Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows

[Judge Hades]

As long as it doesn't interfere with the right a woman has to do anything to with her body, then yes. If the man wants to have the kids yet the woman doesn't then by all means the woman has the right to expel the fetus. Its not like the man can carry it for 9 months.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Judge Hades

[astr0creep]

As long as it doesn't interfere with the right a woman has to do anything to with her body, then yes.  If the man wants to have the kids yet the woman doesn't then by all means the woman has the right to expel the fetus.  Its not like the man can carry it for 9 months.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would go as far as saying: "As long as it doesn't make the child a punishment for lack of responsibility, then yes".

 

Like:"You didn't use protection, you are pregnant, you must give birth!" or something similar.

 

Also, if the income of the new familly is not enough to properly support a child, then either the government helps or the man, who will be the only source of income, has a right to force the abortion or not pay child support if the woman decides to have the child anyway. No?

Edited June 8, 2006 by astr0creep

[Judge Hades]

The man the only source of income? What are you smoking? Women can work just as much as men to provide money to raise a kid. Hell my mother did it by herself without government aid or my father giving us additional money.

[astr0creep]

The man the only source of income?  What are you smoking?  Women can work just as much as men to provide money to raise a kid.  Hell my mother did it by herself without government aid or my father giving us additional money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not while she was pregnant. And if she would've been unable to, that is when your father should've been forced to help.

 

When both parents cannot support a child, financially, without losing there lives in 3-4 jobs and sleep depravation, That is when the government needs to help.

[Plano Skywalker]

Ann Coulter is the Rodney Dangerfield of American Conservatism much like Michael Moore is to American Liberalism.

 

Even though I may disagree with her choice of language, I have to say that I thought the "911 Widows", or at least a very vocal minority of them, were (are?) way too partisan in their approach to the president after 911.

 

That is the point Coulter is trying to make, albeit in a nasty way.

[Judge Hades]

Not while she was pregnant. And if she would've been unable to, that is when your father should've been forced to help.

 

She worked right up to the point of birth and went back to work 2 weeks after and not one cent came from my father nor did she get government aid. My aunt watched me til I was 3 then I went to a day care that my mom paid for til I was 8 then I took care of myself.

 

One thing my mother taught me was self reliance. Mind your own store so to speak.

[astr0creep]

Not while she was pregnant. And if she would've been unable to, that is when your father should've been forced to help.

 

She worked right up to the point of birth and went back to work 2 weeks after and not one cent came from my father nor did she get government aid. My aunt watched me til I was 3 then I went to a day care that my mom paid for til I was 8 then I took care of myself.

 

One thing my mother taught me was self reliance. Mind your own store so to speak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I was trying to say that parents, single or coupled, should not need to overwork to financially support and raise their children. In cases where overworking is in progress, the government should intervene and help so that the parents can stop this and spend more time with their kids.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

By the way, there are single fathers who struggle as much raising their children as women do. The difference is that they rarely get child support from their ex-wife/spouse.

[Judge Hades]

Child support should go both ways.

[astr0creep]

Child support should go both ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In theory I think it does. In practice, lawyers make it a whole other ball game.

 

Child Support

 

 

Alimony should be wiped off the face of the earth until the end of time.

Edited June 8, 2006 by astr0creep

[taks]

Anything FOX News supports is most likely corrupted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

she's a troll yet you say things like this? what a joke. just because fox doesn't fit into your nifty cool ideology doesn't make them any worse (or better) than any other news organization.

 

taks

[Judge Hades]

I don't have a problem with Fox news as a whole. Its bias, but what news media isn't? I do have a problem with O'Rielly and the whole O' Rielly Factor. They guy is an idiot and a poor journalist.

 

You don't tell someone you invited to an interview to shut up.

[astr0creep]

You don't tell someone you invited to an interview to shut up.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sorry...

 

 

What if it's Onur?

[Judge Hades]

I wouldn't have invited him and if I did I would let him do his rant then take my turn in a polite manner. O' Rielly has no level of professionalism in him whatsoever.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Judge Hades

[astr0creep]

I wouldn't have invited him and if I did I would let him do his rant then take my turn in a polite manner.  O' Rielly has no level of professionalism in him whatsoever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And thats why he's in the media!

[taks]

They guy is an idiot and a poor journalist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, i'm curious why so many people have a hard time with the phrase news analyst. like it or not, o'reilly's job is to analyze news and provide opinions. he's supposed to be ignorant, whether you like it or not.

 

taks

[astr0creep]

uh, i'm curious why so many people have a hard time with the phrase news analyst.  like it or not, o'reilly's job is to analyze news and provide opinions.  he's supposed to be ignorant, whether you like it or not.

 

taks

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh my God!

That is so the perfect job for me!

 

[taks]

Oh my God!

That is so the perfect job for me!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hehe...

 

btw, it should be noted that o'reilly's column is about ann's comments today. he thinks she shouldn't use the vitriol if she really wants people to believe her arguments. i.e. insulting people isn't a very good debate tactic, it only serves to sell books.

 

she's probably right that far-left ideologists seize upon those people that buck the trend in their (the ideologists) favor, but her comment that they're revelling in their (the wives) husbands' deaths is certainly over the top.

 

taks

Edited June 8, 2006 by taks

[Judge Hades]

There is giving one's opinion on news and then there is being ruder than a ballerina with a bad case of jock itch. Telling a person to shut up "isn't a very good debate tactic" either, especially if you invited them to your show.

[Gfted1]

Even though I may disagree with her choice of language, I have to say that I thought the "911 Widows", or at least a very vocal minority of them, were (are?) way too partisan in their approach to the president after 911.

 

 

Exactly. I happen to agree with her. This "think tank" the women have formed to "help safeguard the nation" is just more BS to keep their names in the paper. FFS, people get killed by bad guys every single day of the year, you dont hear them piping up 4.5 years later.

[astr0creep]

Even though I may disagree with her choice of language, I have to say that I thought the "911 Widows", or at least a very vocal minority of them, were (are?) way too partisan in their approach to the president after 911.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Exactly. I happen to agree with her. This "think tank" the women have formed to "help safeguard the nation" is just more BS to keep their names in the paper. FFS, people get killed by bad guys every single day of the year, you dont hear them piping up 4.5 years later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ann could be more diplomatic about it though. But then the ratings wouldn't be the same...

 

Wait. So everybody is actually happy?

[Gfted1]

Even though I may disagree with her choice of language, I have to say that I thought the "911 Widows", or at least a very vocal minority of them, were (are?) way too partisan in their approach to the president after 911.

 

 

Exactly. I happen to agree with her. This "think tank" the women have formed to "help safeguard the nation" is just more BS to keep their names in the paper. FFS, people get killed by bad guys every single day of the year, you dont hear them piping up 4.5 years later.

 

Ann could be more diplomatic about it though. But then the ratings wouldn't be the same...

 

Wait. So everybody is actually happy?

 

^Lol, true that.

 

Man, your new avvy is messing me up astr0. I dont recognize your posts at a glance anymore.

[Judge Hades]

Its the Carrot Top Borg. RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!

[Pidesco]

FFS, people get killed by bad guys every single day of the year, you dont hear them piping up 4.5 years later.

 

 

That's kind of how I feel about the way some americans seem to have reacted to 9/11. Two planes, two towers and everyone's talking like the end of the world is near, and also about what a huge disaster it was. I have a serbian friend for whom, for a time bombing was a daily part of her life and she hardly complains at all.

 

Of course, I'm not saying that 9/11 wasn't a horrifying event, just that things should be kept in perspective.

[astr0creep]

Man, your new avvy is messing me up astr0. I dont recognize your posts at a glance anymore.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You've been Astr0wed.

[Judge Hades]

I agree with that sentiment, SS.