Add Ann Coulter to the list with Pat and Jerry

[CowherLover]

She's a greedy, hate-mongering sensationialist doing what she knows is going to help her draw attention to her new book, it's worked wellas she is #1 on Amazon.com. Man I have to say though when I saw one her many interviews the other day and she looked like a bad version of a drag queen. Sometimes she looks normal and other times it looks like she missed her appointment for her daily estrogen shot, she's NASTY all the way around.

[CAH]

Murtha blames our troops for murdering civilians.

Durban equated our troops to Nazis.

Ward Churchill called the victims of 9/11 little Eichmanns.

Sheehan called Bush a terrorist as do those 4 wives but since they lost someone, they wear a touch-me-not sign and can say anything they want and no one can touch the untouchables. Ann did nothing but expose them for what they are.

When you go public and smear anyone, you are open game for critics and Ann did just that. Those women have publicly smeared Bush for years and finally someone got up the nerve to smack their little asses.

Go Ann! You dun good.

[lamberts-lost-tooth]

Originally Posted by CAH

Murtha blames our troops for murdering civilians.

Durban equated our troops to Nazis.

Ward Churchill called the victims of 9/11 little Eichmanns.

Sheehan called Bush a terrorist as do those 4 wives but since they lost someone, they wear a touch-me-not sign and can say anything they want and no one can touch the untouchables.

I recall those people making all those statements ..and have a MUCH bigger problem with people who criticize our brave soldiers (who are not asking to be in the limelight or seeking attention) than someone criticizing 911 widows who CHOSE to us their situation to push a political agenda....

[Suitanim]

The bottom line is that, even though her vitriloic diatribe is absolutely nothing but a transparent attempt to gain some free press to sell more books, it still seems to be working.

[lamberts-lost-tooth]

Originally Posted by Suitanim

The bottom line is that, even though her vitriloic diatribe is absolutely nothing but a transparent attempt to gain some free press to sell more books, it still seems to be working.

Why am I picturing BengalBrian bleeding from the ears as he searches for a dictionary?

[CAH]

Originally Posted by lamberts-lost-tooth

I recall those people making all those statements ..and have a MUCH bigger problem with people who criticize our brave soldiers (who are not asking to be in the limelight or seeking attention) than someone criticizing 911 widows who CHOSE to us their situation to push a political agenda....

Remember there were a lot of widows b/c of 9/11 but only 4 chose to bash Bush. The Democratic Party immediately embraced them to go public as they did with a few others. Every one of them wears that "touch-me-not" sign. They are being used by the liberals.

Before Ann wrote it, I wanted to go smack those 4 in the mouth. Ann saved me the trouble. Most people who bashed her, didn't even read the book or at least that chapter. If you don't want to buy the book, go to a bookstore and read that one section or go to the library.

[floodcitygirl]

Originally Posted by CAH

Remember there were a lot of widows b/c of 9/11 but only 4 chose to bash Bush. The Democratic Party immediately embraced them to go public as they did with a few others. Every one of them wears that "touch-me-not" sign. They are being used by the liberals.

Before Ann wrote it, I wanted to go smack those 4 in the mouth. Ann saved me the trouble.

Yes, the woman wants to sell books. That's part of the way she makes a living. Would I have said publicly exactly what she has? No. Have I thought some of the same things? Yep. It looks like alot of others relate too.

What happened on 9/11 was a tragedy, personally for the familes of the victims but also for each one of us who are citizens of this country. Those planes attacked what this country stands for and the freedoms and comforts that it provides. Those poor souls just happened to be in the way. I will always take it very personally.

Our soldiers are fighting with their lives to protect the freedoms that give those widows, as well as others, the opportunity to say what they want. And the language that has been used against our soldiers as well as our President has been more than "bitterly severe"....hateful , venomous, and malicious come to mind. One big difference is that those soldiers are put more at risk because of that language. Not to mention being demoralized.

Interestingly enough, their families aren't being paid a million bucks or driven around in limos, and are certainly not media darlings even though their loved ones are being killed and maimed by people who hate us for who we are and who's only intent is our destruction.

So again, would I use the same language as Ann Coulter has used - no. Am I going to get my panties in a bunch about it.....again no. The only ones IMO that deserve at least the benefit of the doubt if not a touch-me-not sign are our soldiers. I keep in mind that while they're defending our freedom to speak our views, they are restricted from doing so, publicly.

[floodcitygirl]

Originally Posted by CAH

Remember there were a lot of widows b/c of 9/11 but only 4 chose to bash Bush. The Democratic Party immediately embraced them to go public as they did with a few others. Every one of them wears that "touch-me-not" sign. They are being used by the liberals.

Before Ann wrote it, I wanted to go smack those 4 in the mouth. Ann saved me the trouble.

Yes, the woman wants to sell books. That's part of the way she makes a living. Would I have said publicly exactly what she has? No. Have I thought some of the same things? Yep. It looks like alot of others relate too.

What happened on 9/11 was a tragedy, personally for the familes of the victims but also for each one of us who are citizens of this country. Those planes attacked what this country stands for and the freedoms and comforts that it provides. Those poor souls just happened to be in the way. I will always take it very personally.

Our soldiers are fighting with their lives to protect the freedoms that give those widows, as well as others, the opportunity to say what they want. And the language that has been used against our soldiers as well as our President has been more than "bitterly severe"....hateful , venomous, and malicious come to mind. One big difference is that those soldiers are put more at risk because of that language. Not to mention being demoralized.

Interestingly enough, their families aren't being paid a million bucks or driven around in limos, and are certainly not media darlings even though their loved ones are being killed and maimed by people who hate us for who we are and who's only intent is our destruction.

So again, would I use the same language as Ann Coulter has used - no. Am I going to get my panties in a bunch about it.....again no. The only ones IMO that deserve at least the benefit of the doubt if not a touch-me-not sign are our soldiers. I keep in mind that while they're defending our freedom to speak our views, they are restricted from doing so, publicly.

[3 to be 4]

Originally Posted by Ambridge

Try not putting the "literal" magnifying glass on the words "they enjoyed the deaths of their husbands" and try to understand the underlying context in which she intended the statement.

she was misquoted in her own book?

she meant enjoyed their deaths in a good way

[CAH]

Of course Ann wants to sell books to make money. Your grocery store sells all his goods to make money. Every commercial you see wants to make money by selling their product. That's why you work. That is not a valid argument unless you're Mother Theresa