START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

Ann Coulter doesn't think before talking

Posted 32 months ago|49 comments|558 views
Written by
In an interview with Geraldo, Ann Coulter added another quote to her long list of absurd claims. Ann Coulter says that Obama and fellow Democrats' request for New York governor David Paterson to drop out of the 2010 race is racist. Coulter chose to ignore the fact that Paterson is largely unpopular amongst New Yorkers (he only came into power because Eliot Spitzer resigned in the midst of his prostitution scandal) and instead saw this opportunity to pull out the race card and declare, "The Democratic Party is racist". Did she misspeak? No, after everyone did a double take, the host asked for confirmation. "Yes," she replied, "It's no wonder that blacks feel like they're constantly subjected to racism; they're all Democrats." This is mind-boggling stupidity at its finest. Ann Coulter's popularity is a testament to the sad state of America's political views. A Republican has to cringe at such a gross generalization and senseless attack. A Democrat has to be scratching their heads. The Democratic Party is racist? You mean the party that does more to advance civil liberties and is consistently endorsed by the ACLU and NAACP?
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
32 months ago: Come on pacing.

Look around. Liberals are racists. Racists are people who make decisions based upon someone's race. Liberals do that all the time.

Need examples?

Affirmative action is racist.

No?
32 months ago: @PacingBackandForth

In the minds of people like Ann Coulter, the very fact that most black people are Democrats is somehow proof that the Democrats hate black people. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to denigrate the Democratic party.

In defense of my conservative brethren, Ann Coulter's peculiar insanity is not representative of the Republican party. Her and people like her are loud and spend a lot of time in front of the cameras, but they're not the majority.
32 months ago: And don't mind our dear, deluded redstateguy. He's a nut, but he's a lovable nut.
32 months ago: I bet the "Plantation Democrats" are still scratching their heads. Truth can be tough. However, it's still the truth. Besides, Patterson claimed today that the Obama policies are the cause of the economic problems in New York and elsewhere.

Paterson: "If you look at it from their perspective, they haven’t exactly been able to govern in the first year of their administration in the way that other administrations have, where you would have, theoretically, a period in which the new administration is allowed to pass the needed pieces of legislation."

Sounds like a DIS to Obama to me.
32 months ago: Revisit your history on "Civil Rights".

"You mean the party that does more to advance civil liberties and is consistently endorsed by the ACLU and NAACP"

Maybe consistently endorsed by the ACLU and NAACP.

Oh, I get it "civil liberties". Not "civil rights". Nice play on words.

However, the record shows that Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the civil rights laws in the 1960s.

The civil rights laws were passed by an overwhelming "YEA" vote by republicans.

You might need to revisit your facts. Even your best allies on this site will not contradict that fact.
32 months ago: TCG, do I need to educate you... again... on the North/South split? The Civil Rights Act? The Mason/Dixon line? Do I need to remind you... again... of how many "states rights Democrats" became Republicans after the North "betrayed" them? Do I need to go over Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott, and David Freakin' Duke?!? Yes, that David Duke. He was registered as a Democrat in the "tradition" of the scumbag Southern segregationists when he first tried to get into politics. But ol' Davey finally figured out that the Democratic party had long-since abandoned him and finally re-registered as a Republican.

And promptly won a seat in the Louisiana House. Which he "served" in (and for racist scum like him, I use the term very loosely) through 1992. Yes, as recently as 17 short years ago, your party - not mine - had an avowed white supremacist as an elected representative.

Don't you ever get tired of being smacked around by history and facts?
32 months ago: I keep having to school you in this. I'm starting to wonder if you've got short-term memory loss or something. Maybe from now on, whenever you go on about how the Republicans were really the ones to pass Civil Rights, I'll just re-post this link: http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/History-lesson-The-Civil-Rights-Act.aspx
32 months ago: No Noni, just stay in your Oregon/Washington state which has legalized human euthanasia. You never lived the civil rights era did you? Or, am I wrong? Your what? 28 maybe 36? Live it for a few more years and get a little more "hands on" experience before trying to lecture from a book.
32 months ago: Ah, some ageism added to the mix! Why, Noni, it doesn't matter that you're right about the Civil Rights Act's voting totals or how the Southern Democrats became Republicans, because you're younger than me! Nice...

I could care less that you're older. I'm more informed. You can take your ageism and shove it.
32 months ago: New flash -- Both the JackAss and the Elephant are racists.
32 months ago: heynnnn.

Is Affirmative Action racist or not?
Ann Colter makes perfect sense to me.


Fig (if I can call you that):

If I'm anything, I'm not a jackass, and Elephants are against affirmative action.
32 months ago: Andy Taylor: Ernest T, let me ask you something. Did your mother ever used to hit you?

Ernest T Bass: Oh, yes. She was wonderful!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
32 months ago: In the theater of political punditry, the absurd is the norm. The wacky, outlandish statements are tempered by the truths they wish to convey. Coulter knows that the reason the dems want Paterson to step aside is that they know he would get creamed by Giuliani, but Cuomo would stand half a chance. The rest of it is just screwing around with the democrats. If it had been a black republican governor asked to step aside for a white guy, I'm sure the democrats would have had a field day with with it. Welcome to "Punked".
32 months ago: @redstateguy

No, Affirmative Action isn't racist. But - and this may surprise you - I do look forward to when we can abolish it. Because it will mean schools in poor, black, urban areas are as well funded as schools in affluent white neighborhoods. It will mean black people aren't paid only 75 cents on the dollar white people are paid. It will mean we no longer have a disproportionate number of black people failing high school. It will mean our male prison population isn't one third black.

So yes, I support abolishing Affirmative Action as soon as we don't need it anymore.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
32 months ago: And the latinos, and the asians, and the native americans, and the inuit, and women, I'm sure you meant to add. Or is affirmative action only for black people?
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
32 months ago: Funny thing is Ms. Coulter is not running for office. The real story is that Prez BO beleives he has the power to say who should run for Governorships. Maybe he will reappoint Van Jones as the "State Governor Candidate Czar"

The Democratic Party is racist? You mean the party that does more to advance civil liberties and is consistently endorsed by the ACLU and NAACP?
Where were the NAACP and them Dem's when The Honorable Janice Rogers Brown was to be nominated as the first Black woman to the Supreme court. They only represent and endorse blacks who have a victim mentality.
32 months ago: Never been a fan of her work....but she is hawt....
32 months ago: OOTB: "And the latinos, and the asians, and the native americans, and the inuit, and women, I'm sure you meant to add. Or is affirmative action only for black people?"

I thought we were talking about it in conjunction with the Civil Rights Act. Of course Affirmative Action is for more than just black people.

Billyberoo: "Where were the NAACP and them Dem's when The Honorable Janice Rogers Brown was to be nominated as the first Black woman to the Supreme court."

Of course the NAACP and ACLU didn't support her nomination. She is diametrically opposed to them and, incidentally, prone to thoughtlessly dissenting against decades-old judicial precedent (case in point: Aguilar v. Avis Rent-A-Car, 21 Cal. 4th 121). Which makes her the worst form of "judicial activist" - see, we can use that term, too - and unfit for her current job, let alone the Supreme Court. Why in the world would the ACLU or NAACP support someone like that, regardless of race? If someone had interfered with her rights, the ACLU might have gotten involved - heck, they'll defend anyone, including people who hate them, like Rush Limbaugh. But nothing of the sort happened.

Now, as for "victim mentality," have you ever stopped to ask yourself *why* the vast, overwhelming majority of black people in this country support the ACLU and the NAACP? Be careful here... The wrong answer could easily be construed as assuming a group of people doesn't know what's best for them, based on their skin color.
32 months ago: heynnnn.

Instead of continuing the racist affirmative action, what about lifting the government's heavy, wet blanket of welfare and dependence on survival on the "state" that acts as a form of involuntary servitude off the black community's back and allow them to go out and make it on their own.

Affirmative action is holding them back.

I mean, what difference should the color of one's skin make? For crying out loud!

It's immaterial.
32 months ago: I liked that!

"I could care less that you're older. I'm more informed. You can take your ageism and shove it."

Please be man enough to forward that quote to your parents.

How about sizeism? Are you taller that 5' 5"?
Just wondering if the "little big man syndrome" is in play.

You didn't answer the underlying question though.

Fact: Oregon and Washington States are the only ones that have public adult euthanasia.

I'm going way out on a limb here and stating you might think that is a civil liberty. Maybe that is how you deal with ageism. Pat them on the head while you help them swallow the "medicine" to help them hurry up and get out of your sight.

Please make sure to teach your children that technique so they will know how to discard you when you are no longer of any service.
32 months ago: What exactly is the racial demographics of Oregon and Washington State?

WHITE OREGON
White persons, 90.1%
Black persons, 2.0%
Native persons, 1.4%
Asian persons, 3.6%
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 0.3%

You would not last 2 minutes in the "Hood".

This is too funny. You do claim to reside in Oregon, right? Talk about "White Flight"?
32 months ago: TCG, I can only conclude that you like losing arguments. I'm happy to provide you the thrill...

"Please be man enough to forward that quote to your parents."

Not a problem. I'm on very good terms with my parents. They'd both laugh, and then nod. Neither mistakes age for wisdom.

Now I will note that you're changing the subject from the Civil Rights Act and who voted for it. I take this to mean you accept that you were wrong about it.

"How about sizeism? Are you taller that 5' 5"?
Just wondering if the "little big man syndrome" is in play."

Still not talking about the Civil Rights Act and your unsupportable assertions regarding it. Moving into "Inernet Tough Guy" range. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet%20tough%20guy)

"You didn't answer the underlying question though.

Fact: Oregon and Washington States are the only ones that have public adult euthanasia."

Of course I'm not answering that "underlying question." I'll get right on it as soon as you either admit you were wrong about who supported the Civil Rights Act, or come up with some other explanation for the North/South voting split.

"I'm going way out on a limb here and stating you might think that is a civil liberty. Maybe that is how you deal with ageism. Pat them on the head while you help them swallow the "medicine" to help them hurry up and get out of your sight."

And I'm going out on a limb and stating you have a real problem admitting it when you're wrong. Go ahead, it's easy. And you might find it to be cathartic. It's good for you.
32 months ago: I guess it is ture then that the FRUITS don't fall far from the tree. Please pat them on the head next time you see them and feed them their koolaide.

How about those stats? Whitey, plantation owner hidden in the deep northwest. It is sad that even though you think you are helping your really the problem.
32 months ago: And you still... *still*... don't want to answer on Civil Rights. Look, TCG, I'll be happy to answer all your questions about Oregon, as soon as you give me some kind of response on what we were talking about before you changed the subject.

Need a refresher? Here, I'll break it down point by point.

1. In 1964, there were three major political parties: The Republicans, the Democrats, and the States Rights Democrats, who dominated Southern politics.
2. The States Rights Democrats caucused with the regular Democrats on a lot of issues, but were diametrically opposed to all the Northern politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, who supported Civil Rights.
3. The Democrats held a commanding majority in the North, and the States Rights Democrats held a near-monopoly in the South.
4. Almost all the Democrats - and a solid majority of the Republicans - in the North defeated the States Rights Democrats in the South, and passed Civil Rights.
5. Finding the overall Democratic party inhospitable, Southern racists like Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond migrated into the Republican party.

Counter that, or at least answer it, and I'll be happy to talk about Oregon.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
32 months ago: From congresslink.org

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

"Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.

Senator Richard Russell, Democrat from Georgia, led the so-called opposition forces. The group was also known as the "southern bloc." It was composed of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, John Tower of Texas. Although a hopeless minority, the group exerted much influence because Senate rules virtually guaranteed unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture."

So, it is obvious that the southern states rights dems didn't go to the republicans because the republicans fostered racism. They went simply, mostly, out of spite and anger and secondarily, because the repubs were more favorable to limited government. Some of them changed their ways, and others did not. Just as Sen. KKK Byrd (D-WVa) changed to accept blacks as equals, many of the states rights good ol' boys who jumped ship did also.

To imply that republican are racists, or less human rights oriented than democrats, is false conceit.
32 months ago: OOTB, thank you. I don't completely agree with your analysis - for one, the Republican party continued to accept the racists in its midst for quite some time - but these days neither party accepts the kind of blatant racism that was still all too common even twenty years ago. Your response was well thought out and erudite, a refreshing break from the topic-hopping TCG was attempting.

My whole point in bringing all this up one more time was that TCG had again attempted to pin the behaviors and attitudes of the racist States Rights Democrats on anyone whose party membership said "Democrat."
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
32 months ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

Senator Strom Thurmond switched parties and became a Republican as a result of his support for the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964. Jesse Helms also switched his party registration to Republican in 1970 and won a Senate seat in North Carolina in 1972.


Several other Southern senators, such as Richard Russell, Jr. of Georgia and James Eastland and John Stennis of Mississippi remained in the Democratic Party. They went on to become prominent senators who served multiple terms in the service of their respective states. These long careers in the Senate elevated their seniority and put them in positions of power and prestige.



We are currently working on a list of who stayed democrat after 1964 and who switched parties, and who just faded into obscurity.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
32 months ago: Noni,
you're welcome,

We are also working on complete stats of civil rights voting records by party affiliation from 1950 until present.
Will probably have to make wiki articles for both subjects, as space and reference options are limited here. I'll keep everyone posted.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
32 months ago: Hnn
I love how you rewrite history. There were not 3 mojor parties, there were 2. Republican and Democrat. There may have been a schism within the Dem's. But there was not 3 p3ties
32 months ago: @Billyberoo

No, I'm afraid you're incorrect. The "States' Rights Democratic Party" was not the same as the national "Democratic Party." They split from the Democrats in 1948 to run their own presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond, in retaliation for Truman integrating the armed forces. The Democratic party's candidate that year was President Truman.

This is schoolboy stuff, by the way. Everyone knows (or ought to know) about this election. Remember the famous mistaken headline, "Dewey Defeats Truman?" That was this election.
32 months ago: Noni? Does your boss know you spend all of your working hours on RantRave? Oh yeah, that's right your in the IT department and only regulate the unproductive internet time of the other company employees. Busted. Wait until your department gets audited for unproductive non-company time on the internet. Schoolboy.

Billy, wait long enough and he will claim the liberal leftist from his party in Pittsburgh that are breaking laws during the G20 are a 4th party.

Funny how the "Tea Baggers" can go to D.C. and have a peaceful protest and then clean up their mess while the leftist "Scum Baggers" assault the police, break laws and cause damage in Pittsburgh. These boneheads are too funny and need to be laughed off. Like a bad cold.

What a ...... (you insert your favorite).
32 months ago: TCG, do you actually have anything left to say? You're not moving coherently from one topic to the next. Is being wrong so difficult for you that when it's irrefutably proven that you are, you freak out?

Look... You were wrong about the States' Rights Democrats. Just accept it and move on. I promise you'll feel better when you do.
32 months ago: Answer the freaking question.
32 months ago: I don't see any questions from you. I see a lot of insults, and some general failures to accept the demonstrable reality of mid-20th century American politics, but I don't see anywhere you've asked me any good-faith questions.

Me, all I'm asking for is that we finish one topic before moving on to the next. Wanna talk about Oregon? Great. Wanna talk about my job? OK. Wanna talk about the price of tea in China? I'm fine with that. But if we don't sort out the topic of the Civil Rights Act first - which I remind you you brought up - then we'll find ourselves back in the same conversation again in the very near future.

Wouldn't you rather hash this all out once and for all? Look at OOTB; he's putting some good faith effort into it. That's all I'm asking of you.
32 months ago: Expected as much. I'll make a deal with you. Since we are so far apart and will probably never meet in the middle. You stay away from my comments and I'll stay away from yours. However, before you go away, shove it.
32 months ago: That's not really gonna fly, TCG. We're both here, and we both gravitate towards political discussions.

Wouldn't you rather do a civility reset? I took offense at your tone and demeanor, and I apologize. If you have a specific question you'd like to ask me, go ahead and I'll answer it. In return, would you respond to my points about the Civil Rights Act?
32 months ago: I agree Noni, however my tone and demeanor changed drastically after you told me to shove it earlier.
It doesn't feel very good does it. I'll forgive and forget and try not to get personal. With that said you migh need to remember that some of use might know a bit of how the world really works before degrading us from what the professors of today spew.
32 months ago: Hey Noni, with that said. I have to confess. The picture of Ann Coulter in the post is way too flattering. Notice that you can't see her pointed ears? I wonder how much airbrush was used? Is she a natural blonde? Really?

Check out those brunette eyebrows and roots...dang.
32 months ago: Noni, sorry. The civil rights topic has been spread out over so many threads. What was the question? I will state my view once and for all to that question.
32 months ago: Regarding tone: I don't want to lay the blame at anyone's feet here, so I'll take the blame myself. When you talked about age, I blew up over it, and I'm sorry.

