Ann Coulter's New Book: Godless: The religion of Liberals

[red states rule]

Who makes more generalizations about liberals,

Red States Rule or Ann Coulter?

Who make more true statements about liberals?

Red States Rule or Ann Couter.

It is very close

 

[KarlMarx]

Who make more true statements about liberals?

Red States Rule or Ann Couter.

It is very close

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again. Nice come back!

 

[red states rule]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to red states rule again. Nice come back!

Like Ann, I tell it like it is

I am not ashamed to be a conservative.

I do not run from the truth like liberals who run from who they are and what they say

 

[nt250]

Like Ann, I tell it like it is

I am not ashamed to be a conservative.

I do not run from the truth like liberals who run from who they are and what they say

Here is thing about me and Ann Coulter:

I am actually not a conservative. There are only two subjects that I could be considered a conservative about: I oppose gun control and gay rights laws. On every other subject I'm about as left wing as you can get. I'm militantly pro-abortion, I don't think a man even has a right to express an opinion on the subject. I'm an atheist who thinks all religious people are stupid. I think anybody who is opposed to flag burning should read the Constitution and shut up.

But I like Ann Coulter's columns, I don't hate George W. Bush, and I hate John Kerry with a passion. So that makes me a conservative to liberals. Your average die hard liberal is just totally incapable of understanding how I can enjoy reading Coulter without agreeing with her. That's a totally foreign concept to them because they refuse to read anything from a source even a little bit right of center.

 

[red states rule]

Here is thing about me and Ann Coulter:

I am actually not a conservative. There are only two subjects that I could be considered a conservative about: I oppose gun control and gay rights laws. On every other subject I'm about as left wing as you can get. I'm militantly pro-abortion, I don't think a man even has a right to express an opinion on the subject. I'm an atheist who thinks all religious people are stupid. I think anybody who is opposed to flag burning should read the Constitution and shut up.

But I like Ann Coulter's columns, I don't hate George W. Bush, and I hate John Kerry with a passion. So that makes me a conservative to liberals. Your average die hard liberal is just totally incapable of understanding how I can enjoy reading Coulter without agreeing with her. That's a totally foreign concept to them because they refuse to read anything from a source even a little bit right of center.

You are a liberal with a somewhat open mind.

There is still hope for you

 

[1549]

Here is thing about me and Ann Coulter:

I am actually not a conservative. There are only two subjects that I could be considered a conservative about: I oppose gun control and gay rights laws. On every other subject I'm about as left wing as you can get. I'm militantly pro-abortion, I don't think a man even has a right to express an opinion on the subject. I'm an atheist who thinks all religious people are stupid. I think anybody who is opposed to flag burning should read the Constitution and shut up.

But I like Ann Coulter's columns, I don't hate George W. Bush, and I hate John Kerry with a passion. So that makes me a conservative to liberals. Your average die hard liberal is just totally incapable of understanding how I can enjoy reading Coulter without agreeing with her. That's a totally foreign concept to them because they refuse to read anything from a source even a little bit right of center.

The problem for me is not Ms. Coulter's politics, it is the way she describes liberals. I grew up in a conservative family. During the summer I work with several conservatives. I come on this message board that houses more than a few Bush votes. All of the people I describe are not fond of liberals. But while most disagree with their political views, they do realize that liberals are regular people who just think differently on a few subjects.

Ann Coulter and a few other idiots believe otherwise (or at least pretend to). The conservatives I work with support the war in Iraq. When we disagree we will debate the matter at that level. If I debate abortion with my brother, we keep it political. Those who feel that people with opposing views are vastly inferior and hardly human are just complete morons. They are nothing more than propogandists. This country has lost its ability to work together in a non-partisan fashion because people like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore polarize the nation.

Ms. Coulter states:

As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not.

A lot of liberals do not believe in Darwinism, as do a lot of conservatives. It is a pretty common thing for people of all political backgrounds to believe in. (not to mention, this has nothing to do with politics...are people actually voting based on whether or not supporters of a party may or may not believe in evolution? we are fighting wars, and people are voting based on a scientific dispute...this country is going to the docks.)

As for gays being born homosexual: prove that they are not...most scientific indications at the moment point towards gays being born with their traits as a result of testesterone imbalance. Mens Health reported that scientists are close to isolating a chromome.

Castration may be the only way to rehab a child-molester (that is not a joke, some think it works), but I don't think that is going to be a policy any time soon...so Ms. Coulter, that is why they are tracked to the best of the Police's ability.

Recycling...why would you not support recycling? She does not even make sense. Just put your cans and bottles into the fucking blue bag.

Chastity? I forgot, if we vote republican teens will stop having sex! Those damn liberals just love it when girls are getting knocked up. Conservatives and liberals are probably having equal amounts of sex before marriage.

Ms. Coulter's quote demonstrates why she is out of line. Her main ambition is not to attack main voting issues, it is to attack liberals in the same fashion Hitler attacked jews...with sweeping and exagerated generalizations that will get knee jerk reactions.

She is merely out to make liberals look as bad as possible. I do not support Moore describing conservatives as fat stupid white men and I can not respect a woman who will shamelessly attack liberals with something like chastity...a practice that has probably been violated by as many conservatives as liberals.

Like I said, she is nothing more than a propogandist.

 

[Annie]

1549

You failed to say WHY she brought up Darwinism belief, as I'm sure you are aware of it. As you said, I'm a conservative and I believe Darwinism is at the very least a good hypothesis of how life got to the point it is now, not created however.

Coulter's point is that many liberals use science to bolster their arguments, but discount it when it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of explanation for measurable/observable phenonema. For instance, a belief in Darwinism, including a 'gay gene'; yet no differences to be accepted between men and women, though numerous studies have shown there are definate differences, beyond reproduction. Larry Summers lost the presidency of Harvard after even entertaining such a thought. These kinds of differences are explained soley by 'nurture' or 'culture'; yet not gays. Interesting hypocrisy in action.

 

[1549]

1549

You failed to say WHY she brought up Darwinism belief, as I'm sure you are aware of it. As you said, I'm a conservative and I believe Darwinism is at the very least a good hypothesis of how life got to the point it is now, not created however.

Coulter's point is that many liberals use science to bolster their arguments, but discount it when it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of explanation for measurable/observable phenonema. For instance, a belief in Darwinism, including a 'gay gene'; yet no differences to be accepted between men and women, though numerous studies have shown there are definate differences, beyond reproduction. Larry Summers lost the presidency of Harvard after even entertaining such a thought. These kinds of differences are explained soley by 'nurture' or 'culture'; yet not gays. Interesting hypocrisy in action.

Regardless of physiological differences between men and women, would you agree that both should be given equal rights and opportunities?

 

[Annie]

Regardless of physiological differences between men and women, would you agree that both should be given equal rights and opportunities?

That's another thread, don't change the subject.

 

[1549]

That's another thread, don't change the subject.

No, it is relevant.

What we have here is physiological differences between straight men, straight women, gay men, gay women, whites, blacks, latinos, asians, etc.

In the end, despite their differences, all deserve the same treatment from our country's laws.

Ms. Coulter only brought up the gay issue to get a rise out of the average middle-American family that may shy away from anything associated with homosexuals. Ann Coulter is a Manhattanite, it would be impossible for her not to encounter gays on a regular basis. I really doubt that she personally has anything against them, but she will instead associate only liberals with gays...she has to please any gay-hating readers.

 

[Annie]

No, it is relevant.

What we have here is physiological differences between straight men, straight women, gay men, gay women, whites, blacks, latinos, asians, etc.

In the end, despite their differences, all deserve the same treatment from our country's laws.

Ms. Coulter only brought up the gay issue to get a rise out of the average middle-American family that may shy away from anything associated with homosexuals. Ann Coulter is a Manhattanite, it would be impossible for her not to encounter gays on a regular basis. I really doubt that she personally has anything against them, but she will instead associate only liberals with gays...she has to please any gay-hating readers.

The point was not about gays, but about science. Stick with the topic, please.

 

[1549]

The point was not about gays, but about science. Stick with the topic, please.

We were talking about the science of gays if I am not mistaken (which I may be)...

 

[Mr. P]

We were talking about the science of gays if I am not mistaken (which I may be)...

The day will come you’ll learn that, EVERY young liberal is mistaken, Happens round about 30.

 

[Annie]

We were talking about the science of gays if I am not mistaken (which I may be)...

