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

[MissileMan]

Why yes he did. I think they even had a national health and child care program, not to mention free abortion and methodon clinics. His standing army really suffered in light of all his social spending. Mighty fine transport system too.

You left out the Orgy Workers' and Gladiators' Retirement Fund.

 

[Bullypulpit]

WHat has rush lied about? Can you name one of his lies?

I think it would be more appropriate to ask, "What hasn't Rush lied about?"

But, for a comprehensive listing of his lies and distortions, goto:

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006>Media Matters</a></center>

<center><a href=>Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting</a></center>

 

[Bullypulpit]

I would argue that liberal socialists who feel it's ok to redistribute wealth are not really christians, because socialism is stealing, and god said not to steal. So there.

Are you going to stomp your little foot and stick your tongue out too? Did your mommy or daddy say you could play on the computer? :rotflmao:

 

[Diuretic]

I didn't take it as a tantrum, it reads more of subtle irony - quite cleverly done I thought, following my mangling of the half-arsed syllogism I attempted (I never could get that Socrates is a fish thing, always defeated me).

 

[Annie]

An example of why I just can't join on the Ann Coulter bandwagon. The links will also why I loathe Ted Rall:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007145.php

June 07, 2006
Ann Coulter, Meet Ted Rall

One of the topics that flew under my radar yesterday came from an interview Ann Coulter did with Matt Lauer on the Today show, promoting her new book, Godless. Other bloggers have picked up this story before I did, where I saw it at Rick Moran's Right Wing Nuthouse. Rick notes a particularly disturbing part of the transcript from the show:

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:

COULTER: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

Unlike Rick, I usually enjoy Ann's schtick to some degree. I can tell you from personal experience that she is one of the few authors who can bring energy and excitement to an interview, as well as a good sense of humor. The half-hour we did with her on the Northern Alliance Radio Network was one of our best interviews ever.

However, if one ever needed proof that the political spectrum resembles a circle where the extremes meet, this should provide it. In fact, it reminded me of another pundit whom the Left lionizes and the Right reviles: Ted Rall. Why Rall? Three years ago, Rall made essentially the same point in one of his crude cartoons and got rightly panned for it. It became one of the reasons that the Washington Post ended its association with Rall in 2004.

Whether Rall or Coulter says it, impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable. It denies them their humanity and disregards the very public and horrific nature of their spouses' deaths. The attacks motivated a lot of us to become more active in politics in order to make sure our voices contribute to the debate, and it is impossible to argue that the 9/11 widows (and widowers, and children, and parents) have less standing to opine on foreign policy than Ann Coulter or Ted Rall.

This represents the downside of provocateurs, even those entertaining enough to enjoy for 80% of the time. Instead of arguing facts or philosophy, the provocateur usually relies on ad hominem attack in order to degrade and dismiss their opposition. A little of that goes a very long way, and unfortunately Coulter delivered it in droves yesterday. She owes these victims closest to 9/11 an abject apology and a retraction of her remarks, and she should pray that she doesn't ever experience the kind of loss that these people have had. Regardless of their politics, their grief was and is all too real, and that drives their public engagement. I doubt a single one of them wouldn't gladly trade their influence for one more day with the ones they lost. Shame on Ann for implying otherwise.
Posted by Captain Ed at June 7, 2006 05:40 AM

 

[theHawk]

I think either Ann Coulter or this article failed to show the other religious aspect of liberalism, the return to paradise. Nearly every religion has a fall from and future return to paradise. The fall was caused by failing to follow the religion and the return will come in the future by adhering to the religion. In Judeo-Christian and Muslim religious traditions, Adam and Eve were kicked out of paradise by sinning and it is by forgiveness of those sins that we shall return to paradise in Heaven. In Buddhism (and this is where I admittedly get sketchy, so feel free to correct), the paradise lost and eventually regained is enlightenment. In Hindu, it is reincarnation into Nirvana (if I remember correctly). With liberalism, it all goes back to their idea of tribals as noble and in touch with nature (rather than primitive, bloodthirsty savages, which most of them were and some still are). At one time, humans communed with nature and lived in harmony with it. They shared everything and there was no fighting, and the UN did everything right (just kidding). Then we became greedy, raped mother nature, and invented the idea of God to justify it. Only by denoucing God, giving all of our greed gotten gains to the government, and refusing to harm anything 'natural' can we return to this paradise.

