Ann Coulter seems pretty alright

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BigJ
It's pretty cold what she said about them as people, but her viewpoints on their agendas and the manipulation are spot-on.

More than just cold, heartless and cruel.

Being heartless and cruel does not make a person's argument factually incorrect. Stop thinking with your heart.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
And, again, your response just helps to prove her point.

No it doesn't.

Actually, it really does. You offer no logical reasoning or solid evidence that Coulter's claims about these widows are incorrect. Instead, you seem to have chosen to believe she is wrong because you do not want to believe she is right. You have become ignorantly offended at Coulter's criticisms of these widows and attacked her instead of her argument, which is exactly what she said would happen.

If instead of getting worked up about the issue, you researched it, you might be able to calmly refute her arguments instead of attack her personally. This would lend your position a lot more credit than it currently holds.

You want credibility in ATOT? Get real dude!

Imagine that, he actually thinks I give a sh!t.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BigJ
It's pretty cold what she said about them as people, but her viewpoints on their agendas and the manipulation are spot-on.

More than just cold, heartless and cruel.

Being heartless and cruel does not make a person's argument factually incorrect. Stop thinking with your heart.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
And, again, your response just helps to prove her point.

No it doesn't.

Actually, it really does. You offer no logical reasoning or solid evidence that Coulter's claims about these widows are incorrect. Instead, you seem to have chosen to believe she is wrong because you do not want to believe she is right. You have become ignorantly offended at Coulter's criticisms of these widows and attacked her instead of her argument, which is exactly what she said would happen.

If instead of getting worked up about the issue, you researched it, you might be able to calmly refute her arguments instead of attack her personally. This would lend your position a lot more credit than it currently holds.

You want credibility in ATOT? Get real dude!

Imagine that, he actually thinks I give a sh!t.

I'm sure your toilet bowl is overflowin with love.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Ahmadine-what?

you and JS80 don't really have anything meaninful to say, do you?

i mean, you're good at making little one line retorts about how things "don't deserve a response" but mostly it's because you have no clue how to discuss this stuff. ignorance is bliss, i guess.

meh. i'm going swimming.

OK...you linked to 1) a pic of rumsfeld and saddam back when he wasn't a jackass threat, 2) Bush escorting the Saudi King, and 3) a map of Israel. And you posted this to rebut my statement that we never really had any good will in the Middle East because you're statement that we did have it before Bush was elected implying that Bush caused the Middle East to hate us.

How am I suppose to respond to a rebuttal that's not a rebuttal?

Just link to pics like this or this . If the US is to remain engaged in the world instead of sitting back in fortress America then by necessity we will be dealing with some world class thugs when our interests coincide with their interests. That was the case with Saddam back in the 1980's when Iraq was at war with Iran, it is the case then and now with Saudi Arabia.

 

[PokerGuy]

Epsilon, there is no reason to 'research' or to refute her 'arguments' -- it's irrelevant. She can have all sorts of things to say about the political position of the widows, and she can attack that all she wants. However, when she starts saying things like that they enjoy the death of their husbands etc, her statements cross over into hateful idiotic ramblings of a fanatic.

She pretty much discredited any legitimate points she might have had regarding the widows' political actions or idiology by once again showing herself to be a fanatic willing to say anything for attention, publicity and/or money.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Epsilon, there is no reason to 'research' or to refute her 'arguments' -- it's irrelevant. She can have all sorts of things to say about the political position of the widows, and she can attack that all she wants. However, when she starts saying things like that they enjoy the death of their husbands etc, her statements cross over into hateful idiotic ramblings of a fanatic.

She pretty much discredited any legitimate points she might have had regarding the widows' political actions or idiology by once again showing herself to be a fanatic willing to say anything for attention, publicity and/or money.

Really? What if she had valid proof that they ARE, to one point or another, enjoying their husband's deaths?

 

[Linflas]

Yeah she's more comparable to Fred Phelps.

So she makes the point by personally attacking those widows? Somebody should kick her in her Adam's apple and shut her the fsck up!

[insert wanking off emoticon] Well I guess you told me

Imagine that, he actually thinks I give a sh!t.

Sorry Red the only difference I see between your discussion style and Ann's is that she reaches a much larger audience. Of course I have left out all of the reasonable discussion you also had in this thread much like Coulter's critics leave out all the reasonable discussion she puts in between her barbs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Epsilon, there is no reason to 'research' or to refute her 'arguments' -- it's irrelevant. She can have all sorts of things to say about the political position of the widows, and she can attack that all she wants. However, when she starts saying things like that they enjoy the death of their husbands etc, her statements cross over into hateful idiotic ramblings of a fanatic.

She pretty much discredited any legitimate points she might have had regarding the widows' political actions or idiology by once again showing herself to be a fanatic willing to say anything for attention, publicity and/or money.

Really? What if she had valid proof that they ARE, to one point or another, enjoying their husband's deaths?

Hey after all, Law and Order made an episode where a ficticious 9/11 widow was glad her husband was killed so she could milk it for all it was worth:roll:

Sorry Amused:beer: defending Ann's Cooter is like defending the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

 

[PokerGuy]

Really? What if she had valid proof that they ARE, to one point or another, enjoying their husband's deaths?

Proof? Like what, a signed affidavit from the women or something? Somehow get into their brain? Common now, get real. There is no such thing as proof in this case. Coulter could have presented evidence or proof to back up her claims that the political actions were wrong (incidentally I agree with coulter on that, these people use their loss as a shield or a platform, as if they have more of right to be heard because of their loss), but she chose to drown out those points with hateful rhetoric.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Yeah she's more comparable to Fred Phelps.

So she makes the point by personally attacking those widows? Somebody should kick her in her Adam's apple and shut her the fsck up!

[insert wanking off emoticon] Well I guess you told me

Imagine that, he actually thinks I give a sh!t.

Sorry Red the only difference I see between your discussion style and Ann's is that she reaches a much larger audience. Of course I have left out all of the reasonable discussion you also had in this thread much like Coulter's critics leave out all the reasonable discussion she puts in between her barbs.

Well there's another difference, I'm not trying to sell books to muddle minded idiots who believe what she says.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Epsilon, there is no reason to 'research' or to refute her 'arguments' -- it's irrelevant. She can have all sorts of things to say about the political position of the widows, and she can attack that all she wants. However, when she starts saying things like that they enjoy the death of their husbands etc, her statements cross over into hateful idiotic ramblings of a fanatic.

She pretty much discredited any legitimate points she might have had regarding the widows' political actions or idiology by once again showing herself to be a fanatic willing to say anything for attention, publicity and/or money.

Really? What if she had valid proof that they ARE, to one point or another, enjoying their husband's deaths?

Hey after all, Law and Order made an episode where a ficticious 9/11 widow was glad her husband was killed so she could milk it for all it was worth:roll:

Sorry Amused:beer: defending Ann's Cooter is like defending the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Red, the fact of the matter is, you played right into her trap.

Your reaction was akin to someone telling you you're very disagreeable and prone to emotional outbursts, and your reaction is to jump up and angrily scream "No I'm not!"

Ann has a point with this article. A very good point. But I guess poisoning the wells is always easier than addressing the facts.

BTW, the comparisons to Hitler and the KKK do nothing but prove her point even more.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Epsilon, there is no reason to 'research' or to refute her 'arguments' -- it's irrelevant. She can have all sorts of things to say about the political position of the widows, and she can attack that all she wants. However, when she starts saying things like that they enjoy the death of their husbands etc, her statements cross over into hateful idiotic ramblings of a fanatic.

She pretty much discredited any legitimate points she might have had regarding the widows' political actions or idiology by once again showing herself to be a fanatic willing to say anything for attention, publicity and/or money.

Really? What if she had valid proof that they ARE, to one point or another, enjoying their husband's deaths?

Hey after all, Law and Order made an episode where a ficticious 9/11 widow was glad her husband was killed so she could milk it for all it was worth:roll:

Sorry Amused:beer: defending Ann's Cooter is like defending the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Red, the fact of the matter is, you played right into her trap.

Your reaction was akin to someone telling you you're very disagreeable and prone to emotional outbursts, and your reaction is to jump up and angrily scream "No I'm not!"

Ann has a point with this article. A very good point. But I guess poisoning the wells is always easier than addressing the facts.

BTW, the comparisons to Hitler and the KKK do nothing but prove her point even more.

Well it could be worse, I could be the Knucklehead posting at OT defending Coulter like it really fscking matters. What,you trying to convince a bunch of Nerd Shutins that Coulter actually has something worthwhile to say? Man I can't think of a more productive thing to do with my morning.

 

[Skanderberg]

I think Ann Coulter is a Liberal who spouts Conservative rheoteric to piss off moderates. She states a biased opinion in a way that is offensive to most people to incite a reaction. Part of it is to sell books and make money, but it also serves to underline the flaws in the very point of view that she is stating. As the OP popinted out, her language skills show that she is very intelligent and yet she incites such a negative reaction to her talikg points. Don't you think that she would make a more logical argument for her true beliefs rather than saying such inflamitory statements all the time?

Let's face it, most of the country is moderate with a small percentage being part of the extreme view points that either party seems to gravitate towards. Elections have digressd into mudslinging campaigns where each party tries to convince the American people that the other guy is worse than them. What better way to do this then to have their issues smeared (trojan horse style) by someone who claims to support said issues?

 

[Slappy00]

Id hit it

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Ann Coulter is a heartless, vicious witch. I find her more or less completely despicable.

 

[JulesMaximus]

She's an insensitive b!tch. I hope she dies.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Ann Coulter is a heartless, vicious witch. I find her more or less completely despicable.

Good thing you don't lower yourself to her level of discourse then.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: DonVito
Ann Coulter is a heartless, vicious witch. I find her more or less completely despicable.

Good thing you don't lower yourself to her level of discourse then.

Well, the difference between Linflas and Ann Coulter is that he isn't selling his opinion as fact to millions of gullible Americans.

BTW-He's absolutely spot on in his assessment of her.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Well it could be worse, I could be the Knucklehead posting at OT defending Coulter like it really fscking matters. What,you trying to convince a bunch of Nerd Shutins that Coulter actually has something worthwhile to say? Man I can't think of a more productive thing to do with my morning.

:laugh:

The ironing is delicious.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Well it could be worse, I could be the Knucklehead posting at OT defending Coulter like it really fscking matters. What,you trying to convince a bunch of Nerd Shutins that Coulter actually has something worthwhile to say? Man I can't think of a more productive thing to do with my morning.

:laugh:

The ironing is delicious.

The amount this thread delivers is pretty entertaining.

 

[saymyname]

Anyone who picks an extreme position is not alright in my book. I heard her on CNN yesterday and she is way too far right in my book. It's pot calling the kettle black when you have an extreme right wing person giving extreme left wing people a hard time.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Amplifier

So I started reading her columns on the internet and one of her more recent books "How to speak to a Liberal." Her arguments really impressed me. From a technical point of view she covers her bases very well while leaving enough of an opening to generate debate. It's actually kind of embarrassing how much more intelligent she seems than Hillary Clinton or Al Franklin. Not to say I agree with Ann Coulters politics, she just seems to put more thought into what she says. Liberals tend to talk to other liberals like they're children, which gets pretty annoying.

You're mistaking condescension for intelligence?

You are a born Gamma-Minus, my friend.

Gee.. liberal bias.. boo.

Her arguments are definitely pretty smart. I don't agree with everything she says, but I find it retarded that liberals just slam her and are incapable of refuting some of her arguments.

christ, are you a moron? she is a racist, bigoted, sexist piece of sh!t. anybody who supports her is no better. go to hell you pos.


you might as well make a thread saying adolf hitler makes good arguments.


your a fvcking troll idiot.

Wow you are the fvcking troll. Idiot. Who's the one who needs to start the personal bashing? A little insecure don't you think?

Wow, no one is saying Hitler makes good arguments, and you honestly need to get a life. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you need to bust out your mad insults. If you agree with the liberal biased media, go ahead, I don't care. I didn't say I agree with everything Coulter says, but whether you are left or right, you have to agree she has some good points out there.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Skanderberg
I think Ann Coulter is a Liberal who spouts Conservative rheoteric to piss off moderates. She states a biased opinion in a way that is offensive to most people to incite a reaction. Part of it is to sell books and make money, but it also serves to underline the flaws in the very point of view that she is stating. As the OP popinted out, her language skills show that she is very intelligent and yet she incites such a negative reaction to her talikg points. Don't you think that she would make a more logical argument for her true beliefs rather than saying such inflamitory statements all the time?

Let's face it, most of the country is moderate with a small percentage being part of the extreme view points that either party seems to gravitate towards. Elections have digressd into mudslinging campaigns where each party tries to convince the American people that the other guy is worse than them. What better way to do this then to have their issues smeared (trojan horse style) by someone who claims to support said issues?

Wow, I just picked up her book "How to Argue with a Liberal", and I've only read the prologue, but I've already thought most of the points she's made could be applied to her or Republicans in general rather than just Democrats, but if what you said was right, she'd basically be discribing her own situation. About the only good point she's made so far is that if you're loudmouthed, uncompromising, and unbudging, you'll win arguments against weaker willed people. Just great, that's so much better than promoting rational, reasoned discussion of ideas and accepting that, short of wiping out the opposing side, compromises have to be made.

I must say though, though her writing is not nearly as logical or truthful as she tries to portray it, she is a good writer, very interesting to read. I also picked up "American Theocracy" at the same time (wanted to pick up "Godless" and "American Theocracy" to really confuse the clerk, but "How to Argue with a Liberal" was cheaper and seemed to have a broader scope), and it is so far boring to read. I thought I was picking up an extreme rightist and an extreme leftist book though, instead I got an extreme rightist book, and a moderate rightist book, had no idea the author of "American Theocracy" was a member of the Nixon administration, never expected to see a book with that title written by a Republican denouncing the Republican party as a religious party leading towards ruination and the Democrats as completely ineffectual.

Anyhow, I hate the extremists on both sides, but up until recently, extremist Republicans have been less dangerous. The social programs of extremist leftists are far more dangerous than those of rightists (it's far safer to trample the rights of a few than to support a minority at the expense of the greater good) but the current foreign policy of the Republican party is almost what you'd expect out of an extreme leftist in terms of how horrible it is to our future as a nation and it's "for the greater good" idealogy. I think the Democratic party can be reformed though, right now it is weak and ineffectual, with extremists only making up a small percentage of the party. The Republican party also has plenty of supporters that would probably welcome a new party, but has a strong enough extremist backbone that the party could not be effectively dissolved. It's easier to build ideals on hate and intolerance than on sacrifice.

 

[Tom]

Fox5-

thanks for the thoughtful post. I used to know what a far right winger was, Jesse Helms for example. I didn't agree with him very often, but at least I understood his position.

A good deal of the time, what is called the far right now, I have no idea what their point is ?

As far as I can tell Ms Coulter's complaint about the New Jersey housewives is, they expressed an opinion she doesn't like, so she insults them, accuses them of exploiting the death of their spouse. What political philosophy is that ?

She opposes the 9/11 commision even existing, because we are too busy fighting the war on terrorism ? What philosophy is that ? That it is bad to pay attention to what we're doing, to see if we're doing the right thing ? I don't understand that, how is that part of a right wing philosophy ?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Epsilon, there is no reason to 'research' or to refute her 'arguments' -- it's irrelevant. She can have all sorts of things to say about the political position of the widows, and she can attack that all she wants. However, when she starts saying things like that they enjoy the death of their husbands etc, her statements cross over into hateful idiotic ramblings of a fanatic.

She pretty much discredited any legitimate points she might have had regarding the widows' political actions or idiology by once again showing herself to be a fanatic willing to say anything for attention, publicity and/or money.

Really? What if she had valid proof that they ARE, to one point or another, enjoying their husband's deaths?

Putting aside that it would be impossible to prove, and therefore there's no reason for her to say it except out of hatred, or winning at any cost, suppose it could be proved.

What would be the point ? As near as I can tell, Coulter's position is, that whatever her position is, or whoever it is she is supporting politically, is so infallible that even talking about it in a critical way is dangerous ? And anyone who does talk about it needs to be crucified ?

Is that her position, or if it isn't, what is her point ?

 

[Juno]

calling liberals so unpatriotic? ROFL.

she's too uptight on liberals.

i'd make her my wench for ages.