{ED NOTE: If some of the comment number references nearer the bottom of this tread do not seem to match the referenced comment numbers, it is because there has been a very large number of spam attacks on this thread, and a very large number of multiple posts, probably from difficulties with the old software. I've tried to make the thread more readable for all you long-winded commenters. Carry on. --99}
.
.
.
.
.
People seem to be so used to hate speech from the right that it actually passes for moderation and calling them on it is labelled as nasty and extreme.

If he thought everybody was a flamethrower these days then he must be watching FOX news. There are very very few flamethrowing Dems. All the hate talk is coming from Coulter & Co. Why, even Hillary Clinton is saying we need to work with Bush. What could be more lukewarm than that? She's practically a DINO (Democrat In Name Only).

Now, that's not to say some of us couldn't throw a few flames. It's just that we believe in the traditional family value of being polite when we can.

That the Repubs would find it good to have someone talk that way to the young brownshirts, er kids, is pathetic. You don't inspire people to hate that way and then expect them not turn into monsters when they're older.

Why do the Republicans hate America's children?

Christ is a riddle. He repaired the ear of the soldier who took him into custody, when Peter chopped it off, on the one hand. On the other, he said, "Think not that I came to bring peace, for I came not to bring peace, but war!"

As Ecclesiastes put it, there's a time for love and a time for hate, a time to heal and a time to kill, a time for peace and a time for war.

On 9-11, we found out what time it is!

As I understand the evangelical Christian movement, it relies on the Book of Revelation, which suggests an Armageddon (endgame), after which Christ shall return and redeem mankind. Thus, whatever happens to advance that result (war, pestilence, brutality, famine, etc.) is holy and devoutly to be wished.

If this is a correct analysis, it can be an excuse for war. But it begs a question the evangelicals don't have an answer for. "What will Christ do or say after his return?" Would he say, "You killed to hasten my return, thus you are blessed..."??? Or would he say, "I came back to proclaim the error of your ways."???

I'll leave that to theologians to argue. I know what I think Christ would say.

...Lord Vaughan "On 9-11, we found out what time it is!"

Now we need to find out WHO was behind it.

Well Done! I agree that the the Republicans are so far removed from what Jesus Christ was teaching. That is the main reason I am not a Republican. You can't be a Republican; the stealers, destroyers, and haters of all that are not like them, AND follow the teachings of Christ. Democrats are lovers of all, not just those who fit into their selfish agenda's. I could get into a lengthy comment about it all, but you put it into words beautifully. Thank You.

Lydia, Thank you so much for writing your wise words. Ever since Bush and Co. came into power, I have been as perplexed as you are about my faith. George has made it very confusing to be a Christian...for what Christian would want to be associated with him and all of the death and destruction that he has brought about in the last 5 years. When I'm around my intellectual friends, I find myself apologizing for my beliefs, and when I'm around my Christian friends, I have to defend being a democrat and the very negative feelings that I have for Bush...dare I say Hate? It's pretty hard to separate hate for the actions of this man and his cohorts from hate for the people that have done so much to destroy this country and this planet. I can't help but think that they are bringing about the end times by their very actions...and maybe this is their intention. Thanks again, and please keep writing on Brad Blog. Can't wait to read your book.

It certainly sounds paradoxical that Jesus said He came to bring not peace but a sword, yet He also asked us to turn the other cheek when attacked.

For me, it's another reason not to take the Bible literally. But may we not assume that Christianity would not have survived as long as it has, through all the wars fought in its name and all the non-Christian thoughts and deeds that occur daily, unless Jesus was above all else the ultimate hope of mankind? We just haven't accepted His message of peace yet, and I seriously doubt that a literal interpretation of the Bible will be of much help; those that do interpret it literally seem the most unwilling or unable to follow Christ's teachings.

There is another aspect of the message of Christ that may reveal why the jihad war mentality of fundamentalists who profess christianity seem so at odds with the message.

They have chosen not to get the message in the first place:

"And the disciples said to Him, Why do You speak to them in parables?

For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and have not seen them; and to hear what you hear, and have not heard them." (Mat 13:10-17)

The science of the study of the meaning of text, whether law, scripture, or poetry, is called hermeneutics, which is to be paired with proper exegesis.

However, even when sound hermeneutics and exegesis are used, extracting meaning that most would agree with is difficult.

This is true of law (e.g. constitutional interpretation), of scripture (e.g. Talmud, Koran, New Testament), and of scientific facts.

Many variations of legal interpretation, scriptural interpretation, and scientific theory abound in our world.

Dredd

I would strongly disagree with one of those. The Koran, New Testament, Torah Bible and so on all awcknowledge God and do not deliberately denounce Christ or reject his teaching.

The Talmud absolutely does and there are constant references written in it that are easily demonizing of Christ, praising of Satan etc. Those are occult books.

"Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone.""

"Kallah 51a."The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah"

There a reason such books go the way of history, they are not fit in any Christian religion and are more the bread and butter of Aethiests. That said, each member or fundamentalist group will take a book and its chapters such as the Bible to such extremes they no longer recognize it.

This is why you have religious Jihad wars, and the game, and make no mistake it is a game keeps going on!

5 years passing and we still have not done anything, or caught the real perpetrators of 911. Instead we have been deceiving ourselves and chasing our tails.

As an independent, I have to strongly disagree with the fact there isn't political flamethrowers on both sides. I see comments from some democrats like Hillary as pure sellout, and others by fire-breathing democrats like Lautenberg as being far too extreme. Or telling the ACLU that they must remove "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill, etc. and going completely out of control with environmental laws.

There is just as much extremism on the left as the right, but only when they are balanced out does that appear. Coulter etc. are bad enough as it is, I just see the right approach to take here is moderation. They will never agree on everything but it encourages folks like Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore to go at it for weeks on end, if there is nobody just standing up and saying the way it is. Paul Hackett is my kind of guy to do that, and I liked how he just stood for something and fought all the way to the end.

We need more people like that in government, who aren't willing to compromise, but also aren't willing to put up typical political porn theater. That will be what changes the stakes.

Doug E.

"And by the way, whatever happened to that warehouse of weapons that was 'misplaced?' Does anyone remember what I’m talking about?"

Yes I do. Like most liberals, you have been misled by the liberal media. That story didnt have legs because what the liberals were claiming wasnt true.

Thats why the story dissappeared from your eyes, like so many have before and after that one. Once the story is proven to be bunk, your liberals friends dont cover it anymore because they cant tell people they were wrong, so the story just dissapears.

Doug #12

I was not advocating for or against any particular set of text which may or may not be called scripture.

My point is that even an enlightened and finely tuned process of hermeneutics and exegesis can lead to variations as to what the text means.

In law we deal with interpretation daily. That is what the discussion of the nominated Supreme Court Justice is all about. What method of hermeneutics and exegesis does he use to interpret the constitution?

The same inquiry is made when pastors of churches are selected.

The Sunni and Shia look at the same Koran but interpret it differently. Baptists and Methodists do the same with the bible text. Lawyers and judges do the same with the constitution.

Neocons and liberals do the same with recent history. The Pharisees and the Sadduccees had the same problem with the Pentateuch.

But when people use a reasonable and unbiased process of hermeneutics and exegesis there is a way to work things out.

As you know the Talmud is a collection of legal interpretations. One of the more favorable versions is the Babylonian Talmud, purportedly written in what is now Iraq.

One of the rules of interpretation developed in that line of jurisprudence, which rule I find to be better than our own, has to do with what we now call stare decisis.

Our modern version is not very clear, and I dare say not many could explain it because it is not very clear.

Our version of stare decisis is even in danger of getting down to raw power ... political power. When one party gets in the law is one way, but then the other party gets in and the law switches back.

The sanhedrin method was more advanced. It required not only more votes by current judges, but more wisdom and reasoning on their part.

In other words past sanhedrin decisions could not be overturned unless there were more votes by the judges of the current sanhedrin, and unless more wisdom was shown as a further reason to overturn that past decision.

Our jurisprudence has not really advanced to that stage yet, and our reasoning for overturning past decisions in the face of the concept of stare decisis is somewhat uncertain.

"Thats why the story dissappeared from your eyes, like so many have before and after that one. Once the story is proven to be bunk, your liberals friends dont cover it anymore because they cant tell people they were wrong, so the story just dissapears." - #13 Ricky

Um...Ricky? Perhaps you've forgotten about the 380 TONS of HIGH EXPLOSIVES (RDX & HDX) stolen/looted from the Al-Qaqaa Nuclear Facility.....

FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE, Oct. 28th 2004:

"Qaqaa was a well-known site even before the first Gulf War as a place where Iraqis were doing nuclear research," said Milhollin, who said he learned that in 1989 the Department of Defense had brought three Iraqis from the site to Oregon to train them in HMX detonations. ''It was certainly a leading candidate to be inspected after the first Gulf War and to be secured after the second."

"The location of the explosives at Qaqaa had been so well known to inspectors that they appeared routinely in reports written by ElBaradei to the Security Council."

"the disappearance of the HMX, or ''High-Melting Point Explosive," caused particular alarm because the lightweight substance is twice as powerful as an ordinary plastic explosive and is not easily set off by an accident as other substances are. That makes it the perfect detonator for a nuclear device, or in attacks on large buildings or planes"

"at least three major bombing sites in Iraq tested positive for HMX or RDX"

Ricky Says: "That story didnt have legs because what the liberals were claiming wasnt true."

Well Little Ricky, because of Chimpy the Sock Monkey's idiocy (with Value Added Idiocy by trolls like YOU and a HUGE assist by a PROPAGANDIST MEDIA OWNED BY REPUGNANTCANS) this story's not the only thing missing it's legs, but it's untold numbers of US Soldiers, Iraqi women and children who are missing legs, arms, feet and THEIR LIVES!!

The reason this story "disappeared" is our Chicken-Shit Media has been cowering from our Idiot King from 9-11 on and has been (up until recently) cancelling any actual reporting in favor of the "Missing White Chick of the Day" fluff....

For God's Sake Ricky, get a clue!!

Ricky might better tell the following people that stories started by the "liberal media" (does anyone believe that crap any more?) will evanesce into nothing because the stories are based on "lies":

Scooter Libby...facing up to 30 years in jail
Dick Cheney...V.P. (For Whom Libby's Bell Tolls)
Judy Miller...out-of-work, discredited journalist
Bob Woodward...journalistic reputation tarnished
Karl Rove...facing renewed scrutiny by Fitzgerald
Valerie Plame...cover blown, career at C.I.A. over
Michael Scanlon...pleaded guilty, helping prosecutor
Jack Abramoff...see Michael Scanlon
Rep. Tom DeLay (Texas)...see Jack Abramoff
Rep. Bob Ney (Ohio)...see Jack Abramoff
Gov. Bob Taft (Ohio)...guilty plea to misdemeanors
Thomas Noe...already indicted for political crimes
Thomas Noe...yet to be indicted for Coingate
Bernadette Noe...soon to be eating dinner alone

All of these folks would love to hear from Ricky, because they aren't aware their problems are just the figment of some liberal's imagination. Misery loves company, you know.

#4
> As I understand the evangelical Christian movement, it relies on the Book of Revelation, which suggests an Armageddon (endgame), after which Christ shall return and redeem mankind. Thus, whatever happens to advance that result (war, pestilence, brutality, famine, etc.) is holy and devoutly to be wished.

You are not even close to being correct in your last sentence.

> "What will Christ do or say after his return?"

Judge!

Jesus already came and showed us the way to Heaven. However, much of the Bible is about His second coming. You will only know Jesus when you are born again. God is a God of love but He is also a God of wrath. Too many people overlook the full character of God. God destroyed many a nation and He used other nations to do so.

> war, pestilence, brutality, famine

These are just signs that the "end times" are just "beginning." It is nothing that Christians look at gleefully, it is just the facts.

When Lydia writes "for Christ’s sake" she is taking the Lord's name in vain.

Do I support someone like Pat Robertson? No way! He says some very absurd things!

Do I think the earth is going to end soon? No!

Do I think that most of the leftists and left kook fringe are filled with HATE? Yes.

You guys talk peace but you really have no peace in your hearts.

Paul and the "You guys" diatribe at it again. Claiming freedom from hate as he spews it out to "you guys".

What is next Paul, firing a shotgun into a crowd?

Paul says: "You guys talk peace but you really have no peace in your hearts."

Would Paul say we had "peace in our hearts" if:
(A) If we were IN FAVOR of an unjust WAR against
a country that had NOTHING to do with 9-11?

(B) If we were MORE SUPPORTIVE of
a "president" who CHEATED his way into office,
not once, but TWICE?

(C) If our outrage at the MASS KILLINGS of more
than 100,000 Iraqi citizens, over 2,000 US
soldiers and the gruesome MAIMING of
hundreds of thousands more DOESN'T match
Repugnantcan outrage over Clinton's sex
scandal?

(D) If we were LESS bothered by the blatant
conflicts of interest of a fraudulent
'administration' dominated by BIG OIL and
WAR PROFITEERS like CheneyBurton and the
LIES they used to justify the chaos, anarchy,
murder and TORTURE they've inflicted IN OUR
NAME??

Paul, has it occurred to you that we are "filled with HATE" for Chimpy the Sock Monkey and the rest of his puppeteers because we ARE opposed to election fraud? Because we ARE in favor of COMPETENT AND ACCOUNTABLE LEADERSHIP?
Because we ARE extremely disturbed by our Idiot King's having RUINED our national reputation as a Nation of Laws who USED TO OPPOSE torture and 'PRE-EMPTIVE WAR"??

Nice article! Now if you can fix the link for his actual letter in full, it's now posted right here.
(http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/StaffordJonesEmail_111995.htm) I would love to read it also.

Thank you, Slicer. I've fixed that previously incorrect link. Much appreciated!

I am wondering when God is going to destroy this nation, since we have destroyed so many, guess it must be our turn. I believe my God works thru people so perhaps bushco is his tool. I just don't understand the mentality of those that think America has a monopoly on God....wonder what God thinks about that. We are the chosen people, so take that God. We are JerUSAlem. M4 (who also believes God has a sense of humor)

Robert #10

Biblical scholars have looked at the original Greek text and compared it to the King James version to see if the translation was done correctly. In many cases the mistranslation (or undertranslation) of words/phrases makes all the difference in the world. Another thing to look at is the meaning of certain "slang" terms from the historical period.

For instance, the phrase "turn the other cheek" --- (See this discussion by a biblical scholar and former Peace Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace.)

[snip] One of the most misunderstood passages in all of the Bible is Jesus' teaching about turning the other cheek. The passage runs this way: "You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. And if anyone takes you to court and sues you for your outer garment, give your undergarment as well. If one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two."

... When Jesus says, "Do not resist one who is evil," there is something stronger than simply resist. It's do not resist violently. Jesus is indicating do not resist evil on its own terms. Don't let your opponent dictate the terms of your opposition. If I have a hoe and my opponent has a rifle, I am obviously going to have to get a rifle in order to fight on equal terms, but then my opponent gets a machine gun, so I have to get a machine gun. You have a spiral of violence that is unending.

Jesus is trying to break that spiral of violence. Don't resist one who is evil probably means something like, don't turn into the very thing you hate. Don't become what you oppose. The earliest translation of this is probably in a version of Romans 12 where Paul says, "Do not return evil for evil." [snip]

There is much more information at the link that will shed some light on what that passage in the bible means.

... I'm with you , MERIFOUR ! The psuedo-pious hubris that BushCo. has displayed must vex our Lord mightily , and one must wonder how much more the Father can take , before it's time to take the ' Chris-stains ' to the woodshed ! Perhaps he already has an emissary on the way - is that not a arch-angel on the horizon ? His name is Fitzgerald , Patrick Fitzgerald ( cue 007 theme song ) ! ...

Lord Vaughan #3

You missed the point in Matt 10:34. Read the whole chapter.

The actual quote is this: "Think not that I came to bring peace on the earth, for I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Not WAR.) The sword is a metaphor. Just a few verses earlier in the chapter (Matt 10:16) Jesus says this: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

You have to read the entire chapter to understand that Jesus is talking about an invisible sword used to sever ties to people who are not hearing the message.

By not bringing PEACE, he is referring to the agitation which will naturally occur when people's belief systems are challenged.

Thank you Lydia for this excellent blog!

I, too, am looking forward to your book and excited that Brad and Dan Borchers are collaborating with you.

Dredd

That is true too, & makes sense. While the Bible is a good book and so is the Koran for teaching of God and not denouncing him, it frequently is mis-interpreted beyond rational understanding.

With that, the law is also misinterpeted. I don't really follow any book except the Book of Mormon, because in its most base form it has the strongest amount of truth foretold in it. It also has that feeling to me of sacred ancient writing.

By the way, this is what has brought about the Jack Abramoff investigation....

Over 4 lawmakers now included in Jack Abramoff/Safavian probes including Senator Conrad Burns

Doug E.

To #17 --- when I said "For Christ's sake" --- it was a play on words: I was making fun of myself mixing religion with politics.

PLease read more on the true Christ and keep seeking. The God of judgment and wrath is not at all the God of Love. This is based on an anthropomorphic God, that is an archaic concept. The kingdom of heaven is within you. It's not far off into the future, it's here now if we wake up and see it (or put on a new pair of glasses.)

Lydia,

I don't know if it is the "evangelical" movement as such, but you are correct that there is a segment of the Christian movement that believes that we don't have to be responsible for anything other than believing in the return of Christ - no responsibility to the environment, no personal responsibility (as Americans) to the world as a whole, among other things, because when Christ does return, all will be made well again.

Gary North has explained this fundamentalist perspective and its impact on our foreign policy in this article, well worth reading. Scary thing is, he says 20 million Americans ascribe to this philosophy - Christ that's half of California, a force to be reckoned with. This explains the bestseller popularity of the LaHaye "Left Behind" series.

OK, I can't get this link this link thing to work, but here's the URL for the Gary North article

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north188.html

#24 Right on, I can hear the music playing......

#26 That is my understanding exactly ie: the true Christ. We are all in the process of attaining Christ Consciousness, some further ahead than others.
Metaphysics 101. M4......I Am That I Am

Paul said in #17:

"However, much of the Bible is about His second coming."

How is it IF Christ 'comes again' it's only a 'second' coming????

Out of the womb = 1st coming
Out of the grave = 2nd coming
Out of the sky = 3rd coming...no??????

'Splain it to me Loocie...

Thank you, Lydia! I'd love to see you debate mAnn one day

Coulter is no Christian. She's a mean-spirited, intolerant, war-mongering, hypocrite.

Kira #8 & #9 --- You are so wise and correct about the sword being a metaphor. Thank you.

Dear Lydia Cornell,
I just want to show my appreciation on your article on the Brad bog, and to warn you want you are in for!
Sadly there are those who first looked at Ann Coulter and found her superficially attractive, and somehow that bought validity to her message?
In this day and age as I trust you all ready know that "sex sells" and if your sex appeal helps to get an alternative voice to Ann Coulter, then by all means "you go girl"!

PS in no means does this statement makes any offense or takes appreciation away from the likes of Randi Rhodes, Jeanne Garofolo, Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow, Arianna Huffington or last but definitely not least Amy Goodman! All great women with voices for truth and of conscience!
Welcome to the club and probably to the Bill O'Reilly's Black list!

"nothing is ever truly won by force."

World War II was won by force. The holocaust death camps were closed by force. The Japanese military dictatorship was defeated by force. Israel stopped a second holocaust by meeting the Arab agression with force. The communist threat was stopped by a show of force.

War is not a good thing. Unfortunately, there are people and ideologies who can only be defeated by force. Sad, but true.

May The Force be with us. (ala Star Wars) M4 (who is not the first but many times the last...... ) For you know not who I am? In time ALL will be revealed.

From Mark H:

"There are very very few flamethrowing Dems. All the hate talk is coming from Coulter & Co. . . . Why do the Republicans hate America's children?"

You've got to be kidding me. An illogical accusation of hate is a flame is my book.

"Democrats have family values too. I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO IS PRO-ABORTION!

You seriously want us to believe this?

You call yourselves Christians, then spew hatred at the President and all Republicans. For shame!

Unfortunately, Christ was not a moderate nor a "bleeding heart liberal." Christ came with a radical message. Accept the FREE gift of grace or burn in hell. There is nothing peaceful about that.

Fred, #38, i don't think you understand the nuance in the sentence you quoted.

no one is pro-abortion in the sense that you assign to it, i.e., no one wants or promotes abortions. the precise way to describe it is that no Democrat is pro-abortion, but PRO-CHOICE.

to be even more precise, Dems believe in and work for a society in which abortions are safe, legal and rare... rare because there are more options in place, both before and after the situation of considering an abortion, that don't require the government intruding upon or controlling the bodies of its citizens.

those who are pro-choice hope that a woman would NOT choose to have an abortion --- thus the nuance in the sentence you quote --- but grasp the reality that our society is not very supportive of women or children who have already been born.

pro-choice means a woman has the right of sovereignty over her own body and the direction of her life. thus the need for choice to remain, in safety.

do you see the difference?

obviously, Cornell did not take the time to explain this in her article, as it is self-evident. the term pro-CHOICE has been around for decades, but perhaps that nuance is still not clear, even after all of these years.

hope that clears it up for you.

Evangelical Christians too often can't distinguish between being "Christ-like" and their apparent mission to be like Christ; i.e. to hang themselves up on a cross for everyone to see.

Here's a hint: Jesus didn't complain constantly.

So, let me get this straight. Just so we are all on the same page. Jesus was a pro abortion liberal. Was for punishing people more for stealing cable than raping children, and in fact defended the practice (see the ACLU defend NABLA on Google TODAY!!), and in general voted for things before voting against them all over the place.

No, that is not the Jesus I read about in my Bible. Are you sure your note a Unitarian?

A note on satire, I realize I cannot write an opus to the effect here. One way to tell if someone is waxing political satire is when they say something with a smile and soon after others laugh. Like when Dean said Republicans are mean hateful white people or Theresa Heinz-Kerry said Laura Bush never held a real job (she was a teacher for the one person by now who didn't know). Oh wait, no one laughed after those remarks.

In other words, clean up your own backyards before getting on people about their speech. I can find nothing more infuriating than hearing that because I am a Republican than I am obviously not a Christian.

Oh, and by the way, EVERY democrat I know is pro abortion, I have no idea how you can say the contrary. And I know this because I talk to them, in fact I try to convert them from the dark side. I even got a few to go exercise one of their rights endowed on them by their Creator in that little known document call the Bill of Rights. They went shooting with me. And no death or destruction ensued, imagine that.

So, next time you feel the need to sling some mud, like you must think Jesus would totally be “down” for along with the rest of you liberals at least think about it and have some humor. I know you think your funny with this whole Jesus is a liberal thing. Your just not getting people to laugh somehow. Try calling Stalin, or Lennon (not the one associated with the bugs, er beetles but the other one), or Mao a liberal. Oh wait, that’s not funny, they were. Well, I am sure you can find other people. Henry the 8th? No, not funny. Gimme a minute, I know I can think of a funny real liberal……..

no, we are not on the same page.

I'm afraid Cornell's phone is going to be ringing off the hook! Good work, Ann!.

What is it with these out-of-work actors and has-been actresses going out of their way to prove they are intellectuals and truth seekers?

On the darker side, Ann ought to be careful! I'm sure Gary Coleman's aspiring book about Ann's miniskirts in the Baptist Church will finally prove something!

;-),

Ugh. Seems the storm did screw up my last comment.

Ah, yes, Ms. Cornell, because using Christ's name as part of a bad joke is certainly not "in vain. Thank you for enlightening me....

Actually, Des, we aren't on the same page. According to the "Jesus was liberal" viewpoint, Jesus was also in favor of theft, oppresion of His followers, and dictators.

For those who wonder which Democrats could possibly be "flamethrowers", I suggest this page--http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002069.htm--and also refer them to Memo-gate, Micheal Moore, everything Al Franken ever said or thought, Nina Burleigh of NPR (who said that she hopes Jesse Helms or his grandchildren get AIDS), the lady who expressed her hope that Clarence Thomas dies early of heart disease (and the several magazines which featured him as a dopey-grinning, foot-shuffling Sambo), and pretty nearly anything else ever said by a Democrat.

Likewise, if you don't know any Democrats who are pro-abortion, why do they continually strive to make it easier to obtain abortions? Why do they push to make the rest of the citizens pay for them? Why do ideas such as a 24-hour waiting period or making abortion mills provide information about alternatives to abortion drive them into such a frenzy? They don't want women to have a choice which includes abortion if they feel it necessary, they want women to have abortions. And, for that matter, why won't abortion advocates ever even whisper the name "Margaret Sanger"? There is a reason the first five abortion mills were set up in Harlem, after all. Why do the same people who whine incessantly about the disproportionatly black prison population show never a care in the world about the percentage of black infants murdered?

And Blow Me, I'm Irish, let me ask you, if there was so much election fraud involved, then how come you can't produce a single person that was eligible to vote and didn't because of this supposed fraud? You lost, twice in a row; the first time after such efforts as lying about the times polls closed, handing out cigarettes to homeless people in exchange for votes, and the ever-famous Chicago Necromancy. You lost, you tried to steal the election, you failed. Get over it.

But finally, am I the only one who finds it hilarious that Ms. Cornell claims that Ann Coulter finds death arousing, attacks her faith, calls her a fascist (and no, that "I'm not calling anybody fascist, but she's just like the Nazis" bit didn't fool anybody), compares her to Stalin, implies that she wouldn't exist in a perfect world... and tells us that Ann Coulter "spews hate"?

Was this a comedy piece, ma'am, or were you serious?

Amen Redneck.

You must wait a few days to buy a handgun to protect yourself but hey, feel better knowing that after you are raped you can abort the child after mere minutes of waiting. Even if you are not one of the many (ahem, less than 1%) of women getting abortions because they were raped or their health was at risk by the pregnancy, we will make sure you feel at home during your stay. We will even tell you that it didn't even look like a child, only much smaller and cuter. With little feet and hands, in fact it was sucking its thumb when we ripped it apart with pliers in a "medical" procedure more akin drawing and quartering than anything the Hippocratic Oath ever intended.

Enjoy, we will pay for it and give you a cookie if your good.

Oh, just in case you think I am missing the nuance of the liberal "thought process" allow me to retort.

A woman may have sovereignty over her body, but the person inside her does too. Need a Bible reference for you liberal apostles? Upon Elizabeth hearing Mary’s greeting the baby in her womb “leapt for joy.” Luke 1:41,44. The live child. They don’t turn into kids mere minutes from birth. And you have no right to destroy them before they are born any more than afterwards.

A baby can feel joy, suck its thumb and kick your ribs, but has no civil rights in this country. If that is what you call nuance you are truly sick and deserving of all the things Ann says.

^ Well. It's a good thing the Bible and the Constitution are not the same document. Otherwise we'd all be screwed for working on Sundays.

You "pro-lifers" are such selfish people. Don't you realize the women who are having abortions can't afford their child or don't WANT it? It's cruel to force a child to grow up in a home where they will be unloved or neglected. Yes, people shouldn't be that way --- they should love their children and they should be responsible human beings. But there is idealism and then there is reality. Not all homes are good for children. Some children would be better off being aborted. Hey, I don't like the idea of abortion; I think it's despicable. So you know what? I don't plan on ever having one.

Anyway, great blog Lydia. I find it fascinating that conservatives can be so obsessed with being "good," "righteous" people when in actuality they are the most hateful, selfish ones of them all.

under you premise, since the "child;" you do call it a child, in full acknowledgment that it is a human life, i would not be loved or cared for, therefore outweighing the quality of life to life itself. Soo, every homeless person, orphan, hell any person who is unloved and neglected should have a pair of scissors jammed in the back of their neck to open a hole to insert a tube and have their brains sucked out. Well, this is all according to your standard of saying who should live or die. God is vengeful, ask the Egyptians before the Exodus, you'll find that in the Jewish book of Religeon as well.

DES, thanks for your response.

"pro-choice means a woman has the right of sovereignty over her own body and the direction of her life. thus the need for choice to remain, in safety."

What if the woman is 36 weeks old and in her mother's womb? We (conservatives) would like for both mother and baby to have choices. You can call it something that sounds nice, like choice, but in reality that little girl has no choice if her mom is so selfish that she would rather have her baby killed than make the sacrifices required to bring her into the world and love her.

"do you see the difference?"

no. no matter what you call it, there is a unique, wonderful little girl, created by God who will never get to see her mom or dad and smile.

Since about 95% of all abortions are performed for birth control purposes, that "poor and downtrodden mothers need abortions" is just a lie. It is really about excusing women who have already made a choice(having sex when they don't want to have a child) who want to escape from the responsibility of that choice. There is no doubt that the child is a human being. The individual DNA combination that defines a person is formed in the first instant after fertilization, and continues to express itself until the death of that individual. If you must use the "f" word(fetus), at least call it a human fetus.

On the law and abortion....

In most states, if someone causes a woman to miscarry through assault or kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with the murder of the child (meaning someone who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders--both mother and child.).

In those same states, that mother could herself go down to an abortion mill and pay someone to murder her child, and this is a 'choice'.

This is rather telling. Either the fetus is a lump of tissue, no different from a wart or a tumor, which a woman may have removed at her convenience, or the fetus is a human being, entitled to the right to live the same as any other human being.

If I were to kill a woman's unborn baby against her will, it's murder. If I do so at her request, it's a choice.

In other words, that crucial decision--whether a fetus is or is not a human being--is, according to the law, judged solely on what is convenient for someone else.

It is unfortunately not uncommon in human history for one class of humans to decide that another class of humans is not actually human. The results of this decision are never good.

But while I've got this window open, a few quotes--from this very article...

"Death Is Sexier Than Sex (to Ann Coulter)"

" I suspect she belongs to the Antichrist trinity or the Taliban sect of Christianity"

"Of course there's no comparing the lovable Peter Sellers with the witless, war-mongering leader of the free world"

"I wrote a book on the Trotsky assassination and did a lot of research on Josef Stalin. Terrifying similarities arose when I started researching Ann Coulter's narcissistic "cult of personality"."

"Democrats and reasonable people simply don't subscribe to a Nazi state..."

"And not to accuse anyone of being a fascist --- so please don’t take a soundbite out of this conversation and blow things out of context --- but the Nazis began their campaign for the holocaust with jokes and satire in order to dehumanize the Jews. Stalin did the same thing; lots of witty jokes demeaning everyone who displeased him." And again, "I'm not calling her a fascist, but she's just like the Nazis" ain't foolin' anybody.

And the punchline.....

"Maybe I’m not the "intellectual" Coulter is, because I often write from my heart not my head..."

If that's the kind of stuff that comes from Ms. Cornell's heart... well, y'all draw your own conclusions.

America will eventually turn on KKKoulter and rest of their ilk, and it won't be pretty.

The gradualness of America's coming back to its senses will be exceeded only by the viciousness of the backlash of middle America against ALL things rightwing and coulter-like.

I predict a period of schadenfrude for liberals and moderates that will be unprecedented in its ferocity against all things conservative.

The fact that it is so long in coming (due largely to constantly enabling and protective coverage of rightwing crimes by the MSM), will just make it that much more intense when it gets here.

For all things rightwing/GOP...

Pain delayed is pain INCREASED.

And the MSM will be a BIG target of the
backlash too.

You can count on that.

Rightwing GOPers hate America, worship Satan and suck the dick of Satan on a daily basis.

And those are the LEAST BAD things about them!!

Can America survive it's legion of conservative traitors and haters??

Stay tuned.

C'mon . . . . you are not nearly old enough to have voted for Reagan twice (or even once). Maybe if you didn't pretend to be a Republican, you would get a better response from people like Ann Coulter.

Nikto, in about four years when you turn 18, if this blog won't employ you, try the New York Times.

I'm interested to learn more about the connections between crude satire and nascent Nazism...seems like a great description of Jon Stewart to me.

Frankly, I understand how right-wing Christianity has taken hold of a large portion of the populace. I'm a Jew from NYC (persona non grata at the megachurch, perhaps), and I've witnessed American capitalist secularism at its most depraved and depressing. The racism, elitism, and out-and-out stupidity (coming from educated people, of course) in this city could drive anyone into the arms of what appears to be an opposite lifestyle.

Until we realize that "secular" doesn't mean sophisticated, that "liberal" is not another way of saying "compassionate human being," until we acknowledge that the "red" and "blue" cultures share the same--universally American--problems, and the same enemies, we'll never get anywhere.

After doing a Google search for images of Lydia Cornell I can safely sayt that there isn't much in this world that is sexier than Lydia Cornell. Imagine that. Brains, beauty and a liberal to boot!

Ok, so we are now in the business of deciding if someone has a right to life based on what we think their quality of life will be. So why then, do liberals support life sentences instead of the death penalty for crimes in our society of the most heinous nature? They are doomed to being gang raped and living in small cells the rest of their lives, why not end the pain?

Deciding to destroy such an innocent thing as a child simply because you don’t want the responsibility is disgusting, reprehensible, and contemptible. There are no words in any language strong enough to describe such vileness. Imagine the horror the world would feel to know that just one newborn child was mercilessly torn limb from limb. If it were taped, the terror on the little things face would haunt us with any semblance of a conscience the rest of our lives. Then you can understand our horror when we know this happens to children just a few months earlier in their development. 30000 of them a year.

But apparently, the old Chinese adage is answered in liberals. If a child screams in utter pain, and confusion, but no one who cares can hear it, does it really matter? Your answer is, “not if it inconveniences me.”

Ms. Cornell claims to be writing a book about Ms. Coulter. I believe it a transparent attempt to trade on Ms. Coulter's well-deserved fame. If Ms. Cornell is really interested in discovering what Ms. Coulter believes, she need only order Ms. Coulter's books from Amazon.com. She will find, if she dares read them, reasoned and footnoted examples, by the hundreds, of leftist mendacity and treachery. She will also find humor and satire throughout.

I am willing to bet Ms. Cornell has no interest in acquiring the video she so fervently desires for a dispassionate look at the truth. She's hoping to take comments out of context (a favorite liberal ploy) to attempt a smear of Ms. Coulter.

It is, to me, entirely comical that liberals who refuse to read Ms. Coulter's books or listen to Limbaugh rush to condemn them as hate-spewing, evil ideologues. They have no idea how ridiculous it makes them look. They are true believers in the drivle fed to them by the mainstream media and its action arms, the Democrat Party and leftist academe.

First, I'd like to address the purposefully blind comment of "the hate filled right"(as opposed to the imaginary hate filled left?) Let's stop pretending that the Left isn't every single bit as virulent as the right. You yourself mock Ann Coulter's adam's apple. So don't hide behind some ridiculous facade of being nice or not "sinking to her level". You just shot yourself in the foot. For every Limbaugh, you guys have a Michael Moore, for every Coulter a Dowd, and for every Hannity an Al Franken. Anyone else Remember Al Franken's strategy for dealing with Republicans? Walk right up and say "Fuck you", it's in Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Michael Moore's books are filled with hate spew. Dowd has no more problem spinning events than does Coulter. And let's not forget the redubbing of Karl Rove as "Turdblossom" by James Carville. I've heard so much hate from both sides that I'm sick of ANY pundit saying "Oh, all the hate comes out of the right (or left)". People who try and say all the hate comes out of one side is one of two things....either a. too stupid to be in political debate or b. (to steal a phrase from Mr. Franken) a lying liar.

Second, this idiotic idea that Jesus Christ would be a bleeding heart liberal, there's no way anyone actually believes that. Jesus would wash his hand of both parties. Jesus may have been the embodiment of love, but he had NO PROBLEM shooting someone down. Remember the flipping of the money changers tables? Besides the fact that I know Jesus would abhor abortion (and if you don't know any pro-abortion democrats...you don't know very many democrats), I also know he'd have no problem decrying Al Sharpton for racifying every single issue on the table. Coincidently, I believe he'd slam the pro-death penalty people. Jesus's message wasn't molify or middlize, but instead hang to your beliefs despite persecution and hate. So let's drop the "Jesus would've been a bleeding heart liberal" crap.

Three as for getting paid for appearances...oh dear God the horror...I have yet to meet anyone on the political, or celebrity scenes who DIDN'T charge for their services. Al Franken certainly does. And Michael Moore, dear God our college tried to get him, but he was far too pricy for our tastes. So let's get off of that lame brain note. She charges to appear, big whoop. So does everyone else. No exceptions. Not even the exceptionally funny Bill Maher does it for free so move on.

And finally, the Iraqi war. Quite possibly the only issue I agree with our President on. Democrats said it themselves when they say "we should've taken him out ten years ago". Yes we should've. But you know what? This isn't a slam against the war, but rather a defense of it. Yes, we have left a man in power we should've taken out ten years ago. I'm so sick of hearing the war described as evil for "the death of innocents". The carpetbombing of cities simply did not happen. That's pure lie and spin. Two of the things I thought our wonderful author hated. Just admit it, you wouldn't support this war under any circumstances. That's what your objection is. As for the simply half-hearted assertion that nothing is ever won by force, you must've missed a good chunk of history. Let's see, there was the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, and the first Desert Storm. All of those were solved by force and not by an inside dissent. You know, though, you have a point, Saddam wasn't immortal, he had to die someday. And then one of his sons would've taken over and I suppose we would've begun again. Even assuming his sons were saints (and they weren't), that could've been twenty or thirty years down the road. Since you decry the nazi state so much, I don't understand why you don't support our removal of Saddam. People dying for speaking political dissent isn't more nazism than the government trying to illegalize abortion? If you can't make that distinction you have your head firmly planted up your ass. This is a regime that openly raped and murdered its populous. So in essence all you've said here is that you don't support military action for anything, no matter how evil the tyrant, no matter how aggregious the human rights violations. Would you stand by as your neighbor raped and murdered his wife? I'd hope not, because I tell you now, that is NOT christian. And that is NOT christ like love. That is more of a sick twist on Christ's message than anything Coulter has EVER said. But to address your argument that it would've fizzled out one more time. Look at Rwanda. The tribal massacre of Hutu and Tootsie. Eventually an inner dispute came up, and helped stop the killing. But guess what, they had to act WITH FORCE. And by the time the inner dispute rose up to stop the killing more than a million people lay dead. If that doesn't fill you with some shame in your policy, then I see no value in your input in foreign or domestic policy. You don't give a damn about the Iraqi people or any other people, you just don't ever want to go to war, EVER.

I am reminded of Sean Hannity, when he thought the cameras stopped rolling. He ranted for almost ten minutes about how Democrats were the root of all hate spew, and conservatives were all sunshine. Then he said (cause he thought the cameras sstopped rolling I assume), "God I hate these fucking people." That's what this is. You rant about how mean spirited Ann Coulter is, and how rude, then remark on her adam's apple and call her a man. You have no crediblity. You slam her for taking money for appearances, and a paltry 20g (which is nothing for a public figure by the way), ignoring the fact that so many on your side do the same thing. You cannot be taken seriously. You say Jesus would politicize himself and offer forth the ridiculous idea that no democrats support abortion. And I say you are blind. And finally you rant about how evil it is to send troops to Iraq, and instead we should just stand by and let innocent people suffer. And you show little compassion for those who are being raped and murdered instead harping on Republicans for twisting Christ's values. You are every bit a leftist version of Coulter. You lie, you spew hate, you spin, you name call, and you put forth stupid ideas on the platform of tolerance. To summarize my thoughts of you, I will take the words of Christopher Hitchens, a brilliant liberal, one who is worried more about the real way of the world than partisan politics, and a hell of a lot closer to the center than you yourself.

"To describe this piece as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this article as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Your writing is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery. You prefer leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. If you had had your way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If you had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed. "

It was originally said about Fairenheit 9/11, but it fits you about as well as it fits Moore.

Kenny, wow.

Only on one point may I disagree. The rest was excellent, and worthy of applause. The death penalty has long been a misunderstood issue with Christians. I blame this mainly on our last pope. He had a personal opinion, and unfortunately he did not explain the distinction between that opinion and the position of the Church through the centuries and why it has been as it is with the rest of us.

We have a profound respect for life, but in the case of capital crimes, we are respecting more the life unjustly taken. Only capital punishment can be a fitting sentence for those that commit such a thing. Only that will show the gravity of it to those who might consider doing it themselves. Strictly as a Christian thing, murder is one of the sins the cry to Heaven for justice. We are personally responsible to forgive the individual no matter how grievous the offense, for we will be judged in part of how forgiving we are. But the responsibility of the state to enforce its laws remains. Remember, the Old Testament says “an eye for an eye.” Did Christ replace that law? No, he simply clarified our new personal expectations while leaving the original law intact.

Ah, but what about the story of the woman being stoned as a whore by the mob, and Christ intervened? Simple, mob rule is not rule of law. Many of those holding stones had frequented her business or those of others like her, hence “let those of you without sin cast the first stone.” They were hypocrites, and He knew it.

Let us look instead to the rest of the New Testament. Interestingly, Christ never spoke against the occupying Romans. Instead he taught to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” In fact, when He was being condemned himself he would not speak to Herod, for he was simply a puppet king, but would submit to the authority of Pontius Pilate, as his authority had been given him by God. He accepted his sentence, never spoke against the ghastly practice they used to eliminate their enemies and criminals.

So, what Cornell says is wrong from a Christian standpoint. Jesus was not the great peacemaker. He made no peace with warring factions. He didn’t even entertain the idea that the Romans had no right to be where they were. This is part of why the Jews rejected him. Their past saviors (ie David, Moses) had delivered them from temporal suffering. He did not come for that.

We could use that example all over the place with current events. Such as, a lack of respect for the president by a Christian is to thumb your nose at the authority of God.

Is there even a single man on the left? It doesn't appear so. Being irrational and inherently dishonest, leftism isn't attractive to most men. Except the very evil, of course. But then you all do have your favorites, like the 5 cm self-abusing traitor/child-molestor/drug addict/rapist/bribe-taker/draft-dodger, don't you.

Funny how the Democrats and other liberals want to apply the blow torch of Jesus' teaching to the conservative side of politics but don't apply it to their own. Where were you guys when Clinton committed adultery and lied about it under oath? Isn't important to you that Clinton's dealing over Whitewater were so foul? And what's the difference between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice? I'm sure the millions of babies vacuumed out of their mothers wombs, or cut up in utero, understand the difference, even if I don't. Its like being pro-choice on murder, or drug dealing, or pedophilia. No one wants them, but...if it works for you, why not?

Cheers guys, Garry

Y'all have lost touch with reality.

None of the sins of Ann or the republicans, even if true and mostly they are not, would measure up to the surrender to Jihad that democrats, except for LIeberman, are urging.
To the left, the danger from terrorism is distant but the danger of losing even more political power is real and terrifying. The thought of having to get a real job.....

Garry, #65:
>Where were you guys when Clinton committed adultery and lied about it under oath?

exactly where you were. mortified. but nonetheless, differing from you in that his repulsive actions did not rise to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors', the distraction of the country from more pressing issues, and millions upon millions of federal dollars diverted to the big show.

>Isn't important to you that Clinton's dealing over Whitewater were so foul?

of what was proven, of course it was important. abuse of power and criminal wrongdoing are always wrong and must be ferretted out, regardless of political persuasion, and accorded appropriate punishment or restituion. this is why the current round of indictments is important.

>And what's the difference between being pro-abortion and being pro-choice?

it appears that the only anti-abortion folks on this thread are all men. perhaps that's why it's harder to grasp this concept.

>Its like being pro-choice on murder, or drug dealing, or pedophilia.

no, it's not. put down your paper tigers.

if you can't, at the very least, comprehend the difference, this will be argued in perpetuity.

there are vast numbers of good people who share your beliefs. but Dems do not share your solution. outlawing abortion will not make it go away. it will reduce the number of abortions, somewhat, but not the occurence. it has been so, for thousands of years. sadly.

addressing the problems in society and culture that lead women to make this choice is the only real solution for creating a world in which such a heartbreaking dilemma never need occur at all.

Ann Coulter's reader base are mostly furtive types who lurk in teen chat rooms or who read Ann in dark dank little rooms on 13 inch monitors in 16 point type while cluthing their pathetic little IQ's/manhood in one hand while slobbering Slim Jims with the other and IM'ing eachother on what the meaning of the latest decolletage she falunts means (10 inches= important Bush charm initiative?). They need lizard skins on their mice or joysticks because thier hands are too slick from popping pustules while drooling on the keyboard as well...banal, unimaginative, the epitomy of intellectual and spiritiual sloth, their reward for their avarice and sloth has been had in this life not in the next, they will be harshly judged for they judge harshly of others, uninquiring, uninspiring, (Thank God) such are the minions of hate speech.

Intereting analogy, Rheincoat, except that using such terms as "popping pustules", "drooling on the keyboard", "banal, unimaginative, the epitomy of intellectual and spiritual sloth", "cluthing (sic) their pathetic little IQ's/manhood", and then you want to speak of the "minions of hate speech?" Maybe you'd have been a little less harsh about minions of hate speech if you were aware that you were demonstrating yourself to be among that number. Besides that, I'm clearly more intelligent than yourself and if men could get pregnant I'd have Ann Coulter's baby--so don't be too surprised if nobody believes you.

And Des, check the numbers. women oppose abortion more than men. In fact, abortion's greatest support comes from men aged 18-34--'playah' age, in other words; the guys most likely to end up paying child support.

You folks are sick and need help. Ann Coulter has you pegged.

Best regards,

Greg

My goodness! Either you're the ditziest liberal space cadet in human history, or this is the best political satire ever created. Scrappleface, IMAO and Iowahawk combined couldn't lampoon leftist bloggers better than you have.

My personal favorite:

I’ve been bewildered to the point of jaw-gnashing agony at how certain fundamentalists can call themselves Christian, when they do not follow the teachings of Christ! I feel I’m going insane. Right after the 2004 election when You-Know-Who was elected, I actually developed a nervous tic in my left eye, like the Police chief in the Pink Panther, who was driven berserk by Inspector Clousseau.

Wow! Just for that, your monthly check from Karl Rove will have a little something extra.

Ann Coulter uses sarcasm to debunk liberals. She is good at it and that is why she is so hated by them. Liberals use hatred all the time, but because they are so convinced of their self righteousness, they consider their own hatreds some how worthy. Witness African Americans who call themselves conservatives. Michael Steele, Lt. Gov. of Maryland has endured racist abuse from liberals for weeks now and there has not been a peep from the Great White Liberals in the media about this. Ted Rall's most recent cartoon is hate filled and venomous towards our military in Iraq. Not Bush, not Cheny, but towards the men in uniform. Find it and tell me how it makes you feel. And yet liberals wonder why people question their patriotism.

Robert Byrd. One time recruiter for the KKK. Still uses the "N word" in public discourse. Does it get any attention? Of course not. He's a Democrat. A "liberal." One time head of the senate. Are those words hate speech? If Trent Lott uttered them, then yes. If Robert Byrd does, then no.

Michael Moore has called the death squads in Iraq, the "minutemen" of that country. The same men who give out toys to children that then explode in the children's faces. If they are the patriots of that country, then our soldiers must be the oppressive English. To me, that is a despicable comparison. It gets yawns from liberals.

Dick Durbin calls our camps like the gulags and Nazi concentration camps. Putting aside that the liberals of that time did not mind gulags, his word choice is instructive. He cried croc tears when called on it. Very big of him.

There have been numerous calls for the killing of GW. One was in a play that was well received by the intelligentsia in NYC. Funny, how that doesn't fall into the left's definition of hate speech.

At the many "peace" marches we saw over time, we viewed numerous signs equating Bush and Hitler. Even as actual fascists were blowing up the Madrid trains. At the same marches, one would have had to search high and low for a sign even vaguely criticizing Saddam, also an actual, unreconstructed fascist. A man whose mass graves did not get on fraction of the media attention of Abu Ghraib. To the left, such as Ramsey Clark, Saddam is better than Bush.

In answer to one poster's query, yes, we do believe the media is liberal, or mostly so. It is also interesting that it is also predominantly white, wealthy and frankly, snobbish. Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather...Diane Sawyer...

Arrianna Huffington is more the face of the left wing of the Democrat Party than is FDR, never mind Patrick Moynihan. She of the many estates, the private jets and the lectures on fuel consumption. Apparently Al Franken does not like to hire any minorities in his business dealings. Neither does Michael Moore. Hillary and Bill bought their home in 100 percent white Chappaqua. (Of course, it is 100 percent rich, too.) But these are the people who claim to speak for minorities. And the poor. Compare Dean with Condi Rice, who grew up in the deep South during the time of Dr. King. Personally, I look at Robert Byrd and then Condi and I shake my head. Of course, it is not widely known that the Democrat Party gave rise to the Ku Klux Klan many years ago. Look it up.

Howard Dean grew up in the lap of luxury. Much was made of Bush's National Guard service but not a whole lot about Dean's draft dodging. Of course, John Edwards' military record isn't exactly stellar either. I won't even get into Bill Clinton, another draft dodger. But suddenly, the democrat party's new wise old man is John Murtha, Marine. Funny, I never heard Max Cleland comment on Edwards' fitness for Veep, having had NO military background. Of course, Bob Dole's loss of his arm to the Nazis and Bush Sr.'s heroism as a pilot as a 19 year old didn't get repeated ad infinitum like the fact that John Kerry was a "hero." I recall certain Dems mocking Dole's arm, perhaps not knowing how he had lost its use. (But that's not hate speech either, is it?) Funny, when Clinton was running vs. Bush Sr. the war hero thing wasn't too important to Democrats. Refresh my memory. Why was that?

Hate speech, as it is called, has a long and torrid history for the dems, the left and liberals, esp. in recent years. Hey, it's a free country. Ted Rall can call our soldiers scum, as he does this week. Liberals can call conservatives all sorts of names. Enjoy yourselves.

On a purely political level, I do not mind when your side goes off the deep end with its hatreds. It alienates the middle and makes you look WAY out of the mainstream. Think Howard Dean's scream. I am also happy that the faces that represent your side are all rich, white and phoney. Common sense tells us that Katrina Vanden Heuvel has never worked a real job in her life and that John Edwards hair cut costs more than some people's weekly salary. For the folks in the Hamptons and Brentwood to claim to speak for the little guy rings pretty hollow. 57 percent of the nation's households own stocks nowadays, nearly quadruple twenty five years ago. While Bruce Springsteen sings about the grapes of wrath, he also owns a few mansions. Is Joe six pack buying that? I'm thinking maybe not.

Compassion by itself is nothing. Without logic and discipline, it can make matters worse. I find too many liberals thump their chests about how compassionate they are, regardless of what they advocate. Even when it is destructive. As long as it makes them feel good about themselves, it is good. This is selfishness and vanity, not compassion. It is self serving.

"Look at me! I'm soooo compassionate! LOOK AT HOW COMPASSIONATE I AM!!! Aren't I wonderful?!!!"

Not necessarily.

Of course, it is easy to be compassionate with the gov't. I don't think Arrianna ever used food stamps, do you? But I wonder, did she take any Katrina victims into one of her houses?

Liberals feel where conservatives think. Jesus never said to cut off your brain. He never said to keep giving money to a drunk. He never said compassion meant being a jackass. He was a smart, no nonsense person when it came to people's bunk. Thus the outburst in the temple against the money changers et al. He forgave any and all, but only after repentence. Sin was not to be dodged, but confronted head on. For liberals, compassion means never having to say "I'm sorry." Because right and wrong are like choices of coffee. None are good or bad, just personal choices. But right and wrong for Jesus were not relative, not up for grabs and not subject to moods and circumstances. You could always be forgiven but you could not say you were right when you were wrong.

Jesus was not going to tell you two plus two equals five. Jesus had a big heart, but he was no dummy. He had compassion, but he was no sucker. Regret and atonement were absolutes to gain compassion. Right and wrong were unavoidable. Go and sin no more, he told the adultress. He forgave her, but he didn't ask her if her husband was insensitive to her needs. I submit that he found her penitent.

Preening on about how concerned one is, is cheap and easy. Ted Kennedy does it regularly. I personally would like to see him do something in public to atone for his part in the death of Mary Joe Kopechne. That's just me.

Ann Coulter highllights absurdity with absurdity. She's good at it. She scores points vs. liberals and their mindless assertions of their moral superiority. That many of them do so from the distinct comfort of upper middle class lifestyles has long made me skeptical, nay, cynical about them. Coulter too. I think it is not her "hate speech" that offends liberals so much as her ability to cut through their platitudes to the essential contradictions of their points of view.

Do a little thing to prove me wrong.

Decry Ted Rall's vicious cartoon. It is hate speech, pure and simple.

What is this woman talking about that Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal??? Is she reading different Bible than me or what? See, last time I checked the Bible, God did not support Homosexuality, Abortion, and unless history has magically changed itself God completely destroyed Sodom and Gomorah for being so sinful. This country's moral fiber has decayed and is becoming worse day after day. Yeah, in a perfect world there would be peace and everybody would just love each other and La Dee Fucking Da, whoops, God said we are all sinners and we all fall short of his glory. WE DON'T LIVE IN A PERFECT WORLD!!!! We just do the best we can and try to survive until God can sort out all of the assholes. Secondly, Lydia comes out and says "I never mix religion with politics" (emphasis on never) and then goes on to describe the Messiah of a religion that she obviously knows nothing about. At least Ann's not completely hipocritical, and if she is at least she's smart enough to hide it. Whoa, hold your horses, I have genius idea, I'll say that I never do something, and as soon as I say that, I'll do it.

Sheer Genius Lydia

Sincerely,

Aaron Moles

What is this woman talking about that Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal??? Is she reading different Bible than me or what? See, last time I checked the Bible, God did not support Homosexuality, Abortion, and unless history has magically changed itself God completely destroyed Sodom and Gomorah for being so sinful.

Didn't stop Jesus hanging out with hookers, did it? And if you can provide Jesus's teachings on abortion and homosexuality (chapter and verse) we'd be glad to hear them.

Gotta love the Christianists.

My mistake--the film clip of Dr. King's assassionation was, of course, a television add, and not a radio ad.

And Ahem--Jesus spent time in the company of sinful people. He made it clear that this was not an endorsement of sin. And if you can't find any passages relating to homosexuality, sexual immorality in general, and murder in the Bible, I suggest you try reading it.

you know what, i'll come to the Liberal Level. I mean right now we're mixing church and state right. The Christians are against Abortion because they think it's murder, well let's look at it from a legal standpoint. Abortion is illegal if it is performed past viability, viability being the child's ability to live outside the mother's womb. Late term abortions, or partial birth abortions are still being performed, which i think is an abomination, i mean the doctor delivers the baby breach (sp?) except for the head, now this is important, if the head comes out, do you know what that is A LIVE BIRTH...but anyway, the doctor leaves the head inside the mother jamming scizzors into the back of the child's head, inserts a tube, sucks out the brains, then proceeds with the labor and the child is born without a brain function rendering it still born; now who in their right mind thinks thats ok, or that by outlawing this practice one is taking away the rights of the mother, i mean seriously lets try to be a little bipartisan, you can be pro abortion and anti-partial birth. My main point is...what happens when technology catches up with us and makes viabilityat say 3 months.
I think people are very uninformed about this topic, do women realise how unhealthy an abortion is, psychologically, physically; what the chances are of ruining your uterary wall and disabling you to have children.
PLEASE i don;t want you to take what i say as written in stone, DO research yourself, find the studies, ignorance is bliss but it makes you look like an idiot.

Lets compare biographies of Coulter and Cornell!

Coulter: A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion. Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates. Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity and Colmes, Wolf Blitzer Reports, At Large With Geraldo Rivera, Scarborough Country, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, The O'Reilly Factor, Good Morning America and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine, among others. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001. Ann Coulter is the author of four New York Times bestsellers —How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004), Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors:The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998). Whew! Impressive! Now....

Cornell: Actress. Wannabe Writer. No Educational Credits listed! BUT - She is fluent in Spanish and comes from a family dedicated to the arts! Her grandfather, Henry Ward Beecher Stowe, was great-grandson of Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin! Her passions are children's charities and fighting drug & alcohol abuse.

No wonder Cornell thinks Jesus is a Liberal! She can't read the Bible!

Big K,
Not to say you wasted your time with me, but I believe in the death penalty, so that rant was for nothing ha. I'm just saying, we could be wrong on that one, and may have to atone for it or stand accountable. I don't know. I'd rather be uncertain on the deaths of dozens than applaud the slaughter of millions (abortion) or have contributed to the genocide of a nation (Bosnia, Iraq, et. al.).

Please make the book more interesting than the article. An argument might help.

I grew up being nuts about you, Lydia, and now that I read your thoughts, I am once again head over heels for you. Keep blogging. We need more voices of love and sanity.

Someone should explain to Lydia and her sycophants here that hate disguised by passivie agressive mockery (truly a feminine tool if there ever was one) is still hate. And, by the way, take some time to read (or re-read) Orwell's 1984. This entire blog is an example of "double think" - condemning something in others while justifying it to ourselves as we do exactly the same thing.

As a (soon to be former) lifelong Democrat I am disgusted by the way the Dems have morphed into the part of hate and racism. A perfect example of the confluence of the two was the preacher from Lousiana who came here to Oakland to stand in a neighborhood church and accuse Bush of ignoring the tragedy in the aftermath of Katrina by stating "a black man's life has always been cheap in America".

Sorry, but I don't see the difference between the preaching of hate in a church in Oakland and the preaching of hate in a Madrasa in Saudi Arabia. And I didn't hear Lydia or any of her fellow Dems complaining about it.

Instead they complain about people like Ann Coulter. Maybe it's because their insanely jealous about how much more effective and persuasive she is than they are.

Kenny,

Thanks, I was beginning to wonder if anyone intelligent read my posts. And I did not waste my time, I was not just speaking to you but to anyone who is willing to listen. As far as my post was concerned, those opinions are not merely my own, but the result of research I have done into my religion as to how and why the Church has had this position and how it changed more recently. I came to my own conclusion, that happens to agree with the Church as it has been, after much reading and deliberation. I simply meant to inform.

Tom:
First off, for those who don't feel like searching for the Rall cartoon-- http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2005/11/26/

And let's not forget....

"to create as much . . . discord and hatefulness as they possibly can and follow a scorched- earth political strategy: burn down the house in hopes that you'll inherit the ashes."
--Al Gore, on Republican goals

"Prince of Darkness," "rabid attack dog," ''bigot," "sexist," "homophobe"
-- NBC reporter Jim Miklaszewski

[Gingrich seeks] "a more scientific, a more civil way of lynching people."
--Sunni Khalid of NPR

"George Wallace was big in rural Georgia, too."
--New York Magazine's Jacob Weisberg, on Gingrich

"A lot of people are afraid of you. . . . Worse, you're an intolerant bigot."
-Sam Donaldson of ABC to Gingrich

"The most hideous schemes are being put forth now in the name of conservatism... ...If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism. Here we call it conservatism."
--Jesse Jackson

"The Christian Coalition was a strong force in Germany. It laid down a suitable, scientific, theological rationale for the tragedy in Germany. The Christian Coalition was very much in evidence there . . ."
--Jesse Jackson (note, the Christian Coalition was founded in 1989)

"I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do of heart disease.. . . He's an absolutely reprehensible person."
--Julianne Malveaux, Pacifica Radio talk show host, on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

"They'd like to see the Medicare program just die and go away... You know, that's probably what they'd like to see happen to seniors, too, if you think about it."
--White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry, Oct 26, 1995

"Trickle-down terrorists,"
--House Minority Leader Dick Gephart, on Republicans

Just like under Hitler . . ."
--US Rep. Charles Rangel

"Republican storm troopers."
--Mario Cuomo

" 'Apollo 13' . . . celebrates the paradisiacal America invoked by Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan --- an America where men were men, women were subservient and people of color kept out of the damn way."
--Washington Post

"...if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion. Or one of his grandchildren will get it."
--Nina Totenburg of NPR, on Sen. Jesse Helms

"a cancer [who should be] cut out of American politics,''
--Bill Clinton on conservatives

''At night, the enemies of civil rights strike in white sheets, burning churches. By day, they strike in black robes.''
--Jesse Jackson, on the Supreme Court

[The Dole Campaign] ''is taking on faint overtones of the old protection racket, with Republicans increasingly sounding like the Capone gang.''
--John Cochran, ABC

''He's one more mistake away from not having any kneecaps.''
--James Carville, of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr

'Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot and other Observations.''
--Title of a book by Al Franken

'A lot of the blood of America's race war victims will be on the hands and bloated bodies of Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern.''
--syndicated columnist Carl Rowan

'The evaporation of 4 million who believe in this crap would leave the world a better place."
--Andre Codrescu, commentator on NPR, in reference to born-again Christians

'a Negro Dr. Kevorkian who gleefully assists in suicidal conduct to destroy his own race... foot-shuffling, head-scratching 'Amos and Andy' brand of 'Uncle Tom-ism... gun for hire willing to assassinate . . . blacks... barbarous... [who wants] to maim and kill other blacks for the gratification and entertainment of . . . white racists.''
--William Clay, Missourri Democrat, on black Republican Gary Franks

"Just when our community starts to move ahead, some people try to turn back the clock. Sometimes they do it with bullets. Sometimes they do it with laws.''
Radio ad, accompanied by a film clip of the Martin Luther King assassination

`reading too much `Mein Kampf' for his own good.''
--Tom Fleck, Houston Press Columnist, about Harris County Republican Chairman Gary Pollard, in a piece entitled "Watch out for the GOPstapo!"

"I think because he could not say `nigger,' he said the word `corrupt'... George Will can just take his hood and go back to wherever he came from.''
--Carol Mosely Braun (Note that George Will didn't use the word "corrupt" either.)

`Don't you believe that they don't want to dismantle the Social Security system. They are afraid to come out from under their hoods and attack us directly.''
--Charles Rangel

`one of the junior Grand Wizards of the vast right-wing conspiracy.''
--Keith Olbermann of MSNBC on Lauch Fairthcloth, the conservative North Carolina senator

`When you don't vote, you let another church explode. When you don't vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don't vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister. . . . Paid for by the Missouri Democratic Party.''
--Radio spot aired in St. Louis

`If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together --- all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! Wait! . . . I'm not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we'd kill their wives and their children! We would kill their families!''
Alec Baldwin, actor

"I'll be watching, hoping someone shoots him. It would no doubt be a thrill."
Abraham Polonsky, about Elia Kazan

"Gingrich should be hanged."
--Richard Cohen of the Washington Post

"Conservative legal interest groups such as the Center for Individual Rights and the Southeastern Legal Foundation are . . . a homogenized version of the Klan. They may have traded in their sheets for suits . . . but it's the same old racism."
--Former Atlanta mayor Bill Campbell

"Kenneth Starr is cunning, ruthless, and about as well-mannered as Heinrich Himmler."
--The Arkansas Times

"Whenever I hear Trent Lott speak, I immediately think of nooses decorating trees. Big trees, with black bodies swinging."
--Karen Grigsby Bates, of the Los Angelos Times

"...so bad that you could get rid of every fascist tract in your library if you just had a copy"
--Biilzebubba, on Texas Republican Party platform

"dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on the Cuban section of Miami."
--suggestion by Alexander Cockburn of the New York Press

I take responsibility partly for my son's death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just... ...I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms: "This country is not worth dying for....""
--Cindy Sheehan

"Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs"
--John Daly, English professor at Warren County Community College in New Jersey

Unfortunately, Democrats view inaction to preverse murder, torture and oppression as PEACE.

The first thing the Jews said to the American troops when they were liberated was "What took you so long?" .....FDR's peaceful inaction

Jimmy Carter's peaceful inaction led to 1,000,000 deaths upon the killing fields of Cambodia.

800,000 Rwandans were hacked to death while Bill Clinton stood by in the name of peaceful inaction.

The Taliban murdered, raped and tortured hudreds of thousands while Clinton refused to step in and use force to stop the insanity.

Bush invaded Iraq to fight terrorism at it's root AND to liberate tens of millions...never giving a thought to whether he would be re-electable in 04'.
This takes guts, duty and honor. Traits the Democrats have considered secondary to re-election for decades.

Lydia,

I cannot believe you had the nerve to call Christ a "bleeding heart Liberal". Apparently, you have NEVER read The Bible. I suggest you try it sometime - especially if you are calling yourself, or anyone else, a Christian. I would give you some verses to get you started but by the end of your diatribe, I was convinced you really need to read it cover to cover. You may even check out a few Bible studies in your neighborhood.... they may enlighten you as to God and Jesus.
You have really embarassed yourself this time.

Jack #83

I don't see hate in the statement you cited, "a black man's life has always been cheap in America."

If you think that's hateful, what must you think about Coulter's endless stream of real hate speech in which she calls for physical harm and even death to non-republicans?

You must be aware the above-cited statement is true, and adding to it is the current neo-con bu$h administration's callous removal &/or serious reduction of social aid funds to people who are struggling to survive financially, including the infirm and our elderly, who are unable to work.

These days, not only is a black man's life cheap in America, but so are the lives of those I just mentioned. Not just cheap --- shall we say dispensable --- so the most wealthy 1% of our population can take whatever money it wants from the poorest, the middle class, and even those who are wealthy but not in the upper 1%. This is gang rape, my friend.

The PNAC group (the ones in the bu$h Cabinet) have called for racial genocide (in their Harvard & Yale terms) - from this article The True State of Black America.

[snip] On page 60 of The Project for a New Century (PNAC) report, Rebuilding America's Defenses, the author writes:

"[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

[Cynthia McKinney continues .. ] Now, I don't know what they meant by that bit of advice. But I do know that such research has been conducted already, according to news reports, in Israel and in apartheid South Africa. At home, I do know that the US Government has been sued by the son of Paul Robeson for Robeson's targeting by the CIA's MK Ultra Program; and the Tuskegee Study which for 40 years targeted black men who thought they were being treated by their government (for syphillis) and who, instead, were being studied by it. [end snip]

Read the entire speech given by Cynthia McKinney for more information on real hate crimes against blacks from someone who actually witnessed it.

AND, please allow me to remind you that we are not JUST COMPLAINING about Coulter and other abusive, hate-filled right-wing spokespersons --- we are calling for illumination.

We are working toward exposing their non-productive ranting and hate-rhetoric for what it is and we are asking intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate people to take a stand against it --- and those who use it as a tool [see Manifest Destiny] to degrade and dehumanize non-republicans, in order to absolve themselves of any guilt associated with their crimes against humanity.

PS --- bu$h DID ignore the tragedy in N.O. before, during AND after Katrina.

Gracious, PLAT --- you seem to have embarrassed yourself.

I'd recommend you really read the Bible --- pay special attention to the words of Christ. Try hard to separate yourself from your militant side and pray for guidance so you can "study to show yourself approved."

I don't think Christ would be a Dem. The Democrats want to help the suffering in America. THATS BULLSHIT. Does anyody know how many Americans on welfare are fat? have cell phones? have television? The welfare program in this country is a joke. I live in new orleans and i see it first hand. Everybody saw all those people sitting on the convention center, you know why, they have no idea what it is like to live or take care of themselves, so what do they do, they sit on thier asses with both hands out. Why does the gov't issue food stamps only to be spent on food??? I say give them cash, if they spend it on drugs alcohol, getting thier hair done...so be it, they will soon learn how badly they need food. You can be on welfare for 4 years. People are so lazy. Dems cry about outsourcing, well fuckin right, what does that say about all the people on welfare, they're so lazy they think they're above jobs that we have to give to people over seas for a quarter of the price. We have it so much better here nobody really has any idea. Try living 4 weeks with no running water no gas in 100 degree weather. I think Dems should get their heads out of their asses. The senate voted to pull troops out of Iraq. 4 voted to. After all the shit talking only 4 senators had the testicular fortitude to back thier breathless bark. You guys are pussies, why can't you just admit that you want to do the same things as republicans just shadier and more back handed. Ask Ralph Nader, he hates you more than the Republicans

Michael Richmond #89

It's not just the Dems who are at fault for poor handling of the welfare situation.

The way to handle it is to give help for work. Unfortunately, there has been a failure by both Parties to make this reality. The old saying, "give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for life" should be taken to heart by our government.

The bu$h administration has taken away the opportunity for welfare recipients to receive aid to go to school (continuing education and college.) This is egregious. Increasing the education level of our country's citizens should be a number one priority. The bu$h admin. is shooting us all in the foot.

And adding to your comment, Michael Richmond #89 about outsourcing.

The jobs that are outsourced are those that our trained computer experts are losing. These are not the garbage collectors, they are people who have spent years and lots of money going to school to earn a highly qualified, professional skill.

To THE REDNECK may I also add to your excellent points:

1.) "The man's father is a wonderful human being," (I add, Harry) Reid said in response to a question about Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser." --Washington Post, May 7, 2005

2.) The National Down Syndrome Society is extremely disappointed by Maureen Dowd's recent use of the term "extra chromosome conservatives" in an interview on Bill Maher's show "Real Time" on HBO. --- National Down Syndrome Society

3.) Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives," which he later clarified to say Republican "leaders --- Howard Dean, San Francisco Chronicle, June 7, 2005

4.) "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?,” Dean asked to laughter. “Only if they had the hotel staff in here.” --- Howard Dean, NY Newsday, February, 2005

5.) Waving a bottle of wine, Goldberg launched her double entendres in New York City last Thursday at a gala that raised $7.5 million for Kerry's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Other performers at the event called Bush a "cheap thug" and a liar. --- USA Today, July, 14, 2004

And on and on and on and on......

P.S. Joe Lieberman rocks!!!!!!!!

OOPS!! I almost forgot the racist Condoleeza Rice cartoons last year!!

Great another jealous liberal -apologetic speech from a so called "christian". Unfortunantly all of us young 20 yr old conservatives find your "kind" as the root problem with our churches today. Perverting Biblical truth with your new and improved "feel good" Human Secularism creeping into our churches and youth groups.

Unfortunately #92 & #94 - you guys are doing what you say the libs do. No difference --- so your comments are moot.

Please - try to find the true message of Christ, since it seems you've missed it.

Sam!!

Excellent!! I feel the same. Hence my earlier comment about the death penalty being now not in vogue when for centuries She had no problem enforcing it.

To answer your question in your blog, no you are not even remotely close to the intellectual Ann Coulter is. You got where you are from your looks, nothing more. Your a just another whining hollywood liberal who has lost touch with what America used to stand for. When you get a law degree from a Ivy League college, then I might consider you the intellectual Ann Coulter, but still probably not. I was gonna say I'll pray for you to grow a brain, but I can't do that, I'm currently sitting in a public building :O

Well of course I must agree that liberals are compassionate...in defending perpetrators of violence like Tookie Williams and Saddam Hussein.

And they are quite charitable...with Conservative folks' money.

They also have a sense of humor...unless it comes in the form of satire directed at them.

Of course Ann Coulter doesn't advocate taking away first amendment rights from anyone...it's called satire. But professors and administrators of most universities actively deprive Conservatives of their rights to free speech each day, as documented by David Horowitz. All liberals have to do is characterize it as "hate" speech, and the Conservative is banished--freedom is routinely trampled. When Ann attempts to speak, liberals throw pies in an attempt to silence her; but they miss because typically they are girls or un-athletic girly men.

Liberals' real frustration is that the gal has gonads. Ann Coulter is competent, she is quick, she is witty, she is highly intelligent, and she has bona fide integrity which is a foreign concept to most Liberals. Ann Coulter is a tiger; she won't back down; you ass clowns will never silence her. Deal.

Yes, Kira, Project for a New Century said that biological warfare may be used as a political tool.

First, this does not mean, in any way, shape, or form, that they are suggesting we do so.

Second, if they were it wouldn't matter. Project for a New Century is a bunch of guys who told the President what they think he should do. I think the Federal government should adopt a flat tax, disband Welfare completely, force New England to seceed from the Union, fence our entire southern border--with razor-wire!--withdraw from the United Nations and tell them exactly where to go and what to do with a rolled-up copy of the Kyoto Treaty when they get there, invade Syria, and finally concquer North Korea and hand it over to South Korea. I I think Bush should do all of these things, and I voted for Bush; his does not mean, unfortunately, that these actions are President Bush's policy, no matter how much they should be.

" the most wealthy 1% of our population can take whatever money it wants from the poorest, the middle class, and even those who are wealthy but not in the upper 1%."
Just who and how are the "most wealthy 1%" of our population "taking whatever money it wants"? This bit of Marxism is especially amusing in light of the fact that the wealthies 1% of our population holds slightly less than 20% of America's wealth, and pays more than 30% of its taxes.

"This is gang rape, my friend."
Put aside, for the moment, that the theft you speak of is truly imaginary--to claim that this theft is the equivalent to gang rape is a demonstration of either apalling ignorance or apalling immorality.

And finally, quoting Cynthia McKinney doesn't help your cause any. As a native Georgian, I am well aware of Ms. McKinney's exploits, and say with certainty that she is almost as much an embarrassment to our state as is the fact that there is a district within our borders where she was able to win an election. McKinney was one of the first to blame Bush for 9/11, who wrote what basically comes out to love-letters to the Saudi government after we turned down a donation from them because they told us it was our fault we got attacked, whose campaigns are still funded by pro-jihad groups, and whose father was blaming a previous election loss on the "Jews, J-E-W-S, Jews".

If you've got to use Cynthia McKinney's words to make a point, you're really grasping at straws. Not to mention that I find it hard to believe an archetypical white racist country cop who would beat a pregnant woman with a bike-chain (and who has enough bike-chains laying around that they would pick one up for a weapon anyway? This guy is supposed to be a redneck--where's the shotguns, the tow-chain, the pick-handle?), but when being threatened by a black man with a gun, this guy (who, remember, has the ability to call for backup, not to mention throw people in jail) simply apologized and let them go on their way.

"PS --- bu$h DID ignore the tragedy in N.O. before, during AND after Katrina."
And thank you for illuminating the problem of hate-filled rhetoric.... apparently by demonstrating some for us.

Well, you see when a conservative argues with a liberal, the conservative always confuses the issues with the facts. For example the bumper sticker " Clinton lied nobody died " Fact: Clinton did lie under oath. Fact: 18 Army Rangers died on October 3rd 1993. But you really see the issue is " Clinton lied and nobody died."

Yet we continue down the road confusing issues with facts. Issue: Ms Cornell says "Death is sexier than sex (to Ann Coulter)" because Ms Coulter uses satire and pointed humor to get her point across. Fact: I don't believe Ms Cornell has personal knowledge of Ms Coulter's sexual preferences and nor could she effectively hold an intellectual debate with Ms Coulter. Ms Cornell debating Ms Coulter would be analogous to bringing a knife to a gunfight. Moreover, Ms Coulter's personal courage, integrity and penchant of taking " the harder right over the easier wrong " is well documented. Fact: Ms Cornell uses sound bytes of Ms Coulter's thoughts in an attempt to discredit her. Obiviously, Ms Cornell did not read Ms Coulter's review of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee Ms Miers.

Therefore conservatives are faced with a quandry of how not to confuse issues with facts. May I suggest we create a simple minded slogan such as " If you can't make the standard then you double it."

Ann Coulter is an intellectual? God, that's a laugh. Remember that Ann's biggest fan is Sean Hannity. Need I say more?

Kira, I fail to see how quoting people bashing Republicans is "doing exactly what they blame the liberals of doing." I can concur with you on 94, but 92's point is still completely valid. He has said nothing himself but has quoted hate speech from Democrats. His point stands.

And as for Getplanning...her points are not less valid just because someone with whom you disagree likes her. Hannity can be a douche, but he too brings up some damned good points. You're comment is no less blind than if I said, I refuse to acknowledge anything James Carville says of any import, because Michael Moore likes James Carville. That would be stupid.

With a few exceptions, all I've seen on this board is either random Democrats lining up around the block to literarily fellatiate Ms. Cornell, and by proxy, denounce the evil right-wingers on the board, or flailing Republican no-nothings who seem unable to use a good argument even if one falls in their laps. And when someone makes a good point, no one addresses it. Is this the state our political system has come to? A bunch of foolish partisan lemmings who will walk off of any steep cliff when their respective leaders tell them to?

Jesus Christ, help us. It's like four year olds arguing which color of crayon is best. No matter who wins, nothing of importance is decided.

Democrats, stop waiting for your number to be called to speak your praise and perform "your duty" on this lady, no matter how fetching she is. Actually look at the content of her work. It's flimsy, full of holes and contridicts itself at every turn. Stand up and stop looking at her point of view from underneath her skirt. "I'm falling in love with you all over again" is not a relevant point. And it makes anything nice you say about her sound moot.

Republicans, for you, actually adress the woman's work. This isn't about Clinton's zipper, or his perjury. This isn't about whether Merry Christmas should be Happy Holidays. Address her arguments. No wonder people think we have turrets, everytime some whack job comes out, I don't want people to die...so we won't ever do anything about any foreign violence.....ever, we go foamy at the mouth about the Lewinski scandal.

There are pertinent issues to stick to here:

1. Are conservatives are gloom and negativity while liberals are sunshine and flowers? No, they're not. Only a fool or a brain washed lemming believes that, or even its converse.

2. Is this double standarded? I don't want people to die. Bush is responsible for the death of 2000+ soldiers. We should've done nothing and let untold hundreds of thousands continue to die. And at the same time, ignored the rape, violations of his treaty with the UN and him shooting at our planes. Is that a double standard? You damn straight.

3. Is "We should've gotten rid of him 10 years ago" a valid anti-war anthem? No, in fact it solidifies our position. You don't say "I shouldn't have to vacuum the living room because I should've done it days ago." Or "I don't need to install locks on my door to protect me, because I needed them years ago." Of course not. You'd sound stupid. Same here.

4. Can you accuse someone of being rude and vile, then later in the same article refer to them offhandedly as a man? Of course not. This woman violates her whole argument here that she's better than Coulter being "sinking" even lower than Coulter's tactics. You don't even need to look elsewhere for examples of liberal hate. We have them right here.

5. Can you defend someone in your party of the exact same thing you're lambasting an opposite party member of doing? Of course you can. But it nullifies your whole argument.

6. Not even going to ask a question here. You can't claim "I don't mix religion with politics...BUT....here's religion with politics. You (AGAIN) sound stupid. And I don't believe it anyway. I have yet to meet a single person who doesn't mix religion and politics. They don't exist.

7. Again, no question. The Nazi campaign against the Jews DIDN'T start off with jokes. Sorry, this one's false. Hitler was clear from moment one he didn't like the Jews. They were a plague on Germany. I have the feeling that Ms. Cornell isn't saying this because she doesn't know history, but because she's SPINNING. There is no similarities between Ann and either Hitler or Stalin. This one's just bunk too. In actuality, Hitler started by getting rid of guns, watering down religion, and stiffling free speech. Sounds familiar to me, and it aint the right wing I'M talking about.

8. Is $20,000 dirty? No. She goes on and on about this. And revisits it. On this she's almost as bad as Ann is about Clinton. Get over it. Moore charges somewhere around 50g if I remember right. The people who are showing a sneak peek of the new Wal Mart film in my town are charging 35g for the priviledge. Let's not pretend that selling your political opinions for money isn't about money. Respect is great, but it don't pay the bills. And off topic, anyone who has heard Michael Savage, would immediately apologize to Ann for calling her the most vile spinner. But while we're getting rid of people...if Ann goes, I'd like Dowd gone. If Limbaugh...Michael Moore, and if Hannity...Carville. It's only fair. And Democrats love fairness right?

Finally. I'm sorry, I live in the real world. And liberals have no shortage of freedom of expression in the real world. Only in the Twilight Zone you talked about do liberals not have free speech. If you dislike her calling liberals hate mongers, or saying your party is treasonous, do the obvious solution. Stop defending people who openly hate America. Michael Moore hates this country. You defend him. When a teacher teaches his students that America deserved what it got, the left rushes to embrace him for his "courage". And when someone remarks that he hopes to see some Americans get shot, he's just exercizing his free speech rights. Take the wind out of her sails and knock these guys down a couple pegs and stop feeding her ammo.

Kenny, You Rock!!

Mr. Redneck - I'm a native Georgian - just so's ya' know I ain't talkin' outta school here.

I disagree with most of the comments after I wrote mine - so we can simply agree to disagree.

Later, folks.

Thanks for the help, Kenny, but I don't believe that anyone has yet referred to Biilzebubba's zipper. I did quote several things said by Clinton ("I did not have sexual relations with... that woman" was not among them) in order to counter her argument that the Democrats take the high road and suffer a torrent of abuse for it (I believe that's #5 on your list), but I don't remember anyone commenting upon his adolescent sexcapades. Nor did we comment upon Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays or Easter/Spring Break or Independence Day/White Slaveowner's Day or any other such instance of political correctness.

In fact, while your points 2 and 3 are indeed good points, perhaps I could remind you to actually address the woman's work?

I do indeed apologize for not giving you the recognition you feel you deserve--and while yes, that is sarcastic, it's not entirely so; what I've seen so far is well-written and raises valid points. But I disagree that failure to bring forth the proper praise means that we are unable to recognize a good argument, or that we have failed to use them.

And yet again, Ann Coulter is right.
"Conservatives couldn't put together a three-car funeral without producing six books denouncing one another... [while] Teddy Kennedy crawls out of Boston Harbor with a quart of scotch in one pocket and a pair of pantyhose in the other, and Democrats hail him as their party's spiritual leader.

Thank you Kenny. I just logged in and saw Kira's comments to mine. I thought the exact same thing. I'm just reiterating what they said --- and I'm using hate speech and being unChristian?

And to follow up on Freedom Fan's response to Yay Abortion --- exactly!! I'm amazed pro-choicers never suggest adoption as an alternative. And who is being selfish. Selfish is killing a life because they aren't wanted.

It is so disingenuous to say pro-choicers are only for choice and not abortions. If you're for choice, then you are agreeing that killing a baby if so decided by the mother IS OK whether it's one mother or over a million a year as it is now. There is just no way around it.

Is this woman for real? The Left's new Anti-Coulter? Honestly, is this the best the nihilist lefties can do? Short on content and depth and long on perky good looks and an assumption that she has the moral high ground just because...well, she's a liberal. Then again, these are the people who tried to get John "all sizzle and no steak" Kerry elected.

Her qualifications: she's a democrat and a mom and speaks from the heart, not her head. Too true. Intellectual firepower is conspicuously absent. She does have the courage of her convictions... a.k.a. a deathgrip on her left-wing faith that precludes rational thought. She claims that her principles are Christian...but clearly they are, shall we say, somewhat elastic. Please, Lydia. Don't take this personally. You suffer from the same maladies that plague all Lefties.

My biggest problem with what she says: can she honestly not understand the fundamental truth of the statement ‘liberals and traitors and terrorists; different stages of the same disease.’ ?? Add "lack of analytical prowess" to her list of deficiencies, I guess. If you truly don't get it, read some Horowitz. If your friends won't disown you for doing so, that is.

If you really think you're smart enough to do battle with conservative intellectuals, you'd better have a thick hide, girlie. Because Ann Coulter is not a hate-monger; she just has a a razor-sharp intellect, a very sarcastic sense of humour, and a grasp of the issues that you simply cannot match.

Kenny, you raise some good points. I thought it a bit odd that Ms. Cornell thought that the Nazi's started their campaign against the Jews with jokes. Anyone heard of the book Mein Kompf? Hitler wrote it years before gaining power. He outlined everything he was going to do, it was a best seller. In fact, its still in circulation.

I don't mind the other stuff though. If dems insist of reffering to people they don't like in ways that show the obvious intellegence of the writer that is their business (examples, SatAnne kkkoulter, bu$h). Makes it easier for me to skip their posts, as I am sure nothing of interest exists therein.

The harder ones to skim over are the posts that simply devolve into a preschool mentality. An argument whose entire premise is centers around the phrase "nu uh," or "your a stupid head."

Such biting retorts, and democrates keep saying they have an intellectual superiority. Were that true we all would be in big trouble.

Don't burn my fries yea abortion.

Honestly, what's with all of the right-wing trolls?

Redneck...the first few Republican posts in here were less than enlightened, though I just used two of the most common talking points today in my argument (even if Ann Coulter is, herself, quite stuck on Clinton). However, there has been a whole lot of other slam the author not the work going on. All of my numbered points, as well as my earlier posts are in regarding the woman's work. But I stand by my call that we need to stick to the issues, call them on their B.S. and hit them hard. Not personally attack them or rant about something completely off topic. Look at "I Laugh at Liberals" post for example. Or Sam, or Michael. There's no shortage of bile. Ann Coulter's point that we savage each other may be valid, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. I will not defend some foaming at the mouth loony just because they happen to ally themselves with me. That would make me no better than the Democrats. I look at that as a POSITIVE. We throw out our waste, that makes us the better party.

#5 on my list is: Can you defend someone in your party while slamming someone in the other party for doing the same thing? That was not a shot at anyone on the board, but instead a look back at Mrs. Cornell's work. She defends Al "Say fuck you to a Republican" Franken (twice I believe) and even uses his Ann Coulter's adam's apple joke. That's funny, that's satire. But Ann Coulter is just mean spirited and dangerous. That's her point. I called her on it.

And as for me feeling I deserve praise...I honestly don't know where that came from. Perhaps I came off arrogant, not my intention, OR perhaps you misunderstood me when I said valid points were ignored. I.E. Kira lumping 92 in with the 94, thereby ignoring the valid point of quoting Democrats, and classifying it as hate speech. Did I raise some good points that I wish would be addressed, yeah. I'd like to hear someone disagree with me on something on substance or try and dispute any of the long lists of quotes that have been put up by you and others, maybe try to classify them as satire perhaps? Perhaps a quote from Ann's Treason (loosely, cause I don't have the book) itself will clarify what I want here.

"No one will address this simple issue. Were there communists in the gov't? McCarthy was so mean. But were there communists in the government? The HUAC were horrible people. But were there communists in the gov't? Those poor actors who were victimized. But were there communists? It seems the only thing people don't want to talk about in dealing with McCarthyism is the only thing that matters. Were there communists in the gov't? The answer is yes."

That's what I'm seeing here. I'd like to hear some leftie answers to one of the many valid questions or points we've put forward instead of sneering. But instead all we get is:

"Bush lied kids died." But did we have valid cause to go to Iraq. "I don't know any pro-choice Democrats, but TO ME pro-life is not going to war." But did we have cause? Did we do good? "No WMDs were found." But did we have cause? The only thing nobody wants to address is the only part that matters. Did we have cause to invade? The answer is yes, but I'll be damned if the left isn't going to try and put "Operation Ignore" as Franken called Bush's plan, into effect for their own side.

I raised 9 points about her article, one or two you found offensive to you for whatever reason. And I stick by my whole argument. Maybe nobody mentioned Clinton's zipper, but look above Redneck, and try and tell me that I'm not right. Tell me that every conservative here stuck to topic. They didn't. I actually thought your posts were quite nice and I agreed with you. I'd like to have heard the answers to your questions or a rebuttal to your points, but alas not to be. May I ask you to do the same as you asked me. If you're going to attack me, actually look at the substance of my argument before doing so. I've got the funny feeling you knew exactly what I meant, but decided to give me grief anyways. I guess we've taken care of the eight books. Now if only we could get a bicycle, so we actually HAVE something in our three car caravan.

Kira...Comment 88 What would Jesus say to Mary Magdeline (SP?) if she were to go up to Jesus and say, I am pregnant and want to abort the baby? Wait i know what you think he would say, "why sister you body is your temple, you go forth and Terminate that pregnancy, your body is your temple, Remove that child should you not want" Jesus was a bleeding heart liberal my ass. Seeing how us christians believe in the trinity, God's actions apply as well as Jesus'. Let's see, the exodus and how it came about....hmmm
The Exodus If God we're a Democrat: Seeing how the Pharoah has hardened his heart and won't release the Jews, God will send the United Nations of Angels to investigate whether or not Egypt really has Slaves, and if they are Jewish. Well the Pharoah won't let the Angels in, so God, A Democrat, decides he will send money to the country to help...well the Jews are still "suppposedly enslaved." The Pharoah pilfers the relief money and enslaves more Jews. God now tells moses to give the Pharoah a hug, which leads to the enslavement of Moses. God, in an act of apparent testicular fortitude sends angels to militarily free the Jews and save Moses. 17 Angels are killed and 45 are wounded on the first day and God withdraws troops, saying that the Jews don't want to be helped anyway. The Exodus never happens.
Outcome of the Exodus if God were a Repulican: see-BIBLE

Obviously this is a little extreme, Jesus showed us how to all live in harmony, God teaches us that when that doesn't happen, one must use force.

How many spineless Dems voted to immediatly withdraw troops after all thier shit talking, and name calling? 4. you Pussies.

Kenny,

I too am surprised by the lack of response by the dems in the room. I said some stuff I thought would get a firestorm of response, some of which I was hoping would be good. Instead, I am greated with "what's with all of the right-wing trolls."

I will not engage in a battle of wits with those that are not armed.

OK, if we want to get really technical on the peacefulness of Christ, it must be pointed out that Christ, as depicted in John 1:2, ("He was with God in the beginning."), has been present throughout all of time. His human manifestation on earth was not the beginning of His influence on society for he had been influencing society for all time. With this, the God ordained wars in the Old Testament were not only ordained by the Father, but also by Christ, both one in the same. To say that Christ would never be for a War you would have to ignore the Old Testament as well or not consider Christ as an ever-present part of the Trinity. Christ did teach peace on the personal level, but it is obvious that he saw the Nation State a bit different, that is the protector of the freedoms that he Himself has granted. Romans 13 1-7 displays this succinctly, basically the government is God's servant, gast, even as much as "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer [Rom 13:4]". Christians must not blindly see simply the surface of Christ's teachings, it is necessary to evaluate ALL of God's word and evaluate how Christ completes the word.

Yay Abortion said: ...You "pro-lifers" are such selfish people. Don't you realize the women who are having abortions can't afford their child or don't WANT it? [Ya mean they're aborting the kid because they don't want it? Wow, never thought of that!] It's cruel to force a child to grow up in a home where they will be unloved or neglected. [Hey genius, ever hear of adoption?] Yes, people shouldn't be that way --- they should love their children and they should be responsible human beings. But there is idealism and then there is reality. Not all homes are good for children. Some children would be better off being aborted...[Hmm maybe you're right; I can think of one right now: YOU, buddy. The 90th trimester is not too late is it?]

-Yay Abortion

Democrats have family values too. I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO IS PRO-ABORTION!

-Lydia Cornell

Yeah Lydia, nobody around here, that's fo sho. Jist stick to lookin pretty and leave the thinking up to the grown-ups like Ann Coulter.

So the button is pushed and everyone is chiming in. Hitler had a plan, well go figure. Was PNAC not a plan for bushco. Some of the arguments here are so lame, but had to read just to see where all this was leading. What a wonderful 'Christian' nation this is.

Christianity...didn't come from Jesus. (Hope he returns soon to straighten out this mess.. lol.) Just a bunch of men sitting around discussing how to turn this world into a patriarchal society, where woman were reduced to second class citizens. Oh, but they did allow Mary, Mother of Christ, to be the Goddess, to appease the 'pagens', also used alot of their 'holidays' as well. I do not call myself a Christian.....I AM out of the 'box'. M4

Excellent point Juan,

I may also point out to Ms. Cornell that calling conservatives not truly Christian is itself wrong. “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Also, the parable of the Pharisee and the publican comes to mind (if you are not familiar, look it up). The Christian thing for Ms. Cornell to do would be to apologize. I am sure we will all be waiting with baited breath for that.

Aw man! Im not allowed to name call! boo! I know stooping to the level of a liberal is not in good taste but calling lydias jealous rant of "Im a better christian than you" is the peak of liberal idealogy. Someone needs to see it and call it out, thats all. Until people start to point out the hypocrisy on the left ("to hear Coulter spew hate..."with jokes" at anywhere between $16,000 and $30,000 a pop"-points out the jealousy) i am goin to continue namecall based on facts not on emotion.

Kenny:

No, #5 is a good point. In fact, so are the rest of 1-9. In fact, my only problem was with your claim that the only conservatives you saw arguing here were "unable to recognize a good argument if it fell in our laps".

By all means, hop in and have so fome fun, but no need to decide that you've got to show us all how it's done....

"Christianity...didn't come from Jesus. (Hope he returns soon to straighten out this mess.. lol.) Just a bunch of men sitting around discussing how to turn this world into a patriarchal society, where woman were reduced to second class citizens."
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we want education reform.

Oh by the way 'Merifour" there is a big difference between christianity and catholicism, something that alot of people forget.

Jaxebad #110 --- yeah, it's a shame. in place of the usual reasoned discussions here on BB, the various threads have devolved into enough bile to cover the world in an ocean of spew two feet deep.

and it will only get deeper as this year progresses to the 2006 elections, then through the 2008 elections, and on and on and on in perpetuity throughout the known universe, in a perma-campaign cycle from which there will be no escape.

nothing will get done, problems will never be honestly addressed (much less solved). at least we will be alternately entertained and infuriated over what the "other side" is saying. i never thought verbal napalm was a useful tactic, but clearly i'm in the minority.

this is what has become of our public and private discourse. we live in a bitterly divided country, and any common ground we might have had has collapsed into the chasm below.

i see no bridge-builders on the horizon.

even if there came along someone who could unite the country over common causes for the common good, the mongers of fear and hate on both sides of the rift would no doubt find a way to take them out.

Yeah right!! Jesus would be aligned with the party of abortion with over 40 million babies killed (more than even Stalin and no other issue even comes close to killing so many), gay marriage (read Romans) and no God anywhere outside the home or church/synagogue (can't even teach the Constitution these days in school because it mentions a Creator).

Oh yeah, God would be a Democrat --- NOT!!

'round and 'round and 'round it goes

where it stops

nobody knows

merifour,

Thank you for once again showing us how a liberal concedes a good point. First by not acknowledging the liberal was wrong. Then by throwing something inflammatory into the discussion that has no basis in fact. Third, calling yourself an authority on the subject based on your own opinions of the subject and calling their authority absolute.

As for Sam, he was talking about all flavors of Christianity, since all of them could be argued in that way. So please, don’t make me get all anti-Reformation on your hind parts.

That was sarcasm, in case I had to spell it out for some of you.

I wondered who the heck this Lydia was mentioned on Ann Coulter's site, and after having read this guest blog I am now sure that she lacks the mental capacity to have an engaging debate with a decent conservative. Anyone that claims being pro-life is stopping the killing in Iraq and not stopping the killing of @ 4,000 babies each day in the USA is not worthy of intellectual respect. Do the math liberals. If we stop slaughtering the inncoent and defenseless preborn for ONE day, we gain @ 2,000 US citizens when taking the loss of @ 2,000 troops over the past few years into account.

And the troops entered the armed forces through their own choosing. The nearly 4,000 babies slaughtered each day in the USA are given no choice when their arms and legs are ripped off in the abortion process.

Savage is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.

#118 your last sentence is absolutely correct. I agree. Some people just need to do their homework..eh. M4

This'll probably be my last visit to this site, but it was fun. I did say with precious few exceptions, which were sadly all on the Republican side (such as big K, Redneck, etc). Again, the 9 points weren't my first post here. However, this has somehow dissolved into me debating people I actually agree with over a tiny sentence (I assume because there's no one else entertaining enough on the other side to actually debate with). Regardless...

Merifour...the obvious amusement of a non-Christian lecturing me on how I've strayed from Christianity is not lost on me. Since you have NO CLUE what you're talking about, I'll clue you in.

Christianity DID in fact come from Christ (go figure). And was later perpetuated by his apostles (again go figure). So you're argument is already lacking. But I'll continue. As opposed to Judaism (which segregates men and women in the church), Christianity allows them to sit near each other. Except for Catholicism, the other sects allow women to be preachers, pastors, etc. Man, I see your point, we ARE patriarchal. I'll ask my female pastor who leads our mostly female congregation for forgiveness for ruling over them with an iron fist, from my authoritive post in a pew (just like all the others) in the middle of the church.
And you're correct the apostles realized there would one day (almost 2 millenium in the future) be a feminist movement, and chose to have a woman have a baby. Before then men had traditionally had the babies I suppose. I mean, come on, how far out can you get.
Coincidently, almost all of the good movements in the US started in the church, de-seg, womens rights, etc, go figure. God, we've gone so far away from Jesus's example, with all those prostitutes we no longer stone, and the women who we gave the right to vote. What heartless humans we are.

Next time you're going to put forth an argument about what bad Christians we are, please make it a tad more substantiative than "You guys suck."

Fare thee well brother Kenny. Until next time.

I would love to debate you in a religous forum sometime. I think it would be fun.

#8 is right on. The last sentence is so true of what has happened on this thread. The Truthseeker will receive the answers to the questions. Those that seek Truth will find it. The others will be forever ignorant. Many here know my beliefs as I have stated them before and they are mine and only mine. I take full credit. The 'offended' ones are having their belief systems challenged and that is not a comfortable place to be, as evidenced by the many that feel personally attacked by my statement. I do not see where in my post that I made a personal attack and many of the statements that are attributed to me, I simply cannot find. I do not respond to 'trolls' unless I agree with something they said. They are simply not worthy of my time. M4

True to form. more name calling, more off the wall weirdness. No facts, no citation of written works.

For not liking Ann Coulter, you really do exibit all of the charactaristics of those that she describes. It really is uncanny.

And lastly, you do not have to respond. In fact, please do not. It would only make me laugh the harder at you.

"#118 your last sentence is absolutely correct. I agree. Some people just need to do their homework..eh. M4"
That your inane slander regarding Christianity is proof that many people are sadly uneducated? Yes, I thought it was correct.

" The 'offended' ones are having their belief systems challenged and that is not a comfortable place to be, as evidenced by the many that feel personally attacked by my statement."
Actually, it's because slander pisses us off too.

Kenny, good luck and all that good stuff. I'm wating too much time here myself, except that I get addicted to forums.

Actually, God commanded Israel to wipe out whole nations, and personally destroyed thousands of people. And Jesus chased the merchants out of the temple courtyard with a whip. You all have a warped perception of love and compassion, e.g. doing nothing and living "peacefully" here in the U.S. while millions die. Your so-called pacifism is fine and dandy, as long as we just ignore all the suffering that others go through while you advocate doing nothing. I eagerly await you pacifists putting out a self-help book for rape victims. "Oh, just have compassion for your rapists, and they won't rape you. Disarm them with love. Don't fight back." You guys do that, and be sure to post how well it works on this blog for me.And you have no comprehension of justice. And you perceive Jesus as a milquetoast hippie, but he actually stood up for something, didn't "make love, not war" or tell people that they could do whatever they wanted.

"

Freedom Fan

And the Ten Commandments most certainly would not have been carved on stone. Probably clay, so we could keep the modern, make it a "Living Document".

And if God were a Democrat, He would have made Heaven exactly like Hell so that Satan would like Him.

Ms. Cornell

Definite MENSA material, I'd love to read your "Trotsky Assassination" tome, you volunteer the source of your flawed logic in the latter part of your blog: "feeling" rather than "thinking." Apparently your functional uterus and fashionably leftist assumptions have granted you some esoteric insight into reality in general. Anybody who doesn't agree with you must of course be a theocratic right-wing nut. Some thoughts:

-Some leftist think that free speech is the left spouting their propaganda without fear of recrimination or criticism. Right-wing criticism equals "hate speech" in the leftist lexicon, e.g., Ann Coulter's "Hate Speech". Leftists don't seem to realize that everyone is free to be an idiot, but there is no constitutional right to not being identified as one in a public forum.

-Christ was not a Marxist & therefore would never be a modern Democrat. Christ was a traditional Liberal as in "libertarian" who valued the individual whereas Democrats value "groups". Jesus detested "Evil" where as Democrats detest perceived "Inequality." Just for kicks, ask any overtly rabid Democrat if they view themselves as being in either the:
+"To each according to his needs" column: this will be the majority, i.e., "Sheeple" who feel morally superior in their entitlement mentality due to group membership

+"From each according to his abilities" column: this will be the minority
-Utopians: well meaning people who think that social engineering can change basic human nature (very dangerous people, these are the human secular "theocrats")
-Disingenuous Elitists: Leaders of the "Party"

-A few laughable Theocrats (e.g., Pat Robertson) notwithstanding, the Republican party is more inclusive than the Marxist dominated Democratic Party. In fact, Bush's political philosophy would conform to any "Christian Democrat" Party platform in Europe: social conservative, economic liberal.

-Ann Coulter is no more or less a "Bomb Thrower" than Al Franken.

-Since we're talking about unrealistic "perfect worlds", my utopia is Libertarian Society where:
+ Only the people who actually paid income taxes are allowed to vote
+ No progressive income taxation rate that harms the productive
+ The "State" does not control the education of the young
+ Women are expected & encouraged to exercise reason & accountability just like any man (I would call this the "Equal Responsibility Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution)
+ Morality is not legislated, but amorality is not subsidized
+ Acknowledgement that individual choices have consequences, both good & bad
+ Acknowledgement that human secularism is a religion and in its most virulent form, Communism, has been the most destructive force in the history of mankind
+ People will be judged via merit as individuals and not by group membership...

- The Nazi's were leftists of the National Socialist variety & the only difference between the Democratic Leadership (e.g., Howard Dean,Ted Kennedy, etc.) is that they are leftists of the International Socialist variety. WRT abortion, Both Hilter and Margaret Sanger (founder of "Planned Parenthood", responsible for 30% of all abortions in this country) were eugenists that admired each others views about the extermination of "lesser" races. Hitler would fit in well with the Sierra Club, PETA & any number of leftist organizations because he shared their charming views.

-People pay $20,000 for eruditic, thoughtful political humor. This is why "Air America" is such an abysmal failure and will soon be cast onto history's ash heap.

-"It is usually futile to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance." (Thomas Sowell) This would apply to you, Ms. Cornell.

Demosthenes--

"-"It is usually futile to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance." (Thomas Sowell) This would apply to you, Ms. Cornell."

And Demosthenes.

Comment #112

[Outcome of the Exodus] if God we're a Democrat: Seeing how the Pharoah has hardened his heart and won't release the Jews, God will send the United Nations of Angels to investigate whether or not Egypt really has Slaves, and if they are Jewish...

Outcome of the Exodus if God were a Republican: see-BIBLE

-Michael Richmond

Yes, if God were a dhimmicrat the chapter "Exodus" would be called "Archipelago".

If God were a dhimmicrat, Bible proverbs urging "Charity" would read like "Robbing Hood", in which the productive "rich" are robbed so the lazy "poor" didn't hafta work.

If God were a dhimmicrat, the proverb about the prodigal son in which, upon his return in celebration, the father "slaughtered the fatted calf"...would become "ordered the finest tofu".

