Post by: Eleven Mike on November 22, 2006, 11:59:34 AM
What's the big deal?
Post by: Mannlicher on November 22, 2006, 12:20:22 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on November 22, 2006, 12:30:20 PM
She has made some very good points. She's also made some poor ones.
Over the years, she seems to have become more shrill, as she needs to continue to generate attention.
I always enjoy her writing, even if I don't agree with her.
Post by: Ron on November 22, 2006, 12:34:17 PM
Post by: Ron on November 22, 2006, 12:44:34 PM
If you don't agree with her she is abrasive, condescending and mean.
If you agree with her, as I often do, she is just a little over the top but on my side of the aisle, so to speak.
Post by: molonlabe on November 22, 2006, 01:00:46 PM
Post by: crt360 on November 22, 2006, 01:24:33 PM
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 22, 2006, 01:40:52 PM
I always liked her but her last book lost me as a fan. Her tirade on evolution was inaccurate and overt the top.
Isn't that her style on everything? That picture comes up in every Coulter thread on these gun boards. Anybody know the back-story?
Post by: MechAg94 on November 22, 2006, 05:12:12 PM
She spends her time dumping on liberals. They don't like it so it must be controversial. It doesn't matter if she is right or not. Not all liberals take that attitude, but many do.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 22, 2006, 06:57:20 PM
Post by: SomeKid on November 22, 2006, 07:12:46 PM
I am 22, I would hit that. Then I would feed her, I like thin chicks and all, but the woman is seriously in need of meat.
As an aside, I have yet to hear anyone ever point out a known lie she told, or even a glaring factual error. To date, I know of one she acknowledged herself. (Calling someones grandfather the father, yah, end of the world mistake and she was honest enough to acknowledge it.) You would think if she was just a pathetic right wing Franken people could point out her screw ups.
Post by: Antibubba on November 22, 2006, 08:59:46 PM
Quote
I find her quite annoying, even when she's saying something I agree with.
Yup, I agree.
Quote
I am 22, I would hit that.
You're 22-not exactly the Age of Discernment.
Bones are for dogs. Meat is for men.
Post by: Stand_watie on November 23, 2006, 01:49:05 AM
I'm not a freeper but I like the tradition. A pic must be posted.
[parishilton]"That's hot"[/parishilton]
The picture anyway. If she could express her opinions in a Laura Bush sounding attitude it would be smokin' hot.
Post by: lupinus on November 23, 2006, 05:22:43 AM
that level of thinness just doesn't come naturaly to someone on a healthy diet
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 23, 2006, 07:21:13 AM
Post by: SomeKid on November 23, 2006, 09:03:16 AM
No. Couple of reasons. If she WERE a dude, someone would have found out and posted evidence. As is, it is just liberals bashing her with whatever they can get there hands on. Secondly, since I haven't been around her in person, and given a chance to feel it, I think what everyone is seeing is her trachea, but she is so blasted thin it makes it look huge. Hence the reason why she needs meat.
However, to put the issue to rest, I hereby volunteer to give her a full body inspection, to see if any evidence of non femality can be found.
Post by: grampster on November 23, 2006, 01:03:13 PM
I like what she says and how she says it. She is the conservative counterbalance to the shrill, nasty, misrepresentations, out right lies and character assassination by the Left. Tit for Tat, says I.
Post by: tyme on November 23, 2006, 02:27:09 PM
She is an embarrassment to all decent social conservatives (...and there aren't very many decent, vocal social conservatives, and IMO those who do exist tend to be misidentified as something other than social conservatives).
She can't combat the shrill lies of the left with shrill lies of her own.
Post by: Werewolf on November 23, 2006, 02:44:20 PM
She is blunt, to the point, and not even close to being PC. She is acerbic and is assertive to the point that many would consider aggressive.
Add to her qualities the one pointed out by Tyme that:
Quote
Her law degree notwithstanding, she tends to defend her talking points with anecdotes and half-baked logic rather than carefully-reasoned argument or scientific studies.
add in today's atmosphere of, can't we all just get along and you've got a recipe for a pundit with a highly polarized audience.Oh - and by the way - how any red blooded male can find that walking skeleton with skin attractive <shudder> is beyond me. Each to his own I guess.
Post by: lupinus on November 23, 2006, 02:48:30 PM
I was just kidding, I prefer...shall we say....well fed women. But I'd still hit Ann
Post by: Werewolf on November 23, 2006, 03:01:44 PM
Werewolf, Im a 21 year old male my standards aren't incedably high
I was just kidding, I prefer...shall we say....well fed women. But I'd still hit Ann
I was just kidding, I prefer...shall we say....well fed women. But I'd still hit Ann
21 - That explains the attraction. When I was 21 my only standard was human female. Why exclude a potential.
At 54 - well - I've learned that human and female can have quite a few more filters added and one can still be left with a quite sizable pool of potentials - just don't tell my wife.
Post by: lupinus on November 23, 2006, 03:36:19 PM
Post by: grampster on November 23, 2006, 03:55:06 PM
Some of the time, regarding Coulter, I wonder whether she engenders the dislike because she is simply mouthy and some folks resent a mouthy woman.
Frankly, I believe we are much more polarized in America than we should be. It's not surprising though. And I'm not sure it's healthy. Time will tell. My observation about this comes from the fact that I was an adult in the '60's and sentient. I remember wondering back then what our country would look like in 30 or 40 years given the actions of the wide variety of activists at that time. The seeds that were planted in the 60's have given rise to a full blown culture war presently. The activists were not dumb. They quieted down a bit, put on a suit, appeared to blend in with the status quo and then took over our political institutions, our media, our educational institutions and some of our religious ones.
The rise of talk radio, the opportunity that the internet, cable and satellite tv presented, fortunately provides a medium for those who object to what the so called social progressives stand for and disseminate: PC, Statism, judicial activism, forcing the loss of freedom to obtain "safety", animal rights, extreme environmentalism and the destruction of borders and nations as entities.
It should be no surprise to anyone that there would be voices like Ann Coulter. In fact, they are necessary. You may not like her. Call her a propagandist if you wish. You would not be wrong, actually. But unless there are strident and insistent voices on the right, eventually we'd go down, as the poet said, "...not with a bang, but a whimper".
No thanks. To Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin etc., I say you go girl.
Post by: 280plus on November 23, 2006, 04:13:42 PM
Post by: gunsmith on November 23, 2006, 04:51:44 PM
She is an attractive, witty and well informed
writer of the truth.
Post by: SomeKid on November 23, 2006, 06:30:22 PM
Quote
She can't combat the shrill lies of the left with shrill lies of her own.
Ok tyme, what lie has she told?
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 23, 2006, 07:03:08 PM
Post by: roo_ster on November 24, 2006, 09:01:59 AM
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.
Post by: tyme on November 24, 2006, 10:37:14 AM
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.
Post by: gunsmith on November 24, 2006, 02:49:41 PM
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
Post by: tyme on November 24, 2006, 03:22:52 PM
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.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 24, 2006, 03:47:19 PM
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.
Post by: XLMiguel on November 24, 2006, 04:47:24 PM
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 24, 2006, 05:42:19 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: tyme on November 25, 2006, 01:21:54 AM
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.
Post by: Cosmoline on November 25, 2006, 12:09:08 PM
Post by: gunsmith on November 25, 2006, 01:50:14 PM
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
Post by: Monkeyleg on November 25, 2006, 05:55:02 PM
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.
Post by: gunsmith on November 26, 2006, 01:16:13 PM
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
Post by: richyoung on November 27, 2006, 05:21:29 AM
Let's see.. she's called Bill Clinton a rapist...
Pretty much established fact. "You better put some ice on that" wring any bells?
Quote
... 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.
Quote
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...
Quote
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".
Quote
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
Quote
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."
Post by: roo_ster on November 27, 2006, 05:43:42 AM
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.
Post by: richyoung on November 27, 2006, 05:46:35 AM
RY:
Why'd you have to go and dredge up, like, facts & stuff?
Why'd you have to go and dredge up, like, facts & stuff?
...I just can't seem to break that habbit...
Post by: Ezekiel on November 27, 2006, 08:54:42 AM
Each side has irreverant mouthpieces, hers merely comes in a pantsuit. She deserves no more -- or less -- scrutiny.
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 27, 2006, 10:25:31 AM
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.
Quote
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. Quote
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."Post by: richyoung on November 27, 2006, 12:22:27 PM
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.
Quote
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...