Ann Coulter

[eclectics]

Dawn, I'm curious. Who in fact do you consider the arbiter of truth?

Dawn must have missed your post Mugg. I'll bump it up so she can see it again.

 

[va32h]

First, I have to admit I CAN'T read all that has been posted here! Just too much! But at risk of being flamed let me speak my mind about Ann!

Besides not being hard to look at, she speaks her mind! That's her business! That's how she makes a living!

I won't defend her (unless she asks) but what I have read here is too harse IMHO. I appreciate someone calling a spade a spade! Even if they are wrong! Usually someone that straight forword will admit error if they believe they've made one or will stick to their guns if they think they are right.

Maybe that's just my personality but I'd rather have someone speak their mind even if I don't agree. It adds to OUR free speach! (A good thing, not a bad thing.) I this particular case I honestly don't know enough to speak conclusively but do lean to the right.

I'm sure you will respect me for speaking my mind when I say that has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read on this board. So if you are pretty and stick to your guns, it doesn't even matter if what you are saying has no basis in truth whatsoever? You can spout all kinds of hateful nonsense as long as you do it forthrightly, with a smile?

 

[Teejay32]

So if you are pretty and stick to your guns, it doesn't even matter if what you are saying has no basis in truth whatsoever? You can spout all kinds of hateful nonsense as long as you do it forthrightly, with a smile?

Pretty much. Many people do.

 

[rayelias]

Just pointing out that there are a considerable amount of people and posts here that blast Ann Coulter for calling these women "witches" are doing the same to her.

Whether you agree with her or not, she is allowed to have an opinion. You don't like that her opinion included name calling and you imply that it is intolerant and rude to do that. Then, you do the same thing to her.

There's an awful lot of hate here from people who claim to despise "hate".

Hypocracy in action.

You can't have it both ways. Or, you'll get called out on it.

Sort of what she did in her book.

Not taking sides, just point out the absurdity.

 

[njzieglers]

Just pointing out that there are a considerable amount of people and posts here that blast Ann Coulter for calling these women "witches" are doing the same to her.

Whether you agree with her or not, she is allowed to have an opinion. You don't like that her opinion included name calling and you imply that it is intolerant and rude to do that. Then, you do the same thing to her.

There's an awful lot of hate here from people who claim to despise "hate".

Hypocracy in action.

You can't have it both ways. Or, you'll get called out on it.

Sort of what she did in her book.

Not taking sides, just point out the absurdity.

You mean like the one who doesn't like name calling, but in the first sentence calls her a name.
The same people probably defend Michael Moore's views. We all have freedom of speech, even Ann Coulter.

 

[eclectics]

Just pointing out that there are a considerable amount of people and posts here that blast Ann Coulter for calling these women "witches" are doing the same to her.

Whether you agree with her or not, she is allowed to have an opinion. You don't like that her opinion included name calling and you imply that it is intolerant and rude to do that. Then, you do the same thing to her.

There's an awful lot of hate here from people who claim to despise "hate".

Hypocracy in action.

You can't have it both ways. Or, you'll get called out on it.

Sort of what she did in her book.

Not taking sides, just point out the absurdity.

There is one big difference. Ann Coulter's husband didn't die on 9/11. When her husband dies a tragic death and folks call her a witch and a gold digging harpie, then you can call it hypocracy.

 

[Free4Life11]

Those widows earned the right to say whatever they want. If she chooses not to listen, she can change the channel, as I will now do whenever I see her.

Nobody has to earn it in America. And they did not earn the right to be free from criticism. I can't stand Ann Coulter, but she can say what she wants.

 

[rayelias]

There is one big difference. Ann Coulter's husband didn't die on 9/11. When her husband dies a tragic death and folks call her a witch and a gold digging harpie, then you can call it hypocracy.

So, if someone's spouse dies a certain way, or if someone has some sort of tragedy, they get a free pass for taking a political view? They can exploit that tragic situation for political purposes and not get called on it? (Cindy Sheehan is another example).

I may not agree with Ann Coulter's methods, but she has every right to question and attack someone with a political viewpoint she disagrees with. It'snot like these women are weeping, woeful housewives. They're political activists who are using (right or wrong) the situation of their spouse's deaths to promote their political agenda.

Free speech is only free if it is allowed to be questioned by someone with another viewpoint.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Dawn must have missed your post Mugg. I'll bump it up so she can see it again.

Thanks for the bump, Eclectics. I'll see your bump and raise you!

It is gratifying to know that I am not the only person very curious to find out just who Dawn considers the arbiter of truth to be. I suspect there are others who are equally curious as well.

 

[declansdad]

There is one big difference. Ann Coulter's husband didn't die on 9/11. When her husband dies a tragic death and folks call her a witch and a gold digging harpie, then you can call it hypocracy.

Sorry there is no difference. If someone calls someone a witch and you say that they are wrong and in turn call them a witch, you are being a hypocrite. It has to work both ways.

While I don't know much about Anne Coulter, it seems to me that she is not that different than any number of people who are trying to sell a book. If controversy sells her books, then she must sell a ton of them. While I certainly don't agree with her choice of words regarding these 911 widows. I wouldn't be calling her names for saying it.

 

[goofygirl]

Ugh, she just had to slam Episcopalians as well. She calls it the Church of the Proper Fork


From her "Godless.." book:

The Episcopalians don't demand much in the way of actual religious belief. They have girl priests, gay priests, gay bishops, gay marriages ? it's much like the New York Times editorial board. They acknowledge the Ten Commandments ? or "Moses' talking points" ? but hasten to add that they're not exactly "carved in stone." After Bush said that the most important philosopher to him was Jesus Christ, the Episcopal bishop in Des Moines, Iowa, C. Christopher Epting, pronounced the answer "a turnoff." So there isn't a lot of hair-shirt-wearing and sacrifice for the Episcopalians.

Grrr!!

 

[Saxsoon]

Sorry there is no difference. If someone calls someone a witch and you say that they are wrong and in turn call them a witch, you are being a hypocrite. It has to work both ways.

While I don't know much about Anne Coulter, it seems to me that she is not that different than any number of people who are trying to sell a book. If controversy sells her books, then she must sell a ton of them. While I certainly don't agree with her choice of words regarding these 911 widows. I wouldn't be calling her names for saying it.

Case in point Da Vinci Code. It is not even one of Dan Brown's best works. It was a copy of Angels and Demons, but once you throw in a controversial subject such as the validity of Christianity, you have an instant best seller.

Back on topic, while she has put her opinions too strongly, she does have a point as to where it seems these women have political immunity to where they can't be called on it. I don't agree with everything she says, but I think she hit the nail on the head. I also do not agree to the mudslinging she has started.

 

[Mugg Mann]

It was interesting to watch Coulter ask Matt Lauer "Why are you getting testy with me?" when all he did was challenge a statement made in her book.

Taking that one step further; the top rated non-newscast morning radio show in Boston is a sports show that frequently dives into right wing politics. One of the two hosts (Gerry Callahan) is a Limbaugh wanna-be who was once suspended from the show for two weeks for making on-air racist comments. The other host is also conservative, but not as much as Callahan (he frequently pretends to be taking the liberal side in order to artificially stir up debate on the air). They've been announcing that Coulter would be on Friday's show to promote her book and hinted that she might take calls from the audience.

On Thursday's show, many people called in to denounce Coulter (during the time I listened, not one caller supported her), and were shouted down each time by the conservative host. After a couple of callers brought up her recent legal troubles down in Florida centered around her alleged illegal voting, the other host promised to bring that up to Coulter on air during her appearance.

Lo and behold, Coulter's publicist called the station after yesterday's show and cited a "sudden scheduling conflict" that would not allow Coulter the time to call in.

Between this and Lauer, it seems that Coulter's skin might accurately be described as a wee bit too thin to sustain on the incoming side the type of venom that is her calling card.

 

[HayGan]

Back on topic, while she has put her opinions too strongly, she does have a point as to where it seems these women have political immunity to where they can't be called on it. I don't agree with everything she says, but I think she hit the nail on the head. I also do not agree to the mudslinging she has started.

ITA! Although I'm not the biggest Ann Coulter fan (she is a bit abnoxious for my taste most of the time - although we have similar opinions), I think she is dead on (excuse the pun) with her statements. I have said from the begining that I think that some of those women are exploiting the situation for their own benefit. While I do think that they deserve our sympathy, I don't believe that they are above criticism.

 

[BunsenH]

...... I have said from the begining that I think that some of those women are exploiting the situation for their own benefit. While I do think that they deserve our sympathy, I don't believe that they are above criticism.

This is not directed at you HayGan, but your reply brought it to mind.

There are many that felt the exact same way about the parents of Terry Schiavo. Deserving of some sympathy, but not above criticism for making a spectacle out of her illness and tragic death. They allowed that mess to invade the Supreme Court and halls of Congress. The Jersey Girls have a way to go to beat that record.

 

[DISUNC]

Seems to me that calling her evil is a little much, especially after just greasing a truly evil SOB in Iraq. Kind of defines the two sides though, one side considers murderers and beheaders evil, and the other some skinny chick with a big mouth.

They BOTH ATTACK innocent people to serve their own vile distorted EGO's!!!!!!
And BOTH just as dangerous!
Just because she hides behind the American flag as an "American" makes her no better then other vile American who attacks innocent people!

 

[DISUNC]

You are right in that we don't know that however, because we don't know that, to label them as "heroes" is only guessing. It doesn't diminish them because they weren't heroes but when we hand the labels out so lightly, with no substantiation, it serves to diminish real heroes.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

There are THOUSANDS of documented stories of thousands of heroic deeds done on 9/11, by those HEROES who were attacked!

Some wore uniforms, some wore suits, some wore jeans....They all were in buildings & airplanes!!! My GOD, just some samples of this are...So many KNOWN cases of Fireman & Police officers RUNNING UP THE STAIRS of the WTC to SAVE PEOPLE.

For anyone with functioning brain, WE KNOW THAT THE 9/11 VICTIMS WERE ALSO VERY REAL HEROES!!!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

You are right in that we don't know that however, because we don't know that, to label them as "heroes" is only guessing. It doesn't diminish them because they weren't heroes but when we hand the labels out so lightly, with no substantiation, it serves to diminish real heroes.

Ugh! As a New Yorker, I am officially disallowing you from setting foot in our great city. For that snide remark, you are permanently banned!

 

[DISUNC]

She is either a nutcase or the devil. But her fans still love her. Now how disfunctional is that?????????????????????

Osama has is 'fans' too! So did Tomothy McVeigh!

 

[JadenLayne]

She and Michael Moore should marry! They are both cut from the same disgusting cloth. YUCK to both of them. Horrible people!