Ann Coulter - Most despicable person alive?

Maklershed

Maklershed

CAGiversary!
Feedback
77 (100%)
Decide for yourself ..

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/7/102258.shtml

[quote name='newsmax']Ann Coulter Under Siege for 9/11 Comments[/quote][quote name='newsmax']
The 9/11 widows group known as "the Jersey Girls" is blasting author Ann Coulter after learning that her new book, roasts them as "millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

"I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much," the leggy blonde firebrand added. She also referred to the 9/11 group as "the Witches of East Brunswick," a take-off on the old movie title, "The Witches of Eastwick."

"I was shocked that she was focusing on us," Lorie Van Auken told New Jersey's Star Ledger. Van Auken lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks.
"My reaction is basically that I was not happy that my husband was killed, I took no joy in telling my children that they would never see their father again," the 9/11 widow said. "It's unfortunate that Ann Coulter has focused her energy on trashing people who were trying to fix obvious problems."

"This is as idiotic as Congress debating gay rights," said Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband Ron died in the World Trade Center.

A third member of the group, Monica Gabrielle, told the Star Ledger that Coulter's comments "boggle the mind". "I'm still pretty much speechless. We're debating whether to give any credence to Miss Coulter's comments," Gabrielle said.

The controversial author defended her attack on the Jersey Girls during her appearance Tuesday on NBC's "Today Show," saying the Jersey Girls had politicized their husbands' deaths.

"They were cutting commercials for [Sen. John] Kerry," she noted. "They were using their grief in order to make a political point." Coulter said it was wrong for the widows to "use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it while preventing people from responding."

"That is the point of . . . putting up Cindy Sheehan, and putting out these widows or putting out Joe Wilson," she explained. "You can't respond. It's their doctrine of infallibility." [/quote]
 
She's a spectacle of hyperbole, trained in the schools of old-time professional wrestling managers. She's not to be taken seriously, and any attempt to debate her points only reifies her status as a political commentator.

She makes loads more money writing what she does than if she assembled a well-thought out, cogent, and totally boring political analysis, so I see her much like I see Michael Savage or Marilyn Manson: fucking MARKETING 101, TV characters pretending to exist in the real world. I'll be she sells more copies of her book than boring ol' Thomas Friedman's book "fuck You, Here's Globalism" (or whatever it's called).
 
She attacks them for politicizing their deaths huh?

So anytime we hear about soldiers in Iraq dying honorably to fight the war on terror isn't that politicizing their death?

The real reason she's upset isn't because they are politicizing their death but rather because they are politicizing their deaths for the opposite party.
 
Obviously Ann Coulter is tactless and the widows of 9/11 deserve nothing but pity, but there is something to how the victims of 9/11 were treated relative to families of dead soldiers, Katrina, etc.

Rush Limbaugh said something interesting on the topic (loath as I am to quote him, I happen to agree with what the facts spell out)

I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.
If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers WILLINGLY put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.

You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they receive next to nothing. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing. Make sense? ...
Click to expand...
 
Yep, only the Bush administration is allowed to politicize the deaths of 9/11 victims.

:|


coulter On the 9/11 attack on New York:

"If Chicago had been hit, I assure you New Yorkers would not have cared. What was stunning when New York was hit was how the rest of America rushed to New York's defense. New Yorkers would have been like, 'It's tough for them; now let's go back to our Calvin Klein fashion shows.'" - [4], 17 May, 2003
On the New York Times and the Oklahoma Bomber:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." - in a New York Observer interview, 26 August, 2002
On the previous quote:

"Of course I regret it. I should have added 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'" - in a rightwingnews.com interview, 26 June, 2003
 
while her statements are purely sensationalism meant to get a rise out of whatever audience pays attention, i still don't understand why victims of 9/11 were compensated by our federal tax dollars. compensation for death? isn't that why we pay for life insurance?
 
[quote name='gaelan']while her statements are purely sensationalism meant to get a rise out of whatever audience pays attention, i still don't understand why victims of 9/11 were compensated by our federal tax dollars. compensation for death? isn't that why we pay for life insurance?[/quote]

Because a great big federal "fuck you" to the families wouldn't have looked good politically.
 
[quote name='gaelan']while her statements are purely sensationalism meant to get a rise out of whatever audience pays attention, i still don't understand why victims of 9/11 were compensated by our federal tax dollars. compensation for death? isn't that why we pay for life insurance?[/QUOTE]

not everyone has life insurance

not everyone has enough life insurance to cover the loss of the main/only salary in a family

it was an unprecedented event in U.S. history that required an unprecedented response
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']not everyone has life insurance

not everyone has enough life insurance to cover the loss of the main/only salary in a family

it was an unprecedented event in U.S. history that required an unprecedented response[/quote]

so now we should shower with money those that do not have the foresight or financial means to prepare for those that they leave behind?

better yet, can each victim of murder sue their local government for not providing enough police protection to prevent unforeseen acts?

attacking those that attacked us...yes. paying for the loss of lives to a particular group and not everyone with federal tax dollars...no.

same goes for those affected by Katrina. didn't have flood or hurrican insurance? sorry, Katrina is exactly why you should. why do we reward or compensate those that won't/don't/can't participate in a system set up for everyone? its just a crazy fact of life that the rich get richer, the middle class stays the same and the poor get whatever due to their financial/social status and the fact that they are such a huge voting block that is able to influence decision makers.
 
[quote name='gaelan']so now we should shower with money those that do not have the foresight or financial means to prepare for those that they leave behind?

better yet, can each victim of murder sue their local government for not providing enough police protection to prevent unforeseen acts?

attacking those that attacked us...yes. paying for the loss of lives to a particular group and not everyone with federal tax dollars...no.

same goes for those affected by Katrina. didn't have flood or hurrican insurance? sorry, Katrina is exactly why you should. why do we reward or compensate those that won't/don't/can't participate in a system set up for everyone? its just a crazy fact of life that the rich get richer, the middle class stays the same and the poor get whatever due to their financial/social status and the fact that they are such a huge voting block that is able to influence decision makers.[/QUOTE]

no idea what you're talking about...

i'll just assume you replied to the wrong post, b/c I didn't say any of that

have fun arguing with someone else

lmfao
;)
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']not everyone has life insurance

not everyone has enough life insurance to cover the loss of the main/only salary in a family

it was an unprecedented event in U.S. history that required an unprecedented response[/quote]

Why is it the govenment's job to pay money to families that could have afforded life insurance but decided to throw the dice on the chances that the breadwinner would die?

Why so much money?

Why is the unprecented part so important (is it more tragic to have your father die a quick death in a terrorist attack as opposed to drowning in a hurricane or being shot in a war, does it merit a bigger amount of money in recompense?)

The only legitimate arguement that I can think of for the big pay packages was that the government was incompetent in defending us. However if a mugger kills a loved one, does your local police department owe you the same amount of money that the 9/11 victim's families received?

FYI - the sniper victim's families received similar elevated pay packages - I guess it's because sensationalism sells (IE unprecedented event!), even in government recompense.

Darn it - looks like Gaelan beat me to it :p
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']no idea what you're talking about...

i'll just assume you replied to the wrong post, b/c I didn't say any of that

have fun arguing with someone else

lmfao
;)[/quote]

i was responding to part about everyone not being able to get life insurance or just not having it. regardless of whether you were implying some sort of justification or not, that is a point that gets brought up quite a bit when disaster strikes and that is what i was referring to...your post just happened to be the one above. glad i could provide you with a chance to lyfao.:)

i'm all for helping out citizens, but billions of dollars to a few is a little extreme as well as an extended stay in hotels after katrina. i would be willing to bet if we hadn't paid off those affected by 9/11 the government would have been sued more just as we have seen with katrina victims. maybe it was just cheaper to give 9/11 victims a settlement payment rather than be dragged through the courts with lawsuits.
 
I know one of the widows (not mentioned in the article) and I get sick just thinking about her being alone and raising their kids on her own - it is so sad.
 
Why is it the govenment's job to pay money to families that could have afforded life insurance but decided to throw the dice on the chances that the breadwinner would die?
Click to expand...

New Orleans was filled with people who couldn't have afforded the insurance, and I'm sure wtc victims are in there too.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']New Orleans was filled with people who couldn't have afforded the insurance, and I'm sure wtc victims are in there too.[/quote]

so what...is there a dollar figure they are entitled to or deserve from the government. Private charities are answering the call, and they are receiving government assistance. Do we need to cut each individual a check for more money as we did with 9/11 victims?
 
[quote name='gaelan']so what...is there a dollar figure they are entitled to or deserve from the government. Private charities are answering the call, and they are receiving government assistance. Do we need to cut each individual a check for more money as we did with 9/11 victims?[/quote]

Digging people into a deeper hole reduces the ability of them to improve their economic situation, to provide a stable environment for children, and provide their children with a proper education. The more succesful people are, the more beneficial they will be to the economy and will use less tax dollars.
 
[quote name='gaelan']so what...is there a dollar figure they are entitled to or deserve from the government. Private charities are answering the call, and they are receiving government assistance. Do we need to cut each individual a check for more money as we did with 9/11 victims?[/QUOTE]
Dying in a car crash or from a heart attack at the age of 40 is much different then being killed in a attack against our country. The victims of 9/11 died in a unique situation and therefore fell under the fold of government responsibility. You're telling me that people who died for our country, albeit indirectly, don't deserve compensation?

In case of Hurricane Katrina, much of the damage, deaths, stress, and injuries could have been prevented or dampened if the government (local and federal) had done its job correctly beforehand. I think government assistance is more than appropriate.
 
[quote name='gaelan']i was responding to part about everyone not being able to get life insurance or just not having it. regardless of whether you were implying some sort of justification or not, that is a point that gets brought up quite a bit when disaster strikes and that is what i was referring to...your post just happened to be the one above. glad i could provide you with a chance to lyfao.:)

i'm all for helping out citizens, but billions of dollars to a few is a little extreme as well as an extended stay in hotels after katrina. i would be willing to bet if we hadn't paid off those affected by 9/11 the government would have been sued more just as we have seen with katrina victims. maybe it was just cheaper to give 9/11 victims a settlement payment rather than be dragged through the courts with lawsuits.[/QUOTE]

*shrug*
hard to compare 9/11 with the N.O/Katrina debacle, in that way.

i see where you're going with that, but i don't totally agree with the analogy

the best thing I can really say here is the old stand-by of - If your parent/spouse/sibling had died in the WTC or Pentagon attack, I feel very strongly that you would have looked to the Federal Goverment for a cash payment. i could be wrong about that though... it has been known to happen

:)
 
Alot of people woudlnt dare come out speaking about such a thing it is very strange if I die can my family get rich if I dont have life insurance?? nope
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']New Orleans was filled with people who couldn't have afforded the insurance, and I'm sure wtc victims are in there too.[/quote]

I agree that the NO is a special case - if ppl are too poor to buy life insurance then as socially responsible citizens I believe that we have an obligation to make sure their families don't starve if the breadwinner dies.

And it's true that some of the WTC victims can be lumped in their too.

However believe that any reasonable person has to admit that an excessive amount of Joe Taxpayer's money was given to the families of WTC victims.
 
[quote name='Skelah']Alot of people woudlnt dare come out speaking about such a thing it is very strange if I die can my family get rich if I dont have life insurance?? nope[/QUOTE]

it depends on how you die and who kills you

good luck!!
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']The victims of 9/11 died in a unique situation and therefore fell under the fold of government responsibility. You're telling me that people who died for our country, albeit indirectly, don't deserve compensation?
[/quote]

I don't think it is the governments responsibility to financially compensate anyone that was affected by the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

I do think we as citizens should assist those in need, but I do not think our government is required or obligated to provide that assistance. I think it is nice the fed does assist to a degree. Government assistance is helpful to the extent it does not create dependence. As for how the government assisted the victims of 9/11, well it was way off the radar of normal.
 
