I know I get crap from liberals for simply posting the words of Ann. However, she does such a great job, I, or anyone can do better.
I am not even sure I can cut anything out of this perfect article.
I'll just say, enjoy:
Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday's Democrat debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign. For now, the Democratic candidates need to appeal only to their nut-base. So on Monday night, the candidates casually spouted liberal conspiracy theories that would frighten normal Americans, but warm the hearts of losers blogging from their mother's basements.
B. Hussein Obama got the party started by claiming he couldn't get a cab in New York because he's black. This line was a big hit with white liberals in the audience who have never been to New York.
Even writers for The New York Times don't drag this canard out anymore. Last year, a black writer in the Times pointed out how things had changed in New York in the 10 years since he had been out of the country. Not only did he have no trouble getting a cab, but he cited statistics from taxi sting operations that showed a 96 percent compliance rate among cabbies in picking up blacks.
As the Times writer noted, even 10 years ago, "most of the drivers who refused to pick me up or take me to my destination during that time were of African descent." When he asked one cabbie — 10 years ago — why he avoided picking up black customers, the driver displayed a scar across his neck, a souvenir from a black customer who had robbed him. "I have to choose which is worse," the driver said, "a fine or death."
Thanks to Rudy Giuliani, cab drivers in New York no longer have to make that choice. Under his mayoralty, New York City became a lot safer for cab drivers — and everyone else. The murder rate went from about 2,000 murders a year under Mayor David Dinkins to about 700 by the end of Giuliani's term. The last time a cab driver was killed in New York was in 1997.
In addition to making it safer for (mostly African-American and Muslim) cabbies to pick up African-Americans, Giuliani made it costly for them not to. He started "Operation Refusal" in 1999, sending out teams of black undercover cops and taxi commissioners to hail cabs and give fines to those who refused to pick up blacks.
Even back in 1999, in the first 12 hours of "Operation Refusal," out of more than 800 cabs hailed, only five cab drivers refused to pick up a customer — one of whom was a white woman with children. And by the way, I've had dozens of cabs refuse to stop for me on Fifth Avenue. Sometimes they forget to turn on the "off duty" light, or they're daydreaming or maybe they've read my columns on Muslims.
Next time, B. Hussein Obama ought to tell us the one about Kool cigarettes being owned by the KKK and causing impotence in black men. There may not be overwhelming evidence disproving that one as there is for the yarn about blacks not being able to get a cab in New York. Overall, Hillary appeared to be the only Democrat even dimly aware that there will eventually be a general election. But she too played to her audience with wacky conspiracy theories. Oops, I mean she "discussed the Democratic platform in detail." No need for me to get judgmental. Hillary raised the Bush-stole-the-2000-election fairy tale, saying: "I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000. I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election, but ..." (Applause.)
On Nov. 12, 2001, The New York Times ran a front page article that began: "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."
Another Times article that day by Richard L. Berke said that the "comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots solidifies George W. Bush's legal claim on the White House because it concludes that he would have won under the ground rules prescribed by the Democrats." On
Nov. 18, 2001, notorious pro-abortion zealot Linda Greenhouse wrote in the Times that the media consortium's count of all the disputed Florida ballots — in which the Times participated — concluded "that George W. Bush would have won the 2000 presidential election even had the court not cut the final recount short." If three prominent articles in the Treason Times isn't enough to convince Hillary that Bush won the 2000 election, forget the White House: ABC ought to hire her to replace Rosie O'Donnell on "The View." I know that's a big seat to fill, but maybe she can finally convince Elizabeth Hasselbeck that 9/11 was an inside job.
Point of the wonderful article: Liberals simply make things up to please their audience. They play to the far left's believe that racism is rampant and occurring everywhere (hash). They keep lying about the 2000 election even though recount after recount show there was virtually no way Gore could have won Florida.
That is my point much of the time on this blog. Democrats feed and live off the stereotypes that might have been true 35 years ago, but are not anymore. And they simply say things that they think will get them elected, even though they are not factual.
Friday, July 27, 2007
OBAMA HAILS A UNICORN
Posted by The Game at 2:53 AM
Labels: ann coulter, liberal hypocracy, liberal lies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday's Democrat debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign?
If the debate was so distasteful (i didn't watch it) as to turn voters away from voting democratic, why would FOX NEWS an unbiased, objective, straight journalism outfit want to buy it and play it over and over again?
Methinks that Ann let a little bit of truth slip out accidentally. She just inadvertently confirmed what anybody with a functioning brain has known for a long time, that Fox news only exists to help republicans get elected and to dish out propaganda to support their heinous agenda.
BTW, a statewide hand recount of all the votes wouldve come out in favor of Gore.
But we already know that Ann is a liar from when she falsely claimed that Bill Maher wished that Dick Cheney had been killed by terrorists.
"They play to the far left's believe that racism is rampant and occurring everywhere (hash)."
Please point to ONE example where I have represented this point of view.
Man Coulter is a liar.
You are a liar.
Virtually every single thing you have written here is a total lie.
realism...
I did think that myself when reading that line...either you are correct or she was making a joke that FOX is supposed to be right-biased so they should show the tape...
hash is displaying what happens when you REALLY hit home on the truth regarding liberals. Especially their fake outrage for non-existant racism. They continue to tell the stories of not being able to get a cab that might have happened 20 years or more ago...they have to keep saying the same stuff now because their message has not changed...
Game?
Are you autistic?
Show me ONE occasion where I posted such a thing.
Let's see the truth.
Okay...personal attack aside...I work with many autistic kids coaching Special Olympics so we will let that one go for now...
Anway, I don't have time to look at all your comments now, I have a 9 day old son to play with, however, I am afraid I might be thinking about Chet's comments, so you might be right about that...
However, my comments are still correct, just take the word hash out and replace it with Chet...
Ann Coulter again, uh? Didn't she date Bill Maher once? Or, was it Laura Ingraham? Well - all retarded characters on their party payroll!
If you want a GREAT EXAMPLE of someone making up stuff to please his audience, listen to any speech by George W. Bush.
Thank you!
Now go play with your kid, and have a good time together.
We will argue another time...:)
Good night.
realism,
FOX's hard news shows are not biased, they simply present "multiple" points of views. To one that's used to hearing only one side of an issue, I can imagine your chagrin. I challenge you to point out "bias" from their "hard news show". You may consider their "op-ed" shows biased, but I have to disagree. You see there's a big difference between FOX's op-ed shows and that of the main stream media. It must be embarrising for you, that I even have to point this out - but FOX's op-editorialist are clear where they're coming from, they (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.) pull no punches about their political philosophy. Can the same be said for all the rest of the TV media?
Your question as to why FOX news would want to replay the debate, very simple, FOX is the most watched news network.
BTW a statewide hand recount... Paaleeease! You people are a hoot. Let's see, keep recounting over, and over, and over again until you get the results you want (and no, please, don't question our assumptions) then stop, screech, cease and deasist because we've got the results we want. Pathetic!
Congratu-fricken-lations about your son! I've got a 1 yr old son and I'm lucky enought to be able to work from home so that I can hang out with him every day.
I think that Obama's line about the cabs is b.s. When do you think the last time he had to catch a cab was?
American and Jim are using page 9 of the liberal playbook, just make jokes or attack the person making the comments when they know what the person is saying is very true.
Argue what she said...
Obama makes up a story about getting a cab, or is talking about something that might have heppened 20 years ago...he is trying to make up stories of racism, liberals NEED stories of racism to still be true, or they have nothing to talk about...
blamin and realism...well done as usual
I give you crap for posting her articles verbatim for one reason: her articles are hardly wonderful. They are chalk full of asinine generalizations that deface public debate. It's hypocritical of you to swear by her filth when one of your goals is to raise the standards of debate.
Reference my comments to the last article you posted.
Andy,
The whole of politics is glutted with “asinine generalizations”, be it coming from the left or the right.
Me-thinks the real reason you hate Ann is because many of her comments are accurate, and reach a large audience, while cutting to the quick of what many Liberals believe.
It’s also much easier to call her names, describe her views as “filth”, cherry pick certain statements to dispute, all in an effort to ignore the good points she’s made. But don’t feel alone; I’ve noticed many of your comrades are experts in that practice.
One more thing about generalizations. While we all hate being lumped into groups, because we’re all individuals with our own unique blend of life experiences, when talking about many issues that affect society, its not always practical to address each specific instance or example. There are as many different nuances to a particular issue as there are people. Normally we must generalize when addressing a particular issue. After all, a good generalization is based on statistics. To a thinking person, generalizations may be distasteful, but we know that sometimes they’re necessary, and useful.
If you don’t believe me, just look at the people that make their living in Vegas, or in the psychology field, or investigators and detectives, or marketing executives, or pollsters, or professional politicians, and I could go on and on.
Political discourse is littered with asinine generalizations, and those of us that prize informed conversation and debate shun those that make their living in the world of the asinine. Generalizations are fine.....if they're based in fact! I haven't seen Coulter rely on sound statistics for even a minority of her generalizations.
I venture to guess this is the difference between us. You prefer the shrill whereas I prefer the civilized and the informative means of discussion and debate. For example, I may not agree with Jay who posts here from time to time, yet we had a reasoned discussion regarding the Democrats' failure to move the Iraq war debate.
I have yet to see you accomplish a similar feat.
The two main points Coulter made in this must be true, no one has tried to prove otherwise...I have more examples of made up stories and lies to prove liberal points that I will reveal soon.
You consider her shill, I consider her humorous, but thats just me. Those of us that aren't thin-skinned can appreciate a biting wit.
I'd venture to guess, that many on the left that you admire or find humorous are considered shill to some on the right.
Does that mean you prefer the shill to the civilized? Not necessarily. But throwing around statments like "her filth" and "I haven't seen Coulter rely on sound statistics for even a minority of her generalizations", certainly sounds uninformed, if not shill and asinine.
Take the article Game quoted. Even without taking out the (what should be) obvious jabs at thin-skinned libs, the majority of her points are accurate.
Herein we find the crux of the problem you may have with Ann. You can't have a "civilized debate" against a point you find "uncomfortable" and yet are unable to dispute.
Game and blamin,
Here is the point: There is nothing to argue or discuss when it comes from a crazy, extreme character like Ann Coulter. It doesn't matter if they are conservatives or liberals. Ann Coulter (just like Bill Maher) has repeatedly shown that she can't be taken seriously.
Now, as far as your "page 9 of liberal playbook" comment - I suggest you come up with something more intelligent. May be, you should ask Rush/Sean for better talking points so you don't sound stupid like Ann Coulter.
By the way, congratulations!! Don't spend too much time here- Spend some time with your son. :)
I think for myself sir, thank you very much.
And my boy is sleepinf at the moment, but I will go play with him asap.
As you can tell by the quick manner I write this stuff I don't sit here for hours.
American,
"There is nothing to argue or discuss when it comes from a crazy, extreme character like Ann Coulter."
What a cop-out! There are so many from the left that would fit your criteria, yet this country finds itself discussing their points anyways.
At what point do we cut a person off from national debate? After 3 instances of "outrageous" comments? Or 6 or 9? Do you realize how many leaders, commentators, and sitting politicians from the left would fall under your arbitrary system? BTW, who decides what's crazy and extreme? Do we vote on it? I would think Ann's popularity is a kind-of vote of confidence.
Are you starting to see the utter ridiculousness of your position?
Here is the point: Ann's comments about Obama are valid and you people would rather dismiss Ann than admit the validity of her argument. How unamerican.
Game,
Congrats! The birth of my daughter and son is among the happiest moments of my life.
Be prepared for several months of complete and utter exaustion.
