To Ann Coulter's Critics: "Shut Up And Read"

Charleston City Paper ^ | June 14, 2006 | Michael Graham

[DarkSavant]

Schuller books is just about that bad.

[Samwise]

Say what?

[bornacatholic]

The partial response is an indication to me you have not read her recent book. That renders your criticism nugatory

[mc5cents]

You mean besides her multiple instances of misleading and often downright false propaganda about evolutionary biology in chapters 8-10,

Oh, so you at least read the chapter titles. Did you actually read the book? Did you also look into any of the 65 footnotes sited in those chapters 8-10?

[ozzymandus]

I dare anybody to post this article on DU.

[BelegStrongbow]

Sounds good. go for it.

[bornacatholic]

To Ann Coulter's Critics: "Shut Up And Read" is the title of this thread.

LOL Please, don't stop. Don't even slow down ...

[bornacatholic]

I double dog dare you to do it

[Mr. Lucky]

Where, in her book or elsewhere, do you think Ms. Coulter has suggested your political ideology has been ordained by God?

[bornacatholic]

One might think, given the title of the thread, that a LITTLE caution would be exercised by her critics, but no.

Why read? Denounce and label. First the verdict then the trial :)

[BelegStrongbow]

Well, he got better.

:P

[ozzymandus]

My excuse is that I don't know how.

[bornacatholic]

My excuse is Christians are to avoid near occasions of sin

[goldstategop]

I suspect in their hearts, even liberals admit Ann Coulter's right. But they don't know how to counter her intellectually. She's firing with all barrels and they're shooting back spitballs. If I were a Democrat, I'd say the party has been intellectually disarmed. But you're never going to hear these the people admit openly they have to change. The ego of liberals prevents them from doing it. If they weren't so shrill and angry, they might stand have a chance. But the way they have reacted to Ann is an indication they're setting themselves up to lose another election this year. Look at it: is that kind of whining the sign of a confident party on the offensive? The party to the contrary, keeps signaling how weak and divided it is. Whatever the Democrats might say publicly, their fear of Ann Coulter is an a revelation that victory is not at hand in 2004 - cause otherwise they would just ignore her. All that conventional wisdom being promoted in the Drive By Media about how this will be the Year Of The Democrats is just that... bunk.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[bornacatholic]

You clearly have not read her books objectively.

*Seven words sufficed

[bornacatholic]

You clearly have not read her books objectively.

*Seven words sufficed

[mc5cents]

Agreed. Good post. My thoughts also.

[RetiredSWO]

She did too -- you just got better

[Restorer]

In all the hoopla over her language, a point she should have made about the "widows" gets lost, again.

There were presumably well over 1000 9/11 widows. The media latched onto these four as the "official representatives" of the entire group. As far as I know, the others were not asked if they agreed or approved of these four as their reps.

This happens all the time. Back during the days of apartheid I remember the press invariably hauling out old Bishop Tutu as the official representative of black South Africans. Who elected him to that post?

Angry feminists are routinely portrayed as the voice of "American women," most of whom disagree strongly with their spokeswomen.

The list could go on for a very long time.

[BelegStrongbow]

Among their many attributes, the Pythons had great taste in women.

Sadly, they could not keep them.