can someone tell me about ann coulter?

Because Merry Andrew and Advocate are clueless libs, they take cheap shots,but neither of them is a Presidential Historian, so their puerile statements about President Reagan, when compared to Presidential Historians, who rate him N0.10 ( of 44) is proof that they are unconscious ideologues who are not only biased but stupid!

2 Replies

@genoves,

Who are those presidential historians and their backgrounds? What was the background of the study?

0 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

Those remarks and many other are not made any better when taking with the whole context included; that is a total wimp out argument unless you can prove the quotes I quoted could actually mean something other than what they appear to mean. Godless liberals is still godless liberals no matter what sentence it is put in. Saying liberals hate Americans more than terrorist is still saying liberals hate Americans more than terrorist no matter the context surrounding it. Saying Obama should not talk about "hijacks" and "religion" since his name is B.Obama Hussein is still saying Obama should not talk about "hijacks" and religion since his name is B.Obama Hussein no matter the surrounding context or what interpretation are put to any of those quotes.

Actually at least most of those quotes read a whole lot different in context and/or the meaning is much different in context than it is when they are plucked out as proof texts to accuse Ann Coulter. There are those who do Bible that way--pluck a verse out of context and hold it up as evidence that religious people are hateful or Christians are delusional, etc. etc. etc. Honestly put the same verse into context and read it as the writer intended it, and you will generally arrive at a much different conclusion. Evenmoreso if you put the verse into its proper historical and cultural perspective.

Of course those who choose to hate Ann Coulter don't really need any reason to do that do they? So its more convenient and much simpler to believe the worst rather than care whether the belief is justified.

I'm not in the market to defend Ann Coulter and I don't always agree with her and I don't always buy into her characterizations as appropriate. But I am also not willing to condemn somebody purely on the basis that he or she doesn't measure up to my standards of what somebody should think or say in the manner that I would consider appropriate.

Again I think criticism should be given when criticism is due and credit should be given when credit is due.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

For someone not in the market of defending her, you are doing an awful lot of it. It is just when it comes to backing up statements that you fall short. I don't hate Ann Coulter, why do you guys go to extremes on everything? I just think she is a cheap shot entertainer much like Bill Murray.

In any event merely stating this:

Quote:

Actually at least most of those quotes read a whole lot different in context and/or the meaning is much different in context than it is when they are plucked out as proof texts to accuse Ann Coulter.

is no proof at all and unless you can back it up it serves no purpose. I can go to the source and surround the whole context and it still will come up exactly how it stands alone. (just those ones I showed you, there are some of hers which have been misconstrued and I left them out for that reason.) For instance when she said Edwards should be assassinated she was referring to a statement by a liberal entertainer (bill Murray) which didn't get as much flack. However those I quoted plus some others are generalized unsubstantial assumptions she makes about liberals based on views expressed by liberals.

1 Reply

@genoves,

In fact, I have no argument with rating Ronald Reagan #10 out of 44 (actually 43; it's too early to give Obama a rating yet). We've had some dreadful incompetents as CEOs over the centuries. Regan was by no means all bad. I'd rate Triciky Dick Nixon right up there somewhere, too, certainly in the top half of the class, anyway. It is a tragedy that Nixon turned out to be a a felon because some of the things he accomplished (peace in Vietnam, detente with China etc.) get lost amid the cries of the mutitude clamoring he be strung up on the nearest tree. What I posted about Reagan happens to be no more, nor less, than a plain statement of fact. By the time he left office, he was less than mentally competent, due to the Alzheimer's which had become more and more apparent as time went on.

1 Reply

@revel,

To say that she is being mischaracterized is defending her? I don't believe I have offered an opinion re what I think she is right about or wrong about nor have I defended her point of view on anything. At least not here or for some time. But I have read her and heard her speak on a number of occasions (once in person, numerous times on television and radio) and, based on that experience, I don't happen to think she is quite the wicked witch of the west or the ogre that some posting on this thread seem to wish her to be. (Check out the tags on this thread for examples.) But perhaps asking that a person be portrayed honestly and accurately could be interpreted is a form of defense I guess.

I don't think I am the one obligated to put her quotations into context when it is you who accuse her and insist that putting her into context wouldn't make any difference. I simply offered my opinion that should you care to do so, you would likely find that her statements are not quite so cut and dried as you seem to wish for them to be. If you prefer to continue to believe the worst of her, I'm sure you won't bother to do that. Her stock in trade is lampooning liberalism and defending conservative values. I don't really expect any liberal to appreciate that, but that's what she does and she has enjoyed a lot of success doing it. If you choose to hate her for that fine. It is certainly your prerogative to do so.

I choose to continue to enjoy her when she is at her best and disagree with her when I think she is wrong. That is also my prerogative.

1 Reply

@genoves,

It's a sad sad day when war criminals and felons can be feted as these scum are. And yet, American citizens who have done far less serious crimes are denied their right to vote.

And the scummy ex-presidents, responsible for murder, rape and torture are given pensions and have things named after them, eg. War Criminal Reagan International Airport.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

OK, I will put the context around the quote, they don't improve at all.

"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy”.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April06/coulter.pre.dea.html

Quote:

Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now," she wrote in her 2002 book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right."

“No, but I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using ‘hijack’ and ‘religion’ in the same sentence.”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706260004

From the June 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

Quote:

COLMES: Joining us now is author of Godless, Ann Coulter, and Fox News political analyst and writer at Gather.com, Laura Schwartz. Welcome to you both.
Now, Ann, when you write a book called Godless, about which you're talking -- you're talking about liberals, isn't that divisive?
COULTER: Right. Unlike a guy running for president making that little speech in a church in order to advance his nomination to be the Democrat [sic] presidential nominee.
COLMES: Oh, it's only -- only Republicans can talk in churches, right?
COULTER: No, but I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using "hijack" and "religion" in the same sentence.
COLMES: I see. So, in other words, you want to paint him as a terrorist by continuing to use -- to highlight that his middle name is Hussein?
COULTER: Just avoid those two together.
COLMES: So, in other words, he -- only you can talk like that. Only conservatives. Someone whose middle name is Hussein should not talk like that.
COULTER: Avoid "hijack" and "religion."
COLMES: I see.

Liberalism is a godless religion
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3309572&page=1
Its four pages long; much to long to paste, plenty of context with wrong assumptions and stereotyping thrown all around.

1 Reply

@revel,

I can see how a liberal wouldn't appreciate her tongue-in-cheek lampooning of liberals and/or their leaders and/or her unique brand of humor; however, except for the chapter you linked, I still don't think you have her in context. You have to have the history behind the remarks and get the whole thought to put her into context. The chapter you linked, however does provide a good perspective in full context. I see it as brilliant and you probably see it as hate speech.

I have already agreed that she sometimes crosses the line into bad taste. I certainly don't agree with her point of view on everything, and I don't share all of her social or theological perspectives. But then I am not a politically correct kind of person and don't require people to be either saints nor share my social or theological perspectives in order for me to appreciate them where appreciation is merited.

But really, you can't appreciate the line that if Islamic terrorists had as much energy to hate America as liberals do, they'd have indoor plumbing by now?

I suppose not.

It made me laugh though.

1 Reply

Foxfyre-- Having followed the adventures of Bill Clinton closely, I had to laugh out loud at this comment from "SLANDER",

P. 142

"Even with advance review, the ONLY story that the White House disputed in Aldrich'[s book( Unlimited Access) was his claim that Clinton used to sneak out of the White House in the backseat of a car for extra marital trysts at the Marriott Hotel....In light of events since the release of Aldrich's book, leading to Clinton's impeachment trial, contempt citation and disbarment, Aldrich appears to have been vindicated with a whoop>"

The reason I find it so funny is that I see a real concordance with:

"A local Democratic sherri"had come out of the elevator with two hookers and was bringing them down toward's the president's suite. I stopped the man and he was loudly proclaiming that the two girls were for the President's suigte>

The latter comment is from the book--The Dark Side of Camelot" which tells of Jack Kennedy's sexual dalliances while he was in the White House. At least you have to give Clinton credit for going out of the White House--until, of course, he was transfixed by Monica's ministrations.

I find it hilarious that these men had the self-control of a sixteen year old on drugs!!

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

I admire your levelheadedness. But ideologues like JTT do not agree. Now JTT can spout his UNSOURCED garbage over and over but he will not and can not TRUMP the opinions of Presidential Historians. Why don't left wingers realize that some people are just better qualified to make judgments concerning matters in which they specialize.

0 Replies

@genoves,

As I have read neither book and don't know whether any documentation exists re that particular occasion, I will reserve judgment on that. I have no doubt that Bill Clinton had pretty much the sexual morals of an alley cat and I have no respect for him in that particular area, but I am pretty sure he got accused of a whole bunch of stuff that nobody can substantiate too.

Personally, I would just as soon not know about the feet of clay re our elected leaders unless it has a bearing on or compromised their ability to govern.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

So now it is not enough to get the context, but i have to get background history to know the context of her writings or speechifying.

I don't see it hate speech, I see it as distorting reality, particularly those about liberals=terrorist, or liberals - religion (I find particularly wrong) and the one about Obama not being able to talk about hijacking or religion because of his name, you can not even defend if you were in the business of defending her. And no I don't appreciate the line about Muslims (not Islamics) not having the energy to hate us or they would have indoor plumbing. Actually many Muslims/Arabs had indoor plumbing way back in the early centuries. Moreover, a lot of them still hate us and seem to have enough energy to kill over 3000 of us. So it was a dumb joke all the way around.

1 Reply

@revel,

For me 'in context' means that I am familiar with the history/context of the metaphors and imagery she uses no matter how off the wall or exaggerated that might be; otherwise the reader is likely to read something quite different and unintended into her remarks. A lot of people don't understand or appreciate exaggeration for effect. I do.

While I don't think her stuff is anything like the Bible, I again look to the Bible for comparison. So much of Biblical text is incomprehensible or makes no sense at all UNLESS you know something of the history/customs/background from whence it comes. Making a judgment without such information is risky at best and we will often draw an erroneous cnclusion. She writes much in the same way as if she expects you to already know the rest of the story.

Coulter goes rapid fire from subject to subject and grants her readers credit for being well read and intelligent enough to put her barbs into their proper framework or setting. I suppose she knows her critics won't get it right regardless so she doesn't bother to explain it to them as say Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or most other syndicated columnists do.

And here you do the typical "liberal" thing of taking something completely out of context and distorting it into a strawman. She didn't say that all Muslims hate America or that Muslims perse don't have indoor plumbing. She specifically made it clear that she was talking about Muslim terrorists. And it is in such little errors--Freudian slip or intentional--that gives her a worse rap than she usually deserves.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You may be correct, Foxfyre,that the ability to govern can be in a different sphere than personal behavior. However, since the upholding of laws is one of a President's major duties and since law, in the final analysis has evolved from religious principles, it is tempting to equate immoral personal behavior with corrupt political practices.

Please be assured that there is plenty of documentation on the immorality of both John Kennedy and Bill Clinton. I would be happy to detail it for you but I am sure that Ann Coulter has already done it in a much more professional and entertaining way than I could.

0 Replies

JTT and other get a chuckle or two here from 'progressives' and other lefties when they bash Reagan on A2K.

Coulter gets a chuckle or two from conservatives and righties when she bashes liberals, Clintons, etc., in her books.

The difference? JTT and the others here are writing for a few of us at a small, pooh butt forum.

Coulter is making million$ with her bestsellers. And while you libs fret and fume while you read Coulter, I assume most who read her laugh out loud at her writings, kind of in the vein of "What are those silly liberals up to now?"

(I don't read her books myself, but when I hear people discussing them it is usually accompanied by laughter.)

One question I haven't seen answered; who is the lefty Ann Coulter? I mentioned Al Frankin, but he hasn't had the success she has had, although he has run for office.

Jon Stewart has the Daily Show, but he's not really an author. Maybe George Carlin, at times?

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

That's not bashing Reagan. That's merely pointing out the truth. There's no question, he was a war criminal and he almost certainly was a felon, though as someone has mentioned, I think it was Advocate, he may have gotten off due to his being mentally incompetent.

Some defence to have for the leader of your country; people should hang their heads in shame, not provide adulation for such low moral character.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

That's not bashing Reagan. That's merely pointing out the truth. There's no question, he was a war criminal and he almost certainly was a felon, though as someone has mentioned, I think it was Advocate, he may have gotten off due to his being mentally incompetent.

Some defence to have for the leader of your country; people should hang their heads in shame, not provide adulation for such low moral character.

Sigh.

He was charged and convicted where? He was a felon, how?

I know, chant along, Iran-Contra.

See, here's the thing for you wingnuts: (and I promised myself I wasn't going to get sucked in by this typical A2K nonsense).

Just because you 'progressives' really, really really wish something was true, it's not.

While Clinton, for example, actually was barred from practicing law in Arkansas for lying under oath, Reagan only suffered from his image being blemished. That recovered, however, by the time he left office in 1989, where he had the highest approval rating of any president since FDR.

Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html

(The link is to PBS. You libs still like PBS, right?)

I will say I liked the way the American media investigated the whole affair. It makes me realize how lax and asleep at the wheel they have been for Obama, and I weep for American journalism in the future.

So short response: This is why I don't respond to the standard "Reagan is a felon" nonsense.

Just as I don't address the US government bombing the Twin Towers, we never went to the moon, or Barry Bonds is clean, man!

So truth, JT, save your fingers. I waste enough time here without responding to the truly wacky stuff...

2 Replies

@A Lone Voice,

What? No 'the Holocaust never happened?' theory?

1 Reply

@A Lone Voice,

Quote:

I waste enough time here

I've never heard truer words from you. Everything you write is a monumental waste of time.

1 Reply

can someone tell me about ann coulter?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know