Coulter vs. Behar (What was Larry Thinking?)

Well, I have to go to a friend’s birthday party out on the town tonight and as fun as that will be, I could have enjoyed watching this glorious 16 minutes over and over again.

Ann Coulter was scheduled to appear on Larry King Live and Joy Behar filled in.  I have a feeling now that Joy will not make that mistake again – at least without the rest of her “team” on The View.

This is precisely why I cannot stand Elisabeth Hasselbeck.  THIS is how a Republican should handle a liberal loud-mouth like Behar.

The 16-minute exchange even won this comment from Entertainment Weekly –

I always enjoy you on The View, Joy, but last night on Larry King, I’d have to say, you got served by Coulter.

The conversation begins with talk on the Stimulus, or as Ann refers to it as, “The Reward Failure Act.”  It then moves on to Ann giving Joy a thrashing over Behar’s comments that Rush was an “extreme right winger.”   Then they discuss the fact that conservative women have more orgasms than liberal women do.

One thing I thought Coulter was capable of  (and perhaps she was just being nice after all the other thrashing she delivered in her “play-it-cool” style) is something I noted toward the end of the interview when, in response to Coulter’s comments on single mothers being responsible for “80 percent of the inmates in our prisons.”

Joy shot back:

“but there are tons of people out there who were raised by single mothers who are doing quite well”

“why not look at it from that end?”

Huh!?  If we could decrease crime by 80%, do we stop that for the purposes of looking at it from the wrong end?

Speaking of wrong ends, how many times did Joy and Whoopi (and Rosie) prattle on about the number of military deaths in Iraq or the number of civilian casualties during the conflict?

Hundreds of thousands of troops were deployed, hundreds of millions won’t be gassed by their own dictator in the future of Iraq, hundreds of millions survived the conflict and they now have the Democratic right to vote!

Just when is it okay to look at any issue from the end where the cons exist?

Get some popcorn, sit back, and be prepared to laugh and laugh hard – especially when Ann advocates torturing Guantanamo inmates with old episodes from The View.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Coulter vs. Behar (What was Larry Thinking?)

  1. You know, I saw that, and I would have to think that Coulter got served (of course). Like when she had her own idiotic logic shoved down her throat with that whole “the media wants to have sex with Obama” nonsense, compared with Sarah Palin. I especially love the nervous laugh she spits out when she’s confronted with something that can’t be defended, like when she said “ha ha ha, we don’t torture anybody”. What planet is this freak living on? It’s been demonstrated time and time again, by the previous Republican administration that we did indeed torture people. We have memos authored by John Yoo, we have public admissions from Dick Cheney, we had the judge in charge of military tribunals saying she had to dismiss at least one case because we tortured a detainee, and just yesterday, we had this from Tommy Ridge:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7903516.stm

    Perhaps she’d like to explain again how we don’t torture people…

  2. As she said, if we really wanted to torture them we could show them old episodes of “The View.”

    Among the most effective torture techniques I heard of was forcing them to listening to Christina Aguilera CD’s and water-boarding which all news anchors from Fox and CNN tried.

    A basic rule of thumb is: if you can pay to have it done to you in New York City or San Francisco for kicks, then it isn’t torture.

    Moreover; it was Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann who said Obama sent a thrill up their legs.

    But the rest of the video, I am sorry – Joy served Ann Coulter with anything BUT a coherent question, let alone a battle of wits.

  3. Actually it’s funny, Joy acknowledges we “torture” after Obama’s been in power for more than a month.

    Coulter is right, he played the Kos kids like fools and once he got the national security briefings he began to understand what it’s like to be a President and forgot what it’s like to be Sally Field.

    If we’re torturing, it’s currently under your President. You better start writing letters, Robert.

  4. Finally, let’s take a poll here, how many people think Coulter’s laugh at 1:08 that Robert mentioned seemed like she was nervous.

    It seemed pretty sincere to me.

  5. “A basic rule of thumb is: if you can pay to have it done to you in New York City or San Francisco for kicks, then it isn’t torture.”

    LOL! Oh my effing God.

    I guess the only thing the qualifies as torture is sex with dead people. As far as I know you can’t get that in SF but I bet I am wrong.

  6. “Get some popcorn, sit back, and be prepared to laugh and laugh hard – especially when Ann advocates torturing Guantanamo inmates with old episodes from The View.”

    As opposed to new episodes? LOL.

  7. “Actually it’s funny, Joy acknowledges we “torture” after Obama’s been in power for more than a month.”

    She also spent years of acknowledging it in the past Administration. What’s your point?

    “A basic rule of thumb is: if you can pay to have it done to you in New York City or San Francisco for kicks, then it isn’t torture.”

    What’s this, a Republican taking a cavalier attitude about torturing other human beings?

    *gasp*

    That’s a fantastic line of thinking, Steve. People pay prostitutes for sex, is that the same as being raped? You’re missing a fundamental component here, and that is voluntary vs. involuntary, as is demonstrably true with the aforementioned analogy. Now, if you do these things for kicks, then I guess have at it. But the fact that you seek to downplay techniques that we as a country fervently prosecuted in the wake of WWII says a lot about your respect for the rule of law (or lack thereof). But if it makes you feel better to agree with any and all things said by this monstrosity of a person (Coulter), then you go right ahead and minimalize the laws that made this country respected. I’ve come to expect no less from you.

  8. “You’re missing a fundamental component here, and that is voluntary vs. involuntary, as is demonstrably true with the aforementioned analogy. ”

    One thing I have not read (or perhaps do not recall) is if we torture people, then we encourage our enemies to torture our people. Tit for tat as they say.

    Now I know some of our enemies will torture our people regardless of what we do. But, if they do then we can say we did not encourage this.

    That’s reason enough to not torture people.

    Now Robert you bring up an interesting point regarding voluntary vs. involuntary. If I know my enemy will torture me if captured, then am I not volunteering to be tortured by engaging my enemy in war? Just thought I’d toss that out.

    Anyway…it gets back to do on to others they do on to you. I don’t want our soldiers tortured even when I know certain enemies will do it. Why give them a reason to jusify what they do?

  9. Rape is a specific charge. Murder is, pain is, death is, etc.

    “Torture” has lost its appeal all the way around. Unlike the other terms I mentioned, it’s been thrown around to describe 100,000 different things.

    Until we get specifics on what it is, Joy Behar needs to take a pill. She seems fine in pointing out the positives of some single mothers whose children turned out okay.

    But in terms of Iraq and dealing with our enemies, they look at it from the negative end. More people were not “tortured” and more people lived and survived the Iraq invasion and will benefit because of it than those that died.

    All along they could have chosen to pick an end and liberals always picked the end that assisted them in their number one mission of hating George Bush. That’s why everything from Iraqi deaths to what would qualify as “torture” has been amplified.

    I suppose now when we start to see families starve as a result of the Reward Failure Act of 2009, you folks could accuse me of only focusing on the negative as well. We shall see.

  10. “One thing I have not read (or perhaps do not recall) is if we torture people, then we encourage our enemies to torture our people. Tit for tat as they say.”

    Exactly, John. I’m pretty sure that was the idea behind Geneva Convention IV. If you’re going to do something like that, expect it to be done in return. Not a good can of worms to open.

    “Anyway…it gets back to do on to others they do on to you. I don’t want our soldiers tortured even when I know certain enemies will do it. Why give them a reason to jusify what they do?”

    This may be the first time that we’ve agreed on something, John. This is what always baffles me as to how this escapes 99% of people that agree with using these tactics. You’re opening the door for just that kind of tit for tat that in the end, benefits no one.

  11. You want to know what torture is?

    It’s precisely what we ended under Saddam in Iraq. The real torture used on those folks is widely available to the public and forcing detainees to listen to Christina Aguilera tunes or dripping water down their noses hardly pales.

  12. “Rape is a specific charge. Murder is, pain is, death is, etc.”

    Pain is not a specific charge, but torture most certainly is.

    ““Torture” has lost its appeal all the way around. Unlike the other terms I mentioned, it’s been thrown around to describe 100,000 different things.”

    Yes, and some of those things have been prosecuted at trial, resulted in case dismissals, and excused by people like you to justify a sadistic sense of justice.

    “Until we get specifics on what it is, Joy Behar needs to take a pill.”

    We do have specifics, Steve. What about this are you not getting? Let’s try this angle: what would you call it if someone simulated the act of drowning until you literally thought death was imminent? What would you call it if someone tossed your naked body in a room with temperatures just above freezing? What would you call it if someone smeared feces across your face and chest in order to humiliate and demoralize you? You just might call that torture. (this is like a bad Jeff Foxworthy act (as opposed to a good one? I know!))

    “But in terms of Iraq and dealing with our enemies, they look at it from the negative end. More people were not “tortured” and more people lived and survived the Iraq invasion and will benefit because of it than those that died.”

    We look at it from a negative end because the entire thing is a farce. We were hit on 9/11, and the response was to attack a nation that had nothing to do with it, and that never attacked us or threatened us. I’m sorry, I just fail to see the good in that. You must be one of those “half glass full” guys Bush was talking about. And if your position is that the ends justify the means, I would have to call you pretty corrupt.

    “All along they could have chosen to pick an end and liberals always picked the end that assisted them in their number one mission of hating George Bush. That’s why everything from Iraqi deaths to what would qualify as “torture” has been amplified.”

    Our number one mission was to hate George Bush? That’s a pretty easy mission. Don’t you understand, Steve, that by actions like the ones we’re mentioning here, he made it so that people hated him? People didn’t hate him, then work their way backwards, finding reasons to do so. They hated him for shit like this! They hated him because he trashed our image around the world, they hated him because he had no respect for the office he held. They hated him because he had no regard for people’s constitutional rights. You don’t just hate someone without a reason. (unless you’re a republican wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, only to find a stained dress to bolster a flimsy pretext for an impeachment that the public was opposed to)

    “I suppose now when we start to see families starve as a result of the Reward Failure Act of 2009, you folks could accuse me of only focusing on the negative as well. We shall see.”

    I hate to break this to you Steve, but families have been starving long before Barack Obama became president. Reward Failure Act? Are you kidding me? What do you call George Bush’s second term? Why don’t you go ahead and explain to us all how initiating steps to save an economy that you guys tanked is rewarding failure. If we really wanted to reward failure, we would have given Bush a proxy third term by voting for McCain.

    I find it so amazing that now all of a sudden, you’re concerned with government spending. Now you’re concerned with deficits. You have got to be kidding me! Where was this outrage when the automatons in congress acted as a rubber stamp for Bush for six years, racking up five trillion dollars in debt? Probably the same place it was in the 80’s, when Reagan managed to accrue more debt than George Washington through Jimmy Carter COMBINED. This current incarnation of the Republican party has never been the slightest bit concerned about debts, because they knew future generations would foot the bill. But when a Democrat proposes spending to improve an ailing economy, oh no! Can’t have that! You’re all fiscally conservative again. What a magical and convenient transformation. Ten trillion bucks says if the electorate is stupid enough to vote a Republican back into office any time in the next forty years, they’ll go back to not giving a shit that the National Debt Clock has run out of spaces. I hate to actually agree with Arnold Schwarzenegger, but his approach is perfectly rational, and non partisan. He was on This Week on Sunday, and he basically blasted his own party for being little bitches when it comes to the stimulus. His analogy was spot on; he said that if you were to go to the doctor, and he diagnosed you with cancer, you’d want to start a treatment right away, you wouldn’t want to see a bunch of doctors fighting about methods of treatment. He said it would create insecurity in the patient, just as our cancerous economy is causing insecurity, because you have assholes on your side of the aisle playing politics with this. You have douchebags like Bobby Jindal saying they’ll refuse stimulus money, because he’s already campaigning for president. It’s the same with the rest of these assholes in the House. They’re running a perpetual campaign. They’re gambling that the stimulus will fail – and they may pick up seats next year, because I don’t think you’ll see the long term effects of this until 2011. It’s all about staying in power with these people, and frankly it’s a little sickening that they’re willing to let people go homeless and eat cat food so they can win an election…

  13. “what would you call it if someone simulated the act of drowning until you literally thought death was imminent?”

    I’d call myself stupid for not giving them the information they wanted BEFORE I got to that point. No, we cannot drip water down their noses but simultaneously they will blow themselves up in protest or starve themselves for days on end in the form of hunger strikes.

    Say, why do these men at Guantanamo go on hunger strikes? Do you think it may be because the USA is viewed as a nation of sissies who allow themselves to lose sleep at night over some ass who is starving themselves to death?

    Do you think if you were held captive by Al-Queda that they’d give a crap if you went on a hunger strike?

    IF ONLY what you would be subjected to is having water dripped down your nose in an Al-Queda prison, then we’d have some room here to wiggle, but the fact is you know damn well the extent of their “torture” goes into areas that nobody at Guantanamo could ever imagine.

    The scary thing is not what’s debateable here as torture. It is the emphasis we put on it and the Kleenex we soak over it. I don’t feel sorry for people who if they had their way would blow us up in record numbers because they believe they are practicing religion.

    “What do you call George Bush’s second term? ”

    I call it a success. Unemployment was down, we were kept safe, I bet you were gainfully employed most of those years, AND ALL of my clients who are being audited now for 2006 (based on the success they had then) would agree with me because all of them were fine then and have gotten rid of most of their employees since Obama has been elected.

    It all started with housing, which had NOTHING to do with Republicanism. It’s idiots who bought homes they couldn’t afford to begin with. They could refinance those homes as long as the values kept going up, but in the meantime they charged up 70-80K in credit card debt because their next refinance was actually part of their earmarked income. That’s not my problem.

    You know what I did? I kept working, saving, and bought an OLD house for about 10 cents. All my friends who bought new homes laughed at what I lived in for years. Now that they are struggling and my house has been fixed up and I am the one who is NOT struggling, suddenly they are quiet about it.

    Sarah Palin said it first – living beyond our means is our worst enemy which she stated during her VP speech while your insane party was running around pitting “Wall Street vs. Main Street.” People like you said that was a cover up for the Republicans’ friends on Wall Street.

    Everyone knew she was right all along. And now of course that Obama’s Reward Failure Act of 2009 is in law, he’s already putting a bandaid on the damage it’s about to do by saying this is not going to reward the irresponsible ones who live beyond their means.

    Say, wasn’t I saying that back before he was elected? We all know Sarah Palin said it!

    Damn that Obama, how can he be so cold-hearted and judgmental. LOL. Notice how Wall Street has left the national discussion. But what does Obama care? He’s already got your vote, Rob.

    I know PLENTY on Main Street who have kept their homes and are still afloat. It never was “Wall Street vs. Main Street” – it was always “the responsible vs. the deadbeats.” By “deadbeats” I mean those who believe they should have things they cannot afford and in a nutshell, those who make pathetic excuses for their shortcomings as men.

    “They’re gambling that the stimulus will fail”

    No, they’re convinced it will fail. We don’t have a trillion dollars, Robert and as Coulter pointed out here, Republicans have been screaming about the deficit for years…..Americans don’t care about the deficit, they care about what they see in front of them! Each President has increased the deficit since the beginning of time.

    Okay fine, let’s reverse that. But stop pretending that the answer is borrowing $1 trillion that we don’t have to hand out to a bunch of irresponsible deadbeats. Massive socialism fails in every culture, Argentina, Japan (Evita is not just a bad Madonna movie) and it will fail here, too.

    The best thing you can do is to stop defending this idiocy and go back to supporting Dennis Kucinich again. In four years, I guarantee you’re going to need a new candidate.

  14. “In four years, I guarantee you’re going to need a new candidate”

    As Steve supports the moron, Sarah Palin, obviously we should take his word for it. Huge credibility!

  15. “I’d call myself stupid for not giving them the information they wanted BEFORE I got to that point”

    And if you didn’t have the information they wanted, as was routinely the case? I don’t know how many times and by how many agencies this needs to be discredited before you get it: torture is not a productive means of information gathering. In fact, it doesn’t really work at all.

    “Say, why do these men at Guantanamo go on hunger strikes? Do you think it may be because the USA is viewed as a nation of sissies who allow themselves to lose sleep at night over some ass who is starving themselves to death?”

    You mean decent human beings who know right from wrong?

    “IF ONLY what you would be subjected to is having water dripped down your nose in an Al-Queda prison, then we’d have some room here to wiggle, but the fact is you know damn well the extent of their “torture” goes into areas that nobody at Guantanamo could ever imagine.”

    So, in your world, two wrongs make a right? Why should we have to stoop to the level of people we have condemned in the past? What good does that do anyone, Steve?

    “The scary thing is not what’s debateable [sic] here as torture. It is the emphasis we put on it and the Kleenex we soak over it”

    No, what’s more scary is your willingness to sell out your supposed principles. People like you aren’t principled. If you were, you’d have the decency to say “even though I don’t think they deserve it, I’m going to support the laws of this country”. Principled is defending the constitution, ESPECIALLY in a time of crisis. That’s when it gets tested the most. If we can’t rely on the constitution in a time of crisis, when can we? People like you who insist on having rights for some but not others are thugs. And you can spit out your predictable dictum that supposed terrorists aren’t entitled to rights under the constitution, but you’re wrong. The constitution doesn’t specify whether or not citizens have rights, but persons. Seeing as how people count as persons, your argument holds no water. I understand you’d like it if people from other countries had no rights, but apparently the founders thought we were better than that, as do I.

