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

[jillian]

Did you...READ Limbaugh's piece?

He said that it's the substance of Annie's thoughts the left hater and not the way she expresses them.

 

[musicman]

He said that it's the substance of Annie's thoughts the left hater and not the way she expresses them.

Come on, jillian - you're smarter than that. Address what he SAYS - not what you want to hear.

He points out - rightly - that liberal indignation is subjective, and therefore hypocritically disingenuous. Thoughts?

 

[sitarro]

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.

Your lack of ability to understand the most basic facts is astounding, how can you possibly make it through the day? Democrats do employ pathetic figures to state their views in an effort to shelter themselves from criticism, that is a fact just as their use of fried chicken to buy votes from black people and cartons of cigarettes for homeless are also facts.

The politicians under that Democrat label are selfish lying fakes that have no interest in the betterment of this country. They only care about stealing power for themselves by any means necessary. They will use mothers of dead sons, wives of dead husbands, blacks, mexicans, unsure mothers that they can talk into abortions, hollywood's high school dropouts, felons, rapists, thieves, cheaters, adulterers and idiots that screw people of their own sex. They are also supported by the American Communist party, NAMBLA, PETA, LaRaza and assorted other extremist groups.

Ann Coulter is right in her assertions, I guess you could say that she states inconvenient truth about Democrats and they hate her for it. If you need examples of nut cases pushing lies on their ignorant audiences, tune into any of the clowns on Air America......if you can find it.

As for the founding fathers, they would no doubt put most of the Democrats in Congress in front of a shooting squad for treason.

 

[Dr Grump]

Come on, jillian - you're smarter than that. Address what he SAYS - not what you want to hear.

He points out - rightly - that liberal indignation is subjective, and therefore hypocritically disingenuous. Thoughts?

But isn't conservative indignation too? There are plenty of conservative pundits who give out good opinion without the vitriole that Ann does. She's just a lightning rod of little substance IMO...

 

[musicman]

He points out - rightly - that liberal indignation is subjective, and therefore hypocritically disingenuous. Thoughts?

But isn't conservative indignation too?

Well - no, actually. Conservative criticism is at least rooted in some objective, consistent standard. Like cases are treated alike. Not so with liberalism. The only objective, immutable truth the left recognize is political expediency; this renders their criticisms pathetic - transparent - laughable.

As David Limbaugh points out...

 

[Dr Grump]

Well - no, actually. Conservative criticism is at least rooted in some objective, consistent standard...

But if that so-called consistent standard (which I disagree with you BTW, but I'll play along) sucks, then it too is laughable.

It never fails to amaze me that both liberals and conservatives see themselves as sooooo right, and the other side soooo wrong, when both have issues.

 

[Rico]

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:

Not the snappiest of comebacks there. You must work on your retorts. Mustn't have the board thinking you're like most humourless liberals. So give, "you're one too", or better yet "na, na,na, na,na,nahhhh" a try. The latter seems to be on par with most liberal intellects.

 

[musicman]

But if that so-called consistent standard (which I disagree with you BTW, but I'll play along) sucks, then it too is laughable.

Fairness - as in treating like cases alike - sucks? Honesty - as in calling something what it plainly is - is laughable?

It never fails to amaze me that both liberals and conservatives see themselves as sooooo right, and the other side soooo wrong, when both have issues.

Any ideology that is the product of imperfect human minds is going to have "issues". At least conservatism has the humility and honesty to accept this fundamental truth. Liberalism, on the other hand, is an arrogant lie at its very root.

 

[jillian]

Fairness - as in treating like cases alike - sucks? Honesty - as in calling something what it plainly is - is laughable?



Any ideology that is the product of imperfect human minds is going to have "issues". At least conservatism has the humility and honesty to accept this fundamental truth. Liberalism, on the other hand, is an arrogant lie at its very root.

Conservatives have humility? Annie has humility? Come on, musicman, you know better.

And if you were being honest, you'd acknowledge that extremists on either side are out of touch with both reality and the mainstream. So, yes, I disagree with your basic premise. But, s'okay.

 

[Dr Grump]

Fairness - as in treating like cases alike - sucks? Honesty - as in calling something what it plainly is - is laughable?

You'd have to give me an example of such an occurance...

At least conservatism has the humility and honesty to accept this fundamental truth. Liberalism, on the other hand, is an arrogant lie at its very root.

The words humility, honesty and conservatism don't belong in the same sentence. I agree to point with where you are coming from with the hard left of liberalism. Definitely not realists and living in la-la land IMO....

 

[Mr.Conley]

Not the snappiest of comebacks there. You must work on your retorts. Mustn't have the board thinking you're like most humourless liberals. So give, "you're one too", or better yet "na, na,na, na,na,nahhhh" a try. The latter seems to be on par with most liberal intellects.

Oh my God, your taking this seriously. I though you were joking. This is great. You're actually making a big deal because I used the word "feel." This is too funny. Who needs any comeback to that. You do realize what you're trying to say. You've done far better job of looking silly then anyone ever could. Oh this is great. :rotflmao:
Why don't we just ban the use of the word feel? Could be dangerous for kids. The govenment might be using it to indoctrinate them into communism and all that. Or maybe it's the NWO and the Jews. From now on, no more feel.
How about opinion? I used that one a lot too. Is that a bad word too? :rotflmao:
Obviously you're trying to insult me for some unknown reason. It was a good attempt, but you are going to have to do better than just getting upset over the use of the word feel. Better luck next time.

 

[Rico]

Oh my God, your taking this seriously. I though you were joking. This is great. You're actually making a big deal because I used the word "feel." This is too funny. Who needs any comeback to that. You do realize what you're trying to say. You've done far better job of looking silly then anyone ever could. Oh this is great. :rotflmao:
Why don't we just ban the use of the word feel? Could be dangerous for kids. The govenment might be using it to indoctrinate them into communism and all that. Or maybe it's the NWO and the Jews. From now on, no more feel.
How about opinion? I used that one a lot too. Is that a bad word too? :rotflmao:
Obviously you're trying to insult me for some unknown reason. It was a good attempt, but you are going to have to do better than just getting upset over the use of the word feel. Better luck next time.

Oops sorry.. Forgot sarcasm is a bit too sophisticated for liberals to comprehend. Who's looking silly? Your reactions are far more lengthy and serious than anything I've posted.

 

[theHawk]

BTW, are the token liberals here going to put their money where their feet are and point out exactly what in Ann's book is "garbage" being spewed out? Which of her facts are "lies"?

 

[musicman]

You'd have to give me an example of such an occurance...

Post #188, this thread.

The words humility, honesty and conservatism don't belong in the same sentence.

Conservatives have humility? Annie has humility? Come on, musicman, you know better.

Perhaps y'all have failed to understand the context in which I use the term, "humility". I'm not talking "aw shucks - 'tweren't nothin' " here. I mean the basic humility which accepts man's irretrievably flawed, self-serving nature. Proceeding from this premise, a self-governing people - operating within the rule of law, but otherwise controlling the conduct of their own everyday affairs - is the only real hope an imperfect humanity has.

The dream of a new world, where a wise, loving elite govern by appealing to "the better angels of man's nature", is itself an arrogant lie. And - because man is what he is - it can only lead to tyranny.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Oops sorry.. Forgot sarcasm is a bit too sophisticated for liberals to comprehend. Who's looking silly? Your reactions are far more lengthy and serious than anything I've posted.

Ah yes, sarcasm. The problem is that what your posting isn't sarcasm. That takes away from the whole, "It was sarcasm," bit your trying to pull. Clever try, I've seen it before, especially when people are backed in a corner, but you'll have to do better then that.
Look I understand, you were just pissed and wanted to make someone look stupid. You thought you saw an opening, but it blew up in your face. You've made a valient effort to deflect the debris, but you can only do so much. Let's face it, this whole, "I was being totally sacastic when I went at Mr. C's jugular for 2 pages," and the, "your posts are longer then mine so therefore you must be retarded," are not very good excuses. You messed up. It's fine. Let's just put it behind us. No hard feelings over here, and I hope there aren't any over there either.

 

[Dr Grump]

Post #188, this thread.

Bad example. He holds up the Swift Boat liars and convicted felon Ollie North as examples of people hard done by by the left...hardly convincing...

 

[jillian]

Post #188, this thread.





Perhaps y'all have failed to understand the context in which I use the term, "humility". I'm not talking "aw shucks - 'tweren't nothin' " here. I mean the basic humility which accepts man's irretrievably flawed, self-serving nature. Proceeding from this premise, a self-governing people - operating within the rule of law, but otherwise controlling the conduct of their own everyday affairs - is the only real hope an imperfect humanity has.

The dream of a new world, where a wise, loving elite govern by appealing to "the better angels of man's nature", is itself an arrogant lie. And - because man is what he is - it can only lead to tyranny.

As I said, the basic premise of the article in post # 188 is skewed. If someone on the left wrote garbage like that, you'd rightfully call it for what it is.

Again, I disagree with your basic premise. I think that people who think the world is beautiful and everyone is just lovely and want to spend their days singing Kumbaya are living in a dreamworld. However, I don't believe that man is inherantly evil either. I don't see the world as some Hobbesian nightmare. There is both good and bad in people.

I think someone like Annie is very good at being an example of humankind at his/her most base and course.

 

[musicman]

Bad example. He holds up the Swift Boat liars and convicted felon Ollie North as examples of people hard done by by the left...hardly convincing...

Ah, young Dr Grump...can't you see that you're actually proving my point for me?

 

[Dr Grump]

Ah, young Dr Grump...can't you see that you're actually proving my point for me?

Actually no, I am not. You are twisting it back on me trying to make out that I am doing what he is saying liberals do, but that is disingenuous on his/your part. It's like me saying "all people with long blond hair are whining toads"..then a person with long blond hair says "hey, thats not fair, how dare you say that about me"...and I go "see, a long blond hair dude whining like a toad". So that doesn't work for me. Thing is, in his opening few paragraphs he talks about how liberals think that Cindy Sheehan and the NJ mothers should not be hassled or vilified, yet if anybody on this planet has been subjected to shear hatred and ridicule it is Cindy Sheehan. You might not agree with her, or you might, but don't tell me people on the right have left her alone, which really blows your theory about what Limbaugh is saying out of the water IMO...

 

[Mr.Conley]

Well now that we've dealt with that annoyance, we can move on.

Define truth.

Define truth. In many ways the search for truth includes searching for what truth is. As I know it, there are several definitions for truth.

There is scientific truth. Absolute, determinable truth that holds constant to a set of parameters anytime anywhere. Scientific truth accurately describes the world around us. We do not make scientific truth, we discover it. It exists independently of us and is unbending. All we can do is find it and describe it. I guess a good example of scientific truth is melting water. Water will always melt above 0 C in regular atmospheric conditions. This, as far as we can determine, is always occurs and is therefore truth.

Another type of truth is semantic truth. This is not absolute truth, but it can spring from it. This type of truth is human created but with respect for the outside world. A good example is this icon What is this icon? I imagine that you are thinking it is a smiley face, but is it really a smiley face? Not really, smiley face is merely a convention agreed upon by users of the English language concerning what that icon is to be called. If you and I wanted to, we could call it an angry face, a sad face, or whatever we want. We could call it a cheesecake as far as I'm concerned. What counts is that in semantic truth, we have these agreed upon conventions for naming and describing things. As long as we agree upon the conventions they are true. We can even disagree on the conventions- I could call it a dolphin and you could call it a carrot- but our current convention of calling the icon a smiley face as well as our other conventions still holds true for those who do or don't call the icon a dolphin, carrot, or cheesecake. Probably the most famous example of semantic truth is from Orwell's 1984. Near the end of the story, O'Brien tells Winston that he can fly (note that this is without any assistence whatsoever, just in the clothes he is wearing). Winston scoffs in disbelieve, but O'Brien declares that he is flying (even though he is just standing there). Winston informs him that he is not flying, but O'Brian laughs at him. O'Brian then gives Winston a much better treatment of the subject of semantic truth then I can give you here in 5 minutes. In scientific truth, you could say that O'Brian wasn't flying, but in semantic truth, if you decided to call standing flying, then yes, he was flying.
Everyday truth- facts I guess. Things like, "the Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth," or, "the economy grew by 4.2% last year," could both be called everyday truth.
Moral Truth- moral truth is what we consider to be right and wrong. Moral truth varies from person to person, family to family, nation to nation. What I consider to be a normal activity could to you be an unforgivable sin. There are ways to prove and disprove moral truth, but I feel that it would be beyond the scope of this post to even attempt to describe them.