Thread: Ann Coulter - Godless

She said something the other day to the extent that she had never seen people so happy to lose a spouse (from 9/11) so that they can use it as a way to make money, or some shit like that. I believe her intended target was Patty Sheehan, but she fucked up and kind of generalized. O and A were tearing her a new asshole for it.

Her criticism was aimed at four New Jersey women whom she dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick," after the town where two of them live.

They have spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks supporting an independent commission to examine government failures before the attack, and in the 2004 presidential campaign they endorsed Democrat John Kerry.

The women are Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza.

the day before the attacks my dad n his friend were stopped via roadblock state cops and border patrol on I 95 south, the same road where the terrorists came from canada and thru maine, and questioned about their citizenship. there are major fuck ups that led to the attacks being successful.

Originally Posted by dg806

Her criticism was aimed at four New Jersey women whom she dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick," after the town where two of them live.

They have spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks supporting an independent commission to examine government failures before the attack, and in the 2004 presidential campaign they endorsed Democrat John Kerry.

The women are Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza.

Exactly... These women have been more than just critical of the government over the 9/11 attacks. They have used thier tragic loss as some sort of "shield" that (they feel) entitles them total moral authority to criticize every faucet of conservative politics yet be immune from any criticism from thier opposition. "why, you can't argue with her!! Her Husband was killed in the World Trade Center"

Cindy Sheehan is no different. Using the tragic loss of her son as a platform to gain riches and attack the president while hiding behind this liberal invoked blanket of immunity from her critics.

I admire Ann for having the fortitude to call this bullshit out in the open.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Exactly... These women have been more than just critical of the government over the 9/11 attacks. They have used thier tragic loss as some sort of "shield" that (they feel) entitles them total moral authority to criticize every faucet of conservative politics yet be immune from any criticism from thier opposition. "why, you can't argue with her!! Her Husband was killed in the World Trade Center"

Cindy Sheehan is no different. Using the tragic loss of her son as a platform to gain riches and attack the president while hiding behind this liberal invoked blanket of immunity from her critics.

I admire Ann for having the fortitude to call this bullshit out in the open.

No one can criticize the president or government! Why we are at war! These women should shut their mouths, get back in the kitchen and leave the practice of government to real men like Bush/Cheney.
http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/index.php?q=node/1680

You protest against war widows. That's a no-win situation my friend.

True Story, I'd like to see coulter debate Chomsky.

She would get pwn3d X 10000000000000000000!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Exactly... These women have been more than just critical of the government over the 9/11 attacks. They have used thier tragic loss as some sort of "shield" that (they feel) entitles them total moral authority to criticize every faucet of conservative politics yet be immune from any criticism from thier opposition. "why, you can't argue with her!! Her Husband was killed in the World Trade Center"

Cindy Sheehan is no different. Using the tragic loss of her son as a platform to gain riches and attack the president while hiding behind this liberal invoked blanket of immunity from her critics.

I admire Ann for having the fortitude to call this bullshit out in the open.

Of course you can argue with a war widow, she used that argument and it is so false. You are attacking her position, not her dead husband. I wouldn't feel a bit sorry for those chicks, right is right, wrong is wrong.

torpedo in the water

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Of course you can argue with a war widow, she used that argument and it is so false. You are attacking her position, not her dead husband. I wouldn't feel a bit sorry for those chicks, right is right, wrong is wrong.

The widows just want some answers from Bush and co. Why and how did 9/11 happen...why wasn't anyone held accountable for the multiple failures enabling 9/11....why attack a country that hasn't attacked us...why did you obstruct efforts to investigate the attacks, etc. etc. etc.?

I'd say that the widows not only have moral authority to ask such questions, they have carte blanche. Look below at Coulter's quotes--she's just pulling arguments out of her ass.

Just look at all the bullshit straw arguments she throws at that imbecile Lauer:

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:

“These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”
And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about:
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
Because they dare to speak out?
COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to> No-No-No. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die–
LAUER: But aren’t they in the middle of the story?…
COULTER: …Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity. No, the story is…
LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly?
LAUER: What I’m saying is I don’t think they have ever told you, you can’t respond.
COULTER: Look, you are getting testy with me.


The above is pure red meat for the true believer.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Exactly... These women have been more than just critical of the government over the 9/11 attacks. They have used thier tragic loss as some sort of "shield" that (they feel) entitles them total moral authority to criticize every faucet of conservative politics yet be immune from any criticism from thier opposition. "why, you can't argue with her!! Her Husband was killed in the World Trade Center"

Cindy Sheehan is no different. Using the tragic loss of her son as a platform to gain riches and attack the president while hiding behind this liberal invoked blanket of immunity from her critics.

I admire Ann for having the fortitude to call this bullshit out in the open.

My thoughts exactly. I ordered Ann's book as soon as I heard this story. Anyone with the balls to do that must have the balls to write what the believe and not what their readers want to hear.

Originally Posted by Decker

The widows just want some answers from Bush and co. Why and how did 9/11 happen...why wasn't anyone held accountable for the multiple failures enabling 9/11....why attack a country that hasn't attacked us...why did you obstruct efforts to investigate the attacks, etc. etc. etc.?

I'd say that the widows not only have moral authority to ask such questions, they have carte blanche. Look below at Coulter's quotes--she's just pulling arguments out of her ass.

Just look at all the bullshit straw arguments she throws at that imbecile Lauer:

The above is pure red meat for the true believer.

Sure, they have every right to challenge the government on the issues of 9/11. Everyone does. the 9/11 commission has been pretty thorough thus far I think. It's simply sad to see that these women believe that the tragic loss of thier husbands somehow exonerates them from the scrutiny of thier own screwed up political agendas. It's like, every time they enter a room, MC HAmmer's "Can't Touch This" starts playing as they fire indiscriminate shots at everyone and anything they choose to disagree with. If they choose to exlpoit the deaths of thier husbands for thier own selfish purposes they they need to be prepared to have thier true allegiences challenged.

Oh... and I do agree... Matt Lauer is an idiot

Originally Posted by BigDyl

True Story, I'd like to see coulter debate Chomsky.

She would get pwn3d X 10000000000000000000!!!!!!

That is why you almost never see these tools debate him. But in reality the way americans debate today has little to do with facts or the truth, the people best at it just know how to twist and spin things so no productive conversation even takes place.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Sure, they have every right to challenge the government on the issues of 9/11. Everyone does. the 9/11 commission has been pretty thorough thus far I think. It's simply sad to see that these women believe that the tragic loss of thier husbands somehow exonerates them from the scrutiny of thier own screwed up political agendas. It's like, every time they enter a room, MC HAmmer's "Can't Touch This" starts playing as they fire indiscriminate shots at everyone and anything they choose to disagree with. If they choose to exlpoit the deaths of thier husbands for thier own selfish purposes they they need to be prepared to have thier true allegiences challenged.

Oh... and I do agree... Matt Lauer is an idiot

What did they say? I mean how do you know they (widows) feel they should be excluded from criticism? I know that some of them voted for Bush in 2000. That would seem to imply some sort of even-handedness. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6030699/site/newsweek

At least we know what we got w/ Lauer hahahaha.

Originally Posted by KelJu

My thoughts exactly. I ordered Ann's book as soon as I heard this story. Anyone with the balls to do that must have the balls to right what the believe and not what their readers want to hear.

You ordered Ann's book?


You make me sad.

Originally Posted by Decker

The widows just want some answers from Bush and co. Why and how did 9/11 happen...why wasn't anyone held accountable for the multiple failures enabling 9/11....why attack a country that hasn't attacked us...why did you obstruct efforts to investigate the attacks, etc. etc. etc.?

I'd say that the widows not only have moral authority to ask such questions, they have carte blanche. Look below at Coulter's quotes--she's just pulling arguments out of her ass.

Just look at all the bullshit straw arguments she throws at that imbecile Lauer:

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:

“These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”
And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about:
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
Because they dare to speak out?
COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to> No-No-No. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die–
LAUER: But aren’t they in the middle of the story?…
COULTER: …Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity. No, the story is…
LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly?
LAUER: What I’m saying is I don’t think they have ever told you, you can’t respond.
COULTER: Look, you are getting testy with me.


The above is pure red meat for the true believer.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

True Story, I'd like to see coulter debate Chomsky.

She would get pwn3d X 10000000000000000000!!!!!!

OR ... as irascable as he was ... JFK. pwn3d X 100000000000000000000000000000000000000.

Ann Coulter is no different than any other media parasite. She is much more intelligent than most of her kind ... and a lot easier to look at than Rush ... but just as disingenuous and immoral. As long as the efforts on whatever publicised perspective or defilement she is involved with at that moment will promote her needs than no conservative perspective or ideology is out of bounds, unfair, dishonest, or wrong.

Just like Rush, Ann is a neocon windbag. But I'd hit it ...

Originally Posted by Decker

What did they say? I mean how do you know they (widows) feel they should be excluded from criticism? I know that some of them voted for Bush in 2000. That would seem to imply some sort of even-handedness. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6030699/site/newsweek

At least we know what we got w/ Lauer hahahaha.

"I watched my husband murdered live on TV. . . . At any point in time the casualties could have been lessened, and it seems to me there wasn't even an attempt made."

--Monica Gabrielle

"Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush's watch."

-- Kristin Breitweiser

And

"We simply wanted to know why our husbands were killed."

-- Kristin Breitweiser

These statements (like so many others these women have made) do ring with an element of truth but the delivery is such that absolutely no onus is places on the TERRORISTS RESPONSIBLE for the act. The message directly implies, "its ALL BUSH's Fault that my husband is dead".

This sort of vitriol has been spouted about by these women for the past several years and people are getting tired of it. Ann's quotes and comments are the subsequent backlash from a side to the societal conscious that is sick of their incessant whining.

Sure, one could argue that her comments were cut from a rougher mold than most would use but hey… that sort of shit sells books!

Originally Posted by Witmaster

These statements (like so many others these women have made) do ring with an element of truth but the delivery is such that absolutely no onus is places on the TERRORISTS RESPONSIBLE for the act. The message directly implies, "its ALL BUSH's Fault that my husband is dead".

This sort of vitriol has been spouted about by these women for the past several years and people are getting tired of it. Ann's quotes and comments are the subsequent backlash from a side to the societal conscious that is sick of their incessant whining.

Sure, one could argue that her comments were cut from a rougher mold than most would use but hey… that sort of shit sells books!

I'm not getting tired of their BS. I want the heat on Bush. (now there's a title that'll sell books) Of the three quotes you supplied, 2 are plain facts: the attack/deaths did occur on GWB's watch; absolutely nothing was done to prevent the attacks--no planes were scrambled--nothing; the last one is just an interrogatory statement. Hell, I'd like to know why too. I've read some of these ladies' statements and they don't seem off-the-wall to me. Bush has much to answer for: obstructing an investigation into 9/11 causes, failure to issue an order to scramble fighters during the protracted attack (why'd he sit in a classroom in FL looking like a goddamn dope instead of issuing orders like a commander and chief should), attacking a country w/ no substantial ties to 9/11.

There's alot he has to answer for.

Originally Posted by Decker

I'm not getting tired of their BS. I want the heat on Bush. (now there's a title that'll sell books) Of the three quotes you supplied, 2 are plain facts: the attack/deaths did occur on GWB's watch; absolutely nothing was done to prevent the attacks--no planes were scrambled--nothing; the last one is just an interrogatory statement. Hell, I'd like to know why too. I've read some of these ladies' statements and they don't seem off-the-wall to me. Bush has much to answer for: obstructing an investigation into 9/11 causes, failure to issue an order to scramble fighters during the protracted attack (why'd he sit in a classroom in FL looking like a goddamn dope instead of issuing orders like a commander and chief should), attacking a country w/ no substantial ties to 9/11.

There's alot he has to answer for.

I think it's pretty obvious by now that the 9/11 attacks were a culmination of YEARS of planning ranging from the Clinton Administration through the early years of Bush. It's no secret that mistakes were made. The massive albatross of government intelligence failed to circumnavigate it's own impossible chains of beurocratic bullshit and thus.... any chance of intervention was lost. Yet, you want to blame George Bush for the whole debacle? Come on now.... this really isn't about the failure of government as it is an exploitation of events to burn a conservative republican.

Failure to scramble the fighters.... Now just what the hell good would that do?!? At the time of the attacks there were over 50 thousand aircraft STILL IN THE AIR and frantically trying to find a place to land!! Are you saying that the president should have order the indiscriminant shooting down of every aircraft still aloft?!? How many 10 of thousands of people would you prefer be shot down just so you could say, "We intervened" Frankly, within hours of the attacks the FAA had pretty much purged the skys of any and all commercial traffic. This was unheard of in our history. I think they did a pretty damn good job.

As for Bush sitting in that classroom in FL.... the first plane hit the World Trade Center at 8:45AM. at 9:03AM the second one hit. By 9:30 the Commander in Chief had given his first press briefing and was heading out to Air Force One. You make it sound as if he was just kickin back in a easy chair with a Pabts Blue Ribbon wonderng where he left the remote!

Look, I have no ambitions of changing your opinions about this matter. Your seething and profound dissaproval of the President has been pretty apparent to anyone who reads this forum. (In fact, the only one who rivals your extreme view is Snafu who actually goes so far as to support the terrorists when they successfully kill one of our guys). All I'm saying is these "Jersey Girls" have been way over the top for some time now in thier efforts to attack the administration. ALthough you may agree with them, Ann Coulter's book is proof (best seller) that there is a distinct portion of our country who have had enough of "Jersey Fever"

Originally Posted by Witmaster

I think it's pretty obvious by now that the 9/11 attacks were a culmination of YEARS of planning ranging from the Clinton Administration through the early years of Bush. It's no secret that mistakes were made. The massive albatross of government intelligence failed to circumnavigate it's own impossible chains of beurocratic bullshit and thus.... any chance of intervention was lost. Yet, you want to blame George Bush for the whole debacle? Come on now.... this really isn't about the failure of government as it is an exploitation of events to burn a conservative republican.

And we've had years of planning to handle hijackings, starting with the late 1960's.

Failure to scramble the fighters.... Now just what the hell good would that do?!? At the time of the attacks there were over 50 thousand aircraft STILL IN THE AIR and frantically trying to find a place to land!! Are you saying that the president should have order the indiscriminant shooting down of every aircraft still aloft?!? How many 10 of thousands of people would you prefer be shot down just so you could say, "We intervened" Frankly, within hours of the attacks the FAA had pretty much purged the skys of any and all commercial traffic. This was unheard of in our history. I think they did a pretty damn good job.

As for Bush sitting in that classroom in FL.... the first plane hit the World Trade Center at 8:45AM. at 9:03AM the second one hit. By 9:30 the Commander in Chief had given his first press briefing and was heading out to Air Force One. You make it sound as if he was just kickin back in a easy chair with a Pabts Blue Ribbon wonderng where he left the remote!

Only 45 minutes. I wonder how long it took for him to get on the plane late at night to rush back to the White House to sign "Terri's bill?"

Look, I have no ambitions of changing your opinions about this matter. Your seething and profound dissaproval of the President has been pretty apparent to anyone who reads this forum. (In fact, the only one who rivals your extreme view is Snafu who actually goes so far as to support the terrorists when they successfully kill one of our guys). All I'm saying is these "Jersey Girls" have been way over the top for some time now in thier efforts to attack the administration. ALthough you may agree with them, Ann Coulter's book is proof (best seller) that there is a distinct portion of our country who have had enough of "Jersey Fever"

Give me a break. You make the statement that the "Jersey Girls" anger at the President has an element of truth in it, then you say that "people" are getting sick of hearing it. Does that mean people would rather hear a concoction of dishonestly researched Ann Coulter diatribe instead?
Best-seller status doesn't provide any proof of accuracy - it only shows that some people view her as an entertainer and some are grateful that she helps provide them with other targets to hate. They don't care if she's accurate or not.

The church she claims to attend in New York City has already responded that they've never seen her and that she's not a member. "Godless" indeed.

Whoopie Ann Coulter wrote another book, I'm waiting in anticipation for Michelle Malkin's next scorcher.

maybe for some women they should bring back "the rule of thumb"

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Give me a break. You make the statement that the "Jersey Girls" anger at the President has an element of truth in it, then you say that "people" are getting sick of hearing it. Does that mean people would rather hear a concoction of dishonestly researched Ann Coulter diatribe instead?

Damn Right, so long as it keeps Libs like you on your toes

Best-seller status doesn't provide any proof of accuracy - it only shows that some people view her as an entertainer and some are grateful that she helps provide them with other targets to hate. They don't care if she's accurate or not.

The exact same argument can be made for every other Lib Publication.

The church she claims to attend in New York City has already responded that they've never seen her and that she's not a member. "Godless" indeed.

(care to share a source?) And you attend church, .... where was it again?

"Years of handeling Hijackings starting with the 1960's ?!?!? You're kidding right?!?!?!? This was unprecidented!! They killed the entire flight crew and flew into buildings!! You're idea of "planning" for such things is amusing. The only effective way to handle that type of hijacking is the way the passengers of United #93 did (God Bless those people).

As for any percieved "delay".. it could have been 45 seconds and you'd still be dissatisfied. It would either be "he acted too quickly before he had all the facts or not quick enough and cost more lives. You'll never be satisfied.

Look man... Love your Jersey Girls. God does

Originally Posted by Little Wing

maybe for some women they should bring back "the rule of thumb"

I dated a girl who loved that rule

Originally Posted by kbm8795

The church she claims to attend in New York City has already responded that they've never seen her and that she's not a member. "Godless" indeed.

A member of that church called in to Hannity and claimed that she was a member. So who is telling the truth? There is no way to know, so I will believe the people that don't sound like a bunch of disorderly crybabies.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

"Years of handeling Hijackings starting with the 1960's ?!?!? You're kidding right?!?!?!? This was unprecidented!!

They killed the entire flight crew and flew into buildings!! You're idea of "planning" for such things is amusing. The only effective way to handle that type of hijacking is the way the passengers of United #93 did (God Bless those people).

They've killed passengers and flight personnel before. Hijackings are hijackings - use of weapons whether they flew a plane into a building or ordered it to be flown to some other country. Gee...a plane can be flown into a building - like planes don't crash into things, either by mechanical failure or intent? There is nothing unprecedented about a plane crash - the only thing different about this was that there was a targeted suicide mission. Where were the updated safety concerns? The extra detections? The reinforced doors to the cockpit? These were not the first people to board a plane, hijack it, or carry a bomb.

As for any percieved "delay".. it could have been 45 seconds and you'd still be dissatisfied. It would either be "he acted too quickly before he had all the facts or not quick enough and cost more lives. You'll never be satisfied.

George Bush doesn't seem capable of having a coherent thought within 45 seconds - without a script, he's nothing, and he has delays in transmitting his oral messages because he has to attach his fake Texas accent.

Look man... Love your Jersey Girls. God does

Well, we already know that Ann Coulter really doesn't know too much about God.

Originally Posted by KelJu

A member of that church called in to Hannity and claimed that she was a member.

Wow...someone who claimed to be a member made a phone call to a partisan shill - that's real credible.

So who is telling the truth? There is no way to know, so I will believe the people that don't sound like a bunch of disorderly crybabies.

The clergy of the church does not have any record of her membership. Maybe Ann just got kinda lost. . .and dropped into the wrong church. You know, kinda like how she voted in the wrong precinct but claimed it was hers and now has a big legal mess in Florida.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Wow...someone who claimed to be a member made a phone call to a partisan shill - that's real credible.

READ MY POST!!!!


You just stopped, quoted me, and made the exact same fucking point I made.