Make liberals safe, legal and rare (ANN COULTER)

worldnetdaily ^ | August 14, 2002 | Ann Coulter

[anncoulteriscool]

Make liberals safe, legal and rare

Posted: August 14, 2002

6:45 p.m. Eastern

Whenever a liberal begins a peevish complaint with "of course, we all agree ..." your antennae should go up. This is how liberals couch statements they assume all Americans would demand they make, but which they secretly chafe at.

Liberal sophistry requires pretending they support, for example, sexual abstinence (for teenagers) and marriage (between heterosexuals); making abortion and drug use "rare"; America's winning the war on terrorism – and before that, winning the Cold War. Fascinatingly, their proposals for achieving these goals are invariably the opposite of what any normal person might think would work.

Instead of punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior, liberals often feel it is the better part of valor to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior. Of course, we all agree that Fidel Castro is a bad man. That's why we need to lift travel restrictions and trade with Cuba! Of course, we all agree that abortion should be "rare." That's why all reasonable regulations of abortion must be fought against like wild banshees! (One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it illegal.)

Their comically counterintuitive positions are inevitably backed up with long, complicated explanations about the dire risk of encouraging "hard-liners," the enemy's "paranoia," or clever points such as "teenagers will have sex anyway." The arguments not only make no sense ab initio, but openly contradict one another.

While pretending to oppose drug use, the New York Times has supported programs to give addicts needles, referring in a 1998 editorial to "some interesting new ideas" such as "needle exchanges." In the case of cigarettes, however, liberals enthusiastically embrace the otherwise mystifying concept of punishing bad behavior.

Thus, the Times has cheered on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's obsessive desire to outlaw smoking, referring to his proposed ban on smoking in bars as an attempt to close "a major loophole in the city's anti-smoking law." Aren't people going to smoke anyway? Why not make smoking "safe, legal and rare" – just like abortion?

The liberal clergy at the Times have criticized sex education programs that purport to discourage sexual activity among teenagers, while unaccountably neglecting to hand out condoms and scented candles.

Times theater critic Frank Rich has rhapsodically supported Joycelyn Elders' genius idea of teaching children to masturbate: "The more people talk about masturbation, the more fears can be dispelled among those young people." (Thirteen-year-old boys could probably teach him a few tricks.)

So it was striking that a recent op-ed piece in the Times opposed a Bush administration's plan to encourage marriage. Needless to say, it included the ritualistic disclaimer: "Of course, none of this is to say that marriage is not a wonderful institution." It seems that, in this one case, "we don't need government programs to convince people ... that marriage is good for them."

We do, however, urgently need government programs to teach them that dying of AIDS is bad for them. (At least, we finally have the left on record opposing some federal government program other than national defense and an independent counsel investigating a Democrat.)

Currently, liberals pretend to be rooting for America in the war on terrorism. To show their support, they oppose America doing anything. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said: "We are all prepared to give the men and women in law enforcement the latitude necessary to protect our nation." Despite what "we all" support, Durbin said using appearance to sort potential terrorists from non-terrorists "reflects not only poor judgment, but poor law enforcement."

Really? Which law enforcement experts concluded that surveilling angry Middle Eastern men with smoke pouring out of their trousers would be "poor law enforcement"? Seems unlikely. For some reason, liberals think it's fun to give Arab terrorists a chance.

Democrats claim to support invading Iraq – just not yet! As the Associated Press recently reported, "the Democrats always preface comments on Iraq with a general statement that Saddam must go." Of course, we all agree that Saddam must go. But first – there are many worthless objections to be raised.

Sore loser Al Gore has said that before invading Iraq we need to establish peace in the Mideast, create a perfect Jeffersonian democracy in Afghanistan, and get the American-hating French and Germans on board. Also invent cold fusion and put a man on Mars. Then will the time be ripe for a pre-emptive attack!

Liberals also carped pointlessly about the war in Afghanistan last fall. Their principal complaint was that we were going to lose. Among many, many other liberals, columnist Maureen Dowd raised the specter of Vietnam and called Afghanistan "another quagmire." She said that Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem "may be the last to know that Afghanistan is a stubborn and durable place."

After we routed the Taliban approximately five minutes later, Dowd said, "The liberation of Afghanistan is a wonderful thing, of course." Of course. And something you said we couldn't do.

"Of course, we all agree" always means liberals don't agree, but are under no illusions about the popularity of what they really believe.

[Torie]

Some liberals want to go into Iraq yesterday. Just ask Joe Lieberman. Maybe you don't think he is a liberal, but I do.

[gcruse]

No, we prolly had a million illegal abortions. That's why I sold my stock in coat hanger manufacturing, finally.

[He Rides A White Horse]

That's why I sold my stock in coat hanger manufacturing, finally.

That's really nice, gcruse. Very funny.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Hey Torie, psst..............liberals are collectivist. It's called socialism. They advocate it. Haven't you noticed?

[phil1750]

Estimated deaths by back ally abortions=25-30 per year.
Actual deaths once abortion leagalized=1.2 million per year.
Baby killing needs to be outlawed NOW.

[buffyt]

I don't know whom I love more, Ann Coulter or Jonah Goldberg. Both are wonderful writers, and may they never stop penning the truth!

[buffyt]

You are so right! I was thinking of the two little girls who were kidnapped and rescued this week, one in Texas and one in California. I was thinking it was wonderful that we had a happy outcome to these two cases, after the murders of Samantha Runnion and Danielle Runnion. I was thinking "Just maybe God had something special planned for these two girls." I could feel God saying to me "Just perhaps I have something special planned for every child I create!" I thought of all the babies He creates, who are murdered every day, in their mother's wombs.

[goldstategop]

Wonderful. Ann is chock a block full of so many intelligent observations that God only knows why no one else comes up with so many ways of drawing the only true conclusion that any sane person can about liberals and their philosophy. Namely, that its absurd and completely illogical. People with that sort of outlook rarely think things through. She's right - its like they live in an alternate universe. When you come to think about it, liberals are counterintuitive as far as human nature is concerned. All things considered, they should not exist, period.

[goldstategop]

Amending my thought, I have go further and definitely concur that if liberals can't be made extinct, they should at least be kept as rare as possible.

[gcruse]

Yes, why don't you take pictures of coat hanger abortions and put them on the sides of trailers and drive them around town? Isn't that how it's done? Hilarious.

[RonDog]

Would Ann Coulter have any material if the New York Times shut down for a month? I love her columns but it seems as if nearly every one of them boils down to lambasting something she read in the Times.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. With an AK-47. Repeatedly...

LOL! Great minds think alike.

Someone else recently used a similar metaphor to describe Ann, from:

Coulter] 'I love to pick fights with liberals'
Electronic Telegraph ^ | 19 July, 2002 | Toby Harnden
Posted on 07/19/2002 4:40 AM Pacific by brityank

'I love to pick fights with liberals'

(Filed: 19/07/2002)

Right-wing broadcaster Ann Coulter captured the belligerent mood of America after September 11. Toby Harnden meets her in enemy territory
-- snip --

She has also been a big hit on television since the Clinton scandals broke. Totally fearless, relentlessly combative and unwilling to brook any talk of mushy compromise, Miss Coulter is the ultimate pin-up for the militia crowd.

It all happened by accident, she says, happily. "It really was just God looking down and saying: 'We've got enough lawyers, I'm putting you on TV'."

Now she is sitting pretty at the top of the New York Times bestseller list with her second book, Slander, a devastating diatribe against the Left and all its works - the New York Times in particular.

Coulter's approach is not so much take no prisoners as capture one's opponents, string them up with piano wire, machine-gun them until all movement has ceased and then fire a celebratory volley into the air...

more

You GO, girl!

[RonDog]

by
Jeff Danziger

[lwoodham]

Isn't it pathetic that we have only one frail (from looking at her) female carrying the flag when we supposedly have a whole freaking Republican party that can't get out of the fetal position? Sad indeed. That's why I will be voting AGAINST my Republican Congressman in a couple of weeks.

Stay off this web site. Liberal!

[The Raven]

What a great piece (the article!). This is a keeper.

[RandallFlagg]

"Currently, liberals pretend to be rooting for America in the war on terrorism. To show their support, they oppose America doing anything."

LOL!! TOO FUNNY!!

We love you, Ann! Quit lurking and say, "Hi!" once in a while!

---

 

 

"The second amendment isn't about duck hunting anymore than the first amendment is about playing Scrabble." --Henry Bowman

 

[DWSUWF]

"...Lobotomizing a liberal is redundant..."

LOL!

It's true that they don't have much in the way of mental capacity...

But they do seem to have just enough 'whatever' going on up there to cause problems.

Surely you'll agree that wallowing a crowbar around inside their skulls just a little bit couldn't help but improve them!

[Tall_Texan]

What she does, she does very well. And I realize the NYT is the table-setter for a lot of their journailistic brethren. But really, how difficult is it to cut the words of Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and that old coot who recently retired (forget his name right now) at the NYT to ribbons so everyone can see how shallow and slanted they are?

Just once, I'd like to see her spend a whole column castrating William Raspberry or Ted Turner or Peter Jennings like she can the Times. Just for the change of pace.

[MadIvan]

I think some people are missing the point of this article. Liberals say one thing when they mean to promote the opposite.

They say they want abortion to be rare, but in reality, they apparently want as many children aborted as possible.

They say, they want teenage pregnancy to be rare, but you had Germaine Greer the other day celebrating it, and they put forward policies designed to encourage it.

And the hypocrisy rolls on from there. This is merely a ploy on the part of the Left to try and sell socialist ideas with conservative wrapping. You see, by claiming to have good intentions, they hope to disarm you when they try to do evil.

Regards, Ivan

[RWG]

One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it illegal...like drug use in the Bush and other American families? Like minor in possession laws in the Bush and other American families?