Originally posted by PVS
when george bush wheeled out his token 9-11 victims all for the sake of his own reelection, nobody on the right blinked. these people were held as sacred...which i find odd...i mean, my heart goes out to them for their loss...but i dont feel that that are somehow holy and that their words are sacred. however all the way up through the '04 elections they (some) were used and exploited for nothing but politics...and if you questioned anything then you were spitting on the graves of every victim and family, on our troops who fight for us, and most important, our Flag.now here we are 2 years later:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(from her latest book of feces “Godless”)
" These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.""These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...and not a single wingnut so much as blinks.here is the reply to ann coulters psycho panzer-whore propaganda:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of September 11th Advocates Response to “Godless”Statement of September 11th Advocates
Response to "Godless"We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?
We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.
Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.
It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.
We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.
1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.
3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.
4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.
5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.
6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.
7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.
8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.
###
September 11th Advocates
Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken----------------------------------------------------------------------
now lets prove the point i've been making all along.
lets see any of the resident flag-waving, 9-11 evoking, wardrum beating wingnuts come to this thread and give their opinion on this matter.
lets see their disgust at such horrible things said about the loved ones of whom only a couple of years ago they referred to as "hero's", one and all.yeah right! witness the double standard of their so called virtue and patriotism. observe their blessed silence over the issue. and why?
if micheal moore or some other far left nutjob said these E-X-A-C-T words,
there would be a lynching in his honor. yet all i hear is outrage from the moderates...but not a peep from the wingnuts.why?
But, I agree with her in a way. The left is getting good reputation with these widows condemning Bush on national tv. If they think they can handle going into the political public arena, then they sure as hell better be prepared for the right to hit back. Most republicans were quite hesitant to say anything bad about them because of the fact they are... widows.
But the fact is, if they condemn Bush they should be able to handle people like Coulter talking shit about them. And I think it's way too harsh to say Coulter 'hates' widows, she simply dislikes them because the only reason they 'hate' Bush so much is because of a personal thing.
Many of these widows I'm sure could very well be republican but, hey, their husbands died so BUSH MUST DIE! They talk about politics from a personal point of view, that is wrong. If you are a leftist and if you condemn Bush it must be because you disagree with his views, think he is unfit of a president, NOT because a relative died on the war or whatever.
So I don't think Coulter did anything wrong (other than existing of course) she thinks these widows are stupid, or most of them. (It's a generalization) And frankly, I think I agree with her.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
feh, that logic is like her defending mccarthy because 4 of the 139 people he accused of being communists actually were.
i still don't see your point. Sometimes it takes a traumatic event to give someone purpose, especially when said events exposes homicidal retarded morons who tortured animals in childhood and made fun of executions who happened to be lubricated and squeezed into the position of president of the united states for who they are.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
i still don't see your point. Sometimes it takes a traumatic event to give someone purpose, especially when said events exposes homicidal retarded morons who tortured animals in childhood and made fun of executions who happened to be lubricated and squeezed into the position of president of the united states for who they are.
Originally posted by debbiejo
cry
Made it better??? 🙄
No
Originally posted by Eis
But they don't neccesarily dislike Bush. They simply see him as the guilty person for the death of their husbands. And some republicans didn't dare to "hit them back" because of their loss, but Coulter broke the taboo. I think it's important what she did. If they go to the public political scene they will and should get shit from the right.
But no one is denying her the right to say so....we just think she's an idiot for it.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
That's almost the theme from Golden Girls.
gotta pay homage where its due.
Originally posted by Eis
I disagree, I'm actually quite surprised I do, since I hate Coulter's guts.
...and i thank you for being the first on this thread to argue a genuine point against mine.
its a shame it took this long, but 'better late than never' i say.
i cant sit back and deny that there are a number of 9-11 widows who have an irrational hatred for bush, just as you cant deny that there are also plenty of very bitter widows who focus their anger on all middle eastern muslems and thus support any war which involves bombing and killing them...just as there are many varying opinions which, when oversimplified, fall on one side or the other. with the vast number of unfortunate family tragedy, there is bound to be plenty of voices spoken loudly from both sides of the fence, some rational and some just counterproductive.
but here is where logic warps:
any criticism of bush, his handling of pre-9/11 warnings, his administrations apparent lack of priority for properly funding new yorks homeland security funding based on some absurd technicallity, etc is viewed as "bashing". so, if you are on the "this wasnt/isnt/wont be handled correctly from what we see" side of the fence, you are bunched together with every far left wacko. however if you support bush, and dont question his policy, THEN you are worthy of sympathy and reverence. and based on what? why is it that the very people who are the most effected by this tragedy have no right to voice any criticism, but should be commended for voicing support? it just seems that whether or not you enjoy the death of your loved ones is based on whether you are on the left or on the right.
these widows bring up valid and objective points, and maybe their argument is flawed, who really knows. whatever the case their message is not "DOWN WIT BUSH!!111". its a series of question. to the mind of the far right, i guess that would be synonymous with bashing.
or, to simplify my point:
Originally posted by Darth Jello
feh, that logic is like her defending mccarthy because 4 of the 139 people he accused of being communists actually were.
Originally posted by PVS
gotta pay homage where its due....and i thank you for being the first on this thread to argue a genuine point against mine.
its a shame it took this long, but 'better late than never' i say.i cant sit back and deny that there are a number of 9-11 widows who have an irrational hatred for bush, just as you cant deny that there are also plenty of very bitter widows who focus their anger on all middle eastern muslems and thus support any war which involves bombing and killing them...just as there are many varying opinions which, when oversimplified, fall on one side or the other. with the vast number of unfortunate family tragedy, there is bound to be plenty of voices spoken loudly from both sides of the fence, some rational and some just counterproductive.
but here is where logic warps:
any criticism of bush, his handling of pre-9/11 warnings, his administrations apparent lack of priority for properly funding new yorks homeland security funding based on some absurd technicallity, etc is viewed as "bashing". so, if you are on the "this wasnt/isnt/wont be handled correctly from what we see" side of the fence, you are bunched together with every far left wacko. however if you support bush, and dont question his policy, THEN you are worthy of sympathy and reverence. and based on what? why is it that the very people who are the most effected by this tragedy have no right to voice any criticism, but should be commended for voicing support? it just seems that whether or not you enjoy the death of your loved ones is based on whether you are on the left or on the right.
these widows bring up valid and objective points, and maybe their argument is flawed, who really knows. whatever the case their message is not "DOWN WIT BUSH!!111". its a series of question. to the mind of the far right, i guess that would be synonymous with bashing.
or, to simplify my point:
Originally posted by Eis
Yeah I know there are both rational and irrational widows, but Coulter is obviously refering the to the latter group.
no. she is referring to any and all democrat/liberal/anyone who is against the war in iraq...etc. anyone who doesnt agree with her. anyone who
1-had a spouse who was killed in the attacks
and
2-questions the policy of the current administration.
you are either being obtuse or you really have not been exposed to enough of coulter's brand of hate ridden excrement to realise that she pretty much means what she said...or at least says she does to sell her books.
Originally posted by PVS
no. she is referring to any and all democrat/liberal/anyone who is against the war in iraq...etc. anyone who doesnt agree with her. anyone who1-had a spouse who was killed in the attacks
and
2-questions the policy of the current administration.
you are either being obtuse or you really have not been exposed to enough of coulter's brand of hate ridden excrement to realise that she pretty much means what she said...or at least says she does to sell her books.
" These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process."
It is painfully obvious she is referring to the "My husband died in the war so it's Bush's fault!! Die Bush!!" type of widow.
Originally posted by Eis
Although she does dislike anyone who questions the aspect of the current administration, in this part of her book:" These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process."
It is painfully obvious she is referring to the "My husband died in the war so it's Bush's fault!! Die Bush!!" type of widow.
she is referring to ANYONE who opposes the bush administration.
she has repeated this over and over. you cant just come up with your
own quaint excuse for her and say "thats it". anyone who openly opposes or questions the administration and is a 9-11 widow is coulter's target. she has made this painfully clear.
Originally posted by PVS
she is referring to ANYONE who opposes the bush administration.
she has repeated this over and over. you cant just come up with your
own quaint excuse for her and say "thats it". anyone who openly opposes or questions the administration and is a 9-11 widow is coulter's target. she has made this painfully clear.
Originally posted by Eis
I know she dislikes anyone who openly opposes the Bush administration, but you being the topic nazi you are, should understand that we are talking here about that specific paragraph in her new book that sparked controversy from the left. And THAT paragraph clearly refers to the irrational "Die Bush" women.
stop repeating a quote that does not exist.
its useless and thus see my last response.
topic nazi? thats a new one. how about "fact nazi"?
i could live with that.