(The Enlightenment) wrote :

I don't get the implied ambiguity...

Of _course_ you don't, and Coulter loves you for it. As I said, she
_needs_ credulous nitwits.

Pardon moi, who gives a **** whether the march was from selma to
mongomery, form mongomery to selma or on selma or via charlies
chocklate elevator.

Nice to see an adult writing style to go along with your adult reading
style... In any case, she said "...liberals babble on and on about the
"heady"
days of civil rights marches. Between 1995 and 2001, the New York
Times alone ran more than one hundred articles on "Selma" alone..."
while a quick check showed that that was not the case. It's a fairly
substantive criticism, given the claim she was making.

Calling a neocon, pro-immigration, half jewish guy (on his fathers
side) "conservative" is as accurate as calling Ghenkis Khan a nomad.

It's impossible to be a neoconservative if you're half jewish? Dear
me... but at least that makes it easier to see where you're coming
from. As for being pro-immigration: given the number of neo-cons who
trace their political heritage to that immigrant, Leo Strauss, you may
want to rethink that particular epithet.

Scott