Deport (from US) all Arab non-Citizens?

[shereads]

Colly, for you to conclude that any American may have "celebrated" 9/11, by associating with Arab Americans or any other way, is beyond my comprehension. I am less patriotic than you. I don't love my country less than you do, but I am substantially less patriotic in that I feel it's my duty as a citizen in a democracy to question our actions and to try to understand how we are perceived in the world at large. We share the planet with people who aren't Americans. Their impression of us is not filtered through their love of our country, and it doesn't mean they hate us.

deleted

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Deleted

 

[shereads]

deleted

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

My only point, in my very early post here, was that the article this thread is based on was written Sept 12. On Sept. 12 a lot of people said things they are glad are now long forgotten.

This is simply untrue.

[start]
Don’t Just Profile. Deport.
by Ann Coulter

October 4, 2001

[...]

War is being waged on our soil by noncitizen infiltrators, legally admitted by the INS. If Congress says the attorney general can't detain them, we ought to deport them. (From the "not ready to move on" file: Isn't it curious that we have room for 19 Muslim mass murderers, but no room for an innocent little Cuban boy? In addition to deporting immigrants from terrorist-producing countries, someone should look into deporting every person who ever worked for the INS.) [...]
[end]
===
Commet: Further, the caricature of Muslims as following a fanatical and dangerous religion, like their "demon possessed" founder is from a year after:

[start]
Murder For Fun and Prophet

September 4 , 2002

[...]
In a little-noticed story almost exactly one year after Muslims staged the most horrific terrorist attack the world has ever seen, a Muslim en route from Germany to Kosovo emerged from the airplane bathroom and tried to strangle a stewardess with his shoelaces. (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)


That story was squirreled away in small box at the very bottom of Page A-9 of the Times. In the entire Lexis Nexis archives, only three newspapers reported the incident. Not one mentioned that the attacker was a Muslim. It was a rather captivating story, too. Earlier in the flight, the Muslim responded to the stewardess's offer of refreshments by saying, "I'd like to drink your blood." (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)

Also last week, another practitioner of the Religion of Peace, this one with ties to al-Qaida, tried to board a plane in Sweden with a gun. This story did not merit front-page coverage at The New York Times.

To say that Muhammad was a demon-possessed pedophile is not an attack. It's a fact. [...]

Muhammad makes L. Ron Hubbard look like Jesus Christ. Most people think nothing of assuming every Scientologist is a crackpot. Why should Islam be subject to presumption of respect because it's a religion? Liberals bar the most benign expressions of religion by little America. Only a religion that is highly correlated with fascistic attacks on the U.S. demands their respect and protection.[end]

===
Comment: Her proposals to detain Arabic looking males at airports for extreme scrutiny has continually been made, to the present day.

I wonder if you'll publicly correct your misstatement (that will be a clue whether the 'con' or 'neocon' stream of consciousness predominates)!




====
J.

Added: Sher, I now agree with you that Coulter isnt sincerely expressing views. She's a provocateur. Like the comedian Don Rickles, who used to insult people. However, given the amount of hatred out there, the *effect* of her stuff is to inflame it, Hitler style, e.g., against Muslims. She also debases the political forum with the "I hate democrats/liberals" stuff, which attitude (non respect for the other party; the other party is traitorous) makes Congress unworkable.

How nice to spout one's mouth, stir the shit, and make a million besides!!!!

 

[oggbashan]

Who and what died on 9/11?

US citizens were not the only victims of 9/11. Citizens from many countries died including some who were Muslim. The attackers did not care who died as long as they made their point.

What died on 9/11 was the US's innocence - the idea that they were immune from terrorist attacks. In Europe we have been used to the idea of random urban terrorism since the Bolsheviks and Nihilists of the 19th century. The provisional IRA bombing campaigns were funded by misguided US/Irish citizens and Libya - a strange alliance.

Al-Queda is not a Muslim organisation. It horrifies most Muslims as much as it horrifies anyone else. Some radical fundamentalist groups who call themselves Muslim may have celebrated 9/11 and were newsworthy but they are not typical. Some groups would have celebrated any attack on the US by anyone because the US is hated in some parts of the world. So is the UK. So is France. So is Japan. I could go on.

Ignorance is a real enemy. Many people do not understand the US and certainly don't understand its political system. While US citizens make no attempt to distinguish between people who are their friends and people who are their enemies they risk isolating themselves further.

Pakistan is a US ally. It has real problems with Al-Queda and Taleban within its borders and with radical Muslim fanatics who would use any means to overthrow the Pakistan government. The majority of its citizens are Muslim but only a minority are anti-US. Any action against ALL Muslims risks alienating people who are on your side.

WWI and WWII -
Both wars were fought by an alliance of countries.

Australia had more casulties in WWI than the US and all the Australians were volunteers. Australia rightly blamed the UK for the surrender of its troops at Singapore in WWII.

Japan was on 'our' side in WWI.

Russia lost many more men than the US in both wars. Hitler's scientists were developing a rocket to deliver an atomic payload to the US's Eastern seaboard. His atomic plans were foiled by Norwegian resistance fighters, or as Hitler would have called them 'terrorists'. His rocket programme was destroyed by US and UK bombing.

In the Pacific arena, China, India, Australia and the UK held up the South and Southwesterly expansion of the Japanese and many died for it. British naval forces also fought in the Pacific and were moving major forces from Europe to support US forces for the invasion of Japan which would have happened if Japan had not surrendered.

We, the UK, could not have won without our allies. Without the UK the war in Europe would have been lost before the US joined it. Hitler declared war on the US - not the other way round.

We should be eternally grateful to all those millions, military and civilian, who died defending democratic freedom in the world - even the USSR who had other ideas for the future after 1945.

As for the war against terrorism - if we suspect everyone who is different then the terrorists have achieved a major victory by dividing us.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I guess you don't have or want any Arab American friends, or you wouldn't have made the assumption that the only reason one might associate with Arab Americans after 9/ll was to celebrate.

Did it occur to you how terrifying it was to be an Arab American when the identities of the hijackers began to be revealed? To own a business where people could focus their anger? To send your child to school the next day?

You don't have to shout slogans or spray-paint mosques to be a bigot. You just have to make cruel assumptions about people based on their ethnic origin. If that's the fold you feel comfortable with, enjoy.



Arabs celebrated the 9/11 attacks. Including some Arab americans. It was all over the news, interspaced with the towers collapsing again and again. Considering what you wrote the leap in drawing a conclusion is not that far fetched. In light of your clarification it seems silly, but in leiu of the revelations of that clarification it wasn't such a preposterous conclusion to draw, although the implications were frightening.

I have pretty much come full circle due to this thread. I am a lot closer now to being back in the fold with my Dad and brothers. A little sad, but comforting in a way.

-Colly

[/B][/QUOTE]

In all honesty I don't know if I have any arab or arab american friends. Most of my friends are online freinds and their race, national origin, oreientation, and even thier sex don't mean a hoot in hell to me. I like, or dislike people based on many things, but none of those is a factor. Short of those who use thier pictures as av's or have sent me pictures of themselves I don't know anything about many of my freinds.

I grew up in the deep south, surrounded by bigotry of the worst sort and I repudiated it utterly. You have a lot of fucking nerve calling me one. What pisses you off about me is that I am honest, on 9/11 I was just mad as hell and no, I never once considered how it would affect arab americans, or muslim americans or anyone oustide the small circle of friends gathered in my living room with cell phones to their ear or nervously pacing while they waited to find out if their dads, mothers, sisters, or brothers had made it out alive.

Unlike your oh so sanctimonious self my concerns on that day and those afterwards were not so wonderfully forgiving and harmonious. They were small, alloted to my freinds in pain and the world at large wasn't even a minor thought.

You have been in royal bitch mode ever since the democratic primaries started and I have cut you a ton a slack, because I remember how frustrated, angry, hopeless and disheartened I was when Clinton ran for re-elction, but the attack dog rhetoric is growing thin fast.

I drew a conclusion based on what you typed. When you clarified I admited the conclusion was wrong. Most people would have let it go at that, but you had to carry it out and keep it going and make something nasty of it, when there was no intent to be nasty. When I get nasty it is readily apparent, I don't couch my words.

I am tired of being the target of your angst.

-Colly

 

[TheEarl]

I am not Anti-American. I am also not an idiot. I am quite capable of arguing my point using historical fact to back me up and as someone who is also intelligent, I would expect you to understand that history is quite capable of backing up two completely divergent points of view.

I would also expect you, as a person of intelligence, to understand that this is a debate, not an argument. I've been looking forward to hearing your replies, simply because I like debating and hearing other people's views and testing my skill. Debating is the best way to learn something. I would very much appreciate it if you didn't treat me like an Old-European, Anti-American idiot just because I hold a different viewpoint to you. I am a capable debater and an intelligent man and you are not helping your argument by treating me otherwise.

Anyway, on with my riposte.

The anti-americanism in this thread has sickened me, from the assertion that we deserved 9/11 to celebrating with the underdogs after it occured. From trying to villify us for entering world war II to looking for a dark, sinister, or self serving reason for sending toops to europe in that conflict.

-Colly

I don't think Svenska was trying to say that you 'deserved 9/11.' She was saying that US foreign policy towards Arabia has been very high-handed and that a backlash was coming. Not a single person on this board would think anyone deserved that atrocity.

I also wasn't 'vilifying you for entering WW2.' I have said earlier in this thread how grateful we are for America's intervention and how we couldn't have won the war without your help. However, I still stand behind my point that the USA couldn't have won without us.

Let's go for a spot of What-If history. Germany doesn't declare war on America. The USA defeats Japan. Germany defeats both Russia and Britain, taking all of Europe. In Mein Kampf, Hitler does only suggest pushing Russia back over the Urals, but it is not a large leap of logic to imagine him pressing on after a couple of years peace. Russia would be unable to resist and some of his alliances suggest plans for a further expansion. Germany was allied with Tibet in WW2 and had tentative agreements with Mongolia. So now Germany holds all of EuroAsia.

Time passes by, maybe 20 years and Germany had held all of Europe for a while. The decay in the Nazi party only started when they started to lose the war and people started jockeying for position. Germany has the industrial centres of Europe working for them to produce armies secretly like they did before WW2 and have prepared for several years placating the USA, who, with it's isolationist government is just happy not to have got involved. Is it not concievable that the USA would have been caught unprepared like Britain and France were by WW2.

This is conjecture I know. You believe that the USA would have been able to win through anything. I believe that a political bloc containing the resources of the USSR and Western Europe would have been a major threat. No way to prove either side.

Which bomber did Britan have that could reach the U.S.? The longest ranged bomber I know of you having was the Wellington or Hawker Hurricane. Even the B-17, to make the trip across had to be stripped of all weapons and carried a skeleton crew. Germany never even developed a four engine heavy bomber.

Know thine history, the Kamikaze were a last ditch desperation measure and even if they had been around they too lacked a bomber with sufficient range to reach the U.S. proper. Again, b-17's being ferried to Hawaii had to be stripped down with no machine guns and no bomb loads. That was to Hawaii. No where within the Japanese empires did they have planes that could get there short of Kwanishi flying boats of which they had very few. Certainly they were a more formidible foe since they possessd carrier air, but carrier planes had limited range and could not have hit targets in the industrial U.S. heartland even on suicide raids.

I was under the impression that the Hurricane was capable of flying to America. If that is incorrect then I apologise, but I don't know that point for certain so I will defer.

A little point about the Japanese mentality at the time. The word for Japan in Japanese is Nihon, or Nippon which translates as Land of the Gods. The Japanese believed that it was their sworn duty to spread their way of life and subjugate the rest of the world. Bushido (way of the samurai) was not dead in Japan before the war and Emperor Hirohito was regarded as (literally) semi-divine. The kamikaze attacks themselves may have only come in later in the war, but given a chance of destroying an American city, a Japanese pilot would quite cheerfully have laid down his life for his Emperor. Industrial heartlands may not have been the issue - how would American morale be if Washington was obliterated?

Um, no. We weren't looking utterly defeated before Midway. In fact, Operation MI, the invasion of Midway was born of the desperation one man felt. His Name was Isoruku Yammammoto and he was CinC, of the Japanese imperial Navy. He had traveled widely in the U.S. and more than anyone realizd the 6 month window he had given himself was almost closed. The U.S. 's industrial might was gearing up and once it kicked in he knew final victory could not be achieved. The U.S. still had her carriers and while, to old navy men we looked whipped, what with no battleships, history has shown the day of the big gun carrier as queen of the sea was already over. With able commanders like Michner, Halsey, Fletcher and Spruance and our three operational carriers were were too much of a threat to try an invasion of Hawaii and too much of a danger to let us build more. Midway was a victory of signals intelligence, incredible bravery on the part of our pilots, superior planning and yes, some luck. But it came not because we were "nearly defeated" but because were weren't nearly defeated enough to force a peace and we were fixing to start kicking ass and they knew it or at least he did.

Interesting anecdote - War gamers at the Naval War College of Newport, Rhode Island have replayed the battle of Midway many times and have never been able to produce an American victory. Some luck is an understatement - The American dive-bombers attacking at the one time when all Japanese fighters were refueling? That was extraordinary luck. The Americans would have only had one carrier left and could not have defended the Pacific islands. The Japanese would have island hopped to resource-rich Australia, providing them with the impetus to take Hawaii. With one carrier, the USA would have been in no position to defend the Pacific.

Lets not forget we fought the japanes with out fleet split between two oceans and using mostly our Marine corps while our army was engaged over there.

This is interesting, considering you accuse me of revisionist history. The Australian army, who lost hundreds of thousands of men in the defence of Singapore and who won the battle that turned the tide in the Pacific war would be slightly upset to see you give all the credit to the USA. Plus there was a significant contingent of the Royal Navy in the Pacific, including my grandfather, who was taken as a Prisoner of War by the Japanese and interned in Changi. He survived the war, but died in 1988 due to the ill-effects of his maltreatment by the Japanese.

I think it's more than a little insulting to suggest that the Australian diggers and the Royal Navy had nothing to do with the Pacific war.

When we finished the Japanese, if we had turned on Hitler the odds are very good we would have won.

Would you have turned on Hitler? The US government was isolationist and reluctant to enter the war until attacked themselves. Plus if Britain had fallen, then you would have had a fun time trying to land in Europe. Given 20 years of peace, the German bloc would have been unstoppable. In my opinion of course, but holding all of the manufacturing resources in Europe, Asia and most of Africa would have given them a slight advantage.

You seem to have a great deal of respect for Hitler's Germany. I don't share it. The government was rife with corruption, in fighting, graft, intrigue and overlapping fields of power. Lets see, a herione addict and probable transvstite whose primary objective was to steal art treasures, build a hunting lodge and design spiffy uniforms for himself. An ex chicken farmer who was more cncerned about the qulity of the genes being passed on to the next generation on his stud farms than prosecuting a war. An inverterate yes man who would have promulagated an order that all troops were to have a go at his wife if Hitler said to. And a malignant dwarf who liited access to the Fuerher in an attempt to make himself kingmaker. This group is going to build an army to take us on? Hell, they couldn't cross the channel, or keep their best field commander in enough parts and oil to keep whipping the british's ass in North africa. They are gonna figure out how to cross an ocean and invade the U.S.?

Or to look at it another way - A political genius who had managed to effectively abolish the Treaty of Versailles and annex a large part of Europe without firing a shot, as well as create astute alliances to support him. Some of the greatest generals in history backing him. The flush of success, one of the best trained armies in Europe, a weapons research team second to none and the manufacturing facilities of the entire Euro Asian bloc? I'd say they stood a fairly good chance of reaching you.

As Sean Connery's character said in the Untouchables, "Here endeth the lesson". The next time you choose to find something bad in everything my country has done, don't try using history, it's too complicated. Just stick to accusing us of being reponsible for everything bad in the Mideast or never doing anything good for anyone without an ulterior motive and you won't have to sit there through a lecture. After all, everyone has opinions, but when you start calling historical fact into it you are asking for someone to make you look like an ass.

-Colly

Your points are apparently unassailable, you are absolutely right and I am the evil ogre who is being completely unreasonable. History is not black and white - it's arguing your shade of grey. My points are not definitive and I am not absolutely right. I am willing to accept the possibility that I might learn something from you. You appear to be willing to accept the possibility that I might submit and tell you how right you were all along.




Pure - The entire reason Britain declared war on Germany was that they were expecting not to have to fight it. Britain was still world dominant there and expected the ultimatum to cause Germany to back down. Britain actually had no way of protecting Poland - they had no alliance with Russia and couldn't get troops there. They expected the threat to be enough, but Germany had reached the stage of armament where Britain wasn't so feared. So they carried on, expecting us to back down because we hadn't been bothered about Czechoslovakia. Germany didn't really want to war on us, indeed given a different King (Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathiser, but abdicated to George VI because of love issues).

With the might of Britain actually at war with him, Hitler made an astute decision in annexing Western Europe. He was in no danger from Russia due to the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact and he knew that he could catch France (the other main continental power) relatively unprepared by bypassing the main French defences along Alsace-Lorraine and attacking through Belgium. A quick attack prevented the British Expeditionary force from entrenching themselves as in World War 1 and allowed Germany free reign over the mainland. Britain were woefully unprepared for war and lost a lot of equipment and men in the rout at Dunkirk, thus securing Germany's dominance.

It is a little known fact that Hitler actually offered peace terms to the UK in 1940. If Chamberlain had been in power then, we might have accepted them. The belligerent Churchill told Hitler that Britain was not interested in peace until Germany retreated back behind it's borders.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

I am honest, on 9/11 I was just mad as hell and no, I never once considered how it would affect arab americans, or muslim americans or anyone oustide the small circle of friends gathered in my living room with cell phones to their ear or nervously pacing while they waited to find out if their dads, mothers, sisters, or brothers had made it out alive.

-Colly [/QUOTE]

I was mad as well. Some of my eldest daughter's colleagues were in the towers but on the lower floors and made it out safely.

But I was mad at those who committed the attacks because of what they would achieve by damaging the US's relations with the world. I sent e-mails to my US friends showing the spontaneous demonstrations all over Europe in support of the US and in grief for those who had died. Those demonstrations were much numerous and much more frequent than any celebrations. The solidarity shown throughout the world was amazing and should be better known in the US than the few maniacs who thought that an attack on the US was 'good'.

I once had a book published after Lincoln's assassination. It contained messages of sympathy from communities all over the world. The same thing happened on 9/11. When our friends are killed we grieve with their friends and family.

Og

 

[shereads]

deleted

 

[shereads]

The solidarity shown throughout the world was amazing and should be better known in the US than the few maniacs who thought that an attack on the US was 'good'.

Og [/B][/QUOTE]

Og, many of us are aware and are grateful, and are sorry to have had to witness our elected leadership destroy so much of the world's good will through arrogance and ignorance. You will never convince anyone to see your point who is determined not to. But thank you anyway. I'm sure your friends in the U.S. appreciated your support and still do.

 

[TheEarl]

On the note of the poll at the start of this thread - I actually voted for deporting with 'probable cause.' The deportation laws in this country are a joke. I've mentioned Abu Hamza, who openly recruits for Al Quaeda and yet appears undeportable. Is it better or worse in the USA?

The Earl

 

[KarenAM]

I will begin by saying that I believe that Ann Coulter is insane.

This is not a personal judgment; I don't know her personally and so am not qualified to make such a judgment. But her opinions, so far as I can tell, are so completely dominated by rage that it makes her sanity suspect, and certainly any sense of objectivity she may have once had. In this she joins other such sad folks as Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Rush Limbaugh.

That's the trouble with rage; it blinds you and leads you to believe that complex things are simple, that there are no grays, and that despite the fact you may have a limited amount of information you are qualified to make sweeping judgments about everything and anything. I say this because I have experienced it. I too was mad as hell after 9-11, and I still am; you will find no sympathy for radical Islam from me. But to say that "Arabs celebrated the 9/11 attacks" is an inaccurate oversimplification. Some Arabs did; others mourned. I know several Arab Muslims, and they are even more offended and frightened by Osama bin Laden than I am, which is saying something. I recall shortly after the attacks a piece on the news in which a Muslim woman was grieving at Ground-Zero and was approached by a non-Muslim American and asked, "Are you okay?" It was a touching moment that illustrated much more than the headlines or generalizations ever could.

9-11 hurt us all. It frightened us and it enraged us. But rage is easy; healing the wounds of 9-11 will be much harder. The main reason I have tried so hard to heal my own rage over that awful day, and why it saddens me so to hear people like Ms. Coulter so completely succumb to theirs, is that it was also rage that inspired Mohammed Atta and those like him to murder the 3,000 people whose deaths we are all still grieving.

And I don't want to be like that.

 

[TheEarl]

Hear hear Karen. Very much agree.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

This thread has been very difficult to read, but if it means anything to anyone, I felt nothing like rage or anger on 9/11. I felt awful emotions, painful and to do with great grief, but nothing so hurtful, and I daresay useless, as anger. I can't bear at times knowing what persons can do to others, but I have compassion for all hurt or killed by terrorism, even those indivdual souls who manned the airplanes. That is an utterly personal statement, nothing to do with a liberal bent, and only to do with who I am, what I cannot help but be.

I can get angry at politicians and governments, though.

Perdita

 

[KarenAM]

I'm going to continue to try to be more like you, Perdita. It's rough going sometimes, though.

 

[Guest]

Karen, it's not easy, and I can only be grateful for undeserved grace at times. I think too it has to do with being my age, having known life a bit longer than others, and not wanting to waste it. Still, trying to deal with, or battle hard emotions is better than being stuck in them or paralyzed by them.

best to you, Perdita

 

[Pure]

I find and found 9-11 difficult to process. A hundred times more than Pearl Harbor (as I imagine). The first emotion was and is anger at a certain sector of the Arab world that are schooled in West hatred (while the wealthier sector members have no objection to Western luxury). I suppose I don't know what the 'receiving end' of terrorism feels like; have just read about it.

VERY hard to process that you will be killed for 'no reason' (???) like Brits sitting in a bar.

PS. That the West has been creating these people, in a sense, for decades, takes a while to sink in. That the West has, at least since Soviet Afghanistan days, been financing them takes even more wrestling to get used to.

 

[TheEarl]

PS. That the West has been creating these people, in a sense, for decades, takes a while to sink in. That the West has, at least since Soviet Afghanistan days, been financing them takes even more wrestling to get used to.

Interesting sidenote - Osama bin Laden had shares in Coca Cola and huge US interests. Despite the US government knowing he was a terrorist and knowing he had shares in American companies, they did not freeze his assets. This only occured after September 11th. Very sad to me.

The Earl

 

[Dirt Man]

Interesting sidenote - Osama bin Laden had shares in Coca Cola and huge US interests. Despite the US government knowing he was a terrorist and knowing he had shares in American companies, they did not freeze his assets. This only occured after September 11th. Very sad to me.

The Earl

That was because he had broken no laws here in the US before then. And also because no one had come forth to claim his assets here in the USA for damages inflicted upon them by him elsewhere. Anyone is free to invest money in our country. America is the land of Freedom for everybody, as long as they don't break our laws, or physically attack us. Then the laws of our land kick in big time. And the home of the Brave becomes a reality all over again. Committing mass murder in our country, or doing a sneak attack on us seems to always really piss us off.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Guest]

Don't Tread On Me!

 

[Pure]

Notice:
Poll on Coulter's Proposal to deport (from US) all Arab
non-citizens.

State of the Poll to date, 17 votes:

Deport all Muslim (Arab and other) noncitizens: 6
Leave rules the same: 8

No more than one vote for any other proposal, including Coulter's own 'moderate' 'deport Arabs' position.

At first couple votes, I thought the 'deport all' choice votes--MORE extreme than Coulter's-- were jokes; now I wonder.

The votes are at the extremes, perhaps indicating the polarization of US society-- an effect that Ann Coulter, Perl, Frum, Cheney, GWB are working hard to achieve.

J.

 

[sweetnpetite]

If you lived in Oklahoma, would you hate me becuase I'm from Michigan (Like Timothy McVeigh)?

If you were black, would you hate all Christians because the KKK claimed to be one?

YOu say racism is ugly and hateful, and that you were hateful and still are. You seem to admit to racism, but bristle at being labled bigoted. If you look at your posts, you seem to be saying that racism is ok when tragedy strikes. the problem is the 24/7 racist will always have some tragedy to point to, some emotional button to push to get us to follow suit. Anger and pain are not acceptable reasons to allow racist or bigeted attitides to prevail. If you think it is, then you *should* feel that America "asked for" those attacks because some American's have angered the terrorist organisation and so it was perfectly natural for them to hate all American's and want us dead. The fact is, it's not ok for either side- ever.

Thats your view, and you are welcome to it. I live in NY, I had freinds in the towers and had someone presented me with a petition to kick every arab and muslim out of this country on Sept. 12, I would have signed it without thought.

Racisim is ugly, it's hateful, but in the wake of what I went through that day and saw the people around me going through in the days that followed, I was hateful. To a large extent I still am. I make no apologies for it either.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

My question would be this- why does anyone make excuses for stupid bleach-blonde Anne Coulter? I mean give me a break. The Conservatives (Or Neo-con or whatever) have GOT to have somebody on their side who can look good AND have a brain. And I don't mean to say she's stupid cuz she's blonde, but I do think that maybe she gets away with being stupid cuz she's blonde. Anybody who's not already on her side can see that she does not write or speak intellegently or thoughtfully, she just spews out the what the Conservatives already agree with, and since they agree with her, they declare her a political genious. Also, she may be pretty- even "hot" but I dont find her sexy at all because she's a total and complete bitch. She has a nasty condescending attitude and she wears it all over her face. She makes my skin crawl.

 

[Edward Teach]

I think you should deport everybody but me and halle berry.

Ed

 

[KarenAM]

The votes are at the extremes, perhaps indicating the polarization of US society-- an effect that Ann Coulter, Perl, Frum, Cheney, GWB are working hard to achieve.

Sadly true, Pure. But let's not forget the equally polarizing efforts of Franken, Moore, Nader and folks like them.

I'm an American and proud of it, but it seems like the only ones in my country without a voice anymore are the moderates. How did this happen?