If God were a dhimmicrat, the folks of the Bible would have worn Birkenstocks instead of sandals.

If God were a dhimmicrat, the gifts of the three wise men to baby Jesus would have been colored condoms, porno magazines, and a hash pipe.

If God were a dhimmicrat, he would not have condemned sin, because as a moral relativist, he would want to remain "non-judgemental" and "open-minded" to all points of view.

If God were a dhimmicrat, the ten commandments might have been called the ten suggestions, and the content would have been a mite different. I'm still trying to picture Moses conducting a gay wedding ceremony. Bwahaha.

Dopey, failed actress Lydia Cornell learns how to write and spews her own hateful liberal rhetoric; complaining about Coulter's satire, which calls for the repression of hateful liberal, empty, rhetoric. She makes Anne Coulter's point. Hey Lydia, you think Jesus would spew incoherent, gutter-sniping, spiteful attacks against people that disagree with him? You think Jesus would endorse the state sponsored rape camps, torture chambers and the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims under Saddam Houssein (that would be the mass graves we found, when we liberated 25 million people). If that is your version of Christianity you can keep it. You freely admit you don't even understand what she's talking about most of the time. Maybe if she dumbed it down even more for you, putting it in the form of a bad disease of the week script, you might get it. We could name the script: "New Word Flu Pandemic: No Vaccine Yet for Endless Whining By Failed Hollywood Liberals". It could star you and Al Franken, Michael Moore could edit, his editing is how he "sells" his movies to uninformed nitwits like you. The only thing your article reveals is your rabid obsession with Anne Coulter.

Do you people ever listen to yourself? One of the comments above is that there are no Democrat Flamethrowers? What is Ted Kennedy? John Kerry spent so much time tripping over himself this week that I couldn't tell what he was doing, but most of it was time attacking President Bush......

I guess it just strikes me as funny that after decades of having the media in the hip pocket of the left, that now that there is a News Network like Fox that attempts to be unbiased the left attacks them at every chance.

I guess to me that's the problem with you people nobody else; Ann, Rush, OReilly or Hannity can have an opinion because it differs from the Liberals. That will also be the downfall of the Democratic party...by the time you realize that the majority of Americans can think for themselves, the Republican part will win in the mid-term elections......AGAIN

Never been here before. It's funny how all of the regulars go quiet when the wingnuts show up. And then they keep posting anyway.

Very funny.

Ann Coulter is a goddess! I love Ann Coulter! Everything she says is absolutely true! Anyone who disagrees with her is insane! All hail, Ann Coulter!! All hail, Ann Coulter!!!

I think you guys are pissed off because Ann is so much smarter then you.

Jesus definately was a democrat! doesn't everybody remember the verse where Jesus talked about how much He loves abortion on demand, gay marriage, His name being banned from schools and public places, liberal artists who paint pictures of His mother covered in dung in a circle of genatalia, and how much He supports presidents who commit adultry and lie about it. NO, you don't remember those. Stop pretending you know ANYTHING.

Ann is the smartest woman alive! No, the smartest person alive!! No, the smartest person who ever lived!!!

Except for Jesus.

But He wasn't really a person. Well He was a person, but He was God, too. God AND a person. A man, to be specific. A God/Man. Or Man/God.

Oh I hope I said that right. I hope I didn't offend Him. Or is it Them? 'Cause there's the Holy Spirit, too. The Holy Trinity. Do you think the Holy Spirit will be mad at me for not including It in the preceding paragraph?

I really don't want to be smote.

Absolutely pathetic!

The only thing that Jesus severely warned against over and over --- the thing that annoyed him the most, were the religious leaders - the Pharisees. I just spent a week reading all four Gospels to my children.

It's sad that you would lie about Jesus in a way that would make people agree with you, it shows true weakness in your argument.

Don't lie about Jesus. He doesn't like it. He might smite you.

Hey at least for the $30,000 we pay to hear Coulter we get hate WITH jokes. with the likes of Michael Moore (who charges COLLEGE STUDENTS $30,000 for speeches) we only get hate and nonsense. is this woman nuts? hate mongering is a right-wing agenda? the reason we have people like ann coulter is because the liberals have bullied and dominated the media for so long. honestly now, i've had 4 professors say f* bush, and was actually a victim of mulitiple vandalism incidents at my college. i cannot believe that this woman is actually worried about young minds being manipulated by her (what ever happened to the love of the 1st Ammend? ), when an unbelieveable amount of STATE PAID professors get to manipulate students with their bias and get paid tax dollars for it. I guess i'm wrong though....those students who egged and keyed my car, vandalized my front door, and wrote threatening letters were probably just using "satire."

Well, by endorsing those who break every rule God ever wrote, at least you dodge the accusation of "Pharisee." I get the impression this isn't what Jesus meant.

Nor, by the way, did Jesus say these things, so if you want to talk about what a loving Christian you are, and emphasize how wonderful it is to move towards harmony, towards the center , you might want to show it by dropping the slander and smear-campaign. You might also try not asking a site more hateful than any conservative propoganda I've ever seen to publish your work for you.

Which Bible were you reading to your kids, Das Kapital? In mine he speas of "an evil and adulterous generation", says "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness", tells the people to "repent", informs us "Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets," and adds "whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven," and "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness" Those are all out of Matthew, which--if that's what you were reading them--you should have finished with sometime Tuesday.

Demosthenes, most of Air America's listeners are conservative. So, for that matter, are most of NPR's, the liberal media, and any other show, liberal or conservative. And more and more of Air America's contributions are coming from conservatives, for the simple reason that once it fails in the marketplace they'll go to congress with another FAIR act to attempt to muzzle conservatism.

Hmmm and Redneck: I am a comedienne and I do not advocate the killing of Republicans or the assassination of a president (as Coulter has in the past with Clinton.) There is a difference between frustration written out of bewilderment and outright hate-speech which targets whole groups for extinction. Even though Coulter thinks she's being clever and funny, she is still a charismatic speaker and the rabidity of her fans is legion. She does not appeal to nice people "in the middle" only to rapid extremists who are dangerous loons --- she inflames passions of anger and hate OBVIOUSLY, or I wouldn't be getting death threats (read my blog at www.lydiacornell.com) and she inflames passions toward anger and hate. She is not a patriot, her intention is that of a shock-jock like Howard Stern - and I wouldn't pay any attention to her if so many in our country didn't use it as rationalization for this rush to war. We have become too pornographic of a nation, and we seem to thrive on death and extremes of violence, hence my title "Death is sexier than sex..." which is obviously a silly play on words, because what on earth could be sexier than sex? I guess violence and hate-speak are a turn-on. In our country right now, watching people fight and be humiliated has become "Must-See TV!"

Also, read Matthew 23 please. And the Beatitudes and Matthew 5:38, 5:43 and everything else in red. Read the spirit of his words and his Sermon on the Mount. Actually just quiet your heart and go within; because it's in all of us, the kingdom, and I found it the hard way --- but the worst thing that ever happened to me on the brink of death became the best thing, my catastrophic awakening. You know you are made of love and we are all here just to overcome our hatred of each other. We are really all connected by the fabric of love. I have no idea how you glean anything other than love and compassion out of Christ's humility. God is not a fear and punishing God; God is love. And I know lots of us imperfect people who write comedy and say silly things because we are still human, but no one can mistake that my intentions are loving in that blog. By the way, Billy Graham is a lifelong Democrat --- and you know I think Rick Warren of "The Purpose-Driven Life" is one too. He if finally getting his SaddleBack church to help the AIDS victims on a massive scale.

Why can't we all respect each other's right to have a fun and insightful dialogue and a good laugh --- but not at the expense of a whole group of people who are targets of hate groups? Remember the peacemakers who died: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, JFK --- funny how all these martyrs who espoused democratic/liberal values were assassinated, isn't it? By liberal, I mean they wanted to bring equality to the races and end wars. (Republican meant Democrat back in Lincoln's day, I think.)

And when I talk about Jesus being a liberal I mean this: he spent most of his time caring for the poor and the sick and the sinners, the ones many Pharisees think are too immoral or dirty to touch. He sat on the ground and washed the feet and the sores of the lepers. He told us to leave judgment and vengeance to God. And I admit I am being judgmental when I judge our president lying to rush us to war. I admit I am stubborn, judgmental and sometimes obnoxiously righteous and I hate that about myself. If I've offended anyone here, I am sorry. I hope you'll forgive me so we can

But first, it's a play on words, I am making fun of myself for combining religion with politics, which earlier I say I never do --- so please try to get the frustration in my voice. And did you ever stop to think that some of us artists and actors who have to play characters that are evil, have to delve deep within to feel a person's emotions - therefore we see all sides and we develop compassion that is often lacking in math majors who don't explore psyche for a living?

Normally a person like Coulter wouldn't bother me so much, it's like watching South Park - but she has actual power to sway elections, or at least she did in the last two. This means she had friends in high places of inflluence, and this scares me that we have now inflamed the world against us for some evangelical mission that was never Christ's intention. And think about this: there's a reason the womb is encased in the separate private body of an individual woman: it is between her and God, and her soul suffers the decision, as we are really spiritual beings and all the wars are within ourselves. We are just playing them out on a macro-scale. This is probably too metaphysical to understand but the key is inside us. Go rent WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW? The miracle in the water...

And lastly, a good way to tell if you're faith is working for you, is to ask yourself: "how has my life been made more loving by my faith?" If it isn't making you a lighter, better, happier more generous person, then maybe we should try to see where we are clinging to the text in the wrong way. The key is hidden in plain sight. A great start is Emmet Fox "The Sermon on the Mount." It liberated me! "Angles can fly because they take themselves lightly!"
Love you all and God Bless you Ann Coulter!! Lydia

Actually, we could go around and around and around on how democratic, peaceful, and desirous of ending war Lincoln was (lemme put it this way: all that evil stuff y'all accuse Bush of doing, Lincoln actually did), but even then there was a great difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Meanwhile, my problem with abortion isn't what a woman does with her body. It's what a woman does with the kid's body.

"She does not appeal to nice people "in the middle" only to rapid extremists who are dangerous loons"
You do realize that you're trying to make the case that you just want us all to be nice to each other here, right? Granted, it's not the type of insult that would have me calling for a lawyer, but it does kind of run counter to your purposes--an implication that we're a brainless mob, ropes and shotguns in hand, waiting for Ms. Coulter to point a finger and scream "ATTAAAAAAAACK!" doesn't exactly promote love and understanding. I'm as willing to roll in the mud as anyone, or to take the high ground, but if you want to declare a truce, please do it before you throw the first punch.

Also, out of curiosity, what did you have to say regarding Ward Churchill's comments, regarding the "little Eichmanns" working in the World Trade Center when it was hit? Or Spike Lee's commentary that someone should shoot Charlton Heston in the head, or Nina Totenburg's hope that Jesse Helms--or one of his grandchildren--contracts AIDS? Would this be the time to speak of beams and motes?

But here is the portion wherein I actually take offense:
"but no one can mistake that my intentions are loving in that blog."
Yes, those intentions shine through, right... about... here.

Hate Ms. Coulter if you wish, ma'am. But please, don't tell me about how you represent the loving side of Christianity, in the midst of a slander-and-smear piece. It's... a little more than just ironic.

"And did you ever stop to think that some of us artists and actors who have to play characters that are evil, have to delve deep within to feel a person's emotions - therefore we see all sides and we develop compassion that is often lacking in math majors who don't explore psyche for a living?"
--I write myself, ma'am--perhaps not exceptionally, but well enough to win money both for short fiction, essay (a piece I'm rather proud of, seeing as I managed to use second person and present tense and actually managed to pull it off) and for poetry, and I have always been driven to white-hot hemorrhoidal rage by the concept of "I'm an artist, I feel things more than other people do." I usually have to bite down an urge to either a) put a cigarette out on their forehead and scream "That'd hurt like hell if someone did it to me, how does it feeeeeeel to you!?" or b) take off my shirt and drink bourbon from a quart jar. Fortunately, I succeed at a) and fail at b), rather than the other way around. Suffice to say that I firmly believe a greater ability to transfer what you feel to a medium--be it paper (both literally and electronically), canvas, sound, or the screen--does not therefore translate to a greater capacity to feel, or make someone a better person overall.

I feel more than all y'all, because I've been washed in the blood of the Lamb! Hallelujah!!!

And remember: every sperm is sacred.

Ms Cornell,

I must say, your attempts at an apology are nice in and of themselves and for that they are accepted. Please, in the future refrain from questioning the faith of those you disagree with. Honestly, you lost me right there. I can have a debate with anyone willing to talk rationally, even if I get infuriated with them. But questioning my faith is something you cannot do as a Christian. It is simply not Christ-like, and though I am glad you are reading your Bible, if you missed that part, you should read it again.

To get more to the point at hand, yes, Jesus spoke against the Pharisees plenty of times. Because they were hypocrites. They were waiting for the Messiah to come, and here He was, but they were hoping to hit the reset button and see what else they could get. Again, not the “peacemaker” they were looking for, so he told them in no uncertain terms that their whole way of life would be destroyed (which it was), they would be scattered to the four winds (which they were), and they would lose their inheritance from Abraham (which is why we are Christians, not Jews). All showing he was not there to fix their temporal problems with the occupying force that took over their land.

It could be argued that Jesus was “liberal” enough to tell everyone they can achieve Heaven and that perfection of the individual is possible no matter how much they have fallen before they die. Liberal in this sense being stretched to mean He was an eternal optimist. But make no mistake, He had no tolerance for willful ignorance. Accepting abortion in any terms amounts to this. Sorry. You are wrong.

Mosaic law, you should stone homosexuals since this is an abomination of nature. Does not sound very liberal to me.

Also, sex without the intention of having a child is absolutely forbidden in Mosaic law. Hence, having an abortion later because the child would live a life where it is not wanted is null before it begins.

All that is in Exodus. I suggest reading for understanding, rather than finding some hidden meaning in all this. You can get in a lot of trouble that way.

One last thing before the boon of sleep overtakes me for the night. Ann is a lawyer, you can bet your britches she is not advocating a killing. For if someone did it and cited her as the reason she would be in real hot water. She is not that dumb, whatever you think of her. If someone has been threatening you, they are doing this because they are stupid. Wholly unable to make a clear point in any other way they lash out with these idiotic overtures, that since you continue to post here and elsewhere, I am glad to see you have been able to circumvent any danger.

I suggest buying a gun and learning how to use it. As someone who has been the recipient of a few violent encounters with people really meaning to do me harm, I can tell you it does help me sleep at night knowing they are there. My wife prefers a .357 Taurus Tracker. It has a compensating barrel, is easy to handle despite it’s caliber, and a 7 round cylinder. Any idiot looking to pick a fight after looking down the barrel of that bad boy deserves what he gets.

What many of us have been saying here is you are just as liable for the “hate speech” you supposedly despise. Likening us to Nazi’s is not going to get me to see any point you have.

REDNECK: If you have an open mind, you will understand this. If not, I give up. I refer to the people who have threatened my life as dangerous, fanatical lunatics and Coulter-supporters --- because each one of these people who has called me at home has actually threatened/screamed/written that Coulter is a great human being and I am a worthless idiot, porn hooker, and worse. One guy said I should be shot, a man showed up at my door and my children almost answered it --- and one guy wrote something like this: "I wouldn't have minded if you had been killed in the WTC attacks." I hung up the phone shaking and crying. And you say I have no right to tell the truth about her and her inflammatory dangerous mission? She knows her fans are attack dogs, extremists.

I have never posed nude or done porn. I have kept myself out of the limelight in order to raise my children and deepen my understanding of my own demons. I have refused to take the easy route and do trash or reality TV or commercials I don't believe in.

ART vs. MATH --- when I said so many artists/philosophers/writers and actors are Democrats, there's a reason for this. Some leading intellectual conservative did a study on this and came up with some interesting conclusions (I have to find out his name.) He says that artists are more emotion-based and reach deep into the human soul, hence liberal. Mathematicians and economists and people who go into accounting and business for a living are more "head-oriented" they think rather than feel. We need both. Both complement each other. So to me, that's why liberals are so mushy and "feeling" and conservatives so good with money. Wouldn't it be great if we could work in harmony together? What a great country we would have! So when it comes to picking a Supreme Court justice, we need someone who can see all sides like Soloman. Wisdom is intellect WITH heart.

My referring to Coulter's hate-speak as anti-Christian is not hate-speak on my part. I am pointing out facts highlighting the truth with a "satirical" analogy. I am not advocating her death. (Please READ Coulter's work, all of it. Go to the link here called the Gospel of Ann. She espouses killing all Muslims --- and converting them to Christianity. She espouses assassinating Clinton, killing all liberals who work at the New York Times --- her language is as bad as a fundamentalist fanatic (Taliban is a good example of the extreme Muslim view). She actually wears a crucifix around her neck. I am ashamed of what fanatical right-wing so-called "Christians" have done to pervert the most beautiful religion in the world. I am a Christian. I am a Democrat BECAUSE I'm a Christian (as one of my fans wrote). There are many of us out here, but we're coming out now.

Obviously you are also a Christian I believe. Don't you think Jesus wanted us to find the common ground, the love between us? If I upset you by pointing out this horrific betrayal of Christianity on Coulter's part (and Pat Robertson --- and George Bush for saying God told him to go to war) then I am sorry. But I am exercising my right to speak what God has put in my heart. And nothing I have said promotes violence. Maybe it's provocative and gets people to think, but I am coming from my own point of view obviously and this is a country where free speech allows us to share ideas. Maybe I could get something from you, maybe you have made me think. Maybe you could get a tiny glimmer of light from me. Why are you so set up to fight me? Do we share nothing in common? I am looking for one soft message in your posts, one thing we share. We must stop fighting amongst ourselves. A NATION DIVIDED DOES NOT STAND. And don't use this as a justification for war, because many conservatives are also devastated by the lies behind this war. I want to support our troops by not letting a single soldier die again --- as ten more Marines were killed today! I support our troops by bringing them home to protect our own precious citizens and borders. These Muslim tribes, Sunni and Shia have been fighting tribal wars all their lives. They will now have to work it out for themselves. We are the problem, just being on their "holy" land is what irks them (the extremists who are blowing us up) so much. In their Jihad mentality, our very presence on Muslim holy soil (going way back to the Saudis corruption) is their justification for attacking us. Remove ourselves from the equation, come home, beef up our forces, spend all the money on our own borders --- and we would then be seen as heroes. It's like Alanon --- detach with love, let people work out their own issues. Democracy imposed from without (from outside) would not stick unless they come to it on their own... like the 12 steps. I am 11 years sober and have found that humility, not arrogance is strength. For me, the quickest route to God (putting God directly into my heart) is the 12-steps; then I got back to exploring my childhood religion, and then began really reading with a new eye. From withIN to withOUT. It's an inside job and we all have it inside us to love each other. Love & Peace, Lydia

To all the disgruntled republicans posting vitriolic messages here....

to all the people trying to 'prove' how much of a better or righteous christian they are

read through your hostile, hateful messages.

and before you accuse me of being a democrat lover, liberal, sympathiser.... i'm just reading the text on here and it's rather scary.

I have read Lydia Cornell's posts and found them to be intelligent, and from the heart. something which lacking in many of the above mentioned posts. Everybody has views, but i don't think any person had the right to subject Ms Cornell to questioning her spiritual/religious beliefs and denouncing her. And for the record i don't agree with everything Ms Cornell espouses, i just seem to come from the same spiritual place that certain actions by governments/people espouse hate and killing is just wrong!

For the record, i thought that christians posing as war-mongerers and continually using Jesus as a platform to get legislation or agendas out in society is decidely unchristian and questioning this does not make one a traitor.

And posts like yours Melissa just piss me off... get a life. You think you have a moral right to call someone you disagree with 'dumb' makes you decidely hypocritical. I didn't read any part of Lydia's post which has hateful to anyone or disrespecful... can you say the same about yours or do you lack the intelligence to make a valid argument without lowering yourself to name calling and denigration???? reread your post and look at how objective it really is.

so to all you hateful people, if you're going to post something, just use your brain and come up with intelligent debate. Keeping in mind that it is people who are Coulter supporters with hate in their minds who are giving threatening calls and emails.

and that started from what?? information on a website.....

Lydia... totally respect your views, your arguments come from the heart and have a genuine humor to them. Sorry to hear about the turmoil you must be going through, but there are many people like me who respect what you're doing. God bless

Quoting P.J. O'Rourke, "you liberals are always getting your toes caught in your sandals and hitting your heads on your wind chimes." And, "how can you condone killing an unborn baby but not a convicted murderer?"

Always remember: A communist is a liberal who doesn't lie, a fascist is a liberal with balls. I would love to hear all your enlightened opinions on things like abortion, gun controll, and ACTUAL muzzling of free speech by various statists in the Democratic party, but Jesus told me to ignore tyranny and love peace. Isn't that what he said? That we should sacrifice liberty and true faith for peace? If not, then your obviously confused, and I cant believe that. After all, cool people hate Ann Coulter...... and your the coolest bunch I've ever seen.

If Coulter's speech was intended as satire, I wonder if the audience was laughing (which would mean they were amused); or were they cheering and applauding (which would mean they were heartily endorsing her ideas). When I listen to Al Franken, I laugh.

Lydia: I've never heard Ann Coulter described as a "comedienne/satirist" before. Everyone always refers to her as a "comentator". I think this is a legitimate point of confusion. For example, Al Franken and Mark Shields and folks like them are called "comedians" or "political satirists". If Anne is truly using satire, she should be called a "political satirist" or even a "partisan satirist". The term "commentator" implies serious research and deeply thought out positions on issues that are relevant to or world today. I think this is why everyone is so confused. The majority of her supporters on this page seem to take her quite seriously, yet some defend her as using satire to make points. If everyone understood her as using satire, it wouldn't be such a serious problem, but if you believe her to be a commentator, then her ideas are very hateful. Maybe she's confused herself about what she is.

#150 Thank you Lydia for responding. I, too, am a student of Metaphysics, for 30 years. I do not call myself a Christian because the basic idea of Christianity has been corrupted. The message given by Jesus has been perverted and twisted by those wishing to retain power for all time. I believe the message Jesus was trying to convey was simply to love one another. So simple. This is the same message given by other sages throughout history. How did we come to this place. Christians verses Christians on the meaning of that statement or that statement, the same argument has been going on forever. Seems every Christian church has a different take on what the bible says.

The Kingdom of Heaven is within. We are spiritual beings trying to act human, not the other way around. When one transcends and begins to ask the bigger questions, then one begans to get the answers. Ask and you shall receive, Seek and you shall find, Knock and the door will open. I call it the ASK principal. Many do not question, they follow the 'leader' so to speak. They do not do any personal searching.

I believe in Spiritual Evolution. The goal is to reunite with God. Some are further ahead than others, they are the Wayshowers. The Truthseekers. When one begins to grasp the 'higher' concepts of the Spiritual Reality, they transcend the 'gold' level and begin the climb. The first level is to gain Knowledge, then Understanding, and finally Wisdom.

The majority of people seem to be stuck on the 'gold-matter' level. To me, it is impossible to communicate with these types, as I am coming from a place further along. I see a larger picture and find I have little patience for the endless arguments. A spiritual journey is a two step forward, one step back. I find myself getting caught up in the 'play' and then must remind myself that this is really all an illusion. We are all actors, creating this reality.

I have often read or heard that should it be known the this planet is not the only one in the Universe, that the ramifications would be catastrophic. I did not believe that Americans would be so primitive as to not accept that concept. This thread has certainly enlightened me. M4

Well, option a) isn't always necessarily a bad thing....

Actually, I have read Ann Coulter's work. All of it. Several times. And she does not advocate the killing of all muslims. The direct quote--it's rather famous--was "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." "Their leaders" are somewhat difficult to kill without invading the country, and these "leaders" are people like the Taliban, Houssein, the Ayatollah.... Yes, ma'am, all people have worth in the Lord's eyes, but when it's foaming at the mouth you got to put it down. And as Ann Coulter responded to Katie Couric, "As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean, perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like Christianity."
(This was reported in the Hollywood Reporter as "Do you still believe that's the best way to fight terrorism?" Couric demanded. That quote was taken out of context, Coulter insisted")
And with the "examples" you've given in mind, I have to ask--have you read Ann Coulter's work? I get the distinct impression that knowing what she actually said would make a large difference.

" I want to support our troops by not letting a single soldier die again --- as ten more Marines were killed today!"
--You think they'll say they're sorry and stay there if we leave? Well, they will stay there, for a little while; to retake Iraq, but afer that they'll be back here again. They've made it clear already that it's not troops in Saudi Arabia that has them pissed off; until we convert to islam, jail our homosexuals (yeah--like being in prison is gonna stop 'em...), remove women from any job that has contact with men from waitress to flight attendant, and most importantly get out of the way so they can kill Jews, the attacks are going to continue. Or until they die, and I know which option I prefer.

Likewise, being given a free hand in the middle east means death and calamity in the middle east. Al-Anon is a great organization, ma'am, but the average alcoholic doesn't have a rape room. You want to speak of love, ma'am--where's your love for the Iraqi people? Would you rather they were still being run through the plastic shredders while we danced around with Saddam for a few more years? A few more starve to death while he uses their money to build palaces? Keep up Houssein's $25,000 payments to anyone who murders a Jew? Syria still holding a stranglehold on their own people, Lebanon still basically a vassal state, and Khadafhi/gaddafi/however it's spelled still holding on to his stash of goodies?

"Democracy imposed from without (from outside) would not stick unless they come to it on their own..."
--I must say that here I disagree, and would like to point out such examples as Japan and Germany. In Japan especially, Democracy was imposed from without, and in both countries it seems that the people don't think much of totalitarianism after all. Considering the people joyfully waving ink-stained fingers in Iraq, I don't think they enjoyed their dictatorship much over there either.

By the way, I disagree with Big K, and believe that a 4-10 shotgun is your best bet. Not only is it more effective (by which I mean a derringer-type weapon, or even a sawed-off), but the shot from such a weapon will, in most cases, not pass through walls. It is not unknown for someone to be shot with a .357, and the bullet to pass through the assailant, through a wall, and into the next room.

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you feel we think of the Iraqi people as eggs that might have to be broken in order to make a big "peace in the middle east" omelette. Not only is this not the case, but imagine, if you would, the situation they would be left in were your desires to hold sway.

Praise the Lord! Jesus wants America to spread His democracy to the world. America is the most Christian country in the world! We have the perfect society: no poverty, top-notch education, easy access to health care, zero unemployment, a pristine environment... need I say more? And now we're bringing this paradise to the people of Iraq. Even if we have to kill most of them to do it. It's for their own good, after all. Blessed be God!!!

It is rather amazing that in such a discourse so many use the word I when addressing thought processes. Is this indication of ownership or for the purpose of establishing identity in order to attain superiority ?

Even from the conception of our nation, political difference has been an issue. Hence the Federalists Papers and the Publis. No two people will agree all the time. Within this difference we find what makes our nation great. Even the consititution though you will find the influence of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes as well two somewhat opposing theroists.

Isolationsim and the Monroe Doctrine is not effective. As we know from December 7th 1941 and September 11th 2001. As Dr Samuel Huntington so clearly defined in his work " The Clash of Civilizations" we understand there are natural fault lines. Indeed the Middle East and ethnic cleansing are not synonomous. Remember what happened in Bosnia. Yet again when Christianity meets Islam there are fundemental differences. We live in a world shaped by things like the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and the movement of the Ottoman Empire.

The current world we live in is one of a global economy, wherein commerce causes cultures to interact. Thomas Hobbes said " man lives in a state of nature." Along these lines of thought we must realize that when Power confronts Morality, power will overtake morality. The reason for government is to protect the weak from the bullies who would impose their will upon another. For some unknown reason it was deemed necessary to fly planes into the World Trade Center. Like it or not we are in a fight against a culture who would seek to impose their will upon us.

It may appear as a rather Blind Flash of the Obvious to some, however, learning from history is a good thing. For example, the reason General Lee lost at Gettysburg was because of the fundemental principle of terrain management. He fought a battle on terrain not of his choice and it was disasterous. Have we ever thought that perhaps we are attempting to fight a war against terrorist on terrain of our choosing?? As opposed to fighting it right here on our soil?? Maybe just maybe by taking the fight to them we prevent even more American casualties?? Decisions were made based on the information the leadership had at the time of the decision.

There are some 3,000 plus identified sites where nuclear or biological weapons may be hidden in Iraq. There have been traces in many instances of the prescense of biological weapons. It will take time to search this many sites. As well, there have been Al Queda training camps taken down in Western Iraq. The enemy casualities are not only Iraqi but Iranian, Saudi, Syrian and other's who want to kill Americans. Militarily speaking we are kicking the butts. However, war is war and not fought without casualties.

President Bush did not ask to have 9/11 happen on his watch but it did. Playing the blame game for events is like closing the barn door after the livestock has run off. Yet another absurd comment that the President's policies caused Global Warming and Katrina yet again political wankering. In case anybody wants to know in the late 1800s history shows that more than 42 hurricanes struck the Continental United States.

Making a political discourse, regardless of where it comes from, is making a political argument. There are some things in life that we can never take back; a missed opportunity, a spent bullet, and a spoken word. We are human and make mistakes, however, one of the things required to convict a person of committing a crime is Mens Rea...a guilty state of mind. Political discourse has an intent. Making derogatory statements about another has intent no matter how you classify them.

Nobody deserves to live in a state of fear for speaking their minds. Not Ms Coulter as she identified smear sites encouraging someone to rape her. Nor do you Ms Cornell deserve to have the welfare of you and your family threatened.

It has truly been an honor and a priveledge to have been able to defend our great nation for two decades. While I may not agree with what you say I will defend your right to say it with my life if necessary.

Lydia,
You are a failure in the entertainment industry. I went to your website. Can you say "self-absorbed"? I sure can, with regards to you. I then checked out imdb.com, one of my favorite websites, to see your bio. It sucks.
I love it when people choose to selectively quote Ann to give her a certain image. They can never tell when she's joking or not. I seem to be able to discern pretty well. Also, the e-mail you wrote to Ann (displayed on her website) is disgraceful. You're a backstabber. One second, it's "Oh hello Ann," and the next second it's "Death is sexier than sex to Coulter." And by the way, where did that title even come from? I'm not understanding that. You probably have an obsession with, I don't know, death! You're also obsessed with Ann Coulter. You've written a book (or a "book") about her, which can be found in approximately zero book stores nationwide. You write a long article about her. You're like a jealous imitator of Ann, trying to be controversial and insisting to us that "Really, I'm better than her!" It's just not working.
Remind me when your next movie comes out. I wouldn't want to miss your cameo appearance as "Bra Saleswoman #2." Oh wait--that wasn't a joke! You actually DID play a character...a character named "Bra Saleswoman."

Ms. Cornell,

You have a right to free speech, and I am personally glad you do. So, of course do I. I believe you are grotesquely wrong, and perverting Christianity yourself. Giving the choice to destroy a child? Running from your enemies? Disrespecting your president? (Notice I did not say disagreeing with, I said disrespecting). You cannot find a Bible reference that supports any of that, but we have been here giving Bible references to the contrary this whole time.

Oh, and calling people Nazi’s is not satire. It is not funny. It is not meant to be. Continually calling people with a different view than your own not Christian is continually wrong for a Christian to do. It is hate speech, and I have asked that you stop now twice. Continuing do repeat that is not going to get converts to your side.

As for the sick trash that have been coming to your home I refer to my earlier statement. Get a gun, a “strap,” a “gat,” whatever you want to call it. Jesus said to sell your robe and buy a sword, He would not have a problem with it, I am sure.

Redneck, I must concede your point. The shotgun would be a better choice. Even more fearful, and nothing makes someone who is doing something they know is wrong jump like hearing a shotgun lock and load. Good call.

#164 Amen!

Who cares if the "artists are more emotion-based and reach deep into the human soul." If emotions are wrong then they are fodder. Feeling something does not give you any type of moral authority. In fact, one of the reasons people think Bush went to war was to get back for the failure of his father. If that is the case, it means that he was feeling anger and hatred, which, according to your beliefs, would be OK because it was heart felt. But NOOOO. That is when the stipulations come in. Someone can only feel what you WANT them to feel. Whenever it goes against your feelings then it is wrong. Right wing extremists feel that they are correct. Left wing extremists feel that they are correct. For some reason the Right wing is nuts and the Left wing is enlightened. Why? Both are drawing off the same heart felt emotions? Jack Nicholson said it best in ‘As Good As It Gets’. . .

Woman: How do you write women so well?
Melvin: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

This is obviously a gross generalization about women, but the point is that it is a putdown. We all either laughed if we were men or got upset if we were women because we all know that we don’t want a lack of reason or accountability to rule our daily lives.

Here is the sticking point. You want feeling to play a role in politics? Our system will consist of those that feel and those that think. Then, whenever money has to be doled out for things that someone ‘feels’ is necessary but really isn’t, those that actually have a clue about accounting are forced to step into the non-feeling area of government and cut spending for something that isn’t necessary although people may feel that way. Then comes the hate speech from the feeling people, ‘oh, they don’t really love the [insert any left wing cause not provided for in the constitution here]’. In reality it doesn’t work if you want a non-divided political nation because the truth is that the feeling people cannot sit back and ever concede the fact that sometimes their feelings aren’t important. They use this propaganda to push their agenda. You cannot use the argument that it SHOULD work, communism SHOULD work, but guess what, the only political and economic system that will ever work will be one that plays on the innermost human nature while keeping some sort of moral check. As soon as you try and change human nature you are fighting a losing battle.

PS
M4, you study metaphysics, is that a science? What scientific evidence do you have of your religious beliefs? How do you know? What separates your belief from anyone elses? Just wondering…eeling something does not give you any type of moral authority.

Ms. Cornell,
How can you call democrates Christians? These are the same people who are advocating for abortion to be legal and same sex marriage. During my study of the bible I never once read where Jesus okays the killing of an innocent baby so another slut doesn't have to pay the price of having sex outside of marriage, which by the way, is also a no-no in the view of Christians, in case you were wondering. And I also must have missed the part where same sex marriage was okay. I was taught that marriage was between a man and a woman, not between two queers. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

...Go to the link here [the lame hit piece] called the Gospel of Ann. She espouses killing all Muslims --- and converting them to Christianity...

-Lydia Cornell

Ms. Cornell, this is an outrageous lie. Maybe this is what you "feel" she "feels", but it remains a lie nevertheless. Perhaps you could give us a direct quote with a link, or failing that, a sincere apology. Otherwise this would be an opportunity for you to demonstrate what a fine, self-righteous Christian you are by repenting for bearing false witness against your neighbor.

A bit of advice: If you are going to tell intentional lies about such "a hateful person", perhaps it would be better not to botch one of her most famous quotes. As RedNeck said, the quote is "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" [we've already done 1 & 2; 3 is perhaps tongue-in-cheek wishful thinking].

I suspect that instead of an apology, you will attempt to spin that killing vicious terrorist leaders is somehow equivalent to killing all Muslims --- then everyone will learn what a transparent liberal hypocrite you are. Or try diversion; tell us how W supposedly lied about WMD--that's a good plan.

I suggest you address this egregious error if you intend to salvage any shred of credibility from your tattered reputation. Ann Coulter may hold some controversial opinions, but they are based in fact, not ephemeral "feeling". Unlike you she is truthful; you are not worthy to shine her shoes.

BTW I concur with other Conservatives who suggest that you buy a firearm to defend yourself and your family from crackpots, if they are indeed real. Or persist with the liberal approach: Blame other people for making you a victim, and trust the police to protect you, as if you were a helpless child of the nanny state. And if you ever care to know real courage like Ann has, try gently criticizing the islamist head-choppers.

KL

Thanks for proving what I have already believed that absolute pro-lifers are more about hating certain sections of society to justify their own misguided minds than the reality of human existence.

Last time I checked, the bible did not advocate hating people nor did Jesus become a mouth piece for extremists. You tell me in the bible where Jesus advocates people like yourself are the only people in society with a worthwhile opinion or soul?? What... it isn't in there, funny that.

From a historical point of view, most of the Bible is deeply contentious and debatable. Every one of your points can be stated comes from your complete and utter lack of empathy and understanding for people in society who don't fit your oh so perfect mold. And your utter lack of intelligence to state that people who belong to the democrat party are not real christians, please! Are you completely delusional that you believe what you are saying.

Never mind the fact that half of the teachings you so obviously choose not to practice..... I pity any children you have to grow up with such hostility to any deviation from the perfect christian life.

You truly show what I never hope to become.

KenKong..

so tell us about your fantastic life then buddy? What are your crowning achievements in life?

One of your obvious past times is slagging off anyone who dares criticize your dumb idol Ann Coulter who by the way seems to be pissing off a whole bunch of people lately....

At least Lydia Cornell has tact and respect something your idol has never possessed and never, ever will. It just shows your intelligence level that you couldn't come up with a single respectful remark in your column. And since when does appearing on the O'Reilly show and offending everyone in the nation make Ms Coulter a remarkable human being?

Your wrong dear girl on saying that Jesus would be a Democrat. Not the way the Demoncrats enjoy taking the life of pre-born humans(better known as babies to most of the world) with their staunch support of abortion. Plus I think JC might refrain from making Sen Wellstone's funeral a political rally. Let's just agree that Jesus would be an Independent and let it go at that, OK?

Wildfire:

"Thanks for proving what I have already believed that absolute pro-lifers are more about hating certain sections of society to justify their own misguided minds than the reality of human existence."
--Perhaps my knowledge of biology is lacking, because I have no idea where you pulled this statement from.

"Last time I checked, the bible did not advocate hating people"
--And neither did KL. Funny that.

"nor did Jesus become a mouth piece for extremists."
--"Women shouldn't be allowed to murder their own children to escape the consequences for their own promiscuity" is extreme (and yes, the vast majority of abortions are for exactly that reason)? Then I guess you don't want to hear my idea of welfare queens and abusive parents being sterilized, huh?

"From a historical point of view, most of the Bible is deeply contentious and debatable"
--Here's a hint--"The evidence is right in front of me but I refuse to believe it" doesn't translate to "Deeply contentious and debatable." It didn't work with Alger Hiss, it didn't work with the Rosenburgs; it sure ain't gonna work on God.

"And your utter lack of intelligence to state that people who belong to the democrat party are not real christians, please!"
--Yeah, just because they spit on Christianity, display an absolute hostility to it, and flagrantly violate all its teachings doesn't really mean anything...

"You truly show what I never hope to become."
--Capable of using common sense? I'd have given up hope if I were you too.

"At least Lydia Cornell has tact and respect something your idol has never possessed and never, ever will."
--Because calling someone the Antichrist and the Taliban shows such a high level of both. Obviously, you're not much of a fan of either concept, yourself.

Wild Fire,
Your attack on Coulter and Support for Cornell holds no water. Check credentials.

What just because you have a different opinion means we have to allow or resoect it, NO. The Nazi's had a different opinion, i guess they would be alllowed in you love and respect everybody world. One thing that i has always held true was that the people who preach Tolerance are the most intolerant.

Pro-Lifers don't hate people who support Abortion, though we may deem them immoral, we hate abortion. Obviously if you ask any "pro-lifer" if the baby should be aborted; to save the mother, the child already dead, or the child has been SEVERELY malformed, they would most likely agree. However these instances occur at such a low percentage of the time. The majority of abortions are performed as birth control.

Is there a perfect mold, YES, does anyone of us fit it, no. Only GOD can read the human heart, do you believe in god, because the way i see it since there has been no proof against his existence i would believe just to be on the safe side. I mean you wouldn't want to go around talkin shit about God when you really don't know if he exists or not, or you could take that chance if you want.

Finally I pity any children you have becasuse
A) they will most likely be aborted
B) they will be a pussy Democrat like you
C) my children will beat the piss out of them at the school yard cause your kids would want to play "non competitive" games

And no, i don;t preach tolerance so i reserve the right to be as intolerant as i want.

"For some unknown reason it was deemed necessary to fly planes into the World Trade Center. Like it or not we are in a fight against a culture who would seek to impose their will upon us."

I'm seeing quite a few thoughtful posts by conservatives here. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them - reasonable sounding but ultimately grounded in very little at all.

Unknown reason? A fight against a culture that would seek to impose their will on us? Well, I think anyone who keeps up with what we laughingly call the news has a pretty good idea what al Qaida's thinking was behind 9/11 - they wanted to force us into a conflict where they could hurt us directly and, most importantly, economically. Why?

Because after spectacularly failing to instill their brand of radical Islamicism throughout the Middle East, and further getting snubbed by the Saudis as mujaheddin against Iraq in favor of the U.S. military before the first Gulf War, bin Ladin and his associates noted that the U.S. the power behind both Israel and the authoritarian, corrupt, Muslim states that had opposed them.

So how to get some steam back after failing so spectacularly in Egypt and Algeria? Hit a big target and a big target even moderate Muslims blame for a host of wrongs. And count on America either cowering out of a response or coming to Afghanistan where the greatest victory of the proto-al Qaida was won against The Soviets. To them it was a win-win. What they didn't count on was The Taliban and themselves being so despised, and American special forces/CIA units being so effective, that Afghanistan hardly burped before spitting them out.

Then we had to go and screw things up with Iraq which, essentially, became what al Qaida had dreamed Afghanistan was going to be...

But there are many Muslims, who with rational reasons to mistrust American intentions, mistrust Islamic extremists every bit as much. I'm more worried about the Christian right in this country trying to tell me how to live my life than I am some fatwah spewing goober in Pakistan.

The problem is that we're driving alot of Muslims right into the hands of bin Ladin thanks to our operations in Iraq - this according to many studies by serious strategic think tanks and our own CIA. If you haven't read them, get on it.

While I'll admit it's very hard for me to defend the original article here, attempts at irony aside - it really does take a Frankin to pull off a Frankin, this is one commentary I had to respond to. And there's more but I'm just too longwinded for this format. But I will say that the idea that responding to violence with yet more violence and exaggerating the hostility between two groups, in this case, is something neither Pope John Paul nor the Dali Lama could get with. My guess is that Jesus probably leans closer over that way than to an Ann Coulter. But that's beyond my area of expertise.

Autarkis,

According to many studies? Which ones? Show some proof, you started out so well. Give me something to debate here. I could just as easily state that reading liberal blogs cause cancer according to some major experts. Does not mean it holds any water.

And Wild Fire,

Jesus would be considered an extremist today, no doubt about it. He was an extremist in his own time. Give away all you own to the poor and follow Me. Sell your cloak and buy a sword. He knew he would be persecuted and killed, and told his followers that they were no better, and the same fate would happen to them. They should accept it gladly. Parables concerning bad seeds of undesirable plants being thrown into fires. People being cast out of banquets and weddings. I do not know how much of the Bible you have read, but there is a whole lot of “lamenting, and gnashing of teeth” in there.

Very middle of the road, right?

http://www.washingtonpos...les/A7460-2005Jan13.html

http://www.washingtonpos...es/A58183-2004Sep28.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...rld/americas/3391583.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/.../middle_east/3756650.stm

Knock yourself out.

As I noted, the whole Jesus thing really isn't a speciality of mine but I do understand, I think, how people could come to adore his teachings, long-haired, crazy and radical as they were in their time and in ours.

But every time I see some raving lunatic waving signs, shouting poorly considered rhetorical tripe that could make a Stalinist blush, while planning to "retake" a country that was founded, wisely, on the notion of the seperation of Church and State (argue the nuances all you like but Ben Franklin alone has a wealth of quotes about the leadership of organized religion you really don't want me to start dredging up) I kind of get over my sentimental notions about what's happened those ideals of his.

I see how poorly they've been transmitted, it seems, to his most visible supporters. Lots of judging and stone casting. Very little meekness and humility.

I don't see sheep, I see wolves not even bothering with a disguise. I see moneychangers in the temple discussing political campaigns and coordinating marketing with Caesar's brightest praetorians. But like I said, that's not my thing. I'm with the reality based community.

I ask for studies, and you cite the Washington Post and the BBC?!! Those are hardly non biased, and they are not government agencies or independent analysts.

Come on. Let us try to keep things civil by staying away from the obviously partisan cites. I will not cite Fox or the GOA either.

I was expecting CIA reports, directly from them. They have web sites, much of this can be gleaned directly from them without filtering from the nuts at those organizations.

"But every time I see some raving lunatic waving signs, shouting poorly considered rhetorical tripe that could make a Stalinist blush, while planning to "retake" a country that was founded, wisely, on the notion of the seperation of Church and State (argue the nuances all you like but Ben Franklin alone has a wealth of quotes about the leadership of organized religion you really don't want me to start dredging up)"
--Yeah, the Founding Fathers didn't want a theocracy--congratulations, you won that argument before it even started. Who you won it against, I'm not sure, but take heart in that you won.
Nor did they intend for a government that protects each citizen's right to never, ever see or hear the word "God".

"Then we had to go and screw things up with Iraq which, essentially, became what al Qaida had dreamed Afghanistan was going to be..."
--Iraqis have voted in free elections and are going to do so again soon. While they are killing American troops, we're killing a whole lot more of them than they're killing of anybody--us included, and Iraq's neighbors are starting to reject them and their ideology, such as in Syria and Lebanon. This is not what Al-Qaeda dreamed of.

Bin Laden himself made his position clear--Al-Qaeda will continue attacking us until the entire United States converts to islam, withdraws all support from Israel so they can kill Jews at their leisure, completely dissolve our Constitution, jail all our homosexuals (yeah, like being in prison is gonna stop 'em....), remove all women from any job where they may interact with men, and pretty much adopt shari'a law.

Or, of course, until they're all dead.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. The British still think Iraq was looking for material for banned weapons, and here is a page of their report on the lead up to the war. This is obtained from their web site, they still think it is relevant. That Sadam was looking for this material. By the way, the French, the Russians, and the Germans thought the same thing. Merifour, enjoy the pictures.

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page275.asp

Big K: Look, these are studies and sources quoted in stories in papers of record and repute. You don't have to like it but if you can't refute it don't waste bandwidth.

The Redneck: I don't think even most liberals have much against the idea of a god, gods or whathaveyou. The problem is people pushing religion as a substitute for rational lawmaking. Sure, there are some nuts on the fringe who get lathered up about anything. Both sides of this debate have plenty of nuts making real discussions difficult. Right now, though, the nuts I'm worried about are the kind who could get the President to fly in from Crawford to sign legislation about a private family matter in Florida. That's some scarey power.

You care to fill me in, though, on exactly why you even think bin Ladin cares about what happens in the USA aside from how our policies affect his, rabidly delusional, caliphate dreams? Al Qaida's goal is neutralizing us and driving us out of the lands they claim. Obviously we can't afford to let this happen for a host of reasons.

The main thing that should have really been debated and discussed was the right strategic response (beyond the Afghanistan strike - a required step in just about any rational person's book) to counter these aims. Instead this administration fell into the hands of an ideology that fed them a plan that had been laying around for decades and then forced the facts to fit the plan.

Autarkis,

You said in your first post that “this according to many studies by serious strategic think tanks and our own CIA.” The CIA and the Washington Post are not the same people, as much as the Post may think they should be. My point is that you cannot rely on someone’s interpretation of these reports. Obtain them, peruse them at your leisure, and let us all in on what you find.

The problem with reading someone else’s opinion on this stuff is they add their own feelings to the report. This does not help things. They paraphrase one person’s doubt, and call it the entire department. They use sound bites to get their point across, but at the peril of misrepresenting. It is so prevalent in all news outlets today that it is advisable to read the reports they cite yourselves, and not rely on their 2 page summary of a 119 page report.

Redneck, again I must agree. Most everyone here, at least the ones I have been reading and responding to, claim Christianity as their religion. Yes, separation of church and state is a good thing, but not what we are discussing here. See again Ann Coulter’s descriptions of how liberals argue. Constantly dodging the arguments they can not win by pulling something else out of left field to occupy your time.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, as that would obviously infringe on freedom of speech.

Burn, bandwidth, burn.

Big K: I do feel kind of embarrassed that I have to explain this but newspapers only tend to cover stories about studies that are newsworthy. They don't reprint the entire study and frankly I don't have the time to go on a snipe hunt to appease a random forum debater. There's information in there and you can either address it or decide that anything in The Washington Post or from the BBC is instantly suspect. If the latter's the case you and I are operating in different realities and further discussion is a waste of our time.

Autarkis,

Hey buddy, it was you that took a shot across the bow mentioning that we all should read the "studies by serious strategic think tanks and our own CIA." You made no mention of news articles. I stated why I did not want to respond to the Post and you have no explanation why I should other than they choose their stories by what they think will sell. Making my point precisely, I do not care what sells. The truth does not necessarily sell.

Please, if you are going to attack me, at least be precise in your speech to begin with. My second post in response to you said that I would not post stuff from sources you would obviously dismiss as well. I thought this would be a decent enough compromise. Otherwise we will be doing nothing but stating opposite sides of the same reports as discussed in major news outlets and neither of us will have read the original reports. That is useless.

Wild Fire,
I don't hate abortionists. "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." And the first amendment gives me the right to speak out against people who enjoy sleeping around. Thats my opinion. And it also gives you the right to speak out. So feel free to spout uncontrolably, which is what liberals are good at. Your not going to change my opinion or anyone else's until you learn how to debate intelligently.

Big K: Is every news story unbiased or as good as having your hands on primary sources? No. Only a fool would answer otherwise. However, come on, The Washington Post is broadly recognised as a high quality newspaper. The editorial board even endorsed the whole Iraq foolishness, much to my dismay. They're untrustworthy how again? And only in America, in certain circles, is the BBC seen as anything other than mainstream.

Now there is content in these stories relating to studies you seemed to imply didn't exist. While I admire your tap-dancing shoes, it's time to either dance or get off the stage. I'm not impressed with semantics and wriggling. You have some information to make me think Iraq isn't a hotbed of recruiting and training for future Jihadis in a way it could never have been before we invaded, put it up.

This is like a scene from Night of The Living Dead. You fill the critter full of buckshot but it keeps on lurching ahead not realizing it's already toast.

Redneck and Big K your responses to Autarkis are much more eloqent and articulate than what will by my own meager rebuttal.

Obviously Autarkis has insight to the Al Queda Terrorist mind set, which I do not. Flying planes into the World Trade Center killing thousands of innocent people is not something I am able to comprehend. I do not read the Washington Post, BBC nor the New York Times or by this standard any other " Think Tank" type products.

Of course Autarkis' champion addressed the situation correctly in January of 98 when he ordered the US Navy to fire missiles into Afganistan. What an utter stroke of brilliance that ended the entire Middle Eastern dilemma.

Oh wait perhaps that was premature I almost forgot about the bombing of US Embassies and the USS Cole. Ahhh but of course we must first ask what would a journalist do ?? Heck we cannot go to ABC now because Katie Courric is going to CBS now so let us proceed to the greatest think tanks the Washington Post and for good measure throw in the New York Times.

I call the Democratic Party the " Feel Good Society" You know " If you can't be with the one you love then love the one you are with." The champions of the Feel Good Society have created a dangerous world, sold missle secrets to the Chinese for donations to the Democratic Party and created an utter mess in the Middle East. After all we need claim no responsibility for that and we can leave that for someone else to clean up.

Amazingly statistics show that more than 80 percent of college graduates voted for GW in the past two elections. Awww rats only 27 percent of the American population has a 4 year degree. Even more perplexing is that an even higher percentage of the US Military voted for GW in the past two elections. Yet again when we add up all the full or part time military personnel we come up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 million which is less than one half of one percent of the entire US population.

One thing about a Revisionists is that they can always bend the truth into a lie and they are much better at it than I am. I concede to their brilliance.

Autarkis,

You set a light bulb off in my head. Maybe news agencies should start citing their sources. I mean nobody who has any ounce of intelligence actually reads any newspaper or watches any news channel and takes anything at face value. Thats the problem here. Just as you said, you don;t have the time, so you take what you read and see to be absolute. Both sides do this. And the biggest travesty of all, people don;t use common sense. We livein the age of the Designer Communist and Punk Kids listening to anti-capitalist music on thier IPODS. America has truly lost its spirit through the push towards litiginousness (sp). When did the Gov't start deciding what was good for the minority and imposing it on other people ie. Atheism anything that preaches "tolerance"; not letting kids play competitive games at school and proposing jumping rope without a rope, because that way, you can't mess up.

Lets all be frank, America is turning into a bunch of Panzies

I find it incredulous people assume I'm a democrat...

I'm not even American... lol. But thanks for asking me what my political persuasion was! Before slagging me off, how about actually asking what my politiical beliefs are huh?

For the record abortion is the most performed medical procedure in the world, in spite of the pro-life movement stating that it's done mainly by promiscuous women, most women who have abortions are in stable relationships, they have many, many reasons for not wanting to bring a child in the world.

As for not realising the facts of the bible.... well shoot me down. Didnt realise every part of it was 'factual'.... lol. I like everyone else have my own interpretation on the text like i do of the Qu-aran and other religious texts. And yest I have looked at other's besides the bible.

As to you KL, when you spew vitriol you are showing your little-mindedness and hatred. Sorry, but that's my point of view on you.

Glad to see the amount of non-intelligent debate in relation to my posts though.... shows me what type of hostility it's soo easy to generate in people.

Doug Webb

you are really a dumb-ass! you show me where i've stated Jesus in his holy wisdom would be a Democrat.... again I'm not a majority party supporter. If you're going to post.. use your brains!

I don't assume to know what Jesus would/would not support politically, as last time I checked i'm a fallible human and so is everyone else on the post.

As to the comment Jesus was considered an extremist in his time, yes I realise this. That's one reason I think him pretty cool

hmmm KL, and stating 'Marriage is made for Adam and Eve' is what you consider to be intelligent debate.

So you're a good Christian (not a liberal pro-choice) who espouses that most women who get abortions are sluts and also that you're a proud homophobe (at least when it comes to marriage).

Yeah, remind me again how to have an intelligent debate with you?

I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, per se. But I have read the Bible and know Christ's story fairly well. I admire Jesus greatly. To put forth the view that he was a "democrat" as has been alleged is false. Jesus would not have been impressed with such a thing as a political party. Any party. Give unto Caesar...

Was Jesus a liberal? He was compassionate. People point out that he "hung out" with prostitutes and other criminals. But they are making this out to sound like he believed in what they were doing.

I do not think he supported prostitutes in becoming prostitutes. I think he believed there was something better to them than just selling their bodies for money. He was capable of forgiveness but he did not believe allowing the sin to go on was acceptable.

People make much of the high priests and Pharisees. I submit that Jesus was taking on their own sin, that of hypocrisy and spiritual bankruptcy. He was firm with them, indeed harsh. But had one of them turned around and seen the error of their ways, do we doubt He would have forgiven a Pharisee any more or less than a prostitute? I do not think so.

Prostitutes had their sins. Pharisees their own. We all have our failures and sins. Any of them were forgiveable for Christ, but I do not think it is meant that we continue doing the sin in question. I think Jesus was harsh and forgiving on all who sinned. That is because it is universal to be frail and human. But to say he condoned prostitution because he "hung out" with prostitutes is absurd. I think it would be more coherent to say that prostitutes and other people who sinned, hung out with Jesus. I do not think he would have met them on their own terms, but rather on His.

Thus a prostitute or a thief might find forgiveness with Jesus. But if a thief advocated more theft, would Jesus not have given him a piece of His mind? Or would he have been tough and blunt in his word choice? Would Jesus have
"hung out" with such a crook day after day while the crook continued stealing? Not a chance.

Jesus confronted people with truth. Bluntly. He did not suffer liars easily. He forgave them when they came clean but He would set anyone straight who was messing up. We all do. We all need a straight dose of truth in regards to our failings. Popularly called, "tough love."

So no, I do not think Jesus was a liberal as those here would try and present him. Unless you say a liberal is one who forgives wrongs. But ONLY after taking responsibility for one's wrongs and sins. If you did not TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for said things, then one could not be forgiven.

In that way, in that demand for facing the truth, however painful about one's self, and taking responsibility for one's actions, Jesus is in fact much more of a conservative than a liberal, at least as thought of by our current political culture.

I don't think he would have identified as either liberal or conservative. Certainly not a member of either political party. These are human institutions that are replete with all of human foibles and weaknesses. The stuff of Caesar, not God.

But I think it is patently false to say he was a liberal merely because he allowed for redemption. It came only AFTER penance. Not before. The only person who seemed to be guaranteed entry into Heaven was the thief on the cross next to Him. One crook demands of Jesus salvation. He still thinks only of himself. The other, realizes that he has in fact himself been a sinner. He says that he deserves what he has gotten, unlike Jesus.

The man takes responsibility for his decisions and his actions. Jesus tells him that he will be with Him in paradise. Jesus does not tell the other criminal that he probably grew up poor and misunderstood and maybe had an abusive father or any other excuses for his crimes. He doesn't say, "You're both going to make it upstairs today." No. He tells the one who has seen that forgiveness demands acknowledgment that one has wronged another.

Liberals, out of "compassion", do not demand responsibility of others. They think this is a greater virtue. It is in fact, a form of avoidance of truth. Pointing out that He "hung out" with criminals is bogus. Criminals came to Christ. Compassion does not mean telling a crook, "it's ok what you do. I love you anyway." It would mean telling the crook "You're a crook. And I'm telling you that because I love you. But knock it the hell off, or get lost. I don't hang with crooks."

So I dispute the idea that Jesus was a "liberal." He believed in human potential with a keen temperence that understood human weakness. He was tough on sinners. He was in their faces. But when they submitted to the obvious, their very weaknesses, he forgave.

Finally, I think preening on about how wonderful one is because one is so "compassionate" would have been knocked down by Jesus as well. It would have come under the sin of vanity or self congradulation. And I think he could have forgiven such vanity from anyone.

After they faced their vanity.

Is Iraq worse today for recruiting terrorists than they would have been had we not gone there?

Lets look at some facts.

First, the 9-11 Commission had this to say about Iraq before the war…

"With Al Queda as its foundation, Bin Laden sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, Eritea"

That is from Statement 15.

Think we would be better pulling out right now? Let us hear from the leader of the opposition on this whole mess, none other than Osama himself…..

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu."

Is there no hope, no people in Iraq that are counting on us to finish the job? Their recruits keep getting targeted for killing in all kinds of ways, yet they have lines to apply wrapping around the buildings. Iraq had a better voter turnout than we did last year with 63% voting percentage.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101600301.html)

Versus the us voting percentage of 60%.

(http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features/001643.html).

The majority of the Iraqi's want this, and are willing to fight and die for it. From my friends over there, they tell me they were not scared while they were there, it is when they read the news when they got back that they were worried about their friends. The news is not telling us everything.

" Right now, though, the nuts I'm worried about are the kind who could get the President to fly in from Crawford to sign legislation about a private family matter in Florida. That's some scarey power"
--Because in Florida, dammit, you can murder your wife if you want, and ain't no religious nuts gonna be stickin' their noses in!

"You care to fill me in, though, on exactly why you even think bin Ladin cares about what happens in the USA aside from how our policies affect his, rabidly delusional, caliphate dreams?"
--Several statements from bin Laden himself. He hasn't exactly made a secret of his goals, here.

" I do feel kind of embarrassed that I have to explain this but newspapers only tend to cover stories about studies that are newsworthy."
--You're joking here, right?

" However, come on, The Washington Post is broadly recognised as a high quality newspaper. The editorial board even endorsed the whole Iraq foolishness, much to my dismay. They're untrustworthy how again?"
http://www.aim.org/press_release/2826_0_19_0_C/
http://www.camera.org/in...t=31&x_actionitem=57
http://www.thatliberalme...cat_washington_post.html
--The Washington Post has been known for years to be a tool.

"Now there is content in these stories relating to studies you seemed to imply didn't exist. While I admire your tap-dancing shoes, it's time to either dance or get off the stage."
Do you have the studies or don't you? You scared to let him see them except through a liberal filter?

"This is like a scene from Night of The Living Dead. You fill the critter full of buckshot but it keeps on lurching ahead not realizing it's already toast."
--If this is Night of the Living Dead then the zombies already got to your brains....

"I find it incredulous people assume I'm a democrat..."
--Just because you defend everything the Democrats stand for doesn't really mean anything....

"I'm not even American... lol."
That's alright, neither are most Democrats.

"For the record abortion is the most performed medical procedure in the world, in spite of the pro-life movement stating that it's done mainly by promiscuous women, most women who have abortions are in stable relationships, they have many, many reasons for not wanting to bring a child in the world."
--According to Planned Parenthood themselves, more than 90% of abortions are from women who don't want to raise the child. Sluts, in other words, who don't want to deal with the consequences of their promiscuity.

"As to you KL, when you spew vitriol you are showing your little-mindedness and hatred. Sorry, but that's my point of view on you."
This would makd quote of the year. You're accusing others of "little-mindedness" and hatred. You were just making a bad joke, right? Deliberately, I mean...

"Glad to see the amount of non-intelligent debate in relation to my posts though.... shows me what type of hostility it's soo easy to generate in people."
You start out by claiming that someone thinks more of hate than reality, go on to speak of their "utter lack of empathy" for those who don't "fit their perfect mold", call them delusional, support Ms. Cornell's slander as "Tactful and respectful"--and then speak of non-intelligent debate in relation to your posts? In relation to your posts, the rants of a homeless schizophrenic on speed could be considered intelligent debate.

And you wonder why people think of you as a Democrat.

"So you're a good Christian (not a liberal pro-choice) who espouses that most women who get abortions are sluts and also that you're a proud homophobe (at least when it comes to marriage).
--These women are murdering their kids, and this SOB is implying their promiscuous? Burn him! Tie him to the stake and BURN HIM! BURN HIM ALIIIIIIIVE!!!!
And he doesn't want the government to force us to pretend that two homosexuals sharing their disorder are a legitimate marriage. Oh, the horror...

"Yeah, remind me again how to have an intelligent debate with you?"
--Well, first you grasp your right ear with your right hand. Then you grasp your left ear with your left hand. Then you pull--and continue to pull with a firm, even pressure until your head emerges completely from your ass.

Tom... loved the post, was insightful, well written and makes a lot of sense to a non-christian like myself.

Need more posts written like that....

Richmond: If you actually read those stories you'd, um, see the sources named and cited. I take everything I read or see with a grain of salt, don't own an IPOD, and supported McCain in 2000. However I've read very broadly and tend to have a pretty good track record in sorting out facts. I'm an independant and highly skeptical of everyone but it is nice to see folks like Jeff so quick to assume so much about someone they don't even know. However it would be correct to say my opinion of conservatives is at an all time low.

Big K: Yes, and Reagan "sought" to build up a super-duper system of satellite laser guns to blow up ICBMs. If bin Ladin was having so much success why'd he have to flee Sudan for Afghanistan which later utterly failed to defend him or his Taliban hosts? How'd he get disowned by Saudi Arabia? Why did al Qaida's operations in Algeria and Egypt all but collapse? Look even a loser can be dangerous given enough resources and with fanatical enough followers.

Attacking a country that had nothing to do with bin Ladin, aside from trying to infiltrate his group because Saddam saw them as a threat, only gave credence to their propaganda that the U.S. wanted to remake the Middle East in our own image. We made bin Ladin's case for him like the rocket scientists we are. Now if you don't want to believe the reports cited above in those articles that's up to you. Who wouldn't rather believe in unicorns, rainbows and pixie dust over the butt-ugly truth? And if it's not the truth that we actually created a worse situation because of our invasion, prove it.

Also interesting, why change the subject to whether or not we should pull out? What relationship does this bear to anything we were discussing? Did I say that was a good idea? Oh, we're assuming again. How nice.

WRT "Maximus" (Comment 135): three questions:

+ Is "Maximus" a gratuitous assertion about the depth of your intellect? Or perhaps the girth of your "manliness"? Or maybe the width or your hips, assuming, like Ms. Cornell, that a functioning uterus grants its owner with esoteric insights into the nature of reality?

+ Is asserting my ignorance your considered opinion or the bloviations of an ideologue in full cognitive surrender? Is your attempt at mental masturbation, i.e. your ham-fisted retort using my summary quotation against me without any effort to refute any of the facts & points previously expressed the best your “rapier wit” can generate?

+How does it feel to be a practitioner of "Bulverism"?

Demosthenes--

Redneck:

AIM is a spin org. No bones about it. Not to be trusted even by conservatives, at least not the foolish ones. If there are any left. For example, the article you cite is about the Schiavo memo which later that very Senator's aid admitted to writing. Let me help you out:
http://www.washingtonpos...les/A32554-2005Apr6.html

CAMERA is a pro-Israeli media pressure group. The article you cite dwells on semantics of what various Palestian terrorist or militant groups, take your pick it's all the same to me, are called by The Post. Hardly inaccurate, hardly dishonest reporting. This is a group with an agenda trying to get their interpretation of the facts spun into the coverage. I'm sure there's an Arab group out there somewhere complaining in an equal and opposite direction.

And the last is from a cite called "Oh, That Liberal Media." Yeah. Okay. Speaks for itself. There's a laundry list of supposed trangressions that, and frankly the rantosphere probably has a special orbit set aside for these guys, basically boil down to how you interpret what The Post, or anyone else for that matter, is saying. I'll just hit the top story: White Phosphorous in Falluja. The only mention of The WP is that of the blogger, not a beat reporter, William Arkin. The problem seems to be that he's citing sources this guy doesn't like and isn't willing to claim a legal expertise about whether WP is a chemical weapon that is outlawed by international treaty. Positively damning.

But thanks for playing.

Redneck..

If i made as much sense as you my I.Q would be about hmmm hovering at around 50.

I make it a point not to debate with people who little to no logical sense or with morons who feel it necessary to stick up for other losers like KL.

You can justify your hositilies however you want.... but redneck by name and nature.

Keep biting

Autarkis,

Here you were whining about chewing up bandwidth a few posts ago and you want me to put more of the 9-11 Commission report in here?

Also, Zarqawi was found to be in Iraq at least as early as Feb 2003. I guess you might sat he was vacationing, seeing their sites. Like the plastic shredders and the mass graves.

We had plenty of reasons to go after Saddam. Honestly, I wish the administration had at least pointed them out more before the onset of hostilities. They had contraband weapons. That is a fact, Al Samoud 2 missiles had a range that was more than the peace accords allowed. And we have found some various warheads with chemical weapons here and there, just not the amount we figured (and you almost have to be glad they are honest enough not to grab one warhead and call the whole thing justified by that. Do you think many other politicians would have that restraint?). The Oil for Food scandal was reason enough to go after him. Let us also not forget that Saddam is not going to be winning any Nobel Peace Prizes for his treatment of his own people.

The mobile labs were also pretty damning. It showed a desire to continue the process of research. They had tried something that anyone in their right mind would say would not work, but the point is he was exploring his options.

We are going to be better off with an ally in the area, and I think after the Iraqi’s gain control of their space that will be what happens. They will be grateful for the help getting rid of Saddam. They will find more economic security, and more security in general. There is no study I can point to on this, we will have to wait and see. The difference is I am willing to wait before I throw the idea out the window. That is why I posted what I did about pulling out. We simply can not do it. And, I think everyone knows it despite what they say. we can not entertain the idea.

One more thing. There is a short story here so bear with me. Euripides, a Greek tragedian wrote in a play (Hecuba I think, but if you insist I can look it up. I own the book) that Odysseus was arguing about a sacrifice at the grave of Achilles. He said that unless due honor to the fallen dead is observed, how can we expect others to fight and protect us in the future? If you read the play, you know his overall point was flawed, but that statement rings very true. We have just over 2000 dead there. If we do not finish, our own troops will begin thinking we should not fight for such an ungrateful nation. We will turn into the French.

Oh, and 17 UN resolutions to let our inspectors in was another good reason to kick Saddam's butt.

Honestly, Desert Storm we should have finished the job. For the life of me I can not figure out why he did not do it. Bush the elder might have even been re-elected had he shown his bells were ringing like Notre Dame and just done it. But still, when in history does a nation lose a war, lose their territory, and still keep their sovereignty? Saddam just did not realize he dodged a bullet, and he should have played nicer. 17 resolutions, and the UN was powerless to do any more than scoff at him.

It should make people angry also the UN is such a powerless institution now.

Big K: Where was Zarqawi in Iraq? Hanging out in Baghdad with Saddam and shooting pool in a rape room? Or maybe hiding out up north in Kurdish territory that the Ba'athists had no control over? Here's an educational nugget to chew on.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Yup. I'm sure the public would have been sold on the war based on the argument that 12, count 'em, conventional warhead missiles had been developed that exceeded the legal range. Sure, the British "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction" dossier elected to speculate they might be able to jigger something else for a payload but, then again, that dossier has its own problems, now, doesn't it?

http://www.globalsecurit...md/world/iraq/samoud.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/.../uk_politics/3015272.stm

Please document your claims of WMD finds and, please, make it better than a pair of crusty Iraq-Iran war era mustard gas shells someone left in an abandoned bunker.

Saddam was a scumbag. Nobody sensible is going to argue that. Now we have license to invade scumbags for the heck of it? Unlike, say, Kosovo there was absolutely no consensus in the region, much less the world, that Saddam was a serious threat to anybody. Otherwise why the resistance to joining us after so many offers of overwhelming support, which we initially spurned just to make a point about our do-it-yourselferness, in Afghanistan?

And it probably is worth sticking a neural footnote in the old cranium that when Saddam was doing the vast, vast, majority of his killing we were his staunch allies. Who killed more Iraqis in the last 10 years is a more reasonable standard? Up for bets? I got a five-spot here that's burning a hole. But for your own sake, don't ask the former Prime Minister, and ex-CIA asset, Allawi what he thinks about our "progress." Not-a-gonna-likee the answer.

Oh, god. Mobile labs. Hell, nonsense has been spanked so hard it doesn't even remember it's own name.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/.../04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/

http://www.latimes.com/n...a-home-headlinesno.labs/

Good luck with the happy Iraqi thing. It's working out nicely and if you keep on reading Coulter and watching Fox you'll be very pleased with our astounding progress. Rainbows and unicorns and pixie dust.

I will admit, and this does wipe the smug right off my face, that I don't know what to do about Iraq. I honestly think we civilians, we citizens, don't have the kind of information we really need to come to an informed decision about the best long term plan. Bush's administration is utterly incompetant and untrustworthy and they're sure not in a rush to get into the nuts and bolts of what's going on, province by province, with us and at this point I doubt I'd believe anything they had to say. The media can't cover all the bad news, much less the rumored good news, in Iraq because people are trying to blow them away! How am I going to get a good overview from that source?

I feel like I'm in a sandstorm and left my goggles and scarf in the glove compartment. Where we might agree is that if we pull out, without a plan, we create a massive problem. Hell, even with the supa bestest plan in the whole world we're looking at a FUBAR situation. It really looks like that place is sliding over into civil war to me. It really looks like the Shiites will be in charge, they have the numbers and make up most of the "military", and they're in bed with Iran at least the ones with the broadest popular support.

Neocons ain't going to be loving this very much but it's diplomacy time. We need to hammer out an understanding with Iran that's mutually beneficial or Iraq's screwed. I know, we hate the ayatollahs because they wear funny hats and claim they want to destroy Israel and burn flags. Funny hats and burning flags, we can live with. And nobody with a still functioning brainstem, much less both lobes in full bloom, thinks Iran will launch a serious attack on a nuclear power. And don't tell me Israel doesn't have nukes. Hell, he's the first kid on the block to get this and now everybody else wants one.

Seriously though. We got ourselves in a crappy, moronic, situation and we need to figure out how to get ourselves out. The tricky part, and it's currently beyond me, is figuring out how to do that without making things much, much, worse.

I have an astounding amount of respect for our troops. I'd have sent alot more of them for security's sake, victory's sake, if I was convinced they had to go and would have made sure they were better equipped. I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to cut VA benefits, oh, I'm sorry - limit the rate of spending artificially.

These guys are in the shit in alot of the country. I have the honor of knowing a Marine that was in the Falluja assault. This is one stand-up guy. I don't know how many of us could have done the things he did, clearing bodies from rubble for days on end after blistering firefights, and still smile about it. One tough Marine. But if we've screwed up here, as I believe we have, how are the troops served by letting them fight and die for a cause that may be pointless or even counter-productive? Sure, they don't want to think they fought in vain, their buddies died in vain, they missed out on so much in the family's lives in vain - hell, I don't want that either.

This is a serious breach of etiquette I realize but I honestly don't know what our best move is right now. I'd give anything for leaders I actually believed knew what the heck was going on and were capable of responding to it effectively while levelling with me. We don't have that. So, the best thing that can be done is to look for a way out, as I said before, that doesn't create a worse mess than we've already created.

I'm a Democrat, and I'm strongly pro-choice. Being pro-choice is not equal to being "pro-abortion." I'm sure the author is aware of this distinction, but I wanted to emphasize it again.

If you don't claim to be a Christian, you can ignore the following:

Square this with your version of Christianity & God:

I Samuel 15:2&3

Also, you need to reread the few recorded contacts Jesus and his immediate followers had with the Romans to understand a little better what their attitude was towards governmental conflict and authority. It seems you are remaking Jesus in your image instead of accepting the total package.

Wildfire:
"If i made as much sense as you my I.Q would be about hmmm hovering at around 50."
--You mean it isn't already?

"I make it a point not to debate with people who little to no logical sense or with morons who feel it necessary to stick up for other losers"
--Is it because you don't like the competition or because such people already agree with you?

"You can justify your hositilies however you want...."
--"He deserved it" works for me.

"...but redneck by name and nature."
Indeed. And clearly, vastly superior to yourself.

You didn't take my earlier advice, did you? You have a lot to learn, son, and I suggest you start here

Autarkis:
"For example, the article you cite is about the Schiavo memo which later that very Senator's aid admitted to writing."
--Which would have been a stunning victory--if they had accused some obscure aid of writing the memo instead of claiming it to be a Republican plan.

"The article you cite dwells on semantics of what various Palestian terrorist or militant groups, take your pick it's all the same to me, are called by The Post."
--All the same to you, and to the Post. Those of us whose hatreds haven't permenently warped our view of reality, on the other hand, know that a) there is a vast difference between a terrorist and a military leader and b) people unable to see this difference are not credible sources.

"And the last is from a cite called "Oh, That Liberal Media." Yeah. Okay. Speaks for itself."
Because nobody can point the obvious unless they adopt that ridiculous "corporate media" pulp.

" The problem seems to be that he's citing sources this guy doesn't like"
--Mostly because they're not the ones relevant to the problem at hand. Kind of like the New York Times "man on the street" polls that somehow always end up asking someone slightly to the left of Che Guevera.

"I take everything I read or see with a grain of salt,"
--Unless it's from the Washington Post, apparently.

"Yes, and Reagan "sought" to build up a super-duper system of satellite laser guns to blow up ICBMs."
--And now we have one, that's worked in 5 out of 6 tests. Mayhap we could stick to the subject at hand?

"Attacking a country that had nothing to do with bin Ladin, aside from trying to infiltrate his group because Saddam saw them as a threat,"
--Except that a) we already know of several Iraq-Al-Qaeda links, and b) Houssein as an anti-terrorist crusader has to be one of the wackier conspiracy theories I've heard.

"We made bin Ladin's case for him like the rocket scientists we are."
By cutting and running in Somalia, or by not instituting shari'a law?

"Now if you don't want to believe the reports cited above in those articles that's up to you. Who wouldn't rather believe in unicorns, rainbows and pixie dust over the butt-ugly truth? "
You would, apparently, when your 'unicorns, rainbows, pixie dust' and other general warm-fuzzies tell you that America is evil and the butt-ugly truth is you were wrong.

"And if it's not the truth that we actually created a worse situation because of our invasion, prove it."
--To which I present exhibit A: The nation of Iraq. Free elections, mass graves beind dug up rather than filled up, plastic shredders being used to actually shred plastic, rape rooms shut down, all that good stuff.

If it's offensive, then I'm afraid I'm not at all sorry, but to claim that Iraq was better off under Houssein is stupid. It's plain and simply a dumb thing to say, and the only question such a statement should bring forward is whether the appropriate response is anger or amazed laughter.

"Saddam was a scumbag. Nobody sensible is going to argue that."
--Thanks for pointing that out. Now please continue telling us why he should have been left in office.

"But for your own sake, don't ask the former Prime Minister, and ex-CIA asset, Allawi what he thinks about our "progress." Not-a-gonna-likee the answer"
--Because of course the guy who lost his job out there is the premiere source of information on the subject. Just don't read the Washington Post headlines about Sen. Lieberman's statements about Iraq.

What your reports don't mention is that there were more labs found than the 11 containers they noted. Which isn't bias on their part, actually, since others were found after they made the report.
(And I guess a couple tons of enriched uranium doesn't count as WMD either, huh?) But I'm sure he was just trying to find a better way to ferment cheese, and hiding it from the UN so the French didn't require a few more bribes to not steal it.

