|
|
|
|
|
Ender
|
Joined: 2/1/2004
Msg: 51 | |
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 5:29:31 PM | I see nothing wrong with public flogging. Hell I am all for televised executions......beheadings even. The only way to keep some of these heathens in line is to REALLY show them what will happen if they violate the laws of society.
"Do not rape. Do not murder. Do not steal. These are concepts that any man of any faith can embrace." ~ Boondock Saints | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 5:33:25 PM | God help America....
I never thought I would ever live to see the day when even some Americans could think this way, outside of KKK type neanderthals. | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 6:03:11 PM | Ann has more balls than most men. | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 6:04:40 PM | | And a bigger Adam's apple by the looks of things. | |
|
| |
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 6:10:44 PM | God help America....
I never thought I would ever live to see the day when even some Americans could think this way, outside of KKK type neanderthals.
I got news for you, some Canadians think that way, too. You're not all that special, you know?
edit: Btw, you just condemned many arabic countries as "KKK type neanderthals", as public executions, and floggings are quite common out that way. | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 7:25:57 PM | "Rural America IS America, as much a part of it as any urban area, and what they are afraid of is people who think they know it all telling them how to live, just what you seem to want to do."
A lot of people in urban America feel the same way about the rural americans. I don't care about your religion and "values." I have plenty of my own. Regarding social issues, as far as I'm concerned, the rurals can live their lives as they like provided they allow me the same privlage. And as far as economic issues go, I would be glad to let rural america fend for itself without the gigantic subsidies it gets from the wealthier, urban parts of the country. Need proof of that, just check out the return on federal taxes urban states like NJ get compared to rural ones like SD or WY.
"The examples of "good old conservative values" you listed aren't confined to rural folks, in fact most KKK members in 1925 lived in cities, that's how they grew so big, playing on the fears of city folks about losing their jobs to minorities, in league with the Nazi's"
Though I'm sure he'll defend his own statement, what I believe he was getting at is that these great old-fashioned values that America has had in the past, and were supposedly lost or corrupted by liberals, gays, feminists, or whomever recently, (and what conservatives would like to take us back to) weren't really there, or really that great afterall. Another thing I'd add to them (We looked at this in my history class a few years back, but I can't find a link to back it up) is the idea that Americans have always had guns, and used them to defend themselves, hunt, or whatever since the country was founded. In reality, a gun was not affordable to the average american until roughly the 1880s. | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 7:37:15 PM |
The United States is so isolated from the rest of the world in intellectual thoughts and history that we have very little contact with "checks and balances" against what we're told about our own past by an educational system with no world perspective.. only right wing; especially in rural areas. They make sure the books children are taught about history from in school contain ONLY THE BEST information about the American system and how it works each time, every time.
How does it feel to be smarter than anyone else here in the US? Tell me if the US has the dumbest people on the planet how did we become what we are today? | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 7:44:50 PM |
the US has the dumbest people on the planet
Who said this? | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 7:50:08 PM | | Elwood Blues aka GenJackRipper says it quite often. I think he's pretty much saying it in the above paragraph in a round about way. | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/1/2005 8:10:14 PM |
Elwood Blues aka GenJackRipper says it quite often. I think he's pretty much saying it in the above paragraph in a round about way.
I've never said that. Show me where I said that?
Also, who is elwood?
Never met the guy...
...You say I say things I never said. I not only didn't say it often, I never said that at all. Maybe your guy elwood did, but NOT ME. | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/2/2005 5:54:10 AM | I got news for you, some Canadians think that way, too. You're not all that special, you know?
edit: Btw, you just condemned many arabic countries as "KKK type neanderthals", as public executions, and floggings are quite common out that way.
I agree with the first part of your post, ignorance is INDEED universal. That said :
"1790 The Imperial Statute of 1790 allowed settler to bring slaves into the province.
owners were only required to feed and clothe slaves
any child born of slaves in Upper Canada became free at age 25
any owner who set a slave free had to make sure that he/she could support themselves financially
1791 John Graves Simcoe was sent from Britain to Upper Canada to serve as Lieutenant Governor of the colony. He believed that slavery was wrong. He wanted Britain to make laws that would abolish slavery in Upper Canada.
1793 John White, Attorney General of Upper Canada, introduced a bill to abolish slavery. Instead, a law called the Anti-slave Law of Upper Canada passed which limited slavery but did not eliminate it. Those who were slaves remained so until death.
no new slaves could be brought in to Upper Canada
slaves brought in or who came in to Upper Canada themselves were free upon arrival
present owners could keep their slaves
children of slaves born after 1793 were to be free after age 25, their children would be born free
1819 John Beverley Robinson, Attorney General of Upper Canada ruled that people of African origins who lived in Canada were free with their rights protected by law.
In Lower Canada and the Maritimes there were no laws about slavery. The judges and courts helped to abolish slavery by protecting the rights of slaves. Although slavery was still legal, slaves who left their owners were not afraid of being returned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavery in LOWER CANADA (Quebec, Canada East)
1792 A bill to abolish slavery was introduced in Lower Canada but defeated.
1803 William Osgoode, Chief Justice of Lower Canada ruled that slavery was inconsistent with British Law. Although slavery was not legally abolished, any slave who left his owner could do so without fear of being returned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly not a perfect record, but we managed to beat the Emancipation Proclamation ( and good old Abe ) that was signed on the 22nd day of September,1862 by 59 years.
My condemnation applies not to countries or religions , but to those extremists in those places - the same way I refererenced certain Americans.
We are REALLY going to win their hearts and minds by adopting THEIR methods, aren't we ?
| |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/2/2005 2:31:46 PM | younger
I agree that we should all try to get along (pardon the trite expression), each side trying harder to understand the other. As far as the 'subsidies' go, I ask you to consider the idea that rural areas have been treated much as third world nations have, their resources taken and the profits accruing to the wealthy industrialists who typically live in metropolitan areas.
The best example of this is the Reconstruction after the Civil War, opportunists from the North moved in and bought up properties seized by the Union for non-payment of taxes during the war. They also exploited the timber industry, what little heavy industry there was, owned and operated all major transportation including railroads, etc. If the monies from this had been reinvested in the South it would have been okay, but the profits went to banks in New England, to be used there for the benefit of local infrastructure.
See the same thing in the West, where the mining dollars went back to NE (or SoCal) as well, oil and gas, corporations controlling the cattle and farming industries, etc. My point being if these decades of draining capitol away from these areas had not occurred, perhaps these "subsidies" as you called them would not be necessary.
It's very similar to the treatment of blacks, if they had not been held down for another 100 years after the Civil War where would they be today? We have tried to use "subsidies" for them such as affirmative action in hiring, college enrollments, govt contracts, etc. Both instances are a people exploited by the wealthy, who we now are trying to boost so that they can have a level playing field with the rest of the country.
Switching subjects, I believe I understood what he was saying, my problem was the arrogance exhibited in the assumption that all rural folks were ignorant racist bumpkins.
Lastly, on the guns question. I too saw that study, and it was discredited many times over. The 'average' American (if there is such a thing) had to hunt for subsistance, and be prepared to defend himself against both creatures and man. I guess if he lived in a large settlement perhaps this wasn't as necessary, but on the frontier (most of the nation before 1880), a man without a rifle was a dead man, either by starvation or attack. I've even seen documents showing local laws requiring men to bring their weapons to church, to be ready for Indian attack.
As far as the affordability goes, guns were fairly expensive, but that's why a family's weapons were treasured possessions, being handed down several generations (technology was relatively stagnant from 1650 - 1850, the flintlock era). A gun is a tool, like a knife, and these tools were as much a part of life on the frontier as breathing.
MajMike | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/2/2005 2:45:42 PM | She simply makes me LAUGH!!
I think she is hilarious!!! (and the support crew who always HAS to work with her to make sure she doesn't say something ton get herslef blown up or sued or totally completely out of control and rampant)
I sort of see her as The American Don Cherry, in that, if there ISNT someone assigned to keeping her viewpoints sort of..balanced..and "to the facts"; it just gets SO very far out of control and hilariously wrong and biased that it becomes a nonsensical, yet absolutely HILARIOUS farce.
Lord knows I love ya Don; but you sure do get pretty out there and fun at times. | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/2/2005 2:53:10 PM | Certainly not a perfect record, but we managed to beat the Emancipation Proclamation ( and good old Abe ) that was signed on the 22nd day of September,1862 by 59 years.
It is always amazing to me (being from the South) that so many people believe that Lincoln freed the slaves with that Proclamation.
In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation freed ONLY the slaves that were in the states in rebellion against the agression of the North. All the slaves in New England were still slaves.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/
But I'll bet Anne Coulter knew it.
| |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/2/2005 3:15:45 PM | Is Anne COulter single?
Because if she IS, and Rose will let Don or DON will let Don date; they would make the most HILARIOUSLY boisterous and explosive pairing EVER!!!
I WANNA SEE IT!! Don CHerry and Anne COulter (a day at the coffee shop)....
ON BROADWAY!!
BAD idea son.
 | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/2/2005 5:48:10 PM | | Is it just me , or does a cherry coulter sound like a pastry ? | |
|
| |
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/3/2005 6:09:06 AM | | Anne Coulter?--I'd hit it- | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/3/2005 6:34:14 PM | ...is an attractive,intelligant woman.
 | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 6/3/2005 9:18:36 PM | Elwood, is it just me, or are you the only person quoting any facts at all in that argument? I mean really, is the neo-con movement just pretty slogans and retailoring old ideas to sound like new ones? "Trickledown Economics" becomes "Supply-side Economics." I want to give tax breaks to the rich becomes I want to give you back your money.
When will anyone learn that the only difference between a system where the goverment runs everything and one where the corporations run everything is who gets the check?? Either a system where thier EXPRESSED goal is to make as much money out of thier clients as humanly possible or one where they are, at the very least, seemingly held responsible to the people. Oh, and no one give me that crap about people can just boycot a company, because everytime someone tries that, the same corp-loving people are screaming bloody murder about the jobs and people it is going to put out of work. (Hmmm... so the only people that get hurt are the ones at the bottom... Whatever happened to the person at the top being responsible???) But I guess that doesn't go for people who don't agree with the neo-cons though... On the other hand, if the goverment controls everything, then you have the problem of people who get in power changing things in such a way as to prevent them from losing power... (Does the word Re-Districting mean anything to anyone?)
As far as Anne Coulter is concerned, I think it is increadibly ammusing to read her own quotes compared to Al Franken. Both accuse the other side of having all the money, of hating the working people of America, of not being moral/honest/trustworthy, of being out to control how you live your life.
I think that both sides of the arguement has siezed on this idea of the other side is wanting to control your lives, and we need a new movement. We need the People First movement, where goverment is NOT there to get involved with your life unless it HAS to. No Victim No Crime should be etched in the stone walls of congress, and that would solve so much. But you know what?? Both Al Franken AND Anne Coulter would stand united against it!! Because they are both right! Both sides of the arguement are about controling the people, and I'm not some nut. It is just that they each want to control different things about your life. Liberals want to control your public life, and Republicans want to control your private life. Think about it. Under the premise No Victim No Crime, prostitution would be legal, drugs would be legal... Oh, what? The criminal is the victim?? Think about that logic and come back to me with the idea you don't want to control people's lives. You can almost hear the right screaming now, can you? On the other hand, who is the victim when someone Speeds?? Sure it is more dangeous, and the speeding tickets help to pay the bills in goverment (which seems like the primary reason behind the law nowadays), but the only person who gets hurt if someone Speeds is the driver and his gas millage, as long as he/she is in control, who does it hurt? Sure, reckless driving is a different story, so we institute Auto-baun rules (Drift out of your lane, and you are busted as being out of control), right? But, I can sure hear the bleeding hearts scream the saftey issue to death already, like has been done in my state. A democratic govenor vetos a bill that would have raised the speed limit by 5 mph on the banner of safety.
So, where do I fit in? With the Libertarians? Nope, because they missed the point of it as well. Goverment given to the corps would change nothing, except to make some exec money. No, less goverment is NOT less control over your life. Even no goverment just leads to a different power taking control over that power vacum. No, we just need to make goverment accountable to us, again, and make sure they know we want them in only as far they have to be.
But Anne Coulter will never see what I have to say as being anything but ramblings of the insane, right? But then again, I am not using facts either... Of course I could back up a lot of what I have to say here, but you know what, if the Anne Coulters of the world don't have to, neither do I, right? | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 3/3/2007 4:06:58 PM | Didja hear the latest about Aryan Ann? :)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703030002
The hits just keep on comin'.
What a nasty person she is. | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 3/3/2007 6:59:57 PM | Anne Coulter tells the truth without sugar coating it. Lots of people don't like hearing it told straight, especially people who suck. They don't like to hear how much they suck and why they suck. It upsets them.
If you are not a coward, America hater, Islamic extremist, socialist/communist, Christian hater, Jew hater, or an all around loser, nothing Ann Coulter says should bother you. | |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 3/3/2007 7:04:22 PM | "Anne Coulter
...is an attractive,intelligant woman."
Down is Up. Light is Dark. Hot is Cold.
(By the way, nice spelling. "...intelligAnt.." 
"Anne Coulter tells the truth without sugar coating it. Lots of people don't like hearing it told straight, especially people who suck. They don't like to hear how much they suck and why they suck. It upsets them.
If you are not a coward, America hater, Islamic extremist, socialist/communist, Christian hater, Jew hater, or an all around loser, nothing Ann Coulter says should bother you."
That last part should read; "...nothing Ann Coulter says appeals to you."
There you have it, folks. A clear, concise summation of the "mind"set of the typical Ann Coulter fan.
Another way in which Nature says "Please neuter me before I reproduce!!!"
Could it be any sadder?
| |
|
| Anne Coulter
Posted: 3/3/2007 7:39:16 PM | Micheal Moore and Al Frankin may be**** at times, but they have never called for the mass murder of their political opponents. Equating the two is disingenuous and shows you haven't really read material by both groups.
She is also a horrible liar, who is completely unwilling to acknowledge her errors. Like when she argued with a Canadian journalist about if we sent troops to vietnam. Trying to say Canada wasn't as supportive as it used to be...
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2663937
I guess nobody told her about Afghanistan, you know the country that actually supported terrorists.
I'd screw her, but I'd video tape it so I could broadcast it and ruin her damn hate mongering career. Consider it a noble sacrifice, taking a bullet for more civilized political discourse. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
