I've never had the pleasure of reading Coulter and her carnival looks like it has scary rides.
She has very disturbing, dishonest and biggoted messages, but most people see her for the clown she is.
And now that Dembski has tied his wagon to her pony, I think he's paid for a ride that he may end up wishing he did not get on.
Coulter is one sick, xenophobic, hate-filled thing (she doesn't deserve to be called a woman or human being). For Dembski to endorse her views says volumes about him and his multi-dimensional warped values and nothing about the target of his and Coulter's vitriol.
SPONGE BOB?
Oh no, they di-unt!!
Now we're pissed. Us liberal athiests all worship Sponge Bob.
Ann Coulter should change her name to Man Coulter. Have you seen the size of that adam's apple? OMG...
If Dembski get's too friendly with Ann he might be in for a "Crying Game"ish surprise.
Plus even if she really is a she, more then likely she would still tear Dembski's head off and devour him after mating anyways. 
what amazes me is that so many people from the uncommon descent website are pro religious, and yet they have no problem with Ann Coulter and her hateful ideas, such as spying on all Arabs, and making torture a televised sport.
How are these consistent with religious values and morality? I mean how can you even pretend that they are compatable?
Robert, in a fantasy world things should always conform to your every wish. Bigoted or not.
There's a surprisingly open discussion in the comments area on Uncommon Dissent. I wonder how long it will last.
Coulter is a consummate conservative I guess.
Personally, I don't know what I am.
I think I am mostly Liberal, I care about people and I think that government is instituted to do those things that individuals cannot do.
I think that if you earn a high salary you should pay a higher tax than someone who does not.
To me, it's wrong not to try to revise the minimum wage upwards and it is wrong to not take care of the environment, after all, if we don't we only hurt ourselves in the final analysis.
But some want to say I am a conservative because I do believe that abortion is wrong that it is murder. Of course, we are all here because our mothers decided to carry us to term.
It's a no brainer.
I also do not believe in Embryonic Stem Cell Research but realize that you can work with placental stem cells and others and probably get the same result.
Coulter is a consummate conservative I guess.
Personally, I don't know what I am.
I think I am mostly Liberal, I care about people and I think that government is instituted to do those things that individuals cannot do.
I think that if you earn a high salary you should pay a higher tax than someone who does not.
To me, it's wrong not to try to revise the minimum wage upwards and it is wrong to not take care of the environment, after all, if we don't we only hurt ourselves in the final analysis.
But some want to say I am a conservative because I do believe that abortion is wrong that it is murder. Of course, we are all here because our mothers decided to carry us to term.
It's a no brainer.
I also do not believe in Embryonic Stem Cell Research but realize that you can work with placental stem cells and others and probably get the same result.
You know, this is one case where a "slippery slope" argument actually seems to apply. But the thing is, Bill does not seem content with taking tiny steps down the 'hill'.
This is GREAT news. Coulter:
"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."
Align yourself with that, D*mbski.
Yeah, and abortion kills a million an half a year.
Over 45 million since Roe v Wade.
No wonder we need the illegal immigrants; a whole generation was exterminated.
Align yourselves with that.
There's a surprisingly open discussion in the comments area on Uncommon Dissent. I wonder how long it will last.
Kevin W. Parker | 04.26.06 - 3:53 pm |
It didn't last very long... the comments area now consists of 3 fawning pro-Coulter posts.
How very different from RSR's place, where loons like M, basement activist, and IANAL are free to litter the comments section with their droppings...
"Yeah, and abortion kills a million an half a year."
and every time I knock one off 50 trillion little could be babies don't get born. Just as well for you really, given their great gene pool they'd all be high IQ Democrats, no doubt.
No wonder we need the illegal immigrants; a whole generation was exterminated.
Man the poor logic exibited there is pretty nice. I think I bagged me a big un' on my non-sequitur safari.
bigdumchimp,
I fail to understand your logic or quite possibly I am misunderstanding you.
Logic runs this way:
It doesn't matter if you are pro life or pro choice. Each and every one of us started as a fertilized human egg cell that implanted itself onto our Mother's uterus and started to develop. Being that we were pretty much without genetic abnormalities and because our Mother knew that she wanted us, she brought us all to term and then we were born.
If you disagree with the above statement that is factual, I think there is something wrong with your logic.
Ed Murray
bigdumchimp,
I fail to understand your logic or quite possibly I am misunderstanding you.
Logic runs this way:
It doesn't matter if you are pro life or pro choice. Each and every one of us started as a fertilized human egg cell that implanted itself onto our Mother's uterus and started to develop. Being that we were pretty much without genetic abnormalities and because our Mother knew that she wanted us, she brought us all to term and then we were born.
If you disagree with the above statement that is factual, I think there is something wrong with your logic.
Ed Murray
No I agree with that fact. It's the strawman of equating abortion to the illegal alien problem that is the poor logic.
Ok, good. I always wonder about folks who love to go on and on and on about being pro choice as opposed to pro life but seem to forget basic human biology.
I once referred to Annie as the Republican party's answer to Eva Braun. But then I decided that characterization wasn't fair to the real Eva.
I see that the apologetics junkies have moved into the neighborhood. It must get boring constantly providing alibis for their silly superstitions. Here, alibi this Jeebus boyz, in the book of Joshua your sky pilot advocates genocide. How does this square with your position on abortion?
"It doesn't matter if you are pro life or pro choice. Each and every one of us started as a fertilized human egg cell that implanted itself onto our Mother's uterus and started to develop. Being that we were pretty much without genetic abnormalities and because our Mother knew that she wanted us, she brought us all to term and then we were born."
Yeah. So?
Ann Coulter is just a writer.
Who gives a rat's ass what she thinks?
No different than Mikey Behe, she just throws out her opinion and barks like a dog.
Shehe and Behe can say anything they want. Free country. We can choose not to listen.
All I read/hear is blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah, blah, blah.
Ann and Behe sitting in a tree would be news, at least!
Ok, good. I always wonder about folks who love to go on and on and on about being pro choice as opposed to pro life but seem to forget basic human biology.
I'm not sure you got on this rant about pro choice and biology when not once have I mentioned a single thing about either in this post, or for that matter on this blog. You seem a little confused.
Annie C. 'n' Mikey B.? I thunk it wuz Annie 'n' Billy D.
Yep, his blog fairly dripped with good ol' animal friskyness.
'Cept 'pears ta me he wuz fishin' fer a toss wit' a nymphomaniac 'gator.
Sumpin' like that cud lead ta that dysfunction thing like on teevee.
Permanent-like.
bigdumchimp,
Oh, I though we had already agreed on something, I guess I was wrong.
Oh, no, now it's a sin to comment on something that Pat wrote?
I greatly fear some folks here are in the Twighlight zone!
No I was just curious on how you got what you questioned me about from what I wrote. One didn't lead to the other.
Thats all.
She calls Roe v. Wade Holy Scripture.
More accurately, the words of the Supreme Court are Holy Scripture.
How you will live, or if you will if you are say two weeks from being born, is determined by the SUPREMOS.
They have the words of life.
They have the final say on all issues brought before them.
We are ruled by the SUPREMOS, not the Congress or the People.
They can render unconstitutional any law.
And one time they said a slave was not a man, separate but equal was good, and that two generations of imbeciles was ENOUGH.
They have even said that private property can be taken by the guy with more money, just like in feudal days.
YOU are their pawns.
It's getting more and more clear (as if "crystal effing clear" wasn't clear enough) that to the conservative movement--particularly its authoritarian wing--truth resides in who's speaking. Irrespective of mountain ranges of data, logic, common sense or countless repetition of a phenomenon, if a conservative says it, it's true. Contrariwise, anything uttered by someone even slightly left of Atilla the Hun is, by definition, a crass and wanton lie.
I guess this is what they really meant with the whole "reality-based community" thing.
The supreme court has never ruled that some one has to have an abortion. The life of the unborn is and always has been in the hands of its mother. Passing new laws won't change that fact.
But the current administrations push for abstinence only education when such education has been proven ineffective only means that more unborn will be killed.
Its another blatant contradiction to claim to be against abortion while making sure people stay ignorant about sex.
If you are against abortion, instead of trying to tell people what to do with their lives and bodies (when how does it concern you) why don't you actually do something helpful, like donate your time and money to an orphanage or actual sex education programs?
Anything else is just you trying to feel morally superior, and that makes me sick.
And here I thought that "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" were the very heart of our representative democracy.
Silly me, those things must only apply when Christopaths aren't in power.
Getting back to Dembski and Coulter, I found something amusing at uncommondescent:
In his post about Coulter's book, Dembski includes this quote from somewhere: "Liberals’ absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution’s scientific validity and everything to do with their refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force."
But buried in his own site's archives is a page about "arguments not to use," which includes this:
"Intelligent Design is an Attempt by the Religious Right to Establish a Theocracy
"Hyperbolic nonsense. As valid as saying Darwinian evolution is an attempt by the atheist left to eliminate religion."
So which is it, Mr. Dembski?
I applied Dembski's metric to Coulter's journalism and discovered that it's not intelligently designed.
At best, this form of communication resembles bonobo mating calls.
From the standpoint of common descent, they may well be bonobo mating calls.
Allow me to be the first to say it:
Yecch!
Nice pick there wolfwalker
Robert,
Don't blame me, I surely didn't raise it as a Federal Issue when it was not, blame Roe v Wade for doing that.
When the Supreme Court of this land says something is lawful when it is clearly and logically and scientifically not, then , that makes it my business and everyone else's too.
To say that a fetus is not human to say that it is not a person to say that it is just a lump of tissue is not accurate, it is not good science and it is illogical at the very least.
You and I and everyone else didn't get here by our parents deciding that we were just lumps of tissue that could be discarded.
If you disagree, just go ask your parents.
P Edward: "When the Supreme Court of this land says something is lawful when it is clearly and logically and scientifically not, then , that makes it my business and everyone else's too."
The Supreme Court didn't rule on whether abortion was lawful according to clear, logical, or scientific standards. The ruling in Roe v. Wade was that that decision rests with the woman and her physician in the first trimester. It simply bars states from interferring in an individual's constitutional right to privacy and due process.
How ironic that you used the phrasing you did above, because the court said in effect that even if you disagree with abortion, it's NOT YOUR BUSINESS.
You might feel abortion is "clearly" wrong. You're entitled to your opinion. But the concept of pro-choice is that the decision is not for you or the state to make for another individual when the variables of such a decision are so complex.
This shouldn't be contentious. There are a lot of people who are somewhat repulsed by the concept of abortion, would never do it themselves and feel it is wrong, but who nevertheless understand that it is an imposition on an individual's liberty to make those decisions for them.
OF COURSE the fetus is not just a lump of tissue. But in the first trimester it is not arguably viable. In the first couple HOURS the fertilized egg has barely a 50% chance of implanting, if that (somebody correct me if that's grossly wrong one way or the other). Point being, the horribly random implantation rate raises a question: Is God aborting half of the fertilized eggs on the planet? Hmm.
And if you don't believe in God, or if you don't believe in the same God as P Edward Murray, do you have to go by his opinion regarding the viability of the fetus in the first trimester? And where do you draw the line? At 3 hours after conception? Fifty? Two-months? Right, no one can agree. This is the point. If there is no consensus, whose opinion prevails? You and the state should not have the ultimate decision-making power in something so subjective.
The court ruling was not for affirming abortion. It was for affirming the privacy of that decision for the individual involved.
One last thing: the decision gives the states some leeway in the second trimester when viability is iffy, and it gives the states great latitude in making laws banning 3rd trimester abortions in most cases. It's never as simple as "abortion is the law of the land". I've seen your posts, you're a complex individual. Don't dumb down the issue just because you feel strongly about it.
I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.
Mainline Protestants, Jews, and Catholics might also want to ponder their fate under a regime run by these people, as well.
See: Hyperbole, rhetorical uses of
Commenting by HaloScan
