Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/07/06 9:35 pm:
I did address the topic. You just don't like my answer. I asked how Coulter was different from others who have gone before her and pimped themselves far worse than she has. You still haven't answered that question. Can you, or will you continue to avoid the issue by calling MY attacks (as opposed to the attacks by Breitweiler and company... not to mention Jackreade's) ad-hominem.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 06/07/06 9:39 pm:
Please talk about what *she said* about 911 widows. That is what is posted. Then, answer, will you do anything for money????
Otherwise, don't answer or face my complaints about ad hominem attacks and not answering the question and the resultant rating of your answer.
Cordially :)
jack
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 06/07/06 9:41 pm:
>>What else could a person like you say?<<
Tell me precisely what you mean by a person like me and I'll tell you what else I can say. Somewhere on this board I've already demonstrated how conservative women are prettier than liberal women. Is that something like what you're talking about?
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/07/06 9:44 pm:
I don't know what she said, and neither do you. Neither of us have read the book. All we know is what OTHER PEOPLE have said about her book. We don't know the context in which it was said, or what point she was trying to make. You have read three quotes (not even the full sentences are quoted), and already you have judged.
I'll bet you don't even know the name of the book (without looking it up, please). How can you possibly judge what it says or what she meant by it? Why don't you read the book before judging it? Or at least wait until somebody you know has read it and can tell you about it?
There. Have I addressed the issue to your satisfaction now?
Elliot
PS: The book is called "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 06/07/06 10:13 pm:
jack,
This is what Ann is talking about, and what I heard her say this morning:
Coulter said it was wrong for the widows to "use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it while preventing people from responding."
"That is the point of . . . putting up Cindy Sheehan, and putting out these widows or putting out Joe Wilson," she explained. "You can't respond. It's their doctrine of infallibility."
She's right on target. Marching out 'grieving widows' and old war heroes turned anti-military critics to make emotionally charged presentations and accusations is. That is their 'doctrine of infallibility', an imaginary place where their 'higher moral values' trump facts, evidence, logic and reasoning and places the stooge on an untouchable pedestal. Ann is courageous enough to ignore that B.S. and call it what it is.
Being a grieving widow doesn't make you untouchable. When Cindy Sheehan runs around saying moonbat things like "Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel," it deserves a response. When Murtha runs around trying the military in the press it deserves a response. When John Kerry admits to committing atrocities and then plays the war hero in running for president it deserves a response. When the left takes advantage of these people, playing up their victimhood to promote their agenda, it deserves a response.
Ann is responding. Tell it like it is Ann.
Steve
Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 06/07/06 10:29 pm:
Whoops, wrong button again. Meant this as a follow up...
You crack me up, "jack."
I actually AGREED with you, at least nominally. I also noted that I would prefer to withhold judgment until I had read her comments myself.
Still, three stars.
So what you are demonstrating with your actions is that you could care less what a person says about the CURRENT topic at the CURRENT time, you have an axe to grind with certain individuals overall, regardless of the correctness of their words or the thoroughness of their answer.
Liberalism in action, for all to see. The party of "peace and love," so infused with hatred for certain types of individuals.
If that's the liberal notion of "tolerance," I want nothing to do with it.
Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 06/08/06 3:24 pm:
Hello:
Yeah, she is a babe. However, she should be screwed - not listened to.
excon
