Ann Coulter Slams 9/11 Widows

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/424405p-358034c.html

Unbelievable.

Well I wouldn't lose any sleep if I woke up tomorrow morning and found out that someone put a bullet in her head.

The next time she has a thought, she oughta keep it to herself. She obviously has nothing relevant or important to say.

At least I'd rather see her naked than Al Franken... :p

I hope she dies of breast cancer.

Yeah.

According to this idiot Coulter, 9/11 widows or widowers can only speak out if they are Republicans and don't criticize Bush. The "millionaire broads" she so callously referred to suffered immeasurable losses from 9/11 to this day and beyond. But somehow she feels that she has more of a right to comment on 9/11 than people who were actually involved directly. :rolleyes:

What else should we expect from a pig like Coulter? Maybe she and and her male idiot counterpart Hannity can team up and write a book together and they help us solve all of our problems. I can't wait for her tell me what to think :rolleyes:

Here is the response of the 9/11 widows to that bitch Coulter:
9/11 widows issue response

Whoever hit her in the face with a pie 2 years ago should have used a brick instead. At least it would have flattened her adam's apple.

It looks like Ann Coulter is the one cashing in with her OUTRAGEOUS remakes. Hopefully she can join Hitler and the like in their own little personal corner of Hell

Fuck her. She wants the attention she gets. Sells the books.

Anyone who admires McCarthy isn't worth the attention they get.

Really. Fuck Ann Coulter. I have no problem with those that have opposing political views but really to act in such a manner where you fucking act superiour and shit.... That fucking **** pissed me off.

Don't you just hate that arrogant smile on her face in the picture with that article as well?

Kinda adds to the hate.

Yeah I thought the same thing

I was infuriated when, right after 9/11, Coulter urged the US to invade the Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their citizens to Christianity. That's exactly what that bloodthirsty monster Bin Laden has accused the US of plotting. Coulter was just throwing chum at hungry sharks. The US doesn't (or shouldn't) fight holy wars.

I knew it was only a matter of time till somebody posted about this on the BB.

I think Ann Coulter is a great lady. There should be more like her.

Apple

You mean like Michael Moore and Al Franken do?

ALL THE TIME???

Apple

You mean like Michael Moore and Al Franken do?

ALL THE TIME???

Apple [/b][/quote]Fear not, Michael Moore is actually getting sued right now.

OMIGOD! MICHAEL MOORE TAKING SOMETHING OUT OF CONTEXT AND SPINNING IT?!?! NO WAY! :p

I do think there is an interesting point which was brought up on the O'Reilly Factor tonight - how the left in America are rolling out these untouchable martyrs for their causes - like Cindy Sheehan - who you can't say "boo" about lest you look like a callous and uncaring person.

So what?

So what? [/b][/quote]Well, it is kind of noteworthy (at least I think) that Coulter's comments have received so much attention (in its own thread), yet the lawsuit against Moore hasn't even received so much as a nod here. Considering how "popular" Moore's documentaries are with members like Patrick, I figured it would be a topic of conversation.

So what? [/b][/quote]Well, it is kind of noteworthy (at least I think) that Coulter's comments have received so much attention (in its own thread), yet the lawsuit against Moore hasn't even received so much as a nod here. Considering how "popular" Moore's documentaries are with members like Patrick, I figured it would be a topic of conversation. [/b][/quote]Definitley a fair point.

You know who else nobody ever criticizes on this board? The FFA! I'm sick of all the threads on this board bashing right wing lunatics, but you never see a thread about the Future Farmers of America. You know what they have on their emblem? A certain crop that just happens to be an important source of food for donkeys: wheat! Don't you see the symbolism? Those assholes aren't trying to educate us, they're trying to brainwash us into becoming democrats. Well they're not fooling me. Fuck wheat and fuck the FFA!

What? This thread was about the stupid things Ann Coulter said? Dammit! Why doesn't anyone tell me these things. I just thought we were taking turns picking people with different policial affiliations and bashing them until our heads all exploded. I'm sorry. I'm a registered FBLA member, so sometimes my violent side towards the FFA comes out.

Pfft, we have an entire offtopic section for that. :p

Wow, I'm hurt with an attack against the fat bastard that is Michael Moore and Al "Stuart" Franken. Please, Mr. Soprano hurts me more, and hes quite legitimate with the heat. Besides, he deserves respect unlike all these right and left-winger figure-block heads.

Besides, I don't give a fuck about those clowns...and same with Coulter, though she's a bitch.

Hell, even more governmental Republicans want nothing to do with her, especially one of her greatest hits' quotes after 9/11, where pretty much she said we should invade the whole Middle East and convert them all to Christianity.

Fact is, you hosers on both sides help make the so-called "spokespeople" of both "factions" even richer and much more free press given to them for their bullshit.

So yes Apple, DJ, DA, XXX, etc.......when you all go to sleep tonight, just remember that crying over what they all say will give Moore more money to belly flop into his super-nice swimming pool in L.A., give Coulter more money and time to spend with her Cuban Gigolo, send Franken more free lunches to pimp on his former SNL-times, even give Michael Savage some love, since he acts about as touch as a Pop Tart.

Night Night

Cause we do buy all of their books, movies, and merchandise. :rolleyes:

Besides, the media has done a fabulous job of ignoring the Moore lawsuit, while Coulter is practically front page news.

But I sleep better knowing that Team America is still out there.

Sweet dreams,
Double-J

Yes TEAM AMERICA....a film that really is a pretty damn major joke on conservatives really...but whatever, believe whatever man, its America!

*Cue cheesy montage full of American clips*

"Montage...Montage...."

As for the whole Moore lawsuit ignored.....whatever. Fuck him. I wish Coulter would be ignored like those crazy homeless people we ignore on the streets everyday. Better yet, why can't we just tell them to piss off?

Wouldn't that be nice JJ? I mean even you can't deny the power of the dark side on this issue!

Actually, I think it mocks just about everybody, though its done by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, both who have been accused of being (gasp) conservatives.

If you are sincere with these comments, you've hit a new low Apple

Actually, I think it mocks just about everybody, though its done by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, both who have been accused of being (gasp) conservatives. [/b][/quote]Correct on #1, for hell, everyone (including yours truely) should be pissed on more often.

But #2, you're half-right. From the interviews I've seen of the two, and some of their writings, they aren't the simplistic bloc-absorbing "conservatives" that you hang your hat on.

These boys are more of the Rocky Mountain Republicans(fitting since they are Colorado citizens), or perhaps Libertarians is a better term, who are more of the kind thats always suspicious of Washington D.C. itself, and are of course quite personal when the issue of guns come up.

Sure many such people are stereotyped as gun-trotting mountain nuts like Ted Nuggent, but in general they think the federal government needs to back off and let the states do their own thing.

Remember when Parker and Stone fucking pissed on the Bush Republicans for their shit during the Terry Schiavo sensation? Better yet, recently when the FCC and corporatations pussying out when it comes to defending the freedom of speech. Hell, that other one where they had that whole crazy egg episode about marriage.

Parker and Stone are what conservatives, plus liberals, truely should be. Share a common ground, and piss on the stupid obvious bullshit that's allowed by society.

"We avoid extremes but we hate liberals more than conservatives and we hate them." - Trey Parker

"I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals." - Matt Stone

See? Share the hate!

If anybody takes this woman seriously, they need to reexamine their priorities. She's an extremist, always has been, always will be. The fact that she goes around and chooses a new group of people to try and degrade (this case being the Jersey ladies) only proves that she's no different than a bully. She inspires hate in a country which needs more understanding between parties. She gets a rush whenever an argument arises. She's a junkie, only instead of using needles to get her high, she uses controversy and the wrath of a heated political discussion.

If I worked for a newspaper, I'd love the woman. She does give them something to write about. Coulter puts out her hand and the American people feed right off of it. Though it's not possible, if nobody listened to her, she'd go away, but as long as she has supporters and no hit attempts, she'll be around, unfortuantely.

I was thinking the same thing about Michael Moore......he has bigger jugs than Ann Coulter anyway.

If you are sincere with these comments, you've hit a new low Apple [/b][/quote]I am extremely sincere in them, and to tell you the truth hitting a 'new low' in the eyes of MANY BB members is somewhat of a compliment.

So thanks, Irish12

Apple
(President of the Ann Coulter Fan Club)

Apple, Are you saying that you agree with what she has said about the women who were widowed on September 11th? Or are you just expressing a general admiration for her? Or both?

(Re-worded)

SB - have you read any of Ms. Coulter's books? If not why don't you pickup a few (including this new one) before daring to ask such a pompous question.

If you have read any of Ms. Coulter's books well then, it's still a pompous question.

Apple
(President of the Ann Coulter Fan Club)

If you are sincere with these comments, you've hit a new low Apple [/b][/quote]I am extremely sincere in them, and to tell you the truth hitting a 'new low' in the eyes of MANY BB members is somewhat of a compliment.

So thanks, Irish12

Apple
(President of the Ann Coulter Fan Club) [/b][/quote]Apple - as someone who considers himself to be the progenitor of "compliment" sigs, I can feel one coming on for you right now.

You sure about that Double-J? I mean..it's not like anyone on the BB is judgemental or confrontational or anything like that. Very docile group we have here...



Apple

Just remember, like Cindy Sheehan and now the 9/11 widows, certain members of the BB just have such an unimpeacheble character that any disagreement with them should be considered a personal attack! :p

I'm not sure why or how you could interpret that question as pompous. I am not very familiar with Ms. Coulter or her work. In a thread about her statements regarding the widows of September 11th, you posted what a huge fan of hers you are. So, I simply asked if you agreed with her statements about the subject, just admired her in general, or both. How is that possibly pompous??

No should ever pass judgement or make outrageous statements about any of the 9/11 widows or widowers until they themselves have walked a mile in those shoes. Anyone who lost a loved one on that day, a father, a mother or a child, has to live with the pain everyday for the rest of their lives. And I think that it is a disgrace for someone else, who is looking in from the outside, to make those kinds of statements or judgements about these people.

Coutler has absolutely no idea of not only what these people went through, but with many are still going through on a daily basis.

I don't know if she is married or has any children, but if she is or does, at least she gets to go home everyday to her spouse, and if she has children, they get to hug their mother and father every night before going to bed.

Unfortunately the children or spouses who lost their loved ones no longer have that privaledge.


She's a heartless douchebag to say the things that she has said about these people.


Don Cardi

She is not married and has no children. She has been getting away with saying crap like this for years mainly because the media gives her a platform to do it. She keeps getting more and more outrageous with each new book. While I always considered her to ba a crazy skank who was somewhat amusing, this time she has crossed the line.

Now time out...I don't necessarily agree with Coulter and what she said, but exactly why can't we criticize these people (Sheehan and the widow) when they have chosen to take very public and very opinionated political stances all the while either making money (9/11 widows) or by becoming a media whore (Sheehan)?

They are the ones who have chosen the limelight. If they are going to stand on soapboxes or do interviews for the media and come out lambasting the President (which is fine) or give opinions on Iraq, or terrorism, or whatever, Coulter is dead on I think. This is most certainly an excellent strategy by the left, using (and make no qualms about it, they are most certainly being used) these people who "we can't talk about until we walk a mile in their shoes."

I think a JFK quote suffices here:

"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

If we are so wrapped up in how we can't talk about these people because they were involved in tragedy, then by doing so we have basically agreed to become sheep, and will always address how we disagree with them with qualifiers like, "I think I'd probably go a little crazy too after..." or "They lost so much..." rather than accepting them for the political pundits that they have now admittedly become.

True, what Coulter said is callous, and clearly makes her come off like an arse. But is she totally wrong? Are these people (along with Sheehan) not profiting from tragedy? Kind of like the helicopter pilot in M*A*S*H who would get Korean children to go through mine fields for "souveniers," they too are capitalizing on tragedy. Obviously, they use the tragedy itself to express themselves, but I think too there is a point (how to define I'm not sure) where you go from being someone who expresses grief over a tragedy and demands change to a glorified media whore(s) who become wealthy and turn into tools for political gain.

Look at Cindy Sheehan. For someone who is so concerned about her son, it took her two years to get a headstone for his grave. Again, she has obviously suffered a loss which I cannot begin to comprehend. But at the same time - please, Cindy - realize that the media and the far left in this country are using you as a whore, and you're sitting there smiling the whole time.

Double J, I agree with you about Cindy Sheehan and how she let her grief be turned. However, I don't see the correlation between what she has done and the September 11th widows. Although these women did use their "status" to push an investigation, I'm not sure that those actions equate to the same thing. And I don't understand how Ms. Coulter could possibly remark that these women are harpies, that they're husbands would've divorced them if they had lived, etc. Granted, as I stated, I am not very familiar with this woman and her work, but I do know that she is using the deaths of these men in exactly the same way she is accusing these women - to garner attention and become, in your words, a media whore.

Well, as I said, I don't necessarily agree with what Coulter said, but I think she makes a valid point - the 9/11 victims, like Sheehan, are using this tragedy to express their public disapproval of the current administration, war, etc. That is all well and good. But when they start turning into millionaires and media whores, we should most certainly have the right to criticize them just like we would anybody else.

JFK said that we should never judge a president unless we sat in his chair and had to do his job. Yet, that doesn't stop nearly every American from making some assessment of a seated Commander-in-Chief.

Likewise, these women (Sheehan and the widows, respectively) have endured tragedies that are abhorrent and likely unbearable. But, when you put yourself up on a soapbox and espouse certain political values or ideaologies, I think you should be, much like a politician, vulnerable to criticism and disagreement from people. They should not be immune because they endured tragedy, if they are going to use that tregedy for their own means in the public eye.

And yes, no doubt Coulter is a pundit, whose goal is to sell books. But I have read her books (How to Talk to a Liberal if you must), and I will say one thing - she is consistent. She makes no qualms about ripping into the left, in the same way that Al Frankens and Michael Moores on the left do the same thing to the right. I don't know whether she says these things just to sell books, but from what I've seen of her on Fox News, she at least seems to be an intelligent person who is aware of the issues and makes her own opinions, which are out of the mainstream (which she has never denied, I think). Is she a media whore? I don't know. Her goal has always been to sell books, which are written about current political issues. She's not necessarily capitalizing on anything in particular. The 9/11 widows (whom I will admit to not knowing a great deal about) and Sheehan have used tragedy to elevate themselves to quasi-celebrity status in order to initiate change - which is fine - but they've also espoused political values that no one should have to agree with simply because of what they endured, in my humble opinion.

JJ, this is not about Cindy Sheehan. So please, let's not turn this into a Cindy Sheehan topic.

This is about a woman who has written a book, and decided to villify a bunch of woman, who after losing their husbands on 9/11 decided to demand answers and question our leaders on what they were going to do in order to possibly prevent another 9/11 from happening again. Was it so wrong that by demanding answers and investigations that we found out that the communication equiptment amongst first responders was old and outdated and needed to be upgraded? That our intelligence organizations were not communicating with one another?

Who the hell is Coulter to say that these woman may have been getting divorced anyway? What the hell would make her say something that outrageous after these people were killed? :rolleyes:

And as far as the money that these widows were given, well no amount of money in the world could ever replace what they and their children have lost and will live without for the rest of their lives.

And speaking of money, don't you think that Coutler wrote these things in order to create a controversy which usually adds up to more book sales which equates into more money in her pocket?

What she said and did was disgusting.


Don Cardi

Well stated Don Cardi. It's one thing to be politically opposed to the other side's viewpoint, but it's another thing to have class and respect for the tragedy that was 9/11. And it's obvious Coulter has neither class nor respect.

All she's trying to do is drum up sales for her book, which she is entitled to do. But there are better ways to go about it. She obviously has no sense of human decency in her scraggly body.

And regarding the Michael Moore lawsuit, yes he's getting sued by a soldier. Ann Coulter is in trouble of her own. .

Absolutely correct DC & Goombah! Ann "the man" is so far out there, it's hard to believe anyone can take her seriously. :rolleyes: She's either a media whore or a cold hearted bitch.....or perhaps both.


TIS

She must be a mean and heartless person. Those ladies have suffered enough without having to be talked to and called names the way that this bitch has done to them. Makes me sick.


ds

I think this is most certainly a relevant discussion to bring up Cindy Sheehan, who, after all, has a similar story to these 9/11 widows.

Was it wrong to demand answers? No. Was it wrong to demand better protection from another terrorist attack? No. Bother of these are admirable actions, and really are not the issue here. The tragedy has allowed these women to become advocates for change, which is all well and good, that is most certainly their right, as it is Cindy Sheehan's. The issue comes about when these women have chosen to utilize the tragedy beyond change for the greater good - when they become, as I understand, millionaires, and espouse political opinions and express them publicly. Then, Don Cardi, they become subject to the same criticism that we give any other political pundit.

I'm not denying their tragedy. But when they get on TV and get on little soapboxes and talk about their political views, we are not talking about doing something for the greater good. Rather, they are using their tragedy (which is why they are on TV in the first place) and using it to express their political views, which is according to many people, not subject to the criticisms that we would lend to any other person who has not endured the tragedy. We qualify it by saying "We can't criticize until we walk a mile in their shoes."

JFK said of historians that we should not criticize the President until we have sat in his chair and done his job. Yet, that doesn't stop nearly every American from making some sort of assessment of a seated or past president. Similarly, these women have endured tragedy beyond comprehension. They've used it for change. But they've also used it to make money, and to opine politically, and that is certainly subject to public scrutiny.

You have to admit, it is a rather brilliant strategy by the left, using these unimpeachable women as tools.

And again, this is the entire strategy. We are not "allowed" by some moral standard to criticize these peoples actions because they suffered terrible losses. I don't necessarily agree with what Coulter said. I do however think she makes a valid point, that these people are using tragedy and then in turn the media is using them.

Just wondering, why is Ann Coulter not allowed to make criticisms of these women? I mean, after all, we suffered through Michael Moore's biased, out-of-context films that capitalized on a tragedy (9/11), no? Coulter is, last time I checked, a political pundit, and more importantly, an American, who is free to say whatever she wants. If Louis Farrakhan can call the President a racist and claim that we deliberately exploded levies in New Orleans to get rid of the black population, then holy shit, Ann Coulter should be free to say that these women are using tragedy for personal enrichment and are being used as tools by the left-wing media.

But you're falling into the whole trap of focusing on the tragedy, and not how they are using it. No one is denying their loss; to become millionaires based upon the blood of their dead husbands and then become political mouthpieces for the left and tools for the media. Admittedly, I don't know much about these widows, but as I understand, not only have they become millionaires in the wake of 9/11, but also have publicly criticized the President as well as right-wing causes and issues. And that is most certainly subject to criticism from the American people.

Her goal is to sell books, no one is denying that. As to whether she has created the controversy, she has never been too far away from that, but don't you think its the media as well lapping it up? I have read Ms. Coulter's books in the past, and will say one thing for her: she is consistent in her views. I think though that she has actually proven her own point correct - look at how many people have basically made her out to be an antiChrist in the public media because she was willing to criticize these "unimpeachable" people? I think she's proven her point quite brilliantly.


Again, totally sheepish. (I don't think) she's denying their tragedy at all - she simply disagrees with what they have done financially and politically by using the tragedy to elevate themselves to quasi-celebrity status and become mouthpieces for certain political ideologies and elements.

Again, I think she's basically proving her point, its the media who is lapping up the controversy.

And didn't we right wingers get criticized for calling Michael Moore a "fatass" and having no real argument against Fahrenheit 9/11? Yet, pathetic insults to Ms. Coulter, who is probably the most attractive political pundit on the scene right now (come on, who would really want to straddle Lou Dobbs?)

She's being sued because of where she voted (which is a pretty common mistake). Moore is being sued because he took what a soldier said out of context, bended it to make it suit his views, and now has caused the soldier personal problems in his community. Totally different things.

Again, a personal attack on Ms. Coulter, yet, when this happened to Moore, all of us conservatives were a bunch of assholes, right?

I concur, I think that the brutal nature of Ms. Coulter's commentary is harsh. However, that is how she has written and spoken in the past, and she obviously has no qualms about speaking her mind.

And I happen to think, at least her point of the media using these people, she is spot-on correct.

Best,
Double-J

Hey, no one is saying that she can't say what she wants about people.

But so can I.

She's a heartless piece of shit.


Don Cardi

So she's a heartless piece of shit because she disagrees with how these people exploit tragedy for personal gain?

So, does that mean that John Kerry using his purple hearts makes him a heartless piece of shit?

Feel free to think she is a piece of shit. At least understand her point.

Cheers,
Double-J

So she's a heartless piece of shit because she disagrees with how these people exploit tragedy for personal gain?

So, does that mean that John Kerry using his purple hearts makes him a heartless piece of shit?

Feel free to think she is a piece of shit. At least understand her point.

Cheers,
Double-J [/b][/quote]Understand her point? She says the 9/11 widows are all a bunch of "harpies" who were probably going to divorce their husbands anyway, and who are happy they died. That's no point, its garbage spewing out of her foul, stinking mouth.
As far as Im concerned, I hope she gets to meet Al Zaquari soon.

So she's a heartless piece of shit because she disagrees with how these people exploit tragedy for personal gain?

So, does that mean that John Kerry using his purple hearts makes him a heartless piece of shit?

Feel free to think she is a piece of shit. At least understand her point.

Cheers,
Double-J [/b][/quote]Understand her point? She says the 9/11 widows are all a bunch of "harpies" who were probably going to divorce their husbands anyway, and who are happy they died. That's no point, its garbage spewing out of her foul, stinking mouth.
As far as Im concerned, I hope she gets to meet Al Zaquari soon. [/b][/quote]And again, I'm saying that I don't agree with that, and agree with Smitty says regarding her harsh commentary. But what she has said about them capitalizing and exploiting tragedy for personal gain and the media using them as tools is absolutely correct.

As I've said before regarding Cindy Sheehan, I've never seen anyone who has suffered such a great personal loss be so happy go-lucky and smiling and mugging for cameras and interviews. Maybe Ann isn't so wrong?

Also, its nice to see more of the people who criticized us righties for insulting Michael Moore show up and lay personal attacks at Coulter.

And once again, it's right v. left. Why does this have to turn into a political issue? The woman said some very nasty things about women who have suffered an overwhelming tragedy. That makes her, at the very least, mean-spirited. And, I'm sorry, but she is NOT allowed to say whatever she wants. There are such things as libel and slander. And saying that these women's husbands would have divorced them if they had lived, and that their next step is to pose in Playboy, surely fits this definition of slander:

Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

So, doesn't that qualify what Louis Farrakhan said as slander? (Actually, since we're talking about the book, I believe, wouldn't that be libel?)

Yes, she said some nasty things. Nobody is denying that, and she is responsible (the same way that Michael Moore is being held accountable).

But to ignore what she is saying regarding the medias use of these women as tools and these women using tragedy as a soapbox for political views that are free from criticism is, simply, wrong. Further, to dismiss this as a left-versus-right discussion is ignoring the very real strategy of the media to use these women and exploit them, and essentially playing into the whole idea that these women are inimpeachable.

And this is why I think the comparison I made with Cindy Sheehan is valid, at least in this context. Again, as I've said, I don't know a great deal about this widows, but as I understand they have become wealthy from their post-tragedy actions (which is no crime, in itself) and have espoused political values and opines, which most certainly should be subject to criticism.

Since you brought up how we're all becoming sheep, I find it funny how some automatically fly into, "OMG, someone is criticizing my policial party, I must find something retalitory to respond with, even if it has nothing to do with the discussion" mode. This was a topic about the asinine comments Coulter made, yet somehow we can't get away from Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. Exactly what do they have to do with anything? Why stop there. Let's just list every single stupid thing a Democrat has ever said or done and then compare it to a similiar list about Republicans. Then we can finally settle the debate once and for all about whether or not Ann Coulter's remarks were appropriate or not.

doublej stop with the politics and comparing this to other people. these woman have not done anything wrong that deserves what they've been called by her. Ann Coulter is an idiot and a pig for attacking these woman like this. there is no excuse for it.


ds

Once the 9/11 widows begin to use the tragedy of 9-11 as the basis for the expression of their personal political POVs, then they should expect that there will be people who will disagree with their POVs.

The fact that they may have suffered incalculable losses as a result of 9-11, or the fact that we may not have walked in their shoes or suffered as they have does not make them immune from criticsm when they express themselves from a political standpoint.

However.....

Ms. Coulter's comments go beyond criticsm of their politics or viewpoints.

Saying things like "their husbands were probably going to divorce them anyway" or that "they should start preparing themselves for posing in Playboy" go beyond criticzing their politics or opinions of President Bush.

And that, IMO, makes her nothing more than another crackpot, and the left and the right both have plenty of those to some degree or another.

Ms. Coulter is perfectly entitled to criticize their POVs, just as these women are perfectly entitled to express them, but I don't see where some of the comments she made fall within the bounds of criticsm of the opinions that these women expressed.

And if Ms. Coulter wishes to label the 9-11 widows as "harpies" and "whores" who are profiting monetarily from the events of 9-11, what, then, does that make her?

Well said Plaw, well said.


Don Cardi

Double J, You misunderstand my post. Of course what Farakhan said after Katrina was ridiculous. It was absurd and possibly libelous or slanderous or whichever. And anyone who subscribes to that way of thinking is a fool, and perhaps a dangerous one.

What money have they made as widows? Life insurance? Death benefits? Or are you saying that they got paid for appearances or speeches? And if they have, maybe it's because our government had been asleep at the switch for a long time, allowed these attacks on America and Americans to culminate in the ultimate attack, and now these women have to support their families in the only way that has presented itself. But even if they have done all of these things, I don't remember any of them referring to the government that they may disagree with as whores or harpies.

If Ms. Coulter had tried to counter with her own arguments against things that they may have said in such appearances or speeches with an intelligent argument of her own, perhaps she would not be under such personal attack. Instead, she cold-bloodedly and ruthlessly decided to defame them and attack their love and loyalty to the husbands that they lost, and therefore create a controversy in order to promote her book and ideals. It is reprehensible, and there is no possible defense for her actions.

Is Coulter a lesbian? Wouldn't surprise me.

I know nothing about her, at all, and hadn't heard of her before this thread.

But she reminds me a lot of Julie Burchill, a female critic who makes money over here by slamming other people for just about anything. The kind of gal who speaks out against celebs in order to reach fame, and in climbing the ladder, she digs her heels in hard on each rung.

Word has it she is quite the opposite. She has slept around quite a bit I hear.

Ya, Coulter is the Demi Moore of political talkhead ideologues.....in other words, she used her mouth quite literally to help her rise to the top.

Really, so much energy and anger wasted on yet another pointless thread.....imagine all such that was wasted used for like making our world a better place, or at least making for some creative abstract exercise. Besides, at least the end result would be more worthy of our time.

Besides, who really thinks their side is actually going to win in the end?

Great post, RRA! The only reason she says shit like this is so people will get angry and she can sell books. She's a political whore. Sure, fools who defend this woman and her workings may come back with "well so is Michael Moore", and I'm not defending that man, or others like him.

Then Cindy Sheehan is brought up in this thread, and other than the war, she has nothing to do with Ann Coulter.

Cindy Sheehan is a woman who is mad at this administration for the war in Iraq, sparked by the death of her son. Through her pain, she has sparked an anti-war movement. She's promoting peace within our nation and other nations.

Ann Coulter is a woman (I use the term "woman" lightly) who has been known for making foolish controversial comments in the past. Now she's attacking a group of innocent relatives of 9/11 victims who she has accused of putting greed over love in order to inspire hatred. For those who agree, hate directed to her victims, for those who disagree, hate directed toward Ms. Coulter herself.

To quote White Goodman from the movie Dodgeball, Coulter is a "skidmark on the underpants of politics". There need to be less like her. There's too much hate.

EDIT: Out of respect for SC, our Consigliere, I've deleted what I originally wrote. I decided that I no longer wish to continue to embarass Capo.


Don Cardi

I can see both sides of this issue. No, I don't agree with Coulter and there's no way I would say anything so callous. On the other hand, have you ever been to a funeral where the clergyman said something like, "Well, let's be honest here, old so-and-so was a real s.o.b." Whenever you hear folks talk about the people who died in 9/11, they'll say what great people they were, etc. You mean to tell me there wasn't one s.o.b. who died that awful day? Maybe it was in that vein that Coulter made the comments, I don't know. Pretty dumb thing to say aloud, but it is a free country.

You mean like Michael Moore and Al Franken do?

ALL THE TIME???

Apple [/b][/quote]Hey. But it doesn't allow them to be right either. Mr. Moore is a great filmmaker and yet much of "Farenheit 9/11" is speculation and just plain propoganda. And Al Franken may be entertaining to listen to but in the end, I doubt he really knows what he is talking about. But in the end, I also know this woman is a hack who says awful this, parading herself as a true American and yet stomping on the ideals that make this nation the greatest in the world and that is hipocracy at its best.

Since you brought up how we're all becoming sheep, I find it funny how some automatically fly into, "OMG, someone is criticizing my policial party, I must find something retalitory to respond with, even if it has nothing to do with the discussion" mode. This was a topic about the asinine comments Coulter made, yet somehow we can't get away from Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. Exactly what do they have to do with anything? Why stop there. Let's just list every single stupid thing a Democrat has ever said or done and then compare it to a similiar list about Republicans. Then we can finally settle the debate once and for all about whether or not Ann Coulter's remarks were appropriate or not. [/b][/quote]Or, perhaps, you could look beyond your current myopic view and recognize the Sheehan is discussed by Coulter in the chapter as well.

Exactly what do they have to do with anything?

Ann Coulter, a right-wing pundit, makes callous remarks regarding 9/11 widows. Her point, that they are capitalizing on a tragedy, is largely ignored, and instead, turns into a discussion on right-wing nutjobs and how Coulter is inhumane.

Cindy Sheehan, who has called the current President everything from the "Fuhrer" to a "lying, murderous bastard," received a free pass on her political views because her son died. Yet, had it not been for that tragedy, she would never have achieved her quasi-celebrity status, which she now uses to support both left-wing, anti-war politicians as well as get on her soap box and blast the current administration. Now, while she is certainly within her rights to do such things, apparently, as Coulter points out, there is a tragedy shield by which the ridiculous things Sheehan says are largely ignored or dismissed by the media and the American people, and are qualified because of the tragedy she has suffered.

In the same way, the 9/11 widows have made millions, supported notable left-wing politicians (including John Kerry), blame Bush for the attack on 9/11, claim Bush purposefully let Bin Laden go, and have appeared in numerous magazines and photo shoots and interviews, all the while garnering millions of dollars for themselves. Again, they are well within their rights to do this. But their opines and statements cannot be criticized because one will immediately suffer the wrath of everyone from well-meaning bipartisans to caring, compassionate liberals who tee-off when someone questions the politics and motives of these people. And once again, because of their "tragedy," we ignore the fact that they used that incident as a springboard for their own personal enrichment and to throw their political support towards candidates, which should be fair game to the American public to criticize or compliment, respectively.

My comments regarding the American people becoming sheep were misinterpreted (apparently) and taken conveniently out of context. Further, I brought up Michael Moore and Al Franken as examples of left-wing pundits who make their money by bashing right-wing politics, as Coulter does with the left.

Also, I brought up the fact that when conservatives here at the BB criticized Michael Moore (both personally and for his film), there was uproar from lefties who absconded us for such personal attacks. Yet, people here call Coulter names (skank seems to arise more frequently now) and there is a sudden absence of morality from those on the left hand side of the room. Coincidence?

"Politics politics politics politics politics politics!" - Mel Brooks

The vast majority of my posts in this thread are regarding the point Coulter is making about these women capitalizing on the deaths of their husbands and being immune from criticism because of a "tragedy shield." Ann Coulter may be callous, cruel, and I'm not saying I agree with what she said (as I've said now about four times already) with regards to comments about divorcing their husbands, witches, etc.

I do however think she is spot on regarding this shield by which these women (and others like Sheehan) have embraced for personal enrichment, political goals, or a combination of both. And because of this, people like you are reprimanding people like me for criticizing them (as happened when I criticized Sheehan in earlier threads) because of what she went through (which is admittedly an unbearable tragedy) and ignoring the fact that she is off throwing her support for politicians, telling people we're using nukes in Iraq, and calling the President a nazi. Or, in the case of the widows, making millions and then throwing support for John Kerry, blaming the President for 9/11, and appearing in magazine spreads. Should we just ignore that, as many of you seem to be, simply because they endured a tragedy? Or should we call them on their actions, as we would a political pundit like Coulter or Moore?

Again, if they want to call the President a lying bastard or a nazi, that is their own (convoluted) business. But don't expect people to just give them a pass because they suffered a tragedy - it doesn't protect them from people calling them on their soapbox opines and money-garnering efforts on the footstool that is tragedy.

I'm assuming you mean "criticism," which you have misspelled (purposefully) many times in your post, so I'll interpret that as such.

I have to applaud you Plaw, since you've said in those two paragraphs what I've been trying to convey in this thread. I couldn't agree with you more.

And as I've said, I don't necessarily agree with what she said towards the women, but I do think Coulter is spot-on regarding the tragedy shield that has been used to envelop and immunize these women from criticism.

A political pundit, the same as Al Franken or Michael Moore. Seemingly a bit nastier.

From what I have been reading (not in the Coulter book but in the newspapers), they have become millionaires through magazine spreads and interviews, PR-type appearances, as well as from left-wing groups who support their messages (and I would assume as well Americans in general sympathetic towards the cause).

I don't think that supporting their families has anything to do with it (I could be wrong). However, again, I think we're falling into that tragedy shield trap - the government allowed this to happen, and these women are supporting themselves in the only way that has presented itself.

Kind of like saying someone stole something because they were desperate. But is it not stealing, regardless?

No, but they have placed the blame of 9/11 at the footsteps of President George W. Bush, as well as "letting" Osama Bin Laden escape. And certainly, that is their right. But Sheehan, who is also in the same Coulter chapter in question (and is being largely ignored for some reason in this news flurry) has called Bush the Furher, a nazi, and claimed repeatedly that we are using nuclear weapons on the Iraqis.

Does that make what Coulter said morally acceptable? Not likely, and I'll say again, I don't agree with what she said per se.

Perhaps. But as I've said, if you've read any of her books in the past, she is a say-what-she-thinks conservative who doesn't leave anything on her sleeve. But don't most pundits do the same thing?

And again, I'm not defending what she said, except that I think she is correct regarding the tragedy shield that has protected these women from any criticism regarding their political and economic actions post-9/11 (or, in the case of Sheehan, after the death of her son).

Word has it she is quite the opposite. She has slept around quite a bit I hear. [/b][/quote]Source?

Or is it just another hypocritical personal attack (unless in dontomassospeak, 'skank' is a compliment)?

She really hasn't needed any publicity to sell her books, since if I'm not mistaken her previous books have all become NY Times bestsellers...

And I guess you're calling me a fool since I'm quasi-defending Coulter's point, but that's okay, I always consider the source. :p

Actually, she does, since Coulter mentions Sheehan in the same chapter as the 9/11 widows for the same reasons.

And yet again, here come the tragedy blinders in the next quote...

I don't see how she's promoting peace within out nation by blatantly supporting left-wing politics (how does that encourage bipartisanship) or irresponsibly telling the world that we've been using nukes against the "innocent" Iraqi "freedom fighters" when there is no such truth to her allegations.

Rose colored glasses, anyone?

Besides personally insulting her, you're also ignoring her key point by labeling these people "innocent," since they are willingly opining publicly against the President as well as supporting left-wing politicians, all the while making millions of dollars for themselves. I'll say again, they are well within their rights, but questioning the motives of these apparently unimpeachable people like the widows and Sheehan is taboo in our politically-correct, increasingly sheepish society.

Yes, what she said was nasty, and from my point of view, unacceptable. But what she is saying regarding the tragedy shield is true, I think.

I concur. If we could get rid of the Franken's and Moore's and Coulter's then the world would be a better place.

But where would people get the "news" from?

Explain. I think, if anything, by criticizing these people who have used tragedy to elevate themselves to quasi-celebrity status and espouse particular political values, they fall under the criticism of the American people. But they aren't, they are seemingly exempt from any wrongdoings with tragedy qualifiers that absolve them from any personal motives, or personal enrichment, when in reality, it appears that may very well be what they are doing.

Regards,
Double-J

JJ. It's the manner that she presents herself in. The arrogance of it all boils the blood just like it does with people like Moore who are not willing to give the other side a chance to work with each other. I am a moderate so I beleive in being civil and not shoving my agenda down other peoples throat. Isn't that what America is somewhat about?

Sully my man, don't you know? Extremist loonies that have hijacked both parties hate moderates like Dolphins fans hate Jets and Bills fans.

All in all, its just pissing on the wall...

True, and I agree. But I don't think America is about allowing people to make outrageous claims like we're using nukes on the terrorists we're fighting against and how our current President is a nazi while being absolved from any irresponsibility because they are shielded by politically correct (and occassionally well-meaning) sheep.

I think these people (Sheehan, 9/11 Widows) deserve our sympathy. However, empathy regarding their opines or motives is another matter entirely.

Agreed too. There is freedom of speech but I think we can all agree that we all have to learn to use it when it is needed and not to make such outrageous claims. Both sides of the political spectrum are at fault for this behavior.

No doubt. I wonder if the nation will ever be unified again...when you compare the "greatest generation" during World War II and what they endured and how they fought against the ultimate evil, and then look at people in our age group (teens to late twenties), I can't see the same sort of qualities that embodied those who endured the second war to end all wars.

i still have that 17 year old busting balls? wow, someone needs to get out of the house more often. you know rra, there is life after the internet...but i suppose you wouldn't know that.

Christ, shut up.

For the sake of the discussion, let's not have a shitflinging fest, eh? Just once, guys?

I gotta agree with Double J.

Still, thanks DA.

Hope she gets slaughtered.

Kidding. But she is a dumb whore.

Care to add anything meaningful?

I'd be afraid to. Bringing up anything meaningful to you is a waste of time, sense you're always right. Or so you think. Arrogance will never lead to great reasoning.

The power of the Force, my friend. :rolleyes:

And don't feel bad just because I disagree with you, or refuted your argument. I'd like to think you could come back with something else besides a personal attack...

...until then:

A discussion is one thing, but the arrogance you display in many arguments can be perceived as a personal insult. For instance, when you say "consider the source" in our prior disagreement on this thread. I try to avoid using personal insults in discussions. Sometimes it doesn't always work, but I try not to argue with somebody else, nothing gets accomplished in arguments. In politics, people share different beliefs to influence the way others think. It's not necessarily weak to change the way you think about a matter if someone else provides a reasonable argument. Sometimes, it shows strength, because you have more of the right answers.

More people would be more willing to agree with you also if you had charisma, if you treated them with respect. I tend to agree with people who are respectful.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. This is all a waste of time.

Because you described people who defended Coulter's comments as "fools."

You mean like: or or Granted, you aren't aiming these at any members here (at least until you commented on my perceived arrogance), but nonetheless, if you're going to cherish discussion the way you seem to claim to in your last post, I don't know if labeling the woman in question with personal attacks is the best way to encourage healthy debate. Just a thought.



To quote Tony Soprano, "I'm not running a popularity contest." Furthermore, those who show respect, get respect. I don't see what charisma has to do with an online message board, but it seems to be a coincidence that all the people you tend to agree with are on the left-hand side of the room. And, coincidentally, I don't necessarily think they are always the most respectful bunch, either.

Should you wish to debate the topic at hand (Coulter's comments), feel free to join us. Otherwise, as you said, you're wasting your time.

Best,
Double-J

Ann Coulter inspires hate. She does it openly. The fact that I called her all those things doesn't mean anything. First off, I doubt she'll get on this message board to read my comments. Secondly, I wouldn't mind if she did. It's kind of horseshit that I'm defending the people who are being attacked here by Ms. Coulter.

Just because we're on an online message board, doesn't mean a friendliness should be ruled out. You point out all my jabs, but as I said before, I'm not perfect. I try to be as friendly as possible on here. I'm on here with many people who share the same interests as me, so I may be able to make a friend or two.

I apologize for the arrogance comment I made toward you, though I know you don't give a shit. It's just something you may want to think about next time you decide to have a discussion, though I doubt you will.

When I mentioned "wasting my time", I didn't get serious about it until this post. I'm done wasting my time. I can understand why Plaw tried to stay out of these political threads, they only end in somebody getting pissed off. I refuse to do so.

I'm done.

No need to be done with this (or any political thread), if discussion, rather than personal squabbles, would be the topic at hand.

Regards,
Double-J

What happened on 9/11 was a great tragedy, for everyone, the whole nation. But "what they knew, and when they knew it" won't bring anyone back. Put the blame where it belongs, on the terrorists. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, it's just that not everyone gets to flaunt it on national television.

Speaking of terrorists, I found something horrible today:

Bootleg Toys: Osama v. America

Who the fuck would be heartless enough to manufacture this shit? C'mon, even bootleg toy sellers/illegal drug traffickers can't be this cruel.

That is cold blooded

Look closely at the writing at the top of the package. That should answer your question.


Don Cardi

I agree with everything Ann Coulter said. Apple is right we need more women like her.

One of these days I'm going to buy some of her books.

Yes, happy happy tools....thank god I'm only a tool to my arrogance.

What about your left hand? :p

This has nothing to do with both sides of the political spectrum. Everyone from Hilary Clinton to Bill O'Rielly agree that Man Coulter is way over the line. IMHO the whole thing is one big publicity stunt by her, and no one should take her seriously.

and yet dontom my man, some people do.

What is sad is that if she was an ignorant fool in general, I would dismiss her as simply a dumb bitch.

Instead, she's educated, so obviously she KNOWS what she says, and absolutely she says "controversial" stuff to sell her records.

Oh and Double J, its my right hand buddy...though I only use it to thrash the massively retarded. Had a CAT scan lately?

That's an awful funny name for your penis. "Massively retarded." :p

Lame.

Joke?

Fine.

I'll live in obscurity now.

I think the more specious arguments should be:

Is she a man? Does she have anorexia? Is she related to Gollum?

DJ, you don't have to be obscure.

Just don't be an asshole. I mean, Jesus says thats good. Care to follow your leader?

What does George Lucas have to do with any of this?

My god, you're a a bloody STAR WARS fan.

I feel bad for your mother.

I'm watching her on the Tonight Show now waiting for George Carlin to rip her a new ass.

On another note, she needs to eat something.

DV,

Leno isn't on here for a couple more hours. What a duo hu?? Be sure to post if it gets interesting. I'll never never stay awake that late, not that she'd be worth watching, but I am interested to see how it went with two such opposite guests.


TIS

Unfortunately Carlin didn't get a chance to refute. Coulter came out and basically annoyed me with her bullshit. Of course she expressed her polite fuck-offs due to Leno's jokes about her. She said this about a joke calling her the witch from The Wizard of Oz.

"I consider myself Dorothy, and I dropped my house on mainstream media."

She also made sure she told Carlin "I didn't know you were gonna be on too."

She also said about her book "I'm not trying to get attention. If I wanted attention, I'd wear sexy dresses and grow my hair long."

I was wondering who the guests were on Leno, but I stuck with Letterman - Colbert was on.

My brother worships him, so my mom and I watched it to see what all the fuss is about. Actually, I've seen some of the Report (by force), and I like his sense of humor...really goofy/stupid. )

Her method seems to work better.