Ann Coulter slams Huckabee and Thompson

a few thoughts

I think that Coulter likes to goad the Democrats with provocative, over the top statements that are usually, factually speaking, right on the money. Her analysis of blatant liberal bias in the media coverage of the 2000 election and its aftermath, in her book, "Slander", was factually unassailable and entirely accurate. I like her stuff. Liberals often pull her quotes out of context, and those who don't read her column or books are fooled. If you omit the runup to a joke and quote only the punchline and present it as a serious policy statement, it's going to look bad; and is done, quite deliberately, to Coulter quite often. Most egregious recent example was her saying that she hoped John Edwards would be killed in a terrorist attack. She said it, but in context it was clearly not meant to be taken seriously and was, in fact, a cogent comment on liberal media bias. Those who scored her on this knew that they were lying by omission.

I'm NOT crazy about her comments on either the Christian or Jewish religions. She betrays a very, very common misunderstanding and ignorance of the Jewish faith in particular, and seems to hold a view of the relationship between the two faiths that is long outdated and is, in fact, today held only by fundamentalists. I don't much like that, and I'll be writing her about it today. A bit of education is in order.
 
No, but wording it like "I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much" does. Coulter specialises in hate speach. She has a unique way of taking any position and framing it in the most hateful manner. It makes her money though, but that is more an indictment of our educational system than anything else.

I am a christian, I find Ann Coulter's brand of christianity obscene. Saying Ann is just outlining the christian position is akin to saying that Osama Bin Laden is just outlining the muslem position.
Click to expand...

I'm also a Christian. I have no idea what's in Ann Coulter's heart, whether Christianity is truly her faith or if it's just a word she uses to align herself with core republicans. But it doesn't matter, because we're just talking about her words.

Her quote about the 911 widows was wrong and she shouldn't have said it, but to put the brand of "hate speech" on classless talk is wrong.

Hate speech is when you call for violence against a group of people. Osama Bin Laden does talk greatly about Islam, and then chides people to go forth and kill. Whether or not he's just speaking openly about Islam or not, it's clearly Hate Speech.

Ann Coulter is NOT in any way suggesting we do violence to another group of people, 911 widows, jews, or even liberals. She's not suggesting we lock them up force them to our way of life (though she does have the guts to believe our way of life actually is the best, vs. the progressive liberals who seem to think we are the worst country in the world and should be paying some kind of penalty for our arrogance).

The 911 widows were a specific group of women who used the deaths of their husbands as a platform for their political views and ideologies. The annoying part about the victim who takes such a stand is they are difficult to argue against because they can bring up their dead relative in any debate and pretend it gives them some special insight. What Ann was saying is that people shouldn't claim any special knowledge because of a personal loss, and she did it in an amazing rude and insensitive fashion, but she did not call for violence to them.

Honestly ... I've only seen Ann Coulter a dozen or so times and I've never read a book of hers. I'm just talking about this one discussion. But from what I see, Donny went off the deep end because Ann gave a frank, albeit politically incorrect, statement of how Christians look at themselves.

We do consider ourselves the next step after straight judaism (and the muslims/mormons consider themselves the next step after us) but that doesn't mean we dishonor the covenenant the jews still follow. We just think we have the better/quicker covenant; what Ann called the "Fedex" version.
 
Justme said:
She does not speak for christians
Click to expand...

This idea seems to be trendy lately. If a guy likes to take Ex-Lax he's accused of speaking for everyone who is constipated. I never felt her comments represented a group, place or all encompassing idea. She just puts a bit of hair on the fastball. And it makes people from both sides of the aisle think.

In a debate, I believe we should offer rebuttal to the speaker's comments. I'd like to hear their ideas instead of some puerile remark like, "She's whiny."

This only tells me that the leftie is out of responses.
 
.

Coulter's remark about the "Jersey Girls" was in poor taste, but it was made in the context of making a serious point, as outlined above, that is usually and conveniently ignored in favor of complaining about her manner of making it. She is abrasive and provocative, but compared to Randi Rhodes, she's a Teddy bear--and I've seen no one in the media complaining about Ms. Rhodes's vicious slanders, distortions and outright lies.

Of course, maybe that's because she's on AirAmerica and no one listens to her.
 
cnorman18 said:
Randi Rhodes...Of course, maybe that's because she's on AirAmerica and no one listens to her.
Click to expand...

She's on at 2:00AM in my area, and I often listen to her when working late.

As I have often stated, I enjoy a good debate, and when the subject is politics you are going to be debating leftists. Goes with the territory.

I do not like sloppy debaters. And Rhodes is one of them. She is apt to parse out something like, "Chico once used a dangling participle, hence he can't be a good knife sharpener."

But then, David Letterman does the same thing. He has this bit he does called, Quotes From Presidential Speeches. In an effort to show Bush as a poor leader, they select a snippet from a speech where Bush tripped over his tongue--like we all do about one hundred times per day. Letterman leaves you with the idea that Bush is incompetent.

If you're going to offer rebuttal or a thoughtful remise, then concentrate on the individual assertion. And trust me, we do it to lefties as well.

I remember some criticism that Willie took when a photographer pointed out he wore a cheap Timex Ironman watch. Supposedly that choice of a timepiece is not befitting a President. In a later photo, Willie has a new Rolex.

Big deal. The pricey watch didn't stop his philandering.
 
Not surprising that Ann is still livid about Clinton being acquitted. She served as one of Paula Jones legal coaches. After Paula was told that she didn't have a case and wanted to settle for cash, Coulter convinced her not to settle because, as she later said, that would defeat her larger purpose... to bring down the president.

So Ann had some hand in the process that eventually led to the impeachment fiasco, and her rage concerning the outcome is pretty evident. In the referenced column, she seems incensed even about Clinton performing charity work.

If Hillary and Bill end up moving back into the whitehouse, Ann's likely to go over the edge. Hope she doesn't have a stroke or something.
 
Ms. Coulter has never impressed me. Her political attacks have been snippy, crude, and clumsy and have usually been with mucho fanfare to attract attention to herself, not her so-called message. And now we have her latest anti-Semitic remarks. Not much there for me to like or admire. JMHO.
 
Naaaah...

I don't think Coulter's an anti-Semite (and I'm on the record as being pretty sensitive to that). I think she's just ignorant. She has the same attitude toward Judaism as many Christians, and she evidently doesn't know it's both outdated and offensive.

I sent her a rather long email about it today. If I get a response I'll post it here.
 
And she's not even hot, far too skinny(and self absorbed) to be hot. I think Condoleeza Rice is much hotter, and smarter for that matter, which is kinda hot in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Not only were you wrong on everything else, you are triple-wrong on every bit of this statement! :)
 
I don't think Coulter's an anti-Semite
Click to expand...
She might not be, but I can judge her only by her words. I hope you're right. I'd be interested in any response she has to your e-mail.
And she's not even hot, far too skinny(and self absorbed) to be hot.
Click to expand...
As for looks, I've always thought of her as "Skeletor in a Skirt," but that's not the proper standard by which to judge a person's opinions.
 
Ann Coulter is NOT in any way suggesting we do violence to another group of people, 911 widows, jews, or even liberals.
Click to expand...

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." -Ann Coulter.

I personally think she's a hateful loon who got picked on in high school for looking like a pillowcase full of antlers.
 
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." -Ann Coulter.
Click to expand...
Much as I dislike the woman, I'd like to see the context in which that statement was made. Given that it summarizes the Islamofacist approach to world affairs, it's highly possible she was making a sarcastic statement to highlight what kind of enemy we are dealing with, as a counter to all of the "Religion of peace" BS.
I personally think she's a hateful loon who got picked on in high school for looking like a pillowcase full of antlers.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. A pillowcase full of them, actually. :D
 
Was Thompson actually quite astute in impeachment?

Almost every time I read that Fred Thompson has done something deplorable, upon further investigation, I find that he was actually doing his best to uphold the constitution. He was usually correct in his actions. This forum was the first I had heard of his impeachment vote. I have not yet looked at his reasoning on McCain-Feingold. As far as the impeachment vote, I found a very detailed explanation that he was reported as having given the Senate. It was a lengthy analysis of the framer's intent for "high crimes and misdemeaners." It makes a lot of sense. I do not know the website - it is not the Federal Register, but that can be verified with some time. Here it is: http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/thompson.shtml. Any evaluation of Thompson's impeachment vote should consider the reasons he gave for it. He was clearly appalled at Clinton's behavior, but did not think it met the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. This included perjuring himself. Please read his explanation.
 
jacob makes some good points. I notice that those slamming Thompson are also much like those who slam the NRA. There is little inderstanding of the inner workings of congress in the attacks.

I have not always agreed with Thompson but I like enough of his positions to support him as tehy most viable candidate. He also has admitted when he has made errors and did something very few politicians have ever done... He promised not to run again for the Senate and kept that promise.
 
context

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." -Ann Coulter

Coulter wrote that column on the afternoon of 9/11/01. I suspect a LOT of Americans agreed with her at the time.

I don't always agree with her--I'm Jewish, see my comments above--but I also think she is misquoted and quoted out of context more than anyone in the media today. This is a good example, usually quoted as if it were a calm and reasoned statement of policy long after the fact. It wasn't. It was a cry of rage, and I have never seen it quoted with the date. That is disingenuous and unfair.
 
How many wives would not like a 9/11 if they were to be paid millions by someone?? What was the minimum payout-and where did the $$ come from and why was it paid??
 
Where to start on this one....

Thompson has said he now disagrees with McCain Feingold...... O.K. I'll buy it.

If the only thing against Thompson is the impeachment vote
Click to expand...

I think you may have that backwards. On being against McCain-Feingold free speech infringement - you're saying that words speak louder than actions? That a little lip service to try and get elected overcomes the actual vote after extensive debate, as reflective of his real position? He should be given no quarter on that issue.

Conversely, on the impeachment, although I thought Pres. Clinton should have been impeached (brought to trial in the Congress) for lying under oath, I think that it was a close enough of a call that reasonable people could differ as to the benefit (or lack thereof) which would have accrued to the country and the people by bringing mr. happy pants to trial on the impeachment issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top