Is Ann Coulter hot?

[dazzleman]

No, but that does not diminish the truth and insight of her writings.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So you and Hitchabrut support terrorism against the New York Times?

What are you talking about?  In any case, the NY Times deserves whatever it gets.

[dazzleman]

Thanks for the input, Professor Churchill.

I really don't know what terrorism against the NY Times BRTD is talking about.  I am not a fan of the NY Times, so you won't find me defending it in any case, but I have no idea what Ann Coulter is supposed to have done to that so-called newspaper.

I don't think Ann Coulter is particularly attractive, but I do think she's very funny.  Humor is often based on exaggeration, and Ann Coulter does this very well.  There is enough truth in what she says that it strikes a chord, but she often overstates her case pretty strongly.

[dazzleman]

Thanks for the input, Professor Churchill.

I really don't know what terrorism against the NY Times BRTD is talking about.  I am not a fan of the NY Times, so you won't find me defending it in any case, but I have no idea what Ann Coulter is supposed to have done to that so-called newspaper.

She said "My only problem with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." That sounds like defending terrorism to me.

What if a liberal said they're only problem with the 9/11 hijackers is they did not crash into the NY Post building? She said basically the same thing.

I never heard that quote before.  I doubt she really meant it, but it's typical of her inflammatory rhetoric.  Radical liberals do it too, and against less deserving targets.  I won't defend the statement, because it's not right, and we should have consistency between conservatives and liberals in matters like this.

[dazzleman]

I never heard that quote before.  I doubt she really meant it, but it's typical of her inflammatory rhetoric.  Radical liberals do it too, and against less deserving targets.  I won't defend the statement, because it's not right, and we should have consistency between conservatives and liberals in matters like this.

Well I do, as I have never defended such a liberal statement, of course the only thing I've heard that even comes close is what Ward Churchill said, and I openly called him an asshole.

I give you credit for condeming Churchill.  It's still a little different thought to focus dislike on the New York Times, which Coulter did, as opposed to saying that the American people in general are deserving of having violence visited upon them, as Churchill said.

I don't advocate violence against people, but it seems Churchill is attacking a much broader base, so I don't concede a moral equivalency between him and Coulter.

[dazzleman]

I never heard that quote before.  I doubt she really meant it, but it's typical of her inflammatory rhetoric.  Radical liberals do it too, and against less deserving targets.  I won't defend the statement, because it's not right, and we should have consistency between conservatives and liberals in matters like this.

Back up here man.

Not only did she say this, but she re-affirmed it, saying that she only wanted those in the editorial section to die, or something equatable to that.

Much of what she says she continues to back up.

I do not really see radical liberals with such a following among even mainstream liberals as Coulter has among mainstream conservatives saying stuff like this and backing it up.

Just saying "the other side does it, so let's do it too!" is never going to accomplish anything but make politics suck.

Well, it seems her calls for violence are against a very well-defined and limited group... 

Seriously, I don't advocate calls for violence, but Coulter advocates violence against a handful of people, while the great Professor Churchill advocates indiscriminate violence against the American people in general.  I think there's a difference in degree here.  Extreme liberals often make the case that the American people in general are deserving of having violence visited upon them for whatever reason, something that I have never heard Coulter advocate.

I also don't think that Ann Coulter has the serious following among conservatives that you seem to think she has.  Some of what she says is amusing, mostly tongue in cheek, but I don't think too many conservatives take her that seriously.  And no matter how much conservatives hate that dreadful NY Times, the reaction among conservatives would be horror if it were ever actually attacked.

[dazzleman]

I also don't think that Ann Coulter has the serious following among conservatives that you seem to think she has.  Some of what she says is amusing, mostly tongue in cheek, but I don't think too many conservatives take her that seriously.

Of course they don't - she's a woman!!!

Ha Ha!  I think she goes too far even for most conservatives.  But I do think she can be very funny.  I read one of her books, in which she practically calls every Democratic president since and including Truman a traitor, so it's a wee bit overstated. 

But sometimes there is just enough truth in what she says to strike a chord -- such as when she said that the only way that abortion activists would support a Supreme Court nominee would be if he performed an abortion, preferably a partial birth abortion, during the confirmation hearings.  She's basically right in what she says about those feminazi witches.