Posted on 03/02/2009 9:27:04 PM PST by publius_in_abq
Ann Coulter has always been a valiant fighter in the intellectual battle for conservatism. I even have a couple of her books, but she has gone too far this time. She's irritated me for a while now (didn't buy the last 2 books) and it has finally reached a tipping point:
1. It is one thing to criticize the partisanship and naive policy positions of the Jersey Girls, but it is another thing to start saying disparaging things about their husbands possibly leaving those "harpies".
2. It is one thing to criticize John Edwards for hypocrisy and being an intellectual lightweight, but it is another thing to use a sexual slur against him.
The latest slur against Bobbie Jindal is the final straw, and unfortunately it took her slandering a conservative for me to lose my patience with her. If this was an attempt at making fun of absurdity by being abdsurd (i.e. the liberal slurs against Jindal made by Helen Thomas, Malloy, etc.) then she needs to go on record and explain as such. As I read her column, this was just a slur against him for saying a few nice words about the POTUS. It was not a great speech in terms of delivery or clarity, but was her comment about being in "Slumdog Millionaire" really called for? I've had enough of this from her...she is constantly belligerent with people for no reason (O'Reilly who is not a great conservative, but why she'd want to alienate a center-right person of such power and influence is beyond me). And I'm not sure what she was referring to in her CPAC speech about Afghanistan being a quagmire. She is on the verge of becoming a liability to us now, and undermining her own intellectual brilliance (e.g. the illegitimacy portion of her recent book) with needless bombast. Maybe I'm just over-reacting because I am a Jindal fan...what does everyone else think? I'm frustrated...
How can anyone say who can win in 2012? Barach was unknown 4 years prior to the previous election.
Neither of these 2 statements made by you, made much sense to me:
"1. It is one thing to criticize the partisanship and naive policy positions of the Jersey Girls, but it is another thing to start saying disparaging things about their husbands possibly leaving those “harpies”.
2. It is one thing to criticize John Edwards for hypocrisy and being an intellectual lightweight, but it is another thing to use a sexual slur against him."
It's perfectly ok to extend the criticism of them Jersey harpies and mention that there was a strong possibility their husbands would hav left them, even if they had lived. Let's face it, these women were the "s" word, freely handing out sexual favours to men they picked up at night clubs, even after their s-called "devastation" over their husbands deaths.
You don't need Youtube to know that Babara Olsen was every bit as hard core on Hilary Clinton as anyone was.
All you gitta do is read her book on the Clinton's to know that.
“Yes she was, but her style was far superior”
Style over substance? The substance was the same. There are several ways to kill a cat. Try using "charm" on Bin Laden and the Al quaeda vermin and see where that gets ya.
“and saying everyone should convert to Christianity or die”
There you go spewing out liberal talking pints again.
Anyone who actually believes that Ann Coulter was serious when she said people should convert to Christianity or die, needs to reexamine themselves.
“I'd love to see her prove it”
She has proved it over and over and over again. She has more brians, sharpness of the mind, and wit, in anything she writes, than any hundred of her critics including you, put together.
“I would be happy to debate that woman anytime, anywhere, and I bet I could take her to the woodshed for some of the crap she spews.”
I bet you would, and so would lots of left wing loons. Unfortunately for you, she just can't debate anyone who posts on internet boards everywhere. There are only so many hours in a day, and there are literally hundreds of thousands like you who keep ranting against her on the internet.
Good news is, she doesn't have to debate you. She's taken on the best liberal fanatics on TV and betan them down every time with ease.
Hear. hear! Most pseudo conservatives pale next to Ann.
I'd vote for her in a heartbeat - Today.
You seem to believe what the DBM says about her. I don’t.
Politicizing 9-11 was a mistake. You stated they made millions and landed up with younger men?
Is that really true?
“publius_in_abq” the starter of those threads made those 2 comments.
” “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity””
I forgot about that one. There’s no defending that. (I’m sure it’s been defended by some though, I don’t care for cults of personality where the worshipee can do no wrong in the followers eyes)
Maybe she’s a rat plant and Moore’s really with us.
Nah but that would be hilarious.
////////Hell, even Huckabee throughly took her apart when she appeared on his show.///////
Really damn, he seems like a mild chummy kinda soft news host.
//////LEFT-WING LADY: Winston, if you were my wife, I would poison you!
WINSTON CHURCHILL: Madame, if you were my wife, I would drink it.////
I’m no expert on Churchill but my brother is of the opinion he was the greatest leader of the 20th Century “because he was a bad ass”. I know he invented Iraq. The British arrested Obama’s grandpa in Kenya during the Mau Mau rebellion so Berry removed a bust of him that Bush kept in the Oval and replaced it with Lincoln whom he loves to abuse the image of.
I’ve been reading Ann’s material for years. This is nothing new, and if you get Ann you dig her.
She’s a firebrand right-winger that sells books. She’s not in it for consensus. She’s not in it to be liked. She’s not in it to make conservatives feel good about themselves. She’s not a populist.
She’s in it to sell books, and the way she sells books is by calling a spade a spade. If you think you will feel good when reading Ann, think again. She tells it like it is, no sugar, no color. Just black & white, as she sees it. She’s “House” in a skirt.
You’re either trying to stir the pot or you are a total idiot. Take your pick.
Ann was making fun of the liberal’s view of world culture. “Hey, I know a thing or two about India. Why, I’ve seen Slumdog Millionaire three times!”
Fighting nice and sweet hasn’t worked for the Conservatives, might as well fight using their tactics. If harsh words annoy you, you have already lost the fight. Grow up.
It's funny, but a "star" wouldn't have offered such a tepid counterpoint, spending so much time praising lord-high Obama in his "rebuttal".
Your sensitivity on this matter almost make me suspect you are part of Jindal's publicity team.
Oh good, I’m IBTZ.
The other side's really vicious slurs sure help them.
I can't get enough of Ann.
Check out this interview by the Nimrod O'Reilly with our favorite girl.
So you say, but at least you are a liar.
In your original post, that started this thread, you state in part ...
She's irritated me for a while now (didn't buy the last 2 books)
Then, in the last paragraph you state ...
She is on the verge of becoming a liability to us now, and undermining her own intellectual brilliance (e.g. the illegitimacy portion of her recent book) ...
How could you compliment her brilliance in her latest book when you clearly stated that you have not purchased that book?
I’d like to alienate all moderates ( RINO’s, center right..)from the GOP..!!
It’s not possible for Ann to “go too far”. She’s making up for the spineless, whiny, milquetoast, people who never go far enough.
She says exactly what I think and I’m grateful that she’s out there kicking ass.
The allusion to Jindal was to how he looked like a little kid - like the one in Slumdog - rather than our next supposed party leader.
The moment I saw him walke up to that mic, I lost all confidence in his ability to lead the party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.