He he heh
Anita Hill And Anne Coulter, what are you smoking tonight? Pass me that $hit!
Ms. Coulter first.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Ann Coulter, following 9/11 terrorist attacks
"Indeed, an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided liberals with a religion they could respect."
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn into outright traitors."
Based upon your posting others remarks of hers, I assume then you agree with these remarks by Coulter?
Now onto the funny business; because what Coulter said is nothing more than historically inaccurate and so funnily off the mark that one wonders if she can tell black from white.
Which leads to Anita Hill and the amusing link you provided. Thanks. I had seen it before. I think masseggetto posted it on the "buzz. It still is a piece of work, isn't it? That the author can so be undermined by what David Brock admitted about the stuff in your link. Imagine that?
"David Brock, who came to the national forefront with the 1993 title The Real Anita Hill, now says he lied about Hill and that the book was a sham propagated by the conservative right. Brock said that he "lost [his] soul" when he willingly allowed himself to be used as a pawn by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to assassinate Hill's credibility in the accusations she made about Thomas during the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court. "Thomas was complicit in an effort to discredit another witness against him with negative personal information," said Brock, "which is exactly what he claimed the Anita Hill forces had done to him." Brock additionally admits strong-arming other witnesses such as Kaye Savage to retract negative statements against Thomas by threatening to "blacken her name, just as I had done to every other woman who had impugned Thomas's reputation." Thomas has not commented on the allegations."
Listen to:
Journalist David Brock, whose 1993 book attacked the credibility of law professor Anita Hill, now says he printed lies about Hill following her testimony against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. In an exclusive interview, NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg talks to Brock about the confession, detailed in a forthcoming book.
Brock now says that, when he was writing for the conservative magazine The American Spectator and researching his book The Real Anita Hill, he was a tool of right wing activists who fed him false information about Hill. At the time, Brock tells Totenberg, he accepted the truthfulness of the information without checking. But he since has learned he helped spread lies, he says, and is trying to set the record straight.
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2001/jul/010702.brock.html
http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/20010702.brock.ram
Borking Brock
Conservatives try to discredit a former ally -- but not his conservative-friendly writings.
"There is one thing missing from all this criticism of Brock, though. If he's as untrustworthy as conservatives now say he is, that means his original trashing of Anita Hill needs to be called into question. But nobody's doing that. Nobody's saying that "The Real Anita Hill" is too flawed to be believed. Conservatives apparently have too much invested in their vision of Clarence Thomas as victim of a "high-tech lynching" to consider the possibility that Hill may have been telling the truth."
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2001/update072001.html
And this is the best part. What you did on-site on this thread to Ritter, is just what the Right did to Brock after he finally admitted lying about Anita Hill, and admitting that Clarence Thomas definitely lied under oath, viz., there was minimal discussion by the Right of the data Brock presented, nor was there any substantiated rebuttals based upon the facts, and instead of the facts being attacked the person delivering the facts was attacked.
Looking at this in juxtaposition with the weird pearls of wisdom from the mouth of Ms. Coulter each of us posted, it appears reasonable to consider that camp quite unreasonable, as in "without logic," and possessing of a distorted perspective of reality so ingrained as to approach the level of brainwashing.
When ideology gets in the way of reality, its bad juju. Anne Coulter is bad, very bad juju.
and BTW you still have not responded to the facts with any evidence to counter ritter's that dispute the basic tenet of the presence of wmd you declare and instead decided to change the topic and offer up "i stand by my original post," as if that is a reasonable defense of your position that has any meaning when facts show them untenable.
TKO 