Posted on 06/17/2006 8:42:22 AM PDT by marc costanzo
The left-leaning Newsweek magazine lied about what she wrote in her book, an indignant Ann Coulter said during an appearance on Thursday night's Hannity & Colmes show on Fox News Channel.
"I'm sitting in a Fox studio in L.A.," Coulter said. "I don't know why there's a copy of Newsweek here rather than Human Events. Here is Newsweek describing Ann Coulter as saying '9/11 widows enjoyed their [husbands'] deaths.' That is simply a lie . . . That is a lie. If you can't deal with the facts and you refuse to say what the argument is, I think that's a total lack of confidence in your position and it certainly shows a complete lack of understanding [that] Americans can find out the truth these days - that it's not the mainstream media monopoly it was 10 years ago."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
If you knew that she made the Playboy comment, then I really have no clue what your initial post meant, but I can't say I'm concerned with the opinion of someone so complacent about vulgarity.
How can you evaluate AC's word fairly if you haven't read the book?
The book is a polemic which uses hyperbole to make a direct assault on the doctrine of liberal infallibility.
That you priggishly dismiss her words as not "rational discourse" shows only your ignorance of this particular type of discourse. Your claim that AC supporters "quibble" about the meaning of the word "enjoying," fades when you beg your question that enjoy could only mean some sly invective on her part. You compound your argument's (such as it is) weakness by superciliously denouncing the proofs presented to you, then risibly claim you can evaluate her work fairly.
I'm not going to question your motives, (tho you seem quite comfortable to do that to others) but while you may consider yourself to be a conservative, you certainly don't sound like one.
In anticipation of your "gosh these AC supporter are so mean" declamation: see tagline.
You're apparently missing the point that typically polemics does not appeal to the intellect, but to the emotions--generally polemical works are also propaganda. Hmm. . .
No, I'm using the actual meaning of the word "enjoy." You are choosing to ignore that meaning. She said "enjoy" and she was correct to use the word "enjoy." You, on the other hand, are choosing to try to redefine what that word means to fit your own prejudice (or stupid error) and you just keep digging yourself deeper into the pit.
These women are "enjoying" the benefits of their husband's deaths.
That isn't Ann Coulter speaking. That's me. Address that argument.
They have benefitted from (enjoyed) their husbands deaths. Can you prove me wrong?
Can you even disprove that they have had fun in the process?
I do NOT argue that the deaths of their loved ones were something they enjoyed at the time, regardless of the various definitions of the word "enjoy." I challenge you to prove me (or Ann) wrong in the assertion that they have enjoyed (regardless of the various definitions of the word "enjoy") the benefits of those deaths.
Have they gone to Hollywood and New York Parties that they wouldn't have been invited to except for the deaths of their husbands and their own anti American positions based on those deaths?
Have they been offered financial opporunities that they wouldn't have been except for the deaths of their husbands and their own anti American positions based on those deaths?
Prove those factual assertions wrong and we'll be getting somewhere.
Fall back to poorly sourced and totally feeble "na na na na na na" type posts and you sink further into your own filth.
You know, when you have to spend so much time telling us what the definition of "is", is, or, rather that "enjoy" means this, rather than that, it is you who have lost the argument.
The precise definition of words does matter greatly. Even more so when a person purposefully uses the wrong definition and attributes it to what another person wrote. That's what ahayes has done. That you chose not to acknowledge that doesn't surprise me in the least. For, since day one on this forum you've not risen to the occasion. Smae ol', same ol'.
Referring to certain, specific widows is completely different than referring to 9/11 windows in general,which is how her remarks are portrayed. The difference is not simply a matter of semantics, and the difference in what she said and the reporting is neither accidental nor is it insignificant.
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.
Definitely, you heretic, otherwise you're a DUmmy in disguise. I've been told so myself.
That is how she portrays her comments as being portrayed, but having read multiple articles I'm doubtful that this is accurate.
Don't bet money on that.
Do you think Ann is really being sensitive to the poor widows' feelings?
She was sensitive to the Jersey girls. Just not in the way you approve. She was sensitive to the other widows in a way that you do approve. Ann explained how the Jersey Girls benefited. That's the context and supports the 'to benefit' definition of enjoy.
And when Coulter uses a word such as "enjoy" which means "derive pleasure from" as its most common usage and definition, and her quote is take to mean such, it's hilarious to watch her and you back pedal and insist that she meant "derive benefit from". If she meant derived benefit from, why didn't she use "benefit" rather than "enjoy"?
You and I both know why.
For, since day one on this forum you've not risen to the occasion.
What "occasion"? Should I prepare for a parsing here, too?
Members of this forum are twisting themselves into knots, insisting that words don't mean what they mean, and that Coulter never said what she clearly said.
Funny how they seem to think that Coulter was just too uneducated to understand the implications of the word "enjoy" and realize it would convey meaning that she did not intend. Perhaps we should mail her a thesaurus to avoid such incidents in future?
Well, I haven't scoured the new outlets, but I've seen no indication that any of the general media has made the distinction. Or any effort to make it.
There are subtle ways to say the truth while deliberately putting it in the light they wish.
Bingo.
Funny, every article I've read on my search on Google News specifies it was this group of widows and mentions the political controversy.
Yeah, I was thinking about this earlier and I think I do give people more of the benefit of the doubt than I should ("If they dumb down chemistry for the non-majors, how can people still fail?" I asked. . .) Perhaps I should say most people educated and interested enough to go read the news probably wouldn't think that?
I'm sorry, I must have missed you claiming this--as I missed your claim that "generally polemical words are also propaganda."
Thank you for proving my point. Until this bit of self-revelation you've hid behind a clumsy act of Socratic Irony. Now we can see the ignorance of your argument in full view. Your "typically" and "generally" waffles around polemics and polemical works betray a complete lack of understanding of these terms in the context of political debate. You've constructed your argument out of the whole cloth of your sanctimonious indignation of a few words on a page. IOW, you are so offended by AC's words, you have given yourself and intellectual pass on evaluating what they mean and the rest of her book in context. Instead you claim some vapid moral authority in the matter of the use of a legitmate rhetorical device.
While you feel comfortable sucking your rhetorical thumb; I submit it is you who is gauche to come to this table to debate as a hapless victim, lamenting the decency of others who cannot "fairly" evaluate Miss Coulter's claims.
Excuse me while I cry you a river.
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.