NJH wrote:
>
> "Peekabu Icu" <pekeabuicu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2dc70389.0307062307.453cfa4e@posting.google.c om...
> > You stupid oaf. You speak as if *smart* women are unusual.
> >
> > Regardless, Coulter's intelligence is questionable.
>
> So is the roundness of the earth, I suppose. You can question anything you
> like.
>
> But questioning Ann Coulter's intelligence would be one of the dumbest
> exercises imaginable. She's a constitutional scholar, a brilliant and witty
> writer, and her last two books shot to the top of the best-seller lists and
> had a good run there (as I expect her latest one will also), and did it
> without any of the fawning puff-piece interviews the leftist-liberal media
> have lavished on authors more to their liking such as Hillary. All that
> argues for a pretty high level of intelligence.

Ann Coulter does not aim to convert the liberal. She wished to
use him for sport. She succeeds very well.

David

Ann Coulter is BOTH a dumb blonde and a repugnant cryptoNazi. She
flaunts an ersatz Aryan blondeness which she undoubtedly obtains from
a bottle of peroxide and her p**sy gets wet whenever she thinks of the
late usually drunken Senator Joe. What else needs to be said about
this false heartless rotten c**t?

"NJH" <nojunk@all.thanks> wrote in message
news:mSXNa.7703$_B.2370177191@newssvr10.news.prodi gy.com...
>
> "Lawson English" <english7@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:be6qbt$v4h$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "NJH" <nojunk@all.thanks> wrote in message news:h8oNa.7610
> > > <CatB@infoX.com> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > > > What do you
> > > > expect? The Republican Party is the party of wealth and privilege.
> > >
> > > Amazing. The wealthiest and most privileged presidents, senators and
> > > representatives are and have been Democrats, but they still manage to
> find
> > > people stupid or gullible enough to believe that "the Republican Party
> is
> > > the party of wealth and privilege." The Democrats sure know the
> > intelligence
> > > level of their constituents, you have to give them that.
> >
> > It is an interesting question, isn't it? The evil, ultra-rich Democrats
> > portray themselves as helping poor people, while the good, not-so-rich
> > Republicans, portray themselves as helping...
> >
> > Who?
>
> Has something happened to the principle of helping oneself? You know--hard
> work, clean living, study, savings, investment, trying to get ahead
through
> one's own efforts and all that old-fashioned sort of thing?
>

No problem with any of those. I think that those are the most important
things that can be encourated, and the Democratic party rightfully has been
accused (deliberately or inadvertently) of encouraging people to stay
dependent on government. HOWEVER...

>
> >
> > What are the motivations and genuine target audiences here? Who is
REALLY
> > being helped by each side and how?
>
> Good question, actually. I have watched the poor people being "helped" for
> many decades now. The "helpers" seem to do very well for themselves while
> the "helped" remain as poor as ever. A cynical person might wonder whether
> the "helpers" are just stupid and incompetent, or their goals are not
> exactly what they're professed to be. (If there's a third possibility it
> hasn't occurred to me.)
>

Its an interesting issue. I don't have a good response to this save to point
out that I don't see that the motives of Republicans are somehow more noble
than the Democrats. They just cater to different special interest groups.
And that is an oversimplification also, since I know Republicans who are
envornmentally active, and Democrats who don't like the cliche "Welfare
State" policies that the Democratic Party often seems to promote in order to
generate votes amongst the "have-nots."


--
New definition of irony:

'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.




--
New definition of irony:

'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.

"NJH" <nojunk@all.thanks> wrote in message news:<9fdOa.8243$9F5.2423108745@newssvr10.news.pro digy.com>...
> "Peekabu Icu" <pekeabuicu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2dc70389.0307062307.453cfa4e@posting.google.c om...
> > You stupid oaf. You speak as if *smart* women are unusual.
> >
> > Regardless, Coulter's intelligence is questionable.
>
> So is the roundness of the earth, I suppose. You can question anything you
> like.
>
> But questioning Ann Coulter's intelligence would be one of the dumbest
> exercises imaginable. She's a constitutional scholar, a brilliant and witty
> writer, and her last two books shot to the top of the best-seller lists and
> had a good run there (as I expect her latest one will also), and did it
> without any of the fawning puff-piece interviews


Oh, really? I guess I have been dreaming for the past two weeks --
every damn time I turn on the TV, there she is being interviewed again
about her book -- she's been on all the usual places.

Brilliant and witty? I have a housecat with greater analytic ability.

>>>>
SPQR
<<<<


>the leftist-liberal media
> have lavished on authors more to their liking such as Hillary. All that
> argues for a pretty high level of intelligence.
>
>
> > She
> > constantly makes wild claims without substantiating them.
>
> On the contrary, she gives cites for everything she says. The backs of her
> books are filled with end notes. The sources are all there.
>
> Does Hillary "substantiate" anything? Anything at all? Does she provide even
> a single citation?
>
>
> > She keeps failing to make a sound case. For instance, in
> > her July 4 column, she said "Americans should thank God
> > that McCarthy, Hoover, Nixon, Chambers and Reagan were men
> > enough to make real sacrifices." Sacrifices? What sacrifices
> > was she referring to?? She never elaborated about it at all.
>
> McCarthy, Hoover, Nixon and Chambers all were regularly slandered and had
> their repiutations largely destroyed by the leftist-liberal media. Reagan
> less so of course, but that was not for lack of attempts.
>
>
> > All she discussed was her so-called heroes' efforts against
> > communism during the cold war, and the horrible criticisms
> > of her heroes by liberals. She's just another bitchy, griping
> > conservative who thinks she has some kind of authority, and
> > wants to find a way to make liberals cooperate with her.
>
> Uh . . . where you ever got the notion that Ann "wants to find a way to make
> liberals cooperate with her" I have no idea. Really, that is kind of a
> bizarre thought.

In article <be43pc$j2t$1@news.monmouth.com>, "topcat" says...

>
>Having said that, Anne Coulter would look good with any color hair.

If you prefer women who look like female impersonators. Coulter looks
like a damn horse in drag.

>> That's a lie. I love my country. I love it so much that I can't stand by
>and do
>> nothing while it is being raped and pillaged by corporate terrorists.
>
>Okay, poof, tomorrow there are no corporations. Now where exactly does
>everybody work?

Do your fists ever get sore beating up on those strawmen?

Where, exactly, did the post you're responding to say corporations
shouldn't exist? (I'll leave aside the question of whether the legal
entity that is the modern "corporation" is actually necessary to employ
the workforce; private companies that produce goods and services are obviously
capable of existing without incorporation. But moving right along...)
Obviously, opposing "corporate terrorism" is equivalent to denouncing the very
existence of corporations, right? So, I suppose you believe
favoring any sort of regulation of corporate behavior equates to desiring
their elimination, or that you're simply incapable of viewing anything
with any level of nuance ("you're either WITH corporate American 100%, or
you're AGAINST it 100%!!!"). Kinda like Ann, now that I think about it...


>The Republican Party is the party of morals and ethics.

Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Dubya, Cheney...um, yeah. Keep your head
in the sand there, fella.

>It is also the party
>of personal responsibility.

As exemplified by bailing out corrupt and/or mismanaged industries (S&Ls,
airlines) at taxpayer expense?

>It is the irresponsible people who are looking for a handout (someone elses
>money)

Like United and American?


>> The biggest neo-conservative lie: the "liberal media." The media is
>increasingly
>> owned and operated by a narrow corporate mind-set.
>>
>
>ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN and almost all of the major newspapers slant moderately to
>heavily left. Nuff said.

Source, please? (NBC's owned by General Electric, one of the biggest
GOP supporters. If the lefty slant of NBC's news is such a problem,
why doesn't the parent company do something about it.) Oh, and "left
of FOX" doesn't equal "liberal."

--BDB

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:19:30 GMT, David Lentz
<dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>
>
>NJH wrote:
>>
>> "Peekabu Icu" <pekeabuicu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:2dc70389.0307062307.453cfa4e@posting.google.c om...
>> > You stupid oaf. You speak as if *smart* women are unusual.
>> >
>> > Regardless, Coulter's intelligence is questionable.
>>
>> So is the roundness of the earth, I suppose. You can question anything you
>> like.
>>
>> But questioning Ann Coulter's intelligence would be one of the dumbest
>> exercises imaginable. She's a constitutional scholar, a brilliant and witty
>> writer, and her last two books shot to the top of the best-seller lists and
>> had a good run there (as I expect her latest one will also), and did it
>> without any of the fawning puff-piece interviews the leftist-liberal media
>> have lavished on authors more to their liking such as Hillary. All that
>> argues for a pretty high level of intelligence.
>
>Ann Coulter does not aim to convert the liberal. She wished to
>use him for sport. She succeeds very well.


True. From my Blog today:
>>
Annie's got her gun... errrr....pen....errr... keyboard.
Ann Coulter's new book is certainly casuing a stir, isn't it? A good
15-20% of the traffic on the Usenet political NewsGroups are with
regards to her and her book. Of course many of them get into making
fun of her appearence and... no kidding.... one idiot actually thinks
she's had a sex change operation 10 years ago, formerly being a HE,
supposedly. (Of course when her bio was produced, the charges and
their writer slinked away into the night.)

Face it guys, the woman's got it going on in both brains and looks...
and she's not about to take any crap for her views. Thing is, her
views are conservative. Which is where these comments come from. Can
you imagine the average liberal talking that way about Hillary? (And
let's face it, Hillary is if nothing else, a case of losing out in the
looks department...)

It interests me that those who are attacking Ann from the left, are
now calling her the Maureen Dowd of the right... when we couldn't get
them to say squat about Dowd's exesses previously. These are the same
poeple that defend Michial Moore.

The biggest problem for such people though is that Ann's validity is
far and away above those two, as is her credibility.

When in her book, TREASON, she came up with the charges that Democats
in general were treasonous, many on the right stood up and applauded,
myself among them. (I swear, I'm going to repost NO, NOT ONE again, as
a BIT, cross referencing her conclusions with my own.., she said
everything I'd previously said, and more.) And as you might have
expected, this resulted in many leftists complaining about her
attitude.

Of course they complain about her 'snippy' attitude.

What really pisses these people off so badly though, isn't just her
'tude.. but that she's unarguably right. Consider; if this were
attitude alone without being verifiably correct, she'd be easy enough
to dispatch. But she IS right, and that sends the usual suspects into
spastics, totally unable to come up with a cogent rebuttal, past
"Yeah? well, you used to be a GUY.." and other such nonsense.

I've ordered her book. If it's as good as the columns she's been doing
for years it should be a real hoot.
----
__________________________________________________ ___________
/BitHead's Place: Political commentary from the REAL world. /\
/ http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/ _/ /\
/Bit's weekly commentaries also available internationally: / \/
/ http://www.rightpoint.ca/ http://clik.to/bithead/ \ /
/ http://greysanctuary.com/columnists/bithead/index.asp /\
__________________________________________________ ________/ /
\ __________________________________________________ ________\/
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

".BitHead." <bithead@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mb4kgv8serqln8nh94gbe4a4okpabdpopb@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:19:30 GMT, David Lentz
> <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >NJH wrote:
> >>
> >> "Peekabu Icu" <pekeabuicu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:2dc70389.0307062307.453cfa4e@posting.google.c om...
> >> > You stupid oaf. You speak as if *smart* women are unusual.
> >> >
> >> > Regardless, Coulter's intelligence is questionable.
> >>
> >> So is the roundness of the earth, I suppose. You can question anything
you
> >> like.
> >>
> >> But questioning Ann Coulter's intelligence would be one of the dumbest
> >> exercises imaginable. She's a constitutional scholar, a brilliant and
witty
> >> writer, and her last two books shot to the top of the best-seller lists
and
> >> had a good run there (as I expect her latest one will also), and did it
> >> without any of the fawning puff-piece interviews the leftist-liberal
media
> >> have lavished on authors more to their liking such as Hillary. All that
> >> argues for a pretty high level of intelligence.
> >
> >Ann Coulter does not aim to convert the liberal. She wished to
> >use him for sport. She succeeds very well.
>
>
> True. From my Blog today:
> >>
> Annie's got her gun... errrr....pen....errr... keyboard.
> Ann Coulter's new book is certainly casuing a stir, isn't it? A good
> 15-20% of the traffic on the Usenet political NewsGroups are with
> regards to her and her book. Of course many of them get into making
> fun of her appearence and... no kidding.... one idiot actually thinks
> she's had a sex change operation 10 years ago, formerly being a HE,
> supposedly. (Of course when her bio was produced, the charges and
> their writer slinked away into the night.)
>
> Face it guys, the woman's got it going on in both brains and looks...
> and she's not about to take any crap for her views. Thing is, her
> views are conservative. Which is where these comments come from. Can
> you imagine the average liberal talking that way about Hillary? (And
> let's face it, Hillary is if nothing else, a case of losing out in the
> looks department...)

To be fair, though, Hillary is no longer young. And while Ann looks like the
athletic type, Hillary appears to have spent most of her life sitting on her
ass--I suppose all those years of lawyerly scheming were not an activity
that ever did much for her muscle tone. Her thighs have been the subject of
international comment in the press. Actually though I think Hillary is not
bad looking, considering. Reportedly she has had face lifts and other
cosmetic surgery, but who knows if that's true.


>
> It interests me that those who are attacking Ann from the left, are
> now calling her the Maureen Dowd of the right... when we couldn't get
> them to say squat about Dowd's exesses previously. These are the same
> poeple that defend Michial Moore.
>
> The biggest problem for such people though is that Ann's validity is
> far and away above those two, as is her credibility.
>
> When in her book, TREASON, she came up with the charges that Democats
> in general were treasonous, many on the right stood up and applauded,
> myself among them. (I swear, I'm going to repost NO, NOT ONE again, as
> a BIT, cross referencing her conclusions with my own.., she said
> everything I'd previously said, and more.) And as you might have
> expected, this resulted in many leftists complaining about her
> attitude.
>
> Of course they complain about her 'snippy' attitude.
>
> What really pisses these people off so badly though, isn't just her
> 'tude.. but that she's unarguably right.

Yes. And her books are filled with the citations to prove it. It makes
leftist-liberals gnash their teeth down to the gums.


> Consider; if this were
> attitude alone without being verifiably correct, she'd be easy enough
> to dispatch. But she IS right, and that sends the usual suspects into
> spastics, totally unable to come up with a cogent rebuttal, past
> "Yeah? well, you used to be a GUY.." and other such nonsense.
>
> I've ordered her book. If it's as good as the columns she's been doing
> for years it should be a real hoot.

I have a copy coming as well, from Amazon. Though I pre-ordered it (on June
23, the day before it officially hit the shelves) Amazon did not ship until
June 29. I presume the enormous number of pre-orders are the reason--I
should have gotten into the queue earlier. All the pre-orders had made it
one of the best sellers on Amazon for some time before the book was actually
released.

"SPQR" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2baf42ad.0307071151.6935b6cf@posting.google.c om...
> "NJH" <nojunk@all.thanks> wrote in message
news:<9fdOa.8243$9F5.2423108745@newssvr10.news.pro digy.com>...
> > "Peekabu Icu" <pekeabuicu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2dc70389.0307062307.453cfa4e@posting.google.c om...
> > > You stupid oaf. You speak as if *smart* women are unusual.
> > >
> > > Regardless, Coulter's intelligence is questionable.
> >
> > So is the roundness of the earth, I suppose. You can question anything
you
> > like.
> >
> > But questioning Ann Coulter's intelligence would be one of the dumbest
> > exercises imaginable. She's a constitutional scholar, a brilliant and
witty
> > writer, and her last two books shot to the top of the best-seller lists
and
> > had a good run there (as I expect her latest one will also), and did it
> > without any of the fawning puff-piece interviews
>
>
> Oh, really? I guess I have been dreaming for the past two weeks --
> every damn time I turn on the TV, there she is being interviewed again
> about her book -- she's been on all the usual places.

For about three minutes. No hour-long showcases by the eternally
Hillary-pandering Larry King or obsequious Babwa Wawa, Charlie Rose et al.


>
> Brilliant and witty? I have a housecat with greater analytic ability.

Remarkable. Your cat have any best-selling books out?