Coulter attacks 9/11 Widows

[kimmy]

While she's deranged and the personal attack on 9/11 widows is tasteless to say the least, she does kind of have a point.

Does the fact that these people lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks make them more knowledgeable about national security? Or does it just make it harder to argue with them without coming across like an insensitive bully?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/dhs.fakeid/index.html

Retired NY Policeman who lost his son on Sept 11, 2001, gets a forged Mexican ID (that cannot be used to enter government facilities) with a different birthdate walks RIGHT IN to DHS. Somehow I don't think the government is up to snuff par as well.

Ok, is the relevant part that he lost a son in 9/11, or is the relevant part that that he successfully suckered DHS security? Would it have meant less if somebody who hadn't lost a relative in 9/11 had done the same?

I'm not questioning that they have a right to express their concerns, I just don't understand why they'd feel that the death of a relative makes them more qualified to speak on this than somebody else.

-k

[Shady]

I'm not questioning that they have a right to express their concerns, I just don't understand why they'd feel that the death of a relative makes them more qualified to speak on this than somebody else

Exactly. That's the crux of her argument. Unfortunately, she uses strong language and satire to make those points. Most people aren't able to grasp those concepts, and instead focus on the smaller point instead of the big picture.

[GostHacked]

Kimmy

I'm not questioning that they have a right to express their concerns, I just don't understand why they'd feel that the death of a relative makes them more qualified to speak on this than somebody else.

The only qualification they need is that they are Americans and they want answers. You have a group of victim survivors on each side touting their cause. Part of the reason he did it, is that no one else would do it. The man is taking action and showing us the obvious flaws in the system. If they can find the flaws and exploit them, proving the government is really not up to par on anything.

I don't think the loss of the son is the factor, being a retired NY City police officer is a great qualification in this aspect. Being a cop he is all about the security and saftey. Police officers should be well trained to 'protect and serve'. Eventhough he is retired, he is still on the job, protecting and serving.

Also, you may want to ask yourself that same question if you happened to have lost someone on that horrible day. I think you would want to make your voice heard.

Edit... I am still trying to figure out what kind of qualifications mAnn Coutler has in order to be the voice box for the right. It would be a really bad thing (imho) if she was able to procreate. (worse if it was with Tucker Carleson)

[Riverwind]

I'm not questioning that they have a right to express their concerns, I just don't understand why they'd feel that the death of a relative makes them more qualified to speak on this than somebody else.

I agree with your statement, however, Coulter implies that she is _more_ qualified than the 9/11 widows. I think that is the most rediculous aspect of her statement.

[Darth Buddha]

Ok, is the relevant part that he lost a son in 9/11, or is the relevant part that that he successfully suckered DHS security? Would it have meant less if somebody who hadn't lost a relative in 9/11 had done the same?

I'm not questioning that they have a right to express their concerns, I just don't understand why they'd feel that the death of a relative makes them more qualified to speak on this than somebody else.

-k

If you ask the wrong question, you'll always get a wrong answer.

The right answer is: they are more ABLE to speak on these matters than the average joe. Think about it.

I'm not questioning that they have a right to express their concerns, I just don't understand why they'd feel that the death of a relative makes them more qualified to speak on this than somebody else.

I agree with your statement, however, Coulter implies that she is _more_ qualified than the 9/11 widows. I think that is the most rediculous aspect of her statement.

Coulter is able because she's a right wing shock op-ed writer who is easy on the eyes: she's a novelty.

[newbie]

I like how Coulter denouces the 911 widows for making money (much of went into foundations) and questioning why their husbands died, forcing a 911 commission. And what does Annie do? Cashes in on a trashy book with personal attacks and outrageous statements. That some people stoop this low for a buck is as despicable as Coulter wearing a cross around her neck. But hey, that's the first amendment for ya.

[Black Dog]

I'm not questioning that they have a right to express their concerns, I just don't understand why they'd feel that the death of a relative makes them more qualified to speak on this than somebody else.

Strawman. Has any one of them actually said that, or tried to prevent others from speaking out? Now, I've no doubt that some 9-11 victim's familes have cashed in on the tragedy; but then, so has Ann Coulter. C'est la vie, I suppose.

As for personal experience, well, if I want to know what it's like to lose a loved one to terrorism, I'd talk to the 9-11 victims. Similarily, if I wanted first-hand knowledge of life as a tranny cokehead mediawhore, I know who I'd call.

[Darth Buddha]

I'm not questioning that they have a right to express their concerns, I just don't understand why they'd feel that the death of a relative makes them more qualified to speak on this than somebody else.

Strawman. Has any one of them actually said that, or tried to prevent others from speaking out? Now, I've no doubt that some 9-11 victim's familes have cashed in on the tragedy; but then, so has Ann Coulter. C'est la vie, I suppose.

As for personal experience, well, if I want to know what it's like to lose a loved one to terrorism, I'd talk to the 9-11 victims. Similarily, if I wanted first-hand knowledge of life as a tranny cokehead mediawhore, I know who I'd call.

Isn't this just a questio n of their notoriety giving them the abilty to get away with demonstrations of DHS insecurity? No qualifications were needed for that, just the balls to do it and the notoriety to not only get away with making them look like fools, but also to get it reported?

I see no inherent problem if that's the rationale. After all, if Ms. Coulter weren't so infamous and blindly worshipped by the neocon nonthinking, her hatemongering wouldn't get a bit of attention either.

As for me, the more she screws up, the worse off her fascist causes will be, so hand her the microphone, please!

[Shady]

tranny cokehead mediawhore

Well, it's a good thing you didn't sink down to her pathetic level, right?

[BubberMiley]

tranny cokehead mediawhore

Well, it's a good thing you didn't sink down to her pathetic level, right?

Oh, come on. That's the only thing on these forums that has made me laugh in months.

[killjoy]

Ann's geometry test:

http://server6.theimagehosting.com/image.p...eometryTest.jpg

[August1991]

But it wasn't until Ann Coulter pointed it out that you realize how heavily the Democratic party is invested in irreproachable biography. For example, John Kerry's pretzel-twist of a war straddle in the 2004 campaign relied mainly on former senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee from a Vietnam grenade accident whom the campaign dispatched to stake out Bush's Crawford ranch that summer. Maybe he's still down there. It's gotten kinda crowded on the perimeter since then, what with Cindy Sheehan et al. But the idea is that you can't attack what Max Cleland says about war because, after all, you've got most of your arms and legs and he hasn't.

Mark Steyn

What this is doing in Maclean's, I don't know. But Steyn is right, and so is Coulter.

This Democratic strategy doesn't work and I suspect we will soon see just as ineffective political strategies adopted by the Liberals and the NDP in Canada.

Steyn's column also has this great quote:

...the progressive mind regards it as backward and primitive to let religion determine every aspect of your life, but takes it as advanced and enlightened to have the state determine every aspect of your life.

[August1991]

As Oprah would say, "You go girl!"

Check out this

.

[Shady]

Thanks for the link. I never get tired of Ann Coulter video, especially when she's on with the mainstream liberal media. As usual though, it's the same old questions. You'd think by now, they'd have figured out that she believes what she says and writes, but I guess not.

[Black Dog]

What this is doing in Maclean's, I don't know. But Steyn is right, and so is Coulter.

It's in MacLean's because MacLean's in in the midst of rebranding itself as a contraian, right-wing voice. And I gotta say, I can see why Steyn likes Coulter. They both have a knack for vapid, fact-free writing and shameless self-promotion (as usual Steyn works a Mark Steyn reference into a column about Ann Coulter.)

Anyhoo, Coulter, Steyn and August all flail away at the same straw man with the same, predictable results. Indeed, Steyn, by trotting out his dusty critique of the 9-11 widows, undermines his and Coulter's premise by showing that they have, in fact, been freely criticized. Another boat they miss is on Cleland. Steyn says: "But the idea is that you can't attack what Max Cleland says about war because, after all, you've got most of your arms and legs and he hasn't.". But of course, that didn't stop Coulter from attacking Cleland, not on the basis of his opinion on teh war, but on his personal military record.

[Riverwind]

Thanks for the link. I never get tired of Ann Coulter video, especially when she's on with the mainstream liberal media.

I thought she came across as an idiot in that link. Her only response to criticism was 'I sell a lot of books' as if that is some proof that what she says makes any sense. She was the proverbial 'deer in the headlights' when confronted with the Darwin question.

[Black Dog]

I wonder if the line about "getting up (critics) noses'" isn't a dig at Ann's, ah, alleged extracirrcular activities.

[BHS]

It's in MacLean's because MacLean's in in the midst of rebranding itself as a contraian, right-wing voice. And I gotta say, I can see why Steyn likes Coulter. They both have a knack for vapid, fact-free writing and shameless self-promotion (as usual Steyn works a Mark Steyn reference into a column about Ann Coulter.)

Oh, go on, please do enlighten us with suitable alternatives rich in fact and lively wit.

***Please, please, please, let him say Maureen Dowd or Robert Fisk***

[sharkman]

What's this, Macleans rebranding itself as a right of center publication? Has the world turned upside down? I've loathed that rag for too long to read it now just because they are trying to improve their readership numbers.

Good Ann link, however. You just can't corner her, that Briitsh bloke may as well have been serving up softballs for her.

[newbie]

You just can't corner her..

Yeah, 'cause when you do she calls you "testy" or claims you're lying (re the Fifth Estate interview). She is pure mean-spirit entertainment for the right, nothing more.

[sharkman]

You just can't corner her..

Yeah, 'cause when you do she calls you "testy" or claims you're lying (re the Fifth Estate interview). She is pure mean-spirit entertainment for the right, nothing more.

No one here is claiming she's perfect, but she can argue the issues with anyone, and inject witty one liners, kind of like Dennis Miller.

[newbie]

No one here is claiming she's perfect, but she can argue the issues with anyone, and inject witty one liners, kind of like Dennis Miller.

Yeah, like these little jems of hatred:

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity

What bothers me more than her verbal diarrhea is that people enjoy and support her negative personal attacks.

[Shady]

Yeah, like these little jems of hatred:

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity

Why does it matter if the Vietnam Vet is disabled? Actually, why does it matter that it was a Vietnam Vet? The only thing that should matter is what he had to say, which was what exactly? This is a classic example of what Ann Coulter has been rallying against. Liberal human shields.

Anyways, on to the bigger issue. When will you people stop posting the same Ann Coulter quotes? These same quotes must have been posted a hundred times in numerous other threads. I'm sick of discussing them, I'm sick of having to waste my time typing out the same defenses. Do us all a favour. Go back, do a little research, write down the replies to previous posts so that we never have to answer for the same quotes again. It's ridiculous.

[GostHacked]

As Oprah would say, "You go girl!"

Check out this

.

That was awesome. I think he confused her with the English accent. Ann looked uncomfortable.

[GostHacked]

You just can't corner her..

Yeah, 'cause when you do she calls you "testy" or claims you're lying (re the Fifth Estate interview). She is pure mean-spirit entertainment for the right, nothing more.

No one here is claiming she's perfect, but she can argue the issues with anyone, and inject witty one liners, kind of like Dennis Miller.

Denis Miller VS Ann Coulter?? I will put my money on Miller.