The Coulter Challenge!!!
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
I would agree. But we were active in ways that were combatant. Espionage is not passive Peace keeping and was actually against the mandate that we were under.
lol As soon as she started her first reply to a question by Bill Maher, she said conservatives are principled. roflmao Sorry, but the first things that popped into my head was Cheney and torture and GW on social programs and Katrina. Yup, principled alright, really low principles.
I am aware of this and the number of Canadians who joined on their own behalf but in large part we were neutral as dictated by our membership of the ICCS.
Two minutes in and she's already full of $hit. Hate crime against her because she's identified as a group, conservatives?
The letter from VP- Academic and Provost Francois Houle was off the mark, no question, but he wasn't targeting hate at her, he was advising restraint based on her past comments. He didn't do so because she's a conservative, but because she is a well known provocateur.
Lame.
She's being a victim of convenience, which is super hilarious because that's what she accuses liberals of in her book :
Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America
Absolutely correct! But you miss the point.....she consistently exposes the stupidity of lefty thought by turning their own weapons against them........and Houle did not just send her a note, he sent the letter to a number of people........so Coulter, having been threatened with the hate laws (which define the victims of hate as "an identifiable group") has turned the lefty world on its head by accusing Houle of promoting hatred again Conservative white women. An identifiable group....and she alleges she was put at risk by his public attack on what she might say.
Of course, she thinks hate speech laws are ludicrous, and is in the process of proving her point.
It is wonderful.
In the same vein, she refers to Tiller as "terminated in the 203rd trimester"....once again turning the language and the tactics of pro-choice against them......
You might disagree, but she is both brilliant and consistent in her methods of exposing lefty double-think.......
Though I do disagree with many of her points, I do appreciate her ability to apply a point of logic universally. That's a tactic I sometimes use, and have found it effective at times to even force me to question my own views, as it in an effective means of revealing inconsistencies in a belief system, sometimes even threatening sacred cows.
See, well here's the thing though. If it's rhetoric she can use she has no qualms using it, which is precisely what she rails against in her book. That was the point...she's a hypocrite who often likes to point out others' hypocrisy. She's in a glass house throwing stones.
Or she says something stupid and says it was a joke. There's always an excuse when spinning is your trade. I don't deny that she does it well...
Of course, she's right sometimes. So? She's a political analyst, right? The unfortunate part is that she's also extremely partisan. We have a couple of those here. It's one of the things I find so funny.
No doubt she's extremely partisan, and has made some outright despicable comments such as:
La littérature orale comme production coloniale
'Don't worry about civilian casualties'? 'Bomb their society'? 'I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilian die'?
Arabs a 'stone-age culture'? They gave us much by way of mathematics and science.
Talked about becoming the enemy we despise. She's essentially equating all Arabs with fanatics, and saying we should wipe out their culture! Even old-style imperialists wren't that genocidal.
People used to say stuff like that about her ancestors, too (the Irish, I think). That went far didn't it? The USA was governed by a few of Irish ancestry, even. But anyway, she's still right about some things.
Anyway, right or wrong, she's got a talent for shooting her mouth off and it makes her bucks. Unfortunately for her, if she were a little more balanced she could likely get off the wingnut Faux Net and make more bucks in a more balanced venue. lol
Oh, back to the zealous Muslims, I don't see a whole lot of difference between her and them.
The ideas presented on that video (unless I misunderstood her meaning since she doesn't know how to express her real ideas) are borderline fascist, if not actually fascist.
I'd like to know what she means by 'destroy their society', especially in the context of this video where she talks about not worrying so much about civilian casualties.
Unless I missed something there, it's pretty bad.
Unless I missed something there, it's pretty bad.
Not at all. Were the Allies fascists?
Her comments are a mirror of many tacticians, a great many of which are Western, and I have repeated their sentiments numerous times, because they're sound.
To win a war, you must break the will of the people. As we did with Nazi Germany and Japan. We broke the collective will of the people, in a far shorter time span, because we didn't get hung up on civilian casualties. They were considered the consequences of war.
What we have today, is three block warfare. I do not believe it is a viable tactic in this style of combat theater. Which is what she is alluding to.
As I described in my last response.
You missed something.