Ann Coulter's New Book: Godless: The religion of Liberals

[nt250]

Really? I had no idea.

The problem is that these people present their views not as opinions or positions, but as facts, and they often will manipulate the data to support their own arguments, either of their own data or of their opponents. I don't feel that they are trustworthy for an informed view. If you want to read a bunch of garbage about how evil the left/right is, then go ahead, but I'm more interested in finding the truth, and books such as this one are not the way to find it.

That's what an opinion is. I hate repeating myself but you made me.

An opinion is still an opinion whether or not you agree with it. The only reason you don't think it's an "informed view" is because you don't agree with it. So to you it's not "informed".

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. So are they.

 

[Dr Grump]

Most liberals won't read past her byline. AND THEY ADMIT they won't read it! Even when I get one of those liberals who CLAIM that they read it, they never really do read it.

I've read Ann and heard Ann speak. What I find most surprising is she can string two words together....

 

[Mr.Conley]

That's what an opinion is. I hate repeating myself but you made me.

An opinion is still an opinion whether or not you agree with it. The only reason you don't think it's an "informed view" is because you don't agree with it. So to you it's not "informed".

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. So are they.

I understand that they are essentially publishing their opinions, and they have every right to hold their opinions. However, there is a very large gap between opinion and truth, something many pundits, in my opinion, try to represent their opinions as. I don't know whether there are some pundits whose opinions are also truth, but I have found that, overall, these people and their opinions can not be trusted when one is trying to determine truth. That is why I stay away from them.

 

[nt250]

I understand that they are essentially publishing their opinions, and they have every right to hold their opinions. However, there is a very large gap between opinion and truth, something many pundits, in my opinion, try to represent their opinions as. I don't know whether there are some pundits whose opinions are also truth, but I have found that, overall, these people and their opinions can not be trusted when one is trying to determine truth. That is why I stay away from them.

Define truth.

 

[red states rule]

Now Anns' book will debut on the NY Slimes Bestseller list at #1

My how the libs will be flipping out

 

[sitarro]

I've read Ann and heard Ann speak. What I find most surprising is she can string two words together....

How is your writing career going Gump?

 

[red states rule]

I think he just finshed "Green Eggs And Ham" in 4 days

 

[sitarro]

Here is a great editorial stating what may be obvious to most of us but written out so the ones that just don't get it can silently read it for themselves, it will especially help those who don't want to read Ann's book but should at least have a clue what she is stating before making lame ass accusations.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50673


Liberalism: A religion or a cult?

David Limbaugh
Posted: June 16, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

With all the controversy surrounding Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," some might overlook important substantive points she has made.

Critics may say, "Precisely. That's our complaint with Ann. Her insulting remarks deflect attention from the points she's trying to make."

Not so fast. Whether she intended it this way or not, the "harsh" remarks she made in the book have proven one of her theses in a way the book alone could not have done – at least not as effectively.



She contends that liberals have employed certain "human shields" to advance their unpopular arguments, especially those pertaining to the war on terror. These people have either earned respect, like military heroes, or become sympathetic figures through personal tragedy, like Cindy Sheehan and the widows of 9-11 victims.

As a result of their status, these individuals are entitled to say anything they want, not just as a matter of free speech, which no one would dispute, but with full immunity from criticism. Their actions and statements cannot be challenged, no matter how ludicrous, no matter how destructive.

The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said as much when she wrote that it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute" (cited by Coulter, p. 127).

Sorry, but that presumably well-meaning statement is just flat wrong, and wrongheaded. If it were true, we could delegate authority over the nuclear "football" to grieving parents of soldiers killed in action and let them unleash our ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) on suspected terrorist strongholds. Forget "collateral damage"; their moral authority is absolute.

Let's start out with the truism that Cindy Sheehan and the 9-11 widows are entitled to an abundance of sympathy because of their losses. Perhaps they should even be given some slack for saying offensive things in the height of their grief.

But what about when they deliberately and repeatedly inject themselves into the public vortex by issuing vitriolic, malicious slander against the president of the United States, such as calling President Bush a terrorist, or embracing foreign, America-hating dictators like Hugo Chavez? Do Americans have a right to call them on it? Can Sheehan or the "Jersey Girls" say anything, no matter how detrimental to America's image or national interest, without fear of contradiction?

Should we nod with feigned approval at the irresponsible statements of Rep. John Murtha or Sen. John Kerry because they were in combat? Conversely, should those with no military background be foreclosed from the public debate on the war, as "chicken hawks"? Preposterously, liberals answer yes to both questions.

But the more important point is: Liberals don't really believe that the opinions of veterans or family members of war victims are entitled to deference or "absolute moral authority."

As usual, the liberals' outrage is highly selective. It is not the people or their circumstances that are sacrosanct, but their liberal positions. Liberals accorded none of their precious war-hero deference to John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Indeed, they called them liars – when they weren't – and much worse. They have savaged combat-decorated Marine Ollie North. They have no use for retired generals supporting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Not on their lives would they defend 9-11 widows or mothers of war victims in support of President Bush's war effort.

Nor is it harshness, offensiveness or insulting tones that bother them; otherwise, they'd have to denounce 90 percent of the Democratic Party's leadership for the vicious slander they've hurled at George W. Bush for six years or at Justice Clarence Thomas. They would excommunicate from their movement cartoonists for their racist depictions of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. They would condemn Michael Moore and the entire lineup at Air America. And they would be outraged at the defamatory drumbeat against Ann Coulter herself and portray her as a victim. One major newspaper called her book "pornography"; a magazine called for her to kill herself; a major news anchor said she had trampled on something "sacred"; and New York Daily News featured her on the cover as "Coulter the Cruel."

Coulter's comments pale in comparison to the nastiness that routinely comes out of liberals' mouths about conservatives, as when Sen. Harry Reid called President Bush a liar and Alan Greenspan a hack. So please, spare us the indignation.

What really bothers most liberals is not Ann Coulter's tone, but the substance of her criticisms. You dare not challenge liberal orthodoxy; otherwise, you are fair game for the very kind of mistreatment, abuse and intolerance they profess to decry in others. All of which further proves the thesis of Ann's book: Liberalism is a religion whose sacred tenets may not be challenged; for some, it might even be a cult.

 

[Dr Grump]

How is your writing career going Gump?

Not too bad....yours?

 

[red states rule]

I do love watching libs running around in a state of mouth frothing hysteria.

Pres Bush and Republicans are on a roll

The last 10 days have been hell for liberals and I am on Cloud Nine watching them flop around like a fish caught on a hook

 

[sitarro]

Not too bad....yours?

I would guess it's not going as well as Ann's, is it? If you do write , how can you not at least recognize her superior skill at it, jealousy is not a good trait for an artist.....really.

I don't write for a living, I illustrate, photograph, and publish books, the writing is a minor part of my work.

 

[Dr Grump]

I would guess it's not going as well as Ann's, is it? If you do write , how can you not at least recognize her superior skill at it, jealousy is not a good trait for an artist.....really.

I don't write for a living, I illustrate, photograph, and publish books, the writing is a minor part of my work.

Simple. She is not superior. I am not jealous of her. I have only read samples of her writing. If you can point out which parts I should be jealous of, please do so. I do write for a living. Have done for 15 years. I'd suggest if I was bad at it my career would have been relatively short lived....that is not the case..

 

[Rico]

I haven't read any Coulter books, or any books by any pundit. I just can't trust them to be honest and accurate. I feel that instead of taking what is real and using it to find an answer, I feel that they instead take their predeterminded answer, and try to manipulate reality to suit their own purposes. I just can't trust any of them from either side.

Hilarious!! Mr. Conley I want you to reread your post and count the number of times (2) you wrote "I feel". That is the nature of most arguments the liberal makes. He/she "feels" instead of using that object just above your shoulders for something other than a hat rack. Try "thinking" rather than "feeling" about people or issues and some intellectual understanding may dawn on you.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Hilarious!! Mr. Conley I want you to reread your post and count the number of times (2) you wrote "I feel". That is the nature of most arguments the liberal makes. He/she "feels" instead of using that object just above your shoulders for something other than a hat rack. Try "thinking" rather than "feeling" about people or issues and some intellectual understanding may dawn on you.

Hahahahahahaha... no sir, it is you who is hilarious. Is that it? You don't like my word choice. I've written three seperate posts on the issue and all you can come up with is that you don't like the word feel? You really have that much of a problem with a synonym?You're adorable.

OMG, and it's all because I used feel twice. :rotflmao:

You just made my day.

 

[Rico]

Hahahahahahaha... no sir, it is you who is hilarious. Is that it? You don't like my word choice. I've written three seperate posts on the issue and all you can come up with is that you don't like the word feel? You really have that much of a problem with a synonym?You're adorable.

OMG, and it's all because I used feel twice. :rotflmao:

You just made my day.

Feel rather than think? Glad to have made your day. Hope you make the most of it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Oh this is going to be a great day.

This is absolutely hilarious. Most riddiculous post ever!

You know Rico, in your first post you used the word/letter "I" twice! This is the nature of most arguments people make. Using I instead of we or us or some other word that signifies that the argument has some validity and thought beyond yourself is important. It demonstrates that your post thinks beyond yourself and instead focuses on the greater good. How typical. :rotflmao:

 

[musicman]

Here is a great editorial stating what may be obvious to most of us but written out so the ones that just don't get it can silently read it for themselves, it will especially help those who don't want to read Ann's book but should at least have a clue what she is stating before making lame ass accusations.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50673

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sitarro again.

Excellent find, sitarro! This piece should effectively close the discussion forever. Will it? We shall see.

 

[jillian]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sitarro again.

Excellent find, sitarro! This piece should effectively close the discussion forever. Will it? We shall see.

Of course not. An opinion piece from newsmax asserting the validity of Annie's opinions could never close the discussion, effectively or otherwise. Annie takes a wee grain of truth, e.g., that people on the left do not believe in the merging of church and state, and add to that enough vituperation to fill a stadium and call it fact.

Sorry...doesn't pass the giggle test. All she does is prove a deep hatred for disagreement and the freedom of speech and thought which REALLY form the basis of this country. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves if they can hear the garbage spewed by Annie and her ilk.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Hahahahahahaha... no sir, it is you who is hilarious. Is that it? You don't like my word choice. I've written three seperate posts on the issue and all you can come up with is that you don't like the word feel? You really have that much of a problem with a synonym?You're adorable.

OMG, and it's all because I used feel twice. :rotflmao:

You just made my day.

You miss the entire point that was being made by Rico. Ann Coulter writes political opinion based on observation and FACTS--with which she liberally (hehe) salts her books. Her books are not written on pure "feelings". The fact that her writing is substantive is why liberals hate her so much. It's also why she rakes in the big bucks. She's the real deal.

Why don't you pay the $15 to buy one of Coulter's books -- and actually read it -- and learn how a real pro does it? You might even learn something about the conservative argument. Of course, if elite liberals can't learn because they already "know everything" I guess there is no point in your doing that.

 

[musicman]

Of course not. An opinion piece from newsmax asserting the validity of Annie's opinions could never close the discussion, effectively or otherwise. Annie takes a wee grain of truth, e.g., that people on the left do not believe in the merging of church and state, and add to that enough vituperation to fill a stadium and call it fact.

Sorry...doesn't pass the giggle test. All she does is prove a deep hatred for disagreement and the freedom of speech and thought which REALLY form the basis of this country. The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves if they can hear the garbage spewed by Annie and her ilk.

Did you...READ Limbaugh's piece?