BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Coulter, Queen of Conservatives

by David Yeagley · January 7, 2009 · 28 Comments ·

It’s official. NBC has named Ann Coulter “Conservative Queen.” (Hope For America has posted the video clip of her interview with Matt Lower on NBC’s TODAY show.) It was sub-titled, “Coulter’s Assault on Liberal America.”


Queen Coulter

Matt does a pretty poor job, but, let’s give him two points for trying–that is, for being brave enough to encounter Ann Coulter at all. (Of course, he was no doubt commanded to, by higher powers–fearful of repercussions if he didn’t.) Matt, like most modern male hosts, simply doesn’t have the IQ to have a conversation the “Queen of Conservatives.” His barbs were terribly off-target. Quite prejudicial, actually. (Harry Smith was an even weaker challenger on CBS. Of course, Ann is being relatively cool to this incompetents, because she’s trying to promote her new book.) About all Ann’s supposed critics can do is criticize her sense of caustic humor, claiming it interferes with her “serious” points.

Why all this ado?

Ann’s new book, Guilty? Or, rather, the fact that her scheduled NBC’s Today interview was cancelled, or ‘bumped’ twice? The immediate reaction of Matt Drudge was a published report that said very clearly that Ann Coulter was banned from NBC, forever.

The nation’s top selling conservative author has been banned from appearing on NBC, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

“We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now,” a TODAY insider reveals.

But a second top suit strongly denies there is any “Coulter ban”.

“Look for a re-invite, as soon as Wednesday,” said the news executive, who asked not to be named.

NBC’s TODAY show abruptly cut Ann Coulter from its planned Tuesday broadcast, claiming the schedule was overbooked.

WorldNetDaily immediately reported the “ban” with great drama, (but was careful not to mention the Drudge Report):

‘It’s over’: Ann Coulter banned for life by NBC
‘We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama’

Of course, NBC immediately denied it; the New York Post denied it, etc. The explanation was that she was simply bumped because of “over-scheduling,” or that Gaza news took precedence. (Tony Blair, to be specific.) Why, NBC had re-scheduled her (when?) from the start. It was all then an NBC publicity stunt?

There is something very serious going on here. The NBC “insider” who spoke to Drudge did so either intentionally, or else made a serious faux pas. In other words, the individual either intended this “ban” be known, immediately, or spoke completely out of turn, with no authority to do so. In any case, NBC has not revealed the name of the individual. Nor have any additional reports ensued. We’re left to understand the incident as an innocent misunderstanding, dramatized by media–for higher ratings, obviously.

But Coulter is not a game player. They can try to play with her, but she doesn’t play. She’s sincere. She is completely independent. The liberal media personnel are all part of tight machinery. Rather sinister machinery. I can’t see her taking part in this, willingly. If it was a self-serving NBC stunt, it nevertheless suggests just what all conservatives are surmising–that censorship is on its way. Serious, job-killing, career-ending censorship. Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have been advocating this for some time. For Hillary, it was a matter of first getting control over the internet. (See, Richard Lawrence Poe, Hillary’s Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists, 2004). For Pelosi, it’s all about reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

Fortunately, for Queen Ann, her notoriety and accoutrements of power (i.e., friends in high places), she could not be censored for more than a day or so. But the gesture was made. The act was committed. The words were published. The idea was implemented. It happened. If for only a day–she was censored. It is in fact ominous.

The rest of us could never recover. It’s survival for the successful. Big time successful. Others can be easily banned, censored, libeled, discredited, etc., with no recourse, no defense, and no hope. That is the message here. Someone of Ann Coulter’s status can survive such an attack. Lesser lights would go forever out.

The Queen of Conservatives was essentially and in fact the first martyr of Hussein America. She resurrected, but, the tone is set: beware, conservative commentators, all. The honor is hers, but the war is ours.

Posted by David Yeagley · January 7, 2009 · 7:28 pm CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal




Read More Journal Posts »

28 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Hunter Pieper // Jan 7, 2009 at 10:23 pm   

    Altough, she’s getting a boost from this don’t you think?

    I don’t get the feeling there’s a whole lot of love and admiration flying around between her and Oreily either.

  • 2 Dat Beast // Jan 7, 2009 at 11:17 pm   

    Yes, she is getting a boost, but the point he is making is that it is more of a pyrrhic victory. The Media showed that they can muzzle someone, even if only for a moment. He is right. Truely scary.

    As for her and O’reilly, that is the proverbial immoveable object and the irresistable force. To pretty large intellects, and they both know it. They disagree a lot, and they fight and bicker, but there seems to be an underlying begruging respect between the two, if not a rough shod friendship. Kinda like siblings….

  • 3 David Yeagley // Jan 8, 2009 at 9:25 am   

    O’Reilly is part of a network, a machine. Coulter is independent. I think this is noteworthy.

    And everyone in the public eye is fearful of being accused of racism. In this case, O’Reilly much more than Coulter. He’d have a bigger price to pay.

    So, I don’t even know how to apply the word courage or bravery here. Does it boil down to money? If you say this, you’ll suffer. If you say that, you’ll not suffer as much.

    Is what one says to be determined by consequences? Is this the kind of news we have before us?

    Ann is Queen. There is no king in media. Not when they’re part of a network, and job-dependent.

  • 4 whitetrash // Jan 8, 2009 at 9:59 am   

    Comparing windbags like O’Reilly or Limbaugh to Ann Coulter is like comparing a couple of nineteenth century circus clowns to Mark Twain.

    Whatever one thinks of her politics, one has to acknowledge her intellect, talent, and superb sense of humor.

  • 5 David Yeagley // Jan 8, 2009 at 11:36 am   

    Thus, humor is the point of “sincerity” when the liberal critics try to get at her.

    She reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe! (Many people are unaware of Poe’s incredible southern political humor.)

    Republicans blew it really bad. I’m thinking it’s because of those political, network, professional, big-time money connections. Ann is utterly independent. I’m thinking independence is the only cure. I’m thinking states rights.

    Oklahoma is leading the way in our inner state circles.

    Good words, WT.

  • 6 J.Kills_Straight // Jan 8, 2009 at 12:05 pm   

    “Man” Coulter is no queen. She is a court jester. I am beginning to believe that this so-called patriotic conservative Comanche site is an insidious veil used to promote lunatics like Coulter who is notorious for her ugly racism:

    “Coulter’s affinity for “colorful rhetoric” includes a
    passion for politically incorrect terms. Among them,
    she refers to America’s terrorist enemies as “camel riding
    nomads” and “swarthy men.”
    (Did 9/11 terrorists leave their camels at the airport?
    Does ownership of a camel now become criteria for
    terrorist profiling?)
    Native Americans, in Coulter’s parlance, are
    “savages.”
    “The Indians were savages. … they were
    nomads, scalping people. … We don’t eat
    people. … we don’t engage in human
    sacrifice.” 2

    (Europeans introduced scalping to America. When
    did North American Indians engage in cannibalism
    and human sacrifice?)”

    Why do you blow smoke up the butt of an evil, racist white lady such as Coulter? Coulter is bad for America, her hate-speak was so bizarre that even McCain stayed away from her during his failed bid for the presidency.

    Coulter needs to be put down. She is a rabid dog. She is poor white trash, Coulter is the GOP’s media “whore”.

    J. Kills Straight
    Santee, Sioux

  • 7 David Yeagley // Jan 8, 2009 at 12:31 pm   

    JKS:

    The Great White Woman Speaks
    The BadEagle.com Interview with Ann Coulter.

    I think it’s called humor, satire, or style. As long as non-white people refer to white people as “white,” it is inevitable that the rest of us have to be called at least “dark.” I love the term “darkie,” myself. It’s what the old British used to call anyone who wasn’t Western European. We’re all “darkies.” But, persons of color, colored, etc., that’s all “black.” We ain’t black. Only Negroes are “black.” That rest of us are just tanned, browned, or something like that. “Oklahoma” means Red Man Land, you know? Do you like “Red Man?” I think it’s cool.

    I think you’re being unnecessarily controversial here, no? A racist is someone who is consciously trying to work harm on another people, trying to destroy another people. Not even sure that has to do with color, either.

    And please give us the sources you use when you quote someone or something. Good practice.

  • 8 David Yeagley // Jan 8, 2009 at 12:45 pm   

    Different sources say different things. Anthropologists say there is evidence of scapling among Indians long before Europeans ever arrived.
    There was definitely cannibalism among a few of the American Indian tribes.

    Maybe you think this is all an attempt to make the Indians look bad, so the white Europeans don’t feel so guilty about taking over here.

    I don’t fear these kinds of studies. Indians are what they are, were what they were. We don’t have to worry. We can be eminently proud, regardless. For many reasons.

  • 9 J.Kills_Straight // Jan 8, 2009 at 1:44 pm   

    “That rest of us are just tanned, browned, or something like that. “Oklahoma” means Red Man Land, you know? Do you like “Red Man?” I think it’s cool.”

    Mr. Yeagley:

    Personally, I have never taken offense to being tagged “RED”. I always thought they were referring to cold war era communists. However, I think Coulter could have used a different analogy to describe American Indians. I think Custer used to call us “Savages” too. It’s the context in which she used the term. She was not attempting to be funny. She was serious.

    Coulter does not comprehend Indian humor so she disrespects us and blacks and Arabs etc; Coulter has been on the defensive for so long, because of her unchecked mouth, that she MUST use racist terms to procure attention or sell a book. I would love to have Miss Coulter visit any of the rez’s out here in S.D. It would open her eyes.

    I believe underneath her Wicked Witch of the North persona is a human being who perhaps simply wants to be loved. As they say, “she made her bed, now she must sleep in it”, she is media savvy but in a very negative way. This country is on the verge of an economic collapse and all Coulter can do is verbally trash a man (Obama) who has not even been given a chance to prove himself.

    If you are a Comanche patriot as you claim then you must support the president of your country. If Obama said the things that Coulter has he would have been lynched by the media and people like you. It basically comes down to respect, if Obama succeeds in fixing all the damage inflicted upon America by the Bush regime, then Coulter and you will have a difficult time finding his faults.

    But I am quite certain you and Coulter and Limbaugh will try.

    J. Kills Straight
    Santee, Sioux

  • 10 David Yeagley // Jan 8, 2009 at 5:22 pm   

    JKS, it isn’t a matter of respect. Disagreeing with someone is not showing disrespect.

    I realize many Indians are getting all exciting, thinking Obama is going to do great things for Indians. I don’t believe this, at all. All the tribes that are going to party at the inauguration–that’s great, Indians should always make a showing, but, I’m saying that Obama is not going to do anything for Indians. He can’t.

    Now, the fact that I think he is alien, un-American, Communist (Marxist, as he avows), and wants to do away with the American Constitution–as he has said publically (“it’s flawed”, etc.) all this is not about respect or disrespect. It’s about the country. I love the country.

    Comanches are going to the inauguration. I respect my leaders. I support them in this. I’m saying that I personally see no hope in Obama, but only a terrible, abysmal future.

    What I’m going to do is end up feeling sorry for him. Genuine compassion. He’s going to have a miserable time of it. He doesn’t know what he’s going, at all. There’s a difference between being confident and being competent. He is extremely confident, even cocky. But that’s all he is. He is not, by an stretch of the imagination, qualified to be president of this country. It’s too big for him. He has no concepts. He has Marxist principles in his head.

    Now, the last thing I want to see is him using Indians to adorn his anti-American sentiments. Yes, changing the country, dissing the Constitution–this comprises ANTI-American sentitment.

    The country just isn’t the land. It’s more than the people. It’s the Constitution!

  • 11 David Yeagley // Jan 8, 2009 at 5:28 pm   

    Savage? I’m proud to be called savage. Very proud. I even wrote a comic piece against Michael Savage–protesting his use of my sacred, time honored name! I’m Suing Michael Savage! It’s a joke, please remember!

    Did you look at the link I gave about the Ann Coulter interview with BadEagle.com? This is the only piece in which she was ever asked the questions that need to be asked. This is what she thinks about Indians. I’ve interviewed several different people, including Michael Barone.

  • 12 J.Kills_Straight // Jan 8, 2009 at 6:24 pm   

    “Comanche’s are going to the inauguration. I respect my leaders. I support them in this. I’m saying that I personally see no hope in Obama, but only a terrible, abysmal future.”

    Mr. Yeagley:

    You “respect you leaders” but you don’t respect the President of the United States of America? You are a hypocrite. In order for you to truly respect your Comanche leadership you must also respect the way they honor Obama. So you publicly say you “respect” your leaders, however, you privately do not. That is your right under the Constitution you love so much, the same constitution that implicitly stated that “all men are created equal” while slavery still existed and American Indians were being massacred for their land.

    What kind of Indian are you? Obama is right, the Constitution is obsolete and flawed, it has been anything but benevolent toward American Indians. I was expecting more from a man who claims to be a PhD. The Constitution has had to be amended several times since it’s inception. Article I, section 8 states that:

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    There was no “regulation”, the white settlers simply killed all the Indians, then stole the land they inhabited for thousands of years. The same article does not even recognize Indian tribes as sovereign nations. Forget Coulter, she is a flea on the ass of a buffalo, she’s an anti-American traitor, a GOP fool. Mr. Yeagley let me ask you this. Are you clairvoyant, can you see into the future? I didn’t think so. Then how can you presume that President Obama is unqualified to lead this country? 65 million Americans think he is qualified. He sure in the hell is more qualified than that northern over-exposed idiot Palin.

    You neo-cons lost, you lost and you Mr. Yeagley can’t simply take it like a man. What kind of Indian are you?

    J.Kills Straight
    Santee, Sioux.

  • 13 David Yeagley // Jan 9, 2009 at 9:30 am   

    Conservatism didn’t lose. The Republican party, full of weaklings and hypocrites, lost. Conservatism is a principle of government, not a political party.

    The Constitution recognized Indian tribes as nations. That’s why we have the status we still have. How can you fault that?

    Again, disagreement is not disrespect. I don’t disrespect either Obama or my Comanche leaders.

    Actually, I think you’re the one who is not showing “respect,” as I understand your meaning, anyway. Let’s say, if a alien black African Marxist came in an manipulated himself into chairman of the Santee, bought his position, would this require that you “respect” him? support him? Believe like he believed?

    Liberal, Leftists, Democrats, etc., have all had a free go and Bush-bashing for the last eight years. Never was their such hatred, opposition, contradiction, and vitriol. Now, I say I think Obama is the wrong man for the job, and you think I’m showing “disrespect?”

    You’re thinking like a dictator. You claim the privilege of freedom, but you won’t grant it to others (at least theoretically). But, that’s the Democrat way. I just wish Democrats would realize that.

    “Lay off my wife,” Obama demanded of reporters. Yet look how the Democrats attacked Sarah Palin’s family. See? Now that’s the hypocrisy and dicatorial tyranny of the Democrat mind set.

    Notice I haven’t attacked you personally, like, What kind of Sioux are you? when you have constantly riciduled me as a Comanche. Why do you think you have the right or freedom to do that? You are the one without respect, at least toward me.

    (Actually, that’s not true. I don’t feel any disrespect from you. Just disagreement.)

  • 14 J.Kills_Straight // Jan 9, 2009 at 2:18 pm   

    “Conservatism didn’t lose. The Republican party, full of weaklings and hypocrites, lost. Conservatism is a principle of government, not a political party.”

    Mr. Yeagley:

    Conservatism is the primary foundation of the GOP. I do agree with you in that McCain/Palin did your party a disservice. Don’t you read your own propaganda? “Obama is a Marxist” “Obama is African” etc; You call that respect? I would love to see your definition of hate. The Dems did not attack poor little Palin, her own stupidity on the issues did her in, I can’t stand Bush yet I knew what the Bush Doctrine was. Palin was scapegoated by her own party. They hung her out to dry. She was used and abused. The Republican’s treatment of Palin was far worse than anything you erroneously claim the Dems did to her.

    If I am thinking like a dictator then you sir are thinking like a brainwashed puppet. You believe everything Fox News tells you. You think Limbaugh is a god. Sean Hannity is your idol. You embrace everything these pundits put out then add your own little spin to it. I claim the privilege of freedom because I literally fought for it. Neo-cons like you get off by sending young men to die for your country. If you would put down that copy of the Wall Street Journal and simply listen to Obama speak: “There is no red America or blue America, there is the United States of America”. How do you infer he is Marxist from this statement?

    You want to attack me? Be man and attack? I did not disrespect or ridicule the Comanche people, you did. You have something to say about the Sioux, then be a man and say it. I asked what kind of Indian you were because the things you write come across as detrimental to the Indian community. You have a right to say whatever or write whatever you choose. I have a right to retort. If what I tell you hurts your feelings then let it be known. Indians don’t hide their thoughts, at least the one’s I know don’t, you think you are special?

    When Obama won the presidential election the world rejoiced. When Bush traveled to Iraq he was greeted with a shoe to the face. If Obama were all these evil spirits you say he is then wouldn’t it occur to you that he would be the one getting the shoe in the face? I am not disrespecting you, I am disagreeing with you, as is my 1st Amendment right according to the Constitution you bow down to.

    J. Kills Straight
    Santee, Sioux

  • 15 David Yeagley // Jan 9, 2009 at 3:40 pm   

    You need no constitutional right to disagree!

    I don’t follow anything or anyone, blindly. I make choices. As far as I know, I have no idols. You are completely prejudiced, and in great error as a result, when it comes to assessing me, conservativism, or the Republican Party. You’ll note that the Sioux (and Russell Means) supported John Thune and ousted Tom Daschel. Everyone knows that Democrat policies have not improved Indian live one bit. The stats about all the terrible problems have only increased. Everything has worsened.

    And apparently you haven’t read any of my writings!

    You should really do that before you make wild and irrelevant accusations. I’m trying to give you a chance here, as I do all and any.

    I’m sure you’ve never read any of Ann Coulter’s books, or listened to Rush Limbaugh, on any of the others. They have their faults, indeed. But that’s personal. They have the right ideas, according to the American Constitution and the ideology behind it. They have the truth when it comes to political motivation anc concept. One learns to develop mature judgement that allows a distinction between personality and presentation, between truth and its packaging.

    I’m sorry if I sound condescending, but, you haven’t shown me that you are at all familiar with me, conservatism, or the principles that distinguish the parties–at least in theory. Evidently you, as so many others, have no idea what Marxism is. It isn’t an accusation. It is a principle of government–which Obama has repeatedly advocated. It is a political ideology. Look up Karl Marx. It’s not an accusation to call someone a Marxist, or Communist, when they publically declare themselves adherents to those philosophies.

    I am not a neo-con. Do you know what that is? I am a paleo-con. That’s because I’m Indian, actually. I don’t know if I would be a paleocon if I weren’t Indian. I don’t know, but I think it’s a natural concept of a nation.

    You’ll never find anyone more pro-Indian, and pro-America than me. If you see that as impossible, or “hypocritical” (your word, not mine), then what we have here is a failure to communicate.

  • 16 J.Kills_Straight // Jan 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm   

    Mr. Yeagley:

    Russell Means does not speak for the Sioux Nation. Just like you don’t speak for the Comanche Nation. Means is in it for the glory, to make a fast buck, his allegiance is to legal tender, kind of like Coulter. People like Coulter and Means suffer from ADHD. At any rate, I could only stomach A few of your pointless diatribes, you are very arrogant. You mistakenly presume your PhD. makes your right all the time. Conservatives like you cost McCain the election. In my opinion, you are more white than Indian, you have been hanging around the GOP fort too long Mr. Yeagley. Funny you mention John Thune since he is the only hope you people have of recovering from a disgraceful Bush oligarchy. Things have worsened thanks to the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate.

    It is considered treason to read anything put out by Coulter or the clown-like Limbaugh. They are not scholars, they are political buffoons, they cater to whitey. Kind of like you. They don’t tell the truth, they distort it, they are town-criers of disinformation. You don’t have to apologize for your patronizing. It’s a common trait among social provocateurs. You have the burden of proof to present valid evidence of your lucid allegations that Obama is in any way, shape or form a “Marxist”. McCain/Palin tried to label Obama a “Marxist” a “Socialist” even a “Domestic Terrorist”. It is said that people label things they do not understand or are frightened of. Is that it? Are you a scared little man who must incessantly label people just because they don’t follow your ideology?

    You’re a paleo-con? That sounds about right. You are in good company, Joseph McCarthy was also a paleo-con. He was paranoid and tried to label everyone “Marxist”. You are a self-pro-claimed disciple of the school of McCarthyism. You have my sympathy. I don’t think I ever had the misfortune to come across anyone who is more anti-Indian and anti-American than you. Indians are not paleo-cons. Indians by definition are apolitical, that’s probably why you appear so confused, paleo-con? That’s tragic.

    There is no failure to communicate, I am unfortunately reading you loud and clear, if you are having a problem in simply communicating with a fellow Indian, then you might want to do a communications check. Climb to the highest mountain and listen to the wind…

    J. Kills Straight
    Santee, Sioux

  • 17 Call Me Mom // Jan 9, 2009 at 10:30 pm   

    My goodness, what a lot of ire JKS.
    There is a vast difference between respect for the person holding the office and respect for the office. I respect the office of the POTUS. If Mr. Obama wants my respect he will have to earn it. His credentials are questionable and I agree with Dr. Yeagly that he is lacking competence.

    His handlers are a different story. They have run his campaign brilliantly. I say this because of his own remarks during the campaign. Remarks like “I was not allowed to go to” (Alaska and Hawaii.) If he can’t dictate to his campaign managers which states he would like to campaign in, then why should I expect any more leadership from him as president?

    He has promised transparency, but refuses to release any of the documents that would confirm his eligibility to hold the office as a natural born citizen.

    He spent twenty years attending the church of a pastor who spouts racist rhetoric and curses America, but claims never to have heard anything objectionable.

    His speeches, so far as I could tell were all designed to allow the listener to project their own expectations into whatever he said while he said nothing of substance except to propose that he would appoint judges who have no respect for the Constitution, initiate censorship (The Fairness Doctrine) and remove all barriers to abortion.(Promised to pass FOCA while speaking to Planned Parenthood)

    I do not respect him and I do not expect that to change.

    Dr. Yeagly, May I add a link to your site on my blogroll?

  • 18 bigredman // Jan 9, 2009 at 11:13 pm   

    JKS

    You never answered Dr Y’s question when he asked you if you have ever read any of his writings, or Ann Coulter’s books, or listened to Rush Limbaugh.
    All you did was go after Dr Y in some psycho babble analysis. Liberals love to name call and blame anything and everyone for their unhappiness.
    It is very childish. You can agree to disagree without the personal attacks.

  • 19 Robert Berger // Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06 am   

    I don’t think that Coulter is a racist or evil, but just a loud-mouthed and obnoxious hypocrite.
    She’s always accusing Democarats and liberals of this and that,blaming them for all the ills of American society, stereotyping them, setting up strawmen, while convneniently ignoring all the countles stupid things conservatives say and do.
    Yes, there are left-wing commentators who are just as bad, just in different ways.
    I condemn hypocrites and phonies on both sides.

  • 20 Greetings, my son!" // Jan 10, 2009 at 5:23 pm   

    From Anne’s Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America:

    “When the Obama family materialized, the media was seized by a mass psychosis that hadn’t been witnessed since Beatlemania. OK! magazine raved that the Obamas “are such an all-American family that they almost make the Brady Bunch look dysfunctional.” Yes, who can forget the madcap episode when the Bradys’ wacky preacher tells them the government created AIDS to kill blacks!”

    He’s your president not mine lossers; I’m being held hostage by human dung in my beloved America.

  • 21 David Yeagley // Jan 10, 2009 at 11:02 pm   

    Berger, you really think Ann’s a hypocrite? She has no power. How could she be a hypocrite?

    I’ll say this: conservative talk shows personalities have resorted to pretty serious talk, for all their humor. But, I think this is because they have no power. Only words. Words that millions upon millions of Americans want to hear.

    Now, the question is, why to Leftist Democrat media personalities fall flat? The Dems and Libs are clearly in power now, but, their shows are low rated, and many radio show attempts bombed out completely. The big lib papers are sinking, daily!

    Why is this?

  • 22 David Yeagley // Jan 10, 2009 at 11:05 pm   

    JKS, I’m quite sure you haven’t read my work, or Ann’s, or listened to the big conservative shows, much.

    But, you are certainly entitled to state your opinion as it is.

    I just think your opinion might seriously change if you spent some time exposing yourself to these things.

    At any rate, your condemnations might have more substance.

  • 23 Robert Berger // Jan 11, 2009 at 8:39 am   

    I explained why Coulter is a hypocrite. This is because she always blames “liberals” for everything that’s wrong with America, despite all the terrible things conservatives have said and done.
    She’s so ridiculously one-sided and partisan.

  • 24 David Yeagley // Jan 11, 2009 at 11:55 am   

    Berger, leading Democrats are not like you! They do exactly what you accuse Ann of doing!

  • 25 Billy Reynolds // Jan 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm   

    J. Kills Straight hardly sees straight. Talk about strawman (straw-woman) debate tactics (Mr. Berger). Fifth grade was fun but move up. Everything is hate speach to a liberal. You speaks a lot of hate speech in your post. Mr. Kill. Also, he disrespects her as a woman with his name calling, Keep gender out of it. At least she keeps her speech at the political level. No American has to do anything for the President, but tolerate him until he leaves office. It is a freedom of speech issue of personal preference if we do so in silence or not. I would be curious to know how you will feel about BO after the black $on of the $lave$ marche$ are held in March. Another bailout?
    If we have lost 40% of our national wealth, I really would like to know where the money has gone.
    In closing, REPS knew that no canidate could win this election, why throw away a good one on a lost run? It was brilliant to introduce the Alaskan GOV, she’ll be back, there are more moms like her than liberals like you.

  • 26 J.Kills_Straight // Jan 12, 2009 at 1:13 pm   

    “Now, the question is, why to Leftist Democrat media personalities fall flat? The Dems and Libs are clearly in power now, but, their shows are low rated, and many radio show attempts bombed out completely. The big lib papers are sinking, daily!”

    Mr. Yeagley,

    Show me proof of this. I am also still waiting for you to show me some “valid” evidence that Obama is “Marxist”. And I don’t want you to quote your own stuff, you are biased, subsequently, you don’t get the bigger picture. I want you to cite a neutral source.

    Did any of you people watch the final (thank god) Bush press conference this morning. Bush remarked: “You may disagree with him (Obama) but you must also RESPECT him”. I applaud Bush for showing some honor and leadership.

    I have read enough conservative propaganda to form an opinion. I really don’t have interest or time to read anymore. If you people don’t like living in a country run by a black president, then simply move up to Canada or down to Mexico.

    The repubs did have a chance to win right after McCain selected Palin as his VP. He lead in the polls going ito the convention. If the RNC had kept Palin’s mouth taped or just allowed Fox News to interview her, McCain would have had a legitimate shot. One thing I must give you conservatives credit for is that you people will go down with the ship.

    Never in history did this country need some solidarity than now and all you people can do is whine and whimper. Mr. Yeagley you are also correct in your earlier statement when you said that the GOP is “submissive and weak.”

    You conservatives are like rats who are too stubborn or misinformed to jump the GOP ship. You have my condolences.

    J.Kills Straight
    Santee, Sioux

  • 27 David Yeagley // Jan 13, 2009 at 12:39 pm   

    Obama told Joe the Plummer that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” That’s called redistribution of wealth. This is a cardinal doctrine of Marxism. I don’t know how more plainly to make it. Obama is a Marxist. So are most Democrats. It is a governing principle, that’s all. And it is alien to the US Constitution, and the foundational history of this country. A country does not become great and strong by principles of Marxism. Dictatorships is what it leads to. These never last, too long, anyway, and it is rather miserable to live under them.

    So, you think Obama respects Bush? That’s a laugh. An act, I should say.

    I respect the office of the president. I consider it empty for the next four years, however. Republicans, as a party, today, are loser because they are compromisers. Democrat dictatorial mind setters never, ever compromise. It’s their way or no way.

    Republicans think they have to be good guys, nice guys, and cooperate. Thus, they lost.

  • 28 Call Me Mom // Jan 13, 2009 at 9:05 pm   

    JKS,
    Once again, answering as one of the “you people” you addressed in your comment, I respect the OFFICE of the POTUS. The person who holds that office must earn my respect. So far, Mr. Obama has shown the American taxpayers nothing but hubris and arrogance in his refusal to show us any legitimate proof of his citizenship status.

    I further note a racist tone to your comment. What is this statement supposed to mean? “If you people don’t like living in a country run by a black president”
    Mr. Obama’s color has nothing to do with why I didn’t vote for him. His socialist philosophy, associates and plans, however, played a large part in my decision not to vote for him.

You must log in to post a comment.