NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right, we should sue her for defamation. Every time she equates moderate liberals with real radical leftists (like me, for example), she defames us (by that I mean radical leftists)! So, i think the only recourse to this is to make her choke on her own bile, and slap her with a nice defamation lawsuit. :cool:

Except that would:

1) Give more publicity to the attention whore.

2) Give the Busheviks something to rally around.

3) Busheviks all across the country will donate money to Mann Coulter's defense fund, as if she needed any.

4) It will revitalize the tired old "Liberal Media Bias" bullshit that has kept this superpower in an 8-year nosedive towards Second or Third World status.

I'd rather just keep convincing advertisers on her website to drop her--up to ten at last count--and local papers to stop carrying her column--three, last I heard. That hits her in the wallet, and is far more satisfying.

I'd rather just keep convincing advertisers on her website to drop her--up to ten at last count--and local papers to stop carrying her column--three, last I heard. That hits her in the wallet, and is far more satisfying.
I knew she is secretly a man!

I knew she is secretly a man!

Nothing secret about it. Have you seen that Adam's Apple? ;)

I'd rather just keep convincing advertisers on her website to drop her--up to ten at last count--and local papers to stop carrying her column--three, last I heard. That hits her in the wallet, and is far more satisfying.

which is the best way to show one's discontent with such people.

It's four newspapers now--The Shreveport Times just dropped her too.

just ignore her :rolleyes:.

why? I prefer to make her suffer the loss of income.

which is the best way to show one's discontent with such people.

Nah. I don't go after George Will, and I'm discontented with his columns more often than not. But you wouldn't see the difference, I suppose. Easier to be an absolutist and see your opposition as you'd like to see them as opposed to how they actually are.

just ignore her :rolleyes:.

meh do what you want, i'm not really bothered by her anyway. but she's one of the most famous people on these boards. there isn't a day nobody makes a thread about her. does she get that kind of attention in the USA too? and is she taken seriously? if so, should she be taken seriously (it's not because she's far right that she can't be right sometimes)?

Mann Coulter is part of the Right Wing Persecution Complex and Projection Machine that continues to paint themselves as oppressed underdogs fighting against an immoral, power-grubbing Left despite being in charge for over 8 years.

why? I prefer to make her suffer the loss of income.

meh do what you want, i'm not really bothered by her anyway. but she's one of the most famous people on these boards. there isn't a day nobody makes a thread about her. does she get that kind of attention in the USA too? and is she taken seriously? if so, should she be taken seriously (it's not because she's far right that she can't be right sometimes)?

meh do what you want, i'm not really bothered by her anyway. but she's one of the most famous people on these boards. there isn't a day nobody makes a thread about her. does she get that kind of attention in the USA too? and is she taken seriously? if so, should she be taken seriously (it's not because she's far right that she can't be right sometimes)?
Eh. I hadn't seen a Coulter thread in a while until she called Edwards a fag. That got her in the spotlight again, and she'll disappear again soon enough, except as part of an expletive in an individual post.

You guys can't get rid of Coulter!

We righties have to put up with Rush, and idiot televangelists, and the Son of a Bush. The least you can do is tolerate one moron who makes you look bad.

You guys can't get rid of Coulter!

We righties have to put up with Rush, and idiot televangelists, and the Son of a Bush. The least you can do is tolerate one moron who makes you look bad.

ummmmm.....you realise she is extremely RIGHT wing, yes?

You guys can't get rid of Coulter!

We righties have to put up with Rush, and idiot televangelists, and the Son of a Bush. The least you can do is tolerate one moron who makes you look bad.

wait, isn't she also a rightie?

and if she goes, someone seriously think that there won't be some kind of successor?

does she get that kind of attention in the USA too?
Yes

and is she taken seriously?
Yes
should she be taken seriously?

No. Trust me, she's always wrong. Here's some reasonable quotes:

On 9/11 Widows:
These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president ... cutting campaign commercials... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

On invading the Mideast:

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.

On Woman's Voting:
"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."

On John Edwards:
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions.

And here was her defenses/apologies for that comment:
"C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."

"I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!"

"faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays."

"Apparently our top three Republican nominees aren't that smart. And by the way, if they're going to start apologizing for everything I say, they better keep that statement handy cause there's going to be a lot more in the next year."
(Romney, McCain, and Giuliani had criticized her)

Nah. I don't go after George Will, and I'm discontented with his columns more often than not. But you wouldn't see the difference, I suppose. Easier to be an absolutist and see your opposition as you'd like to see them as opposed to how they actually are.

why wouldn't I see the difference? Considering I was AGREEING with you that hitting their pocketbooks is the best method. :rolleyes:

You may like Mr Will enough to keep him going, but hate Ann Coulter enough to fight to make her penniless. however, others can do the same to those that they don't like. again, the best method to show one's displeasure of what they say and do.

That's right, we should sue her for defamation. Every time she equates moderate liberals with real radical leftists, she defames us! So, i think the only recourse to this is to make her choke on her own bile, and slap her with a nice defamation lawsuit. :cool:

Yeah your so moderate,mr. -10 political spectrum score.

Yeah your so moderate,mr. -10 political spectrum score.

He doesn't claim to be. Learn how to read.

Nothing secret about it. Have you seen that Adam's Apple? ;)

How could you not see it? Hell, I bet Stevie Wonder could see it! :p

Yeah your so moderate,mr. -10 political spectrum score.

Um...he means Coultergeist confuses moderate liberals with radical left-wingers like himself.

I'm not a conservative, nor am I a fan of Ann Coulter, but I'd imagine that she (and if you counter with 'he', I will beat you as hard as you beat that dead horse) would get a kick out of riling you all up so much that you try to win the debate by use of the government's force.

That's why I like being extreme- I know that I'm radical, and I don't have thin skin that makes me stand up and go into a long dissertation about how I'm 'center-of-(whatever)' whenever someone disparages my ideology. I just grin and go along my merry way.

why wouldn't I see the difference? Considering I was AGREEING with you that hitting their pocketbooks is the best method. :rolleyes:

You may like Mr Will enough to keep him going, but hate Ann Coulter enough to fight to make her penniless. however, others can do the same to those that they don't like. again, the best method to show one's displeasure of what they say and do.

My apologies--I read snark in that reply which apparently wasn't there. I'm a little defensive when it comes to you, Junii.

I'm not a conservative, nor am I a fan of Ann Coulter, but I'd imagine that she (and if you counter with 'he', I will beat you as hard as you beat that dead horse) would get a kick out of riling you all up so much that you try to win the debate by use of the government's force.

Umm--what government force would that be? Even if people were agreeing with the OP's suggestion (which they aren't), at most it would be a civil matter, not one involving government intrusion. The rest of us are simply suggesting economic activism.

No. That would mean another lawsuit, which means another gig for a few lawyers, which means that the lawyers as a whole will be slightly more successful, which means slightly more students will choose it as their career path, which means that next generation will have more societal leeches (lawyers), which is bad.

So for the sake of the fucking children, do not sue Ann Coulter.

So for the sack of the fucking children, do not sue Ann Coulter.
Just making sure I didn't misread that. ;)

Just making sure I didn't misread that. ;)
I...er..'ve been misquoted.

That's why I like being extreme- I know that I'm radical, and I don't have thin skin that makes me stand up and go into a long dissertation about how I'm 'center-of-(whatever)' whenever someone disparages my ideology. I just grin and go along my merry way.
Same here. Of course, Coulter is so ostensible a hack I really wonder why anyone takes her seriously. I find her entertaining at times, but that's about it. She's a mouthpiece for her party, and little more than that. Frankly I think she does them a greater disservice more than anything else.

The best policy is to ignore her. Maybe then she'll crawl away somewhere & quietly die.

Umm--what government force would that be? Even if people were agreeing with the OP's suggestion (which they aren't), at most it would be a civil matter, not one involving government intrusion. The rest of us are simply suggesting economic activism.

Economic activism is OK, I didn't object to that. But if you go after her on a defamation charge, it would be done in a government court using government force.

But....but, without Ann Coulter, what conservative transexual will we mock?

There's generally a line drawn between criminal matters and civil ones as far as government force is concerned, especially as concerns enforcement. That's why I'm saying there's no call for government force here.

Ask yourself- if she is found guilty of defamation, why would she pay? Out of the goodness of her heart, or essentially because she is coerced to? Sure, she might go to a private arbitrater, but that's only in light of the fact that if she doesn't someone will take it to a government court.

Economic activism is OK, I didn't object to that. But if you go after her on a defamation charge, it would be done in a government court using government force.

There's generally a line drawn between criminal matters and civil ones as far as government force is concerned, especially as concerns enforcement. That's why I'm saying there's no call for government force here.

My apologies--I read snark in that reply which apparently wasn't there. I'm a little defensive when it comes to you, Junii.

So I noticed. :p

and I tend to read alot of snarky attacks in your post too.

*extends Bubble Pipe of Peace (Sorry, I don't smoke)* :D

We can, and have, agreed on many things in the past.

Ask yourself- if she is found liable for defamation, why would she pay? Out of the goodness of her heart, or essentially because she is coerced to? Sure, she might go to a private arbitrater, but that's only in light of the fact that if she doesn't someone will take it to a government court.

First off, edited for reality. No one is guilty or innocent in a civil case. There just liable.

Secondly, Mr. An-Cap, how else do you conduct a civil trial that has any meaning? How else would we find someone liable in a case and then have them own up to liability?

So I noticed. :p

and I tend to read alot of snarky attacks in your post too.

*extends Bubble Pipe of Peace (Sorry, I don't smoke)* :D

We can, and have, agreed on many things in the past.

Truce then. We'd better be careful, though, or someone will start making smoochy noises in the thread. ;)

Truce then. We'd better be careful, though, or someone will start making smoochy noises in the thread. ;)

"Nazz and Junii, sittin' in a tree..."
:fluffle::D





You made me use a fluffle, damn you!

You made me use a fluffle, damn you!
There is such a thing as personal responsibility. Hippie. ;)

There is such a thing as personal responsibility. Hippie. ;)

Touche