Ann Coulter is like any of us, she has something top say, like her or not, I challenge you to state just one of her positions and (un-emotionally and mechanically) present your side. Instead of HATING her why not use an argument of SUBSTANCE to refute what she has to say.
This is harder than you make it sound as Coulter herself has far fewer identifiable "positions" than she has hateful, ignorant, intolerant things to say about others. This is the chief reason why people find her distasteful.
As for a few positions of hers that I myself disagree with... how about these:
"we should invade their (the 9/11 terrorists) countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"
It's hard not to at least
sound emotional when responding to direct quots like this, just because it's difficult to phrase a response to such
monumental stupidity without employing hyperbole. I'll give it a shot.
First of all, holding a sovereign nation responsible for the actions of every one of its citizens is ridiculous. Should we have invaded South Korea after the Virginia Tech shootings? Should Singapore have invaded the United States after that idiot kid was charged with vandalism? We haven't invaded Saudi Arabia and won't (and Coulter's own party wouldn't support doing so) even though 80% of the hijackers were from there. There are a number of different reasons why this would be a bad idea. For one, invading Saudi Arabia would make only slightly more sense than invading Iraq, since like Iraq there is no evidence that that nation of Saudi Arabia had anything at all to do with coordinating the attacks. Like the war in Iraq, and invasion of Saudi Arabia would be more or less indefensible to international critics and cause the United States to lose even more credibility and even more of the good will that we had immediately after 9/11 and that Bush has since largely squandered. Further, the Saudis are prepared and have already engineered the destruction of their billions of barrels of oil reserves, the largest in the world, should they ever be in danger of losing power. If the US government went in to topple the Saudi Arabian government, it would trigger a global energy crisis and economic collapse and probably world wide war, famine, and suffering on a Biblical scale. Additionally, we would be playing directly into Bin Laden's hand if we were to invade Saudi Arabia. Islam's holiest sites are on Saudi soil, including the city of Mecca, where no non-Muslims are even allowed to set foot. If US troops were to land in Mecca or Medina, it would probably set off the ultimate war between the west (or in this case just the USA and Israel) and every predominantly Islamic nation in the world that Bin Laden wants. It's probable that the nationality of the 9/11 hijackers was c
hosen for precisely this reason. Bin Laden wanted the USA to attack Saudi Arabia, or at least to weaken relations between the two nations, because he's crazy enough to believe that Allah will come down from on high and crush the enemies of Islam when they are all united (preferably behind Bin Laden as caliph) against the infidel. While Allah's divine intervention is not a likely scenario, what IS likely is that even when America's hegemonic military might, we would NOT have the resources to wage a war on that scale. It could mean hundreds of thousands of American lives and bankrupting the nation.
Second, Coulter is sanctioning the murder of foreign leaders, once again, for things that they cannot be held accountable for. Like the invasion of sovereign nations that we have no good justification for invading, the unjustifiable murder of foreign leaders would further serve to erode the United States' relations with our allies and the international community at large.
Finally, Coulter calls for forced conversion of Muslims to Christianity in the nations that we invaded. Wow. Like I already mentioned... trying to answer this "position" with anything that doesn't sound like hyperbole is extremely difficult. If we were to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly every other Islamic nation in the world as Coulter seems to want with the announced intent of forcibly converting the citizens of those nations to Christianity, not *only* would we have to deal with an unwinnable costly war overseas and probably worldwide economic collapse and starvation, we would very probably *also* be facing hostile civil uprisings from Muslim citizens in non-Muslim nations all over the world. There would be civil war in the United States, Europe and Asia wherever there was a sizable Muslim community and the government of those nations did not intervene on behalf of the Muslim nations we were invading. In fact, a move such as this would probably be seen as so tyrannical and so insane, that if Congress or the American public did not do something to stop it, it might put the US at war not just with every Islamic nation in the world, but very probably with several nations in Europe and perhaps with the entire world in general. Our allies would turn on us to defend the Muslim's righteous-by-comparison cause. Our enemies would join in to exploit the fact that our military would be so overtaxed we could not possibly respond to every new threat. South Korea would likely be invaded again by North Korea. Taiwan would likely be occupied by China. Hard to say which way India would go since we would likely be at war then both with the Pakistanis and the Chinese and Indians aren't really fans of either, but there would most likely be war in that region of the world, too.
On top of that, I find the idea that we should forcibly convert *anyone* to Christianity, or any faith for that matter, whether they are US citizens or foreign nationals, to be horribly horribly offensive. Such an idea mocks the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It characterizes Christianity of a true or right faith, and seemingly endorses it as a state religion of the USA if our military is going to be used to spread it, and both ideas are indefensible in the realm of rational thought.
So... there you go. First "position" by Coulter I could find, broken down to you bit by bit for all of the reasons why it is obscenely, offensively stupid and wrong. Just about every single other thing she has ever said can be broken down the same way.