Ann Coulter's outrageous comments on 9/11 widows

[Konovalov]

Ann Coulter in her new book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400054206/sr=1-4/qid=1149769478/ref=sr_1_4/202-4799240-7644601?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books&v=glance)labelled a group of 9/11 widows "harpies" who seem to be "enjoying their husbands' deaths." She also has repeated and defended her comments on various TV and Cable News programs in the last week. Even an article on the Fox News website (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198597,00.html)has criticised her outrageous statements and said that Coulter has gone too far. You can see the video footage of her interview comments here along with analysis (http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080002).

It's people like Ann Coulter who help set the appalling tone of politics in the USA right now. I really hope that such people in the same style as Coulter never find traction and attention to their comments within my country. Please, please Ann, if you ever undertake an international book tour, feel free to skip Australia.

Apparently Coulter is now under investigation (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0607coultervote-ON.html)for what is alleged to be a possible case of electoral fraud. Her response to such questions in typical Coulter fashion was that reporters were "all retarded", and she added "I think the syphilis has gone to their brains," in reference to Palm Beach officials. Charming as always from Coulter. :nope:

[scandium]

Ann Coulter in her new book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400054206/sr=1-4/qid=1149769478/ref=sr_1_4/202-4799240-7644601?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books&v=glance)labelled a group of 9/11 widows "harpies" who seem to be "enjoying their husbands' deaths." She also has repeated and defended her comments on various TV and Cable News programs in the last week. Even an article on the Fox News website (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198597,00.html)has criticised her outrageous statements and said that Coulter has gone too far. You can see the video footage of her interview comments here along with analysis (http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080002).

It's people like Ann Coulter who help set the appalling tone of politics in the USA right now. I really hope that such people in the same style as Coulter never find traction and attention to their comments within my country. Please, please Ann, if you ever undertake an international book tour, feel free to skip Australia.

Apparently Coulter is now under investigation (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0607coultervote-ON.html)for what is alleged to be a possible case of electoral fraud. Her response to such questions in typical Coulter fashion was that reporters were "all retarded", and she added "I think the syphilis has gone to their brains," in reference to Palm Beach officials. Charming as always from Coulter. :nope:

Anthrax Annie strikes again. Coulter's real problem with the 9/11 widows is that she can't dismiss their opinions with her typical retort that those who disagree with her are siding with the terrorists, or don't understand the implications of 9/11. So instead she resorts to levelling the same kind of charge against the 9/11 widows that her kind uses against Cindy Sheehan. In Coulter's little world having a dissenting view means that you are only doing so to profit from it (unlike Coulter, of course, who only makes her living on peddling politics).

[August]

I normally read with Anns columns with wry amusement but I do think she stepped over the line this time.

It's ok to ignore politicking widows but not disparage them.

[Neptunus Rex]

I think she hit the nail right on the head. Think about it. Would these people be as active as they are had they're loved ones not been killed?

Effective politics requires discussion, even on those topics that are painfull for some.

And don't think I'm being heartless. Just real.

[The Avon Lady]

I am not a fan of hers and I don't plan to buy her book but I have no disagreement with the essence of her response (http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/07/traffic-bait-video-coulter-responds-to-her-critics/), per se, other than a lack of tact, which is why I'm not a fan of hers in the first place.

[jumpy]

Can somebody tell me who Ann Coulter actually is? I have heard the name and have seen some stuff about yankee politics that she seemed to have some sort of voice in, but I'm not so well up on american internal politics; I gather she's some kind of skinny, blond solicitor type?
UK politics being what it is, none of our lot seem to have any conviction about much of anything tbh. Whereas my observations of american poiticians (shallow and not overly informed it may be) seem to show a bunch of really quite disturbing people, both in their ideals and moral duplicity... perhaps that's only the bad ones I hear about? Whichever, on first impressions there's now way in hell I'd like to have them running my country- better the devil you know and all that. The division between Conservative and Labour seems tame compared to Republican and Democrat- would that be a fair thing to say?

[Neptunus Rex]

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

[Neptunus Rex]

I am not a fan of hers and I don't plan to buy her book but I have no disagreement with the essence of her response (http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/07/traffic-bait-video-coulter-responds-to-her-critics/), per se, other than a lack of tact, which is why I'm not a fan of hers in the first place.

If I refused to listen or talk to someone who has displayed a lack of tact, I would be a very lonely person.

I'll take (and give) tactlessness over PC anyday!

[scandium]

Can somebody tell me who Ann Coulter actually is? I have heard the name and have seen some stuff about yankee politics that she seemed to have some sort of voice in, but I'm not so well up on american internal politics; I gather she's some kind of skinny, blond solicitor type?
UK politics being what it is, none of our lot seem to have any conviction about much of anything tbh. Whereas my observations of american poiticians (shallow and not overly informed it may be) seem to show a bunch of really quite disturbing people, both in their ideals and moral duplicity... perhaps that's only the bad ones I hear about? Whichever, on first impressions there's now way in hell I'd like to have them running my country- better the devil you know and all that. The division between Conservative and Labour seems tame compared to Republican and Democrat- would that be a fair thing to say?
"Skinny blond solicitor type" :lol:

In a nutshell: she is a paid political commentator who makes her living defending and promoting the views of the US government (ie: she is a shill in the same mold as Michelle Malkin, only more rabid).

I agree with your observations on American politics and they about sum up my own feelings. Perhaps the divisions aren't quite so deep as they appear to us outsiders though.

[August]

"Skinny blond solicitor type" :lol:

In a nutshell: she is a paid political commentator who makes her living defending and promoting the views of the US government (ie: she is a shill in the same mold as Michelle Malkin, only more rabid).

Not quite. Coulter is an independant political commentator who makes her living defending and promoting the conservative political viewpoint, via, radio appearances, speaking tours and through selling books. Neither her nor Michelle Malkin are paid by the US government or work directly for the Republican party.

By work directly, i mean they may be paid for speaking engagements at Republican functions much the same way Michael Moore is paid vis-a-vis the Democratic party for similar services but none of them should be considered employees.

[STEED]

She sounds like a hot head full of hot air. :88)

[Subnuts]

That chick ain't right, man! :huh:

[SUBMAN1]

Can somebody tell me who Ann Coulter actually is? .....
Don't worry, I live in the US and I don't even know who she is. And from the looks of it, I don't think I'll go out of my way to figure out who she is either! :)

-S

[Onkel Neal]

She's the conservative equivalent of Michael Moore.

[The Avon Lady]

She's the conservative equivalent of Michael Moore.
C'mon! No one's that cracked!:nope:

[Onkel Neal]

My opinion. She's pretty flaky.

[Enigma]

Ill say the same thing about this alien looking peice of garbage that I did about Malkin. they say what they say so people will talk, as that generates book sales. Nothing but a hack, a shock jock, and worthless to anyones cause.

I hope she trips over her big gangly limbs and falls off the face of the earth.

[scandium]

Not quite. Coulter is an independant political commentator who makes her living defending and promoting the conservative political viewpoint, via, radio appearances, speaking tours and through selling books. Neither her nor Michelle Malkin are paid by the US government or work directly for the Republican party.
If you say so August. This latest salvo was a little low though, even for Coulter. She's starting to remind me more and more of that Phelps guy and his "troops = fags" nonsense. Phelps says he does it for God, you say Coulter does it for the GOP. To me they are both idiots with no sense of shame or common decency.:down:

[August]

If you say so August. This latest salvo was a little low though, even for Coulter. She's starting to remind me more and more of that Phelps guy and his "troops = fags" nonsense. Phelps says he does it for God, you say Coulter does it for the GOP. To me they are both idiots with no sense of shame or common decency.:down:
Well i agree except to say that Coulter does not represent the GOP any more than Michael Moore represents the Democrats, although I must say that in Moores case, the Dems have given a him lot more official recognition by seating him in the Presidential box right next to Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter at their last national convention, which, imo was a pretty dumb thing to do when trying to influence the mainstream voter.

Both however are of the "shock jock" persuasion who have made rabble rousing the media career field it has become in recent years. I think both parties would prefer they didn't exist but if one sides gonna do it...

[Rockstar]

Can somebody tell me who Ann Coulter actually is? I have heard the name and have seen some stuff about yankee politics that she seemed to have some sort of voice in, but I'm not so well up on american internal politics; I gather she's some kind of skinny, blond solicitor type?
UK politics being what it is, none of our lot seem to have any conviction about much of anything tbh. Whereas my observations of american poiticians (shallow and not overly informed it may be) seem to show a bunch of really quite disturbing people, both in their ideals and moral duplicity... perhaps that's only the bad ones I hear about? Whichever, on first impressions there's now way in hell I'd like to have them running my country- better the devil you know and all that. The division between Conservative and Labour seems tame compared to Republican and Democrat- would that be a fair thing to say?

You have Cindy Sheehan on the kook left and Ann Coulter representing kook right.

Both of these kooks are first against the wall when I come into power.

[Ducimus]

The division between Conservative and Labour seems tame compared to Republican and Democrat- would that be a fair thing to say?

I agree with your observations on American politics and they about sum up my own feelings. Perhaps the divisions aren't quite so deep as they appear to us outsiders though.


In my opinion, poltical divisions here are very deep. It takes something on the scale of large amounts of people dying, or full scale world war for those divisions to be put aside.

[August]

Can somebody tell me who Ann Coulter actually is? I have heard the name and have seen some stuff about yankee politics that she seemed to have some sort of voice in, but I'm not so well up on american internal politics; I gather she's some kind of skinny, blond solicitor type?
UK politics being what it is, none of our lot seem to have any conviction about much of anything tbh. Whereas my observations of american poiticians (shallow and not overly informed it may be) seem to show a bunch of really quite disturbing people, both in their ideals and moral duplicity... perhaps that's only the bad ones I hear about? Whichever, on first impressions there's now way in hell I'd like to have them running my country- better the devil you know and all that. The division between Conservative and Labour seems tame compared to Republican and Democrat- would that be a fair thing to say?
You have Cindy Sheehan on the kook left and Ann Coulter representing kook right.

Both of these kooks are first against the wall when I come into power.

If you come to power with an attitude like that then the kooks were right! :yep:

[Ishmael]

What I like to do to people like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and others of their ilk is to send them recruiting information and put them on the US Army and Marine Corps mailing lists. I am always amazed that the vast majority of these war-mongers like the aforementioned, never served in the military. However, they are more than happy to spill your blood or mine for the great "Cause". They remind me of a term coined by the late, great Bill Mauldin, creator of Willie & Joe, Garritroopers.
Garritroopers,as described by Mauldin were to far forward to wear ties and to far back to get shot. But then, Bill also said another thing that I find very trenchant:
:"The quickest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry."

[Sea Demon]

You don't need to have served in the military to be able to voice your opinion regarding it's usage. As a matter of fact, most people in the USA never have served in the military in any capacity. If you pay the taxes and vote, your opinion matters.

And yes, I did serve. And I do pay taxes.

[sonar732]

You have to admit that watching Hannity & Colmes is funny though. Colmes attacks the conversitive base, while Hannity attacks the liberal base. I'm a 'moderate conservative'. In no way do I support the far right of the base of the Ann Coulter's & Pat Robertson's, but I despise the liberal left who sit there and complain about how the right does things, then turn around and support, defend, and fund the Michael Moore's & Cindy Sheehan's.:roll::-?:damn:

[Wildcat]

I happen to agree with the woman's comments. Not as a blanket statement against all 9/11 widows, but there certainly are women out there who are doing nothing but making money on the image of their grief.

I read in the newspaper yesterday the 4 women's response to Coulter's comments. They were laced with lots of big dramatic words, obviously these women don't give a damn what happened to their husbands, they're just dramaticizing the issue so they can gain more money and publicity. It's sickening. They're basically media whores.

[Ishmael]

For the edification of this board here is a link to a review of Ms. Coulter's book by Mrs. Betty Bowers(America's Favorite Christian).

http://bettybowers.com/coulter.html

I think you may find it enlightening.

[Subnuts]

This woman scares me. I've seen spare ribs with more meat on their bones. She's a damn corpsicle!

I think we should lock her in a sealed containment vessel with Michael Moore. If we could channel the energy of their ranting, we could power the world!

[The Avon Lady]

I've seen spare ribs with more meat on their bones.
Please do not cross-post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94246).:shifty:

[Onkel Neal]

Speaking of whackos, this should be on Pay-per-View!

Carlin, Coulter in 'Tonight' smackdown?

