Or "neocons."

By the way, do you happen to remember who made this statement in another thread? It seems kind of "Coulter-esque" to me:

It's too bad this statement was removed by a moderator, since it paints such a clear picture of its author.

However, do you think the author was serious, or was he just engaging in hyperbole that some people didn't comprehend?

What that "quote" shows is that you waited about a month before posting total bullshit in the hopes that members would "remember" that I said something approximating it, yet be unable to verify its accuracy.

The quote I typed was (in response to willravel's question about what god might think about a particular free speech debate):
it should have been understood to mean that if god is looking at this board at all, it isn't to monitor the politics section of it. and christians' time might be better spent following his lead.

But none of that matters because I was warned for posting it (after you complained about it more than a week after I had posted it) and the mods deleted it. How convenient for you to create a quote out of thin air that can't be dug up and reviewed so all can see you for the liar you now are proven to be by the good memory of the regular posters here.

Actually, no one's memory is necessary here since my quote happens to be preserved in a PM from spectre in his warning to me; not only is it saved in my PM box, I have a screenshot of the dialog spectre sent me when I asked which portion of my post was found to be offensive posted here:
http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/4...65360000001610


how any of this is relevant to the thread is beyond me and probably more than half of the others reading it.
The equation of the epithet "libtards" (joining "liberals" + "retards") to "neocons" (joining "neo" (new) + "conservatives") is hopefully equally confusing to rational beings reading this.

what is evident is that you've harbored a bad feeling about being reprimanded for following me around and posting negative bullshit against me (just like you did above with the warped version of a 'quote' you straight up pulled out of your ass).

It's been ages and ages since I really looked around or posted here at the TFP, and one of the first things I see is Superbelt casting Michael Moore in a positive light.

Up is down. Black is right and right is wrong.

Is that sarcasm?
Regardless, I am only defending him in relation to Ann Coulter.
I will admit to reading one of his early books and seeing two of his movies (Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine). I have not seen F 9/11 nor will I ever. I have also read a Coulter book for context.

Moore is not a fully honest man or someone I want to represent me in public, but he is leagues ahead of Coulter in all measurements that matter.

Hee... thanks Bill.

Ann is still looney toons right?

:p

The first thing I saw when I opened up the "59 Deciets" link was the cover of Fahrenhype 9/11. Just the fact that the right felt the pressure enough to release a filmed rebuttal (which is what it is) proves that Moore, like it or not, is a person of political influence.

But c'mon guys, Coulter's obviously some kind of Kaufman-esque joke or a bonafide nutjob. I can't see how anyone in good conscience can agree with anything she says. In fact, I can't even believe anyone on these boards could support her.

Exactly, bringing up Moore in this thread is completely irrelevant and nonproductive...end of story.

THANK YOU!

:icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare:

As far as I'm concerned...yes, absolutely.
She's still cute, though.

http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticou...ltervsmrt2.gif

God Bless Mr. T :lol:

i pity the fool, averett. nice find. :)

I don't think the opinions of Ann Coulter matter much to most of us. I never took her seriously. I also don't take too seriously anything that Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, et al..say on the right or Roger Moore, Al Sharpton, et al..say on the left.

These folks live to create controversy. They are just entertainers who need to say outlandish things in order to stay in the limelight. It's just show business.

I GOT MENTIONED!! I couldn't be happier!!! :D
Anne Coulter is crackerjacks. Old crackerjacks.

The difference between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter is that Moore are actually manifold. Coulter is a bit more attractive, Moore is quite a bit cleverer. Moore presents a worldview that some call propoganda and others believe to be valuable, Coulter simply makes unsupported statements which frequently do not appear to be consistent with logic or sanity. (ie "we should lead a crusade againg Islam")

Whether Moore may be a liar, or a propoganderist I dont think is the question in this thread.

But I feel I should repeat myself, if I can. Moore is most frequently criticised for Bowling for Columbine.

There is a difference, a moral and objective difference, between saying - America has 10,000 gun deaths a year and I think this is a problem

and Coulter saying

We should destroy Islam, because 20 Islamic terrorists have killed 3000 people in America

They are different statements, from different places, they should be treated differently. I am concerned about the world view of anyone who see's these statements as alike or comparable.

Moore MIGHT be a liar, or a vain self publicist, or a windbag... he is not calling for a mass genocide. There IS a difference

And I hope no one would accuse me of supporting someone like Michael Moore. He is radically and inreconcilably to the right of me, he is a supporter of a capitalism with a social conscience and thusly an enemy of the revolution and an enemy of all working class people in my opinion.