Honestly, if you were Ann Coulter's attorney at a sanity hearing where could you possibly start? Our #2 story on the Countdown, eclipsing even Bill O'Reilly and Malmedy, the Connecticut Screech has continued her assault on 9/11 widows. After calling them "witches who acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them" she has now told Reuters news that they are, quote, "professional victims." All as part of the promotion of a book in which she claims *liberals* are, quote, "godless."Then follows with this:
Let's return to *this* planet. To recap Coulter's argument: The wives of those who died in the worst attack in this nation's history enjoyed their husband's deaths and profited off them, they have politicized 9/11, their positions as widows immunize them from any criticism or debate over their opinions. All of this stated by a commentator much of whose income in the last four and a half years has derived from *her* speeches and writings about the deaths of those same men on 9/11. All this stated by a commentator who has staunchly, repeatedly, and enthusiastically defended an administration that began to politicize 9/11 within a month of the nightmare and has never paused for a moment since. All of this stated by a commentator who has called those who have criticized her and her party "un-American" and now, "godless." All of this stated by a commentator who is bitching that these 9/11 widows can't be criticized while she is writing a book and going on TV and venomously criticizing them.On the rhetorical front, bravo to Olberman. The use of anaphora ("All of this stated by a commentator who...") accompanied a crescendo of sorts that led to the very obvious point of his paragraph - the word "bitching."
I wish I could do this half as well - a quarter of a quarter as well.
Olberman ended the segment with this:
And lastly, back to my allusion about having to defend Ann Coulter in a sanity hearing, that was inappropriate -- because it was insufficient. Imagine, in fact, defending her on Judgment Day -- and trying to find her soul.I thought the religious allusion interesting given something else Coulter said. Get a gander here. Mediamatters.org quotes her as saying in a footnote in her new book:
Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.Hmmm. So Jews are Christians. Wow - I can't even begin to parse that one. But it gets better later in the book. In a swipe (of course) at Howard Dean, Coulter says (again according to Mediamatters.org):
Howard Dean left the Episcopal Church -- which is barely even a church -- because his church, in Montpelier, Vermont, would not cede land for a bike path.Ok. So according to Anne Coulter, a trustworthy theologian if ever there was one, Jews are Christians but Episcopalians (who, of course, claim to be Christians) have some work to do. They're Christians alright - but just barely.
Please someone - get this woman some therapy.
If anyone needs therapy it is you.
ReplyDeleteYou are so far biased it is borderline disgusting. Thing is, you deny it, which clearly shows your mindset.
What? Nothing positive to say about our illegitimate war in Iraq and the recent termination of al-Zarqawi? I did not think you would even have a single positive thing to say about that. What else would one expect from one who is so far out left field, foul territory would be considered moderate for you.
You just hate Ann Coulter because she has the balls to stand up to your kind. It drives you absolutely insane and your post proves it. How obvious do you have to be? Dude, you just cannot be taken seriously anymore; hence why you only get invited onto liberal talk radio shows. Any conservative with half an ounce of knowledge would eat you alive, and you know it.
Ultimately, you have no basis to sit there and bash Ann Coulter when you yourself do it with nearly each post you publish via this blog. So like let me get this straight: Freedom of Speech pisses you off, unless it's a liberal practicing Freedom of Speech, which them makes it "A-Okay." Is that how the First Amendment works for you? Sure looks like it judging from the steaming pile of hate-spew you just posted.
Put that in your "Ladies and Gentlemen" response book and smoke it.
uh-wuh? huuuhhhhh?
ReplyDeleteAnd here I thought I was the only one who oughtn't drink and blog/opine.
Dude, ranting, it's o.k. up to a point, but it's not what girls want.
If'n this ain't a coherent retotrt, well, I'm just rolling w/the precedent what was set by yr. commetns, sir.
Viva la booze!
Allow me to translate Shawn's "intelligent" response:
ReplyDelete"Not gonna do it...No no...nope. Not gonna do it...hah hah eh heh nooooo"
Which ultimately translates to:
"I have NOTHING to say in response to this because deep down, I know he is right, so I'll come up with some type of follish remark instead. Dang, I am drinking right now so I will accuse anonymous of the same thing."
Any questions?