"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war"
[My italics]
She’s not talking about anti-terrorist war, she’s talking a fucking Crusade. Religious conversion by the sword, or in this case by the B-52 and M-1 Abrams, as a stated goal of U.S. foreign policy. Besides being morally bankrupt - hey Ann, ever read the first amendment, quite a shocker, huh? - I’m sure Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others are just sure to do everything they can to help, when that’s our goal.
Considering that the one credible reason I’ve heard the Quran give for waging war is in defense of Islam when it is attacked, I’d sure hate to see the entire Muslim world take up arms against us for following Coulter’s completely braindead idea.
She has no credibility. Anyone who would suggest converting someone to Christianity by force doesn’t understand the use of force or Christianity, and not necessarily in that order. If you have attempted to read some of her other writings you will discover that this display of illogic is not an isolated instance of idiocy, but rather her forte. She usually begins any writing or oral statement with a personal attack on an individual or group supported by a general fact that is not contradictory and ignoring all other facts in the universe. Imagine Bill O’Reilly without rationality or accountability. (Thank you Jack Nicholsen).
As we all know, religion has a long and noble history of soothing people’s ideological wounds and helping them all get along, no matter what group someone may belong to.
Ohmigod, you guys! Puhleeze! All this sanctimonious holier-than-thou shit over an opinion column! What is the friggin’ big deal here? I’ve seen similar nonsense from more than one person right here on this message board, and the same reaction, too. What’s the difference? Audience? Sheesh. Just read the stuff, take it with a grain of salt, give it whatever credibility you think it deserves, and toss it. Or, continue the over-reaction to spontaneous expressions of anger and shock and we’ll hope your soapbox is sturdy.
Me, I’ll worry when those in power demonstrate such attitudes.
She does have nice legs, though - that has to be why Bill Maher has her on so often, with what appear to be low-angle lights. Having her make conservatives look foolish would be just a bonus.
Bill Maher has a conservative on every show, for “balance.” They’re never funny (sort of the point of the show), always try to hog the discussion, and always get offended when the rest of the panel make fun of them (sort of the other point of the show). The only thing worse are the brain-dead TV stars who make obvious, cliched statements.
The reason Ann is on so much is because Bill wants to/has banged her. Sort of like Laura Ingraham, a couple of years ago.
This is the pit and we will flame Ms. Coulter for her incredibly insensitive comments, and yes, they are a lot worse than stuff here in the pit. This pit is filled with people who come knowing they will see teenagers inflicting their angst on others. Ms. Coulter, supposedly a responsible adult commentator, made teh stupidest comment that has ever appeared in the National Review, and that is saying something. That is in fact very amazing. This is even stupider than the idiot that wrote a tongue in cheek article on the importance of assassinating Chelsea Clinton. As stupid and tasteless, that was at least a joke. Coulter puts herself forward as a leader and representative of a kind of political thinking. Either she humiliated her constituency by going beserk with her word processor, or it really is representative, or both. In any event, it should be decried, and apologies should be demanded until she explains herself, as she clearly won’t apologize herself.