A goddess speaks

[indent]When we were at peace, Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Now there's a war, so Democrats want to raise taxes. When there was a surplus, Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Now that there is a mild recession, Democrats want to raise taxes. There is perennially some sector of the economy Teddy Kennedy is longing to socialize and this, too, will require raising taxes.
So it was interesting that Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., recently said of the Bush tax cut: "Ideology dictated that – tax cuts, no matter what the circumstances." At least Republicans admit it.
[/indent][indent]Ann Coulter

[/indent]

[left][font=Arial]Fall Fashion Preview: Cowboy Boots In, Flip-Flops Out
[/font][/left]
[left][font=Arial][/font] [/left]
[left][font=Arial]During the second presidential debate, John Kerry said: "I ask each of you just to look into your hearts, look into your guts. Gut-check time. Was this really going to war as a last resort?" [/font][/left]
[left][font=Arial]How about this for "gut-check time": When you close your eyes, can you see the Democrats defending America? Because I can't see it. [/font]
[/left]
[left][font=Arial]These are the people who are obsessed with getting the [/font][font=Arial]French to like us. They call terrorism a "nuisance," like prostitution and other petty crimes. ("Hundreds of Children Killed in Chechnya by Nuisance," "British Civilian Beheaded by Annoyance," "9-11: What a Hassle!"😉 They babble about nonexistent civil liberties violations under the Patriot Act. [/font]
[/left]
[font=Arial]If Gore had been elected president, right now he would just be finding that last lesbian quadriplegic for the Special Forces team. [/font]

[font=Arial]During the second presidential debate, Kerry droned on about the civil liberties crisis in America under the Patriot Act (which he voted for). He claimed to have "met a man who spent eight months in prison, wasn't even allowed to call his lawyer, wasn't allowed to get – finally, Sen. [censored] Durbin of Illinois intervened and was able to get him out." [/font]

[font=Arial]Pity he didn't meet Abdullah Mehsud, a guy who spent two years in Guantanamo before being released and is now in Pakistan strapping dynamite to Chinese hostages. [/font]

[font=Arial]Bush said he had met a man, too: "Grant Milliron, Mansfield, Ohio. He's creating jobs." Which one of these candidates is more likely to put the wood to the terrorists? [/font]

[font=Arial]Kerry explained his "plan" to prevent terrorists from getting nukes, saying, "We've got to join with the British and the French, with the Germans, who've been involved, in their initiative." (This guy's got more plans than MCI.) We may lose the war on terrorism, but by God we'll get the Europeans to like us! [/font]

[font=Arial]Kerry told the New York Times he could "do a better job" in the war on terror – which Kerry adviser Richard Holbrooke says is not a war at all, but a metaphor ("Thousands Die in Attack by Metaphor"😉. [/font]

[font=Arial]He would do a better job, Kerry said, "most importantly – and I mean most importantly – of restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us." [/font]

[font=Arial]Imagine President John Kerry at the Berlin Wall. "Mr. Gorbachev ... I challenge you to get to an emotional place where you can imagine a different kind of non-wall reality, that fully respects the 'wallness' of your current reality, yet takes us on a spiritual journey in which ..." [/font]

[font=Arial]Republicans are more simple-minded, but for some things you want to be a little less contemplative, a little less nuanced. In a war against rabid savages trying to nuke Manhattan, you want a policy more along the lines of: Kill 'em! Republicans will shoot burn and bury the terrorists. Kerry will give them a speech. [/font]

[font=Arial]In his convention speech in August, Kerry's idea for the terrorists was this: We'll give them a faux-WASP, stentorian honker of a speech. Striking fear in the hearts of Islamic lunatics everywhere, Kerry said he would say this to the terrorists: "You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom." (Kerry's speechwriters are now throwing key words like "future" and "freedom" together in various combinations in hopes of stumbling upon something the senator actually believes in just by random chance.) [/font]

[font=Arial]Yes, that's how to capture terrorists: Put them to sleep with a long boring speech. Osama bin Laden would escape before the speech is complete. Only a liberal would imagine this is what you say to a terrorist in his moment of fear and dread. Who does Kerry imagine will be giving this speech exactly? Kevin Kline? How about the Marine who catches bin Laden's associates saying something along the lines of, "Hey, dirtbag!" before smacking them across the face with a rifle butt? [/font]

[font=Arial](If Israel plays its cards right, perhaps Kerry would even draft a speech for them to give suicide bombers: "You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom," blah blah blah.) [/font]

[font=Arial]Better yet, let's use a Kerry speech to torture them into revealing where and when their next attack will be! Ten minutes of that snoozefest convention speech would have the most hardened Islamic fanatic begging for mercy and spilling his guts. Now, that's my idea of a "gut check." [/font]

[font=Arial]As if it means something, Kerry keeps vowing: "I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists." But he will stop at the Iraqi border. Or if the French and Germans aren't on board. Or we don't have United Nations approval. Or it would require investigating a Muslim under the Patriot Act.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]Ann Coulter - American Patriot[/font]

<LI>"Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."

<LI>"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."

<LI>"Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster."

<LI>"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"

"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
Ann Coulter

iknowtest said:

"The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth show the role of the individual in history. It wasn't Republican strategists who finished Kerry off two months before the election; it was the American people. The Swift Boat veterans came along and kicked Kerry in the shins and no matter how much heat they took, they were brave and wouldn't give up. ... CBS was forced to run a fake story so early in the campaign that it was exposed as a fraud -- only because of the Swift Boat vets. These brave men, many of them decorated war heroes, have now not only won the election for Bush, they have ended Dan Rather's career. It's often said that we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but that the war was lost at home by a seditious media demoralizing the American people. Ironically, the leader of that effort was Rather's predecessor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite, president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society. It was Cronkite who went on air and lied about the Tet offensive, claiming it was a defeat for the Americans. He told the American people the war was over and we had lost. Ronald Reagan said CBS News officials should have been tried for treason for those broadcasts. CBS has already lost one war for America. The Swift Boat Vets weren't going to let CBS lose another one." --Ann Coulter

Liberals are like religious fundamentalists - they turn away from the truth. I have often offerred my copy of Ann Coulter's "Liberal Treachery From The Cold War To The War On Terrorism," to my liberal friends, but they would rather drink at the fountain of charisma, forked tounges, and distortions. The likelyhood of one of them reading Coulter's incredible work is as likely as a funamentalist agreeing to read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker." Of course there is an inherrent problem with the latter task, most fundamentalists would not have the reading comphrehension to understand the book.

iknowtest said:

<LI>"Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."

<LI>"At least when right-wingers rant, there's a point."

<LI>"Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above a toaster."

<LI>"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"

"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
Ann Coulter

wow, stepford wives really do exist

Coulter is dead nuts on.
I wish the diplopukes in our State Dept and the White House had the courage to say what she's saying. Her logic is flawless, and liberals and EuroPeons, who don't grasp logic, and depend upon 'feelings', don't get it, and will never get it.

Arguing with a liberal is as much a waste of time as, well, arguing with a liberal. Who needs them.

skydive69 said:

Liberals are like religious fundamentalists - they turn away from the truth. I have often offerred my copy of Ann Coulter's "Liberal Treachery From The Cold War To The War On Terrorism," to my liberal friends, but they would rather drink at the fountain of charisma, forked tounges, and distortions. The likelyhood of one of them reading Coulter's incredible work is as likely as a funamentalist agreeing to read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker." Of course there is an inherrent problem with the latter task, most fundamentalists would not have the reading comphrehension to understand the book.

nick burns said:

wow, stepford wives really do exist

She is single. And refuses the advances of Bill Mahr. Liberal panty-wearing girly men do not make her list.

Might you be green with envy?

Ann is one helluva woman. Can't say that about Hillary or any of the dog faced libs I see on TV. Laura Ingraham is married and Ann appears somewhat reclusive. With all the leftist nuts, I don't blame her. The libs are trashing Bush/Cheney offices accross the country, throw pies at Ann Coulter for, heaven forbid - SPEAKING!!! But we, the right, act like ladies and gentleman and do none of this. It's like discussing what separates humans from wild pigs.

Weisse Luft said:

She is single. And refuses the advances of Bill Mahr. Liberal panty-wearing girly men do not make her list.

Might you be green with envy?

Weisse Luft said:

She is single. And refuses the advances of Bill Mahr. Liberal panty-wearing girly men do not make her list.

Might you be green with envy?

Yep, you're spot on. I lust after narrow-minded hate spewing women.

Wait...the right is always respectful? I guess going stark raving mad over Clinton is okay, since he lied about having an affair. I guess forcing all people attending Bush rallies to sign a loyalty oath isn't an attempt to prevent dissent (or is that just a liberal media lie?). Neither is calling those who disagree with their ideals terrorist sympathizers, "panty-wearing girly men," or the likes.

Maybe you should take a look at www.spinsanity.org. It's non-partisan, and does a very good job at dissecting the fallacies and spin of Ann Coulter, Bush, Kerry, Michael Moore, and many other politicians and pundits. Of course, you may find that it is liberal and thus uncredible because it criticizes Coulter and other people on the right.

By the way, it isn't that good of an idea to only listen to the people who are "nice on one's eyes." From what I've found, they are usually the ones with the least intellectual things to say.

keydates said:

From what I've found, they are usually the ones with the least intellectual things to say.

If that's true, I'll bet the boys in the cell block thought your were one hot little [censored].

I see that you couldn't counter my comments, so you responded with an insult. It was a nice insult though.

libs are not worth much time.

keydates said:

I see that you couldn't counter my comments, so you responded with an insult. It was a nice insult though.

I think that a few of you lot need to look up "splitting" in a psychology textbook.

Is it all really so simple as a world divided into good guys and bad guys? The loony left and the raving right? Crazy Christians and Mad Muslims?

The Swift Boat Veterans have done it again.

Here's the documentary showing the treasonous behavior of John Kerry.

Rembember - voter registration is at an all time high. To alleviate crowds and waiting at the polls Republicans are to vote Tuesday, November 2. Democrats and Independents are to vote Wednesday November 3.

God Bless the Swift Boat Veterans
and
God Bless America

____________

[center][left][font=Arial]There's been a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth among the Democrats since Vice President Cheney said if the country makes the wrong choice on Election Day, "then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." (I mean there is weeping among Democrats who aren't actually rooting for us to get hit again because "we deserve it!"😉 [/font]
[/left]
[left][font=Arial]I believe this is one of those "issues" Democrats claim to be champing at the bit to discuss – in lieu of discussing the charges of the Swift Boat veterans. In fact, there is no more important issue in this election: Which candidate will best protect America from terrorist attack? Hint: It's not the guy whose running mate (sounding so much like Sean Hayes from "Will and Grace" it was eerie) said their message to the terrorists was: "We will destroy youuuuuuu!" [/font]
[/left]
[/center]
[font=Arial]Of course, it gets complicated trying to do a side-by-side comparison of the candidates' positions on terrorism since we don't know which John Kerry is running for president. The one who opposes war with Iraq or the one who supports it? The one who opposes the Patriot Act or the one who voted for it? The one who wants to work with the allies, or the one who ridicules them when they support America? [/font]

[font=Arial]The only way Kerry's constantly changing positions on little matters like war would seem rational is if we found out he was using a Ouija board to determine his positions – much as he's using a crystal ball to predict when we should start removing U.S. troops from Iraq. Six months – whoops, no, four years. Stupid crystal balls – they never work! [/font]

[font=Arial]Republicans have been having raucous fun trying to predict what Kerry's next policy shift will be. Education? AIDS? Pollution? Dang! He picked women's rights! OK, here's another dollar. Give me three more balls, please. [/font]

[font=Arial]While waiting for the Ouija board to give us Kerry's final answer on the Iraq war, perhaps we could get an answer on something simpler – like whether or not Kerry owns an SUV. [/font]

[font=Arial]During the Democratic primaries, Kerry went to Michigan and bragged to the Detroit News: "We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. ... We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban." He was starting to sound like a used-car dealer in a giant cowboy hat peddling his wares in a cheesy, low-budget late-night TV commercial: "We got Jeeps, we got PT Cruisers, we got minivans, and they're priced to move, folks ..." [/font]

[font=Arial]But a few months after Kerry won the Michigan primary in February, the feckless opportunist told a bunch of environmentalists: "I don't own an SUV." When pressed on the apparent contradiction, Kerry explained: "The family has it. I don't have it." We're still waiting for reaction from some group calling themselves "SUV Owners for the Truth." [/font]

[font=Arial]As I recall, when it came to funding his campaign last January with a $6 million mortgage on the "family" home in Boston – owned by Kerry's billionaire wife – he was not so picky about what he owns and what she owns. Back then, Kerry had somewhat more liberal views on the notion of "community property" – or maybe that was just the pre-nup talking. [/font]

[font=Arial]The "family" angle could also explain Kerry's positions on the wall in Israel: His wife supports it and he opposes it! [/font]

[font=Arial]Speaking to an Arab group in Michigan in October 2003, Kerry called Israel's erection of a wall between Israeli and Palestinian areas "another barrier to peace." [/font]

[font=Arial]But a few months later, Kerry got on the fence on the subject of the wall. Adding clarity to the subject, his campaign issued a memo in February, saying Kerry took the precise opposite position of his earlier position. The memo said: "John Kerry supports the construction of Israel's security fence to stop terrorists from entering Israel. The security fence is a legitimate act of self-defense ..." [/font]

[font=Arial]So the wall was either (1) a barrier to peace or (2) a legitimate act of self-defense. The campaign then said Kerry had meant to say the real barrier to peace was Pink Floyd's "The Wall." [/font]

[font=Arial]While Kerry works out his positions, apparently the voters have decided that their legitimate act of self-defense is to vote for Bush.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]-- Ann Coulter[/font]