Why I bought Ann Coulter's Book Godless

mthalo I smiled at them, it was very effective too.

You see, I figured she and they saw my NRA hat on top of a stocky WM and expected a Clint Eastwood type of response combined with some Bruce Lee action.

These folks were angry about something I think they knew not of. They were told over and over by someone to be angry, that the NRA=bad, Military=Bad ond so on.

I would rather have a private one on one counceling session with the person/s who indoctrinate these young minds, and make so hateful, and angry.

On that day I rode over to Loring park and veiwed a sea of people thru out the park, lining the over passes and blocking off major streets carring signs that read: "Freedom is Slavery" "America=Oppression"
"Capitalism Kills" America Loves Racism" And much more.

I lived two blocks North of Ken Pentel's Green Party Headquarters, and One block east of one of "Code Pinks" main offices. The Communists of America had two meeting places about 1 mile from me. Im no stranger to extreme politics or their tribes.

Heck, I was approched one afternoon as I was sitting and enjoying a slab of fresh seasoned ribs at one of my favorite places on Nicollet Ave. and this young women asked me: Did that Cow Die for you?



Needless to say, Ann Coulters books aren't popular there.
 
Antipitas,
Please! Pretty please? Just a simple straight answer.
*IF* (with the understanding that I cannot guarantee this) but IF someone were to come on this forum and *IF* they behave in the way she behaves would that person be subject to bannination?

This is not an unreasonable question.
 
carbiner,
It's not Coulter herself. It's the folks who justify her means by her ends. Especially how short-sighted their reasoning is.
I just asked a simple question and I think it deserves an answer.
 
goslash, you need stop questioning peoples ability to reason simply because they prefer another brand of politics.

One thing Ann mentions in her new book as well as other books by folks such as Bernard Goldberg is that liberals call people stupid when they offer opposing veiw points.

You have done this many times in previous posts on other threads. It's gettin old.
 
carbiner,
It's not based on the 'brand of politics' as you'd like to believe. You still haven't puzzled out what my 'brand' is.
I'm pointing out faulty reasoning where I see it. In this case the emotional reaction of "yay for Annie, stickin' it to the libruls". It may make you feel good but in the long run it isn't the liberals gettin' stuck. You really think the average moderate is convinced of anything by her tantrums beyond the idea that all conservatives think like her?
She's a walking strawman for the left. I think she's actually a liberal plant. ;)
 
GOSLASH, reread your last. Is that not intended to indicate that people who think differently than you are stupid? Or at the very least ignorant? Your turn for honesty friend. All this uproar is proving MS. Coulters point quite nicely. ERIC
 
Heck, I was approched one afternoon as I was sitting and enjoying a slab of fresh seasoned ribs at one of my favorite places on Nicollet Ave. and this young women asked me: Did that Cow Die for you?
Click to expand...
"Damn right it did! And me and my stomache sincerely appreciate it's sacrifice.":D That would have been my response.
 
Big Ruger,
I reread it. No. At no point did I imply that anybody is stupid. If I wish to call somebody stupid or ignorant I will use the word 'stupid' or 'Ignorant'.
But suppose (just for the sake of argument) I *did* call Carbiner stupid? Or even a clueless moron? Just came right out and said "Carbiner is as dumb as a bag of rocks"?
What if I put together an entire post with no facts and no point and merely brayed on about how he actually enjoyed getting harassed while eating his burger because now he can get all the attention on the internet he never got as a kid while his mom was out drinking? Just sat here and typed on and on random bile about Carbiner and pretended that I had actually made some kind of point?

Would that bring the average poster on this forum around to my point of view? No. It might make people who don't like Carbiner feel good reading it, but most people would just think I'm a mean-spirited jackass. And they might take a dimmer view of others who have disagreed with Carbiner in the past.
As for me, I'd catch a warning and probably get banned if I kept it up. Antipitas would probably be the one to do it :D

Carbiner, no insult intended. I'm just makin' a point here.



As for me, If somebody puts out a faulty argument I'm going to point out the faults. It's not intended as an insult.
 
Yep. I'm pretty sure you hold tem both in similar esteem, but we might as well get the official assessment on both turds while we're at it.
 
I smiled at them, it was very effective too.
Click to expand...

A wise, civil reaction which is probably better than I could have done.

While I hold a lot of "liberal" views, I will not deny that Minneapolis is
a great example of knee-jerk liberalism run amok. It's basically a college town (particularly the Uptown area, where I resided), meaning young and stupid.

I would have told the cow lady either one of three things,
1) "Yes, and you should see the nice jacket it made, too".
or
2) "No, this one commited suicide"
or
3) "Why don't you go get your armpit hair styled, and leave me alone".
 
tyme, just bought the book

tyme said:
http://bunker.soze.net/library/godless.html
Click to expand...

tyme, I bought Coulter's book after reading various criticisms about it. I'll be able to respond more intelligently after I finish reading it.

I believe Ms. Coulter is referring to environmentalism and gay friendly sex education when she was making reference to schools and teachers as being liberals' "churches and high priests".

The writer sounds ignorant of archaeology concerning Old and New Testament. There is a large amount of archaeological support for various battles mentioned in Old Testament alone. An interesting book covering the topic is "Battles of the Bible."

In regards to inevitability of sex and teens, most studies I've read showed that when abstinence education was allowed, teenage STD and pregnancy stemming from sex decreased because fewer teenagers were engaging in sex.

In regards to environmentalism,

Environmentalists want the Earth to survive without a radical decline in our quality of life. They may misinterpret studies or extrapolate results incorrectly. They may espouse radical ideas for reducing changes to the biosphere. Saying they hate mankind is an abusive lie. There's a tightrope we must walk to solve potential global problems without triggering any of them. It's very likely that the human population already exceeds the ability of industry to provide adequate nutrition to everyone. Being in the U.S., we're insulated from that, but it's no less true. We also won't be able to solve problems if we cause radical climate change that kills a significant amount of vegetation. Whether we're causing such climate change is debatable. I don't care whether or not you believe humans are melting the ice caps. I care when people show no concern over that possibility.
Click to expand...

Most of United States and the planet is undeveloped (I forgot the exact figure, but it was something like 50% and 95%). The quality of life actually improves with more development and increase in population provided that certain criteria necessarily for economic development are satisfied. These criteria are strong property rights, respect for rule of law, ethical government cutting down on bribery, low barrier to business development (including taxes), and stable currency.

If you look at South America and other agrarian economy, or at habitat without human intervention, quite often, more pollution is generated by natural process (e.g. forest fire due to lack of thinning process (natural process) and burning of wood in low level agrarian economy.

The writer also mentions problem about public prayers and religious artifacts. If you check U.S. Congressional archives concerning Continental Congress and records of early U.S. Congress, public prayer, fasting, and supplication for help from God, as well as urging Christianity and Jesus Christ to be adopted by Indians, were all commonly engaged by members of the government, including George Washington and other deists. Even Jefferson during his presidency extended government support for evangelistic rally in U.S. Congress.

I need to read the book. Will get back in couple of days.

--John
 
Martigan,

My 'official' assessment of Franken is pretty much the same. Another partisan jackass with a bullhorn who cares more about his beloved Democratic party than the United States of America.
But this thread is about Coulter....
 
The writer sounds ignorant of archaeology concerning Old and New Testament. There is a large amount of archaeological support for various battles mentioned in Old Testament alone. An interesting book covering the topic is "Battles of the Bible."
Click to expand...
Where did I even mention archaeology? Verification of real battles mentioned in the Bible does nothing to verify the details of those wars, or the motives behind them, or their connection to religion.

In regards to inevitability of sex and teens, most studies I've read showed that when abstinence education was allowed, teenage STD and pregnancy stemming from sex decreased because fewer teenagers were engaging in sex.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem to be consistent.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894568/
It makes perfect sense that social factors are far more important; does anyone really believe that students don't know the basics of sex by the time they take a sex-ed class? Whether sex-ed teaches about condoms and pills and STDs is not going to make much if any difference in when teens first have sex.

Environment-- I'll fix up that paragraph a bit. I agree that less-advanced societies, particularly (at the moment) China and India, contribute more to pollution. However, I think you're reading too much into my comments.
 
Now it turns out even Chernobyl wasn’t as bad as people thought. In a feat of Soviet engineering, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine exploded in 1986, sending chunks of the reactor core flying into nearby farms and igniting a fire at the reactor that burned for ten days. It was the worst nuclear disaster in history—finally giving us a nuclear power plant that killed more people than died in Teddy Kennedy’s car. But as the New York Times reported in September 2005, “Nearly 20 years after the huge accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, a new scientific report has found that its aftereffects on health and the environment have not proved as dire as scientists had predicted.” Instead of tens of thousands of cancer deaths from acute radiation exposure, there were 4,000. Only 50 deaths were directly attributable to the explosion. There has been no increase in leukemia, birth defects, or fertility problems in the surrounding area.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has seen photos of Chernobyl birth defects will recognize this claim as false.

However, a modern nuke plant wouldn't have the same thing happen. Go nuclear power!
 
tyme, thats a good rebuttle, but I've watched liberalism at work for many years, it's a failure.
The city of Minneapolis is just one in many examples of failed liberal ideology mutated into politics and put into action. Conservatisim is all but void in what was a nuch greater city.

The sorry liberal ideas about kids and sex has no business in the American society. STDs, unwanted babies, dropout rates, welfare, my god we need some conservative values brought back.

Face it, liberalism fails far more than it has ever achieved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top