Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 9
Ann Coulter - true to form
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 10:53 AM (3,217 Views)
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
http://www.nydailynews.com/06-07-2006/news...3p-358034c.html

A couple quotes from the (not exactly bastion of liberalism) Daily News article.

'When their husbands were killed on 9/11, four New Jersey widows tried to find out why - and now no-holds-barred conservative pundit Ann Coulter is mercilessly denouncing them as "witches."'


' "Having my husband burn alive in a building brought me no joy," she said. "Watching it unfold on national TV and .seeing it repeated endlessly was beyond what I could describe. Telling my children they would never see their father again was not fun. " '
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Good God! Has Coulter no scruples?

Quote:
 
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," Coulter writes.

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . .

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

...as Coulter calls them, "the Witches of East Brunswick"


When are conservatives going to openly and loudly disavow this woman?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
We have been waiting similar action by liberals against the Michael Moores of the world.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I saw her appearance on the Today show with Matt Lauer. She seemed a bit frazzled, but her main point was that widows who were speaking out against Bush weren't allowing people to return comments, because they were "victims", and that they weren't critisizing the Clinton administration, either.

Coulter's problem, is that although she might have a decent idea, and knows her history really well, she takes things to such a radical extreme, that you can't take her seriously. She borders on Phelpsism(tm).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

JBryan
Jun 7 2006, 03:01 PM
We have been waiting similar action by liberals against the Michael Moores of the world.

And Cindy Sheehan. And other liberals making jokes about "Bush should be assassinated" or that he's a racist, etc.

There are extremists on both sides. To spend time denouncing each one would be a waste of time...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Phlebas
Jun 7 2006, 12:53 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/06-07-2006/news...3p-358034c.html

A couple quotes from the (not exactly bastion of liberalism) Daily News article.

'When their husbands were killed on 9/11, four New Jersey widows tried to find out why - and now no-holds-barred conservative pundit Ann Coulter is mercilessly denouncing them as "witches."'


' "Having my husband burn alive in a building brought me no joy," she said. "Watching it unfold on national TV and .seeing it repeated endlessly was beyond what I could describe. Telling my children they would never see their father again was not fun. " '

I'm sorry, but when you enter the political arena, there is no such things as "hands-off", no such thing as special dispensation, no such thing as a free ride.

Such is the nature of the game, and in the words of a pretty decent politician himself, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Hey, she's one of yours. If you conservatives like what she says and the way she says them, that's fine.

No need to diosavow that which you support.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
The 89th Key
Jun 7 2006, 11:05 AM
JBryan
Jun 7 2006, 03:01 PM
We have been waiting similar action by liberals against the Michael Moores of the world.

And Cindy Sheehan. And other liberals making jokes about "Bush should be assassinated" or that he's a racist, etc.

There are extremists on both sides. To spend time denouncing each one would be a waste of time...

Not really. It keeps you in check. It's a healthy exercise to maintain a personal list of political crazies to never take seriously.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 7 2006, 01:07 PM
Hey, she's one of yours. If you conservatives like what she says and the way she says them, that's fine.

No need to diosavow that which you support.

I didn't disavow her.

I've said before that Ann is a bomb-chunker, but if you get past some of the showy rhetoric, there's some pretty decent ideas floating around in some of her stuff.

The "Jersey Girls' comment was badly done, but spot-on in a realistic appraisal of the political motivations.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 7 2006, 11:04 AM
I saw her appearance on the Today show with Matt Lauer. She seemed a bit frazzled, but her main point was that widows who were speaking out against Bush weren't allowing people to return comments, because they were "victims", and that they weren't critisizing the Clinton administration, either.

Coulter's problem, is that although she might have a decent idea, and knows her history really well, she takes things to such a radical extreme, that you can't take her seriously. She borders on Phelpsism(tm).

She knows nothing about history, and is basically a shrill bitch, which is something she demonstrates quite well in the article.

I guess one of her "decent ideas" is telling people who lost loved ones in a terrorist attack that they have no right to ask why it happened.

(her looks are really going downhill too)
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Phlebas, I haven't read her book, but on the Today show, she didn't say they didn't have a right to ask why it happened. We all have that right. But to exploit it, to use your status as a victim to get special attention while denouncing those who challenge you, to use it as a podium is a bit odd.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
She knows nothing about history, and is basically a shrill bitch, which is something she demonstrates quite well in the article.


Basically. I would hope that she's not on anyone's list of references for their political ideals, liberal or conservative. Her "comments" are consistently in poor form, and she’s a horrible source for someone looking for credible and objective information.

That's all I think is important. Sure, some people get a kick out of what she says, and of course that's fine, but so long as they know she isn't a poli.sci. professor and she's not who you go to if you want to increase your political knowledge.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
I used to have high respect for Coulter – that is, before I saw her on TV this morning. I discovered she isn't nearly as attractive as she appears on her book covers. So, as of today, she's been dropped from the list of political pundits I respect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 7 2006, 11:16 AM
Phlebas, I haven't read her book, but on the Today show, she didn't say they didn't have a right to ask why it happened. We all have that right. But to exploit it, to use your status as a victim to get special attention while denouncing those who challenge you, to use it as a podium is a bit odd.

Isaac, if you have followed this at all, you would know that Bush opposed the 911 Commission to look into what went wrong and it was only because of the families of the victims putting pressure on him and the Congress that we got it.

This is wrong? This is using one's victimhood to get attention?

But then, you and the other conservatrives need not disavow her. You can spend your time trying to explain her "point" and ignoring what she actually does say.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 7 2006, 11:16 AM
Phlebas, I haven't read her book, but on the Today show, she didn't say they didn't have a right to ask why it happened. We all have that right. But to exploit it, to use your status as a victim to get special attention while denouncing those who challenge you, to use it as a podium is a bit odd.

Here's the section of the interview that discusses the 9/11 widows. It speaks for itself. It is her assertion that she is not allowed to respond. In what way is she not allowed to respond. She's perfectly willing to call a triple amputee Vietnam veteran a traitor on national television. What would keep her from responding to these widows? She surely did respond t them.



LAUER: All right. On the 9/11 window--widows, and in particular a group that have been outspoken and critical of the administration, "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation, and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process." And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about. "These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefarrazis. I've never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much."

Ms. COULTER: Yes.

LAUER: Because they dare to speak out?

Ms. COULTER: To speak out, using the fact that they're widows. This is the left doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9/11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we're allowed to respond to? No, no, no. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die...

LAUER: Did I say the people in the middle of the story?

Ms. COULTER: ...because then if we respond, `Oh, you're questioning their authenticity.' No, the story is...

LAUER: So grieve, but grieve quietly?

Ms. COULTER: No, the story is an attack on the nation.

LAUER: And by the way...

Ms. COULTER: That requires a foreign policy response.

LAUER: And by the way...

Ms. COULTER: That does not entail the expertise...

LAUER: ...they also criticized the Clinton administration for their failures leading up to 9/11.

Ms. COULTER: ...that does not--no, not--not the ones I'm talking about. No, no, no, no.

LAUER: No, they have.

Ms. COULTER: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.

LAUER: They have. But is your message to them...

Ms. COULTER: No, no, no. They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief in order to make a political point...

LAUER: So...

Ms. COULTER: ...while preventing anyone from responding.

LAUER: ...if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?

Ms. COULTER: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point, let Bill Clinton make the point. Don't put up someone I'm not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.

LAUER: But apparently you are allowed to respond to them?

Ms. COULTER: Well, yeah, I did.

LAUER: Right, so in other words--and they--and they...

Ms. COULTER: But that is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up Cindy Sheehan, and putting out these widows or putting out Joe Wilson. No, no, no, you can't respond. It's their doctrine of infallibility.

LAUER: But what I'm saying is...

Ms. COULTER: Have somebody else make the argument, then.

LAUER: I'm saying is I don't think they've ever told you you can't respond, so why can't they make the point.

Ms. COULTER: Look, you're getting testy with me.

LAUER: No, I'm just.

Ms. COULTER: Oh.

(Crowd moans)

LAUER: I think it's your dramatic statement. "These broads," you know, "are millionaires"...

Ms. COULTER: Yeah, you think I shouldn't be able to respond to them.

LAUER: ..."stalked by griefarrazis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

Ms. COULTER: Mm-hmm. They're--yes, they're all over the news.

LAUER: The book is called "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." Ann Coulter, always fun to have you here.

Ms. COULTER: Hey, where's Katie? Did she leave or something?

LAUER: She did.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Aqua Letifer
Jun 7 2006, 03:21 PM
Quote:
 
She knows nothing about history, and is basically a shrill bitch, which is something she demonstrates quite well in the article.


Basically. I would hope that she's not on anyone's list of references for their political ideals, liberal or conservative. Her "comments" are consistently in poor form, and she’s a horrible source for someone looking for credible and objective information.

That's all I think is important. Sure, some people get a kick out of what she says, and of course that's fine, but so long as they know she isn't a poli.sci. professor and she's not who you go to if you want to increase your political knowledge.

Fair enough! I agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick Zimmer
Jun 7 2006, 03:31 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 7 2006, 11:16 AM
Phlebas, I haven't read her book, but on the Today show, she didn't say they didn't have a right to ask why it happened. We all have that right. But to exploit it, to use your status as a victim to get special attention while denouncing those who challenge you, to use it as a podium is a bit odd.

Isaac, if you have followed this at all, you would know that Bush opposed the 911 Commission to look into what went wrong and it was only because of the families of the victims putting pressure on him and the Congress that we got it.

This is wrong? This is using one's victimhood to get attention?

But then, you and the other conservatrives need not disavow her. You can spend your time trying to explain her "point" and ignoring what she actually does say.

As much as you ignore what Cindy Sheehan says.

Pot, meet kettle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Anne Coulter claiming she's not allowed to respond is a bit of a joke. Whenever I see her on TV, nobody else can get a word in edgewise. She never shuts up long enough to draw breath. She's a gobsh!te.

For the record, I don't like Michael Moore either.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Phlebas, thanks for the transcript. I'm not defending her, I'm just saying her point is this:

Quote:
 
Ms. COULTER: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point, let Bill Clinton make the point. Don't put up someone I'm not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.


She is talking in general. It is her opinion that people aren't allowed to talk back against the widows, against the Cindy Sheehans, etc. She wasn't being self-specific. In a way, she has a point. Something I've heard all over the place when debating Sheehan's shameless tactics is "Well, she lost a son, she's allowed to say these things, etc." When you have an emotional victim lobbying for something instead of an objective person, it's already a tilted scale.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Anne Coulter: political troll.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I don't like her, Phelps, Moore, Sheehan, Jackson, etc.

Although some ARE more entertaining than others. ^_^
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 7 2006, 11:58 AM
Phlebas, thanks for the transcript. I'm not defending her, I'm just saying her point is this:

Quote:
 
Ms. COULTER: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point, let Bill Clinton make the point. Don't put up someone I'm not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.


She is talking in general. It is her opinion that people aren't allowed to talk back against the widows, against the Cindy Sheehans, etc. She wasn't being self-specific. In a way, she has a point. Something I've heard all over the place when debating Sheehan's shameless tactics is "Well, she lost a son, she's allowed to say these things, etc." When you have an emotional victim lobbying for something instead of an objective person, it's already a tilted scale.

But Issac, isn't this point absurd on its face?

Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are among the liberals most viliied by conservatives. There are lots and lots of people talking back to them and against them.

So, she is justifying her actions based on a lie. And she is telling a lie so she can justify her mean-spirited, barbed, nasty tongue to stick a knife into people and turn it?

Why do conservatives continue to allow this woman to speak on their behalf? Where are the conservative leaders disavowing her and isloating her?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Jun 7 2006, 04:03 PM
I don't like her, Phelps, Moore, Sheehan, Jackson, etc.

Although some ARE more entertaining than others. ^_^

I don't think it's fair to brand the others in with Phelps. As much as I don't like these people, or at least the images they portray, I would say that he's someone of a very different and much more unpleasant type.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

We have as much control over "allowing her speak on our behalf" as you do with Michael Moore.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
I don't think it's fair to brand the others in with Phelps. As much as I don't like these people, or at least the images they portray, I would say that he's someone of a very different and much more unpleasant type.


True, but sh1t stinks, no matter how big the pile...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 9