Fall Fashion Preview: Cowboy Boots In, Flip-Flops Out

http://www.anncoulter.org/

Fall Fashion Preview: Cowboy Boots In, Flip-Flops Out
October 13, 2004

 

During the second presidential debate, John Kerry said: "I ask each of you just to look into your hearts, look into your guts. Gut-check time. Was this really going to war as a last resort?"

How about this for "gut-check time": When you close your eyes, can you see the Democrats defending America? Because I can\'t see it.
 
These are the people who are obsessed with getting the French to like us. They call terrorism a "nuisance," like prostitution and other petty crimes. ("Hundreds of Children Killed in Chechnya by Nuisance," "British Civilian Beheaded by Annoyance," "9-11: What a Hassle!") They babble about nonexistent civil liberties violations under the Patriot Act.

If Gore had been elected president, right now he would just be finding that last lesbian quadriplegic for the Special Forces team.

During the second presidential debate, Kerry droned on about the civil liberties crisis in America under the Patriot Act (which he voted for). He claimed to have "met a man who spent eight months in prison, wasn\'t even allowed to call his lawyer, wasn\'t allowed to get – finally, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois intervened and was able to get him out."

Pity he didn\'t meet Abdullah Mehsud, a guy who spent two years in Guantanamo before being released and is now in Pakistan strapping dynamite to Chinese hostages.

Bush said he had met a man, too: "Grant Milliron, Mansfield, Ohio. He\'s creating jobs." Which one of these candidates is more likely to put the wood to the terrorists?

Kerry explained his "plan" to prevent terrorists from getting nukes, saying, "We\'ve got to join with the British and the French, with the Germans, who\'ve been involved, in their initiative." (This guy\'s got more plans than MCI.) We may lose the war on terrorism, but by God we\'ll get the Europeans to like us!

Kerry told the New York Times he could "do a better job" in the war on terror – which Kerry adviser Richard Holbrooke says is not a war at all, but a metaphor ("Thousands Die in Attack by Metaphor").

He would do a better job, Kerry said, "most importantly – and I mean most importantly – of restoring America\'s reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us."

Imagine President John Kerry at the Berlin Wall. "Mr. Gorbachev ... I challenge you to get to an emotional place where you can imagine a different kind of non-wall reality, that fully respects the \'wallness\' of your current reality, yet takes us on a spiritual journey in which ..."

Republicans are more simple-minded, but for some things you want to be a little less contemplative, a little less nuanced. In a war against rabid savages trying to nuke Manhattan, you want a policy more along the lines of: Kill \'em! Republicans will shoot burn and bury the terrorists. Kerry will give them a speech.

In his convention speech in August, Kerry\'s idea for the terrorists was this: We\'ll give them a faux-WASP, stentorian honker of a speech. Striking fear in the hearts of Islamic lunatics everywhere, Kerry said he would say this to the terrorists: "You will lose and we will win. The future doesn\'t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom." (Kerry\'s speechwriters are now throwing key words like "future" and "freedom" together in various combinations in hopes of stumbling upon something the senator actually believes in just by random chance.)

Yes, that\'s how to capture terrorists: Put them to sleep with a long boring speech. Osama bin Laden would escape before the speech is complete. Only a liberal would imagine this is what you say to a terrorist in his moment of fear and dread. Who does Kerry imagine will be giving this speech exactly? Kevin Kline? How about the Marine who catches bin Laden\'s associates saying something along the lines of, "Hey, dirtbag!" before smacking them across the face with a rifle butt?

(If Israel plays its cards right, perhaps Kerry would even draft a speech for them to give suicide bombers: "You will lose and we will win. The future doesn\'t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom," blah blah blah.)

Better yet, let\'s use a Kerry speech to torture them into revealing where and when their next attack will be! Ten minutes of that snoozefest convention speech would have the most hardened Islamic fanatic begging for mercy and spilling his guts. Now, that\'s my idea of a "gut check."

As if it means something, Kerry keeps vowing: "I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists." But he will stop at the Iraqi border. Or if the French and Germans aren\'t on board. Or we don\'t have United Nations approval. Or it would require investigating a Muslim under the Patriot Act.

Heavily biased article but refreshing to see one with the slamming aimed in the other direction.

I\'m gonna see Team America this weekend and get pumped for some terrorist bashing.

I can\'t wait to see it. It looks hilarious.

