"I Think She's A Clown Or A Witch"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,244
Location
Edge's beanie closet
http://www.ljworld.com/story200443.html

Is she even worth heckling? I know that's her schtick, but some of those comments she made are completely inappropriate-especially the "sexual reorientation" one :down:

So which is she, clown or witch?:wink:

You gotta love some of the comments of the people there too -

John Altevogt, a conservative GOP activist from Wyandotte County, also welcomed Coulter.

"Ann Coulter is logical, rational and an independent thinker," he said. "In essence, everything the left hates in their womenfolk."

Funny I thought it might be what the right hates in their "womenfolk":wink:

I can't believe people still use that word..
 
I guess she's a comedian, a bad one, but I can't think of any other role she could possibly play.

She's a comedian with a very niche audience for I know she doesn't speak for all conservatives. If she did this country would be going up in flames.
 
Coulter annoys me. She's so hyperbolic, half the things she says would embarrass the hell out of a cool-headed conservative.
 
She uses sarcasm and overstatement to great effect. I think she's hilarious and I look forward to reading her column every week. She shoots from the hip and sometimes she misfires, but she knows how to drive home a point like a hot poker. I know why liberals can't stand her and that's why I like her.

As far as speaking for all conservatives, I would say she speaks for herself. She doesn't speak for me, but I agree with her more often than not.
 
I find it funny that Coulter hates liberals so much. If it weren't for those darned liberal feminists, a woman having a career commenting on serious "menfolk" matters such as politics would be unheard of.
 
Last edited:
OK she's kind of trippy to watch on TV. She laughs too much, and sometimes stretches too far to inject humor into making her point.
 
Bono's shades said:
I find it funny that Coulter hates liberals so much. If it weren't for those darned liberal feminists, a woman having a career commenting on serious "menfolk" matters such as politics would be unheard of.

Yeah this is the thing I've never understood. She talks about a woman's place, but she would be nowhere if this country actually had stayed along the lines of her "beliefs". I question if she really believes half the things she says or if she does it just to get a rise.
 
Bono's shades said:
I find it funny that Coulter hates liberals so much. If it weren't for those darned liberal feminists, a woman having a career commenting on serious "menfolk" matters such as politics would be unheard of.

Why is every argument against conservatives reduced to charges of hypocrisy?

If she's full of shit, cite examples from her work.

www.anncoulter.org

I think. I just use the link from Drudge
 
She may be a witch, but she's our witch :wink:

Seriously though why let her grate you so, she is only the conservative equivalent of Michael Moore.
 
She annoyed me, up to the point that she went on Hannity and Colmes and aired her views on Canadians and Canada. Now she's just a huge fucking succubus.
 
DaveC said:
She annoyed me, up to the point that she went on Hannity and Colmes and aired her views on Canadians and Canada. Now she's just a huge fucking succubus.

Don't take it personally, she's just attacking the part of you that's liberal.
 
A_Wanderer said:
She may be a witch, but she's our witch :wink:

Seriously though why let her grate you so, she is only the conservative equivalent of Michael Moore.

Minus the B.S. documentary, about 100 million dollars and 200 lbs.
 
Because they ARE hypocritical, Dr Hark.

They talk about Terri and the "Culture of Life", but most of them support torture (hey it gets the job done--or does it?) the death penalty, even if the defendant was never properly tried (how many innocents did Dubya execute in Texas, even a mentally retared man that the Pope intervened and said not to execute?), are anti-gun control (let's not get started on thAT)..


That's just for starters. They accuse liberals of being corrupt, and but look at the makeup of Congress. Start from Tom DeLay and work your way down. Even his own party hates him.

I am sick and tired of the "limousine liberals" everybody like sot hurl at the left, but these days, that kind of accustion sticks more to those in power. The current myth is that most "ordinary" folks are down-home, religious, poor, God-fearing Republicans. The truth is, it's a healthy mixture. You can say "limousine Conservative" too.

Republicans weren't always this way..not until this decade. I admir many. Bob Dole, for example, is one of the finest Americans this country has ever produced. I wouldn't vote for him, but only b/c I support Big Government (as a foil to Big Business..unfortunately, Dubya combines both in a new and lethal way.) I'd take my kids to see Dole speak any day, and point him out a great example for them to follow.

