View Single Post
  #14  
Old 04-30-2006, 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn7
Bringing up Anne Coulter is an interesting point. How would you and all of the Democrats have felt in Coulter had done what this guy did to Bill Clinton while he was forced to sit there and listen. Clinton would've been beet red with rage. and everyone else would've been too.
Uh, no. Colbert went after the Bush, his administration, and some of the cronies who work for him. Cunter seems to have come up with the most idiotic and biased idea ever: rather than blaiming politicians (who've earned it) she decides that the folks in washington right now are 'of the people', and that it's actually all liberals (you know, about less than half of America's population) that are they imbediment of all evil in this world (depressingly enough, the red states are buying into her bullshit.)

In essence, her speech would've not only involved making dozens of pot shots at Clinton (except unlike Stephen they'd actually be funny), but going on and on abuot her every body slightly left if centre is an evil gay traitor communist terrorist who eats babies and hates jesus. I also think his speech would've finished off by how whenever she's depressed, she thinks of what happened to thousands of leftist after Pinochet's coup in Chile and how it's even funnier to her than the movie Airplane!

In short, you're right: I would've gotten offended. The same way you'd get offended if at a speech in a school somebody would slip in the fact that you're a stupid ugly whore when it has nothing to do with anything.

Also, I would wager every single Criterion that I have that if Ann Coulter had gone to a Clinton rally and told everybody that they were pure evil, you'd be defended it and saying how we should learn to accept free speech, and how it's important for the president to hear the people's displeasure.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn7
It's hard for you guys to understand that there are really more ways to think about an issue than what the Democrats think at any given point. It is okay to say hateful things to this president because you classify him as evil and think that his way of thinking is unacceptable. Many people do think like he does and I think this will hold up in history. If we had not gone to Iraq then we would've been getting blwon up on our streets in the years after 9-11. This is something that you guys won't consider but it is the absolute truth.
So nobody should be allowed to tell him what a shitty job he's doing? This fucker spies on people like Stephen, tells people like Stephen who can and can't get married, sends people like Stephen to die for a pack of lies rather than admit he was totally fucking wrong, not before wasting nearly half a trillion$ of people like Stephen's money, al after a long hard day of insisting that people like Stephen's children will be taught fiction in school because he likes to asser his religious dominance over others?

If Bush wants us to leave him alone and live in his eleborate fantasy world, than he'd better leave those in the real world inaffected by his nonsense. Otherwise, he's a giant cocksucker, and deserves to be told so until he either stops being a cocksucker, or agrees to leave.

Speaking of eleborate fantasy world, do you want to explain how we would've been blown up on the street if we'd attacked a guy who was not, according to EVERY SINGLE FUCKING NEWS OUTLET not planning to A-Fucking-Tack America anytime fucking soon?

Since you seem to have developed your point on this, put or shut up: how would Saddam have attacked us? Why? Or you just believe because reality is too inconvenient.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lynn7
People can say what they like when they are out and about but this dinner "party" is in very bad taste in recent years. Those are my values and you guys can have yours.
Why do you keep talking about how people should be polite to that assclown? Is he polite to that Iraqi man who's children who just killed by ordering his country bombed? Is he polite to those brown people who haven't even been told what they've done that's illegal in the Gitmo while he orders his men to torture and humiliate them? Was he courteous to those New Orleans when he decided to 'pull a Gipper' and simply hope and pray that the hurricane would change his mind and everything would sort itself out without him having to take time off from his busy, important schedule?

Bush has spent his entire 6 years in office making everyone take pills made of shit and cought syrup made of piss. Why do you implore an incredibly naked and obvious double standard by insisting that Stephen (or anybody else for that matter) should'nt unfurl his goddamn pants, aim for Dubya mouth, and give him just a fraction of the medicine he's forced upon all of us in the last half decade? Please, tell me. I'm curious.

If anybody is sickened by my last use of metaphors, sue me. It's like a steamer in my room and despite trying to avoid talking to Lynn, I just couldn't take what she'd finished typing. Goodnight.

Last edited by MacReady; 04-30-2006 at 10:52 PM..