Ann Coulter on "Today" [Archive]

slingblade

6th June 2006, 06:28 AM

Purely an anecdote, but one that made me giggle.

Okay, I'm up early this morning to get ready for my summer sociology class. I'm sleepy. I'm still having coffee.

The "Today" show is on, and I blearily notice that Matt is interviewing this long-haired blonde, and the blonde isn't making a lot of sense. He's asking her political questions, and she's being evasive, deliberately obtuse, and saying just the stupidest things. At one point, Matt asks her something about Shrub, and she evades, so he puts on a piece of tape from another interview he did with this ditz last year. In the clip, she says if Shrub will just eliminate Harriet Miers, he'll be fine.

The camera goes back to live, and Matt says "Just eliminate Miers and he'll be fine?"

"Well, that was his only mistake," the blonde says. "I didn't think he would make any more."

At the end of the interview, throughout which I have been goggling and gasping (my gawd, lady, who ARE you? You're so stupid! Why would anyone even want to talk to you--you make NO sense!), Matt thanks......

...wait for it...

Ann Coulter.

I've read her before (and had the same reaction to her) but I've not seen her enough to know her on sight. Now I feel fully vindicated in my opinion of her, if I can have it about her without even knowing it's her.

People actually listen to this ditz?

Really?

HarryKeogh

6th June 2006, 06:33 AM

The Central Scrutinizer

6th June 2006, 06:46 AM

I saw the interview and wondered if she was on something? Seriously. She seemed out of it.

Meffy

6th June 2006, 07:05 AM

She's found a niche.
I wish she wouldn't keep scratching it in public. =>_<=

Tricky

6th June 2006, 07:17 AM

She's found a niche. In an area dominated by old, insane white men she realized conservative talk needed a middle-aged, slightly better than average looking, insane white woman to speak to the lemmings..err, I mean masses.

And if not her, there's alwayse Michelle Malkin (http://www.michellemalkin.com/). And here's the hook; She's not even white!

Luke T.

6th June 2006, 07:20 AM

And if not her, there's alwayse Michelle Malkin (http://www.michellemalkin.com/). And here's the hook; She's not even white!

Speaking of old, insane white men, they are both better to look at than Al Franken and Michael Moore. :p

headscratcher4

6th June 2006, 07:21 AM

They are both better to look at than Al Franken and Michael Moore. :p

So's Hillary...but I doubt you'd cut her any slack for that reason... :)

Luke T.

6th June 2006, 07:29 AM

So's Hillary...but I doubt you'd cut her any slack for that reason... :)

I have admitted to a perverse attraction to Hillary.

HarryKeogh

6th June 2006, 07:35 AM

I have admitted to a perverse attraction to Hillary.

That's okay. I have admitted to a perverse attraction to Mrs. Bush.

Barbara, not Laura.

headscratcher4

6th June 2006, 07:45 AM

That's okay. I have admitted to a perverse attraction to Mrs. Bush.

Barbara, not Laura.

What about those twins... grrrrrrrr....mud wrestling....grrrrr... ok, now I've become the dirty old man I always feard becoming....

Cain

6th June 2006, 07:55 AM

You people are dirty.

I have admitted to a perverse attraction to Hillary.

Any attraction to Hillary is perverse.

If this Ann Coulter interview is any good, then it should be up on YouTube within the hour.

casebro

6th June 2006, 08:00 AM

A sociology student who watchs the Today show, and then posts on a skeptic's forum? Hmmm... experiment?

headscratcher4

6th June 2006, 08:26 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/

Think progress has the video and the transcript.

She's a piece of work....

Snide

6th June 2006, 08:51 AM

Wow. She was in rare form. And to think people think Michael Moore is the left's equivalent (as in , "as bad as Coulter"), and Al Franken even.

Meffy

6th June 2006, 09:09 AM

Here I condense the transcript to save others the time and effort I wasted on reading the whole thing.

COULTER: No [...] No. No. No. [...] No [...] Not the ones I am talking about. No, no, no. [...] Oh no, no, no, no, no. [...] No [...] Yeah, I did. [...] No, no, no. [...] Look, you are getting testy with me. [...] Yes, they are all over the news.

LAUER: The book is called “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Ann Coulter, always fun to have you here.

I'll_buy_that

6th June 2006, 09:14 AM

She's a nitwit. complaining that no one can respond to "these broads" when all she is doing is criticizing them for having a political opinion, not really responding.

why are the words Liberal and Godless always used together? I don't believe in god, ok i'm godless (not really an insult to me) but from what i remember, John Kerry was a Catholic. I don't understand why people automatically assume since you aren't conservative or republican, you can't be religious. Given the history of Democratic civil service against Bush's War record, I don't think this holds too much water. Unless you hold the opin that God loves death and violence.

Cleon

6th June 2006, 09:38 AM

why are the words Liberal and Godless always used together? I don't believe in god, ok i'm godless (not really an insult to me) but from what i remember, John Kerry was a Catholic.

He still is, unless he's dead or converted recently. ;)

I do think it's unfortunate that "left-wing" seems to imply "atheist" and "God" often seems to imply "right-wing." It just isn't so. We can point to examples up and down, from the Quakers to liberation theology to Martin Luther King, Jr.

Charlie Monoxide

6th June 2006, 09:52 AM

Wow. She was in rare form. And to think people think Michael Moore is the left's equivalent (as in , "as bad as Coulter"), and Al Franken even.Both Michael and Al make sense and more importantly have a great sense of humor. I've read all of Franken's books and always have a few "laugh out loud" moments while reading him. Moore was great back when he was hungry (metaphorically speaking) and doing those summer fill-in shows, whose name I'm blanking on. Many a laugh was found there.

As a "fair and balanced" poster, here on JREF, I did attempt to read one of Coulter's books. That was before I realized what she was. I got about 100 pages into some POS book of hers that oozed venom and hate. Nary a giggle or smile to be found in her pages.

Charlie (awaiting next Franken book) Monoxide

EGarrett

6th June 2006, 10:39 AM

I might catch flak for saying this...but the only political television I watch is live debates...and I must admit it's kind of hot to watch men put her in her place. Possibly some chauvinist/control thing.

Meffy

6th June 2006, 10:42 AM

Betcha the Fox logo in the corner of the screen changes to the Dark Mark while she's on. Watch and see.

Grammatron

6th June 2006, 10:44 AM

Both Michael and Al make sense and more importantly have a great sense of humor.

Of course they do :rolleyes:

whitefork

6th June 2006, 10:51 AM

those summer fill-in shows, whose name I'm blanking on. TV Nation.

Going to Alabama to buy slaves. Inviting inner city folks to the beaches at Greenwich Connecticut.

wonderful material, well presented.

Apollyon

6th June 2006, 10:52 AM

I can't listen to the extremes of either side - Coulter, Rush, Franken, Huffington - without getting nauseous. Their penchant for jabbing at the opposition tends to distract from any point they might attempt to make.

The Central Scrutinizer

6th June 2006, 10:53 AM

TV Nation.

Going to Alabama to buy slaves. Inviting inner city folks to the beaches at Greenwich Connecticut.

wonderful material, well presented.

Setting off a dozen car alarms in the middle of the night in front of the mansion of the CEO of the largest manufacturer of car alarms.

whitefork

6th June 2006, 11:03 AM

Setting off a dozen car alarms in the middle of the night in front of the mansion of the CEO of the largest manufacturer of car alarms.
Public service at its finest.

EGarrett

6th June 2006, 11:07 AM

In the video I saw, she makes a good point. Doesn't seem THAT stupid.

HarryKeogh

6th June 2006, 11:11 AM

Setting off a dozen car alarms in the middle of the night in front of the mansion of the CEO of the largest manufacturer of car alarms.

This reminds me of a skit he did...

asking the head of a tobacco company how to roll a cigarette, asking the head of IBM to format a floppy disk and asking the head of GM if he knew how to change the oil in a car...he actually took Moore up on his offer and they had a nice discussion during the oil change.

if not informative at least funny.

Tricky

6th June 2006, 11:19 AM

Both Michael and Al make sense and more importantly have a great sense of humor. I've read all of Franken's books and always have a few "laugh out loud" moments while reading him. Moore was great back when he was hungry (metaphorically speaking) and doing those summer fill-in shows, whose name I'm blanking on. Many a laugh was found there.

As a "fair and balanced" poster, here on JREF, I did attempt to read one of Coulter's books. That was before I realized what she was. I got about 100 pages into some POS book of hers that oozed venom and hate. Nary a giggle or smile to be found in her pages.

Charlie (awaiting next Franken book) Monoxide
They're okay. Al is a comedian so his stuff, while funny, is not as pithy as one might like. For my money, the funniest real commentator on the left is Molly Ivins. She's been around the Texas scene forever and has written several books which are not only factual (if very heavily left-leaning) but funny as hell. She manages to balance outrage with humor, like in her recent column on Haditha (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/01/ivins.haditha/index.html).Tell you what: Let's not use the "stress of combat" excuse this time. According to neighbors, the girls in the family of Younis Khafif -- the one who kept pleading in English: "I am a friend. I am good" -- were 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1. What are they going to say? "Under stress of combat, we thought the baby was 2"?

I don't find many right-leaning commetators or columnists who seem to have much of a sense of humor, though oddly, Limbaugh probably comes the closest.

EGarrett

6th June 2006, 11:19 AM

This reminds me of a skit he did...

asking the head of a tobacco company how to roll a cigarette, asking the head of IBM to format a floppy disk and asking the head of GM if he knew how to change the oil in a car...he actually took Moore up on his offer and they had a nice discussion during the oil change.

if not informative at least funny.
So the head of GM made his whole skit look stupid by knowing how to do it?

That happened to Michael Moore once before...it was a 2-hour skit he tried to do called "Bowling for Columbine" that went nowhere...

hammegk

6th June 2006, 11:24 AM

.... I did attempt to read one of Coulter's books. ... Nary a giggle or smile to be found in her pages.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/06/06/199800.html

That should have you rolling on the floor laughing. Did so for me, anyway. ;)

gnome

6th June 2006, 11:33 AM

In the video I saw, she makes a good point. Doesn't seem THAT stupid.

And she blows it by suggesting that they are happy about the deaths of their husbands. It's one thing to point out that it's difficult to argue with a widow, but it's another to suppose that it's part of a propaganda machine that the widows are a gleeful part of.

gnome

6th June 2006, 11:36 AM

I am noticing the adam's apple now. It's been stuck in my head since someone mentioned it. Not that it discredits her, I'm just sayin.

rocketdodger

6th June 2006, 11:38 AM

TV Nation.

Going to Alabama to buy slaves. Inviting inner city folks to the beaches at Greenwich Connecticut.

wonderful material, well presented.

I thought they were awesome when I was in high school.

10 years later, after 7 years in college and 2 in the military, having learned alot about the real world, I can't stand them.

I have no problem with people who have opinions putting them forth in any way, as long as they have something to back them up. What I can't stand about Moore is that he doesn't seem to have a single skill other than being annoying.

headscratcher4

6th June 2006, 11:50 AM

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/06/06/199800.html

That should have you rolling on the floor laughing. Did so for me, anyway. ;)

Yes...in that charming, light, Mien Kamph sort of way.....

rocketdodger

6th June 2006, 11:55 AM

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/06/06/199800.html

That should have you rolling on the floor laughing. Did so for me, anyway. ;)

And here is another person with no skills other than being annoying...(not referring to hammegk)

Cleon

6th June 2006, 11:59 AM

And here is another person with no skills other than being annoying...(not referring to hammegk)

Are you sure?

I'll_buy_that

6th June 2006, 11:59 AM

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/06/06/199800.html

That should have you rolling on the floor laughing. Did so for me, anyway. ;)

I couldn't get through the first sentence. she is really annoying

slingblade

6th June 2006, 12:03 PM

A sociology student who watchs the Today show, and then posts on a skeptic's forum? Hmmm... experiment?

Nope. Just my life. :)

(I'm just taking the soco class for chuckles and grins. It's fun.)

Charlie Monoxide

6th June 2006, 12:08 PM

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/06/06/199800.html

That should have you rolling on the floor laughing. Did so for me, anyway. ;)Jeez, I tried reading it but my eyes started glazing over about a 1/10th of the way through ....

Charlie (druidical) Monoxide

Tricky

6th June 2006, 12:10 PM

I couldn't get through the first sentence. she is really annoying
Me either. Why don't you quote some of the funny parts, Hammy?

Tricky

6th June 2006, 12:13 PM

I am noticing the Adam's apple now. It's been stuck in my head since someone mentioned it. Not that it discredits her, I'm just sayin.
I've only known one other girl with a prominent Adam's apple. Her name was Francine... but it used to be Frank.

slingblade

6th June 2006, 12:36 PM

Me either. Why don't you quote some of the funny parts, Hammy?

here's just a couple; my stomach is turning, so you'll excuse me for not going further...

Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul. Their religion holds that there is nothing sacred about human consciousness. It’s just an accident no more significant than our possession of opposable thumbs. They deny what we know about ourselves: that we are moral beings in God’s image. Without this fundamental understanding of man’s place in the world, we risk being lured into misguided pursuits, including bestiality, slavery, and PETA membership.

Just quickly: my dog--er, my boyfriend resents the bestiality implication; I'm not sure slavery was a liberal institution; and thinking Liberals aren't necessarily fond of PETA either, thanks.

They deny the Biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America.

And a few hundred-thousand Native Americans all said: "Duh."

That's enough. My head hurts. I'm gonna take a nap.

Luke T.

6th June 2006, 12:37 PM

I thought the funniest thing I ever saw Michael Moore do was have a bunch of guys with throat cancer sing Christmas carols in the lobby of a cigarette manufacturer's HQ. They all had those vibrator thingys on their necks while they sang.

Al Franken. Sorry. I can't get past the whine in his voice. It seriously grates. Even reading him, I hear that whine.

Apollyon

6th June 2006, 12:43 PM

I don't find many right-leaning commentators or columnists who seem to have much of a sense of humor, though oddly, Limbaugh probably comes the closest.
They are around. You do have to look far and wide to find them though.

You might try searching for a conservative blog called Iowahawk. He writes one particular column by "guest commentator Al-Zarqawi" that is usually very funny, often hilarious, and occasionally reaches the pinnacle of comic genius. In particular, look for one called "I Hate My Boss."

I could link it, but as a noob in here, don't have the rights yet. Plus he has a habit of sprinkling colorful language in his writing so I probably wouldn't link it even if I had the capability.

Meffy

6th June 2006, 12:47 PM

Jeez, I tried reading it but my eyes started glazing over about a 1/10th of the way through ....
Aha! So humans can have brilles after all!

headscratcher4

6th June 2006, 12:48 PM

I always found P.J. O'Rourke (sp?) amusing, though predictable...

Meffy

6th June 2006, 12:49 PM

I found his falling "amusing" curve crossed his rising "predictable" curve a long time ago. Liked some of his early 'Poonery though.

Tez

6th June 2006, 12:55 PM

I've met smarter donkeys.

From http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15363

....science is not susceptible to their crying and hysterics.

[snip]

I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.

headscratcher4

6th June 2006, 01:28 PM

Tricky

6th June 2006, 01:34 PM

I found Dennis Miller very funny and topical and he hit on both sides of the beltway. Sadly, he was never as funny after he became a Republican shill.

Jimbo07

6th June 2006, 01:37 PM

Okay. I understand that people on this forum come from all over the political spectrum, and that there may be some support for her ideas. I even agree with some things (like that there are liberals who hate science), but...

Soviet engineers couldn’t make Jell-O. They’d show up at the World’s Fair and stare at a flush toilet like it was a rocket ship.

Is this referring to a specific event, or does she just make this stuff up? :confused:

On the energy threads, there has been lively discussion over things like solar and nuclear, but I hope that nuclear supporters are not Coulter supporters. Statements like this:

the Democrats’ idea of an energy policy never involves the creation of new energy. They want solar power, wind power, barley power. How about creating a new source of energy? Nuclear reactors do that

don't make sense, because they are un-physical! :boggled:

And this is just insane:

Water. Liberals are worried we’re going to run out of something that literally falls from the sky.

Umm... I haven't heard about any of the intiatives she's talking about, re: nonflush toilets, etc. If liberals really want these, they can have 'em, but...

... her "technical" arguments are not connected to the reality of implementing technologies in any way.

Anyway, I'm stopping reading. The scroll bar says I'm not half-way through...

Luke T.

6th June 2006, 01:37 PM

Interestingly enough, if you look at that page at Humanevents.com, between the picture of Coulter and the girl selling the "imagine no liberals" t-shirt, it has a sort of soft-core porn look about it... odd for a site selling traditional and conservative "values", IMO.

There is also a weird ad on that page. A gif that has on the first page some musclebound guy. Then it changes to a yellow screen that says "Let Water Treat You!", then changes to "Everybody is drinking somebody else's disease!", then changes to a picture of bottled water with a skull and crossbones, then to "Now you know why we sell thousands of electron machines!"

If you click on the ad, it goes to a johnellis.com page not found.

But if you go here (http://www.johnellis.com/home.html), you find a woo site.

Is this the answer to cancer?

Skeptic

6th June 2006, 01:37 PM

What about those twins... grrrrrrrr....mud wrestling....grrrrr... ok, now I've become the dirty old man I always feard becoming....

...however, when you feared becoming a dirty old man, you didn't realize how much fun it would be.

As for Ann Coulter, today's New York Times has a huge ad for her latest book, "On the 8th day God Rested and Liberals Schemed". Okaaaaaaaaaaay. Either she's literally insane (I doubt it), or she is secretly paid by the Democrats, or she knows she's a one-trick pony and is milking it for all its worth without, I suspect, believing much or any of what she's saying.

headscratcher4

6th June 2006, 01:48 PM

"the Democrats’ idea of an energy policy never involves the creation of new energy. They want solar power, wind power, barley power. How about creating a new source of energy? Nuclear reactors do that"

That's just plain stupid and sloppy thinking. If you turn sunlight into power how is that less of the creation of new energy than harnessing nuclear fission? (save that one may possibly be cheaper or less dangerous or polluting, etc). Aren't you creating new power from the sun, the wind or the tide (rather, harnessing the power that is already there) and isn't the also true (if more complex technically) for nuclear?

In fact, it would seem to me that oil and gas are power sourses that don't do much in the way of creating new sources because they are intrinsically limited resources...i.e. we can use them up.

Also, as energy needs and potential crisis build, some "liberals" are reconsidering the nuclear option...I wonder if she's ever thought twice about making up a fact....

The Central Scrutinizer

6th June 2006, 01:56 PM

I am noticing the adam's apple now. It's been stuck in my head since someone mentioned it. Not that it discredits her, I'm just sayin.

Did she used to be a man?

headscratcher4

6th June 2006, 02:07 PM

I've met smarter donkeys.

From http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15363

Re-reading her rant about "Darwinsm" again is really quite laughable. Given that she is an avowed Xian who must base her belief, one assumes, on the contents of the Gosples and other Christian myths, her standards of proof and evidence (what she complains about with evolutionary theory) leave something to be desired.

Luke T.

6th June 2006, 02:21 PM

Geezus! Did Tez just post in Politics? :eek:

pgwenthold

6th June 2006, 02:26 PM

I found Dennis Miller very funny and topical and he hit on both sides of the beltway. Sadly, he was never as funny after he became a Republican shill.

The promising part is that when (if) a democrat gets elected president again, then Miller will flip back over to the left.

headscratcher4

6th June 2006, 02:27 PM

hey Luke...just noting how appropriate your quote from Gary Ackerman is on a day when they're debating a ban on gay marriage in the U.S. Senate.

pgwenthold

6th June 2006, 02:30 PM

Luke T.

6th June 2006, 02:55 PM

hey Luke...just noting how appropriate your quote from Gary Ackerman is on a day when they're debating a ban on gay marriage in the U.S. Senate.

Yip. He said that about another amendment. The one to ban flag burning. Same coin, different side.

hgc

6th June 2006, 03:06 PM

... nuclear reactors and the treatment of waste.
...I'm all in favor of more nuclear power, but for this problem. What advances have been made?

Meffy

6th June 2006, 03:10 PM

I'm all in favor of more nuclear power, but for this problem. What advances have been made?
*isdoubtful* Do enticements to localities to accept wastes count as "advances?"

Hindmost

6th June 2006, 03:11 PM

Considering that significant progress has been made in the development of nuclear reactors and the treatment of waste.

Oddly enough, the leaders in this area are the French. If we are going to more nuclear power, they are the ones we will be copying. Ironic, that.

Especially since we taught them in the first place. In my past, my company did tech transfer with S. Korea. We sold all of our heavy vessel equipment. We may have already lost the technology to make reactor vessels--we have at least lost many of the engineers to retirement.

anyhow, Ann seems to thrive on logical fallicies. I have read many of her op-ed pieces but never any books outside of a brief review in a bookstore. Her writing is very poor, but she knows she is a "preach to the choir" author and it works for her. She and Rush should really get together.

glenn:boxedin:

Meffy

6th June 2006, 03:13 PM

She and Rush should really get together.
I'm doing my best not to think of ACME brand giant rubber bands and Y-shaped trees. Must... resist... mental cartoon image...

Apollyon

6th June 2006, 03:15 PM

Considering that significant progress has been made in the development of nuclear reactors and the treatment of waste.

Oddly enough, the leaders in this area are the French. If we are going to more nuclear power, they are the ones we will be copying. Ironic, that.
As a percentage of total national energy production the French produce more power via nuclear than we do. However, the US, even though we haven't built a new nuke plant since the 70s, still produces far more power via nuclear than the French when comparing megwatt production.

The Chinese will eventually overtake us both.

Besides, the French are having a little issue with nuclear power right now. Apparently nuclear waste, specific tritium, is leaching into the groundwater around the Champagne region. Supposedly it's not affecting the grapes, but if your next bottle of Bubblay Francay has a natural nocturnal glow, you may want to think twice before popping that cork. ;)

HeavyAaron

6th June 2006, 03:16 PM

I'm doing my best not to think of ACME brand giant rubber bands and Y-shaped trees. Must... resist... mental cartoon image...

Is that made more difficult by being represented as a cartoon?

Aaron

Hindmost

6th June 2006, 03:20 PM

I'm all in favor of more nuclear power, but for this problem. What advances have been made?

There are "intrinsically" safe designs now. Essentially, the operators can almost walk away from the plant and it would not be a problem. Fuel can be manufactured to safely shut down without the need of emergency cooling. This was tested back in the 90s, however, just when the tests were being finalized, Clinton shut down all nuclear testing. It was a great development.

The plants we have now are still very safe...however, we have developed new system designs that improve upon existing designs.

The new generation of fast reactors using plutonium and uranium metal alloy would also be great--supply lots of energy for a long time and much less waste. It will face a large opposition. This wiki article gives a reasonable overview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_cooled_fast_reactor

glenn

Meffy

6th June 2006, 03:26 PM

Is that made more difficult by being represented as a cartoon?
Does make it tough, I'll admit. Same goes for touch typing.

Luke T.

6th June 2006, 03:28 PM

I'm all in favor of more nuclear power, but for this problem. What advances have been made?

I always thought the idea of creating a religion around nuclear waste because of its long half-life a pretty stupid idea. The idea being that no language or symbology would last as long to explain the hazard, but that a religious fear would.

Surely we would figure out a way to launch the crap safely into the sun long before then.

Rubber bands and Y-shaped trees?

KelvinG

6th June 2006, 03:29 PM

I saw the interview and wondered if she was on something? Seriously. She seemed out of it.

Everytime I see Coulter she looks strung out on something. I've been saying that for years.
I suspect being a nut job Conservative that drugs are a no no for her. (with the highly successful war on drugs and all). But, somethings going on in that spaced out brain of hers. I suppose somethings gotta be misfiring up there to say and write the sh*t she does.

Meffy

6th June 2006, 03:40 PM

@Luke: Slingshots, big ones. But I'm not thinking of that. "No no no." -- Coulter

@Kelvin: Prescription drug abuse is permissible for a nut job Conservative.

Hindmost

6th June 2006, 07:02 PM

@Luke: Slingshots, big ones. But I'm not thinking of that. "No no no." -- Coulter

@Kelvin: Prescription drug abuse is permissible for a nut job Conservative.

And, of course, every conservative that does get caught abusing drugs immediately turns into a liberal.

glenn:boxedin:

Meffy

6th June 2006, 07:06 PM

:-) Makes me think of the college flashback episode of "Taxi," when a studious, uptight, super-straitlaced Jim becomes the Jim the world knows.

Rustle

6th June 2006, 08:05 PM

slingblade

6th June 2006, 10:56 PM

And, of course, every conservative that does get caught abusing drugs immediately turns into a liberal.

glenn:boxedin:

Rush is liberal now?

:eek:

RandFan

6th June 2006, 11:30 PM

My question is, is Ann Coulter for real? I mean, does she believe her own crap?

My current opinion is "No". She just says way too many things that are clearly contrived for shock value.

A friend of mine used to say "Ann Coulter is my favorite piece of performance art" .....whattdya think??Depends on who you ask. It's been argued to death on this forum. Good luck.

Tez

6th June 2006, 11:44 PM

Geezus! Did Tez just post in Politics? :eek:

:D

musta got lost...[looks around furtively...people in here seem a little "different"...maintain eye contact and back out slowly....]

Beerina

7th June 2006, 06:09 AM

I've only known one other girl with a prominent Adam's apple. Her name was Francine... but it used to be Frank.

Jaye Davidson is way hotter than Ann Coulter, anyway. (http://www.filmstarts.de/bilder/kritiken/The%20Crying%20Game/thecryinggame-bild07.html) So's the famous Bond girl, Tula.

But then again, so are half the Kids in the Hall in drag... :eek:

headscratcher4

7th June 2006, 06:31 AM

I think she started out with some core beliefs and used to say things for the shock value...now, I think she believes. She's bought her own hype and shut down all critical and self-reflective facilities...whether on the right of left, in a religion or a business, very dangerous quality.

Luke T.

7th June 2006, 07:14 AM

@Luke: Slingshots, big ones. But I'm not thinking of that. "No no no." -- Coulter

I was thinking slingshots for solving the problem of how to launch nuke waste to the sun. :)

Luke T.

7th June 2006, 07:19 AM

As for whether Coulter believes her own crap, I have no evidence to support what I think, except my own experience up close with insane women.

I think Coulter started out just halfway joking around. But she discovered people took her too seriously, both in the supporter and opposition camps. So she had to go with hit to maintain her popularity and her paycheck. But then, somewhere deep down inside some time later, she started to realize she was backing herself into a corner. At that point in time, she either had to re-assess or undergo a kind of self-induced delusion. I think she went the delusion route. She had an image to keep up.

I think the day is coming when she will go completely off the deep end. Some of you may think she is already there, but I've seen the deep end. She ain't there yet.

It won't be pretty. But we won't see it. She will just vanish in the wink of an eye. And go quietly bonkers out of the public eye.

Ladewig

7th June 2006, 07:30 AM

The Central Scrutinizer

7th June 2006, 07:48 AM

Would you give an example of what someone "off the deep end" might say?

"Badnarik for President!"

Luke T.

7th June 2006, 07:49 AM

Would you give an example of what someone "off the deep end" might say?

"I liked the way it felt going in, and the way it sounded coming out."

Said to me by a girlfriend who had stabbed five men in her life, speaking about one particular stabbing.

headscratcher4

7th June 2006, 07:53 AM

"I liked the way it felt going in, and the way it sounded coming out."

Said to me by a girlfriend who had stabbed five men in her life, speaking about one particular stabbing.

You know interesting people. I don't think I know anyone (at least not socially) who has stabbed more than one person.

Luke T.

7th June 2006, 08:02 AM

You know interesting people. I don't think I know anyone (at least not socially) who has stabbed more than one person.

She was heavily medicated during the time we dated. Anti-psychotic drugs. :)

Dangerous women used to turn me on. When she told me that, I got extremely aroused. I was a pretty sick puppy, too. Playing with fire.

She stabbed her sixth victim while we were dating. A biker. Cut his femoral artery and then stabbed him in the chest, just missing his heart. I was wondering why I hadn't heard from her in a while. They kept her in jail until it was determined the biker was going to live.

Don't mess with Texas women.

Then there was the time I had to talk my second wife into taking the .38 away from her head.

There were more.

Coulter reminds me of some of them. I see them in between her cracks.

Tricky

7th June 2006, 01:16 PM

Ordinarily, I regard a Hillary Clinton speech (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/coulter.911.widows.ap/index.html)with yawns and rolled eyes, but this time I have to say, "You go, girl!"

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lashed out at Ann Coulter for a "vicious, mean-spirited attack" on a group of outspoken 9/11 widows, whom the right-wing television pundit described as "self-obsessed" and enjoying their husbands' deaths.
...
"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,"' the senator said.
"I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened."

Skeptic

7th June 2006, 01:37 PM

Skeptic

7th June 2006, 01:38 PM

"I liked the way it felt going in, and the way it sounded coming out.".

Strange, I've heard the same thing.

hgc

7th June 2006, 01:57 PM

Ordinarily, I regard a Hillary Clinton speech (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/coulter.911.widows.ap/index.html)with yawns and rolled eyes, but this time I have to say, "You go, girl!"

She's an idiot. For Clinton to give public notice that she, personally, has an opinion on Coulter lowers herself into a fight where someone of her aspirations doesn't belong.

Tricky

7th June 2006, 02:03 PM

She's an idiot. For Clinton to give public notice that she, personally, has an opinion on Coulter lowers herself into a fight where someone of her aspirations doesn't belong.
To me, it makes Hillary more human. To hear someone like Coulter declaring that a widow of the worst terrorist attack in US history "is glad their husband is dead" makes me want to bitch slap her myself. If the Dixie Chicks had said such a thing, they'd be eviscerated by the right wing. How come Coulter does it and they either cheer or say nothing?

hammegk

7th June 2006, 02:05 PM

Ordinarily, I regard a Hillary Clinton speech (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/coulter.911.widows.ap/index.html)with yawns and rolled eyes, but this time I have to say, "You go, girl!"

Er, yeah. Hil wrote the book on "vicious, mean-spirited attacks" so she should recognize someone from the other side of the fence trying to emulate her.

pgwenthold

7th June 2006, 02:23 PM

She's an idiot. For Clinton to give public notice that she, personally, has an opinion on Coulter lowers herself into a fight where someone of her aspirations doesn't belong.

Dude, she is a friggin representative of the people of New York! You know, the place where thousands of people were killed in terrorist attacks?

Maybe, just maybe, she is saying it because she cares about the people she is representing, and is disturbed at seeing them insulted by this bee-atch?

I'm guessing she has met a heck of a lot more 9/11 widows than Ann Coulter can even imagine in her tiny little brain ("Math is hard!")

I swear, nothing Clinton does is ever going to make some people happy. By any normal account, what she would be doing here would be properly representing her constituents. Yet, you still see a need to criticize.

I would only hope my senators would stand up for me and the people of my state if it were so ugily attacked.

hgc

7th June 2006, 02:42 PM

Dude, she is a friggin representative of the people of New York! You know, the place where thousands of people were killed in terrorist attacks?

Maybe, just maybe, she is saying it because she cares about the people she is representing, and is disturbed at seeing them insulted by this bee-atch?

I'm guessing she has met a heck of a lot more 9/11 widows than Ann Coulter can even imagine in her tiny little brain ("Math is hard!")

I swear, nothing Clinton does is ever going to make some people happy. By any normal account, what she would be doing here would be properly representing her constituents. Yet, you still see a need to criticize.

I would only hope my senators would stand up for me and the people of my state if it were so ugily attacked.I think I've been slightly misconstrued. I do not think that Clinton shouldn't give her all in represnting the people of New York, and particularly 9/11 widows. Nor do I think that Coulter shouldn't be vilified, as well as the media outlets that give her a platform.

My point is that Clinton, being a US Senator who aspires to be President, shouldn't lower herself into a personal dogfight with someone well beneath the stature where she wants to place herself, someone like Coulter. What we should hear from Clinton on this topic is that the 9/11 Commission recommendations should be implemented, or that the war on terrorism should be more effectively fought, or whatever. She may be saying these things, but what you'll hear about in the media is that she's tumbling over the roof with that stark-raving bitch Coulter. She does herself a disservice.

Tricky

7th June 2006, 02:50 PM

I think I've been slightly misconstrued. I do not think that Clinton shouldn't give her all in represnting the people of New York, and particularly 9/11 widows. Nor do I think that Coulter shouldn't be vilified, as well as the media outlets that give her a platform.

My point is that Clinton, being a US Senator who aspires to be President, shouldn't lower herself into a personal dogfight with someone well beneath the stature where she wants to place herself, someone like Coulter. What we should hear from Clinton on this topic is that the 9/11 Commission recommendations should be implemented, or that the war on terrorism should be more effectively fought, or whatever. She may be saying these things, but what you'll hear about in the media is that she's tumbling over the roof with that stark-raving bitch Coulter. She does herself a disservice.
I knew what you meant and I sort of agree from a purely pragmatic standpoint, but I can't help but cheer. Besides, tangling with a newsperson or columnist is not the worst thing a politician can do. Bush Sr. got a lot of mileage from his dust-up with Dan Rather.

Tricky

7th June 2006, 02:53 PM

Er, yeah. Hil wrote the book on "vicious, mean-spirited attacks" so she should recognize someone from the other side of the fence trying to emulate her.
Can you perhaps give me an example of a "vicious, mean spirited attack" that H. Clinton made that is roughly the equivalent of attacking widows of terrorist attacks? I truly can't remember one.

hgc

7th June 2006, 02:55 PM

Can you perhaps give me an example of a "vicious, mean spirited attack" that H. Clinton made that is roughly the equivalent of attacking widows of terrorist attacks? I truly can't remember one.Have you got your Gibberish to English dictionary handy?

Luke T.

7th June 2006, 02:58 PM

My point is that Clinton, being a US Senator who aspires to be President, shouldn't lower herself into a personal dogfight with someone well beneath the stature where she wants to place herself, someone like Coulter.

You mean the way Randi dogfights with Sylvia Browne?

What we should hear from Clinton on this topic is that the 9/11 Commission recommendations should be implemented, or that the war on terrorism should be more effectively fought, or whatever. She may be saying these things, but what you'll hear about in the media is that she's tumbling over the roof with that stark-raving bitch Coulter. She does herself a disservice.

The stark-raving bitch was given airtime on a major network show. It cannot be allowed to stand uncontested.

This may be the first time I've ever publicly said Hillary did the right thing.

Hillary did the right thing.

Tricky

7th June 2006, 03:09 PM

Have you got your Gibberish to English dictionary handy?
Yes, I understand PolitiSpeak. But Coulter wasn't speaking gibberish. ImbeciliSpeak, yes, but no dictionary is necessary for that.

hgc

7th June 2006, 03:15 PM

You mean the way Randi dogfights with Sylvia Browne?
Well, it's a little different. Randi has made it his life's work to counter Sylvia Browne and people like her. But to tell the truth, some times I see Randi wallowing around in his weekly commentary with too many loons beneath his notice.
The stark-raving bitch was given airtime on a major network show. It cannot be allowed to stand uncontested.

This may be the first time I've ever publicly said Hillary did the right thing.

Hillary did the right thing.Plenty of people are contesting Coulter, and loudly. I agree with Hillary in her sentiment.

hgc

7th June 2006, 03:16 PM

Yes, I understand PolitiSpeak. But Coulter wasn't speaking gibberish. ImbeciliSpeak, yes, but no dictionary is necessary for that.I was referring to your request to hammy for information.

pgwenthold

7th June 2006, 03:25 PM

My point is that Clinton, being a US Senator who aspires to be President, shouldn't lower herself into a personal dogfight with someone well beneath the stature where she wants to place herself, someone like Coulter. What we should hear from Clinton on this topic is that the 9/11 Commission recommendations should be implemented, or that the war on terrorism should be more effectively fought, or whatever. She may be saying these things, but what you'll hear about in the media is that she's tumbling over the roof with that stark-raving bitch Coulter. She does herself a disservice.

And MY point is that Clinton is a US Senator representing the people of the state of New York, including most of those whom were killed in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. As their representative, she owes it to them to publically call to the carpet those who would use a national forum to insult the loved ones of those killed in said terrorist attacks.

Who cares if she is running for president? She is still representing the people of New York. Bully for her to stand up to the slime that is Ann Coulter. I would be more disappointed if she let it go without comment.

She is representing her constituents. This is not about politics, it is a personal attack on the victims. And she is acting as their representative should.

Good for her.

Tricky

7th June 2006, 03:27 PM

I was referring to your request to hammy for information.
Ah. My mistake. I thought you were referring to the gibberish spoken by politicians, not that spoken by Hammy. There is no decryption device for that language.

pgwenthold

7th June 2006, 03:27 PM

Well, it's a little different. Randi has made it his life's work to counter Sylvia Browne and people like her.

Similarly, Senator Clinton was elected by the people to be their representative. Not quite "her life's work" but it is her current job to speak for the people of the state of New York, and that includes standing up for them when some punk-arse bee-atch shoots her ugly mouth off in a national forum.

slingblade

7th June 2006, 04:42 PM

You don't put out a fire by fanning yourself. If Coulter's a problem, and I think she is, you get counter her by shining a light on her, not by ignoring her.

Then she shrinks back and scuttles into the crack in the wall.

Luke T.

7th June 2006, 04:43 PM

Mmmmm. Hillary and Coulter in a catfight. I'd pay-per-view for that!

Hindmost

7th June 2006, 04:56 PM

Rush is liberal now?

:eek:

Probably not anymore now that his plea bargin fixed...I am sure he's reverted to wanting all drug addicts to march into jail forever.

glenn:boggled:

Tricky

7th June 2006, 04:59 PM

Mmmmm. Hillary and Coulter in a catfight. I'd pay-per-view for that!
LOL. Yeah, that would be interesting, especially if the undercard was Paula Jones and Monica Lewinski.

RandFan

7th June 2006, 06:34 PM

"Badnarik for President!" :D The three constants; death, taxes, Scrut's disdain for Badnarik.

Meffy

7th June 2006, 06:36 PM

:D The three constants; death, taxes, Scrut's disdain for Badnarik.
Hey, they were pretty good doing all those songs the Beatles didn't record. Now about that political fellow, Badfinger or whatever his name is... I'm a bit leery of him too.

RandFan

7th June 2006, 06:44 PM

Hey, they were pretty good doing all those songs the Beatles didn't record. Now about that political fellow, Badfinger or whatever his name is... I'm a bit leery of him too.:)

Kiwiwriter

7th June 2006, 06:46 PM

Just read about what she said and wrote.

Insensitive, brutish, self-serving, sneering, clod.

The worst thing that ever happened to her in her life was her boyfriend getting drunk and stupid at the prom and trying to raise her dress (and then not being able to do anything once she hiked it up for him).

I think she said a lot of that, however, purely to gain undeserved attention. :boggled:

hammegk

7th June 2006, 06:54 PM

Then she shrinks back and scuttles into the crack in the wall.
We'll give it a few days and weeks, see whether her or Hil look better to people who vote in national elections.

If Republican prayers are answered, Hilary will be The Candidate in '08.

aerosolben

7th June 2006, 06:55 PM

My question is, is Ann Coulter for real? I mean, does she believe her own crap?

My current opinion is "No". She just says way too many things that are clearly contrived for shock value.

Just because the statement is constructed to have a more shocking delivery, it doesn't mean that the intentions behind it are not sincere.

I suspected that she might be a joke - until I met people who agree with what she says. Not crazy people, not people who think she's a good satire - people who listen and buy her books because they agree with the contents. I think Ms. Coulter is much less "out there" than we'd like to believe.

Meffy

7th June 2006, 06:55 PM

I think she said a lot of that, however, purely to gain undeserved attention. :boggled:
In those Internets I hear so much about, that's called trolling. Dunno what they call it on Fox but I'd most likely disagree.

slingblade

7th June 2006, 08:18 PM

We'll give it a few days and weeks, see whether her or Hil look better to people who vote in national elections.

If Republican prayers are answered, Hilary will be The Candidate in '08.

I guess. I have to say, I don't care, as the whatevers and whoevers all get decided without me or my say-so.

All I know is that I'll be throwing my vote away by voting simply to get the Republicans out. I don't care who the Dem candidate is. Don't care if it's Bigfoot. Don't care if Hilary's Bigfoot in a dress.

And that's the way I'll be voting from now on, unless McCain runs.
Him, I'll vote for.....or, at least, I will very strongly consider it.

RandFan

7th June 2006, 08:18 PM

I should have said it earlier but I guess late is better than never. Coulter has stooped to a level that I just couldn't imagine. Her words are indefensible and so uncalled for and so beyond the pale. Shame on you.

Haywire

8th June 2006, 02:03 AM

I thought they were making "White Chicks 2"

VicDaring

8th June 2006, 06:35 AM

Late in....

Good on Hillary for callin' out The Skank.

The GOP has been winning elections by running against Monica Lewinsky and Michael Moore for a while now.

Let the Dems run against Ann for a while. See if doesn't even up the win totals a bit.

Luke T.

8th June 2006, 06:49 AM

I suspected that she might be a joke - until I met people who agree with what she says. Not crazy people, not people who think she's a good satire - people who listen and buy her books because they agree with the contents. I think Ms. Coulter is much less "out there" than we'd like to believe.

Yeah. That's what I was talking about above when I said, "I think Coulter started out just halfway joking around. But she discovered people took her too seriously, both in the supporter and opposition camps. So she had to go with it to maintain her popularity and her paycheck. "

hammegk

8th June 2006, 06:54 AM

I'd say Ann's 'win totals' are doing just fine, with her new book #1 on Amazon now. Did Hil provide the extra shot of publicity free of charge, or was a cash payment involved? ;)

I wish I knew what percent of the electorate actually buy into the ideas in Ann's satire, bombast and hyperbole filled screeds? 1%, 10%, ?? Makes one wonder a bit, huh?

Snide

8th June 2006, 06:59 AM

Similarly, Senator Clinton was elected by the people to be their representative. Not quite "her life's work" but it is her current job to speak for the people of the state of New York, and that includes standing up for them when some punk-arse bee-atch shoots her ugly mouth off in a national forum.It is a tough conundrum. Do you ignore Coulter if you'r Hillary, because that's exactly as much attention as she deserves? Or do you step in for the people because this was on national TV and is in a book, so millions have seen/heard the claims?

I think you respond to it, like Hillary did, but with make sure you are clear that Coulter doesn't deserve it.

Personally, I think Coulter may have jumped the shark with this episode.

Psi Baba

8th June 2006, 07:08 AM

I would only hope my senators would stand up for me and the people of my state if it were so ugily attacked.
I know what you mean. I'm in Pennsylvania, and it wouldn't surprise me if Rick Santorum <spit!> is behind Coulter all the way. I really hope this is the last term for that homophobic homunculus. BTW, I had a post typed up yesterday for this thread regarding Coulter (after hearing her comments replayed on the radio), but it was so vitriolic, I thought better of it and deleted it. That sow makes my blood boil.

Snide

8th June 2006, 07:20 AM

I wish I knew what percent of the electorate actually buy into the ideas in Ann's satire, bombast and hyperbole filled screeds? 1%, 10%, ?? Makes one wonder a bit, huh?I think it's quite small, but plenty of people agree to a point of everything she says (like someone here saying, "She makes a good point." It allows the right to feel good about themselves.

The left needs a few more "bad guys," worse than Michael Moore, so the rest can also sleep well at night thinking, "At least I'm not as bad as so-and-so."

DavidJames

8th June 2006, 07:39 AM

Let the Dems run against Ann for a while. See if doesn't even up the win totals a bit.I would prefer they seek higher ground.

I honestly don't think the Dems base responds as well as the Repub base to such antics.

Snide

8th June 2006, 08:14 AM

I would prefer they seek higher ground.

I honestly don't think the Dems base responds as well as the Repub base to such antics.I agree. The Cons do a better job of enhancing the perception of Michael Moore being "mainstream left" than do the Dems with Coulter and the right.

wastepanel

8th June 2006, 08:54 AM

I don't understand buying habits of people. If you go on tv, spout crazy rants, and come off looking insane you profit?

Conspiracy lookout: I wonder if this was pre-planned, and some rich Republican spends a million dollars to pad her stats.

aerosolben

8th June 2006, 09:09 AM

Yeah. That's what I was talking about above when I said, "I think Coulter started out just halfway joking around. But she discovered people took her too seriously, both in the supporter and opposition camps. So she had to go with it to maintain her popularity and her paycheck. "
I did see that. In light of my observations, though, I'm suggesting that she may very well have believed it all along. If all these others believe, is it unreasonable to think she might as well?

The Central Scrutinizer

8th June 2006, 09:19 AM

:D The three constants; death, taxes, Scrut's disdain for Badnarik.

I don't hate him! I just laugh at him! And his supporters. :)

Mr. Skinny

8th June 2006, 09:52 AM

She was heavily medicated during the time we dated. Anti-psychotic drugs. :)

Dangerous women used to turn me on. When she told me that, I got extremely aroused. I was a pretty sick puppy, too. Playing with fire.

She stabbed her sixth victim while we were dating. A biker. Cut his femoral artery and then stabbed him in the chest, just missing his heart. I was wondering why I hadn't heard from her in a while. They kept her in jail until it was determined the biker was going to live.

Don't mess with Texas women.

Then there was the time I had to talk my second wife into taking the .38 away from her head.

Luke, sounds like you could identify with the song "The Girls from Texas" (the version I have is by Ry Cooder)

She said, "Baby, I'll give you the clothes on my back
You can have everything that I've got in my shack
But if you ever try to leave they'll take your out in sack
'Cause me and my razor will see to that"
That's the way the girls are from Texas
That's the way the girls are from Texas
That's the way the girls are from Texas

Full lyrics here: http://www.mp3lyrics.org/r/ry-cooder/the-girls-from-texas/

headscratcher4

8th June 2006, 09:54 AM

The gift of Anne that keeps on giving....

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-licoult0608,0,4498073.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

DavidJames

8th June 2006, 10:14 AM

The gift of Anne that keeps on giving....

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-licoult0608,0,4498073.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

"She adds, "And, by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?"

"Coulter ripped up the letter to the cheers of her admirers"

I love the Republican base ;)

oh, yeah, I forgot, her comments were part of a comedy routine she was trying out prior to an engagement at a local comedy club.

Kiwiwriter

8th June 2006, 10:32 AM

Like all human beings, Anne Coulter will end up many years from now as one of the 72 virgins assigned to entertain Zarqawi and the other terrorists in hell. :D

Luke T.

8th June 2006, 10:40 AM

Luke, sounds like you could identify with the song "The Girls from Texas" (the version I have is by Ry Cooder)

Yeah. :)

Texas women are just so darn good-looking though, you know?

Luke T.

8th June 2006, 10:41 AM

Like all human beings, Anne Coulter will end up many years from now as one of the 72 virgins assigned to entertain Zarqawi and the other terrorists in hell. :D

In her padded cell, that may be where her mind takes her.

Lurker

8th June 2006, 10:52 AM

Here is a thread at another board where plenty of conservatives are rushing in to defend her.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=429685#post429685

Lurker

headscratcher4

8th June 2006, 10:55 AM

"She adds, "And, by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?"

Well, at least, like Hillary, they've had husbands -- whereas she spouts her conservative, holier than thou family values crap from her position as a un-wed motherf*cker.

Snide

8th June 2006, 12:08 PM

The letter said Coulter's claim that the women had profited from their husbands' death is a "nauseating misrepresentation of their struggle to keep the memory of what happened that day alive."

Coulter ripped up the letter to the cheers of her admirers, an action Cuthberston later said shows she is "promoting hate speech."
Coulter sure is making a lot of money off of the victims of 9/11 and their widows.

Meffy

8th June 2006, 12:54 PM

Coulter sure is making a lot of money off of the victims of 9/11 and their widows.
I agree, she's profiting -- not just politically but personally as well, as in money -- from their husbands' deaths. Mulcting the followers while smiling in their faces. Phew.

ImaginalDisc

8th June 2006, 12:58 PM

"She adds, "And, by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?"

"Coulter ripped up the letter to the cheers of her admirers"

I love the Republican base ;)

oh, yeah, I forgot, her comments were part of a comedy routine she was trying out prior to an engagement at a local comedy club.
Wait a second, if a Democrat were to say, in response to the divorce rate of military personnel in Iraw right now, "How do we know their spouses wouldn't have divorced them anyway?" that Dem would be attacked, but Coulder can say that an get applause?

Aren't we allegedly in this war in the first place because of the deaths of these widows' husbands?

Meffy

8th June 2006, 01:05 PM

"Having it both ways." Neat, eh?

bjb

8th June 2006, 01:05 PM

I watched the Today show interview and read some of her statements, and her point seems to be that she feels the 9/11 widows are invunerable to attack:

Coulter told reporters before the radio broadcast that the widows' status as victims made conservatives wary to counterattack. "I think I've broken the taboo. I'm not going to treat them like victims."

However, her idea of 'counterattack' is to make horrible and unfounded personal attacks against the widows. What happened to disagreeing with someone and offering a rebuttal to their arguement? I have no problem with anybody arguing against the points that the widows are trying to make, and many people have done just that. So much for Ann Coulter's theory. But it seems that in Ann Coulter's world, when someone says something you disagree with, the best way to respond is by making debasing personal attacks against them. I don't know if she honestly believes this is the way the world should work, but I'm pretty sure her readers think it is.

headscratcher4

8th June 2006, 01:09 PM

As an avowed christian, I am sure she is keeping WWJD very much in mind...and from that she gets go after widows and orphans.

Tricky

8th June 2006, 01:19 PM

Uh oh. It must be pretty bad when even Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198597,00.html)thinks you are too far to the right.

As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a Maroon!"
Ann Coulter, that is.

After calling a group of 9/11 widows "harpies" who seem to be "enjoying their husbands' deaths" in her new book, the conservative pundit has gone too far. She even added:

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy..."

Huh?

Ugly is the only way I can describe what Coulter has written. Now I understand why Time magazine put her on the cover last year and made her look like a praying mantis. She just might be the type of creature that would eat its mate after sex.

DavidJames

8th June 2006, 01:23 PM

Wait a second, if a Democrat were to say, in response to the divorce rate of military personnel in Iraw right now, "How do we know their spouses wouldn't have divorced them anyway?" that Dem would be attacked, but Coulder can say that an get applause?edited - nevermind, I think I understand what you're saying. Yes, the right wing (and Coulter) would be all over a Dem if they would say that.

senorpogo

8th June 2006, 01:42 PM

Out of all the Right-Celebs, Coulter confuses me the most.

Rush, he can actually be a pretty entertaining guy. I think the impact of his radio show on both the radio industry and American politics can never be overstated.

Hannity, he does a tremendous job of playing up the Americana - flag waving, singing the Stars Spangled, and the like.

O'Reilly, he does a good job of acting like a journalist while keeping people entertained with the yelling and the shouting.

Coulter, she seems to have no redeeming value what so ever. She's not entertaining. She doesn't argue well. She contributes absolutely nothing of value to the political discussion nor does she entertain in any way shape or form

Zbu

8th June 2006, 02:00 PM

Snide

8th June 2006, 02:05 PM

Whenever I think of Coulter, I think of Morton Downey, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Downey_Jr) Come on: another conservative idiot who decides that yelling at the top of his lungs and insults somehow replace solid political discussion, only to find himself in a public bathroom making up stories to regain his popularity, only to be disgraced and flow through life until he finally dies a few years down the line to nobody caring at all.

Ann's headed for the same fate. Just pathetic.But that was his shtick. I don't think it's supposed to be Coulter's. Although I found it quite ironic when she suggested Matt was getting "testy," when it was clear at that point that it was her blood pressure that was rising.

Zbu

8th June 2006, 02:09 PM

Oh my imaginary friend, she's channeling both Tom Cruise and Downey, Jr! RUN!!

gnome

8th June 2006, 02:46 PM

Here is a thread at another board where plenty of conservatives are rushing in to defend her.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=429685#post429685

Lurker
Wow... I just could not stay on that board and keep reading... even though they are far from unified.

I'm so glad to know that I hate america because I'm liberal. And I don't say so because I'm a coward. There's someone that has their facts straight.

slingblade

8th June 2006, 03:11 PM

"Liberal" is the new Red Menace; didn't you get the memo?

hammegk

8th June 2006, 03:12 PM

Uh oh. It must be pretty bad when even Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198597,00.html)thinks you are too far to the right.
[/FONT][/SIZE]
As they say in the media-whore/bookselling business -- any publicity is good publicity. She must have a terrible time not killing herself laughing all the way to the bank.

And does anyone think it hurts her chances of appearing even more often on the talk-show circus/circuit? :D

ROTFLMGDFAO!

slingblade

8th June 2006, 03:33 PM

As they say in the media-whore/bookselling business -- any publicity is good publicity. She must have a terrible time not killing herself laughing all the way to the bank.

And does anyone think it hurts her chances of appearing even more often on the talk-show circus/circuit? :D

ROTFLMGDFAO!

Well, there aren't many, but there are some things even I won't do for money. I have some self-respect, though I am largely a whore. In any sense one cares to consider. But I don't think I'd laugh at the grief of others to make even a million bucks.

And I'd do almost anything for a million dollars.

Try me.

KelvinG

8th June 2006, 03:42 PM

As they say in the media-whore/bookselling business -- any publicity is good publicity. She must have a terrible time not killing herself laughing all the way to the bank.

And does anyone think it hurts her chances of appearing even more often on the talk-show circus/circuit? :D

ROTFLMGDFAO!

I imagine you found it equally amusing when Michael Moore got all that publicity for Fahrenheit 9/11 and made whacks of money.

Or do only ROTFLYGDFAO when nutjobs you agree with are successful?

Nyarlathotep

8th June 2006, 03:45 PM

I wish I knew what percent of the electorate actually buy into the ideas in Ann's satire, bombast and hyperbole filled screeds? 1%, 10%, ?? Makes one wonder a bit, huh?

I wish I knew too. I don't. And that's what scares me.

hammegk

8th June 2006, 03:55 PM

Well, there aren't many, but there are some things even I won't do for.
I'm glad to hear it, and suggest even Ann has some scruples ... just different ones.

I imagine you found it equally amusing when Michael Moore got all that publicity for Fahrenheit 9/11 and made whacks of money.
Amusing in the sense he is a poster boy for the democrats. With him, Newdow, etcetc carrying your banner even Rove will be hard pressed to come up with better ways do more damage to democrat chances in the '06elections.

Ann sells books; please keep worrying about her, though. :D

Or do only ROTFLYGDFAO when nutjobs you agree with are successful?
I usually find watching any session of government at any level a barrel of laughs. One liar and thief tends to be like another. ;)

slingblade

8th June 2006, 04:02 PM

I'm glad to hear it, and suggest even Ann has some scruples ... just different ones.

But you missed the important part, Hammy....the "try me" part.

...wait, never mind. You're one of the things I won't do.
Well, crud.

;)

Meffy

8th June 2006, 04:03 PM

I don't think Coulter has any scruples... but who gives a dram?

There's no discussion that can't be improved by a little apothecary humor.

slingblade

8th June 2006, 04:06 PM

I don't think Coulter has any scruples... but who gives a dram?

I don't even give a peck.

Fine. I'll just leave in a minute-and-a-huff.

RandFan

8th June 2006, 04:22 PM

Miss Whiplash

8th June 2006, 04:40 PM

Not enough moderatly rational people take Ann seriously I'm afraid.

Ann is so rational herself. She dismisses evolution as some form of "liberalism" with her scientic evidence that, "the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1). (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi)"

Ok...this woman is a satire on the right wing-right?

Tricky

8th June 2006, 05:41 PM

Ok...this woman is a satire on the right wing-right?
One would think so. But let's face it, extremists are so bloody stupid that some probably don't know that Stephen Colbert is a satire. (Frankly, I have a hard time watching Colbert because he is so dead center on his parody that it makes me uncomfortable to think that some nutcase somewhere might think he is logical.)

RandFan

8th June 2006, 06:18 PM

Miss Whiplash

8th June 2006, 06:28 PM

One would think so. But let's face it, extremists are so bloody stupid that some probably don't know that Stephen Colbert is a satire. (Frankly, I have a hard time watching Colbert because he is so dead center on his parody that it makes me uncomfortable to think that some nutcase somewhere might think he is logical.)

I really have no time for the pundits. I worked in politics for too long and do not find it entertaining. Ann Coulter, though, seems to be in the same orbit as Art Bell and appealing to the same segment of the population. For what it's worth, when I look at her, I think of Mister Ed in a wig. As she is 45, I guess when gravity takes over her books sales will follow. At least Mister Ed had syndication to fall back on before he was put down.

Regnad Kcin

8th June 2006, 11:18 PM

...ROTFLMGDFAO!How "moral."

Lurker

9th June 2006, 05:50 AM

Coulter, she seems to have no redeeming value what so ever. She's not entertaining. She doesn't argue well. She contributes absolutely nothing of value to the political discussion nor does she entertain in any way shape or form

Coulter provides the raw, visceral hate that many conservatives crave. She caters to the many conservatives who feel that Democrats and liberals are truly evil and are responsible for everything bad in American society.

Lurker

hammegk

9th June 2006, 06:12 AM

Coulter provides the raw, visceral hate that many conservatives crave. She caters to the many conservatives who feel that Democrats and liberals are truly evil and are responsible for everything bad in American society.

Lurker
Actually conservatives "crave" to be left alone.

And it's all a question of numbers ...

Regarding liberalism and liberals, Pogo's comment applies exactly. Keep posting as you do on forums like this one, please. :)

Upchurch

9th June 2006, 06:27 AM

Actually conservatives "crave" to be left alone. Perhaps, but they do not appear to wish to leave others alone.

Cleon

9th June 2006, 06:58 AM

I would like to recommend today's Yirmumah (http://yirmumah.net/encyclopedia-yirmumahca-volume-c).

(Warning: May not be safe for work due to presence of naughty word.)

hammegk

9th June 2006, 07:05 AM

Perhaps, but they do not appear to wish to leave others alone.
No, what they wish to do is accept the reality that private behaviors should remain private, or those behaviors may have consequences in resulting consequent and subsequent public behaviors.

The first liberal was Procustes. One size fits all.

Upchurch

9th June 2006, 08:11 AM

No, what they wish to do is accept the reality that private behaviors should remain private, or those behaviors may have consequences in resulting consequent and subsequent public behaviors.

The first liberal was Procustes. One size fits all.
No? They wish homosexual behaviors to remain private, but not heterosexual behaviors? How is that "one size fits all"?

Cleon

9th June 2006, 08:15 AM

No? They wish homosexual behaviors to remain private, but not heterosexual behaviors? How is that "one size fits all"?

Given conservative support for the now-thankfully-defunct sodomy laws, it seems like they don't even want private behaviors to be allowed.

hammegk

9th June 2006, 09:55 AM

Given conservative support for the now-thankfully-defunct sodomy laws, it seems like they don't even want private behaviors to be allowed.
I don't plan on researching it, but suspect that the liberal need to "think of the children, etcetc" was behind (so to speak) most of those laws.

What conservatives don't give you is public approval for private behaviors that are publicized. Mind your own damn business, and I'll take care of mine.

Upchurch

9th June 2006, 10:21 AM

I don't plan on researching it, but suspect that the liberal need to "think of the children, etcetc" was behind (so to speak) most of those laws. lol. You're a riot, hammigk. This was a rather blatent demonization, for you. You're usually much more subtle.

(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law))
Most sodomy laws originally emerged from cultural and religious beliefs.
Sounds to me like most the conservative arguments we've been getting on this board on the topic.

What conservatives don't give you is public approval for private behaviors that are publicized. Mind your own damn business, and I'll take care of mine.So, are you for a constitutional ban on straight marriage, that great public display of private behavior?

Cleon

9th June 2006, 10:28 AM

I don't plan on researching it, but suspect that the liberal need to "think of the children, etcetc" was behind (so to speak) most of those laws.

You would be incorrect in that suspicion.

What conservatives don't give you is public approval for private behaviors that are publicized. Mind your own damn business, and I'll take care of mine.
Right, instead they try to ban private behaviors that they disapprove of.

Upchurch

9th June 2006, 10:35 AM

Right, instead they try to ban private behaviors that they disapprove of.
I don't plan on informing myself to the contrary, so I'll assume the liberals are behind this.

;)

Cleon

9th June 2006, 10:38 AM

I don't plan on informing myself to the contrary, so I'll assume the liberals are behind this.

;)

You forgot to add "it's true :)".

ImaginalDisc

9th June 2006, 10:40 AM

I don't plan on researching it, but I plan to blather partisan attacks in any case, thus proving I am a political ignoramus.
I corrected your typo for you.

Upchurch

9th June 2006, 10:56 AM

You forgot to add "it's true :)".
You'll have to settle for my sig.

slingblade

9th June 2006, 11:08 AM

Actually, Liberals are behind every Conservative plan as well.
It's our devious cover.
Our chief weapon is fear.
Fear and surprise.
Fear and surprise and a ruthless efficiency.
Fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to Powder Puff Girls.

It's true. :)

ImaginalDisc

9th June 2006, 11:11 AM

Cleon

9th June 2006, 11:12 AM

9th June 2006, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk :
Actually conservatives "crave" to be left alone.

Perhaps, but they do not appear to wish to leave others alone.

Exactly the problem I have with modern-day "conservatives". They aren't really conservatives, they are liberal, radical individuals who think that the state should be allowed to control every behavior of every human being in any respect that that they personally choose to care about.

They're more control-freaks than any liberal anywhere, and they have a PC based on religious dogma that's 100 times as intrusive as even the nutcases like Dworkin.

slingblade

9th June 2006, 11:15 AM

Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

Bring out.......THE SOFT CUSHIONS!

ImaginalDisc

9th June 2006, 11:17 AM

Exactly the problem I have with modern-day "conservatives". They aren't really conservatives, they are liberal [Here, my head explodes]

How is telling people what to do, and invading their privacy in any way liberal?

hammegk

9th June 2006, 11:21 AM

...
(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law))
Yup, no doubt about LGBT being the factual word on the subject. Probably worth as much as many politicised things you find on Wiki that are not subject to much general interest or peer review.

Sounds to me like most the conservative arguments we've been getting on this board on the topic.
It's cultural/societal; I give you that. I'm a person attempting to live within the culture/society I was dealt, it being from personal experience in lots of places so far better than any other I'd like to perpetuate it rather than tinker with things no one has a clue of longer-term effects of.

So, are you for a constitutional ban on straight marriage, that great public display of private behavior?
I'm not for any ban on private sexual behavior. I go so far as to say if as a parent you raise a child than decides to have or is coerced not using physical force into having sex with adults, that's not societies' problem. It's yours as an unfit parent.

In privacy, you can do as you wish with your wife, or any person, persons or objects animate or inanimate. I'd just rather not read about in the papers, or see you carrying a banner proclaiming it in a parade somewhere.

Poor Imaginal when he/she/it discovers life is a political process and takes little account of personal predilections on any matter. In the final analysis, Mobs rule.

slingblade

9th June 2006, 11:22 AM

How is telling people what to do, and invading their privacy in any way liberal?

It's not. But Neo-Cons see enemies in everything, even their own agenda.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Upchurch

9th June 2006, 11:27 AM

I'm not for any ban on private sexual behavior. I go so far as to say if as a parent you raise a child than decides to have or is coerced not using physical force into having sex with adults, that's not societies' problem. It's yours as an unfit parent.

In privacy, you can do as you wish with your wife, or any person, persons or objects animate or inanimate. I'd just rather not read about in the papers, or see you carrying a banner proclaiming it in a parade somewhere.That's lovely, but it did not answer my question in the slightest.

Would you support a constitutional ban on straight marriage, that great public display of private behavior? Given your tangential response above, would you like to see engagements and marriage announcements removed from your local newspaper? How do you feel about the celebration of Valentine's Day?

slingblade

9th June 2006, 11:37 AM

It's cultural/societal; I give you that. I'm a person attempting to live within the culture/society I was dealt, it being from personal experience in lots of places so far better than any other I'd like to perpetuate it rather than tinker with things no one has a clue of longer-term effects of.

What you're talking is stagnation.

No. Not Stag Nation.

Cultures and societies live because they change. When they stop changing, they die. The culture and society we have today is not the one we had when I was a child. And that's good, not bad.

There is a reason why clinging so tightly to something is called a "death-grip."

whitefork

9th June 2006, 12:08 PM

bjb

9th June 2006, 12:28 PM

No way! Wally George was far more open minded than any of the so-called conservative running around today. He'd actually let his guests speak their mind before he had his security guards drag them from the set.

whitefork

9th June 2006, 12:38 PM

Anne's his hair-apparant, though.

KelvinG

9th June 2006, 01:23 PM

Amusing in the sense he is a poster boy for the democrats. With him, Newdow, etcetc carrying your banner even Rove will be hard pressed to come up with better ways do more damage to democrat chances in the '06elections.

Ann sells books; please keep worrying about her, though. :D

Yes, Ann does sell books. And Moore's films make money.

Although I'm quite surprised you believe Moore has such clout in the world of politics. I certainly don't think Coulter does. I think she has her little fundie base who worship the ground she walks on, but she's pretty much a non-factor in the actual political world.
So, I'm not worrying about Ann at all, and neither should you for that matter.
But, you may want to worry about Moore since you think he is a player, even though you believe he does more harm than good.
Ann could only dream of being that influential!

I usually find watching any session of government at any level a barrel of laughs. One liar and thief tends to be like another. ;)

Hmmm, could be the first time I've ever totally agreed with something you said. They're ice skating in hell right now.

hammegk

9th June 2006, 01:42 PM

That's lovely, but it did not answer my question in the slightest.
Actually I did, but you would've had to pay attention.

Would you support a constitutional ban on straight marriage, that great public display of private behavior? Given your tangential response above, would you like to see engagements and marriage announcements removed from your local newspaper? How do you feel about the celebration of Valentine's Day?
No. I'm not the person trying to change working systems to please a few loud-mouthed mal-contents who, I say again, feel they have the right to accept all benefits of their society but get to choose only certain burdens to bear, and anyway would rather see a "better" societal model they are sure they could design and implement. Most frightening, some may actually think their ideas actually are new, different and better than anything conceived of by man heretofore.

There. How was that for subtlety?

slingblade

9th June 2006, 01:44 PM

No. I'm not the person trying to change working systems to please a few loud-mouthed mal-contents who, I say again, feel they have the right to accept all benefits of their society but get to choose only certain burdens to bear, and anyway would rather see a "better" societal model they are sure they could design and implement. Most frightening, some may actually think their ideas actually are new, different and better than anything conceived of by man heretofore.

Could you illuminate the burdens the malcontents don't have to bear?
I'm curious.

Upchurch

9th June 2006, 01:47 PM

Actually I did, but you would've had to pay attention.Whatever makes you feel better.

No. I'm not the person trying to change working systems to please a few loud-mouthed mal-contents who, I say again, feel they have the right to accept all benefits of their society but get to choose only certain burdens to bear, and anyway would rather see a "better" societal model they are sure they could design and implement. Most frightening, some may actually think their ideas actually are new, different and better than anything conceived of by man heretofore.So you disagree with those loud-mouth mal-contents would add a contitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages too, then?

And was that no to all the questions or just the first one? Are you okay with public displays of heterosexual behavior?

Skeptic

10th June 2006, 08:10 AM

Actually conservatives "crave" to be left alone.

Many conservatives, yes, but somehow, I can't see Ann Coulter as Greta Garbo.

hammegk

10th June 2006, 08:23 AM

Nor do I characterize Ann's act as "that of a conservative". :)

hammegk

10th June 2006, 08:28 AM

Whatever makes you feel better.You're welcome.

So you disagree with those loud-mouth mal-contents would add a contitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages too, then?

And was that no to all the questions or just the first one? Are you okay with public displays of heterosexual behavior?
If you can't extrapolate what "I'm happy with our current social mores and don't see any need for change" means to those specific questions, I'm sorry. Not surprised, but sorry.

Upchurch

10th June 2006, 08:43 AM

If you can't extrapolate what "I'm happy with our current social mores and don't see any need for change" means to those specific questions, I'm sorry. Not surprised, but sorry.
Ah, so you were not being completely honest when you said:
What conservatives don't give you is public approval for private behaviors that are publicized. Mind your own damn business, and I'll take care of mine.Conservative do give public approval for private behaviors that are publicized, as long as they heterosexual private behaviors. And, not only are conservatives minding their own business, they're minding other people's business, by changing the constitution.

You're either being naive, a hypocrite, or just dishonest, but that's what I've come to expect. Thanks.

slingblade

10th June 2006, 08:59 AM

Could you illuminate the burdens the malcontents don't have to bear?
I'm curious.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer, Hammegk.

hammegk

10th June 2006, 10:40 AM

You're either being naive, a hypocrite, or just dishonest, but that's what I've come to expect. Thanks.
Or in your usual .... way you find meanings in others' words that were not there. Take your pick.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer, Hammegk.
The burdens involved in being a useful functioning member of society rather than being a wise-ass concerning personal behavior choices that are not welcomed by significant numbers of the nearby population.

If you think racism and homophobia are of a kind, I disagree. Choice of skin color displayed in public is not an option (except for MJ, or people with good makeup artists and money).

There. Happy now?

ImaginalDisc

10th June 2006, 11:00 AM

Or in your usual .... way you find meanings in others' words that were not there. Take your pick.

The burdens involved in being a useful functioning member of society rather than being a wise-ass concerning personal behavior choices that are not welcomed by significant numbers of the nearby population.

If you think racism and homophobia are of a kind, I disagree. Choice of skin color displayed in public is not an option (except for MJ, or people with good makeup artists and money).

There. Happy now?
Certainly not. People do not chose to be homosexual. Denying people the ability to marry a person of their choice, for the reasons they chose, is unjustified discrimination. Getting married is the quinteissential mile stone in "becoming a useful (you forgot a comma here) functioning member of society", or would you like to explain to me why getting a house, mortgage, and joint health plans with someone is being a "malcontent?"

slingblade

10th June 2006, 12:19 PM

The burdens involved in being a useful functioning member of society rather than being a wise-ass concerning personal behavior choices that are not welcomed by significant numbers of the nearby population.

Can you be more specific?

If you think racism and homophobia are of a kind, I disagree. Choice of skin color displayed in public is not an option (except for MJ, or people with good makeup artists and money).

There. Happy now?

That would be a classic strawman. I only asked you what burdens are not borne by those of the same sex who wish to marry.

And you can't disagree with something I haven't yet said. Duh.

Can you specifically enumerate said burdens, or what you mean by "useful functioning member of society?" Both terms are quite vague.

ETA: I do happen to think that wise-asses can be functioning members of society. Take yourself, for example.

Tricky

10th June 2006, 03:48 PM

If you think racism and homophobia are of a kind, I disagree. Choice of skin color displayed in public is not an option (except for MJ, or people with good makeup artists and money).
There are indeed some differences. Racists are usually not, in the pit of their gut, worried that they may be black. (or whatever).

Upchurch

10th June 2006, 04:02 PM

Or in your usual .... way you find meanings in others' words that were not there. Take your pick.Words have meaning and I'm just putting together what you've said. If you feel I'm drawing the wrong conclusion, perhaps you should say exactly what you mean.

The burdens involved in being a useful functioning member of society rather than being a wise-ass concerning personal behavior choices that are not welcomed by significant numbers of the nearby population.Those "signigicant numbers" are quickly shrinking. Tolerance of bigotry is also dropping. Will you be willing to hide your personal behavior choice in expressing your anti-gay bigotry when the majority of people nearby do not welcome it?

Or are you a hypocrite?

There. Happy now?
No, not while I still have to deal with your kind of irrational bigotry.

CFLarsen

10th June 2006, 04:04 PM

Speaking of old, insane white men, they are both better to look at than Al Franken and Michael Moore. :p
Actually, no, they are not.

KelvinG

10th June 2006, 04:24 PM

Considering how ridiculous hammegk was looking in this thread, I expect he negotiated his own suspension as a way out.

Tricky

10th June 2006, 06:04 PM

Considering how ridiculous hammegk was looking in this thread, I expect he negotiated his own suspension as a way out.
Unlikely, but possible. Frankly, I'm not sure what rule Hammy violated that got him suspended. AFAIK, being ridiculous is not against the rules.

whitefork

10th June 2006, 06:09 PM

The unwritten rule probably, or maybe they finally noticed that he gave his real name as Heywood Giablomi.

ImaginalDisc

10th June 2006, 06:15 PM

Unlikely, but possible. Frankly, I'm not sure what rule Hammy violated that got him suspended. AFAIK, being ridiculous is not against the rules.
I think it was because of this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1696429#post1696429

Tricky

10th June 2006, 08:09 PM

I think it was because of this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1696429#post1696429
Ah. That would be it. You gotta wonder what he was thinking. Of course, with Hammy, you always wonder that.

bigred

11th June 2006, 06:25 AM

I can't listen to the extremes of either side - without getting nauseous. Their penchant for jabbing at the opposition tends to distract from any point they might attempt to make.
:jaw-dropp

Wow I'm not the only one. Thx.

bigred

11th June 2006, 06:31 AM

I thought the funniest thing I ever saw Michael Moore do was have a bunch of guys with throat cancer sing Christmas carols in the lobby of a cigarette manufacturer's HQ. They all had those vibrator thingys on their necks while they sang.Yeah, cancer sure is a hoot. He should take his act into the hospitals, I'm sure he'd be a big hit. Maybe he could like matches around burn victims. That'd be a scream.

:boggled:

bigred

11th June 2006, 06:33 AM

I found Dennis Miller very funny and topical and he hit on both sides of the beltway. Sadly, he was never as funny after he became a Republican shill.
True, but he still has his moments.

I esp liked his "rants" (supposedly on CD somewhere but I haven't found).

Tricky

11th June 2006, 07:02 AM

Yeah, cancer sure is a hoot. He should take his act into the hospitals, I'm sure he'd be a big hit. Maybe he could like matches around burn victims. That'd be a scream.

:boggled:
If he was making fun of cancer victims, it might be considered over the edge, but he was not. The victims themselves were the ones making the rather pointed joke. Of course it is sad that there are cancer victims, but to have them turn around and embarrass those who questionably caused their illness is satire at its finest.

Just for the record, my mom fought cancer for twelve years before she succumbed (her original prognosis was 6 months to a year). She used to love it when I would call her because I wouldn't moan and cry. Instead, I'd tell her cancer jokes. By laughing at her illness, she proved a whole lot of doctors wrong. Laughing at that which terrifies us is a healthy thing.

True, but he still has his moments.

I esp liked his "rants" (supposedly on CD somewhere but I haven't found).
They are almost as funny in print. I have about four of his books of Rants.

bigred

11th June 2006, 07:27 AM

If he was making fun of cancer victims, it might be considered over the edge, but he was not. The victims themselves were the ones making the rather pointed joke. Of course it is sad that there are cancer victims, but to have them turn around and embarrass those who questionably caused their illness is satire at its finest.Hardly. It's vulgar, sickening, extremely obnoxious, and extremely low-class........not to mention the gross stupidity and deflecting of accountability of it. ie has MICHAEL MOORE written all over it. Small wonder he was behind it.

PS I'm willing to bet no one shoved those cigs down their throat. If someone is walks out in front of a car and is killed, would it be "funny" to lay the bloody body down in the main lobby of the manufacturer's HQ? hahahahaha.

Not.

Death isn't funny. Blaming deaths on someone who isn't at fault is even less so.

Just for the record, my mom fought cancer for twelve years before she succumbed (her original prognosis was 6 months to a year). She used to love it when I would call her because I wouldn't moan and cry. Instead, I'd tell her cancer jokes. By laughing at her illness, she proved a whole lot of doctors wrong. Laughing at that which terrifies us is a healthy thing.I'm very sorry for your loss, first off. Second I'm all for "laughter is the best medicine" and all. But the earlier example above doesn't qualify.

Tricky

11th June 2006, 08:11 AM

Hardly. It's vulgar, sickening, extremely obnoxious, and extremely low-class........not to mention the gross stupidity and deflecting of accountability of it. ie has MICHAEL MOORE written all over it. Small wonder he was behind it.
Gross to whom? To you? Somehow I don't picture you as the type who thinks gross humor should be censored. It obviously wasn't gross to the cancer victims participating, or at least, they thought that it was worth being gross to make their point.

PS I'm willing to bet no one shoved those cigs down their throat.But they could lie and tell you cigs are safe, then you might be more inclined to use them. But this is a subject for another thread. One could say that in addition to making fun of the cigarette manufacturers, they were making fun of their own stupidity. I think the best jokes are where you laugh at yourself too.

If someone is walks out in front of a car and is killed, would it be "funny" to lay the bloody body down in the main lobby of the manufacturer's HQ? hahahahaha.
That would be without the permission of the victim, wouldn't you say? Not an apt analogy.

Death isn't funny. Blaming deaths on someone who isn't at fault is even less so.
Death IS funny. Why do you think the Darwin awards are so popular? Everything is funny if you allow yourself to laugh. It doesn't mean you can't also be outraged. Wouldn't you laugh if some idiot terrorist blew himself up in his own bomb lab? Would it lessen your outrage at terrorism?

I'm very sorry for your loss, first off.
Thank you. She was a great woman with great taste. We ate her with some parsnips and shallots.Second I'm all for "laughter is the best medicine" and all. But the earlier example above doesn't qualify.Everybody has a list of things they consider off limits for jokes. For some people, that list is so large that they find they can't laugh at anything. I try to make my list as small as possible.

Still, (to return to the topic) try as I might, I can't find enough humor in Ann Coulter's writing to justify a tiny grin. I wish I could. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh makes me smile occasionally.

Regnad Kcin

11th June 2006, 08:34 AM

Thank you. She was a great woman with great taste. We ate her with some parsnips and shallots..."Comedy is serious business." -- Steve Martin

bigred

11th June 2006, 08:41 AM

Gross to whom? To you? Somehow I don't picture you as the type who thinks gross humor should be censored. It obviously wasn't gross to the cancer victims participating, or at least, they thought that it was worth being gross to make their point. Not gross, grossly (ie extremely) stupid.

One could say that in addition to making fun of the cigarette manufacturers, they were making fun of their own stupidity. You could, but I really doubt this was the case. I REALLY doubt they did it to say "look we gave ourselves cancer, ha ha ha."

I think the best jokes are where you laugh at yourself too.It depends what we're talking about. I'm all for laughing at one's self for tripping over the dog or making a social faux pas, stuff like that. But laughing at causing one's own death not only isn't the "best" kind of joke, it's about as unfunny as it gets, not to mention bizarro - even borderline insane.

That would be without the permission of the victim, wouldn't you say? Not an apt analogy.Not entirely, but I think you know what I meant.

Death IS funny. Why do you think the Darwin awards are so popular? Because our society is extemely and increasingly de-sensitized...even to the point of laughing at tragedies. Remember, we aren't talking Wile E Coyote cartoons here. This is real life. But tragically, the lines between "make-believe" and real life continue to blur under the onslaught of all the media crapola people gorge themselves on, mostly out of pure boredom.

To laugh at a tragic premature death - even if the person caused it themselves - is about as no-class and pathetic as it gets. To find horror - REAL horror - amusing is scary on an Orwellian level. Even if we agree they "had it coming" and/or don't feel sympathy, it still isn't funny.

I think anyone who thinks so should have to attend the funerals of some of these people and see the severe pain of family and friends that the death caused; perhaps then what they call "funny" might hit home. I have a feeling they wouldn't be snickering then. If they are, then IMO their deaths would be a net gain to this world and I'm all for it.

But the end of even their pathetic lives would not cause me to laugh.

Wouldn't you laugh if some idiot terrorist blew himself up in his own bomb lab?Of course not. Good grief. I'm sorry for any offense, but that really is a twisted, scary mindset. I might be glad for his death, ie feeling justice is served.....but it's not "funny."

Would it lessen your outrage at terrorism??? Why would it affect my outrage at terrorism in any way at all?

Still, (to return to the topic) try as I might, I can't find enough humor in Ann Coulter's writing to justify a tiny grin. I wish I could. Heck, even Rush Limbaugh makes me smile occasionally.I haven't read/heard as much of her stuff as many of you seem to have, but what I have heard I haven't found funny either...not that it really matters. Mixed feelings on her generally....seems to depend what day I catch her on.

alfaniner

11th June 2006, 09:09 AM

I thought it was ridiculous when today I saw a promo for an upcoming segment "Why does the media keep promoting the complaints about Ann Coulter and her book? It only generates publicity!"

Tricky

11th June 2006, 11:01 AM

I thought it was ridiculous when today I saw a promo for an upcoming segment "Why does the media keep promoting the complaints about Ann Coulter and her book? It only generates publicity!"
LOL. And to add the unspoken finish, "...not that we have anything against publicity."

But I am in favor of giving Ann publicity for this sort of thing. Sure, it makes money for her, but I consider that to be a small evil compared to the good it does in exposing right-wing extremists. I know some right-of-the-center folks who are capable of modifying their beliefs when they see who their "allies" are.

Bigred, what do you find funny? You sound like you don't laugh at much. I know you like Dennis Miller, and he tells some of the sickest jokes imaginable.

Meffy

11th June 2006, 02:44 PM

I thought it was ridiculous when today I saw a promo for an upcoming segment "Why does the media keep promoting the complaints about Ann Coulter and her book? It only generates publicity!"
I keep seeing church signs mentioning (almost advertising) The Da Vinci Code. Such publicity money can't buy. [edit] Whether it matters I couldn't say, I don't go to movies.

bigred

11th June 2006, 06:22 PM

Bigred, what do you find funny? You sound like you don't laugh at much. Because I don't find things like cancer or death or "Darwin awards" funny? :boggled: whatever......sorry for any offense, btw, just can't relate.

Tricky

11th June 2006, 09:22 PM

Because I don't find things like cancer or death or "Darwin awards" funny? :boggled: whatever......sorry for any offense, btw, just can't relate.
No offense at all. I just wonder what you find to laugh at. To me, laughter is the greatest thing we have. I find it a bit sad that you are so restricted in the things you can laugh at. I made a sick joke about my mother's death. She would be so proud of me. I get all misty-eyed thinking about her profound love of humor. I wish you could experience it too.

Skeptic

12th June 2006, 01:56 AM

If you think racism and homophobia are of a kind, I disagree. Choice of skin color displayed in public is not an option (except for MJ, or people with good makeup artists and money).

Fine, so homophobia is like antisemitism, then; after all, one can CHOOSE whether or not to be jewish and whether or not to display jewish religious clothings (such as a yarmulka) in public. If this behavior causes disgust, well... that's the jew's problem for choosing wrong.

And by the way, surely black people can CHOOSE whether or not to display their skin (i.e., be next to) white people? They could, after all, choose to go to a segregated beach instead of choosing to prowl around white people where such a display of dark skin is unwelcome.

Nova Land

12th June 2006, 02:52 AM

Hardly. It's vulgar, sickening, extremely obnoxious, and extremely low-class...
Which is why I subscibed to National Lampoon a couple decades back. Its glory days (the early '70s) were already over, but I still thought it was important to support vulgar, obnoxious, cheap humor -- the kind that isn't afraid to say the things we're not supposed to say. I think that kind of humor is an important asset to skepticism.

Yes, there are times when one should not indulge in such behavior. If a friend's cat has just died, it is not the time to be making cat-run-over-by-steamroller jokes. That's a matter of courtesy. But there are also occasions when it is appropriate to be inappropriate and to say the things which aren't supposed to be said.

Those who are willing to challenge the taboos on what can and can't be said in public are often performing a very valuable public service. Lenny Bruce was as reviled in his time as Michael Moore is today.

Not having seen or read much of Moore's work, I'm not in a good position to judge its merits. But judging by which public figures have denounced his work and the manner in which they've done it, I'm inclined to believe there must be a fair amount of merit to what Moore has done.

gnome

12th June 2006, 06:08 AM

I'm betting that for most people that truly can't stand her, the line with Ann Coulter was crossed long ago when she advocated forcible conversion of foreign islamic nations to Christianity. As far as I know, she has been asked repeatedly about this quote and has never recanted it or significantly qualified it.

From then on(which was basically from the start of when I heard of her) I could never think of her as just someone who talks smack to provoke people.

Tricky

12th June 2006, 07:02 AM

Good article by Leonard Pitts Jr. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/3959821.html)

No, Coulter is reviled because she is mean, malicious, the barbed-wire frontwoman for a cabal of bloviators, bully boys and blowhards (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage and too many others) who are pleased to regard themselves as the guardians of conservatism's soul. Conservatism's soul should sue for slander.

But again, it plays in Peoria. And why not? It is loud, simple, stupid. Not unlike The Jerry Springer Show.

The nation's political discourse has never been as polite and decorous as we like to think. Abraham Lincoln's political foes called him a baboon, Lyndon Johnson once said that Gerald Ford played too much football without a helmet.

When, however, even widows (and orphans?) become fair game for a viperous harridan with an ax to grind and books to sell, maybe decent people should wonder at the lines we have crossed and the type of nation we have become in the process.

Meffy

12th June 2006, 07:43 AM

"Guardians of conservatism's soul?" Feh. IMO they're more like the scrapers of conservatism's sole. I look forward to the eventual return of sanity and the more honorable, honestly conservative conservatism of The (possibly mythical; my memory's notoriously flaky) Good Old Days.

bigred

12th June 2006, 06:15 PM

No offense at all. I just wonder what you find to laugh at.There's no short answer for that other than "many things."

To me, laughter is the greatest thing we have. I would argue it's love, but I think we agree on that more than we may realize.

I find it a bit sad that you are so restricted in the things you can laugh at..I find it sad that you think I'm "so restricted" because I don't agree w/you that things like cancer and death are funny.

I made a sick joke about my mother's death. She would be so proud of me. Good for you. As I say, to each their own.

Upchurch

13th June 2006, 12:37 PM

(source (http://mediamatters.org/items/200606120006))
REP. RAHM EMANUEL (D-IL): Lest Ms. Coulter forget, more than 3,000 Americans were killed simply because they lived in the United States. That doesn't matter to Ms. Coulter, because she's doing it to enrich herself. But there's something more sinister in Ms. Coulter's words. The hate she spews is the same kind of hatred we're battling in the war on terror. As a country of thought and reason, I urge all of us to reject it. And I must ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, does Ann Coulter speak for you when she suggests poisoning Supreme Court justices or slanders the 9-11 windows -- widows? If not, speak now. Your silence allows her to be your spokesman. She should apologize to all of us who've lost our fellow citizens on 9-11.

Plus, I thought Olberman had an excellent point:
That remark in particular, ringing a little hollow. On the morning of September 13, 2001, literally before the bodies were cold, when the pyre still burned at the World Trade Center, Coulter wrote a column about her friend among the victims at the Pentagon, the Republican attorney Barbara Olson. After 10 paragraphs about Ms. Olson, Coulter wrote: "This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone, anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson." And she concluded, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Using that relationship to a victim to advocate a viewpoint was OK. Making money, reveling in status, appearing on TV, enjoying a death, to use Coulter's own term, that was OK. But the actual widows of victims are not entitled.
To be fair to Coulter (although I'm not sure why), I don't think she's been using her connection to Barbara Olson as a reason to speak from a position of authority.

lofgoernost

13th June 2006, 04:45 PM

6/14 Coulter will be on The Tonight Show. So will George Carlin. Al Franken's loving the prospect of those two cuddling on the sofa.

Regnad Kcin

13th June 2006, 05:42 PM

WildCat

13th June 2006, 05:46 PM

Is that possible? For a guy like Carlin who pulls no punches, it would be sweet pleasure to see him offer up an opinion or two. My guess is that Leno will yuk it up with them in the makeup chairs before the taping begins so as to diffuse any potential hostility.
Coulter will win that battle. Carlin needs a script, Coulter will slam him 7 ways to Sunday before he can utter a single syllable.

I really don't know why people get so upset w/ Coulter - getting people upset is the only reason she's famous. Ignore her and she'll disappear into the sewer she crawled out of.

gnome

13th June 2006, 06:18 PM

So torn... I love George Carlin, and would enjoy seeing if he CAN hold his own without a script... but I don't want the network to think I want them to put Ann on TV.

I guess I really must choose not to watch it.

wastepanel

13th June 2006, 06:20 PM

Coulter will win that battle. Carlin needs a script, Coulter will slam him 7 ways to Sunday before he can utter a single syllable.

I really don't know why people get so upset w/ Coulter - getting people upset is the only reason she's famous. Ignore her and she'll disappear into the sewer she crawled out of.

That's because she plagerizes also.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/because-some-things-are-more-profane.html

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-ann-coulter-is-****-part-1856.html

(Steps back and awaits a mess tomorrow)

WildCat

13th June 2006, 06:41 PM

That's because she plagerizes also.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/because-some-things-are-more-profane.html

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-ann-coulter-is-****-part-1856.html

(Steps back and awaits a mess tomorrow)
See? More free pub for her book given courtesy of her opponents. Reminds me of Fox suing Al Franken.

Tricky

13th June 2006, 07:07 PM

Coulter will win that battle. Carlin needs a script, Coulter will slam him 7 ways to Sunday before he can utter a single syllable.
LOL. You think Coulter doesn't use a script? From all I can tell, her script is less than a page long.

Meffy

13th June 2006, 07:40 PM

LOL. You think Coulter doesn't use a script? From all I can tell, her script is less than a page long.
"Now I'd like to make a few totally off-the-cuff comments..."

(* nonchalantly glances down, reads pithy quips written on inside of shirt cuff *)

Regnad Kcin

13th June 2006, 08:57 PM

Coulter will win that battle. Carlin needs a script, Coulter will slam him 7 ways to Sunday before he can utter a single syllable...Well, Mr. C is a writer more than anything else, I agree. Which makes me suspect he'll have a few quips, ripostes, and bon mots prepared.

In any event, I expect he'll play nice and idly sit back as she does her thing while Jay chuckles with his shoulders bobbing up and down.

Snide

14th June 2006, 08:01 AM

Well, Mr. C is a writer more than anything else, I agree. Which makes me suspect he'll have a few quips, ripostes, and bon mots prepared.

In any event, I expect he'll play nice and idly sit back as she does her thing while Jay chuckles with his shoulders bobbing up and down.I think Carlin is as likely to remind people how much he dislikes both "liberals" and "conservatives," depending on the particular issue. (E.g., he hates religion, but hates PC too.)

Tricky

14th June 2006, 08:53 AM

I think Carlin is as likely to remind people how much he dislikes both "liberals" and "conservatives," depending on the particular issue. (E.g., he hates religion, but hates PC too.)
Yeah, Carlin really is all over the board. In fact, some people seem to think he is an arch-conservative because they received some incorrectly attributed spam about being a Bad American (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/carlin.asp).

I have a couple of his books, and I find that he ranges from incredibly insightful to woefully inane. I'm not even sure what his real opinions are. I think he will say pretty much anything that he finds to be funny. And he succeeds often. So if that is the format, Coultrin would be humiliated by Carlin. Her only hope would be to shout him down. Hey, it works on Fox.

varwoche

14th June 2006, 09:07 AM

Yeah, Carlin really is all over the board ... I have a couple of his books, and I find that he ranges from incredibly insightful to woefully inane. It's too bad he's an abject nutjob (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=44825&highlight=carlin). (I used to admire him greatly).

Snide

14th June 2006, 11:55 AM

It's too bad he's an abject nutjob (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=44825&highlight=carlin). (I used to admire him greatly).Thanks for the link. I concur in most part with Brown's response.

14th June 2006, 12:17 PM

It's too bad he's an abject nutjob (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=44825&highlight=carlin). (I used to admire him greatly).

Seems to me he was drubbing a sanctimonious jerk.

bigred

14th June 2006, 05:22 PM

I have a couple of his books, and I find that he ranges from incredibly insightful to woefully inane. I'm not even sure what his real opinions are. I think he will say pretty much anything that he finds to be funny. And he succeeds often. So if that is the format, Coultrin would be humiliated by Carlin. Her only hope would be to shout him down. Hey, it works on Fox.
I think he leans more to the liberal side generally, but overall that's a nice recap IMO.

I think he's one of the sharpest comedic writers/"observers" ever. His material is borderline brilliant sometimes. But I always thought his delivery was frequently quite lacking and it's very easy for him to become tedious and annoying, esp when he gets on a political soapbox. His "angry man" bit has long since gotten old too.

Anyway, I doubt either will "win" because they'll be trying to shout over top of each other and neither will really get a chance to have their say, then Leno will have to try and calm the field (I can see it now "OK we're going to a commercial.....").