Posted on 11/29/2005 8:25:09 PM PST by smoothsailing
I don't recall talk about assassination, but I certainly agree that Moore has said some horrible stuff. "Minutemen", etc. But we blast him when he says it, right? We hold those statements up as examples of how kooky, irresponsible, and sometimes treasonous he is. As we should.
So what's the deal when Ann talks about assassination of a President, or regretting that terrorists didn't fly a plane into yet another building? How can people here still defend her? Just because "she's Ann"?? How is that any different from how the left tries to excuse Moore's outrageous statements?
ping
Except that it might give CNN the impression that I watch their channel.
-PJ
LOL! Don't most CNN guests make that many appearances in a week?
-PJ
Screw CNN and the Jane Fonda loving ahole that they rode in on.
Besides they always put about 3 commies up against her for a debate, and that's not fair......to the commies.
That's because your simply one o' them Country Club Pubbies you big wimp. Do you even know what atrocious means? Yeah, I'm sure you were all for Aunt Bee becoming SCJ. Oh boy, you liberals kill me.
IMHO CNN and ANN deserve each other. Both served a useful purpose in the past, but now they are both just annoying and unwatchable.
Now you can say its hyperbole, or that she's just being extreme to make a point.
I can SAY its hyperbole? SAY? Oh thank you for giving me permission! When only a blind flea on the back of a mule in the back country of Mongolia could immediately tell it is hyperbole!
Oh I'm so forever in your debt for granting me the right to SAY something that is blatantly obvious.
Lets see. From the letter in the above article:
written that the only question about Bill Clinton was "whether to impeach or assassinate,"
Contextual translation:
Ann is suggesting that her followers consider assassinating the President of the United States.
Contextual translation of the actual quote:
Its so obviously that the President is guilty, the debate should be about the level of punishment.
Back to your post:
But again, if Michael Moore said the same thing about Bush, we'd justifiably go nuts. Or do you disagree?
If you meant "If Micheal Moore made the point that Bush was obviously guilty of something which is at least worth impeachment?" This is not a hypothetical. So whatever outrage this has caused is old news.
However, if someone took Michael Moore out of context and made it appear he was suggesting assassination, then our ire should be at the person who wrote such slander.
I am a big fan of Coulter, and have little respect for Moore. However I do not think either should be driven out of the public debate. Both of them help conservatism.
Works for me.
She got that hot 80s thing going in that pic (Cue REO Speedwagon...)
I like the pictures with her wearing a dress soooo short, you could just about see her...mind.
I agree that is her underlying point, but then why does she use a word like assassination that is so obviously inflammatory? Her obvious intent is to sensationalize, and likely to offend as well. She likes offending liberals, and there are conservatives who love it when she does that. But there's a difference between speaking a truth that offends, and a fart in a church. Ann's hyperbole is far closer to the latter than the former.
I am a big fan of Coulter, and have little respect for Moore. However I do not think either should be driven out of the public debate. Both of them help conservatism.
I think you're correct about Moore. Though he energizes the liberal base, he makes such inflammatory statements that he discredits his wing to the rest of the country. By making liberals look bad, he makes conservatives look good, and tips some moderates in an election.
But that's exactly what Ann does on the other side of the spectrum. She energizes the conservative base, but says things that are intended to offend, and therefore do. Try to find someone outside the conservative base who likes her. On second thought, I'm sure you'll probably find some liberals who appreciate what she does for them.
When Bill mentioned that "these liberals hit you with pies and...." Ann interrupted with "No, they did NOT hit me, because they're liberals and they throw like girls"
Go back and read my post. I didn't say anything about Myers qualifications. I didn't even say I endorsed her. I did say Coulter acted like the elitists she damns in her books. Her comments regarding Myers' school were uncalled for.
If you want to argue fine. But let's argue about what I actually said, not what you thought I said because you engaged your emotions before you engaged your brain. It's that kind of knee-jerk reaction that liberals are known for...and apparently some conservatives as well.
Fair enough. I appreciate your position. And I appreciate you saying it in an adult fashion as opposed to the usual "how dare you question Ann Coulter" nonsense that tends to be so pervasive around here.
Some conservatives apparently have a hard time realizing how sheep-like they can be. I'm glad to see you're not one of them.
Ann lost a lot of fans here when she came out against Harriet Miers.
LOL! Yeah, lots of us genuine conservatives were mighty irritated over that.
I didn't see the show, did they talk about CNN or Brock and his email?
Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually wrote, no what you think I wrote. I didn't say anything about Coulter's remarks being extreme; in fact I never even used that word. In essence I said she was an elitist hypocrite, of the variety she's made a career out of attacking. If you had actually read what i wrote instead of jumping on the "how dare you attack Ann Coulter" bandwagon you'd have known. Or maybe not.
An army of leftists can make comments like Kayne West's, but if just one conservative uses hyperbole, it is taken out of context and used to vilify.
I said nothing about hyperbole. I said she acted like a right-wing elitist equivalent to Katrina Van de Hoevel. Coutler's comments regarding SMU (Myers' law school) were not taken out of context. I heard her entire interview with Hannity on his radio show. And I can't see how what I said was in any way an attempt to "vilify".
If you want to argue with me fine. Argue about what I did say, not what others said. I say enough to get myself in trouble. I don't need help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.