Glory Be, Alan Colmes Stumps Ann Coulter

[Guynemer]

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 Classic]

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.

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.

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?

[GePap]

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.

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.

[chequita guevara]

Coulter cannot name names. The minute she says "so and so's" a triator, WHAM!, libel/slander suit.

[Guynemer]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America’s best interests and security.

Eh, what about the missile crisis? Should Kennedy have nuked Cuba to protect American interests?

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

[Sava]

Guymner

I agree with you Drake. She's an uber-troll and everyone got fished in. Coulter's a dumbass. But I won't waste anymore key strokes on her.

[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.

[GePap]

Ann Coulter is a feminine version of Fez, only not as funny and even less incined to back her BAM's.

[C0ckney]

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
GePap - chill with the insults.

I apologize to Fez. But never to Ann Coulter.