Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
Bill Meher.
George Carlin......
....Just off the top of my head..
MDN2000>>>"Ann Coulter does not lie, does not distort the truth, she simply tells it as it is with humor.
This is more than enough to bring out the ugly hatred Liberals and Marxist hide within their hearts."
================================================
There is plenty of blame and very obvious hatred on both sides and all around. I am not going to try to provoke yours, but if you want to be honest I think you will have to admit that you didn't discover the "ugly hatred Liberals and Marxists hide" while lacking any hatred of your own. As for me, I myself "once was HALF BLIND, but now I see myself as well as I see others" Therefore when I feel the uglies rising up, I bow out and come back when I feel more loving and kind.
I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth. Her scholarship is generally impeccable. She does use metaphors annoying to certain ideologies or segments of society. She does exaggerate for effect. She does intentionally make provocative statements without qualifying them which often really does stir up hornets nexts among the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant.
But to the prejudiced, highly partisan, and ignorant, hers is hate speech that 'should not be tolerated' while they remain silent on rapper lyrics that absolutely do incite violence, degrade women in the most vulgar ways, and worse. They tolerate the most idiotic anti-American rhetoric from revered celebrities. They dismiss hateful or incendiary or insulting or intentionally dishonest rhetoric, illustrations, metaphors, et al from the left as 'free speech' or 'inconsequential'.
But when asked for a 'hateful' in context statement from Ann Coulter, they have a really hard time coming up with one. She is successful. She is popular. She is conservative. And that's plenty for them to condemn her to hell.
Of course Newby is correct...
But your response!
Insightful! Nuanced! A bit on the tortuous side,,,but, still subtle. And a little fruity and full-bodied.
And the hours of preparation! I am in awe.
She simply created a little if story in her imaginings ..to try to ignore Any coulters lies and excagerations..the facts are no one but Ann Coulter canceled her speech and there were no reported or confirmed threats or violence
Let me see if I have this right: A Tea Party assembly would make you nervous because of the potential for threatenings of violence.
I have little concern over tea part protest being violent
The noisy, rambunctious crowd in Canada, an entire order of magnitude more hostile and vocal than any TP crowd, would be completely non-threatening to you...if you were the object of their chants like Ann was?
If you cant handle the heat stay out of the kitchen.. people protest ,just the other Day I saw a crowd of about 30 loudly protesting the plight of the chicken at KFC
And BTW Ann said to B. O'Reilly the police called where she and her BG were waiting for things to calm down and said it was canceled. My own assessment is that she is fearless, far more than many of those who allude to courage here at USMB
The Ottawa police state no such calls were ever made and Coulter alone chose to canceled the event
Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
Bill Meher.
George Carlin......
....Just off the top of my head..
Thank you. (I am not allowed to respond to Maggie's posts.) There are others assuming that Ann Coulter is verbally abusive. I don't see her anywhere near as verbally abusive as many here on USMB, both left and right, but I suppose that sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder.
Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
Bill Meher.
George Carlin......
....Just off the top of my head..
Bill Meher.
George Carlin......
....Just off the top of my head..
Thank you. (I am not allowed to respond to Maggie's posts.) There are others assuming that Ann Coulter is verbally abusive. I don't see her anywhere near as verbally abusive as many here on USMB, both left and right, but I suppose that sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder.
Just go ahead and say it.
JenyEliza.....m'k?
I'll also take some blame.
If I had to lecture Lesbian Canadians, I'm pretty sure the words "Rug-Munchers" would slip out and I'd suffer anal penetration at the tender mercies of some Bull-Dyke Mountie equipped with a 12 inch strap-on.
As great as our Constitution is, it was written and adopted some 223 years ago, a time when those living had no idea what the future would hold. It is my belief and the belief of many others, that if the writers of the Constitution were to draft the document today, it would not resemble the 1787 version, not exactly.
No one will ever know for sure; but I am of the belief that our forefathers would not tolerate the cries of "kill the blacks" or "kill the Jews" or anything along those lines, and would have written laws to prevent citizens of this Country from living in fear of persecution.
While the specific rantings that you give as examples of speech have to a great degree been addressed by the Supreme Court, and, generally require proximity and ability to commit physical acts, your post is exemplary in spotlighting the political-philosophical diffeences that spit our country today.
Traditionalists, or conservatives, place more faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence than do folks like yourself, Progressives or liberals.
You have stated a main theorem of the Progressives of the early 20th century, let me list them:
a. The Constitution was old, and not equipped to deal with new social ills.
b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives agenda.
d. Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.
f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.
The overriding weakness as my side sees your perspective is the dimunition of the individual as the most important denominator of society.
While it is difficult to predict exactly when your perspective will destroy our society, it is clear from history, that totalist viewpoints do just that.
Should any of the above list require elucidation, I would be only too happy to provide same.
Please don't hesitate- as this is a discussion of primary importance.
Before any amendments were passed there was probably as much debate as there was in the Federalist Papers which formed the basis of the original Constitution. It should be no surprise to anyone that the same types of ideological debates have continued over time, and right up until today. Ironically, I believe it is precisely that type of debate that the framers hoped would establish a middle ground. And THAT is what remains perfect about the Constitution.
Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
Bill Meher.
George Carlin......
....Just off the top of my head..
Thank you. (I am not allowed to respond to Maggie's posts.) There are others assuming that Ann Coulter is verbally abusive. I don't see her anywhere near as verbally abusive as many here on USMB, both left and right, but I suppose that sort of thing is in the eye of the beholder.
Will someone remind Maggie that it was she herself who not that long ago requested that I leave her alone. And I have religiously respected that request ever since.
I hope you've noticed the differences between the post I directed toward Coulter and my most recent response to you. If not, then perhaps I do have a problem."If it becomes apparent that civility is futile, I'll adjust my responses to reflect the intellectual acuity of my opponent."
I don't believe that anyone reading my posts will find that there is and problem with my "intellectual acuity ," nor do I believe that you find there to be any fault there as well.
It does? I simply can't imagine how I'll ever be able to live with that. In all seriousness, did you truly expect me to offer a point-by-point breakdown and analysis of Coulter's drivel? My response was at least as intelligent as anything uttered by Coulter and has the additional advantage of being more concise.Your statement comes across rather as a vapid excuse for your less than intellectual post, the one with the gesture that is so common in school yards and street corners.
I'll do my best to hold back the tears if it ever comes to that. I haven't forgotten about the lackluster quality of your posts regarding my religion and I hardly believe that you'll have an easier time attempting to defend a buffoon like Coulter. Grandiloquence is not an adequate substitute for a cogent argument.No, it seems that you were unable to compete in the arena of ideas, and the result was a somewhat jejune cartoon.
If you are afraid to joust on a higher level, merely continue in that vein and I will read that as your capitulation.
Who on the left is as verbally abusive as Ann Coulter?
Bill Meher.
George Carlin......
....Just off the top of my head..
I actually should have said which woman on the left. There are several men who make their living being nasties both on the left and right. But I can think of no woman on the left who rise to the level of Ann Coulter's viscious harrangues.
If you're able to establish contact with Ms. Coulter, please tell her that although I'm flattered by her advances, I've decided to limit myself to sexual partners who are both human and female.
Sadly... I don't think I'll be able to pass that on to her directly; but I will slip a note to let security know that you've apparently failed to refill your prescriptions...
Come on Haji...
You know what's gonna happen if you don't get back on the cure... you're gonna be walkin' down the mall with your ball bearing coat on again; and you aren't always going to be able to count on their being a Buy 1-get 1 Koran sale, with a free prayer rug at "Muslims Are Us", to pull ya out of it.
No one wants to see Muslim sprayed all over the food court man... It's bad for business and its a BITCH getting you people out of the grout.
It's pretty obvious you've learned your lessons in vitriol directly from Ms. Coulter herself. Pathetic. I really did give you more credit for being less shallow than some of the other cons here. But maybe I have you mixed up with someone else. Your disgusting remarks only prove that you are no better than those to whom your remarks are directed. What's the word for that? Oh yeah, Hypocrite with a capital H.
Kalam's response to Monsieur Coulter on behalf of Canada:
In the interests of accuracy, my friend, you may wish to re-analyze your post.
As it stands, it is, of course, not true.
The origin of the episode remains the letter from the provost of the U. of Otttawa, as:
"widely disseminating his letter to at least a half-dozen intermediaries before it reached me -- in advance of my visit in order to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.
Apparently Canadian law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group," which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, "would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."
Welcome to AnnCoulter.com
Now, when one compares the above with your frenzied statement "The Canadian government has had nothing to do with this." it remains to be asked, who would bring charges or even arrest Ms. Coulter???
Would it be the private police of the university who might impose some penalties on Ms. Coulter for infracting 'Canadian law'?
Or do you, in that fevered imagination, contemplate a vigilate army doing so???
Or is it possible that you are totally in error, and the laws of Canada are in some direct way related to "The Canadian government" ?
And, if that is the case, exactly what variety of blowhard would that make you, eh?
While the specific rantings that you give as examples of speech have to a great degree been addressed by the Supreme Court, and, generally require proximity and ability to commit physical acts, your post is exemplary in spotlighting the political-philosophical diffeences that spit our country today.
Traditionalists, or conservatives, place more faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence than do folks like yourself, Progressives or liberals.
You have stated a main theorem of the Progressives of the early 20th century, let me list them:
a. The Constitution was old, and not equipped to deal with new social ills.
b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives agenda.
d. Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.
f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.
The overriding weakness as my side sees your perspective is the dimunition of the individual as the most important denominator of society.
While it is difficult to predict exactly when your perspective will destroy our society, it is clear from history, that totalist viewpoints do just that.
Should any of the above list require elucidation, I would be only too happy to provide same.
Please don't hesitate- as this is a discussion of primary importance.
Before any amendments were passed there was probably as much debate as there was in the Federalist Papers which formed the basis of the original Constitution. It should be no surprise to anyone that the same types of ideological debates have continued over time, and right up until today. Ironically, I believe it is precisely that type of debate that the framers hoped would establish a middle ground. And THAT is what remains perfect about the Constitution.
Ah, the old Maggie has returned!
Good to see this one.
"...continued over time..." An excellent vertex for this discussion!
The preeminence of my perspective was the period of the ratification of the Constitution, until the Civil War.
For the Progressive, from the Civil War to the present.
The salient point is that the pendulum swing is beyond that of a normal lifespan. Thus, we must apply more than individual experience to decide the benefits of each.
That said, then you do confess there ARE benefits of "each," yes?
"...establish a middle ground..." is impossible!
100%, of course not. But the reason separation of power is explicit in many clauses of the Constitution is an attempt at finding middle ground. Without that attempt, a dictatorship (or monarchy) would have taken place almost immediately. "We the people" are the operative words in the Constitution, meaning no distinction between political persuasion or any other characteristic. (Of course, that had to be expanded upon almost immediately, however.)
Either one or the other will prevail...and the benefits of conservativism, free market and the superiority of the individual have been shown to benenfit society, while progressivism, socialism and statism, as seen in the totalist supremacies of the past century have resulted in torture, mass murder, enslavement and poverty.
One or the other prevails in almost all election cycles because the one outgoing has been deemed NOT to be of benefit to the people. And I wouldn't be mentioning regimes that promote torture, mass murder or poverty as being exclusive of liberalism. I think you could just casually ask your average Iraqi trying to pick up the pieces from our great adventure in "liberating" them about that.
I appreciate your endeavor of linking modern liberalism to an assumed interest by the Founders, but I fear this is more founded in your desires as a good person, than in any real desire by true progressives to fulfull the promise of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
I simply believe "freedom" means different things to different classes of people.
No, my friend, there are too many syncretic inconsistencies between the two.
For one, the source of our "inalienable rights."
We believe that all are born with them, and they come from, as stated in the Preamble,
Laws of Nature and of Natures God. Locke stated as much.
Woodrow Wilson essay Socialism and Democracy Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will. The collective is not limited by individual rights.
I don't know if you saw the seminar at Hillsdale College called "Reviving the Constitiution," but if you wish to see it, you can on line, or you can purchase the DVD. An excellent presentation.
Will someone remind Maggie that it was she herself who not that long ago requested that I leave her alone. And I have religiously respected that request ever since.
People forget what they say at times in emotional fits or such. It's honorable of you to remember though.
I, on the other hand, see the censorship of Canada, or of the EU, as akin to that of China, Iran, etc.
In Canada, there is a widespread belief that American conservatives are ignorant, racist rednecks. People like Anne Coulter merely reinforce that opinion. I spend not an inconsiderable amount of time disabusing Canadians that American conservatives are not redneck racists, but its hard to contradict that they aren't ignorant.
Ann Hart Coulter was born December 8, 1961 in New York City. Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University in 1984 and received her law degree at University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Coulter served as a law clerk in Kansas City for Pasco Bowman II of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. After briefly working in private practice in New York City, Coulter went to work for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, handling crime and immigration issues for Sen. Spencer Abraham of Michigan.
I believe Ann Coulter does not lie nor does she intentionally tell any untruth. Her scholarship is generally impeccable.
