Man, I thought I’d never write a post with "Ann Coulter" in the headline — the wars of the ideologues interest me only to the extent that I sometimes find them morbidly fascinating. As in, "See, that’s what wrong with the country!"
I must have been in one of those moods, because I finally gave in to the fact that she had been
mentioned repeatedly in recent days in comments on this blog, and always in a context that suggested that everybody else but me knew why she was the subject of the day. You see, I’ve been sort of busy right here in South Carolina. In any case, I’ve never read anything by Ms. Coulter (does she mind being called that, by the way?). Nor have I seen her on the telly, but I’ll just bet she’s one of those shouting heads I don’t see because of not having cable.
Anyway, I Googled her (and is it OK if I say that?). And I’m guessing the reason folks are talking about her so much has something to do with this. She must have really gone over the line if the National Review is saying this about her:
Apparently, in Ann’s mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny…
Oops, no. I see that it must be something else, because that’s from way back in 2001. It must be this
— which I found on the old-fashioned wire service. If it was something else, perhaps y’all can enlighten me, if "enlighten" is the word.
But more interesting to me, and the only reason I am invoking the woman’s name, is that I clicked on her official site, and checked her archived writings. I immediately clicked on one of the more inflammatory-looking headlines, and found this. No, not the article — I didn’t read that. I’m talking about the little ad at the top, the one that says:
Republican Oscar Lovelace
The Next Governor of South Carolina
Mark Your Calendar, June 13 Primary
You click on it, and you get his Web site.
Interesting choice of an advertising venue. I would think there were better ones for reaching a South Carolina readership, but what do I know?
Related Posts
One person being distorted to the point that she thinks such comments are fair game is sad enough. What’s disturbing are the others who have a chance to reflect on her comments and hear the feedback and analysis and still champion her remarks.
They claim she’s engaging in truthful debate and criticism. In truth, these are personal attacks (not attacking their stance but attacking them) and are contrary to the very values we are supposedly debating. They distract us from the important issues at a crucial time.
Dave (her biggest fan on this site), do you honestly support her calling these women “witches” and claiming “they have enjoyed their husbands death?” Don’t dance around the issue; I want you to address these specific comments.
Randy, I have to put down Ann’s newest book, Godless, in order to respond to you but the sacrifice is in order. First of all, separate your sympathy for the private lives of the 4 Jersey girls and understand that they are rabid partisans who worked for Kerry Edwards in commercials and appearances. So, we are not talking about Shirley Temple here, but 5 female type James Carvilles. Their hatred of Bush is witchlike so it is fair to call them witches. They certainly didnt enjoy the actual death of their husbands but they are enjoying the aftermath of those deaths, celebrity democrats who are self proclaimed experts on the Patriot Act, NSA, weaponry, military strategy, foreign policy, and whatever else they blabber on about. It has been 5, yes 5 years since the tragic 9-11 and these publicity hounds seek to play the sad widow while jetsetting around the country, providing paid speaking engagements, having exclusive dinners with prominent politicians, while constantly denigrating the current administration. Most of the sane people in the country do NOT put 9-11 right on Bush’s shoulders, or any one person’s for that matter, but that is what these 4 celebs are doing. Ann Coulter is very right to blast them, and she is a writer so it will help her sell some books too. I am fine with that. If I knew these 4 personally I would tell them they have my condolences for their losses but it is time to go home and raise their kids, or at least lose the black dresses and the schtick about being the grieving moms. As long as they join a political campaign, they are way out of Mother Theresa territory and are fair game for whatever they say.
Brad, great picture of her. I like the one where she has her rifle too. That girl can go!!!!!!!!!
“They certainly didn’t enjoy the actual death of their husbands” – Dave
So them being dead (not the actual killing) and their kids not having them around is what they enjoy?
“Blasting them” personally is ok because of their “hatred of Bush?” Please share a personal attack they made of Bush that was not directly related to his job. Did they call him a drunk because of his past excessive drinking? Did they say he was enjoying the death of Iraqis?
Your support and even joy of such hate is simply put, sad.
Ann Coulter went over the line when talking about these women, but the point that she was making is important. The left keeps trotting out these victims (Jersey girls, Cindy Sheehan) and then complain that you can’t challenge thier views because they lost loved ones. Then, the media and the left ignore any other victim who disagrees with them or agrees with the administration. So, you ignore the other 1,000 9/11 widows and publicize the Jersey Girls. You ignore all of the mothers of slain soldiers unless they are anti-Bush moonbats. That is how the left works. And since the media is in bed with the left, they do the same. None of this excuses Coulter, but how else is this point going to be made?
Ann Coulter is a very brave woman. I admire her courage. Those 4 widows did not represent the whole 911 widows/widowers community nor they speak for them. What these 4 widows were doing was only for their own selfish interest only and for the interest of a political party that uses them. If they put themselves in the limelight then they should expect to be criticized. They are fair game! Widow or not! And why not? They are always describe as the Grieving widows of Jersey. It’s hard to believe because in act and in appearance, they don’t seem to be grieving. It is a travesty to even describe them as grieving! Only a fool would buy their act.
Ann has the gall to speak up. Way to go Ann! More power to you!
Nathan, who’s complaining about people challenging their views? You made the point that Coulter went overboard and that’s the catalyst for the complaints.
I appreciate your willingness to address her comments (anyone willing to critically analyze their own party gains my respect) and I agree that some media (maybe alot) pull to the left, but don’t dismiss the media in general. Dan Rather’s not lurking every time you turn on the tube or open a paper or click on a news site.
These women were not getting significant national exposure. I bet Brad didn’t know of them – he hardly knew Coulter. Sheehan pulled some stunts that garnered attention. So do those dudes who dress up as Batman and climb Buckingham Palace.
This reminds me of how some deflect criticism of W by citing what Clinton did or how the media dealt with him differently. I admit and am not happy about the ills and mistakes of the Clinton white house, but it’s W’s ball game. He gets the credit or blame now. Same with Coulter – she went overboard, we hold her accountable.
Ann may be smart but she herself is making plenty of cash off talking about 9/11.
As a Conservative myself, I find her silly but some folks like that.
The fact is that every American has a right to be political if they wish.
They have a right to hate George Bush or any other politician that they wish to hate.
You can also disagree with people that hate President Bush.
Doing so respectfully usually gets you a lot further than not doing so.
Elyse, you accept personal attacks like “the enjoyed their husband’s deaths” and calling them “witches” and making wild comments like “we don’t know if their husbands were going to divorce them” as mere criticism? There’s a big difference between criticising a position and people personally.
Do you really endorse those specific comments?
She probably wouldn’t be so quick to back similar comments about a formerly drug-addicted President and his similarly suffering offspring. Even IF that family did choose to place itself in the limelight shining on the White House…
“Letters from Elise” always was one of my least favorite Cure songs…
“Letters to Elise”
“Oh Elise it doesn’t matter what you say
I just can’t stay here every yesterday”
CapA = sharp wit.
Nathan, you talk about how people supposedly complain that it isn’t OK to challenge the views of Ms. Breitweiser, Ms. Casazza, Ms. Van Auken, or Ms. Kleinberg, because they are grieving widows. But you aren’t challenging their views; you are simply casting vague moral aspersions against them without any evidence. I would think that if you had any initiative, you would address their views and explain why their views were wrong in some way. But of course, if you had that much initiative, you might also have enough initiative to support yourself and your children without taking handouts from the federal taxes collected from persons like me and, yes, from Ms. Breitweiser, Ms. Casazza, Ms. Van Auken, and Ms. Kleinberg.
Pretty sad. Pretty ungrateful, I call it.
If it is up to me it should have been the letter “B” not “W”, you know what I mean?
Because of their action, it appears to the public that they are enjoying the attention they get from the media and from the 911 hearing. It appears as though they are enjoying it because without their husbands death, they wouldn’t have receive the notoriety, attention, and above all the million of dollars. Afterall, men are replaceable/disposable. Women can have several husband in her life-time. This should be a no brainer. Women get over it fast especially with the media attention and MONEY. They should have acted appropriately especially if they are under the watchful eye of the public. Instead, they seemed to be suffering from attention-deficit syndrome. To tell you the truth, I highly agree with Ann’s point of view. Very sharp! She’s right on the money!
Mary, the biggest mistake they make is to give the Al Qaeda terrorists that attacked us on 9-11 a free pass while blaming the entire event on Bush. With these 4, America is always wrong. Echoes of Hanoi Jane, Kerry, Tom Hayden, and many on the left who constantly attacked America and sympathized with the communist Viet Cong. The victimhood of these 4 cannot be a shield to their serving as leftist Dem mouthpieces.
Elyse, I wonder how many of the “offended” on this thread were so offended by Ward Churchill, the fraud leftist professor who said 3000 little Eichmans deserved to die on 9-11. Now remember Ward has freedom of speech given by the leftist media but those on the right do not.. And Randy, I said it before, Ann is not a Republican spokesperson and has NOT done ads for the RNC. The Jersey girls did ads for the DNC and Kerry.
Mary Rosh, I actually laughed out loud reading your last post. Wow. I don’t even know how else to respond to that. Except maybe, get a life.
Back to these women though. They do get plenty of national exposure, except that they are usually just referred to as a group of 9/11 widows. Nobody knows during the interview that they have organized themselves as a political attack machine. What you always here from people who say that they are wrong about this or that is “you didn’t lose a loved one like they did”. When they go on Chris Matthews the night after the Condi Rice 9/11 Commission testimony, and claim that the gov’t knew and told certain officials not to fly, nobody can challenge them. But, the national media has repeatedly trotted them out there as though they spoke for all 9/11 families. When they joined the Kerry campaign, the news reported that 9/11 widows supported Kerry. They didn’t bother to check with the other 3,000 families to get a tally on who supported who. Thier darlings were all they needed.
Dave and Elyse, take note of Nathan’s last post. Did he call these women “witches?” Did he claim to know their hearts and how they feel about their husbands? Did he suggest the husbands might have considered divorce?
NO! He made specific reference to their positions and how the media addresses them – he challenged these women on the ISSUES.
Kudos and thanks to Nathan for a solid contribution to this thread.
Dave and Elyse, take note of Nathan’s last post. Did he call these women “witches?” Did he claim to know their hearts and how they feel about their husbands? Did he suggest the husbands might have considered divorce?
NO! He made specific reference to their positions and how the media addresses them – he challenged these women on the ISSUES.
Kudos and thanks to Nathan for a solid contribution to this thread.
de-ja-vu’
The problem I have with the right wing bloggers here, especially Dave, is that they cannot just come out and say what is obvious to those of us with any sense of decency: “The personal attacks, by Ms. Coulter, against the 9-11 widows is reprehensible and these deplorable statements have no business in any civil discussion about the events of 9-11, the war in Iraq or any other issue of the day”. Any commenst suggesting coulter makes some good points, that the 9-11 widows cannot be challenged politically or any other additional commentary just demonstrates, yet again, how shallow the modern right wing movement in this country has become. I say keep it up right wing nutcases, you only make our job as liberals that much easier.
Let’s contrast the ann coulter smear campaign with the current, ranking democrating scandal, the bribery scandal involving William Jefferson. Every liberal commentator I’ve ever read has roundly critized Mr. Jefferson about his alleged actions. This underscores one big difference between liberals and modern conservatives, liberals understand when something is wrong, even if one our own commits the crime. The right on the other hand, will defend to the death any vile, filthy disgusting act or statement made in the name of conservatism.
More and more people are recognizing the hypocricy on the right and the polls are swinging our way. If you on the right continue to defend the filth spouted off by the vile Ms. coulter, you do so at your own peril.
Bud, please, take your meds. The democrats sat down Michael Moore next to a former president at the DNC convention last election cycle. They embrace Cindy Sheehan when she calls the terrorists in Iraq “freedom fighters”. Thier chairman is a left wing bombthrower who is actually quite similar to Coulter if you compare thier rhetoric.
To say that they aren’t accepting the on tape bribery of an obscure congressman from a decimated state just strikes me as a sign of why not to trust the left. The left feel that it is something to be proud of when they don’t pump up thier criminals. The right just thinks that is obvious and nothing to take pride in. You didn’t see anyone standing up for Duke Cunningham.
Randy, Nathan didn’t challenge, Ms. Breitweiser, Ms. Casazza, Ms. van Auken and Ms. Kleinberg on the issues. What issue did he raise, and what claim did he make contrary to the claims he attributed to them?
What Nathan basically says is:
Ms. Breitweiser, Ms. Casazza, Ms. van Auken, and Ms. Kleinberg claimed that certain officials were warned not to fly, and no one is allowed to challenge them because of their widowhood.
They are a political attack machine.
When you challenge them on any issue, the response is, “you didn’t lose a loved one like they did.”
The national media has repeatedly trotted them out as though they spoke for all 9/11 families.
When they joined the Kerry campaign, the news reported that 9/11 widows supported Kerry, without checking with the other 9/11 families to get a tally of who supported whom.
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t have anything to do with any issues. Nathan is not arguing based on the idea that anything Ms. Breitweiser, Ms. Casazza, Ms. van Auken, or Ms. Kleinberg said is false. He’s simply taking the familiar tack of the typical shifless, lazy, cowardly conservative who bases his arguments not on the idea that his opponents are mistaken, but on the idea that no one who opposes his viewpoint should be given a forum at all. The shiftlessness exmplified by this technique of argument goes a long way toward explaining why Nathan can’t support his children through his own efforts, but is dependent on handouts taken from the taxes of people like Ms. Breitweiser, Mr. Casazza, Ms. van Auken, and Ms. Kleinberg to keep his children from starving to death.
The ONLY factual issue on which Nahtan touched, however tangentially, is where he said that Ms. Breitweiser, Ms. Casazza, Ms. van Auken, and Ms. Kleinberg claimed that the government had warned certain officials not to fly. Now, a little research into the record brings us this:
That, sadly, exemplifies the lack of initiative that keeps Nathan dependent on handouts collected form the taxes of Ms. Breitweiser, Ms. van Auken, and Ms. Kleinberg.
The ONLY issue he raised at all was the idea that they said (he claims) that the government warned certain officials not to fly during the months leading up to September 11. He does NOT present any evidence to refute whatever claims he says they made, and a quick review of the record brings us this:
From the Guardian, May 21, 2002.
********************************************
“On September 10 last year, the last day of what is now seen as a bygone age of innocence, Mr Ashcroft sent a request for budget increases to the White House. It covered 68 programmes, none of them related to counter-terrorism.
He also sent a memorandum to his heads of departments, stating his seven priorities. Counter-terrorism was not on the list. He turned down an FBI request for hundreds more agents to be assigned to tracking terrorist threats.
Nevertheless, he began using a chartered private jet to travel around the country, rather than take commercial airliners as Ms Reno had done. A justice department spokesman said this was done as a result of an FBI “threat assessment” on Mr Ashcroft, but insisted that the assessment was not specifically linked to al-Qaida.
But Mr Ashcroft stopped using commercial flights in July, just as the intelligence “chatter” about a possible al-Qaida strike on US soil was getting louder.”
********************************************
OK, so the factual claim they made that Nathan refers to was TRUE!!!
This gives the lie to his claim that they raise some flag of “victimhood” as a shield against criticism. What is there to criticize them for. They don’t need any flag of “victimhood” to stop decent people from attacking them for making TRUE STATEMENTS. It is, of course, Nathan who raises the flag of victimhood. He cries and moans like the lazy, shiftless, cowardly, bedwetting piece of trash he is when he is criticized for making irrelevant personal attacks on women who lost their husbands due to Bush’s failure and neglect. No one has every suggested that the widowhood of Ms. Breitweiser, Ms. Casazza, Ms. van Auken and Ms. Kleinberg shields their views from criticism. All we are asking is that those who want to criticize their views, criticize THEIR VIEWS, instead of trying to promote the notion that they somehow don’t have a right to speak.
Of course, Nathan can’t do that, any more than he can support his children without handouts paid for by the taxes of Ms. Breitweiser, Ms. Casazza, Ms. van Auken, and Ms. Kleinberg.
They have the right to speak, in fact, they became John Kerry’s mouthpiece, they were in his pres. ad campaign. The media elevated them as though they are SAINTS, who can’t be criticized.It’s taboo to criticize them afterall, they are GRIEVING! Wait a minute, Jesus and the Virgen Mary were slandered many times over and where’s the outrage? Why do these 4 widows get a free pass? Just because they are grieving? They are not above reproached. The liberals are using them because saying things against these widows are taboo, but Ann broke the taboo, that’s why the liberals are mad as hell.
Note that the Godless book has 11 chapters. The reference to Jersey girls was not even a chapter nor an entire page. It was a short paragraph, yet Liberals had nothing better to pick on to contradict Ann except her reference to these 4 widows. What happened if Ann didn’t mention them? Do liberals have something to contradict on the hot button issue of Abortion, Darwin, Evolution, etc? The outrage over the Jersey girls was just an EXCUSE because Ann has the nerve to expose the liberals of what they truly are – Godless. Man has the audacity to claim he is GOD. MAN is GOD and MAN can do whatever HE wants without any repercussion. He is just like an ape; more intelligent than the ape. Ann’s book is deliciously good and it’s an eye opener. I wasn’t suprised that Hillary was so mad because Ann exposed a lot of bad things that can be attributed to Clintons. It’s really bad!
Once again, the Jersey girls were made a facade! Look at the meat of Ann’s book and its message and remove the Jersey girls out of the picture. Ann hit the readers with the truth! If you seek truth, you will always find GOD.
I believe it is an issue if a group of individuals are getting a disproportionate amount of attention and are given too much leeway simply because of their status (a movie star speaks out on a topic and we give them tons of credibility?). I don’t know much about these 911 wives so I’m not commenting on them.
I talked up Nathan’s post because he addressed the same issues Coulter did, but he did it without being personal. By offering his perspective as specific example, I was reaffirming the point I made to Dave and Elyse. There’s a BIG difference between questioning political behavior and making personal attacks.
Having written that, let me take issue with Nathan’s typcial right wing response that democrats some how condone criminal behavior unless it’s the republicans committing it. Aside from maybe a very small element of society, I don’t know of anyone taking Jefferson’s side. On the other hand, Duke C. was CONVICTED and CONFESSED. In the words of a 10 year old, NO DUH the republicans didn’t say anything. To use the comparison of these two situations as supporting evidence is weak.
Both parties have knuckleheads. Let’s hold all of them accountable.
Elyse, that is so weak. Democrats (“liberals” and others) are upset by the hateful personal attacks.
I asked you before and I ask again, do you endorse the specific comments in which Coulter called them “witches”, said “they enjoy the deaths of their husbands” and “their husbands may have been planning to divorce them.” Yes or no Elyse?
Didn’t you read my reply to that? I believe it was my second posting. Guess you didn’t get it.
Why don’t the illiberals direct some of their outrage toward other leftists who have said or insinuated that the 9/11 victims “deserved it” because the poor old Muslim terrorists were just retaliating against US imperialism, or that the buildings were actually blown up by a GOP cabal, etc?
Nobody is exempted from personal attacks. The president, Jesus, Jews, other religion, priests, civic leaders, parents, et al are not exempt from personal attacks. NOBODY! NOthing is sacred in this society. MAN IS GOD! Why do want exemption for the Jersey Girls? Are they special? Maybe to a political party YES and to some ideology, but they and the rest of us are not immune to personal attacks. Why feign outrage over it? How about the rallies on our dead soldier’s funeral or the abortion of millions of babies a year…where’s the OUTRAGE? Where’s your outrage? No matter how they reword it, ABORTION IS KILLING OF BABIES! What are these people doing? Selective outburst of OUTRAGE! Nice try. Well, maybe if it serve a GODless cause..why not? If you can’t argue the meat of the book, why not nitpick on the insignificant..like the 4 Jersey girls.
WOW…BRILLIANT!!!
The Democrat party is on the verge of complete disintegration. Pelosi tried to take action on William “Show Me Da Money” Jefferson and the Black Caucus overruled her. I can hear Nancy now, “Hey, dem black people is gettin uppity now”. Anyway, then you have Murtha trumpeting that he wants the leadership post instead of the pro-Iraq war Steny Hoyer. Rebellion is open in the ranks of the confused and divided Dems. You won’t hear the mainstream media say the above things however. Instead, we get that because the Duke Cunningham seat was won by a Republican, it was a victory really for the Dems. Very laughable. Now if we can just get the Dems to run the Jersey girls for office in New Jersey.
Nathan, now Mary claims you are a bedwetter. This is the doofus poster who claims to only go on facts. She is a typical leftist selfcentered Bush hating whining moaning not supporting the military surrender monkey. With her and people like Murtha, we would have surrendered many months ago and Zarqawi would be hosting young Iraqi virgins in one of Saddam’s former palaces while laughing at the weakness of the US military, thus encouraging more boldness against us around the world. Now they are seeing his blown up fat face and know he has finally been brought to justice by Bush. As General Patton famously said, “I hope God has mercy on my enemies, because I sure as hell won’t”. Brilliant.
Randy – to equate a patriotic highly proficient lawyer like Ann Coulter to a real knucklehead like Ward Churchill is another trick of the left to make everyone morally equivalent. Ann doesnt hate America like Ward does, didnt lie to get a native Indian chairmanship at a university, or gloat over the deaths of American innocents. No, the left has a big advantage in numskulls, knuckleheads, pinheads, peabrains, and idjits. Do I need to name them?
The primary reason for such reaction to Coulter is that she dares to speak the blunt truth about our degraded enemies, the Democrats.
As for “a drug-abusing President and his family”, Coulter and others pointed out the cocaine problems of Bill and Roger Clinton, bu t Democrats brushed it off.
Since it’s an open day for mud-slinging, how ’bout this: George W. Bush is a buffoon whose first reaction (from his own mouth) about the WTC attack was to joke about it. His second reaction was to sit frozen for 7 minutes. His third reaction was to flee in the opposite direction at 500 MPH and lie low until late afternoon. If he’d really wanted to take command of the situation, he was less than 50 miles from U.S. Central Command HQ in Tampa (a highly secure installation). His only thought was to put as much distance as possible between himself and danger.
See how easy it is for anyone to be another Ann Coulter?
Some “liberals” are still angry that Saddam’s 9/11 bombers failed to get Bush, Cheney and Congress.
Randy, I didn’t say that anyone condones criminal actions. I said that both sides condemn it. Only the left sees that as a big deal. Both parties do have boneheads in them. (I really have to recommend that people watch hearings on C-SPAN every now and then. You will lose nearly all confidence in our elected officials.)
Dave, I’m pretty sure that, according to Mary, I am a deadbeat, bedwetting, welfare dad. Of course, since Mary has all of the intelligence of the keyboard that I am typing on, I’ll just ignore her. But, she is entertaining none the less. She is like the Simon of this blog.
Elyse: you would call those women “itches with a B” eh? As Dave would say, she’s a “real patriot” for her comments.
It’s a shame that personal attacks are more revered in your eyes than real issues. In this government, we aren’t supposed to agree on everything because the resulting dialogue makes both sides tink through the issues. Coulter undermined this dialogue.
Bottom line, do we want our children to learn from this example? Don’t we tell them to play nice and not call each other names? I for one do not want my children or the young people of this nation to believe that it is okay to behave and treat other the way Ann Coulter has.
Nathan, I am disheartened by many, but take heart in some fantastic public servants. I greatly admire Lindsey Graham, Joel Lourie is uplifting, Carter in his post presidency has done wonderful things and is one of my heroes, and I appreciate the great thought Staton has put into his vision for reform (atleast the first 2 of his 4 Rs).
Randy, you seem like a reasonable person. Keep in mind that pundits make money selling books and controversy sells. At the same time, most of the people we blog about don’t personally hate each other. Coulter for example is friends with Bill Maher. Go figure that one. Look at Mary Matalin and James Carville, now there is an odd couple. At any rate, don’t take harsh talk too seriously, it is only a blog after all. I still want to see if Oscar will endorse Mark.
Dave, replying to a woman who posted a thoughtful editorial by making fun of her looks is not what I find amusing.
Education is maybe the most serious issue in our society. Thomas Jefferson said as much. I, and a large proportion of educators, take the purpose of their profession to heart only to have our efforts dismissed out of hand. When you scoff at the honors our schools have won, you are doing as much.
In reference to your post on the education thread.
Addendum: Dave did not make the disparaging comment about the education lady, DOUG did.
My apologies to Dave.
>> At any rate, don’t take harsh talk too
>> seriously, it is only a blog after all.
Yeah, when are we going to have the blog get-together? Or would meeting face-to-face make people more agreeable and kill this blog?
First round is on me if someone can pick a place and a time.
Doug, will you be bringing your disparging comments or will you stick to broad oversimplistic generalizations? Dave can help you think up more.
Randy, you are in denial! Who do you see on national TV with hate speeches and bashing somebody…isn’t it the Democrats? Look at Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi, & et al, cable news are full of them. Our troops just killed Zarkhawi, and who do you see on TV complaining? Nancy Pelosi. Don’t lecture about hate speech and what we are teaching our kids because liberalism is flagrant in school. The academic professors are the promoter and harbinger of liberalistic ideas. Where do you think these professors are, from left or right? YOur argument doesn’t hold water.
Because democrats pull some lame crap doesn’t excuse Coulter from her comments. Your argument apparently is on the level of “Mommy, he hit me”. “Well, he hit me first!”
I don’t care for Pelosi nor Dean either. BUT THEY didn’t call people witches (or with a B) and say these widows enjoyed their husbands deaths. I simply find it sad that you can make some a concerted and ill-conceived effort to justify and even exhalt her for such hate.
>Doug, will you be bringing your disparging
> comments or will you stick to broad >oversimplistic generalizations?
I think I can do both. Happily.
Please do, it alleviates the boredom of discussing meaningful issues.
For a get-together, Brad could rope off a sort of DMZ no fly zone. If the gathering is in a pub then most of us can’t carry anyway (except for police officials), so it would be a peaceful encounter. By the way, that is sarcasm, because in reality, CWP holders are by far the MOST law abiding citizens in this state, short of the Lt. Gov.
“…are we going to have the blog get-together?” “First round is on me if someone can pick a place and a time.”
Dave, is that first round bullets by chance? And you’re probably right, it would kill the blog because the attendees would kill each other.
Maybe SC2 could pick us up and drive us there. Ann Coulter could offer the invocation, “Why personal attacks are justified in God’s eyes.” Tom Delay could pay for it with PAC money and his wife could cater it (for thousands of dollars). O’Reilly could moderate it because he’s fair. Of course, Sanford would beg out of it because he’ll be busy planning more preemption of any action in the legislature. Finally, Floyd will tell us about a better place to meet, a private club, that a bunch of shriners liked. Of course, she doesn’t know for sure if we’d like it but if it worked for the shriners, why not?
Let the games begin. 🙂
Dave claims that the Democratic Party is on the verge of complete disentigration. The exact opposite is true and the polls show it. The continued efforts by the conservative bloggers on this post goes a long way to explaining why. Conservatives simply will not address the issue in question, was or was not ann coulter’s comments, especially the one regarding the 9-11 widows enjoying their husbands deaths, reprehensible?
This reminds me of an incident several years ago about a television interview on one of the nightly news magazine shows with one of the members of the man/boy love association (I can’t remember the exact name of the organization but they are the group advocating adult male and young boy sexual conduct). The interviewer asked her guest a direct question: “Do you believe it is ok for a 30 year old man and a 5 year old boy to engage in sexual activity”. The guest danced and weaved, changed the subject and did everything but answer yes or no to the question. But the reporter persisted. Finally the guest got annoyed and said, “why do you keep asking the same question, there are other issues I want to discuss”. And the reporter said simply, “because you will not give the only correct answer, which is NO, it is not ok”.
Same thing here. I ask again to all of you conservatives out there to answer this question with a yes or no, without commentary: Was it ok for ann coulter to suggest the 9-11 widows are enjoying the deaths of their husbands? Once you say NO (which is the only correct answer) then we can move on from this issue. Dave, Elsye, Lee let’s have it, three NOs on that question.
Bud, these 4 are definitely “enjoying” their widow status. Coulter wasnt saying they enjoyed the actual deaths, but their husbands have been dead for nearly 5 years now. Let’s ixnay the sad widow stuff. Even Jacquie Kennedy took a new man. These 4 partisans have had a free ride passing themselves off as national security finger pointers. They got a small fortune in insurance settlements and federal payments and now are making big bucks on the chicken banquet circuit. They are not a sacred foursome to most Americans. Ann C. was right on the money to show them for what they are…
QUOTE: “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much,” Coulter wrote.
Are you suggesting that the actual moment they were killed wasn’t pleasing to them but the idea that they are dead is pleasing?
Bud, they’ve backed themselves into a corner defending Coulter’s remark based on blind allegiance rather than knowing the facts.
Look at Dave’s response to your post, “Coulter wasnt saying they enjoyed the actual deaths.” Look at what Coulter actually wrote, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”
Once you point out the pure hate in these personal attacks and clearly demonstrate that this was NOT just criticism, they can’t go back and admit they were wrong. Princess of Hate has them marching in lock step to her lyrical venom.
bud,
How do you KNOW what Ann Coulter said?
Are you like Brad Warthen, who brags about having never read anything she wrote, nor watched her on television?
If you want us to comment on her quote, post the quote, and the page number from her book.
Ann Coulter should be ignored by the intelligent; let the criminally stupid buy her crap.
Wait, that isn’t a good idea because right now the people in power seem to think her inane ranting holds something resembling “logic” or “sense”.
Aaron, we ignore the likes of ann coulter at our peril. Many people eat this stuff up. Like cockroaches running from the light, the right exposes their true nature if they are exposed to the light of truth.
Aaron, there are a lot of supporters for Ann out there. Her book is on the Best Seller list and rising. You should read it. Lots of truth in it. One excerpt – P. 151
“Most stunningly, in fourth grade Americans are in the 92 percentile in science literacy – bested only by students in S. Korea and Japan. Eight years later, American twelfth graders science scores have fallen to the 29th percentile. The only countries worse at that level are Lithuania, Cyprus, and S. Africa. Question: Is student achievement inversely proportional to time spent in US Public Schools, or is there a correlation between poor student achievement and times spent in US Public Schools?”
Ann later says that anyone who criticises this performance is accused by liberal politicians of “attacking teachers”. It’s all about catering to voter blocs. But I would ask the teachers on this thread, why does the performance drop so much?
Dave you pointed out yet another failure of republican rule. Here’s another (from the latest FBI report on violent crime):
Murders rose 4.8%, meaning there were more than 16,900 victims in 2005. That would be the most since 1998 and the largest percentage increase in 15 years.
Bud, why do democrats commit so much crime. Do they not have a moral compass?
Her book is on the Best Seller list and rising. You should read it. Lots of truth in it. One excerpt – P. 151
“Most stunningly, in fourth grade Americans are in the 92 percentile in science literacy – bested only by students in S. Korea and Japan. Eight years later, American twelfth graders science scores have fallen to the 29th percentile. The only countries worse at that level are Lithuania, Cyprus, and S. Africa. Question: Is student achievement inversely proportional to time spent in US Public Schools, or is there a correlation between poor student achievement and times spent in US Public Schools?”
See – that’s obviously false analogy. There couldn’t be ANY OTHER reason apart from the AD HOC claims. Perhaps the American system isn’t funded correctly at a higher level; perhaps the longer someone remains in school the more disinterested they are; perhaps the requirements for “scientific knowledge” are stricter at a higher level; perhaps science is taught more at a young age than at an older age; perhaps the US education system wants to focus on a broader education than that of the European countries.
This is the idiotic feces of speech that Coulter presents to you. Instead of phrasing the problem (without any context too, ha), she presents the faux-problem with a faux-criticism. Basically, there was no logic, it was an empty statement that any sharp-thinking person would have caught out immediately.
I don’t know about Democrats, but I know most Republicans do not have a strong “moral compass”. Most of the time they could not define three moral philosophies if they came up and slapped them in the face. Another empty term, for both parties.
Aaron, you argue against facts with perhaps this, perhaps that. That will get you far in life. You said you may want to teach someday. Hopefully by then you will know the difference between a fact and conjecture.
PS – Ann Coulter will be on the Supreme Court someday I predict. She would be great.
Dave, she used conjecture posed as fact. See, that’s why I am a lot better off than you. I can tell when someone is bullcrapping their way through stuff, because I have read vastly superior minds than Coulter and criticized them. It is your problem if you cannot tell the difference between proof and claim.
Ann Coulter on the SC? I strongly doubt any reasonable politician would be that stupid.
Coulter would be very effective on the SC. Say a capital punishment case came up. She could use the litmus test: “Would the family members of the defendant be better off with his death?” or “Are the family members of the victim enjoying her death?”
If the victim is a “lib” (i.e. anyone that doesn’t follow lock-step with fringe fascist beliefs), we could discern whether he deserved it.
Her approach would dispense with time consuming issues like facts and rule of law – instant justice!
Aaron, I believe we’ve seen this tactic before. It goes like something like this: Use the exact same argument repeatedly like a mantra; respond to any meaningful feedback by covering ears with hands and chant “I can’t hear you”; then call your opponent names.
Yes, we have seen you illiberals use those goon tactics many times. …Yawn…
Lee, nice argument. The intelligent debate, the structure, the sophistication.
Oh wait, you just did the same thing I criticized you doing which is abandon civil discourse and call people names.
No wonder you guys don’t want education to be fixed – it helps your cause if people are stupid that you can play such childish antics.
Here’s another failure by our republican controlled government:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s preliminary report projects a fatality rate of 1.46 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), up from the record low of 1.44 in 2004.
This marks the first time the fatality rate has increased since 1986. Can these guys get anything right?
Aaron, read another one of her books, “God’s Loves His Children – Except Those Who Disagree With Me” p. 75, to defeat a liberal (anyone who is a democrat, moderates, and anyone who votes for any kind of spending).
First you must understand that they try to muddy the waters with facts. To counter this, first claim that they hate America, second, cache personal observation as statement of fact, third, belittle every statement with “that’s stupid”, finally when you are proven wrong change the subject ignoring their points.
I read the occasional Coulter column – it’s basically tips on how not to function as a sane, reasonable, caring human being.
Sadly, and now I don’t know why, I always thought that only young’uns my age came out with such ridiculous crap and most neo-cons would at least be able to generate a logical proof; now I realize I’m tragically wrong on this grounding too.
Here is another beaut from Ann Coulter. Paraphrasing, liberals constantly complain about prison overcrowding and then fight every attempt to build new prisons to relieve the overcrowding. In point of fact, liberals are easy on criminals across the board. She nails it once again.
Dave; to make any sense of that I’ll ask you to clear things up.
Who counts as liberals, and which are they? Cite sources and examples.
Why is it wrong to complain about prison overcrowding?
What are the reasons they desire less prisons built? Cite sources and examples.
Which liberals are “easy” on criminals? What does it mean to be easy on criminals? Cite sources and examples.
Thanks, hop to it brownnose!
An example of liberalism being soft on crime was letting out the killer of the Clemson coed early, for “good behavior” and “to alleviate prison crowding” in Florida – in spite of his two escape attempts and several violent crimes committed while in prison.
Dave and Lee are the Cliff’s Notes version of blogging. They take complicated issues and whittle them down for a cheap and dirty summary which minimizes critical thought.
Libs apparently covers any individual that votes to the left of Dick Cheney.
The issue of crime is addressed only as a remediation issue, deal with crime after it happens (murder rate has gone up since W took office by the way). Prevention is derided despite the cost effectiveness of this approach. This actually contradicts their capitalist ideals because businesses use prevention as their main strategy in dealing with cost. Doctors push for better drugs AND healthy life styles to prevent the need for these drugs.
Another example is the demonization of “big government.” This is the same government they do not trust with our money, but trust with our morals. Take money from the government and give it back to the tax payers. Take moral decisions from the tax payers and give it to the government.
These issues are not mere high school book reports for which Cliff’s Notes will suffice. One party is not always right. A conservative pundit who is the polar opposite of Coulter (he uses facts and critical thought) explained that our founding fathers understood the need for the two parties to work together. Hence, our constitution has in place those checks and balances. Grid lock in congress is the price we pay to avoid having one party rout the other in a tug-of-war. This country didn’t become great because one party was always right.
“An example of liberalism being soft on crime was letting out the killer of the Clemson coed early, for “good behavior” and “to alleviate prison crowding” in Florida – in spite of his two escape attempts and several violent crimes committed while in prison.”
Wait, didn’t Florida and South Carolina vote Republican in the last election? I believe you’ll find that the people with the power to make those decisions were conservative…
Are you asserting that the Clemson coed was killed because South Carolina voted Republican? How sick you are!
At least you admit that Florida voted for Bush, instead of clinging to the lies about Gore and Kerry really winning.
Florida voters, including Democrats, would like to lock up serial rapists for life, but socialist judges ruled that the states had to turn them loose. Thank Ted Kennedy.
Aaron, clearly the liberals co-opted the government in that situation. Republicans would have killed this man on the spot – no burdensome trial necessary. The liberal media was in on it. They knew it was other liberals who let him out because that’s what liberals want, killers on the street. They blame it on the republicans who were busy cutting spending and reducing the murder rate since 2001.
Randy continues to flail at his straw men.
I actually believe in crime prevention. One part of that is not letting juvenile crime go unpunished. White liberal racism doesn’t expect black and Hispanic youth to be anything but punks. The result is a population of young criminals committing increasingly more violent crimes, until they some other punk or a victim kills them, or they wake up as adults in the holding tank at General Sessions Court.
The liberal solution to the huge population of criminals they bred and imported from the backwards world, is to turn them loose for a second and third chance to go straight. Straight back to prison.
Libs continue to procreate for the sole purpose of exploiting welfare. They allow killers to roam the streets so counselors and police will have government jobs. Labor unions spend money on giving drugs to prostitutes so they can pin drug trade on the libs.
Aaron, how about you explaining to the rest of us how you reconcile NOT building enough prison facilities to house criminals and at the same time arrest and keep locked up those dangerous to society? You can’t have it both ways. It is the same with liberals re: Guantanamo. They want the facility closed but won’t answer the question about where do you put the killers and terrorists sitting there. You answer those issues.
I also would like to read the apologies from Mary, RTH, Bud, and others who disparaged Karl Rove and had him guilty before he was ever charged with anything. The justice system did work for Karl Rove. Long live Rove!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath waiting for those ready to eat Rove crow.. Mary????????????????
But Lee, why do the liberal states, with the most liberal judges, voters and politicians have lower violent crime rates? There must be a connection to the voting behavior of the people and crime. In very conservative South Carlolina the murder rate is much higher than that of liberal New Jersey. The only way to explain this is that liberalism works better than conservatism.
Sure there are a some isolated instances where someone was released from prison that should not have been. But the bigger problem is why these maniac killers are so deranged in the first place. I believe it’s because of the conservatives constantly pushing for a violent solution to every problem. The death penalty, bombing Iraq, bombing Iran, corporal punishment in schools. Every problem demands a violent solution. At some point the crazy minds of certain individuals becomes so acclimated to all this talk of violence that they just decide it’s ok to be violent themselves. Why not? The state kills, why shouldn’t I? And conservative states are far more violence oriented than liberal states. As a result: More, not less violent crime.
You said it best when you said “Republicans just wanted to kill this man on the spot”. Yeah, kill, kill, kill. Shoot, shoot, shoot. No wonder the US has the highest murder rate of any developed nation in the world, and SC is at the top of the list of states.
Actually, California and Connecticut rank near the top in reported crime rates.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html
The recent FBI crime stats only include cities with more than 100,000 residents.
The huge rise in serious crime in the Midwest is mostly due to illegal aliens, who are committing so much crime there.
The South and states closest to Mexico have their crime rates raised by the illegal aliens, who are now costing the US about $40 billion annually in policing, trials and incarceration. There are currently 900,000 outstanding felony warrants for illegal aliens and immigrants who have gone underground, and 500,000 felons in the U.S. as illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico and Central America.
I say release the GITMO prisoners into the custody of liberals, and make these big-mouth liberals pay the bill and bear the responsibility for any future crimes committed by their wards.
All these Hispanics working in our fields, restaurants and on our buildings are simply casing our homes to rob us. They’re 99.9%illegal aliens and commit 98.2% of all crimes. It’s not the republicans in charge who are at fault even though murder rate has gone up (and spending as well). Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean are using campaign funds to pay off border officials to ignore the onslaught of illegals. That way they can increase welfare spending, have more votes, and increase the murder rate just to make the republicans look bad. I even read that John Edwards was helping to dig a tunnel in Texas to help the flow of illegals.
“Are you asserting that the Clemson coed was killed because South Carolina voted Republican? How sick you are!”
Are you asserting she was killed because of liberalism? Yes. Well, if you’re going to blame abstract, unclear and inherently flawed theories then obviously given the status of the two states, conservativism is it.
“At least you admit that Florida voted for Bush, instead of clinging to the lies about Gore and Kerry really winning.”
As I’ve said before, I hate the Democrats as much as the Republicans. Voter fraud in this faux democracy is just one bad apple among an entire box called the upper level of the government.
“Florida voters, including Democrats, would like to lock up serial rapists for life, but socialist judges ruled that the states had to turn them loose. Thank Ted Kennedy.”
Namely?
“Aaron, clearly the liberals co-opted the government in that situation. Republicans would have killed this man on the spot – no burdensome trial necessary. The liberal media was in on it. They knew it was other liberals who let him out because that’s what liberals want, killers on the street. They blame it on the republicans who were busy cutting spending and reducing the murder rate since 2001.”
It’s been dropping since Clinton, actually, so I really don’t think “conservativism” makes a difference. If anything, it is economic health.
And how exactly do “liberals” manage to “co-opt” the government? Are Republicans inherently retarded and cannot tell? Is there psychic mind control? No minority party can ever have control if the majority party is doing its job. Maybe the Republicans, who presumably had the power to keep him locked up (if the “liberals” had the power to free him), should have done their jobs and been on the ball. Gross negligence on their part – if we buy your story.
I don’t. I think the system is failing because minority offenders (underage drinking, smoking pot) have to go to jail for absurd lengths of time (5 years, if I remember correctly). If the drinking age was lowered, and punishment for pot use was changed to something like community service, you’d have millions of spots open for serious criminals.
That’s for you Davey. No more prisons, less criminals on the street. It’s just so easy when you think.
“I say release the GITMO prisoners into the custody of liberals, and make these big-mouth liberals pay the bill and bear the responsibility for any future crimes committed by their wards.”
Sure, if Bush and co. accept responsibility of everything beyond Guantanamo, considering it all happened on their watch. Plus, back to extremes – why can’t we take these guys through the criminal process that serves people like Rove so well?
Aaron, Hitler was on to something. He had a core group of supporters who all followed a set of ideals and used this base to coerce the larger population into submission. Clearly we conservatives are doing well also. That’s why the libs hate us and our country. They want killers on the streets and more Hispanics (95.3% of which are illegals) in our country to make us look bad. By the Grace of God, Ann Coulter and Karl Rove are there to keep everyone honest.
TedFernandez@yahoo.com is headed for a world of trouble.
Aaron, yes, we can use US Taxpayer money to pay Ramsey Clark to defend the terrorists. I am hoping the terrorists can be shipped back to their home nations where they will be shot within a few days of their arrival.
“Aaron, yes, we can use US Taxpayer money to pay Ramsey Clark to defend the terrorists. I am hoping the terrorists can be shipped back to their home nations where they will be shot within a few days of their arrival. ”
While I don’t really endorse the killing of anybody – especially people who have NOT been proven to be dangerous (what stops the government from arresting and detaining you, if they suspect you Dave?), the solution of guilty or innocence and then back to their lives sounds like a wonderful solution.
Shame the right won’t listen to us, eh Dave?
Many of the GITMO prisoners were captured in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Others were captured while making contact with terrorists, and are being held as material witnesses and as conspirators.
What would you socialistic liberals do with them?
One of the last terrorists released from Gitmo went over to Egypt and blew up several dozen innocent Jewish tourists at a hotel. He had signed an oath that he would commit no more terrorist acts so he could be freed. They should all be shark food by now.
Can you name one innocent who has been arrested and detained?
Abdul Raziq
Abdul Mulla
Shah Mohammed
Mohammed Sagheer
The second article I found had this info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3280439.stm
SPIN your way out of that Dave.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t one of the American values for which our soldiers are DYING is justice – innocent until proven guilty?
“They should all be shark food” would include the INNOCENT individuals whom I listed previously. Dave, why do you have such disdain for our constitution and American values?
Is that the same BBC which admitted to being duped last week with the phony story about Marines shooting women and children?
“”What would you socialistic liberals do with them?”
I speak English… what does “socialistic” mean?
Randy destroyed your argument, Dave. More a reason that the left wants justice to preserve decent morality rather than your twisted justice.
“Is that the same BBC which admitted to being duped last week with the phony story about Marines shooting women and children?”
That is not a counter-argument, that is an ad hominem attack. No news service is ever perfect, and considering the BBC covers far more than most, it will make mistakes.
Regardless, what does it have to do with the above?
Lee, your incredible inability to get facts right has clearly drawn plenty fire from the liberal bloggers.
Here’s another salvo. You said “The recent FBI crime stats only include cities with more than 100,000 residents”. That is simply incorrect. Here’s the link showing the summary by city size. Please note the reference to small cities, towns and rural areas.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005preliminary/05table1.htm
According to the FBI press release which is the basis of all these news stories about crime going up in some places, “The preliminary report only covers metropolitan areas of 100,000 persons or more. The FBI plans to release more data on smaller communities at a later date.”
Call a radio station and ask for the hard copy, if that will help with your denial problems.
Ok. Here’s the press release, in its entirty:
FOR RELEASE
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2006
9 A.M. EASTERN TIME
Washington D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
Preliminary Crime Statistics for 2005
Washington, D.C.—The FBI released the Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report for 2005 today, which showed a mixed direction in crime nationwide: the number of violent crime offenses rose 2.5 percent, but the number of property crime offenses decreased 1.6 percent when compared with data from 2004. The FBI collected these preliminary data from 12,485 law enforcement agencies that submitted 6 to 12 months of offense data through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program in both 2004 and 2005.
Violent Crime
The violent crime category includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. Nationally, preliminary data for 2005 showed increases in three of the four violent crimes from the previous year’s data. The number of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters rose 4.8 percent. Robbery offenses increased 4.5 percent, and the number of aggravated assaults was up 1.9 percent. Forcible rape was the only offense among the violent crimes that decreased in volume in 2005, down 1.9 percent from the 2004 figure.
A breakdown of the 2005 data by population group revealed that all city population groups experienced increases in violent crime when compared with those data reported for the previous year, with the exception of the Nation’s largest cities, 1 million and over in population, where the number of violent crimes was down 0.4 percent. By percent change in the number of violent crime offenses in 2005 compared with totals from 2004, cities with populations from 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants saw the greatest increase, 8.3 percent, and cities with populations of 10,000 to 24,999 saw the smallest increase, 0.5 percent. In the Nation’s metropolitan counties, violent crime was up 2.1 percent, and in nonmetropolitan counties, it increased 1.0 percent.
A further examination of violent crime data for the population groups showed that cities with populations from 100,000 to 249,999 had the greatest increase in the number of murders, up 12.5 percent. Cities with 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants experienced the greatest increases in both robbery, 9.9 percent, and aggravated assault, 8.5 percent. The number of offenses of forcible rape decreased in all city population groups except in those cities with under 10,000 in population, where the number of forcible rape offenses was up 1.5 percent from the 2004 level.
The Nation’s four regions all saw increases in violent crime in 2005. The Midwest experienced the steepest increase, 5.7 percent. The West had a 1.9-percent increase from the previous year’s number; the South, a 1.8-percent rise; and the Northeast, a 1.4-percent increase. All four regions had increases in murder, robbery, and aggravated assault. Contrary to the other three violent crime offenses, the number of forcible rapes declined in each region.
Property Crime
Crimes that the UCR Program publishes in the property crime category include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. (Arson is considered a property crime, but the arson data are not included in the property crime total.) For 2005, the number of larceny-theft offenses was down 2.5 percent, and the number of motor vehicle thefts showed no significant change from the previous year’s data. Burglary, however, showed a 0.6-percent increase in the number of offenses from the 2004 data. The number of arson offenses decreased 2.2 percent.
Among the population groups, cities with populations of 1 million and over had the greatest decrease, 3.3 percent, in property crimes in 2005 when compared with 2004 figures. Cities with 25,000 to 49,999 inhabitants and the Nation’s smallest cities, those with populations of less than 10,000, had the smallest decrease in their property crimes, 0.7 percent. Collectively, metropolitan counties registered a 0.6-percent decrease in property crime, and nonmetropolitan counties, a 1.0-percent decline.
A breakdown of property crimes by population group showed that the only groups to show decreases in burglary were the Nation’s largest cities, those with 1 million and over in population, and nonmetropolitan counties, with declines of 1.5-percent and 2.7-percent, respectively. The number of burglary offenses increased by the greatest percentage, 3.5 percent, in cities with 250,000 to 499,999 inhabitants. The number of larceny-theft offenses decreased in all population groups, with the Nation’s largest cities showing the greatest decrease, 4.3 percent. The number of motor vehicle thefts increased 1.9 percent from the previous year in cities with 10,000 to 24,999 people, the greatest increase by percentage of all city population groups. Cities with 1 million and over inhabitants registered the greatest decline in motor vehicle thefts, 1.8 percent. For the offense of arson, cities 500,000 to 999,999 in population showed the greatest decrease by percentage, a drop of 10.6 percent from 2004 data.
The number of property crimes decreased in all four regions of the country. The greatest decrease was in the Northeast Region with a 3.1-percent drop. Property crimes declined
1.7 percent in the South, 1.3 percent in the West, and 0.7 percent in the Midwest. However, a breakdown of property crimes by offense type showed that the number of burglaries decreased in the Northeast alone, dropping 2.4 percent from the previous year’s figure. Burglary increased
3.8 percent in the Midwest, 0.5 percent in the South, and 0.1 percent in the West.
Final crime statistics for 2005 will be available in Crime in the United States, which will be published this fall on the FBI’s Internet site.
The complete Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report is available at the FBI’s Internet site at
So what point are you trying to make and how do you think this truckload statistics supports your point?
I think the original idea of some leftist was to blame the Bush administration for an alleged “increase in crime”, after Mary Rosh’s accusation that the South had the highest crime was deflated by Dept of Justice rankings of the states.
WARNING: You probably will not like the real story behind the crime stats.
Statistics are for communist liberals and were derived from the 60s – unbridled liberalism. I don’t bother with such drivel. Read Ann Coulter and watch Fox News and you know everything you need to. I subscribe to the Scientology belief that perception is reality. What I see I know is true. For example, I used to wet the bed but Tom Cruise showed me that with a strong will, I can simply will the pee to disappear.
Randy, These guys you list are NOT being detained. There are NO innocents left at Gitmo. They already sorted out those brought in by mistake. As I said, shark food is the best fate the rest deserve.
Brad, once again on behalf of Lee I ask you to zap the fraud tedfernandez.
Dave, do you giggle when you type this? In essence what you are claiming is: Yes, they detained innocent people when they were confident of their guilt, but NOW they are more confident of their guilt so it’s okay to have them killed.
I asked you before; aren’t the soldiers dying in Iraq giving their lives on behalf of American values which would include justice – innocent until proven guilty? That is a fundemental value in the US or is it a guideline?
Our soldiers in Iraq are not fighting for the abstract liberties which are unlikely to be appreciated or exercised by the coffeehouse crowd. They are destroying a nest of terrorists who have been attacking the United States for almost 20 years, in an escalating manner, and with plans to use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons agains America, Israel, and the Christians in Europe.
Randy, I do have a good sense of humor, have to admit that. When the terrorists were brought to Gitmo, they were highly suspect having been caught carrying rifles or grenades in the fields of Afghan. No one thinks they were deer hunting. Anyway, the innocent ones were vetted and let go. What you have left is not innocents. Why is that so hard to understand. How would you like a few of them released into your local neighborhood?
Without facts we have no way to evaluate what works and what doesn’t. The facts clearly do not support the cause of conservatism. Liberal solutions based on compassion and understanding rather than violence first are more successful in reducing crime. Clinton’s 100,000 cop program was a huge success. Let’s bring it back, it worked. More cops (and national guardsmem), fewer soldiers abroad. Sweet, simple and effective for making life better for all Americans.
Dave, what evidence do you have that each of these individuals was caught carrying a gun? If they were doing more than deer hunting, why did the US let them go?
Randy,, rifles and grenades was a symbolic phrase, not to be taken literally. Whatever, these detainees were caught making war against the coalition. That is enough for me. As I said, the innocent have already been let go. The bad ones remain. many of them have told their guards that they like them but will kill them the second they get a chance..
Let me get this straight, “these detainees were caught making war against the coalition” but they were innocent and let go and the “bad ones remain.” So making war against us was not enough to be considered “bad?”
Please share what the bad ones were doing – something worse than making war against us.
Your explanation doesn’t make sense.
We captured a bunch of people and detained them for a very long time based on some sort of evidence. At some point, we let them go because they were innocent, which indicates we made a mistake to keep them (or making war against us isn’t that big of a deal). If we made a mistake, certainly we may be making a mistake with someone we are holding now.
Please spare me the lame retort about letting them loose in my neighborhood or something along those lines. The bottom line is we certainly can be making a mistake as we have in other areas. Why is it so incredible to believe that?
The persistent boast about “100,000 cops on the street” was another Clinton lie.
The 1994 COPS Program disbursed $5.47 BILLION, and hired a peak total of 60,900 police over 6 years. At any given moment, the peak number of new police on the street was 36,400. By 1996, 40% of the communities receiving grants had withdrawn from the program.
A GAO audit showed most of the money went to purchase furniture, computers, and vehicles, with about 20% of the money mispent on unauthorized items.
When the shooting stops and our troops round up a bunch of surviving Muslims in a battle zone, anyone with a shred of doubt becomes a prisoner until we can sort them out. That is the smart thing to do, and what the Geneva Convention says we can and should do.
Last week, UN inspectors at GITMO reported again that prisoners there were treated very well, better than the average criminal detainee in Belgium, Spain, or the Netherlands.
Lee, you are full of crap.
Cite your sources for the Geneva Convention statement. “sort things out” over a period of years?
“when the shooting stops” is that what happened to these innocents who were finally let go? Cite your source.
Stop making up crap, Lee. LOOK SOMETHING UP!
Name some of your “innocent” Muslims captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and held at GITMO. Tell us the details of their innocently being with Al Qaeda, and how you KNOW, not just how you assume that the U.S. military is criminal.
Even the U.N. says GITMO treats prisoners very well.
Itemization of Treatment of Prisoners at GITMO
The treatment provided is consistent with the Geneva Convention requirements on safeguarding prisoners, but does not offer all of the personal privileges granted a legitimate POW. That is what President Bush has ordered. Here is a list of what the Gitmo detainees have 24/7, and the access of detainees to the Red Cross (ICRC), legal counsel and the press (Excerpted from a comprehensive collection at the U. Minn. Law School, titled Materials on Torture and Other Ill Treatment at page 41.)-
“Detainees receive:
– Three meals per day that meet cultural dietary requirements;
– Adequate shelter, including cells with beds, mattresses, and sheets;
– Adequate clothing, including shoes, uniforms, and hygiene items;
– Opportunity to worship, including prayer beads, rugs, and copies of the Koran;
– The means to send and receive mail;
– Reading materials, including allowing detainees to keep books in their cells; and
– Excellent medical care.
All enemy combatants get state-of-the art medical and dental care that is comparable to that received by U.S. Armed Forces deployed overseas. Wounded enemy combatants are treated humanely and nursed back to health, and amputees are fitted with modern prosthetics.
Detainees write to and receive mail from their families and friends. Detainees who are illiterate, but trustworthy enough for a classroom setting, are taught to read and write in their native language so they, too, can communicate with their families and friends.
Enemy combatants at Guantanamo may worship as desired and in accordance with their beliefs. They have access to the Koran and other prayer accessories. Traditional garb is available for some detainees.
Where security permits, detainees are eligible for communal living in a new Medium Security Facility, with fan-cooled dormitories, family-style dinners, and increased outdoor recreation time, where they play board games like chess and checkers, and team sports like soccer.
The United States permits the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit privately with every detainee in DoD control at Guantanamo. Communications between the U.S. Government and the ICRC are confidential.
In addition, legal counsel representing the detainees in habeas corpus cases have visited detainees at Guantanamo since late August 2004. As of late April 2005, counsel in nineteen cases had personally met with the 74 detainees they represent, and counsel in seventeen of those cases have made repeat visits to Guantanamo. To date, every request by American counsel of record in the habeas cases to visit detainees at Guantanamo has been granted, after that counsel has received the requisite security clearance and agreed to the terms of the protective order issued by the Federal court. The Government does not monitor these meetings (or the written correspondence between counsel and detainees), which occur in a confidential manner. The Government also allows foreign and domestic media to visit the facilities.”
U.Minn. Law Student David Weissbrodt has performed yeoman’s service collecting the relevant reports and law. He compares the Military’s investigations, the national and international law, and the acts by the NGO’s. He is skeptical of the DoD investigations that have not found fault up the chain of command. But he does not offer contrary evidence.
The US Military offers two means for a detainee to obtain release, a Combatant Status Review Tribunal and an Annual Review Board, these means include a right to counsel. Same Weissbrodt link at pages 33-37: “As of March 29, 2005, the CSRT Director had taken final action in all 558 cases. Thirty-eight detainees were determined no longer to be enemy combatants; twenty-three of them have been subsequently released to their home countries, and at the time of this Report’s submission, arrangements are underway for the release of the others.” In addition “As of April 26, 2005, the United States has transferred 234 persons from Guantanamo — 169 transferred for release and 66 transferred to the custody of other governments for further detention, investigation, prosecution, or control.” This is from the Second Report of the United States of America to the Committee Against Torture, May 6, 2005, Weissbrodt excerpts it beginning at page 25 of the UMinn link.
Here is the list of currently approved interrogation techniques, as of April 2003 (as far as I can tell through google).
There is no order from the US Government condoning torture, or allowing treatment beyond the techniques listed in April 2003.
The DoD has conducted numerous investigations of claimed abuse, here is an account of confirmed abuses at Gitmo (from the U.Minn. collection pages 46-47, Weissbrodt’s excerpt of the US report to the Committee Against Torture) –
“Therefore, although there have been allegations of serious abuse of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the United States has not found evidence substantiating such claims. Instead, it has identified 10 substantiated incidents of misconduct at Guantanamo:
– A female interrogator inappropriately touched a detainee on April 17, 2003 by running her fingers through the detainee’s hair, and made sexually suggestive comments and body movements, including sitting on the detainee’s lap, during an interrogation. The female interrogator received a written admonishment and additional training.
– On April 22, 2003, an interrogator assaulted a detainee by directing military policemen repeatedly to bring the detainee from a standing to a prone position and back. A review of medical records indicated superficial bruising to the detainee’s knees. The interrogator received a letter of reprimand.
– A female interrogator, at an unknown date, in response to being spit upon by a detainee, assaulted the detainee by wiping red dye from a red magic marker on the detainee’s shirt and telling the detainee that the red stain was blood. The interrogator received a verbal reprimand for her behavior.
– In October 2002, an interrogator used duct tape to tape shut the mouth of a detainee who was being extremely disruptive during an interrogation. The tape did not harm the detainee and the interrogator received a verbal reprimand for his behavior.
– A military policeman (MP) assaulted a detainee on September 17, 2002, by attempting to spray him with a hose after the detainee had thrown an unidentified, foul-smelling liquid on the MP. The MP received non-judicial punishment that included seven days restriction and reduction in grade from Specialist (E-4) to Private First Class (E-3).
– On March 23, 2003, after a detainee threw unidentified liquid on an MP, the MP sprayed the detainee with pepper spray. The MP declined non-judicial punishment, and he was subsequently tried by special court-martial where he was acquitted of all charges.
– On April 10, 2003, after a detainee had struck an MP in the face (causing the MP to lose a tooth) and bitten another MP, the MP struck the detainee with a handheld radio. This MP was given non-judicial punishment, received 45 days extra-duty, and was reduced in grade from Specialist (E-4) to Private First Class (E-3).
– On January 4, 2004, an MP platoon leader received an initial allegation that one of his guards had thrown cleaning fluid on a detainee and later made inappropriate comments to the detainee. The platoon leader, however, did not properly investigate the allegation or report it to his chain of command. The initial allegation against the guard ultimately turned out to be substantiated. The MP was given non-judicial punishment and received forfeiture of pay of $150 per month for two months and reduction in grade from Private (E-2) to Private (E-1). The platoon leader was issued a reprimand for dereliction of duty.
– On February 10, 2004, an MP inappropriately joked with a detainee, and dared the detainee to throw a cup of water on him. After the detainee did so, the MP threw a cup of water on the detainee. The MP was removed from further duty because of these inappropriate actions.
– On February 15, 2004, a barber intentionally gave two detainees unusual haircuts, including an “inverse Mohawk,” in an effort to frustrate the detainees’ request for similar haircuts as a sign of unity. The barber and his company commander were both counseled because of this incident.
The above list of substantiated abuses and the subsequent punishment of those responsible at Guantanamo Bay demonstrates that misconduct will not be tolerated.”
Let me be clear (even though I cannot figure out blockquotes), the above is what the US Government has reported, in OUR GOVERNMENT’S WORDS.
On the other hand, we have seen the ACLU’s copy of an FBI agent’s e-mail detailing humiliation forced on detainees during interrogation on “a couple occasions.” What we have not seen is evidence of torture.
“detain them to sort things out after the shooting stops”
That’s what you claimed was supported by the GC. This is what you are to cite Lee. Support this statement you made.
Sigh.
“detain them to sort things out after the shooting stops”… is the humane thing to do, the smart thing to do, and what our troops are doing.
Guerrillas, irregular soldiers and terrorists, who are part of no nation or under the control of government are not entitled to the same treatment as regular soldiers, who are P.O.W.
The above report by the very liberal U. Minnesota School of Law found no wrongdoing in the process at GITMO. A few isolated incident contrary to orders have been dealt with.
Lee aka Brown Eyes (full of crap), you lie more than a rug.
You stated as fact that the GC condones detaining anyone that looks suspicious and holding them until you can sort everything out, even if it takes years.
Support your crap with a citation. The book report you cut and pasted didn’t address that one claim. LOOK IT UP!
What’s stopping those who libel our nation and its military from producing citations of the international conventions and the violations they allege? Lack of knowledge of the law and the war.
Come on Brown Eyes, cite that source!
You got caught on another bull crap lie and can’t support it, huh?
The burden of proof is on those accusing our military and nation of mistreating the terrorists. You repetition of the smears from Air America don’t make them true.
I posted the findings of a team of liberal lawyers who investigated GITMO.
Lee, you are full of crap.
You make a “factual” claim that you pull out of your butt (you must have a rash down there by now) then you suggest others have the burden of proof to show your statement is false.
Your post had nothing to do with your out of butt claim “the GC condones scooping up suspicious people and detaining them for years.” The burden of proof is on you to support your claim, which you can’t do because you are full of crap.
Huh?, Lee, and to a lessor extent Dave, never support anything with actual facts. They, like their rich talk show host buddys O’Rielly and Limbaugh, just make stuff up. (Did you hear the latest O’Rielly lie about the Malmady atrocities during WW II). Lee could not even get the facts correct about the FBI preliminary crime report (the report clearly shows violent crime in the US is up during the Bush years).
But for those of us who believe in the truth, supported by facts, should persevere. There may be a few on the right who will actually listen to facts, and not pre-conceived notions of what they THINK the world is about.
A tiny fringe of hateful anti-Americans make wild claims about American soldiers torturing and killing innocent Muslims. They have no names of the victims, no names of the soldiers they accuse, no details of the incidents, no laws or treaties allegedly being violated.
The UN, Red Cross and a delegation of attorneys investigate and find very good treatment of prisoners.
Those are the facts.
Lee, have you not seen the Abu-Ghraib photos????? Even the president said about 30,000 Iraqis have died violently since March, 2003. It is simply unbelievable that you cannot accept as an undesputable FACT, that Americans have tortured and killed innocent Iraqis (who happen to be Muslim). The tiny “fringe” you refer to is the roughly 275 million Americans that actually have a brain.
Most of the Iraqis killed by Americans were enemy combatants.
Most of the Iraqis killed by enemy combatants were innocent civilians, Iraqi police, and government leaders, in a classic communist model of attempted intimidation through violence.
Compare the few exceptions of minor mistreatment by our soldiers receiving swift discipline, with the torture and beheading practiced by Saddam Hussein, his sons, Zarquawi and the other socialist Muslims who are the sworn enemies of Western Civilization.
Lee, maybe we’re finally getting somewhere. Since you used the word “most” you are tacitly acknowledging “some” innocent deaths and “some” torture. These events have to count toward the cost of the war in Iraq. The other costs include: 2500 American soldiers killed, at least $1/2 trillion from the treasury and nearly 20,000 soldiers injured. This does not count the lives of civilian contractors, journalists or the dwindling number of coalition soldiers.
So on the cost side we have:
Cost=soldiers + Iraqi civilians + contractors + journalists + $$$$
But benefits, there are no freakin benifits.
Benefits=?????
US forces accidentally kill a few innocent bystanders put in the line of fire by the terrorists.
The terrorists intentionally kill lots of innocent bystanders.
The only way to reduce the deaths of innocent Iraqis is to kill and capture the bad Iraqis.
Bud, 2000 or so soldiers died while “training” for Normandy invasion. With your thinking, we would have surrendered rather than fight the Krauts. Over 500,000 died in the Civil War. No one wants 2500 dead US soldiers but you have no perception of this war on terror. Its going to cost many more than 2500 because the fanatical muslims dont care if they die or not.
The way liberals dismiss the 3,000 people murdered on September 11, 2001, I really doubt the sincerity of their concern for any number of soldiers killed fighting the terrorists.
Death, death, death. Is it impossible for conservatives to craft a solution that doesn’t involve killing. You must all be a bunch of necrophiliacs.
Dave you talk about the fanatical muslims. They have nothing on the fanatical US conservatives.
Lee, liberals weren’t the ones in charge on 9/11. If Al Gore was president then those 3,000 dead on 9/11 would be alive today, not to mention the 2,500 in Iraq and the 300 from Afghanistan.
Why don’t you craft a solution? That would be better than Clinton and Gore did, by letting Bin Laden get away 4 times.
What will any Democrat do, other than cut and run?
Bud, you still dream of Algore as Prez.. Only on Saturday Night LIve comedies. Bud, real question here, do you have the will to fight for yourself and your survival? If it came down to either you killing a terrorist or a terrorist killing you, would you ask the terrorist to sit down and have some milk and cookies and talk it over? Or would you kill him? It sounds to me like you would surrender. You, Murtha, Kerry, and a host of other weak liberals, like the French, prefer surrender. Very strange.
Bud, College fraternities torture their pledges worse than what the juvenile democrat punk soldiers did to the prisoners at Abu Graib. If you cant see that you are blind. On the other hand, Zarqawi filmed himself cutting Nick Berg’s head off. So, wearing women’s underwear for a joke is worse than cutting the head off of an American Jew. Interesting.
Dave, you suggested that I would choose to sit down with the terrorists and share some milk and cookies. Actually, I would prefer beer and chips. It certainly wouldn’t be any more of a disaster than the carnage we’ve reaped over the last 5+ years. But I guess to the card-carrying members of the American Necrophilia party more death is a measure of success.
How do people live in America, lap up all the material goods, and still hate it so much? Like the hijackers…and bud.
“The way liberals dismiss the 3,000 people murdered on September 11, 2001, I really doubt the sincerity of their concern for any number of soldiers killed fighting the terrorists.” – Lee
This statement coming from a racist?!
Examine your own hatred and inability to address the fact that “liberal” attitudes towards welfare and immigration are tinged with racist condescension.
“Since 70% of black children have only one or no parents, I know those biological parents don’t care.” – Lee
This is an example of hatred and racist condescenion.
Contact the Brookings Institution, and tell them why you think black children should be abandoned by unknown fathers, parents in prison and on drugs, or whatever you think is a good excuse.
Lee, how about I call your mother and ask her why she raised a racist?
I was taught that it was racist to have low expectations for other races, and to make excuses for their child abuse, the way modern liberals do.
You’re now suggesting that black kids in nontraditional homes suffer child abuse too?
WOW! You are full racism.
I was taught that it was racist to draw such broad conclusions about an entire race.
The definition of a racist by Ann Coulter. A racist is any person who is losing an argument to a conservative.
What a white liberal would call “child abuse” if a he saw a white child in a condition of abandonment, he calls a “non-traditional family” when it is a black child that is the victim of his failed liberal experiments.
Dave,
Ann Coulter’s definition of a racist is a bit too broad, because it covers every liberal – they are all losing every argument to every conservative, every day.
Lee, play that “liberal” card all you want. Your racism is blatant and reprehensible.
Do you have a point to make about educational problems, or are you just here to spew hate?
Pot, meet the kettle. Your racist comments are easily the most hateful statements on this blog site.
You retract those racist statements: Most Hispanics are illegal, single black parents don’t care about their kids, and black kids in non-traditional homes suffer from child abuse; and I’ll leave you alone.
There are 21,000,000 illegal aliens here, and 18,000,000 are Hispanic. If you don’t care, just say so.
Keep on with your liberal racism. I can beat you up as long as you want to spew that hateful garbage.
“Majority of Hispanics are illegal” – Lee
“18 million Hispanics are illegal” – Lee
“42.7 Hispanics in the US” – Census
18/42.7 is LESS than 50%. Smoke that in your racist pipe.
I didn’t say that “the majority of Hispanics are illegal”.
I said that the majority of illegals were Hispanic, and they are, and more so each year.
Soon the total number of Hispanics will number 47,000,000 and 24,000,000 of them will be illegal… the majority of them.
Right now they are just 90% of the illegal alien problem.
“Chances are a Hispanic you meet is illegal.” – Lee
This in addition to your racist comments about single black parents.
If the Hispanic you encounter does not speak English, the chances are espcially high that he or she is an illegal alien.
That is why it is good police practice to stop such people, and check their identification. There are currently 900,000 outstanding felony arrest warrants outstanding for illegal immigrants, formerly legal temporary workers and illegal aliens. 500,000 of the illegal aliens in America are fugitive felons, and 85% of them are Hispanic.
Lee, are you backing off your assertion that most Hispanics are illegal? It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. 18 million illegal Hispanics and 42.7 million Hispanics – LESS than 50%.
Be a big man Lee.
If you want to defend illegal aliens, or illegal Mexicans, or whomever, try to do it…
… without the smears, insults, and fabrication of straw men. Good luck.
Defend? LOL, yes, try to twist this towards me.
You stated that most Hispanics are illegal. I gave you STATISTICS that prove YOU ARE WRONG.
Keep digging you racist.
Huh?, the right wing cares NOTHING about facts. It’s all about promoting a false agenda, much of it based on taking advantage of human fear of the unknown. The right is absolutely brilliant at duping working class Americans into believing in and voting against their own best interests.
The only winner in the Rove based fear campaign are a handful of filthy rich individuals who can successfully fool a large chunk of the American electorate into voting for a fradulent set of ideals. The war in Iraq, gay bashing, immigration nonsense and all the rest of it is nothing more than an orchestrated plan to fool naive American with a campaign of fear. Sadly, it appears to be working.
If any of you have the courage to take a position, let’s see you then back it up with some facts. You just use the same personal smears in every topic.
Lee, you can’t even reference the FBI crime report properly. You have no business accussing anyone of not using facts.
So why don’t you folks reference some facts you think are the right ones, and try to make a point, instead of calling names and running away from every social issue?
By the way, that FBI crime report uses the word “preliminary” quite a few times, just as the radio news did, in its disclaimer that the increases in SOME crime was preliminary data from cities with populations greater than 100,000.
The FBI crime statistics are a compilation of local and state crime statistics, and only as good as the data given to them.
Lee, why don’t you do something new and just read the damn thing. The 100,000 reference refers ONLY to Table 4. Table 1 refers to cities of ALL sizes. And violent crime overall was up 2.5% in 2005 over 2004. Thanks to the wasted effort fighting the overblown threat of terrorists we’re actually at far greater risk from common criminals.
The population was up 2.5% in 2005.
Most of the population increase was due to illegal aliens, 90% of them crossing the Mexican border. A large number of them are career criminals. 500,000 illegals have outstanding felony warrants for serious crime.
Go look at the huge increases in carjackings, auto theft, robbery and murder by illegal aliens in California and other border states.
Real Fact: Violent Crime up 2.5% under Bush.
Real Solution: Vote Democrat
The Democrats have a track record of not fighting crime. Democrat judges continually release repeat offenders from prison, whom we see every night on the news, committing their upteenth murder or rape. Democrats refuse to round up the crime wave of illegal aliens from Mexico.
The Democrats use crime as ruse to take away rights from honest citizens. Examples are Clinton’s attempts at gun registration and confiscation, and millions of warrantless wiretaps on honest Americans.
And the Republicans have a track record of not PREVENTING crime.
Bud, you have hit on an area that troubles me with all branches of our government. Preventing crime. My suggestions: Cop killers, pedophiles, kidnappers, terrorists, and drug dealers should be denied trials. Solution: Put them all in a Gitmo type setting for the rest of their lives with only bread and water, NO medical treatment, but I would give them a bible. Now that would be a deterrent. The nation is too politically correct to do it.
The liberal ethos of continually letting youth offenders go from increasingly serious offenses is a prime cause of adult career criminals.
The liberals feed a racist message of victimization to minorities that they are entitled to the wealth created by hardworking people, especially white people, and then act surprised when gangsters don’t wait on white liberals to divvy up the loot. They go get it directly from The Man, at gunpoint.
Dave and Lee. Answer this question, why do conservatives hate America? It’s clear that they do. America is based on certain values that are articulated in the United States Constitution, specifically the bill of rights. One of those is the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers. The reason we have trials in America is because the ALLEGED cop killers, etc. you mentioned MAY NOT BE GUILTY. A trial is a sacred part of our American values and is the means for determining guilt or innocence. Anyone that seriously advocates denying any American citizen a trial simply hates America. We liberals love America. Apparently conservatives hate America. My question is why?
Bud, do you know what theorizing or conceptualizing is? That is what I was doing. The Constitution can be changed to make life a lot more difficult on criminals. What we have now is a prolonged warpage and distortion of the law by the Warren court over time to give criminals a huge advantage. We are slowly getting back to reality, like with the Three Strikes laws that certain states have adopted. Most liberals think criminal recidivism is not a problem, since they can never support enough furloughs and releases for pedophiles and the like. The recent murder of the Clemson student is a perfect case in point. This has to stop.
Dave, this is what you wrote:
“Cop killers, pedophiles, kidnappers, terrorists, and drug dealers should be denied trials.” Trials are American. You want to deny certain people trials. That’s un-American. Why do you hate America? I love America.
Here’s the sixth ammendment to the UNITED STATES of AMERICA constitution. The nation liberals love.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Yes, we saw the speedy trial the liberal media is giving our Marines for allegataions of war crimes, just like the public lynching they gave the Duke Lacrosse team.
Lee, if you mean by the media Fox News then we agree. Fox has covered the Duke Lacrosse team trial way too much. As for the marines accussed of war crimes, I’ll actually agree with you on that one; they deserve a fair trial untainted by overhyped news coverage. I’ll withhold judgement for now. That’s the way it should work in America.
Bud, there is hope for you since you see the liberals like Murtha couldn’t railroad our Marines fast enough in front of the world press and Al Jazeera. As for the Democrat prosecutor in Durham, I would like to see him serve a prison sentence for prosecutor misconduct. The man is a disgrace. And yes, for some types of crimes I would prefer that we change the constitution to avoid these ridiculous 9 month show trials where defense lawyers jack around with ever increasing nonsense to get the guilty back on the streets. But I would want the constitution changed legally by Congress as it should be. So save your hate America screaming for people like Murtha, Kerry, Jane Fonda, Mckinney, et. al. Interesting these are all liberal democrats, coincidence?
If Murtha was criticising the Clinton fiasco in Bosnia, the media would be replaying the tapes of his meeting with the Abscam informants.
Dave, you’re doing exactly what you accuse Murtha of doing, reaching a conclusion based on incomplete information. In this case you’ve bought into (Fox) news reports and are making an allegation that is not yet supportable. Perhaps the prosecutor in Durham has something that Sean Hannity doesn’t know about.
Apparently the prosecutor of the Duke lacrosse players has a lot of things that the defense team hasn’t been given. They have had to get a judge to force a hand over of 1,300 pages of evidence, which were missing key police call notes and interviews. So he admitted he had held back 500 pages, which he is now being forced to hand over.
I find it amusing that Democrats are accussed by our Mr. 5 deferments VP as being the party of Cut and Run. In fact it’s the Republicans that have done most of the cutting and running recently. It was Nixon, A REPUBLICAN, who capitulated in Vietnam. It was Reagan, a REPUBLICAN, who cut and ran from Lebanon. It was also Reagan who betrayed American by trading arms for hostages.
On the other hadn it was the DEMOCRATS in both World Wars who secured victories. It was Clinton a DEMOCRAT who secured a victory in Kosavo. The only example of cut and run by a Democrat was the Mogadishu incident. Perhaps there is a bit of merit to that but Clinton did not put the troops there in the first place.
Bud, the party of JFk and Scoop Jackson used to believe that peace comes from strength. Now you have a party of quitters and surrender monkeys, much like the French. No wonder John Francois Kerry was the nominee last time. Nixon had to clean up LBJ’s mess and got stuck with it bigtime. Reagan pulled troops out of harm’s way and a defenseless situation, the only smart thing to do. And we Won? in Kosovo? The civil war is still underway there and we still have troops there. I have a cousin there myself. How is that a win when Moslems are roaming the country burning Christian churches and terrorizing innocent people?
The Muslims armed by Clinton continue to terrorize Kosovo, Bosnia, and Serbia, burning churches and synagogues.
The Muslim Terror has created more homeless refugees in the Balkans than Milosevic did. Clinton is like a Jimmy Carter without any morals.
Dave, you say Reagan pulled troops out of harms way in Lebanon. Isn’t that CUT AND RUN?
Lee, you say Muslim’s continue to terrorize Kosovo. Well who is in the White House?
Republican Motto: “So many liberal success stories to undo, so little time.”
Would you liberals support putting US troops in Kosovo to clean up Clinton’s mess?
The Democrat apologists for Saddam claim we should left him alone, because he was not bothering America.
They didn’t need Milosivec to do anything to “bother America” for their excuse to bomb Yugolavia and recreate The Balkans with bands of Muslim terrorists, armed by Clinton and Albright.
Lee, I would pull troops out of Iraq, Kosovo, South Korea, Germany, Japan and virtually everywhere else on the globe. Perhaps we can retain a few in Afghanastan to try and clean up that mess. Otherwise, I’m 100% isolationist.
After you pulled out all the troops, you would probably RIF most of them, so you wouldn’t feel guilty for not doing your duty to defend your country.
Then you would stop all arms programs, so you would have more money to throw into welfare, in order to make yourself feel like you charitable.
Then you would act shocked and look to blame the military when the terrorists blow up your favorite vacation spot, or kill your favorite rock star.
Bud, you are 100% isolationist. Should we build a giant wall around our whole nation and await the eventual siege from the Muslim hordes? It will come sooner or later if we surrender to terrorism worldwide. And about Milosevic, he had NO WMD and never even claimed to have them, and killed far less of his citizens than Saddam did. Why do you justify that military action? Oh, I see, Billy boy and Wesley the weasel Clark were doing it.
As I have said many times, the American people are (yet) not dumb enough to turn over American security to the pacifist left. We are doomed when they ever would.
Lee and Dave, the threat from Islamist terrorists is about 15th or 16th in terms of real risk. But it continues to consume huge resources. Why the disconnect? I think if we ignore it most of the perceived problem will simply go away. I haven’t heard much talk about the war on drugs lately. It’s been largely ignored and as a result, poof, it’s no longer a big problem.
It’s only because of the propaganda machine run by the White House that this phoney war on terror continues to rank as a major threat. It’s purely a scare tactic to maintain power and drain money from the working class into the pockets of the already super rich. I’m not buying this baloney.
I think I’ll start a new movement and call it the BUD plan for national security. What we’ll do is bring most troops home. Redeploy them in ways that will enhance our safety at home, mostly as police officers enforcing criminal behavior and traffic violations. Those few terrorists that continue to rail against us will be seen as radicals and their following will gradually diminish over the years. With the money saved on the phoney war on terror we could shore up the economies of nations who may currently have economic incentives to harbor terrorists. Afghanistan is a good example. The prosperity that would follow would eventually discourage terrorist behavior. After all a prosperous person is far less likely to be an enemy. (Read the history of events leading up to WW II. That illustrates how poverty breads hostility).
If we follow the BUD plan for security far fewer Americans will die needless deaths and the entire world would eventually be a more peaceful place. But the first step requires courage, not fear. The war-monger, fear-driven policies of the Bush Administration just guarantee endless war, violence and death. I say stop this cycle now!
The Number One Threat to America is the passive demotion from citizens to serfs, by people all too happy to surrender “someone else’s” rights for the promise a handout.
Bud, you get an “A” for creativity but you would find us fighting Muslims on our soil in a very short timespan. Is that what you want?
In the 30s it was Hitler exploiting fear of the Jews. In the 50s white supremecists exploited fear of African Americans. In the 60s it was fear of drug users. Now apparently it’s ok to use fear tactics against Muslim’s (and to a lessor extent gays). Many hundreds of thousands of Muslims live peacefully in the U.S. They are no more of a threat to my security than my Dalmation.
Drunk drivers on the other hand, are a genuine threat to us all. Why don’t we have a war against Jack Daniels, Ole Grand Dad and Jim Beam. Now those guys are really scary. Then again, BUD (wieser) might become a target.
Do you realize how many of the drunk driving fatalities are caused by illegal aliens? Check out Charlotte this year.
One more reason to deport them all.
But the Muslim terrorists would kill 200,000,000 Americans if they could, and they would kill their socialist allies as quickly as anyone. So far, they have only killed about 5,300, thanks to the quick response of our military and law enforcement.
Bud, how can you be oblivious to Muslim terror cells in Virginia, Brooklyn, Seattle, Portland, Canton,OH, Miami, Ok. City, Lackawanna NY, as well as several in Canada. Yes, Muslims are real peaceful just like Baptists and Catholics. How about posting the equal number of terror cells that are non-Muslim? Wake up, Bud!!!
PS – These are the ones we now know about. Which ones don’t we know about.
He doesn’t care, as long as they don’t shut off his MTV.
If there are terror cells in Virginia, Brooklyn, Seattle, Portland, Canton, Miami and perhaps Red Bank what in heavens name are we doing in Iraq????????????? This is the most utterly illogical nonsense I’ve seen in my life. Dave you simply prove my point. The risks are at home, not abroad. Bring the troops home NOW! The BUD plan would work wonders if what you say is true.
By the way Lee, 85% of all traffic fatalities in SC are SC residents, mostly caucasian. If we have a problem with illegal aliens driving drunk, that’s just another reason to bring the troops home and use these resources to defend our highways.
Bud, the terror cells are funded by regimes like the Hussein Iraqi, Saudis, Iranians – do you understand that connection. Of course, the NY AlJazeera Times is doing its best to make sure we cannot trace that terror money.
Bud, interesting that Bin Laden’s latest release has him still gloating over the cut and run Clinton did in Mogadishu, in the hope that the current democrat cut and runners prevail in the US. It must be great to be in concert with Osama, Dem talking points from Osama. Figures
What are we doing in Iraq?
Killing 30,000 terrorists who were being trained by Saddam Hussein.
Lee, most terrorist experts agree that we’ve created far more terrorists than we’ve killed.
What “terrorist experts”, Al Gore?
That is like claiming that policing a neighborhood creates more criminals. It’s a stupid lie.
Bin Laden just said again in a tape how the COWARDICE of Bill Clinton to face the terrorists was his greatest recruiting tool.
Lee, this is little old but I think more recent surveys coroborate the essence of the piece.
Experts: War on terrorism could spawn new enemies
Splinter groups may rise from crackdown on al Qaeda, they warn
From Kelli Arena
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, May 6, 2004 Posted: 10:51 AM EDT (1451 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — It is possible the U.S.-led war on terror has created new enemies of Western governments and societies by splintering al Qaeda, according to counterterrorism experts.
Some U.S. government officials go so far as to say that even if Islamic fundamentalists are eventually found responsible for the train bombings in Spain last week, the effort to identify one particular group may be futile.
“This is not like the Gambino crime family, a Mafia family, where if you just arrest the leaders it goes out of business,” said Peter Bergen, a CNN terrorism expert and author of “Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden.”
“This is more like a mass movement, and you can arrest as many people as you want. But it’s very hard to arrest the movement of ideas.”
One U.S. counterterrorism official said an al Qaeda connection to the Madrid bombings has been established. It was reported Monday that one of the five men arrested may have ties to an al Qaeda-linked bombing in Morocco last year.
“We do know that there is a connection to al Qaeda. We have verified that,” said Asa Hutchinson, U.S. undersecretary for homeland security. “The extent of responsibility and whether any other terrorist organization is involved has yet to be determined.” (Full story)
But experts such as MJ Gohel, a terrorism specialist at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London-based think tank, suggest the term al Qaeda is just shorthand for a complex global terror network.
“What we are dealing here with is an ideology,” Gohel said. “It is a global jihad movement composed of al Qaeda and many affiliated terrorist groups. All of these groups are autonomous.”
Terrorism experts have long said al Qaeda was made up of loosely affiliated groups. But most attacks, including those of September 11, 2001, could eventually be traced back to Osama bin Laden or other terrorist leaders.
As President Bush put it this month: “Some two-thirds of al Qaeda’s key leaders have been captured or killed. The rest of them hear us breathing down their neck.”
Now, counterterrorism officials say one of their biggest concerns is how U.S. actions such as the war in Iraq are motivating new recruits bound by a common goal: to destroy Western secular society.
Both government and private experts are bracing for what they say will be a war that could last for generations.
It doesn’t require much to qualify as a liberal “expert”.
Liberals rant and rave about how the WOT is the reason for Muslims joining AQ. But when you ask a liberal how they recruited into AQ and convinced college educated Muslims to fly planes into buildings, BEFORE the WOT, all you will get is DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Homer Simpson answer.
As Louis Freeh said in the WSJ a week ago, Muslim terrorism spread because Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, and Sandy Berger chose to not face it, and reigned in the efforts of law enforcement and the US military to investigate the organizations funded by Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
Hopefully this post closes this thread after another whupping given to Bud, RTH, Mary, and the other liberals.