Coulter skewers liberals at Stony Brook -- Newsday

[harmonious]

Ridge wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree,
My son is a Marine and it is killing me to have him serve under Bush.
I would have understood having him serve and risk his life in Afghanistan after 911 but now he will just be cleaning up the mistakes of what is perhaps the worst Administration this country has ever seen.
I am very proud of my son for serving his country as I am proud of all of the members of our armed services that did a miraculous job of doing what they were trained for during the invasions. I am deeply saddened that they are not led by a competent Commander and Chief and are stuck in a quagmire caused by a President who's reach far exceeded his grasp.

i was in the marines, 1970-73. i hope your son makes it home safe. i have a nephew and cousin who have served in iraq. they both made it home safely.

[harmonious]

Ann fan wrote:

Here's a big endorsement for my favorite news channel, Fox News.
An English-language Web site that unabashedly promotes the work of Islamic terrorists has responded to a FOXNews.com profile of the site by assailing "the Kuffaar behind FOX News." Kuffaar, roughly translated, means "unbelievers."
After quoting FOX News.com 's Friday story and citing verses from the Koran, the Revolution.Muslimpad.com blog affirms the belief that jihad is "an Islaamic obligation" rooted in Muslim texts.
"So in reality, you are calling my Prophet, Muhammad — peace be upon him — a terrorist," the blog post continues. "But of course, you guys won’t say that directly because you fear the wrath of the Muslims."
The site also decries what it calls a double standard toward terrorists, comparing the attacks of Sept. 11 with the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima during World War II.

testing 1 2 3

[Mykro]

Garand wrote:

<quoted text>Thousands of National Guard troops served in Nam.

You were'nt one and neither was Bush.

[Mykro]

harmonious wrote:

<quoted text>
what's your address, pops?

Click on my name, stupid. Unlike your hidden profile, mine is out in the open. I don't hide like you biggoted morons do. I'll be expecting you. And you better be locked and cocked. You do know what that means, dickweed.

[Dr A Degall]

harmonious wrote:

<quoted text>
should of we went to war to stop hitler killing ****? and if you agree, what's the difference in going to war with saddam who killed thousands and thousands of kurds and shiites? he also caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqis, iranians and kuwaitis. where they not as worthy as ****?
who gets to decide who is worthy of saving?

Uhh....that would be Mykro and his fellow clueless libs. They unilaterally get to decide which wars are just and which are illegal and unnecessary.

[Dr A Degall]

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Click on my name, stupid. Unlike your hidden profile, mine is out in the open. I don't hide like you biggoted morons do. I'll be expecting you. And you better be locked and cocked. You do know what that means, dickweed.

Even as an internet tough guy you are an abject failure.

[Noticer]

harmonious wrote:

<quoted text>
well, unfortunately, your last sentence shows you have blinders on, no doubt due to your case of bds and general opposition to anything conservative or republican. there are just too many instances of muslims using or ready to use violence to either convert or eradicate non believers. europe is having trouble with muslim immigrants who want all the benefits of western society, but refusing to integrate,continuing practices not congruous with their new homes and not becoming part of the existing culture. if there is somewhere where jews, christians, buddhists, etc. are acting in this manner, it's news to me.
muslim dominated governments have essentially ran christians and jews out of their countries. No claims of that happening to muslims in europe or the americas. It would be ridiculous to say all muslims are "jihadists" but at only 10%, we're talking about 130 million jihadists who do subscribe to the radical version.
personally, i don't believe large influxes of muslims are good for any western country. you would probably disagree until it's too late.

The "Muslim dominated governments" you mention happen to be theocracies. Governments in Europe and America are not theocracies. Even Italy, center of the Catholic faith, maintains separation of church and state and is therefore not a theocracy. In fact, Iraq was not even a theocracy (tough it may wind up being one after things shake out following our destruction of the social and govermental fabric there).

If you want to see a place here where Jews refuse to integrate,continuing practices not congruous with their "new" homes and not becoming part of the existing culture, just visit some areas of Brooklyn. In fact, that's what **** have ALWAYS done: maintained their own culture as a subculture within a resident society. And EVEN SO, look at how many American Jews have "reformed" to a much greater adoptation of their "new" homeland's culture. That takes generations. Here's two more examples of faith-based groups that take deliberate pains not to assimliate into the larger Amercian culture: the Amish and many Mormon sects.

The most recent immigrant groups have ALWAYS been the least assimilated and therefore the most "trouble." For that reason, I agree that influxes of ANY ethnic or religious group ought to be limited in size and rate of immigration.

I don't know where you get that 10% of Muslims are Jihadists. Our goverment's estimation of the number of Islamic terrorists - which, I take it, means members of groups designated as terrorist organizations - as being in the tens of thousands - something on the order of 20,000. If you're suggesting that there are some 129.8 million freelance terrorists operating as independent practictioners among the Muslim populations, I'd have to seriously doubt that.

[Mykro]

Dr A Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Even as an internet tough guy you are an abject failure.

Nice profound post. I'm quaking in my boots. And I never said I was a tough guy. I just don't take no neonut ****.

[Mykro]

Dr A Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
Even as an internet tough guy you are an abject failure.

At least you've got a profile, unlike your buddy harmonious. A Bud drinking Mensa. That's a surprise, thought you were a white whiner.

[Fed Up]

GOP SCATTERS AFTER 3 DEFEATS
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3827.html

A LITTLE HISTORY
http://blog.nationbuilder.org/2008/05/david-r...
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis129....

THE TRAITOROUS DEMOCRATS ARE AT IT AGAIN!
http://webmail.aol.com/36743/aol/en-us/Lite/M...

THEY WILL USE ANY MEANS TO CONTROL US
http://www.newswithviews.com/Robinson/art4.ht...

[Ann fan]

Noticer wrote:

<quoted text>
The "Muslim dominated governments" you mention happen to be theocracies. Governments in Europe and America are not theocracies. Even Italy, center of the Catholic faith, maintains separation of church and state and is therefore not a theocracy. In fact, Iraq was not even a theocracy (tough it may wind up being one after things shake out following our destruction of the social and govermental fabric there).
If you want to see a place here where Jews refuse to integrate,continuing practices not congruous with their "new" homes and not becoming part of the existing culture, just visit some areas of Brooklyn. In fact, that's what **** have ALWAYS done: maintained their own culture as a subculture within a resident society. And EVEN SO, look at how many American Jews have "reformed" to a much greater adoptation of their "new" homeland's culture. That takes generations. Here's two more examples of faith-based groups that take deliberate pains not to assimliate into the larger Amercian culture: the Amish and many Mormon sects.
The most recent immigrant groups have ALWAYS been the least assimilated and therefore the most "trouble." For that reason, I agree that influxes of ANY ethnic or religious group ought to be limited in size and rate of immigration.
I don't know where you get that 10% of Muslims are Jihadists. Our goverment's estimation of the number of Islamic terrorists - which, I take it, means members of groups designated as terrorist organizations - as being in the tens of thousands - something on the order of 20,000. If you're suggesting that there are some 129.8 million freelance terrorists operating as independent practictioners among the Muslim populations, I'd have to seriously doubt that.

Are you talking about Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn? Here's the difference, as far as I can tell-they don't have organized "councils" which seek to influence policy in a way that I've gone into, ad nauseum, in previous posts.
Their affect on demographics is miniscule, meaning they don't "breed like rats". OK, that's a very offensive remark but its's my way of honoring Oriana Fallaci.
I think your 20,000 number is severely underestimated but I'd have to see where you got that info. I think my conservative estimate of 5 million is more reasonable.

[Old School Mets Fan]

Ann fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you talking about Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn? Here's the difference, as far as I can tell-they don't have organized "councils" which seek to influence policy in a way that I've gone into, ad nauseum, in previous posts.
Their affect on demographics is miniscule, meaning they don't "breed like rats". OK, that's a very offensive remark but its's my way of honoring Oriana Fallaci.
I think your 20,000 number is severely underestimated but I'd have to see where you got that info. I think my conservative estimate of 5 million is more reasonable.

Hi Ann (thanks for the kind words earlier, flattery will get you everywhere). The Hasidim in Brooklyn, indeed are trying to influence policy, at least at the local level. Many are trying to get stores to close on the Sabbath. As for demographics, many Hasidic families are very large (9 to 10 kids)so it's not from a lack of trying!

I will agree that 20,000 terrorists sounds a little on the low side. It's always a little tough to get a head count, I would doubt that Al Qaeda has an organization chart, but you never know.

[Dr A Degall]

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Nice profound post. I'm quaking in my boots. And I never said I was a tough guy. I just don't take no neonut ****.

Damn right you're quakin. No need to go heeled to get the bulge on a tub lib like you.

[Garand]

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Nice profound post. I'm quaking in my boots. And I never said I was a tough guy. I just don't take no neonut ****.

But you love Communist BS.

Tell us again how you fought the Communists in Nam but now you support them here.

[Noticer]

harmonious wrote:

<quoted text> neither party has a magic wand. a democratic government by it's very nature is constantly at odds with roughly half of the population at anytime. the truth is the world is changing and our continued success and lifestyle can only be maintained by capitalism, and capitalism by definition will favor the brightest and most powerful. there is no other alternative.. for the last 100 yrs. or more, millions were allowed to ride the coatails of Ford, GM, General electric, etc.
to conservatives, liberals are only interested[in power, of course]in penalizing the "rich" and redistributing the booty to people not deserving. you, no doubt, disagree.
you mention individual rights, well conservatives see liberals as the main threat to individual rights, no doubt you disagree. the most egregious example is the denial of property owners rights to run their business' as they see fit, not the way the mostly nazi liberals want them to run it concerning smoking laws. republicans have recently jumped on board as well, but it was initiated by liberals, the supposed champions of free will and rights. Another egregious example is the banning of trans fat cooking oil in NYC, by the supposed republican{traitor,neo nazi] herr bloomberg.

Yes, capitalism does favor the most powerful; but the brightest? That's another story. Pure, unrestricted capitalism will ultimately evolve to favor the powerful and well-connected only, whether they be bright or not. Its natural tendency is to consolidate wealth and leverage, stifling competition and eventually shutting out any opportunity for upstarts and startups, however bright, to get any sort of foothold.

That this hasn't happened here is because organized labor and government has frequently intereceded. I'd be curious to know just what the conservative idea of "deserving" happens to be, in your eyes.

You say millions were "ALLOWED to RIDE the coatails" of Ford,GM, & GE." Oh, really? And here I thought all those millions were providing the service of their labor to MAKE those companies the great successes they were.

So, is some low-level worker slaving his butt off for a company really SO much less deserving than some part owner in the company who got where is is by being the son, grandson, or great-grandson of the bright guy who formed the company? Is that worker so MUCH less deserving that he ought to earn a salary that barely lets him live in a car while the scion earns enough to have three mansions and a yacht and never had to worry about money a day in his life? Is a mother working two **** jobs to support her children really SO much less deserving than a lady of leisure who sinks millions of her family's money into stocks so she can spend her days playing tennis?

You say you don't want the government preventing companies from running their businesses as they see fit - using antismoking laws as an example (by the way, that's more a libertarian than a conservative point of view). But how do you feel about the governent not allowing companies to hire children? Or to demand that employees work ceaselessly for 12 hour days, seven days a week? Or to demand their empoyers to work in dangerous conditions so they can save a buck? If these are liberal ideas, I'm all for 'em. Aren't you?(They also, incidently, serve to rein in capitalism, for which the buck, and the buck only, is the almighty bottom line.)

Funny, I hear liberals being judgemental about thing that I consider to be the most terrible behavior ALL THE TIME. I also hear them calling for accountability for that behavior, and for the Constitutional rules of law to be applied equally to ALL. So yes, I absolutely can and DO deny what you say about that.

I guess liberals and conservatives just differ on what exactly constitutes the most terrible behavior. Personally, I think the liberals have their priorities a whole lot more in order.

[Noticer]

harmonious wrote:

i'm no prude, but one of ann coulter's favorite comments of mine is that the liberals main contribution to feminism in the last 40 yrs. is the ability to make women take their clothes off,
hard to argue that, isn't it?

Gee...maybe she really IS a man?

[Ann fan]

Can you imagine if this guy actually becomes our President?
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

So what is leadership? Doing what other countries espect us to do?

And I don't get this comment.
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying,'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"

Doesn't it follow that we would negotiate with the Soviet Union because they had nuclear warheads pointed at us? But what is in it for us to negotiate with Iran? It was bad enough that that little Iranian midget was invited to speak at Columbia University; but a sitting President meeting with this thug?
Soaring rhetoric does not a President make.

[Ann fan]

Old School Mets Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Ann (thanks for the kind words earlier, flattery will get you everywhere). The Hasidim in Brooklyn, indeed are trying to influence policy, at least at the local level. Many are trying to get stores to close on the Sabbath. As for demographics, many Hasidic families are very large (9 to 10 kids)so it's not from a lack of trying!
I will agree that 20,000 terrorists sounds a little on the low side. It's always a little tough to get a head count, I would doubt that Al Qaeda has an organization chart, but you never know.

I couldn't find any organizational charts for Al Qaeda but I did come across some of their typically sophisticated tactics (from Al Qaeda manual found by UK intelligence):
"Poisoning From Eating Spoiled Food"
Fill a pot with corn and green beans. Put in a small piece of meat and about two spoonfuls of fresh excrement. Pour the water into..."
Well, you get the idea. They have a ways to go before they figure out an Excel spreadsheet.

[Azjaeger]

Ann fan wrote:

Can you imagine if this guy actually becomes our President?
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
So what is leadership? Doing what other countries espect us to do?
And I don't get this comment.
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying,'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"
Doesn't it follow that we would negotiate with the Soviet Union because they had nuclear warheads pointed at us? But what is in it for us to negotiate with Iran? It was bad enough that that little Iranian midget was invited to speak at Columbia University; but a sitting President meeting with this thug?
Soaring rhetoric does not a President make.

Yep, I heard that speech too. Another "moral Dem". I'll translate the Obama..."You all out there, you Americans... you're greedy. You must do without, and then the world will respect us. Me, I'll keep my mansion, as I deserve it." Obama fits right in with the rest of the eco-hypocrites.

[harmonious]

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Click on my name, stupid. Unlike your hidden profile, mine is out in the open. I don't hide like you biggoted morons do. I'll be expecting you. And you better be locked and cocked. You do know what that means, dickweed.

ooooh, the little **** man is going to get out his arsenal and shoot me. another non violent liberal. let's see, 2 in the hands, 2 with his feet, one with his mouth, where you gonna hold the rest?