Today on Blogcritics
Home » Why I Hate Ann Coulter And You Should, Too

Why I Hate Ann Coulter And You Should, Too

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It’s not unusual for people to mobilize after a tragedy. Many people, after having lost children or loved ones to sudden death, have gone on to focus their energies on prevention, healing, and public education.

After the death of six-year-old Adam Walsh in 1981, his father, John, went on to spur the formation of The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). He became an advocate for victims' rights and went on to host the TV show, America’s Most Wanted. When 13-year old Cari Lightner was killed by a drunk driver in 1979, her mother Candace and many other enraged mothers formed a group called MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). After the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson in 1992, Denise Brown and other family members formed the Nicole Brown Charitable Foundation, which provides safe houses for victims of domestic violence.

These are just a few examples of how shattered and heartbroken people have found strength in mobilizing and have created causes that are near and dear to them. So I find it curious and sickening that Ann Coulter has chosen to insult and vilify certain widows of 9/11 victims. Coulter writes in a new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.” She goes on to call four 9/11 widows “self-obsessed broads; millionaires – reveling in their status as celebrities.

“I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much… 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.”

It is apparent that Coulter is jealous of the attention that these 9/11 widows are receiving. (Several appeared on Larry King Live earlier this week.) While Coulter has to rely on sensationalism and insults to get press, these four widows have bravely chosen to use their personal losses in a public way, demanding answers about what happened to their loved ones in the World Trade Center disaster.

Almost every American remembers what he or she was doing at the moment the first plane struck the World Trade Center. Human beings worldwide were united in their heartbreak and millions came to NYC to visit the steaming ruins of the crash site weeks and months after it happened. Regardless of party affiliation, race or economic standing, American citizens were wounded. People were driving more courteously. People sobbed openly in airports and markets as they read newspapers and watched television footage in disbelief. Even in Belfast, Ireland, where this writer was on tour at the time of the tragedy, strangers came up and hugged me when they heard me speaking English. It seemed the whole world had been given a healthy dose of compassion. Everyone it seems, except Ann Coulter, who must have slept through the entire event.

To blame victims for their own demise is not a new tactic. Right-wingers such as Jerry Falwell have laid the blame on the gay community for the AIDS epidemic. Right wing conservatives have blamed prostitutes for their own murders at the hands of maniacs like Gary Ridgeway. Holocaust revisionists and deniers often blame the Jews for their own annihilation during the Holocaust. Anti-Israel activists and, most recently, the President of Iran have said that the Jews use the Holocaust to spread guilt so that no one can oppose Israeli policies. (Two very different things, by the way – Jews and Israeli policy.)

It's disgusting that Ann Coulter uses the misery of someone else to sell her vitriolic venom in book form. Her book continues to sell at a rapid pace, but at what cost? She reaps the benefits of the deaths of innocent men and women in 9/11 at the same time she tramples on the tears of their children and loved ones left behind.

While I am certainly not a fan of Cindy Sheehan and her practice of blurring the lines between Iraq and Israel, I still respect her as a mother making the ultimate sacrifice; losing a son to a needless, thankless war. I may not agree with many of her political views, but I would never have the gall to accuse her of “enjoying her son’s death.”

Whether we agree with the 9/11 widows or not is irrelevant. They lost loved ones through no fault of their own. Children will go to sleep tonight without their mommies and daddies to tuck them in. Kids will graduate and marry without a parent to walk them down the aisle or offer a helping hand. Babies were born without ever meeting their fathers. For these reasons alone, the widows should be treated with compassion and heart.

What’s next for Ann? Maybe she can start picketing the memorials for the fallen victims of 9/11 like the Westboro Baptist Church pickets the funerals of fallen gay and lesbian soldiers. They, too, think it’s acceptable and reasonable to verbally abuse the dead and their families.

Ann Coulter has crossed the line of decency. All humans with a beating heart should be appalled. Whether you are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or don’t vote at all matters not. Your sense of compassion and reverence for the dead should cause you to boycott Coulter's books. She was fired (and rightfully so) by USA Today for some of the insults she slung at women who attended the Democratic convention. You can fire her, too. Keep her off your reading lists and your bookshelves. Send your money instead to a World Trade Center Memorial Fund or to the NYC Firefighters Association, people who give their lives daily trying to save the dying. Her comments are insensitive and unnecessary. She doesn’t need to insult grieving widows to sell her crappy books.

Or, does she??

The following is the statement from the 9/11 widows in response to Coulters vitriolic name-calling as published in the New York Post:

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens.

Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.

1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.

4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.

5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.

6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.

7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.

8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

— September 11th Advocates

Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Aukes

Powered by

About candyekane

  • http://spatulaforum.blogspot.com Nik

    The more press she gets, the happier she is, I think. Unfortunately.

  • beadtot

    Wake up to reality! Organized crime is real and the book is probably a collection of elicitations demanded from her — bits and pieces of infor-mation and utterances. She probably didn’t even choose the title. No one hates victims of bookmaking schemes. She was singled out because her name resembles ‘Colson’.

  • http://spatulaforum.blogspot.com Nik

    It’s also a little ironic that an article encouraging a boycott of her has a big plug for her new book right at the top. Press is press… sales go up with every article about how awful she is, I imagine.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    We’re just helping her sell more books, and encouraging her to write one with even more shock value next time. She richly deserves to be ignored by all intelligent people.

  • joey

    “We’re just helping her sell more books, and encouraging her to write one with even more shock value next time. She richly deserves to be ignored by all intelligent people.”

    Welcome to he “gets it” club.
    Now if only you could spread the word. I have been for many years. But nobody “gets it.”

    Not even this crew.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Hell, let her sell as many books as she can. It’s a free market of ideas and if hers appeal to an audience, then she should be encouraged to cash in.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Couple of points ………

    Cindy Sheehan made no sacrifice. Her of age son chose to join up and in the process of serving he died. She had no choice in the matter. So yes it is tragic that she lost her son but she is no hero. She made no sacrifice. She is no expert in world affairs. She’s just a woman so blinded by grief that she was taken advantage of by the far left.

    Where is all the moral indignation when leftist louts like Ward Churchill say things like “the 911 victims were little eichmans?” That is just as aggreegious as the things coulter said if not more so (which i think it is because he was libeling the actual dead victims.) Where was the outrage then? Where was the blogcritics post called “Why I hate ward churchill and why you should too”? Where was the NJ state legislature in calling for Churchills resigantion? The left was conspicuosly absent in condeming hurchill for these remarks yet they’re all over Coulter like Bill clinton on a whitehosue intern on her first day on the job.

    Then there was the incident where Cindy sheehan and her supporters at Camp Casey decided to use the names of dead soldiers on crosses as a demonstartion. Well some of the families of the soldiers whose names were on those crosses went to camp casey and took down the crosses and asked cindy sheehan not to use thier children’s names in her protest. Well wouldn’t you know ……..as soon as those families left……..right back up went the crosses with the same names on them. Isn’t this “crossing the line of deceny” Candye? I don’t recall anyone’s heart on the left breakign for those families whose names were on the crosses that were removed. No one on the left said “hey Cindy what’s up with that? we’re sorry you lost your kid but that doesn’t give you the right to use the names of other dead american kids to push your agenda.”

    Many on the right, including myself have condemened Coulter’s “enjoying thier husbands deaths” remark as hurtful and wrong though. But still I have yet to hear the left condem sheehan or churchill for hwat they have said and done.

    So while all of you on the left are enjoying your little Coulterbash why don’t you also at least have the honesty to admit that the left has it’s fair share of peopel who have mistreated American war victims.

  • MCH

    “Cindy Sheehan made no sacrifice…She is no expert in world affairs.”

    And what have you sacrificed, Archie?

  • Joey

    I agree with every point here. I like to use the “Passion” scenerio… make a big stink about something… and the curiousity seekers will hit it like a bug on a night light.

    That the “gets it” signal. I find it humorous that pumping a lot of hate into a subject… actually fuels interest. Interesting paradigm wouldn’t you say.

    Now apply that to conservative vs liberal thought.

    The conservative… may not say anything… it goes away, it’s becomes a nit you swat at every now and again.

    The libbo’s rail against it… preach and scream… bring attention to it… which brings the fireflies… and the firefiles buzz around the flame and some are taken by the flame, and others leave. But some are sucked in.

    It’s FREE PR. Get it? The “Passion” suffered from it… the press pulled out all stops, big campaign etc…. every NIGHT on the news… passion this and passiion that. Mel Gibson would like to thank all of you who contributed to the FREE PR MEDIA BLITZ. Not only that, but it looks like all you schmucks are repeating the scenario. It’s freakin’ comical. It’s freakin’ comical. Bring it on! Bring it on! Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. That is a truth. Dare I say it…. idiots.

  • Arch Conservative

    Ummmmm I never claimed to have made any grand sacrifice and the last time I checked I was not being held up to be some great American hero giving political speeche son the evils of this nation and my own personal expertise on the war in Iraq by a fringe minority of our population MCH.

    I would have though thte difference between Cindy Sheehan and myself was obvious. I guess not.

    Let me ask you something MCH what do you think of Churchill’s eichman remark and of sheehan using the crosses with the dead soldiers names after the families asked her not to?

  • David

    It’s difficult to believe that the American political landscape has room for yet another Village Idiot. Ann Coulter is high priestess of the Right, and a leading spokesperson for those who would change America with words rather than deeds. She delights the far right, embarrasses moderates, and provides ample proof that the laws of natural selection are not infallible – and she’s America’s newest Village Idiot. Check out the new book about Coulter – Ann Coulter is a Skinny Blonde Idiot (available at Amazon). To learn more about America’s Village Idiots go to: http://www.beltwaybarbie.com.

  • Joe Dinnerbucket

    How hateful and mean-spirited can this country get? There is something seriously wrong with the moral compass of our nation when bilious hate-mongers like Ann Coulter can actually sell millions of books to an audience who will gladly lap up every drop of her disgusting filth. I hate to think of where we are headed…what will talk radio and political TV programs look like ten years hence?

    If what is happening today is any indication, I expect that by 2016 we will have “pundits” hurling
    the most vile, pornographic terms at anyone who disagrees with their opinions. This woman has a poisoned mind that is on the same level as Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen. Her rhetoric is hateful enough to put a smile on the face of Josef Goebbels. So far, she has published vicious anti-liberal screeds under the titles of “Treason” and “Godless”. Perhaps her next tome should be called “Lets Put Liberals In Gas Chambers”. That’s
    really what her audience is thinking, isn’t it?

    The parallels between this modern Neocon rhetoric and the anti-Semitic rantings of Adolf Hitler are striking. They both target a certain segment of society and use it for an all-purpose scapegoat. Instead of the Jews, this time it’s the liberals who are responsible for all the ills of the nation. This time, it’s the liberals who are conspiring to bring down our country. Now, it’s the liberals who are giving “aid and comfort to the enemy”. Obviously, anyone with a sense of history know what people like Ann are really hinting at.

    As a liberal who is alarmed by the vicious, hateful tone of political discourse that is allowed to pollute our airwaves unfettered, I have decided to hang on to my handgun, just in case someone like Ann Coulter should ever gain power and decide that people like me “need to go”. Print all the rotten books you like, Ann, but you’ll never get me in a cattle car, I guarantee you that.

  • Arch Conservative

    Hey david……..

    what do you think of Churchill’s eichman remark and of sheehan using the crosses with the dead soldiers names after the families asked her not to?

  • Arch Conservative

    Hey joe……..

    what do you think of Churchill’s eichman remark and of sheehan using the crosses with the dead soldiers names after the families asked her not to?

  • Joe Dinnerbucket

    One more thought…I am saddened, but not surprised, by the “money is everything” mentality that another poster has displayed in this blog. The fact that a rotten book filled with hate can pull in a nice profit does not justify its message one iota, nor its dissemination. Heroin, prostitution, and kiddie porn also generate billions of dollars for their “industry” and keep thousands of people “employed” year in and year out.

    But I guess it’s too much to expect fanatical free-market conservatives to understand that some things are more important than profit in this world. Apparently, to their way of thinking, anything that can make a buck is good, regardless of who gets hurt in the process. No, I’m not advocating any book-burnings, censorship, or even a boycott. But I am appalled and disgusted by the fact that a sigificant market even exists for this egregious crap that masquerades as political commentary.

    It won’t join anyone in applauding Ann Coulter’s ability to make money by selling her hateful tripe. Some folks admired Al Capone and John Gotti for their fancy suits and big cars. That didn’t make then any less the criminal scumbags that they were. I have more respect for the street-walking prostitute than I do for Ann Coulter. At least the streetwalker doesn’t encourage anyone to hate their neighbor in exchange for 20 bucks.

    Some “Christian” country we have here, huh?

  • http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

    Arch, on one point you are correct. “So while all of you on the left are enjoying your little Coulterbash why don’t you also at least have the honesty to admit that the left has it’s fair share of peopel who have mistreated American war victims.”

    Both sides have been guilty. But at this particular moment, Coulter has the loudest megaphone. And what’s more, she’s consistent about being a whiny offensive brat. That’s why she’s being singled out.

  • Joe Dinnerbucket

    Hey Arch-Conservative (or is it Archie Bunker?)-

    Ever lose a loved one? I have. I didn’t “enjoy” it one little bit, as I recall. I hope you’ll never experience the sheer horror of watching your spouse, friend, or member of your family being killed on national television. But if it should happen, God forbid, why don’t you get back to us and tell us how much you enjoyed it? Maybe you and Ann can get together and write a book about it.

  • sr

    Ms. Ann Coulter. Excellent book and A BIG BRAVISSIMO. Love reading the comments attacking you. This is national tweek a liberal week. Let,s hope they are doing what they know best. Pissing all over themselves and praying to their god john dean, butts up and heads down on pink camel hair prayer rugs. LOVE YOU MISS ANN. Keep the truth out their.
    sr

  • http://www.taylorhicksblues.blogspot.com Jewels

    “Where was the outrage then? Where was the blogcritics post called “Why I hate ward churchill and why you should too?”

    Right on target Arch. Man you are taking some slings and arrows but refuse to go down, and why should you. You go SuperConservative man!

    Liberals can dish it out all day but let a Conservative (granted she’s as far right as you get without rounding the circle) make some harsh statements and man all hell can break loose. Look at that crazy Churchill freak – life goes on for him just fine and what he said was much more gross and offensive and freaking crazy than Ann’s comments. Also, and importantly I might note, the only lines taken out of the chapter of her book dealing with the Jersey girls are the ones quoted in this article. They are the lines of focus, and taken out of context of the entire chapter that if read would enlighten readers (except maybe the far left readers whose brains would have exploded on these sentences alone like the Martians in the flik “Mars Attacks” when they heard Slim Whitman sing) that time has come for the Liberals hanging on to the ledge of the left precipice to either stop using victims of catastrophy as human shields or jump the hell off of that ledge themselves. They could wave flags as they fall “THIS IS ALL the Conservatives FAULT”. ALso one thing I want to point out that NOBODY has mentioned — 911 – do your homework folks was a planned event that began during the CLINTON administration and he and his Democratic left wing thinking group chose to look the other way. Research history on this one. Our memories are so short, short-sighted and really warped.

  • IgnatiusReilly

    No shock that one of Ann’s supporters doesn’t know the correct form of “there” or how to spell “tweak”. And I thought liberals prayed to Howard Dean, not John. Hmmm, learn something new every day. Too bad everyone else doesn’t.

  • http://www.taylorhicksblues.blogspot.com Jewels

    Ignatius, your point? Or are you just the grammatical structurist of the day? Guess ‘sr’ doesn’t care if he gets *ga-aa ah* (the Howie Dean scream out) Howie Dean’s name right. WHO should? *ga -aa ah!* WHO cares? *ga -aa ah!*

  • Arch Conservative

    Still not one of you liberals has had the nerve to condem what Cindy sheehan or Ward churchill did.

    Hey joe [Edited] how do you think the people who lost loved ones on 911 felt when they heard ward churchill call them “little eichmans.” Can you please respond to that?

    How bout you JP? You have it in you to condem churchill?

  • http://spatulaforum.blogspot.com/ Nik

    Yeah, Churchill’s an idiot, although I don’t think he has 1/10th the influence Coulter does, and she’s at least as much of an idiot as him. And there’s nothing to condemn in what Sheehan did.

  • JustOneMan

    Joe Shitbucket…your are fake phoney fraud…a real liberal would never own let alone threaten someone with a gun….

    I dont get it…people think that because they have had a personal experience they have the moral high ground…aint so Joe Shitbucket…

    Besides due to your lefty louie lunacy you forget the free world was attacked on 911 ….we are all free to greive and be pissed off as much as we want…

    “Good people don’t rip other people’s arms off.”
    – Spongebob Squarepants

  • http://themadpigeon.blogs.com/diary_of_the_mad_pigeon/ MOGS

    Why is it…

    That when writers and pundits on the left make hateful speech, it gets a complete “bye” and in fact, lauded or justified, but when the shoe gets put on the other foot, it becomes “racist” “hate speech” “fascist” or “reactionary?” What’s good for the goose is good for the gander people.

    It’s called intellectual dishonesty, where the hell were you people when Kos commented on the four contractors killed in April of ’04?

    That’s hypocritical.

    Becoming a victim does NOT offer you automatic immunity from stupidity, or from being wrong, and with all due respect, the Jersey widows, Cindy Sheehan, and now Berg may be justified in their grief, they are acting dishonorably, foolishly, and allowing that grief to cover up responsible speech and responsible public conduct, something they should still be held accountable for.

    And just why will NONE of you condemn Ward Churchill??

    Oh and BTW, to the author, you should really do some more research on MADD – they’re guilty of dishonesty, false statistics, and playing the lobbying game under the guise of moral outrage, when it’s really revenge, revenge and a corrupt PAC/lobby culture. Problem is NO ONE will presume to challenge anything they say, because like Maureen Dowd has indicated ” a grieving mother has absolute moral authority”

    BS.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    hat when writers and pundits on the left make hateful speech, it gets a complete “bye”

    It’s because people are so used to it that they have learned to ignore it as nothing out of the ordinary.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    And BTW, ArchCon, there were about a dozen article on BC reaming Ward Churchill during his 15 minutes of fame. You just happened to miss them and seem to be incapable of doing a search.

    Dave

  • IgnatiusReilly

    Since you need it spelled out Jewels, the point is that it’s no surprise that a fan of Ann’s has trouble with the English language, meaning they ain’t too bright.

    “Guess ‘sr’ doesn’t care if he gets *ga-aa ah* (the Howie Dean scream out) Howie Dean’s name right. WHO should?”

    How about the person using the name to make a point? If you don’t know the difference between John Dean and Howard Dean, it tends to affect one’s credibilty in discussing politics. If names don’t matter, then why don’t you run a Dan Hicks or Taylor Dayne website?

    “Look at that crazy Churchill freak – life goes on for him just fine”

    What? How is life going on just fine for him? The school is trying to revoke his tenure to kick him out of the school and there have even been suggestions to prosecute him for treason due to remarks he has made. And why is it okay to parse what Ann says and not Churchill?

    “They are the lines of focus, and taken out of context of the entire chapter that if read would enlighten readers”

    Since you have obviously read the book, enlighten us.

    Lastly, you have to love the far-sighted conservatives that go all the way back to Clinton when talking about Bin Laden, yet they don’t go back to when the US helped bring the guy to power under Reagan. Their memory is “so short, short-sighted and really warped.”

  • sr

    #20 Ignatoilet tissue. 10,000 TWEEKS FOR YOU. TWEEK TWEEK TWEEK TWEEK. John Dean and Howard are the same. TWEEK TWEEK. Are you the best of the liberals. What a little wimp dirt bag.

    Joe dimbucket, hope you have the video of your loved one. For sure I would take great pleasure watching it.

    Jewels and Arch. Excellent TWEEKING OR IS THAT TWEAKING. Just keep on TWEEKING. BRAVO.

    A lib with a gun. Have no fear, Joe dimbucket with his pink water pistol is here. This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for shooting and dimbucket has all the fun. TWEAK TWEEK TWEAK TWEEK.

  • http://JTGILLICK.COM JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Stop talking about A** C******.

    Really. Stop altogether.

    The best way of dealing with the phenomenon is silence and dismissal.

    Don’t buy her books, don’t read her work, don’t review it, don’t discuss it, don’t discuss her.

    And if you happen to be a professional member of the chattering classes, don’t appear with her on talk shows, don’t engage her in debate, dialogue, arguments, faces-offs or whatever. And when the subject of A** C****** comes up – disregard it.

    If asked about her, ignore the question calmly; wait patiently for the next question on another subject. Pressed for an opinion, yield none. Charged with being “afraid to engage” the issue, smile and wait.

    The best public statement on A** C****** is DEAD AIR.

    Make some.

    Then, move on – and leave her ranting to her choir.

    More even than on the cheers of her sad supporters, this sad creature lives for and feeds on the outrage of the easily-baited.

    And no productive purpose is served by feeding its need for that attention.

    Don’t be so weak as to succumb to her provocations. You have better uses for your time and energy.

    We all do.

    MOVE ON.

    And when others raise the question of what to do about A** C****** … say, “nothing.”

    Or … just say nothing at all.

  • IgnatiusReilly

    best of the liberals? No, I agree with them at times and I agree with conservatives at times. It depends on the issue. I’m not some mindless drone like you who needs to be told where to stand on an issue.

    “What a little wimp dirt bag.”

    Save the name-calling from the safety of your PC because you wouldn’t have the guts to be bumping your gums like that if we were in the same room.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    I thought this line of your story right curious: “While Coulter has to rely on sensationalism and insults to get press, these four widows have bravely chosen to use their personal losses in a public way”

    Whereas I might rephrase it something more like, “While Coulter has to rely on coming up with something to say that interests people, these four professional widows have milked public sympathy for as much media face time as they possibly could”

    Other than that, the article was mostly just baseless smears. She’s not Fred Phelps, and that’s a purely arbitrary comparison.

    But all your anger is not an argument. You’re just demonstrating Coulter’s point there: These women are expecting to climb into the political ring, yet not face criticism like anyone else- or the likes of Candy Kayne are going to be having exquisite fits of hurt, indignant feelings on their behalf.

    You start to make “heartless” (as per Hillary’s charge) look like an appealing alternative.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Ohmygod, this Gillick guy in #30 is GREAT. He’s assigning even the mere written symbols of her name to have some great mythical power not to be repeated. Perhaps he will begin referring to her Cthulhu like as “She Who Must Not Be Named.”

  • Ira

    What is a Harpie????

  • Arch Conservative

    NIK……….. do you even know what I’m referring to about Cindy Sheehan and what she did? let me fill you in………..

    There was an incident where Cindy sheehan and her supporters at Camp Casey decided to use the names of dead soldiers on crosses as a demonstartion. Well some of the families of the soldiers whose names were on those crosses went to camp casey and took down the crosses and asked cindy sheehan not to use thier children’s names in her protest. Well wouldn’t you know ……..as soon as those families left……..right back up went the crosses with the same names on them.

    NOthing wrong with that at all right Nik?

  • http://gohah.blogspot.com Gordon Hauptfleisch

    Al, you should know that the Cthulhu has an updated image, and likes to be called The Dixie Cthulhu. Check out the updated Necronomicon:

    That is not dead which can eternal lie,
    And with strange æons, even death may die,
    And, you know, not ready to, like, make nice.

  • OrangeEagle

    The piece would have been more appropriately entitled: “I hate Ann Coulter and you should too – because she’s hateful”.

    I am always missing my guess with you Liberals. I thought for sure that you would be out defending Ann Coulter. You know, her right to “free speech” and all. Kinda figured we’d all hear about the dangers of “slippery slopes” and how many people have died for our rights, etc…

    Of course, the Nazi connection didn’t surprise me though. Everything conservatives do somehow has a relationship with Hitler: “I was in an ice cream store and saw a Conservative eating a banana split — JUST LIKE HITLER USED TO!!!”

    Ann Coulter is supposedly “jealous” of the attention the Jersey Girls are getting. Makes sense to me. A woman whose schedule is filled daily with TV and radio appearances all across the country and has written several best-selling books, should be jealous of a few irrelevant women who no one knows them by name. But they did in fact appear on “Larry King Live” the other night.

    And besides, what’s all the fuss about? I mean, the peace-loving Ward Churchill (exercising his right to free speech of course), said that we got what we deserved on 9/11 and all the victims were just “Little Eichmanns” anyway.

    Another Nazi connection as usual.

  • John Leinung

    Regarding the Ward Churchill question — perhaps in your own rage at Ward Churchill you didn’t hear the MANY liberal voices (myself included) CONDEMING Churchill’s remarks.

    I would also point out that, if you actually read any of the statements released by the Jersey Girls, they are always rational examinations of actual policy choices or events, with the reasons for their conclusions stated clearly. Agree with them or not, they are designed for intelligent debate. Where is the policy debate in name-calling? Where is the rational argument in character assasination? It’s an old rhetorical tactic — when you can’t (or don’t want to) argue substance, attack, villify, and ridicule.

    The Widdows were made victims through no choice of their own. They responded by trying to take some action, and expending large amounts of energy, trying to find out exactly how 9-11 happened, why, and how to prevent it from happening again. Coulter has chosen to insult, ridicule, and inflict further pain on people she doesn’t agree with. And her reveling in it reminds me of a kid torturing an animal because he thinks it’s impressing his friends.

    Coulter’s continuing remarks are insulting and hurtful to all of us who lost loved ones on 9-11.

  • Arch Conservative

    Well forgive me if I missed any liberals who condemned Churchill at the time but I still don’t think there was anywhere near the level of vitriol and hatefulness directed toward him at the time as has been directed at coulter in the past week.

    I still haven’t seen too many people commenting on the Cindy sheehan camp casey cross incident? is this because bc posters are unaware of it? i am interested in hearing what people have to think about what she did as I myself found it very offensive.

    One last thing……the jersey girls made campaign commercials for John Kerry and in doing so exposed thier own partisan bias.. while no one should in any way make light of the fact that thier husbands are dead we should also not hold them up as impartial scared cows that are only interested in debate and whose political views and statements are immune to all critique. their husbands are dead and any decent person would not say things like ann coulter said. but these women chose to place themselves in the limelight….. they chose to publicly state their political views…….the rest of us have the right to respond to them or critisize them if we disagree

  • RogerMDillon

    “the rest of us have the right to respond to them or critisize them if we disagree”

    That’s right, but I keep asking and fail to get a response to the question, when did this happen? When was anyone told they couldn’t critique the widows? Can anyone provide one link to an example of this because I never saw it?

  • Grissy

    And she calls herself a “compassionate” conservative?

  • sr

    #30 JOHN BOY GILLICK. ANN COULTER’S BOOK NO.1 ON AMAZON.COM, WHERE IT REMAINS. MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER BUYING UP THE REMAINING BOOKS SO US DUMB FUCKS DONT GET OUR IGNORANT HANDS ON THEM AN CONTAMINATE OUR TRAILER PARK MINDS. SURE DONT WANT ONE OF DEM ALIEN AB-DUCK-SHINS OR WE ALL BE SEEING ELVIS BUYING TOILET PAPER FROM IGNATOILET TISSUE AND GUN STORE PROTECTED BY HIS MACHO PIT BULL PINKEY.

    TWEEK TWEEK TWEEK TWEEK TWEEK TWEEK TWEEK TWEEK.

  • sr

    #31 ignatoilet tissue. I wouldn’t have the guts to be pumping your gums, or is that guns like that if we were in the same room. Ballroom, living room, bath room, any room. Is that a sincere threat or are you just blowing smoke out your ass? You sir are no Andre the Giant. Maybe a Pee Wee Herman type wearing pink pedal pushers.
    You tell me toilet paper roll.

    ANN COULTER RULES. TWEAK TWEAK. Cant spell and me aint 2 bright.

    sr

  • http://www.candyekane.com candye kane

    MOGS writes: Oh and BTW, to the author, you should really do some more research on MADD – they’re guilty of dishonesty, false statistics, and playing the lobbying game under the guise of moral outrage, when it’s really revenge, revenge and a corrupt PAC/lobby culture. Problem is NO ONE will presume to challenge anything they say, because like Maureen Dowd has indicated ” a grieving mother has absolute moral authority”

    arch conservative said: these women chose to place themselves in the limelight….. they chose to publicly state their political views…….the rest of us have the right to respond to them or critisize them if we disagree
    and
    aggreegious

    al barger said:
    Whereas I might rephrase it something more like, “While Coulter has to rely on coming up with something to say that interests people,
    Other than that, the article was mostly just baseless smears. She’s not Fred Phelps, and that’s a purely arbitrary comparison.

    candye kane says:

    I am not interested in hearing ann coulter or anyone else name calling people who became victims through no fault of their own. I dont find that kind of rhetoric interesting or intelligent. If you do al barger, then cool. enjoy those reruns of jerry springer.

    My blog was not meant to be a commentary on MADD or any other organization. I didnt say that MADD or the Nicole Brown foundation or any other charity group is beyond reproach. I was making a point about the formation of groups like this and how they often stem from tragedy. My blog was about making hatefuland EGREGIOUS comments about grieving people. Whether you agree or not with the widows and their political ideas, whether you want to criticize them or not, it is unacceptable to say that they are “happy about their husbands death.”

    My article was certainly not “baseless smears” unless you are debating when the actual deaths of adam walsh or denise brown simpson took place. I never compared ann coulter to nazis. That would be name calling. I did point out how different groups have chosen to blame victims for their own deaths and how that is not a new tactic.

    No matter what you believe politically,common decency dictates that we not speak ill of the dead. Ann Coulter should not have to insult the widows to prove her point. Like any kids on the school yard who are caught name calling and being bullies, ann coulter deserves a time-out.

  • http://www.taylorhicksblues.blogspot.com Jewels

    #33 Al Barger I had to tag this. Brilliant man. Refer to that post for reference and then journey to anything Coulter and the Freak yammers about the same sh_t. (#33) It’s funny, somewhat humorous. Yet Sad. Let’s not talk about the scary parts. #33 is now named: ScaryHatingCoulterPersonna.

  • Misty Michelle

    Ann Coulter is Right.
    She tells it straight, and makes no puns about it.

    I honestly like her ideas and how she uses controversial wording to grab your attention.

  • John C

    *I never compared ann coulter to nazis. That would be name calling.*

    Instead, you announce you HATE the tall, smart, thin blonde girl, and how we ALL SHOULD HATE her too. Forget about just disagreeing with her, or using logic to persuade us. Hate is your answer. Sadly, I just can’t imagine filling my veins with that much hatred, let alone recruiting others to hate as well. What a sad example you are to young women in the West.

  • Joe Dinnerbucket

    This infantile “Ann Coulter vs. Ward Churchill” line of argument is so reminiscent of the kindergarten playground. “She started it!”.. No, HE started it!!!”…”No, he’s more nasty than I am!!!”. Personally, I have no use for Ward Churchill or Ann Coulter. Two peas in a pod, if you ask me. But the responses by Ann Coulter supporters prove what a hateful dirtbag she is (as are those who enjoy her drivel).

    Posting a criticism of Ann’s filth-laden rhetoric is like putting a pan of beer in your garden. All the fanatical right-wing slugs crawl out from their holes in the ground. These people thrive on locker-room epitapths and scatalogical terms, mainly because they’re not intelligent enough to make a valid argument about anything. Just like their heroes Ann Coulter, Mike Savage, and a million bloggers with a ninth-grade education and a computer. It’s nice though, a Dell makes much neater printing than crayons.

    Ann and her supporters are really a bunch of chronically miserable human beings who live to throw insults at a convenient scapegoat for their own inadequacies, in this case it’s the Evil Liberals. We’re responsible for all the evils of the world, according to these folks. Never mind that their Neocons have had a monopoly on power for the past five years.

    I make no apology for my statement that I’m hanging on to my gun. That wasn’t a threat, that was merely a promise that if any right-wing nut decides to take Ann’s type of “kill liberals” rhetoric seriously and come after me, he had better become skilled at outrunning a bullet. Nothing unfair or unreasonable about it. Everyone has the right to protect his home and family. Ann once said publicly that we liberals should be physically intimidated so that “they know that they can be killed, also”.

    Since she put that threat out there, I have every right in the world to answer it, and you have heard my response. Anyone who approaches me with deadly force will meet with deadly force. I don’t think that concept is too difficult for right-wingers to understand.

    I don’t think my promise to defend myself is out of line, considering the comments from right-wingers in this forum that border of the homicidal. Sorry if I don’t fit into your pre-concieved notions of what a liberal should be. I am a peaceful man, but I will defend my life and liberty, as would most any other American, if threatened. Again, a concept that any right-winger should appreciate.

  • Joe Dinnerbucket

    P.S. to “SR”…I don’t own a “pink water pistol”. My weapon is a 9 millimeter Taurus Millenium PT 111. And I know how to use it. Not all of us liberals are gun-grabbers.

  • sr

    Mr. Joe#49. Just maybe a little common ground found. Good choice on your home defence weapon. The Taurus 9MM Millenium PT 111 Im familiar with. It’s not something and intruder wants to look down the barrel at. Taurus makes a great product. My wife carries the Taurus Gold Edition 38 special with +P fragmented ammo. For me it will always be a Glock 45ACP.

    For sure Dave Nalle will chime in on this subject.

    sr

  • http://thebookofmikey.blogspot.com The Books of Mikey

    Sign me up. Your presentation is flawless. I have ignored this heretical, hate mongering witch for too long and have been moved to action.
    Thank you for your fine words of analysis.

  • beadtot

    Well, it’s her name that’s been the contact reason. Not only are such contacts supposed to put their own lives aside and cooperate with a book-making syndicate to interview such people as ‘Colson’ and maybe ‘Coder’ too upon demand, basic necessities such as sleep, food, and air are hypothetical “givens” in the geometry of potboiler-book production.

  • http://www.candyekane.com candye kane

    Hey John c,
    If you actually read my blog you would see that nowhere in the blog do I encourage hatred. I encourage boycotting Ms. Coulter and her products. Ms. Coulter used sensational headlines like “the 9/11 widows are enjoying their husbands deaths” to sell her book and many here seem to condone this kind of cruelty. I too, used a sensational headline to get you to read my blog and it worked! I still think my tactics are better than Ann Coulters because she is hardly a victim or a widow. I am not maligning the dead nor am I capitalizing on misery to sell a product. Further, I have every right to hate her and you have every right to love her if you wish.
    PS: I never claimed to be a role model to anyone.

    *I never compared ann coulter to nazis. That would be name calling.*

    Instead, you announce you HATE the tall, smart, thin blonde girl, and how we ALL SHOULD HATE her too. Forget about just disagreeing with her, or using logic to persuade us. Hate is your answer. Sadly, I just can’t imagine filling my veins with that much hatred, let alone recruiting others to hate as well. What a sad example you are to young women in the West.

  • redstarrising

    Is it just me, or did Ann Coulter or should I say Andrew Coulter, have a sex change? She was a he, look at the face! Nothing wrong with that, but don’t take your confusion and hostility out on us. And this woman claims to be a Christian…what a joke! There’s the problem right there; when did Republicans and Christianity become one in the same…oh yeah good ol’ Ronald. I may have Alzheimer’s, but at least I don’t have Alzheimer’s. It does kinda feel good to have no compassion for your fellow humans..I think I’m going conservative. Ann is a circus sideshow act and her travelling carnival will soon be broken down on the side of the road with the rest of her carnies when we run out of oil or get nuked because of the foreign policies of the current Nazi regime.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Red, can you clarify which country is being run by a ‘current nazi regime’? I assume you mean someplace like Venezuela, because if you mean the US then you’re just another mindless baboon throwing crap and while clutching desperately at his shriveled manhood (or baboonhood).

    Dave

  • redstarrising

    Dave, you must be a republican, right? If you can’t see it then I can’t show you and just like our current administration, you can’t play by the rules either. Here let me help:
    Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy. But, funny that you mention Venezuela, cause’ don’t they have a bunch of oil down there that we are interested in?…I mean that our current administration is interested in?-the Nazi regime. Joe dinnerbucket is hitting the nails on the head left and right, no pun intended, I have to agree with every statement written. Delve into your soul Dave, and there is an inherent mechanism that let’s us decipher between right and wrong, ask it if our leaders are just in all of their actions. You will find the truth. Bush sucks Dick Cheney too.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Redstarrising, are you under the mistaken impression that simply your subjective personal feelings of contempt for Brother Nalle or the Bush administration somehow constitute evidence that they’re bad? Are you seriously that childishly solipsistic? Look, look how mad I’m getting! What more proof do you need?

  • redstarrising

    If it’s proof you need got to http://www.bushflash.com, brother. The country is so divided that we are no longer The United. I’m not angry either…just awestruck that there are still individuals who support and beleive that our leaders and the conservitive right have the ability to effectively lead our great nation
    by pushing their values and beleifs upon a tired society. I guess that’s what you have when a proselytic religion breeds itself among a branch of politics and attempts to convert a nation. Isn’t this the general view? Ann Coulter said it!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Red, if you read what Al or I have posted on this thread or elsewhere you’ll notice that we’re not unqualifiedly supportive of the Bush administration, we’re just realistic. I won’t speak any further for him, but what you seem to be missing overall is that I’m not defending Bush, just rejecting the bullshit which you’re spewing. Attack Bush all you like on REAL issues, but call him a Nazi and you lose all credibility, not to mention insulting everyone who fought against the Nazis in WW2. There is no comparison between the evil of the Nazis and the venality and opportunism of Bush. It’s like calling a shoplifter a serial killer. They’re both criminals, but that doesn’t make them the same, but in your logic they are.

    And you are indeed angry or else completely deluded, because you can’t tell the difference between defending the truth and defending Bush. You’ve got a bad case of Bushitis, where everything you see and think is filtered through the ‘bush is evil’ lense. You need to get away from that mentality before you can discuss any topic like this intelligently.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    …Joe dinnerbucket…

    Didn’t we see that expression on another thread and with a different commentor’s name a few days ago?

  • redstarrising

    Dave, while I respect your opinions, I do not respect your stooping to name calling (I think it was something like “mindless baboon flinging poo” or something like that) which you indeed did, in your first response to my original blog. Speaking of credibility or intelligence, didn’t you just blow yours to hell with that pathetic childish response. If you would like to give me a topic that we could relate to Bush (yes maybe calling him a Nazi is a little extreme) and our current global status in other nations hearts and minds, then I will be more than happy to debate it with you. I would like to start with the recent law passed that prevents people from protesting a military funeral within 100 YDS, that Bush did indeed endorse. While I do see the protests as a lack of respect for our military and their families, and do not agree with them at all, I also see this as a small step toward extracting freedon of speech from the rights of Americans. With this small ratification, which most likely will go unnoticed among the general public, comes the opportunity for further oppression and unregulated advances by the Republican party. How many governmental checks and balances has the Bush administration revoked within the last term?

  • Clavos

    With this small ratification, which most likely will go unnoticed among the general public, comes the opportunity for further oppression and unregulated advances by the Republican party.

    How so? Demonstrators have been kept back a distance from events they are demonstrating against for some time now in order to prevent confrontations–it’s hardly unprecedented, and doesn’t impinge on their right to free speech, since they ARE allowed to have their say.

    And how is passage of this one very specific law going to bring the “opportunity for further oppression and unregulated advances by the Republican party.”?

  • Clavos

    Dave, I apologize for jumping in there–I only just now saw that #61 was addressed to you.

  • redstarrising

    No Clavos, this particular offense is punishible by a fine of $100,000 as well as a sentence of up to one year in prison…for protesting! It doesn’t mean that protesters are merely kept at a distance; it means THEY CANNOT PROTEST WITHOUT BEING ARRESTED!

  • Clavos

    Red, Did you not say in #61 I would like to start with the recent law passed that prevents people from protesting a military funeral within 100 YDS, that Bush did indeed endorse.

    The full text of the law, entitled The Respect For America’s Fallen Heroes Act, is available HERE, confirms what you wrote above: i.e. the law only prohibits demonstrations within 300 feet of a military cemetery, or within 150 feet of a roadway leading to a military cemetery, where a funeral is being held.

    It DOES NOT prohibit demonstrations altogether, and thus doesn’t take away the demonstrators’ right to free speech.

    And, but for the truly reprehensible actions of the evil Fred Phelps and his followers, there wouldn’t have been a need for such a law.

  • MCH

    “…personal feelings of contempt for Brother Nalle or the Bush administration somehow constitute evidence…”
    – Al Barger

    What!?? “Brother Nalle”?!

    You gotta be shittin’ me…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, while I respect your opinions, I do not respect your stooping to name calling (I think it was something like “mindless baboon flinging poo” or something like that) which you indeed did, in your first response to my original blog. Speaking of credibility or intelligence, didn’t you just blow yours to hell with that pathetic childish response.

    You need to read more closely. I believe if you review comment #55 you will find that it is my third comment on this thread and was made not in response to the original post, but to the comment equating Bush and the current administration with Nazis. In addition, if you read it closely you will see that I did not specifically call you anything, because my comparison to a baboon was conditional. I left you the option that you might have been talking about something other than the US. In addition, if you say things which are incredibly stupid, you should expect criticism.

    If you would like to give me a topic that we could relate to Bush (yes maybe calling him a Nazi is a little extreme) and our current global status in other nations hearts and minds, then I will be more than happy to debate it with you.

    There is no debate on this topic. Based on your comparison you aren’t equipped or prepared to hold a rational, factual discussion of this topic.

    I would like to start with the recent law passed that prevents people from protesting a military funeral within 100 YDS, that Bush did indeed endorse. While I do see the protests as a lack of respect for our military and their families, and do not agree with them at all, I also see this as a small step toward extracting freedon of speech from the rights of Americans. With this small ratification, which most likely will go unnoticed among the general public, comes the opportunity for further oppression and unregulated advances by the Republican party.

    Then you do not understand the law. Perhaps you missed the extensive discussion of it here on BC. The essence of this law is that it is a balancing of privacy rights against free speech rights. The basic conclusion in the law is that you have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to force someone else to listen to you. It’s the classic paradigm that one person’s rights end where another’s begin. The free speech rights of Fred Phelps and his pals end where the privacy rights of funeral attendees begin.

    How many governmental checks and balances has the Bush administration revoked within the last term?

    Not one that I’m aware of. There have been some shortcuts taken, but nothing as a matter of policy which violates any fundamental rights. Feel free to catalog your concerns, though.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, I apologize for jumping in there–I only just now saw that #61 was addressed to you.

    Feel free to jump in with both feet whenever you’ve got something to contribute.

    Dave

  • Mohjho

    It’s not so much that some people are vile, it’s that the media gives them a platform for their spewage and then calls it news.

  • redstarrising

    Dave, why don’t you actually research the cuts in the system that have been made by the administration, or do you not want to be enlightened by this fact; go ahead and shoot down my thoughts on this as well. You righties are soooooooooooooooo closed minded to everything. The power that has brainwashed you and the right you think you have to bear that power has devolved Republicans into a single massive brain-eating zombie juggernaut. You cannot be swayed! Let me speak at your level so you can understand this:
    Take you mouth off of “brother” Al’s cock and your ass off of “brother” Clavis’s and open your mind…stop thinking with that gang mentality and form some independent thought.

  • MCH

    “Dave, I apologize for jumping in there–I only just now saw that #61 was addressed to you.”

    Clavos, I can’t believe you’re apologizing to someone who wouldn’t make a pimple on your ass…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, why don’t you actually research the cuts in the system that have been made by the administration,

    Wait, wait. Am I hearing things right? The Bush administration has made cuts in something? But, but, but…I thought they were the tax, spend and cut taxes administration. How can they have made cuts in things?

    And yes, I’m fully aware of the minor budget cuts the Bush administration has made. It’s a start, but hardly enough. Believe me, if I had my way 80% of the programs you hold near and dear would be gone or cut to the bone.

    or do you not want to be enlightened by this fact; go ahead and shoot down my thoughts on this as well. You righties are soooooooooooooooo closed minded to everything. The power that has brainwashed you and the right you think you have to bear that power has devolved Republicans into a single massive brain-eating zombie juggernaut. You cannot be swayed! Let me speak at your level so you can understand this:
    Take you mouth off of “brother” Al’s cock and your ass off of “brother” Clavis’s and open your mind…stop thinking with that gang mentality and form some independent thought.

    Oh yeah, that swayed the hell out of me. Even more than some sort of intelligent argument would have, because like all Republicans I respond best to namecalling and stereotyping.

    Dave

  • Noreen Baldwin

    AMEN!!!!!! I couldn’t agree more. I actually thought of John Walsh and Candi Lightner too, when the whole drama about her book began, as well as Paul Michael Glaser, whose wife and son died of AIDS after a tainted transfusion (he is the spokesperson, or was, for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation)

    I believe Ms. Coulter’s real problem is with the fact that the “Jersey Girls” inquiry brought attention and criticism to a goverment machine that Ms. Coulter seems to eagerly support. To suggest, at all, that anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11 would seek fame or wealth intentionally through their unfortunate involvement with the tragedy is just ridiculous. As far as I can tell, the only people who’ve managed to get rich from 9/11 are the government contractors. Is there a chapter on Halliburton in her book too?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Redstarrising- You may not realize it, but you’re the best friend President Bush has got. I’ve never voted for ANYONE named Bush, and I’d like to slap the taste out of his mouth on a fairly regular basis.

    But when you hatas jump up absolutely foaming at the mouth like you are doing here HITLER, HITLER!!!, W starts looking pretty good. If it’s going to be between a mediocrity like Bush or whatever kind of vicious hater folks like you would come up with instead, it’s not even a contest.

    You and MCH apparently can’t even stand the idea of people being friendly with each other. You’re pissy over even a mild display of fellowship addressing fellow Blogcritics in a familial manner. Hey, I try to be nice to everyone. I’m even nice to Brother Marcus, and he’s well known as a no-good beady eyed pinko Canuck- and an abuser of helpless farm animals as well.

    But you seem to be so set on hatefulness that you can’t even imagine just simple collegiality without it being gay sex- and you definitely give that an unmistakably hateful spin too. Some “liberal.”

    Finally, you’re definitely going to look dumb attacking Brother Nalle for supposed lack of research. Among all Blogcritics, he has earned probably THE #1 reputation for knowing his facts. That’s not because he’s necessarily so extra intelligent, but because he’s so carefully meticulous about research and citing sources.

    Questions come up in a discussion thread like this, and he’ll stop, look stuff up, and come back with the sources. I’ve seen him do this literally hundreds of times. Disagree with his interpretations and opinions all day, but if you want to question his knowledge of the facts of a situation, you’d better come correct.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Noreen, you seem nice enough, but you’re a half dozen kinds of wrong there in #73. “As far as I can tell, the only people who’ve managed to get rich from 9/11 are the government contractors.” How many millions of dollars in payouts do you have to get to have gotten rich? I haven’t followed the personal finances of the NJ widows, but I’d bet they’re every one millionares now.

    This is also a curious quote: “To suggest, at all, that anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11 would seek fame or wealth intentionally through their unfortunate involvement with the tragedy is just ridiculous.” Why would that be ridiculous? Just because something bad happens to someone doesn’t make them a good person. Victims can be just as venal as anyone else. Heck, their harships just give them more excuses to indulge in common human venality.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Thanks for the kind words, Al. I suspect that Red has also not read much else that’s posted here on BC, because he’s falling into the common trap of thinking that anyone who defends the truth when Bush is involved is automatically some sort of far-right ideologue. If he did even a tiny amount of homework – like through our individual BC pages and the articles we’ve written – he’d realize that neither you nor I exactly fit his conception of a Bush worshipping bible-thumping rightwinger.

    Dave

  • MCH

    Don’t you mean, “Thanks, Brother Al…” (?)

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    MCH, are you quite THAT alienated from the concept of friendliness that you can’t stand to see the least hint of it? And you people say that Ann Coulter is hateful.

    By the way, being as you’re so intent on mocking “Brother Al” you might want to dig this little joint from the archives.

  • Clavos

    So, Al…Is that cartoon a good likeness???

  • MCH

    Actually, Nalle reminds me more of Cousin Eddie…

  • http://www.queeredge.com jack e. jett

    ann coulter use to be a man. he lived in new york and did drag shows in the early 90″s. he use to have an affair with star jones before her vagina fell out. then ann picked up and super glued it on her, changed her name then he was a she…and you know the rest……..
    hey ann take a walk on the media whore side.

    star misses you.

    jack jett

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Clavos, I’d say the caricature was at least vaguely looking like me- circa 1986. I have a few basic campaign pictures of 2004 vintage in the senate campaign archive. Oh, here’s the better Al Barger cartoon. It’s from the Indy Star.

  • sr

    #81 Jack E Off. Nice job sweetpea. Where you born this way or did you educate your self at the local trade school piss-ant.

  • Clavos

    Al, I liked the caricature from the Star. After looking at a couple of the campaign photos, I’d say it’s a pretty good likeness, too.

    I’m sorry you didn’t beat Bayh. Indianans should be, too.

  • Noreen

    Al~
    So I guess, then, that you don’t have an insurance policy to benefit those you care about in case of your demise, untimely or otherwise. If any of them are millionaires, perhaps it’s because their husbands were smart enough to make sure they had adequate coverage for their loved ones, especially considering that they were all in very potentially lucrative fields of work. And, if you are going to villify those women, then why not ALL of the families of the victims from 9/11, who all shared in various settlements as a result of the terrorist attacks? If we follow your (and Ms. Coulter’s) line of thinking, then ANYONE who has received ANY money at all is just as evil as the “Jersey Girls”. I also would like to know your thoughts on the other people mentioned by the author of the original blog, John Walsh and Candi Lightner. If we use your scale to grade them, then both of them should be burned at the stake for the ongoing exploitation of the deaths of their children. Both of them are probably millionaires (especially Mr. Walsh), yet I don’t see any mention of their indiscretions in Ann Coulter’s comments. (Yes, I do know that at least one of the widows, Kristen Breitweiser, has a book coming out in September. Is she any less entitled to tell her story and make money from it than anyone else who has? I can’t remember, which producer of United 93 lost a loved one on 9/11? If Ann Coulter can use their tragedy to sell her book, then Mrs. Breitweiser certainly should be entitled to.)

    Also, as to my ridiculous comment regarding victim’s families, I do agree with you that just being a relative of of victim does not, in and of itself, make someone a righteous person with good intentions. However, since Ms. Coulter was able to make such heinous statements regarding the victim’s families, I took a little liberty with my comments as well.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Dear Barger (re #33):

    That “A** C******” was, to use the exact medical term “a JOKE”. Duh.

    Yes, a joke – as in something like a light parody of 19th Century over-polite fiction (when libel and slander were much more prosecutable) with such Edward Bulward-Lyttonesque constructions as “It was on a dark and stormy night in the spring of 1871 that A** C***** first chanced upon the traitorously liberal hamlet of S****-on-the-H*****”.

    It was also a deliberate joke on my own argument – which has the potential of being oxymoronic. As in saying, “Don’t say the word ‘tiger'”. Which, to make it simple enough for you to grasp without further assistance, requires, well … saying the word “tiger.”

    Get it now? Or should I break out the PowerPoint slides?

    In the meantime – Great Cthulu we pray unto thee: save us from the eternal fetid dampenings of the compulsively literal.

    Though of course, what your real problem is, is this: whenever your side of the aisle tries to work out what our side of the is saying, you compulsively go for the interpretation that most easily supports juvenile ridicule. And why? Because that is the MOST COMFORTABLE view of your opponents’ efforts and capacities.

    (Short breather break here while you work up your little screed on how that’s appropriate because “liberals” always operate on the level you WISH they operated on. Done now? Good. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.)

    That worldview is functionally akin to Americans in 1941 believing that Japanese air forces were no threat because the Japanese were all myopic glasses-wearing runts. Or, lest I be accused of treason here, like National Socialist true believers being convinced that America’s entry into WWII would have no effect because the soldiers of a “degenerate mongrelized nation” couldn’t stand up in battle to the Volk. Or … or … or … History is rife with examples of this behavioral pattern. It is called being a victim of your own propaganda.

    Here’s a debating tip: if you JHS lunchroom Catos insist on playing with the adults, learn to play on an adult level. Then, perhaps, something like a dialectic might ensue – instead of these endless juvenile rounds of blog-blather Old Maid.

    Of course if you do that, there would be an added bonus for the rest of us – you’d be less boring. Not UN-boring necessarily, but definitely LESS boring.

    But, as I hold out little hope for any such movement in the direction of maturity, how about this instead, Barger: next time you have a few bucks to spare, you hie thee down to DullMart and snaffle yourself a sense of humor.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Dear sr (re #42):

    You’re conflating a suggestion that the Coultergeist is not worth the gunpowder of a decent argument with a call for censorship. Brilliantly on the mark, oh yeah.

    But thank you for taking the time to give us a perfect example of the Rabid Right as victim of its own propaganda once again – in this case the self-comforting straw-man argument that “dem Ol’ Debil Liberals” are always hypocrites on free-speech issues.

  • Clavos

    Mr. Gillick,

    It’s actually Edward Bulwer-Lytton.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    re J. Leinung’s comment (#38) – and, really, re (in general) MUCH of the Rabid Right’s commentary throughout this discussion …

    How strange that he missed “any liberals who condemned Churchill” during the uproar; could that be because a liberal condemning Churchill would not have matched JL’s comfortable preconceptions? (Again, folks, see my #41 above re the RR’s weakness for viewing everything in the world through the distorting lens of their own self-comforting propaganda.)

    Allow me cite my direct (and checkable) experience with the Churchill brouhaha …

    I am an alumnus of Hamilton College, that well-known Bill O’Reilly-certified hotbed of trademark “radical liberalism” – there very place that had the temerity to invite Professor C. to speak (on something entirely other than 8/11 issues, originally, BTW).

    As you might expect, the resultant outpouring – or, rather, the INpouring – by phone, letter and net to HC was massive. HC took the trouble to post all the comments that came in by email, and did so in two sections: one for comments from alumni, students and students’ families; the other from non-affiliated individuals. (See link at the end of this post if you ant to read them for yourself)

    Myself, I took the trouble to download ALL the comments from affiliated individuals and parsed them for positions on the issue. Out of over 125 emails, not one that was posted expressed support for or agreement with Professor Churchill’s comments on the dead of 9/11. Further, less than 15 expressed support of his speaking at Hamilton even if only on the principle of supporting free and open discussion. The overwhelming majority condemned Prof. Churchill and the college. And of THOSE, those that mentioned free speech (a majority of the majority) invariably brought it up by way of the classic weasel construction “I have always been a firm believer in Free Speech, BUT …” So much for the RR’s vision of lockstep PC liberalism.

    Further, even the most casual observation of commentary in the media – mainstream or alternate – made it clear that across the spectrum of “liberal” comment on Churchill this ratio pretty much held.

    There are a small lesson or two to be drawn from this. The one immediately pertinent to JL’s comment is that there can be no doubt he missed “liberals” condemning Churchill and his remarks simply because he WANTED to miss them. I do not assume a sudden, conscious, willful blindness for just that situation. No, just the usual well-practiced, near-habitual blindness of the true believer. A blindness not so long ago mapped by researchers using advanced MRI – where they demonstrated that in people holding strong political opinions, conservatives literally did not process what they heard that supported liberal positions, and liberals did not process what they heard supporting conservative opinions.

    Casual observation of this discussion would suggest that the same ratio of non-processing of complex or subtle concepts holds here on this site as well. A statement like “Well forgive me if I missed any liberals who condemned Churchill at the time but I still don’t think there was anywhere near the level of vitriol and hatefulness directed toward him at the time as has been directed at coulter in the past week,” is a perfect example. I remember both the specific (I can reference it) and general (YOU can reference it – Google, perhaps) level of vitriol and hatefulness directed at Churchill and at HC. It far outstripped that currently directed at the Coultergeist since her book came out.

    In fact, the comparison between there two is ludicrous. Consider, if you will, nothing more than AC’s book deals, on-screen appearances and legions of apologists – both in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere. Much as the rabid Right would like to argue that this sad creature is being trussed up for what the perjurious Justice Thomas was pleased to refer to as a “high-tech lynching”, she is not only weathering the storm over her Widows remarks, she is reveling in it, tossing her bright rayon locks artfully in the wind and squealing with Marilyn Monroe-like delight as it blows her dress up.

    When the Coultergeist is finally exorcised, it won’t be over those remarks. It will come by way of the pumped up plagiarism “scandal” now brewing in the bloodthirsty media – all of it, left and right, tabloid and sober, print, broadcast and net. Once the ball gets rolling on this, as instance after instance of her sloppiness (or, rather the sloppiness of the drones she employs to do her research) is parsed out of her books and columns (and, no doubt her emails at some point) it will not stop till it rolls her under wailing and weeping over her sudden transformation into the victim of a pernicious “liberal conspiracy”.

    But the real fuel for the upcoming auto-da-fe will be her own raving defenses of herself and pyrrhic assaults on her critics, be they from the right side of the aisle or the other. This is already well on its way to becoming a true Technicolor meltdown, sports fans – don’t miss it. Start by tuning in to her current tussle with the New York Post. And look forward to her upcoming tangle with her column’s distribution syndicate. How long till they are forced by the publicity to parse, confront and acknowledge the regular instances of duplicated and unattruibuted cut-and-paste paragraphs sprinkled through her writings like raisins in a sour pudding.

    Of course as she goes down, the Rabid Right will bewail her “martyrdom” on the altar of what they will be pleased to call “political Correctness” – while at the same time they thrill to this new “proof” of “liberal hypocrisy” on free speech issues. (This despite the fact that no one rational, left or right, has called for suppression or censorship of her writing – or of her remarks past, present or future.)

    But the most amusing aspect of this – or the most pathetic, depending on your preconceived position – is that her “plagiarism”, while exactly the sort of thing that gets the unwary fraternity pledge a stern warning, a conditional F and a semester setback and do-over in Freshman English, is really of little matter in the real world of what passes for “commentary” in our current climate of demagogic discourse. Are our standards of press originality and rectitude really such that using someone else’s press-release boilerplate without attribution is the crime of crimes? Now that our colleges and universities have been sufficiently infantilized by the self-appointed hall-monitors of our culture – left and right – do we have to do it to our once vibrant vitriolic and unashamedly partisan press as well? Busting the Coultergeist for “plagiarism” is the mediaworld equivalent of sending Al Capone to Leavenworth for Tax Evasion. A weak, pathetic, “whatever works” victory.
    Flatterers, demagogues and other fraudulents don’t get tossed into the fourth Bolgia of the Eighth Circle of Dante’s Inferno for failing to footnote – they earn their eternity in the ravine of excrement by lifetimes of hard work and dedication producing the essential material themselves. Let’s give the Coultergeist her due, and not impede her on her journey to her chosen ditch.

    LINK TO HAMILTON COLLEGE SITE POSTING OF EMAILS ON THE CHURCHILL FIASCO:

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Clavos of #88:

    Yes. Typo. Snoopy would bite my ankle.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    re my own #89:

    MY APOLOGIES, PEOPLE, I mis-alluded. If Geryon drops AC among the flatterers to wade perpetually through the human excrement they spewed in life, it will be in the SECOND ditch of the eighth circle – not the fourth. (For what is demagoguery, after all, if it isn’t essentially excessive flattery of the demos?)

    Even so, I suspect her stay there will be a relatively short one. Soon she should be promoted (demoted, really, I suppose) to the eighth Bolgia – where she can spend her afterlife among the rest of the corrupted advisors as nothing but a living, speaking tongue of flame, burning eternally.

    Or will she end up in the ninth – to be carved, cleaved, beheaded and disemboweled along with the all the other sowers of political discord? What a feast of rewards awaits her! Minos will no doubt ponder long and deeply before he hands down his final ruling on the soul of the Coultergeist.

    Ah, Dante, my darling – should you somehow find yourself wandering through OUR tangled woods, would any of this be strange to you? I think not. I doubt if we’ve come up with even one new thing in the way of debased political discourse since 14th Century Firenze.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Hey, stupid self! THIRTEENTH-century Firenze, NOT 14th. Duh.

  • sr

    j t gillick. Do you think I or anyone on this thread gives a rats ass concerning your Alumnus status at Hamilton College. Should we be impressed with your arrogant pompass ass wannabe intellectual arrogant elites attitude. We just tremble in fear at the awesome power of your intellect. Professor church of the hills is your god jtg. You are the perfect example of the liberal rabid elites. Dont you think j t? Sincerely wish you could have shared some space with me on vacation at the Honi Hillton. Im sure you spend each day flattering yourself and kissing your own arrogant ass. Have a nice day Profeeeeeeeeeeeeessooooooooor. “YIPPIE-KAY-YAY MF.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    re SR #93:

    No content whatsoever on the issue(s) under discussion.

    As to the question of who gives a rat’s ass … Evidently, SR gives a VERY big one. let’s hope that by next post he (she? it?) calms down enough to use time, space and effort more rationally and productively. Note also, people, how out of all I wrote on the AC and WC affairs, SR loses it over the fact that apparently I went to college (and may have read a book?). Someone has issues – BIG issues, apparently – about something other than the subject(s) of this discussion thread.

    But that should be apparent to anyone who’s read SR’s previous posts. The sputtering invective starts with the third sentence of the first and continues in that vein, offering little more than more low-rent scatological invective (and shows an amazing obsession with bodily functions and human waste) and the sort of personal attacks on other posters you’d more expect to hear in an argument behind a strip mall tittie bar in Troy, NY. And all that to the complete exclusion of, well, anything resembling facts, arguments or adult reasoning. But then, doesn’t every discussion site gets its share of these frothing rant-and-ravers?; they’re as much a fixed factor of the blogosphere environment as cockroaches in an Austin diner.

    SR’s score so far:
    Comments – 5; Contributions to discussion – 0.

    One interesting thing in SR’s most recent, though – he sudedenly seems to be claiming he was a POW in North Vietnam. As thus:
    “Sincerely wish you could have shared some space
    with me on vacation at the Honi Hillton”

    Hmmmm. You’d think someone who spent time in Hỏa Lò Prison (aka “The Hanoi Hilton”, NOT “the HONI Hilton”) would know its name.

    Tell us more about this, SR, – with maybe some convincing details about your honorable service. You wouldn’t want us thinking maybe you’re just another one of those fraudulent bottom-feeding forms of life who try and pass themselves off as Viet Vets or ex-POWs, would you? You know, the ones who lie about their service in order to steal the respect and honor due those who DID serve, DID sacrifice, DID suffer for this country. I mean, what would YOU have to say about someone who dishonorably tried to pass himself off as an ex-POW just to gain an edge in a political argument?

    DO tell.

    Please.

  • Imhotep

    Thanks JTG. This was painful reading until you crossed our transom. I think I hear the rats abandoning their sinking discourse.

  • Clavos

    I think I hear the rats abandoning their sinking discourse.

    More likely that’s the sound of them trying to slog through all that turgid, Bulwer-Lyttonesque prose.

  • sr

    No surprise. Was to be expected from you jtg. My respect for you O. Your respect for me. O. Now we are equals because we both are a little short in the lofers. Just curious jtg. Do you really believe the comment of your last sentence is valid? Please share with us your true values of valor and self-sacrifice which no doubt are zip. And then you decide to falsely accused me.

    Cant help noticing some venom within your comment. Look how much we have in common dipstick. Can just picture you pounding away at your cute little pink keyboard. At least you respected me enought sending some print for my toilet tissue collection. Nothing like a little tweek in the am. Please feel free to send me more of your great idiotic dribble and insights. Would like to share it with my beer drinking buddies at the trailer park watching alien abductions and elvis sightings while we attemp to master our first book. Dick and Jane. Well what did you expect big guy being a cockroach and all. MERRY CHRISTMAS little man.

    Sincerely,

    sr

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Clavos’ score to date: 8 posts.

    6 are little more than idle, off-subject blogsplat (60, 73, 79, 84, 88, 96)
    —– 2 social hamburger helper
    —– 2 cartoon chit-chat
    —– 2 on his growing Bullwer-Lytton obsession (Bullwer-Lytton up, dude)

    2 with actual content – in which, alas, he goes right off the beam.

    Specifically, C. gets it wrong as wrong can be on the odious “Respect For America’s Fallen Heroes Act”, He seems to think that RESTRICTED speech is still FREE speech.

    Nope. Like “NO means NO”, Mr. C., “FREE” means “FREE” – and nothing else.

    Restricted free speech is an oxymoron. Government restrictions on speech are never anything other than an attempt to establish the principle of LICENSING speech. And the issue with licenses is always this: who writes the rules – for what purposes; who enforces the rules – and, again, for what purposes.

    Who do you think will be the first person arrested for holding up a sign “God bless Our Fallen Heroes”; within 300 feet of military cemetery?

  • Clavos

    See, you CAN write clearly. You should do that more often, “dude.”

    You don’t have the right to free speech to the extent of infringing on my rights; you can’t come into my home and say things that offend me.

    You also don’t have the right to disrupt my private funeral.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Some people just can’t get the basic axioms that their rights end where my rights begin.

    Dave

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Re SR’s #97 (and RE so many of the RR’s posts on this board)

    Well, my last sentence in #95 said “Please” – but I’m guessing SR is referring to my raising the issue of those who try to pass themselves off as veterans, or ex-POW’s.

    Notice how strenuously he avoids answering the question, or engaging the issue at all. He’s makes no effort whatsoever to support his claim to have been a POW (“Sincerely wish you could have shared some space with me on vacation at the Honi Hillton”). Instead, like the post-abandoning, duty-shirking G W Bush and the draft-dodging Cheney, SR retreats to the well-worn Rovian technique of shoot the messenger – hoping that if he can keep the noise level up no one will notice his evasions.

    In this as in every other one of his posts, his technique is to get down to low-rent vilification as quickly as possible. And in the context of HIS posts, that “venom” charge wavers somewhere between pathetic and ludicrous. SR tells us he would enjoy watching a tape of someone else’s loved one dying (#29) then tries to make the issue “venom”. Sigh. Just another keyboard warrior whose idea of rational discourse consists of little more than vomiting forth all the abuse he can muster. As thus (from his posts):

    • Arrogant
    • Ass
    • butts up and heads down on pink camel hair prayer rugs
    • did you educate your self at the local trade school
    • hope you have the video of your loved one (dying) I would take great pleasure watching it
    • idiotic dribble
    • Joe dimbucket
    • Joe dimbucket with his pink water pistol
    • keep on TWEEKING
    • kissing your own arrogant ass
    • little man
    • little wimp dirt bag
    • M(other)F(ucker)
    • perfect example of the liberal rabid elites
    • piss-ant
    • pissing all over themselves
    • Pompass
    • sweetpea
    • TWEAK (ad infinitum, in various spellings)
    • wannabe intellectual arrogant elites
    • You sir are no Andre the Giant. Maybe a Pee Wee Herman type wearing pink pedal pushers.
    • You tell me toilet paper roll
    • your cute little pink keyboard

    So why do you suppose someone whose only contribution to the board is cheap invective is suddenly trying to make “venom” an issue? Because of course he has nothing worthwhile to say on the real issues. It’s just another JV move from the Rabid Right’s Debate-for-Dummies playbook: if you can get your opponents angry you can dodge awkward questions by accusing them of being out of control. (That’s where “looney liberals” and “angry left” come from.) In fact, the playbook calls for just throwing that accusation out whenever anyone undermines their argument in any way – just turn the issue into THEM THEM THEM (aka, “argumentum ad hominum). It’s so shop-worn a technique that it creaks. In fact, the minute they employ it they’ve pretty much admitted publicly they have no argument left on the issues.

    One real question here might be whether engaging SR’s gutterisms is worth the trouble. Is the game worth the candle? Not in respect of him or what he posts, not really. But when he (and his ilk elsewhere) get rolling on the boards, they give us a chance to deconstruct the patterns and techniques of the RR’s dishonest rhetoric.

    What the RR really really wants is EVERYONE raging – raging at artificial enemies without and within, raging at strawmen and phantoms, raging hysterically, night and day. They WANT rage, they WANT resentment, they WANT division and turmoil. The smoke and thunder that a Coultergeist churns out like a special effects rig at a Cirque du Soleil performance – and the smoke and thunder she tricks out of those engaging her -help the RR obscure the real issues and drown out rational discourse. Foot soldiers of the right like SR are the blogosphere equivalent of the teenage “martyrs” the Iranians used to prod into the minefields before attacks during the Iraq-Iran war. They’re disposable cannon-fodder, unquestioningly (and unknowingly) obedient to their masters’ plans.

    You get the same on boards discussing ID – limp-brained grad students from some back-end engineering program charged up in IDEA Club workshops to smite the heathen with the ID arguments. They invariably get worn down and leave, but not after scattering behind them a score of links to Creationist web sites and, inevitably, whining about the ‘arrogance” of the ‘scientific establishment”. Not unlike SR snarling about “arrogant pompass ass wannabe intellectual arrogant elites”. The subject and the words may vary from site to site, but the tune and its rhythms remain the same. They’re not on board to engage in rational discourse – they’re on board to sabotage it. In fact, they tend to ANNOUNCE that’s what they’re doing (“tweak a liberal”, remember? Pay attention).

    The best way to deal with them? Just ENGAGE THE ISSUE – no matter what. Stay on target; don’t be distracted; don’t play their game. And, as you go along, take note of their behavior and apply what you learn from it. It’s an axiom of war that an enemy’s core strategy invariably illuminates that which they most fear.

    ————————————————–

    [FYI (and in the interest of avoiding another round of SR’s “I’m rubber, you’re glue” comebacks): I left home at 17 and enlisted U. S. Army Airborne Infantry 1964; final discharge (honorable) 1970. My various unproductive military adventures include a competitive enlisted appointment to USMA. But as SR says about such things – who gives a rat’s ass.]

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    re #99:

    The road to a public cemetery is not a private road – and extending the penumbra of “privacy” over public access is indeed an abridgment of rights. Further, equating the open road with your home is a false (and unpersuasive) analogy. You want a private funeral, hold it in a private cemetery. A military cemetery and, even more particularly, the public roads leading to it, are NOT private areas. Private grief does not warrant the suppression – no matter how temporary – of the Constitution (neither in whole nor in part).

    That law was written for immediate political purposes, not for any public good. The RR lives drooling in HOPE that someone will violate it (ideally, while burning a flag) and keep this non-issue flaming on Fox News through the 2006 elections. The harnessing of rage and resentment is core to Rovian strategy.

    (BTW, like some others here, Clovis seems to have difficulty engaging the real issues, and is beginning to exhibit the same tendency to force the discussion down to personalities and personal issues. Sorry, not my territory. If anyone finds what I write too difficult to read, they can hit the “PageDn” key; I won’t mind.)

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The harnessing of rage and resentment is core to Rovian strategy.

    And paranoid fabulism helps a lot in perceiving a ‘rovian strategy’ where there is none.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “And paranoid fabulism helps a lot in perceiving a ‘rovian strategy’ where there is none.”
    – Dave

    As he types confidently, after viewing the security cameras of his fortified compound…

  • Dave Nalle

    Actually, MCH, the only cameras in the ‘compound’ were set up in the chicken coop and since the foxes got the hens I’ve taken them offline. My neighbor has enough cameras for the entire neighborhood, however.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Clavos’ score to date: 8 posts.

    6 are little more than idle, off-subject blogsplat (60, 73, 79, 84, 88, 96)
    —– 2 social hamburger helper
    —– 2 cartoon chit-chat
    —– 2 on his growing Bullwer-Lytton obsession (Bullwer-Lytton up, dude)

    …WHO “is beginning to exhibit the same tendency to force the discussion down to personalities and personal issues. Sorry, not my territory.

    Sounds like it’s very much your territory, bud.

    Oh, and BTW: Phelps and his creeps are picketing the funerals, not the cemeteries or the roads, and the funerals are private.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    #103: no Rovian strategy for the Republican Rabid Right? Ludicrous on the face of it, and not worth further comment.

    #104: Fine, sure, and no doubt fun to do – but look what being cute leads to in 105

    #105: Yes – yet another childish, boring, time-wasting blogsplat Old-Maid exchange. Why encourage this?

    #106: (a) Deconstructing the content and evaluating the worth of posts is not a personality issue (not for me, anyway).

    #106: (b) So now our laws are to be written with such creatures as the odious Phelps and his ilk as excuse (ostensibly). This is the traditional method for writing bad laws – particularly laws curtailing free expression and free assembly. First find a group or individual or form of expression that is palpably “socially unacceptable” and disturbing and argue “Free Speech for DECENT people who have some sense of restraint is one thing – but for behavior like THIS, for people like THOSE …” and get your indecent unrighteous law passed in a flood of decent righteous outrage from all the decent righteous people. A technique as old as politics, its process and purposes clear and obvious to even the meanest intelligence.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    JTG, I understand your concern here, but it’s misdirected. This really is an issue of where rights overlap. It’s one of the few sensible things to come out of congress in years. Why not take them to task for Patriot I and II which really do infringe our rights instead?

    Dave

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Re 106: I have a fundamental disagreement with Mr. Naelle’s argument. The law in question is neither a balancing of rights, nor was it construed, constructed, passed and signed as one. It is the deliberate application of a cheap, easy hot-button issue to advance the suppression dissent.

    Look at how well Mr. N has been worked, for instance: With one breath he claims “I believe in free speech” (essentially)- then with the next he’s saying “BUT …”.

    That “But …” is THE classic escape clause for people who believe in free speech in principle but find they can’t handle the reality of it in practice. (see what I said in #38). This is why, after all, why we need laws protecting speech, not laws curtailing it. When it comes down to what disturbs them, most people don’t REALLY believe in free speech. They just like to think they do. They’re wrong about that, of course – and it shows under examination.

    The underlying content of N’s argument is that “Free Speech” must be curtailed if it makes certain sacrosanct classes of persons uncomfortable. In this particular case the sacrosanct class of people is survivors of service people. In other situations, the pseudo-free-speechers declare Holocaust survivors a sacrosanct class and want laws blocking neo-NAZIs from demonstrating in their presence – or declare Black Americans a sacrosanct class whose presence outlaws the wearing of KKK hoods in their presence. In some circles this is called “surrendering to Political Correctness.” How unfunnily amusing that it is from the right that laws like this keep coming.

    Mr. N says we should be taking the suppressors to task for the Patriot Acts – which use the war on terrorism as a Maskarova to cover and excuse their diluting and deleting so much of our fundamental rights. Terrorism – its actuality and its possibility – fills this country with fear, and out of fear we surrender rights in the interest of chimerical “security”. That is sad enough. But Mr. N thinks we should surrender those rights in the interest of emotional comfort. How sad is THAT?

    “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither …” B. Franklin.

    If that is so, what do we deserve when we give up essential liberties to purchase a little emotional security?

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    follow-up on my #109:

    MY APOLOGIES to Mr. Naelle.

    The “in one breath … then with the next …” construction does NOT apply to what he wrote.

    I conflated his single post with others by others, elsewhere, on the same subject. My bad.

    I have no idea if Mr. N. believes in free speech, as he has not spoken of it here before. If I were to go on his one post however, I would have to conclude he does not.

  • Dave Nalle

    I certainly believe in free speech. I don’t, however, believe that it carries the right to force people to listen to you.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “I certainly believe in free speech. I don’t, however, believe that it carries the right to force people to listen to you.”
    – Dave Nalle

    CRASH!!!
    (falling out of my chair, thinking of all the times Nalle has called those who disagree with him a “moron” or a “dumbass”…)

  • Clavos

    Careful, MCH!! The blogsplat policeman is gonna getcha!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The right to free speech includes the right to be a moron or a dumbass or a tedious troll [Edited], MCH.

    Dave

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Re #111 – “I don’t, however, believe that it carries the right to force people to listen …”

    Well, according to THAT argument, thus endeth forever …
    • Billboards by highways
    • Crosses on church steeples
    • “Michigan State” on sweatshirts
    • All Store-front signs
    • Skywriting
    • Sidewalk preaching
    • Junk Mail (except, I suppose, in a VERY plain brown envelope)
    • Dealer Logos on License-plate frames
    • “Nautica” on Jackets
    • Playing the radio at the beach (or in your convertible with the top down)
    • Sound trucks during election campaigns
    • Mister Softee
    • Paranoid-schizophrenics telling us “the Martians in the CIA did it” on the street
    • President Bush speaking at any funeral (except his own, I suppose)

    No one is “forced” to attend on demonstrations in public or on what the demonstrators say. That is just another dodge around the real issue – suppression of dissent, suppression of unpopular (“impolite”?) speech.

  • Clavos

    JTG wrote:

    Well, according to THAT argument, thus endeth forever …

    • Billboards by highways –Already restricted as to proximity to the highway, etc. in most jurisdictions.

    • Crosses on church steeples –Specious argument, churches are private buildings.

    • “Michigan State” on sweatshirts–Private shirt, private body..

    • All Store-front signs–Private building

    • Skywriting–If infringing on others’ rights (as in hate speech, e.g.; yes.

    • Sidewalk preaching–already restricted in some jurisdictions when infringing on others’ rights.

    • Junk Mail (except, I suppose, in a VERY plain brown envelope)–OUGHTA be outlawed, but specious argument-doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.

    • Dealer Logos on License-plate frames–Private car (If buyer doesn’t want it, yes. I take ‘em off already).

    • “Nautica” on Jackets–See sweatshirt.

    • Playing the radio at the beach (or in your convertible with the top down)–If loud enough to annoy others, yes-already restricted in many jurisdictions.

    • Sound trucks during election campaigns–Already outlawed in many jurisdictions under noise statutes.

    • Mister Softee–???

    • Paranoid-schizophrenics telling us “the Martians in the CIA did it” on the street–Never should have been turned out of the hospitals in the first place–a different issue.

    • President Bush speaking at any funeral (except his own, I suppose)–Once more, funerals are private.

  • MCH

    “Careful, MCH!! The blogsplat policeman is gonna getcha!”
    – Clavos

    “The right to free speech includes the right to be a moron or a dumbass or a tedious troll [Edited], MCH.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Clavos, looks like the blog know-it-all cop me instead.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Re 116:

    Missing the point entirely – and, so obviously missing so obvious a point, that out of charity, one has to assume it was missed deliberately. An inadvertently ludicrous response to deliberately ludicrous examples (is that a gotcha?).

    All the instances cited consist of statements being made IN PUBLIC. Go outside with MSU on your private sweatshirt and you are making a public statement. Self-evident. The cross on a steeple may make its statement FROM a private place, but it makes its statement TO public space. So do store signs, billboards, skywriting and so on – through all the examples.

    By the silly (desperate?) reasoning of the “private this, private that” claim, a protester could claim that the protest itself is made by “private mouths” – or that protest signs are “private letters on private cardboard”. Conversely, by the same reasoning we could argue to outlaw any disturbing speech on the grounds that it is heard by way of “private air in private ears” (which is, in a way, the final argument of hate-speech laws, isn’t it).

    As to “funerals are private” – only if they are held in a private place. Protesters cannot trespass into private cemeteries; the roads outside cemeteries are public roads (where the approach roads are private, trespassing laws are sufficient). The protests take place in PUBLIC SPACE; and this law attempts to restrict free speech in public places.

    Public spaces, public protests; no rights infringed. Some people just can’t wrap their minds around that simple concept. Or, rather, refuse to do so or to face the fact that if speech is curtailed because it upsets others it’s simply the suppression of free speech.

    There is no constitutional right to private emotional comfort that transcends that suspends others’ rights under the First Amendment. The privacy of an event does not have some radiant power to project itself into and over public spaces, pushing out the constitution. Repeating the mantra “funerals are private” – no matter how many times you do it – doesn’t make public spaces any less public, nor speech any less protected.

    There is no real argument here – just the same old “I find it offensive, so it has to be outlawed,” argument against forms of free speech that annoy, disturb, anger. Citing hate-speech laws makes that all the clearer.

  • Clavos

    Yep, you got me–didn’t see the difference between that comment (#115) and most of your other ones in this thread.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    Re #s 99, 106, 116 et alia – “funerals are private” …

    Well, actually, on the whole, usually they’re not.

    Even in peacetime, funerals are PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS of grief (and respect for the dead). The feelings may be private, but the expression of them at funerals is rarely so. And while civilian cemeteries may indeed be private (if open) spaces, to which access and within which behavior can be rightly constrained – the roads to them rarely are.

    Consider if you will, the funeral cortege that passes you on State Highway 24 – headlights on, pace measured (usually) – often enough with a police escort. What is that cortège doing except proclaiming to every passerby, “honored dead are passing; please show the appropriate respect.” It may not be “Go tell the Spartans …” – but it will do.

    How much more public can a statement get?

    And all wearing of mourning – from the traditional “widows weeds for a year” to the black elastic band on the shield of police when an officer has fallen in the line of duty – is a conscious, PUBLIC statement – an open proclamation of grief and respect.

    Further, in times of war the funerals of the fallen – and their graves and steles – cannot escape their having a political content in a political context. When the Prime minister of Japan pays his respects at Yasukuni Shrine or Reagan goes to the cemetery at Bitburg – or any public figure speaks at a funeral – the event is a public event.

    The “funerals are private” argument holds no water. It would be more honest if phrased in accordance with its true intent: “funerals are SACROSANCT”.

  • sr

    Another Friday night. Im retired and have nothing better to do then address jtg#101. Truly honored that a person of jtg’s pedigree would waste such valuable time commenting with the village idiot. Can just picture you jt at that cute pink tonka toy computer frothing at the mouth having to lower your impeccable standards to deal with trailer trash. Dam jt this is good. Best of all just thinking about some of your comments puts me in a state of uncontroilable laughter. Notice how simple my words are. Just to the point without your type of bravo sierra. Now what does jt say. Stay on target, dont be distracted, dont play their game and take note of their behavior and apply what you learn. jt whom may be the befool-ee here? Must I conclude the village idiot is now jt’s mentor and teacher. How much time did you take jt out of your busy day to find 22+ items from my past posts? Did read most of your comment and read a few you directed at others. jt you seem to be one misinformed, ignorant and arrogant individual like me. Dont you realize you are no worse or no better and share baffone status with me. jt Airborn Infantry. 1964-1970 honorable. Instead of saying bravo sierra and I dont give a rats ass will at present on your word accept and respect. For me 1962-1982 honorable. Suggest jt you leave it their. sr

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    re 121: SR standard noise, sans content. Onward.

  • http://www.jtgillick.com/ JOHN THOMAS GILLICK

    QUICK QUESTION, FOLKS …

    did I miss the post where SR explains and fills out his claim (#99) that he was a POW in Hanoi?

  • sr

    I was just asking myself the very same question jt. Think the guy may be a bulb short in the chandelier. Go figure. HI-HO, SILVER, AWAY.

  • beadtot

    In other words, her name resembles ‘Colson’ because she was expected to wheedle a best-seller out of him, and instead her own elicitations are on the booksellers’ shelves.

  • conservative

    this article is bogus

  • Slam

    Conservatives are the shit and scum of the earth, as is ann coulter. Only a fucking idiot would stoop so low as to take seriously or read her books. Yes, Americans are pretty fucking stupid: they voted for bush by the millions and stole both elections! We, the USA are going down the drain. The ugliness of Coulter is a harbinger of very ugly days ahead–especially for decent, cool people. I fucking HATE all republicans and conservatives: you are ALL ASSHOLES, and all of you should be shipped off to Iraq, naked, with bullseyes tatooed onto your brainless heads. Coulter too! Ship that ugly cunt off to Iraq with a US flag tattooed on her forehead. Put a bullseye there too. USA used to be OK until the reagan revolution fucked everything up. We are now devolving in a republican fascist police state with a “war on everything”. Fuck. It’s all so depressing and shitty. Yes, I do want to move to another country. the USA sucks now and is in serious intellectual and moral decline. Don’t believe me? Read some the shit coulter passes off as worthwhile reading. Even coulter refuses to debate anybody with a brain…please American public….stop being a bunch of asshats and taking this stupid cunt so seriously…god you are ALL pathetic: dems and repukes alike! Beam me up Scotty….there definitely is NOT any intelligent life on this planet–least of all in the usa!

  • Aaron Hemphill

    I was listening to Hannity’s radio program on the way home late one afternoon (something I hardly ever do) and Ann Coulter was on. I don’t remember the particulars of this but she quoted something she said someone said and told Hannity “I have the tape. I have it right here. Let me play it Shawn, let me play it. Maybe after the break said Shawn. Immediately after the break she said ” can I play it now” Let me play it.” Ok said Shawn. When she played the tape it was no whear even close to what coulter had said he said. Sha caught herself in a lie. Then Shawn brought up someone elses name. Coulter sais “oh, he’s nothing but a jackoff liberal. Bur Shawn said nothing. I never liked either one for obvious reasons but after that I began to despise them as the paid guns of hate speech they are. Why can I not find anyone who heard her filthy mind on that day. And I did not vote for Clinton. But I think for myself. I do not need Rush, Shawn, and Coulter’s help.

    Thanks,

    Bubba

  • sr

    Slam#127,

    Was just wondering what country you moved to with Alex Baldwin and Barbra Streisand. Maybe Scotty beamed you all up. Just wishful thinking.

  • redstarrising

    SWEET DEMOCRATIC JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I’m still asking myself why the extreme rabid right are entering a blog titled “Why I hate Ann Coulter and You Should Too”? Just another opportunity to blame, change subject matter, dodge issues, and repress with gang mentality!

  • redstarrising

    By the way…I am not a dem or rep, our bipartisan system divides the united and we need action and reform. I like to think for myself and then take into account what issues matter to me most. Only then can I become educated enough to vote or support the better candidate. But hear this! As long as inequality, social oppression, war, national debt that exceeds $9,000,000,000,000, election corruption, lies and deceit (other than those about getting a blowjob), ignorance, racism, fascism, religious integration into government, and just general ignorance exist, I will not vote republican! Tell me what right our government has to ban a technology that may possibly save millions of lives if it were given a chance to be researched. No right. Right are wrong!!!!!!!!!

  • TJ

    I’m surprised no one has tried to kill her yet. I sure would. But I don’t want to waste my time hunting down an anorexic, God-fearing cliche of a bitch.

    Can someone just hunt her down? Please? It’s not like anyone would miss her.

  • Universalear

    Wow. Just passing through, folks.
    It is not surprising to discover so many intellectuals (Right AND Left)in one forum that possess a rudimentary and insatiable desire to “toot one’s own horn”. The unhealthy dose of testosterone I just injested might prove lethal! HA!

    IMHO, anyone who utilises sensationalism as a weapon for greed and hate-mongering is disgusting but I agree that they have the morally unfortunate but legal right to do so. Just as long as they remain equally open to being on the receiving end of such afflictions. And I’m a firm believer in “what comes around, goes around”. That’s simple physics. However, seeing as how life is so damn short, why would they want to spare the time? Why some people choose not to create and spread something positive and beneficial for humanity is extremely disconcerting, to say the very least. And I can’t think offhand, of a positive adjective in which to describe Ann Coulter/Arthur Coltrane’s personality or methods. He/she most definitely receives far too much credit and respect. It’s despairing yet pathetic when someone who harbors such hatred for theirself (and for a great deal of others) becomes a role model for so many. I think that the joke is really on their “followers”. But I also don’t think it’s the least bit funny. It’s people and scenarios such as this that rapidly decrease my faith in humanity.
    Why is it that so many who are gifted with high IQ’S seem compelled to continuously tell the rest of us how f*cking stupid we all are? It’s wasteful and arrogant. Ah well, such is the convolution of life. Carpe diem, right? Even if it means shredding others to bits for the purpose of monetary gain and stroking a confused ego. Yes, I’m being sarcastic but if the shoe fits….
    Ms. Coulter(and other akin to her)is unequivocally oblivious to the Golden Rule. I shudder to imagine what it is like to live without a conscience. But I’ll wage that it makes for a cold, desolate and hollow existence. What a shame.

  • Dan

    The thing that Ann Coulter chooses “to create and spread” is definitely “positive and beneficial for humanity”. It’s called truth.

  • Universalear

    Dan, are you suggesting that Ms. Coulter has never uttered a falsehood or manipulated the truth? I don’t think there are any upright bipeds who possess sophisticated problem solving skills that isn’t guilty of such at some point. Human nature rules the want and need of social acceptance in what we are passionate about and what we feel to be ultimate truths.
    However, I find it far more more palatable to have them exposed, challenged and expressed in a decent, civilized, respectful and unbiased manner that is absent of judgement. Anything less is NOT positive or beneficial for humanity as a whole. It serves well to only those that choose to “pasture” in those “fields” who seem to welcome, encourage and thrive with such negative behavior. It is primitive and beyond reproach to bully people into solidarity. Truth or fiction be told, we homo sapians know how to behave correctly. There is no excuse for reckless abandonment of one’s scruples.

  • Dan

    Universalear, I would just say that I’ve never witnessed any successful argument for an example of a breech of integrity on her part. Her works are thoroughly documented and meticulously scoured, yet no infidelities are ever exposed.

    She is the exposer.

    When she exposes sophistry and manipulation in others, reasonable people of good will feel entitled to guess at the reason for the malfeasant conduct. These guesses are judgemental I suppose, yet necessary for full understanding of adversarial positions that aren’t logical in the face of truth.

  • http://www.candyekane.com candye kane

    this is horseshit. ann coulter is a manipulative liar and a bigot. she talks trash and thats where her books belong; in the trash.

  • Dan

    Nothing makes people angrier than the truth. That’s why she’s hated.

  • Universalear

    Dan, truth never angers me. I seek truth and welcome it. Results will forever create an arena for disagreement. It seems that our dialouge has become futile as we seem to be “talking apples and oranges”. So I shall respect your opinion and will agree to disagree.

    Keep your stick on the ice, bro.

  • redstarrising

    As I stated earlier in this blog, Ann’s fifteen minutes of fame are nearing their end due to her most recent ignorant comments made in an attempt to belittle John Edwards. The media has now moved on to the distasteful comments of Imus-we can immediately shift our uneducated minds to these new developments, and hopefully, with a little propaganda and unwavering manipulation by the machine, become beleivers of whatever the next political savior has to offer. God rest Ann Coulter’s soul…in hell.

  • RAAAAAAAAARGH

    If you had some kind of well known political view, religious, etc., do you not think that Ann would say something about you in one of her armature, mediocre, New York Times best seller (only to be ripped and burned at I Hate Ann Coulter parties)books?
    It is very likely that she would call you something like a chubby prostitute trying to rub it off with politics, a secretly scandalous mamma’s boy, or a loser anchorman with no life but to criticize the perfectly good and sensible opinions of those like herself.
    Just for the record, her brother James in Connecticut, is a loser as.s hole who thoroughly enjoys cheating on his wife and disowning his family at work to his college girlfriends through e-mails and likes telling them how he’ll tie them up and slam them against walls, naked and do it all night long. He thinks no one knows, oh, but I do. Especially because he used to e- mail my mom until my sister called his work and left him a message threatening to send all those perverted as.s e-mails to his mom, wife, and sister(Ann Coulter)if he didn’t stop talking to my mom. He is such a chicken shi.t coward! He cried to his lawyer and got a seize and desist order against us. AS.S HOLE!!! Just wait until I can legally start driving. Ooooh, you just wait!

  • Nonayobizness

    Why on EARTH is this nasty old haggy bitch Ann Coulter allowed to comment on ANYTHING? She is nothing but an aging ugly homophobic freak who needs to STOP wearing little slut mini skirts. Yuuuch. Who knows…she’s probably a closet lesbian- look at all the other hardcore republicans- they’re usually secretly big old homos.

  • Clavos

    “Why on EARTH is this nasty old haggy bitch Ann Coulter allowed to comment on ANYTHING?”

    Umm…

    Something to do with the First Amendment???

    “What a country!!”

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    one of her armature, mediocre, New York Times best seller…

    Oh, the irony…

  • Franco

    I like her!

  • Ron

    I wish Ann would just come out of the closet and admit she is a man, because her questionable gender gives her an unfair advantage getting a part in the remake of Amazon Women from Mars. I have no intelligent comments about this hose-bag for republican E.D. sufferers.

  • N. GOLDSMITH

    I am wondering if this near-senior citizen coul go for more than 20 econds without tossing or playing with her hair while she’s on camera. What an ASS!!!

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Yes N Goldsmith, isn’t it infuriating that someone you don’t like and vehemently disagree with is nonetheless not just a highly professionally succesful, but one of the sexiest little bitches around – even in her 40s. Damn her!

  • pablo

    Al

    You find Coulter attractive buddy? Now that is funny, not surprising but terribly hilarious, perhaps you have forgotten what a lovely woman really looks like, not to mention acts like. Coulter reminds me of a a homely shark. hehehehe

    Sexy? hardly pal

  • N. GOLDSMITH

    She’s the pinch faced bitch on your street screaming at your kids to get off her lawn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOu’re as crazy as she is!!!

  • Brunelleschi

    Coulter is just a political Andy Kaufman in drag…

  • Cindy D

    Goldsmith. That is an apt image.

    I might say Lilith from Frasier, only with a diminished intellect, and a heart 10 x smaller than a grinch. Oh, an a habit of projecting her ugly perceptions onto other people.

    I might say that. But, I like what you said better.

  • Cindy D

    Brunelleschi,

    Heretic.

  • ACE

    The best part of Ann Coulter ran down her fathers thigh

  • sally

    I DON’T THINK MUCH OF THE IDIOT, BUT I WOULD NEVER SAY I HATE HER, I THINK SHE HAS ENOUGH HATE IN HER TO COVER THE GLOBE.