NationStates Jolt Archive

Ive heard some of you say that youve never heard of Anne Coulter.

I'd thought I'd share some priceless gems, just so you can get a real good idea of who she is.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Nice.

Heres a good one.

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."


Heres what she says about the common man.

The only beef Enron employees have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle. If Enron executives had shouted, "Head for the hills!" the employees might have had time to sucker other Americans into buying wildly over-inflated Enron stock. Just because your boss is a criminal doesn't make you a hero.


This is an oldy but a goody. It's been quoted by other sites, but I'll include a bit more context as an added bonus. This is from a series of video clips from FOX HANNITY & COLMES, shown on June 22, 2001. (Which show the original clip was from, I can't tell.)

COULTER: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.

PETER FENN (Democratic strategist): Oh, OK.

COULTER: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.

FENN: This is a great idea.

COULTER: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

FENN: Terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources...

COULTER: Yes! Yes.

FENN: ... as fast as we possibly can.

COULTER: As opposed to living like the Indians.

So Jesus advocated strip mining, ozone depletion, toxic waste spills, and polluted waterways. Who knew?



The woman is the worst of what the Neo-cons have to offer, and she makes the pretense of being a "Journalist".

She is entitled to her opinion.

I dunno, I always get the suspicion that she is an undercover democrat, trying to drag the party down with her

I still dont know who she is...

She is entitled to her opinion.


Yes.

shes entitled to be as much of a dangerous fascist, and a racist as she wants to be.

Me either, but I think Backwoods is trying to show she is evil.

Yes.

shes entitled to be as much of a dangerous fascist, and a racist as she wants to be.

So whats the problem then?

So whats the problem then?


Dont you have a bridge to go and live under?



Heres a good site for those who want to know who she is.

http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/index.html

She's an embarassment to Christians by actually believe God told us to rape the earth of it's resources. We are it's gardeners, not it's theives.

Heres a good site for those who want to know who she is.

http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/index.html


I dont really care that much...

http://anncoulter.org/images/webimages/annblack.jpg

Her.

She's an embarassment to the human race, and respectable conservatives disavow her publicly. Doesn't seem to faze her much.

She's an embarassment to the human race, and respectable conservatives disavow her publicly. Doesn't seem to faze her much.

Precisely. But people keep talking about her, giving her publicity. Why? Her views are unpopular with both sides of the political spectrum so why make her more "important" than what she needs to be?

she's ugly in an "i'm a bitch" kind of way.

Dont you have a bridge to go and live under?



Heres a good site for those who want to know who she is.

http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/index.html

No.

And a good site find out who she is is the Anti-Coulter website...LOL Thats funny.

No.

And a good site find out who she is is the Anti-Coulter website...LOL Thats funny.


Thats the idea.

Thats the idea.

Then you were successful in your aims to amuse.

As a republican ill be the first to admitt that our enviromental policies are not the best but this women is an extreemist although we are uses of finate reasources her view are retarded to say the best. However she is entitled to her opinion in a public forum, if you dont like what she has to say dont listen

---SNIP--- However she is entitled to her opinion in a public forum, if you dont like what she has to say dont listen

Exactly.

http://anncoulter.org/images/webimages/annblack.jpg

Her.
She has the looks!

She has the looks!

She's got far more attractive pictures than that.

Ann Coulter is a bit extreme, but, when not spouting off at the mouth, she uses facts. Compared to Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, she seems, well, still weird and abnrasive, but just in good company. (Of Topic, but: Who would win a no holds barred gun fight between the four of them?)
Lets look at the quotsies though,
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
The christianity bit is a bit off, but any good atheist would get squeamish there. Still, she makes the point, namely the point that in war you don't play around, you kick ass. Neville Chamberlain tried to have peace and piss around when it was time for violence, Hitler didn't do him any favors for it.
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
She is arguing for John Walker to get the death penalty. What can you see as wrong about that?
The only beef Enron employees have with top management is that management did not inform employees of the collapse in time to allow them to get in on the swindle. If Enron executives had shouted, "Head for the hills!" the employees might have had time to sucker other Americans into buying wildly over-inflated Enron stock. Just because your boss is a criminal doesn't make you a hero.
She is damn right about that. Are you really so unbelievably stupid as to think that somehow just because they are the "little guys" they've got some inherent moral fiber? They don't have it, didn't have it, won't have it. If anything, the lower you go on the food chain you go, the less moral you get. Rich people can afford to be nice and happy, I don't have the time for it.

Interview that I don't want to quote but apparently has something to do with raping planets (an interesting goal if there ever was one. I wonder what gender the Earth is of. Although, I doubt it's still underage, I'm not sure if it can legally give consent)
I don't know about the Jesus part, he never seems willing to personally advise me on anything (even that time I offered to split the lottery winnings 70:30). However, I am not about to bow to the guilt trip. The Indians would have used muskets, cannons, factories, etc. to take control if they had access to them. There is no reason to cheat yourself of the good things in life just because of some arbitrary moral standard.

