Lol, what a dumb ass.As reported by the Washington Post's Phillip Rucker, Haley was born in Bamberg, South Carolina, to Indian immigrant parents
Oh Ann...
I just want to pat you on the head and feed you a carrot.
She sells a ton of books and has a platform because a not insignificant number of Americans are retrograde xenophobic racist bigots. They take cover under terms like "Southern Pride" and "traditional family values" and "faith based values" and "freedom" and "states rights" and "the second amendment" . . . and symbols like the Confederate flag.
Not one of these terms or symbols are fundamentally wrong or bad. Not one is inherently evil at all. But they have long given cover to these hateful bigots, and if we continue to "wink wink" deny this their bigot values will continue to be the fetid petri dish in which the likes of Dylan Roof and Ann Coulter thrive.
Our biggest national shame is that the Republican Party, starting with Nixon and the Reagan, actively courted these homophobic, racist, chauvinistic bigots.
Just look at the initial public reactions of almost all of our prominent Republicans to the Charleston butchery. It was weasel denial pandering to this part of their base. It was disgusting moral cowardice.
The fundie yahoo bigot base is now the tail that wags the dog of the GOP. I grew up Republican in a Republican household, at a time when there were Republicans like liberal, progressive Gov. Bill Scranton in my home state of Pennsylvania, and the present day state of a once proud party, the party of Lincoln fer chrissakes, makes me sick to my goddamn stomach.
To answer your question, Ann Coulter needs responding to because she is the visible tumor of a cancer in our society which one of our two major national political parties gives "wink wink" cover to.
Now, watch the heated denials come in from posters right here on this forum. Then you will know how entrenched this cancer of courting retrograde bigotry as an electoral strategy is, and how difficult it has been to squarely confront.
Oh Ann...
I just want to pat you on the head and feed you a carrot.
what a stupid cuntburger:
Sorry, Anne. Lee = Greatest general in US history? Quite possibly. Greatest army to ever take a battlefield? lolno. what a fucking idiot.
Ann Coulter is a filthy pig. Why bother even responding to her?
And the left falsely claims that republicans have a war on women?
not one of you lefty retards out their responded to these posts. Yet if someone on the right would call a woman these things you'd flip out.
Lee = Greatest general in US history?
The question has intrigued historians and armchair strategists since the Civil War itself. Lee is usually accounted the superior commander. He scored outrageous victories against the Army of the Potomac up until Gettysburg 1863, fighting against superior numbers and better supplied troops. His victory at Chancellorsville, where he divided his army three times in the face of the enemy while being outnumbered three to one, is a master class in the use of speed and maneuver as a force multiplier. Lee also had the difficult task of implementing a strategy to win the war that required him to invade the northern states, which he did twice. He knew the South couldnt just sit back and hold what it had: the North was too strong and some sort of early end to the war had to be found, probably a negotiated peace after a shock Union defeat in Pennsylvania or Maryland. Lee also benefits from the cult of the Marble Man that arose after the War. With the southern ideology of the Lost Cause Lee, the heroic, self-sacrificing soldier, was romanticized as the exemplar of southern civilization. As such, Lee increasingly was seen as blameless or beyond reproach, which caused his mistakes or errors on the battlefield.
Conversely, Grants military reputation suffers from his reputation as president, which historically is regarded as one of the worst administrations of all. Grants haplessness as president has redounded to color his performance during the War. Grants personal charisma was never as high as Lees anyway; and he has been dogged by questions about his drinking. But taken on its own terms, Grant was an exceptional general of both theater commands, as in his seige of Vicksburg, and in command of all the Union armies when he came east. There was nothing romantic about Grants battles: he committed to a plan and then followed it through with an almost uncanny stubborness. He saved the Battle of Shiloh after the Union line was shattered on the first day, reorganizing his forces and counterattacking. Whip em tomorrow, though he remarked to Sherman at the end of an awful first days fighting; and he did. His seige of Vicksburg was a remarkable campaign of combined operations with the brown water navy. And he was implacable in the final year of the war when he engaged Lee continuously from the Battle of the Wilderness to Appomatox.
I think that Grant slightly shades Lee as a commander because in the last year of the War he managed all of the Union armies, including Sherman in the South and Sheridan in the Shenendoah Valley. Grant served in the field, supervising Meade, who was still commander of the Army of the Potomac, but he had his eye on the entirety of the Union campaign. Moreover, Grant recognize the new reality of warfare: that the firepower commanded by each side was making a battle of maneuver, like Chancellorsville, impossible. Lee didnt think much of Grant as a general, saying that McClellan was the superior foe. On the other hand, Lee beat McClellan. He didnt beat Grant.
Nice attempt at duhversion.
But I notice you haven't called out Ann for what she said. Instead you just came here to whine about whatever.
Now get out your chalk since you're being persecuted again.
Just pointing out facts. I take it by your response you have no problems with the left berating, belittling, and dehumanizing women, as along as those women women are on the right.
Just pointing out facts. I take it by your response you have no problems with the left berating, belittling, and dehumanizing women, as along as those women women are on the right.
I see them attacking one woman. Its a personal attack on a woman not an attack on women.
Its like me calling you a moron, or neanderthal.
Yet you still haven't said a word about what Ann actually did, you've just come here to be the partisan hack you always are.
Still got your chalk?
I keep forgetting, if someone on the right speaks badly about ONE woman, its a war on women.
If someone on the left does it, its just about ONE woman.
I wont hold my breath for you to condemn the acts on Ann, because its apparent you agree with them.
Source & Video: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/23/ann-coulter-attacks-gov-nikki-haley-as-an-immig/204115
2nd class citizenship anyone?
I keep forgetting, if someone on the right speaks badly about ONE woman, its a war on women.
If someone on the left does it, its just about ONE woman.
I wont hold my breath for you to condemn the acts on Ann, because its apparent you agree with them.
And the left falsely claims that republicans have a war on women?
not one of you lefty retards out their responded to these posts. Yet if someone on the right would call a woman these things you'd flip out.
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.
I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning.
The Democrats complain about the Republican base being nuts … The nuts are their entire party
… They're always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. … Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment.
I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.
We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens's creme brulee.
Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age
Wrong
nope.
Not wrong. You dont call out any lefty for the names they call Ann. Yet if anyone on the right did the same, you'd have your panties in a bunch.
nope.
Not wrong. You dont call out any lefty for the names they call Ann. Yet if anyone on the right did the same, you'd have your panties in a bunch.
Do you agree with what she said?
nope.
Not wrong. You dont call out any lefty for the names they call Ann. Yet if anyone on the right did the same, you'd have your panties in a bunch.
And anyone who knows the first thing about military history, knows that there is no greater army that ever took the field than the Confederate Army.
Anne Coulter is the Chupacabra, a blood sucking creature so foul that it's spoken of only in whispers.
Do you agree with what she said?
do you agree with the names she is being called?
Is this really what you support?
Can you ever question the methods yourside uses.
The left cant stand being questioned for its double standards can it?