http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY
This is classic Coulter. She takes a few words from a liberal source, and uses them totally out of context. And then anyone who bothers to check the source mops the floor with her. This is the kind of character we're dealing with. Franken doesn't mirror her on the left. He's definitely left, he's funny, he says things others may disagree with, but he doesn't go looking to take every possible phrase out of context in the worst way possible. There are limitless accounts of this stuff. This makes her eminently ignorable in my book.
People have different approaches to comments about families and husbands just because of their perspectives.* Some people see women who are forcing politics down our throats because they enjoy attention from dead husbands, other people see women who responded to the worst experience we can go through by trying to do something about it, but before we boohoo for Ms. Coulter, lets imagine what would happen to someone on the left if they attacked someone that nastily about her dead right leaning husband and said he was might have been considering divorcing her before he was blown up. We should also remember that her getting pilloried for this attack was exactly what she expected and how she makes herself out to be some brave conservative spokesperson--in other words, how she makes all her money. It was deliberate, just like Michael Jackson planted the story about his hyperbarics to keep himself in the news.
Anyhoo, I found her comments excessive, wasn't alone, and feel that her emphasis on nasty personal attacks and perfect conservative families opens her up to similar barbs. And boohoo if she must endure them herself; that was her choice. And her plan.
*for example, some people noticed that right after the campaign asked for the media to respect Bristol's privacy, she and her boyfriend were on display at the Republican convention.
Ann Coulter--Possed by the devil or just drunk?
Moderator: Available
Re: "racially profile muslims"
No but, the profiling is racial.Topos wrote:Ian,
Muslims are not a race.
IFF ( Identification of Friend or Foe ) is
pervasive in any evolutionary organisms' repertory of survival skills.
Do we not see this in particular in Van's voluminous sage postings. If you see a bunch of old Nuns ambling across the Boston Common in twilight you, or most of us, would profile them as likely not to mug you so thoughts of shoken thrusts do not rush into our minds. But, as Jesse Jackson said on a TV show that when he sees an African American approaching him at night his alert system goes up ... and this is just seeing Obama nearing him at the NBC studios [ grin +++++ ]
There are in place classified 'warning indicators' at US Air Ports ... IFF classifiers.
The Israelis have the most sophisticated set and procedures and 'intrusive' ones at that
at their air ports. Try to go through looking like Muhammad Atta. The Israelis act as if their lives depend on it ... and in fact it does.
I am always entertained by the open minded, diversity spouting, liberal invectives hurled at folks like Ann Coulter who express effectively ideas which the American Politburo deems threatening ... American Values, Right to Keep Arms, not be taxed to death, antipathy to the demeaning Racial Profiling inherent in 'affirmative action'. One of my best buddies, a retired Air Force LTC who was an Atlas Missile Commander, Intel Officer becomes unglued at mention of Ann Coulter and Governor Palin. When pressed all he can do is fume at their looks, conservative expressions, etc.
As a confident, open minded, never threatened by beautiful and strong women, and logical Conservative [ as many Conservatives I want to conserve all my American freedoms, hopes, aspirations, safety, etc.] I queried him on his contradictory liking of Lady Margaret Thatcher of whom he had a high opinion as opposed to his apoplexy at Governor Palin. All he could say was that Thatcher liked President Reagan. When I showed a parallel path that Governor Palin is taking he resorted to irrational, personal, and physical invectives.
The import of the book "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder" popped into mind.
My dear father taught me as a child "Never Argue With A Drunk ... Even If He has Not Been Drinking ".
My conclusion from studies on mental processes is that some folks are intimidated by strong women and liberals in particular revert to personal ad hominem destructors and emotion when logic contradicts them and they feel threatened with loss.
Back to 'racially profiling muslims': unless you are a urologist I would proffer that muslims are not being profiled .. they could be Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. [ grin ] .
Folks whom IFF criteria say Look Like Ducks, Quack Like Ducks, and chant 'Death to America' are most likely Ducks. [ grin ++ ] and need to be confitted.
A charming bit of news:
"The so-called Palin-effect, as the US media has dubbed it, has not only boosted Senator McCain's standing in the opinion polls, but also at his campaign rallies where he is attracting between 5000 and 10,000 supporters.
Before Mrs Palin joined his presidential ticket, Senator McCain usually spoke to about 1000 people."
Another reason to bash her .... YES SHE CAN!
The bosnian dude would never get searched unless he had a bear wore a turban and a thobe(which they do)
Lots of lebanese look like white people, and as they are very very secular minded, tend to dress like 'white people' so they do and HAVE walked through airports. without getting searched, while their darker relatives got searched or got strong scrutiny.
SO maybe muslims are not a race...but they are attributed to race, which would be a very grave error, because letting some extremist slip by because he looks like a cracker would be detrimental to the united states, especially if people get killed because of it.
Fact is, there are a SCHIT load of white muslims, so racially profiling them is wrong.
And Anne Coulter DID say to invade countries, kill leaders and convert to christianity. THat is a scary statement.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Your point is what, Ian? You got busted but it's OK because she did it too?IJ wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY
This is classic Coulter. She takes a few words from a liberal source, and uses them totally out of context.
Weak!
For what it's worth, I enjoyed the piece. Franken assumed he had "owned' Coulter. Al Fraken found a "lie." She showed him otherwise. She pointed out that "religious fundamentalists of any stripe" could include Mormons and Amish who generally don't fly planes into buildings with innocent civilians. You walk away saying "Na na na na boo boo!" and the other guys do the same.
You said that.IJ wrote:
Anyhoo, I found her comments excessive, wasn't alone, and feel that her emphasis on nasty personal attacks and perfect conservative families opens her up to similar barbs.
And my point is digging into Coulter's personal relationships isn't germane to the discussion. Doing so only reflects on you. Ann never hid behind or stood on top of her relationships to make a point.
Cindy Sheehan and the 911 Kerry women capitalized on the deaths of their loved ones to shove propaganda down our throats. Allegedly we can't respond because we are "excessive" and engaging in "nasty personal attacks."
I agree 100% with Ann here.
1) We are allowed to call and respond to noxious propaganda when we see it. Don't tell us we can't, no matter whose skirt someone is hiding behind.
2) It's also perfectly appropriate to call standing on someone else's dead body to make your point a disgusting display. I do it my way; Ann does it her way. The difference between the two of us is that - with her special style - Ann makes a handsome living doing it.
It's like this, Ian. When I worked for the Virginia BCBS and a rising populist (Republican) politico started attacking my company in the press to bolster his reputation, I took him on in the press. But you know what? I didn't sign my letter to the editor as an employee of the company he was attacking. I signed my own name. I stood out alone, and represented myself. Period. End of story. And you know what? Public relations in my company held their collective breaths, but... my letter hit the spot. Jim Gilmore shut up.
Jim Gilmore now is about to lose to Mark Warner for the Senate in the fall. Couldn't happen to a nicer a$$hole.
- Bill
"Your point is what, Ian? You got busted but it's OK because she did it too?"
Coulter wanted to write an essay about how liberals hate religious fundamentalists of all stripes, so she found a few words from a liberal's article and took them completely out of context knowing her readers won't check, or care. I did nothing of the sort.
She's right that Mormons don't fly planes into buildings, but that wasn't the contention of the article. The person said that the religious (all stripes) won't get on planes nude, and that'll protect us by keeping the terrorists (few stripes) off. Or maybe this guy would be happy not flying with fundamentalists of any stripe--would have to read the whole article. In any case, what this guy did NOT do in any stretch of the imagination was what she used the quote to mean. If deliberately distorting meaning is owning Franken, sure, her fans can walk away from the encounter with their good view of her confirmed. But I am not aware of other authors comparable to Coulter on either side of the debate who play as fast and loose with facts as she does--perhaps you could enlighten me?
"And my point is digging into Coulter's personal relationships isn't germane to the discussion. Doing so only reflects on you. Ann never hid behind or stood on top of her relationships to make a point."
In turn, Rush Limbaugh may never have said that his relatives were beautiful, or that he wasn't a drug addict. But when he called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog, and made a bunch of comments about degenerate drug users, he became a valid target for personal barbs. Same with Coulter. She responded to the reporter who jabbed her about her relationships by acting horrified that her privacy hadn't been respected. Right, she's never engaged in any personal attacks, how could she have ever expected one herself? Boohoo. I wouldn't attack someone's relationship status if they were a polite an honest commentator. And honestly her failed relationships still don't mean anything to the debate, at least not to me--a lot of people from her America would find fault with her "lifestyle," and I'm guessing, given her age and the way 99% of adults live, failure to save sex for marriage. She promotes some stupid ideals and fails to live up to them. I'm just saying, if you live in a glass house...
"1) We are allowed to call and respond to noxious propaganda when we see it. Don't tell us we can't, no matter whose skirt someone is hiding behind."
You have confused the issue. I never said you can't disagree with someone because their husband was blown up. It's just that Coulter didn't do that. She was as blatantly offensive as she could be. Being politically incorrect is how she makes her money; it wasn't about a legitimate debate, just getting attention like a misbehaving child. By all means, disagree with Sheehan and others like her--one point worth making here, despite all the whining about the supposed overwhelming pressure not to make unPC attacks, or to avoid taking on people who have lost relatives in the war, they get their unPC attacks all the time (that's Ann's job) and certainly you've felt free to criticize Sheehan. And who was it, Bill, that told you not to go there? Hmmm?
And you took on a rising politico who was attacking your company in the press. This proves.... what? I wrote tons of letters to the editor back at UVA, calling people on their BS. One, for example, took on an article that accused white students of racism because most of them had white friends (and the black students had black friends) in a survey. I did the math, explaining that given the general makeup of the University, you'd expect white students to have mostly nonblack friends, AND black students to have mostly nonblack friends, and suggested people stop looking for white racism as an excuse for any story, and maybe explore why people tend to stick with their own kind in college. I didn't insult the authors, accuse them of having agendas, or say something obnoxious for shock value--I had no book to sell. I betcha that's what YOU did in your letter, too, attack the issue and not make obnoxious personal attacks. Super!! Proves nothing about Coulter.
Incidentally, when Student Council passed a resolution ASKING UVA students not to chant offensive discriminatory statements at football games, a bunch of conservatives wrote lengthy hot air replies about how their freedom of speech was being threatened, apparently confusing being asked not to do something, being told not to do something, and prevented from doing something. Their flurry of articles helped prove that jerk voices weren't being censored in the slightest and that they were writing about nothing.
I do not recall anyone being disparaged for challenging the widows or Sheehan on the substance of their argument. Perhaps you can provide some examples? IF there were any, then maybe Coulter could have saved her venom for THOSE people. She may not like the use of the widow angle for making political hay, but she, and you, and every republican I've ever heard from has found no vault with Guiliani making literal millions on millions of dollars blabbing on about 9/11, or laying on terrorism, 9/11, al qaeda and hussein super thick during the last Presidential race to scare everyone into voting for Bush again. Why was that ok, because none of their kids had been killed?
Listen, when my parents sent their other son to fight in Afghanistan, they suddenly had some serious *skin in the game.* THEY also became more politically active and went on some marches because they don't want a dead kid or someone they have to spoonfeed after brain injury or who hides in the basement from backfiring cars on the street. That's their right, and I kinda find it unsurprising. Perhaps its not ladylike to do it, and maybe these widows didn't read the script that they were supposed to weep quietly and stand behind Guiliani at his speeches wearing black, but they're not monsters for speaking their minds. Sorry it distresses you so much, but, you might be more empathetic if you had that *skin in the game.* In the past, you've said that condition entitles you to feel things about your kids education others won't understand, and lack of the skin limits others' ability to comment on desirable education policy. While I never endorsed that theory, the facts being facts whether you have skin in the game or not, you could be more understanding of the widows. Or at least, hate them but take them on based on the merits and not applaud Coulter for doing so in the most attention and money gathering way possible.
I remember a particularly funny and tough interview John Stewart gave the Crossfire peeps. He said their style of debate--putting nasty back n forth in the popular media because it sells--was hurting America and they should stop. That's what I'd expect Coulter to do if she had a conscience.
Coulter wanted to write an essay about how liberals hate religious fundamentalists of all stripes, so she found a few words from a liberal's article and took them completely out of context knowing her readers won't check, or care. I did nothing of the sort.
She's right that Mormons don't fly planes into buildings, but that wasn't the contention of the article. The person said that the religious (all stripes) won't get on planes nude, and that'll protect us by keeping the terrorists (few stripes) off. Or maybe this guy would be happy not flying with fundamentalists of any stripe--would have to read the whole article. In any case, what this guy did NOT do in any stretch of the imagination was what she used the quote to mean. If deliberately distorting meaning is owning Franken, sure, her fans can walk away from the encounter with their good view of her confirmed. But I am not aware of other authors comparable to Coulter on either side of the debate who play as fast and loose with facts as she does--perhaps you could enlighten me?
"And my point is digging into Coulter's personal relationships isn't germane to the discussion. Doing so only reflects on you. Ann never hid behind or stood on top of her relationships to make a point."
In turn, Rush Limbaugh may never have said that his relatives were beautiful, or that he wasn't a drug addict. But when he called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog, and made a bunch of comments about degenerate drug users, he became a valid target for personal barbs. Same with Coulter. She responded to the reporter who jabbed her about her relationships by acting horrified that her privacy hadn't been respected. Right, she's never engaged in any personal attacks, how could she have ever expected one herself? Boohoo. I wouldn't attack someone's relationship status if they were a polite an honest commentator. And honestly her failed relationships still don't mean anything to the debate, at least not to me--a lot of people from her America would find fault with her "lifestyle," and I'm guessing, given her age and the way 99% of adults live, failure to save sex for marriage. She promotes some stupid ideals and fails to live up to them. I'm just saying, if you live in a glass house...
"1) We are allowed to call and respond to noxious propaganda when we see it. Don't tell us we can't, no matter whose skirt someone is hiding behind."
You have confused the issue. I never said you can't disagree with someone because their husband was blown up. It's just that Coulter didn't do that. She was as blatantly offensive as she could be. Being politically incorrect is how she makes her money; it wasn't about a legitimate debate, just getting attention like a misbehaving child. By all means, disagree with Sheehan and others like her--one point worth making here, despite all the whining about the supposed overwhelming pressure not to make unPC attacks, or to avoid taking on people who have lost relatives in the war, they get their unPC attacks all the time (that's Ann's job) and certainly you've felt free to criticize Sheehan. And who was it, Bill, that told you not to go there? Hmmm?
And you took on a rising politico who was attacking your company in the press. This proves.... what? I wrote tons of letters to the editor back at UVA, calling people on their BS. One, for example, took on an article that accused white students of racism because most of them had white friends (and the black students had black friends) in a survey. I did the math, explaining that given the general makeup of the University, you'd expect white students to have mostly nonblack friends, AND black students to have mostly nonblack friends, and suggested people stop looking for white racism as an excuse for any story, and maybe explore why people tend to stick with their own kind in college. I didn't insult the authors, accuse them of having agendas, or say something obnoxious for shock value--I had no book to sell. I betcha that's what YOU did in your letter, too, attack the issue and not make obnoxious personal attacks. Super!! Proves nothing about Coulter.
Incidentally, when Student Council passed a resolution ASKING UVA students not to chant offensive discriminatory statements at football games, a bunch of conservatives wrote lengthy hot air replies about how their freedom of speech was being threatened, apparently confusing being asked not to do something, being told not to do something, and prevented from doing something. Their flurry of articles helped prove that jerk voices weren't being censored in the slightest and that they were writing about nothing.
I do not recall anyone being disparaged for challenging the widows or Sheehan on the substance of their argument. Perhaps you can provide some examples? IF there were any, then maybe Coulter could have saved her venom for THOSE people. She may not like the use of the widow angle for making political hay, but she, and you, and every republican I've ever heard from has found no vault with Guiliani making literal millions on millions of dollars blabbing on about 9/11, or laying on terrorism, 9/11, al qaeda and hussein super thick during the last Presidential race to scare everyone into voting for Bush again. Why was that ok, because none of their kids had been killed?
Listen, when my parents sent their other son to fight in Afghanistan, they suddenly had some serious *skin in the game.* THEY also became more politically active and went on some marches because they don't want a dead kid or someone they have to spoonfeed after brain injury or who hides in the basement from backfiring cars on the street. That's their right, and I kinda find it unsurprising. Perhaps its not ladylike to do it, and maybe these widows didn't read the script that they were supposed to weep quietly and stand behind Guiliani at his speeches wearing black, but they're not monsters for speaking their minds. Sorry it distresses you so much, but, you might be more empathetic if you had that *skin in the game.* In the past, you've said that condition entitles you to feel things about your kids education others won't understand, and lack of the skin limits others' ability to comment on desirable education policy. While I never endorsed that theory, the facts being facts whether you have skin in the game or not, you could be more understanding of the widows. Or at least, hate them but take them on based on the merits and not applaud Coulter for doing so in the most attention and money gathering way possible.
I remember a particularly funny and tough interview John Stewart gave the Crossfire peeps. He said their style of debate--putting nasty back n forth in the popular media because it sells--was hurting America and they should stop. That's what I'd expect Coulter to do if she had a conscience.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Ann Coulter's relationships are not germane to any discussion here. The comment you made was petty and irrelevant.
What is clear is that you don't like her. You are entitled. So make a case. Digging into her love life is weakening your case. Insisting you are in the right is more of the same.
You are however giving this woman lots of bandwidth - in spite of declaring otherwise earlier in the discussion. So who wins on that score? Ann certainly doesn't need your love.
I'm not an Ann Coulter fan. But I am fascinated at how she accomplishes what she sets out to do in spite of - or perhaps because of - the controversies she creates.
Furthermore... You appear to be an Al Franken fan. Listening to Al debate Ann just makes me realize all the more what a boorish lightweight Franken is. Even the moderator of that debate was repeatedly giving Franken grief.
So much heat; so little light.
- Bill
What is clear is that you don't like her. You are entitled. So make a case. Digging into her love life is weakening your case. Insisting you are in the right is more of the same.
You are however giving this woman lots of bandwidth - in spite of declaring otherwise earlier in the discussion. So who wins on that score? Ann certainly doesn't need your love.
I'm not an Ann Coulter fan. But I am fascinated at how she accomplishes what she sets out to do in spite of - or perhaps because of - the controversies she creates.
Furthermore... You appear to be an Al Franken fan. Listening to Al debate Ann just makes me realize all the more what a boorish lightweight Franken is. Even the moderator of that debate was repeatedly giving Franken grief.
So much heat; so little light.
- Bill
Things that are indeed clear:
1) I don't like her
2) You do like her
3) I'm insisting I'm right
4) You're insisting you're right.
I'm not digging into her love life. I dislike her because of the constant, inexcusable dishonesty and the grating, proudly inappropriate personal attacks. I made one comment that she's open to personal attacks herself because hers are so egregious, but I've also made it clear that her failed relationships have nothing to do with my personal dislike of her, nor do I feel that having failed relationships (in general) casts any negative light on anyone. However, the irrational and silly traditional family values she espouses (which I don't espouse) could be used to critique her, but that's her problem because those were her silly ideas, not mine, in the first place. I don't feel this is a big deal, and have only been defending it at length because you're going after it at length, and think it is much more relevant to discuss her constant abuse of the facts and obnoxious personal style, and how she presents conservative ideas in a trashy way to make cash a bit like a political and rightward Maury. But, if you would like less heat and more light, and cannot drop this one, small, peripheral issue about Coulter, then I will. Her attacks on other people's supposedly imperfect personal lives and her own (by conservative standards) imperfect personal life are nonissues. Now if you would only spend a tenth that much time on one of her thousand inappropriate personal attacks!
Sorry you feel Franken is a lightweight. You're entitled to your opinion. Millions have enjoyed his work (on SNL and in print), although I know the same could be said of Coulter, and I feel his work is clearly better researched and presented.
1) I don't like her
2) You do like her
3) I'm insisting I'm right
4) You're insisting you're right.
I'm not digging into her love life. I dislike her because of the constant, inexcusable dishonesty and the grating, proudly inappropriate personal attacks. I made one comment that she's open to personal attacks herself because hers are so egregious, but I've also made it clear that her failed relationships have nothing to do with my personal dislike of her, nor do I feel that having failed relationships (in general) casts any negative light on anyone. However, the irrational and silly traditional family values she espouses (which I don't espouse) could be used to critique her, but that's her problem because those were her silly ideas, not mine, in the first place. I don't feel this is a big deal, and have only been defending it at length because you're going after it at length, and think it is much more relevant to discuss her constant abuse of the facts and obnoxious personal style, and how she presents conservative ideas in a trashy way to make cash a bit like a political and rightward Maury. But, if you would like less heat and more light, and cannot drop this one, small, peripheral issue about Coulter, then I will. Her attacks on other people's supposedly imperfect personal lives and her own (by conservative standards) imperfect personal life are nonissues. Now if you would only spend a tenth that much time on one of her thousand inappropriate personal attacks!
Sorry you feel Franken is a lightweight. You're entitled to your opinion. Millions have enjoyed his work (on SNL and in print), although I know the same could be said of Coulter, and I feel his work is clearly better researched and presented.
--Ian
-
JimHawkins
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: NYC
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Perhaps you missed this episode of Jay Leno's Tonight Show.IJ wrote:
Of course she's welcome to run. Apparently she owns places in NYC and Florida. Perhaps she should consider running in Florida, or she may be running for her life in NYC.
Other than proving that an uber liberal (George Carlin) and uber conservative (Ann) can get along if they show a little respect, Ann related something which blows holes in your fantasy, Ian. When asked if she was at all threatened by hostile liberals - and you need go no farther than a few blogs or terrorist groups to know they exist - Ann shrugged it off. To paraphrase her, 'I have no fear, as I am constantly surrounded by Republican men.'
Go ahead - make her day!
- Bill
Bill, you have vastly overestimated my interest in Ann Coulter, about whom I have no fantasies whatesoever, and about whom I have thought not a bit for the year and a half since I last saw one of her books dissected, until this thread came along. And of course she said she was unafraid of liberals--there is no other conceivable response to make given the persona she is selling, except to perhaps push the envelope and comment "unless they bleed on me, since they're a lot more likely to have HIV," or something along those lines that wouldn't surprise me. Also, that was merely an expression--it means she would get destroyed in a race. These are people who elected Hillary, after all.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
JimHawkins
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: NYC
Yes but is she afraid of liberal pie?Bill Glasheen wrote:Ann shrugged it off. To paraphrase her, 'I have no fear, as I am constantly surrounded by Republican men.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv9xa-VxchM
Correct handling of Ann by a hotter blond..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZLfLmncPEc
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
Bill Again Shows His Class, Erudition, and Incisive Thinking
First, even were I to be on the other side of the argument, I objectively make my assessment of BG.
As for your "Listening to Al debate Ann just makes me realize all the more what a boorish lightweight Franken is. Even the moderator of that debate was repeatedly giving Franken grief. ":
In the prehistoric times of the 1960's [what, there were televisions with NO COLOR!] Dick Cavett had Ayn Rand and Lillian Hellman [Al Franken in drag ] as guests.
Exasperated by Hellman's formulaic marxist [lower case intended] persiflage of anti-American 1930's bilge, Rand remarked: "Every word out of Hellman's mouth is a lie, including the words 'and' and 'the'."
I bent over in laughter at the stunned look on Hellman's face. Late she tried to sue Rand for slander... and failed.
I bet that Al Franken cannot even name the 7 extra States and their Capitols that Barak Hussein Obama mentioned in his speech on " America's 57 States".
Personally I came to his defense by explaining that he was channeling John Forbes Kerry thinking about Theresa's Heinz 57 ketchup.
Thank you Bill for giving intellect precedence over emotions.
As for your "Listening to Al debate Ann just makes me realize all the more what a boorish lightweight Franken is. Even the moderator of that debate was repeatedly giving Franken grief. ":
In the prehistoric times of the 1960's [what, there were televisions with NO COLOR!] Dick Cavett had Ayn Rand and Lillian Hellman [Al Franken in drag
] as guests. Exasperated by Hellman's formulaic marxist [lower case intended] persiflage of anti-American 1930's bilge, Rand remarked: "Every word out of Hellman's mouth is a lie, including the words 'and' and 'the'."
I bent over in laughter at the stunned look on Hellman's face. Late she tried to sue Rand for slander... and failed.
I bet that Al Franken cannot even name the 7 extra States and their Capitols that Barak Hussein Obama mentioned in his speech on " America's 57 States".
Personally I came to his defense by explaining that he was channeling John Forbes Kerry thinking about Theresa's Heinz 57 ketchup.
Thank you Bill for giving intellect precedence over emotions.
