You are continuing to be pushed backwards. First you implied that she lacked original thought or insights. Now you are reduced to asking for some major constitutional thesis of hers, of which, presumably, you will appoint yourself arbiter of its significance. Yet indeed you've had to give on her intelligence, experience and lively mind. I will see what I can find on her theses to ensure you give altogether.
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.
You are missing the point. The statement was most likely outrageous by design in order to get you to think. The problem is that liberals think with their gut rather than their brain and cannot see that she may have a point. Islam is not a religion of peace, being that point. And let's have a sense of proportion here: given the insults and outright threats that Islam has thrown at Christians and Jews, a single comment from the Lady Ann is provoking more outrage from you than what they have said?
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.
She did not say kill them. She did say convert them. Your analogy falls flat right from the first go.
Why would I have to read Coulter's book to criticize the Coulter worshippers?
If you want to criticise something effectively, know what you are criticising (i.e., why the Lady Ann is revered, you have to know what she's done). For example, I read French history and about Marxism so that I can shoot dead the French and the Marxists in an argument. Otherwise, you are merely spouting off from a position of ignorance and looking like an utter jackass.
How could you recall? You've never met me before. You have no idea what I look like.
Your registration date: 2001. After impeachment.
Ivan
"The statement was most likely outrageous by design in order to get you to think. " So you agree that she can be outrageous at times then?
"And let's have a sense of proportion here: given the insults and outright threats that Islam has thrown at Christians and Jews, a single comment from the Lady Ann is provoking more outrage from you than what they have said?" Muslims say lots of stupid things. It doesn't faze me anymore.
"She did not say kill them. She did say convert them. Your analogy falls flat right from the first go." No, it doesn't. Considering people convert from their "political religions" all the time, converting liberals would make the anology dumb. Forcibly converting people from deeply cherished religious beliefs is much more serious; akin to "killing" them in a spiritual sense.
"Your registration date: 2001. After impeachment." That means nothing. Maybe I was a friend of a Freeper who was there. My registration does not prove or disprove anything.
BTW, you make the assumption that I hate Coulter. I do not. I generally find her work well thought out, if a bit brash. I just mentioned that I find Coulter worshippers such as yourself, (Lady Ann) amusing.