The failure of Liberalism is that liberals DO NOT think. Them simply emote their politics. Idjits!
Of course Samuel A. Chambers & Alan Finlayson thnk they can think.....result: Gobbledeegook!
( If Liberals had brains they would be Republicans)
Posted on 07/27/2008 12:57:09 PM PDT by pissant
The failure of Liberalism is that liberals DO NOT think. Them simply emote their politics. Idjits!
Of course Samuel A. Chambers & Alan Finlayson thnk they can think.....result: Gobbledeegook!
( If Liberals had brains they would be Republicans)
Does anyone have any new pictures of Miss Coulter?This one is not really "new" -- but it has not been posted here recently:They are always the same ones.
I’m convinced that reading more than about a page of that gobbeltygook would cause one permanent brain damage.
They say more than that, if you have the stomach to read all the drivel in search of the occasional soggy nugget. The authors clearly admit to one of Ann's biggest points about liberals - that they see people for their group identities and not as individuals. See paragraph 29 from the article:
If liberal thought does recognise a new political form, then it instinctively asks questions such as ‘Can and should this form be accommodated within the given order of liberal interest groups?’ and ‘How might that order be altered so as to find or create a space for this new identity or group?’
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the authors actually considered Ann's content with an open mind while they were analyzing her methods, if they read her words when Ann rejects identity politics and thought about why her writing appeals to so many individuals despite what liberals see as our interest group identities?
A couple of relevant Ann quotes:
“Don't liberals ever have to pony up at least one example of a powerful privileged white male trampling on the rights of a powerless black woman in order to keep droning on about powerful privileged white males? Every real-life example invariably turns out to be a hoax, among the most spectacular the Tawana Brawley case and now the Duke lacrosse case.”
And her quote from Claude Allen: “I realized after the fact that I agree more with the Republican Party platform, that it talked about independence, that it talked about individual responsibility, individual rights, it talked about the ability to guarantee opportunities, not outcomes … that was very much what my family stood for.”
A final note on the arrogance of those whom Ann describes as suffering from elitism (a descriptor that they find hateful): "the Coulterist critique emanates from within and is made possible by liberalism" shows an amazingly out of touch view of what liberalism stands for. It's the Constitution as written that guarantees the rights we were endowed with by our Creator, the rights that make Ann's writing possible.
I’m convinced that reading more than about a page of that gobbeltygook would cause one permanent brain damage.Thank God that Ann has a good EDITOR.
THESE GUYS could have certainly used one!
Very good tactics for the writer of an academic paper.I prefer the OLD SCHOOL.He says this fifty times and in fifty different ways. i.e., that American liberalism can not prevail democratically.
From www.memorable-quotes.com:
William Strunk Jr. - "The Elements of Style", 1919Vigorous writing is concise.A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
I wonder how many Starbucks 5-shot espresso drinks it took for the author to write all that...
It took a while for them to get to this point, but I thought that was where they were going..
I am only at #47, more later.
yitbos
Well, pissant, after reading the whole thing, your one line best sums it up, "That's alot of gobbleygook to say Ann is kicking butt and naming names."
"Our final response also proves paradoxical: one only beats Coulterism by joining it. That is to say, one should not respond by defending the universals that Coulterism attacks but by joining in that attack and by seeking to proliferate the number of forms they take. Thus, the challenge is to prevent Coulter from re-occupying the universal, and this means to do to her what she has sought to do to liberalism. Coulter wants a dirty fight; perhaps we should respect her wishes. "
The whole article is a put down of ideologically inflexible reactionary liberals
The last paragraph could be a call for liberals to use the Coulterism method to attack liberalism itself and get with their interpretation of modern political reality.
yitbos
The last paragraph could be a call for liberals to use the Coulterism method to attack liberalism itself and get with their interpretation of modern political reality.It'll never happen.
They have no "left-wing" version of Ann. :o)
Interesting that they did mention Stephen Colbert of the "Colbert Repor" as a "parodic" example of Coulterism. I think I saw a (Franken) reference. Also O'Reilly.
yitbos
If “Brevity is the soul of wit” it’s obvious this author is a moron.
The writer gets this right. The left hates Ann because she doesn't allow them to set the debate rules, The rest of the right would do well to mimic more of what Ann Coulter does. Be fearless, confident, in their face ......... and smile!:) pisses off liberals
“It looked like he was quoting her, not indicting her.”
The whole piece was intended as an indictment.
“Coulter doesn’t run away from what she says. So why should we, as admirers, regard anything quoted of her as an indictment?”
That was my point. No one should. He does. Ergo, moron.
“Frankly, I think the paragraph is an apt description of what she says and why we love her so.”
So do I, but these ridiculous weasels got their panties all in a wad.
“On a side note, I LOVE my double latte. Every morning.”
Real Americans ought to eschew those unmanly European coffee drinks.
Translation: Coulter's kicking liberal butt and we don't know how to stop her.
who ya gonna call when ya wanna bust a liberal?
Fascinating!
Thanks.
“... the article IS giving SOME credit to Coulter and stating pretty clearly (from my meager skimmings) that Coulter and movement conservatism infuriate liberals PRECISELY because she/it do not conform to liberal prejudices and that movement conservatism has some legitimate critiques of liberalism.”
In fact, the author quite strongly acknowledges that “Coulterism” exposes the internal inconsistencies of liberalism. His only solution to keep the charade going is to use Ann’s tactics of polemics and satire against her (it).
...you paid millions of dollars in grants for this! :D
Have a nice day. :)
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.