I often think Dole and Mario Cuomo would have made far better Presidents than Clinton and either Bush. They are old-fashioned THINKING men.

These days, it seems our "leaders" for the most part are complete intellectual dumbasses who got to where they are only b/c they had money and power and their corporate daddies helped them. This goes for both parties. There don't seem to be any Abe Lincoln/ self made American types, who appreciate honesty and hard work and went without meals as kids to buy books by the Great Thinkers. These bastards who "lead" (in either party) seem to be shallow individuals who can't see their ass from their elbow. It seems the only "leaders" are in the FBI or CIA and actually have a grasp on world history.

Geez, you have Dubya even being publicly PROUD he never reads books or newspapers. What has this country come to? How are we supposed to follow that?

Now I KNOW why he is so ignorant about Iraq---surely he must know how the Brits failed there.

Behind every great men of action is a Man of Thought. If that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
No hatred. Just boredom. Like Hannity's boring, Limbaugh is boring, Franken is boring, Sean Penn is boring, ad infinitum.
However, I do like Drudge and I like Michael Moore. I'm not their advocate, however. Just personal taste.
 
I don't watch her, listen to her, or read her. I avoid dreck as much as possible.
 
hannity is another character! hilarious! i don't understand how these people can go through their routines and not laugh at themselves. they just make fools of themselves day in and day out.
 
ANN COULTER
THE EMPEROR'S NEW ROBES
March 30, 2005


On the bright side, after two weeks of TV coverage of the Terri Schiavo case, I think we have almost all liberals in America on record saying we can pull the plug on them. Of course, if my only means of entertainment were Air America radio, Barbra Streisand albums and reruns of "The West Wing," I too would be asking: "What kind of quality of life is this?"

There are a few glaring exceptions. On the anti-killing side, to one extent or another, are: former Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis, former Gore lawyer David Boies, former O.J. lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, McGovern and Carter strategist Pat Caddell, liberal blogger Mickey Kaus, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and Rainbow Coalition leader Jesse Jackson, as well as several of my friends who are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage but not Pro-Adulterous Husbands Who, After Taking Up With Another Woman, Suddenly Recall Their Wives' Clearly Stated Wish to Die.

Opinions about the Schiavo case seem to break down less on morals than on basic knowledge of the facts of the case.

There are a lot of telling facts, but two big ones are:

— The only family member lobbying for Terri's death is her husband, who is affianced to a woman he's been living with for several years and with whom he already has two children. (Today's brain twister: Would you rather be O.J.'s girlfriend or Michael Schiavo's fiancee?)

— Terri's husband has refused to allow her to be given either an MRI or a PET scan, which are also known as: "The tests that could determine whether Terri is even in a permanent vegetative state." (I believe his exact words were, "PET scan? MRI? What do I look like, a guy who just won a $1 million malpractice settlement?")

On the basis of these facts, Pinellas County Judge George Greer found that it was Terri's wish to be starved to death. She requires no life support; all she needs is food and water. If being (a) on a liquid diet, and (b) unresponsive to one's estranged husband are now considered grounds for a woman's execution, wait until this news hits Beverly Hills!

Despite the media's idiotic claims that scores of courts have made painstaking findings of fact over 15 years that Terri is in a permanent vegetative state and would have wanted to die, only one judge made such a finding. Other courts have not made any factual findings whatsoever. They simply refused to overturn Greer's findings of fact as an abuse of discretion.

Greer made his finding based on the testimony of Terri's husband that Terri said she wouldn't want to live like this — a rather important fact the husband only remembered many years after Terri was first injured, but one year after he won a million-dollar malpractice award and began living with another woman. (Maybe when Terri said, "I wouldn't want to live like that" she was referring to being married to Michael Schiavo.)

Supporting the idea that positions on the Schiavo case are correlated with IQ, on the pro-killing side is Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., who denounced the legislation granting federal courts jurisdiction over Terri's case, saying the Republican Party "has become a party of theocracy." Yes, you remembered correctly: The House passed the bill overwhelmingly in a 203-58 vote, and the Senate passed it in a voice vote also with overwhelming support. (Surely, if anyone would defend the practice of being on a liquid diet, you'd think Ted Kennedy would.)

Also on the pro-killing side are conservatives still pissed off about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 who are desperately hoping to be elected "most consistent constitutionalist" by their local Federalist Society chapters.

You can't grow peanuts on your own land or install a toilet capable of disposing two tissues in one flush because of federal government intervention. But Congress demands a review of the process that goes into a governmental determination to kill an innocent American woman — and that goes too far!

It's not a radical extension of current constitutional doctrines — even the legitimate ones! — for the federal government to assert a constitutional right to life that cannot be denied without due process of law under the Fifth and 14th Amendments. Congress didn't ask for much, just the same due process John Wayne Gacy got.

But people even stupider than lawyers have picked up on the vague rumblings from "most consistent constitutionalist" aspirants and begun to claim that Congress' action is an affront to "limited government."

Of course, the most limited of all possible governments is a king. We don't have that sort of "limited government." What we have is divided government: three branches of government at the federal level and 50 states with their own versions of checks and balances.

Or at least that was the government designed for us by men smarter than we are. We haven't had that sort of government for decades.

Alexander Hamilton's famous last words in "The Federalist" described the judiciary as the "least dangerous branch," because it had neither force nor will. Now the judiciary is the most dangerous branch. It doesn't need force because it has smoke and mirrors and a lot of people defending the moronic scribblings of any judge as the perfect efflorescence of "the rule of law."

This week, an indisputably innocent woman will be killed by the government for one reason: Judge Greer of Pinellas County, Fla., ordered it.

Polls claim that a majority of Americans objected to action by the U.S. Congress in the Schiavo case as "government intrusion" into a "private family matter" — as if Judge Greer is not also the government. So twisted is our view of the judiciary that a judicial decree is treated like a naturally occurring phenomenon, like a rainbow or an act of God.

Our infallible, divine ruler is a county judge in Florida named George Greer, who has more authority in America than the U.S. Congress, the president and the governor. No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church!

It's a good system if you like monarchy and legally sanctioned murder. But spare me the paeans to "strict constructionism" and "limited government."

COPYRIGHT 2005 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main St., Kansas City, Mo. 64111; (816) 932-6600
 
We have two of her books at work. I've never read either one, although one time I picked one up and looked at it a bit. I get tired of her bitching. She's always picking on someone, she never says anything about people she likes. She doesn't say anything of substance, and Lord knows, intelligent conservatives really do say things of substance.
 
She is the perfect person to find the thin-skinned in society.

The airwaves are full of people making outrageous statements for shock value. At least she tackles politics, instead of resorting to the Howard Stern level of thought.
 
drhark said:


Don't take it personally, she's just attacking the part of you that's liberal.

No. She attacked CANADA. The country itself. The people in it. Everything about it.

I can't accept that.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Funny I thought it might be what the right hates in their "womenfolk":wink:

I can't believe people still use that word..
Doesn't Bono use it to describe Adam Clayton? (well, not Adam, but his flamboyance...)

I admit I wouldn't want to talk to Ann C. all day, but the same goes for Al Franken & Co.
 
I think she's the antidote to political correctness.

Of course anyone who isn't afraid to speak their mind will occasionally put their foot in their mouth.

I haven't seen anyone cite examples of her work to show why they hate her so much.
 
drhark said:
I haven't seen anyone cite examples of her work to show why they hate her so much.
I don't hate her, but I'd rather she didn't represent me. Last time I saw her on TV was on Hannity & Colmes, and I was dying for her to say something intelligent. Instead, it was the kind of liberal-bashing that you would expect to hear from a high school drop out-turned religious imposter. I can't exactly help that I found her annoying.
 
nbcrusader said:
She is the perfect person to find the thin-skinned in society.

The airwaves are full of people making outrageous statements for shock value. At least she tackles politics, instead of resorting to the Howard Stern level of thought.
Somehow, Howard Stern is more entertaining. Probably because his whining makes me laugh.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I don't hate her, but I'd rather she didn't represent me. Last time I saw her on TV was on Hannity & Colmes, and I was dying for her to say something intelligent. Instead, it was the kind of liberal-bashing that you would expect to hear from a high school drop out-turned religious imposter. I can't exactly help that I found her annoying.

Her whole schtick is liberal bashing. Sometimes liberals need to be bashed. I think she's clever and humorous as well. If she had no talent, we would not even know who she is. Besides, she doesn't come off as all pissed off like, say, Maureen Dowd. Ann's commentary is no less legitimate than MoDo.

But I fully understand why people don't like her.
 
Back
Top Bottom