Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

Because that is exactly what happened. You don't see that the republican club caving into pressure from the the President of Fordham is exactly equivalent to Fordham banning Coulter? It is no wonder you are liberal. This is how you distort reality.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

LolThat is your example of ugly rhetoric.Stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

No that is not what happened, what happened is that her invitation was rescinded. Your claim that she was "banned" is a falsehood.

Too funny.Evidence Faith, not assertions. You do know the difference don't you?

Every single sentence of Coulter's is not a direct response to a single hateful quotation from a liberal. In this case the line in question is part of a bigger story, namely the whole book. I haven't read the book but my guess from knowing Coulter would be that she is mocking feminists. To be feminist is not equivalent to being female. Coulter despises modern feminism, especially the loudest proponents of it. But to counter your general point: Liberal Feminists have said some extremely hateful things about men, conservatives, fundamentalists and women who don't toe the party line. The book is a blast right back at them.As for the quote itself: She seems to be saying the women predominate in the field of biology because that is where godless women get to poke the biggest stick in the eye of religious fundamentalists with the theory of evolution. If you mistakenly think she is saying that the study of biology is a worthless science because it is predominately composed of women, then you are gravely mistaken about Coulter.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Ok, but here's what you said:

quote:

---

I think Coulter is only showing these kind of people for exactly who they are.

---

"Only", as in "nothing but." What does that have to do with female participation in the biological sciences? My "general point" is that Coulter, clearly, thinks women are too stupid to be real scientists and that therefore whatever scientific field they most participate in is, perforce, less of a science by their participation. Frankly I think that's kind of gross, particularly since my wife holds a PhD in a biological science, and was considered sufficiently qualified in her performance of same that she was commissioned by the United States Congress to the Army at the rank of captain.But you're the one who's asserted that Ann Coulter has never said mum except that a liberal - or do you prefer "lie-beral" - said it first. So I'm asking you, how is her contention the reflection of anything said on the left, and not simply some ugly rhetoric of her own? Or, unlike you I guess, I'm able to read. This is the same person who has asserted that the right to vote should be taken away from women because they're too stupid to use it. I guess you're supposed to add "except for her!" at the end of that yourself, because she never remembers to.

Ok, that got my curiosity up. What does a biology doctor do while captaining in the army?

Well, until 1969 likely worked in building 470 at Ft. Detrick, Md. After 1969 likely part of USAMRIID.Edited by jar, : hit wrong key

From the topic title: Happened to be at Freethought Blogs — today: Yes to both questions.Moose

And you are wrong, because what she actually does is lie about them. Or just wish them dead, as when she says ''My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.'' When she said that, was she "exposing" the people who work at the New York Times Building? Was she "accurately calling them what they are"? Or just daydreaming about them being murdered by a right-wing terrorist?Supplementary question: if that isn't hateful, what is?Or when she says: "'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.'' Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like the man, there are plenty of things one could say about him, but she isn't. Where is she "exposing" him? Where is she "accurately calling him what he is"? She isn't, she's just daydreaming of a terrorist plot of which he will be one of the casualties.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Since Crash wasn't born in 1969, and I'm guessing his wife is roughly the same age, I doubt your response was of much value. But thanks anyway, mate.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hit the post key instead of the preview key and had to add the post 1969 info.After 1969 likely part of USAMRIID.

I have a feeling I could come up with all kinds of quotes from all kinds of reputable sources and that wouldn't count as evidence for you, so instead of going to the trouble, let me ask you,What would you take as evidence that Rome has the intention of reinstating the Inquisition if they have the power to do so?Would evidence that they HAVE reinstated it wherever they've had the power mean anything? Would evidence that they'd been torturing "heretics" in the dungeons of Rome up to the middle of the 19th century carry any weight? Would a picture do or would I have to produce the body of a victim? Which you would claim wasn't a victim anyway.Just tell me what counts for you and I'll see if I can find it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.