I'm not convinced that *that* is even a fair statement. Maybe they're close to equal.
The major difference between the two groups, though, is that our military is doing *good* for America, whereas some of the 9/11 widows are not. Some of them rank right up there with Cindy Sheehan. I don't deny them their grief, but that doesn't give them "absolute moral authority" or carte blanche to denigrate their country.
Cindy Sheehan is so outrageous that you really cannot possibly back up your earlier statement.
For one thing, Cindy Sheehan is a household name, and these other ladies individually and collectively aren’t even close in degree of recognition or radical ideology. Not the same league or even the same sport. There is a pretty big gap between making a campaign ad for Senator Kerry and being hand in hand with Hugo Chavez. If you will not concede that, there is no hope for you.
Secondly, going to war, the ultimate use of executive power, opens you up to criticism from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Right wing pundits, particularly Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, were very outspoken against President Clinton during military operations in Kosovo. If Al Gore had won the 2000 election, it would be Hannity and Coulter bashing the President over the War on Terror. As you know, the opposite occurred. It doesn’t matter if you own up to it or not, the “experts” you love so dearly do not universally support a President or a war if the incumbent is a Democrat. It is ridiculous for you to demand that the left be otherwise.
Sadly, your entire worldview and self identity are based on belonging to a political party and ideology to the point that it has blinded you to reality. Now that Ann Coulter has gone so far beyond the pale of acceptable human conduct, you need to update your worldview to include the idea that the right wing media can be just as mean spirited, evil, and insane as the left wing nut cases that you love to bring up.
Or you can go on defending the indefensible. Up to you, bud.
2. The primary difference between the war in Kosova (or in Bosnia, for that matter) and the war in Iraq is there was no national interest at stake in the Balkans, but there is in Iraq. Yes, the Balkans dealt with ethnic cleansing, but I didn't see too many people insisting we invade Rwanda--or Darfur.
3. I'm not wedded to a political ideology, I'm wedded to my own. I don't believe in right vs. left as much as I believe in right vs. wrong, although in many areas those align quite nicely.
4. Who ever said Hannity and Coulter were "experts"? And who ever said that Coulter was a media person as opposed to an entertainer (talk show host, author, etc)? Not I.
5. As for the Sheehan thing--I guess you lefties will never understand the concept of "linear thought", where one concept progresses *logically* to the next, which progresses *logically* to the next. As I understood the challenge above, it was to find at least one person who ranks "right up there with Cindy Sheehan". Certainly those women I mentioned aren't the household names Sheehan's is, but they're vile. They're *not* doing what's good for America, and *that* was my point in their ranking with Sheehan.
You don't think I can support my statement? How stupid you must think I am, to publish these names where *anyone with internet access* can read them, and not be able to back up my assertion.
I went to Yahoo and typed in "9/11 Widow". In only the first few hits I had the names of these women I've been reading about.
Here are just the first two: http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/03/05/open_letter/index_np.html http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CB84E581-838E-4EFE-B64B-09C04CC1F545.htm
Ironically, you refer to these 9/11 widows as “vile” since they are critical of President Bush, but praise the actions of someone who leaked false details of President Clinton’s wiener (pee-pee, ding-dong) to the media (Ann Coulter).
Aside from being critical of President Bush, have these ladies done anything to really deserve the moniker of “vile?” I really don’t think so, but I’m listening.
You wanted names, I gave names. You wanted more information, I told you where to find all the information you could need. Then you don't like *one* of the sources.
It's apparent that no amount of convincing will work on you so I'll stop.
I love this part: Coulter ripped up the letter to the cheers of her admirers, an action Cuthberston later said shows she is "promoting hate speech."
OOooooooh, hate speech! Guess the left never has any of that! Do you believe in the First Amendment or do you not? If so, then the concept that the government can classify good and bad speech is a haunting thought. If not, well, you're a lib (DQTP)!
15 comments:
The far left does a far better job supporting the troops than Ann Coulter does supporting 9/11 widows.
Fair enough?
I'm not convinced that *that* is even a fair statement. Maybe they're close to equal.
The major difference between the two groups, though, is that our military is doing *good* for America, whereas some of the 9/11 widows are not. Some of them rank right up there with Cindy Sheehan. I don't deny them their grief, but that doesn't give them "absolute moral authority" or carte blanche to denigrate their country.
"Some of them rank right up there with Cindy Sheehan."
Name one.
A.R. Torres.
Ellen Mariani.
Patty Casazza
Kristen Breitweiser
That's more than one.
Now, find one prominent far-left-winger who supports this President and the war.
Michael Moore? No.
Noam Chomsky? No.
Markos "Screw them" Zuniga? No.
Nancy Pelosi? No.
Cindy Sheehan? No.
I'm not coming up with anyone.
For once, I feel bad for you.
Cindy Sheehan is so outrageous that you really cannot possibly back up your earlier statement.
For one thing, Cindy Sheehan is a household name, and these other ladies individually and collectively aren’t even close in degree of recognition or radical ideology. Not the same league or even the same sport. There is a pretty big gap between making a campaign ad for Senator Kerry and being hand in hand with Hugo Chavez. If you will not concede that, there is no hope for you.
Secondly, going to war, the ultimate use of executive power, opens you up to criticism from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Right wing pundits, particularly Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, were very outspoken against President Clinton during military operations in Kosovo. If Al Gore had won the 2000 election, it would be Hannity and Coulter bashing the President over the War on Terror. As you know, the opposite occurred. It doesn’t matter if you own up to it or not, the “experts” you love so dearly do not universally support a President or a war if the incumbent is a Democrat. It is ridiculous for you to demand that the left be otherwise.
Sadly, your entire worldview and self identity are based on belonging to a political party and ideology to the point that it has blinded you to reality. Now that Ann Coulter has gone so far beyond the pale of acceptable human conduct, you need to update your worldview to include the idea that the right wing media can be just as mean spirited, evil, and insane as the left wing nut cases that you love to bring up.
Or you can go on defending the indefensible. Up to you, bud.
1. I am not your "bud".
2. The primary difference between the war in Kosova (or in Bosnia, for that matter) and the war in Iraq is there was no national interest at stake in the Balkans, but there is in Iraq. Yes, the Balkans dealt with ethnic cleansing, but I didn't see too many people insisting we invade Rwanda--or Darfur.
3. I'm not wedded to a political ideology, I'm wedded to my own. I don't believe in right vs. left as much as I believe in right vs. wrong, although in many areas those align quite nicely.
4. Who ever said Hannity and Coulter were "experts"? And who ever said that Coulter was a media person as opposed to an entertainer (talk show host, author, etc)? Not I.
5. As for the Sheehan thing--I guess you lefties will never understand the concept of "linear thought", where one concept progresses *logically* to the next, which progresses *logically* to the next. As I understood the challenge above, it was to find at least one person who ranks "right up there with Cindy Sheehan". Certainly those women I mentioned aren't the household names Sheehan's is, but they're vile. They're *not* doing what's good for America, and *that* was my point in their ranking with Sheehan.
I stand by my comments.
"Certainly those women I mentioned aren't the household names Sheehan's is, but they're vile."
The 9/11 widows you listed are vile?
Please support this outrageous statement with specific examples.
I think we can agree that Cindy Sheehan is pretty darn vile, but Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Ellen Mariani, and A.R. Torres are all vile?
How so?
I think you just made another statement you just cann’t back up.
BTW, who is A.R. Torres?
You don't think I can support my statement? How stupid you must think I am, to publish these names where *anyone with internet access* can read them, and not be able to back up my assertion.
I went to Yahoo and typed in "9/11 Widow". In only the first few hits I had the names of these women I've been reading about.
Here are just the first two:
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/03/05/open_letter/index_np.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CB84E581-838E-4EFE-B64B-09C04CC1F545.htm
Sheesh.
You want me to read Aljazeera? Wow.
You have made a very weak case so far.
Ironically, you refer to these 9/11 widows as “vile” since they are critical of President Bush, but praise the actions of someone who leaked false details of President Clinton’s wiener (pee-pee, ding-dong) to the media (Ann Coulter).
Aside from being critical of President Bush, have these ladies done anything to really deserve the moniker of “vile?” I really don’t think so, but I’m listening.
You wanted names, I gave names. You wanted more information, I told you where to find all the information you could need. Then you don't like *one* of the sources.
It's apparent that no amount of convincing will work on you so I'll stop.
Go play your leftie (DQTP) games elsehwhere.
Here's some more on Ann Coulter:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-licoult0608,0,4498073.story?track=mostemailedlink
I love this part: Coulter ripped up the letter to the cheers of her admirers, an action Cuthberston later said shows she is "promoting hate speech."
OOooooooh, hate speech! Guess the left never has any of that! Do you believe in the First Amendment or do you not? If so, then the concept that the government can classify good and bad speech is a haunting thought. If not, well, you're a lib (DQTP)!
Post a Comment