• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Brothers band together against Kerry - by Ann Coulter

Status
Not open for further replies.
MetatronM said:
John O'Neill was on Hardball today and Chris Matthews TORE HIM UP.

Yeah, I saw that. Chris was questioning the validity of the book if the Navy and Kerry's soldiers vouch for him. The author tried to retort that he wasn't given the time to speak and Chris ripped into him. Entertaining stuff.
 

Shazapp

Member
Ann Coulter talking about anything other than yanking my crank is not worth reading...but, damn, how delicious that would be.
 

Thaedolus

Gold Member
So does Ann Coulter being a psycho make her points less valid? The men who served there and don't think Kerry is a hero far outnumber those who do. Kerry's a douchebag for what he's done to make himself look like a hero

Ann Coulter talking about anything other than yanking my crank is not worth reading...but, damn, how delicious that would be.

You can't be serious....she's hideous
 

maharg

idspispopd
I think the question is, is every person who was in vietnam and/or on a swiftboat qualified to speak to kerry's record simply because they were there? Someone who never saw the man in combat isn't really in a position to call him a liar, it seems to me. Whether he was in 'nam or not.
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
Thaedolus said:
So does Ann Coulter being a psycho make her points less valid? The men who served there and don't think Kerry is a hero far outnumber those who do. Kerry's a douchebag for what he's done to make himself look like a hero
None of the people who have spoken out were his shipmates. In fact, O'Neill didn't even speak to them in the writing of his book. As O'Neill explains it, the fact that there are 200 people who didn't directly serve alongside him are more qualified to speak than the 10 or so who did (because there are more of them).

That's the kind of logic they are working with.
 

Hamfam

Junior Member
Kerry's a douchebag for what he's done to make himself look like a hero

BushPackage.jpg


bush-flight-3.jpg


Difference being, one actually has a record which wouldn't get them thrown in jail if they didn't have Daddy to pull strings for him.

Some people are so dumb really. Yes, the fact Kerry is a War hero, isn't the be all and end all of this ellection. There's more important stuff to concentrate on. Bill Clinton wasn't a War hero, and infact AWOL, in comparison to his ellection oponents either, yet alot of those acknowledging that fact would still say he was a good president.

However, you simply can't take away from John Kerry the fact he IS a War hero, and if he wants to add it to his resume, especially when Republican's would want to call him a traitor, and pacifist, you CAN'T take that away from him.

Attempting to take away from the fact that Kerry is a War hero, will just constantly keep bringing the debate back to this issue....and it's battle Republican's simply CAN NOT win. You'd be better off just acknowledging "Yes, he's a war hero" and then adding "but......."
 

Thaedolus

Gold Member
Hamfam said:
BushPackage.jpg


bush-flight-3.jpg


Difference being, one actually has a record which wouldn't get them thrown in jail if they didn't have Daddy to pull strings for him.

Where'd I go praising Bush? I don't recall him even being mentioned. We're talking about Kerry here. Why is it that any time Kerry gets criticism, Bush is brought up?
 

Hamfam

Junior Member
Thaedolus said:
Where'd I go praising Bush? I don't recall him even being mentioned. We're talking about Kerry here. Why is it that any time Kerry gets criticism, Bush is brought up?

I took a wager you were implying that this somehow differentiated him from his opponent. Was I right?
 

Thaedolus

Gold Member
bishoptl said:
Who is Kerry running against again?

Oh yeah.

Do two wrongs make a right? Oh yeah, they don't. So why does bringing up Bush justify anything Kerry has done? It doesn't.

Why don't you pop up the next time there's a thread about Paul Martin?
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
I'll pop up where it pleases me. One of the perks.

And rest assured that if Kerry wasn't running on the Democrat ticket, none of this would have been an issue. Politics is fine - it's always been about dirty pool, and Presidential politicking is the dirtiest of all. But for Bush's cronies to lie about Kerry's military record - when Bush himself can't produce proof of his OWN supposed "military service" - makes him the easiest target in the world.

Those in glass houses, etc etc.
 

Slurpy

*drowns in jizz*
Can someone explain to me how these people who didn't even serve alongside Kerry can know him well enough to declare that he is 'unfit for command'?
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Slurpy said:
Can someone explain to me how these people who didn't even serve alongside Kerry can know him well enough to declare that he is 'unfit for command'?
Book deals can make almost anything possible.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
The only reason this is being brought up is because Kerry is running for president. Which is why you don't see a bunch of threads about Bob Kerrey or the Tiger Force or whatever. Kerry and Bush are automatically the context for anything anyone says about them through November, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.
 

Mumbles

Member
Thaedolus said:
So does Ann Coulter being a psycho make her points less valid? The men who served there and don't think Kerry is a hero far outnumber those who do. Kerry's a douchebag for what he's done to make himself look like a hero

Actually, we have no idea how many people who served in Vietnam think Kerry is or isn't a hero. It's clear that the people who served under him think highly of him, that the army rewarded him for heroic actions at the time he served, and that a group handpicked by his opposition currently think that he isn't. And given that Coulter can't seem to write a single sentence without getting at least one fact wrong, I'd say that her endorsement counts against the book.

And no, Kerry didn't make his service record an issue - vietnam service has been an issue ever since the vets started entering politics, and it will continue to be so until the last of them leaves. And yes, there's also the fact that republicans would love to paint him as weak on defense, as they're still trying to do now.
 

mrmyth

Member
Dan said:
Book deals can make almost anything possible.



This made me laugh out loud.



Hey, I think everyone who has ever posted on a message is unfit to be president. My opinion should matter because I've posted on a message board. Never mind that I haven't posted to all of them, or met all the qualified people on all of them. My experience posting on a message board is enough to disqualify all message board candidates.



Oh, wait. That's just stupid.
 
Raoul Duke said:
And I am looking forward to the day when the Revolution comes, and Ann Coulter and everyone like her are first Up Against the Wall.

Move to China, they've already got that whole "Communism" thing going over there. Apparently, you'd love it, and it would save you the wasted effort of forcibly changing the minds of half of America.
 
About 60 eyewitnesses to Kerry's service are cited in the book, describing Kerry fleeing comrades who were under attack, disregarding orders, putting others in danger, sucking up to his commanders, creating phony film footage of his exploits with a home-movie camera, and recommending himself for medals and Purple Hearts in vainglorious reports he wrote himself.

In May, the Swiftees held a press conference in Washington, D.C. In front of a photo being used by the Kerry campaign to tout Kerry's war service, the officers stood up, one by one, pointed to their own faces in the campaign photo, and announced that they believed Kerry unfit for command. Only one officer in the photo supports Kerry for president. Seventeen say he is not fit to be president.

No Tim Russert interviews, no "Today" show appearances, no New York Times editorials or Vanity Fair hagiographies for these heretics against the liberal religion.

If the 254 veterans against Kerry got one-tenth as much media coverage for calling Kerry a liar as Clown Joe Wilson did for calling Bush a liar, the veterans wouldn't need to buy ad time to get their message out. (Wilson, you'll recall, was a media darling for six or seven months before being exposed as a fantasist by Senate investigators.)

With their commitment to free speech and a robust exchange of ideas (i.e., "child pornography" and "sedition"), the Democratic National Committee is threatening to sue TV stations that run the Swift Boat Veterans' paid ads. Sue? Can you tell already that there are two lawyers at the top of the Democratic ticket? These are the same people who accuse John Ashcroft of shredding the Bill of Rights. WHY ISN'T THE PRESS COVERING THIS??? Wait, now I remember. OK, never mind.

The threat to sue is absurd, but will allow the very same TV stations that are already censoring the Swiftees to have an excuse to censor even purchased airtime.

Ron Brownstein, Los Angeles Times reporter and Bill Clinton's favorite reporter, compared the Swift Boat Veterans' ad to a "snuff film." He claimed the veterans have "strong Republican ties."

Apparently, before being permitted to engage in free speech against Democrats in this country you have to: (1) prove that you are not a Republican, (2) take a vow of poverty, and (3) purchase the right to speak in a TV ad. On the basis of Clown Wilson, Michael Moore, George Soros, Moveon.org, etc., etc., etc., I gather the requirements for engaging in free speech against a Republican are somewhat less rigorous. Hey! Maybe John Edwards is right: There really are two Americas!

Perhaps I'll read the book afterall.
 

3rdman

Member
Joe Wilson, a CLOWN???? Yeah, a clown to have not fallen in line with the Bush War Machine. A clown that after revealing to the world that there was no evidence of Iraqi purchases of uranium saw his wife outed as a CIA operative and put her life in danger because of it. BTW, the Senate investigation did NOT expose Wilson as an extremist...WTF.

How in the world do you argue with people who have no regard for the truth.
 

Diablos

Member
Ann Coulter is a bitch and I have no care for anything she'll ever say. She could turn around tomorrow and say she hates Bush with a passion, and I'd still hate her.

Fuggin' bitch
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
With their commitment to free speech and a robust exchange of ideas (i.e., "child pornography" and "sedition"), the Democratic National Committee

HAHAHA. Wow, she stoops even lower than the retards on the message boards. All those Democrats locked up exchanging their child pornography.



But seriously, this whole thing is a sham. Ever since Kerry became the face of ex-veterans protesting against Vietnam the vets who were pro-Vietnam have been out to get him. Now they have the opportunity, and they'll make up whatever BS stories they have to discredit the man who did more for the anti-Vietnam movement than perhaps any other veteran. Hasn't changed since the Nixon administration.
 

Cooter

Lacks the power of instantaneous movement
John O'Neill was on Hardball today and Chris Matthews TORE HIM UP.
Chris Matthews is such a phony.

I can barely stand to watch him pretend to be neutral.

Hey Chris, we know you worked for Carter. Just give it up.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
haha, a John Kerry Historian, that's awesome.

And also remember, Japanese Internment Camps were A-OK.

Some of the crap flung around here makes me hate politics.
 

Makura

Member
The testimony coming from these soldiers is compelling and important. I listened to an account from the gunner on Kerry's boat yesterday. It was quite damning if true.

Its unconscionable how this is being buried and ignored by the media. And uttelry hypocritical for Kerry's team to try to prevent the ads from airing. Where is the outrage about the MoveOn.org distortions? Why aren't the press covering this book like they covered the Richard Clarke book?

I also find it funny how quickly the Sandy Berger case was buried. Thank goodness for the internet.
 

DrLazy

Member
Chris Matthews is such a phony.

He never pretended to be 'fair and balanced,' he's been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq since it began. I love hardball, and I want a link to him grilling O'Neil.
 

Makura

Member
Hamfam said:
However, you simply can't take away from John Kerry the fact he IS a War hero.

Upon closer inspection that facade seems to be crumbling. Even if he hasn't done all the things these verterans claim, his behaviour when he got back alone disqualifies him to be commander in chief IMO.
 

Cooter

Lacks the power of instantaneous movement
He never pretended to be 'fair and balanced,' he's been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq since it began. I love hardball, and I want a link to him grilling O'Neil.

He might not have used those exact words but he tries to portray his show of one where both sides get grilled equally and that is just not true.
 
Makura said:
Upon closer inspection that facade seems to be crumbling. Even if he hasn't done all the things these verterans claim, his behaviour when he got back alone disqualifies him to be commander in chief IMO.

Atleast he actually went, unlike a certain other person you seem to like to defend.
 

3rdman

Member
Makura said:
Upon closer inspection that facade seems to be crumbling. Even if he hasn't done all the things these verterans claim, his behaviour when he got back alone disqualifies him to be commander in chief IMO.


Man, in that case you must be REALLY pissed at the media for ignoring Bush's military record, his alcholic past, and his cocaine use.
 

ge-man

Member
I'm fucking tired of all this talk about who did what during Vietnam. That was over thirty years ago and has limited influence on the present. We should spend more time looking what has happened recently--this shit is a distraction at the very least.
 

capslock

Is jealous of Matlock's emoticon
----

Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for June 30

Bylines: Chris Matthews, Frank Luntz, David Shuster
Guests: Ann Coulter, Howard Fineman, John Lott, Carol Lear, Willie Brown, Bob Dornan

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I’m Chris Matthews. Let’s play HARDBALL.
The “Big Story” tonight, best selling author, Ann Coulter, her new book is called “Treason”, and in it she says liberals are unpatriotic. She’ll be here to tell us why...

MATTHEWS: Let’s talk about the question of your book “Treason”. What do you mean by treason? Talk about the word treason? I mean, I’ve looked it up in the dictionary the other night, it has a couple of meanings. One is, treason. I mean, you turned over of the documents to the enemy. You are Alger Hiss, someone like that. That’s treason.
COULTER: Right.
MATTHEWS: What do you mean by-in terms of this cover of this book?
COULTER: What I mean is that the Democratic Party, as an entity, has become functionally treasonable, including what you’re talking about, turning over documents to the enemy...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Well, should they be prosecuted? Should anybody in the party be prosecuted either today, or should have been prosecuted in the past? I mean, it’s a criminal charge of treason. Should anybody be charged with it?
COULTER: I wish it were that easy a problem, but that trivializes the point...
MATTHEWS: No, it’s a crime.
COULTER: ... of my book, which is not that there are just a few dozen traitors out there. It is that the entire party cannot root for a America.
MATTHEWS: Well, let’s talk about the leaders of the Democratic Party over the years. It-was Jack Kennedy a traitor, was he guilty of treason?
COULTER: He was not as strong a president...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: But was he guilty of treason. That is what you are saying about him. I read the book.
COULTER: ... as a Republican would have been. But I’m referring, as I say again, I’m referring to a party that is functionality treasonable.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me get to the bottom line here...
COULTER: No, he shouldn’t have been tried.
MATTHEWS: I just want to know who you mean, because I think it is a very well written book, but I find it hard for you to step back from the strength of this book on television. Was Jack Kennedy a traitor?
COULTER: No, he was not a traitor.
MATTHEWS: Was he guilty of treason?
COULTER: His heart was in the right place but he was surrounded by bad policymakers...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Was he guilty of treason...
COULTER: ... and he harms the country and its national security. No. I’ve said he is not guilty of treason. I am speaking of a party. If there were just a few...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK. I am just going to go through the leaders of the Democratic Party, because you are talking about a party. So I am trying to be fair with you. Was Harry Truman a traitor?
COULTER: He promoted a known soviet spy, Harry Dexter White, after the FBI told him that. After Winston Churchill gave his iron curtain speech, he invited Stalin to come give a rebuttal speech. Truman and Kennedy were far better than today’s Democrats were, but this is a party that has been creeping toward a refusal to defend America.
MATTHEWS: Has Harry Truman...
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: I’m not talking about individuals.
MATTHEWS: ... Republicans, I am going to keep doing this. I am trying to nail down so that people can decide whether to read a book or not. Was Harry Truman guilty of treason?
COULTER: I think it’s a more important indictment and you can keep asking me to say this is an entire party that cannot be trusted.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You say the Democratic Party is guilty of treason. I just want you to tell me which of the top Democrats, not go into details-I agree with you by the way about Harry Dexter White. I agree with you about Alger Hiss. There is a lot of these people guilty of treason,...
COULTER: But you are asking me...
MATTHEWS: ... but which Democratic Party official-which official of the Democratic Party, or its leadership...
COULTER: I’ll give you my thesis again. My thesis is, that the entire Democratic Party cannot be trusted with the defense of the nation.
MATTHEWS: Start with a name, please.
COULTER: It is not to start trying a few individuals. I wouldn’t...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK. We’re not getting anywhere here because you don’t want to give me any names.
COULTER: That is because I am talking about the Democratic Party.
That is the name I am trying to give you.
MATTHEWS: OK. Half the American people, roughly, in most elections averaged over the last 50 years have voted Democrat, let’s face it, for president. Those people who vote for Democratic candidates for president after hearing their case with regard to foreign policy, why would they vote for someone who you say is a traitor?
COULTER: Because this story has not been told, because I have what has been systemically excluded from history books in high school and college, and that is why I wrote this book, to prove to Democrats, as Joe McCarthy said...
MATTHEWS: But half the people in the U.S. Army are probably Democrats. You say they vote for Democrats out of treasonable reasons?
COULTER: I am saying, as Joe McCarthy said, the loyal Democrats of this party no longer-or of this country no longer have a party. This is a party that cannot defend America, that loses wars, that loses continents to communism-that nay say Ronald Reagan’s response to the Soviet Union, and then they keep turning around and say, oh, it was inevitable. No one lost China. Anyone would have lost Vietnam. It was...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Do you think if you oppose the war, you’re a treasonist for opposing the war?
COULTER: No, but that’s why I have 50 years. At some point it’s not a mistake. It is not an error of judgment...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: For example, was it wrong for Pat Buchanan to oppose this war in Iraq? Was he treasonous for doing it?
COULTER: I think I’ve answered that. No. A single — Look, Pat Buchanan has shown his bona fides in a million other areas.
MATTHEWS: Then Jack Kemp is not a traitor for opposing the war...
COULTER: These are patriotic Americans. They do not oppose the Strategic Defense Initiative. They did not oppose Ronald Reagan...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: But they opposed-but all these top conservatives who opposed the war, were they wrong? Were they treasonist to do so? But with liberals oppose the war, they are treasonists. I am just trying to figure out what the difference is.
COULTER: I’m just trying to answer. No, with someone like-are you
” can I finish?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
COULTER: No. When someone like Pat Buchanan or Robert Novak say they’re against the war in Iraq, no, that gives someone like me pause, and thinks, I just disagree with them on this issue. But as I say, they do not scream that the country is in the middle of a civil liberties crisis every time Ashcroft talks to a Muslim. They do not ...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Yes, but the problem I have is that a lot of Republicans...
COULTER: They do not oppose...
MATTHEWS: ... in fact, most Republicans in the country opposed the Second World War...
COULTER: Let met finish...
MATTHEWS: No. I want to make a point in response to that, because I think a lot of Republicans have opposed a lot of wars over time, and you haven’t called them traitors. Why do you call Democrats traitors when they oppose a war?
COULTER: To get back to this point. Once you have an entire series of incidents-why is it that the Democratic Party keeps consistently taking the position that is most contrary to this country’s national interest? When you have someone like Pat Buchanan or Novak, you say, well, we disagree on this issue. The Democrats fight unwinable wars. They lose continents to communism. They’ve consistently been on the wrong side of every issue.
MATTHEWS: Was World War II a Democrat war?
COULTER: That’s why it’s 50 years and not 60.
MATTHEWS: Were the Republicans willing to oppose World War II before Pearl Harbor right? And they vigorously opposed getting involved in the war in Europe.
COULTER: As I describe in my book, they were wrong and I have to describe this...
MATTHEWS: The Republicans were wrong?
COULTER: Yes, they were.
MATTHEWS: Were they traitors?
COULTER: No. They came around...
MATTHEWS: But when liberals oppose wars, they are treasonists.
We’ll be right back with Ann Coulter. I’m trying to get these definitions down and being nice to this brilliant writer.
COULTER: Then next time let me answer.
MATTHEWS: Back with more to talk about-plenty of opportunity to answer. You wouldn’t believe how much time I give you. Anyway, thank you.
We are going to be back and talk with Ann about her opponent on the bookshelves, Hillary Clinton, when we return.
And by the way, “Decision 2004” is coming up, and Howard Dean, by the way, is raising more money than the moderates. We are going to talk about that when we come back-with Howard Fineman.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: We’re back with Ann Coulter, having an interesting discussion about what constitutes treason. I just think-I think that the constitution-respond to this statement, I want to ask you a question. The constitution left the issue of peace and war basically in the hands of Congress in the terms of big decisions about declarations of war, and in this case, we had a debate about going to war with Iraq and the president won his case. But I think the right of an American to argue whether we go to war or not is basic, and you, I think, argue that when someone opposes a war action, they are somehow is treasonist. I think that’s a broad brush, and I think it makes a lot of very good people, including me, feel very angry.
COULTER: No. I...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Because I disagree in America’s interest with a lot of these wars. I don’t think there’s good for us.
COULTER: Yes. From what I hear, dissenting from the nation’s war aims is the more patriotic act, but the one thing you’re not allowed to say is to call someone unpatriotic. You can say it’s unpatriotic to stop us from protesting, but you can’t say burning a flag is unpatriotic.
MATTHEWS: No. I just think people should be free to express their views on a matter so important as war, and if a person...
COULTER: They clearly are.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... opposes a war, they shouldn’t be called a traitor because they disagree with the current war policy.
COULTER: Well, don’t worry. I’m the only one doing it.
MATTHEWS: You’re doing it here.
COULTER: That’s right.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s book, how is it doing compared to yours?
COULTER: Well, she has many advantages over me.
MATTHEWS: You said she weighed more than you the other day. Was that the case?
COULTER: She had a 3 to 1 pound advantage. Her book is also three times as large as mine.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this book. This book is very interesting, and I am not going to comment. I am going to let you comment on it. The principal difference between fifth columnists and the cold war versus the war on terrorism is that you could sit next to a communist in a subway without asphyxiating. What does that mean? I just want to know. What does that mean? I want to know.
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: It means what it says. The second difference is, that in far more time the enemy that we’re up against now has killed far fewer people.
MATTHEWS: So, but the enemy smells. Is that your knock against Arabs? I mean, that’s your point here. You sit next to them and you are asphyxiated while sitting next to them.
COULTER: I’m just drawing the differences between the old war and the currents war.
MATTHEWS: Is that a way to win friends in the Arab and Islamic world
by saying they stink.
COULTER: I think it is a way to get people...
MATTHEWS: Is that deep?
COULTER: ... to read my book, so I thank you.
MATTHEWS: Well, I tell you. If you want it at that level, you got it right here. Anyway, she’s a great writer. I don’t agree with her, but she’s a hell of a writer. And thank you very much for coming on. She’s a real charmer. Ann Coulter. The last book was called “Slander.” Maybe this one should have been called that too.
 

Cooter

Lacks the power of instantaneous movement
I'm fucking tired of all this talk about who did what during Vietnam. That was over thirty years ago and has limited influence on the present. We should spend more time looking what has happened recently--this shit is a distraction at the very least.

I agree but when Kerry is basically running soley on his service in Vietnam it must be looked into.
 

Dilbert

Member
Cooter said:
I agree but when Kerry is basically running soley on his service in Vietnam it must be looked into.
News flash: Since returning from Vietnam, John Kerry has occasionally been seen in a place called "Washington, DC" working as what some people like to call a "Senator."
 

3phemeral

Member
MATTHEWS: Well, I tell you. If you want it at that level, you got it right here. Anyway, she’s a great writer. I don’t agree with her, but she’s a hell of a writer. And thank you very much for coming on. She’s a real charmer. Ann Coulter. The last book was called “Slander.” Maybe this one should have been called that too.
That was awesome :p He dominated the majority of the conversation and compltely pinned her up against a corner.
 
Makura said:
Its unconscionable how this is being buried and ignored by the media.

Tell me how did you find out about the Swift Boats group? Through a grassroots campaign funded by the group? No, wait I got it, a little brown teddy bear came to your house yesterday and whispered in your ear, "Psst. Listen to the Swift Boat Veterans expose Kerry's lies!"

Oh yeah let's ignore the fact that the leader of the group has made appearances on various Cable networks too while we're at it.


Where is the outrage about the MoveOn.org distortions?

Didn't the Bush administration try to keep those ads off the air too? Aren't many Republicans up in air calling MoveOn.org a partisan attack on Bush? There's your outrage.


Why aren't the press covering this book like they covered the Richard Clarke book?

Richard Clarke - Former high ranking administration official.

Ann Coulter - Nutjob.

There's your answer.

I also find it funny how quickly the Sandy Berger case was buried. Thank goodness for the internet.

I also found it funny how in the beginning of the war, the press would make big Headlines about WMD's being found whenever they investigated a new site, yet almost always a few hours later, the headline would drop and a link confirming that wmd's were not found at the site was often buried deep within the site. Thank goodness for the internet.
 

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this book. This book is very interesting, and I am not going to comment. I am going to let you comment on it. The principal difference between fifth columnists and the cold war versus the war on terrorism is that you could sit next to a communist in a subway without asphyxiating. What does that mean? I just want to know. What does that mean? I want to know.

COULTER: It means what it says. The second difference is, that in far more time the enemy that we’re up against now has killed far fewer people.

MATTHEWS: So, but the enemy smells. Is that your knock against Arabs? I mean, that’s your point here. You sit next to them and you are asphyxiated while sitting next to them.

COULTER: I’m just drawing the differences between the old war and the currents war.

MATTHEWS: Is that a way to win friends in the Arab and Islamic world
by saying they stink.

COULTER: I think it is a way to get people...

MATTHEWS: Is that deep?

COULTER: ... to read my book, so I thank you.

good lord, how can anyone take someone like this seriously?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom