Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

quote:

---

Things that were unthinkable even only a few decades ago are now considered normal and since some of them are subversive the new normal is a state of chronic political subversion and it's hardly recognized

---

For example...?

Hard to say, isn't it ? They could be referring to inter-racial marriage for all we know (illegal in a surprisingly number of U.S. States until 1967!)

Well, I guess this is why we're on opposite sides.I believe in things because there is evidence for them.You believe in things because of "the subconscious mind" and "intuition" and knowing things in your "gut" and you think that these are better than "mere investigation of obvious facts".Well then, I don't see what we can talk about. I put "mere investigation of obvious facts" ahead of my gut feeling. You put your gut feeling above "mere investigation of obvious facts". But the only way I can debate with you is by presenting "mere investigation of obvious facts". That's as far as I can go. To me, that is what argument means --- we investigate the facts. If the "obvious facts" mean nothing to you, then I am not sure that I can say anything to you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Just to get this straight, so to speak, are you talking about gay marriage? If not, what are you talking about? No. No you do not.

But I can recognize treason. Treason is easy to recognize. Treason is not disagreeing with Ann Coulter. Well, yes. Her whole statement was really a way of telling a stupid vindictive lie.If it is not true, which it isn't, then it is false, which it is. Well, up until 9/11 the worst terrorist act in the USA was the Oklahoma City bombing perpetrated by the conservative terrorist Timothy McVeigh. Your heroine Coulter said that her only regret about that act was that McVeigh didn't target the New York Times building. What similar atrocities have been committed by liberals and supported by liberal pundits?

Gee whillikers, foreveryoung, we've got a whole gaggle of the Thought Police on our trail now. I can't take the time to figure out what they're howling about right now, busy elsewhere and the threads keep multiplying, so I hope you can fend them off for a while. All I'd say is if they don't know what conservatives think by now, and need us to explain it all to them, they're sadly out of touch.Perhaps I'd say something like: if it's "progressive" to you then it's most likely "subversive" to us.Forgive me if I have to duck out for a while. Back eventually no doubt to face the PC gang.(By the way this is SUPPOSED to be funny, so if you're going to wax indignant about it you're missing the point)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But in fact it's sad and pathetic.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But she doesn't say "potential traitors", now does she? Again, we need to have this discussion based on her actual remarks, not what you wish she'd have said because it would be easier to defend.She said "liberals." Not "potential traitors." Yes. As an example to liberals. Not as an example to traitors, but to Coulter's legitimate ideological opponents. Why do you see nothing problematic with that? What would be wrong with executing people to serve as "example" to your ideological, political opponents? Really, you have to ask? Think about turning the tables, for a second - ruminate on the idea of executing the Unibomber to serve as an example to people like you and Rush Limbaugh - and see if you can't spot why physical intimidation of your ideological opponents is inimical to American values. Yes, that's sort of the point. So why is Coulter calling for the physical intimidation of liberals who aren't traitors?

Can you provide an examples of this?ABE How is it a direct contradiction? Why isn't a free market system? How is it traitorous?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

So facts and reality have no bearing? How things feel in your "gut" is the ultimate arbiter?

Bullshit. Bullshit Care to provide some research to support this?As always you have no evidence but think by asserting something enough times you can magically make it reality. Provide some evidence for these lame assertions.It is called put up or shut up.

They have no examples. All they have is their "gut".

And that is a great summation of the problem; the fact that you claim there are true conservatives is where thinking stops.

I was never aware of all the pitiful quotes made by AC. Going over some of it was really surprising. She goes beyond just "shock Jock" kind of stuff like Howard Stern would do. He can be a misogynist ass too. But his brand of "shock" is kind of like a sophomoric teen saying bad words to get a laugh. Ann Coulter is genuinely insipid.Her vile virulent snipes do ring out as hateful and violent in nature.It is clear to me at least that anyone who agrees with her or would find her worthy to defend simply hates liberal as much as she. Which is ironic considering much of the conservative base is of a fundamentalist christian background supposedly against hate.Face it republicans you defend her because she says the things your thinking. You all clap eachother on the back and knowingly nod in your agreement of causing harm or wounds with words.
But back off when some wingnut actually does act.Your able to divorce yourselves from this hatred by hiding behind a anorexic troll who is consumed with hate. She probably practices in the mirror her jibes. Rehearsed and honed a quiver full of hatred. Alas all hail the patron saint of acrimony.

If this is true, then you ought to be able to name some of these ideas. We should then be able to measure those ideas against the definition of traitorous and expose liberals for the farce that they are if they cannot simply agree with you.