Guest

Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 9:23 am

What do you think of Ann Coulter?

I first saw her on CNN Crossfire last year, and she was ripping this guy to pieces over the anthrax scare. I find her to be very intelligent, and hot, but it seems if you aren't a right-wing conservative you are on her shit list, and you must vanish off the face of the Earth. What do you think of her?

Has anyone read her book "Slander"?

anncoulter.org is her site.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 10:06 am

When historians write about the gathering darkness in the last days of peace before the great oil war of the early 21st century, she'll top the list of propagandists that fueled the flames.
 
McRingRing
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 2:59 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 10:12 am

HOT!?!?!

She's horrendous. And like most women, she only gets worse when she opens her mouth.
B==============) ~~~~
 
brianhames
Posts: 743
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2000 2:22 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 10:30 am

I've read her book. It's very good. Makes many excellent points in the book. Me likey.  Big thumbs up
 
TWAL1011
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:39 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:35 am

Yeah, she's pretty hot. And just like everyone else, she's not perfect.

But she toasted Katie in their debate.
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:50 am

Ann Coulter is excellent, she is extremely intelligent and she doesnt try to cover up her beliefs. Her book, "Slander" was excellent, and I encourage every brainwashed liberal to pick a copy up. I know that it pains liberals to confront the facts that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes for many years, but it is one of the best Conservative books I have ever read. In addition to this she is pretty hot! Me gusta!
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
Guest

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 12:27 pm

She beats the crap out of Connie Chung, that's for sure!

'Speed
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 1:50 pm

Assomeone who was educated in the arts of brainwashing, Jcs, I can assure you there's not a liberal around that can hold a candle to the modern "conservative movement" . But you know that don't you.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 3:28 pm

Ann Coulter, witch and hag... too much makeup, facist bag.

I'm thinking of writing a parody of "Slander", I call it "Libel". Anyone wanna help?
Dear moderators: No.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 3:32 pm

Most of the time, I think her articles make very good points based on common sense and reality. But every once in a while I think she goes over the edge and is downright nasty. One of her more recent article, "Why we hate them" is an example of her just getting flustered and mean.

But overall, she's in a niche of writers who have a very easy job - poking fun at liberalism. It's an easy job, because liberalism is ideological movement, rather than conservatism, which tends to be more based on reality. Ideology is very easy and fun to rip apart when the facts don't match up to what their political/social model says. Communism had the same problem, only much worse.

If you want to read a somewhat less vitriolic writer of the same type, read P.J. O'Rourke. Much more irreverent, a former 60's peacenik hippy who grew up and became a conservative, sometimes he can get me rolling on the floor laughing.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 3:40 pm

liberalism is ideological movement, rather than conservatism, which tends to be more based on reality.

This doesn't make any sense. To say that conservatism is more practical than liberalism is absurd. We Liberals may have some idyllic ideas, but so did our founding fathers, and the French revolutionaries! It comes with changing times. We just embrace, even encourage, the changes.
Dear moderators: No.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 5:00 pm

Sorry Nuts, but I disagree.

First of all, I want to make a distiction - I am talking about economic liberalism and conservatism, not religious, or any other type. I'm an economist by training.

Liberalism is based in large part in the idea of limited resources - that if one man is rich, he somehow "took" it from someone else. This was one of the premises of Marxist theory, from which liberalism borrows. Marx was an utter idealist who's ideas simply were not practical, and in many cases, profoundly wrong.

Anyone who studies modern economies will know that wealth is not a fixed value - it can be created out of thin air. If you have an idea for a better mousetrap, and sell a million of them and become rich, you have not taken wealth away from anyone else. You instead came up with a product which people saw, and looking at the $20 dollar bill in their hands, decided that his life would somehow be better off if he traded the $20 bill for the mousetrap. Thus, the purchaser's wealth (i.e. standard of living) is increased, because of his own free will he acquired something for $20 which he believes has a value greater than that (without that belief, he won't buy it), and of course, the inventor makes a lot of money too. Voila, the creation of wealth.

Liberalism takes the idea of fixed wealth and the idealist concept that all people are in fact equal (not to be equated with your American founding fathers believes - by "all men are equal" in the Declaration of independence, they clearly meant that all should be TREATED equally, a big difference). Of course this is simply not true. People ARE unequal. There will always be half the population who are more intelligent, more motivated, have more common sense, or even have fewer morals than the other half do. Marx and Lenin believed that such differences could be conditioned out of society, but that has proved to be impossible. But that did not meant that they did not keep trying until the whole house came down around them. An example of reality being ignored in favor of an ideological model.

Deep down, liberals have a deep hatred of wealth. Actually, let me rephrase that. They hate wealthy people because they want the wealth for themselves. For those who have little, liberalism (or much further left, Marxism) is a seductive concept, as it says that the rich took your money, and it should be returned. Hell, it's easier to ask for a handout than working on that better mousetrap.

Liberalism has developed whole generations that believe that they are "owed" something, and the wealthy should return what they have. Look at the Civil justice system. Whenever you have a court case against a wealthy individual or a company, the jury of "peers" always likes to "stick it to" the wealthy one with a gargantuan penalty.

Personally, I am not against all aspects of economic liberalism. I believe that there should be a social "safety net" for those who fall on hard times. They do have some good ideas, sometimes. But I believe that the value of each individual, in regards to what wealth he accumulates for himself over his life, should be reflective of what he has personally delivered in terms of wealth to the rest of society. The mousetrap again.

One more thing.

About "liberal" politicians. I find that there are few more cynical and twisted people on earth than liberal politicians. I am convinced that at least 90% don't give a shit about poverty, redistribution of income, etc. They talk about it in order to get votes from the liberal-thinking masses. But they themselves tend to be wealthy individuals, with no qualms whatsoever about creating tax loopholes for themselves and their buddies.

Why do you think that liberal politicians are so against the proposition flat tax rates - the idea that everyone, from wealthy to poor, should pay an equal rate, say, 17%? The simple-minded public will believe that the wealthy will have their taxes cut in half, but in fact they would not. I happen to have several wealthy relatives, including in the U.S.. The effective tax rates for them are substantially lower than the published rates, because of all the loopholes. My American Grandfather would tell me that he actually felt guilty that he managed to get his tax rate down to the same level as someone who made a tenth of what he made. In fact, if all the loopholes were closed and a flat tax of 17% imposed, their taxes will actually go up a little. On the other hand, they have told me that they would not mind because it would simplify their tax returns from 200-300 pages down to a 1-page sheet. Of course that would throw out of business a lot of tax attorneys and accountants. Ever notice how those guys tend to vote for liberals? They are protecting their business of protecting the upper classes (of whom the wealthy "liberal" politicians belong), while the middle classes pay the big chunk of the tax bill, because they cannot afford those services, nor have the resources to use a lot of those tax shelters. Those are for wealthy people, like the Clintons, the Kennedys, et al.

Gotta work now,

Cheers,

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:30 pm

liberalism is ideological movement, rather than conservatism, which tends to be more based on reality.

That's why the Rush Limbaugh show employs very talented call screeners to keep off the air anyone who may sound like they have a good point that disagrees with Limbaugh's rants. Smart liberals are not allowed on the air with him. Intelligent guests are not allowed on the air with him. Anything that might remotely compromise the God-like power of his words in the ears of the faithful is kept away from that broadcast.

That's a fact. It's also not entertainment. It's propaganda.

As to Ann Coulter, someone chuckled that she body slammed Katie Couric on the Today show. If Couric decided to be half the snarling bitch Coulter was, it might have been a good cat fight. But Couric (who's primary function is to host a lite chat morning variety show) reacted much the same way she would if a Klansman or Nazi were inadvertantly booked to sit across from her..."yeah whatever. Is this over yet?"

What people fail to mention is the whining, babbling idiot Coulter was turned into by James Carville the following night on Crossfire.

 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:49 pm

Well Cfalk, economics is not my strong suit, so we'll just leave it at that.
Dear moderators: No.
 
jimbobjoe
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 2:04 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 12:10 am

Cfalk: I think you've written some good stuff there, some of which I probably would say differently or with more/less specificity. However, I want to correct only one thing:

I am talking about economic liberalism and conservatism, not religious, or any other type.

Not so much a correction, just a note that when my brain hears "economic liberalism" I think of the economic liberalist ideas of Adam Smith, the "classic liberals" who believed in laissez-faire and what we would probably call today libertarian economic ideas. Certainly these ideas are espoused more by today's American "conservatives" than today's American "liberals."

It's a terminology thing, and the terminology is not helped by political science definitions of "conservative" and "liberal." While "liberals" are usually associated as the type to be pro-choice and "conservatives" pro-life, since abortion is available and has been for some time now, in a political science sense those who advocate pro-life should now be called "liberals." (It should therefore come as no surprise that some pro-life people market themselves as liberals.)

Well I wasn't going anywhere with that in particular, especially since I don't have a better word to describe what you are trying to say except the political science term which would probably be "economic fascists." And you can see why I try not to say that sorta thing.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 12:14 am

Heavymetal, you have extremes on both sides. I figure Ann Coulter, as a right-wing conservative, is rouphly equivalent to Ted Rall on the far-left, in terms of their general positions. Although I tend to feel that Coulter tends to hit the mark more frequently than Rall (who I think is a complete and utter loon).

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 12:26 am

Jimbobjoe,

You are right, the term "liberal" has been turned around in many places. I was using the term as an American would. Here in Switzerland, the Liberal Party is more of the classic Adam Smith liberal, i.e. low taxes, little government, laissez-faire economy.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 12:34 am

Coulter fancies herself a Constitutional lawyer because she attended law school. Thats like saying that Jane Doe is a 747 pilot because she sat in Seat 24A on a Southwest flight to Vegas and complained about the peanuts.

The truth is that Anne is just agit-prop. I used to get incensed by her poorly written, poorly researched nonsense, but then I realized that Anne is just a mouthpiece created by the Scaife Foundation and other right wing so-called "Think" tanks (Yeah - "Think" - right !!) who really, truly doesn't understand the lawin general or the First Amendment in particular (or the 5th or the 14th for that matter). So is not a legal thinker, an economist, a philosopher. She apparently looks good on TV (if Tim McVeigh in drag and a long blond wig and heels is your thing), makes inflammatory off-the-wall statements that some folks wish they had a podium to make, and acts like a first amendment victim whenever her views are discredited (like her lies about her age for instance). Clearly affirmative action is one of her punching bags, but I wonder if Anne would have reached cult status if a) she wasn't a woman; b) if she didn't fulfil someones fantasy of what leggy blonds should look like on TV; c) if she didn't perpetually act like some whining victim of the left; and d) if she weren't so well connected to right wing torch bearers through family connections.

Anne is entertainment (although of the bulimic, nausea inducing variety). Its when you start taking her rants, of the "lets kill all liberals" variety seriously then you're up there in Never-Never land like her. So far she's only made a few millions through her books and her staged whinings (far less than the $ 400 million her compatriot Rush has made from poking fun of AIDs victims, Chelsea Clinton, etc, etc), so if you want to contribute to this hag's retirement fund of millions, please buy her book. As for me, I read it for free while at the bookstore (See - I gave Anne a chance to convince me). Reads like TP - won't take you more than 30 minutes tops to read it cover to cover.


Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 12:51 am

Cfalk, some good balanced points....but I gotta call you out on one paragraph:

Liberalism has developed whole generations that believe that they are "owed" something, and the wealthy should return what they have.

Charles, I live five minutes from some of richest people in the world on Palm Beach Island and I can assure you there are no crowds of dope smoking anti-globalization college kids holding signs reading "give it back" waiting at the end of the bridges. (And do a little background on some of the charectors over there, even you, Charles, would have your doubts) In fact where there ARE dope smoking anti-globalization college kids, the movement is precarious and discombobulated (barely 2,000 showed up for the IMF meetings in DC last week. There are more members at the Breakers Country Club than violent screaming "give backers".)

It's funny, but I think if you go back historically and look at the personalities and movements that have fought the free market accumulation of wealth, few of those movements would have possessed idealogically "liberal" (and that word has come to mean so many things in 2002 it's use is almost useless)philosophies across the board. Is 'communism' liberal in your theology, Charles? Funny because such modern 'liberal' causes like gay-rights and abolishing the death penatly would be non gratis in communist China. ("There are no homosexuals in China"-official policy as late as the early 90s.)

What I think you confuse is a 'liberal' tendency to be the first to speak up when there is some justification on 'the rich' using their money to effect an unnatural outcome on democracy. And, lately, the 'liberals' have been screaming the loudest about breathtakingly corrupt corporate practices.

What I also think you confuse is the system of "entitlements" in this country. Liberals yelling about spending millions on, say, "midnight basketball" (to use an old right-wing favorite)programs for poor inner city youth may easily seem to be making the rich subsidize the poor...specifically, the black, urban poor. Yet how is J.C Watts screaming for an artillery system built by defense contractors in his district that has been ruled obsolete by the Pentagon any different? Or what about the Project America cruise ship presently wallowing without funds in a shipyard in Senator Trent Lott's district...that's right! A US government built cruise-ship, to be offered to the right bidder when it's finished. All to keep Mississippi shipyard wokers employed. So tell me....do the rich mind paying for useless commodities simply because it's a conservative signing the deal?

