posted June 12, 2006 03:24 PM            

In my humble opinion, you couldn't be further from the truth. One can say many things about jwhop based on their dislike for his politics or the way he minces words, but he does not EVER come across as some kind of scardy cat that hides when the going get tough. I am sure this is your attempt to goad him into an argument, but their are better ways. Coward is not a term that I would ever use to describe jwhop.

LS,

What ever helps you sleep at night.

posted June 12, 2006 03:36 PM              

quote:

---

Coward is not a term that I would ever use to describe jwhop.

---

That's right. Evil wannabe red neck reptilian is much better.

posted June 12, 2006 04:11 PM            

Coulter isn't backing off a millimeter

No one is backing off a millimeter...except Hillary who got her head handed to her when she attempted to attack Coulter....by Coulter.

I notice it's always you acoustic who runs for your support group every time the going gets tough...which is all the time

As for what kind of response I'm looking for acoustic; a rational, logical, reasonable one would do but given the vapid intellectual vacancy on the left, I know that's mission impossible. You could start by recognizing the attempt being made by leftists to shut Ann Coulter up but I suspect even that is beyond your powers of perception.

posted June 12, 2006 04:34 PM              

She, in particular her comment about the widow enjoying their husbands' deaths, strikes me as much more reminiscent of the Greaseman.
Have you ever heard of him?
(He isn't nation-wide, so you may not have.)

posted June 12, 2006 04:43 PM              

I don't even know who you are and could care less.

You are an internet person to me.

So quit crying about what I say.

posted June 12, 2006 05:23 PM            

As for that shock jock, no I'm not familiar with him, however I do think it's scary that someone can get fired over a joke. I mean, what I find funny, you might find offensive and vica-versa. Talk about free speech...who gets to decide what is "funny" and what is "offensive"? I don't want liberals or conservatives doing that.

I hear plenty of jokes here that I don't particularly appreciate, but I try to STFU about it - just because it doesn't conform to what my idea of humor is doesn't mean I should come out and castigate someone about it. I might privately think it's sad, petty or out of line, but it's not my job to be the humor police.

posted June 12, 2006 06:02 PM              

which means worldnetdaily will probly be the only one left publishing her column...

******

Her cutting comments became legendary. While Pamela Harriman's casket was being carried off an airplane, she described the late ambassador as having slept her way to the top. "What she said was so outrageous she was immediately put on probation, and the next one was even worse," an MSNBC official says.

Coulter was debating a disabled Vietnam vet when she snapped: "People like you caused us to lose that war." (She says she didn't know the guest, appearing by satellite, was disabled.) That ended her MSNBC career.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/coulter101698.htm

**********

even the respected conservative media national review was glad to be rid of coulter after the "kill them and convert them to christianity" piece

***

In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst — emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml

*********

and usatoday dropped her when she submitted her first piece...... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/26/politics/main631949.shtml

posted June 12, 2006 06:02 PM            

quote:

---

I am sure this is your attempt to goad him into an argument, but their are better ways.

---

If you look at Jwhop's post before mine, you'll realize who's trying to goad who.

quote:

---

I notice it's always you acoustic who runs for your support group every time the going gets tough...which is all the time

---

I never run to any support group. The only time I solicit outside opinion is when something that is blatently obvious is rejected by you. Your know when you're wrong, and you still try to reject it. Most people get out of the way when we talk, and now I even try to remove myself as I know it's pointless. If anyone runs, it's you who ran away for such a long time we all wondered if you were alright.

quote:

---

No one is backing off a millimeter...except Hillary who got her head handed to her when she attempted to attack Coulter....by Coulter.

---

I haven't seen where Hillary got her head handed to her. I see where Ann decided not to respond to what Clinton had said, but rather just make another petty remark back. I hardly call that "handing her head to her."

quote:

---

You could start by recognizing the attempt being made by leftists to shut Ann Coulter up but I suspect even that is beyond your powers of perception.

---

Kind of like you guys could realize Ann's attempt at shutting these women up? Kind of like you guys could realize that Republican pundits talk over Democrats when the Democrat is trying to make a point on a news show?

I acknowledged that Democrats are dismayed by Ann, and the reasons for that dismay in my previous posts.

quote:

---

It's not me acoustic who changes behavior when I'm face to face with leftists. They do and I suspect when you venture out of your little leftist nest of fellow leftists, you do too. There is safety in numbers acoustic...for those who need it.

---

Must be an interesting commune you live in if you want me to believe that you act as outrageously as you do here in your real life. I'm too much of a realist to believe that.

posted June 12, 2006 06:49 PM            

Acoustic, you have upon several occasions invited others here to support your positions so don't deny it.

As for Coulter holding Hillarys hypocrisy up for the world to see, that's a matter of record and is the opening post in this thread. Further, it's noticeable Hillary hasn't had another word to say publicly about it.

Perhaps you'll get around to displaying a degree of reason, logic and knowledge of political issues necessary to carry on an actual debate, one day. Just because the AP, NY Times or other leftist co-ops of the democrat party say something is so isn't credible..though leftists hang on their every word.

I talk to more people in a week than you do in a month acoustic and politics and religion usually don't come up. But when politics come up and a leftist makes an outrageous statement or allegation, I ask how they know that. They simply don't know what the hell they're talking about but they also don't want to discuss politics with me again.

posted June 12, 2006 06:51 PM            

I love how honorable you are at just selecting those snippets that represent your hatred. Nope, no bias there....

The Article, which was written in 1998 also included alot of positive information about her:

_____________________________________

"Bill Clinton's worst nightmare just came true. . . . Meet Ann Coulter, the constitutional lawyer turned journalist who finally puts the case for Bill Clinton's impeachment to bed." So to speak.

Coulter proudly claims membership in the small band of what she calls "blond right-wing pundits" -- up close, her chemically enhanced mane is a blinding yellow -- because she says it creates a "market niche" for her anti-Clinton views. She professes mild embarrassment at the "Last Blonde" ad, but says nonchalantly that Regnery Publishing has concluded that "sex sells."
__________________________________

As to those that take her on:

"She is annoying," says Democratic strategist Victor Kamber, who often debates her on TV. "She's a very opinionated, black-and-white type person. But I'm as rude as she is. I'll shout just as loud as she will. With Ann, it's much more of a brawl."

_________________________________________

To her employers:

Coulter seems to delight in making trouble for her employers. "I had vituperative arguments with Regnery that required a number of tantrums to pull off," she says. She is "still bitter" about the publisher's refusal to use her favorite chapter title, "Fellatio Ad Absurdum." "They thought it was too racy. . . . They kept coming up with these stupid titles," she says. (Chapter headings include "Blasting the Bimbos," "Prevaricator in Chief" and "A Cancer on the Country.")

She acquits herself of the charge of using her sexuality to hawk the book. "I'm not, they are," Coulter insists. "I did draw the line at a completely absurd radio ad they wanted me to read. It was ridiculous. I've written a serious book. It went something like 'They call me Bill's last blonde, I'm keeping him up at night.' They begged and pleaded. I crossed my arms and just said no."

________________________________________

At bit more about her history:

A native of New Canaan, Conn., Coulter attended law school at the University of Michigan, where she founded the local chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative scholars' group (or as Coulter puts it, "a bunch of nerd lawyers interpreting the Constitution"). She did stints as a Justice Department attorney and appeals court clerk before practicing corporate law in New York. "Mind-numbingly boring," she sniffs.

When the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, Coulter moved here to work for Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), a Federalist Society activist. She says she took a two-thirds pay cut, to $35,000 ("I thought you got welfare benefits at that level"). Her goal was "to repeal the New Deal," but her portfolio was confined to such issues as immigration law.

_________________________________________

In the summer of 1996, Coulter, who didn't own a TV until she moved here, became a part-time talking head for MSNBC, the new kid on the cable block. "I was one of their dopey little contributors," she says. "They kept firing me, but then they'd rehire me. People just went mental when they saw a real conservative on TV."
______________________________________
There was even a blurb on her romantic life:

On the romantic front, Coulter seems to flit from one relationship to the next. After moving here, she dated a Democratic Senate staffer whose legislative efforts she opposed. Then she began seeing Bob Guccione Jr., the controversial founder of Spin magazine, until becoming disenchanted in March. Now she's involved with an FBI agent.

___________________

Ahh.. and then Petron posts an article from 2001:

Was it the Review that wanted to get rid of her or are we to believe when they said the following at the beginning of the article:

_________________________

As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.

Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around.

But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person — as all her critics on the Left say — she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.

It continues:

Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.

No response.

Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.

By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship.
___________________________________

So, was it her poor writing at the time, her inability to want to work with them OR was it "what" she wrote. Petron would have you believe she got fired from the paper because of "what" she wrote, when it had more to do with the sloppiness of how she wrote it.

Yet... the NR still PUBLISHED the original article- even after accusing her of lying.

"Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" — if we didn't like it?

Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad. ".....

We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure.

— Jonah Goldberg

KEEP THAT NAME IN MIND!!!!

______

It goes on to defend itself from her accusations, attack her and her abilities... more like two children fighing in a sand box- actually no more repugnant than the way we have battled here.... also, looks like a bit of sore loser from NR for loser one of their star writers.

__________________

The last article posted by the completely objective Petron:

Written in 2004 in reference to the Presidential Campaign, the ever liberal CBS let her go.. LMAO.. that is SO SURPRISING..

USA Today has dropped plans to have conservative author Ann Coulter write a daily column from the Democratic convention. The newspaper dropped Coulter in a dispute over the first column she had written about the Democrats.

"It was just differences over editing of a fairly ordinary kind," USA Today Editorial Page Editor Brian Gallagher told Editor & Publisher. "We had some different conceptions of what the column should be, we tried to work them out and when we couldn't, we decided the best course of action was for us to go our own ways."

Jonah Goldberg, a conservative who writes for the National Review, will replace Coulter.

_______________________________

Oh...and did you see who replaced her? JONAH GOLDBERG.. you know... the ONE THAT wrote the scathing article about her in 2001 when she left NR.

OMG... what facts... what an argument... nice try Petron...

__________________________-

Here's how Coulter opened the column: "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazoned with the 'F-word' are my opponents."

posted June 12, 2006 07:04 PM              

quote:

---

"She's a very opinionated, black-and-white type person. But I'm as rude as she is. I'll shout just as loud as she will. With Ann, it's much more of a brawl."

"I had vituperative arguments with Regnery that required a number of tantrums to pull off,"

On the romantic front, Coulter seems to flit from one relationship to the next. After moving here, she dated a Democratic Senate staffer whose legislative efforts she opposed.

To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes.

We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure.

---

oh wow thanks for posting that pidaua, how "positive"

i said that nro was glad to be rid of her....

i too find it interesting that usatoday hired a conservative with an ounce of judgement to replace coulter.....

**

quote:

---

the ever liberal CBS let her go.. LMAO.. that is SO SURPRISING..--pidaua

---

posted June 12, 2006 07:26 PM            

Whatever....

And see... crap that this is completely tolerated and put out their without facts:

"Would it kill you, "Godless" author Ann Coulter, to do us all a favor and kill yourself? (Oh, well, yeah, I guess it would kill you.)

After her recent rabidly hateful, foaming-at-the-mouth, sub-human "Today" show appearance -- in which she reiterated her assertion that 9/11 widows are "enjoying their husband's deaths" -- even her former supporters began to fantasize about how much nicer the world would be if it were Coulterless. "
http://www.adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=109799

Give me a freaking break - how does this guy know what her "former" supporters are saying and why in the hell would they talk to him.

Or maybe.. he is on the same divine frequency as some of our famous Lindalanders that have a direct connection to the conspiracy theories and New World Order take over.

posted June 12, 2006 07:50 PM              

maybe he was citing this other publication that dropped coulter.....

******

Opinion pages get a makeover

David Stoeffler
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.28.2005

More words. More letters. No more Ann Coulter.
Since my arrival here nine weeks ago, we've been doing a lot of behind-the-scenes work aimed at making the Arizona Daily Star a better newspaper.

Finally, we've decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives.

posted June 12, 2006 07:55 PM            

quote:

---

Acoustic, you have upon several occasions invited others here to support your positions so don't deny it.

---

I'm not denying anything, Jwhop. As I stated I've invited others to inspect our arguments when I'm clearly in the right, and you're clearly in the wrong. You have a tendency to be stubborn, so no matter what the truth is you cling to your belief. Talk about "devoid of judgment, logic and reason," there's no reasoning with a Jwhop.

quote:

---

As for Coulter holding Hillarys hypocrisy up for the world to see, that's a matter of record and is the opening post in this thread. Further, it's noticeable Hillary hasn't had another word to say publicly about it.

---

Yeah, she took the good ol' Republican tack: when you don't have a position to stand on shift the conversation somewhere else. Boy, what a victory! What an "intellectual" argument! If only everyone could be as brilliant as Ann Coulter.

quote:

---

Perhaps you'll get around to displaying a degree of reason, logic and knowledge of political issues necessary to carry on an actual debate, one day.

---

No amount of reason, logic or knowledge is going to cause any change in you. So, for me, it would only be for my own pleasure in proving you wrong. It's easier and less time consuming to just sit on the sidelines and poke holes in every bit of nonsense I spot.

quote:

---

Just because the AP, NY Times or other leftist co-ops of the democrat party say something is so isn't credible..though leftists hang on their every word.

---

I love that you learned to try to turn my words on me (imitation is the greatest form of flattery), but I don't even get what you're trying to say here. My comprehension doesn't have to do with the strange way you worded it -I understand that part. What bit of information from the AP or NYT are you trying to disprove?

quote:

---

I talk to more people in a week than you do in a month acoustic and politics and religion usually don't come up.

---

Oooh big man...talks to lots of people. Yes, I know religion and politics seldom come up, that's why I said what I said.

quote:

---

But when politics come up and a leftist makes an outrageous statement or allegation, I ask how they know that. They simply don't know what the hell they're talking about but they also don't want to discuss politics with me again.

---

Well, I seldom make outrageous statements myself. I generally make well-founded statements that are easily backed up. In the off chance that I'm wrong about something, I'm ok with that, but if a Republican chooses to spar with me I'll have fun with it. It won't be in an over-the-top or overly dramatic way, but just the occasional sarcastic remark. If a discussion comes out of it that's cool, but I've never run into anyone who thought they could get away with railroading me. I'm a good listener and I'll decide what I want to pursue or not pursue. I wouldn't avoid you or politics because of you, though.

quote:

---

Leftists think they can say anything, anything at all and get away with it. Just as they do in their little leftist covens where they receive high fives for their nonsense

---

Well, sometimes when stuff like this comes up I wonder whether we're talking about everyone on the left, or just the kooks and the hippies, but I suppose that's beside the point.

posted June 12, 2006 08:39 PM            

acoustic, I sell real estate. I go through 2 fully charged cell phones a day and most days a recharge on one of them is flat at the end of my day too. That's in addition to land line calls and showing property, attending real estate meetings and all the other activities.

In a normal day, I have more than a hundred different conversations with everyone from clients to appraisers to title agents to lenders to home inspectors to city and county code inspectors, etc, etc, etc. and not just to say hello. That doesn't include friends and acquaintances. Nor does that include fielding email off real estate ads and signs which can sometimes amount to 70+ a day. And then, some days, I'm really busy

I try to stay away from politics and religion but I'm sure as hell not going to lie or let someone think I agree with their outrageous lies if they bring politics up.

Clinton attacked Coulter with bombast and blather...not an intellectual argument. Hello acoustic, you're wicked, mean, evil and nasty is NOT an intellectual argument.

Well, perhaps it's the best intellectual argument leftists can muster.

Self delusion is such a grand tradition on the left acoustic. Especially when they keep losing elections. Do carry on!

posted June 12, 2006 10:11 PM              

Tell me I'm smarter than Ann and I'll think about a third.

posted June 12, 2006 11:33 PM              

Advertising mag asks Ann Coulter to kill herself

RAW STORY
Published: Monday June 12, 2006

In a striking post, AdAge magazine, a leading magazine for the advertising community, has asked Godless author Ann Coulter to kill herself, RAW STORY has discovered.

Buried in the article, a humorous attack on the mainstream media, was the following quote.

"Would it kill you, 'Godless' author Ann Coulter, to do us all a favor and kill yourself? (Oh, well, yeah, I guess it would kill you.)

"After her recent rabidly hateful, foaming-at-the-mouth, sub-human 'Today' show appearance -- in which she reiterated her assertion that 9/11 widows are "enjoying their husband's deaths" -- even her former supporters began to fantasize about how much nicer the world would be if it were Coulterless."

You see, all this woman does is make outrageous accusations, call people names, and basically spread hate and division.

Which makes it obvious why Ann Coulter is a heroine and genius to Jwhop and the neo-cons.

Pidaua, if Jwhop isn't a coward as you say then why does he need you to speak for him and defend him? Once on Goatgirl's thread you gave a long spiel about how silly and funny you thought it was that her friends came to her defense.

So once again, what is okay for the neo-cons is not okay for anyone else. Another reason Ann Coulter is so well liked by you guys.