Buchanan: The Anti-Reagan

[The Evil Genius]

Coulter's article is true but nobody will refute the content.

Why do you care? When they do refute it, you dismiss them as freaking idiots...

[SkinsHokieFan]

The overthrow of Mossadageh may go down as the worst decision made by the CIA

I am sorry, Coulter is off her rocker in trying to defend in any way the overthrow of the elected government of Iran in 1953. If there ever was a "coup for oil" this was it. Ike was sold on the coup by the British for fears that Iran would turn communist, when there was no evidence whatsoever to support it. Churchill and the British were upset that Mossadagh kicked the Brits out and wanted to have Iranians run its own oil industry

Read "All the Kings Men" It is a great book about the coup.

There is some very cool spy stuff in there, in particular with how Kermit Roosevelt executed the coup. But the blowback, my God, it reverberates today

[The Evil Genius]

Careful SHF, your boy 4skin might cancel you off his xmas card list.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Careful SHF, your boy 4skin might cancel you off his xmas card list.

We tend to believe in debate at Virgina Tech. Just read Techsideline for the Stiney vs Anti Stiney wars

[hokie4redskins]

The overthrow of Mossadageh may go down as the worst decision made by the CIA

I am sorry, Coulter is off her rocker in trying to defend in any way the overthrow of the elected government of Iran in 1953. If there ever was a "coup for oil" this was it. Ike was sold on the coup by the British for fears that Iran would turn communist, when there was no evidence whatsoever to support it. Churchill and the British were upset that Mossadagh kicked the Brits out and wanted to have Iranians run its own oil industry

Read "All the Kings Men" It is a great book about the coup.

There is some very cool spy stuff in there, in particular with how Kermit Roosevelt executed the coup. But the blowback, my God, it reverberates today

Did seem to be a strange tangent she took. Especially considering it was led by people she was blasting. Debatable though. Islamic Rev was happening regardless.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Did seem to be a strange tangent she took. Especially considering it was led by people she was blasting. Debatable though. Islamic Rev was happening regardless.

Yea, I think her article was much better if she doesn't mention 1953. In particular because the Shah was so incompetent that Truman constantly dismissed him anytime he asked for well anything.

Hitting the President about his apology tour is needed IMO

[Predicto]

Typical "attack the character" tactics that go on in the Tailgate.

It's funny watching leftists sit perched upon their moral high ground while blasting Coulter as some hack. Coulter's article is true but nobody will refute the content.

Coulter is not a hack.

She is a very clever polemicist who, in private, mocks the feeble minded conservative peasantry that she so easily leads around by the nose, the peasantry who make her rich by buying her books that telling them what they want to hear. I can say this with some certainty, because I used to know her personally and she told me.

There is not a bit of "truth" in that article. It is not a factual piece, it is a polemic piece. You can't attack the "truth" of something that is not asserting facts.

For example, Coulter says: "In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life." So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America."

All of those "facts" are true. So what? The real question is whether this is a legitimate criticism of a diplomatic speech. Of course not. The President's speech was designed to reach out to the Muslim world and begin to defuse tensions. Obama was not trying to pee in their faces and laugh about it the way Ann "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter would do. That is because he is a President, not a polemicist.

Anyhow, anyone who posts an Ann Coulter piece and then complains that the other side is not "willing to discuss the facts" in that piece is an obvious hack of the first order. Coulter's pieces are not about facts, and they are not designed to be discussed rationally. They are designed to fire up the stupider folks on one side of a debate, and to cut off rational discussion in favor of emotional pissing contests.

Thank you agian, hokie4redskins, for raising the tenor of the Tailgate.

[Predicto]

Hitting the President about his apology tour is needed IMO

I am surprised that you, of all people, would say that. You are the one who is constantly trying to educate this board about respecting the Muslim world, and taking into account how our actions and statements will be percieved from the people who live in that world.

Do you really think that this kind of outreach is a negative thing? Would it have been better, diplomatically, if Obama had just spoken about the positives of America and the negatives of the Muslim world?

[ACW]

Coulter is not a hack.

She is a very clever polemicist who, in private, mocks the feeble minded conservative peasantry that she so easily leads around by the nose, the peasantry who make her rich by buying her books that telling them what they want to hear. I can say this with some certainty, because I used to know her personally and she told me.

Elaborate...

[SkinsHokieFan]

I am surprised that you, of all people, would say that. You are the one who is constantly trying to educate this board about respecting the Muslim world, and taking into account how our actions and statements will be percieved from the people who live in that world.

Do you really think that this kind of outreach is a negative thing? Would it have been better, diplomatically, if Obama had just spoken about the positives of America and the negatives of the Muslim world?

Not the negatives, but certainly highlight the positives of our nation.

I don't think acknowledging our mistakes on foreign soil in the Arab world does much good, and thats just my personal opinion. It, again IMO, becomes fodder for those over there who come up with the most insane conspiracy theories (and the Muslim world is full of them)

Edit:

I should also include in this remarks the President made in Europe as well, not just in the Middle East. The whole overall tenor I disagree with, not the particular Cairo speech. I hope it clears up my quick off the cuff comment

I did enjoy the Cairo speech, quite a bit, and said so. I think the President did very well in it. The overall tenor of an apology tour is not something I enjoy

[SkinsHokieFan]

Elaborate...

Basically P is stating, and correctly in my opinion, the Coulter exploits the conservatives who need a woman conservative to validate their views, to make money.

That she probably believes about 10 percent of what she writes, but that its made her very rich and famous

[deejaydana]

Liberals need to learn that the entire world does not, despite the continued attempts by the media to deceive, hate the United States. If there's one thing liberals do better then anyone it's this: self loathing.

Obama did score some points in his speech, he also used the broad brush approach which is a common rhetorical approach of his. So, it was both effective, yet still vague. Some people like vague.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Liberals need to learn that the entire world does not, despite the continued attempts by the media to deceive, hate the United States. If there's one thing liberals do better then anyone it's this: self loathing.

I don't think the entire world hates us at all, and there is evidence that our popularity overseas is rising with our new President.

What I personally believe though is in certain parts of the world, any hardship they suffer they will blame on the US, even if there is no evidence to support the US being responsible for it in any way shape or form.

[hokie4redskins]

Coulter is not a hack.

She is a very clever polemicist who, in private, mocks the feeble minded conservative peasantry that she so easily leads around by the nose, the peasantry who make her rich by buying her books that telling them what they want to hear. I can say this with some certainty, because I used to know her personally and she told me.

There is not a bit of "truth" in that article. It is not a factual piece, it is a polemic piece. You can't attack the "truth" of something that is not asserting facts.

For example, Coulter says: "In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life." So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America."

All of those "facts" are true. So what? The real question is whether this is a legitimate criticism of a diplomatic speech. Of course not. The President's speech was designed to reach out to the Muslim world and begin to defuse tensions. Obama was not trying to pee in their faces and laugh about it the way Ann "Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" Coulter would do. That is because he is a President, not a polemicist.

Anyhow, anyone who posts an Ann Coulter piece and then complains that the other side is not "willing to discuss the facts" in that piece is an obvious hack of the first order. Coulter's pieces are not about facts, and they are not designed to be discussed rationally. They are designed to fire up the stupider folks on one side of a debate, and to cut off rational discussion in favor of emotional pissing contests.

Thank you agian, hokie4redskins, for raising the tenor of the Tailgate.

Wow, this is probably your first cogent, non-hit-and-run-playground-insult post in a few weeks.

:applause:

Don't confuse diplomacy with begging forgiveness from those who celebrated 9/11.

And "she told you"?

:laugh:

Good thing I've never spent one dime on her work then, huh?

And SHF got it right. Rebuking Obama for this disgraceful kowtowing tour across the Middle East is perfectly legitimate. This was essentially Coulter's point.

[hokie4redskins]

Basically P is stating, and correctly in my opinion, the Coulter exploits the conservatives who need a woman conservative to validate their views, to make money.

That she probably believes about 10 percent of what she writes, but that its made her very rich and famous

I think he was asking for an elaboration of his "we were best buddies and she told me" claim.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think he was asking for an elaboration of his "we were best buddies and she told me" claim.

I think P has stated before that he went to law school with her

[#98QBKiller]

Basically P is stating, and correctly in my opinion, the Coulter exploits the conservatives who need a woman conservative to validate their views, to make money.

That she probably believes about 10 percent of what she writes, but that its made her very rich and famous

Imagine the reactions if one day she and Rush just came out and said "Yeah, we're both registered independents that lean a little left. No biggie. Thanks for getting us rich though."

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Liberals need to learn that the entire world does not, despite the continued attempts by the media to deceive, hate the United States. If there's one thing liberals do better then anyone it's this: self loathing.

Obama did score some points in his speech, he also used the broad brush approach which is a common rhetorical approach of his. So, it was both effective, yet still vague. Some people like vague.

Some people need to elarn that liberals don't think that.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Imagine the reactions if one day she and Rush just came out and said "Yeah, we're both registered independents that lean a little left. No biggie. Thanks for getting us rich though."

:hysterical:

I can't wait for that day. I'd love to see what would happen if Hannity reveals that he actually voted for Nader in 2000

I think it is obvious to most people that these commentators, the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, Coulters and Olbermann's do not believe everything they say. They simply cannot.

But they are smart enough to get themselves in the media and make millions

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Typical "attack the character" tactics that go on in the Tailgate.

That's what you do in every single post!

[Jeeb]

:hysterical:

I can't wait for that day. I'd love to see what would happen if Hannity reveals that he actually voted for Nader in 2000

I think it is obvious to most people that these commentators, the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, Coulters and Olbermann's do not believe everything they say. They simply cannot.

But they are smart enough to get themselves in the media and make millions

I think there is actually a video floating around of Rush claiming it was mostly an act. I'll dig around and see if I can find it

[#98QBKiller]

:hysterical:

I can't wait for that day. I'd love to see what would happen if Hannity reveals that he actually voted for Nader in 2000

I think it is obvious to most people that these commentators, the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, Coulters and Olbermann's do not believe everything they say. They simply cannot.

But they are smart enough to get themselves in the media and make millions

Very true. It's hard to imagine that any of them take themselves seriously (and you forgot add Michael Moore).

I would have a lot more respect for the whole lot if they just had a coming out party :paranoid: stating that they are like the majority of people, somewhere in the middle, leaning left or right and that they were smart enough to fool everyone, flame up emotions and get rich off of it.

[hokie4redskins]

That's what you do in every single post!

Only after I slam the argument.

[Henry]

Very true. It's hard to imagine that any of them take themselves seriously (and you forgot add Michael Moore).

I would have a lot more respect for the whole lot if they just had a coming out party :paranoid: stating that they are like the majority of people, somewhere in the middle, leaning left or right and that they were smart enough to fool everyone, flame up emotions and get rich off of it.

My turn to post an article. In my opinion, there are quite a few posters on this board that feed the monster.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/09/_its_time_to_change_the_tone_of_our_politics_coverage_96893.html

It's Time to Change The Tone of Our 'Politics' Coverage

By Stuart Rothenberg

In May, I made an appearance on "Hardball with Chris Matthews," one of MSNBC's political shows. The segment's main focus was the current state of the Republican Party.

When the segment ended and I walked off the set, I knew that that would likely be my last appearance on "Hardball." I had decided that I would not accept another invitation to appear on the program, should one come.

For those of us who enjoy following politics and are interested in the news, there are fewer and fewer options on television. The Sunday shows and PBS programming - "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," for example - remain, and there are a handful of others worth watching elsewhere (e.g., "Morning Joe" on MSNBC is fun, informative and thoughtful, and CNN and C-SPAN have their moments). But too often, caricature and vitriol have replaced reporting and analysis.

The networks continue to present national news programs each night, but politics can't compete with "American Idol" or "CSI," so cable stations have filled the vacuum with endless hours of what cable executives seem to think constitutes "news" and "politics."

America's cable "news" networks have concluded - on the basis of considerable research and evidence, I'm sure - that most viewers don't want straight news and analysis as much as they want to hear what they already think or to watch predictable partisan attacks.

The three big cable "news" networks don't exist to provide a public service, after all. They have corporate officers and stockholders to answer to, which means they need more and more eyeballs to generate more advertising dollars.

Their answer: talk radio on TV. Forget about the serious implications and political fallout that follow an event or policy, and instead attack your opponents repeatedly using half-truths, glittering generalities and inapplicable analogies. Given the high ratings of Fox News Channel and MSNBC, the cable gurus probably are right. Advocacy has won out over neutrality.

Click on link for the rest of the article

[JMS]

Uh ... Hitler declared war on the US?

Also Hitler did have planse to invade the United States. In his second book, sequal to Mien Kaumf he said the United States had too much German blood in it to be ignored and thus Germany would have to take us out at some point too.

Buchannon influenced by his father has always considered WWII, Roosevelt's war. Fact is even though Japan attacked us and both declaired war on us before we declaired war on them, it's true Roosevelt engineered the entired the entire show.

Roosevelt had been straining even breaking the rules of neutrality for quite a long time giving arms and weapons and aid to Great Britian. He was also providing British convoys US Navy escorts up to iceland and those US navy ships had orders to fire on German warships if sited. And then their is the entire oil, rubber, and steel embargo which we put on the Japanese.

Roosevelt was promising Churchhill we would enter the war, and he was actively pursuing the goal of getting the excuse to do so. I don't fault Pat for calling it Roosevelt's war. I don't agree with him that the war wasn't in US interest though.

Pat's thought is Hittler wasn't any worse than Stalin, and we put up with Stalin and the Evil Empire for 50 years, we could have co-existed with Hitler too. Besides Pat contends they likely would have taken each other out if we had simple not interfered.

It's an intellectual argument. To me it's irrelevent. Roosevelt did involve us. That involvement to my mind was good for the country and the world. Ultimately we had one less mad man to deal with for the next 50 years nd that's not a bad thing either.