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?

[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...

[chocolatebark.livejournal.com]

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