Maureen Dowd? Maureen Dowd? Theres no trade off there, Maureen is cottage cheese and pineapple for lunch, she is mercilessly mild-mannered, she might well have been born in Minnesota, the great national preserve for the bland and colorless. You get the feeling that she would love to say what she really thinks about GeeDubya, but her Mom might read the column.
Ann O’Rexy is a slice of live wolverine stewed in cobra venom and garnished with rabies. If she had six hours of raw jungle love, a full body massage and about 5 grains of morphine, she would be merely vicious. The main reason she doesn’t answer her own phone is it takes so long to gnaw through the straps.
Stop, everybody. Muad’Dib, if you are now sickened of the concept of “a grain of truth,” you have only yourself to blame, for you introduced it to this thread. Everybody else, you’re accidentally (I assume) interpreting the phrase to mean something quite different from Muad’Dib’s intent. When M’D (excuse the abbreviation) brought up the idea, he was talking about the legitimate use of hyperbole in rhetoric. The concept is valid, with the restrictions that I thought were agreed on: that the “grain” may be expanded and extended to an absurd but logical conclusion, but nothing beyond the strictly accepted facts may be introduced. M’D is not claiming that such extensions are factually true, he is asserting that they have a place in the discussion of ideas. The problem is not that hyperbole is inherently illegitimate (remember, we were originally talking about humor as well as “straight” political debate), but that any grain of truth can be taken to an absurd conclusion. M’D is no more responsible for defending random absurd constructions than a car manufacturer is responsible for the occasional transportation of fleeing felons or stolen goods. The topic is Ann Coulter’s use or abuse of hyperbole in her arguments, and, while I still don’t think it is defensible as truth or humor, this squabbling has nothing to do with the present debate.
I agree with Trunk that the biggest problem is that it’s incoherent.
She spends the first four paragraphs talking about cops and pretty girls, then says something about cages and nuts.
I seriously don’t understand the recurring nuts and cages theme. She’s talking about people in cages
Muad’Dib, from what I can see, neither of us lacks for word stuff. We haven’t, apparently, either convinced or confounded each other, but it’s a pleasure to argue with you. At least, I understand more of your and my own beliefs than I did – good grief! Seventeen hours ago?! At any rate, I do, and thank you. I’m going to bed. Good night.
