No, what’s rich is conservative non-thinkers lik you, Mr.M, who, every time something like this comes up, their only response is to pick through the garbage of the “other side”; they never quite get around to examining their own dirty laundry. You know, like a 4yrold caught doing something wrong; “But he did it too,” or “But she hit me first.” Pretty standard behavior for that kind of conservative, and 4 year olds.
My first tendency was to denounce Ann Coulter’s comments, weren’t they?
Problem with these boards is that you are quite happy to deal with her shit, but aren’t quite so introspective when it comes to nutcases on your side.
That’s a natural tendency in politics, and is a good reason to keep opposition folks like me around, you know.
I feel I ought to address this as well.
Ann Coulter’s relationship with National Review ended in 2001, which is before she made her most controversial statements. Your quote of Jonah Goldberg’s article was from this same period also, and obviously means there isn’t an endorsement one way or the other, without any other writings, of any of Ann Coulter’s work after 2001.
Um, no. What I defended was the statement “Canada sent troops to Vietnam”. Because Canada did. Made no difference who said it.
Actually, it was your fourth tendency, based on the number of your posts in this thread before you included yourself among the outraged. Your first tendency was to shrug and say you don’t like her much.
Relevant Tom Tomorrow cartoon.
ISTM, you defended her on pretty much the same grounds as Brutus did, and IMHO you were both unconvincing.
:shrug:
The specific article that caused her scuffle with The National Review was her column calling for the forced conversion of the Middle East, on pain of death, to Christianity. As far as I’m concerned, that was her most controversial statement, and the NR apparently had no problem with it.
Regardless, you tried to argue that Coulter losing her column at the NR meant that the NR was distancing itself from her viewpoints. That’s simply not the case. They haven’t endorsed her since then, but as far as I know, neither have they denounced her, either. All the while, she continues to sell her books and rake in cash hand over fist for her speaking engagements.
So where’s the evidence of wide spread conservative disapproval of Anne Coulter?
Since when is Bill Maher on “our” side?
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Ergo, Bill Maher is on the Dems’ side - right between Osama bin Laden and Tim Robbins.
Hey, I like Ann Coulter.
Aside frrom her being smart, I think she is the most entertaining writer on the issues she touches. Yeah, she goes over the line at times, and then compounds the problem by not admitting a mistake or going to far. She is a provocateur, always walking a fine line. But the vast majority of what she writes is on point and humorous. Her last book was filled weith good stuff, but a couple instances where she went over the line and erred by not admitting a mistake allowed those who hate her to paint her opinions with a nice fat brush.
I don’t see what the big deal is with the clip (other than the dishonest smarminess of Blumenthal). Cannot someone level an insult anymore? What is a good one? Not particulalry, a little sophmoric for my taste. But sheeze, if you want to insult someone you call him something he doesn’t like, or doesn’t identify with. The Breck girl *is *effeminate. He just is. He is also—apparently 
—heterosexual. Now he might not find the characterization objectionable, in which case the insult loses any zing whatsoever and the person levelling the insult looks weak. But if he does object , then the intent of the insult to sting was successful.
So all you heterosexual macho guys who jump on Coulter for this, I call you all faggots. For all you heterosexual feminine beauties out there, you’re all bull dykes. All you proud gay men, I call you cunt lickers. All you super fit beings, I call you all fat slobs. All you attractice people, I call you ugly, hideous wastes of DNA. For all you brainiacs I reserve the slur of dense ignorami. For al you dummies, well, it really doesn’t matter what you get called does it, as it goes right over you heads.
Coulter’s toe went over the line again. Yikes! The horror. Of course I’ll still read some of her articles and buy her next book and laugh out loud from time to time.
Well, that answers the question of who Coulter’s fans are: child molesters.
Nice.
You incest lover.
Hey, ‘keep it in the family,’ I always say. I can see how this might present a problem for you, as your relatives are probably too cautious to allow you to babysit for them. But then, there are still malls and schoolyards aplenty.
Sure we can, you dumb fuck.
Or something you don’t identify with…
As a former constituent, I don’t particularly like John Edwards. Regarding national issues, he represented my views much better than Lauch Faircloth, but hey, Orrin Hatch did a better job than Faircloth in that regard. As far as I can tell, Edwards’ principal political credo seems to be that John Edwards should be elected to whatever he runs for, because, hey, he’s John Edwards.
But Ann Coulter is not someone who “goes over the line at times” – she’s a person who has made a career out of marketing divisive lies as political commentary, simply for the publicity it gets her. She is a vile individual who, admittedly, has the right to freedom of speech, but IMO her access to the public should be a weekly column used as filler by the Great Falls ND Weekly Shopper when they don’t have enough paid ads for garage sales to fill the paper.
She has, flat out, called every Democrat and liberal a traitor, and for that she should be haled into court, convicted of criminal libel, and sent to an appropriate women’s prison for the maximum term. And if you are supportive of her efforts to divide the American body politic by publishing falsehoods, you deserve every epithet this board has ever hurled at you, and then some.
The thoughful, intelligent conservatives of this board (like Bricker and Mr Moto) have distanced themselves from the invective hurled like decayed garbage by Coulter. It’s regrettable and somewhat surprising to see you failing to do so as well. But, in my experience, par for the course.
Child molesters tend to favor hostile and divisive political discourse, as the resultant publicity inevitably distracts the media from lurid incidents of child molestation. You’ll see this sort of unfortunate behavior at work among certain levels of the priesthood, neoconservative groups, and other organizations with a vested interest in concealing the activity of child molesters. Some have said that the current Iraq war was ‘all about the oil;’ sadly, history will reveal that the thousands of U.S. casualties were a direct result of the high demand for limber orphaned children to service the needs of ardent Bush supporters.
Limber orphans? Maybe for the televangelists, but the neocons are whacking off at the prospect of an unending supply of child amputees.
Unfortunately, Iraqi children cannot supply all the needs of Coulter fans such as magellan01. While some, of course, are gladdened by the opportunity to demonstrate their power over helpless Middle Easterners so literally (and grateful for the amputee’s relative limited escape abilities), all too many Coulter fans find it distasteful to satisfy their lusts with the children of the unclean ‘mud races.’ This is why it is necessary for them to monitor the orphaned children of white U.S. servicepeople for their Republican rape gangs. Some may recall the National Guard’s “Flat Daddy” program from last year; what many don’t realize is that this was merely a ruse to confirm the children’s addresses and ethnicity in preparation for the second phase, the “Sugar Daddy” program.
Surprising how? The only surprise is how long it took him to drop by and remind everyone exactly what kind of an asswart he is.
If Ann Coulter were, say, Dennis Miller, or the leftish equivalent (Geo. Carlin, Bobcat Goldthwaite, Bill Maher, even Robin Williams on occasion), people would let it slide. OK, you’re a hateful idiot, but so what? The problem is that she works in a politico subculture, & is presented as a “pundit.” So when she calls John Edwards a “faggot,” or insists that the Dems are all “Traitors,” no really, they are; she’s not just Michael Richards cursing at “niggers.” She’s insisting that this is true, & that her co-religionists (the GOP is, in its emotional pull on its adherents, a religious sect at this point, sadly) need to believe this. It’s totally fucking serious.
To say that it’s just a joke to get Edwards’s goat is mendacity.