She says no one can attack the NJ widows. Well, she is attacking them, and she is getting more attention than they ever did.

Hmmmmm….The Jersey Girls are involved in Congressional investigations, but you say Coulter got more attention?

The Jersey Girls get book and movie offers, but Coulter makes the NYT Best Seller List due to her own hard work.

Yet the Left doesn’t attack Coulter’s arguement. No. They are more concerned her challenge to the Jersey Harpies and whether or not she eats enough.

They are not, they are just women who lost their husbands and want answers.

Which is why they shouldn’t be challenged when they publically endorse the Mr. Flip-Flop. Wasn’t that Coulter’s point?

She says they are using 9/11 to advance their political agenda. Everyone does that…

Uh….no. Everyone does not. There were more victim’s survivors than just the Jersey Girls. Anyone remember seeing them on TV and getting the same kind of press coverage? Of all the thousands of victims survivors, the only ones to get any press to speak of are the ones who blame Bush for 9/11.

….including Bush and Coulter.

I find it interesting that its OK for the Democrats to use 9/11 imagery and the Jersey Girls’ celebrity victim status to promote John Kerry, but Democrat-affiliated groups such as September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows demanded that the Republicans remove all ads that included any reference to 9/11 “used for partisan political gain.” Again, one of Coulter’s points.

Its the double standard that’s bogus. You just don’t like Coulter pointing it out.

.

She knows she would get no notice of her bogus arguments if she didn’t use outrageous language. That’s why she does it.

This is typical liberal argument technique when they can’t debate an issue: Make a generality with no substance (and make fun of the person’s appearance). What argument of hers is specifically “bogus”?

If anyone wants a great read on liberal techniques in arguing (besides viciously attacking a person’s appearance, i.e their dress), check out George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language.”

http://bnpandme.blogspot.com/2006/06/ann-coulter-ultimate-thinking-mans.html

http://americanthinker.com/comments_print.php?comments_id=5668

Anyway, since I came up with this silly ass idea of mine, I suppose I might as well cast the first “vote.”

Well, my vote would fall very much in line with what Allahpundit says.

Don’t worry Allahpundit! I am a member of the “vast, silent majority!” ;-) Or maybe not. Whatever.

I disagree. Can anyone show me where Ann has intentionally lied and intentionally misrepresent the facts of a case to make her point?

I never said Ann was a liar. Nor did I say that Mike al-Moor isn’t. I can’t think of a case where Ann said something I know to be false. I can think of plenty of times when Moore did so.

So, the left side of the equation is partial to lying. We know this. That doesn’t impact what I said.

Think about it: He is acting the exact way liberals act when they dislike the substance of a conservative argument by ad hominem attacks: She dresses bad; she is pale; she is reactionary, she is too mean and nasty. . .

If you want to see mean and nasty, see what libs act like when they are in power. Just take a look at your average college professor or socialist dictator.

That’s her whole point in her “New Jersey girls” and “raghead” comments. There are certain things or persons that libs have made “infallible” and no one can criticize them or make fun of them. She is purposely pushing the status quo and should be commended for it.

It is scary how the now very common “sensitivity training” and “diversity training” by corporations and county, state, and federal government departments affect people. People literally start quivering if they are to say anything that appears to make them look racist in the view of liberals.

This has real repercussions, such as AllahPundit’s fear of Ann Counter or the FBI’s fear of saying the shooting at the Jewish center was terrorism or local police department fears of upseting illegal aliens or liberal pressure groups.

Thank God Ann Counter does not fear liberals.

Do you have any references to Coulter actually making a remark similar to “chink?”

No – “raghead” doesn’t count, particularly if that’s the only comment you can find. First, it’s a time honored-tradition to dehumanize the enemy; I don’t consider people using terms like Jap and Kraut in 1942 to be racist. “Raghead” carries a similar imprimatur now. Second, well, if you call yourself “Allahpundit” you don’t get to call people racist for using “raghead.” Them’s the breaks.

So – has Ann ACTUALLY used a term like “chink?” (And since when is Michelle from China? But I digress …) Or are you actually referring to her more infamous statements like those I listed above?

Because THOSE, obviously, are hyperbole, and not remotely comparable to gratuitously calling someone a “chink.”

Fess up, Allah. You just don’t like her. Nothing wrong with that. I can’t stand Bill O’Reilly. Plenty of conseratives dig him. But just like liberals … you’re hating style over substance. And putting words in her mouth.

And no – calling Dukakis a Greek midget doesn’t count either. Because he’s a Greek midget.

And Vanya … if you think liberals don’t use Coulter’s over-the-top rhetoric to avoid discussing the content of her argument, you need to pass that Kool-Aid you’re guzzling. It’s probably very yummy and awful strong.

The the most apt comparison I’ve heard casts Ann as the right’s Mike al-Moor. Both are polemicists, both throw bombs sure to be collected by the other side as evidence of derangement, both make gobs of money, and both refuse to back down for a second. But they also make ideology cool for cats by “keeping it real” and “speaking truth to power” and being all “edgy” and upsetting the established orthodoxy. Neither of them is saying anything terribly unique. Their popularity is entirely due to the sizzle.

I disagree. Can anyone show me where Ann has intentionally lied and intentionally misrepresent the facts of a case to make her point?

.

Let’s face it: You can’t shock Mom and Dad by bringing home a record that says naughty things anyomore. But if your ‘rents are granola crunchers and you come home from university for the weekend and drop a copy of “Godless” on the dining room table, you’ve got yourself a conversation starter.

It’s infotainment with an emphasis on the ‘tainment and as long as people keep buying it, they’re gonna keep selling it. Might as well get used to it.

Scary thought of the day: What if MM and AC procreated?

Video from the Beeb with Ann and Jeremy Paxman here.

Go Ann! I love your work, but try to find some time to eat something.

.

referring to a Muslim as a raghead or blogging in the persona of his god. Which do you suppose he would find more disgusting and offensive.

I’m sure you’d get different answers from different people. If you ask any Muslims, make sure you remind them of AC’s “convert them all to Christianity” comment too. See what they say then.

Video: Matthews and Coulter bicker for eight minutes on Hardball     When a member of the audience tries to defend her, he gets cut off.   ……

Allah, let’s say you have a choice of whether FBI personnel, over a dozen toddlers in a day care center etc…die or Krugman, Dowd, Sultzberger, Rich, Friedman, etc…die. Now, one or the other has to die. Which would you choose?

So someone has to die, huh? There’s no option where Ann just shuts her fat mouth or else wishes that McVeigh had been caught before the bombing or had never gone the crazy militia route or had quietly killed himself instead of 168 other people?

It’s not just the Times quote, either. It’s the stuff about Justice Stevens being poisoned. And the stupidity about Clinton being a homo. And the raghead remark at CPAC — which, I hate to remind you, Michelle also criticized her for. Etc etc.

Don’t pretend you don’t understand. Ann was chiding the obtuse Matthews for harping on words and phrases while ignoring the ideas that they were used in constructing.

So it’d be okay with you guys if I start referring to her on the blog as Ann “Cunt” Coulter? As long as my arguments are sound, you’ll give me a pass on that? I promise you: it would not be okay with Michelle. Some writers are a bit more careful about what they actually write than others, I guess.

What I suspect Allah is actually getting at is the thing that bothers me about Coulter – and that is that by GIVING the left these little soundbites, she gives them a way to wiggle around her actual message.

Well, no, not really. I object to them on their own terms. Imagine if some liberal blogger referred to Michelle as a “chink” (which really doesn’t require much imagination) and was taken to task for it by a second liberal blogger — but only on grounds that it gives conservatives a way to “wiggle around” their message. Would you be satisfied with that criticism? I wouldn’t. The logic of it, implicitly, is that vile sentiments are appropriate so long as the other side can’t exploit them for political gain.

What makes her comments disgusting isn’t that liberals benefit from them. What makes them disgusting is that they’re disgusting.

I too am a bit perplexed with Allah’s irrational obsession with Ann and her NYT comment.

I concur … with all due respect to Allah (May Pizza Be Upon Him).

This taking one remark and focusing on it while ignoring the content and context is … well, so stereotypical of leftist politics.

What I suspect Allah is actually getting at is the thing that bothers me about Coulter – and that is that by GIVING the left these little soundbites, she gives them a way to wiggle around her actual message.

I don’t want her to change much. Keep the ascerbic wit and scathing sarcasm. But once she uses ridiculous hyperbole, even though EVERYBODY knows its hyperbole, liberals will jump on it … to avoid honest debate.

“Let’s invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity…”

“Blow up the NYT’s building …”

“… enjoying their husband’s deaths …”

Those comments may get attention and sell books, but they also give liberals a get out of jail free card. It gives them permission not to take her seriously. And sadly, 20 years from now they’ll STILL be repeating those lines, no matter what she does in the meantime.

Take away just THOSE kinds of comments, and Coulter becomes a razor sharp and narrowly focused weapon shining the light of truth on liberalism.

So quit giving liberals what they want – and need.

That’s all I want from Ann.

And – putting words in his mouth, so I may be wrong – I’m guessing that’s where Allah’s coming from.

It’s frustrating to see Coulter be SO right SO much of the time, yet see interviews just like this one … where Chrissy “I Squat to Pee” Matthews is able to dance away from the substance and attack irrevant comments.

And for the record, all of the above is why our own Michelle could potentially be a far more effective conservative spokesperson; in fact, she already is – or would be if she had the same level of exposure.

Plus, Michelle is cuter. But that’s sexist.

“I used to f*** guys like you in prison”

Now that’s funny …

Allah, let’s say you have a choice of whether FBI personnel, over a dozen toddlers in a day care center etc…die or Krugman, Dowd, Sultzberger, Rich, Friedman, etc…die. Now, one or the other has to die. Which would you choose?

I’m assuming you’ll skirt the question so in reality it’s just rhetorical.