I swear to God, the woman is a card-carrying KKK member.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4610

She's a nut, and a liability to the Republican party. Even uber-nuts like Rush Limbaugh have said as much.

she's a terrible person and she's a symbol of all that is wrong with teh republican party


what's with all the "pretty girl" comments? does she mean "shallow girls"?

she stands for everything that i am against in teh known universe

isn't she the one that said we should have bombed the shit out of afghanistan and then convert all the survivors into christianity?

what a fucking loon.

yeah. in her defense, she's not being serious, and she tries to be funny, but just ... isn't.

I agree with most of what's in this thread. Coulter is a kook, more or less, and often hurts the right more often than not. But, I think USA Today are the ones who come out of this mess looking bad. If the USA Today "comments" in Coulter's article are true, then basically you're seeing that the editors either didn't like or understand some of Ms. Coulter's political humor. It must be noted, the article was rambling and barely coherent, but not atypical of Coulter's style. Its like they never read any of her work before they hired her on.

I could fully understand why USA Today would not want to publish the article based on its rambling nature, but it seems that a lot of the comments were based on her content. If readability was the only concern, that'd be peachy, but there was lot of chastising in the editors' comments that Coulter *******d in her article about her tone, or her sarcasm, or whether her jokes were funny. The column could have been made more readable without touching any of these things.

USA Today is perfectly in their rights not to publish anything if they don't want to, but it does seem kinda odd that they go out to find a "conservative" columnist to provide an "opposing" view of the Convention, and then sack her once they find out her view is a little too "opposing" for their tastes.

Oh well. Score one for the "conservative media."

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
yeah. in her defense, she's not being serious, and she tries to be funny, but just ... isn't.

I DON'T GET IT.

Originally posted by Corganist

I could fully understand why USA Today would not want to publish the article based on its rambling nature, but it seems that a lot of the comments were based on her content. If readability was the only concern, that'd be peachy, but there was lot of chastising in the editors' comments that Coulter *******d in her article about her tone, or her sarcasm, or whether her jokes were funny. The column could have been made more readable without touching any of these things.

what the fuck are you talking about? do you even know? NONE of the usa today comments in that link were about her content. ALL of them were about her crap ass writing style and inability to get her point across clearly.


Originally posted by Corganist

Oh well. Score one for the "conservative media."

USA Today: IS THAT LAST SENTENCE SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME.

exactly.

How does she better society? Seriously? She thinks having a law degree gives he some supreme right to character assasination? She went to impressive schools, but so did her pimp (that skirt short the way the 'ol boy network likes it, Barbie doll?)

Honestly, she is an individual who is so much more the Uber Bitch than Hillary....all you have to do is look at the agenda's of these women - one dedicates a life to child advocacy law, works to at least present a solution to healthcare (it failed, but she did more than just talk about it), I mean, it looks like Coulter worked in a firm that defends freedom of speech, yet when someone questions the war she labels half the country as treasonous?

Originally posted by Debaser


what the fuck are you talking about? do you even know? NONE of the usa today comments in that link were about her content. ALL of them were about her crap ass writing style and inability to get her point across clearly.

No. Of the seven USA Today comments in the article, four of were in the nature of "I DON'T GET IT." There was not a lack of communication here. The article sucked, I will readily admit. But the parts that the USA Today editors didn't "get" were pretty clear.

I mean really, did she have to go in depth with what she meant by the phrase "French party?" Are the editors of USA Today so disconnected from the hardcore uber-conservative mindset that Ann Coulter epitomizes that they don't know what France symbolizes to such people? I find that hard to believe. They hired the woman. They had a rough idea of what they were going to get. They may not have expected such a poorly written piece...but its ridiculous if they really did not "get" some of the (attempted and/or failed) humor she was trying to get across.

A poorly written article can be salvaged without gutting the meaning. The editors "got" the meaning, they just didn't like it. Either that or they're just inept for letting the whole thing fly over their heads without finding a way to make it coherent. Either way, Coulter was just doing her usual half-nutty routine. USA Today is the one who has the egg on their face in the end.

Originally posted by Corganist


No. Of the seven USA Today comments in the article, four of were in the nature of "I DON'T GET IT." There was not a lack of communication here. The article sucked, I will readily admit. But the parts that the USA Today editors didn't "get" were pretty clear.

I mean really, did she have to go in depth with what she meant by the phrase "French party?" Are the editors of USA Today so disconnected from the hardcore uber-conservative mindset that Ann Coulter epitomizes that they don't know what France symbolizes to such people? I find that hard to believe. They hired the woman. They had a rough idea of what they were going to get. They may not have expected such a poorly written piece...but its ridiculous if they really did not "get" some of the (attempted and/or failed) humor she was trying to get across.

A poorly written article can be salvaged without gutting the meaning. The editors "got" the meaning, they just didn't like it. Either that or they're just inept for letting the whole thing fly over their heads without finding a way to make it coherent. Either way, Coulter was just doing her usual half-nutty routine. USA Today is the one who has the egg on their face in the end.

So USA Today says "I don't get it" but you say "no, they did" and that's your arguement? SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Originally posted by Corganist


No. Of the seven USA Today comments in the article, four of were in the nature of "I DON'T GET IT." There was not a lack of communication here. The article sucked, I will readily admit. But the parts that the USA Today editors didn't "get" were pretty clear.

I mean really, did she have to go in depth with what she meant by the phrase "French party?" Are the editors of USA Today so disconnected from the hardcore uber-conservative mindset that Ann Coulter epitomizes that they don't know what France symbolizes to such people? I find that hard to believe. They hired the woman. They had a rough idea of what they were going to get. They may not have expected such a poorly written piece...but its ridiculous if they really did not "get" some of the (attempted and/or failed) humor she was trying to get across.

A poorly written article can be salvaged without gutting the meaning. The editors "got" the meaning, they just didn't like it. Either that or they're just inept for letting the whole thing fly over their heads without finding a way to make it coherent. Either way, Coulter was just doing her usual half-nutty routine. USA Today is the one who has the egg on their face in the end.

If USA Today had printed a page consisting nothing more than a close-up of a smegma-covered scrotum, it would've been far more fortuitous for them than if they'd printed that article. Regardless of their stupid choice to enlist her in the first place, any opportunity to nix an Ann Coulter article -- regardless of the rationale behind it -- is a good one.

The woman is an uncivil cunt. And this coming from a man who uses the word "cunt" in reference to women.