Ann Coulter's New Book: Godless: The religion of Liberals

[musicman]

As I said, the basic premise of the article in post # 188 is skewed. If someone on the left wrote garbage like that, you'd rightfully call it for what it is.

If someone on the left were able to point out - that plainly - that the right were being hypocritical - I'd have to say, "son of a gun - the right are being hypocritical".

Again, I disagree with your basic premise. I think that people who think the world is beautiful and everyone is just lovely and want to spend their days singing Kumbaya are living in a dreamworld. However, I don't believe that man is inherantly evil either. I don't see the world as some Hobbesian nightmare. There is both good and bad in people.

Never said man was inherently evil; I said he is flawed and self-serving by his nature. There are no "better angels of his nature"; there is no loving, wise elite who could control his affairs any better than he can control his own. Any governmental scheme that does not accept these truths must result in tyranny; human nature dictates it.

I think someone like Annie is very good at being an example of humankind at his/her most base and course.

Using grieving wives and mothers as human shields in order to more safely advance a hateful agenda is pretty low, IMHO. Ann Coulter operates in the marketplace of ideas; it wasn't exactly a shining beacon of sweetness and civility when she got there - or have you read any liberal columnists? Treat like cases alike - irrespective of ideology, is all I'm saying.

 

[musicman]

Actually no, I am not. You are twisting it back on me trying to make out that I am doing what he is saying liberals do, but that is disingenuous on his/your part. It's like me saying "all people with long blond hair are whining toads"..then a person with long blond hair says "hey, thats not fair, how dare you say that about me"...and I go "see, a long blond hair dude whining like a toad". So that doesn't work for me. Thing is, in his opening few paragraphs he talks about how liberals think that Cindy Sheehan and the NJ mothers should not be hassled or vilified, yet if anybody on this planet has been subjected to shear hatred and ridicule it is Cindy Sheehan. You might not agree with her, or you might, but don't tell me people on the right have left her alone, which really blows your theory about what Limbaugh is saying out of the water IMO...

You ascribe to me a diabolical cleverness that I simply do not possess, Dr Grump. I'm saying that your use of the term "swift boat liars" proves my point about the subjectivity of liberal outrage.

 

[jillian]

If someone on the left were able to point out - that plainly - that the right were being hypocritical - I'd have to say, "son of a gun - the right are being hypocritical".

I think Grump just has. And frankly the fact that the right is taking seriously any book whose central point is that "liberals" are "godless" is as hypocritical and wrong as anything I've ever seen. And, frankly, my own faith says otherwise. And even if I didn't have "faith", it's still not a starting point for political discussion since church and state are two separate and distinct things.

Never said man was inherently evil; I said he is flawed and self-serving by his nature. There are no "better angels of his nature"; there is no loving, wise elite who could control his affairs any better than he can control his own. Any governmental scheme that does not accept these truths must result in tyranny; human nature dictates it.

And I think any government that uses man's flaws to limit it's citizen's freedoms in the name of safety is already tyrannical.

Using grieving wives and mothers as human shields in order to more safely advance a hateful agenda is pretty low, IMHO. Ann Coulter operates in the marketplace of ideas; it wasn't exactly a shining beacon of sweetness and civility when she got there - or have you read any liberal columnists? Treat like cases alike - irrespective of ideology, is all I'm saying.

As opposed to starting every speech with Saddam Hussein and ending every speech with "We will never forget 9/11"?...which were the Republican talking points sent around last week. You think that's not using people grieving as a shield?

If someone comes out and says "I disagree with the position of the Jersey girls", I doubt that anyone would have a problem with that. I also don't see them being used as a "shield". Rather, Annie, in HER hypocrisy, chooses to try to diminish their points by claiming they are being "used" and are "grieving" and then proceeds on to ad hominim attacks which have nothing whatsoever to do with raising points of disagreement with the things they stand for.

I doubt that they are being used. They believe the things they say, with which one is free to take issue or not. But they have an absolute right to say what they feel and to point out what they observe.

 

[Dr Grump]

You ascribe to me a diabolical cleverness that I simply do not possess, Dr Grump. I'm saying that your use of the term "swift boat liars" proves my point about the subjectivity of liberal outrage.

I was being a bit disingenuous myself. I think they lied some of the time, that being said, Jillian's last post sums it up nicely for me. By saying the NJ mothers and Cindy are being used doesn't seem to take into account that they believe in what they are saying. In order to be used (IMO) they have to had the wool pulled over their eyes by the users....I don't think they have..

 

[musicman]

I think Grump just has.

