The Queen of the Conservative Right

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 08 Dec 2004 19:28

http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/c ... 1301.shtml

If you want any idea on how naive the conservative right is, click that link and go directly to the bottom paragraph.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 08 Dec 2004 19:53

BainbridgeShred wrote:http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/c ... 1301.shtml

If you want any idea on how naive the conservative right is, click that link and go directly to the bottom paragraph.

Ok, AC is a bitch i could make fun of for days on end (has anyone read "Slander?" I laughed so hard!!) but it's something i've given up doing. When you go out and rip down a paradigm of the right the people you really want to enter into a discussion with will instantly be on the defensive and make unhelpful replies.
This is of course presuming that you want to have a discussion as the name of the board would indicate, you might just want to yell at the right for being so stupid which is fine, i fell like that sometimes too.
What will happen to a post like this (if i don't circumvent it first) is that someone will reply "O yea and that lieing, fat fuck michael moore is anybetter? Liberals, sheesh, bleeding heart hippies get a clue and go watch fox."
And i really don't want to waste my time reading another post like that.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 14 Dec 2004 12:44

Whatever you do, you MUST NOT read the first 17 paragraphs!

-n

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 14 Dec 2004 20:59

edited due to unnecessary comment toward another member (Splint)

Everybody should read the entire article if they can be bothered wasting 2 minutes of their life.

They might not be wasted entirely; you might get a laugh out of it.

Ann Coulter is as bad as Michael Moore, she plays with numbers, plays up to peoples weaknesses, mudslings, lies and no wait, she's worse than Moore coz she's not even as funny.

Popular propaganda whores who cheat people with attractive slogans and deceptive facts are a big force in desensitizing the public to the actual political process. Shit heads like this make actual discussion about politics impossible.

Quote Anne Coulter: In the opinion business, bitter, jealous hatred is the norm. <---This makes me mad. The fact tha i can see it in everything she rights makes me madder. Discussion is about learning from each other, not two sides spewing combative vitriole.

"This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson." <---THIS IS WHY THE WORLD HATES AMERICA!!! Not because we smiled, but because you just don't understand, removing the smiles from their faces with an automatic rifle doesn't change anything.

Nathan, tell me honest, do you think that was a sensible, intelligent, fair, well written, well intentioned article?

Any of the above?

crazydwarf · Post by **crazydwarf** » 14 Dec 2004 21:19

First off I'd like to say that Nathan seems to take a lot of abuse because his political views are different then most of our's and I admire that he sticks to what he believes.

However I do have to agree with Dan that that article was very scary especialy if she was serious about this part...

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 15 Dec 2004 04:39

Yeah, the article was pretty bad, especially the end. But consider when it was written (9/13/01).

Yeah, the article was pretty bad, but really, was everything all rosy and love-thy-neighbor in Australia after the Bali attacks? Was everything purely rational and well-intentioned in Spain after the Madrid train bombing?

The author's friend was on one of those planes. If your friend were blown up, what would you have to say about it the next day?

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 15 Dec 2004 07:31

Sorry about the double post. I don't know whats going on, or why its in quotes. But the quotes reminded me there was exactly one other thing I wanted to say about this article.

The first sentence of the last paragraph is really pretty brilliant, I thought.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

I read that and thought "yeah, I think that's precisely what Jesus would like to see done in his name." The timing of the article not-withstanding, that line was an incredibly stupid thing to write.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 15 Dec 2004 11:18

Yeah, the article was pretty bad, especially the end. But consider when it was written (9/13/01).

Yeah, the article was pretty bad, but really, was everything all rosy and love-thy-neighbor in Australia after the Bali attacks? Was everything purely rational and well-intentioned in Spain after the Madrid train bombing?

The author's friend was on one of those planes. If your friend were blown up, what would you have to say about it the next day?

That this article was written 2 days after September 11th is no excuse for the idiocy she spews. Absolutely no excuse.

If I can make a real life analogy, and ex-girlfriend of mine was killed in a car accident awhile back. There were 8 people in a car that seated 7, and she was sitting in the "rumble seat" in the trunk area. They were all being idiots trying to go 80 on a road that resembles a small roller coaster. They lost control about 1/10th the way down the road and crashed into a tree, everyone else survived except her.

The aftermath was that friends of my ex-girlfriend (the one who died) started seriously threatening physical violence against the person who happened to be driving the car at the time it crashed (Even though all of them had been driving at one point that night). It got to the point where the group of girls who were pissed at the driver photocopied about a hundred pictures of three girls (Two were involved in the accident, one had nothing to do with it) in half naked pictures and bringing them and assing them out at the school... It was the pinnacle of immaturity. Needles to say all three girls were devasted, especially the one who was not involved in the accident, yet stil felt the reprocussions.

So here comes the analogy, the car crash was September 11th, my ex girlfriend was the 3000 or so people that died, The dumb fuck group of girls were Ann Coulter and the rest of the super-patriots, and the person that was not involved with the accident at all but still got humiliated infront of the entire school were the innocent Muslims of the Middle East that Ann Coulter obviously does not care about.

So the conclusion? Ann Coulter has the maturity and geo-political scope of a Sophmore Girl. What a moron.

I think I started this rant because Outsider asked how I'd feel the next day if one of my friends were blown up, and the answer is like shit. But going and spreading half naked photos of freshman girls isn't going to solve anything and will only serve to fuel the flame, just as killing innocent Muslims would too.

Thanks to anyone who stayed with me on this one, I realize it was rather long winded.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 15 Dec 2004 13:31

Frenzal said:

----------------------
Nathan, tell me honest, do you think that was a sensible, intelligent, fair, well written, well intentioned article?

----------------------

Wow, maybe not all of those descriptors. We have the benefit of hindsight.

Here's my short ,dry analysis of the portions of the column(condensed 3 or 4 times):

1. Facts about hijackers weapons and cellphone use were unknown to us until much later. Reasonable assumptions were made about that.

2. 7 Boring paragraphs about Barbara waste our time, in the present day.

This post gets to big each time I try to condense it:

Conclusion:

-The article (not counting the Barbara Olsen paragraphs) was sensible and intelligent in places.

-It Could have been better written.

Was it Well intentioned ?

If the point was to wake America up about our senseless airline security, and our suicidal political correctness, then it was well intentioned.

--end of post----

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 15 Dec 2004 22:47

Dude,

What's intelligent and sensible about crusades, targetting civilians and equating Ossamma Bin Laden and a bunch of theocratic fundies with pretty much any arab or muslim country.

Where is Anne "We carpet-bombed German cities and we're proud of it" Coulter being intelligent and sensible?

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 16 Dec 2004 01:24

HighDemonslayer wrote: If the point was to wake America up about our senseless airline security, and our suicidal political correctness, then it was well intentioned.

So...the ends justify the means. That`s what you`re saying right? I don`t want to misinterpret what you mean. But what I highlighted just now looks an awful lot like: `the ends justify the means.`

I sincerely hope you don`t believe that`s true.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 16 Dec 2004 14:36

I think he was being sarcastic.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 16 Dec 2004 23:53

Outsider wrote:
Yeah, the article was pretty bad, but really, was everything all rosy and love-thy-neighbor in Australia after the Bali attacks? Was everything purely rational and well-intentioned in Spain after the Madrid train bombing?

The author's friend was on one of those planes. If your friend were blown up, what would you have to say about it the next day?

Well that's a good question. The responce in Spain was to pull out of the coalition of the killing and to try and work towards peace instead of war.

Australia took no military action after the Bali bombings - but did give millions of $$s in aid to the victims and their families - both in Australia and in Indonesia. The story about Bali that moved me the most was a judge from South Australia whose 18 year old son was killed in the attacks. When those deemed to be responsible were sentenced to death in Indonesia - he was one of the most vocal people calling for adherance to international law and opposing the death penalty.

Yes there were lots of people who supported the death penalty - but in Australia we believe in punishing the guilty - not those that live in the same country as the guilty and we believe that it is possible for somebody to live in a country without represting the countries views - ie. even though the people who committed the Bali bombings were of the same religion as the entire Indonesian government - we could see perfectly well that the attacks had nothing to do with the government. Some members of the government may support such attacks - who can really say? But it was quite obvious that going to war would have been entirely the wrong option and would have made a tragic event so much worse.

You just need to look at the outcome of the War of Error to see that this is true - there is more anti american sentiment around the world than there has been since during the cold war and that is growing. Hundrends of thousands of innocent people are dead and the world is in greater turmoil.

To me the article shows exactly why victims and friends of victims in crimes should not be able to have any say in resultant actions - their opinions are clearly clouded by emotion and it is scientifically proven that emotions stop the ability to make rational decisions. When such tragedies occur - the best decision for the future should be made - not the most popular decision at the time - because that will be in ill informed knee jerk reaction - decisions as serious as war should not be decided under such conditions and I think the US is paying the price now because of it - and will continue to pay the price for many years to come.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 17 Dec 2004 07:20

To me the article shows exactly why victims and friends of victims in crimes should not be able to have any say in resultant actions - their opinions are clearly clouded by emotion and it is scientifically proven that emotions stop the ability to make rational decisions.

Jeremy, this is exactly my point. I don't like Anne C. But everybody here is trashing her, and I'd say its uncalled for. Her opinions should be understood to be clouded by emotion, and I'd say it is excusable for her to say some stupid things under those circumstances. As Jeremy just pointed out, scientifically speaking, she shouldn't even be expected to be ratioinal at a time like that, and she should necessarily be held responsible for everything she says two days after her friend was murdered. Whats inexcusable is everybody elses unwillingness to take this with a grain of salt and show an ounce of sympathy.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 17 Dec 2004 09:18

Jeremy, this is exactly my point. I don't like Anne C. But everybody here is trashing her, and I'd say its uncalled for. Her opinions should be understood to be clouded by emotion, and I'd say it is excusable for her to say some stupid things under those circumstances. As Jeremy just pointed out, scientifically speaking, she shouldn't even be expected to be ratioinal at a time like that, and she should necessarily be held responsible for everything she says two days after her friend was murdered. Whats inexcusable is everybody elses unwillingness to take this with a grain of salt and show an ounce of sympathy.

Dude... In a journalistic post, their are no circumstances under which you should say such dumb shit. Ever. There is no circumstances where anyone should, but a journalist especially. Every other journalist wasn't letting this idiotic shit run from their emotionally crowed brains to their paper, so why should we make exception for Ann Coulter?

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 17 Dec 2004 10:09

You are so right Dan. In fact, journalists say all kinds of stuff that they shouldn't. We must put greater limits on what people are allowed to say in all circumstances. People should not be allowed to say things that are disagreable or inflamitory at any time. After all, if we are not careful, people might begin to have to actually think about what they are reading and make up their own minds. We can't allow that...

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 17 Dec 2004 14:14

Spain was leaving the coalition of the stupid anyway.

Perhaps i can scrape some sympathy for AC considering the date of that particular article, but i know she writes crap all the time anyway. Infact if you've enjoyed that excerpt you might want to read "Slander" and hear AC do nothing but commit logical fallacies for a few hundred pages.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Dec 2004 16:29

Yeah I agree with Dan - I think journalists especially ones that write editorials like that should not let their emotions cloud their writing or their judgement. They are not simply writing their opinions - they are profesionals and should write in a professional manner. Crap like that article written by AC is not professional at all. If she wasn't a journalist and wasn't getting paid to write it would be fine - but I expect a lot more from professionals - especially in situations like that - I expect them to be able to look at any situation - even situations in their own life - and write about it in an objective and unbiased manner.

The fact is that reading that article it is to me that she didn't think through what she was writing at all - for somebody getting paid to write - I think that is completely unacceptable.

Actually I hope for her sake that she didn't think it through - otherwise she is a lot worse in my opinion - being thoughtless and unprofessional is better than being hateful, racist and ignorant - from what I know of her (very little)she is close to those things but I would hope she isn't as horrible as she is in that article.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 17 Dec 2004 16:34

Outsider wrote:You are so right Dan. In fact, journalists say all kinds of stuff that they shouldn't. We must put greater limits on what people are allowed to say in all circumstances. People should not be allowed to say things that are disagreable or inflamitory at any time. After all, if we are not careful, people might begin to have to actually think about what they are reading and make up their own minds. We can't allow that...

Yeah! To hell with Freedom of Speech.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 Dec 2004 17:19

FlexThis wrote:
Outsider wrote:You are so right Dan. In fact, journalists say all kinds of stuff that they shouldn't. We must put greater limits on what people are allowed to say in all circumstances. People should not be allowed to say things that are disagreable or inflamitory at any time. After all, if we are not careful, people might begin to have to actually think about what they are reading and make up their own minds. We can't allow that...
Yeah! To hell with Freedom of Speech.

It's got nothing to do with freedom of speech. I don't think anybody is denying her right to say what she said.

Jon feels that we should tolerate her bullshit because of the timing of the article. I feel that she should be professional in her profession. I don't think that is too much to ask. If she truely feels that killing tens of thousands of innocent people to avenge the death of thousands of innocent people because they live in the same country as the leader of the group that killed the first group of innocent people is ok then she should write that and all the criticism of her is valid. If she was writing that in the heat of the moment - like Jon thinks - than she is crap at her job and should be fired.

As a journalist she has a responsibility to write informed and objective stories - obviously when writing editorials she should give her opinions - and that is fine - but she needs to be professional enough to write things she would stand by in 3 years time (providing the situation doesn't dramatically change after she writes it) - she needs to give thought into what she writes - rather than just shooting her mouth off.

modified

The Queen of the Conservative Right

The Queen of the Conservative Right

Re: The Queen of the Conservative Right