Hannity, Colmes, Coulter, panel debate Obama’s Born Alive opposition
On August 18, the exchange between sides became heated on Hannity and Colmes on the topic of Barack Obama’s opposition as state senator to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
The argument centered on whether Obama opposed the identical language that 98 of his U.S. Senate colleagues supported and that even NARAL went neutral on.
Colmes continued to assert the answer was no, even though there is proof the answer is yes. I had it confirmed last night that Colmes’ people have been given the documentation. Let’s see what he does with it.
Ann Coulter was fabulous…
Aug.20, 2008 6:00 am |
Aborted alive, Born Alive, Campaign, Obama |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I saw H&C discuss this last night, and it was fascinating. The proabort spokespeople were totally flabbergasted. They had NO RESPONSE to the documentation Hannity held in his hand, but simply tried to deflect and change the subject to “improper implications”. I’ve never seen proaborts at such a loss for anything relevant to say.
Excellent!
Here is something that I found stunning…
When asked about abortion he replied that “it was above his paygrade”, yet when asked about embryonic stem cell research and federal funding, he said that embryos should NOT be produced specifically for research, but that existing ones could be used that way…
Well, why the heck not? Why is it above his paygrade to make a moral statement about when life begins on the abortion issue, but suddenly get all moral on embryonic stem cells. Why would it matter where the embryos came from? If it IS taking a human life, then NO, NO, NO embryos should be killed, and if it isn’t taking human life then ALL embryos should be up for grabs.
If it is taking human life, then so is abortion.
Can’t have your cake and eat it two.
Michael Medved hit the nail on the head when he said that it isn’t so much that Obama flip flops as that he takes opposing positions at the same time. He tries to please everyone, yet pleases no one.
How can you be against abortion and for it? Against killing embryos, yet for it?
As I said to Doug…this isn’t about a womans right. It is about a babys right. To live.
Look at it this way: Suppose you have a front yard with a fence on it. The gate has a “WELCOME” sign on it. Along comes a woman with Alzheimers…She has no way of reasoning out that the welcome sign is not meant for her…thus making her innocent…the way a newly conceived child has no way of stopping it’s conception…
She wanders through your gate and onto the front porch. You argue that you can club her to death with a baseball bat because she is infringing on your property rights. We argue that you can’t, considering she is innocent of any real crime, given that she isn’t capable of reason and rational thought.
You say you aren’t forcing US to club her to death, but just want the right to club her to death yourself.
We say, you had a WELCOME sign on your gate…If you were so freaked out by her coming on your porch (especially since it had happened many times to your neighbors before) then you should have put a lock on your gate, or removed the WELCOME sign. You are the one that is capable of making “choices”, not her (not the baby). The responsibility falls on YOUR shoulders.
The government, by saying that you do indeed have the right to clobber her, is forcing US to accept your behavior, even if it means that the woman will be killed in cold blood.
You say you are not forcing us to have abortions, and we shouldn’t force you not to.
You say you are not forcing US to beat the old lady with a bat, and that we shouldn’t stop you.
But who is protecting/speaking up for the old lady?
You’re argument that it is your porch/body and you have the right to do with it what you want, falls apart because there IS, IS, IS a third party involved. And it is that third parties rights that we are fighting for. You keep focusing on the woman’s rights, but we are focusing on the bystanders rights. If you argue it from your point, of course we have no where to go…but how convenient to simply dismiss the old lady.
The government doesn’t have any right to interfere. On that you are correct. By saying that you have the right to kill your child, they ARE interfering, not with your rights, but with the childs.
Oh WOW, that was an awesome interview!! I have just been reminded of how much I LOVE ANN COULTER!
Go ANN! You did an awesome job.
I wish Colmes would stop insisting on that lie…but I kinda feel sorry for him- that’s all he’s got.
I wish someone would just go on there with the documentation, while he’s on national TV, and leave him speechless. But I guess he’d still just fall back on the old, “oh you don’t REALLY think he wants those babies to die do you?”…
Marykay, excellent post!
As I said to Doug…this isn’t about a womans right. It is about a babys right. To live.
MK, I think Obama was taking the question about when a baby gets rights as asking for some definitive pronouncement on his part, and as far as theology/morality, he felt like it wasn’t his place to say.
IMO he made it more complex than it was. He could have said that babies get rights at birth, and that a limited form of rights can be said to be there at viability.
Or, approaching it as when in his opinion should a baby get rights, he could have offered his opinion, and I’m thinking it would be the same as above – that at birth the baby is a citizen, etc., has full rights, and that he’s also okay with the restrictions on abortion most states have now.
The embryo issue isn’t about women’s rights, but abortion most certainly is.
To generalize, rights haven’t been attributed to the unborn, and that is what you want changed. If and when they were, then it’d be a question of the baby’s rights against the woman’s rights. Now or then, women’s rights would still come into it.
Doug,
Obviously I realize that no rights have been afforded the unborn and I realize that this is what we are upset about.
Focusing on the woman does NOT change the fact that it is WRONG to ignore the child.
The fact that Obama fudged/hemmedandhawed/didn’t answer the question (big surprise) is exactly what we are talking about!
It’s not his position, it’s the LIES! I don’t care if Bill Clinton was boffing a duck. I DO care that he LIED about it.
If the man feels that he is right, then he should say so. The fact that he dances tells me he KNOWS that he’s wrong and has been backed into a corner.
It is the dancing, not the opinion, that we are taking exception too.
If he came straight out and said “I think killing babies is okie dokie and letting them die after they are born is hunky dory”, then we’d fight him on that. But he votes one way, and then weasels his way out of taking responsibility for his vote (What? A pro choicer trying to weasel out of responsibility? Unheard of!)
This is the crux of the whole abortion debate. No one wants to take responsibility for their choices!
This is why I can respect SoMG’s arguments. They are horrifying, but they are honest! He takes responsibility, owns up to, his convictions. He doesn’t try to rationalize or sugar coat it.
They are babies. They are human beings. And a woman has the right to kill them. Sick, but honest.
MK, do you really think that the six people that voted against passing the bill as amended did so in order “for babies to be killed”?
It may have been a political thing, a lacking of a quid pro quo, etc., it may have been total politcal BS, etc., and I’d like to know why they voted as they did.
If he came straight out and said “I think killing babies is okie dokie and letting them die after they are born is hunky dory”, then we’d fight him on that.
I do think he should have said that babies get (full) rights at birth.
Obviously I realize that no rights have been afforded the unborn and I realize that this is what we are upset about.
Thank you!
MK,
Let me clarify that so I can answer, “do you really think that the six people that voted against passing the bill as amended did so in order for babies to continue to be killed?”, and the answer would be, yes.
Obviously, they don’t care. They are so wrapped up in the whole “women’s rights” thing that they have decided that a child is still the woman’s property after it’s born!
Ooh, Bethany…you are an incredibly gifted artist! Thanks for sharing that. Ann Coulter rocks!
Coulter says what happened was “shocking”. Where has she been the past thirty years? This is nothing new. Disgusting? Yes. Deplorable? Yes. Cruel? Yes. Shocking? Can something so longstanding be shocking?
She did note that sometimes these aborted babies are missing an arm — she either remembers Ana Rosa Rodriguez or she has heard of Baby Claire.
She nailed Obama with “If you don’t know you err on the side of life, at least if you’re a decent human being.”
I think Obama, Colmes, and others like them are making a big mistake (which is a good thing) defending the vote on the grounds that protecting born infants “threatens Roe”. This is likely to get prochoicers thinking, really reassessing and sorting out how the treatment of born babies can possibly impact abortion. And as we know, anything that gets people to questioning and thinking tends to bring them out of the morass, if they have any human decency at all, on the prolife side.
She nailed it again with “If we don’t need it anyway, what’s the harm in voting for it?”
What was that lame bit about how the “above my pay grade” meant that this was an area where the government shouldn’t meddle? They want the government to PAY for it, to SANCTION it, to REFER for it, to PROMOTE it. If that isn’t meddling, what is? And as Coulter said, “If you’re not sure, err on the side of life.” By sanctioning abortion, you ARE meddling. You are saying taking the side of the person who wants the baby dead and helping him or her to achieve that.
And the whole “It’s a personal choice.” John List made a personal choice. I suppose Colmes would defend that.
Thank you, Carla!
Christina, as usual, excellent points!
Bethany, you ARE a gifted artist! A lovely likeness of Ann.
wonderful picture Bethany!!
Mk, great post as usual…
Let me clarify that so I can answer, “do you really think that the six people that voted against passing the bill as amended did so in order for babies to continue to be killed?”, and the answer would be, yes.
Bethany, that vote was not at all about abortion, though. It was about caring for born babies – and I’d like to hear why the vote was “no” from those voters themselves.
Bethany you do know Ann Coulter wants to take away woman’s suffrage (a woman’s right to vote)? That means she doesn’t think you should have the right to vote, or that your daughter, when she turns 18, should have the right to vote.
Thank you, Jasper and Eileen!
Bethany, that vote was not at all about abortion, though. It was about caring for born babies – and I’d like to hear why the vote was “no” from those voters themselves.
Yes, of course I’m aware of that, Doug, thus the reason for my post.
I’m pretty sure that if you asked them, their reasons would mimic Obama’s reasons…lies, lies, and more lies. (example: I would have voted to support it if it had been worded differently). But if you can find them explaining it in any other way, let me know.
Bethany you do know Ann Coulter wants to take away woman’s suffrage (a woman’s right to vote)? That means she doesn’t think you should have the right to vote, or that your daughter, when she turns 18, should have the right to vote.
Jess, I understand how you see it that way, but in all honestly she was being facetious in order to make a point about how poorly many women are choosing to vote.
For example, many women choose who to vote for based on their looks or charm (not that men aren’t guilty of this too, of course!).
But within the context, it made sense, and it was just a tongue in cheek moment from Ann Coulter. She jokes quite frequently, and unfortunately many people do not understand her sense of humor (which I personally find hilarious most of the time).
Bethany,
You do plan on showing that drawing to Ms. Coulter, right.
Title it “Pro-Life Art”
MK, I love you when you are passionate. I love you anyways, but when you get to ANNOUNCING the truth it a sight to behold.
which I personally find hilarious most of the time
Yeah, that time she said we should invade other people’s countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity was a hoot. Same with that time she said her only problem with McVeigh was that he didn’t blow up the NY Times building.
I see nothing funny about invalidating the issues women, moreso than men, often consider important when voting. She explained, in the quote, that women tend to want education funding, healthcare reform, etc — so she wasn’t just joking about how women are allegedly stupid enough to vote for the hottest guy.
Honestly, I just watched five days of Olympics with people who openly admit that they “don’t like Orientals” — so it’s not like their PC-meter is set too high — and even they find her mind-numbingly, stupidly absurd.
Why can’t everyone be like Ann!
You do plan on showing that drawing to Ms. Coulter, right.
Carder, I sent it to her two years ago – one of the people I used to talk to on the Ann Coulter forum had her address, and was sending a birthday package to her, from all different people.. and I wanted to include my drawing there. Ann actually visited her forum on one particular night (a rare event! lol), and I was notified about it (in the middle of that night), because she had written me a nice thank you, saying she couldn’t wait to show it to her mom! That made my day (well, night)!!!
Yeah, that time she said we should invade other people’s countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity was a hoot. Same with that time she said her only problem with McVeigh was that he didn’t blow up the NY Times building.
Context, Alexandra. It’s very important.
I’m curious, Bethany — in what context is stuff like that acceptable?
In a context where it changes the idea of what is said entirely.
Ann has explained herself time and time again, and has never apologized for those quotes, because she meant them – IN the context they were intended.
And I’m asking you what context makes that okay, because I have only ever heard her say, repeatedly, that her quotes are taken out of context. I have never heard a rational explanation for any of them except the one about Jews needing to be perfected.
Alexandra, if you’d read all of her books (but I’m sure you probably don’t want to, if you dislike her so) you’d see the explanations in them.
In every new book, she usually addresses something that someone took out of context in the previous book, and expounds on what she actually meant vs what others make it out to sound like.
We’re most likely not going to come to an agreemente on Coulter, so I suggest we agree to disagree on this. :)
Oops, agreement.
MK, I love you when you are passionate. I love you anyways, but when you get to ANNOUNCING the truth it a sight to behold.
Ain’t that the truth! :)
I suppose so, Bethany, though I have read more of Coulter’s work than you’d assume. I suppose you also give Amanda Marcotte the same benefit of the doubt, which is awfully nice, considering she says some pretty horrible things, which I wouldn’t bother defending even though I do occasionally agree with her general point of view.
I do think he should have said that babies get (full) rights at birth.
Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 8:00 AM
*****************************
But then it could have easily followed that the next question is, “Why did you vote AGAINST the BAIPA?” He does NOT think that all babies get full rights at birth. Clearly. Not the ones who were “supposed to die.”
apologies for the rotten grammar in my 3:09 post. :D
Amanda is no Ann Coulter, Alexandra. Not by a country longshot. Ann is a brilliant woman. I really enjoyed her book Godless: the Church of liberalism. Although some of her views or statements may be edgy, she generally has a good take on how things stack up.
Bethany: beautiful portrait. My 16 yr old daughter has been working on portraiture and is doing quite well. Maybe I will send you a few of them to look at. Her biggest problem is with eyes and the forehead.
Bethany, that is one beautiful drawing!
mk, I have to throw my hat in and say I love that post, too! :D
And as for the Ann Coulter/women voting issue, I agree with Bethany. Ann often makes joking comments that people blow out of proportion. Pretty sure though, that if a liberal made jokes like that, no one in the media would bat an eye.
Thank-God for Ann Coulter,somebody who tells the truth and won’t bow down to liberal media types and political correctness.
Eileen: Bethany, you ARE a gifted artist!
No doubt. I’m always awed by it.
Amanda is no Ann Coulter, Alexandra.
They say the same sort of inflammatory crap and angry people who agree with them fawn over it. They’re just on different sides.
Onward Christian soldiers, I guess.
And as for the Ann Coulter/women voting issue, I agree with Bethany. Ann often makes joking comments that people blow out of proportion. Pretty sure though, that if a liberal made jokes like that, no one in the media would bat an eye.
Posted by: Kel at August 20, 2008 3:17 PM
yeah, I’d agree with that assessment Kel!
By the bye, Hannity is lying when he tells Alan Colmes that there was no pre-existing Illinois statute requiring a child born via a botched abortion to recieve full medical care.
The statute was clarified two years before Obama voted on the state “Born Alive Protection Act.”
CHV,
there was a loophole in that law, plus, why did Illnois vote in BAIPA if it was not needed?
“Yeah, that time she said we should invade other people’s countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity was a hoot. Same with that time she said her only problem with McVeigh was that he didn’t blow up the NY Times building.”
She was being sarcastic since this is what terrorists would like to do to “the infidels”. I have said the same about taking away the vote from women when a woman that I worked with said that she was going to vote for Bill Clinton because he had “kind eyes”! Yikes!! What about the issues? There are too many people who do not seriously research the issues and base their vote on some fleeting or baseless emotional response. Do I really want to take away a woman’s right to vote? No.
Ann often makes joking comments that people blow out of proportion.
Kel, her forte is making comments, outrageous ones, hardly joking, that are designed to get her in the news/in front of the cameras. She’s had 3 or 4 that were so bad that there’s not much argument about them.
Ann often makes joking comments that people blow out of proportion.
Kel, her forte is making comments, outrageous ones, hardly joking, that are designed to get her in the news/in front of the cameras. She’s had 3 or 4 that were so bad that there’s not much argument about them.
Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 4:09 PM
*****************************************
Well, I’d say she’s less outrageous than, say, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Oh, but most people in the media believe he had a RIGHT to say what he said. Free speech and all that. But only for those who hate America.
Wright’s wacky, no doubt, Kel, but Coulter’s put herself right up there with him.
Ann bases her humor on things that liberals have actually said or done — that is what makes them so mad. She calls them on their ludicrous statements, ideas and actions.
Ann bases her humor on things that liberals have actually said or done — that is what makes them so mad.
Yeah, it sure is maddening for someone to imply that “liberals” don’t want to call people f*ggots or bomb buildings, but they do support funding for education and protection of civil liberties. Those are offensive things to be accused of. I mean, wow, they cut deep.
Eileen, do I have to trot out Coulter’s “gems” for you?
She’s made any sane person mad with some of her stuff. She’s rather a “shock jock.”
Alexandra,
Ann’s “fa**ot” remark was to drive home the valid assertion that liberals and/or Democrats can make ugly remarks (I believe at the time someone — made the remark that they hoped that Dick Cheney would die while in Iraq) but if a Republican or a conservative says something even remotely offensive then liberals are all over them. But all liberals heard was just the word,”fa**ot” and they went wild.
Doug, I read her column and I have watched her on tv — she is always taken out of context when it is convenient.
Jill
Thanks for exposing the truth about Obama and abortion.
Eileen, I’m sure she has been taken out of context at times, but her “gems” aren’t like that, as with her comment about the 9/11 widows.
Oh Doug, that is yet another thing you need to read within the context. She was right about those women.
She was right about those women.
Wow, so you think that they are enjoying their husbands’ deaths and had better hurry up and sign the Playboy contract before their fame diminishes too much?
If you’ve got a problem with someone’s politics, or with someone using their personal tragedy to drum up support for political investigations/measures, then freaking say that.
I guess it’s all okay as long as you do it in the name of Jesus. Good to know.
Good grief, Bethany…
No, you’re missing the point.
Here is a comment from this thread…which I think helps explain the actual point, although I’m pretty sure you two are not going to agree with it….
“Always in her tongue-in-cheek style, Ann Coulter did make a valid point that a handful of those 9/11 widows used their husbands
Hey B, here’s what she said – it’s the most I can find all in one piece from the book:
These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted 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. 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.
I would say oh come on, Ann – it happened to those women’s husbands, and you’re criticzing their motives. They’re not projecting their agony onto the entire country; what is happening is you’re on their case because they criticized the Bush administration, and what they wanted was an independent commission to check out how US intelligence failed prior to 9/11 – is that unreasonable?
As far as “enjoying” 9/11, some conservatives have used it as justification for all manner of right-wing pursuits. And if we’re to be concerned about “millionaires,” you yourself are one, gotten by impuging such people as the widows, who experienced 9/11 vast orders of magnitude more than you did. Ann, you can take what “agony” you want from 9/11. The widows had no choice in the matter.
Here are a few Coulter gems. If there’s a context which justifies it, let’s hear it.
I think our motto should be, post-9-11: ‘Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.
…..
f we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it
No, you’re missing the point.
No, I understand the point. I elaborated on it in my post, and I think someone is certainly welcome to hold that point of view. I think that it is disgusting to insult people in such a way just because you disagree with them, and I think it is disgusting for people to defend her insults merely because they agree with her opinions. It’s an “us vs. them” mentality that says that as long as you’re expressing the right opinion, everything you say is right.
We’re not gonna agree, Doug. I’m sure of it…
And I think you have proved her point about these liberals consistently using a victim to make their political statements (kind of like a shield) so that you can’t respond to the political statement being made. They do this on a consistent basis. Cindy Sheehan comes to mind.
The problem Ann is speaking of is that you can’t question these people’s motives pubicly because the person making the statement is a victim (and almost always will be).
They literally use them as human shields, then they discard them when they’re not needed (again, Cindy Sheehan comes to mind). The whole point was that liberals place these people on the pedastals so that they can make these statements without retaliation (in this case, these statements were a direct attack on our nation and we absolutely should respond).
She said, why don’t they just let other people make the points, instead of victims, for a change?
And by the way, those women used their husband’s deaths to blame America and our president for the terrorist attacks on our nation!
A great deal of the other widows of 9-11 were extremely insulted by this viscious attack on our great country during such a time of grief and mourning.
And believe me, I have great sympathy for anyone who loses a husband- especially after 9-11. What I don’t have sympathy for is when someone exploits a death to promote an anti-American agenda.
************************************************
Read this also:
Families of 9/11 are
About the raghead comment:
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/12/ragheads-and-sambos-and-gooks/
Already responded about the women’s voting quote..
So, Bethany, why do you think it’s necessary to say such offensive things to convey one’s point? Why do you think it’s okay? I mean, if you think there’s a point, why hide it behind a bunch of ‘f*ggot’s and ‘raghead’s and outrageous insults?
You will note that nowhere have I said that I agree with (or disagree with) the women who are allegedly enjoying their widowhood.
I saw nothing in Malkin’s ‘raghead’ article that provided a context which makes Coulter’s comment okay. I saw this:
I don’t [say that]. Not in public. Not at home. I have no ill will towards peaceful people who happen to cover their heads for their faith.
My problem, as I’ve made clear on this blog, is with radical Islamists at home and abroad who threaten our existence. I don’t care what they wear on their heads. I care what’s in their heads and what’s strapped around their chests and and what’s hidden in the soles of their shoes and what’s being cooked up in their labs and nuclear reactors. I have a lot of blunt names for these jihadists who have killed our sailors and soldiers, butchered and beheaded innocent civilians from around the world, flown planes into buildings and incinerated babies, children, and pregnant women in the name of religion.
‘Ragheads’ is not the word that immediately comes to my mind. Evildoers. Bloody murderers. Bastards. Yes. ‘Ragheads’? No.
The Left side of the blogosphere is working itself up into a lather, calling on conservatives to condemn Ann’s remarks. But as I have noted many times, the Right is far more self-critical than the sanctimonious liberals who never say a peep about the routine hatred and poisonous ethnic/racial/religious identity politics exhibited by their own.
Tell me, Bethany. If Michelle Malkin is saying that the good part of the ‘right’ is that it is self-critical of its own horrifying comments, but you are defending Coulter’s comment, then where does that leave you?
Alexandra, my point in showing the Malkin article, was to show you that I do not condone everything that Ann says, not to defend that comment. I don’t think that the insults are necessary, although, many times there are insults that she uses that make me laugh. And no, raghead was not one of them, of course.
Just a little more clarification:
Just because I love Ann Coulter doesn’t mean I stand by or agree with every single word she uses to describe people. Although I do agree with most, there are many that I know she uses intentionally to cause displeasure among liberal minded people.
Honestly, I don’t even care for the way she dresses – but what I DO admire is her boldness, her accuracy in speaking out against lies, her quick wit, and most of all, her willingness to defend the life of the most defenseless human beings.
Then can I ask what context makes it okay to wish that someone would bomb the NY Times building? I’m honestly curious.
I am also curious about the actual quote about women voting — it’s pretty clear that she is identifying allegedly “feminine” voting issues like education and healthcare reform as being the target for her disdain for the female vote, not women voting for the hottest guy.
Then can I ask what context makes it okay to wish that someone would bomb the NY Times building? I’m honestly curious.
I don’t think she literally wishes that. I wish you could understand that most of these quotes are meant in jest, but also to drive home a serious point simultaneously. She wanted to explain how deeply treacherous the NY times was – they were giving information to terrorists that should not have been revealed publicly, I believe- and their participation in revealing that type of information means the deaths of many American Citizens! It’s been a while but I think that is what I remember reading about. Correct me if I’m wrong- I think I need to get the book out and refresh my memory.
I am also curious about the actual quote about women voting — it’s pretty clear that she is identifying allegedly “feminine” voting issues like education and healthcare reform as being the target for her disdain for the female vote, not women voting for the hottest guy.
When I replied, I must have been thinking about another time she had mentioned it in one of her books or columns.
But yes, I think it’s basically the same point. And no, I don’t think she literally wants to take away women’s right to vote.
I wish you could understand that most of these quotes are meant in jest,
I understand that. I just don’t think it’s funny. What if someone wanted to bomb your church? But oh, just when the pastor and congregants were there? But it’s just a joke! Yeah, not a funny one.
Do you think that women voting for the hottest guy, and women voting for the candidate who addresses their opinions on education and healthcare reform, are basically the same point?
I understand that. I just don’t think it’s funny. What if someone wanted to bomb your church? But oh, just when the pastor and congregants were there? But it’s just a joke! Yeah, not a funny one.
If my church was doing what the NY times was doing, disclosing private information to terrorists, I would have gotten the joke and not been insulted! Plus, I would have left my church!
And you keep saying she “wanted to bomb” it…she didn’t want to bomb it. She was making a facetious remark…it was not intended in any seriousness, but to drive home the point.
Here it is!
From Wikipedia:
“She was referring to a Times report that revealed classified information about an anti-terrorism program of the U.S. government involving surveillance of international financial transactions of persons suspected of having Al-Qaida links.”
I think that is VERY serious stuff there, and I think causing the deaths of American citizens through stupidity like this is much more terrible than one person calling it what it is, and causing the offense of American citizens. Don’t you?
I think the NY times is VERY dangerous, and I think that Ann is right that they are to the extent of treasonous.
I think that ignoring very obvious information about men plotting to hijack planes is far worse than keeping tabs on a government that has not been the most respectful of civil liberties, but you don’t see me going and saying that I wish McVeigh had gone straight for Bush’s ranch instead. Though I’m sure it came as a shock to terrorists that we are, in fact, trying to monitor them.
I don’t care if she wanted to bomb it or not. I understand that her whole career is some attempt to be satirical and provocative. I think that many, many people manage to be satirical about provocative issues without calling others f*ggots, ragheads, traitors, etc.
Bethany, do you think that the people who visit this site and say awful things about Christianity, just because their views are such that they think their comments are funny, are right to do so? Or do you think that, in the interest of not being total jerks, they should show a basic level of respect for the fact that their comments are going to be read by many different people?
Can you please read my 10:27 and 10:34 comments?
Of course I understand your point.
I think that ignoring very obvious information about men plotting to hijack planes is far worse than keeping tabs on a government that has not been the most respectful of civil liberties, but you don’t see me going and saying that I wish McVeigh had gone straight for Bush’s ranch instead. Though I’m sure it came as a shock to terrorists that we are, in fact, trying to monitor them.
Yes, and it gave them advance warning and the ability to prepare themselves accordingly. It was treason, pure and simple.
As for Bush being responsible, how? What obvious information are you talking about?
More likely would be Clinton, who actually had Obama within his grasp, and didn’t do a thing about it. Several times, may I add.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Where did I say Bush was responsible?
Listen, I’m not going to get into an argument with you over who was “responsible” for September 11. It’s a freaking book and, like most complex things, there is no one answer.
I have read your comments. I think you can tell a lot about a person by looking at the company they keep, and while it’s not like you’re hanging out with Ann Coulter, it’s the same sort of idea. There are people who occasionally make me laugh, who I occasionally agree with, who I would never, ever, describe myself as ‘loving,’ nor would I try to explain away their offensive comments and attempts to invalidate the concerns of others by saying they’re supposed to be ‘hilarious.’ I think that I am a stronger, more polite, more rational person for the fact that I will not defend bad behavior just because someone is “on my side.”
Thanks, I am thankful we won’t be getting into an argument about 9-11.
As for your second comment, I understand what you’re getting at but you have to understand- the vast majority of the things that Ann says are not inflammatory- they’re just the truth, and MOST (not all) are taken out of context to mean something entirely different than they meant in the first place.
I do enjoy her books, but what you are thinking about Ann is simply based on the cherry picked quotes that have been used, most of the time out of context, by her. That is not to say she doesn’t have inflammatory comments, or that you haven’t read more of her stuff, but that they are simply not the majority of what she has to say – She has some REALLY, REALLY good points, that most liberal minded people don’t want to touch. They’d rather focus on the insults here and there. Which is what she predicts they will do, and is always right.
I can like her and still disapprove of some of the things she says…just like you could support Obama, or Clinton, or whoever… but still disapprove of some things they say at some certain times.
I like her books. I’m sorry, I can’t help it. I like her style of writing, and her witty humor.
I read them and enjoy them thoroughly because I think she is well spoken and makes sure to prove each point clearly and irrefutably. I have learned so much from reading her books. She has footnotes for everything that you can use to research the points she makes, and I have done that many times and learned things I just didn’t know. I like learning about this stuff!
Bethany, you are right – we don’t agree, and I think some things she has said are indefensible.
HOWEVER – with what is availabe, you did a heck of a job defending her!
I would definitely “touch all of her points,” and I fugure I’d agree with some of them. Not most, but some.
Doug
Thanks, Doug…I appreciate your being understanding!
For the sake of others reading this, I want to explain the issue b/c “smear-o-cons” have filled the web with this for weak minded people to fall prey to. In the interest of full disclosure, most of this is already at Factcheck.org. I have summarized some of the points made there and added a few of my own:
At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a “born alive infant” entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive. Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 “born alive” bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been “fully in support” of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade aka