Hugh wrote:”Ann Coulter owes an apology to the widows of 9/11, and she should issue it immediate”

Huge, I think you owe Ann an apology!

easy87us on June 7, 2006 at 9:26 PM

Allah, please stop using who said this and who said what to defend your position that you claimed Hillary is correct!

Argue with logic and lay out your reason.

How can you prove the word “enjoy”s inaccurate? Whether we think it is over board or not is immaterial in argument.

If you want to win an argument over Ann and convince her to apologize, you should use logic. Prove her wrong.

Since I cannot prove Ann wrong. So she is free to use it without apology.

If you truly want to guard the freedom of speech, this is the time.

easy87us on June 7, 2006 at 9:35 PM

I get the impression that Reuters, Hewitt and some others are playing dumb to their audience and trying to create a perception that Coulter was trashing all the people who lost love ones on 9/11, when it’s obvious she’s talking about the widows who were using their husbands’ deaths to advance their psycho political agendas.

It is similar to what they did with Tom Tancredo’s remarks a few months ago about bombing Islamic holy sites if the US is nuked. The usual suspects would leave out the “nuked US” part when reporting the story and the story became “Tancredo wants to nuke Mecca”.

Perchant on June 7, 2006 at 9:47 PM

I think you can make the point that certain of the 9/11 widows seem to be trading on their status as victims to poison the well of discourse without calling them “broads” or accusing them of revelling in their husbands’ deaths.

Or, in other words, I think Coulter’s underlying point was valid, but I think the manner in which she made that point was disgraceful.

Centerfire on June 7, 2006 at 9:53 PM

This semi-conservative rift highlights many things. First of all, these upstart pundits have egos like anyone else. A few of them clearly want to distance themself from Ann for any number of reasons. Bear in mind, they are trying to distance themselves from Ann - not the other way around, so that should clarify precisely just who is bigger. This reminds me of hearing Victor Davis Hanson disparage Rush Limbaugh. It’s all born out of ego, and quite sad to see.

Secondly, being a person very similar to Ann I can completely relate to the unease many have with her tack. Many people are personally uncomfortable saying (or even thinking) what she does and gosh darn it, in a huff of their own self-righteousness, they pronounce it must be wrong for anyone to say it. How’s that for egocentrism?

Expect this week for a bunch of other 9/11 widows to publicly agree with Ann.

I dare Hugh to criticize THOSE widows.

CaptiousNut on June 7, 2006 at 10:10 PM

Hugh Hewitt misspoke I’m sure. Or is it he’s just jealous because Ann said what he’s always to say but didn’t have the balls? You go Ann……it’s you that deserves the apology……..from nutless Hewitt

darwin on June 7, 2006 at 10:22 PM

I know Ann Coulter drives people crazy with her rhetoric, BUT…who here hasn’t criticized that “Mother” Sheehan moonbat in the same way? What’s the difference?
Maybe Hewitt hasn’t. Not sure if there are too many others on our side who haven’t, though. (I certainly have.)

Seems to me that Coulter’s comments just raised the visibility of the Jersey Girls about 1000% (I’d never heard of ‘em before, actually). You know what they say, all publicity is good publicity…

bamapachyderm on June 7, 2006 at 10:40 PM

Glad to see so many wacknut Republicans agreeing with “Christian” Ann Coulter.

Please. Keep doing it. In fact, do it out in public where everyone can see and hear you. Keep saying that these women are “enjoying” their husbands deaths. Keep standing behind Ann after she is on record calling Muslims “ragheads.” Keep standing behind “Christian” Ann after she said McVeigh should have blown up the NY Times building.

You frothy-mouthed trailer-trash wackos really have no boundries to your extremism, hate, and hypocrisy. Ann could call for another genocide of the Jews (for a million dollar book deal, of course) and you morons would follow right behind her every step of the way.

I’m glad Ann Coulter exists so that she can pull the mask off so many of you phony extremist right-wing trash.

It’s a shame the Republican party has been completely corrupted by hateful, bigoted, extremist sociopaths.

Kudos to those brave conservatives who have stood up to Ann.

better off blue on June 7, 2006 at 10:49 PM

I agree with the sentiment she expressed; the word ‘enjoy’ is questionable, however.

Lets look at John Walsh for a second. He worked in hotel marketing before his son Adam was kidnapped and murdered. This murder caused his activism and career change, to the point that he is an actor in movies outside of his “America’s most wanted” series. He has become a well known public presence, and was in fact voted one of People’s 50 mote beautiful people. None of these things would have happened had his son not been killed. One can look at him and see that he has turned a tragedy into an enjoyable life; but to say he enjoys his son’s death would be disgusting.
What Ann said borders on that, perhaps. When I read what the Jersey Girls have said, however, my empathy wanes somewhat. They blame Bush and Rice for what happened, and campaigned for someone who would weaken us further - someone without a single idea that could help improve our safety.
Anyhoo, my 2 cents…

malaking_baboy on June 7, 2006 at 10:55 PM

The reaction to her statements from both the right and the left just basically reaffirm her point.
The Jersey girls are only 4 out of hundreds of widows who lost someone on 9/11. Then proceeded to use their victim hood as insulation against criticism for their obvious attempt at political machinations.
But,apparently, the point will again be lost in the noise.

Cpilot on June 7, 2006 at 11:23 PM

btw…..better off blue,

You need to wipe the saliva off your key board.

Cpilot on June 7, 2006 at 11:27 PM

CPilot

Great comeback about the saliva? Did you learn that one on the playground today?

Nobody is saying the widow’s can’t be criticized. So enough with the pathetic strawman.

Be real. Ann Coulter doesn’t “criticize.” She levels up some of the most toxic, hateful, slanderous, unchristian, vile personal attacks imaginable. It’s her million dollar job to do so.

As Allah so courageously pointed out - there is a way to criticize with TACT. But Ann’s tact seems to have been replaced with a bulging adam’s apple and a desire to maliciously smear anyone in her way.

But what do I care? Really? Ann is a liberal’s best friend. She’s the face of the Republican party: hateful, contemptuous, vile, toxic, mean, and dirty. She’s exposing so many phony right-wingers for the extremist trash that they are.

So please!!! Keep SUPPPORTING ANN! I urge you! Keep defending her every word! And do it in public where everyday American’s can hear you say that the 9/11 widows are enjoying their husband’s deaths.

Ann Coulter for GOP Presidential Nominee in 2008!

better off blue on June 7, 2006 at 11:39 PM

Great comebacks, CMC! LOL

Keep defending Ann! Please, I urge you! Make Ann the true face of the GOP! Call up your Senators and urge them to pass a Constitutional Amendment make Ann Coulter the official GOP Spokeshero!

Oh, and Moore is ignored? ROTFLMAO! Fahrenheit 911 made $200 million. Highest-grossing documentary of all time. His works garner 100X the attention she-mAnn Coulter could ever get. It must make your blood boil over that he’s so popular! LOL

ANN COULTER FOR GOP NOMINEE IN ‘08!

better off blue on June 7, 2006 at 11:45 PM

In regards to these conservative blogs who continue to try to separate themselves from Ann, I am very disappointed. We need as many people as we can to speak the truth and be brave during these times of uncertainty. If all of you are out there hiding from the strong conservatives we will never achieve the ideal situation of living in a sane world.

You would rather continue on this path of immorality then to agree with a powerful statement from Ann. With porn, promiscuity, homosexuality, and other harmful behavior becoming a normal societal culture, we are heading toward a socialist society. Ann’s writing is very important to the morale of the conservative people and your negative statements about her only hurt our cause.

I understand that the majority of the negative comments are coming from middle of the road or libertarian people, but you all admit that the country is not going in the correct direction most of the time, so I will pray that you understand the importance of banning together instead of tearing each other apart. Even if you don’t agree with Ann when it comes to her belief system, you could at least focus on the comments you do agree with her on and write about them.

cmc on June 7, 2006 at 11:51 PM

better off blue

Why would a Democrat like you ridicule Coulter by saying she’s a member of one of the last remaining solid Democrat voting blocks?

You guys aren’t very comfortable in your own skin.

Perchant on June 7, 2006 at 11:58 PM

With regrets I am forced to point out that Hitlary is as right in her statement as she is in her political orientation.

Ann speaks her mind from her position of a political pundit, but the Witches grabbed every bit of fame that they could claim from the deaths of a loved one [?], and they RAN with it. It wasn’t about unanswered questions concerning the facts surrounding 9-11, but instead it was Their chance at geting a bit of fame from the tragedy, and to hell with any mourning the losses of Their loved ones.

Hitlary can feel a kinship with the Witches though. After all, isn’t Hill perhaps the most famous political opprotunist of them all?

As for Ann’s hair, why duck the issue with a total irrelevancy? Ann looks great, and that just infuriates liberals more when they get a good look at the women with liberal tendencies, but again it is a typical case of conservative apples being called liberal raspberries.

DannoJyd on June 8, 2006 at 12:08 AM

I still don’t know why Hillary has to pick on Ann Coulter. Does she has better things to do? Like finding who Bill spends the night with?

Hillary is over….When she is desperate enough to try to score points from Ann, she is over.

easy87us on June 8, 2006 at 12:23 AM

OK, let us shift the focus on Hillary.

She must be not very busy now. If she is in the middle of things, how in the world she finds time to tickle Ann Coulter?

Man , this is bad. She has time to fool around, like Bill does! I cannot imagine Pelosi or Boxer has any free time to themselves, that is why you don’t see them hassle with Michelle or Ann.

If Hillary is not busy now, it could mean only one thing….SHE IS OUT OF THE LIBERAL CIRCLE!

Mark my words, she is over.

easy87us on June 8, 2006 at 12:32 AM

Hmm, I just did a search for Ann on Google (sorry!!!) Up popped 3 pictures of her, one which is very anti Ann (the whole swastika thing.) Funny, though, when I do searches on other people, no pics show up at the top of the page as it does for Ann.

StephC on June 8, 2006 at 1:00 AM

OK, I’ve slept on it and had a cup of Starbucks, and I’ve settled on…

GO ANN. YOU ROCK. My only criticism of your book is the big typo on the cover, where it’s supposed to say GODDESS.

I’m disappointed in myself (and Allah, sadly) that I needed Ann and many of you to free me from Hillary’s testicle lockbox. 9/11 widows? How can I get Rush to replay his audio montage today? You know, the one where they’ve spliced together all the grieving “Jersey Girls” reading VERBATIM from the same talking points. Back when I still had balls, I worked up this nice Photoshop of grieving mother Cindy Sheehan. Poor thing…paralyzed with grief.

You know the old AIDS slogan “Silence = Death?” Well, friends, “The New Tone = Death.” We all know what a success that was.

Ann’s harsh? Islamists literally attached their note to Theo Van Gogh via a friggin’ knife through his chest…and the libs STILL won’t read it. But Coulter’s come up with the only comment blunt enough to raise their hackles. She’s doing the job Americans won’t do.

saint kansas on June 8, 2006 at 5:58 AM

Annes comments remind me of that drunk uncle that no one wants to listen to at the family reunion. He comes in, spouts some outrageous stuff which no one wants to hear, then leaves. Only later do people realize he was right.

Fact is, their are widows who are enjoying their new found celebrity. Just like their are women who enjoyed their newfound celebrity when they murdered their ow children. (Munchausen by proxy) Sure, we can all hide behind knee jerk emotional rhetoric (Ohhh Noeeesssss! it can’t be TruUuuEEEE)
Ann could have said it nicer, but it HAS been said nicer before, and ignored. Now people are energized and yelling about it. In time when the shouting settles down some people may think about it and see her point. namely that the liberals use people who have suffered a tragic loss to promote their myopic vision.
The very fact that people are attempting to restrict Coulters freedom of speech proves her point. You see, nice people would not say anything about the Jersey girls, because of their loss. Ann is not nice, and she pointed out what they are doing. Instead of people thinking of the message, they are tearing apart the messenger.

I do not know about you, But if I am walking into quicksand and a person yells “hey F**Ktard, git your A** out of the sand, you gonna F**king die dumbs**t” I am not going to stand their and quibble with his etiquette. The message is more important then the messenger.

Wyrd on June 8, 2006 at 7:28 AM

I agree with many of you posting about Hillary and Bill The Rapist. About the Widows, I have no sympathy. I know they campaigned for John Kerry. They turned themselves into a political entity, a political monster - like Abu Musab Al Zaqwari. They shouldn’t now appear to have thin skin.

They, the widows, said they have been slandered by Ann. Laughable… that will go no where.

Concerning Hillary, she commented on Ann Coulter after giving a speech regarding child protection “from exposure to sex- and violence-saturated media.” Mrs. Clinton must have forgotten that New York is inconclusive on Jessica’s Law that would protect you girls - future women from sexual predators, PEDOPHILE!

ar_basin on June 8, 2006 at 7:47 AM

Ward Churchill called the victinms of 9/11 “little Eichmanns” and the liberal media rallied around to protect him. Using the age old freedom of speech defense. The liberals at CU held rallies in his defense. The media NEVER went on a tirade to denounce him, nor has the NY wench Sen. Hitlery. This selective outrage by the left only further proves Anns point.

roninacreage on June 8, 2006 at 8:33 AM

Ann is right. She’s not saying that they’re “enjoying” their husbands deaths by throwing a party and laughing it up, but they most certainly are “enjoying” their husbands deaths through opportunistic self-promotion.

If you imagine the four of them grieving quietly as you read Ann’s “enjoying” comment, it’s outrageous. If you understand the truth - that they’ve moved well beyond grieving and are using the deaths politically - as you read her “enjoying” comment, it’s harsh, but appropriate.

MT on June 8, 2006 at 10:03 AM

I completely agree, Wyrd. I think she has a very valid point. The response by both the left and the right show how right she is.

S_que on June 8, 2006 at 10:37 AM

F*** Hewitt. If he can’t understand that not everyone needs to make a point with his wishy-washy, please don’t offend anyone, I’m such a good guy, look at me, I’m Hugh Hewitt, I love Harriet Myers style, then screw him. I find him 100x more irratating than Coulter.

msplitt on June 8, 2006 at 10:52 AM

Boo-Hoo. Mommy, mommy, Annie Coulter called me names…..
Losers.

dhimwit on June 8, 2006 at 12:06 PM

There will always be conservatives (like Hewett and others) who will condemn the brazen actions of Ann. They cannot or will not take the risk - for a variety of reasons that may or may not be legitimate. Once the beach has been secured, however, they will come ashore.

dman on June 8, 2006 at 12:14 PM

http://tinyurl.com/ko6wc

Nick Berg’s father… everyone…. ssssshhhhhhh! Silence please… this guy’s son died and Abu Musab Al Zahqwari should be elevated above GWB….

(aside: wait, didn’t Al Zahqwari kill Nick Berg…. )

Celebrity Status shouldn’t give someone the floor for all time.

****************

“I don’t think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq,” Berg said in a combative television interview with the U.S. Fox News network. “I think George Bush is.

****************

Ann Coulter appears untouchable - few can hold a candle.

ar_basin on June 8, 2006 at 12:38 PM

Ann Coulter was completely right. The Jersey Girls were despicable shills for the Kerry campaign and actually ran block as the 9/11 Commission focused on some unpleasant truths about their favorite Democrats. They didn’t want the truth, just their 15 minutes plus, including a different kind of commission.

Coulter’s larger point is an excellent one. The Left has used the dead and infirm to shield itself from criticism. Those who have participated in this pathetic cowardice are not only the Jersey Girls but Cindy Sheehan and the Hollywood ghouls who rolled around Christopher Reeves and didn’t give a damn about his dignity.

Coulter has done the country a favor. For too long, too many tongues were bitten as moonbat degenerates like the Jersey Girls rolled like the dogs they are in the scent of death. You have given us cover now to start bashing these ghoulish media whores.

Take it up a notch, Ann. Most of us support you totally.

godhelpUSA on June 8, 2006 at 1:03 PM

My two cents on this matter is that Allahpundit is right on in his take on this. His link to Dorthy Rabinowitz shows an excellent example of how this should be handled.

EFG on June 8, 2006 at 1:18 PM

I agree with EFG’s comment. Rabinowitz is a thoughtful and engaging journalist–which is hard work, what with all those thoughts that can’t be fully expressed on a bumper sticker.

honora on June 8, 2006 at 1:32 PM

Well Allahpundit and you EFG are missing the point. Dorthy Rabinowitz may have written about it, but then again who knows about it?
When the smoke clears from the whiny obsessive hand wringing over Ann being so mean, maybe the conversation can turn to this disgusting tactic of the lefts trotting out the “morally infallible” to stifle debate.

Cpilot on June 8, 2006 at 1:44 PM

Cpilots on Course

IMO, Anne was too kind, please google Breitweiser, in 2005 she was an expert on Katrina, in 2006 she called for the death penalty for Karl Rove, John Ascroft and GWB and Mr. Cheney.

Democrats left the civil discourse long ago Coulter just talks to them on a level they understand

EricPWJohnson on June 8, 2006 at 2:12 PM

Heard a couple of New Jersey assemblywomen (democommies, of course) are calling for a boycott of “Godless” by Ann Coulter. I’ve already got my own copy, but now I’ll go out this weekend and buy a few more.

Don’t these fools realize this is only helping sell this book?

Liberalism is in and of itself its own religion….twisted much like other extreme belief systems.

doingwhatican on June 8, 2006 at 6:23 PM

I have to say this is the best collection of posts I have ever read… Just watched O’Reilly and Hannity & Colmes. Honestly, I’m crushed. Why is it when you catch liberals in blatant hypocrisy that is beyond any reproach, they continue to rant in completely ignorance that they’ve been had? I feel like the victory has somehow been stolen because they are too stupid to realize that they are fools. Alas, at least I have my fellow hotair cohorts to revel with.. Tell me the average Joe got it, even if Bill, Alan and the ditzy blonde liberal on H & C didn’t.

RobertCSampson on June 8, 2006 at 10:13 PM

Richard,

She was being too kind, she didn’t write about their marriages before 9/11, she just threw their own words back at them with a couple of mild comments.

Breitweiser is even now advocating the DEATH penalty for Aschroft, Cheney, Rove etc over their planning the 9/22 bombings (she doesn’t call it a terror attack anymore)

She even asked for again a senate seat in the Congress

All coulter did was call it like it was and her reply to Hillary has sent some shock waves through her campaign

EricPWJohnson on June 9, 2006 at 2:18 AM

“Does that mean that Ann is just more honest than us “nancy boys”?

Not really. A lot of the time the excuse of “I was just being honest” is just a code for “I’m basically an inconsiderate asshole who cannot be bothered to modify my behavior in even the slightest fashion in order to observe basic conventions of social decency.”"

Loved that part.

THeDRiFTeR on June 9, 2006 at 2:40 AM

“Do you think that we cannot think for ourselves? Sorry guys but I didn’t drink the “blog-aid”. Half of you are only angry because you don’t have the guts to actually speak the truth like Ann Coulter. The other half of you hated her anyway so why would I care what you think? Pathetic.”

OOH, He got all of that one! Right on, Cary. The lack of guts from the right is embarrassing. *snif* “We muthent hurt anyonsth feeeeeeelingths.” *snif*

My God. Again, No wonder the world hates us. Cowards don’t deserve respect.

ecamorg on June 9, 2006 at 10:23 AM

Wouldn’t it be interesting if there was a way to find out how many more books Coulter has sold because of Hillary? Because of Letterman? Because of weak-spined conservative bloggers who put sensitivity ahead of truth?

Call Coulter whatever you like, but make no mistake one thing: the girl is a marketing genius. At the moment, she’s got liberal loons and conservative hand-wringers working overtime, 24/7, to sell her book.

The fact that so many people fall for this is pretty funny.

And that little comment I just made probably earned Coulter another 20 bucks.

Free market capitalism. Gotta love it.

Professor Blather on June 9, 2006 at 12:10 PM

To the poster above who compared the Jersey Goons to John Walsh (Poster = malaking_baboy):

You’ve got a good and interesting point - almost.

But your analogy has one large flaw in it that DOES make an enormous difference.

John Walsh turned his suffering into endless energy to address the problem that caused his suffering. As a result, he’s made real changes in society - wholly positive changes - and changes that were not divisive, or partisan, or self-interested. In the end he’s become famous and presumably wealthy …

So how are the Jersey Goofs different? The answer can be summed up on the response goon-in-chief gave when asked to respond to Coulter: “Responding to Coulter would be as senseless as debating gay marriage …”

HUH?

Do you see the difference yet?

If the Jersey Gaggle had spent the last five years working diligently to improve airport security, to attack infrastructure of global terrorism, to denounce Islamofascism, to urge BOTH parties to work together to make these things happen …. THEN you could compare them to John Walsh.

But that isn’t what they did. Not even close.

What they did was immediately seek the spotlight and use that spotlight for partisan politics.

They have NEVER attacked Al-Queda.

Instead, they have worked to further the far-left partisan politics they already beleived in before 9/11. They’ve worked to become famous specifically to become famous, not to do good. They blame the President rather than the terrorists, and campaigned for an opponent who would clearly have made us LESS safe from terrorists.

And if none of that matters, there’s still the fact that they so obvious really do seem to be enjoying themselves. Find me footage of John Walsh, four years after his son’s death, parading around with a smile on his face for the cameras.

The analogy fails. John Walsh worked to do good and accidentally found fame and fortune. The Jersey Geeks used the fame of their tragedy to seek recognition and advance a completely unrelated agenda (gay marriage?? Huh?).

No comparison.

And they ARE enjoying themselves. Make no mistake. Coulter is right. Tasteless maybe for pointing out what anyone can see … but she’s right.

Professor Blather on June 9, 2006 at 12:26 PM

Prof Blather,

Where was all the money when Ann was saying the same stuff years ago and publishers were running from her like the plague? Accusing her of having her beliefs because of money is accusing her of committing fraud on the public and her readers. Her message has been the same since before she was wealthy… put down the kool aid please. Not trying to offend you; just simply challenging your mischaracterization of Ann Coulter.

Cary on June 9, 2006 at 12:33 PM

Sure Blather,

Right here:

“Call Coulter whatever you like, but make no mistake one thing: the girl is a marketing genius. At the moment, she’s got liberal loons and conservative hand-wringers working overtime, 24/7, to sell her book.

The fact that so many people fall for this is pretty funny.

And that little comment I just made probably earned Coulter another 20 bucks.”

You did not say it in speicific words but your intent is obvious… she does it for money and because of marketing. That is NOT why she does it. Your implication is false in my opinion.

Cary on June 9, 2006 at 12:41 PM

I disagree that her statements concerning politics are heavily influenced by marketing concerns. Sorry my writing is not up to your standards. Your statement is wrong in its inherency… I am not attacking whether you agree with her or not. I never made one statement about that.

I will say it again without stuttering this time; because I obviously must have.

Her statements on politics are NOT influenced my marketing concerns. It is shallow of you to even say that. Ann would agree; and has said so herself.

So lets pick up our kool aid glasses and just throw it at each other. Can we move on now or should I repeat what you said over and over again? They were your words and you clarified them even more in the post above responding to me.

“To clarify, since you seem to have a minor problem with English: I have never even considered that she doesn’t mean what she says - but it is plainly evident that how and where and when she chooses make certain statements are heavily influenced by marketing concerns.” -Blather

Nice. Wow, my kool aid statement must be what sent you into personal attacks on my English writing ability and comprehension. Sorry for that one, did not mean to hurt your feelings. You say she is influenced heavily by marketing concerns; I say she is not. Go ahead and make another post after this one so you can refute what I just said and I will not respond in order to stop this string of insults and the childish arguing we have apparently descended into.

Cary on June 9, 2006 at 1:14 PM

OK I guess I lied. I will respond.

I hereby apologize for mischaracterizing your statements, sincerely. Here is where I have a problem: You said that “how, where, and what” she says IS influenced heavily by marketing concerns. THAT is what got me kinda pissed off… the “how” part specifically. The publishers deal with marketing; Ann just speaks her mind “how” she has always done.

Again, apologies for the mischaracterization. I have to admit honestly that the attacks on Coulter have gotten me fairly angry at both conservatives and liberals. Saying that marketing influences “how” she says things rubs me the wrong way for some reason. I don’t know why, it just does.

I simply do not agree that “Coulter chooses the MANNER in which she voices her opinions in order to increase publicity”. I guess you can continue to call me stupid for that. If that makes me stupid then stupid I be.

Cary on June 9, 2006 at 1:32 PM

Wow. My apology was sincere; yet you still call me names? I honestly did not mean to offend you personally. And I did not mischaracterize anything in my last post. You are saying that she works with publicists to achieve her marketing goals? Am I at least right in assuming that is what you meant? If so YES I agree with that… she works with her publicists. It just seemed to me that you were saying she changed “how” she says things in order to generate more book sales. Blather, if it makes you feel like a big man to continue to call me names then by all means continue. You keep saying the same thing over and over again and I keep telling you that I don’t believe you think she changes her opinions based on marketing. Should I say it again? A person gives you a sincere apology just in case they actually did mischaracterize you and you don’t even have the integrity to give me the benefit of the doubt?

So here we go again: “What I think is is rather obvious is that, like any celebrity, pundit, or artist who relies on publicity for her living, Coulter very carefully chooses the MANNER in which she voices her opinions in order to increase publicity. (Read it again. No - again. Ask someone to explain the big words.)” -Blather

Are you telling me that what I quoted above is not one of the main points of your argument? Is there any way someone can disagree with even part of that and you not call them names? Again, I’m sorry for the kool-aid remark; I shouldn’t have accused you of that.

What I quoted above is NOT a mischaracterization.. it is one of your main points if I am not mistaken. If it is not then why did you write it? How about at least arguing on the merits or lack thereof of my argument and stop the silly name calling. For someone who calls me a kid; you sure aren’t much of an adult.

Cary on June 9, 2006 at 2:07 PM

Cary, Professor,

admit it, both of you love Ann Coulter.

Case closed.

easy87us on June 9, 2006 at 2:27 PM