Reply With Quote
I've listened to her show and she really hates liberal democrats so I see her as nothing more than another Ann Coulter but a lot better looking.
Laura Ingraham (townhall.com)
Top Democrats advising the Kerry campaign are scratching their heads raw this week, trying to figure out why John Kerry--even with solid debate performances under his belt and continuing violence in Iraq--still is still having such a hard time convincing voters he would be a more effective commander-in-chief than George Bush. But the answer is actually fairly simple. Kerry--like all doves--is un- persuasive on national security issues because he doesn't realize certain basic truths that have guided American policy for decades. These are:
1. The world is a dangerous place, filled with deadly people. Not just people who are misunderstood. Not just people who are poor. Not just people who have different "values." After 3,000 of our fellow citizens were incinerated on September 11th by Islamist mass murderers, John Kerry can still tell the New York Times Magazine this week that "[w]e have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." How amazingly irresponsible and stunn- ingly stupid. Deadly people with the means and commitment to inflict large casualties on U.S. citizens will never just be nuisances. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.
2. Most nations in the world look out for themselves. We cringe at the idea of a 'global test' because we know who's going to be grading the test. We know the anti-Americanism that exists around the world. We know the incompetence and corruption that dominates the UN. We know that leaders like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder are determined to take any opportunity to hinder the United States. We know that international media organizations, from the BBC to Al- Jazeera, are doing everything they can to whip up even more hostility toward this country. In short, we know that you would have a better chance at a fair hearing in an Olympic figure-skating compe ion than you would of getting a fair grade on a 'global test.'" George Bush knows this. The American people know this. American liberals don't.
3. America is not the world's problem--America is the world's solution. Tying down the United States--through international treaties like Kyoto or the International Criminal Court, or through imposing a "global test" on our ability to respond to problems-will not make the world safer. It will make the world less safe. Limiting U.S. power will not make the world better. It will lead to more pain, more death, more suffering. The United States is the only great nation in the world whose people are willing to make real sacrifices of blood and treasure for world peace. If we don't do it, no one will. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.
American liberals are making the same mistake in the war on terror that they made during the Cold War.
They trust anti-American voices around the world more than they trust the American people. During the second debate, John Kerry was still touting UN sanctions as a viable way to contain Saddam, despite everything we have already learned about the oil for food pay-offs to foreign interests (in both France and Russia). Liberals believe that our responsibilities can be shoved onto the backs of other countries that have made it abundantly clear have no intention of helping us. (Although even Kerry had to admit last week that France and Germany will not send troops to Iraq even if he wins on November 2.) They believe in a moral equivalence between the United States and its adversaries. They were wrong in the 1980's, and they are wrong today. That is why Kerry cannot articulate a credible plan to win the war on terrorism. That is why Edwards looked and sounded so vague during his debate. Until American liberals overcome this fear of the American people --until they learn to trust us more than they trust their friends in Europe--they will flip, flop and flounder in their effort to take back the White House.
I've listened to her show and she really hates liberal democrats so I see her as nothing more than another Ann Coulter but a lot better looking.
ingraham is HOT!
YUCK. Ann Coulter is like a skeleton. Eat a few twinkies, babe....
Of course a good looking woman is unsatisfactory for you. She couldn't provide the good quality "fanny pack" you seek.
Well, of course, that term is subjective. I've just never been attracted to skeletons like Ann or Calista, but you must have fun around Halloween, Matt. Is that the only time you get laid, Matt, or is your hand "skeletal" enough?Of course a good looking woman is unsatisfactory for you.
Oh so it's not that you couldn't get a good looking woman if you wanted to but that you aren't interested in good looking women. That actually explains quite a bit about you, Mark.
Sincerely,
The Mick
Not interested in starving women, but a first class fare to Ethiopia may actually break you of that hand habit, Murph.
That sounds better than a "fanny pack" fetish, Marky Mark.
Ann isn't a woman, it's a boy with plums in his shirt pockets, but that would explain a lot about you, Matt.
The fact that you think repeating my first name often and calling me "Mick" are some kind of serious insults says enough about your sorry self.
You can call me Harry, or you can call me Larry, or you can call Sammy, but you doesn't have to call me Mick or Matt.
Actually, the only Mick references in this thread were by you. I stopped calling you that when you said it didn't bother you. I know that you like your anonymity, though, and it bothers you when your name is posted.
I think it's interesting you keep record of what bothers individual posters in this forum.
This isn't the first forum where we've crossed swords, Yoni. I've virtually known Matt for years, and across at least 3-4 forums.
Thats what "know it alls" do!
Ha Ha Ha Hyuck Hyuck Hyuck[/Hook Dem]
It's the fact that you thought "Mick" would offend me which is most hilarious.Actually, the only Mick references in this thread were by you. I stopped calling you that when you said it didn't bother you.
So you think. I think it's quite telling that you are ever ready to invade someone's privacy.I know that you like your anonymity, though, and it bothers you when your name is posted.
Like I said...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
