Ann Coulter - stupidity du jour

2337 Views 33 Replies 16 Participants Last post by Snapple Quaffer, Sep 2, 2007

MACSPECTRUM

Discussion Starter · Aug 28, 2007

from "1 DOWN, 11,999,999 TO GO"
by Ann Coulter
August 22, 2007

"Liberals know they're losing the demographic war. Christians have lots of children and adopt lots of children; liberals abort children and encourage the gay lifestyle in anyone with a flair for color."

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

gwillikers

· #2 · Aug 28, 2007 (Edited)

She's completely toxic.

I've been watching the lunar eclipse, with a perfect view from my balcony. I wish Ann would disappear like the moon is right now.

Oh, and, O'REILLY can follow right behind her.

tptptptp

Max

· #3 · Aug 28, 2007

Sheesh... the best thing to do about Ann is to ignore her. I agree with gw... she's toxic, not to mention seriously loopy in her assumptions.

NBiBooker

· #4 · Aug 28, 2007

She may be vitrolic, but she's right.

Red states are out breeding blue states by a significant margin. The abortion divide between Liberals and Conservatives plays a role. Religion, strong family values also plays a role.

I'm not going to weigh in on the morality of abortion. It's a circular exercise in Internet futility.

But it is completely understandable that populations that kill off their young before birth are likely to have a slower population growth than states with populations that largely reject that notion.

As for her shot at the gay and lesbian community, that's just the usual invective.

Macfury

· #5 · Aug 28, 2007

NB: I think comments like this are more likely to inflame when they are essentially true. Coulter may not be right about the "flare for color" but her prediction will haunt Spec when the U.S. "Red States" completely dominate all U.S. elections.

Max

· #6 · Aug 28, 2007 (Edited)

NBiBooker said:
Red states are out breeding blue states by a significant margin. The abortion divide between Liberals and Conservatives plays a role. Religion, strong family values also plays a role.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? I thought that WASP America is essentially in the same boat as Canada... drastically shrunken family sizes (especially compared to the 50s, 60s and 70s) and that the largest factor in population surges is immigration; new immigrants typically favour much larger family sizes than the landed gentry.

I am not disagreeing that the anti-abortion/family values factor constitutes a significant difference, but I do have to contest the notion that the red votes are inevitably going to go the way of the dodo simply by virtue of birth rates.

ArtistSeries

· #7 · Aug 28, 2007

NBiBooker said:
I'm not going to weigh in on the morality of abortion. It's a circular exercise in Internet futility.

But it is completely understandable that populations that kill off their young before birth are likely to have a slower population growth than states with populations that largely reject that notion.

You just did....

Macfury

· #8 · Aug 28, 2007

What? Is the use of the word "kill" too strong for you AS? Sheesh.

hUssain

· #9 · Aug 28, 2007

AS, they are living, perhaps not developed, but still living, to take away life is killing, he states that these deaths may lead to slower population growth, that is not morality but logic.

ArtistSeries

· #10 · Aug 28, 2007

Macfury said:
What? Is the use of the word "kill" too strong for you AS? Sheesh.

Thanks for trying.
"Kill" goes to show the mindset.

Macfury

· #11 · Aug 28, 2007

There, we've hit it. We've got to come up with an alternative term to protect his tender sensibilities. Watch it guys, your "mindset" is showing.

hUssain

· #12 · Aug 28, 2007

ArtistSeries said:
"Kill" goes to show the mindset.

If I remove the ability for one to live it is killing, if I take away life from someone who will die a horrible painful death of some sort of disease it is still killing, even with consent. The problem with abortion is not the wording of death (which is something that's been happening for a long time) the problem lies in the ethics, and human rights.

ArtistSeries

· #13 · Aug 28, 2007

hUssain said:
If I remove the ability for one to live it is killing,

In that case, I say remove the little cells and see how long they survive on their own.

ArtistSeries

· #14 · Aug 28, 2007

Macfury said:
There, we've hit it. We've got to come up with an alternative term to protect his tender sensibilities. Watch it guys, your "mindset" is showing.

So MF, are you saying that women don't have the right to choose what they do with their bodies? And more specifically with the right to choose to have an abortion or not...
Answer that one instead of diverting...

hUssain

· #15 · Aug 28, 2007

ArtistSeries said:
In that case, I say remove the little cells and see how long they survive on their own.

Little cells? Your still in the realm of test-tube babies, find a suitable parent and your still good.

Abotions in Canada can happen anything from week 0 to 20, generally it happen between 0 to 12 weeks, but I doubt that most people know for sure in week 0-3, I can't find a chart for Canada, but it seems in the UK abortion choices are only made at week 4. At week 4, the heart is starting to develop, as well as the brain. Week 5 the embryos should be at least 4mm. Week 6 brain waves activity should start, it thinks (I think therefore I am).

Fink-Nottle

· #16 · Aug 28, 2007

ArtistSeries wrote

In that case, I say remove the little cells and see how long they survive on their own.

I have two daughters and I was there when they were born. Neither would have survived very long on their own either... nor would you at their age for that matter.

A baby which has to be born three months early has a good shot of survival today... unless it is decided that the foetus should be aborted, in which case our technology makes the process as clean and painless as possible. The baby we keep is a human being with a right to life. But the foetus we abort is just a bunch of cells that we can discard. They may look the same and even be the same... so it's very important we use proper language to keep them distinct: baby vs foetus, kill vs abort, prolife vs antichoice etc. I'm glad you have the terms straight.

Macfury

· #17 · Aug 28, 2007

ArtistSeries said:
So MF, are you saying that women don't have the right to choose what they do with their bodies? And more specifically with the right to choose to have an abortion or not...
Answer that one instead of diverting...

A typical Karl Rove comment, huh AS? What does your question have to do with whether or not something is being killed?

Beej

· #18 · Aug 28, 2007

So MF, are you saying that you hate children?

Macfury

· #19 · Aug 28, 2007 (Edited)

Beej: Maybe you're right. Perhaps I do hate children and I'm expressing it in an oblique fashion.

Do you think AS would like me better if I stated adamantly that I believe that "women have the right to choose whether they kill their progeny inside them?"

hUssain

· #20 · Aug 28, 2007

Fink-Nottle said:
A baby which has to be born three months early has a good shot of survival today... unless it is decided that the foetus should be aborted, in which case our technology makes the process as clean and painless as possible. The baby we keep is a human being with a right to life. But the foetus we abort is just a bunch of cells that we can discard. They may look the same and even be the same... so it's very important we use proper language to keep them distinct: baby vs foetus, kill vs abort, prolife vs antichoice etc. I'm glad you have the terms straight.

Let me first say, I'm pro-choice (btw, prolife is antichoice, you mean prolife and prochoice). People make mistakes or are raped or need it to live, w/e the reason, a person has the choice in the end.

The problem I have is with people who rebrand words to avoid what is really happening, abort is killing. Baby, Foetus, Embryo, in the end they are human.

Abort is defined like so

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=abort said:
S: (v) abort (terminate before completion) "abort the mission"; "abort the process running on my computer"
S: (v) abort (cease development, die, and be aborted) "an aborting fetus"
S: (v) abort (terminate a pregnancy by undergoing an abortion)

Killing is defined, in the context of death as

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=killing said:
S: (v) kill (cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly) "This man killed several people when he tried to rob a bank"; "The farmer killed a pig for the holidays"

I wouldn't be surprised if abort(pregnancy) came after people didn't like 'kill' and it was rebranded (speculation, not fact). Abort can also be used to describe a application process that you 'kill'. The definitions are logically the same, the only difference is that it applies to a unborn human.

Speaking of proper language, a fetus is in the later development stages of a vertabrae (human or not), the early stages, which include "a bunch of [organized] cells" stage, is called an embryo, but an embryo can also show signs of intelligent, as I previously said.

Rebranding does not change what you are doing.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.