ann coulter

[selftitled85]

antichrist?

[A picasso blue]

someone told me, you cant take her seriously and that shes just doing all this for attention


but this is not that case where its an attention-grabber. she is evil

[selftitled85]

someone told me, you cant take her seriously and that shes just doing all this for attention


but this is not that case where its an attention-grabber. she is evil
i kind of want to read her new book just to see what crazy things she says this time.

"my only regret with timothy mcveigh is he didnt do the new york times building"

who says such things?

edit: a link to great ann coulter quotes
http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/quotes.html

[A picasso blue]

this is in my opnionn worse than the 9/11 widows quote:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity..."

[A picasso blue]

its comforting to see that Rice and Lynn Cheney applauded Coulter's statement that we should execute Walker to intimidate liberals

[aolsux]

she is a cunt

[Paul Tao]

I tried reading one of her books once and I just seriously could not finish the first chapter. I was just getting so unbelievably mad that I couldn't bring myself to turn the page.

[A picasso blue]

I tried reading one of her books once and I just seriously could not finish the first chapter. I was just getting so unbelievably mad that I couldn't bring myself to turn the page.
what did you expect?

[Broken Parachute]

She's very weird.

[splitsecond]

I tried reading one of her books once and I just seriously could not finish the first chapter. I was just getting so unbelievably mad that I couldn't bring myself to turn the page.

Then she accomplished what she wanted.


And look, people are talking about her on a random music message board. I would say she is doing a good job.

[FallingOut]

Evil, attention whore. Its so pathetic that a vicious whore like this woman can sell millions of books and get rich. All that she does is say extreme things that she doesnt even believe herself, and people eat it up. So sad. Anybody who buys her books has to be the most pathetic, clueless person alive.

[A picasso blue]

Then she accomplished what she wanted.


And look, people are talking about her on a random music message board. I would say she is doing a good job.
we didnt buy her books

[Paul Tao]

Then she accomplished what she wanted.


And look, people are talking about her on a random music message board. I would say she is doing a good job.
Oh, I know. She's very good at pandering to her base. I give her props - she has more balls than I do.

[The Revisionist]

She and Michael Moore should get married and start a family of attention-needy pieces of trash.

[FallingOut]

She and Michael Moore should get married and start a family of attention-needy pieces of trash.

At least Michael Moore doesnt viciously attack people the way that Ann Coulter does, just for attention. Theres no way hes as bad as her.

I'm glad that none of the conservatives have been stubborn enough to defend this psychotic bitch yet.

[fedhed7]

Fucking psycho.

[Broken Parachute]

I would never defend Ann Coulter. She's a nut. The only person I like on FoxNews these days is Sean Hannity.

[histrionics22]

I love how FallingOut brings Michael Moore into this. Yea almost anyone would look good compared to this lunatic.

[FScott]

Well I mean shes not all bad. she taught me how to "talk to a liberal". or whatever that means

[cal1082]

Out of all these posts no one argues with her points...........

I've honestly never read anything she's written but if i'm gonna bag on her I'd bag on her views.

[FScott]

In a February 2001 Politically Incorrect episode, Coulter argued that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected, and that "[women should] all have to give up their vote."

[cal1082]

In a February 2001 Politically Incorrect episode, Coulter argued that banning women from voting would ensure Republican presidents would be elected, and that "[women should] all have to give up their vote."

I dont mean one line quotes. I'm talking about passages she's written or full articles. It's easy to take one line quotes out of context and I'm not gonna form an opinion either way based on a one liner.

[Cocaine&Whiskey]

This is from Wikipedia "Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is a conservative American syndicated columnist, bestselling author, lawyer, and television pundit. She is often confused with Satan. The two, however, are only distant cousins. "

[FScott]

I like Britt Hume, I think he's on fox news? Always looks like he works way to hard.

[x togepi x]

She and Michael Moore should get married and start a family of attention-needy pieces of trash.

No way. She should marry Micheal Savage. They're a much better couple.

[FallingOut]

I love how FallingOut brings Michael Moore into this. Yea almost anyone would look good compared to this lunatic.

You dumbass, I didnt bring Michael Moore into it. Somebody else did. Next time try to pay attention before you attack somebody.

[FallingOut]

I dont mean one line quotes. I'm talking about passages she's written or full articles. It's easy to take one line quotes out of context and I'm not gonna form an opinion either way based on a one liner.

Oh really? So, basically, you are unable to form any type of opinion on somebody based on this line?

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Yeah man, you know, depending on what else she was saying, you really cant criticize her for that one! It could be perfectly justified somehow!

Imagine if Michael Moore, or some other liberal would have said that, Cal and the other conservatives would jump all over him like rabid wolves. But, in saying that, if a liberal would have said that, I would have done the same.

[BreakerBreaker]

I would never defend Ann Coulter. She's a nut. The only person I like on FoxNews these days is Sean Hannity.

He's a fucking douche and a poor host.

[Broken Parachute]

He's a fucking douche and a poor host.

Well..take your pic, him or Rush Limbaugh?

[x togepi x]

Rush all the way. because it was a sweet band, and the dude did drugs.

but seriously, I wonder how much Ann Coulter is really what she thinks and how much is her trying to prove that liberals are a bunch of censor happy, PC whores. Because to me, saying outrageous claims is the best way to show if liberals are pro-censorship or not.

[cal1082]

Oh really? So, basically, you are unable to form any type of opinion on somebody based on this line?

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Yeah man, you know, depending on what else she was saying, you really cant criticize her for that one! It could be perfectly justified somehow!

Again.........you cant. Do you know the context it was said in? I mean she could have been sarcastic or joking, there could have been more to it in the next couple of sentences or the previous ones. She could have also restated in after interviews about what she meant.

[FScott]

"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am."

[Lueda Alia]

Again.........you cant. Do you know the context it was said in? I mean she could have been sarcastic or joking, there could have been more to it in the next couple of sentences or the previous ones. She could have also restated in after interviews about what she meant.
Ann Coulter joking/being sarcastic? Right.

[A picasso blue]

Again.........you cant. Do you know the context it was said in? I mean she could have been sarcastic or joking, there could have been more to it in the next couple of sentences or the previous ones. She could have also restated in after interviews about what she meant.
even if its a joke its not funny at all.

i've been reading more than just one-liners about how she attacked the 9/11 Widows are i think its disgusting

[FallingOut]

Again.........you cant. Do you know the context it was said in? I mean she could have been sarcastic or joking, there could have been more to it in the next couple of sentences or the previous ones. She could have also restated in after interviews about what she meant.

Ok, I guess you are right in a way. But if you know that she is saying this under her own free wil, not restating, then its ridiculous and wrong to say. Even if she is joking. And I really do feel like hating Ann Coulter has nothing to do with being a conservative, liberal, whatever. I dont understand how anybody, regardless of what kind of political party you align yourself with, can feel like the ridiculous things she says are worth any praise or admiration. Reading over some of her quotes, practically every single thing she says is insulting liberals, and using aggressive language to attack them in some way. She has nothing else to say, it seems. Some of the quotes are pretty obvious that she just made up on the spot.

[Justin_stacy]

At least Michael Moore doesnt viciously attack people the way that Ann Coulter does, just for attention. Theres no way hes as bad as her.

I'm glad that none of the conservatives have been stubborn enough to defend this psychotic bitch yet.

Of course he doesn't.....

"[T]he kind of people who fly in airplanes want someone else to clean up their mess; that’s why they let hijackers take the plane, If the passengers had included black men, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody. . . . The passengers on the planes on 11 September were scaredy-cats, because they were mostly white."
http://www.tacitus.org/story/2004/7/3/8152/65492

The different between Coulter and Moore, is no one on the right takes Coulter seriously, which sadly isn't true about Moore and the "progressive" left.

[FScott]

i always thought moore was a libertarian for some reason

[cal1082]

even if its a joke its not funny at all.



I agree and even if it were funny it'd be in poor taste. It's just kind of funny that we take things from SNL, South Park, Jon Stewart, or Franken as harmless (simply because some of their stuff is funnny). Even though some of their subject matter is just as low and rude.

[x togepi x]

hey, there's a lot of people on the left that don't take micheal moore seriously.

[cal1082]

I just think if you're going to attack coulter you should attack her arguments and philosophy.

[Neo Cassady]

I just think if you're going to attack coulter you should attack her arguments and philosophy.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2000/10/12/167364.html

she's just fucking stupid.

[selftitled85]

moore is nuts and i dont take him seriously.


coulter is much crazier though.

[preppyak]

I just think if you're going to attack coulter you should attack her arguments and philosophy. This is her argument:

"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."

Seriously, remember the whole bipartisan ideal we pretend to have for the government, yeah, that doesn't exactly embrace it. Also, the ideal that she would want to kill people, not for their wrongdoings, but becuase they stand opposite to her in political stance, sounds a lot like Fascist thought to me

Actually, if you take the time to read her quotes, she misuses the Bible a few times, one particularly relating to the environment using "God gave us the earth" which she turns into, it's condoned that we destroy the environment. A Christian conservative then debunks her arguments.

This link was already added, but i'll throw it here again so people can read it, it's about 1/2 way down
http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/quotes.html

Seriously, her arguments are terrible, her philosophy is flawed, does she even have a college degree is what I wonder when I hear half of what she says

[preppyak]

haha, the last quote comparison is great:

"It's always so comforting when Muslims cite the precise verse from the Quran that tells them killing is wrong. Don't all empathetic human beings understand that instinctively? What if they lost their Quran that day and couldn't remember?" (Ann Coulter in "My Name Is Adolf", 9/11/2002)

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." (Ann Coulter in a New York Observer interview, 8/20/2002)

That's great, insult people for not inherently knowing not to kill, and they speak ideals of only regretting that an American terrorist bombed the wrong place...she is the definition of terrible human being.

[cal1082]

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2000/10/12/167364.html

she's just fucking stupid.

lol, posting a link to a column then calling her fucking stupid is not exactly what I meant

[cal1082]

This is her argument:

"[COLOR=Black]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."

[COLOR=Black]Seriously, remember the whole bipartisan ideal we pretend to have for the government, yeah, that doesn't exactly embrace it. Also, the ideal that she would want to kill people, not for their wrongdoings, but becuase they stand opposite to her in political stance, sounds a lot like Fascist thought to me


She's not saying that at all. She's saying that we should execute traitors to show an example to many on the left that if you choose that course in your opposition you will meet with the same.

You've totaled distrorted her point. Nowhere in that entire quote does she suggest executing people for having opposing beliefs.

[Jarrodtexas]

Honestly, i agree with her when it comes to the widows. I think she lacks tact at times, but should anyone have carte blanche to say anything just because they went through something difficult. All she is saying is that the four women she has identified are looked at as infallible and are not at all questioned or challenged on the things they say because of what they went through.

The quote about the New York Times was a sarcastic remark more portraying a disgust for the liberal bias its paper shows, not as a desire to specifically kill people.

And for the record, she completely lacks tact and I think goes too far or says things that are easily misrepresented, but in this case, I agree with her.

Also, I am a conservtive, but I can't stand sean hannity most of the time. He is a horrible host and has no idea how to actually debate.

I believe in conservative principles without having to use propaganda to get them across.

Hannity Doesnt

[x togepi x]

She's not saying that at all. She's saying that we should execute traitors to show an example to many on the left that if you choose that course in your opposition you will meet with the same.

You've totaled distrorted her point. Nowhere in that entire quote does she suggest executing people for having opposing beliefs.'

but why did she single out the left?

there are tons of paramilitary right wing groups around in the US. There's also those people that try and bomb abortion clinics. Just because someone's conservative doesn't mean that they approve of the government's actions right now. Most of my conservative friends think Bush is a horrible president (and I'll point out, I'm not lumping them with those abortion bombers or militants either".

shouldn't her point be that anyone that chooses being a traitor, whatever that means, can have the same fate? not just the left.

[FScott]

everything would be so much easier if Bush was a dictator

[histrionics22]

You dumbass, I didnt bring Michael Moore into it. Somebody else did. Next time try to pay attention before you attack somebody.
What are you, 5 years old? Someone suggested moore and coulter get married as a joke. You quickly jump to Moore's defense.

[x togepi x]

didn't she date, or is still dating Bill Maher?

[cal1082]

'

but why did she single out the left?

there are tons of paramilitary right wing groups around in the US. There's also those people that try and bomb abortion clinics. Just because someone's conservative doesn't mean that they approve of the government's actions right now. Most of my conservative friends think Bush is a horrible president (and I'll point out, I'm not lumping them with those abortion bombers or militants either".

shouldn't her point be that anyone that chooses being a traitor, whatever that means, can have the same fate? not just the left.

She could have easily done that. Fact is she is a conservative speaker and is speaking to the left which doesnt make the point any more right or wrong. You wouldnt go out and attack your own base or criticize your own party or political philosophy unless it's really needed. And right now you dont see a majority of conservatives out protesting the war or supporting extreme groups which you have seen with the left.

[x togepi x]

You don't?

so, I'm taking this never (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/09/national/main1696698.shtml) happened? you can't be telling me that the left is to blame for terrorism and things such as this, when we haven't even seen any left-wing terror for awhile. I'm not saying there aren't any leftist terrorist groups, but what I am saying is that there's just as many on the right wing.

A majority of liberals don't support "extreme" groups either.

That's my point. Her statements place blame on the left-wing for all these atrocities, while ignoring the ones on her own side. Thus, even if she's making these outrageous claims for a purpose, it gets killed by her own partisanship.

[cal1082]

You don't?

so, I'm taking this never (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/09/national/main1696698.shtml) happened? you can't be telling me that the left is to blame for terrorism and things such as this, when we haven't even seen any left-wing terror for awhile. I'm not saying there aren't any leftist terrorist groups, but what I am saying is that there's just as many on the right wing.

A majority of liberals don't support "extreme" groups either.

That's my point. Her statements place blame on the left-wing for all these atrocities, while ignoring the ones on her own side. Thus, even if she's making these outrageous claims for a purpose, it gets killed by her own partisanship.

The claims arent killed cause the points still there, and of course it's partisan from her. She's arguing from a conservative point of view.

[x togepi x]

It's a deceitful claim to be making, and that's why you shouldn't listen to it.

It'd be like me saying "well, republicans are crooks." and ignoring the fact that the democrats are too. You would be jumping all over me talking about all the corrupt things democrats did. Would you accept my response if i just said "well, I'm just arguing from a liberal point of view...so it's still correct."? no. Just because you're on the same side, doesn't mean that she's right.

Don't tell me that it's okay because she's arguing from a conservative point of view. While most of the liberal posters on the site will disagree, it is possible to argue from a conservative point of view without being full of deceit.

[Jarrodtexas]

It's a deceitful claim to be making, and that's why you shouldn't listen to it.

It'd be like me saying "well, republicans are crooks." and ignoring the fact that the democrats are too. You would be jumping all over me talking about all the corrupt things democrats did. Would you accept my response if i just said "well, I'm just arguing from a liberal point of view...so it's still correct."? no. Just because you're on the same side, doesn't mean that she's right.

Don't tell me that it's okay because she's arguing from a conservative point of view. While most of the liberal posters on the site will disagree, it is possible to argue from a conservative point of view without being full of deceit.

Wow, that was a lot of talking to really say one sentence.

Basically you want her to say that everyone who does it is wrong. Thats great and thats a fine argument. But she is a conservative who makes money for blasting the left.

Why would she alienate the same people who will buy her book. Social niceities and being "fair" does not sell books.

[x togepi x]

well yeah obviously, but cal1082 was complaining that people weren't attacking anything besides some quotes. I'm just bringing up that she's completely biased, and a bad example of a conservative commentator.

[cal1082]

well yeah obviously, but cal1082 was complaining that people weren't attacking anything besides some quotes. I'm just bringing up that she's completely biased, and a bad example of a conservative commentator.

Of course she's biased because she's speaking on conservative ideology. I'm guessing she's blasted conservatives that she doesnt see as acting as conservatives as well. It's not the conservative people she thinks are always correct rather its the conservative ideology (at least that's what i've gathered from the few things i've read and seen)

It reminds me of the Bill Bennett ordeal that went down a couple years ago. Bennett has written books about morality and simply being a good and decent person. He admitted a year or so ago he had a gambling problem and many liberals jumped all over him for being a hypocrit. Now Bennett never said he was perfect, he simply wrote books on how to be a decent person.

Back to Colter, she is a speaker for conservative ideology. That's not to say she thinks all Republicans are perfect and all the people that claim to be conservative do no worng. Do I make sense?

[Neo Cassady]

lol, posting a link to a column then calling her fucking stupid is not exactly what I meant

did you read the column?

[The Revisionist]

The different between Coulter and Moore, is no one on the right takes Coulter seriously, which sadly isn't true about Moore and the "progressive" left.Yeah, for the most part I would agree with that.

[cal1082]

did you read the column?

Yes but I'm not see the point to your question. Whether I read it or not has no bearing on you being able to form a reasonable argument to her points. Because that ws my point. Simply posting and article and calling her "stupid" is in itself stupid because you've not explained the reasons why she's wrong and why you would be right.

[Love As Arson]

She castigates the democrats for putting forth figures, who have suffered tragedy, to prove their points , yet fails to point out when the republicans do the same, or qualifies it with some sort of ridiculous justification. Personally, I think playing the emotion card skews the argument, and should not be used by either party.

[ClapClapSnap]

I honestly haven't read this entire thread, but I just felt the need to throw out the fact that, when I read this (http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2002/02/25/tomo/index.html) cartoon, all I thought of was Animal Farm.

[I am all talk]

She castigates the democrats for putting forth figures, who have suffered tragedy, to prove their points , yet fails to point out when the republicans do the same, or qualifies it with some sort of ridiculous justification. Personally, I think playing the emotion card skews the argument, and should not be used by either party.
Tucker carlson called her out on that. She mentioned how democrats use cindy sheehan and the "jersey girls," but when he said that republicans did the exact same with 9/11 at the 2004 convention. She said she failed to see the connection.

She was smart not to bring up terry schiavo because both parties equally abused her life and death for a cause.

[FScott]

ew she has big ears

[Neo Cassady]

Yes but I'm not see the point to your question. Whether I read it or not has no bearing on you being able to form a reasonable argument to her points. Because that ws my point. Simply posting and article and calling her "stupid" is in itself stupid because you've not explained the reasons why she's wrong and why you would be right.
She says stuff that no one (not even on the far right) should take seriously. She says it just to get attention, and the sad thing is, people DO take her seriously.

Example A: "The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view."

Example B: "Conservatives believe man was created in God's image, while liberals believe they are gods. All of the behavioral tics of the liberals proceed from their godless belief that they can murder the unborn because they, the liberals, are themselves gods. They try to forcibly create 'equality' through affirmative action and wealth redistribution because they are gods. They flat-out lie, with no higher power to constrain them, because they are gods. They adore pornography and the mechanization of sex because man is just an animal, and they are gods. They revere the UN and not the U.S. because they aren't Americans -- they are gods."

She's just spewing shit. And if she actually believes what she says, then that shows the whole problem with the Republican party. Ever heard of the Separation of Church and State? Perhaps the First Amendment, which guarentees freedom of religion? Republicans are trying to do away with one of the fundamental ideas of this country by including strictly Christian viewpoints in many of their arguments, including abortion, gay marriage, and the Iraq war. If I can choose my religion (or lack thereof), I better not have to follow some shitty rules made by someone else's because they find it necessary for the entire nation to follow what they believe.

Rebublican issue number one: Gay marriage is destroying the sanctity of marriage? How about all the couples divorcing and remarrying? That doesn't violate that sanctity? Most gay couples would be MUCH better parents than any of the straight couples I know, and allowing them to adopt kids would save the nation money (and we all know how much Conservatives like saving money) by not needing to spend as much on providing care for kids waiting to be adopted.

Also, way to go Bush. You fucked up in Iraq, and you're trying to overshadow it with who marries who. That's all it is. Trying to divert people's attention.

Fuck it. If abortion and gay marriage are made illegal, I'm moving my ass to Canada. I'm sick of our fucking government.

[Jarrodtexas]

wow..that is the most ridiculous argument I have read so far. I am looking forward to you moving to Canada. One less uninformed voter.

in regards to ann coulter, I see your point. It is a touch ridiculous.

When it comes to justifying homoseuality by pointitng out divorce, that is lopsided. You are pointing out the individual failings of one to discredit them as to their decesions affecting social policy.

I could cite facts and figures, but everyone knows that a family is best represented as one male and one female role model. It promotes balance and gives the kid the right formula for success. Yes, there are failings,ie divorce, but the facts do not lie.

And for the record, I think making divorce illegal would more properly protect the sanctity of marriage. Then people would make better decisions before getting married.

And please I dont want to hear what if someone gets in a marriage that leads to abuse or something. That just supports my argument. That might be a detail to find out before you are married and if you didn't know something like that, you have no business being married in the first place.

[Jarrodtexas]

I know this argument contradicts what most young people believe these days so have at it folks, do your best to tear me apart.

[FScott]

i love lesbians, I mean what straight guy doesn't

[Jason Tate]

She is the definition of the world 'CUNT'

[fedhed7]

wow..that is the most ridiculous argument I have read so far. I am looking forward to you moving to Canada. One less uninformed voter.

in regards to ann coulter, I see your point. It is a touch ridiculous.

When it comes to justifying homoseuality by pointitng out divorce, that is lopsided. You are pointing out the individual failings of one to discredit them as to their decesions affecting social policy.

I could cite facts and figures, but everyone knows that a family is best represented as one male and one female role model. It promotes balance and gives the kid the right formula for success. Yes, there are failings,ie divorce, but the facts do not lie.

And for the record, I think making divorce illegal would more properly protect the sanctity of marriage. Then people would make better decisions before getting married.

And please I dont want to hear what if someone gets in a marriage that leads to abuse or something. That just supports my argument. That might be a detail to find out before you are married and if you didn't know something like that, you have no business being married in the first place.
Yeah, I think I disagree.

Changing your mind is natural human behavior. Sometimes people act differently once they're married. Sometimes that change can be so drastic, that it breaks down a strong relationship. At that point, if divorce is illegal, things can become nasty.

Also, divorce seems like a negative course of action, but in most cases, it's the best thing a feuding couple can do. If the parents constantly fight, it will have a negative impact on the growth of the child. If parents come to realize they aren't compatible, separation usually becomes an absolute must. The divorce process provides a definate, civil, and legal alternative to just "not talking anymore".

You're right in aspect that young people will make a more informed decision. But currently, 50% of all marriages end in a divorce. You couldn't tell me that half of all marriages are poor decisions.

That's my two cents.

[Tony]

She is the definition of the world 'CUNT'
I'll admit, she's not as bad as Coulter, but everyone check out this bitch (http://www.michellemalkin.com/).

To her credit, she gives Coulter a run for her money since she wrote a book called In Defense Of Internment: The Case For "Racial Profiling" In World War II And The War On Terror. Oh, and she's a first-generation Filipino-American. An Asian person saying internment is a good idea! Fucking disgusting.

She's also written articles about pregnant women coming to the US and having their babies here to try to solidify their status here, calling them "anchor babies." Yet her mother was pregnant with her when her family came to the US.

But the worst of it all is that at least Coulter comes up with her own batshit insane drivel. Malkin just links to other stories from news sites and people's blogs, occasionally throwing in her own snide remarks against liberals. If you're going to be a media-whoring, hateful cunt, at least be original!

[x togepi x]

you forgot to add how Malakian also posted some people's private telephone numbers on her blog and told her readers to harass them.

I'd like to see these figures about the best family being man-woman, as long as they're not from something like focus on the family.

and yeah, making divorce illegal? why do you hate battered women?

[radiofriendly]

she's not the first conservative i go looking for when it comes to banter or opinion. i think she's over the top most of the time and doesn't come off well. at times i really admire her ability to argue though. her points at heart i agree with. the excerpts i read from her book were great, she just doesn't know when to quit. but then again, if she wasn't bold with her points, no one would listen. like cal said earlier, no one's argued her views on liberals. saying she's stupid doesn't make sense.

[Neo Cassady]

wow..that is the most ridiculous argument I have read so far. I am looking forward to you moving to Canada. One less uninformed voter.

in regards to ann coulter, I see your point. It is a touch ridiculous.

When it comes to justifying homoseuality by pointitng out divorce, that is lopsided. You are pointing out the individual failings of one to discredit them as to their decesions affecting social policy.

I could cite facts and figures, but everyone knows that a family is best represented as one male and one female role model. It promotes balance and gives the kid the right formula for success. Yes, there are failings,ie divorce, but the facts do not lie.

And for the record, I think making divorce illegal would more properly protect the sanctity of marriage. Then people would make better decisions before getting married.

And please I dont want to hear what if someone gets in a marriage that leads to abuse or something. That just supports my argument. That might be a detail to find out before you are married and if you didn't know something like that, you have no business being married in the first place.

i never "justified" it by pointing out divorce, just saying that if the argument is that homosexuality violates the sanctity of marriage, that there are other things that are legal that do as well.

[cal1082]

i never "justified" it by pointing out divorce, just saying that if the argument is that homosexuality violates the sanctity of marriage, that there are other things that are legal that do as well.

i agree and i think it's to easy to get married for people.

[Jarrodtexas]

wow, I am vry suprised at the responses. I agree that divorce takes away from the sanctity of marriage, and I agree that there should be some consistency.

I do insist however that if people truly understood the purpose of marriage then divorce would drastically go down.

I agree that some people just cant make educated decisions regarding divorce, and honestly, legislating the divorce may be a horrible idea. What will bring the divorce rate down and the strength of the family back is a change of heart. Like I said earlier, knowing the true purpose of a family and a marriage.

[x togepi x]

so...about those statistics you promised....

[Tony]

I could cite facts and figures, but everyone knows that a family is best represented as one male and one female role model.
I'm calling you out on this. Cite some facts and figures for me, because I don't believe this to be true one bit. And they better not make any mention of religion whatsoever, with church and state being separate and all.

And for all you homophobes out there, I want to say this: the only reason I will ever get married is for the legal and financial benefits the status provides. That's right. I'm going to abuse the system and produce ZERO children. Try and stop me. Thanks for your tax dollars in advance.

[FScott]

fucking commys

[cal1082]

I'm calling you out on this. Cite some facts and figures for me, because I don't believe this to be true one bit. And they better not make any mention of religion whatsoever, with church and state being separate and all.

And for all you homophobes out there, I want to say this: the only reason I will ever get married is for the legal and financial benefits the status provides. That's right. I'm going to abuse the system and produce ZERO children. Try and stop me. Thanks for your tax dollars in advance.

Yes...........because we all know if it was a study done by a religious group would automatically be wrong

[fedhed7]

I'm calling you out on this. Cite some facts and figures for me, because I don't believe this to be true one bit. And they better not make any mention of religion whatsoever, with church and state being separate and all.

And for all you homophobes out there, I want to say this: the only reason I will ever get married is for the legal and financial benefits the status provides. That's right. I'm going to abuse the system and produce ZERO children. Try and stop me. Thanks for your tax dollars in advance.
I agree with him on that point. I'm in favor of gay and lesbian marriages, and I don't practice religion, but from the beginning of time, it's only been one way. One male, the father; one female, the mother. That's just how a family is best represented.

[Tony]

Yes...........because we all know if it was a study done by a religious group would automatically be wrong
Don't put words in my mouth.

The fact of the matter is that church and state are supposed to be separate. This president has done all he can to erode that division, but that's how it's supposed to be. Therefore, any matter of social policy, such as gay marriage, should not be influenced by religion whatsoever.

Besides that, I'd have a hard time believing that any study done on homosexuality by a religious group would be unbiased. That's not to outright say it would be completely wrong, but I'd be skeptical.

[crit]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet but she'll be on Jay Leno tonight. (Wednesday) I usually watch anyway but I want to see what she has to say.

[The Revisionist]

Thanks, I thought it was last night and got a little bummed when I had to sit through some shitty band. I will be watching this, Coulter cracks me up.

[Tony]

I agree with him on that point. I'm in favor of gay and lesbian marriages, and I don't practice religion, but from the beginning of time, it's only been one way. One male, the father; one female, the mother. That's just how a family is best represented.
No, that's just how it's traditionally represented. There is no doubt in my mind that if we were to allow gay and lesbian couples to have children, there would be the same proportion of fucked up kids coming out of those families as from traditional families.

[fedhed7]

No, that's just how it's traditionally represented. There is no doubt in my mind that if we were to allow gay and lesbian couples to have children, there would be the same proportion of fucked up kids coming out of those families as from traditional families. You could be right, but there's no way to know for sure. You're arguing his assumption with another assumption.

[cal1082]

Don't put words in my mouth.

The fact of the matter is that church and state are supposed to be separate. This president has done all he can to erode that division, but that's how it's supposed to be. Therefore, any matter of social policy, such as gay marriage, should not be influenced by religion whatsoever.


So because we have a seperation of church and state it's unfair to not agree with gay marriage based on your religious morals (wow i thought you respected freedom of religion!)? Give me a break and look how hypocritical you're being. You can argue for your religious beliefs in accordance to law and be just as justified by doing so as someone who was arguing not based on religious beliefs.

Having a seperation of church doesnt mean you have to toss morality or religious doctorines out of law because they are religious or rooted in religion. Simply means you want to allow people to worship what they want when they want. Religion in America and any many places are huge parts of our culture and it's our damn right to apply our culture into our laws so we have a society that functions according to the majority's views.

Besides that, I'd have a hard time believing that any study done on homosexuality by a religious group would be unbiased. That's not to outright say it would be completely wrong, but I'd be skeptical.

of course it would be biased but that doesnt mean the information presented would be factualy wrong or inaccurate.

[VinnyVegas]

...Simply means you want to allow people to worship what they want when they want. Religion in America and any many places are huge parts of our culture and it's our damn right to apply our culture into our laws so we have a society that functions according to the majority's views.

I agree with you, but you have to remember that the majority is often wrong. The majority once thought that slavery was a good idea; the majority once thought that women shouldn't have the right to vote; the majority once thought that cocaine was harmless; I could go on for days.

It's a matter of compromise, which neither side ever wants to agree to.


*EDIT - forgot to quote

[Justin_stacy]

I'm calling you out on this. Cite some facts and figures for me, because I don't believe this to be true one bit. And they better not make any mention of religion whatsoever, with church and state being separate and all.

And for all you homophobes out there, I want to say this: the only reason I will ever get married is for the legal and financial benefits the status provides. That's right. I'm going to abuse the system and produce ZERO children. Try and stop me. Thanks for your tax dollars in advance.

Two things, one there is no written "separation of church and state” and two by getting married and having no children you will actually be paying more taxes with less return. So I guess we should be thanking you.

[x togepi x]

Yes there is a written seperation of church and state. It's found in the dissent and opinions of Supreme Court Justices on various court decisions. Those decisions are basically considered written law as far as the court's concerned.

Lemon v. K-something, strictly states that we cannot make laws that promote religion.

I still want to see those studies by the way, and I'd point out that when gay marriage happens, becuase it will, nothing will be forcing churches with religious beliefs in opposition to those marriages to honor or perform them. homosexual couples will just be given the same legal rights that hetero couples have. giving homosexual couples the same right as heterosexual couples under the law is only fair as not all hetero couples will start families. Two loving partners, no matter what their genders were, will never hurt the sanctity of marriage. it's crap like Britney Spear's 55 hour weddings and people that beat their spouses that have already destroyed that.

[Justin_stacy]

Yes there is a written seperation of church and state. It's found in the dissent and opinions of Supreme Court Justices on various court decisions. Those decisions are basically considered written law as far as the court's concerned.

Lemon v. K-something, strictly states that we cannot make laws that promote religion.


no there is not a written seperation of church and state in the constitution, or as a law. It is an opinion that the court has reached, but ruling can change and are not definitive (a conservative or moderate court could legally come to a different opinion).

The only thing that is law is the establishment clause. Which tends to fool most liberals into thinking there is a written seperation of church and state. But in reality only states that no state church, like the church of England, can be founded and that people are free to worship as they choose. While the constitution dictates a freedom of religion, it says nothing about a freedom from religion, as ACLU types likes to demand.

[FreshyFresh23]

no there is not a written seperation of church and state in the constitution, or as a law. It is an opinion that the court has reached, but ruling can change and are not definitive (a conservative or moderate court could legally come to a different opinion).

The only thing that is law is the establishment clause. Which tends to fool most liberals into thinking there is a written seperation of church and state. But in reality only states that no state church, like the church of England, can be founded and that people are free to worship as they choose. While the constitution dictates a freedom of religion, it says nothing about a freedom from religion, as ACLU types likes to demand.

what are you talking about dude?
Its in the constitution and says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Im not sure what you think that means but most of us take that, along with the other religious references and protections, to define separation of church and state.

[cal1082]

what are you talking about dude?
Its in the constitution and says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Im not sure what you think that means but most of us take that, along with the other religious references and protections, to define separation of church and state.

And you'd obviously be wrong according to the founding fathers who did such things as put Bibles in the classroom, and opened their meetings up with prayers.

Now obviously there is more of a seperation through court rulings over the time, but to say it's in the constitution is flat out wrong.

[FreshyFresh23]

And you'd obviously be wrong according to the founding fathers who did such things as put Bibles in the classroom, and opened their meetings up with prayers.

Now obviously there is more of a seperation through court rulings over the time, but to say it's in the constitution is flat out wrong.

Na actually, what "founding fathers" are you referring to? Because i consider the author of the bill of rights a founding father and he struck down hundreds of schools for doing those things you just mentioned. So..Nice.

and just because they open up meetings with prayers it means nothing it just means that is how they operate. It has nothing to do with the federal government imposing laws based on religious institutions belief systems.

You ignore the whole..congress shall not pass laws respecting religion?

[Justin_stacy]

what are you talking about dude?
Its in the constitution and says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Im not sure what you think that means but most of us take that, along with the other religious references and protections, to define separation of church and state.


Well dude if most of you think that then you're all wrong, fortunately though most intelligent people understand what was being said there. Which is, that congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment (hence the name) of a national religion. Without going into a history lesson our forefathers feared that what happened in England with the Church of England might one day happen here and therefore they added in this wording to make it impossible for Congress to mandate a national religion or financially back one. This is not a direct statement of a separation between church and state.

[cal1082]

Na actually, what "founding fathers" are you referring to? Because i consider the author of the bill of rights a founding father and he struck down hundreds of schools for doing those things you just mentioned. So..Nice.

and just because they open up meetings with prayers it means nothing it just means that is how they operate. It has nothing to do with the federal government imposing laws based on religious institutions belief systems.

You ignore the whole..congress shall not pass laws respecting religion?

again they approved bible for the classroom.........that kind of takes your whole arugment and throws it out the window. this arguments old though so i'd rather talk about coulter

[Justin_stacy]

Coulter on Leno last night.....Carlin's first line is fantastic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ile0zvz28GU&search=coulter%20leno

[Justin_stacy]

You ignore the whole..congress shall not pass laws respecting religion?

"the establishment of"......i guess you're ignoring that part?

[x togepi x]

no there is not a written seperation of church and state in the constitution, or as a law. It is an opinion that the court has reached, but ruling can change and are not definitive (a conservative or moderate court could legally come to a different opinion).

Lemon is considered established case law. The chances of it getting overturned is very slim. Until the decision gets overturned, there is a seperation of church and state that is written. You can't just ignore case decisions you disagree with. A moderate court isn't going to overturn case law like that.

I mean, I disagree with how the court limits free speech, but you don't see me saying "there are no written obscenity laws!"

While the constitution dictates a freedom of religion, it says nothing about a freedom from religion, as ACLU types likes to demand.

oooh, the ALCU boogeyman....you might actually look up how they handle religion, especially how the ALCU has fought for people to be able to express their religion, like how they sued a high school for censoring a Christian kid's senior quote which was a quote from the bible. the ALCU protects religious expression, you just don't hear about it.

[Justin_stacy]

Lemon is considered established case law. The chances of it getting overturned is very slim. Until the decision gets overturned, there is a seperation of church and state that is written. You can't just ignore case decisions you disagree with. A moderate court isn't going to overturn case law like that.
.

No there isn’t. Lemon/Kutzman, Rogers, Emerson etc etc…are all court interpretations, or personal opinions, of the Establishment Clause. Nothing written in the Constitution nor in a physical law states that there is a direct separation between church and state. It has to be interpreted to be found.

Interpretations only show us what current individuals believe, not the original intents of the framers. Beliefs are not universal, which is why when the constitution it interpreted to say something it doesn't directly say, you get a distorted, contriversial, ruling. The Burger court clearly distorted what was written to justify a political belief, which is why you have 5 out of the 9 current judges being highly critical of this ruling and why the ruling isn’t regularly used or continuously reaffirmed. Far reaching ruling of the 60’s and 70’s aren’t likely to stand over time as the court moves back to the center and right.

But iregardless there is no written seperation of church, which is why one had to be created out of the establishment clause.


oooh, the ALCU boogeyman....you might actually look up how they handle religion, especially how the ALCU has fought for people to be able to express their religion, like how they sued a high school for censoring a Christian kid's senior quote which was a quote from the bible. the ALCU protects religious expression, you just don't hear about it.

You don’t hear about it because it’s not the norm. The norm is the ALCU belief in freedom from religion….and like most fascists you believe what they believe or they force you too.

[x togepi x]

No there isn’t. Lemon/Kutzman, Rogers, Emerson etc etc…are all court interpretations, or personal opinions, of the Establishment Clause. Nothing written in the Constitution nor in a physical law states that there is a direct separation between church and state. It has to be interpreted to be found.
A court decision is de facto written law. When the court makes its interpretation, it becomes what the constitution says. That's how judicial review works. When the court says we have a seperation of church and state, then we do, until the decision gets revisited and overturned. Since that hasn't happened yet, the seperation of church and state still stands.

That's why we can't ban abortion, because Roe says that it's a constitutional right, even though it wasn't enumerated in the constitution. Roe is *just* a court decision, *just* a personal opinion, and *just* a court decision, but strangely enough, we've had laws struck down because they violated Roe.

Lemon works the same way. The court sets up the Lemon test, which has been accepted by the SC and has been used over and over to strike down laws. If it were just an opinion, like you say, then why do other courts besides the Burger Court continue to use it?

Your argument seems to be that because a decision can be overturned, it's not written law, but that applies to written law as well.

Interpretations only show us what current individuals believe, not the original intents of the framers
Who cares what the "original intent" of the framers says? If we go by that, women can't vote, African-Americans are only 3/5s of a people and there are only 13 states. Do you really want that?
Hell, according to their intent, the states didn't have to follow the Bill of Rights, which is why we have the 14th amendment. The fact that we amend the Constitution shows that we don't really listen to framer's intent.

You'd agree with me, that we don't follow the original intent of the Consitution. now, you can tell me that's a bad thing or you can say it's a good thing. but it's pretty irrelavent.

But hey, if you think we should still look at Framer's Intent, then explain to me how the seperation of church and state wasn't the framer's of the consitution's intent when Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, said there was a wall of seperation between church and state.

Beliefs are not universal, which is why when the constitution it interpreted to say something it doesn't directly say, you get a distorted, contriversial, ruling.
I totally agree!

but that doesn't mean that they aren't what the law becomes. I think most of the rulings the Roberts court is going to make are going to be hugely distorted. Just a couple days ago, they made that rulling on police not having to knock when they have a warrant. I think that violates the 4th, but you don't see me saying "well...it's not written law."

Far reaching ruling of the 60’s and 70’s aren’t likely to stand over time as the court moves back to the center and right.
aww...cute, you think the court is liberal. have you ever met someone who's actually a leftist?



The constitution is purposely vague. You can make that claim but it doesn't change the fact that because of the court, it is now a written seperation of church and state.


[quote=Justin_stacy]You don’t hear about it because it’s not the norm. The norm is the ALCU belief in freedom from religion….and like most fascists you believe what they believe or they force you too.
Or because people like you love demonizing the ACLU and distorting their agenda. They protect civil rights. period. They've upheld religious rights as for Christians to express themselves as well as nonChristians who want to express their beliefs too.

but it's funny that you assume I believe those "ALCU fascists" since I'm sure an educated person like yourself would know that my avatar is the Anti-Fascist symbol from WWII, as well as realize that fascism is generally considered to be an extremist right-wing philosophy. maybe you're just being ironic.

[cantnokdahustle]

Framers of the U.S. Constitution and early government.

Thomas Paine - deist adamantly anti-xtian

Ben Franklin- deist adamantly anti-xtian

Thomas Jefferson- deist (though, many times "accused" of being an atheist because of his "desecration" of the xtian bible).

James Madison- Sometimes: episcopalian, deist, and free thinker. Strongest voice of the establishment clause.

George Washington- deist (sometimes xtian church goer). As president always refused communion; refused clergy on his deathbed.

That being said, those who signed were overwhemingly protestant. I would venture to say that the above listed are considered a bit more integral to our nations history.

[A picasso blue]

i fail to see how "no state religion established" does not support a church/state separation. even if the actions of the Founding Fathers didnt follow with that statement.. it was still written.


???

[preppyak]

You don’t hear about it because it’s not the norm. The norm is the ALCU belief in freedom from religion….and like most fascists you believe what they believe or they force you too.hahaha....you know how to win a debate? To start name calling and labeling...I know that's how they taught me :shake:

A court decision is de facto written law. When the court makes its interpretation, it becomes what the constitution says. That's how judicial review works. When the court says we have a seperation of church and state, then we do, until the decision gets revisited and overturned. Since that hasn't happened yet, the seperation of church and state still stands.
Exactly...I've followed you through this debate, and you know your shit.

[kidinthecorner]

She spoke at my school last semester, and while Ididn't go, I read about it in the Daily Orange. She was ridiculously heckled, but turned and shot right back, and talked over people.. I heard that it was VERY intense in there, and even the crowd, supporters vs. non-supporters, were jabbing back and forth at each other.

[A picasso blue]

Justin Stacy disgusts me. he could just leave this at a debate but he has to add that little extra something to every statement he makes

[preppyak]

Justin Stacy disgusts me. he could just leave this at a debate but he has to add that little extra something to every statement he makes that and repeating himself in every argument doesn't keep any form of debate going

I mean his point is that court decisions have no bearing because they aren't written law...which is obviously wrong.

[A picasso blue]

well i can handle disagreeing with him but he has to say things like "intelligent people would understand that it works like this.."

[Justin_stacy]

Your argument seems to be that because a decision can be overturned, it's not written law, but that applies to written law as well. .

No the argument is that the “wall” is merely an interpretation, or an opinion, as the Supreme Court calls it. It is not a written law. It is merely a far reaching interpretation of the establishment clause.

As Justice Potter Stewart wrote, jurisprudence was not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."

And I’m not arguing that you can’t call it a de facto law it is quite clearly the stance of the court following the 1940’s. But it is not written law, anywhere. The difference might be trival, to some, but it's important when discussing the issue and its context that that point is made.

[Justin_stacy]

well i can handle disagreeing with him but he has to say things like "intelligent people would understand that it works like this.."

I'm so hurt, here all this time i thought we were friends. Before you get your little panties in a bunch i'll clarify, i respond in the same way i was spoken to.

The person I was conversing with quoted me directly and referred to me as “dude” which I took as a derogatory swipe. So when I responded to his remark, i used the same approach. Now breath deeply.............and calm down.

[The Revisionist]

When I open this thread, I really would just like to read about Ann Coulter.

[richter915]

I hate how the right wing will compare her to left wing comics. I saw an interview with Whoopi Goldberg and Sean Hannity and he kept trying to draw that comparison. Yes, left-wing comedians (not all of em are left, ie Dennis Miller) will bash Bush and other politicians...but do they go to the level the Coulter has stooped to? I can understand her using the Family Guy "I'm so extreme in what I'm saying look at me" tactic but it's not funny and I wish the Right would stop trying to cover up for her. The woman says HORRIBLE things and that's not from a liberal POV, that's from the POV of a normal human (but liberals are mentally challenged if u believe Coulter).

btw, I was glad to see that Bill O' Reilly called her out and admitted that what she says makes the Right look bad. There was a woman he was interviewing who supported Coulter..maybe it's just Right Wing women who feel the need to be out there in order to get media attention...

[FallingOut]

I hate how the right wing will compare her to left wing comics. I saw an interview with Whoopi Goldberg and Sean Hannity and he kept trying to draw that comparison. Yes, left-wing comedians (not all of em are left, ie Dennis Miller) will bash Bush and other politicians...but do they go to the level the Coulter has stooped to? I can understand her using the Family Guy "I'm so extreme in what I'm saying look at me" tactic but it's not funny and I wish the Right would stop trying to cover up for her. The woman says HORRIBLE things and that's not from a liberal POV, that's from the POV of a normal human (but liberals are mentally challenged if u believe Coulter).

btw, I was glad to see that Bill O' Reilly called her out and admitted that what she says makes the Right look bad. There was a woman he was interviewing who supported Coulter..maybe it's just Right Wing women who feel the need to be out there in order to get media attention...

I COMPLETELY agree with you on this. While I consider myself to be liberal, me disliking Coulter has little to do with her political stance, and thats %100 honesty. I do disagree with some of what she says, but I have no respect for her as a human because of the way she acts. I can disagree with some Conservatives but still respect them. Ann Coulter comes off as extremely arrogant, and vicious to no end. She says the most extreme things she can think of to make a point, no matter who she offends. And now, since people buy into her bullshit remarks, she thinks she can now say whatever she wants on TV.

[Venona]

i saw on some show on VH1 that she is like obsessed with the Grateful Dead
and she's been to like 53 Dead shows
a Republican DeadHead
that's wierd

[Justin_stacy]

I hate how the right wing will compare her to left wing comics. I saw an interview with Whoopi Goldberg and Sean Hannity and he kept trying to draw that comparison. Yes, left-wing comedians (not all of em are left, ie Dennis Miller) will bash Bush and other politicians...but do they go to the level the Coulter has stooped to? I can understand her using the Family Guy "I'm so extreme in what I'm saying look at me" tactic but it's not funny and I wish the Right would stop trying to cover up for her. The woman says HORRIBLE things and that's not from a liberal POV, that's from the POV of a normal human (but liberals are mentally challenged if u believe Coulter)..

They compare the two because both have similar tactless/tasteless approaches. Your comment uses a liberal comedian as an example who’s own act uses references to female genital when referring to Bush.....Is this stooping to the same level? Or there's Air America’s "comedians" who play skits about putting a hit out on the president......Is this stooping to the same level? That’s just two.

None of the despicable comments Coulter makes put her above her liberal counter parts, and it is your liberal “POV” that makes you think it is worse. Personally I wish people on the left would take the right’s example and view their Moore’s and Franken’s the same way we view our Coulter’s, with humor rather then trust.

[FallingOut]

They compare the two because both have similar tactless/tasteless approaches. Your comment uses a liberal comedian as an example who’s own act uses references to female genital when referring to Bush.....Is this stooping to the same level? Or there's Air America’s "comedians" who play skits about putting a hit out on the president......Is this stooping to the same level? That’s just two.

None of the despicable comments Coulter makes put her above her liberal counter parts, and it is your liberal “POV” that makes you think it is worse. Personally I wish people on the left would take the right’s example and view their Moore’s and Franken’s the same way we view our Coulter’s, with humor rather then trust.

Yes, because Coulter is a well known comedian. Al Franken is a comedian. He makes points by being funny. Coulter viciously attacks people without any remorse. You cannot possibly compare Al Franken and Ann Coulter, thats ridiculous. And thats your conservative "POV" talking.

[Justin_stacy]

Yes, because Coulter is a well known comedian. Al Franken is a comedian. He makes points by being funny. Coulter viciously attacks people without any remorse. You cannot possibly compare Al Franken and Ann Coulter, thats ridiculous. And thats your conservative "POV" talking.

She's a political satirist, so is he, there's a comparison. Both have career based, at least partially, on the art of personal attacks, so there's another comparison......So instead of being impossible, it is relatively easy to compare her to anyone of the numerous low level comedians on the left, like Smalley. It’s ridiculous that you find her "vicious" attacks and their vile sense of "humor" so different.

Instead of defending and attacking based solely on your "POV" trying looking at it through impartial eyes.

[cal1082]

Yes, because Coulter is a well known comedian. Al Franken is a comedian. He makes points by being funny. Coulter viciously attacks people without any remorse. You cannot possibly compare Al Franken and Ann Coulter, thats ridiculous. And thats your conservative "POV" talking.

What's funny is that for you it would b e somehow better to viciously attack people as long as you hide it behind a comedic delivery or joke.

[x togepi x]

I'm pretty sure I've never heard a liberal comic outright call for the killing of a federal judge or implying it'd be cool to kill Murtha.

[FallingOut]

She's a political satirist, so is he, there's a comparison. Both have career based, at least partially, on the art of personal attacks, so there's another comparison......So instead of being impossible, it is relatively easy to compare her to anyone of the numerous low level comedians on the left, like Smalley. It’s ridiculous that you find her "vicious" attacks and their vile sense of "humor" so different.

Instead of defending and attacking based solely on your "POV" trying looking at it through impartial eyes.

I am looking at it through impartial eyes. I told you that there are convservatives that I can respect, even if I dont agree with them. I still do not see how you can really compare them, but I guess that is my opinion. Ann Coulter is not trying to be funny, so I cannot look at her with humor. Al Franken is trying to be funny, so I can look at him with humor. And yes, Cal, I think it is better to make a joke about somebody than say that "they hate America", just because you dont agree with them.

The ironic thing is Justin, you are not looking through impartial eyes at all. You blindly defend Ann Coulter by trying to say that a liberal you disagree with is doing bad. I do not agree with everything that Michael Moore or Al Franken says. But yet, you cannot admit whatsoever that Ann Coulter is doing anything wrong, all you do is defend her by saying somebody else is just as bad.

[A picasso blue]

i dont see how Ann Coulter is like Al Franken
they both make attacks sometimes, yeah

but Coulter is seriously disturbed. "We should bomb their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianty" no one would ever find that remotely amusing

[cal1082]

I am looking at it through impartial eyes. I told you that there are convservatives that I can respect, even if I dont agree with them. I still do not see how you can really compare them, but I guess that is my opinion. Ann Coulter is not trying to be funny, so I cannot look at her with humor. Al Franken is trying to be funny, so I can look at him with humor. And yes, Cal, I think it is better to make a joke about somebody than say that "they hate America", just because you dont agree with them.

The ironic thing is Justin, you are not looking through impartial eyes at all. You blindly defend Ann Coulter by trying to say that a liberal you disagree with is doing bad. I do not agree with everything that Michael Moore or Al Franken says. But yet, you cannot admit whatsoever that Ann Coulter is doing anything wrong, all you do is defend her by saying somebody else is just as bad.

Have you read this thread? The lack of reading comphrension on this board is god awful.

"The different between Coulter and Moore, is no one on the right takes Coulter seriously, which sadly isn't true about Moore and the "progressive" left."

"They compare the two because both have similar tactless/tasteless approaches."

"None of the despicable comments Coulter makes put her above her liberal counter parts,"

[cal1082]

i dont see how Ann Coulter is like Al Franken
they both make attacks sometimes, yeah

but Coulter is seriously disturbed. "We should bomb their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianty" no one would ever find that remotely amusing

How many of ya'll have seen her speak in a full session or read her full works? Or are you just pulling one liners out and assuming she really believes this stuff?

The times I've seen her speak she is full of sarcastic comments.

[x togepi x]

Okay, here's my problem with Coulter. It's all about fairness.

If a liberal comic were to jokingly call for Scalia to be shot, they'd go to jail. or at least be investigated. Coulter's said that Murtha should get killed by US soldiers, and once called for the killing of a federal judge.

Out of context or not, a liberal wouldn't have been treated the same way. At the very least there would have been some real backlash, and there'd probably be some legal rammifications.

You can't sit there and say "it's satire" and justify that. What's the inside joke then?

[cal1082]

Okay, here's my problem with Coulter. It's all about fairness.

If a liberal comic were to jokingly call for Scalia to be shot, they'd go to jail. or at least be investigated. Coulter's said that Murtha should get killed by US soldiers, and once called for the killing of a federal judge.

Out of context or not, a liberal wouldn't have been treated the same way. At the very least there would have been some real backlash, and there'd probably be some legal rammifications.

You can't sit there and say "it's satire" and justify that. What's the inside joke then?

Where do you get this?

Can you name someone who has jokingly or off the cuff threatend a judge and has gone to jail or been investigated and were liberal or from the other side?

Also satire doesnt have to be funny. I in no means want to compare coulter to Jonathan Swift and his create satire piece but if you'll remember not many like his delivery as well.

[x togepi x]

The judge thing:

Heres the story from Yahoo.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_...coulter_stevens (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_us/brf_coulter_stevens)

2 hours, 59 minutes ago

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice
John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
ADVERTISEMENT

Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion. Stevens is one of the court's most liberal members.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media."

Coulter has made a career of writing and lecturing on her strongly conservative views.

At one point during her address, which was part of a lecture series, some audience members booed when she cut off two questioners. "I'm not going to be lectured to," Coulter told one man in a raised voice.

She drew more boos when she said the crack cocaine problem "has pretty much gone away."


and here's the link about murtha: http://mediamatters.org/items/200606220013

Liberals don't threaten judges...that's why she's so bad. I don't careif she wants to make fun of liberals...as long as it's funny. Hell, I'll throw out some jokes bashing democrats too if you'd like.

and you're right, satire doesn't have to be funny. It does, however, have to have an inside message...which is what I was asking. what's her inside message?

[Justin_stacy]

I am looking at it through impartial eyes. I told you that there are convservatives that I can respect, even if I dont agree with them. I still do not see how you can really compare them, but I guess that is my opinion. Ann Coulter is not trying to be funny, so I cannot look at her with humor. Al Franken is trying to be funny, so I can look at him with humor. And yes, Cal, I think it is better to make a joke about somebody than say that "they hate America", just because you dont agree with them. .

That right there’s being impartial. Al Franken is a vile character assassin, but because you agree with his points he’s humorous. But since Coulter is the devil in a black dress, everything she says is truly vile, evil, and wrong even though it’s spoken in jest, not meant to be taken seriously. You don’t like Ann for political reasons so it distorts you view, but I bet when David Cross or George Carlin say the exact same things about Bush, Christians....etc etc its just funny because these two hide behind the title of Comedians?

In no way am I defending the way in which Coulter made her statement, but to chastize her for doing exactly what the left does just make you look clearly bias.


The ironic thing is Justin, you are not looking through impartial eyes at all. You blindly defend Ann Coulter by trying to say that a liberal you disagree with is doing bad. I do not agree with everything that Michael Moore or Al Franken says. But yet, you cannot admit whatsoever that Ann Coulter is doing anything wrong, all you do is defend her by saying somebody else is just as bad.

Reading may not be a strong suit.......?
So i'll quote myself.

None of the despicable comments Coulter makes put her above her liberal counter parts....

Now show me where i've defended her based solely on the words she used, rather then her right to do and say the same things her counterparts on the left do and say or for the limited truth hidden behind her comments (which I'll add also applies to the right).

Again look at this through impartial eyes. Ann Coulter said a vile thing, but why do you chastise her when liberal comedians say the same and worse, when liberal satirist say the same and worse or when even the liberal press says the same and worse? The only thing that sets Ann Coulter apart is she doesn’t have a media to hide behind and protect her.

[Justin_stacy]

Liberals don't threaten judges...that's why she's so bad. I don't careif she wants to make fun of liberals...as long as it's funny. Hell, I'll throw out some jokes bashing democrats too if you'd like.?

Because they threaten the president instead.

Air America Host 'Jokingly' Calls for Bush Hit

One of the leading hosts on the unofficial radio network of the Democratic Party recommended in an apparent "joke" earlier this week that President Bush should be assassinated, reports the New York Daily News.

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In "Godfather II," Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/12/153908.shtml

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."
http://www.museumofleftwinglunacy.com/archives/2005/04/randi_rhodes_si.html

From the article by Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker:

"On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1254550/posts


and you're right, satire doesn't have to be funny. It does, however, have to have an inside message...which is what I was asking. what's her inside message?

That political parties use victims to preach there message in an attempt to have a spokes person who is unattackable by the other side because of the fact that they were once victims.

And that is an extremely valid comment.

[cal1082]

What's funny is no one here is really standing up for Coulter. I just think, along with Justin, that it's ridiculous how completely ignorant, blind, gullable, insert your own to how this is the same stuff that goes on with the left.

I dont like Coulters methods just becuase I think a conservative should have a bit more class than that. Do I really believe she means everything she says..........or course not..........she's very sarcastic and it seems very obvious.

[FallingOut]

What's funny is no one here is really standing up for Coulter. I just think, along with Justin, that it's ridiculous how completely ignorant, blind, gullable, insert your own to how this is the same stuff that goes on with the left.

I dont like Coulters methods just becuase I think a conservative should have a bit more class than that. Do I really believe she means everything she says..........or course not..........she's very sarcastic and it seems very obvious.

I watch the news, pay attention to things and such, and I really do not think that there is "the exact same thing" happening with liberal comedians. People like Al Franken do not viciously attack people in the same way, its just not true if you say that. You continue to say that they do the exact same thing when thats just plain lying. They do not go on TV saying the most extreme thing they can think of just to attention. You can keep saying that, and saying that, and saying that, and believing it, but it is simply not true that they attack people in the same way.

[x togepi x]

Because they threaten the president instead.

Air America Host 'Jokingly' Calls for Bush Hit

One of the leading hosts on the unofficial radio network of the Democratic Party recommended in an apparent "joke" earlier this week that President Bush should be assassinated, reports the New York Daily News.

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In "Godfather II," Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/12/153908.shtml

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."
http://www.museumofleftwinglunacy.com/archives/2005/04/randi_rhodes_si.html (http://www.museumofleftwinglunacy.com/archives/2005/04/randi_rhodes_si.html)

From the article by Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker:

"On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1254550/posts


Fair enough. I'm not familar with Air America and only occasionally read the guardian. While I stand corrected, that doesn't change my general point, that Coulter (and anyone else) shouldn't be calling for the death of their political enemies. Jokingly or not.

That political parties use victims to preach there message in an attempt to have a spokes person who is unattackable by the other side because of the fact that they were once victims.

And that is an extremely valid comment.
It would be a VERY valid comment, but she also refuses to acknowledge that Bush, conservatives do the same thing.

Proof? When she went on Hannity and Colmes: http://mediamatters.org/items/200606130008

That's my problem with her. She criticizes liberals for doing something and lies when she says conservatives don't.

[cal1082]

I watch the news, pay attention to things and such, and I really do not think that there is "the exact same thing" happening with liberal comedians. People like Al Franken do not viciously attack people in the same way, its just not true if you say that. You continue to say that they do the exact same thing when thats just plain lying. They do not go on TV saying the most extreme thing they can think of just to attention. You can keep saying that, and saying that, and saying that, and believing it, but it is simply not true that they attack people in the same way.

--Franken has a book called "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot"!

--Franken challenged Rich Lowry to a fist fight

--Michael Moore quote.....""They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

--John Stewart didnt call someone a "DICK" on air did he?

--Janeane Garofalo has elluded to the Bush administration being like the Nazis

YOU'RE RIGHT THOUGH IT'S ALL LIES!

[FallingOut]

--Franken has a book called "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot"!

--Franken challenged Rich Lowry to a fist fight

--Michael Moore quote.....""They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

--John Stewart didnt call someone a "DICK" on air did he?

--Janeane Garofalo has elluded to the Bush administration being like the Nazis

YOU'RE RIGHT THOUGH IT'S ALL LIES!

All of these things are just single instances. What I really meant was that Coulter viciously attacks people on a regular basis, thats her entire act. All those people you mentioned dont just attack people every day, like Coulter does as her main way of publicity and attention. I can easily admit that there are left wingers out there who say dumb stuff, but there is no way they do it nearly as much as Coulter.

BTW, Franken's book title is meant to be ironic, because Limbaugh regularly calls people names,calls them dumb, etc. I read this in Franken's book. Somebody asked him about it and he explained that it was irony.

No matter what you say, there is still no way that you can compare the left wing people to Coulter. She is contiunally much more vicious than anybody else. Whatever you want to believe is fine, but you know the truth.

[cal1082]

All of these things are just single instances. What I really meant was that Coulter viciously attacks people on a regular basis, thats her entire act. All those people you mentioned dont just attack people every day, like Coulter does as her main way of publicity and attention. I can easily admit that there are left wingers out there who say dumb stuff, but there is no way they do it nearly as much as Coulter.

BTW, Franken's book title is meant to be ironic, because Limbaugh regularly calls people names,calls them dumb, etc. I read this in Franken's book. Somebody asked him about it and he explained that it was irony.

No matter what you say, there is still no way that you can compare the left wing people to Coulter. She is contiunally much more vicious than anybody else. Whatever you want to believe is fine, but you know the truth.

That's the whole point Justin and I have been getting out and you just drove our point home...................

"but because you agree with his points he’s humorous. But since Coulter is the devil in a black dress, everything she says is truly vile, evil, and wrong even though it’s spoken in jest, not meant to be taken seriously."

lol............this is ridiculous open your eyes up. You completely excuse away franken as "irony" but can not believe what coulter says is in sarcasm as well.

Oh, and first you say the left just doesnt viscousley attack people, I give you examples where they do, then it becomes "well those are isolated instances". Find some principles, stick with them, and apply them to everything (not just what you might agree with.

[FallingOut]

That's the whole point Justin and I have been getting out and you just drove our point home...................

"but because you agree with his points he’s humorous. But since Coulter is the devil in a black dress, everything she says is truly vile, evil, and wrong even though it’s spoken in jest, not meant to be taken seriously."

lol............this is ridiculous open your eyes up. You completely excuse away franken as "irony" but can not believe what coulter says is in sarcasm as well.

Oh, and first you say the left just doesnt viscousley attack people, I give you examples where they do, then it becomes "well those are isolated instances". Find some principles, stick with them, and apply them to everything (not just what you might agree with.

Maybe I would believe Ann Coulter was being sarcastic, or trying to be funny, if she ACTED LIKE IT. Let me say something again. Al Franken is a comedian. DId you read that correctly? A COMEDIAN. A COMEDIAN SAYS THINGS THAT ARE FUNNY TO MAKE A POINT. THEY USE THINGS, SUCH AS IRONY, TO BE FUNNY. As I said earlier, and maybe this is just my opinion, I believe that its a little bit more moral to make fun of, express your opinion of somebody, or hell, "attack" people with humor, than to go on TV and call them "witches" and other things that appear to be serious. Ann Coulter: NOT A COMEDIAN. Do you ever hear Ann Coulter saying, "Oh, I was just kidding, thats supposed to be funny!" Al Franken admitted that the title Big Fat Idiot was used as irony, and he used that because of the fact that Rush Limbaugh regularly calls people names of that sort. If Ann Coulter was a well known comedian, or at least somebody who appeared to try to be funny, I would maybe look at her statements and think, "Ok, shes just joking around" How can I think that shes being saracastic when she goes on TV after saying these vicious things and completely defends the statements, such as when she defended calling the 9/11 widows "witches," by saying they are "enjoying their husbands death" and "their husbands were probably planning to divorce them?" If shes trying to be funny, than she should make it a little more obvious. I can admit, maybe she isnt completely serious all of the time. But when she continuously says these ridiculous things, over and over and over again, then goes on TV, perfectly serious about them, I am going to think she really means them.

Oh and PS, I just read the chapter in Franken's book where he challenged Rich Lowry to a fight, and its completely obvious that he really did not intend to fight the man, he was only making a point because Lowry said that Democrats had "sissified" politics. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

[blankster07]

This is from Wikipedia "Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is a conservative American syndicated columnist, bestselling author, lawyer, and television pundit. She is often confused with Satan. The two, however, are only distant cousins. "

This made me chuckle...

[richter915]

They compare the two because both have similar tactless/tasteless approaches. Your comment uses a liberal comedian as an example who’s own act uses references to female genital when referring to Bush.....Is this stooping to the same level? Or there's Air America’s "comedians" who play skits about putting a hit out on the president......Is this stooping to the same level? That’s just two.

None of the despicable comments Coulter makes put her above her liberal counter parts, and it is your liberal “POV” that makes you think it is worse. Personally I wish people on the left would take the right’s example and view their Moore’s and Franken’s the same way we view our Coulter’s, with humor rather then trust.
this is exactly what I'm taking about. You can't justify her outlandish remarks so you just attack the left. I think your gravely missing some points and making bad analogies. A bunch of guys putting a "hit" on Bush is NOTHING compared to what Coulter has out rightly said (and no where does she say she's doing this as a joke, she means the shit she says)...what's the difference u ask? it's not with politics (wow, I know, you won't listen to that because acc. to you, everything revolves around man's biases and slants)...Coulter attacks people who have lost loved ones in the largest attack on US soil in recent history...Bush has lost no personal loved ones and even if he did, he would not be attacked like Coulter attacks widows.

Michael Moore doesn't do or say the shit Coulter does...she goes to an extent Moore does not. Why do you keep trying to make bad comparisons, it just makes her look worse.

[richter915]

I'm pretty sure I've never heard a liberal comic outright call for the killing of a federal judge or implying it'd be cool to kill Murtha.
does this "liberal comic" have his or her book on the NY times best seller list? Obviously this person doesn't get the attention Coulter does. It's wrong, but who gives a shit if no one is really listening anyway.

[Justin_stacy]

this is exactly what I'm taking about. You can't justify her outlandish remarks so you just attack the left. I think your gravely missing some points and making bad analogies. A bunch of guys putting a "hit" on Bush is NOTHING compared to what Coulter has out rightly said (and no where does she say she's doing this as a joke, she means the shit she says)...what's the difference u ask? it's not with politics (wow, I know, you won't listen to that because acc. to you, everything revolves around man's biases and slants)...Coulter attacks people who have lost loved ones in the largest attack on US soil in recent history...Bush has lost no personal loved ones and even if he did, he would not be attacked like Coulter attacks widows..
Jesus Christ, does it hurt to be so ignorant? There is absolutely no difference between the vile shit liberal "comedians" say and the shit Coulter says for shock value or to spur an argument. Is it something in the water that liberal’s drink that makes it impossible for them to see fault in one of their own?

Coulter says things to spur an agreement, the purposes behind the Jersey girls remark was to bring attention to the practice of political parties using victims for supposedly unattackable propaganda purposes. Justifying her words is hard/impossible, justifying her point is not. Now explain how this is different from playing a commercial calling for a hit on the president because he wants to fix social security? You can't, which makes you a fool, just like Fallingdown you disagree Coulter so she is bad, but Moore, Franken, Cross...etc...are people who you see an agreement with, so the shit they say gets a pass. If you can’t see that you’re helpless. Either they're all bad for what they say or do, or you live with the other side doing as your side does.

Coulter also constantly says she's talking in jest and not meaning to be taken seriously. With the Murtha comment she didn't mean for a physically attack on him, but to point out how wrong it was of him to convict American soldiers when he admitted he didn't know the facts, the story or anything about the people involved.

Michael Moore doesn't do or say the shit Coulter does...she goes to an extent Moore does not. Why do you keep trying to make bad comparisons, it just makes her look worse.

No of course not, Moore just uses victim’s words and images against their will, and then edits what they say to pervert their message. What a Samaritan. I wonder what hurt more?

The only difference between Moore and Coulter, is Coulter can site her work......