You don\'t see me posting Michael Moore and Al Franken editorials, do you?  WTF, no one wants to read this crap.

I like to see people post their own opinions, or post news stories / raw data, then interpret it.  Editorials in general very stupid.  Just another shrill voice screaming at the crowd.  I\'m sick of hearing it from both sides.

Originally posted by Coredweller
You don\'t see me posting Michael Moore and Al Franken editorials, do you?  WTF, no one wants to read this crap.

I like to see people post their own opinions, or post news stories / raw data, then interpret it.  Editorials in general very stupid.  Just another shrill voice screaming at the crowd.  I\'m sick of hearing it from both sides.

Hey, send that memo to me because I never got it.:rolleyes:

Do me favor, don\'t tell me what I can an cannot post and I\'ll show you the same respect.

Nothing wrong with editorials - I think it allows people from both sides to see what the others are thinking.  That is why the mods were set up the way they are in here - post some of the better ed\'s you find Core.  You won\'t hear any complaints from me anyway.

I have said this many times - post stuff regardless of who writes it or it is an op ed piece.  However, I do agree with you Core that the bulk of stuff should be news stories and have people interpret them with their opinions.  Unless of course its me and my conservative views.

I think editorials can provide a lot of discussion. Then again, I don\'t think I\'m holding a gun to your head to read it. I made it clear where it comes from by posting the link. And if you read very closely to what you call news articles there is plenty of editorial comment in them./You just have to read between the lines.

Originally posted by Ace
I think editorials can provide a lot of discussion. Then again, I don\'t think I\'m holding a gun to your head to read it. I made it clear where it comes from by posting the link. And if you read very closely to what you call news articles there is plenty of editorial comment in them./You just have to read between the lines.

I have to agree with Ace regarding this matter.  First my posts come under attack for my views - now his?  This is a political forum, if you don\'t like it don\'t post in the thread.  If you want to debate the points in the editorial then do it.  This is what this forum is about - unfortunately those who do the criticising about the content of posts won\'t post op/ed pieces expressing their views.

I also agree that the news can be biased as well.  CBS, ABC and CNN come to mind during this election.  Each has been involved in some sort of scandal to varying degrees.  ABC sends out memos instructing reporters to only focus on Bush\'s mistakes and not Kerry\'s??!?!  CNN has a similiar memo come out and we all know about the CBS incident.  One could argue that the main stream media is indeed trying to influence people in this election, but I won\'t go into that here.

The problem with blatant editorials like this one is that there is no way to refute them.  50% of it is dreamed up in her head, and the rest are lies or distortions.  To refute it would require someone to separately quote and tear apart every single sentence because it\'s basically wrong top to bottom.  However, in a way it\'s not wrong, because it\'s just someone\'s opinion, right?  There\'s always that defense.

In that way I think it does NOT promote discussion because any discussion would be pointless.  I certainly don\'t have much interest in debating the merits of piece of fiction by someone like Ann Coulter, who is an acknowledged expert on nothing.  To me, editorials are akin to masturbation.  Find the pundit who provides the right blend of fetish that you like, and then start whacking away.

They don\'t challenge you to think about issues in a new way.  They just repackage your own beliefs in an easily consumable chunk, and include enough bullshit to annoy any readers from the other side of the fence.  I feel this way about BOTH conservative and liberal editorials.

Originally posted by Coredweller
The problem with blatant editorials like this one is that there is no way to refute them.  50% of it is dreamed up in her head, and the rest are lies or distortions.  To refute it would require someone to separately quote and tear apart every single sentence because it\'s basically wrong top to bottom.  However, in a way it\'s not wrong, because it\'s just someone\'s opinion, right?  There\'s always that defense.

In that way I think it does NOT promote discussion because any discussion would be pointless.  I certainly don\'t have much interest in debating the merits of piece of fiction by someone like Ann Coulter, who is an acknowledged expert on nothing.  To me, editorials are akin to masturbation.  Find the pundit who provides the right blend of fetish that you like, and then start whacking away.

They don\'t challenge you to think about issues in a new way.  They just repackage your own beliefs in an easily consumable chunk, and include enough bullshit to annoy any readers from the other side of the fence.  I feel this way about BOTH conservative and liberal editorials.

I disagree.  You can refute an editorial without breaking it down as you say.  There is no need to break each and every point down to refute her opinion.  One can single out a point or two and refute it, then the original poster can either agree or disagree with it and back up their stance with another source and so and so on.  That is how a debate works - you know it as well as I do Core and by the way your write I don\'t think it would be much of an effort for you to dispute any editorial you disagreed with.  

After all we are in essence the PSX2 equivalent of Crossfire.

I also think it might add some lively debate to the forum. I will agree that it might be a better idea if I post some comments with such articles and I will try and do that more often.

Then again, if it irritates Core I might have to rethink that.

[SirMystiq]

The article is in a way hypocritical. I don\'t see how people detest the fact that Kerry actually wants to form a bigger coalition. This isn\'t a time to make our pride get in the way. Bush is facing that right now trying to get the UN to take over Afghanistan and help out in Iraq. It\'s a bit too late.

I agree with the statement "Republicans are simple minded" That\'s a good quality? The President of the United States shouln\'t be one whose view is so narrow he doesn\'t consider other options. A president SHOULD change with times. If there is a time that the people want peace and prosperity, it\'s the President\'s job that happens. If there is a time when the majority of people support abortion, it\'s the Presiden\'ts job that happens. This is a country established by the people and for the people. The President\'s decision should be some what affected by the Citizens opinion. There are times that a President has to do something the public doesn\'t like. But it\'s his job to ensure that this is the right and true way to go. It\'s his job to make sure that every other possibility has been considered and attempted.

Iraq is not THE war on terror. Iraq is not even close to being the war on terror. Iraq has become a place where insurgents can come in at any time and kill our soldiers. Terrorist that weren\'t there before the invasion. Now we have other countries that are rapidly approaching a very high level of threat and danger to this country and we aren\'t dealing with them. We CAN\'T deal with them because all of the attention and resources are deadly focused in Iraq. All we can do now is try some of that "diplomacy" that Bush rejected to use with Iraq in the first place. Those threats are VERY REAL and they aren\'t just misinformed intelligence that some how came to the conclusion that even though the majority of Bush\'s administration agreed Hussain wasn\'t a threat back in 2001, in the year 2003 Hussain some how became a threat. Osama Bin Laden isn\'t the first thing in the President\'s mind, he doesn\'t "think about him" that much he says.

The Saudi who planned and funded the attack is still on the loose. And we have 75% of the al-quaeda leaders? Sure, but those ranks are filled up right after the capture of kill which only ends up with another new batch of leaders.

That article says that Kerry voted for the Patriot act. There are some articles in it that are good for this country\'s security. Those articles allow differents parts of our multiple law enforcement agencies. But within the Patrioct act there are things that tear apart some of our rights protected by the Constitution. Like the freedom of privacy. The freedom of speech. It\'s hypocritical for Bush\'s administration to take away those rights and at the same time defend the freedom that this country stands for.

Kerry can fight a better and SMARTER war. A "simple mind" doesn\'t plan and examine a war. A "simple mind" doesn\'t consider the other options. A "simple mind" doesn\'t examine and take to account the possible end results.


Osama Bin Laden escaped under the President\'s watch. The war in Afghanistan was a minor operation comparing it to Iraq. I wonder just how the priorities changed after 9/11. Laden was the objective for about 5 weeks. The Hussain some how became the prime subject.

Originally posted by SirMystiq
The article is in a way hypocritical. I don\'t see how people detest the fact that Kerry actually wants to form a bigger coalition. This isn\'t a time to make our pride get in the way. Bush is facing that right now trying to get the UN to take over Afghanistan and help out in Iraq. It\'s a bit too late.

This is going to be fun.  

Bigger coalition?  Who is coming?  Name someone.  UN takeover in Afghanistan?  NATO is already there and the UN is full of cowards that pull out everytime they hear an explosion in Iraq.

Originally posted by SirMystiq

I agree with the statement "Republicans are simple minded" That\'s a good quality? The President of the United States shouln\'t be one whose view is so narrow he doesn\'t consider other options. A president SHOULD change with times. If there is a time that the people want peace and prosperity, it\'s the President\'s job that happens. If there is a time when the majority of people support abortion, it\'s the Presiden\'ts job that happens. This is a country established by the people and for the people. The President\'s decision should be some what affected by the Citizens opinion. There are times that a President has to do something the public doesn\'t like. But it\'s his job to ensure that this is the right and true way to go. It\'s his job to make sure that every other possibility has been considered and attempted.

I haven\'t heard Bush say he will overturn Roe vs Wade.  If you think the ban on partial abortion is a bad thing I suggest you look at what it is before commenting on it.  I am pro choice and I think it is a terrible practice.  To sum it up - a baby as in the second or third trimester is pulled out of the mother feet first and while the head is still in the uterus - the doctor takes a scaple and stabs the baby in the back of the head.  Four more inches and that would be considered murder.  A person who has any compassion would be horrified at the practice.

Bush does change his views according to situations - the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission are prime examples.

Originally posted by SirMystiq

Iraq is not THE war on terror. Iraq is not even close to being the war on terror. Iraq has become a place where insurgents can come in at any time and kill our soldiers. Terrorist that weren\'t there before the invasion.

Not even close to being the war on terror?  So you would rather have Islamic fundamentalists come here and fight us as opposed to being drawn into Iraq?

Originally posted by SirMystiq

Now we have other countries that are rapidly approaching a very high level of threat and danger to this country and we aren\'t dealing with them. We CAN\'T deal with them because all of the attention and resources are deadly focused in Iraq. All we can do now is try some of that "diplomacy" that Bush rejected to use with Iraq in the first place.

So you propose we invade N. Korea and Iran yet you were against going into Iraq?  Who made you a military expert?  If Iran or N. Korea attacked we would be able to deal with them.  Bush didn\'t reject diplomacy - diplomacy via the UN failed.  Try telling me how it worked.

Originally posted by SirMystiq

Those threats are VERY REAL and they aren\'t just misinformed intelligence that some how came to the conclusion that even though the majority of Bush\'s administration agreed Hussain wasn\'t a threat back in 2001, in the year 2003 Hussain some how became a threat. Osama Bin Laden isn\'t the first thing in the President\'s mind, he doesn\'t "think about him" that much he says.

Colin Powell is not a majority of the Bush Administration.  Kerry and most of Congress agreed Iraq was a threat.  How do you explain that one?  The war on terror isn\'t about one man - and using all of our resources trying to find his body in a cave in Afghanistan would be "taking our eye off the ball".

Originally posted by SirMystiq
Kerry can fight a better and SMARTER war. A "simple mind" doesn\'t plan and examine a war. A "simple mind" doesn\'t consider the other options. A "simple mind" doesn\'t examine and take to account the possible end results.

[/b]

How can he fight a smarter war?  Tell me how?  I have been to Johnkerry.com and he can\'t fight a better "smarter" war.  What other options are there Mystiq?  Tell me please!  Don\'t say that other countries are going to send troops because they aren\'t.  

Originally posted by SirMystiq

Osama Bin Laden escaped under the President\'s watch. The war in Afghanistan was a minor operation comparing it to Iraq. I wonder just how the priorities changed after 9/11. Laden was the objective for about 5 weeks. The Hussain some how became the prime subject.

Escaped from where?  Has he been seen or heard from lately?  Was he even in Tora Bora as Kerry claims?  There is speculation he was there, but no proof.  Do you honestly think terrorism is going to disappear with the capture or death of Bin Laden?  It is naive and uneducated to say we aren\'t doing enough to find Bin Laden and you certainly don\'t deploy 100,000 troops to find one man with no army of his own.

[SirMystiq]

Originally posted by GigaShadow
This is going to be fun.  

Bigger coalition?  Who is coming?  Name someone.  UN takeover in Afghanistan?  NATO is already there and the UN is full of cowards that pull out everytime they hear an explosion in Iraq.

[SirMystiq]

Originally posted by GigaShadow
This is going to be fun.  

Bigger coalition?  Who is coming?  Name someone.  UN takeover in Afghanistan?  NATO is already there and the UN is full of cowards that pull out everytime they hear an explosion in Iraq.

How can you say nobody is coming if we don\'t even try? It\'s not impossible to get more help in Iraq. This war is going no where fast. For every explosion in Iraq somebody dies and it\'s most of the time one of our troops. It\'s a war and people die? What has this war solved? What is the holistic purpose of this war compared to the war on terror?

I haven\'t heard Bush say he will overturn Roe vs Wade.  If you think the ban on partial abortion is a bad thing I suggest you look at what it is before commenting on it.  I am pro choice and I think it is a terrible practice.  To sum it up - a baby as in the second or third trimester is pulled out of the mother feet first and while the head is still in the uterus - the doctor takes a scaple and stabs the baby in the back of the head.  Four more inches and that would be considered murder.  A person who has any compassion would be horrified at the practice.

Bush does change his views according to situations - the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission are prime examples.

The abortion issue was just an example. It wasn\'t the primary focus of the issue.

Bush changed his mind about the Department of Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission. That\'s a fact. But how long did it take? A commision was set up right after the Kennedy assasination and the president didn\'t get in the way of it forming. Bush did. He stopped the commision from forming and didn\'t let it do it\'s job. He didn\'t change his mind because he wanted too, he was forced to and it was obvious to his lack of cooperation with the Commission. And even after the commission finished their job he refuses to endorse many of their ideas and he is just now opening up to them.  

Not even close to being the war on terror?  So you would rather have Islamic fundamentalists come here and fight us as opposed to being drawn into Iraq?

Not even close to the war on terror. How is having Islamic fundamentalists go into Iraq and periodically kill our soldiers make us any safer? It\'s a constant attack and it isn\'t getting much done when it comes to dealing with the other dangers in the world that are beginning to take place.

So you propose we invade N. Korea and Iran yet you were against going into Iraq?  Who made you a military expert?  If Iran or N. Korea attacked we would be able to deal with them.  Bush didn\'t reject diplomacy - diplomacy via the UN failed.  Try telling me how it worked.

I never proposed to invade any country. Compared to other threats Iraq was nothing. The war was rushed. Hussain was cooperating with the inspectors this time around because he had nothing to hide, he even gave up weapons he was ALLOWED to have! But appereantly this didn\'t make sense to Bush. He couldn\'t believe it. And what did he do? He went into this war with no clear plan in mind other than kill, remove and then plan. The recent report said that the sanctions WERE keeping Hussain in check and even though he was systematically trying to remove them, a longer inspection by the inspectors would of gave us a broader and much clearer view of what was going on.

Colin Powell is not a majority of the Bush Administration.  Kerry and most of Congress agreed Iraq was a threat.  How do you explain that one?  The war on terror isn\'t about one man - and using all of our resources trying to find his body in a cave in Afghanistan would be "taking our eye off the ball".

Back in 2001? Rice and Powell both said that Iraq wasn\'t able to renew his weapons program because of the sanctions. Rice went as far to say that Hussains country is divided and wasn\'t even able to rebuild his army. Many people agreed with the war. Who wouln\'t? Who wouln\'t shiver at the sound of the words "mass destruction" and the continuous threat of danger? Iraq was shaped into a threat by the constant attacks at fear. Iraq was a threat but this war wasn\'t the best and only way to deal with it. The war on terror isn\'t about one man you\'re right. But this man was the one what attack us. If there is anything that would make anybody feel more secure was to kill or find the guy that showed us how weak our defenses really are. The guy who taught us a terrible lesson about our safety.  

How can he fight a smarter war?  Tell me how?  I have been to Johnkerry.com and he can\'t fight a better "smarter" war.  What other options are there Mystiq?  Tell me please!  Don\'t say that other countries are going to send troops because they aren\'t.  

You don\'t know they aren\'t. Who made you the decision maker of other countries?

A smarter war on terrorism over all is possible. Take some attention frome Iraq and focus it on other issues. This whole war is revolved around Iraq and it shouln\'t be that way. I don\'t think there are any other options when it comes to the fight. We have dug way too deep.
 

Escaped from where?  Has he been seen or heard from lately?  Was he even in Tora Bora as Kerry claims?  There is speculation he was there, but no proof.  Do you honestly think terrorism is going to disappear with the capture or death of Bin Laden?  It is naive and uneducated to say we aren\'t doing enough to find Bin Laden and you certainly don\'t deploy 100,000 troops to find one man with no army of his own.

Can you prove he wasn\'t in Tora Bora? Pure speculation. But we didn\'t take that opportunity to at least make sure of it. I would think that a criminal like Bin Laden should at least get some more attention when we have a guess of where he might be hiding.



Do you honestly think that terrorism is going to end with the removal of Hussain who had nothing to do with anything? Do you belive that the war in Iraq has made us safer as a whole? Do you honestly think that the war in Iraq has caused terrorist to cease their plans to attack us?

It\'s not naive to say we aren\'t doing enough to find the criminal who murdered thousands. It\'s sad though because like Bush, you seem not to care or worry about it much.