Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

9/11 widows and words that offend (Ann Coulter Once Again)
Star Newspapers - Chicago ^ | Sunday, July 2, 2006 | Michael Bowers

Posted on 07/02/2006 8:05:41 AM PDT by Chi-townChief

OK, she's mean, evil, vile, a witch. Get it all out. Dump on Ann Coulter. I'm not going to get in the way of this bandwagon, just like I wouldn't get in the way of a truck.

But once the Angry Lefties have exhausted their rage, I'd like to know if any would consider the possibility that one time too many they have played the card marked "suffering victim reviles Bush."

Consider the comments that set off the current tempest:

1) "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted like the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process."

My verdict: Fair comment.

2) "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

My verdict: Fair comment, but this is starting to make me uncomfortable.

3) "I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."

My verdict: Baffling. Coulter had to know that once she wrote the word "enjoying," her essential message would be lost in the uproar. Why didn't she write "exploiting"? It would have made her point just as well.

4) "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

My verdict: Just stupid.

(Excerpt) Read more at starnewspapers.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; 911widows; anncoulter; bookreview; bush; clinton; coulter; gore; iran; iraq; islamocommies; nj; ny; terrorism; waronterror; worldtradecenter; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last
To: WHBates
Don't loose sight of the fact that congress was attempting to keep the airlines from going under from the resulting lawsuits.

I know that this unique reasoning exist. However, based on the amount of money this cost us and the experience this whole thing has put us through, I would think that the government could (hindsight being all I am using here) pass some legislation, or declaration of 'non-blame' for the airlines, exempting the airlines from lawsuits rather than costing the taxpayers over 1.6 million per victim.

I know the motivation, but the legislation needs to find another alternative to this rather than 'cash'.

61 posted on 07/02/2006 11:06:11 PM PDT by AgThorn (Bush is my president, but he needs to protect our borders. FIRST, before any talk of "Amnesty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: burroak

Additionally, I don't think we (conservatives that agree with Coulter) should hold a private citizen to the same speech standards we would hold our elected officials.

Citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech; politicians have a need to be more PC (they want to keep their job). Ann, a well trained lawyer, knows her boundaries.

If the "Joizy Goils" are offended, let them litigate against Ann and provide proof in court. (I'll handle ticket sales!)


62 posted on 07/03/2006 6:07:09 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Scatology is Serendipitous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

OK -- so let them vent. There is something to be said for giving them enough rope to hang themselves. For example, we didn't have to say much about the Wellstone spectacle -- we just let it speak for itself. Yes, there was criticism, but it wasn't whiny it was more like, "I can't believe they're doing that!" Same thing goes for the Jersey Girls. It is fine to counter them on the issues, as this author has done. But to do what Ann did looks mean and petty. I hope we learn from these examples when it comes to Michael Berg. We should confront him on this issues, but when it comes to his wild rhetoric, we should just stand back and let him expose himself for the extremist he is.


63 posted on 07/03/2006 7:14:40 AM PDT by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
They are classic New Jersey harpies - gimme gimme gimme. The only difference between them and welfare moms is that the harpies married well.

When they were promised money from the federal government, they immediately demanded more, and said it was because their husbands were better earners than the lower class individuals who were also murdered, therefor, they should get more.

Pressed, they "needed the money," to support their lavish lifestyles. Everyone else who lost an earner found a way to deal with it. Perhaps sell the McMansion and the Escalade, and have little chubby attend public school? GASP!!

These women were lionized because their husbands had the bad luck to be in the World Trade Center on September 11th. Poppycock. They're greedy scum. I lived among them for too long.

64 posted on 07/03/2006 7:18:15 AM PDT by sig226 (There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson