GODLESS: The Church of Liberalism
Ann Coulter: Smart and Insane, or Just Plain Evil?
Actual quote from her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism: (talking about 9/11 widows)
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
Media Hero Keith Olbermann:
To recap Coulter's argument: The wives of those who died in the worst attack in this nation's history enjoyed their husband's deaths and profited off them, they have politicized 9/11, their positions as widows immunize them from any criticism or debate over their opinions. All of this stated by a commentator much of whose income in the last four and a half years has derived from *her* speeches and writings about the deaths of those same men on 9/11. All this stated by a commentator who has staunchly, repeatedly, and enthusiastically defended an administration that began to politicize 9/11 within a month of the nightmare and has never paused for a moment since. All of this stated by a commentator who has called those who have criticized her and her party "un-American" and now, "godless." All of this stated by a commentator who is bitching that these 9/11 widows can't be criticized while she is writing a book and going on TV and venomously criticizing them.
Watch Olbermann’s great commentary on coulter’s quote on MSNBC’S Countdown @
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8626
Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?
I found this on huffingpost. I thought it was funny because I have a pretty sick sense of humor. But it does in a way resemble some viewpoints that people have on the very far right side of the political scale. This guys actually a liberal, and it’s just satire. It seemed like something Stephen Colbert would say… that’s probably why I like it.
Children with Terminal Cancer Using Their Disease to Get Sympathy: A Satire by Ann Coulter (by steve young)
Another Crown Forum Sellout
Chapter 12 - Like We're Supposed To Care?
I have never seen children enjoying their incurable diseases so much.It seems to be all the rage for witches of want with a so-called "terrible illness" to try and turn their maladies into some sort of whining, cause-celeb begathon for medicines and research to cure their condition or relieve their pain.
Okay, you have an irreversible disease. So did Al Capone. It doesn't make you some martyr.
First of all, we call these conditions terminal for a reason and spending time and good money on a cure for something terminal seems [to] be a rather wasteful use of good research that might be better used for curing something curable.
Prior to getting leukemia or malignant tumors -- or whatever it is they say they have -- these children didn't seem to have a single problem with disease, much less expecting the rest of America to take time away from creating a strong economic base for healthy kids to take advantage of. An economy that these taking-up-needed-space-in-hospices cry-babies could also have access to if they wouldn't be so selfish and lived healthfully.
Now, it seems that the world is supposed to drop everything because these weakened weebles weren't careful enough to properly count the number of red or white blood cells that could cohabit peacefully without killing each other off.
Why must we be forced to wear some synthetic, sterilized mask every time one of these kids cry
"Mommy." I'm not their mommy and I don't care to be. If the families of these money-sucking bedridden cretins choose to parent them, don't ask me to support them. I don't ask them to buy my satin-black Chanel. You want someone to come to your child's bed, ask Bill Clinton for a donation. I'm sure Monica Lewinsky's mom and dad would have.
If I ever choose to have someone else's child I'd first make damn sure that it would be a healthy child, something the so-called grieving parents of these children might have thought of before jumping into bed with some syphilitic, affliction-carrier.
If you can't raise a sick child without outside help, don't have one. And if you choose to have one, don't expect society to be shedding a tear or a dollar, for that matter, to help you with the problem. It's forced victimhood and welfare tears for the cripples, retards and hopelessly contaminated that the liberal elite continues to perpetuate so that the sick will keep from being well. At least a welfare queen uses her money for some nice wheels which while driving her to some free cheese wagon, drives the economy, and tell me General Motors and Detroit wouldn't be happy with that.
Parents of the perpetually sick just throw good money after bad. If the child is going to die, dragging it out isn't going to make her or him any more alive.
People will defend the screams of agony from these health-wannabes with a liberal doctrine of infallibility, saying that we can't question their neediness because they're sick or are going to suffer some horrible death. Their shelf-life is dwindling. Don't be surprised to see whatever is left of this sicklings soon stripping off their feeding tubes and bandages on the pages of Playboy.
A disease is medical condition. It deserves a medical professional's response. But these kids and parents cut commercials against second hand smoke or air pollution. It's bad enough that we have to hear Al Gore doing an Ed Begley in the Ciniplex and blather on about his sister's death. Do we also have to see sick children on the screen while I'm trying to eat?
What these kids and their parents are doing is ruining everything America stands for. You wonder why they aren't rolling their hospital beds up to Canada to wait in line with the rest of the draft-dodgers.
It makes me want to throw up even more than I want to already.
[If only John Murtha were] a terminally-ill child, then maybe we could get on with winning this war.
Chapter 13: Being A Good Christian.
Ann's Events Coming Up: I will be pimped on Sean Hannity this week and coddled by Bill Maher when he returns.
Remember to watch.
(something coulter would say? Haha maybe…)
Ann thinks she is moral, righteous and a very very good Christian. So lets see how good of a Christian she really is…
'Godless' author Coulter unknown at church she claims to attend
God is NOT the monopoly of conservatism or any other –ism… ann coulter is delusional in thinking that liberals are all godless. That's completely insane. The only reason a sane person would say something like that is if they were paid to do it... otherwise you're just plain mental.
Sure most atheists (maybe 5 percent of the whole population) are left of center, but that’s mainly because they’re usually rational thinkers, whether they’re right or wrong about whether there is a god or not. But all it takes is some overly publicized crazy woman like Ann Coulter, completely over-generalizing every single situation and pointing a finger towards some scapegoat (like “godless liberals”) to create a public perception, mainly on the right, that ALL liberals are godless and lack morality.
A CONVERSATION:
Conservative: If you can't afford your kids, you never should've had 'em!
Liberal: Well, you see, I COULD afford them at the time. But now, it's 10 years later, and my company has moved to Mexico. Most of the town is laid off and looking for work.
Conservative: So? MOVE!
Liberal: No one is buying houses here anymore, and I can't afford to pay rent somewhere else on top of my mortgage.
Conservative: So get a JOB you lazy f***!
Liberal: Well, I'm looking, and I do have my part-time greeter job at WalMart, but somehow it just isn't enough. I don't know what to do, and the stress is taking a toll on my health.
Conservative: F***ing whiner. Always looking for a handout.
Liberal: Thanks for listening
posted by Matt @ 8:08 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Re: Your Orwellian post and the conversation in this one.
All the problems that the socialists proposed to themselves, cosmogonic visions, revery and mysticism being cast aside, can be reduced to two principal problems.
First problem: To produce wealth.
Second problem: To share it.
The first problem contains the question of work.
The second contains the question of salary.
In the first problem the employment of forces is in question.
In the second, the distribution of enjoyment.
From the proper employment of forces results public power.
From a good distribution of enjoyments results individual happiness.
By a good distribution, not an equal but an equitable distribution must be understood.
From these two things combined, the public power without, individual happiness within, results social prosperity.
Social prosperity means the man happy, the citizen free, the nation great.
England solves the first of these two problems. She creates wealth admirably, she divides it badly. This solution which is complete on one side only leads her fatally to two extremes: monstrous opulence, monstrous wretchedness. All enjoyments for some, all privations for the rest, that is to say, for the people; privilege, exception, monopoly, feudalism, born from toil itself. A false and dangerous situation, which sates public power or private misery, which sets the roots of the State in the sufferings of the individual. A badly constituted grandeur in which are combined all the material elements and into which no moral element enters.
Communism and agrarian law think that they solve the second problem. They are mistaken. Their division kills production. Equal partition abolishes emulation; and consequently labor. It is a partition made by the butcher, which kills that which it divides. It is therefore impossible to pause over these pretended solutions. Slaying wealth is not the same thing as dividing it.
The two problems require to be solved together, to be well solved. The two problems must be combined and made but one.
Solve only the first of the two problems; you will be Venice, you will be England. You will have, like Venice, an artificial power, or, like England, a material power; you will be the wicked rich man. You will die by an act of violence, as Venice died, or by bankruptcy, as England will fall. And the world will allow to die and fall all that is merely selfishness, all that does not represent for the human race either a virtue or an idea.
It is well understood here, that by the words Venice, England, we designate not the peoples, but social structures; the oligarchies superposed on nations, and not the nations themselves. The nations always have our respect and our sympathy. Venice, as a people, will live again; England, the aristocracy, will fall, but England, the nation, is immortal. That said, we continue.
Solve the two problems, encourage the wealthy, and protect the poor, suppress misery, put an end to the unjust farming out of the feeble by the strong, put a bridle on the iniquitous jealousy of the man who is making his way against the man who has reached the goal, adjust, mathematically and fraternally, salary to labor, mingle gratuitous and compulsory education with the growth of childhood, and make of science the base of manliness, develop minds while keeping arms busy, be at one and the same time a powerful people and a family of happy men, render property democratic, not by abolishing it, but by making it universal, so that every citizen, without exception, may be a proprietor, an easier matter than is generally supposed; in two words, learn how to produce wealth and how to distribute it, and you will have at once moral and material greatness; and you will be worthy to call yourself France.
- Victor Hugo, Les Miserables
If you think like Mr. Hugo here does, you might just be a democrat. I thought you supported the President's policies.
From what I know, we have an economy that is still chugging along alright... but almost all of the jobs that have been created are strictly in the government sector. Bush has weakened consumer and environmental regulations, and has catered specifically to big business interests. As corporate profits balloon, corporations recieve more and more tax breaks. These profits are not passed on to the consumer as we've seen from the two thousand dollar drop in average family income. Healthcare costs have skyrocketed and prescription drugs are unattainable to the less fortunate who are in need of them.
What I think this is all really about is our need to compete with other economic powerhouses like China. That's what globalization and outsourcing is all about.
If us blue collar Americans have to take a cut in pay and benefits so that we can compete as a nation with corruption and communism in China I personally don't think it's worth it. But then again, I haven't taken economics to fulfill my business major yet so I will admit I don't know much about the subject.
Bush has weakened consumer and environmental regulations, and has catered specifically to big business interests.
Source, please?
I think my problem with the democrats is that they want what Hugo calls equal distribution of wealth rather than equitable.
In the aftermath of the Bush investment tax cuts, the federal income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the backs of the wealthy. Between 2002 and 2004, tax payments by those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of more than $200,000 a year, which is roughly 3% of taxpayers, increased by 19.4% -- more than double the 9.3% increase for all other taxpayers.
Between 2001 and 2004 (the most recent data), the percentage of federal income taxes paid by those with $200,000 incomes and above has risen to 46.6% from 40.5%. In other words, out of every 100 Americans, the wealthiest three are now paying close to the same amount in taxes as the other 97 combined. The richest income group pays a larger share of the tax burden than at anytime in the last 30 years with the exception of the late 1990s -- right before the artificially inflated high tech bubble burst. (Source: IRS).
So don't toss me the line that the poor are getting poorer. :)
Now, don't get conservative and Bush supporter confused; Bush is not a conservative.
As to what Hugo says, I totally agree. The two problems have always been the production and distribution of wealth. From what I can tell, capitalism does this in the most "fair" way possible, as it distributes wealth by and large to those who work hard for it. Clearly, there is some room in the equation for social programs (depending on how you tackle the problem; healthcare is one area that I think the failure lies in law and not in government). It really comes down to whether you think the big G on the component side of GDP equation (G + C + I = GDP, or goverment plus consumer spending plus investment) is more important than what consumers / corporations can do with those same dollars. If you think the government is a trustworthy and capable steward of your money (considering that in the current state of affairs between state and local government people in the middle class tax bracket pay upwards of 40% of their income to some form of government) then you're a democrat, I guess. I don't trust anyone with my money but me because I think I'm the only one who has any interest in my money. I don't want to manage my neighbor's, and I really don't like the idea of my neighbor (or neighbors) managing mine. Hence, I want small government.
Now...as to social dynamics...well, thats a topic for another day. :)
GOD! I'm so busy. I hope my freinds stop calling me so I can actually sit down and finish this but I just don't have the time. I found the facts on a website akin to moveon.org which is obviously liberal, but i trust them on the facts. I'll look into it further later.
k2aggie07, I think you're right that Bush isn't conservative in the traditional sense. It's impressive that the strategists in the Republican party have been able to manage so much cohesion in the party given Bush's very radical handling of the government. For example, never has government been so big as it has under Bush. With the creation of new agencies, like Homeland Security, and expansion of NSA powers to include spying on Americans through illegal wiretaps. Make no mistake, they are illegal. The same is true of the broad presence of government in peoples' personal bank accounts and Internet activities.
But I'm sounding like a liberal pundit. I really don't want to. Let me instead suggest two things:
First, all of us should stop talking about small or big government and should call for EFFECTIVE government. We need a reliable efficiency expert to organize the respective agencies, improve communication, adopt some of the 911 Commission recommendations (I haven't analyzed the report sufficiently to make more than a general comment there). And above all, demand (as the governed) efficient and responsible spending, better auditing and reporting and accountability.
Second, we have to recognize one huge thing: it's not so much taxes that Republicans are trying to cut; it's social programs. They want to privatize everything except the military, treasury and intelligence (the agencies affording government control). The problem with privatization is that SH*T HAPPENS. People can't effectively live off the money they earn and manage privately because the world doesn't function by a set formula. Hurricanes happen. Wars are engineered and people subjected to conflicts not of their own design and which they could not anticipate or plan for. Cancer and leukemia and AIDS and all other kinds of devastating diseases happen. Pollution continues to be produced which is adding to sickness and the natural disasters that affect our lives.
The Bottom Line is that the Republican plan isn't realistic or sustainable: this isn't a world full of abstract opportunities where you can live off your own ingenuity if you just work hard enough.
Democratics don't want an equal distribution of wealth, not even progressive ones like me. You solve nothing through equal distribution. You don't nurture people through handouts. You're buying into Republican lies about Dems when you believe that. We're not about handouts.
WE ALL HAVE TO BE SMARTER THAN THE RHETORIC WE HERE FROM THE HATE MONGERS, THE COULTERS ON THE RIGHT AND THE MOORES ON THE LEFT. (Coulter has actually gone way farther than anyone else and frankly the Right should be very nervous about what she's putting out there.)
Pure and simple: Democratics, both moderate and more progressive ones, support social programs:
(a) to create cultures of opportunities,
(b) to cultivate prosperity, and
(c) to nurture ingenuity (like alternative energy and biofuel which stands to free us from our dependency on oil and enrich our rural communities (those red states).
The problem has always been with oversight. That's why programs like FEMA or government foster care programs get into trouble. That's why EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT is what we should all be focused on. One that promotes oversight of the different programs and agencies and not for the purpose of creating political, party-centric, self-serving talking points, and not OVERSIGHT of Americans (which equals spying). I'm calling for OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT, something the Bush Administration has opposed vigorously, even to the loud objection of the Republican Congress.
Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has criticized the Bush Administration's opposition to oversight in the past:
"This is not a monarchy," Burton said. "The legislative branch has oversight responsibility to make sure there is no corruption in the executive branch."
We have to demand that certain Republicans (Bushites) and certain Democrats (Clintonites) stop playing fast and loose with our rights, lives and livelihood for their own ambitions. That we want them to work TOGETHER to produce more EFFECTIVE government. That we want NURTURING, WELL-ORGANIZED and MONITORED SOCIAL PROGRAMS so that there is AID WITHOUT WASTE!
And a foreign policy based on cultivating cultures of opportunities internationally and preserving human dignity and human rights across the board.
I wrote a blog on the recent rape-murder that occurred in Iraq. I called for the global cultivation of a new taboo against rape, child abuse, torture and slavery similar to the taboo most if not all societies currently have against cannibalism. When you adopt a global foreign policy based on strict abhorrence of these things and a true respect of all human life, not just respect for stem cells, foreign policy stops being guided by self-interest and things like human rights stop being casualties of diplomacy.
Post a Comment
<< Home