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

[1549]

From the post of mine:

That assertion is not entirely accurate. I believe I misunderstood your original post and then we proceeded to run circles around eachother. Ultimately, I think we still disagree.

However, the entire argument strayed from my original point that Ms. Coulter relies heavily on blown up generalizations that in many ways are not relevant to the most pertinant issues facing our country.

 

[nt250]

That assertion is not entirely accurate. I believe I misunderstood your original post and then we proceeded to run circles around eachother. Ultimately, I think we still disagree.

However, the entire argument strayed from my original point that Ms. Coulter relies heavily on blown up generalizations that in many ways are not relevant to the most pertinant issues facing our country.

Ann Coulter's entire persona revolves aroung giving back to the libs what they have spewed for years.

Yes, she generalizes. Yes, she uses invective to disaparage liberals and the left.

But what of the liberals and their tactics?

When Bill Clintion was president he and Hillary were subjected to some pretty nasty treatment. I read everything from accusations of fraud to murder. Some pretty far out stuff was said about Bill and Hillary Clinton. But it was said by people who were presented as the fringe. Nuts with an axe to grind. Partisian operatives who were never taken seriously by anyone in the media. I mean, for crying out loud, Bill Clinton was caught lying under oath, was impeached, and today you would never know that by the way the left and the MSM treats him.

Now compare the treatment of George W. Bush to how the Clintons were treated. It's not the fringe who attack him. The hatred directed at George W. Bush by mainstream liberals is really so out of proportion to anything the man has ever done that it makes no sense at all. But that's what liberals do. They take everything SO personally that any criticizm of any liberal idea is considered a personal insult. Many conservatives can't stand George W. Bush. They don't think he is true conservative. But when a conservative criticizes GWB they criticize his actions, or his inactions. They do not call him a chimp, or Satan, or Hitler, or the Anti-Christ. No, liberals do that.

Ann Coulter throws it right back at them. The reason liberals hate Coulter so much is because they are totally incapable of seeing their own hatred for what it is. Because to a liberal, they don't hate anything because they're right in everything they believe, and since their beliefs are so noble to them, they can't possibly be accused of hating anything.

I've been on message boards now for close to 7 years and the worst things that have ever been said to or about me have been said by liberals. They are so easily offended, yet so quick to offend.

 

[sitarro]

If one believes in evolution, how can homosexuals be explained? If these aberations that can't reproduce themselves have truly been around since the beginning of time, wouldn't that make them either a birth defect that should be extinct or practicing a lifestyle.

 

[1549]

Ann Coulter's entire persona revolves aroung giving back to the libs what they have spewed for years.

Yes, she generalizes. Yes, she uses invective to disaparage liberals and the left.

But what of the liberals and their tactics?

When Bill Clintion was president he and Hillary were subjected to some pretty nasty treatment. I read everything from accusations of fraud to murder. Some pretty far out stuff was said about Bill and Hillary Clinton. But it was said by people who were presented as the fringe. Nuts with an axe to grind. Partisian operatives who were never taken seriously by anyone in the media. I mean, for crying out loud, Bill Clinton was caught lying under oath, was impeached, and today you would never know that by the way the left and the MSM treats him.

Now compare the treatment of George W. Bush to how the Clintons were treated. It's not the fringe who attack him. The hatred directed at George W. Bush by mainstream liberals is really so out of proportion to anything the man has ever done that it makes no sense at all. But that's what liberals do. They take everything SO personally that any criticizm of any liberal idea is considered a personal insult. Many conservatives can't stand George W. Bush. They don't think he is true conservative. But when a conservative criticizes GWB they criticize his actions, or his inactions. They do not call him a chimp, or Satan, or Hitler, or the Anti-Christ. No, liberals do that.

Ann Coulter throws it right back at them. The reason liberals hate Coulter so much is because they are totally incapable of seeing their own hatred for what it is. Because to a liberal, they don't hate anything because they're right in everything they believe, and since their beliefs are so noble to them, they can't possibly be accused of hating anything.

I've been on message boards now for close to 7 years and the worst things that have ever been said to or about me have been said by liberals. They are so easily offended, yet so quick to offend.

The general problem is that we all think so highly of our beliefs (by we I mean everyone who follows politics) that a political issue becomes personal. I already stated in this thread that I did not like Moore's generalizations about conservatives, but nor do I feel it justifies Coulter's nonsense.

Conservatives and liberals live such similar lives and yet we talk to eachother like we come from different planets. This mission to make America the best it can be is nothing but a competition to see who can sling the most mud.

I would much prefer if both sides would actually have the balls to try and attain political success based on merit. Too many try to win based on the other side's flaws. It really makes this whole process ugly.

 

[MissileMan]

If one believes in evolution, how can homosexuals be explained? If these aberations that can't reproduce themselves have truly been around since the beginning of time, wouldn't that make them either a birth defect that should be extinct or practicing a lifestyle.

If one believes in creation, and as you say, homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time and homosexuality isn't some new fangled social condition caused by the modern erosion of morals, how can homosexuals be explained? If they are truly abominations in the eyes of god, why hasn't He uncreated them?

 

[MissileMan]

I would much prefer if both sides would actually have the balls to try and attain political success based on merit. Too many try to win based on the other side's flaws. It really makes this whole process ugly.

This might work except "I'm a smarter, kinder, more honest piece of shit than my opponent" doesn't seem to energize one's base. :teeth:

 

[1549]

I guess you're right. We all love a good skeleton in the closet. Who is not instantly drawn to a TV when they hear: "my opponent's mistress aborted her pregnancy with a clothes hanger!" That is news media gold right there.

 

[sitarro]

If one believes in creation, and as you say, homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time and homosexuality isn't some new fangled social condition caused by the modern erosion of morals, how can homosexuals be explained? If they are truly abominations in the eyes of god, why hasn't He uncreated them?

Gee Missile,

I would have never predicted a question like that in response to my question(sarcasm), I guess that means you don't have an answer.

 

[1549]

If one believes in evolution, how can homosexuals be explained? If these aberations that can't reproduce themselves have truly been around since the beginning of time, wouldn't that make them either a birth defect that should be extinct or practicing a lifestyle.

It could be a number of things. A form of population control, a mutation, or something else that I have absolutely no knowledge of.

The thing about genetic traits is that a parent does not have to manifest the trait for the offsrping to inherit it. You could have the gay gene in you right now, it is just recessive, so you are straight.

You get a woman with the gene as well. You two pass it on and so on, eventually someone down the tree will end up with the right combination...and whammo.

You could have a gene for cancer that never takes on the disease in your life time, but maybe it will impact a son or a grandson.

 

[red states rule]

If one believes in creation, and as you say, homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time and homosexuality isn't some new fangled social condition caused by the modern erosion of morals, how can homosexuals be explained? If they are truly abominations in the eyes of god, why hasn't He uncreated them?

They are in the fruit section of their family tree

 

[theHawk]

I bought the book yesterday, I'm almost half way through it.

She does a really good job of exposing the liberals for the hypocrits they are. I'm still reading the chapter on Liberal Martyrs. The whole "Jersey Girls" thing is just un-fucking-real. All this critizism from the left only proves Coulter's point in the chapter. She completely exposes Joseph C. Wilson as a fraud and a liar. Reading the section on Dukakis just shows how far to the extreme liberals will go to try to win an election and what a cold-hearted bastard Dukakis was. I love it when she also throws in Headlines from newspapers from around the country, just to show you have far to the left the media really is.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I bought the book yesterday, I'm almost half way through it.

She does a really good job of exposing the liberals for the hypocrits they are. I'm still reading the chapter on Liberal Martyrs. The whole "Jersey Girls" thing is just un-fucking-real. All this critizism from the left only proves Coulter's point in the chapter. She completely exposes Joseph C. Wilson as a fraud and a liar. Reading the section on Dukakis just shows how far to the extreme liberals will go to try to win an election and what a cold-hearted bastard Dukakis was. I love it when she also throws in Headlines from newspapers from around the country, just to show you have far to the left the media really is.

I usually wait and read our library's copy of best sellers, but I think this time I will buy.

 

[red states rule]

I bought the book yesterday, I'm almost half way through it.

She does a really good job of exposing the liberals for the hypocrits they are. I'm still reading the chapter on Liberal Martyrs. The whole "Jersey Girls" thing is just un-fucking-real. All this critizism from the left only proves Coulter's point in the chapter. She completely exposes Joseph C. Wilson as a fraud and a liar. Reading the section on Dukakis just shows how far to the extreme liberals will go to try to win an election and what a cold-hearted bastard Dukakis was. I love it when she also throws in Headlines from newspapers from around the country, just to show you have far to the left the media really is.

That is why libs are having a cow. Ann rips the mask of tolerance off their faces

 

[Diuretic]

That is why libs are having a cow. Ann rips the mask of tolerance off their faces

Do you mean she demonstrates that "liberals" as you like to call them are hypocrites?

 

[nt250]

The general problem is that we all think so highly of our beliefs (by we I mean everyone who follows politics) that a political issue becomes personal. I already stated in this thread that I did not like Moore's generalizations about conservatives, but nor do I feel it justifies Coulter's nonsense.

Conservatives and liberals live such similar lives and yet we talk to eachother like we come from different planets. This mission to make America the best it can be is nothing but a competition to see who can sling the most mud.

I would much prefer if both sides would actually have the balls to try and attain political success based on merit. Too many try to win based on the other side's flaws. It really makes this whole process ugly.

I don't think that's true at all.

I am not a conservative but I have a lot more respect for conservatives than I do for liberals. Conservatives believe in something.

Liberals are totally incapable of accepting a contrary opinion without taking it and making it personal.

What do liberals believe in? Who knows?

 

[Bonnie]

I don't think that's true at all.

I am not a conservative but I have a lot more respect for conservatives than I do for liberals. Conservatives believe in something.

Liberals are totally incapable of accepting a contrary opinion without taking it and making it personal.

What do liberals believe in? Who knows?

Read Coulter's new book and find out
Seriously I like how you summed that up.. short and sweet!!

 

[nt250]

Read Coulter's new book and find out
Seriously I like how you summed that up.. short and sweet!!

Nobody brings out the worst in a liberal like Ann Coulter. It's hysterical. I love posting Ann Coulter columns on message boards because without fail the replies from liberals are ALWAYS the same: She's "hateful", she's a "liar", she used to be a man.

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. They'll c/p an entire column and reply, but it's obvious they cannot get past her sarcasm. They take everything she writes so fucking seriously. Like when she calls Bill Clinton a rapist, or Ted Kennedy a drunk. Bill Clinton is a rapist and Ted Kennedy is a drunk. What's the problem?

I really love the "liar" accusations. Ann Coulter had an entire website dedicated to exposing her "lies" and they never did. They gave up. An opinion cannot be a lie. But that doesn't stop people (liberals) from calling her a liar.

So then they resort to insulting her looks. Never fails.

But that's a liberal for you. They'll defend an idiot like Patrick "I was on my way to vote when I crashed my car in a drunken stupor" Kennedy, but they'll say every horrific thing they can think of about Rush Limbaugh and how he should be boiled in oil for having a drug problem.

John Kerry? A proven opportunist, liar, and traitor. Oh, they love him. But George W. Bush? He's a draft dodging, drunk, cocaine addict who also happens to be the Anti-Christ.

Oh, I love liberals just as much as Ann does.

 

[Mr.Conley]

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.

 

[nt250]

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.

That's what an opinion is.

 

[Mr.Conley]

That's what an opinion is.

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.