August 22, 2002

7:46 AM

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."Have we actually ever heard worse from this month's news-darling Ann Coulter? I don't think so, maybe other do. If this was from an Islamic Jihadist, we'd be at war with whatever country he came from (if Saudi Arabia, then we'd blame Iraq somehow.) How come the Bill Maher "we're the cowards" quotes get people fired, while something like this- and trust me, there's much more fun from Ann in this interview- makes Coulter a best-selling author?
posted by XQUZYPHYR (115 comments total)

She's kinda pretty. In a "master race" kind of way.
posted by ColdChef at 7:49 AM on August 22, 2002

And yes, I'll accept the accusations from many that I'm trying to troll. Whatever. But I'll say that I'm honestly not trying to anyway in the hope you believe me. I'm not trying to deliberately stir anger or resentment, if anything I'm reflecting mine, which is genuine. I don't appreciate it when people joyously profess in an interview that they regret that a terrorist didn't set off a bomb in the building my father works in.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:54 AM on August 22, 2002

Because she tells the TRUTH and isn't politically correct...
posted by Macboy at 8:00 AM on August 22, 2002

Ann's hotness (especially in comparison to most other female hosts and pundits on TV) indeed does help deflect some criticism, at least when she's on teevee.

That being said, I found the snappy remark to be humorous, and I doubt seriously that she honestly wishes the deaths of NYTimes employees. The way it was presented, this thread can only go in one direction, down. The article on its own is actually quite informative and not nearly as biased as the post. I don't think its a troll, but I think you are taking too seriously something she said casually, and inviting hysterical ranting and raving.

from the article:
"She’s the devil," said the producer, adding that Ms. Coulter was "ultraconservative."

"She is the Antichrist," said the writer. A piece of food flew out of his mouth. "We might have to leave."

It seems the people that hate her so much are just as wacky, if not more so.

Ann on CNN:

How about CNN’s Tucker Carlson, Howard Kurtz, James Carville and Paul Begala?

"I would say I think all of them are pathetic little girly-boys. They’re like anti-sexy. They are saltpeter."

Hah.

And don't let this one explode your dearly held paradigms too quickly:

I’d told her I’d heard she’d dated a Muslim guy.

"Yeah, cat’s out of the bag on that one. That was after having him checked out by the F.B.I." She laughed.

"Because of my continued high opinion of Ann," e-mailed the Muslim guy, who did not want to be identified, "I am happy to let you know that she is extremely loyal, devoted to her family, as quick-witted a human being as you may ever happen across.... "

Oh dear God, Ann with a Muslim? Impossible, this reporter must be some kind of liar.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:00 AM on August 22, 2002

fucking boxes. i hate microsoft for that crap
posted by insomnyuk at 8:01 AM on August 22, 2002

Setting aside the means for a second, I wonder that if the NYT was gone, would New York actually get a good replacement newspaper? Is it possible for New York to even have a local news sheet, or must it be a national/international or a tabloid?
(Admittedly, I look forward to the day when the major media services are anti-trusted and broken up.)
posted by kablam at 8:02 AM on August 22, 2002

if you hate her so much, why are you giving her all this free publicity?

one might regard her as a newstroll.
posted by trioperative at 8:04 AM on August 22, 2002

"No, liberals are too stupid, they will never give in. They are implacable. They don’t read. They hate America."

I'm a liberal. I'm not stupid. I read. I love America. So, Macboy, she doesn't tell the truth.

"The American people don’t think so. I speak for them."

She doesn't speak for me. She certainly didn't speak for me when she said we should force all Muslims to convert to Christianity. I wonder what her Muslim (ex?) boyfriend thought of that comment?
posted by Holden at 8:05 AM on August 22, 2002

How come..."we're the cowards" quotes get people fired, while...this...makes Coulter a best-selling author?

because it's piles of fun to see someone come truly, publicly unhinged. i paid to see julia phillips spank her inner moppet (amazon link, read the reviews), and i'll pay to see little annie do it too.
posted by patricking at 8:05 AM on August 22, 2002

the TRUTH

Where? That business about all liberals hate America?

I'm a liberal and I'm awfully damn fond of America. So much for the TRUTH.

Thinking Ann Coulter is a psychotic bitch whose 14:59 fame-clock count makes her even more shrill, inflammatory, and trolly than her norm... does not make me an America-hater.

All that said: no new news here. How many "My god, this woman is a raving nutjob?" threads have we seen at MeFi alone...?
posted by Sapphireblue at 8:06 AM on August 22, 2002

I saw her on a talk show (think it was the Factor) a couple of weeks ago. Anytime the interviewer would ask a difficult question, she would get mad and threaten to leave because he wasn't talking about her book.

Coulter is only good at calling people names and making inflammatory comments about liberals to draw attention to her book.
posted by einarorn at 8:08 AM on August 22, 2002

Kablam, there is a local paper, seemingly built for the New York Observer set. It's not doing too terribly well, because its coverage can't possibly compare with the Times--they have something like 35 reporters on staff and only do original articles for local news. I read a few issues and found it kind of an amusing little Rockefeller Republican rag, but there's just not much there.

Insomnyuk, I don't think she honestly wishes the death of Times employees either, but some of her columns could get you wondering. On the whole, it's the worst kind of pot-kettle stuff. If I'm going to read a conservative pundit, I'd prefer less of the rabid, snarling stuff and a little more reasoning, like good ol' William F.
posted by lackutrol at 8:11 AM on August 22, 2002

I read Slander. It's possibly the most blatantly hypocritical thing I've ever read in my life. The book is called Slander, because her position is that the "liberal press" and other liberals slander conservatives with insults rather than making cogent arguments. Yet, as you can see from the interview, she spends half the book making fun of liberals' looks, lack of sex appeal, being "retarded," etc. etc. etc.

And that whole "liberals hate America" line is so ridiculous that it should preclude her from being allowed to even sit at a computer/typewriter/notebook.
posted by callmejay at 8:12 AM on August 22, 2002

Sticks and Stones people... move along
posted by Macboy at 8:12 AM on August 22, 2002

And don't let this one explode your dearly held paradigms too quickly:

Thank goodness I read this before the article. I could have died!

And [alphabet guy], I don't necessarily think you're trying to troll. I just think there's only a limited set of conversations we can have about people like Ann Coulter (lest I be painted as a leftie jerkbag, which I am, I would also say the same thing about useless mouth-breathers like Michael Moore).

And finally, I don't happen to find Coulter very attractive at all, but really, why does this always come up? I (fortunately) never have to sit through loving descriptions of, say, David Horowitz's manly physique; generally it's just a jump-cut to his nauseating rhetoric.
posted by Skot at 8:13 AM on August 22, 2002

Ann Coulter's a troll.
In Latin she would be Trollia Majora.

*apologies to Wayne + Garth*
posted by owillis at 8:15 AM on August 22, 2002

My google-fu is off: does anyone know of a site with a good list of documented factual errors in Slander?

Any way you slice it, the McVeigh quote should haunt her. Read it again: "My only regret..." Either she's dumb enough to make this remark without thinking at all, or she had no problem with McVeigh's actions and beliefs, only his choice of buildings. See, this is why there's no need to call her Ann 'Thrax or Ann "Liar" Coulter. Just quote her: it's much more effective.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:19 AM on August 22, 2002

I think the little remark about her talking money from her brothers, or whatever, kind of indicates the one thing she doesn't mention being a motivation for whatever the hell it is she does...

$$$$

quoth the seinfeld, "not that there's anything wrong with that."
posted by trioperative at 8:22 AM on August 22, 2002

The book is called Slander, because her position is that the "liberal press" and other liberals slander conservatives with insults rather than making cogent arguments. Yet, as you can see from the interview, she spends half the book making fun of liberals' looks, lack of sex appeal, being "retarded," etc. etc. etc.

I think there are valid cases of bias and slander, which she has cited, but she's being unfair. That stuff happens in political media by people on both sides. There's good and bad on both sides of the debates, and her book would have actually been worthwhile if she had documented all bias and treated it as a scholarly work rather than a screed. Understandably, she didn't, because that wouldn't really sell. Slander has sold quite well.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:25 AM on August 22, 2002

PinkStainlessTail: Check The Daily Howler. They've been covering Slander for a few weeks now. Just do a search, or go thorough the archives from the past month or so.
posted by Gilbert at 8:27 AM on August 22, 2002

Hey, Macboy. I'd love to see your reply to one of the Daily Howler's dissections of the blatant fabrications in Coulter's new book.

For just one example, Coulter wrote this on her book's last page:

The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page...It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page.

Now here's the "TRUTH," Macboy: Earnhardt died on February 18; the New York Times put his death on its front page twice—on February 19 and 21. I have plenty more, but I'll wait to see your response to that one first.
posted by mediareport at 8:29 AM on August 22, 2002

Kablam, there is a local paper, seemingly built for the New York Observer set.

OH no. The New York Observer is fabulous trash through and through, featuring articles on the nonfamous famous. The New York Sun is sometimes fabulous trash that makes room on the front page to compare the Holocaust to a demonstration in New York of people who support a Palestinian state. (source).

See also: Smarter New York Sun, sadly now defunct.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 8:29 AM on August 22, 2002

strange. ann coulter conducts herself in interviews much like courtney love. or maybe this is just something only i see.
posted by grabbingsand at 8:30 AM on August 22, 2002

Ann is not crazy or insane. That would excuse her behavior. You absolutely cannot explain her remarks by saying they were in jest, because that is precisely what she jumps on to liberals for. A liberal will make an obviously sarcastic remark and she will seize that as absolute truth.

Her favorite tactic is to take any criticism of her words and scream that it is being used "out of context". On Hannity and Colmes, they tried to defuse this by reading 2 entire pages to put it "into context" and she squawked like a west-nile infected parrot and wouldn't even allow them to read. Since they cannot read her entire book on the air everytime she does an interview, then she considers this strategy to be iron clad. I consider it to be intellectually diminutive and juvenile.

She gives an absolutely wonderful glimpse into her psyche in the interview linked above. The part about besides her dog dying, nothing bad ever happened to her.

Well, when you are a child of privilege completely insulated from the ills of society, that helps explain how someone can form such a clearly defined "us (rich) vs them (poor)" attitude. "The liberals want to take daddy's tennis club and turn it into a women's shelter. This simply cannot be!!!!"

I am stunned and amazed that anyone with above a 3rd grade education could listen to anything this shill has to say and take it seriously.

I wish she'd follow her conservative beliefs and get her ass in the kitchen and stay barefoot and pregnant. Speak when spoken to Ann.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:30 AM on August 22, 2002

How come the Bill Maher "we're the cowards" quotes get people fired, while something like this- In show biz, it is called 'timing'

(lights smoke)
whatta think. me and Ann-
bull horns. 30 yards.
who will be my second, WHO i say.
posted by clavdivs at 8:31 AM on August 22, 2002

'I want to be in America,
Okay for me in America...'
posted by i_cola at 8:32 AM on August 22, 2002

Documented factual errors in Slander? The Daily Howler spent a few days on it: see the July entries in their archives.

Spinsanity published a comprehensive article in July.

Try Tapped's entries starting here.
posted by maudlin at 8:33 AM on August 22, 2002

Good stuff. Thanx Gilbert and Maudlin.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:44 AM on August 22, 2002

Best part of this article:
So I called up this same friend of mine, Hampton Stevens, now a freelance writer now living in Kansas City. He responded to Ann immediately. "I love it when she's unafraid to say that people are stupid and ignorant. She's written some stuff about liberal folly and it's so fantastic."

Did he find her attractive?

"Oh, I’d fuck the shit out of her."
posted by ColdChef at 8:46 AM on August 22, 2002

she's simply an uber troll who concocts statements designed to make people wave their arms around and sputter, thereby freely hyping her own persona and work. it's undoubtedly a smart, baiting media strategy. but it'd be nice if others were smart enough to just ignore her, imo.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 8:48 AM on August 22, 2002

To continue the mini-hijack, RJ, I've been an Observer reader for years and love its fabulous trash. My point was just that the Sun seems to be going for that audience, rather than the less fabulous and less subtle New York Post set. You are correct to point out that they have quite the pro-Israeli mindset as well, which can get a bit out of hand.

Thanks to all for posting the Coulter debunking that I was too lazy to look for.
posted by lackutrol at 8:50 AM on August 22, 2002

Oh dear God, Ann with a Muslim? Impossible, this reporter must be some kind of liar.

Hardly: though this woman must be some kind of hypocrite.

(How does one become a paid troll, by the way? And how do her sub-editors cope? I assume she has sub-editors, anyway.)
posted by riviera at 8:52 AM on August 22, 2002

Her interview with Katie Couric still makes me giggle.
posted by Hackworth at 8:57 AM on August 22, 2002

How come the Bill Maher "we're the cowards" quotes get people fired. . .

I can't believe that no one caught this....Bill Maher was not fired for his "we're the cowards" remark. He continued to tape new shows for many months afterwards. I thought his show was cancelled by ABC because no one was watching it anymore.

I also thought that Ann Coulter's online column was cancelled after her "convert them to Christianity" remark.

Am I mistaken?
posted by Durwood at 9:04 AM on August 22, 2002

In Latin she would be Trollia Majora.

this made me laugh so hard i let go of my Coulter-stirred irritation...but what i was *going* to say is that to me the scariest thing about her is the unbelievably juvenile things she will do to get attention in the media. I saw her on the new Donahue show, they were literally screaming at each other and she sort of pushed her chair away from the desk and said "Phil Donahue, do you still beat your wife? THAT's what people want to know!" Phil immediately went to commercial --- dang! I would pay to hear what happened right after that.
posted by serafinapekkala at 9:08 AM on August 22, 2002

I suppose one would have to be a New Yorker to really know this one, but picture a typical small-town newspaper, writ large, but with all local stuff. Conservatively (not politically conservative) written, that is, no tabloid fodder.

The ordinary, boring stuff that actually matters, like "Expressway X is going to be closed for a week starting March 3rd, so use Y St. detour", and "Zoning board to decide fate of popular park at public meeting".

Would it sell? Could it even staff with reporters, or would it all have to be blog-type submissions?
posted by kablam at 9:08 AM on August 22, 2002

Good point Darren. It does seem like that remark was one of the final nails for PI, but Mahr wasn't directly fired for it.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:08 AM on August 22, 2002

I dunno, I'd've kept watching PI if it had *ever come back on the air* in DC after the local ABC affiliate yanked it after his so-inflammatory remarks.

but probably no one wants to hear me vent about Bill Maher yet again. moving right along.
posted by Sapphireblue at 9:16 AM on August 22, 2002

PI got dropped from a lot of locals, and his ratings were actually decent, but the word never really got out exactly why he was canceled. Personally, I feel that he was cancelled for being "un-patriotic", when we all should be waving the flag and eating apple pie all day.
God Bless America.
posted by bradth27 at 9:23 AM on August 22, 2002

Durwood, Maher continued to make several shows after the remark, albeit with a lack of several prior loyal advertisers- a lack of which was one of the excuses to later cancel the show.

And as far as Coulter being "fired" from the National Review, she is now back with them, both her and the editors pretending that their little spat never happened.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:28 AM on August 22, 2002

Incredulously I ask, the writer was meeting Ann for lunch? This woman is angry because she is hungry. Give her some Little Debbies, and she will be seeing Clinton's pudge in a whole new light.
posted by alou73 at 9:32 AM on August 22, 2002

Life's too short to actually seek her out, but Coulter's whole shitick is so over the top, that I just have to laugh everytime I read her. This interview is hilarious. She's the Phyllis Diller of our generation. Or maybe, as someone said, like a Courtney Love raised by Birchers.

And the NYO does rock. I've never read the Sun but I occasionally follow it's travails.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:38 AM on August 22, 2002

who will be my second, WHO i say. -- clavdivs

I'm there for ya, Clav. :)
posted by dejah420 at 9:57 AM on August 22, 2002

She talks like she is still in High School, "Dick Chaney is positively dreamy; he's captain of the football team, you know."

She seems like one of those people who don't have any way to express themselves creatively, so she rails against those who do, and latches on to "athletic types".

"You could sit in that beautiful Royals stadium, you could leave your purse in your chair and go to the bathroomâ??I mean, think of that. Thereâ??s all these attractive people in Izod shirts and just such good values, theyâ??re just normal, fun people, and athletic."

Is she for real? What a dork!! I mean, Izod Shirts? Give me a break....

The whole touring with the Dead thing throws me a bit though. She must have been on a spy mission.
posted by buz46 at 10:00 AM on August 22, 2002

I am glad that i only know this "ann coulter" as a person that occasionally says idiotic things that have no basis in reality, and someone who was once on the daily show. she was quite funny, in an -oh my god she is crazy- sort of way. i guess she must work for some media company somewhere, and if she was someone whom i respected on any level i might put in the energy to look that up. but i don't. and i don't see why anyone else would.

She is not a conservative, she is a yelling idiot trying to get attention and money by saying things that inflame people. This is a trick to start a conversation, because usually people in conversations think about and believe what they say. That is what makes conversations interesting, because people think differently than you. In a real conversation people have actual reasons to think that way though, when people say things because it will inflame and not because they believe them it is not interesting. She is an attractive woman saying things that people who have not thought enough about the concepts would like to hear. This is not useful in any way. Sometimes my dog whines for attention, I don't post that online.
posted by rhyax at 10:03 AM on August 22, 2002

She talks like she is still in High School, "Dick Cheney is positively dreamy; he's captain of the football team, you know."

She seems like one of those people who can't express themselves creatively, so she rails against those who do, and latches on to "athletic types".

"You could sit in that beautiful Royals stadium, you could leave your purse in your chair and go to the bathroom I mean, think of that. there are all these attractive people in Izod shirts and just such good values, they're just normal, fun people, and athletic."

Is she for real? What a dork!! I mean, Izod Shirts? Give me a break....

The whole touring with the Dead thing throws me a bit though. She must have been on a spy mission.
posted by buz46 at 10:08 AM on August 22, 2002

My only regret is that she wasn't the sole occupant of the Murrow building.

See, I'm witty and stuph, just like her. Isn't that witty and not at all mean spirited? I can do that for 300 pages easily.

Publishers may contact me with multi-million dollar offers at my e-mail address.
posted by Ynoxas at 10:12 AM on August 22, 2002

Sorry for the double post. I tried to stop the first one b/c I had misspelled CHENEY, but my work PC is dreadfully slow and......Well, you get the idea.
posted by buz46 at 10:13 AM on August 22, 2002

more sage words from ann thrax:

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to
physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that
they can be killed too," pundit Ann Coulter told this
month's meeting of the Conservative Political Action
Conference. "Otherwise they will turn out to be outright
traitors."
posted by mcsweetie at 10:20 AM on August 22, 2002

She's the Phyllis Diller of our generation.

*wipes away tears of laughter*

Oh my god, you have nailed it perfectly. She just needs better writers.

Btw, what happened to Mr. "ANN SPEAKS TRUTH" Macboy? Yet another conservative hit-and-run troll. Can smart conservatives here explain why we see so much of this kind of thing?
posted by mediareport at 10:21 AM on August 22, 2002

The best response to Coulter is sputtering laughter abruptly cut off, immediately followed by a sincerely apologetic "Oh, I'm sorry, you were serious..."
posted by Cerebus at 10:24 AM on August 22, 2002

I don't know mediareport, I'm too busy dealing with the hit and run liberal trolls.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:26 AM on August 22, 2002

Ooh, show me, show me! I've never seen one before.
posted by mediareport at 10:28 AM on August 22, 2002

She's the Phyllis Diller of our generation.

but does Ann have a spiffy garage sale video like Phyllis...


I tried to stop the first one b/c I had misspelled CHENEY,

Lon will not mind, as he is no longer with us. Silly filter aside, this woman gets more outta control by the week.
the comment about killing johnny walker/black is almost a veiled threat...and define liberal. if she is conservitive then I'm gonna go buy a Che Muscle-T.
posted by clavdivs at 10:37 AM on August 22, 2002

So are any dumb, ignorant Americans among those driving her book to #1 on the NYT non-fiction list? Or are these disjoint sets?

Reminds me of the ongoing lament that Hollywood is Poisoning Our Minds, even though they're really just trying to give us what we want: pure free-marketry, fine for energy, education, and health care, but not entertainment. Some pundits call on the Voice of The American People only when it's rhetorically beneficial.

Ann's got this weird oil-and-vinegar mix of pedantry and anti-intellectualism similar to George F. Will's, only with more cattiness and less baseball.

And she's about as truthful as Ari Fleischer.
posted by kurumi at 10:43 AM on August 22, 2002

i guess she must work for some media company somewhere, and if she was someone whom i respected on any level i might put in the energy to look that up.

Ann Coulter was a chirpy conservative unknown from the University of Michigan or Michigan State who was adopted by the Heritage Foundation youthful-pundit-production factory shortly before the impeachment saga began (the same factory that brought the world Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, if I'm not mistaken).

She's a lawyer who billed herself as a "constitutional attorney" for a while, which was laughable considering a remarkable lack of professional accomplishment in that area. Now, though, she's just a professional talking head who has figured out that it's easy to make a living catering to the biases of right-wing television and radio audiences. Everything we say to repudiate Slander only endears her further to the John Birch crowd, so this thread is like money in the bank.
posted by rcade at 10:50 AM on August 22, 2002

mediareport, I'd rather not link or go digging through my posting history to see them all again, but a certain individual with a name_like_this comes to mind (although he is thoughtful on occasion). Even dear Anton, who is quite erudite, sometimes prefers to insult rather than just debate. There are others, too, but your supposition that only conservatives here make hit and run trolls is equally linkless.

I'm talking about the hit and run kind, too. Hama7 stayed around for his beating.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:57 AM on August 22, 2002

Ann Coulter is the finest performance artist of our age. You can't all think she's serious? Only a master satirist could create such a richly ironic, absurd, and self-negating character as "Ann Coulter." Brilliant, just brilliant.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:58 AM on August 22, 2002

You've hit it on the head, Ty. My guess is that Ann Coulter is really Andy Kaufmann in drag (is that a transgender wrestling champion belt I see peeking out of her purse?).
posted by Neologian at 11:26 AM on August 22, 2002

Transgendered wrestling corpses? Eww.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:32 AM on August 22, 2002

From PI:

Michael: But why is the show going off the air?

Bill: That's a whole different story, but it's not because -- it's not because --

Tim: Stand up and tell America why.

Michael: We have a right to know.

[ Cheers and applause ]

Bill: You know what?

Michael: Let me -- I don't think -- let me tell you. I don't think it is the ratings. I think --

Bill: I know it's not the ratings.

Michael: Let me tell you right now.

Bill: It's an insult to our audience there who stayed with us when it was not easy to stay with us. And it insults me on behalf of my audience that that gets out there, because the press is too lazy to find out. And it's just so easy to go, "dwindling ratings." Our ratings never have dwindled.

Michael: That's the truth. And the millions who are watching the show right now are actually watching it. The people who are over there on NBC now watching Jay, I mean, God bless him. But the people are asleep, all right? I mean, I hate to say it. I know he's a friend of yours, but, you know, there's so much crap on TV that --

Bill: He's not only a friend of mine. He's one of the best friends I've ever had, because this is a guy, even though we were competitors -- and again, you don't hear this story in the press often about how well we did. But we were competitors with Jay and with Dave. And in the top ten cities, we beat some of them often.

Michael: Right.

Bill: Gave them quite a run for their money. We were second, not third. Okay. Jay Leno never stopped being my friend.
posted by john at 11:37 AM on August 22, 2002

mediareport, I'd rather not link or go digging through my posting history to see them all again, but a certain individual with a name_like_this comes to mind (although he is thoughtful on occasion).

~chuckle~

I can't imagine anything more "hit and run" and cowardly than someone who plays little "guess who I'm thinking of" games, rather than just coming out and saying it. Pathetic.

As for me, if I seen any reasonable, attempted refutation of any point I make, I'll respond. I rarely, if ever, see that here, and I rarely feel the need to post more than once or twice in a thread. Contrast this with some posters (like yourself) who obviously are insecure enough in their position that they try to make up for a lack of quality of thought with quantity.

Even dear Anton, who is quite erudite, sometimes prefers to insult rather than just debate. There are others, too, but your supposition that only conservatives here make hit and run trolls is equally linkless.

Check. You decry insult over debate, then use "hit and run troll" as an insult in almost the same thought. Nice. At least you are consistent in your hypocrisy.

As for Ann Coulter, she's merely the next stage in the evolution of the Rush Limbaughs of the world.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:49 AM on August 22, 2002

i agree with ann. and you liberals quit clouding the issue with facts: if those damn commie girly-boys at the new york times did not show the proper respect to the supreme speed god and he-man conservative dale earnhardt, may he rest in peace at the great racetrack in the sky, i too am sorry poor misguided timothy mcveigh didn't blow that sissified rag staight to hell when he had the chance.
posted by jellybuzz at 12:08 PM on August 22, 2002

Like many, I was fooled into taking Ann Coulter seriously for many years. Then I saw her on C-SPAN's Booknotes hawking Slander in more ways than one, and she said, "There may be some bad Republicans, but there are no good Democrats."

And I waited and waited for her to smile, or chuckle, or make some verbal or physical qualification of this statement, but she didn't, so to me she's a non-entity in the realm of rational debate. Seeing that so many of you have similar quotes from her, my hunch is confirmed.

Yet still, I often ask God why aren't there Terry Gilliam style feet coming down out of heaven to crush people in real life.
posted by Hildago at 12:13 PM on August 22, 2002

I think she's more talented than Ashanti.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 12:15 PM on August 22, 2002

I think she's pretty funny, and pretty damn interesting to boot. No, I don't agree with everything she stands for, but how many people out there DO I agree with completely?
I consider myself a liberal, although I read the book and fond some really good points to it.
It's just her opinion, right?

Oh yeah, I forgot what website I was posting on.
Never mind, carry on, nothing to read here.
posted by bradth27 at 12:21 PM on August 22, 2002

~gruntle~

I thought it was pretty damn obvious that I was talking about you. Lame attempt at cleverness or cowardice, your call. Sorry about the quantity, my friends tell me I talk to much. I have friends in real life, honest. 2 of them, even. I have a bad habit of responding to everything I read. Guilty as charged there, I admit.

As for me, if I seen any reasonable, attempted refutation of any point I make

Juicy irony indeed, considering when you use your medical knowledge to perfectly, reasonably describe eating infants. Jonathan Swift you ain't. It's not a troll you say, because it's morally equivalent to eating animals. While you maintain this is a moral position you honestly hold, I find nothing about it 'reasonable', well thought out, or persuasive.

Aside: you have responded to me before, does that mean I have provided a reasonable refutation on occasion?

Aside 2: Coulter's Dale Earnhardt rant sounds more like a populist diatribe than a truly conservative one, you know, common man vs. ivory tower elites, for what its worth.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:26 PM on August 22, 2002

It's not a troll you say, because it's [eating infants] morally equivalent to eating animals.While you maintain this is a moral position you honestly hold, I find nothing about it 'reasonable', well thought out, or persuasive.

Well, I think we wander somewhat afar from our beloved Ann here.

Sometimes I think analogies are so obvious (I could be wrong) that they need no further elucidation, including my continuing question about why we feel justified in eating animals when we don't feel particularly justified in eating "meat" like anencephalic or otherwise severely retarded infants (or infants in general for that matter). I suspect that the level of emotional histrionics I normally see in response to that question is a measure of the kernel of truth people see in the analogy, coupled with guilt.

When I brought this up in a recent thread, your particular response was something like "I just had a steak, take me to jail". Reasonable, well thought out, persuasive? Is one a "hit and run troll" if one doesn't respond to such?

I emailed you. Let's take this off-topic discussion there. I get the impression you have a genuine desire to understand, which I appreciate.

Aside: you have responded to me before, does that mean I have provided a reasonable refutation on occasion?

I think at times you make an attempt...wink...

Now, having said all that, let me point out that Ann Coulter would probably chow down on a nice tasty liberal, given the proper marinade. No doubt she thinks we're all anencephalic.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:06 PM on August 22, 2002

Just a quick aside (that, incidentally, has nothing to do with eating babies or meat or Ann Coulter or liberals): Michael Moore's Stupid White Men (which is, well, the opposite of Slander) has been on the NYT best seller list for 25 weeks.
posted by lumiere at 2:07 PM on August 22, 2002

I think she should be on as many shows and in as many magazine interviews as possible. If she were out there more (if that's even possible) she could be solely responsible for a landslide election of democrats across the country.

All sarcasm aside, has anyone noticed that if anyone ever tries to talk to her about an actual issue she is totally lost. Her only area of expertise is "conservative vs. liberal". The interview on "Hardball" was supposed to be a puff so she could hawk her book. When asked her opinion about the news that day about the Republicans were using the 9/11 picture on Air Force One to get campaign contributions she became flustered and whined that "this interview was supposed to be about her book!" It was hilarious!!!
posted by bas67 at 2:25 PM on August 22, 2002

If you want others to dismiss your thoughts, ideas, and writing, sprinkle them liberally (as in 'generously') with name calling, baseless accusations, and general emotional outbursts.

That's true whether you're a nationally known columnist or a poster on a weblog.

Ann Coulter is a self-promoting nobody. The facts to support that statement can be found in posts to this thread and by reading her columns.
posted by Red58 at 2:48 PM on August 22, 2002

Registrant:
Coulter,Ann (ANNCOULTER4-DOM)
P.O. Box 1241
New York, NY 10028-0009
US

Domain Name: ANNCOULTER.ORG

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Coulter, Ann (AC17847) [e-mail]
Coulter,Ann
P.O. Box 1241
New York, NY 10028-0009
US
[phone]


Let's call her up and see what she thinks!
posted by bradth27 at 3:36 PM on August 22, 2002

I read Slander. And, Ann is right.
posted by paleocon at 5:43 PM on August 22, 2002

Wow, paleocon. That... that changes all our minds. Thanks.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:17 PM on August 22, 2002

Call me a troll exutantly in a field of sundrenched poppies.

Anne Coulter simply rawks.
posted by hama7 at 7:07 PM on August 22, 2002

nix that "e".
posted by hama7 at 7:08 PM on August 22, 2002

Also bradth: What the heck are you thinking? Was that really necessary?

How would you like your address made public in a forum which utterly detests you personally and all that you stand for? Then one of the mob shouts "let's git 'im!!".

Utterly irresponsible, nasty and childish. Also unsurprising.
posted by hama7 at 7:17 PM on August 22, 2002

It's a post office box, hama7. I know Ann is thin, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't actually live in one.
posted by rcade at 7:39 PM on August 22, 2002

babe.
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:41 PM on August 22, 2002

Glad there's a fan mail address, I wonder if she takes marriage proposals via mail.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:07 PM on August 22, 2002

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore should just admit that they are soulmates, get married and have children.
posted by homunculus at 8:44 PM on August 22, 2002

Also bradth: What the heck are you thinking? Was that really necessary? How would you like your address made public in a forum which utterly detests you personally and all that you stand for? Then one of the mob shouts "let's git 'im!!".Utterly irresponsible, nasty and childish. Also unsurprising.

Uh... Hama? You do know where he got that information, right? The publically available, web-accessible database of domains and their registrants? It's really nothing to get worked up about...
posted by JollyWanker at 9:53 PM on August 22, 2002

ann coulter is an opportunistic disease.

after The Tragic Events of Nine Eleven, self-obligated patriots scrambled for a way to pitch in, ultimately deciding on embracing the authoritarian ways of the right, who happen to have been at the controls for a couple decades (remember, democrat != liberal), and despising dissenters. sometimes they would liken these rabble-rousers to the terrorists themselves, so they could feel that they too were on the frontlines fighting the vague middle eastern stereotypes that they are instructed to keep an eye out for. hopefully, once everyone chills out and gets a clue, nobody will want to hear hear her tripe anymore.

sure, she may have a point or two, but is it worth diggin' in the cat box for a few dimes?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:41 PM on August 22, 2002

Ann Coulter and Michael Moore should just admit that they are soulmates, get married and have children.

Lame-iosity.

If you can't sau something funny...
posted by y2karl at 11:38 PM on August 22, 2002

er... If you can't say something funny...
posted by y2karl at 11:40 PM on August 22, 2002

Ann needs to be shown that her anus has sensitive nerve endings which can be stimulated via friction with the male reproductive member, and I have just the freakishly large genitalia to accomplish this delicate yet vital task.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:51 PM on August 22, 2002

Boy, another devil at the keyboard...

What is this, mounting behavior of the higher primates night? Somebody needs to do a dominance down on you puppies before you start virtually humping people's legs.
posted by y2karl at 12:19 AM on August 23, 2002

And once again, hama makes a curious remark without giving us any basis for it. He insists that gay marriage is "just ridiculous," but when he's presented with a chorus of requests for his rationale, he demurs. Right.

Now Coulter "rawks". Why is that, hama? Not that I expect a reply.

(I regret having to dredge up yesterday's ugliness, but he started it!)
posted by Fenriss at 6:51 AM on August 23, 2002

Ann Coulter was a chirpy conservative unknown from the University of Michigan or Michigan State who was adopted by the Heritage Foundation youthful-pundit-production factory shortly before the impeachment saga began (the same factory that brought the world Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, if I'm not mistaken).

she went to cornell then u of m (how she survived is still a mystery) and did a little more then fart around with the law practice. she was legal counsel to spense abraham (sec. of energy) and what is this bircher talk..i knew who they WHERE but is this what all the cool kids refer to conservitives? I think she is rabid but she did a bang up job on clinton, for that she gets a lollypop.
posted by clavdivs at 8:23 AM on August 23, 2002

opps, needed to put cite marks in the first paragraph.
posted by clavdivs at 8:24 AM on August 23, 2002

Fenriss: I sang like a freakin' canary when asked to do so. Don't deny me that.

Would you please cite just one incident of nastiness or hostility in my posts during that discussion?

Ann Coulter is common sense. No 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts'. She rawks because she is brave, smart, knows and practices morality in thought and action. She is also poisonously witty, acute, and satirical. She does not take herself too seriously. Thus, she rawks.
posted by hama7 at 9:10 AM on August 23, 2002

Would you like to teach a frog to play the piano, Fenriss?
posted by hama7 at 9:13 AM on August 23, 2002

Hama7, a bunch of people on this thread who disagree with Coulter have backed up their disagreements with quotes by her and descriptions of her public actions (such as on talk shows.)

Could you provide evidence in a similar form of why she is brave, smart, knows and practices morality in thought and action etc.... I'm really curious. My total impression of her, after reading her and seeing her on television repeatedly, would be that of the general agreement found in this thread. But I would be interested to see a well reasoned argument as to why this is not the case.
posted by pjgulliver at 9:21 AM on August 23, 2002

OK, since hama doesn't list an email so I can address this to him privately, I shall make my point here, and apologize to everyond for going somewhat off topic. I will also ignore the nonsensical frog remark.

Hama, you absolutley never explained the reason for your position on gay marriage. Not in any thread I can find. I just cut and pasted a digest of your 4 remarks in the original thread, and you just entirely dodge the issue. When people got upset, you said "See, I told you you'd get angry" and then "I give up, you win. Have a nice day." That's it. No explaination.

Here's why I care; if you have some point that differs from "God says so" then I may be interested in what you have to say. If you are basing your entire argument on your invisible friend's opinion, then my conviction that there is *nothing* to discuss is justified
posted by Fenriss at 11:26 AM on August 23, 2002

Ann Coulter is common sense. No 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts'. She rawks because she is brave, smart, knows and practices morality in thought and action. She is also poisonously witty, acute, and satirical. She does not take herself too seriously.

People have documented otherwise but don't worry about hama7 responding wtih anything on the record regarding either he or Ann Coulter, it's not the spin-troll way. Since making overtly anti-gay remarks are not acceptable, he can dart around the perimeter, push the envelope in an oblique and unattritbutable way and throw a few M-80s into the mix and then play innocent with a straight face. If all else fails, he'll play the victim card and claim to be atttacked and misunderstood. He's not in favor of gay marriage but he'll never give you a serious answer as to why--that requires going on the record: you can't get away with throwing grenades when you've taken a stand. His previous incarnation here was as Real9, if you haven't noticed yet.
posted by y2karl at 3:45 PM on August 23, 2002

y2karl: I have never, ever made a single anti-gay remark, not that it matters, nor is it germane to this issue. But it's very clever of you to try to categorize me as some extreme "homophobic" (who was that? dash_slot?). I am not anti gay, or anti anything, for that matter (well maybe anti....but that's another post). On the record: I explained my stance, if you would like to go back and check. The funny thing is: that stance is not acceptable. Underscore not.

I probably will grow tired of PredictaFilter, and join the ranks of the fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety-nine who couldn't care less.

In the meantime, brush up on your piano-tuning techniques.
posted by hama7 at 7:50 AM on August 24, 2002

Redundant aside: not acceptable is actually "not acceptable"

posted by hama7 at 9:45 AM on August 24, 2002

hama7: But it's very clever of you to try to categorize me as some extreme "homophobic" (who was that? dash_slot?).

Can we please have some direct talk round here? What does the above mean?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:23 PM on August 24, 2002

Thanks, for the unlinked reference, hama7, and I must note the rather weak try on the I'm-trying-to-categorize--you-as-an-extreme-homophobe, by the way--what did I say about playing the victim, folks?--but let's settle this mess: why don't you just be user friendly and go on the record and, in this thread at twenty-five words or less, in English even dogs and cats can understand. give us your thoughts on gay marriage and we'll not raise the issue of your evasiveness any more.

How's that sound? Too hard? I doubt it.
(Still want to spin? May I suggest this is beneath me, I can't be bothered or If you don't get it by now... as opening comebacks then?)
posted by y2karl at 6:00 PM on August 24, 2002

Here's my thoughts, for example:

Conservatives who go on about
family values just shit when
gay people try to have
families through marriage or adoption.
Gay marriage? Why not?
posted by y2karl at 6:19 PM on August 24, 2002

hama7/real9, after a number of people posted links to what can generously be described as *clear factual errors* in Ann Coulter's new book -- errors, it must be said, she has not addressed at all in her public comments -- you (true to form) ignored those and decided it was time to state that Ann Coulter "rawks because she is brave, smart, knows and practices morality in thought and action." It couldn't be more clear you're not interested in thoughtful discussion, but I'll try anyway and keep the question simple: How is falsifying information and/or failing to correct yourself when the mistake is pointed out brave, smart or moral?

His previous incarnation here was as Real9, if you haven't noticed yet.

Interesting. Very. Thanks for the tip. This sure fits the pattern: And, if I'm causing cognitive spasms by being direct, good!"
posted by mediareport at 6:24 PM on August 24, 2002

hama7/real9

To be fair: it's pure speculation
--or is that intuitive hunch?--
on my part.
But a similar m.o.--pushing the envelope of the permissible
ever so coyly at times.
posted by y2karl at 7:06 PM on August 24, 2002

maybe so, but if you were incorrectly accused of assuming another id, wouldn't you take the next opportunity to refute it?
Unless that's part of the plot...

hama7: we know that you are just sharing your opinions - everyone has the right to do that - but unless you can back things up with facts/convincing arguments/references, you won't be taken seriously.

i must admit, i am certain that hama7 is not here to get enlightened/ informed/ friends.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:21 AM on August 25, 2002

O.K.

Here's the response: I don't now and never have demanded, nor received tax breaks or special treatment for my status as a married person. I resent that other irresponsible hetero-married people do, and I fume that they get more American tax money for each successive offspring that they breed beyond, (or even within) their financial means. Don't get me started on the perks for unwed mothers. And I resent *even more* that humans who are biologically unable to produce offspring because they are of the same sex demand the same treatment as parasitic hetero-irresponsibles.

You see, I despise government interaction and meddling in anything beyond fixing the highways, providing (sadly sub-par) public education, and health care for the indigent or elderly.

I am a curmudgeon and a cynic. I don't like tax handouts. I won't tell people how to live their lives, except the ones who have their hands on the tax money I earned.

That wasn't 25 words or less. Sorry. Thank you all for being swell.
posted by hama7 at 6:26 AM on August 25, 2002

i must admit, i am certain that hama7 is not here to get enlightened/ informed/ friends

In all honesty, I am. (if "enlightened" means "leftist" then you might be right) I miss the daily dialogue and discussion, because I do not usually talk to native English speakers, because I work in a Korean company. Not that language is a problem, but the subtleties slip through the cracks.

(not to derail the Ann Coulter thread, of course).
posted by hama7 at 6:38 AM on August 25, 2002

Hama7: thank you for a reasoned post. I look forward to you posting on and campaigning for, equality in tax law & the end of state recognised marriages, plus your take on the claim that you previously posted as 'real9'. Your persistence in dodging direct, repeated requests for information intrigues me.

I for one simply expect equal treatment from the gov't in all it's forms for everyone: tax breaks are incidental to me (but central to your argument). You don't seem to want to grant equality [I doubt you're even in a minority on this] - "And I resent *even more* that humans who are biologically unable to produce offspring because they are of the same sex demand the same treatment as parasitic hetero-irresponsibles". So, my understanding is that you have a hierarchy of objections:
- you resent tax breaks for married couples
- you resent *even more* tax breaks going to families raising children when there are present two adults of the same sex.

Which, in my book, at least appears to be unequal.

"You see, I despise government interaction and meddling in anything beyond fixing the highways, providing (sadly sub-par) public education, and health care for the indigent or elderly." Sounds reasonable...
Don't get me started on how to fund the Armed Forces, NASA, The Coastguard, Vehicle Licensing, Medicines pproval, Financial Market oversight [of the lightest touch, bien sur], Food Safety, Pure Scientific Research (where was Tim Berners-Lee working at when he "invented the Internet"?), Border Patrols, Child Protection, Courts & Police.... o, the benefits of a society go on and on...
posted by dash_slot- at 2:14 PM on August 25, 2002

I don't now and never have demanded, nor received tax breaks or special treatment for my status as a married person.

You get them anyway, hama7. Your wife, for instance, cannot be compelled to testify against you in court; that's one of the state-sanctioned benefits that come with government recognition of marriage. Gay couples deserve the exact same protection. No more, no less.

I resent *even more* that humans who are biologically unable to produce offspring because they are of the same sex demand the same treatment as parasitic hetero-irresponsibles.

This is completely illogical. Marriage is not only for having biological offspring. The benefits do not only accrue to married couples who have children, hama7. Given that, I'd love to hear you explain why your resentment is justified logically. If you can't, then I'll settle for hearing you explain why it's wrong for me to call illogical, emotion-driven arguments against equal rights under the law "bigotry." Thanks in advance.
posted by mediareport at 2:19 PM on August 25, 2002

for instance, cannot be compelled to testify against you in court; that's one of the state-sanctioned benefits that come with government recognition of marriage. Gay couples deserve the exact same protection.

Agreed. Why would someone be forced to testify against one's partner, and not one's spouse? I remember my relative's mother was forced to testify against her father in a divorce proceeding. Is that what you mean? I'm not sure.

Given that, I'd love to hear you explain why your resentment is justified logically.

I see it as taking advantage. I don't think that equality enters this equation. I mentioned polygamy. The polygamist and his spouses may well view their personal commitment as binding, but the government doesn't yet. Do you think this is an accurate analogy? Maybe someday all this will change, and you can snicker up you sleeve remembering my reactionary narrowmindedness.

If you can't, then I'll settle for hearing you explain why it's wrong for me to call illogical, emotion-driven arguments against equal rights under the law "bigotry."

Please feel free to call them anything you wish. But I still think illogical, emotion-driven arguments advocating same-sex marriage have nothing to do with equality, unless difference is the same as equality. Is an apple unequal to an orange?

Thanks for your comments. I look forward to more.
posted by hama7 at 1:04 AM on August 26, 2002

Not to derail the Anne Coulter thread, of course.
posted by hama7 at 1:06 AM on August 26, 2002

After thought: I have no idea who real9 is, but I'm not him/her.
posted by hama7 at 1:09 AM on August 26, 2002

rats. "unless difference is the same as inequality"
posted by hama7 at 1:22 AM on August 26, 2002

Lame attempt at cleverness or cowardice, your call.

Not the latter...probably not the former either...

(I'll never become the Ann Coulter of the far-out left this way...)
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:13 PM on August 26, 2002

I don't like tax handouts.

Mortgage tax deduction hetero-married breaks too?

Keyboard dead due to spill.

me cut and paste this.
posted by y2karl at 3:19 PM on August 26, 2002

Mortgage tax deduction hetero-married breaks too?

Me no like, no need.
posted by hama7 at 3:08 AM on August 27, 2002

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

I think subjecting McVeigh to the Times would have counted as cruel and unusual punishment, no?
posted by kindall at 7:32 AM on August 27, 2002