POL: Why Do You Hate Conservatives, Ann Coulter?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SlapBone

Well, he is a Cardinals fan.

SI

[Joe]

I received this in my email today, from the ACU

Originally Posted by Ann Coulter

Dear Fellow American,

My name is Ann Coulter, but to listen to liberal pundits tell it I am Cruella DeVil, Bloody Mary and Lizzie Borden all rolled into one -- with none of the warm, welcoming, nuanced non-judgmentalism of a Hillary Clinton!

If you think I have gotten under the skin of self-styled liberal 'intellectuals' before, just wait until they read my newest soon-to-be bestseller Godless (and you can get it absolutely free just for trying HUMAN EVENTS).

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In Godless, I throw open the doors of the Church of Liberalism and show you:

* Its sacraments (abortion)
* Its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
* Its martyrs (like Soviet spy Alger Hiss)
* Its clergy (public school teachers)
* Its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
* Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
* And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)



Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But I debunk the myth of the "rational" liberal guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method and expose the truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: It is bogus science.

In Godless, you will see how liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with their refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force.

The tolerant liberal suddenly becomes very intolerant when their official religion is challenged.

So, call me intolerant! But, when have I ever cared about what a liberal thought?

You can get my newest book Godless -- absolutely free -- when you start a risk-free trial to the conservative flagship publication HUMAN EVENTS. HUMAN EVENTS is my editorial home and the only publication that I make sure to read every week.

Why? Because, HUMAN EVENTS has helped bust the conspiracy of furious spin the liberals use to keep Americans misinformed, since 1944 -- longer than any other weekly publication -- and is the one paper to have published my columns through thick and thin.

Order today and you can get a free copy of my book, plus my weekly column delivered to your home with the unvarnished truth contained in HUMAN EVENTS.

My liberal critics won't enjoy my book (the truth hurts), but I'm sure you will.

Thanks,

Ann Coulter

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

More talk about Ann Coulter, less talk about my political leanings.

As far as what Franklin said, I don't know that I'm a strict conservative. Definitely on the fiscal side of things I am, but socially I'm finding myself turning more libertarian as I get older. I blame it on Bucc's signature.

You have a mike...spread the word, please.

Next time I'm in the DC area, I'll cuddle with you.

[sabotai]

HUMAN EVENTS is my editorial home and the only publication that I make sure to read every week.

There's the fuckin surprise of the century.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by SlapBone

That's a winner!

[kcchief19]

Am I the only one who is hoping that Coulter comes out and tries to explain that she was misquoted in her own book? I think that's the only thing left to this story.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Good-natured jibe!? Surely, you're joking? He jumped in with an unprovoked personal assault, and then instead of leaving it that kept it going. Maybe he would have gotten a pass if he wasn't a proven assclown and super-troll.

Well he was told that he never got close to busts....A good natured jab, no doubt. So he retaliated. I don't believe that he retaliated in such a way to as to deserve a ban from a forum in which "Pretty much anything goes".

[clintl]

You don't seriously believe that it was just the "homosexual" remark that got Bubba boxed, do you?

Bubba's bad behavior started with this sentence on Page 1.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Cartman, your an idiot.

He almost single-handedly destroyed the whole thread with the first post, then continued to troll right up to the moment SD took care of him. He didn't make a a single non-trolling post.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Am I the only one who is hoping that Coulter comes out and tries to explain that she was misquoted in her own book? I think that's the only thing left to this story.

Pretty much.

[astralhaze]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I can't really rack her for the comment, I've had the same impression of some of the people I've seen in various stories post 9/11 and expressed pretty much the same sentiment, albeit with different words. Once again, Ann says what I'm already thinking & says it better than I could have.

So you're a vile and disgusting human being too? Hardly something I'd be proud of.

[astralhaze]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

1. I don't consider myself an Ann Coulter "supporter" at all. I rarely read her stuff, and when I do, I often find it tedious. I'm afraid I've given the wrong impression here. All I'm saying is that I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a person or persons who have made themselves into a public figure. These "widows" are fair game. They are clearly profiting from their situation, and they show no interest in keeping a low profile. Although, to be honest, I'd sooner tune them out than waste any ink criticizing them (and thus, "feeding the trolls" - as they crave the attention, in any form). In fact, I kinda wish I'd tuned this whole thread out at this point.

Of course criticizing them is fair game. Mindless and mean spirited personal attacks that sink below the level of any sense of decency is not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by astralhaze

So you're a vile and disgusting human being too? Hardly something I'd be proud of.

Lemme see, you don't post for something like 8 months & THIS is the contribution you find pressing enough to come back to make?

You'll just have to understand if I'm not feeling a whole lot of concern about your opinion of me, so you're welcome to take another eight months off.

[astralhaze]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme see, you don't post for something like 8 months & THIS is the contribution you find pressing enough to come back to make?

You'll just have to understand if I'm not feeling a whole lot of concern about your opinion of me, so you're welcome to take another eight months off.

No, I came back to read the OOTP impressions thread and browsed some other threads while I was here. Like most normal people, I read a post and responded with what I thought. I see you're still every bit the angry conservative you've always been.

[Flasch186]

i was out of town and just got caught up and I must say that I have never seen BW come flying out of the gates so fast. Usually, if I remember correctly, he would start off with some points or statements supporting his opinion and then when he found that only 2 out of 100 were in the same boat as him he would slowly begin his descent usually having to ignore or blow past many of the rebuttals but in this case it was so fast, so angry, so full of rancor, and many times so full of rectal references or at least references to fecal matter that Im just litterally, blown away.

Now about Ann Coulter?

Here is something for ya....Out of the 5000-6000 families broken up by the WTC Ill bet not all of them were happy marriages but even so, the event itself probably reduced even that number when the only surviving half of the unhappy marriage only remembered the good times. So Ann would be insinuating that the 4 left out of this statistical analysis that took joy in the aftermath happen to be these 4? tough stuff, but Im going to have to say its a reach that it would be these 4 to be happier without their mates.

On a more serious note, it seems like the left pundits are upset when the right uses 9/11 for political gain (which they do even after saying they wont) and the exact same thing occurs from the other side. So Im guessing that using 9/11 is fair game, and probably always has been after the requisite waiting period was over, and the dialogue that it wouldnt be was rhetoric. no?

[astralhaze]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

On a more serious note, it seems like the left pundits are upset when the right uses 9/11 for political gain (which they do even after saying they wont) and the exact same thing occurs from the other side. So Im guessing that using 9/11 is fair game, and probably always has been after the requisite waiting period was over, and the dialogue that it wouldnt be was rhetoric. no?

9/11 is fair game. This type of "discourse" is not.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Now about Ann Coulter?

Here is something for ya....Out of the 5000-6000 families broken up by the WTC Ill bet not all of them were happy marriages but even so, the event itself probably reduced even that number when the only surviving half of the unhappy marriage only remembered the good times. So Ann would be insinuating that the 4 left out of this statistical analysis that took joy in the aftermath happen to be these 4? tough stuff, but Im going to have to say its a reach that it would be these 4 to be happier without their mates.

On a more serious note, it seems like the left pundits are upset when the right uses 9/11 for political gain (which they do even after saying they wont) and the exact same thing occurs from the other side. So Im guessing that using 9/11 is fair game, and probably always has been after the requisite waiting period was over, and the dialogue that it wouldnt be was rhetoric. no?

My problem is with Ann's statement that the widows are misusing the money given them. As far as I'm concerned, the widows have the right to throw as many parties or extravaganza as they like -- they, and their loved ones have earned that right. There IS no such thing as "misuse" of money they deserve and their family has earned.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by astralhaze

... and responded with what I thought.

Do the world a favor next time, just say No. All you're doing in this thread is being a fucking troll.

Hopefully the mods will get off their ass & do something about it.

[astralhaze]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Do the world a favor next time, just say No. All you're doing in this thread is being a fucking troll.

Hopefully the mods will get off their ass & do something about it.

Oh really? I guess you missed the two replies about whether or not Coulter's statements were fair game. I think her comments, as so many of them are, are vile, sick and disgusting. The fact that you agreed with them caused me to take issue. That's not being a troll. Being a troll is starting shit just to start shit. I took issue with your views, that's a different bird altogether.

But, by all means, complain to the mods. It will give me a nice chuckle.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by astralhaze

Being a troll is starting shit just to start shit.

Which is exactly what I believe you're doing. I just happened to be a handy vehicle.

You were looking for somebody who might take the bait, whether it was me, Franklin, or whomever. Instead, I spotted the game pretty quickly when I realized that I really didn't know WTF you were but you had a post count.
And that most of your posts in your past two brief visits were in political threads.

But, by all means, complain to the mods.

You're way behind bub, way behind.
But thanks for the retroactive permission I guess.

[astralhaze]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Which is exactly what I believe you're doing. I just happened to be a handy vehicle.

You were looking for somebody who might take the bait, whether it was me, Franklin, or whomever. Instead, I spotted the game pretty quickly when I realized that I really didn't know WTF you were but you had a post count.
And that most of your posts in your past two brief visits were in political threads.

Yes, I like to talk politics. So do you. When I come here the political threads catch my eye. As for my motivations, what is my angle in my two posts saying what I thought the issue with what Coulter said is? Is that highly sophisticated trolling or something?

Anyway, I'm not too worried about it. Good luck getting me banned or whatever.

[Galaxy]

A question for you guys, where did this money come from these widows got? Was it from insurance, or was it taxpayer "compensation" (and for what exactly)?

[clintl]

I'm guessing that she's talking about taxpayer-funded compensation. The families of all of those killed in the 911 attacks were offered compensation from the federal government for the death of their loved ones, but I think they had to give up some litigation rights to get it (I didn't look that up, so I could be wrong on that point).

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by clintl

I'm guessing that she's talking about taxpayer-funded compensation. The families of all of those killed in the 911 attacks were offered compensation from the federal government for the death of their loved ones, but I think they had to give up some litigation rights to get it (I didn't look that up, so I could be wrong on that point).

But what could they exactly sue for?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But what could they exactly sue for?

The airlines, for one, and a lot more.

[Edward64]

From my perspective, I think Coulter's defensive/aggressive/snappish/rude appearance with Matt Lauer (sp?) was in bad taste. I've not read her book but her appearance at that interview did not come across well to me.

She may have a point about (some) 9/11 widows but often "its not what you say but how you say it". I agree that she should apologize.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The airlines, for one, and a lot more.

Did the airlines do the security before 9/11? I can't remember. I can see them sueing the airports, or were the security firms hired by airlines?

As for the widows, do you think taxpayers reserve the right to critize any sort of spending that is with public money?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

As for the widows, do you think taxpayers reserve the right to critize any sort of spending that is with public money?

In this case, I think it's fair to criticize giving them the money if you think that the compensation was inappropriate. There were some people who did exactly that. I personally don't, and fully supported the compensation.

However, once the money was given, the money no longer belongs to the taxpayers. How it's used is a private matter. Other than giving up the litigation rights, I don't remember that there were any conditions placed on the families with regard to what they did with the money.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by clintl

In this case, I think it's fair to criticize giving them the money if you think that the compensation was inappropriate. There were some people who did exactly that. I personally don't, and fully supported the compensation.

However, once the money was given, the money no longer belongs to the taxpayers. How it's used is a private matter. Other than giving up the litigation rights, I don't remember that there were any conditions placed on the families with regard to what they did with the money.

There is a difference between criticism being "legitimate", and criticism being in bad taste. Just because it's in bad taste to criticize these women in this way doesn't mean it's not ok to criticize them at all.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

There is a difference between criticism being "legitimate", and criticism being in bad taste. Just because it's in bad taste to criticize these women in this way doesn't mean it's not ok to criticize them at all.

It depends on what you mean by "ok." In a legal sense, sure, it's OK, and if you're criticizing their political activism, sure, that's OK, too. But if you're criticizing them for how they spend the money, you're entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that it's not your money, and it's none of your business.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by clintl

It depends on what you mean by "ok." In a legal sense, sure, it's OK, and if you're criticizing their political activism, sure, that's OK, too. But if you're criticizing them for how they spend the money, you're entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that it's not your money, and it's none of your business.

For the sake of discussion, how is it not my money? If they received funds from the government, that comes from my taxes. Besides, I can criticize anyone for how they spend their money. Either just out of opinion or based on the fact they will become a burden on the tax payers if they cannot support themselves in the future.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

For the sake of discussion, how is it not my money? If they received funds from the government, that comes from my taxes. Besides, I can criticize anyone for how they spend their money. Either just out of opinion or based on the fact they will become a burden on the tax payers if they cannot support themselves in the future.

Well it is not your money, because the Government apportioned each family an allotment, and awarded them the money. It is no longer the goverment's nor any tax payer's money. You, or anyone, are certainly free to criticize these women for politicizing their loved one's deaths. I do think it could have been done in better taste, and really if they want to spend the money they were awarded to forward a political agenda, they are free to do so. The money belongs to them.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well it is not your money, because the Government apportioned each family an allotment, and awarded them the money. It is no longer the goverment's nor any tax payer's money. You, or anyone, are certainly free to criticize these women for politicizing their loved one's deaths. I do think it could have been done in better taste, and really if they want to spend the money they were awarded to forward a political agenda, they are free to do so. The money belongs to them.

I think the way we look at it differently is, I see the government taking the money away from me and other tax payers against our will and giving to whoever they want. It is a power I do not think they should have. At least not to the level it has reached. Either way, it is an entitlement and when you get something that you did not earn, let the criticism be escpecially candid.

If people like Coulter and Moore want to be as abrasive as they are then so be it. They define themselves in a certain way by doing that and limit some options. But they make a good living out of it and that is their choice. But I will say at least people are choosing to give their money to Coulter and Moore when they buy their products.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Besides, I can criticize anyone for how they spend their money.

Sure you can, but it's still rude and none of your business, and if your target isn't someone like the 9/11 widows, no one is going to print your complaint.

As for the rest of your post, Glengoyne did a fine job of saying what I would have said.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I think the way we look at it differently is, I see the government taking the money away from me and other tax payers against our will and giving to whoever they want. It is a power I do not think they should have. At least not to the level it has reached. Either way, it is an entitlement and when you get something that you did not earn, let the criticism be escpecially candid.

My question on this would be why the criticism to those who received the money? Wouldn't the better target of criticism be those who made the decision to give them them money, if that was what you saw as the problem?

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I think the way we look at it differently is, I see the government taking the money away from me and other tax payers against our will and giving to whoever they want. It is a power I do not think they should have. At least not to the level it has reached. Either way, it is an entitlement and when you get something that you did not earn, let the criticism be escpecially candid.

Nearly 3,000 people died in part because the government's security and intelligence agencies failed to put together the clues they had that could have stopped 9/11 from happening. I have no problem with the government using a tiny bit of the money I'm taxed to compensate their survivors under the circumstances.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Besides, I can criticize anyone for how they spend their money. Either just out of opinion or based on the fact they will become a burden on the tax payers if they cannot support themselves in the future.

Eh, I think critizing "anyone" for how they spend their money is a bit far stretch. I think if they are spending public money, then yes (outside of lawsuits, SSI (which is money they put towards through the years), we reserve the right.

As for the comment it's rude and none of your business, I agree. If someone is spending beyond their means, they will go down in flames when it catches up to them.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Edward64

From my perspective, I think Coulter's defensive/aggressive/snappish/rude appearance with Matt Lauer (sp?) was in bad taste. I've not read her book but her appearance at that interview did not come across well to me.

She may have a point about (some) 9/11 widows but often "its not what you say but how you say it". I agree that she should apologize.

She's a complete joke. Her attitude towards Matt Lauer was laughable.

[Honolulu_Blue]

“Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the world's most unhinged lunatic. He's dead now, so that moves Ann Coulter up to first place.”

— David Letterman

The end.

[Grammaticus]

I agree with those of you above in that some forms of criticism can be very rude and in effect detract from the point the critic is trying to make. Personally I would not take the approch of criticising the 911 widows, even when I don't believe in their political point of view. But, I don't really care if other people do.

Clintl, if you are good with giving the victims money then you should do it privately. I do not want to have to contribute to paying for everything the government of the US fails to do.

Cartman, I do think you should criticize the people who enabled giving the money, if you do not agree with the gift or the general principle of forcefully taking from some and giving to others. I also see why people criticize the recepient. Basically if you can show how poorly they use the gift, it creates support to not give future gifts. It is basically a way to gather information that supports criticizing and stopping the congresspersons who enable, poor use of our money.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Clintl, if you are good with giving the victims money then you should do it privately. I do not want to have to contribute to paying for everything the government of the US fails to do.

I think government should spend money according what the majority wants funded. At the time, this was very non-controversial, and had overwhelming bipartisan support, both with the public and in Congress. Rush Limbaugh is the only one I can remember raising a public objection.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by clintl

I think government should spend money according what the majority wants funded.

No, no, no, a million times no. There is not enough money in world for them to spend money according what the majority wants funded.

Do it yourself and if enough believe it to be a good cause, it would be much, much more effective (non-wasteful) that way. It is attitudes like yours that believe the govt should be funding what the majority wants (which is everything) that makes the federal govt so corrupt, so bloated and so inefficient. [insert more mad thingies here]

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by clintl

I think government should spend money according what the majority wants funded. At the time, this was very non-controversial, and had overwhelming bipartisan support, both with the public and in Congress. Rush Limbaugh is the only one I can remember raising a public objection.

I actually remember a lot of eyebrows being raised, but I was living in NY at the time, so it may have been just a local phenomenon. One of the problems, as I recall, was that, for example, the wife of some banker who lived in a mansion in Great Neck could recieve 10-20 times as much compensation as the wife of a firefighter.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No, no, no, a million times no. There is not enough money in world for them to spend money according what the majority wants funded.

I should have added, within the overall funding limits that the public is willing to provide. Is that better?

I'm not a libertarian, and strongly disagree with libertarian economic theories, so the rest of your post is not persuasive to me. Simply put, there are things that need to be done to maintain a civilization that the private sector will not do on its own, and that only government has the ability and will to do.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I actually remember a lot of eyebrows being raised, but I was living in NY at the time, so it may have been just a local phenomenon. One of the problems, as I recall, was that, for example, the wife of some banker who lived in a mansion in Great Neck could recieve 10-20 times as much compensation as the wife of a firefighter.

I don't remember hearing about that, so perhaps that was only a local and not a national story.

It was a while ago now, so I'm not ruling out the possibility that I don't remember correctly. But I really don't remember any significant opposition that had national coverage.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by clintl

and that only government has the ability and will to do but has proven it cannot do so effectively and in some case, proven to cause more problems.

Clarified.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by clintl

I don't remember hearing about that, so perhaps that was only a local and not a national story.

It was a while ago now, so I'm not ruling out the possibility that I don't remember correctly. But I really don't remember any significant opposition that had national coverage.

It may not have even been a local story. It may have just been people I knew bitching.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I actually remember a lot of eyebrows being raised, but I was living in NY at the time, so it may have been just a local phenomenon. One of the problems, as I recall, was that, for example, the wife of some banker who lived in a mansion in Great Neck could recieve 10-20 times as much compensation as the wife of a firefighter.

Yeah, it was a national story, I saw the guy that did the awards. Basically they took what your spouse could reasonably be expected to earn over the rest of their lifetime, and then added 250K to it(for pain and suffering). So if your wealthy husband died, you would get a windfuall.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yeah, it was a national story, I saw the guy that did the awards. Basically they took what your spouse could reasonably be expected to earn over the rest of their lifetime, and then added 250K to it(for pain and suffering). So if your wealthy husband died, you would get a windfuall.

Actually, that doesn't seem like a bad way to handle it.

Shurg.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I think the way we look at it differently is, I see the government taking the money away from me and other tax payers against our will and giving to whoever they want. It is a power I do not think they should have. At least not to the level it has reached. Either way, it is an entitlement and when you get something that you did not earn, let the criticism be escpecially candid.

If people like Coulter and Moore want to be as abrasive as they are then so be it. They define themselves in a certain way by doing that and limit some options. But they make a good living out of it and that is their choice. But I will say at least people are choosing to give their money to Coulter and Moore when they buy their products.

I see where you're coming from. I'm just going to point out that this money wasn't simply awarded to these victim's families. It wasn't an entitlement. These victims essentially sold their right to have claims settled in the courts. In the end, that served the interests of all of us tax payers. Everyone who pays taxes pays for services they don't benefit from. It just seems like your argument stems from some obligation these victim's families have to you or us collectively, and I just don't think for a second such an obligation exists.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I see where you're coming from. I'm just going to point out that this money wasn't simply awarded to these victim's families. It wasn't an entitlement. These victims essentially sold their right to have claims settled in the courts. In the end, that served the interests of all of us tax payers. Everyone who pays taxes pays for services they don't benefit from. It just seems like your argument stems from some obligation these victim's families have to you or us collectively, and I just don't think for a second such an obligation exists.

Well, one of the webster definitions for Entitlement is as follows: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program. I would say the payments were an entitlement. If it is going to be given, I agree with including a lawsuit waiver thought.

Problem with the logic of "give the money because it is cheaper than getting sued" is a disfunction of our current societal behavior. What would the government have to do to provide adequate security, understanding that nothing can provide 100% proof against a terrorist attack on our soil? For the 911 scenario, basically secure our borders and eliminate all Muslim extremists. Okay who thinks that would be supported by the majority in the US? Since it is not the general consensus of the US a court should not rule in favor of a claiment as it would be an unrealistic expectation on the US Government. Instead of paying out a bunch of money because you are afraid of lawsuits, how about looking at ways to fix our legal system in regards to that type of flaw?