Doc, Ann's arguments are at least reasonable. By reasonable I mean: well supported by direct observation, logic, and evidence properly qualified and applied. Not to mention an acute sense of history.
Which is more than I can say for the jerk who compared her to a pink (or white) flamingo.... I mean, how subjective can you get???
Did you have a larger point you wanted to raise?
Ann may be a lawyer by education; but she sure doesn't act like one, existentially speaking.
Thanks for writing, Doc! I'm looking forward to your reply.
LoL... yeah many act like they don't know they are dealing with a well trained lawyer.. and that there is a method to everything she says..
The bromide that a good lawyer never asks or posits a question they don't already know the answer to.. would work with Ann Coulter..
By the way did you know that;
Coul·ter: a cutting tool (as a knife or sharp disc) that is attached to the beam of a plow, makes a vertical cut in the surface, and permits clean separation and effective covering of the soil and materials being turned under...
Note: I think she is a credit to her name..
As long as you attribute enjoying your husband's death as reasonable, then Coulter's arguments could be so construed. She is an embarrassment to what used to be conservative causes. She makes many misstatements of evolutionary theory; these misstatements have been corrected long before she decided to misuse them again. There is no excuse for such actions (well, maybe Molly Ivins has an excuse.)