Ann Coulter seems pretty alright

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: 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 ?

Maybe it's just a case of "the victors write the history books", but it seems like classical conservatism and liberalism were much more sensible than what's currently mainstream, not to say I really think any current major political views are truly "liberal" views in the socialism, human aid, environmentalism, and human rights and sense. It just seems like the corrupt, outrageous, and nonsensible political movements of the past were quickly outted and killed, or just not supported in the first place. Then again, it's not like what's currently known as "right-wing" has been prevalent for very long, it's been present probably forever, but has only been the majority and with any actual power for a very short time period and is currently gaining enough distrust among the American people that a neoliberalism could take hold, or more likely a classic conservatism. (I doubt we'll see a return of classic liberalism anytime soon, unless it comes from immigrant populations)

 

[raildogg]

She generalizes like a lot of other so-called talking heads. He is like Rush, only more annoying and far less knowledgeable. I have listened to her talk and all she does is criticize the other party, the other person's beliefs and generalizes about groups of people. I have not heard her presenting her side of the story. I would listen if she said something productive. Treason my ass. You have to think about the whole situation and not just look at what is at the surface. She once said that "Too bad Timothy McVeigh didn't park that truck next to the NY Times building". I don't remember the exact quote but it is close to it. She has no right to call anyone a treasonist. She is moronic, period.

 

[EpsiIon]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
You want credibility in ATOT? Get real dude!

I want credibility in human beings, regardless of where they express their ideas. Perhaps it's not realistic in all cases, but I certainly thought it would be with an Elite Member who many suspect of being a moderator.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Imagine that, he actually thinks I give a sh!t.

You clearly do or you never would have posted more than a single message in this thread. Either you lack an amazing amount of introspection or, more likely, your defensive "I don't care" attitude is the only way you know how to cope with being wrong in a public forum (forum in the pre-internet sense).

Prove you don't care: don't post in this thread any more and don't PM me.

 

[GoingUp]

I'm middle of the road and I think shes goddamned nuts.

 

[jagec]

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.

You talking about Anne or Red?

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've seen her enough on TV and heard her interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show regarding her attacks on this widows whom the bitch has the audacity call the "Witches of East Brunswick".

Ah, I see. You can attack her personally for her political viewpoint because she hasn't had a loved one die... but she cannot attack them for their political viewpoints because they have?

And they hold far more power than Ann could ever dream of. This tiny minority of surviving wives had the power to force the government to create hearings and a panel. All by wielding their dead husbands like a weapon and shield making them immune from question and political debate.

Objectivity, my friend. Seriously, drop the emotional response and look at the issue objectively

I'll say it- screw the 9/11 widow extortionists......... 10,000 people die in the U.S. every day- none of their familes receive 1million + dollars unless they have private insurance. The only families who should have received death benefits after 9/11 were the government employees who lost their lives doing their jobs.......all the rest of them did was go to work and die- the same could happen to any of us and if you don't have insurance your family won't get sh1t.......

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've seen her enough on TV and heard her interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show regarding her attacks on this widows whom the bitch has the audacity call the "Witches of East Brunswick".

Ah, I see. You can attack her personally for her political viewpoint because she hasn't had a loved one die... but she cannot attack them for their political viewpoints because they have?

And they hold far more power than Ann could ever dream of. This tiny minority of surviving wives had the power to force the government to create hearings and a panel. All by wielding their dead husbands like a weapon and shield making them immune from question and political debate.

Objectivity, my friend. Seriously, drop the emotional response and look at the issue objectively

Did you read/hear the vile things she called them and accused them of? I'm not just talking about their political motives, but how they profited from their husbands deaths, how their marriages were headed for divorce, etc. If you are not outraged by that then you have a problem with your sense of decency.

Vile things? Those are true things........they received over a million dollars for the deaths of their husbands.....many of their marriages probably were headed for divorce- have you seen divorce statistics in this country? The only thing outrageous was people receiving over 1 million dollars due to a terrorist attack........The American people were extorted by these families to a cost never before seen...........Did the families of those at Pearl Harbor get 1 million +++ dollars? How bout families of Hurrican Katrina victims? How bout the Oklahoma City bombing victims? I could go on and on...........

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've seen her enough on TV and heard her interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show regarding her attacks on this widows whom the bitch has the audacity call the "Witches of East Brunswick".

Ah, I see. You can attack her personally for her political viewpoint because she hasn't had a loved one die... but she cannot attack them for their political viewpoints because they have?

And they hold far more power than Ann could ever dream of. This tiny minority of surviving wives had the power to force the government to create hearings and a panel. All by wielding their dead husbands like a weapon and shield making them immune from question and political debate.

Objectivity, my friend. Seriously, drop the emotional response and look at the issue objectively

Did you read/hear the vile things she called them and accused them of? I'm not just talking about their political motives, but how they profited from their husbands deaths, how their marriages were headed for divorce, etc. If you are not outraged by that then you have a problem with your sense of decency.

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.

Sometimes the truth hurts yet it should always be told..........

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The things she said are absolutely disgraceful, regardless of whose politics you agree with. You can disagree with the political stance of the widows etc, and you can definitely attack their political ideas...... but to say that they enjoy the death of their husbands, or that they might have been headed for divorce and all that kind of stuff simply exposes Coulter for the scum she is. It puts her on the same level as those wackos out there protesting at the funerals of soldiers.

Soldiers fought and died for the country and willingly enlisted to serve. 9/11 victims did not.....also- soldier's pay monthly for their life insurance which is $400,000.........9/11 victims families collected 1 million dollars + on top of personal life insurance policies......definately not the same level......

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: her209
Hardball with Chris Matthews? for June 30
Bylines: Chris Matthews, Frank Luntz, David Shuster
Guests: Ann Coulter, Howard Fineman, John Lott, Carol Lear, Willie Brown, Bob Dornan

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I?m Chris Matthews. Let?s play HARDBALL. The ?Big Story? tonight, best selling author, Ann Coulter, her new book is called ?Treason?, and in it she says liberals are unpatriotic. She?ll be here to tell us why...
MATTHEWS: Let?s talk about the question of your book ?Treason?. What do you mean by treason? Talk about the word treason? I mean, I?ve looked it up in the dictionary the other night, it has a couple of meanings. One is, treason. I mean, you turned over of the documents to the enemy. You are Alger Hiss, someone like that. That?s treason.
COULTER: Right.
MATTHEWS: What do you mean by-in terms of this cover of this book?
COULTER: What I mean is that the Democratic Party, as an entity, has become functionally treasonable, including what you?re talking about, turning over documents to the enemy...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Well, should they be prosecuted? Should anybody in the party be prosecuted either today, or should have been prosecuted in the past? I mean, it?s a criminal charge of treason. Should anybody be charged with it?
COULTER: I wish it were that easy a problem, but that trivializes the point...
MATTHEWS: No, it?s a crime.
COULTER: ... of my book, which is not that there are just a few dozen traitors out there. It is that the entire party cannot root for a America.
MATTHEWS: Well, let?s talk about the leaders of the Democratic Party over the years. It-was Jack Kennedy a traitor, was he guilty of treason?
COULTER: He was not as strong a president...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: But was he guilty of treason. That is what you are saying about him. I read the book.
COULTER: ... as a Republican would have been. But I?m referring, as I say again, I?m referring to a party that is functionality treasonable.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me get to the bottom line here...
COULTER: No, he shouldn?t have been tried.
MATTHEWS: I just want to know who you mean, because I think it is a very well written book, but I find it hard for you to step back from the strength of this book on television. Was Jack Kennedy a traitor?
COULTER: No, he was not a traitor.
MATTHEWS: Was he guilty of treason?
COULTER: His heart was in the right place but he was surrounded by bad policymakers...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Was he guilty of treason...
COULTER: ... and he harms the country and its national security. No. I?ve said he is not guilty of treason. I am speaking of a party. If there were just a few...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK. I am just going to go through the leaders of the Democratic Party, because you are talking about a party. So I am trying to be fair with you. Was Harry Truman a traitor?
COULTER: He promoted a known soviet spy, Harry Dexter White, after the FBI told him that. After Winston Churchill gave his iron curtain speech, he invited Stalin to come give a rebuttal speech. Truman and Kennedy were far better than today?s Democrats were, but this is a party that has been creeping toward a refusal to defend America.
MATTHEWS: Has Harry Truman...
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: I?m not talking about individuals.
MATTHEWS: ... Republicans, I am going to keep doing this. I am trying to nail down so that people can decide whether to read a book or not. Was Harry Truman guilty of treason?
COULTER: I think it?s a more important indictment and you can keep asking me to say this is an entire party that cannot be trusted.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You say the Democratic Party is guilty of treason. I just want you to tell me which of the top Democrats, not go into details-I agree with you by the way about Harry Dexter White. I agree with you about Alger Hiss. There is a lot of these people guilty of treason,...
COULTER: But you are asking me...
MATTHEWS: ... but which Democratic Party official-which official of the Democratic Party, or its leadership...
COULTER: I?ll give you my thesis again. My thesis is, that the entire Democratic Party cannot be trusted with the defense of the nation.
MATTHEWS: Start with a name, please.
COULTER: It is not to start trying a few individuals. I wouldn?t...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK. We?re not getting anywhere here because you don?t want to give me any names.
COULTER: That is because I am talking about the Democratic Party. That is the name I am trying to give you.
MATTHEWS: OK. Half the American people, roughly, in most elections averaged over the last 50 years have voted Democrat, let?s face it, for president. Those people who vote for Democratic candidates for president after hearing their case with regard to foreign policy, why would they vote for someone who you say is a traitor?
COULTER: Because this story has not been told, because I have what has been systemically excluded from history books in high school and college, and that is why I wrote this book, to prove to Democrats, as Joe McCarthy said...
MATTHEWS: But half the people in the U.S. Army are probably Democrats. You say they vote for Democrats out of treasonable reasons?
COULTER: I am saying, as Joe McCarthy said, the loyal Democrats of this party no longer-or of this country no longer have a party. This is a party that cannot defend America, that loses wars, that loses continents to communism-that nay say Ronald Reagan?s response to the Soviet Union, and then they keep turning around and say, oh, it was inevitable. No one lost China. Anyone would have lost Vietnam. It was...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Do you think if you oppose the war, you?re a treasonist for opposing the war?
COULTER: No, but that?s why I have 50 years. At some point it?s not a mistake. It is not an error of judgment...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: For example, was it wrong for Pat Buchanan to oppose this war in Iraq? Was he treasonous for doing it?
COULTER: I think I?ve answered that. No. A single ? Look, Pat Buchanan has shown his bona fides in a million other areas.
MATTHEWS: Then Jack Kemp is not a traitor for opposing the war...
COULTER: These are patriotic Americans. They do not oppose the Strategic Defense Initiative. They did not oppose Ronald Reagan...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: But they opposed-but all these top conservatives who opposed the war, were they wrong? Were they treasonist to do so? But with liberals oppose the war, they are treasonists. I am just trying to figure out what the difference is.
COULTER: I?m just trying to answer. No, with someone like-are you? can I finish?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
COULTER: No. When someone like Pat Buchanan or Robert Novak say they?re against the war in Iraq, no, that gives someone like me pause, and thinks, I just disagree with them on this issue. But as I say, they do not scream that the country is in the middle of a civil liberties crisis every time Ashcroft talks to a Muslim. They do not ...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Yes, but the problem I have is that a lot of Republicans...
COULTER: They do not oppose...
MATTHEWS: ... in fact, most Republicans in the country opposed the Second World War...
COULTER: Let met finish...
MATTHEWS: No. I want to make a point in response to that, because I think a lot of Republicans have opposed a lot of wars over time, and you haven?t called them traitors. Why do you call Democrats traitors when they oppose a war?
COULTER: To get back to this point. Once you have an entire series of incidents-why is it that the Democratic Party keeps consistently taking the position that is most contrary to this country?s national interest? When you have someone like Pat Buchanan or Novak, you say, well, we disagree on this issue. The Democrats fight unwinable wars. They lose continents to communism. They?ve consistently been on the wrong side of every issue.
MATTHEWS: Was World War II a Democrat war?
COULTER: That?s why it?s 50 years and not 60.
MATTHEWS: Were the Republicans willing to oppose World War II before Pearl Harbor right? And they vigorously opposed getting involved in the war in Europe.
COULTER: As I describe in my book, they were wrong and I have to describe this...
MATTHEWS: The Republicans were wrong?
COULTER: Yes, they were.
MATTHEWS: Were they traitors?
COULTER: No. They came around...
MATTHEWS: But when liberals oppose wars, they are treasonists. We?ll be right back with Ann Coulter. I?m trying to get these definitions down and being nice to this brilliant writer.
COULTER: Then next time let me answer.
MATTHEWS: Back with more to talk about-plenty of opportunity to answer. You wouldn?t believe how much time I give you. Anyway, thank you. We are going to be back and talk with Ann about her opponent on the bookshelves, Hillary Clinton, when we return. And by the way, ?Decision 2004? is coming up, and Howard Dean, by the way, is raising more money than the moderates. We are going to talk about that when we come back-with Howard Fineman.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: We?re back with Ann Coulter, having an interesting discussion about what constitutes treason. I just think-I think that the constitution-respond to this statement, I want to ask you a question. The constitution left the issue of peace and war basically in the hands of Congress in the terms of big decisions about declarations of war, and in this case, we had a debate about going to war with Iraq and the president won his case. But I think the right of an American to argue whether we go to war or not is basic, and you, I think, argue that when someone opposes a war action, they are somehow is treasonist. I think that?s a broad brush, and I think it makes a lot of very good people, including me, feel very angry.
COULTER: No. I...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Because I disagree in America?s interest with a lot of these wars. I don?t think there?s good for us.
COULTER: Yes. From what I hear, dissenting from the nation?s war aims is the more patriotic act, but the one thing you?re not allowed to say is to call someone unpatriotic. You can say it?s unpatriotic to stop us from protesting, but you can?t say burning a flag is unpatriotic.
MATTHEWS: No. I just think people should be free to express their views on a matter so important as war, and if a person...
COULTER: They clearly are.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... opposes a war, they shouldn?t be called a traitor because they disagree with the current war policy.
COULTER: Well, don?t worry. I?m the only one doing it.
MATTHEWS: You?re doing it here.
COULTER: That?s right.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton?s book, how is it doing compared to yours?
COULTER: Well, she has many advantages over me.
MATTHEWS: You said she weighed more than you the other day. Was that the case?
COULTER: She had a 3 to 1 pound advantage. Her book is also three times as large as mine.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this book. This book is very interesting, and I am not going to comment. I am going to let you comment on it. The principal difference between fifth columnists and the cold war versus the war on terrorism is that you could sit next to a communist in a subway without asphyxiating. What does that mean? I just want to know. What does that mean? I want to know.
(CROSSTALK)
COULTER: It means what it says. The second difference is, that in far more time the enemy that we?re up against now has killed far fewer people.
MATTHEWS: So, but the enemy smells. Is that your knock against Arabs? I mean, that?s your point here. You sit next to them and you are asphyxiated while sitting next to them.
COULTER: I?m just drawing the differences between the old war and the currents war.
MATTHEWS: Is that a way to win friends in the Arab and Islamic world by saying they stink.
COULTER: I think it is a way to get people...
MATTHEWS: Is that deep?
COULTER: ... to read my book, so I thank you.
MATTHEWS: Well, I tell you. If you want it at that level, you got it right here. Anyway, she?s a great writer. I don?t agree with her, but she?s a hell of a writer. And thank you very much for coming on. She?s a real charmer. Ann Coulter. The last book was called ?Slander.? Maybe this one should have been called that too.

thats good.

pwned

Did she seriously make a point that arabs smell? Are you fvcking kidding me?

She just uses right wing idiots/suckers to help them from their money. Write a bunch of idiotic right whing crap and say something completly stupid on national tv and you'll have the "Moran" guys going USA! USA! and buying your garbage

Most of the arabs overseas here do smell- although it probably has to do with inadequate showering facilities and the fact they don't use toilet paper to wipe their rear.......That alone is reason enough for me to add credibility to her statement........although- I don't see why it is necessary for her to point that out.........again- sometimes the truth hurts......as hateful as her comments are- you can't say she isn't being truthful............On the same hand- the arabs I know in the states smell fine.......so..........

 

[imported_Mike]

Haha, we have our own little Ann Coulter fan club going. That is awesome...

 

[shadow9d9]

Someone here said that they hadn't met a democrat with a functioning brain... I found it kinda funny.

Personally, I am independent with some liberal leanings. I don't like either party. My father is Republican but doesn't like this administration and what it has done. He believes in higher minimum wages, women's rights, rights to have an abortion. Otherwise, I have yet to meet a real "conservative." Everyone I know, both highly educated, or not, seem to support these "liberal" values. I have yet to meet someone that actually believes the Bush administration has done a good job overall, or is against women's rights. I have talked to people, like my wife's parents, who are against abortion...however they are not Republican. I feel too many people, including Coulter, lump everyone they disagree with as "liberal democrats." There are certainly some extreme Democrats out there, but a MAJORITY of people have views in both camps. I hate the propogation of terms such as "liberals" and "conservatives" that seem SO OVERWHELMINGLY in places like ATOT. I find myself having to ignore any post that uses these kind of terms. These people seem to think that this is all a game and there are 2 definitive groups of people, and they want to be on the "winning side." I consider such a view to be void of all rationale and real life experience.



As for Coulter, I think that she says outrageous things to sell books. I don't like her methods while I do enjoy Michael Moore's methods I find it easy to distinguish Moore's produced facts from his blatant opinions. That is the way it should be. I can't do the same with Coulter. Just IMHO. I feel like Moore brings attention to important issues-gun control, GM(I believe it was gm)'s abuse of its employees, and some important truths and about Bush's past and how he has handled the middle east. His opinions are blatant and he even provided a list of sourced facts used in F 9/11 for those who were unable to distinguish between his opinions and his used facts. I do not see Coulter providing similar information. People often miss this difference because of their hatred of other's opinions. If someone could find me where Coulter has posted a listing of her sourced facts used in her books, I will stand corrected.

 

[herkulease]

eh, she's alright I guess. So is moore.

though I've seen more deceptive things from moore. I remember someone had a website that listed some errors and what not from his movie.

But you know what I find those two are out for a buck. I doubt the extreme right wing coulter is really her but rather a persona that she created to make money off from.

can't blame her either. She probably made a few million. Sure there's people who hate her but there's just enough people who like her to buy her books. All the money she made will balance out her haters.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: herkulease
eh, she's alright I guess. So is moore.

though I've seen more deceptive things from moore. I remember someone had a website that listed some errors and what not from his movie.

But you know what I find those two are out for a buck. I doubt the extreme right wing coulter is really her but rather a persona that she created to make money off from.

can't blame her either. She probably made a few million. Sure there's people who hate her but there's just enough people who like her to buy her books. All the money she made will balance out her haters.

I'd like to say she's just controversial to sell books, it's a very good way to draw attention to yourself, by making outlandish statements. Unfortunately, I know quite a few people, including most of my family, who would agree with her expressed opinions 100%. Don't think she doesn't represent a real segment of the population, as extreme as she is.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: herkulease
eh, she's alright I guess. So is moore.

though I've seen more deceptive things from moore. I remember someone had a website that listed some errors and what not from his movie.

But you know what I find those two are out for a buck. I doubt the extreme right wing coulter is really her but rather a persona that she created to make money off from.

can't blame her either. She probably made a few million. Sure there's people who hate her but there's just enough people who like her to buy her books. All the money she made will balance out her haters.

Yep, there are websites pointing out "errors", that serve to create an atmosphere of mistrust toward him. If you actually research the facts, you will find that they use their personal opinion of his presentation as proof of "errors." In reality, not ONE fact in over 6 pages of facts and sources used for Fahrenheit 9/11, for example, has been proven false. You could find websites disproving everything out there... However, the websites are almost overwhelmingly opinions trying to be disguised as fact to create reader suspicion upon the targets.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Someone here said that they hadn't met a democrat with a functioning brain... I found it kinda funny.

Personally, I am independent with some liberal leanings. I don't like either party. My father is Republican but doesn't like this administration and what it has done. He believes in higher minimum wages, women's rights, rights to have an abortion. Otherwise, I have yet to meet a real "conservative." Everyone I know, both highly educated, or not, seem to support these "liberal" values. I have yet to meet someone that actually believes the Bush administration has done a good job overall, or is against women's rights. I have talked to people, like my wife's parents, who are against abortion...however they are not Republican. I feel too many people, including Coulter, lump everyone they disagree with as "liberal democrats." There are certainly some extreme Democrats out there, but a MAJORITY of people have views in both camps. I hate the propogation of terms such as "liberals" and "conservatives" that seem SO OVERWHELMINGLY in places like ATOT. I find myself having to ignore any post that uses these kind of terms. These people seem to think that this is all a game and there are 2 definitive groups of people, and they want to be on the "winning side." I consider such a view to be void of all rationale and real life experience.



As for Coulter, I think that she says outrageous things to sell books. I don't like her methods while I do enjoy Michael Moore's methods I find it easy to distinguish Moore's produced facts from his blatant opinions. That is the way it should be. I can't do the same with Coulter. Just IMHO. I feel like Moore brings attention to important issues-gun control, GM(I believe it was gm)'s abuse of its employees, and some important truths and about Bush's past and how he has handled the middle east. His opinions are blatant and he even provided a list of sourced facts used in F 9/11 for those who were unable to distinguish between his opinions and his used facts. I do not see Coulter providing similar information. People often miss this difference because of their hatred of other's opinions. If someone could find me where Coulter has posted a listing of her sourced facts used in her books, I will stand corrected.

Ya- gun control is important! Look at all the crime all those laws stop.......Ever notice how the areas with the most gun laws have the most gun crimes which continue irreguardless of the laws passed..........Lots of good gun bans have done for the UK with gun deaths increasing since the nationwide ban........

Defending Michael Moore? Both him and Ann Coulter are both sensationalists.......in Moore's defense- he tries to be humorous......in Coulter's defense- she is rarely untruthful..........both of them suck..........

And you are a liberal in the worst degree if you are a gun grabber.......

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: herkulease
eh, she's alright I guess. So is moore.

though I've seen more deceptive things from moore. I remember someone had a website that listed some errors and what not from his movie.

But you know what I find those two are out for a buck. I doubt the extreme right wing coulter is really her but rather a persona that she created to make money off from.

can't blame her either. She probably made a few million. Sure there's people who hate her but there's just enough people who like her to buy her books. All the money she made will balance out her haters.

Yep, there are websites pointing out "errors", that serve to create an atmosphere of mistrust toward him. If you actually research the facts, you will find that they use their personal opinion of his presentation as proof of "errors." In reality, not ONE fact in over 6 pages of facts and sources used for Fahrenheit 9/11, for example, has been proven false. You could find websites disproving everything out there... However, the websites are almost overwhelmingly opinions trying to be disguised as fact to create reader suspicion upon the targets.

F 9/11 is full of sensatialism and outright misinformation and lies..........Points are taken out of context and miscontrued throughout the film.........I don't think any reasonable person takes Ann Coulter or MM seriously.....obviously you fail........

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: spidey07


You earn more than 326,000 dollars a year and yet you are a democrat that has tried to defeat all these tax cuts?

I'm calling shens on the fully functional brain part.

Nice. I tried to engage you as an equal. Obviously someone who disagrees with you must be less intelligent.

Why I'm a Democrat-- I disagree with the religious right. I don't need them dictating morality to me. I supported the war in Afghanistan and I'm saddened that we left the job unfinished to conduct a strategically and tactically flawed war in Iraq. I believe in fiscal conservatism, but George Bush certainly doesn't stand for that-- he's increased spending in every single department. The thing I want most from our President right now-- an Apollo program-esque mission to solve our dependence on oil-- he isn't doing because he's too close to oil money.

As to the money...

I don't mind paying my fair share. To be honest, I got to a point and found money doesn't really make me all that happy. I mean, it's nice to be financially secure and it's great be able to buy presents for my parents, but it doesn't make me happy. It does give me the freedom to volunteer part of my time at the VA hospital, though.

Personally, I'm always amazed at the paradox of the poorer Republicans supporting tax cuts that don't help them. I think it's because we're an incredibly optimistic society which would like to believe that becoming a millionaire is just around the corner.

98% of Americans BENEFIT from Bush's tax cuts. Everyone saves. Sure the poorer people don't benefit very much, but they still save. But as always, liberals say that only the rich benefit because that is how they want to twist the tax cuts.

 

[mAdMaLuDaWg]

I'm a republican and people like Ann Coulter disgust me. Her racist, bigoted, idiotic comments really tick me off. I remember her saying that we should turn the entire mid-east into a parking lot.. *ugh*. Is she saying stuff like that just to make money? I don't know but she ends up painting herself as a closed-minded, bigoted, racist at times.. wow, I mean what some people will do for money.

She labels people as liberals and refuses to talk to them (wasn't one of her books titled something like that).. I disagree with a lot of people, democrats and republicans, but that doesn't mean they are any less worthy to have their voice heard out. I just wish people on the fringes like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore would start their own party and stop giving their respective parties a bad name. Leave the party-debating to the party-centrists.

 

[halik]

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?

I absolutely concur - she graduated summa cum laude from Michigan's law school, which means she's extremly bright person. I think she just saw the niche market of right-wing idiots and decided to take them to cleaners.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: spidey07


You earn more than 326,000 dollars a year and yet you are a democrat that has tried to defeat all these tax cuts?

I'm calling shens on the fully functional brain part.

Nice. I tried to engage you as an equal. Obviously someone who disagrees with you must be less intelligent.

Why I'm a Democrat-- I disagree with the religious right. I don't need them dictating morality to me. I supported the war in Afghanistan and I'm saddened that we left the job unfinished to conduct a strategically and tactically flawed war in Iraq. I believe in fiscal conservatism, but George Bush certainly doesn't stand for that-- he's increased spending in every single department. The thing I want most from our President right now-- an Apollo program-esque mission to solve our dependence on oil-- he isn't doing because he's too close to oil money.

As to the money...

I don't mind paying my fair share. To be honest, I got to a point and found money doesn't really make me all that happy. I mean, it's nice to be financially secure and it's great be able to buy presents for my parents, but it doesn't make me happy. It does give me the freedom to volunteer part of my time at the VA hospital, though.

Personally, I'm always amazed at the paradox of the poorer Republicans supporting tax cuts that don't help them. I think it's because we're an incredibly optimistic society which would like to believe that becoming a millionaire is just around the corner.

98% of Americans BENEFIT from Bush's tax cuts. Everyone saves. Sure the poorer people don't benefit very much, but they still save. But as always, liberals say that only the rich benefit because that is how they want to twist the tax cuts.

Keep telling yourself that and watch DJIA sink later this month when fed bumps the rates to 5.25%. Tax cuts are awesome if you go thru life thinking it's free money, but for people that have money on the line, sensible fiscal policy is what matters.

You really just can't keep on cutting taxes and printing more money. Try subtracting your $500 tax cut check off the 2% extra on your new 30 year mortgage and see how much you "saved"

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: spidey07


You earn more than 326,000 dollars a year and yet you are a democrat that has tried to defeat all these tax cuts?

I'm calling shens on the fully functional brain part.

Nice. I tried to engage you as an equal. Obviously someone who disagrees with you must be less intelligent.

Why I'm a Democrat-- I disagree with the religious right. I don't need them dictating morality to me. I supported the war in Afghanistan and I'm saddened that we left the job unfinished to conduct a strategically and tactically flawed war in Iraq. I believe in fiscal conservatism, but George Bush certainly doesn't stand for that-- he's increased spending in every single department. The thing I want most from our President right now-- an Apollo program-esque mission to solve our dependence on oil-- he isn't doing because he's too close to oil money.

As to the money...

I don't mind paying my fair share. To be honest, I got to a point and found money doesn't really make me all that happy. I mean, it's nice to be financially secure and it's great be able to buy presents for my parents, but it doesn't make me happy. It does give me the freedom to volunteer part of my time at the VA hospital, though.

Personally, I'm always amazed at the paradox of the poorer Republicans supporting tax cuts that don't help them. I think it's because we're an incredibly optimistic society which would like to believe that becoming a millionaire is just around the corner.

98% of Americans BENEFIT from Bush's tax cuts. Everyone saves. Sure the poorer people don't benefit very much, but they still save. But as always, liberals say that only the rich benefit because that is how they want to twist the tax cuts.

Keep telling yourself that and watch DJIA sink later this month when fed bumps the rates to 5.25%. Tax cuts are awesome if you go thru life thinking it's free money, but for people that have money on the line, sensible fiscal policy is what matters.

You really just can't keep on cutting taxes and printing more money. Try subtracting your $500 tax cut check off the 2% extra on your new 30 year mortgage and see how much you "saved"

The next rate increase is almost entirely priced into the market already- if the language suggests another tax cut after this one coming up- then the market will sink, on the other hand if it suggests the rates are done raising- the market will get a bump........

 

[Slikkster]

Bottom line is that if someone like Coulter can't even get Bill O'Reilly to defend her statements, the battle is lost. Even he says that while she might have some compelling arguments to make, they're all for naught when personal invective comes into play. Let that be the end of this dopey thread.

 

[Conky]

Ann Coulter is great because she irritates the liberals to such a degree that they simply lose their minds attacking her.

She is careful to word things very specifically and yet is constantly misquoted or "half quoted" which just fuels even more rabid hatred for her by people who haven't even bothered to read some of her observations.

Like most political commentators her views and comments sometimes miss the mark but overall her points make a lot of sense and show a lot of thought.

I still think she rocks.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Ann Coulter is great because she irritates the liberals to such a degree that they simply lose their minds attacking her.

Good for her....the thng is she is just a far-right attacking far lefts....

In other words, idiots attacking idiots.




<--in the middle