Poison Justice Stevens, Coulter jokes

[ExiledInIllinois]

I guess my original point was that a lot of people view Conservative as humorless and full of sh--. 

 

Coulter is not the only one cracking people up.  Check out these hilarious bits:

 

Sen. Ney announced recently that he is running for re-election.  ROTFL That was hilarious. 

 

Bush says that he never met Abramoff.  What a side splitter.  He even kept a straight face when he said it.   

 

Sen. Santorum categorically denies any ties to so-called 'K Street Project'. "I had absolutely nothing to do -- never met, never talked, never coordinated, never did anything -- with Grover Norquist and the -- quote -- K Street Project."   Stop it your killing me.  

 

I need to take a break, my sides are splitting.

587178[/snapback]

 

Again... Pretty funny.

 

But, when you advocate someone's death (even if you joke)... You can't stand down on the threat... You just can't.

 

Call me serious, unfunny... There are just to many wack jobs out there.

 

It is just not good.

[EC-Bills]

dems hate Coulter because  she is successful and good looking.  Same with Laura Ingraham. The female commentators they have , to be blunt are ugly.  I saw MollyIvins on CSPAN Friday. Either she is very sick or her hatred is eating her up . She looked like a bag lady.

 

dems can't stand that America is basically Conservative. Limbaugh, et al are successful because they say what the vast majority of America believes and stands for. Even in the liberal bastion of SF, Err America is on the 25th rated station with a few religious stations beating them.

587144[/snapback]

 

As usual, you are so full of sh*t! People, regardless of political affiliation, despise Coulter because she is a liar and nut job. The only people who like and believe her are the nutjobs who are too lazy to do any fact checking and just want to be fed arch-right wing propganda bullet points (i.e. you).

 

I could personaly care less on how someone looks. I am more interested if they can get their facts straight and have reasonable conversation with others.

 

You go ahead and keep buying into what Rush and Ann say. It's a lot easier than thinking.

 

Who cares about air america?!? I certainly don't. They are no better than the nutjobs they try to counter.

[ExiledInIllinois]

As usual, you are so full of sh*t!  People, regardless of political affiliation, despise Coulter because she is a liar and nut job.  The only people who like and believe her are the nutjobs who are too lazy to do any fact checking and just want to be fed arch-right wing propganda bullet points (i.e. you).

 

I could personaly care less on how someone looks. I am more interested if they can get their facts straight and have reasonable conversation with others.

 

You go ahead and keep buying into what Rush and Ann say. It's a lot easier than thinking.

 

Who cares about air america?!?  I certainly don't.  They are no better than the nutjobs they try to counter.

587192[/snapback]

 

Clap! Clap!

 

And are willing to except change and moderate if they are inaccurate (in ack ur at ).

[Taro T]

Agree Dave... Double agree.  What kind of audience did The Unabomber have?... AC seems to have a greater sane angle... Which could be troubling...  And she hones in on prominent (even know not any less an inmportant human) as a SC justice.

 

She did the right thing by saying it was a joke... She had to... That is all I am arguing about.  To say that she didn't have to make a disclaimer is just irresponsible.

587180[/snapback]

It would be pretty scary to think someone would actually listen to her on this one (assuming she hadn't said "just kidding" or whatever). An interesting (at least to me) aside in all this is, she said this in a "lecture" at a "traditionally black college" apparently located near Little Rock. If she doesn't say something this mind-numbingly stupid, I still haven't ever heard of Philander Smith College nor did I know people anywhere (much less at a southern predominantly black institute of higher learning) actually PAY HER to "lecture".

 

I chalk this up to a well calculated publicity stunt. Not only is her name in the public eye, but now if a bruhaha erupts, she uses it to forward her already annoying agenda (which as near as I can figure is primarily self-promotion).

[Mickey]

I'm sure he would, but I didn't say the left was worse.  I was just surprised that someone bothered to feign shock over the comment considering the low level of discourse we see on a daily basis.  Clearly it's hard to be 'worse' than Rush and Coulter, not that the folks at Air America aren't trying!

Oh I agree.  It's pretty disturbing when a blatant propaganda film by Michael Moore designed to sway an election is taken as gospel by millions of people, or when Coulter or Franken appear on the best seller list.  Maybe we need a board pledge that none of us will ever pay money for any content written or spoken by any of these jackals who pander to the LCD.  I certainly would never waste money on a book by Franken, Coulter or the like.  You?

What was Al doing for his nice living before?  Being an SNL writer and having bit parts in movies?  I'm sure he wasn't starving, but it certainly didn't bring the lifestyle that writing best sellers does.  Let's not pretend that there's any difference between these two.  Otherwise, paragraph 1 of your post becomes a little disingenuous, right?

 

As for Garofalo, that's always been just funny.  A B-list actor and stand up is now a voice for political and global affairs?  Who's next, Tina Fey?

587181[/snapback]

Yeah, next thing you know a has been like Ronald Reagan could be President and Ahhhhnold the next governor of California, whoooops, too late.

 

Fact is, Garofalo and Franken were pretty well known long before they became activists. Not so with Coulter, Ingram, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. I never heard of any of them until hate radio became so popular. Limbaugh especially has been around a long time, long before Michael Moore and Air America. Sitting on the left, we saw these nutjobs selling out their books and dominating the radio dial for years. We used to laugh them off but fact is, they had an effect. There came a time where we then started to hear liberals complain that they should have their own Limbaugh and fight fiery BS with fiery BS. Enter Air America and Michael Moore. In fact, I think Franken's first book on politics was a direct attack on Limbaugh: "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot", isn't that what it was called?

 

I don't know that any of that really matters at this point but for what it is worth, there are differences.

 

In fact, in this thread there is at least one poster who thinks that Coulter and Limbaugh and the rest accurately reflect the views of the majority of Americans:

 

"Limbaugh, et al are successful because they say what the vast majority of America believes and stands for. "

 

Whenever I am critical of these hate mongers, I get jumped on for tattoing all of conservatism with the views of these extremists. Yet their books do sell out, all of them and they are quoted often enough here or their views echoed. Occasionally, a conservative or two comes right out like Wacka and endorses their view as the majority view.

 

Here is a brief survey of some of the books helping to get republicans elected:

 

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right

How To Talk To A Liberal (If you must): The World According to Ann Coulter

High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton

Deliver us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism

Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War against Christianity

Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism

Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild

Do As I Say (Not as I do): Profiles on Liberal Hypocrisy

A Deficit of Decency

A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat

Absoute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department

Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America...

The Enemy Within: Saving America From the Liberal Assault on our Schools, Faith..

The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assualt on our Borders...

Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut our Military, Endanger our...

Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics and UN are Subverting...

The Way Things Ought To Be

See, I Told You So

Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the rest of us)

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror

Dereliction of Duty: The Eye Witness Account of How Bill Cinton Endangered....

The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media

Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man

The Age of Reagan 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order

Liberalism as a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions

Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America

The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values

The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places

Slouching Towards Gommorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on our Culture and...

If It's Not Close, they Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election...

The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assualt on Free Speach and Free Minds

Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite

Brainwashed: How Universities Indonctrinate America's Youth

 

 

I'm leaving out O'Reilly's books for now and the legions of reach around bios of George Bush. Any one who has read more than three or four of the books on that list needs help. The left is catching up but the right had a huge head start.

 

Do you notice the pattern in the titles? They start with something really bad, ominiously stated followed by a colon and then a brief statement blaming liberals for the ominously stated bad thing before the colon. They also like linking the word Liberal with words like "assualt", "endanger", "destroy", etc. If you observe those helpful guidelines, you can come up with a title that will guarantee a best seller in no time. Here are some examples:

 

Death: The Liberal Assualt on Life

Famine: The Truth Behind The Liberal War on Food

Child Moletsters: How Bill Clinton and Janet Reno Invented Perderasty

Rain: How The Liberal Agenda to Endanger Sunshine is Destroying Motherhood

Athlete's Foot: Inside the Left's Assault on Hygiene

Kill Them All: What to do with Liberals?

 

 

What do you think it is like to try and have a political discussion with someone who has read all or most of those books? Loads of fun.

 

If I am a liberal, that apprently means that I loathe right and wrong; am out to destroy, assault or endanger America, its culture, its values and borders; I am an arrogant brainwasher bent on unleashing terrorism and despotism in a bid to overthrow America, its schools and christianity; I am a traitor who despises decency and suffers from a mental disorder; I am a Hollywood elite, a hypocrite who hates liberty and wants to wage a war against christians.

 

Shucks, and I thought I was just someone who disagreed with some conservative positions on this or that issue. Turns out I'm more dangerous than I ever imagined. BOO! Scared ya, didn't I?

[KRC]

You can always count on Mickey to provide the "Yeah, Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse" shtick. It just never gets old and you are so predictable.

 

Now he is trying to rely on "well, Libs were doing something else first before they became whackjobs, whereas Republicans were not." Even better was the comment about how Rush or Hannity could not do anything else besides what they are doing now, where Libs do not have that problem. Damn. You are really reaching. It was embarassing before, but it is down-right laughable now.

 

Coutler is a freak, just like Randi Rhodes. Both say irresponsible things to try to draw attention to themselves. Rhodes just does not get the same media play for making the same types of comments. Why is that, Mick?

 

Unlike you, I will actually comdemn Coulter for making these remarks. It is not going to take a multitude of posts before I do it (unlike you), I am doing it with my first post. Her comments were highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous. They are not just stupid remarks, they are dangerous.

 

It is too bad that you are incapable of doing the same thing with people on the left, but that would require you to actually <gasp> blast someone on the left. I won't hold my breath for you to do that. I know that you are incapable. You will just find ways of defending or muting their actions and follow it with "Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse."

[Alaska Darin]

You can always count on Mickey to provide the "Yeah, Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse" shtick. It just never gets old and you are so predictable.

 

Now he is trying to rely on "well, Libs were doing something else first before they became whackjobs, whereas Republicans were not."  Even better was the comment about how Rush or Hannity could not do anything else besides what they are doing now, where Libs do not have that problem.    Damn. You are really reaching. It was embarassing before, but it is down-right laughable now.

 

Coutler is a freak, just like Randi Rhodes. Both say irresponsible things to try to draw attention to themselves. Rhodes just does not get the same media play for making the same types of comments. Why is that, Mick?

 

Unlike you, I will actually comdemn Coulter for making these remarks. It is not going to take a multitude of posts before I do it (unlike you), I am doing it with my first post. Her comments were highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous. They are not just stupid remarks, they are dangerous.

 

It is too bad that you are incapable of doing the same thing with people on the left, but that would require you to actually <gasp> blast someone on the left. I won't hold my breath for you to do that. I know that you are incapable. You will just find ways of defending or muting their actions and follow it with "Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse."

587449[/snapback]

Aw, c'mon. "Democrats have poor leadership" is blasting away. Really it is.

[Mickey]

You can always count on Mickey to provide the "Yeah, Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse" shtick. It just never gets old and you are so predictable.

 

Now he is trying to rely on "well, Libs were doing something else first before they became whackjobs, whereas Republicans were not."  Even better was the comment about how Rush or Hannity could not do anything else besides what they are doing now, where Libs do not have that problem.    Damn. You are really reaching. It was embarassing before, but it is down-right laughable now.

 

Coutler is a freak, just like Randi Rhodes. Both say irresponsible things to try to draw attention to themselves. Rhodes just does not get the same media play for making the same types of comments. Why is that, Mick?

 

Unlike you, I will actually comdemn Coulter for making these remarks. It is not going to take a multitude of posts before I do it (unlike you), I am doing it with my first post. Her comments were highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous. They are not just stupid remarks, they are dangerous.

 

It is too bad that you are incapable of doing the same thing with people on the left, but that would require you to actually <gasp> blast someone on the left. I won't hold my breath for you to do that. I know that you are incapable. You will just find ways of defending or muting their actions and follow it with "Dems may do it, but Republicans are worse."

587449[/snapback]

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about Ann Coulter, was there a reference to something some liberal said that I was supposed to condemn? Please find it for me.

 

I noticed how you jumped right in to point out the "democrats do it too" posts. Not. Some more of that famous non-partisanship of yours.

 

Besides, the difference between your views and nuts like Coulter is, is..., ummm, I forget, what is the difference again?

 

Care to address the substance of the posts, all those books? How many have you read? Better yet, how many of their hysterical arguements have you echoed?

 

Still waiting for you to explain how a post of mine directly critical of democrats was, as you accused, "excusing all democrats". I've lost count on how many times I've asked. It was one of the better demonstrations of your self proclaimed non-partisan reasonableness.

[Mickey]

Aw, c'mon.  "Democrats have poor leadership" is blasting away.  Really it is. 

587480[/snapback]

The actual quote was:

 

"...democrats have a serious leadership problem. Most of the problem is that their leaders are pretty bad in their own right."

 

And in response Ken accused me of excusing all democrats from any blame. When I pointed out how he missed what I wrote, he then misquoted me. You know, kind of how you just did.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

It would be pretty scary to think someone would actually listen to her on this one (assuming she hadn't said "just kidding" or whatever).  An interesting (at least to me) aside in all this is, she said this in a "lecture" at a "traditionally black college" apparently located near Little Rock.  If she doesn't say something this mind-numbingly stupid, I still haven't ever heard of Philander Smith College nor did I know people anywhere (much less at a southern predominantly black institute of higher learning) actually PAY HER to "lecture".

 

I chalk this up to a well calculated publicity stunt.  Not only is her name in the public eye, but now if a bruhaha erupts, she uses it to forward her already annoying agenda (which as near as I can figure is primarily self-promotion).

587278[/snapback]

 

I generally like her schtick. But she has an adams able. Hmm.

[Alaska Darin]

The actual quote was:

 

"...democrats have a serious leadership problem. Most of the problem is that their leaders are pretty bad in their own right."

 

And in response Ken accused me of excusing all democrats from any blame.  When I pointed out how he missed what I wrote, he then misquoted me.  You know, kind of how you just did.

587595[/snapback]

I'm sorry I didn't feel you were worth 30 seconds of searching so I instead paraphrased...***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

***Let's see how long you plan on spinning around like a top in this thread.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America

587386[/snapback]

 

This is actually a very good book as it shows in black and white just how much of an agenda the mainstream media has.

 

Of course, to someone of your persuasion, there's be no bias at all. But that's why it's got the title it has

[KRC]

I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about Ann Coulter, was there a reference to something some liberal said that I was supposed to condemn?  Please find it for me.

 

I noticed how you jumped right in to point out the "democrats do it too" posts. Not.  Some more of that famous non-partisanship of yours.

 

Besides, the difference between your views and nuts like Coulter is, is..., ummm, I forget, what is the difference again?

 

Care to address the substance of the posts, all those books?  How many have you read? Better yet, how many of their hysterical arguements have you echoed?

 

Still waiting for you to explain how a post of mine directly critical of democrats was, as you accused, "excusing all democrats".  I've lost count on how many times I've asked.  It was one of the better demonstrations of your self proclaimed non-partisan reasonableness.

587586[/snapback]

 

I haven't wasted my time reading any of the books you mentioned. As far as the difference between my opinions and Coulters, I guess you missed the part where I called her comments "highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous." Of course, I would not expect you to actually be honest here. You are a lawyer and you are trained to be dishonest. You have just taken to using it on this board as well. It is really sad.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I haven't wasted my time reading any of the books you mentioned. As far as the difference between my opinions and Coulters, I guess you missed the part where I called her comments "highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous." Of course, I would not expect you to actually be honest here. You are a lawyer and you are trained to be dishonest. You have just taken to using it on this board as well. It is really sad.

587875[/snapback]

 

The only people more dishonest than lawyers are Presidential candidates.

[OnTheRocks]

let me give you a big YAWN for this ridiculous thread.

[Mickey]

I haven't wasted my time reading any of the books you mentioned. As far as the difference between my opinions and Coulters, I guess you missed the part where I called her comments "highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous." Of course, I would not expect you to actually be honest here. You are a lawyer and you are trained to be dishonest. You have just taken to using it on this board as well. It is really sad.

587875[/snapback]

Your tactics are just like hers. You ignore the substance of an argument and instead attack the credibility of the source, usually personally. The "you are a partisan" knee jerk drool you slop around ad nauseum is exactly that. For example, in this thread you didn't bother to challenge a single factual assertion in my post but instead jerked the knee once again. Gee, a slam against lawyers, now that is not at all Coulterish now is it?

[Mickey]

The only people more dishonest than lawyers are Presidential candidates. 

588140[/snapback]

...and Presidents.

[Mickey]

This is actually a very good book as it shows in black and white just how much of an agenda the mainstream media has.

 

Of course, to someone of your persuasion, there's be no bias at all. But that's why it's got the title it has

587873[/snapback]

I just filled out your summer reading list didn't I?

[KRC]

Your tactics are just like hers.  You ignore the substance of an argument and instead attack the credibility of the source, usually personally.  The "you are a partisan" knee jerk drool you slop around ad nauseum is exactly that.  For example, in this thread you didn't bother to challenge a single factual assertion in my post but instead jerked the knee once again.  Gee, a slam against lawyers, now that is not at all Coulterish now is it?

588770[/snapback]

 

Instead of addressing the substance of a post, you just twist yourself in a pretzel to say "yeah, Dems do it, but Republicans are worse." What factual assertion did I not address? I said I didn't read any of the books you mentioned and I wouldn't waste my time reading any of them. Is this too difficult of a concept for you to understand? Do I need....to....type....slower....for....you? I also addressed the substance of the thread, which was that Coulter's comments were "highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous." Again, do....I....need....to....type....slower....for....you....to....understand....what....I....am....writing? I also commented that the rest of your comments were just flat out stupid and did nothing to address the substance of the original post. I thought I didn't really need to dwell on that aspect, because it is pretty typical of your posts lately.

 

As far as the lawyer comment, stop being such a kitty. Whaaaaa....whaaaaa...the big bad moderator is picking on me. I can just see you in the courtroom:

 

Mickey: Judge, the other lawyer is picking on me. <sniff> Make him stop.

Judge: No.

Mickey: <sniff> But he is hurting my feelings. <sniff>

Judge: No

Mickey: <sniff> He is not allowed to point out my hypocrisy and show the flaws in my arguments. <sniff>

 

Grow a pair. You just do not like it that you are being called on the fact that you are being dishonest here. I know you can't help yourself. You are a shill for the DNC, especially Hillary. If you don't like being called out for it, then maybe you need to look at what you post.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Not so with Coulter, Ingram, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.  I never heard of any of them until hate radio became so popular.

587386[/snapback]

 

Oh Mickey, it's just so dreamy how sensitive you are. </sarcasm>