Whoopi Goldberg accused conservative author and pundit Ann Coulter of not being able to "take it" during this morning's broadcast of "The View" after Coulter criticized Goldberg and her co-hosts for not allowing her to fully explain statements from her new book, "Guilty: Liberal Victims and their Assault on America."
Goldberg immediately asked Coulter, "What is your issue with single mothers?" and cited stats from "Guilty" that said 70 percent of inmates in prisons come from single-parent homes. Coulter tried to defend her statements but Goldberg wouldn't let her finish before attacking the studies Coulter used:
COULTER: We now have 30 or 40 years of social science research. I mean, I'm just citing, this is um, you know, dressed up numbers crunching. I'm just giving the numbers. 80% of the inmates in prisons were raised by single mothers. About 70% of the runaways of the child, um juvenile delinquents, juvenile murderers, rapists, raised by single mothers. And the point is this didn't happen by accident. The illegitimacy rate alone has gone up over 300% since 1970. And as I describe in my book, this was a specific plan by the left attacking the nuclear family the most famous example --
GOLDBERG: Wait a minute.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
ELISABETH HASSELBECK: I just want to go --
GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I know you want to do this left thing because that's what you do, that's your act.
COULTER: No, it's because I think it's true.
GOLDBERG: But I do want to know, because a lot of what you've cited in terms of this, just specifically this, is based on sort of not great research. Because we've seen this research discounted time and time again.
Goldberg set up a pattern that the others quickly followed. Barbara Walters also refused to let Coulter explain why she considers women who willingly become single-mothers "selfish" and why it's important for children to have fathers and mothers:
WALTERS: Do you want children? Because I do realize that there are mothers who are divorced, you don't blame them as much and there are mothers who are widowed. But there are women who do want children -- I'm not talking about the teenagers, the irresponsible and so forth and need to be loved. We can perhaps, you know, go with that, but there are women who do want children.
COULTER: Yeah, that's what I write about.
WALTERS: And are single mothers.
COULTER: And how selfish it is. That's precisely what --
WALTERS: And can take care of these children. And give them happy homes or adopt these children.
Panel member Sherri Shepherd noted that she doesn't "see any compassion" from " Ann. "Are you trying to be part of the solution?" she asked, quickly adding, "as opposed to just judging, judging judging and throwing out stuff." When Coulter tried to answer, Joy Behar interrupted to ask about Sarah Palin playing up her status as a vicitim of the liberal media.
There is no doubt that Coulter's statements are provocative and can inspire heated discussion. However, it could be that the gals were more hostile to Coulter than other controversial personalities simply because of her conservative views. After all, when Bill Maher, another controversial personality appeared on "The View," he was greeted with open arms and able to fully defend his film "Religulous," a movie many religious people found extremely offensive.
As Justin McCarthy noted on Newsbusters, Maher stated during his Sep. 30 appearance on "The View" that "faith means lack of critical thinking," and his assertion that his movie "didn't make anybody feel bad" went unchallenged. Joy Behar even helped him out by explaining that his "joke" in the movie was the "irrational answers" people of faith gave Maher in response to his questions about religion.
So was it that the "View" gals stridently "questioned" Coulter because her statements were provocative, as Goldberg claimed, or was it because she espoused conservative views?
Here's the transcript of today's discussion:
BARBARA WALTERS: Well, no one can ignite a media firestorm like Ann Coulter, and her latest book "Guilty," like her other books, have very controversial, deliberately provocative, after all, it sells books and we are happy to have with us Ann Coulter. Good morning.
ANN COULTER: Good morning.
WALTERS: I think we've all had a -- been discussing your book on camera.
COULTER: Yes, I heard.
WALTERS: Good, you should be pleased. So Whoopi would like to start.
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: I just have a couple questions actually. In your book, you devote an entire chapter to single mothers and what happens to children raised in single-parent homes. You title a chapter "victim of a crime? Thank a single mother." What is your issue with single mothers? ‘Cause I know you don't have any kids. I mean, maybe you have step kids, I don't know, I shouldn't say that. And just before you answer, I just want to say you said that single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts. 70% of inmates in prisons come from single-parent homes. Hollywood actresses using single motherhood as a way to promote their careers, and it says you say it's selfish for a single mother to have a baby without a father. So, I'm wondering.
COULTER: We now have 30 or 40 years of social science research. I mean, I'm just citing, this is um, you know, dressed up numbers crunching. I'm just giving the numbers. 80% of the inmates in prisons were raised by single mothers. About 70% of the runaways of the child, um juvenile delinquents, juvenile murderers, rapists, raised by single mothers. And the point is this didn't happen b y accident. The illegitimacy rate alone has gone up over 300% since 1970. And as I describe in my book, this was a specific plan by the left attacking the nuclear family the most famous example --
GOLDBERG: Wait a minute.
ELISABETH HASSELBECK: I just want to go --
GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I know you want to do this left thing because that's what you do, that's your act.
COULTER: No, it's because I think it's true.
GOLDBERG: But I do want to know, because a lot of what you've cited in terms of this, just specifically this, is based on sort of not great research. Because we've seen this research discounted time and time again. But why would you say Hollywood actresses using single mother --I take offense to that, of course, you can understand because having been a single mother, I don't think it was something I used as a tool.
COULTER: The point is -- well, I don't think you've done it in the last few years, and this has become--
GOLDBERG: Are you talking about -- I'm sorry, say this again? You talking about the last -- you're talking about actresses in the last few years?
COULTER: Right.
GOLDBERG: Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure.
COULTER: That's why I say it's the new thing as opposed to the sex tapes. That's my point.
HASSELBECK: Why don't you come down on the fathers who aren't there? Rather than the women who actually raise their children?
COULTER: I'll answer that. Because the title is "Guilty Liberal Victims and their Assault on America." The point of the book is, in example after example, of how people play the victim are exalted in this society, how doors open for them when in fact, they're the ones victimizing others. I've never heard anyone say unsung heroes, unwed fathers, how does he do it? He has four children with three different mothers? How did he have the time to do it? You do have, as I describe in that chapter, Hollywood, mainstream media, the "New York Times," women's magazines, exalting single motherhood. Movie after movie about single motherhood, book after book, sisters are doing it for themselves-
GOLDBERG: Are you married?
JOY BEHAR: You answered it.
GOLDBERG: Are you married? Are you married?
COULTER: No, but it wouldn't change the difference of the facts I cite.
GOLDBERG: Do you have kids? Do you have kids?
COULTER: No, and it wouldn't change the difference of the facts.
GOLDBERG: You know it would if you did have children because you'd know more what you're talking about.
WALTERS: Do you want children? Because I do realize that there are mothers who are divorced, you don't blame them as much and there are mothers who are widowed. But there are women who do want children -- I'm not talking about the teenagers, the irresponsible and so forth and need to be loved. We can perhaps, you know, go with that, but there are women who do want children.
COULTER: Yeah, that's what I write about.
WALTERS: And are single mothers.
COULTER: And how selfish it is. That's precisely what --
WALTERS: And can take care of these children. And give them happy homes or adopt these children.
BEHAR: You're ignoring the sociological issues here, Ann.
SHERRI SHEPHERD: And economics.
COULTER: You know, I am not -
BEHAR: Racism, all those things.
GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I've raised a kid single-handedly and she didn't kill anybody. That's all I'm saying.
COULTER: Absolutely not. You are wrong about that and that is the interesting -- of course it's not every -- the point is you look at it from the other end.
SHEPHERD: You know, Ann-
COULTER: You look at the prison end and no it is not true that I'm leaving out race. There is, in fact, I cite a study by the progressive policy institute, a liberal institute, saying that if you take single motherhood out of the equation, the black and white crime rates are exactly the same. So you take everything else out, single motherhood is not good for children. That is a fact and it is a fact that it is promoted.
SHEPHERD: I would like to ask you because, you know, there's some nuggets of truth that you have in stuff that you write. But I don't see any compassion that you have. Do you go out and do you talk to single -- young girls about trying not to, you know, to use birth control? Are you trying to be part of the solution?
COULTER: Well, sure, of course, I am.
SHEPHERD: As opposed to just judging, judging, judging and throwing out stuff.
COULTER: Look, the more nonjudgmental we have been about the mothers, the more real victims have been created.
BEHAR: Can I ask you something?
COULTER: Millions and millions per year. I mean, it's not like this is some inevitable number that we must have of single, of children being raised by single mothers every year or it wouldn't have gone up by more than 300 percent since 1970.
BEHAR: Okay, Let's move off that topic because you call it liberal victims. You know, the biggest victim this week is your girlfriend Sarah Palin. She is whining about everything. The media was wrong. Katie Cor--
HASSELBECK: The media was horrible to her. The media attacked her daughter's unborn child. That was appalling.
BEHAR: And she's acting like a victim now and why is it just liberals who are victims? Give me a break.
COULTER: No, but the point of the book is not to say that there, that there aren't any victims. Of course, there are victims.
BEHAR: Then why are all the liberal victims put together again?
COULTER: That's my point. Liberals play the victim while creating real victims. I'm not saying there's no such things as victims. But can we get back to what you were attacking me for when I wasn't here?
SHEPHERD: It wasn't an attack.
BEHAR: She's being attacked!
COULTER: I've never heard my book -
SHEPHERD: Well, follow up. Follow up on what we were saying about you're saying that they identify with their black side.
COULTER: I would like the right to respond.
SHEPHERD: And Whoopi had something to say.
COULTER: Right. You seem to think that I was trying to read minds, I believe someone said, or that I don't have personal experience with them, to the contrary. As I cite in the book, I am talking about things they have done and said. Barack obama writes his first book, I think it was his first book, his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father." He identifies with the father who abandoned him.
WALTERS: Now if you read the book,
COULTER: I read the book.
WALTERS: He praises his mother all through the -- can I just move on? We don't have that much time.
COULTER: Wait, you guys attacked me for it and I can't respond. Halle Berry accepts the academy award - okay just let me respond. Halle Berry --
GOLDBERG: Nobody is attacking you. You have to accept the truth. You wrote something provocative.
COULTER: I have never heard my book read aloud like you're reading "Mein Kampf" and I just did.
WALTERS: Can I just read a section aloud.
COULTER: Yes, and read it like you're reading "Mein Kampf" again.
WALTERS: I don't think I did that.
COULTER: I think you did. You spat out the words when I wasn't sitting here.
WALTERS: Let me do this. And that's because I'd like to discuss something current. "Throughout John F. Kennedy's presidency and beyond, reporters notoriously hid the fact that J.F.K. was a venereal disease ridden sexual profligate and drug addict. The courtiered press was too busy manufacturing a nonsense image of Camelot." I read this because I'd love to hear your view on Caroline Kennedy's desire --
HASSELBECK: Was that gentle enough?
COULTER: Yes, that was lovely. You can do the audio book. Well, we don't know that much about her.
SHEPHERD: I'm not attacking you, I just don't appreciate the way you're talking to her. I mean, nobody is attacking you. You didn't have to talk to her --
COULTER: I wasn't here!
SHEPHERD: I just think, Ann, go on.
COULTER: Okay, I think we can move on from tone and get to substance. But he's flashing wrap.
GOLDBERG: Here's the deal. Since it will wrap as soon as we're, it's time, but you're sort of just did, like, two great putdowns in one sentence. I want to reiterate, nobody was putting down or attacking you.
COULTER: Look, you're claiming that I was --
GOLDBERG: Excuse me! I listened to you.
COULTER: that I was basing it on personal experience.
GOLDBERG: No, I asked the question were you, because you are not, you are not --
COULTER: Halle Berry's Academy Award acceptance speech went on and on about how she was doing it for the blacks. That's identifying with her black father. I'm talking about what they do and say in public. I'm not mind reading.
GOLDBERG: You know, you can't take it, can you? You can dish it out but you can't take it. We'll be right back.
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well, we know what happens
January 12, 2009 - 18:52 ET by Chris NormanWell, we know what happens when one jumps in the pirahana tank...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
That's a good analogy, Chris
January 13, 2009 - 04:23 ET by DoktorFrankenDefinitely a Leftist Feeding Frenzy. One-on-one they couldn't bring her down so the word went out, ''We Must Sink The Bismark!'' It were an ambush, pure and simple.
The fish don't stand a chance..
January 14, 2009 - 14:51 ET by AshleeAnn has been one of my favorite authors on the right side for years. I don't agree with some of what she says, but alot of it is tough truth the left refuses to swallow because its just too rough for them. Admittedly too, she's quite blunt and occasionally crass, but I mean, its her persona, she plays the part of the fed up author who is sick of talking to shut ears and has decided to *make* them face the ugly truth. The weirdest part is, the women on the show even acknowledged that's sort of her 'character' yet still tried to make it seem like she's some heartless shrew. I wouldnt invite her to meet my liberal family members hahaha but I don't think she's heartless.
As for Whoopi, good lord, she hasn't done anything I've enjoyed since Sister Act 2. Even then the movie, much like her commentary, brought very little to the table. This show is laughable in its claim to being a 'woman's show about current events.' Pffffft right. Thank God Elizabeth has stuck strong thru all this. Lord knows if I was where she was, I'd have sent babs to the old folks home, sent Sherri back to 5th grade geography class, taken Whoopi back to Hollywood to make stupid movies where she belongs, and probably have joy behar sterilized and sent to Guantanamo. Seriously, I am one of the nicest people I know, but if I ever met Joy, oooooo, I doubt I could hold back. That woman just reeks of misplaced self admiration and blatantly uneducated arrogance. For all intensive purposes, they could replace her with one of those wacky inflatable waving arm men they have outside of car dealerships.
Afterall, both are just complete and total windbags with nothing really going on inside.
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
The View...
January 12, 2009 - 19:02 ET by mizflame98...is nothing but a tarted-up version of the Jerry Springer Show. You not only come away with nothing of value with that show but you feel that your IQ dropped a few points after watching it.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
mizflame
January 13, 2009 - 04:32 ET by DoktorFrankenNo way in heck can I disagree. But, ''Tarted Up'' and Whoppi and Joy and Barbara (are there more other than Liz?) should not be in this particular universe of thought. Bizzarro World, maybe.
There I go tasting bile again.
With Whoopi the truth hits a little too close to home
January 12, 2009 - 19:07 ET by midnight cowboyGoldberg is exactly the type Coulter is talking about. Married 3 times, then 5 year affair with Frank Langella and screwing around with Ted Dansen while he was married. Let's not forget Goldberg's only daughter now at 35 is getting married for the 3rd time.
Stellar examples of 21st century parenting.
Serial Bed Fellows.
January 13, 2009 - 07:22 ET by OliveOh that's interesting.
Whoopi...How does she do it?
She is so ugly!
hahahaha
January 14, 2009 - 14:55 ET by AshleeNow Olive, lets not be THAT mean! :-P
Afterall, in relation to everything else about Whoopi, although she's no looker, her looks are pretty much the best thing she brings to the table. Again, I realize and agree, that isn't saying much at all. lol
The people should not fear their Government,
The Government should fear the people.
For the first time ever I
January 12, 2009 - 19:08 ET by bigtimerFor the first time ever I watched this all today, pure accident, but I heard she was going to be on when I was checking our local weather, so I watched.
I am so glad I have never watched this crap before, I will never again.
Elizabeth once again jumped in with the circus, she really didn't disappoint me in the least, as I don't have a high opinion of her anyway over the years, just another squishy moderate...she always will be.
I was furious with the whole thing, I also really was wishing Ann never went on that filthy self-aggrandizing POS of a show.
Btw...first thing I thought of was I wonder if Justin is going to have a blog spot about this today...I also just heard Hannity on his radio show implying how Elizabeth stood with Ann...oh please...Sean has been so blind to this gal for years nowI can't stand it anymore, he is having her on his show tonight and Newt Gingrich, two mushy moderates...this is his debut show...don't think I'm going to be liking it.
Fox goes anymore to the left...I will be watching nothing on it anymore, bad it enough as it is for me now anyway.
Disgusting all of this.
Btw....you could just see Joy chomping at the bit to get to Coulter, Whoopi is an arsehole, Walters is a tv/political whore for the left who got where she is because of it...Sheppard is past pathetic...all of hem are a waste of time.
If I sound mad I am, just glad I had a place to vent...as they like to say...lol.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bt, Hannity gets all
January 12, 2009 - 19:35 ET by Chris Normanbt,
Hannity gets all gushy with Hasselbeck like a pimply faced high school boy gets when a cheerleader lets him carry her books. I don't think I can take Hannity's earnestness for a full hour - but will give it a try. Believe it or not, I like Greta Van Susteren's show (sans missing girls and the Brady Bunch grid of arguing lawyers). She actually lets people speak for themselves and is respectful of their opinions. I think she's a class act.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Hey Chris...I've been
January 12, 2009 - 19:41 ET by bigtimerHey Chris...I've been saying that about Greta's show and such when absolutely nobody here agreed with me, but heck, I'd been following her since CNN with her trials and tribulations there...
As far as Hannity and Elizabeth, I couldn't ever put it better than you just did...I'll keep checking out his show for a few months and then decided, but I tell you...just one real conservative and proud to be conservative show would be nice somewhere...anywhere.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
"I've been saying that
January 12, 2009 - 20:09 ET by Chris Norman"I've been saying that about Greta's show and such when absolutely nobody here agreed with me..."
See, you don't follow trends - you set them. :)
I agree with the need for a pure conservative show - but, why, oh why, for crying out loud, did it have to be Hannity? Oh, well, any port in a storm and all...
BTW, I replied to a comment you made on the Huckabee thread, but that was so long ago today, it's ye olde. To repeat: it's not that I can't stand him, but given what I've seen, the show should be called "Hokey-bee" - it's the political version of the Lawrence Welk Show - know what I mean?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Glen Beck
January 12, 2009 - 20:46 ET by mizflame98...comming to FOX on the 19th. Lets see how he'll do.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Hey mizflame... That's
January 12, 2009 - 21:00 ET by bigtimerHey mizflame...
That's right!
I know some don't care for him, but I got to where I really liked his show on CNN, usually watched the segments I wanted to and looked forward to them, you just gave me something to smile about.
One thing about it, it is going to be mighty interesting to see how they all do....I just don't like the time slot they gave Beck, maybe it is better though for the east coast...it's three in the afternoon here, mountain time...still, we do have some changes to look forward to.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
His CNN show may be OK but
January 12, 2009 - 22:34 ET by motherbeltHis CNN show may be OK but I can't take his radio show any more.
Jeez, I'm getting to where I can't stand anybody!
Old and crochety, that's me! LOL
Hannity is proud he drives a Hybrid SUV
January 12, 2009 - 20:55 ET by PopularTechWhat a sell out, enough said.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ So what?
January 12, 2009 - 21:07 ET by Cool ArrowI'm tellin' ya' PT.
If GM gave me a Hybrid to drive, free of charge, I'd take it.
Glenn Beck has accepted one of these promos also, although he's not afraid to say what needs to be said about GM and Chrysler.
People who buy Hybrids cannot do Math
January 12, 2009 - 22:58 ET by PopularTechHybrids are NOT cost effective, maybe people should do some math (This is at $4 a Gallon):
Toyota Prius (Base) - $22,000, 44 MPG
Toyota Yaris (Base) - $12,205 (Prius + $9795), 34 MPG
Honda Fit (Base) - $14,750 (Prius + $7250), 32 MPG
Average Price of Gas: $4 Gallon Regular (AAA)
10,000 Miles Per Year:
Toyota Prius - 227 Gallons, $908
Toyota Yaris - 294 Gallons, $1176 (Prius - $268) = 37 Years to break even
Honda Fit - 313 Gallons, $1252 (Prius - $344) = 21 Years to break even
15,000 Miles Per Year:
Toyota Prius - 341 Gallons, $1364
Toyota Yaris - 441 Gallons, $1764 (Prius - $400) = 25 Years to break even
Honda Fit - 469 Gallons, $1876 (Prius - $512) = 14 Years to break even
20,000 Miles Per Year:
Toyota Prius - 455 Gallons, $1820
Toyota Yaris - 588 Gallons, $2352 (Prius - $532) = 18 Years to break even
Honda Fit - 625 Gallons, $2500 (Prius - $680) = 11 Years to break even
And that is not including any battery replacement costs!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
If GM gave me a car I would sell it
January 12, 2009 - 23:05 ET by PopularTechAnd buy a Honda or a Toyota, if it was an uneconomical hybrid I would make even more money.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
People who buy Hybrid SUVs cannot do Math
January 13, 2009 - 08:56 ET by PopularTechHybrids SUVs are NOT cost effective. This is a direct comparison since Hannity owns a Tahoe Hybrid:
Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid - $52,405, 19 MPG *
Chevrolet Tahoe LT - $40,625 (Tahoe Hybrid + $11,780), 14 MPG
Toyota RAV4 Limited - $24,490 (Tahoe Hybrid + $27,915), 22 MPG
Toyota RAV4 Base - $21.500 (Tahoe Hybrid + $30,905), 23 MPG
Average Price of Gas: $4 Gallon Regular (AAA)
10,000 Miles Per Year:
Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid - 526 Gallons, $2104 *
Chevrolet Tahoe LT - 714 Gallons, $2856 (Tahoe Hybrid - $752) = 16 Years to break even
Toyota RAV4 Limited - 455 Gallons, $1820 (Tahoe Hybrid + $284) = Save $27,915 vehicle cost and $284 a year in gas
Toyota RAV4 Base - 435 Gallons, $1740 (Tahoe Hybrid + $364) = Save $30,905 vehicle cost and $364 a year in gas
15,000 Miles Per Year:
Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid - 789 Gallons, $3156 *
Chevrolet Tahoe LT - 1071 Gallons, $4284 (Tahoe Hybrid - $1128) = 10 Years to break even
Toyota RAV4 Limited - 682 Gallons, $2728 (Tahoe Hybrid + $428) = Save $27,915 vehicle cost and $428 a year in gas
Toyota RAV4 Base - 652 Gallons, $2608 (Tahoe Hybrid + $548) = Save $30,905 vehicle cost and $548 a year in gas
20,000 Miles Per Year:
Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid - 1053 Gallons, $4212 *
Chevrolet Tahoe LT - 1429 Gallons, $5716 (Tahoe Hybrid - $1504) = 8 Years to break even
Toyota RAV4 Limited - 909 Gallons, $3636 (Tahoe Hybrid + $576) = Save $27,915 vehicle cost and $576 a year in gas
Toyota RAV4 Base - 870 Gallons, $3480 (Tahoe Hybrid + $732) = Save $30,905 vehicle cost and $732 a year in gas
And that is not including any battery replacement costs!
* The Tahoe Hybrid's maximum towing capacity is 2,200 pounds less than the regular Tahoe. There is also a Tahoe LS for only $37,915.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Big Whoop!!!
January 12, 2009 - 21:10 ET by mizflame98I'd drive a hybrid. That means less of my money going towards the terrorists in the form of gas purchases. I'm holding out for the Chevy Volt.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
flame98
January 12, 2009 - 21:17 ET by Cool ArrowThe new Prius gets 50 mpg. Actually gets better mileage in city than highway.
I could put up with a lot of ridicule for numbers like that.
True but...
January 12, 2009 - 22:43 ET by mizflame98You can't fit a few teens and a car seat in a prius comfortably.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Prius Mileage Myths - Diesels are better
January 12, 2009 - 22:44 ET by PopularTechWe will wait and see what the Prius REALLY gets for MPG:
EPA Lowers Prius Mileage Estimate (Consumer Affairs)
New versus old EPA mpg (Consumer Reports)
You get mileage from diesel cars:
50-MPG: Volkswagen Jetta TDi Clean-Diesel (Popular Mechanics)
70-MPG: Volkswagen Polo Clean-Diesel (Popular Mechanics)
65-MPG: Ford's Fiesta ECOnetic (BusinessWeek)
99-MPG: Volkswagen Lupo TDi Diesel (The New York Times)
235-MPG: Volkswagen 1-litre Diesel Car (Popular Science)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
size...
January 12, 2009 - 22:56 ET by mizflame983 teens and a car seat. Remember? Which one of those rides can accomodate?
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Any that can carry five people
January 12, 2009 - 23:01 ET by PopularTechThat is irrelevant as ALL hybrids are a waste of money.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Volt
January 13, 2009 - 09:55 ET by cassratBetter give up the idea of the Chevy Volt. It will barely fit 2 people and a small dog.
Energy Independence is a Myth
January 12, 2009 - 22:26 ET by PopularTechFirst of all driving a hybrid will do nothing to reduce where we get our oil from, second buying a hybrid is a waste of money.
- Only 16% of U.S. oil imports come from the Middle East (EIA)
Myths About Breaking Our Foreign Oil Habit (The Washington Post)
The Idiocy of Energy Independence (John Stossel, ABC News)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
How much of our oil supply
January 12, 2009 - 22:41 ET by mizflame98How much of our oil supply comes from Hugo Chavez or from Mexico? Either way, I wish to spend less money on oil that isn't ours. I don't want to help contribute to terrorists, communists, or drug cartels.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Energy Efficiency is a Myth
January 12, 2009 - 22:55 ET by PopularTechSaudi Arabia has the largest producing oil reserves in the world. So lets forget your fantasy myth of not getting oil from them. Mexico? Um they are not a terrorist country.
- The largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Canada (EIA)
- The second largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Mexico (EIA)
It is nice you want to live in a world of left-wing propaganda but in the real world where the rest of us live in we buy what we need and we need oil and will for a long time.
The point you fail to recognize is that energy efficiency does not reduce energy use.
Myth: Energy Efficiency (Manhattan Institute)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I never said that Mexico
January 12, 2009 - 23:11 ET by mizflame98I never said that Mexico was a terrorist country, but they have done little to stem the tide of illegal immigration and drug traffiking.
BTW, I'm not buying into the liberal hype. I just hate waste. Per your argument, since conserving does little to reduce usage, we might as well splurge like we're Caligula.
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Mizflame
January 12, 2009 - 23:47 ET by thebutlerdiditI'm afraid I am one of the guilty, then. I hate small cars. They scare me. I drive a Escalade, no kids, my baby is 19. My hubby is a huge man, he drives the big Hummer. I refuse to drive in Atlanta traffic in a tiny car. My husband couldn't fit in a Prius! We had a mint condition DeLorean, one of the last 5 made, all done by the engineers, developers, and we just sold it, because I was afraid of it, and he couldn't fit. If I had kids at home still, I would drive a bus.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
No worries.
January 13, 2009 - 00:06 ET by mizflame98Let's be real here. I have a teen and a toddler and 2 step-sons that are also teens. I'm not going to try to squeeze them as well as me and my hubby into a Prius. That's getting into clown car territory. My point is I'm not going to begrudge Hannity because he drives a hybrid SUV. If he uses less gas, what harm is there in that?
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Mizflame
January 13, 2009 - 00:17 ET by thebutlerdiditYes, you definately would be in clown car status there! When both of my kids were younger, we were always hauling a pile of kids around, especially on vacations. It is impossible to drive 8 hours with 4 big teenagers and two adults in a little car w/o war breaking out. As for Hannity, he is a nice guy. I think his biggest problem is he is all heart, but not neccessarily too smart. So he took the Hybrid, he brags about it, seems dumb to me, but I think he means well. I have to say though, I am with PT on this, I will get a Hybrid when it is in my best interest. I can see where you would not want to be wasteful, feeding kids and raising them is expensive!
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
Economic Illiterates own Hybrid SUVs
January 13, 2009 - 07:56 ET by PopularTechHannity owning a hybrid SUV shows he cannot do basic math and is doing nothing more than grandstanding. The added cost of the hybrid is not offset by the savings in gas. He effectively sold out to the environmental pressure groups to make himself look better. But to anyone who can do basic math he looks like an economic illiterate
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
cost
January 13, 2009 - 10:00 ET by cassratI would agree with you if he had actually paid for the hybrid. My guess is that it was a freebee from GM
Then it makes him a shill
January 13, 2009 - 10:12 ET by PopularTechBecause he made no mention he got the car for free, either he cannot do basic math, is selling out to environmental groups or is a shill.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Government Mandated Fuel Economy Kills People
January 13, 2009 - 07:53 ET by PopularTechThe free market on it's own produces efficiency but efficiency based on what the consumer demands. Increased energy efficiency has not nor will reduce energy demand - it never has throughout history. The cheaper we can use energy the more we will use. So the fact that you get better MPG and save money, is offset by driving more and in the end spending the money saved. With hybrids you are losing money because the added cost of the vehicle is not offset by the money saved in gas. Highly fuel efficient cars exist but there is limited demand for them because the consumer has other more important priorities as you have mentioned (passenger capacity, cargo capacity, safety ect...). If the consumer wants something and it is possible to provide it, the auto makers will on their own without the government. Government mandates into fuel economy have done nothing but killed people:
A Crashing Failure: The Stupid Tragedy of CAFE (National Review)
Death by the Gallon (PDF) (USA Today)
Right now Hybrids are NOT economical, you pay more for the vehicle than you save on gas and it takes 10-30 years to get your money back. This does not mean hybrid technology or electric drivetrains are not the future, I believe they are but they will be accepted in the market by consumers on their own when they become economical, either the price of gas will get so high or the costs of the technology so low. All without government. We did not need government to stop riding horses.
Hannity owning a hybrid SUV shows he cannot do basic math and is doing nothing more than grandstanding. He effectively sold out to the environmental pressure groups to make himself look better. But to anyone who can do basic math he looks like an economic illiterate.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Hype: Chevy Volt (Batteries Not Included)
January 13, 2009 - 10:22 ET by PopularTechChevy Volt (Batteries Not Included) (The New York Times)
"The Volt is also less than it appears. The batteries to make it roadworthy do not yet exist"
So much for the hype
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
People Drink C02 All of the Time
January 13, 2009 - 15:04 ET by deerjerkydaveThey're called carbinated drinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Drinks
I'm reminded of the Penn and Teller skit where they got a bunch of hippies to sign a petition banning dihydrogen monoxide, which is nothing more than water.
Nothing like Unobtainium alloy to build those batteries...
January 13, 2009 - 15:52 ET by upcountrywater100 MPG carburetor, Unobtainium technology is all the rage now...
OHH if only "THEY" would just let the patents out of those vaults, at the oil companies...
Remember F= ma
No way around that, EVER
Oh yea, where does one plug in the 250 KW charger?
FREEDOM
(D)
Poor Ann. That oppressed
January 12, 2009 - 19:50 ET by JasonCPoor Ann. That oppressed woman just cannot make her voice heard.
And as I describe in my book, this was a specific plan by the left attacking the nuclear family the most famous example --
I wish the View coterie had shut the f--- up just so we could hear from Ann what was surely a laughably meretricious line of argumentation supporting this gem of a statement.
Jason... Absolutely
January 12, 2009 - 19:55 ET by bigtimerJason...
Absolutely nobody on the left wants to let Ann ever finish a sentence, let alone a paragraph, why do you think she has to talk so fast at times.
By the way, just buy her book, you would get the answers to your questions without any interruptions or spin if you are really curious.
Just a thought.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I've purchased two of her
January 12, 2009 - 20:05 ET by JasonCI've purchased two of her books. As much as I find it pathetic when people say of an author or performer they dislike "Well, they won't get a dime out of me, I'll never contribute to their bank account", I'm gonna have to invoke that here. I read every book through Treason. They are, uniformly, poorly-argued, selectively-cited nonsense.
So liberal commentators interrupt her? Boo hoo. She should try saying something halfway reasonable.
The point of my initial post was simply that she commands more speaking engagement invitations than almost any essayist/commentator working today. She's hardly a victim.
EDIT: Not Treason, that was
January 12, 2009 - 20:07 ET by JasonCEDIT: Not Treason, that was only the second one. I meant the one where she accused the 9/11 widows of enjoying their husbands' fiery agonizing deaths.
In all fairness
January 12, 2009 - 20:16 ET by choselife3xShe didn't say that about all the widows. She was referring to the 'Jersey Girls' specifically, who used their status as 9/11 widows as a political platform.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Yes, I know, they're who I
January 12, 2009 - 20:20 ET by JasonCYes, I know, they're who I was referring to. Didn't see Ann get all high and mighty about Joe the Plumber parlaying his household name status to shill for McCain and take on the role of King Everyman, but whatever, both sides can play the selective hypocrisy game.
The difference is
January 12, 2009 - 20:26 ET by choselife3xJoe the Plumber has not claimed to be a victim, nor has he behaved in such a manner as to cause anyone to believe he is one.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Um, OK, so? Perhaps we're
January 12, 2009 - 20:34 ET by JasonCUm, OK, so?
Perhaps we're overdetermining the loaded meaning of "victim". Would anyone deny that someone who lost a spouse in the Trade Center was a victim of 9/11?
The point is that JtP took his fame and turned it into a political platform. This placed him as a fair target of criticism. Yet many conservative commentators (and many MANY NB posters) saw criticism of JtP as hateful. But he didn't do anything differently from the so-called Jersey Girls, at least the way that Ann saw them.
I believe her point was that
January 12, 2009 - 21:00 ET by choselife3xI believe her point was that the 'Jersey Girls' used their victimhood as a shield against criticism of their (widely trumpeted) political position. If you attempt to criticise their public political statements/positions then you come off as a meanie picking on the poor widow.
Joe the Plumber has not played the 'victim' in any way, and has not complained about his treatment by the media.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I could be wrong, but I
January 12, 2009 - 21:05 ET by JasonCI could be wrong, but I don't recall those women themselves claiming immunity; I'll agree that some liberal commentators invoked such a claim on their behalf. But you're not really saying that some conservatives haven't construed any criticism of JtP as being automatically hateful toward "Regular America"; that JtP is an untouchable icon of Joe Six-Pack values...are you?
Whatever, we can agree to disagree here, I hope. But I maintain that the two are fully comparable.
Apples and oranges
January 12, 2009 - 21:16 ET by bigtimerApples and oranges here...those self-aggrandizing women wanted the fame, govt. money, congressional hearings via the msm, while all JtP did was ask a question of a Soros empty suit and he ended up fired by the govt. with of course 24/7 help via the msm.
Go Joe Go!
Btw...he will be more of a journalist reporting just the facts without some agenda beforehand than 99% of the arseholes we hear 24/7.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Yes. You are wrong. I am heating my house with google searches.
January 12, 2009 - 21:16 ET by JWFA google search took exactly 6.7 seconds to find you are wrong. GOD I LOVE THE INTERNETS!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/a-letter-to-ann-coulter_b_28856.html
Dear Ann,
But for the murder of our husbands on 9/11, we would not have gone to...
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Actually, I'm not wrong, as
January 13, 2009 - 09:03 ET by JasonCActually, I'm not wrong, as you have profoundly missed the point. One of the Jersey Girls writing a letter after the fact to Ann Coulter about her comments is irrelevant. What we're looking for is an example of one of them claiming outright that they are above reproach before Ms. Coulter's book, thus justifying the comments she made.
I'm certain, though, that if you had lost family in 9/11 and then took a public stance that we should invade al-Qaeda harboring countries, and some liberal hack accused you of enjoying your family's death, that you'd just let it go right? No need to rebut that, right?
..but I don't recall those
January 14, 2009 - 00:55 ET by PeskyDane..but I don't recall those women themselves claiming immunity...
You were wrong, yes? But suddenly, "that's not the point?" Right or wrong, it would be nice to show us that as a lib, that you are capable of linear thinking... just a thought.
JasonC is WRONG, won't admit it and MOVED THE ARGUMENT.
January 14, 2009 - 02:11 ET by JWFI could be wrong, but I don't recall those women themselves claiming immunity
That is the exact quote folks. Where in that statement is the qualifier, one of them claiming outright that they are above reproach before Ms. Coulter's book?
This is an example of the blatant utter disingenuous style that permeates the liberal trolls that come here and think they can put the verbal smackdown on those of us interested in the truth.
Ann, the Jersey Girls are moms. We have children. Perhaps one day if you have a child, you may understand the sense of duty and obligation that parents feel toward their children to provide them with a safe and secure environment, both in the present and the future. There were many, many times when we wanted to give up. We were tired and frustrated. But we didn't. The reason? Our children. We were left as their sole protectors; we wanted them to know that even though their fathers were brutally killed, they could be and would be safer living in America.
It is that fallacious argument - You cannot know our argument UNTIL you have a husband die, AND you have children. You cannot know our argument UNTIL you have walked in our shoes. That is an example of someone setting themselves as BEYOND REPROACH.
You never said before or after Ann Coulter's book JasonC. So stop MOVING THE ARGUMENT!
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Them saying that before Ann
January 14, 2009 - 09:43 ET by JasonCAsking for proof that they said that before Ann wrote the book is just common sense. Otherwise, what would Ann be going on in writing the book?
Think about it.
You did not listen to Ann, you did not listen to me.
January 15, 2009 - 00:57 ET by JWFSTILL ATTEMPTING TO MOVE THE ARGUMENT>
Ann writes books about THE LEFT and their constant barrage of falacious arguments to get in their socialist programs.
She used the Jersey girls as an EXAMPLE of the left setting up victims to further their arguments for what leftists program they want. They set up victims to make their arguments because they believe we fearful of making counterarguments.
YOU do not have the common sense to actually understand that she was referring to DEMOCRATS and LEFTIST MEDIA.
Further, You ENGAGE in the same kind of tactics KNOWN TO THE LEFT.
YOU EXPECT US TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOUR IMAGINAY PROOF AND THEN POSTULATE AS TO THE MOTIVES OF AN AUTHOR WE DO NOT KNOW.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
They set up victims to
January 15, 2009 - 09:19 ET by JasonCThey set up victims to make their arguments because they believe we fearful of making counterarguments.
This is why I brought up JtP. While labeling him as a victim may be inappropriate, I've found it impossible to criticize the way he's been heralded as King Joe-Sixpack without immediately facing a barrage of uber-defensive accusations to the effect that I must hate regular people. The "victim" part might be a little different, but it's the same basic tactic.
I don't have any problem with anyone taking advantage of their situation - victim or otherwise - and turning it into a political or personal platform. Free speech, free markets. But we are all perfectly free to point out that that situation in and of itself does not necessarily lend the person ironclad credibility.
As I said, if Coulter had made a critique of the JGs' position, and even argued that the pathos of being widows doesn't necessarily make them right, then fine. She chose instead to outright accuse them of a pretty despicable thing; one which, as I've pointed out over and over again, would only have even the slightest hint of veracity if the Girls had already (i.e. before Ann came along) claimed immunity to criticism.
JasonC is not chickenpoo.
January 16, 2009 - 01:02 ET by JWFHe is the little white speck at the top of the chickenpoo.
Look, I said you are the white speck on the top of chickenpoo and I DID NOT EVEN TASTE IT. So I am not allowed to say JasonC is chickenpoo EVER.
Listen to yourself. You are telling the world that Ann Coulter CANNOT criticise the Jersey Girls because the Jersey Girls did not come out BEFORE Ann wrote a book and say ANN is not allowed to criticise them.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF, we seem to be at
January 16, 2009 - 10:05 ET by JasonCJWF, we seem to be at serious cross-purposes. I don't know if I'm just fundamentally misinterpreting your points or not, but I'm now certain that you're misinterpreting mine.
I never said Coulter cannot criticize them. I've said over and over that there's nothing wrong with criticizing their position on foreign policy, nor with pointing out that being widows does not make them immune to such criticism. What I reject is the premise that they were in fact "enjoying their husbands' deaths" and that they themselves, prior to Coulter, were claiming immunity as such. This is a crucial element. Coulter's claim that they were struck me as not only unfounded, but stunningly cruel; well beyond the realm of rebutting their actual political positions.
Should she be "allowed" to say such things. Of course. Do I have the right to believe, and articulate the belief, that she was not only out of line but flat out wrong? Of course.
Meanwhile, you and choselife3x seem to be making this absurd argument that to channel the loss of a loved one into some form of social action is automatically a cynical, exploitative act. By this logic, the women who founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving should be accused of "enjoying" their childrens' death insofar as they use their status as grieving mothers to advocate for stricter DUI laws.
Coulter's remarks are so transparently based on her seething hatred of liberalism - and little else - that it's difficult to even seriously consider a defense of her in this incident. If the Jersey Girls were not 9/11 widows, but rather Iraq War widows (or even better: Afghanistan War widows!) who sublimated the pathos of their situation into a lobbying effort for, say, better benefits for soldiers' families or a media program to counteract negative depictions of US troops overseas, I think we'd both have an extraordinarily difficult time imagining Ann attacking them for enjoying their husbands' deaths. She attacked the Jersey Girls because their particular political goal was at odds with the Bush administration and the then-current approach to the WoT. The dead husband angle was a matter of nasty rhetorical convenience.
I'll sum up once again as we seem to be butt deep in this thread
January 17, 2009 - 01:43 ET by JWFAnd it is like a week later.
1. Islamic fascist terrorists attack the United States attempting to instigate an eventual collapse. They hit (or try to hit) the 3 most important centers of the United States. The Financial, Military, and Political centers. In their very simplistic view of the United States, these are the primary targets to bring down our civilization. The WORLD TRADE Center, the very heart of world trade. The PENTAGON, the heart of our military where all the TOP military people work. The WHITE HOUSE, where our LEADER works and resides. This is nothing less than an attempted COUP.
2. Some of the widows from the World Trade center form a group (Jersey girls) that pushes to start a commision to investigate how President Bush FAILED to foresee the attack and prevent it. They publicly blame George Bush for 9/11 instead of the people that actually MURDERED their husbands.
"I watched my husband murdered live on TV. . . . At any point in time the casualties could have been lessened, and it seems to me there wasn't even an attempt made." -Monica Gabrielle
"Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush's watch." - Kristin Breitweiser
"President Bush and his workers...were the individuals that failed my husband and teh 3,000 people that day" - Kristin Breitweiser
3. The 9/11 commision issues it's report which is very critical of the Bush administration, while largely giving the Clinton administration a pass. Even though it was on the Clinton administration that Bin Laden issued his declaration of war and a series of intensifying attacks that saw very little in the way of a response from the U.S. Oh, and by the way, while this commision is underway doing its best to see how the U.S Government FAILED its citizens, WE ARE AT WAR with islamic fascists in 2 separate COUNTRIES.
4. The Jersey girls PUBLICLY ENDORSE Sen. John Kerry, a candidate running against George W. Bush whom the Jersey Girls blamed for 9/11.
5. Ann Coulter says something really mean that hurt JasonC's feelings.
6. Nearly 3 years later, JasonC still "feels teh pain" and publicly cries here at NB for the mean things Ann Coulter said.
7. JWF and Chooselife3x give JasonC a tissue. JasonC wipes away his tears.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF, pay no attention to the little troglodyte
January 16, 2009 - 10:34 ET by choselife3xJasonC is unable to comprehend how well he is making Ann's point. Just ignore him and he will continue to spin in circles grabbing his @ss and screaming "I am the guardian of compassion and human decency! How dare you criticise those poor widows?! Abortions on demand!!! Uh....queers should marry!!! You're a meanie homophobe!!"
Someone get the camera before he snaps out of it. Oh, what am I thinking.......
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Way to not address one
January 16, 2009 - 11:37 ET by JasonCWay to not address one single point I've made. How on earth have I mad Ann's point for her? The fact that you still don't understand what I'm arguing is mind-boggling. Get lost if you're not going to give a substantive critique.
How dare you criticise those poor widows?!
Do you even read posts before posting your ill-formed replies? Allow me to quote myself: I've said over and over that there's nothing wrong with criticizing
their position on foreign policy, nor with pointing out that being
widows does not make them immune to such criticism.
Abortions on demand!!!
Where did I argue for this?
queers should marry!!!
Finally, you agree with common sense! [sarc off]
You're a meanie homophobe!!"
Your reaction to the homophobia thing is really getting amusing. Especially since I don't believe I ever said that you, choselife3x, are a homophobe. What I said was "using AIDS to veil homophobia is so 1985." But seriously, assuming someone is homophobic seems like a pretty minor reaction when it's based upon that person proclaiming that gay people "are responsible for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, if not MILLIONS of deaths" and "KILL people with their selfishness."
Let's look at this from a reverse-ideological perspective. It would kind of be like an ultra-left poster claiming that US troops are murderers and thugs and then getting all huffy when a conservative poster says "Gee, it doesn't seem like you really 'Support the Troops'".
Jason
January 12, 2009 - 21:31 ET by choselife3xYou said that Ann wasn't 'high and mighty' about Joe the Plumber. My point was that her book was about 'victims' who use their status to promote their political views and attempt to make those who disagree with them appear to be 'mean'. And JtP does not portray himself as a victim, therefore the comparison is not applicable. She has no reason to be 'high and mighty' about him.
(and I do think that liberals, by and large, are hostile to traditional family values)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
CL3X - You are absolutely RIGHT! Good job
January 12, 2009 - 22:29 ET by Cape ConservativeNow we'll have to wait and see if Jason can get the message!
A PROUD member of the Oogedy Boogedy branch of the GOP!
Cape Conservative
January 12, 2009 - 22:51 ET by choselife3xThey leave when you point out the obvious fallacies in their statements. *shrug*
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I didn't leave for good,
January 13, 2009 - 09:12 ET by JasonCI didn't leave for good, Chose, just had to go live my non-NB life for a few hours.
I guess I wasn't really talking in terms of victimization per se, but in terms of how an "ordinary person," once they willingly enter the public/political scene, becomes fair game for critique (not, one should hope, hatefulness). I don't think there's a single thing wrong with what either the JerseyGirls or JtP did, personally, so long as they can accept that it makes them public figures. Though I do think that the "enjoying your husbands' deaths" thing was far more vile and out of line than anything that was said about Joe's plumbing credentials, and I find it a bit disturbing that no conservative is willing to say "Yeah, I agreed with Ann's sentiment there, but that was offensive." Oh well.
Jason
January 13, 2009 - 09:39 ET by choselife3xHaven't read the book, and I don't know anything about the Jersey Girls. I was going on what Ann said in her interview on Today about it.
If you want to talk about 'vile' things being said we can talk about the media's treatment of Sarah Palin and her family.
Ann Coulter's point that liberals use victimhood as a shield was very well made by her example. You say it was 'vile and put of line'. Why? Because the poor things are widows?
Point made.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Our arguments are never
January 13, 2009 - 09:52 ET by JasonCOur arguments are never quite lining up. I've admitted elsewhere that things were said about Palin that were out of line. Which, by your and Ann's logic, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to criticize her for what I perceive as legitimate political/ideological shortcomings. Of course, the line tends to get blurred.
But this isn't about Palin. Are non-conservative women not entitled to the same defense, in your opinion?
I fully agree that a person shouldn't say "Hey, I'm a widow, you can't criticize me!" I have yet to see evidence that these women did so prior to Ann's book. The letter to Ann that someone above linked to is a moot point, as that was a response to Ann herself AFTER the fact. And what Ann said was that, because they've begun to speak out politically, these women were "Enjoying their husbands' deaths". That has nothing to do with victimization. It's claiming that because their husbands dies and they too a (wrong) political side, they're GLAD their husbands died. On a rhetorical level, it is not one iota different from liberal commentators who picked on JtP's plumbing credentials once he threw his lot in with McCain.
Jason
January 13, 2009 - 10:27 ET by choselife3xSome years ago, I happened to catch the local news when they went live with a story about a murder.
A woman had been shot by her boyfriend in front of her two teenage daughters. The reporter was on the scene and the two girls were still there. She interviewed them on the spot. Asked them what it was like to see their mother shot to death a few feet away.
They answered. They gave all the gory details, glancing at the camera and fiddling with their hair. They WANTED to be on TV. They were clearly enjoying being the center of a drama.
Sick, sick, sick.
Just recently, a five year old boy was struck by a car and died. His father gave an interview to a local news station the evening of the next day.
There are some people who enjoy the spotlight so much that it seems to trump other emotions.
The fact is, you don't know how those women feel anymore than Ann. She could very well be right.
And it sounds like the woman who wrote the letter to Ann made the point for her. That must be a very stupid woman.
I was using Palin for contrast, I didn't mean that I thought you agreed with the media's treatment of her.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I don't see the relevance
January 13, 2009 - 10:34 ET by JasonCI don't see the relevance of any of this. You don't know how those little kids felt either. They might have just been shell-shocked by the experience, and when the reporter stuck a microphone in front of their faces they just reacted in a certain way.
And no, of course, I don't know how the Jersey Girls felt. Maybe at heart they were just money-grubbing publicity hounds. But there was nothing to indicate this. Taking a political stance in response to your husband's death in 9/11 - years after the fact - hardly seems to me to be in and of itself an exploitative bid for attention.
The relevance is that some
January 13, 2009 - 10:48 ET by choselife3xThe relevance is that some people DO enjoy the spotlight that much. Since you said you don't know how the women felt, that they may indeed be publicity hounds, then Ann could be right.
So what is your objection to her point of view? She shouldn't say something like that about them? Why, because they are widows?
POINT MADE. Thank you.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Are you finishing every
January 13, 2009 - 10:54 ET by JasonCAre you finishing every post with "Point made" now?
Of course some people will do anything for publicity. Just because we can't read their minds doesn't make Ann the final arbiter about their motivations, though. "Maybe" she was correct, but there's no reason to believe that's the case. And considering what a big "maybe" that is, Ann's words were vile. I truly can't believe I have to convince you, of all people, that baseless attacks on people who lost family in 9/11 are uncalled for.
Do you REALLY not see the difference between arguing against what the Jersey Girls were arguing, and even pointing out that their widowhood doesn't make them necessarily right, and what Ann said?
Ann attacked them because they were speaking against Bush's policies. I think we can probably agree that if they were 9/11 widows using their widowhood as leverage to lobby FOR invading al-Qaeda friendly countries, Ann's take would have been a bit different.
Jason
January 13, 2009 - 11:24 ET by choselife3xThe reason you haven't seen anyone do that is because ONLY LIBERALS use their 'victimhood' for political leverage. Which is the WHOLE POINT of her book. (sorry about the caps, I would italicise for emphasis if I could, but my BlackBerry doesn't allow it.)
Anyway, what I keep saying is that YOU are making Ann's point FOR her by objecting to her characterisation solely because she shouldn't talk about those POOR widows like that. You are proving her right every time you post.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
First of all, it's pretty
January 13, 2009 - 11:33 ET by JasonCFirst of all, it's pretty hard to even pretend to take you seriously when you say "Only liberals" do anything.
I would have no problem with Ann, or anyone, saying "What's wrong with those womens' take on foreign policy is x, y, and z, and I'm not afraid to say this even if they are 9/11 widows."
This is not what she said. There was no reasoned dismantling of the Jersey Girls' ideological platform. Rather, she went the baseless cheap-shot route of saying that they are "enjoying their husbands' deaths." Do you truly not see the difference here?
'only liberals' Jason
January 13, 2009 - 13:22 ET by choselife3xName me some conservatives who are famous for being portrayed as 'victims' in the media.
The point of her book was their 'victimhood' as portrayed in the media. See title of her book for confirmation.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Palin's doing a pretty good
January 13, 2009 - 15:12 ET by JasonCPalin's doing a pretty good job of it right now; just saw her on TV this morning claiming that it's the media's class bias that swung the election for Obama, as opposed to, you know, the will of American voters. This was said in reference to Caroline Kennedy. And I don't mind conceding, the whole Caroline thing infuriates me. Every time I head someone gush about their fetish for the Kennedys I just want to kick something.
Anyway, the "only liberals" bit wasn't really the thrust of my post. Are we on the same page about the main issue at hand now?
main issue
January 13, 2009 - 15:42 ET by choselife3xI think Ann is right on target about liberals glorifying 'victims' to further their political agenda. I don't think what she said about them was a cheap shot. It's not cheap when it is the unvarnished truth. Truth is often ugly, because people are ugly. *shrug*
If you think that she could very well be right, you just wish she'd phrased it more kindly, well.....excuse me, my head just exploded.
Do you think all the people who voted for Obama understood his positions on issues?
If you do I've got some polls and videos to show you.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I don't actually think she
January 13, 2009 - 16:21 ET by JasonCI don't actually think she "Very well could be right". If that's what I said, I take it back. I'm conceding your point that I have no way of getting into the Jersey Girls' heads and proving Ann was wrong about claiming they were enjoying their husbands' deaths. But I maintain that there was no real evidence that they were. Ann was simply enraged that someone was exploiting 9/11 from a LIBERAL perspective.
I continue to be kind of horrified at your refusal to concede that it was kind of a horrible thing to say. Let's look at it another way. A few years ago, I was debating someone on NB about the whole issue concerning whether people who spoke against the war were de facto speaking against the troops and America itself. I'm sure you can intuit my opinion on the matter. The person I was speaking to, as it turned out, had a husband currently deployed in Iraq. I told her flat-out that, while I wished him well, I did not think that that gave her automatic moral authority over me on the matter (it was a pretty heated argument). What I did NOT do - and what I'm fairly certain you wouldn't have defended me over if I had done it - was say that she was obviously enjoying being able to drop that fact in an argument, and was thus enjoying the fact that her husband was in danger, that she'd rather be able to use her husband's service as an argumentative blue chip than have him home safely. That would have been wretched of me. And that is essentially what Coulter accused these women of.
You're horrified?!
January 13, 2009 - 17:02 ET by choselife3xOh dear, I have offended your tender sensibilities. ;)
The fact that those women used their husband's deaths in such a callous manner suggests to me that they weren't all that attached to them. No one made them come forward.
(I once worked with a woman ago absolutely revelled in tragedy. Her stupid boyfriend cut half his foot off with a lawn mower. She positively GLORIED in being the 'hero' who took care of him. She told every gory detail over and over again. I never saw her so happy. The fact is, his tragedy made HER feel IMPORTANT.
It sounds like the Jersey Girls are cut from the same cloth.)
I know that my grief would be such a private matter I wouldn't EVER bring it out into the public spotlight. They wanted attention, they got it.
You've got your panties in a wad about what Ann said about what, 6 women? (the NY Times said Bristol Palin SPAWNS Tripp Johnston, was that a cheap shot?)
Liberals will go to any lengths to appear morally righteous over relatively unimportant crap.
Abortion is a woman's right, but capital punishment is BAD. We should forgive, they say piously.
Excuse me while I spit the foul taste of hypocrisy out of my mouth.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I know that my grief would
January 13, 2009 - 18:08 ET by JerI know that my grief would be such a private matter I wouldn't EVER bring it out into the public spotlight. They wanted attention, they got it.
Your sensitivity is quite touching, choselife. Ann would be very proud. After you finish spitting, maybe you could find some time to berate those rank publicity whores, John Walsh and Marc Klass. Sounds like they're cut from the same cloth.
Jer
Jer
January 13, 2009 - 20:02 ET by choselife3xI don't know who Marc Klass is. As for John Walsh, did he become famous just because his son was killed? (I was born in late '80 so I don't know) Are those men conservatives?
If someone you loved died would you want to have it hashed out on TV? Would you want to display your grief in front of millions of relatively indifferent strangers?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
choselife...
January 13, 2009 - 21:44 ET by JerMarc Klass is the father of Polly Klass who was kidnapped from her home in Peta Luma [sp.?] California ten or so years ago and later murdered by a despicable scumbag pedophile--I think his name is Richard Allen Davis (I assume all of this can be googled)--who was given the death penalty but which will most likely never be administered.
The issue is not publicly wallowing in grief--but seeking answers, networking with those who have faced similar tragedies, establishing organizations, lobbying for remedial and/or preventive legislation, etc., so that hopefully others will never experience their horror.
Both Walsh and Klass seem to be generally apolitical--working with both Democrats and Republicans--but my sense is that they lean slightly to the right. That's just a guess however.
Jer
edit note: Walsh's son Adam was murdered and decapitated, and John went very public long before he became host of America's Most Wanted.
Thanks for the info,
January 16, 2009 - 02:14 ET by JerThanks for the info, Jer.
Jer
Don't mention it.
January 16, 2009 - 02:17 ET by JerDon't mention it.
Jer
Jer
January 16, 2009 - 02:47 ET by well99Are you ok?Ahhmm your posting to yourself.It is ok.It is a side effect of dark meat from the chicken.
well99... I decided if
January 16, 2009 - 03:40 ET by Jerwell99...
I decided if choselife didn't care to thank me for trying my best to answer her questions, I would thank myself. Just goofing around.
Later, Jer
Jer
January 16, 2009 - 06:09 ET by well99Oookkkk Jer.Let me slowly back away from the computer.Everything is fine Jer.Ohm Ohm
Jason
January 12, 2009 - 22:21 ET by thebutlerdiditI have all of Ann's books, and most every other conservative writer. I have a fairly large library, and find her books to be some of the best researched, and annoted. As for the "Jersey Girls," they fall in to the same category as that POS Max Cleland, and Michael J. Fox. If you say anything against them, then you are the bad guy, the cruel person. I think she was dead-on. I can assure you if my loved one was/is killed in a horrific manner I would not be out making t.v. appearances and campaigning. There's a word for that, and it ain't dignity. As for JTP, if you want to see what people say about the man, go to CNN, or MSNBC right now, both have cherry-picked articles about him, and the comment sections are loaded with vitriol. Why? Because these stations, along with the rest of the alphabets, have told the world that he is scum. I think he shook it off pretty well. And he has a great lawsuit if he wants to go for it, against the people in his local government for their searching his records. So, do I care if JTP is reporting over in Israel? Not really. But, I have no reason to tear him down, he didn't ask for what he got. As for the View, I am positive it lowers your IQ 5 points for each watched episode, and makes you a nastier person daily.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
Another excellent post! I think Jason has
January 12, 2009 - 22:30 ET by Cape Conservative'left the building' ;-) Guess he couldn't stand the truth!
A PROUD member of the Oogedy Boogedy branch of the GOP!
"Left the building", or
January 13, 2009 - 09:24 ET by JasonC"Left the building", or maybe had other things to do, maybe went to have dinner and spend time with his family...in total violation of that liberal mandate that we deracinate traditional family life, of course. But fear not, it's only taken a few posts to rebut all the conservative smugness thrown my way. I'm all caught up.
I do find it amusing when the hardcore NBers who post 50 messages every single day give someone else grief for getting out of their computer chair for awhile. Meantime, I come back to 87 new messages on this thread?! Is there some kind of Batman-like beacon that gets deployed when someone makes a few jokes at Ann Coulter's suspense?
jason
January 13, 2009 - 09:31 ET by choselife3xNo. We use that for Sarah Palin. :)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Jason,
January 13, 2009 - 09:56 ET by AgnosticNot all leftiest by any means but from the list of communist goals:
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Fascinating. Of course,
January 13, 2009 - 10:03 ET by JasonCFascinating. Of course, I'm not a Communist, and if the conservatives on NB would get past their paranoia, they'd realize the mainstream left isn't either. Shall I quote something from Ayn Rand or Pinochet to contextualize modern conservatism?
No, didn't think so...
Jason, a psychiatrist would
January 13, 2009 - 10:22 ET by AgnosticJason, a psychiatrist would say that by saying you ‘are a communist’ you are only in denial. ;)
Seriously, I don’t think that most on the left are communist but I do see in most large protests signs of communist backing. Even the recent riots in Greece had reports by the police force of professional protest instigators running wide scale support for the riots. IMO, the communist in this country use the volatility of left in society for their own means and that in no way makes the entire left communist.
You also note that there is paranoia on the right however it maybe somewhat justified by the list I alluded to earlier when so many of the specifics have seemingly come to pass. Old style Liberalism is truly a great movement but it does appear that the extremes of the left – communism, are guiding the ship. When conservatives look up and see the likes of Reid, Feinstein, Frank, Biden and Obama leading what amounts to the party of the left then can you really say that the left portion of the government is mainstream. I’ll even give Obama a pass as president since we don’t know what he is going to do but the rest by action and by measure are extreme left.
It is not paranoia when they are really out to get you! ;)
Good evening butler
January 12, 2009 - 22:37 ET by cocodrieRemind me to never get on your or Chose's bad side.
Hi Coco
January 12, 2009 - 22:48 ET by thebutlerdiditWell, I don't know about Chose, I think she is the Sarah Palin "mama bear" type girl. I have been made a little rough from the past. I no longer put up with ANY b.s. I had enough of that in my past life for at least 20 people.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
HI butler
January 12, 2009 - 22:57 ET by cocodrieMy wife had it down pat. She taught BDs and LDs in high school. I learned from her. Jason needs a good dressing down.
Butler
January 12, 2009 - 23:06 ET by choselife3xThank you for the fine compliment. *wink, wink*
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Cl3x
January 12, 2009 - 23:20 ET by thebutlerdiditAnd it was. A compliment. I figured you out on day 1. I have a weird way of telling a whole lot about people, by reading what they write or say. One of my very few talents. Coco is a tenderheart, but he was a rabble rouser in his day. I think we would have liked his wife.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
Oh yeah
January 12, 2009 - 23:27 ET by choselife3xWe would have been great friends. We ought to have a NBers of the South get-together sometime. Can you imagine all of us in one room? We'd have to knock out a wall to make room for all the guns and Bibles.......
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
chose
January 12, 2009 - 23:53 ET by thebutlerdiditIt would be a hoot. Fer shure on the wall knocking out idea. You know how that's all that conservatives do all day. Especially in the south. We shoot a little, read the Bible, then go shoot some more. We don't have time in that busy schedule to get really educated by reading Pravda West or listen to NPR. {I actually have an account there, but don't tell anyone!}
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
tbdi
January 12, 2009 - 23:57 ET by botgWe shoot a little, read the Bible, then go shoot some more.
who then is tendin the stills?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Botg
January 13, 2009 - 01:48 ET by thebutlerdiditLoL, I live in a gated community, don't think I could slip in the still. I have to say though, I will drink a nice white now and again. After shooting.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
Butler
January 13, 2009 - 00:03 ET by choselife3xI'll never tell a soul......
Bruce, we don't drink the hard likker, jest red wine in TINY little cups. With little bits of bread.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Hmm, it's almost like
January 13, 2009 - 09:26 ET by JasonCHmm, it's almost like there's some sort of ceremonial, religious significance to your drinking...
We'd have to knock out a
January 13, 2009 - 09:16 ET by JasonCWe'd have to knock out a wall to make room for all the guns and Bibles.......
Well, as long as you're not clinging to them....
Butler, please see my post
January 13, 2009 - 09:13 ET by JasonCButler, please see my post above to Choselife. I simply see the two incidents froma different perspective. Let me reiterate, though, that I think neither JtP nor the Jersey Girls did anything wrong, really.
It doesn't matter what we
January 12, 2009 - 20:15 ET by Chris NormanIt doesn't matter what we think of Ms. Coulter - good or bad. It matters that most of the media treats her far differently than those provocateurs on the left. Everything regarding Ms. Coulter specifically is just a distraction from the central issue of media hypocricy and double standards.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris, you hit the nail
January 13, 2009 - 13:00 ET by SmartypantsChris, you hit the nail right on the head. I read this back and forth with "JasonC" and he is entirely off point. The issue is not whether or not the Jersey Girls were sincere or not sincere or how that compares to Sarah Palin. The meat of the matter is that much of the media came to the defense of The Jersey Girls, while there was no such defense put up for Joe the Plumber or Palin (other than from the right wing talk show circuit). Critics of the Jersey Girls, like Coulter, were castigated by the press for their insensitivity. Who exactly has been castigated for criticizing Joe the Plumber? The mainstream press has certainly not defended the guy's privacy or right to free speech. JasonC needs to revisit the charter of this website and why it needs to exist.
Jason... Who said she was
January 12, 2009 - 20:14 ET by bigtimerJason...
Who said she was a victim...she's laughing all the way to the bank...as she should be.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
BT, that's for sure.
January 12, 2009 - 20:22 ET by JasonCBT, that's for sure. Which is why it seems a little silly when commentators construct an entire article about how some liberals interviewers deigned to interrupt her. Wow, stop the presses, right?
Wrong. This site is about
January 12, 2009 - 20:29 ET by Chris NormanWrong. This site is about documenting media bias and double standards. It's not about Ms. Coulter's bank account.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Whatever, I didn't bring it
January 13, 2009 - 15:14 ET by JasonCWhatever, I didn't bring it up. My point is simply that it's not like Ann doesn't have myriad opportunities to voice her opinions.
Unintentionally funny, Jason
January 12, 2009 - 20:29 ET by BlondeThe title of her new book is Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America.
As always, Ann will laugh her way to the bank.
Well good for her. She
January 12, 2009 - 20:37 ET by JasonCWell good for her. She must be running out of witty title ideas by now...not to mention officious-looking poses for her airbrushed glamour shot book covers.
Dude
January 12, 2009 - 20:42 ET by BlondeThat was a compliment.
As long as we have liberals....she'll have plenty of title ideas...no worries.
That's true, I'm sure
January 12, 2009 - 20:54 ET by JasonCThat's true, I'm sure liberals will f--- something up six ways from Sunday (something that can be punned upon, that is) between now and her next tome.
Jason..boy you are
January 12, 2009 - 20:31 ET by bigtimerJason..boy you are contradicting yourself all over the place already...
First off, all leftist talking heads do plan to interrupt her, attempt to make her look foolish/evil, most of all do not want anyone on the right to make sense even to simple leftists like you...second, you complained that you wished they had Shut the heck up so you could of at least heard her answer, while implying in your post above she would make an arse of herself...so there you go again...anything for attention.
Carry on Jason...as you always do.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Well yeah, I would have
January 12, 2009 - 20:35 ET by JasonCWell yeah, I would have loved to hear her support that outrageous comment. Would've been funny. I just think it's funny how NBers get so huffy about how Ann just can't get a break from the MsM, like she's pure as the driven snow.
Stop trying to overthink my posts BT, they're pretty straightforward.
Jason... ROFLMAO! Over-t
January 12, 2009 - 20:46 ET by bigtimerJason...
ROFLMAO!
Over-think your posts...surely you jest.
You contradict yourself, it's obvious...I point it out...and you have the audicity to think I would waste my time over-thinking your posts...
Jeez...you are too easy at times.
Entertaining though.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Except I didn't contradict
January 12, 2009 - 20:56 ET by JasonCExcept I didn't contradict myself at all. My desire to hear Coulter's justification for that rather outrageous remark has no significant bearing on my belief that Coulter is generally made out to be a victim of anti-free-speech leftist commentators. I'd love to hear how you think it does, I just don't see it that way.
→ Because stat is dull
January 12, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Cool ArrowNobody is arguing the statistics.
All we're arguing is the defendants' states of mind when they engineered the situation that produced the statistics.
Just quoting the stats doesn't call attention to the problem nearly as much as pointing the finger at the perpetrators (Democrats, unquestionably) and assigning motive.
Wrong thread, Cool.
January 13, 2009 - 09:16 ET by JasonCWrong thread, Cool.
You're twisting in the wind
January 12, 2009 - 21:08 ET by bigtimerYou're twisting in the wind Jas...spin away, I don't care.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Translation: "Oh crap, JC
January 13, 2009 - 09:19 ET by JasonCTranslation: "Oh crap, JC didn't really contradict himself at all, but God forbid I say 'Oh sorry, I misunderstood,' and leave it at that. I'll just say something about wind, that'll stick..."
→ So Jason
January 12, 2009 - 20:25 ET by Cool ArrowIt is your contention that, statistically:
Please say yes so I can ask you if you don't think it's easier for a two parent family to come up with legal representation on the kid's first offense.
Time for you to jump into your list of anecdotes, because just the mere fact that single parent families tend (statistically) to be poorer actually is a lynchpin to the liberal argument about inner city crime.
First of all, I don't argue
January 12, 2009 - 20:30 ET by JasonCFirst of all, I don't argue with anecdotes. Second, this is hardly an original argument of Coulter's, and it is - problematically - supported by statistics. What I'm arguing against is how she just can't resist claiming that it was the GOAL of the left from the get-go, to undermine the family and all that. Like leftists just sit around devising theories and ideologies with the express purpose of disrupting family values. Just like Bush kicks puppies and declared war just so he could try on the flight suit, right?
→ It is a goal
January 12, 2009 - 20:45 ET by Cool ArrowIn the 40 years since the War on Poverty was declared by that venerated Democrat saint, LBJ, the nuclear family has eroded.
How long did it take Harry Reid to declare "The (Iraq) war is lost"?
40 years?
Cool... Exactly! The
January 12, 2009 - 20:51 ET by bigtimerCool...
Exactly!
The left intentionally don't want to hear any of this...or any lemmings out there either...maybe a few of their ears would perk up, pay attention, do a little research and agree...
Why we can't have that!
Might erode a few of their voters...
Agenda is all that matters, govt. is the answer.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
quotes please
January 12, 2009 - 20:47 ET by JWFAnn has a sharp tongue and a quick mind. But behind that is facts facts facts.
Coulter: as I describe in my book, this was a specific plan by the left attacking the nuclear family the most famous example --
How did a "specific plan" to attack the nuclear family turn into a "goal"?
And yes, leftists do sit around and devise theories and ideologies with the express purpose of disrupting families. It is called social security and welfare. These 2 programs have absolutely DESTROYED the nuclear family.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Welfare means built-in
January 12, 2009 - 22:43 ET by thebutlerdiditWelfare means built-in dependants on the government, which means built-in Democratic voters. This has been known for many, many years, it isn't a new program. And yes, it has destroyed the nuclear family. What it has done to the black community is criminal. And the new wave of illegal immigrants, they are the future. And it ain't looking so bright.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
Yes, there are facts behind
January 13, 2009 - 09:58 ET by JasonCYes, there are facts behind Ann's books. No one's arguing this. If her historical facts were blatantly fabricated, she'd be even easier to discredit.
What I take issue with is the things she extrapolates from these facts. For instance, demonstrating through a few selectively chosen facts about deterioration of the family in the last 50 years, and arriving at the conclusion that this was the left's aim all along.
For another example, consider Howard Zinn's A People's History ; pretty much the bane of conservative historians, right? Exhaustively researched and cited, and over the last 20 years, I don't know of a single major fact in it that has been disproven. Yet, even if you concede that, we might surely disagree vehemently on what Zinn concludes based on those facts, yes? Or, more importantly, you might take issue with certain facts that Zinn chose NOT to include.
The bottom line is, in an argument piece, the facts you present are by no means the whole of the argument.
Once again, we see the liberals cherry-picking Ann's
January 12, 2009 - 22:34 ET by Cape Conservativebook. There are always one or two paragraphs that get their goat and "Katy, bar the door" here they come...screaming all the way!
I am sure she and her publisher have an inside bet on which one will be 'it' with each new venture.
A PROUD member of the Oogedy Boogedy branch of the GOP!
Exactly. Ann has a good
January 12, 2009 - 22:36 ET by balboaExactly. Ann has a good point about victims, but she can't help herself so she says that it's a "goal" of the left to do this, which is a steaming, stinking load of garbage, but Ann knows it'll cause a stir, so sure, why not say it.
So you admit your goal is reintigrating the nuclear family.
January 12, 2009 - 22:53 ET by JWF1. You desire to remove the social security administration, social security taxes, social security payments.
a. This is destroying the aging parent/sibling relationship. Parents have no inheritance to pass on to their siblings because they gave it all to the SSA. Siblings have no reason take care of their parents in their old age. Their is no inheritance and nursing homes can take care of them with the social security money.
2. You desire to stop all welfare. Fathers have no reason to stick around and support their children. The government will do it. Mothers have no reason to ask the father to stick around. They will not get a government check.
3. You desire to stop Medicare/Medicaid/Unemployment and more as this makes people rely more on government and less on family.
4. You desire to stop the education monopoly that is turning our childrens minds against the traditional family. Also NPR/liberal college professors/Hollywood propaganda/blah blah blah.
GOOD FOR YOU BALBOA. glad to see you came around.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Overly simplistic garbage
January 12, 2009 - 23:02 ET by balboaOverly simplistic garbage designed to paint me into a corner and you know it.
Facts are quite simple.
January 12, 2009 - 23:21 ET by JWFEither you want people to be dependent on the state or you want people to be dependent on themselves and their family.
The two are at odds. The goal of the left is to get people dependent on the state.
You are already in a corner. Get your head straight and get out.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Your "either / or" is not
January 12, 2009 - 23:50 ET by balboaYour "either / or" is not how things are.
The left has no such "goal."
Bal
January 12, 2009 - 23:56 ET by thebutlerdiditIf you believe this, you are either a child, incredibly naive, or purposefully blind. Which is it?
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
Sorry, none of the above. I
January 13, 2009 - 00:00 ET by balboaSorry, none of the above. I don't buy into this insane "the left's goal is to destroy..." idea. Hogwash.
Everything on the 'progressive' agenda
January 13, 2009 - 00:11 ET by choselife3xIs diametrically opposed to 'traditional' values. Therefore, the implementation of the progressive agenda requires that the opposition be destroyed. Do you need pictures? Shall I get some crayons so you can make a chart?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Please draw me a chart,
January 13, 2009 - 00:20 ET by balboaPlease draw me a chart, because your statements are ridiculous as-is.
Progressive
January 13, 2009 - 00:50 ET by choselife3xProgressive agenda:
Feminism= Women don't NEED men, for anything.
Abortion 'rights'= kills babies
Homosexual 'rights'= Sexual perversion is now normal and acceptable.
Do I really need to spell out how redefining marriage and cultural norms (man and woman marry and raise children) tears down those institutions?
Traditional values: Marriage= man seeks woman in marriage, they raise children, they stay together till death.
Anti-abortion/pro-life= innocent unborn children deserve to live.
Sexual morality= monogamous marriage between a man and woman
Which of these two agendas produces healthy individuals?
The 'progressive' agenda is destructive to the human psyche.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Thankfully none of that was
January 13, 2009 - 15:02 ET by balboaThankfully none of that was narrow-minded...
She gave you what you
January 16, 2009 - 01:28 ET by dvdaughtryShe gave you what you wanted and you toss it aside as narrow minded?
I don't know how you could be around on this site as long as you have and not seen what she wrote.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Most progressives I know,
January 13, 2009 - 16:49 ET by JasonCMost progressives I know, myself included, promote things like gay marriage and adoption, and downplay the notion that a normative family structure is inherently best, because we believe that these things are worthwhile causes, that "tradition for its own sake" is a fallacious proposition, and that non-traditional people and couples should be judged on their child-rearing abilities, not on which gender they prefer to sleep with.
Quite frankly, the "traditional family" has done a perfectly fine job of screwing itself up without help from us progressives. Divorce, child abuse, neglect, and adultery were not inflicted upon you traditional folks. So don't act like sexuality is such a huge familial/moral issue.
It seems to me like the conservative approach would be to worry about how you raise your own family and put a lot less time into determining how others ought to raise theirs; or who ought to be allowed to HAVE a family, for that matter. Gay marriage could be made 100% legal in all 50 states tomorrow, and it wouldn't affect your heterosexual marriage one bit. And if you claim otherwise, one would have to wonder how strong it was to begin with.
Then why can't you folks
January 13, 2009 - 18:15 ET by andophiroxiaThen why can't you folks have a reasoned list of how Gay Marriage would benefit society? If you said it is valid for all the reasons above, then explain how and why it would be? I haven't heard squat other than "you do it too", to "well we can't completely stop it, so we'll just do what we want".
I've seen lots of gay couples procreate by going to sperm banks, or surrogate mothering (by their fellow siblings/hired surrogates) and most of those relationships break up after 5 years anyway of the cases I've seen. I've seen "married " and otherwise "committed" gay couples only want companionship, not marriage: meaning open relationships. It's not all of the gay community, but MOST of the gay community and their attitudes towards sex. Their issues with adultery, breaking up, and child abuse (if you see the kid viewing his or her father/mother bringing multiple lovers) are far disporportionately and significantly larger to the heterosexual community, where it is generally disapproved of.
Sexuality has a big factor in a person's own mental health and stability. Most gay/bisexual people I have met have been otherwise sexually abused, emotionally scarred, or have other deep-seated issues. Granted, not everyone who has gone through that comes out completely malajusted, but it seems to me a highly disporportionate amount of gay/bisexual people seem to have those happen to them than heteros.
Perhaps you also ignore that divorce, child abuse and neglect, and adultery have gone HIGHER than when traditional marriage was cherished and accepted as is. Your analogy isn't correct in saying well it happened before, so it's going to happen still, so who cares?
Nothing is perfect, but there are things that can get better or worse, but you leftists seem to ignore that bit of evaluative thinking called cost versus benefit. Unfortunately, due to feminism and not needing a man to a right to have an abortion; children and commited unions in order to value each other and raise a child.
It seems to me like the conservative approach would be to worry about how you raise your own family and put a lot less time into determining how others ought to raise theirs;
Perhaps if you anti-Prop 8 activists would do the same: not spitting upon black people and calling them the n-word, mailing mysterious white powder to churches, posting up all Prop 8 supporters addresses, names, and businesses for the sole purpose of bullying and terrorism would be good too. Also, the halting of emotional blackmail and presenting an actual argument in order to support your position would be nice.
Oh yes, Prop 8 did pass, due to popular vote. Society in CA didn't want to change the definition of marriage. So, how did the tolerant gay community react? By rioting and terrorism, oh plus intimidation. Oh and when people fight back you cry victimhood like a schoolyard bully.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/gay_marriage_advocates_distribute_maps_to_proposition_8_supporter_homes
The conservatives I have seen on NB and most everywhere else have said even if Prop 8 did not pass, they would have accepted it for the most part as society CHOOSING to change marriage. At the most, there would have been peaceful demonstrations and none of that other crap above. Very different from what I've seen on a "progressive's side".
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill
I AM SO SICK OF THIS CRAP
January 13, 2009 - 20:30 ET by choselife3x'Progressive' my ass. Homosexuality is unnatural. Nature requires a male and a female to produce offspring. Therefore, man on man or woman on woman is UNNATURAL. If you can't see that then your head is so far up your ass you aren't worth talking to.
Homosexuals are responsible for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, if not MILLIONS of deaths. Ever hear of a little thing called the AIDS virus??!!
They are overcome with the desire to screw each other in the ass so everybody else has to treat them like they're something special. They are SERIOUSLY messed up. They KILL people with their selfishness. How many of them KNEW they were infected and kept on screwing whatever they could? Yeah, real PROGRESSIVE.
And no, they don't threaten MY marriage. They attack the institution of marriage by trying to twist it to fit something UNNATURAL.
I've worked with homosexuals, I've socialised with homosexuals, and I've gotten along fine with them. Your mind-numbingly asinine insistence that homosexual unions are just as 'good' as heterosexual unions is so far off the deep end of common sense and STATISTICS that it is now annoying me.
I will no longer discuss this subject with you. I might as well try to tell a dog not to eat it's own vomit.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
How do you socialize with
January 13, 2009 - 22:14 ET by balboaHow do you socialize with homosexuals knowing they're responsible, as you put it, for "HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, if not MILLIONS of deaths"?
You are one stupid little twit JasonC
January 14, 2009 - 10:35 ET by choselife3xIf everyone followed the basic social conservative principles of abstinence till marriage and fidelity afterwards there would be no STD's. A monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is the most psychologically healthy environment for both the couple in it, and their children.
Homosexuality is an abberation. A very unhealthy one. Homophobia my ass. ;)
I've gone to parties with a homosexual co-worker. I've eaten at the home of my homosexual boss. I like Richard and Jesse and George and Shawn and David and Logan and Lamarr. That doesn't mean I don't think they are in dire need of therapy. That also doesn't mean I think every homosexual has AIDS. That would be like assuming everyone who has sex outside of marriage has herpes.
You call people who discriminate between right and wrong homophobes because you are wilfully stupid.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
If everyone followed the
January 14, 2009 - 15:21 ET by balboaIf everyone followed the basic social conservative principles of
abstinence till marriage and fidelity afterwards there would be no
STD's.
And if people didn't have disagreements, there'd be no wars. If people weren't envious, there wouldn't be theft.
But those things DO exist in the world because people are fallible.
If everyone followed the
January 14, 2009 - 17:33 ET by JasonCIf everyone followed the basic social conservative principles of
abstinence till marriage and fidelity afterwards there would be no
STD's.
That's true, but seeing how gays are denied marriage rights in most states, it makes it rather rough for them. Nonetheless, your statement could be simplified to say "If everyone was monogamous or at least consistently used protection." Bottom line, while you're more or less correct, it's inconsistent with your anti-gay premise, because plenty of people who have never had a homosexual encounter have STDs.
A monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is the most
psychologically healthy environment for both the couple in it, and
their children.
According to who? As I said before, you seem to be simply citing the existence of a traditional family structure as evidence that it's superior. That does not pass muster.
Homophobia my ass. ;)
I've gone to parties with a homosexual co-worker. I've eaten at the home of my homosexual boss.
Are these homosexual acquaintances aware of your belief that they (and I quote): "are responsible for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, if not MILLIONS of deaths" and "KILL people with their selfishness." Your words.
That doesn't mean I don't think they are in dire need of therapy.
Because sexuality is something one can change about oneself? I'm sure you could just FORCE yourself to become homo- instead of heterosexual then, right? Since it's just a choice and all, and one which can be reversed through a few hours of therapy?
That also doesn't mean I think every homosexual has AIDS.
Glad we got THAT cleared up. I never said you did.
You call people who discriminate between right and wrong homophobes because you are wilfully stupid.
homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals (Webster's). Are you not expressing fear of gays via your accusation that their lifestyle equates murder? Are you not averse to the idea of homosexuality? Do you not discriminate in saying they're automatically inferior potential parents/partners? And on whose authority do you get to call people of a certain sexuality WRONG; as compared, of course, to the self-conscious righteousness that you like to trumpet on these message boards?
Wow Choselife, feel better
January 14, 2009 - 09:59 ET by JasonCWow Choselife, feel better now? Way to put that righteous Christian love on display for everyone.
Nature requires a male and a female to produce offspring.
Thanks for the update. That's not the issue. The issue is whether gay couples should be allowed to marry and/or adopt. If this is your criteria, then you'd better rail against those heterosexual couples who can't conceive or choose not to. I never claimed that homosexual families are "as good as" traditional ones. What I will claim is that traditional ones are not inherently better. And I'll stand by that.
Homosexuals are responsible for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, if not MILLIONS
of deaths. Ever hear of a little thing called the AIDS virus??!! They are overcome with the desire to screw each other in the ass so
everybody else has to treat them like they're something special. They
are SERIOUSLY messed up. They KILL people with their selfishness.
Gay people didn't invent AIDS. And individuals, not homosexuality as an abstract concept, are responsible for its transmission. Heterosexuals can get it just as easily, homosexuals only have higher rates because it happens to spread more readily through anal sex. Anyway, using AIDS to veil homophobia is so 1985. And you actually believe that homosexuality/AIDS is a cry for special treatment? That's seriously messed up.
How
many of them KNEW they were infected and kept on screwing whatever they
could?
Again, this is exclusively homosexual behavior? Cite your source.
And no, they don't threaten MY marriage. They attack the institution of
marriage by trying to twist it to fit something UNNATURAL.
So if it doesn't affect you, why don't you butt out of other people's business. And if gays are so promiscuous, according to you, why is it such a big damn deal that they want to take vows of monogamy? Can't you even be consistent in your anti-gay rants?
I've worked with homosexuals, I've socialised with homosexuals, and I've gotten along fine with them.
I'll defer to Bal's comment above. You got along fine with people who are part of a group which, as you so delicately put it, "are responsible for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, if not MILLIONS
of deaths" and "KILL people with their selfishness"? Who'd have thought? Let me guess, did you also remind them they could be "cured" of their affliction, as if being gay is like having cancer.
Your mind-numbingly asinine insistence that homosexual unions are just
as 'good' as heterosexual unions is so far off the deep end of common
sense and STATISTICS that it is now annoying me.
See above. What common sense? How do you quantify how "good" a relationship is? As for children, are you suggesting it's "common sense" that a straight person will just naturally be a better parent? What statistics?
What you don't seem to understand is that just because YOU have the sort of family structure that you consider right and normal doesn't mean that it's fundamentally superior.
I will no longer discuss this subject with you.
Cool, I guess I got the last word.
JasonC will never get the last word.
January 14, 2009 - 18:43 ET by andophiroxiaRemember, it's not what JasonC says, but HOW he says it.
The statistics have been paraded around, but he doesn't care.
Ann Coulter said her statistics but he sniped about how she said it, not the content. I doubt very highly that he's even read some of her books.
So how does a homosexual couple show what relationships are right since a lot of relationships are hetero? How come if homosexual relationships are fundamentally superior, there isn't more of them? Please don't cop out to societal oppression.
Do you have the facts and figures that support that homosexual marriage and relationships are better than hetero? Why don't you become gay yourself if it is the same and no better than a heterosexual one?
Prove your point, JasonC. You are just argumentative, not conducive to any reasoned argument. You just put middling positions in of nothing is better and you people do it too.
You tell us to prove our facts with statistics, but never have come up with anything proving yours. Be careful, the fate of the homosexual world is in your hands in terms of reasoned argument.
So, prove it JasonC other than blathering about this and that and how it's better and how heterosexuals are screwed up. Prove to say why homosexuality is better. If it's the same, then why bother changing anything? Point is moot here.
No matter what you say, you still have to prove yourself in this and why you are right. Any more nitwit babbling critizing style will just show how fundamentally weak you are.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill
You need to read a little
January 14, 2009 - 19:04 ET by JasonCYou need to read a little more carefully, cowboy.
The statistics have been paraded around, but he doesn't care.
What statistics? Pertaining to what? If they've been so thoroughly paraded, it shouldn't be so hard for you to throw me a few stats.
Ann Coulter said her statistics but he sniped about how she said it, not the content.
I believe you're confusing me with Ms. Whoopi Goldberg, who interrupted Coulter as she began to talk about social science stats. I haven't sniped about Coulter's tone or delivery in this regard at all. Perhaps you're mistaking this issue with my take on the Jersey Girls brouhaha.
I doubt very highly that he's even read some of her books.
In fact, I have. Amusing and confrontational, sometimes insightful, but I disagree with her basic premises, so obviously I take issue with a lot of things she says.
Do you have the facts and figures that support that homosexual marriage and relationships are better than hetero?
No, because I don't really see that as a quantifiable thing. How do you measure the quality of relationships? And besides which, I never claimed this was the case. What I said was the heterosexual relationships and families are not inherently better than homosexual ones. The difference between what I said and what you're erroneously claiming I said is enormous.
Why don't you become gay yourself...
First of all, being gay or straight isn't like choosing a pair of socks. I couldn't "become" gay if I wanted to.
...if it is the same and no better than a heterosexual one?
Are you drunk? That doesn't even make sense.
Prove your point, JasonC. You are just argumentative, not conducive to
any reasoned argument.
My point is merely that choselife3x has no rhetorical or moral ground to stand on in claiming gay peoples' relationships and parenting are inherently inferior, and I have demonstrated it.
You just put middling positions in of nothing is
better and you people do it too.
Again, is this supposed to make sense?
So, prove it JasonC other than blathering about this and that and how it's better and how heterosexuals are screwed up.
Again, I didn't say it's better. I'm not that reductive. I didn't say heterosexuals are "Screwed up" either, my point was merely that if homosexuality is conceived of as a threat to traditional family values, it's only fair to consider how non-gay people have also proven capable of posing such a threat.
Prove to say why homosexuality is better.
See above. And work on syntax.
No matter what you say, you still have to prove yourself in this and
why you are right. Any more nitwit babbling critizing style will just
show how fundamentally weak you are.
What is it I'm supposed to prove? choselife has claimed that heterosexual culture is superior to homosexual culture, and that the latter essentially bears full responsibility for AIDS and various other societal ills. I have punched more holes in this position than I can count.
Severe FAIL
January 13, 2009 - 00:01 ET by JWFI did not say left, I said YOU.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
(sigh) _I_ don't want anyone
January 13, 2009 - 00:11 ET by balboa(sigh)
_I_ don't want anyone to be completely dependent on the government. _I_ want the government to help those who truly need help.
Therein lies your conundrum
January 13, 2009 - 00:35 ET by JWFHelping those who truly need help is not a function of the government.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
So because the preamble
January 13, 2009 - 11:45 ET by balboaSo because the preamble doesn't mention it, it's not a function of the government? So FDR was just off on a wild tangent? And how do you define "promote the general Welfare"? (No, not meaning the welfare system.)
Welfare
January 13, 2009 - 11:56 ET by AgnosticPromote General Welfare is a wide open statement but I really don't think it means the level of wealth distribution that we have seen over the last 50 years. Yes, FDR was off on a wild tangent. He did a lot of work to get his programs to not be declared unconstitutional and a few of the things he tried to do were in the real dark areas of grey when it comes to presidential authority.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Why do I have to think for YOU?
January 14, 2009 - 02:27 ET by JWFYES. If the preamble does not mention it, it is not a function of the FEDERAL government.
Promoting the GENERAL welfare is meant as promoting something the benefits EVERYONE. National Highways, consumer protection laws, criminal laws - those promote GENERAL welfare that protect/help ALL. Not those (single individuals) who truly need help.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Bal
January 12, 2009 - 23:30 ET by cocodrieEvery government program has been stacked against married couples by the left-wing extremist democrats who designed them.
you forgot the biggest destroyer...
January 13, 2009 - 14:59 ET by Mr Xfreedom of choice concerning k-12 education.
Seems like this is a major plank with the leftist agenda.
Whoopi is right, sort of, technically, ok, she is full of poo.
January 12, 2009 - 20:12 ET by JWFGOLDBERG: But I do want to know, because a lot of what you've cited in terms of this, just specifically this, is based on sort of not great research. Because we've seen this research discounted time and time again.
Yes. DISCOUNTED by the left without actually paying attention to the actual research.
3 a: to leave out of account : disregard b: to minimize the importance of <shouldn't discount his contributions> c (1): to make allowance for bias or exaggeration in (2): to view with doubt <discount a rumor>
Goldberg: I take offense to that, of course, you can understand because having been a single mother
No, Whoopi was a DIVORCED mother. Not what Ann was talking about.
GOLDBERG: You know, you can't take it, can you? You can dish it out but you can't take it.
That has to be about the stupidest thing Whoopi has ever said, bar none.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
"DISCOUNTED by the left
January 12, 2009 - 20:22 ET by Jerry"DISCOUNTED by the left without actually paying attention to the actual research."
Well JWF, there is a "consensus" among the left on this, so technically, the debate IS over.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
JWF
January 12, 2009 - 22:30 ET by thebutlerdiditNo, I still think when she asked McCain if she had to worry about being a slave, AGAIN, was bar none the dumbest, nastiest thing she has ever said.
And as someone else pointed out, her romances,marriages, etc., haven't worked too well for her, and seems to be they haven't worked well for her daughter, either, if she is heading for a 3rd divorce. I don't think with that track record one needs to mouth off.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I've
January 12, 2009 - 20:17 ET by JerryGOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I've raised a kid single-handedly and she didn't kill anybody. That's all I'm saying.
Why do liberals think that citing one "example that worked" is a legitimate counter-argument against statistical facts? Hey Whoopie... she didn't say that 100% of single mother's offspring wind up in jail. She said 80% of criminals come from single parent families.
GOLDBERG: You know, you can't take it, can you? You can dish it out but you can't take it. We'll be right back.
I think she has proven she can take as good as she dishes. She is ONE person dishing. She is taking from the entire MSM. The odds are a little stacked, don't you think?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I work in a 712 bed prsion
January 12, 2009 - 20:20 ET by ricklailI work in a 712 bed prsion here in eastern NC. Before I hire an inamte to work in the maintenace shop, I research their records. I am mainly looking for those that I can trust somewhat. ( These rercords are pulbic information. ) I would say about 75% of them come from a one parent family. Even on visititaion days I see very few fathers coming to see their sons. Now I in no way would call this scientific but just my observation.
And no matter what that worthless piece of human debris, Whoopi, says most of the inmates at or facility are BLACK.
YOU CAN KEEP "THE CHANGE" PALIN 2012
And no matter what that
January 12, 2009 - 20:25 ET by JasonCAnd no matter what that worthless piece of human debris, Whoopi, says most of the inmates at or facility are BLACK.
Are most of the citizens in your community black?
→ Too easy
January 12, 2009 - 20:39 ET by Cool ArrowYou should already know the stats inasmuch as Liberals spout them so often as justification for pork projects.
If not, maybe you could like, do some googling on your own?
I don't know where Rick
January 12, 2009 - 20:41 ET by JasonCI don't know where Rick lives.
Anyway, Shhhh!!! I'm trying to lay a rhetorical trap here...
Jason purposefully misreads Rick's post
January 12, 2009 - 22:35 ET by thebutlerdiditComprehension problems? He stated in his post he lives in eastern NC. That's North Carolina. Did that help? Rhetorical Traps 'R Us? Sound like a liberal think tank.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
tbdi...
January 13, 2009 - 00:27 ET by JerYou might redirect your focus to your own comprehension skills rather than worry about Jason's. I think eastern North Carolina encompasses an area better described as a "region" than a "community".
Jer
Jer
January 13, 2009 - 00:33 ET by botgthe community from which a prison population is drawn is generally a region.
*tag*
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
botg...
January 13, 2009 - 00:54 ET by JerYou may have made a good point, botg...I'll have to think about it. Jason wasn't asking about the prison population, but rather the racial composition of his specific community. Still, I'm giving you credit for an astute observation.
Jer
yes Jer
January 13, 2009 - 00:59 ET by botgand how the inmate population statistics compared with the community
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
If I may put an end to this
January 13, 2009 - 10:07 ET by JasonCIf I may put an end to this frivolity, my question simply hinges on whether Rick works for a county or state prison.
End of story.
" And no matter
January 13, 2009 - 10:23 ET by botg" And no matter what that worthless piece of human debris, Whoopi, says most of the inmates at or facility are BLACK.
Are most of the citizens in your community black? "
this is your way of asking if he works in a county or state prison?! no wonder you go round and round with people, yer rhetorical trap is well camaflaged cuz i still don't see it.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
If I may put an end to this
January 13, 2009 - 13:09 ET by SmartypantsIf I may put an end to this frivolity, my question simply hinges on whether Rick works for a county or state prison.
End of story.
I think you're lying, Jason.
Smarty and botg, if you
January 13, 2009 - 15:08 ET by JasonCSmarty and botg, if you read the whole thread it makes perfect sense. One person claims that since Rick specified eastern NC, that ought to be good enough to go on. Jer pointed out that we're discussing a community not a region. He was rebutted with the claim that prisons serve regions.
Now, my point is that if Rick works for a county prison, then my question of demographic correlation wouldn't be satisfied by my Googling race demographics for the entire eastern portion of NC.
Not that complicated, gentlemen.
Got to give Ann credit
January 12, 2009 - 20:27 ET by Hooterville DenizenAnn, Ann... I will give you credit. I think you would walk on hot coals to sell your books. Time spent on the VIEW must be like a trip to the lowest level of hell. I'm working on "Guilty" right now and it seems to be heavy on research, lightly spiced with (usually) appropriate sarcasm. Ann is a firebrand, but the heat she generates also creates light - light bright enough to send the roaches scurrying.
Pee in a corner
January 12, 2009 - 20:41 ET by jdlybrandnewsisblues
Know how to drive a liberal crazy? Put them in a round room and tell them to pee in the corner. Oh what the hey... they're insane anyway. I know it's another network but I'd like to reiterate, NBC stands for:
Nothing
But
Crap
Why, Ann? Why??
January 12, 2009 - 20:56 ET by northoneWHY would Ann Coulter and her publicist agree to appear on this show with that bunch of screaming left-wing banshees? She had to know that it would be a no-win, hopeless situation to try to "discuss" her book. People actually still consider Barbara Walters a journalist after this piece of crap aired?
For the attention.
January 12, 2009 - 22:02 ET by balboaFor the attention.
balboa wrong answer
January 13, 2009 - 00:35 ET by well99I thing Ann does it to show how open minded and non judgemental liberals are.
→ Babs, Joy, and Big Woop
January 12, 2009 - 21:09 ET by Cool ArrowAnybody notice that Whoopi read off the statistics concerning the offspring of single mothers, but did not refute them?
Having tended chickens as a kid, I used to think it was funny when one hen would lay an egg and start cackling about it. It's not long before all the hens are cackling over the same damn egg.
Whoopi laid one. BwaGaawk
Baa Baa
January 12, 2009 - 21:16 ET by GoodieMake sure the paddles are close for Baah Baah. Do not think Whoops will go the CPR route....
o'slastday1-20-2013
The View
January 12, 2009 - 21:33 ET by ConLosRepublicanosNoThe View is for people who are comprehensive illiterate.
my two cents worth on single parenting
January 12, 2009 - 21:35 ET by jgarciaI became by choice a single parent when our son was 8 yrs old. My ex-husband and I worked on our friendship for our child and raised him together, just in separate addresses. We both remarried and had more children, however his child and my children call each other family because of their brother…….. we choose not to hate each other and raised a fine young man. Ann was talking those single parents who choose not to raise their children but continue to have more children despite……. The saying that it takes a village to raise a child has been taken to a new level…. Parents, single or not need to raise what they can afford and can love, not just because they can!
jg.... Hey, long time no
January 12, 2009 - 21:57 ET by bigtimerjg....
Hey, long time no see gal.
Don't stay away so long.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Good Morning.......
January 13, 2009 - 08:45 ET by jgarciaI been around, just haven't had much to say......lol Hope the new year is going well for you.......
Noise and more noise
January 12, 2009 - 22:22 ET by zachlindSure is a lot of noise coming from a woman named after a cushion?
and the sound is VERY similar!
January 12, 2009 - 22:38 ET by Cape ConservativeA PROUD member of the Oogedy Boogedy branch of the GOP!
Ann is being Ann
January 12, 2009 - 22:47 ET by soosanI believe that Ann enjoys what she does. She is having fun. I doubt that she went on the View for any other reason. Do you really think she needs more money? Who doesn't enjoy tweaking a leftie....
Now I know why
January 12, 2009 - 23:58 ET by JanettaI quit watching The View months ago. What a worthless piece of garbage show. It should be renamed Four Skanks and Elisabeth. Even Elisabeth seems to have drifted to the wishy washy middle. Look at the character of Whoopi, Joy, Sherri and BW. They all four have backgrounds that are nothing to brag about. It apparently hit home with them to have their past and present indiscretions brought to mind. What a bunch of hypocrites. The best thing to do is just don't watch the show and their ratings will sink!
Janetta
Now I know why
January 12, 2009 - 23:59 ET by JanettaI quit watching The View months ago. What a worthless piece of garbage show. It should be renamed Four Skanks and Elisabeth. Even Elisabeth seems to have drifted to the wishy washy middle. Look at the character of Whoopi, Joy, Sherri and BW. They all four have backgrounds that are nothing to brag about. It apparently hit home with them to have their past and present indiscretions brought to mind. What a bunch of hypocrites. The best thing to do is just don't watch the show and their ratings will sink!
Janetta
The Wyrd Sisters at it
January 13, 2009 - 00:25 ET by RR GOPThe Wyrd Sisters at it again, huh.
Love the way Barbara WaWa sniped Coulter by reading that quote from her book, laying down a negative base before Ann ever walked into the friggin' hen house!
These creeps remind me of the busy bodies in The Music Man...cackling away.
The fact they have their own show is truly amazing. Boring from the get go (yeah, I've seen a few episodes-many moons ago) except when they get a Conservative on there to blast away at, complete with Behar's tirades, Whoopi's condescension, and Walters' smug elitist attitude.
Coulter is a very interesting person. She says stuff and I'm thinking "Whaaaat?" And then I think on it and then think, "Oh yeah, I get it now." She's too complex for these Libs and their knee-jerk emotionalism. Too bad that Libs are incapable of thinking for themselves, but merely run with the herd...but pretend to be oh-so-intellectual and above it all. Doesn't take much intellect to feel sorry for people, but yet have no idea how to help them (help themselves).
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
I won't watch "The View"...
January 13, 2009 - 00:53 ET by PrairieSkyI only know about what happens on this show by the clips that I see here at NB, or elsewhere in the media. When the show went on the air years ago, I quickly decided it wasn't worth my time, and I was right. As the years have gone by, this show has become a cacophany of shrill, liberal elitist babbling from Rosie, Barbara, Joy, and Whoopie. Anyone who subscribes to a conservative viewpoint needs to have their head examined for even considering appearing on the show. There is no way any conservative (including the show's token conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck), will ever be allowed to present, without interruption, their thoughts if they are in opposition to the collective opinions of the "ladies" (and I use the term ladies, loosely).
I do not understand why Ann Coulter or any other conservative or traditionalist would waste their time going on "The View." I know that Ms. Coulter is in the process of promoting her new book, but the hosts of "The View," with the possible exception of Ms. Hasselbeck, will never buy her book, nor will the vast majority of the show's audience. I suppose her goal is to take advantage of the publicity that she receives by appearing. Other than that, I don't know why she would waste her time.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan~ January 20, 1981
Sky...I don't know if you
January 13, 2009 - 01:06 ET by bigtimerSky...I don't know if you saw my post above, my first post about this all, I seethed watching all of this, I also do not, for the life of me, understand why anyone would go on this show if you have any pride...let alone be a regular on the show.
Period.
I have stated as such before about political people whoring themselves too....and that is just what you are doing IMO.
As far as I am concerned, Ann is better than this, maybe she expected different, don't know, still, after all these years of watching/knowing at least the clips from this pathetic POS of a show is no reason to still go on it...one of the reasons I am saying this is Anne cancelled her appearance on the Washington Journal two days ago or so now, which I was glad about, I know how the phone banks work there, but for her to still go on this, what is the difference?
Oh well...just my rant...going on this show just draws ratings for the pathetic show, along with the cackling bird-brain hens on it.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Why she went I'll never know
January 13, 2009 - 01:49 ET by DelsaOne thing is for sure. Ann ain't scared of no body.
Idiot empty headed liberals don't understand sh++
Liberals create victums and they just don't get it.
I thought she did great for someone who was not allowed to complete one single sentance and she was up against 5 overbearing woman too.
Can't wait to read her book. OR listen to her read it to me.
Heres 8:38 of Ann
January 13, 2009 - 03:40 ET by upcountrywaterThe croud clapping is really irritating
Ann on the view
FREEDOM
(D)
crowd clapping
January 13, 2009 - 09:09 ET by SickofLibsThey're all drunk - every audience member is issued a pint of vodka when they're seated.
The Ladies of the Left.
January 13, 2009 - 07:19 ET by OliveWhy would you go on The View to argue. You can't argue with these loons. Just agree with them and smile. Ann got wrong footed because her material was too pointed, she's too smart and they don't like that. The View is a stupid place.
It was rediculous.
January 13, 2009 - 09:09 ET by ArelAnn couldn't get a word out of her mouth without Woopie and Joy talking over her. She should have just sat in silence until they were finished attacking her and then asked for some time to actually be able to respond without having to talk over someone ranting. The View is just a big mouth liberal gang of women minus Elisabeth. How she has stayed on that show I have no idea.
Explained: The reason for the "glass ceiling."
January 13, 2009 - 09:35 ET by CrashThat was great. Ann still made them all look like henpecked clucks.
"A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument." Hilmar von Campe
BITCH SLAP!
January 13, 2009 - 09:58 ET by northoneFinally! Someone had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Barbara Walters and call her on her "journalistic" practice. Way to go, Ann! The "Mein Kampf" comment should go down in the annals of treasured moments! LMAO!!
Clarification
January 13, 2009 - 10:38 ET by ricklailJason C seemed to have a problem with me making a comment about most of our inmates here being black. Even though some people can't stand the facts I thought I would share them with those that care. NC's population is 22% black. The national average of prisoners in state/federal pens is 35% black. NC is around 65%.
We take prisoners from the 52 counties in NC. This includes the major population areas of Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro, Fayetteville and Wilmington. NC makes every attempt to house a prisoner close to his/her home. We have 220 that are considered permanent population here. The rest are processing into the system and are shipped out to a unit close to their homes once they are processed into the system. ( It is sort of like the receiption stations that are used by the military.) Most of the permanent pop here is from about a 15 county area in eastern NC. When I refer to eastern NC it is usually everything east of I-95.
I was remarking on what I observe here at this facility. On visitation day there are very few men visiting the prisoners. Do I have figures for the number on inmates from single parent families? No just my observations.
Facts are facts. There are more blacks in prison that any other group.
YOU CAN KEEP "THE CHANGE" PALIN 2012
Facts are Facts
January 13, 2009 - 11:56 ET by Retired GeekDemocrats have been funding and sending 'troops' to the Democrats "War on Poverty" for over 40 years now with no end in sight.
The Democrats "War on Poverty" is an abject failure and there has been hundreds of thousands of casualties.
The Democrats "War on Poverty" built 'Government Crime Centers' to concentrate those they are at war with that even the police are afraid to go into.
These Democrat 'Crime Centers' produces illegal drug distributors, killers, prostitutes, child abusers, hundreds of thousands babies killed through abortions and tens of thousands of rapes.
The Democrat funded 'War on Poverty' has succeeded in increasing poverty, crime, drug addicts, 70% illigitamcy rates and the highest prison population in the world.
"In 2006, blacks, who are less than 13 percent of the population, were 37.5 percent of all state and federal prisoners."
-----------------------------------------------
When will Liberals realize that government supported crime centers (urban housing) are a major source of crime?
-----------------------------------------------
FBI and Department of Justice
11,249 agencies; 2006 estimated population 216,685,152 for 2006
17 years old and younger percent of all:
========================================
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: 59.2% BLack
Robbery: 67.4% Black
18 years old and older percent of all:
======================================
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: 50.0% Black
Robbery: 51.9% Black
Liberal solutions caused black children to be raised without a Father - Liberal solutions caused black children to be raised in schools without discipline and God.
Liberals take pride in their solutions and say "We Did All Of This For The Good Of Blacks".
Encouraged by their success - Liberals now want to bring solutions for the "Sacrifice for the Common Good" for all Americans - 'Collectivism' headed up by Obama-Messiah.
That's ok.
January 14, 2009 - 18:48 ET by andophiroxiaRemember it's HOW you say it, not what you say according to JasonC. Remember, he doesn't think anything is better than anything else in terms of homo vs hetero, but will not show anything to back that claim up other than to just say "your wrong". He just wants his toys all to himself. When he keeps them all he "wins" but the prize is intellectual infirmity.
It's ok I am thinking of the hens that cackle as an earlier poster in this thread said.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill
Hasselbeck,
January 13, 2009 - 11:06 ET by SemusIt's nice to see Hasselbeck getting comfortable with her friends on "The View". I never thought she was a very bright person, and she proved it with he simplistic view on single parents. Our society has been geared toward the complete elimination or neccessity of a male role model in families. The lies that Ann Coulter has and contiues to expose concerning the left and her asserion that it was no accident is the reason the left hates her. Either Hasselbeck is too stupid to see this or doesn't have the courage that Coulter has. I suspect it's the latter. After seeing a clip of her on Hannity, and making the same statement blaming the ones who've left (meaning the men), and Hannity not challenging this simpleton makes me angry, but not surprised.
I HATE THIS SHOW
January 13, 2009 - 13:23 ET by MrltavernWhoopi states "that whole left thing that's your act". The View is a whole "left thing" that airs every morning into millions of homes filled with ill reputes that believe their lies and garbage. here the woman just laid out facts re: single moms and this troll Whoopi wants to deny the fact that it has been the left to blame who are against the nuclear family in society.
OOOO don't say anything bad about Camelot. Truth is, Coulter's right about Kennedy and also what they left out was that he was known to be whacked out of his mind on drugs. He took excessive pain medications for an ailing back and was getting injected with abnormal amounts of steroids by his White House doctor who later admitted in a history channel doc. that he was doing this.
I hate this show.
Mr.L
http://mrltavern.podomatic.com
Waste of time
January 13, 2009 - 15:21 ET by ArminiusCoulter's time would have been better spent addressing a group of hens in a coop.
I thought The View was a
January 13, 2009 - 15:30 ET by celatorI thought The View was a bunch of hens already. They keep laying eggs all over the place.
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
Coulter
January 13, 2009 - 16:54 ET by katainkentCoulter must have some sort of sado-masochistic streak in her to go on this show. Just by eyeballing the transcript it looks like they have her at least 8 to 1 on verbage. Its a wonder she got an opportunity to speak at all.
I have never watched the view except here on NB and only in very tiny doses. But, I am sure there is a sharp sucking sound after every one of these womens shows. Its not what you think - Its the universe trying to get back some of its vacuum.
"part of what I'm hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of [government enforced] responsibility" - B. Obama
Coulter Proves the point of her Book Guilty on the View
January 13, 2009 - 18:05 ET by connmanI've been reading Ann's Columns for years, this is the first book of hers I've read. Her guest appearance illlustrates perfectly her main point. Lefty Libs like the ones on the View look first to establish their own Victim status and then dare Ann to defend her position. They attack her book before she comes out, they badger Ann with questions like "Are you Married" and "Do you have kids" and then criticize her for supplying the Data to support the claims she writes about with regards to single motherhood! You're not black therefore you can't know what its like, therefore your comments aren't welcome. Ditto your not a Black Woman so yada yada yada typical Whoopi B.S.Throw in Sheperd with her own victim status, you're mean, you're attacking Barbara, F-off! Behar was so full of disgust toward Coulter she could barely open her fat pie hole! Walters was almost crying over the comments made in the book regarding her skirt chasing, drug addicted JFK.(I'll bet Barbara did him too). Hasselbeck is exactly the so called conservative that Ann writes about in the book. Capitulate and then allowing yourself to be Decapitated!
This book is a shout out to all American loving Conservatives, Wake the F-UP!
"A word to the wise ain't necessary. It's the stupid ones who need the advice." -Bill Cosby
D-fence, D-fence!
January 13, 2009 - 18:18 ET by catnamedjakeGood Lord! I knew Whoopie was a raging moonbat, but so defensive, and projecting, too? Man alive, that's the biggest, funniest looking baby I've ever seen! Ann Coulter rocks. I just read the transcript, I can't watch the video. I can't even look at those hags. Poor Elizabeth.
Poor
January 13, 2009 - 23:09 ET by bigtimerPoor Elizabeth....
ROFLMAO!
Surely you jest....I watched it live for the first time ever....poor Elizabeth my a$$.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I am a Reagan Republican but No fan of Ann Coulter's.
January 14, 2009 - 02:12 ET by Travis NoodleJust because I'm conservative doesn't mean that I have to agree with Ann Coulter. I don't.
It's amazing that one so smart can have no common sense. The data may be correct but, she just shouldn't have gone there. Behind the statistics are people, people like me.
My father left my mom. I was raised by a single mother who made me go to church every sunday. My heavenly father took the place of my earthly father.
I turned out very well, by the grace of God.
I think there is something to be said about women who consciously choose to have a child without a father. I know an attorney who wanted a child and she did not want to get married. Essentially, having a child was all about her and what she wanted.
I know the importance of having a father in the home. I'm 37 and if I don't make the marriage thing happen in the next 5 years or so, I won't be able to have a child. I want a child but it's not about what I want. It's about the child.
Ann came off really bad. I think she was asking for it by going on the View.