Sense for those who have ears to hear

[350DRIVER]

100LL

It is actually coalition not caolition. Relax, see what happens when you get frustrated and loose your cool. What you have posted isn't anything more than personal opinion, nothing more.

Just like you turds, I don't care if you hate me. It just reaffirms how right I am.

Big big words from a little guy. Keep thinking you are "right", atleast it may help boost your self esteem.


3 5 0

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

100LL

see what happens when you get frustrated and loose your cool.


3 5 0

Actually that would be "lose" your cool!!!


I see this error so much I am starting to wonder if that is the way schools are teaching kids how to spell it.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I would like to see someone rebut this, line by line.

Okay, I will try. It might take a few days, but here's one inaccuracy I've found already:

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Following the attack on U.S.S. Cole, Richard Clarke, Mike Sheehan, and the rest of the Counterterrorism Security Group identified al Qaeda as the aggressor and recommended attacks on their training camps in Afghanistan.

The FBI and CIA, after conducting investigations in Yemen, did not agree that al Qaeda was involved and advised against making any aggressive moves. Unfortunately, Clinton listened to them.

* * *

Now, after learning this, I wondered what would motivate Ann Coulter to lie about this incident. I guess she can engage in deceit as much as she wants in furtherance of her wacko-conservative agenda because she knows nobody will hold her accountable...outside of her moderate and liberal opponents. If Clarke told a whopper like this, he'd be pilloried by the press. Coulter can make up any story she wants because she's a nobody.

If also made me wonder: if she can't accurately recount the Cole incident, how much of the rest of her article is bogus?

 

[Timebuilder]

TB-

Keep posting the garbage, it is better to laugh at someone from a distance. Keep the day job and hope some agent can provide/find you with some work.




More complete bullsh!t posted by yours truly Timebuilder. . . I don't think you will convince many to vote for the clown but keep trying.

3 5 0

Believe me, I support your right to say that anything I post is "bullsh!t." I simply hope against hope that some post you make will make an argument on the topic, and not simply demonstarte a schoolyard approach to discourse.

Of what possible value could the two recordings I did last week for corporate clients, thanks to a casting agent and my personal agent, bring to this discussion?

The answer is that your aim, misguided as it is, is to mount a personal attack because you have nothing to say.

It's getting you nowhere.

 

[Timebuilder]

Now, after learning this, I wondered what would motivate Ann Coulter to lie about this incident.

In order to evaluate that statement, I'd have to compare whatever conflicting sources exist. Is it simply a case of He-said, she said?

What you described about the Cole still ended in "nothing" being done. That may be understandable if the national security advisor and the FBI did not agree. I wonder why it did not encourage president Clinton to increase our ground intel.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Is it simply a case of He-said, she said?

Even if it is, who has more to lose by lying about it?

Go on...tell me Ann Coulter has more credibility than the entire membership of the Counterterrorism Security Group. With a straight face.

I wonder why it did not encourage president Clinton to increase our ground intel.

They already had ground intel. The U.S.N. had no buisness mooring in Yemen. The C.S.G. had already warned the Pentagon that al Qaeda had an active cell there and recommended against stopovers there. In fact, the first reaction inside the C.S.G. when they heard about the bombing was "what the hell was Cole doing there?"

No President--not even W.--controls everything that happens in the military. In this case, the Administration's security people gathered intelligence and made recommendations that the Navy chose to ignore.

 

[Timebuilder]

Even if it is, who has more to lose by lying about it?

That's an interesting question, but can it turn into "Ann Coulter lied?" I think that's a stretch.

Go on...tell me Ann Coulter has more credibility than the entire membership of the Counterterrorism Security Group. With a straight face.

It could be the Counterterrorism Security Group is hoping that the majority of people will stop with that question, too.

So, who has the most to lose? The security group? I don't know.

They already had ground intel.

I thought that 9-11 and Iraq showed that Clinton had failed to appropriately shore up ground intel. That's what we are doing right now, hiring new agents, teaching the language, and recruiting indigenous people. Is that the point Ann is making? Maybe tomorrow I can look up the article inquestion. If you have a link I'll look at it.

No President--not even W.--controls everything that happens in the military. In this case, the Administration's security people gathered intelligence and made recommendations that the Navy chose to ignore.

So, who was CNO at the time?

 

[lurker]

Poland doesn't hate us, Britain doesn't hate us, all of the caolition partners do not.

This notion that Bush has made us more hated is asinine.

say what? I think it's pretty clear that the majority of most countries strongly disapprove of what's going on.

pew

 

[Timebuilder]

If you are going to source information from Pew, you have to realize that you might as well have said "the DNC says...."

All you have to do is take a look at the nations that are against us, or at least standing by and throwing stones. Socialists. Anti-Americans. Countries with business ties to an opressive government; suppliers and beneficiaries of a corrupt oil for food program.

I'd be surprised if any of these ungrateful countries acted on the same principles that encouraged us to save their sorry keisters in WWII when it comes to the war on terror.

Very surprised.

 

[Typhoon1244]

That's an interesting question, but can it turn into "Ann Coulter lied?" I think that's a stretch. It could be the Counterterrorism Security Group is hoping that the majority of people will stop with that question, too.

I learned this in CRM class: "this is stupid."

I'm going to make this real simple: Ann Coulter doesn't know what she's talking about. She is free to lie because no one is holding her accountable. She's no more a journalist than Limbaugh or Franken are.

I don't think you're stupid, TB. Don't act like it.

 

[lurker]

I should have guessed....blame the liberal media again....

here-

washington post

bloomberg

this one ought to be right up your alley TB
christian science monitor

 

[350DRIVER]

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796



It get's a little better...


3 5 0

 

[lurker]

this one's actually pretty funny

mecca cola

 

[350DRIVER]

Popular anger against the United States over its support for Israel amid the Palestinian intifada has sparked a campaign to boycott American products throughout Arab countries.

A calm before the storm?- lol - I will try and find some that I have stored. This man will probably be a millionaire soon.


3 5 0

 

[350DRIVER]

http://hated.net/

Pretty comical site as well. D@mn sometimes the truth hurts in more ways than one..


3 5 0

 

[100LL... Again!]

Funny thing-

It is obvious that my incorrect spelling of coalition was at typo that I neglected to profread.

More entertaining is that you most likely have always spelled 'lose' as 'loose'. Common error, really, among the under-educated.

Also re: Coulter-

Yes, I would tend to trust the independant research of a private citizen more than the face-saving hind-covering doublespeak of gov't beaureaucrats.

And judging from the tone of YOUR posts, I think we all know who could stand a little cooling off.

 

[Typhoon1244]

...I would tend to trust the independant research of a private citizen more than the face-saving hind-covering doublespeak of gov't beaureaucrats.

Well...thank you for agreeing with me about the President and his administration being unstrustworthy. I knew you'd come around!

And judging from the tone of YOUR posts, I think we all know who could stand a little cooling off.

100, spare me. You're one of the looniest people on this forum. Pretending I'm the one who's out of line might make you feel better, but it does little to further the truth.

Someone like Richard Clarke can't afford to publish an out-and-out lie because they'd get attacked from all sides. No one is holding Coulter accountable, and she's counting on people like you to believe everything she puts in print.

The scary thing is that she's succeeding.

 

[Timebuilder]

I learned this in CRM class: "this is stupid."

I'm going to make this real simple: Ann Coulter doesn't know what she's talking about. She is free to lie because no one is holding her accountable. She's no more a journalist than Limbaugh or Franken are.

I don't think you're stupid, TB. Don't act like it.

When I was a liberal, I used to think that there was some sort of crown you had to be wearing to take part in public discourse of the issues. Now, I do not. We have, however, lost something.

Ann Coulter has as much right to say what she says, and for that speech to be regarded as accurate and truthful speech as you, me, or any so-called "journalists" (a word which used to have a very specific meaning, before the dawn of crusading liberals in print and TV reporting) until that speech can be proven wrong. Even Al Franken needs no additional certification for his speech. The content will lead to the public perception of Franken, and all of the rest of us. Right now, I have yet to find reason to doubt her content.

As for all of these cute websites people have, I first look at their agenda. Is it to be, to borrow a phrase, "fair and balanced?" Or, is it the very essence of bias? I choose "B," as a current informed consumer of media, and past manufacturer of media.

While I encourage everyone to take part in discourse, I am disturbed by the tone of much of this. Juvenile behavior from adults. Charges of creating a war for personal gain. Things that even the speakers know is wrong, but they say them anyway.

I can't help that this tone encourages our enemies.

People used to know where to draw the line, and how to conduct themselves in public discussion. It seems we have lost much of that knowlege.

And Typhoon, if you have a link to what Ann wrote that you think is wrong, pleease post it.

Heck, I might end up agreeing with you.

 

[Herman Bloom]

any so-called "journalists" (a word which used to have a very specific meaning, before the dawn of crusading liberals in print and TV reporting) until that speech can be proven wrong. Even Al Franken needs no additional certification for his speech.

Funny, TB, that you always forget to mention Rush Limbaugh et. al. when you rant about "journalists". Franken is EXACTLY like Limbaugh (they're both businessmen), and I don't think either of them are true journalists.

You're very selective in your "balanced" arguments.

 

[Timebuilder]

Sorry. My failure to mention Limbaugh is puposeful.

He is a commentator, which is different in purpose from being a journalist, such as Brit Hume.

Nothing funny. Just a different category of media.