Bookmark bump...
I'm making this suggestion on every Coulter thread that I'm lucky to get into early on.
1. Go to your local Craig's List "Rants and Raves" section and post something positive about Annie.
2. Get cussed at and insulted.
3. Nuke the librat Annie hater in combat debate.
4. Watch the librat act like a three-year-old.
5. Repeat.
This is how I spend my free time. They're so humorous when they lose.
(BTW, that "Rants and Raves" isn't safe for work. LOTS of profanity, especially after I post there.)
I have bought her book now just to spite the drive by media and to thwart their religious goals.
Why do you think I always put the word "liberal" in quotes.
"Liberals" are anything but.
They're all smug, arrogant, condescending and self-righteous fascist totalitarians.
Ann, a doughnut every once and a while is good for the soul!
They are here. And they indeed are all ugly but what relevance does it have? Especially Chelsea Clinton, she's not even a political person that I am aware of and she didn't choose her parents.
I occasionally pile on too with the "ugly" comments but then I just click my screen name and look at my picture and tell myself, "Hey, you're not going to win any beauty contests either".
How pathetic! And how pathetic does that make Penn and Company?
As for Olbermann, he gives Moore a run for the money in the avoirdupois department.
Huh ?
That jab alone... should propel your fannies to Barne & Noble.
Ummm .. I don't think the pantsuits are to blame
What adam's apple???
The suggestion or attempt by New Jersey to ban Ann's book may very well be a precursor of what to expect if the Democrats take over the Congress. Democrats are leftist socialist revolutionaries so that would be no surprise.
The four Jersey women became millionaires as a result of their husband's deaths. They have chosen to become activists as though they were representing all widows and widowers as a result of 9/11. They are fair game in the political area. Going around stinking up the country with their unsubstantiated claims and charges against the current administration just serves to demonstrate their ignorance of the political process and their disdain for other victims of 9/11 who disagree with their assessments, IMHO.
The libs need to be attacked in a direct fashion. And Ann is the point of the spear. An even more direct strategy is to confront the libs regarding their hate driven prejudicial stereotyping. There is nothing intellectually honest about the libs protestations.
Their hate -affair with GWB is telling and illustrative. Even an incurably incompetent GWB would have stumbled by chance onto some correct actions. But the perverse hate spewing left can never acknowledge even the most modest of intelligent human traits to someone they have worked so hard at demonizing and de-humanizing.
It is truly a terrifying display of raw hatred that we are witnessing. It is not rational. It is at it's root...pathological. It is precisely the kind of hatred that spawns murder and genocide. It is a hatred brewed up inside of a person intended to alleviate a deep inner ache. A dark inner wound. And once this hatred finds it's target it will not yield to logic or reason. It will relentlessly pursue it's target and revel in it's merciless and brutal destruction. Perhaps that's the deep root of kinship the libs and Islamonazis share. Lets face it, there is some kind of chemistry there. It may not have been love at first sight but I can see those two groups enjoying one big night of unified bawdy celebration at the news of GWB's demise.
GWB is the personification of everything hated in our post-modern world. He is a traditionalist. He is a man. He is a Christian. He is a Texan. He is a capitalist. And he is unapologetic.
Ultimately that is all that matters. He is guilty by design as are all of us who share any of those characteristics. GWB presents the perfect storm of personal qualities that makes him unworthy of not only the presidency, but life it's self. He pushes the nuclear destruct buttons of the liberal mind simply by speaking, by breathing, by being. He and his kind cannot and will not be tolerated by the tolerance set.
It is only through his destruction that they can affirm their humanity.
So to argue or debate these people on this or that issue is to honor their motivations and respect their intentions far more than they deserve. They have no intention of entering into a partnership of equals resulting in shared values and compromise. We are the enemy and their very lives depend on our defeat. Not the defeat of Islamonazis. Not the defeat of poverty, crime, racism, intolerance and ignorance.
In the simplistic hate filled mind of the modern lib all the ills of the world will suddenly dissolve when men and women like GWB cease to exists or at the very least are exiled to the back of life's bus. Placed as far from the controls as is necessary to insure we have no influence. And if we don't learn and accept our place, force will be quick and severe.
So Ann is the spear. She is placing a dagger directly in the heart of the demon by speaking the truth. And the demon is gnashing and thrashing about while the pretty frail blonde girl unflinchingly stares into the bowels of Hell. Reminds me of that scene from the exorcist. All the demons hysterically screaming and threatening and wailing...cause they know they've been found out and they've met their match.
As a generalization, they are smug, hateful, spiteful, smarmy jerks who believe anyone who disagrees with them is a fascist idiot that doesn't deserve a voice in their precious Church Of The Tolerance State.
I've met my share of right-wing lunatics whom I consider dangerous - especially here at FR, but the percentage of main-stream liberals who are a threat to everyday freedom is truly scary.
The truth hurts, even when it's funny. Ann tells the unvarnished truth and the Libs can't take it. Kooks!
More like Sinking To Their Level.
I am sorry, folks. I agree with Coulter's substance 85% of the time, but I can't agree that there is a net gain in the way she deliberately taunts to draw leftist fire to demonstrate how easy it is to make them violate their own principles.
Take her Jersey Girls statement in the book. I was in a bookstore yesterday and read it in context, and Matt Lauer did a serviceable job blowing it out of proportion. Coulter's remark about the JG's 'enjoying' their husbands deaths was part of a much larger point. She spent several pages discussing the kid glove treatment of the likes of 9/11 widow Kristin Breitweiser -- who blamed Bush Administration figures for the deaths of that day repeatedly to the exclusion of the terrorists -- as opposed to Debra Burlingame, who also organized surviving family members for media fights, but was marginalized and insulted by the New York Times editorial page when she fiercely fought against the placing of a pan-cultural Blame America First museum on the Ground Zero grave of her husband.
There is no doubt that Coulter has a valid point: There is a liberal tendency to send authentically tragic but self-serving, intellectually dishonest spokespersons like Breitweiser, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg out before cameras and microphones, hoping they will inspire in fence-sitting observers their same distrust of everyone and everything right of center. But Dorothy Rabinowitz, an excellent Wall Street Journal writer who years previously broke the major print media embargo on Juanita Broaddrick's allegation of rape against Bill Clinton, wrote a lengthy treatise on the Jersey Girls that made the same point, but didn't come close to suggesting that they were somehow delighted they had traded their spouses for celebrity.
Rabinowitz, however, wasn't invited on Today or put on the cover of Time. Why not? IMHO, because the left-leaners who run those outlets didn't see any benefit in promoting someone whose opposing view did nothing but make sense. No, they needed someone who would be seen not as a counterbalance, but as an wild-eyed, scattershot display of the reasons why nobody but they in the MSM should be taken seriously. Enter Ann.
Haven't some of you Coulter Cheerleaders wondered why she gets more ink and face time than conservative females like Mona Charen, a pre-Reagan revolution columnist whose book Useful Idiots was everything Treason should have been, or Laura Ingraham, a former CBS News reporter and nationally syndicated talk show host? I believe it is because Coulter can be counted on to deliver a foot in the mouth spew that makes the less attentive say, "If you have to be that cruel/silly/tactless to be a conservative, I don't want to be one."
I speak from experience regarding that idea. Before the age of Rush, the only guys I read, heard or saw representing conservatism on a regular basis were the caustic columnist Jeffrey White, John Lofton, and Wally George/Morton Downey Jr. (same act, different coasts). Eventually, the more I learned, the more rightward I drifted -- no thanks to those guys.
Bump for later reading.