Let's try again. Coulter's point, (I'll generalize, as she does):

1. Liberals hate science, with certain exceptions, i.e., Darwinism over 'trash science' ID and 'Gay' genetics.

2. The 'proof' of hypocrisy is while acknowledging there are x and y chromosomes and that only women can become pregnant; liberals fail to accept all scientific proof to date that women are better at language; worse at math. Again, heavy generalization but does follow that since there has been no 'Gay gene' discovered, the same explanation for other 'differences' may also have yet been discovered.

3. We are supposed to make laws based on 'acceptance' of Gay gene theory; yet Larry Summers was routed from his position on the same type of logic the same liberals would want accepted for the 'Gay' rules.

 

[1549]

If you meant to discuss strictly evolution, that is fine. Most people either accept it or they don't.

More than a few Americans do accept it and it is not a belief that has anything to do with the democratic party. That takes me back to my beef with Ann Coulter, attack the issues. Don't go after the democratic party by implying that they are nothing but a bunch of Godless darwin-loving atheists.

That would be just another screaming falsity used to rally the troops against those damned heathens on the left.

 

[Annie]

If you meant to discuss strictly evolution, that is fine. Most people either accept it or they don't.

More than a few Americans do accept it and it is not a belief that has anything to do with the democratic party. That takes me back to my beef with Ann Coulter, attack the issues. Don't go after the democratic party by implying that they are nothing but a bunch of Godless darwin-loving atheists.

That would be just another screaming falsity used to rally the troops against those damned heathens on the left.

Are you having problems reading? I earlier said that I thought Darwinism is at least a partial explanation for why living things are as they are.

 

[1549]

Let's try again. Coulter's point, (I'll generalize, as she does):

1. Liberals hate science, with certain exceptions, i.e., Darwinism over 'trash science' ID and 'Gay' genetics.

2. The 'proof' of hypocrisy is while acknowledging there are x and y chromosomes and that only women can become pregnant; liberals fail to accept all scientific proof to date that women are better at language; worse at math. Again, heavy generalization but does follow that since there has been no 'Gay gene' discovered, the same explanation for other 'differences' may also have yet been discovered.

3. We are supposed to make laws based on 'acceptance' of Gay gene theory; yet Larry Summers was routed from his position on the same type of logic the same liberals would want accepted for the 'Gay' rules.

Ann Coulter's whole point is mostly generalization. The differences between men and women are taught in school. For example, this year in my psych class we were taught that women are genetically 'clingy' to males. It has to do with a biological need for security.

Perhaps some liberals believe such differences between men and women do not exist...but it is being taught in the classroom, so to say that all of them refute the ideas would be a lie.

Liberals are most up in arms are when such differences are the basis of prejudice or sexist practices. Most do not have a problem with the existence of such theories, as long as treatment remains equal. I can not comment on the Larry Summers case because I am not familiar with it, however sometimes the way things are said can lead to someone being chased out of a job. His approach may have been sexist, but I am not familiar with the case so I really do not know.

 

[Annie]

Ann Coulter's whole point is mostly generalization. The differences between men and women are taught in school. For example, this year in my psych class we were taught that women are genetically 'clingy' to males. It has to do with a biological need for security.

Perhaps some liberals believe such differences between men and women do not exist...but it is being taught in the classroom, so to say that all of them refute the ideas would be a lie.

Liberals are most up in arms are when such differences are the basis of prejudice or sexist practices. Most do not have a problem with the existence of such theories, as long as treatment remains equal. I can not comment on the Larry Summers case because I am not familiar with it, however sometimes the way things are said can lead to someone being chased out of a job. His approach may have been sexist, but I am not familiar with the case so I really do not know.

Well there you are, making the 'culture' argument, though you certainly seem to buy into the Gay gene argument, away from culture or nurture. So you did understand the first post and just wanted to make the thread more convoluted.

 

[1549]

Well there you are, making the 'culture' argument, though you certainly seem to buy into the Gay gene argument, away from culture or nurture. So you did understand the first post and just wanted to make the thread more convoluted.

Exactly what makes me a troll?

 

[Annie]

Exactly what makes me a troll?

From the post of mine:

So you did understand the first post and just wanted to make the thread more convoluted.