The Warped Worldview of Ann Coulter

[Dennis Hardin]

Question: Given that there have been many atheist and agnostic libertarian thinkers (most notably Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand), do you think there is necessarily a contradiction between being a nonbeliever and a libertarian?

Ann Coulter’s response:

A lot of libertarians are Godless (laughs) and although I can’t say that in the particular cases of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand that they were cowards, that is generally my complaint with libertarians. What have libertarians accomplished politically? Not that much. It’s usually a way to avoid the hot button issues. I’m always telling libertarians that I’m more libertarian than they are. They just want to legalize pot. If they would stop talking about legalizing pot all the time, I would have more sympathy for them. But they bring up legalizing pot to get liberals to like them. And so perhaps it isn’t a coincidence that so many of your rank and file libertarians are Godless because they’re cowards. And believing in God does not allow you to be a coward. (more chuckling)

She repeats several times about how she sees herself as diametrically opposed to anything resembling “group think,” yet falls in line with the most blatant form of “group think” in our culture: Christianity. Libertarian atheists are somehow cowards, even though polls show that upwards of 80 per cent of the electorate would not vote for an atheist, and no politician in his right mind who was an atheist would ever dare admit to it. If they are “cowards,” they are cowards because their political careers depend on being cowards.

She is lovely, though. Such a delightful smile. And often she says things I have to agree with. But she is obviously an unwitting victim of the ‘group think’ she despises. What a shame that her pretty, warped brain can’t see that.

[psychoanaleesis]

"And believing in God does not allow you to be a coward. (more chuckling)" - Ann Coulter

She stated this in a negative so it could mean anything else besides being a coward. She could mean a. it allows one to be a zealot b. sheep/zombie... (the list could be extensive yet boring)

It's okay to believe in god really... but the question remains: Got a proof that does not have a scientific alternative or is not subject to physical laws?

Edited August 7, 2011 by David Lee

[syrakusos]

A lot of libertarians are Godless (laughs) and although I can’t say ...

I saw her books back in 2003 and was hopeful, but after a few pages, I realized that she is vacuous. Since then, having seen her on talk shows, I am all the more certain that she is a mean, evil, spiteful, hateful mouthpiece whose job it is to be ridiculous so that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck (and John Boehner) seem reasonable. She is troll.

And she looks like a troll. See her without the long blonde hair and you see a monster, which is what she is.

[sjw]

A lot of libertarians are Godless (laughs) and although I can’t say ...

I saw her books back in 2003 and was hopeful, but after a few pages, I realized that she is vacuous. Since then, having seen her on talk shows, I am all the more certain that she is a mean, evil, spiteful, hateful mouthpiece whose job it is to be ridiculous so that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck (and John Boehner) seem reasonable. She is troll.

And she looks like a troll. See her without the long blonde hair and you see a monster, which is what she is.

You nailed it. She's vile.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you guys kidding?

Dayaamm!

This reminds me of groups who scapegoat the excommunicated person in the harshest terms.

The real enemy wants to kill you and take your stuff.

Anne is nowhere near that. She just disagrees with some folks, and probably put up with a lot of crap when she started to do so. If her first contacts with libertarians were anything like you guys, no wonder she's blunt.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Are you guys kidding?

Dayaamm!

This reminds me of groups who scapegoat the excommunicated person in the harshest terms.

The real enemy wants to kill you and take your stuff.

Anne is nowhere near that. She just disagrees with some folks, and probably put up with a lot of crap when she started to do so. If her first contacts with libertarians were anything like you guys, no wonder she's blunt.

Michael

The real enemy tries to get close to you. Slits your throat. Vile! I tell you. Vile!

--Brant

inspired by Shayne

[sjw]

The real enemy tries to get close to you. Slits your throat. Vile! I tell you. Vile!

--Brant

inspired by Shayne

So, say nice things about anyone who doesn't want to slit your throat?

Shayne

My standards are evidently too high for Brant.

[studiodekadent]

Ann Coulter is a demented idiot.

Her reply is so obviously self-contradictory. She says that libertarians want to "avoid the hot-button issues" and THEN she gets mad at libertarians for wanting to legalize pot (which, last time I checked, WAS a hot-button issue for many, and apparently it IS a hot button issue for Coulter).

She is a monument to the intellectual bankruptcy of "conservatism" and its agrarian, collectivist, nativist, religionist, subsidy-sucking, anti-rational, traditionalist, militarist tripe.

[syrakusos]

She just disagrees with some folks, and ...

Back in 2003 I read Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right in a bookstore and found it vacuous. It lacked facts and was loaded with name-calling. This year, I got How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter from my district library and it was more of the same.

Do you think that because she calls liberals nanes that she is an outspoken advocate of freedom? She is not. I challenge you to find a single statement in which she says that you have a right to live your own life as long as you do not interfere with anyone else's equal right to do so. NOIF is not a principle for her. In fact, I challenge you to find her principles. She is issue-oriented. She never speaks (writes) in terms of broad ideas and their application, but only calls her enemies names over isolated points.

That is why the allusion to the Brandens within Objectivism does not carry well. If anything, Ann Coulter is analogous to James Valiant.

Compare her statements to the ways that other libertarians disagree with Dr. Ron Paul, or he with them. He says that as a doctor he has delivered so many thousand babies and he is opposed to abortion, but that this is not a federal issue. Though I disagree with him on the main point, I appreciate the fact that he speaks from personal experience. From whence does Ann Coulter speak?

"Most of the time, liberals do not imagine the world is real. Their contribution to political debate is worthless, since even they do not believe things they say. The more shocking and iconoclastic they are, the more fashion points they accrue. Liberal Manhattanites believe in redistribution of their own wealth and ceaseless police brutality like they believe in Martians." -- Slander P. 203. More here.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[9thdoctor]

She is lovely, though. Such a delightful smile.

I'm generally all for De Gustibus, but in this case, have you had your eyes checked lately?

I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell.

Ann Coulter,

Godless

http://richarddawkins.net/letters/ugly

[caroljane]

The real enemy tries to get close to you. Slits your throat. Vile! I tell you. Vile!

--Brant

inspired by Shayne

Brant goes haiku, imitating Shayne. Adds two cents. Not vile, I tell you!

[Brant Gaede]

The real enemy tries to get close to you. Slits your throat. Vile! I tell you. Vile!

--Brant

inspired by Shayne

So, say nice things about anyone who doesn't want to slit your throat?

Shayne

My standards are evidently too high for Brant.

LOL. I keep making posts that Shayne mis-reads. A.C. is the "real enemy." It's not his fault, it's mine. You can read me two ways and I was only thinking of one.

--Brant

I was replying to Michael

[George H. Smith]

A lot of libertarians are Godless (laughs) and although I can’t say ...

I saw her books back in 2003 and was hopeful, but after a few pages, I realized that she is vacuous. Since then, having seen her on talk shows, I am all the more certain that she is a mean, evil, spiteful, hateful mouthpiece whose job it is to be ridiculous so that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck (and John Boehner) seem reasonable. She is troll.

And she looks like a troll. See her without the long blonde hair and you see a monster, which is what she is.

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Coulter. She is a very savvy media whore who has made herself rich by spoon-feeding pablum to the infantile contingent of the conservative movement. If you watch Coulter in spontaneous debates, you will see that she is a smart cookie who obviously knows what she is doing. Coulter knows how to put on a good show, from her micro skirts on up.

Ghs

[jriggenbach]

A lot of libertarians are Godless (laughs) and although I can't say ...

I saw her books back in 2003 and was hopeful, but after a few pages, I realized that she is vacuous. Since then, having seen her on talk shows, I am all the more certain that she is a mean, evil, spiteful, hateful mouthpiece whose job it is to be ridiculous so that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck (and John Boehner) seem reasonable. She is troll.

And she looks like a troll. See her without the long blonde hair and you see a monster, which is what she is.

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Coulter. She is a very savvy media whore who had made herself rich by spoon-feeding pablum to the infantile contingent of the conservative movement. If you watch Coulter in spontaneous debates, you will see that she is a smart cookie who obviously knows what she is doing. Coulter knows how to put on a good show, from her micro skirts on up.

Ghs

I guess it all depends on what sort of "show" one considers "good."

JR

[Reidy]

If you're going to call her names, you'll have to top David Brock's "right-wing fag hag."

[Dennis Hardin]

She is lovely, though. Such a delightful smile.

I'm generally all for De Gustibus, but in this case, have you had your eyes checked lately?

I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell.

Ann Coulter,

Godless

http://richarddawkins.net/letters/ugly

She's no beauty queen, that's for sure. Her eyes are too deep-set and her legs are too skinny. She could stand to add a pound or two. But to call her ugly is way off the mark and probably wishful-thinking. She isn't ugly, by any means. I do think she qualifies as "lovely." And her smile is disarming to say the least. She radiates a certain delightful benevolence that makes it seem as though her words perhaps carry more weight than they should.

[Dennis Hardin]

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Coulter. She is a very savvy media whore who has made herself rich by spoon-feeding pablum to the infantile contingent of the conservative movement. If you watch Coulter in spontaneous debates, you will see that she is a smart cookie who obviously knows what she is doing. Coulter knows how to put on a good show, from her micro skirts on up.

Ghs

I think George has it exactly right: she puts on a good show. She's very clever and she knows how to sell herself. She uses her long blonde hair and her appealing femininity to make you want to like her and to deflect attention from her mostly traditional views and her nonsensical claims to be both a modern, independent woman and a toadyish follower of Jesus Christ.

[Greybird]

[... Ann Coulter] radiates a certain delightful benevolence that makes it seem as though her words perhaps carry more weight than they should.

That the words "delightful benevolence" can be even indirectly used by anyone to describe such a thorough-going shill for Empire, corporatism, theocracy, and bigotry is ... is ... well, enough to make me go drink this over. And it's only Monday.

Find something nice to say about Eva Braun's hairstyles, while you're busily selecting out-of-context nonessentials.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. ~ Ann Coulter, September 2001

[Brant Gaede]

[... Ann Coulter] radiates a certain delightful benevolence that makes it seem as though her words perhaps carry more weight than they should.

That the words "delightful benevolence" can be even indirectly used by anyone to describe such a thorough-going shill for Empire, corporatism, theocracy, and bigotry is ... is ... well, enough to make me go drink this over. And it's only Monday.

Find something nice to say about Eva Braun's hairstyles, while you're busily selecting out-of-context nonessentials.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. ~ Ann Coulter, September 2001

How is the existence of corporations justified under free-enterprise, laissez-faire capitalism, the use of retaliatory force only? Are they not inherently fascistic?

--Brant

Zyklon B

[sjw]

How is the existence of corporations justified under free-enterprise, laissez-faire capitalism, the use of retaliatory force only? Are they not inherently fascistic?

--Brant

Zyklon B

How very non-Objectivist of you.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

How is the existence of corporations justified under free-enterprise, laissez-faire capitalism, the use of retaliatory force only? Are they not inherently fascistic?

--Brant

Zyklon B

How very non-Objectivist of you.

Shayne

Robert Hessen wrote a book, In Defense of the Corporation, which I never read. Why? The title dealt with something extant, not whether it should be extant. Anybody can defend the corporation, if they've a mind to.

The discussion goes deeper, however, when we get to property rights as such and tort. A long time ago, in the Mediterranean Basin, all you had was your reputation. If you lost that no one would deal with you or extend any credit. This was a trading economy. There is today a way to transfer fairly large sums of money completely under the radar avoiding banks. The essence of this system is trust and networking reputation that must have been built up over generations. The details are fuzy to me, especially as I've had no experience with it. Essentially you give one party money and get a note. Go to another country and get what the note denoted from another party.

Who knows what goes on amongst the super-rich, except for them.

--Brant

[Xray]

She's no beauty queen, that's for sure. Her eyes are too deep-set and her legs are too skinny. She could stand to add a pound or two. But to call her ugly is way off the mark and probably wishful-thinking. She isn't ugly, by any means. I do think she qualifies as "lovely." And her smile is disarming to say the least. She radiates a certain delightful benevolence that makes it seem as though her words perhaps carry more weight than they should.

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

Coulter is a bit bony and her voice is unattractive, but in the picture, she looks overall quite well preserved for a fifty-year-old, still radiating sex appeal and exuding a flavor of youth.

As for "benevolence", I'm not so sure, to put it mildly.

That comment by her gave me the creeps (bolding mine):

http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php

[interviewr J. Hawkins]: You also said in an interview with the New York Observer, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." Do you stand by those quotes or do you think that perhaps you should have phrased them differently?

<...>

RE [Coulter]: McVeigh quote. Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."

Not only is this kind of sarcasm tasteless, it also reveals raw hatred against the makers of the NYT. Chilling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

At one public lecture she said: "I don't care about anything else: Christ died for my sins and nothing else matters."[55] In a 2004 column,[56] she summarized her view of Christianity: "Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it."

I'd pay money to see Coulter in a debate with George H. Smith. He'd have a field day epistemologically attacking her thinking error in presenting a mere belief ("Christ died for my sins") as if were an objective fact.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Xray

[Dennis Hardin]

[... Ann Coulter] radiates a certain delightful benevolence that makes it seem as though her words perhaps carry more weight than they should.

That the words "delightful benevolence" can be even indirectly used by anyone to describe such a thorough-going shill for Empire, corporatism, theocracy, and bigotry is ... is ... well, enough to make me go drink this over. And it's only Monday.

Find something nice to say about Eva Braun's hairstyles, while you're busily selecting out-of-context nonessentials.

Funny you should mention that. . .

Have another one on me.

[studiodekadent]

I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell.

Ann Coulter, Godless

In religious uses of the altruistic ethic, on this Nietzschean interpretation, the purpose of Heaven and Hell is not a relatively benevolent two-pronged strategy of inspiring goodness by the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell. Rather the purpose is to send one’s enemies to Hell. Here again Nietzsche’s quoting St. Thomas Aquinas is relevant: “In order that the bliss of the saints may be more delightful for them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, it is given to them to see perfectly the punishment of the damned”

Stephen Hicks, Egoism In Nietzsche And Rand, http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/hicks-egoism-in-nietzsche-and-rand-final.pdf (p20/21)

I think Coulter is yet more convincing evidence in favor of Nietzsche's argument; the doctrine of Hell is just the philosophical equivalent of a revenge fantasy against one's enemies. When Coulter laughs at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell, or Fred Phelps goes on about the torments of hell and how everyone but himself and his special little group are going there, they're both just philosophically masturbating over getting payback on their enemies.

[syrakusos]

And yet, if you google "Ann Coulter GOProud" you will find that she is gay friendly.

(Ah,... that is what Peter Reidy meant. Now I understand. )

In this clip from CPAC 2011, Coulter answers a moderator question about gays in the conservative political movement. Watch closely and listen well. She is issue-oriented, not conceptual or principled. She almost addresses key questions, but only mentions them, not answering them. She frames a gay challenge as a strawman: "What makes our sin special? Do you not have premarital sex? Do your children not have premarital sex?" And Coulter replies that this is so, but that there is no caucus called Conservatives for Premarital Sex. At that point, she changes direction. (Blank out.) Her agenda is only that liberals/Democrats target groups to make enemies of conservatism and that these groups - women, Blacks, gays - belong in the conservative camp. But consider. If women, blakcs, and gays are special groups, what, then, is the non-special standard? It would be white middle-aged men, would it not? Unlike Ayn Rand or many other modern thinkers, Ann Coulter really does not get above or beyond or through her own traditionalist expectations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1wCRCpC3w8

Edited August 10, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta