posted June 13, 2006 09:14 PM              

Ok lotus, Id love to have some fun chatting with you, but I dont want to waste my time today.

So enjoy your evening

posted June 13, 2006 09:18 PM            

Did you see where a couple of NJ democrats are attempting to have Coulter's book banned by bookstores in New Jersey lotus?

posted June 13, 2006 10:26 PM            

So what is the excuse for the Right not being socially capable enough to disagree with the politics of a victim?

quote:

---

Your broken record response that you don't get it, that you see no legitimate argument Ann Coulter was making marks you as ineducable on this subject.

---

My response has never been that "I don't get it." My response has been that the argument is fundamentally flawed in that it's quite easy to disagree with someone's politics without getting personal.

The point YOU were trying to make was that there was some "intellectual" basis for this argument on Ann's part. YOU have failed to make that case. The reason you've failed to make that case is due to the simple fact that hate and name-calling is not justified in the instance that a victim has decided to make their views known. There's not a shred of doubt in my mind you can't make the case for making it justifiable. There's also no doubt that because you're a hardcore name-caller yourself that you think this behavior is justified and warranted. That comes from an emotional place, Jwhop. Not the intellect.

quote:

---

Suggest you avoid this topic acoustic, it will only give you a headache.

---

posted June 13, 2006 11:04 PM            

Perhaps you're right. Intellectual arguments don't work with leftists; having no intellectual capacity to understand them.

So, let's reverse course and focus on the truth of what Ann Coulter says...about the 4 wretches from New Jersey and leftists in general.

I have almost no hope truth will sway leftists either since they stay so far from it in their own hate filled arguments but I don't like to prejudge.

Ann Coulter Fights the Good Fight
Philip V. Brennan
Tuesday, June 13, 2006

There's a war on, and I don't mean the one in Iraq. It's been called the KultureKampf - the conflict between the traditional values of our culture and the nihilism of modern liberalism that renders just about everything but religious faith, the sanctity of the womb and patriotism, permissible.

In the last week - since June 6, 2006 (666) when her book "Godless" hit the bookstores, Ann Coulter became the ultimate bete noir of our times - and the target of CoulterKampf - the war to destroy liberalism's most dangerous enemy.

She has been castigated for being "mean," and "cruel" for "crossing the line," for failing to recognize the sacredness of four canonized liberal icons. She's "mean" and "cruel" because she blasphemed women elevated to secular sainthood by the church of liberalism, and "crossed a line" drawn by, and visible only to the liberal media and the dominant left wing of Democrat Party.

Here's what Ann wrote about meanness in her book "Slander," four years ago: "A central component of liberal hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic impulses such as calling Republicans angry, hate-filled and mean."

She went on to note that "liberals have compared conservatives to Down's syndrome children, wished them dead of cholesterol-induced heart attacks, malevolently attacked women for their looks, called Clarence Thomas every racist name in the book, repeatedly stated they 'hate' Republicans, and now - in addition - they say Republicans are 'mean'"

Today, it's Ann Coulter who's "mean."

In the 310 pages of her meticulously researched new book, Ann Coulter documents her assertion that liberalism has all the earmarks of a religion, ergo a bizarre one, and carefully deconstructs the dogmas of the church of liberalism.

Critics, who one has every reason to believe haven't so much as cracked the pages of "Godless," have focused all their venom on one small segment of a long chapter. The chapter in question deals with liberalism's use of sacred cows made immune from criticism by virtue of some personal suffering to promulgate their slanders and falsehoods.

There seems to be universal agreement among the nation's literati, right and left, that she went too far in her wholly justified attack on the Jersey Girls who cynically parlayed the 9/11 deaths of their husbands into an anti-Bush political cause. In all of the myriad attacks on Ann for zeroing in on these liberal icons, I have yet to read one word that challenges the accuracy of her criticism of these women.

It's all about the very fact that she dared to tell the truth about the women and failed to understand that they bear the liberal seal of immunity from attack by virtue of their widowhood.

Now I will grant that the lady is hard-as-nails tough - I once told her she reminded me of Baodicea, fearsome queen of the Iceni who casually butchered a few Roman legions and almost drove the invading Romans out of Britain.

She takes no prisoners, and why should she? She's fighting a war in which every decent clear-thinking American should be an ally.

This war is against a foe that would destroy every vestige of everything Americans have always held dear. This war is against those who would destroy everything that has carried this nation to the pinnacle it occupies as history's wealthiest and most powerful nation.

At stake in this war is whether Americans will remain free or end up ground under the heels of the atheistic Marxist elite who are the hierarchy of the church of liberalism whose Vatican is the Democrat Party.

Ann knows it's a war, and she knows what it takes to win a war. She believes in what she's doing despite snide references to her marketing savvy and her ability to sell books by the tens of thousands, allegedly her sole motivation.

It's not easy to stand and take the abuse the left hurls at her. She deserves the support and sympathy of the American people she seeks to alert to the dangers they face from the clergy and acolytes of the church of liberalism.

In her book "Slander," Ann exposed the catechism of the church of liberalism as one that includes hatred of Christians, guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion etc.

I'm with her, all the way. As a veteran of the Marine Corps I see her as one of us - the few, the proud, the warriors who go into battle with verve and steely determination to win, even if it involves ... gasp ... being mean to the enemy.

Semper Fi, Ann.

posted June 13, 2006 11:42 PM              

Ggodnight ALL. ...

posted June 14, 2006 02:01 AM            

quote:

---

A central component of liberal hate speech is to make paranoid accusations based on their own neurotic impulses such as calling Republicans angry, hate-filled and mean."

---

I love this line Jwhop bolded. This is perfectly indicative of her warped logic. People of the left may call Republicans mean, sure. That's what people say when other people are hateful and mean. That's not "hate speech." That's just simple observation. Observation that's well represented in our own little forum here.

But there's more to the words, "hate speech," isn't there?

quote:

---

Over the last two months, the Republican Party has begun a systematic effort to label attacks on President Bush by Democratic presidential candidates as "political hate speech," a new piece of political jargon intended to delegitimize criticism of Bush. It appears this strategy will expanded in the coming months -- a recent memo from Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie urged party officials to adopt the term in their rhetoric.

Like "Enronomics" and "Daschlenomics", "political hate speech" is a carefully crafted term designed to create a hazy, non-logical association between two concepts. In this case, the phrase associates criticism of the president with "hate speech," which generally refers to speech that attacks others on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Of course, some rhetoric directed toward President Bush could fairly be described as hateful (just like any politician), but Republicans have used the term sweepingly to try to delegitimize nearly all criticism of Bush, regardless of its substance. This is a key tactic of political jargon, which often seeks to undermine the legitimacy of criticism by invoking hazy but powerful emotional symbols.

In addition, the phrase reverses the term "hate speech" by directing it back at liberals (another classic jargon tactic), who are associated with the term due to speech codes proscribing "hate speech" at certain colleges and universities. The use of the term "political hate speech" against Democrats thereby imparts an implicit, largely non-rational accusation of hypocrisy, even though no evidence is provided that the candidates in question support prohibitions on hate speech.

Attacks on liberals for "hate speech" have occurred before, most prominently in Bernard Goldberg's book Bias, which lists twelve alleged instances of "liberal hate speech" documented by the Media Research Center, many of which would not meet any fair-minded definition of the term. However, the RNC has recently made the term "political hate speech" central to its attacks on Democratic presidential candidates, repeating it over and over in statements, interviews and press releases. Gillespie's memo to RNC members and party officials, as quoted by ABC's newsletter The Note, instructs Republicans to "Highlight the party of political hate speech ... The presidential candidates have now called President Bush a 'miserable failure,' a 'liar,' compared him to a 'gang leader' and to Saddam Hussein himself. Americans instinctively know that anyone who's willing to demean the presidency in order to gain it is not worthy of having it entrusted to him."
]http://www.spinsanity.com/columns/20031113.html

---

Hate speech indeed! Now who's the good Republican who can't think or speak for him/herself?

quote:

---

In the 310 pages of her meticulously researched new book

---

Meticulously researched! That's hysterical.

quote:

---

The chapter in question deals with liberalism's use of sacred cows made immune from criticism by virtue of some personal suffering to promulgate their slanders and falsehoods.

---

Is this highlighted because you think it's intellectual?

quote:

---

I have yet to read one word that challenges the accuracy of her criticism of these women.

---

This writer's as good an intellectual as Jwhop! This is a great statement in that it doesn't clarify which criticism in particular. I think most of them have been addressed. I know I myself have addressed each one quite swiftly and handily.

quote:

---

She's fighting a war in which every decent clear-thinking American should be an ally.

This war is against a foe that would destroy every vestige of everything Americans have always held dear. This war is against those who would destroy everything that has carried this nation to the pinnacle it occupies as history's wealthiest and most powerful nation.

---

posted June 14, 2006 03:11 AM              

and....well...oh my gosh, although i find utterly objectionable almost everything about her..well...guess what???

i must confess this sneaking admiration for her... ...i mean, what a rebel, right? and don't we as humans have an underlying feeling for true rebels, those who illustrate their defiance regardless of the barriers? maybe in the fashion that rock 'n rollers upset those with a sense of decorum...and while i still may not enjoy, or even approve of, some of the more extreme elements of rock music, my god, i love that they exist...that they stand for a kind of defiance of what society holds sacred...

unlike rush limbaugh, she's not smarmy or slimy, she blazes in your face. i admit, i must admire her sheer gall, even to the extent of ******* off those whose side she claims to support.

lol...i 'spose i won't make any friends on either side with my contentions here...oh well...

having said all that....

so i must now ask, what's the big god-awful deal about these widows using their tragedy in expressing their unhappiness with an administration that allowed their loved ones to be murdered? i sure as goddess breathes life in me would do the same...

i consider this administration directly responsible for the untenable tragedy of 9.11, and i will be the first to use the inexpressable sadness of the grief and waste of what happened to all those sacrificed in this so unnecessary event to object strenuously to gw/cheney and co.'s continued rule.

these embattled women have all the more right to do so, as it is their most beloved whom they lost in this political farce. there is absolutely no amount of money in this world that could ever replace the ones they loved and whose lives they shared...i cry even as i sit here thinking of it.

how in the world could someone be so callous as to make the suggestions people like ann c. and co, make about them? there's so much more to attack and villify than the irrevocable grief these women must feel at their loss. we should all understand that, we as members of a linda goodman website...isn't that what gooberz is all about, grief so strong at the loss of a loved one that the loved one returns to his beloved in a metaphysically incredulous manner?

omg, that's the power and strength of what this website is all about....linda expressed a grief so profound that she traversed heaven and hell to come to grips with it, and learned, and shared with us, amazing spiritual truths along the way.

did she too exploit her grief for money? she did after all make handsome royalties on her publications expressing her grief. publications in which she made numerous political statements as well....yet look at all we've gained from her....at where she's brought us. even those who don't espouse her views or agree with her.....you're still here, learning and interacting, because of her and the profound effect she's had on countless lives!!

as for the 9.11 widows, really, if their motive was just money and fame, couldn't they direct their efforts in much more glamorous and lucrative ways? forgive me if i'm re-stating what others here already may have expressed, i confess to perhaps skimming here and there.....i mean, geez, how mundane and tedious to campaign politically, if all they're really interested in is their money? i can think of a million other much better ways they could spend their time and effort if ac's assessment of their motives is actually true.

good god. unbelievable, isn't it? yet, the lady makes us think, seriously and deeply, does she not, about our core values and beliefs....look at what she's brought to the surface here....

as a child of goddess, ann serves goddess's purpose as well.

i think it's hilarious that she published her book on 6.6.06....what exactly does that mean in this milieu, in this angst-drenched millenial soup in which we all swim? who knows, except that she, or her handlers, are marketing geniuses, and direct a very definitive voice, for good or ill, if one subscribes to a dualistic perspective, in our social structure today.

heh heh....ann, naughty snippet bleach blond that you are....live free or die!!

posted June 14, 2006 06:39 AM              

Salome..good thoughts..the wives..are lying..about some things..

oh my..I have to get ready for work..

Love and Respect for ALL..

posted June 14, 2006 10:18 AM              

quote:

---

Sounds like the tactics of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Jong, Castro and the other little leftist dictators.

---

Wow. Saying Ann is a dumb b*tch, definitely compares to Bush killing babies in Iraq.

posted June 14, 2006 01:20 PM            

I would have posted sooner, but I've been under the weather.. in any case, I am familiar with that article that you posted because I posted part of it and provided the link and few posts before you had.

posted June 14, 2006 01:30 PM              

it does not lessen their grief, BUT..it is still wrong to lie. ...

posted June 14, 2006 01:44 PM              

"Ye of little Faith"

Love and Respect for ALL. ...

posted June 14, 2006 02:06 PM              

quote:

---

Of course, Ann's every utterance is a carefully choreographed gambit to convert sensationalistic bad taste into sensationally good sales. In this way she is like another rapidly aging blond sex kitten, Madonna, someone else with no discernable talent other than getting people to ask, "Did she really say that?"

---

wow, i never ask that about Madonna, there's a lot about her that i don't care for, but i admire her tremendously -- she's undeniably a cultural icon, whose impact on our society has been positive and transformative.

quote:

---

But in her mercantile zeal to say what sells, Miss Coulter endeavors to create an image that has apparently had a nasty falling out with reality, leaving them no longer on speaking terms. Indeed, to hear Miss Coulter speak (in that wound up Martha Stewart-on-helium Connecticut lockjaw voice of hers), you'd think she is someone who actually embraces heartland, Christian, American values. In reality, however, she is less like June Cleaver baking pot-roast than she is like Samantha Jones baked on pot. Indeed, this is no piously serene Christian wife, but a braying loud mouth who wears super-slutty clothes, powders her bony nose more often than Lindsay Lohan (if you know what I mean), knocks back scotch with an alacrity that eludes Ted Kennedy since the advent of rheumatoid arthritis, lives only in cities filled with homos and screws anything willing to bang an anorexic skeleton.

This brings me to Miss Coulter's teen tramp wardrobe. Miss Coulter showed up to the Today show this week wearing a black cocktail dress three sizes too small. At seven in the morning, mind you. No woman in New York wears a little black dress that early in the day unless she is burying someone dead, or looks like someone dead, as she makes a ***** of Babylon predawn retreat from the previous night's licentious debauchery. This may account for why Matt Lauer told me that the poor thing smelled like an ashtray.

But it wasn't the color of the dress that was so telling. No, it was the "Look! I got myself one of those Brazilian waxes!" length that spoke more to a Jackie Stallone determination to hang on to youth with knuckles no longer white but bleeding. Indeed, it seems that Miss Coulter's whole sense of self comes from thinking she is a "hot young babe" who drives, presumably myopic, men wild with a sexual desire so ardent they no longer hear the nonsense she is saying. Goodness me, who would have ever guessed that the Achilles heel for most Republican men would be the sight of pre-operative transsexuals in dresses made for someone 20 years younger?

Miss Coulter suffers from an affliction I like to call Mariah Carey by Proxy. Celebrities who suffer from this debilitating disease so seldom seek help before some ruthless person takes a photograph of them. Mariah Carey by Proxy afflicts menopausal woman who think they would break the hearts of teenage boys throughout America if they ever showed up in public with a nipple-baring "Love Waits" tube-top. NOTE: Call your doctor if you find yourself wearing clothes that flash undernourished, middle-age legs and surgically-levitated bosoms, particularly when such revealing clothing is not appropriate for the occasion. Side effects may include wearing your hair like a junior high school cheerleader even though you are rapidly approaching 50.

---

omg, it burned my synapses to read this snipey judgmental attack....so ac's image isn't pleasing to this writer, so what, there are many women, and men, who don't fit the 'standard' for looks and taste...and we should judge them for this? this seriously detracts from any critique of ann's ideas...i'm not gorgeous, nor am i demure, nor am i young...so what? must i be those things for my words to have merit? is gw any of those? please, if anything, this bitter, self-loathing woman must have been ann's tutor in the way of the world...

quote:

---

this is no piously serene Christian wife...

---

this is what renders her ideas objectionable?

and this...

quote:

---

[ann c.] lives only in cities filled with homos...

---

omg, how tolerant or christlike is a statement like that? where you live now, and who lives in your city, is criteria for judging a person's ideas?

posted June 14, 2006 02:13 PM              

you don't speak for god, nor do you know enough about everything in the world to make the same kinds of ridiculous and harmful judgments ann coulter makes.

oh ye of little faith...lol...

judge not...blah blah blah...