![]() |
Is Ann Coulter the most vile person in America?
I think that anyone, regardless of political belief, must be disgusted that this woman's rantings are so heavily publicized. American law may guarantee free speech, but why would anyone publish this sort of thing, other than as an example of awfulness
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry you don't agree with what she says. I don't agree with what she says, however, disgusted? Not so much. |
Great article, thanks for the post SF.
|
Meh. I just ignore her. Her arguments are so biased, so obviously full of logical holes, so spiteful, that it's hard to believe anybody actually takes them seriously, and it's sad that any grain of truth in them gets lost behind her publicity-hounding vendetta against all things liberal. She gets published because she gets attention.
|
Aside from a nonsensical title to the thread that has nothing to do with the article, what about it is wrong?
|
|
Everything that I read in that post of her "ranting" is true, so where is the problem?
|
Quote:
Additionally, the whole Monica Lewinsky argument is out of place and assinine. |
Quote:
Actually, I think he did. I do however think that George Bush Sr. didn't do enough. |
Quote:
Apparent approval of dropping a bomb on the French embassy, which if it was a "mistake" rather than a mistake, would have been an act of war, which at very best would have caused a break down in trade between American and most of Europe which would have damaged both economies Approval of the policy of inciting war between and arming both Iran and Iraq, a conflict that cost millions of lives - which she believes was Reagan's policy. Constant demonising of Muslims and approval of violence against Muslim people in retaliation for any crimes carried out by unrelated Muslims 9 (for example - Libya harbors a terrorist who kills a US soldier, therefore America bomb Libya and kill Gaddhafi's daughter and this is great) The intent of the article is to dehumanize Muslims, and to incite violence against Muslims, in all but words Coulter is calling for a holy war against Islam. Attempting to politicize a terrorist attack against America and claim it only happened because of Clinton Constant disregard and contempt for the Muslim victimes of the killings she lists. An inaccurate and wrong headed understanding of current events... do we really believe, for example, the American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have made Islam more friendly to America? Do we believe that the chances of American's being killed in conflict with any Islamic groups have now vastly decreased? |
Strange Famous,
I've said it before and I can only say it again: You and I live in very different worlds. I can't even begin to talk politics with you because we can't even agree on the facts. Where I see white, you see black. So with all sincerity, I wish you peace. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, that led to the first WTC bombing which Clinton did absolutely nothing in response, which of course led to the second one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
She's right. If only clinton hadn't made bush sit around salivating over saddam hussein with his thumb up his ass for the first nine months of his term.
Moving on. I think to be fair, and to follow the logic of the great conservashrew coulter, all future terrorist attacks including the train bombings in madrid should be blamed on the commander in chief george bush. Obviously one cannot ignore the current state of world affairs as being the sole responsibility of that one person. Watch out! I'm getting "factual" like coulter!! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We obviously haven't won shit there. |
Quote:
You must have missed the "Mission Accomplished" banner from ye olde aircraft carrier.;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But obviously it wasn't enough. Clinton pruned a branch without going to the root of the evil: The countries and people overseas who financed and supported the bombers. |
It must be nice living life looking through left leaning glasses.
What Coulter was SHOWING was the presidental responses to terrorist attacks. When someone smacks you upside the head and you DO NOTHING you are perceived as weak. And when 100 thousand plus foriegn troops are scattered all over your country you have been defeated in a war. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Incidentally, is it still too soon to dust off "quagmire"? Quote:
Quote:
I was simply showing my perception of the facts that she left out surrounding bush's responses to terrorism. How is it that iraq is even mentioned in an article about reactions to terrorism? Bush even admitted that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He's been dry humping his iraq doll since before he was even inaugurated. That was before terrorism was a big deal to him. |
Quote:
I will agree that if we let the hippy crowd run things now like we did in the 60's, then it will turn into a "quagmire". But right now, there is a strategy that involves using the force necessary to answer attacks and proceeding with our plans even though those attacks are meant to derail them. Or maybe we could appease everyone like Spain did and win that way. It certainly seems to have worked for them... http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=508882 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To you this is appeasement? Fair enough, we're all entitled to interpret events with our own set of eyes. If you want a more accurate image of appeasement, see the u.s. alliance with uzbekistan. C'mon, how ironic is it for an american citizen to denounce another country for appeasement. We're the appeasingest appeasers in appeasington. Furthermore, you're in no position to judge the bahavior of the spanish. For one, you don't know if they will bow to these demands. They were already going to pull out of iraq. I'd be surprised if they pulled out of afghanistan, but that's just me. How many threats have they gotten due to their "appeasement"? I've only heard of this one. How many threats has the u.s. gotten with our philosophy of selective non iraq/afghani appeasment? |
i've read this article twice and can't for the life of me justify the title of this thread.
the article is 95% recitation of historical fact. granted, the choice of dates and events were probably tailored to support her intent, but i don't see why this contributes to the idea that she is vile. if you can disprove the veracity of her writing, do that. if you can't and are still offended, ask yourself why the dry presentation of fact offends you so much and articulate a logically sound response... if you are able. i must say, on a personal note, that i resent anyone that says we "haven't won shit there." to debate about the merits of our actions is one thing but to deny the efficacy of our military operations displays a lack of knowledge of the situation. |
Quote:
And I'm not convinced that there is a strategy, except for making sure we wash our hands of it before the election, so it can be touted as another successful battleground in the war on terror. As for your last bullet, that link is dated yesterday. The new prime minister said several weeks ago that he would withdraw troops from Iraq. But how exactly is he appeasing the fundamentalists when he says he'll be increasing troop levels in Afghanistan? |
Quote:
|
As usual, Coulter takes things and lays them out in a manner that fits her view of the world. There is really nothing wrong with this, we all do it to some extent, she is just more viscious than most (and more successful than most). The real thing that got my attention was the lashing out at Clarke. Clearly she got the memo from Mr. Rove and the RNC about doing whatever it takes to slur him without actually addressing the issues he brings up.
As far as being disgusted, no I am not. I am dissapointed that so many people buy into her sludge, but I am proud that I live in a country where she has the right to say these things (and things like McCarthy was a righteous hero) and I have the right to say she is a misguided, self-absorbed fool.(Who, as I have said time and time agiain, is laughing all the way to the bank.) |
Strange Famous, do you know what a civil war is?
::in my best Inigo Montoya (from Princess Bride) voice:: You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. |
Quote:
You live in a very different world then ANYONE I know. Its a shame you don't seem happy in it. There are 5 MILLION Iraqis in and around Bagdad. There are weapons all over the place. If the Iraqi people wanted to kick the US out, they could do so in a matter of hours. A small % of the militants, spurred on by Syria and Iran, does not a civil war make. |
Quote:
And it was debunked by the Administration today as well. Now, this is at the press conference that was all over Cable News from 3-4, Fox & CNN and whatever. A reporter pointedly asked Rumsfeld if Iran was contributing to the hostilities in Iraq. Rumsfeld, who we can only assume has more complete intelligence reports than Rush can get his oxycontin stained hands on, said that he has no evidence that Iran is involved in either Manpower or material support of insurgents in Iraq. |
Hmmm. While I don't see a civil war, I see the potential for one. But as far as percentages of population being some sort of requirement for civil war/revolution - Lenin took power in Russia with only several thousand Bolsheviks, in a country of 100 million. Our own revolutionary war was fought with relatively small numbers of men in comparison to total population.
|
Quote:
|
you know i really do find it interesting that under clarke we did very little compared to today and now that wea re not going his do nothing way he has left and attacking the administration to me this just kind of sounds childish and as it turns out i have lost any respect i had for him
|
Mojo, I understand. And it makes sense to me too.
But it would be in the Admin's best interest to point to and proclaim evidence that Iran is spurning the uprisings in Iraq. That he made it all too clear that we have no evidence that they are providing any support means a lot to me. |
I still find it funny how Vietnam was ruined by "hippies" when the guy who eventually pulled the troops out with an "honorable peace" was Nixon who if you called a hippy would...
Oh who cares fill in the blank |
Quote:
The socialists were likely to lose until those trains were bombed. The Spanish public then panicked and voted for the socialists who said they would get out of Iraq. Well guess what, like blackmailers, once you start bargaining with terrorists you never stop. And yes, troops will continue to get killed because the extremists will not stop. Just the same way that civilians will continue to be killed even if we pulled out and gave in. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hippies I said and hippies I meant. It was the American public's lack of will as much as Johnson's unwillingness to commit to total war that caused us to lose in Viet Nam. Calling it "revisionism" is BS, plain and simple. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And you call it a grudge war, I call it a war we should have finished over 10 years ago, but better late than never. Hussein is gone and good f***ing riddence. Quote:
Quote:
But I'm in as good a position to judge the Spanish as you are to judge Bush. Quote:
So are you saying then that we should aim for the lowest number of threats? Or better yet, we should be happy if terrorists only kill a couple of hundred Americans instead of a couple of thousand? No thanks. You can hide in the flock with the rest, but I prefer to fight back. |
Quote:
I believe I've answered your questions in my other recent posts, but let me know if I haven't. |
Quote:
If you want to be technical, the reports I saw had the incumbant party with a slight lead and it was thought they would win. Of course, after the bombings, they lost by a landslide. |
Quote:
and I'm quite happy that this franco lover aznar is gone. |
Quote:
So far, I don't have any reason to change mine. |
Massively off-topic.
This thread went off-topic after only 10 posts. From what I see, you're talking about all kinds of other shit apart from Ann Coulter, and you're yelling at each other about hippies and Spain. If you'd like to debate hippies and Spain, please start a new thread just for that. |
oops
edit: Sorry, the problem with the quick reply box is that it doesn't disappear for moderators when the thread is closed. I had skipped down to the bottom without noticing Analog's post in order to reply to another post. I've pulled my post to avoid being the asshole who puts his opinion in after the thread is closed. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project