Ann Coulter is Insane
 

From her website: http://www.anncoulter.com/

Seriously, what is wrong with her? Is it all a show, or does this woman really think like this?

I can't even wrap my mind around this. :|

Yeah....but she's cute, though. ;)

Although not too bright.
Chuck Hagel is a Republican!!

Nor does she seem to know what time of the year it is.

I don't know much about her only heard the name and associate it with a right wing partisan hack, but damn does that lady hate liberals. Makes me want to meet her and talk to her just so see if I could irritate her.

Well obviously in her very narrow view of the outside world, she chooses to remark on everything she knows nothing about. Since when did it take so long for someones 15 minutes to run out?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010011 and click on Ann Coulter to see what a beaut she really is.

Don't take her too seriously, she does what she does to get a rise out of people, so they buy her books out of curiousity, and it works.

Yes, but the people who read her take her utterly seriously.
I used to belong to the Official Ann Coulter Messageboard. Then I was banned and they locked the board from outside viewers forever. I can take pride in being the actual cause of that. My posting was never any different from what I do here.

Those total psychos completely agree with everything that Ann says publicly. I also am forced into listening to Rush Limbaugh on occasion. Ditto, ya know.

We should take these nutcakes seriously, there are enough people that already do.

Go spend some time in freerepublic.com some time. The disgusting crap that spews out of there, is further proof that the mindset has a firm hold in america.

It's only because of liberals that people like Ann Coulter are allowed to exist. If there were no liberals, she would have been beheaded by now (or worse) for saying something out of turn at one time or another. Ironic really.

You win, thread closed.

I don't know what I hate more. Her or her audience. I don't think she's remotely cute. I do enjoy the fact that she gets her ass handed to her in any debate she ever gets into.

Ann Coulter = Michael Moore

Yes, both are retards, both embarass their political sides, and both make up stories to suite their needs. Moore just makes more money out of it.

Coulter is a bit more extreme than Moore.

Although they can easily be refuted, Moore actually has valid info to back up his claims. Moore makes a claim, states X, Y, and Z about it, and it gets refuted. However, the info that's used to refute Moore's claims can also be countered easily, which opens some type of debate.

Coulter just blurts out shit like, "Canada's lucky we didn't take them over". What the fuck kind of thing is THAT to say? I've read her books, and she contributes nothing serious to politics. You sit there the whole time thinking, "she CAN'T be for real.."

Love him or hate him, at least Moore provides something to be thought about.

Exactly, The difference between Moore and Coulter:
Moore wants to effect positive change.
Coulter wants to dominate all who don't think like her.
Coulter likes to just annoy,chafe and argue for arguments sake. Moore wants to discuss and effect for change. Moore wants to change opinions because he wants everyone to be right. Coulter could care less, would rather just give liberals the finger.
There is room for divergent views in Moore's world, Coulter wants to censor all who disagree with her, possibly indefinetly detain them.

Who would you least trust with his/her hand on the atomic 'button" Moore or Coulter?

If our worst is Moore, and yours is Coulter, the "other side" is far, far behind us.

Thats a joke site, right? I mean, its parody, satire?

Moore wouldn't use it, even if we were attacked. Coulter, on the other hand, might break it from overuse. I think her first target would be San Francisco or New England. We'd surely be in need of more nukes if she was in charge...

That, my socialist friend, is something that I, myself, have oft wondered. Many's the time that I've read her drivel, and said to myself...self, I said, surely this rather comely lass is but a shill. A Trojan Horse, if you will. Placed in her postition by none other than the very Liberals that she stertorously purports to hate so. Think about it. But, alas, I have yet to find any evidence to support my suspicions. So, until then, she is just as she seems to be. An embarasment to any true thinking conservative. Would you want her on your side?

Maybe in a suicide squad of some kind.
:thumbsup:

at the end of the day, to me, I couldnt describe her any more accurately than as a pro wrestling heel. I cant believe that what she says she intends to be taken seriously. Just look at comments like:

"Because I know so many of them. Liberals are clueless, amoral sexual degenerates, communists and pacifists – no offense to you or your readers intended, of course"

"Q: Who will win the elections 2004?

A: That's for the Supreme Court to sort out, you ignorant foreigner."

"Q: If Kerry should win, what will the changes in the USA be?

A: He's got this exciting new plan for Iraq I think you Italians may have heard of. It's called "unconditional surrender." Today, Christianity is legal and gay marriage is illegal. If Kerry wins, these will be reversed."

how can this be real???

A valid question, to be sure. However...I think the truly scary part is that there are people out there that not only listen to this tripe, but actually espouse, and embrace, her decidedly dubious ideals. True Conservatives don't bother me a bit. Hell, I can be staunchly conservative, or just as staunchly liberal, depending on the issue. It's the extremists, in any camp, that give me the heebie jeebies.

haha yeah, I've often though if liberals paid her to put on a show like this... I mean, what other reason is there?

She's said a LOT worse than "Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW!" around 9/11... shit that would make even the most conservative of people cringe.

I don't have much time to search em out, but I'm sure there's gotta be a site out there with all her live/written quips.

I saw an interview of Al Franken when he was publicizing his book "Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell" (or something like that). Forget who interviewed him, but they played the name game and Franken was very diplomatic on every name UNTIL COulter's came up...... this is his quote because I'll never forget it.

"I have many Conservative friends and when I researched the book I asked about different people, like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, to see what my friends would say. they said that they were decent men with good points. Then I would ask about Ann Coulter... and every single one of them would say she's certifiably nuts, we wish she'd shut up because she scares us and gives us a bad name."

(I think the quote may be in his book also.)

The sad and scary fact is newspapers carry her column, and Limbaugh LOVES to quote her and talk about how great she is. Drudge loves to give her credit on things. Not that they can ever be considered unbiased but they give credence to this nut case and egg her on.

She's made claims such as "McCarthy was right and should have gone further."

I truly believe she believes what she says, unlike most who are just in it for shock value. I just can't wait for the day when she says something so outrageous that even the Conservatives that support her back away.

You're joking, right?

Moore and Coulter are flip sides of the same coin.

You're joking, right?

It's hard to take her serious but then you hear that people DO take her serious. She's like this fugly skinny little blonde caricature (sp?) running around. Actually, she sounds a lot like Pastor Richards on the Vice City soundtrack.

You're joking right?

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."

she has serious issues.

Michael Moore is on the right side at least. While his methods may be exploitative, what he is arguing for is basically good - or even if you disagree with him, comes from good motivations. People like Coulter, if she is real, represents all of the worst qualities and prejudices of society imo.

The reason they have gone after Moore so hard is that he attacked the gun lobby, which is very powerful and has a lot of money, and they are trying to destroy him. I have heard some people say he misquoted and misrepresented people in his documentary - and I honestly dont know enough about it to debate that: but the basic proposition that widepsread gun ownership and 10,000 gun deaths a year are somehow connected is a different proposition to stating that America should lead a crusade against Islam in response to a terrorist attack which killed a number of innocent civilians which was a fraction of the number of Iraqi civiliams killed by Allied forces since the first attack on Iraq.

Anyway, sorry to get off point. I think we all agree Coulter is either nuts, or a heel.

Michael Moore is not "fighting for the little guy" or "trying to promote change" all the way from his million dollar apartment in Manahatten. He's just venting hot air for the sake of making money and nothing more. What seperates him from Coulter is that he is such a self-hating, hypocritical jackass. To be honest, he himself is everything he could possibly hate: he's a fat, rich, stupid white man who more than likely doesn't know a foreign language, is racist, has played off the working class numerous times for money, and has also used fear to make a quick buck. Moore is no better than Coulter, end of story.

Reading this thread is quite amusing to me. I've met Ann Coulter, sat down with her and had a nice little discussion. Perhaps this might be because I am a Republician, but I found her to be very nice and had a great sense of humor. I can also say that she always puts some element of her humor into her one-liners.

Ann Coulter's problem is that she operates in the realm of politics, where nobody says what they mean nor do they mean what they say. Politicians have no clue what directness is, which is why they always give long winded answers where they skirt the issue until they decide it's a safe issue for them. Ann Coulter is on the other hand, extreemly direct and doesn't care what people think about her directness. She speaks her mind wheras others in the field of politics don't want you to know what's truely on their mind. And the thing that has Liberals/Progressives the most infuriated with her is that she is completly 100% against political corectness.

I see them both as the same as well. Coulters medium for spitting out the putrid bile that is her opinion is public speaking (and books). Moore puts out the same kind of drivel, he just doesnt let it come directly out of his mouth. He strings together unrelated, out of context video clips to paint his opposition in the same light that Coulter paints hers. Coulter is direct, Moore is manipulative. Their end results are the same. These two are great examples of how rediculous a person can be and still be taken seriously by many.

