Where'd she say that? I'd like to see it.

- Skip

I believe she's the profile that may have said that.

In demeaning of an issue's logic is probably a clearer way to explain that. She's one fiesty broad imo. Imagine meeting her at an "adults only" party and planning the next pile.

anyway.. she may have. who knows?

Arnie doesn't try to make a living out of it - that's the main difference.

She said the following when she was extremely pissed off about 9/11 (like, the very next day):

It's in her latest "book" (90%+ is reprinted columns), and she points out that she still stands by it.

Honestly, I really wish there was someway of separating the pseudo-hotness of her physically from what she is saying. I'm guessing she wouldn't get away with a lot of it if she was a not-hot guy. I don't give a crap if that sounds sexist - the slobbering over one another from the conservatives posting here pretty much proves my point.

A shining light of reason to guide us through these dark days..Words filled with understanding, reason and tact.

You know what, I'm sad to say, I probably said something similar to that on 9/12, except the part about Christianity. On THAT day, I wanted all those celebrating to suffer the consequences.

- Skip

I imagine that on 9/12...most Americans agreed with her. I know I would have...but then again, I smelled the burning flesh of my comrades at the Pentagon on 9/11.

OK, then if she isn't a fascist she is merely a ******* idiot. Yes, many people were angry on 9/12/01. I was mostly angry at my own government for being so incompetent as to allow such a thing to happen, (it wasn't like terrorists or OBL were unknown beforehand), but I might have expressed some anger towards the fanatical nut-cases who actually carried it out.

The difference would be that I don't have a national, (or international), audience!!

How stupid can this b!tch be? This intellectual hero of the right? :rolleyes:

I don't seem to recall Ted Koppel or Peter Jennings calling for the death of all towel-heads the next day. Do you think that they were not outraged by the attack? I can answer that for you: Yes, they were.

I just have a particular loathing for this illegitimate, insincere and cynical douchebag, if you hadn't noticed. ;) :D

And furthermore, he/she/it ain't attractive. If I was at her speech, I'd be throwing *****.

That's interesting. Were you really more mad at our government for not stopping it than the terrorists who did it? Or did I read this wrong/misinterpret?

- Skip

the gov't bs started in the early 70's when the Church Comm castrated the CIA. Since then a new mind set on intell gathering imbeded itself. Even if an intell gathering about face happens today it takes yrs for a field op to inbed in an area.

Typical liberal, and they wonder why they aren't welcome at gatherings. I'm sure you love molly irvins, now that is one ugly biotch!! BTW, if you weren't upset after 9/11, were you one of the ones celebrating in the streets? And if you had even seen Ann Coulter in person, you would sing a different tune, but those rose colored glasses block you vision.:cool: Now if you want to talk about evil, hate filled women, look at congressman correan brown, she hates Mexicans, white people, men and gets away with taking bribes and breaking the law, selling favors because when she is called on anything, she plays the "race card"!!

Oh come on Speedy, you know that your girlfriend has worn Ann's face on numerous occasions:)

I don't know where to start w/ you, fool. I was beyond pissed off after 9/11, but at the appropriate targets. Especially in hindsight, I can't believe how right I was about the incompetence in my own government that allowed that "mother of all fuch-ups" to occur. I suppose that you blame Iraq? :rolleyes:

And no, I would not "sing a different tune" if I met AC in person. Or you, for that matter. You are more than welcome to talk your ignorant ***** sometime to my face if you ever make it out of the swamp and come to L.A. Ask anyone here if I "sing a different tune" in person. I'm sick of that type of schit from 3000 miles away.

Let me get a mental picture of you: You are sitting somewhere in a swamp in Florida surrounded by junk cars on blocks and parts, wondering what kind of gatherings us liberals in CA. get to attend?
:D http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/wat3.gif

And Len, I'd rather fuch a rockpile and hope there was a rat in it. You are one sick puppy. :cool:

Wow Dennis, rough day?

rjp

I can be cranky in the morning. :)

Something about this comment has me turned on...

:D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

And just how many newspapers do you think YOUR version would have sold???

Randy

minus 5 :D

April 14, 2005
It's Only Funny Until Someone Loses A Pie
By: Ann Coulter

Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas. As one liberal, Jonathan Chait, put the cliche in the New Republic: Bush is an "instinctive anti-intellectual" and his administration hostile to "fact-driven debate." In a favorable contrast, Clinton is "the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates." Showing his usual reverence for fact-checking, the New York Times' Paul Krugman says the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research."

I'm not sure how these descriptions square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food. (Remember the good old days when liberals' "fact-driven" ideas only meant throwing money at their problems?)

Last October, two liberals responded to my speech at the University of Arizona – during question and answer, no less – by charging the stage and throwing two pies at me from a few yards away. Fortunately for me, liberals not only argue like liberals, they also throw like girls. (Apologies in advance to the Harvard biology professors who walked out on Larry Summers in a demonstration of their admiration of "research," not "revelation" – but this may account for the dearth of female pitchers in Major League Baseball.)

Unfortunately for them, Republican men don't react favorably to two "Deliverance" boys trying to sucker-punch a 110-pound female in a skirt and heels. The geniuses ended up with bloody noses and broken bones.

It's really outrageous how conservatives respond to liberals who are just trying to engage in a "fact-driven debate." How typical of Republicans to go on the offensive just because a female has been physically attacked. Instead of capturing and subduing my attackers, those strong Republican men should have been trying to understand why they threw the pies.

In the five months following the liberal ass-whupping in Arizona – I mean "fact-driven debate" – all was quiet on the Eastern Front. College liberals still couldn't formulate a coherent argument, but they seemed to want to avoid ending up in jail having to explain to their cellmates that they were in for trying to hit a girl (and missing).

Then on March 19, all charges were dismissed against the "Deliverance" boys – including a felony charge for $3,000 worth of damage to school property. Inexplicably, this outcome did not instantly lead to widespread rioting and looting in South Central Los Angeles.

Democrat Barbara LaWall is the Pima County attorney who allowed the liberal debate champions to walk. LaWall brags on her website about "holding criminals accountable." She didn't say anything about liberals, however. Be forewarned, conservatives: Do not expect the law to protect you in Pima County.

In the three weeks following the dismissal of all charges against my attackers, three more conservatives were attacked on college campuses.

On March 29, liberals' intellectual retort to a speech by William Kristol at Earlham College was to throw a pie. On March 31, liberals enjoyed the hurly-burly of political debate with Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University by throwing salad dressing. On April 6, liberals engaged David Horowitz on his ideas at Butler University by throwing a pie at him.

If you close your eyes, it's almost like you're listening to Ludwig Wittgenstein!

If there had been that many attacks on Muslims in the weeks following the 9-11 attack, we'd still be watching Showtime specials about it. (In liberals' defense, this is what they must resort to when there are no student newspapers with conservative editorials to burn.)

At the risk of provoking one of those brainy liberals to throw more food, here's an idea: In order to reduce physical assaults on conservative speakers, maybe we should increase the price. But, to the contrary, when conservative speakers are physically attacked on college campuses, university administrators ignore the attacks, Democrat prosecutors somehow manage to get the charges dismissed, and Democrat flacks like Chait and Krugman pretend they missed the news that day.

What might work better is some form of disincentive to liberals who engage in violent behavior whenever they hear an idea they don't like but can't come up with words to dispute. The punishment doesn't have to be severe – just a small fraction of the wailing and healing that occurs every time there's a hoax "hate crime" on a college campus. (But which still serve a valuable function by calling attention to the issue of hate crimes.)

Last year, classes were canceled and demonstrations held at Claremont College after a white, Catholic visiting professor claimed her car had been vandalized with racist and anti-Semitic slurs. This – at the very moment she was giving a talk on intolerance!

It was just a little too ironic. The incident had all the exquisite timing of an "ABC After-School Special" about hate crimes. But as one student angrily told the Los Angeles Times, the suggestion that it was a hoax is "so sick. They are in denial. People don't want to accept that a well-educated, liberal community can have hate." Needless to say, the vandalism turned out to have been perpetrated by the professor herself.

Or maybe physical attacks on conservatives could merit a small slice of the rage and indignation directed at the display of racist symbols. Last year, a white student at a high school in Washington State was accused of taunting a black student with a noose. In response, the white student was immediately expelled from school. He was charged with a felony. There was a series of town-wide discussions. The U.S. Justice Department sent in mediators. And two more years were suddenly added to Whoopi Goldberg's career.

I think Kristol, Buchanan, Horowitz and I would be perfectly happy if college liberals merely brandished symbols at us. Speaking for myself, I would be unhappy if they didn't. But these Rhodes scholar geniuses with a taste for "fact-driven debate" can't even achieve the level of argument practiced by the average juvenile delinquent. They're still stuck at the intellectual level of 2-year-olds in high chairs throwing food.

Oh, is that what this thread's about? I'm glad I didn't bother to read through the two pages.

BTW: Coulter? I'd do her. But only under extreme duress on my part after she's been with all those KU alumni.

...Oh wait, that's "gives speech to 1800 people," not "gets spewed by 1800 people."

Okay, I'm clear now. Please, carry on. :D