Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Coulter v. The Counter-Coulters
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Note: NBC changed their mind late Tuesday and rescheduled Coulter for 7am Wednesday.

Ann Coulter's new book, "Guilty," is out, and two things are certain: It will surely be another best-seller, and she will once again drive the Left bonkers. No institution will be more offended than the national press. Prepare to witness their meltdown.

The Drudge Report caused a firestorm when anonymous NBC insiders leaked the word that Coulter had been "banned for life" from that network. CBS featured her on "The Early Show," and a combative Harry Smith tried to insult her to the extreme. He called her "goofy," "simplistic," "sophomoric" and a "whiner." "You should have a cross," he said dismissively. "You should put yourself up on a cross." Why are they so upset?

The so-called "objective" media clearly feel threatened because they are the very liberals Coulter is attacking. If they weren't liberals, none of her mockery of liberals would bother them. Oh, they might not appreciate her style, as some conservatives don't. But they wouldn't have pitched debates inside their walls about how they will savage her in interviews -- and I defy the networks to deny this -- or how they would remove her from their airwaves altogether.

Those rumored bans have been demanded by the leftist lobbyists for the Censorship Doctrine -- people who say they oppose "conservative misinformation," but clearly want conservatives tossed from the radio and TV airwaves before "misinformation" or just plain conservative thought spills out. They have pressured the networks to stop helping Coulter sell books. Freedom of speech is truly a dangerous concept when conservatives exercise it.

But liberals who claim to oppose "inflammatory rhetoric" on television when it comes from conservatives have no problem with uncivil liberalism. Or 100 percent hate-filled left-wing character assassination. Take NBC, which could not look sillier if it ever seriously banned Coulter for being hyperbolic, when vicious, hyperbolic liberals (Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews) dominate MSNBC.

It's easy to run down a list of inflammatory liberals who are welcomed on the TV morning shows. Start with Kitty Kelley's wild "investigative" books on the Reagans or the Bushes. Or Michael Moore's kooky conspiracy theories. Or Al Franken suggesting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby should be executed over Plamegate. (NBC's Matt Lauer and his off-camera crew laughed at that.)

Or recall Bill Maher on his HBO show in 2007 suggesting Arianna Huffington shouldn't ban commenters on her website wishing Dick Cheney had died in a terrorist attack in Afghanistan. "That's a funny joke," Maher said. "If this isn't China, shouldn't you be able to say that?" He added that Cheney's death by suicide bomber might be a public service: "I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact."

Harry Smith hosted Maher on CBS just months ago on his faith-mocking movie "Religulous" and didn't say one discouraging word to him about his caustic remarks about Cheney or his hateful anti-Christian bigotry. Not one word.

But when Ann Coulter speaks, the brass knuckles come out. In 2007, Coulter was heavily criticized for joking that she couldn't talk about John Edwards, since an ABC actor was forced to apologize for saying "faggot" at the Golden Globes. Liberals were furious. Coulter responded by saying next time, she'd echo Bill Maher and just wish Edwards died in a terrorist attack. Elizabeth Edwards then denounced Coulter for suggesting she wanted her husband dead. Harry Smith invited Mrs. Edwards on CBS, offered her brief softballs and let her verbally whack Coulter with a bat.

Smith is an enormous hypocrite. He completely ignored vicious remarks by Mrs. Edwards just days before, in accepting a "Rage for Justice" award, that the Bush administration was waging a class war that compared to slaughters in Darfur:

"The White House has led the charge against working people, in their own class war. The late, great Molly Ivins once wrote: 'If there was class warfare, that war was long over. And it was a massacre ... a genocide to which there have been words of acknowledgment, as there have in Darfur, but as with Darfur, no meaningful action.'"

But when Ann Coulter comes on the set with Smith, the gloves come off.

Ann Coulter's liberal-bashing columns and books and television appearances are fun for conservatives, simply because there's nothing funnier for the right than witnessing CBS putting up on its own screen a Coulter quote about Ted Kennedy and CBS: "Kennedy may be a drunken slob, but unlike CBS News anchors, he is not certifiably insane."

Call Coulter outrageous, call her a bomb-thrower, even state she goes beyond the pale of civility, if that's your read. But do not assign that label to Coulter and then present your on-air love, kisses and giggles to all the public leftist hate-spewing that far exceeds any perceived incivility by Coulter. That is utterly transparent liberalism, and utterly transparent hypocrisy.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Semper Libertas
The majority of single women vote democratic. And IMO this explains the "I feel ..." vs. I think syndrome that plagues the nation.

I have empathy and I "feel" for my fellow man, but I also realize that the best way to get the poor out of poverty is to give them a job not a hand out.

Liberally minded women democrats don't think about the best way - they "feel" about it. They are wonderful warm people but heart felt intentions alone can not help the poor - or terrorists intelligent gathering, etc...

Reality is much harsher than some of this particular group of women have been exposed to.

I know several of them, they are sheltered by circumstance, and they do NOT pay attention to politics for the most part. They just "feel" when they vote.

Coulter has them pegged.

Semper Libertas
I would disagree that Coulter only does so "out of frustration of the leftist filibuster attacks" -- she does so to generate controversy and sell books. That's her shtick. -SL
=======================

I didn't say *only* I said usually. On TV interviews I've seen with the left the filibuster style attacks are non-stop - they don't want fairness, they don't want freedom of speech, they want to get republicans on to degrade republicans. She doesn't take it. But I do agree she does some of it to sell her books. And it works. Smart gal.

With that said if you read what she says in her books (admittedly I haven't read much - too busy) she's got some very valid points. And I agree that both sides see things in black and white the gray is consistently ignored by what I call the "political football fans", who route for their political team regardless of facts.

I'm a conservative republican (that leans toward libertarian/constitutionalists on certain issues)and I'm the first to say the republican party is lost. Both parties go through fazes - then bounce back. I do wish there was a third party that actually get's a 1/3 of the vote, that would shake up the process.

In the end I think we are in agreement - Ann Coulter is worth listening to (while discarding the insults/bias) she has some very good though provoking perspectives on history.

Now only if the left would listen as well.

re: Jo
It's hard to generalize voting patterns based on education. In this past election, McCain lost among every education level; Bush in 2004, however, won among high school graduates and college graduates, but lost among both high school dropouts and people with post graduate degrees.

Even highly intelligent people can disagree.

re: Jo
quote: "Rude crude insulting remarks run rampant on the left, you've GOT to admit this."

You're absolutely correct. I don't like Al Franken or Bill Maher either. I would disagree that Coulter only does so "out of frustration of the leftist filibuster attacks" -- she does so to generate controversy and sell books. That's her shtick.

Personally, I prefer actual debate on issues, using facts and intellectually-honest argument rather than personal invective.

As for Coulter and McCarthy, I like the research she's done, but I think she takes it too far in the other direction, whitewashing too much over McCarthy's faults. There is a tendency among people (on both the left AND the right) to present historical figures in only black and white -- either all good, or all bad. The truth is typically more in shades of grey. There are, of course, exceptions, but rarely is anyone as good or as bad as portrayed by their friends and their enemies.


Semper Libertas
Or perhaps you meant Coulters "satire"

This is one:

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women." -- Ann Coulter

==============

You have to admit, as much as it hurts to leftist women, she's correct.

Educated voters in any gender should be the norm. We have seen BO's voter IQ multiple times. A large part of those people are (sadly) women.

Semper Libertas
What specific "truth" uttered by Coulter has been criticized? -SL

========================

How about McCarthy was right.

And you've got to admit she has a point.

Semper Libertas
Rude crude insulting remarks run rampant on the left, you've GOT to admit this.

On the right is pretty much only Coulter who makes these sort of comments, out of frustration of the leftist filibuster attacks. I can understand it - but I would not do the same.

Glad to hear you are susceptible to insult/criticism. We all are, this is why I preach about manners and tact in all affairs. We don't have the "right", but it certainly does show character of the attacker, don't you agree?

re: Jo
quote: "when a conservative uses the truth in "satire", they can't stand it."

What specific "truth" uttered by Coulter has been criticized?

Chole
How many books does Coulter sell? Chole

=================================

Slander (Coulter book) topped the NYT best seller list last I knew over 30,500 perhaps more now, Glenn Beck is there now with "Christmas Sweater" I fail to see how this relates to CD's and movies?

Two different industries.

Explain?

re: Jo
quote: "Personal insults? What happened to NOT having the right to be offended? Or does this only apply to non-conservatives?"

I never claimed she should be shut down by the government or not allowed to say whatever she wants. But just as she has the right to say rude things, I have the right to criticize her for it. I'm not saying that I have a right not to be insulted -- if she wants to add me to the list of people she insults, she has every right to do so. I have the equal right, however, to point out that she's rude and immature, just as you have the right to disagree with me.

For the record, however, I think I'm right and you're wrong. Mature, well adjusted people don't say some of the absurd, insulting, crude things she says. If someone on the left were saying the same things, many people praising Coulter would deride that person for it (like, for example, Bill Maher, whom I also find sophomoric, crude, and a complete waste of breath).

How many books does Coulter sell?
versus how many people see a movie or buy a cd?

Hypocrisy
I find it amusing that Daily Show, (and other) liberal fans have no problem with untruths in "satire" but when a conservative uses the truth in "satire", they can't stand it.


Semper Libertas 1/9 4:45
Ann isn't derided for "say[ing] what is true", she's derided because much of what she says is said in a rude, sophomoric style that consists of personal insults. It is not only "liberals" that consider her to be "hateful". -SL

====================================

Personal insults? What happened to NOT having the right to be offended? Or does this only apply to non-conservatives?

If libertarians or liberals are insulted then that's their problem, isn't it?

I like Ann and I agree she can be over the top at times, but she is far from sophomoric. In the interviews I've seen, she seems very intelligent and witty when allowed to answer a question. Usually over the top comments come after being cut off by argumentative, egotistical interviewers. I saw a snippet of the most recent "View" show with Coulter - why she did that show, I'll never know. Bunch of harpies squawking so loud no conservative can ever get a word in. But put a liberal on and they listen with adoring attention.




Agree with Will
Agree with Will's post "Coulter has become a self-parody". She needs to find a new career (which is what I would mean by "passes on").

re: cottoneyed, conc.
quote: " I don't imagine that
you like to hear all that, "blame the lib'ruls" from Rush and Ann, do ya'. Thats because you agree with them far more than you disagree with em'."

Actually, I don't like blaming "liberals" for all our problems when much of the time, "conservatives" enjoy Big Government intrusion on individual liberty and the economy just as much. Rush & Hannity, for example, love blaming the subprime meltdown on Clinton, the CRA, and Barney Frank; yet Bush and the Congress under Republican control made no serious effort to privatize Fannie or Freddie, and Bush himself supported government policies that "promoted" home ownership among lower-income families (remember the so-called "ownership society"?). Some of the housing bubble can even be traced back to exemptions for capital gains on home sales traceable to the 1997 cap gains tax cut (note: I favor a reduction or even abolition of the cap gains tax, but no special treatment for home sales).

Bush has promoted Big Government bailouts and/or partial nationalization of banks, insurance companies, automakers; agricultural subsidies and the expansion of government intrusion in education; expansion of Medicare; infringement on civil liberties.

He's had plenty of willing "conservative" accomplices along the way in his expansion of government; everything can't just be blamed on the "lib'rals".

Coulter has become a self-parody
& a nasty foul-mouthed shrew.

She cares about nobody (and no party) but herself. This country will be a little bit better when she passes on.

re: cottoneyed, cont.
By the way, what I'm calling "flame throwers" is perhaps different than what you are. I'm not talking about people who take on the so-called "establishment", I'm talking about people who cast more heat than light on issues. *I* challenge the Republican leadership consistently; I'm not talking about lying down and letting the McCains and Doles of the world run the party, I'm talking of debate based on facts and issues.

Even when I might've disagreed on a particular issue, I never found Reagan to be personally insulting, rude, immature, or intellectually dishonest. Likewise Buckley. Likewise George Will or Walter Williams. Not so Ann Coulter.

re: cottoneyed
Actually, I favor less government most likely than you do. Name one person on the left who favors limited government? My political philosophy is more likely more in line with Walter Williams or John Stossel than yours is I'm guessing.

Why I don't like what Rush, Hannity, or Coulter do is not that they criticize "lib'rals" -- I criticize government coercion as well, and I do so regardless of whether it is proposed by "lib'rals" OR "conservatives". What I don't like or engage in is the ad hominem invective and the intellectual dishonesty. Coulter adds to it a childish rudeness.

Ronald Reagan was never rude or sophomoric. Neither is Walter Williams, or the late great William Buckley, or Larry Kudlow. You mention Palin, and she has always acted with class and dignity when I've seen her, again in contrast to Ann Coulter, so she fits more in the lineage of what I'm discussing, not you.

And, again instead of debating me on specific points with facts, you choose ad hominem insult and false association.

Maher
= Franken = a big fat idiot. I would rather call people ignorant because that means they chose not to learn, but after witnessing Frankens life, he was never good or funny at anything and the book he wrote and how both he and Maher talk and act, aka 2 peas in a pod, I have no choice but to call it as I see it.

That's a fact."
For Smith to call her Beautiful, smart and one hell of a Woman would not fit his understanding of what makes the world go round. To come to that realization would shatter the la la world he and the other libs live in, they do not understand a strong God fearing Woman, she scares them. Give em hell Ann.

I don't imagine that
you like to hear all that, "blame the lib'ruls" from Rush and Ann, do ya'. Thats because you agree with them far more than you disagree with em'. All that critizin', disturbs those delicate sensibilies of yours. Fact is fella', your way is the way of minority status in perpetuity, whether it be Michels or Michel, you know what I'm talkin' about, don't cha'. It breaks down like this fan tan, you got McCain, you got all the "Michel types", those repubicans, like Warner, like that guy from Indiana, like the guy from Nebraska, like the gal from Maine, well i don't need to go further, do i. Thats your team, fan tan. My team, RONALDUS MAXIMUS, Rush, Ann, Mark, Newt, Cheney, Palin, Bobby J., Williams, Sowell, "flame throwers", all! "Flame throwers", just another name for winners.

re: cottoneyed, cont.
By the way, while you spent a good deal of verbiage accusing me of being self righteous and somehow linking me to leftist thought, you never actually challenged any of the specific points I have made using any facts.

In your dreams do you have those,
you pompous repubican, i have already demoed the fact that Williams, Sowell, and Stossel agree with Rush, and Ann, not you. I shot down your "flame thrower" notion with the fact that Rush was invited to speak to the Freshman Republicans in 94'. They credited him with their victory, fool. Your way is the way of losers, that is why i used the Michels example. That is who you are. Delicate, self-righteous, a loser, and anti-RONALDUS MAXIMUS. Incidentally, what do you do, just wait by your computer, with nothing better to do. Good G-D man, get a life!

Oh also, "Mr. self-righteous"
If you think for one moment that you are closer to RONALDUS MAXIMUS than are Rush, or Ann, well then you are bigger fool than i know you to be. You are a Bob Michels, repubican, your an apologist for Reaganism, not a follower, sir. I would bet that your man was McCain, wasn't he. McCain had very little if anything in common with RONALDUS, he talked a good game but Conservatives knew that he wasn't. Have you ever listened to any of RONALDUS'S speeches from the early 60s. With your delicate sensibility, you would have to be offended by RONALDUS'S characterizations of the left. In fact, RONALDUS sounds down right Ann Coulterish, in his denunciation of the scumbag left. In short, Mr. self-righteous" Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and RONALDUS Maximus have everything in common, and you well, good old Bob Michels, was liked by all!

re: cottoneyed
Yeah, I actually listen to Rush when Williams and Sowell are on there. I learn something then, rather than just hearing everything blamed on "the lib'rals".

Seems to me like Reagan was pretty successful by the way, and to link me with the left or with Michel is laughable. Unlike Michel (not Michels), I believe the purpose of government is to protect liberty, not to transfer property from one group to another or give special privileges to one group over another.

As for the air of superiority, it appears you're the one who is resulting to personal insults. As for self-righteousness, you post on here purporting to insult personally someone you've never met, and assume you know something about me. Dude, grow up. Again, you can have Ann Coulter, I'll take Reagan, Buckley, Williams, and Stossel.

Wow, now we have
an "everlasting self-righteous" libertarian. It never takes long for the self-righteous ones to expose themselves. You sir, prove again that self-righteousness is not strictly found on the left. That is because you and they are very close in thought. Both have a superior air and fancy themselves as being above it all, and oh, so much smarter. Your type of repubicanism was best exemplified by that congenial soul, good old Bob Michels, minority leader in perpetuity back when repubicans were seen and never heard. It was not until Rush the "flame thrower" came alone in 1986, that eventually lead to Newt Gingrich's "contract with America". Incidentally "Mr. self-righteous", Rush the "flame thrower" was invited to speak to all those freshman Republican congressman because they credited him with their victory. The first majority Republican congress in 50 years!! So given your way or Rush's way, excuse me, "Mr. self-righteous", but your way was a loser for 5 decades. Oh, also, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and John Stossel have all co-hosted Rush's, the flame throwers show, for him. Seems they have NO PROBLEM with the "flame thrower", does it!! Only loser repubicans like you.

Ann is on the frontlines of the
political and cultural war and she has the intellectual ammunition and witty skill to hit her intended targets, right where it counts, in their overinflated EGOS!!

Of course the liberals hate her for it, THEY are her intended targets. Who likes to be shot at, especially lying, lazy, elitist liberal journalists who wouldn't know objectivity if it hit them between the eyes!!!


Oh, let me add
Larry Kudlow to that list, PJ O'Rourke, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, and Kate O'Beirne. All intelligent and reasoned without coming across as hateful and immature.

re: cottoneyed, cont.
By the way, you seem to be calling me an "everlasting libertarian" as some point of derision. In doing so, are you saying that my belief that the government should stick to protecting liberty, as opposed to enforcing some sort of moral code, is wrong? Are you criticizing my view that government should be limited?

Or, are you just critical of my style and the fact that I prefer William F. Buckley, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, and Walter Williams to flamethrowers like Hannity, Rush, and Coulter?

re: cottoneyed
I don't worry about being "liked", my concern is more with being correct. Insulting people is typically not a good way to debate, if you want to actually *convince* people and not just score points by being rude.

For the record, I have never claimed to be "conservative", my only claim is to being a free market capitalist. I agree with Thomas Jefferson: "It is to protect our rights that we resort to government at all." The purpose of government is to protect liberty.

I tend to debate people on facts, not personal insults. If that's not your style, fine. Obviously there's a market for Ann's style, fine also.

The most successful "conservative" I can think of was Ronald Reagan. He was never rude, never shouted, never called names. He debated people on the issues, using facts and logic, not name-calling and personal insults.

The second most successful "conservative" I can think of is William Buckley. Same with him.

I'll take RR and WFB any day. If you think they are "wimps", you're obviously welcome to your opinion. Think about who's had a bigger impact on the world.

RR Nazis
Those that calls themselves Conservative, should behave exactly like Ann. Only "repubicans" and their blood brothers, liberals, are offended by her>>

Thanks to Radicals conservatives like Ann, not only are we hated by the majority of Americans, but we eat our own. Now, according to these Freaks republicans are little better than Liberals. Only a hatefilled freak like the Coulterqist is a 'real' conservative. So guess what, you real conservatives couldn't elect a dogcatcher let alone a president. You fools haven't been happy with the party before or since Reagan. I know, why not start the New Nazi party and you can be as 'pure' as you like, and the rest of us could just forget about you.

What is the difference
between Harry Smith and the one who wraps himself up in "everlasting liberty"? One may have hair!

There are always those
who talk a good game, they even wrap themselves up in words like, liberty" and "everlasting" but they would not, and could not defend liberty if it meant being, "mean" or "loud" or being perceived as, "hateful", no no they would rather be "liked", don't cha' know! We must not, cannot, have leftists think we're not "nice", now can we!! Ann, Conservatives, real Conservatives love you, and the true measure of your being "spot on" is the fact that the leftist scum along with the everlasting libertarians can't stand you. A persons enemies tell much more about a person than does his friends.

True Conservatives are always attracted to other true Conservatives, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine, and Ann Coulter. If you don't then you ain't a Conservative, your a leftist or a repubican. And who cares if there might be a small distinction between the two.

Everyone
that calls themselves Conservative, should behave exactly like Ann. Only "repubicans" and their blood brothers, liberals, are offended by her. And who in the hell cares what those wimps might say! They nominated their boy, McCain, he was so measured, and so appealing to the "moderates", wasn't he! Well that worked out well, didn't it. You repubicans, and you know who you are, continue to be offended by Ann, but know this, you count for nothing, because your nothing but a bunch of losers, and you are the reason that real Conservatives, would not be caught dead being in the same party as you. Bless your little "moderate" losing heart. You make me sick!!

Way to Go, Annie!
Can't wait to read your new book! And Brent Bozell always hits a home run with his unique perception. Love this column! Keep telling the truth about LIBERALS in America. I love to see them foam at the mouth like the rabid bloodsucking bats they are.

re: pastorblastor
Ann isn't derided for "say[ing] what is true", she's derided because much of what she says is said in a rude, sophomoric style that consists of personal insults. It is not only "liberals" that consider her to be "hateful".

Keep it up Ann!
When vitriolic liberals rant, rave, and froth at the mouth with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) all of them happily clap and giggle like the twits on the View, but let a conservative, a woman, and one who looks good to boot say what is true then holy cow she's a bitc...! Too bad, so sad! The liberal media elites do not like being exposed for the narrow-minded hypocritical robots they are. Stalinist sycophants all.

If her comments are considered "hateful" by liberals then keep up the hate speech Ann!

re: thomas
Seriously, you don't think Coulter is hateful? Try googling some of her quotes. I did and here's a sampling.
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot."

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

"Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole."

"There are a lot of bad republicans; there are no good democrats."

"Liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots."

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

Now, some of those are obviously not in any sort of context, but still, anyone who's ever seen Coulter on TV knows she's pretty hateful.

thomas J. Gisset, name one instance...
...of hate being spewed by coulter. then tell if calling someone "butt ugly" is hateful?

then again, wouldnt you rather hateful words than hateful actions? or are you an appearance over substance type of person?

coulterqist
The lovely Ann spouts truth, your tin ear hears what ever it wants to hear. >>

My tin ear is just like millions of others, stupid. Lovely Ann ... ain't. It's hateful Ann. Ann the butt ugly face of American conservatism. With that face, we are all screwed. Democrats win, but Butt ugly Ann sells lots of books.
Clue: You can tell the truth without spewing hate at anything that isn't just like you. Maybe someone can tell Ann? She might not sell as many books to the hateful losers, but our party would be in much better shape.

Ann makes liberals squirm?
Have at it, Anne! Turnabout is fair play.

The lovely Ann spouts truth


Thomas J Gassett Location: WA
Reply # 238
Date: Jan 8, 2009 - 8:34 EST
the Coulterqist
Ann is one of the most hated people in the USA
=======

Well that's possible, but only one. The other ones are Stupidman, Dr. Que*er, Plankin, the Hate America Radio Network, and thousands of other lefty idiots.

You can hear more hate in 20 minutes on MSDNC any night, than you would have heard on Rush in 20 years.

The lovely Ann spouts truth, your tin ear hears what ever it wants to hear.

manipulated and suppression of truth
Thank-God Ann Coulter is speaking out! I have been concerned about our Freedom of Speech for months! America is being brainwashed. And the truth is being suppressed! Here is my post. I have been very frightened how manipulated Americans were during this election. I became very aware of the suppression and censorship on the MSM blog sites being removed. Mine own were many times. I feel our First Amendment is in Jeopardy by this Authoritarian!

This is a blog I read last night on abc:"I just read on a news station in Chicago that Burris has given a tremendous amout of money to Blog. Doesn't this need to be looked into or is it just par for the course?? Posted by:lizathome," on an abc blog. This is what I wrote back: Does this surprise you? He has learned from the champ of manipulation. Saul Alinsky's best student. Obama is payed people to Blog, this was reported: It appears Obama is paying people to be using -- and abusing -- a tool allowing them to "flag" questions as "inappropriate" to remove all questions. "Obama spent years as director of the Developing Communities Project, which operated using Alinsky's strategies, and was involved with two other Alinsky-oriented entities, Acorn and Project Vote. The post was removed!

I read this in November: There has been a huge suppressing movement in the Obama campaign- "I work for the obama campaign and I can't wait for this week to be over. I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate. We are paid to infiltrate all the blogs, and all the YouTube videos, and we overwhelm the comments, to give the appearance of overwhelming support for Obama." said one obama campaign worker. It was never reported. I don't think Americans are aware of the manipulations.
Again, this is Frightening! - Somebody else needs to be aware of this. I would love to hear others thoughts.

the Coulterqist
Ann is one of the most hated people in the USA, and that hatred is spread liberally over all conservatives. The Lunatic right has turned the republican party into a permanent minority, but what the hay ... she sells a lot of books.

The fact is, we can't win without the Latino vote, and as long as we have haters like Ann ... we will never get the Latino vote. Latinos are our people, unlike Ann. They are hard working, God fearing people that build large strong families. If they aren't natural republicans then there is no such thing.

You clowns on the RR can swoon all over Ann, and as you do so, you remind me of Lemmings happily jumping into the water to drown. Cheer Ann al you want, just remember it's haters like Ann that destoryed the party.

Ann Coulter
I want to thank God for Ann Coulter, she is about the only conservative celebrity that i know that has the guts to take on the ultra Liberal MSM on their on terms and kick their butts. Its really hilarious to watch her rip them up. For some reason they cant resist the oppurtinity to interview her for watever so called liberal news show probably thinking that they are going to make a fool out of a poor helpless female and they are always supprised when they get their asses handed to them but then they still cant resist, the next time when the same thing happens they are supprised again .

Ann Coulter
I've heard,,,,the truth hurts. The Lefty's cant handle the truth. Great column

re: Tacitus
Ok, you caught me in hyperbole. How about this: she OFTEN does nothing to advance intellectually-honest debate.

Interesting that on the Laura Ingraham show today, she didn't give those statistics about single mothers, seeing as how Ingraham is one herself...

As for the "responding in kind", don't stretch the point to make it something it wasn't. I was referring to sophomoric behavior, not everything in the world at all. I think you know that, it is pretty obvious what I meant.

I've seen plenty of Ann on TV, and granted it has mostly been in a "Crossfire"-esque format engineered to foment "debate". In those situations, she tends to spend most of her time insulting "liberals" in a broad-based, ad hominem, sophomoric way, and then complaining that the other guy won't let her talk. She loves to play that victim card. Perhaps she at least makes the attempt to do better in her one-on-one interviews.

Bozo Bozell: Statist
Bozell is a huge statist.

Ever notice how the new GOP believes in states' rights and free markets? Me neither. Rather, ever notice how the new GOP as personified by Bozell believes states and markets have a right to agree with them? Me too. For example, many social conservatives like Bozo here want tighter censorship on broadcast television. Seems they'd prefer to let the free markets determine what's on television. If there is a big demand for "family fare", then it seems they'd seize the business opportunity and start a new broadcast network to profit from this untapped market. Funny how they prefer big government in this and many other instances. It seems the only principle social cons have is that everyone has to follow what they believe, and the other freedoms they claim to espouse are merely means to an end.

I'm glad you like big government, Bozo, as Obama will give you all of what you want.

Semper Libertas hmmm again
You now say "I actually did read, and enjoyed, one of her early books, can't remember exactly which one. Well, let me say I enjoyed the researched, factual parts of the book." Your previous post said "My problem with Coulter is that she does nothing to advance intellectually-honest debate." So you're either wrong now or were wrong then. It's amusing that you can't recall the factually researched book, but latched on to the invective.

Did you hear her interview yesterday with Matt Lauer? She begins talking about the Constitution and he interrupts her to whine about her style in past remarks. She begins giving him the statistics on the bad effects of single mothers, and he interrupts her again to complain about the style of other remarks of hers in the past. Naturally, she doesn't acquiesce to the slander, and logically provides context and some "compare and contrast" examples to show Lauer is using a double-standard it wouldn't occur to him to apply to a liberal.

While Mary Poppins may believe "responding in kind doesn't work," in the real world it works great. If not, we wouldn't punish criminals or go to war when attacked. Ann is quite willing to fight the left intellectually or with invective if that's the battleground they choose. FYI, the John Edwards "faggot" remark was clearly a joke albeit not PC (horrors!)

Not possible

Semper Libertas Location: TX
Reply # 231
Date: Jan 8, 2009 - 1:49 PM EST
factual parts of the book when she wasn't lobbing ad hominem attacks on "liberals".
========

ad hominem means: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

How is it possible to lob attacks of logic and reason to a Lib?

re: Tacitus
I actually did read, and enjoyed, one of her early books, can't remember exactly which one. Well, let me say I enjoyed the researched, factual parts of the book when she wasn't lobbing ad hominem attacks on "liberals".

As for her "responding in kind", the "he did it first" argument doesn't work on the playground, much less in the real world.

Hey, that's her shtick, and as long as there's a market for it you'll be around doing it. I get that, it's just not my cup of tea. I prefer a more reasoned, intellectually-honest debate based on ideas, not personalities and insults.

I heard some of her interview on Laura Ingraham today and she was remarkably restrained in her personal attacks, and actually gave me some information I didn't know before that WAS researched and fact-based. That's the kind of thing I wish we saw more of, and less calling John Edwards a "faggot" or whatever.

Ann Coulter
Ann I hope you see this. YOU KICK BUTT!!! I have come to realize that the two main political groups in USA are conservatives and morons. Think about running for an office at some point! I would love to see you take someone down during a debate. I grew up behind the Iron curtain and I'm seeing the same thing emerge here...

Ann Coulter,Many Thanks
I am so thankful for Ann. She is talented and has book sales to prove it. It is one thing to be able to write informative books that sell ,but another to be able to hawk them.

Ann knows when she faces the MSM,she is going into a lions den. She is the meat caretakers feed to the lions. The interviewers think she is a patsy they can mistreat, WRONG!

Both are on the defense and offense facing each other.Ann will not take their crap without striking back. They hate her for her beliefs and she knows it and feeds off it.

The fact that she is not a demure,shy little lady they can browbeat makes them mad as he!l!
You would think the other side would try to appear fair for once. It is beyond their ability. Just something they are not familiar with.

Let's correcct that misspelling


I find a constant misspelling of one of the media darlings.

Please understand that Stupidmann, and Dr. Qu*er are on a station that should be spelled MSDNC.

NBC is not the greatest, but don't make them responsible for all that garbage, let's name the source. What I don't understand is why Bill Gates permits this nonsense.

Liberals criticize conservatives?
I lost count at about three thousand, the number of times President Bush has been labeled stupid or a Nazi by the left. Funny how that's OK, but pointing out anything noteworthy about a liberal is inflammatory attacks on sanity. I think we need more Ann Coulters and fewer election stealing Frankens.

Guilty
Another great book by Ann Coulter.

re: Semper Libertas
You have made the precise point. If Coulter brings it on herself and thus deserves the treatment she gets, why do those on the left who also make inflammatory and incendiary remarks not get the same treatment by the MSM? I do not need to defend Coulter; she does a great job without help.

All I would like to see is a level playing field. However, I don't think that will occur.

There is one positive aspect, the MSM are on a financial Titanic and have yet to understand why.

Give 'em hell, Ann
Liberals can't stand the taste of their own bitter medicine. It's impossible to have any kind of civil discourse with the raving moonbats, so the kid gloves have to come off and the brass knuckles have to come on.

The only problem is, there are too many braindead Americans who limit their intake of information to the MSM, and won't bother to do any research on opposing viewpoints.

Thank god for people like Hannity, Bozell, and Coulter. Bloggers like me can't get the publicity or the attention of the MSM leftards, but they can.

Standshisground
You've made my day with your fulminations. It's as much fun as whacking at a nest of stingless wasps.

Semper Libertas hmmmm
Says "My problem with Coulter is that she does nothing to advance intellectually-honest debate...If on versus another guest, she typically filibusters, lobs personal insults, and then complains that he or she won't let her talk."

Try reading her books. Ann is a first-class researcher and quick on her feet so the leftists refuse intellectually honest debate, instead lobbing personal insults and attempting to talk over her. Not being a potted plant, she responds in kind. I've yet to see her respond to substantive debate by avoiding substance in favor of invective. It's just that the left refuses to engage her in honest debate because they know they're over-matched.

No one with an IQ exceeding room temperature believes that Harry Smith or Matt Lauer could stand toe-to-toe in a debate with Ann on issues she's written about like Joe McCarthy or constitutional law.

re: czar
Well, I do think words mean something, and if you're going to claim they are trying to "silence" her, that means something pretty serious. As for your claims that they are trying to "humiliate and demean her in a personal as well as a philosophical way", where's the evidence of that? That they may or may not have tried to "ban her for life" as she & Drudge claim, or questioning that was biased?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of leftward-biased media, but let's not get carried away, or think that Ann didn't bring some of this on herself by her demeanor on-air.

On a somewhat-related note, I saw where Larry Kudlow is going to have her on CNBC Reports tonight. He usually keeps her in check and doesn't let her go off on her sophomoric ad hominem tangents, so it should be a pretty good interview. If y'all don't watch Kudlow, you should, he's got about the only political & economics show on TV worth watching.

re: Semper Libertas
You are being coy. NBC has the right to have whomever they wish on their network even if it is a public airway. By using the word "silence" I am saying that they are doing that by trying to humiliate and demean her in a personal as well as a philosophical way. That is their perogative but criticizing their tactics is mine.

re: czar
Where precisely did the media try to "silence" Coulter? At worst, if Drudge's report was 100% accurate (which NBC denies, so it's a he said, she said-type situation) they just banned her from their network. Not wanting to promote a particular person or group on your own network is NOT the same as trying to "silence" that person or group.

Again, I think you're getting caught up in what was probably a stunt by Coulter to generate controversy and buzz about her book.

Media Nazis
I love this column. The Nazi media continue to show their bias and hypocrisy. NBC's attempt to silence Coulter was the best thing that could have happened for her book sales. More publicity was given in that moronic attempt than any money spent on Madison Avenue ads.

re: scott
quote: "This conservative blog site on the other hand is here expressly for the purposes of providing conservative commentary. People don't come here to read liberal commentary...there's other sites that provide that. The fact that many people here would prefer not to have Parker's editorials printed on this particular website demonstrates no hypocrasy and hence a dimwitted analogy."

I don't recall ever seeing any policy of Townhall that only "conservatives" could READ and RESPOND to the articles. It's here to provide a "conservative" perspective, not limited to "conservative" response, however.

Why the quotation marks? Because there are many different people who call themselves "conservative" and still disagree on a lot of issues.

Ms. Parker consistently demonstrates a conservative ideology on issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. She just has a strong dislike for Sarah Palin, and occasionally criticizes "conservatives", bringing the wrath of many readers.

Also, if you're going to refer to someone as a "dimwit", it might better bolster your claim if you were to spell "hypocrisy" correctly. No charge for the advice.

?
Vampire's Reflection
Location: CA
Reply # 58
Date: Jan 7, 2009 - 11:56 AM EST re: CW
"The problem liberals have with Coulter is that she’s right"

Now that's funny. Thanks for the laugh.


I get that you're trying to be clever here by saying any thinking person knows Coulter is wrong, but I find it interesting that you provide no example of something she said that was so glaringly wrong or bone headed. Instead you resort to this snotty and arrogant little quip. Your quip implies that Coulter is the very epidemy of wrong and misleading so please point out the boatload of lies she's told. I know you gave yourself a good pat on the back for that one, but it really screams of not having any examples to back it up.

...

Semper Libertas
Location: TX
Reply # 241
Date: Jan 8, 2009 - 1:36 AM EST Subject: re: Scott
Rachel Maddow's show is an opinion-based show, not a "straight news" show, so the analogy might not be perfect (MSNBC's stated goal isn't to present leftist news and opinion) but it's hardly "dimwit" material.

If it was only MSNBC that was debating banning her I don't think it be much of an issue. That station makes it quite clear what side of the fence they sit on. On the other hand, when network news shows start to act that way I think we're getting into something a little scary. With that being said i'll stand by the "dimwit" comment because both liberal and conservative opinion shows often time have people of opposite opinion for the purpose of debate. This conservative blog site on the other hand is here expressly for the purposes of providing conservative commentary. People don't come here to read liberal commentary...there's other sites that provide that. The fact that many people here would prefer not to have Parker's editorials printed on this particular website demonstrates no hypocrasy and hence a dimwitted analogy.

more....
My mother became pregant with my sister before she was married and although I've never asked here (I don't think it even matters now) I suspect it's very possible my parents weren't sure if they'd marry until the pregancy occured. In the past it was common place for this to happen, but most people did the right thing for the child. I really frosts me how liberals try to portray how awful it was for people to get married just because the woman got pregant! Yeah...god forbid a couple of people sacrificing their personal wants for the sake of something larger like a child. I really want to smack those people who think of themselves as so superior because they evolved to belief their narcistic wants should come before the needs of a child. Belief it or not, a lot of the people in the world who got married for the sake of a child and ended up being very happy together.


...
bryce1
Location: MI
Reply # 49
Date: Jan 7, 2009 - 11:36 AM EST Subject: Double standards?
I watched a replay of Coulter's appearance on Today and what I found interesting was she had no problem invoking Palin when the discussion was media bias, she made no mention of her in connection with single motherhood.

According to Coulter, single mothers are running a 'farm team for future criminals and social outcasts', and yet when it comes to most famous single mother currently in America and the support she is receiving from her more famous mother...silence.

I know I shouldn't be, but I'm still amazed by how liberals lie, distort, or at the very least don't tell the whole story when trying to fabricate a point. Take the above statement by this genius. Apparently he's saying Coulter should be careful because Palin has a daughter that would fit into her paradigm. Of course she either hasn't heard or just lies and omits the fact that Palin's daughter and the father of her baby are planning on or already have married. You libs always miss the point. Conservatives don't hate people for getting pregant out of marriage. Conservatives have a problme with people not owning up to their responsibilities and getting married for the sake of the child.

re: Scott
Rachel Maddow's show is an opinion-based show, not a "straight news" show, so the analogy might not be perfect (MSNBC's stated goal isn't to present leftist news and opinion) but it's hardly "dimwit" material.

...
Anne
Location: NC
Reply # 17
Date: Jan 7, 2009 - 9:08 AM EST Subject: Coulter/Parker
I agree that no news source should be banning columnists or authors from their network.

After years of watching and reading Ann Coulter, I find her writing snarky, her attitude snotty, and her viewpoint on any subject utterly predictable. But, my personal distaste for her does not give me, or any person or organization license to censor her.

Of course, many posters on TH are quite passionate in their quest to ban Kathleen Parker. I guess it's okay to censor people when they stray from the approved script?

Completely different you dimwit! Why are Libs so fond of false analogies? I don't know if they just can't resist lying or are really too dense to make any logical distinctions. This is a conservative, opinion website...not a supposed news channel that the networks at least pretend to be. Nobody's saying Parker shouldn't be printed anywhere...some just don't want her on this conservative website. By the same token it would be perfectly reasonable for Kos and MoveOn fans to not want editorials posted by people they think are not sufficiently liberal. I can't believe you even attemted to pass off that garbage. It may work with the MSM and other liberals, but how could you think you'd get away with that here?

Wait, Maddow's A "Hate Merchant?"
Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, I can understand as being hate merchants, but Rachel Maddow? I know she's a liberal talk show host on Air America, but from what I've heard from her show, the worst I've ever heard was her giving Mitt Romney the nickname "Mittens". Well, it's a cute nickname. I mean it's not like she referred to him as "Willard M. Romney" the way Miss Coulter refers to Obama as "B. Hussein Obama". For the uninitiated, if you are a classic horror movie fan, then you will understand the comparison as to why I used Romney's real first name, which is "Willard", in a negative way. I'll give you a hint: Raising carnivorous, people-eating rats as pets. 'Nuff said.

So, Rachel Maddow being a hate merchant? Kind of hard to buy, because I would make a better hate merchant than Maddow since I refer to Willard M. Romney in such a negative connotation.

-"Pi ei lesu dominae... (Bonk) Dona eis requiem... (Bonk)"
-From the Gregorian monks of "Monty Python & The Holy Grail"

The New "American" Lexicon
annals -recorded history of butt savagery
bipartisanship -the current annals of the GOP
community -something that "raises" stuff(see also: village)
despot -one who razes stuff (see also:POTUS elect) eg;"Standby y'all while I razes the economy!"
election - selection with hidden s stacked in front of it / eg; "OH MAN! I just stepped in some election s!"
front - what one sees while a despot offers his back for kissing / eg; "Wow! Mr. Obama is right in front of me....HEY! Where's my wallet!"
gone - current state of Americas' future
hubris - permanent state of Americas' POTUS elect
intelligence - formerly a goal of US national security/school children eg; "I don't play w/ Saul, he's got intelligence. Let's blow-up his car."
jamboree - BO(before Obama)a wholesome activity of the Boy Scouts of America / AA(after Awakening) a wholesome activity wherein a large group of "community despots" attempt to "awaken" an elderly lady.
klan - eg; The Kennedy family / see also: the CBC
Lear Jet - what liberals fly to meetings about the evils of carbon dioxide
Man, a - that which is to remain tutored, neutered and toally de-shootered
...

RG! Why are
all of those who voted for Obama so angry? One would think they would be gracious and happy with their victory.

Bryce1
"I gave some alarming statistics about single-parenthood and children living in poverty. You chose to ignore that. You turn a blind eye to the tragedy that befalls these children, and their children, and their children, all because you don’t want to appear to be judgmental."-CW Reply 232, 7:40 pm.
This is my reason for dismissing almost every liberal argument that I hear. You don't care what the facts are, you just don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Americansweetheart, whoever she may be, is handicapping her child from birth. She is not thinking of the best interests of her child, or of that child's statistical future victims, she is thinking of herself and her feelings. This is a harsh statement, not very loving on the surface. You would never make that statement. This child, however, is better off being adopted by a loving family than left with his mother and no father. That is a fact, statistically. you will assert,though, that she has no reason to be ashamed, that she should in fact be proud of her "brave" decision.
You would rather see that child remain in a potentially bad situation and keep that mother a slave to the system than to simply tell her to close her legs and keep her feet on the floor, and, barring that, to do the right thing for her baby. You look like the good guy, and I look like the ogre, but whose advice creates a better life for that girl and her child?

Matt Lauer interview of Coulter
Matt Lauer’s interview with Ann Coulter on this morning’s “Today Show.”

LAUER: You said all kinds of things. That one of the reasons you weren’t on the show was because the liberal mainstream media hates conservatives. I mean, you do know that –

COULTER: — I didn’t say that.

LAUER: Yeah, you did.

COULTER: Where did I say that?

LAUER: I think it was on Hannity & Colmes, or something like that.

COULTER: ‘That the mainstream media hates conservatives’? I didn’t say that –

LAUER (over): You know that we’ve had every major conservative –

COULTER: I have much more colorful language. I mean, you’re capturing the thought, that’s just not my language.
----------------------

How many times have we seen the “mainstream media” confront a conservative live on the air with something that is purported to be a direct quote from them? Which, upon subsequent review, turns out to be not a direct quote after all?

Husker2
Regarding rum.dog's remembrance of Lilly: I'm sure he wasn't TRYING to joke, it sounds like a case of too much time spent over too many years with what the first part of his post name seems to indicate about his truest love. Too many lost brain cells, you know.

A Sense Of Humor is a Requirement
Ann does do extreme like any other comedian. I think Bill Mahr is a good counterpoint and lefties need to develop a sense of humor that is moe apolitical. I laugh at Mr. Bill so why can't lefties laugh at Ann Coulter? Is it because I know Mr. Bill is playing to his base and repeats of the faux leftie mantra ad nauseum? Mr. Bill does amuse me with his lack of credabile sources and over the top parroting. I guess Ann tells the truth and that is what lefties can't stand. Does that mean lefties hate themselves so they hate being reminded of their stupidity? I think so.

Bryce & AmericanSweetheart
For every story you want to show me of single mothers who are decent people doing their best to raise children alone I can show you stories of young men who had no male role model and are now serving time in prison; or of children who were beaten to death by their mothers’ boyfriends; or of teenagers who are raising children of their own – modeling their own behavior after their mothers; or of children who simply long for a father to love and protect them. All of these tragedies are far more likely to happen to children in single-parent homes.

I gave some alarming statistics about single-parenthood and children living in poverty. You chose to ignore that. You turn a blind eye to the tragedy that befalls these children, and their children, and their children, all because you don’t want to appear to be judgmental. Instead you pretend that your issue is with Coulter’s wording because you don’t want to face your own complicity for how your left-wing ideology enables this tragedy to continue.

AmericanSweetheart summarized the problem pretty well with this statement: “To single mothers, do NOT let people make you feel inferior because you aren't raising your child in a two parent home.” There’s hardly a danger of that any more. The Left is more judgmental about exposing children to second-hand cigarette smoke than they are about people who risk pregnancy when they aren’t prepared to give a child a two-parent home. I’m not going to condemn this young lady for her choices, but unlike those on the Left I also will not applaud her. As a woman who was raised by a single father, I know only too well the pain of being raised with one parent absent and it’s hardly something that should be celebrated.

re: Retired Geek
I prefer the term "free market capitalist".

Semper Libertas

Are you a Libertarian? You sure sound like one.

Speaking of single mothers
I wonder what Laura Ingraham thinks of Ann Coulter's statements about single mothers?

rum.dog
Lily? "She was educated, intelligent, made solid arguments and never insulted anyone or made generalizations about an opposite point of view."

That's a good joke!

You were joking, weren't you?

re: Retired Geek #221
quote: "Barack Obama could not even run his own campaign - David Axelrod did."

Newsflash: no presidential candidate runs without a campaign manager.

re: Retired Geek
quote: "Now Obama can own the 'Means of Production' to install the Marxist/Socialism (Obamunism) in America.

Barack Obama and his staff are so excited they cannot keep their 'Socialist Agenda' quiet."

Seems to me that George W. Bush has already beat him to the punch.

rummy-pup
Don't let the door hit you in the a$s when you leave.

But, Gestell
I've noticed that you still take the time to express your ideas in depth, state them articulately without provocation, and for that I admire you, but I often wonder where it gets you.

Do you remember a poster named Lilly? She was educated, intelligent, made solid arguments and never insulted anyone or made generalizations about an opposite point of view. She was treated in the worst, most astonishingly brutal way, with the most churlish insults posted to her, that I was surprised that she kept posting as long as she did.

In the end, that's when I realized I had learned everything I needed to know about TH, just by watching.

Gestell
" got onto TH a couple of years back because I wanted to engage in political discussions with conservatives"

That's also what brought me here. With a few exceptions that resulted in prolonged, civil exchanges of views, I quickly found about 90% of TH to be vacuous, simplistic, moralistic, narrow, and angry. And,you are right, it brings out the worst in anyone who is looking for something more, and I also respond with insults, just as I might do if a road rage addict were swearing at me from their car. In fact, that's a fairly accurate analogy.

Sometimes I read a thoughtful, articulate post, but mostly the ideas are typical of Anne, Svara, and Retired Geek. To an extent, I find the same embarrassing reaction that is elicited by seeing a train wreck - for example, someone named Edna Eagle wrote yesterday that she homeschools her kids, has them memorize historical documents by rote, and never lets them see a book that was published after 1960.

I can't help it, I am so fascinated/awestruck/revolted that I can't turn away.

Obama voters are 'Rubes'

Conned by 'Obama' a Snake Oil Salesman

Barack Obama has never held a job that did NOT involve talking- unless you consider 'Organizing Communities for Communists' a job.

Barack Obama has 'ZERO' executive experience - he has never even run a lemonade stand.

Barack Obama was elected President of Harvard Law Review but published 'NOTHING".

Barack Obama was an Illinois Senator 1996-2004 - voted 'Present' 129 times.

Barack Obama never authored and brought to vote ONE BILL of his own. You know, the stuff, senators are supposed to do. Not just show up and vote 'present'.

Barack Obama, as a US Senator logged 143 days of which he accomplished 'NOTHING'.

Barack Obama (off teleprompter) name the most significant thing you have ever done? uhh umm er uh duh

Barack Obama could not even run his own campaign - David Axelrod did.

Liberals are bragging about being 'Conned' - how funny!

if you are a good enough 'Con Man' like Barack Obama – which involves appearing not quite good enough and rather sympathetic to those they 'Con' – you will get away with it.

Barack Obama is not what he seems, nor is he otherwise.

Barack Obama walking the path between the 'Obama Current Truth' and the delusions of those who trust him - this apparition is either a fiend or the 'Messiah'.

The advantage Barack Obama has over his 'Rubes', is that his lies about his past and lies about the future of his 'Rubes' are so outlandish - the Obama lies are transmuted until the 'Rubes' rejoice in their being conned.

This orgiastic moment could only be achieved on those decadent 'Rubes' that think they are so intelligent that they could NOT possibly be conned - what a group!

Stand
"What are you folks going to do with yourselves in two more weeks when George Bush is out of the White House altogether? Oh, stupid me, I forgot: you'll be blaming all of Obama's or his appointees' mistakes and disasters throughout his presidency on Bush."

So does that mean you're finally admitting that Bush is primarily responsible for 9/11? Glad we settled that.

Barack Obama likes the current crises

Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff, said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

He continued: "Things that we postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

-----------------------------

Now Obama can own the 'Means of Production' to install the Marxist/Socialism (Obamunism) in America.

Barack Obama and his staff are so excited they cannot keep their 'Socialist Agenda' quiet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/ barackobama/3498167/Barack-Obama-emboldened-by-economic-cri sis.html

SVARA
Not just libs this time. Conservatives, and more importantly moderates and independents, are not immune to single motherhood.

I'm glad she's on the circuit telling female voters of every stripe that they are dooming their progeny to become strippers, criminals, and social outcasts.

But then I'm a liberal.

reply to CW
I got onto TH a couple of years back because I wanted to engage in political discussions with conservatives. I generally find liberal sites boring in their uniformity. However, I quickly learned that civil discussion had no place on TH. Gutter fighting is the style, and vicious insults are the stock in trade of TH readers. So I respond in kind. I've learned that ideological warfare allows for no careful, qualified analysis or respectful commentary. So if I can figure out some way to insult conservatives, I'll just let fly, 'cause that's what you folks do.

Another good one--
Keep up the good work Annie, the libs are in a real tizzy. Hey libs, Toooooooo Baaaaaad if you can't hear the truth. Oh wait, you enjoy the manure by MSM etc.

Semper Libertas
We HAVE seen in very recent days a Democratic version of Sarah Palin: remember that "you know"-filled interview Caroline Kennedy just gave? However, I don't recall seeing Fox, for example, directing at her the derision that was clearly evident in Pravda aka The MSM toward Palin.

sjpatejak
"Because after a while it gets boring arguing over how awful Bush is", you said.

What, talking about how awful Bush is is about the limit of discussion between yourselves that you lefties can handle? Thought so.

What are you folks going to do with yourselves in two more weeks when George Bush is out of the White House altogether? Oh, stupid me, I forgot: you'll be blaming all of Obama's or his appointees' mistakes and disasters throughout his presidency on Bush.

As far as "annoying" us: well, I can't speak for other conservatives on this board, but I personally wouldn't use the word "annoying" in connection to your kith so much as "entertaining", if not "laughable". Every time I think I've seen the lowest depth of stupidity or cluelessness it's possible for a human being to sink to: well, another one of your kind comes onto this board and manages to prove me wrong again!

And by the way, I've repeatedly stated that no matter how far down toward the bottom of the barrel in terms of taste or content a liberal's post scrapes, I will NEVER flag a post. As I've said to my fellow conservatives about this, echoing the words of a fellow conservative who first expressed this same sentiment some time ago, I WANT the whole world to be able to see EXACTLY what kind of people populate today's Democratic Party - and I WANT their posts to remain visible on this board as a blaring advertisement that thunders "This is your brain on liberalism!"

Bryce
"Go to the featured blog of the day, look at AmericanSweetheart and her beautiful son."

I'm not seeing how to get there but if you want to give me directions I'll take a look.

Now, was Coulter referring to this boy in particular or are you being a typical liberal and taking her comments out of context to build a strawman argument?

re: CW
I read one of Coulter's earlier books, and I was impressed with the research she did. I actually learned something, which is good. Even then, though, I was irked by her, for lack of a better word, childish style. She delights in the ad hominem.

Since then, I feel she just gets more and more outrageous. As I mentioned above, she strikes as being like the kid in class who needs attention. You can be acerbic without being rude or sophomoric; think PJ O'Rourke or Jonah Goldberg.

Some of this is just her reaction to the "market" of punditry; with the preponderance of "news" channels and shows that are really just commentary, the discourse has gotten more shrill. Demonization of opponents, ad hominem attacks, and use of strawmen is par for the course, and to be "controversial" gets harder and harder. Knowing what her niche of the market is, Coulter has had to get shriller and shriller.

I think the treatment Gov. Palin got was astoundingly horrific, even taking into account the leftist bias of the mainstream media; however, I have little doubt that a Democratic version of Palin would have been relentlessly insulted and hounded by the "conservative" media.

Bryce, libs, stats & propaganda
This is an a perfect illustration of why you need to be careful about what you read in the news and why the left-wing slant isn’t always clearly obvious.

The ABC link you referred to was titled “Teen births spike on Palin’s home turf.” The link leads to an article titled, “Bristol Palin's Cameo Role in Teen Pregnancy Trend.”

Wow. The implication, of course, is that Palin is somehow responsible for the trend. Of course the reporter didn’t go far out of his way to highlight the fact that the report is for 2006, or that Palin didn’t even take office as governor until December of 2006. Nor did they point out that even with a 19% increase this places Alaska only barely above the national average for teen births.

I hope all you libs are paying attention. This is how the brainwashing takes place.

Standshisground
Because after a while it gets boring arguing over how awful Bush is:(

Bush is really awful.
Yes he is.
Absolutely terrible.
The worst.

It's more fun to annoy you people:)

CW
Oh, to add a postscript to my last post:

Another telling indication of the ability of leftists these days to engage in serious debate is the fact that THEY are the ones pushing for the resurrection of the "Fairness Doctrine", which clearly if enacted will only be aimed at ONE end of the opinion spectrum: conservatives. Funny, they tell those of us who disagree with them - as many a leftist poster has on THIS very board, even today (Brooklyn, for example) - that we're "marginalized" and irrelevant and rejected and failures and that nobody cares what we have to say anymore - and yet they STILL try to shut down competing voices to theirs altogether. What do they fear so? The question answers itself.

CW
Everything you need to know about the ability of leftists to engage in serious debate these days is demonstrated by the fact that several of the most prominent liberal-oriented blogs, like DailyChaos and HuffandPuff and the like, almost immediately ban posters who dare to express a point of view contrary to the leftist one. If leftists are THAT fragile that these blogs feel compelled to have to insulate them from opposing ideas or points of view: well, 'nuff sed.

Franken
"Or Al Franken suggesting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby should be executed over Plamegate."

Lets see him try to initiate a bill to that effect.

Semper Libertas
Since you’re a fellow Texan I’m relieved to know you’re not a “lefty.”

I wholeheartedly agree with you that it would be preferable if everyone would simply debate without all the name-calling and personal attacks. I wouldn’t even mind the name-calling if it was included as part of the debate. What irks me is when it is offered as a substitute for debate.

I’ve read a couple of Coulter’s books (not the latest one). She pokes a lot of fun at the Left and clearly enjoys insulting them but she also makes excellent points and arguments which she backs up with plenty of evidence. I think the Left hates her because she exposes them and ridicules them all at once.

It would be nice if we could all be civil but that will never happen when we’re engaging the Left because ridicule is one of their most effective strategies, as we saw with Sara Palin. It’s their way of demeaning their opponent without ever having a serious debate, and it’s very effective because their audience has the mental maturity of your average hormonal teenager.

Taking the high road is a noble idea but fighting fire with fire is smarter. If being a little outrageous is what it takes for Coulter to be heard, I say again, “You go, girl!”

Sophie
You must enjoy your profession since you talk about wh**es all the time.

Ann Coulter is great and you are green with envy. WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHhhhh

Eric
I got it at Costco for $15.09

Sophie
At least if you are going to come to the site, have something more interesting to say than we have our panties in a bunch. I am not in any way irritated with you or Brooklyn. I recognize ignorance when I see it.

But at least if you are going to come to a site that is based on debate...how about actually debating. Other than my last post to Brooklyn where I finally called him an idiot. Which, in my defense, is accurate, I have argued using some facts, some self held opinions, but I have stayed away from his insulting BS.

My post doesn't make clear
This is from a pre-Palin census.

Brooklyn
"trumped up a fake Al-Qaeda/Saddam connection"

I D I O T!!!

You did it again, you called me unoriginal and then gave me the same UNORIGINAL LIB IDIOTIC party line BS

How did you become smart enough to type?

Brooklyn
If i were you, i would lay the attacks on Sarah Palin's daughter.

You are real close to libel...if not already.
Watch it boy.

Brooklyn
You are almost too much of an idiot to waste time arguing.

So, in your mind, I should shut up about Wright, Ayers, but if I just scroll up the page a bit, it is perfectly legit and intellectually brilliant for you to mock and malign Sarah Palin.

She is relevent to the world today...how? You are a liberal idiot who has been suckered into believing every line of crap they sell you.

Heres a bit of history for you. You have been pretty much gloating about how you won. I have to be honest, I couldn't give a crap less about winning. I would prefer that the county, not party does well.

However, while you are gloating about winning, you now have the presidency and congress...both houses. You know what that does historically? It breeds corruption. Whichever party has it happen. Now your congress has done how much good since it took control two years ago. Are things going to get better or worse. And now they own everything.

I don't dislike Obama. I hope he does well. However, the article, and what most conservatives take some issue with is that now liberals want republican's to play nice, but they spend the last 8 years doing anything but playing nice. Not everything they said about Bush were lies...but they had no problem lying when it suit their purpose.

CW
I read it on the abc news page.

Brooklyn
A couple of questions I've asked of many a liberal before who have expressed the same attitude toward the authors and conservative posters seen on this site which has almost never gotten an answer: let's see if YOU have the guts to take them on.

Since you've called the conservatives who post here - and I presume you also believe this to be true about the columnists this site carries - "Tali-Christian nutjob" and "regional, southern bigot, anti-American scumbags", and furthermore you claim we are "marginalized" to boot, then WHY DOES A PRESUMABLY LEARNED SOPHISTICATE LIKE YOU EVEN WANT TO COME AMONG US IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

If we're so vile, and yet you've sought out OUR company by coming to this board when there are plenty of other Internet boards available (such as HuffPo or DailyKos) you can go to where you are ASSURED of not being among "Tali-Christian nutjob, regional southern bigot, anti-American scumbags" like us but only learned, cultured, temperate, "tolerant" types like yourself: what must that fact say about YOU?!

Bryce
I can’t find any info on the CDC report you’re citing and I suspect you’re misstating the information.

Please provide the link.

JMind
"I wrote every frikkin last word of any post here. I cut and pasted not a thing. I didn't once go anywhere off this site."

But unfortunately you didn't say s h i t that was original, nor did you make any mention of how this administration trumped up a fake Al-Qaeda/Saddam connection to sale this war NOR did you mention that all intelligence agencies were NOT convinced that Saddam had WMDs. So spare me your cherry picking outdated analysis dude.

Brooklyn
regarding your comment on indyconantidim. Look in the mirror. You haven't accurately argued much of anything in your posts.

You are just spewing the hufpost, dailykos line. You may not be getting your marching orders from these sites, but you might just as well be.

StandingHisGround
Good Day to you!! I haven't read Malkin yet. I'll check her out.Thanks.

Brooklyn
I wrote every frikkin last word of any post here. I cut and pasted not a thing. I didn't once go anywhere off this site.

indyconantidim
"for the confirmation. Just like your news accounts of the Iraq War these latest comments cement your "knowledge" base.'

And since you still haven't challenged anything I said I guess your last useless comment cement what a total waste of time you are....

God. You. Are. Boring.

re: CW, cont.
quote: "At least there was SOME thoughtful commentary here by conservatives regarding Bozell’s point (and Coulter’s) about the difference in how the supposedly objective (again – ha!) media treats pundits from the Left versus those from the Right. Perhaps you’d care to comment on that. I’m guessing you won’t."

Re-read my posts and (shameless plug) my blog, either on here (click my name) or at http://www.semperlibertas.com. I think you'll find I'm not a lefty, and above I mention that "of course there's a double standard". I just don't think two wrongs make a right, and I prefer intellectual consistency.

And, I still believe this was concocted to generate buzz about her book. Hey, I'm a free market capitalist, I don't mind that she's doing it, I just see it for what it is.

Brooklyn
Well, in our defence Brooklyn, every so often we do have to persue some false leads (Blago etc), since none of you idiots will connect the dots on any real ones (Reverend Wright, Ayers, Tony Rezko). He barely knew Ayers right? And he NEVER heard Wright spew racist, anti-American speeches.

You have proved yourself through your posts to be an anti-American slime. Not to mention a complete leming who will believe anything the democratic A-holes sell your way.

re: CW
quote: "I don’t approve of name-calling as a substitute for debate on either side. The subject at hand, however, is Ann Coulter."

One theme of the article by Mr. Bozell is a media double standard. I was pointing out a double standard I see in the discussion thread about his article and pointed it out.


quote: "The problem liberals have with Coulter is that she’s right – and they absolutely hate the fact that they have no good counter-argument. I NEVER see anyone from the Left argue with what she’s said (case in point: Harry Smith), only how she says it."

Not being a "liberal" myself (at least in the leftist manner), I can't say for sure why "liberals" done like Coulter. I do know why *I* don't like her, and it has nothing to do with it being because she's "right". I've seen plenty of times when "debate" opponents of Coulter have scored points on her, so to speak, and she typically responds with ad hominem personal attacks.


quote: "In regards to Corn Dog, Icedog and Scotch Indian, their comments may have been rude but at least they were appropriate given the question someone posed about who has the more attractive spokeswomen, the Left or the Right."

If name-calling and personal attacks are going to be held up as a tool of someone who has no factual argument to make, it is fair to point out when that technique is used by the other side.

rjas2330 said:
"That is my beef with liberals. You claim to care about the downtrodden, but only when it suits your need. Sad. "

Well said.

Thanks, Brooklyn
for the confirmation. Just like your news accounts of the Iraq War these latest comments cement your "knowledge" base.

CW
As we are all aware Gov Palin is herself the mother of an unwed teen mother. Today the CDC announced than while the non-marital birth rate has risen 3%, in Alaska, where Palin is governor, the rate increased 19 PERCENT.

I can't predict the future, but I suspect we will not hear Coulter et. al. commenting on the issue of Palin's Alaska as a prime example of the social disintegration about which she claims to have such concern.

Ann is the best.
Ann floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee.

bryce1
"I am part of a mentorship program, and as a result of that involvement one of my charges...the son of a single mother...is now attending the University of Michigan on a full ride scholarship."

Are you suggesting that if you hadn't been involved in this young man's life, his outcome would have been different? I will, if you won't. All you have proven with your story, anecdotal as it is, is what statistics bear out. It takes two parents to successfully raise children. Statistically, single parent households turn out children at a higher risk of drug abuse, suicide, crime, etc. That is statistical fact. You can argue against it all you want, but it won't change.
You keep railing on the fact that Sarah Palin is the mother of an unwed mother. Why? Are you gleeful at that fact? You claim to work at a mentorship program where I am sure you see the damage single parenting causes, yet you seem to find joy in the Palin's situation. That is my beef with liberals. You claim to care about the downtrodden, but only when it suits your need. Sad.

Bryce likes statistics?
“A new shows that while non-marital births have risen on average 3% nationally, in the state of Alaska where the governor herself is the mother of an unmarried teenage daughter, the rate is 19%.”

So you like statistics eh? Here’s some that are interesting:

The poverty rate for all children in married-couple families is 8.2%. By contrast, the poverty rate for all children in single-parent families is four times higher at 35.2%.

The number of single-parent families has grown considerably since the onset of the War on Poverty. In 1960, less than 12% of children lived in single-parent families. By 2000, that figure had more than doubled, rising to 27.6%. (These are from an old article (2002) but unless you’ve been living in a cave you know that things haven’t changed much in the past few years. http://www.heritage.org/research/Family/CDA02-04.cfm)

While your busy trying to make some vague point about Coulter and Alaska, Coulter and other conservatives have been trying to help people see the critical connection between child poverty and single parenting. Of course they’re being demonized by people like you because you misguidedly believe that it’s better to have millions of children live in poverty – and the repercussions of that – than to hurt someone’s feelings by suggesting they’re being irresponsible. Plus you might not get to look like a hero for mentoring a disadvantaged kid.

P.S. What is your source for the stats you quoted?

Rowly
You said, "The envious trolls are in full force today".

On Michelle Malkin's thread today, I now see a submission from Left Angle.

Hail, hail, the gang's all here!

OK it official
Brooklyn is libtard troll that is making news accounts up as he goes that he's been drooling over for the last eight years from the usual anti-American scummy libs and dims that are his heroes.

Brooklyn
It's official, I gave you the chance to provide some indication of your intellect and you failed miserably.

You said Bush cherry picked the intelligence, but that is actually what you are doing. Every major world intelligence agency said Saddam had WMD. In hindsight they were wrong, but that doesn't make it any less true. Every democrat that originally signed on to the war latched on to the lack of WMD to say how Bush lied etc etc, even though they had access to the SAME INTELLIGENCE reports. If they didn't read them, shame on them.

Also, everyone seems to conveniently forget how Saddam was responsible for making the world believe he had WMD by ignoring 13 UN resolutions since 92, and kicking out the weapons inspectors every so often as if they might be getting close to finding something.

Bottom line, we may have gone in on bad intelligence, but it was the same bad intelligence that the dems used to vote in favor of the war. Bush didn't lie, the democrats in congress did to smear a sitting US president because they are the ones that are obstructionists.

The democratic lead congress that has now been in place for 2 years has done what? Accomplished what, other than giving themselves pay raises?

Maybe you should take a look at your own party with a bit of a critical eye for once.

Trolls Are Green Today
The envious trolls are in full force today.Coulter could buy every one of them and the anchors on the MSM,also.

The sheer hatred of Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter is fun to watch. Liberals have now gotten everything they ever wanted,politically,including a 'messiah'.

They are still not happy. They still denigrate Republicans. Well,with the way the Democrat Party looks in the last few weeks,they need to examine their own people. The swamp is now full of corrupt Democrats Nancy was supposed to drain it. What happened?

Sophie, It makes sense you talk Nazism
so much. You've been frolicking in the Goebbels style propaganda for the last eight years which included putting national security secrets on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT and WP. And anyone that participated in that should be in a cell. And I would prefer it to be with a terrorist. And as for Jan 20 I think we've already seen what were in for. This machine style will include Truth, Youth, Green and Food Squads. I think there are probably too many youth smokers to get em to go after them. Besides there's plenty of adults out there already doing that for the last twenty years.

Sophie
"It could be six weeks"

This comment was made before the conflict began, and consider the fact that the information that we had going into it was the gulf war in 92. Was he wrong, absolutely, but then so were the democrats that said it was unwinnable. So were the democrats that said our marines were targeting innocents.

"They will greet us as liberators"

Are you forgetting the toppling of Saddam's statue? They DID greet us as liberators at the time. It went poorly after that and their opinions changed.

Now, I will not sit here and defend how the war went. I think Bush should have fired Rumsfeld much earlier, but generalizations about comments made 5 years ago are wonderful when you have hindsight on your side.

JMind
"Still waiting for your witty response."

Or more so, challenging rather or not I'll bring one....well honey, it's been brought.

Your turn!

Brooklyn
I don't think she does believe it or many of the other things she says. I think she has found that she can make more money saying that liberals are dumb, ugly, and have cooties, than George Will or Michael Gerson can make by saying that liberals are too optimistic about human nature and don't understand the concept of unintended consequences.




If you think the Cheney
meant the Iraqi Restoration would take six weeks that horse'sass you see must be a mirror.

MICHAEL IN KENTUCKY
YOU'RE FULL OF IT MICHAEL.

Brooklyn
Still waiting for your witty response.

Sophie
At least the conservative commentators that are obnoxiously biased tend to be opinion commentators.

Your liberal bomb throwers get to be network anchors. Like Katie Couric etc. They may use less offensive language, but they do no less damage in their propagandizing about conservatism.

Also, I think you missed the relavent point of the article which I am outlining here. Both sides have their "vile, nasty, vicious slur" mongers, but the difference is, the liberal "vile, nasty, vicious slur" mongers get brought onto news shows and propped as open minded people just trying to defend the little guy. Whether it is going on Letterman or being interviewed by Katie, the liberal "vile, nasty, vicious slur" mongers will be treated with admiration and respect.

THAT IS WHAT THE ARTICLE REFERS TO!!! not whether or not Ann spews nastiness, but the hypocrisy of liberals thinking they are above such things.

Michael
Can you substantiate any of those claims? She attacked the Jersey 911 widows for using their grief and money to play politics.

Oh, Soph
A bright, witty conservative woman sells a few books and you pull the hooker card. Tsk, Tsk. You need to take a lib turd prof's course on Coulter. Maybe if you analyzed her points you might gain a little more knowledge than you display here.

Coulter
Ann Coulter has attacked 911 victims and used anti-gay slurs against Edwards and Gore. She has also called for killing civilians (innocent men, women, and children) in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Her books are filled with falsehoods and she has plagiarized in many of her articles.

It is an abomination for any conservative Christian to defend this hateful and dishonest person.


LIBERALS ARE THE EVIL WHINERS
Hooray for Ann Coulter. The liberals in this country are the evil whiners. Anything they say is OK, and don't criticize them. Too bad they make up half of this great country.

Wow, Sophie, Did I strike a nerve?
You support anti-Americans like Rev. Wright and fatman moore and I'm the fascist? You encourage the enemy with your attacks on the Commander in Chief and I should move to Iran. I just said that treasonous rhetoric should be jailed in Gitmo and let's see what you think of the poor detainees. Speaking of Wah Wah.

Sophie
C U Next Tuesday

Brooklyn
More moronic logic from you. Brooklyn, you have done nothing but call people idiots on this site. What exactly is your standpoint on world issues? You are really good with the gross generalizations (conservatives all believed the Iraq war would be one in 4 weeks etc etc).

What is your contribution other than your obvious wit and sophistication in universally villifying conservatives.

If you read the article, the point was doing EXACTLY what you are doing. Since you apparently think we are all lemings for listening to anything Rush, Ann, Hannity etc say, what is your take on Olbermann, Mahar, Franken, Mathews, Stewarts etc etc etc?

Brooklyn, Brooklyn
Every Administration leader from Bush on down said the Iraq War would not be easy. Go check the real facts and not what Huffy Puff, brainmovedon or commie Kos tells you. Dr. Demento Dean and fatman moore told you that you could make a difference like your hippie dad and protest, protest, protest. Well guess what? The technology these days is just a bit different and your buddies, you know, the throat cutters on video, can listen to what you say instantaneously. If FDR was president today you would already be shot for siding with them.

Bryce and blindness
Bryce: "Coulter does not make such distinctions of which I am aware. If she has, please share them.

Coulter, as usual, paints with the broad brush, going so far as to describe 'children of divorce, or as I like to call them, future strippers'.

She shows none of your compassion or context.

Frankly, you're defending the indefensible."



I defend Ann Coulter for speaking the truth about the culture of irresponsible parenting that’s growing in this country.

You defend liberalism that seeks to protect such people from having to face responsibility or judgment for their actions.

Which one of us is defending the indefensible?

So typical
of one who actually believes he has something to offer. I was sure I had addressed my comment to Anne. Now, along with a boatload of items and ideas, Brooklyn shows he doesn't know the difference between a ban and a simple suggestion. One reason liberals are dangerous.

indyconantidim
Yeah, I guess I'm just another one of those "backwoods hicks" also: a backwoods hick born in suburban Boston, raised there and in suburban Detroit among other places, and a former resident of Los Angeles County for 15 years (and not the "backwoods" part of the county, either).

So I guess I have a lot more in common now with the "backwoods hicks" in the Barney Google/Snuffy Smith portions of the Ozarks than the sophisticates in St. Louis with whom I now share my present state of residence. And with you "yokels" in Texas.

And let me tell you something: I'm PROUD to be numbered among the "backwoods hicks" of rural Missouri who - barely - kept this a red state in 2008 (and among you in the great state of Texas, where I went on vacation the week of Thanksgiving, for likewise showing me on November 4 that there are STILL pockets of sanity left in this nation).

Think I miss Taxachusetts or Taxifornia in the slightest? HAH!

Brooklyn
All of your attacks on the Palin's can of course be backed up with actual facts right? It's not just you being completely ignorant and lobbing insults that you read on a left wing blog site? That couldn't be the case could it?

Of course you have alllll the inside facts on who the Palin's hang around with and you are well within your rights to smear someone because you don't like their politics.

Brooklyn, you support my long standing theory that some of the meanest, most close minded people are left wing liberals. They espouse to save the planet from nasty republicans, but will cut you off in traffic and flip you off every time.

That giggling you hear, Sophie
Is Coulter checking her royalties check for her latest book rising as she sits with these doofus lefties.

I think Ann Coulter's wit
should be the GOP platform. I'm so sick of so called Republicans telling me what's wrong with the party when the weasel dims keep up their obfuscation and hypocrisy. They want unity now that they've used the ultimate in dim hack attacks to get the markets to cave and their buddies in power while they've done nothing for eight years but attack Bush and the fight against terrorists. As far as I'm concerned you lib tards on this thread are the same as the terrists. I would love to throw you in a cell with your allies.

Allen
Which, as the article mentions is fine for you to have as your read, but "all that is wrong with the republican party" is far worse in the democratic party where they start comparing people to hitler if they aren't whole heartedly in favor of a womans right to choose or some other liberal cause.

Duke
You said to christianlib, "Satan believes more strongly than you, because he's actually SEEN God. What you and he don't have is faith!"

James 2:19: "You believe that there is one God? Good! The demons also believe that - and shudder".

Hey, Brooklyn
So good to see you're not into generalizations. Geez, backwoods hicks. Is that the ones that know a snake oil salesman selling more bureaucratic blob inefficiences embraced by the pmm (Propaganda Media Machine)when they see one? If so, count me with them.

:)
bad manners are bad manners.

vile vicious mean-spirited hyperbole, even with a twist of wry humor, is still vile, vicious nad mean-spirited hyperbole.

Ann Coulter is represents all that is wrong with our Republican party today.

Trolls,Inc.
Several trolls have said you can't trust Drudge. When one has the highest response to current events,it is natural that some stories are not always word for word.

I check him several times a day and find him most trustworthy. The left said the National Inquirer was not to be trusted when they printed the story about John Edwards' affair.

Drudge made his mark when he couragously came out with the Clinton / Lewinsky Affair. Michael Isekoff spiked the story for one reason or the other. It may have never come to light if not for Drudge.

Bleeding Heart Liberal
could not possibly have a heart at all if he can talk about fellow human being in the language he uses here. It isn't easy to love everyone. We all know that. But, if you think you are making a good impression on conservatives who actually work from their hearts, you're very badly mistaken. Shame on you.

Sophie "Ain't Karma Grand"
"Yep..and speaking of karma, doncha love how repiglicans tried so hard to redefine the word "liberal" "

It was FDR who redefined the word "liberal". A classical liberal is more what you would call a conservative today. Read Milton Friedman's introduction to the latest reprint of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".



duke
i specifically mention my faith.

i was raised in a family of ministers and have been a Christian for 40 years.