Coulter’s Latest Denunciation of the Sociocrats

| | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0)

Knowing Joe is a big fan, I thought I'd share Ann's latest op-ed discussing the Global War on Terror.

Coulter Haters/"Cut and Run" War on Terror Softies-- I look forward to reading and enjoying your stinging criticism...

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Coulter’s Latest Denunciation of the Sociocrats.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/537

26 Comments

zimzo said:

Yawn.

Jack said:

Ann is on target again, except for the "surveil" part, which should be "survey." Nonetheless, I may have to agree with Zimzo here. It is nothing here we do not already know about the democrats positions (Lieberman excepted, of course). However, I do hope some Republican Congresscritters take note and use similar themes in their campaign. advertisements. But then, I wish they'd get the borders and budget under control, too, so I'm not going to hope TOO much.

Gnossis said:

"However, I do hope some Republican Congresscritters take note and use similar themes in their campaign advertisements."

Me too. As I eluded to in an earlier post, the more the GOP lets the Coulters and Hannities (Hannitys?) of the world drive their talking points, the more attractive their opponents become.

Coulter's tripe panders to a group of people who would shoot their own pet before they'd vote for a Democrat, so she really has no impetus (or ability) to add anything worthwhile to a real conversation of the day's political issues. Op-eds like this one (and her books) make it clear that she has no interest in actually engaging in a real discussion with anyone who disagrees with her.

There's my $.02, Soph. Hope I didn't let you down ;-)

Jack said:

Gnossis:

No disappointment here. Still, she does bring up a good question: What measures DO the Democrats support in our war on Islamic Fascism?

BTW, I was on vacation last week, so I could not respond to your posts on the "It's Not Always Gay Bashing" article (http://www.novatownhall.com/blog/2006/08/its_not_always_gay_bashing.php). I have done so, and look forward to continuing the discussion.

Gnossis said:

"What measures DO the Democrats support in our war on Islamic Fascism?"

The j-o-b prevents me from offering as comprehensive of a response as I'd like, but here's a sampling of the Dems' response to current WH policy on security matters: http://www.democrats.org/a/national/real_security/

Re: the earlier thread... it's obvious your stance is based heavily on your strongly-held relgious beliefs. I see it as a waste of time for both of us to beat a dead horse when we each understand that the other is coming from a radically different (but just as strongly-held) philosophical foundation. I have no interest in trying to talk you out of your faith, I'll just cancel you out at the ballot box.

Jack said:

Gnossis:

Interesting website. Although they say they "have a plan that is comprehensive-- from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq and freeing America of its dependence on foreign oil--and it will finally prepare America for the security needs of the 21st Century," they do not tell us what the plan is.

That's why Kerry lost. He kept saying, "I have a plan. Vote for me, and you'll see the plan." Well, he won (his Senate race), but still we have seen no plan from him.

WHAT IS THE DEMOCRATS PLAN?

"we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security"

I'll give them that. Any new bureaucracy is favored by the Democrats. However, I think it was a good idea in this case.

"...and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack"

How are they doing that?

"...and support increased funding for our first responders and programs like the COPS program so we keep our communities safe."

That is a matter for the state and local governments. The central government has NO Constitutional authority to pay for local police, fire, and rescue operations. The central government should deal only with federal crimes (such as illegal immigration), and co-ordination between central and local agencies.

"We want to close the remaining gaps in our security by enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations."

Again, where's the plan to do that? What specific proposals have they made?


Re the Not Gay Bashing post. I answered factual questions there, not religions ones. Go look.

Wow, Gnossis, that link is a great example of what St. Ann is talking about. "Condemning abuse and torture of prisoners"?? Thanks, Democrats, that's exactly what I'm looking for in an opposition party right now. Better to sacrifice our citizens and lose the war which was declared ON US than compromise our principles.

Or maybe they're just condemning the abuse of prisoners because it gives them an angle to criticize the Bush administration. Gee, could the Democrats possibly be so disingenuous? I guess I'm being Coulter-esque here, so please forgive me...

Memo to the Democratic leadership: NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE ABUSE OF PRISONERS IF IT WILL HELP STOP PLANES FROM GETTING BLOWN UP AND WHATNOT. If you are going to be all worked up emotionally about abuse of prisoners - keep it to yourself!! The majority of us out here would gladly support MORE abuse of prisoners if it would prevent a single terrorist attack in America. When the enemy saws off peoples' heads and disembowels old ladies and stones women who are victims of rape, we don't actually give a rat's ass if you keep the prisoners locked in the dungeon of Dracula's castle.

Interesting note: In Transylvanian, the word "democrat" means "biggest moron on the universe." All the great monsters were Republican.

If not for the fact the leadership is so friggin' foolish, I'd be a Democrat right now. Bush has been a disaster on the immigration issue, and a good number of the GOP senators voted for S2611. That's the perfect formula for me to switch parties.

If the Republican Party was a major retailer, I'd chop up my charge card and start a new blog to demonize it. If the Republican Party was a fast food chain, I'd buy lunch from it's main competitor once a week and damage my health in the process just for satisfaction of knowing the competitor is $6.57 stronger.

But you know what? The Democrats are WORSE in just about every respect. They want to surrender to the Islamists and open the border.

If the Democrats were right on immigration and national security, but still in favor of same sex marriage, I'd switch parties in a heartbeat. I know other people who feel the same way. But, alas, the Democrats manage to be wrong on EVERYTHING, while the Republicans every once in a while are right about something.

That's why I'm still - reluctantly - a Republican. It's the only party still worth trying to save.

Jack said:

The Dems would have to be right on gun control before I'd ever vote for them. A 71-year old woman was beaten to death in my neighborhood last week. If she'd had a gun, she'd have had a chance.

"God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal."

I definitely need to add 2nd Amendment to my list above. Thanks for reminding me, Jack.

zimzo said:

I get it, a real patriot doesn't defend the ENTIRE Constitution only the good parts. Maybe you can get the Presidential Oath of Office changed to:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend Articles II, IV, clause I of Amendment I and Amendments II, X, XIII, XIX, XX, XXI and XXVII of the Constitution of the United States."

Jack said:

Zimzo:

Ummmm... what parts of the Constitution are we not defending here?

Zimzo: Hearty thanks for defending our Constitution, and special gratitude for trying to extend it's protections to non-citizens, enemies of this country and prisoners of war.

Moderate 5-19 said:

As far as I'm concern this Blog hit a low by even linking to Ann Coulter.

She only gets press because she says such outlandish and often hateful things.

I'm all for hearing various points of views, but if we are going to link to Ann Coulter (on the right) we should link to Cynthia McKinney (on the left).

Great Caesar's ghost, Mod! You should read Ann's latest book. It's brilliant. I will grant that she offers up some eyebrow-raising sound bites, but in full context she's not nearly as outlandish as she's portrayed by the left.

Jack said:

I did not know that Cynthia McKinney had written anything. Nevertheless, I was not under the impression that this was supposed to be a balanced blog. If you want liberal links in your blogs, go to a liberal blog.

Moderate 5-19 said:

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

Moderate 5-19 said:

Oops Sorry,

I did not mean to his the post button. I was copying a small sampling of just some of the "eye raising" things Ann Coulter has said. I had many more but you all get the point.

BTW, Jack last week you and I were called extremist by Zimzo, this week you are telling me to go to liberal blogs. I was making the point that we have to stop giving everyone time and attention just because they are willing to say (or write) outrageous things. Rather they be far left or far right.

Hmm, Zimzo thinks I'm an extreme conservative, you think I'm a liberal, wow I must be a MODERATE.

Joe, I've not heard anyone say "Great Caesars Ghost" since my Grandfather, I think you’re nuts for reading let alone liking Ann Coulter, but thanks for the memory.

charles said:

M 5-19, are you asserting that if a person was disabled in a war, it is impossible for them to be part of the group that caused us to lose the war?

Or are you just saying that you can't blame people for things they did if they are disabled?

Jack said:

Mod 5-19:

Sorry to misinterpret you. I was not telling you to go away. I read liberal blogs myself, I just don't expect Joe to post such things here.

I don't recall calling you ANYTHING, conservative or liberal.

charles said:

THE DEMOCRATS PLAN?

"we led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security"

Actually, I'm not sure that made us safer, at least the way it started -- and the democrats tried to use it as a payoff to their government union supporters.

"...and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive facilities are secured against attack"

For example, by forcing a well-financed international partner to abandon the U.S. ports to incapable U.S. companies who give large campaign donations to the democrats, so that rather than getting new security equipment and upgrades, we have the same crappy stuff here and an international partner that is perturbed at us (Yes, I mean the dubai port deal).

They have no plan for anything else other than to keep telling the terrorists to attack our "vulnerable infrastructure" in the hopes that some terrorist will take them up on the offer so they can launch another spending spree to employ their union buddies.

"...and support increased funding for our first responders and programs like the COPS program so we keep our communities safe."
Mostly by being able to respond AFTER the terrorists hit us again, instead of stopping them ahead of time. Which we need under the democrat plan, because part of their plan is to bring the terrorists home to america, instead of fighting them overseas.

"We want to close the remaining gaps in our security by enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations."

The few useful 9/11 recommendations have been implemented. The rest were crap. We even implemented some of the bad ones, and I'll be surprised if we don't reverse some of that when we come to our senses.

The democrats plan is to keep telling us we are not perfectly safe (which is true), and to try to convince us to elect them so they can spend a lot more of our money while still not making us perfectly safe.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Charles,

We probably should not even get started on the Vietnam War, to answer your question I think it was poor policies and planning that led to the disaster in Vietnam.

As far as Ann Coulter is concerned, I can't imagine looking at a Vet who was willing to give his life for this county and actually left limps on the battlefield and having the audacity to make such a comment to him.

(You should know that I may be one of the biggest supporters of Vets you may ever cross paths with, thus it's hard for me to be objective for me when it comes to any issues involving veterans).


Mod, can you give me the context of the quote from Ann? Is it Max Cleland she was talking about, by any chance? Because as with the case of the 9-11 widows, Ann made the comment because of what the person was doing now, not because of the tragedy they experienced.

And yes, I have read Godless a couple times. I'd strongly recommend it and would lend you my copy. I think you'd be surprised there is much more to Ann Coulter than the sound bites suggest.

She's no moderate, but she's not crazy either.

Jacob Ash said:

Mod,
If you are a centrist, and judging from your comments I think you are pretty close to middle of the road, give Ann a chance. She will both annoy and entertain you. You will find her to be factually correct. Yes, in some instances you most likely will be in disagreement with her interpretation of those facts.

-AJ

Gnossis said:

"[The Democrats] want to surrender to the Islamists and open the border."

Joe, you forgot that they also eat babies, send half of their campaign donations to al Qaeda, and ritualistically sacrifce puppies and kittens to idols of Lenin and Marx. Oh, and the absolutely LOATHE freedom. Most definitely not Great Americans(TM).

I think the Democrats are extremely weak on national security, while the Republicans are merely so-so. Most people would probably agree with this statement. Puppies, kittens and babies would all lean Republican if they could stop drooling and just being silly.

Jack said:

Ever hear the one about Bill Clinton out jogging? He met a little boy sitting on his front stoop with a box of new-born puppies. Bill said, "They're so cute. What kind of puppies are they?"

"Democrats," the boy said.

Bill thought this was so cute he told Hillary about it. She couldn't get out until the next week, but when she did, she saw the boy and his puppies, and said, "They're so cute. What kind of puppies are they?"

"Republicans," the boy replied.

Hillary was flummoxed. "Last week, you told my usband they were Democrats."

"Yes," the boy said, "but they opened their eyes."

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM