Posted on 02/25/2005 11:39:12 AM PST by pissant
Ann Coulter hates liberals with an undying passion. Although that's common knowledge and usually the first thing most people know about this conservative diva, you're probably thinking that that's not the best way to start an article in which the goal is to, in a way, glorify and defend her from those men and women who covet the safety of political correctness.
Yet, it's the truth.
First and foremost, "political correctness" are two words that are not in Coulter's vocabulary, nor should they be. Why are we, as a society, so concerned with what other people want to hear? We've gotten to an unparalleled time in American history where we cannot voice what we truly think and want to say. Instead of honesty, we're forced to exist in the ever- narrowing confines of American appropriateness.
For example, if we see a woman on campus who wants to express herself by parting her hair in a purple Mohawk, we are now forced to acknowledge this as acceptable. Our honest opinions have become secondary to the perceived opinions of the perceived majority. Liberals now find that deviation from this ideology is implausible. Now, thank God, we have a woman who is not going to tolerate being "politically correct," or in layman's terms, live life as a societal android.
Yet, liberals scream that her brusqueness is an excruciating media problem and feel threatened that a woman has voiced her opinion. So they do what they do best: start with the name-calling. Coulter has been labeled as the most fascist, sexist, racist bigot to have ever lived. Because of her hard-to-grasp belief that women shouldn't vote, liberals call her "dumb," not taking into consideration that she is both a legal correspondent and a world-renowned attorney.
She's Satan to some, only because it becomes too difficult for liberals at times to actually dissect her arguments. BG News opinion columnist George Valko's comments on Feb. 21 serve as an example. After stating one of Coulter's quotes, he simply states that "no one needs to comment on that." With no offense to Mr. Valko, that's simply bad analytical literature. That "comment," like so many other liberal "arguments," is nothing more than trash-talking about someone he doesn't like.
My favorite Ann quote sums up her philosophy on life. She once said, "Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror."
Whether you agree with the war on terror or not is one thing, but to actually base your opinion about the war on what France thinks of it is treasonous. Many people know that but are afraid to speak out about it. Coulter, contrary to popular speakers like Michael Moore and Al Franken, loves her country and is not going to allow liberals' fear of foreign ridicule get in the way of truth. Like Coulter once said, "usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening."
In her 2002 best-selling book "Slander," she stated that the "gravest danger facing most black Americans today is the risk of being patronized to death." Her belief is that nowadays, many of the problems that members of the black community are internal and blacks are being perceived as helpless. Does this make her a racist? Did she ever say, or even insinuate, that she doesn't like black people?
But our society, who loves to oversimplify life, sees blacks being portrayed in something other than a victimized light and, without thought, portrays her as a racist. It's similar to the Cosby controversy, and as was the case with this newly-defined "race traitor," liberals feel that anyone who states a somewhat-conservative opinion should be a Constitutionally-denoted criminal.
The goal of this column is not to make you fond of Ann. Actually, the fundamental truth is that if you have more in common with the socialist party than basic American ideals like the majority of the Democratic party these days, then you won't like Ann and she won't like you. It's a similar relationship to the conservative party and the shameless Michael Moore with the only difference being that Moore's defunct arguments are painfully inferior to those of Coulter's, lacking logic and a general sense of intellect.
On the contrary, the point is to get you to come to more of an appreciation of Coulter's honesty and frankness. All of her books have been on the New York Times bestseller list, so educate yourself about America and check one out.
Good grief. I cannot imagine a context where “let’s say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married” is an appropriate comment for a Christian. Of course, you are demanding an impossible standard (i.e., full interviews) in order to deal with an unpleasant reality.
By the way, I could cite a dozen similarly inappropriate comments. The evidence is rather overwhelming for an objective observer.
Yes, I heard her. The context was, "What amendment would you repeal?" She mentioned the 19th, women's suffrage. Her reasoning was, women have done a crummy job of selecting Presidents. She said (if I recall correctly) that none of the Democratic Presidents of the late 20th century (Carter, Clinton) would have been elected if women didn't have the right to vote. That is irrefutably true. Her unspoken point (which I inferred) was that she would rather give up the franchise to women than have Carter and Clinton as Presidents.
"Ann Coulter hates liberals with an undying passion". I don't like them either. I'm old enough to like Ann for what she writes. I enjoy the young guys wanting the pictures. She's a swell lady.
Great article!!!! Love ya Ann. I have and always will find your honesty REFRESHING!
No, I really don't think he is.
Ann Coulter hates liberals with an undying passion.
No, she hates evil with an undying passion. Most liberals happen to be evil, so there's the connection, but let's be accurate, shall we? This is a canard, a straw man that he can resurrect at some later date when he sticks the knife into Ann... after all, he once defended her.
Because of her hard-to-grasp belief that women shouldn't vote
Excuse me? I think that statement needs some documentation and context before I'm going to take it at face value. This strikes me as a classic Saul Alinsky character assassination campaign, straight out of "Rules For Radicals." This author doesn't even change the basic example Alinsky has put forward in his instruction manual for leftist terrorist supporters!
That "comment," like so many other liberal "arguments," is nothing more than trash-talking about someone he doesn't like.
Oooo. Oooo. The writer is defending Ann, you MUST BELIEVE HIM - HE HAS TOLD YOU THAT YOU MUST - OBEY HIM!!!!! He is "trash talking" about Ann, but he couches it all as a "defense" so no one can challenge any of his assertions of "fact."
Coulter, contrary to popular speakers like Michael Moore and Al Franken
Popular? With whom?
I think this is a liberal spewing pap to a liberal audience to establish his credibility for later attack. This article does NOT stand alone. This is only part one. Trust me.
But then, I'm a very cynical fellow. I am always pleased when I'm proved wrong on these type of dark predictions. Unfortunately that seldom happens.
That's what all this boils down to, Joe. Context. It's not any different than someone taking one verse out of the Bible and twisting it to mean something than it does. I'm sure you know as well as I do that's someone who claims to be an authority of the Bible can manipulate others who aren't as strong in their knowledge of the Word with one verse taken out of context.
As long as people take these one-liners on Ann's out of context, they can portray her as negatively as they desire to others who don't her or her work very well.
Heretic!
Heretic!
I for one don't appreciate being "needled" rather than spoken to like an adult. She's chosen her niche which, IMHO, is to promote herself. She does a nice job of that, I'll admit.
Yes.
If he were a friend of mine I would discuss his behaviors and whether they are what Christ wants of him. I would discuss whether they evidence a desire on his part to become ever more Christlike. But it is between Christ and Clinton, through the medium of the Holy Spirit, whether he is to be judged Christian or not.
I would draw the line at someone who professed to be both a Christian and a non-Christian. Otherwise I am not competent to judge.
Shalom.
For the record, I don't spend my time judging whether other people are Christians. I have better things to do - like trying to improve my own witness.
As I indicated before, it's one thing to question certain behaviors as glorifying Christ. It's quite another to hang a man on his sins. Christ made it clear that it's the state of the heart, not the execution, that matters.
Shalom.
OK, I didn't hear what Ann said, but I can imagine two contexts.
1) "Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married. But what we have here is a culture that says 'Marriage doesn't matter, committment doesn't matter, faithfulness doesn't matter, only sexual fulfillment matters.' That's simply not true. The sexual relationships impact all the other relationships you have in your life and you must be held to account." I could even make a statement like, "I'm not really advocating premarital sex, but I am saying there's a huge difference between fornication and infidelity."
2) "Then there's this entire entertainment industry that wants us all to say, 'Let's say ...'"
Shalom.
Good point
Since we're talking about my statement I feel justified in jumping in. I don't think XJarhead is her target when she's provoking.
When I'm talking to the anti-life crowd I will suggest a law for a "male abortion." It would give men the right to file a statement of non-paternity at any time when it would be legal for the woman to have an abortion. It makes the child legally aborted as far as he is concerned. I would NEVER want such a law, but it sure causes the pro-death crowd to think. Usually it makes the pro-life crowd laugh because they see the point so quickly. But if it offended one I would quietly say, "You aren't the one I was aiming that barb at." (And grammar be da**ed.)
Shalom.
You really think it causes the pro-death crowd to think? I don't. It may make them angry, but in terms of taking it seriously, they'll ignore it. Its so over the top on its face that they don't need to addess the substantive point. And then they'll use the the fact that she makes over the top statements like that to dismiss anything she says, even it isn't so extreme.
You're right about it making the pro-life crowd laugh. And that's my point. She's basically an entertainer.
Actually, I've seen it in action. It isn't a hypothetical.
And it ties them in knots. One actually said, "I think he's right." Unfortunately, he was agreeing there was need for such a law.
Shalom.
Thanks for posting that quote. I think she was being dramatic. I can't imagine her ever giving up her right to vote. I for one think everyone has a right to make a fool out of themselves, and I think everyone has a responsibility to live with their foolish mistakes. Thanks again!
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.