Posted on 08/20/2002 3:41:11 PM PDT by anncoulteriscool
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:01:04 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If you don't like Ann, STAY the H3LL off of Ann threads, you freaking MORON!
Get a CLUE already!
Who is it that keeps letting nadler back on FR?
"If you don't like Ann, STAY the H3LL off of Ann threads, you freaking MORON!" <---- I never said I did not like her. I questioned why others, such as yourself, worship her slaveringly. Is the name calling really necessary? Is it also necessary to blank out hell? You calling me names is worse than saying or writing hell. And if you're going to use the f-word, go for the gold. This is a discussion board. I can make points if I want to. If you want to start the Ann Coulter fan club, be my guest, but Free Republic probably isn't the best place for it.
"Get a CLUE already!" <--- Huh?
"Who is it that keeps letting nadler back on FR?" <-- Huh?
How can you be so angry with a name like "Peace be with You"? It sounds like you don't have any peace yourself from the tone of your post. How can you give any to others?
If you want to offer any serious counter-arguments (without the silly name calling) to my positions, I'll be right here.
I thought FR WAS the Ann Coulter fan club.
Some folks find "hell" to be offensive, while it isn't actually profane. I havn't found anyone till now that found h3ll to be until now, so I will use heck from now on, or until some other moron finds it offensive.;-)
You obviously missed the humor in my post, the same way all lieberals miss humor. Your tlaking point attack of Ann had me wondering, your inability to get humor strenthens my suspicion.
Don't expect to get off scott free when you show up on conservative discussion board on a thread about Coulter, or any other conservative freedom fighter - that endlessly fights the good fight - to slander them with some trivial or meaningless observation of yours or some other moron.
I would like Ann or any other conservative if they were 500 pound gorillas, if they used their platforms to say what every conservative in America wishes someone, anyone would say. It just so happens that most conservatives don't fit the 500 gorilla profile and are, like Ann, easy on the eyes.
If you don't like Ann, for whatever reason, that's fine, stay away, grow a thicker skin, or get some real criticism - not the lieberal talking point attacks you regurgitated earlier - cause we won't put up with your insipid sniping slander of her, or any other freedom fighter here.
BTW:In case you missed it, this is a Conservative disscussion board. I'm still not angry yet, but I do smell a rat. :-)
Read Slander. Her book puts together a coherent thesis of how the left deals with their opponents. She is also a constitutional scholar of some note; I would suggest that she has not obtained her station in life by being stupid. And you would be putting yourself out on an untenable limb if you were to suggest otherwise.
She throws bombs and says outrageous things for the sake of ratings.
Piffle. She is telling the truth on the leftists. Where is it written that conservatives must, ever and always, be totally restrained when making it clear to their opponents that we know the measure, or lack thereof, of their arguments and character?
She's a semi-starved waif.
You don't know that. I believe an article on here involved her eating a steak over an interview. For all you know she could be one of those women who has a metabolism with a burn rate faster than a fission reactor.
Her writing IS VERY shrill.
In your opinion. However considering the kind of garbage we see out of the left about "right wing extremists", I would suggest she is merely parroting their style right back at them. She is, in other words, giving them a dose of their own medicine. As she might have expected, they are gagging on the dose.
The Coulter worship is amusing too.
The Lady Ann has her admirers, I among them. It is unsporting that you should attack her without her being around to defend herself. I am sure that I can speak for others as well as myself that those who issue forth with such ill-mannered as well as ill-thought out criticisms of her can expect no quarter.
Ivan
jjm2111 just ain't figured it out yet.
He/she may have one of those Socrates moments real soon.
Yet another thing that Ann Coulter threads are good for...rat bait. ;-)
"You obviously missed the humor in my post..." Humor can be very tough to convey in message boards. Besides, I'm a libertarian, and libertarians can be known for their complete lack of a sense of humor.
BTW, my criticisms of Ann, with the exception of the waif part, are true. (The waif part is true too, but it was a lame criticism). She is a bomb thrower. She can be crude in her writing style such as offhandedly referring to many liberal men as "girlie men" and such. Sometimes she can be a bomb thrower AND speak the truth. Sometimes she can be crude AND speak the truth. My whole question was why so many on this board worship her without reservation when she is clearly far from perfect?
"insipid sniping slander" alliteration lesson just finish in English class?
"I'm still not angry yet..." And the Lord knows I wouldn't like it if you got angry. "...but I do smell a rat." Check your sense of smell.
"Piffle." "We should invade their countries...and convert them to Christianity." Tell me that's not outrageous. The U.S. did not forcibly convert Japanese to Christianity after WWII. There's no precedent for it.
About the waif, comment: She is a waif, but it is meaningless in the political aspect of things and silly for me to mention it. (It would be akin to saying so-and-so has a big nose). You have point there.
About the shrill. She is shrill, but it is funny to watch liberals get apoplexic after they listen to Ann.
"It is unsporting that you should attack her without her being around to defend herself. I am sure that I can speak for others as well as myself that those who issue forth with such ill-mannered as well as ill-thought out criticisms of her can expect no quarter. " People are criticized all the time on FR without their being around (or even alive in some instances) to defend themselves. It's a discussion board. The Coulter worshippers get an aneurysm every time someone has the termerity to offer the tiniest cristism of her. I, BTW, picked up Slander in the book store and browsed through it. It seemed well put together, but I read O'Reilly's book and Rush's book and it seems like the same thing with a different author. I felt like I would be wasting my money to read Slander becuase much of the material I already knew and had read from other sources(such as various gun control papers and "Bias" by Goldberg).
Really? Can you mention any meaningful constitutional thesis that she wrote? Every pundit left OR right tends to be a self-described "scholar" of one kind or another. Many posters on FR are better educated and better schooled than many pundits. Besides, I never said Ann was stupid. I would be stupid to suggest such a thing.
Here is her law record from her bio:
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
Are you seriously going to suggest that someone who lacks an original and insightful mind, particularly in a conservative milieu (which tends to reward merit rather than gender) could get this far? I will dig up her theses for you if need be, but I am giving you this opportunity to not make an even greater arse of yourself.
"We should invade their countries...and convert them to Christianity." Tell me that's not outrageous. The U.S. did not forcibly convert Japanese to Christianity after WWII. There's no precedent for it.
You are totally ignoring the possibility she is merely being provocative. I doubt she has serious plans to create such a holy crusade, however her statement should give you pause - if indeed the Islamics had embraced Christianity rather than Islam, it is very unlikely that much of the terrorism that has occured in the latter half of the 20th century would have happened. Too bad that she only provoked your spleen instead of your brain. Quite a left wing reaction, that.
About the waif, comment: She is a waif, but it is meaningless in the political aspect of things and silly for me to mention it. (It would be akin to saying so-and-so has a big nose). You have point there.
Well done. You're on the first step of your recovery.
People are criticized all the time on FR without their being around (or even alive in some instances) to defend themselves. It's a discussion board. The Coulter worshippers get an aneurysm every time someone has the termerity to offer the tiniest cristism of her. I, BTW, picked up Slander in the book store and browsed through it. It seemed well put together, but I read O'Reilly's book and Rush's book and it seems like the same thing with a different author. I felt like I would be wasting my money to read Slander becuase much of the material I already knew and had read from other sources(such as various gun control papers and "Bias" by Goldberg).
The Lady Ann gets enough garbage from her enemies - why should she get it from her supposed friends? Secondly, and I am probably alone in Britain with this - I have those books by O'Reilly, Limbaugh as well as Ms. Coulter. To suggest they all sound the same is ridiculous: O'Reilly, for example, takes positions on the death penalty which is anathema to conservatives. O'Reilly and Limbaugh tend to deal with more "general" problems. Ann's book was focused like a laser beam on the behaviour of liberals and doing a well documented and sharply pointed analysis.
It is interesting, however that you admit to not having really read the book before you launched into a criticism. What other books do you not read and criticise so blithely?
Finally, Ms. Coulter has a special place on this board I dare say because of her role during impeachment. She was there on "St. Crispian's Day" and in particular at the March for Justice. I don't seem to recall your presence then however.
You are right about one thing: you are free, of course, to express your opinion about the Lady Ann. I and others, however, are free to skewer you in return.
Ivan
I never said she was stupid. How many times must I repeat myself? I didn't mean her masters or law school theisis either. I meant has she written anything that would put her in the Constitutional Attorney hall-of-fame like "The Embarrasing Second Amendment"?
"You are totally ignoring the possibility she is merely being provocative. I doubt she has serious plans to create such a holy crusade, however her statement should give you pause - if indeed the Islamics had embraced Christianity rather than Islam, it is very unlikely that much of the terrorism that has occured in the latter half of the 20th century would have happened." Please. The statment was outrageous. Provoctive, yes, but also outrageous. I can admit when I'm wrong, you should learn to do the same. The suggestion that if Muslism were Christians is silly. They're not. Christianity had it's own "barbaric times" where they killed anyone who disagreed with them. Christians at least grew out of it. Not so for Muslims.
Your analogy, BTW, is if I said "we should kill all liberals" and then argue that I implied that we would have far less problems if we didn't have liberals. The second part maybe true, but it doesn't make the first part any less dumb.
"It is interesting, however that you admit to not having really read the book before you launched into a criticism. " Why would I have to read Coulter's book to criticize the Coulter worshippers?
"I don't seem to recall your presence then however. How could you recall? You've never met me before. You have no idea what I look like.
You are continuing to be pushed backwards. First you implied that she lacked original thought or insights. Now you are reduced to asking for some major constitutional thesis of hers, of which, presumably, you will appoint yourself arbiter of its significance. Yet indeed you've had to give on her intelligence, experience and lively mind. I will see what I can find on her theses to ensure you give altogether.
Please. The statment was outrageous. Provoctive, yes, but also outrageous. I can admit when I'm wrong, you should learn to do the same. The suggestion that if Muslism were Christians is silly. They're not. Christianity had it's own "barbaric times" where they killed anyone who disagreed with them. Christians at least grew out of it. Not so for Muslims.
You are missing the point. The statement was most likely outrageous by design in order to get you to think. The problem is that liberals think with their gut rather than their brain and cannot see that she may have a point. Islam is not a religion of peace, being that point. And let's have a sense of proportion here: given the insults and outright threats that Islam has thrown at Christians and Jews, a single comment from the Lady Ann is provoking more outrage from you than what they have said?
Your analogy, BTW, is if I said "we should kill all liberals" and then argue that I implied that we would have far less problems if we didn't have liberals. The second part maybe true, but it doesn't make the first part any less dumb.
She did not say kill them. She did say convert them. Your analogy falls flat right from the first go.
Why would I have to read Coulter's book to criticize the Coulter worshippers?
If you want to criticise something effectively, know what you are criticising (i.e., why the Lady Ann is revered, you have to know what she's done). For example, I read French history and about Marxism so that I can shoot dead the French and the Marxists in an argument. Otherwise, you are merely spouting off from a position of ignorance and looking like an utter jackass.
How could you recall? You've never met me before. You have no idea what I look like.
Your registration date: 2001. After impeachment.
Ivan
One thing I've always wondered is why many posters on FR cannot handle philisophical and political disagreements without resorting to insults. You criticize (rightly) my calling Coulter a waif, yet you call me stupid. How does that benefit the debate in any way?
If you want respect when you show up to a gunfight, don't carry a spoon. You opened fire on the Lady Ann by pretending your visceral dislike for her somehow translates into a tenable intellectual position. Sorry, that doesn't fly.
Regards, Ivan
I just finished it yesterday. I thought she absolutely nailed the liberal mind (if such a thing exists).
"The statement was most likely outrageous by design in order to get you to think. " So you agree that she can be outrageous at times then?
"And let's have a sense of proportion here: given the insults and outright threats that Islam has thrown at Christians and Jews, a single comment from the Lady Ann is provoking more outrage from you than what they have said?" Muslims say lots of stupid things. It doesn't faze me anymore.
"She did not say kill them. She did say convert them. Your analogy falls flat right from the first go." No, it doesn't. Considering people convert from their "political religions" all the time, converting liberals would make the anology dumb. Forcibly converting people from deeply cherished religious beliefs is much more serious; akin to "killing" them in a spiritual sense.
"Your registration date: 2001. After impeachment." That means nothing. Maybe I was a friend of a Freeper who was there. My registration does not prove or disprove anything.
BTW, you make the assumption that I hate Coulter. I do not. I generally find her work well thought out, if a bit brash. I just mentioned that I find Coulter worshippers such as yourself, (Lady Ann) amusing.
Read the book before you continue. She attacks them for their mendaciousness in a fresh, comprehensive way. Again, you are speaking of things of which you are only marginally acquainted.
So you agree that she can be outrageous at times then
I merely used the word since you seem so attached to it. I myself prefer provactive.
Muslims say lots of stupid things. It doesn't faze me anymore.
Since you seem to so breezily dismiss what the Islamics say because they are "stupid" and since you have an utter disregard for the Lady Ann's intelligence, one wonders why you are so outraged by her statements and so unmoved by those coming from the Arab world. Particularly since those coming from the Arab world lead to men flying planes into buildings and killing thousands. The Lady Ann writes books. And you are worked up over her?
No, it doesn't. Considering people convert from their "political religions" all the time, converting liberals would make the anology dumb. Forcibly converting people from deeply cherished religious beliefs is much more serious; akin to "killing" them in a spiritual sense.
I smell a liberal. First you blithely ignore what the Islamics say, which is far more horrible, threatening and indeed murderous in its implications; then, you jump all over whatever provocative material the Lady Ann has to say as if she was calling for the slaughter of millions and actually had the power to do it. Oh by the way, the Lady Ann just made one statement about converting the Islamics to Christianity. For the Islamics, we are either to convert or die. WHich is more serious, and which are you taking more seriously? You showed your hand by saying it doesn't "faze you anymore".
Maybe I was a friend of a Freeper who was there. My registration does not prove or disprove anything.
If you were there, I sincerely doubt you would be making such a weak, feeble statement.
BTW, you make the assumption that I hate Coulter. I do not.
You certainly give every impression - you seem to be more "fazed" by her statements than by those who actually can and do intend harm to the United States.
I generally find her work well thought out, if a bit brash. I just mentioned that I find Coulter worshippers such as yourself, (Lady Ann) amusing.
Anyone who cares to review this conversation, most assuredly, will reach a different conclusion. I admire the Lady Ann tremendously - I worship no one but God. However you may a very poor choice in just throwing out some random, ill-thought out criticisms of her.
Ivan
Incorrect. You launched into some intellectually impoverished criticisms of her and are utterly shocked you're getting called on it in the kind of terms in which you decided to launch your attack. Act like an imbecile, you will be treated as one.
Ivan
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.