Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 1 of 274 (678950)
11-11-2012 7:36 PM


To me, Coulter just responds to the ugly rhetoric of the left by exposing them and accurately calling them what they are. If you don't like the mirror, either don't stand in front of it or simply change your ways. Of course, liberals don't think their rhetoric is hateful. They think they are just describing reality. A case study is right here on the EVC forum. These are the most hateful people i have ever run into in my life. Even when they are trying their best to be polite, they cannot escape the fact that what they believe about conservatives ( they call them reactionaries and they call obama a conservative????) and christian fundamentalists is hateful by nature. Other's don't even try to be polite (Theodoric, Onifre), but they both despise the above categories of people with a vengeance. I think Coulter is only showing these kind of people for exactly who they are. It isn't any wonder then when colleges like Fordham University ban Coulter from speaking at their campuses.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 11-11-2012 8:23 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 4 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 8:24 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 11-11-2012 8:32 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 8:35 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2012 8:49 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 10 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 9:03 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 11-11-2012 9:12 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 11-11-2012 9:28 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2012 10:47 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2012 11:15 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 76 by Genomicus, posted 11-12-2012 10:40 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 77 by kofh2u, posted 11-12-2012 11:06 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 86 by ooh-child, posted 11-12-2012 2:37 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 201 by Son Goku, posted 11-15-2012 6:48 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 7:34 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 13 of 274 (678970)
11-11-2012 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
11-11-2012 8:23 PM


subbie writes:
Both sides have been calling each other names since before the beginning of the country. One difference, today, is that the GOP tries to sell itself as being guided by Christian principals.
My question to you is whether you consider the kind of name calling the GOP does to be Christian?
Name calling or not name calling has nothing whatsoever to do with christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 11-11-2012 8:23 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by subbie, posted 11-11-2012 9:27 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 17 by Omnivorous, posted 11-11-2012 9:32 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2012 12:55 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 16 of 274 (678974)
11-11-2012 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Omnivorous
11-11-2012 9:12 PM


omnivorous writes:
Wait--is she the lady who calls people retards? Mama Palin must be really ticked off about that.
I am sure she has called a few people retards. That is the nature of her columns and on air personality. She only reserves the word "retard" to those who richly deserve it. Somebody has to give back these A-wipes what they have been giving to conservatives without consequence. No, Sarah would not be upset. She knows exactly what Ann means by "retard" and whom it is directed toward. She also knows that Ann would never even dream of saying what some liberals have said about her down syndrome grandchild. Now, that is downright nasty, hateful mockery. "retard" is a common word in english slang and Sarah is not hung up on poltically correct usage of words. It is all the motivation. If you cannot see the difference in motivation toward Sarah between Ann and the liberal cretins who mock her grandson, you have no hope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 11-11-2012 9:12 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Omnivorous, posted 11-11-2012 9:37 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 25 by DrJones*, posted 11-11-2012 9:44 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 9:53 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2012 11:44 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 18 of 274 (678976)
11-11-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
11-11-2012 8:24 PM


Re: Ann is simply irrelevant
jar writes:
But she's smart enough to know where the money is and there's gold to be mined in them their Christian Fundamentalist.
What gold can mined from christian fundamentalists? I don't follow you at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 8:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 9:44 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 20 of 274 (678981)
11-11-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nwr
11-11-2012 8:32 PM


nwr writes:
I would guess they would act in the same way about someone they see as a rabble rouser from the political left.
One can only be a rabble rouser if there is someone there who is rousable. You cannot stir up an angry mob from a group of people who agree essentially with what you espouse. No one from the politically left could ever raise the blood pressure even slightly of most of the students on college campuses. And the ones like me who do get their blood pressures raised significantly by them do not speak up because they don't want to stand out like a sore thumb or end up getting arrested or expelled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 11-11-2012 8:32 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Omnivorous, posted 11-11-2012 9:43 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 11-11-2012 9:45 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 27 by nwr, posted 11-11-2012 9:48 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 21 of 274 (678983)
11-11-2012 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Theodoric
11-11-2012 8:35 PM


theodoric writes:
Care to present any of this ugly rhetoric?
copy and paste random editorial columns from any non conservative paper in this country. It will be an easy job for me to show you the hateful rhetoric.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 8:35 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 9:56 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 22 of 274 (678985)
11-11-2012 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
11-11-2012 8:49 PM


crashfrog writes:
Ann Coulter referred to biology as a fake science because it has the highest participation by women of a scientific field.
Could you explain exactly how that's a reflection of the "ugly rhetoric of the left"? Please be specific.
Context please. What article in what publication or what speech was that statement derived from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2012 8:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2012 9:48 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 29 of 274 (678994)
11-11-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Theodoric
11-11-2012 9:03 PM


Re: Coulter not banned
theodoric writes:
Either you are lying or you are parroting bad information. Again. This is not true.
Late yesterday, Fordham received word that the College Republicans, a student club at the University, has rescinded its lecture invitation to Ann Coulter.
Fordham is not known as a bastion of liberalism, that could be because it is a Jesuit Catholic school.
Jesuits are very liberal people. I guess we have different ideas of what it means to be liberal or conservative politically. Anything that is right of pure marxism is conservative in your eyes it appears. I don't know what you mean by parroting. You keep accusing me of that. I guess you don't know what that word means either. All I did was read an article from Slate Magazine. All I did was summarize my understanding of it. It seems you got your story from somewhere else and have the story slightly twisted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 9:03 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 11-11-2012 9:53 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 11-11-2012 9:55 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 10:11 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 70 by Larni, posted 11-12-2012 7:28 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 31 of 274 (678996)
11-11-2012 9:52 PM


Correction on my last reply to Theodoric: The article was from Salon.com. I am going back and reading what I initially read to see where the differing stories of what actually happened came from.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nwr, posted 11-11-2012 10:04 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 36 of 274 (679004)
11-11-2012 10:00 PM


Here is the article in question. I was right Theodoric. I just didn't read all the way down to the end of the article. It is extremely hard reading socialist pablum like the writer of this hateful article. I don't know if they just added the latest update between the time I first looked at the article and now, or if it was there and I just didn't read all the way down to it. The whole point of what I said was absolutely correct though. It was the president of the college who loudly protested the invitation from the republican club at the college. It was this protest that prompted the club to retract the invitation. Who wants to irritate the dean of the college unnecessarily?
salon.com writes:
I happen to love Fordham University. My daughter got a great education there. As president of the College Democrats, she worked well with College Republicans. I met a whole lot of them when they politely turned out the night she helped bring Howard Dean to campus; the next year, she got to moderate a question-and-answer session — to ensure fairness — when the College Republicans hosted Karl Rove. It felt to me like a lost era of civility and reason as I watched young people from the two parties get along up in the Bronx.
But now the Fordham College Republicans have invited Ann Coulter, who outdoes Karl Rove (barely, these days) in the department of divisiveness and meanness. I had a moment of regretting the mega-dollars I spent on Fordham — even though I know the clubs are free to invite whomever they like, within reason (although this tests reason). Then I saw Fordham President Father Joseph McShane’s terrific reply, which I’m printing in full.
Given the dramatic rightward shift of the Republican Party, I happen to believe that the path back to civility involves civil people not merely smiling and being civil but forcefully calling extremist Republicans out on their cruelty and extremism. Father McShane shows the way. He blasts Coulter’s message as hateful and needlessly provocative more heat than light and says her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.
McShane notes that Fordham has been blighted by ugly racial and homophobic incidents in the last few years, and he laments the lack of maturity shown by his young campus Republicans in inviting the provocateur Coulter. But he says he trusts the Fordham community to model the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice. Let’s hope that happens. Personally, I hope Coulter reads McShane’s statement, withdraws from the engagement and spends some time reflecting on why she’s filled with so much hate. But I’m a dreamer.
Update: Tonight, the Fordham College Republicans have cancelled Coulter’s appearance.

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nwr, posted 11-11-2012 10:09 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 44 by DrJones*, posted 11-11-2012 10:09 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 11-12-2012 5:33 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 42 of 274 (679011)
11-11-2012 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Theodoric
11-11-2012 9:56 PM


theodoric writes:
So that would be a no. No is much easier to type so you should have just gone with that.
Here you go. You could have done this yourself.
From an article entitled: "A Progressive Surge" released on November 6, 2012
The Nation Magazine writes:
It’s worth remembering, before Mitt Romney settles into a comfortable 1 percent retirement from politics, that his victory would have imperiled the security of all but those insulated by extreme wealth from concerns like being able to find safe, warm housing in the wake of a hurricane.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 9:56 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 10:14 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 46 of 274 (679015)
11-11-2012 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by DrJones*
11-11-2012 10:09 PM


DrJones writes:
How were you right? you claimed that Fordham banned Coulter from speaking there:
Because that is exactly what happened. You don't see that the republican club caving into pressure from the the President of Fordham is exactly equivalent to Fordham banning Coulter? It is no wonder you are liberal. This is how you distort reality.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by DrJones*, posted 11-11-2012 10:09 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by DrJones*, posted 11-11-2012 10:16 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 51 by subbie, posted 11-11-2012 10:27 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 50 of 274 (679020)
11-11-2012 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
11-11-2012 9:48 PM


crashfrog writes:
I think it was in Godless, maybe? Let me check. Yeah, Godless:
quote:They’re almost always biologiststhe science with the greatest preponderance of women.
Again - how is that a "reflection of the ugly rhetoric of the left" and not simply a reflection of Ann Coulter's own self-hating sexism?
Every single sentence of Coulter's is not a direct response to a single hateful quotation from a liberal. In this case the line in question is part of a bigger story, namely the whole book. I haven't read the book but my guess from knowing Coulter would be that she is mocking feminists. To be feminist is not equivalent to being female. Coulter despises modern feminism, especially the loudest proponents of it. But to counter your general point: Liberal Feminists have said some extremely hateful things about men, conservatives, fundamentalists and women who don't toe the party line. The book is a blast right back at them.
As for the quote itself: She seems to be saying the women predominate in the field of biology because that is where godless women get to poke the biggest stick in the eye of religious fundamentalists with the theory of evolution. If you mistakenly think she is saying that the study of biology is a worthless science because it is predominately composed of women, then you are gravely mistaken about Coulter.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2012 9:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2012 10:34 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2012 11:00 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 64 of 274 (679038)
11-11-2012 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
11-11-2012 11:15 PM


Actually, it did. I see that you cannot view reality without a distorted lens as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2012 11:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2012 11:52 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 85 of 274 (679113)
11-12-2012 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Modulous
11-12-2012 12:55 PM


modulous writes:
Let me guess, Matthew 5:21-24 isn't in your bible?
Let me guess, you have no idea how to refute my point?
How in the world, does that bible verse refute my claim that name calling is not what disqualifies you as being a christian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2012 12:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2012 2:48 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024