Ann Coulter

Re: More Treason

Huh???

Calling Chomsky a psuedointellectual is like saying Einstein was a psuedo scientist.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: She fries my bones because...

Narrow of stature, narrow of mind???

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: She fries my bones because...

It's interesting how conservatives fall all over themselves to point out that conservative intellectuals really do exist . It's like, "see see see - we do have some smart people!!!" Hence the fawning over Coulter and Condy Rice (are there any others?), though in the overall scheme of things, they qualify as lightweights.

I do understand the excitement. Though inexplicable and puzzling (i.e. how can a true intellectual also be close-minded?), it is a rarity, and I guess you all should celebrate.

 

Chomsky is the all too typical United States-hating phony intellectual liberal traitor described by Ann Coulter in the last couple paragraphs of Treason, which I cited in Carl's last United States-hating, Communist-loving thread.

http://www.degreeinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13714&pagenumber=1

From a recent review of Chomsky's latest book.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E1DE1F3FF937A35752C0A9629C8B63

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She fries my bones because...

The most noteworthy conservative intellectual has to be William F. Buckley, I would want him on my side in any verbal conflict.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She fries my bones because...

Lightweights? Care to offer up any liberal intellectuals that could match up with;

William F. Buckley
Alan Keyes
Bill O'Reilly
J.C. Watts
Antonin Scalia
Laura Ingraham
Sean Hannity

Just a few off the top of my head. Who would you choose to debate that lineup....Al Franken and Jeanine Garofolo?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She fries my bones because...

Stature. She looks borderline anorexic to me.

 

That's for sure. Scrawny, scrawny, scrawny. And looks can be brought up with decency only because Coulter so obviously trades upon what she thinks are her mankiller looks, flinging her hair about like a horse flicking flies off its rump with its tail.

Of course, it must be admitted that Dr Goebbels was originally associated with the left wing of the NSDAP...

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She fries my bones because...

I must object the using of liberal for Liberal. The Founding Dudes were liberal. Walter Williams is liberal. Liberals are not liberal.

liberal:

1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

Contemporary liberals are known (in the U.S., anyway) as libertarians.

We return you now to your regularly scheduled dogfight.

 

Yeah, she does do that, all right.

She is an attractive woman, but would look a lot better if she gained about 20 pounds.

 

Without liberals conservatives would not exist, without conservatives liberals would not exist, they define one another. Left,right, Democrat, Republican enough already- the nation at least has some sanity in us independents. Now give us someone we can vote for and not against - Bush/Kerry give us a break !!!! Maybe there is hope in 2008. Then again ...

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She fries my bones because...

Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilley? Intellectuals? Are you serious? The two dunderheads from Fox? I guess that says something about the paucity of choices. You have to dig pretty deep into the barrel.

Liberal intellectuals. Where to begin? Off the top of my head:

Albert Einstein
Noam Chomsky
Franklin Roosevelt
Jesus (God too, one would assume)
Martin Luther King
Ghandi
Reinhold Niebuhr
Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Cornell West
Ralph Nader
Laura Nader
Mario Cuomo
Adlai Stevenson
Robert and John Kennedy (maybe)
Thurgood Marshall
Bill Clinton
Clark Kerr
Thomas Jefferson
Ben Franklin
Alexis de Tocqueville
Mario Savio
Hubert Humphrey
Daniel Ellsberg
Elie Wiesel
Jimmy Carter
Nelson Mandela
John Muir
Steven Smale

I guess I’ll stop there. I'm sure others can put together a much better list. I think Ghandi would do pretty well against Sean Hannity in a debate.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She fries my bones because...

Hmmmm. I wouldn't put O'Reilly and Hannity in the same group as Buckley. The former are lightweights when it comes to ability. Now if your talking ego that may be another case. Scalia may be debatable.

 

The hard left crowd is all for free speech as long as it is "correct" speech. That bunch hasn't had a new idea in well over several decades. Their party emblem is the crying baby. How any MAN especially could conisider himself a member of that left bunch is beyond me. And the party of Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton think they have the moral high ground? As Hannity says (I actually said it before I heard him say it, but it validates my thoughts), I can bbq with liberals, I can have a drink with liberals, but dear GOD I don't want them running my country. They are nice comic relief actually. Been around em for years as a reporter and educator.

 

Dinner

I will have to find out what the exact function was - I think it might have had something to do with a group of high school students who study politics and are becoming Congressional aids. I was just told my his mom that Cheney was across the table, the gov was nearby and there were several state reps and a senator also in attendance.

Go figure.

 

Dr. Phil Bredesen is the Democratic governor of Tennessee from Massachusetts, go figure. In Tennessee all things are possible, confused or not so.

 

Re: Re: Ann Coulter

No. The "hard left" respects the “far right’s” right to speech no matter how idiotic the views. As for new ideas, I think the problem is that the hard right wouldn't recognize a new idea if it landed in their collective laps. And what are the right's new ideas?: the same ones they've been peddling since day zero, tax cuts and the right to carry guns around. The solution to everything...cut taxes. The universal pacifier. Start up a war; rape the earth; take away civil rights; dismantle the schools; as long as I got that $50 tax refund, everything is ok.

And if Sean Hannity is the new savior of the hard right, as it appears, since you all keep mentioning him , then the right is in a truly pathetic place. The right is always whining about the liberal media. True, most of the truly excellent media are liberal in spirit - mainly because true liberalism means free thought, speech, tolerance, objectivity, and open ideas. These are ideas and concepts that serious journalists and journalistic institutions pay attention to, and hard right-wingers feel threatened by.

Given this, I guess it makes sense that they would idolize a talking head on Fox TV, and get their philosophical stances from ranting, right-wing bloggers on the Internet. Where else are you going to turn? They might want to start following the Fellows at the Hoover Institution, but that would mean reading and thinking - a real roadblock for many, I guess. It's easier to watch Fox (whose sole purpose "newsflash" is to raise your blood pressure, keep you riveted to the tube, and, ultimately, turn you into a good consumer; they really couldn't care less about Hannity's views, Colmes' views - yours or mine. Fox is a drivel producer, and they attract drivel consumers. How's that for cynicism!).

As for your trepidation about liberals running the country, I can assure you that most liberals have the same feeling about the far right. Let’s take a quick look at what your man Bushie has done, shall we?

He sunk the economy into terrible debt, and he wants, oh, another $150 billion or so.

He’s made a mess of foreign affairs and diplomacy, including alienating many countries that used to side with us. I guess being a governor of Texas doesn’t qualify one as an expert in foreign policy, something liberals maintained vehemently before the election.

As an aside, neither does being Gov. of Texas qualify him as the “education” president, since we now know that his boisterous claims about progress in education were based mostly on lies and fabrications. It’s sort of the “No Child Left Behind (as long as we can lie about the data) Policy.” What the hell, he got out of there a few steps ahead of the fallout.

He has started a war he has no idea how to finish. Some of his top military aides are starting to have doubts as well – not a good sign. All he can do is keep throwing money at it.

He’s got criminals running the prison at Abu Ghraib (“er, ah, I guess we have been violating the Geneva Convention.”). Mr. Bush, in an all out effort to pull his head out of his ass, is allowing Iraqi journalists to attend the court martials of the offenders (or should I say sacrificial lambs). In fact, the heads of some generals should be rolling, but that would be admitting to serious mistakes, which is something Bushie is incapable of doing.

And during these trying times, could he at least wow us with eloquence or articulateness – a la Roosevelt or Churchill? Not a chance. Looking decidedly like Alfred E. Newman, he says things like “Americans don’t like seeing dead people on TV. I don’t like seeing dead people on TV.” Good Lord, deliver us.

Oh, but that $50 refund is sure feeling warm in my pocket. Life is good.

 

Re: Re: Ann Coulter

Then you have George W. Bush and company demonstrating the components of the Peter Principle. Even Republicans must admit this group is in over their heads when its comes to running this nation. We go from one crisis to the next - knee jerk reaction. My God, the Democrats do not have a clue either. Nader?? Nada!!

 

Shhhh!!!!

Hush my liberal allies.... we've already lost this debate since I equated Coulter with Goebbels, remember?

 

Re: Shhhh!!!!

Not quite.

You, meaning specifically "Carl Reginstein", lost all credibility when you tried to compare Ann Coulter to a Nazi.

Unless you have specific evidence to the contrary, we can all assume that Ann Coulter is not a Nazi?

Right?