Patterico's Pontifications

6/17/2006

See, This Is Why I Don’t Make These Promises Not to Post About Particular Topics Any More

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:19 pm



Because as soon as you do, then someone comes along and writes a great post like this one from Ace. Here’s a taste, but you really should just read the whole thing:

A lot of people seem baffled that I’d criticize Coulter. I would ask them how they can criticize Ted Rall’s “Terror Widows” cartoon, which made the exact same point Coulter did — that the 9/11 widows are enjoying their husband’s deaths — and then give Coulter a pass.

The two cases are indistinguishable. You can either criticize both, or justify both, but you can’t condemn one and justify the other. It’s blatant partisan inconsistency and hypocrisy to do so. It can’t be the case that Ann gets to say what Ted Rall can’t because she’s Ann, she’s on “our side,” she’s one of us. That’s the game the lefty moonbats play all the time, and I’m personally not playing that game.

I’m not looking for reasons to knock Ann. Quite the opposite. I consider (or did consider) Ann to be on “my side,” and looked for a way to distinguish the cases. I wanted to come up with a clever reason why her remarks were acceptable whereas Rall’s cartoon was not. I couldn’t. And it’s not just because I’m not smart enough; no one has come up with a good reason.

Ace also says:

And, you know, I continue bending over backwards to give Coulter a pass, but she just won’t let me do so. My first reaction with her “Jewish girl” comment was to defend. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I’d be all over someone from the Daily Kos making an equivalent remark.

Well said, sir.

Now, duck!

39 Responses to “See, This Is Why I Don’t Make These Promises Not to Post About Particular Topics Any More”

  1. I just don’t mind Ted Rall, either.

    It was on this blog- Mark or Craig?- who pointed out that the Jersey girls received compensation funds yet spoke out against Bush, rather than say, the terrorists. Wouldn’t that make AC’s critique an analysis of their actions? Ted Rall’s was a combo parody/critique. I guess I just wasn’t offended by either.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  2. Apparently, she also refers to Joseph Wilson as a “drama queen […] ne’er-do-well, unemployed WASP”. Doesn’t mean she hates WASPS; it’s just her way of being colorful.

    (this is not a general defense of Coulter’s outrageousness, just speaking to the specific quote)

    DF (c66eaf)

  3. Really specific ridicule annoys me to no end. Most people will find this odd, but when jokes were made about John Kerry; Herman Munster and the gold digger label.

    Part of this is having been young during the All In The Family years. Like Mike, I had to listen to a lot of Pollack names. Then in high school, kids sharpen their fangs and the really personal stuff rolls out.

    I’ve never found criticisms against groups particularly potent.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  4. Well, I agree completely with the Coulter = Rall comparison.

    And to all those who point out that Coulter wrapped some legitimate (if unoriginal) criticisms of the Jersey Girls inside her bile, this is all the more reason to condemn her comments. Think about it — is ANYONE in the MSM talking about legitimate criticisms of the Jersey Girls right now? Not only I have I not heard any such commentary, but the next time somebody does do so their comments will automatically be compared to Coulter, no matter how reasonably they are argued.

    Sean P (a92c29)

  5. I looked at Rall’s “Terror Widows” for the first time just now and saw a useful comment not much different from Coulter’s statement, and to which I would have expected criticism only from the Left! If any had balls bigger than caviar – or is that brains I’m thinking of?

    Who on the right has criticized Rall while being fine with Coulter’s comment? Imo, that would be hypocritical – and also dangerously p.c., in that being p.c. means being inherently arbitrary and self-contradictory as a moral right of its hypocritical Relativism. It’s fatal in there.

    As to criticizing both, it’s fine with me. I disagree, but had to think about it if only to see that what I think needs no explanation, does, and I might not have any ready. Also, it turns out that Rall is a genius.

    J. Peden (ed4580)

  6. Patterico, I just don’t get it, Coulter has been long notorious for exactly the sort of thing you are complaining about and you have just now noticed? If you want to change opinions on Coulter how about telling us something about her we don’t already know?

    [If you aren’t aware that I have criticized her before, then look over the posts from the past several days and try clicking on the links for once. You’ll see that your assumption that I haven’t criticized her before is dead wrong. I criticized the ragheads comment, the blow up the NYT joke, the assassinate Justice Stevens joke, and the assassinate Bill Clinton joke. At a minimum. As for telling you things you didn’t know, where did you read that she wrote about Clinton ejaculating on a “fat Jewish girl”? You may disagree that it was gratuitous and offensive, but I was the first to point it out. — Patterico]

    James B. Shearer (49e6cf)

  7. James,

    Sometimes you reach a breaking point. You can’t say why you reacted to the latest insult and not an earlier one, all you know is that you’re fed up and you are damn well letting the world know about it.

    As Popeye once put it, “Enough is enough, and enough is too much!”

    Alan Kellogg (062def)

  8. Seems to me playing by a special rule
    (as a good GOPer thou must not offend whomever)
    that Democrats will never demand of their own is the same sort of thing that disrupted the GOP congress for over a year. Tom Delay stepping out of the leadership roll due to “playing by a higher standard” is in effect giving the communist party a veto they don’t deserve.
    Bashing Ann for not playing PC or forcing her to conform to liberal sensibilities, is in effect giving the media another form of censorship in addition to their strangle hold on the nations newsprint and TV networks.
    If partisan liberal district attorneys are willing to disrupt the congress with baseless harasment prosecution then it is foolish for a conservative DA to claim it beneith his dignity to fully prosecute with prejudice a congress critter like Pat Kennedy.
    When the liberals have an army of Ted Ralls scribling away with no editorial restraint to speak of, this is what they are saying;

    “Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.”

    The proper answer isn’t “Excuse my foux pa.”
    The proper answer is a kick in the groin.

    Papertiger (561285)

  9. Sean P.:

    Well, I agree completely with the Coulter = Rall comparison.

    As would I, if I drew no distinction between valid accusations and invalid ones. Even Patterico, who seems to have gone Captain Ahab on Coulter of late, acknowledges that for all the problems with saying “enjoying their husbands’ deaths,” the underlying point – that the Jersey Girls do seem to enjoy the notoriety resulting from it to an unacceptable degree – is valid. By contrast, no version of that same statement would have been a fair criticism of Marianne Pearl, Lisa Beamer or, if you believe Rall’s own revisionism, Theodore Olson, none of whom have shown any signs of deriving pleasure either from their spouses’ deaths directly, or from the very limited notoriety they received as a result. If Coulter’s precision-for-pithiness swap resulted in a false accusation, it is one on the order of calling someone a murderer when he really only committed voluntary manslaughter, while Rall leveled the same goddamned charge against someone who hadn’t committed any crime at all.

    None of this justifies Coulter’s statement, mind you. All it does – and all it’s intended to do here – is to point out that the Rall equivalency line is crap. Coulter can be nowhere near as wrong as Rall, and still be wrong nonetheless.

    And to all those who point out that Coulter wrapped some legitimate (if unoriginal) criticisms of the Jersey Girls inside her bile, this is all the more reason to condemn her comments. Think about it — is ANYONE in the MSM talking about legitimate criticisms of the Jersey Girls right now?

    A few are, but not many. But that’s hardly Coulter’s fault, as they weren’t exactly talking about that issue before her book was published, either. FWIW, more do seem to be talking about that issue now, both in the blogosphere and to a lesser degree in the MSM, than did before her book was published.

    Not only I have I not heard any such commentary, but the next time somebody does do so their comments will automatically be compared to Coulter, no matter how reasonably they are argued.

    True, but that too predates Coulter. That liberals hold up victims as unassailable spokespersons was an issue before her book was published; in fact, it was the greater point of that chapter. The only question is whether attacking their spokesmen would get you compared to Coulter herself, or to some other random bogeyman (bogeyperson?) of the left.

    Xrlq (995633)

  10. Still gotta agree with Xrlq on this whole Ann Coulter=Ted Rall thing. I never look at Rall’s cartoons because I simply find them unfunny, but I do regularly read his columns. There honestly is no attempt at humor there. It’s just like any screed you’ll see from a troll or on KOS. At least Ann Coulter tries to wrap her points in bitingly funny humor. You may not like the humor, but it is still there.

    And a few, indeed, did discuss the victim as public spokesperson topic, but not many because of the very point AC makes: they have immunity from criticism because of their victimhood. The problem with this topic and the 12 other times Patrick has brought it up is that every shark in the water got hung up on one word here or there instead of looking at the whole chapter or book. I can’t imagine splitting hairs so much about any other writer.

    sharon (fecb65)

  11. Ann Coulter can’t make a name for herself with well-informed, civilized polemics. So she resorts to name-calling and cheap demonizing. Some of you actually think it is difficult to come up with hate-filled screeds like hers? No. It is so simple to find vile ulterior motives for almost any action or expressed opinion. All you have to do is wonder what conceivable reasons a person might do or say X, then assume the most heinous motive imaginable. How hard is that?

    Falling for Coulter’s hate speech is reprehensible. Civil debate is our only true alternative. Most of us – left, right and center – are not going to assign base motives to people we happen to disagree with because we realize that the vast majority of people have good intentions. Civilization can’t even survive without that recognition. This is the mental equivalent of “They’re not like us, so crucify them.” Coulter and her ilk vindicate extremists. Do we really want to create more Timothy McVeigh’s around here? Did he even accomplish any of his political goals?

    So no, deriding hate speech isn’t merely political correctness, Papertiger. “No rules,” eh? All of us should go back to being unprincipled, knuckle dragging Neanderthals again? By purposefully mischaracterizing your opposition’s motives, you can’t even have a rudimentary understanding of them – which ensures your defeat. Go for it.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  12. Sure now that the Liberals are nursing that sore groin they want to talk about rules.

    That’s a desirable result in itself.

    Papertiger (8a40d4)

  13. Psyberian, would you apply the same quality control to a Michael Moore type? What he creates is twisted hate-ridden art, basically trying to pose as truth. The same civil discourse going against the grain is often viewed as censorship.

    Ann’s words, as Sharon pointed out, are funny and wrapped around truth. Also, this idea would never apply to the world we know because it’s totally interpretative :

    >> we realize that the vast majority of people have good intentions. >>

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  14. If we can’t say “wasp” or “jewish” or “black” or “muslim”, etc., — things that are FACTUAL — then then the Lefties have won.

    If it’s a fact, then stfu. You have nothing. It’s just in your head.

    Carlos (98df3a)

  15. Right. That’s why nobody named Carlos would ever get offended if someone called them a “fat, stupid, four-eyed Hispanic moron.”

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  16. Carlos — you can say “wasp” or “jewish” or “black” or “muslim”, but those words are not the same as “cracker” or “kike” or “nigger” or “raghead”, and the latter set are the ones most people find objectionable.

    aphrael (e7c761)

  17. Vermont Neighbor — whether or not Ann’s words are “funny and wrapped around truth” is a matter of perspective heavily influenced by where you stand politically, as is whether or not Michael Moore’s words are “twisted hate-ridden art”.

    As far as I can see, both Michael Moore and Ann coulter engage in twisted hate-ridden art.

    aphrael (e7c761)

  18. Carlos — you can say “wasp” or “jewish” or “black” or “muslim”, but those words are not the same as “cracker” or “kike” or “nigger” or “raghead”, and the latter set are the ones most people find objectionable.

    But it’s different if (to paraphrase the great Allahpundit) you mix “WASP” or “Jewish” or “black” or “Muslim” into a string of pejoratives.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  19. Psy said, “By purposefully mischaracterizing your opposition’s motives, you can’t even have a rudimentary understanding of them – which ensures your defeat. Go for it.”

    Recall now if you please how Dems said Republicans wanted “to take food from the mouths of children.” That was a purposeful, gross mischaracterization (filthy bald faced slander), and since then Dems have been soundly defeated, again and again. Thanks for the memories.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  20. Aphrael, exactly. That was my point about the vast majority of people having good intentions. It’s interpretative. Influenced by what we believe in.

    I thought Ann’s statement was a little out there – but I feel (personally) that Michael Moore separates information from its context to totally create an entirely new thesis. Some liberal voices do not do this, and I don’t think Ann twists the truth to a new meaning. What she specializes in is delivering a basic truth (widows with careers), but adds offensive or outrageous humor to get readers. Half the public, more or less, will take offense. I still think Michael Moore’s storytelling is in a class by itself.

    Finally, racism is getting to be subjective, too. If John Rocker says something, the media jumps on him and railroads his credibility. Yet today’s entertainers (rappers, Howard Stern, Opie & Anthony) are allowed to say the SAME racially sensitive comments (worse comments, actually… as well as sexist, homophobic and misogynistic comments) and what happens? They’re given a free pass. In fact, their careers thrive on it.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  21. If he says “something”?

    Here is what he has said.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  22. Right. John Rocker was crass. Offensive, politically incorrect. His “material” reads like a Comedy Central pilot skewing toward guys … or any Howard Stern or Opie & Anthony broadcast.

    We’re currently in a media tilt-a-whirl with the Internet and instant communication allowing us to judge and categorize other people. My question isn’t Why is Ann Coulter under the spotlight. My amazement is at the free passes we hand out to people who are able to spew the junk versus those we watch like a hawk. Ready to condemn. For West-wingnuts, that’s Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. For neo-righties, it’s Al Franken and Michael Moore.

    We’re living in judgmental, hypocritical times.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  23. Black Jack and Vermont Neighbor: Yes, I’m sure that you can find examples where people on the left are just as hateful. But to simply say “you too” misses the boat. So forget trying to get me in a bickering match about who’s worse. I don’t care who’s doing it, it’s inexcusable. Name-calling is asinine and adolescent. At the same time, assuming vile motives to “win” political points is a cheap, malicious shot and nothing else.

    In short, those of you shamelessly defending Coulter lack common decency. I don’t see how you can stand to look at yourselves in the mirror. You’re disgraceful.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  24. I’m saying something beyond political lines. It has to do with the overreach of technology. Although I did pose a question to you to start, it’s not about how many bad guys are on the right or left. It’s human nature to judge and critique, but with the speed of the Internet and previous technology we’re all becoming so moralistic. And your morals may not be my morals.

    You called me disgraceful, to illustrate your point, and added that I lack common decency. That’s a shame. Ann Coulter’s comments are certainly open for dialogue (maybe too much at this point), but how anyone on this thread treats people and animals happens to count a hell of a lot more than just thinking Ann was truthful … if nasty. (Or if anyone thinks Ann was beyond redemption with this latest quote.)

    We have become a world of critical, constipated, judgmental, superficial arbitrary henpeckers. The threads will come and go but the ridicule will endure. Now, that’s what I call a shame.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  25. “In short, those of you shamelessly defending Coulter lack common decency. I don’t see how you can stand to look at yourselves in the mirror. You’re disgraceful.”

    Ah, how pompous! How snotty and childish! Yes, the great Psy gets to determine whose speech is worth defending and whose is not. I find THAT disgraceful and disgusting.

    I hope you had the same level of bile for Michael Moore when he was exalted at the Democratic National Convention or the Congressional democrats were having a special screening for his movie. I hope you’ve saved a little of that bile for the various hatemongers on the left who want Karl Rove executed and Bush impeached. Yes, I love the smell of liberal hypocrisy in the morning.

    sharon (fecb65)

  26. Psy said, “In short, those of you shamelessly defending Coulter lack common decency. I don’t see how you can stand to look at yourselves in the mirror. You’re disgraceful.”

    There’s no shame in defending Ann Coulter, I’m doing it openly, proudly, and unabashedly. I think Ann’s terrific. Not that she needs me to defend her, she does a pretty good job of that all by herself. You might have noticed that about conservative women, they think for themselves, refuse to knuckle under to Lefty browbeating, and pack a pretty good punch too.

    For instance, yesterday on TV Ann was asked what she thought of all the criticism over what she said about the Jersey Girls. Ann looked straight into the camera, blinked those big bright eyes, licked her lips for effect, and flashed her trademark impish grin: Then she said something like, “If you aren’t leaving liberals in a white hot rage, stammering and gasping for breath, you aren’t doing it right.” I laughed out loud in joy and admiration for her courage.

    Only the day before, on the Jay Leno show, Ann acknowledged that “Liberal Contempt” for her opinions had crossed the free speech boundary, and that so-called “liberals” were now openly expressing their personal contempt for her. Leno asked Ann how she was dealing with it, and Ann responded that she wore liberal contempt like a badge of honor.

    Wow, what a great girl. No wonder the spineless jellyfish on the Left keep trying to silence her. She’s good looking, bright, right on the money, and the Left can’t stand up to her intellect or to her courage. So they try to shout her down, throw pies, ban her books, and attack her motives, all the despicable machinery of suppression so typical of totalitarians everywhere.

    Ann stands up front and center, and says what she thinks, you might not like that, but so what. After all, the disgraceful PC fascists aren’t running things in American these days, although often they act like it.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  27. ” She’s good looking, bright, right on the money, and the Left can’t stand up to her intellect or to her courage. So they try to shout her down, throw pies, ban her books, and attack her motives, all the despicable machinery of suppression so typical of totalitarians everywhere. ” >

    That’s it, that’s where it’s at.

    That’s where the vapors of hypocrisy come seeping through. Ann may offend, but she always brings truth with her statements. The left should support this expression of free speech.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  28. Vermont Neighbor – I certainly would not want the government telling Ann Coulter that she can’t engage in her speech; nor would I want her to be fired or evicted for it.

    But that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with it, nor that I should refrain from calling it hate-filled vitriol. I can support her right to engage in hate-filled vitriol without supporting her decision to do so.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  29. Black Jack — it’s comments like those that are actually the origin of my dislike for Ann Coulter.

    She loudly and unabashedly proclaims that her goal is to enrage the other side. She has no interest in civil discourse; she has no interest in bringing opposing sides together to discuss and work out our differences, or to see how we can work together to achieve success in the things we agree on.

    If you aren’t leaving liberals in a white hot rage, stammering and gasping for breath, you aren’t doing it right.

    Her goal is to replace civil, friendly political engagement with vitriolic anger. And she does significant harm to our society by pursuing that goal.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  30. That’s where the vapors of hypocrisy come seeping through. Ann may offend, but she always brings truth with her statements.

    Ann Coulter says there is “no physical evidence for” evolution.

    Where’s the “truth” there?

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  31. aphrael, my comments might be a bit harsh, but it’s no time for pabulum, forgive me. I respect you enough to give it to you straight, albeit with a few cheap shots included.

    The unhinged Left has been using underhanded tactics to duck civil debate on the issues for so long now, it’s become necessary to do something provocative to get their attention. Ann Coulter is expert at getting the donkey’s attention without the actual application of 2x4s. And she sells lots of books and makes big piles of money doing it. I love the girl.

    Ann also has more fun than Hillary, Nancy, Cindy, and the Jersey Girls put together. She’s also thinner, smarter, better looking and has a smaller rear end than any of those silly broads. And, she’s a heck of a good shot, pistol, revolver, rifle, or shotgun.

    Yes, Ann does enrage liberals, that’s the upside, and in the process she exposes how phony Lefty self delusions really are, how uninformed they are, how out of touch they are, and how desperate they are to conceal the truth from each other, themselves, the electorate, and everyone else not suffering from advanced BDS. You see, racist smears against Condi Rice, insults to GWB, and attempts to enable terrorists have gotten just a bit old.

    So, we’ll never be able to work out our differences while your side refuses to engage in good faith. The Left foolishly projects the most insulting high-handed attitudes, consistently misrepresents Conservative positions, and would rather disgrace themselves throwing pies at girls instead of actually listening to an opposing point of view.

    aphrael, we’ve come to a fork in the road. Conservatives don’t feel any responsibility to bend over backward being polite to Lefty hate mongers any longer. Your side spewed the hate, called the tune, and now you can dance to it, smoke it, or howl at the moon, and the devil take the hindmost.

    Sorry, but Conservatives have had enough of Lefty misbehavior. We really don’t much care what outrage of the century Lefty idiots are upset about this week. The Left poisoned the well and we just don’t drink there anymore.

    So, tell your fellows to wake up, swallow their foolish pride, and start being nice to Ann if they really want a civil discourse. That’s the price of admission.

    Now, Ann’s a very nice person and might even give you guys the time of day, if she happens to be in a good mood. In the meantime, we’ll keep our eyes open, and our voter registrations current. So, don’t judge us too harshly, Conservatives have learned to hope for the best but experience warns us to expect all that much from the vicious, anti-American, loony Left. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  32. I laughed out loud in joy and admiration for her courage. – Black Jack

    That’s the trouble Black Jack – you can’t even distinguish between wit and rudeness. And what the hell does Coulter’s rear end have to do with anything? She’s the billboard child for “Beauty is only skin deep,” because her soul is a seething cauldron of disgust.

    The left should support this expression of free speech. – Vermont Neighbor

    Thanks Aphrael – I’m not for passing any laws against her publicly showing her ass either. Let her do it. What a lame, strawman statement. I’m just using my free speech to say what I think too.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  33. Evolution, civil discourse, freedom of speech, insensitive remarks. All day my blood has been at a slow boil that still we focus on a description, an accurate description, and continue to malign a human being.

    Monica Lewinsky again carries the burden so that we may all pontificate and gesticulate with strangers as to why a certain author’s comments are offensive (or not). MONICA LEWINSKY WAS ABUSED BY A MAN IN POWER. He always had the advantage and he still has the advantage today. If he lost his law license it was because of his own failed attempts at crisis control.

    Any sympathy and concern over a truthful description really shows a lack of understanding as to why Lewinsky should not be our national punching bag. Put your empathy where it belongs, please.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  34. Aphrael and Psyberian: Yes, I know you support free speech — even for Coulter’s book.

    I’d go so far as to say her comment, at first, struck me the same. Outrageous and maybe in need of an editor. But again, we have an elite section of society which may say and do as it pleases: that is, anyone who feeds the media. Coulter, shock jocks, comedians, celebrities. Actually, it’s politicians who have to schedule press conferences and try to fix what they really meant. Spin control, that. And so much for their own free speech! That applies to both parties, of course.

    Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c)

  35. Psy, you say I can’t distinguish between wit and rudeness. But I can tell a hawk from a handsaw. So how about you step up and make the call.

    Ann Coulter wrote, “For a fleeting moment, after the September 11 attack on America, all partisan wrangling stopped dead. The country was infused with patriotism and amazingly unified. The attack on America was such a colossal jolt, liberals even abandoned their endless pursuit of producing “some” method of counting the ballots in Florida that would have made Al Gore president.”

    So, Psy, is that an example of Ann’s Wit or of her Rudeness? Any thouthts on the accuracy of her statement you want to share?

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  36. She narrow-mindedly forgets that republicans temporarily dropped their rhetoric too immediately after 9/11. So no, I don’t find that witty at all Black Jack. Besides, I didn’t make the claim that everything she says is exceedingly rude. So you have no point.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  37. #32, her soul is a seething cauldron of disgust. So now we’ve moved from reading minds to perceiving motives to, wow!, actually being able to evaluate the souls of others. Quite arrogant for those who espouse a more civil debate in the land.

    There can’t be much more. And you’ve got a problem with Ann’s comments?

    #30, Ann Coulter says there is “no physical evidence for” evolution.

    Where’s the “truth” there?

    Of course it depends on the context and underlying assumptions and presupostions, doesn’t it? We’ve been through this at length, but it all depends on whether you’re talking about observable change within species that happens every day (often refered to as “micro” evolution) and about which absolutely no one disagrees, and the unobserved and unobservable multi-hundred million year change from one species to another (often refered to as “macro” evolution) that is simply an extrapolation from “micro” to “macro” evolution roughly equivalent to the “given enough monkeys, typewriters and time and eventually one of them will type the works of Shakespeare” school of “scientific thought”.

    Nor is the concept of “macro” evolution any more falsifiable or I would argue demonstrably “factual” than is “intelligent design” as a model for the origin of life.

    Guess I’ll have to join Ann on the unsophisticated and unenlighted rube side of the argument.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  38. Psy said, “So no, I don’t find that witty at all Black Jack.”

    Not witty? Hummm. Well, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I’m sure you’re not surprised that we differ. But, you neglected to indicate if you also thought it was rude, as well as “not witty.” BTW, I also disagree that the Left dropped it’s insane rhetoric after 9/11, that’s one of my points.

    Well, in any case, that quote was probably a little too direct, not sufficiently nuanced. So let’s have another go. This time, I’ll give you two chances.

    How about this: Remember, following 9/11, the Stars and Stripes appeared all over America virtually overnight. The open and spontaneous expression of patriotism by everyday Americans was astonishing. But, “liberals” objected, almost immediately they began to complain. Ann Coulter took notice and wrote:

    “…they (liberals) complained about all the damn flag-wavers. The infernal flag-waving after 9/11 nearly drove liberals out of the gourds. For the left, “flag-waving” is an epithet. Liberals variously called the flag a “joke,” “very, very, dumb,” and – most cutting – “not cosmopolitan…”

    “Here the country had finally given liberals a war against (religious) fundamentalism and they didn’t want to fight it. They would have, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.”

    So, Psy, there’s 2 great quotes from Ann. Do you rate them as witty or as rude? And, please include any thoughts you may wish to share.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  39. Hey everyone..want you to see this!!
    http://satanncoulter666.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

    charlie (e16458)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0958 secs.