It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Did Republican spew-queen, Anne Coulter wimp out?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 12:24 PM
“Tough-talking Ann Coulter wouldn't say a word last night.

At the last minute, the conservative pundit canceled her appearance opposite best-selling "Big Lies" author Joe Conason on CNBC's "Kudlow & Cramer" - this after having programmers change the debate to fit her schedule.

One might think the roundtable, which featured Wall Streeter James Cramer and Reaganite Lawrence Kudlow, would be a breeze for Coulter. Could she have been afraid of facing Conason, whose book presents evidence that her arguments are ill-researched and calls her lifestyle hypocritical?

Coulter didn't answer our E-mail.”

I have no respect for Ann Coulter. She takes comments out of context and then buries her sources in endnotes. Why can’t she footnote like every other political writer? I’ll admit, I have not read her new book and have no plans to. I’ve seen and heard enough. McCarthyism is good…? You’ve got to be joking. Is this how far our political discourse has come in 50 years? If it weren’t for her short skirt, she wouldn't have sold a single copy. Anyone care to disagree?

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 12:47 PM
I'll just sit down, open a beer and await TC's fury.

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 06:03 PM
No need. Books I read always have endnotes, as I always expect However, being smart enough to work with endnotes, it doesn't effect me. I'm sure one might want to think she takes things out of context, and if I blindly took an opposing position to hers, I'd consider using the same argument. As far as discussing her points about McCarthy, the individual would have to read the book, which he already said he won't, so he disqualifies himself from debate, anyway. I have read the book, as well as others of hers. The individual can believe what his liberal, anti-American agenda-driven, NEA controlled education has led him to believe, what do I care.

As far as her short skirts being a driving factor in her book sales, it is obvious that he prefers books with many pictures (probably glossy pagers) and believes that other people do the same. Not true, as a matter of fact, many of us read books that don't cause us to defend ourselves by saying, "No, really, I only buy it for the articles!" But, I'm sure Larry Flint is a great one from which to learn of the constitution.

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 06:13 PM
After four beers all I get is that? I'm starting to think TC is getting soft


posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 06:17 PM
She provides more sources and research than just about anyone out there. (have you ever read any of her books?)

It's unlike her to not show up. Because she's never backed down from anything. She's been on w/ Couric, Maher and of course Hannity and Colmes. Maybe she was sick - it's hardly a big deal.

If you disrespect her THAT much then I have to ask: is this little news bit of nothingness all you can come up with? This IS the mudpit afterall - don't hold back.

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 06:22 PM
I'm sorry, Fry, I didn't mean to disappoint, its just that I have some stuff going on, and I'm having to bring union work home with me (apparently, I'm the only high-tec redneck steward with an operational computer). I'm bouncing between here and Word. Now, I'm bouncing to the kitchen as the timer just went off!!! Yea!! Ya-hoo!

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 06:24 PM
Spew Queen (I just caught that!). You, sir, aren't even worth talking to as you resort to name-calling when you are factually dashed against the rocks. And there is no doubt, Ann has dashed your little liberal mind against the rocks. Or is it you have no idea who she is other than your liberal gurus tell you she is bad, Hillary is good?

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 07:50 PM
I apologize. I have misled the reader. I have read parts of Treason. At least the excerpts that are online for free.

Why don’t we take a look at the list a partial list of sources in this excerpt. There 35 total for the section including 9 ibids. 9 ibids in 20 paragraphs? Any way lets continue.

1. Arthur Herman. Direct quote from McCarthy, no problem there.
2. Lynn Smith, “Patriotism: One Size Does Not Fit All; A New Generation of Americans Must Assess What It Means to Be Loyal,” Los Angeles Times, October 9, 2001. Here’s a link to the article.

Here’s the quote Coulter uses:

“University professors called patriotic Americans “naive” and described patriotism as a “benign umbrella for angry people.”(2) Is it more patriotic to love your country or to ridicule those who do as “naive” and “angry”? These are not questions impenetrable to human logic.”

Ann would have you think that ALL university professors think ALL patriotic citizens are naïve and angry. Not the case.

Here’s the quote in the article:

“Patriotism also has historically served as a "benign umbrella for angry people," Appleby said. Timothy McVeigh considered himself a patriot. Frank Roque, an Arizona machinist, was said to have shouted, "I stand for America all the way," after his arrest in the drive-by shooting death of Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh, who was one of dozens of Arabs, Muslims and Sikhs reportedly attacked since Sept. 11.”

The university professor that she quotes was speaking of Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City bombing, offering her rationale for why Tim did it. The professor wasn’t making a statement about conservatives in general, but those that act out with a vengeance. Again Coulter uses quotes out of text to make generalizations.

3. Phil Gailey, “Bush Campaign Takes a Disturbing Turn with Attacks on Patriotism,” St. Petersburg Times, September 11, 1988.

Here's the article.

"WASHINGTON - George Bush says one of his goals as president would be to lead "a kinder, gentler nation." But Democrats complain that the campaign Bush is waging against Michael Dukakis is keyed to a set of emotional issues that seed intolerance, distrust and suspicions.

In the America that emerges from Bush's Republican campaign speeches, there would be less tolerance of those who, for religious or political reasons, object to patriotic oaths. Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, Bush speaks of a country where states could sanction school prayer and require students and teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance…

Dukakis finally struck back last week, condemning Republican attacks on his patriotism as "garbage." He compared the charges to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's Red-baiting during the 1950s.

In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, William Leuchtenburger, a historian at the University of North Carolina, said of Bush's attempts to make an issue out of the Pledge of Allegiance: "I don't recall anything like this before. I don't think there has been an issue like this - an issue so irrelevant to the powers of the presidency. When patriotism has come up before, it has been related to the powers of the presidency."

Flag-waving and patriotic speeches are a traditional part of American political campaigns, but some historians say they have not seen patriotism used with such cynical force since 1952, when Richard Nixon, the GOP vice-presidential candidate, called Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic presidential nominee, "a Ph.D. graduate of Dean Acheson's cowardly College of Communist Containment."

Here’s Coulter’s statement;

In the 1988 presidential campaign, Vice President George Bush pointed out that his opponent Michael Dukakis had vetoed a bill requiring students to begin their day with the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberal heads spun with the dark reminders of the McCarthy era. Dukakis instantly compared Bush’s dastardly trick of citing his record “to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s Red-baiting during the 1950s.”(3) Despite this slur against his patriotism, Dukakis said, “The American people can smell the garbage.(4).

There’s three points to make here.1. Why the heck does Ann need to use two sources when the first article she cites includes the second set of quotes. I’ll tell you why. She pads her research like this so people look and see, oh cite #349, she must be right. 2. Again taken out of context. Dukakis’s comments came after multiple Republican attacks that varied much further than just his comments on the Pledge of Allegiance, which just to note, were based on Supreme Court decisions. 3. Her statement is actually false. Dukakis made the garbage comment first then the McCarthy comment. Why did she do that, it fit better. Are we taking notes yet TC?

4. Peter Applebome, New York Times, October 30, 1988.
Here’s Dukakis’s comments un-Coultered.

''Those Republican tactics haven't changed,'' Dukakis said. ''Just as they did to Franklin Roosevelt and Sam Rayburn, they're now attacking my patriotism. And just as they did in the 1930's and the 1950's, the American people can smell the garbage.''

Here's Anne's writing;

Despite this slur against his patriotism, Dukakis said, “The American people can smell the garbage.”(4)

I guess I can go and on but I think you see what I’m talking about. My free excerpt ends with this fairly easy question.

While consistently rooting against America, liberals have used a fictional event forged of their own hysteria-”McCarthyism”-to prevent Americans from ever asking the simple question: Do liberals love their country?

TC, I actually agree with about half of what you post. But on Coulter I’m going to have to disagree. Her writing style maybe colloquial and enticing but it is also misleading. I ask you to check some of the references yourself. As far as the premise to the book, I think that last paragraph tells me everything I need to know. Do liberals love their country? WTF? Do you really think all liberals hate the US TC? We may all differ in viewpoints but I don’t think 50% of the nation is hell-bent on destroying the country, as Coulter would have you believe.

If Coulter isn't afraid of Conason, then why is Bill O'Reilly?

As far as the short-skirt comment. I just wanted some blood pressure increases. Looks like it worked.

[Edited on 22-8-2003 by kukla]

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:09 PM
Kukla, you said:

Why don’t we take a look at the list a partial list of sources in this excerpt. There 35 total for the section including 9 ibids. 9 ibids in 20 paragraphs? Any way lets continue.

Just for my own curiousity, do you feel that there should have been more or less???

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:26 PM
I must say I am not a devote follower of either side (I lean right these days) so I'm not qualified to comment on this particular issue. I am finding it quite educational and amusing in a wierd way at the same time. (THANKS ALL!!!

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:32 PM
Without the in-depth textual analysis, and with reference only to the question concerning withdrawal from the debate:

wimped out


drugged out.

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:37 PM
Way TOO MANY ibids. She ibids the the Gailey article five times bringing the total number of citations of a 15 yo article to 8.

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:39 PM
MA...I'm assuming since I have provided a extremely cogent reason for me not (and using withdraw is disingenuous) EVER having any interest in debate, that you are referring to yourself, correct?

which was it?

oh, and piffle.

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:41 PM
I think he was referring to the original article... Or not.

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
MA...I'm assuming since I have provided a extremely cogent reason for me not (and using withdraw is disingenuous) EVER having any interest in debate, that you are referring to yourself, correct?

which was it?

oh, and piffle.


You are entering the dark world of paranoia (or bizarre non sequitur humor, which I can appreciate sometimes).

I am referring solely to this Topic, about Ann Coulter's withdrawal, and in my reasoning, I believe both to be equally probable until the 'truth' is out. LOL.

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:54 PM
what's out of context is this thread: Are we talking about why Ann allegedly wimped out of Kudlow & Cramer or discussing what the appropriate numbers of ibidems should be?

[Edited on 22-8-2003 by Bob88]

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:55 PM
Yes I can see it now, Ann Coulter swapping the silver spoon with William Bennett in the Sunrise Suite at the MGM. Thank you MA for your assistance. I hadn't thought of that.

[Edited on 22-8-2003 by kukla]

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Bob88
what's out of context is this thread: Are we talking about why Ann allegedly wimped out of Kudlow & Cramer or discussing what the appropriate numbers of ibidems should be?

[Edited on 22-8-2003 by Bob88]

With all due respect, my clarification of what Kukla's problem was with the number ibids went directly to the original post. And might I point out that his answer contradicts his statements made in his original post.

As for MA...he's always off context. Haven't you noticed?

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 09:21 PM
M/A, you really need to either provide evidence to back up that allegation or withdraw it, with an apology offered in case the lady happens by the site. We aren't talking Bill Clinton or the Shrub, here, we are talking about a lady with principles and Christian ethics, who tries to walk the walk in her personal life.

Wow, Kook, you read parts of Treason, at least the parts you could find on the net that were free, huh? That, in and of itself, is a great insight into your way of thinking. Personally, I purchased that book as well.

How you read the book (Excuse me, how you've read excerpts of it) I have no idea. As far as I'm concerned, she taught me little, mostly confirmed, and her ibids direct me to other reading. I can see, however, how one who picks up her book (hypothetically speaking, in your case) with preconceived notions and little sense of humor, could miss points and take things the wrong way.

Regardless, Ann doesn't miss much and is notorious for not only not backing down, but running head-long toward the sound of gunfire. She has earned the benefit of the doubt, regardless of your bias.

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 09:40 PM
She wimped out b/c she was afraid of bieng exposed as a man.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in