Another dose of good news...

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » May 2, 2003, 7:38 pm

Liberals meet unexpected resistance
Ann Coulter

May 1, 2003

Though many had anticipated a cakewalk for the media in undermining the war on terrorism, instead liberals are caught in a quagmire of good news about the war. Predictions that liberals would have an easy time embarrassing President Bush have met unexpected resistance. They're still looking for the bad news they said was there. Experts believe the media's quagmire results from severely reduced troops. The left's current force is less than half the size of the coalition media that undermined the Vietnam War.

It's been a tough few weeks all around for the anti-war crowd. On Sunday, the London Telegraph reported that documents had been discovered in Baghdad linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Hussein and bin Laden had a working relationship as far back as 1998, based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. As we go to print, it's Day Four of the New York Times' refusal to mention these documents.

Government documents have also been found in Iraq showing that a leading anti-war spokesman in Britain, Member of Parliament George Galloway, was in Saddam Hussein's pay. Scott Ritter, former U.N. arms inspector turned peacenik turned suspected pederast, immediately defended Galloway in a column in the London Guardian. With any luck, Tariq Aziz will now step in to defend Ritter.

At least Tariq Aziz knows he lost the war. American liberals are still hoping for a comeback. But the war was so successful, they don't have any arguments left. They can't even sound busy. In their usual parody of patriotism, liberals are masters of the long-winded statement that amounts to nothing. They can't go on TV and say nothing. But all they have are some broken figurines to complain about.

They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen. They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen. They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen. They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen. Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen.

Now the biggest mishap liberals can seize on is that some figurines from an Iraqi museum were broken - a relief to college students everywhere who have ever been forced to gaze upon Mesopotamian pottery. We're not talking about Rodins here. So the Iraqis looted. Oh well. Wars are messy. Liberalism is part of a religious disorder that demands a belief that life is controllable.

At least we finally got liberals on the record against looting. It seems the looting in Iraq compared unfavorably with the "rebellion" in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. When "rebels" in Los Angeles began looting, liberals said it was a sign of frustration - they were poor and hungry. As someone noted at the time, apparently they were thirsty as well, since they hit a lot of liquor stores. Meanwhile, the Iraqis were pretty careful about targeting the precise source of their oppression. Their looting concentrated on Saddam's palace, official government buildings - and the French cultural center.

However many precious pots were stolen, it has to be said: The Iraqi people behaved considerably better than the French did after Americans liberated Paris. Thousands of Frenchmen were killed by other Frenchmen on allegations of collaboration with the Nazis. Subsequent scholarship has shown that charges of "collaboration" were often nothing more than a settling of personal grudges and family feuds. This was made simple by the fact that so many Frenchmen really did collaborate with the Nazis. The French didn't seem to resent the Nazi occupation very much. Nazi occupation is their default position. They began squirming only after Americans came in and imposed democracy on them.

Despondent over the success of the war in Iraq, liberals tried to cheer themselves up with the politics of personal destruction - their second favorite hobby after defending Saddam Hussein. Responding to the question of whether the Supreme Court should hold sodomy to be a fundamental constitutional right, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum made the blindingly obvious point that a general right to engage in consensual sex would logically include adultery, polygamy and any number of sex acts prohibited by the states.

For the limited purpose of attacking Santorum, liberals agreed to stipulate that adultery is bad. After spending all of 1998 ferociously defending adultery as something "everyone" does and "everyone" lies about, liberals claimed to be shocked to the core that anyone would compare homosexuality to such a morally black sin as adultery. (While we're in a sensitive mood, how about the name "the DIXIE Chicks"? Isn't that name provocative to African-Americans?)

When you get liberals to come out against both looting and adultery in the same week, you know the left is in a state of total disarray. They shouldn't feel so bad. Their boys put up a good fight in Iraq for 17 days.

Ann Coulter is host of AnnCoulter.org, a TownHall.com member group.

©2003 Universal Press Syndicate

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 2, 2003, 7:41 pm

Met, please don't post this dumb b1tch's idiotic opinion anymore,
I really do not want to STFU you.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 2, 2003, 7:56 pm

Keep your idiotic drivel away from here.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 2, 2003, 8:04 pm

I saw Ann Coulter's name on it and immediately stopped reading.
I can't believe anyone would take anything that psychotic woman says seriously.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » May 2, 2003, 9:22 pm

Sorry guys, but I think Ann Coulter makes some valid and serious points, and as such I think it's perfect for the Current Events section of the board. Are you folks so intolerant you won't even read an opposing viewpoint? I bet you didn't even read it. Just the fact I posted it is enough to piss you off. That's rich!

For example, her section regarding looting and the comparison to the Rodney King riots, you don't sense the outrage there? I still remember the video of that poor truck driver getting his head beat in with a concrete block. Where's your sense of outrage?

In my estimation Ann Coulter does a good job of highlighting the bullshit propagated by the left. Is she extreme? Maybe, but no more so than our own beloved Kooky. So if Kooky can spread her vile form of "truth" here I surely don't see why Ann Coulter wouldn't be allowed.

Dissent is a two-way street.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 2, 2003, 9:34 pm

I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate that's fiscally conservative.

Having said that, I know the difference between fact and sensationalism. Do you?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » May 2, 2003, 9:38 pm

Not only is this sensationalistic and stupid, but it's blatantly wrong.

Ann Clouter says: Liberals say that chemical weapons would be used against our troops.

Reality: Liberals said Saddam DOESN'T FUCKING HAVE CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 2, 2003, 10:00 pm

Metanis wrote:Sorry guys, but I think Ann Coulter makes some valid and serious points, and as such I think it's perfect for the Current Events section of the board. Are you folks so intolerant you won't even read an opposing viewpoint? I bet you didn't even read it. Just the fact I posted it is enough to piss you off. That's rich!

For example, her section regarding looting and the comparison to the Rodney King riots, you don't sense the outrage there? I still remember the video of that poor truck driver getting his head beat in with a concrete block. Where's your sense of outrage?

In my estimation Ann Coulter does a good job of highlighting the bullshit propagated by the left. Is she extreme? Maybe, but no more so than our own beloved Kooky. So if Kooky can spread her vile form of "truth" here I surely don't see why Ann Coulter wouldn't be allowed.

Dissent is a two-way street.

Bro, an opposing viewpoint is fine. However, this dumb bitch tries to demonize liberals, which would be as much bullshit as some national figure attempting to do the same to republicans. This is not a topic about the war, or the victory, it is a dissection of people who voiced against this war with a side of idiot. For example:

DumbB1tch wrote:They said chemical weapons would be used against our troops. That didn't happen. They predicted huge civilian casualties. That didn't happen. They said Americans would turn against the war as our troops came home in body bags. That didn't happen. They warned of a mammoth terrorist attack in America if we invaded Iraq. That didn't happen. Just two weeks ago, they claimed American troops were caught in another Vietnam quagmire. That didn't happen.

Now, she makes it sound like the "conservatives" knew all along these things were not going to happen.
That being said, if they "knew" that there would be no chemical weapons attack (And there would be if they had Chemical Weapons), then how the fuck would you invade on the principles of ending the threat of Iraq's Chemical Weapons of Mass destruction?
As for everything else, yes, these things were "speculated on", not stated (Like this fuckin ho is doing now). Except for the terroist attacks, I assure you will be coming, especially sense Bush acted without U.N. approval.
And guess what else, your (And Bush's) rebutt about the UN being ineffectual, etc, means dick. The reason being is this: We had NO justification for this war. None. Without the violations of UN policy (Alleged) by Iraq, there was no crime. So we invaded and took over, then turned to the world saying "we did your job for you". Bush, this bitch made a horrible mistake by aleinating the WORLD, not some three or four piddily nations but the whole planet practically against us. Now there are more governments willing to support terrorism, they will recieve the training and funding they want to carry out their objectives.

Now this gem:

You know who wrote:However many precious pots were stolen, it has to be said: The Iraqi people behaved considerably better than the French did after Americans liberated Paris. Thousands of Frenchmen were killed by other Frenchmen on allegations of collaboration with the Nazis. Subsequent scholarship has shown that charges of "collaboration" were often nothing more than a settling of personal grudges and family feuds. This was made simple by the fact that so many Frenchmen really did collaborate with the Nazis. The French didn't seem to resent the Nazi occupation very much. Nazi occupation is their default position. They began squirming only after Americans came in and imposed democracy on them.

Unlike The French and Nazi's, Saddam did not exterminate 7 million people and kill a lot more in war efforts. Of course, sense the French wanted us to behave rationally, we have to make them our enemy.
Point: Our army would be wearing Red Coats right now if not for the French, so stfu.

And...
You know, I honestly have better things to do than spending the next 2 hours unraveling this womans horseshit, so I will leave it at this.
There were liberal soldiers that went to Iraq. She is badmouthing them as well. Figure it out.
Figure it our Met.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » May 2, 2003, 10:25 pm

Acies wrote:Bro, an opposing viewpoint is fine. However, this dumb bitch tries to demonize liberals...

Acies, I'm not attacking you, but have you read a Ted Rall column lately? Have you listened to a Hillary Clinton speech? Studied a selection of political cartoons from Lukovich? In comparison, Ann Coulter is a model of decorum in her remarks.

We have a polarizing president.
We live in polarizing times.
Take a stand.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 2, 2003, 10:44 pm

Metanis wrote:
Acies wrote:Bro, an opposing viewpoint is fine. However, this dumb bitch tries to demonize liberals...
Acies, I'm not attacking you, but have you read a Ted Rall column lately? Have you listened to a Hillary Clinton speech? Studied a selection of political cartoons from Lukovich? In comparison, Ann Coulter is a model of decorum in her remarks.

We have a polarizing president.
We live in polarizing times.
Take a stand.

I am taking a stand. I think Bush is a self righteous stupid son of a bitch for the way he handled this.
I think hobag is worse.
No I really have not paid attention to Ted Rall or Hillary, and my thoughts of fucking off can go to them too if they behave like Ann Coulter does.
Bro, really, I am not attacking you either, but the ignorance that this spewed by this woman is completely counter to my nature as someone who tries to be open minded. The only thing I tend to get close minded about, oddly enough, is close mindedness.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 2, 2003, 11:38 pm

I came.
I read.
I laughed.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » May 3, 2003, 12:37 am

Ditto

miir · Post by **miir** » May 3, 2003, 1:31 am

Acies, dont even waste your time on this.
This woman is so far off the deep end that anyone who buys into her shit is one notch above being a complete fucking brain dead retard.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 3, 2003, 7:57 am

hahahaha you're debating over the validity of remarks made by ann fucking coulter.

I'll hand it to her though. she might be batshit looney, but she knows her audience (paranoid racist morons with an appalling level of education and lack of understanding on how the world works) and she plays them like like a fucking fiddle. people like metanis lap it up like dogwater and pant for more because the ultra right needs a constant stream of propaganda flowing into their brains for worry that common sense might sneak in and confuse them back into reality.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 3, 2003, 8:15 am

I've never even heard of her.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 3, 2003, 8:44 am

kyoukan wrote:hahahaha you're debating over the validity of remarks made by ann fucking coulter.

I'll hand it to her though. she might be batshit looney, but she knows her audience (paranoid racist morons with an appalling level of education and lack of understanding on how the world works) and she plays them like like a fucking fiddle. people like metanis lap it up like dogwater and pant for more because the ultra right needs a constant stream of propaganda flowing into their brains for worry that common sense might sneak in and confuse them back into reality.

She kinda reminds me of you except you go Ultra Left.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 3, 2003, 10:58 am

god i hate that fucking lady, if you post one more thing that fucking retard says i will be so pent up with rage becouse of her meer wrongness that i will be forced to brutally stab my neighbors dog, and then i can blame it on her.

..and shes right...THERE IS NO BAD NEWS AFTER A WAR!!!! ALL GOOD NEWS!!! becouse war is good news