Bodyhammer,

You have no clue what Moore is about. He backs up everything he claims with documentation. You may disagree with the way the documentation is presented but his method of attack is much different than these people are unamerican/traitors/godless.

Mabye thats the problem. Shes so dry no one can tell if shes being serious or trying to be funny.

True, her sense of humor is a very dry, deadpan style of humor.

Strawman argument right there, I never said anything about his "documentation." and furthermore, the documentation he has used to back up his claims have either A) Been taken out of context or B) Been proven bullshit. You should read Dave Kopel's "the 59 Deceits," it throughly proves that Fahrenheit 9/11 is bullshit: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

She'd make a great wife for me.

No, Moore is willing to tell blatent lies to get people to dislike what he dislikes. Coulter does the same thing but minus the lies (hense the no-backing up claim).

Ok I can give you documentation that the sun revolves around the earth. The documents will be false, but that's ok because I back it up.

What about those of us who dont agree that Moore is on the right side? IMO Moore represents the worst qualities and prejudices of society. One being his quote of "the dumbest Canadian is smarter than the smartest American"... how does that represent "positive change"? Only looks like prejudice to me.

I love her.

when i saw the original post i thought, "here we go again", but after a few posts i rememberd, "they really are cute when they get angry".

Actually Seaver, the quote is "the dumbest Brit is smarter than the smartest American", but like you said, it's still prejudice.

"Yes, but the people who read her take her utterly seriously."

I'll assume you've never been on the recieving end of a theater letting out after a F 9/11 flick packed with impressionable little college kids...but then again....

"Michael Moore is on the right side at least."

Interesting how matthew felt the need to attempt to insult liberals on the board in every post so far. Please keep it to yourself, I don't appreciate your derogatory comments.


Anyway, I have no idea how Ann acts in private. Mirevolver, how did you meet her? At a dinner or at a function?

Because I would suspect that at a function, she would maintain her popular persona. Not necessarily so at the dinner table.

I don't have any evidence other than the fact that Bill Mahr counts her as a personal friend of his. So I suspect she isn't so vitriolic at the dinner table.

Please smooth, no need to play the victim here. This thread had only one purpose, and that was to insult conservatives. Interesting how you didn't pick up on the "theme" untill i chimed in.

Excuse me, I started this thread, and the purpose was not to insult conservatives.

Did you even read my original post? Maybe you should read it again just incase.

The reason libs get so riled up about Coulter is because she beats them at their own game (namely a lot of hyperbole mixed in with some sarcastic zingers that cut a little too close to home for some it seems). The main distinction though is that she actually uses these pesky little things called facts. And we all know that facts are to libtards what kryptonite is to Superman.

/i keed i keed

Well, averett defended her motives for herself, but regardless if you felt that this thread was insulting conservatives as a whole (although I see all kinds of conservatives in this thread stating they don't like Ann),

I responded that you had insulted liberals on this board.

I don't understand why people in this "community" feel the need to insult each other over things 'out there'


and "libtards" is about as mature as "repukes" or "republipukes" or whatever the hell crappy term people hurl at republicans in order to insult or incite them. real conducive to TFP community building.

Of course i read your original post...and you know perfectly well two things were gonna happen

a. It was gonna stick to an "i hate ann coulter" fest (how riveting)

or the more likely progression

b. you think that's bad, check out what this republican said in 1955.

Tantamount to a thread being started about some liberal cartoonist calling Condi Rice "Aunt Jamima" but surprise surpirse...that never happened.

allright smooth, i'm backing out, sorry to interrupt...have fun.

Perhaps Australia's answer to Rice is Pauline Hanson. She appeared on the scene several years ago, claiming to represent 'real australians'. Her viewpoints were racist, purile and direct. One of her answers to debt was for australia to print more money. Along with this were all the other (yawn) garden variety predjudices that these people hold near and dear.
She had a massive effect though! And although the mod conservatives all dismissed her as a 'loon' and a 'cook', they started adopting alot of her more moderate ideas. Thereby stealing her voter base. Then they chucked her in jail for voter fraud. Amusingly, while in jail one of her cellmates was an aboriginal woman, and through her relationship with her softened her own ideas toward indiginous australians (Yes, just like in American History X).

hahahah someone here actually takes her seriously?! :lol:

Please OH PLEASE defend this:

Cuz I don't think ya can without looking like a fool.

As much as you hate him, Moore isn't like that, nor is that Coulter "playing liberals at their own game". Moore is a hardcore liberal, more than most, yes, but Coulter is FAR more extreme on her side than he is on his - FAR more. I know a lot of conservatives who love Bush/hate Moore, and each and every one of them thinks she's a nutcase not worthy of the level of fame she has.

Someone said she used "facts - something liberals hate, like Kryptonite against superman", um... no. I've read her books and while she blurbs a small fact here and there, for the most part it's bigotry and grade-school ranting like so:

If you can find ONE thing of substance that she's produced... and I'm talking an article, whatever, that doesn't include any ignorance or bigotry and is laced with facts on an insightful topic, by all means, post a link here... but ya won't!

Guess why? They don't exist.

She is not an acurate representative of a conservative. She's even a bad example of a political person. If she is joking, she is the Andy Kaufman of politics (people aren't ever sure when she's joking, so her comedy is lost on most). If she is serious, she is a good example of someone who needs to be at home alone with her 45 cats all named after political figures. What are we to do? Ignore the crap out of her until she shuts her mouth. If someone tries to defend her? Simply rip them apart with even a basic understanding of politics. She'll go away the same way Dr. Laura and every other moron-who-thinks-he/she-is-important-to-anyone who ever bothered us. Dr. Phil will be joining them shortly.

I saw NOONE bashing any conservatives except the topic Ann C. and slamming her for things she has said. That was the ONLY "theme" in this thread.

And it is true I have conservative friends and not one of them likes Coulter. Very few agree with many of the talking heads as they see them for what they are, people who make millions trying to divide the nation with hate and insults. (There are Libs that do it also, not many... MM is about the only one that ever gets any attention.)

A conservative friend of mine is amazed I listen to Limbaugh because as he put it, "when Rush Started he had a sense of humor, now instead of taking calls and having some fun, he spends all his time in divisive and hate filled monologues." That is partially true, but what sets Limbaugh apart from the rest is that Limbaugh started because he had some good points and noone else did what he was doing.

Now, just like with any other form of entertainment, the boundaries have to keep being broken and people have to keep pushing the "extremes" or lose their audience to someone who will. Hence, Ms. Coulter. She's a woman in a traditionally male venue, so she has to be extreme so that she may be heard and have her audience.

I think AC goes for the Jerry Springer mentality portion of the GOP, just as MM goes for the elitist, holier than thou, Dem. Both have their audiences, both make millions and both truly have more to win the more divided this country stays.

Those of us that are sane and know we all have to live together, realize we have to find compromise and we are tired of the hate filled divisiveness these people preach.

Every once in a while I read something that sparks a memory that I think may be relevent, in my mind anyways. Yet again another story by me.

My aunt who is very rich belongs to a tony country club. At the time, the prime minister of Canada was Jean Chretien. She fucking hated him and everything he stood for.

One day as she was at the club playing golf with her equally rich friends, along comes Jean Chretien and the rest of his foursome and bodyguards asking if they could play through. On the way he does his usual schtick, shakes hands, makes some jokes, thanks them then like an old pro moves on to forget them a minute later.

Well for a month after that all she could do was praise this man to no end as almost the next best thing to sliced bread. Blinded by charm, too in awe to relinquish her feeling of angst, blinded by bullshit.

As for Ann Coulter, she'll die one day and no one will notice. Carry on

The thing is... she would truly be funny IF this was all a farse... satire of sorts. But she's SERIOUS.

A good comparison would be Howard Stern. I could easily picture him saying a lot of stuff she says. It's alright for him to say it because 1 - his show is, first and foremost, obscene comedy and 2 - you can easily tell when he's giving a tongue-in-cheek response or commentary on something.

See, he never painted himself to be a serious political commentator whereas Coulter wants to be taken seriously. Stern more or less says it to piss people off or get a rise out of people, Coulter does it for probably the same reasons, but with a completely different background and intention.

Another example would be the daily show.. they could easily pull of statements like that, but it's okay because they're satire - the whole purpose of their existence is to mock politicians. They never once tried to paint themselves as a serious news source.

i think the worst thing that can be said about her is that she really believes what she says. to her, violence is a god. and she appears to be very devout.

real politik makes us feel good. it just happens to kill people. ann is a skilled practicioner of this art, telling us to feel good about what we do. that we can't makea geopolitical victory omlette with out breaking a few human rights eggs. that war will make us feel strong again. she and bob novak should be digging every grave for this war. not just the soliders, but the iraqi civilians. some Christmas they're having, ann?

See..that's just it...i used to think ann coulter was funny. I mean, i picked up one of her books that came out before she did all the talk show circuits and i read a bit and thought, Funny...absurd but funny...i don't agree by any means, but i can laugh...

Then, i started hearing people quote her and use her as a source and i thought..no...they can't be serious

then more and more i realized....People actually take her seriously

And that's why i can't stand her...I don't mind whatever she says...I still find some things funny...I mean, something like :Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW! " would be HILARIOUS coming from the daily show or howard stern or whatever, but when she's being serious and people are taking it seriously, then i start to worry....


Then i realized...no matter how absurd the daily show gets, they NEVER hit the vitriol level of ann coulter...I don't think i could imagine john stewart coming out to say half of the things that come out of this lady's mouth...

She's achieving her objective though, and quite well. That is agree, disagree or think she's whacked out on some ego insanity trip, she still gets people to talk about her and use her name. 54 posts in less than 24 hours on just her..... that is quite an ego builder for some, regardless whether it is good or bad.

As Humphrey Bogart was the first to be quoted as saying, "There is no such thing as bad publicity," I always add, as long as you are mentioned you are getting attention and remaining in people's minds, good or bad.

You could replace "Coulter" with "Moore" or "Franken" and your post would be just as accurate. And as for the whole "satire" thing, it has always seemed that's just a label liberals use to avoid checking their facts. Alot of these "satirists" really want to be taken seriously in a political context, but if anyone calls them on accuracy like to claim it's just comedy. But it ignores the point that they are proseletysing (sp?) just as much as the next guy.

I remember when Jon Stewart was on Crossfire. It was a great show, and I remember during one exchange when Stewart was ripping into the host, he said something to the effect that his show doesn't need to be as tough or factual because it's a comedy. But his show is pushing an agenda, simply being a comedy shouldn't get you a free pass.

Honestly, it seems the only problem alot of the people in this thread have with Coulter is that she's on the other side, they seem blind to the faults of their own talking heads.

Satire has been around a long time. Liberals, to my knowledge, have no monopoly on being satirists, and the label doesn't have anything to do with being factual or not. Stewart's beef wasn't that people be factual or not, or that they even not be partisan (that they not have an agenda). He was saying that people who purport to be political commentators ought not drive the discourse into the ground. That is, they ought to be speak to one another like adults instead of shouting insults at each other.

Coulter injects her purposefully inflammatory language into the public political discourse, which encourages others to speak to one another with such inflammatory rhetoric. This process of basing decisions and arguments on hurling insults at one another drives rational thought out of our poltical discussions. Now comedians have always skirted the edge of socially acceptable language and imagry. But society has also always seemed to understand the limit of crossing into the taboo--it happens in comedic situations, not real life decision making.

We may joke in the bar, or even around the water cooler, or in a comedy "place," but we don't carry what a comedian or our funny friend says about "niggers, spics, fags, and biatches" into Congress or to our boss at his or her desk. It doesn't make any sense to me to even compare what comedians do to the limits of what I expect from my political commentators.

I don't know why you stated that last paragraph. A lot of comments on here against Coulter are from conservatives. Also, at least one liberal, me, pointed out that she was a personal friend of Mahrer's.

Those that take her absolutely seriously are hyperbole-impaired. However, I admit to having the same failing--I scratched my head with the "Is he serious?" look when Jesse Jackson came to my home town and said a flood had been "racist" because it flooded more black homes than white ones. However, he got the cheers and applause he was fishing for.

The difference as I see it is that Ann states some pretty out-there OPINIONS, but Michael Moore lies in an attempt to legitimize his original lies. To me, a statement like "All liberals are idiots" is much less harmful than Moore's claim that “numerous investigations said that Gore won Florida.”

The first is obviously her opinion; the second attempts to deceive people who don't read The New York Times, the Washington Post, or USA Today, to name three.

On a marginally related note, if you ever want to meet a full-fledged alcoholic moron who has only survived by surrounding himself with some very sharp people, try to meet Teddy Kennedy.

Are you serious? :confused:

Recounts using about 24 different methodologies put Gore ahead in half and Bush ahead in half. And a last recount of the entire state put Gore ahead. All reported in the New York Times.

So which is worse? The unsubstantiated, intentionally baseless, inflammatory, self-congratulating, populist-nonsense opinion ... or the actual fact?

Thankfully you weren't serious.

How anyone can compare Coulter to Franken or Moore is beyond me. She is a bigot, nothing more and nothing less. She is filled with hate and spews it at anyone who disagrees with her. She is not a conservative; she is a fucking lunatic. She says the type of shit Hitler used to say.

Am I lying?

I don't think anyone here can compare Coulter to anyone else. The woman is insane.

And no, I'm not saying that just because I think she's insane, and because she's a conservative that I think all conservatives are insane. I don't. Some are, just like some moderates and liberals are insane. So lets everyone lay off comparing her to anyone else. She isn't like anyone else.

Somebody said upthread that if the statement that Coulter made was made by SNL or the Daily Show we'd all find it funny. Damn right we would. Because we would know it's satire. We'd groan and say "That's just not right" while laughing. But when Coulter says it we think "What the Fuck is wrong with that horse faced woman?" Because we know she's serious. Or at least she wants us to think she is... Because it's going to get press.

And we're all talking about it, aren't we? Kinda makes me wish I didn't start this thread. There would be no Ann Coulter insane tidbits if we just ignored her.

I can't believe people are defending her.

As for how she is as a dinner guest, I'm sure she's quite fine. As long as there are no reporters/cameras around. Its when she has that audience... that's when she sips from her cup of crazy.

i think we should start a "neat pictures of ann coulter" thread.

http://www.townhall.com/acimgs/webimages/gun.jpg

Ding ding, got it in one :)

That's a funny picture. White trash t-shirt, 70's cut off jean shorts and wearing some pumps to boot. Nice stone work on the front of the trailer too.

not to detract from the conversation but shes old enuff that that picture could have been taken in the 70's, hence the attire.

I like the stone work...at least someone made an effort :D

Having right wing religious parents has given me the opportunity to watch Farenhype 9/11 in the safety of my own home, on DVD, and to be perfectly honest it was nothing but preaching to the choir. It was filled with right wing politicians trying to convince my already republican parents that leftist Moore is a liar. I saw it as nothing more than a poorly thought out politically charged propaganda video.

But sticking to the thread title...it DOES mention Ann Coulter on the cover. :rolleyes:

Off topic. But if you MUST bring this up again read ANY legitimate paper, almost every single investigation found Bush won. If you still dont believe it 4 years later you can go on believing whatever the heck you want but it still wont make it right.

I met her after one of her speeches. I knew the guy who contacted her and got her to come give the speech. So after it was all over and people were leaving, I was able to go backstage and meet with her. As I said, I found her to be very nice and personable. At that level, I found it was very easy to know when she was using her sense of humor. I had a very nice time talking to her, up until a local talk radio personality walked in and asked her if she would come on his show that night, which she agreed to and then they left.

I am sure that Hitler could be kind and personable to individuals he met through his life as well.

Yes I am comparing her to Hitler. And yes her printed record supports the comparison.

"...almost every single investigation found Bush won." :confused:
14 of 17 independant investigations found that either Gore most likely won, or there was not enough evidence to call it for Bush. I think you were referring to the 3 of the 17 investigations, one of which was carried out by the Florida dream team, the second was the Supreme Court (on the advise of the Florida dream team), and the third was carried out by a consortium of news outlets - including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Tribune Co. (Newsday's parent company), The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and CNN. The Florida dream team was a joke. The associated press was the same group that fudged it up by calling it early. What do I say? Ther is not enough evidence either way to start critisizing people on message boards, imo.

Moore seems, at least on the surface, to have some good intentions. I realize that he is very good at bsing and fudging the truth to get there, but he doesn't just have his own interest in mind. Coulter is a self serving, one-woman freak show. She does not ever serve the public good. That is where she and Moore differ.

Funny you should say that. My grandfather, who was a German but fled Germany and came to the US just before WWII, met Hitler. From what he told me, Hitler was actually very frightining, and neither kind nor personable. From what my grandfather told me, his meeting with Hitler was the scariest moment of his life.

Funnier still that he had the charisma to convince millions to follow him into a war against the rest of Europe.

-----------
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not manage to destroy the Fox News building.

"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have to have a national debate about Bush's stolen presidency. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate him."

"We need to execute people like mirevolver and seaver and matthew330 in order to physically intimidate conservatives, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."

If I said that kind of stuff here I would have been banned long ago. Yet Ann did say them, with minor changes.

A bit OT but, nobody said anything about Fahrenhype 9/11. I gave the link to Dave Kopel's "the 59 Deceits", which is a well researched and supported attack on Moore's lying shitfest of a movie better known as F9/11. Also, alot of Moore's two bit bullshit conspiracy theories have been debunked by factcheck.org (www.factcheck.org), a non-partisan site that debunks myths put forward by both sides. So please, drop the garbage about partisanship.

http://www.townhall.com/acimgs/webimages/annblack.jpg
She gots nice legs, though. ;)

How anyone can compare Moore to Coulter is beyond me. He is a bigot, nothing more and nothing less. He is filled with hate and spews it at anyone who disagrees with him. He is not a liberal; he is a fucking lunatic. He says the type of shit Stalin used to say.

Am I lying?

to my knowledge, moore doesn't reccomend violence as a solution to political disagreements. coulter has.

why defend coulter with statements about moore, anyhow? it's irrelevant. the thread started to discuss why someone would make statements advocating a mass war against nations, the execution of their political leadership, and the forcible conversion of their populations to another religion. why defend that at all?

Thank you, martinguerre, for some sanity. This is not the "Michael Moore is Insane" thread. Yes, MM is an ass, but we are talking about Anne Coulter.

If you're being serious, then you're not the kind of person who understands what is wrong with Coulter. Or maybe you haven't heard her speak or perhaps you haven't read her columns or her books. If you have, and you still feel this way, well, then, you have fun with that. I support her freedom of speech, as I support Moore's, and Franken's, and every other person on the planet. But if you can't see the fundamental difference between people like Moore and Franken (OTHER than the obvious liberal/conservative difference) and Ann Coulter, then you're not looking very hard.

In all honesty, I hold MM in about the same regard asd I hold Ann Coulter, perhaps a tad bit differently. In that, MM does what he does just for the money. Ann Coulter, I am afraid, actually believes the vile she spews out.

However, anyone comparing either MM or AC to Mr. Al Franken truly has never heard Al or read anything by him and goes only by what Limbaugh and gang say about him. Al Franken, is a very learned, caring man that truly bases everything on facts and admits when Dems. are truly wrong. He's what a political pundit should be, a mellow, not in your face, let's work together kind of man. I have never heard or read anything by him that says his views are the only views that matter or are right.

I'm a Dem. and fairly liberal and I am in no way shy to admit MM is a whack job. I don't understand the Neo-Cons that support Ann C. Just as I don't understand the Libs that buy into MM's games.

Here's an example of how much MM truly cares about his fans:

MM was to give a lecture at U of Akron. He demanded that the Univ. PAY for his hotel, $500 of catered food, transportation and any other expenses. Of course the money was raised. He took a hotel room in CLE., did not touch the food, and the expenses and transportation costs were pretty much not needed as he had already been scheduled for a private fundraiser in CLE. that night. Overall, the Univ. spent over $10,000 to have him there and rumors were that he was extremely rude, refused to meet with anyone and overall was a complete asswipe to people. This was reported by the school newspaper and I have heard first hand accounts by people that were there.

True it wasn't the Univ. that paid (it was a combo of the college Dems, and a drama teacher, along with a frat). Needless to say, the vast majority of those who had invited him regretted it. Not because of what he said, but because of his personal attitude and demeanor towards those who sponsered his visit.

I agree, I dont like Al Franken's political views, but he dose allow room for people who disagree and comes out against his own party when he believes they are wrong.

Moore is a dick and, I believe, does not have the "good" in mind when he says what he says. He backs up nothing with REAL evidence.

Ann Coulter is just as bad as Moore in that nothing she says has validity, stacked to that she does as much good for the conservative agenda as Moore does for the liberal agenda (aka no good).

She, as well as Moore, adds as much validity to their cause as a rapist adds to their sex claiming moral superiority.

Or "neocons."

By the way, do you happen to remember who made this statement in another thread? It seems kind of "Coulter-esque" to me:

It's too bad this statement was removed by a moderator, since it paints such a clear picture of its author.

However, do you think the author was serious, or was he just engaging in hyperbole that some people didn't comprehend?

What that "quote" shows is that you waited about a month before posting total bullshit in the hopes that members would "remember" that I said something approximating it, yet be unable to verify its accuracy.

The quote I typed was (in response to willravel's question about what god might think about a particular free speech debate):
it should have been understood to mean that if god is looking at this board at all, it isn't to monitor the politics section of it. and christians' time might be better spent following his lead.

But none of that matters because I was warned for posting it (after you complained about it more than a week after I had posted it) and the mods deleted it. How convenient for you to create a quote out of thin air that can't be dug up and reviewed so all can see you for the liar you now are proven to be by the good memory of the regular posters here.

Actually, no one's memory is necessary here since my quote happens to be preserved in a PM from spectre in his warning to me; not only is it saved in my PM box, I have a screenshot of the dialog spectre sent me when I asked which portion of my post was found to be offensive posted here:
http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/4...65360000001610


how any of this is relevant to the thread is beyond me and probably more than half of the others reading it.
The equation of the epithet "libtards" (joining "liberals" + "retards") to "neocons" (joining "neo" (new) + "conservatives") is hopefully equally confusing to rational beings reading this.

what is evident is that you've harbored a bad feeling about being reprimanded for following me around and posting negative bullshit against me (just like you did above with the warped version of a 'quote' you straight up pulled out of your ass).

It's been ages and ages since I really looked around or posted here at the TFP, and one of the first things I see is Superbelt casting Michael Moore in a positive light.

Up is down. Black is right and right is wrong.

Is that sarcasm?
Regardless, I am only defending him in relation to Ann Coulter.
I will admit to reading one of his early books and seeing two of his movies (Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine). I have not seen F 9/11 nor will I ever. I have also read a Coulter book for context.

Moore is not a fully honest man or someone I want to represent me in public, but he is leagues ahead of Coulter in all measurements that matter.

Hee... thanks Bill.

Ann is still looney toons right?

:p

The first thing I saw when I opened up the "59 Deciets" link was the cover of Fahrenhype 9/11. Just the fact that the right felt the pressure enough to release a filmed rebuttal (which is what it is) proves that Moore, like it or not, is a person of political influence.

But c'mon guys, Coulter's obviously some kind of Kaufman-esque joke or a bonafide nutjob. I can't see how anyone in good conscience can agree with anything she says. In fact, I can't even believe anyone on these boards could support her.

Exactly, bringing up Moore in this thread is completely irrelevant and nonproductive...end of story.

THANK YOU!

:icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare: :icare:

As far as I'm concerned...yes, absolutely.
She's still cute, though.

http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticou...ltervsmrt2.gif

God Bless Mr. T :lol:

i pity the fool, averett. nice find. :)

I don't think the opinions of Ann Coulter matter much to most of us. I never took her seriously. I also don't take too seriously anything that Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, et al..say on the right or Roger Moore, Al Sharpton, et al..say on the left.

These folks live to create controversy. They are just entertainers who need to say outlandish things in order to stay in the limelight. It's just show business.

I GOT MENTIONED!! I couldn't be happier!!! :D
Anne Coulter is crackerjacks. Old crackerjacks.

The difference between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter is that Moore are actually manifold. Coulter is a bit more attractive, Moore is quite a bit cleverer. Moore presents a worldview that some call propoganda and others believe to be valuable, Coulter simply makes unsupported statements which frequently do not appear to be consistent with logic or sanity. (ie "we should lead a crusade againg Islam")

Whether Moore may be a liar, or a propoganderist I dont think is the question in this thread.

But I feel I should repeat myself, if I can. Moore is most frequently criticised for Bowling for Columbine.

There is a difference, a moral and objective difference, between saying - America has 10,000 gun deaths a year and I think this is a problem

and Coulter saying

We should destroy Islam, because 20 Islamic terrorists have killed 3000 people in America

They are different statements, from different places, they should be treated differently. I am concerned about the world view of anyone who see's these statements as alike or comparable.

Moore MIGHT be a liar, or a vain self publicist, or a windbag... he is not calling for a mass genocide. There IS a difference

And I hope no one would accuse me of supporting someone like Michael Moore. He is radically and inreconcilably to the right of me, he is a supporter of a capitalism with a social conscience and thusly an enemy of the revolution and an enemy of all working class people in my opinion.