Reply With Quote
Yeah, well, Ann Coulter isn't going to die of cancer before the decade's out.
You win some, you lose some.
Coulter is just the far-right version of Michael Moore. Both do absolutely nothing to elevate the political dialogue in this country but rather increase the polarization. Hooray?
Yeah, well, Ann Coulter isn't going to die of cancer before the decade's out.
You win some, you lose some.
So, exactly what was it that Ann Coulter said that caused Mrs. Edwards to arrange a call-in with Chris Matthews?
Go sniff a blog, less.
Cuban, your source stinks…
Why is there no link? Are you ashamed of it?
Is it wikiQuote? Did you read the disclaimer? Wiki has various disclaimers. This one:
I would say that it was either intentionally put together bad, or the people editing it don't know what they are doing and lack proper research skills.This people article needs cleanup. Please review Wikiquote:Templates, especially the standard format of people articles, to determine how to edit this article to conform to the current standard.
I have two of here books. I will address a few items taken out of context.
Notice this except doesn’t include a page number. It is a spliced and rearranged quote from chapter 5 led "Liberals' Doctrine of Infallibility: Sobbing Hysterical Women." This chapter starts on page 99 and like most items for context, it must be read from the start of the chapter to understand the viewpoint. The complete paragraph from page 103:9/11 widows
* These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.
o Excerpt which caused media controversy Godless: The Church of Liberalism June 2006[1][2]
It's pretty bad when a pundit has to chop up and rearrange someone’s words to use the words against them. Also shows lack of credibility. The leftist media does this all the time, and you guy's buy it!After getting their payments jacked up, the weeping widows took to the airwaves to denounce George Bush, apparently for not beaming himself through space from Florida to New York and throwing himself in front of the second building at the World Trade Center. [splice 2]These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. [splice 1]These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, revealing in their status as celebrities and stalked by the grief-arazzis. [splice 3]I've never seen people enjoy their deaths so much.
If you read the chapter led "Ashcroft and the Blowhard Discuss Desegregation" you would find the things leading up to this, and this a play of words close to "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it." The chapter is pointing out the Kennedy was not one who should be exerting any moral opinion during Ashcroft's nomination. She points a few disgusting things out about Kennedy like being thrown out of college for cheating, a rape accusation, and the woman's drowning when Kennedy drove off a bridge.* "We'll drive off the side of that bridge when we come to it, Senator Kennedy."
o How to Talk to a Liberal (2004); ISBN 1400054184 p. 147
Here is the paragraph that has your quote:
I consider this a rather cleaver joke. Surely everyone can see the humor in it.Poor John Ashcroft couldn't say any of that when Senator Kennedy erupted in gin-soaked venom at Ashcroft’s nomination hearings. He has higher aspirations than talking back to a dissolute slob for laughs. But surely there is someone out there who would go for laughs. Bush should find that guy. Heck, I'll volunteer for this mission myself - if only for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to say, on C-SPAN, "We'll drive off the side of that bridge when we come to it, Senator Kennedy."
This does not appear on page 49, and I cannot find it in either book I have. I did find it in a 2/22/04 web article led In search of the better ‘phony American’. It's a rather insightful read!* "Finally, all the candidates are willing to sell out any of these other issues in service of the one burning desire of all Democrats: abortion on demand. If they could just figure out a way to abort babies using solar power, that's all we'd ever hear about."
o How to Talk to a Liberal (2004); ISBN 1400054184 p. 49
Funny how things like this, quoting the wrong source, and the spliced quote from the liberals keep getting improperly repeated over and over. It goes to show that you all plagiarize each other and do no independent fact checking. I should be able to find un-copied quotes out there….
Took me some time to find this one. It is on page 180 in a chapter 9 led "Give Us Twenty-two Minute, We'll Give Up the Country." It is a chapter that shows poor journalism of the left. The complete paragraph for context:* The only standard journalists respect is: Will this story promote the left-wing agenda?
o How to Talk to a Liberal (2004); ISBN 1400054184
This becomes even more relevant if you read the paragraphs before and after. I'm not a fast typist, and there is only so much copyrighted material that can be posted before it becomes an issue of legality.Despite all the gobbledygook about the "profession" of journalism and the absurd conceit that "journalism" is a well-honed craft one has to master over time, the only standard journalists respect is: Will this story promote the left-wing agenda? Like all good propagandists, the major media mix truth with lies then make big show of correcting trivial errors while doggedly refusing to issue corrections for real whoppers. They stare into the camera and claim that they are "professional enough to keep their reporting even handed" and hide behind startled laughter when anyone calls them on it.
* The Times was rushing to assure its readers that 'prominent Islamic scholars and theologians in the West say unequivocally that nothing in Islam countenances the Sept. 11 actions.' (That's if you set aside Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill nonbelievers whenever possible)
o How to Talk to a Liberal (2004); ISBN 1400054184I could not find these two. I found an ungodly amount of internet sources attributing it to the book, but no page number, and I could not find the quotes in the book.* Like the Democrats, Playboy just wants to liberate women to behave like pigs, have sex without consequences, prance about naked, and abort children.
o How to Talk to a Liberal (2004); ISBN 1400054184
Anyone…
Page number please?
I hate this, but everyont should see past the one-liners that can be interpreted at will. This appears on page 4 in the 1st chapter led "On the Seventh Day, God Rested and Liberals Schemed." Here are two paragraphes for context:* Our book is Genesis. Their book is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the original environmental hoax.
o Godless: The Church of Liberalism (2006); ISBN 0978602412
I couldn’t find some of the quotes I looked for without reading the whole book again. I used the internet to assist my search, and found this nice link:Everything liberals believe is in elegant opposition to basic Biblical precepts.
- Our religion says that human progress proceeds from the spark of divinity in the human soul; their religion holds that human progress is achieved through sex and death.
- We believe in invention and creation; they catalogue with stupefaction the current state of our diminishing resources and tell us to stop consuming.
- We say humans stand apart from the world and our charge is Planet Earth; they say we are part of the world, and our hubristic use of nature is sinful.
- We say humans are in God's image; they say we are no different morally from the apes.
- We believe in populating the Earth until there's standing room only and then colonizing Mars; they believe humans are in the twilight of their existence.
Our book is Genesis. Their book is Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, the original environmental hoax. Carson brainwashed an entire generation into imagining a world without birds, killed by DDT. Because of liberals' druidical religious beliefs, they won't allow us to save Africans dying in droves of malaria with DDT because DDT might hurt the birds. A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil. It was one of the most devastating environmental disasters in recent history. Six weeks later, all the birds were back. Birds are like rats—you couldn't get rid of them if you tried.
Darn I really like Ann Coulter -- How to Talk to a Liberal
It has a series of quotes too, many you don’t find in the liberal pundits material.
They are not opposites when it comes to integrity. Ann Coulter may be a flamethrower, but she does it with a level of facts, wit, and humor unseen by anyone in the left. Michael Moore is a liar that lacks any integrity at all.
I don't think anyone specified. It was likely the ' got' remark, but Ann Coulter has said numerous things about Edwards. Others have taken comic relief at Edwards expense too. Afterall, he is the "Breck Girl."
The Breck Girl (John Edwards) Feeling Pretty!
John Edwards - I Am Woman
Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a " got"
Ann Coulter Fires Back at Critics Over John Edwards ' got'
I agree with Ann
Edwards is a got
Okay, because I thought maybe Coulter had said something about Mrs. Edwards which would have been out of line...but, certainly, not unlike some liberal commentary of conservatives.
Example
I think it's hilarious that Chris Matthews and Mrs. Edwards conspired to do a gotcha on Ann Coulter and, considering the surprise, I think she handled herself fairly well.
Hmmm....let's think, when's the last time you had a Conservative invite a liberal commentator on their show and then surprise them with the spouse of a person they had been making fun of?
Yeah, never.
Yet another thing to ridicule about the Breck Girl. He has his sick wife fighting his battles for him.
Last edited by Yonivore; 06-28-2007 at 08:13 AM.
Even The Hill saw it as a campaign fund-raising stunt.
Edwards camp again turns to cash cow Coulter
Ann has only accused the edward's of using their child's death for political gain. For M-ann to have the balls to claim that soemone would use their child's death to further themselves is disgusting. I have a child and I cannot FATHOM the thought of losing him but to make a baseless claim about a parent who suffers this great loss is a soul not right with itself. She is a disgusting person, and pathetic excuse for a political commentator.
OH yeah Elizabeth Edwards doesn't mind that the wants her husband to be assasinated she just wanted to make a buck for his campaign.
This thread is outlandish
I think it was a comment about the Edwards using their dead child for political purposes that prompted the confrontation.
Then they shouldn't use their dead child for political purposes.
You've obviously been following the liberal version of events.
Just like Rush Limbaugh was criticizing the media when it was mischaracterized as a racial slur against Donovan McNabb, Ann Coulter was criticizing the political correctness of going to rehab over some slur against a sexual actor.
The remark came shortly after Bill Maher had wished that Vice President Cheney had been killed in the assassination attempt in Afghanistan last year.
Coulter was catching some flack over saying something to the effect that she couldn't call Edwards a got because she'd have to go to rehab but, it would be okay for her to have wished him assassinated...referring to Maher's comment about the vice president.
here's your link.
She was talking about the double standard applied to conservative vs. liberal commentators.
I can't either but, this is the guy that channeled dead children at trial, pretended to know what Jesus Christ would say today, and charged $50,000 dollars to speak on poverty.
I don't think anything is below this trial lawyer...and, apparently, neither does Ann.
But, again, she sure is getting a lot of attention over stuff liberal commentators spend their entire waking life doing to Cheney and George Bush.
I don't know that they did.
I won't justify her comments because someone else said the same thing. I don't agree with Bill maher's comments about the sitting VP being killed.From what I remember Maher didn't wish him dead rather he wondered if more people would be alive if Cheney had died. Regardless of what he or she said it is tasteles and inappropriate. The difference is that ,unlike Coulter, he is not at the forefront of a political movement.Coulter is paraded on Fox news and on the tlak radio circuit as a leader in the conservative movement. Please don't tell tell me that you think it's ok for her to make such disgusting remarks.
Do you ever stop repeeating the GOP talking points? I guess Guliani can get away with charging 100,000.00 a speech without scrutiny because he isn't concerned with poor people? Oh wait he's a Republican different rules for them..
They just don't get it. We show them example after example of such things. It's OK for them to do it, but whenever a republican or conservative does it....
OMGz!!! Yoni has a worshipper. LOLZERz
Please explain this double standard? And who specifically holds it? let me guess the evil MSM!!
Why shouldn't they?
Coulter uses every appearance as a stunt to sell his books.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
