 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Ann Coulter back in the news
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Greg F. Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:16 AM One more time gang: Wickipedia is a *BLOG*- not an authoritative source. Anyone can post crap there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: number 6 Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:29 AM Well put Rigin ! LOL biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:32 AM There's Ann Coulter, and then there are champions of conservative values who are really, really dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: number 6 Date: 08 Mar 08 - 07:44 AM "and a champion of conservative values." ..... there are better "champions of consertative values" out there ... Ann Coulter is the consertative's court jester. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Amos Date: 08 Mar 08 - 03:11 AM So, you think nuking people, o assassinating them, are, um, "Conservative values"? I disagree that she is smart; she's quick, yes, and acidic, but her thought processes are shallow and mostly, under the nastiness, pretty much kneejerk. And I think she is gawky, bony, and haggish. Chacun a son gout. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Bill D Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:59 PM Don't hold back- let us know what you really think of her..... as I said WAY back, I just wish the worst for her...that no one would ever listen or give her a microphone again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 08 - 11:04 AM I see that woman's face and my stomach wants to hurl. Evil, vicious and corrupt piece of notion of justice or even a sense that she might have been part of the problem. May she die screaming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:46 AM NEgative IQ points are assigned when a person makes other people stupider just by being around. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: KB in Iowa Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:31 AM Canadians heading south and enlisting in the US army is not the same as Canada sending troops. She was wrong and seems unable to admit it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:23 AM Rigin ... that's exactly why she make that 'later statement', to cover up her stupididy ... it was part of the same CBC program, where that clip (link) I posted earlier. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:20 AM It boggles the mind to think she COULD be as stupid as she seems. I didn't think it possible for IQ points to get into negative quantities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:16 AM That's the problem. She is not only as stupid as she seems, she's a little bit stupider! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:09 AM Well, I'm certainly not defending her. But she will probably use the info in an attempt to make the case that she's really not as stupid as she seems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:01 AM Ann Coulter is an idiot. She can kiss my Royal Canadian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 07 Mar 08 - 09:57 AM Miss Buick ... good one Amos. At a later date Ann defended her position by saying she meant the Canadians that went south of the border and enlisted in the U.S. army for service in Vietnam .... o.k. .... yes, many Canadians did signup for that conflict, but it was far from 20,000 and again, Canada did not send troops into that war to help the U.S. .... we had 2 very pacifist, prime ministers during that era .... Pearson and Trudeau. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Amos Date: 07 Mar 08 - 09:45 AM A fact which I am sure Miss Buick has since determined. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:58 AM Yes, Canada did send a very small group (probably a 100 or so) into S. Vietnam after the U.S. pullout. But only for a short time. Their role was basically as advisors in a peace keeping role. Much the same as they have had done in Cyprus, Bosnia etc. They were not there as combat troops. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:57 AM Yes, that's certainly possible. I have found things in Wikipedia that seemed interesting at the time, and then went back to get more detail a day or two later, and discovered whole passages had simply disappeared. This is what it says: Canada did not fight in the Vietnam War, and diplomatically it was officially "non-belligerent". The country's troop deployments to Vietnam were limited to a small number of peacekeeping forces in 1973.[1] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:57 PM Maybe Wikipedia is wrong too. I have noted some erroneous info there, and apparently it is only corrected by other posters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Mar 08 - 10:00 PM While I despise Ann Coulter and most everything she stands for, Wikipedia says Canada sent a small number of troops to Vietnam in 1973. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:03 PM Well, everyone is entitled to be wrong now and again, but it seems silly to keep pressing a factual mistake whilst being interviewed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: number 6 Date: 06 Mar 08 - 08:19 PM In case anyone is interested here is the CBC interview with Ann Coulter and Canada sending troops to Vietnam. Ann Coulter on Canadian Troops in Vietnam biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Oct 07 - 05:11 PM If she were a Democrat, she'd be kind of like Zell Miller. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: kendall Date: 18 Oct 07 - 07:35 PM Just think how much worse it would be if she were a democrat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: harpmolly Date: 17 Oct 07 - 10:31 PM Alba...LMAO!!! Oh, I needed that. ;) M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Oct 07 - 10:17 PM "...she has a thimbleful of brains in comparison to either of them." That explains her appeal to the religious right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: robomatic Date: 17 Oct 07 - 07:03 PM John, from the Sunset Coast: I'm sorry that you don't see the irony, but it could be just me. I agree with your earlier observations, (13 Oct 07 - 05:16 PM) that she was stating her ideal. I think she was very poorly stating it, as most of her 'stating' goes, when it's even cogent. I haven't heard Franken or Maher say anything in her league of incomprehensibility or pure vilification. Her sense of humor is far more primitive than either Franken or Maher and she has a thimbleful of brains in comparison to either of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Alba Date: 16 Oct 07 - 10:31 PM Coultergeist's website got hacked yesterday... If only the letter that the Hacker posted was real....... One day maybe...one day |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: TIA Date: 16 Oct 07 - 01:02 PM "...the equally odious statements of Al Franken or Bill Maher..." Such as? BTW - So, you may believe that she is simply projecting her ideal. Is that what her readers think (and do)? Was that another rhetorical question? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 16 Oct 07 - 12:55 PM Sorry, Robo, still fail to see the irony. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Riginslinger Date: 15 Oct 07 - 03:05 PM "...she wondered if Jews were responsible for her husband not passing the bar exam." What other explanation could there be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: robomatic Date: 15 Oct 07 - 12:15 PM John f t Sunset Coast: It's still ironic, because she described herself as a 'perfected' or 'completed' Jew (she's not alone in promoting the concept. A co-worker once had to tell me this during lunch). New York is full of some rather unperfected and uncompleted Jews. So it's still purt darn ironic. Up in Anchorage we had a lady who became famous across the city for being bright, articulate, and crazy as a (crazy) loon. At one point in her public tirades she wondered if Jews were responsible for her husband not passing the bar exam. I did not and do not consider her an anti-semite. I considered her someone in need of medication. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Amos Date: 14 Oct 07 - 11:36 PM Dear Bruce: I did not pick a fight with Ann Coulter. She chose to step into the public arena with venom, diatribe, distortion and hate. In doing so, she took off the gloves, and declared a very nasty sort of war on anyone who stood against Bush, against the war, in favor of diplomacy over violence, who did not support the monolithic executive, or who stood critical of the Administration in any of their myriad monstrous inadequacies. If I seem hypocritical to you, sort out the sequence of events. I don't go around slandering and slashing whole classes of people with vitriolic generalities. But in making those choices, she also set herself well beyond the pale of normal courtesies. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Riginslinger Date: 14 Oct 07 - 11:00 PM bb - I can see your point(s) about everything above. Perhaps it would be adequate just to say she will do or say anything she thinks she has to in order to stay in the public lime-light and sell books. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Oct 07 - 05:57 AM Or when you attack those who have opinions that differ from your own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Oct 07 - 05:56 AM Amos, I find your comment " I take exception to her hatefulness and her use of vicious rhetorical devices, because these are cast on the premise that genuine dialogue and a respectful exchange of ideas should be subordinated to shouting and slurring." I have failed to see where, in the political discussions HERE you have made ANY copmments about those ( who I presume support your viewpoint) who act in the same manner, with "hatefulness and ... use of vicious rhetorical devices, because these are cast on the premise that genuine dialogue and a respectful exchange of ideas should be subordinated to shouting and slurring." In addition, you seem to have no problem with "hatefulness" when you decide to use it. "Seeing her barbecued would be very satisfying; I would enjoy it more than anything since Joan of Arc was burned at the stake, or the time the pigs ate my baby sister." "So...she's a woman? Hmmm... Not very well developed, is she? Kinda bony, physically, and kinda rock-like mentally. Her smile sticks out like some cheap sci-fi creature. I am glad she found an alternative path to her first career choice as a beauty-contest winner. She'll be much more successful as an institutional "Psycho Harpy", fouling the dinner plates while she flies through the banquet hall screaming. " It seems hypocritical to complain about her using the methods that you seem to approve of when they are used to support YOUR particular set of biases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 13 Oct 07 - 08:39 PM I, too, might have found her choice of cities ironic had I ascribed anti-Jewishness (or anti-Semitism) to her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: robomatic Date: 13 Oct 07 - 07:09 PM I found it ironical, from reading the transcript, that Ann Coulter imagined heaven as New York full of Republicans. She picked the most overtly Jewish city in the entire world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Oct 07 - 06:21 PM Well personally I see nothing to change my previously stated comments on this thread. Those comments were reasoned and well thought out and I believe equal in all respects to those which Ms. Coulter has stated. To repeat.......... Who gives a turkey? Ann Coulter licks yak balls. 'Nuff said........ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 13 Oct 07 - 06:15 PM Amos, you're correct, she often is a bomb thrower. But I've never seen you, nor others who vilify her here, criticize the equally odious statements of Al Franken or Bill Maher on the other side. Why do you suppose that is? No answer necessary; it's self-evident. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Amos Date: 13 Oct 07 - 05:47 PM She couldn't be more right. But what I object to is none of the things you cite, John. I take exception to her hatefulness and her use of vicious rhetorical devices, because these are cast on the premise that genuine dialogue and a respectful exchange of ideas should be subordinated to shouting and slurring. If she has been visited by ad hominem statements, it is more than anything else because she opened the table to the ad hominem game of hateful slurring, and if she gets hoist by her own petard, all the better. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: GUEST,Bill D Date: 13 Oct 07 - 05:36 PM It's not exactly her religious views, but her sanctimonious presention of them, along with a political agenda to match, that is so offensive. She clearly makes an effort to 'stir the pot' by daring interviewers to comment on her attitude...I wish NO one would bite any more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 13 Oct 07 - 05:16 PM GUEST,TIA--Those are really rhetorical questions reflecting your own biases and opinions, no? As I recall the Coulter/Deutsch, she said, in answer to DD's question that her ideal America would be one in which everybody was Christian. She did not single out Jews, nor any other religious group. Her inquisitor than asked about Jews (he putatively being one) specifically and she said that she would like to see Jews become 'perfected' Jews by becoming Christians. This is a desire of millions of Christians who see their role in life as evangelizing the world. Jehovah's Witnesses do it big time; Mormon's even more so. Hare Krisna does it, so does Islam and Scientology. [BTW, I do know that Hare Krishna, Islam and Scientology are not Christian]. There is even some discussion within Judaism whether or not to actively seek converts. So am I offended by Anne Coulter's comments? No! She is projecting her ideal. Is she at the top of a slippery slope to anti-Semitism or Dachau? No! She does not scapegoat Jews. She doesn't note any sinister Jewish cabals, nefariously scheming to control the world. She doesn't advocate returning Jews to ghettos, or worse. If she, as a Christian, believes that non-Christians will not go to heaven, that's her belief. It's not my belief, and its not going to affect my afterlife...unless, of course, she's correct and I'm wrong. But that's for another discussion. So grow up boys and girls. Become adults and think like adults. She is entitled to her beliefs, as Al Franken is, as Danny Deutsch is and as you are. All your tittering little name calling, and snide remarks about her looks makes her neither more nor less right. But it surely makes you look small. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Neil D Date: 13 Oct 07 - 11:43 AM Obviously she does these things to bring attention to herself and to boost book sales, but the question remains: Who buys them? Americans. And far too many of them. Americans who hate minorities. Americans who persecute alternative lifestyles. Americans whose brand of Christianity means intolerance of any other belief, even other brands of Christianity. Americans with absolutely no understanding of foreign cultures. Americans with a jingoistic sense of superiority. And they vote. And that just sucks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: GUEST,TIA Date: 13 Oct 07 - 09:09 AM John- Do you suppose that public statements like this precede concentration camps and ovens? Do you think that those who blow up synagogues heard these kind of statements when they were young? Is it really only the camp guards, oven-stokers and bomb-carriers that we need to fear? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Oct 07 - 08:33 AM Obviously she does these things to bring attention to herself and to boost book sales, but the question remains: Who buys them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Peace Date: 12 Oct 07 - 09:38 PM Ron, you're right. I'm off this thread and hopefully away from its putrid subject. John, if I have offended you in any way, please accept my apology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Oct 07 - 08:22 PM She does in fact have a bestseller out now. And who the hell is actually paying money to read her tripe--and wasting their time to do so? It took me 2 minutes to write this--and that is all the attention she is worth--in fact it's too much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: bobad Date: 12 Oct 07 - 07:53 PM The drug that she is tripping on is religious righteousness and that has, unfortunately, been around for far longer than 40 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ann Coulter back in the news From: Peace Date: 12 Oct 07 - 07:42 PM She seems to have access to some mind-altering drugs that are stronger than anything that was around 40 years ago. |
