Posted on 01/27/2005 12:03:46 PM PST by pissant
Why are the left and Spike Lee amongst others so obsessed with jungle fever?
1. I don't get it about Halle Berry. She's just not all that good looking. I'll take Queen Latifah any day. A little on the plump side, but it's all prime!
2. I don't get it about Ann Coulter. She might actually be good looking if you slapped on an extra 20 pounds. Will somebody please feed her?
3. I feel about Coulter much the same as Kane does. When she's on, she can be brilliantly incisive and hilariously funny. But she's so eager to press people's buttons that she routinely goes too far, writing all manner of spiteful, mean-spirited nonsense. When USA Today dumped her coverage of the Democratic convention and replaced her with Jonah Goldberg, the newspaper did a public service. Jonah's no looker either--and I'va actually met the guy. But he's thoughtful, well-read and serious--and still manages to be screamingly funny. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, is good for the occasional laugh, but no sensible person would take her seriously.
Actually, we'd know who she is cuz she's "loud-mouthed", a rarity in conservatives.
Personally I'm glad to see some1 who ain't afraid to mouth off on "our" side for a change.
I find generally any movement that lacks a good helping of both rationality and passion usually fails. Republicans have exhibited too much rationality. Not enough passion to spark any interest.
As for Ann's looks, I don't think she's as good-looking as Halle (altho I doubt as our author thinks that that's why Ann goes off on her out of some kind of jealousy - why are women always accused of this "cattiness"? typical male). She's OK, but basically I think Ann's on the plain side of good-looking.
I'd do a bit more research before I take this guys version of Confederate Flag history to heart.
Gregory Kane should remember it was democraps who fought against the civil rights act.
If you prefer Goldberg's scribblings to Annie's, methinks you may have a few too many RINO genes. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
According to James Mitchener, the only thing Shaka did militarily was to put sandals on his army (so they could travel further), give them longer spears, and order them to fight to the death instead of just fighting to take prisoners, as had been the custom. Later, Shaka forbade all sexual activity not involving himself, got furious for being disobeyed, rounded up all the illegally pregnant women and cut the babies out of their stomachs. Soon enough, he was murdered by his own army. That's brilliant?
Feh!
this guy isn't MUCH of a black conservative, is he...
Double nonsense. It is not possible to directly compare military performance between widely divergent military technologies.
It is likely that if it were possible, the Mongols and Romans (of several different periods) would be right up there in the top ten with the Confeds.
The Zulus wouldn't even be in the top 100. For instance, they didn't have anything remotely resembling a Service of Supply. When on campaign, they often had entire armies starve to death. That is not an effective army.
The Zulus were probably individually as brave as any soldiers in history, but that is an entirely different question from whether their army was an effective instrument with which to apply military force.
According to James Mitchener, the only thing Shaka did militarily was to put sandals on his army (so they could travel further), give them longer spears, and order them to fight to the death instead of just fighting to take prisoners, as had been the custom. Later, Shaka forbade all sexual activity not involving himself, got furious for being disobeyed, rounded up all the illegally pregnant women and cut the babies out of their stomachs. Soon enough, he was murdered by his own army. That's brilliant?
I think our current military force is the greatest..but I could be biased with two cousins and a best friend currently deployed..
"I didn't realize that particular fact about the chronology either and will also offer that it does, indeed, undermine the purity with which some hold the flag so dear."
Actually it's almost the opposite. It shows people in the '50s were more uptight about race changes than possibly the people w/the original purpose of the flag. It's the '50s people who turned it into something fearful to many.
Never mind the fact that that battle flag hardly made it onto the battlefield at all, much less on any flag pole.
Why, because he doesn't worship at the altar of Ann Coulter?
Read more of Greg's work, then get back to me.
Right on Ann!
And Ghengis Khan routinely surpassed Shaka in barbarity before he died of injuries sustained from getting rip-roaring drunk and falling off his horse. Care to argue that the Mongols weren't one of history's most terrifying armies?
I think the white belt is a little over kill. Especially after Labor Day. Meow!
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this the same usage of the term "buck" as in "buck naked", i.e. "as naked as a buck"? Definition "Buck" was a racist term for a male black or American Indian.
So, this black conservative writer uses a racist term twice without knowing it.
The year Berry won the Oscar, I thought she deserved it for "Monster's Ball," even though a lot of folks didn't. But it wasn't a big deal to me. It was just the Oscars.
The other thing that bugs me is the venom reserved for those conservatives (black, white or otherwise) who do not fall prostrate from the words of Ann Coulter. (see the statement above) We don't have to agree with everything any "annointed" conservative says. Or do we?
Black conservative ping
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
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.