Coulter says someone should poison Justice Stevens

Not to interupt your cat-fight, but back to the topic…

…if any justice were to get put on a ‘outta be taken out’ list, the number ONE candidate would be Samuel Alito! That man is the single greatest threat to liberty in the US since…since…well, since George W. Bush!

Mutha F*** can remember practically every case he ever adjudicated in minute detail, yet can’t seem to recall belonging to an elitist racist sexist group at Princeton - despite having remembered to list it under extra-curricular activities in a cover letter when he applied for a position in the Reagan government!

Abortion rights, environmental protection laws, right to privacy, affirmative action, et al…get ready to kiss all those things goodbye…

[quote=“Vay”]Not to interupt your cat-fight, but back to the topic…

…if any justice were to get put on a ‘outta be taken out’ list, the number ONE candidate would be Samuel Alito! That man is the single greatest threat to liberty in the US since…since…well, since George W. Bush!

Mutha F*** can remember practically every case he ever adjudicated in minute detail, yet can’t seem to recall belonging to an elitist racist sexist group at Princeton - despite having remembered to list it under extra-curricular activities in a cover letter when he applied for a position in the Reagan government!

Abortion rights, environmental protection laws, right to privacy, affirmative action, et al…get ready to kiss all those things goodbye…[/quote]

Yea, he’s one scary mofo, but now Thomas has someone to play with.

Jack Burton, You failed to answer the question so it stands to reason that you never have read Ann Coulter. Be a good liberal flunkie and just admit, because Ann isn’t published in all that many places. She’s a best selling author who is the least published

I especially like how you turn this on me after I pointed out that you probably haven’t read Ann coulter. Classic liberal tactic, No fuck all about the topic and then personally attack the person who does, who asks you what you know about the topic at hand. If you read Ann coulter, just tell me where.

Did I say any of these things?

As far as the mods are concerned you could threaten me in a PM and I would be just as likely as you to be banned, so don’t bring them into it.

What reflects poorly is that you bring up something that shouldn’t be said and then do the exact god damn thing. If it is so terrible what she said, why are you mimicking her actions?

cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/01/alito/index.html

Gee, early results say maybe he’s not the conservative nutbag he’s cracked up to be, still want to poison him?

[quote=“Okami”]Jack Burton, You failed to answer the question so it stands to reason that you never have read Ann Coulter. Be a good liberal flunkie and just admit, because Ann isn’t published in all that many places. She’s a best selling author who is the least published

I especially like how you turn this on me after I pointed out that you probably haven’t read Ann coulter. Classic liberal tactic, No fuck all about the topic and then personally attack the person who does, who asks you what you know about the topic at hand. If you read Ann coulter, just tell me where.

Did I say any of these things?

As far as the mods are concerned you could threaten me in a PM and I would be just as likely as you to be banned, so don’t bring them into it.

What reflects poorly is that you bring up something that shouldn’t be said and then do the exact god damn thing. If it is so terrible what she said, why are you mimicking her actions?[/quote]

First of all, I didn’t resort to ad hominem attacks as when you called me a “liberal junkie” which, funnily enough, I am not, so it’s not even insulting. You must have a crush on Coulter to really be so vicious about this. Do you have an altar in your room, with candles, and prayers? with a picture of Blondie? Why else the acrid speech from you, I must ask?

According to your reasoning,
Am I expected to list every single article or recite every line to prove to you that I’ve read her stuff. And how much stuff do I need to have read before I’m qualified to speak about her. FYI, everytime she pops up in the news or when I was reading bits and pieces of her books everytime there’s a controversy, I pop in on her WEBSITE where she’s selling her crap, but where it also archives her ARTICLES. But that BEGS the question, why must I have had to read her all her crap in order to realize that her one statement is bs? Do I have to have read all of the Supreme Court’s decision in order to express my opinion on a SINGLE decision? Am I a complete fool not to have read all of Shakespeare’s plays before I can utter my dislike for Hamlet? Am I precluded from voicing my opinion about one episode of Seinfeld because I have not seen the entire series?
At that rate, I’m surprised you find yourself in a position to say anything at all.

As to why I’m mimicking her actions,
it’s called “I’m criticizing her by using her own methods” ie I’m making fun of her, I’m talking shit. I think it is quite CLEAR to anyone who reads English, that my exhortation to do bad things to her body is not meant to be read literally, but is a jab at her own stupid, gloating, statements. I don’t think there is any ambiguity in there so as to confuse people unless they don’t bother to read the whole sentence… like you.

[quote]What reflects poorly is that you bring up something that shouldn’t be said and then do the exact god damn thing. If it is so terrible what she said, why are you mimicking her actions?[/quote] I’m reading this part, and I’m thinking, is that what Okami’s issue with me is? If so, maybe you take everything literally, so the problem lies with you. You may know or recall from school that there are literary devices called metaphors, similes, irony, satire, farce, sarcasm, etc.

For example, if I say he runs as fast as a fox, I am not literally saying he is (a) a furry little animal with sharp canines or (b) that he really can run 25km/h. Let me know if this is too difficult for you.
When someone gets mad at his friend and says, “Oooh, I could kill him.” Do you really think he’s going to take a knife and stab him right there (9 times out of 10?)
When some Taiwanese guy goes “ni yao si ma?” Is he really going to put a cap in your ass 9 times out of 10?
Let me know if this is too difficult.

So, if we go to my original statement, in your mind, am I LITERALLY calling for dismemberment and rape of a well-known right-wing commentator? Answer me that please, and I will retract my statement if appropriate.

Errmm, are you suggesting that conservatives in general or even the conservatives on this website are above ad hominem attacks? If you are, I strongly suggest you do a search on, for example, the posters “Cold Front”, “Fred Smith” or…heck…what’s the name of the guy who went off to live in Bali? Can’t think of it right now… Anyway, check those 2 out for starters, and then get back to us.

Oh, and Redandy, that one case is encouraging. However, I’m more concerned with where he stands on the issues of checks on executive power. That will be the first BIG litmus test of Alito.

Nama[color=darkred]BRoonAle[/color]Hottie

I really don’t understand Ann Coulter; her off-the-wall ranting doesn’t even have the redeeming quality of being funny, yet look at her credentials, achievements, and work history… she is obviously a highly intelligent and capable person. [quote]Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.

After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.

A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. anncoulter.com/bio.html [/quote]

My guess is that she’s simply putting on a right-wing-nut-job persona and cashing in on the ideological split between liberal America and conservative America, as so many others on both sides are doing these days. I don’t rise to her bait, or Michael Moore’s either.

Yea, I’ve read her credentials before, and I figure it was baiting and $. Kinda obvious to say the least. Still, that only reinforces my point about her statement.

Ann Coulter has gotten rich by pissing people off. Whenever I see her name mentioned, it is ALWAYS being brought up by someone who disagrees with her.

Nice work if you can get it, I guess. But I question why she’s so popular among the people she pisses off. Do they need to have someone like her to villify? Why are so many people obsessed with reading opinions they disagree with? Does she give people a place to focus their anger?

Damn though, she’s rich.

Howard Stern in his heyday was similar in that way. His listener ratings were boosted by large numbers of people who listened to his show because they couldn’t stand him and just wanted to hear what inflammatory thing he would say next.

You know you’re wacko when you’re too far gone for Michelle “Throw all the Japs in the camps” Malkin

[quote]Ann used the term “raghead” when describing what our homeland security policies should be: “I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.’”

Ann says many deliberately provocative things. This one was spectacularly ill-chosen and ill-timed. I want the young conservatives who attended CPAC–particularly young conservative Muslims–to know that not everyone uses that kind of epithet.

I don’t. Not in public. Not at home. I have no ill will towards peaceful people who happen to cover their heads for their faith.[/quote]

michellemalkin.com/archives/004539.htm

This was at the CPAC (Conservative Politcal Action Conference); she somehow missed the part where it was reported that the crowds went wild for this.

If Michelle Malkin calls anyone to the left of Attila the Hun a “moonbat,” what does she call someone to the right of her?

Whew…you know the nutjob right is getting a bit weird when the likes of Michelle Malkin tries to distance herself from the likes of Ann Coulter. Whatever next!

I still think it odd that Coulter said the only thing wrong with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn’t continue on to blow up another building in New York. When given a chance to correct any possible misinterpretations of this, she did not at all offer up that she meant McVeigh should have blown up the NY Times instead of the Oklahoma City federal building.

Of course, taken in a long trend of Republican mainstream favorites like G. Gordon Liddy (suggesting that you need to shoot federal agents in the head) and Hal Turner (suggesting that federal judges ought to be killed), I suppose this is what passes for Republican thought these days. Pretty bankrupt if you ask me. :wink:

This isn’t surprising at all. As has been pointed out before, the Republicans often like to pretend at being Libertarians. No big government! Get the bureacrats in Washington off our back! Etc. Thus it comes as no surprise to me that she would laude the attack on the FBI as a tidbit thrown to those who support the GOP because they erroneously believe it stands against statism.

What strikes me as amazing, though, is the fact that the Republican mouth-pieces could still make the pretense that Republicans are Libertarian in light of the Bush Regime, which gives such concrete and obvious evidence that the Republican style of government is far more intrusive into the lives of private citizens – and this was the case long before 9-11! Has anyone forgotten the Nixon regime?!?

Bush has citizens illegally incarcerated indefinitely. He has people tortured, including American citizens. He has protestors videotaped and prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. He has warrantless wire-tapping. He has those with opposing view-points thrown out of political events. He has highly-organized internet attacks on reporters like Dan Rather who don’t kow-tow and dare to report the truth. He has Husein-esque tyrants like the leader of Uzbekistan over to his ranch. And on and on and on.

The only way in which Republicans are for ‘smaller government’ is when it comes to social spending and environmental protection. They are in favor of getting the government off the back of big corporations by de-regulating and off those of rich people by cutting taxes on them. Other than that, they’re BIG GOVERNMENT through and through.

Sorry, I thought of another case in which Republicans are actually in favor of small government: when a huge-ass frickin hurricane wipes out the homes of a bunch of lower-income African Americans.

Vay wrote:

“What strikes me as amazing, though, is the fact that the Republican mouth-pieces could still make the pretense that Republicans are Libertarian in light of the Bush Regime, which gives such concrete and obvious evidence that the Republican style of government is far more intrusive into the lives of private citizens – and this was the case long before 9-11! Has anyone forgotten the Nixon regime?!?”

It’s true. Republicans love to perpetuate the myth that they’re libertarians, when they are anything but.