Intolerance at websites.

[Jac de Molay]

I can appreciate some good trolling, but she can't even muster that.

Her work is sloppy and dishonest. I couldn't even get through of her latest because it was filled with nothing but petty insults and vitriol disguised as "wit". She also has some strange fixation with Ted Kennedy. It's no wonder a lot of conservatives are distancing themselves from her. Buckley she is not .

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by monolith94
Didn't Ann pose for nude photos when she was young? Or am I remembering things wrong?

Most important question of the thread remains unanswered. I'm also curious about this -- but only in the apolitical way.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How could be something to imitate, if there were no substance behind her commentary? If all there is to Ann Coulter, is self-promotion, than there could be no successful imitators.

Wrong again. They imitate her style, not her substance. It's not hard to grasp. Plenty of conservative pundits are out there who are no-names but have substance to their arguments (at least relative to Coulter). But not many know who they are, as they are much more.. sedate. But Coulter is a raving nut, and it draws attention, esp. among the raving nuts of the right wing, who buy her books and other stuff like crazy. If it were substance they wanted, they could read George Will. Say "George Will" to most folks, they'll go "who?"

Coulter is primarily an entertainer, and that's why she's popular. Saying her popularity denotes substance is as logically stupid as saying Tom Cruise's popularity denotes he's a profound actor of enormous skill.

By your logic, you'd also have to believe that Michael Moore must be correct and substantive, given the shrillness of attacks on him from the Right.

[Q Classic]

Sure, there's"substance" behind Coulter's writing.

Like, yes, I suppose the TSA is all crap. I think so, most people think so. And Norman Mineta might not be the best Secretary of Transportation we have.

But then Ann goes above and beyond the call of decent criticism, and hysterically criticizes him in a manner befitting lunacy (in the book Treason, iirc, which is rather Slander-ous), by claiming that being a Democrat and being Japanese are bad.

While I don't take offence to the Democrat thing, deliberately linking him to the Bataan Death March, when he himself suffered through the Internment Camps...

===

Well, frankly, anybody who echoes Coulter's words in an approving way lowers themselves in my esteem.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Absolutely nothing wrong with ROTC. In fact many poor students find ROTC grants to be a good way to pay for college.

And that invites a number of obvious responses....

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Tingkai


The U.S. military isn't going to bother with universities when it has access to high school kids. The Bushies have forced schools to provide access to military recruiters. Under the No Kids Left Behind law, any school that denies access to recruiters is cut off from federal money. Gives a whole new meaning to the laws name.

So much for freedom eh.

Anyone remember that scene in Fahrenheit 911 where Moore asks those high school kids what they think of the busted up buildings and general wreckage in Iraq and one of them remarks that it looks a lot like Flint.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong again. They imitate her style, not her substance.

That's a good point, and I was waiting for you to put that up.

Plenty of conservative pundits are out there who are no-names but have substance to their arguments (at least relative to Coulter). But not many know who they are, as they are much more.. sedate. But Coulter is a raving nut, and it draws attention, esp. among the raving nuts of the right wing, who buy her books and other stuff like crazy. If it were substance they wanted, they could read George Will. Say "George Will" to most folks, they'll go "who?"

Agreed. The tradition among conservative pundits is to favour the bland over the vitriolic. However, when Ann says the same thing in a different way, I am forced to consider the rationale behind her different style.

She uses this style, both because it seems to be what she prefers, and because of the effect that it has on her opponents. They are too busy reacting to the way she writes, that they ignore what she writes about.

Coulter is primarily an entertainer, and that's why she's popular. Saying her popularity denotes substance is as logically stupid as saying Tom Cruise's popularity denotes he's a profound actor of enormous skill.

First of all, how is Ms. Coulter popular? I would say she is very provocative, rather than popular, she sells books because a subset of people buy them. Overall, I would say she is very unpopular.

By your logic, you'd also have to believe that Michael Moore must be correct and substantive, given the shrillness of attacks on him from the Right.

That's a good point. Where have conservatives pied Michael Moore? They have written up reviews of Fahrenheit 9-11 going over each point that Michael Moore has made, and showing why is wrong.

They don't say that he's 'shacking up with another man' as Agathon did in this thread, do they?

[Q Classic]

Ben, nobody pies Michael Moore because of the simple fact that Micahel Moore would swallow those pies whole.

He's fat enough that it wouldn't add to his weight, and his mouth is big enough he wouldn't even have to stretch.

[Agathon]

They don't say that he's 'shacking up with another man' as Agathon did in this thread, do they?

He wouldn't. He's intensely religious IIRC. In any case he doesn't go around squealing about the decline of family values and the evils of unmarried women not knowing their place in the world.

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner


Most important question of the thread remains unanswered. I'm also curious about this -- but only in the apolitical way.

Try this site

[Shogun Gunner]

Finally, an answer to the question...thank you.

D'oh!!!!!!!!


Okay, then. Check this Ann Coulter website

[Thoth]

"Strap on veterans for Truth"

[Dinner]

The only question remaining is who'd hit it?

[chequita guevara]

Gimme a bat. I will.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Agreed. The tradition among conservative pundits is to favour the bland over the vitriolic.

A tradition already broken by Limbaugh and O'Reilly long before Coulter came along, I'll add.

She uses this style, both because it seems to be what she prefers, and because of the effect that it has on her opponents. They are too busy reacting to the way she writes, that they ignore what she writes about.

Precisely. Why does she want them to ignore what she writes about? Because it's ultimately insubstantive.

And plenty of liberals have taken her to task for her factual distortions and errors:

http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/

http://slannder.homestead.com/files/slanndermain.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html (actually a nonpartisan site that slams her book)

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/26/Floridian/Bestseller_trampled_u.shtml

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...923&s=alterman (The Nation is a great source for factual rebuttals of Coulter's nonsense)
http://cjr.org/issues/2002/6/slander-scherer.asp (Columbia Journalism Review tears it apart).

So much for your assertion that liberals haven't responded by taking down her "facts."

First of all, how is Ms. Coulter popular? I would say she is very provocative, rather than popular, she sells books because a subset of people buy them. Overall, I would say she is very unpopular.

How is she popular? Gee, I'd guess having numerous best-selling books would indicate she's popular with somebody. Unless you think the majority of people buying her books hate her and just want to feel enraged? I doubt that. I've never felt the urge to buy a book by someone I dislike.

Being "popular" doesn't necessitate being loved by 51% of the general population. It just means one has a large enough following to sustain a highly public image and to peddle one's wares to a significant number of people. I'll use Tom Cruise again as an example: I'd wager that fewer than 50% of the population cares for him as an actor, but he has enough fans to keep a good career going. Likewise, Coulter has folks like you and Ned to keep her aloft.

That's a good point. Where have conservatives pied Michael Moore? They have written up reviews of Fahrenheit 9-11 going over each point that Michael Moore has made, and showing why is wrong.

They don't say that he's 'shacking up with another man' as Agathon did in this thread, do they?

Are you seriously going to claim that rightwingers don't attack Moore with vitriol and personal denegrations? I'll give you a chance to reconsider this position before I flood you with choice quotes and attacks made against Moore. We can start with this conservative radio host who threatened to kill Moore.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/19/41451/3148

Hey, a lovely right-winger on this site says he'll "spit tobacco in his face" if he is given the chance:

http://rightthinkinggirl.typepad.com/right_thinking_girl/2005/04/michael_moore_o.html

I guarantee there are far more hateful attacks against Moore than claims he is shacking up with someone outside of marriage (which, incidently, is absolutely true wrt Coulter, since she has lived with men out of wedlock. I don't care, but it just further shows she's a hypocrite).