Comments Posted By Mavent
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 26 Comments
ANN COULTER: CONSERVATIVE LOUT
I think it's clear that Ann COulter enjoys a following among the extreme right waings because she says things that they want to hear and find all sorts of outrageous reasons to justify it.
Coulter mangles Dover case
http://www.ydr.com/mike/ci_3951924RBH
Jun 18, 2006 — There is an irony buried deep under the vitriol, idiocy, slander, vileness, ignorance, stupidity and simply breathtaking inanity that passes for the contribution to the public discourse of an alleged carbon-based life-form that goes by the name of Ann Coulter.
Of course, you've heard about this vile life-support system for a mane of blonde hair. She's been all over the media, spreading her poison, the vaguely human counterpart of a Gila monster, except with colder blood. It's amusing that one of her complaints about what she calls the liberal media establishment is that it gives short-shrift to morons like herself who seek airtime to inflict a toxic stew of idiocies masquerading as ideas upon an unsuspecting public.
Her latest missive - I won't name it because it doesn't need the publicity - is yet another of her fact-free exercises in what comedian Stephen Colbert calls truthiness, which is essentially cattle excrement that tries to pass itself off as truth.
She's received a lot of airtime to discuss her idiotic remarks about the women who were widowed in the Sept. 11 attacks. I'm guessing she's mostly jealous of these women because they have demonstrated the ability to have a relationship with a man that didn't end with them killing and eating him.
I won't repeat her slanders - they are beyond indecency and lapse into the pornographic. You've probably heard them already, and there's no need to repeat her idiocies about the widows "enjoying" their husbands' deaths.
One part of her latest book that's getting little notice is the part that deals with Dover and what is purported to be the "debate" over evolution.
She begins her screed by saying that liberals have contempt for science.
What?
She offers as proof that liberals support stem-cell research.
Yes, I know, I don't get it either.
Lots of conservatives also support stem-cell research. Nancy Reagan, for one. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for another. Gov. Arnold has even supported increased funding for stem-cell research in California, after the federal government, kow-towing to the religious right, cut off money to explore this vital area of scientific research.
"Liberals," Coulter writes, "just want to kill humans."
Moving on, she then says liberals worship the theory of evolution.
Which is science.
Which she says liberals hate.
OK, it's a mistake to try to figure this out. I'll try, though.
She wrote, "Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God."
Where do you begin with that?
First off, lots of conservatives subscribe to the theory of evolution and oppose the teaching of creationism in the guise of intelligent design - or whatever they're calling it now - in public schools.
And why drag Scientology into it? Darwin's theory and Scientology are two completely different things. One is a rigorously tested and thoroughly accepted scientific explanation for how life evolved on this planet and the other is the reason Tom Cruise acts so weird.
"A make-believe story"? "No proof"?
I suggest that Ann do some reading.
Tons of laboratory work and the fossil record clearly support evolution. She has no idea what she's talking about.
But that doesn't stop her.
"Liberals think evolution disproves God"?
Now, that's just stupid. For one thing, Ken Miller, an Ivy League biology professor and one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the country, is a devout Catholic and he has no problem balancing belief in evolution with his faith. Speaking of Catholics, Pope John Paul II, for God's sake, spoke out in support of evolution, saying it is now beyond mere supposition and is fact. Catholic schools and universities teach evolution in biology classes. Last I heard, Catholics still believe in God.
She goes on to completely misrepresent what happened in Dover and concludes, "After Dover, no school district will dare breathe a word about 'intelligent design,' unless they want to risk being bankrupted by ACLU lawsuits. The Darwinists have saved the secular sanctity of their temples: the public schools. They didn't win on science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter."
First off, Ann, this wasn't a victory for liberals. It was a victory for everyone who believes in the separation of church and state, for everyone who believes in quality education, for everyone who believes that scientific research and human progress shouldn't be thwarted by the prejudices and fears of a small group of people.
Secondly, the plaintiffs in this case - the parents who brought the case - weren't a bunch of crazed liberals. Many of the 11 plaintiffs are Republicans and consider themselves conservative. They just didn't like the idea that a small cabal on the school board chose to trample on their rights and violate the Constitution.
Thirdly, they did win on science, persuasion and the evidence - as so eloquently outlined in U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's decision in the case. They also won because the side of righteousness - as Ann would have you believe - lied repeatedly during the trial.
For all of Ann's blather about activist judges, Jones, appointed to the federal bench by President Bush, was just the opposite. His ruling was based on the evidence presented during the trial. For him to have ruled differently would have required not just activism, but the kind of legal gymnastics that would have made a mockery of the judicial system.
The logical extension of Coulter's bent reasoning seems to be that the scientific method is a liberal trick and that adherence to it by scientists is part of the liberal plot to ... um ... whatever.
She seems not to understand that researchers doing the kind of work that will cure disease and ease human suffering need to know how the evolutionary mechanism works, just as engineers building bridges need to know math.
So that brings us to the big irony of Coulter's work.
Her vitriol and ignorance shows contempt for science and for the scientists working to cure diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's and whatever it is that is afflicting Ann Coulter. Mike Argento, whose column appears Mondays and Thursdays in Living and Sundays in Viewpoints, can be reached at 771-2046 or at mike@ydr.com.Read more Argento columns at ydr.com/mike or at http://www.yorkblog.com - Argento's Front Stoop.
Comment Posted By mavent On 23.06.2006 @ 04:40
My message to them is simple. Don't just talk about values. Practise them.
Such as Ann Coulterv Don't talk to me about being loyal to Bush as the commander in chief after trying to pull down Clinton becauseof the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Why champion impeachment for Clinton because he lied about a blow job when you spare Bush for lying about the reasons to go to war?
Such a hypocrite is Ann Coulter. She's not a real conservative and she does not speak for us.
She only speaks for herself for her own gain.
Comment Posted By Mavent On 9.06.2006 @ 04:36
But I don't hate Ann Coulter. I merely hate what she wrote without proof.
I have made my points very clear on this point while you have provided nothing to back up your defense of Ann's statements in her new book, which is hateful and mocks ther personal tragedy of those who suffered because of 9-11.
As for sanity, you are right, Ann Coulter as well as some of the far right need more doses of it.
Comment Posted By Mavent On 9.06.2006 @ 04:33
as long as she provides no proof for what she says against the widows, it is clear that she is not telling the truth.
No proof = No truth. In America the rule of law is innocent before proven guilty. Fair?
Ann Coulter also made the claim that these widows try to slience others with their tragedy. I have seen no proo of this.
But I do know that for something to support McCarthy when President Eisenhower has nothing good to say of this hatemonger shows something about Ann's own credibility and sanity.
Comment Posted By Mavent On 9.06.2006 @ 03:33
Coulter is ONLY right if she can back up her comments attacking the 9-11 widows as a group who profited from 9-11 amd took pleasure from their husbands' deaths but she never did.
Anyone who claim that she is right in saying all this is clearly not honest. There is no progress to be had in lying.
I have made it clear that I am against false conservatives or anyone who don't practise what he preach and that conservatives are not running the government today as they do not practise true conservative values.
As for corruption, it's a simple number games. Which party has more members indicted for felony says a lot.
Sorry MSM is not part of this discussion. In my view, MSM is as biased as FOX news. Their SPEW cancel each other out. You need a crazy leftist to balance a fanatic rightist. Either tolerate both or terminate both, thank you.
That's all I am going to say on this as the thread and my posts is against Ann Coulter's statements against the widows as shown in her book.
Comment Posted By Mavent On 9.06.2006 @ 03:25
Deagle, I'm hoping for more independents to run for government.
Frankly speaking, I don't really give a damn these days about who is in Congress or the White House. No one in the Federal government really believe in the conservative or liberal platform anymore as they all try to play it both ways.
But I just hope that that appointed state officals are competent, honest with a fair degree of integrity.
As for the dolts in WH and Congress, most of them are in their 50s-70s. In 10 years' time, they won't be problems to sane Americans anymore.
I do hope more people like Paul Hackett will stand up and run. And I wish that Al Gore will run as an independent against Hilary Clinton. Just run on your beliefs and what you have done so far, without the burden of a liberal or conservative platform.
If one can't stand for anything, at the very least, one should learn to stand for oneself.
Comment Posted By Mavent On 9.06.2006 @ 03:18
"If a conservative does NOT try to live up to conservative values, what right has he to expect conservative leaders to do the same."
Munch on this and then consider the crap that passes for government these days…
Comment Posted By Mavent On 9.06.2006 @ 03:08
To the liberals here, just a suggestion.
Buy just 1 Ann Coulter's book then scan it and upload it to a website or pdf document. Then e-mail it to everyone who believes in the tragedy of 9-11 and ask them to boycott buying Ann's book by reading the soft copy.
Hopefully that will persuade souless profiteers not to try to profit from human sufferings.
Comment Posted By Mavent On 9.06.2006 @ 03:04
Cheap thrill.
Just consider this. If a conservative does try to live up to conservative values, what right has he to expect conservative leaders to do the same.
Munch on this and then consider the crap that passes for government these days...
Comment Posted By Mavent On 9.06.2006 @ 03:00
Sorry you are the one who is constantly changing the topic to your MSN rant when I have NOT posted one word on this as an issue.
Comment Posted By Mavent On 9.06.2006 @ 02:45
