jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (45 posts)

Ann Coulter, Who is SHE Really?

  1. gmwilliams profile image83
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    Is anyone tired of the diatribes of Ann Coulter, conservative pundist.     Ms. Coulter is the person who believes that Jews are not yet perfected because they are not Christians.   She further believes that women are not respected anymore in this society because of feminism and the availability of contraception.   

    Ms. Coulter also states that Liberals took undue credit for the Civil Rights movement and the consequential racial equality in America.    She assails the Liberals for the decline of religion in America and the rise of so-called godlessness with its correlation of "moral decline."     

    Ms. Coulter further remarked on the "darkening" of America so to speak.   She indicated that in 1960, whites comprised 90% of Americans.    She then asserted that now white people are becoming a minority and that America's majority will soon be non-white and "these people" will not be as  compassionate overlords as whilte people have been!   She maintained that this continuing immigration is a concern; however, any white person who mentions this is considered a racist. 

    Ms. Coulter is known to making thoughtless and inane remarks.    She is the female Rush Limbaugh.   What is YOUR HONEST OPINION of this pundist?

    1. profile image0
      Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      She is a card carrying member of the American Taliban!
      http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/culture_wa … liban.html

      Found this list a few years ago and over the years have returned to it off and on to see which hate mongers have been added. But I see she is still at the top of the list.

      The person who compiled the list was on target with the title. She is one of the people whose only goal is to spread hate and intolerance and her own skewed view of the world. She has no redeeming qualities or other talents.

    2. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not a Coulter fan, but she's right about the Civil Rights movement. The bills were all introduced by the GOP and the Democrats fought them.

      That's just history and can be found in the Library of Congress.

      1. profile image0
        Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But we also have to remember both party's are now on the opposite side of the rode compared to then. So it is a distorted fact.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly.

        2. HowardBThiname profile image89
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No - it's still a fact and it's important to tell the truth. The GOP has never voted against Civil Rights and equality bills, but they've been instrumental in trying to block women's reproductive rights - ostensibly - to back their religious beliefs. They've also voted against Affirmative Action on the basis that it's not right to elevate one person by pushing another one down. But, the GOP doesn't oppose Civil Rights and equality and everyone should remember that.

          1. Jean Bakula profile image92
            Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'll weigh in on disliking Ann Coulter too, there's no need for her to be so nasty. I like Bill Maher, and assumed he probably dated her, because a few years ago, she really was a nobody and I don't know what her journalism credentials are (if any). I saw her on Maher's show a few times, and then all of a sudden she was everywhere, and she is making a fortune on her hateful books.

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Very true. The former Democrat Dixiecrats are gone long ago, replaced by Republicans as a result of Nixon's and Reagan's "southern strategy" which appealed to Democrat racists in the South.

          1. HowardBThiname profile image89
            HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ralph - don't you think attributing the Southern Strategy to Reagan is stretching things a bit?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, it's not stretching it.  Google "Reagan southern strategy" and you will see.  In particular, read about Reagan's speech at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image89
                HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Calling support for "states rights" a return to southern strategy is a stretch of honesty.

                What, specifically, do you think think Reagan said in that speech that you believe reflects a desire to adhere to the old southern strategy ways?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ronald Reagan's "states' rights" speech given on August 3, 1980, was his first public address after the Republican National Convention officially chose him as the Republican nominee for the 1980 United States presidential election. The speech drew attention for his use of the phrase "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair, just a few miles from Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town associated with the 1964 murders of civil rights workers. Reagan said:
                  “     I believe in states' rights.... I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.     ”

                  He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them."[1] The use of the phrase was seen by some as a tacit appeal to Southern white voters and a continuation of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, while others argued it merely reflected his libertarian economic beliefs.[2]

                  Columnist Bob Herbert of The New York Times wrote, "Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair," and that it "was understood that when politicians started chirping about 'states’ rights' to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you".[3] Paul Krugman, also of the Times, noted that a Republican national committee member from Mississippi had urged Reagan to speak at the county fair, as it would help win over “George Wallace inclined voters”, and wrote that this was just one of many examples of "Reagan’s tacit race-baiting in the historical record."[4]

                  That is from Wikipedia, but the sources are all there.  I won't be surprised if you interpret it differently though.

      2. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Howard. Good to see you here in this thread.

        Did you say all bills were introduced by the GOP and the Democrats fought them?  I had to jump in here to tell you your pants are on fire! Your recollections about the Civil Rights movement are simply not historically correct. I am sorry, Howard.  You certainly should have fact checked your statement in the Library of Congress before urging others to do so.   

        The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the landmark legislation in the USA. The bill was drafted by President Kennedy, sent to the House, and introduced by Emanuel Celler (D-NY) in June 1963.  Several GOP representatives pressed for an unsuccessful compromise proposal because they objected to the provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations.

        Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1957. {2}

        Voting for both of these acts did not split along party lines as you claim, but rather along geographical lines. The failed opposition came almost entirely from Southern congressmen both Democrats and Republicans.

        Sorry, Howard, to pour water on your post and your burning trousers. I don’t think you intended to spread false information but you did.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
        {2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957

        1. HowardBThiname profile image89
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LOL Quill, that's a good one.

          Johnson didn't introduce the 57 bill - he opposed it in hopes of strengthening his dixiecrat contingency.

          http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/19 … ts_act.htm

          I don't think you intended to spread false info - but I hope you saved some of that water to put out your burning trousers. smile

          Johnson actually signed the 64 bill, which was a watered-down version of the 57 bill. Guess who watered it down?

          Thanks for the knee-slapper this fine Sunday morning. smile

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes... but this is not 1964... The parties have changed...

            And this topic is about the nasty B.... Ann Coulter

            1. HowardBThiname profile image89
              HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I agree, but someone mentioned Coulter's comments on Civil Rights, which started the dialogue.

              I don't care for Coulter so I can't defend her.

          2. Quilligrapher profile image91
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hi again, Howard. Sorry to take so long to reply.

            In your fervor to defend the GOP, you may have missed my point entirely. My reply was not intended to deny the GOP their role in the civil rights movement, just to point out to you NOT ALL bills were introduced by the GOP and NOT ALL Democrats fought them as you claimed. The Democrats in Congress at the time deserve more credit for both the 1957 and 1964 bills then is acknowledged by either you or your British source. You are, of course, entitled to believe in your claim but it is not borne out by the historical record. This is not a contest about opinions, only facts. You also glazed over the fact that the 1964 bill was a JFK initiative and that alone proves the GOP did not introduce ALL civil rights bills.

            In case you forgot…


            Lyndon Johnson did not introduce The Civil Rights Act of 1957. You are correct.  It was proposed by President Eisenhower’s Attorney General Herbert Brownell to beef up the Justice Department following the ruling in Brown v. the Board of Ed. It was also the first significant civil rights legislation since the Reconstruction period nearly 90 years before. Lyndon Johnson DID NOT oppose the bill but voted for it. {2} In fact, the Democrats enjoyed a 49-46 majority in the Senate and without their support, the bill would never have been approved. {2} The GOP can make the very same claim. Historical journalist and celebrated biographer Robert A. Caro had this to say about LBJ’s role: “I am in awe of LBJ. Watching him get the 1957 Civil Rights Act through . . . I am in awe. This is not legislative power, this is legislative genius.” {1} The bill passed with a vote of 72-18 with support from a majority of Democrats. As I said in my prior post, the votes were along geographical and not party lines. Southern Senators from AL, AK, SC, MS, FL, GA, NC, VA, and LA cast 17 of the 18 “Nays”. {2}

            In its final form, it still included many provisions protecting voting rights. It authorized the Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department, and gave federal officials power to prosecute individuals accused of denying or abridging a citizen’s right to vote. Furthermore, it created a six-member U.S. Civil Rights Commission to address allegations of voter infringement. More significantly, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 marked the beginning of the federal commitment to protect civil rights.

            LBJ managed to accomplish this feat using a strategy long since forgotten called “compromise.” I see where you prefer the negative term “watered down.” It is my opinion if there were more “watered down” bills coming out of Congress today there would be less gridlock and the Congressional approval rating would not have sunk to 10%, the lowest in more than 38 years. {3}

            Not only do you ignore the genesis of the 1964 bill but you also minimize the importance of the final act, again erroneously, because it was revised to achieve congressional support. This is the way congress is supposed to conduct their business! Careful analysis of the voting reveals that the bill had strong support among Northern Democrats and was opposed by Democrats from the South. As a result, claims that the Republicans all wear white hats and the Dems are the bad guys is hyperbole. When you tabulate both chambers of Congress, 61-68% of all Democrats voted in favor of the bill. However, when you do the same with just the Southern Congressmen in the 11 states in the deep South, more than 95% of the Dems in the Senate and 93% of the Dems in the House opposed the bill. The notion ALL Republicans favored the bill and ALL Dems opposed it remains factually untrue. {4}

            It really does not matter to me which party did more or less 50 years ago. The voter base in both parties is significantly different today.

            Enjoy life, Howard. For me, it is too short to do otherwise.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a … y/lbj.html
            {2} http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/85-1957/s75
            {3} http://www.gallup.com/poll/156662/Congr … e-Low.aspx
            {4} http://curricublog.files.wordpress.com/ … cr_n-s.pdf

            1. HowardBThiname profile image89
              HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Like you, Quill, I enjoy life to the fullest. I'm not going to argue the minutia for that very reason, but suffice it to say the GOP has been behind "most" of the Civil Rights bills. I should not have said "ALL." Still, it would do the dems a world of good to learn their history, because it appears that they don't know it. Johnson eventually supported the bill, but he wanted numerous changes. He had the Dixiecrats to please, after all.

              Today - the dems play the race card - ad nauseam, in my opinion. I find it funny that many say those who oppose Obama must do so out of racism, yet if those same people support Herman Cain or Allen West - it's because those two men are "playing" to whites.

              In reality, the GOP doesn't really have the racial divide seen in the democrat party today. The GOP supports people because of their policies, but a study was released after the 08 election that noted a large number of democrats voted for Obama because he was black. That was racism, but they don't like to admit it.

              Go enjoy life, Quill, That's what I plan to do. smile

    3. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The fact that she is seen as a 'credible' guest on ABC's "This Week" roundtable
      goes beyond the pale. The show had thoughful opposing political views represented by reasonable people. I guess Ann is in there to stir up the pot with her inane remarks and the network sees this as good for ratings?

      Bill Maher is clearly partisan and I expect to see that on his program, but ABC is to be impartial, Ann belongs on FOX News or the Rush Limburger program not as part of a mainstream and respected journalism team like ABC.
      By the way, who is she to talk about moral decline? She is the biggest strumpet out there her association with ABC News lowers brand down a notch or two.

      1. gmwilliams profile image83
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +++++++++++++++++

  2. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    It is pretty clear where she stands, so even though I disagree with her on almost everything--at least she is honest and consistent.

    1. mio cid profile image61
      mio cidposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I happen to agree 100 %  with your opinion , and I would like to add that most of  the outrageous things she says  ,are   a little stronger than what she actually believes but she has found this niche  where by saying over the top statements she gets to sell millions of books and appear regularly on talk shows on radio and tv,

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    You are spot-on with your comparison to Rush Limbaugh. She makes her living being completely outrageous and incendiary. I can't imagine reveling in so many people hating me (unlike Rush, she does not have a devoted following of "dittoheads").
    But that's what she does. She says the most hateful, outrageous things she can.

    For the record, I heard that she used to date Bill Maher, who is essentially her liberal counterpart. Rubs a lot of people the wrong way. When I heard that I realized it's all for the entertainment $ and they probably don't believe a word they spout!

    Funny you should mention her today, though. Just last night on my way home in the car I tuned into the Hannity show -- just to get a sense of how much gloating is going on about the debate. Well, he had Ms. Coulter on her show. And she starts out by patting herself on the back with "can I pick candidates or what" and blah blah blah how she was so behind Romney and what a great job she did.
    I almost crashed my car.

    Here is Ms. Coulter on the subject of who should be the GOP nominee.
    Do you interpret this as a ringing endorsement of Rommey? Am I missing something???
    They must all get Etch-a-Sketches as part of the looney uni.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo6SOpOE788

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      To me, she is just a pointless ad hominem, no more, no less!     There is yet another conservative pundist who is even more mean spirited than either Coutler and Limbaugh-have the woman's name on the tip of my tongue!   This third pundist is entirely venomously hateful!

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Mean-spirited is exactly right.
        Say what you want about the mainstream or left-leaning pundits, they are not MEAN like these guys.

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7238638_f248.jpg

  5. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    I don't listen to people I don't like.  I saw her briefly the other day on some show, listened for about a half minute and changed channels.  I have no interest in what she says, so I don't listen.  She's a fruitcake, nothing there of substance.  I actually think she's fake, like some of her hostile comrades.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      She's a nasty person.

  6. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    I heard she was Keith Olbermann in drag.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Low blow for you. She is a hateful, mean spirited woman. I have never heard Olbermann say anything close to her hateful comments... but then again my exposure to him is limited. With Coulter it might be we only here her nasty comments but I have never heard anything but that from her.

      1. habee profile image89
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I've heard Olbermann be nasty. I understood it when he was mean to conservatives, but I stopped watching him when he was nasty to Hillary, suggesting that she should be killed or beaten up. He said the solution should be solved by someone taking her in a room and only that person emerging:

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … -suit.html


        You can see the video here:

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/2 … 98557.html


        I didn't like the way he addressed Hillary here, either:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R63lypKaArg

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Olbermann doesn't come close to Coulter in the nastiness league although he's equally partisan and quite strident.. Interestingly, they are both graduates of Cornell, Olberman in 1979 at age 20 and Coulter cum laude in 1984. Coulter also has a law degree from U of Michigan.

          1. habee profile image89
            habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't care for either of them, Ralph. I read that Coulter once dated Maher. If that's true, it's VERY hard to imagine!

          2. profile image61
            Southernmapartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            In the South, particularly around Georgia and South Carolina, this Coulter person was known as Arthur Coltrane.  Thinking this discussion was about some other person, I looked up some pics.  Nope, same person as Coltrane.  S/he is nasty and unreliable for information.  Biographies and personal information posted on the internet are somewhat "irregular" and not to be trusted.

      2. HowardBThiname profile image89
        HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Olberman and Coulter are cut from the same cloth.

  7. PeppermintPaddy profile image74
    PeppermintPaddyposted 4 years ago

    Oh, I believe she says inflammatory things to sell books.

    1. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You could be right.

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    But the point of this was Ann Coulter. Just because someone else is as nasty does not make her any less so.

    1. HowardBThiname profile image89
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Correct.

    2. habee profile image89
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, I agree there. I don't like her at all!

  9. Stacie L profile image87
    Stacie Lposted 4 years ago

    Whenever I watch an interview with her, she intentionally makes inflammatory statements and then sits back with a big grin. I have always thought that she is in it for herself and the profit of her books that she hawks every chance she gets.
    I can't take her seriously.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image92
      Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Stacie L,
      I agree on Coulter, she seems to thrive on making inflammatory comments, and sits back with a grin. It's a shame she's making so much money doing that, but that's the Capitalist way. I wonder how she lives with herself though. I like Bill Maher, I think he is serious now about what he says. Before 9/11, comedians didn't have to take political sides, everyone was equal fodder for jokes. I enjoyed Dennis Miller, until he was so upset by 9/11 that he got so conservative. I was upset, as we all were, but at his age was he really unaware that the U.S. was hated by many countries, had overstayed their welcome in others, and had caused lots of "collateral damage" in many areas? It was a wake up call for sure. But it's sad the comedians had to choose. Miller is a smart guy, and now I can't stand watching him talk to Bill O'Reilly.. I think Bill Maher believes what he's saying, and don't think he is saying anything all that outrageous. When he got kicked off network TV, he only said it was easier to fight a war with today's technology, when you didn't have to face your enemy, like people did in say, the American Civil War. Before I get jumped on, these were not his words, but it's the same idea. People working drones in VA aren't suffering and seeing all the pain and horror our soldiers overseas are seeing. That's the point. And if they don't feel like they are killing real people, where does it go from there? Bin Ladin got what he deserved though, and if the R's did that we'd never hear the end of it.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey there, Jean!
        Thank you for mentioning Dennis Miller. I used to like him, too.
        Can't stand him anymore.

  10. Doodlehead profile image82
    Doodleheadposted 4 years ago

    I don't find her that offensive as just boring.  I can kind of anticipate what she wil say.   She says things hoping they will be printed and raise a ruckus and make money.  At this point though she's kind of exhausted her audience I would think.

  11. profile image61
    Southernmapartposted 4 years ago

    Someone works to keep Art Coltrane's alias high in the search engines.  It's way past time to stop giving attention to an indecent personage.  Take out the trash and move on.

 
working