Ann Coulter attacks 9/11 widows

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You Jesus Freak Warmonger! Haha. Defensive, aren't we?

[ZGangsta 0]

Oh, so I caught a little bit of Coulter along with my favorite comedy duo, Hannity & Colmes last night. This was priceless:

 

HANNITY: I share a lot of your views. But I want you to explain to everybody what is the foundation of Ann Coulter? Because a lot of people, when I mention your name to liberals they melt. You are like Alka-Seltzer in water. They bubble, fizz, give off their energy. You are the anti-Christ to them. Who is — what is the Ann Coulter? Where does your philosophy come from?

 

COULTER: Well, that's the toughest question I'm probably going to get on the book tour. In as much as I don't like talking about myself, I'm a Christian, and everything comes from being a Christian. Everything I do, I mean, from the interview that Alan was just reading from to Human Events.

 

I mean, I do think Christianity fuels all of my books, because you are called upon to behave in a certain way as a Christian, and that is to fight lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy. That fuels everything.

Bullshit bitch. You are anything but a Christian, or at least a good Christian. My mom's Catholic (and a conservative" and she think's you are fucking evil.

 

I will admit though-If I had the chance, I'd probably hit it. She has awesome legs.

Has this thread seriously gone this long without invoking this classic:

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

You Jesus Freak Warmonger! Haha. Defensive, aren't we?

 

No, just an observer of trends. More often than not when one side publicly disagrees with another that side resorts to ad hominem attacks. I know I forgot "Stalinist" (a new one I must admit) but being a bloodthirsty Bible thumper seems to be the popular characterization for conservatives.

[Special K 0]

Yes, of course Stalinist was silly, it's like invoking Hitler.

 

Do you honestly take Ann Coulter seriously as a political commentator? As I said, ALL she does is name-calling and outrageous statements. Do you support her statements that the widows are revelling in the death of their husbands, or the 'Arabs are stinky' thing?

 

And 50% of this country is conservatives. I think the vast majority of those people are reasonable human beings. Just like I hope you don't think that the 50% of people in this country that are liberal are complete crazies.

 

People like Ann Coulter, and anyone like her on the left for that matter offer nothing but anger and hate, instead of actual dalogue.

 

The only thinkg I find troubling is that Coulter and and Savage are so popular.

 

Remember that lefty asshole who called Pat Tillman an 'idiot?' I don't remember people lining up to back him up. He was widely decried.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

For the sickos that think she's hot...

 

 

[Special K 0]

Damn, she looks like she could shell a coconut with those things.

 

She does have pretty, pretty hair. Though she looks like she dyes it.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

I think that most of these people, both liberal and conservative, are nothing more than windbags who stir up shit on the opposing side. I just happen to agree more with Coulter, Hannity, Malkin, etc. on some issues. Do I agree with everything they say? By no means.

 

P.S. I don't think the wives are revelling in the deaths of their family members. I think they're revelling in the ATTENTION it's getting them. Much like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

Honestly, I wonder if Bush is doing the same thing, enjoying the attention he;s getting, or was. He was going along, a fairly unimpressive(In my opinion, anyway) president without too much going on, y'know, pressing his issues and such, clearing brush, then...he's a "war president(as an anti war type, I believe war should not be something to be proud of, it should be something done with regret, disappointment, almost, that things couldn't be settled peacefully, but that's me)."

[Special K 0]

I think that most of these people, both liberal and conservative, are nothing more than windbags who stir up shit on the opposing side. I just happen to agree more with Coulter, Hannity, Malkin, etc. on some issues. Do I agree with everything they say? By no means.

 

See, I can respect that. I've said it before, but I'll reiterate: the one completely partisan commentator I enjoy is Michael Medved, even though I disagree with him on the majority of things. He actually logically discusses his philosophy and arguments. Hell, he had Dan Savage on his show, and they had a reasonable, respectful discussion of gay rights. And what it boiled down to was they believed different things, not a virulent "you're wrong and I'm right" argument.

 

On a good 80% of the issues I can see the sides of both parties. I'm probably 60-40 liberal. What I hate is that the news has come down to ratings, and hate-mongers on both sides seem to be what gets ratings.

 

People love to be told what they already believe. They're not interested in rational political dialogue. They like their hosts to rant, pick out the idiot callers from the fringes of the other side and dissect them snidely. Then go on straw-man rants and slippery slope arguments instead of rationally discussing what's at hand.

 

BOTH sides are saying the other side is trying to build up their voter bloc with this bill. It's damn silly.

 

Look at the immigration debate. It's hard to get a reasonable discussion about this, so much that I still barely know what the bill really means, though I've been trying to follow it. The liberals on Air America are calling it racist, the right-wingers on talk radio are calling it amnesty. Surely it can't be both.

 

P.S. I don't think the wives are revelling in the deaths of their family members. I think they're revelling in the ATTENTION it's getting them. Much like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg.

 

I think that's still pretty damn unfair, and that's not how Coulter put it. She said they were revelling in the deaths of their husbands. O'Reilly said he was more upset about Glick's father's death than Glick was. That's some evil shit to say, no matter what. That's on the level of calling Pat Tillman an 'idiot', to me.

[cbacon 0]

People should stop paying attention to anything Ann Coulter says.

[Special K 0]

I'll leave alone the issue of the coverup of Pat Tillman's death. I'm sure his family's outrage meant that they were commies who revelled in their son's death.

[NoCalMike 0]

I just wish that if Coulter comes on with a book to promote, that the pundits attack her on the facts.

 

I remmeber when bernard goldberg came out with "Bias" a book about how left the media is, Al Franken was brought on to debate his book, and Franken basically picked apart numerous points in his book, instead with Coulter it is like she is given a free pass to spew whatever she wants without opposition, because 9 times out of 10, when presented with debate she loses and loses bad.

[Conspiracy_Victim 0]

I think that's still pretty damn unfair, and that's not how Coulter put it. She said they were revelling in the deaths of their husbands. O'Reilly said he was more upset about Glick's father's death than Glick was. That's some evil shit to say, no matter what. That's on the level of calling Pat Tillman an 'idiot', to me.

 

I'm not saying that what Ann thought. I'm pretty sure she meant what she said. It seems awfully uncompromising, but again that's what she gets paid to do: take a hard line and defend it to the death.

 

As for being unfair, that may be. However, where are the other thousands of people who were affected by 9/11 and the War(s)? I don't see Joe Schmoe's wife thinking she should get face time with the President or get consulted on matters of foreign policy just because her husband was killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or New York. I don't see 99.9% of those affected by the deaths call up TV stations and demand screen time because someone they loved died.

 

I've seen a story of a father who enlisted and volunteered for service in Iraq because his son, who was KIA, believed so strongly that they were doing the right thing in Iraq that the father felt like it was his duty to carry on. You know how I found it? Someone linked to it from the family's local newspaper. He didn't go on TV, beat his chest, and say, "Look at me! Look at what I'm doing! Someone notice my loss!" Sheehan, Berg, and the Girls just (to me, of course) look shabby by comparison, using their pain to seek out attention in an effort to exhort and publicize their personal beliefs.

 

If someone who supported Bush was on TV every day (or even once or twice a week) for weeks or months yelling about how they supported Bush even though their son/daughter/husband/wife died, I'd get sick of their overexposure too. If a Bush supporter used their media attention as an excuse to do outlandish things to garner even more attention (Sheehan) or try to parlay it into a political career (Berg), I'd want to beat them with a rubber hose as well. The fact that I disagree with the above mentioned people's personal beliefs just makes it even more grating to me.

 

BTW, O'Reilly seems to be quickly becoming a fence-straddler, disagreeing with whomever he is currently talking to just to be argumentative. That's starting to get annoying. Pick some core beliefs and stick to them man!

 

Also BTW K, if my cousin (who was in Desert Storm and was apparently involved in several activities he's still not allowed/wants to talk about) had been KIA and I had found out the Army had lied, I would have raised Hell myself. I don't think they're "commies" at all. You're starting to generalize people by political thought. I don't think every Democrat is like the wackos on DU. Don't think every Republican is like Coulter.

 

And I'm not even going to start on the whole immigration thing. Someone somewhere will get upset and/or defensive, and I'm too tired to deal with it.

[Special K 0]

We're all debating like Coulter now. Conspiracy, I think you're a reasonable guy. Maybe we can get an actual fucking dialogue going about current events.

 

And my brother served in Desert Storm and got righteously screwed.

[Special K 0]

You're starting to generalize people by political thought. I don't think every Democrat is like the wackos on DU. Don't think every Republican is like Coulter.

 

No, no, no. Dammit, the opposistte. That's exactly what I'm railing against. I think at least 80% of the people of the USA are intelligent enough but not informed enough to make a decision. They pay the Slightest attention to the news. It's the other 20% that's driving the news, and it's a shame.

 

In this country, which IS the greatest country on earth right now, We should have two or more parties reasonably debating. Instead we have mudslinging ('baby-killer' 'racist') instead of real debate.

 

What makes me depressed is that people don't want real debate at all. They want sound bites and pounding on the desk about opinions they already hold. No one THINKS anymore. I'll say I'm a liberal who has become more conservative in his political beliefs after analyzing the issues. I've really made just a cursory pass, no one even bothers to do that. THAT'S what I am lamenting. Liberal or conservative, we're making this too damn black or white.

 

AGAIN. About 50/50 of is the country liberal/conservative. If You think half of your brethren are idiots, or immoral, or whatever, you possess no complexity of thought. You're fucking sheep. Because I refuse to believe that all this country is composed of crazy left-wingers, and crazy right wingers, and never the

twain shall meet.

 

Bush is Hitler!

Abortiosodomy lobby!

 

I'm fucking sick to death of all of it. When did we lose the ability to think for ourselves?

[EricMM 0]

You're the one telling people that there is a 4/5 chance that they're crucially uninformed.

 

There are quite a few people on this board...

[CanadianChris 0]

You're the one telling people that there is a 4/5 chance that they're crucially uninformed.

 

There are quite a few people on this board...

There doesn't have to be an equal distribution of that 4/5 everywhere. The ones who frequent this folder are unlikely to be part of that 4/5. Some of the people in the WWE folder...well, that's another story.

[EricMM 0]

So, do you think people like JPB are part of the 4/5 or are they willful, IYO?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I totally agree with CV about Cindy Sheehan. I haven't seen Nick Berg's dad or the Jersey Girls really.

[Special K 0]

You're the one telling people that there is a 4/5 chance that they're crucially uninformed.

 

Is this directed at me?

[Guest Overworked]

I love how she bases most of her opinions on how shes a Christian. She had once said that after the US troops took over Iraq, that they should force a Religious shift to Christianity...

 

Jesus himself would be tapping Ann on the shoulder by now and essentially inform her that she probably wasn't getting the Jist of what he was talking about.

 

Then Ann would call the administration and have Jesus sent to Camp xRay for being a Long haired Hippy Enemy combantant.

[EricMM 0]

Look I'm sorry.

 

I'm no spelling nazi.

 

But it's "gist"

 

Please don't speak for Jesus any more than Ann does.

 

Believe what you believe, and let her believe what she wants to believe.

[Guest Overworked]

I love how she bases most of her opinions on how shes a Christian. She had once said that after the US troops took over Iraq, that they should force a Religious shift to Christianity...

 

Jesus himself would be tapping Ann on the shoulder by now and essentially inform her that she probably wasn't getting the Jist of what he was talking about.

 

Then Ann would call the administration and have Jesus sent to Camp xRay for being a Long haired Hippy Enemy combantant.

 

Well its all opinion anyway, even a wrong opinion like i've known to have more times than I can count. But thanks for the gist, for some reason it always looks like jist.

 

My whole thing on it, is if someone bases their hard line opinion claiming a christian background for the stuff as she says it. You would think she would be far more accepting.

[Guest LiveFastDieNever]

Look I'm sorry.

 

I'm no spelling nazi.

 

But it's "gist"

 

Please don't speak for Jesus any more than Ann does.

 

Believe what you believe, and let her believe what she wants to believe.

 

If she's skewing the teachings of Christ by incorrectly representing His name then I'm not sure existentialism is going to fly. Anyone on this board gets pissy when something they say is misrepresented. The Bible teaches believers that they are ambassadors for Christ and an accurate defense and explanation of His teachings and lifestyle is part of that.

[NoCalMike 0]

I wish our Presidential candidates will have a real debate in 2007. Not like the Bush/Kerry debate where they agreed not to talk to each other or directly address each other. Weak shit like that is depressing.

[EricMM 0]

Well if you and I are both ambassadors of Christ, then Christ has changed his mind many times.

 

Like it or not, but the Good Book has been *INTERPRETED* many ways for the last two thousand years, at least since it's inception and especially once Martin Luther did his thing. The Lutherians, the Southern Baptists, the Congregationalists, they're NOT the same.

 

There is a measure in faith merely in YOURSELF, that you are believing the truth.

 

Because I am Christian and Coulter is Christian and we are *NOT* the same.

[Guest Overworked]

Look I'm sorry.

 

I'm no spelling nazi.

 

But it's "gist"

 

Please don't speak for Jesus any more than Ann does.

 

Believe what you believe, and let her believe what she wants to believe.

 

If she's skewing the teachings of Christ by incorrectly representing His name then I'm not sure existentialism is going to fly. Anyone on this board gets pissy when something they say is misrepresented. The Bible teaches believers that they are ambassadors for Christ and an accurate defense and explanation of His teachings and lifestyle is part of that.

 

Then it becomes a larger question of faith and belief and intrepretation of the bible itself. Im a believer as well, but I think im reading the same pages differently than say someone else is. I probably can take some comfort that whatever you learn from or have faith in, is Right for you. And whatever someone else learns from and have faith in is right for someone else. When you look at the events in history and what have been done in Gods name they believe themselves true and righteous. Even if it contradictory to another intrepretion of the bible. Which I guess is why the waters get so mudding in this type of debate, because no matter how you read the book it will always be different for different people.

[Guest LiveFastDieNever]

Nor am I the same as Coulter.

 

Difference being I study the Bible academically to descover what it actually says culturally, historically and linguistically. Scholarship digs for the truth. Too many churches are failing to teach basic hermeneutics in favor of basically teaching an existential faith to boost and maintain their numbers instead of worrying about what the book actually says and how it works.

[EricMM 0]

And too many people put more Faith in man-written words than in God-given ideas.

 

But, you know, off topic, oft argued.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Typical nonsense from a typical kook who doesn't know shit about shit. She can't be all bad. I hear she gave Bill Mahar a mercy fuck.