The evidence indicates she used "enjoy" to mean "drew pleasure from." All of her other comments are consistent with this interpretation. In order to convince me otherwise you'd need to provide evidence that their husbands truly were about to divorce them and that they really did intend to pose for Playboy. Additionally, once you have done that, please provide reasoning why it is even relevant to discuss whether they might have gained some type of benefit from their husband's deaths--the only reason I can see to bring that up is to cast aspersions on their motives.
None of these routes actually involve discussing what the widows say and why their demands are unreasonable.
You are, quite simply, an idiot.
Their husbands were about to divorce them?
What the HELL are you talking about? This isn't about them being pleased that their husbands are dead. This is about them gaining benefits, after the fact, from those deaths. Are you truly that stupid?
The evidence indicates she used "enjoy" to mean "drew pleasure from." All of her other comments are consistent with this interpretation.
What other evidence? You have offered nothing but worthless drivel. You have not addressed even the simple evidence of the definition of the word "enjoy," let alone Ms Coulter's particular intent. You are a light weight. Admit it, admit your total defeat and move on. You should go back to DU and practice some more before you try to engage your betters.
Go back to your day's playing ZORK, you immature and totally incompetent failure
You are in a deep pit.
Step one, stop digging.
None of these routes actually involve discussing what the widows say and why their demands are unreasonable.
OK, let's discuss what "the widows" (you seem to promote the anti-American lie that these four TRAITORS speak for all of the families of the 3,000 victims) have to say:
From the Wall Street Journal, "The 9/11 Widows Americans are beginning to tire of them." from 2004
But the best known and most quoted pronouncement of all had come in the form of a question put by the leader of the Jersey Girls. "We simply wanted to know," Ms. Breitweiser said, by way of explaining the group's position, "why our husbands were killed. Why they went to work one day and didn't come back."
The answer, seared into the nation's heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn't come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows who asked the question--though in no way one would notice.
Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."
Let's start there. Is there any argument in that piece that you disagree with? I've provided the link. You can research that to your tiny little hearts content, regardless of the pain you cause to the families of the other 2,996 families who lost loved ones. Go ahead. Make your case.
The attack on the World Trade Center was George W. Bush's fault. That's their basic argument.
Defend that, if you care to, you soul less troll.