Coulter: Cops aren't pulling over enough black people

reply to post by jimmyx


And the bile spilling out of your mouth is any different?

reply to post by groingrinder


Since when does being a conservative equate to jesus talk?

Religion has no place in politics, and is best kept to yourself.

reply to post by xmotex

Coulter knows there is money to be made by saying outrageous stuff that will appeal to borderline pseudo-NAZI types, and she's just giving the audience what they want.

Nothing she says is anywhere close to that of a NAZI. Thats just the typical hyperbole form the left used to shut people up. tell me, how is Coutler any different from Ed Shults, Keith Olberman, Jennie Geraffalo, Bill Mahar or Michel Moore? Why is it that loud right wingers get held to this separate standard?

(The difference is you agree with them)

reply to post by Wimbly


I guess I don't know enough about the incident to comment on it specifically, but it seems to me this was just another routine butt kicking of Anne Coulter on in a debate being run on national TV. She always ends up looking flustered, playing with her hair, and having kind of a deer in headlights look. Then the cheese ball fake smile at the end that was no where to be seen in the rest of the video. How many times do I have to see this dolt get schooled?

And she totally alienates people. Don't you see that people don't want to be associated with people like her? She's not likable.

And I think her whole personality is probably schtick. Always attacking "the liberals" what does that even mean? It's so vague, i suppose it's just anyone that disagrees with her, which she knows is many, which is job security for someone who makes a pretty penny arguing with people on TV and radio. I doubt she really even believes her own arguments half the time, just says them for the sake of arguing.

Can't fault her for that....I have a tendency to do the same thing....

reply to post by liquidsmoke206



Turned on MSNBC lately? They attack "far right conservatives" every single night. The entire network does. Why is it ok for them, Bill Mahr, the View, John Stewart and Colbert to do it, but not Coulter?

How could you say she got beat in the interview? Everything she said was absolutely correct and verifiable. All the other people did was lob insults.

reply to post by Wimbly

Turned on MSNBC lately?

Nope, haven't had a TV in well over a year....I poison my mind with ATS instead....

They attack "far right conservatives" every single night. The entire network does.

Yeah media seems biased depending on whats popular at the time...so if you don't like it turn on FOX and get a spin on things thats a little more comfortable to you. This age old war between the libtards and the conservatools is completely out of control. I don't think either side knows what the are arguing for they're just doing it to do it...

Why is it ok for them, Bill Mahr, the View, John Stewart and Colbert to do it, but not Coulter?

Well, thats a fine list of entertainers and comedians......except anne coulter, the one who's tryin to portray herself as a legitimate writer. Here's a question for you. Why is it OK for all of these people to including coulter to make a living off schtick, but she's the only one who gets into MSM interviews on a reg basis....? Why do I always have to hear what she has to say?

How could you say she got beat in the interview?

her argument: The Harvard guy wasting wasting the police's time, and therefor potentially putting someone else in harms way. As if there's not enough cops to go around....

sharptons argument: The fact that there are racist police officers, is the real issue and what needs to be addressed, and that the officers apology wasn't enough.

Whole thing seems really petty to me, which is why I haven't been following this story, but it seems that sharptons argument has a lot more weight to it...hers is so ridiculous it makes you wonder if she even prepared for this, or she's coming out with her schtick to stir the pot...

Everything she said was absolutely correct and verifiable. All the other people did was lob insults.

Can you verify that someone else was suffering because the police's time was being "wasted?"
I watched the whole clip again...neither sharpton nor King lobbed a single insult at coulter.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by liquidsmoke206]

She's vile and hateful and I'm prepared to believe she was once, as it is alleged, a pre-op transexual in Key West.

That said, even a stopped clock tells the time twice a day.

And in the video clips in this thread there wasn't much she said that I could refute without more information.

On the other hand, I did come across this page which has some interesting background and quotes:

"Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave....We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males."

Sounds a lot like racial profiling to me. And laughable too, in view of the Bush family's ties to the Bin Ladens. (The quotation comes from a column she wrote just after 9/11.)

there's also this little gem:

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

She's just the gift that keeps on giving when it comes to spouting BS:

"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we´re up against absolutely insane savages."

She might as well have studied under Goering, because her schtick's exactly what he said during the Nuremberg trials:

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

That's a recurring theme, right there.

Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.

Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.

While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.

source

the really sad thing is that so many people actually agree with her. Perhaps we should just execute her to intimidate the right wingers. (Oh no, her idiocy is rubbing off...)

reply to post by mhc_70


Yeah, too bad the cops tend to pull over black drivers because they "look like a suspect" rather than "you were going too fast"

It's like putting a band-aid on your arm when the cut is on your leg.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Care to back up that opinion with some facts?

The study found in this thread concluded that the exact opposite was true.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by mhc_70]

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Care to back up that opinion with some facts?

The study found in this thread concluded that the exact opposite was true.

here ya go....

www.counterpunch.org...
academic.udayton.edu...
www.hartford-hwp.com...

reply to post by Wimbly


I strongly dislike Coulter but thank you for your rational logic and evaluation. I was surprised to see it so soon in the thread. She makes a valid point. I've read a ton of scientific papers and been taught how to write them. In cultural or ethnic related studies things like this occur. It's not racist, you're just saying what the statistics show. That's why we love statistics so much, they mean exactly what they mean. You can interpret all you'd like, 'well maybe the cops didn't want to seem racist so they didn't pull people over, etc.' but in a way it doesn't matter. What you know is that the data says this, and because you study and test you can stand by that. Her point was valid, though she could have expressed or phrased it better.

reply to post by whaaa


It looks like those studies are from the 90s, that would tell me things are getting better. However, I don't dispute racial profiling goes on, my point was that according to this latest study, more minorities were found to be speeders. TheWalkingFox seemed to ignore that fact when he expressed his opinion regarding the tendancies of the police.

reply to post by whaaa


Ann C. is nothing more than a banshee feeding off screaming whatever trash she can to get attention and money. Best left ignored.

Originally posted by Wimbly
How could you say she got beat in the interview? Everything she said was absolutely correct and verifiable. All the other people did was lob insults.

Really? Did you read it?

How about this line?

"The Bush administration itself suppressed a study that disproved eight billion racial profiling studies about the New Jersey State Troopers. "

cut and pasted from the rawstory article.

Is every fact in that sentence true?

Vas

Originally posted by mhc_70
reply to post by whaaa

 

It looks like those studies are from the 90s, that would tell me things are getting better.

Now it your turn to come up with some studies that say it's getting better.

Good Luck

reply to post by whaaa


You didn't read the study linked by wimbly, post #4, did you?