Let me know if you need a relief pitcher on occasion.
"As you can tell by the quick manner I write this stuff I don't sit here for hours."
Yes, I can honestly say that it's apparent that you don't.
Enjoy your new tax deduction.
blamin is 100 percent correct AGAIN, and no liberal has YET to dispute anything she said, because it is true...
Maybe I missed it, but how did you disprove any of the points in the post? Thats right, you didn't. Ann must be correct.
What’s there to disprove in a strong, biased opinion on a few subjects from a bomb thrower like Ann Coulter?? Answer - Nothing!!! But, you don’t get it, do you? I totally understand your situation.
Way to evade the issue, American, more insults, and ignore the salient points.
Every point you've made about Ann (in an vain effort to evade her opinions) could be said about Moore or many others on the left, but you don't see us running from the debate like trembly, quivering, little jack-legs.
Moore? Thanks for bringing it up! Here is the difference. I watch Moore before forming an opinion. I read / watch Ann Coulter before dismissing her rants.
Did you watch Moore’s movie? Now you know who in this debate likes to “evade the issue and ignore the salient points...”!! Now ask yourself who is running away from debate like trembly, quivering, little jack-legs!! (wink, wink)
American,
It's a shame I even have to point this out, not watching someone's movie does not equate to evading his or her opinion. (snicker, snicker)
I've addressed Moore’s opinions countless times, not once did I attempt to use a cowardly cop-out like "he's just a big fat, lying meany that doesn't disserve a response", which is what the libweenies use as a debating tactic, constantly.
Now you tell me who’s evading. You may need to consult a dictionary before answering that question to avoid looking like an even bigger fool.
After all these post over a period of 4 days the Obama apologist still can’t address his despicable tactics used in the debate. They chose instead to attack Coulter.
Pathetic, but oh so predictable.
"B. Hussein Obama"?
Real classy, Ann, as always. What, did the "faggot" shtick get old?
It's well known, actually, that no action Giuliani took actually had any effect on New York's crime. He's simply taken the credit for a decrease in crime that followed a national trend that began under his predecessor.
All things considered, though, I'm surprised to see Ann "Faggot" Coulter backing The Man who Would Be Queen.
What a spin, Chet.
”It's well known, actually, that no action Giuliani took actually had any effect on New York's crime. He's simply taken the credit for a decrease in crime that followed a national trend that began under his predecessor.”
It doesn’t appear that the majority of New York City natives agree with your assessment. I’m not sure how you can make the statement “It’s well known….” Because it’s pretty hard to prove that an actual increase or decrease in crime rates is caused be any one, or even set of “actions”.
Regardless, your argument does fail to mention that under policies put in place by “America’s Mayor” the crime rate fell faster than the national average, and in fact, the violent crime rate fell at times in NYC while it was rising nation wide.
BTW, I wouldn’t touch B Hussein Obama’s ludicrous comments with a ten-foot pole, if I were you either.
It doesn’t appear that the majority of New York City natives agree with your assessment.
Did you ask them? Look, you can look it up:
First, the drop in crime in New York began in 1990. By the end of 1993, the rate of property crime and violent crime, including homicides, had already fallen nearly 20 percent. Rudolph Giuliani, however, did not become mayor -- and install [police commissioner William] Bratton -- until early 1994. Crime was well on its way down before either man arrived...
Second, the new police strategies were accompanied by a much more significant change within the police force: a hiring binge. Between 1991 and 2001, the NYPD grew by 45 percent, more than three times the national average. As argued above an increase in the number of police, regardless of new strategies, has been proven to reduce crime... Many of these new police were in fact hired by David Dinkins, the mayor whom Giuliani defeated.
Regardless, your argument does fail to mention that under policies put in place by “America’s Mayor” the crime rate fell faster than the national average
I think the problem here is that you don't understand what an "average" is. Yes, just at random, we would expect half of the places in America to have led the "national average", and half of them to have lagged behind. That's what "average" means.
