . . . . just six.
>
> > And while I'm thinking of it, are you a VN vet?
>
> No. Does that alienate me from future discussion?
No. As I said, that question has nothing to do with this discussion.
I am going some places next week and next month that you would
(probably) be interested in, if you were over here during the war.
Doug Reese
> > If yes, where were you
> > over here? I can't remember if this has been mentioned/discussed
> > before or not. The reason I ask has nothing to do with this thread,
> > but with where I'm going this week, and next month.
>
> How cryptic. I was in college.
>
> --
> A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
> and won't change the subject.
> An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
> hoping it will eat him last.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>> > There were 11 guys who said there WAS return fire. That number (11) is
>> > probably a coincidence. Anyway, those 11 I listed below.
>>
>> And you're saying Coulter said there were 11 who went with story A?
>
> Yes.
>
>>And
>> it's not possible she just got it wrong in the interview? It was a
deliberate
>> lie? How do you know?
>
> Well, I guess it could be exceptionally sloppy research on her part.
Depends on when and how she said it, I guess. If she was being interviewed
and just gave the number off the top of her head, it's understandable. If she
wrote a rebuttal, not so much.
> The nonsense she came up with regarding Max Cleland shows me she has
> no scruples at all about twisting things to suit her screwball agenda.
I wouldn't know. This issue is your demon, not mine.
>> > No one, with the exception of ms coulter, ahs claimed there were 11
>> > enlisted guys who said there was no return fire. Those 11, in addition
>> > to the three officers she alluded to (and I named), would make the
>> > total 14.
>>
>> > In fact, the total was six . . . . just six.
>>
>> > And while I'm thinking of it, are you a VN vet?
>>
>> No. Does that alienate me from future discussion?
>
> No. As I said, that question has nothing to do with this discussion.
>
> I am going some places next week and next month that you would
> (probably) be interested in, if you were over here during the war.
>
> Doug Reese
--
pyjamarama
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:02:58 -0600, Jim Alder
>
> <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> > I said "But you're saying categorically that there are NOT 11 enlisted men
> >who say or said that Kerry was not fired upon?"
>
> incompetent fool
>
> You have to be smart enough to figure out WHO said it,
> and WHY they said it
>
> They were associated with a Nixon "dirty Tricks" group,
> that was started in the 70's to Smear Kerry---and
> reformed during the Bush campaign
Sick (see his posting history), elderly (70 years old), incompetent
(uneducated "miner" who lives in HUD-sponsored public housing)
Roselles takes time out of his "busy" day to once again praise Al
Queda's 9/11 efforts, thusly:
> <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> quoting "dickless" Roselles wrote:
> >"That slut Barbara Olsen (9/11 victim) is dead? GOOD!"
"Dickless" then added:
> Which is the truth
Thanks for proving yet again what a vile, cocksucking, terrorist-
praising asshole you really are, Roselles...
And so much for all this being "forged" eh, fuckface?
> Her husband "gave us", or was significantly
> instrumental giving us a weak, lying, cokeaddled fool
> as president---and anyone with half a brain would know
> (according to the theology of Pat Robertson)---God took
> care of her (like he did your drooling, lying sack of
> shit Reagan)
So "God" flew those planes into the WTC?
You are one sick fuck, you know that?
Governor Swill
>On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:27:30 -0600, Jim Alder
><jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>> I can. Doug is kind of a one-topic guy.
>
>And you're not?
>
>Your defense of a lying, sleazy group of ideologues is
>mind-boggling
He's dead, Jim.
Beowulf Farukstein
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:50:01 -0700, Beowulf Farukstein
> <1984...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> SilentOtto wrote:
>>> On Jan 7, 11:21 pm, Beowulf Farukstein <1984to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Crap Detector wrote:
>>>>> Ann recently appeared on Fox News (which is the only TV networkd that is
>>>>> not ideologically corrupt and biased).
>>>>> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=DE0A8869-E25...
>>>> Just shortly after it's announcement, the internet is ablaze with
>>>> discussions about her new book.
>>>>
>>>> You just have to buy this book to see what the whole world is talking
>>>> about!!!!
>>> Maybe you do.
>>>
>>> But, I sure as hell don't.
>>>
>>> Once you've seen one pool of puke, you've seen them all.
>> Oh, my ears and whiskers! once more my sarcasm has been mis-identified
>> (my other posts speak for themselves.)
>
> True. He made a mistake.
>
It's just a sign of how bad things are that satire has become impossible
to separate from reality -- my current 'personal worst' was when I asked
a person at work if the latest episode of "24" was the one where Jack
tortured a 3-year old girl in order to get her father to talk.
the co-worker proceeded to ask around, to which the average answer was a
serious "I don't know - I'll have to check" =/
>> I was presenting an example of how the spin-machine would likely use the
>> fact that there have been a LOT of posts regarding her book in a short
>> time to boost publicity --- of course disregarding the fact that most of
>> the posts seem to center around the theme of whore, succubus, and
>> transvestite.
>
> You might mention how a book becomes a best seller----
>
> Take Regnery, for example---prints tens of thousands,
> then gives them free as promotion---mostly on rightwing
> Scaife media sites, Murdoch media, or via various
> rightwing publication......which then are translated
> into--numbers that they claim are "sales"
>
> Add that the concept that Rightwing social conservative
> are so prone to buying anything that makes them "feel
> good" (about their racist, homophobic, greed and
> bigotry)---that it accounts for raised numbers.
>
> But in any case, that demographic is the ONLY
> significant demographic that buys it---making any claim
> of being "popular" or 'best" a lie.
>
I've heard that NYT bases their best-seller on the sales records of a
small sample of stores. Anybody that knows which stores are in that
sample make instant best sellers by raiding just those stores.
(sit down ...)
As far as claims to "best", how many movies from the
Dizzzzny Crapomatic tm have been advertised as the "#1"
comedy/adventure/kid's film in the last 2-3 years?