Originally spewed by Ann Coulter:
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world.
Ms. Coulter is under investigation in Florida for knowingly voting in the wrong precinct, a felony.
From here.
Oh, man, I hope this pans out. Ann Coulter in prison could possibly rival the discovery of fire as the most awesome thing ever.
She did name them in an interview. I remember because the way she answered it was kind of annoying. I found the interview.
If I had recently moved into her apartment building around the time of the interview, I’d put an extra deadbolt on the door.
Looking at her book covers on Amazon, I have these observations:
[ul]
[li]It appears that with each book she wears less clothing on the cover.[/li][li]On the cover of How To Talk To a Liberal (If You Must), she looks like a muppet.[/li][li]Looking at the cover of her new book, she’s looking more like a corpse. Maybe in 10 years she’ll look like Fred Phelps.[/li][/ul]
Now she’s the one who should go into the cell with Bubba.
I think she came on to some of the widows and they told her to fuck off.
I can’t bring myself to look. How much airbrushing does it take to eradicate her Adam’s Apple?
I take some comfort in the fact that I am actually Ann Coulter’s worst nightmare: a real-life, unrepentant Godless Liberal! I picture myself proudly telling her I am also pro-choice and for gay rights, and watching her melt away like the Wicked Witch of the West.
Make that number one. - though only 1000 or so in the UK.
Are you absolutely sure? I should think much of her fame and publicity (and money) comes from the predictable outrage from liberals like you. She probably absolutely love you, or at least the response she gets from people like you.
How about Ward Eichmann Churchill as the comparable liberal hack?
And he’s lionized by…who, exactly? Churchill is a fairly obscure academic whose only national attention came when he called the 9/11 victims “little eichmans”. I’m pretty sure you won’t be able to find a fraction of the praise and attention showered upon him that’s showered upon Coulter by the Right.
In other words, there’s no comparison, not because I think his ideas are more acceptable, but because far more Right-wingers think Anne’s the bees’ knees than Left-wingers think Churchill is anything more than an ivory-tower idiot.
But she doesn’t outrage me, I don’t take her seriously. The most she’ll get from me is an eye-roll or a snort of derision. And I certainly don’t buy or read her “books.”
So, yeah, I am hopefully sticking with “worst nightmare.”
But he has been given lectures and guest lectures to thousands of students, both before and after the little Eichman incident. Perhaps it’s a question of liberals and conservative (as far as those terms describes the persons on the fringes) using different venues to distribute their ideas.
There are also Cindy Sheehan. Yvonne Ridley. George Galloway, etc. lots of people to pick from, and of course yesterday a chap over in GD said the sole purpose the USA invaded Iraq was to kill as many Arabs as possible, which kinda makes Ann Coulter look all mellow and moderate by comparison.
I’ve read the dust jacket.
I find it disturbing that in this book, Ms. Coulter seems to line up with creationists. Perhaps I’m missing a nuance that would be revealed if I read the book, but it sure seems to me that she is adopting a position that evolution is a flawed doctrine.
I can’t claim to be an authority on her oeuvre, but I am unaware of any earlier works rejecting evolution on its merits.
But that’s the very reason!
She is so popular because she is hated “with the passion of a million suns” by those on the left, on the principle, hey, if she’s detested that much she must be doing something right.
Such idols of the right or left are often created by the very venom with which they’re attacked by opponents.
I’m sure the thing that Coulter dreads most is that her enemies completely ignore her.
Nobody knew who the fuck Ward Churchill was before that statement and he hasn’t made a career of selling shit like that in popular books. He isn’t comprable. Nobody on the left is comparable. George Galloway isn’t even a fucking American. Yvonne Ridley? Cindy Sheehan? Are you fucking high? Ridley is a British journalist who converted to Islam after being held hostage by the Taliban for three years. I’m sure you think that makes her evil, but how does it make her a liberal? What the fuck is liberal about Islam or the Taliban?
What has Cindy Sheehan ever said that’s comparable to the kind of filth spewed by your hero, Ann Coulter?
Rune, Chuchill was one of the ivory-tower types I referenced in my first post – I didn’t use his name because I couldn’t be bothered to look it up, but he’s definately one of the guys I was thinking. of. His comments are, IMO, every bit as crazy and extreme as Ann’s, but the two really aren’t comparable otherwise, I don’t think. Ann makes a living spouting this stuff to the public. Churchill is not a public figure in that same way, although his comments did receive national attention.
Yes, this is actually why I don’t want to read the book. Her nonsense on the 9-11 widows is just par for her course – more of the sillyness that I’ve come to expect from her and that I view with amusement, for the most part, rather than outrage. But if she’s politicizing and attacking science now, well that’s gonna piss me off!
I kind of have a feeling I should read that section of the book, though, before complaining, since I always bitch about people who complain about books they haven’t read… She’s never written about science before, so far as I know, so maybe she isn’t really saying what the book jacket seems to be saying she’s saying. And the interviews I’ve heard with her all focus on the 9-11 widow stuff, so I haven’t been able to get a sense (from the horse’s mouth) of her ‘theories’ on evolution. The only clue I’ve got is that, when it’s been mentioned in interviews, she uses the term ‘Darwinism’ instead of ‘evolution.’ For whatever that’s worth.
God – someone else read the damned thing, please, so I don’t have to!
She goes a lot further than saying it’s “flawed” (and it’s not a “doctrine”), she calls it a “liberal creation myth” and compares it to Nazism. Here are some quotes from the book*:
She also calls evolution a “cult,” a “fetish,” the “liberal state religion,” claims that its “contradicted by the fossil record.” On and on. Her primary expert source in the book is prominent IDist, William Demski.
*Quotes pulled from this gushing review on Human Events Online.
I’m definately on the “these people aren’t really as prominent” side of the fence, but an additional point:
Do you really believe accusing someone of being motivated by the desire to murder makes proposing that people who disagree with you be executed for treason mellow and moderate? If you were suggesting that this person was saying that going over and killing as many Arabs as possible was a good thing then maybe you would have a point. But you’re not, so you don’t.
Here’s an online interview from Cybercast News Service which touches briefly on evolution. I wish the broadcast media would go at her a lot harder on this issue because it’s an extermely vulnerable and easily destryable position for her. My guess is that the major media doesn’t want to upset creationists in their audience by informing them that evolution is fact. I would also guess that most of the talking head Matt Lauer types don’t know anything about the science anyway and are afraid to look dumb by trying to discuss it.
Coulter’s decidedly un-christian attitudes have not gone unoticed evenbt the religious right wing…