Ann Is A Mean Angry Woman
-
Who is Ann Coulter anyways?
The left's worst nightmare - an opinionated, unapologetic conservative bitch. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Who is Ann Coulter anyways?
She is a bitter, twisted woman: the "wisdom" of Ann Coulter[^] Some choice quotes: "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01 "I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01 "I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97 "My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97
-
Who is Ann Coulter anyways?
The only right-wing nut that can use her legs to sell her stuff http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/4145.jpg[^]
-
Go, Ann! Give the bastards hell! "You get that which you tolerate"
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution. Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt. Coulter devotes the last 80 pages to her full-scale attack on the theory of evolution and the utter dishonesty of what she calls the "Darwiniacs" and their refusal to face the fact that evolution is a patent absurdity, according to Coulter, credible only to those who will find any reason to deny the existence of God. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/5/171405.shtml?s=lh[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
You can watch the video of her talking to Matt Lauer here: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much." http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/[^] She comes off crazier than Tom Cruise. The saddest thing about Coulter isn't that isn't full of crazy angry lies, but the fact that her books sell so well (it's #3 at Amazon right today). I expect there to be crazy people in the world, but it says something very sad about humanity and humanity's future that people are actually buying her crap. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
-
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution. Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt. Coulter devotes the last 80 pages to her full-scale attack on the theory of evolution and the utter dishonesty of what she calls the "Darwiniacs" and their refusal to face the fact that evolution is a patent absurdity, according to Coulter, credible only to those who will find any reason to deny the existence of God. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/5/171405.shtml?s=lh[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote:
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution.
I do.
Brit wrote:
Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt.
However, I don't fault those who take issue with the theory. I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe. "The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!" Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda. They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments. There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities between the two groups which could be explained by evolution theory. Yet, the left would never entertain such a heretical assault on one of its own core moral principles - it would just be all racist to even suggest it. So much for science. EDIT - I took out the "advanced" term because it implies that evolution is purposefully directional. The rest of my comment stands. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:12 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
-
Brit wrote:
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution.
I do.
Brit wrote:
Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt.
However, I don't fault those who take issue with the theory. I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe. "The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!" Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda. They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments. There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities between the two groups which could be explained by evolution theory. Yet, the left would never entertain such a heretical assault on one of its own core moral principles - it would just be all racist to even suggest it. So much for science. EDIT - I took out the "advanced" term because it implies that evolution is purposefully directional. The rest of my comment stands. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:12 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat more evolutionarily advanced than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments.
Don't use you ignorance of evolutionary theory to try any justify your own bigotry.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat more evolutionarily advanced than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments.
Don't use you ignorance of evolutionary theory to try any justify your own bigotry.
Wjousts wrote:
Don't use you ignorance of evolutionary theory to try any justify your own bigotry.
Thanks for proving my point. I just knew one of you guys would help out. :laugh: So much for intellectual curiosity at the risk of calling your moral beliefs into question. Christians ain't got nothing on you. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 19:29 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat more evolutionarily advanced than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments.
Don't use you ignorance of evolutionary theory to try any justify your own bigotry.
Wjousts wrote:
Don't use you ignorance of evolutionary theory to try any justify your own bigotry.
What a rational, logical argument. Like Stan said, you proved his own point. MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
Who is Ann Coulter anyways?
thealj wrote:
Who is Ann Coulter anyways?
She is a political commentator, who unlike the left, uses logic and facts. MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
thealj wrote:
Who is Ann Coulter anyways?
She is a political commentator, who unlike the left, uses logic and facts. MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
What does that have to do with what i said? MOΛΩN ΛABE
-
Brit wrote:
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution.
I do.
Brit wrote:
Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt.
However, I don't fault those who take issue with the theory. I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe. "The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!" Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda. They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments. There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities between the two groups which could be explained by evolution theory. Yet, the left would never entertain such a heretical assault on one of its own core moral principles - it would just be all racist to even suggest it. So much for science. EDIT - I took out the "advanced" term because it implies that evolution is purposefully directional. The rest of my comment stands. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:12 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments.
No. No. No. No. Somehow, I think you're being facetious, and don't need me to explain. - F
-
Brit wrote:
Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution.
I do.
Brit wrote:
Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt.
However, I don't fault those who take issue with the theory. I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe. "The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!" Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda. They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments. There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities between the two groups which could be explained by evolution theory. Yet, the left would never entertain such a heretical assault on one of its own core moral principles - it would just be all racist to even suggest it. So much for science. EDIT - I took out the "advanced" term because it implies that evolution is purposefully directional. The rest of my comment stands. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:12 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
"The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!"
Who said that (besides you, that is)? If there is a god, then he created evolution as a means to propagate his children. If not, then evolution is a good theory to explain how life progresses.
Stan Shannon wrote:
if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily different in many ways than Africans
Non-Africans are evolutionarily different and I don't know anybody who thinks otherwise. However, the races are different in the way that breeds of cats are different. Human races have not speciated and, with the erasure of geological boundaries and the resultant cross-breeding, they may never speciate.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities
There are studies which suggest left-handed people have higher intelligence than right-handed people. Therefore, righties are dummies, thus proving evolution valid.
-
Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
Mike Gaskey wrote:
no she's not, she's our Al Franken
So, she's a mean angry transvestite? :)
-
You can watch the video of her talking to Matt Lauer here: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much." http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/[^] She comes off crazier than Tom Cruise. The saddest thing about Coulter isn't that isn't full of crazy angry lies, but the fact that her books sell so well (it's #3 at Amazon right today). I expect there to be crazy people in the world, but it says something very sad about humanity and humanity's future that people are actually buying her crap. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote:
it says something very sad about humanity and humanity's future that people are actually buying her crap
Sadly, evolution does not always progress in the forward direction.
-
Wjousts wrote:
Don't use you ignorance of evolutionary theory to try any justify your own bigotry.
Thanks for proving my point. I just knew one of you guys would help out. :laugh: So much for intellectual curiosity at the risk of calling your moral beliefs into question. Christians ain't got nothing on you. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 19:29 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
You ignore the lack of diversity within human populations. There is more diversity within the few remaining mountain gorillas than in the entire human population. You also ignore that, if anything, hunter/gatherer societies should actually be genetically smarter and stronger due to the fact that they actually need to use their strength and their wits to survive every day as opposed to "civilized" peoples living in overcrowded cities where the most important characteristic for survive is resistance to the diseases that thrive in over-crowded human populations. (This was an arguement made by Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel") Geography has far more to do with the state of human societies than your 19th century view of racial superiority. Why do you cite the peer-reviewed papers that support you theory? or do you join the creationists (including Ann) in believing that science is part of the left-wing conspiracy? -- modified at 20:45 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
"The theory of evolution prooves that your religion is untrue so you must let the state teach your children the TRUTH!"
Who said that (besides you, that is)? If there is a god, then he created evolution as a means to propagate his children. If not, then evolution is a good theory to explain how life progresses.
Stan Shannon wrote:
if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily different in many ways than Africans
Non-Africans are evolutionarily different and I don't know anybody who thinks otherwise. However, the races are different in the way that breeds of cats are different. Human races have not speciated and, with the erasure of geological boundaries and the resultant cross-breeding, they may never speciate.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There are studies which suggest some slight average differences in intellectual abilities
There are studies which suggest left-handed people have higher intelligence than right-handed people. Therefore, righties are dummies, thus proving evolution valid.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Non-Africans are evolutionarily different and I don't know anybody who thinks otherwise. However, the races are different in the way that breeds of cats are different. Human races have not speciated and, with the erasure of geological boundaries and the resultant cross-breeding, they may never speciate.
But that isn't the point of my "facetious" post. Has the separate evolution of non-African hominids adapting to more alien and challanging environments resulted in some mesurable difference in the intellectual abilities of those seprrate populations? And if not, why not? If a million years of hominid evolution was sufficient to change a hairy half ape into Albert Einstien would one not expect some small, but measurable differences to emerge over the course of 50 to 100 thousans years, if evolutionary theory as we currently understand it is valid? Now, I don't pose that question because I really care about the answer. Is it a legitimate scienfic question contributing to a better understanding of evolution or is it purely racist? I pose it in order to present a argument for the hypocrisy of the left. It is a question they would never entertain or allow to be promulgated if someone did. They would immediately dismiss it as racist, and throw up a smoke screen of obfuscation to ensure that it was not introduced into the general public discourse.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
There are studies which suggest left-handed people have higher intelligence than right-handed people. Therefore, righties are dummies, thus proving evolution valid.
Being left handed, I have always known that.;P "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 21:00 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
-
You ignore the lack of diversity within human populations. There is more diversity within the few remaining mountain gorillas than in the entire human population. You also ignore that, if anything, hunter/gatherer societies should actually be genetically smarter and stronger due to the fact that they actually need to use their strength and their wits to survive every day as opposed to "civilized" peoples living in overcrowded cities where the most important characteristic for survive is resistance to the diseases that thrive in over-crowded human populations. (This was an arguement made by Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel") Geography has far more to do with the state of human societies than your 19th century view of racial superiority. Why do you cite the peer-reviewed papers that support you theory? or do you join the creationists (including Ann) in believing that science is part of the left-wing conspiracy? -- modified at 20:45 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
Wjousts wrote:
You ignore the lack of diversity within human populations.
No I don't. In fact, the greater genetic diversity that exists among Africans should mean that the most intelligent people on the planet would be African, even if the other populations had some small greater average intelligence.
Wjousts wrote:
You also ignore that, if anything, hunter/gatherer societies should actually be genetically smarter and stronger due to the fact that they actually need to use their strength and their wits to survive every day as opposed to "civilized" peoples living in overcrowded cities where the most important characteristic for survive is resistance to the diseases that thrive in over-crowded human populations. (This was an arguement made by Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize winning book "Guns, Germs and Steel")
Irrelavent obfuscation.
Wjousts wrote:
Why do you cite the peer-reviewed papers that support you theory?
Because no such papers exist. Which begs the question, why not? The question has never even been asked for fear of being called racist. I would think that would be of some concern for those whos interests are purely scientific.
Wjousts wrote:
or do you join the creationists (including Ann) in believing that science is part of the left-wing conspiracy?
Yes, I do join them in the sense that the left carefully uses selective scientific conclusions to support their agenda. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 20:59 Wednesday 7th June, 2006
