Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Ann Coulter

10,597 bytes added, 01:28, 6 June 2011
/* Style and substance */ Why would this matter?
: Conservatives do not feign offense as liberals do. Conservatives believe in honesty. Try it and you'll set yourself free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:47, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
::It would be nice if that were true, but I received a one-week block in September for posting something truthful about Sarah Palin on her article's Talk Page. My edit there was accused of being a false liberal smear, and I responded by researching the topicc, finding the evidence and posting the ''truth'' as a response. The truth in this case was not flattering to Palin, and while no one could deny it was the truth, it was considered ''inapropriate'' - I was then blocked for a week and the comments & supporting evidence were removed from the Talk page. My comments were about policy changes that took place in Wasilla as a result of her becoming mayor, so they were entirely relevant and appropriate once I had established that they were truthful. If you really mean what you say about Conservatives believing in honesty, will you allow me to post my findings and supporting evidence on the Palin page since even my blocker conceded their truthful nature? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:01, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
Part of the below post comes from something I wrote in a different section, but it applies here I believe:
As suggested by the above theses pertaining to feigning offence, I think most people--liberals and various republicans included--do fake being upset by Coulter. However, Coulter herself may well be acting or hyperbolizing when she says the things that "anger" others and as such, neither we nor she should be that surprised when people "act" in response. It's all about taliation. Coulter is regularly questioned and criticized by members of the very party she supposedly represents. There are many well founded hypotheses out there which suggest that Coulter is a proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing" (Read: a liberal in disguise). Her actions and words in the name of Conservatism are often so outlandish that she has effectively turned members of her own party against Conservatism, as a whole. I base this not off of my own ideologies, but from people with whom I've spoken and interviewed.
All in all, I wouldn't be that against making the argument that Coulter is proving to be a liability for her party much like, say, Howard Dean was for the dems. [[User:Acwellman]]
:: To summarize, you're saying that those targeted by Coulter's comments feign offense as a form of censorship (which is valid, but seems like it would be hard to prove), but then you argue that there are people who are offended and are not acting in retaliation - fellow conservatives, who actually turn away from the ideology itself. I'm confused. [[User:Limbo]]
The point I'm trying to make is that Coulter is often overstated and hyperbolic in her attacks, thus it would seem logical that those on the receiving ends of those attacks would feign their offence. Honestly, I think Coulter has put herself in a position where a lot of people won't and don't take her very seriously, so they feign offence as a sort of sarcastic "tip of the hat" to her. I agree that many people on this website might proactively agree with her, but then again (judging by comments made above) many also don't. The Conservapedia readership represents such a small demographic of the population and doesn't accurately represent overall views held of Ms. Coulter. As for turning Republicans against their own party, look at how much more liberal a guy like...say...Tucker Carlson has gotten in the last few years. At any rate, all just observations... [[User:AcWellman]]
:: My point is this: either people feign offense (and are NOT offended) or they aren't. If people are turning away from the party in part due to her, then they're offended. If people are pretending to be offended, and turning away from their own party is a "sarcastic 'tip of the hat,'" then they are feigning offense. I think I see what you're saying, but I can't really say I agree. I don't think that people really feel she's in any way credible or relevant. She's the opposite of Bill Maher. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:43, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough, Limbo. But, how then do you explain the act of throwing pies in her face? Do you actually throw a pie at someone who has genuinely offended you? I would say that the act of throwing a pie at someone's face is more on par with a comedy act than it is an act of animosity designed to retaliate against someone who has genuinely offended you. I think that trying to set this whole "feigning offence" thing up as a binary arrangement (people are either genuinely offended or they fake their offence) is a bit anachronistic. As is the case with most things in life there is, indeed, a middle ground here...I am sure that she has truly offended some people but others just find her outlandish nature, dirty and hateful that it may be, to be so overstated that it's just plain funny. I am one of the latter; I laugh at her like I laugh at Family Guy...if that makes sense.
== Not a big fan (remark) ==
All in all, I wouldn't be that against making the argument that Coulter is proving to be a liability for her party much like, say, Howard Dean was for the dems. [[User:Acwellman]]
Ann Coulter, by her own behavior and well-documented statements, is about as Christian as Attila the Hun. A person of her level of outrageous offensiveness does more to hurt the conservative cause than any liberal could ever do. That Andy Schlafly abuses his power to shield her from criticism is a sad indicator of his political blindness deeming it acceptable to demonize people with whom you politically disagree in as vicious terms as possible, and to distort facts to suit your own agenda. Why do people like the runners of this website not see that this is not the effective way to promote conservatism?? By demonizing everyone else, and even accusing fellow conservatives who disagree with you on specific issues of being secret liberals?
This website is run like a Nazi dictatorship, with Andy and his ass-kissing moderators deciding what truth and reality are.
:I just finished reading ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror''; I vote it should be made the 28th Book in the New Testament (Ye shall know the truth and truth shall set you free). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:33, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
::I'm glad to see someone else enjoyed her books. I think Godless: The Church of Liberalism should be taught in schools. Maybe to counter some of the liberal indoctrination that goes on there. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:12, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
==Style and substance==
Ann Coulter makes many good points, and she frequently nails liberals to the wall with deadly accuracy. She also sometimes answers liberals in their own coin, making a remark just as outrageous as the worst of theirs.
Liberals have slandered her for this, pretending that her outrageous zingers are the only thing she ever says or writes. Hence, the frequently made attack on her, "Does she believe what she says?" This is simply [[character assassination]] in service of an ''[[ad hominem]]'' argument, because they have no answer to the substance of her arguments. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:03, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:You're referring to Sholto Byrnes of the ''Independent [U.K.]''? I think Coulter's jokes are just too deep for him. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)
::Thanks for telling me about the book dates. I didn't check those but rather undid all your contribs since Aschlafly. You had slanted the article against Coulter, using the typical liberal slander: i.e., that she's just as bad (or worse) than any specific political opponent she has criticized.
::If that is your point, just say so - and quote your source. Don't use encyclopedia articles to [[make a case]] - Wikipedia calls that [[original research]], we call it [[bias]].
::Please submit a [[writing plan]] for this article, because a lot of what you said about the [[Paula Jones]] case is valuable. Just stop using it to tear down Coulter, and it can all go back in. Can you do that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:14, 13 January 2010 (EST)
:::No that wasn't my intention at all. Like I said in the Statements section, she makes controversial statements and admits doing so; out of context, they may seem inappropriate, in context they are found to prove a point about the harmful or foolish activities of her targets. I wouldn't necessarily mention the statements I used, but they were included by another Conservapedia contributor in the quotes section, so instead of kicking them out the back door, I confronted them directly. My first response was to undo the damage the out-of-context quotes may have caused by providing context.
:::Likewise, my coverage of the name-calling of John Edwards. Can you tell me anywhere on the internet of any news report where Coulter's minor use of a schoolyard taunt to prove a point about the censorship of criticizing gays was weighed against the prior months of intermittent harassment she received ''from'' persons apparently preoccupied with promoting some gay agenda at her speeches? And that after she had already stated she was not interested in the gay rights issues for or against?
:::As it stands in the original version, the material that she is "as bad (or worse) than any specific political opponent" is still present in the quotes section and the footnotes. In my version it states that her confidence in making statements found to be controversial is "vindicated later by a rehearsal of the facts available to conscientious scrutinizers of the content of her speech," and then one example case is explained--the quote she came up with on the spot in order to change the subject of her would-be interviewers back to her book, and her later use of that quote to point out the activities of the ''New York Times'' were dangerous to United States national security.
:::Before I began writing for this article, I spoke to an administrator named [[User:TK]] whom I asked if I could move the material I wrote for the Wikipedia article over to Conservapedia. He saw the Paula Jones section which I wrote and then asked me to proceed. Could we please consult with him before removing my sections entirely? I agree that my writing isn't perfect, but I think it has to do with clarity rather than any kind of issue of fairness. Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:11, 13 January 2010 (EST)
Anti-Christian Beliefs?
A lot of her debates and speeches on war seem to be Anti-Christian... is she a real Christian? What do you think? {{unsigned|Laroseblanche}}
:(A) Why would this matter? (B) Who would be the judge? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:28, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect