Reuters fires "Brainless" anti-Coulter author

[ann.coulter2]

On Tuesday, Joe Maguire, one of two editors in charge of markets coverage at Reuters, handed his bosses the galleys of his new book, "Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter."

On Wednesday, Mr. Maguire discovered he would have plenty of free time to promote his book, which comes out this week, as he was fired.

"There was a difference of opinion about the approval I received to write this book," Mr. Maguire said. "I thought I had met the conditions, and proceeded accordingly. As a result, I no longer work there."

Something doesn't ring true about this whole project. If Maguire thinks I am "brainless," why am I worthy of a whole book?

He is aping my style, at least in the title. My last book was "Godless," his is "Brainless."

We can't help wondering if Coulterphobia isn't analogous to homophobia--a reaction formation that masks one's own uncomfortable impulses.

[highflyerlaura]

If you were the real Ann Coulter, I would dare you to let me interview you on my radio show on TUNE FM- RADIO UNE via the Australian Community Radio Network. Though considering that I have no way of verifying exactly who you are I don't have that opportunity, which would be kind of interesting in a way, since when it comes to foriegn policy I'm largely a centralist/right-winger and a supporter of the Country-National Party of Australia and as patriotic as a person can be. I even shed a tear when I hear that an Australian soldier or police officer has died or been hurt during a deployment.
However, I am not pig-headed about it and realise that a degree of liberalism is critical for moderate countries such as Japan, Australia, the US, Canada, the UK and Sweden just to name a few, to be able to survive and thrive in today's world. How letting people get married if they love each other and are of the same sex, letting them practice their religion of choice if it is a moderate religion preaching tolerance and equality between all men and women, regulated theraputic cloning that might save or improve the quality of someone's life or letting them change their physical sex to suit that of their mental-brain sex is a threat to society as we know it is beyond me. On the domestic front I've found that "live and let live, yet carry a big stick for the radicals that are dangerous to the health of others" is the best way to live and that it has served Australia well.

If you really are Ann Coulter though, post a note on your official site or PM me with verifiable proof that you are who you say you are and I will endeavour to see about getting you a radio interview on Australian College and Community radio so that you can explain your views and actions in a fair yet critical setting.

Theres your challenge and opportunity to put your money where your mouth is if you are who you say you are.

[ann.coulter2]

Originally Posted by highflyerlaura

However, I am not pig-headed about it and realise that a degree of liberalism is critical for moderate countries such as Japan, Australia, the US, Canada, the UK and Sweden just to name a few, to be able to survive and thrive in today's world.

True conservatives support a safety net, to temporarily support the needy. "Temporary" is the key word. Liberals believe 'it takes a village to raise a child' - conservatives think mom and dad can do it just fine.

How letting people get married if they love each other and are of the same sex

Conservatives believe in individual choice. If one chooses to marry, you have to accept the status existing, though, and the US reserves a few benefits for man-woman couples.

letting them practice their religion of choice if it is a moderate religion preaching tolerance and equality between all men and women

Is there a dispute about that? It is, of course, equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

regulated theraputic cloning that might save or improve the quality of someone's life or letting them change their physical sex to suit that of their mental-brain sex is a threat to society as we know it is beyond me.

Who opposes this? The dispute is that liberals want us, the taxpayers, to pay the bill. The people, via the elected representatives, say "we won't pay."

On the domestic front I've found that "live and let live, yet carry a big stick for the radicals that are dangerous to the health of others" is the best way to live and that it has served Australia well.

Here in the US, there are radicals (that I ignore) on the right and especially on the left. The US leftist radicals and their money have grabbed control of the Democratic party, and have made themselves into an unelectable minority.

If you really are Ann Coulter though, post a note on your official site or PM me with verifiable proof that you are who you say you are and I will endeavour to see about getting you a radio interview on Australian College and Community radio so that you can explain your views and actions in a fair yet critical setting.

I've written eight books - seven of which have been in the NYTimes best selling top 10, and three recent ones have gone to No. 1. You can learn all about my views by reading them.

My books are hardly marketed down under. I'm spending my time promoting my books in the US.

Theres your challenge and opportunity to put your money where your mouth is if you are who you say you are.

I won't waste time and money on Australians. If you want to arrange a college speaking event, and pay what you usually pay for the liberal talkers, contact my agent, and send a ticket.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

True conservatives support a safety net, to temporarily support the needy. "Temporary" is the key word. Liberals believe 'it takes a village to raise a child' - conservatives think mom and dad can do it just fine.

If that's the case, then why do many conservatives like for their children to participate in organizations like Boy Scouts (an organization I value highly, and that makes no bones about existing to instill values in youth), or to attend Sunday School, Vacation Bible School or youth groups at church? Why do many conservatives care about the kind of school their children attend, with many opting for private or religious schools? If mom and dad can do just fine, who needs Scouts or church groups? What does it matter what the teacher thinks?

[ann.coulter2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

If that's the case, then why do many conservatives like for their children to participate in organizations like Boy Scouts (an organization I value highly, and that makes no bones about existing to instill values in youth), or to attend Sunday School, Vacation Bible School or youth groups at church? Why do many conservatives care about the kind of school their children attend, with many opting for private or religious schools? If mom and dad can do just fine, who needs Scouts or church groups? What does it matter what the teacher thinks?

Since I haven't heard from that Aussie loser, I'll answer your question - which you answered: "existing to instill values in youth"

The original supporters of private schools are the liberals. Can you name one Clinton, Kennedy, Biden, (Jessie) Jackson, or Pelosi child who ever entered a public school? They want the best for their kids, as do conservatives.

The evil "village" is the government. They think more governmental rules and more government spending is needed. They don't think congressman Foley should email pages, but they think gay leaders should go camping with boy scouts. They would not allow a scout to have a pocket knife, let alone a hatchet. Peeing in the woods? Oh no never.

[highflyerlaura]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

Since I haven't heard from that Aussie loser, I'll answer your question - which you answered: "existing to instill values in youth"

What did I do to deserve to be called that? The reason why I haven't reponded until now is because I have been going to classes and working to pay my way through college for the last few days. I offered a legit opportunity for you to explain you views on college radio (not a lecture) via a phone-link at no cost to yourself, though instead I get my offer thrown right back at my face and and branded a looser, something that most if not all people (esspecially reporters) get ticked off about.

Tell me then, why have most of the world's scientists from the last few centuries publically stated that they study a specific field of science in order to better understand the methods behind God's actions. If these men and women were atheists as you say they are, why did they publicly state that they had religious beliefs? Why also did the Catholic and other churches sponsor the research of various individuals in the rennaicence/reformation era if these people were supposedly atheists?


Also wheres your proof when it comes to sex reassignment that the vast majority of transgendered individuals want the government to pay for their treatment? I am a transgendered person and I have never, ever, run into ideas like that, let alone figures that support them.. If you can find them though, be my guest and present them.


I can see that all you want to do is insult people who have different views to you though, so you can get lost as far as I'm concerned.

[alum]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

Since I haven't heard from that Aussie loser, I'll answer your question - which you answered: "existing to instill values in youth"

The original supporters of private schools are the liberals. Can you name one Clinton, Kennedy, Biden, (Jessie) Jackson, or Pelosi child who ever entered a public school? They want the best for their kids, as do conservatives.

The evil "village" is the government. They think more governmental rules and more government spending is needed. They don't think congressman Foley should email pages, but they think gay leaders should go camping with boy scouts. They would not allow a scout to have a pocket knife, let alone a hatchet. Peeing in the woods? Oh no never.

Jimmy Carter sent his daughter Amy to public schools in DC when he was in the White House. That created a lot of controversy back then.

No Congressman has any business emailing/texting/IMing any Page, male or female.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

Since I haven't heard from that Aussie loser, I'll answer your question - which you answered: "existing to instill values in youth"

Actually, aside from simply quoting me you pretty much avoided the question -- if mom and dad can do it just fine, why do they seek the support of schools, churches and civic organizations to instill values in their kids? -- by diverting to another rant on liberals.

The original supporters of private schools are the liberals. Can you name one Clinton, Kennedy, Biden, (Jessie) Jackson, or Pelosi child who ever entered a public school?

What does that have to do with my question? And what does it have to do with all the private schools and "Christian academies" created over the last forty years to avoid things like integregation and the teaching of evolution?

They want the best for their kids, as do conservatives.

This is the closest you get to ansering the question. But earlier you said "conservatives think mom and dad can do it just fine," which is why I asked the question. So I'll take your tepid response as a tepid admission that it does take more than mom and dad to provide the best eduction and to instill values in youth.

The evil "village" is the government.

Actually, anytime I've ever heard the phrase used, "village" is the community -- teachers, churches, Scouts, mentors, etc. I assume that you know that even in a democratic society where all authority ultimately derives from the people, "community" and "government" are not the same thing. But that would get in the way of your "argument," wouldn't it?

They think more governmental rules and more government spending is needed. They don't think congressman Foley should email pages, but they think gay leaders should go camping with boy scouts. They would not allow a scout to have a pocket knife, let alone a hatchet. Peeing in the woods? Oh no never.

The surest sign of the empty argument is putting everything on "them." Liberals (or whoever the easy scapegoat is) = bad, conservatives ("us") = good. You know, I know quite a few scouting families with "Kerry-Edwards"/"Get Us Out of Iraq"/"Peace is Patriotic" bumperstickers who have no problem with pocket knives and hatchets but do have a problem with gay scout leaders. Go camping with some Scouts sometime, and you'll see that your ridiculous over-generalizations hold about as much water as your credibility.

[RU OX Alum]

there is so much that is just plain wrong in your post, i think you are the real ann coulter

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

there is so much that is just plain wrong in your post, i think you are the real ann coulter

I hope you mean ann.coulter2 and not me.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I hope you mean ann.coulter2 and not me.

lol, yeah, i think you're the real ann coulter....please stop hating liberals

[shinerbock]

Theres quite a bit of difference in encouraging your child to be active in church or boy scouts, which probably reinforces what the children are taught in the home, and in the "it takes a village" idea that depends upon society to aid the parents in raising the child. Why do conservatives put kids in private school? Probably because the education is generally better. I'd probably put my children in private school (depending on where I lived) primarily because I want them to be around other high quality students. Plus, I really don't want my son coming home and going "Dad, will you get me one of those lowered Scions?"

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Theres quite a bit of difference in encouraging your child to be active in church or boy scouts, which probably reinforces what the children are taught in the home, and in the "it takes a village" idea that depends upon society to aid the parents in raising the child.

You, I would pretty much agree with on this. But our Ann Coulter must deal in absolutes -- the village is not needed because "conservatives think mom and dad can do it just fine." The reality is, I think, that most people would say mom and dad should do it, but they can do it a lot more effectively if there is support from the community. Not saying you would take this position, but I have laughed quite a few times when I have heard people ridicule the "it takes a village" slogan (probably mainly because HC said it), and then complain because "back when I was a kid, you did something wrong and any parent in the neighborhood felt free to call you on it and discipline you for it, and your parents took their side. How did we get away from that?" And they completely miss the irony.

Why do conservatives put kids in private school? Probably because the education is generally better.

Again, an over-broad statement. I know plenty of private schools that are outstanding and plenty more that exist mainly to avoid integration or evolution or the like, that I wouldn't dream of sending a kid to because I've seen the quality of the "education" they provide.

I'd probably put my children in private school (depending on where I lived) primarily because I want them to be around other high quality students. Plus, I really don't want my son coming home and going "Dad, will you get me one of those lowered Scions?"

If that works for you, fine. Mine are around plenty of "high quality" students in public schools, which also happen to be "high quality" around here. Besides, that way we don't have to worry them coming home and asking, "Dad, why won't you get me a BMW 750Li?"

[ann.coulter2]

Originally Posted by highflyerlaura

Tell me then, why have most of the world's scientists from the last few centuries publically stated that they study a specific field of science in order to better understand the methods behind God's actions. If these men and women were atheists as you say they are, why did they publicly state that they had religious beliefs?

My view is pretty much the same as G.H.W.Bush (#51):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

My view is pretty much the same as G.H.W.Bush (#51):

#51? Um, no.