Ann Coulter puts foot in mouth... again...

[Uh-huh 0]

Coulter lambastes (sic) 9/11 widows in new book

 

Coulter writes in a new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.”

 

She also wrote, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

 

‘The Witches of East Brunswick’

Coulter appeared Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show, and reiterated her stance, saying the women used their grief “to make a political point.”

 

Her criticism was aimed at four New Jersey women whom she dubbed “The Witches of East Brunswick,” after the town where two of them live.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13186261/from/RS.4/

So, according to Coulter, if someone lost a family member on 9/11, they are only allowed to critique the Bush administration a limited number of times. If they criticize Bush one time too many or they support a Democrat, then it's partisanship as well as milking their grief for political purposes.

 

What a witch. Too bad this latest controversy will only generate more $$ for dirty ol' Ann.

[Toro 1]

I honestly don't think I even know who this chick is.

 

My question is why is she writing books when she should be making someone a sammich?

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

[ShaneFalco 0]

Ann Coulter

[Rusty Syringes 478]

Creepella.

 

[TyCobb 0]

So, according to Coulter, if someone lost a family member on 9/11, they are only allowed to critique the Bush administration a limited number of times. If they criticize Bush one time too many or they support a Democrat, then it's partisanship as well as milking their grief for political purposes.

 

What a witch. Too bad this latest controversy will only generate more $$ for dirty ol' Ann.

 

No, her point is that just because you've lost a loved one, it doesn't make your opinion unimpeachable. I think in her opinion the left uses these kinds of people for political gain and anyone who argues with them is labeled an evil witch.

 

 

Your post seems to indicate she's right.

[Uh-huh 0]

No, her point is that just because you've lost a loved one, it doesn't make your opinion unimpeachable. I think in her opinion the left uses these kinds of people for political gain and anyone who argues with them is labeled an evil witch.

Your post seems to indicate she's right.

I knew someone would try to defend her POV. Right-wingers stick together, don't they?

 

[TyCobb 0]

I knew someone would try to defend her POV. Right-wingers stick together, don't they?

 

 

You hate her. I understand that. She's right on this one, though. Cindy Sheehan is another glaring example of it. The woman could do no wrong. Why? Cause she hates Bush and cause her son died.

 

"My son died and will never come home. THEREFORE, this war is wrong and Bush is evil." That was her message and if you argued it you were an evil bastard because ... her son died, didn't we mention that.

[remote controller 133]

She's right on target again.

[TyCobb 0]

BTW - This trick is certainly not limited to the left, Uh Huh. McCain employed it nicely with his "anti-torture" legislation.

[torridjoe 0]

No, her point is that just because you've lost a loved one, it doesn't make your opinion unimpeachable. I think in her opinion the left uses these kinds of people for political gain and anyone who argues with them is labeled an evil witch.

Your post seems to indicate she's right.

 

Just because the right uses them (cough--Schiavo), and finds people too stupid to know they're being used, doesn't mean that the 9/11 widows are being used. In what ways are they being used?

 

Coulter just shouts whatever made up BS she can think of, plays her little games of hate, and then when SHE'S called on it, says, "hey, I'm just joking! I never actually MEANT that liberals should be physically beaten!"

 

She lied again yesterday, claiming that gay marriage ban opponents in OR outspent supporters by 40-1. It wasn't even 2 to 1. It wasn't even 1.5 to 1.

 

You hate her. I understand that. She's right on this one, though. Cindy Sheehan is another glaring example of it. The woman could do no wrong. Why? Cause she hates Bush and cause her son died.

 

"My son died and will never come home. THEREFORE, this war is wrong and Bush is evil." That was her message and if you argued it you were an evil bastard because ... her son died, didn't we mention that.

 

Can you link me to where she defines the correctness of the war based on her son being dead?

[swamp dog 0]

ouch.

 

i'll say one thing for her: she doesn't mince words much. but what she's doing on one extreme is no different than what idiots like michael moore do on the other end of things. extremism--both left and right--is ugly because it's fueled by hate and bitterness.

[TyCobb 0]

Can you link me to where she defines the correctness of the war based on her son being dead?

 

Actually, you're probably right. More accurately I should have said, "My son died and will never come home. THEREFORE, you MUST listen to me and if you disagree with me you are an unsympathetic bastard. BTW - This war is wrong and Bush is evil."

 

That's better. Thanks.

[DanXIII 8]

Other than a few dumbass 29 percenters, does anyone really take Man Coulter seriously?

[Saturday Night Beaver 2]

Her voice is so irritating. Like nails on a chalkboard.

[DanXIII 8]

I'd be willing to bet a pinky toe that "she" is actually Bebe Neuwirth's long-lost brother.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Honestly, how are you gonna let some crazy white ###### on heroin be a respected member of your party?

 

It balances out the fat white bastard on crack on the other side I guess.

 

extremism--both left and right--is ugly because it's fueled by hate and bitterness.

 

 

Don't forget ignorance. Lots of ignorance.

[IN$TANT REPAY 8]

Other than a few dumbass 29 percenters, does anyone really take Man Coulter seriously?

 

 

sean handtitty does...

 

 

 

man coulter...crassic..

 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

OMG, writer uses sensationalism to sell books. :Yawn:

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Crazed she-###### attacks high profile targets for attention. Dilusional sheep lead her to the cash trough. Michael Moore is a tool who has lost all credibility in his field, but I'd have an easier time putting up with his stunts than this skank.

[Jeremy 0]

Other than a few dumbass 29 percenters, does anyone really take Man Coulter seriously?

 

She lost me at the title of the book. Didn't think she could do worse than "How to talk to liberals (if you must), but she topped it!

[gocolts 300]

No, her point is that just because you've lost a loved one, it doesn't make your opinion unimpeachable. I think in her opinion the left uses these kinds of people for political gain and anyone who argues with them is labeled an evil witch.

Your post seems to indicate she's right.

 

I like how the liberlas just glossed over this post.

 

Right on target TyCobb.

[Churchill610 0]

She's a filthy gunt for making those despicable statements.

[Big Blue 06 195]

I often find myself more on the right than the left. That said, this woman has no more credibility than Michel Moore. There are extremes on both sides, but I'd like to think that parties are not defined by their extremists. Do you hear that Uh-huh, Torridjoe, fastfish, and gocolts?

[MDC 5,925]

No, her point is that just because you've lost a loved one, it doesn't make your opinion unimpeachable.

 

A rightminded person could've made that point without saying they enjoyed their husbands' deaths. Ann Coulter is a side show carny freak. Why the right wing coddles and tolerates her is a mystery to me. I can't think of anyone on the left calling for the imprisonment and murder of conservatives who gets a spot at major DNC conferences.

[phillybear 365]

I wish we could charter a bus. Then strap into seats Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, Oprah Winfrey, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart, and any other partisan media talking head tools that profit off the exploitation of others.

 

Then set the bus on fire. And roll it off a cliff. After the remains burn down to embers, take a walk, and piss on the ashes.

[Strike 4,026]

I wish we could charter a bus. Then strap into seats Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, Oprah Winfrey, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart, and any other partisan media talking head tools that profit off the exploitation of others.

 

Then set the bus on fire. And roll it off a cliff. After the remains burn down to embers, take a walk, and piss on the ashes.

 

I'd think you could take care of this all by yourself. We'd be grateful.

[MDC 5,925]

I wish we could charter a bus. Then strap into seats Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, Oprah Winfrey, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart, and any other partisan media talking head tools that profit off the exploitation of others.

 

How do Al Gore, Jon Stewart and Oprah Winfrey fit in there?

[phillybear 365]

How do Al Gore, Jon Stewart and Oprah Winfrey fit in there?

 

Partisan. Profit. Media members. Exploitation. Al Gore with his movie. Stewart and Oprah with their TV shows. All three are extremely partisan in their views. And I am simply tired of everyone fawning over these tools as if they are some kind of great people. They are all scumbags.

 

I could have listed another 30 people, but I was running out of steam. And running out of seats on the bus.

[MDC 5,925]

Partisan. Profit. Media members. Exploitation. Al Gore with his movie. Stewart and Oprah with their TV shows. All three are extremely partisan in their views. And I am simply tired of everyone fawning over these tools as if they are some kind of great people. They are all scumbags.

 

I could have listed another 30 people, but I was running out of steam. And running out of seats on the bus.

 

Not sure how you could call Al Gore partisan. He's a politician - of course he's partisan. I'd call him pedantic or annoying or even a whiner, but a scumbag? He volunteered in 'Nam and seems like a nice enough guy to me. Oh well.

 

I can't say much about Oprah. I've never watched her show. Jon Stewart may be partisan but I think it's kind of extreme to call him an exploitative scumbag.

 

Anyway, I don't think these three deserve to be lumped in with the Coulters and Moores of the world.

[phillybear 365]

Not sure how you could call Al Gore partisan. He's a politician - of course he's partisan. I'd call him pedantic or annoying or even a whiner, but a scumbag? He volunteered in 'Nam and seems like a nice enough guy to me. Oh well.

 

I can't say much about Oprah. I've never watched her show. Jon Stewart may be partisan but I think it's kind of extreme to call him an exploitative scumbag.

 

Anyway, I don't think these three deserve to be lumped in with the Coulters and Moores of the world.

 

I tend to get angry at many politicians and media types.

 

I know that Gore is partisan. It's just that his Global Warming movie bugs me. Is he campaigning for office again. Is he simply trying to gain power/profit much like Michael Moore did. He just rubs me the wrong way with his film. The rest of his stuff, meh.

 

The exploitive tag probably is best suited for Oprah. Yippee, she gives audience members cars and donates to charity. However, she built her empire on the backs on the poor suckers that were guests on her shows, especially in the early years. She was just like the Jerry Springers, Maury Povich, Montel Williams, etc of the world.

 

I think the tongue in cheek humor of the Daily Show is fine, and Jon Stewart used to be a pretty funny standup comedian. But Jon Stewart's monologue and interviews rub me the wrong way. It is just too noticeably partisan. That show that he oversees is just is too preachy.

 

Maybe it's just me.

[hoytdwow 202]

Isn't Coulter the one who said John Walker Lindh should have been sentenced to death because it would intimidate liberals?

[MDC 5,925]

I tend to get angry at many politicians and media types.

 

I know that Gore is partisan. It's just that his Global Warming movie bugs me. Is he campaigning for office again. Is he simply trying to gain power/profit much like Michael Moore did. He just rubs me the wrong way with his film. The rest of his stuff, meh.

 

The exploitive tag probably is best suited for Oprah. Yippee, she gives audience members cars and donates to charity. However, she built her empire on the backs on the poor suckers that were guests on her shows, especially in the early years. She was just like the Jerry Springers, Maury Povich, Montel Williams, etc of the world.

 

I think the tongue in cheek humor of the Daily Show is fine, and Jon Stewart used to be a pretty funny standup comedian. But Jon Stewart's monologue and interviews rub me the wrong way. It is just too noticeably partisan. That show that he oversees is just is too preachy.

 

Maybe it's just me.

 

Eh. I have to admit, I think Al Gore is kinda cool. I'm really not big on environmental issues - that never factors into who I vote for much. I just respect that he volunteered for 'Nam when he could've easily found an out. He seemed very awkward as a campaigner, but overall I'm guessing he's a really bright and decent guy.

 

Like I said I haven't seen much Oprah, but the "Million Little Pieces" fiasco was disgusting.

 

I like Jon Stewart.

[Force of Two 0]

Eh. I have to admit, I think Al Gore is kinda cool. I'm really not big on environmental issues - that never factors into who I vote for much. I just respect that he volunteered for 'Nam when he could've easily found an out. He seemed very awkward as a campaigner, but overall I'm guessing he's a really bright and decent guy.

 

Like I said I haven't seen much Oprah, but the "Million Little Pieces" fiasco was disgusting.

 

I like Jon Stewart.

 

You two are talking civily.....What's next dogs and cats living together?

[Franknbeans 46]

and these are with make up

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You hate her. I understand that. She's right on this one, though. Cindy Sheehan is another glaring example of it. The woman could do no wrong. Why? Cause she hates Bush and cause her son died.

 

"My son died and will never come home. THEREFORE, this war is wrong and Bush is evil." That was her message and if you argued it you were an evil bastard because ... her son died, didn't we mention that.

 

The problem with Coulter is not that she is questioning their motivation, but HOW she is questioning their motivation. She made it personal by saying that they are happier that their husbands are dead. That is what makes her a gunt. If she wanted to question their motivation or political backing (and she had actually done some homework to that effect), then that would be reasonable. Making an attack based solely upon personal venom is wrong.

 

These women have the same rights to question the government as anyone else. The fact that they lost their spouses in 9/11 just makes it more personal. These types of personal motivations are the reasons that new laws get enacted and positive changes are made (see: Amber Alerts).

 

You (TyCobb) are way off base.

[MDC 5,925]

Making an attack based solely upon personal venom is wrong.

 

Ann Coulter's only talent is invective. If she said things in a polite, rational way nobody would buy her books.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Ann Coulter's only talent is invective. If she said things in a polite, rational way nobody would buy her books.

 

You give her too much credit. I believe that she is a no talent assclown.

[Bill E. 668]

Ann Coulter's only talent is invective. If she said things in a polite, rational way nobody would buy her books.

I'll bet she has one or two other talents.

[MDC 5,925]

You give her too much credit. I believe that she is a no talent assclown.

 

Sometimes I think she's kinda funny. What pisses me off about Coulter though is that she doesn't have the cahones to stand behind what she says/writes - whenever she's called on it Ann's catch-all defense is that she was "joking." It's bad enough that she's a hateful twat - she also has no integrity.