[quote name='gaelan']I don't think it is the governments responsibility to financially compensate anyone that was affected by the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

I do think we as citizens should assist those in need, but I do not think our government is required or obligated to provide that assistance. I think it is nice the fed does assist to a degree. Government assistance is helpful to the extent it does not create dependence. As for how the government assisted the victims of 9/11, well it was way off the radar of normal.[/QUOTE]

a man in a turban looked at meh funnay today

i deserve at least $5 for that
 
I always enjoy how Ann Coulter can take a sensible statement and spin it off into the twilight zone.

It is true quite possibly true that a group of women like this have gathered together and to an extent see themselves as the betters of others due to their loss, it's not like this would be the first time it's happened (sons and daughters of the American revolution, WW2 Vets) but a view like that I wouldn't expect to see outside of The Daily Show.
 
Oddly enough, my girlfriend gave me permission to tap Coulter if I ever arrived at the chance. I'd fuck her liberal....
 
[quote name='SpeedyG']Oddly enough, my girlfriend gave me permission to tap Coulter if I ever arrived at the chance. I'd fuck her liberal....[/QUOTE]

i didn't know you were into dudes...

coulter_adamsapple.jpg
 
Funny, she's ripping her material off of Ted Rall:

off-cartoon3.jpg


They've both gone so far around the bend that they've met each other.

So Hilary is asked what she thinks of Coulter's comments and she says what any reasonable human being would say, "Well that's mean spirited. That's a horrible thing to say." So of course Drudge calls Ann and her comment is awesome:

ANN COULTER RESPONDS TO SEN. CLINTON: 'BEFORE CRITICIZING OTHERS FOR BEING 'MEAN' TO WOMEN, PERHAPS HILLARY SHOULD TALK TO HER HUSBAND WHO WAS ACCUSED OF RAPE BY JUANITA BROADDRICK AND WAS GROPING KATHLEEN WILLEY AT THE VERY MOMENT WILLEY'S HUSBAND WAS COMMITTING SUICIDE.'
Click to expand...

Yes, Ann Coulter's comments about the 9/11 widows was Bill Clinton's fault.

Ten minutes later it was scrubbed from his site.

Take that, journalistic integrity!

Love,

The internets.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']a spectacle of hyperbole[/quote]
[quote name='gaelan']statements are purely sensationalism[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Maklershed']Thread title: [size=+2]Ann Coulter - Most despicable person alive?[/size][/QUOTE]

LOL.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Funny, she's ripping her material off of Ted Rall:

off-cartoon3.jpg


They've both gone so far around the bend that they've met each other.

So Hilary is asked what she thinks of Coulter's comments and she says what any reasonable human being would say, "Well that's mean spirited. That's a horrible thing to say." So of course Drudge calls Ann and her comment is awesome:



Yes, Ann Coulter's comments about the 9/11 widows was Bill Clinton's fault.

Ten minutes later it was scrubbed from his site.

Take that, journalistic integrity!

Love,

The internets.[/QUOTE]

I love that. It seems like every conservative pundit's go-to joke is always about Bill. Now I'm not a fan of Hillary either but come on, its not her fault what her husband does so why criticize her for it? Its about the lowest, cheapest tactic you can jump to. I have no problem with people coming up with a retort but jeez at least make it about the person and not their acquaintances.
 
1. I gotta get that Ann C. doll. I already have a Rumsfeld one.

2. Now you liberals know why the conservatives can't stand Michael Moore and his antics.

3. Ann is HAWT...if she turns out to be a man I take this statement back.
 
[quote name='defender']1. I gotta get that Ann C. doll. I already have a Rumsfeld one.

2. Now you liberals know why the conservatives can't stand Michael Moore and his antics.

3. Ann is HAWT...if she turns out to be a man I take this statement back.[/QUOTE]


I would like to express contempt but I am overwhelmed by pity.
 
[quote name='defender']1. I gotta get that Ann C. doll. I already have a Rumsfeld one.

2. Now you liberals know why the conservatives can't stand Michael Moore and his antics.

3. Ann is HAWT...if she turns out to be a man I take this statement back.[/QUOTE]

I can't stand either of 'em (or any other of the political celebrities or pundits), guess that's why I consider myself moderate (or as the parties see us, the best friend AND worst nightmare).
 
What I find dispicable are the people on here more worried about their bottom line than helping out a bunch of windows and orphans. Probably $0.0000000000002 of your 'tax dollars' went to help out the families of 9/11. Why not worry about where the billions of dollars go to like the insane amount of pork projects on both sides of the aisle? fucking bridges to nowhere is a reason to bitch about taxes. Not helping out a bunch of widows.

Does your family have a plan for when the bread-earner dies in a terrorist attack and the single remaining parent must some how earn all that money and raise multiple kids in the blink of an eye? I don't think there is a life insurance policy for that.
 
logicly that small percentage could go towards protecting the boarder or a million other possibilitys im not up for funding a strangers life insurance especialy without my permision.
 
[quote name='Stuka']Does your family have a plan for when the bread-earner dies in a terrorist attack and the single remaining parent must some how earn all that money and raise multiple kids in the blink of an eye? I don't think there is a life insurance policy for that.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it's called life insurance. A substantial amount can be bought for a 25-40 year old male for only $20 a month. Anyone working in the world trade center had enough income to afford a life insurance policy

The plan is to learn what it means to become an adult, do some planning and thinking about the future, and taking responsibility for having a family and supporting them were you to die unexpectedly.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, it's called life insurance. A substantial amount can be bought for a 25-40 year old male for only $20 a month. Anyone working in the world trade center had enough income to afford a life insurance policy

The plan is to learn what it means to become an adult, do some planning and thinking about the future, and taking responsibility for having a family and supporting them were you to die unexpectedly.[/QUOTE]

Shhh! Can't you see there is a consensus building here that the nanny state is good? Government must save us from ourselves, as we are too stupid to!

And in the interests of full disclosure, far more than "$0.00000002" or whatever it was said of taxpayer money went to 9/11 widows, widowers and families. Here are the facts:

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/008679.html
A new report by the Rand Institute for Social Justice says that victims of the 9/11 attacks received a total of $31.2 billion in compensation, averaging out to 3.1 million per victim.

Insurers paid 51 percent of the overall total, or about $19.6 billion. The government distributed $15.8 billion, or 42 percent, and charities paid $2.7 billion, or 7 percent.
Click to expand...
 
15 billion ...wow .

Coudlnt they just have spent a couple million on a memorial and call it a day??

We dont give 3 million for cops that die on the job or firefighters..or even those that die in the military.
 
^^^ exactly the point when you mention police, firefighters and even our soldiers (some of whom have families that survive on food stamps, no joke).

Where are the Democrats on this board, the fighters for the less well-off? Instead of giving $3.1 million to the family/survivor(s) of each victim, shouldn't we have used that $15.8 billion to give health insurance for every child, or vaccinations, or more money for education, or some other social program? I mean, yeah, Coulter is a psychopathic bitch who is just plain mean, but why was the billions in private charity and insurance not enough?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']^^^ exactly the point when you mention police, firefighters and even our soldiers (some of whom have families that survive on food stamps, no joke).

Where are the Democrats on this board, the fighters for the less well-off? Instead of giving $3.1 million to the family/survivor(s) of each victim, shouldn't we have used that $15.8 billion to give health insurance for every child, or vaccinations, or more money for education, or some other social program? I mean, yeah, Coulter is a psychopathic bitch who is just plain mean, but why was the billions in private charity and insurance not enough?[/QUOTE]

Regretfully, politics is much more PR than it is good intentions. Your political dollar goes farther when giving it to a 'deserving' person, such as a 9/11 widow(er) than when considering public servants. I agree with your point, and while I'm not too concerned with "giving too much," I'm perpetually disturbed by the pisspoor remuneration that *any* teacher, soldier, fire/police/emt person receives at any point in time. Those motherfuckers ought to be living the high life, but our government prefers to spend more and more money helping corporate dividends in the privatized military and prison systems.
 
[quote name='defender']1. I gotta get that Ann C. doll. I already have a Rumsfeld one.

2. Now you liberals know why the conservatives can't stand Michael Moore and his antics.

3. Ann is HAWT...if she turns out to be a man I take this statement back.[/QUOTE]
4. You edited out the Hitler doll I posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top