Godless: A Thread About Ann Coulter's New Book

yeah and another 1400 years before we arrive at a new age of reason, and people can finally tell thier kids that life will get better in the future.

Not to mention the many trillions of sperm cells which are so callously condemned to die.

Won't someone think of the gametes? It makes baby jebus cry.

Here! Oh, except I'm not liberal.

I saw a t-shirt that read, "I had thousands of my potential babies die on your daughter's face last night." >.<

LOL @ Rasah & Groucho

But, Jake, that's always been "who we are". Our first countrymen were Puritans, forgodsakes, who believed in the authority of religion (grounded in scripture) over all. We've only been lucky that we've had some forward-thinkers and some brave souls who were willing to shake the tree of faith now and then to drag us into the future. But that's been just luck, not the inevitable result of our system or our "enlightenment".


It would if that's what happens, but take a larger view. Compare the politics of a Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, Joe McCarthy or even a Dwight Eisenhower with the politics of today. Compare the mindset of the 1950s public who acquiesced to printing the slogan "In God We Trust" on our money and inserting "Under God" in our pledge with the mindset of the nation today -- you may see demons in the closet dressed like fundamentalist Christians, but they're not the majority. The majority in this country don't care about education or science or what's on our money as long as they can make some money and raise their families. We aren't a reactionary nation, we're a complacent nation. And everything comes full circle eventually as our leadership leans too far one way or the other.

I don't think it's worth being alarmist about. I worry that the Democrat party won't figure out how ridiculous they sound to most Americans, which will give us another four years of Conservative leadership at least, but there's no way I see us having that as an infinite, permanent outcome. The mainstream of this country will always tug the political pendulum back toward the middle, just like it did by electing Reagan to follow Carter and Clinton to follow Bush, Sr.


Wow, there's a ton of mixed metaphors there Add Al Franken to Moore in order to cancel out the Coulter/Rush wing. Jessica Simpson is a meaningless twit. GW is a politician, not a polemicist. Do you actually believe that, once these people are gone, there won't be others to take their place? In America, it's less a matter of ideas and more a matter of market appeal. Coulter's book is selling like crazy and Bush grabbed a majority of the votes in '04. Why does that indicate some kind of ominous trend? Do you honestly think that market will stagnate for another 6 to 8 to 12 years?


Yesterday I wouldn't have agreed with you too much, because I think she's pretty bright, outrageous polemics aside. But after reading her website article, I'm disgusted with her willful ignorance of science -- a malady that probably 70% of Americans also suffer from, which makes Ann not that different from many after all:

Coulter's Blog

She's gone over the line, now -- she's arguing not with ideas but with data, evidence, and real science and exposed herself as a hack. She's lost any respect I was holding onto. But I still don't think she's the Witch Queen of Narnia.

There was a lot of "data, evidence, and real science" to say that the earth was flat, man would never make it to the moon, and the coelacanth was extinct. I always find it staggering how sure scientists can be that they know everything when new things are discovered everyday.

Meanwhile, after all this time, we still can't find Darwin's "missing link".

-Kiamat Dusk

Um... lol? Yeah, there was "scientific" evidence that the earth was flat, then we found evidence that it's round, and we have YET to find that it's flat again. Her "science" is trying to prove that things are the way we thought of BEFORE this new idea called "evolution" came about.

Actually there wasn't any evidence that the earth was flat. Ever. It was such an easy problem to solve that Pythagoras had it figured out by 500 BC. And I don't recall any "evidence" that man couldn't go to the moon.

All that aside, one of the basic premises of Science has always been that conclusions are conditional on new evidence being discovered. It's a long way from being "sure of everything". What they ARE saying is that evidence is required to undo established theories. And all of the evidence uncovered since Darwin has only strengthened his original theory, not undone it.


Not true. Darwin did some calculations in Origin that predicted, after erosion, predators, natural decay, and earthquakes we might find a few thousands transitional fossil specimens. To date, almost half a million such transitional fossils have been discovered and identified - far beyond what Darwin predicted.

More to your point, over 300 individual specimens of Australopithicus afarensis have been found in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Kenya. These date to around 4+ million years ago and display prominent characteristics of the sort of bipedal ape from which we descended.

The problem for laypeople on this issue is that we are not privy to the methods paleontologists use in assigning taxonomy -- even they admit it can be somewhat arbitrary as the best method of organizing the landmarks left by evolution. But the fact remains that we have abundant examples of species that leave a trail of clear breadcrumbs between us and ancient 3-foot tall apelike ancestors regardless of what name one gives them. To the unpracticed eye they may look like more ape than Man, which really is the whole point of the thing. That's what a "missing link" ought to look like.

If it's not flat why doesn't a ball I put on the ground roll one way or another? If it's not flat why doesn't my house lean and fall over? If it's not flat why doesn't a lake or sea just pour over the sides? Look at something the size of the mediterranean sea. How can you possibly say that it's on a slope or a ball?

Jessic asimpson is a mindless twit who makes millions of dollars seeling her ignorance to americans. She is not insignificant. Millions of todays youth are being taught that you can be rich and sucessful, even if you are ignorant. jessica simpson represents insidiuos decivilization, and that is why she has a special place in hell in my eyes.

Ann coulter has all the tools in the tool box, she is bright, educated, and has everything going for her. She chooses to embrace ignorance, and that makes her have a special place in hell.

Coulter is a looter. She is not elected to office, but she is hopping on the american political bandwagon to slake her craving for fame and money, and she is taking without putting anything back.

So i am a diogenes of a sort, wondering through athens looking for an honest man. Just because noone else gives a rats ass about raising them selves above our cro-magnon ancestory, does not mean I should not. Just because everyone else is willing to compromise their standards does not mean I should. Ignorance is a choice and I will always have disdain for those who chose it.

Yes I am a bad buddhist...compassion only carries me so far. I am working on it.

Earasthonese sorted out that the earth was round and caluclated its diameter within 2% in 240 BC. In addition Pythagoras Plato and Aristotle all asserted the earth was round before that.

Boom, christianity comes around and we get 1492 yeas of flat earth, and they still cannot let it go. and people wonder why I think ignorance is dangerous. Wake me up when we bring back the inquisition.

Having read this thread, I can come to a few conclusions.

1. If you disagree with anything republican or right, you're obviously the worst kind of liberal. Anything. Total obediance is required. Liberalism is doubleplus ungood.
   
2. People keep trying to engage of rational debate, which fails in the presence of such experienced trolls.
   
3. The right is all teddy bears and candy, and the left is all poison and torture racks... obviously.
   

Lets start off. I consider myself democrat. I don't consider myself liberal. I may have liberal tendancies, but that does not mean I agree on all points. My own ideas and beliefs don't fit either 'side'.

Abortion: I consider the baby 'alive' when it's viable outside the body. Until then, the mother has the right to do what she wills. ESPECIALLY in cases of rape.

Gay marriage: Who has less abortions than gays? If 2 people care about each other deeply, what's the difference if they have the same letter on their drivers license in the 'sex' field?

Creationism: Now, believe it or not, there are people who fully believe in both creationism and evolution. Big bang? Ask a large group of scientists, you'll find many of them believe a miracle is required to set the bang in motion. Where do miracles come from?

Evolution: Here's a fun one for me. "We've always been this way." The people who content "God made us in his own image" are saying the limitless God is limited in form. To an all powerfull God, the changing of shape and function should be routine. Oh, and all knowing... too. It's not even possible God set about evolution so that we, and what comes after, should be here now.

The war: I think it was the right thing to do. I do NOT, however, feel that it was done properly. More international support should have been gathered. All this would have taken is a little waiting. However, our texan, gunhappy president decided that waiting was not feasible and struck out. Do I think we should still be in Iraq? Yes. We showed up, removed their government (not without decent cause). We can not, as a moral nation, leave the country without making sure a viable government is in place to protect it's citizens.

Religion in public: Do I think prayer should be in schools? Sure, so long as you don't leave anyone out. If you have prayer for one group, you should have it for anyone else who may not share the same religion. Do I think the 10 commandments should be in public buildings? I'm fine with it. It's historical writing. It's the same as having a copy of the Declaration of Independance or Bill of Rights (or wrongs, as the current administration seems to feel) in it's place.

Taxes: Taxes run this country, without them the government can not operate. However, I do feel that the way our funds are used in the past, by both democractic and replubican leaders, is rather poor.

Social policy: America is the wealthiest nation on the planet, in history. Why do we let people here go hungry or sick? We have more than enough money in this country to make even the poorest people able to survive.

Guns: Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. Sell all the guns you want, but restrict purchase of bullets they way guns are now. If everyone has a gun... would you want to commit a crime where you can't be sure the gun pointed at you isn't loaded?

Constitution:



I think we're long past the abridging of speech and press.



10 life sentences isn't unusual?

I'd continue on, but I've given enough food to the trolls already. Enjoy

Well done, Sator. Your post here clearly demonstrates that there is a reasoned middle ground to be found here. I agree with a lot of what you say, but not all of it, but that's what makes America great.

Thanks for showing up. Here's hoping for more voices like yours.

-Kiamat Dusk
...Conservative...not Republican...

Sator, I admire the level tone of your post, so please don't think I'm picking on you. But I do want to respond to a couple of your points.

The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang, abiogenesis or creation. At the heart of the Theory is the fact (well-documented) that gene pools change over time. Period.

But what you're doing here is conflating "creationism", which is a general belief that a Supreme Being created everything with "Creationism", which is the fundamentalist doctrine whose sole purpose is to tear down the Theory of Evolution. It has been rearranged in stealth armor and trotted out again as "Intelligent Design", but it remains a religious doctrine and has no basis in Science whatsoever.

There's nothing wrong with believing that the universe was created by a supernatural being as long as you don't try to claim it has a scientific basis. There is, however, plenty wrong with trying to teach Creationism/I.D. in public school science class.


"Miracles" are only unexplained events. In my view, they don't exist - just that some things are not easily explained.


Not sure what that means, but I think I might agree if it means what I think


We already waited 12 years for sanctions to take effect. They didn't, in fact Saddam deprived Shi'ite Iraqis of food and medical supplies in order to build his Presidential Palaces. And dealt with the French and Russians under the table. I don't know how much clearer the issues could have been, but we have since discovered that those who stonewalled international endorsement in the Security Council had their own selfish, ulterior motives.


I disagree. If we're going to be fair about it, we should also post the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and key parts of the Qu'ran as well. Or, better yet, just leave religion out of tax-funded buildings.

I've learned lots of thigns on these forums:

If you support a woman's right to choose an abortion in certian cirumstances, then you "celebrate abortions"

If you question governmental invasion of privacy then you "support terrorists"

If you question the reasons for invading Iraq then you "think Saddam should have the right to kill his citizens"

If you think a wall along the Mexican border is a waste of money then you "want to hand out welfare checks to everyone in Mexico"

If you want the government to be secular, then you "want to oppress Christians"

If you don't support the death penalty then you "think that rapists and murderers should be set free"

If you agree with anything George Bush says then you "are a facist"

If you express your religious beliefs in public then you are "forcing your religion down everyone's throat"

If you think that the welfare system needs to be reformed, then you "are a rasist using coded language"

etc...


Most people don't want to discuss an issue they just want to false dichotomies that they can use to make themselves feel better. They don't want information from the news they want to be entertained. They want their pre-conceived notions validated and they want to see opposing views ridiculed. They don't want rational explanations they want sound bites. Ann Coulter isn't a journalist or a pundit, she's a comedian and she knows what it takes make her audience laugh.

It is sad ... that you can't argue facts and/or discuss opinion anymore in this country. It all comes down to "catch phrases' and "sound bytes" and mud-slinging to get an emotional response.

I've tried to discuss things with others .. and have since given up.

I'll toss a couple more on your list there and help out ...



... or you "hate our troops" or "are a terrorist sympathyser".

I always loved debating with people on EITHER side ... and getting the response:

"Why do you hate America?" or "Why do you hate Freedom so much?"





What happened to trying to convince the "other side" to meeting you in the middle? Compromise? Give and take?

Now it seems like instead of trying to convince your rival you may have a point ... you just shout fear and hate to your "core group" and have them rally to throw stones at your opponent.

Instead of "You know ... maybe we should sit down and try and discuss abortion and lay out terms in which it can be seen as right and terms as which it can be seen as wrong."

It is "They hate babies! *Throws stones*" and "The Bible says you're a murderer! *Throws Bibles*" vs "They hate women! *throws stones*" "Why do you hate rape victims! *throws condoms*"


Ignorance and self-imposed blindness to issues. Us vs Them. Right vs Wrong.

10% of the US is fanatical (on either side) .. and the other 90% of us don't get listened to and/or just don't give a flaming Furry's behind enough to get into the conversations because we can't stand dealing with that 10% on either end throwing shit at us.

The rest I agree with. Well except the Ann Coulter part. She is a funny, sarcastic pundit. She makes very good points in her books and she does it with an edge that pisses people off.

-Kiamat Dusk

are you calling me a facist? cause I am far far from one

Kiamat: even with your restrictions they are still false dichotomies, sorry.

Billybob: no I'm not, so don't worry.

Here's a couple no one has mentioned:

If you're against gay marriage you're a gay-hating homophobe.

If you're against abortion you hate women and think they should be property.

-Kiamat Dusk

Zuzu, you're entitled to your opinions, no apologies required.

-Kiamat Dusk

don't forget
Supporting Bush means your part of the conspiracy to get rich off the war.

I wanted to let you know that it wasn't personal. Rather that it is possible to hold one of the views without holding the other. Just because you can't concieve of any other alternative doesn't make it so. If you want to find out how someone could hold those views apart then the best way would be to ask in a non-hostile way. On the other hand if you don't want to have a discussion it is much quicker to just assert that your claim is true and dismiss them.

Coulter is a flake. And I hope she and Condi do run for the Republican ticket because it will mean the Democrats will take the White House, Senate and House.