Ann Coulter - One Step Beyond?

[willowdared]

So, what do you think of her remarks. Beyond the pale?

Ann Coulter's new book ignited a nasty controversy this week, and it doesn't appear ready to die down anytime soon. In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" she writes that a group of outspoken 9/11 widows who pushed for investigations into the attacks, "enjoyed" their husbands' deaths, and are "self-obsessed" and act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

Coulter reiterated the remarks on NBC's "Today" on Tuesday, saying the women used their grief "to make a political point."

In her book, Coulter says, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

The women are Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza of New Jersey. Coulter refers to them as the "Witches of East Brunswick," the New Jersey town where two of them live. Not surprisingly, the women have a few choice words for Coulter as well.

"Having my husband burn alive in a building brought me no joy," Van Auken told the New York Daily News in Wednesday's editions. "She sounds like a very disturbed, unraveled person," Breitweiser said.

The women also issued a joint statement, saying, "There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day."

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the remarks a "vicious, mean-spirited attack on people I've known over the last four-and-a-half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country."

Among the names people will soon call Coulter will likely be "best seller." A spokesman for publisher Crown Forum says it set a first print run of the book at 1 million copies.

[RedRaider911]

I read her first two books, and enjoyed the themes. But it was comments like this that lead me to stop reading her stuff.

[Washingtonian]

She's just as bad as the leftists like Michael Moore who pull that same kind of sh*t. I expect that type of behavior from lefties, but not from people who preach responsibility.

[SlowDownThere]

[B]
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the remarks a "vicious, mean-spirited attack on people I've known over the last four-and-a-half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country."



I don't often find myself in agreement with Hillary, but I have to here.
Ann Coulter must have a board up her ***.

A local conservative talk show host in Rochester, NY recently convinced me not to vote Republican. That wasn't his intent, just the opposite.

These hate-filled speeches turn me off, whether they come from the left or the right. Rep. Murtha is just as bad, calling our troops muderers.

To hell with all of them.

[tony.o]

They did alot more than just push for investigations. The four widows have made outrageous statements and allegations themselves, which are never challenged by the mainstream media when interviewed, due to the fact that they like the political statements from the widows. If they can dish it out, putting themselves in the spotlight, over the last four years, then they should be able to take and expect unflattering comments from others. Those women were paid millions and have been well taken care of by the American people, way more than any military family will be.

[1042 Trooper]

They did alot more than just push for investigations. The four widows have made outrageous statements and allegations themselves, which are never challenged by the mainstream media when interviewed, due to the fact that they like the political statements from the widows. If they can dish it out, putting themselves in the spotlight, over the last four years, then they should be able to take and expect unflattering comments from others. Those women were paid millions and have been well taken care of by the American people, way more than any military family will be.
Go Tony. And one more thing...

READ THE BOOK!

I'll bet most of you who feel Ann C was mean, will see the light. She is RIGHT ON THE MONEY. All of these comments are taken out of context.

READ THE BOOK. ALL OF IT.
You may be surprized.

[willowdared]

I do think she made a good choice on book title - "G-dless," only I think it's she that is G-dless.

If Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks had said those things, the Republicans would be up in arms, and Toby Keith would be writing a song.

[nemesis]

They did alot more than just push for investigations. The four widows have made outrageous statements and allegations themselves, which are never challenged by the mainstream media when interviewed, due to the fact that they like the political statements from the widows. If they can dish it out, putting themselves in the spotlight, over the last four years, then they should be able to take and expect unflattering comments from others. Those women were paid millions and have been well taken care of by the American people, way more than any military family will be.

Good point. My heart goes out to familes that experience the loss of a loved one. It is a tragedy when you are told someone you love is never coming home again. It is even more of a tragedy, when it is twisted into a political statement. Cindy Sheehan alienated most of her family when she brought politics into the situation. Anne Coulter should have known better than to attack the widows, knowing she would be the one to be burned at the stake by the media. The again, controversy sells books. I'll probably have to get it.

[nemesis]

If Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks had said those things, the Republicans would be up in arms, and Toby Keith would be writing a song.

Didn't she apologize after sales dropped and entire networks refused to air their music. Oh yeah, then when GW's approval rating took a nose dive, and it became chic to Bush bash, she joined the bandwagon again. Nothing like kicking soneone when they're down, as long as you can still sell your crap.

Maybe Toby Keith should "put a boot in her @ss". God bless him.

[Brav989]

I hate anybody who is too far right leaning or too far left. So she can go hang herself.

[Soon2Be]

In her book, Coulter says, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."That's a horribly cruel thing to say. That is just so freaking wrong on so many levels.

I think the subject matter must be mighty weak for her to rely on the shock factor of what she says to sell her book.

[jerrymaccauley]

We all feel for the widows and orphans. However, and don't get all dramatic here, people like those who take a tragedy like wtc and Cindy Sheehan, who lost a "hero" in Iraq are suffering,but are not experts on national security. Those are the people who are least able to make clear judgements. Her book says more than a sound bite n a liberal news interview. Hear both sides before you take a stand.

[willowdared]

We all feel for the widows and orphans. However, and don't get all dramatic here, people like those who take a tragedy like wtc and Cindy Sheehan, who lost a "hero" in Iraq are suffering,but are not experts on national security. Those are the people who are least able to make clear judgements. Her book says more than a sound bite n a liberal news interview. Hear both sides before you take a stand.

The thing about freedom of speech, is that you don't have to be an "expert" to voice your opinion, or push for change. Having chosen to voice an opinion does not give anyone the right to resort to calumny.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060608/news_1n8coulter.html

Coulter argues in the book that the women she dubs “the Witches of East Brunswick” wanted to blame President Bush for not preventing the attacks.

She criticized them for making a campaign advertisement for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry in 2004, and added: “By the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy.”

Asked by Reuters why she made such personal comments, Coulter said by e-mail, “I am tired of victims being used as billboards for untenable liberal political beliefs.”

“A lot of Americans have been seething over the inanities of these professional victims for some time,” she said.

Is anyone suggesting that the 9/11 commission was of no value. Did we not learn of all the breeches on the flow of information from this investigation?

Would you feel the same way if those women were the wives of the cops and firefighters who died?

[1042 Trooper]

I do think she made a good choice on book title - "G-dless," only I think it's she that is G-dless.

If Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks had said those things, the Republicans would be up in arms, and Toby Keith would be writing a song.
That's because Natalie "Mange" is an idiot who sings like my Bassett Hound and has no political education, thus speaks out of her emotional a**.

Ann is educated and degreed in both law and political science and speaks from a base of logic and objective knowledge.

Big Diff. :)

[1042 Trooper]

Maybe Toby Keith should "put a boot in her @ss". God bless him.
Yeah - It'll be called, "POW-ee Zarcowy!

[justice12]

Her statement certainly sounds like a terrible thing to say. I haven't read her book and don't plan to, so if it was taken out of context someone should post it. Honestly, I can't see what would be a proper context to say that, but I'll reserve judgment.

[1042 Trooper]

I hate anybody who is too far right leaning or too far left. So she can go hang herself.
Hate? Hang? Sounds mighty angry to me. Hmmm :rolleyes:

[vtinvestigator]

[QUOTE=SlowDownThere]I don't often find myself in agreement with Hillary, but I have to here.
Ann Coulter must have a board up her ***.

A local conservative talk show host in Rochester, NY recently convinced me not to vote Republican. That wasn't his intent, just the opposite.

These hate-filled speeches turn me off, whether they come from the left or the right. Rep. Murtha is just as bad, calling our troops muderers.


I agree same here. I don't agree with Hillary either but she is right on the money here. And Ann Coulter doesn't have a brain. I heard her on the
Today Show and was totally disgusted with her. She was arrogant and
everything was "I don't know". I know one thing, she is an idiot. :cool:

[1042 Trooper]

That's a horribly cruel thing to say. That is just so freaking wrong on so many levels.

I think the subject matter must be mighty weak for her to rely on the shock factor of what she says to sell her book.
Read it, Soon2Be. You will see she is right on the money. They are enjoying themselves. You've got to read the book to understand the statement.

Have I ever steered ya wrong?? :)

[1042 Trooper]

A local conservative talk show host in Rochester, NY recently convinced me not to vote Republican. That wasn't his intent, just the opposite. These hate-filled speeches turn me off, whether they come from the left or the right. Rep. Murtha is just as bad, calling our troops muderers.

I agree same here. I don't agree with Hillary either but she is right on the money here. And Ann Coulter doesn't have a brain. I heard her on the
Today Show and was totally disgusted with her. She was arrogant and
everything was "I don't know". I know one thing, she is an idiot. :cool:
"Ann Coulter doesn't have a brain"
"She was arrogant..."
"...she is an idiot."

For someone who doesn't like hate filled speech....well...?

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Ann Coulter is HOT.

Dam...she could get me to vote her way just by walking by in a mini...

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/images/uploads/Ann_Coulter_on_Luce_calendar.jpg

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/4145.jpg

Look at the legs on her...they go all the way up...Republican chicks are hot.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

[I]"Ann Coulter doesn't have a brain"

With her legs, I was unaware she needs one?

[Mitchell_in_CT]

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the remarks a "vicious, mean-spirited attack on people I've known over the last four-and-a-half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country."

Hilldabeast knows about being mean-spirited...

(Oh, and she is a hell of a lot uglier than Coulter...)

[ExplorerGirl631]

Ann Coulter sounds like my damned professor :mad: .

[rugermk2]

I'd tend to agree with 1042 and Mitchell here. The 911 women have put themselves out in the spotlight, they have to take the hits. It doesn't matter what Coulter says, the "drive-by" media will throw grenades anyway.

Funny thing about free speech is that liberals can't take what they dish out. I've attended four different colleges and universities in four different states (both public and private) and it has been the same story everywhere. After awhile you learn to find humor in being called a "bigot" or a "racist" by people who refuse to discuss issues with you when they find they cannot comprehend the dialogue anymore. Try wearing an NRA t-shirt to political rallies or a Bush t-shirt to class at U of DC Law School the day after Bush won re-election, and you'll see how small-minded the "progressives" really are :D

I haven't read her book, but I have heard her debate others before and find her analysis simply brilliant. I don't care for Michael Moore's rhetoric, but I'd defend his right to speak to my death. I vote with my pocketbook and choose not to buy his books. Ain't capitalism great?

As a sidenote, thedrudgereport.com had an interesting article this morning about the Dixie Chicks failing tour--how they can't sell tickets and are having to cancel shows. Sounds like Red State America is voting with its pocketbook, too :cool:

[tony.o]

The thing about freedom of speech, is that you don't have to be an "expert" to voice your opinion, or push for change. Having chosen to voice an opinion does not give anyone the right to resort to calumny.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060608/news_1n8coulter.html



Is anyone suggesting that the 9/11 commission was of no value. Did we not learn of all the breeches on the flow of information from this investigation?

Would you feel the same way if those women were the wives of the cops and firefighters who died?
Isn't it interesting that we don't get any viewpoint from others such as wives of cops and firefighters, probably because they are too conservative. Value, yeah, we found that a wall was put up by the Clinton administration to prevent intelligence sharing. Now the same people who bitch about the pre 9/11 lack of intelligence are bitchin about library cards and phone records of callers to the middle east. They got their commission so what else do they want.

[Watchman]

Liberals and weak minded men find fault with Coulter because she speaks the truth and she isnt swayed by the brain washing technigues that have turned most of America into mindless cannonfodder types that belive everything they see and hear on the 6 oclock news.

Anybody that scares the hell out of the liberal intelligentsia cant be all that bad...

[speedygonzalez]

as a member of the liberal intelligentsia, Ann Coulter does not scare me. After all , she is like any other nutcase. Usually, most wackos that people encounter in the course of daily life are the ones at highway on-ramps or the local transients. One colorful man never stopped riding the buses(he urinated into a bag) and only got off the busses when they stopped running.

My response to Ann Coulter would be the same to any other nutjob when I saw them. However, most nutcases aren't millionaires, so Coulter requires a special response. It's not worth the time to debate her because she makes up facts as she goes along. No, the proper course of action is to recognize her for what she is, a loony tunes character of a woman who says the most outrageous things she can to make money. Its like those emails you get regarding Nigerian profit schemes. Simply ignore her like you ignore any other wacko.

for more on the C_nt

see
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8626 and scroll to the Olbermann video

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/kathy4.wmv




PS. She committed voter fraud in Florida and is under investigation for a FELONY

[Operator13]

I saw her interview on MSNBC or Fox I forget which.

The point is that these widows are trotted out to make outlandish claims and statements, yet since they are widows people are scared to confront them.

When she spoke about them being "the happiest to see thier husbands dead" or whatever the line is, I think she is referring to the fact that these widows are "bulletproof" and can't be confronted.

Just my opinion.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Bush t-shirt to class at U of DC Law School the day after Bush won re-election, and you'll see how small-minded the "progressives" really are :D



Although it wasn't the same school, been their, done that, saw the looks of anguish and sorrow.

I'm such a vampire, I drank it in... :D

[nemesis]

Funny thing about free speech is that liberals can't take what they dish out. I've attended four different colleges and universities in four different states (both public and private) and it has been the same story everywhere. After awhile you learn to find humor in being called a "bigot" or a "racist" by people who refuse to discuss issues with you when they find they cannot comprehend the dialogue anymore. Try wearing an NRA t-shirt to political rallies or a Bush t-shirt to class at U of DC Law School the day after Bush won re-election, and you'll see how small-minded the "progressives" really are :D


I attended training at ASFSCME Council 61 headquarters once and wasn't shy about being a Republican. I still got free beer.

[1042 Trooper]

as a member of the liberal intelligentsia, Ann Coulter does not scare me. After all , she is like any other nutcase. Usually, most wackos that people encounter in the course of daily life are the ones at highway on-ramps or the local transients. One colorful man never stopped riding the buses(he urinated into a bag) and only got off the busses when they stopped running.

My response to Ann Coulter would be the same to any other nutjob when I saw them. However, most nutcases aren't millionaires, so Coulter requires a special response. It's not worth the time to debate her because she makes up facts as she goes along. No, the proper course of action is to recognize her for what she is, a loony tunes character of a woman who says the most outrageous things she can to make money. Its like those emails you get regarding Nigerian profit schemes. Simply ignore her like you ignore any other wacko.

for more on the C_nt

see
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8626 and scroll to the Olbermann video

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/kathy4.wmv




PS. She committed voter fraud in Florida and is under investigation for a FELONY
Kool Aid Alert!

[speedygonzalez]

"Kool Aid Alert!"

???????????????????

[Soon2Be]

Read it, Soon2Be. You will see she is right on the money. They are enjoying themselves. You've got to read the book to understand the statement.

Have I ever steered ya wrong?? :)Well, I'll wait to get it from the library. I won't purchase it, though! If only because books are so damned overpriced anyway, and it's a scam how long they stay in hardcover, before being released on paperback.

[jerrymaccauley]

as a member of the liberal intelligentsia, Ann Coulter does not scare me. After all , she is like any other nutcase. Usually, most wackos that people encounter in the course of daily life are the ones at highway on-ramps or the local transients. One colorful man never stopped riding the buses(he urinated into a bag) and only got off the busses when they stopped running.

My response to Ann Coulter would be the same to any other nutjob when I saw them. However, most nutcases aren't millionaires, so Coulter requires a special response. It's not worth the time to debate her because she makes up facts as she goes along. No, the proper course of action is to recognize her for what she is, a loony tunes character of a woman who says the most outrageous things she can to make money. Its like those emails you get regarding Nigerian profit schemes. Simply ignore her like you ignore any other wacko.

for more on the C_nt

see
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8626 and scroll to the Olbermann video

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/kathy4.wmv




PS. She committed voter fraud in Florida and is under investigation for a FELONY
I'm guessing you haven't figured out the true meaning of oxymoron. Liberal intelligentcia? Voting at the wrong polling station is a technical matter, hardly ever pursued as felony fraud, although the LIBERAL media seems to think it is. Crime victims have a right to speak out, just as everyone else does. However, they are not security experts nor can they understand domestic or foreign policy merely due to their status as victims. Name calling aside, she has a point.

[speedygonzalez]

It does not matter whether you think voter fraud is merely a technicality(Republicans dont have a good history of avoiding voter fraud http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
) That is still the statute. As an LEO you are OBLIGATED to enforce ALL laws, not those that you deem to be insignificant. She is currently the focus of a FELONY investigation.

and what is her point that liberals are godless???? In case you haven't noticed poverty is mentioned 18,000+ times in the Bible yet homosexuality is only mentioned once. Which do you think was more important?

The very evilgelicals who preach hatred are the ones who are soulless. If one is in favor of "treating thy neighbor as you would treat yourself" and taking care of your fellow man then you are a liberal... and a christian. The right wing does NOT have a monopoly on morals or the keys to heaven.

[1042 Trooper]

It does not matter whether you think voter fraud is merely a technicality(Republicans dont have a good history of avoiding voter fraud http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
Love your source - so impartial and all. :mad:
As an LEO you are OBLIGATED to enforce ALL laws, not those that you deem to be insignificant. She is currently the focus of a FELONY investigation.

What does that mean? You gotta do better. Focus? Focus? :confused:
And what is her point that liberals are godless????
Well, they do have a God - it's the government
In case you haven't noticed poverty is mentioned 18,000+ times in the Bible yet homosexuality is only mentioned once. Which do you think was more important?
Huh? I thought we were discussiong Ann C.? I guess it means if you gotta be light in the loafers, be light in the wallet too? :D

The right wing does NOT have a monopoly on morals or the keys to heaven.
No, but I'll bet more of us get invited there at the end!

Anyway, Ann rocks! :D

[BrickCop]

Coulter can debate the issues without the cheap shots for attention. She has every right to make her point but to infer that the wives somehow are "enjoying" their husband's death is pathetic and low class...not to mention 100% inaccurate.

Does anyone honestly believe that if given the choice that these widows wouldn't give EVERYTHING and ANYTHING to have their husbands (and the father of their children) back with them? :mad:

I am a conservative on most issues but that crackhead looking conservative crossed WAY over the line. It was pointlessly cruel.

[1042 Trooper]

Coulter can debate the issues without the cheap shots for attention.
These are not cheap shots. YOU MUST READ THE BOOK!

She has every right to make her point but to infer that the wives somehow are "enjoying" their husband's death is pathetic and low class...not to mention 100% inaccurate.
Well since their husbands died all of them have cahsed in and are millionairs. Not bad. I could find a way to enjoy it.

Does anyone honestly believe that if given the choice that these widows wouldn't give EVERYTHING and ANYTHING to have their husbands (and the father of their children) back with them? :mad:
How do you know that? How do you know what they think. Were they happy? Were they about to be divorced? Is it impossible to think they might have been UNhappy? This is Ann C's point - they are cashing in and being used by the left becaue they left knows folks won't question them.

I am a conservative on most issues but that crackhead looking conservative crossed WAY over the line. It was pointlessly cruel.
Please read the book. As an author I dread the day that people judge my books because of what they "heard" when they might have gotten something different from my work.

[OnceBitten]

I believe that there is an interview with her tonight on CNN or FOX...


I've heard some of the interviews with her discussing the book. I think the leftist media is once again pulling little snippets out to infuriate the masses. If you hear her reasoning behind the statement--you'd understand the intention and she does make a good point.

I like Ann, I think she's an intelligent woman who does not waiver in her convictions. In many cases, I think she says what many of us feel but are too chicken (because of the politically correct supression of opinion in our counrty) to say publicly.

[justice12]

Would please explain how her statements were possibly "taken out of context"???? I am not going to read the book and I think she would have said something in her own defense if that was the case. I'm conservative too, but her statements went way over the line.

Oh, and as far as her looks, nah the heroin addict look doesn't do it for me. :)

[PPDMO373]

Kool Aid Alert!

It must be an awful tasty batch....because it seems like a lot of folks are drinking it lately when it comes to her ..... :rolleyes:

[OnceBitten]

How can anyone say they disagree when they haven't read the book? Don't rely on the media alone to tell you what to think--read/listen to both sides and then make a determination.

The biggest problem I have with people (in general) is that they rely solely on what the TV, newspaper or flavor of the month politician tells them inorder to decide which bandwagon to jump on. Never believe anything that one side or the other says....the truth is probably somewhere in the middle! :D


Oh yeah--I like her 'cause she rides a Harley too.... :cool:

[1042 Trooper]

It must be an awful tasty batch....because it seems like a lot of folks are drinking it lately when it comes to her ..... :rolleyes:
That's the problem with Kool Aid - it goes down too easy - takes no effort.

[1042 Trooper]

How can anyone say they disagree when they haven't read the book? Don't rely on the media alone to tell you what to think--read/listen to both sides and then make a determination.

The biggest problem I have with people (in general) is that they rely solely on what the TV, newspaper or flavor of the month politician tells them inorder to decide which bandwagon to jump on. Never believe anything that one side or the other says....the truth is probably somewhere in the middle! :D


Oh yeah--I like her 'cause she rides a Harley too.... :cool:
You go, girl! :)

[SGT_Arminio11B]

Some GREAT quotes by Ann Coulter........my 2 cents after reading her book "It was outfukinstanding and right on the money" :)

By 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress.
Ann Coulter

Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they're against it.
Ann Coulter

Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror.
Ann Coulter

Have we been cryptic? Right-wingers said Clinton was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. It turned out he was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. Now liberals scratch their heads demanding to know: So what was it about him you didn't like?
Ann Coulter

If John Kerry had a dollar for every time he bragged about serving in Vietnam - oh wait, he does.
Ann Coulter

If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?
Ann Coulter

Liberal soccer moms are precisely as likely to receive anthrax in the mail as to develop a capacity for linear thinking.
Ann Coulter

Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties - provided we're only talking about criminals.
Ann Coulter

Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.
Ann Coulter

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.
Ann Coulter

Taxes are like abortion, and not just because both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats. You're for them or against them. Taxes go up or down; government raises taxes or lowers them. But Democrats will not let the words "abortion" or "tax hikes" pass their lips.
Ann Coulter

The New York Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control.
Ann Coulter

Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.
Ann Coulter

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
Ann Coulter

We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.
Ann Coulter

When we were at peace, Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Now there's a war, so Democrats want to raise taxes. When there was a surplus, Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Now that there is a mild recession, Democrats want to raise taxes.
Ann Coulter

Whenever a liberal begins a statement with 'I don't know which is more frightening,' you know the answer is going to be pretty clear.
Ann Coulter

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.
Ann Coulter

While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.
Ann Coulter

[Jellybean400]

C'mon...shes trying to SELL a book...make MONEY! helloooo??

All these interviews that the widows supposedly had...i've never seen them on TV... But Ann i've seen plenty of in the last couple days... just a coincedence, right...

[Bart]

C'mon...shes trying to SELL a book...make MONEY! helloooo??

All these interviews that the widows supposedly had...i've never seen them on TV... But Ann i've seen plenty of in the last couple days... just a coincedence, right...

thats a good point. ive never heard of these "witches of brunswick" or whatever the hell she calls them until ann brought them up. there are so many more prolific critics of the republican administration that she could of went after but she chose those widows as targets for the shock value. she's trying to sell books. a real author wouldnt have to resort to such tactics. im just surprised so many of her conservative minions fell for it. i thought the hard core extreme right wingers claimed to be intelligent. this proves otherwise. LOL

[fair witness]

she looks like a deer in the headlights and talks like she's on something.

[1042 Trooper]

thats a good point. ive never heard of these "witches of brunswick" or whatever the hell she calls them until ann brought them up.
Have you read the book?
there are so many more prolific critics of the republican administration
Prolific? Name one.
that she could of went after but she chose those widows as targets for the shock value.
That's not why she mentions them at all. Have you read the book?
she's trying to sell books. a real author wouldnt have to resort to such tactics.
I am a real author. I'll resort to anything to sell my books. She's a better author. She has engaged in nothing - save for answering critics who have not read the book!

I'm just surprised so many of her conservative minions fell for it. Fell for what? Have you read the book?
i thought the hard core extreme right wingers claimed to be intelligent.
Claimed to be? Not me. Define an extreme, hard core right winger, wouldja?
this proves otherwise. LOL
How?

[1042 Trooper]

she looks like a deer in the headlights and talks like she's on something.
Yeah, but she wrote a great book!

[narc]

Her statement certainly sounds like a terrible thing to say. I haven't read her book and don't plan to, so if it was taken out of context someone should post it. Honestly, I can't see what would be a proper context to say that, but I'll reserve judgment.

so michael moore can say what he wants and not ann coulter....thats stoopid

[justice12]

so michael moore can say what he wants and not ann coulter....thats stoopid

Excuse me? I never said Michael Moore can say what he wants. I hate that fat f&ck too.

[fair witness]

They can BOTH say what they want, that's the beauty of it all.

[Bart]

Have you read the book?

no

Prolific? Name one.

michael moore

That's not why she mentions them at all.

why else would she mention a group of people we never heard of? how did she come to the conclusion that they enjoyed having their loved ones die in that tragedy on 9/11? the truth is, she doesnt know how those women felt about the incident. she concoted her opinions based on what would most shock the average joe who heard her dribble on TV. she's not the first to do that. hell, howard stern does it all the time on the radio. why do you think holy rollers hate him so much?

I am a real author. I'll resort to anything to sell my books. She's a better author. She has engaged in nothing - save for answering critics who have not read the book!

she never answered any critics. she made outrageous statements about those women taking pleasure in the death of their husbands. thats not answering anything. thats crying out for attention.

Define an extreme, hard core right winger, wouldja?

a hard core right winger is anybody who would stand here and support ann coulters outrageous statements when they know deep down inside her statements have no factual merit.

[Bart]

so michael moore can say what he wants and not ann coulter....thats stoopid

nobody is saying ann or michael cant say what they want. they can. however, we choose to believe or not believe what they say and i cant figure out how so many people can believe this latest crap spewing from ann coulter.

[OnceBitten]

nobody is saying ann or michael cant say what they want. they can. however, we choose to believe or not believe what they say and i cant figure out how so many people can believe this latest crap spewing from ann coulter.

It's not so much believing as it is agreeing.... :D

[t150vsuptpr]

The point that Ann Coulter was making was simply that before 09-11-01, they were just 4 everyday housewives. Now, they are 4 very well off ($$$) and listened to spokespersons in the view of left wing types.

It's not that they enjoyed thier husband's deaths, it's that they are certainly making the most of those deaths since they happened. It's like that wacked out Cindy Sheehan (spelling?) who would be a nobody except for her son who died living the life he chose as a warrior.

The left would like you all to consider statements out of context, it make's it easier to ''spin'' them then.

[Bart]

The point that Ann Coulter was making was simply that before 09-11-01, they were just 4 everyday housewives. Now, they are 4 very well off ($$$) and listened to spokespersons in the view of left wing types.

It's not that they enjoyed thier husband's deaths, it's that they are certainly making the most of those deaths since they happened. It's like that wacked out Cindy Sheehan (spelling?) who would be a nobody except for her son who died living the life he chose as a warrior.

The left would like you all to consider statements out of context, it make's it easier to ''spin'' them then.

do you remember a little while back, there was a girl named terri schaivo who was a vegetable and her family was fighting with the husband to keep her alive. her parents were everyday people who got famous with their "right to life" campaign fueled by conservative christians. now, they have a multi-million dollar book deal to tell their story. they got money off of their daughters death. how is that different from these housewives in NJ, yet nobody speaks of them? maybe because being conservative is the new fad these days just like back in the 60's being a hippie was the "in" thing? i think people should get their heads out of their *****es and see these so called political pundits for what they are. worthless.

[tony.o]

nobody is saying ann or michael cant say what they want. they can. however, we choose to believe or not believe what they say and i cant figure out how so many people can believe this latest crap spewing from ann coulter.
Why don't you tell us what is said by Ann Coulter that was not true. You say that you've never heard of the four women before, but Coulter is lying.

[tony.o]

do you remember a little while back, there was a girl named terri schaivo who was a vegetable and her family was fighting with the husband to keep her alive. her parents were everyday people who got famous with their "right to life" campaign fueled by conservative christians. now, they have a multi-million dollar book deal to tell their story. they got money off of their daughters death. how is that different from these housewives in NJ, yet nobody speaks of them? maybe because being conservative is the new fad these days just like back in the 60's being a hippie was the "in" thing? i think people should get their heads out of their *****es and see these so called political pundits for what they are. worthless.
I haven't heard about the Schaivo parents getting a multi-million dollar book deal, but the big difference would be that the Jersey four got paid by the federal government simply because their husbands died in the towers, which is rediculous. People die every day and get 200 bucks from social security. 'Nobody speaks of them', are you kidding, the Schaivos were roundly criticised by the mainstream media and was given no pass like the Jersey Girls are given when they make wild statements and accusations. You sound like a worthless political pundit yourself. Why don't you tell us about the crap that the Jersey girls have been spewing for the past few years and them we'll talk about Ann Coulter. Oh, welcome back Bart, I guess you lied a while back when you said you were through with the forums.

[willowdared]

Hmmm, looks like the National Review had her number 5 years ago. I always knew there was a reason I liked William Buckley.


L’Affaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.

By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.


Dear Readers,

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.

This is what happened.

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."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

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.

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.

What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it — on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?

And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?

So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.

What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.

On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?

Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.

Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.

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.

Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" — or they're so much absurd bombast.

For example:

Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.

She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.

And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says — over and over and over again — that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.

Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.

The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.

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.

— Jonah Goldberg

[ParkLE]

Ann is just an awful person, and she can think about how awful she is and what a useless person she is while she is in prison for voter fraud. I’m not stupid enough to think that a well connect middle aged white republic would ever end up in prison in Florida but she does have voter fraud charges pending. She says that all felons should get the maximum so I am sure she will plea guilty and take her sentence without any argument.

[Bklngirl]

To suggest that the widows enjoyed their husbands death is cruel,but,I do think they're milking the situation dry.last year there was an obnoxious article in N.Y. magazine saying they're sick of everybody's pity.Many of them are millionaires now.Many are now living with men because if they married them they'd stop getting money from their husband pensions,etc.

[tony.o]

Hmmm, looks like the National Review had her number 5 years ago. I always knew there was a reason I liked William Buckley.


L’Affaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.

By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.


Dear Readers,

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.

This is what happened.

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."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

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.

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.

What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it — on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?

And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?

So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.

What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.

On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?

Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.

Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.

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.

Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" — or they're so much absurd bombast.

For example:

Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.

She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.

And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says — over and over and over again — that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.

Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.

The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.

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.

— Jonah Goldberg
I'm just wondering how many times your officers had to repeat their transmissions while your typing this, cause I'm sure you done all this on duty. :D

[Operator13]

I'm just wondering how many times your officers had to repeat their transmissions while your typing this, cause I'm sure you done all this on duty. :D


{Tone} "Attention all units and stations, 10-3 is in effect, all units and stations 10-3 in effect until further notice. No transmissions unless you have a priority ! xxx-xxxx clear at xxxx hours. "








j/k willowdared

[fair witness]

I'm just wondering how many times your officers had to repeat their transmissions while your typing this, cause I'm sure you done all this on duty. :D
I think Jonah Goldberg typed it; she cut and pasted it

[OnceBitten]

L’Affaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.

By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.


Dear Readers, ...........................


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


I hate to say this, but I can't say that Jonah Goldberg is much of a class act either. That whole spiel is lacking in any sort of journalistic integrity. Not only that--but it borders on libel and slander.

I'm so glad that yet another institution dedicated to bringing the truth to print has (had) decided that their readers must be protected from other people's opinions. Bring on the censorship! I don't read the NRO, I guess I'd rather stick to publications that don't think their readers are so stupid that they can't read a coulmn and decide whether they agree or disagree with what they've just read. ;)

[badger]

I only read the first 10 posts, so I apologize if the following has already been stated. The piont AC was making in the chapter this quote was taken from was that liberals will often use victims to further their agenda. They do this because any attack on the idea being spoken about by these victims would be construed as an attack on the victims themselves and as being incompassionate/unpatriotic. These victims are the tool of a liberal agenda. Not everytime, but quite often. That point is very apparent with the way things have been twisted by the main stream media and the taking of this short section of the book out of context with the remainder of the chapter and book as a whole. Read the book!

[1042 Trooper]

Yes - it had been said but it needed said again! Good Post!

Go Ann Go. Too skinny for me, but man is she smart.

[Cruiser]

Oh for crying out loud. She was not saying that they jumped up and down with glee when the word came in that their husbands were dead. She was using 'wit' to describe how they are enjoying the status of being a 9/11 widow and that they think they are above reproach because their husbands were killed. Same for that nutcase Sheehan, her son died a hero but his mother should be ashamed for her actiuons and lies she is telling. Just because you lose a loved one does not make you an expert on politics or whatever. It also should not shield you from being told you are wrong. These women ARE in fact enjoying their fame and wealth which they only obtained simply because their husbands were working in the WTC, and probably making big bucks. Ann is right on the money on this.

[willowdared]

I'm just wondering how many times your officers had to repeat their transmissions while your typing this, cause I'm sure you done all this on duty. :D

I don't have internet access at my work terminal, and I would not "play" on the internet while at work anyway.

That was pretty pathetic Tony.O :rolleyes:

[tony.o]

That was pretty pathetic Tony.O :rolleyes:
Surely you're not going to get your feathers ruffled up over that post, especially when I have a :D at the end of it. Should I have used :p ?

[willowdared]

Surely you're not going to get your feathers ruffled up over that post, especially when I have a :D at the end of it. Should I have used :p ?

:p That's why I rolled my eyes, instead of the mad face! How can I do all that typing when my nails are still wet? ;)

[DanteSF]

I've read a few of her books. I saw her on Politiclly Incorrect a few times. I check out her column on occassion. And I've found one thing:
Ann Coulter is confermation of my number one rule-Don't Stick It in the Crazy. She's bangin hot (Except for the Adam's Apple she's got goin.)....but no.


Lock her and Michael Moore in a room alone and record the results for science. Either it's like Matter and AntiMatter and the explosion takes out half a state or rage turns to passion and their kid is the Antichrist.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

Lock her and Michael Moore in a room alone and record the results for science. Either it's like Matter and AntiMatter and the explosion takes out half a state or rage turns to passion and their kid is the Antichrist.




NO!!!

For the love of all that's holy...NO!!!

I don't even want to think of Moore getting it on...

I'm going to go scrub my eyes out with lye and acid now...

[fair witness]

LMFAO :eek:

[OnceBitten]

From Ann, with love. :)

GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY ... FOR A BOOK BURNING
June 21, 2006

I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.

For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer.

How about these pungent points:

— No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time — undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals — the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over — except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, but going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. Liberals don't care about women. They care about destroying human life. To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

— Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.

Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate."

— Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ ("The Bell Curve") because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God's image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don't think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what's the point? After Hitler carried the secularists' philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It's difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

— While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was more interested in not "stigmatizing" them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from, being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at productions of the play "Rent," where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.

In 1987, New York Times reporter Maureen Dowd — before she was elevated to the cartoon pages — wrote a heroic portrait of the man. Dr. Koop, she said "fiercely wants to strip AIDS of its stigma," and for that reason, he talks "about making an animated educational video that would feature two condoms 'with little eyes on them' chatting, and about the need for 'gentle, nonmystifying' sex education for students, starting in kindergarten." I would pay quite a bit of money to hear someone describe anal sex — oh hell, make it any kind of sodomy — to a 5-year-old in a gentle, nonmystifying way.

Finally, a word to those of you out there who have yet to be offended by something I have written or said: Please be patient. I am working as fast as I can.

[1042 Trooper]

That's my girl! Gotta love her. :)