More carry kaka

Help Support CattleToday:

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
1
Location
MO Ozarks
THIS LADY TELLS IT LIKE IT IS.


Excerpt from recent Ann Coulter essay on John Kerry:

Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see
Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like
chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it
accidentally manifests itself in one of their own. One has to stand in
awe of Kerry's military service 33 years ago. Of course, that's where it
ends, including with Kerry -- inasmuch as, upon his return from war in 1970, he promptly began trashing his fellow Vietnam vets by calling them genocidal murderers. But if Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class.

Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters. For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment". This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women.What does a kept man know about taxes?
In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family
estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he
promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married. (Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.)

Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband.
He is, after all, the father of her children -- a fact that never seemed
to constrain him. When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million.

Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even
stand up to his wife. Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement,
presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration.

At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign.
Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share"
of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune.(Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay f o r TV ads.

Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see:
According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's
income was $144,091. But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month -- or $364,668 a year.

The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure,
liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money.

Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling
the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president.

If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they
nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for past 33 years?

Don't forget:

John Kerry is strong on defense
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to Kill the B-1
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to Kill the FA-18
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the F117

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the
development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops.

With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs.

He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of
theU.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%. But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!!

Is THIS a President YOU want?

If you are interested in the character of the next president of the
United States, please forward this to those you want to inform. Also remember that unlike George W. Bush, John Kerry is a "lawyer." His most likely VP candidate, John Edward's, is a "trial lawyer." That alone should disqualify both of them from elected office.
 

D.R. Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
0
Location
East Central Florida
Setting all preferneces aside, can anyone deny the facts stated in the original post? Let the record speak for itself no matter who brings it to light.
 

TheBullLady

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
3,537
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Texas
Great article! Thanks for sharing it!

I've not heard of Ann Coulter before, but I'm going to start looking for more of her!
 

txag

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,712
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
eric":1nmb09to said:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010716.html


just awesome!!

thanks for posting the link, eric. i also found this on the site:



The phony attack on Bush's stem cell research "ban" (8/17)
By Brendan Nyhan

In his response to President Bush's radio address on August 7, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry drove home one talking point - that President Bush had banned embryonic stem cell research. He began by saying, "Three years ago, the President enacted a far-reaching ban on stem cell research" and later referred once to "the stem cell ban" and twice to "the ban on stem cell research." He never clarified his use of the word, leaving listeners to believe that President Bush has banned all stem cell research. But that is simply not true.

The reality is that the President has actually allowed federal funding for research into embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created before August 9, 2001 (22 are currently available according to the National Institutes of Health Embryonic Stem Cell Registry). Furthermore, privately-funded research can be conducted without restrictions in the United States. The only "ban" is on federal funding for new stem cell lines that were not included in Bush's original group - hardly the meaning that Kerry suggested in his address.

Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern, as Slate's Will Saletan, the Washington Post and the Associated Press have all pointed out. The Kerry campaign has pounded the "ban" talking point over and over in the last few weeks.

For instance, on July 26, a Kerry press release referred to "the ban on stem cell research," and an August 7 release on Kerry's radio address also referred to the alleged "stem cell ban" in its title and uses the term "ban" four other times. Also, in an August 9 speech, vice presidential nominee John Edwards falsely claimed Bush had created a "ban" three years before. The press release promoting Edwards' speech referred in its title to a "stem cell ban" and in its first sentence to "the three year anniversary of President George Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research," which is described as an "ideologically-driven ban." Only later did it clarify the meaning of the "ban".

When pushed on this issue, the campaign's defense - given by a spokesperson to the Associated Press - rings hollow:

Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said Bush's restrictions apply to 99.9 percent of potential stem cell lines that could be studied. "If that's not a ban," he said, "we don't know what is."
But as stated previously, Bush's restrictions apply only to federal funding, not to embryonic stem cell research itself. Nor does Singer's figure even make sense. "99.9% of potential stem cell lines" is an exaggerated and meaningless figure - there an infinite number of "potential stem cell lines," and it is not true that 99.9% of currently available lines are off-limits. In May 2004, a Boston Globe survey found 51 lines available that were not eligible for federally-funded research, a number the newspaper said could rise to "more than 100" by the end of the year. In any case, the percentage of available lines that are off-limits is substantially less from 99.9%.

Other Democrats have also joined in recently. In one prominent example, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said during her address to the Democratic National Convention on July 26 that "We also need to lift the ban on stem cell research" without clarifying the meaning of the term "ban". And in a July 13 press conference promoting the convention, New Mexico Bill Richardson, a Democrat, referred to "the need to deal with diabetes and many other diseases that are prevented from the President's ban on stem cell research."
 
OP
dun

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
1
Location
MO Ozarks
It's sad but true that many people form their opinions on candidates positions based on "sound bites" and exagorated/distorted statements. The sadest part is that no one saide is the only side that does it. The poorly informed electorate I think may be the predominate voter in shear numbers.

dun
 

eric

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,121
Reaction score
0
Location
Tx.......just north of Dallas
"Ann Coulter is merely the latest in a dubious tradition of self-promoters who have discovered that if you say enough outrageous things, you can get yourself an opportunity to say them on television."

Why are you guys putting so much stock in an washed up woman who couldnt make it in the real world as a lawyer? How is her "show" any different from the Stern show you guys hate so much? Oh I know why. It's because she likes your guy and Stern doesn't!
 

D.R. Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
0
Location
East Central Florida
eric":2rtgpla0 said:
"Ann Coulter is merely the latest in a dubious tradition of self-promoters who have discovered that if you say enough outrageous things, you can get yourself an opportunity to say them on television."

Why are you guys putting so much stock in an washed up woman who couldnt make it in the real world as a lawyer? How is her "show" any different from the Stern show you guys hate so much? Oh I know why. It's because she likes your guy and Stern doesn't!

Take a good hard look at Howard Stern. He is clearly not the type that would like a conservative Christian like Dubya. Likewise I don't think the Republican Party would appreciate having him as an example.
 

Craig-TX

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
1,214
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Texas
eric":2r9tk8c0 said:
"Ann Coulter is merely the latest in a dubious tradition of self-promoters who have discovered that if you say enough outrageous things, you can get yourself an opportunity to say them on television."

Why are you guys putting so much stock in an washed up woman who couldnt make it in the real world as a lawyer? How is her "show" any different from the Stern show you guys hate so much? Oh I know why. It's because she likes your guy and Stern doesn't!

Nice try Eric but your comments are not factual.

Ann Coulter is hardly a “washed up woman.” She took her JD at the University of Michigan Law School, she clerked for a justice in the United States Court of Appeals, was in the Department of Justice honors program and worked for Spencer Abraham in the Senate Judiciary Committee. She did in fact “make it in the real world as a lawyer,” both in private practice and with a public interest firm. She has since “made it in the real world” as a best selling author and commentator. Her success/failure in those ventures can be measured by the money she has made, which is a lot more than most lawyers could ever dream of.

As to your claim that she says “enough outrageous things, you can get yourself an opportunity to say them on television" you need to do a reality check. Instead of flapping your jaws and ranting, take the time to read one of her books. You will see how silly your charge is. Her comments are thoroughly sourced, documented and footnoted. She is not shooting from the hip. That’s why liberals are so scared of her. Besides her intellect, her other tremendous weapon is humor.

Comparing her to Stern is like comparing Hustler magazine to the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. They are both publications but -- oh, that’s right, you won’t see the difference. You think they’re both free speech protected by the Second Ammendment. No wonder you can’t see the difference between Coulter and Stern.

Craig-TX
 

D.R. Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
2,125
Reaction score
0
Location
East Central Florida
Eric made a good point...anybody with enough ridiculous and wild things to say becomes a talk show host or a movie star. Look at Whoopi Goldberg.
 

Latest posts

Top