| Author | Message | ||
     mellie Citizen Username: Mellie Post Number: 250 Registered: 4-2002 |
PS - again I do not admit to having read more than the quotes above, but in what way is Coulter intriguing. She's just shouting. I might just as well say "Conservatives are proud of their ignorance and never miss a chance to show it." And that would mean nothing. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 309 Registered: 2-2002 |
Ann Coulter is a one-note media product. An opinion on tap. Her success in the roundtable format is due precisely to her dependability as a provider of a particular tone, -like a gazoo. Confident moderators need only ask "Ann?" and they are 100% risk-free guarantied to be rewarded with a predictable precise volley. This is why she can only be thought of as an entertainer and cannot be taken seriously as a thinker because she has become trapped by her own pundit branding. She is unable to acknowledge any merit in alternate viewpoints whatsoever because it could be seen to weaken her brand. No thoughtful person can remain so constantly in one camp or the other on every single issue that comes down the pike and be viewed as anything other than a billboard. Speaking of billboards:, -Dear Straw, I recall your post being cited in the Ledger but I do not recall it being attributed to anyone other than "a poster". It is evident to all that you are quite proud of that degree of unrecognized recognition, (despite the fact that you had no influence in taking down anyone in the democratic primary) but perhaps you could cease polishing your post before you wear it down further. | ||
| Mrt Citizen Username: Mrt Post Number: 140 Registered: 3-2003 |
While the Bush administration certainly talked extensively about weapons of mass destruction, they also continuously discussed Iraq's breaking of UN Resolutions, freedom for the Iraqi people, and Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda & terrorism. But I'm sure many of Bush's critics were too busy screaming about a "war for oil" & "US imperialism" to pay attention to what the Bush administration was actually saying; so we'll have to forgive them. Unfortunately, Americans are fighting two wars right now. Conservatives are focused on fighting a war against terrorists who want to murder Americans. While on the other hand, the anti-war left is spending much of it's time and energy trying to rewrite history and find minutiae it can distort in it's never ending quest to smear the President. If they spent all that energy coming up with ways to fight against America's real enemies instead of nipping at the ankles of the President, all Americans would be better off. "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -- Abraham Lincoln In other words, thank you once again for supporting your country. | ||
| Nlanzieri Citizen Username: Nlanzieri Post Number: 112 Registered: 1-2003 |
Strawberry does this for entertainment.(His own) He cant be serious. Some of what he has posted in the past I can buy into, but I think this guy has stopped taking his medication or something. His posts used to humor me and now, I can almost vision him grinding his teeth as he pounds on his keyboard in anger. And believe me, as proud a republican as I am, he is definitely not the voice of our party. He obviously does this for the shock value. If he has this much time and anger on his hands may be he would be interested in an internship at the OReily factor. Stop feeding the trolls and theyll go away. Strawberry, Sorry man, I used to enjoy your posts but you need some anger management. Step away from the keyboard and go plant a tree or something. It just a message board.... | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 1803 Registered: 5-2001  |
First, thank you, Steel, for pointing out to Strawberry that all fame is fleeting, especially if unattributed. Heck, "Nohero" was quoted (by screen name) in the Ledger years before the Straw-buddy, but other than my clip file, you won't be able to find it anywhere. Second, for Mrt and anybody else, let's run through it again: We all want to make sure that America is effectively defended against our enemies. That means that we respect our military, by using them only when necessary, and when the result we aim for will actually make America safer. Does the current Iraq deployment meet that goal? Well, that's debatable. Our President told us that there was no time to waste, that we couldn't wait to build support for a true multi-national response to Iraq. We were told that there were nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, ready-made and ready to go (on long-range missiles, even) that we had to take out immediately. If that was not the case, it's important to find that out - because, the next time we identify an imminent threat, we want to be sure that the rest of the world sees it as well. We're not disagreeing about whether or not the Iraq regime was bad, or deserving of removal; we're disagreeing about whether or not it was worth the international relations damage, the collateral damage, and the armed forces damage, to go in (basically) by ourselves and wind up (as Thomas Friedman predicted) "owning" Iraq, with all the attendant problems. | ||
| shestheone Citizen Username: Shestheone Post Number: 23 Registered: 5-2003 |
nohero, once again, you are the voice of reason. thank you for sticking with MOL inspite of consistent Coulter-esque verbal assaults. | ||
| Insite Citizen Username: Insite Post Number: 79 Registered: 10-2002 |
Mr. NLanzieri, On a message board where 95% of the posters are Democrats and 90% of those Democrats are far left radicals I must say I'm shocked at the target you've chosen. Strawberry has been fighting the fight for the right for how long already on this board?? Where the hell have you been all that time? You call yourself a Republican and in the middle of an debate over Ann Coulter's book you decide to trash the only Republican involved in the argument. How stupid, especially if you call yourself a Republican. I log on to MOL often enough, and I always look forward to a Straw post. As a matter of fact NLanzieri, so do most if not all the posters who spent time arguing their points on this thread over the last few days. Let's see about 20 posts on Thursday alone, address "Strawberry". I for one have read Ann Coulter's book and it's drop dead right on. It seems as if one man (or woman) On MOL is defending the book and rightfully so. And for that he gets ripped by you. Thanks for bringing a valuable read to the attention of posters on MOL, Straw. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4838 Registered: 5-2001  |
Insite makes an interesting point. I sometimes think that the skew in political affiliation in the region forces those in the minority to adopt stronger points of view to make up for the variance. Perhaps this is the market force guiding the sales of ideological books like Coulters and Clintons? However, it seems that Coulter is arguing that substance rather than name-calling should have the upper hand in arguments and yet Strawberry continues to name-call. If the intention behind name-calling is to stir the pot, it's kind of boring although understandable to a degree. If the name-calling is in earnest, then perhaps a closer reading of Coulter's words is in order. | ||
| FOUR STAR STRAW Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 905 Registered: 10-2001 |
Well said NLanzieri, Thanks for clearing up the fact that I am "not" the voice of the Republican Party. To those who got me confused with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Hatch, McCain, etc...sorry for the mix up. Since when is it my responsibility to entertain you?? Another genius. "We have the money, we have the power, we have the population, and most importantly if we want, we can take you down as well." -Strawberry/ Star Ledger, Sunday June 22, 2003 | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1573 Registered: 12-2001  |
Mrt, If it is the case that the Bush Administration deliberately distorted intelligence information to support Mr. Bush's war against Hussein, that is an extraordinarily serious event. I believe that the Bush Administration went to war, not because of a clear and present danger to the U.S., but because Saddam was an impediment to U.S. policy goals in the region. We are now in for a long and financially costly occupation of Iraq with no assurance that we will succeed. If the rate at which our soldiers are being killed continues, Americans will turn against this war quickly as they have turned against every war that shoes no sign of ending ever since we fought to suppress the Philippine independence movement in 1898. Again, the only possible justification for war against Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States. Not finding weapons undermines that justification. All of this stuff about the nastiness of Saddam is irrelevant. I am pretty sure most supporters of the war would be unwilling to have their son/daughter come home in a bag just to stop some dictator from being mean to his own people. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 1806 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, I can agree with you only somewhat. In the run-up to the Iraq War, the board didn't seem to be lopsided towards either the pro- or anti- sides. Most of us managed to discuss our disagreements without resorting to some of the nonsense used by some of our other online "buddies". But, I will agree that it makes no sense to continue to discuss how some posters participate in discussions. That having been said - Straw, I think you meant to say the following in your last post: "What am I a clown? Do I make you laugh? Am I here to amuse you?" | ||
| FOUR STAR STRAW Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 907 Registered: 10-2001 |
well said Nohero..  "We have the money, we have the power, we have the population, and most importantly if we want, we can take you down as well." -Strawberry/ Star Ledger, Sunday June 22, 2003 | ||
| algebra2 Citizen Username: Algebra2 Post Number: 1087 Registered: 5-2001  |
Nlanzieri -- I think you're confusing Ann Coulter's anger for Strawberry's. Strawberry's posts are debate points on a Soapbox Message Board. Maybe you're not familiar with who Ann Coulter is. | ||
| Hank Zona Citizen Username: Hankzona Post Number: 645 Registered: 3-2002 |
"The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety...if the CIA Director of Central Intelligence had said 'take this out of the speech', then it would have been done", Condoleezza Rice told reporters on Air Force One flying to Uganda from South Africa. She went on to say, "The CIA Director George Tenet has been a terrific Director of Central Intelligence." and "I am really not blaming anybody." | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1576 Registered: 12-2001 |
The CIA may have been asked if Bush's speech was going to expose any intelligence assets. Of course, misinformation about uranium from Niger wouldn't expose any assets, so the CIA wouldn't object. I seriously doubt that the CIA was asked to otherwise comment on the tone and substance of the speech. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 310 Registered: 2-2002 |
In the months leading up to this invasion I found my opinion running counter to my tradition and starting to believe that it might be a good idea to "take out" this guy Saddam after all. For me the tipping point was being convinced by this guy George Bush during a very important speech that Iraq was getting bad bad nuclear stuff. Now they admit that that report was wrong wrong wrong and we are just supposed to shrug? I for one will remember this clearly for every GD thing that GW and his crew says in the future as should you all. It is not a little lie or an unimportant mistake it's a big freakin' deal. America has made preemptive strikes before in it's colorful history but never on anything approaching this scale. The entire direction of global behavior has now spun it's heel on a load of crap and it stinks. PS: I also have to agree with tjohn that this conflict "shoes no sign of ending", (sorry tjohn). | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 1578 Registered: 12-2001 |
Steel, That was uncalled for. I did not have the benefit of a Language Arts reading education as is available in SOM schools - only phonetics. I beleeve I spelled shoes phonetically correctly. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 311 Registered: 2-2002 |
tjohn, should you ever decide to stop posting you will leave big shows to fill. | ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 13 Registered: 6-2003 |
Weapons of mass distraction. | ||
| FOUR STAR STRAW Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 914 Registered: 10-2001 |
I guess some of you who actually follow politics now know George Tenet's CIA is responsible for the incorrect information President Bush used during his State of the Union address. Iraq's attempt to purchase Nuclear materials in Africa cannot be proven at this time. Despite this, Tenet, the only holdover from the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION has accepted responsibility for the error. As most of us know, President Bush is a very loyal man who has grown fond of Tenet over the last two years. Everyone makes errors and Tenet obviously made a costly one. Tenet's CIA certainly has grown leaps and bounds since Bush took over, and I'm sure this progress will continue thanks to the Bush Administration. Let's hope so. Weak intelligence may have been acceptable under Clinton. Under President Bush, the same cannot be said. Republicans won't tolerate it. "We have the money, we have the power, we have the population, and most importantly if we want, we can take you down as well." -Strawberry/ Star Ledger, Sunday June 22, 2003 |
