Ann Coulter Revisited....

I agree that he's first-class, but what do you mean by "jerk"?

I find him witty, literate and fun. I also like that he uses researchers. I loved the title of his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot", because you'd expect an erudite, Harvard-educated fellow (literally a fellow for "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them") to be overly intellectual and instead he comes out with a childhood taunt. Of course, he goes on to make his case on the inside, his case being that Limbaugh is indifferent to facts and is a hatemonger not that he is actually an idiot.


Ann Coulter, on the other hand, strikes me as totally humorless. She also disappointed me by being a bad writer. That woman loves exclamation points!!! She makes statements so overly broad that they are unlikely to be possible. "All, always, never"- such words are rarely found in true and thoughtful statements, yet this woman doesn't shy away from them. "Democrats are always on the wrong side" - either she's, um, not bright or she knows she is lying and does it anyway. Is she being humorous? I guess I just don't "get" her - at all.

I've read a couple of articles by her but not her book. Is there a significant difference in style or substance? Can any of you tell me why it would be worth reading?

 

Basically, National Review gave her the boot, not because they disagreed with her but because a column she wrote for them was so badly done.

Franken is funny because he often makes fun of himself. Some humorless twit took offense at his Limbaugh book and tried to publish "Al Franken is a Buck-toothed Idiot."

Franken's response? "He'll be hearing from my orthodontist's lawyer."

You can't insult a guy like that.

 

Time for donning the foil hats!

 

Time for donning the foil hats! </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, I never take mine off except to wash my hair (and then I use a special blocking shampoo).

 

Her approach is the exception for conservatives... and the norm for liberals, ie. Carville, Begala, Rendell, McAuliffe, Jackson, Sharpton, Gore, Dean, etc.

I enjoy her for nothing less than giving the liberal's medicine right back to them.

 

Her approach is the exception for conservatives... and the norm for liberals, ie. Carville, Begala, Rendell, McAuliffe, Jackson, Sharpton, Gore, Dean, etc.

I enjoy her for nothing less than giving the liberal's medicine right back to them. </font>[/QUOTE]And when has Gore exclaimed that all Conservatives/Republicans are any one thing? Never. How about Dean? Example please?

Sharton is not exactly typical liberal. Has he accused Conservatives of all being treasonous lately?

 

You didn't see Gore's rant on how Bush had lied and betrayed his country?

He insenuated that Bush allowed 9/11.

No. I think it is more on the order of all conservatives racist oppressors of blacks, persecutors of the poor, and equating conservatism/libertarianism to fascism.

All of them claim that Bush was not just misinformed or mistaken about intelligence before Iraq but rather that he "lied". In fact, Coulter has far more real evidence to base her interpretations on than these guys did.

Their's is not civil discourse... but they are "leaders" of their side. Coulter is just a commentator/author.

 

Oh, and how about "Earth in the Balance" and Gore's opinions about conservatives who oppose things like Kyoto? He basically says that conservatives are destroying the world... just a tad more rash than calling someone a traitor.

 

Originally posted by Daisy:
And when has Gore exclaimed that all Conservatives/Republicans are any one thing? Never.

I don't see that Gore claimed that all conservatives were any one thing. I am incredulous that any one would compare Gore to an hysterical dimwit like Coulter.

If Bush hadn't taken terrorism off the list of priorities, would we have stopped 9/11? We can't be sure. But it sure wouldn't have hurt, would it? On the other hand, if Dean said that Bush intentionally dropped the ball, that would be in Coulter territory.

Sharton is not exactly typical liberal. Has he accused Conservatives of all being treasonous lately?

Could be. I place him just about at the Coulter level. He never called all conservatives traitors, though. He's mean and unprincipled, but he's not stupid to call nearly half of all Americans traitors.

Right. We know he lied, because he had a summary of all intelligence from the DIA contradicting what he told us.

I'd like to see your evidence that all liberals are traitors. For starters. There's a lot more where that came from.

 

Daisy, liberals are treasonous. The historical facts are that the Russians were handed nuclear technology (which they pointed at us for 50 years) due to the incompetence of the democrats in the whitehouse to deal with spys.

It is all documented.

The cable translations were released in the 1990's vidicating McCarthy.

 

Guess who transferred the most dangerous bit of technology to the Russians?

Ronald Reagan. He approved transferring anti-cavitation technology to Toshiba, (which was doing Soviet contract work). Toshiba promptly sold it to the Soviets, who used it to make their submarines difficult to find, and let them move missles close to our coasts.

Later, the consortium to which Toshiba belonged handed Reagan a $2 million "honorarium."

Reagan was a liberal?

I don't think so.

But you aren't going to document it, are you?

Actually, McCarthy never caught a spy, and never identified anyone as a spy who was later found guilty, (other than people already identified by other agencies)

In fact, he helped two real spies evade detection at the Fort Monmouth facility by his clownish witchhunts.

"Truman instituted a comprehensive loyalty program to ferret out Communist influence in government. It was the Truman Administration that prosecuted Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs. In fact the decisive battles of this era took place inside liberalism. It was Walter Reuther – a socialist – who purged the Communist from the CIO and it was Truman’s anti-Communist policies that provoked the Communists into leaving the Democratic Party and forming the Progressive Party to oppose his re-election in 1948.

By ignoring these complexities – or dismissing them -- Coulter makes her case seem indefensible, even when it is not...In fact, as Coulter herself points out, McCarthy began his anti-Communist crusade after the decisive battles of 1947 and 1948, surfacing only in 1950, after the onset of the Korean War. By then, even Henry Wallace, the Progressive Party’s presidential candidate, knew he had been duped. This is why McCarthy did not unearth any Communists in government or out (all they had all been previously identified by the FBI), and why FBI officials engaged in counter-intelligence work despised McCarthy for damaging their efforts. Hopefully, Treason will not have a similar effect."

The "treasonous liberal" daring to utter these words? David Horowitz
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8793

As Horowitz points out, liberals love rightwingers like Coulter and McCarthy. Decent people are repelled by them.