Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anybody want to take a stab at the fool that wrote this? - Addition of Coulter adds insult to injury
The Daily Times, Salisbury, Marylad ^ | Wednesday, October 23, 2002 | Alfred G. Kolls

Posted on 10/23/2002 2:02:10 PM PDT by marylandmike

Edited on 05/07/2004 7:03:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

LETTERS What is The Daily Times up to -- trying to prove there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy?

To an op-ed page already lopsidedly conservative, the editors have added Ann Coulter.

What have readers done to deserve this? Wasn't Bill O'Reilly punishment enough?


(Excerpt) Read more at delmarvanow.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; dailytimes; idiots; marylandnews; salisburymd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
I read this letter to the editor to my local paper and was just about speachless. I figure I was going to reply to this but thought it would be interesting to see what the rest of you guys thought! So have at it and I will check back later on tonight.
1 posted on 10/23/2002 2:02:11 PM PDT by marylandmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
Later, columnist Maureen Dowd was labeled a member of "the anti-American set."

Ann was just being kind.

2 posted on 10/23/2002 2:05:35 PM PDT by facedown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
A few weeks ago a small-town newspaper in Pennsylvania dropped Coulter's column. She was not a commentator, the editor said, but a professional hater. Apparently he believed transmitting irrational hatred diminished the paper and insulted its readers.

Yeah, and that editor was recently fired! Here's the NewsMax account:

Bob Unger, editor of something called the Centre Daily Times in State College, Pennsylvania got a lot of notoriety when, in what he saw as a defense of the freedom of speech, he dropped Ann Coulter's column because the acid tongued writer insisted on exercising her right of free speech. He also got himself fired.

Unger wallowed in what he claimed was an avalanche of mail patting him on the back for "firing" the best selling author of "Slander" taking what he thought was a free ride on the back of the massive nationwide publicity his target was getting as a result of her book.

Unger says the Coulter incident had nothing to do with his sudden departure.

"I don't think that had anything to do with it," Unger told Editor & Publisher. His leaving, he said was a mutual" decision between himself and publisher Henry Haitz.

Sure it was.

Last month, in a column he publicized widely, he announced that he had "fired" Coulter claiming that her nationally syndicated column was "mean." E&P noted that the decision angered Coulter's huge army of fans but Unger said that "80 to 85%" of the more than 5,000 e-mails he ultimately received supported his decision.

"I know that doesn't represent the general population, but it represented the people who wrote me," he told E&P Online.

He left the paper, he said because there was "a difference in style and objective" between him and Haitz, who took over as publisher of the paper several months ago. The terms of his separation agreement, he said, were confidential.

Mr. Unger has learned the hard way what a lot of people on the liberal side have learned: don't monkey around with Ann Coulter. Liberal editors of small newspapers trying to attract attention to themselves and boost their egos by sniping at nationally prominent hard-nosed conservatives such as Coulter, usually end up no longer being liberal editors of small papers.

Unger, who had been executive editor for 2 1/2 years, told E&P he had no immediate job prospects but was working on his second novel.

The article is posted here.

3 posted on 10/23/2002 2:09:02 PM PDT by mondonico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
Well, Mike, I really do not know what left you speechless. The writer objects to the strength of language in Coulter's columns and substantiates his position. You cannot deny that Coulter habitually over-reaches in her statements.

You may like Coulter, but if you address substance of the letter rather than take sides, nothing in it should leave you speechless.

4 posted on 10/23/2002 2:09:36 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: TopQuark
You cannot deny that Coulter habitually over-reaches in her statements.

Coulter engages in a time-honored tradition of rhetorical hyperbole. She is James Carvile with morals, intelligence, honesty, and a sense of humor. Most of all, she is effective.

Obviously she will not win converts. Her task is to amuse the troops.

6 posted on 10/23/2002 2:15:45 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
I'll take Ann any day...she tells it like it is. Do a little research on her quotes, and you will find what she says is the truth. Al Gore did make traitorous remarks. Bill Clinton did sell our national security for $$ for democrats and himself, they both cooked the books while in the White House. The DNC hand-book on talking points is one huge lie about the right. Just as “passing the Torch” in New Jersey is illegal and a big lie to you democrats out there Research for yourself people of Maryland. Alfred G. Kolls is among the blighted, the ignorant, the tarnished Democratic Party of Clinton.

Ann Coulter is a peach and she does her research and that research hurts the politically correct and other socialists.

7 posted on 10/23/2002 2:15:49 PM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
This is typical leftist reasoning. They believe in freedom of speech and expression as long as you agree with them. However, once you cross the line to the other side and disagree they will accuse you of being a racist, bigot, hatemonger, etc...

In this case they feel it should be okay to criticize the President, but, not those who are critical of him. Where I come from that type of reasoning is called hypocrisy.
8 posted on 10/23/2002 2:16:49 PM PDT by lews
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
I find that this article only reinforces Ann's conclusion that the only way liberals handle the truth is to attack the messenger, that they can only appeal to emotion, and do not know how to have a rational disagreement... something that Ms. Coulter does quite well in her best-seller, Slander. It just proves once again the point that one cannot have a battle of wits with an unarmed person!
9 posted on 10/23/2002 2:17:28 PM PDT by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
Coulter is not stupid, but she hopes readers are. Maybe if she repeats the same lies over and over, we will mistake them for truth.

Typical response from a liberal who is afraid that their subversive agenda might be uncovered for all to see. Number one tactic of the liberals is offensive projection. Take what we are and accuse the other side of our characteristics first before we are found out for what we are.

10 posted on 10/23/2002 2:18:43 PM PDT by MedicalMess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
"I really do not know what left you speechless. The writer objects to the strength of language in Coulter's columns and substantiates his position."

What "facts" does the letter-writer use to substantiate this claim?:

Coulter is not stupid, but she hopes readers are. Maybe if she repeats the same lies over and over, we will mistake them for truth.

He doesn't cite any lies, he states that he does not agree with her characterizations of the truth.

11 posted on 10/23/2002 2:19:59 PM PDT by rohry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: marylandmike
The truth hurts, eh, Comrade Kolls.
13 posted on 10/23/2002 2:22:09 PM PDT by coramdeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
"You may like Coulter, but if you address substance of the letter rather than take sides, nothing in it should leave you speechless."

I, too, find Ann is sometimes harsh in her wording, but she is much more often than not, telling the truth, as evidenced by her documented excerpts in Slander. As far as trying to find any substance in the letter to the editor, the only "substance" I found was the name-calling and vitriol. The author seems to have out-Coultered Ann by his personal attacks.

14 posted on 10/23/2002 2:22:14 PM PDT by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
I grew up in Salisbury, Maryland, and my folks knew Frank Perdue when he didn't have two chickens to rub together. I guar-on-damn-tee that this yo-yo does NOT represent the thinking in Salisbury or anywhere else on the Eastern Shore. That territory is so conservative that anything later than the 1950's is considered avant guard.

Note the numbers for Erlich for Governor on the Eastern Shore. Don't bother to flame the newspaper. I'll bet they ran this letter as an unpaid advertisement for their latest columnist, Ann Coulter.

Congressman Billybob

This column is based on the fine work by FReepers in a thread on FR. Click for "Ballistics and Bullsh*t"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

15 posted on 10/23/2002 2:22:21 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
she continued to equate Democrats with treason

Ann was being to soft on them. She should have added that the Democrats are the party of perjury and obstruction of justice, voter fraud, class envy and class warfare, corruption, race-baiting, and sedition as well as treason.

16 posted on 10/23/2002 2:25:39 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
I would say Ann pegged it pretty well.
17 posted on 10/23/2002 2:28:40 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
"Well, Mike, I really do not know what left you speechless. The writer objects to the strength of language in Coulter's columns and substantiates his position. You cannot deny that Coulter habitually over-reaches in her statements. You may like Coulter, but if you address substance of the letter rather than take sides, nothing in it should leave you speechless."

What are you.....some kind of panty-waist pinko?

18 posted on 10/23/2002 2:31:14 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Coulters a street fighter & serves the same purpose on the conservative side as the shock troops on the Left did 30 or 40 years ago. Words & ideas that are 'outrageous' today are conventionally accepted tomorrow.

The difference between her and her leftist counterparts is I cannot determine anything that she says to be untruthful.

She puts her opposition back on their heels & I'm damn glad somebody is.

19 posted on 10/23/2002 2:31:21 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marylandmike
There is with no doubt a right-wing conspiracy. We are conspiring to teach others about what it is to be a conservative and to let people know the truth about the left!
20 posted on 10/23/2002 2:35:37 PM PDT by big bad easter bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson