Ann Coulter: 'she's just a maid!' and the 5'2" perp walk, the Liberal mindset...

[amicus]

I know, this has been well covered, but this is a new, and devastating account indicting diminutive Liberals in general and I just could not resist...



To Liberals, Every Woman Looks Like a Hotel Maid

by Ann Coulter


05/18/2011

I suppose we'll know the truth when the DNA testing comes back, but close observers of privileged liberal men are not shocked by the accusations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the socialist head of the International Monetary Fund. (And you thought you were getting screwed by your banker!)

Only in Hollywood movies are handsome lacrosse players from nice families seen as likely rapists. In real life, they look more like the 5-foot-2-inch Roman Polanski or pudgy, unathletic Bill Clinton -- or the homunculus 5-foot-2-inch Strauss-Kahn.

But, it is argued, how could Strauss-Kahn possibly think he could get away with the violent rape of a chambermaid in a $3,000-a-night hotel room, booked in his name?

First of all, Strauss-Kahn has evidently gotten away with treating the fairer sex as his playthings for some time. No wonder his nickname among the French is "le grand seducteur," which I believe roughly translates to "the short, tubby serial rapist."

The New York Times reports that as far back as 2007, Brussels journalist Jean Quatremer remarked on Strauss-Kahn's troubled behavior -- "close to harassment" -- toward women, saying the press knew all about it, but never mentioned it because "we are in France."

When Strauss-Kahn was appointed to the I.M.F., Quatremer sardonically warned that the international institution was not the same as France, but instead had "Anglo-Saxon morals."

Second, it's not unheard of that a wealthy liberal would assume the law does not apply to him. Actually, let me restate that: Wealthy liberals always assume that laws don't apply to them. After all the waivers the Obama administration has been dishing out like candy, are there any liberals left to whom Obamacare will apply?

We might also ask how a governor of New York could think he could get away with hiring prostitutes to service him in similarly pricey hotels, bringing them across state lines, and using his friend's names to book the girls, year after year.

But Eliot Spitzer thought he could get away with that. Fortunately he has been brought to justice and sentenced to hosting a lame show on CNN.

Still, rape is a more serious crime than being a frenzied masturbator paying for sex. For that, I give you Andrew Luster, multimillionaire Max Factor heir, whose mother gives to every liberal cause under the sun from Barbara Boxer and Loretta Sanchez to Moveon.org, Emily's List and pro-gay marriage groups. (If only her son had been gay!)

Her son not only drugged and raped a string of women, but made videotapes of his crimes.

On the tapes, Luster can be seen sodomizing unconscious women with lighted marijuana cigarettes, candles and plastic swords, and then talking into the camera about the unconscious women lying on his bed. The tapes were carefully labeled with titles like "Shauna GHBing," referring to gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, known as a date-rape drug.

Luster was cataloging video evidence of his own criminal acts -- and yet he thought he could get away with it.

He almost did, too, fleeing the country during his 2003 trial. He was caught and is now serving 124 years in prison, having been convicted, in absentia, of 86 crimes, including 20 counts of drug-induced rape, 17 counts of raping an unconscious victim, and multiple counts of sodomy and oral copulation by use of drugs.

Also out of Southern California we have Roman Polanski, the legendary director of two good movies and about a hundred unbelievably horrible ones, who drugged and anally raped an underage girl, according to the police report.

Not only did Polanski think he could get away with it, he did get away with it by fleeing the country (to France) when he discovered, to his shock and dismay, that in America, a person can actually be sentenced to prison for drugging and raping a 13-year-old. That was in 1977. He has never been brought to justice.

Liberals supported Polanski's evasion of punishment for child rape, with the Hollywood left denouncing his arrest in Switzerland a couple of years ago, howling that he had suffered enough! Wasn't he prevented from coming to the U.S. to pick up his Oscar in 2003?


You know who's suffered enough? Anybody who sat all the way through "The Pianist."

Liberal male misogyny goes back even farther than Polanski's three-decades-old child rape.

As Phyllis Schlafly points out in her book "Feminist Fantasies" (with a stirring foreword by Ann Coulter), for centuries, famous left-wing men have treated "their wives and mistresses like unpaid servants."

Their credo might well have been, "From each, according to my needs ..."

Schlafly bases her review of liberal woman-haters on the book "Intellectuals" by historian Paul Johnson. Among the left-wing heroes highlighted by Schlafly from Johnson's book are Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Ernest Hemingway, Henrik Ibsen, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Karl Marx.

Johnson writes that the pint-sized -- 5 foot 2 1/2 inch -- communist-sympathizing Sartre "was notorious for never taking a bath and being disgustingly dirty." He said admiringly of the Nazis, "We have never been as free as we were under the German occupation."

The flyweight Sartre famously turned Simone de Beauvoir into his "mistress, surrogate wife, cook and manager, female bodyguard and nurse." (Sadly, she never learned how to give someone a sponge bath.) All the while, the smelly midget committed a stream of infidelities, viewing women "as scalps to add to his centaur's belt."

In "the annals of literature," Johnson writes, "there are few worse cases of a man exploiting a woman."

As he got older, Sartre's sexual conquests got younger, including teenaged girls.

Like Spitzer, Luster and Polanski, liberal men seem driven by their massive insecurities (often based on physical defects, such as their diminutive size or soap allergies) to choose unconscious, illiterate, servant-class and teenage females as their sex partners. But let's not drag pocket-sized Woody Allen's name into this, as my column appears in many family newspapers.

Karl Marx kept a female slave from the time she was 8 years old, eventually using her not only as a servant but as his mistress, never acknowledging his child with her or paying her at all. She waited on him hand and foot while he explained to the world that profit is the stolen surplus value of the laborer. Like so many liberal icons, Marx seldom bathed and left his wife and children in poverty.

As Schlafly says, no wonder liberal women think men are pigs: Their men are pigs.

Maybe Strauss-Kahn is innocent, but students of liberal comportment base their suspicions of his guilt not on fairy tales from Lifetime: TV for Women, but on 200 years of disgusting sexual behavior by liberal men.

~~~

I can feel the Liberal contingent cringing...what a wonderful life!

Amicus

 

[theseidlehands]

This guy is a socalist, not an American liberal or progressive. Ann is really stretching it on this one. I do agree that the French attitude is decidedly more macho and views women as sex objects. I hope he gets a fair trial and gets convicted of sexual assault which is is most likely guilty of and the world can see in the US the rights of an immigrant hotel maid are just as important as a millionaire politician.

 

[amicus]

The distinctions between Liberal, Progressive, Social Democrat, Socialists and Communists are fine ones if they exist at all. I understand the necessity of those who believe in command societies to rise to the defense of them, but I view it as a futile gesture.

Amicus

 

[theseidlehands]

I don't think the line is so fine. That's like saying there is a fine line between Republicans and Nazis, I'm sure you would not agree with that comparison.

Though from the article, I'm not sure who Ann thinks are rapists...liberals or really short guys.

 

[phrodeau]

I was going to ask what possible reasons Ann has for believing that Polanski is a liberal, but then I realized that Ann has nothing to do with reasons.

 

[renard_ruse]

Though from the article, I'm not sure who Ann thinks are rapists...liberals or really short guys.

The whole article smacks to me of typical anti-male sexism. Certainly, these rapists mentioned, if guilty, are scum and deserve punishment but the article sounds like feminism to me, consider this statement:

First of all, Strauss-Kahn has evidently gotten away with treating the fairer sex as his playthings for some time.

The fact is of all four attraction permutations (male-female, female-male, female-female, male-male) the only one that is held up to some higher judgemental standard is that of male-female attraction. There is no generalized condemnation of any of the other three attractions in society, only the male-female attraction is viewed with suspicion from the outset. Lets be honest, all four permutations view the objects of their attraction as a potential "playthings." Physical intimacy is one of the main things any of the attraction permutations are attracted for. Its only due to anti-male sexism that comes mostly (though certainly not exclusively) from feminist ideology that male-female attraction is suspect as somehow some inherent evil and somehow wrong right out of the box.

I'm not talking about rape here, or Strauss-Khan or Polanski (a real scuz there) but say Spitzer for example, who did not rape anyone. So, he is attracted to women and wants to play with them consensually. So, he, or any other man, derives arrousal and pleasure from the female body? So?

Women derive no arrousal or pleasure from men's bodies, ever? Or now adays from other women's bodies too (with is actually unnatural biologically, but that's a different topic)? Men who wish to play sexually with men aren't suspected of somehow being disrespectful to the male gender. No, only men who are attracted sexually to women are so stigmatized and suspect; only they must be watched so carefully by society to make sure they don't "objectify" women, which in fact is a perfectly normal human thing to do for all sexual beings (99.999% of us, men and women both) to objectively the sex(es) they are erotically attracted to. The only question is whether it is forced or coerced. Let's stop the stigmatizing of normal male attraction to women and go after the abusers and rapists instead.

 

[zipman]

The distinctions between Liberal, Progressive, Social Democrat, Socialists and Communists are fine ones if they exist at all. I understand the necessity of those who believe in command societies to rise to the defense of them, but I view it as a futile gesture.

Amicus

Congrats! That's one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on here.

But then again, coming from the guy who thinks the meanings of words never change, I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[amicus]

An excellent and prodigious effort to divert the content to one of your own choosing; well done!

Perhaps an inquiry into the Liberal mindset of equality might expose the true nature of their hatred of women. Once lowered to equality with the male, women are considered and viewed as equal partners in the crime of being male, as you suggest, and, by the nature of the act, the agressor or perpetrator.

Of your permutations, only if one has a perverted view of reality does one accept some of them as 'natural'.

Amicus Veritas

 

[amicus]

]Congrats! That's one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on here.

But then again, coming from the guy who thinks the meanings of words never change, I shouldn't be surprised.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

The natural state of man is to be free. The delineations concerning the degree of 'free' that each of the aforementioned controlled societies permits, is just that, a matter of degree. They remain slave or semi slave societies.

It was not the meaning of words I was trying to clarify; it was and is the absolute nature of the concepts that the words describe.

The study of language is a wonderful and marvelous journey of understanding the epistemology of the human mind. You should take that trip.

Amicus Veritas

 

[Luk]

Congrats! That's one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on here.

Nope. He followed it up with an even dumber one on post #9.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Nope. He followed it up with an even dumber one on post #9.

He's so dumb, it's almost beautiful.

 

[Luk]

He's so dumb, it's almost beautiful.

Reminds me of this horrible song but it's fitting.

 

[amicus]

Yikes! It be a spring shower of liberals raining down!

Ah, well, good for my Rose plants, and the fertilizer content of their words is also helpful.

Thankee...

amicus

 

[Luk]

The distinctions between Liberal, Progressive, Social Democrat, Socialists and Communists are fine ones if they exist at all. I understand the necessity of those who believe in command societies to rise to the defense of them, but I view it as a futile gesture.

Amicus

Yikes! It be a spring shower of liberals raining down!

Ah, well, good for my Rose plants, and the fertilizer content of their words is also helpful.

Thankee...

amicus

Good job on reaffirming you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[amicus]

Well, hell, let us place the onus of explanation on all the pink farts who place a distinction on the degrees of slavery.

Please outline for an avid audience the differences between the forms of government I mentioned.

Okay?

We are waiting....tap, tap, tap, tap, tap....(thas my toes tapping on your flat head)

amicus

 

[bronzeage]

Well, hell, let us place the onus of explanation on all the pink farts who place a distinction on the degrees of slavery.

Please outline for an avid audience the differences between the forms of government I mentioned.

Okay?

We are waiting....tap, tap, tap, tap, tap....(thas my toes tapping on your flat head)

amicus

Are you going for some kind of record tonight or are you just trying to win a bet?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Good job on reaffirming you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Sweet.

 

[Luk]

Well, hell, let us place the onus of explanation on all the pink farts who place a distinction on the degrees of slavery.

Please outline for an avid audience the differences between the forms of government I mentioned.

Okay?

We are waiting....tap, tap, tap, tap, tap....(thas my toes tapping on your flat head)

amicus

Here's a Moderate explaining a few differences.

Below is another explanation...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

You must have really sucked at being a print and broadcast journalist.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Luk]

You'll find these little gaseous explosions to be quite capable of picking fly shit out of pepper all day long when it come to disassociating themselves from the reality of their beliefs.

Two bowel movement references in the same post. Good to see ya back, vette!

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Two bowel movement references in the same post. Good to see ya back, vette!

This only proves he was lying when he said he doesn't give two shits.

 

[Luk]

This only proves he was lying when he said he doesn't give two shits.

He'd be lucky to give two good bowel movements in a week.

 

[amicus]

Here's a Moderate explaining a few differences.

Below is another explanation...

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works.
Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

You must have really sucked at being a print and broadcast journalist.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

I am sure your snarky little remark at the end endears you to your Liberal compatriots who pretend to be sophisticated and erudite.

I am, however, quite pleased at your selection of reference material and even more pleased that my request that you define your terms actually inspired you to do the research.

As to the content of your first reference, if anyone took the time to read it, it rather more made my point than yours, inthat the similarities between all forms of socialism and command economies is quite evident and that the differences between controlled societies and free ones, is distinct indeed.

Your last two, from the same source, merely reflect an academic semanticism which could equally prove that homosexuals are actually the predominant expressions of sexual preferences because it is repressed in both men and women. Hah!

I do not use wiki in formal papers, but it suffices for this small exercise:

Classical liberalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Western Europe, and the Americas. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[2] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.[3] It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties.[1] There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[4]
In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[5]

Modern liberalism in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article discusses liberalism as that term is used in the United States in the 20th and 21st centuries. For the history and development of American liberalism, see Liberalism in the United States. For the origin and worldwide use of the term liberalism, see Liberalism.
Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1]
Keynesian economic theory has played a central role in the economic philosophy of American liberals.[2] The argument has been that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy, to keep unemployment low, inflation in check, and growth high.[2] John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:
“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.[3]
”
Most American liberals support a mixed economy because they fear the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; they point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.[4][5] They believe that all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life and they champion the protection of the environment.[6][7] Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party.[8]
As of June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates and 22% as liberals.[8] There has been a high level of stability over the last two decades. For example, 40% of voters called themselves conservative, 35% moderate and 18% liberal in 1992.[9] However, when polled on individual policies voters have sided with notably liberal ideas.[10]

~~~

I did not want to include the JFK quote as it is subjective, but knew if I did not quote the entire piece I would be accused of 'cherry picking'.

I was disappointed in the wiki piece on classical liberalism in that it did not reference:

Definition of LAISSEZ-FAIRE

1
: a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
2
: a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action

It is easy to make the case, as I did, that the only difference between the forms of government I outlined earlier, is the degree of control over people that each advocates.

More importantly, if you ever progress this far in your thinking, is the psychological imperatives at stake in acknowedging the natural free state of man and the opposing belief that man is basically evil, greedy and rapacious and must be controlled at all times.

It is that Judeau Christian tenet of 'original sin', that has percolated through the various forms of oppressive government that enables modern liberals of all shades to justify oppression of the individual for the good of society.

What a wonderful world it would be if all you liberal motherfuckers would just leave us alone.

Amicus Veritas

 

[Sonny Limatina]

too amicus veritas; didn't read

 

[amicus]

too amicus veritas; didn't read

Yes, you did. You are just outclassed.

meh...

amicus