|
Edited on Wed Aug-20-03 01:10 AM by Fixated
Oh yeah baby. I finally got hate mail for my blog that wasn't "Fuck you stoopid lib traitor commie" or something. This guy is trying to rebuke multiple points in my blog. In the first response, he is mentioning one entry of mine that said that Coulter never mentioned domestic policy. In the second he rants about SDI in some inane fashion. And the third is referring to the Contras. He quotes my entire response to Ann, leaving out her quote. Basically she went on about how the Contras were good people that frolicked in the meadows with the bunnies. I corrected that. Here they are, baby:
"John K." <m******@hotmail.com> wrote: Look at the title of the book. The book is about treason. You know, helping the enemy? Of course it's going to be about foreign policy. You are going after things to justify your politics, but was there spy's in the governments of the libs? YES. And they knew it and protected them. TREASON!!! My reply: Wow, it's great to know that you rebuked one of my few dozen points, you genius you. But in fact, if you actually read the book (which would mean that you'd have to sit down for more than an hour without watching Fox News), you'd realize that she strays from the treason topic long enough to say that we're anti-Semetic and pushing abortion on America in her conclusion (she doesn't back this up, she just pushes it in her last paragraph). The whole book shifts focus several times. If you watched her Larry King interview, you'd know that she admitted that liberals weren't actually guilty of treason. Of course, she was covering her ass, because only a few morons bought her story. Also, I haven't even touched the Communists in the State Dept. issue, which is her only legit point of a treason (but it doesn't apply to all liberals, just the spies). But thanks for being somewhat articulate, it's refreshing after the "Fuck U lib traitor!!!" and such.
"John K." <m******@hotmail.com> wrote: On page 181 of Coulter's epic expose on liberal thought, Treason, she states that "The left's idea for winning the Cold War was...opposing a missile defense shield." If this was indeed going to be a waste of money, than why were those opposed to it, the despots that happened to be enemies of the US. You know the ones, Russia, China, N Korea, & the democrats?
My reply: Well bucko, did it work? No. SDI was a failure. I don't care if Satan opposed it, because it didn't work. Just because our enemies opposed it doesn't mean it's the "cool thing to do!" even if it doesn't work. Thanks for skipping around the actual problem here, you're remarkable.
"John K." <m******@hotmail.com> wrote: Wow, Ann, scathing. While Ann paints the Sandinistas out to be the largest source of evil ever to exist and the Contras to be the life-savers that the Nicaraguan people always needed, this is far from the case. It is true that the Sandinistas were corrupt and brutal (and Marxist); they rounded up political prisoners and killed rebels. The Contras were really remnants of the brutal Somoza regime that the Sandinistas overthrew in a hugely popular revolution. The Somoza leadership had brutal control over the military and national guard. Their abuses were so many and so obvious that even the U.S. denounced them when they were fighting off the Communist revolutionaries. In 1979, the Sandinistas took over. Their brutality was mainly a result of their cracking down on the Contras, who were so unpopular that they had to be based in neighboring Honduras. The Contras' tactics were disgusting. A former Contra colonel (edgar Chamorro) said "Many civilians were killed in cold blood. Many others were tortured, mutilated, raped, robbed, or otherwise abused." Chamarro also mentioned that the Contra movement "turned out to be an instrument of the U.S. government."
But I guess Ann and I just have different conceptions of freedom fighting.
Additionally, in the same speech, Mondale offered up his "complicated" solution that did what our enemies wanted to. "We need a three-pronged attack. One is military assistance to our friends who are being pressured. Secondly, a strong and sophisticated economic aid program and human rights program that offers a better life and a sharper alternative to the alternative offered by the totalitarians who oppose us. And finally, a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area." Is that what our enemies wanted, Ann? Peace? Well, we'll show them... // posted by Peter @ 2:38 PM If Morondale is against the commies, but not for the contras, Who the hell is he talkinf about then? Your arguement is the same as "we can't go to Iraq, no proof of WMD." "if we go to Iraq, the will use chemical weapons on our troops." You can confuse the libs with the double talk, but not the real patriots
My reply: The Mondale quote was responding to Coulter's assertion that his plan was complicated, and nothing else. If it confused you (surprise surprise), go find the speech in its entirety. My "arguement" is not like the Iraq argument at all. Not that I ever used those arguments (those would be arguments that seperate liberals with differing views made, or to be read like this: if Saddam has no WMD, continue with inspections, as it would be impossible for him to build them while we are in the country. If he has them, an immediate invasion is illogical). In fact, I supported the war. And in the future, try to respond to the actual point, not an additional quote. I know that you know sh*t about the Contras to begin with, but if you told me that I wouldn't have held it against you.
|