Obama was selected, not elected

[Little-Acorn]

Ann nails it again. Where is the mainstream media's concern and demands for the candidate who (supposedly) won the popular vote, to win the election? That sentiment was omnipresent in the 2000 election. Now, strangely, they seem to have changed their mind. For any particular reason?

-----------------------------------------------------

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/2162092:2444682592:m:3:99183601:FA44FD6173F5A5C7C5 289B67358F6F9C

Obama Was Selected, Not Elected

by Ann Coulter
Posted: 06/04/2008

Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).

Unbeknownst to liberals, who seem to imagine the Constitution is a treatise on gay marriage, our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all. (Don't fret Democrats: According to five liberals on the Supreme Court, you do have a right to sodomy and abortion!)

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

When you vote for president this fall, you will not be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain; you will be voting for an elector who pledges to cast his vote for Obama or McCain. (For those new Obama voters who may be reading, it's like voting for Paula, Randy or Simon to represent you, instead of texting your vote directly.)

Any state could abolish general elections for president tomorrow and have the legislature pick the electors. States could also abolish their winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors -- as Nebraska and Maine have already done, allowing their electors to be allocated in proportion to the popular vote. And of course there's always the option of voting electors off the island one by one.

If presidential elections were popular vote contests, Bush might have spent more than five minutes campaigning in big liberal states like California and New York. But under a winner-take-all regime, close doesn't count. If a Republican doesn't have a chance to actually win a state, he may as well lose in a landslide. Using the same logic, Gore didn't spend a lot of time campaigning in Texas (and Walter Mondale campaigned exclusively in Minnesota).

Consequently, under both the law and common sense, the famed "popular vote" is utterly irrelevant to presidential elections. It would be like the winner of "Miss Congeniality" claiming that title also made her "Miss America." Obviously, Bush might well have won the popular vote, but he would have used a completely different campaign strategy.

By contrast, there are no constitutional rules to follow with party primaries. Primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election.

Hillary's argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn't exist. That's a station that depends entirely on "superviewers.")

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was "selected, not elected," this is a shocking about-face. Apparently unaware of the new party line that the popular vote amounts to nothing more than warm spit, just last week HBO ran its movie "Recount," about the 2000 Florida election, the premise of which is that sneaky Republicans stole the presidency from popular vote champion Al Gore. (Despite massive publicity, the movie bombed, with only about 1 million viewers, so now HBO is demanding a "recount.")

So where is Kevin Spacey from HBO's "Recount," to defend Hillary, shouting: "WHO WON THIS PRIMARY?"

In the Democrats' "1984" world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging on crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[crin63]

Ann nails it again. Where is the mainstream media's concern and demands for the candidate who (supposedly) won the popular vote, to win the election? That sentiment was omnipresent in the 2000 election. Now, strangely, they seem to have changed their mind. For any particular reason?


I read this article last night. She is right on again.

I love Ann Coulter.

[Little-Acorn]

Democrats can use any method they want, of course, to select their nominee, just as Republicans and other parties do. Proportional, winner-takes-all in each state, or whatever.

But it's odd that when one of them loses by the rules, their reaction is so often that the rules were wrong and we should change them. And this inevitably comes after the contest is started, or even after all voting is finished. No attention is paid to the fact that they had agreed to those rules before the contest.

They want change, not because they thought the rules are wrong, but because they lost and are trying to cheat and pretend they "won" anyway.

Hillary and her supporters are making an astonishing spectacle of themselves, every time they point out that "she won the popular vote". Why didn't she voice this back when she agreed to rules saying the delegate count was the deciding criteria?

Her goal is not to run a fair election. It's to get power, using any method she can. She apparently thinks the U.S. is a third-world country where such things are accepted as the norm. Or else she is trying to turn it into one.

[DragonStryk72]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91106472


The Clinton campaign maintains that she is ahead in the popular vote. This is only true if the disputed Michigan numbers (where Obama was not on the ballot) are counted — and if four caucus states won by Obama are not counted.

Sorry, but Ann is wrong again, just like Moore keeps sticking his head up his own ass. This is true of all pundits, they take the "facts" that agree with their arguement, and discard or manipulate the others.

[retiredman]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91106472



Sorry, but Ann is wrong again, just like Moore keeps sticking his head up his own ass. This is true of all pundits, they take the "facts" that agree with their arguement, and discard or manipulate the others.

little details like that mean nothing to the coultergeist when she is on rant!

[glockmail]

....

I love Ann Coulter.

I'm In Love With Ann Coulter

She's got blond hair, long legs
And a powerful intellect
She's a writer, a real fighter
You could say she's on the cutting edge
And she captures my heart
When she tears libs apart
And now I must confess things as they are

Chorus
I'm in love with Ann Coulter
All I wanna do is hold her
And have her read her books to me
Just like she does in my dreams
I wonder if she's got a boyfriend
Cause my girlfriend's leaving
She says I'm living in a fantasy
Even she can see it's over
I'm in love with Ann Coulter

And every time I see her on my television screen
She looks into my eyes I know she's talking straight to me

I'm in love with Ann Coulter
All I wanna do is hold her
And have her read her books to me
Just like she does in my dreams
I've been memorizing pages
I've been driving liberals crazy
I bet I've quoted half her book at work
To those godless jerks who can't debate me
And there's so much I haven't told her
But by the day I'm getting bolder
I just know that she would fall for me
If only I could get to know her
'Cause I'm in love with Ann Coulter
I'm in love with Ann Coulter

Repeat Chorus

Written by Frank Highland and Aaron Sain.
© 2006 Friday Group Music (ASCAP) & PoolGuy Music (ASCAP).
All Rights Reserved / International Copyright Secured.

http://www.therightbrothers.com/index2.php

[retiredman]

Democrats can use any method they want, of course, to select their nominee, just as Republicans and other parties do. Proportional, winner-takes-all in each state, or whatever.

But it's odd that when one of them loses by the rules, their reaction is so often that the rules were wrong and we should change them. And this inevitably comes after the contest is started, or even after all voting is finished. No attention is paid to the fact that they had agreed to those rules before the contest.

They want change, not because they thought the rules are wrong, but because they lost and are trying to cheat and pretend they "won" anyway.

Hillary and her supporters are making an astonishing spectacle of themselves, every time they point out that "she won the popular vote". Why didn't she voice this back when she agreed to rules saying the delegate count was the deciding criteria?

Her goal is not to run a fair election. It's to get power, using any method she can. She apparently thinks the U.S. is a third-world country where such things are accepted as the norm. Or else she is trying to turn it into one.


I agree that Hillary's behavior regarding MI and FL was deplorable.
She lost.
That's a good thing.
IMHO

[crin63]

I'm In Love With Ann Coulter

She's got blond hair, long legs
And a powerful intellect
She's a writer, a real fighter
You could say she's on the cutting edge
And she captures my heart
When she tears libs apart
And now I must confess things as they are

Chorus
I'm in love with Ann Coulter
All I wanna do is hold her
And have her read her books to me
Just like she does in my dreams
I wonder if she's got a boyfriend
Cause my girlfriend's leaving
She says I'm living in a fantasy
Even she can see it's over
I'm in love with Ann Coulter

And every time I see her on my television screen
She looks into my eyes I know she's talking straight to me

I'm in love with Ann Coulter
All I wanna do is hold her
And have her read her books to me
Just like she does in my dreams
I've been memorizing pages
I've been driving liberals crazy
I bet I've quoted half her book at work
To those godless jerks who can't debate me
And there's so much I haven't told her
But by the day I'm getting bolder
I just know that she would fall for me
If only I could get to know her
'Cause I'm in love with Ann Coulter
I'm in love with Ann Coulter

Repeat Chorus

Written by Frank Highland and Aaron Sain.
© 2006 Friday Group Music (ASCAP) & PoolGuy Music (ASCAP).
All Rights Reserved / International Copyright Secured.

http://www.therightbrothers.com/index2.php

THATS AWESOME!!!! I'm ordering their CD. THANKS!!!!

[glockmail]

THATS AWESOME!!!! I'm ordering their CD. THANKS!!!!
I don't think they do CDs. Only downloads.

[Hagbard Celine]

I'm In Love With Ann Coulter

She's got blond hair, long legs
And a powerful intellect
She's a writer, a real fighter
You could say she's on the cutting edge
And she captures my heart
When she tears libs apart
And now I must confess things as they are

Chorus
I'm in love with Ann Coulter
All I wanna do is hold her
And have her read her books to me
Just like she does in my dreams
I wonder if she's got a boyfriend
Cause my girlfriend's leaving
She says I'm living in a fantasy
Even she can see it's over
I'm in love with Ann Coulter

And every time I see her on my television screen
She looks into my eyes I know she's talking straight to me

I'm in love with Ann Coulter
All I wanna do is hold her
And have her read her books to me
Just like she does in my dreams
I've been memorizing pages
I've been driving liberals crazy
I bet I've quoted half her book at work
To those godless jerks who can't debate me
And there's so much I haven't told her
But by the day I'm getting bolder
I just know that she would fall for me
If only I could get to know her
'Cause I'm in love with Ann Coulter
I'm in love with Ann Coulter

Repeat Chorus

Written by Frank Highland and Aaron Sain.
© 2006 Friday Group Music (ASCAP) & PoolGuy Music (ASCAP).
All Rights Reserved / International Copyright Secured.

http://www.therightbrothers.com/index2.php

She looks like a horse--and that's my dick talking. Nevermind that she's a lunatic rightwing extremist who makes stuff up and is constantly proven wrong in public.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X5z5-EYaALE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X5z5-EYaALE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AZLfLmncPEc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AZLfLmncPEc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1YyjrhvmDM8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1YyjrhvmDM8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[hjmick]

I don't think they do CDs. Only downloads.

The music isn't too bad.

[glockmail]

She looks like a horse--and that's my dick talking. Nevermind that she's a lunatic rightwing extremist.
Must you fantasize about bestiality again?

[glockmail]

The music isn't too bad. Shut up and Teach is the best.

[crin63]

I don't think they do CDs. Only downloads.

It looks like they have 4 CD's. The Liberal Bonfire Kit looks pretty cool.

[Little-Acorn]

Is Coulter saying that she believes Hillary has won the popular vote? Or is she saying that HILLARY believes she has won the popular vote?

As I recall, several states never even released their popular vote totals, only the number of delegates won. Maybe these were the caucus states the NPR article mentions? I also recall that some TV newsreader said they were taking the delegate counts those states had released, and working backward to guess what the popular vote must have been. Hell of a way to run a railroad if you ask me.

But whether Hillary actually won the popular vote, isn't even the point. The point of Coulter's article is to display that in 2000, the media screamed loud and long that someone who won the popular vote, should be given the election, despite Constitutional requirements to the contrary. But now in 2008, suddenly the person who (claims to have) won the popular vote, is being ignored or even derided by that same media, while the person who won the delegate count is being proclaimed the nominee.

Of course, the media is getting it right in 2008, and wrong in 2000. Coulter's main point here, is that the media and other Democrats (sorry for the redundancy) DON'T CARE WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT. They care only about getting their favorite into office.

They haughtily cite the DNC rules now saying that the person with the most delegates wins, when that gets their golden boy (Obama) into the nomination. But when their golden boy (Gore) lost according to the rules in 2000, they had no problem screaming how terrible the rules (Electoral college, state vote-counting deadlines etc.) were, and encouraging that they be ignored and/or broken to alter the outcome of the election in their favor.

That's what Coulter was emphasizing: How glaringly obvious it was that the supposedly-nonpartisan news media takes sides hugely in our elections, and even tries to alter their outcome when there is the slightes chance they may succeed.

We can tolerate that (somewhat) from our elected officials. At least they are SUPPOSED to be on their own side, obviously. But the media isn't supposed to be. And if the elected officials get so sleazy that they try to illegally alter the outcome of an election (as Gore tried to, only to be stopped by the courts), at least we can vote them out later. What ballot do I mark to kick out Pinch Sulzberger? Or the "journalists" on the LA Times?

People often take an Ann Coulter story and try to find some small, unimportant detail she got wrong (if she did); and then try to pretend that somehow discredits all the rest of the article that she got right. Looks like it's happening again (yawn). Fortunately, sensible people can see both the forest AND the trees, and apreciate the valid and well-documented points she is actually making.

Hillary is bringing disgrace to the office she is trying to achieve, by demagoguing the idea that since she won the popular vote (if she even did) she somehow deserves the office, effectively changing the rules she had agreed to before voting started.

But the news media is bringing something far worse to the arena, by flagrantly taking sides in supposed "news" articles while trying to convince people they weren't doing that.

[midcan5]

I'm In Love With Mr Coulter

(S)he's got blond hair, long legs
And no brain
She's a liar, a real whiner
You could say she's on the edge
But she captures my heart
When she tears reality apart
And now I must confess it her manliness
that makes me heart beat pitterpatter

Chorus
I'm in love with Mr Coulter
All I want to do is hold her strong arms
And have her tell me she's a he
Just like she does in my dreams
I wonder if she's got any friends
Cause my girlfriend's leaving
I'm a switch hitter
I'm living in a fantasy
I'm in love with Mr Coulter

And every time I see her on my TV screen
I grab my crotch like MJ

I'm in love with Mr Coulter
All I want to do is hold her muscular body tight
And have her read her idiocy to me
Just like she does in my dreams
I've been memorizing pages
I've been driving myself crazy
I bet I've quoted half her junk
To those godless jerks who think I'm nuts
And there's so much I haven't told her
But by the day I'm getting bolder
I just know that he would fall for me
If only I could get to know her
'Cause I'm in love with Mr Coulter
I'm in love with Mr Coulter

[Hagbard Celine]

Must you fantasize about bestiality again?

Trust me when I tell you that I've never fantasized about Coulter. :poke:

[glockmail]

It looks like they have 4 CD's. The Liberal Bonfire Kit looks pretty cool. I didn't realize that. I'll have to order one and bring it as a housewarming gift to my lib friend when I go up to see her next weekend. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Trust me when I tell you that I've never fantasized about Coulter. :poke:
If she was a lib and closer to your age you'd be all over it. I, on the other hand, don't let politics get in the way of my eyeballs.

[midcan5]

Trust me when I tell you that I've never fantasized about Coulter.

So true, imagine her sitting opposite you and strange ideas pop in my head, what the hell is this thing in front of me and his evolution reversed its course! I have a hard time imagining a man saying to her I love you or her saying it back. The persona of witch is just too strong.

[glockmail]

I'm In Love With Mr Coulter

....'Cause I'm in love with Mr Coulter
I'm in love with Mr Coulter So you're gay. :lame2:

[glockmail]

So true, imagine her sitting opposite you and strange ideas pop in my head, what the hell is this thing in front of me and his evolution reversed its course! I have a hard time imagining a man saying to her I love you or her saying it back. The persona of witch is just too strong. And Hillary?:lol:

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the usual leftists are doing the usual hijacking of the thread (helped by glock), calling Coulter names and insulting her rather than addressing the (valid) points she made:

Hillary is bringing disgrace to the office she is trying to achieve, by demagoguing the idea that since she won the popular vote (if she even did) she somehow deserves the office, effectively changing the rules she had agreed to before voting started.

But the news media is bringing something far worse to the arena, by flagrantly taking sides in supposed "news" articles while trying to convince people they weren't doing that.

[glockmail]

.....she's a lunatic rightwing extremist who makes stuff up and is constantly proven wrong in public.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X5z5-EYaALE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X5z5-EYaALE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Despite the repeated denials by CBC's interviewer, Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. The facts are well-documented and beyond dispute. The interviewer constantly repeats his assertions, but no other source supports them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lou_Sander/Canadian_Troops

[midcan5]

So you're gay. :lame2:

I bet you thought this song was about you.....

from the horses mouth, and she does resemble a horse.

"I'm more of a man than any liberal." [note she didn't enlist.]

COULTER: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

[midcan5]

Even her voice is irritating, it does demonstrate after Safire, Buckely, Will, the far right took over and made a good case for ignorance.

[Dilloduck]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91106472



Sorry, but Ann is wrong again, just like Moore keeps sticking his head up his own ass. This is true of all pundits, they take the "facts" that agree with their arguement, and discard or manipulate the others.

Wrong about what?

[glockmail]

I bet you thought this song was about you.....

from the horses mouth, and she does resemble a horse.

"I'm more of a man than any liberal." [note she didn't enlist.]

COULTER: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” Aww- did she hurt your feelings? :laugh2:

[Hagbard Celine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lou_Sander/Canadian_Troops

Nope. The sent a small number of peace-keeping troops there in 1973. That's it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War

They took an officially "non-beligerant" stance on the war. That's why US draftees were able to avoid being sent into the meat grinder by going to Canada.

[Hagbard Celine]

If she was a lib and closer to your age you'd be all over it. I, on the other hand, don't let politics get in the way of my eyeballs.

She's ugly man--politics aside. Too much negativity shows on her sallow face.

[Hagbard Celine]

So true, imagine her sitting opposite you and strange ideas pop in my head, what the hell is this thing in front of me and his evolution reversed its course! I have a hard time imagining a man saying to her I love you or her saying it back. The persona of witch is just too strong.

She's probably insufferable to be around. Probably talks politics 24-hours a day. What a drag man. She'll die single. Even Bill Maher dumped her ass.

[retiredman]

If she's a girl, she is a TS girl....

I actually think she might still be pre-op and have to tuck the sack back.

In any case, she looks like a horse.

[gabosaurus]

Shouldn't someone remind Ann that she vowed not to vote for McCain? Is she going to toss the pig slop against both candidates?

[Hagbard Celine]

Shouldn't someone remind Ann that she vowed not to vote for McCain? Is she going to toss the pig slop against both candidates?

She'll change her tune and do whatever it takes to stay in the headlines because she's a media whore.

[glockmail]

Nope. The sent a small number of peace-keeping troops there in 1973. That's it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War

They took an officially "non-beligerant" stance on the war. That's why US draftees were able to avoid being sent into the meat grinder by going to Canada.


In other words, Coulter was right, and her interviewer was wrong. Yet the "record" as cited by you is different.

I wonder why that is?

[Silver]

Love how the thread has deteriorated into its usual left-wing personal attack on the messenger.... Ann is 100% correct in her editorial and the fact you left wing morons have nothing to counter her opinion with, is obviious....

You all cried for years about how Gore won the election because of the popular vote and now that its poor Hillary making that claim shes told its foolish....

And it is foolish...now, just as it was when YOU making that claim about the Bush and Gore election.....

Do carry on though...the hypocrisy of liberal Dims is entertaining if nothing else...

[Little-Acorn]

Love how the thread has deteriorated into its usual left-wing personal attack on the messenger.... Ann is 100% correct in her editorial and the fact you left wing morons have nothing to counter her opinion with, is obviious....


When the leftists have nothing to say, but are sulky and upset and feel they must say something anyway, that's what they usually come up with.

[Hagbard Celine]

In other words, Coulter was right, and her interviewer was wrong. Yet the "record" as cited by you is different.

I wonder why that is?

No. Coulter's position was that Canada was behind us when we went to Vietnam and that they sent troops in the way they did in Iraq. They didn't. Canada never joined-in the Vietnam War.

[Hagbard Celine]

When the leftists have nothing to say, but are sulky and upset and feel they must say something anyway, that's what they usually come up with.

Whatever man. You wish. Coulter is like a baying dog. Her "opinions" shoot themselves down better than I ever could and it's sad that you actually buy into them.

[Hagbard Celine]

Love how the thread has deteriorated into its usual left-wing personal attack on the messenger.... Ann is 100% correct in her editorial and the fact you left wing morons have nothing to counter her opinion with, is obviious....

You all cried for years about how Gore won the election because of the popular vote and now that its poor Hillary making that claim shes told its foolish....

And it is foolish...now, just as it was when YOU making that claim about the Bush and Gore election.....

Do carry on though...the hypocrisy of liberal Dims is entertaining if nothing else...

What I love is how you assume you know what my thoughts are. :poke:

[Little-Acorn]

No. Coulter's position was that Canada was behind us when we went to Vietnam and that they sent troops in the way they did in Iraq. They didn't. Canada never joined-in the Vietnam War.

Glock, you might ask little haggy to back this up rather than taking his word on ANYTHING Coulter supposedly said.

[Little-Acorn]

Through all the personal attacks and denigration of Coulter, her points still remain undisputed, to no one's surprise:

Hillary is bringing disgrace to the office she is trying to achieve, by demagoguing the idea that since she won the popular vote (if she even did) she somehow deserves the office, effectively changing the rules she had agreed to before voting started.

But the news media is bringing something far worse to the arena, by flagrantly taking sides in supposed "news" articles while trying to convince people they weren't doing that.

[gabosaurus]

She's probably insufferable to be around. Probably talks politics 24-hours a day. What a drag man. She'll die single. Even Bill Maher dumped her ass.

Actually, it is the complete opposite. Men find Coulter to be attractive and very conversational. Her private persona is reported to be quite different to her public one. Sort of like the Alice Cooper of media.
A liberal source looking for dirt tried talking to a few of Coulter's former flames. They had very little bad to say about her.
When pinned down once about dating a Democrat, Coulter said "my politics stop at the bedroom door."

Kudos to Ann for being able to keep her private and professional lives different.

[Little-Acorn]

Kudoes to Gabby for reporting on Coulter straightforwardly. Tried to rep you but I have to spread some more around, it says.

Actually, Coulter is attractive and conversational in public, too. Only when someone tries to bullshit her, such as a liberal being hypocritical or making claims that can't possibly work or that he can't back up, does she get out the long knife.

[Silver]

What I love is how you assume you know what my thoughts are. :poke:

You ? Who the hell is talking to YOU....not me thats for sure....

unless I actually make a specific reference to Hag...consider the pronouns in the 'collective' sense.....

But you view from the liberal, Dimocrat perspective, so in a way, I can, with some accuracy guess what you thoughts are....:poke:

[glockmail]

No. Coulter's position was that Canada was behind us when we went to Vietnam and that they sent troops in the way they did in Iraq. They didn't. Canada never joined-in the Vietnam War. From my earlier link:
The interview is presented as an "outspoken opinion based on misconception," and the implication is that those words apply to Ann Coulter. But the outspoken opinion was actually expressed by the host: "No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam; Canada did not send troops to Vietnam; No. Canada...Second World War, of course, Korea, yes...; Vietnam, no, took a pass on Vietnam; No. Australia was there, not Canada; but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam." Was the host's direct and insistent (=outspoken) opinion based on a misconception? Yes it was. For the record, Canada DID send troops to Vietnam (see specifics below).

Other than a few words about international threats and friendship, and her illustrative point that "Canada sent troops to Vietnam," Coulter's opinion was limited to polite responses to the host's outspoken challenge: "I don’t think that’s right; Indochina?; I think you’re wrong; I think Canada sent troops; I’ll get back to you on that." Do these words express an "outspoken opinion?" Absolutely not. Were they based on a misconception? Not if Canada sent troops to Vietnam, they weren't. And for the record, Canada DID send troops to Vietnam.

This was the clip that you cited, and this was what happened. The interviewer was wrong, and Coulter was right.