“Godless” is Gutless


Anne Coulter says we’re “Godless” — we “liberals.” And by “liberals,” she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants, out of Iraq, and out of the business of helping Big Business shoplift America.

It’s time someone took on the blonde bully.

Anne, I realize yesterday was special day for you, releasing your book on June 6 — 06-06-06.

Going through it, I must, admit, is heavy going: ‘Godless’ is a 300-page brick of solid meanness and pin-head hatreds packaged like a fashion magazine: Big Brother wears Prada.

You accuse those who don’t sign on to your list of prejudices as the Lord’s enemies. That’s not original, Anne: the Taliban thought of it before you and they too were partial to dressing in black.

You want to talk about Godless? OK, let’s go:

Would the Lord lie us into a war?

Would the Lord let thousands drown in New Orleans while chilling at a golf resort?

Would the Lord have removed tens of thousands of Black soldiers from the voter rolls as the Republican Party did in 2004?

You talk about being “Christian” — but with all your zeal to fire up electric chairs and Abrams tanks, you sound more like a Roman.

I suggest this, Anne: let’s debate. Set the time, set the place, and I’ll be there. Nose to nose, my facts versus your fanaticism.

But I know you don’t have the guts to do anything but lob idiocies from your electronic Fox-hole.

Your new book is called, “Godless.” Your autobiography should be called, “Gutless.”

_______________Greg Palast, winner of the George Orwell Courage-In-Journalism Prize, and author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

What a great review. It sounds like he didn't read the book or even hear any interviews about it.
I've never bought any of her books, but she makes some great points in this one.

I've never bought any of her books, but she makes some great points in this one.

I'm rather eager to hear what these great points happen to be, share them with us.

The media will help foster the left side of the debate by trotting out spokespeople you can't argue against without looking like an awful person.
Gun control - Carolyn McCarthy, left wing views with a husband killed by Colin Ferguson
Stem Cell Research - Christopher Reeve.
Iraq War - Cindy Sheehan.
September 11th - The "Jersey Moms".

I think it's a great point for which you can't find a right wing equivalent.

The media will help foster the left side of the debate by trotting out spokespeople you can't argue against without looking like an awful person.
If you're right, then what worry is it of yours to care about appearances?

Now does Coulter have any other "great" points in her latest book?

What a great review. It sounds like he didn't read the book.......

We can argue whether or not Coulter's points are "good ones"......

.....buuuut, could you please point out for me what you read in the lead post that causes you to conclude that Greg Palast did not read the book??!?!

He states -- "Going through it, I must, admit, is heavy going: ‘Godless’ is a 300-page brick of solid meanness and pin-head hatreds packaged like a fashion magazine"

That sounds to me like someone who HAS read the book.

He states -- "Going through it, I must, admit, is heavy going: ‘Godless’ is a 300-page brick of solid meanness and pin-head hatreds packaged like a fashion magazine"

That sounds to me like someone who HAS read the book.
You're a very careful and discerning reader, Free.

The media will help foster the left side of the debate by trotting out spokespeople you can't argue against without looking like an awful person.
Gun control - Carolyn McCarthy, left wing views with a husband killed by Colin Ferguson
Stem Cell Research - Christopher Reeve.
Iraq War - Cindy Sheehan.
September 11th - The "Jersey Moms".

I think it's a great point for which you can't find a right wing equivalent.

I don't watch television so I can't really say whether the "right" does this as well, but I will say that if you can't make an argument without looking like an awful person, for any reason, then maybe you're on the wrong side of the argument. :)

If you're right, then what worry is it of yours to care about appearances?
I don't understand this.

I don't understand this.
Why do you care about your appearance if you are supposedly correct?

I don't watch television so I can't really say whether the "right" does this as well, but I will say that if you can't make an argument without looking like an awful person, for any reason, then maybe you're on the wrong side of the argument. :)Oh, okay. So it's a fair, objective set-up to have you square off against Christopher Reeve about spinal chord / stem cell research.
And as asinine as Cindy Sheehan got, right wing pundits (O'Reilly on Letterman, for example) are still told "How can you criticize her after what she went through."
How good your argument is becomes totally irrelevant.

Typical of ft. ft has "facts" anyone else is a fanatic.

Why do you care about your appearance if you are supposedly correct?Because the argument (votes) nowadays is won or lost on perception. The voters are no different than a jury.

Because the argument (votes) nowadays is won or lost on perception. The voters are no different than a jury.
Good Brooks, you're not lacking in common sense. But one has to wonder why you complain that the left parades out people to appeal to the populace's emotions? (Such as with Sheehan or the other examples listed) All is fair in love and war, as the old saying goes. :D

Oh, okay. So it's a fair, objective set-up to have you square off against Christopher Reeve about spinal chord / stem cell research.
And as asinine as Cindy Sheehan got, right wing pundits (O'Reilly on Letterman, for example) are still told "How can you criticize her after what she went through."
How good your argument is becomes totally irrelevant.

I didn't say it was "fair" or "objective" to pick a spokesperson simply for their emotional appeal, but if you have a sound argument, you should be able to make your point. I think if your argument is convincing enough, the emotional appeal of the spokesperson would be irrelevant. Than again I'm not usually controlled by my emotions. :)

I didn't say it was "fair" or "objective" to pick a spokesperson simply for their emotional appeal, but if you have a sound argument, you should be able to make your point. I think if your argument is convincing enough, the emotional appeal of the spokesperson would be irrelevant. Than again I'm not usually controlled by my emotions. :)
The majority of people are called "sheep" often times for a good reason. Emotional appeals would win the crowd over the more sound argument anyday.

Good Brooks, you're not lacking in common sense. But one has to wonder why you complain that the left parades out people to appeal to the populace's emotions? (Such as with Sheehan or the other examples listed) All is fair in love and war, as the old saying goes. :DRIGHT. RIGHT. But if the media is fair, where are the right wing equivalents?
That's the point.

I didn't say it was "fair" or "objective" to pick a spokesperson simply for their emotional appeal, but if you have a sound argument, you should be able to make your point. I think if your argument is convincing enough, the emotional appeal of the spokesperson would be irrelevant. Than again I'm not usually controlled by my emotions. :)But the media are the ones making these people famous. The objective media.
After Zarqawi was killed do you know who was interviewed on the 3 majors today? The father of Chris Berg (who was beheaded). He blames President Bush for all of it. He was the only non-military person interviewed. How do you argue against him, and where's the right-wing equivalent?

Brooks, an objective news source is farce, a fantasy. They will always have a leaning, however slight or extreme. Where's the right wing equivalent? Who says the news sources have to provide one? Rupert Murdoch and other rich right-wing entrepreneurs should dish out the money if they wish to see another side displayed. That is one of the reasons Murdoch started Newscorp.

Typical of ft. ft has "facts" anyone else is a fanatic.

Typical of es347fan;

Looking at two posts I have made in a thread and then; attributing to me things that I have not said and words that I have not used.

1. Where's the right wing equivalent? Who says the news sources have to provide one?
2. Rupert Murdoch and other rich right-wing entrepreneurs
1. Is this finally an admission of the left bias of the media?

2. Is that the Reichwinger hosting the fundraisers for Hillary Clinton? That one?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

But the media are the ones making these people famous. The objective media.

Some media is more objective than others, which is one reason I don't watch TV news or talk shows.


After Zarqawi was killed do you know who was interviewed on the 3 majors today?

Nope.


The father of Chris Berg (who was beheaded). He blames President Bush for all of it.

He's entitled to his opinion, and I can't say I blame him for his feelings on the subject.


He was the only non-military person interviewed.

I'm not at all sure why that's important.


How do you argue against him, and where's the right-wing equivalent?

You do your best under difficult circumstances.

One example of a right wing equivalent was the guy who came up to my door a few years ago and hung a videotape of aborted fetuses on my doorknob. Talk about picking a spokesperson simply for their emotional appeal.

“Godless” is Gutless

It's also number one on the best seller list.:woohoo: :woohoo:

You're a very careful and discerning reader, Free.

Thanks.

But could you please point out for me what you read in the lead post that caused you to conclude that Greg Palast did not read the book?

1. Some media is more objective than others, which is one reason I don't watch TV news or talk shows.
2. He's entitled to his opinion, and I can't say I blame him for his feelings on the subject.
3. I'm not at all sure why that's important.
4. One example of a right wing equivalent was the guy who came up to my door a few years ago and hung a videotape of aborted fetuses on my doorknob. Talk about picking a spokesperson simply for their emotional appeal.1. Right. It's not objective. But where's the right-wing equivalent of this subjectivity?
2. Yes, he is entitled. But why did they interview this obviously biased, irrelevant man, and not present equal time?
3. Because it clearly shows a pattern of sympathetic, left-wing spokespeople. And, to repeat myself, there is no right wing equivalent.
4. That's not the "objective" media doing that.

1. Is this finally an admission of the left bias of the media?Please point out where I have ever said something about the media not having a liberal bent.
2. Is that the Reichwinger hosting the fundraisers for Hillary Clinton? That one?
1. I don't like the label "Reichwinger"
2. His friendship and support of Mrs. Clinton doesn't change the conservative bent of his views
3. You should know by now, that any post I use to debate you is for shits and giggles, not because I take issue with your statements.

But could you please point out for me what you read in the lead post that caused you to conclude that Greg Palast did not read the book?Because he could have really ripped her apart with some of her extreme views and quotes. Had he read it, he would have gleefully posted some of them. He would criticize any one of her books in this way, and probably wrote these non-specific sentences before the book even came out.

It's also number one on the best seller list.

The fact that a book (by an emaciated neo-Con harpy railing against unbelievers) is a *best seller* in this superstitious nation is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

I don't like the label "Reichwinger"
Whoops. Upon closer inspection I see you called Rupert Murdoch "rich".

Because he could have really ripped her apart with some of her extreme views and quotes. Had he read it, he would have gleefully posted some of them.

Ahh.........I see. Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

It was what he did NOT say.

Thanks, Kreskin.

From ft: "... suggest this, Anne: let’s debate. Set the time, set the place, and I’ll be there. Nose to nose, my facts versus your fanaticism. ..."

Your own words. Nothing more.

From ft: "... suggest this, Anne: let’s debate. Set the time, set the place, and I’ll be there. Nose to nose, my facts versus your fanaticism. ..."

Your own words. Nothing more.

Uhhhh.......actually, es347fan, if you will re-read the post in question you'll see that the person making that particular remark was Greg Palast, a writer and political commentator critiquing Coulter's book.

His name is at the end of the article.

Uhhhh.......actually, es347fan, if you will re-read the post in question you'll see that the person making that particular remark was Greg Palast, a writer and political commentator critiquing Coulter's book.

His name is at the end of the article.

yea.. why would FT actually come up with his OWN ideas??? his current strategy of going on to tvnewslies.com and places like communismACTUALLYworks.com and ihatebush.com is working wonders.. what an unbiased perspective we have in FT, keep up the good work. :thumbs:

Brooks, an objective news source is farce, a fantasy. They will always have a leaning, however slight or extreme. Where's the right wing equivalent? Who says the news sources have to provide one?

I'm glad to see Evak has admitted to himself that the media IS liberal-biased... nice that you woke up.

Oh, and that "facts" and "fanatic" line made me chuckle... Now onto the thread:

Anne Coulter says we’re “Godless” — we “liberals.” And by “liberals,” she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants,

why would you WANT the government in your underpants?

out of Iraq, and out of the business of helping Big Business shoplift America.

I dont see why you would care if she calls liberals "Godless"... most extreme liberals ARE athiest because of their adherent gigantic egos which cannot comprehend anything that is bigger than themselves. The idea of a God frightens them, and makes them uncomfortable. Care to deny that?

So you argue and argue that God should be kept OUT of EVERYTHING we do.. and then when someone calls you "Godless".. you freak out? Isn't that hypocritical to the greatest extenet?


Would the Lord lie us into a war?

Yes, if it taught mankind a lesson... but can you prove it was a lie?

Would the Lord let thousands drown in New Orleans while chilling at a golf resort?

Yes, but if you want to put BLAME on someone for the whole New orleans thing.. i think about 10 percent goes to the federal gov't. Quit lying you idiot.


Would the Lord have removed tens of thousands of Black soldiers from the voter rolls as the Republican Party did in 2004?

didn't hear about that one..but with his tone and credibility, its not looking good for him that its 100% factual info.

my facts versus your fanaticism.

hehehehe

I'm glad to see Evak has admitted to himself that the media IS liberal-biased... nice that you woke up. I dare you to find evidence that I've ever said anything contrary. Something tells me you are not a critical reader.

most extreme liberals ARE athiest because of their adherent gigantic egos which cannot comprehend anything that is bigger than themselves.

Define "extreme liberal".


The idea of a God frightens them, and makes them uncomfortable. Care to deny that?

I can only speak for myself, and I don't consider myself an "extreme liberal", but I think you're full of it.

I'm not frightened by the idea of a god at all. I am quite frightened by what my fellow humans do with the idea however.

I would say there is a lot more fear of god in the believers, since they believe if they don't think and act a certain way they will be tortured for eternity. I have no such fear because I think that idea is nonsense.

Define "extreme liberal".
Extreme liberal: (n.) sometimes referred to as a vile pagan, or someone pompous enough to actually claim they're a "free-thinker"; the typical "extreme liberal" is often characterized by their pedantic writing style, and their academic insistence on championing lofty ideals with virtually zero regard for being practical in any way, whatsoever. This is usually because of their scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning, and that can often be the fault of an outwardly pretentious attitude, but either way - most arguments (when started by the elusive "extreme liberal") are over before they began.

Conservatives of any shade typically find solace basking in the warm glow of their annihilating contempt.

[syn: wrong-minded, overly didactic, self-aggrandizing, etc.]

I'm not a (modern) liberal, and I'm an atheist. Where do I fit in your little theory, Decka?

I'm not a (modern) liberal, and I'm an atheist. Where do I fit in your little theory, Decka?
Count me along with Borg.

why would you WANT the government in your underpants?To make sure you're not having anal sex.

I dont see why you would care if she calls liberals "Godless"... most extreme liberals ARE athiest because of their adherent gigantic egos which cannot comprehend anything that is bigger than themselves. The idea of a God frightens them, and makes them uncomfortable. Care to deny thatYes, I'll deny that. Some people are atheists because their line of thought and reasoning led them to be so.
And I just can't figure out why you, or others, are so concerned with "extreme liberals"... other than that they help you to smear mainstream liberals.

I dare you to find evidence that I've ever said anything contrary. Something tells me you are not a critical reader.

well... you DID say that unbias media is a fantasy.. so that means the media leans one way or the other. THEN you went on to ask "who says there has to be a right wing equivilent"... which means that it leans left. You need to be more careful of what you say if that's not what you meant.


and if you don't consider yourself an "extreme liberal".. then i guess i wasn't talking to you.. don't get your panties in a bunch.

As for Borg.. you are fine.. i have no quarrels with you. I'm just suprised that people are mad at being called "Godless" when it seems all of their arguements are to get God out of our lives.

Yes, I'll deny that. Some people are atheists because their line of thought and reasoning led them to be so.
And I just can't figure out why you, or others, are so concerned with "extreme liberals"... other than that they help you to smear mainstream liberals.

i am concerned with "extreme liberals" because they are idiots and make up theories and quickly use them as facts on their own arguments. i ALWAYS am sure to put the word "extreme" because i DONT want to smear mainstream liberals. I used to just say "liberals" and got a lot of questioning about it from people on here... and i realized the error in my ways.. so now i am being "politically correct"...

As for athiests.. i didn't say ALL athiests are what i described.. im just stereotyping the extreme liberal athiest.... people like FT... who deserve to get a brick thrown at their head, that is, IF Ann Coulter gets one thrown at HER head.

And I just can't figure out why you, or others, are so concerned with "extreme liberals"... other than that they help you to smear mainstream liberals.
No offense, Jester, but "mainstream liberals" don't need any help.

Extreme liberal: (n.) sometimes referred to as a vile pagan,

Do you consider me an extremist?

yea.. why would FT actually come up with his OWN ideas???

I believe I have forwarded as many or more of my original thoughts and ideas as the rest of the posters here.

Originally Posted by Greg Palast
Anne Coulter says we’re “Godless” — we “liberals.” And by “liberals,” she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants

why would you WANT the government in your underpants?

Please........get some fucking HELP with reading comprehension.

Do you consider me an extremist?
No, not at all, and I'm being totally serious. I think you're on the far left, but in no way do I find you to be an "extremist". In all honesty, it was just a cheap shot, but hey....would you expect anything less from a dick like me??? ;)

Please........get some fucking HELP with reading comprehension.

Is anyone else confused by what Freethinker is trying to say here? are you high or something? You ask about "gov't being in underpants" and i ask "why would you want the gov't in your underpants".. so then you say i need reading comprehension? I think the problem here is not my reading comprehension but that you are an idiot.....

well... you DID say that unbias media is a fantasy.. so that means the media leans one way or the other. THEN you went on to ask "who says there has to be a right wing equivilent"... which means that it leans left. You need to be more careful of what you say if that's not what you meant.There is a left-wing slant to much of the major news networks in the country, it may not be big but it is present. I dare you to find me saying otherwise on these boards.

and if you don't consider yourself an "extreme liberal".. then i guess i wasn't talking to you.. don't get your panties in a bunch.
I wasn't addressing or being addressed by the "extreme liberal" quotes in that post.

Count me along with Borg.You're liberal in the true sense, not how we've redefined it.

"showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition"

Is anyone else confused by what Freethinker is trying to say here? are you high or something? You ask about "gov't being in underpants" and i ask "why would you want the gov't in your underpants".. so then you say i need reading comprehension? I think the problem here is not my reading comprehension but that you are an idiot.....

I think the point is that conservatives are more likely than liberals to be upset about what goes on in other people's bedrooms, Decka.

You're liberal in the true sense, not how we've redefined it.

"showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition"

Sounds awful. :thumbs:

"showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition"
Then is technically a liberal bias a bias towards no bias?

Acceptable if it comes from the left:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/queun/tedrall.gif

"I've done a few lousy cartoons in my time that I'd love to take back, but this isn't one of them." - Ted Rall

Acceptable if it comes from the left:


According to whom?

That cartoon is rough, yet not far off the mark.

According to whom?This is much nastier than anything Ann Coulter said about the widows but I don't recall any carping about it. I don't recall media commentary or shocked looks from Matt Lauer.

This is much nastier than anything Ann Coulter said about the widows but I don't recall any carping about it. I don't recall media commentary or shocked looks from Matt Lauer.

So who is Ted Rall anyway?

I seem to recall a cartoon of his became a topic on one of these threads. I think it was an anti-Condoleeza Rice thing. Needless to say, he was defended and praised by half the people here.
Or maybe he was the one who said nasty things about Pat Tillman. I don't quite remember.

Either way, in this case he gets away with what Ann Coulter doesn't.

I seem to recall a cartoon of his became a topic on one of these threads. I think it was an anti-Condoleeza Rice thing. Needless to say, he was defended and praised by half the people here.
Or maybe he was the one who said nasty things about Pat Tillman. I don't quite remember.

Either way, in this case he gets away with what Ann Coulter doesn't.
Are you expecting there to be backlash over a political cartoon of an apparently unknown cartoon editorialist in the major media? Ann Coulter's book is topping charts, and she most likely howling her views in interviews about it. There is bound to be a difference in reaction.

Is anyone else confused by what Freethinker is trying to say here?

I believe it's just you.

You have it exactly backward, what was being communicated by Greg Palast.

You ask about "gov't being in underpants" and i ask "why would you want the gov't in your underpants".. so then you say i need reading comprehension?

No.

No one --neither I nor Greg Palast-- ""asked about gov't being in underpants".

Greg Palast made it EXTREMELY clear that the contention between liberals and conservatives -- in the broadest sense-- centers around the fact that liberals do NOT want the government in our undepants.

Here is what Palast's remark was; --
"Anne Coulter says we’re “Godless” — we “liberals.” And by “liberals,” she means anyone who wants to keep the government out of our underpants"


And HERE, Decka, was your direct response to that remark -- --""why would you WANT the government in your underpants?""

IOW, your response makes it clear that you read Palast's remark and construed it to mean that Palast was somehow suggesting that someone might possibly **""want"*** the government in their underpants.

In fact, Palast's remark had the diametric OPPOSITE implication; -- that liberals do NOT want the government in our underpants.

THAT is why I said that you need help with reading comprehension.

I think the problem here is not my reading comprehension but that you are an idiot.....


The problem here is that you obviously suffer from poor reading comprehension.

Ann Coulter's book is topping charts, and she most likely howling her views in interviews about it. There is bound to be a difference in reaction.Yeah, that's true.

Ann Coulter's approach to political opining is similar to Andrew Dice Clay's approach to comedy.

Ann Coulter's approach to political opining is similar to Andrew Dice Clay's approach to comedy.
I'll give you that, but like the Jewish, pseudo-Italian comic, Andrew Dice Clay, that bitch is funny.

I'll give you that, but like the Jewish, pseudo-Italian comic, Andrew Dice Clay, that bitch is funny.

I find Clay mildy amusing, sometimes.


But on the scale of *funny*, I'd place Ann Coulter right alongside pancreatic cancer.