Writes in a schreeching style similar to Coulter's, but without as much polish or logic.
how is this possible? i don't understand.
Moderator: coldharvest
Writes in a schreeching style similar to Coulter's, but without as much polish or logic.
Tarkan wrote:Captain_Solo wrote:But Ann Coulter is worse then any of the forementioned indivuals. She is just an outright liar and a hateful right-wing nutecase.
Ok, lets stop there for a minute, and say we accept what you (and others) are claiming at face value: she is an outright liar and a hateful right-wing nutcase.
Now, is she worse because:
she's a liar
or
she's hateful
or
she's a nutcase
or
she's right wing.
I humbly submit that it's the last one that drives a lot people's animosity towards her.
Michael Moore, for example, is a liar, hateful, and a nutcase. But he's left wing, so he's "not as bad".
Maureen Dowd, for example, is a liar, hateful, and a nutcase. But she's left wing, so she's "nod as bad".
Kos, aka Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, is a liar, hateful, and a nutcase. But he's left wing, so he's "not as bad".
Whatever you might think about Coulter, she has pretty strong credentials. Graduated from Cornell, got a law degree from U of Michigan Law School. Was an attorney for the DOJ, and "practiced law with the Center For Individual Rights, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on civil rights, freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion".
Hardly the fire breathing demon she's made out to be. Except, she's made the one unpardonable sin: she's criticized the left. Lying, being hateful, or being a nutcase (see Al Gore)...all forgivable, as long as you sit on the left side of the fence.
The blatant, persistent hypocrisy of the left still astounds me.
Michael Moore, for example, is a liar, hateful, and a nutcase. But he's left wing, so he's "not as bad".
Maureen Dowd, for example, is a liar, hateful, and a nutcase. But she's left wing, so she's "nod as bad".
Kos, aka Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, is a liar, hateful, and a nutcase. But he's left wing, so he's "not as bad".
goat balls wrote:Allright Bobby...I'll bite. Who's Lydia Cornell or Connell? Or is she just a good example?
Bobby Sands wrote:goat balls wrote:Allright Bobby...I'll bite. Who's Lydia Cornell or Connell? Or is she just a good example?
An actress who's signature role was playing a chick with large breasts and a low IQ on an 80's sitcom called "Too Close for Comfort."
Dim wrote:Prove it. Here are some Coulter quotes that (I think) indicate that she is, at the least, unhinged, certainly a hateful nutcase. The countless reviews of her books, by both left and right wing critics (Anne Applebaum, for example) proves that she is a compulsive liar).
Michael Moore and Kos are certainly partisan but I bet you can't cite anything even from them that's even remotely comparable to Coulters insane gibberish.
Dim wrote:"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet--it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view."
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
“Americans understand that Manhattan is the Soviet Union.”
"Democrats know that the American people support defending America, unlike them. Their real feelings are coming out as much as they can right now, which is that they're desperately dying to provide aid and support to al-Qaeda."
"Democrats know that the American people support defending America, unlike them. Their real feelings are coming out as much as they can right now, which is that they're desperately dying to provide aid and support to al-Qaeda."
This is no more hateful than Moore claiming Bush is in bed with the Bin-Ladens.
There's been much ado about my indifference to the Mercenary deaths in Falluja a couple days ago. I wrote in some diary comments somewhere that "I felt nothing" and "screw them". My language was harsh, and, in reality, not true. Fact is, I did feel something. That's why I was so angry.
I was angry that five soldiers -- the real heroes in my mind -- were killed the same day and got far lower billing in the newscasts. I was angry that 51 American soldiers paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly in Iraq in March alone. I was angry that these mercenaries make more in a day than our brave men and women in uniform make in an entire month. I was angry that the US is funding private armies, paying them $30,000 per soldier, per month, while the Bush administration tries to cut our soldiers' hazard pay. I was angry that these mercenaries would leave their wives and children behind to enter a war zone on their own violition [sic].
"I think it's unquestionable that Republicans are more likely to prevent the next attack. However, I will grant that John Kerry will improve the economy in the emergency services and body bag industry."
Captain_Solo wrote:So Michael Moore is always serious and Ann Coulter is always using hyperbole? Come on Tarkan, you know that is a load of horse shit. I agree that Moore makes extreme and ridiculous claims (such as the Bush-bin Laden stuff which is pure crap). But if you can argue that Coulter is just hooked on hyperbole (which I highly doubt) then can I use the same arguement for people like David Duke or Louis Farrakhan? Maybe some of their more outragous statements were just jokes?
Tarkan wrote:Captain_Solo wrote:So Michael Moore is always serious and Ann Coulter is always using hyperbole? Come on Tarkan, you know that is a load of horse shit. I agree that Moore makes extreme and ridiculous claims (such as the Bush-bin Laden stuff which is pure crap). But if you can argue that Coulter is just hooked on hyperbole (which I highly doubt) then can I use the same arguement for people like David Duke or Louis Farrakhan? Maybe some of their more outragous statements were just jokes?
No, of course not. But you miss the point. The point isn't that she doesn't cross over the line...she does.
But Michael Moore, and a lot of other partisan Democratic hacks have crossed over the line, are just as famous, if not more so, but you hardly ever see supposed independents like 'Patriot' saying they "HATE HATE HATE that fucker Michael Moore". And the only real difference is the political spectrum their hatred is directed to. Patriot doesn't hate Michael Moore because he agrees with Michael Moore, even if what MM is saying is patently false. So does Dim, apart from the times when his intellectual integrity forces him to dissociate from Michael Moore.
What do *I* think about Ann Coulter? I think she makes some valid points. I also think she totally discredits those points with her hyperbole rhetoric, however. Exactly the same as Michael Moore. I don't hate either one, but they are both blowhards.
Aegis wrote:Ummm.... I'm an independent (a right-leaning indy, but an indy no less) and I say that (more or less, and ususally more articulately) at every conceivable occasion. And I say the same about Coulter.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests