Foodfight!!!

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

See if you can guess what I am now ...


IT'S ONLY FUNNY UNTIL SOMEONE LOSES A PIE


April 13, 2005

Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas. As one liberal, Jonathan Chait, put the cliche in The New Republic: Bush is an "instinctive anti-intellectual" and his administration hostile to "fact-driven debate." In a favorable contrast, Clinton is "the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates." Showing his usual reverence for fact-checking, The New York Times' Paul Krugman says the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research."

I'm not sure how these descriptions square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food. (Remember the good old days when liberals' "fact-driven" ideas only meant throwing money at their problems?)

Last October, two liberals responded to my speech at the University of Arizona — during question and answer, no less — by charging the stage and throwing two pies at me from a few yards away. Fortunately for me, liberals not only argue like liberals, they also throw like girls. (Apologies in advance to the Harvard biology professors who walked out on Larry Summers in a demonstration of their admiration of "research," not "revelation" — but this may account for the dearth of female pitchers in Major League Baseball.)

Unfortunately for them, Republican men don't react favorably to two "Deliverance" boys trying to sucker-punch a 110-pound female in a skirt and heels. The geniuses ended up with bloody noses and broken bones.

It's really outrageous how conservatives respond to liberals who are just trying to engage in a "fact-driven debate." How typical of Republicans to go on the offensive just because a female has been physically attacked. Instead of capturing and subduing my attackers, those strong Republican men should have been trying to understand why they threw the pies.

In the five months following the liberal ass-whupping in Arizona — I mean "fact-driven debate" — all was quiet on the Eastern Front. College liberals still couldn't formulate a coherent argument, but they seemed to want to avoid ending up in jail having to explain to their cellmates that they were in for trying to hit a girl (and missing).

Then on March 19, all charges were dismissed against the "Deliverance" boys — including a felony charge for $3,000 worth of damage to school property. Inexplicably, this outcome did not instantly lead to widespread rioting and looting in South Central Los Angeles.

Democrat Barbara LaWall is the Pima County attorney who allowed the liberal debate champions to walk. LaWall brags on her Web site about "holding criminals accountable." She didn't say anything about liberals, however. Be forewarned, conservatives: Do not expect the law to protect you in Pima County.

In the three weeks following the dismissal of all charges against my attackers, three more conservatives were attacked on college campuses.

On March 29, liberals' intellectual retort to a speech by William Kristol at Earlham College was to throw a pie. On March 31, liberals enjoyed the hurly-burly of political debate with Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University by throwing salad dressing. On April 6, liberals engaged David Horowitz on his ideas at Butler University by throwing a pie at him.

If you close your eyes, it's almost like you're listening to Ludwig Wittgenstein!

If there had been that many attacks on Muslims in the weeks following the 9/11 attack, we'd still be watching Showtime specials about it. (In liberals' defense, this is what they must resort to when there are no student newspapers with conservative editorials to burn.)

At the risk of provoking one of those brainy liberals to throw more food, here's an idea: In order to reduce physical assaults on conservative speakers, maybe we should increase the price. But, to the contrary, when conservative speakers are physically attacked on college campuses, university administrators ignore the attacks, Democrat prosecutors somehow manage to get the charges dismissed, and Democrat flacks like Chait and Krugman pretend they missed the news that day.

What might work better is some form of disincentive to liberals who engage in violent behavior whenever they hear an idea they don't like but can't come up with words to dispute. The punishment doesn't have to be severe — just a small fraction of the wailing and healing that occurs every time there's a hoax "hate crime" on a college campus. (But which still serve a valuable function by calling attention to the issue of hate crimes.)

Last year, classes were canceled and demonstrations held at Claremont College after a white, Catholic visiting professor claimed her car had been vandalized with racist and anti-Semitic slurs. This — at the very moment she was giving a talk on intolerance!

It was just a little too ironic. The incident had all the exquisite timing of an "ABC After-School Special" about hate crimes. But as one student angrily told the Los Angeles Times, the suggestion that it was a hoax is "so sick. They are in denial. People don't want to accept that a well-educated, liberal community can have hate." Needless to say, the vandalism turned out to have been perpetrated by the professor herself.

Or maybe physical attacks on conservatives could merit a small slice of the rage and indignation directed at the display of racist symbols. Last year, a white student at a high school in Washington State was accused of taunting a black student with a noose. In response, the white student was immediately expelled from school. He was charged with a felony. There was a series of town-wide discussions. The U.S. Justice Department sent in mediators. And two more years were suddenly added to Whoopi Goldberg's career.

I think Kristol, Buchanan, Horowitz and I would be perfectly happy if college liberals merely brandished symbols at us. Speaking for myself, I would be unhappy if they didn't. But these Rhodes scholar geniuses with a taste for "fact-driven debate" can't even achieve the level of argument practiced by the average juvenile delinquent. They're still stuck at the intellectual level of 2-year-olds in high chairs throwing food.

- Ann Coulter

Source: http://www.anncoulter.com/

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

... I'm a zit, get it?

[TheAnvil 0]

Good article. Read this yesterday.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,150]

So ANN believes that liberals throw pies and conservatives throw punches. Once upon a time she believed that the people of Iraq would greet our troops by throwing flowers. She has a serious credibility problem when it comes to throwing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

And the last time college conservatives physically attacked a liberal speaker was...when, exactly?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Man, I didn't even know about that incident...but I knew it was Ann Coulter from the first mention that the writer was female.

Any article from her is totally lost on my ears. As I have said before, that woman does not love America. She loves money and stirring the pot. Her desire is to keep America divided and polarized. Because if it is not? She can't sell books or get appearances on cable news "cage matches." She thrives on fear and hate. If there is anyone who hates America, it is Ann Coulter.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

It was interesting to hear her say that liberals are the enemy

[GTAVercetti 0]

I cannot stand her. The fact that she HATES (not disagrees with or even just has no respect for) someone because she does not like their politics is repugnant.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The fact that she HATES (not disagrees with or even just has no respect for) someone because she does not like their politics is repugnant.

Now, I'm no Ann Coulter supporter, but I actually found this to be very clever on her part. She is well-aware of her reputation of one who "hates." And this article shows examples of hatred by the left.

Here, a reasonable inference of your statement is,"I really hate Ann Coulter. She's so intolerant."

An agenda I hate (yes, I'll say I HATE this) is, "Intolerance will not be tolerated." Ann Coulter, at the very least, points to the hatred she faces from the other side. But at least she's honest.

Rather than lying about not hating like a good "tolerate" white person does, she says, "Fuck you, I don't have to tolerate anything I don't want to, and I can hate what I want to hate." Heck, she should just be dishonest and say, "I don't hate" instead of saying, "Boy, the left HATES me as much as I HATE them, and they REALLY HATE when I point their hatred out."

I'll put it this way - it's pretty damned certain that you HATE her. At the very least, you HATE her views, methods, etc. Does that make YOU repugnant? No, I don't thinkyou are repugnant. I do not think that hatred is by it's nature repugnant. I think there are damned good reasons for hatred. And I'm pretty sure you think so, too.

For example, I don't want to understand why Eric Rudolph decided to murder for God's word. I'll simply hate him, hate what he did, curse his very existence and those who may have helped him. I think that the Iraqis have good reasons for hating Bush and hating Saddam. I think you've got your reasons for hating Coulter.

Hating something doesn't make you a bad person. It doesn't make you "repugnant." It means you are human. And it's human to hate that which is "repugnant" to you. I don't hear anyone saying, "We need to try to understand Ann Coulter. We need to figure out WHY she hates us and what drives this hatred." Terrorists get that treatment, but not Ann Coulter, Eric Rudolph, etc. Chew on that.

I think your hatred of her hatred is understandable - perhaps even admirable. But, like it or not, it's hatred. It IS dishonest to hatefully call someone who shows hatred "repugnant" without calling all of those who hate HER repugnant, or all those who hate anything repugnant.

But instead, you are correctly asserting that she's showing hatred. But do you say that you are hateful of it? No, you'll call it "repugnant."

Come on, just say you hate it.

edited to add: No, I'm not attacking you. You're a good guy. I'm just pointing out that everyone hates, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GTAVercetti 0]

That was a very good point and there was a whole lot of the word hate in there. But to me, it seems that she hates the PERSON, not just their views (I could be wrong, but from what I have seen of her, it is what I infer). I also stated my opinion incorrectly.

Yes, I do detest her views. I do not hate her as a person. What I dislike about her is that instead of trying to find ways to compromise, her goal is to DIVIDE the nation.

And that is not the way to make stronger country.

Yes, she may be noble in the way she states her opinion with no apologies. BUt I still adhere to the idea that what she does she does for the simple fact that it gets people riled up and helps widen the gap between people on both sides.

I fully believe that she has a right to say what she says, but I also believe I fully have to right to dismiss everything that comes out of her mouth as angry and unproductive. SO I said it wrong, it is not the hatred that I dislike, but the fact that I don't think it helps anyone except her publisher.

In my view, She does the same damage to the Republican party that Al Franken and Michael Moore do to the Democrats.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And that is not the way to make stronger country.

I think it is pretty clear she has absolutely no interest in making the country stronger. Anybody thinking that is slightly delusional in my opinion.

All she is interested in is making her bank account stronger.

I wonder what would happen if in stead of hating liberals she would come out and say that she hates black people, or she hates gays, etc.

It is pretty sad that she can get a strong following based on hatred.

[kelel01 1]

Quote

It is pretty sad that she can get a strong following based on hatred.

That's humanity for you. Look at Hitler, Bin Laden, Dr. Laura . . . all had or have staunch followers.

[GTAVercetti 0]

TRIPLE WORD SCORE!!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

It is pretty sad that she can get a strong following based on hatred.

That's humanity for you. Look at Hitler, Bin Laden, Dr. Laura . . . all had or have staunch followers.

Think about what you just wrote. You know, there are several posters on here who like, respect and admire Ann Coulter. Some you would probably define as part of her "following."

Does Vinny the Anvil like her and follow her because he feels unified with her in hatred? I can say, "HELL NO!" Vinnie's a helluva nice guy. I'd tend to think that there are other reasons why Vinnie likes her, or why Sen. Blutarsky (dude, you're a freaking riot sometimes) posted this.

Whether you meant it or not, your post inherently labels Vinnie as one of the "following based on hatred." Would you define Vinnie as a follower "based on hatred?" If not, then you are missing other reasons why she has "a strong following."

Just something to think about. No, I'm not accusing you of a personal attack. I certainly do not think it was intended. But you have unitentionally labeled Vinnie's motives in what I think is an incorrect manner. I know that had I been a follower of Ann Coulter, I'd have been pretty mad at that comment. And to compare her followers and Dr.Laura's to Nazi's and terrorist mass murderers is pretty dern harsh.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelel01 1]

If anything, I think SkyDekker implied that, although I don't think that was his intent either.

I was just pointing out that followings based on hatred are not that uncommon - look at the KKK, for another example.

Although I do think she's crazy.

[lawrocket 3]

I was in the midst of an edit at the time. SOrry about that. But, it leads to other implications when you quote that section specifically regarding her followers and add to it comparisons with the Third Reich. I know that's not how you meant it.

Yes, skydekker said the one that has me most shocked.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

maybe you both misread him - "a strong following based on hatred"

Why yes, Ann Coulter has a very strong following of people that hate her. Frankly, I think it's a waste of energy.

Edit: and perfectly good pie

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Didn't mean to label vinnie at all. I never made the comparison to Hitler or anybody else, so not quite sure what shocked you so much.

What shocks me is the intense divisiveness in the US. The incredible strong feelings, even hatred, based on nothing but mainstream political affiliation and thought and the number of people who see nothing wrong with it.

Don't like and find it sad that people can make money off hatred. Hatred is a pretty strong feeling.

[billvon 3,120]

>I wonder what would happen if in stead of hating liberals she would come
>out and say that she hates black people, or she hates gays, etc.

She'd have a different group of admirers. (Well, the gay haters would see significant crossover, but they would still be somewhat different.)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

She'd have a different group of admirers.

True, though she would probably be less accepted in otherwise relatively mainstream media.

[Guest]

"The geniuses ended up with bloody noses and broken bones."

That's the way I like to see them. Good job.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 3,120]

>though she would probably be less accepted in otherwise relatively mainstream media.

Anti-gay - wouldn't change her acceptance in the media much. Look at their current coverage of anti-gay legislation, cases, and protests.

Anti-black - would definitely marginalize her.