Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The book in #1 on Amazon.com and people get that she uses sarcasm to make her points, points that are based in reality." Proving yet again there's a sucker (or two) born every minute. The purpose of posting Rutten's opinion here was to demonstrate how quickly people will start jumping on him, and skewering anyone suspected of being remotely connected to someone like him, given the natureof his piece. I think the comparison to pornography was somewhat over the top, but just the same, Coulter's remarks are designed to enrage as well. What's good for her is good for the opposition, as it were. Wouldn't it be nice if both sides didn't resort to such tactics?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yet the liberals are demanding she shut up. I don't think she is going to.> No, they're not. They're criticizing her remarks. You fall for the strawman she sets up.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Actually, the more she keeps spouting off, emanating hate, ignorance and an utter lack of taste and class, the better it is for those who take issue with her. Keep ranting, Annie baby.
Originally Posted By barboy These woman are no different than Walsh, Klaas, Sheehan, Grace---they want to change public policy because of personal tragedy. They are opportunists and are on a crusade. My second mom lost her son who was shot in the head during a robbery in Venice Beach Ca and she doesn't make a living touring the country about how we need safer streets. I have read Coulter's book and she brought some fresh points to the table.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>they want to change public policy because of personal tragedy.<< What's wrong with this? Who better to speak about policy than those with first-hand experience?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "My second mom lost her son who was shot in the head during a robbery in Venice Beach Ca and she doesn't make a living touring the country about how we need safer streets." Let's assume for the sake of argument these women are "making a living" off this tragedy, and it's despicable. What makes it any better for Coulter to do the same thing?
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon These women are now in the same category as Cindy Sheehan - Moonbats They are nothing more than tools being weilded by left wing idealogs. Its so pathetic. Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public rantings of the Jersey Girls we find seemingly zero rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day." Absolutely no different than Sheehan. Pathetic.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Again, anyone who hasn't had loved ones killed by terrorists who subsequently passes judgment on these women is working from no basis of knowledge whatsoever.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York?<< Kind of like how Coulter and her ilk direct all their rage towards "liberals".
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Kind of like how Coulter and her ilk direct all their rage towards "liberals"." Yep, because Coulter can't just agree to disagree. She has to call you godless, a bad Amercian, traitor, ad nauseum. Real healthy debate there.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon Shooba, all my ilk and rage is not directed at all liberals. Just the ones being used to wrongly discredit the president on the backs of their dead loved ones.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Rutten is more than an "entertainment writer", for those attempting to denigrate him and his opinion.<< It doesn't matter what his qualifications are. His analysis is fatuous. That it was seriously brought to the table is a good indicator of the even lower level to which this whole debate has sunk. I shudder to think of what's next. >>Wouldn't it be nice if both sides didn't resort to such tactics?<< Wouldn't it?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York?> What effect, exactly, could their rage have on the people who crashed into the WTC (who are now dead), or bin Laden? Their words MIGHT have an effect on US policy, priorities in homeland security (shoring up the ports, for instance), improving intelligence that might prevent another attack, or the other things they talk about. It's perfectly legit to disagree with what they say about these things. But to wonder why they take issue with things they MIGHT affect, as opposed to things they can't, seems strange.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yep, because Coulter can't just agree to disagree. She has to call you godless, a bad Amercian, traitor, ad nauseum. Real healthy debate there.> You nailed it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It doesn't matter what his qualifications are. His analysis is fatuous. That it was seriously brought to the table is a good indicator of the even lower level to which this whole debate has sunk. I shudder to think of what's next." The exact same thing could be said for Coulter's book, which was the entire point of starting this thread, as I have posted. I've already said Rutten's article was over the top. Thing is, how does anyone expect those who disagree with her to react when she gratuitously attacks as she has done? If I sucker punch you in the back I doubt very seriously you're just going to blow me a kiss in response.
Originally Posted By barboy "Again, anyone who hasn't had loved ones killed by terrorists who subsequently passes judgment on these women is working from no basis of knowledge whatsoever." I can't buy that one ......and what does death by terrorists have to do with anything. Is that a harsher form of death than by being executed in a Seven 11 store? And I can pass judgement because if my wife would have been killed that day I sure as hell would not blame Bush(even though I despise his policies and would love to see him removed) nor would I take money and go touring.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Again, anyone who hasn't had loved ones killed by terrorists who subsequently passes judgment on these women is working from no basis of knowledge whatsoever.<< Uh huh. So unless terrorists have killed our loved ones, we have no basis of knowledge to pass judgement? I don't know whether to laugh, throw my hands in the air, or scowl and walk away. But then again, maybe there's something to this logic. UNLESS you have had your butterfly ballot thrown out by the election board, you have no basis of knowledge to pass judgement on the 2000 Florida election. UNLESS your comatose daughter has been taken off life support by her husband, you have no basis of knowledge to pass judgement on the Terri Schiavo case. UNLESS you have gone blind or developed tumors from dangerous levels of UV rays, you have no basis of knowledge to pass judgement on the hole in the ozone layer. UNLESS you are a member of Congress who has taken a campaign contribution from a lobbyist, you have no basis of knowledge to pass judgement on DC's "culture of corruption." This is such a handy form of non-analysis. And so applicable to ANY situation.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>If I sucker punch you in the back I doubt very seriously you're just going to blow me a kiss in response.<< Nor would I go on a national publicity tour describing you as a vicious thug who has no place in polite society, with the recommendation that you be flogged, drawn and quartered on live TV. But... somewhere between those extremes lies a reasonable response, no?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I don't know whether to laugh, throw my hands in the air, or scowl and walk away." Pick one. And let's be a little more specious, shall we? We're talking about grieving here, and how these women have handled their own. Whether one disagrees with how they've managed, my comment is obviously meant for those who agree with Coulter, that these women are enjoying their husbands' deaths, and endorsing the tasteless speculation that for all anyone knew, their husbands were planning on divorcing these "wirches and harpies", anyway.
Originally Posted By mele I think it's funny that Ann is calling someone a witch or a harpie. LOL, I guess she oughta know one when she sees one.
