Thursday, March 20, 2014


The Wit and Wisdom 
of ANN COULTER 
Nemesis of Leftists

Part VI of a New Series (Concluded)

Random Quotes from Miss Coulter’s Work


'You remember what a fabulous success court-ordered "desegregation" plans have been. Few failures have been more spectacular. Illiterate students knifing one another between acts of sodomy in the stairwell is just one of the many eggs that had to be broken to make the left's omelette of transferring power from states to the federal government.'

'While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.'

“Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror.” 

'If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?'

'Swing voters are more appropriately known as the 'idiot voters' because they have no set of philosophical principles. By the age of fourteen, you're either a Conservative or a Liberal if you have an IQ above [that of] a toaster.'

'Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.'

'If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president.'





34 comments:

  1. “Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror.”

    -----
    Huh? The rest are as silly.

    She's just trying to work the room. A hired gun as it were. What's really sad is those who think she's cogent and funny.

    Can't leave the monkey house can you, FT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do hope that one instalment of this series will focus on her sense of humour. I think I get the idea by now about her political beliefs, but I am interested in what jokes she might have.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FT,
    I love these posts! It's an Ann Coulter fest!

    ReplyDelete
  4. FT,

    You know that I don't shy away from criticizing the Democrats and Liberals in America. Hell, you know that I don't shy away from criticizing anyone who I think is logically inconsistent in their ideology/belief structure.

    But seriously, Ann Coulter should NOT be the poster child for Conservatives in America.

    Back in 2003ish, she actually had some intelligent things to say. I believe that Coulter is actually a bright woman. But somewhere along the line, she figured out that she could get more exposure by saying things that are completely off-the-wall and wholly incendiary.

    Yesterday's quote about who voted for Civil Rights in the 60s is a blatant example of the fact that she (A) is completely ignorant of history and knows absolutely NOTHING about political parties in the 60s or (B) willfully omits important facts, purposely glossing over the truth in order to incite people's passions.

    So she is either completely oblivious to American political history, or she is playing the crowd. It might be a little bit of both, but I strongly believe that it is more of the latter.

    I beg you, FT. Please, PLEASE read something about the Dixiecrats, or even simply American political parties during the 60s in general. Then you will see just how ridiculous her assertions are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Next you should do a Michelle Obama Fest , and let's see the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anne's just jealous that she can't wear the West rooms drapes and call it a dress, like the Moocher does!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jack, Dave Miller, and All,

    Please see the two-part post I just fashioned as a response to both of you under yesterday's segment of this series.

    It all boils down to this:

    It is impossible for the left to refute the ineluctable logic and rectitude of the Conservative view of Reality. So, they resort to the sort of thing we see from Canardo -- insults, badgering, sneering, loud shouts of denigration, contempt and fake outrage.

    In short they HAVE no defense, so they indulge in endless libel and slander.

    Please do read my last post to yesterday's article.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Our First Lady is not a political pundit -- and certainly no fount of perspicacity. However, I happen to think she's presented a pretty good image to the public in the role she's now playing. Her appearance has improved dramatically, and every time I've heard her interviewed, she speaks in pleasant, well-modulated tones that bear no trace whatever of the Ebonic Plague that has held the Black Community back probably more than the KKK and the anti-integration crowd in government ever did.

    I can't say I am one of Mrs. Obama's biggest fans, but I thoroughly dislike the cliché-ridden, name-calling nonsense with which she's continuously attacked by Right Wing Chauvinists.

    It all falls under the broad heading that tells us "TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT."

    ReplyDelete
  9. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT."

    But three Lefts, do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You've been talking a lot about the manipulation and/or ignoring of facts, but this grows frustrating because Ann Coulter does that constantly.

    Here are the facts.

    The Democrats in the 60s who opposed Civil Rights were Conservatives, and they eventually moved to the GOP. That's not theory, conjecture, or interpretation. It's historical fact.

    Just as well, the Republicans who supported Civil Rights in the 60s were Liberals. They moved to the Democrats around the same time the Conservatives all moved to the GOP.

    The Democrat party during the 60s comprised largely of Southern Conservatives who are now part of the GOP.

    Again, these are facts. Now are you ready for the Truth?

    The Truth is that the Democrats that opposed Civil Rights during the 60s--the Democrats that Ms. Coulter scorned--are now members of the GOP. So, the Truth is that Ann Coulter took a giant crap on her own damn party.

    Ann is forcing her followers to make the false assumption that the Democrat Party of the 60s is the same as the Democrat Party of 2014. It is *radically* different. This is just as silly as the assertion that the modern Republican Party is anywhere close to being the same as the original Republican party that formed in Antebellum America.

    As for everything else you've mentioned, I'm finding it confusing that you admonish the left for engaging in nonsensical attacks while Ann Coulter is doing *the exact same thing.*

    And what is even more confusing, is that you use a perfect example of Ann's distortion of TRUTH and exclusion of FACTS as an example of her intellectual prowess.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

    There. There is a quick overview of what Ducky, that other guy, and myself have been saying this whole time. Ann's assertion is true, but her argument is completely false (if you understand the distinction I'm making here). She engaged in the exact same behavior that you're accusing the Left of perpetrating.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And BTW, none of this is really up for historical interpretation. This is just plain factual evidence. If you read any book on this subject--literally, ANY BOOK--you will find this information.

    So until you are willing to acknowledge the factual evidence I have presented, then you're only engaging in pure, unadulterated cognitive dissonance.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So Jack, you're saying Senators Gore Sr.. Fullbright and other Dem senators would today be Republicans?

    I've read those books, and it's pure conjecture. Different times, different people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's not conjecture at all.

    Considering the migration of Conservative, Southern Democrats didn't really start to take place until the early 70s, it would make sense that someone like Senator Fullbright would have remained a Democrat--Fullbright stopped serving in Congress in 1975.

    The fullness of the shift didn't manifest until later in the 70s and came to near complete fruition in the 80s. By the 90s, we had what we have today: U.S. political parties strictly divided by the Liberal/Conservative dichotomy.

    But to answer your question: yes. Fullbright would be a Republican today.

    Sorry, friend, but history is on my side on this one. The party shifts in the American political landscape is no more up for debate than is the existence of the parties themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jack,

    You completely missed the point I worked very hard to make earlier today. I'm not going to go through that song and dance again. Either you get it or you don't. It's not my responsibility to see that you do.

    This is what invariably happens when we're so in love with the belief in our own rectitude and so admiring of our own intelligence that we lose the capacity to comprehend what others may be trying to say.

    Your tone is that of a prosecuting attorney conducting a cross examination. I don't enjoy being bullied and badgered in my own space. I don't demand concurrence, but I won't tolerate rudeness and disrespect.

    In my opinion you take yourself much too seriously. In that regard you're right in step with the rest of the world. In my lifetime I've seen us become much less sophisticated, much less tolerant, much less amiable, far more likely to take offense, far more cynical than we used to be, and worst of all, much less curious.

    Graciousness, good humor, giving the benefit of the doubt, and being a good sport in the face of adversity, have all but died out of the culture. A deadening insistence on literalism has taken hold, and a tremendous increase in disputatiousness.

    We lament, complain, take umbrage and ready ourselves for combat incessantly.

    Frankly, it's all a roaring bore, and I for one feel more and more inclined to withdraw altogether, and live like a hermit. It no longer seems possible to enjoy what-I-would-call good conversation.

    People these days talk AT each other, PAST each other, but rarely not WITH each other. We LECTURE each other, CROSS EXAMINE each other and BADGER each other.

    It's disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  15. FT,

    I am very much at a loss here. All I've been doing this whole time is pointing out some extremely huge holes in Ann Coulter's rhetoric. You made an argument that the Left ignores facts and contorts history in order to maintain their worldview. You also accuse them of never admitting that they're wrong.

    All I have done is made an attempt to show you and your readers that Ann Coulter is doing just the same thing that you've lambasted the Left about.

    How have I been badgering you? I've been discussing matters of historical fact, so I am unsure how that comes off as me "taking myself too seriously."

    You took the time to make a 6 part ode to Ann Coulter, someone who has long left the realm of rationality and who is fully invested in making a name for herself through irrational, bitter criticism.

    I've always thought you to be a man of intellect, of thoughtfulness--and I STILL consider you to be those things. So I'm sorry if my expression of downright bewilderment offends you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ann gives tit for tat
    and no "true" Leftist stomachs THAT!

    - a hypocrite

    ReplyDelete
  17. Grace and the benefit of the doubt
    ...are things the Left are NOT about.

    - tone deaf

    ReplyDelete
  18. For someone who has never heard of Rules of the Game and is therefore virtually illiterate you spend too much time talking, FT.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Grace and the benefit of the doubt
    ...are things the Left are NOT about.


    - tone deaf

    That would deserves deafening applause but for one thing. It's not true just of leftists, but also of post-Modernists, religious fundamentalists, rednecks and snobs.

    Sadie Thompson

    ReplyDelete

  20. you spend too much time talking, FT.

    And you spend too much time insulting everybody who doesn't think the way you do. I've watched you quietly at a distance for years, and it's a wonder anybody will put up with you, and not automatically delete you every time you show your nasty, conceited face.

    Sadie Thompson

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jack: Statements containing the words 'would and 'would have' are indeed conjecture.

    Racists like Robert Byrd remained racist democrats to the end.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Here's my summary of FT's two-part remark, which I provide in the hope that that Jack will understand it and/or FreeThinke will confirm or correct.

    He accuses the left of the following dishonest debate tactics: cherry-picking, ad-hom, bullying, sanctimony and belligerence; he ascribes to them the soul motive of defeating and dominating their opponents.
    He claims that the media and schools
    a) do not voice the conservative viewpoint,
    b) have underreported the popularity of conservatism and
    c) have promoted the leftist viewpoint through the dishonest tactics listed above.

    I think that's complete, albeit very condensed.

    I'm not sure how this applies to your disagreement about the Dixiecrats, but I can see 4 possibilities:

    1) he is not convinced that the shift happened; the makeup of the Parties is broadly as it was since the 60s.

    2) he accepts a shift occurred, but not that it was relevant to the civil rights voting record

    3) he accepts that the shift happened as you described it, but other opposing factors were at play, so to go on about it is a case of Leftist cherry picking

    4) he agrees with you in every way, but doesn't want to say so because cherry-picking in favour of the conservative view is acceptable, perhaps because it only balances the long history of dishonesty from Leftists.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ~ Racists in the RNC before Dixiecrats joined... 1%

    ~ Racists in the RNC after Dixiecrats joined... 1.5%

    ~ Racists in the RNC today... <0.5%

    Charges of racism against the RNC today... ridiculous!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ann Coulter and her cleavage are overexposed—warts and all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Good for you, Jez,

    I agree with most of your analysis. That IS what I have seen and felt deeply disturbed about for more than half a century.

    The third statement your list concerning the Dixiecrats comes closest to my thinking on the matter. I see nothing to be gained by ragging on and on about a fait accompli.

    I would emphasize, however, that the main reason I have featured a generous sampling of Ann's remarks twofold. I believe most of what she has said, -- despite being deliberately provocative, over-stated and very "cheeky," -- is perfectly consistent with logic. She really does have The Left down pat.

    The second part of why I featured Ann lies in her ability to "dish it out" to leftists in much the same manner they've been high-handedly dismissing Conservatism first by attempting to ignore it out of existence, second by drubbing it relentlessly with their specious logic, hyper-critical attitude, perpetual sneering, and unveiled, unbridled contempt once Conservatism finally found a Voice and began to assert itself.

    Naturally I wouldn't expect any leftist worth his salt to agree on that. That would end The Game, and "we" would win. Can't have that!

    Remember the Left draws its greatest strength form the militant determination NEVER to admit they could be wrong, while NEVER admitting that the arguments of their opposition could POSSIBLY have any merit whatsoever.

    As Rush Limbaugh says of himself, when questioned about the "fairness" of his bombastically partisan rhetoric to those who would demand "Equal Time:"

    "Ladies and gentlemen, I AM "Equal Time."

    So is Ann. In essence she is only doing to leftists what THEY have done to us for DECADES.

    All I can say is IT'S ABOUT TIME.

    She's as subtle as a crutch, but so what? There is most decidedly a place for her in the political arena. What I like most about her is her colossal brazen effrontery. Talk about Speaking Truth to Power!

    The mincing around indulged in by RINO's more interested in holding onto their cushy little jobs by not "rocking the boat" than in making any vigorous, effective opposition to the Marxian Juggernaut frankly DISGUSTS me.

    We need to "fight fire with fire," and that's exactly what Ann, Rush, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Ron Paul, Mark Levin and a tiny handful of others are giving their all to accomplish. That Ann and Rush have gotten rich, because they have such wide popular appeal, does nothing to discredit them.

    Envy, dear friends, is one of the deadliest of Seven Deadly Sins.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh, I nearly forgot. You were quite insistent in asking me what in particular I thought was funny about Ann Coulter?

    Very simple. It's her bold, bright, breeze pugnacity and seemingly unlimited capacity for burlesquing the many grievous faults inherent in Leftist Thought. I know that she knows full well that her characteristic demeanor is cocky, insolent, and in-your-face to the point of being totally outrageous.

    I can see it in the merry little twinkle in her eye every time she delivers a broadside. She's putting on an ACT -- playing a comic grotesque part on the world's stage -- her fans know it, and applaud her for it, because it so easily punctures the colored balloons filled with noxious gas held aloft by pompous, pretentious, self-righteus twits on the Left and invariably sends them into a tizzy.

    She's a Master Baiter, and her prey jump at whatever she dangles in front of them like so many Pavlovian canines.

    Quite a show!

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Naturally I wouldn't expect any leftist worth his salt to agree on that."

    It's certainly true that many leftists use the dishonest tactics you describe.

    My disagreement is with your claim that the Right was innocent of those same tactics in the early to mid 20th century. Also, I believe that there exist honest leftists (and conservatives!), although they tend to be quieter so I forgive anyone who fails to notice them.

    As for fighting fire with fire etc., it's just panem et circenses, and I'd have more fun at an actual circus.

    I'd rather we agree just to be honest with each other.

    You've been comparing Coulter with Jon Stewart and other liberal comedians, and whether you think he's funny or not there is undeniably some variety and range in his comedy. If I were to analyse it, I could could keep going for more than one paragraph. I've only seen Coulter make that one joke, like a more quick-witted Ann Robinson (do you know her? Yeuch) who doesn't rely on an ear-piece for her put-downs. Could easily be due to my limited exposure to her, which is why I've been asking, not just FreeThinke, but all your readers: does she have any other jokes?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Your statements are most reasonable, Jez.

    Just a quick glance at Bartlett's Quotations (the pre-1960's editions) shows the ancients in full possession of all the knowledge -- and the foibles -- that have informed political machinations since time immemorial. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is as much a profound indictment of the political process as anything else. Machiavelli had much of great interest to say in his time too.

    It's a cliche but true enough that we learn nothing from history.

    Yes, I'm sure there's been skullduggery on both sides all along. The shocking conduct of both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson -- both admirable men -- in their race for the presidency gives plenty of evidence for that.

    However, a most peculiar, I think unprecedented sort of viciousness came into American politics with the advent of Progressivism. Before the pernicious influences of the Frankfurt School, Freudian Psychology, Edward Bernays, Hollywood, Mass Commuication and the Rock Music Industry reached these shores, the rough and tumble of American politics more closely resembled a barroom brawl, or a particularly lively game of football, or maybe even a boxing match. Just boys being boys and all that. After the Progressives got ahold of us, the political scene -- admittedly always fractious -- started more closely to resemble trench warfare than rugged gamesmanship.

    ReplyDelete
  29. FT,
    She's a Master Baiter, and her prey jump at whatever she dangles in front of them like so many Pavlovian canines.

    Her prey haven't figured that out yet!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Miss Berengaria McDonald said -

    Jeeze Louise! She's fifty-two and look at her. No woman looks that good at fifty two for Cripes sake.

    She must have sold her soul to the devil. That's the only explanation I can think of.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You want conservative jokes? Then perhaps you should listen more to Evan Sayet. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  32. I was thinking of leaving a positive comment about Ms. Coulter. But since you deleted my other comments I figured why bother? Probably get the axe too.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ps - People finding Sayet's humour as "wanting" should reconsider their appreciation of Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, et al, ad nauseum...

    ReplyDelete
  34. I cannot abide Jon Stewart or Bill Maher -- or ANY of those "hip," cynical, beetle-shelled Smart-Alecs. It may have started with Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl.

    All that crap is a most regrettable influence.

    Nothing could persuade me otherwise.

    __________________________

    Les, why don't you just play it straight instead of trying to play games? This is not about you. It's supposed to be about ideas.

    Also, if one is going to insult what-you-guess are the tastes and predilections of any blogger, it would be better to use diplomatic language. Try a little subtlety. It has greased many a wheel, and opened many a door.

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.