Ann Coulter is unhappy with Huckabee, but not for his many failings that rational people see as an obstacle—but because he is insufficently critical of evolution. She really wants a presidential candidate to not just deny modern science, but to advocate a platform that proposes to take action in the schools against it.
Asked on CNN’s “Larry King Live” Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren.
It’s very strange. We’ve recently seen big-mouthed conservative pundits like Coulter and Limbaugh go on a rampage against Huckabee, but this argument simply rings false. I think every one of the Republican candidates will make mealy-mouthed deferrals like Huckabee did, but that’s not going to stop them from supporting some candidate, who will probably be the one who appeals most to the corporate wing of the Republican party. This is a scary tactic: they are trying to demolish the candidate of the religious wing of the party by claiming he isn’t crazy Christian insane enough — and once they cast sufficient doubt on Huckabee, they’ll switch to supporting Giulani or Thompson or some similar tool. What they may get is people who take them literally and start promoting a far, far right religious agenda.
Coulter also accuses Huckabee of being the candidate favored by liberals. The only reason I’ve seen liberals urge Huckabee on is that they think he’s the candidate most likely to flame out in ignominious defeat in the election.
But back to Coulter’s gripes against evolution…I was not at all surprised by this comment:
If the mainstream media are burning with curiosity about what critics of Darwinism have to say, how about asking me? I can name any number of mathematicians, scientists and authors who have also rejected Darwin’s discredited theory and would be happy to rap with them about it.
I read Coulter’s book, Godless. I saw bits of her media tour afterwards. I noticed there was little effort made to question her claims about evolution, and I know why.
Her book was batshit crazy.
She’s got several chapters on evolution in it, and her mode of discourse was to ‘research’ every lunatic creationist argument ever made and toss them in, without criticism or evaluation. It’s the kind of sloppy assembly of random factlets gleaned off the internet that I’ve seen in some freshman essays — an incoherent deluge of garbage. In chapter 8, the first that assaults evolution, first paragraph had six canards straight from Index of Creationist Claims. And the rest didn’t get any better. It was collection of comic insults, such as that one of the flaws of biology is that we let women do it.
I read it and threw up my hands, and I imagine the media airheads she complains about did the same thing. There is no coherent thesis anywhere in her diatribe, so there was nothing to grab onto, other than a generic “Ann Coulter hates evolution.” I gave up and made a long post that simply listed where you could find credible information on evolution, since I knew there were so many errors in that piece of crap that I’d be setting off on a new career just to address them all — it would be like Slacktivist’s dissection of the Left Behind books, an effort that would require years of essays. She wasn’t worth it.
So instead I offered a challenge. Rather than invest myself in crap that Ann Coulter heedlessly tosses off, I asked any of her supporters to stand up and tell me what single paragraph they thought contained a defensible critique of evolution. I’d be willing to read it carefully and propose my counterarguments.
So far, the number of takers is zero. There was a brief flurry of emails that offered more rants, more prayers for my soul, and more liberal blaming, but so far in the year and a half since I suggested that, not one has said something as simple as “I think Coulter made a powerful argument in paragraph 6 of chapter 9.” It’s been pathetic. Coulter shouldn’t be surprised that the media didn’t follow through on asking her about criticisms of ‘Darwinism’ — even her own fans can’t find anything substantial in her writing.
The question isn’t if he is batshit insane, but if he is batshit insane enough.
I think it’s arguable that Ann Coulter is the most useless human being on the planet, as she’s demonstrated no useful skills or positive abilities. Every topic she touches, she trashes, through a wave of ignorance and misrepresentation. Her only ‘skill’ is saying something more offensive each time she opens her mouth, in the hopes that she’ll continue to draw some attention to herself.
The strange thing is that she’s so transparently insincere when she talks about creationism or religion in general. Not only does she know that she’s shilling for something she doesn’t believe, but her audience knows she doesn’t believe it, either.
I am trying to figure out the superlative of bat shit insane. Is it
battiest shit insane?
bat shittiest insane?
bat shit insanist?
OBTW, I tend to agree with milkbone. There’s no way Coulter is serious.
To paraphrase Dawkins, anyone who doesn’t accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the TOE, is either stupid, ignorant, insane,(in denial) or wicked, (which Dawkins prefers not to consider). Hmm, I wonder which of those descriptions would best characterize Anne Coulter?
Her book was batshit crazy.
Now now PZ, I know this was in the spirit of Squidmas, but don’t limit your remarks to her book. I think her book is just a reflection of her normal state of mind.
Four in ten GOP candidates don’t believe in evolution. Shrieeeek! [cue Psycho violins] http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14021.html
Mostest batshit insane. ;)
Hmm, I wonder which of those descriptions would best characterize Anne Coulter?
I would add this to the list of reasons for evolution denial: out to make a buck.
From the Article: To paraphrase the Jews, this is “bad for the evangelicals.”
WTF?!
I could not get beyond this line in Ann Coulter’s article. I did not wish to lose what breakfast I had consumed. Will have to go back and read the article on an empty stomach.
BTW: Does anyone have the link to the picture where they morphed Ann Coulter’s face with Bill O’Reilly’s face to show what their kid would look like, since they are already sleeping happily together in “holy BS journalism”?
“who will probably be the one who appeals most to the corporate wing of the Republican party. ”
I think this is what scares the conservatives about Huckabee: not that he isn’t religiously conservative enough, which he obviously is, but that he isn’t sufficiently in thrall to corporate interests and the wealthy. He was governor of one of the poorest states in the country, which has made him overly sensitive (from the right’s perspective) to the reality of poverty. They have reason to believe from his record as governor that he might actually try to make the rich pay taxes. To pay for social programs! Because Jesus told him to!
They really really wish Mitt Romney was a normal christian.
These days I don’t get outraged by Ann Coulter because I really don’t think she believes what she says. She simple makes offhand remarks that she knows will be scandalous. And the more we get outraged, the more it will spur her on. Not to say that that means we should stay silent. Even fools need to be reminded of their existence sometimes.
Ann Coulter is the Howard Stern of mass trash media. All she is doing is making wild statements to gain attention.
Her greatest moment was probably when she said, “Women are stupid and shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”
This is what happens when:
1. You are an unattractive female.
2. Not very bright.
3. Have the personality of a rabid cobra.
If Coulter wasn’t making shock statements, what else would she be doing? Probably couldn’t hold down a job an McDonalds.
Right on about the plutocracy really not wanting sincere religious people (who do, you must admit, often care about charity.) The plutocracy courtiers can’t get elected by a rational majority (since the rest of us have no rational reason to support their special interests, only good “main-street” business practices and honest, simple, paygo, but oversight-providing government) so they need to use religious folks as pawns. But as I said on Washington Monthly, they also hate Ron Paul, because:
Even though not religious, he believes in simple and literally honest small government, not the tricked up scheme of reward that the big-government conservatives now rely on. Real religion and real libertarianism are both toxic to the corporatist state – indeed, RP picked on “corporatism” during his Russert interview IIRC – that means they can’t let him get far.
I doubt if any of them would admit that they did accept the fact of evolution. The theocratic party is owned by fundies, they can’t afford to.
The brighter among them might know creationism is 4,000 year old superstition. Or they might not. As Einstein said, only the universe and human stupidity are infinite. And he wasn’t sure about the universe.
There’s often an honest conservative disappointment in right-wingers like Huck, when it turns out that they won’t stick their necks out on the chopping block. Coulter in fact is making the same argument that I’ve (and no doubt many others) have made regarding the DI’s insincere and inconsistent claims that they don’t want ID taught in schools (of course, ID’s only real embodiment, mindlessly repeated criticism of “Darwinism” is something that they want taught) and they’re quite willing that evolution continue to be taught–if “Darwinism” is as poor science as the DI says it is, they should be completely opposed to its continued teaching.
There is some difference, however, in that as far as I can tell, Huck is more with the Expelled people, he’s frankly religious and is opposed to evolution on that basis, without bringing up the tendentious batshit of Coulter and company. That’s where Coulter is wrong about Huck, he’s not evidently insane enough to accept ID in toto, while she is. So, she doesn’t get Huckabee, and thinks that he should be opposed because of Berlinski’s “brilliant” observations or some other ridiculous nonsense.
Lowry, at the National Review, is concerned about Huck’s apparent anti-science credentials (NR has its problems, but mostly they’re smarter than your average IDiot, knowing that ID is as insane as Coulter is), while Coulter is concerned that Huck isn’t supporting her stupid Dimski-inspired rants. And she’s going to have some leverage with much of the right, because they’re as eager to obtain approval from someone as prominent as Huck is, partly because they continue to have nagging doubts (I think they do fear that they can’t answer us–which seems the case, considering how much they take the trouble not to answer a huge list of questions we’ve posed).
Of course there’s another issue alluded to by previous commenters–Coulter rakes in a lot of loot by whipping up right-wing feeding frenzies. She’s ignorant enough to believe the IDiots (though she’s not actually stupid, you know), and she’s rewarded for doing so, and for articulating her disappointment that Huck is more the pious Baptist than the sort of buffoon who actually believes (the majority of–he seems to accept some of it) DI propaganda.
But that’s all well and good. Huck is telling the truth that he would have little or no influence on science curricula as President, at least not in the traditional mod. But the propaganda value of a true believer in Bible nonsense at the White House could be considerable, if perhaps something likely enough to backfire on the right. So let Coulter shoot him down as best she can. The fratricide cannot be bad for the pro-science side, as Huck needs to lose (quite probably he would, at least in the general election), while if Coulter appears to have destroyed one of the religious right’s favorites, her days at the head of the feeding frenzies could be numbered as well.
So go to it Coulter. You’re bound to self-destruct at some point, and the sooner the better.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Coulter is an empty vessel bent only on destruction. She never has anything constructive to say, even when she’s invited to do so by a friendly audience.
C-SPAN recently showed a speech of hers at a Young Republicans event at the National Press Club. Her speech was the usual crap and not worth recounting, but what I found interesting was her responses in the Q&A session afterwards. The audience appeared to be genuinely interested in what she thought about the Republican candidates and the future of the party and conservative movement as a whole. Who would make the best leader, what tactics should they use to win back the House and Senate, etc. etc.
The problem was, she had no answers for them — nothing at all. In fact, she was reduced to admitting that she was not the right person to ask and that all she did was able to do was attack and tear down things she opposes. She had not one constructive notion to offer them.
While it comes as no surprise that Coulter has nothing useful to say, to watch her being at a loss for words in response to softball questioning was still quite amazing. She really is a negative force with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Eh, it’s the same deal with Bill Donohue attacking Huckabee. Donohue and Coulter are, first and foremost, flacks of the conservative movement, which has as one of its tenets the exploitation of the fundie base, while keeping them safely out of office. (Sam Brownback is a nice example, as while he started out a plain ol’ fundie, he learned to love corporate money when he rose to a senatorial position.) Now that an unreconstructed fundie has made it way further than they should, the movement machine is spinning like it’s laundry day. It makes plenty of sense.
It’s that David Berlinski crap again. His math *may* be worse than Dembski’s.
Ann whines:
“But I didn’t get a single question from them on the topic of one-third of my book.
If the mainstream media are burning with curiosity about what critics of Darwinism have to say, how about asking me?”
Ann, Ann, Ann, it’s not about you.
1. You don’t qualify as a critic of Darwinism, so nobody cares what you have to say.
2. You aren’t running for president, Huckabee is. His potential ability to screw things up is much greater than yours.
Ann whines:
“But I didn’t get a single question from them on the topic of one-third of my book.
If the mainstream media are burning with curiosity about what critics of Darwinism have to say, how about asking me?”
Ann, Ann, Ann, it’s not about you.
1. You don’t qualify as a critic of Darwinism, so nobody cares what you have to say.
2. You aren’t running for president, Huckabee is. His potential ability to screw things up is much greater than yours.
Ann Coulter saying something crazy and outrageous? Zzzzzz…
Why are we even giving this idiot any attention? She’s no difference then those trolls that come out here claiming some stupid creationist bullshit, and a few get so incensed, they’re forced to respond to it.
I’m shocked that the media keeps giving her an avenue to spill her hate filled, attention-seeking, ignorant, and illogical views. The best thing we can do is just ignore her, and never respond to anything she says. The media doesn’t care, because ultimately, it’s theater for them. Anybody who’s grandstanding garners some ignorant assholes to watch and retain ratings is all that matters.
Let’s all do each other a favor and avoid her like we would a screaming and crying troll.
Should Ann Coulter ever adopt a rational postion, it would validate my thesis, “Everbody gotta be right sometime.” So far I have used the example of Hitler saying the VW looks like a beetle.
Ann is deliberately profiting off morons in the same sense as country music stars do. She is a pandering, conservative sensationalist. And a whore-bitch.
I’ve long suspected that some of these ‘pundits’ are advocating things they don’t truly believe in order to convince people who don’t know any better to take a position based on said advocacy. OK, I realize that’s their entire line of work: lie to manipulate people. What I’m specifically referring to in this case is casting a particular candidate as “not religious enough” or whatever in order to make him *more* acceptable to moderates and liberals. So if he does win the nomination it will be easier to convince mods and libs to vote for him because “well, the nutjobs think he’s not right wing enough”. And sadly the tactic works.
I think Coulter made a powerful argument against evolution in paragraph 5 of the 73rd page of Chapter 35 of Godless.
Come on, not even the people who buy her books think she’s serious. The most common comment I see about her on right wing messageboards is that she is liked because she says things that annoy liberals, not that she is advocating an agreeable position.
She’s found an evolutionary niche (rabid right wing attack bitch) and has simply exploited it to its fullest.
She’s not stupid, just not clever enough to come up with positive points of her own.
Ann Coulter scares me, like really deep down emotionally scares me. Not like an intellectual fear of global warming, but a flight or fight response type of fear. When I see her picture on the book at Borders, I have to look around to make sure she’s not really there, I think she might get me. I am absolutely not kidding either. That’s how batshit insane this woman is.
Yes, that is the where she claims that humans couldn’t be descended from chimps. Because she and the fundies are actually dumber than chimpanzees.
As usual she got it wrong. Her claim here is that chimpanzees actually evolved from fundie Xians. While it makes sense, the fossil record doesn’t quite support it.
It’s amazing how something that spews this kind of ignorance and judgement can make so much money off of it. This is her livelihood, and it’s sad that people actually agree with her.
I wonder if perhaps the right-wing interests that support Coulter are afraid that Huckabee might start listening to this liberal (in some senses of the word) theologian/tax professor:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/business/25tax.html
PS: PZ, you might find this amusing (or appalling):
Isn’t it a strange coincidence that the evil manipulating woman in the Golden Compass is a Mrs Coulter?
What with the love of money being the root of all evil, I think that falls into category four, wicked. Whether Dawkins prefers to consider it or not. Then again, cateogry three, insane, fits her so well. Perhaps Dawkins’s categories of deniers should not be assumed to be exclusive.
kev_s:
But that Mrs. Coulter had a…dare I say it…epiphany in book 3 and sacrificed herself. I don’t think our AC would even contemplate that. Continuing the analogy – that Mrs. C’s child was the protagonist of the books. Can you imagine our AC and Dinesh having offspring together? Now that is the path to Ragnarok.
I guess I don’t have to read the 2nd and 3rd books now.
This is the last I’ll ever comment on that stupid troll who should be completely ignored because of her attention seeking grandstanding. Ann Coulter would be completely marginalized if she wasn’t slim and blonde. I’m not going to call her attractive because she’s not exactly my type, but I could see how some conservative morons could see it that way. If she was an overweight mother of four she would never have the exposure she does. It goes to prove that these supposed holier-then-though assholes know and often use sex to sell their message. Let’s all collectively just ignore these assholes and attempt to educate the credulous.
My only comment to (M)ann coulter is: “If you’re such a good Christian woman, where are your babies? After all, that’s a woman’s highest purpose, according to you, right? Making Babies? Isn’t that what women are for? Making babies? How come you aren’t home making a proper Christian home for your man? That’s your other purpose in life, right?”
Got no babies, no man to make babies with…because, i think, while she may have once had some baby-makin’ parts once, there ain’t never been a uterus in THEM skinny little man-hips, or working mammary glands under that adams apple, and them man-hands have no clue about how to use a pad, wings or not. Man Coulter and Roxanne: That girl’s a man.
For a superlative, I’d suggest “batshit fucking insane”, but something in me cringes at the mere thought of “fucking” in the context of “Coulter”.
I’d love to ignore her, Helio, but there’s something to be said for speaking out against her brand of ignorant hate-mongering. I fear that our silence would only highlight that which would remain: the self-satisfied, angry hoots of her heavy-browed and stooped admirers.
Kseniya: There’s lots more than that in books 2 and 3 so keep reading.
Yes Kev, I expect so, and I sure will; thanks! (I wasn’t speaking literally.)
You’re all wrong. It’s not “batshit insane,” it’s “batshit crazy.” The superlative is simply “battiest of the batshit crazy.”
After all, that’s a woman’s highest purpose, according to you, right?
I think remaining a virgin and dedicating your life to prayer, contemplation and charity ranks somewhat higher.
Of course, if you do that, you won’t get none, or something. Or maybe you will get none.
I’m not an expert on theology, obviously.
I’m a liberal, and I want Huckabee to be their candidate because:
–All Americans should get to vote for someone who shares their views. 2/3 of the Republican Party are creationist fundies. They should have a creationist fundy Presidential candidate as well.
–I’d rather have an authentic conservative who doesn’t feel the need to go out and prove that he’s a conservative, than have a fake conservative who absolutely has to do something insane in order to prove his conservativism.
–Huckabee may have stupid beliefs, but he’s not genuinely malicious. Giuliani OTOH actively wants to hurt people.
— A loss in 2008 by Giuliani or Romney or McCain leaves the door open to claims that conservatives lost the election because they abandoned their conservativism. I want that door as close to shut as possible.
Coulter’s latest book is lagging behind her previous efforts in terms of sales. (Perhaps Regnery isn’t doing its usual bang-up job of buying up gross lots of its own publications in order to hype the sales figures.) Nevertheless, I found a copy of the most recent Coulter screed on Mom’s bookshelf. I think my parents have every single one of Coulter’s insane volumes. So far no one has noticed that I borrowed Godless so as to see Coulter’s anti-evolution nonsense without contributing a penny to her royalty statements. That’s surprising, since I would assume that Mom & Dad would return to Coulter’s books time after time for intellectual renewal and spiritual refreshment.
Gee, Zeno, that’s really gonna put a crimp in her lifestyle.
I swear that these endless and endlessly dump Coulter pro vs. con rantfests are the one thing that keeps her going and scoring millions.
Good work.
Evolution: pro or con? What a numbing and done to death topic. C’mon, it’s the 21st century. Evolution is a done deal. I know it. You know it. Everybody knows it. Arguments against it are a post- mortum effect Lets move on.
Chris, with all due respect, I think you’re completely misguided about Huckabee. He may not intentionally seem malicious, but because of his theocracy instilling beliefs, our country will never be the same. Remember that Bush has underhandedly pushed various signing declarations reducing our freedoms under large confusing bills. Huckabee can do the same to instill religious theocracy in our government. Either way, a true Republican should be voting for Ron Paul, not these pseudo-conservatives, who in fact, want to establish a religious institution instead of one with lesser government. Giuliani, Romney, and the rest will just expand the military/industrial complex at the expense of social services and universal rights. Either way, even the Democrats don’t really hold much more promise because they’ve also pandered themselves out to the special interests. This whole presidential election is a farce, and we are not the Democracy we’re led to believe. Lesser of two evils does not make a Democracy.
Is it not also true that Coulter depended heavily on Dembski for her chapters on evolution and that she and Dembski both publicly acknowledged same?
Ann may be one of the most underrated stand up comics of all time.
If that’s true then Bush is tha all time greatest stand-up of all time.
As opposed to, say, when they’ve misplaced the Syrup of Ipecac.
Isn’t she just a right wing version of Howard Stern? Pure stir it up tactics. No-one possibly takes her seriously…right?…right?
Listening to an interview of Huckabee on NPR today, he seems a reasonable fellow with some good ideas until the question came up about evolution. Then he started to sputter inanities and followed up with a non sequitur linking evolution to taking no action about global warming.
Many of his ideas are indeed liberal to those offered by the other Republican candidates, but make no mistake, he is a religious conservative.
I agree with #47
Huckabee is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s currently running an “aw shuck’s” bumpkin campaign, trying to lay low and avoid being seen–his handlers realize the less people know about him the better, but he’s an absolute christopathic menace of the 1st order.
She’s not just crazy. She’s a transmitter. She exists to put a nice happy face on right-wing dogma. Except that, as with Rush, her sell-by date was sometime in 1998, and even with bulk sales she’s crashed and burned.
I would personally use the phrase
crazier than a shithouse rat
but that could just be my southern heritage talking.
These days I don’t get outraged by Ann Coulter because I really don’t think she believes what she says.
I hear this a lot, and to those that think this way, I have only one thing to say:
It doesn’t make one damn bit of difference whether she believes what she spouts or not.
It has the exact same impact.
extend your argument to all religious hucksters (Robertson, et. al.), and the argument is the same.
I rather think people like to make the argument that what she says doesn’t matter, simply because they don’t want to have to face actually doing something about it.
It’s a lazy response to a real problem.
…misinformation is misinformation, regardless of whether or not the person spreading lies believes them or not.
I’m with Ichthyic on this, the impact is the same, though personally I think the ethical implications are worse if she doesn’t even believe her own rap. The only “out” for her in that case would be if she’s practicing a kind of Devil’s Advocacy, with the covert goal of bringing down the far right under the aggregate weight of its own contemptible politics and beliefs.
I don’t buy it for a minute, though. She was to Cornell what D’Souza and Ingraham were to Dartmouth. She may pump up the more sensationlistic and confrontational aspects of her style to generate controversy and sell books, but that doesn’t alter the message, which is as contemptible as it’s ever been.
And I am the Kangxi Emperor of China.
Come on. It’s really hard to find a face that is less nice or happy than the one of the being in question.
And I am the Kangxi Emperor of China.
Come on. It’s really hard to find a face that is less nice or happy than the one of the being in question.
Ann Coulter never met a logical fallacy she wouldn’t use.
Ann Coulter is simply the modern day equivalent of the chicken-head-biting circus geek.
While most all onlookers hurry disgustedly past what they see as a useless display of simpleminded enthusiastic primitivism, others are compelled to stare in slack-jawed sick fascination and envy of her teething skills… and a special, special few find their heart’s secret sexual thrill in the wanton display of quivering gibbets of naked hatred for humanity and ripped shreds of twisted morality charades, with nary a trace remaining of any self respect.
What does this say if Huckabee is the wingnut’s wingnut but not wingnutty enough for mAnn Coulter?
She’s ignorant enough to believe the IDiots (though she’s not actually stupid, you know
At some point the distinction is meaningless. Coulter seriously claimed on Larry King, when she was there with Alan Dershowitz, that Thomas Jefferson was not a U.S. President but Alexander Hamilton was, and was impeached: http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/larryking98.html
hey, TM, is the “coservabim” the op uses to describe Coulter short for “conservabimbo”?
i rather like that, if so.
she is indeed a “conservabimbo”.
hey, TM, is the “coservabim” the op uses to describe Coulter short for “conservabimbo”?
I don’t know any more about the op’s intent than you do, but that seems likely.
Coulter’s final comment is astounding given what we’ve heard from her since:
… trying to lure me into admitting that this was merely a partisan attack — it really isn’t. I mean, what policies could I possibly oppose? The name he came up for for his dog? I don’t oppose him on policy….
yup.
she’d be funny if she wasn’t insane.
It’s really scary how often I agree with George Will, who said of Coulter “Why be witty and insightful when you can be shrill?” (or words to that effect- I can’t find the actual column)
I saw her on a panel discussion. She simply laughed at anybody who disagreed with her without letting the rest of us in on the joke. Her statements, such as they were, were fragments of one-liners and code phrases. I found it completely incomprehensible.
Maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand her?
Maybe I’m just not smart enough to understand her?
maybe it’s one of those rare cases where it really IS bliss to be ignorant?
really, it’s not worth the effort TO try to understand her.
you’ll only be left with a nasty headache and a bad taste in your mouth.
“you’ll only be left with a nasty headache and a bad taste in your mouth.”
That is probably how D’Souza felt after a night with Coulter.
… or maybe this guy:
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/
obligatory post for a coulter thread.
That was the work of a depraved genius.
What wonderful dreams I shall have tonight.
What wonderful dreams I shall have tonight.
I’m sorry, but you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
:P
Hell, I am just happy you read the sarcasm in.
Time for sleep.
Day in the big city tomorrow.
Thanks for the link. Pretty damn funny.
don’t forget to check out his “second” encounter with Coulter (the link is on his blog)- it might actually be even better than the first.
Aging whores frequently start flaunting religion. Either that or acquire an inordinate amount of pets. Anything to fill the void within. Her statements aren’t political analysis, they are the desperate cries for help of a superannuated horse-faced hag who knows herself to be a whited sepulcher.
Ann Coulter scares me, like really deep down emotionally scares me. Not like an intellectual fear of global warming, but a flight or fight response type of fear. When I see her picture on the book at Borders, I have to look around to make sure she’s not really there, I think she might get me. I am absolutely not kidding either. That’s how batshit insane this woman is.
Try sprinkling a little borax or diatomaceous earth around the foundation of your home to avoid an infestation. Be careful though: the hemolymph that’ll eventually leak out of her chitinous exoskeleton is extremely acidic. Sensible footwear is a must if you suspect you may encounter a hurt or wounded AC.
I guess what they say about reality having a “liberal” bias is true if liberal is defined as the opposite of Ann Coulter’s bullshit.
Ann Coulter’s Beauty Secret.
I know I’m not the first one to point this out, but if Coulter weren’t batshit crazy (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), she’d have no career at all. There’s a huge faction of the Right who have, like Coulter, no political beliefs, thoughts or analysis beyond how much they hate Liberals; titillating them with how shocked the Left must be by her rantings (and we are–look at this thread) is what she does for a living.
Unfortunately, what’s perceived as shocking is a moving target. She has to get loonier and loonier to get the same response from her audience.
Moreover, it’s not quite an act. If it were, she’d have a more conventional private life. It’s genuinely sad to watch a middle-aged woman pretend to be The Sexpot of the Western World–not that we middle-aged women aren’t sexy, but the ones who have something going on sure as hell don’t feel the need to share it with the general public, which Coulter would know if she’d had any experiences along those lines. Unfortunately, she’d trapped in a real-life version of that Groucho Marx gag about not wanting to join any club that would have someone like her as a member: Normal men are repulsed by her, and the ones who find her attractive are so loserly that even Coulter must be herself repulsed.
Have some pity, people. Being shocking is all she’s got. My bet is that one day she’s going to scrape up (or more likely, drink up) her courage and take herself out.
Sorry: ” . . . she’s trapped . . . “
kseniya, did you know that that bit of whimsy is actually reminiscent of an actual historical case of a royal in eastern Europe that did indeed bathe in the blood of “virgins”… and anybody else she could get her staff to grab for her?
since she was a royal, evidently there weren’t any laws that could touch her, but eventually the other royals put a stop to it by locking her up in a room in her palace.
now if I could only recall her name.
damn memory…
ah, here she is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory
so, is Coulter the reincarnation of Elizabeth Bathory?
…or is she really Bathory herself?
Muahahahhahaha.
I think I’ll save fleshing the rest of this out until next halloween.
Just leave school books how they are. We have biology books and chemistry books and they are fine. Do not put religion into school, it will only cause problem and there is no problem, learning how God did this and that will not get you somewhere in life. You need science to go to college and all that other stuff…that leads into later life. There is church for a reason, you can learn and live God through there. School is for everything else.
Well, yes. Perhaps you’re thinking of Elizabeth Báthory, who is referenced in the piece as Coulter’s (alleged) original identity.
Erzsébet Báthory.
The Blood Countess.
(Or perhaps not.)
Ah, Ichthy, I see you’ve found The Blood Countess. (My first post responding to that question has been held for review, because it has a few links in it. Ooops.)
The piece makes it pretty clear that Coulter is Báthory herself; it’s so much a case of reincarnation as it is of reanimation, methinks. :-)
[…it’s not so much a case of…]
so… is she a vampire in the classic sense, or more of a “ghoul”?
are vampires marked by prominent adam’s apples?
Perhaps she is a mindworm.
Coulter makes her money by being batshit insane. She’s not going to stop being barking mad no matter what sort of damage she’s doing because of that. I wish I had no ethics so I could make money by being a total fuckwit. Seems an easy life.
The reason nobody asks Coulter about the evolution section of her book is that she didn’t write it.
When so-called liberals use genderized and/or transphobic insults against Ann Coulter, they make us all look like hypocritical idiots. Counteract her garbage with logic and reason and leave the anti-woman language to the right wing.
I agree w/ Hydro, though I will point out that Coulter invites commentary on her appearance by regularly promoting a) herself as a looker and b) a stereotype of liberal women as grossly unattractive. However, I don’t think even the delicious irony of Coulter turning out to be one or more of the many things she apparently despises justifies the pejorative use of alleged transgenderism, for it suggests there may be something intrisically wrong with transgenderism. Ditto having some physical features that are not ideally feminine; ditto having an appetite for rough anal sex with an ideological opposite; ditto being unlife and having a thirst for the blood of virgins; ditto being a mindworm and making a career out of stirring up and feeding off of the strong negative emotions of others (psychically or otherwise).
Ok, I guess some of those things are bad. But the “Mann Coulter” jokes are old, cheap and lame.
i could not finish ann’s vomitous rant- I guess I’m a “militant atheist”- why does hitting in the face sometimes seem delisious? (BAD JOHN!-i slap myself)
I think the only defense you’ll get from a Coulterhead regarding evolution would be them screaming about being oppressed and/or them slapping the side of their hand against their chest and drooling.
Let’s face it: if you read and ‘understand’ Coulter, you have issues. Serious issues.
There’s a rivalry between Saskatoon and Regina. Saskatoon thinks so at least, the people in Regina don’t really care. It’s funny how Ann et al think that there is this big rivalry with evil liberals and how mad we must be at them, perhaps as mad at them as they are with us, but we either don’t care or are laughing at the gullibility of people who just keep buying this stuff.
I do agree with the “Mann Coulter” comments being really stupid and insulting. I just find her butt ugly. Well, she may be attractive for an anorexic menopausal harpy who has some serious mental health issues and wears the same clothes all the time (It’s called “laundry detergent”, Ann) I suppose but I don’t know any others so I can’t do a comparison test, sorry.
I agree with hydropsyche (#93 above)…that and I really can’t take paragraphs that juxtapose Ann Coulter and any form of sexual imagery (that link of Ichthyic’s had me running screaming from the room by the time she was naked on the couch and *snap* AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGRGGGR….).
sorry, Alan.
some things just have to be done.
I’ll pray for your full recovery.
:p