Kadath

Two things.

One, you may not be aware, but "the people you know" cannot be considered a representative sample. Two, I myelf chose not to drop 25 cents for a newspaper -- I read it for free on the internet.

Your views are shocking in their ignorance. I know who I don't want deciding the fate of the world.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Willravel

Don't worry about it. He'll act up and get banned, or he'll learn and we won't be bothered. That's the beauty of TFP.

Willravel

Oh. Okay. That's...interesting.
Only men should be allowed to vote in matters concerning war? And what about those brave people who WEREN'T drafted? What about the women who chose to serve in the military? I guess they don't deserve to choose who leads them into battle or peace. You also have to realize that there are too many stupid and smart people in both genders to choose sides.
My wife and I are both up on current events. That's amale AND a female! I don't want to alarm you, but I'd guess that more of the women I knw are up on politics than guys I know. Perhapse our groups cancel eath other out, in which case neither men or women should vote. Back to reality. Women are fighting for and serving the US right now. Both genders equally deserve to vote for everything.
That's the way the system works. Actually I'd guess less than 2% of the population knows enough to vote properly about anything. Why does that matter? Who are you and I to say who can and can't vote?
Anne certianally is entertaining in her own way. It is important to remember that you should listen to Anne the same way you listen to Poke'Mon. They are there for no value beyond entertainment. That are not here to inform you.

alansmithee

I read the above quotes and I actually agree with about 25% of them. Many are phrased in outrageous ways, but I think that's part of what she's trying to accomplish. Sometimes the best way to get compromise is to go beyond what you really want/think. She's doing this in a political arena, by saying things that seem totally off the wall, people might more readily accept less extreme things on the position.

And also, she seems to really mess with liberals. I would actually say that even though she doesn't get the same press, liberals hate her more than repubs hate moore or franken. Many seem to abandon all rational thought at the mention of her, and spew things just as ridiculous as what she says. Ann Coulter 1, whiny liberals 0.

And fyi, I think she's quite attractive. I'd marry her in a second (if I was 15 years older). Beauty and brains, what more could you want?

The Jolt

The point I was trying to make is while it is true that women can serve in the military they do not fight in a war.

As far as the gender issue, all I can say is that men and women are different. Women build nests, Men build castles. A nest can't be built with out a castle to protect it, and it is pointless to build a castle without a nest to protect. I consider the primary purpose of government to be castle-building.

But notice, I would rather support a "those who pay - vote" system which would include both women and men who meet the criteria. I think there is something wrong when the poor can simply vote to give themselves rich people's money because there are more of them than the rich folk. When you own a piece of land somewhere, you really become tied to a place instead of just moving through.

guy44

OK, alansmithee, I actually think you were right about liberals going nuts whenever Coulter opened her mouth, but that stopped about 3 years ago (guilty). We've sort of just developed a filter now and consider her background noise.

As for The Jolt...man, I don't know, I think you need to climb down from your Ivory Castle and build yourself a nest. I have no idea what that means, but it makes more sense than your post.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

boatin

LOLOLOLOL.

I'm reminded of that scene in "Stripes":

"there is no draft anymore, son"...

maximusveritas

I'm not sure where people get the idea that Coulter is influential or popular in any sense of the word.

Time's own poll showed that 79% had never even heard of Ann Coulter

Her books may be "bestsellers", but that only means she sold about 500,000 copies. Even if you say that each copy translates into 1 person, it's a very small percentage of the population.
Even though she's on Fox News a lot, she doesn't have her own show like a Bill O'Reilly or any influence in the White House like a Bill Kristol.

she's not very influential, she's not very popular, and she's not very sane.

arch13

Oh boy. I've got some nice land beachfront property in Kanssas to sell you.
Women are part of the national guard. A not insignifigant part actually. As the guard has been called into duty, there are in fact women in front line positions as I type this. There have been for the last three years.
Some are even contenders for the medal of valour.

The world has changed. Women fight in the front lines now. They carry guns as big as the boys do also.
I don't care what your opinion of that is. It's reality, deal with it. Women are on the front lines more and more, and will continue to be a heavy presence there.

They are engaging the enemy, are sometimes the CO, and have bigger balls than some of the little boys in their squads. They don't go run and hide when they hear gunshots.

That being said, they get just as much say in if we go to war as any man does, and their vote counts for a hell of a lot more to me than a CO that is safely stateside while he directs troop movements.

As for the ability of every citizen to vote in local and national elections, if you don't like it, move to Cuba.
I vote in every municipale, city, state, and national election. I will give up my right to have a say in my community, even when the ballot measure being decided does not directly effect me or my checkbook, when you pry the gun from my cold dead hands.

If I;m being a jackass with this post, Mods feel free to edit out anything directly offensive.

Otherwise, The Jolt, you need to explain why could make you think that only those affected in one cingular way by a ballot measure have a say in it. Anything that happens in my community will efect me, even if indirectly. Therfor, I have a god given right to voice my opinion in every election that occurs, not just the ones that my taxes directly pay for.

As for Ann, she has as much value to the world as Al Sharpton. That is to say they are both shrill voices running around preaching to their respective choirs. There is a word for that. Entertainers. They hold no say or power. In that respect, she is marginally more sane than Fred Savage, but not by much.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

docbungle

What makes Ann Coulter a worthless human is that she takes herself so seriously. She believes that her views are more important than anyone else's. She's like an angry teenager ranting on an internet blog. Anyone who disagrees with her seriously extreme views are immediately labeled liberal scum and attacked for having an opinion and an ability to think for themselves.

She does NOT think for herself. She spouts propaganda aquired from the worst possible sources.

__________________
Bad Luck City

lurkette

Sarcasm...the mods will never see through that!

You're dangerously close to the line, here. If you can't abide by our rules of conduct then hit the back button. It's not that hard.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

roachboy

well, it is not like time magazine has compromised itself in any way by choosing to put ann coulter on the cover. it is hard to imagine what time could do that would compromise it--it is the richard bey show of american journalism in many ways.

pointing out that ann coulter is a fool seems redundant.....i take her as being the perfect spokemodel for american conservativism at this particular time. what she is, they are. she simply draws obvious conclusions from this variant of politics and does not have the self-control that would keep her from stating them.

more generally, she demonstrates what pt barnum already knew about the american public.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ilow

Yup, roachboy, there is a sucker born every minute, at least enough to buy Anne's books and make her a best seller.
As for The Jolt, I keep waiting for the "just kidding guys (and girls), no one reeally thinks that way any more." Sadly it looks like we have another Coulter fan.
I just keep telling myself that even if she sells 3 million books that's not even one percent of the population, that way I still have some faith in humanity (or at least American humanity).

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

moosenose

I enjoy Anne's punditry. I enjoy the way the liberals foam at the mouth (present company excepted, of course) even more than usual when speaking about her. And I've never bought a Coulter book. If a person commits acts of treason as defined in Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution, they shouldn't be surprised when people call them "traitors". ESPECIALLY when they admit to committing multiple felonies while railing against being called a traitor...

guy44

And who, exactly, is it that has committed treason, moose?

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

The Jolt

Imagine a ballot measure to raise property taxes to build a new campus for the local Community College. Say this is in a town of 100,000 people, but only 40,000 own property and pay property taxes.
For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that everyone votes.
The 40,000 property owners are more likely to research the issue, find out what the CC has done with previous tax increases, evaluate if the money will be spent wisely.
Most of the 60,000 are not as likely to do research, but just show up at the polls and think "a new CC campus, that sounds like a good idea" without any idea how the money is spent or would be better spent. In this example, NO TAX INCREASE WOULD EVER BE TURNED DOWN. The property owners would eventually be taxed out of existance.
Believe it or not, our country was founded on the principle that only property owners should vote.

Another example: You are in a room with 25 people. You all vote, 25 vote to take your money and divide it between everyone, 1 (you) votes not to. Is this right? How many "yes" votes would make it right?

This is just government-sanctioned stealing, you can steal from me when you pry the gun from my cold dead hands.

Also please show me were in the Bible God gives you your right to "vote in every election" or however you derive this "god given right".

By your logic, you should have a right to vote in every local election, even in Constantinople and Timbuktu, because they indirectly effect you in some way, much like a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the world indirectly effects you.

P.S. Don't call me a Coulter "fan". I've only read 2 of her columns and I don't like them because they are prevaded with one idea: "Democrats always wrong, Republicans always right." That's simply not true.

The above post was written by me alone without any help from Ann.

Halx

I read some of this shit... I immediately got one single impression. This is not about politics. This is not about being right or impressing your will upon others. This is about stirring up a soap opera that people will pay attention to. This is professional wrestling with opinions instead of headlocks. This is about the next audacious thing that will come out of someone's mouth. This is about creating celebrities somewhere other than Hollywood.

And if you're fool enough to buy into any of it, you're probably not realizing that while you hate Survivor and The Real World, you're getting the exact same entertainment from Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN.

*sits back and waits for people to realize they're arguing like teens addicted to Dawson's Creek.*

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Mbwuto

Actually, if you assume that the non property owners are indeed living somewhere(not exactly a foolhardy premise), you have to also assume a large number of them pay rent.

Your example is currently playing out in my hometown, oddly enough of about 100k. A vocal non property owning group is against the Colleges bid for 46 mil. The reasoning? As property taxes raise,the debt will be passed onto, not the owners, but the renters. This in the form of raised fees, rents, etc.

__________________
- people who have fallen into solitary, half-mad grooves of life and given up trying to be normal or decent.

George Orwell

Bill O'Rights

That *ahem* would've been...me.
And for a 43 year old woman (9 months older than me) she's not to bad on the eyes, and she's got a nice set of legs under her. But...unfortunately, that's about it.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

arch13

Thank you for pointing that out Mbwuto. The pay rent, which makes them have an equal voice in their community.
For The Jolt's example, he is essentialy saying that those who rent property should have no voice.

Well here's an idea for The Jolt's example. Said college is built, and some land owners are mad enough that they sell their homes and leave. No problem so far. College's increased capacity and extended hours allows some of the renters to go back to school during off hours and increase their market skills. This allows them to procure better pay, thus purchasing more and having more discretionary income. This increased spending is far more than the property owners, thus easily offseting that insignifigant loss. As the eductaion level rises, so do the wages of those that persue that education. Thus, many of those that take the education initiative eventually buy houses, more than making up for the loss of a few disgruntled former landowners.

Now, The Jolt, I never connected you and Ann. I simply commented on two different topics in one post. If it looked like I was saying something else, I apologize, as I was not.

Those that rent or live in area are just as likely to be affected by anything that happens in their community. The basis for who votes, is who is effected by the vote.
Any city that ignores renters will die a quick economic death. Property owners property taxes alone will not ever support a city. In fact, a good percentage of those that rent are white collar workers who have chosen not to "settle" in a given area. They are there for a while to work, and then will move on to an even better job.

I fall into that catagory. I am an architect, and rent for $850 a month. While I may buy a house one day, I have no desire to yet. You are saying that despite being on the upper end of white collar income with a large state tax witholding for filling single, and a large portion of discretionary income that I spend, I count for nothing in a given area.
Well any area that acts that way, I would not choose to live. Nor would any person with an upper level degree that holds high value to the market.

From an economic standpoint, property oners are not nearly as importnat to a city as small business owners. Renters also pay property taxes through their rent, as the tax amount is added to their rent costs. therefor, under your logic, as the "property owner" passes the tax expense onto his tennants, the property was not the payer of the taxes, and therefor should have no vote as the cost was not out of pocket for him. There go people who invest in property to rent's voices also, to be replaced by their tennants who actually paid the bill.

You seem to actually be angry at the ignorance of voters.
I'm going to take a guess that the area you own a home in is having problems, and the solution you have formulated is that it's the non-permanat residents of your area that have caused recent tax increases and social problems.

As for my right to vote, it was defined as the right to choose my government, which is a natural right. Therefor, god given by our founding documents.

Now let me give you a couple hard knocks as an architect.
Do you live in a suburb? Then you owe me money. The cost of building the infastructure to create a suburb is paid by the municipal government and is paid for through sales tax and commercial taxes. Every cent you ever spend on property tax would not cover the cost of the roads, waste, water extraction, etc in your subdivision. Without local business's and state income tax, it would not have happend. (As an aside, many states are now changing their laws to make the developer build all the infastructure, which freezes development fast and on purpose, as the infastructure for a single subdivision of 4000 homes will cost 65 million to build and maintain for 20 years.) So by living in a subdivision, you should thank me for stimulating the ecenomy enough to be able to pay those costs as someone who spends a lot in income tax, as well as making a local business be able to compete by being a high-skill worker, therefor allowing the business to pay increased taxes thorugh my hard work to increase their gross income.

From a social standpoint, the economy and ability for a city to compete is dependendent on all it's residents. Property owners are afforded no more rights than the ownership of the ground they stand on. they are not more imporntant than another group in the economic or social sense. Their increased property tax expense is offfset by the decline in their discretionary expenses as they start paying a mortgage.

On this basis, the vote belongs to every resident, as the area will not survive without them all.
Therefor, your argument that land owners have a greater say makes no sense as they alone are not the central pillar of the economics of a given area. Using your argument, the greatest payers of taxes are business's, so they should get the only vote.

As for voting in my elections again, I also buy municipal bonds, therefor do I have more say in a vote than you? I aided the economy more than you did on another level.
Voter ignorance is a reality, but property owners are just as ignorant. Owning property does not make one better at deciding something, nor does it actually inspire said owners to educate themselves and vote.
And besides all that, often what the property owners want is not in the best interest long term for a city. Land owners come and go, but the city will alway need function on a much longer time frame and with broader needs than those that match a property owner who will only live on average for 78.5 years.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

jorgelito

Aha! erm..yes well...now what? Oh yeah:

Hey to each their own I always say and different strokes for different folks

I'll admit, I really don't see it. The long face, the twiggy body, and the legs are like stilts.... But that's just my opinion

Which now begs the obvious thread-jacking question: Which "pundit/talking head" or politician do you (you meaning everyone) consider "hot" or attractive?

roachboy

how old are you, moose? 12?
if you arent what attraction does this response hold for you?
a response which you are making up, btw, as most folk i know who do not share anything about your politics simply do not waste their time on a cretin of ann coulter's magnitude (sorry to burst your bubble)...why would anyone now already far far to the right bother with her in any event? she presents nothing analytically, nothing polemically of any interest...what would the point be?

but what if those of us who oppose you and your politics did watch the train wreck that is ann coulter in action? she is obviously little more than a television fool who does conservatism no favors by consistently saying the stupidest possible things that you could derive from that ideological position.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

moosenose

I suggest you check out some of the "progressive" websites (such as DailyKOS, Buzzflash, Democraticunderground, et cetera) on the net for examples of what I'm talking about. And I'm considerably older than 12...

moosenose

Well, you could start with Jane Fonda and move down the list....

RAGEAngel9

I lost my copy of "The List".
Would you care to tell me some more and their "Crimes"?

Mojo_PeiPei

Nevermind.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Slavakion

I didn't know who Ann Coulter was before Time came in the mail today. And I haven't done more than skim the article yet. But did Time choose her worst quotes, or is this how... I don't even have a word... she always is?
Personal feelings aside, isn't the National Guard supposed to be for controlling serious riots and saving people from floods and defending the country? Maybe she was kidding.
The SU thing must have been before my time, and I don't really remember what the hell she's talking about with Saddam. I think the last sentence speaks for itself.
Isn't that like racism of beliefs? Er... beliefism? SecretMethod70 better hide; Ann might hunt you down for being a libertarian...
Nukes are... fun? Considering this, Bush is a pretty good president; he hasn't admitted to having an itchy trigger finger yet. And I wonder what was in the ellipsis? "...have it be a warning to [Democrats and] the world" maybe. And why does the world need to be afraid of us?
Outright racism... Should I be banned from press conferences because I'm partially Irish and might go IRA on all your asses?
PS - Tiocfaidh Ár Lá
Oh, right. I almost forgot how you explained that liberals are all terrorists.

I think that I could have just posted the quotes and they would've spoken for themselves. I've "known" Ms. Coulter for about 5 hours and already dislike her.

moosenose

It's called "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". Read Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution for the full "scoop" on what treason is defined as. You also might read up on "Lord Haw-Haw", "Axis Sally", and "Tokyo Rose". Or, you could read up on Armand Hammer, ( http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/hammerop.htm )the groups he funded, and the fact that he was on the KGB payroll... that was bloody embarrasing for him and the anti-war movement...you know, the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union, and the leaking of all of those papers to the West...

If you want to read up on a "free speech" case of treason that resulted in the Death Penalty being justly administered, you can always read up on the Rosenbergs...They claimed that they did what they did as a matter of conscience, but they still "got the gas"...

guy44

George W. Bush's grandfather, the father of George Bush, Sr., raised money for the Nazis. The South once was the enemy. Republicans, who are lead by Bush, are all over the goddam place in the South. I guess that makes them all traitors?

Bush Sr. and Donald Rumsfeld gave biological weapons to Saddam Hussein. Reagan and Bush Sr. engaged in illegal arms trades with Iran and the Contras. Somewhere, somehow, one of those must be giving aid to the enemy, right, moose?

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

Slavakion

Plus, didn't we train Osama with the CIA or something to that effect?

moosenose

Nah, there's no such thing under US law as "corruption of blood". Jane Fonda, however, did what she did, and should have been made to pay for her treasonous activities.

It's very simple....if you (not your parents or grandparents) betray the country by giving aid and comfort to the enemy, you are a traitor.

Joe Kennedy was both a bootlegger and a Nazi supporter. You'll notice that I didn't include JFK/RFK in my list. Why? Because they can't be held responsible for the actions of others, only for their OWN actions, and they didn't give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Willravel

Yes, he is CIA trained becuase he was once very useful in Middle Eastern politics. Of course we also helped Sadam get into power.
Then grandpa Bush is guilty of treason. Actually anyone who has ever been to an anti-war protest is a traiter (as they are aiding whoever we are waring against). That would make me a traiter like 20 times over.

That is one of those open ended rules intended to make up for a rule that might not exist yet about treason. It is not a 'send opposition to jail free pass'. The right to speak freely is the right of every American (and also for those from countries with the same right, of course). Jane Fonda was well within her rights to propogandize on behalf of tyhe N. Vietnamese government, declair that the American POWs were being treated fairly, and calling the POWs liars for saying they were tortured. She may have been wrong to do that morally, but legally, she was well within her rights. The same freedom of speech that allows me to call Michael Moore the worst beanbag ever allows Jane Fonda to critisize the government. Jane Fonda isn't a traitor. She enjoys the same freedoms that you enjoy when you errounously call people traitors.

Mojo_PeiPei

For the record we didn't train the Mujahdeen, the ISI did, we funded them, they were not an enemy of the America at that time.

Also we didn't help Saddam get power, we did help put the Baath's in power in the mid 60's, Saddam assumed power from them in late 70's.

Miss Fonda may have been within her rights for her speech and actions state side, however her actually going to meet the NVRA is a completely different matter, one that is not afforded protection under her constitutional rights. Same goes for Kerry and his treasonous testimony before congress, which resulted in the captivity and blood of American soldiers.

arch13

Oh jeez, can we let this topic get back on track?

I actually want to hear opinions on Ann, and this 2nd page has become anything but Ann.

We need a seperate thread to address some of the posts that have been made here.
Now back to our regularly schedualed programing.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

Manx

Wait a second - which is it? You're allowed to speak freely (as in Jane Fonda state-side) or you are not (as in Kerry before Congress)? If you're going to claim some form of treason, you could atleast do us the favor of being consistent about it.

Otherwise it just sounds entirely like figureheads for the people you disagree with are some kind of defacto traitors.

Mojo_PeiPei

There is nothing inconsistent with what I said. Miss Fonda can say whatever the hell she wants, not limited to the states, when she leaves the country and consorts with the enemy that is providing aid and comfort which is treason.

As for Kerry last time I checked lying to congress (read perjury) is not protected speech, especially when it plays into the hands of our enemy.

Manx

Last time I checked, lying to Congress (and I'm just going to let that belief of yours go unchecked here) is also not treason. So yes, your statement is inconsistent.

"it plays into the hands of our enemy" - could there be a more vague methodology to label someone a traitor? Apathy could also "play into the hands of the enemy".

If we're setting the bar so incredibly low and supported with such far fetched justifications for such a significant claim, that of treason, here's my contribution:

Bush is a traitor because he lied to the American people to further his and his cronies oil interests, costing the lives of over a thousand Americans. Playing RIGHT into the hands of Osama Bin Laden. Aiding the enemy.

Ann Coulter is a traitor because she forsakes the religious freedom of the U.S. to champion the wholesale annihilation or conversion of all Muslims in the Middle East, thereby instigating a flat-out religious war which would inevitably cost thousands and thousands of American lives. Playing RIGHT into the hands of Osama Bin Laden. Aiding the enemy.

There's no end to whatever fanciful, imaginary and ultimately arbitrary claim I can make with your methodology of defining treason.

Of course, then when someone does come along who is actually commiting treason - no one is going to believe me if I were in a position to point it out. There's a childrens parable about that.

moosenose

I suggest you read up on "Tokyo Rose", "Axis Sally", "Lord Haw-Haw", and Senator Vallandigham of Ohio. While you're at it, just for shits and giggles, read up on Eugene V. Debs.

People have indeed been convicted of various crimes for propagandizing for the Enemy...and they've gone to jail, been stripped of their citizenship, and deported for it in the past.

Willravel

Okay, then those cases were wrong.

Tokyo Rose is an interesting story. Let me begin by saying that the woman convicted as Tokyo Rose was pardoned by Gerald Ford in 1977, therefore she was not guilty.

from this ask.yahoo article:
This case was bs from the beginning, and she isn't even guilty under the current law. You aren't making a very strong case so far, Moose.

Now let's take a look at Axis Sally.
(from womanhistory.about.com)
This is where Jane Fonda and Axis Sally differ. I see this as treason because she is giving away information about the troops, not simply speaking out against the war. She was also an anti-semetic psychopath.

Lord Haw-Haw is esentially the same case as Axis Sally (William Joyce was actually on the Axis Sally program in Nazi Germany).

Clement Vallandigham was not convicted of treason, so he is automatically excluded.

I guess it's time for shits and giggles (Eugene V. Debs). While Debs is a pretty bad guy, I am still not certian why he was convicted.

Elphaba

If someone would start a topic regarding "traitors" of the Viet Nam war, I am likely to post to it, but posting here is just topic drift.

Coulter might have been worthy of mention in Time's entertainment section, but a cover is beyond my comprehension. A well written letter to the editor of Time might be in order asking whether they are now competing with People magazine.

Thanks to Host, a new topic was started.