OK, Crash, I'm going to respond to your list of Coulterisms way back there that I left for later, though I'm not going to go track down the original post.
I've said my piece, I've made my case, everyone remains glued to their same position, and I've been called ignorant and a liar a few too many times for easy tolerance so I'm answering this and leaving the thread.
I saved your list of quotes and here they are.
The first thing to say is that if I took her literally as you guys do I'd probably be censuring her too, but I don't, so what you're going to get here is the reading of someone who is not literalminded as the rest are.
In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors.
John Walker Lindh, I believe, who went and fought with the Muslims against Americans, right? What is your objection to this quote? We shouldn't execute traitors? They used to, you know. I don't know if he killed anyone but he was at least complicit in any killing of Americans by those he fought with and should have been dealt with as a murderer himself. I'm for the death penalty and think keeping murderers in prison instead is a betrayal of the innocent victims, abd in this case a betrayal of the whole nation. Executing murderers is definitely a deterrent to other would-be murderers, and that's what she's saying here. Yes, she's accusing "college liberals" of being incipient traitors. Most conservatives see it that way and I'm one of them, so as usual she is making a shocking comparison in order to dramatize her point. We need a deterrent to those who already talk traitorously as a deterrent against their turning into actual traitors. I agree with her.
I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote.
I've often thought this myself, at least the literacy test part, though I admit I haven't thought it through thoroughly and could change my mind. This of course comes from hearing the absolutely idiotic opinions of so many who vote, who know absolutely nothing about American history or world history or current events. It's discouraging to know people are voting against you for all the wrong reasons. Don't you agree?
But this is all academic since so much of the vote is rigged anywayl.
God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."
This is a case where she went way over the line. God said no such thing, He charged us to care for the Creation. But it's easy enough to guess what led her to this misstatement. She's objecting to the environmentalist extremists who seem to care more for the spotted owl than for human wellbeing. People who love animals and trees so much they'd throw people out on the street if it came to that choice. That IS how they often sound.
And they talk that way in tones of high dudgeon. Liberals seem to ALWAYS be talking in tones of high dudgeon, huffy moral indignation, shrill tones of denunciation as if they were the arbiters of all that is good and right and anyone who disagrees is, well, merely a "hater" or a "reactionary." Yes, they sound like a bunch of Victorian matrons passing judgment on some offense to their moral sense. Things of little real importance, in fact things that are CONTRARY in many cases to what's important and right. No sense of proportion, no sense of looking for compromise or respecting the views of the opposition, just total condemnation.
I'd agree that the Right then goes over the top too, as in this statement by Ann and in some things Rush Limbaugh has said along the same lines that suggest we can just destroy the environment without thought. But at bottom the point they are making is about whether human wellbeing is to be compromised by extreme notions about how the Creation is to be protected. It's another case where we're polarized but we shouldn't be. We should be able to take care of ourselves AND serve the Creation.
If we take away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat President.
Now here is where I think Ann is Doing Her Thing to perfection. I found this really funny because it's so true and I've thought the same myself and then had to try to push it out of my head.
Apparently you have to go to rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't talk about Edwards.
Bad taste I'd say. But she's insisting on her right to violate the canons of Political Correctness by using the term "faggot" risking being put in the prison of rehab for it. Well, we choose the hills we're willing to die on. If you miss the joke you're a liberal. I'm not in favor of talking this way myself, and it's one of the reasons I don't listen to her much. But I can appreciate the point she's trying to make. Is that John Edwards she's talking about? She's saying he's effeminate? Well, he is sort of.
These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.
I'm going out of my way to defend her because I hate the way she's taken by liberals and I see what she's trying to do. She's trying to face down Political Correctness which is the basis for all that misguided moral indignation the liberals keep condemning us by, which is nothing but their own political agenda. I never saw the widows talk about these things but I would guess that I might have seen their general demeanor as Ann did, as more interested in their rights than in the gravity of the situation and even their own loss. I might have, I don't know, but I usually find her insightful about such things.
That last was about the widows of a number of 9/11 heroes. I dunno. Maybe you think all of that is just rabble-rousing and bomb-tossing. But I've never seen Ann Coulter talk about people like that to their faces, with them in the room, and if you'll pardon the language I don't think it takes much in the way of balls to slag someone where they won't have the opportunity to respond.
That's silly, they've got plenty of people to defend them, apparently the whole anti-Coulter crowd for starters. And of cousre she wouldn't talk to them to ther faces this way because she's targeting an attitude, not people, their indoctrination into the entitlement view of life. She's NOT doing anything like what is being ijmnputed to here that imnplies it's the same as verbally abusing people to their face. But you guys will never get it and I'm out of here.
See you on the DNA thread.
52,000 people cast a ballot in the primary for somebody most of them probably knew nothing about.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
