Ann Coulter Poll

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
DO you think Coulter would have made the same remark abou the women if they were Bush supporters

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the fallacy here, Andy. Two of the four "Jersey Girls" and their husbands voted FOR Bush in 2000. These women (and Cindy Sheehan for that matter) aren't protesting based on PARTY politics, but PEACE politics. In particular the 9/11 Families want to know what happened, and how the government is going to keep it from happening again.

I guarantee you every one of those women, and the mothers of the 2500 dead US soldiers, would give everything they have to have their children back.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

DO you think Coulter would have made the same remark abou the women if they were Bush supporters? Of course not.
************************************************** *********
The political contribution of Bush supporting 911 widows has been 'they (Jersey Girls) do not speak for me' and then they have returned to their normal lives. The Dems and the drive-by media keep parading this people over-and-over again. The other 911 widows have shown more class and have not tried to exploit their husbands deaths.


It's not the fact that they're using their media access as relatives of 9/11 victims. It's the fact that she doesn't like their politics.
************************************************** ****
I disagree. The Dems are orchestrating a deliberate poltical tactic called "human political sheilds".

*John Murtha (you can't attack him because he is a ex-marine)
*Cindy Sheehan (you can't attack her because her son died)
*Jersey Girls (you can't attack them because they're 911 widows)
*Max Cleland (you can't attack him because his lost 4 limbs in Vietnam on his way to a BBQ)
*Michael Berg (you can't attack him because his son was beheaded in Iraq)
*There are probably others I have not thought of.

This strategy reminds me of a Three Stooges Episode where Curly is about to get his ass kicked so he puts on some glasses and says, "You can't hit a man wearing glasses!".

People are getting tired of these tactics and Ann Coulter has exposed these shameless tactics with BRUTAL honesty. And I love her for it.

The Dems need to:
1. Stop these shallow tactics.
2. Be honest with the American people on their views.
3. Try to persuade the American people using sound arguments and logic.
4. Use democratic leaders like Howard Dean to convey their message.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ann is a satirist and a very good one.
Unlike Michael Moore or Al Franken she does not lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Now who's the satirist?

[/ QUOTE ]

This coming from someone who can't spell their home state.

FN is right on. She is the flip side of Al Franken's satire, except she's actually funny....and doesnt lie like Franken.

[andyfox]

The only hateful liar I've seen in the brouhaha is Ms. Coulter. But maybe I'm ill-informed. I read the press statement the four women issued the other day. I posted it (somewhere in one of the other threads). I don't see anything hateful in it, nor any lies.

I think I'm making myself clear, but perhaps I'm not. I'll try one more time.

I agree 100% that political discussion should be open and free. The women deserve no special treatment in terms of reaction to their political activities or statements. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Ms. Coulter tearing their political arguments to shreds.

The only issue I take is with Ms. Coulter saying the women are enjoying the deaths of their loved ones. That's simply an ugly thing to say. It's obviously predicated on the fact that the women have become politically active and Ms. Coulter doesn't like their politics. She's free to not like their politics. But saying they're enjoying their husbands' deaths is a mean-spirited comment.

I don't see how anyone can say it's not. I'm listening to those who have taken issue with my comments on this and I still haven't heard why it's not. I'm still listening and willing to do so.

[andyfox]

The Dems don't "need" to do anything. They're free to politick as they see fit. It's evident they haven't been doing a good job of it, but that's their right.

With all due respect, you're not addressing the point I'm making. I have no problem with Coulter pointing out, if she thinks it's true, that the Dems have been trying to fight unfairly by using people who the Dems think might get a free pass because of who they are. Point it out. I
heard Hannity say the same thing the other day.

My objection to Ms. Coulter consists entirely of her statement that the four women are enjoying the deaths of their husbands. It's just an ugly thing to say. She's an ugly, mean-spirited clown. Just as the Dems would, if they were wise, distance themselves from the like of Michael Moore, the Reps would be wise to disavow Coulter's rantings.

On Laura Ingraham's show this morning (see, I listen to Hannity and Ingraham) she said a poll on her website came out 86% in favor of what Coulter said. If that means that 86% of the respondents believe that the women are enjoying their husbands' deaths, it's a sad, sad commentary on America. If that's the kind of people we are, we ought to pull out of Iraq immediately because we're morally evil and shouldn't be spreading that evil to other places.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]


*John Murtha (you can't attack him because he is a ex-marine)
*Cindy Sheehan (you can't attack her because her son died)
*Jersey Girls (you can't attack them because they're 911 widows)
*Max Cleland (you can't attack him because his lost 4 limbs in Vietnam on his way to a BBQ)
*Michael Berg (you can't attack him because his son was beheaded in Iraq)
*There are probably others I have not thought of.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yet criticizing the war or any of President [censored]'s policies is tantamount to treason and gives comfort to our enemies.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The Dems are orchestrating a deliberate poltical tactic called "human political sheilds".

*John Murtha (you can't attack him because he is a ex-marine)
*Cindy Sheehan (you can't attack her because her son died)
*Jersey Girls (you can't attack them because they're 911 widows)
*Max Cleland (you can't attack him because his lost 4 limbs in Vietnam on his way to a BBQ)
*Michael Berg (you can't attack him because his son was beheaded in Iraq)
*There are probably others I have not thought of.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever happened to attacking what they have to say instead of attacking the people or their character? Or is that long gone? Did it ever exist?

[andyfox]

"she does not lie."

She's a pathological liar. Here are two examples from her book Slander:

“New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that [Attorney General] Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists.”

Reality: In the column Coulter cited, there is absolutely no evidence that Rich even remotely suggested that Ashcroft curtail efforts against Islamic terrorists. There exists not one post-9/11 Times column by Rich in which Rich made any such demands of Ashcroft.

“Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against global terrorism (‘declare war at the first at the first decent opportunity’!) and instead concentrate on ‘home-grown extremists.’”

Reality: In the column Coulter cited, Ackerman does not advocate concentrating on domestic terrorists (as opposed to foreign-born terrorists, who are the focus of the column). In fact, Ackerman only mentions “home-grown extremists” in passing (“And I do not deny that other attacks may well occur — perhaps committed by home-grown extremists.”)

But I don't mind her being a liar. The information she talks about or writes about can be checked out and the truth or falsity of what she says verified. It's her cursory talk about death and treason and rape and people enjoying death that I find objectionable. They're remarkably similar in tone and emphasis to those of the leader of Iran, their virtual mirror image. Here are a few Coulter statements:

"Tthe Democratic Party, as an entity, has become functionally treasonable."

"Bill Clinton was a very good rapist."

"I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."

On Iran: "I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."

"Liberals hate America, . . . they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.”

[FlFishOn]

"4. Use democratic leaders like Howard Dean to convey their message. "

This only happens in my dreams. Mmmmmm, Howard Dean out in front.

"Cindy Sheehan (you can't attack her because her son died)
*Jersey Girls (you can't attack them because they're 911 widows)
*Michael Berg (you can't attack him because his son was beheaded in Iraq)"

So what is the credential that ties these media 'stars' together? The very thinnest of gruel, someone close to them died. We'd do as well soliciting the learned opinion of the 4th person to get off the next bus.

This is part of Coulter's (and my) objection.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

My objection to Ms. Coulter consists entirely of her statement that the four women are enjoying the deaths of their husbands. It's just an ugly thing to say.
************************************************** *****
http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950
It is an OPINION that these four women are enjoying their husbands deaths. An opinion I agree with. TECHNICALLY it is not their husbands deaths they enjoyed but the after-effects of their husbands deaths.
*They enjoy the attention they are getting from the media.
*They enjoy the attention they are getting from the Democrat leadership.
*They enjoy their new status as 911 millionaires.
*They enjoy saying hateful things about George Bush.

Any goodwill and sympathy that they had from people like myself has evaporated.
Ann Coulter is a satirists. She could have said these women are enjoying the BENEFITS of their husbands deaths. Instead she said these women are enjoying the deaths of their husbands. The latter statement, makes a more powerful statement and can be argued to be truthful.