<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW, high sales of a book does not have any correlation to it's degree of insight or the validity of it's views.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, you mean like Hillary's book, for example?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LMFAO. Way to dodge the point -- Ann and Paul and all the other Neo-Con cheerleaders would be proud.
Hillary Rodham Clinton could run circles around Ann Coulter, intellectually speaking, not that you would ever even dream of entertaining such a thought. I detest HRC, but am possessed of the ability to respect those positive characteristics which even people I consider to be anithetical to the American way of life might possess. Like most other Neo-Cons, you just automatically insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you, as in your above response.
Phaedrus
Oh, you mean like Hillary's book, for example?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LMFAO. Way to dodge the point -- Ann and Paul and all the other Neo-Con cheerleaders would be proud.
Hillary Rodham Clinton could run circles around Ann Coulter, intellectually speaking, not that you would ever even dream of entertaining such a thought. I detest HRC, but am possessed of the ability to respect those positive characteristics which even people I consider to be anithetical to the American way of life might possess. Like most other Neo-Cons, you just automatically insult the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you, as in your above response.
Phaedrus
Phaedrus - You back Hilary because she is honest to the public right? Kind of like when she said she was shocked the Slick Willy cheated on her right? For the 10th time.
Come on people. Provide some facts along with your name calling.
Jenna - Have you noticed that nobody really responds to the real topic they had to bring up something else to bitch about.
KMAN
Come on people. Provide some facts along with your name calling.
Jenna - Have you noticed that nobody really responds to the real topic they had to bring up something else to bitch about.
KMAN
Odds:
Jenna is a man:
Yes -550
No +490
I've never heard a woman in my entire life whose idea of an insult was "I bet you never got laid!"
That man-insult moved the line 50 cents!
Ann Coulter is a man:
Yes -110
No -110
I couldn't tell ya.
Jenna never "lurked for a year", but is rather a ghost of another poster
Yes -8500
No +4000
Jenna is KMAN
Yes +120
No -140
Jenna is a man:
Yes -550
No +490
I've never heard a woman in my entire life whose idea of an insult was "I bet you never got laid!"
That man-insult moved the line 50 cents!
Ann Coulter is a man:
Yes -110
No -110
I couldn't tell ya.
Jenna never "lurked for a year", but is rather a ghost of another poster
Yes -8500
No +4000
Jenna is KMAN
Yes +120
No -140
Give me no for the limit. Coulter is way to nasty.
Here is one of her more well known columns:
March 16, 2001
The liar is gone but the lying continues
It seems President George Bush has imposed an innovative series of workplace rules at the White House. Staffers have been instructed to be on time, practice common courtesy and dress appropriately. (This probably spells an end to the crack pipes on the White House Christmas tree, too.)
President Clinton's economic adviser Gene Sperling dismissed the adult environment at the Bush White House as the serendipity of having a budget surplus. He explained that the endless all-night jam sessions with panty-less women was the result of "how dramatically different it was to be in a time of deficits." (The connection between having to make important decisions and creating an environment in which it was impossible to make important decisions remains a bit murky.)
By contrast, the Clinton administration had to suffer: "We literally had to present Clinton with scores of potential cuts which could even cost members of Congress or the president himself an election."
What were those programs again? Clinton's big initiatives during his first year in office consisted of: (1) trying to socialize the nation's health care, and (2) attempting to turn the U.S. armed forces into a homosexual focus group. It took Newt Gingrich and the Republicans coming to power to give Americans a puny tax cut.
But in those first few years when he was working with his own party, Clinton raised taxes and created new government programs. No wonder it took interminable hippie jam sessions to put together a budget. Clinton had to figure out precisely how much of a lie his campaign promise of a "middle class tax cut" was going to be.
In addition to having cleared out the pizza boxes, women's panties and plastic cups littering the White House, the calming wind of the Bush administration has created genuine "new Democrats" -- Democrats with a passion for fiscal austerity. As a theoretical matter, they are all for a tax cut. But alas, they are slaves to a balanced budget, and "we" just can't "afford" it right now.
They are, of course, lying. They want our "muffler money" to protect the revenue flow for their useless federal programs.
But the point is: They don't say that. Polls must be telling Democrats they can't support taxes by appealing to Americans' love of government programs anymore. Their current propaganda proves that wonderful government programs aren't selling. Even the Democrats' class-envy demagoguery has lost steam. People hear that the Bush tax cut will give "the rich" a hundred kazillion dollars back, and the average cluck will only get $200 back -- and they think: "OK, gimme my $200."
Consequently, Democrats are left having to hoodwink stupid Republicans (or Maine senators) and the broader public by insisting they can't sleep at night thinking about the debt. Just as abortion-loving Democrats maintain that no one is in favor of abortion, they now claim they also want to make taxes safe, legal and rare. They really do. They just want to balance the budget "first."
One of their ingenious devices for making abortion "rare" was to support a procedure that involves suctioning the brains out of a half-born baby. This is pretty much how their fiscal austerity plan would work, too. Gee, one crackerjack method of making something "rare" is to throw people in prison if they do it. (Why do they want to make abortion "rare" anyway? Is it a little bit of a murder?) And one way to balance the budget is to stop spending money like drunken sailors.
But somehow Democrats and Maine Republicans never get around to the spending part of their fiscal austerity plan. All we know is that it's going to require a lot of taxes. If their mania for a balanced budget is so all-consuming, why can't they ever tell us which useless government bureaucracies they intend to stop lavishing money on?
Any politician who cannot agree with the proposition that no American should send more than a third of what he earns to the federal government ought to be able to say how much -- ideally -- the government should be taking. How about 40 percent? Is that just right? When will we have attained the perfect tax nirvana according to the Democratic Party?
When Reagan was elected, this country had 80 percent marginal tax rates. That barbarism was expunged a mere 18 years ago -- and no thanks to the Democrats. It is a more astonishing fact that 18 years ago the marginal tax rate in the United States of America was 80 percent than that lobotomies were an accepted medical practice a couple decades back.
Get your mufflers now -- before Democrats figure out a way to make taxes any more "rare."
[This message was edited by wilheim on August 05, 2003 at 07:03 PM.]
Here is one of her more well known columns:
March 16, 2001
The liar is gone but the lying continues
It seems President George Bush has imposed an innovative series of workplace rules at the White House. Staffers have been instructed to be on time, practice common courtesy and dress appropriately. (This probably spells an end to the crack pipes on the White House Christmas tree, too.)
President Clinton's economic adviser Gene Sperling dismissed the adult environment at the Bush White House as the serendipity of having a budget surplus. He explained that the endless all-night jam sessions with panty-less women was the result of "how dramatically different it was to be in a time of deficits." (The connection between having to make important decisions and creating an environment in which it was impossible to make important decisions remains a bit murky.)
By contrast, the Clinton administration had to suffer: "We literally had to present Clinton with scores of potential cuts which could even cost members of Congress or the president himself an election."
What were those programs again? Clinton's big initiatives during his first year in office consisted of: (1) trying to socialize the nation's health care, and (2) attempting to turn the U.S. armed forces into a homosexual focus group. It took Newt Gingrich and the Republicans coming to power to give Americans a puny tax cut.
But in those first few years when he was working with his own party, Clinton raised taxes and created new government programs. No wonder it took interminable hippie jam sessions to put together a budget. Clinton had to figure out precisely how much of a lie his campaign promise of a "middle class tax cut" was going to be.
In addition to having cleared out the pizza boxes, women's panties and plastic cups littering the White House, the calming wind of the Bush administration has created genuine "new Democrats" -- Democrats with a passion for fiscal austerity. As a theoretical matter, they are all for a tax cut. But alas, they are slaves to a balanced budget, and "we" just can't "afford" it right now.
They are, of course, lying. They want our "muffler money" to protect the revenue flow for their useless federal programs.
But the point is: They don't say that. Polls must be telling Democrats they can't support taxes by appealing to Americans' love of government programs anymore. Their current propaganda proves that wonderful government programs aren't selling. Even the Democrats' class-envy demagoguery has lost steam. People hear that the Bush tax cut will give "the rich" a hundred kazillion dollars back, and the average cluck will only get $200 back -- and they think: "OK, gimme my $200."
Consequently, Democrats are left having to hoodwink stupid Republicans (or Maine senators) and the broader public by insisting they can't sleep at night thinking about the debt. Just as abortion-loving Democrats maintain that no one is in favor of abortion, they now claim they also want to make taxes safe, legal and rare. They really do. They just want to balance the budget "first."
One of their ingenious devices for making abortion "rare" was to support a procedure that involves suctioning the brains out of a half-born baby. This is pretty much how their fiscal austerity plan would work, too. Gee, one crackerjack method of making something "rare" is to throw people in prison if they do it. (Why do they want to make abortion "rare" anyway? Is it a little bit of a murder?) And one way to balance the budget is to stop spending money like drunken sailors.
But somehow Democrats and Maine Republicans never get around to the spending part of their fiscal austerity plan. All we know is that it's going to require a lot of taxes. If their mania for a balanced budget is so all-consuming, why can't they ever tell us which useless government bureaucracies they intend to stop lavishing money on?
Any politician who cannot agree with the proposition that no American should send more than a third of what he earns to the federal government ought to be able to say how much -- ideally -- the government should be taking. How about 40 percent? Is that just right? When will we have attained the perfect tax nirvana according to the Democratic Party?
When Reagan was elected, this country had 80 percent marginal tax rates. That barbarism was expunged a mere 18 years ago -- and no thanks to the Democrats. It is a more astonishing fact that 18 years ago the marginal tax rate in the United States of America was 80 percent than that lobotomies were an accepted medical practice a couple decades back.
Get your mufflers now -- before Democrats figure out a way to make taxes any more "rare."
[This message was edited by wilheim on August 05, 2003 at 07:03 PM.]
jenna,
"Now you libs start with the namecalling. Nice. Too bad you're so immature that you have to resort to that."
I believe you said this at a previous date....
"Grant,
Why do you think you're so much better than everyone? You probably have a small penis."
....what could be a more immature, lacking of any wits comment. In a short time I've seen more than one reference on your part to the name callers, yet you seem to be pretty good at it yourself.
"Now you libs start with the namecalling. Nice. Too bad you're so immature that you have to resort to that."
I believe you said this at a previous date....
"Grant,
Why do you think you're so much better than everyone? You probably have a small penis."
....what could be a more immature, lacking of any wits comment. In a short time I've seen more than one reference on your part to the name callers, yet you seem to be pretty good at it yourself.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Phaedrus - You back Hilary because she is honest to the public right? Kind of like when she said she was shocked the Slick Willy cheated on her right? For the 10th time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, come on KMAN, read the posts. I said having a NY Times bestseller did not make a person a good writer by default, given some of the bunk that makes that list. Look at the list and its history, and I'm certain that you will agree. Rather than concede this simple point, Jenna said "Oh, so that means Hillary Clinton too right?" She brought it up.
And I said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I detest HRC, but am possessed of the ability to respect those positive characteristics which even people I consider to be anithetical to the American way of life might possess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that for me to say that I detest Hillary Clinton is a pretty clear indicator that I do not back her.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Come on people. Provide some facts along with your name calling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tell it to Ann Coulter, for Christ's sake.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Jenna - Have you noticed that nobody really responds to the real topic they had to bring up something else to bitch about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know if she'll notice it or not, given that she was the one who brought up Hillary Clinton rather than acknowledge a demonstrable fact of the literary trade simply because it slightly deflates her argument. You've played the "Oh, you're changing the subject!" card so many fvcking times it's pathetic, yet again and again I have said, "OK, what point did I leave off?" and you never answer.
If what you mean by "dodging" is that I have not weighed in on your asinine and childish suggestion that the terrorists and non-terrorists all meet up at the playground after school for a rumble, well, I think it's asinine and childish, and I'm pretty sure most other people do as well and didn't really think that it warranted a response, and honestly I think deep down inside even you know that you're just talking out of your ass on this point. *Terrorists* do not meet on a level playing field; they are not soldiers in the traditional sense and they do not show up for appointments set by the righteous [sic] They're cowardly, filthy murderers; they're lice with Semtex.
So, who's dodging whom here? I make a simple point about the NY Times bestseller list, and it turns into a rant on Hillary Clinton and then a sideswipe insult from someone not even involved in the conversation?
Phaedrus
Oh, come on KMAN, read the posts. I said having a NY Times bestseller did not make a person a good writer by default, given some of the bunk that makes that list. Look at the list and its history, and I'm certain that you will agree. Rather than concede this simple point, Jenna said "Oh, so that means Hillary Clinton too right?" She brought it up.
And I said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I detest HRC, but am possessed of the ability to respect those positive characteristics which even people I consider to be anithetical to the American way of life might possess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that for me to say that I detest Hillary Clinton is a pretty clear indicator that I do not back her.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Come on people. Provide some facts along with your name calling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tell it to Ann Coulter, for Christ's sake.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Jenna - Have you noticed that nobody really responds to the real topic they had to bring up something else to bitch about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know if she'll notice it or not, given that she was the one who brought up Hillary Clinton rather than acknowledge a demonstrable fact of the literary trade simply because it slightly deflates her argument. You've played the "Oh, you're changing the subject!" card so many fvcking times it's pathetic, yet again and again I have said, "OK, what point did I leave off?" and you never answer.
If what you mean by "dodging" is that I have not weighed in on your asinine and childish suggestion that the terrorists and non-terrorists all meet up at the playground after school for a rumble, well, I think it's asinine and childish, and I'm pretty sure most other people do as well and didn't really think that it warranted a response, and honestly I think deep down inside even you know that you're just talking out of your ass on this point. *Terrorists* do not meet on a level playing field; they are not soldiers in the traditional sense and they do not show up for appointments set by the righteous [sic] They're cowardly, filthy murderers; they're lice with Semtex.
So, who's dodging whom here? I make a simple point about the NY Times bestseller list, and it turns into a rant on Hillary Clinton and then a sideswipe insult from someone not even involved in the conversation?
Phaedrus
Phaedrus - Those are fair statements. My point is if Terrorists do what they do to be Martyrs then they would agree to meet like this. It would speed the whole process up, but instead they are just like you said filthy murderers who just want to kill innocent people.
I know many people on these boards like Grantt compare the US governement to terrorists and I don't know how that's possible.
KMAN
I know many people on these boards like Grantt compare the US governement to terrorists and I don't know how that's possible.
KMAN
