Does anyone on here not hate Ann Coulter?

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I side with no party, I find this very hard to believe you have not said one good thing about the left, or Democrats.

. HATE the guy/gal who's running things.

I am the OP, when I said I hate her, it is not an all comsuming hate. I hate her like I hate a cockroach.

I heard it said that... the Right thinks the Left is wrong - BUT the Left thinks the Right is Evil... Gee where did you hear it through your RIGHT ear maybe?
.
,

She is hated by so many because she spews hatred. Sharpton spews hatred on the left and I hate the same way.
 

scottisimus

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
L.A. Ca.
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I did a review of Ann Coulter's book GODLESS on Amazon, titling my review RETARDED: Ann Coulter writes again.

Called her the dumb blond bimbo of the extreme right wing.

Got my review pulled. Twice.

Not cool to have it pulled. BUT what substance of argument did you give to render your disagreement?

A lot of people are dopey, so what? What is it EXACTLY that you disagree with?
 

scottisimus

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
L.A. Ca.
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
,

She is hated by so many because she spews hatred. Sharpton spews hatred on the left and I hate the same way.

You've yet to give one example where you disagree with her. I get that you don't like her and seem to have contempt for the Right, that's fine with me. Just want an example of an opposing idea.
 

ZOS23xy

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Posts
4,906
Media
3
Likes
31
Points
258
Location
directly above the center of the earth
Not cool to have it pulled. BUT what substance of argument did you give to render your disagreement?

A lot of people are dopey, so what? What is it EXACTLY that you disagree with?>>>

Heh--I just gave you an example, and you ignored it. Like all the other examples you've gone through.
 

scottisimus

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
L.A. Ca.
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
By the way, Ann C. called John Edwards a "fag". I think this is just a sign of malice afore thought that cannot be shored up with "she has a right to an opinion."

Her thinking does not follow logic. It's just spewing.

Not that that's O.K. but would you mind stepping away from the Left talking point section and give me your thoughts and ideas.

BTW, care to site and give the context around the word "fag" being used, for all of us to see and judge for ourselves...
 

scottisimus

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
L.A. Ca.
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Not cool to have it pulled. BUT what substance of argument did you give to render your disagreement?

A lot of people are dopey, so what? What is it EXACTLY that you disagree with?>>>

Heh--I just gave you an example, and you ignored it. Like all the other examples you've gone through.

I understand that you called her names and all that good stuff, but what did you disagree with exactly? Why exactly is she retarded?
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You've yet to give one example where you disagree with her. I get that you don't like her and seem to have contempt for the Right, that's fine with me. Just want an example of an opposing idea.

I don't hate her because she is a Republican. I hate her because she calls John Edwards a FAG, Said that he has a bumper sticker saying "ask me about my dead son" and said that some 911 widows were happy that their husbands were dead.
 

scottisimus

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
L.A. Ca.
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't hate her because she is a Republican. I hate her because she calls John Edwards a FAG, Said that he has a bumper sticker saying "ask me about my dead son" and said that some 911 widows were happy that their husbands were dead.

To be honest here, you must reveal the actual context of these statements... Remember Clarity and Conlext are everything. I know the context around these statements and so do you... If you choose to slant things for your enjoyment sobeit, just not interesting, become a circular discussion...

Any substance and "in" context positions would be good.
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
To be honest here, you must reveal the actual context of these statements... Remember Clarity and Conlext are everything. I know the context around these statements and so do you... If you choose to slant things for your enjoyment sobeit, just not interesting, become a circular discussion...
Any substance and "in" context positions would be good.

With all due respect, I am bored with you. (wouldn't it be nice if people could be so blunt in public)

Any answer I give will lead to enless other questions by you.
 

scottisimus

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
L.A. Ca.
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
With all due respect, I am bored with you. (wouldn't it be nice if people could be so blunt in public)

Any answer I give will lead to enless other questions by you.

It figures! When faced with the intellectual aspects of discussion, they scatter like flies.

Where are the arguments of Clarity and correct Context from the Left?
 

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
It figures! When faced with the intellectual aspects of discussion, they scatter like flies.

I am an Orwell Humanitarian! I side with no party, but... (there's always a but, isn't there?)

Where are the arguments of Clarity and correct Context from the Left?

What LEFT you said you were on neither side?
 

scottisimus

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
L.A. Ca.
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
What LEFT you said you were on neither side?

I'd say the same thing about the RIGHT if they had nothing of substance to say, (agreement is not the point here, it's all about Clarity). I said I'm a supporter of the mind-set that pushes for self-reliance... Give me a position of the Left where self-reliance is at the forefront.

There are actually some left leaning ideas I can grasp as well, so no, can't pigeon hole me... Just doing for myself helping others.. Not asking others to do for me or pick up my slack! Especially not at the government level.
 

scottisimus

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Location
L.A. Ca.
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
With all due respect, I am bored with you. (wouldn't it be nice if people could be so blunt in public)

Any answer I give will lead to enless other questions by you.

As for being Blunt, well probably bad manners in the big scheme of things, (in public anyway). I think that a degree of directness is sometimes the way to go... It seems to shake the tree of ideas, unless the tree has no ideas to begin with.

Once a question is answered then it's not asked again.
 

B_NineInchCock_160IQ

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Posts
6,196
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
183
Location
where the sun never sets
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Ann Coulter is like any of us, she has something top say, like her or not, I challenge you to state just one of her positions and (un-emotionally and mechanically) present your side. Instead of HATING her why not use an argument of SUBSTANCE to refute what she has to say.

This is harder than you make it sound as Coulter herself has far fewer identifiable "positions" than she has hateful, ignorant, intolerant things to say about others. This is the chief reason why people find her distasteful.

As for a few positions of hers that I myself disagree with... how about these:

"we should invade their (the 9/11 terrorists) countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"
It's hard not to at least sound emotional when responding to direct quots like this, just because it's difficult to phrase a response to such monumental stupidity without employing hyperbole. I'll give it a shot.

First of all, holding a sovereign nation responsible for the actions of every one of its citizens is ridiculous. Should we have invaded South Korea after the Virginia Tech shootings? Should Singapore have invaded the United States after that idiot kid was charged with vandalism? We haven't invaded Saudi Arabia and won't (and Coulter's own party wouldn't support doing so) even though 80% of the hijackers were from there. There are a number of different reasons why this would be a bad idea. For one, invading Saudi Arabia would make only slightly more sense than invading Iraq, since like Iraq there is no evidence that that nation of Saudi Arabia had anything at all to do with coordinating the attacks. Like the war in Iraq, and invasion of Saudi Arabia would be more or less indefensible to international critics and cause the United States to lose even more credibility and even more of the good will that we had immediately after 9/11 and that Bush has since largely squandered. Further, the Saudis are prepared and have already engineered the destruction of their billions of barrels of oil reserves, the largest in the world, should they ever be in danger of losing power. If the US government went in to topple the Saudi Arabian government, it would trigger a global energy crisis and economic collapse and probably world wide war, famine, and suffering on a Biblical scale. Additionally, we would be playing directly into Bin Laden's hand if we were to invade Saudi Arabia. Islam's holiest sites are on Saudi soil, including the city of Mecca, where no non-Muslims are even allowed to set foot. If US troops were to land in Mecca or Medina, it would probably set off the ultimate war between the west (or in this case just the USA and Israel) and every predominantly Islamic nation in the world that Bin Laden wants. It's probable that the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers was chosen for precisely this reason. Bin Laden wanted the USA to attack Saudi Arabia, or at least to weaken relations between the two nations, because he's crazy enough to believe that Allah will come down from on high and crush the enemies of Islam when they are all united (preferably behind Bin Laden as caliph) against the infidel. While Allah's divine intervention is not a likely scenario, what IS likely is that even when America's hegemonic military might, we would NOT have the resources to wage a war on that scale. It could mean hundreds of thousands of American lives and bankrupting the nation.

Second, Coulter is sanctioning the murder of foreign leaders, once again, for things that they cannot be held accountable for. Like the invasion of sovereign nations that we have no good justification for invading, the unjustifiable murder of foreign leaders would further serve to erode the United States' relations with our allies and the international community at large.

Finally, Coulter calls for forced conversion of Muslims to Christianity in the nations that we invaded. Wow. Like I already mentioned... trying to answer this "position" with anything that doesn't sound like hyperbole is extremely difficult. If we were to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly every other Islamic nation in the world as Coulter seems to want with the announced intent of forcibly converting the citizens of those nations to Christianity, not *only* would we have to deal with an unwinnable costly war overseas and probably worldwide economic collapse and starvation, we would very probably *also* be facing hostile civil uprisings from Muslim citizens in non-Muslim nations all over the world. There would be civil war in the United States, Europe and Asia wherever there was a sizable Muslim community and the government of those nations did not intervene on behalf of the Muslim nations we were invading. In fact, a move such as this would probably be seen as so tyrannical and so insane, that if Congress or the American public did not do something to stop it, it might put the US at war not just with every Islamic nation in the world, but very probably with several nations in Europe and perhaps with the entire world in general. Our allies would turn on us to defend the Muslim's righteous-by-comparison cause. Our enemies would join in to exploit the fact that our military would be so overtaxed we could not possibly respond to every new threat. South Korea would likely be invaded again by North Korea. Taiwan would likely be occupied by China. Hard to say which way India would go since we would likely be at war then both with the Pakistanis and the Chinese and Indians aren't really fans of either, but there would most likely be war in that region of the world, too.

On top of that, I find the idea that we should forcibly convert *anyone* to Christianity, or any faith for that matter, whether they are US citizens or foreign nationals, to be horribly horribly offensive. Such an idea mocks the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It characterizes Christianity of a true or right faith, and seemingly endorses it as a state religion of the USA if our military is going to be used to spread it, and both ideas are indefensible in the realm of rational thought.




So... there you go. First "position" by Coulter I could find, broken down to you bit by bit for all of the reasons why it is obscenely, offensively stupid and wrong. Just about every single other thing she has ever said can be broken down the same way.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
but I challenge you to provide some quotes that support your conclusion. I read her columns and they are not hateful.

Nice try. Your "challenge" is similar to the diversion arguments made by creationists to try to get everyone bogged down on whether Darwinian Evolution is a "fact" or a "theory". Quotes and evidence from Coulter are plentiful for anyone to see.

I mean, geez... Ann used the word "gay" the way the characters on South Park use it 4-10 times per episode. I have heard, or read, it used in the same way 3 times in the past couple weeks.

So, you're comparing the content of Coulter's speech to that of a vulgar animation aimed at juveniles? Thanks, you couldn't have undermined your own points any more effectively
 

hot-rod

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
May 9, 2006
Posts
2,287
Media
0
Likes
1,305
Points
583
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
No I don't hate Ann Coulter. I only hate those who have been very destructive to humanity: Hitler, Stalin, Pal Pot, and a few others.

Liberals and queers preach against hate and then they say they hate Ann Coulter? Is that contradictory, hypocritical, or both?
God is watching us, God is watching us, God is watching us, from a distance.