That said, please don't assume I'm ill-informed because I'm younger. Max Planck once said, "Science advances one funeral at a time." It's a very bleak piece of humor meant to say that people become set in their ways, and once one's ideas have calcified as the "truth," he is impossible to convince of new information. If nothing else, try to remember that once upon a time, young people were foolish to believe man could land on the Moon... and then they did it, because they refused to listen to anyone who said it was impossible.

Age automatically brings experience. Wisdom, on the other hand, is optional.
32 months ago: OK, although I didn't really have a question so much as a central thesis that I wanted you to respond to. You said this in the thread above: "However, the record shows that Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the civil rights laws in the 1960s."

I responded by pointing out the North/South split in the vote, that the States' Rights Democrats were a third party, and that the Democrats and Republicans both defeated the Dixiecrats (States' Rights Democrats) in 1964, passing the Civil Rights Act. I also pointed back to an older rant I wrote detailing the votes and the regions from which those votes arose, and mentioned in passing various former Dixiecrats who became Republicans.

So my contention is that the idea Democrats "voted overwhelmingly against the civil rights laws in the 1960s" is incorrect. I wanted your response to that.
32 months ago: Fair enough, with that said I'll say, I'm sorry for blowing up when I thought my age and life knowledge was being demeaned by books. My whole point was that some of us might have a bit of first hand knowledge and as you know the history books are filled with lies.
32 months ago: So my contention is that the idea Democrats "voted overwhelmingly against the civil rights laws in the 1960s" is incorrect. I wanted your response to that.

I'll get back on the answer to your question. Right now I have to go feed the kids and dog.
32 months ago: By party

The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

If you want to split peas over the term overwhelmingly, fair enough. I'll retract and say that the party in charge (Democrats) did not pass Civil Rights law. These statistics clearly show that republicans passed all of the civil rights bill while democrats were somewhat divided.


32 months ago: Oh and by the way Noni.

Yeah, I'm an old guy with a young kid. Go figure that.
My 8 year old and I started building a Hydrogen Cell last weekend. Prototype worked and will be converting it to solar power in the coming weeks. Currently converting water to H2 and 0 on a low scale. Working on the extraction of H2 direct from the system. We are thinking the "greenies" won't mind that we are allowing O to escape into the atmosphere. AMPing up here...are you?
32 months ago: @TCG

Your data actually proves my point. In terms of percentage, the lowest amount of Democrats in the House to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was 61%, a solid majority. The Republican majority was even higher as a percentage (despite their overall low numbers), but the Republican party didn't have to deal with a splinter faction like the Dixiecrats. Back then, there were hardly any elected Republicans in the South. The few that were there sided with the Dixiecrats.

I don't want to rehash my entire prior rant on this topic. I just wanted to point out that Democrats voted overwhelmingly *for* Civil Rights, not against. The Dixiecrats dragged the numbers down, but like I said... 61% is a very solid majority. Can we agree on that?
32 months ago: Sure if you want to play numbers games. I'll agree that 61% of a group is a majority. However, I must ask would that 61% carry the vote while they are the majority party?
32 months ago: Yes, of course. If you took away every Republican vote, and made it a contest between the Democrats and the Dixiecrats, it would have been a victory for Civil Rights. Same thing holds true if you took away every Democrat and Dixiecrat; while Republicans held a very small number of seats at the time, most of those seats went for Civil Rights. The numbers you posted demonstrate both amply.

If what you're getting at is that the northern Democrats alone couldn't have carried it without Republicans, that's perfectly true. Had the Republicans voted with the Dixiecrats, the bill would have been defeated. But the same is also true in reverse. Had the Democrats voted with the Dixiecrats, it also would have been a defeat. Neither party can - or should - claim it was anything but a resounding, bipartisan win, and frankly, everyone came up smelling like roses except for the Dixiecrats, a relatively small number of northern Republicans who voted against it, and Robert Byrd.

Can we agree on that?
Don Smith
Don Smith
Fairview, TN
32 months ago: I find it very funny that you refer to the ACLU an organizations that hates any thing American.And the NAACP with is openly racist. Why don't throw in a quote from ACORN as well.And her commit that the Democratic part is racist has some merit. The majority of Blacks are Dems. Black people have become increasingly more racist in the past eight months. They totally believe that a black president equals a black country. Remember the commit about the Black House ( formerly the White House )

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave