Oh my god, I hate Ann Coulter

Is it possible that Ann Coulter has created herself as some sort of perverse social experiment? I keep thinking that one day she'll appear on Hannity and Colmes and say, "Da haaaa! The joke's on you, America. I was just seeing how far outside the realms of reason and decency I could wander before you called me on it. Did anyone really think I was serious? And as for you, Sean...I want to send a great big "fuck you" over your way buddy, you stuttering fucking idiot."

Can anyone guess who Ann belittles in her latest column? (Please take a moment to read the whole thing. It's truly fabulous.) Yes naturally she complains about liberals, but look past the obvious. No, not Arabs. Not Frenchies. NANCY REAGAN.

Yes, the same Nancy Reagan who just rounded out a nice decade taking care of her vegetable husband by attending his funeral.

Ann says:

Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research...

But you can't blame Nancy. As everyone saw once again last week, she's still madly in love with the guy. She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie. Of course, I thought it was cute and not creepy that she consulted an astrologer about Reagan's schedule after he was shot.

I just hope that poor, dear, cute Nancy Reagan never comes across this snide, condescending bullshit. I mean jesus christ, Ann. Have just a shred of respect. Can you imagine if a liberal said something like this? Ann would respond: "Well this is just more proof that liberals are in league with Voldemort, and all of them just want to hijack planes and have sex changes and after they have sex changes, all the new males will want to give it to Saddam Hussein and all the new females will want to have Osama Bin Laden's baby."

And stem cell research? I can't even believe stem cell research is an issue to begin with. Let's see, we could throw these embryos in the trash. Orrr, we could use them to help save human lives. Nah, what the hell, let's just toss 'em. Will someone please explain this to me? But Ann says:

Most peculiar, the passing of America's most pro-life president is supposed to be a clarion call for conservatives to support the disemboweling of human embryos -- in contrast to that heartless brute President Bush always prattling on about the value of human life.

Ironically, the always market-oriented Ronald Reagan would probably have asked his wife, "Honey, if embryonic stem cell therapy is such a treasure trove of medical advances, why isn't private research and development funding flocking to it?"

President Bush has never said that fetal stem cells cannot be used for research. He said "federal money" cannot be used to fund such research. If leading scientists believed fetal stem-cell research would prove to be so fruitful in curing Alzheimer's, why is the private money not pouring in hand over fist?

Ok, first of all, I just want everyone to be straight on a one detail: About all that "disembowling" that liberals support--the embryos used for stem cell research (which are typically about 4 days old) can't be disembowled because they don't have bowels. They don't have lungs either. Or a heart or brain or any specialized tissue or organ. Because what are they, boys and girls? Ding ding! That's right! They're stem cells. A 4-day old embryo (called a blastocyst) is actually a hollow ball of about 100 undifferentiated cells. Which I'm sure Ann knew when she picked the word "disembowling."

As for the question she puts into Reagan's mouth: "Honey, if embryonic stem cell therapy is such a treasure trove of medical advances, why isn't private research and development funding flocking to it?"...well, if Ann could manage to stop puking invectives long enough to do a Google search for "private stem cell research," she would see that the very first site returned is titled:

USATODAY.com--Private stem cell research widens. Whaddya know.

As you can read here, Harvard biologist Doug Melton has raised private money to develop 17 new batches of stem cells, which he is sending to other scientists for just the cost of shipping. Kudos to you, Doug Melton. (Ann is no doubt scratching her head, bewildered as to why this guy would just give away these cells. Not motivated by the almighty buck? This feller sounds awfully komyoonistic to me. She'd better include him in her next book, Slanderous Scientists: How Treasonous Liberal Lab Nerds Used Cells From Impaled Babies to Clone Terrorists in Test Tubes.) Biopharm International reports that UC, San Francisco has also pulled together $11 million in private funding to found a new stem cell research center.

As you can read here, other private groups and even individual states are moving to support stem cell research as well. For example:

Seeking out private money is becoming something of a trend among stem-cell researchers. California activists have proposed a $3 billion ballot initiative to finance embryonic stem-cell research. And New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey recently allocated $6.5 million of the state's budget to stem-cell research at Rutgers University, and said he hopes to pump $50 million into the research over the next five years.

If private investment isn't "flocking" toward stem cell research in the quantities that would convince Ann of the research's value, could it perhaps be because the research is so risky and controversial? Surely investors are a little rattled by the possibility that stem cell research could be restricted even further in the future. The thing is that research is happening in companies. In fact, one of the reasons that only 12 of the 70 stem cell lines the president intially claimed were usable for research turned out to actually be usable, is that many of them are tied up by private companies.

Of course, the point Ann misses entirely is that you don't want all research on a single topic to be done privately. If only research projects that promised good financial returns were undertaken, we'd be in serious trouble. Many important discoveries have been made on a hunch or by accident by scientists whose line of research was not considered profitable. Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin only because mold from the lab below him kept getting into his own and contaminating the petri dishes that he was in the habit of leaving around open (to see if anything interesting happened). How would Fleming do at his bi-annual job review? How do you project the returns from the "serendipity" to which scientists always give so much credit?

University researchers are also subject to things like peer review and ethics committees, which can be lacking in private research. Peer review means that scientists have to stand up to each others' scrutiny. Ethics commitees prevent things like the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, in which 399 poor, black men with syphilis were experimented on for 40 years without their ever being treated or even told they had syphilis. Needless to say, it is processes like these that serve to keep research top-notch. Here is a good little piece about the need for a mix of public and private research.

As for Ann Coulter, there is one inspiring thing about her--she's proven that it's possible to make a very successful career out of being hateful and stupid. God bless the marketplace of ideas.

--Heather

Comments

[Lysana]

And stem cell research? I can't even believe stem cell research is an issue to begin with. Let's see, we could throw these embryos in the trash. Orrr, we could use them to help save human lives. Nah, what the hell, let's just toss 'em.

No, silly. They're supposed to get proper Christian burials. Tch. Do pay attention.

[muji]

Of course, them conservatives always love the bile spewing until the spewer turns their guns right back upon them. Let's hope she's drawn and quartered over the Nancy gaffe given the (w)holy undeserved Reagan love fest that just passed by.

[chesher]

ahh yes... reagan accomplished something and was a true american... liberals cant stand that....

ann says it like it is....

now whats bill clinton going to get remembered for....?

let me remember... oh yes the definition of is...

that all depends on what the definition of is is.

--- chesher

[Odhinn]

Have you seen this yet? I think you might find it amusing.

http://www.ohgeorge.com/ann.html

I don't understand how anyone DOESN'T hate Ann.

[roni d]

Ann Coulter is a living, breathing testament to the following facts:
Liberal men are effeminate and scared of beautiful women
Liberal men like domineering women (see Hillary); whether they like to be penetrated is debatable
Liberal men are angry because they are (and have always been) unpopular; women generally tolerate them, but ultimately fantasize about real men (i.e. Republicans).
Liberal men are clinically depressed and have formulated a whole ideology around addressing that depression
Sad but true.
Thanks for the article!

[Matthew]

I feel that Ms. Coulter should be classified as a federally banned substance. She is like smack for the crazy right wingers who have an endless supply of dirty syringes.

[Rose]

I think that the lot of you who don't care for Ann Coulter simply don't like to hear the truth about many issues.

Granted, she does take a lot of unnecessary swings at people and verbally abuses a lot of people, but hey at least she does it openly and with no apologies.

Mudslinging is mudslinging, but at least she has the guts to say it openly and not hide her feelings. Of all the criticism I have read about Ann, it hasn't been too intelligent. This is the first site that I have run across that manages to do anything but simply call her names.

Whether liberals or conservatives like to admit it or not-- each side cannot be right all the time. I think there is a lot to be said for Ann, and I admire her ability to speak her mind. I don't agree with everything, but then again-- I don't have to.

That is why I don't understand the senseless rants on her...she is paid to speak her mind, and she does so. Isn't that what free-speech is for? Personally, I think that a lot of liberals hail free speech as long as it goes with their agenda. Otherwise it is ignorant hate-speech. Sheesh talk about censorship...

While I don't agree with Ann most of the time, I don't HATE her. There is a difference between disagreement, non-acceptance, and HATE. One or more does not equate the other, and I think that it is about time that Liberals understand that just because you don't endorse their politics doesn't make you a hateful human being with no soul.

I think this site is good because it encourages open dialogue. Keep it up guys.

[d meyers]

Lysana,

Who is the only president to federally fund embyotic stem cell research??

Give up? Well the answer is George W. Bush. I believe the number is over 65 embryotic stem cell lines have been funded for research. I am no rocket scientist, or medical researcher for that matter, but I believe existing embryotic stem cell lines can be either replicated or reproduced so they should be able to be used indefinitely. Please don't jump on me if I am wrong on this, I seem to recall hearing this.

What President Bush will not fund with FEDERAL dollars (which means private funds can fund this... hey, why not Ms. Ketchup start an embryotic stem cell fund)is creating embryos only to destroy them for the stem cells.

There is no ban on federal funds for adult stem cell research, cord blood research, etc. It is my understanding this research is where the hope is and what holds the most promise.

[here's what's left]

Rose,

thanks for the compliments.

it's not so much that we hate ann coulter for speaking her mind, because that's hard to do. it's more that we hate her for her dishonesty. which is to say this: free speech is an important right that we should all cherish, and it makes me sad that someone like ann coulter would engage in such a dishonest use of it.

of course, she has the right to say whatever the hell she wants. but as a professional "journalist" or "commentator" or whatever she is, it seems like she should hold herself to a higher standard of truth than, um, lying. in her column she seems to state that private funding for stem cell research is not pouring in "hand over fist," when in fact it is, as we show.

the problem with ann is that she lies. lies. lies. lies. that's all there is to it. we've documented several egregious lies on this site, but the point is really this. we don't mind that she disagrees with us. in fact, we welcome debate. but it's hard to have a serious, substantive debate with someone who doesn't have their facts straight.

hmmmmm... and as for your assertion that "a lot of liberals hail free speech as long as it goes with their agenda. Otherwise it is ignorant hate-speech. Sheesh talk about censorship..." Do you have any evidence for this? we celebrate free speech in all its forms, because this is a free country. though i have to admit, i wish your president wouldn't say things like "There ought to be limits to freedom." Which he did say, unfortunately.

[motown]

In reference to many of the dissenting opinions following the original posting I can say this: One issue is not worth one vote. I understand how many people can be offended by the process of abortion; I get it. But to assume that all three week old embryos desrve a "Christian burial" belies your true agenda.

Also, I am not a republilcan (much as I am not a democrat-I won't let anyone make up my mind due to party, try reading a few opposing views and make up your own mind...that's why you have one) but I consider the redundant, ongoing missives about "Liberals" being cowtaowing girly-men (bless you governor) insipid and childish. Anyone that uses that argument has no real stand on any issue that hasn't been spoon-fed to them or drives a fast car or a big truck to make up for his lack of male endowment. Either way, that type of vociferous "real man" baiting hasn't been popular since they used it on Michael Dukkakis....so save it tiny.

To be honest, though, Ann Coulter deserves to be lauded in that she has made a substantial mark in a world dominated by testicular viewpoints. Unfortunately, her inabilty to make a point without backing it up with a Jackie Mason style punchline makes a mockery of her accomplishments. She has made herself out to be a one-trick pony, on the verge of becoming a jackass. Making a stand as an intelligent woman is to be highly regarded, stealing the routine of Andrew Dice Clay belittles you makes other Neo-conservative females just as unsufferable.

Motown

[d meyers]

See, more people coming forward muddying the water. Now, this guy sounds credible but it appears 2 Kerry supporters also on the boat claim they don't remember this guy. Who's being truthful???? WHO THE HELL KNOWS

"Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the Swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident which led to his first Purple Heart.

"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 (grenade launcher)," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

Schachte, who also was then a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man whose name Schachte did not remember.

Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Sen. Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present. Schachte said it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the Swift boat command in late November of 1968.

Kerry supporters say that no critics of the Democratic presidential candidate ever were aboard a boat with him in combat. Washington lawyer Lanny Davis has contended that Schachte was not aboard the Boston whaler, and the statement in "Unfit for Command" that he was aboard undermines that critical book's credibility."

[d meyers]

just a thought. Here is an example of how the perfected Clinton tactic of "send stooges out to attack the attacker" backfires. IMHO it is a bad strategy to send surrogates out to tear down individuals....

"I was astonished by Kerry's version" (in his book, "Tour of Duty") of what happened Dec. 2, Schachte said Thursday. When asked to support the Kerry critics in the Swift boat controversy, Schachte said, "I didn't want to get involved." But he said he gradually began to change his mind when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged, starting with Lanny Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" Aug. 12."

way to go Lanny you pinhead.

[d meyers]

another Coulter gem:

" But we're talking about 35-year-old memories here; 254 memories to 14 memories is what we used to call "evidence."

Why don't we just give both sides some swiftboats, a few machine guns and lots of ammo, put them on a river somewhere, and let them settle this whole thing like gentlemen once and for all?"

I think that is the way to settle this, a death match.... Make it into a reality show and the dollars will role in

[Nate]

Yeah, I actually run a blog called "I Hate Ann Coulter: Conservative Lies and Bias." Granted, it's not all about her, but yeah. There is something really, really wrong with her. In case the conservatives don't see our point about Ann's ridiculous distortions, try this one (from my above-mentioned blog):
Coulter says, "The New York Times has a new typewriter key for the Swift Boat Veterans story that reads: "the unsubstantiated charges of the Swift Boat Veterans."" Funny, I did a LexusNexis search of Times articles for the last month, searching full text with the search terms "unsubstantiated" and "Swift Boat" and came up with... 3 articles. This fails to note that two of these times are actually variations on that phrase, and that one of them is qualified as "mostly unsubstantiated." Oops. I could go on. But I won't.

[d meyers]

Nate, are you that clueless? Do you not understand that Coulter rights issue pieces mixed with satire? The typewriter key joke is quite funny because it paints a picture, not because it is literally accurate.

[here's what's left]

d, are you clueless? Ann Coulter was lying, and has lied many many times. And will keep lying. And you should disown her statements if you want to maintain any credibility.

[bog]

What credibility?

[d meyers]

HWL, you cannot be serious. Satire - "Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity."

Did you actually believe that you would find the exact words she used in the NY Times??? She was making fun of the "qualifiers" the NY Times uses when identifying the SBVT. Typically there is always a qualifier before their name... The use of qualifiers/adjectives prior to naming someone is an old trick. Scan all stories in the NY Times, Wash Post, ABC, CBS, NBC and compare how often someone is labeled a "conservative" or "right wing" as opposed to "liberal" or "left wing".

Coulter could just have easily said, the NY Times a new typewriter key for partial birth abortion which reads, "what opponents call partial birth abortion".

[here's what's left]

d, your wit isn't too sharp today, buddy.

"The New York Times has a new typewriter key for the Swift Boat Veterans story that reads: "the unsubstantiated charges of the Swift Boat Veterans." that's what she says. the innuendo is that the New York Times says the SBVT charges are unsubstantiated so often that they have a new key on a typewriter (a rather inelegant reference to an unrelated story, if you ask me), so that all they have to do is press it to get that phrase.

the joke is supposed to be about the frequency with which the Times uses that phrase. Nate's point, though, is that they have only used it three times, and with qualifiers each time. Which to say that Coutler's joke is not funny and that it is intended to deliberately mislead. She's lying.

as i said, you shouldn't defend someone who lies, especially since you claim to be so interested in evidence.

[d meyers]

you we are debating what is funny and what is not.... I can honestly state that I believe you do not think Ann Coulter is funny or witty.

Let me state it one more time. We conservatives live with the "qualifier or adjective" included with identifying us and I find it funny how often on news and in newspaper the qualifier is used. That is Ann's point. She is making fun of the use of a SBVT qualifier. She could have said the key is "the balding, big nosed" SBVT key. Are they balding and big nosed? Of course not, that is not the point. The point was the use of the qualifier. Satire/humor is supposed to make you laugh. Since when do you listen to a comic and say, "He is Lying, He is Lying, not funny". Good comedians mix exagerations and hyperbole with some bits of truisms to make their material funny. Listen to Dennis Miller some time, he mixes truisms with his flowery language and exagerations to produce a pretty funny act.

You really need to lighten up and don't read her if you don't think she is funny or entertaining.

[here's what's left]

i don't think you got the joke. if it were a "the balding, big nosed" key there would be no joke, because ann doesn't accuse the new york times of saying that SBVT are balding or big-nosed. if you're familiar with her work, she's fond of saying that they give conservatives short shrift, and her "satirical" qualifier was meant to point that out. she happens to have been wrong.

[D MEYERS]

The more I read the debate over and over again the more it becomes apparent that Kerry blew it on substance, BIG TIME.. Kerry's response to the preemptive question was a DISASTER

WWW.HUGHHEWITT.COM has some great analysis:

The main points:

Kerry flunks history test in fashioning "global test."
Here's Kerry's "global test" call from last night's debate:

"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, 'Here, let me show you the photos.' And DeGaulle waved them off and said, 'No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.'"

Three points about this rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

First, Kennedy sent Dean Acheson, not Dean Rusk to see DeGualle. Acheson was a former Secretary of State, Rusk the then sitting Secretary of State.

Second, that's not what DeGualle said to Acheson. Here's an account of the Acheson-DeGaulle meeting and briefing (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qX5QyfuoHvQJ:www.cia.gov/csi/books/shermankent/10cuban.html+cuban+missile+crisis+de+gaulle+and+rusk&hl=en) .

One source, almost certainly Acheson, reported DeGualle's comment to have been "A great government such as yours does not act without evidence." And DeGualle, no matter what he said, sat through the briefing in which the evidence was displayed for him.
Finally, and most important, the Cuban Missile Crisis, from start to finish, was all about preemptive action, and had nothing to do with passing "global tests." Kennedy never sought the approval of any ally much less the United States. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Steveson, made a presentation to the U.N. on October 25, 1962, three days after the blockade had been imposed (http://www.jfklibrary.org/cmc_exhibit_2002.html).
The JFK debating last night has a foreign policy approach that would be unrecognizable to the JFK who actually served in the presidency. This small collision with the truth is par for Kerry's course, and I hope bloggers across the country are checking all of his statements against the record for similar flights of fantasy, like his CIA-man's-magic-hat and Christmas-Eve-not-in-Cambodia.

[Elaine Cain]

God has told me for at least 2-3 years, "Be awared for that Jezebel has returned to Earth named as Ann C.,..." I had no idea about today's Jezebel at all until I saw "I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever." according Ann Coulter's writing on American Compass, The Conservative Alternativeâ.
I pray so hard to God for saving innocence's lives / souls from this Jezebel by simply throw her in Hell forever and ever. And, God told me, "Yes, The Jezebel will be thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the devil, the great whore, false prophets, and evildoers are / were; they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Hallelujah! I praise God.

I also pray to God for condemning all the Great-Whore's slandering liars, who slandering against ME-the Rainbow with their very own shame & dirt--whole entire world's lowest and evilest dirt: 1) due to their very own raped, incest, and child-sexual-abusely ENSURED "F-All" sexually-aggressive all the time both psychologically and phsically (ensured). 2) due to their very own shame & dirt too painful for cheap-easy-F-Alls to live on, so they must slander someone else, like me-who came from Communist China, where all their very own Freeland's monopoly shame and dirt was/were impossible in our Communist Society. 3) due to their very own Viagra + vibrator stimulating EFFECT... All in all, they all are capable of going low-down to the hell and slander without limit and without their fear of God, but all their very own freeland's monopoly shame & dirt could/can never, ever fit me at all, so I pray to God for damning all the moralless, soulless, slandering Liars / Evilders, including, I mean expecially to damn the Jezebel.

Elaine, the Rainbow

[Elaine, the Rainbow]

Ann Coulter's hateful passion is undeniably obvious; anyone can see her very own personal experience, especially her childhood life-experience through her terrific description of her very own writings and speaches. So, one would automatically ask, "Hi, where's her great- hateful-passion came from???"

1).Without anyone slander against her with "whole-entire world's lowest, dirtiest mud that the world has ever seen , except Jesus; 2). Without that she must honestly stand up straight and tall for defending herself from / against all the Viagra Effected slanderous liars that slandering against her falsely ; then, in general,
ANNone's HATEFUL PASSION, WRITINGS, & SPEACHES ONLY EXPRESS ANNone'S VERY OWN LIFE, including CHILDHOOD, EXPERIENCE (except the one must honestly stand up straight and tall to defend the truth for God's rights!). The Most Undeniable example is--the America's first prostitute cold-blooded-hateful-serial-killer, Aileen Wuornos! The another powerful example is ANNone who's hateful but very fast-easy-F-All Incest-Raped-16~17-Abortion went table-tably wrong that result CHILDLESS...Childless......

Elaine, the Rainbow

[Cheryl]

The fact that Ann has stirred up this little Internet eddy is testament to one sad truth.

The only reason she gets any attention at all is because she has a pretty face and she is willing to completely pervert herself in service to the great conservative money-making albatross we now carry around on our shoulders known as 'free trade' or 'capitalism', soon to be known as neofascism.

'Free trade' that restricts competition on the small business level.

'Free trade' that grants huge government subsidies to the owners of capital while repressing civil rights.

'Free trade' that gives away the public airwaves to the likes of Rupert Murdoch so that his hit-man O'Reilly can shout down critics.

Ann is simply a whore, selling her body and soul to the highest bidder.

I bet she is cold as a fish in bed. No soul, no warmth, no love in that blackened heart. I bet she would fuck the bones of Goebbels. Look it up 'd'. Better yet, ask her for a date and tell us what it was like. Freeze your dick?

Democracy is dead in the USA. Hail Fuhrer!