Anthony Weiner is currently on the comeback trail after infamously sending pictures of his “pecker” to his Twitter followers back in 2011. If anyone believes he can survive his scandal, it’s conservative firebrand Ann Coulter, who argued recently that other politicians have survived far worse.

Ever one for inciting controversy, Coulter compared the former congressman to the late Ted Kennedy, Mark Sanford and Nevada Senator David Vitter during a recent sit-down on Geraldo At Large. 

Weiner is currently considering a run for New York mayor, and Coulter wouldn’t be surprised if he managed to get elected, since other politicians have come back from far worse. She pointed out Kennedy’s ability to be re-elected continually after he “killed a girl,” and Vitter’s political success after his implication in a prostitution scandal.

Coulter told Rivera that Weiner should run because it will shift attention away from the GOP’s nomination of Mark Sanford in South Carolina. “These guys get caught in scandals and then no one will hire them, they have nothing to do. ‘Oh I know, I’ll run for my old job again,’” she remarked.

She conceded that Weiner was popular among liberals over his reputation as a “pit bull on TV,” but opined that the scandal that led to his resignation was “creepy,” saying that the disgraced pol was “really nasty about it.”

“When you see that pit bull really obnoxious behavior being deployed on behalf of you sending out pictures of your pecker, the whole thing is just so creepy and embarrassing,” said Coulter.

Coulter was recently in the news over a controversial Fox Nation column that “jokingly” called for Meghan McCain’s murder. The joke wasn’t well-received, with McCain and her mother condemning Coulter’s line. Still, she defended herself for the “joke.”

“I think the exclamation point made it clear,” Coulter told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “And the fact that everyone laughed when they read it.”

Here’s video of Ann Coulter weighing Anthony Weiner’s potential comeback, via Mediaite:

[Image via: lev radin / Shutterstock.com]

Ann Coulter Thinks Anthony Weiner Can Come Back After Showing His ‘Pecker’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter is in the news lately for making a controversial comment. What else?

Earlier in the week, Coulter wrote a piece for Fox Nation which included a line that called for Meghan McCain’s murder. The line, which Coulter says she meant as a joke, read:

“MSNBC’s Martin Bashir suggested that Republican senators need to have a member of their families killed for them to support the Democrats’ gun proposals. (Let’s start with Meghan McCain!)”

Some publications criticized Coulter’s comment while making excuses for Bashir (because he didn’t actually call for the death of anyone specific), but the only reaction that really matters is Meghan McCain’s.

McCain, the daughter of Arizona Senator John McCain and a blogger/pundit in her own right, responded to Coulter’s line in a series of tweets as soon as she caught wind of the off-color “joke.” Saying that she “should expect nothing less,” McCain offered her own send-up of Coulter:

“A little perspective this morning. People like Ann Coulter are part of the past and only live to spread hate and negativity. I literally couldn’t imagine living a life that seems so void of love, compassion, and perspective. Basically I get to wake up every day wanting to make this world a better place and people like her want to make it a worse place. I feel blessed to have not grown to be a person like that.”

During a Thursday appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, Coulter defended herself, saying that she was just “making a joke.”

“For one thing … that heinous thing Martin Bashir said, nobody knew about that until I added a joke, which is known as hyperbole.”

Hannity also criticized Bashir’s comments and said that he was “glad to hear [Coulter] doesn’t want to see children killed.”

“I think the exclamation point made it clear,” Coulter remarked. “And the fact that everyone laughed when they read it.”

Of course, no one can have a chance to laugh at it anymore, as Fox Nation pulled the post down.

Here’s video of Coulter defending her remarks. What do you think?

[Image via: Andrew F. Kazmierski / Shutterstock.com]

Ann Coulter Shrugs Off McCain Murder Joke: ‘Everyone Laughed’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Meghan McCain and Ann Coulter are doing a little verbal sparring across the internet this week. The bitter battle was sparked by a blog post, written by Coulter, in which the conservative pundit allegedly joked that McCain should be murdered.

In the blog post, Coulter allegedly wrote: “MSNBC’s Martin Bashir suggested that Republican senators need to have a member of their families killed for them to support the Democrats’ gun proposals. (Let’s start with Meghan McCain!)”

The blog post, which has since been removed, was in reference to a gun control discussion between US Congressman Elijah Cummings and MSNBC’s Martin Bashir.

When Cummings suggested that his personal views on the issue were influenced by the shooting death of a family member, Bashir reportedly fired back in disapproval.

“But Congressman, is that what needs to happen to move these senators to stop threatening a filibuster?” Bashir asked. “Is that really what needs to happen? That you need to have a member of your family killed in order for you to do what the American people want you to do?”

Ann Coulter, who has a long history of making controversial public statements, lashed out at John McCain’s daughter as part of her take on the discussion.

Meghan McCain, understandably, did not find the humor in Ann Coulter’s sarcasm. She addressed the blog post in a series of Twitter posts on Wednesday and Thursday.

“Apparently Ann Coulter made a joke about me being killed in a recent column,” she tweeted Wednesday. “I should expect nothing less but disgusted regardless.” In a subsequent tweet she added, “My father is a very famous politician. My family gets a lot of threats. Joking about me being killed really isn’t funny or appropriate.”

On Thursday, McCain had quite a bit more to say on the subject. In a significantly longer response, comprised of three tweets, she expressed the following:

“A little perspective this morning. People like Ann Coulter are part of the past and only live to spread hate and negativity. I literally couldn’t imagine living a life that seems so void of love, compassion, and perspective. Basically I get to wake up every day wanting to make this world a better place and people like her want to make it a worse place. I feel blessed to have not grown to be a person like that.”

What do you think of Meghan McCain’s response to Ann Coulter’s blog post?

[Top and bottom images via Wikimedia Commons]

Meghan McCain Slams Ann Coulter Over Murder Joke is a post from: The Inquisitr

Bill Maher is a pretty unambiguous liberal, but the often controversial comedian admitted that there’s at least one person on the left side of the fence who could spin him the other way – all the way – even to the Tea Party and into a decidedly unholy union with Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter.

Maher sat down with Jimmy Kimmel last night to talk about religion and politics (what else?) and the subject turned to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Despite being a liberal Democrat himself, Bloomberg is routinely criticized by Maher for a number of his comments and proposals. Among them, his most recent proposed soda ban.

Some on the right have questioned whether Maher is slowly working his way to their side. He has made some surprisingly conservative arguments regarding taxes, the Iraq War, and Mayor Bloomberg’s politics lately. But it’s doubtful Maher would make a full-on jump for conservatism. You can, after all, be a liberal or a conservative and call out crazy extremism on your side. Maher is the kind who calls them like he sees them.

And he called Bloomberg out on his controversial soda ban when Kimmel asked him about his “efforts to protect us from carbonated beverages.”

“I think it gives liberals a bad name,” Maher opined. “It makes liberals look like bullies who want to tell people what to do,” he added, continuing, “they never met a regulation they didn’t like.”

Maher does admit that we have a “problem with childhood obesity,” he thinks Bloomberg’s plan is all wrong.

“We don’t want to be a nanny state like this,” Maher argued. “I don’t know what Mayor Bloomberg has in mind, but there’s something wrong about the seventh richest man in the world sitting in bed at night thinking, ‘you know what people shouldn’t do? Drink too much Sprite.’”

Then, of course, there was the stinger. The part where Maher said that guys like Bloomberg make him want to “join the Tea Party and marry Ann Coulter. And that’s not where I want to be.”

Watch video below, via Mediaite:

One ‘Liberal’ Could Push Bill Maher Into The Tea Party, Ann Coulter’s Arms [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter used sodomy to make her during a debate about healthcare and Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s pending initiatives. The outspoken conservative author was discussing Bloomberg’s anti-obesity legislation with activist MeMe Roth during a recent Geraldo at Large segment.

The debate initially focused on Bloomberg’s policies but ultimately morphed into a far more broad discussion on social and fiscal issues. Ann Coulter took issue with the NYC mayor’s recent cigarette initiatives and used gay bathhouses, sodomy, and AIDS to make her point. Coulter feels that cigarette smoke is not the only lifestyle habit that can raise the cost of healthcare.

Coulter disputes the plan to go after smokers because lighting up will ultimately raise the cost of medical care when other supposedly risky habits could cause similar healthcare increases as well. Ann Coulter said, “There’s lots of behavior that’s worse. People know smoking is bad for you and all the stigma of the world comes down on this one behavior.”

Anti-obesity activist MeMe Roth disagreed with Coulter’s sodomy argument and stated that the personal decision to inhale nicotine winds up costing someone else money. During the debate Roth stated, “If we’re picking up the tab, somebody’s got to help pay for that.”

Ann Coulter countered her debate partner’s argument by pointing out the Obamacare surcharges that will impact smokers beginning next year. The conservative commentator called Mayor Michael Bloomberg a “politically correct nanny” during the segment. Coulter believes that if the United States government is going to fiscally punish American for one type of dangerous activity, then all potentially risky behavior should be included as well.

What do you think about Ann Coulter’s sodomy argument?

[Image Via: Andrew F. Kazmierski/Shutterstock.com]

Ann Coulter Uses Sodomy To Make Point In Healthcare Debate is a post from: The Inquisitr

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was booed by a roomful of Libertarians recently after saying that gay people can get married, so long as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

Salon reports that Coulter was debating Fox Business correspondent John Stossel (himself a staunch Libertarian) when she was booed. First, she called Libertarians “p*ssies” and then opined that gay people can only get married if they “marry a member of the opposite sex.”

Stossel’s show was filed at the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C. with roughly 1400 Libertarians in attendance, reports Mediaite.

Stossell talked about the drug war, to which Coulter scoffed “this is why people think libertarians are p*ssies.”

And the speech:

“We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, ‘Oh, but we want to legalize pot.’ You know, if you were a little more manly you would tell the liberals what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it’s always ‘We want to legalize pot.’”

Then Stossel turned the subject to same-sex marriage: “Why can’t gays get married?” Coulter replied: “Well, they can. They have to marry a member of the opposite sex.” That’s when everyone in attendance booed.

Check out the video for yourself. Would you have booed Ann Coulter?

Ann Coulter: ‘Gays Can Get Married … If They Marry A Member Of The Opposite Sex’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter has attacked Marco Rubio as the Florida senator continues to push his bipartisan plan on immigration.

After Rubio spent Tuesday talking immigration reform on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, Coulter blasted the GOP senator in a Human Events column. Coulter said Rubio, whose new immigration plan would allow unauthorized immigrants to apply for citizenship, risks winning more votes for Democrats. Coulter writes:

“Some Republicans seem determined to create more Democratic voters, too. That will be the primary result of Sen. Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan.”

Coulter’s argument stems from the theory that Democrats are only pursuing immigration reform to “create” more Democratic voters. The right-wing writer claims that Rubio’s plans would legalize 11.2 million new Democratic voters. She adds:

“Rubio’s bill is nothing but amnesty. It isn’t even “amnesty thinly disguised as border enforcement.” This is a wolf in wolf’s clothing.

“Despite all the blather about how Rubio demands “Enforcement First!” the very first thing his proposal does is make illegal aliens legal. (Don’t call them “illegal aliens”!)”

Coulter goes on to pin the blame for California’s budget problems on Hispanic voters and suggests the entire US will suffer in the same way should Rubio have his way:

“With Hispanics on track to become the largest ethnic group in California this year, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is incapable of electing any Republican statewide anymore. Taxes keep going up, and there’s no one left to pay the bill.

“That will be our entire country if Republicans fall for Rubio’s phony “Enforcement First!” plan. Perplexingly, some Republicans seem determined to turn the whole nation into California, in the foolish hope of winning one last election.”

Do you agree with Ann Coulter on Marco Rubio’s plans? Sound off in the comments!

Ann Coulter Turns On Marco Rubio Over Immigration Plan is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter seems to continually top her own outrageous statements, and the conservative pundit Officially Horrible Person has essentially said that the racial diversity of the US is responsible for gun violence, instead of a culture where guns are prevalent.

With each increasingly inane comment, it appears Ann Coulter tries harder and harder to offend as many people as possible and make it seem increasingly believable she is a performance artist and perhaps a liberal mocking the staunch conservatives of the US — with the racist remarks only the most recent bit of idiocy to fall from her lips of late.

Coulter tends to heavily insinuate hateful things, but this time the dog-whistle was loud and Ann was laying it on pretty thick when talking to Fox’s Sean Hannity. She spoke of a recent trip to Europe as the conversation turned to gun violence, and in contrasting the US with countries like England, said ”if you compare white populations,” it sheds light on American violence.

Ann says that it’s not guns that are responsible for people getting shot right in the face in classrooms and movie theaters. Naw, that would be crazy!

According to Coulter, we’re going to go out on a limb and say she meant it’s black people, since there are fewer black people in countries that have far stricter gun laws, except why would you consider the gun laws when black people?

Coulter said:

“On the gun crimes, we keep hearing how low they are in Europe, and oh, they’re so low, and they have no guns … If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium.”

Ann Coulter also praises England for not having “bought into this whole diversity enthusiasm” in the offensive clip, which you can watch below.

Ann Coulter Goes Full Racist, Says America Has A ‘Demographic Problem’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter called out what she believes is liberal hypocrisy in the recently revived gun control debate, suggesting that we ought to publish lists of women who have had abortions so that their neighbors can know which women they live near who’d be willing to “murder a child.”

Appearing on Hannity last night, Coulter and host Sean Hannity talked about the controversial decision by New York paper The Journal-News to publish a list of local gun owners to make a vague political point. Coulter asked why gun owners can be publicly identified while criminal records cannot be released in a similar way.

Coulter argued that public records of citizens holding gun permits shouldn’t be published because “people with gun permits by definition do not have criminal records.” She argued that public lists ought to include “recently-paroled criminals,” people living in rent-controlled housing, and women who have had abortions.

“Why can’t we get a record of women who have had abortions?” Coulter asked. “They get money from Planned Parenthood; they get money from Medicare and Medicaid, much of these are tax subsidies. I think mothers might want to know what other women on their street might be willing to murder a child.”

She also attacked Manhattan real estate: “How about a list of the rent-controlled apartments in New York?” she asked. “And by the way, if we’re producing lists of gun permit owners, I want ‘em for Manhattan! I want to know how many rich liberals with their bodyguards have gun permits,” arguing that if someone makes over $200,000 a year, they shouldn’t be able to hire armed bodyguards, and should be as “defenseless as the rest of us.”

Coulter summed up her argument, saying that gun control advocates are like “hysterical women” who “refuse to go after criminals.”

She also once again noted her disagreement with the NRA’s armed guards proposal.

Here’s video, via Mediaite. What do you think? Does Ann Coulter have a point, or is she just blowing smoke?

Ann Coulter: ‘Let’s Publish Lists Of Women Who Get Abortions’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter has apparently gone sour on the National Rifle Association, criticizing the group’s own Wayne LaPierre for his organization’s response to the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting two weeks ago.

Coulter appeared on MofoPolitics Friday to discuss the issue of gun control and to share what she thinks the NRA ought to be doing in the wake of the Newtown tragedy that resulted in the death of 20 children and six adults.

The Conservative firebrand specifically took aim at LaPierre for his weak performance on Meet the Press after the attack (during the now-infamous David Gregory high-capacity magazine fiasco). Coulter said that his defensive appearance did nothing to advance the goals of the NRA, nor did it add anything substantive to the other side of the gun control argument.

Coulter opined that LaPierre’s answer to the query regarding whether or not he wants to prevent more mass shootings should always be “yes,” and that he should have stuck to the perspective that more access to guns by law-abiding citizens could help prevent shootings like the one in Connecticut.

“The NRA needs a better spokesman,” Coulter remarked. “I was watching Wayne LaPierre on Meet The Press this weekend and — is he the only gun rights supporter who has not read John Lott‘s book?”

“There was hemming and hawing,” she continued. “The answer is — get this right-wingers, get this gun supporters — yes, yes, yes,” in reference to the question about preventing mass shootings.

She also made reference to the recent slew of subway pushings, submitting them as evidence that mental health needs to be addressed alongside gun control. “Can we lock some of these people up,” Coulter asked.

Listen to Ann Coulter’s attack on NRA chief Wayne LaPierre below, via Mediaite:

Ann Coulter Turns On NRA: ‘When Asked If You Want Fewer Children Killed, Say Yes’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Commentary | The Democrats have been handed quite a political opportunity with the Fiscal Cliff. No matter how things play out they’ve positioned themselves to look good in the eyes of the public or get what they want. This is what they call a win-win scenario and this is how I think the Democrat’s political strategy will play out.

In the past several years, President Obama has been quoted as saying that taxes should be not raised on anyone during a recession. This is a financially sound position that most economists would agree upon. Going further, Obama also said that if revenue was increased it should be done via reducing the number and types of tax deductions so that small businesses would not be harmed, which is what happens if you play with the highest marginal tax rate. Obama even formed a Budget Committee that came to the same conclusion. This also happens to be the Republicans plan for avoiding the fiscal cliff.

So why are Obama and the Democrats avoiding their own advice for being fiscally responsible? No matter what, the results of these budget decisions will be painful to the public. We either suffer pain now in smaller amounts over time or wait until the eventual financial meltdown that will hurt far worse all at once. But at the same time any moves to be fiscally responsible will be very unpopular with the United States public. No one wants to be the “bad guy” in this situation.

This is where political opportunism comes into play. Saying that the rich should be taxed more as part of their fair share sounds like a reasonable statement on the face of it, but in reality it amounts to political posturing. If Republicans give into Democratic demands the Democrats win.  Taking this position has led to an artificial standoff where 53 percent of the US population believes Republicans should shoulder the blame if a fiscal cliff deal is not reached. Obama’s approval rating is already going up. Democratic supporters will be especially angry since Democratic states are projected to be hurt worse by the fiscal cliff. So the Democrats win either way. This standoff also gives Democrats an excuse to employ the nuclear option that will allow Senate Democrats to change the Senate rules for the filibuster in their favor (although they’d come to regret it if Republicans ever retake the Senate majority).

A truly reasonable Congress would automatically extend the Bush tax cats and then focus on hammering out a budget plan to gradually reduce spending until the deficit is gone and debt is being repaid at a reasonable rate. Unfortunately, many people rely on Congressional spending so for them to suddenly not spend around $1 trillion dollars would have immediate devastating effects.

So any budget plans will be implemented over time, although one is tempted to ask why spending cannot be decreased as quickly as spending increased? After all, when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate the deficit was in the hundreds of billions, only to jump to over $1 trillion after Democrats took control and began spending like crazy while revenue was slumping. In any case, conventional wisdom has governments reducing spending slowly as can be seen by the austerity measures in Britain. Finance Minister Osborne has the British economy projected to get rid of their budget deficit only by 2018.

While taxing the rich at a higher top marginal income tax rate sounds fair, this idea ignores the larger issues at play. Obama’s estimates have the rich tax only generating $160 billion a year, or $1.6 trillion over 10 years, in increased revenue. This assumes that the super-rich do not start fleeing the United States, like they are doing in Britain. The budget deficit, or the amount of overspending above the income, is estimated by the White House to be $1.33 trillion for 2012. That means the tax for the rich will only amount to a 12 percent dent in the real problem assuming Obama’s estimates are correct. As Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, “[e]ven if individuals earning more than $200,000 were taxed at a 100 percent marginal rate–and we confiscated their passports so they could not flee–the take would come to $1.27 trillion, or just 77 percent of [the 2011] deficit.” So why risk throwing the United States economy into a double-dip recession over such a minor part of any budget plan?

If the Bush tax cuts expire the stock markets will panic. But this panic can probably be partially averted from total disaster by immediately announcing plans to offer tax breaks. The Democrats also get to pick and choose who they reward with tax breaks. In this scenario Republicans will look like even worse bad guys if they don’t immediately agree. So once again Democrats win either way. Known pundits like Ann Coulter probably realize this so she’s advising Republicans to give up on this issue.

You might question whether Democrats are really planning on such a political strategy:

“If the Republicans will not agree with that [raising the highest tax bracket], we will reach a point at the end of this year where all the tax cuts expire and we’ll start over next year,” said Patty Murray, who was Democratic co-chair of last year’s deficit super-committee. “And whatever we do will be a tax cut for whatever package we put together. That may be the way to get past this.”

The next stage in the Democratic political strategy would involve the automatic sequester. If we go over the fiscal cliff, $1.2 trillion, or $133.33 billion over nine years, in automatic spending cuts will kick in, with half going to military defense cuts and the other half coming out of entitlement programs. In this scenario many people will be very upset by the sudden cuts to entitlement programs they’ve come to rely upon. Democrats can pressure Republicans to bring back the entitlement program spending. If Republicans refuse they look bad in the eyes of the public. So once again the Democrats win either way.

So at the end of the day the Democrats may have a situation where they control the Presidency and Senate, public opinion of Republicans is at an all-time low, military spending has been cut, entitlement spending has been restored, and taxes have increased tremendously by going from 18 to 24 percent of GDP. The 2011 GDP was $15.09 trillion so the taxes will be increased by around $905.4 billion assuming the economy doesn’t shrink (extremely unlikely).

Ignoring other factors like Obamacare increasing both spending and taxing, we can roughly estimate where this potential scenario leaves the annual Federal budget deficit. The Federal debt ceiling will likely be raised in February. Let’s assume that before spending cuts and taxes increases the 2013 deficit would be $1,330 billion, or $1.33 trillion, like in 2012. We can reduce this by $905.4 billion, which brings us to $424.6 billion in overspending. Half of the $133.33 automatic sequester is $66.65 billion, which brings us to $358.1 billion. To put this number in perspective when Bush was President and Republicans controlled both House and Senate the Federal deficit for fiscal year 2007 was $163 billion. So the worst news is that even after all the dust settles the Federal budget will still not be balanced unless further action is taken by Congress.

What do you think about this analysis of the Democrat’s political strategy? Do you think they’re purposefully setting the stage for going over the fiscal cliff or that stubborn Republicans are really to blame?

Fiscal Cliff: Likely Democratic Political Strategy Explained [Op-Ed] is a post from: The Inquisitr

know it’s a dark day for the GOP when one of their top advocates tells them to lay down their arms regarding raising taxes in this country. Controversial conservative firebrand Ann Coulter did just that, shocking Sean Hannity on the Wednesday night episode of his Fox News program.

A big part of negotiations regarding the upcoming “fiscal cliff” is whether or not to raise taxes on the super rich in this country. Though House Speaker John Boehner has at least said he’s willing to look at revenues, most congressional GOP figures have not budged on the issue that Democrats say is crucial to solving our financial crisis.

Coulter, known for her outspoken and at-times harsh political perspective, said on Wednesday that Republicans should give up the fight against raising taxes on the rich, very simply because the GOP lost the 2012 election. Sean Hannity said that that the House should just extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

“OK fine, let’s do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone’s taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it,” Coulter said. “It doesn’t mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans.”

“So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?” Hannity asked.

“Not exactly, I–” Coulter said, before clarifying, “Well, yeah, I guess I am.”

“You’re saying capitulate to Obama?” Hannity reacted. “We don’t have a revenue problem, Ann.”

“We lost the election, Sean!” Coulter replied.

Here’s video of Ann Coulter saying tax hikes on the rich are a-OK with her:

Ann Coulter To GOP: Give Up On Taxes, We Lost [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter is sick of being bullied about her bullying. The conservative pundit defended her use of the word “retard” to describe President Obama, saying that word has been used to mean “loser” for the last 30 years.

Coulter said that she would never use the word “retard” to describe someone with an actual mental handicap. But for someone who’s just being a loser? Well, the r-word is a perfectly acceptable term.

Coulter said:

“Look, no one would refer to a Down Syndrome child, someone with an actual mental handicap, by saying ‘retard.’ Where do you think the words ‘imbecile,’ ‘idiot,’ ‘moron,’ ‘cretin’ come from? These were all technical terms at one time. ‘Retard’ had been used colloquially to just mean ‘loser’ for 30 years. But no, no — these aggressive victims have to come out and tell you what words to use.”

Colmes also asked Coulter about John Franklin Stephens’ letter. Stephens, a special Olympics athlete, wrote Coulter an open letter shaming the pundit for the use of the R-word.

Coulter said:

“I do not need to be told this. I was not making a joke about Special Olympics the way our president did, by the way. It would be one thing if I said in my tweet a joke about Special Olympics, a joke about Down Syndrome. No one would call someone with Down Syndrome ‘retard.’”

Colmes pressed Coulter, saying that many people believe the word “retard” is offensive.

Coulter responded:

“Oh, screw them. That’s what they feel I do? I feel they’re being authoritarian bullying victims. This is the other thing about liberal victims — they always claim, like the Jersey Girls, to speak on behalf of all the victims of 9/11. No you don’t, you big bullies.”

The controversy started shortly after the third presidential debate when Coulter complimented Mitt Romney for taking it easy on “retard” Obama.

Coulter wrote on Twitter:

I highly approve of Romney’s decision to be kind and gentle to the retard. — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) October 23, 2012

She later added:

Obama: “Stage 3 Romneysia” – because cancer references are HILARIOUS.If he’s “the smartest guy in the room” it must be one retarded room.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) October 23, 2012

The comments sparked some serious backlash for the conservative pundit. The strongest argument came from John Franklin Stephens, who said that the word “retard” should be a badge of honor and not an insult.

Stephens writes:

“After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me.  You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV. Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor. No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.”

Are you a fan of Ann Coulter? Is she being bullied because of her word choice?

Ann Coulter Defends ‘Retard’ Comment is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter has been attacked on the left and right for her proud use of the word “retard” in reference to President Obama. The most pointed criticism arrives on Coulter’s desk from Special Olympics athlete John Franklin Stephens, who has Down syndrome.

Stephens wrote an open letter to Ann Coulter, shortly after a Special Olympics rep responded to the conservative commentator’s controversial and liberal use of the word “retard.” The letter is a finely-crafted human plea from Stephens, and a thoughtful criticism of Coulter’s use of the offensive word.

“Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow.  So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?” Stephens writes.

“After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me.  You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV.

“Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor.

“No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.”

Stephens concludes with: “A friend you haven’t made yet, John Franklin Stephens.”

Thus far, Coulter nor her camp have responded to Stephens’ letter. Whether or not she’ll take the criticism to heart or shrug Stephens’ letter off as a manipulated political message, remains to be seen. It should be noted that Stephens isn’t just a random mouthpiece for the Special Olympics, hand-picked to provide a personal and emotional response to Coulter’s comments. He has actually written thoughtful pieces on society’s use of the “r-word” as far back as 2008.

You can read one here.

What do you think of Ann Coulter’s use of the word “retard?” Should she apologize to John Franklin Stephens and others like him? Sound off!

Open Letter To Ann Coulter Penned By John Franklin Stephens, Man With Down Syndrome is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter has come under attack by officials at the Special Olympics because of her use of the word “retard.”

The conservative mouthpiece recently used the word to describe President Obama, and that use did not sit well with the Special Olympics committee. An organizer for the sporting event tells TMZ:

“We are disappointed in [Ann's] regular use of the word despite our constituents regular appeals to her for compassion.”

The Special Olympics rep adds:

“[We] welcome an open invitation for her to be involved in an educational meeting with our athletes to understand the demeaning use of the R-word in everyday speech.”

Coulter’s use of the nasty language was her second offense in just three months. In a tweet sent out after the third Presidential debate, Coulter wrote:

“I highly approve of Romney’s decision to be kind and gentle to the retard.”

Ann’s first offense also came in the form of a tweet when she attacked MSNBC host Chris Matthews back in August.

The use of the word retard didn’t sit well with Coulter’s fellow conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, who tweeted:

“What a stupid, shallow thing to say, Ann.”

Here’s Ann Coulter’s classy tweet aimed at Obama:

Obama: “Stage 3 Romneysia” – because cancer references are HILARIOUS.If he’s “the smartest guy in the room” it must be one retarded room.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) October 23, 2012

Thousands of tweets have criticized Ann Coulter for the use of her inappropriate name calling.

Do you think Ann Coulter has went over the line by using the “R word” against Obama?

Ann Coulter Attacked By Special Olympics Over ‘Retard’ Use is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter, conservative pundit, is not known for shying away from expressing controversial ideas and opinions on the national stage — but many were angered by an offensive tweet the TV personality and writer sent last night about the third and final presidential debate.

GOP contender Mitt Romney adopted a softer stance than incumbent opponent Barack Obama, and according to Ann Coulter, Romney was a gentleman. Coulter herself did not espouse the same grace in her assessment of the Republican hopeful’s performance.

The blonde Republican media star took to Twitter to commend her candidate, and offend the families of many with disabilities as she expressed herself. On the microblogging service, Coulter garnered a bunch of retweets and angry replies when she tweeted:

“I highly approve of Romney’s decision to be kind and gentle to the retard.”

As of now, more than 1,108 people have “favorited” Coulter’s “retarded” tweet.

Politicker quoted a man named Dan Niblock, who is a father to a small child with Down syndrome. Niblock appealed to Coulter two weeks ago to stop calling people with whom she disagreed “retarded,” and the blog quotes the dad as having said:

“I want Ann Coulter to apologize for using a form of hate speech that is particularly searing to people who have special needs. This isn’t the first time she has tweeted the word ‘retarded’ to insult her rivals, and she needs to stop. Her behavior is not acceptable.”

Coulter has responded, but not to apologize or use another word to articulate her disagreement. Instead, she says:

“The only people who will be offended are too retarded to understand it.”

Coincidentally, we’re sure, Coulter is also promoting a brand-new book, Mugged. Do you think use of the word “retarded” in the way Ann Coulter is in the habit of using it is offensive, or is it a part of the vernacular that is common enough that it doesn’t bother you?

I highly approve of Romney’s decision to be kind and gentle to the retard.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) October 23, 2012

Ann Coulter Calls President Obama The ‘R-Word’ After Debate, Stands By It is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter has made a few interesting comments over the last few days. She said that women, Latinos  and the LGBT community didn’t deserve civil rights because they didn’t go through slavery. She also said that people like Lawrence O’Donnell and Bill Maher only date black girls because of white guilt. Well, when the Fox News pundit appeared on The View today, Whoopi Goldberg had a few things to say to her.

Coulter appeared on the show to talk about her new book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. The book talks about the black experience in America, which, according to Whoopi, Coulter has no right to write about.

Coulter said that her book wasn’t trying to talk about what it’s like to be black. Instead, the book is about how “white liberals” use (race to) promote causes that have nothing to do with blacks and, in fact, harm blacks.”

Goldberg said: “Please stop, please stop. If you’re going to talk about race, at least know what you’re talking about. Tell me how much you know about being black. You just made all these statements about how black people feel.

Coulter said:” This isn’t a book about black people. It’s a book about white liberals.”

Mediate reports that Coulter set off another round of arguments when she said that liberals have never cared about black people.

Coulter said: “I don’t think liberals ever cared about black people. Five minutes after the Civil Rights Act of ’64 passed, they start calling everything that has nothing to do with black people a ‘civil rights issue.’”

Here’s the video of Ann Coulter and Whoopi Goldberg arguing on The View. 

Ann Coulter And Whoopi Goldberg Argue About Race On ‘The View’ [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

On Tuesday’s Fox & Friends, conservative pundit Ann Coulter said TV hosts Lawrence O’Donnell and Bill Maher think they’re freedom riders because they date “black gals.” Coulter said:

“These are not people who have black friends, who know black people. Oh, sorry, except, you know, Lawrence O’Donnell and Bill Maher, who date black gals. So they think they’re freedom riders.”

O’Donnell, 60, has reportedly been dating fellow MSNBC host Tamron Hall, 41, for almost a year. Maher has dated former hip-hop model Karrine Steffans and former Playboy Cyber Girl Coco Johnsen.

Maher addressed his dating history in 2009 when there was talk that he had a pattern because his then-girlfriend and his former girlfriend were black.

“People say I’m into black women. Robert De Niro is into black women. I’m just into women who are real, and they happen to be black,” Maher said.

Coulter has never been one to back away from controversial comments. Earlier this week, she said civil rights were only for blacks, not immigrants, women, or gays. During an appearance on Hannity, Coulter also said blacks should support Republicans because they are better off under them then they are under Democrats. She said:

“What we’ve learned is, everyone – blacks especially – are better off when the white guilt bank is shut down as it was for more than a decade after the O.J. verdict… For a dozen years (after the verdict), we had paradise. Suddenly, people weren’t walking on eggshells. You could have Giuliani enforcing sane criminal laws in New York without – and not caring …  It transformed the city and it saved… tens of thousands of black lives.”

What do you think of Ann Coulter’s comments?

Ann Coulter: O’Donnell, Maher Think They’re Freedom Riders For Dating ‘Black Gals’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Ann Coulter has an interesting definition of civil rights. According to the conservative pundit, civil rights are reserved for the black community and are not meant for gays, women, or immigrants.

During the round table discussion at ”This Week,” Coulter said:

“There is the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. We don’t owe the homeless. We don’t owe feminists. We don’t owe women who are desirous of having abortions, or gays who want to get married to one another. That’s what civil rights has become for much of the left … I think civil rights are for blacks… What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven’t even been in this country.”

What do you think of Ann Coulter’s comments? Is the black community the only group that has faced inequality in America? Is suffering a pre-requisite for equal rights?

Former Obama domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said that Coulter obviously didn’t have a firm grasp on history, saying that immigrants have suffered discrimination for a long time in America.

Barnes said:

“I think you misunderstand the history of what’s happened to immigrants and the history of discrimination against immigrants in this country … we were trying to keep people from coming in this country in the most discriminatory of manner, in a way that doesn’t lead to and build on the fact that we are a nation of immigrants.”

What do you think of Ann Coulter’s comments?

Ann Coulter: Civil Rights Are For Blacks, Not Immigrants, Gays Or Women is a post from: The Inquisitr

Cable talk show host Bill Maher is often held up as a bleeding heart liberal, but, in a recent interview, Maher has again reiterated that he sees massive flaws on both sides of the aisle, all leading back to a fact-resistant American populace intellectually wed to “magical thinking.”

Of course, as much can be expected from Bill Maher, the man behind the documentary Religulous, which counted the ways in which religion and its associated bailout mentality has harmed humanity. But, while conservatives may see Maher as an idealogue, the man himself doesn’t entirely caucus with liberals as a rule.

Maher is currently on hiatus before Real Time With Bill Maher picks up again in the fall, and, in his fallow periods, he has a bit more time to do other shows and sit down with interviewers to do what he does best: talk politics. And in a recent interview, Maher blasted both sides of the political spectrum in the US for a lack of involvement and knowledge about our political process.

Maher does a bit on his show about the “conservative bubble,” an ongoing gag implying Republican voters get their information, by and large, from spurious and fact-resistant sources that arrange information to reach a foregone conclusion. But Maher admits it’s not just GOP adherents and tea partiers that fall prey to single-minded news and say liberals have a bubble of their own, one in which he often finds himself dwelling:

“I talk a lot about the conservative bubble, but there’s a liberal bubble, too. I mean, nobody I know watches “NCIS” or “CSI,” and those are the biggest shows on television. That’s a liberal bubble, and we all have to fight to get out of our bubble.”

Maher blames a lot of the divide in the US right now on the internet, and, despite a close friendship with blogging magnate Arianna Huffington, he has been a frequent critic on how new media shapes our news cycle in a way that is not always positive. On bubbles and the internet, Maher opines:

“I think people generally with the Internet can sort of coagulate into their own tribes and form a clot… I don’t mind if someone has genuine ideological differences. But I do take offense when people have their own set of facts. I’m not the only one to point this out, but it is amazing the way the Republicans can run against a completely fictional Barack Obama.”

Maher continues:

“I saw it on the news just yesterday, something like half the country –– and I don’t mean just Republicans –– half of everybody thinks he’s a Muslim. Forty-nine percent say he’s a Christian. Now this is not something that’s really in dispute. You can easily look this up. And yet they are stubbornly ignorant, they refuse to let any air into that bubble.”

Indeed, the situation encapsulating two Americas seems to have worsened significantly since we all stopped watching the same news, and the liberal-leaning Libertarian Maher says that, even with his lefty viewpoints, he can become tired of the dichotomy as well. He talks about how for a long time, Fox News was the only player in the partisan ballgame and that he is glad MSNBC “emerged as a counterweight” to balance the propaganda — but it still can be a bit overwhelming:

“I’m glad MSNBC emerged as a counterweight. As much as I’m very fond of all of the people at MSNBC, Chris Matthews and Rachel (Maddow) and Lawrence O’Donnell, they’re all good people. But if I watch it, like, for a whole day, I want to marry Ann Coulter and join the tea party.”

It seems that Maher has a true if cynical point — and much of America won’t be able to move forward so long as there is infighting about blocking progress entirely from the other side. Do you think that America has a hope of moving forward from our current partisan political quagmire, or will Bill Maher’s observations become more pronounced traits in our political landscape?

Bill Maher: ‘I Want To Marry Ann Coulter And Join The Tea Party’ is a post from: The Inquisitr

Quick, describe Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s stance on gay marriage. Not in favor, right? Wrong, according to Ann Coulter, who said Sunday that Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay marriage stance isn’t really an “anti-gay thing.”

Sitting next to former Obama adviser Van Jones on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Coulter made several bold assertions (as she is wont to do) about the Chick-fil-A controversy, and the greater sociopolitical argument that it nests in.

“He said, look, all the founders of this company are married to our first wives,” said Coulter in response to Cathy’s original comments. “It’s genuinely a pro-marriage position to oppose gay marriage.”

Chick-fil-A has, of course, come under fire for comments by the company’s president Dan Cathy, who said that “We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,” after it had been revealed that the chicken-chain donates millions to groups that oppose gay rights. Gay rights advocates have called for a boycott of the company, while supporters led by Mike Huckabee called for a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” which showed great turnout and record sales, reports the Huffington Post.

Coulter says that such turnout is reason enough to doubt recent polls showing that a majority of Americans are now in favor of gay marriage. “When you see crowds like that coming out [to support Chick-fil-A], no, I’m sorry, I don’t believe the polls on gay marriage. Let us vote. Those polls I believe, and it makes me suspicious at the polls on the presidential election.”

Fair enough, Coulter, but LGT points out that Chick-fil-A is primarily a Bible-Belt company, with no stores in Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island or New York, two in California and Massachusetts, and one in New Hampshire. So how right can she be about the public’s support (or lack of) on gay marriage?

What do you think? Does Coulter have a point here or is her stance inaccurate? Watch the video and sound off below!

Come Again? Ann Coulter Says Chick-fil-A Stance Isn’t Anti-Gay [Video] is a post from: The Inquisitr

Op/Ed – Ann Coulter demonstrated her usual bold and straightforward manner when denouncing President Barack Obama’s failed economic policies during a heated panel debate on ABC “This Week” news broadcast. It was visibly difficult for Coulter to retain her composure when debunking the misguided liberal ideas voiced by fellow panelists Van Jones and Ed Rendell; but the seasoned political commentator managed to make her valid points without sinking into attack mode. At the end of a very rough week for President Obama, it was likely disheartening for his campaign staff to see his supporters debunked so succinctly during the weekend news show.

Tired political rhetoric by progressive Democrats will not thwart either Coulter or the American public from talking about the continued sluggish state of the economy. Although the primary focus of the panel discussion centered around Obama’s press conference last week, his overall performance was summarily picked apart by the end of the heated debate. Taxpayers were likely left scratching their heads after hearing President Obama tout the importance of a jobs bills which would add to the nation’s debt and called for more public sector job growth.

Although Jones attempted to make conservatives appear to be evil monsters for questioning the salary, benefits and performance of public employees, the recent Wisconsin recall race clearly points to a shift in thinking on collective bargaining perks. President Obama’s campaign staff proved once again how out-of-touch the White House is with common citizens by ignoring the strong message sent when Wisconsin voters chose to keep Scott Walker in office. As Coulter so colorfully pointed out during the panel discussion, American voters are demanding a fiscally responsible approach to managing the public sector. Pressure from Obama’s staunch public employees union supporters to push for more government sector spending may cost him a second term in the Oval Office.