Talk:Ann Coulter

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VargasMilan (Talk | contribs) at 13:11, 13 January 2010. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Unprotected by User:Ed Poor

Archive 1


Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? SirJim 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests Eljawa 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. Bohdan 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
See what the others think. Bohdan 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. RobS 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. Bohdan 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. RobS 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. Bohdan 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

this article needs a "criticisms" subsection in order to be fair. Jsusman 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? Rob Smith 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --Rutm 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of memes, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of "criticism", there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. Rob Smith 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --Rutm 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?

If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim "truth", move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. Jsusman 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

  • Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

do you mean statements like this? "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly" -ann coulter Jsusman 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Cite an instance where that's not true. Rob Smith 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --Rutm 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Here's the point about deceit: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. Rob Smith 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? Jsusman 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party & liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. Rob Smith 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

"spewing hate" pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? Jsusman 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. Rob Smith 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or "i think women should be armed but not vote". but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative". i dare you to respond without a single reference to "liberals". Jsusman 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as "General Betray-Us."
To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said "in other bad economic news" [1]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. Rob Smith 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: "bad economic news today" but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal.

you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of "vicious, liberal snarks and smears". thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism.

all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.

Jsusman 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.

silly Coulter

Silly Coulter, Adams apples are for men! thegovernator

Coulter & Sarcasm

I think some consideration should be given to the view that almost all of Coulter's positions are too peurile to be seriously held, and that her entire body of work must be satirical and intended to make a mockery of anyone who finds her points to be at all insightful if taken at face value.

Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is "excess". Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is "elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process". Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people.
In that spirit, let me emphasize that only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. Aziraphale 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) <-doesn't like lib gasbags either....
This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. Rob Smith 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
  • shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. Aziraphale 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) <-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~
On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. Rob Smith 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
Ok, applaud away. Aziraphale 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? Jsusman 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

<-- When the political consulting team of James Carville, Larry Flynt, and Paul Begala cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like Jim Jeffords and Larry Craig, is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. Rob Smith 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? Aziraphale 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I guess we need Flynt & Begala entries then. Rob Smith 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. Aziraphale 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
This Coulterism [2] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. institutional racial hoaxism. Rob Smith 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Legal career

Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? Jsmog 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

M. Stanton Evans

Good quote from Coulter on M. Stanton Evans new book, "the greatest book since the Bible, M. Stanton Evans' Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies." [3] We just need a place to put it. Rob Smith 14:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)


Im sorry but this woman preaches hatred and gives conservative a bad name entirely, she called Jews imperfect christians for gods sake, that is a hateful comment, she is a bigot, she is too far to the right, and when you go to far to the right you become the opposite of a communist... a Nazi. She would quite happily send us back 70 years. The article doesn`t reflect the fact that even moderate conservatives find her offensive, and conservatives should not condon her actions. --Realist2 10:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)

And the hate from the liberals that she preaches against on TV, radio, and her books doesn't count? Karajou 11:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)
The article quotes those comments; what more do you want? The reader can decide whether they are hateful or not. RSchlafly 11:18, 24 December 2007 (EST)

And if you can't decide, it's not a problem; the article tells you right from the start:

Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics and liberals in general, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that liberals can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. [2] [3]

  • Liberals = intolerant attacks
  • Ann Coulter = exposure of hypocrisy, occasional twitting

Nice to have things made simple! Feebasfactor 12:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)

is that ment to be a joke, --Realist2 14:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)

That's "meant", not "ment". More importantly, please open your mind a bit for your sake.--Aschlafly 14:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Open minds are great, and Ann Coulter probably does make a lot of very good points. But you can be simultaneously valid and offensive, and the article should not attempt to dismiss this by putting such a spin on her "controversy" in the very second paragraph. As mentionned before, the quotes speak for themselves, so let the readers decide. Feebasfactor 15:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I hate people who won't fix things themselves => shorthand for I hate it when people ... --Ed Poor Talk 15:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Um... Thanks for unlocking the article...? Feebasfactor 23:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)
My Mind is open about this, and I still see a hate monger, Mr. Schlafay. Evidence to the point: Christian Crusading, Anti-Semitic statements, and Anti-Islamic sentiments. My evidence towards the theory that Ann Coulter is a Hate Monger and a Religious Facist is on the table. You may now post a counter argument. CodyH 18:57 11 Feb 2008 (CST)
The article has quotes from her. The reader can form his own opinions. RSchlafly 22:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Isn't Coulter pro-choice?

I thought Ann Coulter was pro-choice. Someone should look into this... -danq 12:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)

First "Reference"

The first reference, "U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner called her one of America's top public intellectuals," has no source. Unless there's a source or a specific objection, I think this reference should be deleted. --Jdellaro 08:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)

I added the refs [4] [5] --Crocoite 12:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Perhaps I misunderstood the references---but where does he state that she's one of America's top public intellectuals? --Jdellaro 12:10, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Having read the reference again, I think a couple improvements could be made. First, the reference should have something to do with the corresponding passage. The passage talks about her books, but the reference makes a claim about being called a top intellectual. That claim can be included in the main article someplace, but doesn't have relevance as a reference to her writings. Second, the reference, when placed in the article, should point to his book on the subject, rather than the appendix to the book. The reference doesn't make the fact any clearer. Finally, having read a summation of the book from Publisher's Weekly, it seems Posner was writing that the intellectuals of today have diminished from the intellectuals of the past. He then uses web hits as a qualification for intellectualism. That seems a weak criteria.
Overall, I think this reference should just be removed, as it doesn't enhance but instead detracts from the article. --Jdellaro 12:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Valid points. The statement and references now stand alone and are not linked to her books. The statement now adds to the article. --Crocoite 12:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the update. I still question whether he considers her one of America's top public intellectuals, or whether she's just another example of an American public intellectual, but w/o reading the book it's hard to know. But thank you for the updated writing! --Jdellaro 12:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)


The following paragraph needs some work:

Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by critics and liberals, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that [[liberal]]s can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [ (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [] </ref>

I love Coulter's writing, but this paragraph includes a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. I wanted to rewrite it, but I wasn't really sure how without taking out most of the assertions. HelpJazz 14:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)

As an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and sometimes considered "offensive" <ref>She called Democratic women "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons". [ (Washington Post)] </ref> <ref>At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, "I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" [] </ref>
How's that, HelpJazz? Any better? Feebasfactor 17:25, 12 February 2008 (EST==
Wow, I forgot about this post, heh. Yes, Feebas, I think that's much better, and I think it still gets the same message across without the editorializing. Thanks! HelpJazz 19:37, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Feigning offence

What is feign offence Andy? you mean that people are not actually offended? AdenJ 23:58, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Karajou, this is pathetic. Her critics are critics because they are actually offended. What makes you think they feign it? I am going to revert if you cant give a reason AdenJ 01:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

And I will throw you off this website if you even dare to. Karajou 01:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, I was under the impression I was dealing with an adult. AdenJ 01:44, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

The child is yourself, and we've had enough of your tantrums and your bad remarks directed against the sysops and Aschlafly here. If you want to contribute, fine; but your bad attitude is over with. If not, leave. Karajou 01:47, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, I am not the one saying "I dare you! Then I'll show you!" Secondly, I dont give a sweet damn what Coutler says however she does offend and noone "feigns it" and you should back this up if this is actually meant to be "trustworthy" AdenJ 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

With respect, he has raised an important point. I believe that at least some of Coulter's critics have been offended by her comments, particular those who they are directed at. StatsMsn 02:16, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
It's easy to see why Coulter's critics would feign offense, in their attempt to score political points. It's not so easy to see why they would be genuinely offended. Are they equally offended by similar jokes/comments by liberals??--Aschlafly 09:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
Hm. AdenJ is currently... "away", but I just saw this in the Recent Changes. I can understand why liberals would be genuinely offended by her remarks:
  • "Liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
    • Right. This of course does not offend liberals in the slightest...
  • "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly."
    • See above; I guess no liberal will be offended by that. No sir...
    • Of course, women will only feign being offended by this. They know that they are incapable of understanding how money is earned! Sure!
And how about some of her book titles?
  • Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (2003)
  • Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2004)
  • How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2005)
  • If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans (2007)
Are you seriously claiming that not one of these lines is going to genuinely offend anybody? If anybody said that conservatives are lying traitors who are driven by Satan and should not be allowed to vote because they're all anti-American idiots, I'm very sure that conservatives would be offended. Maybe not you, but others will be. --JBrown 10:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, liberals typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.--Aschlafly 10:39, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
Huh. I... see. Thanks for clarifying this quite... unique view of liberals. [frowns] --JBrown 10:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
 ??? Your statement is incoherent. Are pretending that liberals don't deny they are liberals? Check out the comments of Hillary Clinton and scores of posters here, perhaps including yourself.--Aschlafly 10:45, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
??? Are you saying that I'm a liberal? What do you base this on? Your political identification bias, maybe? I certainly didn't give you any hint of my political affiliation other than disagreeing with you. Classic case, I would say.
It's typical conservative style to label any posting as "incoherent", and if there was such an article here, I would add it as the new number 1 entry. ;)
If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words and simply cite a webcomic: "Dude, see this huge sweat-drop? It means I'm totally grossed out." - Oh, and don't pretend to be offended by this post. I know you'd just be feigning it to score points in this discussion, just like you know that no liberal is genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks.
But hey, your site, your wikiality. If you want to claim that no liberal is offended by being called a lying traitor, then you can obviously do so. [shrug] I at first assumed that this was some odd misunderstanding, but your post clarified the position to the degree that I know that my best move is to disengage. Which I tried to do, before you called my post "incoherent". Let's hope that this second attempt will be more fruitful. --JBrown 10:58, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
  • Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks: Comments like If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words are out of place here. Kindly confine your comments to discussion of how to improve the article. --Ed Poor Talk 11:06, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
So my comparably tame remark is a personal remark, but nobody will be genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks? What if I claimed that you and Aschlafly are only feigning it to silence me? How would you prove me wrong?
Also, please note that I only made that remark after Aschlafly labeled my post "incoherent", which I found quite insulting. Or how about Aschlafly implicitly labeling me as a liberal, based on nothing other than him disagreeing with me? I accept your warning (and I already said that I was retreating and disengaging, once implicitly and once explicitly), but I must protest against the fact that only I receive one. --JBrown 11:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

I had written an earlier version which I though was fairly neutral (see a section above, HelpJazz condoned it). But in light of the view that... "No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, liberals typically don't even admit they are "liberals", further diminishing the chance of genuine offense." ...I think I'll just step away. I... don't understand how it can be claimed that one would not be offended by such comments as JBrown listed, I certainly would be (perhaps, I have a slightly different interpretation of "offense"?). Feebasfactor 22:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Some liberals claim they are offended by a prayer that simply thanks God. Does you think that really offends them? I don't. Claiming offense is an effective way to demand censorship, or try to ostracize someone and drive her off television. Enough said?--Aschlafly 22:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Well, no, I don't think so either. A prayer thanking God does not insult, criticize or even address the "offended" party, so I think you're quite right when you say liberals are feigning offense in such a case. However, the comments listed above directly attack liberals, so I would not be surprised if there was in fact some genuine offense taken. Wouldn't you be at all offended if someone said such things about you? "traitors or idiots", "lie constantly", "motivated by Stalin"... If not, I'll assume that I am understanding "offense" differently.
Now I'm not saying she's wrong, or that she should have to censor herself at all, but is it really that unbelievable that someone could be offended by such comments? Feebasfactor 23:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I think this question has credibility. --Limbo 18:34, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I doubt that people who claim they are offended by Ann Coulter really are offended by her. Rather, I think they want to censor her, and feign offense as tool of censorship. We see similar tactics used against pro-lifers, people who pray, and people who criticize homosexual lifestyles.--Aschlafly 21:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

"I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks." OK, so if someone, say Ward Churchill, said that all conservatives were rascist fear-mongers (and maybe he has), would that be equally inoffensive, because it was just a general remark?--Frey 22:59, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservatives do not feign offense as liberals do. Conservatives believe in honesty. Try it and you'll set yourself free.--Aschlafly 08:47, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
It would be nice if that were true, but I received a one-week block in September for posting something truthful about Sarah Palin on her article's Talk Page. My edit there was accused of being a false liberal smear, and I responded by researching the topicc, finding the evidence and posting the truth as a response. The truth in this case was not flattering to Palin, and while no one could deny it was the truth, it was considered inapropriate - I was then blocked for a week and the comments & supporting evidence were removed from the Talk page. My comments were about policy changes that took place in Wasilla as a result of her becoming mayor, so they were entirely relevant and appropriate once I had established that they were truthful. If you really mean what you say about Conservatives believing in honesty, will you allow me to post my findings and supporting evidence on the Palin page since even my blocker conceded their truthful nature? --DinsdaleP 20:01, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Part of the below post comes from something I wrote in a different section, but it applies here I believe:

As suggested by the above theses pertaining to feigning offence, I think most people--liberals and various republicans included--do fake being upset by Coulter. However, Coulter herself may well be acting or hyperbolizing when she says the things that "anger" others and as such, neither we nor she should be that surprised when people "act" in response. It's all about taliation. Coulter is regularly questioned and criticized by members of the very party she supposedly represents. There are many well founded hypotheses out there which suggest that Coulter is a proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing" (Read: a liberal in disguise). Her actions and words in the name of Conservatism are often so outlandish that she has effectively turned members of her own party against Conservatism, as a whole. I base this not off of my own ideologies, but from people with whom I've spoken and interviewed.

All in all, I wouldn't be that against making the argument that Coulter is proving to be a liability for her party much like, say, Howard Dean was for the dems. User:Acwellman

To summarize, you're saying that those targeted by Coulter's comments feign offense as a form of censorship (which is valid, but seems like it would be hard to prove), but then you argue that there are people who are offended and are not acting in retaliation - fellow conservatives, who actually turn away from the ideology itself. I'm confused. User:Limbo

The point I'm trying to make is that Coulter is often overstated and hyperbolic in her attacks, thus it would seem logical that those on the receiving ends of those attacks would feign their offence. Honestly, I think Coulter has put herself in a position where a lot of people won't and don't take her very seriously, so they feign offence as a sort of sarcastic "tip of the hat" to her. I agree that many people on this website might proactively agree with her, but then again (judging by comments made above) many also don't. The Conservapedia readership represents such a small demographic of the population and doesn't accurately represent overall views held of Ms. Coulter. As for turning Republicans against their own party, look at how much more liberal a guy like...say...Tucker Carlson has gotten in the last few years. At any rate, all just observations... User:AcWellman

My point is this: either people feign offense (and are NOT offended) or they aren't. If people are turning away from the party in part due to her, then they're offended. If people are pretending to be offended, and turning away from their own party is a "sarcastic 'tip of the hat,'" then they are feigning offense. I think I see what you're saying, but I can't really say I agree. I don't think that people really feel she's in any way credible or relevant. She's the opposite of Bill Maher. --Limbo 19:43, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough, Limbo. But, how then do you explain the act of throwing pies in her face? Do you actually throw a pie at someone who has genuinely offended you? I would say that the act of throwing a pie at someone's face is more on par with a comedy act than it is an act of animosity designed to retaliate against someone who has genuinely offended you. I think that trying to set this whole "feigning offence" thing up as a binary arrangement (people are either genuinely offended or they fake their offence) is a bit anachronistic. As is the case with most things in life there is, indeed, a middle ground here...I am sure that she has truly offended some people but others just find her outlandish nature, dirty and hateful that it may be, to be so overstated that it's just plain funny. I am one of the latter; I laugh at her like I laugh at Family Guy...if that makes sense.

Not a big fan (remark)

Frankly, I don't see why Ann Coulter's contempt for the First Amendment is being reverted

"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." University of Florida speech; October 20, 2005

Why is this being reverted? She said it, it's factual, informative, and goes to the heart of who she is. The Bill of Rights is an amazing pillar of American Freedom. Conservapedia, and a million other sources of information might not even exist without it. If she has such contempt for the Constitution of the United States, why not say so? Yesaliberal 11:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

The links did not work; no way to see the information is accurate. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:12, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I don't know about the links, I'm no HTML expert, but this URL will get you there. Yesaliberal 11:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, I was able to figure out how to make the link work. Yesaliberal 12:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
The article does not say that she has contempt for the 1A, or explain the context for the quote. RSchlafly 12:45, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough. She said she is not a big fan of the First Amendment. Yesaliberal 12:48, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
You'd hang someone for saying she is 'not a big fan of ' something? She may be a medium fan, or no fan at all. The quote is so vague that it does not merit inclusion. Bugler 13:01, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I would, especially because: 1. We are not talking about being "a big fan" of some silly movie here, we are talking about the Bill of Rights. 2. The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of American Freedom and should never be taken lightly especially by those who profess to be protecting American Freedom. 3. Any prominent liberal who said this would be burned alive in this forum. 4. My attempts to include the context for Obama's not wearing a flag pin were reverted. 5. Truth is truth and fairness is fairness, and including or excluding certain facts in order to bias an article is deceit whether commited by a conservative or a liberal. John 8:32 Yesaliberal 13:18, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Coulter's point is obvious: she's not a "big fan" of how the First Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts. Coulter is not attacking the Bill of Rights as originally understood in any way.--Aschlafly 13:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment. "They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them." She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
Where does she talk about the courts? Corry 13:29, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Where does she talk about the courts? Yesaliberal 13:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Here is the (partial) context of the remark:


The question, obviously, is what she meant by this. She might have meant that she wants to suppress the speech of everyone who contradicts her; but based on my reading of 3 of her books I find that impossible to believe.

It's more likely that she was making a satirical point. We could email her for a clarification, if necessary, but what she probably means is that she opposes the abuse of the First Amendment.

Writers, be careful not to make ideological edits; i.e., do not add anything to an article which promotes your ideology in an illegitimate way, such as out of context quotation or quote mining. Don't copy the strategy of Bushisms, the anti-George Bush book which collects as many "damaging quotes" as possible with the aim of making him look stupid.

You may, of course, report truthfully that a certain published author or other prominent person made an argument about Ann Coulter, based on a 10-word quotation from a lengthy speech. That's not an ideological edit; that's reporting someone's viewpoint.

In general, avoid unattributed views, implications, and insinuations. --Ed Poor Talk 21:23, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

Is she Christian?

I mean, does she consider herself Christian? Because as one, it seems to me that none of her actions ever revolve around philosophies like, "judge lest not ye be judged", or "turn the other cheek", which are fundamental teachings of Christ (as in, Christian). I can't believe that she says any of this except to get a rise out of people, but then why is she so...egrandized in this article? Why would we compare her to Condoleeza Rice, when this is someone who just talks, and talks of horrible things? She doesn't actually do anything! She just takes Nazi quotes and replaces "Juden" with "liberal" and presto, idiocy. Why isn't this someone who we're trying to amputate from the conservative movement, why is this someone we regard highly and compare to the mother of this site's founder? IS THIS WHAT THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT? OtherSide 17:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Some Responses: The only comparison being made between Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly is that they are both high profile conservatives--that's as far as the parallel goes. There's a whole lot of bipartisan speculation as to Coulter's religious beliefs and, believe it or not, her political allegiance. As suggested by the above (and Otherside, this is assuming you are a Republican) Coulter is regularly questioned and criticized by members of the very party she supposedly represents. There are many well founded hypotheses out there which suggest that Coulter is a proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing" (Read: a liberal in disguise). Her actions and words in the name of Conservatism are often so outlandish that she has effectively turned members of her own party against Conservatism, as a whole. I base this not off of my own ideologies, but from people with whom I've spoken and interviewed.

From a religious standpoint, Coulter has definitely been engaged more than once (I believe 3 times, but don't quote me on that) yet still identifies herself as a Christian. Given that Holy Matrimony is one of the most sacred aspects of Christianity, it would seem that breaking a marital engagement would be tantamount to betraying what something like marriage stands for. I agree with OtherSide--Coulter can freely dish out criticism but she really has a tough time receiving it...


Ann Coulter, by her own behavior and well-documented statements, is about as Christian as Attila the Hun. A person of her level of outrageous offensiveness does more to hurt the conservative cause than any liberal could ever do. That Andy Schlafly abuses his power to shield her from criticism is a sad indicator of his political blindness deeming it acceptable to demonize people with whom you politically disagree in as vicious terms as possible, and to distort facts to suit your own agenda. Why do people like the runners of this website not see that this is not the effective way to promote conservatism?? By demonizing everyone else, and even accusing fellow conservatives who disagree with you on specific issues of being secret liberals? This website is run like a Nazi dictatorship, with Andy and his ass-kissing moderators deciding what truth and reality are.


I just finished reading Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror; I vote it should be made the 28th Book in the New Testament (Ye shall know the truth and truth shall set you free). Rob Smith 18:33, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
I'm glad to see someone else enjoyed her books. I think Godless: The Church of Liberalism should be taught in schools. Maybe to counter some of the liberal indoctrination that goes on there. TheHeroExcelsior 10:12, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Style and substance

Ann Coulter makes many good points, and she frequently nails liberals to the wall with deadly accuracy. She also sometimes answers liberals in their own coin, making a remark just as outrageous as the worst of theirs.

Liberals have slandered her for this, pretending that her outrageous zingers are the only thing she ever says or writes. Hence, the frequently made attack on her, "Does she believe what she says?" This is simply character assassination in service of an ad hominem argument, because they have no answer to the substance of her arguments. --Ed Poor Talk 19:03, 3 January 2010 (EST)

You're referring to Sholto Byrnes of the Independent [U.K.]? I think Coulter's jokes are just too deep for him. VargasMilan 13:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)
Thanks for telling me about the book dates. I didn't check those but rather undid all your contribs since Aschlafly. You had slanted the article against Coulter, using the typical liberal slander: i.e., that she's just as bad (or worse) than any specific political opponent she has criticized.
If that is your point, just say so - and quote your source. Don't use encyclopedia articles to make a case - Wikipedia calls that original research, we call it bias.
Please submit a writing plan for this article, because a lot of what you said about the Paula Jones case is valuable. Just stop using it to tear down Coulter, and it can all go back in. Can you do that? --Ed Poor Talk 10:14, 13 January 2010 (EST)
No that wasn't my intention at all. Like I said in the Statements section, she makes controversial statements and admits doing so; out of context, they may seem inappropriate, in context they are found to prove a point about the harmful or foolish activities of her targets. I wouldn't necessarily mention the statements I used, but they were included by another Conservapedia contributor in the quotes section, so instead of kicking them out the back door, I confronted them directly. My first response was to undo the damage the out-of-context quotes may have caused by providing context.
Likewise, my coverage of the name-calling of John Edwards. Can you tell me anywhere on the internet of any news report where Coulter's minor use of a schoolyard taunt to prove a point about the censorship of criticizing gays was weighed against the prior months of intermittent harassment she received from persons apparently preoccupied with promoting some gay agenda at her speeches? And that after she had already stated she was not interested in the gay rights issues for or against?
As it stands in the original version, the material that she is "as bad (or worse) than any specific political opponent" is still present in the quotes section and the footnotes. In my version it states that her confidence in making statements found to be controversial is "vindicated later by a rehearsal of the facts available to conscientious scrutinizers of the content of her speech," and then one example case is explained--the quote she came up with on the spot in order to change the subject of her would-be interviewers back to her book, and her later use of that quote to point out the activities of the New York Times were dangerous to United States national security.
Before I began writing for this article, I spoke to an administrator named User:TK whom I asked if I could move the material I wrote for the Wikipedia article over to Conservapedia. He saw the Paula Jones section which I wrote and then asked me to proceed. Could we please consult with him before removing my sections entirely? I agree that my writing isn't perfect, but I think it has to do with clarity rather than any kind of issue of fairness. Thank you. VargasMilan 13:11, 13 January 2010 (EST)