She’s reached a new low. As a flaming independent who leans republican, I must say, she has now forfeited her right to be considered anything other than a c*nt with legs.
Check this out
Yeah, I know pitting Ann Coulter is the moral equivalent of pissing into the wind, but what the heck. Its Saturday.
Anyone care to defend this?
Er…
She’s sort of cute, in a Cruella De Ville way?
I don’t like her.
My mom, a rather conservative lady, does not like Coulter because she’s rude, too aggressive, tends to interrupt during talk shows/debates on TV, and is (as my mom so aptly puts it) too “aware of her beauty.” Nothing is more of a turn-off than a woman who is so aware that she’s attractive and tries to exploit that.
Isn’t she on that “Babes for Bush” calendar (excuse me, that should read “calender”, according to the front of the item in question)?
Man, I just don’t get why anyone listens to this crazy bitch any more…
Yes, sort of.
What was she like before the sex-op - as a man? I loved her in LOTR:ROTK, remember that scene when she was going to eat the hobbits? That was awesome…
McClelend is a political figure. He’s made accusations against another political figure. Being a triple amputee from Vietnam is an issue and has been an issue for this man. By making such accusations against another, he’s fair game.
Personally I don’t see any difference in getting hurt in an accident serving your country or being hurt in battle, but if he wants to call others out on their service, he doesn’t get much sympathy from me.
For someone who always seems to be spouting vile hatred , you’d think she has something in her past she wants to keep covered.
Wow. I thought Coulter had crossed the line several times before. She just keeps finding another line to cross.
The conservatives should just take her out in the back and shoot her, she’s only an embarassment. Yeah, he’s taken cheap shots at Bush’s record, but his is largely inimpeachable. The proper resopnse to titi is not always tat. Don’t listen to him or validate Bush.
Btw, is anyone else puzzled by the GOP’s new strategy for dealing with the new trend in Democrat war heroes (or at least verterans)? They seem to be scrambling to prove that Bush did the bare minimum while pointing out that their opposition served valiantly in war and either made great sacrifices or were higher decorated for their service (I’m speaking of the Kerry rtibbon-throwing “scandal” here).
The point is that he’s calling someone else out on the failure to show up for non-hazardous service in freakin’ Alabama. Being too much of a wetty to actually go fight in 'Nam is understandable; being too goddamn lazy to go push a pen around a desk is not.
Scylla has a point; Cleland does in fact play the Vietnam card a bit heavily.
But… damn, its still despicable beyond words. I look at this kind of shit and I really, seriously fear for the future of democracy. She will say anything, however scurrilous, to advance her agenda, and she gets an audience for exactly that reason. And increasingly, it seems like all our public discourse is becoming Coulterized.
Ann Coulter aside, I guess the point would be that flying fighter jets is hazardous.
The fact is that McClelland was the victim of an unfortunate accident in the service to his country and Bush was not doesn’t really make the former any better, IMO.
What apparently happened is that somebody dropped a grenade, the pin came out and McClelland picked it up unawares (if I’m getting this wrong, please correct me.)
Sad and unfortunate. I wonder if his buddy might have been a little bit careless with his grenade or MCclelland not quite as observant and vigilant as proximity to grenades might warrant, but that doesn’t change the fact that what we are talking about is a simple accident.
Such an accident could have happened anywhere to anybody. Bush was flying jets and certainly subject to such hazards.
Normally, my thinking would be that McClelland was injured in the service to his country and that’s that.
If he’s going to argue that Bush was cowardly or derelict though, I have no problem with somebody else making the argument that getting blown up because you cluelessly pick up a live grenade with the pin out doesn’t make you a hero.
Bush was subject to this same kind of accidental risk to a much greater degree as a pilot.
Here’s the Coulter column in question:
http://www.anncoulter.org/
Let’s see, there’s the usual vicious generalizations about liberals, that occur in each column.
I have no problem with what she says about Cleland in light of the attacks he made against another’s service.
I note that Coulter at one point describes that he picked up a dropped grenade and at other times suggests that Cleland dropped it. This latter is false and may be considered metaphorical since she earlier states the facts accurately, but nonetheless kinda sucks.
All in all, I think she made some fair specific points and Cleland is a legitimate target for this due to his accusations.
It is interesting that what Coulter is being denigrated for is her effort to clarify a misperception promulgated either via assumption or via intended misdirection.
In some ways it is similar to the attempts to deceive in the “when did you stop beating your wife” mode that is being applied to National Guard service as a means to avoid direct combat.
Scylla, the way I see it the circumstances surrounding Cleland’s accident don’t mean anything. He was still out there. Had he not picked up that grenade he may have been shot by the Vietcong the day after. He was still putting his ass on the line.
Bush on the other hand, not only went AWOL from the freakin’ National guard of Alabama where he was in virtually no danger whatsoever, he started a war in another country under false pretexts using a false dichotomy that those who were against him were supporting Saddam Hussein.
When Cleland attacked Bush he wasn’t attacking him for not serving as much as he was attacking him for being a chickenhawk scumbag without so much as a thought triple-layered in Freudian dream symbolism for the kids he’s sending out there to die.
I’m no mind reader but I reckon that Cleland is probably of the opinion that if you’re going to lie and cheat and bully your way into a war, you should at least know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of enemy fire. That way you won’t make the decision so lightly.
What do conservatives, on the whole, believe about the evidence of Bush’s AWOLness and other suspect military behaviors? Because I haven’t seen anyone come out and state that they think he is innocent of the charges leveled by the Dems; they just seem to hide behind his “honorable discharge” as if that somehow negates all the damning evidence that has been gathered against him.
Does that seem weasel-y to anyone besides me? Just wondering.
What evidence is that?
The Dems don’t have the power to level charges, nor have any actually been made.
Like what?
Ask and it shall be given, knock, and the door shall open.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40964-2004Feb13.html
"**Many Gaps In Bush’s Guard Records **
Released Papers Do Not Document Ala. Service "
So, is Anne a contender to steal the “Biggest Douchebag In The Universe?” title? Unless John Edward gets another show, I’d say she’s got a damn good chance.
Well, if we’re lucky Coulter will just die and then Edward can write her columns as dictated from the Biggest Douchebag in the Afterlife to the Biggest Douchebag in the Universe.