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

Skip to comments.

Fired Conservative Columnist Anne Coulter Getting 'Great Publicity'
CNS News ^ | 10/2/01

Posted on 10/02/2001 9:14:04 AM PDT by truthandlife

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, fired from her contributing editor perch at the National Review Online, blames it on free-speech hysteria in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. In a recent online column, Coulter opined that the United States should respond forcefully to the terrorist attacks: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," she said. The comment provoked an uproar, and the National Review Online subsequently refused to run another Coulter piece in which she referred to "swarthy males." When Coulter complained, she was fired. Tuesday's Washington Post quotes Coulter as saying she doesn't need friends like that. "Every once in awhile they'll throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications," she told the newspaper. National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg told the Post, "We didn't feel we wanted to be associated with the comments expressed in those two columns." Coulter told the Washington Post she's getting great publicity as a result of the flap.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 381-397 next last
To: Physicist
I just sent Jonah an e-mail praising him for trying to uphold the standards of excellent and responsible journalism that NR has upheld for nearly half a century. Bill Buckley, early on, decided that extremist rants would NOT be tolerated in the pages of his magazines. Birchers and Ku Kluckers need not apply. Through the years, a buncha rightists have been quietly told to get lost, including Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. Ann was cruising for a bruising and she got it.

It was reading the sober, wry essays in NR that turned me into a conservative; by comparison, everything on the left seemed like shrill, hateful billingsgate. NR's studious avoidance of such bitter rantings is one reason it's one of the most respected opinion magazines in the country. I'm glad Jonah Goldberg is maintaining the tradition, standing athwart the path of vulgarity and yelling "Stop!"

321 posted on 10/02/2001 1:27:47 PM PDT by ArcLight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
The "Spanish" inquisition took place in an area that was profoundly influenced by Muslim thought and action. Could it be that they learned such techniques from their former oppressors? (not that I am defending them, if they read their scripture they should have found it unjustifiable).
322 posted on 10/02/2001 1:28:11 PM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Apogee
The "Spanish" inquisition took place in an area that was profoundly influenced by Muslim thought and action. Could it be that they learned such techniques from their former oppressors? (not that I am defending them, if they read their scripture they should have found it unjustifiable).

You hit the nail right on the head.
Remember that Spain, as a country, was being born at the same time.
Indeed, evicting their oppresors was what accelerated the union of the major Spanish kingdoms.

And having been under Muslim rule for 700 years must have had some influence on how they solved the problem of their oppresors.

323 posted on 10/02/2001 1:32:43 PM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: angelo
I said "most Christians". Some (a small minority) apparently still think its a good idea.

For purposes of this discussion, irrelevant.
I surely don't see too many of them here.
I don't picture Roberson or Falwell blowing up 6000 people and two skyscrapers.

Some Christians may want to nuke the bastards, but never imply or suggest that they are doing it in the context of a religious war.

324 posted on 10/02/2001 1:40:49 PM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
I was promoting the idea that the Judeo-Christian values prevalent in western civilization are the foundation of our freedom and success. And you had to go and attack the Christian part with claims about something that happened centuries ago in Spain. What am I to think?

Might I remind you that with your #222, you butted in to a reply (my #212) that was not even addressed to you. Since you chose to make an issue of what I said, I felt no hesitation about defending myself. I asked editor-surveyor in my #212 if his solution was to forcibly convert muslims to Christianity. YOU jumped in with your opinion that this was not possible. I then gave an example where this in fact had been done. What, I'm not allowed to cite historical examples?

The "I have many friends who are (fill in the blank)" argument always loses.

I can cite them as character references. Those who know me know that I have no animosity towards Christianity.

And just because your parents are Christian, your wife is Christian, and you were raised Christian, doesn't mean that you don't have a strong anti-Christian bias now.

I do not. Apparently, citing historical fact is considered by you to be anti-Christian. If you prefer to live in a fantasy world where no self-professed Christian has ever done anything wrong...well, I for one will not act as your enabler. Face reality, Spiff. Christians have in fact at various times engaged in atrocities against others, even other Christians. If you think this is anti-Christian, too bad.

Your adulthood denial of Christ and acceptance of Judaism doesn't help your argument at all.

I rely on facts for my argument. I don't question your feelings or motives. Please grant me the same respect.

So, please refrain from making meritless, pointless accusations against Christianity.

"Meritless"? Do you deny that these events ever happened? "Pointless"? YOU started this. If you now wish to disengage, then pick up your ball and go home.

325 posted on 10/02/2001 1:40:56 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Uriel1975
I don't know that the Christianity of these particular vikings is any more suspect than that of any other pre-reformation persons. They could only go on the knowledge given them, the same as others. The fruit seemed to be in changed lifestyles and support of the church.
Also, for whatever reason entered into - would it be safe to assume that some of Cornelius' household entered into covenant because their master said this was the way - a covenant was still made, and taken seriously, presumably, by both parties.
326 posted on 10/02/2001 1:42:19 PM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Amazing, then, that with my familiarity with the English language, with literature and its genres, and with essay writing, I came up with completely different results.

Essays?? Essays?! OMG! You are killing me!! Are you a paid, published writer? Have you ever written a column for publication? Have you taken courses on journalism or freelance writing? No?? I have. On all counts. Comparing a stinkin' essay is superbly laughable!! Not to mention that my father happens to agree with me on this as well. Not that that would necessarily mean anything to you, except that he has a doctorate of education from George Peabody College for Teachers (look it up!), and teaches the course on writing doctoral dissertations there.

You can make any part of a compound sentence tongue-in-cheek. There are absolutely no rules to the contrary! Subject-verb agreement and pro-con agreement, yes. But tongue-in-cheek statements? No. Besides which, I don't know that she deviated at all in that sentence. I read the whole thing as tongue-in-cheek. She was venting, for heaven's sakes!! It wasn't a mandate! (Helloooooooo??)

327 posted on 10/02/2001 1:42:20 PM PDT by Beep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
And, anyway, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
328 posted on 10/02/2001 1:45:41 PM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Apogee
"The "Spanish" inquisition took place in an area that was profoundly influenced by Muslim thought and action. Could it be that they learned such techniques from their former oppressors?"

The Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with a contamination of Christianity by an Islamic mentality. In fact, the reverse is the truth. The reason for the Inquisition was to protect Christinaity from contamination by non-Christian elements that were attempting to subvert it from within.

In 1492 Muslims and Jews were expelled. Muslims for being the oppressors and the Jews for collaborating with the Muslims. They were expelled for being disloyal groups. They had the choice of leaving or converting.

The problem was that many converted in name only, secretly continued to practice their old faith and remained disloyal. This is what led to the Inquisition. It was about protecting the Christian religion from contamination by pseudo-Christians operating within its ranks.

329 posted on 10/02/2001 1:50:51 PM PDT by Marduk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: angelo
citing historical fact is considered by you to be anti-Christian

Irrelevant historical fact to the current debate.

330 posted on 10/02/2001 1:51:22 PM PDT by Spiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Anne can have my shoulder to cry on, anytime.

Could we have witnessed the first column Anne wrote while in the throes of PMS? A good lawyer could probably get her job back for her. LOL.

Anne still gets my vote for President and Kelly Fitzpatrick for Vice-President. Let the Mullahs quake in their boots at the thought of an American administration like that.

331 posted on 10/02/2001 1:55:07 PM PDT by 4Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SLJP
Pardon me; did you just say, "ALL?!" You need a dictionary, darling, so let me help you! Click here!! Aaaaccckkkkkk!! Sweeping generalizations are tools of the defeated!!

Did you fail to detect the sarcasm in that reply? It seems that your "familiarity with the tools of writing" has failed you. ;o)

332 posted on 10/02/2001 1:56:54 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
They most surely do.
333 posted on 10/02/2001 2:00:01 PM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: angelo
P.S. You should be grateful that you made sooooooo many grammatical errors in that last post (and others) to me that pointing them out and referencing them would have taken up entirely too much space, besides being too time-consuming! Holy Strunk's!!
334 posted on 10/02/2001 2:00:02 PM PDT by Beep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Frank Chodorov
you sound like a liberal.
335 posted on 10/02/2001 2:01:07 PM PDT by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jess35
There is only one God, and I don't believe He cares what man-made religion anyone is, or what they call Him.
336 posted on 10/02/2001 2:02:08 PM PDT by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SLJP
They also need to take into consideration the fact that Ann lost a very near and dear friend on 9/11 -- Barbara Olson (BKO, here). Ann was highly upset, and rightly so.

Many people have pointed out poor Ann's loss here. Strangely enough, Ted Olson (Barbara's husband) probably felt the loss at least as deeply as poor Ann, but I have not heard or seen him express his sorrow with similar brilliantly shrieking "hyperbole."

337 posted on 10/02/2001 2:02:24 PM PDT by another1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Marduk
Yes, it's true that Japan, SK, Taiwan and Hong Kong are not countries where Christianity is the dominant religion. But they are countries where personal freedoms (choice, association and expression)are culturally suppressed.

And the SA countries you mentioned are indeed heavily Christian, but definitely not economic heavyweights. As orginally stated: the most advanced countries in terms of economics, personal freedom and access to information are those states where Christianity is the dominant religion.

338 posted on 10/02/2001 2:03:41 PM PDT by onehipdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Freedom and liberty are the new crusade (circa 1776). Islam is a control-freak religion, and it's time to end it.
339 posted on 10/02/2001 2:04:06 PM PDT by lds23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Did you fail to detect the sarcasm in that reply? It seems that your "familiarity with the tools of writing" has failed you. ;o)

It seems to me that your writing expertise has failed you!! ROFLMAO!!

340 posted on 10/02/2001 2:05:43 PM PDT by Beep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 381-397 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