"I thoroughly enjoy comments and criticisms that never address what exactly Coulter says. A proper rebuttal never goes out of style."
Me as well, I note you didn't address anything she actually said either btw.
I did however above, when she plaintively complained that the widows were "preventing" her from responding, when in fact she was just then responding.
Her type of ridiculousness is grotesquely obvious.
"Modern liberalism has no consistent values and espouses no well grounded judgments."
First off liberalism's values are actually more consistent than conservative ones. We can see that clearly by the individual we're discussing here. Ann purports to be a moral values oriented conservative with an actual large following, yet she can spout some of the most immoral foul unchristian things in the most crassly hypocritical fashion.
Preemptive attacks? Hey no problem screw the constitution.
Spy on Americans. Eh screw em the constitution is just a piece of paper anyway.
Kidnap and transport suspects to torture camps. Hey that's the American way. Woooot Woot. Constiwhositswhatsits?
Conservativism has become a sad pathetic mockery of it's former self with Coulter, and the current Administration as sad sad pathetic prime examples of what's gone wrong with it.
Where's the fiscal responsibility? Where's the holding government accountable?
The GOP has pathetically, and predictably become the party of religious fanatics, like Dobbson, and Robertson issuing religious fatwas on gays, minorities, and foreign leaders.
It's become the party of racists, and retrogrades, who revel in their ignorance, and rail against the so called "elites" liberal.
The party most likely to try and shove their religious beliefs on society through legislation. Not more the staunch the supporters of "Separation of Church and State" their proud history would indicate.
Modern Conservativisim is a sad pathetic shadow of it's former self, and Coulter, and her legion of supporters, wonderfully highlights just how out of wack conservatives have become.Comment Posted By CoulterDetester On 12.06.2006 @ 19:39
"The attacks are not reasonable, and I donâ€™t think Ann is that bereft of intelligence to be making them as â€˜attacksâ€™; nor is she seeking merely controversy. Ann herself is the example, beautifully rendered, showing just how out of bounds the same kinds of attacks are w.r.t. these widows."
LOL Anne as Mirror of the LEFT. haha.
Whether or not she believes what she says is irrelevant so long as she continues to defend the statements as though she does. What makes her popular among those conservatives who happen to have brain activity approaching that of the brain dead, isn't that she's trying to be controversial, it's that she's expressing what they believe. What they themselves in fact would be saying if they thought they could get away with it in public. You'll know them because they're typically the ones ranting against "PC".
Her comments are an insightful look into the thoughts and thinking processes of her base, comprised of the conservative base.
In other words zardoz, just in case you missed it, she's not a mirror of the Left, far from it, she's the personification of a large part of the brain dead right, the absolute worst part of the right.
A living breathing, walking talking, exemplification of everything wrong with the retrograde conservative base that supports her.
That she's smart enough to use their incredible ignorance against them, and what right wing politician isn't these days, to generate profit for herself, doesn't excuse either her behavior, or the willfully self imposed ignorance of her supporters.Comment Posted By CoulterDetester On 11.06.2006 @ 18:22
"The New Jersy Chicks chose to politicize their grief. Some of us (me, or instance) would say that we are past the expiration date of grief as a shield. If not, what is the date? Five years (coming up this fall), or ten years. Or is the exemption lifetime?"
Hmmmm ... Good point.
Now why don't you tell me what the expiration date is on "Speaking against this prez, is unpatriotic, and a refusal to support the troops?"
Oooops sucks when the shoe you try to kick someone with misses and smacks you upside your own head doesn't it?
Now you want to know the difference between the two?
Nobody stopped anybody from contradicting the victims of 911, but Republicans ACTIVELY tried to stop "anyone" from speaking out against the invasion, by any means necessary. And what an evil means that was... to actually claim someone didn't support the troops or were unpatriotic because they were right about the invasion, and WMD.
In fact when she made the claim (on the Today Show) that the victims were preventing her [people] from responding, and that she wasn't [people aren't] allowed to respond to them, she simultaneously invalidated that claim since in making the claim she "obviously" disproved it.
Now that point was so obvious she was called on it immediately.
Maybe that went right over your head but that's the type of blatant bs that springs from her cancerous lips regularly.
Obvious bs, so obviously bs that in order to support her you would have to make an active effort to ignore it.
This is her In a paraphrased nutshell:
Coulter: They said yes, and they're not letting me say no. I say no, no, no, damn't it, but they're not letting me say no. They're preventing me from saying no, no, no, and the Democrats are letting them!
Reporter: UMMMM, Yeah but you just said no.
Coulter: Well yeah I did, but that's the point, they won't allow me to say NO, THEY'RE preventing me from saying NO, why are YOU Getting Testy with ME?
-- Well Ms Coulter he may be getting testy with you, if he is at all, because you ignored his obvious point that you refuted yourself, probably because you're so stupid you don't realize you just invalidated your own premise. But never fear Ms Coulter there will be plenty of defense offered for you by the ignorant GOP base who happened to completely miss how you disproved your own premise.
The fact you did so on national TV is just priceless.Comment Posted By CoulterDetester On 9.06.2006 @ 10:51
[Coulter is]"a conservative ogre who should be denied a public platform to spout what any conservative with an ounce of integrity and intellectual honesty should be able to see as unacceptable."
I agree whole heartedly with this segment I'm quoting from your article.
And isn't it at least somewhat telling that so many of the responses to the article posted here, indicate so many conservatives are completely unwilling to cede the "obvious" point you make, even when it smacks them in the face, even when it's so eloquently pointed out to them, over, and over even?
Oh they see it all right, they just choose not to acknowledge how over the top she is because she expresses what they feel.
People like Coulter, and those who support her, like those here, are completely repugnant to liberals sure, but they should be repugnant to conservatives as well.
To the folks who think it's all about the show biz for Coulter...What does that say about Fox News that has her on fairly routinely in supposedly serious debates over important issues of the day?
Though you think you may have shored her up by claiming an "entertainment" defense, in the process you tore down Fox News as a purveyor of "entertainment" masquerading as "News".
And yourselves for watching it and quoting it, and basing your opinions on the entertainment information you pick up there.
Not so entertaining any more is it?
If you're going to insist on defending this piece of human garbage try not to undo the foundations for another conservative driven joke "Fox" Entertainment News.
Before opening your mouth, or stretching your fingers as it were, you should have a well thought out "consistent" argument that doesn't simultaneously undermine some of your other equally ludicrous positions.Comment Posted By CoulterDetester On 8.06.2006 @ 06:05
Pages (1) :