Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

quote:

---

But from some things I've been hearing they're working on it through the European Union. Yup, A revived Holy Roman Empire with the Pope running things behind the scenes. The Fourth Reich. All part of the global plan that America will no doubt come under as well. They received quite a blow when they lost their centuries-old "holy" Empire to the Reformation, and then tried to revive it again in the Third Reich (well, what do you suppose the FIRST two "reichs" were anyway?)

---

That's pretty nuts. (Did you even realise that the Emperors of the Second Reich were Protestant ?)

quote:

---

Anyway, public statements about Rome aren't all that trustworthy either. I've learned that Wikipedia and no doubt other internet sources, is heavily "edited" in Rome's favor, oh not in any obvious way, they're too refined for that. And I've come to understand that books written since about 1920 on this subject aren't trustworthy, so most of the books on the list I gave are older. Not that there aren't honest Jesuits of course. At least one of the books was written by a Jesuit who found out what the organization is really all about

---

Might I suggest that books more than 80 years old might be somewhat outdated when it comes to the current organisation ?

Seven and a half minutes in and nothing really relevant. The issues are, how you can ignore the Gospel's warnings that works are expected and James' reconciliation of salvation by faith and the need for works.
(It seems really simple to me - salvation is from faith, but works should naturally flow from a living faith - if you behave badly then you don't have that saving faith).Really, I don't think you can get the notion that an arrogant and unrepentant sinner can be saved just by strongly believing the "right" doctrine out of the New Testament without ignoring a whole lot of it.

Perhaps it would make it simpler if we considered something even closer. Would wishing that Fox News was blown up be considered acceptable by you ?

quote:

---

It would have to be said the WAY Ann Coulter says such things if you are intending a comparison with her.

---

I will agree that my comparison left out Coulter's disregard for the victims, but that's hardly a positive thing.

quote:

---

Your comparison is similar to his, in that you seem to think a "wish to blow up Fox News" has anything in common with what she said, which it doesn't. She has not the slightest "wish" to blow up the NYT building which is what your comparison implies.

---

In other words you would ASSUME that her statement dis not reflect what she literally wanted and you would ASSUME that my statement was intended literally. Whereas, of course my intent was simply to change the target. So it seems to me that the "big difference" is simply in your prejudices which control your interpretation of the intent.So let us get this straight, in the wake of a tragedy you think it is appropriate to use the event to call for the silencing of your political opposition, while displaying a callous disregard for the victims.I cannot agree.

I'm going to take just the two worst here.

quote:

---

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.

---

In other words you don't care about the hateful lies because you share her prejudices. Not exactly a defence of Coulter, more an admission of guilt.

quote:

---

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.

---

I think we can dismiss the idea that the widows should be more concerned about the world situation than their personal tragedies as another example of Coulter's callousness. But even so, to accuse the widows of being HAPPY that their husbands had died ? That goes beyond callous. And...all you say about it is to suggest that she is probably right ?So to sum up what Coulter is doing is quite clear:Her main intent is to destroy the political opposition by spreading lies and hate, and we can see that she puts political point-scoring above everything else, not even neglecting the victims of tragedy but encouraging others to neglect them too.I think that these are quite sufficient to qualify her as "hateful". Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Hard to say, isn't it ? They could be referring to inter-racial marriage for all we know (illegal in a surprisingly number of U.S. States until 1967!)