Ask E. Jean - Tormented? Driven Witless? Whipsawed by confusion?

Advice Vixens


It seems her jaw is no longer wired shut.



Ann Coulter (I can't believe I'm posting about her) was canceled by the Today show and then CBS picked her up.

Watching this interview, Harry Smith suggests that her chapter about single motherhood should be part of the American discussion. As a single mother, I found myself curious about what the chapter said (I don't know anything about this Harry guy).

Then she starts talking about 'illegitimacy', I mean repeats the word five times.

Illegitimate? Is that even a word we use anymore?

She talks about the 'issue of illegitimacy'.
Maybe the issue should be that the idea even exists anymore.

I suppose I could stop in the bookstore to look at the chapter and see what Harry Smith wants us talking about but there's no way I'm in any way supporting Ann just for my curiosity.

I guess I want to know - do you guys know where, generally Harry Smith is coming from? or why he thinks this point is one we should pay attention to?

Any thoughts or info on this?

  • Cast your vote
    for Best Advice
  • give advice
    send this question to a friend


    My thoughts are she is a douche and I never read anything she says.

    reply to ehvwon
    send this answer to a friend



    Miss Beth, please don't give that train wreck of a female any of your precious energy. Please. Go take a shower and forget about it.

    reply to Donna
    send this answer to a friend



    Aw, what a crazy little psychopath that Ann Coulter is! Can't someone throw her, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, Paris Hilton, and any other annoying, self righteous, crazy celebrities in a padded room together and get them away from the rest of us?

    reply to Carly
    send this answer to a friend



    She's calling children "illegitimate?" Is she calling black people "colored" as well? Someone needs to send her home in the buggy whip she came in on!

    PS) Creepy comparisons to Heidi Montag:

    1) Media whore
    2) Peroxide and revelating clothing
    3) Lack of intelligence (seriously, I've seen her try to argue, and she prefers passion over reason)
    4) Shameless pandering to a public she thinks adores her. (Even the Republicans are backing away from this hot mess.)


    reply to fayeruz
    send this answer to a friend



    She is such a beautiful horse. I do wonder what breed she is.

    reply to T.M.
    send this answer to a friend




    She is a human cockroach. I don't want to give her any of my time or energy. I pretend she doesn't exist.

    reply to Ersatz
    send this answer to a friend




    Miss Beth writes:
    ...her legs aren't that nice...
    ****

    And she's got crazy glue stuck between her knees.

    THAT'S her problem, I betcha, by golly.




    reply to Karma
    send this answer to a friend



    T.M. wrote: She is such a beautiful horse. I do wonder what breed she is.

    Based on her racist commentary, certainly NOT an Arabian!

    reply to fayeruz
    send this answer to a friend



    Is that even a word WE use anymore? Last time I checked, this is still America, and I can use any words I want. I can also have any ideas I want. Should "ideas" only exist with public approval? We should go back and see how you would apply that to a woman's right to vote around a hundred years ago.
    It's pretty amusing to me how a lot of you talk about "intolerance" and the like, and then what do you do to combat it----practice more intolerance, not to mention resort to petty superficial insults.
    The funny thing about Coulter is you are all doing exactly what she wants you to do. You are talking about her.
    Ann Coulter writes books that do not change---so anyone with a problem could read them and try to refute her arguments. Apparently it's easier to simply call her names and make childish jokes.
    I'm not defending Coulter at all----I've agreed and disagreed with lots of things she's said, but to simply bash someone without really analyzing their positions in something more than a tabloid TV soundbite type manner is intellectually lazy.
    What is it about someone expressing their views that scares everyone so much?
    Coulter is a figure that commands attention----all she has to do is say a couple of things and everyone freaks out. I think it's funny, healthy for the country, and I hope she keeps doing it.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    To me, it's dangerous when someone uses WE as a society. That's very presumptuous. This is a nation of individuals---speak for yourself. This WE stuff is nothing more than an attempt to feel like there is some merit to views or ideas that are momentarily popular.

    Who even cares what the idea was---that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the right of a person to say whatever they want, period. They do not have to prove to you that it is an "idea". What exactly is YOUR idea here---that Coulter shouldn't be allowed to say anything because it may be unpopular. That Smith is a lunatic for simply suggesting that something be a part of a dialogue?
    She's actually one of the only people I've seen in the national discourse who will truly has the guts to go against the grain, even knowing she will be hated and smeared exactly like this----I see very little of that here. Sometimes this thread simply seems to be a support group for political correctness.

    The ignorant shit she spews makes you angry? That's not a reflection of what she says, but of your lack of composure in the face of opposing viewpoints.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Ersatz wrote: She is a human cockroach. I don't want to give her any of my time or energy. I pretend she doesn't exist.

    Great idea. Don't analyze any of her views, but call her a cockroach. If only everyone did this to all the time, we'd have such a tolerant society.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: Is that even a word WE use anymore? Last time I checked, this is still America, and I can use any words I want. I can also have any ideas I want. Should "ideas" only exist with public approval? We should go back and see how you would apply that to a woman's right to vote around a hundred years ago. It's pretty amusing to me how a lot of you talk about "intolerance" and the like, and then what do you do to combat it----practice more intolerance, not to mention resort to petty superficial insults. The funny thing about Coulter is you are all doing exactly what she wants you to do. You are talking about her. Ann Coulter writes books that do not change---so anyone with a problem could read them and try to refute her arguments. Apparently it's easier to simply call her names and make childish jokes. I'm not defending Coulter at all----I've agreed and disagreed with lots of things she's said, but to simply bash someone without really analyzing their positions in something more than a tabloid TV soundbite type manner is intellectually lazy. What is it about someone expressing their views that scares everyone so much? Coulter is a figure that commands attention----all she has to do is say a couple of things and everyone freaks out. I think it's funny, healthy for the country, and I hope she keeps doing it.

    You are my hero, Thomas.

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: To me, it's dangerous when someone uses WE as a society. That's very presumptuous. This is a nation of individuals---speak for yourself. This WE stuff is nothing more than an attempt to feel like there is some merit to views or ideas that are momentarily popular. Who even cares what the idea was---that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the right of a person to say whatever they want, period. They do not have to prove to you that it is an "idea". What exactly is YOUR idea here---that Coulter shouldn't be allowed to say anything because it may be unpopular. That Smith is a lunatic for simply suggesting that something be a part of a dialogue? She's actually one of the only people I've seen in the national discourse who will truly has the guts to go against the grain, even knowing she will be hated and smeared exactly like this----I see very little of that here. Sometimes this thread simply seems to be a support group for political correctness. The ignorant shit she spews makes you angry? That's not a reflection of what she says, but of your lack of composure in the face of opposing viewpoints.

    Sheer brilliance. These words are music to my ears.

    I want to be you when I grow up!

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend



    fayeruz wrote: She's calling children "illegitimate?" Is she calling black people "colored" as well? Someone needs to send her home in the buggy whip she came in on! PS) Creepy comparisons to Heidi Montag: 1) Media whore 2) Peroxide and revelating clothing 3) Lack of intelligence (seriously, I've seen her try to argue, and she prefers passion over reason) 4) Shameless pandering to a public she thinks adores her. (Even the Republicans are backing away from this hot mess.)

    You say a best selling author, a nationally syndicated columnist, and a respected legal correspondent has a lack of intelligence, and this is your rebuttal? Peroxide and media whore? Please keep em coming. I haven't had a laugh like this in awhile.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Ok, now this is good. I understand what you are saying and it was a good point to bring up about legitimacy.
    I simply don't understand why people love to jump on someone like Coulter all the time for everything she says, even though, like I said, I know she likes it. What is the interest people have in vilifying certain figures?

    Beth, these are just disagreements. Raw hatred? That sort of thing is where you lose me.


    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Who cares what an interviewer calls someone? What are his motives? It's just simple name calling.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    If Coulter were saying things that you all agreed with, you'd be calling her a strong woman, a best selling author, and successful columnist.
    You'd say that she speaks her mind regardless of the consequences and she doesn't care what people think of her, which is actually the truth----you would put it in a really positive light.
    The only reason you don't is because she is a republican, which is this dirty word right now, and hardly anyone here has the guts to stick for free speech and opposing viewpoints----it is much easier to simply bash someone and feel good about yourselves in your commonality.
    I'm an independent, but this is one huge gripe I have with the liberal side. In my experience, liberals never seem to stand up and stand for something that is unpopular around them. They always wait till they think they have numbers and it is safe. That's easy and gutless. Say what you want about Coulter---she actually really has the guts to say what she thinks----without media approval.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: If Coulter were saying things that you all agreed with, you'd be calling her a strong woman, a best selling author, and successful columnist. You'd say that she speaks her mind regardless of the consequences and she doesn't care what people think of her, which is actually the truth----you would put it in a really positive light. The only reason you don't is because she is a republican, which is this dirty word right now, and hardly anyone here has the guts to stick for free speech and opposing viewpoints----it is much easier to simply bash someone and feel good about yourselves in your commonality. I'm an independent, but this is one huge gripe I have with the liberal side. In my experience, liberals never seem to stand up and stand for something that is unpopular around them. They always wait till they think they have numbers and it is safe. That's easy and gutless. Say what you want about Coulter---she actually really has the guts to say what she thinks----without media approval.

    Thomas - weren't you waxing poetic earlier about people being grouped together and saying that this was a nation of individuals? Kind of hypocritical to then group together "the liberal side" as one mind, don't you think? If you're going to start a big fuss over the use of "we" for society, then don't turn around and do the same thing to an entire group of people.

    reply to Carly
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: If Coulter were saying things that you all agreed with, you'd be calling her a strong woman, a best selling author, and successful columnist. You'd say that she speaks her mind regardless of the consequences and she doesn't care what people think of her, which is actually the truth----you would put it in a really positive light. The only reason you don't is because she is a republican, which is this dirty word right now, and hardly anyone here has the guts to stick for free speech and opposing viewpoints----it is much easier to simply bash someone and feel good about yourselves in your commonality. I'm an independent, but this is one huge gripe I have with the liberal side. In my experience, liberals never seem to stand up and stand for something that is unpopular around them. They always wait till they think they have numbers and it is safe. That's easy and gutless. Say what you want about Coulter---she actually really has the guts to say what she thinks----without media approval.

    Did you know that that creepy hate monger Fred Phelps is a DEMOCRAT?

    Ha! Loves it!!

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend



    I don't want to argue any more about Coulter, because the whole thing is going to get misconstrued, and I don't want to deal with it. I'm not pro or anti Coulter---though she does entertain me, which is more than I can say for most things in the conformist media right now.

    Simple point------someone says something. Analyze it. Decide whether or not you agree. Come up with a good argument, and put it forth. Don't name call, vilify, and display the same intolerance you claim to hate. This applies to Ann Coulter as much as Barrack Obama (or anyone else).
    This practice of simply rejecting someone who is unpopular, taking things out of context, and judging them on 1% of what they say or write is truly alarming.
    Sorry people, but as much as you would hate to admit it publicly, Coulter is not a monster, simply a human being with certain viewpoints, just like you, and there are plenty of instances where you would agree with that she says. I think that's where a lot of this "I don't want to read anything of hers" stuff comes from. It's easier to simply call her a monster and dehumanize her.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Carly wrote: Thomas - weren't you waxing poetic earlier about people being grouped together and saying that this was a nation of individuals? Kind of hypocritical to then group together "the liberal side" as one mind, don't you think? If you're going to start a big fuss over the use of "we" for society, then don't turn around and do the same thing to an entire group of people.

    Not at all, and I almost didn't do that because I knew someone would misread it that way.
    I said that in my experience, my individual experience, the liberals I know have been that way. Maybe I should have said the vast majority of the time.
    That is completely different from using the word WE in a collective societal sense, intimating that there are certain societal things that we (which of course means the popular people) all just sort of agree on.
    I could say the whole world are idiots-----that's simply my PERSONAL opinion and no attempt to speak for anyone else.

    Just to avoid confusion, I'm not saying the whole world are idiots. Just adding this cuz I know someone will misread that too.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Carly wrote: Thomas - weren't you waxing poetic earlier about people being grouped together and saying that this was a nation of individuals? Kind of hypocritical to then group together "the liberal side" as one mind, don't you think? If you're going to start a big fuss over the use of "we" for society, then don't turn around and do the same thing to an entire group of people.

    Not at all, and I almost didn't do that because I knew someone would misread it that way.
    I said that in my experience, my individual experience, the liberals I know have been that way. Maybe I should have said the vast majority of the time.
    That is completely different from using the word WE in a collective societal sense, intimating that there are certain societal things that we (which of course means the popular people) all just sort of agree on.
    I could say the whole world are idiots-----that's simply my PERSONAL opinion and no attempt to speak for anyone else.

    Just to avoid confusion, I'm not saying the whole world are idiots. Just adding this cuz I know someone will misread that too.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Also, I didn't mean to imply that liberals were the only ones who bandwagon like this. I just live in California and am around the liberal side more.
    I know religious right types in the bible belt do the same ignorant things, like call Hillary evil and a hate monger, and try to ignore what she says and her arguments. They say she is going to hell, and they make fun of her appearance. They chastise people who simply try to give the opposition view and won't listen to them.
    It's all the same, no matter which group engages in it. But when you do take the easy way out with that sort of intellectual laziness, you're no better than the group that you oppose, in fact you are much more alike than different.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Is it that you are offended by the word "illegitimate"?

    Is there a better, more politically correct term to use?

    I was listening to NPR yesterday and a woman (talking about her involvement in a literacy program) used the term "baby daddy" as if it was no big thing. It struck me: Being a single parent is very commonplace today.

    PS. I have no idea what Ann said, or the subject of her book - except for what you have written here.

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend



    Beth, sorry, you're right actually. I was just a bit annoyed with the name calling at the beginning of the thread, which shouldn't take away from the fact that you brought up a good issue.

    I don't think children, legally or otherwise, should ever be considered "illegitimate"? That puts a strike against them to start with that they don't deserve.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Knowing Ann, it is probably something about the breakdown of morals in our society.

    A quick google search implied there was something about "movies today promoting 'illegitimacy'".

    I'm guessing she has a problem with movies like "Knocked up".

    Why wouldn't illegitimate be legitimate? She is talking about children being born without a Mom and Dad living at home together as a family. I can't think of another word that would describe that as concisely as "illegitimate".

    The way you are headed with this reminds me of how "Negro" was once the preferred term. Then that somehow gained a negative connotation and "Black" was appropriate. Now, "African American" is the term we're supposed to use.

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend



    Have to go, but just watched the video, which is no different than any other interview that I've seen with Coulter in the mainstream media. But it makes for fun TV. They didn't touch on that issue very much-----about ten seconds worth of the whole interview.

    Just wanted to say that Smith is incredibly condescending.
    Pretend that Smith is Sean Hannity here, and that Coulter is Maureen Dowd, say. If, while Dowd was trying to make a point, Hannity patronizingly repeated "take a breath," you'd all be freaking out and screaming chauvinism.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: Have to go, but just watched the video, which is no different than any other interview that I've seen with Coulter in the mainstream media. But it makes for fun TV. They didn't touch on that issue very much-----about ten seconds worth of the whole interview. Just wanted to say that Smith is incredibly condescending. Pretend that Smith is Sean Hannity here, and that Coulter is Maureen Dowd, say. If, while Dowd was trying to make a point, Hannity patronizingly repeated "take a breath," you'd all be freaking out and screaming chauvinism.

    There you go again Thomas. "you all." For someone who seems VERY adament about not being judgemental and grouping people together, you seem to contradict yourself often. Maybe think before you type, or think of what you say before making generalized accusations, especially after complaining about others making generalized accusations. Just some food for thought.

    reply to Carly
    send this answer to a friend



    Miss Beth, I have nothing to add. Sorry! Just wanted to say that reading through this thread was highly amusing. Funny how simple questions can veer off track completely.

    reply to LK
    send this answer to a friend



    My first thought is that I guy named Harry Smith could use his own name to sign in to a motel for some illegitimate sex.

    In this case, illegitimate sex means sex involving farm animals. And don't scoff because I once knew a motel desk clerk who could be paid to look the other way when I guy came in with a sheep who hid her eyes behind dark sunglasses.

    He did have morals, though. If you were carrying a video camera, he insisted you use a filter on the lens.

    reply to Calvin
    send this answer to a friend



    There is no such thing as an illegal child.

    Regarding illegitimacy - from Wikipedia:

    Legitimacy is the status of a child that is born to parents who are legally married to one another, or that is born shortly after the parents' marriage ends through divorce. The opposite of legitimacy is the status of being "illegitimate" – born to a woman and a man who are not married to one another.

    Legitimacy was formerly of great consequence, in that only legitimate children could inherit their fathers' estates. In the United States, in the early 1970s, a series of Supreme Court decisions abolished most, if not all, of the common-law disabilities of bastardy, as being violations of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend



    Blondie wrote: There is no such thing as an illegal child. Regarding illegitimacy - from Wikipedia: Legitimacy is the status of a child that is born to parents who are legally married to one another, or that is born shortly after the parents' marriage ends through divorce. The opposite of legitimacy is the status of being "illegitimate" – born to a woman and a man who are not married to one another. Legitimacy was formerly of great consequence, in that only legitimate children could inherit their fathers' estates. In the United States, in the early 1970s, a series of Supreme Court decisions abolished most, if not all, of the common-law disabilities of bastardy, as being violations of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    Hmmm, so technically, I was illigitimate? Or am I still?

    My parents divorced when I was 7 months old in the early '70's. This is an interesting thing to ponder in my late 30's.


    reply to Jen 1x
    send this answer to a friend



    Ann Coulter speaks Jibberish. I am mos def NOT a fan. However, I fully support her right to make a jackass out of herself.

    Not sure why anyone's interested in interviewing her, though.

    reply to Jen 1x
    send this answer to a friend



    Carly wrote: There you go again Thomas. "you all." For someone who seems VERY adament about not being judgemental and grouping people together, you seem to contradict yourself often. Maybe think before you type, or think of what you say before making generalized accusations, especially after complaining about others making generalized accusations. Just some food for thought.

    I never complained about anybody making generalized accusations. Make them all you want. I complained about name calling in a serious discussion, and judging without even giving the opposition a listen. Me making a comment, and a valid one I think, is a far cry from simply calling a figure a "media whore" and making fun of her appearance when she is speaking to serious issues.
    Once again, there is a huge difference between giving an opinion, generalized or not, and speaking for society, which was my first gripe.
    I'm not contradicting myself at all. You think you have me with that, but really, you just point out an inability to distinguish between two completely different things.


    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Ann Coulter is a tranny (have you checked out her Adam's Apple lately? Report on that Extra!) She/He doesn't believe half the things she says, but she loves nothing better than for people (like us) to talk about her. She never meet a microphone she didn't like, and the mainstream media continues to quote her and interview her whenever possible. The higher the blood pressure she raises in reasonable, intelligent humans, the higher the ratings and the more books she sells. The best thing one can do about Anne Coulter is to ignore her. It's the stake through the heart that will end her ghoulish existence.

    reply to Jodie
    send this answer to a friend



    Ersatz wrote: She is a human cockroach. I don't want to give her any of my time or energy. I pretend she doesn't exist.

    Please dont insult humans or cockroaches in comparrison to this person. For the record cockroaches when touched by a human will instantly clean itself to counter any germs. Humans will usually go clean themselves after contact with a cockroach.
    Just some useless info I have stored in my brain.


    reply to T.
    send this answer to a friend




    L
    I was born out of wedlock. No human is illegitimate.

    Legal definition: legitimate
    adj., adv1) legal, proper, real. 2) referring to a child born to parents who are married. A baby born to parents who are not married is illegitimate, but can be made legitimate (legitimatized) by the subsequent marriage of the parents. 3) v. to make proper and/or legal.


    It is part of legal history, which is often revised to correct horrible horrible mistakes. Initially, you could deny inheritance based on illegitimacy in addition to freeing a father from financial responsibility. That is no longer true in today's legal code, therefore the term is dead.

    This term no longer used for obvious reasons. If this is not immediately obvious to someone then there is nothing we can do for this person.

    reply to L
    send this answer to a friend



    ehvwon wrote: My thoughts are she is a douche and I never read anything she says.

    I have douchy thoughts about her as well. Seriously douchy-chilly kind of toughts. Eeeek!

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Ervin wrote: I have douchy thoughts about her as well. Seriously douchy-chilly kind of toughts. Eeeek!

    Yep, my opinion hasn't wavered.

    reply to ehvwon
    send this answer to a friend



    <-------has crazy liberal agenda.

    Must spread it to everyone. I like to call it compassion. Miss douchy Coulter is immune, of course.

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Ervin wrote: <-------has crazy liberal agenda. Must spread it to everyone. I like to call it compassion. Miss douchy Coulter is immune, of course.

    Me too, I'm such a raving, crazy liberal!

    reply to ehvwon
    send this answer to a friend



    There is nothing wrong with Ann C. giving her opinion about illegitimate births. In the dictionary "The Merriam Webster Dictionary" defines the word "born of unmarried parents." She has a valid point about the rise of these births (if they're lucky enough to be born) and how it effects society and how children do have a disadvantage in single parent homes. I had my daughter before marriage and it was hard on me, financially, emotionally and every responsibility was on me. It's much easier and better for a child to be born in a two parent home. You can be successful in raising children alone but it is more difficult. Why not raise the bar and try to look at the faimily breakdown and try and fix it? What should us as individuals and society do? Is it because of moral decline? Is our media spewing out immorality? If the question of where the compass of morality is based is a problem, then just look at where all the great conquering "enlightened" civilizations of the past are today... Rome, Egypt, Babylon...shall I go on? I believe that digression is where we are headed, not progression. Most countries/nations have endured on the average of 200 years; we are hanging on by a thin thread.
    ( If one will study history books (not CNN) they would find that those entities fell and crumbled from within rather than from enemies without.) God forbid we should have a compass for our lives! oOps! , I forgot He's been booted out since the 1960's from the public school system. Hm.m.m.m. what an improvement since then. (Let's see now...pregnancies went
    way up....we never even imagined school shootings) Now you tell me about the "enlightened" society we've become.

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    ehvwon wrote: Me too, I'm such a raving, crazy liberal!

    I think we're a lot alike, Theresa. And I personally think "liberal" is a terrific word that I'm proud to make my own.

    And BTW. You look awesome in your picture. Did you do something with your hair?

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Oh, yes, I'm so, so jealous. I'm going to be especially jealous in ten years when Miss Coulter is sitting on a park bench spouting her mean-spirited nonsense to the pigeons because no one else will listen anymore.

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Ervin wrote: I think we're a lot alike, Theresa. And I personally think "liberal" is a terrific word that I'm proud to make my own. And BTW. You look awesome in your picture. Did you do something with your hair?

    I am looking fine, aren't I? Thanks for noticing!

    Yeah, we're a lot alike!

    reply to ehvwon
    send this answer to a friend



    Char wrote: There is nothing wrong with Ann C. giving her opinion about illegitimate births. In the dictionary "The Merriam Webster Dictionary" defines the word "born of unmarried parents." She has a valid point about the rise of these births (if they're lucky enough to be born) and how it effects society and how children do have a disadvantage in single parent homes. I had my daughter before marriage and it was hard on me, financially, emotionally and every responsibility was on me. It's much easier and better for a child to be born in a two parent home. You can be successful in raising children alone but it is more difficult. Why not raise the bar and try to look at the faimily breakdown and try and fix it? What should us as individuals and society do? Is it because of moral decline? Is our media spewing out immorality? If the question of where the compass of morality is based is a problem, then just look at where all the great conquering "enlightened" civilizations of the past are today... Rome, Egypt, Babylon...shall I go on? I believe that digression is where we are headed, not progression. Most countries/nations have endured on the average of 200 years; we are hanging on by a thin thread. ( If one will study history books (not CNN) they would find that those entities fell and crumbled from within rather than from enemies without.) God forbid we should have a compass for our lives! oOps! , I forgot He's been booted out since the 1960's from the public school system. Hm.m.m.m. what an improvement since then. (Let's see now...pregnancies went way up....we never even imagined school shootings) Now you tell me about the "enlightened" society we've become.

    I am daddy-less, illigitimate, a bastard child some would say. But you know what? I think I turned out okay.

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend





    ehvwon wrote: I am looking fine, aren't I? Thanks for noticing! Yeah, we're a lot alike!

    hehe....I think I'm having some very gay feelings for you today, Theresa.

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Ervin wrote: hehe....I think I'm having some very gay feelings for you today, Theresa.

    I have that effect on people!

    reply to ehvwon
    send this answer to a friend




    L
    The history books also teach us that every generation speaks of moral decline.

    Children today have the opportunity to do whatever they choose and become whomever they desire and that's saying something. They are not trapped by their class, geographic location, or sex.

    Sure, they have more options to *abuse (like fatty foods), but how can one compare the ills of being spoiled or raised in a single parent household in comparison with being forced into a trade or forced to remain in a physically abusive household.

    *Edit* Add on: While a child would certainly benefit with a household with two parents who love each other, how can we legislate that without infringing on others rights?

    I was raised with by a single mother who later remarried. Today's families are dynamic and the inability of humans to offer the absolute best for their children is a reality of a diverse society.

    reply to L
    send this answer to a friend



    Ervin wrote: I am daddy-less, illigitimate, a bastard child some would say. But you know what? I think I turned out okay.

    Ervin, I am not insulting you. I just think a child should have a better chance with both...(if you read my whole statement, I had my daughter in singlehood ) My husband and his 4 siblings went through it with no father....yes he (and his siblings) turned out fine, but he will tell you he suffered for it.

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    Char wrote: Ervin, I am not insulting you. I just think a child should have a better chance with both...(if you read my whole statement, I had my daughter in singlehood ) My husband and his 4 siblings went through it with no father....yes he (and his siblings) turned out fine, but he will tell you he suffered for it.

    Naw, Char, I wasn't offended by you or anything that you wrote. Just making a point. I hate being lumped into this group of "poor, poor illigitimate children." I was mainly talking about what Miss Coulter said on Television today. I commend you for being a great mother, Char!

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend





    Were you passing on your crazy liberal agenda to the ants or to the guy selling hot dogs?

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    As George Santyana wrote: THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT.

    ( I GUESS we'll have to eliminate the words: personal responsibility from our vocabularys as well...)

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    I talk to myself a lot but it's usually when I'm in my car and it's usually swearing at the person who cut me off.

    reply to ehvwon
    send this answer to a friend



    Jodie wrote: Ann Coulter is a tranny (have you checked out her Adam's Apple lately? Report on that Extra!) She/He doesn't believe half the things she says, but she loves nothing better than for people (like us) to talk about her. She never meet a microphone she didn't like, and the mainstream media continues to quote her and interview her whenever possible. The higher the blood pressure she raises in reasonable, intelligent humans, the higher the ratings and the more books she sells. The best thing one can do about Anne Coulter is to ignore her. It's the stake through the heart that will end her ghoulish existence.

    Please refer to my post and song below.
    (sorry testing)

    reply to GiGi
    send this answer to a friend



    So you were muttering to yourself about the fact that you were muttering to yourself?

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Jodie wrote: Ann Coulter is a tranny (have you checked out her Adam's Apple lately? Report on that Extra!) She/He doesn't believe half the things she says, but she loves nothing better than for people (like us) to talk about her. She never meet a microphone she didn't like, and the mainstream media continues to quote her and interview her whenever possible. The higher the blood pressure she raises in reasonable, intelligent humans, the higher the ratings and the more books she sells. The best thing one can do about Anne Coulter is to ignore her. It's the stake through the heart that will end her ghoulish existence.

    Apparently I have been ignoring this nudnick because I had to google her. I know who she is and what she stands for but have decided to turn a deaf ear. So I just read a column of hers and refuse to be disgusted.

    But now that you mention it Jody, there is something about that Adam's Apple.
    I wonder if anyone's considered using it for archery target practice.

    reply to GiGi
    send this answer to a friend



    L wrote: The history books also teach us that every generation speaks of moral decline. Children today have the opportunity to do whatever they choose and become whomever they desire and that's saying something. They are not trapped by their class, geographic location, or sex. Sure, they have more options to *abuse (like fatty foods), but how can one compare the ills of being spoiled or raised in a single parent household in comparison with being forced into a trade or forced to remain in a physically abusive household. *Edit* Add on: While a child would certainly benefit with a household with two parents who love each other, how can we legislate that without infringing on others rights? I was raised with by a single mother who later remarried. Today's families are dynamic and the inability of humans to offer the absolute best for their children is a reality of a diverse society.

    It's not forcing anyone to do anything by simply looking at what has worked for centuries; and what to do about fixing it.
    It is still best that a child has a mother and father present.
    My husband was raised by his mother only and his father wasn't there. He and his siblings turned out fine, but they longed for a father and suffered in a lot of ways.

    Just because someone (Coulter in this case) is looking at the health of the family unit, that is not in any manner forcing anyone to do anything. If someone is just talking about eating healthy doesn't mean that you force-fed that diet. It is still one's own choice; the question simply remains: What is the BEST choice?

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    A lot of comments such as on one's Adam's (or Eve's) apple is so juvenile and mindless and of a fruitless nature....what is the point of such comments?....I thought this was a place for intelligent adult conversation? Hm-m-m-? Is anyone else tired of the childish name calling and mud-slinging at anyone with a differing opinion (usually conservative) Yes, sometimes Ann Coulter can be a bit harsh in her approach, but she still has valid points. I don't mindlessly slam everyone that I disagree with. A spoon-fed diet of liberal media contains a lot of toxins and may be harzardous to your health ...maybe they need that disclaimer at the bottom of their pages... (i.e. such as showing Coulter's jaw wired shut.)

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    Whenever anyone starts spewing nonsensical crap all I can hear is blah blah blah blah blah blah... sometimes you can tap out a good rhythm to it.

    reply to T.M.
    send this answer to a friend



    Why is an illegitimate child suddenly a horrible bad thing? It's simply a descriptive word of ones situation.

    There is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that kids born with two willing and able parents probably have a better chance of growing up well adjusted.

    This is like stating the fact that a person with a college degree probably has a better chance at getting a well paying job.

    Neither is good or bad, it is simply circumstance.

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend



    Ann Coulter likes to stir shit up. That is why she used the word.

    She could have said children born in a single parent home or children born to an unmarried couple or children born extramaritally but "illegitimate" probably was much more effective for her purposes.

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend





    I don't always like Ann Coulter's delivery, but her use of the term illigitimate does not make her subject matter invalid.

    I think the real problem lies in that she is not, "politically correct".

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    Char wrote: A lot of comments such as on one's Adam's (or Eve's) apple is so juvenile and mindless and of a fruitless nature....what is the point of such comments?....I thought this was a place for intelligent adult conversation? Hm-m-m-? Is anyone else tired of the childish name calling and mud-slinging at anyone with a differing opinion (usually conservative) Yes, sometimes Ann Coulter can be a bit harsh in her approach, but she still has valid points. I don't mindlessly slam everyone that I disagree with. A spoon-fed diet of liberal media contains a lot of toxins and may be harzardous to your health ...maybe they need that disclaimer at the bottom of their pages... (i.e. such as showing Coulter's jaw wired shut.)

    I like your pun Char.
    Adam's apple...fruitless nature.
    LOL


    reply to GiGi
    send this answer to a friend



    Single motherhood should be a part of the American discourse.

    Children born to single mothers are more likely to be born into poverty. Children in poverty experience more abuse and neglect. They use more tax-payer funded benefits like food stamps, Medicaid, CHIP, TANF. African American children are more likely to be born to a single mother. Grandparents raising children is becoming more common.

    We need to empower single mothers with:
    1. Affordable daycare
    2. Affordable healthcare
    3. Job skills
    4. Encourage co-parenting. The father doesn't have to be married to the mother to participate in parenting.

    This issue affects the whole of society and personal is political, so yes it is a very important issue.

    However, it should not be dwarfed by pundits using inflammatory and outdated terminology.

    reply to Raven
    send this answer to a friend





    Probably. I'm sure she emphasizes how single motherhood costs the taxpayer. Which it does, but single mothers pay taxes too and what kind of society does not support it's children?

    Rather than villify or idolize single mothers or pretend that there are no issues, we should be striving as a society to approach this with practical and realistic solutions.

    reply to Raven
    send this answer to a friend



    Char wrote: A lot of comments such as on one's Adam's (or Eve's) apple is so juvenile and mindless and of a fruitless nature....what is the point of such comments?....I thought this was a place for intelligent adult conversation? Hm-m-m-? Is anyone else tired of the childish name calling and mud-slinging at anyone with a differing opinion (usually conservative) Yes, sometimes Ann Coulter can be a bit harsh in her approach, but she still has valid points. I don't mindlessly slam everyone that I disagree with. A spoon-fed diet of liberal media contains a lot of toxins and may be harzardous to your health ...maybe they need that disclaimer at the bottom of their pages... (i.e. such as showing Coulter's jaw wired shut.)

    Miss Coulter CONSTANTLY resorts to name-calling, Char. So it is ENTIRELY appropriate to call her names. If anyone deserves to be called names, it's her. And I couldn't give a crap whether or not she's "politically incorrect." I don't care what her politics are. My only beef with her, besides the Adam's Apple, is that she's a total moron.

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    By the way, I haven't seen my father since I was twelve years old. But I heard a rumor that he had a bunch of other kids and named them all Ervin. So, if any of you come across anyone named Ervin who's not me, it might just be my half-brother!

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Char wrote: A lot of comments such as on one's Adam's (or Eve's) apple is so juvenile and mindless and of a fruitless nature....what is the point of such comments?....I thought this was a place for intelligent adult conversation? Hm-m-m-? Is anyone else tired of the childish name calling and mud-slinging at anyone with a differing opinion (usually conservative) Yes, sometimes Ann Coulter can be a bit harsh in her approach, but she still has valid points. I don't mindlessly slam everyone that I disagree with. A spoon-fed diet of liberal media contains a lot of toxins and may be harzardous to your health ...maybe they need that disclaimer at the bottom of their pages... (i.e. such as showing Coulter's jaw wired shut.)

    Ann Coulter is not interested in intelligent adult conversation. It seems you have not been here for too long yet Char, and you haven't asked any questions, but you'll soon find that there is a lot of adult intelligent conversation between people of all different beliefs, backgrounds, and faiths on Advice Vixens. Ann Coulter is not interested in opening dialogue. Many of her ideas are hateful. There may be some insight buried underneath the piles of crap, but it's not worth digging through shit to find out.

    reply to LK
    send this answer to a friend



    Ervin wrote: Miss Coulter CONSTANTLY resorts to name-calling, Char. So it is ENTIRELY appropriate to call her names. If anyone deserves to be called names, it's her. And I couldn't give a crap whether or not she's "politically incorrect." I don't care what her politics are. My only beef with her, besides the Adam's Apple, is that she's a total moron.

    so-o-o-o then, we should resort to name calling...is that what you are saying.

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    Char wrote: so-o-o-o then, we should resort to name calling...is that what you are saying.

    I'm saying that name calling is occasionally appropriate, Char. Not every topic has to be dealt with in a dignified manner here on Advice Vixens. Some topics need good old-fashioned name-calling. Some topics require sensitivity. Some topics require humor. Some topics call for sarcasm. Some topics call for positive reinforcement. It all depends on the topic, and when the topic is Ann Coulter, yes, absolutely, a bit of name-calling wins the day.

    And just to let you know where I'm coming from, my favorite topic this week here on AV was about what we think about while going poop.

    This place is a little bit of everything, Char. And sometimes that everything includes name-calling. Such is life.

    All the best!

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    LK wrote: Ann Coulter is not interested in intelligent adult conversation. It seems you have not been here for too long yet Char, and you haven't asked any questions, but you'll soon find that there is a lot of adult intelligent conversation between people of all different beliefs, backgrounds, and faiths on Advice Vixens. Ann Coulter is not interested in opening dialogue. Many of her ideas are hateful. There may be some insight buried underneath the piles of crap, but it's not worth digging through shit to find out.

    If you would properly read my statement I was only referring to the name calling of public figures that are of a conservative view. I have experienced intelligent and interesting conversation here many times....
    I don't agree with everything she says, but I'm not calling her names. She isn't interested in open dialogue? Why do you think she converses with the media? I've seen her on left and right media shows. Again there has been plenty of interesting dialogue I have enjoyed here, don't take my statement out of context. Is it really necessary to constantly resort to expletives to express oneself?

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    Ervin wrote: I'm saying that name calling is occasionally appropriate, Char. Not every topic has to be dealt with in a dignified manner here on Advice Vixens. Some topics need good old-fashioned name-calling. Some topics require sensitivity. Some topics require humor. Some topics call for sarcasm. Some topics call for positive reinforcement. It all depends on the topic, and when the topic is Ann Coulter, yes, absolutely, a bit of name-calling wins the day. And just to let you know where I'm coming from, my favorite topic this week here on AV was about what we think about while going poop. This place is a little bit of everything, Char. And sometimes that everything includes name-calling. Such is life. All the best!

    My point is this: Just ask yourself this question: When you think of poking fun or name calling a public figure, are they always a figure of conservative view, i.e. Coulter, Sara Palin, etc. ? Do you ever do the same for a liberal?

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    Erwin" Sorry PEOPLE but as much as you would hate to admit it publicly" and "You 'ALL"................

    Weren't you talking about individuality?

    YES to me the term illegitimate child is insulting, just as I would find insulting someone dropping the Niger word

    Webster dictionary defines Illegitimate (child) :

    "1: not recognized as lawful offspring"

    So, did Ms Beth OR her offspring did something UN-lawful?

    NO. So this term really, takes us back at least 60 yrs.

    Ms Beth is a Republcan

    reply to Ua
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: Is that even a word WE use anymore? Last time I checked, this is still America, and I can use any words I want. I can also have any ideas I want. Should "ideas" only exist with public approval? We should go back and see how you would apply that to a woman's right to vote around a hundred years ago. It's pretty amusing to me how a lot of you talk about "intolerance" and the like, and then what do you do to combat it----practice more intolerance, not to mention resort to petty superficial insults. The funny thing about Coulter is you are all doing exactly what she wants you to do. You are talking about her. Ann Coulter writes books that do not change---so anyone with a problem could read them and try to refute her arguments. Apparently it's easier to simply call her names and make childish jokes. I'm not defending Coulter at all----I've agreed and disagreed with lots of things she's said, but to simply bash someone without really analyzing their positions in something more than a tabloid TV soundbite type manner is intellectually lazy. What is it about someone expressing their views that scares everyone so much? Coulter is a figure that commands attention----all she has to do is say a couple of things and everyone freaks out. I think it's funny, healthy for the country, and I hope she keeps doing it.

    Refreshing to hear someone who is an individual thinker and isn't a mindless drone following whatever is considered popular.
    I've seen some real hypocrisy here when it comes to this area.

    reply to Char
    send this answer to a friend



    Miss Beth

    Coulter has never implied any tolerance of anyone or anything which disagrees with her. At one stage she said women shouldn't have the vote because they might vote for Obama or Clinton.

    Thomas is wasting a good argument on someone who's never indicated any interest in functional democracy of any kind. Names are quite superfluous, her own is the most apt description.

    The word "illegitimate" as a term for a child born out of wedlock hasn't had any legal meaning for at least 40 years. It's an old stigma from the Puritan days, in American culture, and dates to older European roots.

    My own name calling credentials: I recently called anarchists "rednecks" on a thread on one of my articles. I stick by that definition.

    reply to Paul
    send this answer to a friend



    LK wrote: Ann Coulter is not interested in intelligent adult conversation. It seems you have not been here for too long yet Char, and you haven't asked any questions, but you'll soon find that there is a lot of adult intelligent conversation between people of all different beliefs, backgrounds, and faiths on Advice Vixens. Ann Coulter is not interested in opening dialogue. Many of her ideas are hateful. There may be some insight buried underneath the piles of crap, but it's not worth digging through shit to find out.

    I'll bet you've never read one of her books.


    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Paul wrote: Miss Beth Coulter has never implied any tolerance of anyone or anything which disagrees with her. At one stage she said women shouldn't have the vote because they might vote for Obama or Clinton. Thomas is wasting a good argument on someone who's never indicated any interest in functional democracy of any kind. Names are quite superfluous, her own is the most apt description. The word "illegitimate" as a term for a child born out of wedlock hasn't had any legal meaning for at least 40 years. It's an old stigma from the Puritan days, in American culture, and dates to older European roots. My own name calling credentials: I recently called anarchists "rednecks" on a thread on one of my articles. I stick by that definition.

    Any time I'm defending someone's right to express themselves, I am not wasting an argument. I don't care who it is. Many people here seem to want to ignore unpopular speech, of anyone who makes a judgement about anything societal.
    I can handle anything anyone says in a debate without resorting to personal attacks, and the like.
    Half the time Coulter making an absurd comment is a retaliation to an absurd idea or comment that she has come upon.
    Losing your composure over what someone else says is silly.
    A lot of you say that Coulter is a quack, or you don't care what she says, and the first thing you do is get angry about it, which completely blows your cover.
    But Coulter isn't the issue of course. I'd defend Hillary's right to free speech just as fervently.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: To me, it's dangerous when someone uses WE as a society. That's very presumptuous. This is a nation of individuals---speak for yourself. This WE stuff is nothing more than an attempt to feel like there is some merit to views or ideas that are momentarily popular. Who even cares what the idea was---that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the right of a person to say whatever they want, period. They do not have to prove to you that it is an "idea". What exactly is YOUR idea here---that Coulter shouldn't be allowed to say anything because it may be unpopular. That Smith is a lunatic for simply suggesting that something be a part of a dialogue? She's actually one of the only people I've seen in the national discourse who will truly has the guts to go against the grain, even knowing she will be hated and smeared exactly like this----I see very little of that here. Sometimes this thread simply seems to be a support group for political correctness. The ignorant shit she spews makes you angry? That's not a reflection of what she says, but of your lack of composure in the face of opposing viewpoints.

    Lack of composure, you say? So what caused her to freak out and storm off in the middle of this interview? Diarrhea?



    Note: The fun starts in the middle of the clip!

    reply to fayeruz
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: To me, it's dangerous when someone uses WE as a society. That's very presumptuous. This is a nation of individuals---speak for yourself. This WE stuff is nothing more than an attempt to feel like there is some merit to views or ideas that are momentarily popular. Who even cares what the idea was---that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the right of a person to say whatever they want, period. They do not have to prove to you that it is an "idea". What exactly is YOUR idea here---that Coulter shouldn't be allowed to say anything because it may be unpopular. That Smith is a lunatic for simply suggesting that something be a part of a dialogue? She's actually one of the only people I've seen in the national discourse who will truly has the guts to go against the grain, even knowing she will be hated and smeared exactly like this----I see very little of that here. Sometimes this thread simply seems to be a support group for political correctness. The ignorant shit she spews makes you angry? That's not a reflection of what she says, but of your lack of composure in the face of opposing viewpoints.

    Lack of composure, you say? So what caused her to freak out and storm off in the middle of this interview? Diarrhea?



    Note: The fun starts in the middle of the clip!

    reply to fayeruz
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: You say a best selling author, a nationally syndicated columnist, and a respected legal correspondent has a lack of intelligence, and this is your rebuttal? Peroxide and media whore? Please keep em coming. I haven't had a laugh like this in awhile.

    Okay, okay. Per your request, I will keep them coming. You mentioned her being a bestselling author in defense of her credibility, yes? Well, here are a couple of other best-selling authors:

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us


    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us


    Just sayin'

    reply to fayeruz
    send this answer to a friend



    Again, you're missing the point completely. I'm not defending Coulter. I'm talking about the idea of free speech.
    I was all ready to watch this video and agree with you that she stormed off inappropriately, reinforcing the idea that one should keep their composure.
    This video doesn't apply at all. Coulter didn't stop the interview because she was freaking out over what the interviewer was saying---she ended it because she wouldn't allow her to speak. I'm glad Coulter did that, and I would have done the same thing. If you think that sort bullying is ok, then you're essentially anti free speech.
    Free speech doesn't mean allowing someone else to express their views only when they're popular or you agree with them.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    fayeruz wrote: Okay, okay. Per your request, I will keep them coming. You mentioned her being a bestselling author in defense of her credibility, yes? Well, here are a couple of other best-selling authors: Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Just sayin'

    The whole point is that if you agreed with her, you would be listing all her credentials instead of resorting to outright slander.
    It's good you bring Hitler to mind----he liked the idea of ignoring people's rights to express themselves too, when he didn't like what they were saying. He also encouraged certain segments of the population to be ridiculed and vilified.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    fayeruz wrote: Okay, okay. Per your request, I will keep them coming. You mentioned her being a bestselling author in defense of her credibility, yes? Well, here are a couple of other best-selling authors: Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Just sayin'

    And sure Hitler was a bestselling author, and when serious intellectuals tried to refute his arguments, I doubt they made fun of his mustache.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: Again, you're missing the point completely. I'm not defending Coulter. I'm talking about the idea of free speech. I was all ready to watch this video and agree with you that she stormed off inappropriately, reinforcing the idea that one should keep their composure. This video doesn't apply at all. Coulter didn't stop the interview because she was freaking out over what the interviewer was saying---she ended it because she wouldn't allow her to speak. I'm glad Coulter did that, and I would have done the same thing. If you think that sort bullying is ok, then you're essentially anti free speech. Free speech doesn't mean allowing someone else to express their views only when they're popular or you agree with them.

    I agree with you completely on the issue of free speech, Thomas. I was just having a bit of fun exercising my rights :-)

    reply to fayeruz
    send this answer to a friend



    fayeruz wrote: I agree with you completely on the issue of free speech, Thomas. I was just having a bit of fun exercising my rights :-)

    Damnit, nobody's allowed to have fun exercising their rights.
    Thank God you have finally realized my wisdom and agreed with me, like a good woman should.

    Just messing around with you by being absurd.
    Fun thread. Hitting the hay----have a good night.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    ..Jesus Himself, would have been born "out of wedlock" had Joesph decided not to take Mary as his wife.... so who are we little a--es to throw stones at unborn humans.....Ann baby ..... disgusting and disgraceful... doesn't she realize we are all born "illegit" in some way???

    ...since the beginning of time, it's been the tall tale of the day..HEY......no child is EVER illegit', every human has a father!!!!

    reply to Ann-Laura
    send this answer to a friend



    fayeruz wrote: Based on her racist commentary, certainly NOT an Arabian!

    Fav,,,,

    .I don't care what you are..you're lovely.........absolutely lovely.

    .wanna' hang with ya' bebe!!

    reply to Ann-Laura
    send this answer to a friend



    ..just saw the CBS interview,,i hope i never git inta' it with her at a Macy's 80 percent off sale!!!!

    reply to Ann-Laura
    send this answer to a friend



    Jen 1x wrote: Ann Coulter speaks Jibberish. I am mos def NOT a fan. However, I fully support her right to make a jackass out of herself. Not sure why anyone's interested in interviewing her, though.

    ..does that mean ya'll will kissssssssssss ma lil round butt tooo!!!!
    teasin'!!!
    luv' ya jen.......... you're like a sugar cookie to me..soft n sweet!!


    reply to Ann-Laura
    send this answer to a friend



    ac ..she's an attorney..ain't she... ??


    that 'splains' everythin'............

    reply to Ann-Laura
    send this answer to a friend



    Ua wrote: Erwin" Sorry PEOPLE but as much as you would hate to admit it publicly" and "You 'ALL"................ Weren't you talking about individuality? YES to me the term illegitimate child is insulting, just as I would find insulting someone dropping the Niger word Webster dictionary defines Illegitimate (child) : "1: not recognized as lawful offspring" So, did Ms Beth OR her offspring did something UN-lawful? NO. So this term really, takes us back at least 60 yrs. Ms Beth is a Republcan

    Who's this Erwin person?

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Char wrote: My point is this: Just ask yourself this question: When you think of poking fun or name calling a public figure, are they always a figure of conservative view, i.e. Coulter, Sara Palin, etc. ? Do you ever do the same for a liberal?

    I assure you, Char, I have called everyone names. I don't reserve my name-calling simply for moronic right-wing creepy blonde drag queens. But the topic was Ann Coulter, so that's what I went with. Why, just yesterday I called Bill Clinton a pimp (although I think I meant it in a good way)!

    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: Damnit, nobody's allowed to have fun exercising their rights. Thank God you have finally realized my wisdom and agreed with me, like a good woman should. Just messing around with you by being absurd. Fun thread. Hitting the hay----have a good night.

    I certainly don't want Ann Coulter to stop talking, Thomas. She can Free Speech herself into conservative orgasmic bliss all she wants. She can frig herself with hate for the rest of her sad life. She can Free Speech herself with a ten-inch, battery-powered double-ended....um....Constitution until her eyes pop out of her head. I think we should all be able to say whatever we want, as long as it's not inciting violence against innocents or some such thing.

    Personally, I kind of like Ann Coulter. I think she's hysterical. I'm not convinced that her whole act isn't some big comedy routine, though. I think she's the female Andy Kaufman, and all this is just one big comedy skit. I think her real name is Pam Dumblefluff, and Ann Coulter is just her wacky alter ego. Funny Stuff! Genius!


    reply to Ervin
    send this answer to a friend



    Ervin wrote: I certainly don't want Ann Coulter to stop talking, Thomas. She can Free Speech herself into conservative orgasmic bliss all she wants. She can frig herself with hate for the rest of her sad life. She can Free Speech herself with a ten-inch, battery-powered double-ended....um....Constitution until her eyes pop out of her head. I think we should all be able to say whatever we want, as long as it's not inciting violence against innocents or some such thing. Personally, I kind of like Ann Coulter. I think she's hysterical. I'm not convinced that her whole act isn't some big comedy routine, though. I think she's the female Andy Kaufman, and all this is just one big comedy skit. I think her real name is Pam Dumblefluff, and Ann Coulter is just her wacky alter ego. Funny Stuff! Genius!

    If that's the case I'd like to hear me some"Here I Come to Save the Day!"

    reply to ehvwon
    send this answer to a friend



    ehvwon wrote: If that's the case I'd like to hear me some"Here I Come to Save the Day!"

    ..ohh bebe..you are so good!!!

    reply to Ann-Laura
    send this answer to a friend




    The assumption (via Thomas) that I haven't analyzed her arguments is offensive. I read a lot and analyze more than I care to admit, which is precisely WHY I FIND COULTER TO BE a cockroach not worthy of my energy. She is offensive because her arguments are worthless, hollow, and full of faulty logic. She may be a strong woman, but she is full of hot air and erroneous assumptions.

    I'll spend my time analyzing and commenting on people whose arguments are based in truth and integrity (LEFT OR RIGHT), not chip-shouldered people who are just full of vitriol and unenlightened opinions.

    reply to Ersatz
    send this answer to a friend



    Ervin wrote: I certainly don't want Ann Coulter to stop talking, Thomas. She can Free Speech herself into conservative orgasmic bliss all she wants. She can frig herself with hate for the rest of her sad life. She can Free Speech herself with a ten-inch, battery-powered double-ended....um....Constitution until her eyes pop out of her head. I think we should all be able to say whatever we want, as long as it's not inciting violence against innocents or some such thing. Personally, I kind of like Ann Coulter. I think she's hysterical. I'm not convinced that her whole act isn't some big comedy routine, though. I think she's the female Andy Kaufman, and all this is just one big comedy skit. I think her real name is Pam Dumblefluff, and Ann Coulter is just her wacky alter ego. Funny Stuff! Genius!

    I think to a degree it's an act----she simply likes to see how upset people will get over what she says.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Ersatz wrote: The assumption (via Thomas) that I haven't analyzed her arguments is offensive. I read a lot and analyze more than I care to admit, which is precisely WHY I FIND COULTER TO BE a cockroach not worthy of my energy. She is offensive because her arguments are worthless, hollow, and full of faulty logic. She may be a strong woman, but she is full of hot air and erroneous assumptions. I'll spend my time analyzing and commenting on people whose arguments are based in truth and integrity (LEFT OR RIGHT), not chip-shouldered people who are just full of vitriol and unenlightened opinions.

    Sorry but that's a real cop out. And I'm not scared off by someone using the word offended. I'm offended that you call someone names without any evidence.
    My so called assumption is based on the fact that you haven't cited one statement, attitude, or idea of hers that you have an issue with, and have simply, and continue to call names. You've actually further proved my point about this type of thing and apparently don't realize it.
    I'm sure if someone blindly called names about someone you liked, you'd be all over them to site examples and not simply slander.
    You need to yourself out of your viewpoint for a moment, and analyze your methods.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    How is that well said? It isn't even an argument.
    __________is a cockroach. I won't listen to them. They're stupid. I will listen to enlightened people.
    Now insert anyone you don't like in that blank. It's alarming to me how close minded some of you are.

    reply to Thomas
    send this answer to a friend



    Thanks, Miss Beth. Read it with a glass a wine beside you and a healthy helping of good humor!

    xox,

    jodie

    reply to Jodie
    send this answer to a friend



    Carly wrote: Aw, what a crazy little psychopath that Ann Coulter is! Can't someone throw her, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, Paris Hilton, and any other annoying, self righteous, crazy celebrities in a padded room together and get them away from the rest of us?

    aren't they all former drug users?

    reply to Leslea
    send this answer to a friend




    L
    Criticism is not an infringement upon free speech it is an incitement of free speech.

    reply to L
    send this answer to a friend




    My energy is better spent listening to people who really care about the world, and not just themselves.

    reply to Ersatz
    send this answer to a friend





    fayeruz wrote: Lack of composure, you say? So what caused her to freak out and storm off in the middle of this interview? Diarrhea? Note: The fun starts in the middle of the clip!

    Clearly, she walked off because the chick on the left was speaking over her. And by her comment about the other guy, it seems as though this is a habit.

    There was a post on Perezhilton today of something similar. Matt Lauer should be ashamed of himself. At one point, he accuses her of saying "the news hates conservatives" (or something like that) and when she asks where she said that he doesn't know! Ha!

    What happened to the days of newscasters reporting the news?

    And I loved her comment about "the last seven kings of Swaziland"! Hilarious!! Ha!

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend



    GiGi wrote: Apparently I have been ignoring this nudnick because I had to google her. I know who she is and what she stands for but have decided to turn a deaf ear. So I just read a column of hers and refuse to be disgusted. But now that you mention it Jody, there is something about that Adam's Apple. I wonder if anyone's considered using it for archery target practice.

    That's the bulls-eye, GiGi!

    reply to Jodie
    send this answer to a friend



    Blondie wrote: Clearly, she walked off because the chick on the left was speaking over her. And by her comment about the other guy, it seems as though this is a habit. There was a post on Perezhilton today of something similar. Matt Lauer should be ashamed of himself. At one point, he accuses her of saying "the news hates conservatives" (or something like that) and when she asks where she said that he doesn't know! Ha! What happened to the days of newscasters reporting the news? And I loved her comment about "the last seven kings of Swaziland"! Hilarious!! Ha!

    Um, per a previous post, Coulter asked for the list, then proceeds to storm off in the middle of receiving it. Political debates are passionate, but should still honor the conversational "right of way."

    I am almost fascinated to see if you are determined to play Devil's advocate for this hateful clip:


    reply to fayeruz
    send this answer to a friend



    fayeruz wrote: Um, per a previous post, Coulter asked for the list, then proceeds to storm off in the middle of receiving it. Political debates are passionate, but should still honor the conversational "right of way." I am almost fascinated to see if you are determined to play Devil's advocate for this hateful clip:

    I don't know anything about the background of that video, so I have nothing to say. I also don't really care to investigate. I think Edwards is an idiot, and whatever I looked up would probably make me despise him more. Cheating on your cancer stricken wife is about as low as it gets.

    I really don't know much about Ann Coulter. I've never read her books and all I know is that she likes to be controversial and people really really hate her.

    But I do love the word "faggot". I reminds me of maggot. It is so dirty and effective! I think it is the ultimate insult to call a straight man.

    reply to Blondie
    send this answer to a friend



    I won't say this woman is frigid, but her initials are AC.

    reply to Calvin
    send this answer to a friend



    This blond's jaw wired shut and mouth duct-taped so blood pressure not rise too much and impair health..."Peaceful blue ocean, peaceful blue ocean, peaceful blue ocean..."

    reply to RockinGoldenGirl
    send this answer to a friend



    Thomas wrote: If Coulter were saying things that you all agreed with, you'd be calling her a strong woman, a best selling author, and successful columnist. You'd say that she speaks her mind regardless of the consequences and she doesn't care what people think of her, which is actually the truth----you would put it in a really positive light. The only reason you don't is because she is a republican, which is this dirty word right now, and hardly anyone here has the guts to stick for free speech and opposing viewpoints----it is much easier to simply bash someone and feel good about yourselves in your commonality. I'm an independent, but this is one huge gripe I have with the liberal side. In my experience, liberals never seem to stand up and stand for something that is unpopular around them. They always wait till they think they have numbers and it is safe. That's easy and gutless. Say what you want about Coulter---she actually really has the guts to say what she thinks----without media approval.

    She's a self-described polemicist, people. The more you bring her up, the stronger she gets. She's like some radioactive beast that feeds off of negative vibes. I'm not sure what radioactivity has to do with any of that, I just imagined a 20-story tall, glowing Conservative columnist who will simply refute things just for a little attention.

    Thing is, if you don't pay attention to her, like I do (or don't...whatever) she really seems to disappear.

    Also, to say that those who slander this woman are intolerant of a certain point of view - Coulter doesn't really contribute anything new to the dialogue of the times; she rather regurgitates cherry picked points of contention, and rambles on as offensively as she can muster.

    One can hardly take the woman seriously when she calls for the "carpet bomb(ing)" of the Middle East, and thus "convert(ing) them to Christianity". If this is a different point of view that we are supposed to take in, and appreciate for what they are, then political discourse in this nation could not possibly get lower. I'm all for the free exchange of ideas, democracy, bla bla bla - but is this a point of view that we want catching on? I think people are just in calling out Coulter for what she is.

    Anybody who gets off on creating such divisions between people, as she does, is nothing short of a scoundrel. Face it, when all is said and done (and written), she's essentially getting paid for getting people to scream at each other over the most mundane of issues - whether or not she should be vilified, or praised for her "ballsy" quips on political commentary. Again, she doesn't add anything to any ongoing debate, she's just there to throw around outlandish comments, and exact a very specific reaction. She's actually quite adept at taking the focus off of any given point of view at all.

    reply to Derek
    send this answer to a friend



    Blondie wrote: Knowing Ann, it is probably something about the breakdown of morals in our society. A quick google search implied there was something about "movies today promoting 'illegitimacy'". I'm guessing she has a problem with movies like "Knocked up". Why wouldn't illegitimate be legitimate? She is talking about children being born without a Mom and Dad living at home together as a family. I can't think of another word that would describe that as concisely as "illegitimate". The way you are headed with this reminds me of how "Negro" was once the preferred term. Then that somehow gained a negative connotation and "Black" was appropriate. Now, "African American" is the term we're supposed to use.

    Not even supposed to say African American, 'cause not all black people are from Africa..Sometimes, you just can't win with everyone..

    reply to Natalie
    send this answer to a friend


    Give advice or add a comment: