Re: Ann Coulter 1, BBC 0




Scotius wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006 23:09:12 -0700, "American Jesus" <zz99z@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Jim E wrote:
"Infidel" <Infidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:HeXrg.106048$iU2.72182@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Charles Farley wrote:
The BBC interviews Ann Coulter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aiHbUplz3k

Love that woman!

She did put him in his place.
Silly liberal.


Jim E

She avoided answering a good question at the end, which was how does
she feel about such harsh words about the 9/11 widows hurting the
Republican party.

The comments she made about those particular people may well
have been out of line, but the liberals DO regularly use tragedy
whores like Sarah Brady to trot out their talking points in such a way
that it would make people feel bad to argue the lack of merit of the
case being made by those front-people. That's a fact. The Republicans
do it too, but they haven't been doing it as much or as well since I
recall, and I doubt they ever have. To the best of my knowledge, this
kind of thing might be said to have really got into gear in the '80s
with the libs. They're ahead of the conservatives on this.


Well I appreciate your response; you actually put some time into it.
Most of the time people people don't do that. So, I will return the
favor.
I agree, both sides do it. As to who does it more, it seems to me
that conservatives engage in the diatribes more than liberals but the
liberals are catching up. I think of Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, et al
and I compare them to the more popular of the liberal commentators. I
actually do my share of listening to radio on both sides but I admit I
don't listen to Limbaugh. There are some liberal hosts who I think are
just full of crap, they way they present material is no different than
the conservatives, but I think conservatives have more.



I would really have liked to hear her answer to
that, as some in the right wing itself have distanced themselves from
her over such comments. Her reply was that her book is #1 and that
she's doing just fine.
I guess she cares more about money than ideals, which leads me to
believe she wants to financially benefit from fear and hate.

Using people who other people will not want to argue with then
must mean that the liberals care more about the wants of a few in
their party than they do about the truth of a matter, or the opinions
of others on it, right? Don't oversimplify. It will come back to bite
you on the ass.


That's what some liberals do, sure. Some of them don't think any more
than their conservative counterparts. But Coulter is not a politician,
she is a famous person that spews hate. When was the last time Al
Franken said that he wished McVeigh had attacked New York or any other
city? Has Al Franken said he wished 9/11 happened in Crawford, TX?


I don't
really see that as any different than Michael Moore making millions by
releasing Fahrenheit 911.
As far as whether she put him in his place, it's his job to ask
questions and the so-called "silly liberal" is giving her more
exposure. She says she won the debate about whether the media is
liberal yet. . .is FOX News liberal? FOX is the number one news outlet
in the US. Other media corporations have their hands in defense
contracting, which hardly sounds liberal to me.
Then, of course, we have the Darwin issue. She isn't qualified to
condemn it as religion, simple as that.

I think anyone who knows much about the history of Darwin, and
his connections to the "eugenics" movement, which was led by the
closest thing America had to nazis at the time knows very well that
Darwinism is an overly simple answer to a complex question. Most
people believe that God exists, that's just a fact, and the fact that
"mathematical probability" does NOT explain how the universe came into
being is all that needs to be said about that.

Just because most people believe in something does not make it a fact,
especially when it is not based on any scientific evidence. Math is
the language of science and we continue to learn as we go along.
Coulter criticizing Darwin's theory (there's no such thing as
Darwinism, the 'ism' is added by right wingers to discredit it as a
faith) is like me criticizing Ford for not knowing how to build a
hybrid vehicle. We make progress as we learn more. Now that's a fact.
Evolution is a fact.



If you want to argue that point, by the way, argue it with
Stephen Hawking. Hawking believes that there is a God, and also says
(along with EVERY other respected physicist) that conventional
mathematics "breaks down" as we "reach the beginning of the universe".

I like Hawking, he's a true genius, but just because he believes in God
does not make it a fact. I believe in God, too. The human species is
still very primitive, so it makes no sense to me to judge science as
pretending to know everything when we have so much more to learn.
Scientists already know that, that's why they keep trying.


Math is an invention of man, and is used to explain
analogically many things that themselves have nothing to do with math.
Physics likewise is the study of analogous ways to make sense of what
is being studied. The theory that "mathematical probability" is what
brought the universe into being is like the theory that the binary
number system is what brought the computer into being. Ludicrous.


One could easily say God is also an invention of humankind. There's
more evidence of that than there is evidence that God is real. Math is
just used to describe the physical universe.

Now, aside from that, it is a bit annoying on a personal level
that so many people who claim to be interested only in "fairness" will
fight tooth and nail to keep any mention of anything related to God,
religion, etc, out of schools. Please. I am sick of Hollywoodians who
can't even spell correctly telling the rest of us why what they think
constitute the best practices of math and science education must be
adopted by public schools, which by the way none of them have ever
been or would ever be elected to oversee, except of course in La-La
Land.

You are making the mistake of thinking that science and religion are
equal, similar things, and that both are belief systems. Science
requires evidence and thought, religion requires faith and obedience.
Comparing the two is ridiculous. But, before you tell me I am a
liberal, take a look at this recent post of mine:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_frm/thread/48e53149d77ad87b/4498b44719fca3d0?q=%22american+jesus%22&rnum=8#4498b44719fca3d0



That said, I am of course not fooled for one minute by Mr.
Values George W. Bush. His only interest in religion is to use the
backlash against "liberal Hollywood" to get more votes for
Republicans. Same with most of the rest of them, if not all.

I'd like to see her debate
scientists, biologists, and anthropologists about evolution. I'd love
to see her actually do that.
She is a good speaker but hardly impressive; anybody can anticipate
questions that arise from controversial words and prepare canned
answers. I guess that impresses simple-minded conservatives.

.