this is an odd statement to meā¦
i wasnāt talking about lesbians or the sexuality of these mothers and i donāt intend on getting into that type of discussion.
i agree with you. in fact, i donāt even think she is a mother and you donāt know anything about motherhood until you have actually become one.i guess iāve found something else i donāt like abaout Coulterā¦
she thinks she is an extraordinarily good Christianā¦
Iād say she is likely a blind oneā¦
i just think this isā¦ a matter of her not knowing herself very wellā¦
Even though i canāt find anything i disagree with her on (except that she leaves out āstuffāā¦)
i do think she can be too ā¦ cold sometimesā¦ lacking in compassion. We know she canāt have empathy with unwed mothers because she has never been oneā¦
but it would be nice if she could at least admit that she doesnāt know aboutā¦ that ā¦ (as well as someone whoās been through itā¦ etc.)
thereās not one iota of truth to that foul sayingā¦
Men who abuse women are cowards and not even menā¦ There is never any excuse for hitting anyone, but particularly not the woman you sleep withā¦have children with. The bible says that the man who loves his wife loves himselfā¦this is not true either. most women, married or otherwise have children because they want someone to loveā¦ True, i canāt prove thatā¦ but i know that women who choose to have children without being married are NOT all lesbiansā¦ Iāve met plenty of singl mothers and not one was lesbianā¦
what an insult to menā¦
good pointā¦ she makes Republicans look badā¦ and even worse than thatā¦ she makes them look like the liberals always portray them!!!
Iām not God but i donāt believe thatās her only motiveā¦
i agree with you in the respect that all of the single mothers i know wanted children and were not lesbians. i know there are the hollywood mothers like jody foster and the lady from the sopranos.thereās not one iota of truth to that foul sayingā¦
this is not true either. most women, married or otherwise have children because they want someone to loveā¦ True, i canāt prove thatā¦ but i know that women who choose to have children without being married are NOT all lesbiansā¦ Iāve met plenty of singl mothers and not one was lesbianā¦
what an insult to menā¦
ā¦ the implication being that men are animals and can no way ever be expected to control themselvesā¦
therefore any illicit sex that happens between them is all the womanās faultā¦
Oh freaking pleaseā¦
Iām certainly glad iām not your wifeā¦ :hypno:
she is definitely making lots of bucks and probably has to say some outlandish things to stir up controversy in order to get people to buy her books out of curiosity.
yes but iāve known women who DID go on welfareā¦ and did a very good job of raising their childrenā¦ didnāt give their children over to some day-care center so they could go to some careerā¦ like some Hollywood women doā¦ or others who have lots of $$
i agreeā¦What Ann Coulter is really concerned about is whose responsibility is it when dealing with fatherless children. We as Christians are definitely responsible for our sisters. We should do this voluntarily because Jesus prompted us to. We shouldnāt have a government mandate to make us be charitable. When we do then people will be less charitable because they think the Government is taking care of it. I hope I can love ALL the misfortunate, but not because the Government ordered me too, but rather because Jesus did. Ben F PS Glad to see you online Dawn in Texas
you are probably right. i shouldnāt stereotype and there are some women who might start out on welfare, but not remain on it. but there are some that perhaps have kids just to get the welfare.
I think youāre right. She DOES make Republicans look bad. She can be quite funny, witty, and as other posters have pointed out, she can be quite inciteful. But her comments about the 9/11 widows, IMO, were disgusting. She is always angry, sarcastic, rolling her eyes, poking fun at everyone under the sun, and seems more of a gripe-monger than a dealer in solutions.
I agree to a large degree but if weāre going to stop this, the GOP needs to stand for something and present viable alternatives instead of just seeming like angry obstructionists. With the whole health care debate, the GOP drops ideas like co-ops or $5000 checks to buy insurance for the uninsured, but in the end it does not address people with pre-existing conditions and does nothing to bring costs down. And the Democratsā plans, according to the CBO (non-partisan congressional budget office) will NOT be deficit-neutral but actually raise the costs of health care exacerbating the problem?i agreeā¦
its getting so the Government is doing everythingā¦ Not goodā¦
i just wonder what can be done to make govāt not so BIGā¦ andā¦ etcā¦
weāve become socialistsā¦
I donāt see it that way. Sheās way better looking than any of those Democrat talking heads.
For one thing she seems to contradict herself with this statement (from her book Guilty):
The most worhsipped figure in modern America is the āsingle mother.ā
What???
The most worhsipped figure in modern America is BHOā¦ (or WASā¦?)
She goes on to say that liberal politicians like to focus on the issue of single motherhoodā¦ the idea that they are victimsā¦ something i DO agree with (the focus part).
I donāt like what she goes on to say on this issue of single motherhood.
Example: āThere is no better example of phony victims who are actually victimizers than single mothers. Weāre not living in Dickensian England, with husbands dropping like flies from cholera, plague [etc] creating blameless single mothersā¦ We have āsingle mothersā because more than a million women choose to have children out of wedlock every year in America, and do not then wed or give the babies up for adoption. By their own choices, they consign their children to starting life with second-class status.ā
I agree with that, except for the 1st lineā¦
She then gives statisticsā¦
This is what i donāt like: "ingle mothers" are women who, by their own volition, have done everything in their power to ruin their childrenās lives before theyāre even born. It makes no difference if the pregancny was unplanned, unwanted or accidental. And many arenāt any of those. Getting pregnant isnāt like catching the flu. There are volitional acts involvedā¦"
Maybe i donāt even disagree with this because she doesnāt use the word āintentionallyā to qualify how women ruin their childrenās lives by not marrying. But thatās what she seems to be implying.
She doesnāt seem to take into consideration that not all women are raised in a solidly Christian home, one where moral values are taught (and emotional support/good example provided, etc).
We have had 40 yrs of the āSexual Revolutionā to deal withā¦ People (especially young, naive women) ARE influenced by societyās moresā¦ even when they tend to think they are acting independently, making their own decisionsā¦
No woman deliberately gets pregnant and/or has a child just to mess up his/her life.
I donāt understand why she canāt seem to allow for such things as psychological problems, lack of (true) religion, lack of love (some women have children because they want love, have never really been lovedā¦). Does she ever think of such things? Or is she so seemingly cold and apparetly unfeeling because sheās never really known any poor, single mothers on welfare? or what???
If she had said something about how these psychological kinds of issues can seriously affect and influence a woman (and men also) i wouldnāt now be complaining. But she didnātā¦
So i can understand people complaining out her ābedside mannerā
Your comments?
According to ādistracted,ā Coulter went through an early period (as many successful writers do) where she couldnāt get her books published and was quite poor. I see no reason to disbelieve this. Iām sure she is happy to make lots of money (her pseudo-conservative ideology glorifies the acquisition of wealth), but I think she genuinely believes that she is serving a righteous cause. Her views are reprehensible enough in themselves that we donāt need to speculate about her motives. Leave those to God.
If it werenāt so disturbing, it would be hilarious that you could write a vicious post like the preceding one and then worry about whether people would think you had used bad language. (And that you think that thereās any moral difference between actually typing the word and using asterisks.)