pecunium: (Default)
[personal profile] pecunium
This isn't really about liberals, unless it's the "liberal press."

Ann Coulter. I keep mentioning her when people tell me about how bad, mean and small minded, liberals are. I mention her because she ought to be poor. Why ought she suffer from a lack of money? Because the vitriol she poisons the national debate with is horrid.

I, of course, am mentioning her today because I just found out she was on the cover of Time. Ye gods and little fishes. I've been in the house all week, so it escaped me. What I've been seeing on the Web implies Time has been painting her as amusing, reasoned, in some way worthy of being on the cover of a national magazine, without being called to account for what she has said.

So what has she said?

Liberals ought to be killed.

That if one has to talk with a liberal (instead of just killing them), the best medium of communication is a baseball bat.

Tim McVeigh's real crime was not dropping his truck off at the NY Times building.

Being Liberal is treason.

That she wished the American military was killing reporters, by design.

That women are too stupid to vote.

That the real question about Clinton was, "whether to impeach, or assassinate."

Those who support her (and we now know that support is in the mainstream... not that most of us doubted it) have been on the side of Iraqis, the insurgents who killed an aid worker (if you can stomach it, the conversation here at Freep, is what I'm talking about. A sample.... "My bet, of course, is that she was so concerned about the decrease in US casualties that she misread the insurgents' orders of the day and forgat to avoid a place where she knew a blast would take place."). Great company she keeps.

On the flip side we hear how evil the Dems are. They actually think judges ought to be allowed to judge. The right is calling for them to be killed. Not just the kooks and the Militia types anymore, but the mainstream. At the recent confab they called "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" a speaker quoted Stalin (you know, the guy the left is supposed to be guilty of not hating enough) Edwin Vieira, a lawyer and author of How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, went even further, suggesting during a panel discussion that Joseph Stalin offered the best method for reining in the Supreme Court. "He had a slogan," Vieira said, "and it worked very well for him whenever he ran into difficulty: 'No man, no problem.'"

The complete Stalin quote is, "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."
Max Blumenthal in The Nation.

He said it twice. Just in case one has heard his explanation that he wasn't really trying to inspire another domemstic terrorist like Eric Rudolph, another attendee said something more explicit, Before I could introduce myself, he turned to me and another observer with a crooked smile and exclaimed, "I'm a radical! I'm a real extremist. I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!" This was no inbred twit from the back of beyond, no this was Michael Schwartz the chief of staff for Oklahoma's GOP Senator Tom Coburn, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Michael Moore, the present bogey-man used to paint the left as mean-spirited pales to insignificance compared to that. He calls Republicans liars and thieves. Tom DeLay calls him a political hack.

But he didn't call for anyone to kill Bush, he asked us to look at the record and turn him out of office.

On the subject of the Supreme Court... he said they made a bad decision, and called on us to turn out Bush, so that when new appointments were made, someone else would be making them.

Yep, when you compare him to Coulter, the Left sure looks mean.

Date: 2005-04-21 07:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] swimmingotter.livejournal.com
She really said that women are too stupid to vote? I don't understand . . .wouldn't that make her stupid, too? If she's stupid, like the rest of us women--who shouldn't be allowed to vote--why the hell is she on the cover of TIME?

Date: 2005-04-21 07:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pecunium.livejournal.com
That is a damned good question.

And yes, she did. She questioned the wisdom of giving women the franchise, because they are too emotional, not really wise enough and lacking in judgement.

Honest.

She's on the cover of Time because she is full of foul sentiments, has television time, write columns which get published, and is, "pretty" and God knows why else. One might think, given the whitewash her views were given, they agree with her, and want her to get a wider audience.

I find her revolting. The lack of repudiation on the part of the Republican Party of people like her is no small reason they aren't able to get my vote right now.

TK

Date: 2005-04-21 07:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] swimmingotter.livejournal.com
I was reading online somewhere that she got pissed at the cover, making her look like her legs were 6 miles long and selling her beauty. But, seeing as she's a woman who's lacking in judgement, perhaps she was just being emotional and will get over it in a day or two.

*shudder*

I am so sad to be young in times like these. I'd much rather be at the end of my life, or a small child who doesn't know, because I realise more and more every day that I am one of the people who will be around to clean up the mess that is being made of the world. The Boy is a Republican, and I am so not, we get by. Sometimes it's just more fun to fight it out. I just don't see how anyone in our government can quote Stalin and not think anything of it. What does that say about the country we've become?

Date: 2005-04-21 07:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ad-kay.livejournal.com
See, you're expecting her to make sense! She doesn't write so much as she froths incoherently. IIRC from reading Atrios, one of the major conservative publications--I want to say National Review but I'm not sure that's it--asked her to report from the Dem. Convention. They rejected her copy because it absolutely incoherent. I think they went with Jonah Goldberg's stuff instead.

Date: 2005-04-22 03:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dsgood.livejournal.com
I think what you're remembering is: USA Today decided it would be neat to have Michael Moore review the Republican convention and Ann Coulter review the Democratic convention. They rejected it, went with someone else.

She'd been rejected from National Review (possibly only their online edition) earlier -- thanks to a column in which she called for forcibly converting all Muslims to Christianity. (As you may remember from your history classes, the conversion of Europe to Christianity meant that there would never again be war in Europe. No, she didn't use that argument....)

Date: 2005-04-22 12:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ad-kay.livejournal.com
Yes, that was it, thank you! I mangled that pretty good, didn't I?

Profile

pecunium: (Default)
pecunium

June 2023

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11 121314151617
181920212223 24
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 26th, 2026 03:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios