Where to start?

[mlknchz]

"I think the way liberals have treated blacks like children and many of their policies have been harmful to blacks, at least they got the beneficiary group right," Coulter said. "There is the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We don't owe the homeless. We don't owe feminists. We don't owe women who are desirous of having abortions or gays who want to get married to one another. That's what civil rights has become for much of the left."

"Immigrant rights are not civil rights?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No," Coulter responded, "No. I think civil rights are for blacks. What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven't even been in this country."
-The great humanitarian and intellectual Ann Coulter on the subject of civil rights.

Civil rights ARE FOR EVERYONE; EVERYONE in this country regardless of race or sex or religion or national origin or any other consideration, EVERYONE.

WE THE PEOPLE, asshole...not "We the people who Ann Coulter thinks deserve rights"

I am still waiting for her to pull off the mask and admit to being a liberal performance artist; no one is actually that stupid, bigoted, and narrow-minded, are they? WHY THE FUCK do conservatives who are intelligent, compassionate, caring people who DEEPLY love their country and their compatriots allow Ann Coulter and her shrill, know-nothing, hateful, spiteful ilk speak for them?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Reasonable, sane discussion has no place in the media.

Comments

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

If some one ELSE had said this, you might have paid more attention to what was said, and less to who said it. The term “civil rights” has been synonymous with “blacks” for fifty years now. It was made so, quite deliberately. This is why, for example, a suspect charged with committing a crime against a black is ALSO charged with “violating their civil rights,” while the reverse is never true.

[Think about it. When last, indeed when ever have you heard the term “civil rights violation” associated with any other ethnic group, particularly whites or Asians?]

In actual fact, by supporting the “perpetual debt” shakedown racket she's firmly on the side of the civil rights activists. People who have never been slaves, are somehow 'owed' a 'debt' extorted at Federal gunpoint from people who have never owned slaves. Right. Explain this to a second-generation American of immigrant ancestry whose family lived in Europe at the time and had nothing to do with slavery in America. Why does he “owe” this?


Edit: In fact, this is an astounding thing for any conservative pundit to say, to climb aboard the “identity politics” bandwagon like this. “We owe blacks” - who is 'we'? And which blacks? Does she have anyone particular in mind? I've never kept slaves. What do I owe? Find me a slave, to whom reparations can be made. Claiming that “we owe” for a “legacy of slavery” is precisely the same as claiming that the German drug company Grünenthal “owes” every lineal descendant of every patient who took Thalidomide during pregnancy in the 1950s. Why? How could this possibly be justified?

[glazomaniac.livejournal.com]

Why? How could this possibly be justified?

because the consequences of those actions are still being felt.

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

By whom? Think it through. Should the government of Italy pay indemnities to those Germans who feel that their ancestors were mistreated by Roman centurions? Arguably, they were - two thousand years ago. When does it end? What does Grünenthal owe to someone born in AD 1978? What do I “owe” to someone born in AD 1965 - one hundred years after slavery was outlawed in this country?

[glazomaniac.livejournal.com]

start here: http://www.nathanielturner.com/slaveryandtheamericaneconomy.htm

[glazomaniac.livejournal.com]

also, i have thought it through.

[mlknchz.livejournal.com]

I paid FULL attention to what was said, and I repudiate it utterly in respect to "civil rights" being solely a "black issue". It is not and never has been. When synagogues are plastered with swastikas, it is considered, rightly, a civil rights issue. When gay people are targeted because they are gay, it IS a civil rights issue. When women are denied rights because of their gender, THAT is a civil rights issue.
Are Jews and gays and women not "whites"?

But really, that's not even CLOSE to the point. Coulter was using this flawed and stupid argument to try to justify denying civil rights to another group of people. She's wrong, for all the wrong reasons, and she should be honest enough to realize that.

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

I'm not seeing that in what she actually said.

“I think the way liberals have treated blacks like children and many of their policies have been harmful to blacks, at least they got the beneficiary group right," Coulter said. "There is the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We don't owe the homeless. We don't owe feminists. We don't owe women who are desirous of having abortions or gays who want to get married to one another. That's what civil rights has become for much of the left."

"Immigrant rights are not civil rights?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No," Coulter responded, "No. I think civil rights are for blacks. What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven't even been in this country."

She was saying the “civil rights” shakedown racket, as it has been defined and executed since Jesse Jackson first waved the bloody shirt of Martin Luther King, does not apply to those identities which have entered politics since then. She's right.

But it's stil odd for her to even work within “identity politics” as a concept. She's given way, yielded on an important point, and I don't like that.

So I guess we do have a commonality after all!

[mlknchz.livejournal.com]

No, she's SAYING immigrants do not deserve civil rights. All the rest is a facile smoke-screen to justify that statement.

The fact that the greatest concerted effort to deny civil (in the case voting) rights was perpetrated against blacks in the 1950-1960's and it was against THOSE efforts that civil rights enforcement was primarily aimed DOES NOT in any way grant nor deny civil rights to other people or groups.

The two issues have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. To pretend otherwise is, at the very least, intellectually dishonest

To put it as simply as I am able, when it comes to civil rights, if they are being denied to people THAT is the issue, not TO WHOM they're being denied. I Coulter is trying to frame the argument around that, and she's wrong to do that.

[karinmollberg.livejournal.com]

For a moment there, I thought you were citing a satirical article or book. Please forgive my ignorance.
I often tend to think, civilisation is all about how everyone ows everyone respect, at least til further notice; no matter who they are or whether they´ve met, want to or ever will.
The whole thing as a construct still being built on ideas of solidarity with people I may find disagreeable or not worth my attention for a thousand reasons that do not matter in the least. If I want to be part of it, or even take advantage of it, the same rules go for everyone, or at least that´s how it should be. As obviously, that has not been and is still not the case, which is no reason whatsoever to change the rules; basically ideals that may never be reached, because impossible. True democracy and all that. So naive an idea, I´ve been told at times.
I quite like it, though. It´s all we´ve got, nobody has come up with anything better, yet, tyranny not being as effective as once believed by some. Usually ends badly. Democracy, with all its inbuilt flaws keeps countries at least in a semi-state of civilisation, exactly because of allowing discussion on its own flaws, which can and should be adjusted all along.
For the benefit of everyone, no matter who.
Call me a hopeless nerd...

[mlknchz.livejournal.com]

No, you've hit the nail on the head, my friend. Freedom, civil rights in this case, is NOT as some people seem to think a "zero-sum" game where if someone has civil rights my civil rights are somehow diminished. PRIVILEGE is diminished by greater access to human and civil rights by all people, freedom is not.
And yes, it's about simple respect, simple compassion towards the people we shared this planet with. It's too bad too few people understand that.

[karinmollberg.livejournal.com]

The sad thing is, it seems continually necessary to state the obvious. Because, obviously, it is not; to everyone. I keep making the same mistake of thinking, humanity would have learnt a little something from bad experience, but: no.

[mlknchz.livejournal.com]

Here in the US, TOO many people who call themselves "conservatives" are actually elitists intent on preserving what they see as their privileges. They think they can do so by trying to deny civil rights to others.
REAL conservatives, on the other hand, believe in democracy and know everyone benefits when rights are not limited to a small number of people.

In short, we DO "owe". We all live in debt to others, and we can only repay that debt by justice.

[chocolatebark.livejournal.com]

Well, according to Whitley Streiber, she's a deep cover reptilian alien from a parallel universe, so uh, there is that.

[mlknchz.livejournal.com]

Thought David Icke said that.

A new thought about him from his Wikipedia page;

"Michael Barkun has described Icke's position as "New Age conspiracism," writing that he is the most fluent of the conspiracist genre. Richard Kahn and Tyson Lewis argue that the reptilian hypothesis may simply be Swiftian satire, a way of giving ordinary people a narrative with which to question what they see around them."