Churchill: called the Bush Administration "Little Eichmanns". And lost his job for that.
Coulter: Called the widows of 911 victims "self-obsessed and enjoying their husbands’ deaths". And made money off that.
2007-11-01 18:03:41 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Interesting A's. Thanks, all.
I would have just said Both.
2007-11-01 18:22:20 · update #1
Different sides of the same coin rhetorically.
However, I've read the Churchill piece ("On the Justice of Roosting Chickens"). Unlike Skeletor who simply seeks to slander anyone she disagrees with while garnering more attention and accolades from the unthinking right - Churchill was at least trying to make an argument.
For clarification Churchill did not call the Bush administration little Eichmanns . He was referring to the financiers who worked in the WTC when it was attacked.
Simply stated his case was that American policy since World War II created the conditions for the possibility of 9-11; that we weren't "innocent victims" as we like(d) to believe; and that even the so-called victims in the towers weren't Innocent because they helped create the power base that enabled the US to support the likes of Marcos, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, and yes Saddam.
I agree with his first two points and wish we had been introspective enough to behave differently post-Afghanistan. I think he overstated his third point to the point of rendering it ineffective.
Further his vitriol and obvious rage ruined any ethos in his argument. He relegated himself to the fringe which is where that type of anger belongs.
2007-11-01 18:22:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ann Coulter doesn't have a soft way of saying things, but I was also suspecting that some people might be using their family member's deaths for attention. A sort of extension of the Münchhausen syndrome.
Ward Churchill is merely a fraud who has about as much integrity or balls as Eichmann. And to think that he was teaching people's kids.
To be fair, I wouldn't want Ann Coulter teaching anyone's kids either.
2007-11-01 18:14:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Churchill. He abused his position as a professor and state employee to push his hate speech on students. Ann Coulter's words were not only correct--they were made in the public arena, where they could be openly criticized and debated by adults.
And, of course, she was right about the 9-11 widows who used their victimhood as a launching pad for a political agenda. If they're going to try to turn grief into political propaganda, they'd better be prepared to be rebutted.
2007-11-01 18:13:09 · answer #3 · answered by A Plague on your houses 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Churchill. Peace
2007-11-01 18:14:38 · answer #4 · answered by PARVFAN 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
there's a famous quote, or concept in Judaism-Midah Keneged Midah (I used to have hebrew in my keyboard, regardless of if it have been given erased!WTF!) So this concept is which you get what you deserve,to place it in goyish type. It falls under the class of a look ahead to a watch, Head for a head, and so on. She talks lots, so G-d punished her by using wiring her jaw close-exceptionally common! advantageous one G-d!
2016-09-28 04:24:59 · answer #5 · answered by cluff 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Churchill.....by far....
anne colter isn't teaching our children.... that idiot passed himself off as an instructor...molding young minds.... and he was and is .... an antiamerican loon....
anne coulter is a political pundit... she gets paid to give her opinions...
ward churchill was paid to tell the truth to our children.......
2007-11-01 18:18:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Although she has no influence on educated people-Coulter- simply because she has exponentially more exposure.
Churchill never had any influence. He was a short-term media creation and if you polled people, you would probably have a hard time finding many who recognize the name; and if they did recognize it, they would not remember why they know the name.
---------------
bekki1706 –
So, you at least recognize that ‘truth’ is not Coulter’s purpose.
2007-11-01 18:17:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
and there you have it Professors are paid to teach a specific course and there SHOULD be some regulation or certification of the texts and curriculum they use.
And any professor or teacher that tries to push their own opinion of world events needs t be terminated with extreme prejuidce.
Coulter is a well paid talking head. All the controversy she creates is mostly for PROFIT.
2007-11-01 18:17:18 · answer #8 · answered by CFB 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Churchill also said the people that died in the 9-11 attacks, deserved it.
He gets my vote.
2007-11-01 18:12:44 · answer #9 · answered by dudeman612 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Coulter's job is presenting opinion. Churchill was supposed to teach facts.
2007-11-01 18:09:55 · answer #10 · answered by George B 6 · 7⤊ 3⤋