Coulter on charity and more

[JustRalph]

http://www.anncoulter.com/

Ann talks charity and hair plugs

[boxcar]

This is priceless from the article.

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.

And it appears that El Rushbo has more charity in a follicle of his hair than most libs have in their entire body.

Boxcar

[Tom]

I dunno, a lot of libs are happy to give away almost every cent I earn!

[BlueShoe]

Never cease to be amazed at how generous liberals are in spending other peoples money. Just love the way Ann makes the lefties howl and how much they hate her. :ThmbUp:

[Overlay]

The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them.


They're just trying to get the government to model godly behavior, according to the quote from Abraham Lincoln: "God must have loved the common people. He made so many of them." :)

[Robert Goren]

In 2006, when my health insurance company stiffed me on a $200k bill, no one offered to help with bill. My recent surgery was paid for by Medicare. These guys make sure everyone knows when they give, but when you need them they are not always there. Medicare is.

[boxcar]

They're just trying to get the government to model godly behavior, according to the quote from Abraham Lincoln: "God must have loved the common people. He made so many of them." :)

Ahh...that's why libs pass laws that can only generate trickle up poverty. They must also believe that misery loves lots and lots of company, too.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Ann Coulter likes to say outrageous things to get attention. Therefore, she can't be taken seriously. But Nic Kristoff is no conservative flame-thrower and he came to a similar conclusion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

"The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children. "

[skate]

Ann Coulter likes to say outrageous things to get attention. Therefore, she can't be taken seriously.

"The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children. "


Ann said;
"The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them."


Not sure if you consider that to be Outrageous.

But to me, Ann is able to put into words, simplicity, which gets exactly to the point.
So, the point can be addressed.


Why attack her?

Can her words be taken seriously?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Ann said;
"The only evidence we have that Democrats love the poor is that they consistently back policies that will create more of them."


Not sure if you consider that to be Outrageous.

But to me, Ann is able to put into words, simplicity, which gets exactly to the point.
So, the point can be addressed.


Why attack her?

Can her words be taken seriously?

I attacked her? I said she says outrageous things (e.g., comments about the widows of the 9/11 firefighters), so she can't be taken seriously. It just so happens she's correct in this case. Therefore, I provided a link to an article written by a noted liberal with empirical evidence substantiating Ms. Coulter's anecdotal claims. When the liberals on the board say, “that’s Coulter being Coulter,” one can point to a respected liberal saying the same thing. Again, she isn’t a serious person, but she’s brilliant at what she does.

You didn’t ask but a serious conservative would be George Will. I respect his opinion tremendously because he’s well versed in what he’s talking about, at almost all times. I don’t always agree with him (I do most of the time), but I respect him.

[boxcar]

In 2006, when my health insurance company stiffed me on a $200k bill, no one offered to help with bill. My recent surgery was paid for by Medicare. These guys make sure everyone knows when they give, but when you need them they are not always there. Medicare is.

Good thing that was four years ago pre-ObaminationCare. I predict that in fewer than four years from now, you won't recognize Medicare after its gutted.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Good thing that was four years ago pre-ObaminationCare. I predict that in fewer than four years from now, you won't recognize Medicare after its gutted.Boxcar

Box,

1) Why do you support a govt-run hc program like Medicare?

2) Do you support unlimited benefits for Medicare receipents?

[mostpost]

Ann Coulter gets her information from public tax records. How much do the Bidens and others give which they do not claim on their returns? Why would they give to charity wihout claiming it on their tax returns. Maybe they want to be less like the Pharisee who proclaimed his goodness and generosity in a loud voice and more like the tax collector who quietly spoke of his failings.

Or, perhaps, the did not want to use charitable contributions as a ploy to not pay taxes. Because of their obsession with taxes, you can be sure that no self respecting conservative would ever make a charitable contribution and not claim it on their taxes. They probably request a receipt when they drop a quarter in the Salvation Army kettle. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

Box,

1) Why do you support a govt-run hc program like Medicare?

2) Do you support unlimited benefits for Medicare receipents?

What makes you think I support it? I never have supported it because it's a pyramid scheme just like SS is. But just in case you don't believe me (which is unthinkable in itself because I'm the Paragon of Truth ;) ), here are a couple of excerpts from an article:

The same hypothetical couple retiring in 2011 will have paid $614,000 in Social Security taxes, and can expect to collect $555,000 in benefits. They will have paid about 10 percent more into the system than they're likely to get back.

Not real good value here, is there? Quite a rip-off actually. But if you're still not convinced that Medicare is a pyramid scam, here is the clincher:

Many workers may believe their Medicare payroll taxes are going for their own insurance after they retiree, but the money is actually used to pay the bills of seniors currently on the program.

So, what the government does with the money of the pay-ins is take money from Peter now to pay Paul's benefits who is no longer paying into the system. And this constitutes a pyramid scheme, which in the private sector is an illegal economic activity.

As for your second question, what I support even less are equally immoral bait and switch scams which inevitable consequences of pyramid schemes due to their nature. People have a right to get out of a plan what they were promised, during all the years they paid in to it. They should not have to worry about the government changing the rules in the middle of the game due to extremely poor and short-sighted planning at the very best, if not an outright ill-conceived concept from its very inception.

Now, I have a question for you: Do you support rationing policies in order to control costs?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101230/ap_on_re_us/us_medicare_money_s_worth

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Ann Coulter gets her information from public tax records. How much do the Bidens and others give which they do not claim on their returns? Why would they give to charity wihout claiming it on their tax returns. Maybe they want to be less like the Pharisee who proclaimed his goodness and generosity in a loud voice and more like the tax collector who quietly spoke of his failings.

Or, perhaps, the did not want to use charitable contributions as a ploy to not pay taxes. Because of their obsession with taxes, you can be sure that no self respecting conservative would ever make a charitable contribution and not claim it on their taxes. They probably request a receipt when they drop a quarter in the Salvation Army kettle. :rolleyes:

And where did Nic Kristoff get his numbers? If you haven't read his column on this issue from late 08, you should take a look. He's a great columnist, even though I don't agree with him too much.

[boxcar]

Ann Coulter gets her information from public tax records. How much do the Bidens and others give which they do not claim on their returns? Why would they give to charity wihout claiming it on their tax returns. Maybe they want to be less like the Pharisee who proclaimed his goodness and generosity in a loud voice and more like the tax collector who quietly spoke of his failings.

If they really wanted to be less like Pharisees (as though most of them would know what they were all about :rolleyes: ), they would focus on avoiding all their hypocritical practices, follow Jesus' teaching about what loving our neighbor really means and how to go about that and they would emulate the poor widow at the temple who gave all she had and contributed more than all her more wealthy counterparts when she put in her last mina.

Or, perhaps, the did not want to use charitable contributions as a ploy to not pay taxes. Because of their obsession with taxes, you can be sure that no self respecting conservative would ever make a charitable contribution and not claim it on their taxes. They probably request a receipt when they drop a quarter in the Salvation Army kettle. :rolleyes:

Not hardly! Liberals by nature are quintessential hypocrites because liberalism itself is morally bankrupt.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

What makes you think I support it? I never have supported it because it's a pyramid scheme just like SS is. But just in case you don't believe me (which is unthinkable in itself because I'm the Paragon of Truth ;) ), here are a couple of excerpts from an article:

The same hypothetical couple retiring in 2011 will have paid $614,000 in Social Security taxes, and can expect to collect $555,000 in benefits. They will have paid about 10 percent more into the system than they're likely to get back.

Not real good value here, is there? Quite a rip-off actually. But if you're still not convinced that Medicare is a pyramid scam, here is the clincher:

Many workers may believe their Medicare payroll taxes are going for their own insurance after they retiree, but the money is actually used to pay the bills of seniors currently on the program.

So, what the government does with the money of the pay-ins is take money from Peter now to pay Paul's benefits who is no longer paying into the system. And this constitutes a pyramid scheme, which in the private sector is an illegal economic activity.

As for your second question, what I support even less are equally immoral bait and switch scams which inevitable consequences of pyramid schemes due to their nature. People have a right to get out of a plan what they were promised, during all the years they paid in to it. They should not have to worry about the government changing the rules in the middle of the game due to extremely poor and short-sighted planning at the very best, if not an outright ill-conceived concept from its very inception.

Now, I have a question for you: Do you support rationing policies in order to control costs?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101230/ap_on_re_us/us_medicare_money_s_worth

Boxcar

You have a difficult time answering questions in a concise manner. I think it's b/c you don't know what you're talking about, at least when it comes to healthcare.

If reimbursment for home health or oxygen is cut (two businesses with very healthy margins given the lack of capital intensity), is that rationing? Is it rationing when as part of healthcare "reform" (which I opposed--ill-designed) Medicare reimbursement to hospitals is reduced b/c their bad debts will fall significantly when 30 mm additional people receive coverage? Is it rationing when the Medicare Advantage Fee for Service program is cut b/c it costs taxpayers more than the traditional program? If all that's rationing, I support rationing.*

By the way, what about that rationing in Arizona? Did you speak out when the state Medicaid program stopped paying for certain transplant procedures? Or didn't Rush tell you what to think on that?

Again, try reading the WSJ.

*And ten yrs ago, the Dems were accusing the Reps of wanting to kick gramma out of the nursing home when the Reps proposed very reasonable Medicare reform measures. I would bet a million dollars you supported the Rep efforts back then.

[NJ Stinks]

Obama actually made it possible for 30M Americans to get health insurance. Bush donated 10% of his income to charity and after tax deductions it cost him around 6.5% of his income. Wow! Thanks, George! :jump: What was I thinking when I didn't vote for you - twice.

Bottom line is simple. The Dems she's supposedly trying to embarrass do more for their fellow Americans in their sleep than Republicans will ever do.

You can look it up. Or you can say Coulter is right on the drivel. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

And where did Nic Kristoff get his numbers? If you haven't read his column on this issue from late 08, you should take a look. He's a great columnist, even though I don't agree with him too much.
I did read it. I'm not contending the numbers Kristoff or Coulter give are incorrect. Just that they don't tell the whole story. For example in 2009 the Obamas earned $5,505,409. They donated $329,100 to charities. This would lead you to believe that they donated about 6.5% of their gross income to charity. But Coulter's story fails to mention (perhaps she did not know. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:), that President Obama donated all of the $1.4M he received as Nobel Peace Prize recipient to charity. That raises his donation percentage to 25%. (1.729/6.905)
The 2009 Obama return shows that Obama did not take that $1.4M as a deduction; only the $329,100.
I don't believe he paid taxes on it either, as it was transferred directly from the Nobel committee to the charities he designated. All the paperwork is included with Obama's 2009 return.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I did read it. I'm not contending the numbers Kristoff or Coulter give are incorrect. Just that they don't tell the whole story. For example in 2009 the Obamas earned $5,505,409. They donated $329,100 to charities. This would lead you to believe that they donated about 6.5% of their gross income to charity. But Coulter's story fails to mention (perhaps she did not know. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:), that President Obama donated all of the $1.4M he received as Nobel Peace Prize recipient to charity. That raises his donation percentage to 25%. (1.729/6.905)
The 2009 Obama return shows that Obama did not take that $1.4M as a deduction; only the $329,100.
I don't believe he paid taxes on it either, as it was transferred directly from the Nobel committee to the charities he designated. All the paperwork is included with Obama's 2009 return.

Coulter isn't a serious person, so no need to respond to her.

[mostpost]

If they really wanted to be less like Pharisees (as though most of them would know what they were all about :rolleyes: ), they would focus on avoiding all their hypocritical practices, follow Jesus' teaching about what loving our neighbor really means and how to go about that and they would emulate the poor widow at the temple who gave all she had and contributed more than all her more wealthy counterparts when she put in her last mina.



Not hardly! Liberals by nature are quintessential hypocrites because liberalism itself is morally bankrupt.

Boxcar
I take this to mean that, like the poor widow, you give your last dollar to those in need. Excuse me if I am skeptical.
Liberals by nature are quintessential hypocrites because liberalism itself is morally bankrupt.
Your conclusion is false because your premise is false.
Liberalism insists that the wealthy help the less fortunate and liberalism seeks to prevent the wealthy from taking even more from the poor. That is not moral bankruptcy.
Conservatism helps the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and doesn't give a damn how it happens. That is moral bankruptcy.

[ArlJim78]

…With estimates secured from a host of professionals, city officials and law enforcement, Hawaii Reporter estimates costs to taxpayers will at least include:

* Mrs. Obama’s early flight to Hawaii: $63,000 (White House Dossier)
* Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii: $1 million (GAO estimates)
* Housing in beachfront homes for Secret Service and Seals in Kailua ($1,200 a day for 14 days): $16,800
* Costs for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel: $134,400 ($400 per day for 24 staff) – excluding meals and other room costs
* Police overtime: $250,000 (2009 costs reported by Honolulu Police Department)
* Ambulance: $10,000 (City Spokesperson)
* TOTAL COST: $1,474,200



this helping the poor gig is riot. Ten vacations and 50 rounds of golf.
At some point haven't these people taken enough from the taxpayer?

[cj's dad]

Ann Coulter gets her information from public tax records. How much do the Bidens and others give which they do not claim on their returns? Why would they give to charity wihout claiming it on their tax returns. Maybe they want to be less like the Pharisee who proclaimed his goodness and generosity in a loud voice and more like the tax collector who quietly spoke of his failings.

Or, perhaps, the did not want to use charitable contributions as a ploy to not pay taxes. Because of their obsession with taxes, you can be sure that no self respecting conservative would ever make a charitable contribution and not claim it on their taxes. They probably request a receipt when they drop a quarter in the Salvation Army kettle. :rolleyes:

The bolded statement proves that you are a bigot !!

[mostpost]

The bolded statement proves that you are a bigot !!
How???????????????????????????

[mostpost]

From the Ann Coulter article, another example of how she twists things.
In 2005, Vice President Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity
The charitable donations Cheney made were from stock options he had with Halliburton. In 2001, when he was elected VP, Cheney agreed to designate any Halliburton earnings for charity. He chose 2005 to exercise those options for a very good reason. The following is from Daily Kos, but the information is available elsewhere.
As part of the overall Katrina relief laws passed, there was a clause regarding charitable donations. This obviously was to spur people to make donations that would benefit victims of Katrina, but was not overly specific. As we already know, Barbara Bush directed her donations to her son Neil's company, which she was an investor in. According to the law passed last year we have the following:
Encourages cash donations by individuals. Under current law, individuals may deduct charitable donations up to 50 percent of their adjusted gross income. Deductions for charitable donations are further limited by the phase-out of itemized deductions. Under the proposal, cash donations to charities are exempt from the 50-percent income limitation and the phase-out of itemized deductions if the donations are made before January 2006.

What this means is that, except for last year, one could only make donations that were up to half their income. Not only that, but if your income was over $146,000, the deductions would be "phased out" until you could only deduct 20% of the donation. But for last year, there was no limit on (1) how much you could donate, and (2) there was no "phase out" of these donations.
This is found in HR3768 from 2005.
BTW: Those rules were good only in 2005.
By making those donations in 2005, Cheney was able to reduce his tax liability by more than $1 million. Not only that, but because the law was laxly written, none of Cheney's donations went to a charity working to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina.
So Cheney did contribute 77% of his income to charity in 2005, but
A. By doing so he reaped a tax windfall which he would not have reaped in any other year (over $1M)
B. He was required to make the contributions under the terms of his Haliburton stock divestment.
C. He didn't even help the people who had made it possible for him to receive the tax breaks.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/18/115445/192
Also can be found at other places by searching:
"Dick Cheney's 2005 tax return"

[boxcar]

You have a difficult time answering questions in a concise manner. I think it's b/c you don't know what you're talking about, at least when it comes to healthcare.

I answered your two questions and now you whine because you didn't like my answers. And you didn't like them because you ASSumed I supported Medicare, which I never have for the reasons I stated.

If reimbursment for home health or oxygen is cut (two businesses with very healthy margins given the lack of capital intensity), is that rationing? Is it rationing when as part of healthcare "reform" (which I opposed--ill-designed) Medicare reimbursement to hospitals is reduced b/c their bad debts will fall significantly when 30 mm additional people receive coverage? Is it rationing when the Medicare Advantage Fee for Service program is cut b/c it costs taxpayers more than the traditional program? If all that's rationing, I support rationing.*


Well, then...since you're a big fan of health care rationing, why do you libs squawk like stuck piglets when the private sector does it? Just what exactly is the point to ObamainationCare -- that rationing is reasonable and legitimate and necessary when the government does it, but it's unreasonable, dishonest and unacceptable when the private sector does it?

By the way, what about that rationing in Arizona? Did you speak out when the state Medicaid program stopped paying for certain transplant procedures? Or didn't Rush tell you what to think on that?

Neither did I squawk when the rationing hit a lot closer to home than Arizona. I've already related the story of a homeless acquaintance of mine who was refused a hip transplant by Medicaid. So, what's your point? :rolleyes:

Again, try reading the WSJ.

Don't worry about what I read or don't read. I'm miles ahead of you in my sleep.

*And ten yrs ago, the Dems were accusing the Reps of wanting to kick gramma out of the nursing home when the Reps proposed very reasonable Medicare reform measures. I would bet a million dollars you supported the Rep efforts back then.

If you know anything about me at all, you should know by now I'm not a fan of Ponzi Schemes -- you know -- those scams with are illegal in the private sector -- but perfectly moral and legal in the public one. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

However, does this mean I would support another scam on top of that -- called "bait and switch"?

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Don't worry about what I read or don't read. I'm miles ahead of you in my sleep.


Boxcar

Is there anything substantive about you? Do you ever read? When you learn something about Medicare and/or Medicaid, we'll debate. For now, you're like debating monetary policy with a 5-yr-old child, or you!

[boxcar]

I take this to mean that, like the poor widow, you give your last dollar to those in need. Excuse me if I am skeptical.

No, her situation doesn't apply to me because I don't advocate grand theft schemes -- of violating one group's legitimate property rights under the force of law and giving the fruits of their hard earned labor to those who haven't earned it. But who gave more in God's eyes: The widow or liberals who steal money from one group of people to pay another group?

Your conclusion is false because your premise is false.
Liberalism insists that the wealthy help the less fortunate and liberalism seeks to prevent the wealthy from taking even more from the poor. That is not moral bankruptcy.
Conservatism helps the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and doesn't give a damn how it happens. That is moral bankruptcy.

The only thing liberals should insist upon is doing what is right for THEMSELVES. Instead, the insist on behaving like Pharisees by making a huge stink about the poor, while doing so little for them personally. Making "charitable" contributions with other people's money, under the force of law, is hardly the moral thing to do, let alone the Christian thing to do. But I will give you this: Paying with other people's money is surely economical for libs. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Is there anything substantive about you? Do you ever read? When you learn something about Medicare and/or Medicaid, we'll debate. For now, you're like debating monetary policy with a 5-yr-old child, or you!

You have too high of an opinion of yourself. What makes you think I would want to take the time to lower myself to your level? From where I sit, you strike me as being pretty clueless.

Boxcar
P.S. But in spite of yourself, have a very Happy New Year! :)

[Saratoga_Mike]

You have too high of an opinion of yourself. What makes you think I would want to take the time to lower myself to your level? From where I sit, you strike me as being pretty clueless.

Boxcar
P.S. But in spite of yourself, have a very Happy New Year! :)

I pour it on with you to give you a taste of your own medicine. And I don't truly strike you as clueless. You're being dishonest. Let's not go down the four borough path again.

Detective Goren recently highlighted something you posted on the horse racing side about five yrs ago. I was struck by something (I'm being sincere here, which I have to note b/c I'm usually sarcastic): you used to be much more mellow. What happened (not being sarcastic)?

[Tom]

Coulter isn't a serious person, so no need to respond to her.

Substitute the name Obama and you have another true statement.
Difference is, Ann is not hurting anyone like the "Lying Kenyan" is.

[boxcar]

I pour it on with you to give you a taste of your own medicine. And I don't truly strike you as clueless. You're being dishonest. Let's not go down the four borough path again.

Detective Goren recently highlighted something you posted on the horse racing side about five yrs ago. I was struck by something (I'm being sincere here, which I have to note b/c I'm usually sarcastic): you used to be much more mellow. What happened (not being sarcastic)?

Oh yeah...that was probably during the time I was visiting one of those four boroughs. Must have something do with the differences in the water. :D

Boxcar
P.S. Methinks the only thing you're capable of pouring is that cheap swill you drink. And even then -- only God knows if you get more in the glass or on yourself. :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

Or, perhaps, the did not want to use charitable contributions as a ploy to not pay taxes. Because of their obsession with taxes, you can be sure that no self respecting conservative would ever make a charitable contribution and not claim it on their taxes.

Ending the year like you started it I see.
Dead wrong.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Substitute the name Obama and you have another true statement.
Difference is, Ann is not hurting anyone like the "Lying Kenyan" is.

I didn't vote for Obama, and I won't be voting for him in 2012. I'm not sure why you refer to him as a "lying Kenyan," though. Would you refer to Andrew Cuomo as a "lying Italian?" I wouldn't, but to each his own, I guess.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Oh yeah...that was probably during the time I was visiting one of those four boroughs. Must have something do with the differences in the water. :D

Boxcar
P.S. Methinks the only thing you're capable of pouring is that cheap swill you drink. And even then -- only God knows if you get more in the glass or on yourself. :lol: :lol:

Nothing is more annoying than someone who places a "LOL" after their own statement.

You've never lived in every borough of NYC except Staten Island. Everyone knows that. Did you ever critcize Clinton for his dishonesty? If so, rich.

[bigmack]

Nothing is more annoying than someone who places a "LOL" after their own statement.
With the exception of people that actually get annoyed by something so innocuous.

Not picking you out just get a hoot out of folk that get bothered by emoticons. Seems rather silly.

[Saratoga_Mike]

With the exception of people that actually get annoyed by something so innocuous.

Not picking you out just get a hoot out of folk that get bothered by emoticons. Seems rather silly.

It's just my opinion...

[bigmack]

It's just my opinion...
Dynamite. Keep a cool head though. "Nothing more annoying" sounded serious.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Dynamite. Keep a cool head though. "Nothing more annoying" sounded serious.

Hyperbole. Box is more annoying.

[bigmack]

Hyperbole. Box is more annoying.
You hit the nail with Coulter. She is a contrived provocateur with chicken legs. I don't like chicken legs.

In any event, I know Boxy comes from a certain perspective but my guess is that you ain't gonna make much of a dent in it.

[riskman]

Why is it that Mr. Coulter's columns usually leave the impression she's more of a man than any liberal.
Coulter's columns an TV appearances are a good diversions in the same vein as Tina Fay[Palin] on SNL.

[BlueShoe]

Bottom line is simple. The Dems she's supposedly trying to embarrass do more for their fellow Americans in their sleep than Republicans will ever do.
Well, part of it is right. When it comes to doing something right for their fellow Americans the Democrats are certainly asleep.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks
Bottom line is simple. The Dems she's supposedly trying to embarrass do more TO their fellow Americans in their sleep than Republicans will ever do.


FTFY....and, 12/31/2010.....best laugh of the year! Great, NJ! :lol:

[Tom]

I didn't vote for Obama, and I won't be voting for him in 2012. I'm not sure why you refer to him as a "lying Kenyan," though. Would you refer to Andrew Cuomo as a "lying Italian?" I wouldn't, but to each his own, I guess.

The joke about the DC Zoo getting a Kenyan Lion, ironic becasue the WH already had a "Lion Kenyan!":lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

You hit the nail with Coulter. She is a contrived provocateur with chicken legs. I don't like chicken legs.

In any event, I know Boxy comes from a certain perspective but my guess is that you ain't gonna make much of a dent in it.

Well we finally competely agree on something.

[ArlJim78]

I love Coulter, she's sharpest snarkiest conservative pundit out there. Nobody on the left can hang with her.

[boxcar]

Hyperbole. Box is more annoying.

Sounds like you're losing your grip, kiddo. Are you letting me get to you? :D

Boxcar
P.S. Hope you don't find my one little emoticon too stressful.
P.P.S. Don't drink too much tonight.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Sounds like you're losing your grip, kiddo. Are you letting me get to you? :D

Boxcar
P.S. Hope you don't find my one little emoticon too stressful.
P.P.S. Don't drink too much tonight.

Just trying to educate you old friend. I won't drink too much if you stop lying, deal?

[skate]

Ann Coulter likes to say outrageous things to get attention. Therefore, she can't be taken seriously. "

when you stated the above, it just sounded like an attack

[Saratoga_Mike]

when you stated the above, it just sounded like an attack

ok

[boxcar]

Just trying to educate you old friend. I won't drink too much if you stop lying, deal?

No deal. You gotta learn to stand on your own two feet and not depend on others to improve your lot in life in any way, shape or form. Dependency withdrawal, I understand, can be a bear; but nonetheless you should strike an Independence compact with yourself for the upcoming New Year.

Boxcar
P.S. Best to do that, btw, when you're sober. :D

[Saratoga_Mike]

No deal. You gotta learn to stand on your own two feet and not depend on others to improve your lot in life in any way, shape or form. Dependency withdrawal, I understand, can be a bear; but nonetheless you should strike an Independence compact with yourself for the upcoming New Year.

Boxcar
P.S. Best to do that, btw, when you're sober. :D

This post was actually sorta funny Box. I'm proud of you - you're typically so pedantic. I know you don't approve of reading, but my big plan for tonight is to finish reading Laura Hillenbrand's new book. Hey will there be a lot of militant gays out at Time Sq tonight? I know they're seasonal!

[boxcar]

This post was actually sorta funny Box. I'm proud of you - you're typically so pedantic. I know you don't approve of reading, but my big plan for tonight is to finish reading Laura Hillenbrand's new book. Hey will there be a lot of militant gays out at Time Sq tonight? I know they're seasonal!

Tell me, Mike: How many books do you have in your personal library? How many "floor-to-ceiling" bookcases do you have in your home?

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

Tell me, Mike: How many books do you have in your personal library? How many "floor-to-ceiling" bookcases do you have in your home?

Boxcar

A few hundred, I suppose. I've never counted. I could just make up a number and you wouldn't know, but I'm not dishonest. I live in a condo, so a lot of my books are in boxes. You have a lot of bookcases?

[boxcar]

A few hundred, I suppose. I've never counted. I could just make up a number and you wouldn't know, but I'm not dishonest. I live in a condo, so a lot of my books are in boxes. You have a lot of bookcases?

I have two large free-standing bookcases, one small bookcase, one built-in wall bookcase (about 8' in length) that is partially used to store books and several boxes of books that somehow never got unpacked when I moved into my house over 10 years ago. I'd say about 80% of my books are theological in nature.

In addition, I have a sizable virtual theological library that has been steadily growing over the years with add-ons.

Current Reading: Trickle Up Poverty by Doc Savage.

Honestly yours,
Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

I have two large free-standing bookcases, one small bookcase, one built-in wall bookcase (about 8' in length) that is partially used to store books and several boxes of books that somehow never got unpacked when I moved into my house over 10 years ago. I'd say about 80% of my books are theological in nature.

In addition, I have a sizable virtual theological library that has been steadily growing over the years with add-ons.

Current Reading: Trickle Up Poverty by Doc Savage.

Honestly yours,Boxcar

I like your new-found sense of humor. If you've read St. Augustine and interested, please start a thread. I find him very interesting.

"Perhaps the most difficult student, however, is the one with an inferior education who believes he understands something when he does not. Augustine stressed the importance of showing this type of student the difference between “having words and having understanding,” and of helping the student to remain humble with his acquisition of knowledge. "

Source: www.staugustineofhippo.com

[boxcar]

I like your new-found sense of humor. If you've read St. Augustine and interested, please start a thread. I find him very interesting.

"Perhaps the most difficult student, however, is the one with an inferior education who believes he understands something when he does not. Augustine stressed the importance of showing this type of student the difference between “having words and having understanding,” and of helping the student to remain humble with his acquisition of knowledge. "

Source: www.staugustineofhippo.com

Augustine is not my favorite philosopher-theologian -- however I love the town of St. Augustine in northern Florida. :)

But seriously, Augustine had many things right. Even the acquisition of true knowledge can only begin with the fear of the Lord (Pr 1:7). All true believers realize that we have nothing that we haven't received (1 Cor 4:7).

Boxcar
P.S. I love your new found appreciation for my great sense of humor. ;)

[mountainman]

Coulter lost my respect when she characterized 9/11 widows as "enjoying their husband's deaths." At that point some line is crossed and she forfeits any right to be taken seriously. She profits by spewing hate. Likewise, Limbaugh lost me by calling Chelsea Clinton the "family dog." You can't do that and still claim to have one ounce of compassion or honest concern for the human condition. He's a monster. And please, by all means cite incidents of liberals being that insensitive. I'll gladly write those perpetrators off as well.
For me, respect starts with decency-on both sides of the political isle.

[ArlJim78]

Coulter lost my respect when she characterized 9/11 widows as "enjoying their husband's deaths." At that point some line is crossed and she forfeits any right to be taken seriously. She profits by spewing hate. Likewise, Limbaugh lost me by calling Chelsea Clinton the "family dog." You can't do that and still claim to have one ounce of compassion or honest concern for the human condition. He's a monster. And please, by all means cite incidents of liberals being that insensitive. I'll gladly write those perpetrators off as well.
For me, respect starts with decency-on both sides of the political isle.
so to you having decency and compassion for the human condition is best illustrated by pulling up a single quote and calling the person a monster? how human of you.

please don't keep us in suspense, let's see your list of left of the aisle commentators who have no decency and lost your respect.

[boxcar]

so to you having decency and compassion for the human condition is best illustrated by pulling up a single quote and calling the person a monster? how human of you.

please don't keep us in suspense, let's see your list of left of the aisle commentators who have no decency and lost your respect.

Not to mention -- very intolerant.

And besides, weren't Coulter's remarks aimed at a very few wives -- the Jersey Five or something?

Boxcar

[skate]

Not to mention -- very intolerant.

And besides, weren't Coulter's remarks aimed at a very few wives -- the Jersey Five or something?

Boxcar

indeed, she was bringing out the fact that a few wives were running about trying to make some classless points, so they could make some money from their husbands deaths.

Ann is all about brains, not body, and that just (i guess) inflicts the little darlings on the "so called left".

[mountainman]

so to you having decency and compassion for the human condition is best illustrated by pulling up a single quote and calling the person a monster? how human of you.



Yes. Belittling a child's looks on a forum that reaches millions earns irrevocable monster status (and then some) with me. Absolutely. And to imply that calling Limbaugh out on it constitutes a similarly inhuman act may strike you as neat irony, but is nonetheless ridiculous.

[mountainman]

Not to mention -- very intolerant.



Boxcar
Intolerant of middle- aged men who refer to little girls as dogs? Yeah. I'm weird like that.

[bigmack]

Intolerant of middle- aged men who refer to little girls as dogs? Yeah. I'm weird like that.
You must be livid about Bob Byrd & Ted K.

[mountainman]

You must be livid about Bob Byrd & Ted K.

Yep. Down with all them nasty pundits.

[Tom]

What do you get it you cross a crooked politician with a shiester lawyer?


Chelsea.

[boxcar]

Intolerant of middle- aged men who refer to little girls as dogs? Yeah. I'm weird like that.

But I thought you progressives were so OPEN-MINDED and UNDERSTANDING and TOLERANT of other people's points of views and opinions. (Hope I made myself clear on this point. :rolleyes: )

Also, I must say this in defense of Rush: He has more wit and cleverness in his little pinkies than a ballroom full of liberals have in their entire bodies. Therefore, I strongly suspect that when his remark is taken into context, it's far more clever and not nearly as insulting as you make it out to be. A great case in point was when several weeks ago, he made his witty remark about whitey Peolosi driving that black congressman around in limo in order to resolve a power dilemma in which she found herself. The media went absolutely bonkers and I just love it when that happens. Al NotSoSharp(ton) went ape (oops, was that politically incorrect for me to say?) too when he demanded that the FCC go after El Rushbo for his "racist" remarks.

Boxcar

[mountainman]

But I thought you progressives were so OPEN-MINDED and UNDERSTANDING and TOLERANT of other people's points of views and opinions. (Hope I made myself clear on this point. :rolleyes: )

Also, I must say this in defense of Rush: He has more wit and cleverness in his little pinkies than a ballroom full of liberals have in their entire bodies. Therefore, I strongly suspect that when his remark is taken into context, it's far more clever and not nearly as insulting as you make it out to be. A great case in point was when several weeks ago, he made his witty remark about whitey Peolosi driving that black congressman around in limo in order to resolve a power dilemma in which she found herself. The media went absolutely bonkers and I just love it when that happens. Al NotSoSharp(ton) went ape (oops, was that politically incorrect for me to say?) too when he demanded that the FCC go after El Rushbo for his "racist" remarks.

Boxcar

So if I don't respect Limbaugh, I'm a progressive? That's like saying anyone who dislikes capt kangaroo must hate kids. Just for the record, my positions lean conservative on most important issues. And I think our culture's ridiculous standards of political correctness too often supress dialogue on problems of national importance. Nor did I brand "El Rushbo" a racist. I simply said that it's reprehensible of him to belittle a child's looks. Political salvos are part of his business, but to fire on kids is unforgiveable to me.

[boxcar]

So if I don't respect Limbaugh, I'm a progressive? That's like saying anyone who dislikes capt kangaroo must hate kids. Just for the record, my positions lean conservative on most important issues. And I think our culture's ridiculous standards of political correctness too often supress dialogue on problems of national importance. Nor did I brand "El Rushbo" a racist. I simply said that it's reprehensible of him to belittle a child's looks. Political salvos are part of his business, but to fire on kids is unforgiveable to me.

I didn't call you a racist. I brought up a similar incident where other people did.

Also, I would still like to see the context of his "rude" remarks aimed at Chelsea -- who, btw, is no longer a child! Not by any stretch. She be an adult. She be. She be. Honest Injun (at the risk of sounding politically incorrect). :D

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

hey mark forget about politics here, you can't win with these guys.

lou's kid did a great job last year. i was very happy to see him bat the 40%, he was very sick this time last year. the whole family are great people.

[mostpost]

I didn't call you a racist. I brought up a similar incident where other people did.

Also, I would still like to see the context of his "rude" remarks aimed at Chelsea -- who, btw, is no longer a child! Not by any stretch. She be an adult. She be. She be. Honest Injun (at the risk of sounding politically incorrect). :D

Boxcar
Here is the context. It was on his TV show. Chelsea Clinton was eleven years old at the time. There was a studio audience of morons who laughed hysterically. None of them had anything to laugh about. What did Limbaugh gain by making fun of a child's looks? Except to feed his ego. He is a pathetic person and anyone who supports him is also pathetic. Change that to read Limbaugh is a pathetic coward.

[boxcar]

Here is the context. It was on his TV show. Chelsea Clinton was eleven years old at the time. There was a studio audience of morons who laughed hysterically. None of them had anything to laugh about. What did Limbaugh gain by making fun of a child's looks? Except to feed his ego. He is a pathetic person and anyone who supports him is also pathetic. Change that to read Limbaugh is a pathetic coward.

Before you dare call anyone else a "moron" or "pathetic", learn what the difference is between the setting and the context. You just described the former, while saying zero about the latter. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar
P.S. Your lack of comprehension is actually pretty "pathetic", if you don't mind me borrowing one of your terms. :rolleyes:

P.P.S. Btw, El Rushbo has mellowed considerably since his TV show. :lol: :lol:

[bigmack]

Chelsea Clinton was eleven years old at the time.
I knew nothing of this deal but my Google works fairly well. Not only are you wrong about 11 but this is a story that was rolled out by Al Franken in his Stupid Fat Guy book, or whatever. There appears to be much more to the story than what MtnMan and you would have others believe.

Not as if I care but how 'bout some folk learn how to use Google around here?
http://lyingliar.com/?p=17

[boxcar]

I knew nothing of this deal but my Google works fairly well. Not only are you wrong about 11 but this is a story that was rolled out by Al Franken in his Stupid Fat Guy book, or whatever. There appears to be much more to the story than what MtnMan and you would have others believe.

Not as if I care but how 'bout some folk learn how to use Google around here?
http://lyingliar.com/?p=17

This explanation seems very plausible. I've been listening to El Rushbo for many years and I have never heard him hurl cheap, gratuitous insults at anyone. It's just not his style. He's far too witty to have to stoop to that level. Whenever he pokes fun as someone, you can believe there's a good amount of underlying truth to the humor. Stated differently, the object of his humor reaped whatever he or she sowed.

Thanks, Mack, for vindicating my earlier defense of Rush.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

I knew nothing of this deal but my Google works fairly well. Not only are you wrong about 11 but this is a story that was rolled out by Al Franken in his Stupid Fat Guy book, or whatever. There appears to be much more to the story than what MtnMan and you would have others believe.

Not as if I care but how 'bout some folk learn how to use Google around here?
http://lyingliar.com/?p=17
No!!! I watched that show. What Ryan Larson claims happened was not what happened. There was no talk about a cute kid in the White House. Limbaugh apologized for nothing on the show. I was there. I saw it.
Maybe Limbaugh apologized after the show; maybe he made excuses and blamed a technician, but during the show he was totally unrepentent.

I may have been wrong about 11. Perhaps Chelsea was 13 at the time. Does that really make it any better?

[mountainman]

hey mark forget about politics here, you can't win with these guys.

lou's kid did a great job last year. i was very happy to see him bat the 40%, he was very sick this time last year. the whole family are great people.

Hey phil, good to hear from you pal. I like the kid too and was glad to see him have a breakout season. Concluding 2010 at 40% came down to his last starter on our final card. Believe it or not, his dad also reached 40% by winning with HIS last starter several seasons ago here. Is that unreal, or what?

[BlueShoe]

And please, by all means cite incidents of liberals being that insensitive.
How about the list of 10 conservative women that should be raped? The libs just loved that one and smirked and laughed at the public humiliation these women suffered. First published by Playboy as a list of right wing women that should be hate f-----, the left just loved it. Funny thing, though, with a few exceptions, do not recall much criticism coming from the left. Noteably silent were the feminists and womens organizations. Of course these groups are leftwing, and detest conservative women. Could post a couple of dozen links to this story, but you get the idea, can be easily found if interested.

[boxcar]

No!!! I watched that show.

Forgive me incredulity, but when did you become a Dittohead?

Boxcar

[mountainman]

How about the list of 10 conservative women that should be raped? The libs just loved that one and smirked and laughed at the public humiliation these women suffered. First published by Playboy as a list of right wing women that should be hate f-----, the left just loved it. Funny thing, though, with a few exceptions, do not recall much criticism coming from the left. Noteably silent were the feminists and womens organizations. Of course these groups are leftwing, and detest conservative women. Could post a couple of dozen links to this story, but you get the idea, can be easily found if interested.
Yes. The left can be every bit as vicious and hypocritcal as the right. Sometimes worse. It's unfortunate for our country that no sensible moderate untethered to either party and capable of bold, independent thought could ever be elected president. To rise high in politics, a person must vow allegiance to one of the two stifling doctrines.

[lamboguy]

i only wish that i could have given those guys all my horses, all my troubles would be far away. they don't use miracle drugs and give you straight anwers all the time. my problem is he trains in presque isles and my horses get injuries on synthetics. and let me tell you this about the ruberto's, they don't have to take a back seat to any trainer in america even though they run a small operation. the dad knows how to find a good horse in a sale, and he knows what to do when he gets the horse.

[mostpost]

Forgive me incredulity, but when did you become a Dittohead?

Boxcar
Never a dittohead. That was back in 93? I watched a couple of shows out of curiosity then tuned out. Apparently I wasn't the only one, because it was soon cancelled. :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

Never a dittohead. That was back in 93? I watched a couple of shows out of curiosity then tuned out. Apparently I wasn't the only one, because it was soon cancelled. :lol: :lol:

Yes, unlike most liberals, Rush is a very quick study, for hequickly came to his senses and realized what his true calling was -- in Radio! He's never been headed since. He's a confirmed, classy front runner who will never let any cheap plodders pass him. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[mountainman]

Yes, unlike most liberals, Rush is a very quick study, for hequickly came to his senses and realized what his true calling was -- in Radio! He's never been headed since. He's a confirmed, classy front runner who will never let any cheap plodders pass him. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

Quick indeed. Despite preassurances to the contrary, it took "El Rushbo" about five minutes as an NFL commentator to get himself canned by bringing his political agenda to the job. Dumb. Very dumb. The guy is a cartoon.