Why such controversy over Ann Coulter?

[SomeKid]

She can't combat the shrill lies of the left with shrill lies of her own.

Ok tyme, what lie has she told?

[Lobotomy Boy]

I still think the risk of finding a unit down there is too great to chance it, but hey, if that's what spins your propeller...

[roo_ster]

Caller her loks "mannish" and such is asinine.  She is simply a skinny, pretty gal.  Not all gals can be stacked like automotive tool manufacurers' calendar girls.

Being married, going after such a single gal is not an option.  also, I suspect that the incisive mind and cutting wit she displays on television could be a bit of a turn-off were they turned-on someone in a personal manner.

She is "controversial" because she gores lefty/liberal sacred cows and brings up facts inconvenient to the statist, secular, progressive point of view.

[tyme]

Let's see.. she's called Bill Clinton a rapist and a homosexual.  The "homosexual" comment was on some TV talk show/interview, and she defended it by saying that he must be gay because he was promiscuous; the "rapist" comment was in the NY Observer, 2005-01-10.

She called John Adams the most Christian of the founding fathers on a recent (~September, 2006) speech that's on the web in flashified form.  Adams was technically a Christian, but hardly the sort Ann Coulter would rally around.  Most Christians back then, including Adams, were anything like the vocal, literal Christians of today, and Adams was hardly one of the more literal Christians, even in his era.  From what I've read of his writings, it seems that he liked the general moral structure of Christianity, rather than the literal aspects.  And let's not forget the Treaty of Tripoli.  I would be shocked if Adams supported inclusion of any transient Christian doctrine into secular law, whether the issue was abortion or gay marriage or sodomy.  It's more hazy what he'd think about instances like the ten commandments in a courthouse, but I have a feeling he'd at least be ambivalent about it.

[gunsmith]

tyme, if you would.
instead of just saying she did this and that please provide the transcript and/or vid so we can
see in what context she said these things?

I remember Clinton was accused of rape when he was gov & it sounded believable,
he is a serial groper.

Also I believe she said that homosexuals are promiscous and so is clinton, that he may have homoerotic tendicies but not that he engages in homosexual acts with men.

that whole cigar thing with Monica was just bizzare.

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc9b.html

[tyme]

I'm not going to serve as your personal interface to google.  There are people who have deconstructed the first couple chapters of Coulter's Slander in the same way that some have deconstructed Mickey Moore's "documentaries."  They contain many mistakes/lies and half-truths.  What I interpret as a lie, you'll interpret as an opinion or an honest mistake.

IMO, there is no "context" for most of Coulter's remarks.  She changes subjects and makes shocking statements out of the blue.  If she were funny, she'd be better as a stand-up comedian than as a writer or speaker.

Groping is sexual assault, not rape.  Why don't we hear Coulter ranting about Arnold the Rapist?  It's not like Arnold doesn't have a shady past, complete with homosexual rumors more solid (sorry!) than those people have cooked up about Bill.

[MechAg94]

After hearing "Bush Lied" for the last 6 years, I tend to ignore people when they accuse others of lying without more meat to the comment.


I don't necessarily think we are more polarized in the US right now.  I think it is more that for the first time ever, more and more people are making their opinions known and heard over more forms of media than ever before.  Talk radio and 24 hour news has allowed more and more people to at least think they are informed on the issues.

[XLMiguel]

I don't know.  She's certainly provocative, which is her style.  I do find her shrill on occasion, and sometimes inconsistent and 'light' in her substanitation (sin of ommission?) and continuity of point (i.e., non-linear reasoning), but overall, I enjoy her stuff, it does make on think.  It is the reader's job to think critically, regardless.

[Eleven Mike]

I would be shocked if Adams supported inclusion of any transient Christian doctrine into secular law, whether the issue was abortion or gay marriage or sodomy. 

   Why do you say transient?  Very confused about that one.

The three issues you mention cannot be dismissed as mere religious hobby-horses.  With the possible exception of sodomy, there are quite sufficient secular grounds to oppose them. 

[tyme]

Abortion has never in the history of human politics been treated as seriously as murder, yet that's how the vocal anti-abortionists want it to be treated.  Positions on those three issues depend heavily on which sect of Christianity you're talking about, and I think that Christianity will eventually abandon issues like those until it becomes a general "be a good neighbor" religion.  That's what I meant by "transient."

There are quite sufficient secular grounds to allow them, as well.  But that doesn't matter to you, because you think they're all morally wrong, and no matter what arguments I present you'll take the perceived moral high road by declaring abortion murder, and by declaring gay marriage and sodomy to be society-wrecking abominations.

[Cosmoline]

I have no idea what the big deal is, but leftists in particular get *really* worked up over her.  They frequently call her "Ann the Man."  They're pond scum, so what can you expect.

[gunsmith]

plus one comoline!

One of the reasons I love her is probably because the left hates her.
Probably why prevaricator Moore is so popular with the moron crowd

[Monkeyleg]

What too few people understand is that Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, and the rest of the crowd are entertainers.

An old friend of mine, and fellow photographer, spouts his mouth off in front of clients of every political spectrum. "Ya know, we'd solve all our problems if we just nuked the North Side (the predominantly black north side) of Milwaukee."

Nobody takes those comments seriously, or at least too seriously. They regard it as part of his schtick.

[gunsmith]

Ah, I should have said BJ Clinton was a serial groper and is also accused of rape.
Arnold (who is more liberal then Harry Reid) had some trumped up stuff during his first election campaign.

I find Bill as rapist far more plausible then Bill as totally gay, Bill as bi curious though is entirely conceivable.
Arnold as rapist?? highly doubtful.  Anne is a man? laughable!


edited to add ...I get BJ Clinton from Bills name Bill Jefferson Clinton...I wasn't trying to make a spoonerism or anything

[richyoung]

Let's see.. she's called Bill Clinton a rapist...

Pretty much established fact.  "You better put some ice on that"  wring any bells?

... and a homosexual.

As Sam Kineson once said about PTL's Jim Baker, "If any man could look at God and say, what did you expect me to do?".  Lets face it, Saint Hillary (of the Cattle Futures Miracle) is quite mannish looking herself.

  The "homosexual" comment was on some TV talk show/interview, and she defended it by saying that he must be gay because he was promiscuous; the "rapist" comment was in the NY Observer, 2005-01-10.

She called John Adams the most Christian of the founding fathers on a recent (~September, 2006) speech that's on the web in flashified form.  Adams was technically a Christian, but hardly the sort Ann Coulter would rally around.  Most Christians back then, including Adams, were anything like the vocal, literal Christians of today,...

Matter of opinion - yours differs - that's NOT a "lie", its a difference of opinion.  Your bias is showing...

and Adams was hardly one of the more literal Christians, even in his era.  From what I've read of his writings, it seems that he liked the general moral structure of Christianity, rather than the literal aspects.  And let's not forget the Treaty of Tripoli.

You're going to try to PROVE something by refering to DIPLOMATIC TREATIES?  You DO know that diplomats are politicians, right?  Usually ones that, like our former Rapist in Chief, are "uncommonly good liars".

I would be shocked if Adams supported inclusion of any transient Christian doctrine into secular law, whether the issue was abortion or gay marriage or sodomy. 

Better put on the rubber underwear, then:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our
Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people.
It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Source: Oct. 11, 1798; Address to the military

It's more hazy what he'd think about instances like the ten commandments in a courthouse, but I have a feeling he'd at least be ambivalent about it.

THIS john Adams? -

"It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation's humble acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence."

[roo_ster]

RY:

Why'd you have to go and dredge up, like, facts & stuff?  tyme was perfectly content with his understanding of John Adams as loonie-left Unitarian Universalist, the "bad humors" theory of disease, and fervent conviction that the cock did indeed cause the sun to rise.

[richyoung]

RY:

Why'd you have to go and dredge up, like, facts & stuff? 

...I just can't seem to break that habbit...

[Ezekiel]

Ann Coulter is merely Bill O'Reilly, or Al Franken, with (terribly small) breasts.

Each side has irreverant mouthpieces, hers merely comes in a pantsuit.  She deserves no more -- or less -- scrutiny.

[Eleven Mike]

tyme, you've raised a lot of issues to which I'd like to respond, and I hope you don't mind if I break up your comments and respond piece-meal. 

There are quite sufficient secular grounds to allow them, as well.  But that doesn't matter to you, because you think they're all morally wrong, and no matter what arguments I present you'll take the perceived moral high road by declaring abortion murder, and by declaring gay marriage and sodomy to be society-wrecking abominations.

Again, you take the view that the conservative view of abortion and homosexual marriage are just religious notions illicitly dragged into the political arena.  I will acknowledge that a lot of my fellow Christian conservatives are responsible for creating that impression.  I wish it were not so.  But that doesn't give you a warrant for pre-judging me by their behavior.  We could spend a lot of bandwidth discussing the secular, non-religious reasons to outlaw abortion and keep homosexual marriage in the private rather than public arena, but that would be for another thread.  Simply put, any atheist, Pagan, Christian, or Jew that subscribes to American, I might even say Libertarian, principles of small govt. should be anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage.

Abortion has never in the history of human politics been treated as seriously as murder, yet that's how the vocal anti-abortionists want it to be treated.

  I don't know if that's true, but it proves nothing.  Maybe previous generations were wrong.  They certainly didn't have the tools or scientific understanding to realize that an embryo has human DNA.  They didn't have ultrasound machines that enabled them to see the tiny human features, toes and fingers and so forth, inside the womb.  Maybe they didn't have the sophistication to understand that a "clump of cells" can be as human as adult human cell-clumps.  I can't win any arguments about homosexual marriage simply by claiming that it's never been considered marriage before.  We are concerned with the present.  I don't know if sodomy is a comparable issue, perhaps so.  I think it should be legal. 

Positions on those three issues depend heavily on which sect of Christianity you're talking about, and I think that Christianity will eventually abandon issues like those until it becomes a general "be a good neighbor" religion.  That's what I meant by "transient."

That has already been tried by the mainline Protestant denominations and by Catholicism.  This "liberal" brand of religion seems to be transient, based on the shrinking membership of such churches.  Christians are now remarking on the explosive growth of conservative (if non-traditional) charismatic Christianity in "the Global South."

[richyoung]

Abortion has never in the history of human politics been treated as seriously as murder, yet that's how the vocal anti-abortionists want it to be treated. 

"Abortion" as we know it has existed only since the late 19th century: prior to that, methods of determining pregnancy and procedures to end simply didn't exist.  As soon as such methods were developed, abortion was prohibited after the 4th month, if not outright.  In 1859, the American Medical Association unanimously adopted a resolution condemning "the procuring of abortion, at every period of gestation, except as necessary for preserving the life of either mother or child." Not until the 20th century, and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and like organizations, was there a signifigant push for legalized abortion in the U.S.  They pushed for it under the following premises:

1.  The fetus would feel no pain.
2.  The rates of child abuse would fall.
3.  The rates of teen pregnancy would fall.
4.  Illegal abortion would decrease.

As it turns out, only number 4 was arguably true.  Granted, some cultures, notably China, have had no problem with abortion for as long as can be determined.  They also have no problem with infanticide post-partum, and draw little distinction betwen the two.

Positions on those three issues depend heavily on which sect of Christianity you're talking about, and I think that Christianity will eventually abandon issues like those until it becomes a general "be a good neighbor" religion.  That's what I meant by "transient."

....your knowledge of Christianity is as vast as your knowledge of abortion history...