Oh, man ... sometimes, this job is way too easy. Like when Blogging Tory Adam Daifallah starts a post with the title of "This isn't intended to be a defense of Ann Coulter, but ...", then you just know that hysterical idiocy can't be far behind, as Adam writes:
Throughout all this controversy I have not heard a single cogent argument put forward to counter the Coulter claim that the Democrats stifle debate by throwing victims out to speak for their causes -- the 9/11 widows, or so-called "Jersey Girls", to speak out against Bush, Cindy Sheen [sic] and amputated war vet Max Cleland to criticize the Iraq war, etc... The result is the other side is unable to criticize these people. This is true!
Actually, Adam, you insufferably ignorant buffoon, it isn't true, as rigorously documented by Media Matters here, who show beyond any doubt that the Right has absolutely no shame whatsoever in sparing no one from concerted attack by their legion of yapping attack poodles. Note well the savaging of the very people Daifallah describes as beyond criticism -- the "Jersey Girls," Cindy Sheehan and Max Cleland.
Poor Adam seems incapable of even recognizing the howling inconsistency in Coulter's position that the 9/11 widows are somehow unassailable, even as Coulter herself described them as "witches" who were "reveling in their status as celebrities." One wonders how much more self-contradictory someone would have to be for the light to go on above Daifallah's head.
We'll (sort of) give Adam the last word here:
Coulter may not have the most finessed way of making a point, but she is making a point nonetheless and it stands up to scrutiny.
I need some new descriptive phrases. "Unspeakable dumbfuckery" and "overwhelming assholitude" just don't do this idiot justice. Not even remotely.
P.S. I notice, Adam, that you carefully avoided any editorializing on the sizable chunk of Coulter's book devoted to trashing biological evolution. Smart move, I must say, given her indescribable ignorance on the subject. But just in case you feel like educating yourself (an unlikely prospect, I'm guessing, but one can always hope), I suggest you start here. God knows, you might even learn some science, although I'm not optimistic.
AFTERSNARK: Well, isn't this timely?
6 comments:
The poor guy. Maybe he wants Coulter to lower her rack of bones on his wee-wee.
Shorter Canadian Cynic: Why advance an argument when stringing together insults is so much more fun?
Anonymous smirked:
"Why advance an argument when stringing together insults is so much more fun?"
Ah, I see the unfortunate flaw in your reasoning. You don't seem to understand the subtle difference between saying "Fred is a dick" and saying "Fred is a dick, and here's a detailed explanation of why."
I'd work on that comprehension problem if I were you.
You'd have to be a moron to fail to see he did advance an argument.
These "polite" people (who appear to sympathize with Coulter and Coulter fans - go figure) are infuriating.
They usually appear to celebrate imperialism, illegal wars, racism, and homophobia. They get riled by profanity and "ad hominem attacks," real or imagined.
Just had to say that.
Good night.
All Daffy Adamdaillah did was re-gurgitate rightist talking points. What is it with these guys? No response at all would have been completely acceptable.
Endless smug, self-promotion, and inept at that. That's our Daffy!
"The result is the other side is unable to criticize these people."
Sort of like any serious questioning of the Iraq/Afhgan war is "failing to support the troops," right?
Post a Comment