Comedian, author to share couch on Leno show

Wednesday, June 14, 2006; Posted: 12:57 p.m. EDT (16:57 GMT)
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- "Tonight" host Jay Leno might want to consider wearing referee stripes on Wednesday's show when Ann Coulter and George Carlin are his guests.
Coulter, the acid-tongued conservative with a new book out, and Carlin, the quick-witted, antiestablishment comedian (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/10/28/george.carlin/index.html) who's in the voice cast for the new animated film "Cars," were booked at separate times for the NBC late-nighter, a spokeswoman said Monday.
But the duo's meeting could produce serious fireworks for "Tonight," which usually limits its political fodder to Leno's bipartisan monologue jokes.
Coulter, author of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has drawn fire for attacking (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/coulter.911.widows.ap/index.html?eref=sitesearch) the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the September 11 World Trade Center attacks in which their husbands died.
In her book, Coulter accuses the women of "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
An appearance by Coulter on another NBC series, "Today," led to a prickly exchange with host Matt Lauer over her comments on the widows.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/14/tv.coulter.carlin.ap/index.html

George: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/10/28/george.carlin/index.html

[DeepSix]

I had no idea Leno's ratings were so low.;)

[Neptunus Rex]

OOOH OOOH! I'll have to watch this tonight!:sunny:

Might even top the face off between Ted Kennedy and Charlton Heston on Larry King 15 or so years ago.:up:

[FAdmiral]

The best politics: Common Sense

The Bottom Line: Economics

The 2 of them don't match up very well....


JIM


PS. BTW Neal, there will be a slight charge for that event !!

[Linton]

Ann Coulter is a good looking woman with some very off the wall opinions but the big question, is this woman airliner blonde?

[Tchocky]

Here's a good article from Sunday's Observer

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1794552,00.html

[Konovalov]

Here's a good article from Sunday's Observer

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1794552,00.html

Great link. A excellent article on this complex and controversial woman.

[jumpy]

^^
Having read that (from the observer) I am pleased to say my initial appraisal of her as a 'skinny, blond solicitor type' is correct- sounds like she needs a good punch in the ovaries hahaha.
I guess this type of person/politically oppinionated voice is something we can look forward to in the UK if we're not careful. The loudest, most rabid voice gets the most attention as usual; like when the simpsons billboards come to life and start wrecking the town, their existance and power stem from the people encouraging them by looking - "Just don't watch, Just don't watch!" and they loose their perpetuated vapid existance very quickly. I'm reasonably sure that were she to say those sort of things here, she'd be last weeks news already.
No style, no finnesse, no tact and no sense of the fact that just because you can say anything, doesn't mean you always should.
Godless? oh yes indeedy.

[The Avon Lady]

Carlin, Coulter in 'Tonight' smackdown?
Much tamer than I thought it would be (http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/14/coultermania-leno-smackdown-preview/).

[tycho102]

You have Cindy Sheehan on the kook left and Ann Coulter representing kook right.

Both of these kooks are first against the wall when I come into power.

I agree. There's a whole bunch of others, too, but that's just as good a start as anywhere.

[Onkel Neal]

Arrgh! I missed it :damn:

Avon Lady, could you summarize? What was said, who zinged whom, what was she wearing? ;)

[The Avon Lady]

Arrgh! I missed it :damn:

Avon Lady, could you summarize? What was said, who zinged whom, what was she wearing? ;)
Click the link I gave.

She seems to own only 2 black dresses.:hmm:

[Enigma]

You have Cindy Sheehan on the kook left and Ann Coulter representing kook right.

Both of these kooks are first against the wall when I come into power.

That might be the worst comparison of all time. Mike Moore, I can live with. But coulter and Sheehan are not what id call "in the same boat"....as loony as they might or might not be....

[The Avon Lady]

Mike Moore, I can live with.
It's a pity you think that way because if we put him on the same boat, it would sink straight to the bottom.:p

[Enigma]

Look, one is a film maker with distinct politcal views. Cindy Sheehan is a mother whos son was killed in a war that was waged for unjust purposes. And even if the purposes today are just, the American people were lied to in order to wage that war. Fact. Anne Coulter on the other hand, is just an underhanded peice of garbage that will say whatever spew she thinks will get her name in the public domain. hence, this thread.

[The Avon Lady]

the American people were lied to in order to wage that war. Fact.
Prove it.
Anne Coulter on the other hand, is just an underhanded peice of garbage that will say whatever spew she thinks will get her name in the public domain. hence, this thread.
That describes Moore and Shehan just the same to me.

[The Avon Lady]

Is it contageous (http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/larry-johnson-no-wonder-roves-mom-killed-herself)?:huh:

[Enigma]

Prove it.

If you need me to prove it, maybe we should abort this discussion early....

[The Avon Lady]

Prove it.

If you need me to prove it, maybe we should abort this discussion early....
ABORT?

RETRY (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23059)!

[August]

Prove it.
If you need me to prove it, maybe we should abort this discussion early.... ABORT?

RETRY (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23059)!

Waste of time AL. Enigma doesn't want to let some inconvenient facts get in the way of his general outlook that Republicans are evil...

[The Avon Lady]

Prove it.
If you need me to prove it, maybe we should abort this discussion early.... ABORT?

RETRY (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23059)!
Waste of time AL. Enigma doesn't want to let some inconvenient facts get in the way of his general outlook that Republicans are evil...
Enigma is not the only visitor to these forums.

[mog]

ABORT?

RETRY (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23059)!
FAIL!

That's a pretty disingenuous post-hoc justification. It was claimed that Iraq possessed proper stockpiles of illegal munitions and had hidden development programmes, not that there were old gas shells buried where they fell 10-20 years ago, much like you can still find on any WW1 battlefield.

[August]

ABORT?

RETRY (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23059)! FAIL!

That's a pretty disingenuous post-hoc justification. It was claimed that Iraq possessed proper stockpiles of illegal munitions and had hidden development programmes, not that there were old gas shells buried where they fell 10-20 years ago, much like you can still find on any WW1 battlefield.

They aren't dud rounds were shot off during a war and now that litter a battlefield, they are unused munitions stockpiles that were supposed to have been destroyed.

I think it's pretty disingenuous of you to imply otherwise....

[Sailor Steve]

Who would you put in Bush's place? John Kerry? He spent most of the 1990s criticizing Bill Clinton for NOT going after Saddam, because, as he (Kerry) put it, everybody KNOWS Saddam had WMDs. Kerry only changed his tune when he realized that being a pro-war Democrat candidate wasn't going to cut it.

Bush may have been wrong, but he didn't lie. Or else all the Dems lied, too, until it became cool to oppose the war.

[August]

Who would you put in Bush's place? John Kerry? He spent most of the 1990s criticizing Bill Clinton for NOT going after Saddam, because, as he (Kerry) put it, everybody KNOWS Saddam had WMDs. Kerry only changed his tune when he realized that being a pro-war Democrat candidate wasn't going to cut it.

Bush may have been wrong, but he didn't lie. Or else all the Dems lied, too, until it became cool to oppose the war.

Word.

[mog]

They aren't dud rounds were shot off during a war and now that litter a battlefield, they are unused munitions stockpiles that were supposed to have been destroyed.

I think it's pretty disingenuous of you to imply otherwise.... You are implying that these 'stockpiles' were usable, when in reality they have been buried without any protection or maintenance for many years and have degraded to the point that they are no longer a threat.

There is no evidence to suggest they were actually hidden stockpiles destined for later use, and not just lost relics haphazardly strewn around.

[Sea Demon]

Who would you put in Bush's place? John Kerry? He spent most of the 1990s criticizing Bill Clinton for NOT going after Saddam, because, as he (Kerry) put it, everybody KNOWS Saddam had WMDs. Kerry only changed his tune when he realized that being a pro-war Democrat candidate wasn't going to cut it.

Bush may have been wrong, but he didn't lie. Or else all the Dems lied, too, until it became cool to oppose the war.

Word.
Double word. But just remember, some people are too stubborn to learn. Many on the left just hate Mr. Bush so much, they refuse to see the situation for what it is. You just got to let them think that 2+2=9 if that's the way they see it. They just won't be convinced otherwise, despite all the evidence you present to show 2+2 actually equals 4. :damn:

[August]

They aren't dud rounds were shot off during a war and now that litter a battlefield, they are unused munitions stockpiles that were supposed to have been destroyed.

I think it's pretty disingenuous of you to imply otherwise.... You are implying that these 'stockpiles' were usable, when in reality they have been buried without any protection or maintenance for many years and have degraded to the point that they are no longer a threat.

There is no evidence to suggest they were actually hidden stockpiles destined for later use, and not just lost relics haphazardly strewn around.

No longer a threat?! Really? Would you care to take a sniff of them yourself? Maybe have some with your cheerios? Seriously, speaking of evidence do you have any saying these were just hapazardly strewn around?

Obviously we've been finding them. THAT implys we have information as to their whereabouts. That had to come from somewhere...

[August]

Double word. But just remember, some people are too stubborn to learn. Many on the left just hate Mr. Bush so much, they refuse to see the situation for what it is. You just got to let them think that 2+2=9 if that's the way they see it. They just won't be convinced otherwise, despite all the evidence you present to show 2+2 actually equals 4. :damn:

I think you're right. I'm beginning to seriously believe that the left would rather see us fail horribly in Iraq just to justify their irrational hatred of the present administration.

[cobalt]

who gives a **** what she said, if everyone thought the same way, none of our opinions would matter.

[The Avon Lady]

who gives a **** what she said, if everyone thought the same way, none of our opinions would matter.
But you're sounding off just as bad or even worse than she does. :roll:

[The Avon Lady]

They aren't dud rounds were shot off during a war and now that litter a battlefield, they are unused munitions stockpiles that were supposed to have been destroyed.

I think it's pretty disingenuous of you to imply otherwise....
You are implying that these 'stockpiles' were usable, when in reality they have been buried without any protection or maintenance for many years and have degraded to the point that they are no longer a threat.
Watch the video (http://hotair.com/archives/top-picks/2006/06/21/video-santorum-hoekstra-mcinerney-talk-wmd-on-hc/) and listen to the former UN weapons inspector in the clip's 2nd half.
There is no evidence to suggest they were actually hidden stockpiles destined for later use, and not just lost relics haphazardly strewn around.
That's why I said on another thread to pay attention to this excerpt from the Powerline Blog (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014466.php):

This is certainly significant, but what they're talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn't appear to constitute evidence that Saddam's regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years. What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq's WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual "he didn't have any" mantra. There is no doubt about the fact that Saddam had, and used, chemical and biological weapons. Nor is there any doubt about the fact that he eagerly pursued nuclear weapons. Further, the Iraq Survey Group report says that he had every intention of resuming his programs as soon as the coast was clear and the U.N. sanctions were behind him. Add to that the fact that hundreds of chemical weapons, at a minimum, were secreted in various locations around Iraq--as also shown by this document--and it is reasonable to conclude that, even though the CIA and nearly all other observers over-estimated Iraq's WMD capabilities, the fear that Saddam might use such weapons, or slip them to a terrorist group, was well-founded.

And now for the Rumsefeld Show (http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/22/video-rumsfeld-on-the-chemical-shells/)!

[Sea Demon]

Hey Avon. All the evidence found, and everything you post here totally blows a hole in their "Bush lied, people died" nonsense. These people will simply ignore this evidence and continue on their fantasies.

The thing that truly matters here is that Saddam was lying about these weapons prior to the invasion and his removal. Saddam said he got rid of these weapons......and we now know he didn't. These weapons could have been used to do alot of harm. But still, these lefties/socialists/bush-haters/etc. will just ignore the truth to support the nonsense they have been telling themselves for the last 3 years. Facts be damned in their world.

[scandium]

Estimated cost for the war to date (based on Congressional appropriations): $290,000,000,000.00

Estimated cost per degraded sarin/mustard gas shell recovered (approx. 500) based on above: $590,000,000.00

[Sea Demon]

Estimated cost for the war to date (based on Congressional appropriations): $290,000,000,000.00

Estimated cost per degraded sarin/mustard gas shell recovered (approx. 500) based on above: $590,000,000.00

I guess this is your new tactic? Yes, scandium, we know the war is expensive. :roll: It doesn't change the facts one bit.

[mog]

No longer a threat?! Really? Would you care to take a sniff of them yourself? Maybe have some with your cheerios? Seriously, speaking of evidence do you have any saying these were just hapazardly strewn around? These soldiers were hit by an IED blast from an old sarin gas shell and all they suffered was dilated pupils and a bit of nausea:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

That story also describes how US forces found a mustard gas shell just lying on the side of the road. These incidents occurred two years ago.

I recall a BBC story where half a dozen or so mustard gas shells were found under a few feet of dirt and silt, strewn about in an unorganised fashion along a river, however I can't find the link. I'll keep looking.

Conversely, do you know of any evidence that an organised stockpile was uncovered? If there existed such a stash, don't you think the Baathist insurgents would have used them at some point in the last 3 years?

Watch the video (http://hotair.com/archives/top-picks/2006/06/21/video-santorum-hoekstra-mcinerney-talk-wmd-on-hc/) and listen to the former UN weapons inspector in the clip's 2nd half. He says that the mustard shells probably aren't a threat, but the sarin is worse.

hat's why I said on another thread to pay attention to this excerpt from the Powerline Blog (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014466.php):

This is certainly significant, but what they're talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn't appear to constitute evidence that Saddam's regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years. What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq's WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual "he didn't have any" mantra. There is no doubt about the fact that Saddam had, and used, chemical and biological weapons. Nor is there any doubt about the fact that he eagerly pursued nuclear weapons. Further, the Iraq Survey Group report says that he had every intention of resuming his programs as soon as the coast was clear and the U.N. sanctions were behind him. Add to that the fact that hundreds of chemical weapons, at a minimum, were secreted in various locations around Iraq--as also shown by this document--and it is reasonable to conclude that, even though the CIA and nearly all other observers over-estimated Iraq's WMD capabilities, the fear that Saddam might use such weapons, or slip them to a terrorist group, was well-founded.

Based on what evidence was available at the time, I think invading Iraq was the correct decision. I think it would have been reckless to leave Saddam Hussein in power after he had proven so many times that he couldn't be trusted and the UN couldn't touch him. However, I refuse to pretend that these relics are the WMDs that we claimed he had. I don't think that any party - not Iraq, the Coalition nor UNSCOM - would ever have denied pre-invasion that the unaccounted for weapons were still in Iraq somewhere. The question is whether they were servicable and whether Iraq knew where they were.

[Skybird]

I think you're right. I'm beginning to seriously believe that the left would rather see us fail horribly in Iraq just to justify their irrational hatred of the present administration.
"Would rather see fail us horribly"? :lol: Get up to date, you lag seriously behind.

290 billion is a little bit too much for the complete mess that got created. The stability and power balance of the region as well as we ourselves were better off with Saddam, than with what they and we do have now. The Israelis have voiced such thoughts first some months ago. Tariq Azziz said short before the war that maybe the regime could be removed - but only at the price of unleashing powers the West in no way were prepared to deal with. I said it back then, and I still think like that today: that was no attempted intimidation or gamble, that was simply the truth.

If Saddam was a threat - what will you people call it once the Shia orthodoxy have brought Iraq completely under their control? "XXXL-Megathreat, extra forte"? Iran is already teaching you lessons about your power position right now. Foreign forces already have no word anymore in most of Irak's great cities' districts. Their operations are as effective as street parades, cause even more hate, and do exactly the opposite of what they should acchieve. They shoot one terrorist, and three other pop up and vow revenge. Ultrafundamentalist orthodoxy is on the march, subjugating more and more of public life, of the streets, of everyday habits of the oridnary people. How many 290 billion dollars will it then be worth it for you to remove this even far bigger threat of two states in one, "Irakan"?

"Would rather see us fail horribly"? - Past, please. You already lost, years ago. And you were told that you will lose. You've been warned.

There is only one faction in this clash that is performing a successful hearts-and-minds-campaign. That is expanding Islam deceiving Europe.

[The Avon Lady]

Based on what evidence was available at the time, I think invading Iraq was the correct decision. I think it would have been reckless to leave Saddam Hussein in power after he had proven so many times that he couldn't be trusted and the UN couldn't touch him. However, I refuse to pretend that these relics are the WMDs that we claimed he had. I don't think that any party - not Iraq, the Coalition nor UNSCOM - would ever have denied pre-invasion that the unaccounted for weapons were still in Iraq somewhere. The question is whether they were servicable and whether Iraq knew where they were.
Your bottom line sounds like you're agreeing with the opinion I quoted from the Powerline Blog. If so, then what are we arguing about?:shifty:

[The Avon Lady]

"Would rather see us fail horribly"? - Past, please. You already lost, years ago. And you were told that you will lose. You've been warned.

There is only one faction in this clash that is performing a successful hearts-and-minds-campaign. That is expanding Islam deceiving Europe.
I've said this before. I somewhat agree with you. We're certainly not winning but I don't know if the situation can be called losing either.

If the goal is the "win hearts and minds" :doh: , then yes, we lost a long time ago.

If the goal is to fight Islamic terror (or Islam itself IMO), then there are certain advantages to keeping it up. I've said before that I believe that the war in Iraq is attracting Islamic terrorists like a fly to honey and that had the US just gone in, got Sadaam, handed over Iraq to the Iraqis and left, the Islamic terrorists would have a lot of free time and tons more manpower on their hands to plot and carry out attacks in the west.

The leftist anti-US mass media is not reporting the hits on the enemy. They're too busy with coalition "milestone" numbers. Not all is well in Al Qaeda Mudville.

That being said, the west still is not ready to come to terms with exactly who or what they are fighting. And this alone just adds to the dangers of continuing the war with the wrong objectives in mind.

This is the beginning of a very long war (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011942.php). :cry:

[August]

would rather see us fail horribly

"Would rather see fail us horribly"?
"Would rather see us fail horribly"? -

Yes, Skybird you can quote me three times in a single post but I stil say that OUR left would rather see US fail horribly, just as they have in every situation, either foreign or domestic, since Bush first took office six years ago. It gives them something to complain about and claims that: "We could do better" (without of course actually supplying a plan on how they would).

What your left wants I neither know nor care. Besides why should we listen to Germanys advice, especially that of the left? Which of our two countries is in danger of being overrun by Muslims?

[The Avon Lady]

Which of our two countries is in danger of being overrun by Muslims?
Both. :roll:

[Skybird]

would rather see us fail horribly

"Would rather see fail us horribly"?
"Would rather see us fail horribly"? -

Yes, Skybird you can quote me three times in a single post but I stil say that OUR left would rather see US fail horribly, just as they have in every situation, either foreign or domestic, since Bush first took office six years ago. It gives them something to complain about and claims that: "We could do better" (without of course actually supplying a plan on how they would).

What your left wants I neither know nor care. Besides why should we listen to Germanys advice, especially that of the left? Which of our two countries is in danger of being overrun by Muslims?

Yours will face the same misery like mine. Just a little bit later. America is Allah's land as well, you know. Muslim and especially Saudi economies are already very strong in the US, btw.

My point only was that you are talking about a thing of the past as if it still were to happen. No one waits to see you lose in Iraq, since you already have lost it. You are also about to lose Afghanistan again, too, and many people in your country do not even seem to realize it. I agree with AL when she said "That being said, the west still is not ready to come to terms with exactly who or what they are fighting. And this alone just adds to the dangers of continuing the war with the wrong objectives in mind." I also agree that the political left are living by serious illusions of that they can tame Islam while nursing it to take benefit of the voting power (in European countries, 75-90% of Muslims vote for the left, because they serve the purpose of Islam so well, and additonally give Muslims money, directly or indirectly).

One of the first things the Shias did after the return of Khomeni and the Iranian revolution: they hung all communists they could catch, whom were their close allies and supporters in the preparation of the regime's fall.

I disagree on Iraq being a honeytrap for terrorists. While it attracts a lot of attention, it more is a test-tube, a massive breeding program for terrorists fighters, and a training ground. It creates more terror fighters than it looses, and they will not always restrict their attention to Iraq. By now I am convinced that Iraq is doomed to fall, then it is theirs, and then they will search for new playgrounds. Irak increases the influence of the Shia orthodoxy, and Iran. And in Europe we already start to feel the fallout coming from that. We urge other Muslim countries to make the same mistake we did with Iraq, to open pandora's box, so to speak. Both in Egypt and Turkey, which are under western pressure to become more open and liberal and democratic - paradoxically not democracy and liberalism is spreading, but religious orthodoxy, hardcore Islam. Bastards like Saddam are like lids on a pressure pan that is boiling with Islamism. Lift it, and see the sh!t hitting the fan. So happened in Irakq. What Roosevelt once said, "speak with a soft voice and always have a strong club with you", is certainly the most appropriate way of doing diplomacy with Islam. With regard to Islamic countries I have abandoned my former position of arguing that it does not pay off to keep tyrants in place. Fact seems to be that we can't live without them as long as there is Islam, since we do not have the brutality and unscrupulousness anymore that is needed to keep Islam under control, and in stasis. The alternative is Islam advancing. A simple we-or-them scenario, and since I do not want to live in an Islamic country or in an Islamic world, I decide for "us", and against "them". I have not invited Islam to demand that all world shall be its' own. I have not created this sly and greedy ideology, designed to excuse and justify the craving for power, control and possession. I do encourage or force nobody to follow this path of intolerance and arrogance. This world is not a perfect world. Military ressources are limited, we do not have it available in large quantities, due to the high quality and specialisation. We should use our assets more wisely and carefully than we do in Iraq. Note that I speak of "we" here. Let's admit the mistakes, accept the defeat, pull out - and learn from these mistakes. Battle lost means the war goes on. a tournament consists of many matches, the last two we have messed up. there will be even more confrontations with islam in the future. Until they actually set down in place and location, we have time to try new technological developements and economical models to become independant from their damn oil as soon as possible. Without gaining independence from Muslim oil, we do not have any chance to win. Without stopping Muslim colonization in the West, and limit the influence of these colonies' influence in our society and on our legals and constitutional systems, we will get defeated from within. This clash of civilizations takes place on so many levels simultaneously. That'S why most people do not perceive it as the fight between cultures that it is.

[scandium]

Estimated cost for the war to date (based on Congressional appropriations): $290,000,000,000.00

Estimated cost per degraded sarin/mustard gas shell recovered (approx. 500) based on above: $590,000,000.00
I guess this is your new tactic? Yes, scandium, we know the war is expensive. :roll: It doesn't change the facts one bit.
Correct, it doesn't change the facts one bit, and the facts speak for themselves. Iraq was a waste of blood, money, time, and international good will that could have been better put to use on finding Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda. Saddam, who was no longer a threat to anyone outside Iraq, is a poor substitute and a pretty bad bargain.

[Sea Demon]

Correct, it doesn't change the facts one bit, and the facts speak for themselves. Iraq was a waste of blood, money, time, and international good will that could have been better put to use on finding Bin Laden and dismantling Al Qaeda. Saddam, who was no longer a threat to anyone outside Iraq, is a poor substitute and a pretty bad bargain.
Uh...no. The real facts are that Saddam lied about his possession of weapons and his weapons programs. He disregarded UN resolutions. He supported terrorist operations in Israel by paying the families of Islamic terrorists $10,000 USD per pop.

And then there's this:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885833524&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Can somebody please let the US military know that Al-Qaeda is not in Iraq?? (Sarcasm off)

I just wonder when people are finally going to stop listening to you people.

[August]

Yours will face the same misery like mine. Just a little bit later. America is Allah's land as well, you know. Muslim and especially Saudi economies are already very strong in the US, btw.
Yeah, well the Mexicans, Indians and several dozen other ethnic groups from the Chinese to the English say it's theirs first and they certainly wouldn't take kindly to the Muslims "cutting the line" so to speak.

What you have to remember is that, unlike formerly mono-cultural European nations who are dealing with a single troublesome ethnic group living in their midst and threatening to take over, America is a nation made up entirely of immigrants. Heck even the so called "Native Americans" are just the decendents of earlier waves to our shores. We'll just absorb them like we have every other group that has come here.

After all where else in the world do you have Italians, Irish, English, Scots, Germans, Indians (both kinds), Africans, Asians, Polynesians and every other ethnic group/nationality in the world living together in near perfect harmony?

Nope, we'll never fall to the Muslims. You people might, but not us. They don't call my country "The Melting Pot" for nothing...

[bradclark1]

The Anglo American is becoming a minority August. Start looking past Bush's portrait you have hanging in your living room.

[Sea Demon]

The Anglo American is becoming a minority August. Start looking past Bush's portrait you have hanging in your living room.
What does that have to do with anything?!? I'm 3rd generation Hispanic and love my country. What are you trying to say.......people coming from non-"Anglo" countries can't assimilate and become loyal Americans? What a crock, Brad. America ain't going anywhere. August is totally right.

[Skybird]

You guys are talking about ethnic conflicts. (btw, recent census some weeks ago showed that every fifth person in Germany already is no "German" anymore, so we have become a country of migration, too, and very obviously so. Even before, german population was mixed with different, mostly slavic ethnicities, too. When you go the the Northeast, just notice the change of names in former Prussia, and the raise in people with black hair and dark eyes and slightly darker skin colour and names like Kryzanowski, Kaminski and Kowalski :lol: Not kidding, it's true, and it's no problem at all: they are so completely dissolved into Germany that noone even realizes it. Just want to say that Germany has been a multi-ethnical nation from the very beginning, just not to that ammount like america).But Islam is something different, and when there is something that it really hates, then it is multi-culti as long as multi-culti is not mono-ideological: Islamic, that is. It will not spare you from it'S demand to possess you just because you have many Mexicans. the presence of a stronger christian right will help you to resist longer, though, and maybe get away, but you will be confronted by the problem as well as we in europe, just a bit later. concerning Canda I am not so unsure. They have a very Muslim-friendly policy and even favour Muslim immigration to that from other countries, due to the francophone influence. They will lose.

[bradclark1]

The Anglo American is becoming a minority August. Start looking past Bush's portrait you have hanging in your living room.
What does that have to do with anything?!? I'm 3rd generation Hispanic and love my country. What are you trying to say.......people coming from non-"Anglo" countries can't assimilate and become loyal Americans? What a crock, Brad. America ain't going anywhere. August is totally right.


What I'm saying is that America's diversity (Not melting pot) is going to change the face of America. We are going to be just like europe but it will take a while longer because of the big pond. We are nowhere near the America of fifty years ago.
Japan and Middle Eastern companies own more of America than Americans do. High tech jobs are being filled by cheap labor foreigners. American brains are going to overseas companies. American companies are moving overseas in droves. Leagalize the illegals from Mexico and they won't be satisfied picking fruit they will go for other jobs that pay decent so we are still going to get illegals anyway while corporations slash salaries to take advantage of cheap labor.
No, our days of red, white and blue are numbered and with that will come idealogical differences and more terrorism etc.

Am I paranoid? Yes, I think I have reason to be.

[Sea Demon]

What I'm saying is that America's diversity (Not melting pot) is going to change the face of America. We are going to be just like europe but it will take a while longer because of the big pond. ..................................

No, our days of red, white and blue are numbered and with that will come idealogical differences and more terrorism etc.

Am I paranoid? Yes, I think I have reason to be.
I see. And I agree that the face of America is changing. But White Anglo's ain't going anywhere. The USA is not going to face any of the same amount of pressure as Europe is with immigration. We currently have a drive to get new arrivals to assimilate. There are people out there that are aware that English must be primary and some have taken some action. (Geno's Steaks, Hazleton Pennsylvania Mayor, Orange County, CA, etc. etc. ) There's nothing like that in Europe. Americans in the end ain't going to let it happen. And America does have a long history of assimilating people of all types. My family is living proof of that. America ain't going anywhere. Oh, it'll look a little different, but it will survive. Fear not. And take what you read from the internet with a grain of salt.;)

But you know what would help America retain it's core, Brad? Everytime someone waves an American flag, there isn't some sniveling left-wing Liberal calling those that do "stupid" nationalists. Also if disgusting left-wing groups like the ACLU weren't working to rip down historical monuments that are part of America's history and core.....all because they are in the shape of a cross(Mount Soledad). How about if left-wing groups, teacher's unions, democrat education "advocates" wouldn't push "alternative" history in the schools all the while pushing multi-culti BS. Teach American history....not what liberals wish American history was to push their agenda.

While I want immigration reduced, illegal immigration eliminated, and a system of removal for all here illegally, I don't blame them for the degradation of America's soul. Like I said, immigrants will assimilate if the pressures are there for them to do so. That pressure's building in America. It looks to me like our own left-wing socialists are the problem, seeing as how they are the ones trying to do away with anything this keeps us cohesive and builds pride in the American soul. And they say they do this all in the name of "tolerance" and such. Yeah, whatever.

P.S. Did you know alot of assets in foreign countries are owned by Americans. This works both ways my friend. I know you probably don't want to believe it because Bush is presiding over it, but America's economy is rolling right now.

[August]

The Anglo American is becoming a minority August. Start looking past Bush's portrait you have hanging in your living room.
What does that have to do with anything?!? I'm 3rd generation Hispanic and love my country. What are you trying to say.......people coming from non-"Anglo" countries can't assimilate and become loyal Americans? What a crock, Brad. America ain't going anywhere. August is totally right.

What I'm saying is that America's diversity (Not melting pot) is going to change the face of America. We are going to be just like europe but it will take a while longer because of the big pond. We are nowhere near the America of fifty years ago.
Japan and Middle Eastern companies own more of America than Americans do. High tech jobs are being filled by cheap labor foreigners. American brains are going to overseas companies. American companies are moving overseas in droves. Leagalize the illegals from Mexico and they won't be satisfied picking fruit they will go for other jobs that pay decent so we are still going to get illegals anyway while corporations slash salaries to take advantage of cheap labor.
No, our days of red, white and blue are numbered and with that will come idealogical differences and more terrorism etc.

Am I paranoid? Yes, I think I have reason to be.

Red white and blue do not refer to skin color nor has the word "American" ever meant a person of any particular ethnic origin. Yes we are not the America of 50 years ago but neither was the America of 50 years ago the same as the America of 100 years ago, or 150, or 200

None of the things you mention are new to this country and I disagree that we will be like Europe, ever. Our geographical position means there are different ethnic groups involved and in different proportions than they are in Europe and, imo, just as importantly we have different national histories. Ethnic enclaves have never lasted very long in this country, not the way they have in Europe, one reason is that we've never had a feudal system that had hundreds of years to define itself. The second is our mobility. It's always been easy for Americans to pack up and move thousands of miles without ever leaving the nation. Try that in Europe.

BTW FWIW, I do not have a George Bush portrait on my wall but I do know the guy who did his Dads official presidential painting, does that make me who you're implying I am?

And Sea Demon, right on man.

[Skybird]

You forget the charming penetration power of birth rates. Anglosaxons: very low, non-maintaining. Immigrating ethnicities: high, pushing group sizes up. Another perspective on birth rates which is true in europe as well as in North America, Japan, Russia, Korea: families of high social status and high education standards: low birth rates, or no children at all, in the name of job and career. Families of low social status and low education levels: high birth rates. Just adding this, for fun: there are undisputed correlations between later success and social status, career and education level of offsprings, and the educational and social level of their parent's families. you have better chances in life if you come from a "good" family. Well, tjhat is nothing new.The politically most incorrect statement here is that more and more children get raised in social environments that promsie to keep them down and uneducated, while less and lesser children get raised in an environment that helps them to gain higher social status and education. The "elites" get smaller in size, the class of the "working poor" increases. Pointing at that violates the docritne of the left that all men shall be equal and shall have the same chances, so it is massively rejected, at least over here.But looking at our schools, and the public niveau of eduaction in the widest sense tells me that they are wrong in their rejection. I have two highschool treachers in my group of friends, both of them agree with me and see a direct link between children's home, and their problems at school. Also, no surprise. And besdies birth rates and hostile colonization and unlimited immigration, these issues also are ways to bring down and destroy the integrity of a national community/society.

[bradclark1]

What I said about Anglo Americans was a bad anology. The point I am trying to make is that their is such an influx of people entering the U.S. that it is impossible not to change. Your dream of everyone being a happy American is wrong in today's day and age. America does not assimulate(?) the way it used too. Now we celebrate diversity. Ethnic enclaves are encouraged. That means we celebrate being other nationalities. I'm not saying that everything is different right this minute but if you don't see it happening you have tunnel vision.
Geographical position means nothing now. The world is shrinking. Travel is too easy and too fast for geographical position to matter. In fact you basically are saying the same thing in your reference to mobility. Just expand on it.
Your thoughts are 50 years old.

BTW FWIW, I do not have a George Bush portrait on my wall but I do know the guy who did his Dads official presidential painting, does that make me who you're implying I am?
I don't think so. I was implying that you are a Bush groupy and you can't see past what he say's.

[bradclark1]

And what Skybird is saying is another way of saying what I was saying.
Do you understand what I'm saying. :huh:

[August]

And what Skybird is saying is another way of saying what I was saying.
Do you understand what I'm saying. :huh:
I understand what you're saying. You're both saying that this might become a problem here in America some day if it continues along the path you percieve it's going at this moment. Fair enough.

But human, and American history too, show over and over again that the way people of any particular generation percieve things are going, turns out to be totally different than the path it does eventually go.

I guess it boils down to whether you have faith in the American people and our way of life. If you do then you shouldn't be frightened of todays boogieman, because both yours and Sea Demons children will keep that from happening and if you don't well then maybe that is part of the problem. How can we make future generations believe in our way of life if we don't believe it ourselves?

[Sea Demon]

What I said about Anglo Americans was a bad anology. The point I am trying to make is that their is such an influx of people entering the U.S. that it is impossible not to change. Your dream of everyone being a happy American is wrong in today's day and age. America does not assimulate(?) the way it used too. Now we celebrate diversity. Ethnic enclaves are encouraged. That means we celebrate being other nationalities. I'm not saying that everything is different right this minute but if you don't see it happening you have tunnel vision.
Yeah, I know exactly what you're saying. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I know there is a push for mass immigration without assimilation. I know the focus is only on diversity to the detriment of unity in the minds of some. I know ethnic enclaves exist. But I also know where this is coming from. And who is promoting it. It comes from the likes of the left-wing Ford Foundation, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the left-wing socialists from ANSWER, the insects at the ACLU, radical anti-American groups like MECHA, and others like them. These are all left-wing outfits that work to the detriment to the nation. You want to preserve America?? Then these groups are your enemy.

But I totally disagree with you on the future of America. I don't think everything's rosy and wonderful. I just believe Americans are a people that always rise to confront the problems they face. If you haven't noticed, it's happening now with the push in the House for border enforcement, private citizens like the Minutemen, and state initiatives looking for better enforcement. And August is right that ethnic enclaves don't exist for long in America. Never have. And people are just getting fed up with the Liberal hogwash of "celebrate diversity", promoting false "tolerance" over common sense, and such. I'm sorry, I just don't share your pessimism.

[scandium]

Interesting, I find myself agreeing with what August has been saying here for once, and I think its true in Canada and the US both. In both cases, even where immigrants retain their cultural identity they still become Canadian or American respectively, and integrate into the dominant culture. Granted there are odd pockets here and there that don't, Chinatowns and what have you, but these are the rare exceptions.

[The Avon Lady]

Grab some popcorn and watch Immigration Gumballs (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069).

[bradclark1]

And people are just getting fed up with the Liberal hogwash of "celebrate diversity", promoting false "tolerance" over common sense, and such. I'm sorry, I just don't share your pessimism.

I truely hope it is just pessemism. I truely love this country but when I look at my granddaughter I can't help but think what is she going to grow up to. What is she going to inherit from us. It makes me shudder.

[Skybird]

I have no family myself, but I know that feeling when playing with the two little girls of a very close girlfriend of mine. Help those people next to you as good as you can and try your best to live a right life, Brad. No one can demand more from you, and with that you already would have acchieved far more than damn many people that even do not care what is beyond their own ego.

[Sailor Steve]

And what Skybird is saying is another way of saying what I was saying.
Do you understand what I'm saying. :huh:
If you're saying what I think you're saying, I'm saying maybe I don't want to understand.

Say what you mean!

I Mean what I say, and that's much the same thing.

Oh, no it isn't. Most people mean what they say; only a rare few say what they mean.

[August]

And what Skybird is saying is another way of saying what I was saying.
Do you understand what I'm saying. :huh: If you're saying what I think you're saying, I'm saying maybe I don't want to understand.

Say what you mean!

I Mean what I say, and that's much the same thing.

Oh, no it isn't. Most people mean what they say; only a rare few say what they mean.

Well I mean it when i say that i don't understand what you're saying...

[Sailor Steve]

Say What???

[Sea Demon]

I truely hope it is just pessemism. I truely love this country but when I look at my granddaughter I can't help but think what is she going to grow up to. What is she going to inherit from us. It makes me shudder.

Me too Brad. And I think it's good that there are people that are so concerned. We need people like you sir, that raise awareness. I want your granddaughter to inherit a good, stable, prosperous, and unified America also. I'm just not convinced that the demise of America is imminent. And I'm also not convinced that white folks in the USA are going to be turned into an oppressed minority. Nor will they become irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I see more opportunities opening up for anybody that takes advantage of them. You're right, there's danger ahead for us if we don't solve the problems we face. I just see evidence that the tide is turning. Maybe I'm overly optimistic. But hopefully we will all remain vigilant. I'm actually more concerned with the debts that are being handed down.

I have the same vested interest in the success of this country as you do. My son turned 3 a few months back.

P.S. The reason I'm not so sure the face of America is changing so quickly is through personal experience. My own grandmother from Sinaloa Mexico told me when my son was born, she never thought that decades after she came to America, she would have a great-grandson with blonde hair and blue eyes. Never occured to her. This ain't a racial statement as skin color means nothing to me, but this reflects my whole family from 3 generations out. My own experience is every generation becomes more entrenched in American values and ways. None of us grandkids even know how to speak Spanish. We're all Red, White, and Blue to the core. I know more German from my time serving at Spangdahlem AFB in Europe. I think your granddaughter will be just fine Brad.

[The Avon Lady]

Grab some popcorn and watch Immigration Gumballs (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069).
Did anyone here watch this?

Comments? :hmm:

[bradclark1]

And I'm also not convinced that white folks in the USA are going to be turned into an oppressed minority.
Grrrr. That anology keeps biting me. :)

[August]

Grab some popcorn and watch Immigration Gumballs (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069). Did anyone here watch this?

Comments? :hmm:

I did. I thought he made a good point about the brain drain on other countries, athough when he said it, the first thing that came to my mind is their only choice might be between moving to the US and getting murdered by some thug militia in their home country.

[Sea Demon]

And I'm also not convinced that white folks in the USA are going to be turned into an oppressed minority.
Grrrr. That anology keeps biting me. :)

My apologies. I'm not trying to infer anything. I'm just trying to make a point...admittedly not the best possible way.

Did anyone here watch this?

Yes. Interesting video. Especially considering where the concern is coming from. "Welcome aboard, mates. Nice of you to join us". :p