Thats a good point. To the liberals God is a false idol, and to worship him is a sin. Perhaps the expulsion from paradise in the mind of Libs is when the accident of monkey becoming human happened and acquiring freedom of thought. The only way to return to the paradise of monkeys living in harmony together is to take away the freedom of thought itself. Hence the liberal's preferred form of government is of course communism complete with thought police, banning all forms of religion, censored media ect. This is usually best achieved through their version of a Messiah, who would be an Anti-Christ or tyrant willing to do whatever it takes to achieve Paradise.

 

[sitarro]

I did poorly on a communications 101 test once. First test of the semester and I get a letter warning that I could fail the class. I took the letter and pissed on it. A few months later I got a solid B in the class. If someone ever hands me that book, it too will meet a golden river.

That's interesting, Bob Dylan sounds like he has been drinking his own piss for years. I myself have a melted pile of his albums that I use for a cigar ash tray.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

An example of why I just can't join on the Ann Coulter bandwagon. The links will also why I loathe Ted Rall:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007145.php

COULTER: &#8220;These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.&#8221;

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband&#8217;s death so much.&#8221;

Whether Rall or Coulter says it, impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable. It denies them their humanity and disregards the very public and horrific nature of their spouses' deaths. The attacks motivated a lot of us to become more active in politics in order to make sure our voices contribute to the debate, and it is impossible to argue that the 9/11 widows (and widowers, and children, and parents) have less standing to opine on foreign policy than Ann Coulter or Ted Rall.

I think Coulter and Rall are dead-on in their assessments of some obvious poor behavior in the wake of 9/11. Ted's "Terror Widows" cartoon was axed by the liberal press because his "free speech" didn't fit into their "free speech tolerance" parameters.
http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1161

Should grief-stricken widows be given an unlimited pass to publicly attack our country and our president without any rebuff? Grief appears to be the new liberal PC excuse for inappropriate public behavior. Coulter appropriately cuts right through the bullspit.

 

[Annie]

I think Coulter and Rall are dead-on in their assessments of some obvious poor behavior in the wake of 9/11. Ted's "Terror Widows" cartoon was axed by the liberal press because his "free speech" didn't fit into their "free speech tolerance" parameters.
http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1161

Should grief-stricken widows be given an unlimited pass to publicly attack our country and our president without any rebuff? Grief appears to be the new liberal PC excuse for inappropriate public behavior. Coulter appropriately cuts right through the bullspit.

What is it about Rall's position you liked? :shocked: I can understand what you are saying about the widows, though I think they have the right to free speech and not just because of grief.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What is it about Rall's position you liked? :shocked: I can understand what you are saying about the widows, though I think they have the right to free speech and not just because of grief.

What I liked was he was making a truthful observation about human behavior. Grief can be expressed in both appropriate and inappropriate ways.

I agree with you that the widows have the right to free speech, just as much as Coulter and Rall have the right to their free speech. Obviously the liberals don't agree with that because they fired Ted Rall and would fire Ann Coulter if they could. Their "tolerance" of free speech only extends to expression of their viewpoint.

 

[jasendorf]

What I liked was he was making a truthful observation about human behavior. Grief can be expressed in both appropriate and inappropriate ways.

I agree with you that the widows have the right to free speech, just as much as Coulter and Rall have the right to their free speech. Obviously the liberals don't agree with that because they fired Ted Rall and would fire Ann Coulter if they could. Their "tolerance" of free speech only extends to expression of their viewpoint.

Free speech is not the same as freedom from responsibilty. But, I love how you don't think Ted Rall should face any responsibility for his statements, yet think the widows of 9/11 should be more appropriate in expressing their grief.

Double standard? Yes.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Free speech is not the same as freedom from responsibilty. But, I love how you don't think Ted Rall should face any responsibility for his statements, yet think the widows of 9/11 should be more appropriate in expressing their grief.

Double standard? Yes.

Yet you think Ted Rall should be fired for his "irresponsibility"? For his free speech?

What makes you think these widows should continually be given a FREE PASS in political discourse? You libs think it isn't "politically correct" to attack them because they are still grieving widows. Isn't this just another convenient "untouchable" minority group that you libs are using to push your agenda without opposition? Pretty sad that you guys have to stoop to using grieving mothers and widows...

 

[jasendorf]

Yet you think Ted Rall should be fired for his "irresponsibility"? For his free speech?

What makes you think these widows should continually be given a FREE PASS in political discourse? You libs think it isn't "politically correct" to attack them because they are still grieving widows. Isn't this just another convenient "untouchable" minority group that you libs are using to push your agenda without opposition? Pretty sad that you guys have to stoop to using grieving mothers and widows...

All sorts of people get fired for their "free speech." Unlike here, where people hide behind cute usernames because they are too afraid to claim their own words as theirs, in the real world you can be judged by what you say. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean that you don't have to own up to the consequences of what you say. Believe me... if I were to walk up to my boss and call him an a*hole... you can be darned tootin' that I'd suffer consequences over it.

As for widows... I find it highly degrading that you think so poorly of women that you think they can be "used" by anybody. Perhaps you think they're too stupid to voice their own opinions?

 

[Abbey Normal]

I just went to Borders today, and was pleased to see a sizable display of Ann's book front and center when I walked in the door.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

All sorts of people get fired for their "free speech." Unlike here, where people hide behind cute usernames because they are too afraid to claim their own words as theirs, in the real world you can be judged by what you say. Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean that you don't have to own up to the consequences of what you say. Believe me... if I were to walk up to my boss and call him an a*hole... you can be darned tootin' that I'd suffer consequences over it.

As for widows... I find it highly degrading that you think so poorly of women that you think they can be "used" by anybody. Perhaps you think they're too stupid to voice their own opinions?

Yes, people do get fired when they don't fit within the expected parameters outlined by their boss.

However, it's pretty hard to fire people like Arthur Sulzberger, chairman and publisher of the NYT, and people like Ann Coulter, an independent writer. Of course, you liberals would like to put a muzzle on free expression itself. Let me rephrase that: put a muzzle on the free expression of opposing opinion.

I don't care if they are stupid or not. Anybody attacking our President and our country during time of war is not exempt from political retort just because they are grieving.

 

[red states rule]

Yes, people do get fired when they don't fit within the expected parameters outlined by their boss.

However, it's pretty hard to fire people like Arthur Sulzberger, chairman and publisher of the NYT, and people like Ann Coulter, an independent writer. Of course, you liberals would like to put a muzzle on free expression itself. Let me rephrase that: put a muzzle on the free expression of opposing opinion.

I don't care if they are stupid or not. Anybody attacking our President and our country during time of war is not exempt from political retort just because they are grieving.

Ann was pointing out (rightly so) they are using their husbands death to DEMAND we give in to their political views
Like many libs they blame Pres Bush for the murder of their husbands and not the terrorists

 

[Gem]

I have mixed feelings on this one...as I often do.

I disagreed with much of what the 4 specific women Coulter is speaking of had to say. I did not like how they were put front and center to state their negative opinions regarding Bush, the country, and the way 9/11 was handled while numerous family members with opposing viewpoints were not given anywhere NEAR the level of fame and media time that these 4 women were given. I did not like how much they were so obviously being told what to say by anti-war, anti-Bush activists (if you are unaware of this, look for the number of talking points they came out with in all of their speeches...politically driven based on what was going on politically at the time). It was for many of the same reasons I disliked and disagreed with Cindy Sheehan...it seems that if you have lost a loved one during 9/11 or during the war, it seems you get MASSIVE media time and fame for coming out with an anti-war, anti-Bush message - but if you come through the tragedy more patriotic, more in support of our nation, with messages like "my loved one died for a cause that s/he believed in...and therefore I will continue to honor them by supporting that cause." You are marginalized and your words are not carried into homes nationwide like these women's politically-driven words were.

(Deep Breath)

HOWEVER...I did not like, in anyway, how far Ann Coulter took her statements with this comment. Ann often uses hyperbole to make a point - I can recognize that and respect it. She often goes as far to the right as possible in order to spark conversation that will inevitably settle closer to the middle of political thought. I can respect all of that...but just as I found Ted Rall's comments on Pat Tillman disgusting and unneccessary, I find Ann Coulter's comments disgusting and unneccesary.

There are always ways to discuss the fact that these women were given a platform because of their tradgedy...and that you disagree with that tragedy...but to imply that they are enjoying their husbands deaths is unnecessarily cruel.

Do Ann Coulter and Ted Rall and you and I have the right to say whatever disgusting, cruel, things we want? ABSOLUTELY!!! Do we have the right to PUBLISH those cruel disgusting thoughts? ABSOLUTELY!!!! So in the end, I'll just say that I disagree with Ann on this point, and think that she went too far...although, I do respect her ability to stir people into conversation...

Finally though, I do think this is much ado about nothing. She is a political commentator, nothing more. She is not important in the grand scheme of things...neither is Rush Limbaugh...neither is Michael Moore...they are all just people who decide to get people up in arms about something and do it in inflammatory ways. If you choose to listen to them, do so at your own peril...if you don't - then you are expressing your opinion on these people in your own way.

I'm not sure if it really needs to be the topic of such intense media attention.

 

[007]

I was listening to Hannity's radio show today and Anne was on. They were talking about this book. It's been awhile since I've bought a political based book, but, I'm going to buy this one to read. Don't know if I'll agree with all of it, but I'm sure there's much of it that I will.

 

[dilloduck]

I have mixed feelings on this one...as I often do.

I disagreed with much of what the 4 specific women Coulter is speaking of had to say. I did not like how they were put front and center to state their negative opinions regarding Bush, the country, and the way 9/11 was handled while numerous family members with opposing viewpoints were not given anywhere NEAR the level of fame and media time that these 4 women were given. I did not like how much they were so obviously being told what to say by anti-war, anti-Bush activists (if you are unaware of this, look for the number of talking points they came out with in all of their speeches...politically driven based on what was going on politically at the time). It was for many of the same reasons I disliked and disagreed with Cindy Sheehan...it seems that if you have lost a loved one during 9/11 or during the war, it seems you get MASSIVE media time and fame for coming out with an anti-war, anti-Bush message - but if you come through the tragedy more patriotic, more in support of our nation, with messages like "my loved one died for a cause that s/he believed in...and therefore I will continue to honor them by supporting that cause." You are marginalized and your words are not carried into homes nationwide like these women's politically-driven words were.

(Deep Breath)

HOWEVER...I did not like, in anyway, how far Ann Coulter took her statements with this comment. Ann often uses hyperbole to make a point - I can recognize that and respect it. She often goes as far to the right as possible in order to spark conversation that will inevitably settle closer to the middle of political thought. I can respect all of that...but just as I found Ted Rall's comments on Pat Tillman disgusting and unneccessary, I find Ann Coulter's comments disgusting and unneccesary.

There are always ways to discuss the fact that these women were given a platform because of their tradgedy...and that you disagree with that tragedy...but to imply that they are enjoying their husbands deaths is unnecessarily cruel.

Do Ann Coulter and Ted Rall and you and I have the right to say whatever disgusting, cruel, things we want? ABSOLUTELY!!! Do we have the right to PUBLISH those cruel disgusting thoughts? ABSOLUTELY!!!! So in the end, I'll just say that I disagree with Ann on this point, and think that she went too far...although, I do respect her ability to stir people into conversation...

Finally though, I do think this is much ado about nothing. She is a political commentator, nothing more. She is not important in the grand scheme of things...neither is Rush Limbaugh...neither is Michael Moore...they are all just people who decide to get people up in arms about something and do it in inflammatory ways. If you choose to listen to them, do so at your own peril...if you don't - then you are expressing your opinion on these people in your own way.

I'm not sure if it really needs to be the topic of such intense media attention.

If she can get Hillary's attention , the coverage is appropriate. Coulter is the PC anti-christ. More power too her. It looks like she's listened to all the "victims" in the liberals' "hands off" protection program and won't take it anymore.

 

[manu1959]

But they're really good at baseball.

only beacuse of right handed people