Ann Coulter Is An Even Bigger Idiot Than I First Thought
I'm linking this stuff just for fun, because I hate Ann Coulter so darn much. Apparently, the junk that she spews out of her mouth isn't just unbelievably offensive - it isn't even original. Check out the (very credible) accusations against her of plagiarism here: (I, II, III)
posted by orthomom at 8:33 PM
42 Comments:
She really is obnoxious isn't she?
I think a number of people on the right dislike her even more than the general public and her targets on the left, if only because they get associated with her positions.
Shes laughing to the bank..this is the reaction she wants
She's on Jay Leno tonight (11:30) with George Carlin (he's an atheist).
Ah, this proves nothing. You probably hate her because she has the success that you don't - makes sense...women can't handle other women who get ahead.
'women can't handle other women who get ahead'
Only when someone is incapable of arguing facts does that person resort to personal insults. Anonymous, you and Ann Coulter share that characteristic. Do you really want to be associated with her?
A Jewish publication has picked up on the fact that Ann Coulter has apparently converted us all without us knowing it:
http://www.forward.com/articles/7986
Many years ago, I was in a life-threatening situation and saved by the Grace of Hashem and through the skilled hands of a surgeon. That man (actually, team of people) have earned a special place in my life and heart. I that them constantly for being the perfect shlichim through which Hashem worked His miracle. However, when it comes to politics or anything else other than this specific health-related issue, I couldn't give a flip about their opinions.
These women who lost their husbands on 9-11 are tragic figures in American History. One can grieve with them and feel their pain. I work just a few short blocks from Ground Zero and watched those towers get hit that day. At least 1 person who is a good friend worked in that building and thankfully got out alive. These women, prior to 9-11, were (from my pov) nobodies. I never heard of them, nor did most of you, until they were 'propelled' into the somewhat national spotlight by virtue of their spouses meeting a horrible end.
As I understand it, Ann Coulter's point is that this fact, in and of itself, does not and should not give them special status on the world stage of political ideas. They have opinions, just like I do and from the perspective of the importance of ideas, their's shouldn't count or be transmitted freely any more or less than mine. If they use the national prominance that they've gained through this unfortunate, tragic occurance, that is, according to Ann, wrong. I see her point. I don't know that I would use the words she did, but I see her point.
Of course, your views can and probably do vary. However, your views count as much as mine do...no more....no less.
PB
'Ann Coulter's point is that this fact'
And had she simply said that, nobody would be complaining. But she seems to be incapable of criticizing anyone without spewing massive amounts of personal invective.
In Judaism we are taught that it is not sufficient to follow the letter of the law; we must learn to act like decent people. Ms. Coulter has demonstrated by her language that she is not a model for such behavior. The last place she should be defended is on an Orthodox Jewish blog.
I am soooo with you, Orthomom.
You know, the Leno segment was lame. Carlin was very funny, but NBC must have threatened him and Coulter not to start a war on the set. She wasn't at all combative like she's been with Matt Lauer and Tucker Carlson (thank you You Tube!). But Leno did ask her some pointed questions - 'have you ever been hurt' (waaah, LOL) and some of what you've written is 'nasty'.
She definitely has a personality disorder. Hello? And can you imagine her dry cleaning bill? That dress is gonna fall apart by the end of the month, honey!
For someone who claims to be Christian (but behaves in a way that is appalling to every single practicing one, I guarantee you), the quote the Forward refers to shows a glaring lack of understanding of both Christian and Jewish doctrine.
And now, plagiarism? Well, there goes her superiority complex toward Dorothy Kearns Goodwin. LOL. (I don't know if she knows who Dorothy is yet.)
Swirly! Swirly! Swirly! Swirly!
"In Judaism we are taught that it is not sufficient to follow the letter of the law; we must learn to act like decent people. Ms. Coulter has demonstrated by her language that she is not a model for such behavior. The last place she should be defended is on an Orthodox Jewish blog."
Actually, the very first place she should be defended is an Orthodox Jewish blog, because although you might have issues with her style, her content hits the nail on the head. Almost everything that she rants about is directly in line with Torah hashkafos. Her most basic point in this particular book - that the liberal, atheistic "elite" are leading America down the sink - is absolutely correct.
I find it very telling that you rail against Ann Coulter, while giving the subjects of her plethora of examples a free ride.
...and for what it's worth: Did you even read his examples of plagiarism? They are almost as pathetic as his attempt to discredit the work itself.
OM or Charlie: Why don't you write up a post tackling the SUBSTANCE of her points? (Don't worry, I already know you'll find some self-righteous reason why you can't/shouldn't/don't have to.) I mean, you've already devoted two posts to her. Why not at least one more with some meat?
I read the first chapter of her latest book, and I found nothing as controversial or out-there as the debates about her style would lead anyone to believe. Most of her points are credible and she defends them with evidence.
The real question is why we're debating Ann Coulter's promotional tactics and not some other entertainer/public figure, such as Kanye West, or the politician who spoke approvingly of "putting a bullet" between the President's eyes.
If you disagree/don't like her, then ignore her and don't buy her wares. But please don't paint her as worse than other public figures who make attention-getting statements. It's the double-standard that's offensive: Ann Coulter is vilified for saying strident, over-the-top things, while equivalent statements from other public characters are given a shrug.
If the argument is that public figures should not say things that are potentially offensive, then there's a legitimate debate. If the argument is that Ann Coulter is disgusting but Kanye West is just speaking his mind, then forgive me for being cynical.
Coulter is an attention whore in regular whore's clothing, trying to pass as a political commentator. Jak, her style is just as good a reason to dismiss her substance as any. Her tactics make it impossible to look past them at substance. Who's sticking up here for Kanye West? You are inventing a strong man with you argument. The only person sticking up for an entertainer whose gone too far is you.
anon 4:12 - that's straw man, I think.
Jak - There are plenty of conservative commentators who make points similar or identical to Coulter's without using her rhetoric. I don't think Ann has anything so uniquely special to say that we need to pick out her valid points from her indefensible statements and debate it.
somewhat,
No doubt you are correct. Conservatives have been producing dusty, unread tomes for years (and I've read most of them anyway.) Ann's greatness is that she gets everyone to listen. I mean, what is she already? A pundit? And yet the former First Lady attacks her. She strikes nerves like nobody has done before.
Of course, the people on this blog no doubt have already made up their minds about her. And we've already established that most of those who attack her here are proud to admit they've never read her works. But beyond the inbred opinion cadre of the J-Bloggosphere, she's exposing millions of people to the true face of modern liberalism for the first time. That's what makes her special.
Jak: trust me, you don't need to be a liberal to hate Coulter. I consider myself conservative, and I loathe her for presenting herself as the face of Conservatism. I WISH the fact that her books are noticed would be a good thing. I don't think it is. When even Malkin thinks she regularly crossed the lines of good taste, then I think she should not be representing the face of our party.
Oh, and Jak and Fox? I read her stuff. And I still find to much of it to be not speaking for me.
And another thing. I actually find the plagiarism accusations to be troubling. They certainly bear investigation, and the questions raised are far from "pathetic", imho.
anon,
If you read what I wrote, you'll notice that I did not say that she represents the face of Conservatism. In fact, she rarely, if ever, discusses Conservative principles. Rather, she shows the public the face of modern liberalism. And that is a good thing, even if she occasionally crosses the boundaries of good taste to do so.
Regarding her plagiarism, the few examples are snippets of description. Compared to recent actinable cases, I call them pathetic.
anon,
FWIW, I am not denying that some people will take her to represent the ideals of Conservatism. What I mean is that conservatism does not really have any opposition among the vast majority of the electorate of the US. Many people are simply unaware of the true ideals and ideologies of the liberal party.
So even if people do associate Conservatism with Ann (which I would be ambivalent about, as you are), the outcome is positive. If the hoi polloi ever find out what the "elite" are trying to ram down their throats, they're finished.
Jak - so basically conservatives don't have to like Ann's tactics but since her message is one that conservatives largely sympathize with, they should support her anyhow? I think conservatives could do just fine without Ann, and certainly should be loathe to tolerate her manner of attacking their opponents.
Coulter is an attention whore in regular whore's clothing
Yawn. Another comment about her appearance.
I think conservatives could do just fine without Ann, and certainly should be loathe to tolerate her manner of attacking their opponents.
What she does is effective, period. Yaakov dealt with Besuel in an "underhanded" manner because special circumstances called for special actions. Should we now say that we "loathe" the way Yaakov acted? Ann Coulter is part of the cabal that broke the stranglehold that the liberals had on MSM. Therefore, I'll give her some leeway.
Again, Ann is over-the-top compared to some of the others (who were also accused of being over-the-top by the MSM, as you well know.) But as I said, the combatitiveness helps draw in people that wouldn't otherwise read her works.
MO left the last thread in a huff, refusing to "waste any more time" arguing with a "partisan." Yet here she is, posting again about Ann Coulter. This is yet more proof that Ann is winning the battle.
OM, that is, heh :)
MO left the last thread in a huff, refusing to "waste any more time" arguing with a "partisan." Yet here she is, posting again about Ann Coulter. This is yet more proof that Ann is winning the battle.
You can think she's winning the battle. I think she's losing the war when it comes to her credibility. I think she's gone to far this time. And the allegations of plagiarism make me happy - because maybe this will actually shut her nastiness up.
And let me tell you why I think people defending Coulter are more partisan than, say, me. Because if I were to hear of reports that a liberal had made comments that were as disgustingly intolerant as Coulter, I would be calling them out on it right here. But to look beyond her attention-getting rhetoric and her stunts, and her offenses toward certain ethnic groups, and her disgusting and spiteful attempt to discredit widows who don't agree with her politics, to find some message that you might agree with - yes, I think that's partisan.
More Coulter-isms:
(from an interview)
"John Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals... [John Murtha]
Ann Coulter: The reason soldiers invented "fragging.""
Fragging means killing. If you guys don't think she's gone way to far, then I just don't know what to think anymore.
But to look beyond her attention-getting rhetoric and her stunts, and her offenses toward certain ethnic groups, and her disgusting and spiteful attempt to discredit widows who don't agree with her politics, to find some message that you might agree with - yes, I think that's partisan.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But personally, I think it's the height of partisanship to focus on the messenger (colorful though she is) to the TOTAL exclusion of the message. Again, I challenge you to post on the substance of her works.
I don't think I accused anyone here of defending Kanye West. My question was why OM and others are offended enough to post (twice!) about how horrible Ann is, yet have posted little or nothing about what idiots various other public figures have revealed themselves to be by making statements not unlike Ann's in vitriole. Still haven't gotten an answer.
...and you won't get one. OM claims that "if I were to hear of reports that a liberal had made comments that were as disgustingly intolerant as Coulter, I would be calling them out on it right here."
But we all know that's malarky. Sheehan, West, Churchill, the list is endless.
Jak, you are obviously not a regular readers of mom's blog. I recall her criticising many liberals and gopers equally in her tenure. You should go look back in her acrhives before you speak out of turn.
Jak Black said...
...and you won't get one. OM claims that "if I were to hear of reports that a liberal had made comments that were as disgustingly intolerant as Coulter, I would be calling them out on it right here."
But we all know that's malarky. Sheehan, West, Churchill, the list is endless.
Jak? There's a little search field on top of my blog? Maybe you should use it before you make sweeping accusations of my claims being malarkey. Try this link.
And then after that, you can try to search my blog for some other well known personalities - on BOTH sides of the political divide. My hatred of Coulter has one driving force behind it: her lack of respect for fellow humans. And I'll call just about anyone on that.
Fox said...
I don't think I accused anyone here of defending Kanye West. My question was why OM and others are offended enough to post (twice!) about how horrible Ann is, yet have posted little or nothing about what idiots various other public figures have revealed themselves to be by making statements not unlike Ann's in vitriole. Still haven't gotten an answer.
Again, check the link in my comment right above. You are quick to accuse myself and my commenters in my previous thread of being critical of Coulter without having read her work - well look who is guilty of much of the same. Search before you make sweeping accusations that simply aren't true. I criticize whoever I feel behavs badly, when it gets my attention. And that goes for personalities on both sides of the political divide.
Why don't you write up a post tackling the SUBSTANCE of her points?
Ok, here are a few selections from the first chapter of her book:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/06/06/199800.html
'Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul....Liberals swoon in pagan admiration of Mother Earth, mystified and overawed by her power. They deny the Biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America. '
1) Immortality of the soul is not just a Christian belief -- unless you accept her belief that Jews are Christians.
2) The only way the statement can be true is if you say that religious liberals -- and there are many -- aren't really liberals at all. Dorothy Day, Reinhold Niebuhr, Norman Thomas, and Martin Luther King, weren't liberals? Ms. Coulter either is ignorant of history or she is redefining the term away from the way in which it is generally understood.
'Liberals hate science and react badly to it. They will literally run from the room, lightheaded and nauseated, when told of data that might suggest that the sexes have different abilities in math and science. '
To the contrary, us liberals have been trying to get the Bush administration to stop reacting badly to science, such as when it concludes that global warming has indeed been happening, that loss of biodiversity is a major problem, that air pollution does have health effects, and that we need to talk about sexually transmitted diseases in order to defeat them. Regarding the specific issue of math and science ability, it is clear that young women on average do a bit better on tests of verbal ability and that young men on average do a bit better on tests of spatial relationships -- but that the within group variability is much greater than the between group variability. It is not clear whether this means anything at all in terms of success as scientists; in the US the majority of degrees in biological and social sciences are now awarded to women. And some academic programs have noticed that on average women do better than men in their programs even though men score better on average on standardized entrance exams.
'The core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind. '
A nonsense statement that shouldn't need to be refuted, but the Rabbinical Council of America position should be sufficient:
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100776
'We say humans are in God’s image; they say we are no different morally from the apes. '
Obviously the Rabbinical Council of America would disagree her as well!
'they won’t allow us to save Africans dying in droves of malaria with DDT because DDT might hurt the birds. A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil. It was one of the most devastating environmental disasters in recent history. Six weeks later, all the birds were back. Birds are like rats—you couldn’t get rid of them if you tried. '
The fact is that DDT did cause many bird species to become endangered, most notably the Bald Eagle, the national bird of the United States. (Habitat destruction also contributed.) The statement that DDT isn't used in Africa is a flat out lie:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-06-15T143644Z_01_L15925429_RTRUKOC_0_US-SAFRICA-MALARIA.xml&archived=False
And there is no relationship between an oil spill and a toxic insecticide. Any competant scientist would agree that an oil spill would be likely to have less serious long term effects than DDT.
'Howard Dean left the Episcopal Church—which is barely even a church—because his church, in Montpelier, Vermont, would not cede land for a bike path.'
For once she gets a fact correct -- that is the reason he left that church -- but it is a slander to call it "barely even a church".
'But in a spasm of left-wing insanity in the seventies, nuclear power was curtailed in this country. '
Most economists would attribute this to the high capital costs for the plants and the lower cost of alternative fuels. Utilities couldn't afford to borrow the billions of dollars and it was cheaper to build and run fossil fuel plants.
'Liberals want us to live like Swedes, with their genial, mediocre lives'
Sweden is a prosperous country with a high standard of living. What is wrong with that?
'Christian destiny, which is Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing'
I'm no Christian theologian, but since Ms. Coulter classifies us as Christians, I'll take a stab at this one. I am unaware of any statement in Tanakh, Talmud, Gaonim, Rishonim, or Acharonim
regaring Jet Skis or electric grills in olam ha-ba. If you are aware of any I'd appreciate you forwarding them to me.
'Liberals are worried we’re going to run out of something that literally falls from the sky.'
If Ms. Coulter lived in the Southwest she would realize that that dry area that gets little rain is already out of water, and that promised allotments of water are not being delivered.
I'm not even halfway through the first chapter and I have to get back to my day job, but I think this should get the point across. She plays fast and loose with facts and vilifies those who disagree with her in the meanest possible manner. Jak, you seem to enjoy these bad midot. If that is the case, I feel sorry for you.
Jak? There's a little search field on top of my blog? Maybe you should use it before you make sweeping accusations of my claims being malarkey. Try this link.
LOL. You cite West, and then AGREE with him. And at any rate, you at least attempt to deal with the substance of his attack. Any other examples?
1) Immortality of the soul is not just a Christian belief -- unless you accept her belief that Jews are Christians.
She never claims it is JUST a Christian belief. And it is true, by the way, that Jews believe in the immortality of the soul, as Christians do.
2) The only way the statement can be true is if you say that religious liberals -- and there are many -- aren't really liberals at all. Dorothy Day, Reinhold Niebuhr, Norman Thomas, and Martin Luther King, weren't liberals?
You're being disengenuous here. You know very well that the VAST majority of liberals do not believe in God. Have you checked out DailyKOS or any of the other less extreme liberal sites lately?
'Liberals hate science and react badly to it. They will literally run from the room, lightheaded and nauseated, when told of data that might suggest that the sexes have different abilities in math and science. ' To the contrary, us liberals have been trying to get the Bush administration to stop reacting badly to science, such as when it concludes that global warming has indeed been happening
Her point is that liberals love science only when it agrees with their worldview. When it makes claims about women, IQ, DDT, etc, liberals spurn science. And again, your claim about "global warming" is disengenuous. To insinuate that the matter is settled is patently false.
The fact is that DDT did cause many bird species to become endangered, most notably the Bald Eagle, the national bird of the United States. (Habitat destruction also contributed.) The statement that DDT isn't used in Africa is a flat out lie:
She never claims that birds did not die as a result of DDT, merely that it is better to save human lives than a few birds. The source you cite actually proves my point - it states explitictly that DDT was not in use for many years because of international pressure. How many lives did that cost?
I'm no Christian theologian, but since Ms. Coulter classifies us as Christians, I'll take a stab at this one. I am unaware of any statement in Tanakh, Talmud, Gaonim, Rishonim, or Acharonim
regaring Jet Skis or electric grills in olam ha-ba.
If you actually read the previous sentence, you know that her point is that we have a right to make use of the planet, including its resources of power. The fact is that science - not environmentalism - is probably the best hope to repair the damage that has already been inflicted.
If Ms. Coulter lived in the Southwest she would realize that that dry area that gets little rain is already out of water, and that promised allotments of water are not being delivered.
Why not point to examples of drought, which I'm sure Coulter is as aware of as you? She's speaking hyperbolically.
Jak, you seem to enjoy these bad midot. If that is the case, I feel sorry for you.
Don't finish off with out an ad hominem!
LOL. You cite West, and then AGREE with him. And at any rate, you at least attempt to deal with the substance of his attack.
I AGREE with West? Weird that that's what you got out of that post.
And at any rate, you at least attempt to deal with the substance of his attack. Any other examples?
Hey, there are many. But like I said, it's really YOUR job to find them and ascertain whether your accusation is fair before you level it at me.
The links I provided for Coulter did a great job of providing substance to my claims of her being heartless, as well as concerns of possible plagiarism. That's enough of her obnoxious content already.
im not a big fan of Coulter, but this is dumb...oh wow, she listed 15 accomplishments by adult stem cell research that someone else had noted. Thats like me writing the Bush wn the election in 2004 and then someone telling me that someone else had written the smae words of "Bush won the elections". Its a fact! you cant change a fact, that would be lying...this just makes me know that this blog is full of extremist...im a democrat but i sure hell am not an extremist.
qzz0523
pandora charms
air max 90
true religion jeans
air jordan 4
michael kors outlet
world cup jerseys
fitflops sale clearance
polo ralph lauren
pandora charms
cheap jordans
0616jejemoncler online
ralph lauren outlet
ecco outlet
nike outlet
canada goose jackets
jordan shoes
ralph lauren outlet
coach outlet online
nike outlet
nike air max 95
ultra boost
oakley sunglasses wholesale
new nike shoes
www0628
true religion jeans
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
coach outlet
oakley sunglasses
pandora
alife clothing
bottega veneta outlet
ferragamo outlet
pelicans jerseys
0822jejechaussure nike cortez femme 2017 Avec toute asics gel noosa tri 10 little kid cette étude scientifique et de preuves, il vaut vraiment asics femme gel lyte beige la peine d'essayer un produit avec Helix Aspersa basket tn nike homme 2017 Muller. Depuis les 12 mois air jordan 1 mid avis 1990, les Bulls détenaient le dossier idéal qu'ils Air Jordan 30 Baskets détenaient à tout moment. Une orthèse basket nike femme 2017 air max vapor plantaire moyenne ou une aide d'arche acheter asics gel lyte v femme est souvent un excellent élément qui devrait également aider. asics gel lyte iii crane france
www0915
converse trainer
clarks shoes
dsquared2
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
red bottom shoes
mbt shoes
jordan shoes
jordans
nike outlet
WWW1017
issey miyake
kate spade outlet
moncler outlet
ed hardy uk
louboutin shoes
pandora outlet
air max 90
michael kors outlet
adidas clothing
pandora jewelry
Post a Comment
<< Home