I'm curious to see if anyone here wants to defend this.

Fucking sickening.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/424405p-358034c.html


Massive chip on her Coulter

BY ADAM LISBERG
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

One of the controversial excerpts from Ann Coulter's new book 'Godless': 'These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.'

When their husbands were killed on 9/11, four New Jersey widows tried to find out why - and now no-holds-barred conservative pundit Ann Coulter is mercilessly denouncing them as "witches."

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in her new book.

Her brutal words were challenged yesterday on national television by "Today" host Matt Lauer - and she was slammed by the widows she derided as self-absorbed, limelight-seeking "harpies."

"I'd like her to meet my daughter and tell her how anyone could enjoy their father's death," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four widows known as the "Jersey Girls."

"She sounds like a very disturbed, unraveled person," added Breitweiser.

In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," the uncompromisingly right-wing Coulter writes the Jersey Girls have no right to criticize President Bush or any of the failures that led to the terror attacks.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," Coulter writes.

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . .

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza bonded after their husbands died on 9/11, leaving them with seven children and a desire for answers.

They pushed to create the 9/11 commission, which put out a scathing report criticizing the Clinton and Bush administrations for not taking the terrorist threat more seriously - and found New York's emergency response system wasn't prepared for a serious attack.

"Our ports have not been secured. Our borders have not been secured. We still haven't caught [Osama] Bin Laden," Van Auken said yesterday. "She's not even talking about what we were talking about. She's just attacking."

The Jersey Girls - or, as Coulter calls them, "the Witches of East Brunswick" - have been criticized before, but never like this. Van Auken told the Daily News she was stunned by the vitriol.

"Having my husband burn alive in a building brought me no joy," she said. "Watching it unfold on national TV and .seeing it repeated endlessly was beyond what I could describe. Telling my children they would never see their father again was not fun. And we had no plans to divorce."

When Lauer grilled Coulter about the book, she yelled at him so harshly that gasps echoed through Rockefeller Center - and then she made a wisecrack about CBS-bound former host Katie Couric.

"If you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?" Lauer asked.

As the exchange grew tense, Coulter said, "Look, you're getting testy with me."

She later added: "Hey, where's Katie? Did she leave or something?"

Last night, Coulter didn't back down from bashing the 9/11 widows. "These women got paid. They ought to take their money and shut up about it," Coulter said on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson."

Coulter made headlines in the past when she called for blowing up The New York Times Building, advocated forcing Muslims to become Christians and wrote an entire book that said every American liberal is guilty of treason.

Her controversial writings have made her a best-selling .author and syndicated columnist and put her on the cover of Time magazine. She's made big bucks in the process, buying a $1.5 million condo on the upper East Side.

Politicians of both parties denounced Coulter's comments.

"It's totally inhumane to be saying things like this about people who went through such agony," said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.).

"It seems that she's just full of anger and hate," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan), who held a news conference yesterday with relatives of 9/11 victims on the country's failure to improve security.

"Like an insecure child, it's always been clear that Ann Coulter is prepared to do anything to get attention," added Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn, Queens). "This is a new low."

Denny said he wouldn't vote for Dems because of some of their figureheads. Interesting to see if he'd still vote for Lics.

What a bitch...

My old man told me that I should never hit a woman. A face to face with this bitch would surely test my resolve.

Nah, I'd straight up smack her.

funny thing is, she says most of that dumbshit to stay in the news and to keep selling books, if people stop paying attention to her, she'd just go away.

Too bad that that's impossible in our society. This is the same world in which someone paid 4 million dollars and some change for pictures of Brad Pitt's and Angelina's dumb assed kid. 4 million....

People want drama and will pay through the nose to get it.

Someone should've hit her permanent-off switch when she lived in Michigan.

I'm sure that you've all heard the rumors that "she's" a tranny, right?

Say that you are sorry for being from the same state as the president equals the end of steady paychecks, obsecurity and damination. However if you bash victims of a tragedy for wanting answers to tough questions that no one wants to ask in the mainstream media it barely shows up on radar. If this doesn't prove we live in a red country nothing does.

Varsity is right; the way to make a person disappear is stop paying attention.

Funny, Gecko and some others are strangely silent on this issue.

If I'm not mistaken, Gecko is a fan of Coulter.

I'm going to guess that Gecko just hasn't seen this thread yet.

He's not going to just avoid it, I can guarantee you that.

By the time he's done, you'll feel safe calling up ol' Ann to watch your kids for you whilst you go to the movies. lol

I'm going to guess that Gecko just hasn't seen this thread yet.

He's not going to just avoid it, I can guarantee you that.

By the time he's done, you'll feel safe calling up ol' Ann to watch your kids for you whilst you go to the movies. lol

On behalf of Gecko, I'm asking you to apologize for that insensitive comment.

Why can't you behave with dignity, Glenn - - - like Ann Coulter?

Anne Coulter has always been a cunt. she does it for the attention pretty much. you can tell when you see her on bill maher's show. she's like a muthafucka who stayed at a holiday inn trying fly a 747. Acting like she knows what she's doing, but looking like she doesnt know shit. but if her books sell, then a portion of america is a shithole mentally to actually follow that garbage as if she ,akes valid points.

I absolutely refuse to believe that Gecko is an Ann Coulter fan. He's already tried to prove that you can be a republican without falling off the right side of the fence.

Please, Gecko....please chime in and say that this simply isn't so.

kind of hard to judge these comments when you dont even know the people she's talking about, right?

Denny said he wouldn't vote for Dems because of some of their figureheads. Interesting to see if he'd still vote for Lics.

I vote for what's right for this country, not simply for "the right".

I voted for Kerry in the last election, but that doesn't mean I'm a liberal fruitcake like Michael Moore, or a neo-conservative nutbag like Coulter. I consider myself a Centerist, very much like most of populous America. I hold both liberal AND conservative views, depending on the subject.

I hate Ann Coulter.

I also hate Jeneanne Garafalafalafalo.

The problem with both parities is that they're currently being run by the radical spectrums of modern American politics. But this is in favor of the GOP, who's viewpoints are focused and unwavering, albeit controversial. In the current Democratic primary for Governor here in Cali, Angelidis beat Wesley, mainly because Westly co-founded ebay and sleeps with big business. The Dems basically told him to fuck off by supporting the "traditional democrat" (both Boxer and Feinstein, senators, vocally supported Angelidis, as did the unions), but Wesley would have had a better shot at Schwartzenegger by luring on-the-fence Republicans to his side. In short, Arnold will most likely kill Angelidis in the election, and the Democrats have once again missed the broad side of the barn.

As for the Presidential race?... name me one Democrat who holds a shot at Jeb Bush?

And yes, I think Jeb will run.

