posted June 12, 2006 11:37 PM              

This is a last-ditch effort of severe desperation that manipulative opportunists use when they feel they aren't getting enough attention to fulfill the endless black void of their empty souls ~~~

step on the dead to make oneself appear higher.

You can really tell someone's true character by how they choose to utilize others in their most vulnerable moments for their own gain and agendas.

She's an opportunist, who is very well-crafted in warping and twisting truth to appear something entirely different. Selfish and cowardly, she rabidly scopes her surroundings for the weakest prey that she can feed on.

She has no sense of class, honorability, nor compassion. And those of you defending her, if she in anyway saw opportunity to use YOU, if it were to be for her advantage, do you think she would for one second hesitate?

She would ravenously devour you, spit you out her a**, and dance gleefully on your coffin.

posted June 12, 2006 11:41 PM            

quote:

---

Clinton attacked Coulter with bombast and blather...not an intellectual argument. Hello acoustic, you're wicked, mean, evil and nasty is NOT an intellectual argument.

---

She wasn't responding to an intellectual argument, though. I could understand making that argument if Ann had said something of substance, but she didn't.

Ann's argument as I've read it here is that:

1. These wives shouldn't garner attention as a result of their husband's death

2. These wives shouldn't participate in campaigns

3. Democrats shouldn't hide behind victims, because attacking victims is not allowed.

The above is NOT an intellectual argument by any stretch.

1. Democrats would tell you John Walsh is a good reason why this isn't true. I personally don't see why a person's celebrity should be another person's concern. There are much better known celebrities who are celebrities for much lesser things. This is merely a cheap personal attack, and an imaginary issue she concocted in an attempt to quiet these women. Combes was right when he asked Ann, "Don't you think these women would give up their celebrity if they could have their husbands back?"

2. Since when does a personal tragedy preclude someone from participating in politics in any way they see fit? Pid says her heart goes out to all the widows who support the war on terror. Aren't those women participating in politics when they side with Republicans? It would be one thing if these women were unknowingly being used by a campaign, but how does voluntarily participating in a campaign say anything bad about them?

3. I haven't seen any Democrats hide behind any victim of 9/11. If someone wants to show me where that was the case I'd be happy to look at it. I don't think this argument can be made, so I'll be really interested to see what you guys believe to be an instance of this.

Now, is there something to add on to her argument that's going to magically make it an intellectual one? If there's not, then I don't see where Hillary was responding to an intellectual argument. What I see is Hillary responding to Ann making a viscious argument against political opponents who weren't even that well known to begin with.

posted June 12, 2006 11:57 PM              

quote:

---

step on the dead to make oneself appear higher.

You can really tell someone's true character by how they choose to utilize others in their most vulnerable moments for their own gain and agendas.

She's an opportunist, who is very well-crafted in warping and twisting truth to appear something entirely different.

---

Yes, I think that accurately describes Ann Coulter.

posted June 13, 2006 12:37 AM            

A brain dead democrat party hack from New York suggests the senior Senator from NY would put a bullet in Bushes brain...if he could get away with it and that's standard fare from the brain dead democrat leftists.
Not a ripple in democrat ranks.

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:36 p.m. EDT
Air America Host 'Jokingly' Calls for Bush Hit

One of the leading hosts on the unofficial radio network of the Democratic Party recommended in an apparent "joke" earlier this week that President Bush should be assassinated, reports the New York Daily News.

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

posted June 13, 2006 12:52 AM            

acoustic, you remain, as ever, clueless. Coulter did make an intellectual argument against the 4 witches using their grief stricken status to put forth their leftist attack against the President. They went further and attacked others in the Bush administration...saying George Tenet should be executed.

The fact you are so clueless that you can't understand what Coulter is talking about isn't surprising.

When one enters the arena of politics one cannot hide behind their assumed touch-me-not griefnazi status. The fact these 4 went on tour with John Kerry to campaign for Kerry isn't the issue. The issue is that they were introduced to Kerry audiences as grief stricken widows of 9/11 and used that touch-me-not status to attack the President.

Who the hell gives a damn that they campaigned for Kerry? That's not the issue. The issue is that they used their status as grief stricken widows of 9/11 to do so. Not a word would have been said it they had simply been introduced under their names but instead, they played on their "special status" to make their attacks on Bush more credible.

They got what they deserved and others who attempt to attack Republicans using some special status to which one is not supposed to reply will get the same treatment.

posted June 13, 2006 01:03 AM            

In their outrage over Ann Coulter’s new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." the media have proved the very point they dispute -– the church of liberalism has a doctrine of infallibility and liberals hide behind a bevy of sacred cows to defend its tenets.

In her book, Coulter writes that ever since Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Channel broke the monopoly on the news and the floodgates opened, the leftist media and the Democrats have been trying "to re-create a world where they can hurl slander and treason without anyone arguing back –- they needed a doctrine of infallibility” that would prevent critics from answering back, leaving their fallacious doctrines unchallenged.

"They would choose only messengers whom we’re not allowed to reply to,” she writes. "That’s why all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing hysterical women. You can’t respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering.”

Among them, Coulter writes, are "people with "absolute moral authority” in the words of Maureen Dowd describing Cindy Sheehan -- Democrats with a dead husband, a dead child, a wife who works at the CIA, a war record, a terminal illness or as a last resort being on a first-name basis with Nelson Mandela.”

And so we get the likes of the "Jersey Girls" exploiting the deaths of their husbands on 9/11, Sheehan exploiting the death in Iraq of her son to attack President Bush, Joe Wilson, Rep. John Murtha and other untouchables. To challenge their assertions is blasphemy and "over the line.” And an assault on the "sacred.”

In her book Coulter writes of all of the above unchallengeable messengers, but the liberals in the media have focused on one group -– the Jersey Girls -– four New Jersey 9/11 windows who have blatantly exploited the deaths of their husbands exactly as Sheehan has exploited the heroic death of her son -– to castigate the president and his administration, and become lionized millionaires in the process.

And, just as Coulter has written, she has been lambasted by the media and such liberal Democrats as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for daring to attack their untouchable spokeswomen.

The Jersey Girls - Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken and Patty Casazza – "scarcely representative of the hundreds of 9/11 widows” as Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal, are, being widows, allegedly exempt from being criticized, not for their widowhood, but for their exploitation of it for the crassest of political motives.

The four, three of whose husbands worked for the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, first attracted attention when they came together to complain that the average settlement of $1.6 million the government was planning to pay 9/11 victims' families was not enough.

After succeeding in getting their payments increased they began attacking Bush for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks. They demanded the establishment of a commission to explain why the government had not prevented the attack. From the beginning their target was never the hijackers who murdered 3,000 people, including their husbands, but the Bush administration.

They cut commercials for Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, launched vicious attacks on Condoleezza Rice and leapt to the defense of Jamie Gorelick, a Clinton administration Justice Department official who had erected the so-called "wall” that prevented intelligence agents from sharing information with law enforcement agents about suspected terrorists in the U.S.

Two years ago, long before Coulter focused on the Jersey Girls, the Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote about their "venerable status”

"Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York?” she asked. "In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers ... were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."

"The venerable status accorded this group of widows comes as no surprise given our times, an age quick to confer both celebrity and authority on those who have suffered. As the experience of the Jersey Girls shows, that authority isn't necessarily limited to matters moral or spiritual. All that the widows have had to say -- including wisdom mind-numbingly obvious, or obviously false and irrelevant--on the failures of this or that government agency, on derelictions of duty they charged to the president, the vice president, the national security adviser, Norad and the rest, has been received by most of the media and members of Congress with utmost wonder and admiration. They had become prosecutors and investigators, unearthing clues and connections related to 9/11, with, we're regularly informed, unrivalled dedication and skill.”

And untouchable, as Coulter has charged.

As Coulter said in a TV interview Saturday night, the media has portrayed her comments about the Jersey Girls as an attack on all 9/11 widows. This, she explained, is "specifically about four women who have turned themselves into political activists against the President, defending Bill Clinton, [and] attacking Condoleeza Rice ...”

Coulter went on to explain that her chapter was about liberal infallibility and how they "keep sending up these human shields to make pure partisan political points. Like Cindy Sheehan, like the Jersey Girls ...”

Coulter explained that in the chapter "I have a whole slew -- plenty of other examples of the use of human shields ... sending out spokesmen we can’t respond to.”

NBC's Brian Williams saw Coulter’s criticism of the Jersey Girls as crossing the line. In introducing the segment on Coulter’s remarks, Williams said, "just when you think that it seems that there are no limits on anything, someone comes along and makes a comment that goes over the line -- the line that is shared by just about everybody because some things are, it turns out, still sacred.”

And there you have it. The politicized Jersey Girls represent something "sacred.” They must not be criticized -- to do so is to challenge the Liberal Doctrine of Infallibility. They are the sacred cows who immunize the indefensible liberal insanities and slanders of the Democratic Left from scrutiny, solely by virtue of their massively exploited widowhood.

Just as Coulter said.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/12/231923.shtml?s=ic

posted June 13, 2006 01:29 AM              

quote:

---

They went further and attacked others in the Bush administration...saying George Tenet should be executed.--jwhop

---

*******

quote:

---

When 9/11 widow - and harsh Bush administration critic - Kristin Breitweiser appeared, she had this to say:

"I would appreciate someone asking either Senator Biden or former Mayor Giuliani, if their standard for death is withholding information from the FBI that could have have prevented the 9/11 attacks, how then are we excusing FBI agents Maltbie and Frasca who were accused or allegedly accused in the Moussaoui penalty phase itself of being criminally negligent with regard to giving a FISA warrant? How would you explain George Tenet who withheld information about two of the 9/11 hijackers for 18 months from the FBI, information that certainly would have gone a long way into preventing those attacks? And I'd like to know where we are drawing the line here, what is the threshold, and why are we not holding those types of people in our own government accountable?"

Chris Matthews offered Biden a perfect 'out': "Senator, is there a criminal intent there, or do you see a distinction between the behavior of public officials and Zacarias Moussaoui, who's just been sentenced to life?"

Biden spurned the life-line that Matthews tendered. Apparently intent on pandering to the most virulent of the Bush-administration hating left, Biden enthused "I think the juror, er, the family member, makes an absolutely accurate point about people not being held accountable."
http://newsbusters.org/node/5208

---

posted June 13, 2006 01:30 AM            

quote:

---

The issue is that they were introduced to Kerry audiences as grief stricken widows of 9/11 and used that touch-me-not status to attack the President.

---

So then if they weren't grief stricken widows of 9/11 then they would be authorized by the Right to criticize the president? I haven't seen where anyone's said that they're untouchable. Maybe Ann's PR person told her that, so that she wouldn't stupidly run off at the mouth about them. Of course that wouldn't stop Ann now, would it?

This is STILL not an intellectual argument, Jwhop. Intellectual arguments are compelling and tough to argue against. This is quite simple to argue against.

quote:

---

Not a word would have been said it they had simply been introduced under their names but instead, they played on their "special status" to make their attacks on Bush more credible.

---

Who determines a speaker's credibility? If you think a simple label outweighs the substance a speaker puts out, I think you [or Ann] are quite mistaken. Here again, though, you're making my point for me. You're illustrating that this is about Ann trying to silence these women. Trying to diminish credibility is a way to try to do that.

quote:

---

They got what they deserved and others who attempt to attack Republicans using some special status to which one is not supposed to reply will get the same treatment.

---

Which one is not supposed to? Who are you or Ann to decide whether or not a person is allowed to speak their views?

posted June 13, 2006 02:02 AM              

This week, sweet Ann Coulter released her latest in a series of pre-rehab books, entitled Godless. Naturally, the title led me to believe that it was an unexpectedly candid autobiography. Alas, she may be saving that book until after she's been strapped to a bed at Hazelden for a month. Instead of using this book to dabble in the bracing novelty of introspection, Miss Coulter turns her two-setting mind ("off" and "off her rocker") to hector us about religion.

Let's be honest: Reading a book about religion from Ann Coulter is tantamount to reading a book about dieting from Michael Moore. After all, who wants to be lectured about not being Christian enough by an almost-50 year-old boozehound in a black leather miniskirt who has never been married? Count me as having a healthy skepticism over whether Miss Coulter has saved herself for marriage. Or anything, for that matter.

In Godless, Miss (oh, how it pains me to refer to that serially-rejected spinster as "Miss," but something Miss Coulter usually eschews -- accuracy -- compels me) Coulter turns her shrill furnace of brayed invective, fueled by a bottomless quarry of prickly psychological damage, at the most despicable people in the world. No, not the maniacal murderers who flew planes into the World Trade Center towers, but the blameless Americans who had their flesh burned off of their bodies in those buildings -- and the inconsolable spouses they left behind.

Yes, she directs an anger that shirks all management on women whose husbands were murdered on 9/11. Apparently, in Miss Coulter's religion, the meek may inherit the Earth, but not before she's had a shot at making them cry first. With a mouth so busy frothing it apparently has no time to eat, Miss Coulter claims to be livid at these opportunistic widows for being crass enough to remember the event that killed the father of their children.

She is also angry at them for being people difficult to hate more publicly. While it is wonderfully entertaining to watch Miss Coulter disingenuously complain that she is somehow unable to criticize people she not only criticizes, but savagely impugns, it is important to remember that this smoke and mirrors Persecution Complex is every bit as important to the theater of right wing punditry as the chandelier is to Phantom of the Opera.

Then, of course, she gets prickly about them being compensated as a result of the catastrophe. Frankly, I think she is simply exhibiting a fierce territoriality on behalf of herself and other Republicans who have used 9/11 to win elections and sell books. Her attitude seems to be: Exploiting 9/11 is our shtick -- find your own way to make money! This must account for why she doesn't take Lisa Beamer to task for registering "Let's Roll!™" as a trademark and slapping it on the trinkets she sold on the Internet.

Of course, Ann's every utterance is a carefully choreographed gambit to convert sensationalistic bad taste into sensationally good sales. In this way she is like another rapidly aging blond sex kitten, Madonna, someone else with no discernable talent other than getting people to ask, "Did she really say that?" Miss Coulter mocking the widows of men incinerated by burning jet fuel in the World Trade Center is just her competitive one-upmanship of Madonna showing up on a mirrored crucifix, all but screaming "Look at me! Isn't this SHOCKING?" And you have to give credit where it is due: Miss Coulter could squeeze ink out of a tombstone.

But in her mercantile zeal to say what sells, Miss Coulter endeavors to create an image that has apparently had a nasty falling out with reality, leaving them no longer on speaking terms. Indeed, to hear Miss Coulter speak (in that wound up Martha Stewart-on-helium Connecticut lockjaw voice of hers), you'd think she is someone who actually embraces heartland, Christian, American values. In reality, however, she is less like June Cleaver baking pot-roast than she is like Samantha Jones baked on pot. Indeed, this is no piously serene Christian wife, but a braying loud mouth who wears super-slutty clothes, powders her bony nose more often than Lindsay Lohan (if you know what I mean), knocks back scotch with an alacrity that eludes Ted Kennedy since the advent of rheumatoid arthritis, lives only in cities filled with homos and screws anything willing to bang an anorexic skeleton.

This brings me to Miss Coulter's teen tramp wardrobe. Miss Coulter showed up to the Today show this week wearing a black cocktail dress three sizes too small. At seven in the morning, mind you. No woman in New York wears a little black dress that early in the day unless she is burying someone dead, or looks like someone dead, as she makes a ***** of Babylon predawn retreat from the previous night's licentious debauchery. This may account for why Matt Lauer told me that the poor thing smelled like an ashtray.

But it wasn't the color of the dress that was so telling. No, it was the "Look! I got myself one of those Brazilian waxes!" length that spoke more to a Jackie Stallone determination to hang on to youth with knuckles no longer white but bleeding. Indeed, it seems that Miss Coulter's whole sense of self comes from thinking she is a "hot young babe" who drives, presumably myopic, men wild with a sexual desire so ardent they no longer hear the nonsense she is saying. Goodness me, who would have ever guessed that the Achilles heel for most Republican men would be the sight of pre-operative transsexuals in dresses made for someone 20 years younger?

Miss Coulter suffers from an affliction I like to call Mariah Carey by Proxy. Celebrities who suffer from this debilitating disease so seldom seek help before some ruthless person takes a photograph of them. Mariah Carey by Proxy afflicts menopausal woman who think they would break the hearts of teenage boys throughout America if they ever showed up in public with a nipple-baring "Love Waits" tube-top. NOTE: Call your doctor if you find yourself wearing clothes that flash undernourished, middle-age legs and surgically-levitated bosoms, particularly when such revealing clothing is not appropriate for the occasion. Side effects may include wearing your hair like a junior high school cheerleader even though you are rapidly approaching 50.

posted June 13, 2006 02:14 AM              

I get so sick of all the hypocrisy spouted by Jwhop and the rest of the neo-cons. It just rolls off their tongue and they cannot for the life of them see the hypocrites they are. They all say the same things like pre-programmed robots then try to pass themselves off as intelligent.

The Neo-Con motto...It's okay for us to say and do it but not for anyone else. And that applies to everything.

posted June 13, 2006 12:57 PM            

I've never bought into leftists self proclaimed and self identified moral, spiritual and intellectual superiority.

All evidence is clearly contradictory to leftists "deeply held beliefs" of superiority at any level.

You must hate me even more than you despise Ann Coulter...who doesn't buy into leftist belief systems either. Mainly because I've been sticking pins in the leftist superiority dolls for a lot longer than Coulter

Still, Coulter has a lot longer needle than I and she wields it with great skill...if from afar. Which is precisely the reason the left despises the ground Ann Coulter walks on. I'm sure Coulter laughs at the impotent rage of leftists and she isn't likely to take advice from leftists to kill herself. I'm equally as sure Ann Coulter has a very sharp needle for every "touch-me-not" doll the left can dredge up from the muck and mire of the leftist pit of jihad against America.

Do put me on the mailing list so I can be informed when leftists intend to stage another of their group shrieks, foot stamping and breath holding campaigns against Ann Coulter...who doesn't give a damn what leftists think of her, isn't deterred and isn't intimidated in the least.

I'm pretty sure Ann Coulter is vastly amused that she has leftists mesmerized and hypnotized into screeching, whining, screaming, moaning, stamping their feet and holding their breath on her command, every time she commands them to do so. After all, it's leftists who have made Ann Coulter both famous and rich.

posted June 13, 2006 02:30 PM            

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ann Coulter, the New York Times’ #1 bestselling author. Her new book is Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

FP: Hi Ms. Coulter, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Coulter: Hello.

FP: Before we get to your book, let me just ask you about your recent comments about some of the 9/11 widows and their activism. It has sparked quite a stir. What is the rationale behind your comments?

Coulter: It was a simple observation of the so-called Jersey Girls, who are "mourning" at fetes thrown by Graydon Carter/Vanity Fair Magazine and on MSNBC every night. This is part of the leftist agenda: Put up "victims" as spokesmen to tongue-tie the opposition.

FP: Ok, well, speaking of the leftist agenda, you have taken on a new challenge in your latest book in terms of liberals and religion. You point out how most liberals often boast they are not religious, yet that they are, in fact, part of a religion. Can you talk a bit about this phenomenon?

Coulter: Yes, they say they are not religious (until they need Americans to vote for them) in order to act like supreme rationalists, slaves to the scientific method, which they claim disproves God. But of course, liberals hate science -- as covered in copious detail in my book. Science is the study of the world as it is, invulnerable to their crying jags.

The point of my book is that liberalism is itself a religion, a godless one, that worships nature and sees man as a morally indistinguishable part of nature - really a blight on nature. They have a whole cosmology, a world view, and a belief in the supernatural. But by denying that liberalism is a religion, they get to promote their religion in government schools.

FP: Can you just expand a little bit on why liberals hate science deep down?

Coulter: The liberal war on science is an entire chapter in my book so you will need to read it for the full exposition, but liberals hate science because it so often contradicts their religious beliefs - that women are no different from men in their aptitude for math and science, that the AIDS virus doesn't discriminate, that there is no such thing as IQ and if there is, it is equally distributed among all genders, races and classes of people. People who subscribe to God-based religions don't need the science to come out one way or another on any of these issues. We consider all human life sacred so it doesn't threaten our world view if it turns out that some humans don't make good Navy SEALs because they lack upper body strength.

FP: Why is the Left is so hostile to the Judeo-Christian tradition?

Coulter: Their beliefs are antithetical to the Judeo-Christian tradition. It gets in the way of their agenda of moral relativism, hedonism, and socialism. You might say they consider the Judeo-Christian tradition to be “an inconvenient truth”.

FP: It is interesting that the Left is adamantly for the separation of Church and State, against prayer in schools etc., but when it comes to Islam, liberals and leftists lose their fervor in being anti-religious. What gives here?

Coulter: By denying that liberalism is a religion, liberalism is able to permeate government institutions, most obviously, the public schools. Christianity and Judaism are banned from government schools, where children are baptized in the liberal religion -- safe sex, recycling, Heather Has Two Mommies, Bush is “like Hitler,” and of course, Darwinism, the last of the 19th century mystery religions. Only once you realize that the official state religion is liberalism does it make sense that the state religion can play favorites with other religions, such as Islam, post 9/11. Liberalism differs with Islam on abortion, homosexuality, women - but both religions view Christians and Jews as infidels.

FP: Tell us what you think about Darwin's theory of evolution and its sacredness in the eyes of the Left.

Coulter: For the full explanation you must read the book - the evolution chapters are fun. Like John the Baptist, Darwin foretold one of the key tenets of the left's worldview, that humans are accidental descendants of earthworms, rather than being the unique creations of an all-powerful God. Darwin's theory is bunk, but mana to liberals, who worship nature and think men are indistinguishable from beasts, contra The Book of Genesis.

FP: How do you think the terror war is going in general and the Iraq war in particular?

Coulter: The war in Iraq was going just dandy until we killed al-Zarqawi. Now they're all mad at us. Way to go, President Bush.

Actually, it's going smashingly well. Congratulations to the F-16 pilots who laser-guided al-Zargawi to Hell. Iraq's government is well on its way to taking control. The threat to our progress comes not from the likes of Zarqawi and his ilk - our boys can handle these savages - but from Fifth Columnists in the West, like Pinch Sulzberger.

Killing the #2 man in al Qaida just means everybody in the organization moves up one notch. The former #3 guy is the new #2 guy, the former #10 guy is now the #9 guy, and the new #48 guy is Howard Dean.

FP: Since you mention Howard Dean, let me ask you: in terms of Zarqawi's death, what do you think of how the Left took the occasion to demonize America and call for American surrender in Iraq?

Coulter: You know what the new definition of a nanosecond is? The interval of time between the news of al-Zarqawi's death and the first liberal saying, “This is just going to enrage the insurgents and make everything in Iraq worse!”

FP: What are your thoughts on Noam Chomsky's recent pilgrimage to embrace Hezbollah?

Coulter: I guess Castro and Kim Jong Il were both too busy to see him.

FP: How do you think Bush has done overall in fighting the War on Terror?

Coulter: Within five years, how many attacks have there been on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001? You know, a ballpark estimate?

FP: What do you think of the Dixie Chicks and their latest song on how they are not ready to “make nice” -- in terms of what happened with their position on Bush and the war etc? I thought it was quite comical. The song is based on the assumption that someone out there even actually cares whether they are ready to “make nice” or not. What was your take?

Coulter: Just so you know, I'm ashamed that the Dixie Chicks are from America.

FP: Um, ok. So, what are your plans in the next five years?

Coulter: Mostly enjoying the continuing disintegration of the mainstream media.

FP: Ann Coulter, thank you for joining us today.

posted June 13, 2006 02:46 PM              

Have you seen this toy?

It's the "Gash Limbaugh" (aka the odious ann coulter) robo-dog!

Dog! How appropriate!

posted June 13, 2006 03:20 PM            

I see you haven't come up with a rational argument for Ann's views yet. For raving like a lunatic about how you think the left is inferior, you're certainly not doing a good job of proving your point.

posted June 13, 2006 04:09 PM            

One must conclude you don't have the intellectual beans to see it (1)...(2)or as is often the case with leftists, they ignore anything inconvenient to their group shriek of the day.

Pick one acoustic. At least you have a 50/50 chance of being right this time...unlike your well established track record of never getting it right. That would get your average off dead zero.

The fact Ann Coulter can make leftists foam at the mouth on command...like Pavlov's dog, establishes quite clearly and convincingly who's in command and it's not foaming at the mouth leftists.

Here's another 50/50 bonus question acoustic. You should appreciate this test style which is even better for leftists than 4 answer multiple choice questions, the type of test which force leftists into intellectual overload. I've even made it an open book test.

True or false acoustic.

Ann Coulter has foaming at the mouth leftists under her control and command.

Yeah lotus, I thought the Coulter interview was funny too...especially that Howard Dean had moved up to #48 in the al-Qaeda command structure.

posted June 13, 2006 05:00 PM            

Any rational person can easily ascertain what's going on here. Saying that you're right when you can't even put up a reasonable argument still isn't a compelling argument. May as well tell us that Mother & Father God told you it was so.

quote:

---

The fact Ann Coulter can make leftists foam at the mouth on command...like Pavlov's dog, establishes quite clearly and convincingly who's in command and it's not foaming at the mouth leftists.

---

So I suppose by your "logic" that Bill & Hillary, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry must be in command as well, huh?

Since you've abstained from substance I'll go ahead and take that as a concession that you haven't got anything else to present as evidence of Ann's "intellectual" argument. Good on ya' for taking one for the team.

posted June 13, 2006 06:12 PM            

Your broken record response that you don't get it, that you see no legitimate argument Ann Coulter was making marks you as ineducable on this subject.

Time for the class to move on now. Education cannot be tailored to the least capable student or education fails....the way public school education is failing and for the same reason.

Suggest you avoid this topic acoustic, it will only give you a headache.

posted June 13, 2006 09:07 PM              

Love and Respect for ALL. ...