Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the legal defense from Advocate? Again---
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate would be, I am certain, hooted out of any court in the world with that idiotic comment.

To assign blame to President Bush for a beheading done by fanatic Islamic Fanatics is also to assign blame to Clinton for

l. The Cole

2. The Embassy Bombings

3. The first attack on the WTC.

When you assign blame for a murder( I am sure that Advocate does not know this) you must affix blame for the "Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either express or implied"

Now, an Accessory is one who, without being present at the commission of a felonious offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participator, as by COMMAND, ADVICE, INSTIGATION OR CONCEALMENT"

I defy Advocate to present a LEGALLY LOGICAL CHARGE depicting President Bush as an Accessory.

Mr. Advocate simply has no idea what he/she is talking about and is just blowing smoke.

Bernie, I didn't realize that I was writing to a Clarence Darrow. BTW, Clinton did not lie the country into a war.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Bush did lie us into the war with Iraq, wouldn't that make him partially responsible for the many, many, casualties in that war? I think it does.

Though far-fetched, if we lost the war and Bush were captured, he would be punished for this responsibility.

Cedar Rapids Newspaper Drops Ann Coulter's Column

Cliff Kincaid, a certified conservative, points to how Coulter loves to ridiculte victims of war and terrorism. He also mentions her plagairism.

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4726_0_3_0_C/

Augusta Editor Explains Why He Dropped Coulter Column
Augusta Editor Explains Why He Dropped Coulter Column
Ann Coulter
By Dave Astor and Greg Mitchell
E & P Published: July 24, 2006

The Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle has become the second newspaper to drop Ann Coulter's column this month, explaining that her "stridency" had crossed the line.

Coulter, of Universal Press Syndicate, is being replaced by another conservative columnist -- Michelle Malkin of Creators Syndicate.

"We're a conservative editorial page," Chronicle Editorial Page Editor Michael Ryan told E&P today, noting that the paper also runs columnists such as Robert Novak, George Will, and Walter Williams along with liberal Ellen Goodman.

Ryan emphasized that the paper wouldn't have dropped Coulter if she had made "one or two" controversial comments. "But it came to the point where she was the issue rather that what she was writing about," he said, adding that Coulter's reputation has become mixed even among conservatives.

He also observed that the situation was "becoming kind of a broken record" as Coulter constantly promoted her new book and took swipes at The New York Times. Plagiarism charges were not a factor, said Ryan, noting that those allegations haven't been proved.

Ryan said he had received, as of this morning, only about 15-20 e-mails reacting to the Chronicle's decision. Opinions have run about evenly pro- and anti-Coulter, the editor reported.

"Personally, I continue to be an Ann Coulter fan," said Ryan. "I think her logic is devastating and her viewpoint is right most of the time." He added that the Chronicle would even consider bringing Coulter back if she somehow "became less of a lightning rod."

Universal declined to comment about the Chronicle's decision.

The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, also dropped Coulter this month. And The Times of Shreveport, La., is considering dropping her column as well.

"We haven't made a decision yet," said Times Editorial Page Editor Craig Durrett, but he told E&P today that the decision will probably be soon. In the meantime, about 500 people have e-mailed the Shreveport paper since Durrett announced July 2 that Coulter might be pulled. The majority of e-mailers from outside the Times' circulation area are in favor of dropping Coulter, according to Durrett, while local e-mail reaction has been more "mixed."

In dropping Coulter, the Chronicle published an explanation -- attributed to the paper's Editorial Staff -- called "Correcting an Overbite." It read: "We didn't think twice about adding nationally syndicated columnist Ann Coulter to our editorial page lineup. We had to think long and hard about whether to keep her there.

"In the end, we've reluctantly decided Ms. Coulter's incisive writing, laser-like perceptiveness, quick wit and devastating logic have been overshadowed, and that she has lost her effectiveness as a conservative standard-bearer.

"As of today, we're opting to go with Michelle Malkin, one of the most articulate and exciting young conservative voices out there today.

"Ann Coulter has long been known for her acid tongue. But much of the hand-wringing by her critics has been, and still is, the result of the fact that she is ruthless in pointing out their hypocrisy and flawed thinking.

"But biting commentary is one thing. A personal attack is another -- such as when she slammed several 9-11 widows for backing Democrats and allegedly milking the tragedy for political purposes. That charge alone isn't necessarily unfair, but to suggest they were 'enjoying' their husbands' deaths and calling them 'witches' -- well, that's where stridency crosses a line.

"Moreover, in the weeks since, Coulter herself had become the issue, rather than the topics she was writing about, which is an unhealthy circumstance for a journalist, even a columnist.

"This editorial page stands for many things, and we make no bones about it. But one of the things we stand for is civility. Pulling Ann Coulter's column hurts; she's one of the clearest thinkers around. But you've got to stand by your principles, even -- especially -- when it's painful."

The move has generated postings at the newspaper's message forum. Here are a few:

--"As I have stated on another thread, the AC editorial staff has been cowed by the leftist MSM's assault on Coulter. I WAS gong to re-subscribe, but that was in order to read Coulter's column."

--"On a Chronicle note, though, the editorial stance is overwhelmingly conservative. They even said in their Friday editorial that they still agree with what Coulter believes in. Lord knows they still espouse that philosophy in their editorials. So are they really bending to the will of advertisers or the unnamed, unspoken 'powers that be' by dropping Coulter? In reality, the editorial stance hasn't budged an inch. They just traded up for a columnist (Michelle Malkin) who says it straight, without being overly hateful or self-aggrandizing (Ann Coulter). Even I was getting sick of Coulter promoting her latest book in her column week after week."

--"Ann's recent column regarding the 9/11 widows was a little over the top; however, commentary that stimulates controversy and thinking usually is. Instead of allowing the debate to continue, The Chronicle has pulled the column. Is this censorship or what? Come on, editors; we are all adults here. If you don't like what Ann says, don't read the column!"

Is Ann Maggot Coulter a man, woman, hermaphrodite . . .? See:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/112598

Although I intensely dislike Coulter, I find accusations of her having been born a man in bad taste.

I read the editorial explanation of the dropping of Coulter's column by the Georgia paper and found it to be in bad taste and expressive of dubious judgment. Coulter does not exercise logic of any kind -- certainly not "impeccable" -- nor does she make people she 'skewers' feel uncomfortable. Frankly, she's rather immature. Painting her as immature and aggressive is not arguing ad hominem. Casting aspersions on her gender is.

She's National Enquirer material who managed with smart promotion to elevate herself into the position of a credible journalist, but only to those stupid enough to fall for it.

It's pretty obvious that the only thing that interests Coulter is Coulter and that she was out to have a career in the worst way possible, which is the way she chose.

Can anyone find an incident of her being positive about anything?

She's positive that liberalism is a disease. That just came to me. I can think of more if you're interested.

That is a positive? I wonder what is a negative.

I didn't say it was "a positive." Coincidentally, plainoldme did not ask for examples of Coulter being "a positive." She asked for examples of Coulter being "positive about anything."




The answer to the question of whether you are ever going to provide support for any of your many unsubstantiated assertions .... that is a negative.

Hmm, Coulter saying that liberalism is a disease is a positive. Tico, in a stupid cheap shot, agains lies that I don't support the things I write. (When appropriate, I do. E.g., my last post included a link.)

Coulter gender, or lack thereof, may have a bearing on the discussion. For instance, her being asexual may account for her being amoral.

Well, Tico, I know that you have already presented an untenable argument to Advocate about this, but I asked whether Coulter is ever positive about anything and you came back with a snide and sophomoric remark about liberalism -- it was quite on the level of a Coulter snigger. Whether or not you understood the question is now up for debate.

However, despite the fact that we know that articles and books appear under the byline Ann Coulter and that a blonde woman appears on television and radio and represents her name as Ann Coulter, we know nothing about this person.

It is possible that Ann Coulter does not exist; that the woman who appears is an actress; that her writings are the work of a committee.

Based on the Ann Coulter we see -- she has thinner hair when she is interviewed by a woman; wears a bra when interviewed by a woman and goes without when interviewed by a man -- she is probably in her forties.

That means that as a woman who makes her living -- assuming she is for real -- as a writer, then Ann Coulter has a degree.

Without liberalism, Ann Coulter would not have gone to college and would not be earning as substantial a living as she does.

So, we can then assume that Ann Coulter does not see that result of liberal beliefs and actions as diseased.

The writing attributed to Ann Coulter is incendiary. Her 'right' to say the things she does is the product of liberalism. So, we can then assume that Ann Coulter does not see that as the result of disease.

What else have liberals done for society?

Oh. Liberals put an end to slavery and then forged many laws to provide Blacks with civil rights.

Perhaps, Ann Coulter thinks those acts are the product of a diseased mind.

We know nothing of any Coulter children. Perhaps, Ann Coulter is private, or, then again, she may not have any. Liberals want the environment protected and cleaned and made whole again in order to protect their children and grandchildren. Perhaps, a childless Coulter thinks the environment does not matter. Perhaps, a Coulter thinks her children are so strong and healthy that it doesn't matter what state the natural world is in and that only diseased minds care about such things.

And, Advocate, although I have only read Coulter in excerpts, the inherent rhymes-with-rich quality of those squibs as well as the tone and tenor of her speaking leads me to believe that this is indeed a woman . . . but a woman who resorts to hair pieces and dye and maybe other enhancements to appear more feminine.

Let's continue this discussion when you learn how to comprehend the words that I type.

Sorry you don't approve.



No, I think it's a given that I understood the question. It's also a given that you didn't care for my response. And I can live with that.



Does that upset you?



Sure ... I suppose she could be the Milli Vanilli of punditry.



I'm embarrassed to say I've not noticed her bra-wearing habits like you have.



A degree of what?



Uh-huh .... fancy stuff like book-learnin' and college wouldn't exist without leftists to teach at the University.



Who is "we"?



If it has that effect on you, I suggest you don't read her writing.



I picture you with a little list you've compiled, and on the left you've written down all the things that are good, wholesome, and virtuous about the US, and they are all the product of liberalism; while on the right, you have a list of all the evil, bad, and despicable things you see with the US, which you attribute to conservatism. In that regard, you seem to have quite a bit in common with Ms. Coulter, just inverted.

And apparently you've included on the left side of your list the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.



You and the mouse in your pocket are free to make whatever assumptions you wish.



Composed music? Directed some really good movies?

....

I'm struggling here, sorry.



Checking the left side of your list again, eh?

Tico, the truth of the matter is that you misunderstood Plainold. But, this should be expected of a literalist.

Plainold, regarding Coulter's gender, or whatever, I think it is fair to raise this issue. I say this because she is a public figure in the worst sense. She loves to attack people who have been the victim of war or terrorism, such as Cleland, Kerry, the 9/11 widows, et al. Her viciousness knows no bounds. I don't know of anyone who is more deserving of ad hominian attacks.

ad hominian!!?

That sounds barbaric!!

Misunderstood her? How on earth can you claim I did that?

I answered the question she asked. If she intended to ask a different question, she should have done so.