They'll most likely run Daschle or Hilary, a man who lost SOUTH DAKOTA and a woman who lets her hubby get de-chromed by a fat bitch.

Then again, Daschle could have intentionally lost his election to distance himself from DC, which would be the proper move. Kerry would have won the election if he hadn't been so concerned with the aftermath of a possible loss.

i wouldnt quit your day job to become political forecaster.

i would say jeb bush and daschle have 0% chance of winning their partie's nominations, and clinton is a longshot at best.

i wouldnt quit your day job to become political forecaster.

i would say jeb bush and daschle have 0% chance of winning their partie's nominations, and clinton is a longshot at best.

Then who?

This is a typical liberal response: bash a point, but offer no counterpoint.

kind of hard to judge these comments when you dont even know the people she's talking about, right?

You're right, I don't know these people....but I DO know Ann Coulter. Just pick up one of her books and leaf through it. If you want to be angry...REALLY angry....then go right ahead. She conducts interveiws in an "I know you are but what am I" type fashion and argues her points by rolling off target and personally attacking anyone that questions her beliefs. If that doesn't work then she just talks over the person she is squaring off against.

Does this country or any of the people in it need to really start behaving like that? What does that accomplish? Only one thing....it fills her pockets with money while driving an even larger wedge between two sides that really need to start meeting in the middle on some really important items.. At the end of the day she will accomplish nothing except being controversial.....and, coincidentally, dead wrong. She's about two inches from strapping on an armband and goose-stepping around the room.

i wouldnt quit your day job to become political forecaster.

i would say jeb bush and daschle have 0% chance of winning their partie's nominations, and clinton is a longshot at best.

Then who?

This is a typical liberal response: bash a point, but offer no counterpoint.

Counterpoint? No, I guess not. I consider myself to be slightly on the Liberal side, but I will surely say that Billary will probably get the nod. Here's my reasoning: The Dems are always looking for new and exciting ways to sabotage the fuck out of themselves. Running a woman would be a sure fire "A-ticket" to maybe getting 20% of the vote. Am I against a woman running for President? Absolutely not. Is America ready? Not quite yet.

On the other side of the coin, I offer this: Can Jeb run? Absolutely. Anyone who thinks this is impossible need look no further that the jackass that currently fills that chair. Further proof is that Ohio....OHIO was the swing state. Are you fucking joking? That's what happens when you vote with your bible instead of your pocketbook. If Jeb likes Jesus, then America likes Jeb.

shugaddadi, i completely agree. i cant stand ann coulter, and there are very few (dont know the word, political infotainer's (?)) that i like. bill maher used to be one.

denny, i'd say that most likely the dem nomination will be a gov, probably WV's (forget his name). barak obama will obviously have a chance. i do believe al gore may get some momentum (he was wise to go away after the hangin chad incident). i dont buy into the hilary hype.

as for the republican side (dont follow them as much), jeb would be the worst candidate to run. i dont see how another bush could ever be elected. approval raitings in the 20's kind of seal that deal. mccain probably has the best chance.

A Bush would be bad to run, but it hasn't stopped them yet.

Let me back this up a bit. You're right. It would be a really bad move for the GOP to run Jeb...but with the way that things have been going for the last 6 years....well, let's just say that I'm planning for the absolute worst. That coupled with the fact that NOTHING suprises me anymore makes me think that the worst is not only possible, but absolutely probable.

As far as Barak goes....well that would be the best possble scenario available. Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen either. And yes, it will have absolutely everything to do with the color of his skin. So now isn't this just brilliant. The best man possible for the job will probably not get a shot in the near future because a large portion of this nation can't get past race discrimination. Sure, he might have a shot if New York, California, and Oregon could pick the next president....but millions and millions of backwards mother fuckers with rebel flags painted on their trucks still have the right to vote (unfortunately).

Good times.

Me vote for a Harvard man? I don't think so.

This post was completely random, ignore it as it holds no meaning.

Funny, Gecko and some others are strangely silent on this issue.

If I'm not mistaken, Gecko is a fan of Coulter.

Oh TM where did you pull that one out of?

She's an entertainer in my mind that takes freedom of speech too far.

I believe that she has a point on some issues somewhere in what she says but it gets lost in the hateful translation.

Not a fan.

My hunch is that Bill Richardson gets the Democratic presidential nod.

Barak Obama is too young age wise, and too naiive politics wise. Let him grease the right wheels a little longer, then maybe he'll have a shot at VP.

AC is over the top...she says what she says to get reactions, imo. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of what she says is true imo.

The wives were saying shit like they should be able to make fucking laws and shit about this because their husbands died? They were out in there on Pluto on a few occasions. I don't think many could think rationally after losing a loved one...Cindy Sheehan included.

Edit...IMO the wives had no more to say about what laws should be passed than any other citizen of the US.

funny thing is, she says most of that dumbshit to stay in the news and to keep selling books, if people stop paying attention to her, she'd just go away.

Yep. Although now she's forced herself in and we can't force her out.

Goddammit.

AC is over the top...she says what she says to get reactions, imo. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of what she says is true imo.

The wives were saying shit like they should be able to make fucking laws and shit about this because their husbands died? They were out in there on Pluto on a few occasions. I don't think many could think rationally after losing a loved one...Cindy Sheehan included.

Edit...IMO the wives had no more to say about what laws should be passed than any other citizen of the US.

That was bullshit, Tahoe.

I'm getting so fucking sick of people blaming victims.

What's your next post going to be? Laci Peterson didn't deserve to die, but I'm getting so sick of her mother going to the cemetary and leaving flowers.

Seriously, fuck everyone who thinks like Tahoe.

EDIT: No, seriously. Fuck you. Respect lost.

I think its time to go rape and kill your loved ones, and then tell you to shut the fuck up and deal with it.

That was bullshit, Tahoe.

I'm getting so fucking sick of people blaming victims.

What's your next post going to be? Laci Peterson didn't deserve to die, but I'm getting so sick of her mother going to the cemetary and leaving flowers.

Seriously, fuck everyone who thinks like Tahoe.

EDIT: No, seriously. Fuck you. Respect lost.

I think its time to go rape and kill your loved ones, and then tell you to shut the fuck up and deal with it.


http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5955

Oh, the irony. lol

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e341/Greene000/ott.jpg

What? Out of brown paint?

The brown paint brush would have been over the top.

AC is over the top...she says what she says to get reactions, imo. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of what she says is true imo.

The wives were saying shit like they should be able to make fucking laws and shit about this because their husbands died? They were out in there on Pluto on a few occasions. I don't think many could think rationally after losing a loved one...Cindy Sheehan included.

Edit...IMO the wives had no more to say about what laws should be passed than any other citizen of the US.

That was bullshit, Tahoe.

I'm getting so fucking sick of people blaming victims.

What's your next post going to be? Laci Peterson didn't deserve to die, but I'm getting so sick of her mother going to the cemetary and leaving flowers.

Seriously, fuck everyone who thinks like Tahoe.

EDIT: No, seriously. Fuck you. Respect lost.

I think its time to go rape and kill your loved ones, and then tell you to shut the fuck up and deal with it.


Saying that "victims" should not drive policy isn't the same thing as "blaming victims." I think Tahoe had a solid point. Public sympathy for grieving relatives is fine, annointing them experts on legislation and policy isn't.

EDIT: Oh and trying to find a good point from Coulter is like getting a snack by picking the peanuts out of shit.

^G.R.I.T.V.O.R.

I take nothing back.

Nothing.

Does he hate people whose children are abducted and lobby for Amber Alerts?

Does he hate people whose loved ones got in motorcycle accidents, and lobby for helmet laws?

Does he hate people who lobby for gun control, when their 6 month old child is killed by a stray bullet?

Fuck him and everyone else who feels that way.

I take nothing back.

Nothing.

Does he hate people whose children are abducted and lobby for Amber Alerts?

Does he hate people whose loved ones got in motorcycle accidents, and lobby for helmet laws?

Does he hate people who lobby for gun control, when their 6 month old child is killed by a stray bullet?

Fuck him and everyone else who feels that way.

I don't hate those people, but I hate the people who listen to them. Sound policy is not built on the back of emotion. All 3 of those laws/policys you suggested are pet peeves of mine.

Not a big fan of amber alerts, Herm?

Granted, they are used more than necessary, like personal protection orders against neighbors giving you the finger, but even if there are 9 false alarms out of 10, that means the amber alert could save the 10th person.

I take nothing back.

Nothing.

Does he hate people whose children are abducted and lobby for Amber Alerts?

Does he hate people whose loved ones got in motorcycle accidents, and lobby for helmet laws?

Does he hate people who lobby for gun control, when their 6 month old child is killed by a stray bullet?

Fuck him and everyone else who feels that way.

Hate? Of course not. Highly skeptical of the agenda of someone on a grief/vengeance driven crusade? Absolutely. By all means, let the crusaders lobby away. They do serve a useful function as far as drawing attention to issues but when it comes down to specifics they'd better have something stronger than "I know somebody that died" supporting their position.

Yeah, and if we lock down Walmart everytime someone looses their keys....

Keep and eye on your kid, and keep a closer eye on your ex who lives in Georgia when he's up for the weekend. We've yet to have one in West Michigan that wasn't family on family related. I guess "save" is a relative term (no pun intended).

Just because the boyfriend is a three time sex offender, doesn't mean he can't be trusted to babysit. Afterall, who is going to leave the trailer park to get cigarettes? Clearly not the kid!

Yeah, everyone cards now. Its a bitch.

AC is over the top...she says what she says to get reactions, imo. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of what she says is true imo.

The wives were saying shit like they should be able to make fucking laws and shit about this because their husbands died? They were out in there on Pluto on a few occasions. I don't think many could think rationally after losing a loved one...Cindy Sheehan included.

Edit...IMO the wives had no more to say about what laws should be passed than any other citizen of the US.

That was bullshit, Tahoe.

I'm getting so fucking sick of people blaming victims.

What's your next post going to be? Laci Peterson didn't deserve to die, but I'm getting so sick of her mother going to the cemetary and leaving flowers.

Seriously, fuck everyone who thinks like Tahoe.

EDIT: No, seriously. Fuck you. Respect lost.

I think its time to go rape and kill your loved ones, and then tell you to shut the fuck up and deal with it.

God damnit, I told myself to stick to the Pistons board on this site! But now that I know that got under someone skin this easily, I'll be back every fuckin day.

I think you are out there (pluto type out there) on the conclusions you reached in my post. Others saw what I meant.

That's the spirit.

Taymelo's new avatar:

http://snl.jt.org/arc/skit/Mr.%20Short-Term%20Memory.jpg

I take nothing back.

Nothing.

Does he hate people whose children are abducted and lobby for Amber Alerts?

Amber alerts are a deterrent, and allow the public to act as the laws eyes and ears in locating a particular vehicle.

Does he hate people whose loved ones got in motorcycle accidents, and lobby for helmet laws?

I am personally in favor of helmet laws, only because some dipshits simply don't understand how valuable a helmet can be until it's too late, and that equals higher medical bills to pay for their fucking brain surgery. I own a cycle, and although it's a sport cruiser, wear a full face DOT approved helmet. I know some Harley riders who don skull caps which offer NO protection in an accident. I'd really like to see the insurance companies take the initiative and offer policies to those who only wear DOT approved lids. That's not big brother talking, that's fucking COMMON SENSE.

Does he hate people who lobby for gun control, when their 6 month old child is killed by a stray bullet?

I HATE gun control. It only keeps the guns away from law-abiding citizens... and that's not the NRA talking. Considering the average criminal will access his weaponry from the black market, and NOT from a local gun shop the law strangleholds, the law is nothing more than a pacifier for polls. The above-mentioned stray bullet, I assure you, was NOT from a legally purchased pistol. Clearly it needs to go.

Fuck him and everyone else who feels that way.

Anybody want to start a gun control thread?

It's going to be a long summer with no Pistons to watch.

Tay is just pissed because of the new anti-lock brakes they have been putting on ambulances. Sometimes the driver will stop way to fast for him to react so sometimes he goes headfirst into the back of them spilling the contents of his briefcase all over the street.

Maybe we should all chip in and get him a helmet.

Oh, I see that he already has one. My bad.

But I see where this is going. It's like that mom who "accidentally" watched Married...With Children one night with her kids, and decided to champion it's removal from the Fox line-up. She was appaled at the crudeness of the program, and program not suitable for her children.

Yes, and neither is the 6 o'clock news showing a dead al-Zawawari (or whatever his name is), a free weekly you can pick up in a coffeeshop that uses the word "fuck" liberally, or basically just living life.

Terry Rakolta led a campaign to cancel the show, forcing advertisers to boycott the program. The problem is, IMO, she went way too far. She was dead set on destroying "Married, With Children" when all it was doing was giving the public what it wanted. It was the highest rated show on a young Fox network, and what it was doing was nothing new to entertainment (see Howard Stern). Rakolta SHOULD have pushed for a discussion regarding an "unsettling" movement in American entertainment, and allowed the media to take it from there. She still could have led the charge, but via social discourse, not unveiled threats.

In the end, her campaign skyrocketed the shows ratings, and she disappeared from sight. There's a right way and a wrong way of campaigning for what you believe in. John Walsh (America's Most Wanted) did it the right way, and became an icon for a movement. Rakolta, the wrong way, and became a villian for censorship.

First Ann Coulter, now Terry Rakolta?! We're really dragging out Michigan's "finest" Republican women here. <gag>

Scary part is they look like sisters.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060609/ap_on_re_us/quotable_coulter_5;_ylt=Av4Qk_uzps8XymaYCNvovwFZJ_ wA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


9/11 commissioner criticizes Coulter

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
30 minutes ago

A member of the Sept. 11 commission on Friday lashed out at conservative pundit Ann Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain.

In her latest book, Coulter criticizes the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The women also backed Democrat John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004.
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter wrote.

Former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., a member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, called Coulter's "hate-filled attack on the patriotic heroes of 9/12 — the widows of 9/11 — reprehensible and undignified." Roemer urged people not to buy her book. "Americans shouldn't contribute to her profiting from these vicious remarks."

Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, D-Ill., said Thursday on the House floor that Coulter is a "hatemonger" and called on Republicans to denounce her: "I must ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Does Ann Coulter speak for you when she suggests poisoning not Supreme Court Justices or slanders the 9/11 ... widows? If not, speak now. Your silence allows her to be your spokesman."

Among Coulter's previous statements, she advocated the invasion of non-Christian nations after Sept. 11 and the deportation from the U.S. of "all aliens from Arabic countries." She said American Taliban John Walker should be executed to show liberals what happens to traitors. And she said the only real question about President Clinton was "whether to impeach or assassinate."

Among the most quotable Coulter:

_"To expiate the pain of losing her first-born son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. ... After your third profile on 'Entertainment Tonight,' you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show," Coulter wrote in her TownHall.com column on Aug. 18, 2005.

_"Even if corners were cut, (Iran-Contra) was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the president's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats," she wrote in 2003's "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."

_"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: "Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.'"

_"After all other suitable office space in Manhattan had dried up — and also after spending the weekend golfing at an all-white club in Florida — Clinton announced he would take an office in Harlem. ... As one of my friends remarked, that should be nice: Having escaped a mugging on the way to work, Clinton's female employees will then have to face an accused rapist in the office," Coulter wrote on Feb. 19, 2001.

_"(Liberals) are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. ... Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment," Coulter said during an Oct. 21, 2005, speech at the University of Florida.

_"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war," Coulter wrote in a column published by the National Review Online on Sept. 13, 2001.

_"The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis," she wrote in "Treason."

_"Mostly the Witches of East Brunswick wanted George Bush to apologize for not being Bill Clinton," she wrote in "Godless." She was referring to the New Jersey town where two of the Sept. 11 widows live.

_"We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said in a Jan. 27 appearance at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark., regarding Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. She later explained she was joking about the justice, whose votes have upheld Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision legalizing abortion.

_"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard," she said in The Washington Post on October 16, 1998.

Her larger point is the left is rolling out these mouthpieces that can't or shouldn't be debated due to them being victims. She feels Cindy Sheehan was 'hands off' while she criticized Bush and had money coming in from lefties. And then the wives were hands off too, while at least one of them said something like 'bush knew of the attack before' or some whacked out shit like that.

Politics is a tough biz. If you enter the arena, be prepared to pull a few knives out of your back...apparently.

Came across this while at work...

http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/check-your-facts.html

I really can't stand Leno, but this sounds like a great stunt.

Hopefully they really let them go at it.

I'll be waiting for the YouTube feed, lol.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/ap/20060613/115019544000.html



Leno to Host Carlin, Coulter on Wednesday

"Tonight" host Jay Leno might want to consider wearing referee stripes on Wednesday's show when Ann Coulter and George Carlin are his guests.

Coulter, the acid-tongued conservative with a new book out, and Carlin, the quick-witted, antiestablishment comedian who's in the voice cast for the new animated film "Cars," were booked at separate times for the NBC late-nighter, a spokeswoman said Monday.

But the duo's meeting could produce serious fireworks for "Tonight," which usually limits its political fodder to Leno's bipartisan monologue jokes.

Coulter, author of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has drawn fire for attacking the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attacks in which their husbands died.

In her book, Coulter accuses the women of "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

An appearance by Coulter on another NBC series, "Today," led to a prickly exchange with host Matt Lauer over her comments on the widows.

Also scheduled for "Tonight" Wednesday is Scottish singer and songwriter KT Tunstall.

I really can't stand Leno, but this sounds like a great stunt.

Hopefully they really let them go at it.

I'll be waiting for the YouTube feed, lol.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/ap/20060613/115019544000.html



Leno to Host Carlin, Coulter on Wednesday

"Tonight" host Jay Leno might want to consider wearing referee stripes on Wednesday's show when Ann Coulter and George Carlin are his guests.

Coulter, the acid-tongued conservative with a new book out, and Carlin, the quick-witted, antiestablishment comedian who's in the voice cast for the new animated film "Cars," were booked at separate times for the NBC late-nighter, a spokeswoman said Monday.

But the duo's meeting could produce serious fireworks for "Tonight," which usually limits its political fodder to Leno's bipartisan monologue jokes.

Coulter, author of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has drawn fire for attacking the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attacks in which their husbands died.

In her book, Coulter accuses the women of "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

An appearance by Coulter on another NBC series, "Today," led to a prickly exchange with host Matt Lauer over her comments on the widows.

Also scheduled for "Tonight" Wednesday is Scottish singer and songwriter KT Tunstall.
Jay Leno's telling jokes now? (I got this line from Leno himself)
<Cue> Conan O'Brien riding by on a tricycle with a glowering look on his face.

This is gonna get funk ugly for Annie. Thats like putting the sports guy up against Dennis Leary talking Bruins hocky. Both may be witty, but ones outa their element.

Chalk up another million books sold, though.

Anne Coulter has always been a cunt. she does it for the attention pretty much. you can tell when you see her on bill maher's show. she's like a muthafucka who stayed at a holiday inn trying fly a 747. Acting like she knows what she's doing, but looking like she doesnt know shit. but if her books sell, then a portion of america is a shithole mentally to actually follow that garbage as if she ,akes valid points.


You can say all you want about Ann, but to say she doesn't know shit is ignorant and proves that you haven't actually read anything she's ever written.

A Bush would be bad to run, but it hasn't stopped them yet.

Let me back this up a bit. You're right. It would be a really bad move for the GOP to run Jeb...but with the way that things have been going for the last 6 years....well, let's just say that I'm planning for the absolute worst. That coupled with the fact that NOTHING suprises me anymore makes me think that the worst is not only possible, but absolutely probable.

As far as Barak goes....well that would be the best possble scenario available. Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen either. And yes, it will have absolutely everything to do with the color of his skin. So now isn't this just brilliant. The best man possible for the job will probably not get a shot in the near future because a large portion of this nation can't get past race discrimination. Sure, he might have a shot if New York, California, and Oregon could pick the next president....but millions and millions of backwards mother fuckers with rebel flags painted on their trucks still have the right to vote (unfortunately).


How is this an acceptable comment??? Would it fly if I said the same thing about inner city blacks???

And thank god NY, Cali and Oregon doesn't decide the national elections. I've lived in two of those places, and the people are off the fucking wall.

OK, now that I've read the entire thread...

Ann is writing to a specific crowd. It's not like she's writing to everyone hoping to win people to the conservative movement. She's writing to die hard conservatives who know how to laugh.

Her point was, and someone brought this up, was that these women became spokesmen for the left and they couldn't be debated solely because they were victims.

Someone show me something Ann wrote that wasn't true.

Read the whole book, read her other books, you may not agree with her side of the story, or how she says it, but she isn't dumb, and isn't lying.

Anne Coulter has always been a cunt. she does it for the attention pretty much. you can tell when you see her on bill maher's show. she's like a muthafucka who stayed at a holiday inn trying fly a 747. Acting like she knows what she's doing, but looking like she doesnt know shit. but if her books sell, then a portion of america is a shithole mentally to actually follow that garbage as if she ,akes valid points.


You can say all you want about Ann, but to say she doesn't know shit is ignorant and proves that you haven't actually read anything she's ever written.

Actually, you're wrong, Scott (as usual).

She has a reputation of constantly being wrong, and her every single one of her books have been entirely discredited as being nothing more than opinion based on ignorance of the facts.

In other words, she uses no research to prove any of her points - just hate speech.

And if you parse out the hate speech in her books, its FILLED with major inaccuracies. She rarely uses statistics or claims any fact at all, instead choosing opinion, but when she does use facts, they are almost always wrong.

A Bush would be bad to run, but it hasn't stopped them yet.

Let me back this up a bit. You're right. It would be a really bad move for the GOP to run Jeb...but with the way that things have been going for the last 6 years....well, let's just say that I'm planning for the absolute worst. That coupled with the fact that NOTHING suprises me anymore makes me think that the worst is not only possible, but absolutely probable.

As far as Barak goes....well that would be the best possble scenario available. Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen either. And yes, it will have absolutely everything to do with the color of his skin. So now isn't this just brilliant. The best man possible for the job will probably not get a shot in the near future because a large portion of this nation can't get past race discrimination. Sure, he might have a shot if New York, California, and Oregon could pick the next president....but millions and millions of backwards mother fuckers with rebel flags painted on their trucks still have the right to vote (unfortunately).


How is this an acceptable comment??? Would it fly if I said the same thing about inner city blacks???

LMAO.

How about asking the question differently, like "Does it fly when I constantly say the same thing about inner city blacks."

How's it feel to have a taste of your own medicine, Scott?

Read the whole book, read her other books, you may not agree with her side of the story, or how she says it, but she isn't dumb, and isn't lying.

Do your research before you come over here spreading mistruths.

She IS dumb, and she IS lying.

DOn't take my word. There have been books dedicated to exposing her ignorance and lies.

Check out the work of Eric Alterman.

I'm glad Cruscot joined.

Remember how I've been pointing out differences between the left and the right in their mindset and approach - the intellectual dishonesty on the right, the misinformation, the mindless talking points like "cut and run", etc.

Well, Cruscot will give me an opportunity to expose more conservative falsehoods and tricks.

Here's another one. "Ann Coulter may be a firebrand, but if you listen, her message is true."

No. She's a firebrand armed with zero truth, zero morals, and a single strategy - attack the messenger, not the message.

Notice how Cruscott used no facts to support Coulter. Only an opinion based on his political beliefs, which are racist, among other things, and fit well with Coulter's view of the world.

On the other hand, I will use verifiable fact to prove she's a cunt.

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2663937?htv=12

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/02/16/ann_coulters_lies_ab.html

http://slannder.homestead.com/

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2006/06/coulter_lies_ab_1.html

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=668

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/6/19165/02159

http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/2005_04_17_anncoulter_archive.html

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072302.shtml

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=104184&forum_id=6

http://www.mma.tv/tuf/index.cfm?ac=ListMessages&PID=1&TID=834375&FID=2&pc=10

If you read the below quote, you'll see why Cruscott thinks she doesn't lie - because conservative propagandists like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh brainwashed Cruscott into thinking she's telling the truth, but just gets carried away with colorful language. No, she's telling lies aimed at pushing a racist/prejudiced/conservative agenda, and people who are in on the conspiracy with her legitimize her by lying to cover up the fact that she's lying.


In defending right-wing pundit Ann Coulter -- who smeared both liberals and the widows of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), and in recent public appearances -- Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed that Coulter "doesn't lie." Although Media Matters for America does not purport to know whether Coulter advances false claims consciously, we have previously documented numerous statements by Coulter that have proved to be untrue.

During an interview with right-wing activist and author David Horowitz on the June 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asked Horowitz to identify "the difference" between Coulter and liberal satirist and Air America Radio host Al Franken. O'Reilly then answered his own question, claiming that, although "Franken lies, and we can prove that," "Coulter doesn't lie." O'Reilly offered no evidence to support his claim that Franken lies but claimed, on the June 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, that, in his upcoming book, Culture Warrior (Broadway Books, September 2006), he "will prove that beyond any doubt at all" both Franken and liberal filmmaker Michael Moore "consciously lie."

Media Matters has, in fact, documented numerous false statements by Coulter, including:

She falsely accused former President Bill Clinton of being a "very good rapist."
She falsely claimed Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) refused to release his military records and tax forms during his 2004 presidential campaign, when, in fact, both were posted on his website.
She falsely claimed that former President Clinton's private secretary was the highest-placed African-American in the Clinton administration.
She falsely accused The New York Times of "out[ing]" gay children of prominent conservatives.
She falsely claimed the Arizona Daily Star dropped her syndicated column to "keep[] conservatives out."
Similarly, on the June 8 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh claimed: "You can say whatever you want about Ann Coulter, but she doesn't lie about what liberals say. She doesn't make it up, and she doesn't take it out of context." In fact, Coulter has misrepresented, numerous times, the remarks of liberals, progressives, and Democrats. As Media Matters documented:

She erroneously claimed that liberal financier George Soros "said the reason for anti-Semitism is the Jews."
She falsely accused University of Chicago professor Steven D. Levitt and Stanford University professor John J. Donohue III -- whom she identified as "liberals" -- of "defending Roe v. Wade."
She falsely asserted that Elizabeth Edwards -- whom she identified as the "white wife of vice presidential candidate John Edwards" -- "warned of riots unless John Kerry is elected."
From the June 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Well, she'll get a fair shake on this program and on this network.

HOROWITZ: Yes. Well, you did --

O'REILLY: But, in some -- yeah, in some places she won't. What's the difference between Ann Coulter and Al Franken? I mean --


HOROWITZ: Well, good point. Ann Coulter is funnier and smarter. But the fact is that Franken and -- a really nasty piece of work -- Bill Maher get a totally free ride, you know, for their viciousness.

O'REILLY: Well, they do. But that's the left-wing media doing that. I have an answer to this question. I'm going to ask you one more time. What's the difference between the tactics that Coulter uses and the tactics that Franken uses?

HOROWITZ: Well, like I say, I think they're both in the field of political satire, and, therefore, they're going to make statements that for others would be over the top. But, you know -- and you might say Witches of Eastwick -- East Brunswick is a little over the top.

O'REILLY: I didn't care about that. The thing that I thought -- I don't care about that. The thing that I thought was beyond the pale was saying that they enjoyed their husbands' demise.

HOROWITZ: Well, the fact is that they --

O'REILLY: I don't believe that's satire. But here's the difference between Franken and Coulter. I have to answer my own question here.

HOROWITZ: Go ahead.

O'REILLY: Coulter doesn't lie. Coulter doesn't lie.

HOROWITZ: Well, that's true.

O'REILLY: She's over the top in my opinion, and I don't like her tactics at all and I think they diminish her.

HOROWITZ: She's exposing rank hypocrisy here.

O'REILLY: Yeah, she does that.

HOROWITZ: These are the same people who in attacking her who attack our troops, and, you know, I've already --

O'REILLY: We demonstrated that earlier, David, in the program.

HOROWITZ: OK.

O'REILLY: I mean, these people on the far left are despicable people. There's no question. But Franken lies, and we can prove that. Coulter doesn't.

From the June 8 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

CALLER: I'll tell you, on this Ann Coulter thing, let me just say that I think that the comparison to Al Franken isn't quite accurate, and here's why: Yeah, Ann Coulter's probably a bomb-thrower but, you know, she's a smart bomb-thrower. The stuff that she says is -- it's, number one, it's accurate and it's truthful, unlike, you know, what Franken or Michael Moore --

O'REILLY: That's a good -- that's a good point. That's an excellent point. And Coulter herself should have made it. Franken and Moore consciously lie. All right. Consciously lie. I haven't seen that with Ann Coulter. So, that -- that's an excellent point. In -- in her, you know -- she uses the same techniques, you know, bomb-throwing personal attacks, but I haven't seen her consciously lie where the other two do. And there's no question they do. Again, in my upcoming September book, I will prove that beyond any doubt at all.

From the June 8 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: There's actual slander and libel that the left is engaging in. Michael Moore takes people out of context. He's in the process of being sued by somebody who was misused in his movie for $85 million, a military man who was in a video clip taken totally out of context. Well, you can say whatever you want about Ann Coulter, but she doesn't lie about what liberals say. She doesn't make it up, and she doesn't take it out of context. It is between-your-eyes truth, just as all of us on the right are between-the-eyes truth when we talk about and identify the left. They can't handle it.

In terms of scholarly rigor, Alterman blows Coulter (and most folks, liberal or conservative) out of the water. Coulter is lying and pandering. I don't think she's particularly dumb, unfortunately. She's making money being a personality.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504180001
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html

Coulter's not worth spending many words on.

Once again, Tay, you've given me more than I can chew while I'm underway...I'll get to it eventually though, don't worry.

Notice how I didn't get all butt hurt and panties in a bunch about the racist comment, just pointed it out...Sticks and stones can break my bones, but being called a redneck, or jew, or blacky can never hurt me.

Once again, Tay, you've given me more than I can chew while I'm underway...I'll get to it eventually though, don't worry.

Notice how I didn't get all butt hurt and panties in a bunch about the racist comment, just pointed it out...Sticks and stones can break my bones, but being called a redneck, or jew, or blacky can never hurt me.

Good... "blacky".

j/k

And I can't do your type research while I'm underway, the connection is too slow to google, and search, and cross check for accuracy and everything else that shouldn't be necessary when posting on a message board, but I knew what I was getting into, and I will post that stuff once I get back off of deployment, back off of leave, and settle into home, don't worry.

And I can't do your type research while I'm underway, the connection is too slow to google, and search, and cross check for accuracy and everything else that shouldn't be necessary when posting on a message board, but I knew what I was getting into, and I will post that stuff once I get back off of deployment, back off of leave, and settle into home, don't worry.

I hope you do follow through on that but if you don't it's ok, the good you've accomplished is already done. As pointed out above, you have provided yet another opportunity in a public space (albeit a small out of the way corner) to thoroughly discredit someone like Coulter. Feel good about it.

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/02/16...s_lies_ab.html

Where is the lie in this one??? She is simply stating an opinion...No lie here.



http://slannder.homestead.com/

Again, I stopped reading about half way through, but I'm sensing just disagreements with Ann's opinions, not lies. She complains that some didn't say something that Ann didn't have in quotes anyway. If this is the best you've got to prove the lies, then you obviously can't tell when someone is joking and when they aren't.

Here's an example...
6. (p. 31) Van Natta, "The 2000 Campaign: The Fund-Raising," NYT 4/25/00; Warner, "Political Jousting," PBS 4/24/97. Cited to support, ". . . [T]he average donation to the Republicans is about fifty dollars. For years, the [RNC] has proudly posted the size of its average donation and tauntingly asked the Democrats to release theirs. . . . [The Democrats say] the average donation constituted proprietary information."

The Democrats' reticence checks out. But in the Van Natta piece, describing fat-cat fundraisers for both parties, an RNC official says that their average donation is $55; in Warner's 1997 PBS TV show, it's said to be "less than $50." So, apparently the Republicans' average is rising. Honest citation would have gone with the more-recent number, or mentioned both. AHC's "about fifty dollars" lowballs this average.

More important, AHC's main point is that the RNC is proud of its numbers, but the DNC is not, proof positive that the Republican Party is really the party of the little guy. Forget all the back-channel methods of donation that make this a meaningless statistic in the first place. Neither of AHC's sources says anything about the RNC's proud posting of their average donation. Why not?

The answer to this mystery lies in the RNC's web site, conveniently not cited by AHC. LINK.

At the RNC link is a press release dated January 16, 2002, which does proudly post the RNC's average donation for 2001 and taunt the Democrats for failing to follow suit. The RNC's average donation was $57.07, about 15% larger than what AHC tells us. It is clear from her Booknotes interview that she was still working on the manuscript in January 2002, so I'd bet money that she saw the RNC press release, surfed a little on Lexis/Nexis, found citations that allowed her to lowball the estimate, and just happened to omit a citation to her actual source, the RNC link. This is a bright and shining lie.

Again, why did she lie about it? If she had written, "the average donation to the Republicans is about fifty-seven dollars. . . ," citing the RNC's web page, would anyone have paused to think, "Hey, that's pretty high, but if it was $50. . . ."

[Aside. The RNC's site gives the average donation, not the average per donor. In fact, in 2001 the RNC got nearly twice as many donations as it had donors. Well, obviously a lot of people give more than once. But they may be using a trick that the Dems should consider. Somebody offers them $1000. Instead of taking it in a lump sum, set up an automatic bill-pay with the donor's bank or Yahoo! or PayPal (etc.) so the contribution comes out as 50 weekly donations of $20. Presto! Average donation $20, not $1000!!]


I mean, really, how is 55 or 57 dollars not equal to "about 50 dollars" in anyone with a brain's mind??? If a bottle of vodka is 57 dollars, and I ask Tay to pick it up at the store for me, and he asks me how much, and I say 'about 50 bucks', he agrees to pick it up, would he not then also pick it up at 57 dollars? Or would he curse me saying that I lied to him? That is so stupid I can't believe she wasted time on it. But these are the gross LIES that Ann spouts...

Here's more...
SLANDER. (page unk) The NYT, by endorsing liberal presidential candidates, has gone for over 25 years without endorsing the winner of the majority of the popular vote. FACT. In the last three Presidential elections (i.e. since 1989, 13 years, over half of Coulter's alleged dry spell), the NYT has endorsed the winner of the popular vote, although third-party spoilers did prevent the winner to have an absolute majority. DAVID'S JOURNAL, 9/16/2002. COMMENT. This twist on the facts cannot have been other than deliberate.

Who doesn't know that a majority means more than 50%???


OK, I'm done for now...

OK, I'm done for now...

Whew!

I was worried you'd continue making really solid points.

Man, I really dodged a bullet on that one.

I just don't see where the "lies" are??? I'm using your referances Tay.

I just don't see where the "lies" are??? I'm using your referances Tay.

Careful. The last time a poster used Tay's own words against him......

Proving that anyone is lying, committing a willful deception, is awfully difficult. You have to prove that they knew what they were saying was disingenuous at the time, yet they said it anyway with some sort of intent to deceive. For all you know, they could've been dropped on their head as a small child and have a closed-head injury responsible for the content of what they're saying.

As a suggested alternative, go with: Ann Coulter is a dipshit opportunistic right-wing bitch cunt who doesn't get her facts straight.

Proving that anyone is lying, committing a willful deception, is awfully difficult. You have to prove that they knew what they were saying was disingenuous at the time, yet they said it anyway with some sort of intent to deceive. For all you know, they could've been dropped on their head as a small child and have a closed-head injury responsible for the content of what they're saying.

As a suggested alternative, go with: Ann Coulter is a dipshit opportunistic right-wing bitch cunt who doesn't get her facts straight.

Alright.

Now we've got us a good old fashioned compromise.

I like it.

However, can I add a wrinkle?

How about Ann Coulter is a dipshit opportunistic right-wing bitch cunt who doesn't get her facts straight, like when she tells a canadian official on canadian television that he's wrong - Canada did send troops to Vietnam. Why would she intentionally lie about that? All it did was make her look stupid. There's no question she's just an ignorant blowhard... but I firmly believe that when she is in full spin control, she intentionally lies all the time, too.

PS: How many people here know what her only big case as an attorney was? Give up? Helping Ken Starr set Bill Clinton up for a blowjob causing impeachment. THat's right. Her legal career highlight was illegal right wing conspiracy to destroy the democratically elected president of the United States.

Yeah. I'd say she's fair and balanced. Good to know Fox uses her all the time.

http://corollavscoulter.ytmnd.com/

Following Taymelo's lead, here's an interesting piece of spam that I received.

If you can get past the numerous grammatical/punctuation errors, there are some interesting points made here.



"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that
is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your
clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify
against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the
last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your
fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have
reached the ears of the Lord Almighty."

In the 1920s, author Upton Sinclair read the above to a group of
Chicago businessmen, saying they were the words of anarchist Emma
Goldman. The men were aghast, "That woman should be deported at once."
Mr. Sinclair then confessed the passage was from the Bible, the words of
the apostle James. If they were shocked, they shouldnt have been.
Someone looking for a nice justification for free-wheeling,
profit-driven capitalism, wont find one in the Bible. This is why Ms.
Ann Coulter, having produced a book with both "Church" and "God," in the
title, does not quote from it.

A wise choice on Anns part. Theres not much in the Bible to calm the
nerves of a free-marketeer waiting for the benefits to trickle down, or
someone looking for a portrait of Jesus as a moral crusader. Open up the
New Testament, and what you actually find is this socialist-sounding
claptrap about loving your enemies as well as your neighbor.

You can imagine poor old Ann, realizing this omission a book
supposedly about religion that fails to quote that religions central
text so she sits down with the Good Book to correct the glitch. What
she found probably put her in a sour mood. It turns out that when Jesus
came upon a man of means, he didnt chuck him under the chin and praise
his entrepreneurial spirit. He told him to give away his wealth. When
Jesus came upon people with deviant lifestyles, he didnt turn to the
crowd and lecture them about Romes decaying morals. He took those
people into his fold, usually with a snarl or two at the gawkers nearby.
In her research, did Ann find accounts of the early Christians sniffing
out offensive lifestyles, then going on the warpath to make them
illegal?

Nope.

How disheartening that must have been for our intrepid commentator.
Whats more, America's basic tenants, the right to a government that
does not encroach on personal freedom, the individual's right to pursue
happiness, "let a man live his own life," are not in the Bible. That
doesnt mean theyre wrong. Not at all. Its just not appropriate to
doll them all up in spiritual mumbo-jumbo. I think Thomas and Benjamin
and George would agree with me.

Now, Ms. Coulter may feel a little uncomfortable roaming around the Good
Book to support what shes saying, but me? I got noooo problem with
it. Its quite simple. The Christians first religious duty is to help
the poor:

*Jer. 22:3.* Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who
has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or
do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed
innocent blood in this place.

*Is. 58:10.* "And if you give yourself to the hungry, and satisfy the
desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness, and your
gloom will become like midday
.
*Luke 12:33*. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make
yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in
heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

*Luke 6:20-21*. Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the
kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be
satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.

*Is. 58:66ff.* Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the
bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the
oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread
with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you
see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

*Mt. 5:42.* Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from
him who wants to borrow from you.

The Bibles clear bias towards the poor always comes as a surprise to my
non-churchy friends, whove long witnessed the priorities of Christians
around them, and rightfully assumed the Bible must be a massive tirade
against gay marriage and abortion.

Yes, Im a wild-eyed liberal, and I go to Bible studies, fairly
fundamentalist ones, at that. And contrary to Coulters book, liberals
are not bent on transforming America into some sort of pan-sexual
Amsterdam. We dont preach abortion as birth control, nor do we think
the ACLU should busy itself with protecting quirky behavior at the
expense of common sense. We dont think courts should take over the
rightful role of parents, and surprise, surprise, our opposition to the
war in Iraq is just as motivated by the death of American soldiers as
it is by the death of Iraqis.

Now, this Bible study I go to has its share of Clinton-bashers, as well
as a few liberal fellow-travelers like myself. Once the bashing starts,
we quietly roll our eyes, and wait to say our piece. Yes, people know
Im liberal, but except for Coulter, no one has ever called me Godless.
Shes one of the few who seem to think that a belief in science makes
you anti-God. Around this nation are many believers in Christ who
recognize that fossils show the evolution of species, but not
transmigration. Theres evidence that indicates changes within a
species over time, but not fish to fowl, fowl to mammal and so forth.
This is important because Ms. Coulter likes to paint a monolithic
portrait of two camps: God-hating evolution-believers in one, and
God-fearing creationists in the other. Nothing could be further from the
truth.

That Bible study I go to represents a spectrum, where we each place
differing emphasis on private vs. public morality. You might say a
liberal Christian places more emphasis on decisions made as a society,
"We ought not to go to war." "We ought to take care of the poor,"
whereas a conservative Christian shifts the emphasis to private life,
"A woman ought not to have an abortion." "A man ought not sleep with
another man." But these are not absolutes. There are plenty conservative
Christians who think Bushs policies in Iraq are disastrous (it makes it
harder to preach the Gospel abroad), and quite a few liberals who dont
appreciate seeing women on TV parade around in their underwear.
Of course there is a division in society, a divide along church and
class lines that Coulters writings help to foster, but it is not a
natural one. First, a little background:

Until the beginning of the last century, most Christians believed that
redistributing wealth and helping the poor was just as important as
personal moral behavior. To turn ones back on the hungry was considered
just as much a sin as anything you might do in the bedroom. Struggles
against slavery, child labor and unsafe working conditions were all
fueled by fiery sermons from the pulpit, complete with all the
Bible-thumping and moral certitude that today, we associate with
gay-bashing. The fiery revivalist preachers of yesteryear excoriated
the rich for neglecting Americas growing class of street children, and
economic conditions that forced women into prostitution. In early
American Christianity, morality and justice were intertwined. In fact,
the division that Coulter helps to inflame today, did not exist in the
least.

What caused the division was urban migration, but mostly, the Scopes
Trial. The attorney that prosecuted the Tennessee science teacher for
teaching evolution was William Jennings Bryant, three-times presidential
candidate and the greatest orator of his time. A fervent Christian as
well as an early believer in a world body to arbitrate disputes, he was
appointed Secretary of State under Wilson, but resigned to protest the
growing drumbeat to enter WWI. His Cross of Gold speech is considered
to be one of Americas top oratory masterpieces. Bryants faith
represented the prevailing "pitchfork populism," that put justice and
morality on equal footing, and was broadly represented across America.

But when called upon to prosecute Mr. Scopes, Mr. Bryant was clearly
past his prime. During the trial, he frequently sounded befuddled. The
science was a little above him, and his opponent was the sharp and
urbane Clarence Darrow, who was content to let Bryants ignorance do the
talking. The trial, broadcast daily over the newly minted medium of
wireless radio to an audience of millions, left a bad taste in peoples
mouths. Mr. Darrow, with his big-city arrogance and snobbish
condescension, appeared to take pleasure in publicly humiliating a
great American icon, smirking while this hero twisted in the wind. Mr.
Darrow lost that day, won on appeal, but lost the hearts and minds of
regular Americans. Pretentious, know-it-all book-learning had bested
simple heartland faith. But the Scopes Trial was only battle one of what
we now call the Culture Wars.

Today, Coulter's anti-liberal hate-talk is a distraction, because in
reality, both sides are working towards the same general goal: a better
world to live in, a better place for our kids to grow up in. Ann does
not want you to recognize the church schism as a historical
misunderstanding, two strains of faith that were once united. For her
own reasons, she wants you to see "liberalism" as monolithic, irrational
state of mind, hoping youll disregard everything we say. According to
her, all liberals are cut out of the same defective material. Skilled
at the time-honored technique common to all hate literature, she
de-personifies her target, referring to us liberals as one
indistinguishable group. Were _all_ unchurched, unpatriotic, amoral,
and never met a government program we didn't like. If you were to
download any of the famous works of hate literature, for example,
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion," replace "Jews" with "Liberals," the
resulting book would seem oddly familiar: One target, one enemy,
scheming as one to undermine all the nation holds dear.

Seeing Coulters books for sale makes you wish humans were born with a
built-in crap detector, something inside us that buzzes when
commentators use phrases like, "they always," "they never," "they
all hate America." At such times, it should kick in: "What do you mean
all? Where did you learn that? How many liberals have you really
met, sat down and talked to?"

There exists reasonable commentary that suggests American supremacy is
not such a horrible thing, just as there are books on my side of the
fence that warn of Americas conservatism without sounding like some
goofy spy novel. One things for sure. Our nation is at a crossroads, at
a critical juncture deserving of better guidance than Coulters
simplistic rants.

Permission to publish, print, and distribute this letter explicitly granted.

Celeste Beckendorf

*Jer. 22:3.* Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Apparently, Ann didn't read this part. Not only does it say give to charity, it says, in no uncertain terms, do NOT personally attack the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, etc.

God job, Tay, you've pointed out that Ann is a sinner. Maybe I should start touting you as the Messiah, go set up Isreals earthly kingdom.

God job, Tay, you've pointed out that Ann is a sinner. Maybe I should start touting you as the Messiah, go set up Isreals earthly kingdom.

Worst... concession speech... EVAH!!!

Let he who is without sin fuck the dumb blonde bitch.

Let he who is without sin fuck the dumb blonde bitch.
Apparently, someone heeded my call:

iM7MR5_v47w&NR

At long last, conservatives are about to throw Coulter under the bus. (http://www.theamericanmind.com/2007/03/05/an-open-letter-to-cpac-sponsors-and-organizers-regarding-ann-coulter/) It doesn't reflect well on them that it took so long but better late than never.

I was really encouraged to see the major Republican party candidates who got up and walked out after she made the "John Edwards is a faggot" comment.

Oh wait, that didn't happen, and in fact there was laughter and applause. My mistake.

@AnnCoulter: ONE TROY DAVIS FLAME-BROILED, PLEASE - http://bit.ly/qPQnV7

Like most conservatives she believes in a right to life that begins at conception and ends at birth.

AnnCoulter Ann Coulter
Ron Paul wins illegal immigration debate by demanding a fence built around his lawn to keep those damn kids away!!!

If my son were Rand Paul, I'd probably want to keep him away too.