User talk:Bradkoch2007/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Bradkoch2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have given me terribly bad luck

I wanted to explain a comment I left on a talk page. I got carried away and I sometimes like to review democrat articles and then go to the talk page and then trounce on a liberal and rip them apart. Wikipedia has about 50 times more liberals than conservatives. And with wikipedia's concensus policy it only takes 11 liberals to outnumber 1 conservative, 3 moderate republics, 3 moderate democrats, and 3 independents. Look at the Anne Coulter article, by click this box...

<Click to the right>

Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Born (1961-12-08) December 8, 1961 New York City, USA Occupation(s) author, columnist, political commentator Website http://www.anncoulter.com Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American conservative political commentator, syndicated columnist, and best-selling author. She frequently appears on television, radio and as a speaker at public and private events. Known for her controversial and confrontational style, Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and, unlike broadcasters, does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced." User talk page categories I have disabled the categories within the discussion on this page. I found your user talk page listed in those categories. Using talk page space as a sandbox is a great way to work collaboratively, but try to leave the categories non-functional until you take it to mainspace. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Early life Ann Hart Coulter was born to John Vincent Coulter, an Attorney for Phelps Dodge (Albany, New York, May 5, 1926 - New Canaan, Connecticut, January 4, 2008) and wife (married at Stuyvesant, New York, September 30, 1953) Nell Husbands Martin (Paducah, Kentucky, February 23, 1928 -). After her birth in New York City, New York, the family moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, where Coulter and her two older brothers, James and John, were raised. She has described her family as "upper middle class" and has termed her attorney father a "union buster". He was a nine-year FBI agent who worked on the William Remington espionage case and, later as a labor lawyer was involved in defeating a 1983-1985 strike by the United Steelworkers against the Phelps Dodge copper company that ended with 30 locals being decertified. As an undergraduate at Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review, and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity. She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984, and received her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review. At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center. After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan and helped craft legislation designed to expedite the deportation of aliens convicted of felonies. She later became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights. Personal life Coulter has been engaged several times, but never married. She has dated Spin founder and publisher Bob Guccione, Jr., and conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza. In October 2007, she began dating Andrew Stein, the former president of the New York City Council, a liberal Democrat. When asked about the relationship, Stein told the paper, "She's attacked a lot of my friends, but what can I say, opposites attract!" On January 7, 2008, however, Stein told the New York Post that the relationship was over, citing irreconcilable differences. Coulter owns both a condominium in Manhattan and a house, bought in 2005, in Palm Beach, Florida. Although she says that usually she lives in New York, she votes in Palm Beach and is not registered to do so in New York. She is a fan of the Grateful Dead, and some of her favorite books include The Bible, Wuthering Heights, Anna Karenina, true crime stories about serial killers and anything by Dave Barry. Media career Known for her polemical style, Coulter has been described by The Observer as, "the Republican Michael Moore" and "Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt." Television and radio Coulter made her first national media appearance in 1996 after she was hired by the then-fledgling network MSNBC as a legal correspondent. Time said this about her tenure there: The network dismissed her at least twice: first in February 1997, after she insulted the late Pamela Harriman, the U.S. Ambassador to France, even as the network was covering her somber memorial service.... Even so, the network missed Coulter's jousting and quickly rehired her. Eight months later, Coulter's relationship with MSNBC ended permanently after she tangled with a disabled Vietnam veteran on the air. Robert Muller, co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, asserted that "in 90% of the cases that U.S. soldiers got blown up [in Vietnam]—Ann, are you listening—they were our own mines." (Muller was misquoting a 1969 Pentagon report that found that 90% of the components used in enemy mines came from U.S. duds and refuse.) Coulter, who found Muller's statement laughable, averted her eyes and responded sarcastically: "No wonder you guys lost." It became an infamous—and oft-misreported—Coulter moment. The Washington Post and others turned the line into a more personal attack: "People like you caused us to lose that war." But her troubles with MSNBC only freed her to appear on CNN and Fox News Channel, whose producers were often calling. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post made a point to respond to the Time article to explain that his widely quoted reporting of Coulter's reply to the veteran in an article he wrote had its origin in Coulter's own later recollection of the incident. Describing his previous story, Kurtz added, "I did note that, according to Coulter, the vet was appearing by satellite, and she didn't know he was disabled." Coulter has made frequent guest appearances on many television and radio talk shows, including The Today Show, Hannity and Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor, American Morning, Crossfire, Real Time with Bill Maher, Politically Incorrect, The Fifth Estate, The Sean Hannity Show, The Rush Limbaugh Show, and Mike Gallagher. In 2005, Coulter appeared as one of a three-person judging panel in The Greatest American, a four-part interactive television program for the Discovery Channel hosted by Matt Lauer. Starting with 100 nominees, each week interactive viewer voting eliminated candidates. Films In 2004, Coulter appeared in three films. The first was Feeding the Beast, a made-for-television documentary on the "24-Hour News Revolution". The other two films were FahrenHYPE 9/11, a direct to video documentary intended to rebut Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, and Is It True What They Say About Ann?, a documentary on Coulter containing clips of interviews and speeches. In 2006, Coulter refused permission to include a scene featuring herself and Al Franken in a debate in Connecticut in Franken's film, Al Franken: God Spoke. Books See also: Category:Books by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter. Coulter is the author of six books, all of which have appeared on New York Times Best Seller list. Coulter's first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (ISBN 0-89526-113-8), was published by Regnery Publishing in 1998. The book details Coulter's case for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Coulter's second book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (ISBN 1-4000-4661-0), published by Crown Forum in 2002, remained number one on The New York Times Best Seller list for seven weeks. In Slander, Coulter argues that President George W. Bush was given unfair negative media coverage. In Coulter's third book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (ISBN 1-4000-5030-8), also published by Crown Forum, Coulter reexamines the 60-year history of the Cold War — including the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Whittaker Chambers–Alger Hiss affair, and Ronald Reagan’s challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" — and argues that liberals were wrong in their Cold War political analyses and policy decisions, and that McCarthy was correct about Soviet agents working for the U.S. government. She also argues that the correct identification of Annie Lee Moss, among others, as Communists was misreported by that liberal media. Treason was published in 2003, and spent 13 weeks on the Best Seller list. Crown Forum published a collection of Coulter's columns in 2004 as her fourth book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (ISBN 1-4000-5418-4). Coulter's fifth book, published by Crown Forum in 2006, is Godless: The Church of Liberalism (ISBN 1-4000-5420-6). Coulter argues, first, that liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, and second, that it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. Godless debuted at number one on The New York Times Best Seller list. Coulter's most recent book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, was published in October, 2007. Columns In the late 1990s, Coulter's weekly (biweekly from 1999-2000) syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate began appearing. Her column is featured on six conservative websites: Human Events Online, WorldNetDaily, Townhall.com, FrontPageMag, Jewish World Review and her own website. Her syndicator says, "Ann's client newspapers stick with her because she has a loyal fan base of conservative readers who look forward to reading her columns in their local newspapers." Her column on her personal website, anncoulter.com, is also permanently linked to by the Drudge Report web page. In 1999, Coulter worked as a regular columnist for George magazine. Coulter also wrote exclusive weekly columns between 1998 and 2003 and with occasional columns thereafter for the conservative magazine Human Events. In her columns for the magazine, she discusses judicial rulings, Constitutional issues, and legal matters affecting Congress and the executive branch. Overall, Coulter's columns are highly critical of liberals and Democrats. In one, she wrote: This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security. To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror — absolutely in favor of that war — they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians", even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war. Reactions from publishers In 2001, as a contributing editor and syndicated columnist for National Review Online (NRO), Coulter was asked by editors to make changes to a piece written after the September 11 attacks. On the national television show Politically Incorrect, Coulter accused NRO of censorship and said that she was paid $5 per article. NRO dropped her column and terminated her editorship. Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of NRO, said, "We did not 'fire' Ann for what she wrote... we ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty [concerning the editing disagreement]." Coulter contracted with USA Today to cover the 2004 Democratic National Convention. She wrote one article that began, "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston..." and referred to some unspecified female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons." The newspaper declined to print the article citing an editing dispute over "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable." An explanatory article by the paper went on to say "Coulter told the online edition of Editor & Publisher magazine that 'USA Today doesn't like my "tone", humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them.'" USA Today replaced Coulter with Jonah Goldberg, and Coulter published it instead on her website. In August 2005, the Arizona Daily Star dropped Coulter's syndicated column citing reader complaints that "Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives." In July 2006, some newspapers replaced Coulter's column with those of other conservative columnists following the publication of her fourth book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. After the Augusta Chronicle dropped her column, newspaper editor Michael Ryan explained that "it came to the point where she was the issue rather than what she was writing about." Ryan also stated that "Pulling Ann Coulter's column hurts; she's one of the clearest thinkers around." Public appearances Coulter is a frequent public speaker, particularly on college campuses, receiving both praise and protest. During an appearance at the University of Arizona, a pie was thrown at her.Coulter has, on occasion, responded with insulting remarks towards hecklers and protestors who attend her speeches. Religious views Coulter says that she holds Christian beliefs, but has not declared her membership in any particular denomination; she has mentioned that her father was Catholic while her mother was not. At one public lecture she said: "I don't care about anything else: Christ died for my sins and nothing else matters." In a 2004 column, she summarized her view of Christianity: "Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it." She then mocked "the message of Jesus ... according to liberals," summarising it as "...something along the lines of 'be nice to people'," which, in turn, she said "is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity". Confronting some critics' views that her content and style of writing is un-Christian, Coulter has stated that "I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it." She has also said: "... Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy — you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism." In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, as well as in personal appearances, Coulter characterized the theory of evolution as "bogus science", and contrasting her beliefs to what she called the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death." On October 8, 2007, Coulter ignited yet more controversy when she was quoted as saying that Jews should be "perfected" into Christians. She was talking about Republicans with Donny Deutsch, a Jewish CNBC talk-show host, and implied that she considered Christianity a virtue. Deutsch asked her, "It would be better if we were all Christian?", to which Coulter replied "Yes". Deutsch asked her, "We should all be Christian?", and got the same response, with an invitation to come to church. Later on, Coulter said, "we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say", saying that this was what Christianity was, and she compared the 'New Testament to Federal Express. Further, Coulter said that Christians considered themselves to be perfected Jews. Deutsch implied that this was an anti-Semitic remark, but Coulter said she didn't consider it to be a hateful comment. Political activities Ann Coulter. Coulter's political activities have included advising a plaintiff suing President Bill Clinton and considering a run for Congress. The Paula Jones – Bill Clinton case Coulter debuted as a public figure shortly before becoming an unpaid legal advisor for the attorneys representing Paula Jones in her sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton. Coulter's friend George Conway had been asked to assist Jones' attorneys, and shortly afterward Coulter, who wrote a column about the Paula Jones case for Human Events, was also asked to help; she began writing legal briefs for the case. Coulter later stated that she would come to mistrust the motives of Jones' head lawyer, Joseph Cammaratta, who by August or September 1997 was advising Jones that her case was weak and to settle, if a favorable settlement could be negotiated. From the onset, Jones had sought an apology from Clinton at least as eagerly as she sought a settlement. However, in a later interview Coulter recounted that she herself had believed that the case was strong, that Jones was telling the truth, that Clinton should be held publicly accountable for his misconduct, and that a settlement would give the impression that Jones was merely interested in extorting money from the President. David Daley, who wrote the interview piece for the Hartford Courant recounted what followed: Coulter played one particularly key role in keeping the Jones case alive. In Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff's new book Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story, Coulter is unmasked as the one who leaked word of Clinton's "distinguishing characteristic" — his reportedly bent penis that Jones said she could recognize and describe — to the news media. Her hope was to foster mistrust between the Clinton and Jones camps and forestall a settlement... "I thought if I leaked the distinguishing characteristic it would show bad faith in negotiations. [Clinton lawyer] Bob Bennett would think Jones had leaked it. Cammaratta would know he himself hadn't leaked it and would get mad at Bennett. It might stall negotiations enough for me to get through to [Jones adviser] Susan Carpenter-McMillan to tell her that I thought settling would hurt Paula, that this would ruin her reputation, and that there were other lawyers working for her. Then 36 hours later, she returned my phone call. "I just wanted to help Paula. I really think Paula Jones is a hero. I don't think I could have taken the abuse she came under. She's this poor little country girl and she has the most powerful man she's ever met hitting on her sexually, then denying it and smearing her as president. And she never did anything tacky. It's not like she was going on TV or trying to make a buck out of it." In his book, Isikoff also reported Coulter as saying: "We were terrified that Jones would settle. It was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the President." After the book came out, Coulter clarified her stated motives, saying: The only motive for leaking the distinguishing characteristic item that [Isikoff] gives in his book is my self-parodying remark that "it would humiliate the president" and that a settlement would foil our efforts to bring down the president.... I suppose you could take the position, as [Isikoff] does, that we were working for Jones because we thought Clinton was a lecherous, lying scumbag, but this argument gets a bit circular. You could also say that Juanita Broaddrick's secret motive in accusing Clinton of rape is that she hates Clinton because he raped her. The whole reason we didn't much like Clinton was that we could see he was the sort of man who would haul a low-level government employee like Paula to his hotel room, drop his pants, and say, "Kiss it." You know: Everything his defense said about him at the impeachment trial. It's not like we secretly disliked Clinton because of his administration's position on California's citrus cartels or something, and then set to work on some crazy scheme to destroy him using a pathological intern as our Mata Hari. The case went to court after Jones broke with Coulter and her original legal team, and it was dismissed via summary judgment. The judge ruled that even if her allegations proved true, Jones did not show that she had suffered any damages, stating "...plaintiff has not demonstrated any tangible job detriment or adverse employment action for her refusal to submit to the governor's alleged advances. The president is therefore entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment". The ruling was appealed by Jones' lawyers. During the pendency of the appeal, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000 ($151,000 after legal fees) in November 1998, in exchange for Jones' dismissal of the appeal. By then, the Jones lawsuit had led to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. In October 2000, Jones revealed that she would pose for nude pictures in an adult magazine, saying she wanted to use the money to pay taxes and support her grade-school-aged children, in particular saying, "I'm wanting to put them through college and maybe set up a college fund." Coulter publicly denounced Jones, calling her "the trailer-park trash they said she was," (Coulter had earlier chastened Clinton supporters for calling Jones this name after Clinton's former campaign strategist James Carville had made the widely-reported remark, "Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and you'll never know what you'll find" and called Jones a "fraud, at least to the extent of pretending to be an honorable and moral person." Coulter wrote: "Paula surely was given more than a million dollars in free legal assistance from an array of legal talent she will never again encounter in her life, much less have busily working on her behalf. Some of those lawyers never asked for or received a dime for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal work performed at great professional, financial and personal cost to themselves. Others got partial payments out of the settlement. But at least they got her reputation back. And now she's thrown it away." Jones claimed not to have been offered any help with a book deal of her own or any other additional financial help after the lawsuit. Aborted congressional candidacy In 1999 and 2000, Coulter considered running for Congress from Connecticut on the Libertarian Party ticket to serve as a spoiler in order to throw the seat to the Democratic candidate and see that Republican Congressman Christopher Shays failed to gain re-election, as a punishment for Shays' vote against Clinton's impeachment. The leadership of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, after meeting with Coulter, declined to endorse her. As a result, her self-described "total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign" did not take place. 2008 presidential campaign In a June 2007 interview, Coulter named Duncan Hunter as her choice for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, saying "my favorite candidate is [Rep.] Duncan Hunter [R-CA], and he is magnificent. The problem is most people say, "Who's Duncan Hunter?" He's a genuine war hero. He has one son, I think, in Iraq, one in Afghanistan. He is good on every single issue. He has been out front on building a wall. He did build a wall at San Diego. He's very good on—on the life issue. He's good on everything." January 16, just three days before Hunter dropped out of the race, Coulter began endorsing Governor Mitt Romney as her choice for the 2008 Republican nomination, saying he is "manifestly the best candidate" (contrasting Romney only with Republican candidates McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani). Romney suspended his campaign in the race February 7, 2008. By contrast, Coulter has been critical of the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. On the January 31, 2008 broadcast of Hannity and Colmes, Coulter claimed that, if McCain won the Republican nomination for president, she would support and campaign for Hillary Clinton, stating, "[Clinton] is more conservative than McCain." Clinton withdrew from the race in early June. In an April 2, 2008 column, she characterized Barack Obama's book Dreams From My Father as a "Dimestore Mein Kampf." Coulter writes, "He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's 'easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you.' Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it." Legal and professional disputes Irregularities in public registration In September 2002, Washington Post columnist Lloyd Grove wrote a column titled, "Mystery of the Ages", raising questions about Coulter's actual date of birth. At the time, Coulter was insisting that she was not yet 40, despite media reports to the contrary. Attempting to resolve the discrepancy, Grove noted that Coulter had given her date of birth as December 8, 1961 when she first registered to vote in 1980 (the year of the Reagan-vs-Carter presidential election), in New Canaan, Connecticut, where the legal voting age is 18. He said that Coulter's Connecticut driver's license also listed her birth date as December 1961, but pointed out that a driver's license issued to her years later in Washington, D.C., gave her date of birth as December 1963. In her emailed reply to Grove's inquiry, Coulter maintained that she was 38 years old. In April 2005, Time's cover story on Coulter reported, "Coulter says she won't confirm the date 'for privacy reasons' — she's had several stalkers. 'And I'm a girl,' she adds." Beginning in February 2006, Coulter was investigated for, but not charged, with voting fraud for registering with the address of her real estate agent and consequently voting in the wrong precinct, a third-degree felony in Florida. In May 2007 Palm Beach County authorities declined to prosecute, citing 'insubstantial evidence' of deliberate wrongdoing. Jim Fitzgerald, an FBI profiler, had told the investigating detective that Coulter had reason to fear a stalker. Three months later it was revealed that the Florida Elections Commission had assigned an investigator to further pursue the question. In December 2007, Florida Elections Commission investigators found no probable cause to believe that Coulter willfully violated the law in this matter. Factual inaccuracies, actual and alleged Comedian, author and political commentator Al Franken has questioned the factual accuracy of her books, and also accuses her of citing passages out of context. Others have investigated these charges, and have also raised questions about the books' accuracy and presentation of facts. Coulter responded to these and similar criticisms in a column called "Answering My Critics", where she claims "the most devastating examples of my alleged 'lies' keep changing" and that some accusations of her factual inaccuracy are either outright wrong or really just "trivial" factual errors (e.g. referring to "endnotes" as "footnotes", or incorrectly identifying Evan Thomas' grandfather, Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas, as his father). New York Times' NASCAR coverage In the first edition of Slander, Coulter alleged that The New York Times did not cover NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt's death until two days after he died: The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took The New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt's death sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the article began, 'His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.' The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South! The New York Times did, in fact, cover Earnhardt's death the same day that he died: sportswriter Robert Lipsyte authored an article for the front page that was published on February 18, 2001. Another front page article appeared in the Times on the following day. Coulter cited an article indeed written two days after Earnhardt's death—Rick Bragg, a Pulitzer Prize winner who grew up in the South, wrote a personal piece on Earnhardt and his passing—bringing the total to three days in a row in which the Times covered Earnhardt's death on its front page. (The paper also ran a prominent story about Earnhardt before his death.) Coulter responded to this widely-publicized error as follows: In my three best-selling books—making the case for a president's impeachment, accusing liberals of systematic lying and propagandizing, arguing that Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot, and detailing 50 years of treachery by the Democratic Party—this is the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce, corrected soon after publication. CONGRATULATIONS, LIBERALS!!! At least I didn't miss the Ukrainian famine (cf., Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty). Coulter corrected the error in the paperback edition of her book. Canadian troops in Vietnam Coulter has been criticized for a statement she made on the fifth estate, an investigative journalism program produced by CBC television. During an interview by host Bob McKeown, Coulter said, "Canada used to be...one of our most...most loyal friends, and vice versa. I mean, Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" McKeown contradicted her with, "No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam." On the February 18, 2005 edition of Washington Journal, Coulter justified her statement by referring to the thousands of Canadians who served in the American armed forces during the Vietnam era, either because they volunteered or because they were living in the USA during the war years and got drafted. (Between 5,000 and 20,000 Canadians fought in Vietnam itself, including approximately 80 who were killed.). John Cloud of Time, writing a few months later, suggested that Coulter may have been right, on the basis that "Canada [sent] noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972". However, Coulter's initial assertion was that Canada sent troops into Vietnam in support of the American position; in this connection, FAIR countered that Cloud made "quite a stretch to prove that Coulter was correct." New York Times Christians/Nazis controversy In her book Slander, Coulter also stated that the New York Times made several statements comparing Christians to Nazis. As examples, she cites a headline reading "Did the Nazi Crimes Draw On Christian Tradition?" and a quote, "The church was co-responsible for the Holocaust." She does not mention that the first quote was from a book review in which the reviewer disagreed with the thesis that the Nazi crimes drew on Christian tradition. The second quote was from a discussion printed in the Times, in which a historian also states that Pope Pius XII was responsible for saving 750,000 Jews. Controversies and criticism While she is in constant demand on the US lecture circuit, Coulter's polemics - she has described herself as a "polemicist" who likes to "stir up the pot" and doesn't "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do" - sometimes start firestorms of controversy, ranging from rowdy uprisings at many of the colleges where she speaks to protracted discussions in the media. The 9/11 "Jersey Girls" In Godless, Coulter criticized the four 9/11 widows known as the "Jersey Girls", writing: These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president ... cutting campaign commercials... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. These statements received national attention after an interview on The Today Show, and were widely criticized. Coulter refused to apologize, and responded, "I feel sorry for all the widows of 9/11...[but] I do not believe that sanctifies their political message....They have attacked Bush, they have attacked Condoleezza Rice, they're cutting campaign commercials for Kerry. But we can't respond because their husbands died . . . I think it's one of the ugliest things 'the left' has done...this idea that you need some sort of personal authenticity in order to make a political point..." Comments about the New York Times Coulter has a long-running animosity toward the New York Times. Her book Slander accuses the news media of unfairly criticizing conservatives, and cites the Times as a prime example. In an interview with George Gurley of the New York Observer shortly after the publication of Slander, it was mentioned that Coulter actually had friends and acquaintances who worked for the Times, namely restaurant critic Frank Bruni and correspondent David E. Sanger. Later in the interview, she expressed amusement at her recollections of the Times' gratuitousness in publishing two photos of George H. W. Bush throwing up at a diplomatic meeting in Japan, then said: "Is your tape recorder running? Turn it on! I got something to say...My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." Gurley told her to be careful, to which she responded "You’re right, after 9/11 I shouldn’t say that". By way of context, during an interview earlier in June 2002 with Katie Couric to promote the same book, Coulter expressed frustration about "constant mischaracterization" through being misquoted. "The idea that someone can go out and find one quote that will suddenly, you know, portray me — just dismiss her ideas, read no more, read no further, this person is crazy...is precisely what liberals do all the time". When asked by John Hawkins, the web manager of a right-wing blog, through a pre-written set of interview questions if she regretted the statement, Coulter replied by saying: "Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.'" Lee Salem, the president of Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes Coulter's column, later defended Coulter by characterizing her comments as satire. The subject came up again when Coulter appeared on the Fox News program Hannity & Colmes. Alan Colmes mentioned Salem's claim, and said to her that remarks like saying "Timothy McVeigh should have bombed The New York Times building" were "laughable happy satires, right?" He then said that Coulter was "actually a liberal who is doing this to mock and parody the way conservatives think." She replied, "Well, it's not working very well if that were my goal. No, I think the Timothy McVeigh line was merely prescient after The New York Times has leaped beyond — beyond nonsense straight into treason, last week". She was referring to a Times report that revealed classified information about an anti-terrorism program of the U.S. government involving surveillance of international financial transactions of persons suspected of having Al-Qaida links. Colmes continued in vein when he responded, calling her remarks "great humor", and that it "belongs on Saturday Night Live. It belongs on The Daily Show." Comments on Islam, Arabs and terrorism On September 14, 2001, three days after the 9-11 attacks (in which her friend Barbara Olson had been killed), Coulter wrote in her column: Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. Responding to this comment, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations remarked in the Chicago Sun Times that before September 11, Coulter "would have faced swift repudiation from her colleagues", but "now it's accepted as legitimate commentary." David Horowitz, however, saw Coulter's words as irony: I began running Coulter columns on Frontpagemag.com shortly after she came up with her most infamous line, which urged America to put jihadists to the sword and convert them to Christianity. Liberals were horrified; I was not. I thought to myself, this is a perfect send-up of what our Islamo-fascist enemies believe – that as infidels we should be put to the sword and converted to Islam. I regarded Coulter’s phillipic (sic) as a Swiftian commentary on liberal illusions of multi-cultural outreach to people who want to rip out our hearts. One day after the attacks (before the culprits had been identified and when death toll estimates were higher than they later became), Coulter asserted that only Muslims could have been behind the attacks: Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims -- at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours. Coulter has been highly critical of the U.S. Department of Transportation and especially its then-secretary Norman Mineta. Her many criticisms include their refusal to use racial profiling as a component of airport screening. After a group of Muslims were expelled from a US Airways flight when other passengers expressed worries, sparking a call for Muslims to boycott the airline because of the ejection from a flight of six imams, Coulter wrote: If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether. Coulter also cited the 2002 Senate testimony of FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, who was acclaimed for condemning her superiors for refusing to authorize a search warrant for 9-11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui when he refused to consent to a search of his computer. They knew that he was a Muslim in flight school who had overstayed his visa, and the French Intelligence Service had confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups. Coulter said she agreed that probable cause existed in the case, but that refusing consent, being in flight school and overstaying a visa shouldn't constitute grounds for a search. Citing a poll which found that 98 percent of Muslims between the ages of 20 to 45 said they would not fight for Britain in the war in Afghanistan, and that 48 percent said they would fight for Osama bin Laden, she asserted "any Muslim who has attended a mosque in Europe -- certainly in England, where Moussaoui lived -- has had 'affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups'", so that she parsed Rowley's position as meaning that "'probable cause' existed to search Moussaoui's computer because he was a Muslim who had lived in England." Because "FBI headquarters...refused to engage in racial profiling" they failed to uncover the 9-11 plot, Coulter asserted. "The FBI allowed thousands of Americans to be slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. What more do liberals want?" Coulter wrote in another column that she had reviewed the civil rights lawsuits against certain airlines to determine which airlines had subjected Arabs to the most "egregious discrimination" so that she could fly only that airline. She also said that the airline should be bragging instead of denying any of the charges of discrimination brought against them. In an interview with the The Guardian she quipped, "I think airlines ought to start advertising: 'We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.'" When the interviewer replied by asking what Muslims would do for travel, she responded, "They could use flying carpets." One comment that drew criticism from the blogosphere, as well as fellow conservatives, was made during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2006, where she said, referring to the prospect of a nuclear-equipped Iran, "What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons? I think our motto should be, post-9-11: raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences." Coulter had previously written a nearly identical passage in her syndicated column: "...I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about 'camel jockey'? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?" In October 2007, Coulter made more controversial remarks about Arabs, in this case Iraqis, when she stated, in an interview with the New York Observer We’ve killed about 20,000 of them, of terrorists, of militants, of Al Qaeda members, and they’ve gotten a little over 3,000 of ours. That is where the war is being fought, in Iraq, that is where we are fighting Al Qaeda. Sorry we have to use your country, Iraqis, but you let Saddam come to power, ha-ha, and we are going to instill democracy in your country. In a May 2007 article looking back at the life of the recently deceased evangelical Reverend Jerry Falwell, Coulter commented on Falwell's statement after the 9/11 attacks that "pagans", abortionists, feminists, and gays and lesbians, among others, helped make the attacks happen. In her article, Coulter stated that she disagreed with Falwell's statement, "because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and 'the Reverend' Barry Lynn." In October 2007, Coulter participated in David Horowitz' "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week", remarking in a speech at the University of Southern California, "The fact of Islamo-Fascism is indisputable," she said. "I find it tedious to detail the savagery of the enemy . . . I want to kill them. Why don't Democrats?" 2007 John Edwards controversy The next year, Coulter drew criticism for statements she made at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference about presidential candidate John Edwards. Coulter said: I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions. This was an allusion to Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington's use of the epithet and his subsequent mandatory "psychological assessment" imposed by ABC executives. This comment was widely interpreted as meaning that Coulter had called Edwards a "faggot", but Coulter has argued on a couple of occasions that she didn't actually do so, while simultaneously indicating she would not have been wrong to say it. The audience laughed, but Edwards responded on his website by characterizing Coulter's words as "un-American and indefensible" and asking readers to help him "raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry." Coulter's words also drew condemnation from many prominent Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians, as well as groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Coulter responded in an e-mail to the New York Times: "C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." She also posted a response on her website: "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!" On March 5, 2007, Coulter appeared on Hannity and Colmes and said, "[f]aggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays. It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss'". In response to this issue, three advertisers (Verizon, Sallie Mae and Netbank) pulled their advertisements from Coulter's website, and several newspapers dropped Coulter's column. Responding to the controversy, Coulter said: Just for the record, I've never attempted to revise, or extend, nor have I apologized and the attempts to silence me have made me even more money…Those newspapers pay me about 25 cents per month, but I picked up a LOT of speeches...Attempts to censor me have really backfired. She also said, "I wasn't saying it on TV. I was saying it at a right-wing political convention with 7,000 college Republicans. I didn't put it on TV." The CPAC convention was, in fact, broadcast on C-SPAN. In an interview with Glenn Beck, she said, "Sarah Silverman uses the word, and, oh, liberals don't mind it when she uses it." This controversy revived an earlier dispute originating from a 2003 column where Coulter disparaged Democratic Presidential candidates who mention family tragedies in their campaign speeches — including Edwards, who, she stated, talks frequently about the death of his son Wade in a traffic accident. In a June 25, 2007 appearance on Good Morning America, Coulter said: "But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack -- so I've learned my lesson: If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." The next day, on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, Coulter received a phone call from Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards’ wife, asking her to stop the personal attacks and to stick to discussing the issues. Coulter responded, saying that the Edwards campaign was “raising money off it” and denied "saying anything about him [Edwards], actually, either time". Mrs. Edwards also confronted Coulter for writing that they had a bumper sticker on their car saying "Ask me about my dead son" in reference to the death of their son Wade. Coulter responded by characterizing Edwards' call as an attempt to silence her and by attacking Edwards for his activities as a trial lawyer. Coulter refused to apologize, and explained her response to Mrs. Edwards in a subsequent column: "Edwards is...the trial lawyer who pretended in court to channel the spirit of a handicapped fetus in front of illiterate jurors to scam tens of millions of dollars off of innocent doctors...Apparently every time Edwards began a story about his dead son with 'I've never told anyone this before,' everyone on the campaign could lip-sync the story with him... If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those 'Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident' bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage... As a commentator, I bring facts like these to the attention of the American people in a lively way." John Edwards responded by calling her a "she-devil." He immediately added, "I should not have name-called. But the truth is - forget the names - people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language." Disenfranchisement of women Time magazine's John Cloud observes that Coulter "likes to shock reporters by wondering aloud whether America might be better off if women lost the right to vote." For example, in a May 2003 interview with The Guardian, Coulter said: ...It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted. Again, in an October 2007 interview with the New York Observer, Coulter said: If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care—and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?' Comments about Jews on The Big Idea During an interview with Donny Deutsch on his CNBC program The Big Idea (October 8, 2007), Coulter stated that the United States is a Christian nation and suggested Christians viewed themselves as "perfected Jews". Deutsch, a practicing Jew, told Coulter he found the comments personally offensive and anti-semitic; Coulter replied that she could not understand his reaction. DEUTSCH: You said—your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth. COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is. DEUTSCH: But that's what you said—don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic— COULTER: No! DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that? COULTER: That isn't hateful at all. DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK— COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian(sic) is not offensive at all. In an interview published in Adweek three days after the interview, Deutsch noted that when he challenged her comments, Coulter appeared "to back off" and "seemed a little upset", adding, "I think she got frightened that maybe she had crossed a line, that this was maybe a faux pas of great proportions. I mean, did it show ignorance? Anti-Semitism? It wasn't just one of those silly things." Dennis Prager, a conservative talk show host, commented that although, as a practicing Jew, he obviously did not agree with Coulter's comments, they were not anti-semitic. He noted that: "There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?" Conservative activist David Horowitz's reaction was similar: "If you don't accompany this belief by burning Jews who refuse to become perfected at the stake why would any Jew have a problem?... Why do some Jews think that Christians should not really believe what they believe while it's okay for Jews to really believe they are God's Chosen People? I don't get it." In response to Coulter's comments on the show, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement saying it "strongly condemns Ann Coulter for her anti-Semitic comment", and that to "espouse the idea that Judaism needs to be replaced with Christianity and that each individual Jew is somehow deficient and needs to be 'perfected,' is rank Christian supersessionism and has been rejected by the Catholic Church and the vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations." The American Jewish Committee issued a statement asserting that "Ms. Coulter's assertion that Jews are somehow religiously imperfect smacks of the most odious anti-Jewish sentiment." The National Jewish Democratic Council, self identified as "the national voice of Jewish Democrats", called on media outlets to stop inviting Coulter as a guest commentator/pundit." References Bibliography High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (1998) Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (2002) Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2003) How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (2004) Godless: The Church of Liberalism (2006) If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (2007) External links Ann Coulter Official Web Site Ann Coulter biography at Notable Names Database Ann Coulter at IMDb Ann Coulter at Media Matters for America Column archives Ann Coulter column archive for Human Events articles at BNet Find Articles with advanced search (1998-2007) Ann Coulter column archive at Human Events (2002-present) Ann Coulter column archive at National Review (2000-2001) Ann Coulter column archive at uExpress.com (1999-present) [select headline archive] {{Persondata |NAME=Coulter, Ann Hart |ALTERNATIVE NAMES= |SHORT DESCRIPTION=author, political commentator |DATE OF BIRTH=December 8, 1961 |PLACE OF BIRTH=New York City, New York, USA |DATE OF DEATH= |PLACE OF DEATH= }} [[Category:1961 births [[Category:Living people [[Category:American Christians [[Category:American columnists [[Category:American political pundits [[Category:American political writers [[Category:Cornell University alumni [[Category:Intelligent design advocates [[Category:Lewinsky scandal figures [[Category:New York Republicans [[Category:People from Connecticut [[Category:University of Michigan alumni [[Category:Conservatives de:Ann Coulter es:Ann Coulter eo:Ann Coulter fa:ان کولتر fr:Ann Coulter id:Ann Coulter nl:Ann Coulter ja:アン・コールター no:Ann Coulter pl:Ann Coulter pt:Ann Coulter fi:Ann Coulter sv:Ann Coulter yi:ען קאלטער

There used to be a seperate article called Criticisms of Anne Coulter but once all the negative stuff was moved off the main article, almost nothing was left! Only in this pseudo-encyclopedia can you put up a picture of Anne Coulter that makes her look like she's anorexic, rather than using one of her good pictures, not only that but you can also call her Rush limbaugh in a mini-skirt since it make the article more "encyclopedic" and get away with it. Anne Coulter wearing a sleeveless shirt only comes up 1 times in my first 75 google image results! Look at Michael Moore's page. Its a face picture only, he's smiling, looks friendly, he has ONE LINE THAT IS NEGATIVE OF HIM ON HIS PAGE

“ Moore has been at the center of several controversies, mostly as a result of his political views and directing style. ”

Also notice the difference between the top corner of the Ann Coulter page and the Michael moore page. The little picture of a lock on Michael Moore's page means he has a layer of protection from anything being said bad about him. All the stuff said bad about him is on a seperate wikipedia article that is prefaced with the following disclaimer...

That means that anything said bad about a liberal, is innacurate or not properly sourced. Anything you want to write bad about Ann Coulter if you are at a starbucks cafe with anonymous internet, you just click edit this page.

Also, I didn't even pre-research the Coulter page and Michael moore page. I was so certain that I could make a good point about bias, and then add some details later. Michael Moore is given a very nice picture. His article is protected, nothing is allowed to be put negative on his page, but a criticisms page of his is tagged as "unverifable, bias, not neutral, etc..." so it basically says not to trust the content.

So what does that leave us to do? Simply nothing! The beauty is that by refraining to fight back the liberals, they can't restrain themselves. They control the entire series of political articles. As a result, anybody with a large enough brain can see the huge amount of bias, and it will soon gain a permanent reputation of being biased to the left.

I only spend on average about 1 hour per week on wikipedia, and I'm trying to cut it to zero. Citizendium, I haven't checked out, but its an alternative to wikipedia that seeks to emulate wikipedia but only change the two biggest flaws of wikipedia. Nothing more nothing less, additionally every edit requires your real first and last name. Also, if you have a bachelors degree, you start out as a higher status user and can never be strongarmed by a 17 year old who last 10,000 edits and 2 years of daily contributions of designing Barnstars WP:STAR. The quickest way to build up an edit count is to do tons of quick edits, even if you are just designing barnstars or decorating your user page.

Anyways, before I responded to your comment, I figured that if you were a liberal, that you needed a good pouncing. Like a lion picking off an occasional hyena for no other reason but to remind him of who's stronger. If you were an admin, I'm glad to hold admins to higher standards and will bring their judgment into question when I see fit. If you were a conservative, as I used to be, then I'd come to your page and explain why we're not supposed to be on wikipedia in the first place! Let the liberals run the show! Soon, wikipedia will be branded as extreme left. We need to let it happen, since there is no way that we can outnumber them. Plus, it only makes the case stronger if by slight chance that my symbolism of ripping a hyena to shreds, that the hyena was a conservative and the lion was liberal (I'm a liberal republican) only strengthens the case (inadvertently and 100% unintentionally) that wikipedia is ultra-left.

My political views are that like you, I have strong christian origins. I have voted republican in every presidential race since I've been old enough to vote. However, with the party picking McCain over Romney solidified that the party has abandoned conservatives and the old conservative base.

I call myself a liberal republican because I am registered republican and my political views are 50/50 but my most extreme views are deal-breakers to conservatives, but if wikipedia ever makes a page about me, I wish to go down as an independent.

On abortion, I think that life is not always sacred and planned by god. Those children born in africa to starving mother, and both child and mother have aids, and if that child can grow old enough will have as many children as possible. Also, I think that the children prevented by abortion would be disproportionately felons, hoodlums, and thugs. If I was given the choice to sacrifice 10 future Joel Olsteens for 10,000 future Ted Bundys, I'd do it in a heartbeat and reason that God knows that babies destined to be killed by abortion have no chance at life, thus he would not implant souls into them. God wouldn't be that cruel. He would let mankind destroy itself, and its unborn children, but he would not implant the same soul that you or I have, into that unborn child. Rather, he would pull and inject a soul from the stack of down syndrome souls or starving african souls.

I hate to sound cruel, but I have seen child molesters, rapists, and murderers with my own eyes and they not only ruin lives, they do more to cause the elimination of joy and desire to even exist, than an infinite amount of ideal chistians. My sister works in juvenile rehabilitation, and these kids at 15 years old have done things to other people that are unthinkable. I think god knows the future, he knows that man might abuse free will, but he also is all-powerful and almighty, and takes miniscule effort for him to swap out souls. Its naive for us to think that for someone who has created the heavens (including some billions of galaxies and stars) and the earth, that it is beyond his ability to protect those unborn children's souls. Afterall, their flesh is destined to the same fate as our flesh. Abortion doesn't affect a baby's soul.

Secondly, I am against the republican stance on stem cell research. It is absurd to say that stem cell research on existing stem cell lines is more moral than stem cell research on new and better lines. The right wing needs to embrace science. I think it should be mandatory that every christian take 3 biology classes, and realize that science supports creationism. Just because evolution says that man may have evolved from dirt meaning small inorganic compounds to protobionts to organic compounds to early prokarya to eukaryotes to multicellular organisms to humans doesn't contradict creationism, it merely gives a scientific explanation of what seems to be the likely process. My first edit to wiktionary is proof that science and religion can and should coexist and complement each other. I am the reason that the wiktionary article on protobionts exists. I'm a creationist (specifically, a Christopher Michael Langan mathematically axiomatic creationist) but I am helping spread the knowledge which also one would use to learn about evolution. The only repulsion between science and christianity is because christianity is pushing!

Anyways, I wanted to let you know that you gave me the worst luck ever! When I read your talk page, and saw that you are new to wikipedia also, like myself. Adittionally, I even wrote in my response before this one, that I listen to talk radio, and can you guess who? Yep, I'm a fan of el rushbo and the EIB. So please accept my caution that this website is very very harsh to conservatives. As soon as you start trying to write nice things about a conservative, you get in lots of trouble and get unpopular very quickly. The left is doing a fine job damaging their efforts. Wikipedia is an embarassment in the preferential treatment of leftish articles. I had no idea that you were a strong lutheran. My parents are super ultra-deep christians. They don't buy groceries on sundays, and live in a county that until last year had no legal sale of liquor, and no beer sales until noon on sundays, in Florida, a rather moderate state. I also confess that my post was an experiment in creativity. I never would have guessed that you were a conservative. I can honestly say you are the first conservative I have ever came across on wikipedia, and I am being utmost truthful. Just know that wikipedia has very few people who edit politics pages who genuinely are uninterested in politics and want to help write a good encyclopaedia. I am interested in science, and that is why I edit science articles. Luckily, there is no sub-branches of sciences. All of us totally agree, 99% of the time. And to be in the 1%, then I can't even speculate the cause. Sentriclecub (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1