Ann Coulter Gets Fired...........Again

CentreDaily.com ^ | 3 September 2002

[Musket]

Your Friday column, in which you declared that liberals are "no good," then trashed the entire Kennedy clan as a collection of "heroin addicts, convicted killers, cheaters, bottleggers and dissolute drunks," crossed that line.

And they can't handle the truth.

[mrustow]

Well, I guess I'm a hater, too! And yet, the more I read her since 911, the more I LOVE Ann Coulter!

Perplexingly, he writes: "The vast majority of liberals are good, sincere, well-meaning people." This cheery bonhomie is beginning to sound like the mantra about the "vast majority" of Muslims being peaceful. (And has produced the same good results!) I think it's time to drop the infernal nonsense about liberals being well-intentioned but misguided. In the spirit of Hannityesque magnanimity, I will say that there is only one thing wrong with liberals: They're no good.

Yes, yes, yes! The cliche about liberals being well-intentioned has driven me crazy for years. Maybe some were well-intentioned forty or fifty years ago, but they certainly haven't been since the first urban riots hit, and they cheered on the thugs, and then rationalized the violence.... and have been rationalizing away murder and mayhem ever since.

BTW, although I only quoted one passage, I agree with EVERYTHING she said.

How much you wanna bet, that if you read this guy's newspaper for a week, you'd come acorss lots of haters of the socialist variety?

Thanks for the posts.

[Red Jones]

ann coulter is nice. (I'm being sincere, not sarcastic.) She speaks too much truth. worldly fashions mean she must be excluded from polite company.

[Jim Scott]

Transparent and false rationalizing for dumping Ann Coulter but a typical tactic of the left; when you disagree, just call the other person's viewpoint 'hate' and anything is now permissible.

She'll hardly notice I'm sure, but the fact that this rag is 'firing' her under the guise that they won't tolerate 'hate' and have the gall to compare a conservative viewpoint as akin to the 9/11 terrorists view of America says a lot about Ann Coulter's effectiveness, despite all the whiny objections we read whenever Ann's name comes up. She's giving the liberals jitters, they don't like it one bit and now they've resorted to calling her writings 'hate' in order to justify cutting her off. Lame.

[duckln]

So, you are also a slow learner?

[cynicom]

Many people do not feel at ease around the truth yet that harlot, lies, is their best friend. Ann does not believe in burying the truth, let it stand on its own virtue. More power to her. Too bad so many republicans are only extensions of the democrat party.

[MissBaby]

HE fires Ann Coulter but leaves Molly Ivans. Has he read the hate spewing from Ivans. My gosh.

Clearly a case of a liberal editor frustrated with and lashing out against the truth.

I listened to a lib out here debated Ann and he tried to make her out to be "hatefull." She gobbled him up, showing him to be the one spewing hate in every question he asked here.

The guy was definately shaken by the exchange, by being confronted head on with the venom he and the left constantly spew.

[Utopia]

Why, are you a slow learner?

Classic hate-filled/insulting response I'd come to expect from a devotee of Coulter. Many actually think that literary insults is a valid writing style. I find it (and her) rather boring. Thanks for the intellectual discussion ...NOT ... bye ...

[caa26]

Good grief. Ann is no more vicious than Molly Ivins, and the paper apparently is going to continue printing that column.

Agreed, Molly Ivins is about the most viscious liberal columnist I've ever read. Just thinking about her columns makes me want to hurl. Worst part is Molly's columns are very poorly written, and she usually has no idea what the hell she is writing about especially concerning economic issues.

[What Is Ain't]

Hey, Bobby, it would have been quite informative if you had included a list of left-wing writers whom you have also banned from your newpaper due to their unacceptable attitudes.

This would at least give your readers some perspective.

Or, gasp! is your paper biased toward conservatives?

[Hodar]

She offers nothing to the debate. I will read Krauthammer, Cal Thomas, George Will, thank you very much. Whenever Ann is on tv, I flip the station.

And you are free to do so. You need never read or hear her again, but my issue is that I should have the OPTION to listen/read/see her as often as I am allowed to listen/read/see her counterparts. It is not 'fair and balanced' to censor one side of an arguement.

[ER_in_OC,CA]

I suspect Ann's retort would be filled with examples of columnists printed in this Small Town, PA "CentreDaily" with the usual backhanded remarks which brutalize Republicans.

You know, the usual references to Republicans as Racists, homophobes, flat-earthers, etc that newspapers frequently publish without even noticing.

The thing that makes Ann unique is that she brashly and directly replies in kind.

Hopefully, any "furor" over her "hatefulness" will result in that paper casting a more critical eye on the garbage-left columns and "news/lifestyle" articles with ridiculous statements of what is mainsteam or moderate.

This passive agressive writing method was recently seen in the NY Slimes NEWS article on Powell, concluding that his pro-legal-abortion and pro-affirmative-action stances were "non-partisan." If the editor of this small-town newspaper will begin reviewing his NEWS and leftist-opinion content with such a perspective, then Ann's "firing" is a worthy sacrifice.

But it isn't gonna happen...

[MarkM]

This guy just can't take it when Ann tells the truth. What part of her writing is untrue? She has more evidence for her statements than the assertions made by liberals.

[truenospinzone]

I agree completely. There, now we'll both get flamed. ;>

[dogbyte12]

And you are free to do so. You need never read or hear her again, but my issue is that I should have the OPTION to listen/read/see her as often as I am allowed to listen/read/see her counterparts. It is not 'fair and balanced' to censor one side of an arguement.

If you read the article closer, you will see that this paper carries other conservative columnists proudly, including Cal Thomas. The republic got on fine for a little while with conservative columnists not named Ann Coulter ya know.

[Hostage]

Let's see. Centre Daily newspaper, a Knight Ridder news component covering central PA.

The editor of this rag wants to fire a symbol that galvanizes liberal hate. In so doing, he inadvertently gives her much free publicity and reveals himself to the local populace as a small-minded vindictive moron.

To those that enjoyed reading her columns, they will likely cancel their subscriptions.

Meanwhile Knight Ridder is in deep doo:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec01/presses_12-10.html

[republicman]

I can't help notice how every thread about Ann Coulter brings the liberals to it like flies.

I guess she's got their number.

[SheLion]

I can only take Ann in small doses.

I thought all the guys were CRAZY about her!! Everytime I see a thread in here about her, the guys go NUTS!

[1bigdictator]

This episode is a tempest in a tea pot. Obviously Ann has struck a nerve with liberal journalists. I never heard of this man or his paper but he sounds green w/ envy.