Yes, she’s got a new book coming out. Yes, she once again said something so outrageous people are up in arms…again.

We all know Coulter can out-outrage anyone, and makes some truly outlandish and bizarre claims, but this one just might be the one that brings her down.

Reminds me of the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto ..."what do you mean 'we', white man?" And who the heck is "they" that say that?

With this crazy episode, she has earned the ire of both the Jews and the Catholics.

Of course, she backpedaled to say “perfected Christians”, but the damage was done.

Has Coulter reached a new low, or is this incident the same as all the others?

Will this be the last nail in the Coulter outrageousness coffin, i.e., will this put an end to her seemingly never-ending invitations for interviews (especially on MSNBC affiliates)? Or is MSNBC so enamored of her they will continue to let her vent on the airwaves?

Context and more complete transcript available here, in case you're wondering what comes in the <snip> and afterwards. Really controversial stuff here.

In answer to the debate questions, she'll sell more books and get more speech gigs. Maybe David Brock is secretly her press agent.

Context doesn't make it better. I would never consider myself a perfected Jew because I believe in the New Testament. Did she improvise the phrase on the fly? I mean damn; how dare I claim to improve the spiritual model for an entire culture by virtue of my belief in Jesus Christ. Does imagining Coulter wearing hijab help the conceit stand out?

This insight is along the lines of completed Jews some faith-based bot mouthed a few years ago. You cannot improve Judaism on a spiritual level by supplanting it with Christianity because it stops being Judaism and you stop being a religious Jew. I would love to see Coulter and any Christian who thinks Judaism is incomplete pass the rigors of a yeshiva. Then, maybe, they can talk about Judaism's spiritual shortcomings. (On the physical level, more shellfish for me!)

If a Jew converts he's a Christian Jew, not an improved Jew or a complete Jew. Human empathy: apply directly to the forehead.

I've known at least three people who converted from Judaism to Christianity. All three of them used the terms "perfected" or "completed" Jews. It seems to be a bit of language used by people who converted out of Judaism (not within the Jewish community itself) to make themselves look better than those who have not converted.

There may, of course, be people who have converted, who do not use these designations.

Coulter's remarks are awful. I am sure they will enrage the Jewish community and rightly so. They should enrage non-Jews, also.

Has Coulter reached a new low, or is this incident the same as all the others?

This looks like more of the same to me.

As far as Coulter's remarks being embarrassing to me as a Christian, she needs to take a number. Pat Robertson is most assuredly ahead of her on the list, as was the late Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and even a President. There is no lack of embarrassing statements ostensibly made in the name of Christianity.

Obviously Coulter's only objective is to promote her own career by saying insulting things under the guise of wit.

Will this be the last nail in the Coulter outrageousness coffin, i.e., will this put an end to her seemingly never-ending invitations for interviews (especially on MSNBC affiliates)? Or is MSNBC so enamored of her they will continue to let her vent on the airwaves?

As long as this twit* continues to stir up guffaws and controversy, she will be welcome on the airwaves, and we all know it. The truth is that enough of the viewing audience actually think the way she talks and take vicarious pleasure in what she says.




*Defined as a "foolishly annoying person" by the online American Heritage Dictionary.

You were on track there for a moment, then an emoticon got in your way or something.

Christians are, by their definition, Perfected Jews.

There's no denying that Jews and Christians share the same God and core beliefs.

And this is why all Organized religion is bad, but not why Coulter is.

End game. Nothing comes of this. No one cares. Every knows she's going to say something with a shred of truth that sounds really horrible.

The purpose of emoticons is to express strong emotion.



I don't spend a lot of time pondering what "Christians" think.



You Christopher Hitchens and I seem to share that thought.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religi...9979&sr=1-1



If I did a poll on who is Ann Coulter, my throw-a-way. cutsie option - which you seem to enjoy using - would be "scare crow."

You forgot to include islam ... they're part of that one God revolution too.... with father abraham and moses and all the animals two by two...

Anyways let my liberal insight blow some minds... Everyone get a grip. Coulter said what is her and every true Christian truth.

