And a lot of the critics want America to lose just to beat up on Bush. conservative dellusional fantansy or projection (conservatives were praying for a Clinton clusterfuc* no matter the consequences to the nation) Methinks Billy O et al stroke off to this once a day to get their rox off and their hate on.
Ahh yes. I was waiting for you to pull the bizarre paranoia card. My favorite part is the pitiful tonality, the whole "me against the world" drama-queen motif.
Both are/were hatemongers. Both wished people dead. Zarqawi followed through on his wishes of death. Coulter is just all talk. Do I wish either of them dead, no I'm a libpig and wish peace and happiness for all. It's the hatemongers that keeping screwing up my utopian dream.
This is an interesting column from Leonard Pitts: June 11, 2006, 7:57PM Coulter: She's tall, blond ... and nasty By LEONARD PITTS JR. Knight Ridder Newspapers Apparently, it's news that Ann Coulter is a nasty piece of work. I had rather thought that was the attraction, at least for those people who find her attractive. So forgive me for being mildly mystified by last week's headlines about her most recent spasm of trash mouth, i.e., her attack on four women who lost their husbands in the Sept. 11 attacks. But then, the attack is vicious even by Coulter's standards: In her latest book, whose title you won't read here, she savages the widows as "self-obsessed" and "witches." "These broads are millionaires," she writes, "lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Evidently, the widows' sins are that they pushed for an independent commission to investigate 9/11 intelligence failures, they are critical of the Bush administration and they endorsed John Kerry for president. The nerve of them. Coulter's tirade has drawn bipartisan condemnation — New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton called it "vicious," while the state's Republican governor, George Pataki, declared Coulter "far worse than insensitive" — but c'mon. This is all part of the shtick for this chick. I mean, we're talking about the woman who said Timothy McVeigh's only mistake was in not blowing up the New York Times building and that we should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity. Frankly, it's easy to do what Coulter does. Just say the most outrageous thing in the most inflammatory way. Just give moral and mental cover to that small-minded, anti-intellectual strain of the electorate that recoils like Superman in the face of Kryptonite from complexity and incertitude. And when people call you on it, just wrap yourself in the flag and declare yourself a straight-shootin' conservative under siege by that mean ol' liberal media. It plays like gangbusters in Peoria. And never mind that it's a brazen lie. Meaning that Ann Coulter is not reviled because she is conservative. Some of the best and most respected pundits in the country are conservative: George F. Will, Kathleen Parker and Charles Krauthammer, to name just three. They offer smart, snarky, cogent analyses of world and national events, and if you disagree with them, as I not infrequently do, you will be required to do some mental heavy lifting to dismantle their arguments. They challenge you. No, Coulter is reviled because she is mean, malicious, the barbed-wire frontwoman for a cabal of bloviators, bully boys and blowhards (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage and too many others) who are pleased to regard themselves as the guardians of conservatism's soul. Conservatism's soul should sue for slander. But again, it plays in Peoria. And why not? It is loud, simple, stupid. Not unlike The Jerry Springer Show. The nation's political discourse has never been as polite and decorous as we like to think. Abraham Lincoln's political foes called him a baboon, Lyndon Johnson once said that Gerald Ford played too much football without a helmet. When, however, even widows (and orphans?) become fair game for a viperous harridan with an ax to grind and books to sell, maybe decent people should wonder at the lines we have crossed and the type of nation we have become in the process. Coulter's victims, by the way, felt compelled to release a statement. It said in part: "Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again." In a better nation, that would go without saying. Keep D&D Civil.
These women compromised their intentions by endorsing Kerry. It is they who sought to convert their tragedy into political capital. Surely, some fast-talking political operative talked them into it, but they have to take responsibility for doing so. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Forget it... don't try to rationalize it. Ann Coulter was wrong, she knows it. She needed something controversial to sell her book and she got it. She's making money off of the misery of people who lost family members on September 11th... I wonder if being rich makes up for being such a hateful person, or at the least, feeding the hatred that festers the hearts of those who buy her books. What a life that must be...
She isn't wrong. Whether or not her comments are controversial does nothing to negate their veracity. The women she's talking about sought to capitalize on their tragic situations.
This would be more believable if you had been up in arms over this before she said anything... Were you ? By the way, capitalize on what? To get answers to there questions so it wouldnt happen again? Yeah...those ladies are soooo evil, man. I am definitely buying into that. I'm just so glad Coulter waited until her book's release to tell us all how evil these women really are. Maybe in her next book we will hear about how the soldiers who returned from Iraq to run for congress as Democrats in 2006 were actually helping the enemy the whole time they were over there anyway.
No, the women sought to correct the problems that allowed 9/11 (and the death of their husbands) to happen in the first place. Bush fought the independent 9/11 commission, has so far refused to enact its recommendations, and as such is opposed by these women. The only person capitalizing on this situation is Coulter. She is the one with a book to sell and trashing people who lost loved ones on 9/11 is apparently the only way she can do it. With the help of small minded sheep (the ones who buy her BS), of course.
I don't think because the women lost their husbands they aren't allowed to endorse a political candidate and take a stand in politics. Particularly when the issues they involved in directly touched their lives in a far more personal way than they touchd Coulter's, yours, or mine. I don't know what responsibility they have to take for asking that the 9/11 commission do its job, and that its recommendations are put in place. What responsibility is their to take for endorsing a political candidate who they believe would be more effective in dealing with terrorism(the thing that killed their husbands)? It seems they can stand the heat, and they aren't leaving the kitchen. However, there is a difference between heat in a kitchen and lighting that kitchen ablaze by telling the widows that they ENJOYED THEIR HUSBANDS DEATHS AT THE HANDS OF TERRORISTS, calling them witches, and harpies, etc. That goes beyond heat in a kitchen.
I'm not up in arms about it even now. It has no impact on my personal life. I was just stating my disagreement with the "Coulter is totally wrong and off base with what she said." She isn't, she's just crude because she's talking about people that suffered through tragedy. Doesn't make what she's saying any less true, though.
Why does losing their husbands qualify them to "endorse" anything? I'm not saying "can't have an opinion," I'm saying ENDORSE-- which is what was reported. Are there any other widows' groups who have endorsed Presidential candidates as publicized as this group?
Worst part is that she is an unoriginal LOON: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/because-some-things-are-more-profane.html 6/9/2006 Because Some Things Are More Profane Than Profanity - Ann Coulter's Possible Plagiarism: Here's the segment of yesterday's post on Ann Coulter that deserves more attention. If you want the full double-barrel of anti-Coulter rudeness, you can still check it out. But for those with delicate constitutions who want to take Coulter down, here ya go: Ann Coulter has a bad habit. And that habit, as mentioned before by the Rude Pundit (followed up by Raw Story), is that she appears to like to copy whole sentences from other sources without putting them in as quotes or even citing where she might have "paraphrased" from. You judge for yourself: Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct. Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct. Strangely similar, no? By the way, that's a story from 1976. Coulter doesn't tell you that little tidbit, making you think it happened last week. The next one's from 1977: Here's Coulter writing about an attack on the Alaska pipeline: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil. Here's something from the History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground. Why, in this age of the "terrorist," would Coulter use "saboteur," a quaint term, to be sure? Could it be a cut and paste job with a couple of words changed, like a good college freshman? So you judge. Sure, it's just two incidents in a single chapter. But does it speak to other potential strange similarities throughout the book? Is it plagiarism? The Rude Pundit's not saying it is plagiarism, but he's not saying it's not. How harshly would Coulter judge a liberal writer for doing the same? Or would she have to be silent?
Everybody is qualified to endorse a candidate. It is no surprise that some of the 9/11 widows might have endorsed the guy that was pushing for carrying out the 9/11 commissions recommendations over the guy that was blocking them -- especially when the commission only existed because those widows lobbied for it. Their cause is not to elect Democrats -- it is to see that everything is being done to ensure what happened to them doesn't happen again. That is why they pushed for the commission, why they pushed and continue to push for carrying out the commission's recommendations and why they endorsed the guy that shared common cause with them on their main issue over the one that was in opposition to it. For that, Ann Coulter called them harpies and witches and accused of enjoying their husbands' deaths. And you and Nomar defend her. You guys are sick.
We await your apology, bigot... Your act is getting tiremsome Batman. I'm tired of your insults. It's either bigot or liar coming from you... No, everybody is not qualified to give an endorsement because an endorsement implies that your opinion has significant merit or weight. Everyone is not qualified to give an endorsement. Even self-appointment is not sufficient qualification. I'm not a fan of Coulter's expression here but you all are taking her words and twisting them in the worst possible way. Coulter says that they are enjoying their husband's death as in their martyrdom not as in their violent suffering-- yet that is how you continue to underline it. That's just dishonest and sensational.
