Anne Coultier Meltdown??

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » March 4, 2005, 7:51 pm

I generally find Coulter to be pretty silly, however I watched the clip and I don't know if I would term that a meltdown (more than any other political show where the different people talk over each other).

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » March 4, 2005, 10:03 pm

She is a fucking fanatic, she is also absolutely brainwashed to the point of borderline instanity. Anyone backing her up is either playing the party line or is a fanatic themselves.

It wasn't a meltdown though, it was typical Ann Coulter. You could tell even Hannity thought she was a wacko. It is absolutely pathetic that people are backing up this freak. You do not have to be a liberal or democrat to clearly see that this is one messed up bitch.

She personifies everything that's wrong with our rigidly divided partisan country. Rather than intelligent people constructively discussing issues, she brings this pure anger and hatred to the table. Conflict sells though, and she sure as fuck sells it. She makes her living spouting this bitter hatred.

And Midnyte how te fuck can you compare Al Gore or Ted Kennedy to Coulter? They are far from fanatical lefties. I've never heard them say all republicans are mass murdering warmongers or innately evil or anything nearly as bad as the things she's said about us.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » March 5, 2005, 12:23 am

If someone claims something to be a fact there's enough people in the world for a few of morons to believe it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2005, 12:47 am

Keverian FireCry wrote: And Midnyte how te fuck can you compare Al Gore or Ted Kennedy to Coulter? They are far from fanatical lefties. I've never heard them say all republicans are mass murdering warmongers or innately evil or anything nearly as bad as the things she's said about us.

"Democrats will 'continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president' for the federal courts, said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)."

"He betrayed this country!" Mr. Gore shouted into the microphone at a rally of Tennessee Democrats here in a stuffy hotel ballroom. "He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 5, 2005, 12:52 am

"He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

That part is hard facts. They had been looking into and planning for Iraq for a very long time.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2005, 12:54 am

Kelshara wrote:
"He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
That part is hard facts. They had been looking into and planning for Iraq for a very long time.

You're such a simpleton sometimes. Your inability to see big picture, is just frightening.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 5, 2005, 1:05 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: You're such a simpleton sometimes. Your inability to see big picture, is just frightening.

Enlighten us as to the "big picture" then. As we just don't seem to get it. How is fighting a useless war over there good for not creating more terrorists? What is the "big picture", imperialism?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2005, 1:14 am

Lohrno wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: You're such a simpleton sometimes. Your inability to see big picture, is just frightening.
Enlighten us as to the "big picture" then. As we just don't seem to get it. How is fighting a useless war over there good for not creating more terrorists? What is the "big picture", imperialism?

Holy shit man. Go back to the last 300+ posts about this old ass topic. Fucking amazing how long some of oyu have been here but have made no progression whatsoever.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 5, 2005, 1:17 am

If you were not prepared to discuss, then you should have abstained from posting. Are you pharming?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 5, 2005, 1:20 am

Ted Kennedy is every bit as partisan as Ann Coulter is. I'm still mystified that he was able to get away with trashing our efforts in Iraq and saying we should retreat TWO DAYS before the elections there. Way to send the right signal.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 5, 2005, 1:46 am

Ted Kennedy is not every bit as partisan as Ann Coulter. Ted Kennedy does not advocate killing the opposition. I would be stretched hard to find someone as partisan as Ann Coulter. Even most of the republicans think she's a wacko. I honestly can't think of one liberal frothing at the mouth as much as her. I mean she's so right wing, she approaches that line that starts to bring her into the far left wing. I think Hitler would have gone, "Whoa, settle down woman!"

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 5, 2005, 1:50 am

I'm not trying to defend Ann Coulter, but where has she seriously said liberals (I assume that's what you mean by opposition) should be killed?

Animale · Post by **Animale** » March 5, 2005, 1:53 am

1st page

Ann Coulter wrote:
When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » March 5, 2005, 2:47 am

For that quote alone, she should be forced to sit in a dark room for 3 months and listen to "John Walker's Blues" by Steve Earle, just to see if her head explodes from hate-overload.

Ted Kennedy's a fucking retard. Don't get me wrong. The only difference is that I can't see him one day snapping, and climbing up into a clock tower with a sniper rifle. Coultier, on the other hand, actually makes me scared for the physical safety of those around her.

Teddy seems more likely to "pop" than "snap". Does that mean that Michael Moore might one day "crackle"? Discuss.

"These are the things I think about when I'm home alone and the power goes out"
-George Carlin

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » March 5, 2005, 3:56 am

Niffoni wrote:For that quote alone, she should be forced to sit in a dark room for 3 months and listen to "John Walker's Blues" by Steve Earle, just to see if her head explodes from hate-overload.

Ted Kennedy's a fucking retard. Don't get me wrong. The only difference is that I can't see him one day snapping, and climbing up into a clock tower with a sniper rifle. Coultier, on the other hand, actually makes me scared for the physical safety of those around her.

Teddy seems more likely to "pop" than "snap". Does that mean that Michael Moore might one day "crackle"? Discuss.

"These are the things I think about when I'm home alone and the power goes out"
-George Carlin

Isnt that mainly because we cant find a clock tower wide enough for him to fit in?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 5, 2005, 11:46 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
"He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
That part is hard facts. They had been looking into and planning for Iraq for a very long time.
You're such a simpleton sometimes. Your inability to see big picture, is just frightening.

Simpletons, eh? You quoted something to back up your statement. You were wrong (and since this has been discussed and proven here before I guess the "Fucking amazing how long some of oyu have been here but have made no progression whatsoever." fits you perfectly then?). You come back calling me a simpleton for proving you wrong?

Simply amazing even for you. Your stupidity astounds me, how you ever got off the short bus in the first place I'll never understand.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » March 5, 2005, 4:29 pm

This nitwit is actually coming to my school, Tufts, in the next couple of weeks...

The republicans on campus actually can't stand her....can't wait to see it unfold!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 5, 2005, 6:17 pm

Animale wrote:1st page

Ann Coulter wrote:
When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too.

midnyte, respond to that quote, is THAT not fanatical??

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 5, 2005, 7:05 pm

Kelshara wrote:
"He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
That part is hard facts. They had been looking into and planning for Iraq for a very long time.

Hate to be the one to tell you this, but the Pentagon has contingency plans for nearly every country where trouble could break out.

This is the case regardless of who is President.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 5, 2005, 7:08 pm

Oh come on. Before Bush even took office I told my SO: If Bush takes office he's going find some reason to attack Iraq. I wish you could have been there to verify that...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2005, 7:12 pm

Xzion wrote:
Animale wrote:1st page

Ann Coulter wrote:
When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too.
midnyte, respond to that quote, is THAT not fanatical??

It's actually not that hard to understand at all. After 9/11 everyone was ultra Patriotic and understanding about needing to be on the offensive against terrorism. After a few months passed only the Republicans remembered...the Dems went back to thinking "lets just stay quiet and out of the way of the bad guys and maybe they won't hurt us.....AGAIN!".

By executing John Walker, it would show their are consequences to your actions. Somethign that hasnt been the case for a very long time.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 5, 2005, 7:16 pm

Lohrno wrote:Oh come on. Before Bush even took office I told my SO: If Bush takes office he's going find some reason to attack Iraq. I wish you could have been there to verify that...

I'm not gonna start this worn out argument all over again.

Don't go around trying to convince others that the plans never existed before President Bush took office, because they did.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » March 5, 2005, 7:17 pm

So the evil Liberals were quiet and by executing him, you show them their are consequences to their actions. What actions? Them being quiet? Are you trying to tell us that being quiet will get us executed?

You are pretty fucked up Midnyte.

Also, the way you remember history is fucked up also. The majority only started protesting AFTER the illegal war in Iraq.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 5, 2005, 7:18 pm

I know about contingency plans, but Bush wanted to attack Iraq. Don't you think the lack of WMDs, and Bush's jump the gun point to that?

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » March 5, 2005, 7:59 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Animale wrote:1st page

Ann Coulter wrote:
When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too.
midnyte, respond to that quote, is THAT not fanatical??
It's actually not that hard to understand at all. After 9/11 everyone was ultra Patriotic and understanding about needing to be on the offensive against terrorism. After a few months passed only the Republicans remembered...the Dems went back to thinking "lets just stay quiet and out of the way of the bad guys and maybe they won't hurt us.....AGAIN!".

By executing John Walker, it would show their are consequences to your actions. Somethign that hasnt been the case for a very long time.

That had to be one of the most utterly retarded, illogical, nonsensical, Cartalas-esque arguments I've ever heard from you.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 5, 2005, 8:31 pm

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
"He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
That part is hard facts. They had been looking into and planning for Iraq for a very long time.
Hate to be the one to tell you this, but the Pentagon has contingency plans for nearly every country where trouble could break out.

This is the case regardless of who is President.

They were not contingency plans. To call them that is.. idiotic.. and so blind it is ridiculous.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 5, 2005, 8:33 pm

Lohrno wrote:I know about contingency plans, but Bush wanted to attack Iraq. Don't you think the lack of WMDs, and Bush's jump the gun point to that?

Like I said, I am not going to start or get involved in this argument again. It's been talked about enough.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 5, 2005, 8:35 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
"He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
That part is hard facts. They had been looking into and planning for Iraq for a very long time.
Hate to be the one to tell you this, but the Pentagon has contingency plans for nearly every country where trouble could break out.

This is the case regardless of who is President.
They were not contingency plans. To call them that is.. idiotic.. and so blind it is ridiculous.

You obviously have no clue how the United States Military does things Kelshara, so I'll forgive your ignorance.

Contingency plans are very real...

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 5, 2005, 8:44 pm

Your reading comprehension is (as usual) lacking. I didn't say they don't exist.

I said these plans in particular were not.

Sorry, let me put this in words you are used to and can understand:

SADDAM BAD! BUSH GOOD!

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » March 6, 2005, 12:36 am

I'd hit it.

Dexail · Post by **Dexail** » March 6, 2005, 3:00 am

man hands.

and oh my god. yes there are fanatical fronts on both parties. Crazy people exist in this world and some represent both sides. It's sad that the extreme views of both parties are the ones that get the most attention. If this country could work toward uniting the views and ideals of both parties, then it would make it a much better place.

Elections are over. Get over it and live with what we have for the next 3 1/2 years.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » March 6, 2005, 7:05 am

Lohrno wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: You're such a simpleton sometimes. Your inability to see big picture, is just frightening.
Enlighten us as to the "big picture" then. As we just don't seem to get it. How is fighting a useless war over there good for not creating more terrorists? What is the "big picture", imperialism?

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=13662

COULD YOU PLEASE BE LESS FUCKING STUPID

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 6, 2005, 8:16 am

Rekaar. wrote:
Lohrno wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: You're such a simpleton sometimes. Your inability to see big picture, is just frightening.
Enlighten us as to the "big picture" then. As we just don't seem to get it. How is fighting a useless war over there good for not creating more terrorists? What is the "big picture", imperialism?
http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=13662

COULD YOU PLEASE BE LESS FUCKING STUPID

Terrorists represent the fanatic minorities, the disenfranchised that the shiny new governments tell to suck up their dead relatives in the name of progress, and most certainly not anyone that is currently "embracing" democracy. Could YOU PLEASE BE LESS OF A PARTISAN FUCKBAG?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 6, 2005, 12:20 pm

Rekaar. wrote: COULD YOU PLEASE BE LESS FUCKING STUPID

I don't see an explanation of the "Big Picture" there.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 6, 2005, 1:20 pm

I don't have any problems with reading comprehension nor understanding what contingency plans are.

You have no problem with reading comprehension, but you do have a problem understanding what contingency plans are.

Kelshara wrote: They were not contingency plans. To call them that is.. idiotic.. and so blind it is ridiculous.

Let me hear from you what you think contingency plans are... Georgina S. Patton.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » March 6, 2005, 1:22 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2005, 1:42 pm

What some people are unable to comprehend is, saying there were plans to invade Iraq before 9/11 is no different than saying guys know they want to fuck a girl before they even talk to her.

The militarys job is to plan everything. There are contingency plans for every fuckign scenario possible.

Small minded thinking..../tsk /tsk

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 6, 2005, 2:00 pm

Why I (and well, the people who did the research and wrote the stories about it) consider the Iraqi plans as more than contingency plans? Well, the fact that Bush wanted (and made it no secret to his staff) to attack Iraq from the moment he stepped into the White House is one thing. The fact that the first thing Rumsfeld said after 9/11 was "Iraq" is another.

The way I understand a contingency plan is "A plan that will be used in case something happens in the future". The way the Iraqi plans were was "A plan to attack Iraq which will be implemented as soon as we can find a reason to do it".

Subtle difference, yet it is there.

Oh yeah and what was it Rummy said again? That he didn't care if Iraq was responsible he wanted to attack them anyway? Not in those words but close enough.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 6, 2005, 2:03 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:What some people are unable to comprehend is, saying there were plans to invade Iraq before 9/11 is no different than saying guys know they want to fuck a girl before they even talk to her.

The militarys job is to plan everything. There are contingency plans for every fuckign scenario possible.

Small minded thinking..../tsk /tsk

Sure, but there are plans for invading Canada. I didn't say to myself "they're going to attack Canada..." They WANTED to attack Iraq, don't confuse the issue please. I'm pretty sure 90% of us knew that in our hearts.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 6, 2005, 2:11 pm

Don't bother, the only time Midnyte sees the big picture is when he goes to a movie theater.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2005, 2:16 pm

I feel sorry for you.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 6, 2005, 2:22 pm

Funny, the rest of the board has felt sorry for you for many years now. Although we feel even worse for your family heh.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 6, 2005, 2:30 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I feel sorry for you.

That's not an argument. Maybe we should start a psychology forum where we can all open our hearts and discuss our issues! =P Until such time as you present an argument/rebuttal I'll just assume you don't have one.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2005, 2:37 pm

Kelshara wrote:Don't bother, the only time Midnyte sees the big picture is when he goes to a movie theater.

Was this an argument Lohrno? Why didn't you select this to call out? hmmm? Have an answer???

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 6, 2005, 2:50 pm

Because you were the one who supposedly had a point. I'm not calling out that because

A) He doesn't seem to be saying much different from what I am.

B) No point in it.

C) He makes the point that you don't have one. And until I see one I am inclined to agree.

You were the one who claim I don't see the big picture, and I'm asking: What is the big picture? I'm not seeing a safer world as a result of these previous actions, so maybe there is something you know that I don't? Please, enlighten me.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2005, 2:53 pm

Lohrno wrote:Because you were the one who supposedly had a point. I'm not calling out that because

A) He doesn't seem to be saying much different from what I am.

B) No point in it.

C) He makes the point that you don't have one. And until I see one I am inclined to agree.

You were the one who claim I don't see the big picture, and I'm asking: What is the big picture? I'm not seeing a safer world as a result of these previous actions, so maybe there is something you know that I don't? Please, enlighten me.

I've been try for 6 months. Go back to the thread in which we discussed how soem people are incapable of logic, reasoning and common sense.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » March 6, 2005, 2:58 pm

Then you are not very good at putting your thoughts into words. Okay, here's your chance Midnyte!

What is the big picture?

Ready? Go!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2005, 3:12 pm

Lohrno wrote:Then you are not very good at putting your thoughts into words. Okay, here's your chance Midnyte!

What is the big picture?

Ready? Go!

I've painted the picture numerous times. You can't see it okay? Take a retard to the Louvre and expect him to get the underlying meaning of the many works of art there. You can explain it all day and night and they still think it's you who haven't explained it well enough because they can't comprehend it.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » March 6, 2005, 3:21 pm

I get your "big picture" Mid... I just don't agree with it.

The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Taking the U.S. to war in the middle east on the chance that it will ignite democracy/freedom/friendler relations is an extremely risky proposition. No matter what the outcome, I don't feel that the risk was worth it. In addition, the costs associated with this risky venture are WAY too high, both in U.S./Iraqi deaths and is good ol' dollars.

In terms of risk, by putting our feet into the Iraqi situation, no matter how bad the previous regime was, we have set ourselves up for a catasrophic failure. Since in the process of doing this noble task we have alienated our allies, the failure (if it occurs) will be directed solely at the U.S. I see this as the beginning of the end of American leadership in world affairs.

In short, we cannot be trusted to do the right thing anymore. While in the long run, Iraq itself might be a success, the long term damage to U.S. prestige and leadership presented by the handling of the Iraqi situation nullifies the benefits of a stable, free Iraq.

And I would say the same thing if a Democrat had handled the situation similarly, it isn't just Republican bashing here. Its POLICY bashing.

Animale

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2005, 3:24 pm

Animale wrote:I get your "big picture" Mid... I just don't agree with it.

The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Taking the U.S. to war in the middle east on the chance that it will ignite democracy/freedom/friendler relations is an extremely risky proposition. No matter what the outcome, I don't feel that the risk was worth it. In addition, the costs associated with this risky venture are WAY too high, both in U.S./Iraqi deaths and is good ol' dollars.

In terms of risk, by putting our feet into the Iraqi situation, no matter how bad the previous regime was, we have set ourselves up for a catasrophic failure. Since in the process of doing this noble task we have alienated our allies, the failure (if it occurs) will be directed solely at the U.S. I see this as the beginning of the end of American leadership in world affairs.

In short, we cannot be trusted to do the right thing anymore. While in the long run, Iraq itself might be a success, the long term damage to U.S. prestige and leadership presented by the handling of the Iraqi situation nullifies the benefits of a stable, free Iraq.

And I would say the same thing if a Democrat had handled the situation similarly, it isn't just Republican bashing here. Its POLICY bashing.

Animale

That I can understand Animale. No one expects everyone to agree with everyone esle.