lolHorseman 77 wrote:
Proud to have you as an opponent. 4 Light warm ups
My stating your having multiple opponents doesn't label myself as one. You're more of the demented, mentally challenged, feeble little kid struggling to make some headway (you know, the ones with the shit-spewing disorder?).
(P.S. Doesn't Horseman's rash, moronic, assumptious action on top of action just get funny to you? Don't laugh, he's trying!)
(P.S. Doesn't Horseman's rash, moronic, assumptious action on top of action just get funny to you? Don't laugh, he's trying!)
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-07 19:50:49)
How exactly would you do her?
kids a dope, aint he ?
Not near as bad as that RAWLS2 with his little smart ass comment that back fired in his face.....LOL.......Gee where DID he go??Horseman 77 wrote:
kids a dope, aint he ?
An interesting interpretation to say the least. I wonder if the world realized that's what they were approving 15 years ago.lowing wrote:
The pollster could have told the facts about this issue..And the indisputable fact is..We went to war 15 years ago with the worlds approval. The war never ended, a suspension of hostilities was declared when Iraq agreed to the UN resolutions which stopped the fighting. When Saddam broke the resolutions, hostilities commenced. then ask the damn question
That's the actual question from the poll. Neutral as fuck. Note that it contains no blindingly fucking obvious attempts to frame the question so as to skew the outcome in a desired direction.lowing wrote:
Off the top of my head I could ask the same question as " Do you think it was right or wrong to go to war against Iraq?"
See above, in particular "blindingly fucking obvious attempts to frame the question so as to skew the outcome in a desired direction".lowing wrote:
I could ask...."Do you think it was right or wrong to remove a ruthless mass murdering genocidal maniac from power as to better protect America from possible attacks from WMD's" and who continually broke the UN resolutions that he agreed to?
Or, "Should America take pre-emptive measures, which could include first strikes to better protect ourselves against possible future attacks in post 9/11"??
We already agree that it's easy to do this with a poll question. What we don't seem to agree on is how easy/difficult it is to spot the difference.
You missed my point. My fault.....Let me try again.....I am saying WAR is the key word here. It is a strong word that is used negatively in this question. Ask the same question and use other wording rather than "war" and your answer would be different... The question using the word "war" in it, makes it a biased question. in my very humble opinionspastic bullet wrote:
An interesting interpretation to say the least. I wonder if the world realized that's what they were approving 15 years ago.lowing wrote:
The pollster could have told the facts about this issue..And the indisputable fact is..We went to war 15 years ago with the worlds approval. The war never ended, a suspension of hostilities was declared when Iraq agreed to the UN resolutions which stopped the fighting. When Saddam broke the resolutions, hostilities commenced. then ask the damn questionThat's the actual question from the poll. Neutral as fuck. Note that it contains no blindingly fucking obvious attempts to frame the question so as to skew the outcome in a desired direction.lowing wrote:
Off the top of my head I could ask the same question as " Do you think it was right or wrong to go to war against Iraq?"See above, in particular "blindingly fucking obvious attempts to frame the question so as to skew the outcome in a desired direction".lowing wrote:
I could ask...."Do you think it was right or wrong to remove a ruthless mass murdering genocidal maniac from power as to better protect America from possible attacks from WMD's" and who continually broke the UN resolutions that he agreed to?
Or, "Should America take pre-emptive measures, which could include first strikes to better protect ourselves against possible future attacks in post 9/11"??
We already agree that it's easy to do this with a poll question. What we don't seem to agree on is how easy/difficult it is to spot the difference.
Totally agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lowing wrote:
And what "documentaries" has she made??Marconius wrote:
She's a lying liar and does nothing but tell lies.
Just ask Al Franken. She's basically the Right-wing's version of Michael Moore.
Ann Coulter.. . attorney who worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, columnist, editor, author.
Al Franken.........actor, comedian, entertainer.......(Stuart Smally), author.
Micheal Moore.......movie producer, dunken doughnuts poster child.
Hmmmmmm. I guess you can judge resumes on these three as to who may be more educated in the nature of freedom and politics.
Kerry didn't have more votes! DUH!? GORE DUMBASSrawls2 wrote:
Thats not the point. And for the record Kerry won. The courts decided the outcome. Sorry, but that is not winning an election. Having the most popular votes is. Kerry had more but still lost. Educate yourself boy before you try and debate me.lowing wrote:
Kerry didn't win because the American people spoke, and he LOST.<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:
qft
Last edited by CC-Marley (2006-06-07 21:15:01)
No, the fact is, she thinks she hot shit at making one smart comment out of 5 ignored questions.lowing wrote:
Ya might as well face it, with all the bravado name calling on here about Ann Coulter. the truth is, in a debate she would have ALL of you liberals pissing in your pants and sucking your thumbs speechless.
"Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?"lowing wrote:
You missed my point. My fault.....Let me try again.....I am saying WAR is the key word here. It is a strong word that is used negatively in this question. Ask the same question and use other wording rather than "war" and your answer would be different... The question using the word "war" in it, makes it a biased question. in my very humble opinion
I honestly don't see how this could be changed to a more neutral wording -- "war" is everybody's word. I could see how "illegal war" could be biased. I'd even say "invading" carries a slight negative slant. Likewise "liberation" and "regime change", on the rosier side of spin. But "war" is what everyone calls it. Even Fox.
i would lovvvveeeeeeee to see you try and win A SINGLE point against her in a debate. you wouldn't, and that is why ya hate her so much. She has removed the cloak of PC from the issues and lets you be offended if you want, since there is no constitutionaal right against being offended.Spearhead wrote:
No, the fact is, she thinks she hot shit at making one smart comment out of 5 ignored questions.lowing wrote:
Ya might as well face it, with all the bravado name calling on here about Ann Coulter. the truth is, in a debate she would have ALL of you liberals pissing in your pants and sucking your thumbs speechless.
It wasn't a US decision. It was Iraq's decision. The war started 15 years ago, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The question is asked in such a way as to lead someone into thinking the US started the damn thing.spastic bullet wrote:
"Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?"lowing wrote:
You missed my point. My fault.....Let me try again.....I am saying WAR is the key word here. It is a strong word that is used negatively in this question. Ask the same question and use other wording rather than "war" and your answer would be different... The question using the word "war" in it, makes it a biased question. in my very humble opinion
I honestly don't see how this could be changed to a more neutral wording -- "war" is everybody's word. I could see how "illegal war" could be biased. I'd even say "invading" carries a slight negative slant. Likewise "liberation" and "regime change", on the rosier side of spin. But "war" is what everyone calls it. Even Fox.
How is it that 85% of the world doesn't get this most important point?
She's right ( back on topic ) in that it's a liberal tactic to put up some frothing at the mouth wretch like Cindy Sheehan up as their spokes hole. But because shes got tragedy your not supposed to respond.
What? because her son died she should get to have a meeting with Bush so that he can answer her drivel; "Why'd you murder my son mr bush"
Fuck Cindy Sheehan and all the 9-11 widows who try to make the deaths of my countrymen yet another political tool. Sheehans rhetoric is 1000's worse than ANYTHING Ann Coulter has said. Yet she's was the liberal medias darling until the hurricane came along and gave the liberal media a chance to say the G.W. planted explosives and blew up the levies.
You people just can't understand how she/we can think that way and hate us for it because politics is exactly like sexual orientation: if your gay nobody can convince you that pussy is better. And if you think Cindy Sheehan is cool but Colters evil you will never be talked into believing anything else.
You don't listen to what she's saying 'cause you can't get over how she says it. Doesn't mean she's not speaking the truth.
She's right ( back on topic ) in that it's a liberal tactic to put up some frothing at the mouth wretch like Cindy Sheehan up as their spokes hole. But because shes got tragedy your not supposed to respond.
What? because her son died she should get to have a meeting with Bush so that he can answer her drivel; "Why'd you murder my son mr bush"
Fuck Cindy Sheehan and all the 9-11 widows who try to make the deaths of my countrymen yet another political tool. Sheehans rhetoric is 1000's worse than ANYTHING Ann Coulter has said. Yet she's was the liberal medias darling until the hurricane came along and gave the liberal media a chance to say the G.W. planted explosives and blew up the levies.
You people just can't understand how she/we can think that way and hate us for it because politics is exactly like sexual orientation: if your gay nobody can convince you that pussy is better. And if you think Cindy Sheehan is cool but Colters evil you will never be talked into believing anything else.
You don't listen to what she's saying 'cause you can't get over how she says it. Doesn't mean she's not speaking the truth.
Last edited by yerded (2006-06-07 22:46:53)
WOW! Just read five pages of posts and a lot of people were spraying ignorant comments, look it up first before you flame me - nothing personal , like shotgun pellets. The one that got my attention was the Al Franken one...
To the point - Ann is intelligent and proven to be competent as well. She can hold her own and maybe some people take offense - so be it. However, she is making people think {with their brains people}. If you are influenced by actors, singers, etc., Al Franken is a good example, then I would ask you to separate fact from fiction and professionals from those who are not in the know. It's up to you to chose to follow an intelligent professional or someone who has spent their lives making a living by getting you to believe they are something they are not - this stuff is serious so WTFU.
As far as Bush - he's been right and he's been wrong, however, he is the president and I respect that.
IMHO,
Kaboom.
To the point - Ann is intelligent and proven to be competent as well. She can hold her own and maybe some people take offense - so be it. However, she is making people think {with their brains people}. If you are influenced by actors, singers, etc., Al Franken is a good example, then I would ask you to separate fact from fiction and professionals from those who are not in the know. It's up to you to chose to follow an intelligent professional or someone who has spent their lives making a living by getting you to believe they are something they are not - this stuff is serious so WTFU.
As far as Bush - he's been right and he's been wrong, however, he is the president and I respect that.
IMHO,
Kaboom.
Well, You asked, IMHAVHO Shes an Idiot.BN wrote:
What is everyone’s opinion of her?
Dont bother asking what IMHAVHO Means....
Battlelog: DaReJa
MyBFi/BF3i Admin
AKA DanielRJ
GameSurge IRC Network, Support Agent and Staff
Phuzion IRC Network, Support Director and Operator
MyBFi/BF3i Admin
AKA DanielRJ
GameSurge IRC Network, Support Agent and Staff
Phuzion IRC Network, Support Director and Operator
cmon...what does IMHAVHO mean?
Quess;
I'm have a hole.
Quess;
I'm have a hole.
In My Honest and Very Honest Opinion?
I Made Hot and Very Happening Onions?
I Made Hot and Very Happening Onions?
The lady is a little brash & could be more tactful , but I can see her point of political parties using the 9/11 victims family's as spokespeople for agendas they normally would not discuss, but since no one is going to attack or come against them, they are the perfect pedestal.
She called them on it & find it funny she exposed the game.
She called them on it & find it funny she exposed the game.
Thanks!Marconius wrote:
In My Honest and Very Honest Opinion?
I Made Hot and Very Happening Onions?
Wow, Horseman, you've said much worse stuff about liberals who speak their mind. odd, isn't itHorseman 77 wrote:
So " she hates anyone who disagrees with her " sounds like a few people we know.
They love to take one sentence out of a whole book and attack some one over it.
You always have the ability ( in a free country ) to read what they actually said, in context, in their own words or you can do the lemmings thing.
What ever works for you.
Yerded, the entire point of using someone who's lost a family member is because they lost a family member. You right wingers on these forums can go on all day about how we're all supposed to die for the rest of the worlds freedom and liberty, but the truth is the War on Terrorism isn't a total war, we are not in danger of being invaded or destroyed, and fathers and mothers don't want their sons and daughters to die occupying a country like Iraq.yerded wrote:
How is it that 85% of the world doesn't get this most important point?
She's right ( back on topic ) in that it's a liberal tactic to put up some frothing at the mouth wretch like Cindy Sheehan up as their spokes hole. But because shes got tragedy your not supposed to respond.
What? because her son died she should get to have a meeting with Bush so that he can answer her drivel; "Why'd you murder my son mr bush"
Fuck Cindy Sheehan and all the 9-11 widows who try to make the deaths of my countrymen yet another political tool. Sheehans rhetoric is 1000's worse than ANYTHING Ann Coulter has said. Yet she's was the liberal medias darling until the hurricane came along and gave the liberal media a chance to say the G.W. planted explosives and blew up the levies.
You people just can't understand how she/we can think that way and hate us for it because politics is exactly like sexual orientation: if your gay nobody can convince you that pussy is better. And if you think Cindy Sheehan is cool but Colters evil you will never be talked into believing anything else.
You don't listen to what she's saying 'cause you can't get over how she says it. Doesn't mean she's not speaking the truth.
Yerded, take this question seriously. Would you like to die for Iraq? Think about it.
And your point about politics is correct. I don't personally think Cindy Sheehan is cool, she made her point. But that doesn't mean I think she isn't entitled to be an activist.
It's just like the Terri Schiavo dilemna. It was the right wings Cindy Sheehan. A human vegetable, long dead, her brain turned to mush. Right wingers using it as an oppurtunity to show their "pro life" beliefs.
lowing, what about China and Taiwan? If China invades Taiwan, you will want to invade China as well, right?lowing wrote:
It wasn't a US decision. It was Iraq's decision. The war started 15 years ago, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The question is asked in such a way as to lead someone into thinking the US started the damn thing.spastic bullet wrote:
"Do you think the US made the right decision or the wrong decision in going to war against Iraq?"lowing wrote:
You missed my point. My fault.....Let me try again.....I am saying WAR is the key word here. It is a strong word that is used negatively in this question. Ask the same question and use other wording rather than "war" and your answer would be different... The question using the word "war" in it, makes it a biased question. in my very humble opinion
I honestly don't see how this could be changed to a more neutral wording -- "war" is everybody's word. I could see how "illegal war" could be biased. I'd even say "invading" carries a slight negative slant. Likewise "liberation" and "regime change", on the rosier side of spin. But "war" is what everyone calls it. Even Fox.
Are you fucking kidding? When asked why Bush had such low ratings, she said "ummmmm, I don't know". Hmm. Great debate there. What she does is dodges around tough questions, answers the ones she knows, which are completely based on her opinion, and acts tough and shit, like she really matters to the country.lowing wrote:
i would lovvvveeeeeeee to see you try and win A SINGLE point against her in a debate. you wouldn't, and that is why ya hate her so much. She has removed the cloak of PC from the issues and lets you be offended if you want, since there is no constitutionaal right against being offended.Spearhead wrote:
No, the fact is, she thinks she hot shit at making one smart comment out of 5 ignored questions.lowing wrote:
Ya might as well face it, with all the bravado name calling on here about Ann Coulter. the truth is, in a debate she would have ALL of you liberals pissing in your pants and sucking your thumbs speechless.
The perfect Lewis Prothero. England prevails.
what would be interesting is a debate between Ann Coulter and Jon Stewart. Debate of the century right there.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-06-08 00:49:49)