A Vast Sleeper Cell

[daepp]

Seems to me she speaks truth to Democrat power!

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Dan in Pasadena
How soon before Ann carves an X in her own forehead? Oh...skip that, it'd be a W

They have the same crazy look in their eyes, so I'm guessing it won't be long.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by daepp
Seems to me she speaks truth to Democrat power!

I wish that were true, it needs doing, but alas, she does not. What Ann Coulter does is speak to the neocon booboise', giving the pap they so heartily love to swallow.

From "The Archangel Woodrow." Mencken's skill at manipulating language is matched by an awareness of how others, with perhaps more insidious intentions, do the same. In his evaluation of the oratory of President Wilson ("a pedagogue gone mashugga"), Mencken mingles scorn with a certain awe:
"[Wilson] knew how to arrest and enchant the boobery with words that were simply words, and nothing else. The vulgar like and respect that sort of balderdash. . . . Woodrow knew how to conjure up such words. He know how to make them glow, and weep. He wasted no time upon the heads of his dupes, but aimed directly at their ears, diaphragms and hearts. . . . He heard words giving threee cheers; he saw them race across a blackboard like Marxians pursued by the Polizei; he felt them rush up and kiss him"

[daepp]

Pat - I suspect you are a very intelligent person. However, I can make no sense of your post.

Why don't you pasre Coulter's piece and tell us what you disagree with. Prefereably without a lot of unnecessary labels.

[Moneyguy1]

The last thread of sanity is that of posting as a conspiracy theorist. How can one believe anything that is posted with such venom and hatred towards such a large percentage of the citizenry? Someone needs therapy....and soon!!

[fastpat]

Originally posted by daepp
Pat - I suspect you are a very intelligent person. However, I can make no sense of your post.

Why don't you pasre Coulter's piece and tell us what you disagree with. Prefereably without a lot of unnecessary labels.

Treating such a shrill piece as credible isn't possible, but here's a part I'll use as a demonstration.

written by Ann CoulterThe passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America.

More troops, fewer troops, different troops, "redeployment" -- all the Democrats' peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy. Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies -- exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese under Ford.

Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.

They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong "the National Liberation Front of Vietnam," just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq "insurgents." Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a "Jeffersonian Democrat," just as Michael Moore compares the Islamic fascists in Iraq to the Minute Men.

During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.

Now, as publisher of the Times, Pinch does all he can to help the enemy currently shooting at American soldiers.

After a half-dozen years of Democrat presidents creating a looming disaster in Vietnam -- with Kennedy ordering the assassination of our own ally in the middle of the war and Johnson ham-handedly choosing bombing targets from the Oval Office -- in 1969, Nixon became president and the world was safe again.

First, the Democrats were totally responsible for the entry into and prosecution of the Vietnam war, including the fake Tonkin Gulf incident, and were not in any way in opposition to it. So, that's factually incorrect. Further, Nixon, claimed to be able to prosecute the Vietnam war better than Johnson did, and proceeded to do exactly the same things Johnson did, which produced the same results. The only positive thing Nixon did was begin to remove troops from Vietnam, but about 400% slower than he should have done. Gerald Ford withstood tremendous pressure to return to Vietnam and resume combat operations, one of his few positive activities.

What Ann Coulter proves, again, is that she's speaking to the neocon booboise, and no one else.

[bigchillcar]

booboise...lol, pat. are you makin' a funny on the word bourgeoise...bougeiois..bougeois. aww eff-it..i can't even spell what i'm trying to say!

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
What would happen if she ran against Hillary?

I think i'd have to revolt at that point.

[m21sniper]

Originally posted by john70t
Well the hippys greeted the soldiers with real flowers, and got their heads bashed in.

The Iraqi flowers that Rumsfeld crowed about were a little different.

\

Say what?

The Hippies greeted returning american troops with invective laced tirades and streams of spit.

Effin' hippies...

[daepp]

COulter maybe should make a distinction about Democrats before and including JFK vs. those who came afterwards. Otherwise, I see no factual errors. Nixon let the military run Vietnam, but the press, the Dems and the hippies turned Tet into a loss, and from there ran the military out of Nam. These are the exact same people (along with their offspring) who are turing every American effort in the world into a loss for the US.

[nostatic]

it is factually correct that Nixon won 49 states in '72. The rest is hyperbole, innuendo, and inflammatory prose. Coulter's a tool...

[Moneyguy1]

I do not agree.

Tools, by definition, have a useful purpose.

[DaveE]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I do not agree.

Tools, by definition, have a useful purpose.

Then maybe she NEEDS a useful tool....... or new batteries.

[daepp]

It's interesting how no one can point out the factual errors. Nostatic says she's right about the 72 election, but again no specific errors pointed out in her column.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by bigchillcar
booboise...lol, pat. are you makin' a funny on the word bourgeoise...bougeiois..bougeois. aww eff-it..i can't even spell what i'm trying to say!

Not my original word coinage, I wish it were. That's from the pen of the fabulous H. L. Mencken.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by daepp
It's interesting how no one can point out the factual errors. Nostatic says she's right about the 72 election, but again no specific errors pointed out in her column.

there aren't facts. There is innuendo and hyperbole. Those aren't facts. You can believe that the tripe she posted are "facts" but they are opinion. There is a difference.

"But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America's word. "

There is no "fact" there. It is inflammatory prose with an agenda.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by nostatic
there aren't facts. There is innuendo and hyperbole. Those aren't facts. You can believe that the tripe she posted are "facts" but they are opinion. There is a difference.

"But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America's word. "

There is no "fact" there. It is inflammatory prose with an agenda.

Exactly, you can't counter "nothingness" with something. If I made the statement "I was never in Idaho." Challenging me to prove it would be a worthless gesture.

[daepp]

You don't think the Democarts turned their backs on Vietnam?

[DaveE]

Originally posted by daepp
You don't think the Democarts turned their backs on Vietnam?

No I think the majority of the population of the US saw the futility of being involved as policemen in someone else's civil war.

[Moneyguy1]

Facts and Opinion....Hyperbole.....

O'Reilly's use of hyperbole against NBCis an excellent example...."All of them at NBC are...." indicative of the overlap of reporting and opining. The NBC reporter said the Saddam execution was a disaster. The conclusion was that this was not the purvue of a reporter and so he was condemmned for it. Supporters of O'Reilly said "If the reporter had said 'some have said'...." it would have been OK. But no....as long as there are more hours to fill than there are worthy news stories we will be saddled with innuendo, hyperbole, rabblerousing and self aggrandizing opiners.

What is really sad are those who swallow this tripe,no matter who the source is, as wise and truthful. While the opiners say "SUCKERS!!" and count the receipts from their latest book. THe difference between those who are in the business and those who use them as "credible references" here is the financial gain. It's business, plain and simple, with no regard for the overall welfare of the nation.