ThinkFast: July 27, 2006
ThinkFast: July 27, 2006
“It sucks. Honestly, it just feels like we’re driving around waiting to get blown up. That’s the most honest answer I could give you,” said 28-year old Army Specialist Tim Ivey, about U.S. troop morale in Iraq.
60 percent: Number of Americans who believe President Bush is not respected by foreign leaders, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.
“Following on the heels of daily papers in Augusta, Ga., and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a weekly in Greensboro, N.C., has decided to drop Ann Coulter’s regular column.” The paper explained reader feedback showed approval for “cutting her column at a ratio of two to one. And numbers don’t lie (unless, some would say, they’re being wielded by Ann Coulter).”
Exxon posted $10.36 billion in profits this quarter, the “second-largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.†Royal Dutch Shell pocketed $7.32 billion, a 40 percent rise from the same period last year.
In a half-hour speech to Congress yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki “embraced the stance of President Bush in calling Iraq a key front in a wider battle against terrorism and in evoking the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.” Slate wonders whether the White House wrote the speech. Tony Snow acknowledged there had been “conversations†about the address within the administration.
A former Indian intelligence official said the U.S. nuclear deal with India “will allow India to produce 50 more nuclear warheads a year than it can now, by freeing up existing uranium reserves for military use.†Meanwhile, the House overwhelmingly approved the deal and “rejected amendments that aimed to curb India’s nuclear weapons program.â€
Today, Bush will sign the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, reauthorizing provisions that a decade ago he called a burdensome and unnecessary federal intrusion. “The Bush administration has really done a flip-flop on this,” said Edward Blum, a senior fellow at the Center for Equal Opportunity.
“The U.S. government’s crackdown on media indecency could prevent World War Two veterans from sharing their stories in an upcoming TV documentary series by Ken Burns. … If the expletives make it to air, they could lead to crippling fines for the offending stations as a result of a new law signed last month by President George W. Bush.â€
Since the Department of Homeland Security was formed in 2003, an “explosion of no-bid deals and a critical shortage of trained government contract managers have created a system prone to abuse,” according to a bipartisan congressional report to be released today.
And finally: Global warming leads to more severe heat waves, and the skyrocketing temperatures have led to more shirtless men in the UK. British lawmakers are considering banning “public nudity of the middle-aged shirtless man variety.†Said one official, “But one of the things that is depressing for anyone going shopping is the numbers of shaven-headed men, mainly in their 30s and 40s, who seem to think people want to see their torsos.â€
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It sucks. Honestly, it just feels like we’re driving around waiting to get blown up.
it’s 118 degrees in Bahgdad, I doubt there out doing anything……and then judging from the Iraqi body count……………
July 27th, 2006 at 9:10 amPeter Doran has an op-ed in the NYT today asking that his name be removed from the list of scientists who deny global warming. Apparently portions of a study from a few years ago has been taken out of context and used by writers who would deny global warming.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:16 amHere’s something you missed from Kevin Drum:
CHRISTIAN ZIONISM….The Wall Street Journal writes today about John Hagee, the man who’s brought “Christian Zionism” into the mainstream:
“Last week, as Israel’s armed forces pounded Lebanon and worries of a wider conflagration mounted, Mr. Hagee presided over what he called a “miracle of God”: a gathering of 3,500 evangelical Christians packed into a Washington hotel to cheer Israel and its current military campaign.
“….President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr. Hagee and his supporters for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedom.” The Israeli prime minister also sent words of thanks. Israel’s ambassador, its former military chief and a host of U.S. political heavyweights, mostly Republican, attended.
“….The following day, [Hagee] mobilized evangelicals representing all 50 states in a lobbying blitz through the Capitol. Armed with talking points scripted by Mr. Hagee and his staff, they peppered senators and congressmen with arguments for Israel and against its enemies, particularly Iran.
“….When addressing Jewish audiences, Mr. Hagee generally avoids talking about Armageddon. But his books, whose titles include “Beginning of the End” and “From Daniel to Doomsday,” are filled with death and mayhem. “The battlefield will cover the nation of Israel!” he writes in “Jerusalem Countdown,” his recent work, describing a “sea of human blood drained from the veins of those who have followed Satan.”"
How charming.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:16 amSo, when the thought occurred to me yesterday that it sounded like Maliki’s speech had been written by the White House — others have had a similar thought and now we hear that Snow admits to “conversations” about the content.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:21 amIn a half-hour speech to Congress yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki “embraced the stance of President Bush in calling Iraq a key front in a wider battle against terrorism and in evoking the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.â€
In the finale, Nuri sang the United States’ National Anthem while Karl Rove drank a glass of water.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:24 amFinally, Tony Snow admits that the Bush administration penned Malik’s Rumsfeld-esqe speech. Or maybe it sounded closer to a GWBush SOTU.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
July 27th, 2006 at 9:25 amU.S. troops heading to Lebanon. Ver likely
And
Democratic hypocrisy over the Mideast crisis. Why are they fiercely supporting Israel?
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
Just a few quotes from the Maliki speech was all I needed to recognize that the White House wrote it. Their propaganda is comically transparent.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:27 amAnn Coulter has a strong enough readership of her books not to miss a couple columns here or there. Her colums are also available on the web, so her readers won’t miss anything.
Funny, libs are all for free speech until it comes from someone who doesn’t follow progressive dogma. Libs started flame speech by calling every conservative a racist, sexist, bigot, etc., ironic that it was Clinton who passed welfare reform and NAFTA, the very types of legislation for which conservatives were called all those names ….
July 27th, 2006 at 9:27 amWe shouldn’t be surprised by Maliki’s speech.
Bottom line: imagine his prospects if we leave. They’re not going to last long there in Baghdad without us. He needs to play politics with Bush if he wants US forces to stay, and he also needs to appear independent to folks back in Iraq. In other words, he’s totally screwed.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:28 amJason,
What Coulter writes is not speech. It’s trash. The only thing that is new is that some papers are figuring that out.
She’s affected when newspapers drop her column, don’t doubt it.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:30 amTony Snow acknowledged there had been “conversations†about the address within the administration.
I wonder how those “conversations” sounded
July 27th, 2006 at 9:31 amOnly 60% think bush isn’t respected? That leaves a lot of dumbass rednecks wandering the streets without supervision.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:31 amOnly 60% think bush isn’t respected? That leaves a lot of dumbass rednecks wandering the streets without supervision.
I think the place you’re referring to is Kansas.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:33 amLibs started flame speech by calling every conservative a racist, sexist, bigot, etc.,
They are. At least 50% of Republicans are either stupid, evil or insane. After a few years of batting back and forth on the interent with these people, I’m convinced. The rest are just too busy to pay attention to what is happening, and vote out of habit.
US mainstream attitudes are bizarrely off target when compared to the rest of the world. It must be your media. Thank God for the internet, maybe you’ll wake up.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:33 amQuestion, why is it that the United States is apparently encouraging and supporting a nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan? These two countries are constantly warring over the Kasmir region. If they use nukes, the whole world will suffer from the fallout….
July 27th, 2006 at 9:34 amToday, Bush will sign the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, reauthorizing provisions that a decade ago he called a burdensome and unnecessary federal intrusion. “The Bush administration has really done a flip-flop on this,†said Edward Blum, a senior fellow at the Center for Equal Opportunity.
I have no doubt President Bush takes issue with the Section 5 restrictions the VRA imposes unequally on some states.
It’s disinginous to say “[t]he Bush administration has really done a flip-flop on this”, referring to a stance taken by Bush before he was President (before the “Bush administration” existed).
July 27th, 2006 at 9:39 amReply to Jason M. Hendler:
Libs started flame speech by calling every conservative a racist, sexist, bigot, etc.
What a joke. Let’s go over those terms, shall we?
Once again we see the neocon troll desperately try to put the cart in front of the horse, but that’s gag’s getting old.
Sorry, Jason, but calling others on their hate isn’t ‘flame speech’.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:42 amIt’s disinginous to say “[t]he Bush administration has really done a flip-flop on thisâ€, referring to a stance taken by Bush before he was President (before the “Bush administration†existed).
Comment by Chase — July 27, 2006 @ 9:39 am
Perhaps overstating the case, but hardly disingenous. Clearly he has changed his mind because now he gets to do the intruding. He really is a power hungry lunatic. When will it end … even another republican president couldn’t be as bad as Bush. Could they?
July 27th, 2006 at 9:42 am#15 Question, why is it that the United States is apparently encouraging and supporting a nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan? These two countries are constantly warring over the Kasmir region. If they use nukes, the whole world will suffer from the fallout….
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — July 27, 2006 @ 9:34 am
And pissing his main ally (?) in the fight against Talibans in Afghanistan, Pakistan. There are a lot of bases and forces of the USA in Pakistan. I bet that the Pakistani Dictator is just now having a bad time, between the need to help the USA (after all, if they don’t help the USA they can count that the USA will bomb some pakistani cities here and there in the trip to and from Kabul), and the ordinary Pakistanis, who hate India and the USA and see the USA helping their traditional enemy… If an uprising happens, I’ll see the USA people “shocked”, asking themselves why the pakistanis hate their guts…
July 27th, 2006 at 9:42 amBush was against the VRA before he was for the VRA…….hoe exactly does that go?
July 27th, 2006 at 9:43 am#8, when someone gets booted from being a columnist for a newspaper, that is not a restriction of free speech, that’s a function of the competitive marketplace of ideas.
When broadcasters risk significant fines for airing material which is merely offensive (as compared to obscene) that is a restriction on free speech.
Do you come up with your responses on your own, or do you wait for a set of “talking points” before you post your inane arguments?
Do you realize that your arguments are dogmatic?
July 27th, 2006 at 9:46 am#20 – I think it’s more correct to say “Bush was against Section 5 of the VRA and, well, is still against Section 5 of the VRA.”
July 27th, 2006 at 9:46 amI’d like to drop Ann Coulter myself; literally.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:47 amPyschobabble, lies, and her Anorexic personality are enough to make
youngsters cry. Hannity eats her shit daily, maybe he’ll start to look
like her. I would guess the dominoes are starting to fall, Ann.
Enjoy the ride. You’ve spread more vile hate than even Limpblow.
Good riddance. No Vanity Fair for you. You’re still ugly. Just keep
reminding yourself; ‘I had this coming. I had this coming.’
Thankfully Jason, the readers of those papers who’ve dropped Ann Coulter (adams apple, large hands) have polled their readers and it was their readers who by a 2 to 1 margin asked that she be replaced. Funny too, those papers that replaced the transman where all from “red” cities and are in largely conservative areas.
Maybe it’s YOU who has his head up his ass. Of course, if you love Ann so much, you could emulate exactly what he/she has done and start dressing in drag, trying (poorly) to pass yourself off as a women, and spew hate in books, TV & newspapers nationwide.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:47 am#17, Trip,
Calling someone a racist because they want to break the cycle of poverty by reforming welfare isn’t “calling someone on their hate”. Breaking the cycle of poverty is clearly a good thing, but you use hate speech to undermine those who would end the welfare state and move able bodied citizens into the work force.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:52 amFrom Roll Call:
July 27th, 2006 at 9:55 amNorm Coleman, Sr., the father of Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman, was arrested after he was caught having sex in public in St. Paul, Minnesota
#21, Bris,
Liberals once dominated all media outlets, but have since let that control slip through their fingers, because of their lust to sanctify gay marriage so homosexuals can adopt little boys to anally fist. Americans saw liberals homosexual perverted agenda, and wrested media away from libs.
Libs would think conservative arguements dogmatic, because they are based on core values, which beget policies, which beget platforms, etc. Liberals just feel bad when people suffer, regardless of the root cause, and try to apply solutions that merely reinforce the root cause.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:57 am“It sucks. Honestly, it just feels like we’re driving around waiting to get blown up. That’s the most honest answer I could give you,†said 28-year old Army Specialist Tim Ivey, about U.S. troop morale in Iraq.
Yes, it sucks to be an Iraqi family bringing a pregnant woman to the hospital only to be shot down in a USA control, because they’re brown skinned.
60 percent: Number of Americans who believe President Bush is not respected by foreign leaders, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.
In a parallel poll outside the USA, the people that doesn’t like Bush is about 80% /Sarcasm (?) off.
Exxon posted $10.36 billion in profits this quarter, the “second-largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.†Royal Dutch Shell pocketed $7.32 billion, a 40 percent rise from the same period last year.
Again, the ones reimbursing the money were the members of the OPEC? Or the refineries in the target countries?
In a half-hour speech to Congress yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki “embraced the stance of President Bush in calling Iraq a key front in a wider battle against terrorism and in evoking the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.†Slate wonders whether the White House wrote the speech. Tony Snow acknowledged there had been “conversations†about the address within the administration.
Nice doggie. Now, play dead.
A former Indian intelligence official said the U.S. nuclear deal with India “will allow India to produce 50 more nuclear warheads a year than it can now, by freeing up existing uranium reserves for military use.†Meanwhile, the House overwhelmingly approved the deal and “rejected amendments that aimed to curb India’s nuclear weapons program.â€
Yeah, promoting the peace and democracy in the world. Ummm… the neocons in power know that there is a strong communist party in India? BOOO!
“The U.S. government’s crackdown on media indecency could prevent World War Two veterans from sharing their stories in an upcoming TV documentary series by Ken Burns. … If the expletives make it to air, they could lead to crippling fines for the offending stations as a result of a new law signed last month by President George W. Bush.â€
If this ban included some day the pundits of the Fox, the rednecks would storm the congress with pitchforks and torches any minute now.
Since the Department of Homeland Security was formed in 2003, an “explosion of no-bid deals and a critical shortage of trained government contract managers have created a system prone to abuse,†according to a bipartisan congressional report to be released today.
Again, why don’t trust the UN and disband it? The corruption? The ineptitude? The futility of such a great bureaucracy?
And finally: Global warming leads to more severe heat waves, and the skyrocketing temperatures have led to more shirtless men in the UK. British lawmakers are considering banning “public nudity of the middle-aged shirtless man variety.†Said one official, “But one of the things that is depressing for anyone going shopping is the numbers of shaven-headed men, mainly in their 30s and 40s, who seem to think people want to see their torsos.â€
We see them constantly in our beaches in summer and really are horrible, these milky skins and giantic beer bellies. Nauseating, I must say. And frankly, the tourist fashion is… undescriptable… those sandals with white socks… or the women who don’t know what a depilation is… sometimes sucks to be a touristic destination.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:00 amThe latest exercise in psycho babble from Ms. Coulter is when she tried to smear ex president Clinton by claiming that his sexual affairs with Monica Lewinsky are somehow supposed to prove that Clinton is a latent homosexual. What makes this attempted smear so bizarre is not only Clinton’s affairs have been with women and not with men, but that Coulter has a brother who is homosexual. If Coulter is trying to smear Clinton because she states that he is homosexual, which she apparently disapproves of, then she would seem to harbor little love for her brother, also.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:02 am#29 What makes this attempted smear so bizarre is not only Clinton’s affairs have been with women and not with men, but that Coulter has a brother who is homosexual.
What makes it bizarre isn’t that the brother of Coulter is homosexual (she hates him too?), but that Ann is so… tranny, you know.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:07 amNot standing up to Bush: cowardice!
Thursday 27th of July 2006
by Jay Randal
It’s NOT the function of the United States Congress to roll over for the president, nor to rubber-stamp the whims of a tyrant, so the Congress displays cowardice!
The Constitutional founders of this nation expected the House, and Senate, to keep the executive branch of the government in check, so to prevent a dictatorship!
The presidency was never supposed to be granted the power to wage wars, nor the power to end them either, so the Congress is acting completely negligent on Iraq!
Lies and falsehoods were used to justify an invasion of Iraq, and the occupation has degenerated into a fiasco, but the Congress fails to stop funding the vile debacle!
Almost half a trillion dollars has been wasted on Iraq, while all social programs in the US are cut to the bone, to feed the military complex as poverty increases too!
It’s a horrendous travesty to continue the occupation of Iraq, and to keep funding it, so the Congress must end it now, or every member of Congress must resign!
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Stone Mountain, Georgia.)
July 27th, 2006 at 10:08 amI think it is quite funny how sanctimonious and righteous they think they area. Their hipocracy knows no bounds.
Republican Hypocrisy Revealed
July 27th, 2006 at 10:09 amJason M. Hendler: Blah, blah, blah, blah, Ann Coulter!, blah, blah, blah, what am i supposed to say next?, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, the Supreme Court will handle it. blah, blah, blah, blah.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:11 am60 percent: Number of Americans who believe President Bush is not respected by foreign leaders, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.
I wonder what the percentage would be if they polled foreign leaders…
July 27th, 2006 at 10:13 amI wonder how those “conversations†sounded
Comment by jason baddo
“Here’s your speech, Prime Minister.”
July 27th, 2006 at 10:14 amJMH. I believe a strong argument can be made that the decision to drop Coulter was Capitalism at it’s best.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:14 am#33, brian,
There you go again! Challenging the desires of conservative Christians. If I didn’t desire everyone to be successful, I wouldn’t have trained my direct reports to be stellar employees, and I wouldn’t have shown peers and superiors what to do to be great successes. Moreover, I know, based on my own successes, how devastating and detrimental socialist policies are to work ethic and productivity. Liberals gutting of education and supplanting it with indoctrination in the liberal agenda will destroy our economy and our society. What I do benefits everyone – what liberals do benefits no one over the long term.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:16 amPost 29 > I did not know that Coulter had a brother, or that he is Gay, so is Ann really her brother in drag? ( I just had to ask that > lol.)
July 27th, 2006 at 10:16 amGlobal warming leads to more severe heat waves, and the skyrocketing temperatures have led to more shirtless men in the UK.
Please, gentlemen, I don’t care how hot you are, or hot you think you are, keep your shirt on.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:16 amcut and run?……..judging from the number of dead Iraqis we have already cut and ran
July 27th, 2006 at 10:18 amHey Jason – here you go asshole.
Republican Mayor Jim West
championed an anti-gay agenda,
but was later found to be gay himself
Republican Congressman Edward Schrock
resigned from Congress after he was caught
searching for sex on a gay telephone service.
Listen to his telephone calls by clicking
these files: File 1, File 2, File 3
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
and these are only the boys, and the ones that were caught!!!!
July 27th, 2006 at 10:19 am#37, just,
If it was demonstrable that readership was down through actual sales, then it would have been capitalism, but liberals love to use polls / emails / letters to back up whatever positions they want implemented, and it’s very easy to slant polls and organize email / letter campaigns against adversaries.
This was purely a drive by liberals to squeelch free speech, so that only their message is heard. If Ann was not effective in changing opinion, then libs should have let her rant, but Ann is effective, so they have to kill her columns.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:20 amNorm Coleman, Sr., the father of Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman, was arrested after he was caught having sex in public in St. Paul, Minnesota
Comment by Marie
July 27th, 2006 at 10:21 amRest of the Story:
Norm Sr. was found having sex in a car outside a Pizzaria with a 38 yr. old woman.
Nomr Sr. is 81. Both are being charged with lewd & lavicious behavior.
Let’s all hope the Senator from Minnesota displays the same endurance his Dad has!
Maybe Norm can get his Dad to sell Rush some of this, because since Rush’s
housekeeper left, he’s having trouble finding any Mycoxaphlopin.
Well, all I know is that I truly do believe in Karma. Only the collective Karma for the whole of the US is SCREWED!
July 27th, 2006 at 10:23 am#34, Zoo,
You are just dying to talk to me, but are afraid of getting hurt – I understand.
#42, madashell,
More evidence as to why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to adopt – thanks for the post.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:24 am#44 – Go Norm Sr! Maybe get a room next time — and I’m sure there will be a next time. Any comment from his dead dick son?
July 27th, 2006 at 10:25 am#42, madashell,
More evidence as to why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to adopt – thanks for the post.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
WTF are you talking about? These are YOUR PEOPLE asshole. You are such a liar and that is why I AM CALLING YOU ON IT. It is closet republican homophobes that desire little boys. You one?
July 27th, 2006 at 10:27 am#43 Sounds like your bitter that the business decision of conservative papers decided to go in a different direction than what Mz. Coulter was going. I didn’t bring up any polls, charts or any other suppossed tools of the left to to bring about her demise. I did watch a report when the paper in Iowa decided to drop her. A conservative paper that made the decision after hearing from their conservative readers that Coulter’s columns were not what they wanted to read. It wasn’t the mad left pushing her out. It was the logical conservatives seeing how off track she has become.
Sounds like Capitalism to me. Don’t tell me you would go against a sound business decision. How un republican.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:33 amJason,
July 27th, 2006 at 10:36 amYou are truly a sick individual.
Slate wonders whether the White House wrote the speech. Tony Snow acknowledged there had been “conversations†about the address within the administration.
when did he acknowledge that? i just read this:
Bush spokesman Tony Snow chided Democrats who boycotted al-Maliki’s speech, saying, “Let me try to explain democracy to people on Capitol Hill. It involves such rights as free speech and freedom of opinion.
“The president is not a puppeteer in this case. He’s not pulling the strings of Prime Minister al-Maliki. Prime Minister al-Maliki is the duly elected leader of a sovereign state, and, as a result, has rights to his opinions,” Snow said.
of course bush isn’t the puppeteer – everyone knows it’s cheney…
July 27th, 2006 at 10:39 am#47,
July 27th, 2006 at 10:39 amYeah, Norm Jr. said he love his Father dearly, but doesn’t approve of his actions.
I think Norm Sr. should get the Medal of Freedom. He certainly deserves it every
bit as much as George Tenet.
Oh, wait…George’s medal was for f*cking up.
And Jason, you make good arguments; a troll with a brain is someone we can live with.
Maybe you could go counsel Ann; she needs you right now.
Bush and the Republican Congress show nearly record low ratings while Democrats are viewed much more favorably in their performance on the issues that matter most to Americans, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll. Only 31% of those polled approve of Bush’s job performance. Who are Those 31%. They are Endangering the Nation.
well we know a few of them hang out here.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:40 amYeah, Norm Jr. said he love his Father dearly, but doesn’t approve of his actions.
Sounds like Jr’s jealous. So funny…
July 27th, 2006 at 10:44 am#48, mad,
I am centrist libertarian, so don’t call Republicans my people. Open or closet, homosexuals want to adopt young boys to anally fist.
#49, just,
Not bitter at all, as I said before, Ann is making big dollars with her book sales, and readers can find her columns on the web. I am just pointing out that it is very easy for libs to wage a email / letter / phone campaigns to drive whatever columnists they hate out of print – the papers can do whatever they want.
#52, zimzone,
Thanks, as I’ve often said, if you can’t debate me, then you won’t stand a chance against the architect, Karl Rove. Ann has all the cash she needs to console herself.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:56 am27) Wow, what a horribly oversimplified version of the conservative takeover of media. Blame “the other”, always. In this case, it’s same sex couples that get the beatdown.
The media was taken over by conservatives because of decades of research and implimentation of the findings of that research through hard-right outlets. The right has engaged in an elaborate takeover of communication in this country; every powerful word that has any national meaning has been grabbed by conservatives. The word ‘family’ is now somehow a conservative word. Same with ‘flag’ and ‘values’ and ‘honest’ and everything else. When conservatives took over those words by using them repeatedly (and using ‘bizarre’ and ‘crazy’ and ‘out of touch’ to describe liberals), they simply took over patriotism and family values in this country. It became impossible for liberals to make their case on the issues because the second they say any word that has any national meaning, they’re invoking the conservative frame of mind and superimposing it over the liberal frame of mind; in doing so, they simply sound like inauthentic conservative wannabes trying to fight the current.
Contrary to another poster said, it was conservatives who sought to dominate language so that progressive ideas became impossible to imagine. Just take a look at Newt Gingrich’s list of words for house members to use whenever it addressed the public for just one example.
This is just one small step in controlling the media and all discourse in America. Right wing talkers show hosts, WSJ columnists and conservative mailing groups repeatedly planted conservative ideology into American discourse, then cursed the mainstream media when it didn’t present those points of view in the news; “working the referee,” it’s called. Liberals didn’t take conservatives seriously enough to mount any sort of counter-attack; it was simply assumed America could never fall victim to conservative arguments, we though they simply discredited themselves through their vicous arguments, spite for the less fortunate, and inflammatory rhetoric. Liberals and Progressives are only now talking back to conservative rhetoric and funding think-tanks to research how to counter conservatives in the crucial matter of political discourse, which then leads to the acceptance of policy.
Give the conservative movement the credit it absolutely diserves.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:00 amYou are no libertarian JASON, you can label yourself any way you want, but your are NO LIBERTARIAN. The first rule of libertarians – is STAYING OUT OF PEOPLES LIVES.
AND STOP LYING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS WANTING TO ADOPT BOYS TO “FIST”. YOU ARE SO UNBELIEVABLY IGNORANT. Your rhetoric is getting quite tiring though.
and YOU JASON – ARE A REPUBLICAN – IT SO VERY OBVIOUS.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:03 amLiberals gutting of education… blah blah blah….
@ 10:16 am
HOOOWEEEE! now that’s a new one! to me anyway!
wonder who started that meme?
… liberals love to use polls / emails / letters to back up whatever positions they want implemented, and it’s very easy to slant polls and organize email / letter campaigns against adversaries.
@ 10:20 am
more projection… the rovians have mastered the “email/letter campaigns” tactic – USING LIES…
July 27th, 2006 at 11:07 amOne more thing Jason, you seem to think homosexuality only pertains to men. What about the lesbians? What is their agenda in wanting to get married?
July 27th, 2006 at 11:09 amJason sez……..”I am centrist libertarian, so don’t call Republicans my people.”
jeez, shit people come up with
July 27th, 2006 at 11:10 amComment by madashell — July 27, 2006 @ 11:03 am
even the term “republican” doesn’t fit that one…
July 27th, 2006 at 11:13 ammy dad was a Republican… these kind are just plain
RADICAL RIGHT NEOCON WINGNUTS…
Jason’s a paid troll. Don’t let asshole like that hijack the thread here.
Let’s just ignore the town idiot. I know it’s difficult, but he’s a moron.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:13 amah, Katy, but the radical right neocon wingnuts have, along with the religious zealots, hijacked the republican party,
July 27th, 2006 at 11:16 amLibertarians believe in an individual’s freedom to do anything they like with the only restriction that it not interfere with another individual’s freedom to do what they like. “The freedom to swing one’s arm ends at the tip of another’s nose.”
Individuals can do whatever they want in their own bedroom, but not if it involves abortificants, which, in my beliefs, kills another individual. Otherwise go crazy, take pictures and post if you like.
I am libertarian, which is diametrically opposed to communist / socialist / progressive dogma that demands state sponser and control of everything.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:19 am62) I hate to be an Advice Guy, but these people aren’t just in our threads; they’re on the streets and they’re in the voting booths.
It just looks like pointless trolling, but you have to recognize that conservative rhetors are the trolls of American society, not just our little forum here. See their arguments, take note of them, and counter them. They’re using the exact same garbage that the major players in the movement are using.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:19 amwell, of course… i’m well aware of that…
July 27th, 2006 at 11:20 am#56, dave m.,
You are wise to recognize political tactics and strengths. You, out of all these sheep, realize just how far behind the curve Dems are, which should have been obvious by their loss of control of all 3 branches of the federal government.
katy, kind and mad,
You just wish you had a strong man like me to bed. It’s why you CAN’T stop yourselves from talking to me.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:23 amdont’ flatter yourself asshole JMH. You are the sole reason women become lesbians.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:25 amThe problem with Ann Coulter is that she plain and simple makes things up. She is not a journalist, and it’s not a matter of restricting her free speech. She can continue to write her fiction. When a news paper publishes her work people assume what they get in that news paper is somewhat related to truth. I for one am more interested in her for the fact that she can not tell the truth on any issue, yet people believe her every word. And by not telling the truth I am referring to her making things up. As an example George Will is a very good writer whom I have no problem with. I may not agree with what he says but he says it honestly. What I have seen from the right is that they hate what they call liberal writers for their opinions, yet rarely challenge their facts. With Coulter there are no real fact to stand up to challenges.
TO say that the Republican party is interested in ending poverty is a joke every year they rule poverty rates rise, it’s a fact, deal with it. It is simple evidence to show that they are more interested in abstract objects called corporations, than they are interested in real people. If they were interested in ending poverty they would do as much as possible to put dollars in the hands of the lower classes because these people have to spend every thing they have in order to survive. When they spend jobs are created, when jobs are created economies expand. What republicans want is for business and the upper crust to have as much money as possible. The THEORY they work with is that the wealthy can invest in new business and business can expand creating jobs and trickle down wealth to the lower classes. This is a push strategy and has been proven not to work twice already, yet they cling to it like gospel. Businesses build and start up when there are markets for products, markets are created by people having cash to purchase goods and services. By the way, my overtly conservative econ professor made it clear that the republican trickle down theories work only on paper and that they fail in the real market place. Lafer is not even on the radar for real economists, but he is a god to republicans, go figure, totally discredited research embraced fully by them?
Also to say that the republican party is not racist is to ignore their southern strategy which they tote out every election cycle. They are always on the prowl looking for the next Willie Horton to use in their campaign ads, yet cry foul when the other side uses the notion of a black man being dragged to pieces as being an example of a failed republican leadership. Now they use the specter of evil brown men to scare the good white suburbanites out of their cocoons and into the voting booths. Not racist, ha!
July 27th, 2006 at 11:26 am#65, dave m.,
More wise advice – teach the children that they have to learn to assimilate with the majority population of this country and learn to compromise, so that they don’t lose everything.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:29 am“In a half-hour speech to Congress yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki “embraced the stance of President Bush in calling Iraq a key front in a wider battle against terrorism and in evoking the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.†Slate wonders whether the White House wrote the speech. Tony Snow acknowledged there had been “conversations†about the address within the administration.”
So, while the White House cynically uses al-Maliki to promote and justify our invasion and occupation of Iraq, here’s an interesting article appearing in Tom Paine today entitled, “I Hate to Tell You I Told You So.”
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/24/i_hate_to_say_i_told_you_so.php
July 27th, 2006 at 11:30 amDid you know?
By Gabriele Zamparini
“I, Tsilli Goldenberg, Israeli citizen
Accuse you – Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, Amir Peretz, Minister of Defense, Dan Halutz Head of Staff Chief Commander of the Israeli Army, of committing this bestial barbaric slaughter in Lebanon.
I accuse you of committing Crimes against Humanity towards the Palestinian People. I accuse you of deserting our soldiers, when their lives could be saved by negotiations, and I accuse you of starting an unjustified war in my name.†– Tsilli Goldenberg, Masarik 11, Jerusalem 93106 Israel
Did you know that “Dana Olmert, the daughter of Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert… [was one of] the demonstrators [who] chanted slogans…
Why not?
…
http://thecatsdream.com/
July 27th, 2006 at 11:34 amJason,
You seem like a reasonable person, so I’m happy to keep the discussion going. How can we have debate when one side recieves the “truth” directly from God? How do we speak to each other when one side is so thoroughly convinced of the “rightness” of their position? Because their bible says so? Does the right wing really believe that they have a monopoly on “truth”?
t-mac
July 27th, 2006 at 11:34 am#68, mad,
Oh how I wish I could take credit for lesbianism – are you saying you are lesbian or bi – hmmmmm, you may just have a shot with me ….
July 27th, 2006 at 11:34 amUS Republican Taliban Endangers Girls and Young Women
(clip)
The Teen Endangerment Act, S. 403 and H.R. 748, will make it a federal crime to accompany a minor (in states where parental notification or consent laws are in force) — even a granddaughter, niece or sister — who is obtaining an abortion in a nearby state (even if that is the nearest clinic), thus making criminals of friends and family members helping teens who are unable to involve a parent in their decision.
This new law will subject young women, health care providers, battered women’s counselors, and others to a confusing maze of overlapping and conflicting state and federal laws, which will make it more difficult and more dangerous for a teenager to get help if she is not ready for the life-altering job of motherhood to make that choice.
As the mother of two adolescent girls, I believe that my daughters would come to me if they were ever in such a situation. But there are many young women who will not and cannot approach their parents with such a dilemma, and who will do as Becky Bell, the 17-year-old Indiana honor student who died because of an illegal botched abortion. She desperately did not want to disappoint her beloved parents, and ended her pregnancy the only way she could find. Now her brother and parents speak out publicly, to warn of the deadly consequences of such strict laws for teens, and the devastating consequences for their parents.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:36 amJason, if you are a true libertarian, then you surely must detest the current administration. The libertarians I know destest the administration far more than any of the so called liberal boggey men that are prowling the country. One local columnist who is a devout libertarian gets death threats regularly for pointing out all of the intrusions into daily life occuring and all the budget busting spending going on with this administration.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:40 amt-mac — July 27, 2006 @ 11:34 am
You spoke too soon. Calling this troll a reasonable person is an oxymoron.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:42 am#73, t-mac,
Amazing, in all my posts on countless blogs, you are the first and only liberal to ask what to me is the most obvious and important question!
Christian conservatives are sooooooooooooo easy to handle, but liberals are too stuck-up to handle them the right way. Liberals want to chastise and berate christian conservatives into doing what they want, when all they have to do is:
1) ask for the right things
2) ask in the right way
Let’s take gay marriage. It is so obvious to me, that before the Mass. Supreme Court and Mayor of San Fransisco forced gay marriage on us, that momentum was on the side of homosexuals – popular gay themed TV comedies, recording artists, actor / actresses, etc. All the gay movement had to do was craft legislation starting in gay friendly blue (no pun intended) states that established civil unions, and the gay community would have gotten 99% of what they wanted without a fight. It is the word marriage that is the bridge too far for the American public, which could have been avoided, but arrogrant libs who wanted to fight and look strong, instead of compromising and being strong, that irreversibly killed gay marriage in the US for the next 50-100 years, if not longer.
Libs have to start compromising to gain / hold ground and win back office, because fighting for 100% and losing is far worse than compromising and gaining 99%.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:42 am#76, mark,
I don’t have a problem with the feds scanning phone records and wire tapping to prevent terrorist attacks. Libertarians worry about such practices when they are used to identify and track political threats to those in power.
I am sure your local columist is all for the feds when he needs them to look into the death threats against him.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:46 am70) Compromise? What do you mean “compromise”? I won’t be happy until conservatives are on their heels. I won’t be happy until trash like “gays cause society to crumble” is just a stupid nugget of the past, tossed aside like “if we let women vote, society will crumble” and “if we let blacks in our schools, society will crumble”. We’re doing just fine in spite of those things, thanks. Any notion that times were better “in the old days” is just romanticizing.
Anyway, I don’t understand how you can say you’re against government sticking its fingers into private life, then you refuse to afford gays the same advantages that marriage allows to straight people. You condemn commies and socialists for trying to make society a better place through government action, then say that government has to prevent gay marriage in order to keep society the way it is.
Just drop the “small government” garbage already, would you?
You made your case earlier–you think gays are necessarily child molesters; you believe in prosecuting people because they might molest children, instead of prosecuting people because they have molested children. I know there’s a legal term for assuming guilt, but it escapes me.
As far as I’m concerned, the only child being educated here is you.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:53 am#80, dave m.,
LOL – I only make the “gays want to adopt young boys to anally fist” statement, because libs use equally ridiculous arguments against Republicans (like Reps don’t care about the poor, even though they push for school vouchers, and tax free enterprise zones, etc.).
Personally, if Americans or there representatives pass laws allowing gay marriage or civil unions, I’m fine with that, but when liberals try to use the courts or civil disobedience to force gay marriage on us, I have a BIG problem, because they are breaking the system that protects all of us.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:02 pm#80, dave m.,
Oh, and its the “I won’t be happy til Reps are on their heels” attitude that finally got Republicans to fight libs head on and confirm 2, count ‘em 2, yes that’s 2 – WHITE MALE justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. Way to go champ!
July 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pmbecause libs use equally ridiculous arguments against Republicans
Jason – since you’re a “centrist libertarian”, why do you defend tooth and nail the republicans? Are you embarrassed to call yourself what you really are?
July 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pmAmazing, in all my posts on countless blogs, you are the first and only liberal to ask what to me is the most obvious and important question!
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 27, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Amazingly, for all your long-winded response about liberals, gays, and conservative Christians, you faile to respond to t-mac’s very straightforward questions.
Re-read t-mac’s post and then yours. You will realise you completely skirted the issue and answered a question that was never asked.
Although I have to agree with you: conservative Christians are easily handled. There’s a reason Scanlon called them “wackos” when pointing out he could get them to vote for something while making them think they were voting against something else.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#83,
“Quid pro quo, Clarice” – are you lesbian or bisexual?
I vote Republican, because they are closer to my beliefs than the communist / socialist Democrats. When I frequented conservative blogs, I was equally critical of those posters who were extreme right. Since none are here, you just don’t see it.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:09 pmPersonally, if Americans or there representatives pass laws allowing gay marriage or civil unions, I’m fine with that, but when liberals try to use the courts or civil disobedience to force gay marriage on us, I have a BIG problem, because they are breaking the system that protects all of us.
Kinda like when republicans use supreme courts to cover up war atrocities and force unwarranted searches on us. I see.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#84, Greg,
I did read it. His statements were rhetorical, that conservative Christians can’t be debated, because of their blind faith. I responded that they could be, if you know which hotbuttons to avoid, so that you get 99% of what you want without a fight.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#86, sorta,
Those would be examples of the system working. Legislative branch craft laws, executive enforces laws and judicial branch reviews the laws and their enforcement. If Supreme Court upholds what the exec is doing, how is there a problem. Meanwhile, when a tiny segment of the population tries to circumvent the legislative process to create / enact laws, that is a problem.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:15 pmheck they wrote vonovich (the anti bolton senator guy.. sorry i cant spel his name) a new speech, why shouldnt they do the same for thier iraqi puppets??
July 27th, 2006 at 12:22 pmWTF are you talking about??? The system is broke, son. “The population” has really no say in the matter. The current legislative and executive branches only represent roughly half of the population – if that. You act as if they actually give a damn what “the population” thinks either way.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:27 pmIt’s really gettin’ HOT over at Seixon’s blog.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:29 pmSeix. is in investigative mode, and turning over every stone.
He has even recieved a death threat.
I responded that they could be, if you know which hotbuttons to avoid, so that you get 99% of what you want without a fight.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 27, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
You didn’t respond how conservative Christians could be debated. When you explained how someone can proceeed in such a way that their actions stay below the radar, that is not a debate. Quite the contrary. That is to completely avoid debating, and/or being deceptive at best, which is why I mentioned Scanlon.
But if you think yo have answered the question, well, suit yourself.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:34 pmHow exactly do school vouchers help the poor? They’re simply a way for people who can already afford to put thier kids into private school to get a break that ends up pulling money out of public schools, which results in cuts in supplies, computers, et cetera. That’s the exact opposite of what you describe as “helping” the poor. The conservative plan for school vouchers does exactly what conservatives always do– try to break the public sector. Even the white house’s own study has shown that public schools perform as well as private schools. But, because cons love a good myth, they’ll continue with the “public schools are broken” nonsense. I think all education in this country needs reform (more emphesis on logic and reasoning would be a great start) but I’d like to see it done within the public sector.
They’re trying to do this exact same thing with social security. Create privatized accounts that ends up defunding social security, which will eventually destroy it. All the while talk about how Social Security is broken. Nevermind that cons are ones breaking it.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:42 pm[...] from Think Progress [...]
July 27th, 2006 at 12:55 pmOkay children,
July 27th, 2006 at 12:56 pmStop petting the deranged animal and he might go away. Like the little dog who just won’t stop humping your leg… “Down boy, down!”
#92, greg,
Avoiding the 1% of the issue that conservative Christians won’t relent, but engaging in the 99% of the issue they will IS debating. The term “marriage” is inconsequential to giving homosexual partners the legal protections they seek, so why lose the whole movement over a term that should be meaningless to homosexuals. It is the legal protections that matter, not the term “marriage”.
#93, dave m.,
School vouchers would give those who have no means to attend private schools the opportunity to attend those schools. Rich people already have the means to go to private schools, so they don’t care about vouchers, they already understand the value of a private education. School vouchers reward schools that parents feel are doing a good job, and deny schools money that parent feel are NOT doing a good job – forcing them to turn over management or close.
Social Security IS gong to fail as is, so it is NOT a question of anyone trying to destroy it. Privatization is a means by which individuals can fund their own retirement and control the risk / reward through real equity, and not a Ponzi pay-in / pay-out scheme. Privatization gives people a means to secure their future now, before SS inevitably fails due to lack of investment and demographic changes.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:57 pm#91 It’s really gettin’ HOT over at Seixon’s blog.
Seix. is in investigative mode, and turning over every stone.
He has even recieved a death threat.
Comment by agreeable — July 27, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
I don’t give a damn about what he’s saying or doing with his life or blog. I wouldn’t touch his blog with a ten foot pole, and I don’t wanna to live in the same country as a person (?) with such a distaste for reality, specially the scientifically demonstrable type of reality.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:59 pmA quality education is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of society. However do not take my word for it. I obtained the following document as part of the Freedom of Information Act. I have been unable to ascertain whether it was simply a page that was lost as part of Lewis Powell’s original memo to Eugene Sydnor, Jr, or perhaps a separate document altogether that was not even written by Lewis Powell. Nevertheless, the document passes the Stephen Colbert “Truthiness†test.
Desensitize
Don’t focus on one issue at a time. The media (even if under our control) will continue to dig its teeth (or tooth, when we are through consolidating and controlling them) into a story. Don’t allow them to focus. Once we gain control, we must assail on so many critical fronts that people simply do not know what to concentrate on. Think of a shell game, except instead of the traditional three shells, we will use hundreds. Invasions (of countries, of privacy –or preferably, both), incompetence, corruption, improprieties –a new story every other day would be ideal. Nothing could stick! People will get so sick of politics I’ll bet they won’t even want to vote. And let’s make sure we control the voting infrastructure, so when people do want to actually cast a vote we get our people “counting†the votes.
Divide and Conquer
Don’t allow people to think about the real issues at stake. Get them to think about emotional and divisive issues such as abortion versus right to life, gay marriage, Dodgers versus Giants, Lakers versus Celtics and saving the whales.
Successful implementation of this plan will allow us to rapidly transfer and consolidate wealth for us and our friends. We can accomplish this through reducing taxation of the wealthy, eliminating estate and capital gains taxes, eroding societal environmental and legal protections, minimizing civil rights and liberties (which challenge our power) and minimizing access to education and information.
This is real – want more?
July 27th, 2006 at 1:09 pm#79 you have no assurances other than thier word that they are not spying on political opponants.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:11 pmLong Range Action Plan
Education K-12
July 27th, 2006 at 1:14 pmWe must diminish the infrastructure of education in America. We can do this by shifting our spending from education to military programs. This will have a self-perpetuating impact upon schools. By reducing funding for K-12, classrooms will become overcrowded. The quality and safety of schools will decrease. Affluent and middle-class parents will shift their children from public schools to private schools. This will accelerate the decline and erode the public education infrastructure. Impoverished youth forced to remain in public schools will lose enthusiasm for furthering their education. There is a secondary benefit here that can lead to an increase in military recruitment and to the growth of the future privatized prison industry.
# 97.E.S.:
Are you crazy?
I’m telling you it’s HOT at Seixon’s blog.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:16 pm#100, mad,
Are you a lesbian or bisexual?
July 27th, 2006 at 1:21 pmJason will argue that he is a centrist because the right wing media machine has marketed the far raight as being a centrist position. Heck GWB markets himself as such.
I really get tired of the people who don’t know the constitution arging that “activist judges” are forcing gay marriage upon us. What they do is look at the constitution, both fed and state, and say that laws saying gays can not marry are setting up two classes of people. They are not granting special rights, or attacking marriage. I have the right to marry, and so does the gay person down the street, that’s all the Massachusett’s court has said. If Mass, or anyother state, have laws on the books that contradict their constitution, the courts MUST follow the constitution, and if the state constituion allows for multiple classes of citizens the federal courts must strike down those laws as our US constitution says we are all equal. It’s pretty simple actually. Churches an still deny to marry anyone. Heck if two Jews went intoa catholic church, they could not get married there without jumping through hoops, and no court has ever denyed the church’s right to marry whom they see fit.
#88 a small segment of the population tries to circumvent laws is when you have a problem? Hmm, have you looked at what the administration does? Talk about activists, the president does as he pleases because of his unique interpretation of the constituion. Speaking of activist, you think thomas is being an activist when he writes things in opinions that sound as if the White House wrote them?
Also does anyoen else think that the right wings war on the three co-equal branches of government is a reason for the rise in threats against judges? The ratcheting up of the rhetoric corresponds to the rise in threats.
#96 I can think of no issue where conservatives will debate 99% of the issue. They want 100% their way 100% their way anything less is a defeat to them. Compromise on any issue is viewed upon as a display of weakness. Tell me where they actually compromise? McCains torture bill? The president circumvented that, to the joy of republicans, with his signing statement.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:26 pmI am neither. But again, what the hell does it matter to you? Your kind, in the real world, is who I would never want to know.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:27 pm#80, dave m.,
LOL – I only make the “gays want to adopt young boys to anally fist†statement, because libs use equally ridiculous arguments against Republicans
It has no value though. It’s simply offensive both to gay people, and I might add it’s deeply tasteless when one considers that children have been attacked in that way. I’m guessing any parent of such a child would not be terribly amused, regardless of political affiliation.
What possible purpose could be served by you saying such horrible things, especially if you don’t think they are true? How are we to have any real idea what you actually beleive?
July 27th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#101
July 27th, 2006 at 1:36 pmGo away. We finally got rig of that idiot, now we get you?
Screw him.
I was on a right-wing website and noticed Ann C’s book for sale for $0.01. I know that these books are bought in bulk to be resold for next to…well… for absolutely nothing.
I have a REALLY hard time believing that Ann’s work is good enough to stand on it’s own and that people would actually go out and spend their hard-earned money to buy it at retail price.
If I was going to spend money to read political commentary I would at least want it to be engaging, intelligent, and stimulating… anyone who has even taken a cursory glance at Ann’s work would realize that it’s nothing but liberal hate-spewing. Very little of the work is referenced, much of it is semi-factual (or complete misinformation), and worst of all it comes off as nothing more than stream of consciousness ranting.
It’s not surprising that her columns are being dropped. In her ranting she is constantly trying to outdo the last outrageous thing she said. With the tide turning in American consciousness of the opinion of the republican party, the venue for such liberal-hate speech is steadily shrinking. It’s effect is wearing off, like drugs, people build up a tolerance to such venom. Pretty soon you are saying things so extreme that they suddenly just seem hollow and transparent. Look at O’Reilly, he is experiencing the same thing. They hit their peak in the run up to the war, but strength and effect of their hypnotic liberal hating mantras wore off more than a year ago. Now they just make themselves look like jack-asses.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:42 pmLOL Seixon has some paid shill on here trying to plug his silly blog filled with rants and lunacy!
July 27th, 2006 at 1:58 pmIn Washington today, President Bush signed a bill extending by 25 years the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In so doing, Bush once again succeeded in having it both ways. While publicly proclaiming his support for the Voting Rights in public, the Bush Justice Department has blocked its enforcement at every turn.
For the full story, see:
July 27th, 2006 at 2:04 pm“Bush’s Voting Rights Act.”
Jason says:
July 27th, 2006 at 2:40 pmSchool vouchers would give those who have no means to attend private schools the opportunity to attend those schools. Rich people already have the means to go to private schools, so they don’t care about vouchers, they already understand the value of a private education. School vouchers reward schools that parents feel are doing a good job, and deny schools money that parent feel are NOT doing a good job – forcing them to turn over management or close.
Where does one begin to rip this statement apart?
The proposed vouchers will never help the poor – they are never intended to do so – (lip service only) they are to give a break to those who already afford private schools. Increased enfrollment in private schools (subsidized by tax dollars ) will only push the poor schools farther down (the intent).
You don’t know what you are talking about Jason. Think about it.
I am neither. [G or L]
Comment by madashell — July 27, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
aww, c’mon… the wuss needs some kind of mental picture to get his nut…
July 27th, 2006 at 3:01 pm“he” has been trolling for pickups since “his” first day here…
hard to tell which gender “he” favors though…
not a problem at the proper forum… and this ain’t it…
#104, mad,
Oh, then I am not interested …
#105, brian,
It is intended same as the hateful things liberals say against Republicans – evoking a gut reaction that causes people to not support liberal agendas.
#110, Marie,
Exactly, bad schools will either be closed or management replaced. Good schools will be patroned by parents who recognize the quality results on their children. Best of all teachers unions will be smashed, crushed and thrown in the ash heap of history, and school boards dominated by liberals will be impotent, with the power in the hands of parents.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:06 pm#111, katy,
LOL – are you jealous that I am spending more time chatting with madashell? Am I not paying enough attention to you? NO, I have not been trolling here, but am amused at how hard you strive to get my attention – like some highschool girl hitting me with her bookbag – yeah, I noticed you, and I am not interested.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pmI am neither. But again, what the hell does it matter to you? Your kind, in the real world, is who I would never want to know.
Comment by madashell
OMG, I can’t believe Jason asked you that! And a question about your sexuality stays on TP, while me telling him earlier this morning “f-you, I’m the queen” gets deleted? Pretty weird standards…
July 27th, 2006 at 3:26 pmzooey, you got deleted??? wow!
July 27th, 2006 at 4:09 pm#114, Zoo,
Queen of what? Legend in your own mind, I guess. I asked Katy a simple question in polite terms, why would it be deleted? Whereas you used profanity, which would be deleted.
I wish you ladies wouldn’t fight for my attention, there is plenty of me to go ’round.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:32 pmExactly, bad schools will either be closed or management replaced. Good schools will be patroned by parents who recognize the quality results on their children.
Ah the simple allure of libertarian logic. Absolutely nothing can persuade them that the market cannot outdo the public sector on every single service. They’d be putting tolls on every corner in order to privatize the roads and the interstate highway if they could figure out a feasible way to do it.
So if libertarian logic can be applied to the education system, how do you handle the rise in cost of educational services that result in vouchers not being valuable enough to afford the higher tuitions of the schools in great demand?
And the rich simply see vouchers as a tax break. How the hell can you possibly say that a rich family “doesn’t care about vouchers” when vouchers would save them hundreds of thousands of dollars if they have five or six children? Don’t be a fool, Jason. Even libertarians are smarter than that.
I honestly don’t want to set up an education system that acts on the same market forces that decide the price of fast food. Because it will be McDonalds for the poor and Filet Mignon on a roll for the rich, just like any other market.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:56 pm#117, dave m.,
So far, the only complaint that I’ve heard is that vouchers would also benefit the rich, which just drives liberals nuts. Tax revenues, the vast majority of which are paid by the top 10 percent of the highest wage earners, should benefit everyone, and not just the poor.
Those schools in high demand would be able to expand and hire more teachers to handle the influx, while bad school close – that is the point. Liberals have no concept of growth, just fixed assets, which is another result of bad public education.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:02 pm==============
60 percent seems relatively low. I thought most Americans believed that the only foreign leader who respected Bush was his bitch – Tony Blair.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:15 pm========================
I would support vouchers if they were given to everyone who wanted one excluding the haves and have mores (Bush’s base) and the tuition was paid in full.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:22 pmBecause it will be McDonalds for the poor and Filet Mignon on a roll for the rich, just like any other market.
Comment by Dave M. — July 27, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
It’s already pretty much like that already.
There is a California public school in Marin County (rich), which the parents of these kids can AFFORD to support – meaning activities and classes that their counterparts, say in San Francisco, cannot afford, so rely on the feds and the state.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:40 pmLiberals have no concept of growth, just fixed assets, which is another result of bad public education.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 27, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
Wow you must of almost passed eco-101. The pool of students dose not change. Your growth vs. fixed assets line is pure drival. Vouchers were designed to 1). promote private schools( rethuig donors). 2). weaken the teachers union. 3). reward religous rethugs who send their kids to church schools and are pissed they still have to pay school taxes. BTW, you are a right wing Replub.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:40 pm122) Oh yeah–church schools. Sending public dollars into a religious organization always rubs me the wrong way. Church and state issues….such and so forth.
Oh yeah— as reported by the blogosphere a couple of weeks ago:
Little separates public, private schools — report
Study finds worst performance in conservative Christian schools
The federal Education Department reported Friday that, in reading and math, children attending public schools generally do as well as or better than comparable children in private schools. The exception was in eighth-grade reading, where the private-school children did better.
Well we can go and shoot that “public schools are broken” myth right out the window, can’t we?
July 27th, 2006 at 6:58 pmUNFORTUNATELY, IT TAKES AN AVERAGE AMERICAN….TOO LONG TO “CATCH-THE-JOKE”…….KNOW, THAT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS BANKRUPT AND THE FEDERAL-RESERVE IS RUNNING ON “DOLLAR-FUMES”….THEREFORE THE CORPORATE THUGS ARE GETTING DESPERATE TO DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, WITHIN THEIR EVIL-PLOTS TO GRAB SOME “LOOT” SO AS TO PAY THEIR SHAREHOLDERS, SOME KIND OF MONEY, TO KEPP THE “MONKEY” OFF THEIR BACKS.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:18 pmWell we can go and shoot that “public schools are broken†myth right out the window, can’t we?
Comment by Dave M. — July 27, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
Dave, I hope you can see I am with you. I was shooting down Herr Hindler. Re-read my post, and correct spelling error.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:25 pmJoefriday: I understood; I just sort of changed subjects from church schools to private vs. public rather ungracefully… that may have seemed like an attack on your statements..
July 27th, 2006 at 8:36 pmzooey, you got deleted??? wow!
Comment by katy
Yep, I’ve been getting deleted a fair bit lately. Today with my very fair comment to Jason, he’s such a sphincter (like that Jason? No potty mouth), he deserved it. Still does…
Yesterday and last night I got deleted because I had the nerve to have a conversation with James Risser. It pisses me off that he got banned. I’m off to the other threads, maybe I’ll spot him.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:16 pmzooey - james is visiting under a new guise…
he left a message for you with me, at
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/27/bolton-sudan/#comment-692330
i replied at #71
haven’t heard of him in the last couple hours…
July 27th, 2006 at 9:29 pmi missed out on all that… you could fill me in, you know…
katy,
I saw that. Thanks for passing on the message. I guess James finally pushed Judd past his limit. I don’t think James was doing anything wrong, he just does it fairly persistently. Not a bad quality, really. I was teasing James the other night about not realizing I am female, and then POOF!, James was gone. Then last night I spotted one of his alter egos, and I told him Goodnight, and POOF!, we’re gone again. It’s the “Santo” treatment, and I don’t agree with it at all. You’ve seen the trolls around here! I told Judd how I feel about it. Now I get deleted for using the f-word. I used that word all the time, and nothing happened. Even my “Condi’s cooch” comment didn’t get deleted, and that’s WAY more disrespectful, in my opinion.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:51 pmzooey – i hooted at the condi’s cooch comment! that was rich… never heard that one before…
Santo… i’ve been trying to think of that name all evening… there is one around that reminds me of S… not as crazy, but “one jew” is similar… and not american… and sybil showed up once, probably forgot to change the posting name… heh
the others are new, and really tiresome… you can count on certain subject matter to bring tham out of the woodwork… i can’t even bother to read them…
it’s so depressing that there are such stubborn, stoopid people still trying to justify the madness…
July 27th, 2006 at 10:01 pm#120, nat,
Why would you begrudge the very people who are carrying the rest of the country along with it? If Michael Jordon was on my basketball team, I would deny him the ball because he was paid more than me. I would feed him the ball so that we all win. You have got to put aside your jealousy and support the team.
#121, madashell,
Vouchers would level things out, since it wouldn’t be based on local tax rates.
#122, Joe,
The total pool of students wouldn’t change, but the share of the pool does, so more vouchers means more teachers, cleassrooms, etc. for school that perform well, and schools that perform poorly would either close, undergo management change or change curriculum to suit parents.
#123, Dave M.,
There are some parts of the country that have gross disparity between the private and publics schools, for which vouchers would be a remedy. Moreoever, there are other measures by which parents rate schools besides standard tests.
katy & zooey,
Glad you are now entertaining each other.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:22 pmThanks, Jason, I find katy interesting, and she’s never boring. Can’t say the same about you, sweetie darling. The entertainment has gone pompous, so I’ll find something else to do.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:32 pmThis was purely a drive by liberals to squeelch free speech, so that only their message is heard. If Ann was not effective in changing opinion, then libs should have let her rant, but Ann is effective, so they have to kill her columns.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
To Jason H.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:04 pmFirst of all, if the liberals were really trying to “squeelch free speech so that only their message is heard,” you wouldn’t be allowed to post here. I have looked at Ann Coulter’s and some other rightwing sites, and they don’t even invite comments (or free speech). And I understand that the ones that do quickly ban anyone who expresses opposition to Bush policies. In addition, the supposedly liberal “NY Times” as a regular op-ed writers conservatives like David Brooks of the “National Review” and John Tierney (and former Nixon/Agnew speechwriter William Safire before Tierney). But I don’t see that the “National Review” and the “Weekly Standard” have liberals/progressives as regular columnists. And you might note that the newspaper in question is replacing Coulter not with a liberal/progressive writer but with William Buckley, of the “National Review” and who is considered one of the founders of the modern conservative movement in the USA.
And, as has already been pointed out by others, what Coulter writes is often “hate speech” such as “the only way to talk to liberals is with a baseball bat.” I often don’t agree with writers like William Buckley, David Brooks and George Will, but they do present their views in a clam, rational way–very different from the hysteric hate-mongering of Coulter.
==================================
1. If the haves and have mores (Bush’s base) don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes, no one is stopping them from leaving the country.
2. That has got to be one of the most inane analogies ever.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:11 pmIf Michael Jordon was on my basketball team, I would deny him the ball because he was paid more than me.
Freudian slip!
July 27th, 2006 at 11:23 pm#136, Nat / Dave,
Oops, typed too fast – I would NOT deny Jordon the ball, but at least Nat overlooked it and responded.
The haves and have mores DO pay their fair share, and it is more than reasonable to expect at least equal support back from the government for education. Libs won’t allow school choice, because they use schools to indoctrinate students into socialist / communists idealogies.
July 28th, 2006 at 8:12 am#133, lora,
Liberals are only glomming onto William Buckley now, because he has come out against the Iraq war. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, Buckley was adamantly anti-communist, which put him squarely in the conservative camp, and led that camp for many years, contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union and a conservative Supreme Court. With communists vanquished, Buckley now wants to be isolationist, seemingly oblivious that islamo-fascist terrorists hit the WTC and Pentagon, which the Soviets never did. If William Buckley supported the War On Terror, then that newspaper would not have him contributing columns.
July 28th, 2006 at 8:19 amLiberals are against communism because of the totalitarian government that inevidibly follows when an attempt is made at implementing a communist regime. Why would liberals, who are freaking out over the illegal wire taps, the manipulation of our media, the showing of government propoganda in this country and in Iraq, the “free speech zones” that are set up for dissenters, the torture of deatinees… all of which has been done by the conservative movement….. why would liberals want to move into a regime that would inevidibly create such horrible conditions?
Unless you’re one of the McCarthyist assholes who think any amount of regulation of business is creeping communism. In which case, we can only hope that the conservative media hasn’t indoctrated other seemingly intelligent individuals such as yourself into believing that shite. Corporations have to be regulated because they are given all the rights of a human being, without the conscience of a human being; only a persuit of power in both economy and government.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:30 pmJason H.,
July 28th, 2006 at 6:12 pmWilliam Buckley has been offered forums in the liberal media for a long time already. Don’t try to b.s. me that he, at around 80, is a virtual newcomer to the progressive media; I know better. And as for myself, I have long said that Buckley is a conservative I could probably have a decent dialogue with, even if I don’t agree with him most of the time. Ditto for David Brooks and George Will. And if your theory about the liberal press grabbing on to Buckley now that he has come out against the Iraq war is true, then how do you explainconservatives like David Brooks and John Tierney (and before Tierney, William Safire) at the “New York Times?” Please tell me which openly conservative publications have regular columns by liberals/progressives. Also, if liberals are trying to squeelch free speech, as you insist, how do you explain your frequent posts here?