Come on, you are analyzing some Coulterspeak for semantic content? Please.

Who does Ann Coulter talk to? Who is her base? It is people who believe that the number one indicator of Conservatism is annoying Liberals.

She doesn't care if what she says is nonsense. She doesn't care about what happens to the country. She cares about people who are duped into buying her books.

Face it, Coulter is a millionaire, several times over. She has found a group of people witless enough that she can manipulate then into giving her money. These are the only people she is ever talking to.

Smirking at her, sneering at her, pointing out her hypocrisy, none of that makes any difference to her or to anyone who venerates her. At the end of the day, she will still have more money than any of the people who attack her. And that is all she cares about.

Joe Lieberman gets reelected to the Senate, thanks to strong support from Republicans. He is no longer officially a Democrat.

He is allowed to hold all his positions, as if he were still a Democrat.

Joe Lieberman officially endorsed the Republican candidate, campaigned for him, spoke at the Republican convention.

He is allowed to hold all his positions, as if he weren't an unabashed traitor to the Democratic Party.

The only way time the Democrats don't look cowardly, weak, and helpless is when they are compared to Republicans. All the high hopes surrounding Obama are already tumbling to the ground. (Rick Warren? You have got to be fucking kidding me!!! He hasn't even taken office yet, and he is already rolling over!)

Get ready to be crushingly disappointed, over and over and over again. These stupid cowardly losers are maybe going to slow the slide this country is on. But I doubt it.

You claim:

the people have spoken at least in California. It is done and should be.

The problem here is the "the people" do not have the right to oppress a group of citizens, just because that group is in the minority.

One of the main purposes of the Constitution is to prevent the majority from using their strength of numbers as an excuse to oppress the minority.

That is what happened here. It is not done and it is not as it should be.

If you believe otherwise, then you do not believe in the Constitution, and in what the United States is supposed to be about.

I can usually tell one of your pathetic posts by the second line, and skip to the next post. Which means I avoid them easily, so I don't usually worry about them. I am certainly not going to suggest that you stop.

But please, don't delude yourself that they are anything more worthwhile than a six-year-old showing off for Mommy and Daddy's company.

It is the nickname given to the third male to bear a family name.

Like, say, William David Smith III. Granddad would be "Senior," Dad would be "Junior," and the son would be "Trip," or "Tripp."

Giving a kid the name "Tripp," when the child is not the third male to bear the name is at least as "trailer trashy" as any of the names Sarah and Tod gave to their kids.

The first half of your long post raises some legitimate legal and logistical arguments that place Israel in a questionable position.

Then the second half is a deteriorating anti-Jew rant that culminates in praise for Hitler.

You have successfully conflated the legitimate questions with an odious point of view. This weakens any potential support for others raising the same legitimate questions.

Well done! I almost didn't catch it.

Sarah Palin played politics with law enforcement officers who were attempting to do their duty? This is shocking!

Nothing in Palin's past gave any hint that this was a possibility.

Now those millions of Palin supporters will see her as she truly is, and she will fade into obscurity where she belongs.

Glad we got this cleared up.

While the president-elect waits for Inauguration Day, he is in kind of a reverse lame duck situation. He has to do as much as he can to take over the reins of government while maintaining a united front to the rest of the world with the sitting president.

It would be extremely difficult to discuss any definition of culpability for the situation in Gaza that is not in line with that coming from the White House. Even when your predecessor it one of the worst presidents in the history of The Republic, the president-elect must avoid contradicting his foreign policy.

My guess is that Obama plans to handle it very differently. Once he is officially in charge, he will begin immediately to implement those new plans.

Until that time he contradicts the current White House at the country's peril. Such an act would immediately polarize the world into pro-Bush and pro-Obama factions, to the detriment of all.

So Obama says nothing. When he finally speaks, he decries the deaths of civilians on both sides, and declares that he is working towards readiness for the 20th.

What else could he say? I don't want Bush and Obama publicly battling over foreign policy. That would drag Obama down to Bush's level, make him look as weak as Bush. I would like a strongish president for a change, thank you.

I am sorry for all who are suffering and dying on both sides. I wish it were feasible for Obama to do something but there is nothing. Bush wins by default until the 20th. Obama wins by default after the 20th. We have to wait.