SuperJerk

Except you can't find a conservative who actually has a single nice thing to say about David Koresh. Which negates his point in no way whatsoever.

^He is correct.^ According to the estimates of our calendar, Jesus died around 33 AD, although the date was probably 27 AD. (I believe in Jesus, I just don't beleive he had supernatural powers or was the son of God.) Yes, because believing that an invisible man who lives in the sky having absolute control over everything in the universe is just so fucking rational. You hit the part about either God or the universe having to always exist right on the head, but your criticism of atheism leaves something to be desired...such as coherence.

Rosie O'Donnell in "Beautiful Girls".

His level of talent may be debatable, but his ability to draw fans is not in question at all. EVERYONE should agree he sucks at that. Everytime WWE comes to town, my first question, like most other people's, is "who is going to be there?" I just don't think people get excitied about getting the chance to see Triple H at a show, or even to watch him on TV.

They have to put Triple H on posters because he's the best in the business and such a huge draw. Duh.

I'll never forget the way Triple H buried the WCW title during that promo he cut on Booker shortly before Wrestlemania XIX. This is the same guy who puts Flair over for being a 16 time World Champion, even though 6 of those time were the same WCW title he made fun of Booker for winning.

It wouldn't have been so bad, except that the news reporters were closer to the action than the Fire & Rescue squads. If the FBI/ATF thought anything foul was going to go on, they should have had F&R standing by right there, and not a few miles away like they were. Yes, let's put the Fire Department and paramedics in a position where's they're in danger of being shot by those loonies. If those dumb fuckers would have just surrendered and came out LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO, they wouldn't have burned to death. Edited for accuracy. Thank you!

Feel free to reference the "anti-intellectualism". And then justify African-American studies. And Women's Studies. And the idiotic Middle Eastern Studies Departments. Wow, way to attack academia and totally prove my point for me, Mike! Good job. If you have any real proof of this, please share. I've been hearing conservatives claim this for decades without any solid evidence of an actual cause-effect relationship. I'd say proving welfare helped bring about the destruction of the family it is a pretty uphill battle anyways, considered the family hasn't actually been destroyed. In other words, good luck.

Your friend sounds very observant.

Welfare made it WORSE. Dramatically worse. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf In what fucking alternate universe could going from 16% in 1965 to 12.3% in 2003 be considered a dramatic increase?

So Vince didn't want to sign the current (at the time) WCW champion? He's a thinker. No, I was saying that WWF went out of their way to make sure they signed Booker T. They didn't pick up his contract as part of the sale, so they had to negotiate individually with him.

Makes sense since it was around this time 4 years ago he first signed with WWF (he was one of the few who chose to work for WWF, rather than sit on his ass and collect guarenteed Time Warner money...Linda McMahon stated around the time his was not one of the contracts that they picked up directly from the sale). I'm wondering if they promised him a push when he resigned. Or maybe he's just not making as much as he'd like from "Jam Zone" (or whatever his clothing store is called). Still, I'm glad to see him still around.

I don't agree. I blame the Branch Davidians for the death of their children. They could have left the compound after the fire started.

Vyce's assessment of his historical standing is probably quite accurate. Before he became Vice President, though, Nixon made his reputation on the kind of "accuse everyone you don't like of being a commie" finger-pointing Coulter has based her entire writing career on. He was famously resentful of the East Coast-based liberal intelligencia of the time.

Has Bill figured out a way to entwine the Shiavo case with a new FACTOR-LED BOYCOTT? I was sure that would be the next step in this thing. Maybe instead of a boycott, he could do a cross-promotion with Pizza Hut. Don't they have a Vegetable Lover's pizza?

Man, those Zell-inspired picture thread from last summer were awesome. Are they still around on the board somewhere hiding, or have they been deleted?

"Let's not arrest this guy stockpiling illegal weapons, let's just wait for him to go out then arrest him...ignoring the need to also arrest his accomplices and collecting additional evidence that we could have used against him in court." Ann Coulter wouldn't last 5 minutes as a law enforcement officer.

Most people who call themselves "conservatives" are not conservative at all, but reactionary. They don't want things to stay the same, but to go back to the way they were.

That is, easily, the most idiotic justification for institituional bias against a particular point of view I've read. Libs have embraced anti-intellectualism since the 1960's. -=Mike You refuted one idiotic justification with another just as idiotic. Liberals are not the ones who openly embrace anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism has been forcefully embraced by elements of the American right for decades. I'll refer you to the speeches of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Spiro Agnew (not liberals). Now THAT'S how you refute a statement. He's exactly right. There is a conservative intelligencia which is typified by the study of Smith and various others who theorized and intellectually justified ideas embraced by the right. Neither side has a lock on intellectualism. Off topic, but I couldn't let this statement go unchallenged. Poverty existed to greater degrees before the advent of liberal welfare than it does now. Welfare was a response to epidemic poverty, not the creator of it.

Americans are not monolithic, you know. We don't all think the same things, and sometimes different groups within American have differing opinions. What offends Fred Phelps isn't going to offend Larry Flynt. When two groups within our country disagree it doesn't make us contradictory, but diverse.

Well, your college, according to every poll or study on the subject, is the exception, not the rule. S. Carolina, 1993-1998. And we're a "conservative" college in the eyes of fringe leftist psychos. -=Mike I feel your pain. I, too, have had crackpot leftists accuse me of being too conservative.

Ok, finally this story is newsworthy. No shit. I have to admit, the only reason I'm even remotely paying attention to this idiotic saga is to watch the display of contortionist-like reasoning the conservatives are using to justify doing anything to keep the woman "alive". I find the obvious hypocrisy too deliciously amusing to completely ignore.

Ann seems to want us to think that no Republican president ever used troops against other Americans, and no Democrat ever wanted to use military force against a foreign power. Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement, but that seems to be what she trying to convince us of. You lost me at "Ann Coulter trying to convince........." As if that is possible or something....... Since I never uttered that particular phrase, it would be impossible indeed. What I meant was that it seems like Ann's using the fact that Democrats have, from time to time, used armed federal agents against American citizens as proof that they only want to use armed federal agents against other Americans. What she forgets, or at least wants US to forget, is that Democrats and Republicans have both found it necessary to exercise this power against Americans. Acknowledging that Republican office holders have also done this (because some times it needs to be done) would render her only sliver of evidence (the fact that Democrats have done it) completely null and void, thus negating her totally idiotic point. She's actually saying that Dems have a history of using federal troops to engage in some truly horrific acts against innocent people, not that Republicans have never used federal troops when needed. -=Mike No, that couldn't have been her point, since her second example was not a "horrific act against innocent people". Wait...she thinks the Branch Davidians were innocent people? No wonder I missed her point.

People like Lieberman, McCain, Hagel, etc. are often despised because they make it harder for intense partisans to demonize the other party as being too different or extreme. They're afraid if they admit they respect those on the other side, it'll make those "THE OTHER GUY IS SATAN" fund-rasing campaigns seem less credible.

Ann seems to want us to think that no Republican president ever used troops against other Americans, and no Democrat ever wanted to use military force against a foreign power. Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement, but that seems to be what she trying to convince us of. You lost me at "Ann Coulter trying to convince........." As if that is possible or something....... Since I never uttered that particular phrase, it would be impossible indeed. What I meant was that it seems like Ann's using the fact that Democrats have, from time to time, used armed federal agents against American citizens as proof that they only want to use armed federal agents against other Americans. What she forgets, or at least wants US to forget, is that Democrats and Republicans have both found it necessary to exercise this power against Americans. Acknowledging that Republican office holders have also done this (because some times it needs to be done) would render her only sliver of evidence (the fact that Democrats have done it) completely null and void, thus negating her totally idiotic point.