You have every reason to hate Ann Coulter and think she is brash and cruel. Regardless of this, she is a very intelligent woman who conveys her opinion in ways few can ignore.

Why does it matter so much to you whether or not the woman's attractive? Many would beg to differ with you as to her attractiveness, promoters included. Why shouldn't they use her looks as a means to set her apart from other faces/voices in the TV-news-guest-commentator business? Enough men and women find her attractive that they tune in to see what she has to say. I guess the proof is in the ratings and the fact networks continue to ask her back.

She's an idiot promoter? What do you mean -- that she promotes idiots? Idiocy? I'm not getting a clear signal from you there. If you mean to say that she's an idiot, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that. The very fact that we're having this conversation is testimony to the fact that she's very good at what she does -- stirring up controversy on various subjects and getting herself noticed. We've noticed. She wins.

As to the relevancy or lack thereof concerning the issues/personal opinions she dramatizes, who is to say they are not relevant? Certainly, it is true that saying John Edwards is a "faggot" is going to stir controversy, but does it raise an irrelevant issue? That word is often (rightly or wrongly) associated with being weak. Is Edwards the guy you want to refer to as "Commander in Chief"? Or is he too much of a girly man for the job? Coulter raised the point in a very controversial way. On one hand, it brings that issue to the limelight. On the other, it virtually guarantees Coulter paid appearances on various TV news shows to defend her statement.

I don't doubt she's intelligent, but you can be intelligent and a bigot at the same time./

As for "conveying her opinion in ways few could ignore"... I'm sure if I ran around town being a hateful bitch, people would have trouble ignoring me too. It doesn't mean we should praise her for it. Being brash and cruel is pretty easy.

SDSU, you see a bigot, I see someone who doesn't tiptoe around the truth. I don't agree with everything she says, but much of what she says that causes controversy, I wish I could say.

Very true. But she also conveys her opinion in ways that persuade few but the already persuaded.

Try reading my posts.



That's cool. Not every opinion is up for debate.

It annoys me that people keep getting on Ann Coulter for not persuading people. Her role is to entertain the right and debate on their behalf. She doesn't speak for the GOP, nor is she some sort of politician trying to sway people to her side. Her role is to take on the left, and she does so quite well.

I started and stopped here.

I'll agree that her role is to entertain the right, and she does that quite well. But if she's not persuading anyone, she ain't much of a debater. In fact, she's missing the whole point of debate.

Mystic, I think you're wrong in assuming the purpose of debate is to sway people. That may be the best purpose, but many people debate to win. Thats what the right has Ann Coulter for.

Frankly, I don't see how Ann Coulter is that much different from people like Mike Barnacle or Keith Olbermann (besides intelligence, where Ann wins). I think the political climate makes the most difference. Mike Barnacle or Olbermann can go around calling Bush a killer and calling for him to be executed, and some gullible Americans without much political knowledge will jump on board with that view. I don't think Ann Coulter can really do that, because while hoping Cheney dies might be politically correct, referring to someone as a faggot is taboo. Kinda odd, but thats how it is. However, when you strip away the ability to persuade the general and uninformed public, they're all just entertainers who use their abilities to rally their side.

Insulting the opponent isn't winning a debate. It sells on TV but it's not winning a debate.

The point of debate is to sway your audience, provide the best argument, not call your opponent names.

But Coulter exists to sell on TV, not win debates.

I agree, but shinerbock states that she debates and wins...

She does debate and win. For liberals to say that all she does is call names is completely moronic. She debates and wins often. Winning a debate means making the best points. Hell, she could debate on Olbermann, completely wax him, yet the comments that the audience would like would be Olbermann shouting t-shirt slogans like "Bush lied, thousands died."

The American public is not very good at determining which argument is the strongest. They like things that are easily digestible and don't require too much thought.

If I yell enough times, call people morons, and sensationalize the REAL issue into a circus act; people will eventually stop talking. Does that mean I won or are people just tired of arguing with an idiot?

(Hey!!! That sounds like Greekchat!!! :D)