any woman that is not making well above average income, should probably not be having a kid out of wedlock. it isn't about "sin," or morality, it's about fricken common $ense! hello! it's about whether your kid grows up in a house or an apt, lives in a crappy neighborhood or a decent one, goes to a crappy school or a good one. hello! but beyond the finanacial aspect...what about the damn father? hello! kids from two parent, intact families have the best outcomes...all we are doing is creating a society full of broken hearted people...

I really hope that the attitude espoused by this guy isn't going to become more prevalent. I think that when our ability to think critically has been eroded to the point where every obvious statement of opinion needs to be preceded or followed with "IMO", or where generalizations must be qualified with "most of the time", we will have reached a point where meaningful dialogue becomes impossible.

I would hope that most people over the age of eight can recognize an opinion without it being pointed out to them, or understand that a generalization is a mechanism for describing a general pattern(and not a statement of an absolute law), but maybe I have more optimism about people's ability to think for themselves and not feel compelled to quibble about conventions that don't have anything to do with the topic at hand than I should

This might be true if Ann Coulter did not claim her opinion to be fact. If you watch the video from the view she does not claim that this is her opinion, she argues that it’s fact. So if we are supposed to recognize that it is her opinion why can’t she?

Wait a minute, if it happens some of the time, it is indeed fact. If it might happen it is opinion. Research is what backs up the claim. What is being argued here now is weather or not it is true 100% of the time. I don't recall her ever saying it happened 100% of the time (if she does, she is wrong), but if it happens 50% of the time, it is still FACT, at least half the time. I think her position is single mothers raise bad kids more often than either single fathers or two parent families, and according to her, statsitics bear this to be FACT

I really hope that the attitude espoused by this guy isn't going to become more prevalent. I think that when our ability to think critically has been eroded to the point where every obvious statement of opinion needs to be preceded or followed with "IMO", or where generalizations must be qualified with "most of the time", we will have reached a point where meaningful dialogue becomes impossible. I would hope that most people over the age of eight can recognize an opinion without it being pointed out to them, or understand that a generalization is a mechanism for describing a general pattern(and not a statement of an absolute law), but maybe I have more optimism about people's ability to think for themselves and not feel compelled to quibble about conventions that don't have anything to do with the topic at hand than I should.

My understanding is that she is attacking the liberal media,

My other thing is i read the very first post which sorta ran quickly though what happened on "The View" and it was very misleading and left the reader to believe Ann was insulting Barbra and that not at all what it was happening even though like most interviews with Ann she was never allowed to speak in full sentences because the people on the panel of guests or interviewers interupt constantly. She fights to get her point across.

You could be right, Ann insults liberals as much as liberals insult the conservatives and somehow its only wrong if she does it.. go figure.

I didn't think Liberals were insulted by being identified with the gay lifestyle.. There isn't anything wrong with it.

I didn't think Liberals were insulted by being identified with the gay lifestyle.. There isn't anything wrong with it.

Unprovoked insults and incendiary language are part of Coulter's shtick.

She is not genuinely funny like, say, PJ O'Rourke. I'm at a loss for what her appeal is.

What I once found funny was when Huckabee had her on his show, and he immediately played several clips of her openly criticizing and insulting him.

Also from the responses here, you get the feeling liberals simply hate her, and dismiss anything she says, despite the facts and the overwhelming evidence she sites in the book, that again nobody has actually read, but are more than willing to dismiss.

Again she can and does come across as abrasive, but she usually has her facts straight.

On Page 175, Coulter attacked "liberals" who would "foist" sex education topics such as "[a]nal sex, oral sex, fisting, dental dams, [and] 'birthing games'" on kindergarteners. Citing a November 8, 1987, New York Times article, Coulter wrote:

"But in contrast to liberal preachiness about IQ, there would be no moralizing when it came to sex. Anal sex, oral sex, fisting, dental dams, "birthing games" -- all that would be foisted on unsuspecting children in order to protect kindergarteners from the scourge of AIDS. As one heroine of the sex education movement told an approving New York Times reporter, "My job is not to teach one right value system. Parents and churches teach moral values. My job is to say, 'These are the facts,' and to help the students, as adults, decide what is right for them."9"

To those who find it odd that Coulter would support her claim about "fisting" being taught to kindergarteners by quoting "one heroine of the sex education movement" and referring to students as "adults," there is a very good reason for that. The woman Coulter quoted was Dr. Beverlie Conant Sloane, then-director of health education at Dartmouth College. The Times article cited by Coulter, titled "At Dartmouth, A Helping Candor," (subscription required) was about the sex education programs available to adult students at Dartmouth -- not children in kindergarten. Not only is the article about adult students, but it is from November 1987, close to 20 years old -- hardly what would be considered to be relevant information on current sex education policies.

On Page 248, Coulter wrote:

"In an article in the New York Times on intelligent design, the design proponents quoted in the article keep rattling off serious, scientific arguments -- from [Michael J.] Behe's examples in molecular biology to [William] Dembski's mathematical formulas and statistical models. The Times reporter, who was clearly not trying to make the evolutionists sound retarded, was forced to keep describing the evolutionists' entire retort to these arguments as: Others disagree.2 "

That's it. No explanation, no specifics, just "others disagree." The high priests of evolution have not only forgotten how to do science, they've lost the ability to formulate a coherent counterargument.

The New York Times article Coulter cited -- "In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash" -- appeared on August 22, 2005, as Part 2 of a three-part series on the debate over the teaching of evolution. Coulter's claim that the article's author, reporter Kenneth Chang, offered "[n]o explanations" and "no specifics" from the proponents of evolution is flat-out false. Chang offered detailed explanations of how evolutionary mechanisms gave rise to blood-clotting systems, modern whales, and speciation among birds on the Galapagos Islands ("Darwin's finches"). Chang also noted: "Darwin's theory ... has over the last century yielded so many solid findings that no mainstream biologist today doubts its basic tenets, though they may argue about particulars." Finally, and most egregiously, the phrase "others disagree" appears nowhere in the article.

I didn't think Liberals were insulted by being identified with the gay lifestyle.. There isn't anything wrong with it.

Anne Coulter is just jealous because her womb is barren due to her sex change operation. Too bad it didn't take