Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole
Ann Coulter

Even the United Nations sponge who called the United States "stingy" immediately retracted the insult, saying he had been misinterpreted and that the U.S. was "most generous." But the New York Times was sticking with "stingy." In an editorial subtly titled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times said the U.N. sponge "was right on target." This followed up a patriotic editorial a few days earlier titled "America, the Indifferent."

America's stinginess is a long-standing leitmotif for liberals – which is getting hard to square with their love for America. When it comes to heaping insults on America, U.S. liberals are the nation's leading donors.

In 2003, the Center for Global Development – funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, despite the fact that it could have used that money on future tsunami victims – concluded that the U.S. ranked 20th out of 21 nations in helping poorer nations. This came as a surprise, inasmuch as the U.S. gives the highest absolute amounts of foreign aid to the developing world.

But as the study explained, the center "assesses policy effort rather than impact." As any liberal can tell you, it's not results that count, it's intentions! In other words, the CGD discounted some countries' foreign aid because the CGD decided it was the sort of aid that wouldn't work – even if, in the end, it did work.

The CGD's evaluation of "effort" somehow managed to bump U.S. contributions from the No. 1 spot to second-to-last. Sending the military to liberate millions of people from ruthless dictators, for example, did not count as "aid," whereas sending in peacekeepers afterward did.

The U.S. did not merely write a check to help the oppressed people of Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. did most of the fighting and liberating as well as a significant share of the dying. Where's Michael Moore with that up-to-the-minute body count of U.S. soldiers when you need him?

But in the words of the CGD, military aid doesn't count because "one country's security enhancement is another's destabilizing intervention" – you know, the way U.S. soldiers "destabilized" France in 1944. (My guess is, Presbyterian missionaries in the jungle don't get as many points as U.N. seminars on condom use either.)

Consequently, in 2003, Norway got 7.1 points for "peacekeeping." Denmark got 7.4 points. France got 5.2. The country that dispatched the Taliban and Saddam Hussein ñ- and, before that, ensured that the above countries would not be speaking German or Russian – got 1.5 points for "peacekeeping."

But at least we beat Japan! Except in other studies by liberals – who certainly do love their country – that claim Japan beats the U.S. in foreign aid donations.

Among Al Franken's proofs that Bill O'Reilly is a "liar" – in addition to his jaw-dropping revelation that O'Reilly's former TV show won a "Polk" and not a "Periwinkle" Award – Franken attacked O'Reilly for having the audacity to say the U.S. gives more foreign aid than any other country in the world.

Responding to this outrage, Franken writes: "Japan gives more. Not per capita. More." (And Franken is the world's largest donor of mentions of his own USO tours.)

I guess there are as many ways to calculate "aid" as there are to calculate "love of country." According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries – notable for being more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, clocking in at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

So it's interesting that a great patriot like Al Franken – who goes on USO tours regularly, in case he hasn't called you at home in the last 10 minutes to remind you – would choose the method of calculating foreign aid most disparaging to his country and call O'Reilly a "liar" for using a different calculus.

At a minimum, in order to discount the largesse of the United States, one must carefully exclude gigantic categories of aid, such as military aid, food aid, trade policies, refugee policies, religious aid, private charities and individual giving.

However "aid" is calculated, it is not that hard to calculate someone's affection for their country based on their propensity to tell slanderous lies about it.

Let's review.

The New York Times calls the U.S. "stingy" and runs letters to the editor redoubling the insult, saying: "The word 'stingy' doesn't even come close to accurately describing the administration's pathetic initial offer of aid. ... I am embarrassed for our country."

Al Franken flies into a rage upon discovering that O'Reilly imagines the U.S. is the most generous nation in the world.

The Washington Post criticizes Bush for not rushing back to Washington in response to the tsunami – amid unfavorable comparisons to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who immediately cut short his vacation and returned to Berlin. (Nothing snaps a German to attention like news of mass death!)

The prestigious Princeton "ethicist" Peter Singer, who endorses sex with animals and killing children with birth defects, says "when it comes to foreign aid, America is the most stingy nation on Earth."

And has some enterprising reporter asked Sen. Patty Murray what she thinks about the U.S.'s efforts on the tsunami? How about compared to famed philanthropist Osama bin Laden?

In December 2002, Murray was extolling Osama bin Laden's good works in the Middle East, informing a classroom of students: "He's been out in these countries for decades building roads, building schools, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. It made their lives better." What does Murray say about bin Laden's charity toward the (mostly Muslim) tsunami victims?

Speaking of world leaders admired by liberals, why isn't Fidel Castro giving the tsunami victims some of that terrific medical care liberals tell us he has been providing the people of Cuba?

Stipulating that liberals love America – which apparently depends on what the meaning of "love" is – do they love America as much as they love bin Laden and Castro?

Ann Coulter and Bill Franken are the same person with different agendas.. If those two ever had kids together the shear spin factor that would be unleashed on the planet would tip the earth off its axis and send it spinning into space...

Even when you cut through the BS the US donates more public and private money to world causes than the top 10 countries combined. I for one think we need to hold the US bashers accountable to that fact.

Who would not agree that we give more than any country ever in the history of civilization ????

Its to bad she wants to make it a Democrate issue and ignore the fact that not all left wing people feel or act the same way Franken does. On the same hand I know and understand that she is simply a blowing poop hole with long hair... He is just like her with short hair and glasses.

I for one am sick of all these people... from both sides. I can't listen to talk radio anymore because of all the angling by both sides..While most people in this country fall somewhere in the middle on the issues as they come up.. its this non-stop B.S from both sides of the media thats really wearing people out.

I don't need to read it twice Rory. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

The first day "they" (any and all of them) criticized Bush I was irratated. At that time, no one knew just how much help would be needed. :rolleyes:

And for the record, Clinton gave several interviews calling that criticism as being way out of line.

Al Franken was a lousy comedian and is an even worse political punster.

The best thing about Ann Coulter is her great bod. Her looks can only be improved by a dozen wraps of duct tape around her mouth.

As for US generousity, no nation gives more than the US. Of course, our nation isn't flawless, and we've gathered some major scabs along the way. But as the richest and most powerful nation in the world, the US gives more to those in need than anyone else could.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Not your best effort Salmo g. :rolleyes:

There is a reason why Coulter is reffered to as the 'Abbie Hoffman of the right.' She is not someone to be taken seriously, but some do anyway.

KK

Ya know what I think... Ann Coulter is just playing a character, and all of her anti-liberal diatribes are merely concocted to:

A) Provide folks like Rory and TheKing an ultra-conservative political opinion they can adopt as their own and express to others through copy / paste on internet bulletin boards. :p

B) Make a TON of money.

If it weren't for the extreme right-wing evangelical neo-conservative ditto heads willing to slurp up every steaming pile of manure she excretes as if it were their last meal on earth, she'd probably be makin' her living writing children's books.

It's rather telling that people with conservative values, beliefs and politics are proud to publically identify themselves as Conservatives---but most people who have liberal values, beliefs and politics never want to be associated with the 'L' word or those outspoken advocates of modern liberalism.

I don't agree with everything that Coulter or Limbaugh says, but I value their opinions and the provocative way they communicate them.

The fact is that Al Fraken, Michael Moore, George Soros, Maureen Dowd, Noam Chomsky and Phil Donahue DO represent the modern Liberal mindset. However, when they voice their ideology they are brushed off (in public) by many on the left as 'not representing' our side....when in fact they do.

As stated above, I don't argree with everything that Coulter and Limbaugh say--but I do feel they do in large part represent the sentiment of many conservatives today.

How about she makes some real interesting points with satire,wit etc.

When ever she gets slammed it's personal and never directed at the point she makes ala 4Salt and Salmo
Duct tape, nice bod etc. I thought lefties where not sexist ? Oh thats right do as we say not as we do.

Even Katie couric dressed down Mike morre this Am. He called the president Gilligan and she asked him why that was needed.

I didn't attack her personally at all king. I actually think she is a gifted writer and is very shrewd, capitalizing on the political climate of the times. I find her articles both amusing and a bit disturbing due to the fact that, like KK pointed out, alot of people take them seriously.

Bottom line... as long as there's a demand for this type of 'Journalism'... there'll be a supply, from BOTH sides.

I'll just keep to my centrist ideas and ignore the talking heads on both sides. Never have had a problem forming my own opinion. If I think someone/something is wrong, I say so and I don't expect ya'll to pay me for it. :p

Still haven't watch Michael Moore's crap and damned proud of it.

4Salt can you point out what cannot be taken seriously in her above column?

I do not read her column on a regular basis but when I see something that makes a good and valid point I give it it's due. I do not dismiss it out of hand because it is liberal or conservative or I do not like the tone of the piece.

I tend to agree with 4 salt on this. Political vitriol, from both sides, has replaced reasoned debate, and critical thinking by the electorate. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the vacuum created by the above mentioned lack of critical thinking,needs to be filled. Look what has rushed in to fill that void.

What time is 'Fear Factor' on?

KK

KK,

Thats dismissive because it does not meet your standards for discourse. In a free market these things tend to sort themselves out. She is a pundit not a hard news source for gods sake.

You and I understand she is a pundit, and you certainly know some do not. That vitriol, name calling, personal attcks and personal destruction passes for political discourse is what, to me, is truly disturbing. I wish the market for it would 'dry up' I think we'd be better off, but then the electorate would have to drive the parties, not be 'herded' to a point of view , by the 'media shepard'

KK

KK

Why yes... yes I can king. How about the title for starters: Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole.


How would Ann know how OJ loved Nicole? I HIGHLY doubt that she asked him. How therefore would Ann be able to make the comparative statement that liberals love America in a similar fashion.

If I had more time and inclination, I would dissect the entire article for you king. As it stands now, I have neither.

Oh, do they? Because you said they do?

Tell us all what an American liberal thinks, Rory, bein's that you're all tuned in to the liberal mindframe.

Dan S,

If you're identifying yourself as someone who's more in tune with how liberals feel and think, by all means please list four or five public political pundits on the left that you feel represent the sentiment of modern liberalism more than the ones I listed.



I'll get the ball rolling by listing a few pundits on the right that I feel successfully articulate the sentiments of many conservatives today:

Michael Medved

Roy Innis

David Horowitz

Rush Limbaugh

Laura Ingraham

KK,

So it's ok for someone to say what they think only if you agree with it or it passes the Avg. man test? We would be getting our news presented Pamela Anderson and Brad Pitt and edited by People magazine.

4Salt,

I would bet there are 100 or more pages of OJ's explanation of how much he loved Nicole from the two trials. But you know the point was he loved her so much he killed her rather than let her be want she wanted to be. Just like liberals love the US so much they are killing her rather than letting her be what she wants to be.

King.. don't you mean " what you want her to be ?? " Who are you to say what America wants to be ??? You do know that approx half the people in this country disagree with you right ???

Actually, its not that simple. I agree with some of the things you say, and disagree with some of the things you say. I can see the Repubican point of view on some issues, but think they are wrong about others.

So... Are you going to say that I am not an American who loves his country.. Are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter "better" Americans than I am ???

TK:
I don't think that at all. I simply don't believe that it is healthy discourse, that's all. No restrictions placed or suggested here, and no attention paid to her be me either. My standards are my standards, and what I feel is a healthy level of discourse, with a tenor and tone lending itself to reasoned debate, is my opinion. She is free to ramble on, with her liberal hating diatribe, and I am free to ignore her, or also free to be critical of her tenor , tone, and tactics. Since I don't watch TV, I don't have to look/listen to her, so i am left with reading the stuff. So unless Pitt and Anderson are going to write their stuff, I'll never see them anyway.

KK

Brun

"You do know that approx half the people in this country disagree with you right ??? "

That is an way over simplfying a complex issue based on the presidential vote. If you break it down issue by issue a vast majority of America agrees with the right on most social issues and about the same on economic issues. Don't confuse the marketing of a presidential campaign with how people truely feel they will never foot because you are forced into a box.

A good example is the issue above. You have the liberal media attacking the president as stingy when the overwhelming majority of the populace agree that we are more than generous.

Aunty,

I apologize. That was the nicest thing I could think of to say about Coulter.

TK,

I could attack the substance of Couter’s article. As 4-Salt and KK point out, there’s no shortage of target material. She is clever or shrewd, but she uses that talent to take material out of context, employ vitriol, name calling, personal attacks, sarcasm, and never makes a reasoned analysis. Personally, I don’t think her material is worth my time.

I shouldn’t have responded the way I did; that was more characteristic of how you and Rory respond to liberal articles. I should have simply said I don’t care for her work and don’t think it’s worth my time to critique it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

TK-

You just said almost the same thing I said, then put a right wing spin on it and skipped the question I asked you.

I don't agree with all the Crap that the Pundits blow from either side.. I also don't like the fact that both sides try and make every single issue a opertunity to somehow trash the other side..

I am a democrate.... Is Rush Limbaugh a "better American than I am"... Does he love America more than I do ????

I don't live in a Box.. I can see whats going on and make up my own mind whats best in my eyes for this country.. I am not alone in my thinking.. Am I ruining America...

Fact is, you and I are what makes America great. If one side was to finally somehow "win" the debate this country would be a total pile of crap.. Checks and balances..Its the American way.. Maybe not in your eyes... This country was not built around what Rush, Ann or Bill say.. But around real people with real values.

Old Farmer



An old farmer in Kansas had owned a large farm for several years.

He had a large pond in the back, fixed up nice; picnic tables, horseshoe courts, and some apple and peach trees The pond was properly shaped and fixed up for swimming when it was built.
One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the pond, as he hadn't been there for a while, and look it over. He grabbed a five gallon bucket to bring back some fruit. As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee. As he came closer he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond. He made the women aware of his presence and they all went to the deep end of the pond. One of the women shouted to him, "We're not coming out until you leave!"

The old man frowned and grumbled, "I didn't come down here to watch you ladies swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked." Holding the bucket up he said, "I'm here to feed the alligator."

Moral: Old age and cunning will triumph over youth and enthusiasm every time.

BRun,

Here is an example of the 50% of the people claim you make . Gay marriage. A big issue in the election. One could say that 48% of the people supported it because they voted for Kerry. Yet in every state that has had it on a ballot it failed by no less than 70% of the vote. Even in Blue Calif. Every poll shows it would fail nationwide by that margin or more. Gays make up less than 5% of the us population. No legal scholar has ever been able to even come close to making a case of discrimination Re gay marriage. Why do the dems push it as an issue. Why is less than 5% of the population and such an un popular issue so much in the media, entertainment etc.?

Dems did not push it as an issue.. Gays push it as an issue.. last I knew there are gays in both partys... But hey, your still avoiding answering the questions I asked you.

BRun,

Your questions are moot as I never said anything about how America should be run or how any individual should think. I spoke in general terms.

Yet.. when other people speak in general terms as in " half of America does not agree with you " You scramble around and try and prove that wrong.... You only want to address issues on your terms....

Are you a better American than I am ???? or is that moot also.

Brun,

It's easier to address the facts Re 48% of the voters. It's not as easy to address an emotional question like who is the better American. I do not know you. I do feel however that a blend of moderate conservativism and moderaste liberalism make the best citizens. I think that just off the center to the extreme on both sides make poorer citizens. If you fit in one of those boxes more power too ya!

So how about a liberal that fought in two wars and lost his left in service to his country. Is he not a good citizen?

BW.. Guys like that are called heros. And we have alot of them around us, and they are from both sides of the line.

Thats my point. And thanks, I'm pretty proud on him myself.

Brun,

How about the guy that fought in two wars and then came home a slaughtered his family in a drunken rage? Beats his wife and kids Is he a good citizen?Good citizenship is a combination of yesterday and today and tomorrow. It's not a blank check for past deeds.

I could attack the substance of Couter’s article. As 4-Salt and KK point out, there’s no shortage of target material. She is clever or shrewd, but she uses that talent to take material out of context, employ vitriol, name calling, personal attacks, sarcasm, and never makes a reasoned analysis. Personally, I don’t think her material is worth my time.

Salmo,

"I shouldn’t have responded the way I did" But you did because you are male before you are a lib and thats how men discuss women when they are talking with each other.

You and everyone else claims they can refute Ann's points but I have yet to see one point addressed.

TK-

I answered BW's question as it was asked.. I did not say that all vets were fantastic people. He was not talking about a guy who came home and killed his family in a drunken rage. He asked what you would call a liberal who had done that for his country..

I got the impression he was talking about his father.. And I am proud of that man regardless of his political stance.

I was.

Tk, we can sub moderate conservetive in there also. Would he be a good citizen after sloughtering his family?

Being a good citizen is more than politics

BW,

The thread is about politics " Liberals love America..." forgive me for being on topic

TK,

You err when you say why I did something. It would be nice if you’d get over yourself, just a bit. You don’t know why I, or others, believe as we do, behave as we do, or make the statements we do, except to the extent I and they explain them here. I can agree it’s not nice to make sexist remarks about Ann Coulter, but if I was going to (as I did), she would be my favorite target because she is both good looking and has a most offensive mouth.

Yes, you don’t see 4-Salt, KK, or I taking Ann to task point by point and refuting them, or explaining how her statements aren’t applicable, and so forth. Perhaps you didn’t read the part of my post indicating that I don’t think her material is worth my time. The amount of time I would give Ann Coulter has nothing to do with her politics. Sorry, I just can’t seem to discuss her and not say something sexist.

Sincerely, the chauvinist,

Salmo g.

Oooohhhh. I must be reading wrong! That sounds more like kinky intentions than political inclinations.

Might be sexist, but if that was his thought, it's funny. She deserves a grudge (dirty word) IMO.

I understand that TK. But check this out

Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and its conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.
Andrew Jackson

I would say that as long as your politics are not trying to over throw the government they have very little to do with how good of citizen you are.

Wow my first cut and paste. Look out everyone

Rory,

I'd rather post my own opinion, rather than C&P some talking head's opinion.

And I won't C&P some "conservative" 's opinionion and claim that's how all "conservatives" think.

All liberals don't think alike, and neither do all conservatives. So why pretend they do?

Salmo,

Wow get over your own self. I bet Ann could walk into any TV station,News paper, publishing house govt. or coprorate office sell out huge venues for speeches anywhere in the nation and talk about any subject. But she is not worth your time. If you called the Seattle Times to talk about anything would they listen?

BTW she smokes . I have trouble respecting anyone that smokes because they do not respect themselves. She is an interesting read from time to time.

C'mon, tk.......you can admit it.

She's about as interesting as watching grass grow.

I'd like to see Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd mud wrestle.

That's also what I think of their musings.

Come on Dan--I posted several people on the left that I suggested represented the sentiments of many modern day liberals.

You poo-pooed the notion that I could have any undstanding of how liberals feel or think thereby inferring that you somehow knew better.

I didn't ask you to list four or five public pundits that speak for EVERY liberal, I was just interested in hearing who you thought represented of the liberal mindset more than the pundits I listed.

Come on I'm sure you can think of a few.

The only way you could honestly say that every thought or opinion you've ever had is entirely original, is if you were the only person on earth and had never read, watched or learned of anything that was created by another human.

I DO know better..........I'm a "liberal", and you're not. Now, why would I need any other person's opinion to reinforce my own? I have eyes and ears and a brain, all of which I use. I don't need Al Franken to tell me what I should think about Bush's response to the tsunami, and I don't need Sean Hannity to tell me how wonderful Bush is. I can figure it out on my own, thank you.

What you're doing is highlighting the opinion of a handful of "liberals", and making claims that this small group defines liberalism in this country. I can only give you MY opinion, and I really don't care to compare it to any pundit's opinion. I don't feel any particular need to support my own opinion by finding someone else who shares it.

DanS said

"I don't feel any particular need to support my own opinion by finding someone else who shares it."

Agreed, .........'For it is the exclusive purview of the weak minded, those whose faculties preclude critical thought, who find themselves dependent on the thoughts of others, and not of their own''.

KK

Aunty,

OK, I won't say another word about AC. I might think kinky about her, but I don't want to be discussing it on the internet.

TK,

Right, she isn't worth my time. I think you're getting it. I don't call the Seattle Times. The Seattle Times occasionally calls me when they want my opinion on certain fisheries related topics.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.