    “I call it (Bush’s second term) a success. Unemployment was down, we were kept safe, I bet you were gainfully employed most of those years, AND ALL of my clients who are being audited now for 2006 (based on the success they had then) would agree with me because all of them were fine then and have gotten rid of most of their employees since Obama has been elected.”

    You have a peculiar gauge for success, because the last time I checked, that douche nozzle left office with the highest disapproval rating of any president in history. And a 7% unemployment rate does not sound down to me, it sounds rather high. And if you sincerely think that people would not have been laid off if Grandpa McCain were elected, you’re out of your gourd. Do you have some idea how hard it is to stop a snowball barreling down a mountain? I love how you twerps leap at the idea of blaming Obama for current economic woes. The last administration tried to keep its fingers in the dike for as long as they could, hoping to blame it on the next administration, but they screwed it up far too badly for that to be plausible.

    “It all started with housing, which had NOTHING to do with Republicanism. It’s idiots who bought homes they couldn’t afford to begin with. They could refinance those homes as long as the values kept going up, but in the meantime they charged up 70-80K in credit card debt because their next refinance was actually part of their earmarked income. That’s not my problem.”

    That’s a telling and likely unintentional admission, that housing for middle class people has nothing to do with Republicanism. But, if that’s the official line, then why not blame Bush even a little? He pushed for more home ownership starting in 2002. But that’s not the real reason. Wanna know why what you’re pushing is a lie? Home ownership for the most part remained pretty stagnant under George W. Bush. In 1993, the percentage of home owners in America was 63%. By the end of the Clinton years, it was 68%. Under bush it raised almost 1%. What you’re trying to tell everyone is that millions of homeowners faithfully paid their mortgages for over ten years (in some cases), then all of a sudden decided to welch on their responsibility? You’re crazy at best for believing that, and more realistically, a liar for pushing this garbage on people. In Canada, right now, the percentage of homeowners is 68%, just like us. Guess how many Canadian banks failed in the last year. If you guessed zero, you’d be right. Why is it that they don’t have this problem, Steve? Could it be that they haven’t deregulated their banking industry? You’ve bought into some pretty crazy ways of thinking, but this takes the cake. But, keep up the good work beating up on the poor. the rich can do no wrong…

  16. “And if you didn’t have the information they wanted, as was routinely the case? I don’t know how many times and by how many agencies this needs to be discredited before you get it: torture is not a productive means of information gathering. In fact, it doesn’t really work at all.”

    I love your ability to climb into the mind of extremists caught doing things on the battlefield and men who are willing to die and slaughter others into immortality to determine their innocent states of not knowing. It couldn’t be that pain or dying is more tolerable to them than telling the truth and stopping their pals from carrying forth the mission of Allah, could it? The overwhelming point is your benefit of the doubt continues to rest with them and not your own government and military officials assigned with the responsibility of keeping you safe.

    All along, I’ve always wondered what the contention of liberals were. Was it that American officials were just on a power kick and decided to “torture” those for fun just because they could? If you truly believe that, then keep on believing I suppose.

    But, in a moment where you know you may or may not agree with a technique designed to ultimately protect us from harm, you turn that benefit of the doubt to the ones protecting you, not to the ones who want you harmed.

    Incidentally, why is your preference ALWAYS to err on the side of the ones captured? It seems almost instinctual. And why don’t you assume the position of being the ones to protect if indeed you want it refined.

    In a much smaller world if you were dealing with an enemy one-on-one or even answering one of my blog posts with such venom, why don’t you get a resolution from the U.N. first?

    “You mean decent human beings who know right from wrong?”

    If that were true, we wouldn’t be having this discussion since nobody in their right mind would deem it “right” to spit in the face of your protector while doling your emotions out to the ones who want your throat slit.

    The term is “sissies” as it was before.

    “No, what’s more scary is your willingness to sell out your supposed principles.”

    I have my principles. They start with loving the country that gives me the freedom to do what I want. The country that allows a Catholic to drink and smoke after Sunday service, the country that allows Muslims to pray on their mats along the sidewalks of Battery Park in New York City just feet away from a piece of the WTC that fell. The country that elects folks and puts their trust in folks who are there to protect us. Betraying those principles would require me placing greater concern against those that degrade this country and throwing feces (as the alleged tortured have done which you defend) at the ones who sacrifice. After all, they’re only American soldiers right? Only American officials, right?

    “And a 7% unemployment rate does not sound down to me, it sounds rather high.”

