[American Soldier]

I might've required an explanation for the "Christianize 'em" suggestion and an apology for the "swarthy" comment, but I think canning her was a mistake.

[Ol' Sparky]

This is absurd for National Review to enact this level of political correctness against Ann Coulter. Clearly, her comments were meant to be somewhat tongue-in-check. But, the PC menatality has infected even National Review. Between this and the idiotic quest to legalize drugs, it's getting hard to call National Review a conservative publication.

[MayflowerMadam]

What's wrong with "swarthy"? They ARE swarthy -- "dark-skinned". Give the chick a break; her close friend Barbraa Olson was murdered by these SWARTHY heathens so it makes sense that she was overly passionate about the subject.

[Dixielander]

Re Coulter's comment about "swarthy males". I didn't read her column. On the face of it though, her calling some males swarthy seems innocent enough. Were the males she called swarthy, swarthy?

[sargon]

The "Christianize 'em" comment was not insulting, and didn't imply anything coercive. Ann was just restating the Great Commission. Christianizing just means bringing the gospel of Christ to them and by example. If someone is insulted by that, then they're overly sensitive...

[BamaG]

This is over reacting, emotional foolishness, this talk about boycotting the National Review

Is the modern conservative movement a cult, following lockstep one individual, no matter what qualifications or viewpoints this individual has?

I have subscribed to the NR for years, I have enjoyed it. I do not believe everything that is in it. Reasonable people can disagree. For example, I do not believe everything Andrew Sullivan says, but sometimes I think he hits the nail on the head with his analysis. And Freepers have no problem posting his comments, no matter how offensive his viewpoint on other matters may be.

The NRO was well within its rights to refuse to carry Ann Coulter's column, just as she was well within her rights to say what she wanted to.

However, what good are ad hominum attacks, like the "girly men" comment? Should the NRO respond with anorexic comments about Ann? Her intemperate rhetoric does nothing to further the cause, it only paints us as wild eyed reactionaries.

To exclude the National Review because of an editorial decision is quite simply, cutting off your nose to spite your face. On more issues than not, the NRO is online with most Freepers. They have been the staunchest critics of the Clintons, Colin Powell, the pro-life movement, pro-second amendment,...any conservative cause you can think of. Rich Lowry has written some harsh words about the administration's coalition building in this war.

This is not a pc, moderate magazine. I will continue to post and comment on it, if the forum doesn't like the source, that is its perogative, and unfortunatly its loss

[cookcounty]

So explain again what's wrong with converting them?

It sure worked with the former terrorist known as the Apostle Paul!

[wingnuts'nbolts]

I Love Ann Coulter. Say it like it is! This intelligent articulate Constitutional Scholar has more @alls than a christmas tree, something a lot of other pundits and news journalists could use.