Talk:Ann Coulter

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JBrown (Talk | contribs) at 08:21, 11 May 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Unprotected by User:Ed Poor

Archive 1


Protests

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? SirJim 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests Eljawa 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. Bohdan 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
See what the others think. Bohdan 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. RobS 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. Bohdan 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. RobS 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. Bohdan 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

this article needs a "criticisms" subsection in order to be fair. Jsusman 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? Rob Smith 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --Rutm 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of memes, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of "criticism", there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. Rob Smith 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --Rutm 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?

If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim "truth", move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. Jsusman 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

do you mean statements like this? "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly" -ann coulter Jsusman 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Cite an instance where that's not true. Rob Smith 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --Rutm 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Here's the point about deceit: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. Rob Smith 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? Jsusman 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party & liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. Rob Smith 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at moveon.org for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

"spewing hate" pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? Jsusman 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. Rob Smith 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or "i think women should be armed but not vote". but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative". i dare you to respond without a single reference to "liberals". Jsusman 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as "General Betray-Us."
To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said "in other bad economic news" [1]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. Rob Smith 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: "bad economic news today" but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal.

you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like movon.org's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of "vicious, liberal snarks and smears". thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about moveon.org. let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism.

all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.

Jsusman 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.

silly Coulter

Silly Coulter, Adams apples are for men! thegovernator

Coulter & Sarcasm

I think some consideration should be given to the view that almost all of Coulter's positions are too peurile to be seriously held, and that her entire body of work must be satirical and intended to make a mockery of anyone who finds her points to be at all insightful if taken at face value.


Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. Moveon.org stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is "excess". Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is "elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process". Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people.
In that spirit, let me emphasize that only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. Aziraphale 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) <-doesn't like lib gasbags either....
This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. Rob Smith 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
  • shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. Aziraphale 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) <-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~
On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. Rob Smith 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
Ok, applaud away. Aziraphale 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? Jsusman 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

<-- When the political consulting team of James Carville, Larry Flynt, and Paul Begala cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like Jim Jeffords and Larry Craig, is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. Rob Smith 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? Aziraphale 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I guess we need Flynt & Begala entries then. Rob Smith 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. Aziraphale 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
This Coulterism [2] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. institutional racial hoaxism. Rob Smith 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Legal career

Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? Jsmog 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

M. Stanton Evans

Good quote from Coulter on M. Stanton Evans new book, "the greatest book since the Bible, M. Stanton Evans' Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies." [3] We just need a place to put it. Rob Smith 14:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Hatred

Im sorry but this woman preaches hatred and gives conservative a bad name entirely, she called Jews imperfect christians for gods sake, that is a hateful comment, she is a bigot, she is too far to the right, and when you go to far to the right you become the opposite of a communist... a Nazi. She would quite happily send us back 70 years. The article doesn`t reflect the fact that even moderate conservatives find her offensive, and conservatives should not condon her actions. --Realist2 10:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)

And the hate from the liberals that she preaches against on TV, radio, and her books doesn't count? Karajou 11:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)
The article quotes those comments; what more do you want? The reader can decide whether they are hateful or not. RSchlafly 11:18, 24 December 2007 (EST)

And if you can't decide, it's not a problem; the article tells you right from the start:

Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics and liberals in general, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that liberals can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. [2] [3]

  • Liberals = intolerant attacks
  • Ann Coulter = exposure of hypocrisy, occasional twitting

Nice to have things made simple! Feebasfactor 12:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)

is that ment to be a joke, --Realist2 14:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

That's "meant", not "ment". More importantly, please open your mind a bit for your sake.--Aschlafly 14:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Open minds are great, and Ann Coulter probably does make a lot of very good points. But you can be simultaneously valid and offensive, and the article should not attempt to dismiss this by putting such a spin on her "controversy" in the very second paragraph. As mentionned before, the quotes speak for themselves, so let the readers decide. Feebasfactor 15:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I hate people who won't fix things themselves => shorthand for I hate it when people ... --Ed Poor Talk 15:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Um... Thanks for unlocking the article...? Feebasfactor 23:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)
My Mind is open about this, and I still see a hate monger, Mr. Schlafay. Evidence to the point: Christian Crusading, Anti-Semitic statements, and Anti-Islamic sentiments. My evidence towards the theory that Ann Coulter is a Hate Monger and a Religious Facist is on the table. You may now post a counter argument. CodyH 18:57 11 Feb 2008 (CST)
The article has quotes from her. The reader can form his own opinions. RSchlafly 22:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Isn't Coulter pro-choice?

I thought Ann Coulter was pro-choice. Someone should look into this... -danq 12:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

First "Reference"

The first reference, "U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner called her one of America's top public intellectuals," has no source. Unless there's a source or a specific objection, I think this reference should be deleted. --Jdellaro 08:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)

I added the refs [4] [5] --Crocoite 12:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Perhaps I misunderstood the references---but where does he state that she's one of America's top public intellectuals? --Jdellaro 12:10, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Having read the reference again, I think a couple improvements could be made. First, the reference should have something to do with the corresponding passage. The passage talks about her books, but the reference makes a claim about being called a top intellectual. That claim can be included in the main article someplace, but doesn't have relevance as a reference to her writings. Second, the reference, when placed in the article, should point to his book on the subject, rather than the appendix to the book. The reference doesn't make the fact any clearer. Finally, having read a summation of the book from Publisher's Weekly, it seems Posner was writing that the intellectuals of today have diminished from the intellectuals of the past. He then uses web hits as a qualification for intellectualism. That seems a weak criteria.
Overall, I think this reference should just be removed, as it doesn't enhance but instead detracts from the article. --Jdellaro 12:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Valid points. The statement and references now stand alone and are not linked to her books. The statement now adds to the article. --Crocoite 12:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the update. I still question whether he considers her one of America's top public intellectuals, or whether she's just another example of an American public intellectual, but w/o reading the book it's hard to know. But thank you for the updated writing! --Jdellaro 12:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Opinion

The following paragraph needs some work:

Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by critics and liberals, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that [[liberal]]s can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref>

I love Coulter's writing, but this paragraph includes a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. I wanted to rewrite it, but I wasn't really sure how without taking out most of the assertions. HelpJazz 14:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)

As an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and sometimes considered "offensive" <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] </ref>
How's that, HelpJazz? Any better? Feebasfactor 17:25, 12 February 2008 (EST==
Wow, I forgot about this post, heh. Yes, Feebas, I think that's much better, and I think it still gets the same message across without the editorializing. Thanks! HelpJazz 19:37, 12 February 2008 (EST)

revert

What is feign offence Andy? you mean that people are not actually offended? AdenJ 23:58, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Karajou, this is pathetic. Her critics are critics because they are actually offended. What makes you think they feign it? I am going to revert if you cant give a reason AdenJ 01:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

And I will throw you off this website if you even dare to. Karajou 01:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, I was under the impression I was dealing with an adult. AdenJ 01:44, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

The child is yourself, and we've had enough of your tantrums and your bad remarks directed against the sysops and Aschlafly here. If you want to contribute, fine; but your bad attitude is over with. If not, leave. Karajou 01:47, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, I am not the one saying "I dare you! Then I'll show you!" Secondly, I dont give a sweet damn what Coutler says however she does offend and noone "feigns it" and you should back this up if this is actually meant to be "trustworthy" AdenJ 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

With respect, he has raised an important point. I believe that at least some of Coulter's critics have been offended by her comments, particular those who they are directed at. StatsMsn 02:16, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
It's easy to see why Coulter's critics would feign offense, in their attempt to score political points. It's not so easy to see why they would be genuinely offended. Are they equally offended by similar jokes/comments by liberals??--Aschlafly 09:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
Hm. AdenJ is currently... "away", but I just saw this in the Recent Changes. I can understand why liberals would be genuinely offended by her remarks:
  • "Liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
    • Right. This of course does not offend liberals in the slightest...
  • "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly."
    • See above; I guess no liberal will be offended by that. No sir...
  • "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned."
    • Of course, women will only feign being offended by this. They know that they are incapable of understanding how money is earned! Sure!
And how about some of her book titles?
  • Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (2003)
  • Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2004)
  • How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2005)
  • If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans (2007)
Are you seriously claiming that not one of these lines is going to genuinely offend anybody? If anybody said that conservatives are lying traitors who are driven by Satan and should not be allowed to vote because they're all anti-American idiots, I'm very sure that conservatives would be offended. Maybe not you, but others will be. --JBrown 10:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)