A Christian by definition is/believes

-that there is one God(actually 3 aspects in 1, but let's stick to 1)
-That Jesus is the Son of God
-That the only way into heaven and through the belief that Jesus is the son of God and accepting him as the savior.


So, what is so wrong with what Coulter said... she SHOULD want all people to be Christian if she is a Christian.... would you rather want her to WANT people to be damned to eternal fire A.K.A Hell??


You CANNOT truly be a Christian, and think the Jews, Muslims, Bhuddist, Wickans or what ever else has a shot at heaven without Jesus. And if you believe in Jesus is the son of God and salvation, well that makes you a Christian.

Again, yet another example of what happens when Americans are too brainwashed to discern ethnicity/race from religion. So now when Ann Coulter says Jews... she's thinking religion and other are likely thinking.. some racist comment is being said.

hey what did she say that is wrong, Judaism and Islam share the same or very similar roots as Christian. The difference is who and what Jesus was/is. From EVERY TRUE Christian perspective, a jew is right in his beliefs up until the point they reject Jesus.

Whether Ann Coulter, the Pope, Billy Graham and any other self-identified Christian believes about Christians being perfected Jews is not really the issue here. I prefer not to hear doctrine from someone who spends 98% percent of the time (or more?) dissing anyone who isn't a Conservative Christian or at least says they are.

Oh well...

Jews who heard these most recent pronouncements of the person Keith Olbermann refers to as "Coultergeist" probably considered the source rather than seriously take offense.

I must respectfully disagree with some of my fellow posters who want to lay blame on religion for so many of the world's ills. Yes, people who identify themselves with a particular faith are every bit as capable of hurting other people as those who are not religious. And yes, there are times when the flames of fanaticism cause even more human suffering. But it seems to me that Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin or Josef Stalin didn't need religion to kill millions of people. In addition, many, many works of goodness throughout history can be attributed to people of faith who did not twist their beliefs into something to harm their fellow human beings.

But that is not the subject of this thread.

Ann Coulter is Ann Coulter, just like Rush Limbaugh is Rush Limbaugh, ad nauseum. There was once a time when we were children in school and our teachers taught us that in order to be heard on television or radio we had to use proper grammar and be in possession of the facts, carefully avoiding rumor, innuendo and outright lies. Another myth blasted to smithereens...

Agreed religion is used as a tool to control... but that is the very reason it was created and it exists in the first palce.

But at the end of the day as much as ANN disgusts me. She didn't say anything wong... Context shows it was a back-handed compliment. She saying Jews are perfect aside from their lack of belief as Jesus as the on of God, thus the imperfect comment.

And she is saying what a great majority of this nation believes... that they have the way to heaven

Has Coulter reached a new low, or is this incident the same as all the others?
New low? Not even close. On a scale of 1 to 10 this probably rates a 2. She doesn't even attack anybody. If you want to approach the 10 scale how about the one where she declares we should kill the Muslim leaders and then convert the followers to Christianity. Here she is simply annunciating a traditional Christian position, that on the matter of Christ and the New Testament Christians are right and the Jews are wrong.

Will this be the last nail in the Coulter outrageousness coffin, i.e., will this put an end to her seemingly never-ending invitations for interviews (especially on MSNBC affiliates)? Or is MSNBC so enamored of her they will continue to let her vent on the airwaves?

Why would her majority position get her kicked off the airways? My working assumption with AC is that 90% of what she puts out is simply an act to get attention and make money and the more she does it and gets away with it the more it becomes a kind of AC norm that people are expecting. She has probably passed the point of shocking much of anybody who is familiar with her. Plus the right wing world, her world, is a world where Abu Ghraib is considered comparable to a fraternity initiation.

My guess is when she becomes a Gazillionaire and gets tired of all this she'll probably write her last best seller which will be something like ' My Life of Peddling Dummy Conservatism for Fun and Profits'.

I guess I'm not Christian because I don't accept the label. Are you Christian, BA? I thought you recently wrote what a joke all religions were.

Well, why aren't Muslims perfected Jews?

You are the best nation that has been brought out for mankind. You command good and forbid evil and believe in Allah. If only the people of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians] had believed, it would have been well for them. Some of them believe, but most of them are iniquitous. They will never be able to do you serious harm, they will only be an annoyance. If they fight you, they will turn their backs and flee, and will not be succored. Humiliation is their lot wherever they may be, except where they are saved from it by a bond with Allah or by a bond with men. They incurred upon themselves Allah's wrath, and wretchedness is their lot, because they denied Allah's signs and wrongfully killed the prophets, and because they disobeyed and transgressed. (Koran, 3:110-112)


No one has. That doesn't make Christians Jewish in any sense. And I disagree about core beliefs. Muslims and Jews have halal and kosher, but Muslims think you can reach heaven through your acts. Christians, well, we reach heaven by faith alone, but it could be argued we're not monotheistic.


There are many reasons why organized religion is bad, but "sharing" the same god isn't one of them. IMO, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim gods are only alike in their origins as the first recorded monotheistic deity and little else.


The only truth to her statement is that non-Jews still think they are the gatekeepers of Jewish identity and destiny.

Good point. Her brand of ignorance seems to sell well.

Coulter was describing what she thought a "perfect America" would look like, and to her it would be 100% Christian, and those who were not should convert or would not be welcome. That sounds a whole lot like that movement in the Middle Ages where people were tortured to convert to Catholicism or be put to death. My point about insulting Jews is that the entertainment industry tends to have a large Jewish leadership (and trying to search for particulars tends to bring up white supremicist Jewish conspiracy sites, so I'm not going to cite any sources - anecdotal only), and I would think some of them would be less likely to invite her to spew her bile in the future.

Eh, one can hope.

Ticking off Muslims seems to be an acceptable American pastime in many circles, so I don't think her comments on that issue rise (drop?) to this level.

I never said religions were a joke. I sad they were bad. Islam is more like a death-cult than anything Judeo or Christian.

As for my religious affiliation I don't really have one. Clearly. I went to a few Catholic schools. I have read the religious texts extensively. I spent probably close to a decade seriously studying religions looking for one that didn't really suck. Since I couldn't talk my wife into Crowelian Magicks we chose none. Me and God are cool, he doesn't need me to show up anywhere on Sunday.

Coulter's comments are not in the least controversial. She is a Christian. It is Christian belief that 'their' religion is the correct one. If she were on a talk show as an evangelical Christian, no one would blink an eye if she said that everyone should convert to Christianity. Most religions are inherently "anti" other religions only so far as one believes that their religion is the right one. Islam is the same way. What's the big deal? From the dialog that I heard on the radio between she and the host, it sounds like the host just didn't get it and thought she was flaming.

I'm not batting my eye at Coulter inviting Deutsch to church. I wouldn't bat my eye if she said Deutsch was going to hell on his show. That's the point of every religion, to propagate itself. The same thing happens between competing Christian, Muslim, and Jewish denominations.

I'm taking issue with a non-Jew telling a Jew he could become a perfected Jew, not a saved Jew; a better Jew if he converts. That's conceit towards Jews, not a statement of faith about your religious beliefs.

Has Coulter reached a new low, or is this incident the same as all the others?

The title of this thread is "Coulter Strikes Again." In bowling a strike is a good thing- what you are trying to get.

From that standpoint, Coulter has rolled another in a long series of gutter balls.

Has Coulter reached a new low, or is this incident the same as all the others?

Par for the coarse. There is much intolerance in her writing and it bleeds through to a variety of topics.

Her latest expose, "If Democrats had any Brains, They'd be Democrats" is very consistent with the new remarks. This is a follow up from, "Treason: Liberal Treachery From The Cold War To The War On Terrorism" which played heavily on dissent and disloyalty.

She has made a career out of demonizing those who do not share her point of view. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. In fact, I think being able to strike a nerve at this point in her career says something more about society than it does about her.

Will this be the last nail in the Coulter outrageousness coffin, i.e., will this put an end to her seemingly never-ending invitations for interviews (especially on MSNBC affiliates)? Or is MSNBC so enamored of her they will continue to let her vent on the airwaves?

I guess that depends on how many people are drawn to outlandish comments. If she still can draw an audience, less complaints then the network is ahead. Maybe we should talk to the editor of MSNBC and ask to see the complaint box?

Has Coulter reached a new low, or is this incident the same as all the others?

There have been much worse remarks from that disgusting creature, IMO. saying something insensitive or derogatory about a religion is not the same as ordering or wishing the death of someone or saying that the US ought to wipe out a country.

This is not nearly (IMO) as bad as the time that Coulter said that she would've preferred it if McVeigh had gone after New York Times employees.

... or the time that Coulter said that the US ought to destroy Canada.

... or the time she said that "we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."

... or the time that she said the US ought "to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."

... or when she said somone ought to kill Supreme Court Justice Stevens by putting rat poison in his food.

... or when she said that no one would have cared if Chicago had been the target of a terrorist attack.

... or when she said that Lincoln Chafee should be shot.

... or when she said that the NY Times staff should be executed.

... or when she said that the executive editor (Bill Keller) of the NY Times should be killed.

... or when she said that if Murtha were fragged, he'd finally deserve a purple heart.

... or when Coulter said the debate over Clinton should have been "whether to impeach or assassinate."

... or when she said she wished the US Millitary would target journalists.

... or when she said, “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Will this be the last nail in the Coulter outrageousness coffin, i.e., will this put an end to her seemingly never-ending invitations for interviews (especially on MSNBC affiliates)? Or is MSNBC so enamored of her they will continue to let her vent on the airwaves?

as long as millions agree with her, the sensationalist media will have her. I like to think that there is something she could say that will be the end of it. but this isn't it.

You have to admit this was really well timed and very accurately summed up the desires of most of the nation at that specific time. Besides the T Shirt is really cool.

Actually, by AC's definition, Muslims are Perfected Christians. They believe on the Old Testament, the New Testament as well as the Koran. Of course, Mormans would also be Perfected Christians. Perhaps, the Mormans and the Muslims should have a synod to determine who's the more "Perfected".

Most of the nation? Not by any stretch of the imagination. It was disgusting, uninformed and inaccurate, regardless of timing. Bigotry is never cool.

It seems I'm in the "minority" again. First Jews and Christians and Muslims don't share the same core beliefs, and now I never wanted to kill and convert Muslims to Christianity—then and now.

Even a fellow conservative and Christian, like Joe Scarborough, doesn't agree with this or Ann Coulter.

Because this thread is in danger of crossing over into religious discussion, I am posting only the link to Scarborough.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710120006...tem200710120006

It seems Coulter is becoming an embarassment even to those on the right. What I don't know is whether this will help or hurt future book sales.

She does what se does best – provoke controversy. Theologically speaking she is only repeating the standard Christian imperative which is that Christians show convert any and all to Christianity. Nothing “low” about this.

“Prof Dr Colonel Retired) K Prabhakar Rao
The aspect of conversions by various religions has always been controversial in the world. Hatred between certain societies in the world has been the outcome of this phenomenon. Inspite of modernity and dawn of scientific age and growth of scientific education in all corners of the world, the desire to spread the religions across various societies has not been eliminated and is being pursued with vigor too. Out of the important religions that are being practiced in the world today, Christianity and Islam are the active religious groups that are proselyte and are trying to expand their faith. Christianity from the beginning was a missionary religion and Islam did not lag behind either. Buddhism too is a missionary religion while Hinduism and Sikhism did not pursue this policy in vigor and remained passive. In fact Sikhism did not take up missionary activities. Most of the scholars claim that Hinduism has no missionary zeal although in ancient times Hindu princes invaded Malayan peninsula and established Hindu kingdoms.
Proselyting by religions can be basically due to the provisions in the scriptures that command and prescribe that the message of revelations from God should be spread around. In all these statements if made in any scripture, the intentions are really good and made with aim of guiding the human beings on the right path.”
http://faithcommons.org/should_religions_t..._convert_others



Never happen – and who cares what MSNBC does. Few watch it anyway – this will no doubt help their in the toilet ratings.

Right-wing pundits are a gift that keep on giving.

It seems Coulter has stuck her foot more deeply into her mouth.



http://mediamatters.org/items/200710160009...tem200710160009

Again, what am I supposed to be offended about? Jesus was inarguably the worst Jew ever.

Didn't a few Jewish sects believe Jesus was a prophet? Maybe a false prophet, but she's reaching with lunatic.

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet. Does that mean we don't have to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity?

The shame is not with Coulter but with those who admire her. If she were not admired by so many, she would not be given so lofty a pulpit from which to spew her venom.

It is interesting, though, that her pronouncements have so much appeal to, ummm -- what to call them? -- "conservatives." Iteresting, and profoundly indicative of their intellectual foundations.

I rather prefer people to be intelligent enough to realize that conservatives have run this nation on numerous occasions, and in reference to American commerce, we are unequivocally the driving force. Take a step back and think before you intentionally offend. Communists assuredly haven't been the leaders of this great nation at any time... and generally globally haven't run anything other than 3rd world nations. Conservatives are neither the problem nor the debate here.

Furthermore, Coulter isn't anything but a shock jock. A pundit. She says things that are generally true in a rather distasteful form. She's like Hannity with a dirty mouth. Rarely does anyone really stand up for the way she says things if ever.

The truth of the matter is that Jews do believe that Jesus had it all wrong and that he thought he was something he wasn't. Arguably, the raving lunatic statement is probably somewhat accurate. If a man today (short of all the miracles of Jesus) walked around stating he was the messiah, what would people think? (consider David Koresh, Yaweh Ben Yahweh, etc)

If, by today's standards, the Jewish idea of Jesus were applied, how would he be viewed? As a nut. That's right. Funny enough- Coulter says it in a forum that might be inappropriate, and in a questionable manner, but she's spot on really. How can you argue that? (you can't, but rather... go ahead and say ugly things about her.. that's great for effective debate)

i kant reeahlize, i r dumb


I think it's more accurate to say that Zealots thought him a tr8t0r than a lunatic. But... if Coulter's spot on about Jews, why isn't Vladimir spot on about conservatives?

Has Coulter reached a new low, or is this incident the same as all the others?

Not even close. Her much more offensive statements are documented above. This one doesn't even come close.

Besides, as has been said, he is just saying what most Christians believe. The Jews are waiting for their Messiah, the Christians believe that the Messiah has already come. That is the major difference (besides ceremonial). Jesus told his followers to do away with the old laws which is why Christians do not believe in kosher foods, etc.

Christians believe that Jews are wrong in their non-belief in Jesus. Jews believe Christians are wrong in their belief. Muslims believe that Mohammed is the true prophet of Allah. How can it be controversial that different religions have different beliefs or that a truly religious person would want others to share their beliefs?

Will this be the last nail in the Coulter outrageousness coffin, i.e., will this put an end to her seemingly never-ending invitations for interviews (especially on MSNBC affiliates)? Or is MSNBC so enamored of her they will continue to let her vent on the airwaves?

No. Not even close. This isn't even controversial, except in the liberal blogosphere. She never said that Jews should be forced to convert or that that need to convert. She said we "want" them to convert and become "perfected Jews". She is simply expressing mainstream Christian dogma.

If anything Deutsch is being intentionally dense. He tries to prod her into saying something offensive, putting her on par with the leader of Iran, but she actually very consistent with what she (and many other Christians) believe. Deutsch can't seem to comprehend that some people actually care that others believe the (in their view) "right thing" and want others to believe the same thing. His multiculturalism to the max is ironically stoned by his negative judgement of Coulter's values.

Good job again making this a shot at conservatives, but funny enough, why haven't you debated anything pertinent again?

Jews generally believe that he wasn't the messiah, and that of course he portrayed himself as such. Correct? Fair enough, right?
Where do you get the traitor bit? Are you a Jew? That's a little out there, as I engaged an entire analogy as to why the lunatic piece was reasonable.

Frankly, quit making stabs at conservatives and argue whether by today's standards Jesus would've been considered a nut. Do you think that Jews don't think he had it completely wrong and was running around the world telling people things untrue? It's not a stretch, of course unless you really prefer to make Coulter and conservative insults the hinge pin of debate....

Reach a new low? For this pub-hungry media whore? No such thing. There's always a dirtier, more disgusting sewer for her to crawl through.

Personally, I am very much bored by Ann Coulter and her neverending series of contrived "controversies."

Whenever she has a book ready to be foisted upon her legion of suckers, she first throws them a bloody chunk of red meat to whet their appetite. One day it's gays. The next day it's liberals. The day after it's something else.

Actually, this is the second salvo in her publicity build-up for her latest offering of scribblings. The first one was that women should have the right to vote taken away so they could never vote for another Democratic president. That dud was pretty much ignored so she had to ramp up the rhetoric. Jews! That's always good for an attention-grabber.

At some point we are all going to get hip to the cause-and-effect that is Coulter's modus operandi: She says something over-the-top and the suckers buy her books and rally to defend her from the whiny liberal elites who can't take a joke.

This is all so predictable you could set your watch by it. Been there and done that.

Yeah AML, AC has lost her ability to bait liberals. Don't think she has any authority to determine Christian theology either. She's just a layperson stepping into water way above her head. Also, better check your Bible about what Joshua had to say about preserving the old laws. Silly things like what you eat were tossed out. The Jewish religion was not.

Actually, you can google that now. Try the keywords jesus, old and law. This link came up for me.

So to keep from drifting into theology, Annie baby has no idea what she's talking about. Not that this is not common these days, just that it's inexcusable with tools like Internet search engines.

I simply ask a question, compare your defense of Coulter to Vladimir's criticism of conservatives, and I'm taking a shot at conservatives?


Yes.


Well let's see. Zealots wanted political revolution. Jesus wanted spiritual revolution. Jesus didn't oppose them, but he didn't engage them either. If memory serves, Jesus doesn't speak one way or another to a free Jewish state in the Gospels. The closest political statement he made was give to Caesar what is Caesar's, which I imagine must've rubbed Zealots the wrong way. That's my guess, see, when speaking of Zealots, which btw are long dead. And for future reference when I spell traitor like tr8t0r I'm not being completely serious.

The Jews I've had conversations with have never given me the impression that they think of Jesus as a lunatic. Questions broaching Jesus are more often met with a snort and a "whatever" attitude. Jesus simply doesn't matter enough to most Jews for them to care one way or the other. Maybe they're all lying to me, though. Maybe Coulter doesn't need to ask Jews what they think about Jesus. Perhaps Coulter has superhuman hearing and knows what those damn dirty Jews say about the crazy Son of a Bitch behind our backs.


Aevans, I wish I could anticipate what ticks you off because you can be unintentionally hilarious when you're angry. That said I can't figure out why you bother defending the media persona of Ann Coulter at all. It's a revenue-generating sidetrack, baby. She's a walking nut graf. Any real "spot on" observations are completely accidental.


I'm sure they do, but Jews don't think George Bush is a lunatic and, frankly, neither do I.

Maybe Coulter is indicative of a larger trend? That is when secular thought reaches a certain level in society it becomes okay to demean? Having a good grasp of the subject matter becomes irrelevant at this point. Isn't that punditry 101? Or is there a larger issue of societal values which subetly change? Souring public perceptions, disillusionment etc may open otherwise unreceptive audiences to this type of demagoging. Maybe western ideals have entered a bread and circus phase and the fact AC found an audience proves western idealism is on the decline? Sign of the times?

Maybe I'm a little oversensitive... I feel like global warming, pot holes on I-635, and herpes are all the fault of neo-cons, conservatives, republicans, and anyone south of the Mason Dixon on AD. Oh- and white people. I forgot.

Ok... back on track.

In essense, if Jews think Jesus was walkin' around saying he's the messiah, but they don't think he is, umm... don't you think that Ann Coulter's statement is pretty accurate?

I'm not really defending Coulter, but rather fighting the liberal power on this board I'd suppose. Al Gore can get the Nobel Peace Price by being a parrot, but Ann Coulter says something that's relatively benign and also accurate- and she's a monster. It's really aggravating.

OH- and a good way to illustrate this is that Crosby and Nash said on network news that we're killing women and sisters of Iraqi's and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's... and no one batted an eye. Not even a journalistic retort.
http://ianschwartz.com/2007/10/15/video-da...isters-in-iraq/

Oh I think she knows exactly what she is talking about and she counted on secular liberals to go ballistic after her statement which said nothing that the typical Jehovah's Witness or any number of other Christians would have said.

As we can see liberals fell right into it hook line and sinker.

AM has a point. Coulter is not a theologian. What in hell do Jehovah's Witneses have to do with the question? I've always thought of them as people to run off the porch with a blowtorch. Coulter is already a confirmed liar, so perhaps we could use the torch to set her pants on fire, too.

Edited to add:

In 2002, Billy Graham apologized for remarks he made about Jews in a conversation taped by President Richard M. Nixon.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A9649C8B63

Oh, that Coulter would have such class.

What lies has Coulter made? She says wildly provocative things but they're usually opinion. Every site I find that claims Coulter is lying (including Spinsanity) is really saying they disagree with her opinons. So when she says:

As a rule of thumb, Democrats opposed anything opposed by their cherished Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not like the idea of a militarily strong America. Neither did the Democrats!

You can take issue with it. You can refute it but calling it a lie is incorrect. It's an opinon.

I would say calling John Edwards gay is a lie, not an opinion.

Ahh and this is why she's so good at what she does. She never said he was gay, you inferred it.

She did the same thing to Clinton and Gore.



I hardly call her statement about Gore inferring. It's not only lying it's rumor mongering. I'm sure I could find other instances.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607280001

Look, BA I've got to get the cats to the vet today, among other things. I’m don't have time to play semantic games with you all day over this.

Good health to your cats! This is the kind of discussion that will only frustrate everyone.

What lies has Coulter made? there have been many and they have been well documented.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/08/26/Floridia...rampled_u.shtml

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502250002

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042505.shtml

http://shouldveaskedme.blogspot.com/2007/0...ulter-lied.html

While I'm appreciative of your web work I'm not overly impressed with the results. Some are pretty nitpicky. It's not quite the clarity of some famous Democrats (or even Republicans) or even the (until recently) obscure Randi Rhodes. Give me a lie, a flat out lie I can sink my teeth into... Read my lips, No new taxes! I did not have sexual relations with that woman. My mother used to sing me the union song to put me to sleep.

BoF's was closer to the mark I was thinking about. Although I suppose it could be argued when she said "total fag" it was supposed to be funny - thus satire - thus not held to the scrutiny of a statement of fact.

I dunno, I'm not really the best barometer for getting offended. It's virtually impossible to offend me.

It isn't just what offends you BA, but other people. It's not all about you.

I don't know what you do for a living, but it is and was necessary for teachers to avoid offending a long list of people including students, parents, administrators and other teachers and all sorts of cultural and ethnic groups.

We had regular cultural diversity training. One thing we learned was that when one called an Asian kid up to the desk, you turned the fingers down and wiggled them. Turning them up was like calling a dog and offensive in Asian culture.

There is no reason to go out of one's way to offend someone.

If someone called someone a "faggot" in a Texas bar on Saturday night, they might end up in the morgue or emergency room.

I don't see how calling someone a "faggot" can be satire. There's no evidence that Gore is gay, hence, this is an untruth - not, of cource, that it's nice to call people who are gay "faggots." Coulter fails on both levels. She had best be wearing flame retardant pants.

Various inaccuracies, ommissions, mischaracterizations (at least 15) from his/her books are not overly impressive?

I can see you're hard to please. This wasn't good enough for you? (from the fourth link)

Exhibit A from Coulter's "book," Slander:

Why is this a lie? It's because those names appeared in a book review by Lawrence Stratton, in the Washington Times. So granted, maybe I can't prove this is a lie. Maybe Coulter didn't know, maybe Coulter made an honest mistake. the point here, however, is that Coulter makes such "mistakes" constantly throughout her/his "books." Though BA can go on believing Coulter is not a serial liar (or a man), evidence suggests otherwise.

Exhibit B, from the famous exchange on Chris Matthews' show, June 27, 2007:


No, Elizabeth Edwards never asked AC to stop speaking. this was a lie.


Not quite, she had also made remarks about John Edwards the day before.


No one was asking for a future debate.


Here is what s/he did say:





a lie within a lie. with Coulter, they just pile up! Bill Maher never said he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. Here is what he did say:



I'd like to hear BA explain how Coulter's remarks weren't actually about Edwards, but that Maher's comments were actually about Cheney.