"Neocons ain't going to be loving this very much but it's diplomacy time. We need to hammer out an understanding with Iran that's mutually beneficial or Iraq's screwed."
--We can either finish killing the terrorists, or we can go kiss the ayatollah's butt and pretend that he'd honor any bargain he made. Screw that noise.

" And nobody with a still functioning brainstem, much less both lobes in full bloom, thinks Iran will launch a serious attack on a nuclear power."
--See "9-11 Attacks"
See "American Embassies, Africa"
See "USS Cole"
See "Marine Barracks, Beirut"
See "Six-Day War"

" I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to cut VA benefits, oh, I'm sorry - limit the rate of spending artificially."
--Ahh, the beauties of baseline budgeting, where a smaller increase than you wanted is called a "cut"

Nate:
"When you are in a cult you miss a lot. Like reality. They didn't go to Baghdad because they were smart enough to see what we are now going through now would happen."
--Sounds to me like you don't miss it a bit.

"Even you folks in the cult of conservatism have to see that he totally BOTCHED the handling of this war and then showed he didn't have enough of a grasp of the situation or the confidence in himself to shit-can the bozos who planned it."
--Because taking over a nation quickern' the French can surrender and then holding it against terrorist attacks is the perfect sign of a botched war.

Big K--
"Honestly, I wish the administration had at least pointed them out more before the onset of hostilities."
--They did. Unfortunately, the "conservative corporate media" (that phrase is always good for a laugh) apparently forgot to reinforce that talking point for him. In fact, it's as if they buried it.

" 17 resolutions, and the UN was powerless to do any more than scoff at him."
--That's because a sizable percentage of the UN was on the take.

"It should make people angry also the UN is such a powerless institution now."
--Angry? Hell, I'm glad. The UN is and has for decades been a corrupt organization whose only purpose was to siphon US money to third-world dictatorships and give two-bit despots a pulpit to bash America from. And, of course, underage sex for peacekeepers.

"Let us also not forget that Saddam is not going to be winning any Nobel Peace Prizes for his treatment of his own people."
--To which I must remind you of Jimmy Carter's prize. The Nobel Peace Prize is given not for actual work toward peace, but for anti-American sentiment, which means Sodom's is probably in the mail.

Redneck:
”"For example, the article you cite is about the Schiavo memo which later that very Senator's aid admitted to writing."
--Which would have been a stunning victory--if they had accused some obscure aid of writing the memo instead of claiming it to be a Republican plan.””

Did the papers claim that, really? I don’t even see where the story you link to suggests that. It’s possible they talked to people who said that and they reported it. There’s a distinct difference here you’d be well served to meditate upon. The story you actually linked to, rather than the one you’re conveniently inventing, seems to be claiming it’s a Democratic forgery. Not so much.

”"The article you cite dwells on semantics of what various Palestian terrorist or militant groups, take your pick it's all the same to me, are called by The Post."
--All the same to you, and to the Post. Those of us whose hatreds haven't permenently warped our view of reality, on the other hand, know that a) there is a vast difference between a terrorist and a military leader and b) people unable to see this difference are not credible sources.””

Since when is a “militant” a military leader? Websters says a militant is “1. engaged in combat. 2. working for a cause.” Websters defines terrorist, via terrorism, as “1. the political use of violence or intimidation.” Seems to me many of these Palestinian outfits conform to both descriptions as have the Israelis from time to time. Frankly, if you see all angels or all devils on either side of this conflict you’re more likely possessed of a “warped view of reality” than someone with a realistic perspective.

Work on recognizing spin for spin and sorting out that mote in your own eye. It’s not easy, it requires humility and research, but it can be done. Alright, so maybe I’m not strong in the humility department myself but isn’t admitting I need work there a start?

”"And the last is from a cite called "Oh, That Liberal Media." Yeah. Okay. Speaks for itself."
Because nobody can point the obvious unless they adopt that ridiculous "corporate media" pulp. “

Is there a translator in the house?

”" The problem seems to be that he's citing sources this guy doesn't like"
--Mostly because they're not the ones relevant to the problem at hand. Kind of like the New York Times "man on the street" polls that somehow always end up asking someone slightly to the left of Che Guevera.””

How is the State Department’s response not relevant? He wasn’t belittling them for getting the story wrong, initially, but rather pointing out the facts the administration was now owning up to. That isn’t newsworthy how again? Are you saying State just makes crap up without consulting The Pentagon when they’re dealing with delicate public diplomacy that directly results from and impacts The Pentagon’s efforts in Iraq?

”I take everything I read or see with a grain of salt,"
--Unless it's from the Washington Post, apparently.”

This from the guy who thinks AIM is a fair arbiter of news criticism.

“And Reagan "sought" to build up a super-duper system of satellite laser guns to blow up ICBMs."
--And now we have one, that's worked in 5 out of 6 tests. Mayhap we could stick to the subject at hand?”

It’s an illustration there, Virginia. I know you can handle that concept. I hope neocons don’t take as long to fix Iraq as they did to fix Star Wars. Assuming your claim is accurate. Wonder what I’d find if you’d post small enough responses for me to actually research what you’re saying. I’m on to you. Tonnage and fatigue. And it’ll work eventually. Posting here is by far the least interesting thing I’m doing today.

”"Attacking a country that had nothing to do with bin Ladin, aside from trying to infiltrate his group because Saddam saw them as a threat,"
--Except that a) we already know of several Iraq-Al-Qaeda links, and b) Houssein as an anti-terrorist crusader has to be one of the wackier conspiracy theories I've heard.”

And those links would be? Think carefully because I already know where those skeletons are buried and I’ll riposte with factual rebuttles faster than you can type “Redneck.” Hussein (sic) was no anti-terrorist crusader but he was a secular neo-Stalinist with no patience for any rival dogmas that would challenge his claim to power. That included radical Islamism. And bin Ladin responded in kind. I can only think of one mention, that’s even remotely credible, of bin Ladin scoping out a possible alliance with Saddam and it was firmly rebuffed. However there are many references from bin Ladin slamming Hussein as a heretic to be destroyed.

”"We made bin Ladin's case for him like the rocket scientists we are."
By cutting and running in Somalia, or by not instituting shari'a law?”

No, by demonstrating to the Muslim world that we’d invade a country with no demonstrable ties to bin Ladin, but plenty of oil, and decide we were going to make it a government after our own style – heck we planned to privatize the oil and many other government services before contracting them out to American companies. Much of this has been stopped in its tracks by folks like al-Sistani but that was the plan going in. It was positively nutty hearing libertarian entrepreneur types going on about the piles of money they were going to make even before the invasion was over. Who’s laughing now? Aside from military contractors, Halliburton et al, I think that plan’s mostly screwed.

”"Now if you don't want to believe the reports cited above in those articles that's up to you. Who wouldn't rather believe in unicorns, rainbows and pixie dust over the butt-ugly truth? "
You would, apparently, when your 'unicorns, rainbows, pixie dust' and other general warm-fuzzies tell you that America is evil and the butt-ugly truth is you were wrong.”

America’s not evil. America’s not Satan, it’s Frankenstein. We’re big, ignorant and don’t know our own strength. Our heart’s in the right place and we’ve got courage aplenty but when a peasant shoves a torch in our face we tear up the entire village to make it stop.

”"And if it's not the truth that we actually created a worse situation because of our invasion, prove it."
--To which I present exhibit A: The nation of Iraq. Free elections, mass graves beind dug up rather than filled up, plastic shredders being used to actually shred plastic, rape rooms shut down, all that good stuff.”

Try again. New torture rooms staffed by Shiite militias? Elections we manipulated if not decisively enough to keep out the pro-Iranian parties at least effectively enough to keep them from getting a clear majority. A democracy where our military pays off the newspapers to plant stories? Hell, and I don’t even have time to dwell on Basra where the Shiite militias have so thoroughly infiltrated the police force they’re killing anyone who violates sharia law and less than a year ago got into a big shootout with British forces.

”If it's offensive, then I'm afraid I'm not at all sorry, but to claim that Iraq was better off under Houssein is stupid. It's plain and simply a dumb thing to say, and the only question such a statement should bring forward is whether the appropriate response is anger or amazed laughter.”

Tell that to former Prime Minister Allawi and not me. He certainly says that. It would be good to see a current poll. I think the last one taken did have a slim majority of Iraqis saying some contradictory things. One, they’d agree with you that the war and the aftermath was worth it to get rid of Saddam. Two, interestingly, they claim they’re worse off now than under Saddam. Three, they want us the hell out of Iraq. The only way I could make sense of these results is the pollsters talked mainly to the Shiite majority. They are happy Saddam is gone and now they’re just twiddling their thumbs until we leave and they can take over.

Some seem more worried than others about how quickly we should leave but giving us the boot is the overwhelming sentiment. Remember the parties that won the election had a plank stating they’d tell us to leave, which they conveniently forgot later on, and more recently you had the Arab League declaration in which Iraqi delegates voted that “resistance” was a legitimate right. Not exactly the flowers tossed at our feet Cheney was talking about before the war.

”"Saddam was a scumbag. Nobody sensible is going to argue that."
--Thanks for pointing that out. Now please continue telling us why he should have been left in office.”

Because, Einstein, you’re looking at the alternative.

”"But for your own sake, don't ask the former Prime Minister, and ex-CIA asset, Allawi what he thinks about our "progress." Not-a-gonna-likee the answer"
--Because of course the guy who lost his job out there is the premiere source of information on the subject. Just don't read the Washington Post headlines about Sen. Lieberman's statements about Iraq. “

And read the statements of guys like Russ Feingold who went over with him. Read about the meetings my state’s Republican Senator John Warner had to have with brigade level officers to figure out what the hell was really going on over there. Sure, he’s a loyal Republican cat but read between the lines. If he needs to talk to brigade level commanders to get the honest story then what trust does he have for The President and The Pentagon? Less than he’ll admit and precious little more than I have.
And sources in the meeting say it wasn’t pretty.

”What your reports don't mention is that there were more labs found than the 11 containers they noted. Which isn't bias on their part, actually, since others were found after they made the report.
(And I guess a couple tons of enriched uranium doesn't count as WMD either, huh?) But I'm sure he was just trying to find a better way to ferment cheese, and hiding it from the UN so the French didn't require a few more bribes to not steal it.”

That uranium was under UN seal until our own troops broke it open and let the locals run wild looting. Read your own article. You probably can do better than green reports from 2003 before reality set in. Those “mobile weapon labs” are nothing of the kind and never were. Hell, I could probably link to a story from 1077 AD, if they had an internet, and “prove” the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

”"Neocons ain't going to be loving this very much but it's diplomacy time. We need to hammer out an understanding with Iran that's mutually beneficial or Iraq's screwed."
--We can either finish killing the terrorists, or we can go kiss the ayatollah's butt and pretend that he'd honor any bargain he made. Screw that noise.”

Good luck with that, Rambo. So, I’m trying to visualize this, a guy with enough time to write responses like this and all this pent up testosterone? Does your mom like having all those sandbags and the camo netting in her basement?

”" And nobody with a still functioning brainstem, much less both lobes in full bloom, thinks Iran will launch a serious attack on a nuclear power."
--See "9-11 Attacks"
See "American Embassies, Africa"
See "USS Cole"
See "Marine Barracks, Beirut"
See "Six-Day War"”

You do know the difference between Sunni and Shiia? Or do all Muslims look the same to you? I’m not saying there aren’t radical elements in Iran that have funded attacks against the U.S., in fact, I think you missed the only documented one – Kohbar Towers in Saudi Arabia. However, there’s a difference between some fruitloops taking potshots, however pyrotechnic, and a real military effort actually capable of destroying Israel. The Six Day War didn’t involve Iran and it also occurred before we can even be certain Israel had nuclear weapons and certainly before this information was revealed by an Israeli researcher in the 1980s. If you don’t know about a deterrent it’s not going to really deter you much.

”"I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to cut VA benefits, oh, I'm sorry - limit the rate of spending artificially."
--Ahh, the beauties of baseline budgeting, where a smaller increase than you wanted is called a "cut"”

Tell it to the troops.

Alright. I don’t have time to spend on this anymore. Respond if you want but if you care to keep this discussion going, masochism is a perfectly understandable and common condition, just pick three of my grossest exaggerations, lies and misrepresentations to respond to and we’ll go from there.

Does it escape everyon's mind that we alreafy voted to pull the troops out of Iraq, within the last 2 weeks. The vote was overwhelmongly to stay. 4 voted for immediate pullout. The Dems want to throw bombs, call quagmires, let everyone believe we are losing, which just so happens to directly correlated to the time news started pouring in through the maintream. The Dems are done, no more bitching about Iraq, you had your chance to bring the troops home, which the spinelessly didn't vote for.

How has he mishandled this war? Everybody keeps saying that but i mean we destroyed an intire governmental infrastructure with half as many troops as the first time these people are getting freedom and humanitarium aid (lets not forget all the money sadaam stole from food for oil, he shat on a golden toilet for cryin out loud). It seems the party that looks out for the little guy and seeks to squelch every injustice in the world want to pick and choose when they want to defend civil liberties. Yea Bush isn't the smartes guy, but at least he didn't keel over, or do we forget 2 bombings of our embasies(which is considered US soil) an attack on our warship, the USS Cole; the withdraw of troops from mogadishu.

There is a lesson to be had here, we should be more cautious before going to war. This was a overwhelmingly supported invasion, whether you think Bush doctored intel or not the fact remains that we are still over there now, there is no high tailing, if we are the superpower we say we are, then let's do a good job. Lets set up a Democracy, get out, let them fuck it up so we never have to deal with those camel jockeys again.

Answer honestly: if we were able to erradicate all the muslims in the world, how much safer would it be and how many problems will we have? (i obviously don;t believe this is a viable solution but...

uhh, ok i can't spell well

Big K - "The Smart One" said:

--Honestly, Desert Storm we should have finished the job. For the life of me I can not figure out why he did not do it.
___

When you are in a cult you miss a lot. Like reality. They didn't go to Baghdad because they were smart enough to see what we are now going through now would happen.

In short, Sun Myung Moon's favorite shill, Poppy knew only an idiot, a fool or both would take Baghdad.

If he was good at being a dry drunk war mongerer it would be one thing, but he is INEPT. Even you folks in the cult of conservatism have to see that he totally BOTCHED the handling of this war and then showed he didn't have enough of a grasp of the situation or the confidence in himself to shit-can the bozos who planned it.

What do you think of Basra becoming an Iranian state?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285078/

"I never mix religion with politics, but for Christ’s sake, don’t they know that Jesus was a Democrat?"

Madame, you obviously know nothing of religion. This is one of the silliest statements made since John Kerry stated that he was reporting for duty.

The Democrats have staked their claim as the party of abortion, the party for removing prayer in state forums, the party for the prohibition of any religious symbol in public areas, and the institution of gay marriage. Additionally, the innovation of the "Great Society" has had profound links to the lack of family values in society. And finally, Ted Kennedy is a Democrat. How on earth can you possibly justify the inherent distinctions between the the current Democractic party and Jesus?

The answer is, you can't.

Jesus desired to spread freedom around the world. Interestingly enough, while the democrats have been known as the freedom party (which is ironic as Democrats were the party who tried to stifle the end of slavery), they have been the party attempting to stifle democracy in Iraq, simply to feed their political aspirations.

While your prose is that of a freelance writer, you are not released from the obligation to conduct the research necessary to produce a thoughtful article.

Freedom Fan: I misquoted Coulter, but not deliberately. I am sorry. She did not advocate the killing of all Muslims, just their terrorist leaders. Here's the infamous quote: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Just like the Crusades, killing in the name of Christ is anti-Christian. Many fanatical religious extremists have completely misunderstood God's love for all mankind. I can't believe we are even having this discussion; anyone who goes within (where the kingdom of heaven really is beneath the ego) knows the difference between intolerance (hatred) and acceptance (love).

Very few flamethrowing Dems? (ref. Comment #2). You obviously have not been to Daily Kos lately. Or heard anything from the lips of Howard Dean. Or read the newsletters of MoveOn.org. Or listened to the comments of Cindy Sheehan. Or Ted Kennedy. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Barbera Boxer. Or John Kerry. Or Al Gore. Or Al Franken. Or Chuckie Schumer. Or Air America. Or Code Pink. Or Jimmy Carter. Or the majority of hollywood. Or George Soros.

Clinton a DINO? Goodness...

Hmm, where was Zarqawi? I can tell you were he was not. He was not being handed over to the proper authorities for crimes against humanity that he was already being sought for. When the international community knows there is a terrorist in your midst, it would be in your best interest to get rid of him, would it not? If that country thumbs their nose at the that it is called giving aid and comfort to the terrorist.

And the number of weapons that exceeded that range does not matter. Again, Saddam is pushing buttons he knows he can not push. Do you think he would have stopped at 12? There is a pattern of behavior here, not letting in inspectors, burying parts from weapons experiments for another day, and having missiles that just happened to go over the range they agreed not to have. Again, Saddam had been playing with fire for too long. And we let him under Bush Sr. and Clinton. I am glad he is gone, and I make no apologies for it.

You never addressed my point about the president not declaring the warheads as a sign of vindication. Yeah, there were only 2 found so far, but do you honestly think another politician would not have held that up in a press conference with some dramatic lighting and a choir for effect? Bush made mistakes, no one is denying that one. I agree with Redneck, we were not expecting mass surrenders by the Iraqi’s. Hell, 10 years prior they gave us something of a fight. What the hell happened to them? But at the same time if anyone thought declaring war on this country meant we will be done in time for tea was delusional. We have been there just over 2 years now. Very few conflicts are less than that. Extremely few have only 2100 casualties on one side. Our military has performed exceptionally. Now if we can keep people like Murtha and Kerry from loosing a war we already won we should do fine. And we did win. We just need to finish the job. But its not going fast enough you say. Germany took decades to rebuild. Japan too. You can still go to Europe and find bullet holes in buildings or live bombs from WW2 in some fields. It will take time, patience is necessary. I did mention this, but so did the president before we began over there. All the Bush lied people have been silent on that front. He did say it would not be a fast operation.

I will say this, you are the best opposition here. None of the rest of these guys have been able to produce anything other than repeating their lunacy preceding it with “ don’t you just KNOW?” as an argument. I have become more interested in this blog since you showed up.

Nate, I was talking about Bush the senior. I think you were a little confused there.

On the side, I have been called a troll, a Nazi, non Christian, stupid, and in a cult. All from the non hate speach spewing, Party of compasion people.

Great stuff.

Big K: Well, I have to confess I lurk here and there in the net and I saw you guys having a field day with these folks. Couldn't help myself but stepping up. Maybe it was reading about how Coulter's fanbase have treated Ms. Cornell that got my back up too. Like I said earlier, I'd have trouble defending her approach to the subject but I don't think she deserved the personal scourging she's gotten as a result of it. Which is unrelated to our discussion...

Look, I give this administration kudos for not planting evidence. My level of mistrust is so elevated right now that this alone seems like a shining moment for them. Every time I say something like that though the other shoe drops and you learn something that undermines even that little credibility. Now I've opened my mouth I half expect to see a story about how they tried and failed to plant evidence.

If that happens it will erase my trust in the administration as well. There, I am on the record for saying it. But, then again, what evidence is there to plant at this point?

As far as beating up on Ms. Cornell, it would help if she would do some research. I mean please, here she is calling people Nazi's and that is one of Coulter's favorite things to rip libs about. That they can not even come up with a better insult than that and every one of them uses it as if it were original.

She really pissed me off with calling conservatives non Christians. And no, I still have not let that one go yet because she said it again right after apologizing for it. M4 wants to say that, let him do it, he is not that bright anyway. (Assuming he is a he, I guess that has not been established here). But a professed Christian needs to know better. But I still do not think I ripped on her worse than that. Now, again I must go on record, anyone phyisicaly threatening her is wrong. And it is a criminal offense, so cut that crap out.

Ok, here is an article about Zarqawi and Iraq you might find interesting.

http://www.newamericance...y.org/kerry-20041021.htm

Big K:
Specifically, Japan had far more of its infrastructure intact, and the Japanese who hated us most became Kamikaze pilots or went to the front lines and died. In Iraq, the infrastructure's been torn down for Golden Crappers for Sodom, and the people who liked us most died, killed by his troops. And it took 5 years in Japan. We're making decidedly better progress than that, and considering Japan's position in the world today, that's a right good sign.

Autarkis:
"Did the papers claim that, really? I don�t even see where the story you link to suggests that."
--That would be because the story I linked to wasn't the Washington Post story. Then again, the story I linked to said they did just that, so...

"Since when is a �militant� a military leader?"
--Seeing as they used the term "military leader"--as well as "military wing" and "military offensive", the question's more than a little irrelevant.

" Frankly, if you see all angels or all devils on either side of this conflict you�re more likely possessed of a �warped view of reality� than someone with a realistic perspective."
--I can see their side of the conflict just fine. They want all the Jews dead. Meanwhile, I'm not accusing them of "seeing" the palestinian side of the conflict, I'm accusing them (accurately) of taking the palestinian's side in the conflict.

"How is the State Department�s response not relevant?"
-Perhaps because when you do a report on the military you should, oh, I dunno, ask the military?

" I hope neocons don�t take as long to fix Iraq as they did to fix Star Wars."
--Depends. Will Democrats whine and slander as much about Star Wars, and then forget all about it when it works?

"Wonder what I�d find if you�d post small enough responses for me to actually research what you�re saying. I�m on to you. Tonnage and fatigue."
--If you wouldn't try to feed me so much bullshit at one time, I could make shorter posts.

" Think carefully because I already know where those skeletons are buried and I�ll riposte with factual rebuttles faster than you can type �Redneck.�"
--Rebuttals, at least. Factual? Not likely.
A short list can be found here, but more detailed and cited sources include this, this, this, this report on the same memo, or

"Hussein (sic) was no anti-terrorist crusader but he was a secular neo-Stalinist with no patience for any rival dogmas that would challenge his claim to power."
--In case you don't remember, Stalin didn't think much of us. But he still managed an alliance in WWII. Come to think of it, he didn't think much of Hitler either, and they managed an alliance before that.

"No, by demonstrating to the Muslim world that we�d invade a country with no demonstrable ties to bin Ladin, but plenty of oil,"
--Ah, war for oil. That's why now we have all the gas we want for pennies a gallon and... oops...

"Aside from military contractors, Halliburton et al, I think that plan�s mostly screwed."
--Except that Halliburton makes less money in Iraq than the rest of the business does--little enough that they're losing money over there. If Cheney got them that contract, they ought to sue him.

"Try again. New torture rooms staffed by Shiite militias? Elections we manipulated if not decisively enough to keep out the pro-Iranian parties at least effectively enough to keep them from getting a clear majority."
--And you have something resembling evidence of these claims? Naw, nevermind.

"That uranium was under UN seal until our own troops broke it open"
--Because Sodom obviously had so much respect for the UN. Were he still in power, then certainly that blue seal would have kept him away with its talismanic power.

" Those �mobile weapon labs� are nothing of the kind and never were."
--Because you claim they weren't?

"Good luck with that, Rambo. So, I�m trying to visualize this, a guy with enough time to write responses like this and all this pent up testosterone?"
--Sorry, no more .270 ammo 'til payday.

"Does your mom like having all those sandbags and the camo netting in her basement?"
--Ma doesn't know I'm hiding that stuff there yet, and I hope she don't find the C-4 and AR-15's. What does your sanitarium think of the Soviet flag on your wall?

" I�m not saying there aren�t radical elements in Iran that have funded attacks against the U.S., in fact, I think you missed the only documented one � Kohbar Towers in Saudi Arabia. However, there�s a difference between some fruitloops taking potshots, however pyrotechnic, and a real military effort actually capable of destroying Israel."
Oh--well, if they're only going to be bombing some buildings and murdering our women and children, I guess it's OK. I thought you meant they were going to get aggressive.

"The Six Day War didn�t involve Iran"
So all these other countries would, but Iran wouldn't. Good to hear.

"and it also occurred before we can even be certain Israel had nuclear weapons and certainly before this information was revealed by an Israeli researcher in the 1980s."
--Because nobody suspected a thing. Even the people who hate Israel would never assume they'd have a nuke.

"Tell it to the troops."
--They know. That's why they voted Bush.

"Alright. I don�t have time to spend on this anymore."
--What a coincidence, neither do I. Especially after I saw the links and realized I'm frequenting the blog of a guy who writes for Democratic Underground. How much more contemptible can one get? Time to put my energies towards more worthwhile pursuits. I'm done here.

I'm not religious so I've already dipped a toe in as far as I dare into that part of the discussion. And I think Ms. Cornell was trying to be ironic by doing exactly as she perceives her opposite numbers are doing - displaying ostentatious hypocrisy. Frankin, whether you like him or not and I'm guessing not, uses this technique to pretty good effect. But his tongue is so firmly in cheek that it looks like a misplaced Quasimodo's hump. It's not an easy device to pull off and very easily misinterpreted.

As for planting evidence, like most revelations about Iraq, if such a story were to come out it would be something that happened a couple years ago. I don't have any evidence of this or even a hunch. It just seems that when I say something that gets me in trouble with my more liberal friends like, "Hey, the election worked!", there's a lag of a couple months before the stories about the Administration's attempts to meddle with the results come out. Like clockwork. I say something hopeful, "Hey, Sunnis stood up to al-Qaida in this one village, maybe things are looking up?" And boom, stories about how the Shiite militias we're trying to clean up and pass off as the Iraqi Army are terrorizing Sunnis.

Trust me, seems like if all I say are critical things maybe this will all somehow work out better? Nah. We're screwed no matter what. Sorry but that's how it looks to me.

Redneck: First off, you colored outside the lines. You were to pick three topics, of your choice, so's you at least have a chance - I'm a sporting guy, but that was too difficult to understand? You're dismissed.

Second off,