Would this be mainstream American thought?
 

I stumbled across this on Yahoo News..

Op/Ed - Maggie Gallagher

I mean, what ever your take on the Mid-East..I'm for Israel because the Bible tells me so..are there really lots of Americans with such beliefs, would any on this BB hold such a belief or know anyone who does?

"As a Christian (Roman-Catholic style), I believe the Old Testament of the Bible is true."

Oddly, Roman Catholic Church the Pope and I attend, apparently unrelated to this "Christian...style" one noted here, does not endorse literal translations of the bible.

Nobody in my circle has expressed this particular sentiment around me, even though I live in Pennsyltuckey (Syc likes this term so I must use it regularly).

Um, just because it's on Yahoo doesn't mean it's mainstream.

Ms. G is quite a bit to the right of Dr. Laura, even if she's a bit more coherent. Her usual forum is TownHall.com, where she shares space with notables such as Rush Limbaugh, Robert Novak, Oliver North, and Phyllis Schlafly They keep George Will and Bill Buckley around to give the joint some class.

Short answer: I'd be hard put to tell you what mainstream American thought is, were a *very* diverse bunch. But that isn't it. :-)

Man. Ann Coulter used to write there.

Even the most leftist folks have to admit that she is a fine piece of woman. Physically, at least. I'm pretty conservative I think, but some of the shit she spouts makes me ashamed to call myself a Republican.

<homer class="drool">
Mmmmm.... Ann Coulter...
</homer>

You are right Griff, I grew up in Ireland and for anyone other then a Priest to spend much time reading the Bible would have been considered a bit ...well...Protestant.

If a Catholic "fundamentalist" had an unconditional belief in the rightness of Israel I would find it more in character if that was based on a belief that a statue of the Virgin Mary had told a bunch kids so or the like.

Ms. G must have missed ..."The word of Yahweh came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who dwells in Samaria: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, where he is gone down to take possession of it. You shall speak to him, saying, Thus says Yahweh, Have you killed and also taken possession? You shall speak to him, saying, Thus says Yahweh, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your blood, even yours." (1. Kings 21:17-19)

You can get anything you want at Alices rest... oops find support for almost any POV in the bible.

Bah. She's nothing but a blonde bimbo whose malignance is surpassed only by her sense of self-importance. I wouldn't touch her under any circumstances, for fear that my privates would shrivel up and rot away upon contact.

"That's concentrated evil! One drop of that could turn you all into hermit crabs." -- The Supreme Being, 'Time Bandits'

But see, you're exxagerating now. You know that your privates wouldn't shrivel up, and I'd bet good money that you'd at least shake her hand for $1 BN in untaxed funds. :)

I'm with vsp on this one. I wouldn't want to put my bits anywhere near her bits. I would be afraid that the bad karma she has built up after years and years of promoting hate and fear would rub off on me. And then "sorry" wouldn't be enough.

There are so many similar blonde conserva-babes around that one sometimes thinks that the "massive right-wing conspiracy", together with Fox, specifically targetted them for media use.

Somebody deep in the bowels of the beast decided that there were too many old white guys representing the right, in a new media world where you need someone to put on Politically Incorrect every week. I'm not saying they started a breeding program, I'm just saying that they kept an eye out for telegenic Aryan women in the movement and made an effort to keep their names handy in the rolodex.

Oh, c'mon guys... she's not that bad! Some of her stuff's downright funny, like the time she suggested that the U.S. attack France for supporting terrorists:
And if we're just talking about bumpin' uglies, let's be honest. Wouldn't you really rather have a night of wild monkey sex with Ann Coulter than some hairy-legged, Birkenstock Bolshevik like Anna Quindlen?

Hmmmm ... let me think about that.
 

http://www.amazon.com/covers/0/89/52...95263602.l.gif

Personally, I would fuck her rotten. Wow.

Nic - Yes, we're all aware she wrote the book. Guess what? Bill Clinton lied under oath. That's a crime. Guess what else? He called for President Nixon's resignation back in the day because "he lied to the American public" (or something very similar here - I'm recalling from memory). Bill Clinton is a liar and a hypocrite, and there's nothing wrong with the title of that book.

Nixon lied repeatedly to cover up his subversive actions against the US government and against American people. Nixon was a vile man who would lie anytime anyplace necessary to promote Nixon's agenda. He may have even ordered the breakin at Dan Rather's house, terminated by a shotgun, just to steal information. No post WWII president comes close to Nixon as a crook. His lies were repeatedly more vile than any trivial nonsense under oath. His lies were so vile that a lawyer finally had to come forth with the truth about Watergate.

"I have secret plan to end the war in VietNam". He got elected on that lie. That is worse than lying under oath especially when he then send 20,000 more Americans to death in a war that we were the enemy. Nixon feared we would learn the truth in the Pentagon papers and lied to have then covered up. Name another president who routinely lies to subvert relevant truth (at least Reagan admitted he illiegally attacked Nicaragua with mines).

Bill Clinton was a consummate politician with all the good and bad that the word implies. He was a highly conservative Democrat, the kind that had devout lefties holding their nose to vote for him (twice), and an unrepentant pussyhound (a characteristic he shares with many politicians, and which is nearly a requirement for holding office in the South). He was a liar, a schemer and a wheeler-dealer capable of selling out anything for purposes of political gain, and married to someone who's even worse in those respects. And you know what? If anything, that makes him _more_ qualified to be a politician in this day and age, because that's (unfortunately) more of the norm than the exception in the U.S.

The neo-conservatives were infuriated by his very existence -- how dare he dwell in the White House that was theirs by birthright! (Listen to some of the yobbos declaring that "God put Dubya in office" sometime, or tune into some of the talk radio programs that make Limbaugh sound like Leo Buscaglia.) Much like the current volleys at Tom Daschle, most of the attacks on Clinton have had very little substance and merit, but they fall right into the neoconservative battle plan of "attack, attack, attack, ALWAYS attack, the opponents are always wrong, and if we repeat our attacks often enough and loud enough, much of the public will believe it." What does it say that the WORST thing they could throw at Clinton that the general public found credible was that he nailed a pudgy intern? Comparing Nixon's paranoia to Clinton's transgressions is like comparing a mortar shell to an M-80.

This is not to say that Clinton was a great President. He wasn't, by my standards. He was adequate, and much of the country prospered during his terms, but he was neither a shining star nor a blight on the nation, and is certainly unworthy of the level of invective heaped upon him to this day by the hardcore right.

You can name any problem in this world -- hunger, war, disease, hatred, drive-by shootings, the Iverson-Brown feud, Kid Rock's career, the Fall of American Morality and Decency and Goodness, whatever -- and neocons will have fourteen reasons ready why Bill Clinton was the root cause of it. Enough, already! The more they demonize Clinton, the higher they end up building him up, portraying him as having enough power, influence and magnetism to DO all those things they accuse him of in the first place.

Coulter has made a career out of parroting neoconservative gibberish, reaching surprising levels of vileness at times. She's funny as hell in a perverse way, but strictly unintentionally -- it's one of those "Can you believe anyone actually THINKS like that?" spectacles every time she opens her mouth. Sort of a William Bennett with ovaries. Her obsession with Clinton makes me wonder exactly if something transpired between them on a personal level -- maybe she's just upset that she was among the only women in Washington that Clinton DIDN'T want to nail.

Frankly, I'd rather have sex with a compost heap than Ann Coulter. Not only would it probably be more enjoyable, but the pillow talk would be much more palatable with the compost.

How is it that "lefties" (for lack of a better term) always miss the point that he LIED UNDER OATH.

Yeah, I think it's kinda disgraceful to the Office of the President that he is an adulterer - the world is supposed to look up to him and he's saying "it's okay to fuck other women". But that's not my issue with him. My issue is that he LIED UNDER OATH.

It wasn't about "nail[ing] a pudgy intern" - it was about breaking the law by perjuring himself. Pretty simple.

Lied... during an inquisition wholly created by his political opponents in which he was eventually found not guilty. Consider how convoluted the trial had to get, to get to that point. An Arkansas land deal led to an in-depth study of someone's sex life?

I think the guy's despicable, but there really was a vast right-wing conspiracy.

And I guess that just excuses him from his legal responsibilities.

Well...

I don't excuse Clinton's antics under oath, or point them out as proper behavior patterns. The same goes for the adultery issue -- it would be nice to have a President who acts in an admirable fashion. While I view him as an improvement over the guy in there now, I wouldn't put Clinton up on a pedestal as a model President by any stretch of the imagination.

But when I look at recent Presidential history:

* Nixon's maze of dirty politics, tapes (missing and otherwise), and impeachable offenses,

* the mirth and merriment of the Reagan-Bush years -- Iran-Contra, multiple underlings convicted of perjury and worse, conveniently-timed pardons designed to keep Bush off the stand, and Dubya's clampdown on Presidential records of that time period just as they were about to become publically available (gee, could some things in those have embarrassed or threatened Daddy's good name?),

* the current administration's extreme reluctance to let Congress or the public in on much of anything they're doing, much less the important details;

I feel less concerned about Clinton perjuring himself while testifying about what he did or did not do with his winkie. The behavior was wrong, the act of perjury was wrong, but I'm slightly more comfortable with that context. Clinton did plenty of other things more worthy of scorn, IMHO.

My other reason for not flogging Clinton over that incident is because, being the cynic that I am, I sort of EXPECT perjury from those in a court of law. The old joke about "a trial is a competition to determine which of two lawyers is the better liar" comes to mind.

In theory it does excuse him, because while I don't know, I doubt anyone has been prosecuted for purjury in a case where they were found innocent; and if there were, I should think that would be a case of overzealous prosecution. We should insist that the Pres be subject to the same treatment that any citizen is subject to -- and that means being prosecuted the same way as well.

His actions might have been dispicable but damn, as a smartarse, i fully respect him. I mean they guy is a genius, and it shows, he was impeached, lied under oath, copped all that flack and still stayed in office! Over 3 terms he dealt with a screwed with everyone, man, what a legend! To pull off that kinda stuff with such style is incredible!

Two terms. :)