Is Ann Coulter representative of today's GOP? [Archive]

freesw

08-25-2006, 21:40

She's a freak. Television loves freaks.

It's a little unusual, I'm sure you'd agree, though, when so many media outlets continue to air the "views" of someone who not only says she'd like a member of congress to get "fragged," but makes it crystal clear that she isn't joking. As she says in the radio excerpt linked above, when asked by the host if she'd like to clarify that remark, she only says, "it is what it is."

Who else with such extreme views has ever been invited back time after time on network cable programs, and continues to have columns published in mainstream newspapers? It isn't news that there are such loonies out there; they used to be called extremists, now at least one of them has attained the status of "conservative commentator."

Does that reflect well on conservatives overall?

stevekaw

08-25-2006, 22:40

I hope not. Else, the party is DOOMED!

deguello

08-26-2006, 11:48

She's a freak. Television loves freaks.

Actually I'm glad they give her all this airtime. Any reasonable person would be disgusted by her hate-mongering. I hope people remember her garbage when they go into the voting booth this November.

:lol:
She's definitely not mainstream GOP. She has more testosterone than 3/4 0f the gop.She's a freak? How insightful Boogy. And you have the nerve to attack me for spewing hate? Keep it up though, Coulter's ideas are more representative of the members than yours, and as long as you continue your pathetic cheapshots at conservative figures, you'll keep alienating members and fail in your goal to proselytize for the Democrat partei. Deguello

deguello

08-26-2006, 11:51

It's a little unusual, I'm sure you'd agree, though, when so many media outlets continue to air the "views" of someone who not only says she'd like a member of congress to get "fragged," but makes it crystal clear that she isn't joking. As she says in the radio excerpt linked above, when asked by the host if she'd like to clarify that remark, she only says, "it is what it is."

Who else with such extreme views has ever been invited back time after time on network cable programs, and continues to have columns published in mainstream newspapers? It isn't news that there are such loonies out there; they used to be called extremists, now at least one of them has attained the status of "conservative commentator."

Does that reflect well on conservatives overall?
Fragging members of congress was exactly what Jefferson intended when he said that the tree of liberty had to be periodically watered with the blood of tyrants.I suppose that makes Jefferson a right wing freak in your eyes.Deguello

Boogyman

08-26-2006, 11:58

She's definitely not mainstream GOP. She has more testosterone than 3/4 0f the gop.She's a freak? How insightful Boogy. And you have the nerve to attack me for spewing hate? Keep it up though, Coulter's ideas are more representative of the members than yours, and as long as you continue your pathetic cheapshots at conservative figures, you'll keep alienating members and fail in your goal to proselytize for the Democrat partei. Deguello
Like I said, you are predictable, Deguello.

It's obvious why you idolize Ann Coulter. You are just like her.

Get any sleep last night, Deguello? Or was the Boogyman keeping you up?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Boogyman

08-26-2006, 12:12

Ann Coulter chokes on her own black bile

by Walid

Coulter Vomits nightly on Fox news(UCS News : Washington D.C.) Doctors at the Walter Reed medical center are treating radical conservative pundit Ann Coulter for injuries received while appearing on Fox News. Coulter was vomiting black bile on the subject of 911 widows when the incident accrued. Paramedics rushed to the scene and were able to revive Coulter as she was rushed to Walter Reed intensive care unit.
Medic on the scene Alex Zimmer spoke to the press after the incident. "Had I known we were on the way to treat Ms. Coulter I would have driven a little slower and not tried so hard to save her." ZImmer a registered Republican and self identified conservative admitted off the record She used to be hot but now he thinks she has "Gone a bit psycho".

Tucker Carson a fellow conservative "pundit" was surprised that Coulter would have such an accident. "I've seen Ann Coulter in action vomiting gallons of her filthy black bile all around Fox news and on her book tours, why she is having problem now I can't say."

Coulter has been under attack recently due to some very inflammatory remarks found in her latest Rant "Godless". The NY Daily News in fact has released two articles out against her. "Coulter The Cruel" and "Ann's vicious screed". According to many in New York Coulter deserves the punishment.

With her manager at her side she is currently resting comfortably in a pool her own filth. The attending medical staff are praying she is released soon, as her presence in the hospital is making the staff and patients ill. In a written statement released to the press Coulter reminded us all "Tucker Carlson is still a twit."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

deguello

08-26-2006, 12:30

deguello

08-26-2006, 12:35

Like I said, you are predictable, Deguello.

It's obvious why you idolize Ann Coulter. You are just like her.

Get any sleep last night, Deguello? Or was the Boogyman keeping you up?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Not to worry,After a course of exlax, you were no longer present and I slept fine.You should really stop projecting your character traits on other people;you are as predictable as any other demoleft partei hack. Sleep well .Deguello

freesw

08-26-2006, 12:39

Fragging members of congress was exactly what Jefferson intended when he said that the tree of liberty had to be periodically watered with the blood of tyrants.

I'll just let that hang in the air, with this one thought: Was part of the intention of the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders that when members of one party decide they don't like what the other party is doing, that they resort to assasination? You say that is a good way to run a government?

Your statement above is asinine, and can achieve nothing but lower the level of debate in this thread, and you have done in many others by now. Your ridiculous baiting is going to cause this thread, which I started, to get sent to "Debates for Dummies" as well as so many others you've debased, and frankly I don't appreciate that.

freesw

08-26-2006, 12:45

Not to worry,After a course of exlax, you were no longer present and I slept fine.You should really stop projecting your character traits on other people;you are as predictable as any other demoleft partei hack. Sleep well .Deguello

I see. You don't like the unpleasant facts about your heroine Coulter to be exposed, so you decide to engage in a bit of do-it-yourself censorship by making such comments as above to make sure the thread gets sent to where it won't be read.

Boogyman

08-26-2006, 13:00

You were indeed keeping me up;but after I took some ex-lax,I felt fine and went back to bed.By the way can you use another insult besides wacko when you e mail me Booger?It's really getting boring;how about warmongering fascist,or rabid Bu****e? These contain more syllables and would allow you to simulate intelligence better. Deguello Proud member of the vast,right wing conspiracy.
I've never emailed you in my life, you are a liar.

And this is three times now, you've used the same old "exlax" line, yet you accuse others of not having the intelligence to think of "new" insults. Ho hum.

It would be flattering, how much time and effort you are wasting following me around insulting me, if you were actually someone worthy of my respect.

I wonder if you would speak to me the way you do if I was standing in front of you? Probably not.

Just another "keyboard coward" with a big mouth and no life.

Hoodoo

08-26-2006, 13:43

Though I am not one of her fans, I don't really know whether she is representative of the Republican Party or not, but she's definitely no carzier than Howard Dean and he IS a representative of the Democratic Party. In fact he is the HEAD of it. Sheesh, what a nutcase.

freesw

08-26-2006, 13:50

As the starter of this thread, who posted it with the intention of asking, in all seriousness, what do those that view themselves as conservatives and Republicans think of the many remarks by Ann Coulter, who claims to be a conservative and a Republican?

I consider myself to be conservative on some issues, liberal on some, libertarian on some, moderate on many, and I hope, Christian on all, unworthy as I am. I am not a Republican, and certainly not a "conservative" of Coulter's ilk. I don't think she speaks for conservatives, really, despite the appellation given her by some media outlets of "conservative commentator." I was hoping to see what real conservative readers of this forum really think of what Ann Coulter says. She doesn't do anything public, so it is what she says that we must judge her public persona on - and we have every right to do so since she so much wants to be in the spotlight.

I do not believe anyone can point to a "liberal commentator" or "Democrat" that emits anything approaching the level of divisive and yes, fundamentally unamerican speech that has become Coulter's trademark. If someone wants to point it out, and provide attribution (note to deguello, merely stating, as you did on another thread, that Sen Hegel wants to give Al Qaeda terrorists full civil rights, and then saying that it is "unnecessary" to provide any evidence for your claim, is not attribution) for remarks on par with those of Coulter, by Democrats and/or liberals, I would be more than willing to address them honestly and directly.

But what I would really like to know is, if you are a Republican and/or conservative, do you object to the more inflammatory statements that Ann Coulter has made over the years? Or do those statements more or less reflect what you really believe but wouldn't be as likely as her to state publically?

josh

08-26-2006, 14:23

I'll just let that hang in the air, with this one thought: Was part of the intention of the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders that when members of one party decide they don't like what the other party is doing, that they resort to assasination? You say that is a good way to run a government?

No but the founders envisioned the people doing such things.

I guess since am still technically registered republican Ill try to answer.
Ann Coulter says things to sell books and get publicity. Sometimes she is correct some times not. Much like any talking head. She is at least honest about what is opinion and what is fact unlike some of her colleagues.
Any true conservative does their own thinking and talking. Most of us are unsatisfied with what now passes as conservative ideals and champions of our cause. (Coulter,Hannity,Rush) The terms republican and conservative are NOT synonomous.
The party leadership now pushes the same agenda as their counterparts in the democrat party. The republicans are no longer the party of Barry Goldwater. It is the party of big government tyrrants such as Arlen Specter and Dubya.
The talking heads choose their side and argue vehemently for it.Truth be damned.
I believe it is silly to put so much faith in the rantings of the Ann Coulters and Al Frankens in our country.

freesw

08-26-2006, 14:51

Thank you for your reply, Josh.

I edited my final question, because as you write, "Any true conservative does their own thinking and talking," and therefor doesn't need anyone to speak "for" them. The same is, or should be, true of most people, of course. It's just that we often hear media personalities referred to as "spokespersons" for this or that point of view. Since Coulter has, for some inexplicable reason, been elevated to that status by Fox and Drudge and other television, radio, and newspaper outlets, it does seem reasonable to ask, "is Ann Coulter someone you are proud to have representing your side in national debates"?

Goeth27

08-26-2006, 14:53

The same may be asked about Michael Moore?

freesw

08-26-2006, 14:57

The same may be asked about Michael Moore?

Let's see the quote(s) you are referring to, along with some attribution. I provided Coulter in her own voice; let's see what you can come up with that Moore has said that can even remotely be compared - not that I'm a fan of Moore.

Goeth27

08-26-2006, 15:01

I am just trying to point out, that Ann Coulter is the looney of the right, and Moore is maybe slightly loonier then looney for the left. People that are so radical, even though they get the most media, are not represenitives of your average republican, or democrat or anything.

So no Ann Coulter does not represent the republicans even though she gets media attention.

And I beleive the same for Moore.

freesw

08-26-2006, 15:03

Zen900

08-26-2006, 15:12

Anne Coulter supports the American citizens' 2nd amendment right to own guns. All of you who have posted so far will be voting this fall for Democratic candidates who are anti gun, anti 2nd amendment. You guys are fooling yourselves and each of you only has yourself to blame for it.

deguello

08-26-2006, 15:21

What! Moore compared the islamofascist murderers in Iraq to the revolutionary war era minutemen.He's a lie-bloated totalitarian sympathizing piece of trash. Dedguello

deguello

08-26-2006, 15:24

No, I am a male,lack her courage and wit,and am not a blond. deguello

Goeth27

08-26-2006, 15:25

Yet you can't come up with quotes that show Moore is in any way similarly looney. Just vague generalities, without substance, void.
Did you forget he is a gun grabber, do you believe that guns are bad?

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win."
Describing Americans to the Daily Mirror, "They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks.
Also the reason why we all have guns is because we are just afraid of the black man according to Bowling for Columbine.

deguello

08-26-2006, 15:27

Goeth27

08-26-2006, 15:29

freesw

08-26-2006, 15:37

What! Moore compared the islamofascist murderers in Iraq to the revolutionary war era minutemen.He's a lie-bloated totalitarian sympathizing piece of trash. Dedguello

What did he say exactly, and where (ie what source) did you hear it?
Was he referring to Al Qaeda terrorists, or to Iraqis that oppose what they perceive to be US occupation of their country? -- Don't misunderstand - in most cases the latter category have to be shot, too, but a case can easily be made that such are Iraqi patriots, as were the revolutionary war era minutemen. They may not believe Bush when he promises that we are not there to steal their oil; why they would not believe that I cannot imagine, but apparently many don't.

But anyway, let's have your source, so we can see what Moore really meant.

josh

08-26-2006, 15:39

Thank you for your reply, Josh.

it does seem reasonable to ask, "is Ann Coulter someone you are proud to have representing your side in national debates"?

Well to be perfectly honest I pay little attention to Coulter. I dont think there are many "representing my side". I have read some excerpts from her newest book the left is up in arms over. I will admit what I saw I agreed with. But these wer like 2 paragraphs so I cannot judge a book I have not read.I suppose I will get the book and read it. Mostly because many of the people who act as enemies of Coulter are people I already consider to be enemies of freedom.
You want to get me on a soapbox ask me what I think of partisan hack Hannity.

Anne Coulter supports the American citizens' 2nd amendment right to own guns. All of you who have posted so far will be voting this fall for Democratic candidates who are anti gun, anti 2nd amendment. You guys are fooling yourselves and each of you only has yourself to blame for it.

What the hell does this matter? We have proven the citizenry does not have the desire or the will to do exactly what the second ammendment was included for.

When are people going to realize the second ammendment is worthless when we are willing subjects.

Goeth27

08-26-2006, 15:41

What did he say exactly, and where (ie what source) did you hear it?
Was he referring to Al Qaeda terrorists, or to Iraqis that oppose what they perceive to be US occupation of their country? -- Don't misunderstand - in most cases the latter category have to be shot, too, but a case can easily be made that such are Iraqi patriots, as were the revolutionary war era minutemen. They may not believe Bush when he promises that we are not there to steal their oil; why they would not believe that I cannot imagine, but apparently many don't.

But anyway, let's have your source, so we can see what Moore really meant.
Sorry to go off track, but his website..
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?

freesw

08-26-2006, 15:43

Actually,Goeth you are mistaken,while the GOP cowardsrefuse to be seen with Coulter, Michael Dr Goebbels wannabe ) Moore sat on Carter's right at the Kerry nomination follies,proving that the democrat party is now dominated by the stalinist left. Deguello

In one paragraph you accuse MM of being a "Dr Goebbels wannabe" and a "stalinist," revealing your peculiar interpretation of history. You can make it all clear to us by now providing evidence of a) MM's affiliation with Stalinists (since there haven't been more than a handful of those around since the mid-1950s, we'll expand the pool to include any communist at all) or b) any Nazi (and in the same interests of giving your search at least an outside chance of success, we'll expand it to include any neo-nazi or fascist, including any number of Latin American dictators).

I know you have a hard task ahead of you, so I'll check back for the results of your research later.

Or you can admit that you made it all up and save yourself the pointless exercise. Your choice.

freesw

08-26-2006, 15:58

Sorry to go off track, but his website..
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14

Good. You provided some evidence, which is a lot better than you managed in that other thread.

Turns out my suspicion was correct of who MM was referring to, and reasonable people will readily agree that there is a huge difference between Al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqis fighting to expel what they see as an army of occupation.

That's awfully uncomfortable to acknowledge, isn't it,that there could be Iraqi patriots fighting against us, or that US troops might be an "army of occupation," but how else are you going to begin to realize how it is that Bush's Iraq War is creating enemies that weren't there before, enemies that aren't Al Qaeda terrorists, if you can't acknowledge what it is that causes people to fight?

I don't like the way Michael Moore communicates in many cases. There is something anti-American about much of what he says, and I disagree with that. Nevertheless, nothing I've seen of his comes anywhere close to Coulter's fundamental dishonesty, anti-Americanism, petty partisan hatefulness, or sheer nastiness.

Zen900

08-26-2006, 19:29

Josh said:
When are people going to realize the second ammendment is worthless

Zen900 says: What "people" are you talking about? It's unAmerican to denounce the 2nd amendment.

josh

08-27-2006, 02:52

Josh said:

Zen900 says: What "people" are you talking about? It's unAmerican to denounce the 2nd amendment.

the american people. the second amendment is included in the constitution as a means to protect ourselves from tyrrants. A way to maintain freedom. Unfortunately many of th eprogun crowd are so firmly focused on the second ammendment they dont care when the rest of our rights are being trampled. many like the current republican party leadership support the destruction of our rights.
But hey we still have hunting rifles.

jwp

08-27-2006, 06:55

Yet you can't come up with quotes that show Moore is in any way similarly looney. Just vague generalities, without substance, void.

Did you listen the two clips in the opening post? Moore has never stooped nearly that low, and if he has, I want to know about it.

You say you "believe" the same about Moore. Let's see some evidence.

moore does his commentary by his docudrama films - bowling for columbine fior example - look at the innaccuracys there - no different than your posts on coulter except for way of delivery

also 9/11 flick

he tried to influence elections with film, she by words - samesame

ymmv

Holliday

08-27-2006, 12:35

the current republican party leadership support the destruction of our rights.

im thinking you would have a hard time proving that one, but hey this place has become a great place to spew verbal diarrhea hasn't it?

Boogyman

08-27-2006, 13:32

this place has become a great place to spew verbal diarrhea hasn't it?

And you have Deguello and Goeth to thank for that.

As usual.

(now watch and see... )

Straub

08-27-2006, 13:48

Good women!

Goeth27

08-27-2006, 14:38

And you have Deguello and Goeth to thank for that.

As usual.

(now watch and see... )

Already knowing that your goal is to have me banned from the forums (which you admitted to). I rather not give you the satisfaction of replying to your posts from here on, and unlike you I will follow through with my statements.

freesw

08-27-2006, 15:37

moore does his commentary by his docudrama films - bowling for columbine fior example - look at the innaccuracys there - no different than your posts on coulter except for way of delivery

also 9/11 flick

he tried to influence elections with film, she by words - samesame

Lots of folks try to persuade people to vote one way or another. You and the other Coulterites can try to change the subject all you like, yet the fact remains that you have not been able to come up with any evidence to show that MM is anywhere near as dishonest, sleazy, vicious, and gratuitously divisive as Ann Coulter. In fact, one would think anyone that supports Bush would detest Coulter's methods - Coulter is the "anti-uniter-not-a-divider." On the other hand, Bush did say that those that are not on his side are with the terrorists, but I don't believe he intended the loyal opposition within this country. Coulter just doesn't get it. Her views really and truly are bizarre, and it probably just is the shock value of her comments that have caused networks up to this point to continue to give her a platform from which to spew her bile. Those responsible for inviting her, however, have a lot to answer for.

Also the reason why we all have guns is because we are just afraid of the black man according to Bowling for Columbine.

Not very politically correct, is he.;)

Did he say that, or that some have guns for that reason? Would you deny, in all sincerity, that there is some truth in that, in many cases? Be honest now...and remember, most of the readers of this board weren't born yesterday so we've heard a lot of, uh, stuff over the years.

Boogyman

08-27-2006, 15:37

Already knowing that your goal is to have me banned from the forums (which you admitted to).
Again you lie about what I really said. What I said was I wanted to "drive you away" from stalking me and trolling me constantly, not "have you banned".

There's plenty of proof all over this board of your juvenile harrassment, so don't try to make me out the "bad guy".
I rather not give you the satisfaction of replying to your posts from here on, and unlike you I will follow through with my statements.
Your adolescent "replies" and sarcasm give no one any "satisfaction". You have been nothing but a pest, and are responsible for ruining many threads with your childish behavior.

I sincerely hope you mean what you say, but I doubt you can keep your promise. We shall see... <_<

josh

08-27-2006, 15:41

im thinking you would have a hard time proving that one,

No I dont need to prove it. GW and congress have done it for me. Read the patriot act in its entireity,also read the plans for a North American Union.
If after that you dont see the problem you should run out and get your "property of the republican party tatoo."

freesw

08-27-2006, 15:47

im thinking you would have a hard time proving that one

Gets proven here regularly, but you have to be able to comprehend what you read and think in order for it register.

this place has become a great place to spew verbal diarrhea hasn't it?

You ought to know.

gossman

08-27-2006, 15:59

Boogyman

08-27-2006, 16:08

Here is a great thread for the debate for dummies section. Mellow out guys. Ann Coulter has said inflamatory things, same with Moore. Both are controversal. We need people like them to show us the middle ground. Lets get back to the debate and stay away from the personal attacks.

Gossman, I agree. :o

Good post. ;)

You're right, the Coulter's and the Moore's serve a purpose, showing us where the "edge" of the road lies, so that those who wish to can remain on the pavement.

My personal opinion is that Coulter is much nastier than Moore is though. Each have their inaccuracies, but again I believe Coulter is more given to outright lying out of sheer meanness. For example, calling the 9/11 widows "witches and harpies". I can't remember Moore ever getting that low, but I'm sure if I'm wrong someone will jump on it. :lol:

Holliday

08-27-2006, 16:08

Gets proven here regularly, but you have to be able to comprehend what you read and think in order for it register.

You ought to know.

really you belong at democratic underground not here. maybe i just don't get it, you people WOULD vote in a leftist liberal such as Hillary Clinton, defend Michael Moore and Clinton (extra helping of assault weapons ban anybody!?!) and yet your here participating in a GUN FORUM.....i must be missing something i really must.

Another assault weapons ban comes in to effect don't bother bitching, im thinking that your lives will be more so effected then by big bad bush listening to al queda phone calls, those poor murderers are having there phone calls monitored and listened to shame on you nazi Bush!

the only thing i can get out of your garbage is you want a reaction and thats what you live for like a 15 year old dieing his hair blue.

oh and

ann coulter...she has brains like she has beuty

freesw

08-27-2006, 16:14

Ann Coulter has said inflamatory things, same with Moore. Both are controversal. We need people like them to show us the middle ground.

Would you please explain to me how Ann Coulter has shed any light on anything whatsoever? Have you listened to what she actually says?

Michael Moore could be compared with Rush Limbaugh with some justification, not Ann Coulter. I still want to know how she does the Republican Party, and the nation as a whole, one bit of good, anything at all to justify the lies, the hatred, the divisiveness which is so harmful to the national fabric in a time of war.

Boogyman

08-27-2006, 16:37

(sigh)... So much for staying away from personal attacks... <_<

really you belong at democratic underground not here.
Who are you to say who belongs here or not?

your here participating in a GUN FORUM.....i must be missing something i really must..
What you're missing is that gun owners don't always follow your preconcieved ideas of what they should be.

There are plenty of gun forums out there that are full of ignorant, liberal-bashing, wanna-be Rambo rednecks who visciously crucify anyone who would dare post a view different from theirs.

If that's what you want, you know how to google.
Another assault weapons ban comes in to effect don't bother bitching.
The AWB was more stupid than effective. If one has to choose between flash hiders and hi-cap mags (both of which you could still buy aftermarket) and watching America being destroyed by it's own government, guess which choice is more important?
im thinking that your lives will be more so effected then by big bad bush listening to al queda phone calls, those poor murderers are having there phone calls monitored and listened to shame on you nazi Bush! .
What does Bush or his illegal NSA domestic spying program have anything whatsoever to do with Ann Coulter?
the only thing i can get out of your garbage is you want a reaction and thats what you live for like a 15 year old dieing his hair blue..
Figures. It's typical for you to personally attack those whose intellects are beyond your understanding.
ann coulter...she has brains like she has beuty
Which is zero in both cases. That's what you meant, right?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

freesw

08-27-2006, 16:40

Holliday, you sure do make a lot of assumptions.

Suffice it to say that I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton in the primary, and would only vote for her for president if the Republicans nominate someone really awful. For example, in a race between McCain and Clinton, I would not hesitate to vote for McCain.

Boogyman

08-27-2006, 16:48

Would you please explain to me how Ann Coulter has shed any light on anything whatsoever? Have you listened to what she actually says?
FreeSW, I think what Gossman was saying is that Coulter, by being what she is, serves as an example to show the extreme fringe of the right, just as Moore could be viewed by some to be representative of the fringe left, therefore pointing the way towards middle ground.

At least that's what I got from his statement.

Coulter is definitely a fringe-right looney. But I've seen much more left-extremes than Moore.

Ghandi, for instance... :lol:

LAFOYJL

08-27-2006, 20:26

I doubt if Ann Coulter has ever brought any new voters into the Republican party. As stated earlier, she is more of a freak and people like to hear her say things they can't say. She is no threat to her opposition. Stated earlier, Michael Moore's opposite would be someone like Rush L. I think a better comparison would be to pit her against Bill Maher, but Maher is funnier. I think they are actually friends.
I'm much more likely to change my mind on a subject after listening to George Will or Pat Buchannon.

freesw

08-27-2006, 20:36

Let's get real. This is the face of terrorism:

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

This is Ann Coulter:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”

You find anything Michael Moore has ever said that comes anywhere close to that. And one more thing, that is typical Coulter rhetoric, par for the course. You tell me how that kind of advocacy does anyone anywhere any good, American or Arab, Democrat or Republican, Christian or Muslim.

freesw

08-27-2006, 20:59

I'm much more likely to change my mind on a subject after listening to George Will or Pat Buchannon.

Well, sure, Will and Buchanan are the real deal, Coulter is not. The only reason for this thread is because she sells a lot of books and appears on a lot of TV - so that means lots of people pay attention to what she says. The question is, are most of the people watching paying attention for the same reason they watch Jerry Springer, or is it that she says what many would like to, but don't because they either would be embarassed to say publically what they think, or fear the consequences of uttering such bile. I doubt many are buying her book just for yuks, and we've seen a few here that seem to think she's got some cred.

I think a better comparison would be to pit her against Bill Maher, but Maher is funnier. I think they are actually friends.

That reminds me of James Carville and Mary Matalin. Can't help but wonder about such cases. How could anyone that really believes what Maher has appeared to believe in public all these years be on good terms, much less friends, with someone so antithetical to every real American value? Someone so fundamentally indecent? I've listened to her quite a bit over the years, and it just isn't possible to dismiss her pattern of vicious and dishonest rhetoric as simple entertainment, humor, or hyperbole in the cause of making points. It's much more basic than that. Coulter, and some others who also get far more attention than can reasonably be explained, are out for nothing less than to set American against American, and they exhibit no concern whatsoever for the multitudes that pay and will pay the price should their twisted and evil intentions come to pass.

LAFOYJL

08-27-2006, 21:09

Kind of like the man on the hockey team whose main job is to start fights.

Hoodoo

08-28-2006, 06:03

Get real folks. Coulter is no worse than some on the Dem/Liberal side. The bashing by Party adherents is not moving things ahead.

freesw

08-28-2006, 07:09

Get real folks. Coulter is no worse than some on the Dem/Liberal side.

She is much worse. That is my whole point. No one yet has come up with an example of a Democrat whose rhetoric is equivalent to Coulter's. I'm asking for specific examples. I've given specific examples of Coulter's speech.

The bashing by Party adherents is not moving things ahead.

That is right, and since Coulter's is by far the worst, I'm asking Republican adherents here to disavow her. That would help to show that her unamerican and divisive rhetoric has no place within the Republican party.

freesw

08-28-2006, 15:51

Kind of like the man on the hockey team whose main job is to start fights.

That's a good comparison.

By the way, I hope it was clear that my first post directly after your post that began, "I doubt if Ann Coulter has ever brought any new voters into the Republican party" was not in response to your post, just the second one, where I quoted your remarks about George Will, Pat Buchanan, and Bill Maher. The other one was in response to anyone still trying to claim that Coulter is fundamentally no different from Michael Moore or Howard Dean.

Some may not have heard Coulter speak enough to realize that her really extreme remarks are not anomalies, but are, rather, the norm for her. Furthermore, her writing is just as bad, and she has every opportunity to think about what she submits to the publisher. She has made it abundantly clear that she means what she says. Occasionally she tells a "joke," like when she claimed that Al Gore is "gay" on Chris Matthew's program, and then backed off right away, but even in a situation like that, one must ask, what is the point of saying something like that?

So I don't mean to be overly critical of those that don't know much about her, which after all, only demonstrates good viewing sense. I do ask, though, that Republicans decide one way or the other whether the Republican Big Tent is big enough to fit someone like Ann Coulter. There are some that I would have no problem at all saying that I do not want them in the Democrat party; if they want to vote Democrat, fine, but just don't pretend to represent Democrats. Likewise, I would understand someone that says of Coulter, if she wants to vote for Republican candidates, great, just don't show up on national television spewing that bile in the name of the GOP and conservatives.

Republicans did the right thing with David Duke, now it is time to ask yourselves similar questions about Ann Coulter. Shouldn't be too tough, really.

freesw

08-28-2006, 16:42

... I've seen much more left-extremes than Moore.

Ghandi, for instance... :lol:

True enough :)

I remember seeing a long time ago a diagram purporting to be a political spectrum, and the point of it was to show how as one moves further and further to the "right," one becomes just like someone on the extreme "left," and vice versa. In other words, how different, really, were Stalin and Hitler? This "spectrum" was really a full circle, with the extremists of both left and right on one side, and the moderates on the opposite side. It seems to me that is a more significant distinction in practice. But even that model falls short, because as you point out, someone like Ghandi could be thought of as being very far left...

...yet Gandhi has nothing in common with Stalin! On the other side, let's ask ourselves, who would be a quintessential conservative? King George III? Barry Goldwater? William Buckley? George Will? Ronald Reagan? (No, Atilla the Hun doesn't qualify :lol:) Michael Savage? It seems to me that with the first and last options, we're really looking more at "reactionaries" than true "conservatives," the former an elitist of the first order (in that most ultimate of senses, monarchist), the latter a populist, yet both reacting against the course of events far more than dealing with life on life's terms. The others are who I think of as traditional conservatives.

In addition to asking for thoughts on the above, what is true conservatism, and who are examplars, what do folks think "liberal" means today, and who would be some prime examples of liberals, past and present?

freesw

08-28-2006, 17:12

Would you please explain to me how Ann Coulter has shed any light on anything whatsoever? Have you listened to what she actually says?

Gossman, in my remarks above, I should have taken into account your intent, which if I understand correctly, was to infuse the thread with a bit of calmness and ask everyone to chill out, as much as what you said about Coulter in relation to Moore (who I'm still not defending, just saying is not in the same category as Coulter by any stretch). Fact is, I can't agree with your statement about that, but I can and do respect the intent in your post, and I'm sorry for not at least acknowledging it in my initial reply.

deguello

08-28-2006, 18:28

No I dont need to prove it. GW and congress have done it for me. Read the patriot act in its entireity,also read the plans for a North American Union.
If after that you dont see the problem you should run out and get your "property of the republican party tatoo."
Josh, I actually agree with you, the proble is that both partieswant to promote the greed of the new world economic disorder, by shipping out jobs, flooding the country with illegal cheap labor, andpromoting a global culture. Deguello

deguello

08-28-2006, 18:48

Good. You provided some evidence, which is a lot better than you managed in that other thread.

Turns out my suspicion was correct of who MM was referring to, and reasonable people will readily agree that there is a huge difference between Al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqis fighting to expel what they see as an army of occupation.

That's awfully uncomfortable to acknowledge, isn't it,that there could be Iraqi patriots fighting against us, or that US troops might be an "army of occupation," but how else are you going to begin to realize how it is that Bush's Iraq War is creating enemies that weren't there before, enemies that aren't Al Qaeda terrorists, if you can't acknowledge what it is that causes people to fight?

I don't like the way Michael Moore communicates in many cases. There is something anti-American about much of what he says, and I disagree with that. Nevertheless, nothing I've seen of his comes anywhere close to Coulter's fundamental dishonesty, anti-Americanism, petty partisan hatefulness, or sheer nastiness.
Here's alink to Coulter's latest article Shredding the demoleft partei for its flaccidity vis a vis islamofascism Let the members decide how much out of the mainstream she is. BTW, in Farttenheit 911, Moore has a scene showing Iraqui children happily at play, until the big mean genocidal,USAF drops bombs on them. Like I said, Alie -bloated propagandist and traitor, but liberals a mainstream guy. DEGUELLO

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=24045

Boogyman

08-28-2006, 20:07

From another thread:
hOW ABOUT THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF THE 911 VICTIMS KILLED
The same widows and orphans that Ann Coulter calls "witches and harpies"?

Hmmm...

freesw

08-28-2006, 20:41

BTW, in Farttenheit 911, Moore has a scene showing Iraqui children happily at play, until the big mean genocidal,USAF drops bombs on them.

Yep. Obviously fabricated.

Everyone knows Iraqi children are not like children in other countries; you would never see them happily at play, and being bombed is just another word for liberation. Yes, you see,

hOW ABOUT THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF THE 911 VICTIMS KILLED
it's only tragic when American civilians are killed.

And now let's take a look at yet another dissembling Ann Coulter hack job:

You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).
For you see, in Coulter's fabricated worldview, "the media" referred to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as "a dead Jordanian civilian," not the most wanted terrorist in Iraq! You think you remember reading the headlines and seeing and hearing the news stories in the New York Times and CNN about al-Zarqawi being killed by US bombs, and that he had been responsible for multiple mass bombings, beheadings and other assorted acts of terrorism and now he was finally dead, much to the relief of Iraqi and coaltion troops alike? NO! You read and heard no such thing; Ann Coulter's memory is so much better than yours; SHE is right, and YOU are mistaken...ah BS.

Look, one paragraph into it and she's already totally discredited herself yet again. It is absurd to give her any credence whatsoever. She spins a web of lies, and that is the truth, as a cursory look at her latest column shows us once again.

josh

08-29-2006, 18:34

From another thread:

The same widows and orphans that Ann Coulter calls "witches and harpies"?

Hmmm...
I have an issue with putting these people on a pedestal. They have suffered tremendously for sure. But they are not hero's,martyrs or immune to critiscim for their actions. Im sure before 911 some of them were pieces of crap and after some of them still are.

Boogyman

08-30-2006, 01:16

Im sure before 911 some of them were pieces of crap and after some of them still are.
Good grief, Josh, your egomania and arrogance astounds me!

You actually believe you can pronounce people you never met as "pieces of crap"?

Who the hell do you think you are? :wacko:

josh

08-30-2006, 04:49

Good grief, Josh, your egomania and arrogance astounds me!

You actually believe you can pronounce people you never met as "pieces of crap"?

Who the hell do you think you are? :wacko:

People are people. Some nice some not so nice. That is a fact of life. When you have this many people there are bound to be bad apples.

Boogyman

08-30-2006, 10:14

People are people. Some nice some not so nice. That is a fact of life. When you have this many people there are bound to be bad apples.

And of course you don't consider yourself one of the "pieces of crap" you so smugly refer to.... <_<

freesw

08-30-2006, 10:54

Gentlemen........ ;) I'd sure like to keep this thread in particular out of the dump :D Muchas gracias

freesw

08-30-2006, 11:01

I'm still hoping to see real conservatives, real Republicans, real Americans, disassociate themselves and their party from the venom emitted from Ann Coulter's keyboard and mouth.

So far the comments have not been encouraging.

http://www.swordscrossed2.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=180
Coulterization of the Republican Party
by: Mike Pridmore
Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 23:00:00 PM MDT
Ender recently suggested that Anne Coulter is just an entertainer who plays to conservative audiences and suggested that she does not have much influence over the party. While I do agree that she does not influence the party per se, I would argue that her form of "entertainment" fits in nicely with the methods of the party establishment. I think that polarization, which is the effect of Coulter's brand of "entertainment," is the stock in trade of the modern Republican Party.

As my first piece of evidence is a quote from Allen Raymond (recently returned from prison after a phone-jamming conviction), who served as chief of staff to a cochairman of the Republican National Committee, supervised Republican contests in mid-Atlantic states for the RNC, and was a top official in publisher Steve Forbes's presidential campaign (link):

[Allen] says he was part of a Republican political culture that emphasizes hardball tactics and polarizing voters.

...the scheme reflects a broader culture in the Republican Party that is focused on dividing voters to win primaries and general elections. He said examples range from some recent efforts to use border-security concerns to foster anger toward immigrants to his own role arranging phone calls designed to polarize primary voters over abortion in a 2002 New Jersey Senate race.
...``A lot of people look at politics and see it as the guy who wins is the guy who unifies the most people," he said. ``I would disagree. I would say the candidate who wins is the candidate who polarizes the right bloc of voters. You always want to polarize somebody."

As my second example of polarization by the Republican party, take a look at what karl Rove said today in an attack on John Kerry and John Murtha (link):

"Like too many Democrats it strikes me they are ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough, they fall back of that party's old platform of cutting and running. They may be with you for the first few bullets but they won't be there for the last tough battles," he said.

In this quote, Rove, who is the uber-insider of Republican politics, tries to paint Kerry and Murtha as cowards who run away from a fight. This is a perfect example of attempts to polarize voters by demonizing Democrats.

The tactic of building a liberal strawman that is a misleading caricature is so reminiscent of Coulter that I think she typifies entirety of the party leadership. Rove does it all the time. And the leadership of the Republican Party, with examples given by one of its own, is constantly trying to polarize voters.

That's why I refer to this as the Coulterization of the Republican party. And I think that as long as the party leaders focus on these tactics that they are open to justified criticism from constituents. And I think Barry Goldwater would puke if he saw what they have done with his party.

Boogyman

08-30-2006, 15:04

Gentlemen........ ;) I'd sure like to keep this thread in particular out of the dump :D Muchas gracias

My apologies.

Josh now has the distinction of being the only person on my "ignore" list, you will see no further animosity towards him from me.

;)

josh

08-30-2006, 15:12

And I think Barry Goldwater would puke if he saw what they have done with his party.

That is a big 10-4.
I cannot speak for coulter as I stated I pay no attention to her.
But,since you seem earnest in your questioning,I will offer something for you to consider.Strictly my point of view.

FRUSTRATION. This is what many people who desire freedom and liberty above all else have to deal with. Lets be honest. We are losing both of these at an alarming rate. No matter what we try or how hard we fight back. The creates a lot of frustration.
Out of frustration and desperation come comments that you may view as "venemous". It is frustration that causes me to say stuff like the NY times should be bombed. Charles Schumer castrated and the Clintons assasinated.
These people are my enemy. They are a far greater threat to my liberty than any camel jockey could dream of being. To add further insult to injury they are my countrymen who have betrayed me and others like me.
Now I am told I should be polite and respectful to my enemies. I am expected to behave as if there is nothing great at stake in this war against freedom.
Surely you can understand that is not always possible. Quite possibly it is not even helpful.
The ideas should be judged for their merit and truth valued above all. The feelings of the enemy be damned.
Do you really think our founding fathers were afraid to tell it like it is? Or to insult or "spew hatred" of their enemies?

Just something to consider.

freesw

08-30-2006, 19:40

Out of frustration and desperation come comments that you may view as "venemous". It is frustration that causes me to say stuff like the NY times should be bombed. Charles Schumer castrated and the Clintons assasinated.
These people are my enemy. They are a far greater threat to my liberty than any camel jockey could dream of being. To add further insult to injury they are my countrymen who have betrayed me and others like me.
Now I am told I should be polite and respectful to my enemies. I am expected to behave as if there is nothing great at stake in this war against freedom.
Surely you can understand that is not always possible. Quite possibly it is not even helpful.
The ideas should be judged for their merit and truth valued above all. The feelings of the enemy be damned.
Do you really think our founding fathers were afraid to tell it like it is? Or to insult or "spew hatred" of their enemies?

Please reread the Declaration of Independence, a listing of grievances against the Crown which justified an actual revolt of arms. Notice how, for all the wrongs listed, there is no venom, no threat to hoist George III's head on a pike, rather, the tone is one of determination and sober restraint.

What is "not even helpful" are coments that persuade most people that, for all the disadvantages of standing down while the government takes more and more of our rights away, acting is even worse because in the resultant disruption violent extremists would take advantage of the anarchy to bring their own hellish visions to pass. Unjustified violent rhetoric only adds to the perception that too many of those opposed to the government's overreaching policies are irresponsible extremists.

Just something to consider.

Right.

josh

08-30-2006, 21:06

Please reread the Declaration of Independence, a listing of grievances against the Crown which justified an actual revolt of arms. Notice how, for all the wrongs listed, there is no venom, no threat to hoist George III's head on a pike, rather, the tone is one of determination and sober restraint.

.

Sure that is what is recorded.But what do you suppose was spoken amongst the people? What do you suppose those fighting for their lives said?
Guess we dont know. You may be right. But that would make people then far different than people today.

Unjustified violent rhetoric only adds to the perception that too many of those opposed to the government's overreaching policies are irresponsible extremists.

I would argue that if it is true it is justified. Im sure many viewed our founders as irresponsible extremists also.:)

I would say the reality is if you are being beaten and forced into oppression on a daily basis it is hard to be civil and restrained.
I believe we have been dumbed down to the point some people really dont understand that it is not one party or the other harming them. They are mad and lash out at whoever they perceive to be the cause. As you know it is much more complicated than having a D or R by your name.

Hoodoo

08-31-2006, 04:51

freesw

08-31-2006, 07:48

Coulter is a right wing nutcase . If you want to hear well reasoned, intelligent political debate listen to Michael Murphy, Howard Dean, Cynthia McKenney, Nancy Polosi, Al Sharpton or any of the other highly intelligent types on the other side. Sheesh.

Al Sharpton is not as much in the Democrat mainstream as Coulter now is in the Republican. Neither is Cynthia McKinney, when it comes down to it. And I don't know who Michael Murphy is. I have no idea why you would include Pelosi in that list. Now, Howard Dean... there's an interesting case... Chair of the Democrat Party, and yes he's put his foot in his mouth on more than just a few occasions. He wouldn't be my choice. But be that as it may, I challenge you to find one comment, just one, from Howard Dean that rises to the level of the multiple vile remarks Coulter has made, that have been linked from this thread. You simply won't be able to do it. Coulter is a "class" by herself.

freesw

09-01-2006, 16:37

Coulter is a right wing nutcase . If you want to hear well reasoned, intelligent political debate listen to Michael Murphy, Howard Dean, Cynthia McKenney, Nancy Polosi, Al Sharpton or any of the other highly intelligent types on the other side. Sheesh.

Have any of the above "reasoned, intelligent, political debaters" ever said anything like this:

"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." -- Ann Coulter, 2005

http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php

And still, we just can't seem to get Republicans, whether on this board, or on the national stage, to distance themselves from Ann Coulter - now, why would that be??<_<

Goeth27

09-01-2006, 17:45

Freesw you can drop it now, your question was.

Is Ann Coulter representative of today's GOP?

And nobody has said she is. Yet you insist she is, pointless to beat the dead horse.

freesw

09-02-2006, 10:40

Freesw you can drop it now, your question was.

And nobody has said she is. Yet you insist she is, pointless to beat the dead horse.

Are you getting a little uncomfortable there, Goeth27?

You see, Ann Coulter is right in the midst of today's GOP.

Have a look at the ad for "Restoration Weekend" (interesting name, that, do they want to revert to monarchy?) at the upper right on this page
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17961
Look at the list of speakers. Republican governors and a congressman, David Horowitz, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, and yes, there she is, Ann Coulter.

Let's have a look at the rest of the article in which Coulter is quoted as saying, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment" - at a Republican event, and see just how firmly entrenched her mentality is in at least one Republican district:
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php
Ann Coulter, an outspoken Republican pundit and author, energized and entertained more than 800 UF students and Alachua County residents Thursday night at the third annual Ronald Reagan Black Tie and Blue Jeans BBQ.

The audience, decked out in patriotic garb and cowboy boots, fanatically surrounded Coulter before dinner, asking her to pose with them for pictures.

One woman caught Coulter's attention by begging for a picture, saying, "my husband loves you."

The Republicans got in the spirit of the night while enjoying an SUV-size trailer full of Budweiser beer.

Attendees paid between $25 and $75 to attend the event; the latter price included dinner. The money went to the Alachua County Republican Party, which paid $30,000 to have Coulter speak.

Coulter mainly addressed weaknesses she saw in the Democratic party.

"The Democrats complain about the Republican base being nuts," Coulter said. "The nuts are their entire party."

She warned attendees to not allow Democrats anywhere near foreign policy, "not even to keep them away from domestic policy."

Coulter defended the war in Iraq and chastised Democrats for "demoralizing America."

"The war was a magnificent success," she said. "We're a few years into the rebuilding."

She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

Her statements received applause, and many attendees said they enjoyed her speech, but some added that they think she's somewhat extreme.

"She's not very subtle, but I always enjoy her talks," Republican Senate candidate Travis Horn said. "They're very hard hitting, but the truth hurts."

The vice chair of the Alachua County Republican Executive Committee Bryan Harman said the unexpectedly large turnout was wonderful, and he enjoyed Coulter's fiery speech.

"I thought it was very funny," Harman said. "She used a lot of humor and good political satire to make people laugh. She would take serious issues and make fun of them a little, but she still got her point across."

UF students received a $30 discount, and UF College Republicans President Ashlee Black said the club sold about 100 tickets.

"We had a good turn out of UF students and College Republicans," Harman said. "They were very instrumental in pulling this all together."

Black enjoyed Coulter's speech, and said she felt special when Coulter called UF Republicans "beautiful" at the beginning of her speech.

"I think that she's incredibly intelligent and outspoken," Black said. "She's a little raw, but I think she balances the left's Michael Moore."

------

And yet, as I've already noted, no one here has been able to find any quote from Michael Moore that comes anywhere near the level of Coulter's vitriolic anti-American venom.

Hoodoo

09-03-2006, 04:33

Boogyman

09-03-2006, 10:48

Tthe criticism's of one major Party about the other and it's blind adherents is a real hoot. Fact is that neither Party has a lock on having nutcases in it's midst. Coulter is no worse than any number of Democratic supporters. Is Howard Dean the epitome of maturity and reasoned thought? Does Michael Murphy represent the views of the majority on the Democratic Party and is he dealing with a full deck? Neither Party has recently done anything to indicate that they are interested in anything other than to hold or regain power unto themselves. Unfortunately, these shysters have managed to gain millions of poor, blind, unfortunate supporters.

Why does it seem like most Conservatives are either defending Ann Coulter or excusing her by saying the left has it's nutcases too?

Why don't you just come out and say "Coulter is evil and she doesn't represent me"?

I don't get it. It's just like another Conservative stick: they can only admit corruption in the Republican Party by saying "well, both parties are corrupt".

Yet Coulter is obviously far more hateful and vicious than any of her liberal counterparts, just as there are far more Republicans involved in corruption scandals than Democrats.

And then they turn around and accuse Democrats of partisanship.

I'm a true liberal, and I can stand here and say that Micheal Moore does not represent me, and neither does Howard Dean, simply because I'm not a Democrat.

Be a man. Just admit it.

freesw

09-03-2006, 14:47

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/theyshotthewronglincoln

THEY SHOT THE WRONG LINCOLN
Wed Aug 30, 2006

In addition to supporting Democrat
Joe Lieberman over Republican Alan Schlesinger in Connecticut,
President Bush is supporting the Democrat over the Republican in Rhode Island, too. In the Republican primary, Bush supports Lincoln Chafee -- who votes with Bush on the important issues less often than Sen. Lieberman does -- over the only actual Republican in the race, Stephen Laffey.

Apart from Bush, the only person who hasn't figured out that Lincoln Chafee is a Democrat is Lincoln Chafee. ...

-------

Yep, in Ann Coulter's world, just being Democrat is enough to warrant being shot.

gossman

09-04-2006, 22:36

They all are sellouts. Both parties resort to using baffoons for their dirty work, both parties are dishonest, and both are so intertwined at the top I wouldn't be surprised if they flip coins at secret meetings to decide who gets to screw with the country for 4 years. How else can we explain the lack of true choice from the parties? The american sheeple are headed for hell, not knowing or caring, picking leaders while watching Oprah and Jerry Springer. Ann Coulter is a nutcase that gets the Republican party noticed, M. Moore was and is a useful idiot who gets the sheeple of the left aroused and thinkn' they got the answer.

josh

09-05-2006, 04:41

Why does it seem like most Conservatives are either defending Ann Coulter or excusing her by saying the left has it's nutcases too?

Why don't you just come out and say "Coulter is evil and she doesn't represent me"?

I don't get it. It's just like another Conservative stick: they can only admit corruption in the Republican Party by saying "well, both parties are corrupt".

Yet Coulter is obviously far more hateful and vicious than any of her liberal counterparts, just as there are far more Republicans involved in corruption scandals than Democrats.

And then they turn around and accuse Democrats of partisanship.

I'm a true liberal, and I can stand here and say that Micheal Moore does not represent me, and neither does Howard Dean, simply because I'm not a Democrat.

Be a man. Just admit it.

pretty sure I did that.

stevekaw

09-07-2006, 11:13

Nice little bit on Ms. Coulter from Gawker.com. She does seem to profit when she opens her mouth...
[http://www.gawker.com/news/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-45-axis-of-evil-199123.php] (http://www.gawker.com/news/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-45-axis-of-evil-199123.php])

[/URL][URL="http://www.gawker.com/news/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-45-axis-of-evil-199123.php"]Ann Coulter, 45: Axis of Evil (http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/)

http://www.gawker.com/assets/resources/2006/09/ann%20coulter%20axis%20of%20evil.jpg
Sure, we like to knock Ann Coulter around now (http://www.gawker.com/news/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-the-lenny-bruce-of-our-age-194672.php) and again (http://www.gawker.com/news/ann-coulter/raving-stick-figure-not-fooled-by-whole-clinton-hetero-thing-190024.php). Who doesn't, really? Like all her fans, though, we've often wondered how much truth there is to the popular chestnut that she says outrageous things not because she particularly believes them, but merely to gain media attention and thus drive her book sales. And more importantly: does it work? A hard-hitting investigative campaign (i.e. dispatching Intern Mary into the depths of Lexis and Bookscan) revealed that a correlation may indeed have existed between evil quotations, press mentions (in the New York Times, New York Post, and New York Daily News for our purposes), and book sales for her earlier tomes. However, Coulter may be working it a little too hard in support of her most recent book (Godless: The Church of Liberalism). Eventually, nothing's shocking, even from Ann. Graph and supporting quotations after the jump.
http://www.gawker.com/assets/resources/2006/09/ann%20coulter%20evil%20graph.jpg

"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 -- except Goldwater in '64 -- the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."
"Liberals attack their country and then go into diarrhea panic if anyone criticizes them ..."
"Then there are the 22 million Americans on food stamps. And of course there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. The greatest generation rewarded itself with a pretty big meal."
"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')".
"[Canadians] better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."
"Kerry warned Americans not to 'overhype this election' -- and if there's one guy who's good at calming down excited voters, it's John Kerry. Apparently, word didn't get out to the Iraqis, who were dancing and singing in the streets. (Isn't it great to see Muslims celebrating something other than the slaughter of Americans?)"
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."
"[North Korea] is a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."
"I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

josh

09-07-2006, 15:20

Since FREESW seems genuinely interested in whether people agree with coulter or not Ill post my thoughts for him.

[LIST=1]
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
In some cases she is correct. Not all.

"Liberals attack their country and then go into diarrhea panic if anyone criticizes them ..."
I would agree

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')".
Religions other than islam all teach to treat others well. Catholicism and Islam are the only two religions I have been able to find that believe in conversion by force. Look it up before you disagree. I have researched this quite a bit.

"[Canadians] better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."
That I think is an overly dramatic way of saying Canada benefits greatly from the U.S. but many Canadiens forget that. I think that is what she is saying, I guess.:wacko:

(Isn't it great to see Muslims celebrating something other than the slaughter of Americans?)"
Yes it is

"I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

Cant argue with that.

[/quote]

Zen900

09-07-2006, 16:23

I don't think Coulter is controversial at all. She's one of the most famous opinion writers because of her style. She's not boring like most pundits. She is very funny and doesn't worship the ground she walks on. Democrats hate her because she isn't afraid of them.

freesw

09-07-2006, 17:03

Great find, Stevekaw, thanks for posting it!

------

Zen900, since you still haven't figured out what is wrong with Ann Coulter, I'll spell it out for you one last time:

It's not that she isn't afraid (she obviously isn't, and I suppose if she can be given credit for anything, that would be it).

She's not boring in the same way that someone that starts a fight in a bar isn't boring. That does not, however, mean that what she said to start the fight has the least bit of sense to it.

She is not funny. Period.

I don't "hate" Ann Coulter. I doubt most Democrats do. My view of Ann Coulter can best be described as "contempt," the same contempt I hold for the thankfully deceased Joseph Goebbels.* Unlike her opinion of her political adversaries, however, I do not wish for her untimely demise, only that more decent Republicans would demand that the GOP would no longer sanction her vitriol by inviting her to speak at fundraisers and other Republican functions. If Fox news wants to keep interviewing her because it's good for ratings, there's not much Republicans can do about that. Inviting her to Republican events to speak, however, makes it appear as if her views are sanctioned by the Grand Old Party, and that's a travesty.

*In a way she's actually worse, since it's the people of the USA that she smears with her obscenely vile commentary. Listening to her, one that doesn't know better might reasonably think that today's American right-wing actually advocates the commision of evil acts, and foments hatred of the US for no reason other than that gratuitous insults sells books. Sadly, though, that's the only conclusion one that doesn't know any better can reach from her commentary, given her popularity with that demographic. And most of the world doesn't know any better; what they see and hear of the US is what they know.

--------

Josh, thanks for your willingness to address the details of Coulter's statements - much more informative than generalizations, especially generalizations that don't conform to the actual statements. I disagree with your third item, and can't agree with your last item either, because I know that what Coulter is advocating is extreme disproportionality of response to whatever she considers "tough talk." No nation has the right to demand that entire regions and peoples roll over on demand.

Basically, my view is that you may be right in how you choose to interpret some of Coulter's statements that at least you choose not to disagree with, but I do not agree with any of her statements above, because I have listened to her enough to know more or less how she intends those statements to be taken.

----------

I'm willing to continue discussing details such as the above with anyone that brings them up, but I don't plan to introduce any more Coulter info to this thread or any other, unless (a) someone else brings it up, or (b) she says something else that's so extreme it can't be ignored. (b) will probably occur, of course <_< but I'm hoping stevekaw's graph is a harbinger that Coulter's extended flash in the pan is about to burn out.

josh

09-07-2006, 19:07

--------

I disagree with your third item,

What is your disagreement?
Other than the two religions I cited which others have a doctrine of conversion by force?
Even catholicism does not teach abuse of women and many of the other things the quoran teaches.

and can't agree with your last item either, because I know that what Coulter is advocating is extreme disproportionality of response to whatever she considers "tough talk." No nation has the right to demand that entire regions and peoples roll over on demand.

Well what is your opinion of disproprtionality?I dont understand what you mean.

Do you disagree that muslims and muslim nations have declared war on the US?
If we are at war,and I believe we are, should we not unleash all our war machine can muster?
Should we wait for our enemies to nuke or chemically attack us before we take the gloves off of our military?

freesw

09-07-2006, 23:30

What is your disagreement?
Other than the two religions I cited which others have a doctrine of conversion by force?
Even catholicism does not teach abuse of women and many of the other things the quoran teaches.

Catholicism doesn't teach conversion by force either. I know, I know, the Inquisition. In some places, at some times, the Inquisition was a grotesque atrocity, made all the worse by the fact that the crimes were committed in the name of God. If I understand it correctly, at the time it was believed by some within the Church hierarchy that it was better for a publically and deliberately lapsed Christian to be tortured, even to death in some cases, in the hope that it would bring about repentence (as bizarre as that sounds to us now), or at the very least limit the sufferings of the apostate in purgatory. This medieval view has long since been abandoned of course.

The issue, though, is forced conversion. This, the Catholic Church has never sought, and in fact has always taught cannot occur even if it were attempted.

The above is based both on memory and upon some searches just now. I have to concede, however, that the history of the Church is a long one, and so if someone can provide me with evidence contrary to the above I will of course reassess my belief.

Since this is the politics forum, let me conclude this by acknowledging that in many cases from the 4th century until perhaps as late as the last century, conversions to Catholicism have been made en masse; when certain political leaders (AKA warlords, kings, etc) converted, their subjects did likewise.
Clearly these were often not entirely voluntary. Nevertheless, the Church has always taught that conversions must be entirely of free will.

Well what is your opinion of disproprtionality?I dont understand what you mean.

Do you disagree that muslims and muslim nations have declared war on the US?
If we are at war,and I believe we are, should we not unleash all our war machine can muster?
Should we wait for our enemies to nuke or chemically attack us before we take the gloves off of our military?

What Muslim nation has declared war on us?
Not being facetious, serious question.
The answer, of course, is none.

So what do you propose to do? Wiping out populations comprised mostly of innocent civilians will never be the correct answer to the problem of terrorism. Not only is it morally wrong (which in my opinion is really important), it cannot achieve the military end of defeating terrorists, because it just about automatically results in the recruitment to terrorist ranks of at least as many as were killed. And it further establishes the US as an international pariah, a rogue state, which is a truly astonishing appellation to consider, when one thinks that this has never been the case before. We're the good guys, remember?

josh

09-08-2006, 15:29

Since this is the politics forum, let me conclude this by acknowledging that in many cases from the 4th century until perhaps as late as the last century, conversions to Catholicism have been made en masse; when certain political leaders (AKA warlords, kings, etc) converted, their subjects did likewise.
Clearly these were often not entirely voluntary. Nevertheless, the Church has always taught that conversions must be entirely of free will.

You are on the right track. Read up on it some more. You will see the doctrine of the day taught to slay your enemies or they could renounce their heathen religions and convert to catholicism. The church blessed,condoned and funded many of these military excursions.
Thankfully the catholic church underwent a reformation or two and this is no longer the case.

What Muslim nation has declared war on us?
Not being facetious, serious question.

Iraq,Iran,Syria and a bunch others. not in the way war was declared in WWII but the same way the US went to war without declaring it in "conflicts" to numerous to mention.
A government of a nation funding a terror attack on the Us is a declaration of war.

So what do you propose to do?
Fight a war to win.War is and should be horrible death and destruction in order to keep people from rushing to war over trivial matters. Fight to set an example that the cost of trifling with the US is staggering.
This strategy will keep us a lot safer than the current strategy of our govt. Nation building and spying on our own citizens.

freesw

09-08-2006, 15:48

Iraq,Iran,Syria and a bunch others. not in the way war was declared in WWII but the same way the US went to war without declaring it in "conflicts" to numerous to mention.
A government of a nation funding a terror attack on the Us is a declaration of war.

Only problem with your theory is that none of those countries has actually funded or otherwise sponsored an attack on the US, that we know of. (with the exception of Iran, 23 years ago. It's too late to go to war over that, though).

As complicated and difficult as it is, we've got to deal with the fact that this war is not of the type that can be successfully waged by the "total war" strategy you advocate.

josh

09-08-2006, 15:56

it further establishes the US as an international pariah, a rogue state, which is a truly astonishing appellation to consider, when one thinks that this has never been the case before. We're the good guys, remember?

miriam webster 's definition for rogue is of or being a nation whose leaders defy international law or norms of international behavior <rogue states>

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

their definition of pariah is one that is despised or rejected

I would say this has always been the case. and ask you to please reconsider that position.
I will offer my reasoning.
With our revolution we became a rogue nation. Who was this colonist rabble to demand freedom and liberty. What kind of rogues dare list grievances with the legitimate ruler of the colonies and all of the british empire?
When the rest of the world was falling like dominoes to nazism and imperial Japan this Rogue nation fought back. Not only did we defend ourselves we dared liberate conquered nations that most said were the legitimate spoils of war earned by our enemies.
After the war when nations were falling to the soviet union and the slavery that is communism this rogue nation once again stood against the majority of the world.
So you see we have always been the "international pariah" you mentioned.
This nation has always gone against the majority of the international community.We stuck by our principles when it was the difficult and deadly thing to do.

If you do not believe this is a good thing please compare the American Bill of rights or the UN's declaration of rights. Then decide if you would be better off if we conform to the international community.

So in a world of murderers,slave traders and liars do you not believe it is good to be the outcast?

josh

09-08-2006, 15:59

Only problem with your theory is that none of those countries has actually funded or otherwise sponsored an attack on the US, that we know of. (with the exception of Iran, 23 years ago. It's too late to go to war over that, though).

please research that some more you will find it is false. There is a ton of evidence linking Iraq to the oklahoma city bombing. If I remember the name of the book I will post it for you.
911 highjackers received money from saudi arabia as well as iran and syria. Iran and syria are funding,supplying and training people to fight against us in iraq right now.

freesw

09-08-2006, 16:07

Ah, but you see, over time the former rabble became respectable, a sort of national rags to riches story. Our national founding coincided with the beginning of the royal dominoes falling at a truly astonishing rate all over the world, and so we became first among republics, the beacon of democracy, and in due time, the arsenal of democracy. And after WWII, it was not as a "rogue state" that we became the acknowledged "global policeman," quite the opposite.

You see, what you have done is to collapse two centuries of history. Two centuries in the modern world, though, is a very long time.

Do you honestly believe that the United States has been anything but in the first ranks of international respectability during the last century? That we do not have a tremendous amount to lose, if we allow our current government to squander the international goodwill that has been accumulated through so much sacrifice?

josh

09-08-2006, 16:27

the beacon of democracy,

Never have been and never should we be a democracy.
We were a beacon of freedom and liberty.
The real shame is we are no longer.

And after WWII, it was not as a "rogue state" that we became the acknowledged "global policeman," quite the opposite.

No we were useful thugs with deep pockets. That is all we ever are or were to our ,alleged, allies.

You see, what you have done is to collapse two centuries of history. Two centuries in the modern world, though, is a very long time.

I agree.Two centuries of freedom and liberty are being flushed down the toilet.

Do you honestly believe that the United States has been anything but in the first ranks of international respectability during the last century

Yes I do. As i stated earlier. Useful thugs with deep pockets.Policeman to the world.

if we allow our current government to squander the international goodwill that has been accumulated through so much sacrifice?
What you call good will I call false loyalty and lies. What has been sacrificed is American dollars and lives.
I do not believe there should be much more sacrificed to our enemies.

freesw

09-08-2006, 16:33

I happen to think the United States is a republic and a democracy. The latter is just as necessary as the former to keep the government honest.

josh

09-08-2006, 16:35

I happen to think the United States is a republic and a democracy. The latter is just as necessary as the former to keep the government honest.

I think I see what you mean. But I would say what you believe should be democracy I believe is the "representative" part of our representative republic.

freesw

09-08-2006, 16:59

I think I see what you mean. But I would say what you believe should be democracy I believe is the "representative" part of our representative republic.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Back to the question of the role the United States assumed in the world during the 20th century - I do think we are now seeing the limits of global power. The PNAC ("neocon") approach of attempting to democratize the middle east is plainly over-reaching. The dilemma is, now that they've forced us into it, pointing out why it's doomed to failure is often perceived as "defeatist," or worse. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are nominal allies of ours, and key players in the region. They are not democracies and we are not encouraging them to become democracies. Why not? Well, we know exactly why not, and what would happen in those countries if they were. So how do the "experts" at PNAC think democracy in Iraq fits into this region? It makes no sense.

I heard a Bush admin apologist on the radio the other day refer to Iraq as a "beachhead of democracy." Clearly he had no idea how contradictory that is. Democracy presumes political stability, whereas a beachhead is by definition the front line in a war. War is the absence of political stability. There must be something about the rarified atmosphere of think tanks that leads members to come up with theories that defy reality, but reality refuses to be defied.