Coulter's Book Chapter 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow!

And I mean, Wow, again!

Not just to her style; I always knew she had a wit almost as acerbic as Law Dog; but her hypothesis that Liberalism is, for all intents and purposes, a State Sponsored Religion is brilliant; and her arguments for her case full of insight.

Color me a Buyer!
Thanks-
Rich
 
She makes some great points and I think some very accurate observations.

However she also makes some pretty huge generalizations and assumptions. Feminists, environmentalists, pro-choicers, darwinists, etc are not one and the same. Things just arn't so simple.
 
but her hypothesis that Liberalism is, for all intents and purposes, a State Sponsored Religion is brilliant
Click to expand...
Limited government and personal liberty is a religion, too.

I had to force myself to read past the first few paragraphs, which were a bunch of unsupported assertions, half-truths, and lies.

Quite possibly the only thing that irritates me more than smug modern liberalism/socialism is smug religious conservatism.
 
The more I read the book, the more the criticism of it from the left sounds like a cry to burn her at the stake for heresy..... no irony there.... She is a national treasure.
 
tyme-
Limited government and personal liberty is a religion, too.
Click to expand...
Make that case as she has with liberalism.

I will agree that her text would be more enlightening if she didn't have to push the Christian Conservatism issue at every point. Absent that it's brutally enjoyable reading.
YMMV (and obviously does) :)
Rich
 
Emotions do not equal argument. She doesn't even make an argument in the first chapter; she just strings soundbits and overgeneralizations together. It reads like the equivalent of Carville's "We're Right, They're Wrong".

It won't serve to change minds, just to reinforce existing worldviews...preaching to the choir. In that respect, she's just like Carville, Moore and Franken...few people from the other side of the political aisle ever buy the book, and the middle-of-the-road folks are turned off by the rhetoric. It doesn't serve to stimulate debate, or solve problems, but rather to rally the troops.

Look, there are plenty of liberal pundits out there as well who can pour acid in a quill, slap a string of bumper sticker slogans together and call it a book, but that doesn't make them good writers. Coulter is a cheerleader, not a paragon of insight, and she's not even all that funny. Our own Tamara routinely comes up with far more witty and insightful analogies and commentary.

But, hey, it's your twenty bucks.
 
Coulter is a cheerleader, not a paragon of insight, and she's not even all that funny
Click to expand...

bravo! If I want to be politically amused I'll watch Dennis Miller or George Carlin.

WildificanfigureouthowtoturnonthetvAlaska
 
Coulter writes with biting wit.

She has a way of linking liberal issues that expose their logical absurdity.


Ridicule is the toughest kind of attack for the pompous and self-righteous self-anointed to survive.



We need more like her and an avalanche of ridicule to expose the liberals for who and what they really are.



Thanks, pipoman.




matis
 
As for being someone who runs in the middle of the road. I find her noise, just like her counterparts on the liberal side. The devisiveness (sp) that these people cause will keep the political landscape the way it is, us against them. (It doesn't matter which side you are coming from.)
 
members who have not and will never actually read the book.
Click to expand...

That's me. I got an earful of her vitriolic pandering; enough to last a life time. How could a book she wrote be different?

her hypothesis that Liberalism is, for all intents and purposes, a State Sponsored Religion is brilliant
Click to expand...

Not much different than Michael Savage calling liberalism a disease. Maybe they know each other?!? ;)
 
by Marko:
She doesn't even make an argument in the first chapter
Click to expand...
The argument is that many liberal positions can't be reached through rational thought and can only be supported on the basis of faith. Since beliefs based on faith are characteristic of religions, Coulter identifies liberalism as a type of religion.

BTW, I also enjoyed one of Carville's books; it had thought-provoking content even though I did not always agree with his positions or conclusions.
 
Most political literature that I've seen basically is just there for people to sit and say to themselves "damn straight, right on, etc".
 
Make that case as she has with liberalism.
Click to expand...
She made a case for something? I guess Marko and I both missed it. It seems to me that her books are screeds of slander, fanatical "wisdom", and anecdotes. She's not convincing anyone of anything. She's just making money.

Suppose we define religion as a belief system that is non-falsifiable with current scientific knowledge, that compels adherents to convert others by telling them their souls are at risk, and that has adherents who rant at length about their unprovable viewpoints, often in public, generally making idiots out of themselves.

devisiveness (sp)
Click to expand...
divisiveness. Note that it has the same root as "divide." It is not based on "devise."
 
Book Banning Alert

Check out the story at newsmax.com

Two Jersey democrats are trying to pass a bill that will BAN Ann's book in all retail stores in NJ:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top