Ann Coulter is on a roll again!

**Chuckiechan** · November 21st, 2003, 10:39 PM

http://www.anncoulter.org/

**JacobM5727** · November 21st, 2003, 10:45 PM

who or what is ann coulter?

**Crix** · November 21st, 2003, 10:52 PM

its a 40 yr old shemale with a sock fetish...

actually i made all of that up, im a naughty boy

**MrBaseball** · November 22nd, 2003, 02:22 AM

I love Ann.

**Target** · November 22nd, 2003, 04:30 AM

What a pity... such a pretty face and a small mind occupying the same head.....

**shahani** · November 22nd, 2003, 06:50 AM

Small mind?

I think not.

A large devious and wacko mind.

**MTAtech** · November 22nd, 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by JacobM5727
who or what is ann coulter?

Ann Coulter is a rabid conservative columnist whom plays loose with the facts. In fact, in her books and columns, she lies and distorts the truth.

She can't even tell the truth about how old she is. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...Sep5?language=

According to a Washington Post investigation, "Her D.C. driver's license, acquired many years later, says she was born in December 1963. The birth date on file at the New Canaan, Conn., voter registration office is Dec. 8, 1961." She insists that she was born in 1963, which would mean that she registered to vote at age 16, a crime in Conn. She probably can be put in jail under the Patriot Act for falsifying a government document.

See other lies of Coulter: http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031023.html

**Germ** · November 22nd, 2003, 08:37 AM

Ann Coulter is a great columnist. She just avoids all the Liberal spin and bias found in the mainstream media.

**surreal** · November 22nd, 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by MTAtech
Ann Coulter is a rabid conservative columnist whom plays loose with the facts. In fact, in her books and columns, she lies and distorts the truth.

I am going to keep this remark!! I love it, a universal comment that can be used without discretion regarding all columnists

Insert name here is a rabid insert political affiliation here columnist whom plays loose with the facts. In fact, *identify gender here books and columns, *identify gender here lies and distorts the truth.

*he or she is best.

Save as Rebuttal to Columnists, Radio Talk shows, Fox news.doc

Just read the link about her age lie... I gotta say that's one of the most ridiculous criticisms I've ever heard!
All women lie about their age!
We were taught by men that age is bad, and women have decreasing value with age.
From 25 on it's depreciation, never appreciation.

I know nothing about her, but seeing her age as the dirt on her makes me think she ain't got much dirt.

She insists that she was born in 1963, which would mean that she registered to vote at age 16, a crime in Conn. She probably can be put in jail under the Patriot Act for falsifying a government document.

* The birth date on file at the New Canaan, Conn., voter registration office is Dec. 8, 1961.

Your link too MTAtech

I'm disappointed, I always thought you were different than most here and argued fair and honestly.
But you misrepresented facts, twisted them, to fit your argument based on an untrue assumption. I'm really disappointed.

Who cares how old she is?? BTW, she looks 48.

**Thud** · November 22nd, 2003, 09:03 AM

Ann Coulter is a great columnist. She just avoids all the Liberal spin and bias found in the mainstream media.

I agree. She totally avoids all the spin, and just dives completely off the deep end with sick bullsh*t like this:

Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."

If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points.

She wishes to make light of this man talking candidly about the death of his son.

Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart, limp-wristed, spineless Commie pinko fag, but I believe that is just profanity sick.

**surreal** · November 22nd, 2003, 09:31 AM

No she is not making light of it, she sees him making it a public issue for attention to how great he is the way he tributes his son, how stricken he is, how he is looking for sympathy and suggests he doesn't need to play that to the public. The death of a child is not a public issue, it's private.

She said, "I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points." Public sympathy? Sounds like it. If she had not experienced the loss of a child she would be out of line Thud.
But since she does know the pain, her guilt seems only her lack of more sensitive verbiage.
She should have left out the cheap in political points.

**TOAD6147** · November 22nd, 2003, 10:00 AM

Sounds to me she was scrapping the bottom of the scum bucket for anti-dem comments and invented this line of crap. Anyone can take anything and spin it into a line of garbbage to bolster their point of view - her point of view being, of course, that the devil would be a better choice for President than a Dem. (but then we already have a devil in the office of President) She is a professional at it and is paid to create mud so her neocon cronnies can line up and sling to their hearts content. What negative political points has SHE scored by bring up what she condenms others for bringing up? Wake up people and smell the negative rightwing BS!

**Thud** · November 22nd, 2003, 10:04 AM

If she had not experienced the loss of a child she would be out of line Thud.

I believe you have misread the text I quoted. Go and read it in the article linked above, in her context....it's even italicized by her. She hasn't lost a son.....she's trying to demonize the guy for not using the death of his son to score political points.....as bizarre as that sounds.

If you can show me that she has in fact lost a son, and that is what she is referring to, and that I have totally misread it, then I will offer my sincerest apologies. If not, then in your words, "she would be out of line," and my original statements still stand.

And sorry for the profanity....making light of the grief of others gets my blood pressure up a little, to put it mildly. Especially when it comes to kids......I am a father too.

**shahani** · November 22nd, 2003, 10:09 AM

She is good at making bombastic statements for their publicity value and so she can make more money.

As pathetic a human being as can be.

**MTAtech** · November 22nd, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by surreal

I am going to keep this remark!! I love it, a universal comment that can be used without discretion regarding all columnists

Just read the link about her age lie... I gotta say that's one of the most ridiculous criticisms I've ever heard!
All women lie about their age!
We were taught by men that age is bad, and women have decreasing value with age.
From 25 on it's depreciation, never appreciation.

I know nothing about her, but seeing her age as the dirt on her makes me think she ain't got much dirt.

* The birth date on file at the New Canaan, Conn., voter registration office is Dec. 8, 1961.

Your link too MTAtech I'm disappointed, I always thought you were different than most here and argued fair and honestly.
But you misrepresented facts, twisted them, to fit your argument based on an untrue assumption. I'm really disappointed.

Who cares how old she is?? BTW, she looks 48.

I don't understand your criticism of me. Women my lie about their age but not on official documents. Her Conn. driver’s license says 1961 as does her voter registration. However, her DC driver’s license says 1963 AND THAT’S THE ONE SHE SAID IS CORRECT. Therefore, according to her, she lied about her Conn. drivers license and voter registration – a crime.

Ann Coulter is a great columnist. She just avoids all the Liberal spin and bias found in the mainstream media.

The spin is that there is a liberal bias in the mainstream media. Any liberal examples are overwhelmed by the massive conservative bias. (i.e. most radio talk shows are right-wing, the "fair and balanced" FOX has no liberals [they fired them all], etc.)

**MTAtech** · November 22nd, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by surreal
But since she does know the pain, her guilt seems only her lack of more sensitive verbiage.

Coulter has never been married nor had any children.

**Thud** · November 22nd, 2003, 10:19 AM

Coulter has never been married nor had any children.

Well I'll be dogged.

**shahani** · November 22nd, 2003, 10:23 AM

Like I said, she's as wacko as they come. She was interviewed on CNN some months ago, and boy, was she weird.

Next time anyone sees her on TV, look at the eyes.

Possessed is the word that comes to mind.

**Chuckiechan** · November 22nd, 2003, 10:41 AM

She is the right's Al Franken, except she is correct about most things she says. I found the article to be really funny. I mean after, all why can't someone join the country in laughing at the desperation of the democratic candidates?

**MTAtech** · November 22nd, 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Chuckiechan
She is the right's Al Franken, except she is correct about most things she says. I found the article to be really funny. I mean after, all why can't someone join the country in laughing at the desperation of the democratic candidates?

Correct about most things? Here's what Al Franken has to say:

"Let's get right to some examples. And there are examples and examples and examples. Take the dramatic conclusion of Slander. after 24h pages of accusing liberals of, among other awful things, being elitist snobs, she trots out her crowning piece of evidence: proof of The New York Times's disregard and contempt for what real Americans care about.

'The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took The New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt's death sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the article began, "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart." The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!

Pretty powerful indictment, I have to admit. No mention for two days! One small problem. Dale Earnhardt died on February 18, 2001. On February 19, 2001, which by my calculation is the next day, the Times ran a front-page account of Earnhardt's death written by sportswriter Robert Lipsyte under the headline: "Stock Car Star Killed on Last Lap of Daytona 500." Here. Look at it.
Frankly, I think the fact that The New York Times did have a front-page article on Dale Earnhardt the day after he died kind of undercuts her point that they didn't. Don't you? I mean, if they didn't, that would have been something, huh? But they did.
And, oy the way, the article that Couiter refers to: The one written two days later? It was by Rick Bragg,' a Pulitzer Prize winner who grew up in Piedmont, Alabama. Boy, I hate those Piedmont snobs! It's always "Piedmont has the best this and Piedmont has the best that..."

Coulter's misstatements about her age make us question the veracity of the seemingly factual statements in her book, such as:
"Liberals hate America."
"Liberals hate all religions except Islam." "Democrats actually hate working-class people." "Liberals hate society."
"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. "
"Democrats ... will destroy anyone who stands in their way. All that matters to them is power."
"Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race."
• "Liberals seek to destroy sexual differentiation in order to destroy morality."
• "That's the whole point of being a liberal: to feel superior to people with less money."
"Liberals are crazy."
All this seems the slightest bit odd considering that the first line of the first page of Slander is "Political `debate' in this country has become insufferable." And she explains, "Instead of actual debate about ideas and issues with real consequences, the country is trapped in a political discourse that resembles professional wrestling."
So what is Coulter's contribution to civilizing our political discourse? Well, in the entire 206 pages, she never actually makes a case for any conservative issue. Not school vouchers, not supplyside tax cuts, not privatization of Social Security. The entire book is filled with distortions, factual errors, and vicious invective-slander, if you will-bolstered by the shoddiest research this side of the Hitler diaries."

More on Coulter lies: http://www.techimo.com/forum/showthr...nce#post736289