Coulter calls Tiller homicide "termination"

  • Thread starter Thread starter kristie_m
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lujack said:
Here’s another problem: Coulter seems to think like high school football players in a locker room. In other words: “hahaha, gaaay”. That is intolerable. Homophobia gets slung around a lot, but that’s the appropriate word for the attitude that calling someone gay is a greaaat insult. That was old by my sophomore year in high school.
Click to expand...
For a political party that claims to be tolerant, that should not be a problem.

As you show very well, it is a problem. So the supposed party of tolerance really isn’t.
The hypocrisy is exposed, we can all have a good laugh.
 
She walks the fine line between vitriol and hate. I guess she appeals to so many because we’re all angry about something. Does she have a spouse or kids? It’s hard to imagine a tender side.
 
Soutane said:
She’s simply holding a mirror up to the hypocracy of the the pro-abortionists.Her line,"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don’t want to impose my moral values on others,"says it all.How many times have you heard apologists for abortion utter a variation of this moronic statement?
Click to expand...
I think her Tiller Comments escpecially got under the skin of those who are Obama supporters but also espouse to be po-life. Her pointing out the absurdity of the mantra of the “pro-choice” adherents has got to, once again, make them squemish about their support of pro-abortion politicians. Rather than some quiet introspection about their vote enabeling the Tiller’s of the world they lash out at Coulter.
 
Darryl1958 said:
I think why many people like Ann coulter is because they are find themselves time and again stymied in their attempts to just speak the plain truth without having to jump through all the hoops of political correctness.

The desired response to someone like Ahmadinejad threatening to wipe Jewish Israel is unadulterated anger, that can only be adequately expressed in unapolgetic tones. Most anybody that would overreach like she does would become socially ostracized, or be relegated to extremist groups that they feel no kinship with otherwise.

But Ann Coulter has the looks and the charm and the correct gender to get away with her totally overreaching. Of course liberals are furiousat her, because they really can’t touch her. All the slurs and character assassination they typically use against their poltical enemies make them look just as mean spirited as she is when she really is only mimicking their own tactics. She is absolutely wicked and loving it. Tarring her with the typical label of self-righteous Christian just aint gonna work with her. anyone who tires will come off looking like an imbecile.

What is really, really funny is how mad she makes liberals, and there isn’t a darn thing that they can do about it, because-just look at her- she is the pretty one!

Men attack her and they come off looking gay,-especially when she is through with them- women attack her and they come off looking jealous and catty.

That is funny. Not good clean fun, but funny all the same.
Click to expand...
Thank you Darryl 1958. All of your posts are a riot. You’ve got some good stuff there.
 
vz71 said:
For a political party that claims to be tolerant, that should not be a problem.

As you show very well, it is a problem. So the supposed party of tolerance really isn’t.
The hypocrisy is exposed, we can all have a good laugh.
Click to expand...
What? It shows that the Democratic Party is intolerant because someone thinks its funny to use “gaay” as an insult. Its offensive to people who are gay, not to the people who she’s trying insult.
 
Lujack said:
What? It shows that the Democratic Party is intolerant because someone thinks its funny to use “gaay” as an insult. Its offensive to people who are gay, not to the people who she’s trying insult.
Click to expand...
Then why do the democrats make a huge issue of any conservative or family member of a conservative that is gay?
 
Lujack said:
What? It shows that the Democratic Party is intolerant because someone thinks its funny to use “gaay” as an insult. Its offensive to people who are gay, not to the people who she’s trying insult.
Click to expand...
A party who’s 2004 Presdienial canidate thinks its hillarious to wish Gov Plain were missing, Me thinks the Democrat party’s outrage is very selective.
 
Lujack said:
What? It shows that the Democratic Party is intolerant because someone thinks its funny to use “gaay” as an insult. Its offensive to people who are gay, not to the people who she’s trying insult.
Click to expand...
I think homosexuals taking over a perfectly good word like “gay”, as in lighthearted,is offensive. ;)You can’t sing an old song with the word"gay" in the lyrics anymore without getting smirks & winks from the crowd.
 
Cracker_Mom said:
I think homosexuals taking over a perfectly good word like “gay”, as in lighthearted,is offensive. ;)You can’t sing an old song with the word"gay" in the lyrics anymore without getting smirks & winks from the crowd.
Click to expand...
I always use the word “Homosexul” as there is nothing gay about the lifestyle and the physical and spiritual damage it causes.
 
Ann Coulter says and does what she does because it makes $$$$. The more outrageous her statements, the more TV gigs she gets and the more books she sells.

I will never forget her charming comments about the widows of the firefighters who died on 9-11. Not a person I’d want representing my side of any argument.
 
mkingdomlvr said:
Ann Coulter says and does what she does because it makes $$$$. The more outrageous her statements, the more TV gigs she gets and the more books she sells.

I will never forget her charming comments about the widows of the firefighters who died on 9-11. Not a person I’d want representing my side of any argument.
Click to expand...
Two points:
  1. Her weekly column is carried by very few newspapers. And she gets very few TV gigs. She is supported by conservatives because of the extensive research she does and which is included in her books.
  2. She did not comment on THE widows of THE firefighters who were killed on 9-11, but rather she commented on a handful of widows of a handful of firefighters who were making some specific statements to which she took exception.
 
Lujack said:
That’s about the shallowest, most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Its a war of words, a war of ideas. If the humor of Ann Coulter is that she’s untouchable because she’s pretty (?) than she represents a depressing, terrible decline in our stands.

In 1964, when LBJ ran against Barry Goldwater, it was legitimately a war of ideas. Johnson won big, but the two did their best to honestly line up their ideas against each other (minus “Daisy”, which is badly overrated as the deal-breaker anyway). Ann Coulter is the opposite: win not by proving your idea better, but by making it look better. Win by putting on the bow and the wrapping paper, not by putting something worthwhile in the box.

Now, I’m a person who liked and still likes Barack Obama. However, I was badly disappointed on all sides of the 2008 campaign, because it wasn’t really about ideas as much as it should have been. Yeah, they went head-to-head and the debates were of good quality, but it was still ultimately soundbite politics, and I don’t think either Obama or McCain could have broken free if they tried. And people like Ann Coulter are a big part of that problem.

Here’s another problem: Coulter seems to think like high school football players in a locker room. In other words: “hahaha, gaaay”. That is intolerable. Homophobia gets slung around a lot, but that’s the appropriate word for the attitude that calling someone gay is a greaaat insult. That was old by my sophomore year in high school.
Click to expand...
As an exercise, check Ann Coulter’s books out of the library and just read and count up the footnotes/endnotes. Her work is extremely well documented.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Two points:
  1. Her weekly column is carried by very few newspapers. And she gets very few TV gigs. She is supported by conservatives because of the extensive research she does and which is included in her books.
  2. She did not comment on THE widows of THE firefighters who were killed on 9-11, but rather she commented on a handful of widows of a handful of firefighters who were making some specific statements to which she took exception.
Click to expand...
I don’t care whether she spoke about one widow or all of them. It was a disgusting thing to say that ANY person was “enjoying” the death of their spouse.

If you want to claim her as a spokesperson, she’s all yours.
 
mkingdomlvr said:
I don’t care whether she spoke about one widow or all of them. It was a disgusting thing to say that ANY person was “enjoying” the death of their spouse.

If you want to claim her as a spokesperson, she’s all yours.
Click to expand...
No. I know someone who worked for one. Anne’s description wasn’t far off.
 
mkingdomlvr said:
I don’t care whether she spoke about one widow or all of them. It was a disgusting thing to say that ANY person was “enjoying” the death of their spouse.
Click to expand...
What’s disgusting is for somebody to actually enjoy the death of her spouse. Yet all the outrage is reserved for the person who calls her on it.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Two points:
  1. Her weekly column is carried by very few newspapers. And she gets very few TV gigs. She is supported by conservatives because of the extensive research she does and which is included in her books.
  2. She did not comment on THE widows of THE firefighters who were killed on 9-11, but rather she commented on a handful of widows of a handful of firefighters who were making some specific statements to which she took exception.
Click to expand...
I’m a widow, too. If I make political remarks I’m open to rebuttal or criticism.Being widowed doesn’t make one a sacred cow.
 
mkingdomlvr said:
I don’t care whether she spoke about one widow or all of them. It was a disgusting thing to say that ANY person was “enjoying” the death of their spouse.

If you want to claim her as a spokesperson, she’s all yours.
Click to expand...
It’s disgusting for it to happen. It’s good for it to be talked about in a way that can help people become aware of the reality. Why is it wrong to face up to reality? That’s one of the great deviations of our time: people can no longer face reality, and that’s why so many sins can abound both in our own lives and in the lives of the ones we love. People lie to themselves and placate themselves with happy flowers on rotting graves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top