Media Matters - Coulter: "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president"

Did anyone here see The Last Supper? Ron Perlman plays a sort of proto-Coulter (the movie is from the mid-nineties), and is a joy to watch: he's kind of scary, but mostly really funny-- now I can't watch Ann Coulter without thinking of Ron Perlman. How weird is that?

Jordon, you obviously have personal problems that run far deeper than a reaction to a political provocateur.

As it relates to what Ann had stated, if one looks at the Democrat Party registry rolls, her point can not be discounted that easily.

As a member of the right.... I would just like to say that I find Ann coulter to be extremely annoying and somewhat out of touch.  Hey - finally something the right and left can come together about : )

If we took away the womens right to vote, they could call us Iraq, Afghanistan and any other country which treats women as cattle and third class citizens as second class citizens are usually reserved for their livestock, Hence a dowery.  I follow Coulter news sometimes, though I enjoy some of her views for shock value, but if thsi ever came to fruition, we would never hear of Anne Coulter again, as she said if Women were prevented from voting, she would be the first to be banned from the airwaves.

I consider Coulter to just be a publicity and money seeker. These statements are insulting and outrageous, in my opinion, but they're getting her what she wants: attention.

 Meanwhile, let's consider this: simply flogging other members with old rhetoric, the type pasted all over the 'net, insulting each other in terms in stereotypes, like "lack the intelligence", etc. doesn't really achieve communication. Nor does it establish any useful dialogue. There are other websites that are more geared to flamewars--I'm proud that NowPublic isn't among them.

Personal attacks aren't part of NP.

Kaitlin recently posted the Flaming Policy. 

Also available: the Code of Conduct and Terms of Use. 

We can debate and discuss without stooping to flaming or personal attacks. One of the things that I think sets NowPublic apart is a commitment to actual cutting-edge crowd-powered journalism, original commentary, and expectations of higher standards of discourse. Together, we can all have our say without diatribes or attacks.

As far as debating how liberal or conservative the editors are, I think it's kind of pointless for a very important reason: the editors here try very hard to be objective in their evaluation of material. If it's good, it's good--even if it's of an opposite political persuasion than the editor who flags it. If it needs improvement, it needs improvement. Contributions  that represent many diverse viewpoints routinely wind up with "Good Stuff" flags, and on the front page. Barry Artiste, I think your post offers some good perspectives on how NowPublic functions.

In the end, it's up to us, individually, to commit to bringing both quality material and quality discussions to the table. And I think that on the whole, despite human tendencies to now and then be cranky, tired, or suddenly angry (or: low on chocolate!) our members do a good job of  being transparent and decent to one another. But when things get out of hand, the Flaming Policy makes something very clear: " Deciding who is or isn't a flamer, and how that contributor will
be handled, is at the final and sole discretion of the NowPublic staff.

Pass the chocolate, please. This is a long comment, certainly deserving of some chocolate.   :)