Reply With Quote
Hopes4Dopes, you completely misunderstood. Read it again, and try to comprehend.
Or it would be like calling people that think that our immigration laws should be enforced.....racist,and extremists.
or it would be like calling someone who is pro-life an extremist.
Or it would be like calling someone who believes the 2nd admendment is a personal right, a right this nation has recognized for over two hundred years as a personal right... it would be like calling them an extremist
It would be like calling returning vetrans potentail terrorists.
It would be like calling cornerend citizens "crazed mobs" or shills for the insurance companies .Or shwaztika totting nazis
It would be like calling cops doing their jobs stupid
You can see how ridiculous it looks when you or other liberals try to peddle your apoligist nosense off, and people doubt your motives, or your sensitive little hearts.
You call coulter divissive, are you serious.....we have a president who suckled at the of a hate mongering racist and anti semite like the Rev. Wright for 20 years, and your concerned about "turban Durban".
We have a president who nominates bettle browed racist thugs to the supreme court and Coulter's divisivness and sterotypes bother you?
We have a president who asks citizens to turn in the names of political dissenters, something no head of any republic to my knowledge has ever done, and is most likely illegal to boot. and you see Ann Coulter as a threat.
I don't think Ann Coulter gives a about what the left think of her.I think that she may have come to the conclusion that her political views are "verboten" and have made her and millions of others like minded people Persona Non grata and they are more intersested in educating and organizing each other and action than apology.
Hopes4Dopes, you completely misunderstood. Read it again, and try to comprehend.
she's smart enough to know there are enough dupes out there to sell liberal bashing books..she has got a nice niche. all she has to do write a coloring book that bashes libs and the dead enders rush out to buy it...
SO MUCH FOR WISE LATINAS; July 1, 2009Sneaky, because no extensive opinion writing was made. Unsigned, because it was the proper term.Obama's Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion -- the judicial equivalent of "talk to the hand." She upheld the city's race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen on the grounds that the test had a "disparate impact" on blacks, meaning that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacks
IS THERE A TRIAL LAWYER IN THE HOUSE? September 19, 2007. In this piece, she is talking about Trial Lawyers. Read the parts of the article before she states:Lawyers without Borders is a new group since 2000 that she likely wasn't aware of when she was making a satirical point. Besides, they are not type to fit the context of what she was saying.In college, my roommate was in the chemistry lab Friday and Saturday nights while I was dancing on tables at the Chapter House. A few years later, she was working 20-hour days as a resident at Mount Sinai doing liver transplants while I was frequenting popular Upper East Side drinking establishments. She was going to Johns Hopkins for yet more medical training while I was skiing and following the Grateful Dead. Now she vacations in places like Rwanda and Darfur with Doctors Without Borders while I'm going to Paris.
(Has anyone else noticed the nonexistence of a charitable organization known as "Lawyers Without Borders"?)
She makes $380 for an emergency appendectomy, or one-ten-thousandth of what John Edwards made suing doctors like her, and one-fourth of what John Edwards' hairdresser makes for a single shag cut.
GOODBYE, AMERICA! IT WAS FUN WHILE IT LASTED; February 11, 2009
Read this article and compare the two articles different facts. Coulter was addressing welfare cases. The article you link includes all mothers. This last decade, couples think nothing of it not to get married and plan for children. They are not the people Coulter is talking about. Also, I remember the changes in 1996. Although not directly discourages, there were changes in the law that reduced unwanted pregnancies.
As for the Vote Fraud, she was cleared. Why? Because she didn't do anything intentionally wrong. One allegation is that you cannot be registered in two places. I don't recall ever revoking a registration one place when moving. The system is suppose to remove the other one, right? When she bought the place in Florida, she used her Realtors address for some reason on her application. She probably got the addresses mixed up. Then of course, she voted in precinct by listed address even though it was the wrong precinct. She voted using the absentee ballot given to her while in NY. There was no intent to commit any type of fraud, and was a mistake anyone could make when moving.
I see you two were busy in other stuff while I did LnGrrrR's homework.
As for checking all facts, of course not. At least I don't continue to make posts without an acceptable level of fact checking.
I'll take that as .....oops was my facisim showing.
it's always showing..
George have you been trying to chew gum and walk at he same time again? You know what the doctor told you about that.
how about admitting you are praising a plagiarist?
yes.....yes...oh god I admit it, but have some sympathy not everyone has an intellect like yours.
Wait, why should we base things on something so inherently flawed as the fossil record when talking about Evolution? Does she mention the Central Dogma at all in her book(s)? If not (and it wouldn't shock me) she's just being intellectually dishonest. We don't need fossils to see that Evolution is a pretty solid theory.First, how can a fossil record support evolution? I think she probably made a safe statement. It is theory, nothing more.
Godless page 215-216:
I think I'll leave it at the two pages. Copyright reasons. But the book for more. She makes compelling articles and references several people and works.
Just looking up evolution in the index, it covers several pages:
I figured you'd duck it. Go back to praising your plagiarism buddy...
Whoa .... missed that bullet.
No defense.... figures.Nice playing with you..a dishonest person praising a dishonest person.. you conservatives are to much..
First off, she does not make any statement saying evolution isn't true. In fact, on page 199, she says:Now no one I have ever heard completely disregards evolution. Just that it cannot account for all but a few of the changes we see in nature.Even if evolution were true, it wouldn't disprove God. God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution. It's not even a daunting challenge to a belief in God. If you want something that complicates a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God's special creatures.
Although Go believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." This is why there is mass panic of the left whenever someone mentions the vast and ac ulating evidence against evolution.
It's funny how ridiculous that quote is. On what is she basing, "God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution"? A book? Instead of actual science like we base our theories on Evolution. God believers don't need ANYTHING to be false because they'll just claim God did it.
Careful, you'll fall into one of her traps. We acknowledge that believing in God is a "faith." As a faith, it is common to talk about as fact, however, we all know it's faith. One thing she points out is the liberals "faith in government." I could go on, but you should read what she says yourself.
Evolution?
Evolution is true; it happens; it IS verifiable. It is non debatable fact.
The part of Darwinism that is "theory" is "Natural Selection"; that is; WHY and HOW evolution occurs, not WHETHER evolution occurs.
...and non believer have to make just as extreme, or even more extreme, leaps of faith.
but that has been hashed and rehashed a billion times here.
Not really. We all know Obama is the antichrist.
You know, I should be more careful on the wording. It is "Darwinism" that is being attacked by Coulter, more than evolution. Specifically, that aspect of evolution.
Thanx.
Wow G it's amazing just how stupid you really are. I'm sure during lulls at the jack in the box you work at you give insightfull political analyzes through jack's head.No defense.... figures.Nice playing with you..a dishonest person praising a dishonest person.. you conservatives are to much..
Eh, you obviously can marshal more facts than I abot Coulter.it doesn't concern me enough to do a cursory search. As we both noted, she'll use divisive rhetoric on purpose, as well as saying things that are bound to inflame passion (like, ya know, carpetbomb and convert them to Christianity). That was my major point. And even when she gets something wrong, you're willing to apologize for her (oh, she probably didn't know that existed...)
As well, you still won't answer why you think the sources that Ann Coulter uses are relevant. Tell me, what's your DEFINITE proof that a source is correct? How far down the rabbit hole do you go?
Wtf? Do you even know what fascism means?
You're so re ed, that even if I DID support terrorists, that would just go to show I was AGAINST fascism... how many facscist forms of government are there in which terrorists are permitted? Go ahead, try to actually THINK before answering with some trite stupidity.
Eh, either non-believers make one less leap of faith, or one of a much lesser degree, no matter how you view it.
Putting "God" in for the mathematical complexity it would take to create the universe does not mean the problem's solved.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
