Posted on 07/05/2007 11:50:07 AM PDT by pissant
Truth hurts, don’t it?
ROFL! -
Mocking politics?
Say it isn’t so ...
No, but ignorance kills me. Now stop it.
If ignorance killed you, you’d be long dead by your own hand.
OK retard, we’re done here.
Vis-a-vis Fascisim being a leftist philosophy, I think you’re being way too simplistic. After all, Franco was a fascist and no left-winger. The same can be said about Peron and Galtieri. Japanese “fascism” was nothing of the sort, being a cultural response to the modern world that the Japanese people wished to be a part of, but which they could not completely understand, and yet, many consider WWII Japan a “fascist” state.
The question of just what fascism is has haunted historians and poilitical scientists since it’s inception, and when the term has been thrown around so indiscriminately it becomes difficult for the greater mass of folks to discern true fascism when they see it.
In a nutshell, the main elements of fascism seem to be ultra-nationalism and a cult of efficiency and/or the superiority of one racial group/nationality over another. After that, the actual political philosophy of the state or movement doesn’t really matter much.
Editor in Chief: Amie Steele editor@collegiatetimes.com
Online Director: Christopher Ritter webmaster@collegiatetimes.com
Managing Editor: Robert Bowman & Joe Kendall managingeditors@collegiatetimes.com
Opinions Editor: Laurel Colella opinionseditor@collegiatetimes.com
Features Editor: Sharon Pritz featureseditor@collegiatetimes.com
E-mail us at campuseditor@collegiatetimes.com
If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, e-mail
opinionseditor@collegiatetimes.com.
First I think you should check out how other average Americans feel about this article at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1861323/posts
What I don’t understand is where you Liberals get your marching orders from? Talk about mind num robots. If you really read this article you find that it is lacking in everything but propaganda, and hypocritically attacks with the same venom that it accuses Ann Coulter of; it is an article of intolerance and hatred against someone with an opposing view. It has a lack of original though and promotes the same tired old dogmas of the Socialist Left. If you took out the childish name calling, the article would just be the sentence of “I disagree with Ann Coulter, for no good reason.”
The article is very badly written. What does “She has continually encouraged racial profiling and discrimination based on sexuality” mean? How can you racial profile sexuality?
Ironically the writer says “Coulter’s purse has gotten fat as a direct result of her message of intolerance.” Yet the Edwards campaign has used her to raise money, and attacks her when it needs more. Besides in a free market people vote with their purse, if Ann’s views were not accepted she would not be making money. Just look at Air America.
The ending of the article seems like it was written by someone hallucinating on drugs, and reflects badly on both the writer and the editor. For the article ends with the following lines:
“…a theocracy bent on converting the entire world to Christianity and bombing anyone who disagrees.” Excuse me, but that is ISLAM, not Christianity. This is an attack and insult of Christianity shows the writer’s lack of knowledge and religious sensitivity.
“She claims to be waging a war on “liberals,” the umbrella term for anyone who disagrees with her ideology. The definition of Coulter’s “liberal” most closely resembles what a sane person would call a reasonable, pragmatic, progressive individual.” Uh? Bad writing for it says two contradictory things, and “progressive individual” is an ideology. The writer left off the second adjective, it is – progressive SOCIALIST.
“You do not have to be liberal to be a “liberal,” the only requirement is that you disagree with any of the various moral wrongdoings Coulter actively endorses.” Again, Liberal is an ideology, the writer makes the wrong assumption in that Liberal views or concepts are “mainstream,” and its view is that there is no morality other than what the Government dictates.
Ironically, the writer shows there ignorance and pompous attitude with the very last line, for they have no concept of what “United we Stand” really means. “As fundamentalist as any Ayatollah, Coulter may serve to be a greater threat to the American way of life than any terrorist. Monotonously divisive and inflammatory, “Ms. Right” is slowly eroding any remaining remnants of the motto, “United We Stand.”” To say that the words of someone who disagrees with the Liberal/Socialist mind set is worse that terrorist killing us, flying planes into buildings, and putting fear in to all of us when we fly or visit a public area is asinine and foolhardy. We must Stand United against our enemies, for if we do not, we will all fall together. The enemy is the terrorists, not a political commentator.
Finally, the writer has not read or understand the US Constitution other than the propaganda they received from the Socialist/ Stalinist professors. No where in the US Constitution does a “constitutionally granted freedom from persecution based on race, religion, or cultural background” exist. In fact it guarantees just the opposite.
The First Amendment prohibits government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." In other words, the US Citizen has a right to segregate themselves from whoever they want and to say what they want, and the Government cannot interfere. This means that if I do not like your race, religion, or sexuality then I do not have to give you a job or pander to you in anyway. What the writer is referring to is judicial activism that has made law by interpreting the Constitution from a socialist point of view.
These Liberal interpretations are getting us into trouble and because they are not Constitutionally guaranteed and based on Judicial interpretations, they can just as easily be overturned. That is why the Left and Socialist are so upset with Ann Coulter, because she points out the flaws in there arguments and propaganda.
Like a good little Stalinist Peebles Squire, attacks those that would tear down the wall of lies. Morality is not something that the Government can legislate. Morality is what Religion is for. Liberal have the two confused, to them, like the Muslims, government and religion are one in the same.
In actuality it is the morality of Ann Coulter and her personal views that contradict or point out the foibles of the Left that is upsetting to the writer, which they fear more than terrorist, thus revealing their insanity which will kill more of us before they forced to see reality.
:}
When they can’t challenge Ann on ideas, they call her names. It’s embarassing, really.
The left is an embarrassment to reason.
yep yep :)
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.