Does Coulter speak for all republicans?

Many Democrats did object. Hevesi apologized. You see, we have that kind of maturity where we recognize mistakes and act to correct them.

The current Halliburton Republicans do not have that maturity...even when thousands of people die from Bush's mistakes.

Defending Coulter is like defending a mafia thug. She has about the moral character and intelligence of your average mafia bodyguard. But she has less charm.

Hevesi apologized, Coulter has not - how impressive it is said! Full of rattling wrath. Almost fair.

There is a problem, though. Hevesi bravely put a virtual gun into hands of a real Schumer and virtually forced the latter to virtually shot the President between eyes. A wish clearly virtual but so much tangible! Apology? Of course? The own - Hevesi's - stupidity, which he, thanks God, recognized immediately, might cost him his position and/or status. How not to apologize! Not for his wish to shot the President, but rather for his stupidity of expressing such a wish aloud.

Coulter has not - what a mean-spirited woman! How dare she say such things about 4 - Yes, Yes, not all, unlike it is being perverted all the time, but just FOUR!!!! - women who are cursing the President, Republicans in general, constantly fighting against "Americans who have caused their personal tragedy"!
The personal tragedy that they are so skillfully using as a shield, which converts any attempt to criticize them for politicizing their personal tragedy, into a vicious mean-spirited attack of rabid right-wingers.

How convenient is to pounce upon Ann Coulter - maybe the rest of the world will then forget how many tons of dirt Liberals are pouring on Republicans daily and hourly!

Now Congressmen have invented nothing better than to demand all book stores in New Jersey to reject Ann Coulter’s book!
Freedom of Speech is flourishing, hurray!
Dems know what freedom of speech is - when nobody says a word against them when they are preoccupied using all obscenities they know toward Republicans.

Why not to burn Ann Coulter's books on a Central Plaza of each city, not only New Jersey.
Just like Nazis and Communists did.

It's very bad to make typos in the subject line - I meant a pun "rattling wrath - rattling wart". Sorry!
It's also bad to forget important things in a dispute. For instance, I forgot to remind that, unlike Hevesi, Coulter did not propose to kill the President. Oops! Thanks God!
Also I forgot to ask: as a person who lost 7 (SEVEN!) close friends in the Twin Towers on 9/11, do I have carte blanche cursing Liberals?

...is a most excellent thing to learn.

In especially when one is defending a terrorist like Coulter, or pretending that partisanship justifies even the slander of widows.

Rightwingers are all alike: bottom-feeding scum. Coulter and her flying monkeys need to get over their tawdry justifications for spitting on the 9/11 families and apologize, end of story.

There is a flower called "barren flower". Just for your common knowledge.

Are you able - ever - to take a look at yourself in a mirror, no move, just think: Who am I? What do I want? What do I have in my soul besides a burning hatred against Republicans? Any ideas? Any noble thoughts? What do I want from my beloved Liberals if they overthrow those "bottom-feeding scums"?

Am I able, for instance, to answer a simple question like "why so much beloved intelligent Clinton's budget for Department of Education in 1996 FY was $23 Billion and so much hated stupid Bush's budget for the same Department in 2002 FY climbed to $49 Billion?"
Or "why Liberals said no one word when Clinton meddled in supporting of the Islamic Terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army either to divert attention from a burgeoning sex scandal or as a part of anti-Christian campaign by Liberals, but yell like crazy when America finally did something noble - liberated Afghanistan and Iraq from mass-murderers?"

What I, a fervent Liberal - you should keep asking yourself - want to ardently defend besides 3rd-trimester abortion (=killing a baby); besides homosexuality; besides promoting condoms in Elementary schools while banning Pledge of Allegiance; besides fighting for civil rights for enemies while rejecting civil rights for compatriots; besides applauding to Hollywood starts who are bawling against damned American Imperialism while flying own airplanes, driving SUVs, and buying multimillion palaces in Malibu(s); besides a passionate wish to redistribute somebody's money following Robin Hood's and Communists' pattern?

Copulating on streets and in Churches like in SF Summer 1967 and recent Cathedral in New York, and staining the Virgin with shit in Museums is the only heroism you Liberals are able of? Or calling treason "patriotism" and run to secretly negotiate with enemy - is this your heroism?

Tell me, you Liberal almost friend, are you able to communicate using decent words, not stinky spitting?

Oh, btw, let me remind you one nice thing: Out of 4 killed American Presidents, 3 were Republicans and killed by Leftists (Democrat Kennedy - by a Communist, though); French Revolution was started by Democrats-Liberals and shed oceans of blood of "brothers" (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité); their descendants, Russian democrats-liberals also started and finished with oceans of blood (also blood of "equal brothers"). The sizzling hatred you all emanate toward Republicans always reminds me your predecessors mentioned above.
And eventually you become deadly boring.

So let me check if I get this right: either, people must condone the cult of Coulter, or favor public butt-fucking presided over by Lenin and Saint-Just.

In the world of some so-called "conservatives", consumed as it is by feverish nightmares of hatred, these are indeed the options. Either Ann Coulter or the Finland Station and the guillotine.

Forgive me if I see no need to address either the French Revolution or for that matter any of the Asiatic cruelties Russia decided to flay herself with. The issue here is rather narrower in scope, and concerns an extremist shill making a quick buck by attacking widows. That's the long and the short of it; and you, my friend, are too bound up in your own phantasms of the supposedly evil left (Robespierre! Abortion! Sodomy!) to see the fundamental indecency of that.

A pity, really, but there you have it. Far from countermanding my case, that the extremist right sees nothing wrong with the abuse of the 9/11 widows, you have made it.

-- from the fundamentalist Coulter camp toward the private and stoic Michael Schiavo, his current wife and their children.

It just hit me reading Michael (Bouldin's) comment, that while it CAN be argued reasonably that these four particular widows did choose to join the politics of mutual destruction by their own post-9/11 advocacy and anti-administration rhetoric, no one can say anything of the kind about Michael Schiavo and his family.

All the partisan pissing, attempts to bring down the state and federal government to accomplish an unconstitutional end, the vicious flinging of sinful and criminal accusations plus some terrorist-type death threats against Schiavo and a few sitting judges, all came from one side: the Coulter side.

I've seen no price paid yet by any of those partisans, nor the politicians from the President on down who jumped on their ax-handle-wielding "by god, even if it kills us all" bandwagon and tried to run down the whole country.

And no apology.
It was an eye-opening, radicalizing event for me, healthy and home watching orchestrated and rabid attacks -- on freedom, privacy, choice, reason, civil discourse, science and medicine, self-determination, the rule of law, even marriage! -- in shock and awe.

The truly horrifying thing is that Coulter is not an aberration - this kind of cynical hatemongering is the standard modus operanci of the right. Terri Schiavo comes to mind, or Michael Savage's newest tripe, titled "Liberalism is a mental disorder", or for that matter that NR guy's "The Party of Death".

I've had it with these ink-stained terrorists. It's time for people to realize that this kind of sleaze is not an accident, but flows from the very core of the party in power.

rs have degraded the discourse - Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., etc., etc. - to a point where it does not strike them as terribly unusual to use widow-bashing as an opening argument.

I keep on saying it: these people are morally diseased.

First of all, since Coulter is essentially an advocate for extremist reactionary Republican policy, her advocacy of terrorism and her denegration of widows reflects poorly on those she advocates for. By not speaking out against her, they in essence implicitly supports her terrorist advocacy and hatred of widows.

I hope I never get as dimwitted as the average R, that's fersure.

Rs are perfectly willing to have Coulter speak for them at conferences. So now they should tell New Yorkers whether Coulter is now also speaking for them - or not. That is precisely what we the people pay for them for - they're "representatives". So I want to hear if my representatives agree with Coulter, because if they do, we need to get some better representation, pronto.

She gets funded by the same people that give megawads of money to the GOP.

Democrats should start calling the GOP the Ann Coulter party. That ought to bring Bush's popularity under 20%.

1. Where do you get this 60%-70% figure? Please refer me to a source. I do know that her new book is ranked first place on Amazon.com.
2. Do you have any material to support this assertion of shadowy sites with "offline arms"? And particularly, do you have any evidence that such sites have so strong a relationship to Ms. Coulter's books?
3. If you do manage to satistfy the simple factual challenges of 1 and 2, could you then explain to me how any of that would require a statement from a republican politician about her book? Suppose Michael Moore sells the majority of his books on left wing websites. Does that require Al Gore or Ted Kennedy to make a statement proclaiming that they don't agree with Moore that the Iraqi insurgents are the moral and historical equal of the Minute Men, and that there actions are both noble and inevitably triumphant?
4. Tossing about words like nazi and skank tend to make you seem shrill.

Whenever said wacko comes out with whatever craziness he decides he needs to come out with on a given day, there is always and inevitably a shrill chorus of outrage from the America-hating right, demanding that each and every Democrat grovel for whatever was said. This even though he has nothing whatsoever to do with us.

So now that your favorite spokes-slag has again offended everything that is good and right, you people need to step up to the plate and show us what stuff you're made of. All I'm seeing here is the usual whining about whichever liberal you're told to hate in a given week, and no stepping up.

Typical - because you people have all the moral sense of a plague-bearing rat, intending no offense to those misunderstood creatures.

Re: Coulter's sales volume with these sites, I'd have to look that up; but it's common knowledge that her stuff, and that of similar paper-wasters, usualy gets boght in bulk.

Re: shadowy offline arms, again, common knowledge. Newsmax has an offline magazine, as does Wingnut Daily. The "Get Coulter for free" promotions are running right now - take a look.

As to my being shrill, feh. Feh. You're the one talking about, or more precisely, making up stuff about Kennedy, though for the life of me I can't figure out what he has to do with this Nazi skank making money by attacking the 9/11 widows.

Calls for Democrats who have never heard of Churchill to grovel emanated at the time from the RNC itself, not to mention the various incarnations of the three-hour-hate known as talk radio. Perhaps you think we don't know how you talk amongst yourselves; but we do.

As to the institutional ties between Coulter and the party of which she is a registered member, and for which she has spoken, inter alia at CPAC, the events of which she attends and for whose candidates she campaigns, well, I'll leave it to the average, normal, non-wingnut reader to determine that. Those who lie down with vermin inevitably get fleas. Incidentally, Coulter is currently in the news for fraudlently voting in a Florida republican primary even though she lives n New York City.

So perhaps we can dispense with the "she doesn't have anything to do with us" meme. I can understand you wouldn't want to be associated with a terrorist like her, but like I said, if you lie down with vermin, complaining that the fleas aren't actually yours is a bit pointless.

Next, re: stats. You've already had to climb down from your position that Coulter does not benefit from her ties to the extremist media machine. So do not expect me to go through the effort of laying out another point; I don't owe explanations to the radical fringe.

Lastly, yes, good news on Zarqawi; it's about time the Bush people made up their mistake of three years ago, when Zaraqwi alive was convenient; after all, he was their main "proof" of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which is why he wasn't taken out when opportunity presented itself.

Ah, the right. So many lies, so much incompetence, so little time.

If I may jump in with a fact check. There was no evidence whatsoever of an al-Qaeda/Hussein link other than the ANTI-Saddam Kurdish group we initially supported that was trained by al-Qaeda. Hussein was detested by al-Qaeda and visa versa. Bush's attempts to link them were the first tip off I had that he was lying or ignorant when it came to Mid-East politics. Some of the atrocities we (probably rightly) accuse Hussein of were directed at Islamicists similar to al-Qaeda. For all his faults, he was secular, which is why we loved him so much until he invaded Kuwait.

I suggest you might want to stop trying to link the two because that line was never true and never credable.

I have been watching the growing problem with Islamic fundamentalism since Reagan first sent arms to the proto-Taliban. I knew Reagan was making a big mistake back then and I have followed the development of that mistake ever since. I can assure you that Saddam Husseian, Iran and al-Qaeda were all mutual enemies. The situation has changed somewhat since we invaded Iraq, since now we have created exactly the situation al-Qaeda thrives in. But it was not so before.

Your posting confirms to me, yet again, that having been fed talking points by the noise machine, you're one of the people who knows little about the nature of islamist thought, and even less about what is called "public relations" - which is what everything you point to amounts to.

Did Saddam enact Sharia, that is, Islamic law?

No.

Did he elevate clerics (though that term is problematic in the Islamic context) to positions of power?

No.

Did he have an operational relationship with Al Qaeda?

No. As per the 9/11 commission, no, no, no. End of story.

Saddam had not yet enacted sharia. However he supported honor killings and even ordered the slaughter of 200 plus innocent Iraqi women in a supposed attempt to crack down on pornography.
Do you consider a government secular only if it doesn't institute sharia? Are there no degrees of secularism and clerical thuggery in your worldview? What I wrote above still stands as 100% fact. That is not secularism. Period.

What the 9/11 commision says is that Saddam did send high-ranking envoys to meet with al Qaeda and that they have no evidence that there was a working relationship after that. That's not the same thing as saying that they didn't have a working relationship. And we now know, since the liberation of Iraq revealed many records publicly available for your perusal, that they DID have an operational relationship. I'm afraid intel from two years ago does not constitute the end of the story.

What the 9/11 commision [sic] says is that Saddam did send high-ranking envoys to meet with al Qaeda and that they have no evidence that there was a working relationship after that. That's not the same thing as saying that they didn't have a working relationship.

Right. You have a meeting, decide not to work together, and that means you do work together.

The beauty of right-wing logic is this: once one has arrived at a conclusion, said conclusion is impervious to any and all contradictory evidence.

Meanwhile, how about - when you're done arguing that an Islamist government can get by without any kind of actual Islamic governance - expressing some regret about Miz Coulter's claim that the 9/11 widows enjoyed their husbands' deaths?

You just lied.
You just lied to me, but more importantly, you just lied to your readership. You wrote that the 9/11 commision determined that Saddam and al Qaeda agreed not to work together. The report says no such thing. You owe your readers an aopology. This on top of the apology you owe them for your Random House fib.

Don't cry, little boy.

Allow me to quote the WaPo on the 9/11 commission's report, as linked above:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

If you have evidence - and by that I mean real evidence, not some screeds from Wingnut Daily, or Faux "News" for that matter, I'd be delighted to entertain it. Failing that, the matter is closed.

Why do you underestimate your readership so?
I already stated what you just wrote--They found no evidence of a working relationship. You still haven't apologized for your lie about the 9/11 commision having concluded that Saddam and al Qaeda agreed not to work together. You owe apologies, or should we all now just not believe what you write? And what about that Random House fib?

You are buying into Saddam's propoganda machine. He was leader of a Muslim nation so, just like Bush panders to a segment of the Christian population, Hussein panders to elements of the Muslim population. The reality is you seem to be describing our "friends" ths Saudis, not Iraq. The reality on the ground was that more fundamaentalist Muslims were brutally suppressed in Hussein's Iraq. The ONLY evidence ever found for al-Qaeda in Iraq was a Kurdish opposition group. That has been admitted by the Bush administration when the turned on that one group. The "meetings" have been debunked. That was poor intelligence information on our part...just like that Nigeria connection we thought we had found based on poor intelligence information. Support for Palestinians is a standard PR technique in the Muslim world. The quickest way to stir up the base in America is to mention gay-marriage. The quickest way to stir up the base in most Muslim nations is to bring up Israel.

Bush called for a Crusade. Does that make America a theocracy? Calling a Jihad is not something Hussein could really do, but by doing so he was trying to appeal to the broadest base possible. It's politics and PR. If you believe everything Hussein tells you you are bound to be wrong.

With all due respect, anyone who has been following the events in the Middle East for the past 20 years knows that al-Qaeda is a movement of largely Saudi origin with a deep detestation and hostility to anyone who isn't fundamentalist. Hussein ruled based on military might with little but lip service (which you seem to be buy into) towards the fundamentalists who were in reality a major target of his brutality. Similarly, Iran and Iraq, of course, have always been at odds and Iran and al-Qaeda have always been mutually hostile. The "Axis of Evil" was the stupidest statement Bush ever made and linking ANY of those three nations to al-Qaeda except in a hostile way is fantasy.

You seem to be the one listening to sound bytes rather than verifiable facts. And be careful what you find through a websearch. Anyone can say anything and you will find it. Just because two people are bad doesn't mean they are together. In many cases the enemy of our enemy is still our enemey as well.

If you can't see the difference between Bush giving lip service to marriage ammendment he knows will never pass and Saddam Huessien training thousands of Jihadists, sponsoring the families of suicide bombers and having the republican guard slaughter hundreds of women, then I believe you: You can't see the difference.
By the way, several international intelligence commitees support the Niger-uranium claim, AND two bipartisan senate intelligence commitees found the connection to be real and Joe Wilson to have been misleading.

Chalabi, our source for Niger uranium claims (sorry, I said "Nigeria" which was a typo), is pretty much solidly discredited except in the eyes of Bush. No. No one believes the Niger claims and in all honesty they made little sense to begin with.

And you still have said nothing that refutes my point that fundamentalists were TARGETS of Hussein's oppression, not a part of it. You restate what amounts to Hussein propoganda. That's all you are doing. You do seem to believe what he said, but few in Iraq and few outside of Bush's entorage ever did. The whole POINT of the Baathists was as a modern, secular, anti-royal faction whose main support always came from the military, not the clergy. And they mostly favored the military, not the clergy. You are repeating things you have been told, not reality.

No one believes the Niger claims?
How about two bipartisan Senate intelligence commitees, two British intelligence reports, and Charles Deulfer for starters?
One forgery does not prove that the real thing doesn't exist.
In February 1999, Saddam Hussein dispatched his former envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and former delegate to non-proliferation conferences at the United Nations, to Niger. What do you think that was about? Niger is known for one thing. It is, in fact, where Saddam got yellowcake in 1981.

Read this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

And, you missed my earlier point. If the whole point of Baathism is to be modern and secular and not get clerical support, then why is it that Syria's Baath regime's biggest allies are Hezbolah and the mullahs of Iran? Can you wrap your brain around that one? Is that reality-based enough for you?

...in part because the link you provide does not substantiate your claims, in fact contradicts them.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

And that's from the source you provided. "Open question" in an outdated article does not rise to the level you claim, as much as I hate to state the glaringly obvious.

As to the Baath, really, take a class in power politics. You're saying that the auxiliaries one chooses are predispositive of what is oneself; by that measure, both Reagan and Thatcher are Polish Catholics because they supported Solidarnosc. Thus, one can arrive at the idea that a pan-Arab nationalist, socialist party like the Baath is actually the same thing as, say, the government of Saudi Arabia.

The point of the article is Libby lied and that the joint intelligence commitee found support for the original Niger claim. You call it an old article, yet you won't be able to find an ammendment to the conclusions of the joint intelligence commitee, because there conclusions stand. Wilson--LIAR.

The other point: You claim that Saddam and al Qaeda couldn't have collaborated because one was secular, the other religious. I pointed out to you how the Syrian Baathists are allied so closely with hezbollah and the Iranian Mullahs. Period.

Now go study the difference between Niger and Nigeria.

...in your wildest dreams. Merely restating erroneous info does not an argument make; nor does endlessly parroting discredited talking points.

But I suppose for people who believe in 'mission accomplished', the definition of 'win' has become rather accomodating.

First off, I was the one who made the stupid error of saying "Nigeria." It was just that...an error.

Now...every intelligence agency in the world, including the Israeli, say the Niger link was BS. Israel admitted considerable embarassment that they ever believed it and launched an internal investigation over how they could have been so stupid.

You might want to launch a similar investigation for yourself.

Hizbollah is a pawn that Syria uses. Their contact with Iran is largely because the two nations are far enough away to avoid direct conflict, so they can both simply pay lip service to the Palestinians and keep their people from complaining by saying they are fighting Israel. You can see what happens when Bathists and Iran get too close if you pay attention to the history of Iraq and Iran, but in the past and now. Why do you think we supported Hussein for so long? Reagan and the elected Bush preferred a secular military dictator to a theocractic nation.

...supply what some people refer to as evidence for your bizarre wingnuttish claims? In particular for the ludicrous assertion that Bush's support of bigotry is only for show?

...you might employ said facility to evaluate what it means when someone is:

- registered as a member of the republican party
- is a speaker at republican party public events
- gives money to and campaigns for republican party candidates
- publicly advocates republican party positions on every major issue
- is quoted as a republican party spokes-skank, using the "we" instead of "they" in her statements to reporters at a republican party event

So sure, evidence suggests that she has nothing to do with the republican party, while the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection by contrast is clear as daylight, and I'm childish and have a demonstrable logic problem.

Want a cookie on your way to the Wiggles concert?

As to your speculations on my views on a matter three years ago, what are they to me? Sound and fury, signifying nothing? Do you expect to be taken seriously because you have now demonstrated a mastery of doublethink apparatchik talking points on issues long since closed, like the non-existent Saddam-Al Qaeda link?

For everything else, I refer you to my upcoming post, titled "republican terrorist", which delves further into the miasma of the Coulter-extreme right-republican party nexus. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for shills - like you - to say even a word of scant regret at her outrageous smear on the 9/11 widows. Is that what "compassionate conservatism" is all about?

For starters, I'm not a Republican.

Sure, you just talk like one, know their talking points by heart, use dead give-aways like referring to the invasion of Iraq as a "liberation", and bend over backwards to make the specious case that Coulter has nothing to do with them.

I suppose you could make some sort of pathetic case that if the GOP has invited her to speak at events then they may need to burp a soundbyte denouncing the obvious.

Yes, that is actually the entire point of this post, the one you've been arguing strenuously against now for two days.

Argument conceded, I win. Game over.

Since you're obviously fighting a holding action here, I'll provide you with the links - again, here and here.

Next?

Slow down there, Tex.
I got that potential spam flag on a fair use comment this morning myself, and I'm all registered here, and on Michael's side of the conversation to boot.

I think it's a traffic device the software activates, VERY annoying but hardly anti-dissent. If you want anti-dissent, go check out the repressive "free enterprise" piffle in the other hot conversation, about Brangelina's photos appearing here. I seem to have aroused someone claiming to be a journalism teacher LOL who doesn't believe in the people's right to know!

Hi Michael -sorry to butt in, carry on!

Oh, by all means; and thank you for strengthening the case the "mrme" has a persecution complex of some kind.

:-), M

This is such a typical wingnut line. I mean, they ALWAYS use it. It's like a calling card. It's like putting a banner across your forehead saying "I lost and now I'm going to call 'foul.'"

I am not sure anyone here has ever said we live under fascism. I think the most we might say is we don't like how close Bush is taking us...slippery slope and all that. Second, no one is squelching your little dissents. Third, even if we were, you seem to be confusing us, an online community, with the government. How can we squelch civil dissent or establish a fascist regime? You seem to be over-reacting just a tad.

Finally, the only thing that is unequivocal to me is that you seem to only listen to Saddam Hussein's propoganda, not to the history and anthropology of the region, international news stories, or pretty much anything else. Your "facts" are wrong through and through. In fact they are about as far away from reality as one can get.

If you are not registered with the site as an authorized commenter, the system will automatically flag you.

Register with us and you'll have unnlimited trolling privileges.

Well, Michael is gay so I think that's fine by him. Now, about the Republican guy ...

Don't blame me if your calls don't get returned; that's not my area of expertise.