In Defense of Ann Coulter?
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 07:45PM Conservatives are turning on Ann Coulter in droves. Here are some quotes from conservatives throughout the blogosphere:
Michelle Malkin: ("RAGHEADS" AND "SAMBOS" AND "GOOKS")
Ann says many deliberately provocative things. This one was spectacularly ill-chosen and ill-timed. I want the young conservatives who attended CPAC—particularly young conservative Muslims—to know that not everyone uses that kind of epithet.
I don’t. Not in public. Not at home. I have no ill will towards peaceful people who happen to cover their heads for their faith.
Red State: (Conservative’s Enemy #1: Ann Coulter)
It is time for conservatives to make Ann Coulter persona non grata like they did to David Duke. I am calling on all conservatives to contact the following sponsors of CPAC 2006 to register their displeasure with Coulter’s appearance at the event. I would also like to see conservative organizations refuse to book future events with Coulter.
What was Ann Coulter’s crime? She said last week, referring to Iran:
"What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons? I think our motto should be, post-9/11, ‘Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."
But then Michelle Malkin explains:
"My problem, as I’ve made clear on this blog, is with radical Islamists at home and abroad who threaten our existence. I don’t care what they wear on their heads. I care what’s in their heads and what’s strapped around their chests and and what’s hidden in the soles of their shoes and what’s being cooked up in their labs and nuclear reactors. I have a lot of blunt names for these jihadists who have killed our sailors and soldiers, butchered and beheaded innocent civilians from around the world, flown planes into buildings and incinerated babies, children, and pregnant women in the name of religion.
"Ragheads" is not the word that immediately comes to my mind. Evildoers. Bloody murderers. Bastards. Yes. "Ragheads?" No.
I thought Ann Coulter was also speaking about "radical Islamists" who are "evildoers", "bloody murderers" and "bastards" as well. And what about beloved free speech? Supporting Denmark’s free speech to criticize Mohammad and Islam, but not Ann Coulter’s to criticize, using sarcasm, radical Islam?
Steve Warshawsky attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last Friday and heard Ms. Coulter’s speech. He wrote In Defense of Ann Coulter on Reality Check.Org:
I agree, of course, that it is not nice to refer to people with crude ethnic epithets. I also agree that Ms. Coulter’s remarks, if broadly construed, are potentially unfair to Muslims who do not share our enemies’ values and ambitions.
Nevertheless, only the most abstruse, self-righteous person (which includes the two young men who challenged Ms. Coulter during the question and answer period) would believe that Ms. Coulter was referring to “all” Muslims in her remarks. She quite clearly was addressing the radical Islamists who have declared war on the United States and its allies – and who are aggressively fighting that war, while we in the west debate the finer points of free speech.
Indeed, Ms. Coulter’s speech is the latest example of western political humor deemed offensive to Muslims that “sensitive” westerners – including conservatives who should know better – rush to criticize, so as to demonstrate what decent people they are. Apparently, these westerners believe that the way to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims is to show them how willing we are to demonize the very people who are standing up to the radical Islamist bullying and terrorism that is going on across the globe. How utterly naive.
At the risk of being labeled a “racist” myself, I confess I find it very troubling that conservative commentators like Mr. Hogberg are so offended by a few harsh words for our sworn enemies. Let us not forget that these enemies, who are committed to a way of life that is antithetical to our own, have killed thousands of our fellow citizens and would gladly kill millions more.
How can it be that calling these enemies “rag heads” is so intolerable, but killing them by the hundreds and thousands in Iraq and elsewhere is deserving of praise? After all, we on the right (and center) loudly applaud President Bush whenever he speaks of “destroying” our enemies. But Ann Coulter calling them “rag heads” is going too far? This is a ridiculous example of political correctness run amok. But “politically correct warfare” is an oxymoron, and a foolish and self-defeating way to fight a war.
I have to agree. I’m not ready to throw in the towel on Ann Coulter. She says what people think. No profanity. No nonsense. The jury’s still out.
Expose the Left Iowa Voice Stop the ACLU Sister Toldjah
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/385740
Amy Proctor
The more I think about it…..
…..the more I support Ann Coulter.
The point, I believe, of Ann Coulter’s comments were the same as the point of the cartoons: to reveal hypocrisy.
Point 1) If Mohammed was such a great, peaceful prophet, his followers are wrapping his legacy in deceit with their suicide bombings, violent rampages, beheadings and so on. Islam has NOT gone far enough to distance itself from these acts of violence and human rights violations. This IS part of the problem.
Point 2) Perhaps radical Muslims ARE accurately portraying the prophet with violence. Perhaps they "say" peace but mean "violence".
Point 3) Perhaps both are true: Mohammed was not a man of peace and his followers are following suit while invoking the privilege of reputation (a false reputation of peace which they call upon in times of trouble). In other words, perhaps radical Islam is overtly a violent religion while feigning "peace" and "justice", relying on libertines everywhere to protect that facade.
If Coulter were a racist, she would have made a comment about Arab skin tone or man-dresses or something else culturally significant to Muslims. Instead, she pointed out a headdress worn by religious Muslims. I say, "Point well made, Ann."
Amy Proctor
Ann Coulter appeared on Fox’s Hannity & Colmes last night opposite Arianna Huffington. who said VP Cheney "is an atrocious human being, and atrocious human being and an atrocious vice president…" (not a typo, she called him an atrocious human being twice in a row). Ann Coulter wiped the floor with her opponent and showed why conservatives shouldn’t disown her quite yet.
Watch the exchange HERE (thanks to Expose the Left)
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (100)
laughing about shooting Bill Clinton (a former president, how is that for respecting the office)
threatening to poison supreme court justices.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001995840
The term "Raghead" is offensive to many people who are not only friends of the United States, but citizens. It is irresponsible to suggest that only the US's enemies are affected by the use of this term.
The best way to respond to Coulter is to let her career and relevance expire, just like the world view where such comments are allowed. If this is what conservative are trying to subscribe to, conservatism will be proven harmful and be disregarded.
Moonbat, do you use the same logic regarding the Bush administration and troops fighting in Iraq? For example, to say that Bush is a terrorist and troops are torturers.....hmmmm, maybe we should THINK about this before we say it.
"raghead" is not anywhere near as specific as "murderer". It associates peaceful Muslims with guilty terrorists. If the terrorist enemies were black, would it be OK to call the terrorists "nigger", or "paki" if they were Asian?
Supporting free speech means you support my right to criticise your religion. A true proponent of free speech must embrace the possibility that people will say things he doesn't like.
This is an example of some who are jealous and second those who try to topple the most intelligent and intellectually accurate speakers for a point of view.
The Truth: When in a non-muslim country, I let my feelings be known to two individuals who used disparaging words to describe the local populace in general and one individual in particular. Their words were, believe it, "rag head" and "clowns".
Anne Coulter is accurate. Ethyl (or Ethel) and Julius Rosenberg were spies.
Here are a few more of her “pearls of wisdom”:
In January, while speaking at Philander Smith College: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media." http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/27/coulter.stevens.ap/index.html
During an interview on a FOX News Channel show in October 2004 the host asked, “You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all?” Coulter replied, “I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days.” http://mediamatters.org/items/200410070004
And during CPAC last week she stated, "If we find out someone [referring to a terrorist] is going to attack the Supreme Court next week, can't we tell Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalito?"
Sarcasm, when used correctly can be a wonderfully subtle yet powerful tool to convey your message, but Ann Coulter uses it with all the finesse of a linebacker. Unfortunately her “jokes” only elevate political discourse to a new level of hate. That may be attractive to some but it’s not very constructive or meaningful.
So, she used the term "ragheads" in reference to our enemies, yet the hypocritical liberals who call our President "a baby killer" "warmonger" just to name a couple, I guess that's okay?? I don't get it....
Silke, thanks for your post, well said. Thank you for providing the links as well.
This was dropped in my blog by the Commie Sultras just now. Here's the entries:
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/A-stAr.jpg
This is the slug trail of slim left behind in my interface that shows the author:
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/Commies.jpg
Any takers? Christians are disproportionately violated by assholes like this as well as by Muslims, who are as we speak persecuting Christians all over the world, including in Iraq. So... condemn it all, including Piss Christ and so on and perhaps we'll talk.
Nath did this piece on me not long ago:
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/Nath.jpg
Here are some other inflamatory items:
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/HC.jpg
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/KM.jpg
This is a copy/paste/screen cap of the site that was up for about an hour after I changed my URL to "amyproctor.squarespace.com". the person hijacked my old site and under the "About Me", just as I have mine above, they wrote this:
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/screencap.jpg
These insult my religion and me. Raghead pales in comparison.
I could easily argue that I'm being persecuted for religious reasons. My religion calls homosexual acts a sin. My religion takes these moral stands.
I think people should recognize who the real threats are behind verbal assault, and it's not Ann Coulter.
I read the posts you listed and they are incredibly offensive and hurtful. When I hear people say things like that I stop listening to any of their comments. They have lost all credibility.
We disagree often and on many things but the fact that you are a proud Army wife will always make us more alike than different. I’m sorry that some people who disagree with you feel the need to attack you personally.
I don't think anyone is whining here. Just pointing at something that is obvious. Please don’t assume that I agree with the commies just because I don’t like Ann. The world is not that simple. No offense intended, and as always when I am moved to post, I enjoyed your entry on this subject. I wouldn't offer my thoughts if I didn't.
Let us move forward together and challenge each other to be better, not excuse every failure and hide behind other people’s weakness.
I'm not saying you personally have said the President should die or be assassinated, but it is not uncommon among liberal blogs and commentators to say so and worse. And Dem. politicians. Do a Google or Yahoo search for George W. Bush. Read the links. It goes downhill after the 6th link.
Here are some examples:
http://www.whitehouse.org/
http://www.bushorchimp.com/ = George W. Bush or Chimpanzee?
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm = Bush; the Dark Side
http://www.bushlies.com/ = The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ = Bush is the Anti-Christ
These are in succession, one right after the other. I'm not skipping around or searching for bad liberal sites. They in abundance.
By the 2nd photograph under "photos", it's getting bad.
Contrast that with Bill Clinton:
Virtually nothing. You have to go pages and pages to find objectionable material. What do you know, a double standard. I have to wonder why you and people like you don't come to the defense of Pres. Bush when he's called the world's worst terrorist and so on.
"Ragheads" ARE OUR ENEMIES. THEY WANT TO CUT OFF YOUR HEADS. THEY WANT TO MURDER YOU AND RAPE YOUR WIFE. It's totally hypocritical to think Ann Coulter is out of bounds if you don't think liberals and all their hate speech is wrong. Remember the Coretta Scott King funeral??
Jez, I beg to differ. "Raghead" has nothing to do with race, it has to do with clothing or headdress. Would it have been better if she called these MILITANT EXTREMISTS WHO WANT TO MURDER US "Mandress-heads?" You know, they wear a "mandress", as they're called.
Silke, I do choose to take Ann Coulter seriously. I enjoy her sarcastic humor. I also think that until the left and Muslims choose to change their rhetoric, Ann Coulter acts as their mirror, but much more mildly. She mirrors to them themselves. She creates an equilibrium against the ENTIRE LIBERAL MOVEMENT which is of a diabolical nature.
I heard Ann give those comments. She explained that she wasn't suggesting she would actually use a base ball bat on a liberal, but that they are impossible to reason with. Poor choice of words, but point taken. She's not saying "nigger", "fag", "spic" or anything of the sort. You're talking apples and oranges in my opinion.
Moonbat liberal, when have you EVER not condoned the calling of the President a terrorist? I've never heard you chastise anyone for saying it. Of course not; liberals stand by and silently enjoy what the freaks of the left say.
RAGHEAD does not equal "your husband is a baby killer and a fag". or a description of me "liking to dress up like Mary and Johnny like Jesus and we have divine sex". or "Amy Proctor is a fat pig" (even Bravenet shut down that journal because it's clearly offensive). Forgive me Moonbat, but you are a hypocrite. You should soundly condemn everything in the links I provided. Otherwise there's no point in taking you seriously.
No, everyone is whining here. When everyone is up in arms over "raghead" because Ann Coulter dissed OUR SWORN ENEMIES WHO WANT TO CUT OUR YOUR BOWELS AND FEED THEM TO THE DOGS , I think we have a serious patriotism problem.
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/morecommies.jpg
Commies polluting other people's sites with anti-Christian, anti woman hate bashing:
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/Frenzy4.jpg
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/Frenzy5.jpg
Photo of Hermes/Sorouche (take a look at the face of hate)
http://copainsdavant.linternaute.com/membre/510544/2204095722/index.shtml
An e-mail he wrote to me, unsolicited of course:
(hatemail will be posted on my private web site)
Where's the outrage?
I know wearing a head-dress isn't racial, but it is cultural. I stand by my comparison.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=12500&o=ANN001
The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That's a "dog bites man" story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices.
After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.
The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem.
So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."
What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won't show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (see the full gallery below). And yet, week after week, American patriots endure "The Boondocks" without complaint. Where's the justice here?
Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.
The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)
Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb?
If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?
In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Koran's alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I've got documentation to back that up!
Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack -- the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on "The View" have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.
McClellan said: "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support."
We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than "hold Syria responsible" for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria.
Or is NATO -- like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming -- inapplicable when Muslims are involved? Liberals complain about "unilateral action," but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it's almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!
"...only the most abstruse, self-righteous person (which includes the two young men who challenged Ms. Coulter during the question and answer period) would believe that Ms. Coulter was referring to “all” Muslims in her remarks. She quite clearly was addressing the radical Islamists who have declared war on the United States and its allies – and who are aggressively fighting that war, while we in the west debate the finer points of free speech."
We only hear the sound byte. She was clear in her speech that she was not talking about good, God fearing Muslims but the radical nuts who are burning down Europe.
However, goading, inciting and inflaming the world's 1.2 BILLION Muslims is absolute insanity.
What is wrong with you people here? I understand that in heartland America, people fear what doesn't look like them, wear the same clothes, listen to the same music or speak with the same dialect. Heck, America's STILL dealing with integration for pete's sake. But when I hear ethnic and racial epithets being DEFENDED for the sake of jingoism and hubris, my blood runs cold.
I know this blog uses religious imagery, and very often people talk about Christianity here...and Jesus had some interesting things to say on related matters:
>>>"Matthew 5:43 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
Somehow, that doesn't resemble Ann Coulter's latest diatribe, now does it?
--Cobra
That's one of the most thoughtful sentiments I've heard you express to date, Cobra. Well said.
"However, goading, inciting and inflaming the world's 1.2 BILLION Muslims is absolute insanity."
The problem is that the rest of the world cannot lie down and try to appease Muslims. If there is some fault at the cornerstone of their religion that leads them to not understand social justice, tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention maturity, then perhaps others pointing it out to them is better than cowering. It's like enabling a druggie and buying his "stuff" for him on the side.
"What is wrong with you people here? I understand that in heartland America, people fear what doesn't look like them, wear the same clothes, listen to the same music or speak with the same dialect."
Your caricature of Americans is wrong as usual. Are you saying we shouldn't fear nutso Islamic fascism or do I misunderstand you? Fear is a healthy thing: it alerts you to danger.
"Heck, America's STILL dealing with integration for pete's sake. But when I hear ethnic and racial epithets being DEFENDED for the sake of jingoism and hubris, my blood runs cold."
We are? Wow! How enlightening. What you don't understand is that America's "ethnic and racial epithets" are coming from liberals and being DENFENDED by the left. I have left a slew of evidence in previous entries to make this case. We have one woman, Ann Coulter, say a few saucy things that are by contrast to what the left and radical Muslims say mild.
I don't know that Coulter is a Christian, but my friend, Jesus said "love and pray for your enemies".. that's quite different from "let your enemies rule the world with hatred and murder you."
"The difference between Ann Coulter and the Danish newspaper, is that Coulter carries the burden of representation (or she seems to want to). She remains utterly free to say what she likes, but she may loose the priviledge of representing mainstream American conservative thought."
Michelle Malkin feels the word "raghead" is inappropriate, so this is where her path diverges a little from Ann Coulter's. I don't think every Conservative has to agree on every issue (not to mention every word) and if "raghead" happens to be the point where Coulter stops "representing mainstream American Conservative thought," then so be it.
But every Conservative/Conservative organization gets to decide for itself. Red State may want these organizations to stop inviting Coulter around, but if they generally agree with her and figure "raghead" just isn't a big deal, they still will. And I have a feeling this will be the majority opinion. Ann Coulter gets to say what she wants, but her "constituents" get to decide whether she's speaking for them or not. I don't really think you can expect things to work any other way.
What's really more important is this: Michelle Malkin isn't backing down from her stand against terrorists, or against militant Islam. She's just making it explicit that she expresses her ideas differently. I just don't think she's going soft here. And if it was implicit in Coulter's speech that she was only referring to radicals (and I'm inclined to think it was -- this is her style), they really don't have very different ideas. But Coulter is abrasive, and that's not everyone's bag. She makes a living by being in-your-face, it's why she stands out, but all Conservatives and all opponents of militant Islam/terrorism don't have to have that same abrasive style. The presentation makes some people uncomfortable, even when they agree with her, and I think when you consider the personality and style of Ann Coulter this is unsurprising. For example, I know for a fact that my grandparents agree with all her policy points, but would be positively scandalized by her harshness and sarcasm if they heard her speak.
Still, typical blonde.
See there I'm talking only about stupid people (a specific stupid* person in this case), but using an attribute which also applies to non-stupid people. I would expect people to be annoyed at the propogation of the blonde=stupid stereotype I just perpetrated.
There's other offensive material in Coulter's remarks, eg. by implication Muslims don't wash / groom themselves properly etc. She's a woman who enjoys pissing people off, muslim's, people like me, anybody who isn't firmly right-wing in fact. It is somewhat in the direction of commie sutra's program of abuse towards you (although I can and do succeed in ignoring Coulter almost all of the time, you aren't able to ignore the Sutra guys... I'm sorry about that, I guess it's likely to continue till they graduate or otherwise leave college). I'm surprised you are so enthusiastic about someone whose whole approach is centered on really getting up peoples' noses. Isn't there room for a conservative spokesperson who speaks with more dignity?
*Coulter's not stupid, but she is clumsy and pandering imo.
Point 1) If Mohammed was such a great, peaceful prophet, his followers are wrapping his legacy in deceit with their suicide bombings, violent rampages, beheadings and so on. Islam has NOT gone far enough to distance itself from these acts of violence and human rights violations. This IS part of the problem.
Point 2) Perhaps radical Muslims ARE accurately portraying the prophet with violence. Perhaps they "say" peace but mean "violence".
Point 3) Perhaps both are true: Mohammed was not a man of peace and his followers are following suit while invoking the privilege of reputation (a false reputation of peace which they call upon in times of trouble). In other words, perhaps radical Islam is overtly a violent religion while feigning "peace" and "justice", relying on libertines everywhere to protect that facade.
If Coulter were a racist, she would have made a comment about Arab skin tone or man-dresses or something else culturally significant to Muslims. Instead, she pointed out a headdress worn by religious Muslims. I say, "Point well made, Ann."
Of course we know that's what causes Down Syndrome.
I don´t read or support communist sites. But I also know that communists can be overturned with one argument. The price system is the source of co-ordination in a complex society, without it no central planning is possible. The history of every communist regime shows this. There is no ambiguity.
As for them calling your husband gay: I would not even begin to consider this a real argument. It is an insult to any thinking person that anyone would listen to first, such a hateful reference, and secondly to its implication that your marriage is not sound. Regardless of the fact that no one has the information in this format to judge, it is none of their business. I would stop giving their comments power, by acknowledging them.
If you truly feel that this is a good comparison of my comments, that I should instruct my view of Ann Coulter by looking at the comments of some Juvenille-minded communists, please make that clear and I will stop wasting my time engaging you. If in fact, you are challenged by what is said, and want to engage in understanding our differnt viewpoints, we should proceed, becuase that is what has driven me this far.
I do not say that there are not evil people out there. I do ask this question -- how many mosques have you been to? How many Muslims have you had to dinner in your home? How manz Halaal resturaunts have you eaten at where the service and ambiance was second-to-none. How many families of Muslims have you watched help their children with homework, and proudly show them off at work.
Your comments are not only offensive to the millions of muslims in this country who have nothing to do with being a "raghead," but everything to do with voting for Bush, paying taxes which fund this foreign war, and prostrate themselves to God 5 times a day.
I would not understand the friendship I offer to you, if I did not let you know this. I would be doing you a disservice to compare you to the links you cite where others have offended you. I would not be capable of good intentions if I belived you to be as lost as they are.
I am still perplexed. Apparently Amy, you feel I should scour the web looking for worse statements before I suggest that you can do better. This is not the way civilized people behave. I am simply suggesting that Ann is wrong, that she should not be defended for the undependable and the lengths to which you are willing to go to try to confuse and distract this issue make me very concerned. Do you think that Jesus was morally ambivalent? This is not what my experience teaches me.
I don’t read or support communist sites. But I also know that communists can be overturned with one argument. The price system is the source of co-ordination in a complex society, without it no central planning is possible. The history of every communist regime shows this. There is no ambiguity.
As for them calling your husband gay: I would not even begin to consider this a real argument. It is an insult to any thinking person that anyone would listen to first, such a hateful reference, and secondly to its implication that your marriage is not sound. Regardless of the fact that no one has the information in this format to judge, it is none of their business. I would stop giving their comments power, by acknowledging them.
If you truly feel that this is a good comparison of my comments, that I should instruct my view of Ann Coulter by looking at the comments of some Juvenile-minded communists, please make that clear and I will stop wasting my time engaging you. If in fact, you are challenged by what is said, and want to engage in understanding our different viewpoints, we should proceed, because that is what has driven me this far.
I do not say that there are not evil people out there. I do ask this question -- how many mosques have you been to? How many Muslims have you had to dinner in your home? How many Halal restaurants have you eaten at where the service and ambiance was second-to-none. How many families of Muslims have you watched help their children with homework, and proudly show them off at work.
Your comments are not only offensive to the millions of Muslims in this country who have nothing to do with being a "raghead," but everything to do with voting for Bush, paying taxes which fund this foreign war, and prostrate themselves to God 5 times a day.
I would not understand the friendship I offer to you, if I did not let you know this. I would be doing you a disservice to compare you to the links you cite where others have offended you. I would not be capable of good intentions if I believed you to be as lost as they are.
But I leave as an exercise for the interested reader the easy task of finding a similarly disrespectful comment from Ann.
Ithink that sufficiently extreme positions on the right or the left are a bit silly, and deserving of scorn... don't know what Gore was tlaking about, but it looks like he was talking about only extreme right wingers... I am vaguely aware that Coulter treats all liberals the same way. She just doesn't seem classy enough to deserve the kind of support she gets from fastidiously moral people such as yourself.
AMY et al -
I think that Ann Coulter has shown herself to be a political satirist - who uses leaps of logic and twists of facts to make a point. To take her literally is a mistake. To engage her in an argument can be worse!
I think of Ann Coulter the way I think of Mill Maher or John Stewart - only much more tuned in. If it's okay for these "news sources" (don't kid yourself - a very generous portion of Amercians get their news from these two clowns) to slander and generalize, it should be okay for Ann. It is telling that folks like Michelle Malkin criticized Ann - but she is an effective hammer for conservatism, like her or not.
I read those links you put up, AMY. The way I see it, you must be doing something RIGHT for these morons to take the time and energy to go after you - as you exercise your freedom of speech. Amazing and ironic.
BTW, I thought Nathy had decided to play nice-nice?? Did he suddenly lose his new-found manners?? He doesn't visit my site any more - I think we hurt his feelings so that his boyfriend Cain (who turned out to be alright for a lib) had to come and save him.
As for Nath, I delete his comments upon impact. Same with the commies. Nath sometimes feigns niceness, but it's an act. I'm going to make a section that I will update as they come in using those assaults. Truly anonymous ones will be deleted. But the ones whom I know are from particular people will be revealed. I have photos of some of these people and I think the world should be warned.
P.S. Using racial/ethnic/gender slurs is inappropriate period. We should all expect better of each other and especially published authors.
Similiarly, we have Ann Coulter, whose ONLY claim to fame is making inflamatory comments and statements about people and ethnic groups so that OTHER angry people can pay to read or see her make more.
Conservatives wouldn't be defending Coulter if she was in the Green Party, or part of the Lyndon LaRouche crowd. But they will stand by her because she is on the Bush bandwagon and attacks Democrats at every turn, no matter how outrageous, bigotted, racist, or idiotic her statements are.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/BLONDE-SIDED-STREAM.gif
The problem is, the unwashed masses aren't stupid. We understand that right wingers may not be targeting OUR particular ethnic, religious or racial group TODAY, but who knows who's next TOMMORROW, or NEXT WEEK. That's why the red flag goes up ANYTIME this sort of behavior rears its ugly head.
>>>"The problem is that the rest of the world cannot lie down and try to appease Muslims. If there is some fault at the cornerstone of their religion that leads them to not understand social justice, tolerance and forgiveness, not to mention maturity, then perhaps others pointing it out to them is better than cowering. It's like enabling a druggie and buying his "stuff" for him on the side."
First of all, the "rest of the world" is not in conflict with Muslims. In fact, if you look closely--
1.2 billion Muslims is one fifth of the world's population. The wise strategy is to foster peace and not foment war.
Second, the U.S. government is in bed with Muslims all the time, primarily via oil and the House of Saud. You're aware of how much Saudi money is invested in the United States, right? How much of our debt Saudis own? What would happen to our economy if the Saudis decided to end the relationship and deal direct with China?
These are all questions not taken into account by Ann Coulter and her fans, but deep thinking isn't her specialty.
--Cobra
Ann Coulter's ONLY claim to fame? I beg to differ. If you have ever listened to an entire interview with her, you'd see she is extremely intelligent and a very well informed pundit. For years she's give EXCELLENT commentary on legal and political issues. Here's her resume:
************************************
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
************************************
She uses a lot of irony and sarcasm, so if you're not on her side, it's likely to make you made, but she certainly is no more inflammatory than Howard Dean, who is the HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. I can't remember if I've ever heard a Democrat denounce the stupid crass things he routinely says, or any number of demagoguing Democrats, but now there's a call for Republicans to turn on Ann? I don't think so. She's our token smart ass.
In case you haven't noticed, Cobra, the vast majority of Republicans are CONDEMNING Coulter's comments, not defending them.
"That's why the red flag goes up ANYTIME this sort of behavior rears its ugly head.", you said. Behavior? Calling insanely violent and unreasonable Muslims who use their religion as a crutch and excuse to invoke violence "rag heads" is bad behavior? How about this bad behavior: "George W. Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world." "Unfortunately, it wasn't Nazi Germany, but our OWN SOLDIERS who were abusing and torturing...." "Bush is a liar"...... "Right wingers are missing a chromosome....". These are not Democratic pundits, but rather DEMOCRATIC ELECTED OFFICIALS. Senators, Congressmen and VPs. Yes, "raghead" really looks terrible in comparison.
It's amazing how 1/5 of the world's population can be causing so much pain and suffering. As for the conspiracy theories, these in particular sound like regurgitations of Michael Moore. Yes, I know how much Saudi money is invested in US interests..roughly $420 billion, which is less than 1/2 of what MM reported in Fahrenheit 9/11. He reported that the Saudi interest was $860 billion. in the US, but their WORLDWIDE investments are at 700 billion. I'm not buying that this means 1) Bush is owned by the Saudis or that 2) the US government is in bed with the Saudis. China also pledged $25 million to the reconstruction of Iraq. Total two-way trade between China and the U.S. grew from $33 billion in 1992 to over $230 billion in 2004. The United States is China’s second-largest trading partner, and China is now the third-largest trading partner for the United States (after Canada and Mexico) I'm sure if you're implying that we also are in bed with China? Mexico?
You forgot to mention Haliburton! And the Pipeline.... on which construction stopped during the Clinton administration.
Geesh!
Isn't China a COMMUNIST country? I thought you had a problem with communists, by the way? We're in a very dangerous position as a nation to have so much of our financial well being tied up to two of the worst human rights violating nations on the planet, in Saudi Arabia and China.
And as far as Saudi Arabia goes, Michael Moore was just the messenger. Hating him won't change FACTS.
>>>"2005 Saudi Trade Mission Begins US Visit
May 7, 2005
Free Muslims Coalition
Saudi Arabia is offering investment projects worth SR2.3 trillion ($613 billion) to American companies. A 50-member Saudi delegation begins a visit to five US states tomorrow to introduce the projects in petrochemicals, natural gas, electricity generation, water desalination, telecommunications and other vital sectors.
The move follows the successful visit of Crown Prince Abdullah to the United States last month when he met with President George W. Bush in his Texas ranch, opening a new chapter in bilateral ties. The crown prince's visit, according to Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal, brought Saudi-US relations back to normal, reviving their warmth, vigor and dynamism.
The 10-day US visit of the delegation, led by Khaled ibn Musaed Al-Saif, chairman of the foreign trade development committee at the Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CSCCI) comes at the right time. "Prince Abdullah's successful visit will make our mission much easier," Al-Saif said, adding that the delegation would hold road shows in New York, Atlanta, Houston, Chicago and San Francisco to promote Saudi Arabia. [see below for itinerary]
"The delegation will offer investment projects worth SR2.3 trillion to American businessmen," Al-Saif said. The figure represents the Kingdom's investment requirements until the year 2020. The Saudi government plans to privatize state-run corporations and institutions with a total value of SR3 trillion ($800 billion) within the next 10 years, he added."
http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=632
You're not forgetting what your Commander in Chief of this "war against Muslims" did just this very week, Amy?
>>>"The UAE company would gain control over the management of major U.S. ports in New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami and that has sparked national security concerns among lawmakers...
..."All Dubai Ports World ports are ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) certified as are the P&O ports in the U.S.," the spokesman told Reuters in Dubai.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, already reviewed the transaction and did not object.
Despite that review, some Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress urged the Bush administration to conduct a more rigorous review. They expressed fears that the UAE was used as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by financiers with possible links to terrorist organizations."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021700801.html
So apparently, some of the very people Ann Coulter is making ethnic slurs over are about to be in charge of securing of our nation's busiest ports.
Come on, Amy. I know you're a team player for Bush and the GOP but for crying out loud....PORT SECURITY?
You see, attacking "liberals" and "Democrats" isn't the issue here. Republicans control the White House and the Congress. That means anything that gets legislated, approved, or done by executive order is THEIR choice, and look what they're CHOOSING.
--Cobra
>>>"Matthew 5:43 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
Somehow, that doesn't resemble Ann Coulter's latest diatribe, now does it?
--Cobra
WOW cobra!!!! SOMEHOW that scripture does NOT resemble you and your rhetoric either!
Are there not any mirrors in your house?
and then jez said:
But will you concur that Gore treats his opponents with more dignity?
AFTER Amy challenged some things Gore has said about his opponents, he said this:
Like I said, I neither follow Gore nor Coulter
OK jez, then what was the meaning of the first comment?
Amy, (like GWB), certainly has more tolerance and patience with you hypocrites than I do.
I am more of a Zell Miller, Don Rumsfeld, Ann Coulter, "Don't get stuck on stupid", kind of Republican.
I can almost "see" you trolls 'smirking' behind your keyboards, (ala Alan Colmes), when you think you are putting one over on us.
Sorry, I didn't mean to not aknowledge you too "moonie".
Amy just remember Nath. There are MANY more out there who think it funny to feign being 'nice', then show their true selves.
I like to sit back and watch them play with "rope", until they twist it enough to hang themselves!
WHOOPS, I shouldn't have said that, I am sure cobra will twist that into a racial statement! lol
By the way, I'm not sure, as your implication connotes, that Bush really has anything to do with the port situation except that he's the president. He said he wouldn't stand in the way of the contract because the UAE (United Arab Emirates) have been an ally in the War against Terror with the US. It is the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States makes the contracts: I'm not positive that the President approves them. They're an independent agency like the FBI or CIA. I know the President supported the move, but that's because of the UAE's cooperation with us in the war on terror and because it's not his direct call. He can stop the contract, I believe, but he didn't have to approve it, I understand. He's not checking and approving every contract that the U.S.C.F.I. makes.
Clearly this is problematic, but to place this at the feet of the President is scapegoating.
RAM, I agree with you. At the end of the day, I truly believe there is no bendability with these people. I don't believe they are willing to see outside of their box, and clearly it is Christian conservatives in particular who are supposed to do the apologizing for their views. I have to let a lot of this stuff go because it's impossible to argue with people with a liberal prejudice.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004592.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004590.htm
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004588.htm
I have to back Ann Coulter, even if she meant "raghead" in the most racist way. The Muslims deserve a racial epithet. They're earning it.
Remember how, in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, all the people would come out on the streets and burn USA flags in protest? Yet, once we deposed Husein, it seemed like all those people suddenly felt liberated enough to show support for the USA? Obviously, they were frightened to death of showing any dissent while Saddam was in power, and only when he was deposed did they feel courageous enough to show their true feelings.
My point is, I wonder how many ordinary Muslims in Pakistan or wherever, are only demonstrating and burning USA/Danish flags because they feel intimidated by their governments? Who knows how many ordinary Muslims are in fact peaceful people who would like their governments to be overthrown and to live in a free society? Then they would make their TRUE feelings known on the streets.
Yes, I too am inclined towards viewing all Muslims as extremists at this point in time, but perhaps many of them are only acting that way because they are afraid of reprisals from their security forces if they do not show the required patriotism? It's a big question mark in my mind.
I'm absolutely sure hat a huge majority of citizens in Iran would welcome US military intervention to give them freedom from the Mullahs and the Immans. The difficulty for us, is to accurately separate the freedom-loving moderates from the extremists. I don't know how this can be done at the moment, I admit.