Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

If this thread is really about Ann Coulter, then let's talk about what she says and does. I don't see any mention of that in your OP.If instead this is about how we act here, I believe a little introspection is in order.I have always thought of Coulter as an entertainer whose act I don't particularly care for. On occasion she crosses lines that no civillized person should cross. For example, her attacks on 911 spouses cannot be justified by anything they said. But she says what she says for pure shock value and mostly ignorable.Are you going to man up regarding that "ban" by Fordham university? I know that is not your style.

"Somebody has to give back these A-wipes what they have been giving to conservatives without consequence"That pretty much sums up your position, doesn't it. When Ann Coulter called the president a retard, it need not be in response to anything President Obama said or did. It is enough that some liberal, say Al Franken, Theodoric or NoNukes, has been rude.In fact often it is simply enough for Ann that the target of her comments be her opponent. When she claimed that 9/11 widows protesting the Iraq war were gleeful about their husbands deaths, what was Ann's justification?

Jesus actually said quite a bit on this subject. It is true that we are saved by grace and not through the worth of our actions. But a Christian is someone who loves Christ. Jesus said that our love for him is shown through our actions.From John 14:23-24:Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my father will love him and we will come unto him and will make our abode with him.He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings and the word which ye hear is not mine but the Father's which sent me.I know you don't trust anyone here. Why not ask a Christian you trust about this?

It is a theology that appears to be based on a very selective reading of Paul's writings. It is very easy to find Paul saying things that contradict the idea that people who are saved by Grace won't act differently thereafter. Galatians 5 and 6 are good examples of Paul telling us about the actions of people who follow the Spirit rather than the flesh.That said, the intrerpretation does allow avoiding all of that lefty peace and love stuff that Christ actually taught. I can see why some people would find folloeing it attractive. I'm just not sure how you can repent and turn away from sin when there are no rules.

Let me help out here.Ann addressed her remarks to everyone at the NY Times. The Times represents liberal news, so she really wants liberal news to die in a fiery explosion. Her comment is defused from being a personal attack because it applies to many, many personals.By contrast Dr. Adequates remarks apply to Ann and not to right wing hack pundits in general. Because he has excluded Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. his remarks are personal and hateful. Dr. Adequate needs to make his remarks more inclusive so that we can see them as witty. He also needs to write some books. Also liberals blow chunks and collateral damage to them is dserved.Well I don't buy it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Seriously? Rigged? You are doubtless aware that we did once have literacy tests, and of how well that worked out? So Coulter went over the line, but you give her a pass by pointing out that some people are extremists.I would suggest that going over the line is a general practice of Coulter's. I don't have a huge problem with that. She is, after all, trying to sell books by being humorous. What does not seem to make much since is assuming that a liberal who uses the exact same language as Coulter has a completely different motive than humor.The only way in which describing a specific scenario for blowing up the NYT is different from describing some vague scenario in which Fox News gets blown up is that some particular listener finds empath/humor in what one and not in the other. You've essentially admitted here that you find Coulterisms okay because you are a conservative. That's my point too.

If this is true, then you ought to be able to name some of these ideas. We should then be able to measure those ideas against the definition of traitorous and expose liberals for the farce that they are if they cannot simply agree with you.

I think this generalization is unfair. It's the other side of the coin from the sentiments foreveryoung and Faith have expressed in this thread, and it is equally far off base.Let's be frank. We all smell the sweaty ape under the tarp.The stuff Faith is spouting off here is not standard conservative rhetoric. This isn't the kind of thing you'd ever hear Romney or McCain say. Conservatives believe that liberals are wrong. Some even accept that liberals are principled but wrong. But 'Liberals are all traitors' is pure wing-nut stuff.In reality, it is actually possible to be against gay marriage without believing that gays and lesbians should be dragged behind a pick up truck or isolated in a compound with an electric fence. Most people would find jokes advocating killing a political opponent to cross the line. Yet some people pray earnestly for the death of their least favorite Supreme Court Justice. That's wing nut.Conservatives are people who oppose O'bama because they favor small government and disagree with him on social or fiscal policy. Wing-nuts think O'bama is a Muslim AND the anti-Christ. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps what you say is true. But if so, then we're going to have to put most of the people who say abortion is at the top of the list way out on the extreme right. Almost nobody listed abortion as even the top social issue of concern in polls conducted this election.