Talk:Ann Coulter

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ann Coulter article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

		This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

		This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Looks fantastic

Ugly Gap

There is huge ugly gap in the middle of the page we need to remedy this. It's different sizes for different screen resolutions but if you have a 1680 x 1050 resolution it's huge and ugly. Quadzilla99 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. Quadzilla99 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More Subtle

Perhaps this page should be a little more subtle? Swampworth 17:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nahh! MadHatter 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now I don't think it could get any less subtle, so things will even themselves out over time. Even though Ann Coulter is a vile right-wing bitch and thoroughly deserving of ridicule. AndHappyAboutIt 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From VFD

• I really don't get you, UNKNOWNFILE. What "style" are you talking about? It's just a crapload of templates, horrible formatting, random gratuitous offenses and general drifting. I'm not saying we shouldn't have an article about Ann Coulter. Just trash this and other version will appear very soon, I bet. All we know that the "rewrite" tag doesn't work - and it would be lost between so much templates. -- herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 02:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• And you too, Modus. Following your line of thought, Hitler's article should be: "A NAZI FAG SUCKS DIC LOOOLZZZZ!!!!1111". -- herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 02:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  You need to relax. Put on your flannel jammies. Have some chamomile tea. Maybe fire up the bong. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, maybe... But in a hip-not-hippie way. -- herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 02:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) I give up. We talked a lot about this page being an utter pile of trash but you want to preserve it because the subject is also an utter pile of trash. So if the subject is hateful, it deserves an ED-like article. Nevermind, nevermind... -- herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 03:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd take on the task of a rewrite myself, but the subject matter would only make me angry. Mostly, I try to only subjects that piss me off in small doses (that way they have at least a small chance of being vaguely humourous). You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. I go all round and yellow with a squiggly thing that sticks out of my head. Yes, I turn into one of the Teletubbies. True story. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just talking that, one way or another, someone would re-create this article, and very soon. With a little luck, that could be a good or at least average writer. At its current state, it doesn't deserve a life in Uncyc. -- herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're volunteering, write it up under your userpage, then come back here and ask if anyone would mind if you did a rewrite (+link to your work in progress). Let a week or two pass, and if no one objects, overwrite this version. That's pretty much how I've done it; only once did someone object (then I had to figure out a new title for my version). Simple. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've performed a rewrite on a shitty article without caring about these procedures. It's a fact that, from its talk page, most people seemed to dislike it. But it was not that bad that it deserved VFD at its previous state - and a relatively known country (in this case I will agree with our current VFD/rewrite policies) is a subject we really cannot miss. - herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 03:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Anne Coulter just insults and rants and rants in a nonsensical manner, which is why I decided to vote keep on VFD. This article is written as if Anne Coulter herself were writing it, because anything she writes is crap. --» >UF|TLK|▋» 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Needabrain sucks.

See the Hitler argument. Is not because someone is stupid that we should have a stupid article. By the way, this piece of art is ever changing. Needs a rewrite and a single author, that's it. But not me. -- herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas for this article

Okay, as this one will survive, I'm thinking about what made me so annoyed:

• Remove that damn templates. Or place one - just one - at the end of the article;
• Her ranting speech should be continued during all of the article;
• Let's add some coherence to our calumny. He needs an history to be so naughty, naughty, naughty. Most obvious way: former prostitute?
• Other stuff: conservatives and Nazi are not exactly the same stuff and most conservatives start any discussion or treaty trashing the Nazi. So it's better finding some tie, making she say she is not Nazi but find a fact that "proves" she is actually a Nazi. KKK go go girl?

Why am I not doing this myself? Because I know just vaguely that she is an über-conservative (religious type) with a loud voice, but actually I've never seen an interview or read a book of her. I don't watch the same TV as you (alas, I practically don't watch TV). -- herr doktor needsAbeam  [scream!] 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

NSFW image

It's well done, but the NSFW template will have to go back on if it's added. Alksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

More Subtle

Nah, we don't need to be. She deserves everything this article gives to her!

--Wildcard 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Poor article

This isn't funny; it's just a list of schoolyard obscenities and not-so-subtle sexual freakishness. There's no real satire. Some of the other political humour articles are much, much better. (Admittedly I may be slightly biased, since I love Ann Coulter. <3) Herbert the Giraffe 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:54, Apr 19

Sadly I don't particularly feel able to lend a hand with this article, since, as mentioned, I absolutely adore Ann Coulter (and agree wholeheartedly with her conservative views). But there must be some woolly liberals out there who actually have a sense of humour... Herbert the Giraffe 15:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Schoolyard obsenities are what defines Ann Coulter. Is calling a presidential candidate a "faggot" and 9/11 widows "whores" the ideal linguistics used by a college educataed political satarist? And if you don't wanna get into sexual freakish stuff, why are you reading her columns? Google the terms 'ann coulter' and 'fisting' together and tell me what you come across. This article is really no more filthy than her mouth. --Lamrock 11:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, actually she didn't call 9/11 widows whores. She did call them (the Jersey Girls, who ran a campaign commercial for Kerry in '04) "harpies", and accused them of exploiting their husbands' deaths for political ends; but she was making a legitimate point, i.e. that liberals dishonestly use victim figures in their publicity campaigns, so that they can paint anyone who argues with them as uncaring and evil, and thereby exclude rational debate. As to the "faggot" comment, that referred to John Edwards (who is not gay, but is a complete twat who once spent $400 on a haircut). She later clarified that "it was a joke. I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards; now that would be mean."

As regards fisting, what she actually said was: "these health fanatics, when it comes to smoking, encourage every form of polymorphous perversity, which, by the way, does have public health consequences — but no, no, no, no... anal sex and fisting, that’s part of our deepest privacy rights.” She was saying that some radical liberals, while being fanatically anti-smoker for reasons of "public health", at the same time argue that any kind of bizarre sexual practice is part of the individual's "right to privacy", whatever its public health implications. So she was using it as an example of liberals' double standards. Check your facts, and don't believe everything the mainstream media tells you. As a regular visitor to her website, I am familiar with what she actually says, not with how the media distorts it.

Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to sexual humour being used in articles, where it's relevant. But in this article, there is no actual satire, just a string of obscenities directed at Ann. Herbert the Giraffe 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ann's career is based on throwing obsenities at everyone who doesn't fit in agreement with her warped world view. It makes perfect sense. She makes a mockery of conservatives. Pretty sad. --Lamrock 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read anything I said above? Herbert the Giraffe 09:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No one read what you wrote because franly they could tell it would be a load of horse garbage and Coulter leg humping

OMFG!!!!!!!!! You seriously like this bitch? Good lord, you and her should go and cup rush limbaugh's balls with some tweezers and take laura ingraham with you.

Ideas

"Ann "No Heart" Coulter, born 1961 1963 1969 1980, is a popular American stipper, political bitch, journalist and model. Best-known for having a sex with John Edwards on live television (which she won) and then said that he was a homosexual, so no one would think it was true. She is also known for bullying poor harmless liberals who can't stand up for themselves. She has also been criticised for apparently advocating vicious discrimination against law-abiding Muslim citizens, and for failing to show proper understanding and care towards oppressed minorities such as Muslims, violent criminals and liberals. She has also attracted controversy with her outrageous bullshit about the war on terror, actually arguing that the aim of the war should be to defeat the enemy and prevent them from living their own lives. This radical bullshit has been condemned by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party, who stick to the mainstream view that a proper response to terrorism is to ensure that the alleged "terrorists'" human rights are not violated. As one ACLU lawyer argued, "Ann Coulter's views are fascist and evil. She's a total bitch."

Ann Coulter's looks and sexuality have also been criticised extensively in the media, which has compared her unfavourably to such stunningly attractive liberal sex gods and goddesses as Michael Moore, Helen Thomas and Nancy Pelosi. But Ann Coulter is really fucking ugly. It has been theorised that Coulter, and indeed all Republicans, may be in the closet, and this is self-evident; why else would the Republican Party be full of people like Mark Foley and Larry Craig? As a New York Times editorial points out, "All true liberal-minded progressive American males would rather screw George W. Bush than Ann Coulter. ""

Er, this rather misses the point of my attempt at satire. (I was trying to satirise what liberals think of Ann Coulter. The fact that you don't get that may conclusively demonstrate that liberals have no sense of humour.) With all of your suggested changes, it would make very little sense. However, I'll try and work some of them into the article. Herbert the Giraffe 08:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not attempting to satirize anything. You already said that you "love Ann Coulter". Yours is a thinly veiled attempt to poke fun of liberals while glorifying Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is a troll. Nothing else. What else do you expect from someone who pokes fun at Vietnam War Vets? --216.27.233.98 00:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Herbert, if you actually wanted to "satirize" you would have to write an article that thinly portrays her as some sort of intelligent person and as a hero while linking to the idiotic and stupid statements she has made. What you're doing now is simply making fun of liberals while showing Ann Coulter to be some sort of Hero, which she isn't. --216.27.233.98 18:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But it's difficult for me, since I actually do like her. Yet you would have to admit, the original version of the article is not funny or satirical in the slightest - it's just a long string of insults and someone's bizarre sexual fantasies. Perhaps we can come to a compromise - try and rewrite from how it is now, rather than simply reverting. If you do that, I won't revert your changes. Herbert the Giraffe 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to rewrite the lead to be less pro-Coulter. [1] Is this any better? Herbert the Giraffe 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Herbert, the whole point of Uncyclopedia is to ridicule and make fun of people not, praise them. If you like Ann then that's fine but you should probrably have left the article as is. You can go to "Liberalism" page and mock it there because that page is exclusively for mocking Liberals. You are entitled to your opinion but don't use that to try and change this page from what it was.

what happened?

This article has become so pro-Coulter that it's not even mocking her anymore, it's making her look like a hero. This article needs some serious revamping to fix it. I suggest that people who like Ann should probrably stay away from reading this article.

Ok, I just did an entire revamp of this article. It took a few hours but it was worth it. I took out most of the stuff that praises her and put in more stuff that mocks her. If anybody has any ideas or comments that let me know. And one last thing to the guy that put in all of the stuff praising her, you are more than welcome to like Ann but seriously dude, these articles are meant to mock people. If you want to ridicule someone, then be my guest but do it on their own article.Peace--69.127.145.216 03:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the she/he jokes. Sorry about that i went a little overboard on that but everything else looks good.--69.127.145.216 19:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I put back the list of things that Ann has slept with over the years although I did reduce some of it. People do find this stuff funny Herbert. Please, for the 20th time, don't just get rid of something because you don't like it. Thank you--69.127.145.216 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article should be shot

Hmm. --Narcissus Black 22:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why?--69.127.145.216 03:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's all so horribly left-wing and it takes the piss out of a brilliant woman. --Narcissus Black 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

of course it makes fun of her. That's the whole point of uncyclopedia, to make fun of people. If you don't like it then don't read it--69.127.145.216 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to make fun of her maliciously. Look at the Oscar Wilde article. It's funny but whoever wrote it obviously likes him. --Narcissus Black 08:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well most of us who wrote this article, including myself, really don't like her. And she's not the only one who's viciously attacked on this site, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Steven Colbert are a few examples. But this brings me back to my original point, if you don't like the article, then don't read it. Besides, I doubt that she's losing any sleep over this. --69.127.145.216 12:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so but it's still loathsomely left-wing. I mean why doesn't the chap who wrote it just go and hug a tree? --Narcissus Black 20:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hug plenty of trees thank you very much:)--69.127.145.216 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do they hug you back? --Narcissus Black 23:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No not really. It's actually very uncomfortable to hug trees. I was thinking about just hugging a pillow instead.... Wow, we've really gone off topic haven't we?--69.127.145.216 20:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I once asked a chap to shut up and it led to a conversation about why the Devil was evil. --Narcissus Black 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea that happens to me a lot too. My brain just goes all over the place. Sorry about that. Well anyway, I can see that neither of us can convince each other to change our opinions on Ann. So we should probrably just leave it at that. But I appreciate getting a different point of view on the subject.--69.127.145.216 21:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Narcissus Black 12:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol criticism of leftist-bias on Uncyclopedia. Go to Conservapdia for right-wing humour please.

This article sucks

Seriously. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this article is full of win. Seriously -Unregistered guttersnipe 06:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up :)

I'm truly impressed at this article. It awsomely mixes her bitchness with random hate comments. Its just a shame she didn't got offended by this

Edited

I've updated and edited it to make it David Coulter. Hee hee. Aleister 22:33 17 9 MMX