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...
Yup, and I'll bet yer just pleased as punch with this hornet's nest you stirred up. That was your intention after all, wasn't it?
Incapable of carrying on a serious discussion?
Yup again. To repeat what I said to you: To claim that Coulter's light-hearted one-liner about Jindal (in a long column that nowhere else mentions him) amounts to major damage to the GOP because she is not only "slurring" him, but is also "focusing" the energy of her attacks on Bobby instead of on B.O. does not smack of Trollism to me. It merely smacks of taking an awfully tiny thing, and stretching it so incredibly far that instead of making Coulter look bad, it just makes you look ridiculous and incapable of carrying on a serious discussion.
Still stand by that. And your response to that is: After being called a troll, DUer, homo, etc...... I didn't call you any of those things. But apparently there are Ann Coulter fans here who are just as quick to defend an attack on their hero - posted by you, as you were to defend your hero, Bobby Jindal, from what you (incredulously) believed to be a "slur" attack against him from AC. And this surprises you? And if your attack on her had any substance within it, the response wouldn't have been nearly so much.
I don’t like the idea of implying that every Indian runs a 7/11
Say what? I didn't see this in the Coulter column in question.
(I wonder how many of you ranted against Biden and Billary for that)
Huh again? B & B mentioned Jindal and 7/11's? Dunno what you're referring to.
I am on crack? I don't use drugs, and never have. Your rudeness should only embarrass you since it is obviously uncalled for.
Not liking Ann Coulter makes me a liberal? I have been coming to Free Republic longer than you have. I am a Republican political activist. I run the only rightwing political channel on Efnet, and have for over 15 years. What makes you think you have a right to compartmentalize Republicans? Such an attitude only proves to all of us that you are very narrow minded.
This is a blog where people come to discuss and share opinions. That means we are going to have differences of opinions. You, however, are poisonously intolerant. Clearly you are incapable of dealing with a woman who can think for herself and doesn't need YOU telling her who she should like.
Your opinion of me is a kiss .. and I can tell you where to plant it!
driveserve
“Oh yes it can be defended! “
Tee hee.
The words didn’t spout out of her mouth in the heat of the moment she wrote them in her column she had time to think about it and as far as I know never retracted it. Yes we know it was right after 9/11.
http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml
I dispute your allegation anything was taken out of context. That’s an exact quote not
//////”Suppose one of the two of you states, “Hitler said all the Jews must die!” and I decide to remove the first two words of your quote and attribute the rest to you, far and wide, hounding you into every thread and every forum you visit,”///////
anything like the scenario you describe.
All corrupt or evil rulers in the Mid East or anywhere deserve to die (or least rot in prison) in my option. And radical Islam is a threat to the world. I wish no one was a Muslim.
But to suggest US policy should be to go on the final crusade, come on that’s nuts. American soldiers of which there are not nearly enough to even attempt this sort of thing (which would fail so spectacularly, hell if the President tried to do it he would be removed from office for mental heath reasons), dying while trying to force people in a whole bunch of countries to change their religion, sounds super. She misjudged the situation if she thought she wouldn’t take a credibility hit for that one.
It was hyperbloic and silly assuming she was just venting and doesn’t actually think it’s a good idea.
Wrong is wrong, regardless of who does it, whether it is raining, what color lipstick is most popular, or if the moon is in the seventh house.
We should not emulate that which is wrong.
Take a hike soccer-mom.
Ok so now you've talked about lipstick and moons in the 7th House but you still haven't explained why you think it's wrong.
Are we all giggly today? Aww, ain't that pwecious!
[Impy says]: The words didnt spout out of her mouth in the heat of the moment she wrote them in her column she had time to think about it...
NOT in the heat of the moment?????
OK, Impy, let's get back to basic math here. Her column was published on September 13, 2001. That implies she submitted it to her publisher late on September 12 (possibly early 9/13).
Here is your task: Subtract 11 (as in 9/11/2001) from 12 (as in 9/12/2001).
I'll give you extra time here, in case your calculating machine is an older non-motorized model with a hand crank.
(And don't forget that for subtraction you must crank the handle around backwards.)
Now, did you get the same result I did? --- One (1) day. (Actually, I computed it in my head, not that I'm saying this to try to show you up or anything).
This means that the first news of just who it was (Bin Laden's bunch, ie Islamofascist Terrorists) that killed her closest friend had JUST come out in the preceding hours.
Furthermore, while still in a state of shock for the murder of her closest friend, she was treated, like the rest of us, to scenes of jubilant Palestinians in multiple locations whooping it up, firing guns in the air in jubilant celebration of her friend's death.
And this is when she wrote these words: We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
And you say she did not write this "in the heat of the moment"?
Good grief!! You Ann-attackers are UNREAL. Her friend's ashes were still smoldering in the embers of the Pentagon at that time, and this is NOT "heat of the moment"?
You know, for a long time there, Bobby Jindal was my number one pick for the future of the GOP, up until Sarah came along. And he's still my number two.
But if Sarah doesn't run and BJ does, I'll have to think long and hard about volunteering my time again, if it means working alongside the kind of Jindal supporters I've seen on this thread.
Publius started off this whole thing with an attack on Ann for merely throwing a single Jindal/Slumdog remark into her long column about other topics, a remark that as many others have pointed out here, was perfectly innocuous. And now you, Impy, have gone and made the most ridiculous leaps of logic in an attempt to slander Ann for her perfectly understandable 8-year-old grief-stricken outburst.
Hmmm... I'm starting to see a pattern here --- connections between Jindal-support and Coulter-bashing. Here's what I'm seeing:
Most RINOs I've met live by the philosophy:
In looking at Jindal's recent performance, it appears as if these kinds of RINOs somehow got to him before his speech. It looks like that wing of the party convinced Bobby, if not coerced him, to show voters that we Republicans are really very very very nice people, very obedient suck-ups to the leftists, and we'd never dare say anything critical about the Obamessiah. Oh no, not us!
If they think that Jindal's speech has won over voters, then they probably also think Ann Coulter is a liability to the GOP.
Hmmm, 'smatter of fact, they do both, don't they?
If and when Jindal runs, in order to get my full support, I'd first have to see evidence that he has not drunk the koolaid of the "Suck Up To Liberal Democrats" wing of the GOP.
(And when I say "full" support, I mean that I put in TONS of volunteer hours every 2 years, plus city elections in between, as well as $$ and letters to the editor - none of which you'd probably like, because they're too "Coulterish").
“there is also the sharpness of her intellect that proves there is an inner beauty—something one could snuggle with all night.”
Maybe so..I agree her intellect is a plus. However, I have no doubt who would arrange the sleeping and snuggling rules.
Miss Publius (regardless of gender) is wrong about Ann Coulter. Grow a pair (regardless of gender) & acknowledge that Ann has got point duty in this epic battle, doing the hard work, taking the shots & making herself a target for the true hatred of the left. We all benefit from her bravery so the least we can do is stand up for her when we can.
Miss Publius et al: stand & fight, or shut up & get out of the way.
driveserve
I’m hardly a “cultist”. I simply agree with her completely. Or rather, she with me. If you disagree with her, then argue the points made, not the style by which she delivers them. My guess is that you would be on the losing side of the debate. Sure, she calls Ted Kennedy a drunken reprobate, but by any other more polite name, he’s still a drunken reprobate.
Insofar as Duncan Hunter endorsing Huckabee instead of Romney, my response is that although Duncan Hunter is a Conservative politician & one deserving of our support, he’s a politician first. And as such, weighs his endorsements for HIS benefit. Huckabee is a RINO. A pussy-footed, pro-tax, pro-illegal politician-cum-celebrity. Why Hunter would endorse him is beyond me. But when Miss Ann Coulter says something about someone, one had better sit up & listen because she’s usually —strike— always right.
driveserve
driveserve
Save the cutsey “Adding machine” crap okay CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC.
“You Ann-attackers are UNREAL”
I’m not an “Ann-attacker” CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC I was pinged to this thread and gave my damn option which a lot of people seem to agree with. I’m not on a mission to slander your girlfriend.
You replied with such foolishness and made it personal “you two guys” I feel the need to respond.
YOU CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC seem to an Ann Sycophant however feeling the need to defend her to the death.
The remarks weren’t verbal she WROTE them in her column. Serious writers should think before they write ridiculous things YES EVEN RIGHT AFTER THEIR FRIEND DIED. And again unless I’m wrong she never later said that she doesn’t in fact believe we should go on the final crusade. That particular remark was not helpful to advancing conservative thought.
I’m not against your girlfriend CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC she’s basically an entertainer (who I often enjoy) and not a serious political thinker like say Limbaugh.
And BTW I don’t care about Jindal. 2012 is too soon for him. I’d like to see him clean up his state before jumping on the national scene. I also don’t give a flying crap that his skin is brown, he is over-hyped for that reason.
And the I’m last person who wants to “suck up to democrats” CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC, and I didn’t say one damn word to that effect. I’m in favor of savaging the pieces of crap at every turn. You may have read I liked that Coulter called John Edwards a fag, because he is a fag and those Jersey slags are harpies!
Next time you reply to me stick to what I’ve said and don’t lump me in with groups such as “Ann Haters” or other people who made different arguments. I think for my damn self.
L8R
Ann seems to become more obnoxious when she has something to sell.
A girl can never be too thin, or too rich (especially when she doesn’t exactly have brains to fall back on).
You have reinforced my opinion that when folks can’t dispute her rational, thoughtful and correct arguments, they go to how “mean” she is, which is no argument at all. Merely an ad-hominen attack. I would find it hard to believe that you could poke many if not just one hole in her positions. Calling her “mean” doesn’t do it. Ok, Ann Coulter is not your cup of tea, but putting more credulity in that “affable Eva Braun” Katie Couric over Miss Coulter gives one the impression that you are not exactly a rock-ribbed Conservative. You call that independent-minded, I call it catty.
driveserve
Again with the ad hominen. No argument to her positions nor the logic, research or facts presented. She’s “obnoxious”. Well, so’s your post which makes you what? Thoughtful?
She’s “too thin?” “[T]oo rich?” So only fat, poor women have any brains. Have you anything to bring to this fight against the left?
And by the way, I’ve noticed that Ann is as “obnoxious” every week in her FREE columns. She doesn’t change a whit when hawking her books. God bless her...
driveserve
I would invite you to read her weekly columns and books. At the very least you would “enjoy” her “entertaining”. At the most, you’ll be disabused of this notion that she is not a “serious thinker” ala Limbaugh.
As I wrote in another post, she’s as serious a thinker as you’d want to meet. I’d bet dollars to donuts that el Rushbo would agree given her accomplishments in academia and law and the fact that he’s actually talked to and met her. (Look up her bio my friend. Your mother would be proud for you to have accomplished half as much). If you still can say with a straight face that she’s not a “serious political thinker” much less a serious thinker at all, then I’ll raise my glass to you, but I’ll toast Ann.
driveserve
I'll not call you such things. I will say that you come off as a hysteric. As I reread your initial post, I realize that you most likely have not read the “infamous” passage in Ann Coulter’s book “Godless” referring to the Jersey Girls as “harpies”. You say you “have” a couple of her books but it is clear that you have not read them. (I've got “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking but it only looks good on the coffee-table to impress my guests. I've never actually READ it). If you had read “Godless” in it's entirety or just the chapter regarding those “harpies”, instead of going off what you saw on tv (Daytime talk shows? Morning shows w/Katie Couric?), I doubt you could come away with the opinion that Ann was wrong. Calling Edwards a a “fag” clearly hurt YOUR feelings. But you dress it up as somehow hurting the Conservative cause. It didn't. It did however embarrass Coulter to no end. After-all, what kind of fag goes on to have a hetero-extra-marital affair that produces a bastard (oops! A love-child) while said fag's spouse (female no less) is dying from cancer? Yeah, she hurt the cause there...{sarc}
It's not hard to understand the vitriol coming at you after such a post as yours. Clearly a position unexamined, with no regard to fact. Just an emotional outburst against someone you don't like (anymore?). Constructive criticism? There's not an ounce in what you posted. In fact, after watching Ann Coulter on CNN’s Larry King, I'd be hard pressed to differentiate you and Joy Behar. Not exactly how you want to come off as credible in Free Republic.
driveserve
Oooweee! Getting a little testy, are we, Impy? Did a few of my teensy arrows land too close to the mark?
Im not an Ann-attacker CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
Hey, if the shoe fits..... Let's look at what you did say: "Maybe shes a rat plant" and you criticized her 9/13/01 column as being indefensible, and you derided her fans, of whom I am one, with "I dont care for cults of personality where the worshipee can do no wrong in the followers eyes," and so on.
Verdict: You're (still) guilty as charged.
Serious writers should think before they write ridiculous things
So, you're saying you're not a serious writer? Well at least here's SOMEthing we both agree on.
I was pinged to this thread and gave my damn option which a lot of people...
And what damn option might that be, pray tell? (And do you have any options that are less damnable?)
And when you came into the thread, you 100% supported Pubicus, the same freeper who went on a rant about about some awful, vicious, (and imaginary) "attack" Ann launched against Jindal. So I have no sympathy for you getting your undies all twisted into a wad at the fact I lumped you in with Pube.
Im not on a mission to slander your girlfriend.
Well that's good, because I'm not on a mission to slander your boyfriend Bobby.
YOU CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC seem to an Ann Sycophant however feeling the need to defend her to the death.
Still having trouble parsing your English, but I think I get the general jist ... "Ann Sycophant".
"Sycophant: a person who tries to please someone in order to gain a personal advantage". Well, since I've never met and likely will never meet Ann, it appears your attempt to find a derogatory synonym for "Ann fan" has missed the target by a mile. Better luck next time. (Hold on a minute .... did you think I'm trying to please YOU? Say, you're not one of those S&M types, are you?)
The remarks werent verbal she WROTE them in her column.
Aha! I can see you think this is your Perry Mason Moment here, where the collective jaws of the judge, jury and prosecution all drop to the floor at your brilliant, game-changing, revelation. So now we can formulate Impy's Law:
Although people can say things in the heat of the moment, it is impossible to write things down in the heat of the moment.
So with Ann's closest friend's corpse still smoldering, with images of the first known hijackers (all middle-eastern-origin Muslims) coupled with videos of Palestinians wildly dancing and celebrating her friend's death all first appearing on the tube just as she is writing her column, we can still authoritatively conclude that any claims of Ann reacting "in the heat of the moment" can be easily banished by applying your ironclad law. Why, she wrote those words, for pity's sake!! How could they then be considered "in the heat of the moment"?
Why, yes, of course we all see your point now! We might spot Ann, oh, let's say, 5 seconds .... oh let's be generous! - allow her 10 seconds immediately after Barbara's murder and the images of joyous celebration appearing, in which to react in any way she chooses (but only verbally).
But after 10 seconds, we should fully expect her to have calmed down, to have put her friend's death behind her, to take in stride the Palestinian's Die Infidels! Party Video and relegate it to distant dim memories, to be getting on with her life once more, to be enjoying the rainbows and beautiful sunsets, to once again be stopping to smell the roses, etc etc etc.
Seen in this light, ie it being the written instead of spoken word, there is no way we can apply "heat of the moment" to try and empathize with her indefensible comment about invading countries in response to vicious attacks on our own country (like we did to Japan, Germany, Afghanistan), or killing their leaders (like Tojo, Goering, Saddam), or converting them to Christianity (like 1000's of missionaries tried in post-war Japan, but fell far short of what they'd hoped for).
And again unless Im wrong she never later said that she doesnt in fact believe we should go on the final crusade.
Straw Dog Alert! Did she ever call for a "final crusade"? No. Was she talking about Muslim countries other than those harboring, aiding and abetting the murderers of 9/11? No. Did she ever repeat this statement? Ever? No. Does the lack of an official retraction prove she still strongly supports her eight-year-old statement? No way.
That particular remark was not helpful to advancing conservative thought.
Au contraire. It's you and the originator of this thread whose constant attacks on Republicans who don't measure up to your standards at any given moment, who are "not helpful to advancing conservative thought".
And BTW, I noticed in an earlier post, you commented: All corrupt or evil rulers in the Mid East or anywhere deserve to die (or least rot in prison) in my option.
(There you go with your options again!) Regarding this comment of yours, I'd like to point out that: "You wrote that down and had time to think about it and as far as I know you've never retracted it."
(And if that gives you any dejavooish feelings, you might want to reread your post #225).
Lots more of your post I wanted to get to, but it's getting late..... So I'll finish with one last thought:
From years of participation in online political discussion groups, I believe I recognize the overall category you belong to, Impy. You are the type of forum poster who gazes down upon the list of thread titles at the high level view, in the exact same way that a pigeon gazes down upon a park full of statues that have just been cleaned. A pulse of excitment beats in your breast at the thought of so many opportunities! : To choose the first target from among many tempting ones, to swoop in quickly and proudly leave your little dropping for all to see, then to quickly fly off to the next target and the next, and the next, never staying too long, so as to spread your droppings as far afield as possible.
(Of course, this thread doesn't qualify for Soiled Statue Status. It was a Poop Pile from the start.)
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.