Aargh! It should have been:
Some liberals are traitors?
:dubious:
Nope. Not a shred.
Although, on reflection, I believe I have indeed needlessly slandered the noble, though no longer extant, quagga. A more pertinent comparison methinks would be this.
Her vitriol is far more extreme than Moore’s.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Goldberg the one who fired Ann from the National Review?
They’re not fuck-shoes, they’re “fuck me” shoes (aka fuck me pumps). They’re very high heels, specifically ultra-high spikes of the sort you find in porn and media portrayals of hookers. Those 4" heels the latest Playmate is wearing with her lingerie (or without her lingerie, as the case may be), those are fuck me pumps.
I hope you realize, CatLady, that you have doomed hundreds of testosterone-addled Dopers to cranial injuries as we walk about gazing fixedly at shoes. “Nope…nope…pedal-pushers, nope…”
Usually Stillettos , worn in combination with black fishnet stockings , leather mini skirts and halter top.
Highly suggests that she wishes attention 
Declan
I kind of picture her Aura of Hatred[sup]TM[/sup] to look a little more like this.
Thank you, Guinastasia! I’d missed that. He may not have personally dropped the axe, but he had to have approved it.
Meanwhile, I know this is a difficult method of discussion, but the original argument was Coulter’s fitness to comment, be it in a truthful or humorous way, on the DNC. So far, it seems she isn’t. At least, no one is making a strong claim that she is. So where’s the argument?
Goldberg did it himself, and explained why here. It’s still a good read.
She helped Richard Melon Scafe and a bunch of other right-wing nutjobs play Pin A Scandal On Bill Clinton™.
The difference is, Moore’s facts are verified correct. Ann just flat-out lies.
I imagine Ann’s recipie for humor is as follows:
- Say vicious and nasty stuff about people she dislikes.
- Wait for laughter.
- Go to step 1.
Then again, “conservative humor” is a rather odd bird in itself – what do you want from folks who think Mallard Filmore is funny?
I think we’re going to be stuck on step 2 for quite a while.
Can we please put Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd in the Ring of Shame? Pretty please? We’ll hold a raffle and a winning liberal and a winning conservative will be given guns and allowed to finish them off afterwards.
Ann actually came to my school and talked. She’s an intelligent person and a great speaker. Too bad she descends into feces throwing mode when she has a pen in her hand.
rjung, nobody finds Mallard Fillmore funny. I refuse to believe that.
I think that in that instance she was expressing the raging, immediate gut-reaction that many people had to the event. The grain of truth to the statement is that this is not just an enemy we have to defeat, but an ideology and an archaic way of life that must be destroyed.
I completely agree with this. My argument was that this statement, along with most of what she says and writes, represents neither humor nor reason. The fact that you characterize it as a raging gut-reaction indicates that you agree.
Here we disagree twice. My reading of Ann Coulter does not indicate long-term strategic thinking on her part. I also disagree that the terrorism perpetrated by a few self-professed ideologues leads to the “truth” that the entirety of Islam and Islamic culture must be destroyed. I respect your opinion, but I honestly don’t see the grain (and really, wouldn’t it be more of a mountain?) of truth here. Since even the resolution of the war against terror, however it pans out, won’t prove or disprove the eventual necessity of the total destruction of Islam, I suggest we call this point moot. My intention is to analyze Ann Coulter’s rhetoric, not decide the fate of the globe. And I maintain that her work demonstrates neither humor nor reasoned discourse, for the reasons I have given and have not yet seen a satisfactory answer. Again, I respect your argument, but I can agree with only part of it, and I can’t see how either part contradicts my argument.
Nice dodge.
Then, I take it you would have no objection to the blanket assertion that “All conservatives are Nazis,” as that contains just as much “truth” as Coulter’s statement, from a left-wing perspective?
I think that you guys are confusing a “grain of truth” with final validity.
A grain of truth does not, necessarily, mean that the end statement is valid or even partially valid. But even in your examples, of course there is a “grain of truth” (I am getting mighty sick of that phrase). In the first one, the vast majority of rapists are men. Does it follow that the vast majority of men are rapists? No, but there was a G.O.T to it. There is a higher level of crime in predominantly black neighborhoods and black men commit certain crimes at greater rates. Does this mean that all blacks are criminals, or that tend to be one by the nature of being black? Not at all, but again, there was a G.O.T to initiate, even if it was wrong, the belief.
Yet another dishonest dodge. No wonder he likes Ann. Birds of a feather lie together.
Speaking of dadges, when are you going to appologize about the $300 tax rebate?
Y’know, it really sucks to make stupid spelling mistakes when you are being smug.