    The 7% unemployment was a DIRECT effect of NAFTA (which I support!). It had to do with manufacturing jobs out of work that we outsourced to India and China. It had to do with automotive factories closing down in the United States. WHY did those auto factories close down? Well, NAFTA’s flexibility allowed other countries to do the same labor that Americans and their unions were demanding higher wages than that of a person holding an MBA. The unions did not budge, the employees still wanted to make $60 an hour and retire at 55. THAT (and you have the audacity to go after someone on Wall Street with an MBA) is greedy. It’s amazing how reality sets in. Sadly, you cannot blame Republicans for the actual signing of NAFTA, but you can thank our support for it for giving union members and the AFL CIO a massive attitude adjustment. 🙂

    Moreover, 7% unemployment attributed solely to NAFTA accompanied by LOW interest rates, LOW inflation (after 9/11, after the Iraq war and after Katrina) was indeed pretty good.

    Tell me, weren’t you working in 2006? Did you have a job? Was your job a high-union paid job where you were able to retire at 55?

    “I love how you twerps leap at the idea of blaming Obama for current economic woes.”

    While it’s cute that you call me a twerp, the fact of the stock market falling steadily since election day is not a coincidence.

    Did you see my new post? It jumped today magnificently!

    But you can thank Mr. Bernanke for that one. 🙂

  17. “In 1993, the percentage of home owners in America was 63%. By the end of the Clinton years, it was 68%. Under bush it raised almost 1%.”

    Read the Community Reinvestment Act.

    It works as long as home values go up. But when they go down, the reality sets in. This is why Clinton’s self-magnified “surplus” was indeed only a surplus on paper.

    “In Canada, right now, the percentage of homeowners is 68%, just like us. Guess how many Canadian banks failed in the last year. If you guessed zero, you’d be right. Why is it that they don’t have this problem, Steve? Could it be that they haven’t deregulated their banking industry?”

    Actually the “regulation” is not Dennis Kucinich’s definiton of regulation. Canada has also been under the power of a mostly conservative Parliment where regulations are monitored.

    Also, Canada’s richest race here for our tax rates. PLUS my new post describes how stocks and Americans react when we put emphasis on LESS big government nationalization of industry.

  18. I hate rap. I can’t stand it. 50 Cent, Snoop Dog, Eminem, Lil Wayne, Bow Wow–all of ’em, I absolutely hate their garbage. I would consider it torture to be forced to listen to it. It’s one of the big reasons why I don’t go to clubs very often–there’s too much freakin’ rap. If most people who do like it read that, they’ll probably laugh hysterically.

    Waterboarding is not true torture. Dragging someone behind a fast-moving vehicle–THAT is torture. Taking a piping-hot clothing iron or a red-hot branding iron to someone’s skin is torture. Bamboo shafts under the fingernails is torture. Gouging out eyes is torture. Suspending a person from the ceiling with meat hooks is torture. Putting a person’s head in a vice is torture. Flogging, continuous electric shock while suspended in an inescapable pool of water, having your bones repeatedly broken, set, and re-broken–those things are torture.

    All but the waterboarding were found WITH ILLUSTRATIONS in a handbook seized along with various instruments of said torture after a raid on an Al Qaeda hideout in Mosul in 2006. Multiple victims were freed–and all had unbelievable injuries.

    Waterboarding is nothing in comparison to what the real bad guys are doing. Oh, and during WWII, innocent people were being tortured to death. We haven’t even come close to crossing that line. We never will.

  19. Oh, and as for the argument raised about Canadian banks not failing–American banks began failing because of deregulation started during the Clinton years. I don’t care if Phil Gramm authored it. Clinton was at the helm. If, as he vehemently claimed, this crisis wouldn’t be going on under his authority, he would have vetoed that horrid legislation.

  20. “I love your ability to climb into the mind of extremists caught doing things on the battlefield and men who are willing to die and slaughter others into immortality to determine their innocent states of not knowing.”

    Hm, as I love your ability to climb into their minds to label them extremists, or to determine what their will is. You call it slaughtering others for some religious purpose, I call it defending themselves against foreign invaders. I’ve used this example before, and it’s fitting that you be reminded of it once again: what would you do, Steve, if you woke up tomorrow to find that some foreign country had decided to occupy ours? Wouldn’t you take up arms to defend it? Of course you would, as would I, as would anyone I know. Let’s say you’re a fucking stellar commando, and you wipe out scores of, let’s say, Norwegians. Are you an extremist? Should you be captured and detained for killing Norwegians? Should you be forced to endure simulated drowning, regular beatings, or electric shock? Have some fucking empathy, man. Iraq did not attack the US. It didn’t. It never has. Why on earth should I consider those people my enemy? We are in their country illegally. As much as I hate watching the end of This Week and seeing more soldiers names on the ‘In Memoriam’ segment, Iraqis have every right to defend their country. And I can already see a vein in your head starting to burst, contriving ways to accuse me of not supporting troops, or taking joy in their deaths, or whatever crazed right wing bullshit you’ve been brainwashed to believe, but the simple fact is, you would do the same. If Norway decided to invade and occupy this country (and I guess we’d have to be devoid of a standing Army for this analogy to work), you would take up arms and kill anyone who threatened your family or friends. I know it. So don’t feed me your bullshit about how they were caught doing things that were wrong, because the fact is if we had never gone in, there would be no need for Iraqis to shoot at Americans. That is undeniable.

  21. “It couldn’t be that pain or dying is more tolerable to them than telling the truth and stopping their pals from carrying forth the mission of Allah, could it?”

    Yeah, exactly my point. If these people are the radical Islamists you claim they are, why the hell would making them think they are going to die persuade them into telling you their fiendish plot? If their sole purpose in this life is to take as many non believers with them to the after life, why would they hand over pertinent information upon the perceived threat of a death they live to carry out anyway? I could drive a freaking bus through your logic here, man.

    “All along, I’ve always wondered what the contention of liberals were. Was it that American officials were just on a power kick and decided to “torture” those for fun just because they could?”

    It could be that, or it could be that they’re just as sick as you, thinking that this will actually produce results. The theory of fun seems plausible, especially after pictures of Lynndie England surfaced giving the thumbs up amidst a backdrop of a stack of naked men, or the many other instances of people looking for kicks, like the assholes driving around shooting Iraqis to Elvis music, or the folks who giggled with delight as they forced Iraqi men to masturbate in front of female guards.

    “Incidentally, why is your preference ALWAYS to err on the side of the ones captured? It seems almost instinctual. And why don’t you assume the position of being the ones to protect if indeed you want it refined.”

    Um, I was always taught to assume innocence until guilt was proven. I think maybe our court system was established on this very principle. Wasn’t it? I don’t know. And I don’t need some poor slob to have his testicles hooked up to a car battery to feel safe at night. I got on a plane two weeks after 9/11. I guess I’m just not a fearful person, how about you?

    “ In a much smaller world if you were dealing with an enemy one-on-one or even answering one of my blog posts with such venom, why don’t you get a resolution from the U.N. first?”

    What the hell are you talking about?

    “If that were true, we wouldn’t be having this discussion since nobody in their right mind would deem it “right” to spit in the face of your protector while doling your emotions out to the ones who want your throat slit.”

    I just have to point out again that you’re making assertions without the luxury of evidence or even probability for that matter. Remember that whole Iraq never attacked us thing? Furthermore, even before 9/11, Iraq was not renowned for its extremism and America hating ways, like that of Saudia Arabia, who regularly hold telethon type pledge drives to raise money for the explicit purpose of attacking American interests.

    “I have my principles. They start with loving the country that gives me the freedom to do what I want”

    You still don’t have the right to torture. And need I remind you that the president takes an oath to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States? He doesn’t take an oath to protect us from scary muslims, nor does he take an oath to not wiretap us only when the treat of terrorism looms. I don’t think you actually get that, because violations of international and domestic law seems to be just fine with you. If you loved this country, you’d be just as sickened and disappointed at the last administration’s complete disregard for the oath they took instead of chiding the one person who points out that without liberty, there is no freedom.

    “WHY did those auto factories close down? Well, NAFTA’s flexibility allowed other countries to do the same labor that Americans and their unions were demanding higher wages than that of a person holding an MBA.”

    You obviously know squat about unions. If you did, you’d realize that while all your scumbag counterparts in the congress got on the TV and lied through their teeth about the amount of money being made by union workers, and crying about concessions that needed to be made, non unionized auto workers were earning a mere dollar less than union workers. “But they make $75 an hour!” Bullshit. Factories moved out of the country for cheap labor, pure and simple. It was the dollar, always the fucking dollar. Working people be damned. It makes me sick.

    “The unions did not budge, the employees still wanted to make $60 an hour and retire at 55. THAT (and you have the audacity to go after someone on Wall Street with an MBA) is greedy. It’s amazing how reality sets in. “

    Apparently reality is something you’ve turned a blind eye to a long time ago. $60 an hour, are you high? Do you even know where that number came from? It came from some sleaze bag republican taking an average of ALL money paid out by auto companies. They factored in health care costs and pension payments to retired workers. In most people’s version of reality, the median wage for unionized auto workers is $28 plus benefits. The starting wage is something like $15 an hour, whereas the non unionized plants (you know, the foreign auto makers that America haters like Richard Shelby love to stick up for) start their pay at $14 an hour. By the way, speaking of greed, perhaps you’d like to share how much you get paid for crunching numbers. I’d like to see you last one day doing real work, like the folks in auto manufacturing plants.

    “Tell me, weren’t you working in 2006? Did you have a job? Was your job a high-union paid job where you were able to retire at 55?”

    Yes, yes, and no. I was working in an architectural firm by day and delivering pizza by night. I don’t think there’s a pizza delivery boy union.

    “While it’s cute that you call me a twerp, the fact of the stock market falling steadily since election day is not a coincidence.”

    Nor is the fact that you conveniently omit that it has been doing so since last year. I don’t recall you bitching about that though.

    “Did you see my new post? It jumped today magnificently!”

    Of course it did! The people with stock in banks don’t want them to be nationalized. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure it out. But apparently you missed even the staunchest free marketeers calling for temporary nationalization, like McCain’s cheerleader, Lindsey Graham…

  22. “It works as long as home values go up. But when they go down, the reality sets in. This is why Clinton’s self-magnified “surplus” was indeed only a surplus on paper.”

    Well, for the sake of argument, let’s go ahead and ignore the economists working for the Federal Reserve and the FDIC (who said the CRA had nothing to do with the bursting of the housing bubble), and say you’re legit. How the hell does the act affect the value of someone’s home? Simple answer, it doesn’t. Oh, and as for your theory of an imaginary surplus, I received a $300 check that begs to differ with you. also, the US Treasury does as well…

    “Canada has also been under the power of a mostly conservative Parliment [sic] where regulations are monitored.”

    Ah, regulation has been monitored. You don’t say. I wonder who monitors it. Probably the private sector, no?

    “Also, Canada’s richest race here for our tax rates. PLUS my new post describes how stocks and Americans react when we put emphasis on LESS big government nationalization of industry.”

    What does that have to do with the banking industry? And your post describes how stock holders with a vested interest react, not average Americans.

  23. “Oh, and as for the argument raised about Canadian banks not failing–American banks began failing because of deregulation started during the Clinton years. I don’t care if Phil Gramm authored it. Clinton was at the helm. If, as he vehemently claimed, this crisis wouldn’t be going on under his authority, he would have vetoed that horrid legislation.”

    You’ll get absolutely no argument from me there…

  24. “What does that have to do with the banking industry? And your post describes how stock holders with a vested interest react, not average Americans.”

    Robert

    Over half but not much over half of the working people in this country have investments in the stock market. If they do not invest directly through their 401(k) plans or personal accounts, then they indirectly invest through their pension funds. Wall Street has plenty of average Americans in the investment mix.

    Regarding union wage jobs and non union wage jobs, I am all for workers being treated with fairness here. Sweat shops and slave labor are illegal and should be.

    At the same time, certain jobs are only worth certain rates of pay because of the job duties and skill sets required.

    Some jobs are by design are entry level work that can lead to better things. Entry level work usually has lower wages. Entry level work isn’t designed to be a career. If a person is “stuck in a dead end job” then that is the fault of management as much as it is the fault of the worker.

    If an employee has no desire to move up from a dead end job then that employee needs to be motivated or fired. Why? That employee is choking off an entry level job from someone who wants to move up. It is not good for our economy to have people who choose to stay stuck in entry level jobs.

  25. “Kos kids?” “‘Real’ mean ie ‘conservatives?'”

    Lol Oh brother…

    Is there anymore evidence to the fact that “conservatism” is just a cult for insecure losers to associate with to make them feel “manly”? lol
    Seriously, the “conservative” movement is like a 6-year-old boy with a squirt gun singing Power Rangers, just a group of fantasy-oriented ppl who strive to look at themselves in the mirror and see something better than a massive beer belly with legs lmafo 😉

    Republicans will keep pretending their tough and everyone else is a child… fine by me…they can just keep losing and losing and losing….

    Oooooh…I have a feeling this comment is gonna get the Coulter kids reaching for their penis-enlargers! 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s