Ann Coulter

[Rick]

I never knew who Ann Coulter was before until someone mentioned her to me.

1FKF4Z36hyQ

[Rick]

2wnPHFSdrME

[Rick]

BPGu-7PjIp0

[Rick]

Interesting stuff... I can't figure out if it's satire or if she's serious.

[Rick]

MebGHNai8hE

[Rick]

6xYcUQiJ3sk

[Rick]

7Ws_bXU6Rjk

[Rick]

1YyjrhvmDM8

[Rick]

4aiHbUplz3k

[Rick]

nveiuLxc9Eo

[Martin Lenick]

For those that are interested, try some in their entire context: http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ann+Coulter

[Martin Lenick]

McCain??? Here's Coulter's latest take on the senator:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24635

[Rick]

Waterboarding? Is that like surf boarding or wake boarding? :confused:

[Adam Andrea]

McCain??? Here's Coulter's latest take on the senator:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24635

"I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska."

We need a marriage amendment? I don't think McCain opposed waterboarding terrorists either. He opposed waterboarding in general. Just another expert job of spinning the facts. All of the voting-record criticism she throws at him in that article presupposes that he voted against all of those laws and resolutions based on their alleged primary goal. Thanks to pork barrel projects and stealth funding, pundits have never-ending fodder like that. A senator could vote against a resolution to fund grade schools because 1/3 of the funding in it was directed towards completely unrelated pet projects, and Ann Coulter will say you're against education.

Ann, I'd wear sunglasses during interviews too, if I had to look people in the eye and say the things you do. Stick to writing books. That way nobody in this country will hear you.

[Rick]

Good points Adam! :clap:

[Martin Lenick]

At long last, a worthy adversary.
I'll have to take some time to prepare a response - asshole.:)

[Martin Lenick]

Adam,

I apologize for tagging “asshole” to the end of my previous post – it seemed funny at the time and no insult was intended. I hope you know I have a lot of respect for you.

“Do we need a marriage amendment?”
Maybe

Special dispensation is granted to the legally married. This was not implemented solely to promote what was once important to our culture, but to alleviate the burden of the sole-provider paying twice in supporting the stay-at-home mom. Today, more and more, both “partners” in a marriage are earning an income – the argument that “I’m married, I deserve benefits” is incomplete. Marriage benefits should be replaced with “stay-at-home mom or dad or mom #2 or dad #2 benefits, at best. This does nothing to promote what was once important to our culture, but the “values of cultural diversity” is a whole different debate.

“Water boarding”
You can’t say that Senator McCain didn't oppose water boarding of terrorists if he opposes water boarding in general. If he opposes water boarding in general he opposes water boarding of terrorists, sushi chefs, carpenters, race-car drivers and librarians. It just so happens that among those and others we’re really only after the terrorists. If you’re worried about the “slippery slope” let’s approve “water boarding of terrorists only.” This wasn’t spin, it was being succinct.

“…pork…”
I agree with you in that many pundits will exploit a politician’s votes against important bills when, due to strong principle, the crap beneath warranted sacrifice of that to which it was attached. However, Senator McCain’s voting record and membership to the “gang of 14” does not reflect a conservative ideology. Ironically, he is (and I appreciate him for it) a strong supporter of the line-item veto.

On the less-than-serious side, if Ann Coulter sticks to writing books (all but one of which have been New York Times best-sellers) lots more people will hear her.

[Patrick Gettings]

I believe the latest episode of the boondocks "The S-Word" answers the poll question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_S-Word_%28The_Boondocks%29

[Martin Lenick]

Hello, Patrick, glad to see you back on the forum. When are you going to come racing with us again? MotoBob is looking for a 200-lapper teammate.

Contrary to Adam's implications, Ann Coulter gets us thinking and talking. Too bad it's often continued in her confrontational manner. Ah, heck, why not? The "Ann Coulter is a money-grubbing liberal posing to be a conservative" theory is easier to accept than the "wow, she's a rude but conservative way-sharper-than us" theory. (That was an intentional jab; I don't really think all liberals are dimwitted, I haven't met all of them). Do what Adam encourages and read her books (well, he didn't encourage it, he just said she should stick to writing books) and I think you'll find she's not acting. At least this current theory has displaced that of which she is actually a man. Read this article and, without guilt, tell me it's a sham.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=229

[Patrick Gettings]

I've been on the road basically since October so I haven't had much free time for karting. I think I am gonna try and do an A&D sometime this weekend. As for a 200 lapper, I would be interested just would need to check the schedule etc.

[Adam Andrea]

Adam,
I apologize for tagging “asshole” to the end of my previous post – it seemed funny at the time and no insult was intended. I hope you know I have a lot of respect for you.

Actually, that was my favorite part.

Adam,
“Water boarding”
You can’t say that Senator McCain didn't oppose water boarding of terrorists if he opposes water boarding in general. If he opposes water boarding in general he opposes water boarding of terrorists, sushi chefs, carpenters, race-car drivers and librarians. It just so happens that among those and others we’re really only after the terrorists. If you’re worried about the “slippery slope” let’s approve “water boarding of terrorists only.” This wasn’t spin, it was being succinct.

I'm responding to this argument first, because I anticipated it :). If you're arguing being succinct, she could have omitted "of terrorists" and saved herself a couple words.

What she said is a blatant example of misrepresentation or skewing the truth by only disclosing a part of it. You could see what she said as logically true, but it would still be completely misleading. The whole purpose for specifying only "terrorists" was to be paint the picture in a misleading way. Can you think of two or more black people that you dislike? Then I'd be logically correct in saying "you dislike black people." It's logically true, but it's obvious what impression it's intended to convey.

However, Coulter's statement is different from my example in a very important way. "John McCain opposes waterboarding of terrorists" isn't even a necessary logical corollary of "John McCain opposes waterboarding in general." You're confusing the opposition of waterboarding in general with the opposition of all instances of waterboarding. It's clearer if I just put it this way: It could be that John McCain is all for the water boarding of terrorists, but he voted against the bill because of the fact that we cannot be certain that everyone we water board is a terrorist in the first place.

Regarding water boarding itself:

The whole idea that we can set aside our principles when it so suits us is completely inconsistent with the very idea of a principle. One argument in support of water boarding: It yields information that can save lives. This argument entirely misses the point. Unreasonable searches and siezures yield information that can save lives. Torture yields information that can save lives. The point is what you are sacrificing to gain this advantage. We prohibit unreasonable searches and siezures because they are viewed an impermissible violation of the right to privacy under the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't apply to enemy combatants, but supposedly basic principles of human dignity and respect still do. This is why shotguns, chemical and biological weapons are banned in warfare. The less regard we give human life, the less we are fighting for in the first place? We may not afford enemy combatants the same rights as citizens of our country, but we afford them something.

How do we decide what enemy combatants are entitled to? We know that we shouldn't torture them, but how do we decide what torture is, or whether water boarding is torture? The basic definition of torture is the infliction of extreme physical pain. It's argued that water boarding doesn't directly inflict physical pain. It is argued that the effect is entirely psychological. Don't mistake this to mean that it doesn't result in pain: It triggers an involuntary response, causing the gag reflex to kick in, and almost invariably, violent struggling to dislodge the water-soaked gag. In many cases it does result in extreme physical pain: Torn muscles and even broken bones due to involuntary writhing, permanent brain damage from oxygen deprivation, and in some instances, death.

But you don't even have to take my word for it. The Bush administration hired Daniel Levin to make a determination of whether or not water boarding was torture. He determined that it in fact was torture, and was promptly fired. You could not ask for a clearer example of using the ends to justify the means.

---

My personal opinion is that infliction of extreme pain is only part of what constitutes torture. In my opinion, making someone fear that their life is being taken away, whether by killing them or permanently disabling them, is also torture. Even if you disagree with me, and would not classify that as torture, the question of whether we should allow it still stands. The label is unimportant. It is the principles behind what we choose to prohibit that should concern us.

[Martin Lenick]

Ann Coulter endorses Hillary Clinton???? The end of the video is hilarious.
HuTqgqhxVMc