Coulter or Hitler Quiz

[Idaho]

Is it Hitler or Coulter? (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html)

Let us all know how you get on :laugh4:

[whyidie]

12 of 14 correct!

[Kralizec]

2 wrong.

[Csargo]

9/14

[Craterus]

11 right.

[Kralizec]

They really should have replaced "America" in some of those questions with "America/Deutschland".

[Crazed Rabbit]

Really. Somewhat dishonest this way, I wasn't expecting Hitler to talk about America being borne down by liberals.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

12/14

[IrishArmenian]

I got 7/14. Pretty funny though.

[Kralizec]

12/14

You just scored so well because you read all her books ~;p

[whyidie]

They really should have replaced "America" in some of those questions with "America/Deutschland".


I went off that and the language.

[Xiahou]

You just scored so well because you read all her books ~;p
Nah, I can barely sit thru a TV interview with her- let alone actually reading a book by her.

The trick was to determine whether the statement was bombastic headline grabbing hooey (Coulter) or whether it was flat out fanatical propaganda (Hitler). Ya, I know- it's a fine line... I did get 2 wrong afterall. ~;p

[scotchedpommes]

12 out of 14 also, based mostly on use of language. Would have been 13, but
for a last second change.

[ScionTheWorm]

Damn 8 right... thought I knew Coulter better

[Aenlic]

I just marked them all Coulter. Didn't count the results. There is little difference between the two. They both spout the same nonsense, and they both used to be men. :grin:

[Ronin]

uhmm......that suicide story always seemed kinda fishy....

OMG!!!!:help: It´s HITLER!!! :help:

[rotorgun]

Well....only four right. I must admit that I was surprised how very much her ideas seemed to be classic Adolf Hitler to me! She is one scary individual.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I went off that and the language.

Agreed. Hitler had a better prose style.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

10/14.

I just gained alot of respect for Hitler ~D

[AntiochusIII]

10/14!

It's scary how much of a similarity those two share in their bombastic demagoguery. Though, like others said, Hitler is a more prosaic of the two; he likes to present himself as a philosopher, after all - as in Mein Kampf - whereas the best Coulter could do is repeat the worst stereotypes - the slanders of cheap headlines, like other said - on liberals for cheap favor with her followers.

One more reason to despise the poor...erm, rich...woman.

[Zalmoxis]

You got 6 citations correct!

Total guess.

[InsaneApache]

Is it just me, but who else thinks Herr Hitler sounds more liberal than Mr. Coulter.

:freak: :whip:

[Keba]

Okay, my test results of 8/14 officialy declare that I have them confused. They both sound pretty much the same to me ... well, actually, Hitler sounds a bit better than her, as IA said.

And they really should not have inserted America into there. Half the answers I got wrong were because of the America thing.

[mercian billman]

12/14 based mostly on language and historical content, some of the quotations obviously could not have been made by Hitler, based on the historical content. You'll also notice that Hitler tends to use the word liberal in the singular while Ann Coulter tends to use the word in the plural.

[Dutch_guy]

Well....only four right. I must admit that I was surprised how very much her ideas seemed to be classic Adolf Hitler to me! She is one scary individual.

Yes indeed, however I managed to get a score of 7 right...~:)

:balloon2:

[Divinus Arma]

Classic Debate Tactics:
1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.

So instead of attacking Coulter as Hitler, why don't we instead discuss the merits of the arguments within the context they are being used? Let's attempt to at least see the diffierences in American Democratic society and the intent of Ann Coulter, versus that of whom she is being attacked as; namely Adolf Hitler.

I just kind of browsed the site. I tend to agree with most of the statements.

For Example:
"Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason...Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy."

Granted, this is not always the case, nor is it usual. Lieberman is a stand-up guy who has understood the seriousness of the threat of terrorism and the strategic value of victory in Iraq in the GWOT.

However, there are very loud voices on the left which tend to undermine our efforts and give aid to the enemy in the form of supporting propoganda.


AIDING ENEMY PROPOGANDA AGAINST AMERICA

May 28, 2006 — Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" in an exclusive appearance that reports a group of U.S. Marines may have killed 24 Iraqi civilians following an IED explosion in Haditha, Iraq, was "worse than Abu Ghraib," calling their actions war crimes committed "in cold blood."

Murtha, a Marine veteran who six months ago called for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, added, "There has to have been a cover-up. … There's no question about it."

ABC News
http://i.abcnews.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2013939&page=1

(Keep in mind, this was over accusations where no charges had yet been filed. Consider Murtha's political position and who is international audience will inevitabley be.)


POLITICAL SUPPORT OF ANTI-AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS

"We need the whole world out in the streets again to stop Bush and Blair, and their crazy imperialist dreams." -Cindy Sheehan, Speaking at a Rally with Hugo Chavez

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/24/social.forum.ap/index.html


PROVIDING CRITICAL U.S. SECRETS TO THE ENEMY

The Times published a long story the other day exposing a secret government program to track the international bank transfers of terrorist suspects. The story reported that the program is legal, effective and, as far as any Bush antiterror initiative can be in the current poisonous environment, uncontroversial. Nonetheless, Keller defended its publication as “a matter of public interest.” If the program had violated laws or allowed the government to riffle through the routine banking transactions of Americans (it doesn’t on either count), Keller might have had a case. But there is nothing about the program that countervails the clear public interest in limiting terrorist financing.

Every time the press exposes a secret antiterror program, the media’s apologists shrug it off as no big deal, since terrorists already know that they are being tracked and monitored. But clearly not all terrorists knew that the U.S. was tracking cross-border transactions, say, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan. Otherwise, the program wouldn’t have helped net a couple of major terrorist figures in Southeast Asia, or figured in terrorist prosecutions. Now they know.

National Review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjIwZGQ2NzUzMmJlOGZjYmQzOTZhYzFlOWIxNzYzMjA=


Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1308715200&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


Not all liberals in America side with the enemy. But all in America who side with the enemy happen to be liberals.

:book:

[Aenlic]

Not all liberals in America side with the enemy. But all in America who side with the enemy happen to be liberals.

Yeah, those darn liberals Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh and all the groups like them. Shame on them! :grin:

Oh, and while we're fighting all these liberals at home who do bad things like openly discuss our program to track terrorist finances, let's take on that media giant, that horrible liberal who most often discusses the "secret" financial tracking of terrorists:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_ko_nyt_swift_leak_060628a_320x240.wmv

That's right. The liberal person or group or organization who has most often openly talked about the "secret" financial tracking is none other than...

wait for it...

George W. Bush.

Those darn liberals. :wink: :smug:

[Divinus Arma]

Yeah, those darn liberals Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh and all the groups like them. Shame on them! :grin:

The motive for the attack was apparently retaliation against the US Government for the bloody end to a siege near Waco, Texas, in which 82 members of the Branch Davidian sect died.
-BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/19/newsid_2733000/2733321.stm

They ARE the enemy; American domestic terrorists with a personal agenda. Don't try to shift the argument to something unrelated to the Global War on Terrorism and the anti-American sympathizers.

[JAG]

You got 11 citations correct!

Not bad I guess.

[Aenlic]

The motive for the attack was apparently retaliation against the US Government for the bloody end to a siege near Waco, Texas, in which 82 members of the Branch Davidian sect died.
-BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/19/newsid_2733000/2733321.stm

They ARE the enemy; American domestic terrorists with a personal agenda. Don't try to shift the argument to something unrelated to the Global War on Terrorism and the anti-American sympathizers.

Right, you ignored the part about the American liberal sympathizer who has been leaking information about our "secret" terrorist finance tracking, since... oh... day one. That darn liberal Bush. :wink:

Or is that not related enough enough to "the Global War on Terrorism and the anti-American sympathizers" argument you're making which included links to things like the NYT article on the terrorist finance tracking system? I didn't see any links to the Washington Post stories on the same subject. :grin: Or any links to the stuff Olbermann talks about in the link I provided. Like the web site the financial tracking outfit has on the web which details its activities. Or the magazine it publishes. Yeah. Those darn anti-American terrorist sympathizers, leaking "secret" information because they support terrorism. (snicker)

I say we should just blame everything the Bush administration doesn't like on space aliens, that way the Bushistas don't even have to pretend to be rational. :laugh4:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

6/14, figured it was a trick quiz and put all Coulter. Didn't realize Hitler discussed America much at all. :inquisitive:

[Divinus Arma]

Aenlic, your smug reply is not even worth responding to. :no:

[John86]

Eclectic, Im putting that in my Sig! :laugh4:


Not all liberals in America side with the enemy. But all in America who side with the enemy happen to be liberals.

[Divinus Arma]

Eclectic, Im putting that in my Sig! :laugh4:

:bow: I am honored Sir. ~D

[Crazed Rabbit]

On a related note:
Notice that none of Hitler's quotes contain any of the reasons for which he was so hated and despised. A toning down of Hitler, if you will, that removes from him his terrible excesses of hate and compares the watered down version with Coulter. This, of course, makes Coulter sound similar to Hitler, and offers the feeble mind an easy jump to the conclusion that Coulter really is similar to Hitler.

Crazed Rabbit

[InsaneApache]

On a related note:
Notice that none of Hitler's quotes contain any of the reasons for which he was so hated and despised. A toning down of Hitler, if you will, that removes from him his terrible excesses of hate and compares the watered down version with Coulter. This, of course, makes Coulter sound similar to Hitler, and offers the feeble mind an easy jump to the conclusion that Coulter really is similar to Hitler.

Crazed Rabbit

I have a feeble mind? :inquisitive:

TBH it's beyond me how anyone can justify the things that she says. She's an idiot.

[Keba]

It is true that the 'quiz' present some of the less ... hate-filled of Hitler's ramblings, but it is still Hitler and the statements are still similar, and that makes Coulter a right-wing nut in my book. An extreme right-wing nut.

But then, what do I know, I'm just a communist liberal.

[Aenlic]

Aenlic, your smug reply is not even worth responding to. :no:

So, rather than deal with the facts, it's going to be the Monty Python defense?

:surrender:

Runawaaaaaay!

~:wave:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberry!

[Aenlic]

Hush, or I'll turn you into a newt!

[Crazed Rabbit]

I have a feeble mind?

TBH it's beyond me how anyone can justify the things that she says. She's an idiot.

Sorry, no offense meant.

And yes, she's a bombastic fool, who's fame comes from excess vile on rather non-original ideas.

But, she is far from Hitler. Well, most of the time.

Crazed Rabbit

[Fragony]

Well that was hard, all correct, and I don't even know who Coulter is. I figured out that Hitler didn't have much interest in the american man all by myselve, am I not the greatest?

[Kralizec]

Wow.

The thread starts out with a quiz showing similarity between the rethoric of Hitler and a plagiarist, and Eclectic writes up a post defending her as well as her conclusion: that liberals minus a few exceptions like Lieberman are a 5th collumn in the US that usually unconsciously, sometimes consciusly is helping terrorists.
You have your opinion, I have mine. But don't claim you're any better then those who defend Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan without hesitation.

[Divinus Arma]

Wow.

The thread starts out with a quiz showing similarity between the rethoric of Hitler and a plagiarist, and Eclectic writes up a post defending her as well as her conclusion: that liberals minus a few exceptions like Lieberman are a 5th collumn in the US that usually unconsciously, sometimes consciusly is helping terrorists.
You have your opinion, I have mine. But don't claim you're any better then those who defend Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan without hesitation.

Hey, I provided plenty of caveats.


Granted, this is not always the case, nor is it usual

As I said,


Not all liberals in America side with the enemy. But all in America who side with the enemy happen to be liberals.


Are you telling me that attacking our troops as war crinimal murderers or that releasing secret information on terror-hunting techniques is BAD for the terrorists? :dizzy2:

[Kralizec]

Are you telling me that attacking our troops as war crinimal murderers or that releasing secret information on terror-hunting techniques is BAD for the terrorists? :dizzy2:

Nope, I did not say that.
And for the record, the text bit you posted about Murtha did not indicate he was attacking the troops as war criminals. At most it indicated that he was a little to premature in branding individual soldiers as war criminals- and I doubt even that. Initially the way the marines investigated Haditha left plenty to be desired. link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/08/report.haditha/index.html)

About the NY coverage on the financial tracking, conservative news outlets are quick to condemn them as traitors. Firstly, what they did was not illegal- leaking is, publishing the leak isn't. Secondly, we can all agree on that a government should not employ any it can seize to attain a certain goal, though some invasion of privacy is a necessary evil. However I loathe the idea that I could be kept under surveilance with new methods I had no idea the government was using. If the government really does want to be able to peek everywhere they want, I would have more respect for them if they made that clear and abolished all rights of privacy versus the government.
Hypothetically speaking, if the government could keep tabs 24/7 on all citizens and in every aspect of their daily lives, they could prevent virtually any terrorist attack. If I protest against it or reveal what the government is doing, does that make me a traitor or a terrorist aid? I acknowledge that this scenario is far from reality but you get my point.


Not all liberals in America side with the enemy. But all in America who side with the enemy happen to be liberals.

"Side" implies clear intent. Somebody who consciously sides with people who want to implement despotic theocracies are not liberals by any stretched definition.

Lastly, you do not weild a broad brush, but Coulter does.In another thread you said "Liberals hate Ann Coulter because she exposes them for what they are", so you indirectly endorse both her rethoric and her conclusions.
Why bother defending her?

[Divinus Arma]

Why bother defending her?

Because so far I have yet to disagree with anything that she has said. Granted the premise of "Godless" is a bit silly, but she does make some good points. She's a talking head with a few solid arguments, some colorful characterizations, and a sense of humor that only a hard-core conservative could get. I'll be honest, I haven't heard as much from her as I would like, but I know she is a bit firey for moderates. Moderates hate the term "liberal" because its so partisan. And she is uses it in the most insulting and entertaining ways possible.

Michael Moore is a liar. Cindy Sheehan is Anti-American.

Provide me with a Coulter lie or anti-American statement and we may find something we can agree on...

[Divinus Arma]

Here is an interview with Ann:


NY POST: Vitriol aside for a moment, how would you define a liberal, politically speaking?

A: Naive, misinformed fanatical Mother Earth-worshipers and fervent America-haters — and those are their good traits.

NY POST: In "Godless," you lump many views you disagree with under the banner of a liberal religion. But many Democrats (as with Republicans) disagree amongst themselves on many of these issues. Do you consider all Americans who vote Democrat to be liberals?

A: Or fools.

NY POST: How many liberals do you think there actually are in this country?

A: Way too many, but that's just a rough estimate. You know, somewhere in the ballpark of "way too many."

NY POST: Your books, like Bill O'Reilly's, generally go to No. 1. But so do Michael Moore's and Al Franken's. What do you think this says about the real nature of what Americans believe, politically and ideologically?

A: Judging by your list, that half of them are patriotic.

NY POST: In the last two presidential elections combined, the number of people who voted for the Democrat and the number who voted for the Republican were pretty close to even. Isn't it safe to say that the country rests somewhere in the middle of conservatism and liberalism?

A: Yes, I think the results of the last "American Idol" vote pretty much proved that.

NY POST: Your characterization of liberals paints them as extremists. But with people like Pat Robertson telling us how God keeps telling him who He's angry at, isn't it fair to say that there are extremists on both sides?

A: Pat Robertson opposes capital punishment, opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton and supports trade with China, just for starters. Seems like a pretty mixed bag to me. So what makes you call him extreme? That he believes he has dialogue with the Lord? Do liberals now call anyone who thinks this an "extremist"?

NY POST: Do you believe there is a political middle? If so, how would you define it?

A: There is no more a "political middle" than there is a family in America with 2.3 children. People with opinions take sides. Contrary to what you've heard, it's actually more important to stand for something than it is for everybody to "just get along."

NY POST: You speak in the book of "Muslims' predilection for violence," accepting it as a given. But many would argue that many Muslims, in this country and others, lead average, everyday lives, and denounce violence. How is painting all Muslims as violent any different than looking at the Crusades, or at any of the Christian extremist groups around today, and saying, "All Christians are murderers?"

A: Quite obviously, referring to "Muslims' predilection for violence" is not the same as saying, "All Christians are murderers." It would be the same if I had said, "All Muslims are murderers." You didn't do too well on the analogies section of the SATs, did you?

NY POST: You say that "without a fundamental understanding of man's place in the world" (by which you mean God), we risk being lured into, among other things, slavery. But weren't the American slaveholders devout Christians?

A: They may have been devout Christians, but they weren't being good Christians by holding slaves. That's the point: Any Christian slaveholder had to violate Christianity to own slaves.
Thus — and obviously — the abolitionist movement was fueled by Christians, much as the anti-abortion movement is today.

From her website.


She may piss off Democrats, and she is certainly passionate, but she is no liar. Libs try to paint her with the "evil partisan" brush, but what is wrong with being partisan? What is wrong with having beliefs and holding true to those beliefs? Shell will rip into a Republican just as fast as a Democrat. And so do I. Being a Partisan hack means going along with the groupthink in every circumstance and having no mind of your own. Well, I think that failing to make up your mind is just as bad as having no mind at all.

Why do Liberals fear conviction?

[Keba]

Meh, she'll end up before a firing squad the day the revolution comes, so no worries, she can say what she likes, I'm hard to offend, but I always hate generalizations.

And again, I have to ask, what is a liberal? Would you put me, a communist (literally), in the same bunch as your capitalist Democrats? I would sooner shoot myself than be on the same side with that bunch.

EDIT: Just so you don't accuse me of being biased, I'd put Michael Moore right next to her, before the firing squad.

[Kanamori]

Hitler also, probably, held the idea that he must eat if he wishes to live. The fact that it was his thought does not disprove that notion. Although some may believe that a belief is necessarily incorrect because Hitler held it once, I don't think that demonstrating that illogical belief was the original intent of the thread. It is funny to relate the similarities of style and content between the two. The only person I can say that I've seen propose the idea that a notion is necessarily incorrect because a specific person holds that belief is DevDave.:balloon2:

[Kralizec]

NY POST: Vitriol aside for a moment, how would you define a liberal, politically speaking?

A: Naive, misinformed fanatical Mother Earth-worshipers and fervent America-haters — and those are their good traits.

NY POST: In "Godless," you lump many views you disagree with under the banner of a liberal religion. But many Democrats (as with Republicans) disagree amongst themselves on many of these issues. Do you consider all Americans who vote Democrat to be liberals?

A: Or fools.

NY POST: How many liberals do you think there actually are in this country?

A: Way too many, but that's just a rough estimate. You know, somewhere in the ballpark of "way too many."

NY POST: Your books, like Bill O'Reilly's, generally go to No. 1. But so do Michael Moore's and Al Franken's. What do you think this says about the real nature of what Americans believe, politically and ideologically?

A: Judging by your list, that half of them are patriotic.

NY POST: In the last two presidential elections combined, the number of people who voted for the Democrat and the number who voted for the Republican were pretty close to even. Isn't it safe to say that the country rests somewhere in the middle of conservatism and liberalism?

A: Yes, I think the results of the last "American Idol" vote pretty much proved that.

NY POST: Your characterization of liberals paints them as extremists. But with people like Pat Robertson telling us how God keeps telling him who He's angry at, isn't it fair to say that there are extremists on both sides?

A: Pat Robertson opposes capital punishment, opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton and supports trade with China, just for starters. Seems like a pretty mixed bag to me. So what makes you call him extreme? That he believes he has dialogue with the Lord? Do liberals now call anyone who thinks this an "extremist"?

NY POST: Do you believe there is a political middle? If so, how would you define it?

A: There is no more a "political middle" than there is a family in America with 2.3 children. People with opinions take sides. Contrary to what you've heard, it's actually more important to stand for something than it is for everybody to "just get along."

NY POST: You speak in the book of "Muslims' predilection for violence," accepting it as a given. But many would argue that many Muslims, in this country and others, lead average, everyday lives, and denounce violence. How is painting all Muslims as violent any different than looking at the Crusades, or at any of the Christian extremist groups around today, and saying, "All Christians are murderers?"

A: Quite obviously, referring to "Muslims' predilection for violence" is not the same as saying, "All Christians are murderers." It would be the same if I had said, "All Muslims are murderers." You didn't do too well on the analogies section of the SATs, did you?

NY POST: You say that "without a fundamental understanding of man's place in the world" (by which you mean God), we risk being lured into, among other things, slavery. But weren't the American slaveholders devout Christians?

A: They may have been devout Christians, but they weren't being good Christians by holding slaves. That's the point: Any Christian slaveholder had to violate Christianity to own slaves.
Thus — and obviously — the abolitionist movement was fueled by Christians, much as the anti-abortion movement is today.

I read all of that and only at the end I realized that it was probably meant humourously.

Now I love blunt humour and can laugh even when it's directed at me, but I don't find her style to be laughter-inducing at all.

By the way:

NY POST: You say that "without a fundamental understanding of man's place in the world" (by which you mean God), we risk being lured into, among other things, slavery. But weren't the American slaveholders devout Christians?

A: They may have been devout Christians, but they weren't being good Christians by holding slaves. That's the point: Any Christian slaveholder had to violate Christianity to own slaves.

By this, she's effectively pointed out that no amount of holy scripture is going to prevent man from committing immoral acts like slavery.

[Divinus Arma]

By this, she's effectively pointed out that no amount of holy scripture is going to prevent man from committing immoral acts like slavery.

That's funny, because that holy scriptue happens to say they exact same thing. Maybe the Bible is like Hitler too?

[Kralizec]

That's funny, because that holy scriptue happens to say they exact same thing. Maybe the Bible is like Hitler too?

Huh?

That was in response to:


"without a fundamental understanding of man's place in the world" (by which you mean God), we risk being lured into, among other things, slavery.

Clearly she's her own refutation.