Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC; BillyBoy

Save the cutsey “Adding machine” crap okay CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC.

“You Ann-attackers are UNREAL”

I’m not an “Ann-attacker” CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC I was pinged to this thread and gave my damn option which a lot of people seem to agree with. I’m not on a mission to slander your girlfriend.

You replied with such foolishness and made it personal “you two guys” I feel the need to respond.

YOU CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC seem to an Ann Sycophant however feeling the need to defend her to the death.

The remarks weren’t verbal she WROTE them in her column. Serious writers should think before they write ridiculous things YES EVEN RIGHT AFTER THEIR FRIEND DIED. And again unless I’m wrong she never later said that she doesn’t in fact believe we should go on the final crusade. That particular remark was not helpful to advancing conservative thought.

I’m not against your girlfriend CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC she’s basically an entertainer (who I often enjoy) and not a serious political thinker like say Limbaugh.

And BTW I don’t care about Jindal. 2012 is too soon for him. I’d like to see him clean up his state before jumping on the national scene. I also don’t give a flying crap that his skin is brown, he is over-hyped for that reason.

And the I’m last person who wants to “suck up to democrats” CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC, and I didn’t say one damn word to that effect. I’m in favor of savaging the pieces of crap at every turn. You may have read I liked that Coulter called John Edwards a fag, because he is a fag and those Jersey slags are harpies!

Next time you reply to me stick to what I’ve said and don’t lump me in with groups such as “Ann Haters” or other people who made different arguments. I think for my damn self.

L8R


234 posted on 03/04/2009 9:39:06 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies ]


To: Impy; CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC; BillyBoy

I would invite you to read her weekly columns and books. At the very least you would “enjoy” her “entertaining”. At the most, you’ll be disabused of this notion that she is not a “serious thinker” ala Limbaugh.

As I wrote in another post, she’s as serious a thinker as you’d want to meet. I’d bet dollars to donuts that el Rushbo would agree given her accomplishments in academia and law and the fact that he’s actually talked to and met her. (Look up her bio my friend. Your mother would be proud for you to have accomplished half as much). If you still can say with a straight face that she’s not a “serious political thinker” much less a serious thinker at all, then I’ll raise my glass to you, but I’ll toast Ann.

driveserve


238 posted on 03/04/2009 10:45:41 PM PST by driveserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies ]

To: Impy; driveserve; Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Save the cutsey Adding machine crap okay CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC.

Oooweee! Getting a little testy, are we, Impy? Did a few of my teensy arrows land too close to the mark?

Im not an Ann-attacker CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC

Hey, if the shoe fits..... Let's look at what you did say: "Maybe shes a rat plant" and you criticized her 9/13/01 column as being indefensible, and you derided her fans, of whom I am one, with "I dont care for cults of personality where the worshipee can do no wrong in the followers eyes," and so on.

Verdict: You're (still) guilty as charged.

Serious writers should think before they write ridiculous things

So, you're saying you're not a serious writer? Well at least here's SOMEthing we both agree on.

I was pinged to this thread and gave my damn option which a lot of people...

And what damn option might that be, pray tell? (And do you have any options that are less damnable?)

And when you came into the thread, you 100% supported Pubicus, the same freeper who went on a rant about about some awful, vicious, (and imaginary) "attack" Ann launched against Jindal. So I have no sympathy for you getting your undies all twisted into a wad at the fact I lumped you in with Pube.

Im not on a mission to slander your girlfriend.

Well that's good, because I'm not on a mission to slander your boyfriend Bobby.

YOU CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC seem to an Ann Sycophant however feeling the need to defend her to the death.

Still having trouble parsing your English, but I think I get the general jist ... "Ann Sycophant".
"Sycophant: a person who tries to please someone in order to gain a personal advantage". Well, since I've never met and likely will never meet Ann, it appears your attempt to find a derogatory synonym for "Ann fan" has missed the target by a mile. Better luck next time. (Hold on a minute .... did you think I'm trying to please YOU? Say, you're not one of those S&M types, are you?)

The remarks werent verbal she WROTE them in her column.

Aha! I can see you think this is your Perry Mason Moment here, where the collective jaws of the judge, jury and prosecution all drop to the floor at your brilliant, game-changing, revelation. So now we can formulate Impy's Law:

          Although people can say things in the heat of the moment, it is impossible to write things down in the heat of the moment.

So with Ann's closest friend's corpse still smoldering, with images of the first known hijackers (all middle-eastern-origin Muslims) coupled with videos of Palestinians wildly dancing and celebrating her friend's death all first appearing on the tube just as she is writing her column, we can still authoritatively conclude that any claims of Ann reacting "in the heat of the moment" can be easily banished by applying your ironclad law. Why, she wrote those words, for pity's sake!! How could they then be considered "in the heat of the moment"?

Why, yes, of course we all see your point now! We might spot Ann, oh, let's say, 5 seconds .... oh let's be generous! - allow her 10 seconds immediately after Barbara's murder and the images of joyous celebration appearing, in which to react in any way she chooses (but only verbally).

But after 10 seconds, we should fully expect her to have calmed down, to have put her friend's death behind her, to take in stride the Palestinian's Die Infidels! Party Video and relegate it to distant dim memories, to be getting on with her life once more, to be enjoying the rainbows and beautiful sunsets, to once again be stopping to smell the roses, etc etc etc.

Seen in this light, ie it being the written instead of spoken word, there is no way we can apply "heat of the moment" to try and empathize with her indefensible comment about invading countries in response to vicious attacks on our own country (like we did to Japan, Germany, Afghanistan), or killing their leaders (like Tojo, Goering, Saddam), or converting them to Christianity (like 1000's of missionaries tried in post-war Japan, but fell far short of what they'd hoped for).

And again unless Im wrong she never later said that she doesnt in fact believe we should go on the final crusade.

Straw Dog Alert! Did she ever call for a "final crusade"? No. Was she talking about Muslim countries other than those harboring, aiding and abetting the murderers of 9/11? No. Did she ever repeat this statement? Ever? No. Does the lack of an official retraction prove she still strongly supports her eight-year-old statement? No way.

That particular remark was not helpful to advancing conservative thought.

Au contraire. It's you and the originator of this thread whose constant attacks on Republicans who don't measure up to your standards at any given moment, who are "not helpful to advancing conservative thought".

And BTW, I noticed in an earlier post, you commented: All corrupt or evil rulers in the Mid East or anywhere deserve to die (or least rot in prison) in my option.

(There you go with your options again!) Regarding this comment of yours, I'd like to point out that: "You wrote that down and had time to think about it and as far as I know you've never retracted it."

(And if that gives you any dejavooish feelings, you might want to reread your post #225).

Lots more of your post I wanted to get to, but it's getting late..... So I'll finish with one last thought:

From years of participation in online political discussion groups, I believe I recognize the overall category you belong to, Impy. You are the type of forum poster who gazes down upon the list of thread titles at the high level view, in the exact same way that a pigeon gazes down upon a park full of statues that have just been cleaned. A pulse of excitment beats in your breast at the thought of so many opportunities! : To choose the first target from among many tempting ones, to swoop in quickly and proudly leave your little dropping for all to see, then to quickly fly off to the next target and the next, and the next, never staying too long, so as to spread your droppings as far afield as possible.

(Of course, this thread doesn't qualify for Soiled Statue Status. It was a Poop Pile from the start.)

240 posted on 03/05/2009 1:16:11 AM PST by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC (If my kids make a mistake in the voting booth, I don't want them punished with a community organizer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson