Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter

Re: Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter

Thomas wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Chris Mathews chases ratings and attention like a whore after a John, adding to his reputation for sucking up to his guests with disgusting insincerity. ---BBB

BBB: Are these mean attacks on whores really necessary? You are lowering the debate with them.

Would you be less offended if I described them as hookers?

I despise the talking heads who use conflict to raise ratings so they can rake in more money. Their integrity is for sale just like that of whores-
hookers---or gigolos.

BBB

0 Replies

I think "sucker with disgusting insincerity" gets the point across quite nicely all by itself.

0 Replies

Bill thinks that Coulter is witty and lovely, so he seeks to change the subject by unfairly attacking Edwards, a very successful attorney.

I have concluded that Bill was sued successfully, possibly for poisoning someone in his restaurant. Thus, he hates plaintiffs' lawyers.

0 Replies

You say that large-scale desalination will prevent water shortages. This is typical of your BS, as evidenced by water wars going on all over the world.

SAN FRANCISCO A water war is brewing along the Mexico-California border.

The Bush administration wants a section of a major canal to be lined with cement to stop water from seeping south of the border.

The 82-mile-long All-American Canal, which gets life from the Colorado River, nourishes crops on both sides of the border about 100 miles east of San Diego -- where the lining is proposed.

A federal appeals court temporarily blocked the lining construction project in August after Mexican business interests and U.S. environmental groups sued.

In oral arguments today, the U-S said Mexico already gets 489 (b) billion gallons of Colorado River water each year under a treaty and isn't entitled to the seepage.

A lawyer for a Mexican business group says the U-S abandoned its rights to the water. They say stopping the seepage would kill crops that depend on it, resulting in job losses and negative environmental impacts.

The appeals court did not indicate when it will rule.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Well, what I am saying is: I think it's highly unlikely that doctors would start performing more unnecessary operations that have a dramatically higher risk to result in the death of the patient if they were afraid to become the target of medical malpractice suits. You would rather expect the opposite to be true.

I understood you just fine, and would very much like to agree. But that's not what I learned when I researched it. Again, this isn't my computer (doesn't have my bookmarks), and I don't have time to re-research it now. Rest assured I'll provide some links at a later date, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Most people here know I wouldn't make something like that up, anyway, but I can understand your wanting to gauge the sources themselves. What you're not getting: is the Doctors weren't made to be more afraid in general; they were made to be more afraid of a specific non-reaction (indicator leading to C-Section) because the precedent for a winning malpractice case was set and routinely repeated ad nauseum... despite said precedent being set on iffy science that ultimately proved inconclusive of ANY change whatsoever. Why would you doubt that a string of targeted lawsuits aimed directly at not performing a certain procedure when certain criteria are met; would have the effect of increasing the prevalence of that procedure (when said criteria is met)? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

0 Replies

Occom Bill
Occom Bill, since you seem to hate lawyers so much, I would be interested in how much respect you have for the Bush lawyers, including those on the Supreme Court, who stole the 2002 election from Al Gore? Or do you only hate Democratic Party lawyers?

Are the only lawyers you respect corporate lawyers?

BBB

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Why would you doubt that a string of targeted lawsuits aimed directly at not performing a certain procedure when certain criteria are met; would have the effect of increasing the prevalence of that procedure (when said criteria is met)? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm certainly not saying it could not have this effect. However, a similar increase in the same procedure has been observable in other western countries, during the same period of time.

Now, I would highly doubt that the increase in other countries can be traced back to a specific lawsuit or even a specific string of lawsuits in the United States. Therefore, one might question the validity of the assessment that the increase in numbers of that particular procedure in the United States can, in fact, be traced back to those lawsuits.

As I've said here, I can see several reasons which would explain the increase of numbers. And it seems that simply making sure that patients were informed about the risks or potential risks of a procedure would afford much more protection from lawsuits than changing to even riskier procedures.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

What I find both funny and sad is that for 18 pages so many of you have proffessed your hatred and disgust for AnnCoulter,yet you continue to pay attention to her and you continue to let her bother you.

Maybe its just me,but why would anyone continue to pay attention to someone they seem to hate so profoundly?

That's just an ignorant remark. If someone is just a schoolyard loudmouth, one can take alternate routes around them, and hang out with another crowd. When its someone like Ann Coulter or Paris Hilton - who are forever in the eye of the media- those attentive to media don't have the option of simply ignoring them. And besides, if no one said anything in reply to the puke which passes for witty political commentary coming from that poisonous hag, the idiots who think she is lovely and funny would be emboldened - and god knows we don't need their dumbasses getting any bolder.

0 Replies

The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

0 Replies

Such as what, for example?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
What I find both funny and sad is that for 18 pages so many of you have proffessed your hatred and disgust for AnnCoulter,yet you continue to pay attention to her and you continue to let her bother you.

Maybe its just me,but why would anyone continue to pay attention to someone they seem to hate so profoundly?

That's just an ignorant remark. If someone is just a schoolyard loudmouth, one can take alternate routes around them, and hang out with another crowd. When its someone like Ann Coulter or Paris Hilton - who are forever in the eye of the media- those attentive to media don't have the option of simply ignoring them. And besides, if no one said anything in reply to the puke which passes for witty political commentary coming from that poisonous hag, the idiots who think she is lovely and funny would be emboldened - and god knows we don't need their dumbasses getting any bolder.

So you will whine,gripe,bitch and moan about what she says just because others do?

As my mother used to say..."if everyone else was to jump off the bridge,would you"?

Its easier,less stressful,and better for your sanity to just ignore her.
God knows I do.

0 Replies

No, numbnuts, not because others do - because I wish to.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

What things are you saying have been "proven as lies", McGentrified?
Or are you just orating from your rectal sphinchter again?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

What things are you saying have been "proven as lies", McGentrified?
Or are you just orating from your rectal sphinchter again?

None as blind as those that will not see Snood. It amazes me that you even have to ask such a stupid question. Well, maybe amaze is too strong a word considering the other idiocy you post.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

snood wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

What things are you saying have been "proven as lies", McGentrified?
Or are you just orating from your rectal sphinchter again?

None as blind as those that will not see Snood. It amazes me that you even have to ask such a stupid question. Well, maybe amaze is too strong a word considering the other idiocy you post.

But, no specifics offered, I see.

Predictible trolling

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

What things are you saying have been "proven as lies", McGentrified?
Or are you just orating from your rectal sphinchter again?

None as blind as those that will not see Snood. It amazes me that you even have to ask such a stupid question. Well, maybe amaze is too strong a word considering the other idiocy you post.

But, no specifics offered, I see.

Predictible trolling

Cycloptichorn

As much as has been written on these forums while he and obviously you have been members here, I wouldn't suspect specifics would be needed.

Your response is equally predictable though. Backing up a like minded person ignoring the facts and spewing your predictable insults.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Its ridiculous that Edwards is considered a hypocrite and scumbag for being a politician who has done work and study about poverty, and who talks about the poor. I suppose those hundreds of rich politicians who never talk about the poor or appear to give a shyt about them are better?

Amen to that.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
The one reason that crazy person can't be ignored is because so many others take heed of her raving. Some possibly even believe she is truthful. This affects the way her targets are perceived by thousands of people. It's a travesty of truth, but it's there, given credence by dolts of the same mentality as the swift boaters. Her words don't get knocked down as they should be by true journalists.

Like Michael Moore and Al Gore for example. People believe their lies and spread their words as gospel despite much of their "truth" having been proven as lies.

What things are you saying have been "proven as lies", McGentrified?
Or are you just orating from your rectal sphinchter again?

None as blind as those that will not see Snood. It amazes me that you even have to ask such a stupid question. Well, maybe amaze is too strong a word considering the other idiocy you post.

But, no specifics offered, I see.

Predictible trolling

Cycloptichorn

As much as has been written on these forums while he and obviously you have been members here, I wouldn't suspect specifics would be needed.

Your response is equally predictable though. Backing up a like minded person ignoring the facts and spewing your predictable insults.

Oh, I see. So, you expect to be able to pass of pronouncements like saying "much of" what Gore and Moore have said are lies- without any challenge to provide what exactly the hell it is you're talking about.

Uh, no. That ain't happening.

There have been alternate ideas put forth that contradict some of the information that Gore has championed about global warming, if that's what you're blathering about. But to try to characterize those differences between scientists as some halfassed kind of definitive proof that Gore and Moore are lying is contemptible, even for a slackjawed halfwit like you.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

No, numbnuts, not because others do - because I wish to.

So you choose to whine, gripe, and complain about Ann Coulter?
You choose to let her bother you?

That makes no sense.

0 Replies

Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know