Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Coulter for Clinton
Always the controversial one, conservative Ann Coulter says she’ll campaign for and support Hillary Clinton should John McCain get the Republican nomination. A guest last night on “Hannity and Colmes,” Coulter argued that Clinton is more conservative–a claim ABC’s Jake Tapper calls “ludicrous.”
And yet, do you think Coulter’s stance is indicative of how other conservatives might respond if McCain gets the nomination?
Topic: Campaign 2008, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top106 Comments to “Coulter for Clinton”
No, but it’s an excellent protest. And she is being very funny, as usual.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Kyle A, I agree. Ann Coulter is a conservative humorist, and she is very funny indeed.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll believe it when Coulter starts sporting the same Hillary haircut, then we really will know that the Time has come.
Report comment to moderator
I think that Coulter is just saying what a lot of us conservatives think.
We don’t have a good conservative candidate this time around. McCain has stood for a lot of things we can’t support.
So I imagine that the conservative vote will be all over the map….
Report comment to moderator
I hope there aren’t any who will take her at face value. There’s a very thin line between humor and dishonesty. (Will she really vote for Clinton?) I’m not sure how effective Coulter’s humor is. I do know that her style turns many off. She’s an entertainer who uses politics to make money.
Report comment to moderator
My first thought was that having Coulter support Clinton might help McCain.
If it does come down to Clinton vs McCain, I’d have to take a close look at both. And find out what third party candidates are running.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t like McCain, but I can’t imagine Coulter really voting for Clinton. She was probably just drawing attention to the fact that he’s not a conservative.
Theselittleones: We all need to make a living somehow [unless we're independently wealthy] so what’s wrong with using politics to make money?
Report comment to moderator
I think people should quit calling Ann Coulter a tranny. It really hurts their feelings.
Report comment to moderator
Nothing, Kayvee.
It’s the WAY she does it that doesn’t reflect professionalism. So, I don’t like reading her stuff because I believe she’s more about being vitriolic than she is about being a good political pundit.
Report comment to moderator
KAYVEE: What do you dislike about McCain? Is it his flat affect, disembodied voice, cholericism, and tiny eyes? Are you afraid of a lethargic autocracy? Do you think his captivity narrative is feminizing and disqualifying?
Report comment to moderator
This would have the same effect most other celebrity endorsements have: next to none.
Report comment to moderator
Kristin: [D]o you think Coulter’s stance is indicative of how other conservatives might respond if McCain gets the nomination?
Frank: I think Coulter’s distaste for McCain is certainly shared by many/most conservatives.
But I don’t think her (proposed) response “is indicative of how other conservatives might respond if McCain gets the nomination.”
That’s just nuts. If and if McCain does get the nod, I’d bet she doesn’t campaign for Hillary.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a moot point. OBAMA is our nominee. And Ann Coulter can pound sand as far as I’m concerned.
Those of you having fits over McCain are welcome to cross over and give Obama an extra vote. Unless, that is, you prefer Hillary.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop – I don’t like his attack on free speech with McCain/Feingold or his support for illegal migrants with last years shamnesty bill. His comment that Justice Alito shows his conservative beliefs on his sleeve tells me that I can’t trust him to appoint conservative judges. I don’t like that he compared drilling in Anwar to drilling in the Grand Canyon or the Everglades [a little patch of a large land mass no one ever sees is not the same as national treasures]. I believe he will hurt the country by supporting measures to fight so-called global warming by restricting free enterprise. I don’t like that he voted against tax cuts. I don’t like that he admits that he doesn’t know as much about the economy as he should.
BTW, I am not a child, don’t talk down to me. I don’t judge people emotionally, I look for facts. McCain’s captivity was terrible, but it doesn’t qualify him to be potus any more than having been married to Bill qualifies Hillary.
Report comment to moderator
In terms of economic policy, Clinton and McCain are not that different. Clinton is the closest to a classical liberal (ie Adam Smith etc) the democrats have whereas McCain not much further to the right in economic terms. McCain is more of a social conservative. Check out http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
Report comment to moderator
KayVee (7): We all need to make a living somehow [unless we’re independently wealthy] so what’s wrong with using politics to make money?
theselittleones (9): Nothing, Kayvee.
It’s the WAY she does it that doesn’t reflect professionalism. So, I don’t like reading her stuff because I believe she’s more about being vitriolic than she is about being a good political pundit.
Frank: Yup, dittos. Coulter’s just a “shock jock” in printed form.
Two examples:
1) Her scurrilous slander of the “Jersey widows” (who were widowed by the 9/11 attacks and critical of certain government actions in the aftermath):
2) And her similar accusations (though much less bitchy in tone) against Mary and Kevin Tillman, who say that their brother/son, Kevin Tillman, opposed President Bush’s invasion of Iraq, calling the war “so f—ing illegal.” Evidently thinking herself omniscient, Coulter simply says she does not believe the Tillmans’ claims about Pat’s political views, and prefers instead to remember him as “an American original — virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be.”
IOW, in order to maintain her fantasies about Tillman, she still insists (against claims to the contrary by the man’s own mother and brother) that he was a supporter of the Iraq war.
Report comment to moderator
KayVee (14),
And let’s not forget McCain’s anti-gun rights record over the last 7 or 8 years.
The man is just as much an elitist as Romney, Obama and Klintoon.
Report comment to moderator
Coulter goes to far, and I don’t support everything she says or writes. A few times her comments have been out of line with her professed faith in Christ.
I will say that the people she ridicules are people who have already put themselves out in public. If they don’t want to be scrutinized, then they should remain in the shadows. Once they make public statements, especially politically charged ones, they are fair game, as far as I’m concerned. I would try to be more polite than Coulter, but she has every right to take public figures to task.
Coulter is funny because she is like the kid in class that stands up to the teacher. Everyone wishes they had the guts to do the same thing, even when the naughty student clearly goes over the edge. She says what we think, or what we would think if we weren’t so prim and proper.
Report comment to moderator
Yet another example of the naiveté and stupidity of conservatives who will find themselves in the political wilderness with the next two or three Supreme Court appointees coming from the hard left.They would rather whine and complain about McCain than face the clear reality that he has likely won a hard-fought primary campaign and is the only Republican capable of beating Clinton or Obama.
Report comment to moderator
KAYVEE: I don’t judge people emotionally, I look for facts.
That’s admirable, Kayvee. I do think McCain’s captivity disqualifies him, for emotional reasons. It’s an unredressed shame, which he can’t do anything about. That may be unfair, but so is disqualifying a man from being Pope on account of anorchia. The ancients were harsh about such matters, and we should be cognizant of their wisdom.
Sorry for talking down to you. I always disliked the man’s personality, and wondered if you did too. Again, good for you for being immune to personal atipathy!
Report comment to moderator
It is sad that appointing US Supreme Court justices is now a deciding factor toward deciding on Presidential candidates. Don’t get me wrong: I want a conservative that will nominate conservative justices. But a couple of things are certain if we look at the makeup of the current Supreme Court: electing a Republican is no guarantee that we will get conservative justices, while electing a Democrat is virtually a guarantee that we will not.
Look at the last hand full of US Supreme Court Justices (including the last two to leave the office) and the Presidents who appointed them:
Rehnquist (conservative) — appointed by Reagan
O’Connor (moderate) — appointed by Reagan
Stevens (liberal) — appointed by Ford
Scalia (conservative) — appointed by Reagan
Kennedy (moderate) — appointed by Reagan
Souter (liberal) — appointed by Bush I
Thomas (conservative) — appointed by Bush I
Ginsburg (liberal) — appointed by Clinton
Breyer (liberal) — appointed by Clinton
Roberts (conservative) — appointed by Bush II
Alito (conservative) — appointed by Bush II
So, out of the last 11 SC Justices, we have 8 appointed by Republicans and 2 appointed by Democrats (actually , one Dem, since Carter never had the opportunity).
The Democrats appointed 2 out of 2 liberals (100%).
The Republicans appointed 5 out of 9 conservatives (55%), 2 out of 9 moderates (22%), and 2 out of 9 liberals (22%).
If the latter Bush is disregarded, then his predecessors were virtually equal in their appointments of conservatives/moderates/liberals (3/2/2).
The lesson? Electing a President in no way guarantees the choices he (or she) will make in selecting justices.
Unless, of course, a Democrat is elected, which virtually guarantees a liberal will be appointed. And that’s what will happen if conservatives, miffed with someone like McCain, stay home (or vote Dem) in November.
Report comment to moderator
TJ — perhaps your definition of a conservative is too narrow.
Report comment to moderator
PETER LEAVITT: McCain . . . is the only Republican capable of beating Clinton or Obama.
What doth it profit a World Mag Blog poster to win the White House but lose his or her party?
Posters! Your Republican Revolution Representatives are going home. They’d rather be the opposition than the governing party, and they’d rather be lobbying than laboring in the minority, throwing bombs and demanding the yeas and nays. This would be a great election for you to sit out, too. Then you can devote your pure energies to deriding Hillary or Barak! America will see that Liberalism Doesn’t Work, and Republicans will be sorry they didn’t pick Romney!
Report comment to moderator
DCL writes: “It’s a moot point. OBAMA is our nominee.” So you speak for ALL your peeps? I read today that Hillary has the edge with Hispanics, so I wouldn’t be so sure that Obama has it all sewn up. I think you should at least wait until the Feb. 5th results. But you’re entitled to your opinion.
The truth is there is nothing WRONG with any of the major candidates. No one is perfect, and all of us may disagree with where at least 50 percent of them stand on the issues, but there is nothing wrong with any of them as people. Those who worry about McCain being too old — Kennedy was shot in his 40s. Obama smokes and could be diagnosed with lung cancer tomorrow. No one knows their own time or anyone else’s.
Kayvee’s post wherein he (she?) advises what McCain said about Alito troubles me. Considering we don’t hear much from Alito except through his opinions, exactly how does he where his conservatism on his sleeve? It does make me wonder who McCain would appoint; nevertheless, I still have to agree with Peter Leavitt that the alternative is a lot scarier!
This whole thing is still up for grabs, though it would appear that McCain has the edge on the Republican side. If he wins the nomination, I will vote for him. I will not vote for any socialists.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: Perhaps your definition is too broad.
Moderate was meant to be a respectful term. I don’t know of anyone who would term either O’Connor or Kennedy as a “conservative” (thought Kennedy has leaned right recently, I’m speaking from a perspective of his overall career. Perhaps compared with Canadian politicians those two might seem more conservative, but this isn’t Canadian politics we’re discussing. I shudder to think that you might consider the likes of Ginsburg and Stevens to be conservative in their politics and their interpretation of the Constitution.
My point was that Republicans of the last 30 years or so tend not be quite so partisan in selecting justices, while the same cannot be said of Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
Obama smokes
Michelle made him quit before letting him run.
Amazing how Republicans turn Democrats into false representations. Republicans continue to call into their talk shows complaining that Obama is a Muslim who swears on the Koran, refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance, and turns his back on the flag. (Not you, NJLawyer)
Report comment to moderator
I did make one minor mistake above (not affecting the overall info, though) above: Rehnquist was appointed by Nixon, not Reagan (he was elevated to Chief Justice during Reagan’s presidency).
Here are a couple of links (either hardly “conservative”) that would seem to agree with my assessment of the leanings of the justices:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5531678
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-29-election-court-cover_x.htm
Report comment to moderator
Ann Coulter needed her TV appearance fix, so here she is. Does anyone know what she believes, or more importantly does SHE KNOW WHAT SHE BELIEVES! LOL
Report comment to moderator
Oh, sorry, Scroopy — I could have sworn I heard Obama say on a talk show that he still sneaks some. But even if he isn’t smoking, doesn’t mean the damage isn’t already done. Thank you, however, for not believing that I would call in to say Obama is a Muslim. Please go to Fox.news (or any place else, but that’s where I read it) and read about the new poll that says most Americans think it is Hillary who will “do anything” to get elected. They think Romney is that person on the Republican side, though less than 30 percent think the Republicans are doing the sneaky, underhanded stuff the way Dems are.
HRW, TJ is right — if you think Ginsburg and Stevens are conservatives, you have very, very different definitions up North. Kennedy and O’Connor are/were middle of the road. O’Connor is gone. The Constitution stands a chance now, and an even better one if a Republican wins next fall. Right now, there is less of a chance of judges legislating from the bench — and that is a good thing. (Perhaps you should rent that Trudeau miniseries. Your politicians say the same thing in there.)
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer — Maybe Hillary would do anything to get elected, but by definition that includes avoiding doing the things that would get her defeated (that being one of the things she has to “do” to get elected). So, maybe the voters will forgive her for getting elected!
Tell me, do you think she would place a dog-eared copy of Mere Christianity in her office, knowing that visitors think the book is so powerfully effective that nobody could dog-ear it without being absolutely persuaded by its argument? Would she use evangelicalism for political advantage, like George Bush did?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, the allegation that McCain has reservations about appointing an Alito like justice is far from having been proved. see Hayes: McCain and Alito, Part II.
McCain strongly supported the Alito nomination in the Senate. Apparently he said somethibng to a group of lawyers regarding Alito that left them suspicious, though the whole matter is vague.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (24): If [McCain] wins the nomination, I will vote for him. I will not vote for any socialists.
Frank: [double-take accompanied by funny cartoon sounds]
News flash: McCain is a socialist!
Report comment to moderator
On Hardball last night [youtube. com/watch?v=Olfc33td05w -- delete the space], Terry Jeffrey of CNSNEWS dot com laid bare the one reason why limited-gummint conservatives, who are justifiably sick and tired of faux conservatives McCain and Romney, still won’t support Ron Paul:
There you have it. The one reason that conservatives won’t cast a vote for Ron Paul is they refuse to admit that the war in Iraq was unjustified.
They want both big government overseas to “defend American ‘interests’” and small government at home, and it simply can’t be had! Can you say “cognative dissonance”?
War is, indeed, the health of the State. And if you can’t give up your unjust, ill-advised war, then quitcherbellyachin’ about the ever-growing State.
Report comment to moderator
youtube. com/watch?v=UmsP95Bl9pM
(Delete the space)
Report comment to moderator
youtube. com/watch?v=UmsP95Bl9pM
(Delete the space between the DOT and the COM)
Report comment to moderator
Get real, folks. Why would any politician now want to lead the Evangelical wing of the Republican Party? As brainy as you all are, a politician might reason that you aren’t smart enough to recognize the leader you need, which is not necessarily a politician who loves you. You’ve had a calamitous relationship with an Evangelical president who persuaded America to resolve never again to elect an Evangelical president. Any counselor will advise you not to jump into another relationship when you’re coming down from a bad one.
Report comment to moderator
tinyurl. com/2he8w2
(Delete the space between DOT and COM)
Report comment to moderator
The Republican PR problem can only get worse. You’ve been telling yourselves that Time will vindicate George Bush. The chances of that happening are nil, depending on the coincidence of multiple dreams. First of all, you need to believe that Bush really wasn’t a fiasco, and that all the favorable information about him has been concealed, while the detrimental information has been manufactured by the liberal media. The next congress and white house are very likely to turn Bush into an object lesson of everything that America dislikes. Winners write history. Secondly, you need to believe that America will be just as evangelical and militaristic in the next decade as it has been, perhaps uncharacteristically, during the last 40 years. If America recovers its traditional ideals, the future will look back on this Evangelical president with disgust.
McCain offers you a beautiful chance to re-brand your party! I’m counting on the fact you won’t allow Scroop Moth to tell you this. Go ahead and hate the messenger. It doesn’t bother me. Whom you really hate are other Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy, it wasn’t my poll. You know I won’t “forgive” her for getting elected. I’m hearing as I type that Oprah’s going back on the campaign trail, so Hillary better watch herself. Truth be told (and let’s not tell DCL this), if I had to deal with a Dem in the White House, I’d rather it be Obama. I believe that part of the poll that says more people are afraid she’d embarrass the country. I think that’s true.
Scroopy, Hillary and Bill are very calculating people–which is why Teddy Kennedy endorsed the other guy. Until you have a reasonable explanation for the miraculous appearance of the Rose law firm billing records on a table in the White House, you should keep your BDS under control. No, I don’t think Hillary would dog-ear a copy of Mere Christianity, because I don’t think she owns a copy. I doubt she knows it exists. I do think GWB read it.
Frank, McCain is not as much of a socialist as Hillary. I’m not hearing him advocating taking over a sector of the economy the way Hillary plans, do you? And McCain understands the jihadists better than either of the Dems. When they use mentally disabled women to blow up pet stores, when they put bombs on one year olds as Chas reminded us on WV about an earlier assassination attempt on Bhutto, I think we need someone who has the will to fight. Read McCain’s book “Why Courage Matters.”
So many of you forget that there’s a legislative branch in this country. It’s not just about who becomes president. After the way the people tanked last year’s immigration bill, I have confidence that the people will be staying on top of the major issues. Email is a beautiful thing.
Honestly, I’m not going to shoot myself if the Dems win. Democracy will still be alive, and time will proceed. The Supremes will still issue opinions, and I’ll keep praying “Dear Lord, Come Soon.”
(I will check what you posted for me Peter Leavitt. Thank You.)
Report comment to moderator
TJ, I just reread parts of the thread and saw your chart about the justices. You are correct that the lesson is you never know what you’re going to get when you nominate someone to the Supremes. Souter was a big surprise. The judge I worked for couldn’t stand him at first, but over time he actually came to like him. I became more and more disappointed.
I would also like to tell you that in all the years I worked for a federal appeals judge, conversations about cases didn’t include a liberal or conservative political position. It was about precedent and that wonderful question: “what does the statute say?” It was about legislative history, too. Judges don’t sit there and think about their politcal party when they’re writing an opinion. They really don’t (not that they don’t have predilections). And appeals judges have to get other votes to get a majority. There is also the possibility of rehearing before the full court — and reversal by the Supremes! (Now the Supremes, of course, can “make it up” as they did in Roe v. Wade finding a “right” emanating from penumbras, but they, too, are constrained by stare decisis and the Congress. (And they can reverse themselves.))
TJ, your last paragraph, however, bears repeating:
“Unless, of course, a Democrat is elected, which virtually guarantees a liberal will be appointed. And that’s what will happen if conservatives, miffed with someone like McCain, stay home (or vote Dem) in November.”
Electing a Dem doesn’t “virtually” guarantee, it’s a foregone conclusion. There are things about all the Republicans that I don’t like, but I would always give the “kids” a chance by at least trying to secure a conservative justice who may go along with at least carving out an exception to Roe v. Wade.
Report comment to moderator
Snort. This just cracks me up. Now watch all the dittoheads take her seriously.
Report comment to moderator
RDeanDonato
What is your obsession with gaying, or “tranny-ing” every freaking thread…no matter what the topic?
It is getting real old. So you want to call Ann Coulter a tranny, huh?
Let me tell you something. Whether anyone finds her offensive or not, I couldn’t care less.. You can all call her a bi**h for saying the truth, if you want. I find it refreshing to see fire fought with fire, instead of baby-wipes.
And as far as her femininity… I find her extremely hot..And I have impossibly high standards.
Report comment to moderator
What I said:
I think people should quit calling Ann Coulter a tranny. It really hurts their feelings.
I never called her a tranny. You find her hot AND you have impossibly high standards? Have you been accused of having taste?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-jacobs/ann-coulter-on-the-gay-_b_70156.html
Report comment to moderator
Why would you bring up the term “tranny” in a thread about Ann Coulter, Donato?
Oh..but you never called her a “tranny”, did you?
Do you ever go to night clubs, Donato?
I’m single guy. I occasionally go to night clubs.
Guess where everyone hangs out in LR?
It’s the same bar where a lot of gay people also congregate. Everyone likes to go to the best bar. You know, heteros and homos are allowed in the same bar.
Now..think about this, Mr.Donato.
How many “straight bars” do you think you will find in Hollywood.
I’ll give you the answer. There is no such thing as a straight bar in Hollywood. I know lots o’ musicians who did their time in la-la land trying to make it. I know for a fact…that if you’re in Hollywood, and want to go out to a bar, especially an “in” bar, it will also be where gay people hang out.
But Ann is used to being a target..That’s why it doesn’t bother her.
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner,
Just FYI, I’ve addressed your question re. the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq vs. a Declaration of War, over on yesterday’s “Ahnold” thread.
Report comment to moderator
And I’ve responded
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue, I must be incredibly naive — I can’t imagine anyone taking her seriously. I have no problem with Coulter saying what she wants to say, but the very idea that she’d campaign for Clinton — that’s like that Baldwin fellow moving to Canada if GWB is re-elected. The guy’s still here, and the guy’s still messing up his life — but of course, he is a dittohead.
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner at #39: You can all call her a bi**h for saying the truth, if you want.
Ann Coulter has said the truth?
What date did this happen on?
Report comment to moderator
Have you ever read any of her books,Steve?
No..?
Then I guess you’re just babbling for no reason, aren’t you Steve?
Report comment to moderator
Not so fast, bucko. I actually did read Slander and Treason back when they came out. After that I gave up hope of her having anything of value to say, although I did give Godless a skim when my library got it.
But, you know, thanks for assuming.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: Hillary and Bill are very calculating people
Wise as serpents. That’s good, huh?
Report comment to moderator
Well I also assumed that if you had read any of her works, without the blinding hatred clouding your judgment, you would have an entirely different perspective then what you obviously have.
Was she wrong about how right McCarthy was?
Does she get any kudos for exposing one of the biggest frauds ever foisted on the American public?
Nope.. she just gets “slandered”, and called a “tranny”
But, that’s the typical leftist reaction to someone who calls them out on their actions.
Report comment to moderator
“hatred?”
And I didn’t call her a tranny.
Report comment to moderator
No, you didn’t, Steve.
You just said that she has never told the truth.
Slander?
Mr.Donato was the one who started up with th “tranny” line this time.
(which I find ironic..on so many levels)
Report comment to moderator
She may have made a valid point or two about McCarthy (though I don’t buy her whole case) but any good points are buried in a tirade of invective and slander toward “liberals” that they are hard to find.
Go back and read the first chapter of your autographed copy. The very first sentence declares that “liberals” always side with America’s enemies. Then the chapter goes on to accuse “liberals” of all kinds of evils and crimes and, above all, lack of patriotism for having the gall to have a different position than conservatives.
This book came out at a time when America needed more than anything to be unified, and the entire message of it is that “liberals” — as a class, as a group, as an entire category — hate America, want America to fail, hate religion, hate patriotism, yadda yadda.
The whole thing is a screed of fury declaring that anyone in America who didn’t march in lockstep with the conservative movement was not just someone with a different opinion, but an actual enemy of their own country actively working to bring it down. It is ferocious and furious and completely blind to its own irony.
You read this kind of blistering broadside against a group that makes up a significant part of the country and then you dare to accuse ME of “blinding hatred?”
HA!
Report comment to moderator
I’d say that generally speaking, she is dead-on with her assessment of liberal politicians.
They do hate America. They do want to see us “cut down to size”. They do think that conservative Americans are the cause of all evil in the world.
You just don’t like her because she makes you feel guilty.
And you should.
You guys’ pundits talk that kind of trash about us all the time. You don’t like it when someone blames the world’s ills on your party, huh?
We don’t like it, either.
That’s why Ann Coulter is so valuable.
The way you feel right now, as you think about the things AC has said about your party…
Guess what? That’s how we’re forced to feel every freaking day of our lives, as we listen to the daily bile-spew from the oracles of wisdom on the air-waves.
So excuse me while I don’t give a rodent’s rectum how AC makes you feel.
Report comment to moderator
You just don’t like her because she makes you feel guilty.
And you should.
No, I shouldn’t and I don’t. I mostly feel sad that “all liberals hate America and are traitors” is taken seriously as political commentary by some.
Guess what? That’s how we’re forced to feel every freaking day of our lives, as we listen to the daily bile-spew from the oracles of wisdom on the air-waves.
Actually no, it’s not even close.
You’ve heard plenty of liberals disagree with conservative policies. I seriously doubt you’ve ever been called a traitor. If you have, it’s been an isolated case here and there, not a book called “Treason” by someone who is actually taken seriously.
You’ve heard liberals say that your policies are damaging to America. You’ve not heard them say that you hate America and want it to fail.
You’ve never heard liberals accuse widows of “enjoying” their husbands’ deaths or any of a thousand other thoughtlessly cruel things she’s said in her writings and media appearances.
I am glad you like Ann Coulter’s style … believe me, you are more than welcome to keep her.
Report comment to moderator
#41: Everyone likes to go to the best bar.
Never been to Hollywood. Ann Coulter partying at a gay bar is like former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, David Dukes, worhiping at a black church. The meaning and acceptance is equal.
Report comment to moderator
“you are more than welcome to keep her.”
happy to.
“Never been to Hollywood”
If you had, you’d know that all bars in Hollywood are “gay bars”. I promise you, A straight person who walks in to any hot spot in Hollywood is in the minority.
If I were to list all of the gay musicians (for example) who everyone outside of Hollywood thinks is straight, you would be shocked.
My sister, who lived (partied)in W. Hollywood in the mid-late 80’s. She started running down a list of my favorite rockers who were gay…and I’m like..whoah, whoah. I don’t want to know this.
But it was too late. I’d already heard. I tried to block it out, but it’s still there
I just have to accept that I like to listen to gay people play music.
BTW Ann wasn’t even at a gay bar, chachi.
She was at a restaurant owned by people who also own bars in Hollywood
Report comment to moderator
MR._MEANER
“Hating America” isn’t so much an inner trait of particular Americans as an armband of identification and distinction, designed to divide us into troublemakers and happy campers. Hating and Loving America are the verbal equivalent of armbands, which may be as sinister as the star of David and the swastika.
“Hating America” is an involuntarily emotional alarm. If it rings your bell, there’s not much that talking about it can do to help, but I suppose it’s good to what’s going on.
If our invasion of Iraq was immoral (an honorable tradition says that it was) then even Americans should want a misdeed of that magnitude to be judged rather than reinforced. Ever since 1781, great Americans have had good reason to rattle their chains, scold, protest, disobey, embarrass, undermine, and even shoot arrows at their government. What was Lincoln doing when he challenged President Polk in the House of Representatives, but “hating America” as Barney Frank sneers at George W.
I don’t blame Ann Coulter. If she didn’t market this stuff, someone else would, because the impulse to blame the messenger is part of our genetics. The way humans test prophets is to dishonor them. If it turns out they’re right, we can always erect a statue. Meanwhile, they’re obnoxious, and who wants to reward that?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop
I agree with all of that.
Ann stirs the fire. That’s what she does. If she was the polite, soft-spoken , “Miss Manners” type, she wouldn’t be able to get her message out there. Who would even know who Ann Coulter was if not for her combative style?
I’m sure there are other conservative female authors and jounalists that feel the same way as Ann, that don’t use her style.
But I couldn’t name any of them.
I almost said Michelle Malkin, but libs hate her, too
Report comment to moderator
#56: and I’m like..whoah, whoah. I don’t want to know this.
Reminds me of “Do the Right Thing”. A young white guy is asked whom his favorite singer, dancer, actor and athlete. All were black, but he didn’t like black people. When you consider art, music, literature, science and entertainment, there is one group of people that contributes way beyond their meager numbers. Imagine if they were actually encouraged? What other areas could they excell in and how would it help our country?
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner, it’s not our head she’s messing with. We don’t buy her books, you do. She makes you think that she’s making us feel bad, and in return for whatever satisfaction that may be to you, she’s charging you money and wasting unrecoverable hours of your thought time.
I’ll admit, Coulter strikes me as a disgusting person, but I’m not the type to rubberneck traffic accidents, and cable channels which tease me with the prospect of hearing her “after the break” can count on me to switch the remote. This is not becuase I avoid tough conservative commentary–on the contrary–but because I already have ways of cranking up my emotions, and don’t feel so terrible that I need AC to pick me up. Same goes for Malkin. The only thing I find interesting about such commentators is the way they interact with their followers, but they tend not to engage publically with people who agree with them, because it frequently diminishes them. The reason I stopped listening to Limbaugh was because he was forever procrastinating on his pledge “to get to your calls.”
As far as you go, I’m a little surprised that a blogger of your adeptness would buy her books. You have every bit as much to say as she does. Once you’ve learned the Hammerklavier, you really don’t sit in a chair listening to recordings of it.
Report comment to moderator
Just out of curiosity, Mr_Meaner, was there ever someone on this blog called Mr_Mean that you named yourself after?
Or if not, who are you meaner than?
If she was the polite, soft-spoken , “Miss Manners” type, she wouldn’t be able to get her message out there.
The problem is, she’s so insulting and mean-spirited (even though allegedly a Christian, at least recently) that she doesn’t get her message across. She buries one or two valid points in a stream of outrageous and offensive comments. When people talk about it, both her fans and detractors alike, they don’t talk about — or even remember most of the time — the valid points. They remember the outrageous and offensive comments.
So, take Ann Coulter — please.
Report comment to moderator
“She makes you think that she’s making us feel bad”
Actually, that was my own observation. I just figured that deep-down, you libs know that I’m right about the constant barrage of harsh criticism that conservatives take on a daily basis. I would think that on the rare occasion that criticism of that type is directed toward liberal by a known writer, it would give you pause to consider all of the hate-filled diatribes that were pushed on network TV against conservatives.
How many anti-Bush books got free coverage on “60 Minutes”, alone?
I find the things that Dan Rather, a network news anchor, said about Bush (which were lies)way more offensive than anything AC has ever said.
She provides information that others do not.
I like to keep up with the various deeds carried out by those in charge. (I keep a “dirty deeds” archive file)
I don’t read every column she writes. But I want her to continue to be the firebrand that she is, so I do my part to financially support her efforts. If nobody bought her books, we wouldn’t be discussing her.
You’re right about the Hammerklavier.
Even though I still listen to Limbaugh sometimes. It really is just a case of preaching to the choir.
Report comment to moderator
Mr.Meaner was the name of a band….
long story.
So who else, besides Ann brought the declassified KBG files, exonerating Sen. McCarthy, to light?
Would anyone have ever even heard about this if not for Coulter?
The MSM sure as heck never reported it.
McCarthy- Yet another conservative wrongly vilified by leftists.
It really is a timeless tradition, isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
McCarthy- Yet another conservative wrongly vilified by leftists.
Wrongly? He was a cruel witch hunter. He ruined the lives of countless Americans. He said he had a list of notable Americans who were communists who were working to bring down the government. A list he was never able to produce. He was unable to name a single State Department employee employed at that time. Eventually he was censured and died young an alcholic. Even many conservatives abhored his tactics. McCarthy also angered fellow Republican Dwight Eisenhower by accusing the administration of sheltering communists.
Why do so many conservatives look to toads as role models?
Report comment to moderator
So Mr_Meaner, just how effective do you judge the book Treason to have been in changing McCarthy’s image?
Here’s what I think happened: Conservatives who like Coulter’s acerbic style (and admit it, Dorothy Parker she ain’t) read it cover to cover and felt satisfied that once again their heroine had put the leftists in their place. But these readers probably already figured McCarthy hadn’t been so wrong, so she didn’t change their minds.
Meanwhile, liberal readers who gave the book a try probably decided that after being called traitors and accused of wanting America to lose the war on terrorism about 30 times in the first two pages, they had no reason to wade through 200 more pages of the same tiresome prattle. So they never got to the substance and their minds weren’t changed either.
So what did she accomplish?
Report comment to moderator
Why do so many liberals comment without doing any research.
You guys hate McCarthy because he was right.
The dems were infested with commies.
Now, they’re infested with Socialists.
(Communism’s slightly more attractive sister)
Report comment to moderator
Well Steve, we are talking about those things now aren’t we?
Would we be if AC hadn’t brought it to everyone’s attention?
“liberal readers who gave the book a try probably decided that after being called traitors and accused of wanting America to lose the war on terrorism about 30 times in the first two pages, they had no reason to wade through 200 more pages of the same tiresome prattle.”
And some liberal readers probably realized that their leaders were traitors who wanted us to lose the war.
I mean..I don’t need Ann Coulter to reach that conclusion, but some might.
Report comment to moderator
And some liberal readers probably realized that their leaders were traitors who wanted us to lose the war.
The problem with that is, Coulter’s argument is not that some liberal leaders in some period of time have been traitors. It’s that all liberals at all times are traitors or, at best, support treason.
That changes it from a specific case made with facts and evidence into a broadside screed against half the people in the country.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s that all liberals at all times are traitors or, at best, support treason.”
I’d agree, but say mostly the latter.
But it’s out of naivety, not malice.
And I do mean that. I don’t think that dem.voters are “bad people”. just hoodwinked.
Report comment to moderator
NJ
I was mostly teasing although I have seen some folks who don’t realize that Coulter is a satirist. Baldwin is not so much a satirist as a parody. But both do a disservice to public discourse, in my view.
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner:
And I do mean that. I don’t think that dem.voters are “bad people”. just hoodwinked.
We live in a country where people are free to hold a variety of political opinions, to argue them and to vote for candidates that agree with them.
Coulter, and those who agree with her, reject that and insist that “loyal Americans” will always support conservatives and those who don’t are as much an enemy as the Islamic terrorists of today or the Communists of the 1950s.
That turns the American ideal on its head. It is antithetical to liberty and it is designed to breed suspicion and hostility within the country– which weakens our national unity.
It is Coulter and her fellow travelers who are un-American here, Mr. Meaner.
Report comment to moderator
By your own standard, SteveG, Coulter should be allowed to hold whatever view she chooses and still not be called “un-American.”
If you think liberals don’t “breed suspicion and hostility” in the country, you’re kidding yourself!
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy wrote to me:
NJLAWYER: Hillary and Bill are very calculating people
Wise as serpents. That’s good, huh?
Scroopy! When you quote Jesus, quote him! The whole quote:
Wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.
The Clintons are not harmless. Far from it.
Report comment to moderator
“We live in a country where people are free to hold a variety of political opinions, to argue them and to vote for candidates that agree with them”
I agree. And I (and I’d guess Ann) plan on taking advantage of that freedom, and argue opinions, and vote for candidates that I agree with.
“Coulter, and those who agree with her, reject that and insist that “loyal Americans” will always support conservatives and those who don’t are as much an enemy as the Islamic terrorists of today or the Communists of the 1950s.”
Now see, You’re getting back to the kooky talk again. First of all we don’t reject that. We would just like to be included in on that. I’d love it if an occasional conservative message found it’s way to the MSM, without Ann, or Rush, having to scream about it. But that’s just not going to happen. You can pretend that the obvious bias doesn’t exist. But I know…and I know that you know.. I’m right
I said you were hoodwinked. I think that you naively vote for people who are bad for this country….Now see what I did, there?
That’s more of that “arguing opinions”, that we supposedly agree that everyone has the right to do.
But of course, just the very act of my saying that you are hoodwinked, apparently, makes me un-American.
But then you say that Coulter and I (being a supporter)think that all “loyal Americans” will always support conservatives and those who don’t are as much an enemy as the Islamic terrorists of today or the Communists of the 1950s”..and “It is antithetical to liberty and it is designed to breed suspicion and hostility within the country– which weakens our national unity.”
But wait.. didn’t you just say “people are free to hold a variety of political opinions”
Even though you’re wrong about my thinking that all non-conservatives are un-American, even if I did, Is it not my right to think and express that, if I were to so wrongly choose.
If you consider me (or AC) un-American, you must be a fascist. And you really don’t believe in the freedom of speech, do you?
“designed to breed suspicion and hostility within the country– which weakens our national unity.”
national UNITY? HAHAHA
Oh yeah…I can feel the warmth of all this unity, already.
No, when you say unity, you mean “think like WE do”, isn’t that right?
Well I’m sorry. But we’re not going to just shut up and let your guys define what it means to be American.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner:
I said you were hoodwinked. I think that you naively vote for people who are bad for this country….Now see what I did, there?
That’s more of that “arguing opinions”, that we supposedly agree that everyone has the right to do.
No sir, you did not say I naively “vote for people who are bad for this country.” You said I naively support treason.
Those are two very different things.
This is just the problem that Coulter exacerbates. Ann Coulter calls me (because my voting is usually for Democrats) a traitor and accuses me of hating my country and wanting the Islamic terrorists to prevail. (She has not said that too me personally of course, but I am part of the group she says is guilty of this.)
When I suggest that this sort of extreme rhetoric is harmful, you call me a fascist and accuse me of not believing in freedom of speech.
Why is this inflammatory characterization necessary? And what good does it do?
Conservatives and liberals alike, by and large, are patriotic. We just have different ideas about what kinds of policies and practices are better for the country. Debating those ideas is the very essence of freedom of speech.
Calling the people on one side traitors and fascists is not debating the ideas, it’s attacking the character and motivation of the people. You are free to do that too … Coulter’s book got published and read and it’s in your local bookstores and libraries, so obviously we fascists aren’t suppressing it.
But can you seriously argue that accusing people with whom you disagree of desiring America’s defeat at the hands of its enemies is in any way constructive?
Report comment to moderator
“You said I naively support treason”
Would it make you feel better if I said treasonous leaders?
I’m having trouble remembering a quote where Ann says that anyone who doesn’t vote for conservatives are traitors. If you have one…please share.
“When I suggest that this sort of extreme rhetoric is harmful, you call me a fascist and accuse me of not believing in freedom of speech.”
And you call what you believe to be “extreme rhetoric”…in essence, un-American.
“Calling the people on one side traitors and fascists is not debating the ideas, it’s attacking the character and motivation of the people.”
neither is building an “AC thinks every dem. voter is a traitor’ straw man , then calling people who “agree” with a charge that hasn’t even been made…Un-American, debating ideas
“But can you seriously argue that accusing people with whom you disagree of desiring America’s defeat at the hands of its enemies is in any way constructive?”
First of all I never said that people with whom I disagree desire America’s defeat. Your leaders do..that is, until they get in office.
And yes, if that kind of political speech can help keep your treasonous leaders out of office, then it is very constructive.
Report comment to moderator
#66: The dems were infested with commies.
How many were eventually discovered? Oops. Where did they go? Are they still there?
Dumb.
Dumb.
Dumb.
I bet you think they have all turned into “Arabs”.
Report comment to moderator
Man!
I really, really want to use an expletive here.
BTW, an expletive is a swear word, Mr. Donato.
I mean…how does one even respond to that?
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner: I’m having trouble remembering a quote where Ann says that anyone who doesn’t vote for conservatives are traitors. If you have one…please share.
It is the message of the book. Liberals are always not just wrong, but actively supporting (whether through intent or stupdity) our nation’s enemies. Ergo, only conservatives are patriots and only those who vote conservative are supporting patriots.
But for an explicit articulation of such, this comes pretty close:
“Americans cannot comprehend how their fellow countrymen could not love their country. But the left’s anti-Americanism is intrinsic to their entire worldview. Liberals promote the right of Islamic fanatics for the same reason they promote the rights of adulterers, pornographers, abortionists, criminals, and Communists. They instinctively root for anarchy against civilization. The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason.” — Ann Coulter, P. 292 of Treason.
Report comment to moderator
CAYOTE BLUE: I have seen some folks who don’t realize that Coulter is a satirist.
Ignorance.
Not them, CB, you. Coulter describes herself as a “polemicist.” She’s a warrior. She engages in verbal and written attack, the essence of which is conflict for and against different interests and factions. Her purposes and means and ambition don’t rise to satire, and she’s smart enough to not to set herself up to accusations of pretentiousness. While she uses some of the same rhetorical means of satire, her tone is on a lower strata of the universe. She’s not enlightening human foibles with an intent to bring improvement, she’s trashing liberals with the intent to destroy them politically.
Nice try, though.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
Now think about it. Do you think that Ann Coulter, who is a brilliant woman, intended to make accusations against the voters, that her book was intended to help “convert”?
If you don’t identify yourself with the positions that she complains about, why are you upset. You don’t believe the things that she says liberal believe in…What does that tell you? Maybe your definition of liberal is different than that of the leaders of the party, that hold the positions that she accurately describes.
Scroop,
I’d change the wording slightly;
“she’s trashing liberals with the intent to destroy them politically because they refuse to engage in the process of dealing with human foibles with an intent to bring improvement”
That’s how I’d put it.
“She’s a warrior. She engages in verbal and written attack, the essence of which is conflict for and against different interests and factions.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner,
I’ll grant that Coulter and/or her audience believes liberals deserve to be trashed because, from her perspective, they’re wrong, harmful, and even wicked. But she’s not mad at liberals because they “refuse to engage in the process of . . . improvement.” She’s mad at them because they do engage, and she disagrees with their methods. [We denounce 18th C medicine for employing bleeding, but not for refusing treatment.] This isn’t quibbling, it goes to the heart of what SteveG and others are saying. Coulter erases the distinction between the practical harm she thinks liberals cause and their intent. She’s saying they make things worse because they want to, because they’re treasonous. More than anyone else since Newt Gingrich, Coulter puts the bite back into the sound bite. Let yourself be thrilled, but please don’t confuse her with the noble genre we call satire.
Report comment to moderator
“She’s mad at them because they do engage, and she disagrees with their methods.”
Yes, they do engage…not in anything that resembles improvement, but in implementing policy that make those human foibles even worse.
I think you and Steve have the same misconception that Coulter is railing against voters.
“She’s saying they make things worse because they want to, because they’re treasonous”
Again..if we’re talking about liberal leaders, then I agree with her.
I really, really, really believe that they have been thwarting this administrations effort at every turn…to ensure defeat.
This is what I, and many others believe. Why would Harry Reid, for example, make a public statement that the surge has no chance of success before it even got started? Do you seriously doubt that it was to attempt to turn public support against trying to win in Iraq..and just pulling out?
Why did Nancy Pelosi intentionally stir up Kurdish tensions at a time when the Kurdish region in Iraq was facing a potential crisis?
That was just a few months ago.
Why do the leaders of the democrat party seem to be trying to hinder our efforts in Iraq at every turn?
This is, IMO, the very definition of treason.
But I sincerely believe that a lot of liberal voters just do not notice that kind of thing. That’s largely because in this MSM dominated information age, you have to actively seek out that kind of behind the scene information.
Don’t be what your side accuses us of being, Mind-numbed robots…That’s what relying on the MSM will do to you.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe Ann Coulter engages in satire. I take her at her word. She is exactly what she seems.
Report comment to moderator
I think she uses satire to make points that she, and many others, truly believe in.
And yes, she is exactly what she seems.
A noble foot-soldier in the conservative movement.
I want to take a moment to celebrate this rare agreement with you, Mr.Donato.
(raising my Bud light bottle)
Cheers Mr.Donato
I may have to go back to just referring to you as Donato, or R Dean….I have a compulsion to type “Roboto” instead of “Donato”, when I use the Mr. title.
Report comment to moderator
an inside STYX joke…. to lighten the mood.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner at #81: Now think about it. Do you think that Ann Coulter, who is a brilliant woman, intended to make accusations against the voters, that her book was intended to help “convert”?
Yes I do, for two reasons:
1. “Liberal leaders” get into power because liberal voters put them there. If all liberals are supporters of treason — the central theme of her book — that includes the voters. In her view, they must be enablers of the treason if not the commiters of it.
2. I don’t believe for a minute she’s out to “convert” anybody. She’s out to engage in meanspirited “humor” for the sake of taking money out of the wallets of those who find her brand of “humor” amusing.
If she had an ounce of interest in changing people’s minds, she’d be explaining to the goodhearted but misguided voters why they should reconsider. She’s not. She’s abrasively telling them that they’re traitors too.
Report comment to moderator
Domo arigato, Mr. Donato.
Report comment to moderator
Strange bedfellows: Laughing Hillary Clinton ‘happy’ Coulter may back her
David Edwards and Ron Brynaert
Published: Sunday February 3, 2008
“Strange bedfellows,” indeed.
(Scroll down to the bottom for VIDEO)
Report comment to moderator
” “Liberal leaders” get into power because liberal voters put them there. If all liberals are supporters of treason — the central theme of her book — that includes the voters. In her view, they must be enablers of the treason if not the commiters of it.”
Okay…Maybe I worded that wrong.
Lemme try again;
Now think about it. Do you think that Ann Coulter, who is a brilliant woman, intended to make accusations of individual treason against the voters, that her book was intended to help “convert”?
Actually it was intended to be one of those moments equivalent to shaking, then slapping one back in to coherency. Sometimes, unfortunately, that’s what it takes.
“2. I don’t believe for a minute she’s out to “convert” anybody. She’s out to engage in meanspirited “humor” for the sake of taking money out of the wallets of those who find her brand of “humor” amusing.”
Okay…So are you saying that she doesn’t really believe the things she writes?
Or, that She is trumpeting conservative ideals, that motivates them to assert themselves politically…to make (gasp!) money?
“If she had an ounce of interest in changing people’s minds, she’d be explaining to the goodhearted but misguided voters why they should reconsider. She’s not. She’s abrasively telling them that they’re traitors too.”
Well, when you’re dealing with an audience that has been exposed to nothing but the virulent airwaves…that led to the outbreak of BDS,
she can’t be “Miss Manners” and expect to be heard. You have to speak to potential BDS recoverers on the same level that they’re used to communicating.
Report comment to moderator
I understand that Ann Coulter’s books aren’t selling very well anymore, so she has resorted to other sorts of ‘outbursts’ in an attempt to regain some notoriety.
I can’t listen to her anymore, the shrieking, interrupting, abrasive personality just doesn’t work.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner:
Again..if we’re talking about liberal leaders, then I agree with her.
I really, really, really believe that they have been thwarting this administrations effort at every turn…to ensure defeat.
This is what I, and many others believe. Why would Harry Reid, for example, make a public statement that the surge has no chance of success before it even got started? Do you seriously doubt that it was to attempt to turn public support against trying to win in Iraq..and just pulling out?
Why did Nancy Pelosi intentionally stir up Kurdish tensions at a time when the Kurdish region in Iraq was facing a potential crisis?
That was just a few months ago.
Why do the leaders of the democrat party seem to be trying to hinder our efforts in Iraq at every turn?
This is, IMO, the very definition of treason.
What possible reason do you imagine Reid and Pelosi would have for wanting defeat?
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner at #90: Okay…So are you saying that she doesn’t really believe the things she writes?
Or, that She is trumpeting conservative ideals, that motivates them to assert themselves politically…to make (gasp!) money?
I think she believes them. What I mean is that I think her work (books, columns, media appearances) are intended for people who already agree with her. She’s found a way to make a saleable commodity based on playing to what her target audience already thinks.
There’s nothing wrong with that. It just means her intent isn’t to change minds.
Report comment to moderator
What possible reason do you imagine Reid and Pelosi would have for wanting defeat?
because they wanted us out of Iraq before ‘08, so their president wouldn’t have to deal with it.
That’s why you’re seeing some back-track now. They realize that in Jan ‘08 there will still be troops in Iraq.
Some of them now actually appear to be willing to make progrss in Iraq. Shameful…but, better late than never.
Report comment to moderator
I’m going to try to keep up this titilating conversation…but I’ll have to do it during the Super Bowl commercials.
(I hope you all stood for the national anthem!)
Report comment to moderator
#91: the shrieking, interrupting, abrasive personality just doesn’t work.
Never does. She is very judgmental and full of hate.
Report comment to moderator
#96 to #91
heh
that’s all
just…heh
Report comment to moderator
I think I get Mr. Meaner’s point:
All of the leaders of the Democrats are traitors, not all of the people who elected them. (All the people who elected them are merely idiots.)
Well, that makes all of the difference in the world Mr. Meaner!
Not!
Personally, I think Ann does what she does because she found a “niche” that gives her lots of attention and money. Only a person with some serious mental issues would be able to believe her own rhetoric. But, I could be wrong – she could be seriously unhinged.
But here’s the real problem with Ann’s extremist rhetoric of calling people who diagree with her a “traitors”:
1. It calls for some sort of action against the accused. After all, one cannot let traitors to live among us freely.
2. It puts upon the accuser the responsibility of offering up proof, or a retraction. (Ann does neither, she just keeps screaching “traitor!”).
3. When one jumps straight to calling people “traitors” simply because they disagree with them, one loses all credibility. It’s akin to calling the weatherman a “liar” simply because he was one degree off on his prediction of the temperature.
4. Calling a person a “traitor” leaves no room for dialogue. When we resort to calling our fellow countrymen “traitors” for disagreeing with us, it short-circuits all civil discourse. As history shows us well, the next step us usually violence and people taking up arms against each other.
Cheering for Ann Coulter when she calls people “traitors” is like cheering when a football player from the other team is seriously injured. It shows a total lack of class.
Report comment to moderator
“All of the leaders of the Democrats are traitors, not all of the people who elected them. (All the people who elected them are merely idiots.)”
You said it…I didn’t, nor would I.
In fact, I think it takes a serious resolve to seek out actual “truth”. I don’t think that people who are inclined to vote for liberals are idiots..just grossly misinformed.
I wouldn’t call someone an idiot who believes what the vast majority of sources of information say is true. I would just ask that people double-check there sources. Check out both sides of an opinion, before making a judgment.
“But here’s the real problem with Ann’s extremist rhetoric of calling people who diagree with her a “traitors”:
Hmmm.
It seems you also, have the problem of making claims that just aren’t true. Find me a quote where she says those who don’t agree with her are traitors.
“1. It calls for some sort of action against the accused.”
Yeah, we call that voting where I come from. ”
After all, one cannot let traitors to live among us freely”
(sigh)
There you go again…getting all emotional.
No one is threatening you. We’d just prefer that our leaders be conservative…that’s all
“2. It puts upon the accuser the responsibility of offering up proof, or a retraction.”
But she does offer proof for her “claims” (as opposed to observations)
“3. When one jumps straight to calling people “traitors” simply because they disagree with them, one loses all credibility. It’s akin to calling the weatherman a “liar” simply because he was one degree off on his prediction of the temperature”
No…It’s not akin to that at all. In fact I don’t see where you’re coming from with tht analogy, at all.
“Calling a person a “traitor” leaves no room for dialogue”
Spying for communists leaves no room for dialouge.
A lot of our countrymen were, and are (under different circumstances than the commies were) traitors.
P.S.
I always cheer for the good guys.
Report comment to moderator
A lot of our countrymen were, and are (under different circumstances than the commies were) traitors.
But see that’s the point. What you say here is a regrettable, but true, fact of history.
“The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason,” is a vicious slander against a group that comprises close to half of your fellow Americans.
I appreciate you make a distinction between the leaders (evil) and the followers (dupes), but I don’t see that your heroine does.
“But here’s the real problem with Ann’s extremist rhetoric of calling people who diagree with her a “traitors”:
Hmmm.
It seems you also, have the problem of making claims that just aren’t true. Find me a quote where she says those who don’t agree with her are traitors.
She doesn’t agree with liberals, and “The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason.”
Ergo, people who don’t agree with her (politically) are traitors.
Report comment to moderator
Okay
I give.
Ann’s a B-word.
Whatever.
You’re entitled to feel that way. I think a lot of lib pundits are B-words, too.
So I guess it’s a wash
Report comment to moderator
Ann is not a B – word.
She is a woman who is totally out of control, but lets not call anyone this kind of name. Certainly you all have more self control than she does? Yes or NO?
You choose
Report comment to moderator
In modern terms, the B-word is not gender specific.
I know more male B-words than female…by far.
And I’m sorry that you took offense.
I probably should have used a different lettered word.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!