If the terrorists create a bomb that only kills liberals, will Ann Coulter admit that she is a terrorist?

A truly massive capacity for projection has always been these goons' stock in trade.

Wow, just watched that Colbert clip. That's what we call an evisceration.

Maybe one day the liberal media will have enough actual liberals ON the media to correct this evil woman on her lies. I'm not stupid enough to think SHE'S stupid enough to believe her drivel. She's pandering to her base who want to believe the awful things she says about liberals (gotta have a boogeyman). She also loves getting our nipples in a twist - win-win for her, because we either ignore her and be called weak for our dismissiveness, or we complain and attack and be called shrill. One day, we as a group will just start pointing and laughing at this harpy and never stop. To have shame thrust upon her is probably the only thing that would make her go away. Not treating her seriously, not demand retractions and apologies, and not pretending she doesn't exist. She feeds on all of this. But pointing and laughing, that slow chant of "aaaaaassssss-hooooooooole" whenever she tries to get a point across? That'd probably do it.

Another thing that Crack-Whore Coulter got wrong: she claimed that the Yemeni AQ leader had "escaped."

Uh, no. Released by W in 2007.

There's one terrorist that this New Yorker would VERY MUCH like to live with. His name is Osama bin Laden, and I've got a VERY SPECIAL room for him in my deep, dank basement.

His room has been ready for him since March 2002, 6 months after 9/11. That's about the time that George Bush answered a question about why he hadn't caught bin Laden by saying that he wasn't that concerned about bin Laden, and that he didn't think about him.

How can these people still think that the President who let bin Laden get away is good on terrorism?

The marginal utility of this type of post has been negative for years and fucking years.

The Coulter/D'Souza /Beck mindset is actually easy to understand if you define people rather than actions as good or evil. And Republicans consistently do this. Consider Abu Ghraib, where Dems talked about torture, but Reps talked about "a few bad apples" or "the worst of the worst." When a bomb hits a house in Iraq or Afghanistan, children are counted among the "terrorists killed". Ask a Republican how many people have been killed in Iraq. They'll answer "about 4000." Listen to the scorn in a Rep's voice when he uses the words "redemption" or "rehabilitation" about anyone other than a Rep. I would argue that it is precisely this mindset, that has left Reps a party of no ideas. It wasn't that way 15 years ago. Bad solutions, yes, but not no solutions.

Coulter, D'Souza....it's like teenagers bitching about curfew. They're pissed because all the other kids get to have fanatical theocratic regimes with no respect for human rights or tolerance for difference and dissent, and they don't.

For no good reason.

Because we don't love them. Or something.

(Hey, norbizness -- missed ya!)

This would be the same Coulter who wished for the bombing of the NYTimes building? Does she also hope for the failure of Obama and America like her brethren Limbaugh and the GOP? I think there's a training camp in Pakistan with her name on it.

"D'Souza went so far as to argue that liberal Americans are to blame for 9/11.."

A simplier explanation would be "blow back" from CIA actions during decades of destablizing the world. Perhaps this wingnut should read "Chalmers Johnson's "Blow Back" and apply Occam's razor.

(Chalmers was a consultant for the CIA for 18 years and has several excellent books on the subject.)

Yeah, because Wahhabism goes so well with our universal gay sex and mandatory abortions.

This is a fundamental element of right-wing philosophy -- that any two groups that the right wing considers an enemy must be allied against the right wing.

Or, shorter: all my enemies are working together against me.

This, of course, leads to absurd right wing beliefs, such as their frequent assertion that feminists support Osama bin Laden (and vice versa). But is also explains why to the right wing it made perfect sense to attack Iraq for 9/11 -- with or without evidence linking the two. And why the right wing never can figure out the difference between the factions in countries they consider enemies -- since they consider all enemies to be as one.

This is at the heart of what binds the various conservative factions together. Whether they are theocrats or libertarians at heart, they are united in the paranoid belief that all non-conservatives are out to get them.

It also explains why, to fundamentalists, one of their favorite new testament versus is where Jesus says "you are either with me or against me".

This paranoid conservative view that "all our enemies are as one" infects everything they do and is a major reason they always fail at governance.

It's also anti-educational, since it precludes ever having to learn anything about any outside group they have to deal with. This is why the right wing has been so successful with their global warming denial campaign. They have, to their base, successfully labeled climate scientists as enemies ("environmentalist", "liberal", "elite"), and once that is done the right wing audience stops listening to facts.

So, this behavior shouldn't surprise us, but we should do everything we can to shine a light on it. Unfortunately, about 75% of TV media talking heads and 80% of newspaper columnists exhibit the same paranoid thinking.

...liberals would like to live with the terrorists.
Ann Coulter

The next time that filthy little man-in-a-mu-mu suggests that I would like to live with Rush Limbaugh (a dope-addled terrorist if I ever heard one), I am going to throw her into a bonfire, cook her, and feed her to a field of hungry weasels!

What on earth do you have agaisnt weasels?

Conservatives are the ones that would live with the terrorists, enjoying their Sharia law.

it's hard not to notice that it's not the left that finds the violent extremists' worldview compelling.

Exactly. Both sets of extremists (the right wing in our country and the terrorists) are filled with fear and use fear for their own gain.

"Wow, just watched that Colbert clip. That's what we call an evisceration."

And the best part about it is that a lot of Americans who call themselves independents (or who are not politically active or informed) watched that night and saw up close and personal what D'Souza and his conservative brethren think of them.

I don't watch Colbert enough to know if Coulter has appeared with him, but if she hasn't then there's a very good reason why: he'd make her look like the preening, self-pitying paranoiac she is, has been, and always will be.

Gay atheist liberals really yearn to become Islamic fundamentalists. I know it's true.

Bloody hell, I just looked at the full transcript of the interview:

HANNITY: Why talk radio? Why is he attacking Rush and Sean Hannity and you and Mark?

COULTER: ... the other reason is to start paving the way for the fairness doctrine, something I also discuss in here.

HANNITY: Well, we do — but it's not the fairness doctrine. And every American needs to understand this. This is, Ann, the censorship doctrine. This is an attempt.

COULTER: Well, it's — we can call it the fairness doctrine, yes, of course.

HANNITY: OK. All right. But there's an — they want to silence anybody that opposes them.

COULTER: Yes.

ARGH! This zombie theory cannot be killed!

I have to admit it: I agree with Coulter. Liberals really do want the same things as the terrorists. Osama bin Laden is well known for his pro-gay marriage stance. My radical feminist wife is just ITCHING to quit her job, be forced to wear a burqa, crank out babies, and lose all of her rights. And finally, we all know that Liberals and Islamofascists are all hippy atheists who want to erase God from public life. It's like the two groups were separated at birth!

Makes sense to me. Allahu Akbar!

Reading this article reminded me of a fascinating BBC documentary I watched online called "The Power of Nightmares". Here is a snip from it's Wiki entry:
"The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Check it out.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22power+of+nightmares%22&hl=en#

Steve M. notes the Fairness Doctrine paranoia of the right. Maybe we should wave our arms a little on this issue. It will keep these people preoccupied and apoplectic (and maybe make them appear even more foolish) while serious people engage with matters of importance.

What on earth do you have agaisnt weasels?
Posted by: rea

Weasels are "carnivorous Progressives"; if anything can manage to convert Coulter into crabgrass-food within a reasonably-short period of time, it is a weasel. Granted, they'd be more apt to dine on her in the raw, but feeding unsterilized-by-fire Ann Coulter to any of my four-legged friends could be construed as an overt act of extreme animal cruelty.---and might even be philosophically worse than making the poor weasels listen to a collection of Rush Limbaugh audiotapes....

Sheesh. I thought it was the damn libruls that were constantly blaming America for everything!

"Liberals and Islamofascists are all hippy atheists"

This may seem weird, but a lot of Muslims really are hippies. They tend to favor herbal medicine over synthesized drugs. Herbal Viagra is a big hit in Turkey. They insist on organic food and many are vegetarians. Quite a lot of them smoke pot, too. There is even an Imam in Turkey who preaches that it is the duty of Muslims to smoke pot. He's kind of a Rastafarian Muslim. Muslims also tend to share things a lot. Obviously, Muslims aren't into the "Free Love" thing, but the other similarities are striking.

D'Souza: "...dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular..."

A greater enthusiasm by our populace for Christianity would not qualify us as being no longer too secular in the eyes of the evil-doers.

There are generally two kinds of complaints about America, and both are used by those who oppose US culture and policies internally and externally. The complaint about American social mores is shared by authoritarian moralists, whether they are Americans like D'Souza and John Brown, or foriegners like Sayyid Qutb. These types share a moral indignation. The complaint about the policies of America, such as military aid to Israel or the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, are shared by some Americans and foreigners, although the response to these policies can be much different. Most Americans who oppose their nation's foreign policies do not take up arms, but rather use their votes to electorally oppose them, despite voting's impotence. Foreigners of occupied countries or foreigners who have been driven to action, have taken up arms as either insurgents or 'terrorists.' These foreigners have more in common with Timothy McVeigh; they have grievances against the US, whether real or imagined, but at least the ones operating under occupation are reacting to military violence against their nation. W. Bush and Osama bin Laden have much in common, too, as far as rationalizing the use of violence against a perceived existential threat. People like Hannity, Coulter and Noonan also are able to rationalize the use of violence because of the strength of their nation, while expecting little retaliation or pain in return. The use of violence is resorted to by the morally indignant, those threatened with (perceived) annihilation, the grieved and the strong. Resorting to violent behavior unites disparate groups in ways they do not want to understand, yet the results of their behavior are too similar, and cannot be equated with the behavior of those who have not resorted to or support violence.

Steve M. notes the Fairness Doctrine paranoia of the right.

Yes. I suspect that for all their hyperventilating about the liberal media they know the political broadcasting is tremendously unbalanced in their favor.

George W. Bush said it was Al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11. We have yet to defeat them and catch all their leaders despite having spent a LOT of money. That's Dubya's record. Does Ann Coulter complain about that?

Dir. Mueller said the FBI has no hard evidence to connect bin Laden to 9/11. Hmmm. How is that possible?

What a strange world we live in.

Osama bin Laden and other dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant
Sounds like Bush talking. I don't think bin Laden attacked up because he hates our freedoms. Bush hates our freedoms. Bin Laden hated US troops in the land of the two holy cities and Zionist/Crusader injustices against Moslems.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Bin Laden's Fatwa of 1996

"The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah").

Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land.

Today your brothers and sons, the sons of the two Holy Places, have started their Jihad in the cause of Allah, to expel the occupying enemy from of the country of the two Holy places.

Terrorising you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty.

It is a duty now on every tribe in the Arab Peninsula to fight, Jihad, in the cause of Allah and to cleanse the land from those occupiers.

Today we work from the same mountains to lift the iniquity that had been imposed on the Ummah by the Zionist-Crusader alliance, particularly after they have occupied the blessed land around Jerusalem, route of the journey of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) and the land of the two Holy Places."

I suspect that for all their hyperventilating about the liberal media they know the political broadcasting is tremendously unbalanced in their favor.

Absolutely. Their paranioa about the Fairness Doctrine is as explicit and admission as you could want that conservative talk radio can't survive exposure to opposing viewpoints.

(And as always, let's also not forget the media consolidation rules ushered in by Reagan.)

"Osama bin Laden and other dangerous Islamic radicals believe the U.S. is too secular, too permissive, too diverse, too free, and too tolerant."
I don't recall this in any bin Laden speeches. It is very clear that al-Qaeda's targeting of America is based on America's support of Israel, America's sanctions on Iraq, America's having troops stationed in the Land of the Two Holy Places, etc. I think anyone who thinks al-Qaeda hates us for our freedoms needs to consider where you heard that. From anyone trustworthy?