You don't know the history of psychiatry
Ann Coulter and Tom Cruise have something in common. They both made complete asses of themselves in front of Matt Lauer. 9/11 widows don't make the easiest target for a conservative writer particularly when you are mildly retarded. Coulter sounded extremely weak even when defending her position on Hannity and Colmes . But she's number 1 on Amazon.com's list. What a bitch...
posted by mochi at 10:27 PM
5 Comments:
This whore is clearly sick. Why would you say that to sell books? Her problem is that she is clearly mentally unstable, not funny, and Mochi, she always sounds weak when she is put up to defending what she says.
She really got away with one a couple of years ago when she was on OReilly and said, "we did find weapons of mass destruction and the war is going fabulously well." Even though OReilly was like you are absolutely wrong on all accounts, she still wrote the same crap in her column that week. Just an example of what a loon she really is.
She really is legitimately sick in the head.
Oh in case I forgot, she is sick in the head.
Hi Mochi, CH!
I think the problem with discourse in the United States is the willingness to dismiss all points based on how we "feel".
I posted this when "Anne Coulter bashing" came into vogue:
"Conservative" bomb-thrower Ann Coulter has a way of getting our attention that most people just won’t employ. She takes political incorrectness to the extreme. It makes some people uncomfortable, and it enrages others, but it gets stuff out in the open that needs to be discussed. Never has that been more true than now.
It’s just one line in her new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” but it has drawn more blood than all of the other intentionally offensive things she has said or written in the past. The line is, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”
She is speaking specifically of four 9/11 widows who have gained fame, wealth and power from the 9/11 attacks that killed their husbands. She has dubbed the four New Jersey women “The Witches of East Brunswick,” after the town where two of them live.
The four-woman cabal has spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks blaming President Bush for 9/11 and supporting his political opponents, including the failed 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat John Kerry.
Coulter’s point, which she makes after getting the mules attention with a 2X4, is that liberals have employed “untouchable” sympathetic figures to do their dirty work for them and shield themselves from criticism. The four New Jersey widows are not actually enjoying their husbands’ deaths, but they certainly have not forsworn the fame, fortune and political influence that it has brought them. They are taking advantage of their sympathetic status to attack and judge, and they seem to expect impunity.
Coulter doesn’t respect the widow’s expectation of impunity and neither should the rest of us. In a debate that is important to the entire country, perhaps the whole world, no one should be given a shield from criticism. No one has more standing than anyone else who has a stake in the outcome of the debate. Being a victim of terrorism may earn the widows more sympathy than you or me, but it does not earn them any more standing to criticize. The point is, sympathy does not engender impunity, at least not in politics or public policy. The outcome of the debate is too important to let sympathy skew it."
What are your thoughts?
-Jack
Actually I liked your post. But, this woman is just annoying. She's not funny, anytime she is asked to defend a position, she gets overly-defensive and avoids clarifying anything at all. Ive seen this dozens of times when she gets on TV. In other words, she is a complete bubblehead and it disgusts me that she is absolutely loaded off the garbage she writes and says- I mean, take people like Rich Lowry or Byron York for example- I do not disagree with a lot of what they say but I read what they write and respect their position. She, on the other hand, is really damaging to discourse in this country when she gets all of this attention for the twisted manner in which she delivers her argument, while other people are perhaps making similar arguments that would not perhaps inspire as much anger.
However, our media is just horrible and they only report things that catch attention, not inform, and Anne knows it.
She wouldn't have said anything like that had the 'Witches' pushed for Bush and hailed him as courageous in the aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror as a whole. What she would have done is attack Kerry and his war record like a coward.
So either way, she is absolutely spineless. She might as well be what Michael Moore is to Republicans I guess. The only difference is, Michael Moore is capable of engaging in a discussion (I have seen it!)- agree with him or despise him and/for what he says- Anne Coulter just cannot and does not.
Jack, you interpret her point accurately I think. But I do not think she is capable of wording it like that. She is just a hateful person that's all.
I guess I am just disgusted by all the attention she gets; she is a pseudo-intellectual, I don't care where she went to college.
Hi CH,
I had written an article a while back about the decline in civility among the so-called right. I have always been an admirer of individuals like Bill Buckley and John Leo who engage in civil discourse, and allow their arguments to stand upon merit, not force of personality. I think that "entertainers" like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have done MUCH to damage the conservative image. There is much truth in what they have to say oftentimes, but little wisdom in their presentation. You are absolutely right that because of this they have become little more than Moores and Franklins. I have lost a lot of respect for people like Rush Limbaugh (who is straying from true conservatism and playing patsy to the Republican Party(which has left its conservative roots)--add Sean Hannity to that list also).
Of course as adults it is still within our own purview to assess everything said to find the grains of truth they hold. I do that with Randi Rhodes, Franken, Al Gore and anyone else who wants a forum. Occasionally because of the limitations I have on MY time, I have to dismiss the author because they are not worth the time it takes to read them. Mochi had mentioned that I was being bigotted by saying that Keillor should stick to the Prairie Home Companion and avoid political discourse--that is because everything I have read from Garrison indicates he is very unlearned and extremely influenced in politics. I would put more stock in an article written by Mochi than by Garrison. Such may be the case with Anne. If her message becomes lost in her rhetoric and her judgement becomes impaired by her emotion, then reading her conclusions would be a waste of time.
I think that it goes back to issues of maturity. The more immature a person is, the more extreme they are in their ideologies and the promotions of them.
As time passes, expect the "debate" to become more shrill.
Good to hear from you, CH!
-Jack
Post a Comment
<< Home