Ann Coulter 4/11

Good Christ! What a load of horseshit! Does she think that liberals sit around scheming about ways to turn the U.S. into a communist dictatorship ruled by our "hero" Bill Clinton? She seems to think that everyone on the left is an evil, satanic being who wishes to live in Pol Pot's Cambodia? Newsflash: I'm a left-winger and I don't like the following people: Bill Clinton, Fidel Castro, Jean Chretien (My Prime Minist and, gasp, leader of the Canadian Liberal Party).

I think you and Ann Coulter need a big dose of objectivity. Bullshit comes from everywhere on the political spectrum, from Michael Moore to Rush Limbaugh. She (and you) seem to have some sort of belief in the absolute infallibility of all things conservative. You also seem to believe in this woman in the same manner that she thinks liberals adore Bubba and I can't say I think that's a very good characteristic.

I'm saying that it appears as if you will agree with all things conservative. I think that's dangerous and doesn't make much sense. I mean that article is stupid and I don't see how any logical person could agree with it. She basically claims that all liberals/left-wingers think the exact same way and that's total bullshit.

I'm off for the night. This better not devolve into the 'non-productive' discussion-type, at which I seem to be so gifted.

*Leaves a flaming bag of poop on call's doorstep*

Yea but agreeing with everything Liberal is just as dangerous my friend. Thats why I am Independent.

And once again this is why I think the current party system should be dissolved because of how ridiculous both parties have become. Why don't we just open up the the House and have ourselves a little Battle Royale....aye?

Ahh...the Italian Parliament model eh?

If Michael Schumacher had compromised last year he'd have never been World Champion.

Compromise is what people call for when negotiating from a position of weakness.

From your posts, Call, especially from the Ann Coulter posts, it sounds like your beliefs are actually based on the National Enquirer version of conservatism. I don't think you should worry too much about betraying those beliefs, because they have already betrayed you (a bit dramatic, I know). The same goes for liberals who bite into the same kind of anti-conservative propaganda. Why do people let these talking heads think for them? They turn politics into the WWF. And they are paid to do it! I don't think I'll ever understand. Fuck the talking heads.

Anyway, free your mind, and your ass will follow. I think Lincoln said that.

That's what many a Nazi said as well.

Call, toeing the party line like a blind lemming means you never ever have to think for yourself, something which apparently frightens you to some degree.

Are you saying conservatives are always right? And everyone else is wrong? That's playground politics. Life is never that black and white.

According to your beauty thread, this 'beauty' would explain the rather vacuous nature of her ramblings.

There are no hard facts in that article to counter. Her snide tone and lack of sources make that article about as debatable as a Dave Barry piece.

Hey now, don't knock Dave Barry...

Need I say more? This woman spews shite with the best of them.

You're kidding, Call, right?

Could you please explain to me why "Liberals so love Castro's Cuba, the last Great White Hope for a socialist paradise, they sometimes forget that being an anti-communist is not generally regarded as a terrorist act." is not a baseless accusation? I consider myself to be a left-winger, but I'm not a socialist or a communist. Me, Bubba and Castro don't get together in Havana to smoke some cigars and talk about our love of dictatorships. That article is basically making up ridiculous claims about liberals and does nothing but stereotype.

Just to note here, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being conservative , I just think this particular brand of conservatism is bad news. I also dislike when liberals automatically assume all conservatives are the same, not to mention evil. NO ONE shares all the same opinions and I think it's stupid and ignorant to pretend that everyone who leans to a certain side of the political spectrum thinks the exact same way.

Well, I hardly meant for that comment to be taken seriously.

But a ballgag would definitely be in order.

If you insist call, but be wary, one cannot dissect every Ann Coulter which is thrust upon these boards. A lot of what she has to say is pure opinion—poorly stated, if you ask me—and no more debatable than how many boulders Sisyphus urged over hills in Hades. In fact, if one does more than dismiss her writings, and pursues her fundementalist logic(thus validating such logic) with good argument, there is a risk of becoming much like Sisyphus himself. I’ll try anyway.

Ann Coulter:

You know you've lived a good life when both Fidel Castro (news - web sites) and Bill Clinton mutter your name in disgust. If Vlad the Impaler knew about Orlando Bosch, he'd have belched out Bosch's name, too.

Here she relates to Bill Clinton, Vlad the Impaler, and Fidel Castro as equals. This extreme view is akin to seeing Ariel Sharon as a modern-day Napoleon; a pudgy general bent on creating a vainglorius empire. It is not a valid viewpoint. Amusing at best.

Just a few months ago, Fidel Castro was regaling an audience in Havana's Plaza de la Revolucion with tales of Bosch's perfidy. In the sort of crisp, punchy speaking style that draws millions to hear him (nearly as much as the threat of execution), Castro compared Bosch to the Sept. 11 terrorists. Bosch, Castro said, was the perpetrator of a "monstrous terrorist act."

Castro is a dictator. He is not a difficult person to be critical of. The fact that Castro does not like a person does not make that person good. This seems rather pointless.

Or is it...

Similarly,

Poor choice of words. Castro is not similar to Clinton. Or is this intentional?

Clinton invoked Bosch's name recently while being interviewed for Newsweek's Clinton Rehabilitation Project. Angrily describing ruckus over his fire sale on presidential pardons, Clinton sneered: "I swore I wouldn't answer questions about Marc Rich (news - web sites) until (former president) Bush answered about Orlando Bosch."

It appears neither Clinton nor Castro appreciate this Bosch character. Is this an attempt to show the two men in the same light(along with Vlad the Impaler), or an expose on the ‘wrongly convicted’ Orlando Bosch—up on charges trumped-up, no doubt, by Liberals in Washington? Still, at this point, one can only wonder.

(Note that Clinton's position is that the Rich pardon "wasn't worth the damage to my reputation" -- which was unblemished until then. Rich deserved a pardon, but if he had to do it over again, Clinton would have withheld the pardon solely to protect his own reputation.)

Obviously, one should be familiar with political goings-on in America in order to truly appreciate Ann Coulter. Unless this is an article about Clinton, we should not be creating distracting arguments, with which to draw favour from Clinton-despising readers. This is illusory information. So far this should be an expository on Orlando Bosch.

In the honest reporting Americans have come to expect from the mainstream media, Newsweek went on to explain that Bosch -- quote -- "blew up an airliner in 1976, killing 73, and was freed from jail in 1990 by then-President Bush (news - web sites) under pressure from his son Jeb and Cuban exiles."

The American media is dishonest. A bold claim which merits it’s own in-depth expose, with research. Non-the-less, she may have a point. I read the British press. The entire American media establishment—with the exception of Ms. Coulter’s associates, one presumes—is dishonest. This should be realted to Mr. Bosch's case.

On the basis of the Newsweek account, one might think that Bosch blew up an airliner in 1976, killing 73, and was freed from jail in 1990 by then-President Bush under pressure from his son Jeb and Cuban exiles.

If Newsweek made such a false claim—one would need to read the entire Newsweek article, in order to provide context—without proper research, one may come to these conclusions, and Newsweek could be accused of inproper journalism. On the other hand, Ms. Coulder could be oversimplifying with a dated quote from an opinion editorial. In which case, she could be accused of inproper journalism.

Is this a media attack, or a Bosch defence, or an attack on Liberals?

In fact, Bosch was cleared of any connection to the airline bombing. Twice. In Venezuelan courts.

Considering the Venezuelan president was recently usurped by the people, for corruption, one may make particular judgements about the merits of Venezuelan courts. This does not, however, prove Mr. Bosch guilty. Though I doubt Ms. Coulter’s is writing a thrilling exposé on the wrongfully-convicted Bosch; rather, she is using this as a clever premise for attacking people she does not see eye-to-eye with.

When not trying to rehabilitate Clinton, liberals wail that Venezuelan courts are human-rights violators more malignant than Ken Starr.

This is more of a whine than anything. One would be prudent to criticise the courts of a country which, amongst other things, harbours drug lords, and has a State Oil Monopoly(read: communist).

Yet it was Venezuela's criminal justice system that produced two acquittals for Bosch -- in both civilian and military courts.

People have recieved multiple trials in Chinese courts, and I’d like to see Ms. Coulter write a defence of that legal system. The number of trials one recieves has little realtion to the quality of those trials. This a non-sequitur. Professionals, of any sort, should avoid making this most basic of logical errors. It is hard to take someone who peppers their fugues with these errors seriously.

It took DNA evidence and a score of witnesses for liberals to stop shouting "allegedly" about Clinton's crimes.

Liberals to stop shouting about Clinton’s crimes? I assume she means Bosch. Perhaps she should edit her writing before publishing it.

(note: on a CHUD post, this would be rightly called nit-picking. For self-appointed professionals, such commentary is valid.).

But an anti-Castro Cuban is deemed guilty even of the crimes of which he has been formally acquitted. Twice. In Venezuela.

I’m now totally unclear. Is Ms. Coulter attempting to exhonerate(with an in-depth, well researched expose, one could only hope) Mr. Bosch, or using the illusory premise of his ‘unjust’ branding to bash people she does not agree with.

Bosch's only known violent crime -- admittedly not proved with DNA evidence and a score of witnesses, but found by a jury nevertheless -- was to fire a rifle at a Polish ship docked off of Miami in 1968. No one was hurt and the ship was only slightly damaged, making it a more successful operation than John F. Kennedy's Bay of Pigs invasion.

An attack on the Bay of Pigs fiasco—noteably, she attributes much of the blame to President Kennedy, who undoubtedly planned the whole thing himself—and a point, that Mr. Bosch has only been convicted of firing a rifle at a Polish ship in 1968(when DNA evidence did not exist.

Fair enough, but one should provide more than token ‘evidence’ prove Mr. Bosch’s innocence, and one’s aritcle's validity. The clear objective of her article remains unclear.

But, inexplicably, it is a crime to fire a rifle at communist freighters headed to Cuba.

In a civilized country one Should frown upon the firing of rifles willy-nilly. Whether the targets belong to communists—Poland, by-the-way, was never really happy as communist country. Aboard that boat, amusingly, were human beings, some of whom may have loved freedom as much as your average American—or not.

For his one crime -- taking a shot at the Polish ship -- The New York Times labeled Bosch "one of the hemisphere's most notorious terrorists." (The other being Ken Starr.)

Again, a crack at those she disagrees with takes precedence—text at the end of a thought has the greatest effect on a readers mind. Perhaps Ms. Coulter knows this—over the supposed innocent she is trying to defend.

Was it not for his supposed destruction of an airliner that the Times labelled him—correctly—notorius?

A non-point and an empty attack.

Liberals so love Castro's Cuba, the last Great White Hope for a socialist paradise, they sometimes forget that being an anti-communist is not generally regarded as a terrorist act.

If Ann Coulter had researched her article, she would know that Castro’s "socialist hope" is a Communist dictatorship, and thus that all ‘Liberal’s’ hope for a Communist dictatorship; not a socialist paradise.

Bosch was paroled in 1974, but soon violated his parole by fleeing rather than testifying against a fellow anti-Castro Cuban. When Linda Tripp made a different choice about testifying against a friend, the Times didn't like that either. You can't win with these liberals.

Other than Label the New York Times as Liberal, she has done little to defend the premise of her argument; the exhonoration of Orlando Bosch, since he’s innocent. This does not bode well for an article, nearing its conclusion, that has done little other than bash those of a differing opinion.

After being held in Venezuelan jails for a decade while being (repeatedly) found innocent by Venezuelan courts, Bosch flew to Miami, turned himself in, and served three months in prison for his earlier parole violation.

This tells us that Venezualan jails are not as nice as American jails.

But instead of releasing him, Attorney General Dick Thornburgh decided to deport Bosch in order to make room for Muslim terrorists interested in attending flight school. Surprisingly enough, the only country itching to admit Bosch was Cuba. So in 1990, when Bosch was in his 60s, the Bush Justice Department (news - web sites) released him from a deportation holding cell with the proviso(Ms. Coulter has larger vocabulary than I gave her credit for) that he renounce violence and wear an electronic ankle bracelet for monitoring by federal agents.

Good for them. This is the only good paragraph in this piece so far. It provides information without brazen commentary to distract from its goal; to provide the reader with information. Don’t think it’s good by any standards but Ms. Couler’s own though. As an expository paragraph, it’s mediocre at best. Fair writing none the less.

The New York Times hysterically denounced the decision to release Bosch, claiming that Bosch was "known" for bombings.

Not to fall for the trap of sensible writing, Ms. Coulter deftly evades credibility and denouces the NY Times as ‘hysterical’.

The man is known for bombings, which he may or may not be guilty of. He’s an uncertain. The Times is right to be mildly hysterical.

With slightly more plausibility, Bill Clinton is "known" for murdering Vince Foster.

Yet again, is this article about Bill Clinton, or Mr. Bosch? or both men, though any real connections—aside from the Bill thinks he’s guilty one—are vague.

The Times also accused Bosch of being "a hero in the anti-Castro communities." If liberals hated homicidal Muslim fanatics half as much as they hate anti-communist Cubans, all of America would finally be behind the war on terrorism.

Times is Liberal ,Liberals hate anti-communists, and Liberals are soft on terrorism. What has this to do with Bosch or Clinton? These are seperate issues. Most of this article is hot air, blown at the percieved "dark force" which pervades the black and white world of Ann Coulter.

After Clinton skulked out of the White House with the silverware and pardon bribe money in his pocket, there were a dozen articles written by Clinton's most devoted media pets citing the dread case of Orlando Bosch, Terrorist.

And on it goes.

Bosch should probably be happy the Clinton Rehabilitation Project isn't calling him a stalker.

Bosch recieves a token of support for allowing Ann to use his case in Bashing Liberals and Bill Clinton.

Call, there is little article which can be taken seriously. It is horrible writing. If you wonder why people dismiss this as tripe, which it is, perhaps you can see why; Ann Coulter uses a supposedly ‘innocent’ anti-communist's case to take pot-shots at people she doesn’t agree with: Bill Clinton and ‘Liberals’. Her critcisms are seldom backed, and what is backed pertains to the straw-man Bosch, and not the labels she so liberally gives.

The world needs critics on both sides of political fence, but Ann Coulter is not a critic. She is windbag. A windbag who contributes no valid commentary in a three-page essay, only numerous generalizations which polarize already schismatic issues. Such mendacity can be found eminating from blowhards on both sides of the political divide, on any issue. And fanning the flames is not limited to habitual trolls; we all feel an urge to find a bridge to hide under, from time to time. But Ann Coulter consistently produces empty crap. She always seeks to dived things into two categories; that which she can righteously defend, and that which she may unfoundedly slander. To this extent she is charlatan. A false critic. A quack amongst social commetators, assisted by the toads who print her social ointments and proclaim them curing, and perpetuated by the dupes who buy these acrid balms.

[edited today because the boards wigged last-night]

Even assuming this Coulter person, or "person" as call puts it, is right on all counts...so what? Is her article relevant to anything important at all? I'm looking for a point to this article and I don't see it.

Exactly. The article is a series of empty attacks signifying nothing. Of course, I needed four pages to make that point.

[quote]call7001:
It's a cliche because it's true, Call. Blind obediance to a party line and swallowing hook, line and sinker whatever your conservative compatriots tell you to believe is what many a Nazi were guilty of. Sorry if it hits a little close to home.

And by the way, Call, I'm not trying to single you out or start a flame war or anything. I'm just saying that painting conservatives with a blameless brush only backs you into a difficult to defend corner.

Cheers.

Most liberals are free-thinkers. Most conservatives adhere rigidly to the party line.

Do you really think this is true? Or is this just a subtle way of boosting your ego, you free-thinker you?

Burke, CALL was the one advocating strict adherance to a party line. Read his posts.

Myself, I'm "liberal" on some issues and "conservative" on others. It usually depends on how much I've had to drink.

On the subject of Ann Coulter...

Woman has a lot of positives going for her. She's a woman in a male-dominated field, she's a conservative in a liberal-dominated field, she's a leggy blonde (some might say beautiful, but I wouldn't go that far) in a field populated by Helen Thomas look-a-likes, she's religious in a profession that tends to disdain religion, she comes off as passionate and intelligent in person...

but...

her writing stinks. Yes, it does. It's bad, and now that she has become a conservative icon, I can't see it getting any better. Look objectively at the article at the top of this thread.
Does it inform? Not really. I knew nothing of Bosch before, and I'm not sure I could have an intelligent conversation about him now.
Was it funny? I guess so, in a Dave Barry kind of subtle cleverness. The insults and hyperboles are Begala-esque which smart readers can note do nothing to enhance one's position on a subject or issue.
Yes Ann, I realize that the editors of Newsweek wish that they had been the ones under the desk in the Oval Office. But that attack-truth doesn't really fit the point of your article. Every article she writes seems like an episode of Seinfeld, in which you throw 'x' amount of balls in the air and try to keep juggling them until, miraculously, you bring them all together at the finish. Coulter, never seems to pull it off.

(Doesn't mean I disagree with her politically. I just prefer a more talented writer, like Peggy Noonan.)

Call didn't say that. Call said that "he" has a set of beliefs that he follows. I assume most of those beliefs are conservative in nature, but nowhere does he say that he agrees on all popular conservative positions (though he might).

I guess what he should have said was "after free-thinking for a while, I found a set of positions on issues that were important to me. My positions seemed to fit in nicely with another group of free-thinking individuals, who had also come to similar conclusions."

(edited for ubb error)

Adam, excellent post. Call, if you continuously post articles like Coulter's expect people not to be happy...they are very offensive to people who lean more towards the left.

I imagine writing like hers is offensive to all thinking folks. She has a template - barely had to squeeze in her own words.

Vince Foster? Check.

Blow jobs? Check.

Stealing silverware from the White House? Check.

I guess this shit has the same soothing effect as a nursery rhyme. Here's what you want to hear, over and over and over and over and over.

Bad brain! Go to sleep. Complexity. Fuck it.

Why is the Left so easily offended?

<img src="http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/02/25/tomo/story.jpg" alt="" />

"Thinking folks"? So people of the right-leaning political persuasion do not think?

Faaaascinating.

What the fuck, Kronos? You took that out of context. I suggested that people that absorb her words - Ann Coulter's words - no questions asked are non-thinkers. Never did I say ALL people of the "right-leaning political persuasion" were non-thinkers. You reacted instead of comprehending.

Traaaaaaaagic.

Goddamn, brother. Do you pay Limbaugh and company royalties?

Kevin, what does this statement mean?

Her writing isn't that offensive to many people of the right persuasion. But it seems to be offensive to many of those of the left persuasion.

Ergo, the term "thinking folks" is logically assumed to mean those of the left persuasion.

I reacted such that I happen to consider myself one of the "thinking folks", and as such I am not offended by her writing.

Not "all thinking folks" are offended.

Oh, and the template thing is common among such writers as Maureen Dowd.

No matter where you place yourself, or how you categorize yourself or label yourself, in no way do you speak for all conservatives or people of the "right persuasion" (silly term, by the way). In my opinion, writing like this, like Ann Coulter's, is strictly pretend-land. It's semi-colorful junk that most certainly pays her bills and nets her attention. She is either incapable of writing actuality, or know it bores, so she writes National Enquirer-like pieces. I'm not up for this kind of writing on any side - anything that waters-down and distracts from reality. If you are up for it, you've turned off the old brain. Not too late, though. There's still hope - and I'm not talking about flipping political parties. Just stop listening to the talking heads.

So simple.

Heh heh heh...I gotcha.

And actually, I don't go out of my way to read her...

And and...most columnists bore the hell out of me anyhow.

Quite frankly I spend more time on my mountain bike nowadays than I do even worrying about World Events. Somehow things seem so far away when I'm out in the dirt.

I only have a certain disagreement with the idea that Freedom can be exported. You cannot export Freedom. People no matter where they are yearn for basic Freedom. It is not in human nature to accept bondage of any kind(sexual kind notwithstanding).

It's like the water behind a dam. Once the dam is broken the water flows freely.

The dam is big Government.

However: The banks of the river where the water flows are more like what a Government should be.

Simple.

Assuming your definitions are solid, they don't account for the actions of either political party or their leaders. Gingrich divorcing his dying wife as a PR move is decent? Deciding inefficient vehicles are better than efficient ones is logical? Crusades against musicians and now video game authors represents a respect for freedom? I don't think either party practices what they preach; whether I agree with what they preach or not isn't the issue. What the labeled parties claim to represent is immaterial in light of what they actually do, so their plans and ideals and principles, regardless of how well intentioned and/or correct, are rapidly becoming worthless.

My premier - theirs, really; I wouldn't vote Ralph Klein in as dogcatcher - can claim to be a man of the people all he wants, but when power deregulation results in nothing but fourfold price increases and he does nothing to reverse his decision, I say he's lying. His claims mean precisely fuck all. I view your politicians much the same way. What they say may or may not make sense. Usually it's given so much spin they end up saying nothing at all. In any case, what they do rarely if ever makes any sense.

I think your definitions are a bit off, by the way. I'd probably be considered a liberal fellow despite the lack of turtleneck and goatee, but I'm still a big fan of logic and reason. And results. I'm into results too. F'rinstance: I'm not an advocate of socialized healthcare because socialism is good, I'm an advocate because your system costs way, way too much and leaves 42 million people without health insurance. Our system covers everyone and doesn't result in $2000 bottles of painkillers. If you can come up with a system, private or public, that fills the holes in your current system, go for it. Living with $40/month insurance premiums (one HMO really cuts down on administration) works for me, though. I can also name a few conservatives who advocated some pretty bloody actions in the wake of a now-famous terrorist attack. Is that not an emotional reaction?

But I digress. It's not about the labels, it's not about the definitions. It's about the results. I assure you I'd be just as baffled by a Democrat telling me efficiency is bad as by a Republican, and if the local conservatives came up with a good platform, I'd vote for it.

Sorry if this seems incoherent, but I was called away about six times while posting it. I think I kept my train of thought, but I'm not sure.

Not at all: it's the thoughts. Anyone who advocates executions as object lessons or mass conversions of other sovereign populations to Christianity, in a newspaper, no less, deserves a punch in the nose.

Don't tell me what pisses me off, I'm quite capable of figuring that one out for myself.