"Piffle." "We should invade their countries...and convert them to Christianity." Tell me that's not outrageous. The U.S. did not forcibly convert Japanese to Christianity after WWII. There's no precedent for it.
About the waif, comment: She is a waif, but it is meaningless in the political aspect of things and silly for me to mention it. (It would be akin to saying so-and-so has a big nose). You have point there.
About the shrill. She is shrill, but it is funny to watch liberals get apoplexic after they listen to Ann.
"It is unsporting that you should attack her without her being around to defend herself. I am sure that I can speak for others as well as myself that those who issue forth with such ill-mannered as well as ill-thought out criticisms of her can expect no quarter. " People are criticized all the time on FR without their being around (or even alive in some instances) to defend themselves. It's a discussion board. The Coulter worshippers get an aneurysm every time someone has the termerity to offer the tiniest cristism of her. I, BTW, picked up Slander in the book store and browsed through it. It seemed well put together, but I read O'Reilly's book and Rush's book and it seems like the same thing with a different author. I felt like I would be wasting my money to read Slander becuase much of the material I already knew and had read from other sources(such as various gun control papers and "Bias" by Goldberg).
Really? Can you mention any meaningful constitutional thesis that she wrote? Every pundit left OR right tends to be a self-described "scholar" of one kind or another. Many posters on FR are better educated and better schooled than many pundits. Besides, I never said Ann was stupid. I would be stupid to suggest such a thing.
Here is her law record from her bio:
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
Are you seriously going to suggest that someone who lacks an original and insightful mind, particularly in a conservative milieu (which tends to reward merit rather than gender) could get this far? I will dig up her theses for you if need be, but I am giving you this opportunity to not make an even greater arse of yourself.
"We should invade their countries...and convert them to Christianity." Tell me that's not outrageous. The U.S. did not forcibly convert Japanese to Christianity after WWII. There's no precedent for it.
You are totally ignoring the possibility she is merely being provocative. I doubt she has serious plans to create such a holy crusade, however her statement should give you pause - if indeed the Islamics had embraced Christianity rather than Islam, it is very unlikely that much of the terrorism that has occured in the latter half of the 20th century would have happened. Too bad that she only provoked your spleen instead of your brain. Quite a left wing reaction, that.
About the waif, comment: She is a waif, but it is meaningless in the political aspect of things and silly for me to mention it. (It would be akin to saying so-and-so has a big nose). You have point there.
Well done. You're on the first step of your recovery.
People are criticized all the time on FR without their being around (or even alive in some instances) to defend themselves. It's a discussion board. The Coulter worshippers get an aneurysm every time someone has the termerity to offer the tiniest cristism of her. I, BTW, picked up Slander in the book store and browsed through it. It seemed well put together, but I read O'Reilly's book and Rush's book and it seems like the same thing with a different author. I felt like I would be wasting my money to read Slander becuase much of the material I already knew and had read from other sources(such as various gun control papers and "Bias" by Goldberg).
The Lady Ann gets enough garbage from her enemies - why should she get it from her supposed friends? Secondly, and I am probably alone in Britain with this - I have those books by O'Reilly, Limbaugh as well as Ms. Coulter. To suggest they all sound the same is ridiculous: O'Reilly, for example, takes positions on the death penalty which is anathema to conservatives. O'Reilly and Limbaugh tend to deal with more "general" problems. Ann's book was focused like a laser beam on the behaviour of liberals and doing a well documented and sharply pointed analysis.
It is interesting, however that you admit to not having really read the book before you launched into a criticism. What other books do you not read and criticise so blithely?
Finally, Ms. Coulter has a special place on this board I dare say because of her role during impeachment. She was there on "St. Crispian's Day" and in particular at the March for Justice. I don't seem to recall your presence then however.
You are right about one thing: you are free, of course, to express your opinion about the Lady Ann. I and others, however, are free to skewer you in return.
Ivan
Context. Ever heard of it?
Date of statement: Sept.12, 2001.
Preceding statements:We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
Proceeding statements: We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
Circumstances: The day after we suffered a devastating terror attack, amoung the murdered was a close personal friend of Ann Coulter, Barbara Olsen.
Given the when, why , and qualifications of the cherrypicked statement you site as bombastic, I think Ann showed considerable restraint.
In context of the whole article that statement is even sarcastic, in that Islam, where it has the resources to do so, has invaded non-Islamic nations and killed/converted the populace to Islam. Just look at Indonesia, Afganistan, Pakistan, Sudan, India, the Phillipines, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. for the evidences of this.
This "Islam is a Religion of Peace" is a sham, to get a point of presence in the target country(s). The goal of the Islamic religion is total conversion of the world to Islam, and killing one or billions of infidels is indeed sanctioned by all sects, not just the radical ones. If you don't believe it just follow the money.
And BTW: Mac did inject Christianity into Japan after WWII-he called in thousands of missionaries and distributed thousands of Bibles - and we did the same in Korea, both with some success.
More importantly we gave them choices and the freedom to exercise those choices. Monotheistic countries tend to be unbalanced and repressive. Germany already had Christianity, though always supressed by the State. There restoration of the people's freedoms was all that was needed. But we went farther and helped them rebuild as we did with Japan and Korea.