Reply With Quote
Click here
Not as vulgar as Coulter but almost as crazy.
Transcript
Anything to keep her name in the news.Ms. COULTER: I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent sexuality.
DEUTSCH: OK, I think you need to say that again. That Bill Clinton, you think on some level, has — is a latent sexual, is that what you’re saying?
Ms. COULTER: Yeah.
Click here
Not as vulgar as Coulter but almost as crazy.
So then, according to the Ann-Coulter-Measuring-Stick-Of-Hidden- sexuality, the following men may now stop faking and feel free to come on out of the closet and "fess up" to thier gayness:
*Henry VIII (posthumously)
*JFK (ditto)
*King Solomon(100's of concubines)
*Wilt Chamberlain
*Gene Simmons
*Hugh Hefner
*Sean Connery
*Hugh Grant (man )
*Colin Farrell (big time man )
the list goes on and on.
On the flip side I'm sure in some opposite universe somewhere she said something about a President with a two digit IQ being proof positive that $$ ='s power.
Funny, and not crazy at all - says the unbiased guy.
She's a man, baby!
Holy Ann Coulter!!
The part where 'it' talks about brain-washing is particularly adorable.
If you guys hate her so much, why do you keep reporting every little thing she does? If all the people who hated her just ignored her, maybe she wouldn't be in the news as often. Those of us who like her know where we can find her columns, books, and appearances on tv.
It helps them to not think about their own whackjobs in the Democratic Party. While Ann Coulter is a partisan, Right-wing, vitriolic, Conservative, Left-wing-hating, bombastic, entertaining, and usually right, professional commentator, author, and entertainer; her analogs in the Democratic party actually represent the party (or have in the past). People such as Nancy Pelosi, Howard "Yearrrrgh!" Dean, Terry McAulliffe, Paul Begala, James Carville, Harry Reid. Then you have the Liberal commentators that frequently outdo her such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and the whole crew at AirAmeriscam. Not to mention liberal bloggers such as the DailyKos, that Greenwald dude, and all the gang at the Huffington Post.
That's why they continue to bloviate on Ann Coulter. It's easier than looking in their own house. And, she provides a convenient vent for them.
It's mildly entertaining.
I think she's a great hero for the far-right. She represents the intelligence of all red stater republicans.
She no more represents the far-right than, say, Randy Rhodes, Al Franken, or Jerry Springer represent the far-left; except that she's more articulate, better sourced, and funnier.
She is a she has not been proven. Randy Rhodes, don't know this person, Al Franken is a comedian. Suggesting that Jerry Springer represents the far-left makes you a comedian.
They're all leading commentators, with major shows, on AirAmeriscam.
You think Ann Coulter is rabid, you should listen to Randy Rhodes.
If randy rhodes is anything like ann coulter, (I would be too ashamed to listen) no thank you.
I agree, that opening riff to "Crazy Train" is amazing.
Yeah, well, the left has them all over the place. For every Ann Coulter on the right, there are ten Randy Rhodes on the left. And, you should be embarrassed.
The funny thing is that Ann Coulter kind of looks like Randy Rhodes (only she has a larger Adam's apple)
Compare:
That would be a waste of time. I'm more embarrassed about my countries leadership.
How 'bout Democratic spokespeople? Do they embarrass you?
STOLEN FROM POWERLINE BLOG
You probably haven't heard of former CIA employee Larry Johnson, but he has a certain cachet on the left. He has given the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, is a big favorite among liberal bloggers, and has appeared as an "expert" on terrorism on PBS and other mainstream outlets. So you might assume he isn't a complete moron.
Think again. The Larry Johnson paper trail starts in July 2001--two months before September 11--when he wrote in the New York Times that the terrorist threat was "declining," and that Americans, despite being "bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism," have "little to fear" from such attacks. An interesting window into the mindset of the CIA, or at least a portion thereof, pre-September 11, but hardly a qualification to be considered an "expert" on the subject.
Johnson's obliviousness to the terrorist threat hasn't stood in the way of his being lionized by liberal Democrats, mostly because he took up the cudgels on behalf of socialite Valerie Plame, who was liberated from her desk job at the CIA by the happy fortuity of being named, accurately, as the guiding spirit behind her husband's ill-fated trip to Niger, which he lied about in the same newspaper that published Johnson's assessment that the terrorist threat was "declining."
But those were only figurative cudgels. Now the contemptible Mr. Johnson is issuing threats to conservative bloggers. You think that might be hyperbole? Johnson wrote:
Sounds llike a threat to me, even if Johnson wasn't the telephone caller who said, "You're a dead man." [that's some other left-wing whack job names Leopold. --Yonivore] We keep watching the left sink lower and lower, and every time we think they've hit bottom, they get worse. Here is a guy who has been an official spokesman for the Democratic Party and has been hailed as an expert on terrorism by PBS--never mind that his views were ludicrously off the mark--issuing threats of bodily harm to a little-known conservative blogger. One is tempted to say that the Democrats couldn't possibly sink lower, but somehow I suspect they will surprise us yet again.
You are really stuck in your mud. I'm not left or right. That's just one of your problems. Your so far right that its a commitment to deny certain truths.
You won't admit that this Iraq endevour is the biggest mistake of modern times.
You won't admit that wmd's were a total fabrication.
You won't admit that bush should have done something that resembled anything when he knew we would have planes hijacked. If he can send 150k troops and $300B (so far) to Iraq for a nonreason, He certainly could have done something about 9/11.
If you could just admit to any of this, your position might hold water.
I truly feel for you. It's like watching a friend make a total ass of himself and there's nothing that can be done to stop it.
It would be great to find some meat under all that sauce your serving.
How 'bout that Dean guy? Isn't he the head of the Democratic Party?
Calls Maliki an anti-semite, Katherine Harris a crook and compares her to Stalin, and then calls for an end to the divisiveness.
Anyone else see the irony?
These kinds of posts are the reason you get mistaken for being a leftie. Nice recitation of three of the Left's articles of faith. Iraq is a mistake, WMD's was a lie, and Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand.
"articles of faith"
Articles of ing truth, and those truths will be buttressed as more insiders in the next years tell their stories.
standard bull how youn turn "could have done something about 9/11" into "Bush knew about 9/11"
dubya/ head/Repugs are ed every which way to Sunday, and it's all their doing.
For those of you who (like me) are tired of the same old "Bush's Magic Memo" argument about how 9/11 should have been prevented, the 7/10-17 issue of The New Yorker had a very interesting article on Ali Soufan, an FBI agent in Yemen who was tracking al Qaeda after the Cole bombing. It goes into great detail about conflicts between the CIA and FBI in their separate investigations, and makes the case that if the CIA had shared its information more generously, 9/11 could have been prevented.
Not sure if it was really any new information (I think a lot of it was covered in the 9/11 Commission findings), but it was new to me. The link below is an interview with the reporter who wrote the article (Lawrence Wright, who also has a book on the subject). I couldn't find the article itself online.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/cont...n_onlineonly01
Unfortunately, it wasn't a matter of if the agencies had shared information because, there's been statements that they wanted to share information. Jamie Gorelick (of the 9-11 Commission) was at the Justice Department, during the Clinton administration, and authored an opinion that basically erected a wall between domestic and foreign intelligence agencies and forbid them from sharing information that might have led to the discovery of many of the 9-11 hijackers prior to their suicide missions.
That's what the article is partly about... The Wall. It covers information that might have been shared if not for that obstacle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
