Posted on 06/09/2006 3:19:48 AM PDT by tlb
Unnecessary. A little tact would serve you well on occassions, Ann.
Puzzles me too so I Google "Ann Coulter" and "holocaust" and get a quarter million hits. In July of 2003 the moon bats were discussing her "next book" going to deny the holocaust happened. They also call her the conservative Maureen Dowd, a transexual, etc. So, yea, she has a right to be mad and combative. See
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2003/07/high_noon_for_c.shtml
In the Church of Victimology saints are made by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When streets honor the victims, for being victims, you can be sure one of the majority religions in the area is Victimology.
She should have thrown it back at the moron too!
visit another thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646075/posts
now running
another grieving mother, a different response
mentions the death of the ultra-terrorist Al-WhoWasitAnyway
and Ann's new book, the grieving WhinoRats, and her son, a true American Hero
May I call you Katie, Hectorer First Class and protector of the ghoulish drama-queen widows and those cads who would defend them?
She's right, of course. Liberal media outlets put the widows and Cindy Sheehan types out there as having a greater moral right to speak for this country and to run foreign policy if they're against Bush). If anyone dares to point out the obvious...that this is ridiculous...they're branded as mean-spirited, or in Coulter's case, vilified, and have to travel with bodyguards.
Coulter did not slam 9/11 widows.
She slammed four particular 9/11 widows.
Actually, she slammed four particularly vicious political opportunists who also happen to be 9/11 widows.
There is no way Coulter should apologize for this. She is performing a public service.
Hmmm.
I am listening to the audiobook now, and I believe this quote is in the first chapter.
She says NO SUCH DUMBASS STUPID THING. She is being extremely sarcastic when she says it, as when describing a belief in the first person to make a point.
For example, if you were having an argument with someone and said: "Okay then. Let's just round up all the illegal mexicans, put them in a big building, douse it with gasoline and burn it to the ground. That will fix the problem."
Sure, there are a few people who would actually do that, or think it was a good idea. But most people can recognize a rhetorical device when they see it.
This person Weintraub is just being a disingenuous dumbass.
I noticed further into the article that Newsday decided to sanitize Ann's response to Hillary by eliminating any reference to the rape and fondling comments she made.
"I'm here because I consider Ann Coulter the most evil woman in America," Weintraub said. "She says Jews are responsible for the Holocaust. ... This woman is just plain sick."
Above is an excerpt from the article. Where do people get this crap?
I posted this in another thread regarding her comments on the "Jersey Girls" since that seems to be the thing most people who are offended take issue with...I hope anyone who has read it doesn't mind seeing it again, I got an unusual amount of positive feedback with this post, and I thought it might help others come to grips with this issue. This is how I feel about it.
I agree completely with Ann Coulter's characterization of those women.
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.
Huh. Sanitized? I don't know why. Those comments are on target and richly deserved.
When someone Speaks about a HOT TOPIC using certain KEY WORDS--TAKE those words--leave 1-2 words OUT of them--( this is EASY to do) and then Just QUICKLY Relay what YOU want those words to say --and make them into something Totally REVOLTING!!
OR...Take something someone says TOTALLY out of Context!!!
Here's the Key part:Then when Repeating YOUR OWN VERSION of these "words"-or your OWN " Analysis " Condemning these innocent people for what YOU want everyone else to THINK they said or meant: .... then RUN!!! and do NOT attempt to Explain "Where" you heard that person say these things---and "When" or "How"!!!
Look at what they did to Trent Lott!!!!!
And his " Too bad you are not around today (on your 100th birthday today!!!!) back in Politics!!!"
Why did HE have to resign!!!
And McKINEY and so MANY OTHERS get away Scott FREE from the PRESS's Demands for censorship walks free??
Heh! I was just about to look up this loser's pic.
Looks like he brushes his teeth with draino.
... Ann Coulter, listening to [small, whiny, sniveling] Huntington Town Councilman, Mark Cuthbertson, as he denounces statements made in her book "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" while Coulter was making an appearance at the Book Revue Bookstore in Huntington, L.I. on Wednesday.
...Ann Coulter spares the whiny sniveling councilman by ripping up the letter, rather than tearing him a "new one".
He does not know how lucky he is.
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.