I took the challenge and read Mugged

[Taz]

She uses words like this: Neurotic nuts. Drama queen, thy name is liberal. Liberals lie about history by manipulating words. Liberals are for race discrimination..

Ann Coulter is spot on. .....

Ann Coulter doesn't even wear a hijab and you support her? Shows what a fake fucking muslim you are.

 

[jillian]

So, I took the challenge and read Mugged, by Ann Coulter. My first takeaway is the author’s obvious disgust and disdain for all things liberal. She uses words like this: Neurotic nuts. Drama queen, thy name is liberal. Liberals lie about history by manipulating words. Liberals are for race discrimination. Since that was the overarching theme of the book, I realized that everything she said, cited or quoted was going to be used to prove her strongly held conviction that liberals are wrong.

She says in part: “The century-long struggle for civil rights was over. Attorney Thurgood Marshall had won his cases before the Supreme Court. It was over. For the next two decades liberals engaged in a ritualistic reenactment of the struggle for civil rights – long after it had any relevance to what was happening in the world. Their obsession with race was weirdly disconnected from actual causes and plausible remedies. While liberals spent the decades after the civil rights era pretending they were fighting 1962 battles – the rest of us had to live through race riots, denunciations of the police, extreme restrictions on speech, liberal racial pandering and a stream of racial Armageddon. From race riots to race hoaxes to the automatic excuse machine for black criminals, the country had gone mad.”

She proceeds to talk about the accusations of racism that turned out to be hoaxes and cases where the media hid or distorted information. An example is the Rodney King beating where she declares that if everyone had seen the entire video, the part where King lunges at the officers, things would have turned out differently. I’m not so sure about that. There’s no way the Black community would have accepted that beating as justified. As a white person, seeing that portion would not make me say, "Well, I see now why they had to beat him nearly to death."

She also talks about the George Zimmerman phone call to police being edited to make it look like he was racist. I do, however, remember hearing the part where he tells the dispatcher he’s going to go after the guy and is told “We don’t need you to do that,” and he proceeds to do it anyway.

Some of the racism cases were, according to Ann, proven to be hoaxes. I don’t disagree with that. Some were. Her point, however, is that the debunking of the story, even if it’s months or years later, does not get the media attention that the initial case got. I think that’s the case with any news story. People’s memories are short and we tend to want “up to the minute” information, not old, hashed over stuff. There are even such cases today. But I personally don’t believe there is an overabundance of them. And I don’t believe that false cases ever nullify the existence of real ones.

As for the civil rights struggle being over and liberals trying to bring it back from the grave, I have to disagree. Perhaps for some, the civil rights issue had been laid to rest by the passing of a few laws. However, I know many people for whom the words are still stuck on the page.

There's much more to the book and one part about certain southern people from the Celtic fringe that I found fascinating and may comment on later.

why would you be "challenged" to read the coultergeist's bigoted hate-filled screed?

Someone posted that we should read it and he was getting all negative responses. I decided I should give him the respect of reading something he obviously felt very strongly about. I didn't know much about her and wanted to be able to give an informed response to his comments.

again, why would you "respect" someone who told you to read Annie coultergeist's racist screed?

one doesn't need to be further "informed" about what white supremacists scream about.

 

[Correll]

So, I took the challenge and read Mugged, by Ann Coulter. My first takeaway is the author’s obvious disgust and disdain for all things liberal. She uses words like this: Neurotic nuts. Drama queen, thy name is liberal. Liberals lie about history by manipulating words. Liberals are for race discrimination. Since that was the overarching theme of the book, I realized that everything she said, cited or quoted was going to be used to prove her strongly held conviction that liberals are wrong.

She says in part: “The century-long struggle for civil rights was over. Attorney Thurgood Marshall had won his cases before the Supreme Court. It was over. For the next two decades liberals engaged in a ritualistic reenactment of the struggle for civil rights – long after it had any relevance to what was happening in the world. Their obsession with race was weirdly disconnected from actual causes and plausible remedies. While liberals spent the decades after the civil rights era pretending they were fighting 1962 battles – the rest of us had to live through race riots, denunciations of the police, extreme restrictions on speech, liberal racial pandering and a stream of racial Armageddon. From race riots to race hoaxes to the automatic excuse machine for black criminals, the country had gone mad.”

She proceeds to talk about the accusations of racism that turned out to be hoaxes and cases where the media hid or distorted information. An example is the Rodney King beating where she declares that if everyone had seen the entire video, the part where King lunges at the officers, things would have turned out differently. I’m not so sure about that. There’s no way the Black community would have accepted that beating as justified. As a white person, seeing that portion would not make me say, "Well, I see now why they had to beat him nearly to death."

She also talks about the George Zimmerman phone call to police being edited to make it look like he was racist. I do, however, remember hearing the part where he tells the dispatcher he’s going to go after the guy and is told “We don’t need you to do that,” and he proceeds to do it anyway.

Some of the racism cases were, according to Ann, proven to be hoaxes. I don’t disagree with that. Some were. Her point, however, is that the debunking of the story, even if it’s months or years later, does not get the media attention that the initial case got. I think that’s the case with any news story. People’s memories are short and we tend to want “up to the minute” information, not old, hashed over stuff. There are even such cases today. But I personally don’t believe there is an overabundance of them. And I don’t believe that false cases ever nullify the existence of real ones.

As for the civil rights struggle being over and liberals trying to bring it back from the grave, I have to disagree. Perhaps for some, the civil rights issue had been laid to rest by the passing of a few laws. However, I know many people for whom the words are still stuck on the page.

There's much more to the book and one part about certain southern people from the Celtic fringe that I found fascinating and may comment on later.

why would you be "challenged" to read the coultergeist's bigoted hate-filled screed?

Someone posted that we should read it and he was getting all negative responses. I decided I should give him the respect of reading something he obviously felt very strongly about. I didn't know much about her and wanted to be able to give an informed response to his comments.

again, why would you "respect" someone who told you to read Annie coultergeist's racist screed?

one doesn't need to be further "informed" about what white supremacists scream about.

Calling people you don't like racist, haven't you learned yet that that doesn't work anymore?


No one, not even yourself, believes that shit anymore.

 

[BlackSand]

Calling people you don't like racist, haven't you learned yet that that doesn't work anymore?
No one, not even yourself, believes that shit anymore.

Perhaps you are just setting the bar a little high for Jillian ...

.

 

[Correll]

Calling people you don't like racist, haven't you learned yet that that doesn't work anymore?
No one, not even yourself, believes that shit anymore.

Perhaps you are just setting the bar a little high for Jillian ...

.

She is an adult human being.


She should have the ability to learn from constant failure.

 

[BlackSand]

She is an adult human being.


She should have the ability to learn from constant failure.

Lol ... If all the ifs, coulds and shoulds were candy and nuts ... It would be Christmas all year.

.

 

[Correll]

She is an adult human being.


She should have the ability to learn from constant failure.

Lol ... If all the ifs, coulds and shoulds were candy and nuts ... It would be Christmas all year.

.

When I have the time to waste, I will still be calling on her idiocy, in hopes of a miracle.

 

[Dr Grump]

When I have the time to waste, I will still be calling on her idiocy, in hopes of a miracle.

You'd be best served to try and get your own stupidity sorted first...Then again, having the IQ of a lobotomised rabbit means that'll never happen.

 

[Correll]

When I have the time to waste, I will still be calling on her idiocy, in hopes of a miracle.

You'd be best served to try and get your own stupidity sorted first...Then again, having the IQ of a lobotomised rabbit means that'll never happen.

SHe's still calling people "racist" as though she's expecting that to mean anything anymore.


Generations of race baiting assholes like her, falsely accusing anyone they didn't like on the most absurd excuses, while giving people they did like, complete passes.


has revealed such race baiters to be nothing but lying assholes.


That you are telling yourself the I am stupid, is just a pathetic coping mechanism of a lefty who doesn't want to face up to the fact that his favorite toy (the race card) is broken beyond repair.


Deal with it lefty.

 

[LOIE]

So, I took the challenge and read Mugged, by Ann Coulter. My first takeaway is the author’s obvious disgust and disdain for all things liberal. She uses words like this: Neurotic nuts. Drama queen, thy name is liberal. Liberals lie about history by manipulating words. Liberals are for race discrimination. Since that was the overarching theme of the book, I realized that everything she said, cited or quoted was going to be used to prove her strongly held conviction that liberals are wrong.

She says in part: “The century-long struggle for civil rights was over. Attorney Thurgood Marshall had won his cases before the Supreme Court. It was over. For the next two decades liberals engaged in a ritualistic reenactment of the struggle for civil rights – long after it had any relevance to what was happening in the world. Their obsession with race was weirdly disconnected from actual causes and plausible remedies. While liberals spent the decades after the civil rights era pretending they were fighting 1962 battles – the rest of us had to live through race riots, denunciations of the police, extreme restrictions on speech, liberal racial pandering and a stream of racial Armageddon. From race riots to race hoaxes to the automatic excuse machine for black criminals, the country had gone mad.”

She proceeds to talk about the accusations of racism that turned out to be hoaxes and cases where the media hid or distorted information. An example is the Rodney King beating where she declares that if everyone had seen the entire video, the part where King lunges at the officers, things would have turned out differently. I’m not so sure about that. There’s no way the Black community would have accepted that beating as justified. As a white person, seeing that portion would not make me say, "Well, I see now why they had to beat him nearly to death."

She also talks about the George Zimmerman phone call to police being edited to make it look like he was racist. I do, however, remember hearing the part where he tells the dispatcher he’s going to go after the guy and is told “We don’t need you to do that,” and he proceeds to do it anyway.

Some of the racism cases were, according to Ann, proven to be hoaxes. I don’t disagree with that. Some were. Her point, however, is that the debunking of the story, even if it’s months or years later, does not get the media attention that the initial case got. I think that’s the case with any news story. People’s memories are short and we tend to want “up to the minute” information, not old, hashed over stuff. There are even such cases today. But I personally don’t believe there is an overabundance of them. And I don’t believe that false cases ever nullify the existence of real ones.

As for the civil rights struggle being over and liberals trying to bring it back from the grave, I have to disagree. Perhaps for some, the civil rights issue had been laid to rest by the passing of a few laws. However, I know many people for whom the words are still stuck on the page.

There's much more to the book and one part about certain southern people from the Celtic fringe that I found fascinating and may comment on later.

why would you be "challenged" to read the coultergeist's bigoted hate-filled screed?

Someone posted that we should read it and he was getting all negative responses. I decided I should give him the respect of reading something he obviously felt very strongly about. I didn't know much about her and wanted to be able to give an informed response to his comments.

again, why would you "respect" someone who told you to read Annie coultergeist's racist screed?

one doesn't need to be further "informed" about what white supremacists scream about.

Like I said, I really didn't know anything about her and I have to respect a person's right to believe whatever they choose, even when I disagree with them. But if I'm going to disagree I want to do so with knowledge and a certain degree of understanding rather than making assumptions.