Carville gets owned. So many people on the left HATE her but she could freaking out-argue anyone.
Carville was asked about healthcare and the only thing he could do was scream about "birthers" and the stimulus.
Coulter, on the other hand, seemed to make a lot of sense. But then again, she's the best.
She was talking about Christianity being 'perfected" Judaism; and was actually being self-deprecatory.
Jews have to follow all these laws, rules, traditions, etc....to get to heaven. (Old Covenant) Christians got the same God, but all they have to do is "believe" in his son - much easier; fast track to heaven (New Covenant): Judaism "perfected"
Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance. - Plato
Other hilarious Ann Coulter quips:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'""If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.""We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals.""We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.""Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President.""These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration
Whichever way you slice it, Coulter either is or portrays a bombastic, bloodthirsty, homophobic, racist persona.
She addressed the issue head-on. He went off about birthers, lost elections, and the stimulus.
Coulter - 1
Carville - 0
Is that why the host had to guide him off of his tangent and back to the subject at hand?
For the record, I don't even like Coulter, but she can wipe the floor with that skeleton.
Scoring this a "win" for Coulter because Carville talked about other issues is like disqualifying a 4 year old from a coloring tournament for going outside the lines.
Here is the transcript
I think my recollection of that episode is pretty accurate; but, I guess the word "perfected" is too heated to get beyond; obviously the host stopped listening at that point - most people did, apparently.
Also, I'm not a Coulter fan; that's really the only thing she's ever done I paid attention to.
Some people are really stretching here. Carville wanted to just read his talking points about how AWESOME the democrats are and how stupid the protestors are.
Coulter talked about the issue at hand and the host seemed to agree that she was making sense. Then Carville got PISSED!
JARED F*CKING DUDLEY!!!
What was most striking was during the question and answer, the "questioners" including professors and especially students were WAY out of their league in the micro debates with either professional on stage. Either of the Politicos simply undressed the amateurs; wish I could remember specifics; it was fun.
I hate it when people just quote something without source material. Because of that, I sourced some of these quotes, for context. LnGrrrR, are you proud to post what amounts to propaganda when you fail to source it and in context?Aren't the two above here a fact? Liberals always protect the enemy!While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.
Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.
I've seen a good explaination on this. I really wish you would source the Coulter quotes. Without context, you can make anyone look bad. I believe this is out of one of her books I have. Wish the material you quote had root sources, but then again, propaganda doesn't work when you make access the truth."If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"
Out of context:"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."She was joking that not to be criticized by the media, she had to make statements like liberals do.Ann Coulter: “But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So, I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna’ say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” (ABC, Good Morning America, June 25.)
I agree with executing him."We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals."How about a bit more of it:"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."The above makes more sense if you read the entire article:Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
This Is War
Let's look at the paragraph before and after that remark:"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."On the op-ed page of The New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: "I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the 'Barberini Faun' is credentialed?"
Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from "Talon News" got one, even if he is a better reporter.
But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her readers (a process now known in journalism schools as "Dowdification"). Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost anyone can get a daily pass — even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie. (And I'm sure the Times' public editor will get right on Dowd's deception.)
Source: [URL=http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=43]REPUBLICANS, BLOGGERS AND GAYS, OH MY!
by Ann Coulter
February 23, 2005On this above example, she is talking about only the specific women she dubbed "The Jersey Girls." Here's a partial transcript of an interview after that:"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administrationCoulter: This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9/11 Commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.
Lauer: So grieve but grieve quietly?
Coulter: No, the story is an attack on the nation. That requires a foreign policy response.
Lauer: By the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration.
Coulter: Not the ones I am talking about. No, no, no.
Lauer: Yeah they have.
Coulter: Oh no, no, no, no, no. They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.
Lauer: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?
Coulter: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don't put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.
Lauer: Well apparently you are allowed to respond to them.
Coulter: Yeah, I did.
Lauer: So, in other words.
Coulter: That is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up Cindy Sheehan, of putting out these widows, of putting out Joe Wilson. No, no, no. You can't respond. It's their doctrine of infallibility. Have someone else make the argument then.
Lauer: What I'm saying is, I don't think they have ever told you, you can't respond.
Coulter: Look, you are getting testy with me.
Lauer: No. I think it's a dramatic statement. "These broads are millionaires stalked by grief-parrazies"? "I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much."
Coulter: Yes, they are all over the news.
So too, unfortunately, is Ann Coulter.
If anyone is interested, my latest new thread:
You have to give it up to Coulter. She may be a nut but she's confident in her beliefs and opinions. She never backs down from them. It's always funny to see the sexual tension between her and Bill Maher when he has her on his show.
This past year he always appears angry and is nothing more than a broken record democratic billboard.
The point of the 'old Arab' remark is not about press passes for Maureen Dowd. The fact is that she was using racism to make a point. Even an ARAB person can get a press pass (arab being code for terrorist/undesirable person.)
My point about the 'war' quote is that MOST people will disagree that America should carpet-bomb enemies, as it goes against most of the rules of war (force only as much as needed, avoiding innocent casualties, etc etc). However, she is happy to kill millions of innocents, without even so much as a seeming second thought. This is even worse when we are not at war with a COUNTRY, but with a group of individuals within the country. Tell me, if a rogue terrorist cell in America attacked France, would you be ok with France carpetbombing us? I doubt it.
I don't see how you can add any context to the idea that women=stupid voters.
Saying you agree with an execution for a valid reason is not the same as saying you agree with an execution in order to intimidate a group of people that weren't tangibly involved.
Oh, and the final bit you posted? That pretty much sums up my point. Matt Lauer owns her thoughout the whole thing. She plays hard and loose with the facts, and it burns her. What about the whole Canadian brouhaha? Yet another episode where she made a fool of herself, and self-righteously stuck to her guns, compounding the issue.
I thought that was weak. Carville bullshit made it really weak. Meaning avoiding the subject and attempting to get people to talk about birthers and trying to tell us all republicans are dumb...again. This political message is fucking OLD. Talk policies and let the Americans decide.
What Canadian brouhaha?
Coulter tried to claim that Canadians sent troops to Vietnam, when they did not. Of course, she tried to cover it up later by saying that 10,000 troops came over to the states to enlist, but that's nowhere near the same as the government sending troops over.
Finally, the idea that every liberal proposal is somehow tied to taking America down is as laughable as the idea that every conservative idea will do the same. The ability to see failure in everything one group does is a dangerous blind spot to have.
People keep saying we need to "do more".... what is "more"? Is it carpet bombing? Dropping a nuke? I'm sure that will really stop terrorist recruitment, whose most effective tactic is to paint us as the bad guy.
You calling someone 'turban Derbin' could also be considered racist. Not everyone with a turban is a terrorist, right? What if Helen Thomas supposed Israel, and Coulter called her "that old Jew"? Could you not see the negative connotations?
You didn't understand my execution comment. Coulter's statement would be the same as if I said, "I hope they execute Timothy McVeigh in order to physically intimdate conservatives." It paints all conservatives as terrorists/terrorist sympathizers, which obviously is untrue.
Cover it up? Are you saying Canadians did not volunteer? I agree. She was wrong. It was more like 30,000 Canadians that served:Although no uniformed Canadian troops were involved in war, Canada did participate through counterinsurgency efforts in South Vietnam and reconnaissance for US bombing runs in North Vietnam.
Vietnam may have been America's war but Canada was heavily involved — for and against. Canada harboured American draft dodgers and helped supervise ceasefires. But at the same time, about 30,000 Canadians volunteered to fight in southeast Asia. And there was Canada's involvement in secret missions, weapons testing and arms production. CBC Archives looks at Canada's role in the Vietnam War.
Conservative my ass. There you go repeating propaganda again. He voted for Harry Browne in 1996. We really don't know his political feelings. He was registered a republican, but that doesn't mean shit. How many liberal republicans are there?
Thing is with Ann Coulter, on the spot, she sometimes mispeaks, and the pundits drool on that for years. Read her books sometime. She is very careful to get the facts strait, and very open with her opinion.
LOL Coulter... partisan hack if I've ever seen one...
No wonder their local peers on the board are quick to jump on her(his?) defense.
I knew if I looked long enough, I would find Coulter was right:
Operation Gallant:Canada contributed 240 Canadian Forces personnel and 50 officials from the Department of External Affairs. The ICCS operated until 30 April 1975, two years after the Canadians withdrew.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)