Shooting Elephants In A Barrel

  • Thread starter Thread starter beckers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

beckers

Guest
you may not like Ann Coulter but i thought she brought up some good points

news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20070307/cm_ucac/shootingelephantsinabarrel

This makes it official: It’s illegal to be Republican.

Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.

Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.
 
I think a person who want s to make a comparison between the legal issues of Democrats and Republicans should use an example that’s somewhat more recent than 38 years ago.
 
catsrus said:
I think a person who want s to make a comparison between the legal issues of Democrats and Republicans should use an example that’s somewhat more recent than 38 years ago.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? She quoted things with in the last 5 years.
 
I don’t read Coulter, nor do I want to .
I will take your word for it.
I was speaking only to the referrence to Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick tragedy.
 
catsrus said:
I don’t read Coulter, nor do I want to .
I will take your word for it.
I was speaking only to the referrence to Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick tragedy.
Click to expand...
It’s safe catsrus…I reviewed it for you. No ‘f’ words of any sort, although she does call someone a “bozo.” :eek:

I am expecting a large outcry from the World Clown Association. 😉
 
Ann Coulter:
This makes it official: It’s illegal to be Republican.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Ann Coulter:
Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence.
Click to expand...
I hear faint echoes from a case about 10 years ago when another public figure perjured himself before a grand jury.

Is this really Ann Coulter? Sounds a lot like Lanny Davis or Alan Dershowitz.

Ms Coulter seems to have forgotten the purpose of a grand jury proceeding: to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. In this case, the crime is the outing of a covert CIA agent. Did that occur or not?

Mr Fitzgerald, in performing his task of determining whether this crime had been committed, took testimony from Mr Libby, Mr Rove, Mr Armitage, Mr Flesicher, and others. He obviously concluded that there was not enough evidence to indict Rove, Fleischer, or Armitage. Mr Libby was another story.

Libby’s conviction on perjury and obstruction means that he was able to thwart the investigation. It most certainly doesn’t mean that, as Coulter asserts, there was “no legal consequence” to the crimes Libby committed.

Conservatives like Ann Coulter used to understand the type of damage perjury can do to a judicial proceeding.

It bothers me that she who spoke so loudly and with such contempt for Bill Clinton when he perjured himself now ends up sounding just like those who so viciously attacked Ken Starr.

The rest of the article, IMO, is just partisan blather.
 
gnjsdad said:
Ms Coulter seems to have forgotten the purpose of a grand jury proceeding: to determine whether or not a crime has been committed.
Click to expand...
I should amend this to read…to determine whether or not enough evidence exists that a crime may have been committed.
 
I don’t think there is any people left that take Coulter seriously after what she said about US soldiers, suggesting Justice Stevens be poisoned, what she said about civil rights legislation, and just a whole host of other tirades.

She had promise early in her legal career, clerking for a federal judge, and then it just went all downhill from there.

First, she’s so in favor of the Iraq war, but degrades a Vietnam war veteran for getting hurt by a faulty grenade, then she outright insults the soldiers, but in the same week, calls war protesters “unpatriotic”.

I can post links to some of the more outrageous, and downright malicious things she has said, especially about Us soldiers and Veterans.

She said to a disabled Vietnam vet “you are the reason we lost in Vietnam”. Well, i would pay quite alot of money to see Ann muscle up and join regimental combat team 5, or brigade combat team 2, right in the center of Baghdad, and then listen to her as IEDs go off all around her.
 
If anyone had an opportunity to tread Judith Warner’s column in the 3/7/07 edition of the NY Times, I thought she dealt very effectively with Ms. Coulter and her debasement of political discourse in the national media.

This highly-educated woman has made a career (not to mention lots of $) not by maximizing her intellect, education or wit, but by publicly vomiting verbal vitriol with shocking frequency into the nearest available microphone and/or resorting to juvenile insults and name-calling all in a pathetic and desperate effort to draw attention to herself, in the process obscuring the very issues about which she claims to care so deeply.
 
Island and Bio…I think this thread is about her current column, not about her. If you don’t care for her commentary, then you don’t have to read it. If you want to post the Judith Warner column as a separate thread to bash Ann Coulter, have at it…
 
rlg94086 said:
Island and Bio…I think this thread is about her current column, not about her. If you don’t care for her commentary, then you don’t have to read it. If you want to post the Judith Warner column as a separate thread to bash Ann Coulter, have at it…
Click to expand...
A commentator like AC brings so much baggage and actively stirs so much controversy it is almost impossible to debate a snippet of her writing or speaking without considering her larger impact, appeal, and persona. To my way of thinking, she is a thug–her weapons are her words. It makes sense that those in her audience and with whom she resonates may well share her approach and reflect her values.
 
Okay. I will remember that when someone posts an article by any liberal whom I feel the same about. They will be discounted immediately. Of course that will leave a very short list of liberal commentators. 😃
Island_Oak said:
A commentator like AC brings so much baggage and actively stirs so much controversy it is almost impossible to debate a snippet of her writing or speaking without considering her larger impact, appeal, and persona. To my way of thinking, she is a thug–her weapons are her words. It makes sense that those in her audience and with whom she resonates may well share her approach and reflect her values.
Click to expand...
 
Relying upon labels, like “liberal” or “conservative”, as the sole basis to discount or embrace infomation is, of course, your prerogative–though I fail to see what relation it bears to my earlier critique of the content of Ms. Coulter’s spoken and written words. It is probably more productive to evaluate each speaker/writer’s conduct and the consistency of their message with their action to elucidate values one can then accept or reject–no matter the label they or others attach to them.
 
I agree on critiquing content. But, I critique the content of each article separately. If I feel the way you do about someone like Ann Coulter, regardless of political spectrum, I may not read anything they have written, but I don’t waste my time bashing them everytime one of their articles appear.

It happens that this article by Ann is well written and has nothing that I deem offensive. Similarly, there is another thread by Pat Buchanan, who has also said some very devisive things in the past, that is also well written. So, while I don’t care much for Buchanan, I commented on the article.

You might want to just ease up on your hatred of people, and either just leave posts about them alone, or keep an open mind. Ann may say some outrageous things sometimes, but that doesn’t mean that everything she says or writes is distasteful.

Again, this is off-topic. I invited you to post the Warner article you referred to in your earlier post as a new thread. You have chosen not to do that, and I can’t figure out why. If you want to create a thread about Ann Coulter…go ahead. This thread is about something she wrote - mainly that Democrats and the major media have a double standard when it comes to wrongdoings of public figures.
Island_Oak said:
Relying upon labels, like “liberal” or “conservative”, as the sole basis to discount or embrace infomation is, of course, your prerogative–though I fail to see what relation it bears to my earlier critique of the content of Ms. Coulter’s spoken and written words. It is probably more productive to evaluate each speaker/writer’s conduct and the consistency of their message with their action to elucidate values one can then accept or reject–no matter the label they or others attach to them.
Click to expand...
 
rlg94086 said:
You might want to just ease up on your hatred of people…
Click to expand...
This is over-wrought and emotional. I never said I “hated” anyone–you read far too much into my distaste for the ham-handed way Ms. Coulter tends to express herself. I would have to care a whole lot more about her and what she says to work myself up to “hatred.”
Again, this is off-topic. I invited you to post the Warner article you referred to in your earlier post as a new thread. You have chosen not to do that, and I can’t figure out why.
Click to expand...
Try looking up www.NYTimes.com with author and date in the Opinion section. IF you are a subscriber to the NY Times you too will be granted access to the article, entitled *Think Naughty, Think Small, Think Not. *If you are not a subscriber, you probably will not be able to access the article and it is not appropriate for me to take it, copy it and re-publish it without permission when the Times limits its own on-line reprinting.
 
Coulter has two faults:
  1. she fails to acknowledge the double standard … that the Democrat / Liberal party is not expected to behave/speak civilly and get a free pass when they behave incivilly. By contrast all Conservatives / Republicans are expected to be perfect.
  2. she fails to eat enough.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Coulter has two faults:
  1. she** fails to acknowledge the double standard** … that the Democrat / Liberal party is not expected to behave/speak civilly and get a free pass when they behave incivilly. By contrast all Conservatives / Republicans are expected to be perfect.
    .
Click to expand...
:ehh: That’s what the article is about…example:
In 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was nabbed in Palm Beach in a massive police investigation into his hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex, which I’m told used to be a violation of some kind of statute in the Palm Beach area.

The police presented Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer with boatloads of evidence, including the videotaped statements of five of Epstein’s alleged victims, the procurer of the girls for Epstein and 16 other witnesses.

But the same prosecutor who spent three years maniacally investigating Limbaugh’s alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Enraging the police, who had spent months on the investigation, Krischer let Epstein off after a few hours on a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The Clinton supporter walked, and his victims were branded as whores.
Click to expand...
 
Island_Oak said:
This is over-wrought and emotional. I never said I “hated” anyone–you read far too much into my distaste for the ham-handed way Ms. Coulter tends to express herself. I would have to care a whole lot more about her and what she says to work myself up to “hatred.”
Click to expand...
IMHO, Coulter is simply giving Democrats/Liberals a taste of their own medicine … AND THEY DON’T LIKE IT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top