erynthered Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Wow, check this link out. It had me laughing out loud. This person claims to be a relative of hers.....Enjoy You see, Ann Coulter was originally a democrat but when she saw an opportunity, she changed to a Republican, just for the notice, just for the press, just to make a few bucks. The net result is that Christians should hate her for her lies, her slime, her ugly methods, and the lies to her family. In high school Ann was a tramp, a real slut. She would have sex with most any guy who could get beyond the smell of her unwashed body. To this day, she quite often refuses to take a shower more than a couple times a week unless it's incredibly hot. I think she may be French. http://www.oregonherald.com/eforums/messag...21&threadid=255 I'll admit, I've read two of her books, but I'm getting to the point were I cant stand her anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Well if you read it in a blog, it MUST be true!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 8, 2006 Author Share Posted June 8, 2006 Well if you read it in a blog, it MUST be true!!! 705372[/snapback] Thats why I said "Claims" to be related. Plus its from 04' Just thought it was funny. And whats with that adams apple she's got? French Drag queen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Someone posted before she was with bob guccione of penthouse, don't now if it's true and don't care you no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Wow, check this link out. It had me laughing out loud. This person claims to be a relative of hers.....Enjoy I think she may be French. http://www.oregonherald.com/eforums/messag...21&threadid=255 I'll admit, I've read two of her books, but I'm getting to the point were I cant stand her anymore... 705363[/snapback] That gave me a good laugh too. Now you need to be careful here with this post. Wacka is going to get all upset because someone has a not so positive opinion of Ann. She is the one who gives him his lemming bullet points to rattle off you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 In her new book, she is off the deep end about evolution (she is a creationist). She is spot on about almost everything else. Read some of her books (they're available at the library if you don't want to give her any money) and look up the refrences she gives . Her books usually have about 50 pages of references. She isn't spouting talking points, but backs up what she says. Show me any good looking liberal woman authors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Show me any good looking liberal woman authors. 705449[/snapback] Hillary Clinton has a book. So does Bill Clinton. Is Nancy Shehans out yet? How dare you undermine these three respected liberal women in American politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 In her new book, she is off the deep end about evolution (she is a creationist). She is spot on about almost everything else. Read some of her books (they're available at the library if you don't want to give her any money) and look up the refrences she gives . Her books usually have about 50 pages of references. She isn't spouting talking points, but backs up what she says. Show me any good looking liberal woman authors. 705449[/snapback] Oh spare me the "she has over 50 pages of references" crap. Have you ever bothered to check out some of these so called references? Try Googling "Ann Coulter Lies" and you will find plenty of "references" as to what I am talking about. But you go ahead and believe what Ann says/writes. It's obviously a lot easier than thinking for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Oh spare me the "she has over 50 pages of references" crap. Have you ever bothered to check out some of these so called references? Try Googling "Ann Coulter Lies" and you will find plenty of "references" as to what I am talking about. But you go ahead and believe what Ann says/writes. It's obviously a lot easier than thinking for you. 705459[/snapback] Exactly. Al Franken would be more than happy to point out how much Coulter is full of sh--. All of these political authors are just the same as the radio idiots. They are all just pandering to the crowds that get stirred up over polorizing issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Her books usually have about 50 pages of references. 705449[/snapback] If an undergraduate used sources like Coulter, they would be looking at a C- tops. She does outline some bare facts - but the recontextualization of her source material is so fallacious that examining it is quite entertaining, almost fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Exactly. Al Franken would be more than happy to point out how much Coulter is full of sh--. All of these political authors are just the same as the radio idiots. They are all just pandering to the crowds that get stirred up over polorizing issues. 705460[/snapback] I don't know...that sounds kinda made up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Her books usually have about 50 pages of references. 705449[/snapback] That usually refer back to her earlier books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Have you read any of her books? I own Slander and I have also read Treason and How to Talk to a Liberal - If You Must. She does not reference her other books. If she cites someone said something, she gives a reference which can be looked up. If you haven't read them, don't make comments like you did. And if you have, please cite one- I'll go to the library and look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Have you read any of her books? I own Slander and I have also read Treason and How to Talk to a Liberal - If You Must. She does not reference her other books. If she cites someone said something, she gives a reference which can be looked up. If you haven't read them, don't make comments like you did. And if you have, please cite one- I'll go to the library and look it up. 705595[/snapback] Yes, I have sat down at the local book store and gone through some her books. Does that mean I have read them all cover to cover? No. But it's easy to spot sh*t when you see it. Here is a link from google on Ann and fact checking. Try challenging what she writes. linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I have a friend http://www.dansargis.org/index.htm that knows Ann well. She is definately no slut and she is very cool when you meet her. She spends time speaking with whomever wants to discuss and has missed planes speaking to people. Go ahead and presume- Bush bad....Ann bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I have a friend http://www.dansargis.org/index.htm that knows Ann well. She is definately no slut and she is very cool when you meet her. She spends time speaking with whomever wants to discuss and has missed planes speaking to people. Go ahead and presume- Bush bad....Ann bad.... 705617[/snapback] Well, I am glad your friend thinks Ann is a good person on the personal level. However, the public persona she projects and the crap she spews tell quite a different story. Skip the bush bad crap. There was no bashing of bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Here's an excerpt from her new manifesto of hate. As usual, it's loaded with lies and dubious "references". It will also make for a very entertaining Friday as we tear it to pieces. I'll start. Liberals hate science and react badly to it. They will literally run from the room, lightheaded and nauseated, when told of data that might suggest that the sexes have different abilities in math and science. They repudiate science when it contradicts their pagan beliefs—that the AIDS virus doesn’t discriminate, that there is no such thing as IQ, that nuclear power is dangerous and scary, or that breast implants cause disease. Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Actually, Ann, I am a scientist and while I can only speak directly for myself in this forum, I can assure you that the scientific community is largely liberal and doesn't hate science. We do, however, hate bad science, ie crap that hasn't been peer-reviewed (like much of the gabage being used to attack global warming), or science that has been manipulated or suppressed by an administration with an agenda (there are numerous examples, but you can see another one here and a related editorial here.) In fact, Ann, when examining a laundry list of how this administration has hampered and obstructed science since taking office, a sane person could only make the assumption that it is the Bushies, the Religious Right and scum like you that actually hate "real" science. I'll leave you with an excerpt of the commencement address Mayor Bloomberg gave last week at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Each one of you has had two important principles deeply embedded in you through your association with this amazing institution: an unwavering allegiance to the power of science and a profound commitment to use that power to help people. And this is a good thing, because now more than ever, these two fundamental concepts are being ignored, or are under attack. Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agendas. Some call it "pseudo-science," others call it "faith-based science," but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it "political science." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 It will also make for a very entertaining Friday as we tear it to pieces. 705650[/snapback] I was wondering why you would even bother to take the time to do this? It is like taking the time to discredit Michael Moore. It is so easy that it is not even a sport. People like her and Moore puposely try to tick off the other party by being more and more outrageous so that they can sell more books. You are actually giving her what she wants: more attention to drive up book sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 You are actually giving her what she wants: more attention to drive up book sales. 705651[/snapback] I'm of the mind that people like her should be put under the whitehot spotlight and should be exposed for dispensing the hate-filled lies they try to pass off as mainstream opinion. We shouldn't sweep the hate and bigotry under the rug...we need to lure it out into the daylight and crush it with reason and rational thought. Usually, Coulter can be dismissed as a partisan nut. But this time the hate she spews needs to be seen by everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I'm of the mind that people like her should be put under the whitehot spotlight and should be exposed for dispensing the hate-filled lies they try to pass off as mainstream opinion. We shouldn't sweep the hate and bigotry under the rug...we need to lure it out into the daylight and crush it with reason and rational thought. Usually, Coulter can be dismissed as a partisan nut. But this time the hate she spews needs to be seen by everyone. 705671[/snapback] The problem is that the more attention you give to her, the more incentive she has to ratchet up the rhetoric. This will result in people from the other party ratcheting up their rhetoric to out-do her. No good can come out of it. You are giving her a forum to spew more hate. Just my opinion, but I think you should take away the forum to force her back to being just another partisan hack. Show her that you have a forum when you are just a partisan hack. You lose that forum when it crosses the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts