Ann Coulter has no clue

Cicero said:
If you had actually read her article, or even looked at post #20, you would possibly comprehend the context of the above quote. But here it is again just for your edification.

"Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation's anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote."

But 18-year-olds aren't allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft. In fact, while repealing the 26th Amendment, we ought to add a separate right to vote for members of the military, irrespective of age."

"As we have learned from ObamaCare, young people are not considered adults until age 26, at which point they are finally forced to get off their parents' health care plans. The old motto was "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." The new motto is: "Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote." A.C.

Why is it OK for libs to cherry pick the quotes from a column to deliberately mischaracterize the obvious satire? Would you do this to Stewart?
Click to expand...
Why would you have to explain "obvious" satire numerous times?

How does being on someone else's health insurance mean you are a child? I'm betting most of you have a spouse on your health insurance, or you are on a spouse's health insurance. Does that make you or your spouse "children"? If the 18-26-year-olds go off and get jobs and want to get their own insurance, they can. No law prevents them from doing that. They can be as grown up as they want to be. (As if health insurance was the deciding factor.) Besides, people 18-22 have been on their parents' health insurance for decades, even during Republican administrations, Republican-controlled Congresses, etc., until they are "finally forced to get off their parents' health care plans." Why hasn't Coulter had a problem with that?

Ann Coulter has no point. Period. And neither do you.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
You are still confused. It is a registration should there be another draft. The fact that those who have registered for selective service have not been drafted should have been the tipoff that there isn't any draft. Difficult to make it any clearer than that.
Click to expand...

So long as you and I are alive we will never ever see another draft!
 
AlBell said:
I feel I can speak for all US citizens by noting dumb Canucks (and even smart ones) don't, anyway .... Eh?
Click to expand...

Well, you can feel what you like, but you've been wrong before so I don't guess it'll surprise you when the rest of us say, "No, you can't speak for all US citizens."



Are there any dumb Canucks here who know how to spell "outweigh"? Just askin'.

Originally Posted by AlBell
None of those things necessarily stop one from paying income tax; 18-20 yr olds can join the military if they feel their need to vote outways their need to party as they ignore reality.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Snide said:
I must agree with you on this one. You were wrong about what constitutes owning a house v. owning it "free and clear," but registering for a potential draft does not mean there is one.
Click to expand...

'The draft' still exists. It isn't being used. 'Martial law' still exists, it isn't being used. A draft is not in effect. The draft is why you have to register.

That said, it seems fair to me that if one argues for an 18-year-old voting age because 18-year-olds can get drafted, it is a logical extension to say that an 18-year-old who is required to register for a potential draft should also be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

So eighteen year old women should be disenfranchised.
 
Any chance we could take the vote back from women while we are at it? My wife thoroughly embarrassed me by knowing the candidates and issues in depth this last go-round -- while I feverishly cribbed notes on the drive to the polls.

Could I use the justification that she is on my health insurance? What if I get the house put in my name instead of joint? Surely, the crafty Christian conservatives can find a Bible verse to make this happen for me. I'm counting on you.

And just to show my support, I'll agree with not giving illegal aliens the vote until they reach 26 or own property or join the Military (or Peace Corps --I'd like to have Peace Corps in there as well).
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
'The draft' still exists. It isn't being used. 'Martial law' still exists, it isn't being used. A draft is not in effect. The draft is why you have to register.
Click to expand...
Semantic quibbling. I'm not interested. Regardless, if one can be eligible for a draft, even if it remains on indefinite hiatus, is "not in effect," etc....one should be able to vote.
 
I love this comment someone posted under Ann Coulter's essay:

i aggree with ann but would like to add a few items. first you must be a property owner or a least a renter. this proves that you have a consistant source of income. if you have held a job but for some reason you have become unemployed and you still have owned or rented property you are ok for 5 years. second you must be able to pass a 10 question test about the united states. nothing pasted an 8th grade reading level but something that indicateds you are able to understand what you are voting for. you must be at least 18 years of age or you have served in the armed forces or have answered the previous two questions positivly. if you can fight for your country you can vote. you may not be a fellon. if however however you have been convicted of a crime then every 5 years you will be able to retry for the right to vote. these few things sound brutal but as we move farther and farther into complex times we will need voters that are qualifyed beyond just being able to get a credit card. just a few ideas to start the dialog
Click to expand...

He's probably kidding, but it'd be awesome to know he posted this seriously.
 
AlBell said:
If I could make it so, only people over 21 who actually pay income tax, and/or are serving in the armed forces, would be eligible to vote.
Click to expand...

Service means citizenship.

Cicero said:
Why is it OK for libs to cherry pick the quotes from a column to deliberately mischaracterize the obvious satire? Would you do this to Stewart?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the "she's just kidding, sorry if you don't get the subtle joke" gambit doesn't work with her. That said, if she somehow really is trying to be satirical, she really needs to work on her timing and delivery... and her material too.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, you can feel what you like, but you've been wrong before so I don't guess it'll surprise you when the rest of us say, "No, you can't speak for all US citizens."
Click to expand...
I see. What say do you allow Canucks in formulating US election law?


Are there any dumb Canucks here who know how to spell "outweigh"? Just askin'.
Click to expand...
Mea Culpa. Speeling leesons always apppreciated.

Luckily, even you understood what I said.
 
Snide said:
Semantic quibbling. I'm not interested. Regardless, if one can be eligible for a draft, even if it remains on indefinite hiatus, is "not in effect," etc....one should be able to vote.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it seemed like you were interested before.
 
tyr_13 said:
'The draft' still exists. It isn't being used. 'Martial law' still exists, it isn't being used. A draft is not in effect. The draft is why you have to register.
Click to expand...

If there were a draft you would have done compulsory military service. You obviously have not. Where were you when Charlie Rangel wanted to reinstitute the draft back in 2003? You could have informed him, the Congress, SecDef Rumsfeld and the media that the draft already exists. At least it does in your mind.

Rangel promotes plan to reinstitute draft


"With the prospect of war in Iraq growing more likely, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-New York, Monday promoted legislation he introduced this month to reinstate the military draft."

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-27/...raft-tax-cuts-lot-more-wars?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

"We're not going to re-implement a draft. There is no need for it at all. The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable." Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld

So eighteen year old women should be disenfranchised
Click to expand...

Not under the Rangel bill.

"Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve."

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-27/...raft-tax-cuts-lot-more-wars?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
If there were a draft you would have done compulsory military service. You obviously have not. Where were you when Charlie Rangel wanted to reinstitute the draft back in 2003? You could have informed him, the Congress, SecDef Rumsfeld and the media that the draft already exists. At least it does in your mind.

Rangel promotes plan to reinstitute draft


"With the prospect of war in Iraq growing more likely, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-New York, Monday promoted legislation he introduced this month to reinstate the military draft."

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-27/...raft-tax-cuts-lot-more-wars?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

"We're not going to re-implement a draft. There is no need for it at all. The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable." Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld
Click to expand...

So you're agreeing with me that while the draft still exists, a draft is not in effect? Nothing you've said contradicts what I said. If Selective Service is not for the draft, what is it for?


Not under the Rangel bill.

"Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve."

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-27/...raft-tax-cuts-lot-more-wars?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Click to expand...

Please show me where Coulter cited this, otherwise I'm sticking with her idea that women 18-25 shouldn't be able to vote.
 
Cicero said:
Because when libs are being satirized they cannot process it as anything other than mean-spirited falderal.
Click to expand...

Yes. There is ample evidence that many on the left do not see A. Coulter's writings as satire - they see it as mean-spirited falderal. That part is not the problem. The problem is that many on the right do not see A. Coulter's writings as satire - they see it as an insightful perspective on what should be done. The catch is that it is hard to determine whether this group numbers in the hundreds or the millions.
 
tyr_13 said:
So you're agreeing with me that while the draft still exists, a draft is not in effect? Nothing you've said contradicts what I said. If Selective Service is not for the draft, what is it for?
Click to expand...

Nobody agrees with you that the military draft either exists or is in effect. You could conjugate the Pentagon and not find one military or civilian employee who agrees with you. Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with the definition of "reinstitute" before even progressing to the definition of a military draft.

REINSTITUTE:

begin again; resume
Synonyms: begin over, begin where one left off, carry on, carry over, go on with, pick up, proceed, recapitulate, recommence, reestablish, reinstate, reinstitute , renew, reopen

You have to register to vote. It doesn't mean you are compelled to vote. Registering for selective service does not mean that there is still a draft where you are obliged to perform military service. Just because the USA originally established a draft back in 1917, and, therefore, it would not be precedent to start another military draft, doesn't mean the USA currently has a draft. You seem overly uptight about your selective service registration. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom