It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:42 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Ann on Orielly 1/22/12
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:20 pm
Posts: 8
Wow. Ive never seen Ann so ratcheted up. She said Romney is a true conservative..??? She said there is no way Newt will win. I don't know. With 70% of the party described as anti-Romney it has ever has looked good for him. If Romney numbers continue to go down from this point, Ann doesn't seen to have left herself any place else to go but to sit the election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:51 pm
Posts: 1067
sonahud wrote:
Wow. Ive never seen Ann so ratcheted up. She said Romney is a true conservative..??? She said there is no way Newt will win. I don't know. With 70% of the party described as anti-Romney it has ever has looked good for him. If Romney numbers continue to go down from this point, Ann doesn't seen to have left herself any place else to go but to sit the election.


Yes. Ann's antics of late demean her argument(s) about Newt. She was turning "Blue" by the time O'Rielly gave her the last word. She calibrated the remaining panel with His Mittness as the most conservative. That's not credible. What does that make Rick Santorum?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:27 pm 
Offline
Forum Administrator

Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:59 pm
Posts: 32646
Location: Wisconsin
Newt has very little chance of winning if this race isn't purely about Obama. His negatives are way too high with the people who decide elections, the independents. Conservatives are split on him at best because he's not a conservative.

It would be nice if there was a litmus test conservative in this race, but alas we're stuck with a bunch of clowns loaded with real baggage. Such a conservative could easily be sold to the independents. I don't understand the flipping cartwheels for Romney, and as much as I have disagreed with her of late, she's right about Newt. He's got no shot of winning this election unless it's about Obama. If it's another popularity contest, goodnight Newt.

On top of that, he'll be devestating to the rest of the ticket.

Nevermind if Newt can or can't win, he's got a government solution for everything. They all do. If Santorum weren't just a hanger on we'd see his big government record too. I'll back any of these guys over Obama, but I damn well am not going to lie to myself about who they are -- big government Republicans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:10 am
Posts: 1
I must admit I have never seen Ann like this. I have always been a fan of her's, listened to everything she has said or have read most everything she has written. I have always thought she had a good head on her shoulders but this time she is way, way off. Mit is the least conservative of the group. He would loose in a debate with O-bum-a and he would loose in an election. Remember, he lost to the guy that lost to O-bum-a in 2008. He is two, two, two times a looser. Rick Santorum is probably to most conservative but both of he and Mit would not stand a chance in a debate with O-bum-a, he would clean their clocks. Santorum in his sweater-vest, who ever is advising him is not looking out for him at all. He reminds me of Mr. Rogers. No one wants a weak President and in the sweater-vest. He looks like such a girly-man. He has some good ideas but he could not win his bid for a second term in his home state, PA. How could he possibly take on O-bum-a an expect to win. Maybe as a VP he might have a chance, but he would never win the top spot on a ticket. Not at this time. Rick, some good advice here, loose the sweater-vest, and hit the gym and start bulking up a little.

Ron Paul is just way to far out there. He has some good ideas on some of the domestic issues but on the rest he is just a nut job. "Let Iran have a Nuke", whats wrong with that? Are you nuts!!!

So those three are un-electable and in a debate they would all loose. The only one that could defeat O-bum-a in a debate and in an election is Newt. He may have some baggage but not near as much as O-bum-a does.

If Ann and the rest of the party does not get off of Newt's back and get on the bus instead of trying to throw Newt under it, we will all be lost. Do these guys, Ann included, want O-bum-a to get another four years? We could not survive. If he did all he did with worrying about a second term, just think of what he would do if he had nothing to loose ?????

We need Newt !!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:47 pm
Posts: 1393
Location: USA
I understand why Ann is so fired up. I appreciate her passion and agree with her wholeheartedly. She has it right. Maybe it is some of those on the right who hate everything Romney without really listening to him that have the problem. Ann sees the big picture. And on January 21, 2013 when Obama is headed back to the White House after beating Newt if he's the nominee.... there won't be a damn thing we can do about it. Newt can put down the media all he wants, and rant at those who ask the hard questions and it will mean NOTHING.

We MUST have a new president. Newt is not the one the middle of this country will elect. He is like the Nancy Pelosi of the right...with mistresses. Please people...think.

Keep it up Ann...we need you!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:51 pm
Posts: 1067
friendofGod wrote:
I understand why Ann is so fired up. I appreciate her passion and agree with her wholeheartedly. She has it right. Maybe it is some of those on the right who hate everything Romney without really listening to him that have the problem. Ann sees the big picture. And on January 21, 2013 when Obama is headed back to the White House after beating Newt if he's the nominee.... there won't be a damn thing we can do about it. Newt can put down the media all he wants, and rant at those who ask the hard questions and it will mean NOTHING.

We MUST have a new president. Newt is not the one the middle of this country will elect. He is like the Nancy Pelosi of the right...with mistresses. Please people...think.

Keep it up Ann...we need you!


I don't like His Mittness because I have really listened to him.
But I am beginning to despise him because I am really listening to Ann.
Especially after she threw Santorum under the bus today on O'Rielly when she ordained Romney as "the most conservative of the four."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:31 pm
Posts: 250
Location: Michigan
I confess I don't get it.

The Democrats elected Obama who had the weakest resume for President in American history, at least the part I can remember.

With his record, why would you consider either Santorum or Gingrich unelectable? Their worst baggage pales compared to the damage Obama has done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 926
Location: Grosse Pointe
Of course she's a true conservative; she's just smarter than you...

Love the way Mitt wiped the floor with that fat, lying old K street lobbyist.

sonahud wrote:
Wow. Ive never seen Ann so ratcheted up. She said Romney is a true conservative..??? She said there is no way Newt will win. I don't know. With 70% of the party described as anti-Romney it has ever has looked good for him. If Romney numbers continue to go down from this point, Ann doesn't seen to have left herself any place else to go but to sit the election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:39 pm
Posts: 926
Location: Grosse Pointe
I strongly agree with you; Ann is 100% correct on this one.

friendofGod wrote:
I understand why Ann is so fired up. I appreciate her passion and agree with her wholeheartedly. She has it right. Maybe it is some of those on the right who hate everything Romney without really listening to him that have the problem. Ann sees the big picture. And on January 21, 2013 when Obama is headed back to the White House after beating Newt if he's the nominee.... there won't be a damn thing we can do about it. Newt can put down the media all he wants, and rant at those who ask the hard questions and it will mean NOTHING.

We MUST have a new president. Newt is not the one the middle of this country will elect. He is like the Nancy Pelosi of the right...with mistresses. Please people...think.

Keep it up Ann...we need you!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11769
michigancastaway wrote:
With his record, why would you consider either Santorum or Gingrich unelectable? Their worst baggage pales compared to the damage Obama has done.
Did you ever notice the Dems have no self-doubt. They just go hard left, and tell the middle, this is normal. Duh!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11769
Volition wrote:
I strongly agree with you; Ann is 100% correct on this one.
Excellent points. Very articulate.

She sounds like Madame Dufarge of the French Revolution yelling, "guillotine" every time the thought of Gingrich's existence enters her head.

Ann's endorsements
Hillary over McCain
Never endorsed McCain over Obama
Christie over the field before there was a field
Romney over the field

Everyone one of these decisions goes Left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11769
Demiurge wrote:
Nevermind if Newt can or can't win, he's got a government solution for everything. They all do. If Santorum weren't just a hanger on we'd see his big government record too. I'll back any of these guys over Obama, but I damn well am not going to lie to myself about who they are -- big government Republicans.
A few things. First, I'll never understand why Gingrich actually shrinking the government doesn't count with you. Second, if Paul had his way, he would shrink the big government down to the Articles of Confederation; he is literaly a confederate and not a conservative, IMO - and goes too far - but I'd give him chance considering where he is starting from (Fed Govt is 26 percent of GDP. Third, Romney actually socialized medecine. He doesn't believe in personal economic liberty - at all - that I can see. He describes mandates as conservatism. If that's conservative, what would we get if he decides to tack to his left?

So yes, three of them are more "big government" than me. Reagan was less conservative than me. Only Paul would agree with me that mandated car insurance is no different than mandated health insurace, that unalienable rights are unalienable. However, there is a clear distinction to me among them - as to being big government. From big to zero: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul.

For example, look at Gingrich's paper on the Exec and Leg branches, waking up, reading the Constitution, and recognizes they have the power to stop a renegade liberal Judiciary from usurping legislative and executive functions. Name one thing that either Romney or Santorum have that involves as much "shrinkage" of govt as this one idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 1
MY wife & I have also been admirers of Ann, but her vindictiveness--bordering on hatefulness--has lost us!

Pretty much agree with madams on this: they all have baggage....& Newt seems to be our best shot but, of course, we'll support anyone [maybe even "anything"] over his high-and-mightyness.

[In all fairness to Santorum, he lost his last run pretty much due to the Obama sweep].

God help us!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:53 am
Posts: 12703
Location: Concealed.
The top three GOP candidates are electable in a general.

The numbers from South Carolina make it clear that independents and women voted for Newt and rejected Romney. Is this real momentum or just a bump from beat the press? The real point is however that all three are competitive with Obama on a national poll.

23 Jan 2012 Rasmussen
Quote:
Today’s numbers show Obama at 45% and Romney at 43%. Matched against Gingrich, the president leads 48% to 39%. Romney trails by nine among women while Gingrich trails by twelve. Among men, Romney has a slight advantage over the president while Gingrich is down six.


23 Jan 2012 Rasmussen
Quote:
Brand new numbers from Florida show that New Gingrich is still on a roll. In the Sunshine State, it’s Gingrich at 41% and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 32%.


Perhaps its time for all conservatives to take a deep breath, step back and look at the race in its new perspective.

Palin thus far has the right attitude...let it play...
if Newt is going to implode or Romney fade away or Santorum break out of the pack then that is what will happen.

The passion of Ann Coulter for conservatism was on display on O'Reilly last evening and I say good for her.

I also say that posters who disagree with her need to keep silent or keep respectful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:34 am
Posts: 3773
Location: West Virginia USA
I think her tirade about Newt and his anti-media campaign is missing the mark too.
Conservatives are sick and tired of being branded scum/stupid/evil/too religious and so on, Newt's attacks on the media are ringing a positive and emotional note with voters and he'd be stupid not to keep it up.

I'm a fan of our gracious and lovely hostess here, but I've been disagreeing with her almost completely on issues of this Republican primary season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11769
Casey wrote:
MY wife & I have also been admirers of Ann, but her vindictiveness--bordering on hatefulness--has lost us!
I am not exactly looking forward to buying her next book, either.

And, :cry: I guess, I am starting to feel a little used.

:laugh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11769
monticello wrote:
The top three GOP candidates are electable in a general.
Poor, Ron Paul.

I keep coming back to history, In Jan 80, Reagan was polling 25-30 points behind. In Oct, 10-15 points behind. The middle collapsed on Carter the last few weeks before the election - landslide with a second Republican making it a three-way race. When this guy has to defend Obamacare, shutting down oil wells, blocking pipelines, shutting down coal mines, enriching his friends by stealing GM and funding phoney solar companies - EVERY DAY - how does he get to 50%.

There are two - count them, two - Presidential campaigns: 1) it's time for a chance, and 2) you never had it so good. Obama already tried the first, and can't try the second. IMO, he loses to anyone with a pulse ( :laugh: and stop that, I know what you are thinking about Ron Paul re the "pulse" comment).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:34 am
Posts: 1
Wow! I've been a fan of Anns for a long time, but she sounds a little nutsy as of lately. Consider this, the only support Mitt has gotten is in the NE and from campaigns that allowed Dems and Independents a vote! I pure Republican Campaigns, he loses and will continue to lose because we don't trust him. Newt can win! We trust him more, he's not ideal, but he is the best of the four remaining! Sorry Ann.... you're wrong on this one!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:51 pm
Posts: 1067
Ray Gun wrote:
monticello wrote:
The top three GOP candidates are electable in a general.
Poor, Ron Paul.

I keep coming back to history, In Jan 80, Reagan was polling 25-30 points behind. In Oct, 10-15 points behind. The middle collapsed on Carter the last few weeks before the election - landslide with a second Republican making it a three-way race. When this guy has to defend Obamacare, shutting down oil wells, blocking pipelines, shutting down coal mines, enriching his friends by stealing GM and funding phoney solar companies - EVERY DAY - how does he get to 50%.

There are two - count them, two - Presidential campaigns: 1) it's time for a chance, and 2) you never had it so good. Obama already tried the first, and can't try the second. IMO, he loses to anyone with a pulse ( :laugh: and stop that, I know what you are thinking about Ron Paul re the "pulse" comment).


Actually, the "you never had it so good" pitch will secure the entire Democrat Dependent Class that is sober and animated enough to ambulate to the polls on election day. That's going to be a national block vote of about 47.3% of the electorate. Maybe more if all those union shop maintained public school busses mysteriously turn over and run on that day.

I am the 53%,
E88


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:53 am
Posts: 12703
Location: Concealed.
:trainwreck:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11769
eminence88 wrote:
Actually, the "you never had it so good" pitch will secure the entire Democrat Dependent Class that is sober and animated enough to ambulate to the polls on election day. That's going to be a national block vote of about 47.3% of the electorate. Maybe more if all those union shop maintained public school busses mysteriously turn over and run on that day.
I think your national block vote is too high. Everything you said was just as true when Reagan carried 49 states, and his wake gave Bush 40 states. And it was just as true in 2010, and the other off-year elections, in which Dems lost. And it was just as true in 2008, when Obama had everything going his was, and only got to you 53%. (Well, 52.7).

Only 3 percent of the country (voters) has to change its mind for Obama to lose.
Only 2 percent have to change their minds, if his "historic" turnout goes down 1 percent and the Tea Party movement jazzes up the Republican turnout 1 percent.
Only everyone who is currently being polled as saying he doesn't deserve re-election versus those who say he does has to vote that way, and it will be a Republican landslide.
Only everyone in the middle 20 percent that voted for Obama 13 to 7 that have disapproved of him 14 to 6 for the last two years has to vote the way they are being polled for Obama to lose solidly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:51 pm
Posts: 1067
Ray Gun wrote:
eminence88 wrote:
Actually, the "you never had it so good" pitch will secure the entire Democrat Dependent Class that is sober and animated enough to ambulate to the polls on election day. That's going to be a national block vote of about 47.3% of the electorate. Maybe more if all those union shop maintained public school busses mysteriously turn over and run on that day.
I think your national block vote is too high. Everything you said was just as true when Reagan carried 49 states, and his wake gave Bush 40 states. And it was just as true in 2010, and the other off-year elections, in which Dems lost. And it was just as true in 2008, when Obama had everything going his was, and only got to you 53%. (Well, 52.7).

Only 3.8 percent of the country (voters) has to change its mind for Obama to lose.
Only 2.5 percent have to change their minds, if his "historic" turnout goes down 1,5 percent and the Tea Party movement jazzes up the Republican turnout 1,5 percent.
Only everyone who is currently being polled as saying he doesn't deserve re-election versus those who say he does has to vote that way, and it will be a Republican landslide.
Only everyone in the middle 20 percent that voted for Obama 13 to 7 that have disapproved of him 14 to 6 for the last two years has to vote the way they are being polled for Obama to lose solidly.


Yeah, but... The reality is that the popular vote doesn't rule in the election of POTUS. The electoral college is what matters. That 47.3% can deliver the final verdict on America. The Democrat Party understands this well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:53 am
Posts: 12703
Location: Concealed.
Ray Gun wrote:
monticello wrote:
The top three GOP candidates are electable in a general.
Poor, Ron Paul.

I keep coming back to history, In Jan 80, Reagan was polling 25-30 points behind. In Oct, 10-15 points behind. The middle collapsed on Carter the last few weeks before the election - landslide with a second Republican making it a three-way race. When this guy has to defend Obamacare, shutting down oil wells, blocking pipelines, shutting down coal mines, enriching his friends by stealing GM and funding phoney solar companies - EVERY DAY - how does he get to 50%.

There are two - count them, two - Presidential campaigns: 1) it's time for a chance, and 2) you never had it so good. Obama already tried the first, and can't try the second. IMO, he loses to anyone with a pulse ( :laugh: and stop that, I know what you are thinking about Ron Paul re the "pulse" comment).


Hush! The Great Obfuscater speaks!

Do you realize you are totally incoherent?

You know what white noise is?

Please try again.....

Quote:
"its time for a chance."

:laugh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:20 am
Posts: 22899
Location: Occupying only 4 of the 11 dimensions
Ann was her usual superb self on O'Reilly last night. Does anyone else get away with yelling at Big Bill like that?

Anyway, we find out that Lady Ann is a rock-ribbed Romney supporter. This mostly appears to be the result of a deep-seated dislike (shared by many) for Newt. She also pronounces Mitt to be "the most conservative Republican in the race".

So, Mitt-haters, what say you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:34 am
Posts: 3773
Location: West Virginia USA
Starman wrote:
Ann was her usual superb self on O'Reilly last night. Does anyone else get away with yelling at Big Bill like that?

Anyway, we find out that Lady Ann is a rock-ribbed Romney supporter. This mostly appears to be the result of a deep-seated dislike (shared by many) for Newt. She also pronounces Mitt to be "the most conservative Republican in the race".

So, Mitt-haters, what say you?


I love her fire, and enjoyed her yelling at O'Bill.

I think she's totally wrong on Mitt, IMHO he's another McLame and has no chance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:49 am
Posts: 16732
Location: MI
What about Rick Santorum? He's more conservative than Mitt Romney.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:20 pm
Posts: 12768
Starman wrote:
Ann was her usual superb self on O'Reilly last night. Does anyone else get away with yelling at Big Bill like that?

Anyway, we find out that Lady Ann is a rock-ribbed Romney supporter. This mostly appears to be the result of a deep-seated dislike (shared by many) for Newt. She also pronounces Mitt to be "the most conservative Republican in the race".

So, Mitt-haters, what say you?


I stopped O'Reilly years ago...good on her for taking it to him..

I can't figure Ann out...A True CONSERVATIVE would not have lost to McCain in '08. I think her Northeastern upbringing and early Libertarian views seem to have surfaced.. :shrug: :shrug:

Ann's pronouncement doesn't make Mitt a conservative...

Personally, I don't hate Mitt. I simply want a conservative as our nominee...

Maybe it is regional. Maybe there is the southern brand of conservatism (The only TRUE CONSERVATISM) vs the lame Northeaster conservatism.. :gha: :gha:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:53 am
Posts: 12703
Location: Concealed.
Starman wrote:
So, Mitt-haters, what say you?


:nobite:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:25 am
Posts: 9148
Location: Up with the sun, Gone with the wind
lennyisright wrote:
Starman wrote:
Ann was her usual superb self on O'Reilly last night. Does anyone else get away with yelling at Big Bill like that?

Anyway, we find out that Lady Ann is a rock-ribbed Romney supporter. This mostly appears to be the result of a deep-seated dislike (shared by many) for Newt. She also pronounces Mitt to be "the most conservative Republican in the race".

So, Mitt-haters, what say you?


I stopped O'Reilly years ago...good on her for taking it to him..

I can't figure Ann out...A True CONSERVATIVE would not have lost to McCain in '08. I think her Northeastern upbringing and early Libertarian views seem to have surfaced.. :shrug: :shrug:

Ann's pronouncement doesn't make Mitt a conservative...

Personally, I don't hate Mitt. I simply want a conservative as our nominee...

Maybe it is regional. Maybe there is the southern brand of conservatism (The only TRUE CONSERVATISM) vs the lame Northeaster conservatism.. :gha: :gha:



Any good Southerner knows that anyone North of I-10 is a yankee. :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:53 am
Posts: 12703
Location: Concealed.
rushrock wrote:
lennyisright wrote:
Starman wrote:
Ann was her usual superb self on O'Reilly last night. Does anyone else get away with yelling at Big Bill like that?

Anyway, we find out that Lady Ann is a rock-ribbed Romney supporter. This mostly appears to be the result of a deep-seated dislike (shared by many) for Newt. She also pronounces Mitt to be "the most conservative Republican in the race".

So, Mitt-haters, what say you?


I stopped O'Reilly years ago...good on her for taking it to him..

I can't figure Ann out...A True CONSERVATIVE would not have lost to McCain in '08. I think her Northeastern upbringing and early Libertarian views seem to have surfaced.. :shrug: :shrug:

Ann's pronouncement doesn't make Mitt a conservative...

Personally, I don't hate Mitt. I simply want a conservative as our nominee...

Maybe it is regional. Maybe there is the southern brand of conservatism (The only TRUE CONSERVATISM) vs the lame Northeaster conservatism.. :gha: :gha:



Any good Southerner knows that anyone North of I-10 is a yankee. :nod:


:laugh: Only mossbacks and swamp rats live South of I-10, don't you guys have to get a visa to visit the real USA?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:47 pm
Posts: 1393
Location: USA
Ray Gun wrote:
Casey wrote:
MY wife & I have also been admirers of Ann, but her vindictiveness--bordering on hatefulness--has lost us!
I am not exactly looking forward to buying her next book, either.

And, :cry: I guess, I am starting to feel a little used.

:laugh:



Used?! We should all be bowing and thanking her. She is trying to ensure Obama is defeated. Don't be so sure your way of seeing things is right. This is HER website after all. She's the one who is a great success as a conservative commentator. She didn't get there by just bashing the obvious. She uses her brain. A very good one at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:31 pm
Posts: 250
Location: Michigan
I would say puzzled is the word, not used.

Its as if she does not believe a conservative candidate can win. She hates Palin, was no fan of Perry or Cain, but loves the NE liberal candidates (Christie and Romney). Its as if she does not believe we will vote for an imperfect conservative but need our own nice, clean, articulate, won't offend anyone, moderate candidate. I have no confidence that either Christie or Romney would even try to undo Obamacare. What good is it to elect anyone that will preserve the status quo?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11769
friendofGod wrote:
Used?! We should all be bowing and thanking her. She is trying to ensure Obama is defeated.
Is that what she was doing by endorsing Hillary over McCain, gettin unhinged trashing McCain? And she never endorsed McCain If Gingrich wins, it will be the same thing. She will have trashed the Republican.

Also, there is that little sticking point. The goal is defeating Progressivism and Obama. Only defeating Obama, like with a guy who called himself a "progressive" and socialized medecine might not actually be "defeating" the other side.

Quote:
Don't be so sure your way of seeing things is right. This is HER website after all. She's the one who is a great success as a conservative commentator. She didn't get there by just bashing the obvious. She uses her brain. A very good one at that.
In the words of Ann Coulter, stop arguing like liberal. You are using the same fallacies she describes in her books. Can you list them?

And as to bowing down to anyone? I am American. Obama bows. Maybe you ARE liberal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:50 pm
Posts: 11769
michigancastaway wrote:
I would say puzzled is the word, not used.
The joke was that undetectable?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:37 pm
Posts: 8859
Location: Minnesoooota
I can't bear to watch Ann doing this. I will take your word for it.

I will vote for the not-Obama. I may have to chug a pint of the hard stuff and take a cab home from the voting place but I will vote for Romney.

Why go off the deep and and say he is conservative?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group