Ms. Right. great read...FOR EVERYBODY!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Even so, Coulter told me her most persistent stalker "is the one who will kill me someday."

I found this part really creepy. I hope no one would ever be carried to that madness!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by amber

Dude...get a grip and some respectablility....the stuff she says...it doesn't matter if you take them out of context or not. If you agree with her, you better own it, because her positions are UNMISTAKEABLE.

Oh absolutely, I agree with you, I'm not trying to sugarcoat any of her positions! I know exactly where I stand and AM NOT ashamed of it!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by amber

well...okay, but that means, in part, that you are racist,

eh...nope

hateful,

I hope not

and inflammatory.

Ok this one...maybe sometimes

And also that you do not care about facts and instead embrace illogical, fear based rhetoric.

A big no to this one as well...facts are helpful tools that are much needed in political debate!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I was also trying to point out the FACT that there are always those pulling out her quotes and things and trying desperatly to make it seem like she is either a loon, or just lying!

for example....

Eight months later, Coulter's relationship with MSNBC ended permanently after she tangled with a disabled Vietnam veteran on the air. Robert Muller, co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, asserted that "in 90% of the cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up [in Vietnam]—Ann, are you listening?—they were our own mines." (Muller was misquoting a 1969 Pentagon report that found that 90% of the components used in enemy mines came from U.S. duds and refuse.) Coulter, who found Muller's statement laughable, averted her eyes and responded sarcastically: "No wonder you guys lost." It became an infamous—and oft-misreported—Coulter moment. The Washington Post and others turned the line into a more personal attack: "People like you caused us to lose that war."

COULTER: God gave us the earth.
FENN: Oh, O.K.

COULTER: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the seas.

FENN: Oh, this is a great idea.

COULTER: God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'

FENN: Oh, terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources--

COULTER: Yes. Yes!

FENN: —as fast as we possibly can.

COULTER: As opposed to living like the Indians.

Coulter and Fenn were both laughing. But her rape-the-planet bit would later be wrenched from context and repeatedly quoted as Coulter nuttiness. "What p_____ me off," Coulter says, "is when they don't get the punch line."

Slander was followed in 2003 by Treason, and by then Coulter had inspired an industry of debunkers, people who scour her every utterance for mistakes large and small. Entire websites were devoted to this purpose.

When I asked Coulter about her mistakes, she responded by e-mail: "I think I can save you some time ... The one error liberals have produced is that I was wrong when I said the NYT didn't mention Dale Earnhardt's death on the front page the day after his death. There have been novels and Broadway plays written about Ann Coulter's one mistake, which was pretty minor IMHO [in my humble opinion]—the Times article DID begin: 'His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.'" Actually, it didn't. The article began, "Stock car racing's greatest current star and one of its most popular and celebrated figures, Dale Earnhardt, crashed and was killed today ..." The article doesn't mention Wal-Mart, although a subsequent piece did.

Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words "Ann Coulter lies," you will drown in results. But I didn't find many outright Coulter errors. One of the most popular alleged mistakes pinging around the Web is from her appearance on Canadian TV news in January, when Coulter asserted that "Canada sent troops to Vietnam." Interviewer Bob McKeown said she was wrong.

"Indochina?" Coulter tried. McKeown said no. Finally, Coulter said haltingly, "I'll get back to you." "Coulter never got back to us," McKeown triumphantly noted, "but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam." What he didn't mention was that Canada did send noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972.

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by amber

Dude...get a grip and some respectablility....the stuff she says...it doesn't matter if you take them out of context or not. If you agree with her, you better own it, because her positions are UNMISTAKEABLE.

It really doesn't matter what any of them say. The cycles will just continue. Over and over and over. 50 years from now they will only be footnotes. No one remembers history after awhile. Take a sentance from the article itself:

Coulter is more like Clare Boothe Luce, the wife of this magazine's co-founder, who rankled the Roosevelt establishment in the '40s .


I guarantee 99.9% of the people never heard of her before. But in her time, she was probally very "Controvercial" . Just ask any person today who Idi Amin was, and what he did. I don't think you will find many, and he was nasty. So these people will fade away also....

And now - Cute critter pic:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by seeker007nmss

It really doesn't matter what any of them say. The cycles will just continue. Over and over and over. 50 years from now they will only be footnotes. No one remembers history after awhile. Take a sentance from the article itself:

Coulter is more like Clare Boothe Luce, the wife of this magazine's co-founder, who rankled the Roosevelt establishment in the '40s .


I guarantee 99.9% of the people never heard of her before. But in her time, she was probally very "Controvercial" . Just ask any person today who Idi Amin was, and what he did. I don't think you will find many, and he was nasty. So these people will fade away also....

And now - Cute critter pic:

I dobut it. You also have to take into count the impact that the ever-growing-media has on the world. Ann Coulter has broken into the best-selling-well-known ranks.

BTW...LOVE THE PIC! haha

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by amber

If you really believed what you just claimed about yourself, then you should not really agree with Miss Annbug. That's my final opinion.

Ann isn't racist or hateful. So...

I really don't see it.

[Mari]

I'm really not interested in that woman. I consider this continuous posting about her to be board-pollution... One thread, alright, but how many do we have now? Isn't there some Ann Coulter fan-board you can go to? Thanks!

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I dobut it. You also have to take into count the impact that the ever-growing-media has on the world. Ann Coulter has broken into the best-selling-well-known ranks.

BTW...LOVE THE PIC! haha

The impact of the media has already led to a desensitizing of most people. Can you name any of the best-selling-well-known social commentary writers of the 1930's? or 40's? I can't. And most people can't either. (Actually I can name one, but I read too much as it is.... ) and go older. And go to a non-western tradition. Can many name a SINGLE aztec/Inca/Mayan king? A person who shaped and controlled a continent and the world as they knew it? Or who was the leader who consolidsated the chinese providences? That was a world changing event. And now virtually NOONE can name him. (I know- I type too fast and can't spell). Ann Coulter will fade just like the rest. Nothing against her, just the way it is. Unless you build a huge building, tomb, statue, or part of a religious movement...etc. You, as an individual, will NOT be remembered. What was the name of the person who invented the wheel? Or gunpowder? or was the first to use fire? They all changed the world, noone knows who they are. So more minor achievements don't have a chance. (Now, don't go and start collecting to build an Ann Coulter pyramid tomb!)

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by amber

Uh..did you read what I said in response to what you said before?
I'm not quite as fatalistic as you, though. And that's because I remember history. I only wish everyone else did.

I am not fatalistic (yes i read your response). I am just saying that what seems very important now (people, events, ...etc) are (except in very few cases) are not going to make much difference in the whole scheme of things. I, like you, remember history. That's why I can see the continuation over and over of the same old stuff, just in a slightly different form.

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by amber

Oh, sorry. It seems like it could make a difference, though. And that it might be very important in the scheme of things.
I mean, there has been many, many things that have made differences. Heck, just 55 years ago, You and I got the best bus seats. Also, would we have known how to build aqueducts (sp) without the Romans? Would the native americans have known about corn if no one showed them? Without Coppernicus, would we still believe the earth was flat? etc.
Basically, although it's "all the same", there is still space and desire for change, so I somewhat keep up with what's going on, and participate to the best of my ability.

Yes, from a technology level we change...but not much from a political level. I should say, not at the same pace. We went from horse and buggy - to the moon in less then 70 years and yet it took the same amount of time to let people sit on a bus seat. Now that's Political progress. I am not saying not to keep up with things, just don't let current personalities get you ruffled. (Actually Copernicus got the credit - but many knew thousands of years before him that the world was round and revolved around the sun).

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by amber

Good point. Human qualities don't change as fast at all. Although with the advent of advanced ideas, and people fighting for those ideas, over time humans are forced to change...or they just do. That's what I look toward. You know, like, if everyone fights, maybe change will come faster!!

They only thing that will quickly change us to the better is a possible threat or competition from outside. Bring on the space aliens! (I wonder which seat on the bus they will get?)

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by amber

err...you mean technologically, I assume. I still don't think that would change human nature.

You are probally right. New toys, same old Humans.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by seeker007nmss

They only thing that will quickly change us to the better is a possible threat or competition from outside. Bring on the space aliens! (I wonder which seat on the bus they will get?)

Us meaning earthlings? Or us meaning Americans? I thought our consciousness was evolving until what all has happened politically here over the last 5 years. I really hope the neo cons have very little influence on the next generation of politicians.

[sara1998]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

wow...only three days! I can never make it that long though

Get some balls and try it. I went the way of cold turkey 3 weeks ago, and I haven't relapsed once.

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I just really enjoyed the article and wanted to post it! I thought about it before I did...."Now what will the other ledgies think about me posting this?"...I REALLY have no hidden motive for posting it, other than I thought it was a fair and honest look at a person who is often characterized by her public image...and I think that sometimes it's important to realize the person behind the image! Yes it's long...but it is also very good!

What you fail to realize is that no one here wants anything to do with Coultergiest. You do have hidden motives. It's to stir the pot. I agree with Mari. Go to a Coultergiest fansite and post your fair and honest article.