Media Personalities

Ann Coulter, conflict avoided: Desert Storm
Bill Bennett, Did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Bill Kristol, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Bill O’Reilly, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Brit Hume, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Charlie Daniels, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Chris Matthews, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
George Will, did not serve conflict avoided: Vietnam
David Limbaugh, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Frank Gaffney, did not serve. conflict avoided: Vietnam
Gary Bauer, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Jerry Falwell, did not serve. conflict avoided: Korea
Joe Scarborough, did not serve. conflict avoided: Desert Storm
Lee Greenwood, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Michael Medved, did not serve
Michael Savage, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Ollie North, Convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, at least he served.
Pat Buchanan, did not serve,
Pat Robertson, he was in Korea in uniform briefly, but his daddy the Congressman got his reassigned to Japan.
Ralph Reed, did not serve,
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst)
Sean Hannity, did not serve. conflict avoided, Desert Storm
Ted Nugent, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam

On Saturday, March 13th - one week from now - members of SCS, along with a few others, will be taking a trip to Decatur, to see Sean Hannity speak. This might provide me with some blogging material… I had this thought some time after reading this exc…

I am no longer offended by Ann’s opinion on this subject, despite my post above.

Why? Because it’s just one more bit off fluff from a pundit who’s sole purpose in life seems to be to writing books so that that like-thinking people can sit around saying “Yeah, SEE!” as they read it.

Unable to think for themselves, her readers just know “Liberals bad” and so if they have Rush or Ann to provide them with ammunition, then they can sound intelligent.

My specific change of heart came from two quote I saw in the “From the Publisher” writeup on the book. Specifically:

“Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason”

“Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.”

In other words “If you don’t agree with me you an should shut up and let people who think like me make all the decisions. That is the only way to love the country.”

Obviously this is the antithesis of what America is about. And since this is the #1 theme of the book, I can therefore pretty much not worry about finding credibility in anything else Ann Coulter or her books have to say…and I have better things to do with my life then shoot fish in a barrel.

“The price of democracy is eternal vigilance.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Those who are willing to trade a little liberty for a temporary security deserve neither security nor liberty.” - Benjamin Franklin

“Eye for an eye makes the world blind” - Gandhi

Hope you read this. Just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading the debate between you and Fyodor. One of your comments bothered me though:

“The Socialist Party in the country, a.k.a. Democrats, is hell-bent on trashing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and making us all property of the State. To me, THAT is THE threat. ”

Help me out here! I’m a very passionate liberal, and I get a little queezy when democrats in this country are being protrayed that way. How are democrats threatening the declaration of indepence or the constitution? Seriously, enlighten me..(and I’m not being in the least bit sarcastic, but very sincere)

(A little backround on me….originally canadian…..recenty naturalized here)

I might be a bit of a neophyte when it comes to american politics, but I see actions of a republican white house and views of many conservatives being so far to the right that they smack of fascism..(and no…I do not use that term lightly) I find that very disturbing.

I don’t know much about the libertarian movement in this country, but I’ve felt pretty much in agreement with what I have heard and read. (I might actually be a ‘closet’ libertarian without knowing it, who knows?)

One other thing I would like to share with you, one observation.

I’ve noticed a real aversion in this country to taxation of any sort. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but taxes in canada are very high in comparison. Do canadians complain about high taxes? Of course they do. They also realize that we wouldn’t have a universal healthcare system or much our of our social safety net without them.

One thing that has occurred to me very strongly, having lived here for almost 2 years now, is that taxation is a form of wealth redistribution….(sure…duh….but I honestly only made the connection a short time ago)
Yes, there is a much greater tax burden in canada, but you don’t see poverty in canada like you see here in the U.S., and from my observations, you don’t see the hoplessness that accompanies that either.

Anyhow Larry, thanks for the rant

This posting is a little late, but I have just begun to research Coulter since reading Al Franken’s book. It’s become obvious to me that frontal attacks will never be effective against this vociferous, hateful and deceitful woman, since she seems to thrive on the attacks (and attention) of her liberal opponents.

The most effective weapon is obviously to ridicule her, and while I don’t like to see anyone’s name dragged through the mud, letting her know that we are really don’t take her seriously and are only amused by her antics, will I think finally silence her poison pen.

Thanks again!…brilliant writing as well!

The far rights also say that any “woman” who thinks Coulter is “ugly” has got to be some unattractive liberal hippie, and that she is SO beautiful. I feel like puking when I hear how they’re getting themselves off on her and her views. To me, she’s just completely sickening. They seem to buy into the myth that beauty is actually only skin deep.

Politics aside, she would be as ugly as they come no matter what her personal views were, because she is not out to soothe the masses, only stroke her own ego and hear herself talk. At least the women of the left have a lot better skills at their trade–women like Molly Ivins, Arianna Huffington and Maureen Dowd have something Coulter never will have–a keen intellect combined with a genuine concern for the welfare of others, AND the integrity to check their facts a lot more than Coulter ever could.

Well, good to see the discussion has come back to earth! Be sure that I certainly understand the argument that Republicans are the better lesser of evils for libertarians. I generally hold a mild preference for Democrats, partly because of areas in which I veer off from libertarian doctrine. But your latest description of your preference for Republicans is the kind of thing I fully understand and appreciate, and not something I would particularly care to debate about without being prepared for a long series of novel-sized posts. It was your seeming to call the Democrats the party of socialists and murderer’s that pressed my buttons enough to speak up! Whether the events at Waco amount to murder or not, it sure was a thoroughly screwed up outcome, and if Democrats take the presidency again, I sure hope they do a hell of a better job at handling conflict than that!

Okay? Thanks for the discussion. Now time for me to bug out!

The Agitator has a good (long) Ann Coulter story. She actually cries?

Thank you for elucidating.

I’ll accept full responsibility for taking the conversation off track with the Waco comment. What happened there could just as easily happened under a Republican administration. It was, however, big government out of control, and both major parties are at fault for allowing that to happen, and to continue.

Liberty is usually defined as freedom from government coercion. Neither party has clean hands with respect to supporting big government, but it seems to me that Democrats are unanimous in advancing government control over the citizens. Income redistribution is a core program for Democrats. On the Republican side, there is at least a contingent of conservatives that speaks up for limited government. No?

My remark about Ashcroft’s abuse of power being a reflection of conservative philosophy makes better sense when understood in the context that I was essentially responding to your claim that Democrats pose a greater threat to liberty than Republicans. Of course abuse of power is wrong no matter who does it. But it was you who brought up the Waco incident as evidence of your aforementioned claim. And of course a libertarian A.G. would not have been as anxious to prosecute weapons crimes. But my point was that Reno’s failings in the situation in question (which were crimes, if you are correct) were those of a frustrated and arrogant law enforcement officer willing to do whatever it took to get a particular criminal, as opposed to being based on liberal philosophy. It is not liberal philosophy to bring in tanks and do whatever it takes to catch a criminal. Frustration and arrogance are human traits that can occur in anyone of any particular poliitcal POV. That’s why I say it could happen even to a libertarian A.G. Now, it may make sense to take liberal dogma to task for putting an underqualified woman in that position of responsibility, but it doesn’t make sense to use Waco as evidence that liberal philosophy is such that it makes Democrats a clearly greater threat to liberty than Republicans, which is how I interpreted your comments above.

Also, of course resisting arrest is not a captical crime, and I never said it was, only that Waco was a more limited situation than the precedents being setup by Ashcroft, which have greater implications for the rights of the citizenry in general.

The best recent evaluation of Waco appeared on the Cato Institute website. In fact, I’m sure that Radley even had something to do with getting it there.

It is a Policy Analysis by Timothy Lynch titled “No Confidence: An Unofficial Account of the Waco Incident.” I think you will find that it supports my contention that this was a classic case of government out of control.