National Review Cans Columnist Ann Coulter

Washington Post ^ | 10/2/01 | Howard Kurtz

[Jean S]

Even by her usual incendiary standards, Ann Coulter's response to the terrorist attacks was something of a jaw-dropper.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," the conservative commentator declared in her column on National Review Online.

Those words created an uproar at the Web site, which refused to run a follow-up piece in which Coulter singled out what she called "swarthy males." She promptly began bad-mouthing National Review, which responded by axing her as a contributing editor.

[an amused spectator]

I think I get it. I see FReepers being huge hypocrites. If it were Molly Ivins saying "We need to bomb those Christians and convert the idiots to secularism ASAP!" the FReepers would be whining and calling for boycotts. But because its a conservative, and most of the FReepers happen to be fundamentalists anti-every religion but theirs, they go "tee hee, ain't it funny!" about Coulters idiocy.

I doubt if you speak any Arabic tongues, or understand Islam. Do you REALLY know what our enemies want? If you don't, why don't you start informing yourself before you pass judgement on Coulter?

Or are you too busy pedalling your uninformed opinion on this forum? ;-)

[an amused spectator]

I'm curious. Do you keep posting a picture of yourself, your daughter, or your grand-daughter? ;-)

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

Does anyone know if Ann posts here?If she reads this, she will be howling out loud!!

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

Intelligent, well spoken liberals???????? Snigger,snigger,snigger,snigger guffaw,guffaw,guffaw chortle,chortle,chortle,chortle yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk,yuk!!

[That Poppins Woman]

The "rapture" is an interpretation of some events in Revelation, and it was invented in 19th century American Christian theology.

There were a couple of events in the 19th century where whole groups of Christians waited for the rapture. All of them disappointments.

[Whilom]

All right, class, have you got it yet? Protection of dissent applies only to liberals.

[_Jim]

The anti-Bush women were ugly, mannish sorts with anger written all over them. The pro-Bush women were beautiful, sexy, affluent and -- like Laura Bush -- they truly sparkled.

Fits right in there with Rush's Undeniable truth of life # 25:

"Feminism was established to give ugly women easier access to the marketplace ..."

[grego]

She needs 30 pounds on her. Not good looking but she does have a right to write what she wants.

[Prodigal Daughter]

I am not attracted to women but being a woman, I notice looks in a sisterly way, and I have noticed that conservative women don't have to be stunning to be attractive; they are usually so nice that their sweetness makes them more attractive. On the other hand, liberal women, I'm not talking about the common confused liberal, I'm talking about the ideologues, they usually look so mean that even though their features might be attractive, they look mean and ugly most of the time, case in point Hitlery or Maxine Waters, the expressions on their faces make them look nothing less than witchy. You can't call them ugly, but would you want to take a job under any of them. I wouldn't want to even deliver their mail! When all the Democratic Congress women get together, they look like a coven.

[Steve0113]

conservative women don't have to be stunning to be attractive; they are usually so nice that their sweetness makes them more attractive.

Bingo.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Bag the conversion stuff. In fact, bag the invasion. Drop a nuke and be done with it.

[Plummz]

Pretty weak connection, but hey, anything that feeds your anti-papist fervor and/or blows your dress up. I seriously doubt Buckley has anything to do with NRO, he barely does much anything at the print edition these days.

[jammer]

Ummm, Wiley, Kristol is editor of The Standard, not NR. You are ever so correct about him though. I, as a lot of people on here, was a charter subscriber to the Standard. One subscription was all it took.

[Republic]

You're either with Ann Coulter - or you're with the terrorists!

Tee Hee....Ann would like that sentiment! Ya gotta love Ann, and anyone who cannot understand the spirit of her article is one card short of a full deck!

BTW-what is wrong with calling a complexion 'swarthy'? I mean, gish.

[jammer]

How can you call any magazine whose staff has included Whittaker Chambers, Ralph DeToledano, and James Burnham "left wing"? That question is not intended to be aggressive or patronizing. But "left wing", even of the Pubbie party just cannot be reconciled with those guys.

[glory]

I believe it was tongue in cheek also. Did anyone read her Sept 6 article on Andrea Yates. If that is any indication, she is perfectly capable of tongue in cheek prose, that's for sure. Unfortunately, we appear to be going hyper sensitive already to any criticism of Muslims or Islam, even if it's justified. Isn't it interesting to find some of the lefties shielding a RELIGIOUS movement from "hate speech" when they engaged in brutalizing a religious movement in thier own community for so long(Christianity)? Anyway, I'm wandering off topic....

glory