Olbermann named Coulter "Worst Person" for repeated calls for execution of New York Times staff
On MSNBC's Countdown, Keith Olbermann awarded Ann Coulter another "Worst Person in the World" award for her recent calls for the execution of New York Times staff members.
On the July 17 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded right-wing pundit Ann Coulter another "Worst Person in the World" award for her recent calls for the execution of New York Times staff members. As Media Matters for America noted, while referring to the Times' decision to report on the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program and a Treasury Department program designed to track international financial transactions for terrorist activity, during a July 12 appearance on The Jon Caldara Show on Denver radio station KOA, Coulter declared that the Times had done "something that could have gotten them executed, certainly did get the Rosenbergs executed." As Media Matters had earlier noted, in the July 12 edition of her nationally syndicated column, Coulter wrote that if Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason, "I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution."
In crowning Coulter "Worst Person," Olbermann pointed to a threatening letter discovered in the mail room of the Times on July 14 when an employee opened "a white, business-sized envelope with no return address and saw what he later described as white powder," which turned out not to be hazardous. A copy of the Times' June 28 editorial "Patriotism and the Press" -- which defended the Times' coverage of the administration's surveillance programs -- was also included in the envelope with the letter 'X" written on it. Olbermann then advised Coulter that "one day, somebody at the Times, probably some guy in the mail room, is going to get hurt and it'll be on your conscience -- if you have one."
From the July 17 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Tonight's winner: Coultergeist! Again! For the same thing. She went on another radio show to suggest staffers of The New York Times be executed. Hey Annie, you do realize that there are chowderheads out there even stupider than you are, and they don't get that you're a screaming fraud, and that they read or hear what you say and then they send envelopes full of white powder to The Times like they did last week, and that one day somebody at The Times, probably some guy in the mail room, is going to get hurt and it'll be on your conscience -- if you have one. Ann Coulter: today's "Worst Person in the World."
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Ann Slanders said this about the times letter:
"So glad to hear that The New York Times got my letter..."
Crazy Annie's " jokes " , right ?
this coulter woman is so painfully boring that she should be pitied for christ sake.
so by the same logic and if olbermann is consistent, when national figures like cindy sheehan or harry belafonte called bush the world's biggest terrorist and some nut decided to rid the world of it's biggest terrorist - it would be on their conscience's as well?
Cindy Sheehan has never called for Bush to be executed. The most violent comments she's made is calling him "a lying bastard" calling for him to be impeached. She's also said she has respect for his willingness to speak to her and that he was sincere in his beliefs, no matter how wrong she believes they are.
I hope you can see the difference between Ann and Cindy (I'd address Harry but I have very little knowledge of his public speeches).
These people don't speak for the Democratic party.
(teehee)
specifically bashes many Dems. I don't always agree with Cindy but I've never ever heard her once advocate violence against anyone, probably has something to do with her being a peace activist and all. Belafonte like wise, you know he was a instrumental player in the civil rights movement. He coordinated fund raiser and he was a large donar as well as a very good friend to MLK.
The flaws in Neocon reasoning are as legion and nauseating as maggots on a rotting corpse. Likening Coulter to Belafonte is comparing a demon to a saint.
even then you were not as stupid as Ann the Man in that you did not put direct threats to dumbaya or his cronies in Cindy or Harry's mouths. In other words by your own defence (purile and pathetic as it was) YOU condemed Ann! LOL man you are so obtuse :)
Bushbaby has control over the world's most powerful army which has been used to "persuade" foreign governments and regime change in sovereign nations. That same military excercised what they termed "shock and awe" in one of these sovereign nations. It's purpose was to inspire fear, self-doubt, and utimately submission, and it's effects were not limited only to the military as it spilled into the civilian population and killed many innocents. Read that last sentence again, it's the definition of terrorism. In other words, there's plenty of credibility in a statement of Bush being a terrorist. More than in an accusation of the Times being treasonous. Your assumption of Olberman is bogus, but even giving it undeserved credence, Sheehan et al made no statements as to assassinating anyone, nor suggestions of how to accomplish such. Pull your head out of the giant collective ass which shares the majority of right wing heads. It's about your country, not your "team". Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are getting filthy rich by selling people like you a bunch of "R"-embossed penants at the expense of civil politics and ultimately the atmosphere of our country. It's on YOUR conscience that you defend the scum.
Right On,
Sorry you are so off on this one. If AC simply said the Times were un-american and were themselves terrorists you would be right. But AC is saying people should be killed. HB and CS did not go as far as AC did. So no I can say Bush is evil or a terrorist and not feel bad if something were to happen. But if I said someone should take him out and it did I should feel ashamed.
you all missed the point. neither is responsible for somebody else's behavior, whether their words incite some act or not. just as coulter is solely speaking for herself and is responsible for her own behavior, nobody else's - the same for sheehan and belafonte.
so you can all calm down now.
If somebody killed Bush because Harry Belafonte said Bush is a terrorist, then logically it should be on Belafonte's conscience just as much as it should be on Coulter's conscience if somebody kills NYT editors because she said they are traitors. I think your logic is sound, as far as it goes. However, as others have pointed out, Coulter actually advocates violence against the objects of her scorn, whereas Sheehan and Belafonte do not.
another big difference is coulter is 99% schtick, while sheehan and belafonte are very serious.
says she is 100% serious.
do you expect her to admit to being a shockpundit? if she did, she would even then be viewed by her faithful as a cartoon - what the rest of us already know.
So if she won't admit it, that means she expects people to perceive her as serious, which from the perspective of inciting violence is the same thing.
find me a prosecutor who wouldn't laugh hysterically in your face if you ogled him or her to press charges against coulter for anything more than a bad sweater.
If someone kills one of her targets based on what she's said, she can and will be held liable. Once again, look up Tom Metzger.
Right! Freedom of speech does not include inciting acts of violence. The law is quite clear on that point.
Not only is she opening herself up to criminal charges, but if someone is actually injured or killed because of her comments, she could also be sued for damages in civil court as well.
anyone can be sued for anything in civil court, that means nothing. it's whether of not they are held liable, that is the question. as for criminal proceedings, no prosecutor worth his or her salt would charge coulter with anything regarding her comments thus far. all you liberals hoping to see coulter in stripes behind bars, it ain't gonna happen - at least not yet.
Anyone cannot sue anyone for anything in civil court. I guess you never heard of a frivilous lawsuit. You know nothing about the law.
What gets me is why anyone would defend Coulter's illegal attempt to incite violence.
You idiots trying to defend her should all be ashamed of yourselves!
The FACT she CLAIMS she is 100% serious you know better because.... Oh I forgot, your amazing mind reading powers. You really ought to be able to put them to better use than displaying them on a message board
Even if Coulter's claims that she absolutely believes every vile word that comes out of her mouth are just "part of the schtick" as you say, she still presents the image and tirades of a hatemonger and stands by them when challenged. In doing so, then without hearing a contradiction from her, isn't it logical to believe that she genuinely endorses these calls to violence?
to clarify, this is what i believe about coulter. i do think that there is some basis for honest opinion in what she says. i believe that her opinions, by and large, are very conservative and she may even believe most of what she says. however, she is a brilliant marketer, so far, and has discovered that in order to be more than dozens of cloned right wing talkers, she has to be more. edgier. controversial. mean, whatever. this is her niche. she realizes that the more outlandish and outrageous things she says, the more press she garnishes and the more books she will sell. it is a double edged sword for her however, in my opinion. newspapers are dropping her columns and her latest book may just put over the top from being taken seriously by some to be looked at as ridiculous by most. let's hope so.
By that logic, she can do no wrong. We can't take her seriously because it's just shtick, and when she actually says, "No, I'm dead serious," we still can't take her seriously because that too is just more shtick.
I believe her, I believe she hates Liberals and that she is seriously off balanced. I find her to be a bigot but her prejudice and hatred is directed toward people that hold certain political beliefs. Historically there have been many violent civil wars between factions with different political ideologies vying for dominance. I believe she believes her characterizations of Liberals. I agree with you she has progressively gone further and further over the edge and that there is now a backlash. Honestly if there was someone comparable to Ann on the left with the same degree of media exposure and legitimacy, I would vigorously protest having someone like that profess to be a public spokesperson for my beliefs.
Show me someone on the left who says the type of things she says and I'll be the first to denounce them. I've yet to hear a spokesperson from the left calling for the execution of someone only because they hold different political views. Left or right, hate is hate.
I agree with you, Lynn. Coulter hides behind the fact that some think she's joking. I have to take her and everyone else at their word. She has consistently said she means exactly what she says. I've seen what hateful words can drive people to. It's time for reasoned discussion not polemics. If not, our society will soon be going over the edge into madness.
More disgusting and psychotic, check
to clarify, this is what i believe about coulter. i do think that there is some basis for honest opinion in what she says. i believe that her opinions, by and large, are very conservative and she may even believe most of what she says. however, she is a brilliant marketer, so far, and has discovered that in order to be more than dozens of cloned right wing talkers, she has to be more. edgier. controversial. mean, whatever. this is her niche. she realizes that the more outlandish and outrageous things she says, the more press she garnishes and the more books she will sell....- right ON
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. Of course you think there is some basis for Coulter's hysterical loony opinions. You are a Neocon and so is she.
2. There is nothing brilliant about the nasty Blonde Beast. She is just an anorexic Aryan reactionary espousing the dying values of white supremacist culture. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that would be popular with the confederate losers mob.
3. You can be as outrageous, loony, and outlandish as you want, that is, as long as you are espousing a white racist worldview. Try being an outrageous anti-white pundit and see how many syndication deals and MSM appearances you get Kemosabe.
... I just did not agree with the analogy. I think there is a difference between saying someone is bad vs. suggesting physical violence.
Cindy is a grieving mother and Harry is an entertainer. Coulter is a "pundit". She is paid to give political opinion. When pundits start making death threats, they become dangerous. When they make hateful statements they should be shunned by the MSM.
Sorry to be repetitive here, but neither have ever advocated violence against anyone.
I didn't mean to imply that either Harry or Cindy had threatened anyone. I was just trying to say that they don't derive their lively hood from being on TV or in newspapers giving their opinions. Coulter does and should be more responsible when speaking. Hateful words cause hateful actions. Cindy and Harry criticized Bush, but didn't in anyway threaten him. I should have been more clear.
It is not specifically calling for and advocating any deaths. Not even CLOSE to the same, not even a good try
When I worked on a late nite talk show, the writers did a joke about assassinating Bush. That was on a Friday. Monday morning, CBS got a call from the Secret Service, investigating the joke, believe it or not. It was on the AP in '99.
I wonder if anyone has reported her to the Secret Service and if so, what their reaction was.
After all she did advocate killing Clinton... as a joke.
let's all hope the secret service has more important tasks than to investigate the bloviating opinions and over the top hyperbole spouted by some ridiculous attention grabbing media buffoon.
let's leave that for FOX security to handle
The Secret Service investigated each and every incident where violence was threatened against a sitting president. They made no distinction between whether the threat was real or a joke. Their job is not one of interpretation but one of protection.
To those Anthrax envelopes that were sent out in 2001, was it, to media figures and Tom Daschale (sp?). I never heard any resolution to that and the whole thing - the targets and whatnot - made me think about a similar scenario as this, in which some wacko went over the edge after being spoonfed too much b.s.
does anyone with half a brain really believe that anyone who would resort to violence against one of coulter's targets wouldn't be about the most unstable, nuttiest person alive?? face it, there are people out there like that - like abortion clinic bombers and the like. but to extrapolate one of ann's diatribes would force some sane person to violence is absolutely ridiculous. if that were the case, they wouldn't be waiting for authorization from ann, they would have gotten it from elvis.
You are not allowed to incite violence. It's one of the exceptions to freedom of speech. Need an example? Look up Tom Metzger. If someone were to act out what Annie advocates, she'd definitely be on the hook.
you again. you don't think every single thing she utters isn't lawyered six ways to sunday. she would be on the hook for nothing. she spouts her stuff for shock value, nothing more. people, including the secret service or other law enforcement officials wouldn't give it two seconds thought. but you do.
If you advocate violence against someone, and then a person commits that act, you are on the hook. That's the truth. Now if, God forbid, someone kills a NYT editor, she'll find out how far free speech goes. Until that time, she's free to threaten all she wants.
I fail to see the difference between someone advocating the bombing of an abortion clinic and Ann Coulter advocating executing Liberals and NYT employees.
So does the law. They are both the same.
I also fail to see the point of anyone actually wasting their time trying to defend Ann Coulter. Talk about lunatics!
No, Scott may be right about this. Coulter's speech is on a very thin line here. Saying that only a crazy person would respond to Coulter's incitements to violence doesn't get her off the hook, because she knows there are crazy people out there.
The mother of a young man that was lynched by 2 KKK members in the late seventies or early eigties sued the local chapter of the KKK and won all their holdings and properties. The jury found them guilty of advocating the violence that lead to her son's death.
Exactly. It was Tom Metzger. I told him to look it up, but I think he's allergic to the Internet or something.
those are separate incidents. Tom was the leader of a west coast based white supremist organization whose name escapes me now. Two of his murderous minions beat an Ethiopian man to death. He was charged and found guilty for inciting the incident and lost his holdings as well. The leader of the Southern Poverty Center I can't think of his name brought the KKK suit on behalf of the mother of lynched AA male in aone of the states in the deep south.
the kkk is a radical nutjob of a bunch of racist thugs who deep down believe what they preach. coulter is a book peddler and a cable news harpie who nobody with any reason takes seriously.
I believe Ann believes what she preaches. I believe she hates Liberals and in her warped mind she believes that we are a danger to America as she envisions it should be. She has gone on record as saying she is no fan of the first amendment although apparently she thinks she can say whatever she wants but she wants the right to determine what can be said/written by others.
Not only does she believe what she says, but not many of her colleagues have denounced. Some on the right have even enthusiastically agreed with her, so it is not true that she is not taken seriously. How many appearances has she had for this book anyway? Too many for someone who is not taken seriously.
You said,"the kkk is a radical nutjob of a bunch of racist thugs who deep down believe what they preach"
So are Ann Coulter followers, but she leaves her sheet at home.
Right On, I think this is the point some people are trying to make. Like it or not, the right wing does seem to be populated with a certain gun-loving element, some of whom seem to lack reason. The point, I think, is that if the rantings of lovable Ann Coldheart would one day encourage an unstable right wing nut to resort to violence against a liberal that Ann suggests is ruining our God-fearing Christian nation then technically Ann could IMO be charged with inciting violence.
and sickos on the right are publishing NYT's reporters and columnists personal addresses, the exact same tactic used by anti-abortion nuts against doctors. Calling for the execution of members of our free press is inciteful and stupid. Coulter deserves the condemnation. That she made a joke of an anthrax-scare-hoax is despicable.
I agree that anyone who would listen to Ann Coulter and then resort to phycical violence would be off their kilter and would probobly be a dangerous person anyways. But what about the white supremicists on the internet who rant about violence against minorities. They may not truly believe in what they are saying but they are legitimizing the whacked out beliefs of the people who are listening.
Also, when AC says one of her crazy things you do not see the other right wing pundits smack her down which also gives her point credence.
Do I think she should be legally responsible for what she is saying? Probably not. But there are crazy people out there and her words could end up helping to push someone over the edge.
she would not be "LEGALLY" responsible. some idiot may act or committ some crime for whatever reason, somehow, somewhere. but she isn't legally responsible for that.
There are laws against inciting violence. They vary from juristiction to juristicion; and the penalties vary in severity as well. I don't know if there is a federal law or not. Rusty S may know.
There are some federal laws. 18 U.S.C. 2101 prohibits inciting riots. Chapter 41 of 18 U.S.C. prohibits various other threatening communications. There are probably others.
I agree with him again. If we hold Coulter accountable for a hypothetical killing of a NYT employee, then as a legal precedent, that sort of accountable isn't just a slippery slope: it's a 90 degree icy gradient sprayed with Perma-Pam, "the eternal lubricant" (TM).
Let's say that I say to a friend, "The producers of American Idol are a waste of oxygen."
So, the acquaintance of a friend of my friend eventually hears of my oxygen opinion and tries to poison the coffes of the American Idol producers.
Never mind that the would be killa is crazy, that he once considered killing Jodi Foster to impress John Hinkley and that he mumbled "Smoochy must die!" as he poured poison into the coffee, my liability would be as cuckoo as the wanna-be killa.
This doesn't mean that I don't consider Coulter to be vile. I also consider anyone that gives Coulter airtime to be vile. And people that buy her books are vile. Coulter is what she is because of television producers and dittoheads.
Your statement about the producers of "American Idol" doesn't fall into the same category as Coulter's statements because you aren't advocating violence. If you said "The producers of American Idol are wastes of oxygen and a real man would beat them even more senseless," then you might have a problem.
Advocacy of violence is constitutionally protected speech, unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Those, of course, are very fact-specific questions. However, a statement like your "wastes of oxygen" hypothetical doesn't even come close because it does not advocate violence.
Ann was much more explicit than me. Even hypothetically, I struggle to advocate violence. Ann, on the other hand, is quite comfy with "KILL! KILL! KILL!" Then she adjusts her crucifix, flicks her bleached hair, and doesn't even bother to tug at her skirt.
I'm afraid that if eyes turn from Ann, she'll soon resort to doing a Sharon Stone uncrossing and recrossing of her gams.
well said. your disguist of coulter is more than justified but at least you have the intellect to not let it cloud your good sense and fairness.
So only those who agree with you can be considered intelligent? This post is a prime example of your condescending attitude. I respect your intelligence and courage and have said so in many posts. It takes courage for someone like you to hang around here. I respect Holly as well, but we don't agree in every instance. Yet I've never seen Holly do is what you often do and that is to dismiss people as somehow not intelligent enough to comprehend what you’re trying to say because somehow if they did they couldn’t help but agree with you. It is possible to be smart, fair, and rational and not agree with you. You don't know everything and you don't have the answers for everything. It isn't humanly possible. So unless you’re some kind of alien life force or a being sent from heaven above you are like the rest of us sweetie – human and fallible.
i wasn't saying that all. what i was saying was that despite how vile holly thinks coulter is, and she is, that doesn't cloud her judgement about what is legal and fair regarding her rants and raves. many here hate coulter so much, justified or not i leave to them, that they are willing to throw away the rule of law saying she is inciting violence and should be locked up or something. ridiculous. hers is schtick and of no value or substance, reasonable people know that. it has nothing to do with whose opinions are right or wrong.
Who advocated "throwing away the rule of law"? I'm curious.
the rule of law is expendable for those that indict coulter for inciting violence and want her convicted for that. when there is no evidence to support any serious incitement of any kind. it is bloviating, mindless drivel from her - that's all. anybody that takes it or her seriously that she is actually calling for someone to murder the head of the ny times is smoking a cornfield.
the rule of law is expendable for those that indict coulter for inciting violence and want her convicted for that. when there is no evidence to support any serious incitement of any kind.
Well, I would argue that someone being indicted and convicted of inciting violence would be in accordance with, rather than contrary to, the rule of law. (And I'm glad to see that at least one conservative around here understands the difference between an indictment and a conviction.) I agree that it seems far-fetched that anything she has said would violate a criminal law; however, if that kid at Yale got beaten with a baseball bat and the perpetrator was a big Ann Coulter fan, I don't think it's at all far-fetched that she could face some degree of civil liability under general negligence principles. (Not to mention intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.)
i am not a lawyer, so i can't speak to what, if any, charges would be brought. i just believe that most people, supporters of coulter or not, know that when she says stuff like that, it is strictly for shock value to make some broader point and take it as such. if some nut decides to act on her sick humor, i seriously doubt it would have any legal traction against her. as i've said, she is the most calculating and rehearsed pundit out there, and every word that pours out of her mouth has most likely been vetted and lawyered every which way so as to not get her into any trouble.
One will have a post appear in an inexact position, thus suggesting that I'm more supportive of a particular position than I might be.
Whereas I appreciate your intent in complimenting me, Right On, I think you should take what Lynn wrote and work it like cognitive cud, as sweet as Spring's greenest grass.
Lynn, you wrote that you sometimes disagree with me. When I first read that, I had a little jolt for I admire your mind and adore your values. But then I decided that if I were in lockstep with you or anyone else, I would have dropped into dogma and foresaken openness and thinking. A dogmatic person, like Coulter or Bush, who believes the same thing, day after day, regardless of incoming data, doesn't have the courage to change their mind. What some people frame as flip-flopping, I frame as thinking.
the bottom line for me is that ideology and political leanings should never trump common sense or facts. people who are so entrenched in their support or hatred for a particular political persuasion often cannot see beyond that when necessary. that was my point. i hope i never become that rigid that i don't or won't admit when the facts say otherwise. as for flip flopping vs changing your mind, that is tricky. flip flops are for political expediency, to save one's political behind, or to go with the wind at the moment, lacking in convictions. changing one's mind is admirable when it is sincere and well thought out.
I respect your opinions and we agree almost all of the time because we're two lefties; but honestly I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time. But I know that your positions are well thought out and considerate, and I know you don't disregard others because they may happen not to agree with you sometimes. For instance, I fine Coulter potentially dangerous. RO say's she joking but I don't feel that. Neither of us knows for certain. I do know that the third Reich annihilated their political opposition through propaganda and smear and we all know what the result of that was- a one party state ruled by maniacs. I just want RO to consider that most of us here do not engage in reactionary rantings. It's not fair to portray that. I don't do that with him.
to clarify, at times i do make statements like "some liberals, or some leftists", etc. but the operative word is some, i never say all or make a blanket observation that lumps all liberals in together. that is unfair, and a mistake. each person has their own view, and a right and a responsibility to make their own arguments. they don't reflect on anyone but that poster. no transference of beliefs for me. i try and converse with people based on their opinions alone.
And Heaven forbid the po' fool that agrees with me 100% of the time. I don't even agree with my self 100% of the time!
;-)
That's one reason I sidled up to you.
I'm also a fan of the First Amendment.
I agree with you on this point.
Freedom of Speech protects people, no matter how "controversial" or unhinged their utterings.
This is why Ann Coulter is one of America's leading COWARDS: She knows that she will face no consequences for whatever she may say.
So, her words have no meaning, and she should not be taken seriously, and she's a great COWARD. That works for me.
But I believe in being FAIR ... HANNITY-style fair. So I'll continue to contend that Ann IS SERIOUS (she claims to be), and that she speaks for ALL Rightwingers and ALL Republicans. The only way to escape full endorsement of Coulter is to openly condemn her ... and the Rightwing won't DO that. They equivocate, saying things like, "She makes a good POINT, but ... blah blah blah."
Until further notice, Ann is the media spokesperson for rightwing thinking. Sorry. YOU guys buy the books and book her on the pundit shows. She's the face of Republicanism. And that's a GOOD thing.
Coulter doesn't bear the sole responsibility for her hatred. She's paid to hate.
Just as Bush doesn't bear the sole responsibility for his incompetence. He was a known incompetent. Those that elected him chose incompetence.
Consider this: The neocons send out Annie to make her outrageous statements thereby pushing the line ever farther to the right. Then, when everyone is all outraged and upset by what she says, the REAL Neocon plans go into effect which almost seem reasonable compared to her rhetoric. It's a little bait and switch tactic that the neocons use to throw people off the trail. She's a decoy.
I hope Coulter isn't a decoy, but just another person willing to do or say anything to become wealthy.
if you had more confidence in your opinions and convictions and were more convinced in their merit, you wouldn't be choosing to slug it out with the likes of ann coulter. she is an easy target that taxes very little brain power, much easier to battle it out with than a reasonable, intelligent conservative from the other side. think about that the next time you annoint miss coulter as the voice of conservatism, for when you do it is more about you than your political opponent.
she would not be "LEGALLY" responsible. some idiot may act or committ some crime for whatever reason, somehow, somewhere. but she isn't legally responsible for that.
You just can't make this blanket statement. It's not necessarily true. Someone can be held legally liable for advocating violence. Some of Coulter's statements - I'm thinking particularly of her advocating violence against that student at Yale - are very possibly over the line.
Or did she say "if they are tried and found guilty of treason, I wouldn't mind seeing them executed."? The first statement is a statement inciting an illegal act, where the second is fully legal under the laws of the US as currently constituted. But, hey, the subject is getting the base stirred up enough that I'm buying stock in manufacturers of blood pressure reducing medicine.
The next election.
oh please
you again. you don't think every single thing she utters isn't lawyered six ways to sunday. she would be on the hook for nothing. she spouts her stuff for shock value, nothing more. people, including the secret service or other law enforcement officials wouldn't give it two seconds thought. but you do.
- right ON /
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoken like a man who's just had his head handed to him for the umpteenth time that day and it ain't even noon yet.
She's ignorant white trash spewing ignorant white trash nonsense for her ignorant white trash audience.
Did she really say "execute them."?
Or did she say "if they are tried and found guilty of treason, I wouldn't mind seeing them executed."?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, oskie boy, that was melanie morgan. I know it's hard but ou've got to keep your clueless conservative, brain-dead wing nut broads straight.
June 14, 2006 6:49pm, end of first paragraph below the summary, Coulter agreeing with Morgan, if a conviction for treason is obtained, execution is the sentence. June 13, 2006 12:08 pm, basically the same thing, agreeing with Morgan, execution following conviction.
Now where did you read she said, "Execute without a conviction."????
tend to come out, despite her comments on the liberal culture of death, as her most effective solution to everything.
Murder seems to solve everything except an unwanted pregnancy, the one case where cons need to really stretch to make a case for murder.
That felt good, I haven't done my little Annie Acronym headline for awhile.
please stick to condemning Coulter's words, actions, style...........I am tired of the offensive sexual derision...........I am always disappointed to see good posters stoop to that. thank you.
I've got Pick of the Litter's back on this. Your acronym is offensive to many women. It's akin to saying that "Ann's a man." The first is a shell-shot that sprays psychological shrapnel into the faces of women. The second sprays that shrapnel into the faces of queer people.
I like many women and queer people. I suspect that you do too.
And I also like your posts, HBLefty...just not the acronyms.
I thought they were easy enough to ignore, and more for my own therapy.
But if even a couple people here whose opinions I respect and whose posts I enjoy are feeling bugged, or interpreting as sexist or distracting from the subject, I'll give it a rest.
I hope Ann Coulter stays in the limelight for a while. We could not invent a better poster child for Republican extremism if we tried. And Ann keeps incrementally pushing the line of propriety and decency farther and farther into nut case land. Eventually all but the most extreme nut case wing of the Republican Party will repudiate her wacko ideas. How do you think Sean Hannity will look if he keeps telling his listeners that Ann Coulter is really a sweet gal? Keep'em coming, Ann. To use a cliche that is truly befitting of Ann, give her enough rope and eventually she'll hang herself.
Just to put things in perspective, the Rosenbergs were executed for allegedly delivering classified details about nuclear weapon construction to the Soviet Union, not publishing their existence in a newspaper.
BTW should Robert Novak be executed for blowing the cover of Valerie Wilson?