Also, a quick scan of some of the ultra-rich shows us some surprises...from George Soros to Warren Buffett to Bill Gates...men who earned their billions in the very strictest, sometimes merciless, sense of free market...yet they sometimes openly embrace "liberal" arguments (Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett, fearing the ramifications of of a monied class of people who have not earned their fortune nor the responsibility to manage it wisely, is one of the leading proponents of KEEPING the estate tax...Soros gives tens of millions to population control. Ted Turner...well, you know that story  Smile/happy/getting dizzy ).

Look at the Civil justice system. Whenever you have a court case against a wealthy individual or a company, the jury of "peers" always likes to "stick it to" the wealthy one with a gargantuan penalty.

What has any of that to do with being "liberal"? Are you suggesting that the political/social idealogy of every person that gets into a jury box in an awards settlement voted for Nader or Gore last time around? If anything, I'd venture to say this is a direct result of conservative-led deregulation over the past 30 years. In our media culture, the appearence on Main Street is that more and more big business and wealthy types are "getting away with it" every day...so when one gets cornered by the common folk it's 'payback' time.

Perhaps if the media perception was one of wealthy individuals or companies making more of an effort to earn an honest living instead of one full of fuzzy math and golden parachutes, that fairness would translate to the jury box too.

Oh! Yeah.....Ann Coulter. Bitch.

(just to stay on thread topic.)  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

 
us330
Posts: 3407
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 7:00 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 1:37 am

How long ago did the Ann Coulter-James Carville debate air on Crossfire? I would love to see the Blond Bitch take on the Ragin' Cajun, and then get her arse kicked in the process.
 
mbmbos
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:21 am

Does anybody read the "Savage Love" column, by Dan Savage? A couple of weeks ago, he took a "dump" on Ann Coulter, pardon the pun. Very funny.

I can't take her seriously. She's far too manipulative.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 4:36 am

Heavymetal,

While we clearly don't agree on this, I'm glad we're keeping it civil  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Charles, I live five minutes from some of richest people in the world on Palm Beach Island and I can assure you there are no crowds of dope smoking anti-globalization college kids holding signs reading "give it back" waiting at the end of the bridges...

That doesn't really surprise me. Personally I think it's the media which exaggerates their existence (helps to sell airtime and adspace). However here in Europe, the populations are a little more left-leaning. Hell, we still have Communist parties in nearly every country, and they get some 5% or so every time. Not huge, but still significant, especially in coalitions. And the "give-it-backers" are more significant here. I was once held hostage by a bunch of WTO protesters, who upon seeing my suit and decent car (I had the ill fortune to be driving by) decided that it might be a good idea to burn my car (and me in it) for the people. Luckily the police finally moved in and saved my skin - another person in Geneva the day before was not so lucky.

Is 'communism' liberal in your theology, Charles?

As we said before, the term "Liberal" has warped in recent decades.Economically speaking, in English-speaking countries, liberal has come to mean left-leaning policy compared to "conservative", right-leaning policy.

So, yes, under this definition, Communism is as liberal as you can get.

Funny because such modern 'liberal' causes like gay-rights and abolishing the death penatly would be non gratis in communist China.

You're talking about social policy. It has nothing to do with economic policy. You can be socially liberal but economically conservative, or vice versa.

What I think you confuse is a 'liberal' tendency to be the first to speak up when there is some justification on 'the rich' using their money to effect an unnatural outcome on democracy.

Again, this is more social policy, but it all ties in to what I said about politicians. I feel strongly that politics in the U.S. has become structurally corrupt. Massive amounts of money are needed to run for election successfully. Floods of political ads for months is the norm. The electorate has become increasingly short-sighted, and Congressmen have to run every 2 years. When the reelection campaign takes up to a year, a congressman is constantly in campaign-mode. Campaign contributions are very welcome, legal or otherwise, because he needs the money to stay in office (otherwise he'll have to go back to the public sector and WORK for a living - yuk!) This holds true for all politicians, left or right. And of course, money buys favors.

The U.S. really needs to get a handle on this. No political mass-media campaign should be allowed more than a couple of weeks before an election, as a start. You can't spend THAT much money in 2 weeks, and it would reduce the dependence of these guys on those seeking to buy influence.

Again, this is valid for all parties, right to the top. Hell, the Chinese government managed to buy influence in the Clinton White House.

The U.S. MUST wean their politicians from all this money.

And, lately, the 'liberals' have been screaming the loudest about breathtakingly corrupt corporate practices.

This is a very complex subject which should be the subject of another thread. But it is my personal belief that the "corruption" or rather, the seeking of profitable annual reports at all costs, was largely born of the 1990's stock market boom and the "new economy", which was allowed to run rampant and out of control. Desperation caused such corporate mismanagement as much as greed.

...Liberals yelling about spending millions on, say, "midnight basketball" (to use an old right-wing favorite)programs for poor inner city youth may easily seem to be making the rich subsidize the poor...specifically, the black, urban poor...

Again, we are talking about politicians. Don't ever trust them. They are only after votes, and are willing to spend public money on anything that may attract positive attention, regardless of any real value (positive or negative) it may have in the long term. Democrat or Republican makes very little difference.

Also, a quick scan of some of the ultra-rich shows us some surprises...

They've earned the right to their eccentricities  Smile/happy/getting dizzy. But you are mixing up social and economic policy again. There are very few wealthy people who are sincerely liberal in an economic sense, but socially they can be all over the map.

Perhaps if the media perception was one of wealthy individuals or companies making more of an effort to earn an honest living instead of one full of fuzzy math and golden parachutes, that fairness would translate to the jury box too.

That is part of the problem - public perception. The media reports on the Enrons and Worldcoms, but say little or nothing about the many millions of managers and employees in tens of thousands of companies who do in fact earn their living as solidly and honestly as they know how. Such fraudulent activities were the exception, not the rule. That does not mean that it should not be harshly addressed of course. But the public perception was blown a little out of proportion.

But even before that. How do you explain the huge award given to that dumb woman who spilled McDonalds coffee all over her crotch. If that was not vindictiveness, I don't know what is.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 9:18 am

The money given to that dumb woman who spilled coffee all over herself was not out of vindictiveness. It was given partially because of the size of the McDonalds corporation and the heavy handedness of their attorneys - initially they refused to give the hapless woman any damages for medical care, etc.. Eventually, she was granted damages for the burns she received, and then the jury granted her huge punitive damages. These were then drastically reduced by a Judge.

I see that someone decided to put all political thought on a linear spectrum and decided that to push liberalism all the way down the slippery slope into communism. Bizarre as that may sound - liberals, even of the European social democrat refrain, have never been too enamored of Statist control of industry - you could then tilt the see saw on the right side and say that conservatism is akin to fascism, theocracies, monarchies, what have you. But that is equally bizarre because free markets essentially require freedom of association and freedom of contract not possible under any of these regimes.

Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 11:05 am

For the record, Ann "Crazy" Coulter is about as hot as Katherine Harris. Yeech!
Dear moderators: No.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 12:10 pm

More words of wisdom by Saint Ann:

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'" --Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote." --Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote." --Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks." --Rivera Live, 8/2/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." --George, 7/99

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it." –MSNBC, 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns." --Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail." --Hannity & Colmes, 8/24/01

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married." --Rivera Live, 6/7/00

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate." --Rivera Live, 3/12/99

"My track record is pretty good on predictions." --Rivera Live, 12/8/98

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard." --Washington Post, 10/16/98

Amen.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:02 pm

For the record, Ann "Crazy" Coulter is about as hot as Katherine Harris. Yeech!

This coming from the guy who said Susan Estrich and Gloria Stienem are hot!  Big grin

Just kidding, Were Nuts...(at least I hope)

America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
Rai
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:12 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:22 pm

I suggest that you folks read the book Blinded by the Right, by David Brock. The book sheds light on the inner workings of the conservative press, conservative politics and the conservative movement. It definitely opened my eyes. For those of you that don't know, David Brock was a conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, Washington Times and several other conservative publications.

One of my favorite parts of the book are the descriptions of Ann Coulter. They definitely changed my opinions of her and I don't really take anything she says seriously anymore. She's nothing more than a scam.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:34 pm

Oh come on, you can't tell me that this doesn't get you hot.  Laugh out loud Laugh out loud Laugh out loud

Dear moderators: No.
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:45 pm

I can just hear Estrich's nasty, gravelly, manly voice....ughhh...how about a new rule on a.net: NO PICTURES OF SUSAN ESTRICH!
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
KAL_LM
Posts: 492
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 8:58 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 3:32 pm

Yeah for a shrill screechy, manipulative, plagarizing, agit-prop, neo-conservative, "think-tank" creation, she's not bad, but hey, truth never meant much to her anyways...

regards,
Tom
is that a light at the end of the tunnel or just a train?
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 3:41 pm

Jaysit,

It was given partially because of the size of the McDonalds corporation and the heavy handedness of their attorneys - initially they refused to give the hapless woman any damages for medical care, etc..

You just answered the question. The damages were so high "because of the size of the McDonalds corporation", i.e. their wealth. The Jury decided on a little income distribution on their own, based on some dumb broad's inability to juggle a steering wheel and a coffee cup at the same time, and her inability to think that maybe such an attempt was not such a good idea. That money was not merited. If the defendant was an independent sidewalk coffee vendor, she would not have gotten anything.

Justice should be blind. If a crime has been committed, the punishment should be the same no matter who the defendant is.

So thank you for proving my point for me. Juries will go the extra mile to shaft a large corporation.

Back to the topic:

Sure Coulter goes over the top sometimes. But sometimes she makes some very good points that should be pondered. Take this article, for example.

MURDER FOR FUN AND PROPHET
Thu Sep 5,10:02 PM ET
By Ann Coulter

In "The Trust" by Susan E. Tifft and Alex S. Jones, a fawning historical account of The New York Times and the family behind it, the authors describe how the Newspaper of Record conspired to hide information about the Holocaust:

"A July 2, 1944, dispatch citing 'authoritative information' that 400,000 Hungarian Jews had already been deported to their deaths and an additional 350,000 were to be killed in the next three weeks received only four column inches on Page 12, while that same day a story about Fourth of July holiday crowds ran on the front page."

To find out what the enemy is up to in the current war, you keep having to turn to obscure little boxes at the bottom of Page A-9 of the Newspaper of Record.

In a little-noticed story almost exactly one year after Muslims staged the most horrific terrorist attack the world has ever seen, a Muslim en route from Germany to Kosovo emerged from the airplane bathroom and tried to strangle a stewardess with his shoelaces. (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)

That story was squirreled away in small box at the very bottom of Page A-9 of the Times. In the entire Lexis Nexis archives, only three newspapers reported the incident. Not one mentioned that the attacker was a Muslim. It was a rather captivating story, too. Earlier in the flight, the Muslim responded to the stewardess's offer of refreshments by saying, "I'd like to drink your blood." (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)

Also last week, another practitioner of the Religion of Peace, this one with ties to al-Qaida, tried to board a plane in Switzerland with a gun. This story did not merit front-page coverage at The New York Times.

On July 4 this year, an Egyptian living in California -- who had complained about his neighbors flying a U.S. flag, had a "Read the Koran" sticker on his front door, and expressed virulent hatred for Jews -- walked into an El Al terminal at the Los Angeles airport and started shooting Jews. (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)

The Times casually reported the possibility that his motive was a fare dispute. Four days after the shooting, the story vanished amid an embarrassed recognition of the fact that any Muslim could snap at any moment and start shooting.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (generally found around Page A-12 of the Times), Americans have been cowed into perseverating that Islam is a "religion of peace." Candid conversations about Islam are beyond the pale in a country that deems Screw magazine part of our precious constitutional freedoms.

If the 9/11 terrorists had been Christians, the shoelace strangler a Christian, the gun-toting Swedish Muslim a Christian, the Los Angeles airport killer a Christian and scores of suicide bombers Christians, I assure you we would not be pussyfooting around whether maybe there was something wrong with Christianity.

In a fascinating book written by two Arab Muslims who converted to Christianity, Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner give an eye-opening account of Islam's prophet in "Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs."

Citing passages from the Hadith, the collected sayings of Muhammad, the Caners note that, by his own account, the founder of Islam was often possessed by Satan. The phrase "Satanic Verses" refers to words that Muhammad first claimed had come from God, but which he later concluded were spoken by Satan.

Muhammad married 11 women, kept two others as concubines and recommended wife-beating (but only as a last resort!). His third wife was 6 years old when he married her and 9 when he consummated the marriage.

To say that Muhammad was a demon-possessed pedophile is not an attack. It's a fact. (And for the record, Timothy McVeigh ( news - web sites) is not the founder of Christianity. He wasn't even a Christian. He was an atheist who happened to be a gentile.)

Muslims argue against the Caners' book the way liberals argue against all incontrovertible facts. They deny the meaning of words, posit irrelevant counterpoints, and attack the Caners' motives.

Ibrahim Hooper, with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, says that by "6 years old" the Hadith really means "16 years old" and "9" means "19" -- numbers as similar in Arabic as they are in English. Hooper also makes the compelling argument that the Caner brothers -- who say they wrote their book out of love for Muslims whom they want to see in heaven -- are full of "hate."

Other Islamic scholars concede the facts but argue that Muhammad's marriage to a 6-year-old girl was an anomaly. Oh, OK, never mind. Still others explain that Muhammad's marriage to a 6-year-old girl was of great benefit to her education and served to reinforce political allegiances.

So was she really 16, or was it terrific that he had sex with a 9-year-old to improve her education? This is like listening to some Muslims' earlier argument-in-the-alternative that the Zionists attacked the World Trade Center, but America brought the attack on itself anyway.

Muhammad makes L. Ron Hubbard look like Jesus Christ. Most people think nothing of assuming every Scientologist is a crackpot. Why should Islam be subject to presumption of respect because it's a religion? Liberals bar the most benign expressions of religion by little America. Only a religion that is highly correlated with fascistic attacks on the U.S. demands their respect and protection.


Remember, she is not a reporter, who is supposed to only report facts. She's an Op/Ed writer, who is supposed to pull out little tidbits of information in contrast to the news and say "did you think about this?", and of course have her own opinion. But at least in the article above, she makes a few interesting points.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Thu Oct 03, 2002 11:25 pm

Cfalk - juries dont just trot out large punitive damages because they want to be mean to the big ol' McDonalds company; it is because the Anglo-American concept of punitive damages allows and demands they do. The whole idea of punitive damages - essential to the Anglo-American notion of justice - and which has been carried over in common law since time immemorial is to punish. How would you punish a large corporation? Certainly not by making them pay as little as a sidewalk vendor would have to dish out. The McDonalds analogy is always trotted out as an example of those evil trial attorney's greed. But what would your reaction be if a large drug company made contaminated drugs that injured someone? Or a car manufacturer installed steering wheels that jammed in motion causing an accident? Would you then say that punitive damages are not warranted? So, I haven't proven any point of yours. The notion of punitive damages is a sound one created for civil damages, not criminal ones. The McDonalds example is an anomaly for what it is. You cannot throw out the whole concept of punitive damages because one fat woman had a burger caught between her teeth and spilled coffee all over herself.

Getting back to Ann Coulter and her damning story about the NY Times which she trots out completely out of context because the Times refuses to grant her screeds any press, pretty much most of the American press - especially the conservative press - in 1944 played down the genocide of the Jews. Anti-semitism was rife before and during WWII which led to the return of ships carrying Jewish refugees from both the US and the UK. So just what is Ann's point? I can point out dozens of floor statements made by GOP Congressmen in the 1940s that stated that "there are already so many Jews in America, why should we accept any more?" Ann trots out one fact to make a gargantuan generalization about institutions she dislikes while completely glossing over the fact that the same assumption applies more directly to her friends and heroes.

As far as "Muslims" go, don't you think that Ann is getting a bit obnoxious? She tars ALL Muslims with the same brush as she would terrorists. Of course, the mainstream press - as well as the so-called liberal press- are asking questions as to whats wrong with fundamental Islam. What Ann, the bimbo, doesn't state is that publications like the , NY Times, the Nation and TNR have been engaged in this dialogue much, much before 9-11. If you go back to NY Times archives you will see dozens of articles listing human rights abuses by the Taliban, the Wahabis, the Mullahs in Pakistan. What they do that Ann doesn't is engage in a real journalistic and editorial endeavor. She states that it is a "the fact that any Muslim could snap at any moment and start shooting." How is that a fact? Where is Ann's evidence? That 3 Islamic fundamentalists the world over went over the edge post 9-11 on an airplane? There are 6 million Muslims in this country and they're not exactly advocating throttling stewardesses with shoe strings. Ann on the other hand stated quite emphatically that the only regret she had with Tim McVeigh was that he didn't park his Ryder truck near the NY Times Building in Manhattan. Maybe the fascist gonzo airhead should examine just who it is who snapped quite a long time ago.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
Guest

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 1:01 am

About "liberal" politicians. I find that there are few more cynical and twisted people on earth than liberal politicians. I am convinced that at least 90% don't give a shit about poverty, redistribution of income, etc. They talk about it in order to get votes from the liberal-thinking masses. But they themselves tend to be wealthy individuals, with no qualms whatsoever about creating tax loopholes for themselves and their buddies.

Funny thing too. I used to believe otherwise (My own politcal ideology tends to stary to the left), but then I turned 17, lol. And in the last thirteen years, I have learnt a thing or two about a thing or two, if you know what I mean. The fact is that Liberal politicians are just rich and on many occasions "evil" as any Republican can be. But, I have to give more respect to the GOP, as they at least attempt to be hinest about it.

As to Ann Coulter, someone chuckled that she body slammed Katie Couric on the Today show. If Couric decided to be half the snarling bitch Coulter was, it might have been a good cat fight. But Couric (who's primary function is to host a lite chat morning variety show) reacted much the same way she would if a Klansman or Nazi were inadvertantly booked to sit across from her..."yeah whatever. Is this over yet?"

Um, no. I saw that. Couric, (though we all can admit she was not the most formidable opponent in the 1st place), got her $60million a year to do absolutley nothing, candy ass handed to her. There was no "Yeah is this over", more like the look a puppy gets when it is lost in the big city. She was out-classed, out-smarted, and in general, trounced at every turn.
PS, I would have ripped her a new one if I were her producer. Losing control of the situation like that can never be good for ratings.
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 2:45 am

Katy Couric....

a. Showed that Ann had blatantly lied about Katy's quotes concerning the Reagan Book.
b. Exposed Ann for being FIRED from the National Review; and
c. was generally nice to the lying media hungry bottom feeder.

For exposing Ann was a liar who was fired from her job as Nazi mouthpiece for the Right, some of the blind on here think that Katy should be ripped a new one.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
wn700driver
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:55 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 3:10 am

Jay I saw that too.

All of those things were attempted, but but she got dunked each time. Sorry, but that doesn't count. You have to understand that Couric is not what you call the sharpest axe in the woods, or even what you would call, smart. Ann is no einstein, but Kate got spanked that day.
I wouln't rip her a new one, but I would take the next opportunity to dump her incompetent arse onto another network. With starts like that, who needs competition???

Cheers
Base not your happiness on the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No Hope = No Fear
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 3:24 am

Couric is a clown. I'm not a Coulter worshiper but Couric is just plain idiotic.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 3:51 am

You guys crack me up. Couric is a clown! Couric is a candy ass! Couric is a lightweight!

Don't take this the wrong way , but for being such a lightweight candy-assed clown, she sure seems to be spending a decent amount of time on your tv screens!

You remind me of the Howard Stern listeners who think he's a revolting, obscene disgrace....then can rattle off every bit he does.
 
wn700driver
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:55 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 4:03 am

Heavy,

You got me their, lol. My thing is silly but I guess I will explain. My wife used to like that show a bunch and eventually we got into the habbit of watching it. Well she's gone now, and that & a few other small things (not all of which I actually like), are what I have left. Weird huh?
Base not your happiness on the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No Hope = No Fear
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 4:06 am

If she appears on my set, I quickly flip the channel unless I'm in the mood to laugh at someone for making an ass of themselves on national TV.

If the amount of tv air time one receive directly correlates to ones wisdom, I guess the common notion of what constitutes intelligence needs to be drastically altered. How else should we compensate for the apparent vast intellect of Geraldo, Jerry Springer, and Martha Stewart, all of whom receive generous air time on various networks.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 3:58 pm

Funny you mention that....I met Jerry Springer today. Very soft spoken, polite guy....they asked us to have some Evian available when he arrived but Walgreens is next door so that wasnt a problem, not the worst "star diva" request we've gotten. He's touring Florida for the Democratic party, who is going hells out to make sure the idiocy of their core constituents in the election of 2000 doesnt repeat this year.

Prize hypocrite though, IMO. Soft spoken "issues" guy who didnt mind getting rich off the same dysfunctional"trailer trash" he's gottastare down his nose at now to get 'em to vote his way.

Surprise! He's not a big fan of Bush ..in fact I got him to read a line, "Hey its Jerry Springer...dont look know but I think Dubya needs another folding chair across the forehead!"
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 10:47 pm

Please --- all that Anne kept saying- shrieking actually - on the Couric interview was "I have footnotes; I have 400 footnotes." Big whoop ! So whats that supposed to mean, especially if her footnotes are used for the most idiotic leaps of logic. Admittedly, Katy isn't the brightest bulb on the planet, but for someone who isn't the brightest bulb, she sure held her own. How did Ann slam dunk her? All she said was "Its in my book, Its in my book" in a lame ass way of promoting her roll of printed TP.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: Ann Coulter

Fri Oct 04, 2002 11:25 pm

Jerry Springer is a really nice guy, I met him at a Super Bowl party in New Orleans. I got my picture with him, he had no problem taking the picture.
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2707200X and 10 guests