Really? Where - in his objective, dispassionate "swift boat liars" comment?

And frankly the fact that the right is taking seriously any book whose central point is that "liberals" are "godless" is as hypocritical and wrong as anything I've ever seen.

You've read it, then, have you?

And I think any government that uses man's flaws to limit it's citizen's freedoms in the name of safety is already tyrannical.

War's a bitch.

I doubt that they are being used. They believe the things they say, with which one is free to take issue or not. But they have an absolute right to say what they feel and to point out what they observe.

As does Ann Coulter.

 

[jillian]

Really? Where - in his objective, dispassionate "swift boat liars" comment?

Seems pretty clear to me, mm.

You've read it, then, have you?

So you think the basic premise of the book is correct? Funny...I've always thought I was a believer.

War's a bitch.

So we declare a war on an ideology which, by it's very nature, is endless and incapable of terminating and use that so-called war as justification for unchecked executive power? Cool.... Kind of makes American citizenship not shine as brightly.

As does Ann Coulter.

She does. And I have the right to think she's a self-serving, profit seeking hound.

Now...tell me what point Annie raises that isn't an ad hominem.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Really? Where - in his objective, dispassionate "swift boat liars" comment?

I don't want to take sides in your particular debate, but I do want to interject one point. Even if Dr.Grump's Swiftboat comment results from his hypothetical partisanship, that theoritical fact- and the potential hypocracy arising from it- does not in itself prevent his point from being true. Bob the Crack Addicted Drug Mule might be a hypocrite for telling Susan that she has a drug problem, but that doesn't mean she's clean.

Just putting that out there.

 

[nt250]

Define truth. In many ways the search for truth includes searching for what truth is. As I know it, there are several definitions for truth.

What about a subjective truth?

Take the Swiftees for example. They've been called liars on this thread. Why do some people consider them liars?

When the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth first started getting publicity they were presented by the mainstream media as pawns of the neocons. A front for rich, right wing Republicans. On the message board I posted at at the time (and have since been banned from), the liberals posted articles from all sorts of left wing sites that said everything from The Swiftees were fakes to liars. They were a phony creation of the Right to sabatoge John Kerry's campaign.

But here's the thing: I knew that wasn't true because I'm from Rhode Island and I had read many stories over the years about how veterans hated John Kerry. The SBVT weren't anything new. Everytime the man ran a campaign the veterans came out in force against him. Maybe they weren't as organized, and maybe they didn't bother to form a formal group, but the same thing happened everytime he was up for reelection. I knew that veterans, particularly Vietnam veterans, hated John Kerry with a passion.

I thought it was because of his anti-war activities and his phony medal throw. But when I watched the press conference the Swiftees gave in the Spring of 2004 I realized there had to be more to it that. Grown men do not have to fight back tears to speak in a room full of reporters because of politics. These men were NOT doing it because they were Republicans or supporters of George W. Bush. These men felt betrayed. I had to find out why. So I started reading the Swiftee's site and another site. http://wintersoldier.com.

What I read shocked me. Right there, in The Congressional Record, was John Kerry's testimony on April 22, 1971 before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. It's his famous "they cut off ears" speech where he accuses his fellow service members of committing war crimes and atrocities on a "day to day basis" with the "full awareness of all levels of command". That was bad enough. That he would do such a thing while our troops were still over there, some of them POW's at the mercy of a known brutal regime, but during that same testimony John Kerry admits to committing treason.

Now is what I just said the "truth"? I believe it is the truth. John Kerry told the senators that day that he had "...been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government ..." . The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the North Vietnamese government. The Provisional Revolutionary Government was the Viet Cong. John Kerry met with the enemy and advanced their cause when he came back to the United States. And admitted it on the floor of the Senate. That's treason.

So is my statement that John Kerry committed treason a "truth"? To me it is.

 

[nt250]

Bad example. He holds up the Swift Boat liars and convicted felon Ollie North as examples of people hard done by by the left...hardly convincing...

Now here's an interesting comparison. The Swift Boat "liars" and Oliver North.

Oliver North should be in a federal prison. And he would be if Congress hadn't played politics with Iran-Contra. But they did, he was given immunity to testify, and that's the breaks. I think one of the greatest moments in all of American politics was when Senator George Mitchell put North in his place. Mitchell spoke softly, but what he said to North was quietly devastating. I've never been able to find a transcript of it, but when Mitchell got done talking, North went from sitting there with his chest all puffed out, in his uniform with all his ribbons, to looking like he wanted to slink under the table. It was great.

The Swift Boat Veterans are a totally different story. Calling people like them, and Ann Coulter, "liars" is a common tactic of the left. That's what liberals do. They name call. I've been call a "racist" and "homophobe" so many times that the words have no meaning for me anymore.

What's interesting about the accusation that the Swiftees are liars is that the left never called any veteran that was for John Kerry a lair. But liberals are always selective in what they agree with. For example: one criticism that was constantly used against many of the SBVT members was that they did not serve on the same boat as John Kerry. That was used as proof that they were not credible. Yet when a former Swift Boat captain decided to break his long silence and back up John Kerry's version of events the day he earned his Silver Star, oh, that was different. Suddenly, the fact that he didn't serve on the same boat as Kerry didn't matter.

The Swift Boat Veterans and POWs For Truth are not liars. And calling them liars is just as bad as calling a bunch media whore widows Harpies. It's just not as funny.

 

[jillian]

Actually, they ARE liars...so why don't you start here instead of two biased sites:

And when you're done, you might want to check optruth.org's other articles on the Swift Boaters...

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree -- and so do Navy records.

August 6, 2004
Modified: August 22, 2004

Summary

A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts. But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.

Analysis

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is a group formed March 23 after Kerry wrapped up the Democratic nomination. It held a news conference May 4 denigrating Kerry's military record and his later anti-war pronouncements during the 1970's. The group began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which 13 veterans variously say Kerry is "not being honest" and "is lying about his record."

Where the Money Comes From

Although the word "Republican" does not appear in the ad, the group's financing is highly partisan. The source of the Swift Boat group's money wasn't known when it first surfaced, but a report filed July 15 with the Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston

Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report .

Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database

At the federal level the Perrys have given $359,825 since 1999, including $6,000 to Bush's campaigns and $27,325 to DeLay and his political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

[MORE]

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

 

[jillian]

And on the Winter Soldiers:

Testimony
Group quotes Kerry's descriptions of atrocities by US forces. In fact, atrocities did happen.

August 23, 2004
Modified: November 8, 2004

Summary

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" announced a second anti-Kerry ad Aug. 20, using Kerry's own words against him. It features the 27-year-old Kerry in 1971 telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stories about American troops cutting off heads and ears, razing villages "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan" and committing "crimes . . . on a day-to-day basis."

The Kerry campaign called it a smear and said his words were "edited" out of context. The ad does indeed fail to mention that Kerry was quoting stories he had heard from others at an anti-war event in Detroit, and not claiming first-hand knowledge. But Kerry passed them on as true stories.

The ad characterizes Kerry as making "accusations . . . against the verterans who served in Vietnam." The Kerry campaign denies that, saying Kerry was placing blame on the country's leaders, not the veterans. But Kerry himself said earlier this year that his words were those of "an angry young man . . . inappropriate . . . a little bit excessive . . . a little bit over the top."

Kerry's critics point to a 1978 history of Vietnam that challenged some of the witnesses Kerry quoted. But other published accounts provide ample evidence that atrocities such as those Kerry described actually were committed.

Analysis

The ad's title is "sellout," and features Vietnam veterans saying Kerry "dishonored his country" and aided the enemy by airing allegations in 1971 of US atrocities in Vietnam.
Out of Context?

On Aug. 20 the Kerry campaign issued a statement calling the ad an a smear and a distortion, saying it "takes Kerry’s testimony out of context, editing what he said to distort the facts."

There is some missing context. What's missing from the ad is that Kerry was relating what he had heard at an an event in Detroit a few weeks earlier sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and was not claiming to have witnessed those atrocities personally.

Here is a more complete excerpt of what Kerry said, with the words used in the ad bold-faced so that readers can judge for themselves how much the added context might change their understanding of how Kerry was quoted in the ad:

Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


The record gives no sign that Kerry doubted the stories he was relating. In fact, he said earlier this year that he still stands by much of what he said 33 years earlier (see below) and that "a lot of them (the atrocity stories) have been documented."

Accusing Veterans? Or US War Policy?

One veteran who appears in the ad says "The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating." Kerry's campaign insists his 1971 testimony as "an indictment of America’s political leadership—not fellow veterans."

As an example, Kerry aides point to a portion of Kerry's testimony in which he places the blame for the 1968 My Lai massacre not on the troops, but on their superiors: "I think clearly the responsibility for what has happened there lies elsewhere. I think it lies with the men who designed free fire zones. I think it lies with the men who encourage body counts." But that statement came only in response to a direct question, long after Kerry volunteered his description of rapes and mutilations.

Earlier in 1971, during an NBC "Meet the Press" interview, Kerry explicitly spoke of "the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas" and said he considered them "war criminals." But he did not draw such a sharp distinction between leaders and followers during the"atrocity" portion of his Senate testimony.

[MORE]

http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html

 

[nt250]

Actually, they ARE liars...so why don't you start here instead of two biased sites:

And when you're done, you might want to check optruth.org's other articles on the Swift Boaters...



[MORE]

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Biased sources? Have YOU read the Swift Boat site? Any of it? Have you watched their press conference?

http://http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/index.php?topic=Ads

It's an hour and 21 minutes long and unless you watch the whole thing do not dare to reply to me again and call these men liars.

I've read more about this subject in the last two years than you could possibly imagine. From every angle. I've read every left wing, nutjob article posted by every stupid liberal who has an internet connection. So don't you dare presume to tell me I'm only reading biased sources.

 

[jillian]

Ummmmmmm...and you think you are??? RAFLMAO!!

They ARE liars and I don't watch liars' videos. Go read the factcheck stuff. They have no ax to grind.

And until you do, don't talk to me about the liars telling the truth. :cof:

*Edit* BTW, factcheck was the site Dick Cheney told people to use to check their facts during the debates. You did watch the debates, right?

 

[dilloduck]

OK--How about we just call Kerry a sack of shit?

 

[jillian]

OK--How about we just call Kerry a sack of shit?

I'd say you're entitled to your opinion on the subject, though I'd respectfully disagree

You do understand he wasn't my perfect candidate, right? He was just better than the alternative, IMO.

 

[dilloduck]

I'd say you're entitled to your opinion on the subject, though I'd respectfully disagree

You do understand he wasn't my perfect candidate, right? He was just better than the alternative, IMO.

Very much so--there isn't anyone worth a shit to vote for anymore.

 

[jillian]

Very much so--there isn't anyone worth a shit to vote for anymore.

That's cause anyone worth anything is still gonna get the Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, treatment :2guns:

 

[nt250]

Ummmmmmm...and you think you are??? RAFLMAO!!

They ARE liars and I don't watch liars' videos. Go read the factcheck stuff. They have no ax to grind.

And until you do, don't talk to me about the liars telling the truth. :cof:

*Edit* BTW, factcheck was the site Dick Cheney told people to use to check their facts during the debates. You did watch the debates, right?

I figured you wouldn't watch it. Or read any of it. People like you never care about facts.


Nobody has ever claimed atrocities and war crimes never happened and if you bothered to read the Swiftboat Veterans site or the Winter Soldier site you would know that. But you don't know that because as is typical of liberals you won't read anything that might upset your view of the world.


As far as factcheck being unbiased? They need to check their facts. You quote this:

There is some missing context. What's missing from the ad is that Kerry was relating what he had heard at an an event in Detroit a few weeks earlier sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and was not claiming to have witnessed those atrocities personally.

and this:

The record gives no sign that Kerry doubted the stories he was relating. In fact, he said earlier this year that he still stands by much of what he said 33 years earlier (see below) and that "a lot of them (the atrocity stories) have been documented."

I suggest you go http://www.wintersoldier.com and educate yourself a little better so you don't rely on what others tell you.

Of the more than 100 men who "testified" at The Winter Soldier "hearings" in Detroit, only one ever filled out a formal affidavit and his claimed he was pressured to lie. The rest, that the Navy CID could find, either refused to cooperate, had never been in Vietnam at all, or claimed they'd never been to Detroit.

The Winter Soldier "investigation" was a sham that was financed by Jane Fonda and was held at a Howard Johnson's in Detroit. By the time John Kerry testified before the senate a couple of months later, he knew most of what was said at Winter Soldier was a lie.

No one has ever claimed that atrocities never happened. But they were rare, and the vast majority of our troops served with honor and came back and lived successful, productive lives. But the myth of the crazed Vietnam vet lives on because of liars like John Kerry.

And yes. Calling John Kerry a liar is the truth. He is a known, proven liar. You want to see the videos?

 

[jillian]

OK...I'm gonna try this reeeeeeeeeeeeal slow. The sites you're talking about have an agenda and they were funded by people who had something to gain. Factcheck is an honest broker which unravels lies much in the way that snopes.com does urban legends.

But people like you have issues with stuff that's reality-based. I understand.

"Gotta catapult the propaganda" GW Bush :read:

 

[dilloduck]

That's cause anyone worth anything is still gonna get the Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, treatment :2guns:

All the good candidates can't keep thier dicks in thier pants?

:rotflmao: