Ann Coulter on the cover of Time Magazine
 

Time magazine this week has Ann Coulter on the cover, plus several articles and a photo essay about her:

http://www.time.com/time/

Interestingly, the magazine appears to have been fooled by the G.O.P. satire group Communists for Kerry, taking it at face value in a photo caption.

Is this a really, really slow news week? Who cares about the life of a third rate editorialist?

I actually tend to agree with her, although she goes off the deep end every once in a while.

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact." - Ann Coulter, May 17, 2003

I think you'll agree that she at least got that right.

What happened to her face?
Or did time just pick the worst photos of her that they could find?
Either way I think she's off her rocker.

I'm happy to see that the poll Time is running with regard to this cover (Does Ann Coulter make a positive contribution to American political culture?) shows that most people appear to know how worthless Ann really is: 76% of a quarter of a million people say no, she is not.

A.) No, I don't agree
but, that aside...
B.) I'd be very interested in hearing your take on why women should not be given the vote.

She ( Coulter ) crunched some numbers, and concluded that absent the female vote the Republicans would have won every Presidential election for 50-odd years. It's lunacy, but what does one expect? She's the Michael Moore of the right; shrill, disingenuous, totally lacking in credibility, and a recurring PITA.

Time runs covers of interesting and influential people. Coulter, but barely, qualifies in that regard. She may be a third rate hack, but she gets star treatment by fox news. Besides most third rate journalists don't write best sellers.

My favorite thing about her is that she makes ridiculous public statements and then tries to hide them under the hyperbole umbrella.

I've seen magic 8 balls with better information than Anne Coulter. She has no buisness bing on the cover unless it reads: "Anne Coulter: Let's All Ignore Her from Now On, Okay?" or perhaps, "Dumbest Woman in America", or maybe "A Case for Deportation?".

No, thats just silly. I can only assume you are just saying something to try and get a reaction out of people.

As for Ann Coulter, I never quite worked out if she was for real, or she is a satire (like The Onion or something) ... cos she seems like she means it, but then she just comes out with things that you think "no way"... I dont know, does anyone genuinely follow this women?

That seems to be everyone's attitude with no regard to the influence she actually wields. The left has Michael Moore. A fat, simpering, dramatic bag of fat. So the Right rolls out a tall, thin, blonde with the same tactics and a different message. Her books sell. You can ignore the ho-bag all day long but a lot of people don't.

What's up with those freaky long and thin hands though?

I mean, look at this... is this real? Can we really believe that any ordinary American's follow someone who's publically says things like this?/

I cant take this seriously, because if she means it, and she actually has an audience... in the most advanced and wealthiest nation in the world... thats just too frightening

http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/110...coulter_05.jpg

Four books. Four new york times best sellers.

She's interesting in a clinical sense, yes. But in any other sense, not that I can see.

Didn't Britney Spears have a NYT best seller? What about the wrestler Mankind? How many shmucks with zero respectabilit have gotten to the #1 spot?

Anne Coultier is like a zit. We pick at her because it bothers us, no reason beyond that. Some of us simply shrug and say it's a part of the world, but most of us only pay attention because it is a blemish.

You're right. How could I ever imply that a woman with four bestsellers, a syndicated column, and a running gig on fox news, was influential..or even *gasp* interesting despite her idiotic politics.

You? Millions of people buying her books?

I just watched a documentary the other night on CBC, had Ann Coulter on it arguing with a CBC reporter that Canada sent combat troops to Vietnam, sorry Ann but no go on that one Canada had troops as part of the ICC but not as combat troops.

Here's a link to the CBC documentary I am referring to, there's a place at the top where you can stream the documentary if you choose to http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

Then she says that Canada is lucky the US lets us live on the same continent as them, and that Canada better hope the US doesn't roll over and squish us. Now this doesn't sound like a woman who has a grip on reality, I mean in a normal situation this whack job would be locked up where she belongs.

This just shows how slow the news has been lately I guess when she gets a cover spot, I hate this woman, she should just go away.

Brisney Spears is influential. Arguabally more influential than Anne. That doens't mean people respect her. That doesn't give her words meaning.

What world of madness do you inhabit? Do you always find it hard to distinguish between teen pop stars(who really don't have any influence these days, and when they did managed to solely exert it over the spending habits of teenagers) and journalists? But don't let me stop your crazy train.

Let's keep this respectful. Don't ever treat me with disrespect.

Anne Coultier is to journalists as Jean Cladue Van Dam is to Shakepearien actors. She is nothing more than a big neon sign that means nothing. She attracts plenty of attention, thus all the book sales, fox news and column, but she is nothing of meaning. Her words are simply there for shock value. She is a slighhtly feminine Howard Stern. She is not here to help people or to report news or valid opinions. She is here to say "Look at me!! I'm crazy!!! Women are stupid and Canada is working with Iraq!! Please, look at me!!!!"

Notice that I never disagreed(in spirit) with your last paragraph. I even stated myself that she's a loony. But she's a loony that people listen to. The only issue I with this entire thread was that people were implying Right and Left that she was was inconsequential to the the current political climate.

And I'll sass you as much as I goddamn please. At least when your analogies are way off base.

I respect Mankind much more than Coulter ;)

But I'm also not sure if she is for real. I wouldn't be surprised if she uses such idiotic statements to be in the spotlight.

Maybe take a wee little read of this before you decide you're going to sass someone as much as you please. The TFP doesn't work like that we respect all members here and "sass" isn't tolerated.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/announcement.php?f=5

Are you sure people listen to her? Are you sure she isn't just another sideshow? If people listen to her, I feel great pity for those people. I sincerly hope that no one takes her seriously, becuase I don't theink she takes her media persona seriously. It's much like the rest of fox news: a reality tv show intended to entertain (or possibly misinform), not inform.
I'm sorry, but you don't have that right. Please read the TFP guidelines and policies if you need clarification. You can attack my analogies, but not my person. There is a huge difference. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

poor Ms. Coulter seems not to be too happy with her picture:
COULTER RIPS MAG PHOTO 'DISTORTION'
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3act.htm

Well a distorted picture fits her distorted views.

I sincerely apologize for calling you insane. It was just your analogy that glimpsed the world through a lens of madness.

Love,

Mbwuto.

I think I might have said this in some other long obscure Coulter thread, but I (like Strange Famous) can't take her seriously. Mostly out of the fear that in 10 years a bunch of insiders will come out of the woodwork and admit that she was just a Kaufman-esque joke perpetrated by someone in the radical left, "I can't believe you guys actually listened to that crap! We were up for days writing most of her material, and now we're millionaires! We still can't believe you bought those books by the thousands!" :p

Other than that I think that anything she says is an attempt to draw attention to her next book sale, which the wizards are working hard behind the curtain to finish.

Exactly. I've suspected for years that she had a "pet rock" moment. She was sitting down in her trailer, thinking of get-rich-quick schemes, when she began to wonder if she could possibly be too wingnut. So she began writing progessively stupider books and eventually discovered that, in fact, people who watch Fox News do not have any known wingnut limit.

I doubt she really means like 95% of the truly idiotic stuff that she spews forth.

I wouldn't go so far as to believe she is a puppet of some kind of pop-journalism conspiracy group.

But I wouldn't be shocked in the least to find she is but a variation of a Gail Wynand figure: well aware of the absurdity of her persona, and well and satisfied with the profits associated with it. Whether there is anything deeper to her than that is both irrelevent to me and likely to never be known.

I thought I'd assemble some of Ann's highlights, not because I think they are worthy of debate or outrage, but because they are genuinely entertaining:

From the incomparable Washington Monthly:
From Media Matters:

Nice collection Guy44. I think the cliche "you never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator" applies to her. Conservatives like to say that she is their version of Michael Moore, but she's far more nuts.

In another thread someone thought she was an attractive lady. After seeing her picture I have no idea what they were talking about.

Isn't advocating violence or bodily harm against the law? As "funny" as her comments are, I'm amazed no one's sued her for libel or slander yet. Regardless of your political leanings, alot of her statements seem "erroneous". Isn't publiching falsehoods against the law.

You know, Mbwuto did have a point: Four bestsellers, a "hot seat" on Fox is pretty "influential". I want to know who's buying her books, that's the real question and that's scary. However, recognizing that she is influential doesn't mean you support her or agree with her politics, nor does it necessarily ascribe value to her "influence". The Pope is influential as is Howard Stern. You can make up your own mind there on the "differences".

The scary thing is, it appears there are many people who agree with her views.

Ann Coulter could never dream of being as influential as Britney Spears, that's the truth in today's America. Make of it what you will.


please dont encourage Time by buying this issue here's the cover:

http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/a...050425_400.jpg

Really she's not that bad looking...a little duct tape over the mouth...

I never looked at her in a Kaufman-esuq way. It's pretty funny!

Hillary and Bill, to name two. At least I THINK they hit #1 at some point.

I think the opposite. Ann spouts her opinions, which you can take or leave. Moore attempts to sway people by deception, i.e. dummying up his references by editing out of context, or outright lies.

I noticed someone said Ann was wrong about Canadian combat troops. If Michael Moore had been trying to make the same point, he'd have shown some film of Canadian troops marching, and claimed it was shot in Iraq.

I'd much rather deal with her opinions than Moore's lies.

quit while you're behind....you're being an ass.

man, did you read guy44's post above? Moore's not entitled to an opinion? Moore might decide to eat ten babies over this Time cover... then again...some would say...

Actually, my view on who should be given the vote is much more complicated than that. I think that the only ones who should be able to vote are the people who have to pay if the bill is passed.

Everyone should be able to vote electing representatives.
Only those who own property should be able to vote in local bond elections that result in a property tax increase.
and Only men should be able to vote in matters concerning war, because only men can get drafted and fight in the military.

I consider Ann's quote as a shorthand for this because ALL of the guys I know read the newspaper/know about current events, when only about half of the girls I know do.

Do you really want the fate of the world being decided by someone who won't drop 25 cents for a newspaper?

That said, all news is entertainment nowadays, and Ann is simply an entertainer. Don't give her anymore thought than that. Time would be better spent debating the issues rather than Ann, because the only person who will totally defend and agree with Ann Coulter is Ann Coulter.

*Draw drops in disbelief*

Did I ever mention that I love living in a country where the right to vote is pretty much unconditional?

Two things.

One, you may not be aware, but "the people you know" cannot be considered a representative sample. Two, I myelf chose not to drop 25 cents for a newspaper -- I read it for free on the internet.

Your views are shocking in their ignorance. I know who I don't want deciding the fate of the world.

Don't worry about it. He'll act up and get banned, or he'll learn and we won't be bothered. That's the beauty of TFP. :thumbsup:

Oh. Okay. That's...interesting.
Only men should be allowed to vote in matters concerning war? And what about those brave people who WEREN'T drafted? What about the women who chose to serve in the military? I guess they don't deserve to choose who leads them into battle or peace. You also have to realize that there are too many stupid and smart people in both genders to choose sides.
My wife and I are both up on current events. That's amale AND a female! I don't want to alarm you, but I'd guess that more of the women I knw are up on politics than guys I know. Perhapse our groups cancel eath other out, in which case neither men or women should vote. Back to reality. Women are fighting for and serving the US right now. Both genders equally deserve to vote for everything.
That's the way the system works. Actually I'd guess less than 2% of the population knows enough to vote properly about anything. Why does that matter? Who are you and I to say who can and can't vote?
Anne certianally is entertaining in her own way. It is important to remember that you should listen to Anne the same way you listen to Poke'Mon. They are there for no value beyond entertainment. That are not here to inform you.

I read the above quotes and I actually agree with about 25% of them. Many are phrased in outrageous ways, but I think that's part of what she's trying to accomplish. Sometimes the best way to get compromise is to go beyond what you really want/think. She's doing this in a political arena, by saying things that seem totally off the wall, people might more readily accept less extreme things on the position.

And also, she seems to really mess with liberals. I would actually say that even though she doesn't get the same press, liberals hate her more than repubs hate moore or franken. Many seem to abandon all rational thought at the mention of her, and spew things just as ridiculous as what she says. Ann Coulter 1, whiny liberals 0.

And fyi, I think she's quite attractive. I'd marry her in a second (if I was 15 years older). Beauty and brains, what more could you want?

The point I was trying to make is while it is true that women can serve in the military they do not fight in a war.

As far as the gender issue, all I can say is that men and women are different. Women build nests, Men build castles. A nest can't be built with out a castle to protect it, and it is pointless to build a castle without a nest to protect. I consider the primary purpose of government to be castle-building.

But notice, I would rather support a "those who pay - vote" system which would include both women and men who meet the criteria. I think there is something wrong when the poor can simply vote to give themselves rich people's money because there are more of them than the rich folk. When you own a piece of land somewhere, you really become tied to a place instead of just moving through.

OK, alansmithee, I actually think you were right about liberals going nuts whenever Coulter opened her mouth, but that stopped about 3 years ago (guilty). We've sort of just developed a filter now and consider her background noise.

As for The Jolt...man, I don't know, I think you need to climb down from your Ivory Castle and build yourself a nest. I have no idea what that means, but it makes more sense than your post.

LOLOLOLOL.

I'm reminded of that scene in "Stripes":

"there is no draft anymore, son"...

I'm not sure where people get the idea that Coulter is influential or popular in any sense of the word.

Time's own poll showed that 79% had never even heard of Ann Coulter

Her books may be "bestsellers", but that only means she sold about 500,000 copies. Even if you say that each copy translates into 1 person, it's a very small percentage of the population.
Even though she's on Fox News a lot, she doesn't have her own show like a Bill O'Reilly or any influence in the White House like a Bill Kristol.

she's not very influential, she's not very popular, and she's not very sane.

Oh boy. I've got some nice land beachfront property in Kanssas to sell you.
Women are part of the national guard. A not insignifigant part actually. As the guard has been called into duty, there are in fact women in front line positions as I type this. There have been for the last three years.
Some are even contenders for the medal of valour.

The world has changed. Women fight in the front lines now. They carry guns as big as the boys do also.
I don't care what your opinion of that is. It's reality, deal with it. Women are on the front lines more and more, and will continue to be a heavy presence there.

They are engaging the enemy, are sometimes the CO, and have bigger balls than some of the little boys in their squads. They don't go run and hide when they hear gunshots.

That being said, they get just as much say in if we go to war as any man does, and their vote counts for a hell of a lot more to me than a CO that is safely stateside while he directs troop movements.

As for the ability of every citizen to vote in local and national elections, if you don't like it, move to Cuba.
I vote in every municipale, city, state, and national election. I will give up my right to have a say in my community, even when the ballot measure being decided does not directly effect me or my checkbook, when you pry the gun from my cold dead hands.

If I;m being a jackass with this post, Mods feel free to edit out anything directly offensive.

Otherwise, The Jolt, you need to explain why could make you think that only those affected in one cingular way by a ballot measure have a say in it. Anything that happens in my community will efect me, even if indirectly. Therfor, I have a god given right to voice my opinion in every election that occurs, not just the ones that my taxes directly pay for.

As for Ann, she has as much value to the world as Al Sharpton. That is to say they are both shrill voices running around preaching to their respective choirs. There is a word for that. Entertainers. They hold no say or power. In that respect, she is marginally more sane than Fred Savage, but not by much.

What makes Ann Coulter a worthless human is that she takes herself so seriously. She believes that her views are more important than anyone else's. She's like an angry teenager ranting on an internet blog. Anyone who disagrees with her seriously extreme views are immediately labeled liberal scum and attacked for having an opinion and an ability to think for themselves.

She does NOT think for herself. She spouts propaganda aquired from the worst possible sources.

Sarcasm...the mods will never see through that!

You're dangerously close to the line, here. If you can't abide by our rules of conduct then hit the back button. It's not that hard.

well, it is not like time magazine has compromised itself in any way by choosing to put ann coulter on the cover. it is hard to imagine what time could do that would compromise it--it is the richard bey show of american journalism in many ways.

pointing out that ann coulter is a fool seems redundant.....i take her as being the perfect spokemodel for american conservativism at this particular time. what she is, they are. she simply draws obvious conclusions from this variant of politics and does not have the self-control that would keep her from stating them.

more generally, she demonstrates what pt barnum already knew about the american public.

Yup, roachboy, there is a sucker born every minute, at least enough to buy Anne's books and make her a best seller.
As for The Jolt, I keep waiting for the "just kidding guys (and girls), no one reeally thinks that way any more." Sadly it looks like we have another Coulter fan.
I just keep telling myself that even if she sells 3 million books that's not even one percent of the population, that way I still have some faith in humanity (or at least American humanity).

I enjoy Anne's punditry. I enjoy the way the liberals foam at the mouth (present company excepted, of course) even more than usual when speaking about her. And I've never bought a Coulter book. If a person commits acts of treason as defined in Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution, they shouldn't be surprised when people call them "traitors". ESPECIALLY when they admit to committing multiple felonies while railing against being called a traitor...

And who, exactly, is it that has committed treason, moose?

Imagine a ballot measure to raise property taxes to build a new campus for the local Community College. Say this is in a town of 100,000 people, but only 40,000 own property and pay property taxes.
For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that everyone votes.
The 40,000 property owners are more likely to research the issue, find out what the CC has done with previous tax increases, evaluate if the money will be spent wisely.
Most of the 60,000 are not as likely to do research, but just show up at the polls and think "a new CC campus, that sounds like a good idea" without any idea how the money is spent or would be better spent. In this example, NO TAX INCREASE WOULD EVER BE TURNED DOWN. The property owners would eventually be taxed out of existance.
Believe it or not, our country was founded on the principle that only property owners should vote.

Another example: You are in a room with 25 people. You all vote, 25 vote to take your money and divide it between everyone, 1 (you) votes not to. Is this right? How many "yes" votes would make it right?

This is just government-sanctioned stealing, you can steal from me when you pry the gun from my cold dead hands.

Also please show me were in the Bible God gives you your right to "vote in every election" or however you derive this "god given right".

By your logic, you should have a right to vote in every local election, even in Constantinople and Timbuktu, because they indirectly effect you in some way, much like a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the world indirectly effects you.

P.S. Don't call me a Coulter "fan". I've only read 2 of her columns and I don't like them because they are prevaded with one idea: "Democrats always wrong, Republicans always right." That's simply not true.

The above post was written by me alone without any help from Ann.

I read some of this shit... I immediately got one single impression. This is not about politics. This is not about being right or impressing your will upon others. This is about stirring up a soap opera that people will pay attention to. This is professional wrestling with opinions instead of headlocks. This is about the next audacious thing that will come out of someone's mouth. This is about creating celebrities somewhere other than Hollywood.

And if you're fool enough to buy into any of it, you're probably not realizing that while you hate Survivor and The Real World, you're getting the exact same entertainment from Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN.

*sits back and waits for people to realize they're arguing like teens addicted to Dawson's Creek.*

Actually, if you assume that the non property owners are indeed living somewhere(not exactly a foolhardy premise), you have to also assume a large number of them pay rent.

Your example is currently playing out in my hometown, oddly enough of about 100k. A vocal non property owning group is against the Colleges bid for 46 mil. The reasoning? As property taxes raise,the debt will be passed onto, not the owners, but the renters. This in the form of raised fees, rents, etc.

That *ahem* would've been...me.
And for a 43 year old woman (9 months older than me) she's not to bad on the eyes, and she's got a nice set of legs under her. But...unfortunately, that's about it.

Thank you for pointing that out Mbwuto. The pay rent, which makes them have an equal voice in their community.
For The Jolt's example, he is essentialy saying that those who rent property should have no voice.

Well here's an idea for The Jolt's example. Said college is built, and some land owners are mad enough that they sell their homes and leave. No problem so far. College's increased capacity and extended hours allows some of the renters to go back to school during off hours and increase their market skills. This allows them to procure better pay, thus purchasing more and having more discretionary income. This increased spending is far more than the property owners, thus easily offseting that insignifigant loss. As the eductaion level rises, so do the wages of those that persue that education. Thus, many of those that take the education initiative eventually buy houses, more than making up for the loss of a few disgruntled former landowners.

Now, The Jolt, I never connected you and Ann. I simply commented on two different topics in one post. If it looked like I was saying something else, I apologize, as I was not.

Those that rent or live in area are just as likely to be affected by anything that happens in their community. The basis for who votes, is who is effected by the vote.
Any city that ignores renters will die a quick economic death. Property owners property taxes alone will not ever support a city. In fact, a good percentage of those that rent are white collar workers who have chosen not to "settle" in a given area. They are there for a while to work, and then will move on to an even better job.

I fall into that catagory. I am an architect, and rent for $850 a month. While I may buy a house one day, I have no desire to yet. You are saying that despite being on the upper end of white collar income with a large state tax witholding for filling single, and a large portion of discretionary income that I spend, I count for nothing in a given area.
Well any area that acts that way, I would not choose to live. Nor would any person with an upper level degree that holds high value to the market.

From an economic standpoint, property oners are not nearly as importnat to a city as small business owners. Renters also pay property taxes through their rent, as the tax amount is added to their rent costs. therefor, under your logic, as the "property owner" passes the tax expense onto his tennants, the property was not the payer of the taxes, and therefor should have no vote as the cost was not out of pocket for him. There go people who invest in property to rent's voices also, to be replaced by their tennants who actually paid the bill.

You seem to actually be angry at the ignorance of voters.
I'm going to take a guess that the area you own a home in is having problems, and the solution you have formulated is that it's the non-permanat residents of your area that have caused recent tax increases and social problems.

As for my right to vote, it was defined as the right to choose my government, which is a natural right. Therefor, god given by our founding documents.

Now let me give you a couple hard knocks as an architect.
Do you live in a suburb? Then you owe me money. The cost of building the infastructure to create a suburb is paid by the municipal government and is paid for through sales tax and commercial taxes. Every cent you ever spend on property tax would not cover the cost of the roads, waste, water extraction, etc in your subdivision. Without local business's and state income tax, it would not have happend. (As an aside, many states are now changing their laws to make the developer build all the infastructure, which freezes development fast and on purpose, as the infastructure for a single subdivision of 4000 homes will cost 65 million to build and maintain for 20 years.) So by living in a subdivision, you should thank me for stimulating the ecenomy enough to be able to pay those costs as someone who spends a lot in income tax, as well as making a local business be able to compete by being a high-skill worker, therefor allowing the business to pay increased taxes thorugh my hard work to increase their gross income.

From a social standpoint, the economy and ability for a city to compete is dependendent on all it's residents. Property owners are afforded no more rights than the ownership of the ground they stand on. they are not more imporntant than another group in the economic or social sense. Their increased property tax expense is offfset by the decline in their discretionary expenses as they start paying a mortgage.

On this basis, the vote belongs to every resident, as the area will not survive without them all.
Therefor, your argument that land owners have a greater say makes no sense as they alone are not the central pillar of the economics of a given area. Using your argument, the greatest payers of taxes are business's, so they should get the only vote.

As for voting in my elections again, I also buy municipal bonds, therefor do I have more say in a vote than you? I aided the economy more than you did on another level.
Voter ignorance is a reality, but property owners are just as ignorant. Owning property does not make one better at deciding something, nor does it actually inspire said owners to educate themselves and vote.
And besides all that, often what the property owners want is not in the best interest long term for a city. Land owners come and go, but the city will alway need function on a much longer time frame and with broader needs than those that match a property owner who will only live on average for 78.5 years.

Aha! erm..yes well...now what? Oh yeah:

Hey to each their own I always say and different strokes for different folks :p

I'll admit, I really don't see it. The long face, the twiggy body, and the legs are like stilts.... But that's just my opinion :cool:

Which now begs the obvious thread-jacking question: Which "pundit/talking head" or politician do you (you meaning everyone) consider "hot" or attractive?

how old are you, moose? 12?
if you arent what attraction does this response hold for you?
a response which you are making up, btw, as most folk i know who do not share anything about your politics simply do not waste their time on a cretin of ann coulter's magnitude (sorry to burst your bubble)...why would anyone now already far far to the right bother with her in any event? she presents nothing analytically, nothing polemically of any interest...what would the point be?

but what if those of us who oppose you and your politics did watch the train wreck that is ann coulter in action? she is obviously little more than a television fool who does conservatism no favors by consistently saying the stupidest possible things that you could derive from that ideological position.

I suggest you check out some of the "progressive" websites (such as DailyKOS, Buzzflash, Democraticunderground, et cetera) on the net for examples of what I'm talking about. And I'm considerably older than 12...

Well, you could start with Jane Fonda and move down the list....

I lost my copy of "The List".
Would you care to tell me some more and their "Crimes"?

Nevermind.

I didn't know who Ann Coulter was before Time came in the mail today. And I haven't done more than skim the article yet. But did Time choose her worst quotes, or is this how... I don't even have a word... she always is?
Personal feelings aside, isn't the National Guard supposed to be for controlling serious riots and saving people from floods and defending the country? Maybe she was kidding. :hmm:
The SU thing must have been before my time, and I don't really remember what the hell she's talking about with Saddam. I think the last sentence speaks for itself.
Isn't that like racism of beliefs? Er... beliefism? SecretMethod70 better hide; Ann might hunt you down for being a libertarian...
Nukes are... fun? Considering this, Bush is a pretty good president; he hasn't admitted to having an itchy trigger finger yet. And I wonder what was in the ellipsis? "...have it be a warning to [Democrats and] the world" maybe. And why does the world need to be afraid of us?
Outright racism... Should I be banned from press conferences because I'm partially Irish and might go IRA on all your asses?
PS - Tiocfaidh Ár Lá
Oh, right. I almost forgot how you explained that liberals are all terrorists.

I think that I could have just posted the quotes and they would've spoken for themselves. I've "known" Ms. Coulter for about 5 hours and already dislike her.

It's called "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". Read Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution for the full "scoop" on what treason is defined as. You also might read up on "Lord Haw-Haw", "Axis Sally", and "Tokyo Rose". Or, you could read up on Armand Hammer, ( http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/hammerop.htm )the groups he funded, and the fact that he was on the KGB payroll... that was bloody embarrasing for him and the anti-war movement...you know, the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union, and the leaking of all of those papers to the West...

If you want to read up on a "free speech" case of treason that resulted in the Death Penalty being justly administered, you can always read up on the Rosenbergs...They claimed that they did what they did as a matter of conscience, but they still "got the gas"...

George W. Bush's grandfather, the father of George Bush, Sr., raised money for the Nazis. The South once was the enemy. Republicans, who are lead by Bush, are all over the goddam place in the South. I guess that makes them all traitors?

Bush Sr. and Donald Rumsfeld gave biological weapons to Saddam Hussein. Reagan and Bush Sr. engaged in illegal arms trades with Iran and the Contras. Somewhere, somehow, one of those must be giving aid to the enemy, right, moose?

Plus, didn't we train Osama with the CIA or something to that effect?

Nah, there's no such thing under US law as "corruption of blood". Jane Fonda, however, did what she did, and should have been made to pay for her treasonous activities.

It's very simple....if you (not your parents or grandparents) betray the country by giving aid and comfort to the enemy, you are a traitor.

Joe Kennedy was both a bootlegger and a Nazi supporter. You'll notice that I didn't include JFK/RFK in my list. Why? Because they can't be held responsible for the actions of others, only for their OWN actions, and they didn't give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Yes, he is CIA trained becuase he was once very useful in Middle Eastern politics. Of course we also helped Sadam get into power.
Then grandpa Bush is guilty of treason. Actually anyone who has ever been to an anti-war protest is a traiter (as they are aiding whoever we are waring against). That would make me a traiter like 20 times over. :thumbsup:

That is one of those open ended rules intended to make up for a rule that might not exist yet about treason. It is not a 'send opposition to jail free pass'. The right to speak freely is the right of every American (and also for those from countries with the same right, of course). Jane Fonda was well within her rights to propogandize on behalf of tyhe N. Vietnamese government, declair that the American POWs were being treated fairly, and calling the POWs liars for saying they were tortured. She may have been wrong to do that morally, but legally, she was well within her rights. The same freedom of speech that allows me to call Michael Moore the worst beanbag ever allows Jane Fonda to critisize the government. Jane Fonda isn't a traitor. She enjoys the same freedoms that you enjoy when you errounously call people traitors.

For the record we didn't train the Mujahdeen, the ISI did, we funded them, they were not an enemy of the America at that time.

Also we didn't help Saddam get power, we did help put the Baath's in power in the mid 60's, Saddam assumed power from them in late 70's.

Miss Fonda may have been within her rights for her speech and actions state side, however her actually going to meet the NVRA is a completely different matter, one that is not afforded protection under her constitutional rights. Same goes for Kerry and his treasonous testimony before congress, which resulted in the captivity and blood of American soldiers.

Oh jeez, can we let this topic get back on track?

I actually want to hear opinions on Ann, and this 2nd page has become anything but Ann.

We need a seperate thread to address some of the posts that have been made here.
Now back to our regularly schedualed programing.

Wait a second - which is it? You're allowed to speak freely (as in Jane Fonda state-side) or you are not (as in Kerry before Congress)? If you're going to claim some form of treason, you could atleast do us the favor of being consistent about it.

Otherwise it just sounds entirely like figureheads for the people you disagree with are some kind of defacto traitors.

There is nothing inconsistent with what I said. Miss Fonda can say whatever the hell she wants, not limited to the states, when she leaves the country and consorts with the enemy that is providing aid and comfort which is treason.

As for Kerry last time I checked lying to congress (read perjury) is not protected speech, especially when it plays into the hands of our enemy.

Last time I checked, lying to Congress (and I'm just going to let that belief of yours go unchecked here) is also not treason. So yes, your statement is inconsistent.

"it plays into the hands of our enemy" - could there be a more vague methodology to label someone a traitor? Apathy could also "play into the hands of the enemy".

If we're setting the bar so incredibly low and supported with such far fetched justifications for such a significant claim, that of treason, here's my contribution:

Bush is a traitor because he lied to the American people to further his and his cronies oil interests, costing the lives of over a thousand Americans. Playing RIGHT into the hands of Osama Bin Laden. Aiding the enemy.

Ann Coulter is a traitor because she forsakes the religious freedom of the U.S. to champion the wholesale annihilation or conversion of all Muslims in the Middle East, thereby instigating a flat-out religious war which would inevitably cost thousands and thousands of American lives. Playing RIGHT into the hands of Osama Bin Laden. Aiding the enemy.

There's no end to whatever fanciful, imaginary and ultimately arbitrary claim I can make with your methodology of defining treason.

Of course, then when someone does come along who is actually commiting treason - no one is going to believe me if I were in a position to point it out. There's a childrens parable about that.

I suggest you read up on "Tokyo Rose", "Axis Sally", "Lord Haw-Haw", and Senator Vallandigham of Ohio. While you're at it, just for shits and giggles, read up on Eugene V. Debs.

People have indeed been convicted of various crimes for propagandizing for the Enemy...and they've gone to jail, been stripped of their citizenship, and deported for it in the past.

Okay, then those cases were wrong.

Tokyo Rose is an interesting story. Let me begin by saying that the woman convicted as Tokyo Rose was pardoned by Gerald Ford in 1977, therefore she was not guilty.

from this ask.yahoo article:
This case was bs from the beginning, and she isn't even guilty under the current law. You aren't making a very strong case so far, Moose.

Now let's take a look at Axis Sally.
(from womanhistory.about.com)
This is where Jane Fonda and Axis Sally differ. I see this as treason because she is giving away information about the troops, not simply speaking out against the war. She was also an anti-semetic psychopath.

Lord Haw-Haw is esentially the same case as Axis Sally (William Joyce was actually on the Axis Sally program in Nazi Germany).

Clement Vallandigham was not convicted of treason, so he is automatically excluded.

I guess it's time for shits and giggles (Eugene V. Debs). While Debs is a pretty bad guy, I am still not certian why he was convicted.

If someone would start a topic regarding "traitors" of the Viet Nam war, I am likely to post to it, but posting here is just topic drift.

Coulter might have been worthy of mention in Time's entertainment section, but a cover is beyond my comprehension. A well written letter to the editor of Time might be in order asking whether they are now competing with People magazine.

Thanks to Host, a new topic was started.

I should write them about this!

My favorite thing about her is that she makes ridiculous public statements and then tries to hide them under the hyperbole umbrella.

Uhh, sorry, but her "facts" are at least as wrong as Moore's, and arguably moreso. When her errors are pointed out, she dismisses them as unimportant and complains that it's just liberals attacking her.

It's truly embarrassing that she's an American.

Didn't Michael Moore also have a bestseller? Are not Moore and Coulter flip sides of the same coin?

not really... moore can be funny... at least pre-F/911... coulter is just shrill and always has been... although i think moore might be on his way there...

Moore wrote "Downsize This!: Random Threats From an Unarmed American", and I believe that it was a best-seller. The thing is that while Moore is one who lies and exaggerates, Coultier is a madwoman. I'm not yet convinced that Moore isn't just power hungry.

This says it all. You don't have much experience with or knowledge of the law, do you?

BTW, Debs served time in prison. He wasn't a bad guy, he was just advocating socialism/communism, which would have entailed the overthrowing of the government... They have NO sense of humor about that kind of thing...

........^^^^^^^^^^..........

/one last closing threadjack
Nope. The only experience I have is watching cheezy lawyer shows on television and geting my way out of being a juror on a few occasions. But this isn't about my credentials, is it? The reason behind the pardon is what is important.

She was assured that she was innocent by the justice department, it was only upon returning the media decided to go after her. The trial was a joke. The judge admitted he was prejudiced against her from the start. As someone who claims to be more experienced at the law than I, can you tell me what happens to a trial and verdict when a judge says he is prejudiced against the defendant in one of their cases?
/end threadjack with apologies

BUT....this isn't about Toguri D'Aquino. This thread is about Anne Coultier being on the cover of Time. Do you have any questions/comments about that? There is another thread about traitors going on right now that host made specifically for this threadjack.

No, what's important is that she was tried and convicted. Being pardoned at a later date does nothing to affect her guilt or innocence. Pardons are a matter of clemency, not of being found "not guilty". FYI: A great many of the lower-ranking Axis soldiers that were convicted of war crimes were later pardoned and released (most by 1955). Does that mean that they were wrongfully convicted? Of course not.

Judges are often biased against people tried before them. That's irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the judge conducted the trial in an impartial manner, and that she received due process of law. If the judge didn't, even if she was convicted at the trial level, that's grounds for reversal upon appeal at the multiple levels of appellate jurisdiction.

BTW, regardless of what you may see on "Law and Order", the media can NOT bring criminal charges against an individual, EVER. The most that they can do is contact the police, but only if the specific media organization was the target of a specific attack of some form. An example of this would be, say, if a media outlet was firebombed, they can call the police and "press charges". But as for actually bringing charges? Nope, they can't do it, just as they can't bring somebody before a grand jury. That's not "what they do".

Funny, I have always thought she looked like a shemale.

No offense to the shemale population of the world.

Best blog ever?