Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ann Coulter  
User currently offlineM.seles_fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

What do you think of Ann Coulter?

I first saw her on CNN Crossfire last year, and she was ripping this guy to pieces over the anthrax scare. I find her to be very intelligent, and hot, but it seems if you aren't a right-wing conservative you are on her shit list, and you must vanish off the face of the Earth. What do you think of her?

Has anyone read her book "Slander"?

anncoulter.org is her site.

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

When historians write about the gathering darkness in the last days of peace before the great oil war of the early 21st century, she'll top the list of propagandists that fueled the flames.

User currently offlineMcringring From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

HOT!?!?!

She's horrendous. And like most women, she only gets worse when she opens her mouth.


User currently offlineBrianhames From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 795 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

I've read her book. It's very good. Makes many excellent points in the book. Me likey.  Big thumbs up

User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

Yeah, she's pretty hot. And just like everyone else, she's not perfect.

But she toasted Katie in their debate.


User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

Ann Coulter is excellent, she is extremely intelligent and she doesnt try to cover up her beliefs. Her book, "Slander" was excellent, and I encourage every brainwashed liberal to pick a copy up. I know that it pains liberals to confront the facts that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes for many years, but it is one of the best Conservative books I have ever read. In addition to this she is pretty hot! Me gusta!


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

She beats the crap out of Connie Chung, that's for sure!

'Speed


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1951 times:

Assomeone who was educated in the arts of brainwashing, Jcs, I can assure you there's not a liberal around that can hold a candle to the modern "conservative movement" . But you know that don't you.

User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

Ann Coulter, witch and hag... too much makeup, facist bag.

I'm thinking of writing a parody of "Slander", I call it "Libel". Anyone wanna help?



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Most of the time, I think her articles make very good points based on common sense and reality. But every once in a while I think she goes over the edge and is downright nasty. One of her more recent article, "Why we hate them" is an example of her just getting flustered and mean.

But overall, she's in a niche of writers who have a very easy job - poking fun at liberalism. It's an easy job, because liberalism is ideological movement, rather than conservatism, which tends to be more based on reality. Ideology is very easy and fun to rip apart when the facts don't match up to what their political/social model says. Communism had the same problem, only much worse.

If you want to read a somewhat less vitriolic writer of the same type, read P.J. O'Rourke. Much more irreverent, a former 60's peacenik hippy who grew up and became a conservative, sometimes he can get me rolling on the floor laughing.

Charles


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

liberalism is ideological movement, rather than conservatism, which tends to be more based on reality.

This doesn't make any sense. To say that conservatism is more practical than liberalism is absurd. We Liberals may have some idyllic ideas, but so did our founding fathers, and the French revolutionaries! It comes with changing times. We just embrace, even encourage, the changes.



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Sorry Nuts, but I disagree.

First of all, I want to make a distiction - I am talking about economic liberalism and conservatism, not religious, or any other type. I'm an economist by training.

Liberalism is based in large part in the idea of limited resources - that if one man is rich, he somehow "took" it from someone else. This was one of the premises of Marxist theory, from which liberalism borrows. Marx was an utter idealist who's ideas simply were not practical, and in many cases, profoundly wrong.

Anyone who studies modern economies will know that wealth is not a fixed value - it can be created out of thin air. If you have an idea for a better mousetrap, and sell a million of them and become rich, you have not taken wealth away from anyone else. You instead came up with a product which people saw, and looking at the $20 dollar bill in their hands, decided that his life would somehow be better off if he traded the $20 bill for the mousetrap. Thus, the purchaser's wealth (i.e. standard of living) is increased, because of his own free will he acquired something for $20 which he believes has a value greater than that (without that belief, he won't buy it), and of course, the inventor makes a lot of money too. Voila, the creation of wealth.

Liberalism takes the idea of fixed wealth and the idealist concept that all people are in fact equal (not to be equated with your American founding fathers believes - by "all men are equal" in the Declaration of independence, they clearly meant that all should be TREATED equally, a big difference). Of course this is simply not true. People ARE unequal. There will always be half the population who are more intelligent, more motivated, have more common sense, or even have fewer morals than the other half do. Marx and Lenin believed that such differences could be conditioned out of society, but that has proved to be impossible. But that did not meant that they did not keep trying until the whole house came down around them. An example of reality being ignored in favor of an ideological model.

Deep down, liberals have a deep hatred of wealth. Actually, let me rephrase that. They hate wealthy people because they want the wealth for themselves. For those who have little, liberalism (or much further left, Marxism) is a seductive concept, as it says that the rich took your money, and it should be returned. Hell, it's easier to ask for a handout than working on that better mousetrap.

Liberalism has developed whole generations that believe that they are "owed" something, and the wealthy should return what they have. Look at the Civil justice system. Whenever you have a court case against a wealthy individual or a company, the jury of "peers" always likes to "stick it to" the wealthy one with a gargantuan penalty.

Personally, I am not against all aspects of economic liberalism. I believe that there should be a social "safety net" for those who fall on hard times. They do have some good ideas, sometimes. But I believe that the value of each individual, in regards to what wealth he accumulates for himself over his life, should be reflective of what he has personally delivered in terms of wealth to the rest of society. The mousetrap again.

One more thing.

About "liberal" politicians. I find that there are few more cynical and twisted people on earth than liberal politicians. I am convinced that at least 90% don't give a shit about poverty, redistribution of income, etc. They talk about it in order to get votes from the liberal-thinking masses. But they themselves tend to be wealthy individuals, with no qualms whatsoever about creating tax loopholes for themselves and their buddies.

Why do you think that liberal politicians are so against the proposition flat tax rates - the idea that everyone, from wealthy to poor, should pay an equal rate, say, 17%? The simple-minded public will believe that the wealthy will have their taxes cut in half, but in fact they would not. I happen to have several wealthy relatives, including in the U.S.. The effective tax rates for them are substantially lower than the published rates, because of all the loopholes. My American Grandfather would tell me that he actually felt guilty that he managed to get his tax rate down to the same level as someone who made a tenth of what he made. In fact, if all the loopholes were closed and a flat tax of 17% imposed, their taxes will actually go up a little. On the other hand, they have told me that they would not mind because it would simplify their tax returns from 200-300 pages down to a 1-page sheet. Of course that would throw out of business a lot of tax attorneys and accountants. Ever notice how those guys tend to vote for liberals? They are protecting their business of protecting the upper classes (of whom the wealthy "liberal" politicians belong), while the middle classes pay the big chunk of the tax bill, because they cannot afford those services, nor have the resources to use a lot of those tax shelters. Those are for wealthy people, like the Clintons, the Kennedys, et al.

Gotta work now,

Cheers,

Charles


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

liberalism is ideological movement, rather than conservatism, which tends to be more based on reality.

That's why the Rush Limbaugh show employs very talented call screeners to keep off the air anyone who may sound like they have a good point that disagrees with Limbaugh's rants. Smart liberals are not allowed on the air with him. Intelligent guests are not allowed on the air with him. Anything that might remotely compromise the God-like power of his words in the ears of the faithful is kept away from that broadcast.

That's a fact. It's also not entertainment. It's propaganda.

As to Ann Coulter, someone chuckled that she body slammed Katie Couric on the Today show. If Couric decided to be half the snarling bitch Coulter was, it might have been a good cat fight. But Couric (who's primary function is to host a lite chat morning variety show) reacted much the same way she would if a Klansman or Nazi were inadvertantly booked to sit across from her..."yeah whatever. Is this over yet?"

What people fail to mention is the whining, babbling idiot Coulter was turned into by James Carville the following night on Crossfire.



User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

Well Cfalk, economics is not my strong suit, so we'll just leave it at that.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineJimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 653 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Cfalk: I think you've written some good stuff there, some of which I probably would say differently or with more/less specificity. However, I want to correct only one thing:

I am talking about economic liberalism and conservatism, not religious, or any other type.

Not so much a correction, just a note that when my brain hears "economic liberalism" I think of the economic liberalist ideas of Adam Smith, the "classic liberals" who believed in laissez-faire and what we would probably call today libertarian economic ideas. Certainly these ideas are espoused more by today's American "conservatives" than today's American "liberals."

It's a terminology thing, and the terminology is not helped by political science definitions of "conservative" and "liberal." While "liberals" are usually associated as the type to be pro-choice and "conservatives" pro-life, since abortion is available and has been for some time now, in a political science sense those who advocate pro-life should now be called "liberals." (It should therefore come as no surprise that some pro-life people market themselves as liberals.)

Well I wasn't going anywhere with that in particular, especially since I don't have a better word to describe what you are trying to say except the political science term which would probably be "economic fascists." And you can see why I try not to say that sorta thing.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Heavymetal, you have extremes on both sides. I figure Ann Coulter, as a right-wing conservative, is rouphly equivalent to Ted Rall on the far-left, in terms of their general positions. Although I tend to feel that Coulter tends to hit the mark more frequently than Rall (who I think is a complete and utter loon).

Charles


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Jimbobjoe,

You are right, the term "liberal" has been turned around in many places. I was using the term as an American would. Here in Switzerland, the Liberal Party is more of the classic Adam Smith liberal, i.e. low taxes, little government, laissez-faire economy.

Charles


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1897 times:

Coulter fancies herself a Constitutional lawyer because she attended law school. Thats like saying that Jane Doe is a 747 pilot because she sat in Seat 24A on a Southwest flight to Vegas and complained about the peanuts.

The truth is that Anne is just agit-prop. I used to get incensed by her poorly written, poorly researched nonsense, but then I realized that Anne is just a mouthpiece created by the Scaife Foundation and other right wing so-called "Think" tanks (Yeah - "Think" - right !!) who really, truly doesn't understand the lawin general or the First Amendment in particular (or the 5th or the 14th for that matter). So is not a legal thinker, an economist, a philosopher. She apparently looks good on TV (if Tim McVeigh in drag and a long blond wig and heels is your thing), makes inflammatory off-the-wall statements that some folks wish they had a podium to make, and acts like a first amendment victim whenever her views are discredited (like her lies about her age for instance). Clearly affirmative action is one of her punching bags, but I wonder if Anne would have reached cult status if a) she wasn't a woman; b) if she didn't fulfil someones fantasy of what leggy blonds should look like on TV; c) if she didn't perpetually act like some whining victim of the left; and d) if she weren't so well connected to right wing torch bearers through family connections.

Anne is entertainment (although of the bulimic, nausea inducing variety). Its when you start taking her rants, of the "lets kill all liberals" variety seriously then you're up there in Never-Never land like her. So far she's only made a few millions through her books and her staged whinings (far less than the $ 400 million her compatriot Rush has made from poking fun of AIDs victims, Chelsea Clinton, etc, etc), so if you want to contribute to this hag's retirement fund of millions, please buy her book. As for me, I read it for free while at the bookstore (See - I gave Anne a chance to convince me). Reads like TP - won't take you more than 30 minutes tops to read it cover to cover.




User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Cfalk, some good balanced points....but I gotta call you out on one paragraph:

Liberalism has developed whole generations that believe that they are "owed" something, and the wealthy should return what they have.

Charles, I live five minutes from some of richest people in the world on Palm Beach Island and I can assure you there are no crowds of dope smoking anti-globalization college kids holding signs reading "give it back" waiting at the end of the bridges. (And do a little background on some of the charectors over there, even you, Charles, would have your doubts) In fact where there ARE dope smoking anti-globalization college kids, the movement is precarious and discombobulated (barely 2,000 showed up for the IMF meetings in DC last week. There are more members at the Breakers Country Club than violent screaming "give backers".)

It's funny, but I think if you go back historically and look at the personalities and movements that have fought the free market accumulation of wealth, few of those movements would have possessed idealogically "liberal" (and that word has come to mean so many things in 2002 it's use is almost useless)philosophies across the board. Is 'communism' liberal in your theology, Charles? Funny because such modern 'liberal' causes like gay-rights and abolishing the death penatly would be non gratis in communist China. ("There are no homosexuals in China"-official policy as late as the early 90s.)

What I think you confuse is a 'liberal' tendency to be the first to speak up when there is some justification on 'the rich' using their money to effect an unnatural outcome on democracy. And, lately, the 'liberals' have been screaming the loudest about breathtakingly corrupt corporate practices.

What I also think you confuse is the system of "entitlements" in this country. Liberals yelling about spending millions on, say, "midnight basketball" (to use an old right-wing favorite)programs for poor inner city youth may easily seem to be making the rich subsidize the poor...specifically, the black, urban poor. Yet how is J.C Watts screaming for an artillery system built by defense contractors in his district that has been ruled obsolete by the Pentagon any different? Or what about the Project America cruise ship presently wallowing without funds in a shipyard in Senator Trent Lott's district...that's right! A US government built cruise-ship, to be offered to the right bidder when it's finished. All to keep Mississippi shipyard wokers employed. So tell me....do the rich mind paying for useless commodities simply because it's a conservative signing the deal?

Also, a quick scan of some of the ultra-rich shows us some surprises...from George Soros to Warren Buffett to Bill Gates...men who earned their billions in the very strictest, sometimes merciless, sense of free market...yet they sometimes openly embrace "liberal" arguments (Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett, fearing the ramifications of of a monied class of people who have not earned their fortune nor the responsibility to manage it wisely, is one of the leading proponents of KEEPING the estate tax...Soros gives tens of millions to population control. Ted Turner...well, you know that story  Smile/happy/getting dizzy ).

Look at the Civil justice system. Whenever you have a court case against a wealthy individual or a company, the jury of "peers" always likes to "stick it to" the wealthy one with a gargantuan penalty.

What has any of that to do with being "liberal"? Are you suggesting that the political/social idealogy of every person that gets into a jury box in an awards settlement voted for Nader or Gore last time around? If anything, I'd venture to say this is a direct result of conservative-led deregulation over the past 30 years. In our media culture, the appearence on Main Street is that more and more big business and wealthy types are "getting away with it" every day...so when one gets cornered by the common folk it's 'payback' time.

Perhaps if the media perception was one of wealthy individuals or companies making more of an effort to earn an honest living instead of one full of fuzzy math and golden parachutes, that fairness would translate to the jury box too.

Oh! Yeah.....Ann Coulter. Bitch.

(just to stay on thread topic.)  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



User currently offlineUs330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

How long ago did the Ann Coulter-James Carville debate air on Crossfire? I would love to see the Blond Bitch take on the Ragin' Cajun, and then get her arse kicked in the process.

User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1836 times:

Does anybody read the "Savage Love" column, by Dan Savage? A couple of weeks ago, he took a "dump" on Ann Coulter, pardon the pun. Very funny.

I can't take her seriously. She's far too manipulative.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Heavymetal,

While we clearly don't agree on this, I'm glad we're keeping it civil  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Charles, I live five minutes from some of richest people in the world on Palm Beach Island and I can assure you there are no crowds of dope smoking anti-globalization college kids holding signs reading "give it back" waiting at the end of the bridges...

That doesn't really surprise me. Personally I think it's the media which exaggerates their existence (helps to sell airtime and adspace). However here in Europe, the populations are a little more left-leaning. Hell, we still have Communist parties in nearly every country, and they get some 5% or so every time. Not huge, but still significant, especially in coalitions. And the "give-it-backers" are more significant here. I was once held hostage by a bunch of WTO protesters, who upon seeing my suit and decent car (I had the ill fortune to be driving by) decided that it might be a good idea to burn my car (and me in it) for the people. Luckily the police finally moved in and saved my skin - another person in Geneva the day before was not so lucky.

Is 'communism' liberal in your theology, Charles?

As we said before, the term "Liberal" has warped in recent decades.Economically speaking, in English-speaking countries, liberal has come to mean left-leaning policy compared to "conservative", right-leaning policy.

So, yes, under this definition, Communism is as liberal as you can get.

Funny because such modern 'liberal' causes like gay-rights and abolishing the death penatly would be non gratis in communist China.

You're talking about social policy. It has nothing to do with economic policy. You can be socially liberal but economically conservative, or vice versa.

What I think you confuse is a 'liberal' tendency to be the first to speak up when there is some justification on 'the rich' using their money to effect an unnatural outcome on democracy.

Again, this is more social policy, but it all ties in to what I said about politicians. I feel strongly that politics in the U.S. has become structurally corrupt. Massive amounts of money are needed to run for election successfully. Floods of political ads for months is the norm. The electorate has become increasingly short-sighted, and Congressmen have to run every 2 years. When the reelection campaign takes up to a year, a congressman is constantly in campaign-mode. Campaign contributions are very welcome, legal or otherwise, because he needs the money to stay in office (otherwise he'll have to go back to the public sector and WORK for a living - yuk!) This holds true for all politicians, left or right. And of course, money buys favors.

The U.S. really needs to get a handle on this. No political mass-media campaign should be allowed more than a couple of weeks before an election, as a start. You can't spend THAT much money in 2 weeks, and it would reduce the dependence of these guys on those seeking to buy influence.

Again, this is valid for all parties, right to the top. Hell, the Chinese government managed to buy influence in the Clinton White House.

The U.S. MUST wean their politicians from all this money.

And, lately, the 'liberals' have been screaming the loudest about breathtakingly corrupt corporate practices.

This is a very complex subject which should be the subject of another thread. But it is my personal belief that the "corruption" or rather, the seeking of profitable annual reports at all costs, was largely born of the 1990's stock market boom and the "new economy", which was allowed to run rampant and out of control. Desperation caused such corporate mismanagement as much as greed.

...Liberals yelling about spending millions on, say, "midnight basketball" (to use an old right-wing favorite)programs for poor inner city youth may easily seem to be making the rich subsidize the poor...specifically, the black, urban poor...

Again, we are talking about politicians. Don't ever trust them. They are only after votes, and are willing to spend public money on anything that may attract positive attention, regardless of any real value (positive or negative) it may have in the long term. Democrat or Republican makes very little difference.

Also, a quick scan of some of the ultra-rich shows us some surprises...

They've earned the right to their eccentricities  Smile/happy/getting dizzy. But you are mixing up social and economic policy again. There are very few wealthy people who are sincerely liberal in an economic sense, but socially they can be all over the map.

Perhaps if the media perception was one of wealthy individuals or companies making more of an effort to earn an honest living instead of one full of fuzzy math and golden parachutes, that fairness would translate to the jury box too.

That is part of the problem - public perception. The media reports on the Enrons and Worldcoms, but say little or nothing about the many millions of managers and employees in tens of thousands of companies who do in fact earn their living as solidly and honestly as they know how. Such fraudulent activities were the exception, not the rule. That does not mean that it should not be harshly addressed of course. But the public perception was blown a little out of proportion.

But even before that. How do you explain the huge award given to that dumb woman who spilled McDonalds coffee all over her crotch. If that was not vindictiveness, I don't know what is.

Charles


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

The money given to that dumb woman who spilled coffee all over herself was not out of vindictiveness. It was given partially because of the size of the McDonalds corporation and the heavy handedness of their attorneys - initially they refused to give the hapless woman any damages for medical care, etc.. Eventually, she was granted damages for the burns she received, and then the jury granted her huge punitive damages. These were then drastically reduced by a Judge.

I see that someone decided to put all political thought on a linear spectrum and decided that to push liberalism all the way down the slippery slope into communism. Bizarre as that may sound - liberals, even of the European social democrat refrain, have never been too enamored of Statist control of industry - you could then tilt the see saw on the right side and say that conservatism is akin to fascism, theocracies, monarchies, what have you. But that is equally bizarre because free markets essentially require freedom of association and freedom of contract not possible under any of these regimes.



User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

For the record, Ann "Crazy" Coulter is about as hot as Katherine Harris. Yeech!


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

More words of wisdom by Saint Ann:

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'" --Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote." --Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote." --Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks." --Rivera Live, 8/2/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country." --George, 7/99

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it." –MSNBC, 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns." --Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail." --Hannity & Colmes, 8/24/01

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married." --Rivera Live, 6/7/00

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate." --Rivera Live, 3/12/99

"My track record is pretty good on predictions." --Rivera Live, 12/8/98

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard." --Washington Post, 10/16/98

Amen.


25 Post contains images Jcs17 : For the record, Ann "Crazy" Coulter is about as hot as Katherine Harris. Yeech! This coming from the guy who said Susan Estrich and Gloria Stienem ar
26 Rai : I suggest that you folks read the book Blinded by the Right, by David Brock. The book sheds light on the inner workings of the conservative press, con
27 Post contains images We're Nuts : Oh come on, you can't tell me that this doesn't get you hot.
28 Jcs17 : I can just hear Estrich's nasty, gravelly, manly voice....ughhh...how about a new rule on a.net: NO PICTURES OF SUSAN ESTRICH!
29 KAL_LM : Yeah for a shrill screechy, manipulative, plagarizing, agit-prop, neo-conservative, "think-tank" creation, she's not bad, but hey, truth never meant m
30 Cfalk : Jaysit, It was given partially because of the size of the McDonalds corporation and the heavy handedness of their attorneys - initially they refused t
31 Jaysit : Cfalk - juries dont just trot out large punitive damages because they want to be mean to the big ol' McDonalds company; it is because the Anglo-Americ
32 Silverangel : About "liberal" politicians. I find that there are few more cynical and twisted people on earth than liberal politicians. I am convinced that at least
33 Jaysit : Katy Couric.... a. Showed that Ann had blatantly lied about Katy's quotes concerning the Reagan Book. b. Exposed Ann for being FIRED from the National
34 Wn700driver : Jay I saw that too. All of those things were attempted, but but she got dunked each time. Sorry, but that doesn't count. You have to understand that C
35 KAUSpilot : Couric is a clown. I'm not a Coulter worshiper but Couric is just plain idiotic.
36 Heavymetal : You guys crack me up. Couric is a clown! Couric is a candy ass! Couric is a lightweight! Don't take this the wrong way , but for being such a lightwei
37 Wn700driver : Heavy, You got me their, lol. My thing is silly but I guess I will explain. My wife used to like that show a bunch and eventually we got into the habb
38 KAUSpilot : If she appears on my set, I quickly flip the channel unless I'm in the mood to laugh at someone for making an ass of themselves on national TV. If the
39 Heavymetal : Funny you mention that....I met Jerry Springer today. Very soft spoken, polite guy....they asked us to have some Evian available when he arrived but W
40 Jaysit : Please --- all that Anne kept saying- shrieking actually - on the Couric interview was "I have footnotes; I have 400 footnotes." Big whoop ! So whats
41 Jcs17 : Jerry Springer is a really nice guy, I met him at a Super Bowl party in New Orleans. I got my picture with him, he had no problem taking the picture.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ann Coulter (A.K.A Dandruff) Gets Owned posted Mon Jul 10 2006 02:46:09 by Aircraft
Ann Coulter--Plagiarist? posted Fri Jul 7 2006 02:59:04 by AeroWesty
Henry Rollins' Letter To Ann Coulter posted Wed Jun 14 2006 23:59:45 by Srbmod
Does Ann Coulter Really Go To Church? posted Thu Jun 8 2006 07:49:34 by TedTAce
Catfight -- Hillary Clinton Bashes Ann Coulter posted Thu Jun 8 2006 00:05:26 by AerospaceFan
Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows posted Wed Jun 7 2006 17:29:14 by Continental
Ann Coulter -- Scientist? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 09:42:16 by AerospaceFan
Today's Oops: Ann Coulter Everybody! posted Wed Feb 15 2006 18:47:52 by Tbar220
Ann Coulter: "justice Should Be Poisoned" posted Sat Jan 28 2006 22:17:32 by 727LOVER
Ann Coulter Flips Out Yet Again posted Tue Dec 27 2005 10:47:43 by Tbar220