Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Ann Coulter

4,520 bytes added, 01:28, 6 June 2011
/* Style and substance */ Why would this matter?
: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, Administrator