IF one lets the words of another bother one, the one is allowing the other to control the one.

If you don’t like it, don’t freakin listen. If it bothers you, grow thicker skin.

Sticks and stones …

Dominus providebit

I keep wondering if losing the power of her jaws might cause her to put too much stress on her hands from all the extra typing and next we’ll see that she’s also in casts for carpal tunnel syndrome. Would that be titled “All’s quiet…” ??

–Steve

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”

–Ann Coulter

Can you refer me to a good transplant center?

We’ve all heard of proxy servers. Knock it the fuck off. Either that or your getting your friends to vote against everyone who disagrees with you and has the audacity to think its funny. You can knock that sad shit off, too.

Les: I never claimed there were. Only that governments still forcibly converted people to Christianity after the Enlightenment (and well into the 20th century).

Name one which did so in the 20th century.

Compare and contrast with the 15th century.

The Enlightenment wasn’t a specific moment in time, nor did it occur simultaneously throughout the Western world. But there was a change between the 15th and 19th centuries.

That change hasn’t occurred in most Muslim countries.

Hence, Ann Coulter’s remark is, to any rational person aware of the cultural differences between the West and Islam (in broad strokes), hilariously absurd.

I love that she wouldn’t give Alan Colmes the satisfaction of explaining the humor, which I took as ridiculing him for being so dense. Hell, if I were Jonathan Swift, I would insist on my deathbed that I were serious about eating the poor, so that the numskulls who didn’t get it would continue to be mocked by intelligent people.

I don’t claim David Horowitz is objective, but if you had bothered to read his whole column, he was taking Coulter to task for her book Treason, as he didn’t think it was suitable to be called satire.

I still find her columns to be hilarious, and anyone who thinks she is some awful monster needs a humerus transplant.

I never claimed there were. Only that governments still forcibly converted people to Christianity after the Enlightenment (and well into the 20th century).

Name one government today which invades other countries and forcibly converts people to Islam.

tap tap tap tap tap

(You really should have that looked at.)

I notice you ignored my citation and repeated your claim:

Why did you do that?

It was accidental, sorry. But upon reading it, I see now that it’s irrelevant. David Horowitz (David Horowitz? Really? Who’s next, Michael Moore?) simply agrees with your position, without providing any evidence, whatsoever, that Coulter was writing satire. It’s like a young-earth creationist posting a link to Answers in Genesis to prove their point.

I notice you ignored the interview I posted where Coulter reiterates what she wrote.

Why did you do that?

Your position is, literally, nonsense, unless you can find an instance of Coulter saying she was writing satire. I’ve provided evidence to support my claim. You haven’t provided anything except for an essay by an ideologue of ill-repute, which agrees with your position. I’ll say it again: Ann Coulter disagrees with you.

Les: If you think the Enlightenment put a stop to governments attempting to spread Christianity by force, I can understand why you’re defending Coulter.

Name one government today which invades other countries and forcibly converts people to Christianity.

tap tap tap tap tap

Couldn’t think of one? OK, now rewind a century to 1900. Name one which did so then.

tap tap tap tap tap

Shall we go further? Did you honestly think you could gloss over these facts and pretend that the world we live in now is disconnected from the past?

The changes involved in the Enlightenment spread through the Western world, and one of the defining characteristics of this change was the end of forcible conversions. Most parts of the Muslim world never experienced an Enlightenment. Thus, apostasy is a capital offense in many countries or enclaves. (I would guess, off the top of my head, that a few places like European Turkey and Lebanon are good examples of exceptions who arguably did benefit from the Enlightenment.)

In any event, the point is that Coulter’s call to invade and convert is textbook Islamo-fascism, with a single word substitution. You really should pay attention to the news if you didn’t know that.

I notice you ignored my citation and repeated your claim:

That doesn’t make her “known for her satire.”

Why did you do that?

If by “the lower third of Europe,” you mean, “southern Spain,” I still wouldn’t know what your point was.

Of course, that was after Muslims conquered the lower third of Europe.

If you think the Enlightenment put a stop to governments attempting to spread Christianity by force, I can understand why you’re defending Coulter.

So, I take it that you are expecting us to believe that US troops engaging in theocratic conquest is a plausible scenario? Would the Muslim, Jewish, and atheist troops stay home or be kicked out? What about Catholics? More than that, I’m wondering just how far you’re going to take this silly pretense.

Steve, it is silly, I’m agreeing with you that it’s a silly idea. But, for some reason, you think that Coulter was joking. She never said she was joking. She even defended the statements. And still you persist in this baseless notion that she was joking. Heck, if you can find any instance of her saying she was joking, I’ll take her at her word. But, like I pointed out above, she’s explicitly stated that she was serious.

I pay attention to what she says, in context, and I see plenty of satire.

That doesn’t make her “known for her satire.” And it doesn’t mean that what she wrote after 9/11 was satire. Who else, besides you, claims that she’s a satirist? I can’t find any such references.

You have no evidence for your position. And if you read the interview I posted above, you’ll see that Coulter herself disagrees with you.

The joke wouldn’t be funny if Olberman had broken his jaw and Radleys post linked to that story.

So I am dissappointed in Radleys rather casual dissing of the threat towards free speech, just because its someone he finds objectionable. Remember, we have to protect EVERYONE’s free speech if we are going to protect ANYBODY’s.

Les: Christian conquerors did the same thing for centuries.

And then there was the Enlightenment. Mind your history before calling someone else “historically ignorant.”

So, I take it that you are expecting us to believe that US troops engaging in theocratic conquest is a plausible scenario? Would the Muslim, Jewish, and atheist troops stay home or be kicked out? What about Catholics? More than that, I’m wondering just how far you’re going to take this silly pretense.

Ann Coulter is not “known for her satire.” Please find me a link where she’s described as a “satirist.” She’s not. She’s a columnist, a polemic. I don’t know why you continue to insist she’s just joking when she’s never claimed to be.

I pay attention to what she says, in context, and I see plenty of satire. Look up her remarks about John Edwards. What she said, on two different occasions, wasn’t out of the blue, but deliberately chosen to highlight the fact that “liberals” had recently said such things without consequences.

Read this.

Well, yes. Christian conquerors did the same thing for centuries. If you your point is that Coulter is a historically ignorant hypocrite, I’m in complete agreement.

How can anyone take seriously the idea that US troops would be pursuing a mission of theocratic conquest? No, pretending not to see the satire is just an excuse to bash Coulter.

Steve, she was let go from the National Review, in part, for saying it and she has never suggested she was writing “satire.”

A quick google search reveals this exchange between Coulter and Alan Colmes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134537,00.html

COLMES: Yes, that’s great. That’s great. You’ve been asked, by the way, if you want to reiterate that statement when you said right after September 11, you said, and you know where I’m going with this, I’m often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity. You say the same thing Nixon said in 1972, “Now more than ever.”

COULTER: Now more than ever.

and

COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?

COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.

and

COLMES: I see. Now they should all be Christians? OK. No further questions.

COULTER: And this is, by the way, well, OK — this is, by the way, what America has done after World War II, after the Korean War. MacArthur put out a call for Christian missionaries to come, and missionaries poured into Japan. They poured into Korea. It didn’t work as well, the conversion in Japan, but it certainly did in Korea. And I know that we haven’t had any trouble from them for a while.

—————

Ann Coulter is not “known for her satire.” Please find me a link where she’s described as a “satirist.” She’s not. She’s a columnist, a polemic. I don’t know why you continue to insist she’s just joking when she’s never claimed to be.

And talk about relativism, I don’t remember seeing Radley threaten anyone’s wife and kids? That’s just plain sick!

Now go to work on that “karma subtraction” button, if it hits -50, I’ll wire my OWN jaw shut!