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
I never said she was stupid. How many times must I repeat myself? I didn't mean her masters or law school theisis either. I meant has she written anything that would put her in the Constitutional Attorney hall-of-fame like "The Embarrasing Second Amendment"?
"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." Please. The statment was outrageous. Provoctive, yes, but also outrageous. I can admit when I'm wrong, you should learn to do the same. The suggestion that if Muslism were Christians is silly. They're not. Christianity had it's own "barbaric times" where they killed anyone who disagreed with them. Christians at least grew out of it. Not so for Muslims.
Your analogy, BTW, is if I said "we should kill all liberals" and then argue that I implied that we would have far less problems if we didn't have liberals. The second part maybe true, but it doesn't make the first part any less dumb.
"It is interesting, however that you admit to not having really read the book before you launched into a criticism. " Why would I have to read Coulter's book to criticize the Coulter worshippers?
"I don't seem to recall your presence then however. How could you recall? You've never met me before. You have no idea what I look like.
One thing I've always wondered is why many posters on FR cannot handle philisophical and political disagreements without resorting to insults. You criticize (rightly) my calling Coulter a waif, yet you call me stupid. How does that benefit the debate in any way?