Search "sirmoonie" on the Couch. Read the last one. That I actually posted, I mean. Not some stuff that you whined about later.
Then, search your own e-mail arhcives for correspondence between Telecater and yourself, whether copied or not.
Then do Boolean "Starbuck" "PDog" "dirty laundry" on RO - I don't know how to do it, I don't care enought try now. Hell, just ask PDog right here, right now what he said. He can confirm, deny, or say he doesn't know.
Then you go find your stuff, boy. You posted info. You were jumping up and down in the air, when you did. Go find that stuff. Post it here man. Post that "outed" bit you were all wrapped about. Post that.
I said, paraphrased now, I don't know what you see in her, maybe she has some dirty laundry on him and is black mailing him with it, maybe that's why he's attacking his friends...
That's all i said... nothing more... Anyone could infer what they want about it, but that's there shit...
And a point of order, dude you're the only one I ever saw post about having phone sex, I assumed it was in jest, and never cared much if it was for real or not.
You told me to leave "her" alone, and said i was picking on a girl... However, when "she" ruthlessly attacked women on this board you said nothing...
In your own way, you've transcended bush geekness and amplified the definition. She is the internet version of the Iraq war, and you stayed the fucking course. And just like President fuckstick, you don't even know you're fooling yourself, b/c you are not listening to your dog!
17th December 2006 12:08 AM
Maxlugar
quote:sirmoonie wrote:
WTF?
Search "sirmoonie" on the Couch. Read the last one. That I actually posted, I mean. Not some stuff that you whined about later.
Then, search your own e-mail arhcives for correspondence between Telecater and yourself, whether copied or not.
Then do Boolean "Starbuck" "PDog" "dirty laundry" on RO - I don't know how to do it, I don't care enought try now. Hell, just ask PDog right here, right now what he said. He can confirm, deny, or say he doesn't know.
Then you go find your stuff, boy. You posted info. You were jumping up and down in the air, when you did. Go find that stuff. Post it here man. Post that "outed" bit you were all wrapped about. Post that.
Gayest posted shit ever. Frig that's gay! Tee to the hee, faig!
17th December 2006 12:12 AM
Starbuck
max!
emergency couch chat??
17th December 2006 01:55 AM
sirmoonie
quote:pdog wrote:
I said, paraphrased now, I don't know what you see in her, maybe she has some dirty laundry on him and is black mailing him with it, maybe that's why he's attacking his friends...
That's all i said... nothing more... Anyone could infer what they want about it, but that's there shit...
And a point of order, dude you're the only one I ever saw post about having phone sex, I assumed it was in jest, and never cared much if it was for real or not.
You told me to leave "her" alone, and said i was picking on a girl... However, when "she" ruthlessly attacked women on this board you said nothing...
Here man, I'm not ready to call you a goddam liar yet, so for now its just a wee little memory jogger for you. I searched for "phone sex" all Boolean like - Boo O' Lean - and this is what I got:
I've seen you say it at least two other times, in addition to the "dirty laundry" posts you made about me here on Rocks Off. I think thats fucked up accusing me of phone sex - first of all, unlike yours, my dick is too big to fit into a goddam phone jack. But more importantly, you could really fuck someone up tossing around loose statements like that. Which, if you think about it, is what started "this" no? You know what I'm talking about regarding damaging gossip and it getting plastered, right? YOU DO know what I'm talking about, right?
And please don't take my silence, or anyone else's silence for that matter, to be some kind of approval of "ruthless" attacks. Attacks happen here, there, and everywhere every day, if reasonable people were expected to denounce every one of them, that fucking faggit Telecaster would be the most replied to fag on the interent. And he wasn't and he's not - in fact, when he comes back - as if he ever fucking left - he'll be greeted and Geeked heartily. Go figure man. And anyway, I did tell Dandelion she was out of line once, right here on RO I did - but I never followed that drama after that, and the scolding you gave me - I didn't get it, just didn't - I couldn't follow it because it was unfolding too fast for my brain, and I never saw half the stuff she and you and others were referring back to. Then I saw my name in it.
17th December 2006 02:43 AM
Fiji Joe
Cited, copied, shrinkwrapped and de-sanitized for truth, accuracy and backchannelness
http://www.maxlugar.com/forum/detail.asp?Id=68224
http://www.maxlugar.com/forum/detail.asp?Id=68413
Link 1...So let's see...we're to believe that dude is outraged by accusations of phone sex between to nameless individuals (dude's name or even his fake name never were mentioned you know?) when dude himself, placed an open invitation for same?
Link 2 and the responding threads...yeah...let's just ponder the significance of that one...I've said all along there were dueling creepy backchannels...one backchannel came clean...that other backchannel, the one all hopped up on ludes and ripple, well they're still in denial
[Edited by Fiji Joe]
17th December 2006 03:11 AM
Theater of theAbsurd
quote:Fiji Joe wrote:
Cited, copied, shrinkwrapped and de-sanitized for truth, accuracy and backchannelness
http://www.maxlugar.com/forum/detail.asp?Id=68224
http://www.maxlugar.com/forum/detail.asp?Id=68413
Link 1...So let's see...we're to believe that dude is outraged by accusations of phone sex between to nameless individuals (dude's name or even his fake name never were mentioned you know?) when dude himself, placed an open invitation for same?
Link 2 and the responding threads...yeah...let's just ponder the significance of that one...I've said all along there were dueling creepy backchannels...one backchannel came clean...that other backchannel, the one all hopped up on ludes and ripple, well they're still in denial
[Edited by Fiji Joe]
I think you should check the dates. Nonetheless, this is very entertaining.
"Posted by Pdog on 8/18/2006 5:45:36 PM (49 views)
You are not logged In [Login] [Rolling Stones Message Board] [All Forums]
Fuck her and fuck Tayla. One is an asshole and the other finds excuses for everything, and when we help rejects the help, and complains we don't understand her.
Tayla and The Bitch, the perfect couple.
The only problem is we can't get Tayla to meet anyone!
The Bitch is ugly too... God I hope my former friend isn't really doing phone sex with her!
Pdog's signature:
"Whatever side I take, I know well that I will be blamed."
"Do you take drugs Danny?"
Wouldn't it be neat if there were a Stones "museum"? "
[Edited by Theater of theAbsurd]
17th December 2006 03:16 AM
pdog
Fuckin' A right Fiji... Seems he can't handle me commenting on his comments about phone sex... And now, to infer that b/c I thought "she" had some dirty laundry on him, that meant I was commenting on his phone sex comments I'd seen him make a dozen times in chat and a few posts. For one of the smartest people I've ever met, he missed the obvious, I never said she was black mailing him, only commented that would explain why he turned on his friends. And I never mentioned anything about phone sex in that comment. But the truth is, he turned on me, telling me I was picking on a girl.
17th December 2006 03:20 AM
pdog
quote:Theater of theAbsurd wrote:
I think you should check the dates. Nonetheless, this is very entertaining.
"Posted by Pdog on 8/18/2006 5:45:36 PM (49 views)
You are not logged In [Login] [Rolling Stones Message Board] [All Forums]
Fuck her and fuck Tayla. One is an asshole and the other finds excuses for everything, and when we help rejects the help, and complains we don't understand her.
Tayla and The Bitch, the perfect couple.
The only problem is we can't get Tayla to meet anyone!
The Bitch is ugly too... God I hope my former friend isn't really doing phone sex with her!
Pdog's signature:
"Whatever side I take, I know well that I will be blamed."
"Do you take drugs Danny?"
Wouldn't it be neat if there were a Stones "museum"? "
[Edited by Theater of theAbsurd]
If you need the dates checked, than you would've had to have been in chat, that's what I was commenting on in my post... He said it there... and if you can read English my comment is still taking the position that I hoped he was joking...
17th December 2006 03:20 AM
Theater of theAbsurd
quote:pdog wrote:
Fuckin' A right Fiji... Seems he can't handle me commenting on his comments about phone sex... And now, to infer that b/c I thought "she" had some dirty laundry on him, that meant I was commenting on his phone sex comments I'd seen him make a dozen times in chat and a few posts. For one of the smartest people I've ever met, he missed the obvious, I never said she was black mailing him, only commented that would explain why he turned on his friends. And I never mentioned anything about phone sex in that comment. But the truth is, he turned on me, telling me I was picking on a girl.
You really can't handle getting busted, can you?
All Forums - Rolling Stones Message Board [Back]
Phone Sex
Posted by sirmoonie on 11/9/2006 11:01:56 PM (39 views)
Modified by sirmoonie on 11/10/2006 3:52:10 AM
You are not logged In [Login] [Rolling Stones Message Board] [All Forums]
Ladies, one night special only! 617-262-9600, room [edited], call now half price - results guaranteed or your money back. Call now!
Limited offer. Sex not included.
[Edited by admin]
{Edited by Muffy]
[E-bang]
sirmoonie's signature:
Nation time!
17th December 2006 03:28 AM
pdog
quote:Theater of theAbsurd wrote:
You really can't handle getting busted, can you?
All Forums - Rolling Stones Message Board [Back]
Phone Sex
Posted by sirmoonie on 11/9/2006 11:01:56 PM (39 views)
Modified by sirmoonie on 11/10/2006 3:52:10 AM
You are not logged In [Login] [Rolling Stones Message Board] [All Forums]
Ladies, one night special only! 617-262-9600, room [edited], call now half price - results guaranteed or your money back. Call now!
Limited offer. Sex not included.
[Edited by admin]
{Edited by Muffy]
[E-bang]
sirmoonie's signature:
Nation time!
Busted for what? Dudes married! His chat comments about phone sex with her were weeks before any post... Don't be an obvious idiot, If i posted I hope he's not doing something, it obviously came from somewhere, and that somewhere was him chatting about it. Chat rooms, like here are public forums.
17th December 2006 03:35 AM
gypsy
quote:pdog wrote:
Busted for what? Dudes married! His chat comments about phone sex with her were weeks before any post... Don't be an obvious idiot, If i posted I hope he's not doing something, it obviously came from somewhere, and that somewhere was him chatting about it. Chat rooms, like here are public forums.
You are such an idiot that it frustrates me to no end. And this goes for you too, Feej.
moonie merely joked about phone sex AFTER you accused him of doing it. And you KEEP on accusing him of doing it. Why? It's so obvious that you and a few other members of your freak clique have been threatening other posters for several months now, and mass e-mailing and whining to other webmasters about people who actually had the nerve to call you out on your threats. You're nothing but a bunch of cyberbullies.
And posting people's emails?! That was a new low. You all simply cannot fathom that some people might just want to keep their emails private even if they do not have anything to hide. NOTHING is sacred to you guys...NOTHING.
You all have totally slandered me to death on your lames ass board. The rumors about me are absolutely false.
[Edited by gypsy]
17th December 2006 07:42 AM
lotsajizz
quote:gypsy wrote:
You are such an idiot that it frustrates me to no end. And this goes for you too, Feej.
moonie merely joked about phone sex AFTER you accused him of doing it. And you KEEP on accusing him of doing it. Why? It's so obvious that you and a few other members of your freak clique have been threatening other posters for several months now, and mass e-mailing and whining to other webmasters about people who actually had the nerve to call you out on your threats. You're nothing but a bunch of cyberbullies.
And posting people's emails?! That was a new low. You all simply cannot fathom that some people might just want to keep their emails private even if they do not have anything to hide. NOTHING is sacred to you guys...NOTHING.
You all have totally slandered me to death on your lames ass board. The rumors about me are absolutely false.
[Edited by gypsy]
Feej and his cohorts are real sickos....
17th December 2006 09:24 AM
Theater of theAbsurd
quote:pdog wrote:
Busted for what? Dudes married! His chat comments about phone sex with her were weeks before any post... Don't be an obvious idiot, If i posted I hope he's not doing something, it obviously came from somewhere, and that somewhere was him chatting about it. Chat rooms, like here are public forums.
If you can't see how totally deranged and way out of line just this ONE post of yours is, you are a moron. You also have no sense of humor. Those threads (and most likely things said in chat as well) are obviously jokes.
By the way, are there not threads on The Couch board right now between married posters talking to other married posters about having sex together? Does your wife know that you have porn gifs as your sinature?
I thought this was a Hitchens vs Coulter thread, but in a quite amusing way, it still is.
Guess who's who?
17th December 2006 09:27 AM
Theater of theAbsurd
quote:Theater of theAbsurd wrote:
Does your wife know that you have porn gifs as your sinature?
Haha. I made a most amusing typo. I am keeping it up.
17th December 2006 11:44 AM
Fiji Joe
quote:gypsy wrote:
You are such an idiot that it frustrates me to no end. And this goes for you too, Feej.
moonie merely joked about phone sex AFTER you accused him of doing it. And you KEEP on accusing him of doing it. Why? It's so obvious that you and a few other members of your freak clique have been threatening other posters for several months now, and mass e-mailing and whining to other webmasters about people who actually had the nerve to call you out on your threats. You're nothing but a bunch of cyberbullies.
And posting people's emails?! That was a new low. You all simply cannot fathom that some people might just want to keep their emails private even if they do not have anything to hide. NOTHING is sacred to you guys...NOTHING.
You all have totally slandered me to death on your lames ass board. The rumors about me are absolutely false.
[Edited by gypsy]
This is funny coming from you...you had been backchanneling me and others for years Gypsy...years...I just let it ride...never said a thing about it...but I knew it was being done..and now, when your same backchannel turned on you, you freaked...all that should have stayed in the backchannel...and now you're crying it came out...when you and crackers are the one who brought all that out with your petty jealousy of all the other women on these boards who are more liked than yourself...you attacked them mercilessly...people who had nothing to do with you and who have never corresponded with you ever..whyb did you do that?...you've proven yourself to be one of the nastiest people on these boards...please don't make me link all the crap you've posted about people and their families...please don't
17th December 2006 11:50 AM
Fiji Joe
And Gypsy, link me to emails I posted...do it...I've never done that...my aninmosity towards you, as I said, come from your backachanneling of me for a long time...and your very very nasty attacks on people and their family....like when they post their wives pics and you calls their wives waterbuffalos..that kind of stuff...no one has ever, ever told me anything of your personal life or personal doings...you should know that...maybe it makes a difference
17th December 2006 11:52 AM
Fiji Joe
quote:lotsajizz wrote:
Feej and his cohorts are real sickos....
Dude, you're the biggest congenital liar on this board...lame little ass-clown you are you actually went on Keno's telling lies about Lugar to try and screw up his site...why?..why you do that?...I thought that odd
17th December 2006 11:58 AM
Maxlugar
quote:gypsy wrote:
You are such an idiot that it frustrates me to no end. And this goes for you too, Feej.
moonie merely joked about phone sex AFTER you accused him of doing it. And you KEEP on accusing him of doing it. Why? It's so obvious that you and a few other members of your freak clique have been threatening other posters for several months now, and mass e-mailing and whining to other webmasters about people who actually had the nerve to call you out on your threats. You're nothing but a bunch of cyberbullies.
And posting people's emails?! That was a new low. You all simply cannot fathom that some people might just want to keep their emails private even if they do not have anything to hide. NOTHING is sacred to you guys...NOTHING.
You all have totally slandered me to death on your lames ass board. The rumors about me are absolutely false.
[Edited by gypsy]
I'm not sure what this is all about, but I'm absolutely certain you are the nastiest poster these boards have ever seen. It took real gall for you to write that.
Oh, and "Lame ass board"? Can we all see your secret Anita site please? I'm sure that's a real treasure. What is the link?
17th December 2006 12:00 PM
Fiji Joe
A secret site?...for backchannel stuff and whatnot?
17th December 2006 12:10 PM
Riffhard
Merry Christmas all!
Riffy
17th December 2006 12:12 PM
Maxlugar
quote:Fiji Joe wrote:
A secret site?...for backchannel stuff and whatnot?
I guess so. I've never seen it. It was invitation only. I believe it was the epicenter of Back Channel Operations. I hope to see it someday. And to meet it. And to get it's autograph.
Why is everyone so mad at emails being posted but I've never seen one person attack the poster who posted them? Sherat. I don't want people attacking Sherat, I love the chick, but I find it odd. Why is that Feej?
17th December 2006 12:18 PM
Maxlugar
quote:Riffhard wrote:
Merry Christmas all!
Riffy
Thanks Riffy. God bless us all, everyone.
17th December 2006 12:26 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:Maxlugar wrote:
I guess so. I've never seen it. It was invitation only. I believe it was the epicenter of Back Channel Operations. I hope to see it someday. And to meet it. And to get it's autograph.
Why is everyone so mad at emails being posted but I've never seen one person attack the poster who posted them? Sherat. I don't want people attacking Sherat, I love the chick, but I find it odd. Why is that Feej?
I could care less..backchannel creepers were raising hell about the backchannel...raising it I say...and when the backchannel came to the front channel, and it was learned that those people complainng were in the backchannel, well, you saw what happened...some went nuts...others just ran away
I found all that cleansing...aside from the revelation that some was accusing me of having sex with another poster (I deny that btw), there was nothing really there...just the obvious...that backchannel goes way back...long before you and I were ever copied on any emails...it's just funny that the same people complaiming they're being backchanneled are the same ones doing the most protesting regarding the disclosure of emails
But as far as the disclosure of those emails, it had to be done...you'll recall crackers and her friend were putting words in others mouths...claiming that things were being said...the dosclosure of those emails cleared all that up...they were lying of course
17th December 2006 12:28 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:Riffhard wrote:
Merry Christmas all!
Riffy
Merry Christmas Riff....and a great New Year to you.
17th December 2006 12:40 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Merry Christmas Riff....and a great New Year to you.
Send me a copy of Call of Duty III...I'll get you something cool too...you like fruitcake?
17th December 2006 12:44 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:Fiji Joe wrote:
Send me a copy of Call of Duty III...I'll get you something cool too...you like fruitcake?
I don't get it.
17th December 2006 12:51 PM
Fiji Joe
quote:Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
I don't get it.
Exchange of gifts...you sure you ever been to a Christmas?
17th December 2006 01:02 PM
Ten Thousand Motels
quote:Fiji Joe wrote:
Exchange of gifts...you sure you ever been to a Christmas?
Oh. Sure I'd send you a gift if I could.
Merry Christmas Feej.
17th December 2006 02:41 PM
Theater of theAbsurd
quote:Fiji Joe wrote:
I could care less..backchannel creepers were raising hell about the backchannel...raising it I say...and when the backchannel came to the front channel, and it was learned that those people complainng were in the backchannel, well, you saw what happened...some went nuts...others just ran away
I found all that cleansing...aside from the revelation that some was accusing me of having sex with another poster (I deny that btw), there was nothing really there...just the obvious...that backchannel goes way back...long before you and I were ever copied on any emails...it's just funny that the same people complaiming they're being backchanneled are the same ones doing the most protesting regarding the disclosure of emails
But as far as the disclosure of those emails, it had to be done...you'll recall crackers and her friend were putting words in others mouths...claiming that things were being said...the dosclosure of those emails cleared all that up...they were lying of course
Like I said Ms. Coulter#2, this thread is still oddly and ironically still on topic.
Spin, lies and slander. You were caught with your pants down, and responded by posting a load of further accusations and nonsense.
I'm so shocked.
17th December 2006 03:33 PM
Theater of theAbsurd
Christopher Hitchens
GODLESS: The Church of Liberalism, by Ann Coulter (Crown Forum / 310pp. / £16.99)
Try sipping this single sentence and then rolling it around your tongue and palate for a while:
If Hitler hadn’t turned against their beloved Stalin, liberals would have stuck by him, too.
Well, I am being paid to parse and ponder that statement and I don’t understand it, either. Does it intend to say that liberals loved Hitler but drew the line at his invasion of the Soviet Union? Should it, rather, be interpreted as meaning that liberals were in love with Stalin but jumped ship when he was attacked by Hitler? It is remarkable to find so much intellectual and syntactical chaos in an assertion that contains no more than fifteen words.
But then, I have the distinct feeling that people do not buy Ann Coulter’s creed-screeds and speed-reads in order to enhance their knowledge of history or their command of syllogism. She has emerged as a persona because she has mastered the politics of resentment, and because she can combine the ideology of Human Events (the obscure ‘Joe McCarthy was right’ magazine) with the demand of the chat-show bookers for a tall blonde with a very rapid delivery on a wide range of subjects. The cover of this book – which follows the success of its forerunners Treason and Slander: titles that require little elucidation – shows her in a low-cut black dress with a prominent crucifix dangling over a modest cleavage. The needs of showbiz notwithstanding, I cannot fathom the reason for this slight come-hitherishness. Miss Coulter is not married and ought therefore, by her own loudly-proclaimed standards, to be a virgin and to remain so until further notice.
I used to know her slightly during the days when we both believed, for different reasons, that Bill Clinton was unfit to be President. I well remember her shock and anguish when Paula Jones, whose lawsuit had initiated the impeachment meltdown, posed in the buff for an inexpensive men’s magazine. I took the view that even a bad girl has the right not to be crudely importuned by her politician boss, but Miss Coulter seemed deeply and genuinely shocked: she had believed all along that Paula was a fragrant young thing, quite innocent of the vile nature of the male animal; and it is this innocence of her own, I think, for which she attempts to compensate by adopting a tough-guy (yes, I do mean to say ‘guy’) manner.
Here is another instance of the sheer incoherence that results from a mixture of feigned rage and low sarcasm:
If liberals are on Red Alert with one born-again Christian in the cabinet of a Christian president, imagine how they would react if there were five. Between 25 and 45 percent of the population calls itself “born-again” or “evangelical” Christian. Jews make up less than 2 per cent of the nation’s population, and yet Clinton had five in his cabinet. He appointed two to the Supreme Court. Now guess which administration is called a neoconservative conspiracy? Whether Jews or Christians, liberals are always on a witch hunt against people who appear to believe in God.
Again, and quite aside from its junk statistics (that space “between 25 and 45 per cent” appears to involve quite a margin of error) and its junk statistical comparisons (does Coulter really want me to name all the Jews who serve on President Bush’s foreign-policy team?), this passage seems to license the ultra-left and ultra-right innuendo that the terms ‘neoconservative’ and ‘Jew’ are interchangeable. The intellectual disgrace of this is self-evident, and so is its vulgar ignorance: say what you will about Leo Strauss, he did not even “appear” to believe in any deity. More noticeable, though, is the way that the abject confusion, with its resounding non sequitur of a concluding sentence, impels her to the negation of her own supposed “argument”. These are the pitfalls that are set by spite and by haste, and Coulter topples leggily into them every time.
Since her books always pull enough of a crowd to put them on the bestseller list, the editors and fact-checkers at her publishing house evidently go on vacation when the manuscripts float in. For all her show of biblical learning, she does not know the meaning of the word “shibboleth”, for example. She attacks those who seek “the removal of ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance”, when the case is that the Pledge should be restored to its original form, which did not include those two words. Are not conservatives supposed to manifest great respect for ‘original intent’? And then there’s the crass choice of words:
If Democrats ever dared speak coherently about what they believe, the American people would lynch them.
Leave aside the fact that most of what Coulter adduces is taken straight from the very mouths of Democrats who are coming right out with it, and notice the clumsy elision that interchanges “liberal”, “Democrat” and “Left”(and skip over the unironic use of the word “coherently”), the term to avoid here would have been “lynch”. Never to be employed flippantly, this expression has a real-time and real-life significance, which was felt very onerously in quite recent memory. Its disappearance, and the abolition of what went with it, is admittedly not due to “Democrats”, who ran Dixie as a private fief for far too long, but does redound very much to the credit of those American liberals and – even worse! – leftists who provided most of the energy of the Civil Rights movement. The umbrella group in this campaign was even called the ‘Southern Christian Leadership Conference’, not that this prevented many secularists and atheists from participating in it. Finally, I think we can safely say that Dr Martin Luther King “appeared” to believe in god. So, slice it as you will, Coulter finds herself inventing new ways in which to be wrong.
As it goes on, the book begins to seem more like typing than writing, and its demonstration of the relationship between poor language and crude ideas becomes more overt:
Assuming you aren’t a fetus, the Left’s most dangerous belief is their adoration of violent criminals.
Well, as I try to teach my students, if you write that “as a young man, my grandmother used to read to me”, you slightly insult your grandmother by stating that she used to be a young man. It’s not that hard to make the assumption Coulter demands here – that you are neither the Left nor a fetus – but the dangler is complemented in the same sentence by an inability to associate a singular Left with its supposed adoration of violent criminals. Some right-wingers has a marked tendency to make this mistake.
Shall I be fair? Coulter was trained as a lawyer, and she does have an understanding of the rules of evidence. There is one quite strong passage where she exposes, with some forensic wit, the bogus claims made by the conceited Joseph Wilson about his dealings with Niger. Just for once, she mostly lets the record speak for itself, and thus allows the indictment of those liberals who fell for Wilson to occur, as it were, naturally. With the help of some (generously acknowledged) right-wing clippings-services and quote-providers, she has no difficulty in highlighting various jaw-dropping remarks made by feminists, ‘pro-choice’ types, Hollywood narcissists and the more Malthusian ‘environmentalist’ faction. She re-opens the case of Willie Horton, the exploitation of whose story has become a fetish among liberals, and forces the reader to reconsider. If it matters, I am with her on the tepid climate of moral and political relativism which, while it wants all children to do equally well at exam time, also regards the United States as no worse than the Taliban and thus, by an unspoken logic, as no better. But a polemic against this mentality cannot really be written by a McCarthyite.
The closing chapters are lifted from the brief submitted by the absurdly-named ‘intelligent design’ school to a recent trial in the town of Dover, Pennsylvania. Not so long ago, when the voice of liberalism was muted, the ‘Creationists’ – to give them their correct name – sought to forbid the teaching of evolution. Now that they no longer feel confident enough to impose themselves in this manner, they have fallen back on a spurious ‘equal time’ plea, whining that pseudo-science should be taught, in the name of ‘fairness’, alongside the real thing. In the Pennsylvania case, as in other recent trials in Ohio and Kansas, not only were the Creationist members of the school board thrown out by voters, but it was decided by the courts that the proposed teaching of ‘intelligent design’ was (a) a violation of the United States Constitution; and (b) a fraudulent waste of time for both teachers and judges. (By the way, it seems to me that these outcomes ought to alter the picture, beloved by so many European liberals, of the United States as a wasteland of fundamentalist knuckle-draggers). Coulter, the super-patriot and flag-waver, is a true reactionary in that she yearns for the time when the keyword of her title, as in ‘Godless Communism’, was a mantra for the simple-minded. In a world where the true enemies of civilization are much, much more godly than the blonde goddess of the hard Right, Coulter is reduced to a blitzing of soft civilian targets – one redeemed only by its built-in tendency to fall so wide of the mark.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is ‘Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man”: A Biography’.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
