Log in

No account? Create an account
(no subject)  
04:43pm 07/06/2006
lol ann coulter lol

This is the best line in the whole article:

Asked by Reuters why she made such personal comments, Coulter said by e-mail, "I am tired of victims being used as billboards for untenable liberal political beliefs."
mood: amusedamused
    Post - Read 7 - - Link

(no subject)
11:50pm 07/06/2006 (UTC)
She's a DUMB ASS!
    Reply - Thread - span>Link
(no subject)
12:12am 08/06/2006 (UTC)
I'll give you a hint; it's not "Skip.": Sartre
Probably no one else, not even Bush himself, is doing more to make the Right look stupid, petulant, and shallow than Coulter. However, her book sales shed a depressingly grim light on the state of literacy in America, methinks.
picword: Sartre
    Reply - Thread - span>Link
(no subject) - (Anonymous)
(no subject)
01:11am 08/06/2006 (UTC)
I was mostly amused by the comment of not using victims to furthur your agenda...ummm...9/11.
    Reply - Parent - span>Thread - span>Link
(no subject)
01:10am 08/06/2006 (UTC)
When I saw the Crooks and Liars link this morning (to the Today show interview with Matt Lauer), I thought about posting about it... I watched the whole interview with an open mind (pretending she wasn't hateful Ann Coulter in a cocktail dress at 7am, but someone whose views I didn't know).

Overall, I thought her point was valid, but it should have been made differently, and with far less vitriol. I agree that someone's victimhood should not make them any more of an authority about public policy than someone who can't claim the victimhood. I also agree that we shouldn't agree or disagree with political points just because our favorite celebrity does, too. Personally, I think it's a good thing to express empathy and sympathy for those who have suffered loss that was outside of their control and that it says something positive when we give respect to the families of the 9/11 victims.

However, her message is lost in her hateful rhetoric, and frankly, because of that, I woudln't want to agree with her even if she told me the sky was blue and that gas was overpriced.

Anyway, I can't help but think the whole this is actually a straw man argument (is that the debate tactic I'm thinking of?); a way of focusing the attention on something insignificant and then destroying it. This is something the Right does it ALL THE TIME when they say that those who don't support the war are AGAINST the troops and that by talking about homosexuality in schools you are PROMOTING homosexuality.

    Reply - Parent - span>Thread - span>Link
(no subject)
01:33am 08/06/2006 (UTC)
I'll give you a hint; it's not "Skip."
I agree very generally that victimhoood should not be a measure of authority, and politicians and pundits all over the spectrum have at one time or another exploited a disaster to further their own political views. But as you've stated, she's made an entire career of cheap slander/libel and empty vitriol, and I can't respect a word she says. For that matter, I'm certainly willing to take leftists to task when they make hateful comments or ludicrous generalizations--OK, I've made a few about the right in my life. :)

In another political climate I might label her an over-the-top mockery of the Ridiculous Right or of "mudslingers" in general, but the scary thing is, I think she takes herself seriously and so do many of her book buyers.
    Reply - Parent - span>Thread - span>Link
(no subject)
01:15am 08/06/2006 (UTC)
Wednesday Lee Friday: Diamonds
Wow...that's incredibly offensive. Liek the widows should still be sobbing basketcases with no political opinions five years later.

Icon love, BTW.
picword: Diamonds
    Reply - Thread - span>Link
(no subject)
04:21pm 08/06/2006 (UTC)
Coulter wrote that the women were millionaires as a result of compensation settlements and were "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."


    Reply - Thread - span>Link

  The Customer is NOT Always Right
Clients From Hell
  Previous Entry
Next Entry
November 2016  

  Powered by