 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Meldor
|
|
Houston, Texas
Dec 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
Well,
Let me just step up and be the first to say that I find her to be intelligent and well spoken. It is interesting that instead of refuting her ideas, you would rather attack her looks and personality. The only thing said against her ideas is that they are mad?
I read her column every time she posts a new one. And while I can not say that I have agreed with her 100%, I can't say that about anyone. But her ideas are well thought out and soundly put forth. But then again maybe that is the problem, you aren't used to people telling you straight facts.
The agruement that she makes in the book is to equate the ideas and desires of the liberals to treason. To point out how they have lead America down a dangerous path. Asking to point to a specific person and prove they are treasonous is a silly ploy and Alan new it was a cheap way to get around the facts revealed in her book. If you can't argue with the facts then try and make a side issue to win points. It obviously worked with some of you. You are most likely the ones who will defend every word in Hillary's book as the complete truth.
I will now return you to your regular scheduled bashing of the right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Ann Coulter is a baffoon. There are two reasons for she celebrity pundit status:
--She says the most asinine, outrageous things, without apology, and
--Because she is thin and blonde (which automatically translates to "hot" in America, despite abundant evidence to the contrary), the hosts of these programs let her get away with it.
Her work is poorly researched, and is essentially nothing more than neo-fascist boilerplate. Each and every television program that invites her to spew her ignorance, exaggerations, and outright lies makes an instant mockery of itself and televised political debate in general. Even FoxNews becomes a parody of itself, which is rather remarkable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Meldor
|
|
Houston, Texas
Dec 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Bullshit. Look up "Treason" in the dictionary, or better yet, seek out the legal definition. You'll see it requires a conscious act of working against a country for its enemies.
Coulter is using the word slanderously in yet another blatant attempt to demonize the left, which is her bread and butter. The fact that you salivate over her is just a sign you will swallow anything the right puts up to bash its opponents. See how nice that works?
The question was quite fair, because "treason" is an extremely serious accusation and to banter around the word as casually as Coulter does is simply absurd. He called her on it, she sputtered. If you're going to accuse people of betraying the country, you'd better have something to back it up besides a personal opinion that they are wrong. Coulter's attitude is exactly the most dangerous path in America and what is betraying American values: "If I don't like your political views, you are a traitor." I can't think of anything more fascistic than that philosophy. |
Sorry, but it something done by everyone. It is an exagerration to make a point. Would you like me to list all of the quotes from the left, calling right-winger everything from treasonists to madmen.
And where in my description did I say I "salivate over her"? I believe I said I read her and didn't always agree. You claim that the right is just bashing the left without cause and yet when I post a non-bashing statement that I happen to read and sometimes enjoy Ms Coulter's writings, I am somehow an idiot right-wing dupe that believes anything and everything that is put before me from the right.
It is obvious that you didn't even bother to either read the book or any review of it. If you had even read the cover of the book, you would have realized your instant misconceptions. First, let's look at the complete title of the book: Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Now she is equating the liberal aganda with treachery and treason. But why would she feel this way. Here is a discreption of the book from Amazon.com:
quote:
“Liberals’ loyalty to the United States is off-limits as a subject of political debate. Why is the relative patriotism of the two parties the only issue that is out of bounds for rational discussion?”
In a stunning follow-up to her number one bestseller Slander, leading conservative pundit Ann Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against Communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today’s war on terrorism. “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason,” says Coulter. “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.” From Truman to Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America’s best interests and security. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives.
Reexamining the sixty-year history of the Cold War and beyond—including the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Whittaker Chambers–Alger Hiss affair, Ronald Reagan’s challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” the Gulf War, and our present war on terrorism—Coulter reveals how liberals have been horribly wrong in all their political analyses and policy prescriptions. McCarthy, exonerated by the Venona Papers if not before, was basically right about Soviet agents working for the U.S. government. Hiss turned out to be a high-ranking Soviet spy (who consulted Roosevelt at Yalta). Reagan, ridiculed throughout his presidency, ended up winning the Cold War. And George W. Bush, also an object of ridicule, has performed exceptionally in responding to America’s newest threats at home and abroad.
Coulter, who in Slander exposed a liberal bias in today’s media, also examines how history, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century, has been written by liberals and, therefore, distorted by their perspective. Far from being irrelevant today, her clearheaded and piercing view of what we’ve been through informs us perfectly for challenges today and in the future.
With Slander, Ann Coulter became the most recognized and talked-about conservative intellectual of the year. Treason, in many ways an even more controversial and prescient book, will ignite impassioned political debate at one of the most crucial moments in our history. |
The bolding is mine. Read the last sentence carefully. It is a shame that instead of trying to refute her stance on the issues she brings up, your best tactic is revealed to attack her because she is "hot".
Do you want a really scary quote, try this one quote:
"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Gephardt |
That is a very interesting choice of words from someone high up in the Democratic machine and is telling on their stance on judical checks and balances.
If you would like me to spew some really good quotes with words like "treason" and suchlet me give you some links to Carvel or Hillary....oh, but its ok, they are on the left......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Meldor
The only thing said against her ideas is that they are mad?
|
quote:
But her ideas are well thought out and soundly put forth.
|
quote:
But then again maybe that is the problem, you aren't used to people telling you straight facts.
|
So at what point does a political commentator's "ideas" (to use your phrase) become "straight facts."
Of course, if you're that slack in the consistency with which you use terminology, maybe she does make sense. 
quote:
The agruement that she makes in the book is to equate the ideas and desires of the liberals to treason.
|
Interesting, for a "conservative" to yammer on so. The very notion that "ideas" or "desires" could be equatable to treason was repugnant to the framers of the Constitution - that is why they defined the offense in a narrow and very specific way. They felt so strongly about it that it is the only criminal act in the United States defined in the Constitution.
If "ideas" could be treasonous, Coulter's premise in her book, as you've described it, is at least as fundamentally contrary to the Constitution as anything in the so-called "liberal" agenda, whether it's actually in the liberal agenda, or just in right-wing spin. Ask a liberal.
quote:
You are most likely the ones who will defend every word in Hillary's book as the complete truth.
|
Nice non-sequitor on a couple of levels. You'd have to tell me what's in Hillary's book, though, I don't intend to get it, and I doubt anyone will give it to me, even as a joke. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
I read a little Bit of Brocks' book, and Coulter does not come out well. Brock (I forget his name) was one of the right wing folks that tarred Anita Hill to make Thomas look good, and then he was in the Arkansas project and a whole lot of other right wing activities, until his "converted" to a liberal. His book is very well written and very interesting.
Anyway, the point Brock makes about someone like Coulter is that people like her, the new spokespeople for the rght wing might be able to write OK or very well, and speak as well also, but they are intelectually empty. They are not thinkers like the conservative commentatrs of the 60's and 70's. They simply spout the given orthodoxy, even if they do it well. Someone ike Ann Coulter has never come up with an original idea whatsoever, ad all she is good for is shock value, and to make herself sound brilliant when she doesn;t actually come up with any brilliant facts. Someone can be witty and still not be a significant intelectual.
Oh, I never knew before that the Washington Times was set up by Reverend Moon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín G̣nghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stefu
I think golden monkeys. |
in golden showers?
Would Ann Coulter be a good source to read in order to get into understanding the American right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Meldor
|
|
Houston, Texas
Dec 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat So at what point does a political commentator's "ideas" (to use your phrase) become "straight facts."
Of course, if you're that slack in the consistency with which you use terminology, maybe she does make sense. |
All commentators should have facts to support their opinions and ideas. To do otherwise would put them in the realm of politicans. As a side note, I would guess you went to the Dowd school of editing.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Interesting, for a "conservative" to yammer on so. The very notion that "ideas" or "desires" could be equatable to treason was repugnant to the framers of the Constitution - that is why they defined the offense in a narrow and very specific way. They felt so strongly about it that it is the only criminal act in the United States defined in the Constitution. |
Sorry, but this country was founded on a series of treasons acts and ideas put forth by some of the very people who wrote the constitution. The strict definition of treason in the constitution is a protection against the state attempts to stifle political opposition. Something the good folks posting inthis thread might take note of.
BTW, how is defending her right to political speech and opinion yammering? Oh yeah, it comes not from a liberal who has every right to throw out these kinds of statements, but from a conservative. My, and you look to teh constitution for support, should you look at the whole thing?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat If "ideas" could be treasonous, Coulter's premise in her book, as you've described it, is at least as fundamentally contrary to the Constitution as anything in the so-called "liberal" agenda, whether it's actually in the liberal agenda, or just in right-wing spin. Ask a liberal. |
No her book would be a classical example of political dissent. Read some of the stuff written by our founding fathers, you might be suprised at just how much the used such phrases and used the same types of techniques. What she says is right in line with everything in the constitution.
Interstingly enough, not a single person here in this thread has actually tried to refute her ideas. You have either attacked her or me. At best the book was dismissed out of hand. Very telling and something seen from the top of the liberal heap to the bottom.
[EDIT] Fixed some words. Gentlepeople this has been fun, but I will leave you to your bashfest and move on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ecthelion
in golden showers?
Would Ann Coulter be a good source to read in order to get into understanding the American right? |
That depends.
Do you want to understand the Cro-Magnon, drooling, facist, troglodyte "right" that is openly reviled by almost the entirety of the rest of the political spectrum, with some other conservatives disapproving but keeping their mouths shut?
Or do you want to understand the majority of the American right, who are by-and-large reasonable, intelligent people, though I disagree with them most of the time?
There is no monolithic "right" or "left" in America. Slime like Coulter profit off the illusion that there is such a thing.
Monolith--I totally agree with you. I never imagined I could have this much dislike for an apparently non-criminal human being. Even John Ashcroft is a distant second to this waste of organic molecules.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Let me just step up and be the first to say that I find her to be intelligent and well spoken. It is interesting that instead of refuting her ideas, you would rather attack her looks and personality. The only thing said against her ideas is that they are mad? |
she's bright, no doubt about that. she writes well, too. but i can't say i much like her style.
for instance: in one column, she linked norman mineta, an american of japanese extraction who was forced to live in an internment camp for some time, to the bataan death march, carried out by the imperial japanese. mineta, btw, is a democrat, and also hadn't completely finished some of the reforms in the dot.
now, not only is that downright dirty and insulting, it borders on the same slander she accuses liberals of in her book--linking an american to actions carried out by japanese for no better reason than a shared ethnicity.
for instance: in her book, slander, she engages in some of the same tactics that she accuses liberals of; she slanders them and insults them, all the while proclaiming that she's perfectly right in her opinion, but the liberal opinions are slanderous and wrong. i can't quote specific passages, since it was a library book, but i can't say i particularly enjoyed reading it.
quote:
But her ideas are well thought out and soundly put forth. But then again maybe that is the problem, you aren't used to people telling you straight facts. |
do you know of any liberal columnists who tell "straight facts"? or do you not read any? leonard pitts isn't particularly big, or well known. he's a moderate liberal. he manages to write in "straight facts". he also doesn't go and demonize every single conservative out there.
quote:
The agruement that she makes in the book is to equate the ideas and desires of the liberals to treason. To point out how they have lead America down a dangerous path. Asking to point to a specific person and prove they are treasonous is a silly ploy and Alan new it was a cheap way to get around the facts revealed in her book. If you can't argue with the facts then try and make a side issue to win points. It obviously worked with some of you. You are most likely the ones who will defend every word in Hillary's book as the complete truth. |
actually, no. surprise surprise, but unlike what the conservatives say, not every liberal likes the clintons. nor does every moderate. and some conservatives actually do like the clintons.
i, a moderate, despise the clintons. her memoir is not something i plan on reading any time soon, and when i do, i will take most of it with a grain of salt. you, however, are falling victim to the same thing that ann coulter, as well as some other pundits on both sides of the political divide, suffer from: overgeneralization, and base assumptions that echo the rhetoric pumped out by your side's apparatus.
by any chance, do you believe in the liberal media bias?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
If someone wrote a book saying evil freemason aliens ran the government is an evil plot to gather all the gold to feed the mothership, I would feel no need to refute the claim either, as it is absurd on its face. |
A Freemason-alien plot? Hell! For the love of heaven, Coulter believes that women shouldn't be allowed to vote! What's the point of trying to out-absurd that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Meldor
Sorry, but it something done by everyone. It is an exagerration to make a point. Would you like me to list all of the quotes from the left, calling right-winger everything from treasonists to madmen. |
Which is it, straight facts or exaggeration? And you can bring up whatever quotes you want from the left. Show me a book published by a major leftist commentator or pundit which openly states conservatives are traitors.
quote:
And where in my description did I say I "salivate over her"? I believe I said I read her and didn't always agree. You claim that the right is just bashing the left without cause and yet when I post a non-bashing statement that I happen to read and sometimes enjoy Ms Coulter's writings, I am somehow an idiot right-wing dupe that believes anything and everything that is put before me from the right. |
I think the fact you're here defending Coulter, the epitome of hateful left-bashing, more than satisfies what we need to know about ya.
quote:
It is obvious that you didn't even bother to either read the book or any review of it. If you had even read the cover of the book, you would have realized your instant misconceptions. First, let's look at the complete title of the book: Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Now she is equating the liberal aganda with treachery and treason. But why would she feel this way. Here is a discreption of the book from Amazon.com: |
Oooooh, the BOOK JACKET! Gee, who wrote THAT description? The publisher that's selling it? 
I don't need to read the book, because I've seen Coulter constantly, and she's a one-note harpy. I am well acquainted with her positions and her ludicrous demonizing of her political opponents. The funny thing about her is that she is a clown whose ranting probably has a specific purpose: her outrageously hateful rhetoric makes the less hateful but equally disagreeable stances of less fiery utra-right wingers seem more reasonable to less-than-critical thinkers.
The bottom line is that the premise of the book is offensive to the extreme. Calling liberals traitors (as the bolded parts in the description seem to support) is claiming that leftist hate America, which is patent nonsense.
quote:
The bolding is mine. Read the last sentence carefully. It is a shame that instead of trying to refute her stance on the issues she brings up, your best tactic is revealed to attack her because she is "hot". |
 The last sentence is the kind of self-aggrandizing hyperbole that makes Coulter a joke. The only raging debate it is igniting is over how much of a **** she is. GePap hit the nail on the head: Coulter's gimmick is her offensiveness, but she is devoid of ideas.
Oh, and I didn't say anything about her being "hot," now did I? That would certainly be odd coming from me... 
quote:
Do you want a really scary quote, try this one |
Oooh... so what? This is about Coulter, not Gephardt. Diversionary tactics don't count for much. I could come up with hundreds of quotes from rightwingers,--important ones, too--that show a shockingly disdainful attitude towards traditional due process and rule of law. You don't really want to get into a ***-for-tat.
quote:
If you would like me to spew some really good quotes with words like "treason" and suchlet me give you some links to Carvel or Hillary....oh, but its ok, they are on the left...... |
More diversions. This is about what Coulter says, not them. But fine...show me where Carville or Hillary have accused all conservatives of being traitors who hate America.
Of course, you've run away now, so I guess I won't get that. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Incidentally, exactly when did Alan Colmes develop testicles?
I think Laz's comment was something about her gynecologist getting hazard pay or something like that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:29
|
|
quote:
Anyway, the point Brock makes about someone like Coulter is that people like her, the new spokespeople for the rght wing might be able to write OK or very well, and speak as well also, but they are intelectually empty. They are not thinkers like the conservative commentatrs of the 60's and 70's. They simply spout the given orthodoxy, even if they do it well. |
This is hardly a weakness attributable solely to Coulter and her conservative colleagues; liberal commentators are just as vapid and tied to their narrow talking-points. The whole system of modern political debate is intellectually empty, so its a little absurd to single Coulter out for condemnation.
Just for the record, I don't like Coulter, but I get a kick out of seeing how effective her shock tactics are. Hell, she's got all the usual lefty suspects here at Poly falling over themselves to see who hates her the most. She's the uber-troll and you guys were fished in. Way to go, Ann. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
The thing is, intellectually, I know she is the uber-troll, and by getting so hypertensive about it, I just show how effective she is.
And that pisses me off even more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Anyway, the point Brock makes about someone like Coulter is that people like her, the new spokespeople for the rght wing might be able to write OK or very well, and speak as well also, but they are intelectually empty. They are not thinkers like the conservative commentatrs of the 60's and 70's. They simply spout the given orthodoxy, even if they do it well. |
This is hardly a weakness attributable solely to Coulter and her conservative colleagues; liberal commentators are just as vapid and tied to their narrow talking-points. The whole system of modern political debate is intellectually empty, so its a little absurd to single Coulter out for condemnation.
|
Well, she's got the newest book out on either side, and she's ratcheted up the rhetoric. In another couple of months, she'll be right back in the crowd, until someone else on either side of the spectrum comes up with something equally noisy but vacuous.
GePap - chill with the insults.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-06-2003 13:14
|