Now, you will know why.
It's not just what she stands for- it's how she does it. At the most base level, all she does is spew forth hatred, catch-phrases, propaganda, and insults. She offers little in the way of intellect, ideas, or vision.
There are plenty of conservatives, journalists at that, (Ms. Coulter is not a journalist, she's a blond with a website) who I respect. They are professional, calculated, intellectual, and can back up their ideas with thought and logic. George Will, Bill Kristoll, William Safire, William F. Buckley. These are intelligent people who do their homework and make plausible arguments.
Ms. Coulter's comments from earlier this week:
"The idea that the Democrats have any meaningful interest in America's national security is a joke, so I'm perfectly willing to believe there's more to this port story. "
Why is that a joke? Democrats don't care if America is safe? Democrats like Senator Inouye, who lost an arm defending his country? Bob Kerrey, who lost a leg? Max Cleland, who lost both? Wesley Clark, a four-star general? Jimmy Carter, who served his country at Annapolis and in the Navy? Those Democrats?
"But Bush is going to need a better justification for turning over management of our ports to an Arab country than he's come up with so far — especially now that Jimmy Carter has said it's a good idea. Judging from his life's work to date, Carter's definition of a good idea is "an idea likely to hurt America and/or help its enemies." "
Jimmy Carter's ideas hurt America? Like building houses for the poor? Terrible idea. Yes, Ann, overseeing a democratic election in Haiti really helps our enemies. Ticks 'em off real good. The Carter Center is dedicated to fighting disease and standing up for human rights. The nerve of some people! Then again, I can see how YOU might think that fighting for human rights is an affront to the current administration. Oh, and by the way, check the scoreboard:
Nobel Prizes:
Jimmy Carter- One
All Republican Presidents, ever: Zero.
"Needless to say, the Treason Times won't show the cartoons that have incited mass rioting around the globe. At least The New York Times has a good excuse: It's too busy printing national security secrets that will get Americans killed."
As for making matters of national security that could get people killed a matter of public record, go have a little talk with Scooter Libby, not the New York Times. In addition, the New York Times has never been charged with treason.
I will make a bold prediction: Ann, when your looks go, so will your career, because you can't write worth a damn. Bill Safire (formerly of the "Treason Times") ain't no looker, but he's still getting published. George Will ain't appearing in a Brut add anytime soon. I read his columns evey week and will continue to until he can't type anymore.
Can't wait to see how you're career is doing when you're pushing 70!
posted by The leftist southpaw @ 6:43 PM
10 Comments:
I don't think Nobel Peace prize is really something you want to hold up as an argument in your favor that Carter deserves props...might we remember that Arafat also got one of those, so maybe Carter is in good company after all.
Yes, Arafat did receive a nobel prize.
So did Elie Wiesel, Andrei Sakahrov, Martin Luther King, Anwar Sadat $ Menachem Begin (because of Carter), Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, Mother Teresa, and Linus Pauling.
Damn right Carter "deserves props."
While some are well deserved, the majority, at least in modern history, is nothing more than swipes at the West, so the Nobel Peace prize holds no water for me in deciding whether or not someone deserves praise.
If it truly was for bringing peace, the year the Berlin Wall fell, Reagan, Pope John Paul, Thatcher, Gorby would have received it for the peace and freedom they brought to millions of people.
Gorby DID win the nobel prize. When it comes to opinions left on my blog, go nuts. When it comes to facts, please try to make accurate remarks on my blog.
Reagan did not win the Nobel prize probably in large part due to the Iran Contra affair. You're not going to receive a PEACE prize if you spend years supplying arms to a rebellion.
I know Gorby did...but all four of them should have b/c without all four it would not have happened, especially w/o Reagan's military buildup that broke the Soviet Union's back. I know those aren't facts your side likes to admit, but facts they are none the less.
Reagan did not deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for outspending the Soviets into chaos. Now if he'd achieved that result (which didn't even happen when he was in office) by brokering peace talks, leadership by example and PRODUCTIVE summits rather than with threats and economic collapse, maybe he would deserved the Peace Prize.
Oh, I forgot. "Tear Down This Wall." How courageous.
Maybe Reagan should have won it for economics.
No, scrap that- we should RE-NAME the award, from the Nobel Prize in Economics, to the Nobel Prize in REAGANOMICS.
No, wait, a better idea- let's start calling them the REAGAN awards.
Were it not for Reagan military buildup, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed when it did! Where it not for Reagan tax cuts, the economic boom of the 90's would not have happened! I'm sorry ya'll are to blind by hatred for the man to see it.
Reagan must have been an amazing badass, because Bush I repealed Reaganomics in a big way in 1990. And Clinton basically redefined the economy in the 1990s, going far away from supply-side economics. And still Reagan gets the credit? I'd bet he never once in his life even heard of a "dot-com."
By your logic, Clinton is directly responsible for the War in Iraq, as well as other events that haven't even happened yet. Can't wait to finally see how Bush II has affected this country, in 2015!
As for the collapse of the Soviet Union, I'm not sure how that's helped us. Instead of one nation that could bomb us 54 times over, he have smaller mob-run nations that could only bomb us about 12 times over. And we armed Osama bin Laden along the way. Mission accomplished, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home