Trunk, methinks we are looking at different columns. The stuff you posted is not in any of the Coulter column links that have been posted in this thread so far. Do you have a link to where you found it?
I’m from the other side of the pond so I haven’t encountered her writing before. I have to say, politics aside, it really is utter drivel. There’s nothing wrong with expressing extreme views, especially if you can throw in some intelligent insults and put-downs but she’s just neither clever nor funny. How did she become famous?
Maybe she could post in the Pit next time, or IMHO.
Now that I’d like to see. Watching you guys rip her to shreds would be worth the subscription fee alone!
Huh? Muad’Dib was taking the high road? No, there is not a grain of truth in the statement “All liberals are traitors”. Is there a grain of truth in the statement “All blacks are criminals” or “All men are rapists”? Elvis was just making an accurate assessment.
The column was written on 9/12/01. At that time it wasn’t exactly clear who was responsible. Later we knew for sure that Al Queda was and that they were being harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The US proceeded to invade their countries (Afghanistan) and kill their leaders (the Taliban and Al Queda, 75% of whom have been captured or killed.)
So, two of Ann’s three points couldn’t have been that offensive, since they actually came to be.
Howard Stern believes in the substance of what he says, then takes it to a hyperbolic extreme. So do a bunch of other shock-jock radio comedians. That doesn’t qualify them as political pundits, though.
Why is it, then, that it’s Ann that somehow is appearing on prime-time cable news, Good Morning America, and is the darling of the right-wing media? You didn’t see Stern at any of the DNC coverage, did you?
My GF is of the opinion that one of these days old Ann is going to turn to the camera during an interview and shout, “You believed me all this time? I can’t believe you fell for this crap!” More and more I think my girlfriend is right.
No. First, the use of the plural does not imply “all.” Let’s have waffles. I don’t mean every waffle on the planet. Ann Coulter also used unspecified plurals: “Them,” “Their leaders,” “Convert them.” If you accuse me of meaning all, then you must concede that she did as well. Remember that when she wrote this, noone had any idea who and how many were involved, and what governments could be held responsible (still aren’t absolutely certain, come to think of it). So there was no upper limit to her stirring call to arms. Second, your argument is meaningless. I spent the next few sentences arguing that no matter how much you scaled it down that it was **still ** repugnant.
Not exactly. Remember, she wanted plural invasions. Iraq doesn’t qualify under your own terms, because it was both a secular state and uninvolved in 9/11.
The entire quote is outrageous, but let’s concede this for a moment. You seem to be saying that if you can pick out any part of a Coulter sentence that makes sense that she makes sense. If someone said “Let’s have a vegetarian lunch, and then kill all the black people,” would you defend them as a reasonable person because we eat entirely too much meat for our health?
I’ll concede that I should have quoted her directly, or linked to it. That was lazy argument on my part. But I don’t think it affects the point I made at all.
Ann Coulter should just go away. She’s the right’s Michael Moore - an unreasonable, shrill person who plays fast and loose with the facts, and who gives the opposition ammo to point and say, “See, Republicans are mean-spirited and nasty”.
Her replacement at USA Today is Jonah Goldberg, who is a much more reasonable representative of the right. He’s funny, thoughtful, and he can make a cutting point with satire that works just as well as Coulter’s criticisms, only in a more acceptable way. He’s also a little more balanced and willing to admit when the other side has a good point.
Cite?
I’ve been reading his stuff this week and about the only you’ve said that applies to his columns in USA Today is “more acceptable than Ann Coulter”.
That the DNC is completely controlled by the Teachers’ Unions. That one I got. From the rightwingers’ perspective that is a bad, bad, very bad thing.
Ahem. I had said nothing at all before that. Schmuck.
That set of falsehoods is itself another ultimately stupid argument from the right.
Did you know that posters’ usernames are right next to their posts? It makes it easy to check before embarrassing oneself the way you just did. Try looking next time.
Thanks, betenoir.
Notice how the GOP partisans always claim to be from “the party of Lincoln”, but never mention what Lincoln did for a living before running for office?
Ah. I’ll assume you haven’t heard her talk about Bill Clinton, then.
Crayons? You’re not being fair to the poor girl. I’ve heard she submits all her work on Etch-a-Sketch. Of course, being able to work it with two prehensile feet might for once be to her advantage.
Enough about Little Annie Fannie! Let’s get back to the real burning question raised earlier in this thread: What are fuck-shoes? And where can I buy some? (They’d make great gifts. . . . )
Well, OK, something to the point:
At times it looks like Coulter is trying to be a humorist - say, Will Rogers after being pickeled in peroxide for a few days. But a reading of the whole column in question refutes this - her “humor” is the mockingly vicious sort.
If she is trying to be cleverly funny, she needs to take James Kilpatrick’s advise to those who would write satire and close her columns with the disclaimer “The above was writ sarcastick.”
I don’t know how people can claim Coulter is supposed to be a humorist like Lewis Black when she doesn’t…let’s call it “practice her art” out of generosity…in a comic medium, like say, Lewis Black. :dubious:
Here’s an excerpt from Jonah Goldberg’s final column on the Democratic Party convention, in which he compares John Kerry to Neville Chamberlain:
“The world may be consumed by the maelstrom, but Kerry will guarantee that America remains in the eye of the storm. He’ll do this by conjuring chimerical “strong alliances” and negotiating in “good faith” with sycophantic foreign leaders around long tables festooned with bottled water and clever cheese.”
Yep, thoughtful and witty.
I’ve long been fascinated by this statistic, and have been hoping to meeet someone who could verify it, or at least explain it. You will do nicely.
Precisely why do you give this numerical nugget any credence? (Be advised that “The Leader thus spaketh!” does not qualify as evidence, there being some reason to suspect that he is not a paragon of rigid candor).
Do we have a copy of AlQ’s membership rolls? Have we verified the identity of every corpse generated by these bold adventures? Is it, then, “AlQ had 10,213 members, and we have killed 7,521 of them”?
Given the circumstances and the shadowy nature of our enemies, and the murky and uncertain nature of our intelligence, might it not be possible that they are pulling these numbers out of thier collective ass?
Clearly, you believe it, and expect us to believe it as well. On what basis, other than the unimpeachable (snicker) reputation for straightforwardness of GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!)?
So liberals are traitors?
:dubious:
