Posted on 06/07/2006 5:24:50 PM PDT by churchillbuff
What a moron.
Ann Coulter, that is.
After calling a group of 9/11 widows "harpies" who seem to be "enjoying their husbands' deaths" in her new book, the conservative pundit has gone too far. She even added:
"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..."
Huh?
Ugly is the only way I can describe what Coulter has written. Now I understand why Time magazine put her on the cover a few years ago and made her look like a praying mantis. She just might be the type of creature that would eat its mate after sex.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
More people will buy Ann's book this week than watch LARDBALL in a month! Methinks Chrissy is just jealous.
You don't get it: she attacks silly LIB WOMEN who support abortion lovers. They should not have the right to vote!
Exactly. There are too many on our side that pretend to be tough on the left, but will shrink at the first wave.
Ann's point was that the DNC uses these people to push a political view with the whole idea that many on the right would be too afraid to respond for fear of being "too mean". And judging from Bill O and some on FR, she was right on the money.
It is "tres gay".
I bet none of the 911 harpies ever read it.
There is a line by Robert Duvall's character in the movie "Open Range" that I really like:
"Good health to them that has it comin'..."
I believe in giving people respect in life on the basis of their station, experiences or rank. I grew up in military family, and we were taught to address men as "Sir" and women as "Ma'am", and responding had to say "Yes Sir" or "Yes Ma'am". I understood the concept of rank and chain of command.
The point is, if you meet a military person, you give them respect BECAUSE they are in the military. If you meet an elderly person, you give them respect BECAUSE they have lived a lot longer than you have. If you meet someone who has lost a loved one, you treat them with respect and deference BECAUSE they have suffered. All this is done without a single qualifying action on the part of the person. They don't, and shouldn't ASK for your respect and deference, the right thing, in the abscence of ANY other qualifying factor, is to grant them special treatment by default.
However, if people show, through their words and deeds, that they are not worthy of that default respect, there is NO reason whatsoever to grant that to them, in my opinion.
Benedict Arnold served his country brilliantly, but lost his right to default respect when he turned traitor.
John Kerry wore the uniform of the US Naval Service, and disgraced it. He is not worthy of default respect.
John Murtha served as a Marine. If anyone is worthy of respect by default, it is any person who makes it through Marine Basic Training to become a Marine. He has shown through his words and deeds, he is unworthy of the title Marine.
Ted Kennedy is a Senator, the very title should command respect by default. He has shown himself to be an enemy of everything this Republic stands for, through his legislative actions and slanderous personal attacks on an honorable man who is too classy to fight back.
Helen Thomas is an elderly person, a woman, and someone who has risen in her field to a position of prominence. She should be entitled to deference, but her vicious partisan attacks have discarded any protection those attributes should have provided her. She made a choice.
The best example of this is Cindy Sheehan. Who would dream of disrespecting a woman who has lost her son in the defense of his country? Never in a million years would I have done so, in usual times. But these are not ususal times. She has become a Useful Idiot for the antiwar left, she has used her son (who apparently had a polar opposite point of view on these things than his mother does) as a prop and a tool, and his coffin as a soapbox. She has disgraced everything her son stood for, for her own personal aggrandizement.
I feel EXACTLY the same way about these four women. Anyone who has heard them speak, seen them appearing in the venues they have, to push their political agendas, realizes they have voluntarily surrendered their default deference and respect to pursue a partisan political agenda. It has been their choice to do so.
We have Ann Coulter, they have James Carville...... Hmmmmm, if I were making decisions based on symbolism.....
The original book was claimed to be - God help us! - in medieval Latin. How many of them could handle it?
There is no attack too brutal to use against the Left. They are vermin, and deserve no mercy. And being amoral, they can claim no moral high ground when their feelings get hurt by mean-spirited conservatives.
Never heard of him either. Must be part of that fair and balanced deal where they need to keep some libs on staff.
That's very well put and an excellent post. You neatly summed it up.
Holy crap, did I nail that or WHAT? ROFL
I'll second that sentiment.
The thing is, once one starts on the list of the malfeasances of the Clintons, it's hard to pick a good stopping point!
I have not heard a word!
LLS
Good for Ann! Just saw her on Hannity and Colmes and she's simply speaking the truth and exposing a particularly deplorable ploy on the part of the left in using victims as spokesmen that we're not "allowed" to argue with.
If her language makes the media and RATS have a collective hissy fit - well, all the better.
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.