Ann Coulter

[crusader1234]

Thinks Georgie Bush might be an idiot. See? I really DO read both sides of the story :

[url="http://anncoulter.com"]Ann Coulter . Com[/url]
[quote][b]WHERE'S THAT RELIGIOUS FANATIC WE ELECTED?[/b]

Maybe he is an idiot. On the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade this past Monday — I was going to say "birthday of Roe v. Wade," but that would be too grimly ironic even for me — President Bush told a pro-life rally in Washington that a "culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts."

Actually, what we need least of all is to "change hearts." Maybe it's my law background, but I think it's time we changed a few judges.

The "changing hearts" portion of the abortion debate is over. ATTENTION, PASSENGERS: We're now entering the "minds" portion of the "hearts and minds" journey on abortion. We've been talking about abortion for 32 years. All the hearts that can be changed have been changed. By some estimates, 35 million human hearts (and counting) have been "changed" by abortion.

Judging by her comments this week calling abortion a "sad, even tragic choice," we've even changed Hillary Clinton's heart. (And who would know better than the sad, even tragic choice offered to New York voters in 2000 herself?)

Hillary went so far as to say she had "respect" for those who believe that "there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available."

I've never heard of anyone who thinks abortion should not be "available" to save the life of the mother. There was never a law in any state that prohibited abortion to save the life of the mother. If Hillary "respects" even this (nonexistent) lunatic fringe of the pro-life movement, she must adore the rest of us!

The only thing we need to do now is to start "changing laws." A culture of life cannot even begin -– much less be sustained — until we change the law and repeal Roe v. Wade. Only then can we tally up how many hearts have been changed.

If, right now, pro-lifers had already succeeded in changing the hearts of every last person in America — including Hillary Clinton! — abortion would still be legal in every state of the union. It's a "constitutional right" — taking its place alongside all those other "sad," "tragic" rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as religious expression, free speech, freedom of assembly and so on. Who was it who said, "Free speech should be safe, legal and rare"?

Only when at least five members of the Supreme Court stop pretending to see a secret, hidden clause in the Constitution, discernible only to members of the ACLU, and repeal Roe can Americans finally vote on abortion. This is a right we have been denied for 32 years. In effect, a 32-year gag rule has been imposed on those of us who respect every stage of life.

The National Abortion Rights League (NARAL) claims that if Roe were overturned, 19 states would immediately outlaw abortion, and 19 more would soon follow suit. This is the one issue on which NARAL and I agree: Pro-lifers already have changed the hearts of Americans about abortion!

Abortion was not terribly popular when Roe v. Wade was first concocted in 1973 –- by seven male justices and their mostly male law clerks. Abortion — like other liberal priorities over the years including forced busing, gay marriage and removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance — is an issue liberals believe is best voted on by groups of nine or fewer.

We know it wasn't popular with actual Americans back then because 46 states had outlawed it in a once-common procedure known as "representative democracy." Reflect on the fact that among the things more popular than abortion even back in 1973 were white-guy afros, lime-green leisure suits and earth shoes.

In the intervening 32 years, abortion has only become less popular. People have seen sonograms of smiling fetuses, they've seen the mangled remains of aborted babies, they've heard the ghastly arguments from NARAL termagants, and they've seen untold women marking the birth dates of their terminated children with weeping and despair.

In a Los Angeles Times poll a few years ago, 57 percent of respondents said they believed abortion was "murder." Seventy-two percent of women and 58 percent of men said they thought abortion should be illegal after the first trimester. (Among men currently listed on NBA rosters, the figure was even lower.)

Note that men in the poll were more supportive of abortion than women, which is perfectly in keeping with the pro-abortion orthodoxy that men should have no say in this matter, unless they're saying "yes, dear." Once again, NARAL and I are in agreement! It's a "woman's issue"; could you men please just butt out?

Despite the fact that feminists cry and try to make people feel guilty about opposing a "woman's right" to abortion, men always support abortion more than women — no matter who takes the poll or how the questions are asked. Curiously, single men aged 18-34 are the cohort most dearly devoted to a woman's "right to choose."

Until Roe is overturned, telling pro-lifers they need to be "changing hearts" is like telling the New England Patriots they need to practice more –- while never, ever letting them play in the Super Bowl. We've been changing hearts for 32 years — I think we're ready for the big match now. I think Americans would support massive restrictions on abortion. And NARAL agrees with me! How about it, liberals? Prove me wrong! Let Americans vote.

COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo. 64111; (816) 932-6600[/quote]

Aside from the part where she cuts into Hilary Clinton for no apparent reason (dear Lord woman she's AGREEING with you), I really liked this article. She's abraisive, annoying, but she does have a point.

Now, some Supreme Court Justice better hurry the heck up and retire because more than half of America (and other concerned foreigners) has been waiting more than just 4 years for this to change.

[popestpiusx]

One SC justice is about to retire. Unfortunately, it's one from our side.

Edited January 31, 2005 by popestpiusx

[spathariossa]

I thought Catholicism disagreed with abortion even to save the life of the mother. Is she calling us the lunatic fringe?

[jezic]

I hope that she is not calling us lunatics.

The article is interesting, my question is why are you trying to prove that you read both sides of the argument?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 31 2005, 03:07 PM'] I thought Catholicism disagreed with abortion even to save the life of the mother.  Is she calling us the lunatic fringe? [/quote]
yes. She does not understand the distinction between undertaking an operation to save the mother's life that may result in the death of the child versus actively terminating the child to save the mother's life.

Nor should we expect her to. Conservatives only go so far, because after all America is Protestant.

edited to say no disrespect to protestants with a consistent pro-life ethic.

Edited January 31, 2005 by toledo_jesus

[Paladin D]

Ann Coulter I can agree with [b]sometimes[/b], but the rest... I think she's the lunatic. On Fox News (Hannity and Colmes), she was bashing Canada and the French. Of course the US gets bashed on a lot, it's a daily routine but, we shouldn't stoop down to that level. I forgot the exact quote, but she said something along the lines of nuking a country because they speak French? She is just a little too fanatical and neo-conservative.

I lean towards the conservative end, but I'm an open guy. Partisan politics is not my thing, each side has it's good and evil.

[argent_paladin]

"cuts into Hillary for no apparent reason"!!!??
What?

Coulter is criticizing Bush for being all talk and no action about abortion. She is criticizing Bush because she believes that it is dangerous to believe someone who may be a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Both of those can be applied to Hillary a thousand-fold. She is saying that she wants to be on common ground with pro-lifers, but still has a 100% rating with NARAL. She says there is room for compromise but votes against the partial-birth abortion ban. If you dislike Bush for saying he supports the pro-life cause but doesn't think the time is right for change, you should dislike Hillary and Co (like Kerry) 1000 times more. Hillary is a woman and a mother, she knows the red states (Arkansas). It is not hard to see why most people think that her recent statements are just a ploy so that she can get elected in 2008.
And how is a conservative criticizing Bush seeing both sides of the issue when the other side is full of liberals criticizing Bush? Wouldn't the "other side" be praising Bush?

[crusader1234]

Oh, I don't like Ann Coulter by any means, Paladin. Don't get me wrong. She's a nutjob (she took the 'sleeping next to an elephant' analogy and threatened to roll over on us - maybe she meant her ego? - and another time the CBC tricked her (naughty CBC) into launching into a speech about Canadian American relations and she lied in about every other sentence.

[Cam42]

[quote]President Bush told a pro-life rally in Washington that a "culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts." [/quote]

President Bush is totally and completely wrong. We (I use the term we; as a nation) were able to enact this "culture of death" by changing laws, why can't we do the same by simply changing the law? This country puts its laws above everything else....right or wrong (that is another discussion).....so if a ban on abortion is enacted, it will be enforced. That is the way the US works with its laws.

As far as Hilary is concerned, she is setting herself up like her separated husband, Slick Willy. She is becoming a moderate on this issue, because she knows that she needs to appeal to the masses if she wants to make a run in 2008. There is nothing genuine in her rhetoric....mark my words.....she is just like Slick.

[quote]The only thing we need to do now is to start "changing laws." A culture of life cannot even begin -– much less be sustained — until we change the law and repeal Roe v. Wade. Only then can we tally up how many hearts have been changed.[/quote]

Absolutely. Without question. Undubitably. Bravo.

[quote]Until Roe is overturned, telling pro-lifers they need to be "changing hearts" is like telling the New England Patriots they need to practice more –- while never, ever letting them play in the Super Bowl. We've been changing hearts for 32 years — I think we're ready for the big match now. I think Americans would support massive restrictions on abortion.[/quote]

She has it right. We must get this overturned. Being pro-life is an all or nothing propostion. Either you are or you are not. There are no qualifing conditions. If you support abortion in the case of incest and rape, you support abortion. If you support abortion in the case of the life of the mother, you support abortion. If you do not support abortion under any circumstance then you are pro-life. Simple.

I do disagree with her on one point though.

[quote]Note that men in the poll were more supportive of abortion than women, which is perfectly in keeping with the pro-abortion orthodoxy that men should have no say in this matter, unless they're saying "yes, dear." Once again, NARAL and I are in agreement! It's a "woman's issue"; could you men please just butt out?[/quote]

This issue affects all humans. Remember it takes "takes two to tango" and men become as attached to the unborn as the ladies do. That is a preposterous line.

I hope that we all keep our eye on the ball. We must oppose abortion 100%. Regardless of what the President might say, regardless of what the RNC might say, abortion is unacceptable under any and all circumstances.

Cam42

[Phatmasser777]

Coulter, is: racist, bigot, pro-partisan, ignorant, anti-muslim, anti-ethnic. She's almost worse than O'Reilly and his Anti-Jewish comments.

If you want intelligence, try Noam Chomsky!

[Cam42]

[quote]Coulter, is: racist, bigot, pro-partisan, ignorant, anti-muslim, anti-ethnic.[/quote]

Well, at least she isn't sexist.

That was quite possibly the most uncharitable statement I have ever heard on this site. WOW!!!! And it only took you a month to come up with that amazing retort.

Cam42

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Feb 19 2005, 06:41 AM'] Coulter, is: racist, bigot, pro-partisan, ignorant, anti-muslim, anti-ethnic. She's almost worse than O'Reilly and his Anti-Jewish comments.

If you want intelligence, try Noam Chomsky! [/quote]
Chomsky? he gets picked apart by his own side.

[save ferris 101]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Jan 31 2005, 02:27 PM'] yes. She does not understand the distinction between undertaking an operation to save the mother's life that may result in the death of the child versus actively terminating the child to save the mother's life.

Nor should we expect her to. Conservatives only go so far, because after all America is Protestant.

edited to say no disrespect to protestants with a consistent pro-life ethic. [/quote]
If you would look, you would say that she didn't even say anything close to that. She said that pro-life people who think that abortion should be legal for the health of the mother, are non-existant, and she called them lunatics, because it is hypocritical. So she was siding with us, next time try to make an intelligent post

[argent_paladin]

" Coulter, is: racist, bigot, pro-partisan, ignorant, anti-muslim, anti-ethnic. She's almost worse than O'Reilly and his Anti-Jewish comments."

Did you just start copying words out of a thesarus? Because you basically had just one point, that Coulter discriminates against people who are different from her. How is "racist" any different from "bigot" or for that matter, "anti-ethnic" and wouldn't these all include "anti-muslim" and of course they would all include "ignorant".
But in her defense, she is not racist, she is just anti-multicultural. Coulter believes that some cultures are superior to others and believes that some ideas imbedded in some cultures are dangerous. That doesn't make her ignornant, or racist, but it does make her anti-muslim and perhaps anti-ethnic. And I completely agree that she is pro-partisan. But it seems that you are too because that is some of the most partisan language I have heard on these boards. You clearly are not in the same party as Anne and seem to be pro-partisan when it comes to attacking her.

[crusader1234]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 19 2005, 08:33 PM'] But in her defense, she is not racist, she is just anti-multicultural. Coulter believes that some cultures are superior to others and believes that some ideas imbedded in some cultures are dangerous. That doesn't make her ignornant, or racist, but it does make her anti-muslim and perhaps anti-ethnic. And I completely agree that she is pro-partisan. But it seems that you are too because that is some of the most partisan language I have heard on these boards. You clearly are not in the same party as Anne and seem to be pro-partisan when it comes to attacking her. [/quote]
It frightens me that anybody on Phatmass would consider [b]thinking some cultures are superior to others, being anti-multicultural, anti-ethnic, and anti-Muslim[/b] NOT to be characteristics of a racist or even ignorant individual. I don't know whether to puke or pray.