Ann Coulter

[kwc57]

You don't listen to Her or Read Her, yet You know that She has no Original Thoughts? Really? You do have the Right to Criticize her and put her on ignore, however that disqualifies you on any credibility on content, doesn't it now. Why criticize what you have no knowledge or awareness of?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'll post my second sentence again.

After having seen way to much of her and reading some of her stuff, I refuse to read her columns, buy her books, listen to her on the radio or watch her on TV......the same as Moore.

I'm quite familar with her "work"..........which is why I no longer pay it any attention. Same goes for Jerry Springer. I don't have to continue watching him to know his schtick is shit and he appeals to the lowest common denominator.

You No longer listen to or read Her work, therefore have nothing relevant to say concerning Her or Her Work. Got it the first time Thank You.

Tell me, have you seen Moore's newest movie?

 

[Justin Case]

You do realize that Anne Knew Barbara Olson Personally. This Statement was made 9/14/2001, three days after the attack. NYC was still Partially Quarantined. Many of us lost friends and family in the attack.

My personal View is to See Islam accept Individual Liberty and Equal Protection under The Law, To Acknowledge Inalienable Rights, Until it does that, The World is Not Safe from Abuse. That Is where I differ From Anne. I believe that the Words You use when You Pray, are Between You and God, by What Ever Name You call Him.

Had the Attacks continued, had the Terrorism Escalated, I have No Doubt that Our Militarywould have Responded Accordingly. No Doubt at all.

Context. You are lacking it right now.

You aren't going to see Islam accept or respect individual liberty and equal protection. Same for inalienable rights...They do not respect such freedoms.

Could you not say the same about some groups of Christian fundamentalists?

The Koran rules their lives and Muslims demand respect from others but will not give respect in return.

Again...could you not say the same about Christian fundamentalists and the Bible?

It's all about how literally (or not) people interpret these holy books and the degree to which they allow that interpretation to rule their lives. Christianity can be, and has been, just as dangerous in this respect as Islam. I'll be the first to admit that I believe that Islam played a role in the attacks and continues to play a role in the conflict in the Middle East today...but is converting them to Christianity by force the answer to the problem?

No, you can't lump Christian fundamentalists in with Islam and the Koran. Christian fundamentalists are a small faction of Christianity and they exclude themselves from mainstream Christianity by choice.

Islam is an entire political, judicial, an social cult that demands absolute submission and loyalty of Muslims. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, Muslims seek to make Islam the dominating force all over the world. They want sharia law to take the place of current judicial systems. Muslims are getting this in England, which is a huge mistake by the Brits.

Nothing in Christianity compares to the all-inclusive nature while excluding or enslaving others as called for in Islam from the Koran.

 

[Father Time]

What is with you guys? Are you just completely opposed to rational discussion? All you do is villify those who speak ideas you don't like. Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. You dont actually deal with a single solitary argument you make. It's all personal attacks.

What's even more amazing most of you hate these people without listening to a single word they say or reading a single word they wrote. So you dont want to give your money to them. Go to the library. I didnt want to give my money to Ann, i went to the library. I didnt want to give my money to Obama, I went to the library.

You have to read things you dont necessarily agree with to actually speak intelligently on the subject. Ive read countless points of view from various people good and bad. Some of the ideas have been vile. But even being well read, I am not going to pretend fully understand what they are saying. They are the only ones who ever will. Yet you guys know what they say and villify them without knowing a thing. It's mindboggling.

So call Ann all the names you want. Call anyone else whatever names you wont. They arent going to make you any smarter. They arent going to convince anyone that you are correct. They will just make you look cowardly and stupid.

Ann Coulter is a far cry from rational discussion she spews hate and nonsense. I skimmed one of her books and found an idea that Obama controlled the media in the election and that he could've stopped them from doing ... something.

Yes conspiracy theorists are so rational aren't they.

 

[Father Time]

You don't listen to Her or Read Her, yet You know that She has no Original Thoughts? Really? You do have the Right to Criticize her and put her on ignore, however that disqualifies you on any credibility on content, doesn't it now. Why criticize what you have no knowledge or awareness of?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'll post my second sentence again.

After having seen way to much of her and reading some of her stuff, I refuse to read her columns, buy her books, listen to her on the radio or watch her on TV......the same as Moore.

I'm quite familar with her "work"..........which is why I no longer pay it any attention. Same goes for Jerry Springer. I don't have to continue watching him to know his schtick is shit and he appeals to the lowest common denominator.

You No longer listen to or read Her work, therefore have nothing relevant to say concerning Her or Her Work. Got it the first time Thank You.

That's like saying you can't criticize Islam if you aren't a Muslim or haven't read the entire qu'ran cover to cover.

Also it's ad hominem as well.

We don't need to read all her stuff to criticize arguments she has already made and if she really has changed she sure isn't advertising the fact.

 

[barry1960]

You aren't going to see Islam accept or respect individual liberty and equal protection. Same for inalienable rights...They do not respect such freedoms.

Could you not say the same about some groups of Christian fundamentalists?

The Koran rules their lives and Muslims demand respect from others but will not give respect in return.

Again...could you not say the same about Christian fundamentalists and the Bible?

It's all about how literally (or not) people interpret these holy books and the degree to which they allow that interpretation to rule their lives. Christianity can be, and has been, just as dangerous in this respect as Islam. I'll be the first to admit that I believe that Islam played a role in the attacks and continues to play a role in the conflict in the Middle East today...but is converting them to Christianity by force the answer to the problem?

No, you can't lump Christian fundamentalists in with Islam and the Koran. Christian fundamentalists are a small faction of Christianity and they exclude themselves from mainstream Christianity by choice.

Islam is an entire political, judicial, an social cult that demands absolute submission and loyalty of Muslims. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, Muslims seek to make Islam the dominating force all over the world. They want sharia law to take the place of current judicial systems. Muslims are getting this in England, which is a huge mistake by the Brits.

Nothing in Christianity compares to the all-inclusive nature while excluding or enslaving others as called for in Islam from the Koran.

Maybe someone would like to provide a definition for Christian Fundamentalist. I consider myself to be a Christian Fundamentalist. Never have I consider flying planes into buildings, bombing innocents or forcing others to worship God in the manner I presribe.
Nor do I consider myself excluded from main stream Christianity. I sure hope that I am not just part of a small fraction of Christianity.

 

[Intense]

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'll post my second sentence again.

After having seen way to much of her and reading some of her stuff, I refuse to read her columns, buy her books, listen to her on the radio or watch her on TV......the same as Moore.

I'm quite familar with her "work"..........which is why I no longer pay it any attention. Same goes for Jerry Springer. I don't have to continue watching him to know his schtick is shit and he appeals to the lowest common denominator.

You No longer listen to or read Her work, therefore have nothing relevant to say concerning Her or Her Work. Got it the first time Thank You.

Tell me, have you seen Moore's newest movie?

No ... And I have No comment on it... Hint, Hint.

 

[Intense]

You aren't going to see Islam accept or respect individual liberty and equal protection. Same for inalienable rights...They do not respect such freedoms.

Could you not say the same about some groups of Christian fundamentalists?

The Koran rules their lives and Muslims demand respect from others but will not give respect in return.

Again...could you not say the same about Christian fundamentalists and the Bible?

It's all about how literally (or not) people interpret these holy books and the degree to which they allow that interpretation to rule their lives. Christianity can be, and has been, just as dangerous in this respect as Islam. I'll be the first to admit that I believe that Islam played a role in the attacks and continues to play a role in the conflict in the Middle East today...but is converting them to Christianity by force the answer to the problem?

No, you can't lump Christian fundamentalists in with Islam and the Koran. Christian fundamentalists are a small faction of Christianity and they exclude themselves from mainstream Christianity by choice.

Islam is an entire political, judicial, an social cult that demands absolute submission and loyalty of Muslims. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, Muslims seek to make Islam the dominating force all over the world. They want sharia law to take the place of current judicial systems. Muslims are getting this in England, which is a huge mistake by the Brits.

Nothing in Christianity compares to the all-inclusive nature while excluding or enslaving others as called for in Islam from the Koran.

Islam is Totalitarian, Christianity is Anti-Totalitarian.

 

[Intense]

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'll post my second sentence again.

After having seen way to much of her and reading some of her stuff, I refuse to read her columns, buy her books, listen to her on the radio or watch her on TV......the same as Moore.

I'm quite familar with her "work"..........which is why I no longer pay it any attention. Same goes for Jerry Springer. I don't have to continue watching him to know his schtick is shit and he appeals to the lowest common denominator.

You No longer listen to or read Her work, therefore have nothing relevant to say concerning Her or Her Work. Got it the first time Thank You.

That's like saying you can't criticize Islam if you aren't a Muslim or haven't read the entire qu'ran cover to cover.

Also it's ad hominem as well.

We don't need to read all her stuff to criticize arguments she has already made and if she really has changed she sure isn't advertising the fact.

An Honest Perspective. When Ann has something Relevant I hear it. I won't comment on something I have no current Information on. Thats all. Look at Glenn Beck. He has said some Fucked up shit in the past. Have you seen the cover to his new book? Messed up. Look at the effect of what Glenn has just contributed to uncovering relating to the Czars and ACORN. Two Grand Slams. I hope He keeps the Howard Beale Persona, if he starts taking Trumpet lessons I may pull a kwc57 on him.

 

[Justin Case]

Could you not say the same about some groups of Christian fundamentalists?



Again...could you not say the same about Christian fundamentalists and the Bible?

It's all about how literally (or not) people interpret these holy books and the degree to which they allow that interpretation to rule their lives. Christianity can be, and has been, just as dangerous in this respect as Islam. I'll be the first to admit that I believe that Islam played a role in the attacks and continues to play a role in the conflict in the Middle East today...but is converting them to Christianity by force the answer to the problem?

No, you can't lump Christian fundamentalists in with Islam and the Koran. Christian fundamentalists are a small faction of Christianity and they exclude themselves from mainstream Christianity by choice.

Islam is an entire political, judicial, an social cult that demands absolute submission and loyalty of Muslims. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, Muslims seek to make Islam the dominating force all over the world. They want sharia law to take the place of current judicial systems. Muslims are getting this in England, which is a huge mistake by the Brits.

Nothing in Christianity compares to the all-inclusive nature while excluding or enslaving others as called for in Islam from the Koran.

Maybe someone would like to provide a definition for Christian Fundamentalist. I consider myself to be a Christian Fundamentalist. Never have I consider flying planes into buildings, bombing innocents or forcing others to worship God in the manner I presribe.
Nor do I consider myself excluded from main stream Christianity. I sure hope that I am not just part of a small fraction of Christianity.

Good point. To me, a Christian fundamentalist is another name for an extremist. Like the Westwood church that shows up at the burial services of our soldiers with their signs of "Thank God for dead soldiers" and so on. Keep in mind that my definition is not meant to be authoritative, just how I see it.

 

[Intense]

movement in American Protestantism that arose in the late 19th century in reaction to theological modernism, which aimed to revise traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate new developments in the natural and social sciences, especially the advent of the theory of biological evolution. In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the mission of Jesus Christ, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists affirmed a core of Christian beliefs that included the historical accuracy of the Bible, the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s Virgin Birth, Resurrection (see resurrection), and Atonement (see atonement). Fundamentalism became a significant phenomenon in the early 20th century and remained an influential movement in American society into the 21st century. See also Evangelical church.


Fundamentalist worship practices, which are heavily influenced by revivalism, usually feature a sermon with congregational singing and prayer, though there can be considerable variation from denomination to denomination. Although fundamentalists are not notably ascetic, they do observe certain prohibitions. Most fundamentalists do not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, dance, or attend movies or plays. At most fundamentalist schools and institutes, these practices are strictly forbidden.

Origins
During the 19th century, major challenges to traditional Christian teachings arose on several fronts. Geologic discoveries revealed that the Earth was far older than the few thousand years suggested by a literal reading of the biblical book of Genesis. The work of Charles Darwin (1809–82) and his colleagues established that human beings as a species had emerged over millions of years through a process of evolution, rather than suddenly by divine fiat. Social scientists and philosophers influenced by Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) advocated a parallel theory of progressive social evolution that refuted the traditional religious understanding of human sin, which was predicated on the notion that, after the fall from grace, the human condition was corrupt beyond repair. Meanwhile, some ministers in various denominations ceased to emphasize the conversion of individuals to the religious life and instead propounded a “social gospel” that viewed progressive social change as a means of building the kingdom of God on Earth.

A more direct challenge to traditional Christianity came from scholars who adopted a critical and historical approach to studying and interpreting the Bible. This perspective, known as modernism, treated the books of the Bible—especially the first five (the Pentateuch)—not as simple documents written by a single author but as complex texts constructed by multiple authors from several older sources. Although modernism offered a solution to many problems posed by seemingly contradictory biblical passages, it also raised severe doubts about the historical accuracy of the biblical text, leading scholars to revise the traditional history of the biblical era and to reconsider the nature of biblical authority. (For a discussion of modernism in the history of Roman Catholicism, see Modernism.)

The issue of biblical authority was crucial to American Protestantism, which had inherited the fundamental doctrine of sola Scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone&#8221 as enunciated by Martin Luther (1483–1546) and other 16th-century Reformers. Thus, any challenge to scriptural integrity had the potential to undermine Christianity as they understood and practiced it. In response to this challenge, theologians at the Princeton Theological Seminary argued for the verbal (word-for-word) inspiration of Scripture and affirmed that the Bible was not only infallible (correct when it spoke on matters of faith and morals) but inerrant (correct when it spoke on any matters, including history and science).

As the theologians at Princeton developed their new approach, John Nelson Darby, one of the earliest leaders of the Plymouth Brethren (a British free church movement emphasizing biblical prophecy and the Second Coming of Christ), introduced a very different theological perspective, called dispensationalism. First taught to the Brethren in the mid-19th century, dispensationalism maintained that history is divided into distinct periods, or “dispensations,” during which God acts in different ways toward his chosen people. The present period, according to dispensationalism, was one of expectant waiting for the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Dispensationalists believed in an apocalyptic millennialism that foretold the Rapture (the bodily rescue of the chosen by God) and the subsequent cataclysmic events of the Last Days, such as the persecutions by the Antichrist and the Battle of Armageddon (see also eschatology).

Christian fundamentalism (American Protestant movement) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

 

[kwc57]

You No longer listen to or read Her work, therefore have nothing relevant to say concerning Her or Her Work. Got it the first time Thank You.

Tell me, have you seen Moore's newest movie?

No ... And I have No comment on it... Hint, Hint.

You still don't get it. While I refuse to help line her pocketbook, I'm fully aware of what she says and writes by the quotes and commentary of others in the media. A doctor doesn't have to examine the whole body to squeeze a zit on the patient's ass.

 

[Intense]

Tell me, have you seen Moore's newest movie?

No ... And I have No comment on it... Hint, Hint.

You still don't get it. While I refuse to help line her pocketbook, I'm fully aware of what she says and writes by the quotes and commentary of others in the media. A doctor doesn't have to examine the whole body to squeeze a zit on the patient's ass.

Kwc57, We are just playing with words at this point. Pretty much on the same side on allot of things. She is a minor player to you. why so harsh? Whatever. What ever floats your boat.

 

[Douger]

She, just like Soros, or Gore, or Moore, is entitled to Voice. Go fall on your sword somewhere else, or just join Specter. It's harsh, I admit, but why do you throw stones when you could just flip the channel. Libs don't need encouragement.

I do flip the channel. After having seen way to much of her and reading some of her stuff, I refuse to read her columns, buy her books, listen to her on the radio or watch her on TV......the same as Moore. She has no original thoughts, doesn't actually have any ideas that advance the conservative cause and is little more than an attack dog who uses gotcha tactics to score points for her team. Her only interest is self promotion and making bucks off the low brows who soak up her hate like a sponge. I'll take a Pat Buchanan, George Will or Peggy Noonan over an Ann Coulter any day of the week. Our nation faces some great challenges. Playground rhetoric and tactics do absolutely nothing to provoke reasoned thought to solve those challenges. Conservatism is better than what Ann Coulter has to sell. She is just as free to sell her soap as Moore is and I support their right to do so. I also reserve the right to criticize both and put them on ignore.

You don't listen to Her or Read Her, yet You know that She has no Original Thoughts? Really? You do have the Right to Criticize her and put her on ignore, however that disqualifies you on any credibility on content, doesn't it now. Why criticize what you have no knowledge or awareness of?

Here is the princess of the illiterate, trailer dwelling wonders in the fallen Empire.
Ah . In all glory.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmcZG87Fmxc]YouTube - Ann Coulter, Canada, & Vietnam[/ame]

 

[barry1960]

No, you can't lump Christian fundamentalists in with Islam and the Koran. Christian fundamentalists are a small faction of Christianity and they exclude themselves from mainstream Christianity by choice.

Islam is an entire political, judicial, an social cult that demands absolute submission and loyalty of Muslims. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, Muslims seek to make Islam the dominating force all over the world. They want sharia law to take the place of current judicial systems. Muslims are getting this in England, which is a huge mistake by the Brits.

Nothing in Christianity compares to the all-inclusive nature while excluding or enslaving others as called for in Islam from the Koran.

Maybe someone would like to provide a definition for Christian Fundamentalist. I consider myself to be a Christian Fundamentalist. Never have I consider flying planes into buildings, bombing innocents or forcing others to worship God in the manner I presribe.

Nor do I consider myself excluded from main stream Christianity. I sure hope that I am not just part of a small fraction of Christianity.

Good point. To me, a Christian fundamentalist is another name for an extremist. Like the Westwood church that shows up at the burial services of our soldiers with their signs of "Thank God for dead soldiers" and so on. Keep in mind that my definition is not meant to be authoritative, just how I see it.

Thank you. That clarifies things. Since I have not shown up at burial services with any signs it looks like I do not fall into the category of Christian Fundamentalist (or extremist) by your thinking. I am assuming the Christian extremist includes blowing up abortion clinics and the like.

I still consider myself a Christian Fundamentalist and how extreme are my beliefs might differ in the eye of the beholder. I believe the Bible is the inspired word or God, the salvation through Jesus is the only way to heaven, that homosexuality is wrong, as well as sex outside of marriage. I believe in a heaven and a hell. I believe that man was created by God, but I leave room for a non-literal translation of Genesis 1-2 (it is kind of hard to scientifically support that world is only 4017 years old or so).

Some might find these beliefs extreme, hateful or non-tolerant, but that is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Intense]

Maybe someone would like to provide a definition for Christian Fundamentalist. I consider myself to be a Christian Fundamentalist. Never have I consider flying planes into buildings, bombing innocents or forcing others to worship God in the manner I presribe.

Nor do I consider myself excluded from main stream Christianity. I sure hope that I am not just part of a small fraction of Christianity.

Good point. To me, a Christian fundamentalist is another name for an extremist. Like the Westwood church that shows up at the burial services of our soldiers with their signs of "Thank God for dead soldiers" and so on. Keep in mind that my definition is not meant to be authoritative, just how I see it.

Thank you. That clarifies things. Since I have not shown up at burial services with any signs it looks like I do not fall into the category of Christian Fundamentalist (or extremist) by your thinking. I am assuming the Christian extremist includes blowing up abortion clinics and the like.

I still consider myself a Christian Fundamentalist and how extreme are my beliefs might differ in the eye of the beholder. I believe the Bible is the inspired word or God, the salvation through Jesus is the only way to heaven, that homosexuality is wrong, as well as sex outside of marriage. I believe in a heaven and a hell. I believe that man was created by God, but I leave room for a non-literal translation of Genesis 1-2 (it is kind of hard to scientifically support that world is only 4017 years old or so).

Some might find these beliefs extreme, hateful or non-tolerant, but that is in the eye of the beholder.

Good description. Literal Translation, short version.
That is also where I differ. Here is a Fantastic Bible Link, great search Reference.

Welcome to Holy Bible the site dedicated to God's word. check out the Online KJV (King James Version) bible and a search.

 

[deanrd]

If you say anything critical of Ann or something she’s written on her Twitter account you are immediately banned.

So you ask why hasn’t Trump or Pence or when Ryan was speaker ban people who write things they don’t like?

It’s called “free-speech”.

You know Trump looked into it. He hates when anyone criticizes him.

 

[kwc57]

If you say anything critical of Ann or something she’s written on her Twitter account you are immediately banned.

So you ask why hasn’t Trump or Pence or when Ryan was speaker ban people who write things they don’t like?

It’s called “free-speech”.

You know Trump looked into it. He hates when anyone criticizes him.

Its a sign of desperation when you comment on a 10 year old thread. Get a life Deanna.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What is with you guys? Are you just completely opposed to rational discussion? All you do is villify those who speak ideas you don't like. Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. You dont actually deal with a single solitary argument you make. It's all personal attacks.

What's even more amazing most of you hate these people without listening to a single word they say or reading a single word they wrote. So you dont want to give your money to them. Go to the library. I didnt want to give my money to Ann, i went to the library. I didnt want to give my money to Obama, I went to the library.

You have to read things you dont necessarily agree with to actually speak intelligently on the subject. Ive read countless points of view from various people good and bad. Some of the ideas have been vile. But even being well read, I am not going to pretend fully understand what they are saying. They are the only ones who ever will. Yet you guys know what they say and villify them without knowing a thing. It's mindboggling.

So call Ann all the names you want. Call anyone else whatever names you wont. They arent going to make you any smarter. They arent going to convince anyone that you are correct. They will just make you look cowardly and stupid.

So what's this slick?

When that book first came out I used to go to the libray and read it.

I think I read about the first 4 chapters.

After that I skimmed the rest.

Very vile, although in an entertaining manner.

People who are actual fans of Coulter are the most hateful people in the world IMO.

I also watch FOXNews...a lot (actually watching it right now) I know what's coming from The Right. Its MOSTLY fear and hate peddling. And lies, lots and lots and lots of lies. This has been proven time and again.

Libray? Is that a Liberal Library?

 

[Marion Morrison]

@rDerp bumps 10-year old thread....expects replies from participants.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If you say anything critical of Ann or something she’s written on her Twitter account you are immediately banned.

So you ask why hasn’t Trump or Pence or when Ryan was speaker ban people who write things they don’t like?

It’s called “free-speech”.

You know Trump looked into it. He hates when anyone criticizes him.

TDS in full effect. Thread is about Coulter and Deantard makes it about Trump. LOL.