• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ann Coulter is bad for conservatives

mistermain said:
I know some of my fellow conservatives will grill me for this, but I must say that Ann Coulter is a liability to all right wingers. She is everything that the liberals claim is wrong with conservatives. Coulter is arrogant, stuck up, condescending, and overall a bitch. She gives a black eye to all conservatives, and is a poor representative of us.

She's very witty and smart. She does make great points, but they all seem the same to me in all her books. "Bomb France" and "Liberals are always wrong! Hate Them!!!!" She is sometimes bad representation.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yeah that's a nice hatchet job on her, all taken out of context of course, and your remarks are personally directed (at Ann) without addressing my point that she is a competent journalist and Michael Moore is not. Both of their speaking styles and adjectives they use are sometimes out of line, yes. But whatever floats your boat. I don't see any constructive purpose of continuing the discussion, but it has been interesting.

I have addressed your point very clearly. She is no more a journalist than I am Queen Elizabeth. What about anything you said was supposed to prove to me that she is a competent journalist? How can the statements I provided EVER be used in a context that supports truthful and objective journalism? They can't.
 
tr1414 said:
You seem to have a problem with a women who tells it like it is or just speaks her mind. Why is that.... never mind I don't want to know

Bug off. You seem to have a REAL problem with this woman speaking her mind. Or is it only when a woman agrees with you that she should open her mouth?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Of course you can verify that these are actual Ann Coulter quotes? There are an awful lot of bogus Ann Coulter quote sites out there.

There's a source at the end of each quote.;)
 
tr1414 said:
You seem to have a problem with a women who tells it like it is or just speaks her mind. Why is that.... never mind I don't want to know

Then I guess then you have no problem with Michael Moore with that logic?

They can say whatever they want, I'm a big supporter of free speech. But when ppl start looking up to them as viable politicians I worry about society.
 
satanloveslibs said:
She's very witty and smart. She does make great points, but they all seem the same to me in all her books. "Bomb France" and "Liberals are always wrong! Hate Them!!!!" She is sometimes bad representation.

Yeah ok, that **** about Limbaugh being "factually correct" all the time is just stupid. The reason people think that is because nobody bothers to check. If you get online though, there are watchdog sites that keep track of the BS, and of course the Franken show, which is infotainment as well but infinately less stupid and at least honest about its political slant. All the conservative mouthpieces present themselves as non-biased or centrist. Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage, all of them, but gee whiz, what do you know, their entire fan base is conservative and so is nearly every comment out of their mouths. Yep, they definately don't have a conservative agenda . . . Anybody that buys that will buy anything these guys say. Why? Like I said before, it makes them feel good that some guy on the radio agrees with them. Nothing more, nothing less.

The point of mentioning Rush's drug addiction is that he's a huge hypocrite who just says things to please his audience. When Rush got busted did he stand up in court and say "Judge, I've been saying for a decade that all drug offenders ought to be locked up like wild animals, so please do the right thing and throw the book at me. Give me the maximum sentence plus ten." Nope, he plea bargained like a madman and hired some of the most expensive defense lawyers in the country to keep himself out of jail.

It's not about journalism, politics, or really anything topical, it's about selling radio ads. It sickens me that people turn to that mindless drivel for their news and interaction. You all are just lining up to let somebody else tell you what your opinions and ideals should be. If you seriously tune into Limbaugh or Hannity of any of those morons for your news and consider it to be a real discussion of issues, then you're just as dumb as they think you are.
 
Last edited:
The list of quotes I used came from the Washington Monthly link I supplied. If anyone wants to dispute them, find fault with their sources, feel free. I did find in my "research" that Ann Coulter was actually fired from MSNBC for her agregious insult made to a Vietnam Vet.

The other two links come from the same site as one of the Michael Moore articles AlbqOwl supplied. Guess they write unsubstantiated hogwash when they're talking about the legitimacy of Ms. Coulter's claims.

I can't verify any of the quotes personally, but I do remember quite clearly one of her completely substantiated and truthful remarks about Democratic women, and I paraphrase: They shouldn't put the Democratic Convention on television because all Democratic women are ugly and don't shave their legs.

Wonderful, witty woman. So smart. So classy. This is the kind of honest and plainspoken woman I want my daughters to grow up to be. NOT.

BTW, I want to thank you, AlbqOwl, for the Michael Moore links you supplied. They have kept me busy all morning and I am willing to say that I LEARNED a few things and will keep them in mind in the future. That said, I don't think it proves Michael Moore to be insincere or that every word out of his mouth is a lie. Only it gives me a new perspective on his methods that I didn't have before. Sorry, I still believe he MEANS well and has valid, real concerns even if he manipulates his facts sometimes to tell his story.

I have seen nothing offered to change my perspective on Ms. Coulter.
 
kal-el said:
Yeah ok, that **** about Limbaugh being "factually correct" all the time is just stupid. The reason people think that is because nobody bothers to check. If you get online though, there are watchdog sites that keep track of the BS, and of course the Franken show, which is infotainment as well but infinately less stupid and at least honest about its political slant. All the conservative mouthpieces present themselves as non-biased or centrist. Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage, all of them, but gee whiz, what do you know, their entire fan base is conservative and so is nearly every comment out of their mouths. Yep, they definately don't have a conservative agenda . . . Anybody that buys that will buy anything these guys say. Why? Like I said before, it makes them feel good that some guy on the radio agrees with them. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just one question. When has Rush ever claimed to be anything other than conservative? That's his entire basis. He's a conservative countering the liberals, plain and simple.
 
MrFungus420 said:
Just one question. When has Rush ever claimed to be anything other than conservative? That's his entire basis. He's a conservative countering the liberals, plain and simple.

True that, but even the likes of opposite Micheal Moore, isn't even close to being hypocritical like good ole Rush is. The fact remains that Limbaugh dosen't give a **** about his conservative audience, they're just a meal ticket for this bloated, pill-popping, hypocritical media enterpriser.
 
kal-el said:
True that, but even the likes of opposite Micheal Moore, isn't even close to being hypocritical like good ole Rush is. The fact remains that Limbaugh dosen't give a **** about his conservative audience, they're just a meal ticket for this bloated, pill-popping, hypocritical media enterpriser.

You are so right. One of my points earlier, but no one chose to address it. The rhetoric of Limbaugh and a few other right wing media characters is so over the top, I don't believe that most of the nonsense that comes out of their mouths is what they truly think. Like I said before, they are opportunists and the closest cultural phenomena I can think of to compare them to is professional wrestlers. Bloated talk and backroom snickering, and of course, raking in the dough, from a bunch of people whose money would be best spent on the contents of their refrigerator. And conservatives only do themselves a disservice by patronizing or, if not, then abiding these fools. I guess David Brooks and George Will are just a little too pithy for some of these folks.
 
She encourages conservatives to be unapologetically conservative.

She has a brilliant legal mind.

She is painfully accurate about many things.



Example: When Bill Mahr had one of his 4-on-1, interruption-fest gangbangs against Coulter about Bush not jumping up and frightening school kids when he was told about 9/11, she said, "My problem with that whole thing was that we had a president reading to a bunch of school kids in the first place. I'm not the one who gave women the right to vote."

He WAS reading to school kids to pander to the female vote-which was her point. Presidents are supposed to execute laws, defend the country...not fix education systems.

She understands the Constitution-THAT is what makes her seem so controversial.

Yes, she is hostile to the left. Someone should be. The difference between her and, say, James Carville, is that she has substance and logic behind her points. I largely support her work.


Also, as part of that academic award-winning research I did on liberal media bias, I read Al Franken and Eric Alterman. They both spend almost all their time attacking OPINION JOURNALISTS instead of supposedly OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS like, say, Katie Couric. But that's really a side point. Franken particularly attacks Coulter, and quite harshly, so I checked everything Franken wrote about Coulter in his newest book against Lexis Nexis and vice versa. Guess what?

I spent forty pages citing one egregious distortion/flat out lie of Franken's after another. I included copies from Nexis to prove what he was pulling. As usual, the laughably petty, smear-tactic arguments against her were exactly the kind of hysterical, dishonest liberal screeching she writes about.


People need people like Coulter. She is the only one bothering to remind us of all the evidence we've seen that liberals control our media and side with every enemy this nation has.
 
Last edited:
aquapub said:
She encourages conservatives to be unapologetically conservative.

She has a brilliant legal mind.

She is painfully accurate about many things.



Example: When Bill Mahr had one of his 4-on-1, interruption-fest gangbangs against Coulter about Bush not jumping up and frightening school kids when he was told about 9/11, she said, "My problem with that whole thing was that we had a president reading to a bunch of school kids in the first place. I'm not the one who gave women the right to vote."

He WAS reading to school kids to pander to the female vote-which was her point. Presidents are supposed to execute laws, defend the country...not fix education systems.

She understands the Constitution-THAT is what makes her seem so controversial.

Yes, she is hostile to the left. Someone should be. The difference between her and, say, James Carville, is that she has substance and logic behind her points. I largely support her work.


Also, as part of that academic award-winning research I did on liberal media bias, I read Al Franken and Eric Alterman. They both spend almost all their time attacking OPINION JOURNALISTS instead of supposedly OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS like, say, Katie Couric. But that's really a side point. Franken particularly attacks Coulter, and quite harshly, so I checked everything Franken wrote about Coulter in his newest book against Lexis Nexis and vice versa. Guess what?

I spent forty pages citing one egregious distortion/flat out lie of Franken's after another. I included copies from Nexis to prove what he was pulling. As usual, the laughably petty, smear-tactic arguments against her were exactly the kind of hysterical, dishonest liberal screeching she writes about.


People need people like Coulter. She is the only one bothering to remind us of all the evidence we've seen that liberals control our media and side with every enemy this nation has.


Here's a thought - turn on the BBC world news instead, where it's just coverage of facts and events with no opinions and loud, quarrelsome sound bites. Try making up your own minds about events and politics. It's a lot more useful exercise without some swollen loudmouthed bullshit artist holding your hand for you. Then again I'm inclined to believe that people who listen to that nonsense is like having someobdy else tell them what to think, so you may just find it disturbing . . .
 
She encourages conservatives to be unapologetically conservative.

She has a brilliant legal mind.

She is painfully accurate about many things.



Example: When Bill Mahr had one of his 4-on-1, interruption-fest gangbangs against Coulter about Bush not jumping up and frightening school kids when he was told about 9/11, she said, "My problem with that whole thing was that we had a president reading to a bunch of school kids in the first place. I'm not the one who gave women the right to vote."

He WAS reading to school kids to pander to the female vote-which was her point. Presidents are supposed to execute laws, defend the country...not fix education systems.

She understands the Constitution-THAT is what makes her seem so controversial.

Yes, she is hostile to the left. Someone should be. The difference between her and, say, James Carville, is that she has substance and logic behind her points. I largely support her work.


Also, as part of that academic award-winning research I did on liberal media bias, I read Al Franken and Eric Alterman. They both spend almost all their time attacking OPINION JOURNALISTS instead of supposedly OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS like, say, Katie Couric. But that's really a side point. Franken particularly attacks Coulter, and quite harshly, so I checked everything Franken wrote about Coulter in his newest book against Lexis Nexis and vice versa. Guess what?

I spent forty pages citing one egregious distortion/flat out lie of Franken's after another. I included copies from Nexis to prove what he was pulling. As usual, the laughably petty, smear-tactic arguments against her were exactly the kind of hysterical, dishonest liberal screeching she writes about.


People need people like Coulter. She is the only one bothering to remind us of all the evidence we've seen that liberals control our media and side with every enemy this nation has.

So what we need is more people calling for liberals to be tried for treason? Read some real news man.
 
aquapub said:
She encourages conservatives to be unapologetically conservative.

She has a brilliant legal mind.

She is painfully accurate about many things.



Example: When Bill Mahr had one of his 4-on-1, interruption-fest gangbangs against Coulter about Bush not jumping up and frightening school kids when he was told about 9/11, she said, "My problem with that whole thing was that we had a president reading to a bunch of school kids in the first place. I'm not the one who gave women the right to vote."

He WAS reading to school kids to pander to the female vote-which was her point. Presidents are supposed to execute laws, defend the country...not fix education systems.

She understands the Constitution-THAT is what makes her seem so controversial.

Yes, she is hostile to the left. Someone should be. The difference between her and, say, James Carville, is that she has substance and logic behind her points. I largely support her work.


Also, as part of that academic award-winning research I did on liberal media bias, I read Al Franken and Eric Alterman. They both spend almost all their time attacking OPINION JOURNALISTS instead of supposedly OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS like, say, Katie Couric. But that's really a side point. Franken particularly attacks Coulter, and quite harshly, so I checked everything Franken wrote about Coulter in his newest book against Lexis Nexis and vice versa. Guess what?

I spent forty pages citing one egregious distortion/flat out lie of Franken's after another. I included copies from Nexis to prove what he was pulling. As usual, the laughably petty, smear-tactic arguments against her were exactly the kind of hysterical, dishonest liberal screeching she writes about.


People need people like Coulter. She is the only one bothering to remind us of all the evidence we've seen that liberals control our media and side with every enemy this nation has.

Wow I don't want to get into the myriad of ways this post was offensive. Keep shoveling, my friend. It's our only hope.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I think she's hot, I'd still do her. J.K. LMFAO


Hmph....Men....jk...LMFAO

couldn't resist
 
Originally Posted by mixedmedia:
...the closest cultural phenomena I can think of to compare them to is professional wrestlers.
That's the best analogy yet to describe the extreme right.
 
tr1414 said:
I guess it's cause you libs are so much smarter than conservatives.... give me a break. & this billo guy... your a real tough guy... on your keyboard. Another no life lib with a big mouth

Ann Coulter is as bad as the come. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a bunch of crap..
 
wxcrazytwo said:
Ann Coulter is as bad as the come. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a bunch of crap..


lol. and don't forget the lizards and toads.
 
mixedmedia said:
lol. and don't forget the lizards and toads.

them too. Oh and cow dung as well...
 
Back
Top Bottom