WARNING!!!
Skankery aside, the following paragraph is from an article that actually has a point and furthermore makes an argument based on actual facts to back said point up. We understand how this non-interpretive dance style of debate has angered and befuddled libs before, so be forewarned, if you step up to the mic you best step correct. Woo-hah got ya all in check.....
"In anticipation of their surrender strategy becoming substantially less popular in the wake of another terrorist attack, the Democrats are all claiming that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent — notwithstanding 9/11, the Cole bombing, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Achille Lauro, etc. etc. — until George Bush invaded Iraq. "
full article
29 comments:
coulter has grown tiresome.
she is so obviously twisting the words of many of her opponents, and drawing inferences where there are none to be made.
combined with her childish insults and appeals to xenophobia (b. hussein obama? jesus f'ing christ!), she has gone from occasionally insightful, to merely entertaining, to downright stupid.
i'd like to know why intelligent people continue to read that drivel? just because it makes you feel better?
yeah, give it to them in the babymaker, dnsk!!
viva la dnskolucion !!
So in other words since you can not argue the substance of her argument you attack her style.
Pretty weak.
The position of this article is 100% correct, you know it and I know it and that is why you have to focus on her admittedly childish but amusing schoolyard taunts.
Yeah, she's ugly, (M)ann coulter! she said huessein obama! she's stupid.....
Of course she's also dead on point, but lets just pretend that she's not because we can just call her names instead.
oh and by the way, you're a pussy!
The skank has no substance, only style and a bad style at that. No Democrat had ever said that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent before the attack on Iraq. Ann is just calling opponents of the war traitors again. Which confirms that she is a scumbag as is anyone who agrees with her.
Well I guess I wasnt clear enough when I requested that you all step correct. Besides for trying to incorporate a Busta line into my daily lexicon I was attempting to open dialogue on the lack of a coherent and consistent plan on the dems part to combat terrorism. Yet you come back with the...
...shes stupid
...shes a scumbag
...she has bad style
...she called us traitors
You either are lying to yourselves or are complete and utter fucking morons.
We can argue all day whether or not Bush is doing a good job in this fight or was Iraq handled properly but at the very least at the end of the day he is fighting it...
Besides flat out surrender, what is the dem plan?
Exactly!
No make an actual argument or shut the fuck up already you sheep.
if there was anything substantive in her article worth rebutting, i would have started; i think you know that i rarely resort to ad hominem attacks and when i do, they're clearly justified (after all, ann started it!).
and now you've put me in the unenviable position of defending democrats (you know how i abhor both parties).
first paragraph: no reasonable people take the positions she described. she's distorting a civil libertarian criticism of the "PATRIOT" act and inferring that bush's critics think there's some giant govt conspiracy to create a police state. again--what rational, mainstream politician has said that specifically? yes, bush has wildly expanded the powers of the federal govt and he has been rightly criticized for it--but no one outside of groups on the extreme fringes have claimed conspiracy or that bush was behind the 9/11 attacks (aside from the idiot ellison's implications). so ann has setup her straw men.
then she takes a statement gravel makes, out of context (watch the video clip--his point is we have no need for much of our defense spending and that it's driven by business interests), and then says that it forms the basis of the Dems "national security calculus." huh? that clearly flies in the face of what almost every mainstream democrat says about national security--namely that we need to fight al qaeda but bush is doing it inefficiently and ineffectively (THAT is the criticism--not that we shouldn't be fighting them at all!)
third, there is a difference between saying iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorists and that there was no terrorism before we invaded iraq. please show me one single statement by any democrat that takes this position. it's downright idiotic, and ann knows no one has said that.
and iraq HAS made us less safe! it's put an undue burden on our military, making it more difficult for us to respond to an actual attack. it's spawned new terrorist organizations that attack americans in iraq. it's drained resources from our mission in afghanistan. saddam was a cruel, ruthless dictator, but he was under our thumb--to a certain extent, he depended on our sanctions to maintain his power. he was not a threat.
i'm not even going to waste more of my time going through the rest of her column, which is full of more strawmen arguments, distortions of actual democratic positions and statements by the media, and outright foolishness.
and don't worry, i don't expect a substantive rebuttal to this post--that's asking a bit much.
you can just call me a whiny pussy or something and we'll be done with it.
donkey, what is the GOP plan to combat terrorism?
stay the course in iraq?
give me a fucking break!
you and i both know that the occupation is a WASTE of military resources that could be spent much more effectively!
and on the diplomatic front, what is the GOP plan? to continue to play with fire in pakistan? what do we do if the taliban faction gains control of that country? you are aware they are a nuclear nation? no one is talking about pakistan!
i know it's easy to say "the Dems have no plan, all they do is criticize," but the GOP doesn't have a plan either!
You serious?
Im almost embarrased (for you) answering your question, which I will, unlike the responses here which have been to discredit and distract the issue, I will show you the courtesy and actually address the point that you attempt to make.
Plan?
How bout....
Monitor terrorist banking activities to prevent further attacks(which dems oppose)
Monitor terrorist communications to prevent further attacks(which dems oppose)
Imprison suspected terrorists to prevent further attacks(which dems oppose)
Interrogate terrorists to prevent further attacks (which dems oppose)
Treat terrorists as enemy combatants as opposed to dime store criminals to prevent further attacks(which dems oppose)
Use military action against nations that pose a threat to prevent further attacks... see: Afhanistan harboring Taliban; Iraq's repeated violations of UN 1441 (which surprising -- or not considering the polls at the time -- dems supported before they were against it, but now alas... oppose)
Kill as many terrorists as we can to prevent further attacks(which dems oppose)
Need I go on?
Now your turn.... dem plan?
First, get out of Iraq.
Second, focus on the real enemy, Al Qaeda, which now has a safe haven in Western Pakistan/Eastern Afghanistan.
Third, take the 2 billion a week that we are spending in Iraq and put it to better use.
Wow sorry I missed your previous comment. You make a compelling argument although obviously I think you are full of shit and about 99% wrong. Give me a few minutes to digest and dissect and Ill get back to it.
Until then we will leave it as you are a whiny pussy.
i could use some of that $2 billion.
First paragraph: What’s the problem? We have not been attacked on US soil (much to the chagrin of the dem party) despite numerous but downplayed attempts and credit for that must go to Bush's exagerrated make believe war on terror. The bumper sticker comment was from a leading dem candidate for President and Ellison, although agreed is an idiot, is also a democrat member of Congress (and almost assured of a chair if re-elected) so there is no straw man here. They are real and they made those comments, no distortion was needed so therefore the scarecrow rebuttal is bunk (and too oft overused incorrectly by intellectuals)
As far as Gavel is concerned and Ann was right in that it pretty much summarizes the entire dem position so I will put it in context.
During a Presidential debate
“Q: other than Iraq, three most important enemies to the United States.
A:We have no important enemies. What we need to do is to begin to deal with the rest of the world as equals, and we don't do that. We spend more as a nation on defense than all the rest of the world put together. Who are we afraid of? Who are you afraid of, Brian? I'm not. And Iraq has never been a threat to us. We invaded them. I mean, it is unbelievable. The military-industrial complex not only controls our government lock, stock and barrel but they control our culture.”
That context enough for you? So let me get this right, the US of A is run by a cabal of gun runners, we have no enemies, and that we need to buy the world a Coke? That about right. That was during a Presidential debate? You’re fucking kidding me. The dems need to change their mascot to the ostrich.
No point even continuing.
I rest my case.
Stay down Rock, stay down.
Gravel is hardly a leading candidate. He has as much chance of becoming President as I do. I could dig up some Ron Paul quotes if you like.
His answer was consistent with those of the other candidates, and although as covered previously I kinda like Ron Paul you can not make the argument that his posititon is that of the GOP the same way that you could Gravel.
So once again you are an idjit.
ok, gary, leave ron paul alone if you want me to keep attacking coulter.
but let me respond to donkey's "GOP" plan:
Monitor terrorist banking activities to prevent further attacks
Monitor terrorist communications to prevent further attacks
you're misrepresenting the Democrats' positions--they're not opposed to these courses of action; they are opposed to the way that the Bush administration has been carrying them out. there's a difference, but i see how it's lost on you.
Imprison suspected terrorists to prevent further attacks
again, Democrats are FOR imprisoning suspected terrorists--their objections are over where you imprison them, how you imprison them, what rights you give them, and what constitutes a "suspect."
but isn't it so much simpler just to pretend the Democrats hate America? the right wing has never cared much for nuance, i suppose.
Interrogate terrorists to prevent further attacks
again, the Dems oppose how they're being interrogated, not interrogation generally.
Treat terrorists as enemy combatants as opposed to dime store criminals to prevent further attacks
gee, oversimplify much?
Use military action against nations that pose a threat to prevent further attacks
ok, there you're right--the democrats certainly oppose more "pre-emptive" invasions against countries that pose a minimal threat (and NO existential threat--that much is clear) to us.
and i can't understand why, given the monstrously successful war we've got going on in iraq!
the bottom line is that you so-called GOP plan rests on the same basic principles and actions that have guided US counterterrorism since the 1970s, albeit the Bush administration has taken them to a whole new, unconstitutional, morally repugnant level.
the dems would do pretty much the same thing (except constitutionally, most likely), except they'd end this stupid, stupid war (or so they say; i don't really believe it) to allow us to devote MORE resources to fighting terrorism.
i think bruce springsteen wrote a song about you, donkey. unfortunately, it failed to chart when he released it as a single, but luckily, manfred mann covered it a few years later.
everyone, sing along:
Blinded by the right, wrapped up like a douche, in the middle of the night...
please locate one quote where a democrat said bush had launched a conspiracy to create a police state.
please read the full transcript of ellison's comments and notice how ann is putting words in his idiotic mouth.
and regarding gavel, while i don't agree with what i infer is his definition of "important," he is absolutely correct in pointing out our bloated defense budget--do you know how much money we spend on planes that will never be flown and bombs that will never be dropped? weapons systems that will never work?
it's staggering, and that money could be spent in much better ways, whether you keep it in the defense dept or not.
ADRIAN!!!!!!
There can be no comeback from Donkey's rebuttal! Try as you might you can't argue that the dems have been against every move the president has made or tried to make to defend this country, up to and including the "surge" which they called a failure before it began and now that we know it is working they are trying to put a stop to it.
Anyone who is honest knows that the dems don't want to win this war, at least not before the '08 elections. That would be a devastating blow for them. The only patriot in the party is the one they tried to kick out. (leiberman)
Holy shit donsky you are a glutton for punishment.
how should we interrogate these people? ask them nicely? that will probably work.....
how we imprison them? Why do we give a shit? but we do and they get special meals and prayer mats!!!! are you fucking kidding????
The dems have never backed the mission, and they have repeatedly denigrated the troops including comparing them to nazi's, comparing GITMO to soviet gulags and calling them terrorists! and those are PARTY LEADERS that said that shit!
If you can't see that they don't give a shit about anything but personal power then you're blind and you're beyond any hope.
cue the music, enter donkey's faithful organ monkey...
(i'm just full of vitriol today, aren't i?)
yep, the surge is working... that's why we're hearing septmeber is "too soon" to gauge its effectiveness and the GOP is already talking about pushing back that deadline.
how many times do you have to hear "no military solution" (and from the mouths of generals!) before you understand it? victory will not be achieved with force!
i know it's hard for you to understand, so i'll break it down into very simple terms.
democrats and republicans are both patriotic and want to advance the interests of the united states--it's just that neither group has the slightest clue on how to do so!
(anita, i could do with some more cheering now. that's what keeps me going. well, that and the massive pile of amphetamines.)
So you don't even see that they called for a "new strategy" and then they got one and called it a failure before it began? You realize that the only "new strategy" that would be acceptable to them is surrender right? you do see that right?
You agree of course because you're a pussy, but i don't blame you because you were indoctrinated at UPS and you're just a child yet so you haven't lived in the real world long enough to know better. but i have hope for you because you're smart and someday you'll realize that these dems who are running things now came of age during the pussy era of mcgovern. Back then however most of the country still read the newspaper and actually formed their own opinions so they laughed at mcgovern and he won (maybe) one state. Now he would be a front runner!
If you werent so HUGELY wrong on this I would almost concede on the grounds of your citation of Manfred Man, but sadly you are hugely wrong on this so I must persist...
The dems oppose, end of story. There is no misrepresentin to it. They havent offered better alternatives, or even an alternative, they oppose, thats all that all.
Shut down Gitmo they cry.
No wirehangers, er wire taps they scream.
We must understand their pain, where they're coming from they empathize. Its all crap. And anyone that knows anything knows that if it aint Scottish its crrrap.
If only these thoughtful libs were as considerate of the rights of the people whos heads are getting chopped off as they are about the "rights" of the beheaders maybe we would be making some more headway in this war.
Ellison made the comment that Bush had launched a conspiracy to create a police state, and that is what she was addressing. He may be an idiot, but Im sure if you go to the Kos he is already a hero.
The money issue is just a stupid diversion and makes zero sense. Answer whoour enemy is by saying that we spend too much on defense? That doesnt even make sense. I can assure you that if and when we are attacked again they will be decrying that Bush spoent too little.
The problems lies in that the dems dont really believe in anything, you may be anti-war but the Dem Party is not and that is why you and others like you argue so vehemently yet futily. Their position is strictly on contrarian grounds and lacks any moral or ideological conviction. For example on one hand they say our presence in the mideast creates terrorism but then follow by saying we need to "redepoloy" to Qatar or Kuwait (which I believe are in the mideast)or idiotically Iwo Jima.
They are full of shit. Period. And its hurting our country.
Now Rock I know that you and the dems alike go by a philosophy of " if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!" kumbaya the world will be a better place, but I hate to break it to you, the terrorists aint changing and yours and yours alike pusillanimousity only emboldens them moreso.
...this aint no pie eatin contest Paulie.
The surge is working???? Really?
Well Gary maybe in your little girl world of sugar spice and everything nice it isnt, but the fact is there have been improvements, HUGE tracts of improvement.
Using yours and Harry Reeds et al's logic we would have surrendered every war we ever fought.
They say war is hell for a reason, now man up and stop being such a pussy or get out of the way.
In fact it might be best if you sit this one out.
If you think the situation in Iraq is improving then you are the one in the world of "sugar spice and everything nice." The surge is not working and will not work. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain, so you must be operating on a quarter-brain or less. You are as delusional as, well, George Bush.
i love it when you guys talk about the donkey's organ. it makes me very hawt (hawt, hawt!).
oh, wait. it was the donkey's organ MONKEY. i see. never mind.
Well gary, donsky seems to think we should listen to the generals and since i've heard you use the same argument i would think you would listen to the generals who are actually doing the fighting.
Gen. Petraeus said yesterday
"We have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground, gains against the principal near-term threat, Al-Qaida Iraq, and also gains against what is another near term threat, and also potentially the long term threat:Shia Milita extremists"
So while he isn't saying everything is just great and we'll win this thing next week, he's also not saying we can't win. So if we're listening to the generals lets do that.
Victory will not be acheived with force? Tell that to Al Qaeda.
Post a Comment