Posted on 06/12/2006 11:54:42 AM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
We'd all love to hear why you disagree with the Pres on these two issues.
Miller-Urey has nothing to do with ToE.
And the theory is not based on Haekel or Piltdown, in fact, Piltdown would have disproved the theory had it been true.
Exactly! The immune population then passes its genome on to future generations; the non-immune population does not, because it's been culled out. This process is called natural selection.
Welcome to evolution.
Another excellent read would be Tammy Bruce's "The Death of Right and Wrong." Just finished it and it too explains a lot (from someone who was in with Liberals at one time).
Bfree is correct.
PETA supports ecoterrorist groups financially. They also have been caught abusing animals and killing them unethically themselves.
I make a personal distinction between "liberals" and actual hard leftists. The true hard leftists, socialists and commies, most certainly do have guiding principles, evil principles at that, as you point out, though I believe they are other than the ones you list (The Left does follow those things at times, but IMHO those things result from the more fundamental principles). The people to whom I refer as "liberals," though, are the so called useful idiots, well meaning people who stupidly or thoughtlessly give aid to the Left and who are seduced by leftist propaganda and offerings (promiscuity being more of an offering than a principle I think). That's why I say that "liberals" have no guiding principles: they support inherently totalitarian and evil philosophies and people in the name of compassion and tolerance. They have some poorly thought out talking points that substitute as principles maybe, but that's about it. Having no guiding principles makes it easier for them to be led by others for other purposes.
It is true also that some actual hard leftists refer to themselves as "liberals," but that is meant to confuse the issue of what they truly are. IMO, anyway.
Actually, the term 'liberal' really means someone who believes in Free Trade and laissez-faire (it used to mean that here, and still does in Europe). It was hijacked by US socialists because the term 'socialist' got a bad name in the US. Now 'liberal' has a bad name, and they are starting to use 'progressive', but they are the same old socialists underneath.
PETA IS NOT only for liberals. However, PETA IS only for terrorists. Not all liberals are terrorists. Some are just cheese-eating surrender monkey wusses.
See http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/12/an_aclu_complai.html
Already up to #2 on the Amazon top 100...it must be driving those libs who run Amazon nuts (remember these people have a 100 rating from buyblue.org - they give 100% to liberal democrats).
Can't wait to see NYT list soon. nothing more fun than watching the libs choke on this stuff.
Do you really need PETA for that?? How about just turning in anyone you know of that is mistreating an animal. PETA does more harm than good.
I think you right that one can apply the term "moderate" to some of those who term themselves "liberal" in that they are only somewhat leftist. I like "liberal" for them, though, because many of them would reject the term moderate leftist and because so many of them do retain some classical liberal values, some emphasis on freedom of the individual. They actually think that they are believers in individual freedom. 'Course, they tend to think in this only of things like sexual and literary freedom, which I consider to merely be offerings from the Left designed to seduce them to the dark side. A successful seduction, aided by the expropriation of the word "liberal." These same "liberals" have no problem with economic slavery or with near total state power, as long as it's perceived to be in the service of compassion.
I consider myself to be a "classical liberal," so I do agree that the uses we are discussing to which the word "liberal" has been put in the last century are perverted. I take some pleasure, though in discussing definitions of these things.
I read in one of David Horowitz' books that the term "progressive" was a euphemism for "communist" back in the thirties. I guess they think, probably correctly, that everyone has forgotten this, so they brought the word back to do the same job. Very creepy!
The libs need to be attacked in a direct fashion. And Ann is the spear. She confronts the libs regarding their hate driven prejudicial stereotyping. There is nothing intellectually honest about the libs protestations. Their hate -affair with GWB is illustrative. Even an incurably incompetent GWB would have stumbled by chance onto some correct actions. But the perverse hate spewing left can never acknowledge even the most modest of intelligent human traits to someone they have worked so hard at demonizing and de-humanizing.
It is truly a terrifying display of raw hatred that we are witnessing. It is not rational. It is at it's root...pathological. It is precisely the kind of hatred that spawns murder and genocide. It is a hatred brewed up inside of a person intended to alleviate a deep inner ache. A dark inner wound. And once this hatred finds it's target it will not yield to logic or reason. It will relentlessly pursue it's target and revel in it's merciless and brutal destruction.
Perhaps that's the deep root of kinship the libs and Islamonazis share. Lets face it, there is some kind of chemistry there. It may not have been love at first sight but I can see those two groups enjoying one big night of unified bawdy celebration at the news of GWB's demise.
GWB is the personification of everything hated in our post-modern world. He is a traditionalist. He is a man. He is a Christian. He is a Texan. He is a capitalist. And he is unapologetic.
Ultimately that is all that matters. He is guilty by design as are all of us who share any of those characteristics. GWB presents the perfect storm of personal qualities that makes him unworthy of not only the presidency, but life it's self. He pushes the nuclear destruct buttons of the liberal mind simply by speaking, by breathing, by being. He and his kind cannot and will not be tolerated by the tolerance set.
It is only through his destruction that they can affirm their humanity.
So to argue or debate these people on this or that issue is to honor their motivations and respect their intentions far more than they deserve. They have no intention of entering into a partnership of equals resulting in shared values and compromise. We are the enemy and their very lives depend on our defeat. Not the defeat of Islamonazis. Not the defeat of poverty, crime, racism, intolerance and ignorance.
In the simplistic hate filled mind of the modern lib all the ills of the world will suddenly dissolve when men and women like GWB cease to exists or at the very least are exiled to the back of life's bus. Placed as far from the controls as is necessary to insure we have no influence. And if we don't learn and accept our place, force will be quick and severe.
So Ann is the spear. She is placing a dagger directly in the heart of the demon by speaking the truth. And the demon is gnashing and thrashing about while the pretty frail blonde girl unflinchingly stares into the bowels of Hell. Reminds me of that scene from the exorcist. All the demons hysterically screaming and threatening and wailing...cause they know they've been found out and they've met their match.
Be honest, has that REALLY been your experience at Barnes & Noble? I know it's a leftist company (I worked there a few years back), but I've never known them to hide the conservative books way in the back of the store.
I bought my copy of GODLESS the day it came out, at the Barnes & Noble in Brookdale, MN. The book was featured prominently -- on its own rack, no less -- right as customers walk through the front door.
I'm just starting the part about the Darwiniacs, having finished the rest. All I can say is I'm really glad the Witch and all her flying monkeys are attacking Ann as hard as they are--all it will do is increase sales of the book. The more people who read this stunningly accurate book, the more who'll see what a complete, destructive fraud liberalism is. Ann's done a great job trapping here enemies into giving her book terrific free advertising.
I think this reveiw is dead on.
Nope, didn't see that post. Thanks for adding that.
And don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that some FReepers have had to hunt high and low for a conservative book at B&N (especially if it's an older, less-popular title). I would just be really surprised if Coulter's new book is hidden. That book has moneymaker written all over it. In the end, that's what B&N cares about most.
Best,
Gunder.
[Perhaps that's the deep root of kinship the libs and Islamonazis share. Lets face it, there is some kind of chemistry there. It may not have been love at first sight but I can see those two groups enjoying one big night of unified bawdy celebration at the news of GWB's demise.]
No question that our Libs celebrate their own face when they see our enemy; and as they witness the hate played out against America and against all 'Western civilities'; they enjoy a strange and morbid peace.
As for their shared celebration; you are right. We also can imagine that post the enemy 'laugh-off' it will not be the Libs who enjoy the longest laugh. . .or the last. . .
[So Ann is the spear. She is placing a dagger directly in the heart of the demon by speaking the truth. And the demon is gnashing and thrashing about while the pretty frail blonde girl unflinchingly stares into the bowels of Hell. ]
What more to say?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.