Ann Coulter

[Groundhog]

I have heard a few bits and pieces from this lady before, but until now wasn't aware of the seriousness of her condition. These are some quotes (apparently) from her book, "Godless".

I suppose they're pretty funny in one way, but also a bit scary that such a prominent "thinker" should a) believe this stuff, if she actually does and b) feel secure enough to actually say so publicly.

* Although they are Druids, Liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader.

* Environmentalists want mass infanticide...

* A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil. It was one of the most devastating environmental disasters in recent history. Six weeks later, all the birds were back. Birds are like rats - you couldn't get rid of them if you tried.

* The most important value to Liberals is destroying human life.

* These broads (the widows of 9/11 victims) are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much.

* Most public schools are - at best - nothing but expensive babysitting arrangements, helpfully keeping hoodlums off the streets during daylight hours. At worst they are criminal training labs, where teachers sexually abuse the children between drinking binges and acts of grand larceny.

* Actual science excites them (Liberals) only if it involves some sort of Nazi experimentation with human embryos.

* It's possible embryonic stem-cell research could find a cure for Alzheimer's disease someday only in the sense that it is possible that a biologist's toenail clippings could be used to find a cure for Alzheimer's someday. Liberals aren't demanding that taxpayer's money be used for research on toenail clippings: that would not advance their governing principle, which is to always kill human life (unless the human life being killed is likely to fly a plane into American skyscrapers, in which case, it is wrong to kill it).

* Even when Liberals are trying to show their moderate, country-music loving side by claiming to oppose having sex with the family dog, they can't formulate a logical argument to explain why not.

Quoted in a review on amazon.com

[Guest]

Have you actually read any of her books, or are you just quoting a review which in turn quoted her out of context for the purpose of making her look as bad as possible?

The sad fact is that she is more often right than wrong. "Liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader." Alas, that is pretty much an accurate description of the state of political debate in American today.

[post-op lover]

Don't make the mistake of taking her seriously. I could write crap like that all day if I wanted. She's just found there's a nice market in it. Ann Coulter isn't engaging in political discussion, just crass entertainment.

Her readers are losers. Check out Pat Buchanan if you want to see someone who cares about real conservative issues.

If you want heavy doses of Coultershit, but faster than you can process it, try listening to Extratone.

POL

[Groundhog]

(oldasiahand @ Nov. 05 2006,14:57) Have you actually read any of her books, or are you just quoting a review which in turn quoted her out of context for the purpose of making her look as bad as possible?

Um ... No ... why would I want to do something like that?



(at least you agree that she has really written this s**t)

[Groundhog]

(post-op lover @ Nov. 05 2006,17:16) Don't make the mistake of taking her seriously.  I could write crap like that all day if I wanted.  She's just found there's a nice market in it.  Ann Coulter isn't engaging in political discussion, just crass entertainment.

Her readers are losers.  Check out Pat Buchanan if you want to see someone who cares about real conservative issues.

If you want heavy doses of Coultershit, but faster than you can process it, try listening to Extratone.

POL

The secret is not how to write it ...

... it's how to get someone to actually read it ...



You know, an even better resource for Coultershit is simply to Google the web and watch what pours forth  

Gotta agree though, best to ignore her ... she's just a latter day Carny barker

[PigDogg]

(Groundhog @ Nov. 05 2006,15:00) * The most important value to Liberals is destroying human life.

I don't understand why some are SO concerned about fetuses and the likes of terry schiavo yet seemingly so unconcerned with the life of everyone in between.

[Groundhog]

Gotta agree ... quality of life is everything

[smuttleydfs]

(oldasiahand @ Nov. 05 2006,01:57) Have you actually read any of her books, or are you just quoting a review which in turn quoted her out of context for the purpose of making her look as bad as possible?

The sad fact is that she is more often right than wrong. "Liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader." Alas, that is pretty much an accurate description of the state of political debate in American today.

You can't be freaking serious.

This woman is a cancer her rants are noted for their ignorance and bigotry.

[Groundhog]

OK ... Quiz time ... let's see how well you know your Ann Coulter

http://www.giveupblog.com/hitlercoulterquiz.html

Poll to follow

[Guest]

I happen to agree with 99% of what she says. Because it is completely logical. She is one of the few prominent poltical talkies who actualyl apply any logic to situations.

The one point where we differ is that I do not believe in invisible people who live in the sky, and Ann certainly does. Even having said that, most of what she says in Godless is absolutely true. God does not have to exist for her to accurately describe the state of American liberalism and the fact that it scorns those who believe in god.

She is absolutely right in saying that, whether or not she is right in believing god exists.

Frankly guys, I've seen what passes for political discussion here, and most of you can't hold a glass of water with your weak attempts at politics, sociology, religion, ethics, and philosophy.

To simply post quotes out of context and laugh about them is about as mature as "pantsing" someone in middle school and laughing at them in their boxers. I haven't seen anyone actualyl make a disagreement or debate over anything she said there.

If someone would like to disagree, go for it. I'd like to see you try to logically back-up your position. But if you are just going to laugh and point, then you are merely a braying ass, profering no ideas of your own or rebutting anyone elses.

Calling names is easy. Making coherent points that don't involve men with tits is beyond what I've seen from the majority of this crew.

[Guest]

Point by point:

* Although they are Druids, Liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader.
--Obviously this involves a contextual joke that has been ommitted. One thing that people tend to leave out is that Ann Coulter is funny as hell. I consistently laugh out loud reading her books and her column. But you have to be intelligent, literate, knowledgable about world events and history, and have a sense of humor. Most people that I hear compalining about her don't even understand the historical references she makes.

* Environmentalists want mass infanticide...
---Obviously again taken completely out of context. Coulter doesn't just spew points like this. She makes logical syllogisms that take a paragraph or two. I have a feeling I know where she's going with this, but you'd never know it by reading this 4 word excerpt.
----- Also, what is the point of posting this? Is someone refuting this? What good does it do to simply excise tiny snippets like this and leave them out there on their own with no analysis or refutation?

* A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil. It was one of the most devastating environmental disasters in recent history. Six weeks later, all the birds were back. Birds are like rats - you couldn't get rid of them if you tried.
-----Sounds like she made her points to me. 1. Envionmentalist terrorists are hypocrots and 2. nature is not so easy to "destroy".

* The most important value to Liberals is destroying human life.
---again, what is the point of simply hanging her statement out. Are you refuting this? I'd say she's right.

* These broads (the widows of 9/11 victims) are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much.
-----Again, excerted without context. She is specirfically refering to 4 women here. Four specific women who were used by the democratic party for political ads.

* Most public schools are - at best - nothing but expensive babysitting arrangements, helpfully keeping hoodlums off the streets during daylight hours. At worst they are criminal training labs, where teachers sexually abuse the children between drinking binges and acts of grand larceny.
-----Sounds like a good description of the American school system to me. I went through it for 12 years.

* Actual science excites them (Liberals) only if it involves some sort of Nazi experimentation with human embryos.
-----Again, I understand her point here. This would make sense within a paragraph or a page.

* It's possible embryonic stem-cell research could find a cure for Alzheimer's disease someday only in the sense that it is possible that a biologist's toenail clippings could be used to find a cure for Alzheimer's someday. Liberals aren't demanding that taxpayer's money be used for research on toenail clippings: that would not advance their governing principle, which is to always kill human life (unless the human life being killed is likely to fly a plane into American skyscrapers, in which case, it is wrong to kill it).
----Once again, succinctly and humorously put. How can you refute this? There is ZERO scientific evidence so far that embryonic stem cell research holds any magical promise. And liberals do consisntantly cry and wail to defend Islamic terrorists.

* Even when Liberals are trying to show their moderate, country-music loving side by claiming to oppose having sex with the family dog, they can't formulate a logical argument to explain why not.
-----What purpose is it serving to excerpt this?
She's positing a resolution here. Are you refuting it? I know exactly what she's talking about without even needing to read the rest of the page. I don't see how hanging this out makes her look crazy? Why not actually grasp her point and make a counter-position.

I didn't realize it was so easy these days to refute someone simply by posting excerpts from things they said. From now on, I won't need to bother with actually debating someones points, I'll just quote half a sentance from every third paragraph and act like somehow the original posters points were laughably ridiculous without actually explaining how. Cool. That's easy.

[post-op lover]

Duuuuude. I passed through a similar phase once. I think I was about 14 or so, and Flush Limbaugh came out with one of his books. I thought it was the most insightful thing around. A year or so later, I was listening to his show, and someone asked about some very basic privacy concern relating to technology and the law, and he was silent. It was clear he didn't know what the hell had just been asked. He knew the guy was a supporter, and wasn't about to be bombastic, but he just didn't know. Okay, fine, he didn't get the question. Then what does he do? Goes on a freaking rampage against Bill Clinton.

I thought what the fuck is this? That made me realize there are the talkers, the thinkers, the doers, whatever. I realized then that Rush isn't a thinker.

Ann Coulter's not a thinker either. Sorry. You'll have to read more serious conservative writing than her shit. Take a look at Buckley, Buchanan, the Heritage Institute, Thomas Sowell, whatever.

Go No-Ann for 2 weeks, try a steady diet of Sowell, the National Review, and other serious conservative writers and thinkers. If at the end of that time you revert to Ann, I suspect that politics is probably more entertainment than it is a serious concern.

As for the idea that people aren't responding to her - that's because she's so full of shit that it's like responding to Borat and critiqueing it point by point as a misrepresentation of Kazakh social norms. It's BS, but funny BS. Nobody really stops to take it seriously.

[Groundhog]

Hmm grunyen ... you certainly have an innovative perspective on Coulter's aphorisms ... unique

I've said it before ... Coulter's a carny barker ... she's not looking for logic, debate or facts ... she's just interested in riling people

... all in all, she's very juvenile and I have to presume that her readers are too. But there is an audience for such bile, and THAT I find scary

[Groundhog]

(post-op lover @ Nov. 06 2006,13:11) I thought what the fuck is this?  That made me realize there are the talkers, the thinkers, the doers, whatever.  I realized then that Rush isn't a thinker.

Ann Coulter's not a thinker either.  Sorry.  You'll have to read more serious conservative writing than her shit.  Take a look at Buckley, Buchanan, the Heritage Institute, Thomas Sowell, whatever.

Go No-Ann for 2 weeks, try a steady diet of Sowell, the National Review, and other serious conservative writers and thinkers.  If at the end of that time you revert to Ann, I suspect that politics is probably more entertainment than it is a serious concern.

As for the idea that people aren't responding to her - that's because she's so full of shit that it's like responding to Borat and critiqueing it point by point as a misrepresentation of Kazakh social norms.  It's BS, but funny BS.  Nobody really stops to take it seriously.

Great post P-O L! Rush Limbaugh claims that his great inspiration for his career and style was a Chicago Radio DJ (Larry Luczak I seem to recall) ... it was style over substance, and indeed it has worked (and I do think that Limbaugh is entertaining, though it's been years since I've listened to him).

Interestingly, Coulter has a law degree from U Mich (my alma mater) which has a top law school. I think she probably is competent, but has chosen to be as she is, simply to fill a market niche. That sort of moral pliability is also scary (though perhaps not uncommon in law). But I don't find her either clever or funny. She's just ranting, because there is an audience for her rants. One suspects that if she were in an Islamic country, she'd be just as comfortable running one of the radical maddrassi (with burka, and more 'sensible' dresses).

Borat. Well he is really much more clever and subtle. You wouldn't debate him, because he'd make his point, and have you laughing and there would be no way to counter it.

The diet is a great idea ...

[post-op lover]

Hey, you're putting too much stock in having a JD.

What do they call the Med School graduate ranked last in his class?

Doctor.