RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Ann Coulter

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
Yea, he said they're PLAN is to lie and DIE. He then goes on to expound on the lie potion, but is oddly silent on teh die proposal. Probobly because he knows exactly what he's saying.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
It is not a matter of these women (and Cindy Sheehan, and Richard Clarke, and Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame) wrapping themselves in the flag. But is instead a matter of these assholes cloaking themselves in the flag, hiding their bitter partisan motives that, far from defending this country, are targeted to weaken and divide the country, for their own selfish and political objectives.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
If I wasn't clear I meant that I don't support the protesters bashing the troops while you support Coulter claiming the 9/11 widows enjoyed their deaths.

---

Again, that's your own spin, that completely bypasses the larger point Coulter was making.
When widows repeatedly hold press conferences slamming the President, they have made vicious allegations, and can no longer hide behind "grieving widow" status to protect them from answering a dialogue that they initiated on their motives and allegations.
"Grieving" widows don't hold press conferences and launch partisan attacks.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Matter Eater Man said:
You can keep on repeating your rationalization of Coulter's character assasinations, I'll keep repeating my dissagrement & distaste for her nastiness.

---

You keep giving partisan distortion of what Ann Coulter actually said , and I'll keep redirecting the discussion to the true situation and facts.
Coulter is responding to "nastiness" from the Left, not initiating it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Matter Eater Man said:
I support the troops. There are posts in the past where I've voiced that support.

---

You hate the mission but support the troops?

It's hard to remember who (among liberals) said what here on RKMB after almost three and a half years of war. But I'd like if you could detail how you support the troops when you're, by all appearances, so opposed to every aspect of the war in Iraq.
It seems to me that in wanting to withdraw them prematurely, you want their sacrifice over the last three-plus years to have been for nothing.

I know that comes across as mocking, but it's not. How do you reconcile the two (opposing the war, supporting the troops). I'd just like to understand that perspective.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
It is not a matter of these women (and Cindy Sheehan, and Richard Clarke, and Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame) wrapping themselves in the flag. But is instead a matter of these assholes cloaking themselves in the flag, hiding their bitter partisan motives that, far from defending this country, are targeted to weaken and divide the country, for their own selfish and political objectives.

---

that's a good description of Bush and many of his initiatives.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
If I wasn't clear I meant that I don't support the protesters bashing the troops while you support Coulter claiming the 9/11 widows enjoyed their deaths.

---

Again, that's your own spin, that completely bypasses the larger point Coulter was making.
When widows repeatedly hold press conferences slamming the President, they have made vicious allegations, and can no longer hide behind "grieving widow" status to protect them from answering a dialogue that they initiated on their motives and allegations.
"Grieving" widows don't hold press conferences and launch partisan attacks.

---

I'm not the one who has to run away from Coulter's original quote, so who's really doing the spinning? When Coulter refers to the 9/11 widows as bitches or claims they enjoyed their husbands' deaths it's not rocket science what Coulter is about.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter Eater Man said:
You can keep on repeating your rationalization of Coulter's character assasinations, I'll keep repeating my dissagrement & distaste for her nastiness.

---

You keep giving partisan distortion of what Ann Coulter actually said , and I'll keep redirecting the discussion to the true situation and facts.
Coulter is responding to "nastiness" from the Left, not initiating it.

---

Why not print some excerpts from the interview that you feel better explain how Coulter really didn't mean that the widows enjoyed their deaths. I'm sure there's a transcript version out there that you can use if you don't want to use the Media Matters one that I posted earlier.

---

Quote:

---

Matter Eater Man said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

Matter Eater Man said:
I support the troops. There are posts in the past where I've voiced that support.

---

You hate the mission but support the troops?

It's hard to remember who (among liberals) said what here on RKMB after almost three and a half years of war. But I'd like if you could detail how you support the troops when you're, by all appearances, so opposed to every aspect of the war in Iraq.
It seems to me that in wanting to withdraw them prematurely, you want their sacrifice over the last three-plus years to have been for nothing.

I know that comes across as mocking, but it's not. How do you reconcile the two (opposing the war, supporting the troops). I'd just like to understand that perspective.

---

Fair enough. I don't hate the mission as you say. The goals were all good IMHO. I just believe people like Murtha who argue it's now a matter of how many troops die before we pull out. We've gone from fighting terrorist to fighting a growing number of insurgents. As much of the mission has been achieved as can be.

---

That would be the same Murtha who responds to Rove's public speech about liberal/Democrat defeatism, and instead of responding to the issue, basically calls Rove a fat-ass ?

Yeah, that's some insightful and persuasive pressing of the facts on Murtha's part. No smokescreen of personal insults and venom at all.
And rhetoric from Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Kerry and the rest of the liberal leadership is equally filled with venom and distortions.
If they would limit their discussion to the issue and related indisputable facts, rather than inflammatory rhetoric and personal insults, I might be persuaded. But they shatter their own credibility with these tactics, regardless of anything the Republicans say.

Your comments about inevitable defeat (based in part on Murtha's remarks about inevitable defeat) are exactly why I despise the current Democrat leadership, and would never trust them, despite Bush's mistakes, as an alternative to Bush's leadership.
The Democrats have no plan to turn things around or run a more efficient war. Despite every effort on your part to spin it otherwise, they are ready to just give up.
And I might add (as G-man and others have quoted across several topics) many of the veterans who return from Iraq do NOT support what Murtha is saying, and see progress in Iraq that is not reflected in news coverage or in the rhetoric they hear when they come home to the U.S..


I say it again:

If during World War II this country were subject to the same liberal sympathy for the enemy that exists now, the same outright liberal disinformation, the same divisive partisan attacks on our leaders at every turn, the same calls to bring our troops home with every minor setback and bombing, then we would have lost World War II.

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
The Democrats have no plan to turn things around or run a more efficient war. Despite every effort on your part to spin it otherwise, they are ready to just give up.
And I might add (as G-man and others have quoted across several topics) many of the veterans who return from Iraq do NOT support what Murtha is saying, and see progress in Iraq that is not reflected in news coverage or in the rhetoric they hear when they come home to the U.S..

---

Quote:

---

I say it again:

---

Quote:

---

If during World War II this country were subject to the same liberal sympathy for the enemy that exists now, the same outright liberal disinformation, the same divisive partisan attacks on our leaders at every turn, the same calls to bring our troops home with every minor setback and bombing, then we would have lost World War II.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Just a quicky lunch post so I'm just talking Coulter right now.

This discusion like many others is pretty much breaking along partisan lines but I was thinking what if we stripped out the partisanship? I was thinking of when exactly is it OK to attack somebody's character & start calling people bitches? What are the ground rules that apply to everyone reguardless of party? That may go a long way to understanding what WBAM & Wonder Boy talking about IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
Just a heads up, I'm editing my last post where I used a b when I meant to use a w, turning witches into bitches. Sorry my mistake. As far as I know Coulter hasn't referred to the widows as bitches.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
The Democrats have no plan to turn things around or run a more efficient war. Despite every effort on your part to spin it otherwise, they are ready to just give up.
And I might add (as G-man and others have quoted across several topics) many of the veterans who return from Iraq do NOT support what Murtha is saying, and see progress in Iraq that is not reflected in news coverage or in the rhetoric they hear when they come home to the U.S..

---

yet when Generals say Bush and Rumsfeld are fucking up you turn a deaf ear.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

W B said:
I say it again:

---

spew your bullshit as much as you want, doesn't make it true.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

W B said:
If during World War II this country were subject to the same liberal sympathy for the enemy that exists now, the same outright liberal disinformation, the same divisive partisan attacks on our leaders at every turn, the same calls to bring our troops home with every minor setback and bombing, then we would have lost World War II.

---

1. Questioning the methods of war is hardly the same as supporting the enemy in a war.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

I've repeatedly agreed with many of the dissenting generals, who were being constructive and not just in bed with the Democrats and playing partisan games.

---

Quote:

---

1. Questioning the methods of war is hardly the same as supporting the enemy in a war.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

I've repeatedly agreed with many of the dissenting generals, who were being constructive and not just in bed with the Democrats and playing partisan games.

---

Any American has the right to question the leaders and critique the war. Every complaint I've seen from Democrats is generally worthy of examination.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

1. Questioning the methods of war is hardly the same as supporting the enemy in a war.

---

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

You, and many liberals who attempt the same argument, say nothing in defense of U.S. policy, you only leap eagerly on every setback in Iraq, cynically question every statement from our own government and military, while eagerly accepting verbatim every stated rationalization made by our enemy.

---

We're now legally bound to support U.S. Policy? There's a difference between America and the U.S. Government, between the Presidency and the President. Questioning Bush is not the same as hating America.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

W B said:
Democrat leaders like Murtha, Albright, Durbin and Dean provide factless propaganda soundbytes that our enemies eagerly report throughout the Muslim world and use as a recruiting tool.

---

All politicians use BS soundbytes. Both sides.
Who cares if the terrorists are happy over some disagreements. They could eagerly report Bush screwing up a speech. What difference does it make? Also, I think they use the chaos under Bush in his wars and the hundreds of thousands of muslims who have died as a better recruitment than "they disagree in Washington."

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

You eagerly jump on a few isolated incidents as if they were standard U.S. military policy.

---

There shouldn't be any. Al Sharpton of all people had a good line about this sort of thing when someone defended police brutality as isolated. He said (to paraphrase) "If a woman has 6 kids and ones a serial killer, you don't point to the other kids and say they turned out okay, you figure what went wrong with the bad one. We should focus on the isolated abuses. Show the world we have principles and won't stand for them being violated by our own guys.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

As does our enemy.

---

Again, so what? Why do you care so much about what terrorists are happy over?

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
And yet ignore that the U.S. military prosecutes and punishes these isolated incidents.

---

As they should. However, all I've seen shows they prosecute the lower ranks. Meanwhile Bush/Rumsfeld have refused to give up the option to torture.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

3. Roosevelt still had to run for reelection and prove himself and his policies. And the people supported him, Bush's numbers are sinking because he's failing not because he's being questioned.

---

And while Franklin Roosevelt (like George W. Bush) won re-election in 1936, 1940 and 1944, his numbers did go down and he carried less states with each re-election.

---

First of all, Bush was elected once and appointed once. Secondly, every popular person loses popularity over time. People like new things. Not sure what your point was with that.

---

No, Bush was elected in 2000 by the electoral college, and elected again in 2004 with a more clear majority.

There was an attempt by the Florida Supreme Court to manipulate the election result in 2000, which was countered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But it was always ultimately winning a majority of votes in the electoral college, in accordance with U.S. federal election law, that won the election.

Democrats tried every trick in the book to overturn the result illegally, and manipulate the public with inflammatory rhetoric, including attempts to exclude the absentee ballots of U.S. soldiers overseas. But ultimately, it all came back to the electoral college.

My point initially was that Roosevelt, like Bush, had declining popularity as W W II dragged on.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
It should also be pointed that Roosevelt didn't have to face the kind of concerted media attacks on his Presidency that Bush did, from the day he was elected.
Which would have lowered Roosevelt's popular opinion standing through relentless trashing of his presidency, as it has G.W. Bush.

---

the press has changed in general. And I like it. I like that they go for the president with gusto. That means the President has to be more careful.
I think the people deserve to know what their leaders do and say. I think the people deserved to know Roosevelt had polio. I think the people deserved to know about Monica Lewinsky.
You may cry liberal bias. But the fact is Kerry or Gore would get the same scrutiny.

---

Would they?

I can point to a number of incidents that disprove that notion of yours.
While the media did go after Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair, they did so somewhat reluctantly.
If Presidents Bush Sr. or G.W. Bush had done the same thing, the media would not have relented until they were pushed out of office.

Conservative Bloggers have made the liberal media more accountable in recent years. But in the recent examples of almost simultaneous remarks by Karl Rove and Sen Dick Durbin, Rove made the controversial remark:
"In the wake of 9-11, Conservatives saw the threat and prepared for war, while liberals offered sympathy and therapy for our enemy."

This every liberal network and major paper blasted as its top headline for a week.
But when Dick Durbin compared our troops to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags and the Pol Pot regime", those same liberal networks gave minimal coverage, and did their best to ignore remarks that embarassed the Democrat party. The liberal media did their absolute best to give Durbin's remarks a minimum of exposure.

And another example, the Dan Rather story in October 2004, a show of liberal media partisanship that cost Rather his job.

But yeah, sure, go on believing that Republicans get the same scrutiny.

Read Bias by Bernard Goldberg, for a 30-year CBS News veteran's (and self-proclaimed liberal's) take on media bias.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

An Iraq that in 1990 had the third largest military on Earth.

---

Did they have that rank in 2003?

---

No, but they were still sabre-rattling and de-stabilizing the Middle East region, which made necessary creation of Northern and Southern no-fly zones over Iraq to keep them from greater genocide on their own people.
And made necessary the creation of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates, to contain the threat that Saddam Hussein's Iraq still posed to its neighbors.

We flew raids every day over Iraq's no-fly zones, and Iraq fired on our pilots every day.
The no-fly zones alone cost the U.S. 2 billion dollars a year, to contain Saddam, and to minimize his threat potential.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

An Iraq that previously had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.
That used those weapons on Iranian soldiers, and on Iraq's own people.

---

First of all, we helped them get those things. And secondly, did they have them in 2003?

---

We didn't know for certain that Iraq didn't have them, until after we invaded in March/April 2003.

Saddam's own inventory records, reviewed by U.N. inspectors before Saddam tossed them out, showed that Saddam had about 5000 chemical-tipped missiles that were unaccounted for.
After the war, it was shown that Saddam's military had lied to Saddam to impress and please Saddam with inflated numbers of weapons production.

The David Kay report showed that Saddam was in material breach of the ban on WMD's in post-1991 Iraq, that there was the bare bones of a WMD program that would have gone into production, at any point U.N. sanctions would have been lifted.

And David Kay said in Senate hearings on the Iraq WMD report that Saddam's government was very near collapse when invaded, and without U.S. occupation, all these Iraqi scientists would have been " a nuclear arms bazaar, on sale to the highest bidder".


We did provide supplies for chemical weapons production to Saddam in the early/mid 80's. But the Reagan administration had become uneasy with its ties to Saddam and severed relations well before the end of Reagan's second term.
That Rumsfeld/Saddam connection (and the photo of it you love so much, and constantly post) could be compared to U.S. and other European nations who had ties and were military/industrial suppliers to Hitler in the 1930's, before his full threat and capacity for evil were revealed.
But the Reagan administration grew uneasy with Saddam's brutality, and severed its ties with Saddam. Rumsfeld became one of Saddam's fiercest enemies.

The Reagan administration's looking the other way and allowing Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons on advancing Iranian forces (as I discussed in another topic) prevented Iranian fundamentalists from over-running Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
A difficult choice for Reagan, of several bad options.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
An Iraq with a current population of 25 million people, and that murdered an estimated 1 million of its own people, being un-earthed in mass graves now all over Iraq.

---

This has nothing to do with military power or how wars are handled.

---

On the contrary, it has to do with one of the most morally defensible reasons for invading Iraq: To stop genocide.

Bosnia.
Kosovo.
Somalia.
Rwanda.
Darfur.

These are some other nations that have been invaded by the U.S. and/or U.N. for the same humanitarian goals.

I'm willing to bet you found this less irrelevant when Clinton was in office.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:

An Iraqi resistance that is largely not native to Iraq, and is being perpetuated long beyond its natural insurgency life by an international Al Qaida organization.

---

which, if it had been managed right, would've been stifled. The fact is we have turned Iraq into a terrorist magnet with our failings.

---

As I said before (about how we should have gone in with an invasion force of 200,000 to 300,000 men, as the generals wanted but Rumsfeld rejected) I actually agree with you on this point.

It's conceivable that a larger occupation force would have deterred the insurgency from forming.
Not absolute, but very possible.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
An Iraqi insurgency that is NOT supported by the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens, that relies on terrorism and mafia tactics to intimidate Iraqi citizens who clearly want democracy.

---

see above point.

---

I do find that liberals like to pretend as if the Iraqi people don't want us in Iraq.

But I think it's very clear that a majority of Iraqis want us in Iraq for a period of years as a stabilizing force, to prevent sectarian violence and civil war, as well as to protect them from terrorism.
It's an important distinction to make: Many Iraqis want us to stay in Iraq, to stabilize their democracy through its formative years.

But if the U.S. withdraws prematurely (as Murtha and other liberal assholes are pushing for) these same people will be pleading for their lives and cutting deals with the people they are most afraid of.
The rhetoric of Murtha and other liberals makes Iraqis less willing to commit and risk their lives, just so they can be sold out by Democrat pressure later.

How would Germany be today, if we had the same partisan calls to withdraw from West Germany, the same potential for sudden withdrawal?
Would the German people have committed to democracy?
Or would it have likely taken a lot longer because of distrust and wavering commitment on our end, or even failed?

Democrats know the answer to this, despite the cost.
They'd just rather vindictively snipe at Bush than admit the truth.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
It should also be pointed out that in W W II, the U.S. was helped out greatly by the full military and financial participation of Great Britain, Russia, the Soviet Union, and many other countries with a greater stake in that war.

---

it should also be pointed out that Germany had already invaded countries, had a strong military and economy.

---

Yeah, that's right. It's not like Iraq had invaded Kuwait or threatened its neighbors.

Are you serious? You're not the first Democrat to defend Saddam Hussein as if he was innocent of genocide and regional aggression.
And not the first to look foolish in doing so.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
In Iraq, the U.S. is rebuilding the country almost completely with its own resources.

---

So Rumsfeld lied when he said this would only cost like $10 billion and the Iraqi oil would pay for the rest?

---

No one knew, beyond the war cost itself, that the infrastructure was so worn and neglected.

You want to personalize it and accuse Rumsfeld of "lying".

But this was a failure of intelligence. Perhaps a failure that could not have been forseen by anyone.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
And much of the reconstruction cost is of an Iraqi infrastructure that was allowed to deteriorate for 30 years, far beyond just the war damage.

---

We've made the country worse. There was an article in the paper last week about how they have a fraction of the water and power they had under Saddam.

---

That's unproductive defeatist crap that distorts the truth.

I posted an article from the U.S. Army Corps of engineers that gives the exact numbers, pre-war, post war, and post-reconstruction, in the It's not about oil or Iraq... topic. Page 37, I think.

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

Wonder Boy said:
U.S. World War II deaths:

400,000

U.S. Iraq War deaths to date :

2,522

And by the way, you're gloating and making the propaganda points of our enemies again.
But the points you make are distorted propaganda, and not truth.

The Iraq war approaches same length of time, but not nearly the same magnitude or casualties.
Not even the same scope and magnitude as Vietnam (58,000 dead) or Korea (56,000 dead).

Your arguments could only be persuasive to the uninformed.

---

See, that's the problem right there. You use arbitrary numbers to bolster some point and then say because I don't like how the war is managed that I support the terrorists.
Bullshit, I say, Bullshit.
WWII soldiers had more casualties because they had less technology. In fact, with our advanced weapons systems and body armor and all that jazz the numbers should be way lower and things accomplished much quicker.

---

Given the exactness of my numbers, and the lack of substantiation on your part to counter it, beyond your saying "it's bullshit", I stand by what I said.

A war that has endured for 3 and 1/2 years, with 2,522 casualties is hardly a bloodbath, relative to other U.S. wars.

Despite divisive emotional arguments by liberals to paint it that way.

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
After reading a bit of chapter one of Godless I'm reminded of other times when one group decides another group is godless or some such. History rewards these people accordingly IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
After reading a bit of chapter one of Godless I'm reminded of other times when one group decides another group is godless or some such. History rewards these people accordingly IMHO.

---

Except in those cases where it turned out to be true.... IMHO

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

.... IMHO

---

"I am Ho"?

if you say so.

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
After reading a bit of chapter one of Godless I'm reminded of other times when one group decides another group is godless or some such. History rewards these people accordingly IMHO.

---

Except in those cases where it turned out to be true.... IMHO

---

And it's understandable why you think that. After all it puts you on a higher level by cutting others down. It also accounts for the behavior that normally would be unacceptable or considered rude to be applauded.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:
After reading a bit of chapter one of Godless I'm reminded of other times when one group decides another group is godless or some such. History rewards these people accordingly IMHO.

---

Except in those cases where it turned out to be true.... IMHO

---

And it's understandable why you think that. After all it puts you on a higher level by cutting others down. It also accounts for the behavior that normally would be unacceptable or considered rude to be applauded.

---

Sorry, I'm a little lost at what point you're trying to make other than a self righouse sermon. Are you saying people are rewarded in history for being Godless? I get so lost when you start sermonising about how much better you are because of your "tollerance" towards anything other than conservitism.

---

Why WBAM your acting almost like I was the one using a partisan political columnist to define who is Godless for me.

Quote:

---

URG said:
Love her.
Hate her.
You am know you would do her.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
I can't possibly see where you found that? Of course your side can find civil rights for Terrorists and enomy combatants in th constitution, so who knows.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
I can't possibly see where you found that? ...

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
lol, you ever hear of a "joke". Or do you assume every word put into print is dead serious?

---

Quote:

---

"I think the other point that no one is making about the [Abu Ghraib] abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation. I mean, this is lesson, you know, number 1,000,047 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious." - appearing on Hannity & Colmes, 5 May, 2004
"Conservatives have a problem with women. For that matter, all men do." – Cornell Review, 1984, as reported in Time, April 2005
"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - appearing on the comedy show Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001
"Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children." - How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), 2004

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
lol, you ever hear of a "joke". Or do you assume every word put into print is dead serious?

---

Quote:

---

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - appearing on the comedy show Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001

---

so its a joke when its something you disagree with and serious when you like it?

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
nonononono... that's not what you said. You said that I was "using a partisan political columnist to define who is Godless for me" Supporting a thesis (which I do in part, but not entirely as you define the thesis) is a far cry from saying that my opinion is shaped by the person putting forth the thesis. I define Godlessness as I define it irrespecive of how Anne Coulter defines it.

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
lol, you ever hear of a "joke". Or do you assume every word put into print is dead serious?

---

Quote:

---

"I think the other point that no one is making about the [Abu Ghraib] abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation. I mean, this is lesson, you know, number 1,000,047 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious." - appearing on Hannity & Colmes, 5 May, 2004
"Conservatives have a problem with women. For that matter, all men do." – Cornell Review, 1984, as reported in Time, April 2005
"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - appearing on the comedy show Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001
"Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children." - How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), 2004

---

so its a joke when its something you disagree with and serious when you like it?

---

Since WBAM had to lop off most of your quotes for his reply...

Quote:

---

Matter-eater Man said:

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
lol, you ever hear of a "joke". Or do you assume every word put into print is dead serious?

---

Quote:

---

"I think the other point that no one is making about the [Abu Ghraib] abuse photos is just the disproportionate number of women involved, including a girl general running the entire operation. I mean, this is lesson, you know, number 1,000,047 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious." - appearing on Hannity & Colmes, 5 May, 2004
"Conservatives have a problem with women. For that matter, all men do." – Cornell Review, 1984, as reported in Time, April 2005
"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - appearing on the comedy show Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001
"Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children." - How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), 2004

---

so its a joke when its something you disagree with and serious when you like it?

---

Since WBAM had to lop off most of your quotes for his reply...

---

I'm sure you noticed but could care less that I cut the quotes to one... that was the quote we had been discussing. If you would like to discuss the other quotes we can. But I had responded to a specific quote. r3x had pulled out an absent implication from that response to that specific quote and in diong so posted several other quotes that had only in common that they were about women. So to respond to the implication r3x made I returned to teh quote I was originally responding to. I'm sorry you're having so much difficulty with this discussion that you have to find victories in arbitrary things ike me focusing my response on teh quote I was responding to. If that's the best you can come up with then I'm affraid you've been...