Ann Coulter Revisited....

Coulter on Canada
From the November 30 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes:

COULTER: Conservatives, as a general matter, take the position that you should not punish your friends and reward your enemies. And Canada has become trouble recently.

It's -- I suppose it's always, I might add, the worst Americans who end up going there. The Tories after the Revolutionary War, the Vietnam draft dodgers after Vietnam. And now after this election, you have the blue-state people moving up there.

[...]

COULTER: There is also something called, when you're allowed to exist on the same continent of the United States of America, protecting you with a nuclear shield around you, you're polite and you support us when we've been attacked on our own soil. They [Canada] violated that protocol.

[...]

COULTER: They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

[...]

COULTER: We could have taken them [Canada] over so easily.

[ALAN] COLMES: We could have taken them over? Is that what you want?

COULTER: Yes, but no. All I want is the western portion, the ski areas, the cowboys, and the right-wingers.

[...]

COULTER: They don't even need to have an army, because they are protected, because they're on the same continent with the United States of America. If we were not the United States of America, Canada -- I mean, we're their trading partner. We keep their economy afloat.

[...]

ELLIS HENICAN [Newsday columnist]: We share a lot of culture and a lot of interests. Why do we want to have to ridicule them and be deeply offended if they disagree with us?

COULTER: Because they speak French.

COLMES: There's something else I want to point out about the French. Is it's fashionable again on your side to denounce the French.

COULTER: We like the English-speaking Canadians.

 

Coulter is the prototypical un-American. Don't take her opinions as typical.

 

I don't think so - do you have a citation for this?

The woman is not bright, but she does have her opinions.

 

Sorry Galatians but the stop gap is only being used to keep select, highly trained soldiers in place for he time being. Soldiers are retiring daily. You really need to find another source instead of your liberal newspapers that quote one of two sources and then lead you to believe that the problem is widespread. Here are the real totals; The Army enlisted 77,587 soldiers through September, besting the year's goal by 587 soldiers.

Through Sept. 29, the Navy reported that it enlisted 39,874 sailors, bettering its goal by 254 sailors.

The Air Force said it enlisted 34,362 service members for the year, topping its recruiting goal by 282 people.

The Marine Corps reported it had enlisted 36,794 service members for the fiscal 2004, which topped its goal by 21 enlistees.

The Coast Guard recruited 3,809 over their recruiting goal of 3,800. It should be noted that the services purposely do not exceed their recruiting goals by large factors, because this may cause them to exceed the authorized active duty strength levels imposed by Congress. Reenlistments through March 17, 2004 nearly halfway through the fiscal year, the Army fell about 1,000 short of meeting its goal of keeping 25,786 soldiers whose enlistments were ending or who were eligible to retire. That works out to a 96% retention rate. 96% let me say it again 96% re-uped on their own during wartime!

Last year, the retention figure was 106% because more soldiers stayed than the Army had planned.

Now these are the cold hard facts, you can spin them anyway you please.

Let the spin begin.


Billy

 

Yeah, but her take on Canada resonates well with me!

I'm for making Canada a permanent part of the U.S.

At least the western part. Give Quebec to New York State.

 

Nope. The military has favored the Republican candidate consistently over the past 20+ years.

They don't want us there indefinitely. This is exactly what we should do.

Once their government is in place and they have sufficient security, we need to get out.

I think you are right. The most stable situation barring another dictator would be a republic or federation in which each of the provinces operated with a great deal of sovereignty.

Of course we could be wrong also. I met a young Iranian woman this past summer in Switzerland. I had business with her husband and they took me out to dinner a couple of times. According to her, the Iranian people would like to have a more liberalized, possibly even democratic government but the people fear the mullahs.

There is a good chance that the Iraqis still fear that democracy won't work and something they do will endanger them under the next regime.

I disagree with your non-chalant attitude about an Iraqi civil war. It would have a number of possible outcomes and almost none of them good. It would more than likely de-stablize the region and spread. The Kurds would use it as an excuse to separate- creating a problem for Turkey. Iran is quite likely to answer the call of Shites. Sunnis from the nations south would probably show up in much greater numbers than the insurgency has garnered. There is also the potential that the Saudi monarchy could be overthrown.

The southern portion of Russia is very vulnerable to an Islamic revolution right now.

The bottom line is that we have to ensure stability which probably means a pretty strong policing force... perhaps somewhat ruthless for awhile too.

 

I don't think so - do you have a citation for this?</font>[/QUOTE] I don't know if I can find it or not. It was an interview before his surgery so it will be very difficult.

Do you have a citation for this? She isn't bright? Why? Because she disagrees with liberals?

Is Carville bright? Rendell? Rangel? Jackson? McAuliffe? Begala?

I can assure you that these guys are just as annoying to conservatives as Coulter is to libs... but just because they espouse views I disagree with in an abrasive way does not mean they aren't "bright".

 

Maybe. However his behavior calls his claim of being Christian very much into question.</font>[/QUOTE]This is a very perplexing quote. Are you saying that some of us aren't in the very same boat? Perhaps all of us should strive to sound more like the publican........ </font>[/QUOTE]No. I am saying that Bill Clinton has a character and judgments that are not indicative of a Christian.

The most telling statement I can think of to cast a shadow of doubt is "because I could". Does that sound like the testimony of someone living in righteous, reverent fear of God?

From abortion to embracing the gay agenda to lying to numerous sexual affairs to potential rape to financial irregularities to even the attacks on Starr for exposing his lies... Bill Clinton is a man with that consistently reveals things about himself that are contrary to being a spirit-filled Christian. Things like "I didn't inhale" just don't ring of genuine repentance.

Perhaps one of you has it but I have never seen his testimony nor an indication that he sought guidance for his every day decisions from the Bible and prayer. Bush gets knocked for it but biblically every believer should do this no matter what their vocational calling is. The press is in horror that he might actually be depending on values drawn from the Bible to make decisions... we can only hope.

Biblical Christianity is not simply a private matter. In fact, it is supposed to be very public and glorifying to God.

A Vanity Fair article indicates that Clinton's book is some kind of DIY psychoanalysis. As far as I know, little if any of Clinton's book is devoted to God or his relationship with Christ. It appears to be over 900 pages of Bill Clinton talking about his favorite subject.

I could be wrong. I would be interested in any event or statement or action that would serve as a clear testimony that Clinton is a genuine Christian.

 

BTW, I would love to sit and talk with Clinton about his faith. One of the attractive things about this particular board is learning how people justify their beliefs when they are so radically different from mine while we both claim to be following the Bible.

 

Funny, after watching the following, I'd say the same thing about Bush.

http://www.reedheustis.com/articles/10292004.htm

Watch the interview and convince me this is the statement of a true Christian.

 

Constitution Party is made up of freaks that wants Christians to govern the entire USA. Not only is that a bad idea, but we have tons of history to show that religion and governing does not mix well when there is no middle voice of reason. Can you imagine Hylesites running America? Scary.


Billy

 

Better left to the atheists and muslims?

BTW, I've been to several CP meetings, and worked in the campaign, and never heard Hyles' name mentioned.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

Double post. Sorry.

 

I would prefer sane conservatives. I never said Hyles name was uttered (READ) I said can you IMAGINE Hylesites running the CP, key word "Imagine" I was speaking of extremist that are presently running the CP.

If you look at the local CP (and yes I too have been to several meeting)They are being ran by kooks and freaks.

Guess you fit the bill.

 

I am not voting for them.... yet. But your statement is not true. And even if it were, the size and scope of government envisioned by the CP (and me by the way) would be so small as to make any religious bias inconsequential.

The difference between the CPer's here and me is that I do not believe we can go from where we are to the Founder's libertarianism instantly. There has to be a paradigm change. I admit pragmatism. It took the liberals 120 years of progressive intrusion to get us to where we are. I don't think the move back has to take that long but without violence it will take several years.

If Bush follows through and puts strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, that will be a good start.

 

Funny, after watching the following, I'd say the same thing about Bush.

http://www.reedheustis.com/articles/10292004.htm

Watch the interview and convince me this is the statement of a true Christian. </font>[/QUOTE]In a historical sense, the Muslims do point to the same God as Jews and Christians.

In the theological sense, we don't.

In the hysterical sense, many are anxious to jump to conclusions that the actual statements do not warrant.

Here is his actual statement:

Here is what your cited website said he said:

Bush didn't exactly make a fundamentalist statement of faith but his words were clearly taken out of context by Mr. Heustis.

Perhaps notably, the ABC News reporter didn't know how to press this issue. I would like to here a direct answer to the question of whether salvation is exclusively through Christ or not. He has made statements to that effect in the past.

 

Billy [/qb][/QUOTE]I am not voting for them.... yet. But your statement is not true. And even if it were, the size and scope of government envisioned by the CP (and me by the way) would be so small as to make any religious bias inconsequential.

Many are complete freaks and kooks! Do you believe this statement made by Steve Lefemine "
It was President Bush Sr. in Gulf War I who spoke publicly of a “new world order.” Now over 1,000 American troops have been killed in Gulf War II. We don’t need even one more soldier to die for the Illuminati elites’ “new world order.”


Billy

 

No. However I do believe that Bush I tempted Saddam to attack Kuwait. I think he knew what Iraq had planned and failed to actively warn them... which implies passive assent.


Bush Sr also seemed to be enamoured with the idea of a world government. Bush Jr has done things that make me believe he has a significantly different view of our sovereignty.

 

Do you have any specific points of discussion, or just empty insults?

I think that the policies put forth by the CP are very well though out, and most certainly within the scope of traditional American governance.