Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to WHY DO THEY LET ANN COULTER WRITE MORE BOOKS?
Re: mordent
If that is her perception of Ms O then that is her perception. What you have neglected to clarify is if Ms O is actually trying to imitate Jackie. That makes what Coulter says the truth.
You see Repunzel it's all debatable.
You and mr Xs stock answers about how the right is invalid but the libs are valid is extemely old and invalid itself. Cop to the fact that it's all politics. Cop to it, instead of copping out.
And the fact that Ms O hasn't endured 1-1millionth of what Palin did is proof the leftist media is everything you and Mr. X are accusing the conservatives of. Coulter hasn't done anything like they have.
What's more is you have the gall to say her books shouldn't be published. That is proof that you are for censorship and it is also proof that Coulter is right on target and hurting you and your liberal girlfriends quite bad.
posted by
mordent
on January 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Ann, darlin'
If you're upsetting these guy....you must be doing it right......keep it up! And keep on depositing those royalty checks..........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on January 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM
| link to this | reply
mordent
Okay here is the quote from Coulter's book:
“Her obvious imitation of Jackie O’s style - the flipped-under hair, the sleeveless A-line dresses, the short strands of fake pearls - would have been laughable if done by anyone other than a media-designated saint.”
That really is about as childish and pointless as it gets and shows Coulter making a really weak attacks against the soon to be first lady just because she has nothing of value to say. To say such a thing is one thing, to publish it in a book that is suppose to be about how horrible it is that he liberal media attacks anything conservative is just hypocritical and show a true lack of integrity.
Thank you for making it clear that I should be ignoring you again. I will gladly start do that now. You had nothing of value to offer and made it clear that you are unable to defend any claims you make against me. I am done with you now. You are not worth replying to.
posted by
kooka_lives
on January 10, 2009 at 1:53 PM
| link to this | reply
looks like war to me
seems conservatives keep attacking and attacking -- without much substance or validity to their attacks -- painting their opposition as evel.
Then when the opposition counters, that is an attack by their standards. Any statement in opposition, no matter how bland, harmless, nondescript, etc.
Conservatives have commanded the rhetoric for some time now, labeling, stereotyping, demonizing, with the loudest voices -- and the loudest voices are what are naturally heard.
Reason has no place in conservative rhetoric. Usual logic sets up evidence for a conclusion. Conservative rhetoric draws the conclusion without evidence, then attempts to manufacture evidence to support their baseless arguments.
I've seen that over the airwaves (Rush, Coulter, O'Reilley, etc.). It's by virtue of their loud voices and suppression of opposition that they have made their reputations.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: mordent, what the hell are you talking about now?
As far as I'm concerned it all boils down to opinions. I'm going to ignore all the rest of your repetition and ask you to tell me what exactly Coulter said about M. Obama?
posted by
mordent
on January 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM
| link to this | reply
mordent, what the hell are you talking about now?
My sources for this post were Coulter's new book itself, the write ups on it from Amazon.com and other such places. Other posts I have written in the past have had links to articles from regular news papers or sites that list actual facts, unless I was being humorous or light hearted. I really don't consider that 'lefty' sources myself. I now do wonder what you consider 'lefty' sources. My guess is that is anything that says something you dislike.
You were defending the attack on Michelle Obama. You said "Her attacking Michelle is just a woman being catty. Coulter just says out loud what most women only say to their friends or in the ladies room about other women." You basically are saying what she did was no big deal and are basically enabling her. I was trying to point out the hypocritical nature of her making such an attack in a book where she is trying to put down a group of people for making the same kind of attacks,. Obviously you are just not getting that. I very much understand that a large part of the reason Coulter made such a childish attack is that she is just a bitch, but that odes not make it any less trivial or hypocritical
Coulter is an idiot, plan and simple. She stirs up the pot because what she says has no value to it, but foolish people who wish to believe her nonsense believe her and spread it. That makes her dangerous. I would like to see here just once make a valid point that has merit to it.
Find for me any fact I have listed in this post, or really any of my posts, that I have said were fact, that you can disprove. You keep bringing that up with no examples to show me where you are getting this from. You have even in the past tried to claim that certain proven facts that I stated were not so. I already know that I am very good at saying what is fact and what is my opinion. I have yet to be shown where anything is claim to be as fact is not so. If you believe you have found somewhere that I have not done this, please show me.
I am all for debate and I am good at it. You seem to not understand what debate is though. In a debate both sides present FACTS or EVIDENCE that backs up what they are defending. They do not make random claims about things without examples or evidence, as you way too often to. I have yet to ever see you actually try to debate me. You make claims and then pretend that if I try to prove you wrong that my evidence is meaningless, when you have no evidence to support your claims to begin with. I have tried to get real debates started here, but most of the time what happens is that the other side doesn't have a grasp as to how you should debate and fails to be able to back up anything they say with real facts or evidence, but instead they start to try and attack my character.
If you have nothing of value to add here, then we are done. If you wish to make another comment here, make sure that any claims you make have some kind of evidence to back them up. If you make another comment like this last one with unfounded claims and nothing of value to it, I will most likely just ignore it.
posted by
kooka_lives
on January 10, 2009 at 11:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: mordent
1.The issue of your sources. Your sources are always from some lefty newspaper that I can see as you list them.
2. I am not defending attacks on M Oba from coulter. I am explaining that it's a cat fight but you probably don't understand that. I could care less about the leftists medias attack on Palin but I will not ignore it. They had wardrobe issues with her as well.
3. There is no liberal that is as effective as Coulter for stirring up the pot. Because liberals have truly been the status-quo for quite sometime now it is not really possible for them to stir up the pot. Bush bashing is trendy and offends no one except text-book Republicans who are probably used to it by now.
So if you have criticized M Moore/liberals good for you as you're not as skewed as I thought.
My only real issue here is you seem obsessed/convinced that you have facts and this validates you and dismisses others.
As long as you realize all/most facts are being passed thru their respective filters and then of course the readers filter I won't dispute you.
So in short what I am saying is get rid of this "do you have a clue? Do you even know what you're talking about? You're so full of BS."
Just debate the other bloggers and quit all this "my sources are better than your sources" stuff.
posted by
mordent
on January 10, 2009 at 7:47 AM
| link to this | reply
mordent
I've been doing so well with ignoring you and here you go and show me why it is that I do ignore you. Yet I feel I need to reply. It is like watching a person stick their tongue out at a frozen flag pole. You can say nothing and let them look to be a total fool, or you can step in and try to reason with them and hope that they stop before they make a true ass of themselves. So I figure I should try to encourage you to not make total ass out of yourself, although it does seem like I am too late for that.
First off, where do I make the claim I know all the facts? What do I claim in this post as being facts that you wish to dispute? Do you know all the facts? Do you have ANYTHING at all to prove me wrong in anything I say?
I already am well aware that your grasp of reality is weak. We've been over that before and you have practically admitted to not believing anything that does not agree with your narrow world view. So I already know that you don't care about actual facts of proof or evidence, only what you wish to believe the 'truth' according to you.
I find it very telling that you are defending Coulter in her attacks against Michelle Obama here. In a book where she is trying to show everyone how horrible it is that the liberals keep making these attacks on conservatives, she goes and makes a truly childish attack on another woman. Would it not have made more sense for her to have not been a hypocrite if she really wanted to make a valid point? Of course you seem to embrace such hypocritical thinking in your comment to me of "The only thing you ever come up with in any of your arguments is that everyone else is full of BS with the exception of you or whatever leftist source you drink from." Since that comment alone is telling me that I am full of BS because I do not share the views of you and the rightists sources you drink from.
Funny thing is that it would be hard to link me to any 'sources' that I from my views from. No one told me what to think of Coulter. I read the blurbs from one of her books without knowing who she was and knowing nothing of her political leanings and I thought "Wow this is pure ignorance BS." And is she were a liberal who wrote that badly and has that many poorly conceived ideas, I would do all I could to distance myself from her and make it clear she does not speak for all liberals. I have criticized Michael Moore and other liberals when they have crossed the line. Lucky for me I have yet to see a liberal be as bad as Coulter and many other conservatives are.
I do plan to go back to ignoring you since I doubt there will be any true change in you methods here. But since I do believe in being polite and fair, I will not ignore you in regards to a reply here. I am not about to become one of those who makes such a comment as this and then refuses to continue the exchange.
posted by
kooka_lives
on January 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM
| link to this | reply
mousehop
Maybe I should re-title this post "Why does our society let people like Coulter gain popularity?"
posted by
kooka_lives
on January 9, 2009 at 11:12 AM
| link to this | reply
calmcantey
I don't need to read her books. I value my mind way too much to destroy it by reading such gibberish.
I have however seen her speak and 'debate' and I do read the blurbs about her books and the quotes from her books (Which are painful enough in their ignorance). And since with all that I have seen dealing with her, every idea she has ever expressed that I have seen or read has been poorly thought out. It would be about as amazing as it got if there was something in anything she wrote that was not poorly thought out. So I am not going to risk my mental health by suffering through a full book of her nonsense.
As for her being hot, it seems to go back and forth. Some pics of her she is hot, some she is not. But in most she has an arrogance and superiority about her (An attitude which seems to be backed up in all she says and does) that is about the biggest turn off I can think of. And I agree that she is a little not eh skinny side.
posted by
kooka_lives
on January 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm curious as to what human has the balls to think they know all the facts? Are you right there in Washington D.C., NY, the United Nations sitting in front of all the chips on the table?
She's probably a little closer to it then you are.
Why should I believe you have more facts then Anne Coulter? Her attacking Michelle is just a woman being catty. Coulter just says out loud what most women only say to their friends or in the ladies room about other women.
The only thing you ever come up with in any of your arguements is that everyone else is full of BS with the exception of you or whatever leftist source you drink from.
If she suddenly switched to the left you'd back her up all the way.
posted by
mordent
on January 8, 2009 at 7:16 PM
| link to this | reply
To Answer the Question
They, meaning American society, let anyone write any book. Freedom of the press, and all. And publishers take her books because they sell. Books like that are not peer-reviewed, and short of libel, the editors, according to an article in Slate Magazine, accept anything that will appeal to a buying audience, by order of the corporate bosses. That she finds an audience is a sad commentary on the American public. (And for calmcantey, yes, I have read her books.)
posted by
mousehop
on January 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM
| link to this | reply
did you read her book?
if you did not, how can you claim her ideas are poorly thought out?
You have to agree she's hot, though. Maybe a little skinny.
posted by
calmcantey75
on January 8, 2009 at 4:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Coulter's and Limbaugh's and O'Reilly's popularity proves Evolution.
You think about, these people almost growl in their presentations, tear up their prey, present an extremely aggressive stance.
Which resembles very much the aggressive dominant male (or female) of our simian relatives, where all the tribe follows in step with the individual.
Reasonable talk doesn't garner followers as much as does this "pack mentality" where all follow together after the aggressive leader who is urging everyone on in the predatory stance, everyone joining to tear up the prey for a good (psychological) meal.
posted by
Xeno-x
on January 8, 2009 at 12:49 PM
| link to this | reply