There was a Republican here in Denver who wrote an article on Ann COulter's book, and he tore into her mercialessly! I wish I hadn't thrown the Editorial Section from that day out becuase he used passages from her own book (even saying what page number those comments could be found on) to show how evil she was, and he said basically the same thing as above, though he wasn't so nice about it.

Ann Coulter will be the first and last against the wall when the Revoultion comes. The woman even drives Conservo-tool Bill O'Reilly nuts fer cryin' out loud!

Dude, Yes, O'Reilly is conservative, but he makes no bones about it. However, he skewers both sides of the aisle when they deserve it.

A most unfortunate thing happened a couple of days ago. While carrying on about "liberals", Ann Coulter nearly got creamed by a couple of pie throwers. The unfortunate part: they missed.

Oh yeah, a GREAT free speech tactic there Rona. Disrupt the speeches of your opponents and attempt to attack them. Tactics like this make me ill. I don't care WHAT party they belong to, things like this should NOT be done.

Hows this, "A most unfortunate thing happened a few years ago. A pilot flew his plane into the white house. The unfortunate part: Bill Clinton wasn't home." See? Not remotely funny.

Comparing pie throwing to attempted murder is a tad different, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, it is. I'm just so sick of the idiocy I've been seeing from all sides in this campaign. My point still stands though. ATTACKING PEOPLE WHOSE POLITICS YOU DISAGREE WITH IS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE DONE.

Writing a book with the demeaning title of "How to Talk to a Liberal" was most respectful of Ms Coulter, wasn't it.

Riiight, as opposed to the super sensitive title "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot."

Look, if you want to call people names, fine, go ahead. Just make sure they make sense (Nazi is foolish, as is Hippy). Freedom of speech is a wonderful and very important thing.PHYSICALLY ATTACKING someone is not. Rona, lets say you speak to a crowd and I don't agree with you. Am I justified in throwing things at you? No! I'd be violating your rights, wouldn't I? Is Ann Coulter any different? No.

Riiight, as opposed to the super sensitive title "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot."

Actually, the title was an ironic comment derived from the fact that Rush engages in ad hominem attacks on an hourly basis.

Ok, so, its ok with you if I physically attack Michael Moore, then? Unless, of course, his books different too?

I thought the whole "pie throwing" thing was traditionally a response to pompous windbags. It is seen as a humorous way of bringing them down to Earth. No one means it as a physical assault.

That Coulter is a windbag was much in evidence when C-Span ran one of her speeches yesterday (unfortunately it was at Amherst, and not Arizona State where the "pie incident" took place). She even managed to offend a Muslim student when she said it would be a good idea to convert Muslim nations to Christianity. That would be a good idea if America really wanted to turn the Muslim world against us.

Does anybody consider it offensive that Michael Moore was portrayed as a terrorist and blown up in Team America:World Police?

Ok, so, its ok with you if I physically attack Michael Moore, then? Unless, of course, his books different too?

If you haven't voted yet, go ahead. Of course, there is a differnce between bloodshed and pie throwing, but Righties are like that. They're the ones who thought ropes and shotguns were the best way to stop the Civil Rights movement.

Does anybody consider it offensive that Michael Moore was portrayed as a terrorist and blown up in Team America:World Police?

Matt and Trey go after EVERYBODY Rona. No one is safe from their genius satire (yes, I dropped the G word on the South park guys. Wanna make something of it?).

Vargo: Hey, I just noticed that. Where did the red dots go? To be honest I think it would've been funnier with the red dots.

If you haven't voted yet, go ahead. Of course, there is a differnce between bloodshed and pie throwing, but Righties are like that. They're the ones who thought ropes and shotguns were the best way to stop the Civil Rights movement.

Quit tarring *ALL* non-liberal types with the same brush! I consider myself more conservative than liberal, and I certainly don't belive what you attribute to all "Righties".

Brian, how the HELL did you take my opposition to using violence against someone because they have different opinion and turn it into using ropes and shotguns against the Civil Rights movement?! My GOD man, get a clue! Are you THAT blinded by your hatred for "righties"!?

Webber, it's a little ironic that despite the fact that you loathe the theory that conservatives march in step with whatever Hannity, O'Reilly, Rove, and Coulter tell them, you seem to follow the leaders of the outspoken liberal movement just as mindlessly, accepting any piece of hearsay or rumor as absolute truth, just because it paints conservatives or the Bush Administration in any kind of unfriendly light.

Anything you hear from any side has to be taken with a grain of salt. Everyone in politics has their own agenda, and no one is above lying to their audience.

Webber, it's a little ironic that despite the fact that you loathe the theory that conservatives march in step with whatever Hannity, O'Reilly, Rove, and Coulter tell them, you seem to follow the leaders of the outspoken liberal movement just as mindlessly, accepting any piece of hearsay or rumor as absolute truth, just because it paints conservatives or the Bush Administration in any kind of unfriendly light.

Oh now that's not true. For example I don't think the GOP had anything to do with Paul Wellstone's plane crash. Plus, there's the simple fact that a lot of these "rumours" have turned out to be true. Does that matter to you at all?

Just for a minute, can you pretend to give Pres. Bush SOME of the credit he deserves? If for nothing else than attually being our President?

OK, let's give Bush credit. http://www.525reasons.com has 525 of Dubya's acomplishments.

Ann Coulter was just on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight, and based on the things she said, I do think that she is certifiably insane.

I was just flipping through her new book How to Talk to a Liberal this evening when walking through the Port Authority Bus Terminal on my way home, and it's just junk. Just flipping through the first few pages shows that she does not propose ideas and illustrate them with arguments and examples, but argues mere preconception in an entirely a priori manner. All of her stuff is pure rhetoric. Responding to each every statement I read would take up pages.

Oh but please do. It'll be better than actually reading the thing.

No thanks. I might eventually buy the book, but I've made enough long-ass posts on political subjects, and responding to the entire book would take up an entire website.

Out of curiosity, why would you buy such a book if you don't like it so much? Do you get reduced rates or do you like being informed what the other side believes? (Note: Not an attack, genuinely curious)

The latter. It's for this reason that I bought Rush Limbaugh's The Way Things Ought To Be (though I haven't finished it), why I read creationism websites, etc. I wouldn't say that it's a matter of "liking" it or "not liking" it, it's an obligation to listen to your opponents' position. How else can you disagree with them or construct arguments regarding them?

That's true. For the past year I've been sans Fox News thanks to a downgrade in my sateliite service (I also lost BBC and IFC. ), and I have to admit,. I kinda miss the one-sided screaming matches I had with Bill O'Reilly. ;-)

I do read the other side, I guess, I just usually use the Internet or get books from the library instead of buying them.

The disparaging remarks about Miss Coulter reveal the ugly side of liberals. She gained a reputation as a brilliant legal mind, and Democratic partisans are still fuming over her involvement in the Paula Jones case. Her detractors always harp on minor technicalities in her arguments. They can never refute the main point of her arguments. Her historical analyses are a good example. Coulter quite rightfully points out how necessary it was for America to maintain a tough stance on the Soviet Union. The American leftists who defended the Soviets in the fifties and sixties showed a shamefull lack of conscience. Communist regimes have been the most brutal ones of the twentieth century. The Soviets saw American liberals as fools and considered them "useful idiots". In contrast, they had a respect for Reagan and his strength and determination.

Some of the posts have descended to the level of attacking Miss Coulter's appearance. Those posters should be mindful of the old expression "A gentleman never attacks a lady".

For the record, my complaints against Coulter have nothing to do with her appearance, but everything to do with the radical extremist views she holds and expresses. The things she says are beyond rational discussion.

And rational discussion is reserved for leftists. All the leftist sites devoted to attacking Coulter aren't worth visiting since they are from an extremist (leftist) view themselves.

Just like all the Right Wing sites huh?

And I never said that rational though is reserved for leftists. You are making things up, just like W does.

JM: Her detractors always harp on minor technicalities in her arguments. They can never refute the main point of her arguments.
Luigi Novi: The extremist nature of many of her comments are self-evident, and do not require refutation from others. However, many other of her arguments are easily refuted, and have been by poeple like Eric Alterman and Al Franken. Just flipping through her new books shows that her statements are largely rhetorical, rather than argumentative.

Luigi: It's also worth noting that, to my knowledge anyway, neither Alterman OR Franken have attacked her appearance.

Now, while we're on that subject, I STILL find it hard to beelive that the only people who've spotted her Adam's Apple are me, my grandparents, and Arron MacGruder.

Maybe it's not that you're the only ones to spot, but the only ones you know that are impolite enough and cruel enough to insult her for her physical appearance.

I won't criticise Coulter for being thin. The American media practically demands that women in front of the camera be thin. If she was overweight, I'm sure she would be criticised for that. Male pundits usually aren't criticised for their appearance, so there is a double standard (except for the one title of an Al Franken book on Rush Limbaugh). She always seems to show up in an evening dress for television appearances. Perhaps, a more business like outfit would be more appropriate. I think she does make her appearance a large part of her presentations.

Maybe it's not that you're the only ones to spot, but the only ones you know that are impolite enough and cruel enough to insult her for her physical appearance.

Luigi, I'm honestly asking you, because I honestly do not understand: How is POINTING OUT SOMETHING an insult? Saying "I've seen her Adam's Apple," is the same (not morally speaking of course, just in general) as saying "the Sun is bright," or "snow is cold."

always seems to show up in an evening dress for television appearances.

Or as Michael Moore put it, "Quit looking at her legs! That's what got you all jumbled up in the first place!"

Saying "I've seen her Adam's Apple," is the same (not morally speaking of course, just in general) as saying "the Sun is bright," or "snow is cold." - Brian Webber

Once, perhaps. But you continue to harp on it and imply that Coulter is a man or was a man or something. You're not merely commented on it, Brian. You're using it to insult the woman when you have no counterargument to her positions. Isn't that a Republican tactic?

"As for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Brian Webber: Luigi, I'm honestly asking you, because I honestly do not understand: How is POINTING OUT SOMETHING an insult?
Luigi Novi: Depends on what it is you’re pointing out, the relevance of it to the otherwise salient topic of discussion, and the intent when pointing it out. Saying, “Hey, look, there’s a Sequoia tree!” is not the same thing as someone who dislikes Ann Coulter pointing out, in a political discussion, that she supposedly has an Adam’s apple. In the latter case, it is clearly meant to be a personal insult, has nothing to do with the issues being discussed, and is no more valid as part of the discussion as saying, “Hey, Luigi’s overweight. Have you noticed?”, or “Chelsea Clinton’s the White House dog” in a discussion about politics.

Brian Webber: Saying "I've seen her Adam's Apple," is the same (not morally speaking of course, just in general) as saying "the Sun is bright," or "snow is cold."
Luigi Novi: Wrong. The former point is brought up as a personal attack. The latter is not.

I don't want to open a can of worms, but I saw Coulter on a rebroadcast of Bill Maher's HBO show. I didn't see an Adam's apple on her. She is just extremely thin and her bones stick out a bit. I see the same thing on all the overly thin (and some anorexic) female joggers everyday. I think her thinness adds a strange dynamic to her appearances giving speeches. One might almost feel 'sorry' for such a frail looking woman to be so harshly criticised by a majority of questioners. Of course, her ridiculous views deserve to be criticised.

I thought it was very big of Ann Coulter, on MSNBC wednsday, to admit she doen't make mistakes. In that respect, she is just as humble as G.W. Bush (who also says he doen't make mistakes).

I can believe that Coulter doesn't make mistakes, most of the "errors" in her book were outright lies.

As usual, Coulter was a guest on last night's Hannity and Colmes. She was up to her usual self. She said something outrageously stupid and mean. Hannity chuckled "They're gonna quote you tomorrow on that". And Colmes replied she always makes comments designed to shock. She truly isn't worth listening to anymore. Her schtick is tired.

For the record, her comments were on Canadians (and how they were anti-American). Her precious remark was "They're lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent". She did allow that she liked some Canadians; her observation was that Western Canadians were very much like US Southerners (whom she likes, no surprise there). She doesn't like the "French speaking ones" or Eastern Canadians; they're too Euro-liberal for her. So liberal they speak "Swedish". With her vast international knowledge, Coulter should work under Condi Rice. The two could help further inform Bush on international matters.

And howdy to ya'll Canadian folks who lined up to give Bush a less than five-fingered wave.

Western Canadians like US Southerners?

Vancouver = San Fransisco North

And three of the four westernmost provinces have been governed from time to time by social democrats, including the current governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Coulter's a complete idiot, pure and simple.

Your assessment of Coulter is correct.

Since Spongebob Squarepants is now associated with promoting homosexuality (according to conservative "Dr." Dobson), what cartoons and toys are safe for our children? Tinky-winky (with his? purse), Burt & Ernie (from Seasame Street), and now Sponge Bob are all out. Fortunately, there is one safe toy: the Anne Coulter doll ( held up on CSpan last Thursday). The real life Anne now wears a cross full time. So if you get her doll, remember to accessorise it with a cross. Don't leave it alone with Barbie in Barbie's dreamhouse, though, because the religious right doesn't approve of same-sex couples.

Rona: Why is it, that it's okay for homosexuals to declare every major writer of the last few centuries gay, to look for hidden gay subtext in every work, to declare Jar Jar Binks as one of their numbers on the basis he's an outcast for no reason, and then take offense at it, to expouse nonsensical theories about how homophobes are actually gay themselves, and to declare that as much of humanity as possible is homosexual, but it's wrong to call them on any of it? Marcusian hypocrites.

Matt Pesti: Do I need to elaborate the reasons why you've produced a straw man argument here?

Matt, who said it's "okay" for homosexuals to do this? I didn't see anything in Rona's post that implied this. And what's "Marcusian"? I couldn't find it in my dictionary or at dictionary.com

Conservatives have brought ridicule upon themselves for saying ridiculous things. When a liberal or Democrat says something ridiculous, they're mercilously critisised for it on FOX and on talk radio etc. This is the first time I've heard Jar Jar is gay though. You shouldn't be spreading rumours (though, Elmer Fudd was 'outed' on Drawn Together).

Matt Patterson: What staw man? Queer Theorists routinely proclaim gay subtext thoughout literature, where authorial intent indicates none. On this very website, discussions have been held on if Garek is gay. When anyone does the same thing, it suddenly becomes wrong. The only use of the staw man fallacy, is the constant retelling of a false story that Jerry Farwell sees homosexual teletubbies as if they were pink elephants. In reality, a magazine operated by Farwell reported that parents might wish to be careful with Teletubbies, as gay groups considered the characher to have gay symbolism attached. Heck, Time reported the gay teletubbie thing at least 6 months before the brouhaha.

Luigi: A posteriori assumption. Herbert Marcuse was a marxist whose major contribution to leftist thought was that only leftists have freedom of speech, while all those in opposition have no rights, as they are just delusional idiots who parrot the establishment.

Rona: Please check the Episode 1 board for the whole Jar Jar argument.

Jar Jar is a frog. Frogs can change their sex to suit their mating needs. Homosexuality would be meaningless amoung frogs.

Pesti, so does that mean that your argument is that since queer theorists (what they call themselves) find so called gay subtexts where none exist than it's ok of religous right people do the same thing?

First Spongebob, and now Buster the Bunny on PBS. It's been a busy week for conservatives. Expending so much effort, worrying that children might learn tolerance.

Matt Pesti: What staw man? Queer Theorists routinely proclaim gay subtext thoughout literature, where authorial intent indicates none.
Luigi Novi: The Straw Man was in your asking Rona why it’s okay for homosexuals to declare every major writer of the last few centuries gay, and to look for hidden gay subtext in every work, etc., when nothing in her post indicated that she believed such a thing.

Matt Pesti: Luigi: A posteriori assumption. Herbert Marcuse was a marxist whose major contribution to leftist thought was that only leftists have freedom of speech, while all those in opposition have no rights, as they are just delusional idiots who parrot the establishment.
Luigi Novi: Matt, what are you talking about here?

First of all, in what way is attributing a belief to Rona that she never indicated that she had an a posteriori assumption? An a posteriori statement is one gleaned from experience. What experience with Rona do you have that indicates that she looks for hidden gay subtexts or motives? And why even rely on an assumption? Why not work from facts instead, and simply ASK Rona what her position is on a given question instead of assuming it? Treating an assumption like a reliable reference point is fallacious, and shows this passage of yours to be entirely rhetorical.

Second, what does Herbert Marcuse have to do with anything? We’re not talking about Herbert Marcuse. We’re talking about Rona.

Why does nobody talk about me?

Luigi: It was my a posterori asumption. People who laugh at Twinky Winky being gay take theories that Shakespear was gay with the uttermost gravity. My argument for why this is the case, is a strain of Marcusian thought in modern liberalism, where actions that are taken agaist the oppressor (eg suicide bombings, "Cracker", proving Jar Jar gay) are morally right, while actions taken in response are morally wrong.

Brian F: My question is, why is it so objectionable for one party to do something, that another party does without objection?

Rona: I belive Speedy Gonzalez can speak to what liberals do in their spare time.

Luigi: It was my a posterori asumption. People who laugh at Twinky Winky being gay take theories that Shakespear was gay with the uttermost gravity.

Distinction: Tinky Winky is a fictional character who appears to be frozen at the mental age of two, whereas William Shakespeare is an actual person who lived and died several centuries ago. One of them is deservedly the subject of serious historical study, and one of them is no longer popular among the pre-verbal set. It strikes me that they are not equivalent.

And once again, Matt (Pesti), I ask you what evidence indicates that Rona believes this? Why did you ask her why this is "okay," when she never indicated it was? And why did you put the word "my" in boldface? Yeah, I know it was yours. So what? We already established that. Whose assumption do you think I said it was? Santa Clause's?

People who laugh at Twinky Winky being gay take theories that Shakespear was gay with the uttermost gravity.

Oh really, all people (or even most people) who laugh at the tinky winky thing take the Shakespear thing seriously? Personally I can't say I've ever heard someone take very seriously the Shakespear was gay thing while almost everyone who heard it laurghed at the tinky winkie thing.

Matt, I'm married and not a lesbian, so perhaps I'm not the best one to debate on such issues. The only time I comment on issues concerning homosexuality is when Republicans use it as a divisive issue to scare up votes (as with the same-sex marriage issue). I'm concerned when any political party tries to drum up hate against any minority group. History has taught us all too many lessons on the consequences of that. It's conservatives who keep announcing that harmless cartoon characters are gay. My daughter watches both Spongebob and Buster the Bunny. Not for one minute am I worried about her seeing a lesbian couple (on PBS's Buster). However, I am concerned about her having an ignorant bigot for President.

I don't understand where you are coming from. Are you defending Jerry Falwell? He has said so many hateful bigoted things, it really isn't worth arguing about. The Religious Right spews hate, period. Changing the channels last week, I came across Jimmy Swaggart and his son Donny. Donny was wishing that the ACLU would "burn in a lake of fire" for challenging Creationism being taught in schools. What Christian love, hoping people would burn to death. He denounced lesbianism as a "demonic vice". Ironic language, since a police vice squad arrest his father with a $15 hooker. Now, the right is fuming about the possibility of Lincoln being gay. I don't care. He was a decent man regardless.

I was going through an issue of Playboy from a year or so ago, and was reading the interview with Halle Berry, and interviewer Lawrence Grobel, referencing Berry’s Oscar, said to Berry:

“Writer Ann Coulter wasn’t impressed by your win. She wrote: “It’s interesting that Berry makes such a big deal about being black. She was raised by her white mother who was beaten and abandoned by her black father. Clearly, Berry has calculated that it is more advantageous for her acting career to identify with the man who abandoned her rather than the woman who raised her.”

Referencing Berry’s comment during her acceptance speech that her win was a victory “for every nameless, faceless woman of color who now has a chance because this door tonight had been opened,” Grobel again cited Coulter’s response:

“Yes, at long last, the ‘glass ceiling’ has been broken. Large-breasted, slightly cocoa women with idealized Caucasian features finally have a chance in Hollywood.”

Once again, Coulter’s reasoning ignores reality, and she substitutes rhetoric for logic. Berry doesn’t identify herself as black because she identifies with one parent over the other. She identifies herself as black because that’s what she looks like, and therefore, that has affected the roles she has been gotten (or lost) when casting directors or producers see her. It is because she has darker skin that judgments are more likely made about her when she has auditioned for roles than if she were Caucasian. The simple fact is that black people are treated differently in our society when they try to get taxi cabs, when they are seen in shopping establishments by security personnel, when they enter an elevator with white people, when they try to get a loan, when they try to buy a house, when they interview for admission into a school or when they get a job. That has nothing to do with which parent they identify with, or whether the darker-skinned parent of a mixed-race person was abusive or not. The mere fact that Berry is black means that she has had to work harder for parts in Hollywood. Therefore, her comment was apt.

And she most certainly is black—Coulter’s comments about her being “slightly cocoa” is simply racist, and her comment about Berry’s breasts and features is irrelevant drivel, like much of Coulter’s lopsided propaganda.

Interestingly, Berry herself stated later in the interview (not in response to Coulter’s comment), “I identify with being black because that’s how people identify me, because I don’t look very white.” Well said.

A couple of nights ago on Hannity, Coulter cleared the air a bit. She said that her critics "misuse" her quotes. In other words, she's not wrong, she's just quoted out of context.

She also mentioned other journalistic concerns. She wasn't bothered by Gannon getting a White House Press pass, however she was disgusted by "that old Arab" Helen Thomas getting a pass. She considered Colmes a "liar" for not informing her beforehand of a quote he used on air.

Last weekend, I discovered a DVD documentary about Coulter called Is it True What They Say About Ann? I was intrigued, since this would've been the first such work to focus on Coulter to my knowledge, it was on sale for $16.28, and 2 and a half hours long, so I bought it.

What an utter ripoff.

The main documentary portion of the DVD is less than 37 minutes long. That's right. Out of 144 minutes, only 37 is the actual documentary. The rest is interviews and video of her speeches and other bits, many portions of which are used in the documentary itself. I understand the concept of Special Features, but out of a two and a half hour DVD, shouldn't the main portion be a bit more than just 37 minutes?

As for the content, it was obviously no more objective or unbiased than a Michael Moore film, though far less funny and far less biting. That in itself is not surprising, nor is there anything wrong with letting Ann Coulter have her say, since I'm sure there is much exaggeration and venom on the part of those who criticize her as there is coming from Coulter itself, but it really would've been nice if they featured someone with legitimate criticism of her bigoted remarks. The closest it comes is when a clip of an interview with her by Bill O'Reilly is shown, when O'Reilly tells her that she is simply too vitriolic (true, but an odd message coming from someone like O'Reilly).

Instead, we're treated to the same tired hatred she spews towards entire groups of people, as when she refers to "liberals" doing this, or "Democrats" doing that, as if those entire groups can be characterized by the actions of a few, accusing them of “supporting Saddam Hussein,” and “supporting Al Quaeda” (I must’ve missed those things, because I don’t remember them), or when we hear her infamous comment about how we should kill the leaders of Arab countries and convert them to Christianity.

One puzzling part of the documentary is when Coulter gives her signature praise to Senator Joe McCarthy, who she sees as an “honorable Amercian” and “great American patriot” about whom lies are told this day. The documentary features Coulter friend Bill Maher, who claims that he and Coulter are in agreement on the subject of communism, and on the fact that McCarthy was right that there were communists in the government (though Maher includes the qualifier that it wasn’t as many as McCarthy may have indicated or thought), but in addressing the question of whether McCarthy was reckless or ruinous of people’s lives, the documentary features only one exchange: Between O’Reilly and Coulter, in which Coulter challenges O’Reilly to name one person McCarthy slandered who was not a Communist, and O’Reilly incorrectly names Dalton Trumbo, who was slandered by the House Un-American Activities Committee, to which Coulter responds that “the reason he is known as Senator McCarthy is because he was in the Senate. Not the House.” Coulter is correct in that McCarthy targeted suspected communists in the government, and not the outside of government as the House did, but the film does not follow-up. We don’t hear O’Reilly’s reaction, and for that matter, nothing at all about how McCarthy himself was a reckless, evasive, blind loose cannon who attacked his targets as much out of personal reasons as for reasons of duty, who berated witnesses, accused the entire Democratic party of “twenty years of treason” (small wonder that Coulter finds him heroic), who never provided evidence of his accusations, and so forth. Indeed, if McCarthy is simply a historical Job, as Coulter seems to think, then why were his methods criticized? Why was he censured by the Senate? Why did he suffer a downfall? The movie never addresses this question to Coulter. It simply rests on the laurels of one edited sound bite in which she apparently wins an exchange with Bill O’Reilly, as if that requires some great intellectual skill.

And of course, her deliberate ignorance of important contextual facts is unabated. When we see her speak at Johns Hopkins University on October 9, 2003, she posits the question that even if the Iraq War was a war just for oil, “Why not go to war ‘just for oil’? We need oil.” Well, maybe we do, Ann, but the Bush administration never said that it was a war for oil, and just maybe, the American people would like their President to level with them when he tells them that he needs to send their sons and daughters overseas to be killed, so that they can decide whether they’re for the war. Apparently, the deaths of the thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers are not things that she feels should factor into it. When we see her taking critical questions at this engagement, she doesn’t seem to answer them very well:

Young Man #1: “My question is, in a democracy, in a two-party democracy such as the United States, do you believe that it’s healthy for democracy for one side or the other to be portrayed or demonized as traitors?”
Coulter: “David Duke descends from the equal rights of, that our nation enshrined, that doesn’t make him a hero. Because you descend from your country’s war aims, is not necessarily unpatriotic, but it sure isn’t necessarily patriotic either.”

I must be missing something here. Where did the guy say anything about David Duke, equal rights, or descent from war aims? Who said anything about descent from war aims being patriotic or unpatriotic? Unless there was some bizarre edit here, I just don’t see what Coulter is talking about here.

Young Man #2: “We’ve all seen the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, we funded Saddam Hussein, um, both in the late 60’s and in the 80’s, um, we funded, we trained bin Laden, we trained the Mujahadeen…”
Coulter: (interrupting) “So what’s your point?”
Young Man #2: “…shouldn’t, shouldn’t the people who were behind that training, that spawned these terrorists, shouldn’t they be charged?”
Coulter: “So consequently, ya know, because alliances switch, an ally can never become an enemy? Um, so, then we don’t attack anyone, I mean then you’re excluding also excluding Osama bin Laden, so the logic of your position is, in response to the most devastating attack on American soil ever, what American needs to do, is nothing.”
Young Man #2: “You didn’t answer the question! (responding to security guard pulling him away from microphone) Well, she’s not answering my question.”
Coulter: (grinning)“Yes I did.”

I notice that the young man never said a thing about America’s response to the 9/11 attacks. He merely asked her if the people who trained the man who is responsible for it should be charged. Again, edits could be involved here, but since the documentary is overwhelmingly favorable to Coulter, one wonders why the editors would cut the exchange in this way if the truth was that she actually answered his question, when in cut shown, she clearly did not.

Yet another fallacy: Responding to the Democrats’ criticism that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, Coulter points out that Republicans were admittedly slow to respond to the threat of Hitler during WWII, but that after Pearl Harbor was attacked, and Republicans did not spend WWII attacking FDR because Hitler did not attack us. Again, Coulter omits the fact that Hitler declared war on us after we declared war on Japan (as well as the fact that Hitler had attacked our allies). Neither of these two things were true of Hussein, but then, bringing them up for mention would make the discussion more complex, and Coulter doesn’t want that.

She also calls into question comparisons of John Kerry’s war record to George W. Bush’s, remarking that Democrats had no problem electing a pot-smoking draft dodger in 1992, but now all of a sudden, value a military record, when in fact, the contradiction is on the part of Republicans, since it was they who made an issue of Clinton’s war record in 92, and who now had no problem passing off George W. Bush as Presidential material, despite his drug use, his use of family connections to avoid combat, and his desertion of his post. Coulter adds that Kerry’s war heroism would not help him anyway, since only Republicans venerate combat experience and Democrats “don’t admire bravery.”

But one’s view of Coulter may be most accurately informed not by the mere truth or logical validity in her arguments, but in what I consider to be very revealing statements she makes about how her view about exposing liberals is to outrage them, how “it’s a lot of fun taunting liberals,” how she enjoys in “[her] spare time, engaging in invective against liberals,” how she likes hate mail, and about how she doesn’t care what others think or say about her, and because as a Christian, she has the “net” of eternal life. There you have it. She isn’t responsible to the people in this life to be truthful or fair. She doesn’t even care if about whether her words are rhetorical. She likes to provoke people. To anger them. To make them crazy. To taunt them for reasons of emotionalism. She is, therefore, a cheerleader. Like Limbaugh and Hannity, she is simply a rabble-rouser at a pep rally. She is not interested in making people think, or in appealing to people on any intellectual level. Her words are all rhetoric, with liberals and Democrats demonized as “feckless idiots,” “whiners,” and other assorted terms of endearment, but without any serious discussion of the issues involved. But hey, there’s nothing wrong with cheerleaders or pep rallies. But I don’t think anyone would say that one goes to one to see an intelligent exchange of ideas. Perhaps it’s fitting, then, that the movie is only 37 minutes long. It does not aspire to any modicum of depth or insight that would require greater length. Coulter’s approach to her opponents is one-dimensional and prosaic. If you’re a fan of hers, then perhaps this “documentary” is what you deserve.

Me, I brought it back to the store yesterday, and got my money back.

You got a refund for an opened DVD?? You must either be very charismatic or very convincing. Did you do the dewy wide-eyed "Puss in Boots" thing?

Coulter has admitted she makes outrageous remarks. She claims it's the only way to get noticed (and sell books). She really is more of a performer than a serious conservative thinker.

Well, Influx, I asked the girl if the feeling that it was falsely advertised was grounds for a refund, since it was labeled as being over 140 minutes long on the back, and she said yes. I don't know if it matters, but the employee who handled it is one of my friends at the store, since I tend to give out free movie screening invitations to them when I'm recruiting.

Here is a wonderfully balanced debunking of Coulter's Treason, and its praise of Joe McCarthy, by David Horowitz.

Some of you might get a kick out of this reworking of an old STAR TREK comic book cover.

"As for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Ooops! Forgot to mention that I should warn everyone that it contains strong language.

Thanks, Benn. I had a good laugh.

Ann is the cover story in Time this week. Last night, she admitted to Hannity that she hasn't read the story. She is worried that their story on "The Right Woman" might be biased. She considers the cover photo to be intentionally unflattering.

Obviously, Ann is the victim of that "everything is violence-against-women" thing that Dworkin proposed.

An interesting statement, given that the article is decidedly fair to Coulter, even positive, some might say. The only firm stance it takes is on her poor history with facts, and as far as her vitriolic behavior, it seems to go out of its way to give her the benefit of doubt by coming up with ways to explain it.

Someone apparently is offering his/her 1000th post on one of her site's forum's (annecoulter.com) for sale on eBay....
Is this true, or just a "Wind-Up"...?

Coulter doesn't consider herself an entertainer; she's a public intellectual.

She's better off being an entertainer.

Well, I watch her and read her statements for the same reason I'm fascinated to stop and look at at car accident, but I wouldn't call a car accident "entertainment," and I usually move on after a minute or so. (Or less.)

Enough people stopped long enough to make Coulter a best-selling author (part of Time magazine's justification for calling her one of the "100 Most Influential People").

I rarely agree with Coulter, but I think she was correct in what she had to say on "The Factor" Teusday. She thinks it was totally inappropriate for Bill Bennett to make his remarks about aborting black babies (to cut the crime rate). Other Conservatives were coming up with excuses for Bennett. She denounced him. She also doesn't approve of Bush's choice of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice. Coulter thinks that by choosing Miers, Bush didn't make an effort to find the most qualified person.

That's partially true; on "Hannity and Colmes," Coulter said what she really didn't like about the Miers pick was that Miers was an unknown quantity. She said the same thing about John Roberts.

I find Coulter really annoying, especially when she is paired with the worshipful Sean Hannity. O'Reilly at least will try to pierce through her ••••. I like her stream-of-consciousness interviews with Alan Colmes:

"So this war in Iraq, Ann?"
"It's going marvelously."
"This is marvelous?"
"Are you defending 9/11?"
"I though that was Afghanistan."

Etc.

Anyone care to comment on Anne's latest book, due to be published on June 6, 2006...?
(Given that the Omen remake is to be released on the same day, is she trying to "Bury Bad News" or just cashing in, somewhat cynically, on the back of The Omen's publicity...?).

Coulter's new book on 'godless liberals' includes an anti-evolution rant. What an intellectual.

I thumbed through it today, and was surprised by how much of it appears to be devoted to the creationism/evolution war, based on the book jacket flap and the amount of pages that seemed to be taken up by it.

On top of everything else, Coulter is a creationist. Big shocker there.

She devotes the book to the almost satirical-sounding idea that liberalism has all the trappins of a religion, arguing that it has its sacraments (abortion), its high priests (Cindy Sheehan), its martyrs (Alger Hiss), its saints, its doctrine (Roe v. Wade), etc. Naturally, because her screeds are merely creative stream-of-consciousness rather than empirical arguments, she ignores that fact that any group can be said to be a "religion" on this basis, including Republicans/conservatives.

Her shizophrenic inability to form coherent reasoning is AMAZING. She equates all evolutionists with atheists (when in fact, atheists only account for about 4% of the U.S.), she claims that scientists have chickened out of debating evolutionists in public forums (a lie), she complains that Judge Jones, who recently handed in the decision in the Dover case was not qualified to handle the case because he had never handled any cases of real consequence up until then, she remarks that liberals now make a point of mentioning that he was appointed by Bush (as if this is not a legitimate pre-emptive point for them to make), she repeats Michael Behe's long-debunked arguments about the irreducible complexity of wings and eyes (and naturally never mentions all the material that scientists have offered to rebut it), and so forth.

Regarding her recent comments about 9/11 widows, she she engages in that classic propagandistic tactic: giving false defintions and descriptions to various words and phrases.

During her interview with Matt Lauer, he asked her to explain her comment that that 9/11 widows were "enjoying" their spouses' deaths. She said he was being "testy" (He wasn't, he was simply asking her to explain her position, and was quite polite in his tone when he did so). When pressed, she explained that well, the widows were appearing on TV. But what does appearing on TV have to do with "enjoyment"? In fact, didn't Coulter herself lose a colleague in 9/11? As a public figure, hasn't she commented on 9/11-related issues? Does this mean that Coulter "enjoys" her friend's death?

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

Debate on Ann Coulter on Larry King Live. It's a videolink.

I don't have the plug-in for it, Benn. What am I misssing? (And thanks.)

I have never been a Coulter fan at all. O'Reilly, at least, takes her to task when she appears on his program and espouses garbage like having illegal immigrants build the border wall. Hannity is worshipful (although, even he, will occasionally pull back from Ann-Land).

As Michael Moore pointed out though, yeah, she's a loon, but she's got balls and there's not a lot of people who really have balls anymore.

Having "balls" (is this no longer considered profanity?) isn't saying much when it refers to doing or saying things that are merely stupid and offensive.

Her book arrived in the mail today. I bought because I got it cheap, and wanted to see if I could slog through it, and wanted to try reading a book from one of the Big Propagandists, since I figured I have to know what they're saying in order to disagree with them, but just thumbing through the first pages, I don't know if I can, since, as aforementioned, she does not illustrate her points with evidence; she just assumes a creative premise and goes on and on with it, never deeming it necessary to actually proving it.

Luigi Novi: Having "balls" (is this no longer considered profanity?)

It's not censored. Then again, neither is a$$.

She's going to be on Leno Wednesday night, along with George Carlin. Should be interesting.

Yeah, I agree, Luigi; I just thought it was interesting that MICHAEL MOORE of all people pointed this out, since he is another individual frequently praised for "telling it like it is" through deception and offensive behavior.

Coulter on The Tonight Show:

Regarding Coulter's vitriol, when Leno opined to Coulter that he felt that one could maintain the high ground if they made their points with honey, and that by instead using such invective as Coulter does, any legitimate point one may have can be lost. Coulter responded that the 9/11 comments were made to express irritation that when liberals trot out people like Max Cleland or the 9/11 widows, that you cannot disagree with them because of the danger of being perceived as insensitivity. Does anyone see the (lack of logic) here? First of all, there is nothing stopping you from refuting an idea or argument under such circumstances. Leno merely stated that doing so without engaging in expressing hatred is a far better way to do so. Second, how is Coulter "not able to respond" if in fact she has been acting in this exact way? She responds to Leno's comment about legitimate points by saying that she has read opinions by people who refute such arguments without any perceived problem. But isn't that the point, Ann? You yourself do not do so as these "other" people you mention do. Coulter is one of the few public commentators who behaves the way she does.

Coulter claims that she gave her book to her "liberal friends", telling them that they were smarter than any other liberal on TV that she talks to, and that they went over it with a fine-tooth comb, and did not find anything objectionable. So because Coulter's yes men did not object to anything in her book, that's a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to her? How liberal could they be, given that they are friends of hers? And when Leno pressed her, Coulter admitted that the number of "friends" numbered exactly one.

Coulter claims that no one complained she wrote her column on attacking France, that no one has complained that the title of her book is Godless, etc. What in the world does this have to do with anything? Because people have attacked more salient points in the book means that the title is okay?

She says that the theme of the book is the way liberals "advance themselves" through the schools, that by denying even a moment of silence in public schools, that they are advancing themselves by denying their own religion. But believing that public school officials should not be organizing school prayer or a moment of silence does not mean that you are therefore "denying" your religion. Coulter essentially seems to be irritated that in adhering to Separation of Church and State, and to believe it’s wrong for public school officials to be organizing prayer or moments of silence, a Christian, rather than being self-serving and self-promoting, is being objective and consistent, which she apparently can’t comprehend.

Luigi Novi: Coulter claims that she gave her book to her "liberal friends"

I seem to recall her saying "friend", singular, fomr the onset and saying that that one person combed over it along with her editors, lawyers, etc.

Luigi Novi: and that they went over it with a fine-tooth comb, and did not find anything objectionable.

I don't have this on tape, but I believe she said that her friend didn't object to her comments about the 9/11 wives, not that he or she had no issue with the book at all.

Luigi Novi: Coulter claims that no one complained she wrote her column on attacking France, that no one has complained that the title of her book is Godless, etc. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
She was pointing out that it seems that everyone has isolated this one point of her book when it's really full of objectionable material. Apparently, she finds that amusing and ridiculous.

Luigi Novi: Because people have attacked more salient points in the book means that the title is okay?

That's why we have a First Amendment.

I can't believe I'm having to defend Ann Coulter.

My question is, how is a moment of silence religious? Who's objected to it? I've never heard of anyone, liberals, conservatives or otherwise, having issues with a moment of silence. When I was in England a year and a half ago, they had a nationwide (or was it Europe-wide?) moment of silence for the tsunami victims. What's wrong with that?

From my Political Science Class, a moment of silence can be construed as religious if it lacks a defined "secula purpose." Moments of silence in memory of the dead or for reflection on a tragic event are fine; a generic moment of silence which seems designed to lead into prayer is generally frowned upon by the Courts.

I always think it's wise to take anything Coulter says with a grain of salt, what with her odd, "I'm being sarcastic, dismissive, and questioning in one sentence" style of speaking.

Luigi, the moment of silence they are talking about is each morning in schools in many states they announce it over the intercom to have "a moment of silence (or quiet reflection) some people don't like it because they feel that it's a waste of time that is supposed to make people want to use it to pray without actually saying that.

Luigi Novi: Coulter claims that she gave her book to her "liberal friends"

I seem to recall her saying "friend", singular, fomr the onset and saying that that one person combed over it along with her editors, lawyers, etc.

Ann's "liberal friend" reminds me of Dr. Laura used to always insist that she doesn't have gays because she has gay friends, but than she would say that gays are genetic mistakes and more prone to child abuse who she'd never let near her children and you'd have to wonder about how such a phantom gay friend could be friends with someone who thinks he's a dangerous sex criminal simply for being gay. Her liberal friend (if it was even a true story) was probably a liberal in the same sense as Alan Colmbs (sp) more middle of the road.

For the record, Josh's account of the interview pretty well jibes with mine.

The best thing about the Tonight Show interview was watching George Carlin. I swear, I think he came dangerously close to biting his tongue in half. You could just tell he wanted to jump and was wishing he was back on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect just so he could make a few comments.

"...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

You're all forgetting the latest 'scandal' surrounding Coulter. She's a plagarist who lifted entire quotes (uncredited, of course) from other sources for her new book.

Where was this documented?

I deleted a post by made by someone who falsely accused another visitor of using a different username for anonymous trolling. To that first visitor, I would politely ask them not to make such false accusations without evidence. According to the IP numbers, the posts in question you referred to were not made by the visitor that you accused, but a completely different one in a different location of the country. (Moreover, there are aspects of those posts that were probably obvious to long-time observers as the work of the real visitor in question. The one you accused, after all, typically does not make unsubstantiated and irrelevant gender-related allegations about Bush and then refuse to respond when others ask for cited sources.)

In fact, didn't Coulter herself lose a colleague in 9/11?

Yes, her name was Barbara Olson, a semi-regular on the aforementioned Politically Incorrect. She was on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

My mistake Luigi...I do so hate annonymous posters though

Anne Coulter, on HardBall tonight, announced that it was "manifestly obvious" that Bill Clinton was gay and that Al Gore was a "total fag". She couldn't provide any specifics other than Clinton was "permiscuous" and permiscuous men are gay. Clinton had a twelve year relationship with Jennifer Flowers, that hardly qualifies him as permiscuous. Coulter has such active 'gaydar', wouldn't that make her a lesbian?

Again, I'm not sure why people take Ann Coulter seriously; she is basically the Republican version of Al Franken, with the difference being that Franken explicitly markets himself as a humorist.

And isn't quite as hateful as she is.

Franken is honest in his views. Coulter seems to be intentionally deceptive. Anything to create controversy.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Jews should convert in order to "perfect" themselves, says Coulter.

She says she's cool with Jews so long as they accept Christ. She points out that Christianity is based on the Jewish Torah but continued. The Mormons are based on the Christian bible only continued. What's the difference????????????????

Song/video about Coulter.

Brian Fitzgerald - She says she's cool with Jews so long as they accept Christ. She points out that Christianity is based on the Jewish Torah but continued. The Mormons are based on the Christian bible only continued. What's the difference????????????????

The Old Testament of the Bible, which is the Torah, mentions that Jesus will come. The New Testament covers that and essentially states that it is the final word on the matter until the second coming of Christ. That is the difference.

Not quite. It says that the Messiah will come. Whether or not Jesus is said Messiah is another matter.

I'd be happy to discuss that, but its a matter for another board. What's relevant here is that the New Testament doesn't contradict the Old Testament. The Book of Mormon takes the New Testament into account, but contradicts it in the process.

Jews could theoretically say the same thing about the New Testament. Or at the very least, that they do not accept it or Christ for other reasons. The point is, they have reasons for rejecting it, just as Christians do for rejecting Mormonism. Whether the grounds for the rejecting is legitimate is obviously going to be personally biased.

Merry Christmas, everyone! Here's an early gift!

Typical Ann Coulter. Lauer asks her why she continuously refers to Obama in a way that neither he nor anyone does, in a way that emphasizes his Arab middle name, and she answers with a Straw Man about whether Obama "likes" his middle name, "uses" his middle name, and about whether it should merely be "mentioned", as if a casual "mention" is the same thing as repetitively referring to his name that no one else does in order to call attention to it.

And naturally, outlets like The Today Show keep giving this lying, hate-mongering propagandist airtime, despite her refusal to answer such a simple question.

I've also seen where Coulter, in her new book, has been mocking Obama's wife, Michele, for trying to "imitate" Jacquelin Kennedy's look. Yup, Ann Coulter is a class act, ain't she?

The British newspaper, The Guardian had a item in their G2 section Wednesday, concerning Ms.Coulter's latest literary effort, & concluded as follows...
"Don't you think the world is brightened by such a satirist as Coulter ? Because she can't genuinely be such a lunatic. Can she ?".

Saw a clip of her on Bill O'Reilly saying that she doesn't need to take political advice from someone who's sold fewer books than she has. Bill said in that case he should be able to give her advice and it quickly degenerated into that 7 year old game of "did not/did too" over who has sold more books. Of course by that standard they should both be taking advice from JK Rawling, Patricia Cornwell & John Grisham.

Mike Huckabee interviewed her on his Fox News show a few days ago; he took her to task for lying about him (and saying he was stupid!), but all the while, he was smiling and being friendly with her (probably difficult for him to do). And her excessive eye shadow made her even look even more unsettling than usual.

And her excessive eye shadow made her even look even more unsettling than usual.
I saw that too. Jeez, she looks absolutely ghastly. And borderline anorexic, too. Doesn't she eat anything?

All presidential assassins have been leftists, she says.

Ah, Ann. Apparently she took more than her usual two doctor-prescribed crazy pills that day.

(Or is that the usual effect of the two? I have trouble telling.)

Fine. But is she right? If not, who is/are the exception(s)?

Wow. While Ann is known for lies, distortions and non-sequiturs this one left even me confused. She said that presidential assassins have mostly all been left-wing loons.

She mentions Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a Communist and supporter of Castro's Cuba. But what about the rest? From my history book we've got 4 US Presidents who were assassinated while in office.

JFK was killed by Oswald, a Communist; I'll give her that one.

William McKinley was killed by Leon Czolgosz; an anarchist. I'll give her half credit for that one because Anarchism can be seen as left wing. But on the flip side how can Oswald (a Marxist) be seen as left-wing while Czolgosz(an anarchist) be seen as left wing when they are diametrically opposed in viewpoints?

James Garfield was assassinated by Charles Guiteau, a religious nut, who published a journal called "The Daily Theocrat" and believed that God had commanded him to kill the President.

Abraham Lincoln as assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a confederate sympathizer who felt that Lincoln's use of big government to force the southern states to stay in the union and give up their slaves was tyranny.

The thing about Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh is that both have discovered that the best way to keep their names in the public eye is to say the most outrageous things they can think of. They're more interested, I suspect, in promoting themselves rather than a conservative agenda.

Ann Coulter: You Fail Science Forever! (Ann Coulter thinks radiation from the nuclear reactors will be good for the Japanese.) Don't let her fool you folks, she really is an idiot.

Perhaps she thinks radiation from the nuclear reactors will give them super powers. After all it worked in so many comic books.

Man, I spend too much time on Facebook. I keep looking for the "Like" button, but obviously there ain't one here. Needless to say, Brian, I do indeed like your comment.

Coulter discussing science with O'Reilly?

That's like Mel Gibson discussing the finer points of the Torah with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Truer words.

Tides come in, tides come out, never a miscommunication.

PZ Myers seems to engage in a bit of exaggeration himself, unfortunately, when he says:

Radiation is always harmful — it breaks DNA, for instance, and can produce free radicals that damage cells.

Really? So the light that I have on in my room is harmful? The light coming from my computer right now is breaking my DNA? The microwave radiation from my cell phone damages my cells?

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Radiation is any electromagnetic energy that travels in waves, and this includes the entire EM spectrum, including human-visible light. It's not all damaging, as it depends on the wavelengths.

In order for radiation to cause cancer, it has to be ionizing radiation, such as gamma radiation or uv radiation. Non-ionizing radiation, such as visible light or microwaves, cannot penetrate cell walls in order to damage DNA.

Ann Coulter meant that the radiation would be good for the Japanese people so that they could mutate into giant monsters and fight Godzilla, Megalon or Gigan when they attack Tokyo again.
Hurray for radiation!

---

quote:

Ann Coulter meant that the radiation would be good for the Japanese people so that they could mutate into giant monsters and fight Godzilla, Megalon or Gigan when they attack Tokyo again.

---

Right; the Killer Cars would ambush and eat people, so scientists created a giant cat via radioactivity that walked on two legs to stop the Cars, only to have the Cat eat them and the buildings-- which sounds like a worse problem!

Hell has officially frozen over.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ann-coulter-says-shed-consider-vote-for-bernie-sanders

Are we living in the Mirror Universe? Ann Coulter is actually praising President Joe Biden for his withdrawal from Afghanistan. She called Fat Orange Blunder Trump a "wuss" on that matter. More on that here.

I know, right.