Replies

"...she called for an invasion of all Moslem countries with the goal of converting their one-billion inhabitants to Christianity--two days after 9/11!.."

It's an option that we could have taken, if we'd been willing to go all out. It's called going "meideval" on their a$$e$. It worked in the meideval days, and has, in fact, worked quite well in several cultures (see Croation Muslims, for reference). We may, in fact, wish that this is the option we had taken, in the future.

"...What's the best way to encourage democrats to re-think their convictions? Brand them treasonous mental defectives, of course!.."

We will never convert the truly liberal. Those who are merely fooled, thinking that democrats are the party of freedom, however, are a different story. I voted for Bill Clinton in his first election, and was converted by just such rhetoric, which I could not find logical refutation for. This is as good a strategy as any, considering the source. And, like everything else Ann says, it is the unvarnished truth. If you deny that, you are preaching to the wrong choir.

"...This venom-spewing, Bible-thumping, anorexic Elmer Gantry makes some of us qualify our use of the term "conservative."..."

OK, I'm starting to get the flavor of where you're coming from. You don't like the number one conservative diva, because she sounds, well, too conservative. So, you insult Christians, and make some idiotic comment about Ann being "anorexic." If she gains 2 pounds, will you call her "that fat" Elmer Gantry? Also: How dare you use the term "bible thumping?" What a telling comment.

"...it's not her ferocious powers of intellection, which consist largely of hyperbole, ad hominems, and non sequiturs held loosely together with sticky tape. She's pretty. She writes what she's knows you want to hear..."

Is intellection a word? But I digress. You seem to have a great deal of trouble in understanding what lies at the root of what Ann is saying. In essence, she is speaking the truth. She may not pull her punches, or bow to political correctness, to the degree you would approve of, but somehow I doubt that you would agree with any of her points, no matter how benignly they were phrased. Please don't make the mistake of confusing yourself with a conservative. It will only confuse you. Even a true conservative might (MIGHT, I reiterate) confuse Ann's theses with simple self-serving vitriol, but I'm unable to find flaw with her logic. Your skepticism is not only unwarranted, it is, in fact, quite a curiosity, coming from a Freeper. You do, however, have one solid, unarguable point: she is pretty.