Can Coulter Sink Any Lower?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

I find it amazing how people who would run and hide like rodents if they heard a gunshot or saw a guy coming toward them with a raised fist, attack people who speak out, like Coulter.

Fragging is done on a battlefield or in a war zone because the person who leads you is a coward, inept, or just plain stupid — to the point where that person endangers those he commands. If he is not removed by those above him, then its so much the worse for him.

Dying because some one else is a clown or a coward is not an option.

Headhunter

22

[quote]rainjack wrote:
disciplined wrote:
wow, you have the courage to be ignorant. congratulations.

As do you. At least I can contribute to the thread. The same cannot be said for you. [/quote]

what did you contribute? having the ‘stones’ to share your agreement with coulter’s position that murtha should’ve been fragged by his fellow soldiers when he was fighting a war? what i am contributing to the thread is simply illustrating the silliness of your posts.

23

[quote]rainjack wrote:

No. I am explaining how the real world works. Like it or not - the news networks get huge hardons for ratings. Ann Coulter puts seats in the stands, so to speak. So does Michael Moorer. The kid that brought up the subject seems to think that Ann Coulter is unique in her brashness. I used Stern as an example of accepted tactlessness to make a point.

But you could see that already. I probably didn’t have to explain myself, right? [/quote]

guess what… we know how the real world works. congratulations on sharing such insight regarding the power of the almighty dollar. but you’re simply going off on a tangent that is completely irrelevant to what’s being discussed.

the thread is SIMPLE: does anyone condone coulter’s statement regarding fragging murtha? it’s not about ratings and money, it’s not about left versus right, it’s not about michael moore… get off your soapbox and stop looking for any excuse you can find to start ranting about the one-dimensional political world that you live in.

[quote]
Murtha is an inexcusable dick. He was the one that politicized the issue first. Coulter just called him on it, and raised him. [/quote]

how is murtha the first one to have politicized ‘the issue’? can you be more specific? what issue, specifically?

i have a feeling you’ll be dead wrong on this one, too… once you elaborate.

24

[quote]disciplined wrote:
what did you contribute? having the ‘stones’ to share your agreement with coulter’s position that murtha should’ve been fragged by his fellow soldiers when he was fighting a war? what i am contributing to the thread is simply illustrating the silliness of your posts.
[/quote]

I offered my opinion on the thread topic. Something you have yet to do because of your raging hard-on to prove how ignorant I am - which has not been the ringing success you obviously hoped it would be.

You see - I offer my opinion on the subbjectr, and you offer your opinion of me. I am not the thread topic.

But if skipping around in circles and saying I am ignorant floats your boat - knock yourself out.

25

[quote]disciplined wrote:
how is murtha the first one to have politicized ‘the issue’? can you be more specific? what issue, specifically?[/quote]

You really aren’t very bright are you?

You need to run along now and find another heel to nip at.

I have a felling that you have more than just a little crush on me, and you are somehow getting off on trying to call me out. You won’t be succesful to any real degree, so why don’t you just grab a tissue, the VS catalog, and head to your room.

[/quote]

26

I know I’m late to the party, but to me, this is the issue with Ann’s attack on the widows…

You know what is really funny about Ann Coulter, is that she has created a ruckus about a situation that isn’t there.

It certainly isn’t improper to disagree with the widows of 9/11, but it is difficult to attack them and discredit them.

What she is really talking about is that the democrats need to stop having spokepeople that are difficult to attack.

This is a striking difference, in that politics is no longer about discussing and working out differences, it is about attacking and discrediting people that have other opinions.

What ever happened to respecting the opinions of the others? What ever happened to all people being created equal? There’s some important values that we ignore when we engage in attack politics only.

Ann Coulter is sad and deluded. She could have criticized the 9/11 widows in a million acceptable ways, but she didn’t know how, so she attacked them. Is this really the way people want policy to be decided? Attack politics?

I guess so.

27

I hate to quote myself here, but…

Ann Coulter is an aggresively ignorant cunt desperately in need of a donkey punch.

Before all the bitching starts again, I know that word is awful and should never be used to describe a woman. I don’t use it myself, but there is no other word in the English language that comes close to describing Coulter. She’s a cunt.

And for the record, I think if the donkey puncher was to hit a little too hard and the cunt were to die from a brain injury it would be no real loss. The puncher would get the added bonus of a death quiver, though. Goodby, Ann Cuntler.

28

Did Senator Murtha make a statement that certain marines were guilty of cold-blooded murder, when they had not yet been tried?

Was Senator Murtha aware of evidence that proved the marines were guilty? Or alternatively, was his statement qualified (“probably”, or “maybe”) in proportion to the uncertainty of guilt?

Is it certain that the marines will be convicted, or is there some uncertainty? If the marines are not convicted, will that combined with the Senator’s statement not help our enemies win more recruits and kill more of our troops? Was there a counter-balancing constructive purpose to the Senator’s statement?

If the Senator’s statement was arguably (even if not clearly) unnecessary; is likely to help our enemies recruit; and is likely to result in the deaths of more of our troops – does this not mitigate the wrongness of Ann Coulter’s remark, from “low” to “inappropriate”? Would this mitigation not be independent of the number or frequency of other harsh or inappropriate remarks that Ann Coulter has uttered or written on other occasions? Would this mitigation not also be independent of whether or not invading Iraq was a wise decision?

Note, to be fair to Ann Coulter:

In the question above where I ask whether a combination of factors would mitigate Ann Coulter’s remark to “inappropriate”, I am assuming that Senator Murtha’s statement was not just reckless grandstanding, or that Ann Coulter had no way of knowing if his statement was just grandstanding. In the hypothetical case where his statement was just reckless grandstanding and she could be certain it was, her remark may have been appropriate rather than inappropriate.

29

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Did Senator Murtha make a statement that certain marines were guilty of cold-blooded murder, when they had not yet been tried?

Was Senator Murtha aware of evidence that proved the marines were guilty? Or alternatively, was his statement qualified (“probably”, or “maybe”) in proportion to the uncertainty of guilt?

Is it certain that the marines will be convicted, or is there some uncertainty? If the marines are not convicted, will that combined with the Senator’s statement not help our enemies win more recruits and kill more of our troops? Was there a counter-balancing constructive purpose to the Senator’s statement?

If the Senator’s statement was arguably (even if not clearly) unnecessary; is likely to help our enemies recruit; and is likely to result in the deaths of more of our troops – does this not mitigate the wrongness of Ann Coulter’s remark, from “low” to “inappropriate”? Would this mitigation not be independent of the number or frequency of other harsh or inappropriate remarks that Ann Coulter has uttered or written on other occasions? Would this mitigation not also be independent of whether or not invading Iraq was a wise decision?

Note, to be fair to Ann Coulter:

In the question above where I ask whether a combination of factors would mitigate Ann Coulter’s remark to “inappropriate”, I am assuming that Senator Murtha’s statement was not just reckless grandstanding, or that Ann Coulter had no way of knowing if his statement was just grandstanding. In the hypothetical case where his statement was just reckless grandstanding and she could be certain it was, her remark may have been appropriate rather than inappropriate.[/quote]

That was a great post.

We as a nation should at the very least give these Marines the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial. Murthas premature comments are dangerous and innapropriate.

30

[quote]tme wrote:
I hate to quote myself here, but…

Ann Coulter is an aggresively ignorant cunt desperately in need of a donkey punch.

Before all the bitching starts again, I know that word is awful and should never be used to describe a woman. I don’t use it myself, but there is no other word in the English language that comes close to describing Coulter. She’s a cunt.

And for the record, I think if the donkey puncher was to hit a little too hard and the cunt were to die from a brain injury it would be no real loss. The puncher would get the added bonus of a death quiver, though. Goodby, Ann Cuntler.

[/quote]

You are advocating murdering someone for expressing her views. She has therefore accomplished her goal — the Left is really nothing more than a bunch of Fascists.

You really don’t understand why she says what she does. With attacks like yours, she shows the American people just what Lefties like you are all about.

Good job, Annie!!

HH

31

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
I hate to quote myself here, but…

Ann Coulter is an aggresively ignorant cunt desperately in need of a donkey punch.

Before all the bitching starts again, I know that word is awful and should never be used to describe a woman. I don’t use it myself, but there is no other word in the English language that comes close to describing Coulter. She’s a cunt.

And for the record, I think if the donkey puncher was to hit a little too hard and the cunt were to die from a brain injury it would be no real loss. The puncher would get the added bonus of a death quiver, though. Goodby, Ann Cuntler.

You are advocating murdering someone for expressing her views. She has therefore accomplished her goal — the Left is really nothing more than a bunch of Fascists.

You really don’t understand why she says what she does. With attacks like yours, she shows the American people just what Lefties like you are all about.

Good job, Annie!!

HH

[/quote]

That’s retarded. By advocating murder, she gets “lefties” to get pissed and advocate murder, thus showing…what? That everyone wants murder? Damn, your post was stupid.

32

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

You are advocating murdering someone for expressing her views.[/quote]

Not advocating anything of the sort, just pointing out that it would be no real loss. I sure as hell wouldn’t mourn. But you can read into it whatever you want, I guess.

33

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
I hate to quote myself here, but…

Ann Coulter is an aggresively ignorant cunt desperately in need of a donkey punch.

Before all the bitching starts again, I know that word is awful and should never be used to describe a woman. I don’t use it myself, but there is no other word in the English language that comes close to describing Coulter. She’s a cunt.

And for the record, I think if the donkey puncher was to hit a little too hard and the cunt were to die from a brain injury it would be no real loss. The puncher would get the added bonus of a death quiver, though. Goodby, Ann Cuntler.

You are advocating murdering someone for expressing her views. She has therefore accomplished her goal — the Left is really nothing more than a bunch of Fascists.

You really don’t understand why she says what she does. With attacks like yours, she shows the American people just what Lefties like you are all about.

Good job, Annie!!

HH

That’s retarded. By advocating murder, she gets “lefties” to get pissed and advocate murder, thus showing…what? That everyone wants murder? Damn, your post was stupid.[/quote]

You’re late, Prof (but welcome): Fragging is not murder. Fragging is self-defense, carried out by soldiers under battlefield conditions, when the person in command is deliberately and unnecessarily endangering his men. It is a desperate measure that a soldier does to protect himself.

Its a fine line, Prof, but it is there nonetheless. See my previous posts above.

HH

34

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

You’re late, Prof (but welcome): Fragging is not murder. Fragging is self-defense, carried out by soldiers under battlefield conditions, when the person in command is deliberately and unnecessarily endangering his men. It is a desperate measure that a soldier does to protect himself.

Its a fine line, Prof, but it is there nonetheless. See my previous posts above.

HH
[/quote]

coughbullshitcough

In the context of war, a frag is commonly known as an assassination of an unpopular member of one’s own fighting unit, by dropping a fragmentation grenade into the victim’s tent. Frag doesn’t have shit to do with self defense in its original use.

35

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
NealRaymond2 wrote:
Did Senator Murtha make a statement that certain marines were guilty of cold-blooded murder, when they had not yet been tried?

Was Senator Murtha aware of evidence that proved the marines were guilty? Or alternatively, was his statement qualified (“probably”, or “maybe”) in proportion to the uncertainty of guilt?

Is it certain that the marines will be convicted, or is there some uncertainty? If the marines are not convicted, will that combined with the Senator’s statement not help our enemies win more recruits and kill more of our troops? Was there a counter-balancing constructive purpose to the Senator’s statement?

If the Senator’s statement was arguably (even if not clearly) unnecessary; is likely to help our enemies recruit; and is likely to result in the deaths of more of our troops – does this not mitigate the wrongness of Ann Coulter’s remark, from “low” to “inappropriate”? Would this mitigation not be independent of the number or frequency of other harsh or inappropriate remarks that Ann Coulter has uttered or written on other occasions? Would this mitigation not also be independent of whether or not invading Iraq was a wise decision?

Note, to be fair to Ann Coulter:

In the question above where I ask whether a combination of factors would mitigate Ann Coulter’s remark to “inappropriate”, I am assuming that Senator Murtha’s statement was not just reckless grandstanding, or that Ann Coulter had no way of knowing if his statement was just grandstanding. In the hypothetical case where his statement was just reckless grandstanding and she could be certain it was, her remark may have been appropriate rather than inappropriate.

That was a great post.

We as a nation should at the very least give these Marines the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial. Murthas premature comments are dangerous and innapropriate.
[/quote]

Exactly. If these guys are guilty they should be punished harshly.

It is up to the courst to decide not Murtha.

Murtha’s grandstanding is disgusting either way.

Murtha is the true villian. Coulter is merely rude to sell books.

36

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Murtha deserves whatever he gets from her or anyone else that supports the war. He’s a fucking bith-assed moron.[/quote]

Why do you hate the troops?

37

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
NealRaymond2 wrote:
Did Senator Murtha make a statement that certain marines were guilty of cold-blooded murder, when they had not yet been tried?

Was Senator Murtha aware of evidence that proved the marines were guilty? Or alternatively, was his statement qualified (“probably”, or “maybe”) in proportion to the uncertainty of guilt?

Is it certain that the marines will be convicted, or is there some uncertainty? If the marines are not convicted, will that combined with the Senator’s statement not help our enemies win more recruits and kill more of our troops? Was there a counter-balancing constructive purpose to the Senator’s statement?

If the Senator’s statement was arguably (even if not clearly) unnecessary; is likely to help our enemies recruit; and is likely to result in the deaths of more of our troops – does this not mitigate the wrongness of Ann Coulter’s remark, from “low” to “inappropriate”? Would this mitigation not be independent of the number or frequency of other harsh or inappropriate remarks that Ann Coulter has uttered or written on other occasions? Would this mitigation not also be independent of whether or not invading Iraq was a wise decision?

Note, to be fair to Ann Coulter:

In the question above where I ask whether a combination of factors would mitigate Ann Coulter’s remark to “inappropriate”, I am assuming that Senator Murtha’s statement was not just reckless grandstanding, or that Ann Coulter had no way of knowing if his statement was just grandstanding. In the hypothetical case where his statement was just reckless grandstanding and she could be certain it was, her remark may have been appropriate rather than inappropriate.

That was a great post.

We as a nation should at the very least give these Marines the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial. Murthas premature comments are dangerous and innapropriate.

Exactly. If these guys are guilty they should be punished harshly.

It is up to the courst to decide not Murtha.

Murtha’s grandstanding is disgusting either way.

Murtha is the true villian. Coulter is merely rude to sell books.[/quote]

I agree that Murtha’s comments are wrong, although we don’t know what he knows about the truth of the Haditha allegations. It strikes me, though, that his reaction may be more that of a decorated Marine veteran who is upset to see his Corps shamed by a mini-My Lai. He could just be politically grandstanding, I don’t know, but I’d like to think that’s not the case.

Either way, maybe I’m old-fashioned, but I just tend to think that calling for the deaths of your political opponents is disgusting, even in jest, and should have no place in American politics. Whether it’s crazy anti-war protesters saying Bush should be assassinated, or Ann Coulter talking about fragging Murtha (or, earlier, saying she should have taken a shot at Bill Clinton), it’s wrong.

38

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
I hate to quote myself here, but…

Ann Coulter is an aggresively ignorant cunt desperately in need of a donkey punch.

Before all the bitching starts again, I know that word is awful and should never be used to describe a woman. I don’t use it myself, but there is no other word in the English language that comes close to describing Coulter. She’s a cunt.

And for the record, I think if the donkey puncher was to hit a little too hard and the cunt were to die from a brain injury it would be no real loss. The puncher would get the added bonus of a death quiver, though. Goodby, Ann Cuntler.

You are advocating murdering someone for expressing her views. She has therefore accomplished her goal — the Left is really nothing more than a bunch of Fascists.

You really don’t understand why she says what she does. With attacks like yours, she shows the American people just what Lefties like you are all about.

Good job, Annie!!

HH

That’s retarded. By advocating murder, she gets “lefties” to get pissed and advocate murder, thus showing…what? That everyone wants murder? Damn, your post was stupid.

You’re late, Prof (but welcome): Fragging is not murder. Fragging is self-defense, carried out by soldiers under battlefield conditions, when the person in command is deliberately and unnecessarily endangering his men. It is a desperate measure that a soldier does to protect himself.

Its a fine line, Prof, but it is there nonetheless. See my previous posts above.

HH
[/quote]

You’re an idiot. Fragging is not something to be celebrated or even condoned; the fact that it took place in Vietnam was emblematic of how completely the U.S. Army had fallen apart.

And as for your hypothetical situation, who knows? I’ve never been in that situation, and I’m pretty sure you haven’t either, so sounding off about it on the internet contributes nothing.

39

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

You’re an idiot. Fragging is not something to be celebrated or even condoned; the fact that it took place in Vietnam was emblematic of how completely the U.S. Army had fallen apart.

And as for your hypothetical situation, who knows? I’ve never been in that situation, and I’m pretty sure you haven’t either, so sounding off about it on the internet contributes nothing.[/quote]

No branch of military service is perfect. Most of the time, those in command deserve to be there and they are men of honor. But, when a dweeb fresh from ROTC starts ordering you and your friends to very probable death, all because he insists that you walk that trail, well,…you’ll figure it out.

HH

40

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I find it amazing how people who would run and hide like rodents if they heard a gunshot or saw a guy coming toward them with a raised fist, attack people who speak out, like Coulter.

Fragging is done on a battlefield or in a war zone because the person who leads you is a coward, inept, or just plain stupid — to the point where that person endangers those he commands. If he is not removed by those above him, then its so much the worse for him.

Dying because some one else is a clown or a coward is not an option.

Headhunter[/quote]

Are you saying Bush should be shot? It sure sounds like it.

And it sure sounds like Ann Coulter is saying the same thing.

Hey, she sounds like my kinda woman. I bet she works out.

But, as Zap is so eager to point out, I really don’t know that much about US politics.