BTW, I wouldn’t touch B Hussein Obama’s ludicrous comments with a ten-foot pole, if I were you either.
No, I'll address them. I think the past 6 years are abundant evidence that the strategy of "only talking to world leaders after they've capitulated to our demands" is a complete failure. Diplomacy shouldn't be a reward, it should be the default state. Because the alternative is default hostility. How the hell does that make sense?
Living in Washington DC doesn't constitute "foreign policy experience." I don't see anything ridiculous about Obama's comments, but I see plenty about yours and Game's that are completely stupid, as usual.
Sorry chet,
You don't understand what an "average" is, what your describing is a "mean".
BTW, exactly how many is "many of the new police" in your Mayor Dinky reference, and how many more did Mayor G hire, hmmm?
And yes I did ask "them" I've family that lives in the empire state, many of which lived in the big city during the 80's and 90's.
What you may not know, or are convenietly leaving out is Mayor Dinky, when faced with falling poll numbers and a good chance of losing his next election suddenly decided to get tougher on crime.
But hey, no surprise there, as many Democrats suddenly "become" more conservative towards election time.
BTW I noticed you also are ignoring Obama's fantastical taxi cab story.
You don't understand what an "average" is, what your describing is a "mean".
They're synonyms, genius. Christ, what a brain trust you've assembled here, Game.
And yes I did ask "them" I've family that lives in the empire state, many of which lived in the big city during the 80's and 90's.
So, from a sample of just your family, you've generalized to the whole city? It's a city of millions, moron. Your family constitutes "most"?
BTW I noticed you also are ignoring Obama's fantastical taxi cab story.
What's fantastical about it? Hardly anybody can get a cab in New York.
chet
Have a tough time in your statistics class did ya? I guess you could claim that an arithmetic mean and an average is about as similar as say an orange to a lime, but in reality they're two differant animals.
My point about my family is I remember exactly what happened when Dinky got worried about his poll numbers. Denying or ignoring history doesn't do much to help your argument.
American,
Breath deeply, hold a moment, exhale slowly. There there now.
What's your problem with reading Moore's views? Do you need the "magic of hollywood", in order to convince yourself you comprehend an issue?
Have a tough time in your statistics class did ya?
In fact I got full marks. Not sure how you ever passed, though. You'll recall that, to find the average, you take the sum of the data points divided by the number of the data points, and to find the mean, you... take the sum of the data points divided by the number of data points.
Since they're the same value derived from the same equation, they're synonyms. From wikipedia:
In mathematics, an average, mean, or central tendency of a data set refers to a measure of the "middle" or "expected" value of the data set.
Synonyms. Are you done being a moron, now? Seriously, you have the same problem Game does - you don't look things up before you pretend to be an expert.
My point about my family is I remember exactly what happened when Dinky got worried about his poll numbers.
So, I don't get it. Giuliani's predecessor's victory over crime is suspect because he did it for political ends, but Giuliani gets all the credit for doing what he did, because it's assumed he's motivated purely by his deep love for his fellow man?
Please. If you have anything but the assumption of bad faith and your complete ignorance of mathematics, I'd like to see it.
Blamin,
You are a complete moron! (No surprise here!!)
I knew that you had problem with facts. As it turns out, you have a much bigger problem! You can’t even read a post and understand it! Instead, you start talking about breathing techniques!! LOL You really think you are funny, don’t you? Awww...
Sorry chet,
But you're wrong yet again. Notwithstanding your faith in Wikkapedia's "expertise".
"You'll recall that, to find the average, you take the sum of the data points divided by the number of the data points", is correct, but a mean is the actual mid-point value in a set. In statistics (and you should know this) an average and a mean can have a significant (or statistically relevant) difference.
The scandal ridden Mayor ("I didn't commit a crime, I just failed to obey the law") Dinkens had opportunity when he first took office to get tough on crime, but he was too busy enabling and excusing criminal acts. After his despicable responses to several "incidents" including a couple riots, he decided to get tough in a vain attempt to save his political hide (power).
Not that it has anything to do with Obama’s disingenuous use of the race card (maybe he’s been taking lessons from Dinky!)
AMERICAN,
Perhaps your reading comprehension will increase if you read a bit more slowly.
I directly responded to your sophomoric point about watching Moore's movie twice under this topic and once in a latter topic.
Seems how your retention skills seem to be lacking, I’ll repeat myself for your benefit “I read synopses of his movie by both supporters and detractors, then I read Moore's response to his detractors, which was essentially a non-response, just self righteous indignation. Which speaks volumes.”
Ya, Ya, I know nothing gets the old knee-a-jerking like a good ole fashion moving-picture propaganda piece. But don’t feel bad; Moore has that affect on susceptible people.
but a mean is the actual mid-point value in a set.
No. That's the median (and the mode is the most common single value in the data set.)
Mean, median, mode. It's not difficult, Blame, but you really need to be looking these things up before you pretend to have expertise. Seriously - open a statistics text. Your memory has completely failed you here, out of your zeal to try to prove me wrong on something.
After his despicable responses to several "incidents" including a couple riots, he decided to get tough in a vain attempt to save his political hide (power).
And then Giuliani took credit for it. I don't see where you've actually refuted my point. All you're doing is making Giuliani look like even more of a crass opportunist.
Which speaks volumes.”
What speaks volumes is that none of you guys will even touch a thread on national health care, after the schooling you received by our hand.
chet
You're absolutely correct on the mean, median, mode, I plead exaustion and temporary brain fart (go ahead have your fun with that one, I've got it coming).
My original point to you should have read "You don't understand what an "average" is, what you're describing is a "median". So you basically proved the point I was trying to make, while disproving the point I actually made, gracias.
"And then Giuliani took credit for it."
No, Giuliani took credit for what he accomplished, (the results "on his watch") and campaigned for.
You're absolutely correct on the mean, median, mode, I plead exaustion and temporary brain fart (go ahead have your fun with that one, I've got it coming).
I'm actually not going to have any fun. Just bear in mind what I said before. You and Game have the same problem - some of the stuff you think you know is wrong, and you should look it up before you try to play "gotcha" with it. He did the same thing in another thread when he said we "haven't had any hurricanes in two years", when in fact, we've had over 60. (The Philipines last year were hit by a storm that made Katrina look like summer rains.)
My original point to you should have read "You don't understand what an "average" is, what you're describing is a "median".
While it's true that the median is the point where exactly half of the data points are greater and half are lesser, as you tried to point out before, that's usually pretty close to the average, so my point stands. We would expect half of American cities to lead the average, and half to lag behind. Thus, the slight lead during Giuliani's term really isn't significant at all. In the face of a national decline in crime, Giuliani really has very little to take credit for.
No, Giuliani took credit for what he accomplished, (the results "on his watch") and campaigned for.
Er, I thought we just covered this. He's taking credit for a drop in crime that began years before he was even elected.
That's basically nonsense.
Chet,
I merely confused the terms, the theory is sound. The difference between median and average is statistically significant on many occasions. Especially in the case of NYC. You can cling to the belief that the "honorable" Dinkins is the true cause of turn around in the big apple, or that "anyone" would have at least a 50/50 chance of improving what was in essence a cess pool, what can I say?
If that is what you believe, there is no point in saying more...
I'm off on my annual vacation. This year - a two day canoe trip down the longest "black" river in North America, followed by two days recoupment on the beach, ending with a 4 day hike in the Linville Gourge wilderness area, it'll be wicked hot, but some things are worth the discomfort.
When I return, maybe I'll spend less time on other blogs, and more on Games. And when you swoop in for a snipe at the edges, with ambiguous statements, backed up by questionable, subjective sources, topped off by misdirection and spin, we can have a little more fun.
In anticipation of your response - I'm sure you will, as will I.
Ignorance is bliss!! Right, blamin? Keep repeating your talking points and wait for the next one from your party. Way to go!
Post a Comment