My Favorite Ann Coulter Quote

[Papersock]

I read an article in which the author speculated that Ann Coulter was actually a hoax.
I wish it were true.

 

[!Fluffy!]

I read an article in which the author speculated that Ann Coulter was actually a hoax.
I wish it were true.

no sorry i think that was just another witless liberal wag calling her a 'ho', lol.

"Liberals don't mind discussing who is more patriotic if patriotism is defined as redistributing income and vetoing the Pledge of Allegiance. Only if patriotism is defined as supporting America do they get testy and drone on about 'McCarthyism.'"
​

 

[!Fluffy!]

"For fifty years, America's foreign policy failures have not been problems of "national dialogue" or "preventative" action or the national psyche. There is one simple problem: Democrats can't handle foreign policy. You could almost forgive the Democrats for their spectacular record of failure in foreign policy. But then they have the audacity to cite their own derelict handling of the military to argue that it is always a fool's errand to deploy troops in defense of the nation. Remember Vietnam!"

---

"In another show of America's force to the world, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Carter responded by boycotting the Olympics. And thus was a fearsome blow struck at little fourteen-year-old American girls who had spent their lives training for the Olympics."

---

"Reagan took an approach to the Cold War dramatically different from any other US President. To wit, he thought we should win. This was a fresh concept. At the time, it was widely ridiculed as a dangerous alteration of US policy. Only after it worked was Reagan's dangerous foreign policy recast as merely a continuation of the policies of his predecessors."

 

[Ciscokid]

Ann Coulter is pretty crazy but she's a hoot.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

"Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror."
---
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."
---
"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am."

Someone please remind me how many times she's been married? Oh, that's right. None. And my guess is that it's going to stay that way.

Hi everybody,

Speaking specifically about opposing Islamic fundamentalism, isn't she right? I mean, I encounter this fairly often as a conservative Christian. Liberals strongly disagree with my fundamentalism (some could even say despise), but then they can't bring themselves to condemn Islamic fundamentalism.

If you dislike one fundamentalism (in Christian fundamentalism) why can't you dislike another fundamentalism (in Islamic fundamentalism which by the way is a bit more dangerous than that evil brand of Christianity that I believe)?

Joe, welcome to RF.

I think you might want to spend some time and research a bit more what it means to be a "liberal." The answer might surprise you.

Ann Coulter is pretty crazy but she's a hoot.

So, you think that some of her hate carries positive value?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

think you might want to spend some time and research a bit more what it means to be a "liberal." The answer might surprise you.

What do you mean? Are you saying that liberals don't show antipathy towards conservative (fundamentalist) Christians?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hi Mercy,



What do you mean? Are you saying that liberals don't show antipathy towards conservative (fundamentalist) Christians?

You'd have to refer back to my question in order to be able to answer this one.

Just an FYI, I see you're new around here, so I'm trying to play nice.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

You'd have to refer back to my question in order to be able to answer this one.

I did and my question still stands.

Just an FYI, I see you're new around here, so I'm trying to play nice.

No need, I'm a big boy.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hi Mercy,



I did and my question still stands.



No need, I'm a big boy.

Alright then.

Hi Mercy,

What do you mean? Are you saying that liberals don't show antipathy towards conservative (fundamentalist) Christians?

Um, did that question originally come from FOXNews? What exactly did you mean here?

 

[Bishka]

Hi Mercy,

What do you mean? Are you saying that liberals don't show antipathy towards conservative (fundamentalist) Christians?

Not all of us. Some of us are considered 'conservative Christians'.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Um, did that question originally come from FOXNews? What exactly did you mean here?

Whoo, the gloves are off! A Foxnews reference, LOL!

The question came from me (well actually I was at the Temple worshipping Karl Rove and he told me to ask it).

The meaning of the question is fairly clear; from my experience liberals look at conservative Christians as bigots, fascists, sexists, and homophobes (among other things). Rarely do liberals actually respectfully diagree with a conservative Christian's point.

So, from those experiences I believe that liberals have a rather low opinion of conservative Christians. And I don't understand why they can display that same discourtesy to conservative Muslims.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ann Coulter makes my donkey twitch.

 

[lillitruthseeker]

i love that perez hilton calls her Mann Coulter -- she does look like a Tranny

 

[Bishka]

i love that perez hilton calls her Mann Coulter -- she does look like a Tranny

Perez Hilton?

 

[lillitruthseeker]

perezhilton.com -- check it out its hilarious and always good for a laugh

 

[Bishka]

perezhilton.com -- check it out its hilarious and always good for a laugh

A gossip site?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Whoo, the gloves are off! A Foxnews reference, LOL!

The question came from me (well actually I was at the Temple worshipping Karl Rove and he told me to ask it).

The same time that I was at the child-sacrificing orgy?

The meaning of the question is fairly clear; from my experience liberals look at conservative Christians as bigots, fascists, sexists, and homophobes (among other things). Rarely do liberals actually respectfully diagree with a conservative Christian's point.

Honestly, it wouldn't hurt to avoid using the noun form of the word "liberal," at least for awhile. I sense you're up for a good discussion here, but a great many people who toss the term around just do so to pick a fight. That's why I've been taking such exception to your use of the word.

Also, there's a difference in respecting beliefs and respecting the people behind those beliefs. Case in point, there's an billboard near where I live that advocates two-day work weeks and five-day weekends. While I respect the people behind such views and their right to express them, personally I find the idea incredibly silly. In other words, I respect the group, but I see no need to respect such wild opinions.

Now, if this same group imposed their views and made it a crime to work more than two days a week, I would lose respect for them entirely. Frankly, I feel I am justified in this decision. If a human or group of humans chooses to take away my rights, there is no reason in the world that I should have respect for them.

Sadly, many conservative Christians choose to place themselves in the latter group because of their lack of regard for human rights.

So, from those experiences I believe that liberals have a rather low opinion of conservative Christians. And I don't understand why they can display that same discourtesy to conservative Muslims.

Stereotype. You need to differentiate having respect for each of these two groups and having respect for people vs. beliefs.

Also, see the above argument.

One thing I like up there, however--you do emphasize conservatives Muslims instead of lumping them into Islam as a whole.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Honestly, it wouldn't hurt to avoid using the noun form of the word "liberal," at least for awhile. I sense you're up for a good discussion here, but a great many people who toss the term around just do so to pick a fight. That's why I've been taking such exception to your use of the word.

I am not using the word to pick a fight. I am simply using it as a descriptive label. Just as someone would call me a libertarian or a conservative, that would be the correct label (we could then get into the details).

Sadly, many conservative Christians choose to place themselves in the latter group because of their lack of regard for human rights.

Some examples? And if you are hinting at gay marriage, then I believe you are mistaken because I believe conservative Christians are going through the peaceful and proper legislative channels to get marriage defined as between a man and a women or to ban gay marriage (personally I am for gay marriage). If arguing for your policy in the democratic process is ignoring human rights, then we basically all ignore human rights.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hi Mercy,

Hello.

I am not using the word to pick a fight. I am simply using it as a descriptive label. Just as someone would call me a libertarian or a conservative, that would be the correct label (we could then get into the details).

Though I believe the first half of this paragraph, and I sense your motives as benevolent, many who toss around the word "liberal" in a debate--specifically that word--do so with malicious tone and intent. See Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter for examples. Their defensiveness seems to come down to, "liberals" are different than us, therefore they are bad, therefore we must aggressively oppose them. This is the definition of picking a fight.

Of the two examples of labels you mentioned, I think the only one that has an even remote chance of carrying a straightforward meaning is "libertarian." What does "conservative" mean? Are we talking about fiscal conservatives? Social conservatives? Moral conservatives? Religious conservatives? The old-school definition, which essentially has "conservative" and "liberal" as swapped? The word is just too loaded to use by itself.

And that's only half as much trouble as the word "liberal" has, largely because of its extremely slanderous and treasonous distortion (puns intended) that many people have chosen to expose it to.

Some examples? And if you are hinting at gay marriage, then I believe you are mistaken because I believe conservative Christians are going through the peaceful and proper legislative channels to get marriage defined as between a man and a women or to ban gay marriage (personally I am for gay marriage). If arguing for your policy in the democratic process is ignoring human rights, then we basically all ignore human rights.

Keep in mind that those who argue against gay marriage possess heterosexual privilege, meaning that they do not have to worry about other people dictating whether they have the right to express their romantic desires for one another. Homosexuals do not have this privilege. Thus the lives and feelings of gays are at the mercy of what rights the heterosexual majority decides they can have. Therefore, this analogy of "peaceful channels" fails here, even if their methods are allowed by law.

Also, I am confused by your last two sentences; they seem to imply that gay marriage would be a loss of a right, not a right. Can you please clarify?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hello Mercy,

Though I believe the first half of this paragraph, and I sense your motives as benevolent, many who toss around the word "liberal" in a debate--specifically that word--do so with malicious tone and intent. See Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter for examples. Their defensiveness seems to come down to, "liberals" are different than us, therefore they are bad, therefore we must aggressively oppose them. This is the definition of picking a fight.

I think you should give O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter a little more credit than that. It's not that they oppose liberals simply because they are different than conservatives. From my reading and watching of those three in particular, it is that they disagree with the policies and positions that liberals share. So, when talking about liberals, they are talking about a loosely connected set of policies and positions that liberals espouse.

Of the two examples of labels you mentioned, I think the only one that has an even remote chance of carrying a straightforward meaning is "libertarian." What does "conservative" mean? Are we talking about fiscal conservatives? Social conservatives? Moral conservatives? Religious conservatives? The old-school definition, which essentially has "conservative" and "liberal" as swapped? The word is just too loaded to use by itself.

That is why I said parenthetically that we could then get into the detalils. I identify myself as a conservative. Now, we can define this further. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I have many social conservative beliefs but I don't agree with some of my fellow social conservatives about using the government to achive their ends.

Keep in mind that those who argue against gay marriage possess heterosexual privilege, meaning that they do not have to worry about other people dictating whether they have the right to express their romantic desires for one another. Homosexuals do not have this privilege. Thus the lives and feelings of gays are at the mercy of what rights the heterosexual majority decides they can have. Therefore, this analogy of "peaceful channels" fails here, even if their methods are allowed by law.

I think we have to ask a process question before the 'heterosexual privilege' point. What proper branch of government should deal with the 'right' to gay marriage. Well, we only have three choices:

1. Executive branch (well, this one is ruled out right away because we can't have the executive making laws, that would lead to tyranny).

2. Judicial branch (this one seems wrong too, the judicial branch is to interpret existing laws not make new ones, and the same problem with tyrannical use of power applies here as well).

3. Legislative branch (this seems to most apporpriate branch to make laws -it is the law making branch - concerning gay marriage).

So, the point of heterosexual privilege is moot because we really have only one legitimate choice to deal with the gay marriage issue.

Also, I am confused by your last two sentences; they seem to imply that gay marriage would be a loss of a right, not a right. Can you please clarify?

I apologize for the confusion. My point was, if dealing with gay marriage in the democratic process is ignoring human rights, then we all ignore human rights (by advocating for our policies in the democratic system).