Coulter uses facts? That's funny--you do realize that an entire cottage industry has sprung up devoted to debunking the claims she makes in her books, right?

Coulter uses facts? That's funny--you do realize that an entire cottage industry has sprung up devoted to debunking the claims she makes in her books, right?

So Anne Coulter is the Conservative Michael Moore?

Ann Coulter...she's the world's biggest b*tch, hands down. She's hateful, she's evil, she thinks she's a goddess, she's a hypocrite, and she's a nazi.

I won't even dig around for quotes from her because she makes me so sick.

So Anne Coulter is the Conservative Michael Moore?
She's worse--Moore's facts check out to be correct, at least in his books and most recent film. Coulter's never check out, except in some weird alternate universe where she has a brain and is attractive.

She's worse--Moore's facts check out to be correct, at least in his books and most recent film.

Really? Not according to the information I have read. Moore's list of deceits from Farenheit 9/11 are quite extensive, as are the deceits from Bowling for Columbine.

Coulter's never check out, except in some weird alternate universe where she has a brain and is attractive.

Never? So not one thing she has ever said is true? As I said, Mr.Moore has quite a list of instances where he has been less that liberal with the truth.

I would say my comment that Coulter is the conservative Michael Moore was a reasonable assessment.

She's worse--Moore's facts check out to be correct, at least in his books and most recent film. Coulter's never check out, except in some weird alternate universe where she has a brain and is attractive.

Amen to that. Who would find Ann Coulter attractive??? She's sickly thin and she's ugly!

Amen to that. Who would find Ann Coulter attractive??? She's sickly thin and she's ugly!

I didn't realise the truth was a beauty contest.

Really? Not according to the information I have read. Moore's list of deceits from Farenheit 9/11 are quite extensive, as are the deceits from Bowling for Columbine.
If we're talking about the semi-famous list of 59 deceits of F 9/11, none of them are questions of fact; they're only disagreements over the conclusions drawn from those facts. There's a difference.

Never? So not one thing she has ever said is true? As I said, Mr.Moore has quite a list of instances where he has been less that liberal with the truth.

I would say my comment that Coulter is the conservative Michael Moore was a reasonable assessment.
I'm sure Coulter's been right once or twice, but as my daddy used to say, even a dog's ass gets lucky once in a lifetime. You know something, though--in the interests of amity and because I've been drinking all night, I'll agree to the comparison in principle if not in substance. They're both on the outer edges of acceptibility, and they often embarass the mainstreams of their respective movements. They're also both physically unattractive, albeit in different ways. :D

If we're talking about the semi-famous list of 59 deceits of F 9/11, none of them are questions of fact; they're only disagreements over the conclusions drawn from those facts. There's a difference.

Deception is still deception. Also there is such a thing as lying by omission.


I'm sure Coulter's been right once or twice, but as my daddy used to say, even a dog's ass gets lucky once in a lifetime. You know something, though--in the interests of amity and because I've been drinking all night, I'll agree to the comparison in principle if not in substance. They're both on the outer edges of acceptibility, and they often embarass the mainstreams of their respective movements. They're also both physically unattractive, albeit in different ways. :D

Thank you! I agree. :p

I read an interview with her. She's a little odd...

Deception is still deception. Also there is such a thing as lying by omission.
There certainly is, but having a difference of opinion over the conclusions to be drawn from a set of facts isn't deception, nor is it lying by omission--it's a difference in interpretation.

1) Tygaland i hate you and you are a stupid conservative, defending Ann Coulter while attacking Michael Moore as less factual is the epitome of ignorant and blind right wing bias

2) And you people know the stocks? Thats the place we should put Ann Coulter until she learns to keep her opinions to her ignorant, egotistical self

I love Ann Coulter, she is one of the brightest speakers in America today. I have all of her books, and read all of her articles each week. Those that have a problem with this probably don't know anything about her, which includes 96% of you here, or your just a liberal crying over the fact that she smacks you in the face on a daily basis.

As for a cottage industry finding her errors, who are you trying to kid??? She has the most documented books of all the current authors as she knows that she is going to be challenged on everything she writes.

I know I'm not going to win over any converts here, and that is probably for the best! I do however want it on the record that she is sexy, smart and one hell of a writer and speaker. Everytime any liberal goes against her, the crowd rolls with laughter at the liberal as they turn red. That alone makes her a godess.

Long live Ann Coulter, long live America, death to Micheal Moore and death to 80% of college professors.

The traditional greeting at the Democratic National Convention is, "Where do you teach?" On rare occasions, the greeting is modified to, "Where does your husband teach?" or "Where does your gay lover teach?" (Democrats could save a lot of money by holding the Democratic National Convention and the National Education Association Convention at the same time.)

The Democrats keep loudly proclaiming that Republicans represent only extremely white rich people, while the Democrats represent all Americans. (Bar bet: Among the four major candidates for president and vice president this year, who has the smallest net worth? Answer: George Bush.)

If the Democrats are a fair cross-section of America, then I guess we can stop worrying about class size. As a friend of mine points out, if the Democratic delegates represent America, then the teacher-student ratio in this country is, at worst, one teacher for every three students. And since the teachers unions don't include private or parochial school teachers, we're looking at a teacher-student ratio of about one teacher for every one student.

Democrats are representative of the nation only if the nation we're talking about is Brazil. For Democrats, there is only the maid and millionaires. There are no Americans in the middle. To the extent Democrats are forced to recognize working-class white men, they call them "fascists."

Now that is a great quote by Ann Coulter...read'em and weep libby

I love Ann Coulter, she is one of the brightest speakers in America today. I have all of her books, and read all of her articles each week. Those that have a problem with this probably don't know anything about her, which includes 96% of you here, or your just a liberal crying over the fact that she smacks you in the face on a daily basis.

As for a cottage industry finding her errors, who are you trying to kid??? She has the most documented books of all the current authors as she knows that she is going to be challenged on everything she writes.

I know I'm not going to win over any converts here, and that is probably for the best! I do however want it on the record that she is sexy, smart and one hell of a writer and speaker. Everytime any liberal goes against her, the crowd rolls with laughter at the liberal as they turn red. That alone makes her a godess.

Long live Ann Coulter, long live America, death to Micheal Moore and death to 80% of college professors.
that was just so ludicrous it couldnt be anything other than sarcasm, yup thats its sarcasm, has to be

1) Tygaland i hate you and you are a stupid conservative, defending Ann Coulter while attacking Michael Moore as less factual is the epitome of ignorant and blind right wing bias

If you hate me then I am on the right track but I won't resort to your childish insults. Where have I defended Anne Coulter's views? If you had actually read anything I have posted then you would see that I have said Coulter is the conservative version of Moore. That is, they are the same but coming from opposite sides. Where did I say that Coulter was more factual than Moore?

2) And you people know the stocks? Thats the place we should put Ann Coulter until she learns to keep her opinions to her ignorant, egotistical self

Yes, freedom of speech is only for the left, isn't that right Chess Squares?

If you hate me then I am on the right track but I won't resort to your childish insults. Where have I defended Anne Coulter's views? If you had actually read anything I have posted then you would see that I have said Coulter is the conservative version of Moore. That is, they are the same but coming from opposite sides. Where did I say that Coulter was more factual than Moore?
coulter is not the conservative version of moore, coulter is the conservative version of no one, i have never seen anyone use so little facts to back up their opinions and make a career on insult and personal attacks rather than facts. moore uses facts, period, they may be ludicrously jumbled up to try and make a point, but they are still facts. i have read coulter, and the few tiems i can get past her senseless and pointless random insults against the left for just being the left i have never EVER found a fact, EVER



Yes, freedom of speech is only for the left, isn't that right Chess Squares?
there are limits to freedom of speech: see fighting words, libel, and slander. then read ANYTHING by Ann Coulter

coulter is not the conservative version of moore, coulter is the conservative version of no one, i have never seen anyone use so little facts to back up their opinions and make a career on insult and personal attacks rather than facts. moore uses facts, period, they may be ludicrously jumbled up to try and make a point, but they are still facts. i have read coulter, and the few tiems i can get past her senseless and pointless random insults against the left for just being the left i have never EVER found a fact, EVER

In your opinion. I happen to think she is the conservative version of Moore. So jumbled up "facts" to reach a non-factual conclusion is still factual? Or is that only applicable to left-wingers like Moore? As opposed to your senseless and pointless random insults against me? You still have not shown where I said I support Coulter's arguments. Please do so or retract your comments earlier.

there are limits to freedom of speech: see fighting words, libel, and slander. then read ANYTHING by Ann Coulter

So writing books and producing movies that create false conclusions would fall under this umbrella where free speech is denied?

In your opinion. I happen to think she is the conservative version of Moore. So jumbled up "facts" to reach a non-factual conclusion is still factual? Or is that only applicable to left-wingers like Moore? As opposed to your senseless and pointless random insults against me? You still have not shown where I said I support Coulter's arguments. Please do so or retract your comments earlier.
jumbling up facts does not make them less factual



So writing books and producing movies that create false conclusions would fall under this umbrella where free speech is denied?if you can prove they fall under libel

jumbling up facts does not make them less factual

Jumbling facts to reach a non-factual conclusion makes the conclusion less factual does it not?

Still waiting on the evidence of me supporting Coulter's views.

if you can prove they fall under libel

So I take it you have proven Coulter's books to be libellous?

Jumbling facts to reach a non-factual conclusion makes the conclusion less factual does it not?
but it doesnt make the FACTS less factual or the FACT that he USES FACTS less factual



So I take it you have proven Coulter's books to be libellous?
libel, asserting something about some one that ifalse and stated as the truth designed to ruin their reputation

She has the looks!
But sounds like the black widow type?

but it doesnt make the FACTS less factual or the FACT that he USES FACTS less factual

But is a non-factual conclusion factual?

Still waiting for your proof of me supporting Anne Coulter's views. Can I take it that you have none and are too pig-headed to apologise and retract a blatant lie?




libel, asserting something about some one that ifalse and stated as the truth designed to ruin their reputation

Your point being? I asked if you had proof of Anne Coulter's books being libellous.

As a non-American, I don't know who this Anne Coulter is, but I know of her kind (in my corner of hell - that is, in my corner of the Middle East - there are plenty of them).
I say, let the reactionary bitch bark. It's her right - don't silence her, just counter her nonsense with the truth.

About the Democrats, or Neo-Liberals - I don't like them in the same way that I don't like the Republicans. Both parties serve the big corporations. Liberals - these are the well-fed, college-professors who speak so much about "the right to property" of the capitalist landlord or about "acting within the limits of the low to change the system from within" when the system is nothing but a puppet to the military-industrial complex. They cry, over their stuffed bellies, about poverty and social equality, yet worship the "invisible hand" of the free market and just want "a kindlier, gentler kind of capitalism". Liberals are harmless, though - like Ms. Bitch here, they just talk.

The generals and big industrialists - they're the real threat to any kind of democracy. Bombing women and children in the name of "Freedom", waging wars in the name of "Peace", torturing prisoners in the name of "Democracy" - that's the real threat to America, and neither the Liberals nor noisy conservative reactionaries such as Anne Coulter.

The christianity bit is a bit off, but any good atheist would get squeamish there. Still, she makes the point, namely the point that in war you don't play around, you kick ass. Neville Chamberlain tried to have peace and piss around when it was time for violence, Hitler didn't do him any favors for it.

Funny how differently two people can interperet a few words, becuase what I see is Anne Coulter advocvating the bombing of civillians.


As for the John Walker quote, the trouble with Anne, is the same problem with posters on this board like "Freinds of Bill".
They see any opposing viewpoint to be "traitorous", or that the person actually "hates America".
That idea alone, is so preposterous, that no one should ever listen to her again.

Even Michael Moore, never called Bush a traitor.
Maybe that can give you an idea of how crazy this woman really is.

Say what you will about Moore, but even he never accuses half an entire political spectrum as being criminals against thier own country.

Coulter does.

As for the Interview snippet I provided, she is actually suggesting that Iraq, or Afghanistan be invaded, thier leaders be executed, and Christianity be imposed on the people.

What possible reason could anyone ever have to take this woman seriously?
If thats not Fascism, I dont know what is.

Shes a nutbag.

I love Ann Coulter, she is one of the brightest speakers in America today. I have all of her books, and read all of her articles each week. Those that have a problem with this probably don't know anything about her, which includes 96% of you here, or your just a liberal crying over the fact that she smacks you in the face on a daily basis.

As for a cottage industry finding her errors, who are you trying to kid??? She has the most documented books of all the current authors as she knows that she is going to be challenged on everything she writes.

I know I'm not going to win over any converts here, and that is probably for the best! I do however want it on the record that she is sexy, smart and one hell of a writer and speaker. Everytime any liberal goes against her, the crowd rolls with laughter at the liberal as they turn red. That alone makes her a godess.

Long live Ann Coulter, long live America, death to Micheal Moore and death to 80% of college professors.

from http://zombiedeathkoala.blogspot.com:

Something that may surprise many readers of mine is that I am not a liberal. Not only that, but I tend to not get along with people who identify themselves as Liberal. Discussions of politics and economics are the fastest and most surefire way for my socialist (pinko!) boyfriend and me to start a screaming match. Perhaps knowing this will make it more understandable when I say that I have, until today, reserved judgment about Ann Coulter. Granted, all the Coulter snippets I have read lead me to believe she is a four-letter word referring to an area of female anatomy, but I try not to make up my mind about any political pundit until I have read at least one of their books; I think it's unfair to judge a person entirely by their sound bites.

However, today I read Coulter's latest book, Treason, and in retrospect I am glad I never used that four-letter word, because it would be an insult to all genuine four-letter-word people in the world. Ann Coulter isn't even worth insulting. According to pretty much everybody, Coulter is "the leading right-wing pundit" of our time, and if that's true then all I can say is: whoa, sucks to be the right-wing. The woman does nothing more than link various neo-con slogans together into a book-length production and then use her supposedly attractive picture on the cover to get people to pay money for the privilege of reading them. While I admire her ability to make money off the gullibility of the public, I really can't respect anything about her work. In my world you have to earn the status of a four-letter word by being a genuine pain in the ass, and you generally have to do so with flare and biting humor. As my friend Mike would put it, Coulter isn't funny "ha-ha", she's funny "uh-oh."

The first thing I noticed while reading Treason was that the three quotes used in the inner flap blurb were all from the first 5 pages of the book; this suggests that even the reviewers, who claimed the book was "even more controversial and prescient" than Coulter's break-out hit Slander, could not keep awake long enough to finish the second half of the first chapter. I know my eyelids started to sag when she accused liberals of "treating enemies like friends and friends like enemies." I guess nobody told Coulter about Bush's "you're with us or against us" speech or his alienation of our allies in the Middle East when he drew the borders of his Axis of Evil with an indiscriminate hand. She must be likewise unaware of that little Republican snafu called the Iran Contra affair, where our Republican administration financially supported a few of America's enemies. Her criticism of liberals for lifting trade sanctions is likewise snore-worthy, since Bush was the one who asked the UN to lift the sanctions against Iraq. Though I suppose that doesn't count any more, since we have accomplished our mission and nobody is dying in combat in Iraq any more, right?

As if all these snoozers weren't enough to leave you begging for the mercy of a quick death, Coulter even pouts about how liberals write nasty things about conservatives in the paper...clearly forgetting that she herself has a column that is pretty much dedicated to saying nasty things about liberals.

I did perk up long enough to laugh out loud when Coulter claimed that "liberals never wage war," however. I'm a little rusty on my history, but I am pretty sure it was Harry Truman, one of those loathsome Democrats, who was the only human being EVER to drop two atomic bombs on a foreign nation. Perhaps that doesn't qualify as warfare...?

There are, of course, the obligatory several chapters spent calling all liberals (or people who agree with liberals, ever) Communists. Coulter takes plenty of time explaining how Joe McCarthy was a true saint for defending America from the godless pinkos, and he has been smeared by an evil liberal conspiracy to doctor history books and vilify him. She re-writes a little history by claiming it was liberals who stopped McCarthy's crusade, when it was actually President Eisenhower who pushed to get the McCarthy hearings televised so the public could see Joe's tactics, and it was the Republican Senate that shut McCarthy down in the censure investigation. She also repeatedly states that the term "McCarthyism" is a made-up liberal buzzword, and "'McCarthyism' never existed," despite the fact that it was the title of McCarthy's own book.

One of the cutest parts of the entire book for me was when, I think in chapter 3, Coulter tries to support her view of history by saying that there is plenty of evidence for the Communist threat to America, thereby vindicating McCarthy and his tactics. The funny part is that said evidence consists of, in Coulter's words, "the detailed accounts given in sworn testimony by various ex-Communists...Chambers’s Pumpkin Papers...Soviet defectors who brought reams of KGB documents with them, identifying Soviet agents in America...There were confessions of arrested spies..." So after spending a chapter and a half talking about how horrid and immoral Communists are, Coulter rests her case entirely upon the word of--you guessed it--COMMUNISTS.

I dozed off and on through several more chapters on the godless Commie lefties, and I think she re-edited our history of the Vietnam War for a chapter or two as well. I won't bore you with more details, since it's pretty much all the same sort of material as I've already covered, except to share the final giggle of the whole story: Coulter concludes her little 14-chapter temper tantrum with the blithe assertion that "Liberals instinctively vote for anarchy and against civilization." I find that interesting, since she dedicated at least a full three chapters to accusing liberals of supporting totalitarianism (in the form of Communism). Very odd, this woman.

I was completely under whelmed by Miss Coulter, having expected more from the "foremost conservative pundit" than the same sort of blathering I heard from some of my classmates in freshman civics. Honestly, her book almost made me convert to liberalism, if only to distance myself as much as possible from such a shoddy writer; I certainly will never call myself a member of any party that can't come up with better than Coulter for a spokeswoman.

The traditional greeting at the Democratic National Convention is, "Where do you teach?" On rare occasions, the greeting is modified to, "Where does your husband teach?" or "Where does your gay lover teach?" (Democrats could save a lot of money by holding the Democratic National Convention and the National Education Association Convention at the same time.)
Oh my goodness, what a startling and damming revelation....get this people all those stupid lefties well educated to the point of being entrusted with everyone else's education.....oh the scandal. How dare people have an education and engage in educating others. Clearly the aim here is to undermine America by filling with educated persons.....how will the USA survive this assault....?

About the Democrats, or Neo-Liberals
Neo liberalism describes a current political trend that appears to be shared by both Democrats and Republicans, but is more strongly favoured by Republicans. The current neo-liberal fad in US politics began with Reagan, what is called Reaganomics in the US, and Thatcherism in the UK.

As for the Interview snippet I provided, she is actually suggesting that Iraq, or Afghanistan be invaded, thier leaders be executed, and Christianity be imposed on the people.
Perhaps it might be more helpful to invade and force Christianity of Ms Coulter....(I'm sure even Perrien will help with the initial infiltration.....).

The traditional greeting at the Democratic National Convention is, "Where do you teach?" On rare occasions, the greeting is modified to, "Where does your husband teach?" or "Where does your gay lover teach?" (Democrats could save a lot of money by holding the Democratic National Convention and the National Education Association Convention at the same time.)

Whats wrong with being a teacher? They're underpaid people who take their lives to further the intellect of the American people. That, in my opinion, is one of the greatest services to America.

The Democrats keep loudly proclaiming that Republicans represent only extremely white rich people, while the Democrats represent all Americans. (Bar bet: Among the four major candidates for president and vice president this year, who has the smallest net worth? Answer: George Bush.)

All the candidates are extremely rich. To run a campaign, you have to be rich. Just because you have the least money doesn't mean you sympathize the most with the working class.

If the Democrats are a fair cross-section of America, then I guess we can stop worrying about class size. As a friend of mine points out, if the Democratic delegates represent America, then the teacher-student ratio in this country is, at worst, one teacher for every three students. And since the teachers unions don't include private or parochial school teachers, we're looking at a teacher-student ratio of about one teacher for every one student.

It's the ideals that they represent, not the jobs. Don't be angry if we've got all the smart people.

Democrats are representative of the nation only if the nation we're talking about is Brazil. For Democrats, there is only the maid and millionaires. There are no Americans in the middle. To the extent Democrats are forced to recognize working-class white men, they call them "fascists."

Well, first of all, the nation is about 50/50. That means that we represent half of the US. Also, have you noticed that when Kerry attacks the tax cuts, he says that it's the Middle Class that is getting the raw deal of the tax cuts? Yeah, if you actually listened to his speeches, you'd know.

I'd also like to point out another liberal writer. Al Franken. If you've read his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", you'll realise that Ann Coulter is crazy, or at least weird. And if you don't want to read a book about "liberal propaganda", then just read the chapter about her. (By the way, yes, it is completely factual.)

I dont care who wrote it or what their political views are 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them' is a great name for a book... :p it reminds me of a skit from MadTV...

. . .

However, I am not about to bow to the guilt trip. The Indians would have used muskets, cannons, factories, etc. to take control if they had access to them. There is no reason to cheat yourself of the good things in life just because of some arbitrary moral standard.

Yeah why let some arbitrary and inconvenient thing like morality keep you from waging a genocidal treaty-breaking war against the people who live on the land you want to plunder?

Geeze I thought I had had enough when you said that rich people are more moral than poor people, but that last bit really pushed it over.

. . .

So writing books and producing movies that create false conclusions would fall under this umbrella where free speech is denied?

No, that's Moore, for those of you who believe his conclusions are false.

As for Coulter and her "rhetorical" tactics, no as well. Stating that anyone with political views that oppose hers is unamerican and should be dealt with as a traitor is not an exception to free speach rights either. It is, however, highly unamerican and I am surprised that ...I am astonished that... any true American who values the principles upon which (the U.S. of) America was built is not utterly apalled and sickened by her fascist idea of what America is supposed to be.

Shes my favorite journalist.

Shes my favorite journalist.

Why am I not surprised?

But is a non-factual conclusion factual?

Still waiting for your proof of me supporting Anne Coulter's views. Can I take it that you have none and are too pig-headed to apologise and retract a blatant lie?






Your point being? I asked if you had proof of Anne Coulter's books being libellous.
Lies, and the lying liers who tell them gets rid of most of Coulter's 'sources'.

Funny how differently two people can interperet a few words, becuase what I see is Anne Coulter advocvating the bombing of civillians.
I think it was more of a "whatever it takes to win" type thing, even if you have to get a little blood on your hands.

As for the John Walker quote, the trouble with Anne, is the same problem with posters on this board like "Freinds of Bill".
They see any opposing viewpoint to be "traitorous", or that the person actually "hates America".
That idea alone, is so preposterous, that no one should ever listen to her again.
I saw it as more of a statement on killing murderers. Or are you going to argue that John Walker was a "good patriot" for his methods of "civil disobedience"? I think that anyone contemplating what Johnny Boy did should be scared.

Even Michael Moore, never called Bush a traitor.
Maybe that can give you an idea of how crazy this woman really is.
Michael Moore accused Bush of everything else. Even going far beyond the realm of common sense to implicate Bush in 9/11.

Say what you will about Moore, but even he never accuses half an entire political spectrum as being criminals against thier own country.
Michael Moore merely says that they are all evil white, rich idiots who are seeking to destroy the world.

As for the Interview snippet I provided, she is actually suggesting that Iraq, or Afghanistan be invaded, thier leaders be executed, and Christianity be imposed on the people.
As I said, I am not really there with the Christian bit, however she is proporting that we should seek out and destroy any and all enemies to America, whatever the cost. Further, she makes no mention of Iraq or Afghanistan in that quote. She mearly says that we should act as we did during WW2.

What possible reason could anyone ever have to take this woman seriously?
If thats not Fascism, I dont know what is.

Shes a nutbag.[/QUOTE]

Ann Coulter and Adolf Hitler......a match made in heaven!

Long live Ann Coulter, long live America, death to Micheal Moore and death to 80% of college professors.
I hope you enjoy eternal hellfire and brimstone.

But sounds like the black widow type?

jeanette lee is much more attractive than coultier.

http://www.twentysix.net/colors/gallery/pages/pool-cuesign.htm
http://www.azbilliards.com/gallery/showpicture.cfm?eventnum=63&photographernum=1&picnum=3610

and she is known as the black widow...

jeanette lee is much more attractive than coultier.

http://www.twentysix.net/colors/gallery/pages/pool-cuesign.htm
http://www.azbilliards.com/gallery/showpicture.cfm?eventnum=63&photographernum=1&picnum=3610

and she is known as the black widow...
Without a doubt. Jeanette Lee is smoking!

Coulter is NOT the conservative MM. O'Reily is the conservative MM. They both never actually lie, but draw such ridiculous conclusions that its astounding anyone takes either of them seriously, and they both have a fairly large following

I believe the phrase used to describe Coulter is "Bat-Shit Insane Whore"

Coulter is NOT the conservative MM.

I believe the phrase used to describe Coulter is "Bat-Shit Insane Whore"


I agree whole heartedly.

See Folks?

Now thats Bi-partisanship.

No, that's Moore, for those of you who believe his conclusions are false.

As for Coulter and her "rhetorical" tactics, no as well. Stating that anyone with political views that oppose hers is unamerican and should be dealt with as a traitor is not an exception to free speach rights either. It is, however, highly unamerican and I am surprised that ...I am astonished that... any true American who values the principles upon which (the U.S. of) America was built is not utterly apalled and sickened by her fascist idea of what America is supposed to be.

Then you agree with me that despite what Coulter says, she has a right to say it and we have a right to dismiss what she says?

My comment was in reference to Chess Square's declaration that freedom of speech should not be extended to Coulter. I was then asking if he felt that all people who are loose with the truth should also face a similar fate to the fate he belives should befall Coulter. He still hasn't answered, nor has he shown the proof of me supporting Coulter's views of which he was quick to accuse me of.

Lies, and the lying liers who tell them gets rid of most of Coulter's 'sources'.

Thats nice to know...I am still waiting for Chess Squares to also show me the proof of his accusation that Coulter's books are libellous.

She is entitled to her opinion.
Yes, that's true, everyone has a right to be stupid

Yes, that's true, everyone has a right to be stupid

Yes they do, thank you for reiterating that.

Thats nice to know...I am still waiting for Chess Squares to also show me the proof of his accusation that Coulter's books are libellous.
I don't know about libellous, but flatly untrue and dangerously innacurate for sure.

I don't know about libellous, but flatly untrue and dangerously innacurate for sure.

I am not asking if her books are true or untrue. I am asking if Chess Squares has evidence that they are libellous.

Then you agree with me that despite what Coulter says, she has a right to say it and we have a right to dismiss what she says?

My comment was in reference to Chess Square's declaration that freedom of speech should not be extended to Coulter. I was then asking if he felt that all people who are loose with the truth should also face a similar fate to the fate he belives should befall Coulter. He still hasn't answered, nor has he shown the proof of me supporting Coulter's views of which he was quick to accuse me of.

Yes I know it was directed at him :D but since I am of the firm conviction that everyone is better off having heard what I think, I posted anyway.

And yes, outright lies that are not libelous or slanderous are protected, usually, but you know what? I think people who lie should shut the fuck up, and editors and publishers should give them no play if they don't. And in as much as they do lie, law enforcement should watch them keenly for anything that qualifies as libel or slander, and prosecute them if they cross the line.

Yes I know it was directed at him :D but since I am of the firm conviction that everyone is better off having heard what I think, I posted anyway.

I am feeling much better for your comments, thank you! ;)

And yes, outright lies that are not libelous or slanderous are protected, usually, but you know what? I think people who lie should shut the fuck up, and editors and publishers should give them no play if they don't. And in as much as they do lie, law enforcement should watch them keenly for anything that qualifies as libel or slander, and prosecute them if they cross the line.

In an ideal world then, yes. We do not live in an ideal world. As such freedom of speech does mean people are free to speak complete crap. We do have a choice not to listen to them, not to see their films or not to read their books.

“It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in Vietnam. He was not in combat, he was not...on a reconnaissance mission, and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others have implied. He picked up an American grenade on a routine noncombat mission and the grenade exploded.”-- [Ann Coulter's] Column, 2/18/04

If you can stand to read the rest of that column, Coulter implies that Max Cleland received his Silver and Bronze Stars for having an accident. She neglects to mention Captain Cleland earned his medals “by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968 … during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh.”—four days prior to his “accident”. Coulter states that Max Cleland wasn’t even in the battle of Khe Sanh.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=666

Ann Coultier is a libeller.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=666

Ann Coultier is a libeller.

I didn't find that "libellous". It may or may not be inaccurate, but not libellous.

It might be libel if she was accusing him of a crime.
Im not sure.

I DO know that it was one of the most assinine things Ive ever read.
The man lost three of his limbs defending his country.
What NERVE to write something like that.

What unmitigated fucking gall.

It might be libel if she was accusing him of a crime.
Im not sure.

I DO know that it was one of the most assinine things Ive ever read.
The man lost three of his limbs defending his country.
What NERVE to write something like that.

What unmitigated fucking gall.

Well, at least she's consistant. I mean, it fits in pretty well with her whole stance of "women don't understand money", or "let's rape the earth because of an obscure biblical quote", or "if you don't like political parties, you're an idiot".

It might be libel if she was accusing him of a crime.
Im not sure.

I DO know that it was one of the most assinine things Ive ever read.
The man lost three of his limbs defending his country.
What NERVE to write something like that.

What unmitigated fucking gall.

From the excerpt I read from that link she did not accuse him of any crime.

From the excerpt I read from that link she did not accuse him of any crime.

Was she accusing him of lying about his service record, and how he got his medals?

....Odd Coincidence notwithstanding.

Was she accusing him of lying about his service record, and how he got his medals?

....Odd Coincidence notwithstanding.

She didn't accuse him of anything from that excerpt. She stated her story on how he got wounded saying it was a non-combat situation. She did not say he said he was injured in combat, just that "many others had implied" he was wounded in combat in Khe Sanh.
So from that excerpt she did not accuse him of anything other than getting blown up by a grenade.

libel
li-bel noun

1,
... a) A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
... b) The act of presenting such material to the public.

False alarm folks. Looks like Mick Youther is the liar here:

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/021804e.htm

libel
li-bel noun

1,
... a) A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
... b) The act of presenting such material to the public.

libellous

adj : (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign

This definition says something can even be libellous if true! So calling Hitler a madman or a mass murderer could be libellous by this definition.
Equally it does say that it needs to discredit or malign. I would not say that Coulter's comments would discredit anyone. If her statements are false then why would they discredit anyone but her?

Well..either way, Losing three limbs in an accident in Veitnam is more than Coultier ever did for her country.

False alarm folks. Looks like Mick Youther is the liar here:

http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/021804e.htm

Now, were Mick Youther's comments libellous? :p

Well..either way, Losing three limbs in an accident in Veitnam is more than Coultier ever did for her country.

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong...

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong...

Ummm...Ok.

What was I wrong about again?

Ummm...Ok.

What was I wrong about again?


I DO know that it was one of the most assinine things Ive ever read.
The man lost three of his limbs defending his country.
What NERVE to write something like that.

What unmitigated fucking gall.

This. How dare she tell the story that he himself told.

This. How dare she tell the story that he himself told.


Hmm..

Well, in truth, she wasnt writing it becuase she likes the guy, thats for sure.
In this particular instance....I stand corrected.
As for my other posts about the bitch....I stick by them.

Hmm..

Well, in truth, she wasnt writing it becuase she likes the guy, thats for sure.
In this particular instance....I stand corrected.
As for my other posts about the bitch....I stick by them.

No, she was writing it to make sure the truth was known. If anyone did a disservice to Cleland, it was the people who made his story more than it was.

Glad to hear you admit when you got it wrong. ;)

Now, were Mick Youther's comments libellous? :p

Yes. He states that Coultier states that Cleland was not in the battle for which he was awarded his medals. All she is in fact saying is that D.N.C. spin people are trying to make it look like he lost his limbs there, as opposed to in a grenade accident a few days later. She never impugns his medals and she never says he was not in the battle. So Youther is a libeller.

Yes. He states that Coultier states that Cleland was not in the battle for which he was awarded his medals. All she is in fact saying is that D.N.C. spin people are trying to make it look like he lost his limbs there, as opposed to in a grenade accident a few days later. She never impugns his medals and she never says he was not in the battle. So Youther is a libeller.

Thanks for the honest assessment...my question was tongue-in-cheek, but I do appreciate the assessment.

:D Thanks for the honest assessment...my question was tongue-in-cheek, but I do appreciate the assessment.

Glad to hear you admit when you got it wrong. ;)


Heh.

Dont get used to it.

Heh.

Dont get used to it.

The thought never crossed my mind.