Skip to comments.
Has she no shame? [Conason on Coulter--Some Men Just Can't Handle Blondes]
Salon ^
| July 4, 2003
| Joe Conason
Posted on 07/05/2003 10:44:31 AM PDT by publius1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340, 341-354 next last
To: sweetliberty
Only because there were only two in my entire school.
301
posted on
07/06/2003 11:11:15 AM PDT
by
gedeon3
To: PapaJohnMN
Was he banned from the party, forbidden from representing the party, or removed from office?Is there something about the term "distinction without difference" you don't understand?
If you think you can change minds by "special pleading," I think you are in for a disappointment.
302
posted on
07/06/2003 11:18:15 AM PDT
by
Woahhs
To: Darksheare
Ad hominem attack? A dictionary can help you understand.
It was more wit and charm than you've shown in all your posts
In addition to your other stirling qualities, you're not shy about heaping extravagent praise on your own efforts.
This thread is about Coulter's book. See if you can focus.
Comment #304 Removed by Moderator
Comment #305 Removed by Moderator
To: Darksheare
Yes. In the 1996 elections, those of us on post WERE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE by his orders. How legal is that? A man who loved his country would mnot have done that.
Because Clinton-Gore's machine knew that military members primarily vote Republican -- and they did their level best to suppress the military vote.
306
posted on
07/06/2003 11:56:46 AM PDT
by
Bush2000
(R>)
To: liberallarry
Of course, they didn't - commercial television didn't yet exist. But they did have huge demonstrations that the enemy could and did use for propaganda - and some were openly sympathic to the Nazis.
There was a credible argument that the Nazis did not pose a threat to the United States proper; since national security was not at risk, protesting the war in Europe was not treasonous. This differs substantially from Iraq in that we know that Hussein possessed (and was holding talks with non-state terrorists such as Al Quaeda whose stated purpose was killing Americans) weapons of mass destruction capable of killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.
307
posted on
07/06/2003 12:15:18 PM PDT
by
Bush2000
(R>)
To: Bush2000
The issue is
At what point does protest against government policies pass from the legitimate into the category of aiding and abetting the enemy.
It's not an easy call. My inclination would be to say that anything that is not outright traitorous - such as spying - is legitimate. Not admirable - but legitimate. Obviously, circumstances are important. The bar is much lower whe we are at war and American soldiers are being killed.
There's a price to pay for having a free and open society. This is the price.
To: liberallarry
The isolationist, "America First" types back in World War II like Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford were indeed wrong, and embarrassingly so. The primary difference between them and the folks that Coulter addresses in her book is that the isolationists are pretty much universally recognized as a joke today. Nobody of any significance nowadays supports them or apologizes for them with the notable exception of Pat Buchanan, who is about as marginal a figure as you can get.
The Stalin/Soviet-philes on the other hand are still fighting their damn fight even today, years after it has already been lost. Can you really deny with a straight face that the spirit of Walter Duranty still lives on to a large degree at the New York Times and most of the rest of the mainstream media? The inability of these people to admit that they were wrong about anything borders on pathological.
309
posted on
07/06/2003 1:18:18 PM PDT
by
jpl
To: jpl
The Stalin/Soviet-philes on the other hand are still fighting their damn fight even today, years after it has already been lost. Can you really deny with a straight face that the spirit of Walter Duranty still lives on to a large degree at the New York Times and most of the rest of the mainstream media? No, of course I can't deny it.
But what's the correct remedy - jail...or criticism in Coulter's book and on Free Republic? Also, I would say that political ideas never truly die. They morph to fit changing circumstances. Nazi race theories are hardly dead. Neither is the isolationist idea that we should retreat behind our borders and our superior weapons and let the rest of the world rot.
Vigilance, eternal vigilance. And the Internet which has forever changed the nature of political discourse for the better.
To: Woahhs; zip
Speaking of "being banned" PapaJohnMN seems to have hit the bit bucket?
311
posted on
07/06/2003 2:08:02 PM PDT
by
isthisnickcool
(Liberals - Their neural synapses are corroded.)
To: isthisnickcool; Admin Moderator
Thanks to the moderator for dumping our leftist disruptor.
312
posted on
07/06/2003 2:49:48 PM PDT
by
zip
(Socialists hate Ann Coulter because she is always right)
To: liberallarry
It's not an easy call. My inclination would be to say that anything that is not outright traitorous - such as spying - is legitimate. Not admirable - but legitimate. I agree completely. I also think you have been nothing but fair-minded on this thread.
The unfortunate truth is what has conservatives so upset is the partisan control over the major organs for disseminating information. They've been disenfranchised by a defacto cabal called "the media."
My personal belief is the First Amendment as currently construed is as outmoded as liberals believe the Second Amendment. I dare say the Founders would have been much more circumspect with the language of the First if they had had any notion of the principals of advertising in the modern sense, and how it can be used in conjunction with what they thought of as "the press."
Thankfully, the problem is slowly being corrected by other emergent technologies. This Iraqi engagement is the first time in living memory that foreign policy dissidents are paying a sever penalty, and that extracted not by government, but by the American people...from whom there is no esoteric legal defence.
This is, no doubt, more what the Founders had in mind.
313
posted on
07/06/2003 3:56:55 PM PDT
by
Woahhs
To: Woahhs
Thankfully, the problem is slowly being corrected by other emergent technologies Not so slowly.
The Internet has given a voice to the ordinary citizen such as he's never had before. Conservatives are speaking louder than they have in 20 years. Liberals have been slower - which is surprising, and which I attribute to the ossifying effect of political correctness combined with power - but they'll catch up.
It's a new world - and I don't mean a Brave New World.
To: Bush2000
Yes.
There are people who remember that exact action.
Hopefully, they don't forget either.
315
posted on
07/06/2003 4:56:35 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
("Clinton honesty for sale, write your own and Hill will take credit for it, cheap.")
To: liberallarry
I am focused.
You said that if anyone showed more wit than you, you'd admire them.
So far, all you've done is shown that my observation of you is correct.
And boy, have you shown that I am right about you.
316
posted on
07/06/2003 4:57:41 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
("Clinton honesty for sale, write your own and Hill will take credit for it, cheap.")
To: isthisnickcool
I've seen democrats outright spout hate for this country firsthand, while in uniform.
I've been in uniform watching other men in uniform spout hate for this country.
That is sad.
Personally, I find Conason to be an arrogant lying sack of *.. well.. you get the idea.
317
posted on
07/06/2003 5:02:08 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
("Clinton honesty for sale, write your own and Hill will take credit for it, cheap.")
To: Mr. K
Yes, the left believes that blind allegience and blindly following them is a mark of having seen the 'rightness' of their cause.
They also say we're intolerant if we disagree with them.
Almost funny.
318
posted on
07/06/2003 5:04:28 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
("Clinton honesty for sale, write your own and Hill will take credit for it, cheap.")
To: PapaJohnMN
No.
Just several other incidents where several Democrats in uniform made comments that were, shall we say, seditionist and defamitory to the uniform.
319
posted on
07/06/2003 5:05:25 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
("Clinton honesty for sale, write your own and Hill will take credit for it, cheap.")
To: John H K
You have to remember one thing: In our litigous society, if ANY of Ann Coulter's information was wrong, incorrect, or unfounded, the survivors would be ALL over her with Libel and Defamation lawsuits. Sorry, but I haven't heard of any , and you can bet the Liberal Press/Networks/CNN would trumpet that every 5 minutes. Ann knows what she is doing. She too is an attorney.
320
posted on
07/06/2003 5:16:47 PM PDT
by
Ramonan
(Ann has done her homework.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340, 341-354 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson