The 'I hate Anne Coulter' thread.

[DMKA]

She says things that she herself knows arent true, just to piss people off.

And those things would be.....?

"All liberals are *insert your pick here*"

She's said so many things about "liberals" it's rediculous. If she said "liberals are silly hippee idiots", I can deal with that because it's just mere basisless opinion that's not hurting anything, but when she says stuff like "liberals would hate Muslims too if it wasn't for terrorism!" or "liberals really hate black and gay people and just lie to everyone to make it look like Republicans do so they can take over!"...it just makes me want to watch sick things happen to her newspaper photos.

[The Redneck]

Actually, she's said pretty straight-out, more than once, that the vast majority of liberals are just 'going with the flow'. It's easy, and the New York Times will love you for it.

liberals really hate black and gay people and just lie to everyone to make it look like Republicans do so they can take over!

As someone who avidly reads every word Anne Coulter writes, I can assure you that such a quote does not exist.

it just makes me want to watch sick things happen to her newspaper photos.

Gimme about half a bottle of Jack Daniels, then peek into my room about 2 in the morning.

Just kiddin', folks...

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

The fact that she says that liberals are what's wrong with America today can mean one of two things.

a) She's trying to be annoying to get publicity and support from the extremist right-wingers.

b) She actually believes it, in which case she's a complete and utter moron.

[DMKA]

As someone who avidly reads every word Anne Coulter writes, I can assure you that such a quote does not exist.

Umm, she didn't write them, she said them. If you think I'm making it up, go to muchosucko.com and search for the video of people hurling pies at her stupid ass after she says it. It's great.

[nik0tine]

Actually, she's said pretty straight-out, more than once, that the vast majority of liberals are just 'going with the flow'. It's easy, and the New York Times will love you for it.

Liberals go with the 'liberal flow'. I'll agree with that. Howver, it's the same with conservatives, they just flow in the 'conservative flow'. The average person needs someone to think for them, and thats why they 'go with the flow'. It most certainly is not a liberal exclusive thing, and to believe so shows the lack of common sense.

[The Redneck]

Umm, she didn't write them, she said them. If you think I'm making it up, go to muchosucko.com and search for the video of people hurling pies at her stupid ass after she says it. It's great.

Seeing as my computer can't handle Quicktime, I'm unable to watch it--but I'd love for someone else to take a look if they can and gimme the straight on it.

The fact that she says that liberals are what's wrong with America today can mean one of two things.

Actually, there's a third--it's obvious. Everything that liberalism has gotten hold of has gotten worse for its influence--education, marriage, child protection, law enforcement, California, poverty, health care, and a whole host of other issues.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Actually, there's a third--it's obvious. Everything that liberalism has gotten hold of has gotten worse for its influence--education, marriage, child protection, law enforcement, California, poverty, health care, and a whole host of other issues.

Hardly a fact. Conservatives have done just as much good and damage as liberals have. Also, let me remind you that the ideology of liberalism is basically progressivism, whereas conservative ideology is traditionalism. If we listened solely to the conservative mindset on all issues we'd probably not have made nearly as much progress towards equal rights as we have now (obviously more work needs to be done, but we've come a long way). If we listened solely to the liberal mindset, we'd probably be socialist, which isn't a pretty thing, nor does it work. It's a balance of both, and I assure you that the conservatives are hardly correct in all venues.

[Raistlin]

Actually, there's a third--it's obvious. Everything that liberalism has gotten hold of has gotten worse for its influence--education, marriage, child protection, law enforcement, California, poverty, health care, and a whole host of other issues.

Is the 8 hour workday a bad thing? How about the disbanding of illegal monopolies and trusts by Theodore Roosevelt? How about the 14th amendment? Womens' voting rights? Laws against discrimination? It's not a coincidence that the Supreme Court has, time and again in the past decades, typically ruled on the liberal side - they know the law and Constitution better than anyone.
I could just as easily say everything conservatism touches has been the worse off for it - the enviroment, foreign relations, constitutional protection, big business, and many more.

And I guess the fact that the three worst depressions in US history were right after a Republican instituted their absurd economic theories on taxation is just a coincidence.

EDIT:

Raistlin, if you'd actually read "Treason" you would know about the Venona Project. If you knew anything about the Venona Project and McCarthy's "innocent victims", you would realize that she is, once again, right.

Because "Treason" is the only valid source of information, eh?

Blacklisting was one of the biggest outrages of domestic policy in US history. If you wish to challenge that, I'll take a visit to the library.

[The Redneck]

Is the 8 hour workday a bad thing?

Bluntly, yes. If you can't bring yourself to work more than eight hours a day to provide for your family, then you've got problems.

How about the disbanding of illegal monopolies and trusts by Theodore Roosevelt?

Are you claiming that Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal?

How about the 14th amendment?

Republicans

Womens' voting rights?

Senate vote: 36 Republicans, 20 Democrats for. 8 Republicans, 17 Democrats against.

Laws against discrimination?

Bigger majority among Republicans than Democrats

They're accomplishments, alright--but they're our accomplishments.

It's not a coincidence that the Supreme Court has, time and again in the past decades, typically ruled on the liberal side - they know the law and Constitution better than anyone.

It's also no coincidence that the Surpreme Court has allowed the murder of children, used the rulings of foreign courts as basis for its own rulings, and invented rights out of a "living Constitution" right and left.

And I guess the fact that the three worst depressions in US history were right after a Republican instituted their absurd economic theories on taxation is just a coincidence.

Yeah, because lowering the amount of money that a government confiscates from its citizens is bound to do bad things for the economy, right?

ecause "Treason" is the only valid source of information, eh?

Because "Treason" speaks in great detail of the Venona Project. Thus, if you read "Treason" you would know about the Venona Project.

Blacklisting was one of the biggest outrages of domestic policy in US history. If you wish to challenge that, I'll take a visit to the library.

I certainly do. Supporters of a regime more murderous than Hitler's having difficulty finding work is an accomplishment on our part, not an outrage.

[Masamune·1600]

It's futile to link the Republicans of Lincoln's time with modern Republicans. There has been massive political realignment between the 1860's and the present. Further, your statistics are representative of the major political parties before any such realignments took place. The womens' vote information you cite is from 1919-1920. There has been political realignment since then, and to compare the modern parties with those of the past is folly. As to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it swung the South towards the Republicans. By your own information, the change is apparent.

Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal in many ways. If you'll recall, he was followed in the presidency by Taft. After that, Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson became president, in an election where Taft was the Republican candidate and Roosevelt the Progressive (better known as Bull Moose) candidate. Taft was the conservative force in the Republican ranks; Roosevelt was unquestionably more liberal.

[Raistlin]

Bluntly, yes. If you can't bring yourself to work more than eight hours a day to provide for your family, then you've got problems.

The 8-hour workyday does not prohibit working more - it merely mandates that companies pay overtime for extra hours.

Are you claiming that Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal?

I'm stating that Teddy's anti-trust campaigning was liberal. Whether he was liberal or not is irrelevant - the action was.

Republicans

Republican is not defined by conservative, nor is Democrat defined by liberal - especially way back in the 1860s. Many of Lincoln's ideas were liberal.

Senate vote: 36 Republicans, 20 Democrats for. 8 Republicans, 17 Democrats against.

Again, almost a century ago, politics was different.

Bigger majority among Republicans than Democrats

They're accomplishments, alright--but they're our accomplishments.

I'm focusing on "liberal and conservative" whereas you're focusing on the narrower and more specific "Republican and Democrat." They are not the same.

It's also no coincidence that the Surpreme Court has allowed the murder of children, used the rulings of foreign courts as basis for its own rulings, and invented rights out of a "living Constitution" right and left.

Ah, because judges who know the law left and right obviously are wrong. Even Republicans in the Supreme Court have ruled on the liberal side - that's not a coincidence.

Yeah, because lowering the amount of money that a government confiscates from its citizens is bound to do bad things for the economy, right?

Three times in this nation's history has "Reagenomics" or "the trickle-down effect" taxation policy been instituted - all three times followed by horrible recessions. You claim that Communism is evil because nothing but bad things have happened as a result of it - how can you argue against me saying that Reagenomics are foolish because bad things happened as a result of it?

Because "Treason" speaks in great detail of the Venona Project. Thus, if you read "Treason" you would know about the Venona Project.

There are numerous other sources about McCarthyism.

Supporters of a regime more murderous than Hitler's having difficulty finding work is an accomplishment on our part, not an outrage.

Wha? How does upholding the right for people to believe what they wish supporting the Soviet Union?

[Sasquatch]

Three times in this nation's history has "Reagenomics" or "the trickle-down effect" taxation policy been instituted - all three times followed by horrible recessions. You claim that Communism is evil because nothing but bad things have happened as a result of it - how can you argue against me saying that Reagenomics are foolish because bad things happened as a result of it?

Really? Well, let's go with the real "Reaganomics", the policies that Reagan himself set up, and Bush Sr. followed. It's been apparent throughout history that economic changes take a few years to have their main influence. After Reagan left, and even after Bush Sr. left, the economy did great. Wonderful. Granted, part of that should be credited to the "dot com boom", but a large part should also be credited to Reagan and his policies. Clinton, on the other hand, reversed Reagan's policies, and what was happening by the end of Clinton's term? That's right, a major recession. A recession that Bush Jr. inherited, and, of course, was blamed for, when Bush had nothing to do with it. The nation thrived because of the economic changes that Reagan made, and sufferred because of the economic changes that Clinton made. Looks like "Reaganomics" works pretty well.

EDIT: And what's happening now? The economy is doing much better, since the recession that Clinton brought upon us and 9/11, and we're on the rebound.

It's simple. Let people keep more of the money they earn. If we continue on the subject of economics and taxes, I'll look up an article that compares taxes to a casual lunch between friends. It's pretty good, if I do say so myself. Not that I wrote it or anything.

I'll probably add more later, just wanted to address this issue for now.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I'd like to point out that Clinton saw economic boom in his second term. The logic is usually "the effects of a president's work aren't felt until after their term" or something like that. If such was a case then would it not be that Clinton instigated his own economic boom in his first term and reaped the rewards in his second? Also, while a recession is always going to follow a boom, were George Bush's policies actually working, would we not be experiencing at least a stronger economic recovery than we are now?

And on the matter of the work day, are you aware that people in Europe don't work nearly as much as we Americans do? And are you aware that they're living longer and less stressful lives than we are? We aren't farmers or hunter/gatherers anymore, with modern technology we don't NEED to work as much as we do.

[The Captain]

In reality, there is little that any President knows or can do to stimulate the economy, as even economists have admitted time and time again, that though they can predict what they think might happen, they know very little about what actually causes the valleys and peaks.

Thus, "Reaganomics" and its usefulness is really a matter not of whether it worked or not, but of your political affiliation.

Take care all.

[DMKA]

EDIT: And what's happening now? The economy is doing much better, since the recession that Clinton brought upon us and 9/11, and we're on the rebound.

It is? Clinton brought a recession upon us? Unicorns live in the center of the Pentagon?

When did all this happen? o___O