Redstate

I can't speak for his ultimate salvation but if you've watched his show lately, you've seen he's really focusing most on encouraging and empowering people to pull themselves up, to turn their creativity "into millions." Most of his guests are people you've never heard of. Sure, he describes himself as "a pretty liberal guy," and that's fine. As long as he brings a message of optimism to his viewers, he's making a contribution.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Is he the one that replaced Dennis Miller?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

With such book titles as: SLANDER and TREASON and IF DEMOCRATS HAD ANY BRAINS, THEY'D BE REPUBLICANS, Coulter does SERIOUS INJUSTICE to the Conservative cause. It's just useless name-calling. Will the next title of her book be, "Democrats Are Doodyheads"???

She's clearly abandoned any serious discussion of the issues in favor of polemic vitriol. Unfortunately, it sells books and keeps her name in lights while the real arguments are reduced to sound bites and slogans. More unfortunately, many Conservatives love her simply because she PISSES OFF Liberals, rather than making any cogent arguments for the Conservative cause.

Why does the Right have constantly BULLY their opinion??? Why can't they use LOGIC and OBJECTIVE ECONOMIC EVIDENCE???

The former works with more people than the latter does.

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

Which, I guess it technically is, then Ann would probably plead guilty. LOL

of a comedy routine, right?

You actually expect the party of:
** AGW is going to kill us all...
** Welfare is good for families...
** Government can run health care better than the private sector...
** Social Security can manage retirement funds better than private individuals...
** Communications with terrorist outside the US are "domestic"...
** Calling the US military Nazis is supporting the troops...
** Charging US Marines with "murder" before the investigation is even started is supporting the troops...
** Giving $5,000 to every new born is sound fiscal policy...
** Etc., etc., etc...

to engage in "logic" or to have the ability to objectively examine anything and reach a conclusion that does anything but increase their political power?

And when it comes to "cogent arguments", we all know that John Kerry, Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy, John Murtha, Diane Feinstein, and company are the poster children.

Go take your outrage back to the cave.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"It's just useless name-calling." "She's clearly abandoned any serious discussion of the issues in favor of polemic vitriol. "

Your reply is nonsense. Coulter didn't publish a title on a bunch of clean white pages. She published books, and if you read them you'd find that they are much more than just a title. They are serious discussion.

Only an unserious person speaking with zero firsthand knowledge would make such an obvious mistake.

"Why does the Right have constantly BULLY their opinion??? Why can't they use LOGIC and OBJECTIVE ECONOMIC EVIDENCE???"

More nonsense. What do you think goes on at Redstate every day? (I dare you to answer that one incorrectly.)

absentee

I completely agree with your opinion of Ann's comments. What I found interesting was that Donny responded to Ann by saying he was offended ( I don't blame him)by what she had said and found it to be hurtful and hateful, and that basically he couldn't believe she would say such things to him.

Nobody likes to be told they're wrong, that their actions are sinful, and that they're going to hell. This I think is one of the secular worlds biggest complaints about Christians, but Christians don't say these things because they want to offend, as you say they believe them to be the truth, the Word of god, and more pressing for believers, God calls us to witness to others about this truth, it is one of our highest commandments.

I personally I find it highly uncomfortable to confront others about these things, especially given the changing cultural expectation about what is acceptable speech in this country, but it is my duty as a Christian to do it so I do. My fear though, is that there will be a time when Christians be singled out as criminals or social pariahs for simply practicing their faith, or has the time already started?

Advancing the status of unborn human beings one or more persons at a time.

Is this what passes for Good News these days? Sheesh!

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

of Christianity over Judaism. Hey, I don't pretend to understand 'em, I just report 'em.

But I can see why people would disagree with this these days, given the gospel of self-indulgence, excess, and relatives that is fequently promoted in the mainstream culture today.

Advancing the status of unborn human beings one or more persons at a time.

of relativism

Advancing the status of unborn human beings one or more persons at a time.

Just wondering who confronts you about your sins. For example, the sin of religious elitism. The false belief that only Christians go to heaven. The fact is, the Bible says, "Anyone who loves is begotten of God and knows God."

How do you feel when a Jehovah's witness comes to your door and tells you that your religion is incorrect, and you're headed for hell unless you listen to him?

THAT's the type of ignorant, offensive comment people are reacting to when you "confront them about their sins." You need to stop judging them and stop being presumptuous about their fate. That's only for God to decide, not for you.

Not that I'm defending the comment you're responding to, mind. I only ask because people usually hang around RedState longer than, well, 12-minutes before they unleash this sort of invective.

That is, people who want to stay longer than 12-minutes.

Just saying.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

"the sin of religious elitism. The false belief that only Christians go to heaven."

Followed by:

"You need to stop judging them and stop being presumptuous about their fate."

Quit judging others and telling them to shut up about what they believe because you disagree with it.

are a correct statement of Biblical Christianity.

John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father save through me.'"

Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Tolerance of other religions means more than telling its practitioners to shut up. I agree it's not easy. Nonetheless, we can't have a civil society without it.

If you're a Christian, it's hard to see Ann's comments to be anything other than compassionate. If she were cruel, she'd just let all of the unbelievers face Judgment Day without being given the chance to be saved.

Who confronts me about my sin? Mainly my wife, my kids, my mother, my brothers and sisters, my wife's family, my pastor, the members of my church, my friend, my co-workers, and myself on a good day.
Oh and the Bible says no gets to the Father except through the Son, and that we sinners need only knock and he shall answwr, but we must actually receive/take his gift of salvation.

What did I do when the Jehova's Witness came to the door? I wasn't there, but my wife invited her in, and every Wednesday they have a Bible study in which she tries to convince my wife, and my wife defends her faith.

How do I feel when someone says my faith is wrong, and I'm going to hell? I am so confident (you can call it elitism) that I am not, that it does not bother me. If any thing I like when some one confronts me like that because it gives me a chance to defend and promote my faith.

Judging? We all do it, to a point we are called to do it. I judge the murder, unless I have murdered, I judge the adulterer, unless I have committed adultery, I judge the rapist, unless I have raped, and so on.

My fate is for God to decide, but guess what? He already decided it, and as long as I have Jesus Christ, I am Saved!

Advancing the status of unborn human beings one or more persons at a time.

Advancing the status of unborn human beings one or more persons at a time.

The reason that Donny was so "offended" was because it was probably incredibly upsetting to him. It was upsetting to him because deep down, he knows that his eternal fate is not at all secure.

I doubt that deep down he has much concern of his eternal fate because of his lack of christian faith - I mean you don't doubt deep down that your eternal fate is insecure because you have elevated a man to the level of god and chosen to worship him, also known as idolatry.

The offense comes more from the concern for temporal fate and the all too scary histroy the Jewish people have with christian conversion drives.

The main problem with Ann here is that she is a face of the conservative movement in the public eyes and for the conservative movement to suceed both politically and culturally it should avoid being scene as merely a christian proselytization movement.

I don't think that Donny Deutsch was afraid of some "scary conversion drive." Ann spoke truth to Donny. Donny was convicted by that truth. Donny was deeply unsettled by the conviction he felt.

No, the truth is Jesus is not the son of god and you are just mistaken. (I can do this nonsense all day).

I won't speak for Deutsch, though I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding of his feelings in this area than you do, but I will speak for me when I say that what unsettles me is definitely not any concern that I am missing the truth, but that there may come a day when evangelicals resort to more historically common means of trying to convince me I am.

What is that supposed to mean? Be as specific as you like.

absentee

Start with 1391 Spain which started with forced conversions leading to riots agianst Jews in Ecija and the destruction of the Jewish community in Barcelona, followed by Valencia and Majorca among other communities.

In 1394 the Jews were expelled from France, and not for the first time, off the calim than one converted Jew was backsliding away from Christianity.

In 1399 77 were killed in riots in Prague.

In 1407 you have what may be the first recorded blood libel in Poland which became an excuse for murdering Jews for centuries.

In 1408 in Leon they reinstitued 13th century legislation essentially barring Jews from practicing their religion.

In 1410 a Spanish Rabbi, and former chief physician to the king was tortured and killed for 'descrating the host'

In 1413 they stage the Tortosa Disputation and when that did not have much success in driving actual convertion in 1415 Benedict XII banned studying Talmud among other things aimed at preventing jews from existing as Jews.

This kind of list could go on, but htis is what I remember off the top of my head from a, admitably active period. But of course we are not limited to 14-15th century for examples, we could have picked 17th century eastern europe, 13the century italy and spain, 11th century gemany (central europe) etc.

Since you refer to evangelicals, and you used the specific phrase "historically common" ...

"we could have picked 17th century eastern europe, 13the century italy and spain, 11th century gemany (central europe) etc."

Historically common is strong phrasing, so why don't you go ahead and do that? Seven examples from a 20 year span 600 years ago hardly constitutes historically common, and since you are implying that this "common" practice is violent conversion attempts and murder of Jews by Christians, I'm hoping you can do a little better than your "admitably (sic) active" period.

absentee

I'm not really in a position here to recount all the events of the pass that create the persecution complex in Jews so I found a quick list on the internet that hopefully will satisfy your doubt that Jews in Europe have not had a tough history that puts them on guard.

Reply To This — User Info — #29

You are repositioning. You weren't asserting a general "persecution complex" or implying that Jews in Europe have had a "tough history". You made the specific and pointed implication that the common practice of Christianity is violent conversion. If you can't back it up, say so.

"... but that there may come a day when evangelicals resort to more historically common means of trying to convince me I am."

What is the "historically common" means of trying convince you of Christianity that you so fear? And explain how you have arrived at your conclusion. Say what you mean, in other words, why dance around it? If you think Christian practice is murdering Jews, and expect more of this practice in the future, spit it out.

absentee

I gave you a list of masscares, murders, lynching (all seem to be different words for the same thing). Yes, I think that Christians (not christianity per se) have a long history of trying to force conversion or just kill Jews. That in turn has led to what can be described as a persecution complex among many Jews. In fact, some of the worst periods of that history have occured in the moments when Jews where most successful and integrated into the respective societies.

We have had a great history in this country, a unique outpost in the history of mankind in many areas, and while I have a hard time visualizing how it goes down, I do fear the day when that history might catch up with us here.

"I gave you a list"

How utterly silly. I wonder how many groups I could indict under your standards of evidence. How many white people have lynched black people? How many black people have killed white people? How many Catholics have murdered Protestants? How many protestants have murdered Catholics? How many young people have killed old people, or vice versa? Better yet, how many Jews have killed killed Muslims? Remember to answer those questions with examples from any century in history.

Which of these groups are you associated with and, moreover, does that mean we are all in imminent danger of you showing up at work with a pistol and temper?

Your triflingly short list is hardly proof of the absurd position that killing Jews is common Christian practice. I've given you ample opportunity to deny this is your position.

You've basically stated that it is common Christian practice to persecute and murder Jews, that it is a unique oddity that it doesn't currently happen in the United States, and that you are in fear of this oddity coming to an end at the hands of evangelicals. That pretty much sum it up?

absentee

So you really disagree that Jews have a history of persecution in Europe? what number of incidents would you like me to cite to convicne you otherwise? I mean seriously this is kind of like holocaust denial, the histroy is pretty well documented and well known. Give me a number and I'll give you the list (it might take a few days, I have volumes of history books I'll have to go through)

"You've basically stated that it is common Christian practice to persecute and murder Jews, that it is a unique oddity that it doesn't currently happen in the United States, and that you are in fear of this oddity coming to an end at the hands of evangelicals. That pretty much sum it up?"

Not really no, I said that Christian Europe has a frequent history of persecuting Jews that goes back, well as far back as there has been a Christian Europe. America is unique (I don't know why it would be considered an oddity) for many reasons one of which has been its treatment of Jews, though I would add its treatment of historically marginalized peoples more generally. I do fear it coming to an end at some point, though like I said I don't currently see the path to it happening - don't know if it would be the hands of evangelicals or some other group, I also don't know how broadly that group is actually defined.

and certainly, Jews have suffered a lot, but are you really saying that evangelical Christians (a group that you don't seem to be familiar with) is posing a large physical danger to you because a woman on television said that you needed to accept Jesus as Messiah in order to be saved? People have told me that my religious beliefs are wrong before and I'm sure that they will do so in the future. I understand that you all have a past history to consider, but this is over the top.

No example you have mentioned involved "evangelicals" (a name that I don't really care for), and I don't believe that you could come up with any situation that did. In case you haven't realized it, the fact that America is unique is that there have been a large number of people similar to those dangerous "evangelicals" that have a respect for the freedom of religion. That is part of what we believe, that every man has to accept Jesus of his own free will. He can't be forced to do so, because it would be meaningless. Find that in a country that has a majority of any religion other than Christian.

"are you really saying that evangelical Christians (a group that you don't seem to be familiar with) is posing a large physical danger to you"

I never said that todays evangelcal Christians pose a large physical danger. What I did say was that as a group we tend to be very sensitive to that danger emerging in the future and that it is not in the best interests of the coservative movement to be closely associated with someone (in this case Coulter) who scratches at that sensitivity.

"Find that in a country that has a majority of any religion other than Christian."
Well, I have found that to be the case in many countries were the majority religions are eastern so my hunch is it i not the religions but something else in the culture that drives it.

Well, not really.

"So you really disagree that Jews have a history of persecution in Europe?"

Um. Well no, I don't. Since that's not what you said, and is not the point you made, as I specifically pointed out a number of times. You're trying to rewrite yourself. You continue to refuse to refute your statement. Instead you are trying this pathetic pretense.

You did not say "Christian Europe has a frequent history of persecuting Jews". You keep moving the goalposts around as it suits you.

You didn't make a general statement about persecution. I've already quoted and requoted you. You tried to be cute and imply that it is the usual Christian practice to violently try to convert or kill Jews, that the lack of such death in America is the exception to the rule, and that you fear the end to this exception. You even manage to try to associate the holocaust with Christianity. Not very convincing.

I'll say it again. You indict Christianity as being in the common practice of killing Jews, and suggest it can happen again any day at the hands of evangelicals. That's what you said.

It is not common Christian practice to persecute and kill Jews, neither in modern times, nor historically. That Jews were persecuted by Christians in Europe does not make it a common Christian practice.

There is no possibility that "evangelicals" are in danger of persecuting or killing Jews in the future. That you would even make such a suggestion says a lot about you. It is an outrageous accusation and ought to be a bannable offense.

Trying to hide your very specific bigotry behind the more obviously true broad statement about Jews being persecuted throughout history won't work. Your words are here for all to see.

absentee

I never set any goalposts to move - youa re the one that keeps moving your own goalposts as to what I have to prove. Seriously, if yu want touse thse common logic-based critisms you need to be more strict inyour logic.

I used a generic term that hs no defiendgoal posts, you objected to the term 'historically common' though never defined what it would mena for you, I gave yo lists but apparantly not enough in quantity, asked you to name a number that would sufice for you and you accuse me of movign goal posts.

" You continue to refuse to refute your statement"
Good point, I do refuse to refute my statement.Excellent observation, I still maage to stay true to my original statemetn despite your pathetic whining.

" You even manage to try to associate the holocaust with Christianity. "
Yet more evidence that you should focuse on basic reading comprehension before moving on to argumetnation. I associated holocaust denal with denying a history of persecution of jew in Christian europe - it is the denial that is associated not the act. I could ahve said that dening that jews were persecuted is as ridiculous as denying the moon landing, it doesn't mean I am saying hte moon landing is associated with christianity.

"You indict Christianity as being in the common practice of killing Jews,"
ctually, I explicitly did not do this above when I said not christianity per se but christians. But, you see what you want to.

"It is not common Christian practice to persecute and kill Jews, neither in modern times, nor historically"
So you tell me, what degree of occurence would be common for you? How many lynhings, massacres, blood libels, burnings, expulsions at the hands of Christians do I need tocite for you to consider it common? Set your goal posts explicitly why don't you?

Hmm, what can I say but ... wrong. You set the goalposts, I did not. It is you who thought you could get away with cutely implying that you fear an outbreak of violence against Jews by evangelicals. It's an outrageous claim. You attempted to make it reasonable by citing examples of historic anti-semitism. You moved the goal posts by waffling between whether you were making an explicit statement about Christians, or a historic statement about Europe. Nevertheless you always managed to reiterate the former, even when you were claiming the latter.

As for your last paragraph, you have only proved what I said in the first place. You say it is common Christian practice to murder and persecute Jews. You have reiterated this point several times, and you repeat it explicitly here once more. I don't have to give you a degree of occurrence. If you believe the murder of Jews is common Christian practice, and that another outbreak of violence is soon to come at the hands of evangelicals, then there is nothing to say to you, except that you are wrong, disturbed, and an anti-Christian bigot. And for that I'll have nothing further to do with you.

absentee

You consistently read what you want rather than what I wrote and still have some notion that I set goalposts for myself when youa re the one who called me my statement 'historically common' but refuse to set out what the definition of that would be for you. I did make it reasonable by citing examples of historic anti-semitism in Christian Europe (amazingly the history of Europe and the histroy of Christianity are tightly connected) since that is what I was talking about from the begining (though I can see how you can confuse the phrase 'HISTORICALLY common' with something other than historical occurence) yet you call me an anti-chsritian bigot. I guess we will have to agree to cut off the discussion at this point becuase you clearly are not capable of one.

it has to do with "your belief". In precisely the same way that it is "my belief" that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah. "Truth", in the theological realm, is simply the end product of belief. In my particular case, my "belief" in Jesus as the Messiah makes His claims, His works and His ability to redeem this old sinner "true".

You - and Deutsch - are certainly entitled to believe absolutely anything you choose to believe. Since RS is a political, not a theological, blog I have no intention of flogging this discussion any further than this comment.

I must admit, along with absentee, I am more than a little confused by your "historically common" comment.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I was merely matching the tone of the other poster. And my ultimate point is not which theology is right, some day we may be privy to that answer, but that it is not conducive in this country for the conservative movement to tie itself to any one theological view point. The goals and principles of the movement are broader and success will require appealing to a braoder population than just evangelical christians.

Please show me where Ann said that in order to be a Republican, you must be a Christian?

*exasperation*

for people to feel that is the case. You can say that anyone who is put off by it we don't want anyway, but it doesn't take long with that attitude for you to be left with a small group of followers and no chance at power in a country like this.

And didn't even imply it. But you think that she should specifically deny it anyway? Or what? You want a proclamation from the president to that effect? From the GOP Chairman? Chairman of the NRCC? Chairman of the NRSC?

You think that everyone is so stupid as to believe what you imply that there's only a small band of people in the country that would believe that? LOL

Now you're just trying to justify YOUR OWN shortcomings, and projecting them as a shortcoming of Ann. LOL

The general tone here is exactly what I would hope for out of the conservative movement - statements marginalizing her because of these types of comments. My response was to the smaller number her who are trying to defend it.

And what pray tell are my shortcomings I am justifying? I certianl have some, but i haven't seen any of them reflected in this conversation so I would love to be enlightened on what you think they are.

Christopher Hitchins made the same allegation in his book, God is not Great. Chris Matthews read a passage that basically said, (paraphrasing) "Right now people of faith are conspiring to destroy everyone in the world."

Chris Matthews to Ann Coulter: "Is that true? Are people of faith (or Christians or whatever) conspiring to destroy people like Mr. Hitchins."

Ann Coulter: "No, but his creator is!"

There's nothing really more to add to that.

"Vengeance is mine" says the Lord. I, like almost all Christians, wouldn't want to steal his thunder, so to speak.

I'm more than content to let unbelievers meet their maker in due time. My method of evangelism is much less compassionate than Ann's "come to church with me" approach.

I basically tell the multitudes of atheists who live inside the loop and in the elite social circles of inner loop Houston life, "It's real simple. Jesus is the son of God. You either accept him as your personal savior and go to heaven, or you don't and go to hell. I'm not judging you, I'm just telling you how it is. It's your call, and unlike your creator, I don't really care enough about you to care what you choose."

Maybe you can see why Jonah is one of my favorite prophets. :-)

well informed about any relgion other than Hollywood and Upper Manhattan.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Oh and the Bible says no gets to the Father except through the Son

If some Christians want to believe that, fine, but the place to push that message is in personal conversations or religious forums. Mixing that with a political message is not a great way to win either political converts or religious converts.

Ann Coulter's shtick is politics, identified with Republicans. If "Jews go to hell" is perceived as part of the Republican message, that's not a great way to win political converts to our side among Jews. I'd like to convert more centrist/conservative Jews to the Republican side, and that's impeded if we're identified with the idea that they'll be second-class Republicans unless they also convert to Christianity.

Deutsch is a pompous fool, and jerking him around for laughs is fine with me, but trashing Judaism is not the way to do it.

She's allowed to be both, and she's allowed to be both, publicly.

If you ask her which is more important to her, I'm pretty sure she'd say being a Christian.

When people ask her about Christianity, she responds as a Christian. When people ask her about politics, she responds as a conservative.

And while I think that religion should play as small a role as possible in politics and public policy, it is impossible to completely divorce the two.

It is especially difficult since most liberals are so ignorant of both that they often blur the lines of faith and Christianity more than Dr. Dobson does. They think, "the Bible says this, so the government, in order to not espouse anything the Bible says, must do exactly the opposite."

That really seems to be the tact of the liberal political movement. And thus, conversations like this one - started by Donny Deutsch - take place.

I meant to say "blur the lines between faith and politics [not Christianity] more than Dr. Dobson does."

do you realize Judaism says Christ is not God? What would a Christian think of that? would they be offended? Do you realize there are many Christians, such as Southern Baptists that think my Presbyterian Baptism is invalid? This is what religion is about, people believe certain things and these things are what they hold most dear. If you think a Christian saying Jews need to find Christ is so offensive, you just do not get religion.

Personally, I like to think all believers will find their way to Heaven. I am not sure of this, but it is something I hope is the case. I think practicing Jews are doing their thing, and I am doing my thing. For that matter, I assume millions of Hindus have some insight on the spiritual as well.

My point is this, I am very pro Israel and have no problems with honest people of any faith. However, it is a lie to say traditional Christianity does not claim Christianity is the only path to Heaven. To deny this is to deny the year Columbus sailed for the India.

Ann Coulter did not disparage Jews or any other race, religion or creed. She said her opinion of religion. Donny, the offended one made a mountain out of a molehill and tried to set her up. BTW, Deutsch is a professional marketing executive and a Democratic player. He may have been offended, but he was offended by her long before she sat down with him.

Molon Labe!

Coulter did not say Christianity is the only path to Heaven.

Molon Labe!

n/t

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

nt

I've read some clever things from her. And she is blunt -- and quite intelligent, too. She does her homework when she writes.

But the side of her that makes comments like she made today is simply unforgivable. She reflects poorly on the entire conservative movement, IMO. And she makes it near impossible for anybody to take her serious stuff seriously.

I mean...you can't go into a serious discussion and cite Ann Coulter -- because she's branded herself as a certifiable nutcase.

"Seinfeld had a whole episode about it, so you're lying."

"Christianity is like FedEx."

Blazing insights that I, for one, am not disappointed that I didn't think of first.

So you think that women should not have the right to vote?

You think that the wives of victims of 9/11 are harpies?

You think we should implement a forced conversion of the Middle East to Christianity?

I often wonder why there aren't more witty Conservatives out there. Then I realize that part of the problem is so many Conservatives find Coulter witty and funny. She is obnoxious, hateful, and arrogant.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You're distorting the record pretty bad, 'hawk, when I know you're misrepresenting Coulter, and I detest her writing to the point that I avoid Townhall because she's on it.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Tell me how I am misrepresenting these quotes....

On converting the Middle East...

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war

On Liberals..

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

On the 9/11 widows...

"By the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

I think women should not be allowed to vote.......

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

1. Would have been a heck of a lot more sensible than our Iraq policy for the last 5 years. I don't think she's entirely serious, but there's a good bit of truth to it. Playing liberator rather than conqueror has cost us dearly.

2. If we're talking about who I think we're talking about - the U.S. traitor that fought for the Taliban - I endorse the full penalty of treason. And yes, deterrent value is part of the point of justice.

3. Overly acidic attack, granted. Humorists do things like that when they work the edge.

4. Obviously not a serious proposal. She says herself it's a way of pointing out how badly women vote their interests, in the very excerpt you quote.

You're missing that her role is more akin to Dave Barry than a government official. One can communicate conservative ideals without making serious suggestions.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

She calls herself a political analyst, not a satirist.

And we were specifically talking about her call to convert them to Christianity. If you support invading other countries in order to convert them to our religion, how are you any different than the radical Muslims, other than the faith you wish to change people to?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

the world have been converted to Christianity bt American missionaries, incl countries we invaded

none by force

and none invaded "in order to"

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

if she's serious, what exactly are you objecting to? If you object that fun is being poked at some dearly-held principles, you've an awfully long list of people to try to stop. Why not work on some liberals for a while, and let Ann be?

As for the latter point, if militant Islam is blowing up your fellow citizens, it makes sense to target militant Islam. I'd be much more impressed with our Iraq occupation if we'd made it clear that any religious tolerance on our part is subject to completely renouncing violence on theirs.

If you think a proposal to forcibly convert multiple nations is serious policy, rather than rhetoric, then there's this bridge I'd like to sell you....

he hates her. I fear long lean Annie intimidates the 'hawk.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I don't find shrews attractive.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

There's a difference between the generic 'wives of 9/11 victims' and 'certain wives of 9/11 victims who attempted to use that status to sell books and get publicity for their political activism, while at the same time claiming that status absolves them of any criticism in response.'

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

They were pushing for better security in the country. But since they were critical of the Bush Administration that makes it ok to call them harpies?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Wake-up Call: The Political Education of a 9/11 Widow by Kristen Breitweiser ISBN 9780446579322

By the way, you do know these harpies also show strong 9/11 truther tendencies, right? Why are you defending conspiracy nuts?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

I support civility in our public discourse.

I don't much care about the women themselves one way or the other.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Also, as to women voting, ever heard of

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satire

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Timing.

With what we've got going on in the world today -- the general problem being that a band of religious zealots have come to believe that they are to establish a global caliphate and either kill or convert all infidels, etc. etc. -- her comments are pretty disgusting.

And they're indefensible -- and it's not the first time she's said indefensible things.

Moreover, it gives ammo to those people who try to draw parallels between the American conservative movement and the Islamofascist movement. The comparisons are baseless, of course. But she doesn't need to be gift-wrapping soundbites for them that the rest of us will have to defend against.

Seriously...I'd prefer it if she just went away. Since we all know that's not likely to happen, I wish she'd at least think before she opened her mouth. There's some bizarre notions flying around in that head of hers and they have a tendency of making their way out for the world to hear.

In print its mildly offensive. I suspect if I was watching I might guffaw. The game she was playing was torture the stuffed shirt. So you'd have to see how she did it, what her body language was and what the tone of her voice was. I'd also have to see if any veins popped on Deutsch's fofrehead

I say this because I can't grok what she is saying as a serious theological message. It just makes too little sense.

As to giving ammo to the enemies, they use anything as ammo. The last thing they got outraged about was Rush pointing out if you lie about your service record it makes you a phony.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I've seen Deutsch a few times and agree he's a stuffed shirt. Yes, jerking him around is certainly a worthwhile endeavor for someone who has sunk to appearing on his show, but doing it with religious barbs just reduces Coulter far below even his abysmal level.

If someone was on Tavis Smiley's show, puncturing his sanctimonious pomposity would be great, but trying to do it with veiled racial references would still be off limits. The same logic applies to Jewish stuffed shirts.

...that you've tried to play games in comments*. If you disagree with individual comments, do so in a polite and specific fashion by directly engaging them.

Do you understand? Say "Yes, Moe." In your next post.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*There won't be a third.

The Jews who vote for Democrats today are probably the ones descended from the ones who complained to Moses about being set free from Egypt.

And Rightly So!

... which many of them perceive as the effect of politically aligning themselves with people who defend Ann Coulter. Republicans could peel off a significant number of Jews from the Democrats, if those Jews didn't didn't expect they'd be a back of the bus constituency.

Anne is not going to scare Jews away from supporting Republicans, certainly not in comparison with the impact of 9/11-WOT and supporting Israel/democracy in the Middle East and promoting economic policies that work and that do more to help the poor than the tired old Democratic government nostrums.

And Rightly So!

Ann Coulter babbling away isn't going to dissuade any centrist to conservative Jews away from the Republican party, but the perception that a significant number of Republicans regard her as more than a vulgar Howard Stern type most certainly will.

Like I've said elsewhere, I can find both Howard Stern and Ann Coulter entertaining. The Jew-repellent is when she's invited to the same conferences (was it CPAC?) where Republican presidential candidates show up.

If Republicans want to get a fair hearing from more Jews, treating Ann Coulter with respect is not the way to do it. National Review understands that, it's too bad more Republicans don't.

What she was saying was that she was perfected in her faith, not perfect.

The Bible says that God is working in our spirit to perfect us until the day we die.

...of the three major religions, Christianity is the only one that completely denies salvation to unbelievers. Judaism and Islam both extend a lesser place in heaven to "good people" who don't subscribe to their faith, from what I understand.

You have been misinformed. From Dominus Iesus:

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”, since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being. For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”; it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

Then there's the Catechism's discussion of Baptism:

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

My own personal translation of said Truth is: "The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways..."

Not very original, to be sure.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Christianity does deny salvation to anyone who does not believe. And while God expresses his deep love and affection for the church, church membership is not equal to being a believer.

And yes, the Bible does make exceptions for those who have never heard of the gospel of Christ. Thanks to Ann Coulter, Donny Deutsch and his audience cannot claim to be in that number. In fact, no one in the civilized world can be accused of being ignorant of the gospel of Christ.

Pope John Paul II and official Catholicism specifically denies that Jews need to accept Jesus. Quoting Cardinal Kasper, "This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God’s plan,"

And of course the Presbyterian church has its own two covenant theory. So I'm not so sure you can authoratatively speak for christian theology on this point.

Their theology on these counts is extra-Biblical. It might as well have been written by Brigham Young.

and I am no expert by a long stretch on Christian Theology but are you equating the legitimacy of modern Catholicism as a Christian denomination with that of Mormonism?

But any religion or Christian denomination's extra-Biblical prescriptions that directly contravene the Bible are no more legitimate than the Mormon's extra-Biblical ones are.

Any extra-Biblical prescriptions that don't necessarily directly contravene Biblical teachings must be left up to the each individual believer to evaluate in accordance with how the Holy Spirit inside him moves.

and I am no expert by a long stretch on Christian Theology but are you equating the legitimacy of modern Catholicism as a Christian denomination with that of Mormonism?

For non-Catholic Christians, BananaRepublican is exactly right doctrinally.

You'll all be assimilated, eventually.

(This is snark, by the way.)

Cheers -

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Who knows, maybe it will go the other way.

But instead I'll just say - in response to "Who knows..." - HE knows!

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

"For most non-Catholic Christians" since, yes, there are some that disagree.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I had to look up "dispensationist" because we use the term "dispensationalist." Not much difference, but I wanted to make sure that it wasn't a Roman Catholic doctrine that I had never heard about.

I am a dispensationalist and have never heard one say that at this in history, since the coming of Christ, there was any path to God other than Jesus Christ. I'm not that familiar with Darby. I'll have to look into him.

Anyway, I was using this:

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html

...as a review (I'm personally an amillenialist, although I have no quarrel with either pre- or post-millenialists). If what's in there is subject to different interpretations, that might be the source of the confusion.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

poll, or a vote, I'm ABSOLUTELY pre-millenialist.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

nt

I would fall into their second category of revised or modified dispensationalism, although I have never heard it called by that name. I don't see where it said that Israel can be saved apart from Christ, though. If you all will excuse a brief theological aside, we believe that Israel and the Church are separate, but, since the coming of Christ, the way of salvation for both are the same. Anyone Jew saved now is part of the church the same as anyone else would be, but God has separate plans for Israel as a nation. That is dispensationalism in a nut shell, although of course everyone has their own little twist on it.

As I understand it, then, you hold that the relationship between God and the Jews and God and the Church should be seen as two facets of the same thing, as opposed to two separate things.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I agree completly with you on the fact that Ann is about being a spectacle in the media, so she can get attention, so she can sell more books. Except she does represent both the conservative movement and republicans. She is always introduced as such and Who do you think buys her books? Democrats? Liberals? Like it or not Ann is a public face for the conservative/Republican movement and I do believe that some Independant or just so slight to the right moderate will hear one more of her dumbass comments and vote Democrat.

when other conservatives do not denounce her barbs and invective. She always goes over the line, and that is so she can sell more books. As long as she is taken seriously and asked to appear on the Oreilly factor and other venues, then she will continue to say embarrassing things until she finally miscalculates and goes over the line too far in an Imus moment.

Can't come too soon for me.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

There's no need to wait for her to say something that crosses the line. She passed that line a long, long time ago.

And, in my opinion, if you want to know why the left has not worked hard to have her blacklisted, my guess is that they've figured that she's more beneficial to them out in the open than she would be locked in the closet.

They'll be sure to highlight the awful things she says. But I'd be truly surprised if you see them work to have her silenced the way they're working to have effective mouthpieces like Limbaugh silenced.

He's a threat to them...she's an asset.

Ann's comments are always rooted in something smart or clever. She has never been in trouble for saying something as indefensible as what Imus said. She usually gets in trouble for saying something too clever for most people to comprehend. Now she's in trouble for being a Christian, not bashful about it, and compassionate enough to share with Donny and his television audience. And by that, I mean his mother and any close friends he might have, given his ratings. LOL

amazing how many people cannot see through her act. She says horrible things about people regularly, like clockwork, in order to stay in the limelight and keep selling books, And you apologists keep feeding the troll.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

...to discuss the concept of evangelism.

And, moreover, I really don't think that today's political realm, considering the nature of our jihadist enemies, is the time or place to be discussing a message of "we want to convert you".

She not only did it at a bad time, and in the wrong venue...she did it in the wrong way.

Moreover, for me it's just one more in a whole string of unforgivable comments on her part. It actually dovetails pretty comfortably with that column she wrote after 9/11 that got her fired from National Review -- the one in which she fought our enemies' "convert or die" message with one of her own.

About 10 or 12 years ago, I'll never forget the wretched leftist Julianne Malveaux saying that she hoped Clarence Thomas' wife would feed him a bad diet so he would die early and have a short tenure on the SCOTUS. She was roundly, and correctly, scorned for the comment by people on the right....

...many of the same people, I imagine, who defended Ann Coulter suggesting something even worse about killing a different Supreme Court justice for basically the same reason.

I went to the mat, and gladly so, for Limbaugh in that stupid "phony soldiers" imbroglio. He was intentionally and maliciously taken out of context to make it appear he said something that he didn't say.

But there's no context problem with Ann. She's blunt, crystal clear in her rhetoric....and a real creep.

My point is simply this - there is nothing ipso facto "offensive" about what it is she said. Whatsoever. Full stop.

And FWIW, I didn't cancel my apostolate after "considering the nature of our jihadist enemies" - quite the opposite, in fact. And if Coulter is a Christian - and I don't doubt she is - I wouldn't expect her to do any different.

My beef isn't with Coulter, about whom I am - you'll pardon the expression - agnostic. But this bares all the evidence of the same OUTRAGE™ over Rush and, for that matter, Imus. I'm not going to stop referring to the speach police fascists as, well, fascists just because their target just happens to be a bomb thrower.

When she says something stupid people have the right to call her on it. This simply was not one of those times.

The next step will be a critique of Coulter's commentary on the blueness of the spring sky, no doubt.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

You're absolutely right that the outrage here is from the same well that we saw the outrage over earlier "gaffes".

But I think it's incumbent on us to determine when to circle the wagons and when not to. Because all of these situations, despite the similar outrage on the left, are not equal.

In fact, I think even Ann's been unfairly maligned before. Remember the John Edwards/fa**ot remark? I think she was unfairly tarred on that. It was a reference to that Grey's Anatomy thing and she was trying to be funny. That wasn't so much her word as it was Isiah Washington's. It wasn't funny and it was in bad taste...but neither was it indefensible.

I think the conservative movement would be much better off if we learned when to rally the troops and when to keep the powder dry -- and, along with that, when to cut a loose cannon loose.

Limbaugh's thing was easily defended and Harry Reid & Co. came off looking awful. He couldn't even get all of the Democrats in the Senate to publicly put their name on a condemnation....moreover, neither house could muster the will to even bring a vote on a resolution.

And that's because Media Matters screwed up royally. And I gladly participated in his defense -- because he deserved a defense.

Ann's comment here does not.

... to disagree.

I just don't see that anything Coulter said in this narrow instance requires a defense.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The incorrect way to "discuss evangelism" is when someone asks you if the world would be better if everyone were Christian is to say "no" instead of saying "yes," as Ann Coulter did.

Or was it that she went on, when pressed, to discuss why that is?

Or was there something else that said that you don't like. Or are you still complaining about the "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" line she wrote many moons ago?

...yeah, the column that she wrote illuminates these comments, I think. It gives them some meaning.

What she probably should've done is just cite the appropriate scripture and left it alone -- rather than talking about wanting Jews converted and such.

You understand, Banana, that the world's had some problems of late with people who believe that it's their job to convert non-believers, right? And you also understand that it really wasn't that long ago that somebody tried to rid the world of its Jew problem in another way.

I wouldn't have had a problem with her saying that she believes that all people who do not accept Christ are condemned. Many Christians believe this (many don't, BTW). But when she started stepping into the "I'll convert you" mode -- and particularly when coupled with the column she wrote -- then she crossed the line.

And the reason she crossed the line is because we're fighting a war right now against people who want to convert us. This is not the sort of thing where what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't think anybody has a problem with evangelism. But you simply don't phrase it the way she phrased it -- particularly now, and particularly her.

So the moral of the story is, from your perspective, the message is wonderful and worthy of praise but ought not be followed if one runs into some less than praisworthy adherants.

Do I have that about right.

Oh, and welcome to RedState.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

I'm saying that since, to the unconverted, God is invisible. They can't see, hear, or touch him.

So really, the only way they get any idea of who God or Jesus is , is by the actions of those who claim to be his followers.

She is only one, extremely less-than-praiseworthy individual, but she reaches millions, including those who know her and those who don't. Is this who Christians want being a representative for Christianity?

I am a Christian and I've found absolutely nothing in the Bible that jives with the dreck she spews.

Am I perfect? Far from it. However, I don't go out of my way to be a verbally agressive attack bitch.

Looking for Jesus in your "fellow man", partiuclarly in public people, is often going to be an unrewarding and fruitless experience.

And if The Word alone isn't enough to speak directly to your heart I sincerely doubt the actions of any of the converted are going to much help.

Just saying.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I've never been the biggest fan of the Mahatma. In fact, I think he's one of the most overrated figures of the 20th century. And the more I've learned about him (particularly his thoughts about how to deal with Hitler), the less I've respected him.

And, what's more, we shouldn't forget that one of his legacies is the nuclear weaponry that India and Pakistan have pointed at each other right now. I'm sure he'd denounce that were he around.

But that's because he was somewhat naive about mankind.

Anyway, as for this quote, it's quite simply not true that many, most, or especially all Christians are not Christlike. If MKG really said that about "Christians", then bollocks for him.

I'll denounce Ann Coulter and anybody else who uses vitriolic rhetoric like she frequently does. But I'll keep my criticisms where they're earned -- not in some clumsy, broad-brushed manner.

gimme a break.

Guts in the service of country are great and precious. However Coulter's guts are centered on lining her pocketbook. That's fine for her, but we don't have to agree with the things dribbling out of her mouth.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

My suggestion is to worry about the 90% the libs are saying that you disagree with, and quit worrying about the 10% you disagree with with Ann.

I am tired of our side consuming our own. We keep that up and we won't win anything.

I think, in Ann's case, she's not only earned it but it would actually be pretty beneficial for our side.

Understand, I've read a couple of her books and some of her columns. And, on her good side, she's extremely effective. She's very, very bright. She's well prepared with factual support for her assertions. And she's clever on top of that.

I understand all of that about her. And if she could just be that, then I'd be her biggest fan.

Unfortunately, she's not just that. She's also got a penchant for saying incredibly awful things. And, in the end, that will be (and should be, BTW) her undoing.

This time the "something awful" thing that she said was to accurately paraphrase the Bible. Last time, the "something awful" she said was an incredibly clever and witty remark tying politics to a pop culture reference to the behind-the-scenes controversies at Grey's Anatomy where someone was sent to REHAB for saying an offensive word to someone who belongs to the group of people who are (I think quite irrationally) offended by that word.

If you don't like what the Bible says or if you don't like clever, edgy, witty commentary then that's okay, I guess, but that's really your problem - not Ann's.

Molon Labe!

I believe that Ann Coulter honestly and genuinely believes everything that she says - except of course when she's quite intentionally engaging in hyperbole or using other shrewd rhetorical devices. And you know what? The reason I say that is because I honestly and genuinely believe most of what she says.

She is not a politician. She feels no compunction to trade in measures of half truths. She saw a whole nation being lied to by the mainstream media and politicians, and she decided that there needed to be other forceful voices coming from the right that were speaking the truth besides Rush Limbaugh.

That it makes her so extravagantly wealthy suggests that there is still a commercial market for truth. And thank goodness for that.

The woman has turned making inflammatory comments into a highly lucrative, and exceptionally safe, career. If the ages were a closer match, I'd suspect her of being Howard Stern's twin.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

... coincide with her next book release.

I agree. Ann is out for Ann and Ann only.

Yeah, that's what passes for "guts" to the gullible.

Heck - we have a brilliant and witty political and legal commentator in Ann Coulter who brought Bill Clinton to his knees (for asking White House interns to get on theirs) and Republicans shy away from her.

Democrats have a mentally unstable alleged comedian (some claim he used to be funny about 3 decades ago) who can't get any rating on Air America, and what do they do with him? They run him for the Senate.

Amazing.

In many ways conservatives and Republicans have drank the PC koolaid, throwing many of our own under the bus. If we look hard enough we can attack even the most conservative. This is nothing more than a trap set by the left wing to promote infighting and disintegration of the right. We need a little larger tent folks. Let's not forget the big picture here. Many conservative "intellectuals" dismiss people like Hannity for being a mere shallow cheerleader. Guess what? We need cheerleaders! We forget that much of America only pays attention to headlines and broad simple themes.

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

Many conservative "intellectuals" dismiss people like Hannity for being a mere shallow cheerleader. Guess what? We need cheerleaders! We forget that much of America only pays attention to headlines and broad simple themes.

And this is a good thing?

I don't disagree with you about much of America, but I think this just means we need more intellectuals and less Hannitys/Coulters/Limbaughs/etc. When you have stupid kids, putting stupid people in front of them doesn't make them any smarter.

Raise the bar.

I mean, your talking about "raising the bar" intellectually, given this comment - by, erm, you.

Or are you a more-or-less typically irony-challenged member of the Reality Based Community™ in addition to your other demonstrated talents?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I did post this before you vaporized him.

Just saying.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

For every 1 Coulter, there are 100 or more left wing whackos doing more damage. Let's put things in perspective.

Have you taken a look who's been in power the last 6 years?

Let's see...

Surplus gone = Republicans
A billion a week spent in Iraq = Republicans
(Republicans really have gall criticizing "tax and spend" Democrats with this figure looming over your heads.)
WMD intelligence = Republicans
Offering to [oral-genital sexual act] guys in public bathrooms = Republicans
(Kinda takes the steam out of the "b-b-b-but Clinton got a [oral-genital sexual act]" defense. At least that was from a woman)

The Iraq mess as a whole = Republicans

As far as doing damage is concerned, Republicans didn't invent it, but they've certainly perfected it.

Thank the current administration is on its last term.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

God, I wish that liberals would stop trying to use this place as a safe outlet for their homophobia.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Ann Coulter could only be considered a "right wing Chris Matthews" only if Chris Matthews a) was incredibly intelligent, b) had a sharp wit, and c) was beautiful.

banned

Molon Labe!

Molon Labe!

BrooksRob isn't the most popular guy around here, and since he's constantly telling us how dumb and deluted we are, I assumine the feelings are mutual.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

and I was not joking, this same "joke" was posted there tonight and received very harsh treatment.

Molon Labe!

They may be more willing to forgive you for that than I was. May, I repeat: this is a site for conservatism, not homophobia.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

just welcomed you back... amazing. Neil, you were right all along

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

2. For being (indirectly) a cause of the most recent bannishment of BrooksRob I think Ann deserves a medal. Just saying.

I've never seen such a Moby as BrooksRob was. Claiming to be a real conservative while arguing for the more liberal side every time.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

What I've been sayin all along.

For being (indirectly) a cause of the most recent bannishment of BrooksRob I think Ann deserves a medal. Just saying.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

BrooksRobby got banned? You mean he decided to take another leave of absence, for banned from the site? Can you link me to the offending series?

.

why are we suddenly commenting on an article that is at least two months old?

it was at least six months ago.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

...that I wrote today. No one else did.

Thompson / Romney

==== 13 ====

You won't find me denouncing anybody, you can say what you want in this country. I'll also note that I haven't heard one second of Air America. What I'm saying is that people need to stop feeding the monster of talking heads who will say anything just to get a reaction.