Laughing Ann Coulter is so angry!

[edthecynic]

YouTube - ‪The Pretenders- My City Was Gone (45)‬‏


Y'know, getting scolded for a lack of comprehension by you is akin to getting child-rearing instructions from Richard Simmons!

And with Al Gore being such a bonehead, it makes total sense him being your hero.

But....when you're right, you're right...I read all seven..upside-down and backwards. And underwater.

A perfect example of CON$ervative lack of comprehension! Thank you.

Gore names the bust of Franklin Himself without any help from the curator, Coulter misses that and mindlessly parrots her GOP script and by CON$ervative "logic" that makes Gore the bonehead!!!
As the Weekly Sub-Standard said, "Delightfully revealing" indeed!

OK, BeefNAspic, you're gonna love this:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DIK2qppQoI"]YouTube - ‪Al Gore Idiot‬‏[/ame]


"Now...who're these people!!!!"

Wow....what a knee-slapper, huh?


"Who're these people????"


OK...OK...c'mon, off the floor.

Thank you for bringing in your MessiahRushie.

And thank you for showing how totally brainwashed CON$ are. Even after I told you that Gore names the bust of Franklin himself, pathological liar LimpTard shows you a video where you can see for yourself Gore naming specifically the left flank bust as Franklin and because your programmers told you otherwise, you completely miss it!!!!

Now try watching the video again and pay attention this time. Gore says one word "Franklin" talking over the curator saying "Washington on the extreme." Gore actually re-points to the left flank bust as he says "Franklin" but you can only see his pointing finger just clear his right shoulder as he says "Franklin." Tipper moves her head down and to the left, opening up our view of Gore's right shoulder, just before Gore names the bust.

So watch again and pay attention as Tipper moves her head and the curator says "Washington on the extreme."

 

[edthecynic]

No doubt you have come to that opinion after carefull perusal of her tomes....

I wonder if you could tell which of her seven or so best sellers you have had the opportunity to read?

You've probably read all 7 without comprehending a single one.

Here's my favorite review of one of her books by someone who, like you, doesn't comprehend it.

WHILE ON A TOUR of Monticello as vice president, Al Gore examined busts of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator, "Who are these people?" A single newspaper reported Gore's embarrassing ignorance. Meanwhile when presidential candidate George W. Bush was unable to name the leaders of four nations in a reporter's pop quiz, it was a topic of media concern for weeks.

I'll bet the Shrub could've picked GEROGE FRIGGIN' WASHINGTON out of a lineup of busts....pinhead.

Hey pinhead, Washington was not on any of the 4 wall sconces Gore pointed to. His bust was "on the extreme right" of the 4 wall sconces. The curator named 5 (FIVE) busts, Franklin on the left, then Lafayette, J P Jones, and Adams and put Washington to the "extreme right" of the other 4, which would have put the bust of Washington in another part of the Tea Room to the right of the 4 wall sconces.

Jefferson's Monticello: Panorama of Tea Room (and Dining Room)

Here's is your MessiahRushie's version of what happened. Gore never pointed to Washington and named the bust of Franklin himself, and Clinton's mind was not read by the pathological liar.

May 5, 2005
RUSH: ... It's kind of like the moment when Al Gore walked into Thomas Jefferson's place (Video at- http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wmv/ru....com/5020/tv_archives/111501_monticello_q.asx ). Monticello. There were all these busts up there. Gore is out there walking around with Clinton with the curator of the place, and Gore is looking thoughtfully, like he's in this great vast museum, and he has one hand on his (imitating for Ditto-camers) like this and his finger is on his chin, and he points to, "Who is that?" and the curator says, "That's George Washington." "Who is that?" "That's Benjamin Franklin." In fact, we have that sound bite from our archives. Here's how that went.

GORE: Who are these people?

CURATOR: This is George Washington on the extreme right, and [1] Benjamin Franklin on the left, and then we have [2] Lafayette and [3] John Paul Jones. And [4] John Adams... (unintelligible) Well, let's head briefly into the guest bedroom.

RUSH: Now, you should have seen Clinton when Gore asked the question. The beauty is the video. Clinton just kind of turns away, "Oh, my. I can't believe he asked that." Because even Clinton knew who George Washington was. So, I mean, these are the smartest people in the world, all right.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Ann Coulter is what some in the business would call a media whore. She touts herself as a Constitutional lawyer - my problem is that I've not discovered whose Constitution. Ann Coulter also demonstrates that there are too many unemployed attorneys in this country.

But that's not my biggest problem with her? Ann Coulter has one purpose and one purpose only, which is to garner as much self-idolizing publicity as possible. To further this goal and herself along the path to achieve it, Ann has just never been a girl who bothers checking accuracy of her information or give much thought as to whether a personal commentary barb is appropriate for a particular time and place.

As a woman, I am 100% supportive of successful women. I am, however, 100% un-supportive of those, male or female, whose principle purpose for achieving success is the opportunity it affords them to misuse their position and/or power.

Ann Coulter's comment, awhile back regarding 9/11 widows using their tragedies as a means to fleece the government and live the high life, was so far beyond the pale of acceptable commentary I've not listened to her since. Publicly testing the bounds of common decency and how much is too much are Coulter's stock and trade. She uses TV appearances and any public outing to unleash her right-wingnut politics and/or distinctly off-centered people opinions.

I would, however, be most interested in any information about the Constitution in which Ann Coulter, Esq. is an expert or the country of its origin.

To date any Constitutional interpretations provided by Coulter compared to those of its writers, past Presidents and Supreme Court Judges leave me to conclude she cannot possibly be an expert in a document she's never read.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Do you know what Coulter's job is? Hyperbole. She says things to get people riled up. She's an internet troll in real life.

And she catches a lot of fish with her bait.

I've always seen her as a gadfly who feeds lefty his own medicine, albeit, from the conservative perspective.

 

[editec]

POLI_sigh!

Oh my GOD! that's a clever handle.

If you are, infact, a political scientist, you will no doubt be about as frustrated trying to correct people's mistken notions about political science as I so often am trying to correct some of their sophmoric notions about history, or other's who attempt to correct their childish notions about the law, or others who tilt at the windmills of ignorance about the hard sciences.

But this is the business we have chosen, so I suppose complaining about it is just silly.

Still, your handle is a brilliant editorial. PS.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Ann Coulter is what some in the business would call a media whore. She touts herself as a Constitutional lawyer - my problem is that I've not discovered whose Constitution. Ann Coulter also demonstrates that there are too many unemployed attorneys in this country.

But that's not my biggest problem with her? Ann Coulter has one purpose and one purpose only, which is to garner as much self-idolizing publicity as possible. To further this goal and herself along the path to achieve it, Ann has just never been a girl who bothers checking accuracy of her information or give much thought as to whether a personal commentary barb is appropriate for a particular time and place.

As a woman, I am 100% supportive of successful women. I am, however, 100% un-supportive of those, male or female, whose principle purpose for achieving success is the opportunity it affords them to misuse their position and/or power.

Ann Coulter's comment, awhile back regarding 9/11 widows using their tragedies as a means to fleece the government and live the high life, was so far beyond the pale of acceptable commentary I've not listened to her since. Publicly testing the bounds of common decency and how much is too much are Coulter's stock and trade. She uses TV appearances and any public outing to unleash her right-wingnut politics and/or distinctly off-centered people opinions.

I would, however, be most interested in any information about the Constitution in which Ann Coulter, Esq. is an expert or the country of its origin.

To date any Constitutional interpretations provided by Coulter compared to those of its writers, past Presidents and Supreme Court Judges leave me to conclude she cannot possibly be an expert in a document she's never read.

Uh-huh. Lefty's been telling us that the Constitution sports an interpretation akin to something radically different than the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition since the 1960s especially. The next time I run into a leftist who can comprehend the simple, self-evident truth that institutions do not exist in ideological vacuums, I'll let you know. Hasn't happened yet . . . and until it does, I will not have met a leftist who comprehends what the First Amendment means, for example, relative to a public education system.

As for inaccuracy . . . such as? Specifics? Or are we supposed to just take your word on it?

Never bothers to check? Oh, really? Never bothers to check? LOL!

Oops. So much your credibility.

My experience with lefty is that the putative inaccuracy of others typically comes down to little more than the rejection of his historically revised worldview.

 

[Truthseeker420]

 

[Douger]

Poor Ann Coulter is hardly relevant any more

Her next best seller will be out in ten days....bet ya' can't wait!

Exactly. Coulter is living proof that millions of murkins are idiots.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Poor Ann Coulter is hardly relevant any more

Her next best seller will be out in ten days....bet ya' can't wait!

Exactly. Coulter is living proof that millions of murkins are idiots.

Uh-huh. Now if we could only get some substantive arguments from lefty. . . .

 

[PoliticalChic]

POLI_sigh!

Oh my GOD! that's a clever handle.

If you are, infact, a political scientist, you will no doubt be about as frustrated trying to correct people's mistken notions about political science as I so often am trying to correct some of their sophmoric notions about history, or other's who attempt to correct their childish notions about the law, or others who tilt at the windmills of ignorance about the hard sciences.

But this is the business we have chosen, so I suppose complaining about it is just silly.

Still, your handle is a brilliant editorial. PS.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PteyEDStTOE&feature=related]YouTube - ‪This is the business we've choosen‬‏[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've probably read all 7 without comprehending a single one.

Here's my favorite review of one of her books by someone who, like you, doesn't comprehend it.

WHILE ON A TOUR of Monticello as vice president, Al Gore examined busts of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and asked the curator, "Who are these people?" A single newspaper reported Gore's embarrassing ignorance. Meanwhile when presidential candidate George W. Bush was unable to name the leaders of four nations in a reporter's pop quiz, it was a topic of media concern for weeks.

I'll bet the Shrub could've picked GEROGE FRIGGIN' WASHINGTON out of a lineup of busts....pinhead.

Hey pinhead, Washington was not on any of the 4 wall sconces Gore pointed to. His bust was "on the extreme right" of the 4 wall sconces. The curator named 5 (FIVE) busts, Franklin on the left, then Lafayette, J P Jones, and Adams and put Washington to the "extreme right" of the other 4, which would have put the bust of Washington in another part of the Tea Room to the right of the 4 wall sconces.

Jefferson's Monticello: Panorama of Tea Room (and Dining Room)

Here's is your MessiahRushie's version of what happened. Gore never pointed to Washington and named the bust of Franklin himself, and Clinton's mind was not read by the pathological liar.

May 5, 2005
RUSH: ... It's kind of like the moment when Al Gore walked into Thomas Jefferson's place (Video at- http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wmv/ru....com/5020/tv_archives/111501_monticello_q.asx ). Monticello. There were all these busts up there. Gore is out there walking around with Clinton with the curator of the place, and Gore is looking thoughtfully, like he's in this great vast museum, and he has one hand on his (imitating for Ditto-camers) like this and his finger is on his chin, and he points to, "Who is that?" and the curator says, "That's George Washington." "Who is that?" "That's Benjamin Franklin." In fact, we have that sound bite from our archives. Here's how that went.

GORE: Who are these people?

CURATOR: This is George Washington on the extreme right, and [1] Benjamin Franklin on the left, and then we have [2] Lafayette and [3] John Paul Jones. And [4] John Adams... (unintelligible) Well, let's head briefly into the guest bedroom.

RUSH: Now, you should have seen Clinton when Gore asked the question. The beauty is the video. Clinton just kind of turns away, "Oh, my. I can't believe he asked that." Because even Clinton knew who George Washington was. So, I mean, these are the smartest people in the world, all right.

The unintentional humor here, yours, is that you don't realize how bizarre that dialog is...

If I, or anyone else on the board, outside of you, WearinTheLipstick, were to come face to face with the figurines of our Founders, we wouldn't feel the need to identify same, but would, rather, assume that eveyone with an education knew who they were- each and every one.

But if you and Al walked into a parking lot, you guys would feel the need to identify several..."chevy"..."ford"..."I even know toyota!"


Hey, is this you, or Al?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYabrQrXt4A&feature=related]YouTube - ‪I'm smart‬‏[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ann Coulter is what some in the business would call a media whore. She touts herself as a Constitutional lawyer - my problem is that I've not discovered whose Constitution. Ann Coulter also demonstrates that there are too many unemployed attorneys in this country.

But that's not my biggest problem with her? Ann Coulter has one purpose and one purpose only, which is to garner as much self-idolizing publicity as possible. To further this goal and herself along the path to achieve it, Ann has just never been a girl who bothers checking accuracy of her information or give much thought as to whether a personal commentary barb is appropriate for a particular time and place.

As a woman, I am 100% supportive of successful women. I am, however, 100% un-supportive of those, male or female, whose principle purpose for achieving success is the opportunity it affords them to misuse their position and/or power.

Ann Coulter's comment, awhile back regarding 9/11 widows using their tragedies as a means to fleece the government and live the high life, was so far beyond the pale of acceptable commentary I've not listened to her since. Publicly testing the bounds of common decency and how much is too much are Coulter's stock and trade. She uses TV appearances and any public outing to unleash her right-wingnut politics and/or distinctly off-centered people opinions.

I would, however, be most interested in any information about the Constitution in which Ann Coulter, Esq. is an expert or the country of its origin.

To date any Constitutional interpretations provided by Coulter compared to those of its writers, past Presidents and Supreme Court Judges leave me to conclude she cannot possibly be an expert in a document she's never read.

Uh-huh. Lefty's been telling us that the Constitution sports an interpretation akin to something radically different than the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition since the 1960s especially. The next time I run into a leftist who can comprehend the simple, self-evident truth that institutions do not exist in ideological vacuums, I'll let you know. Hasn't happened yet . . . and until it does, I will not have met a leftist who comprehends what the First Amendment means, for example, relative to a public education system.

As for inaccuracy . . . such as? Specifics? Or are we supposed to just take your word on it?

Never bothers to check? Oh, really? Never bothers to check? LOL!

Oops. So much your credibility.

My experience with lefty is that the putative inaccuracy of others typically comes down to little more than the rejection of his historically revised worldview.

I like the cut of your jib, bro...just one little addendum:

"radically different than the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition since the 1960s especially."

Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, a statist, an anti-Constitutionalist, who believed in the collective over the rights of the individual, and despised the views of the Founders.

"Wilson wrote in “The State,” 1889, that "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand." His writings attack the Constitution, and the ideas of natural and individual rights. Along with Frank J. Goodnow, they pioneered the concept of the ‘administrative state,’ which separated the administration of government from the limitations of constitutional government."
American progressivism: a reader - Google Books

Talk about a hundred years war....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I’m working on the mathematical formula to calculate- to the second- the time between mention of ‘Coulter’ and a lefty using some sort of personal attack. The equation seems to involve lots of zeros behind the decimal point.

Thanks for helping with the research.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I’m working on the mathematical formula to calculate- to the second- the time between mention of ‘Coulter’ and a lefty using some sort of personal attack. The equation seems to involve lots of zeros behind the decimal point.

Thanks for helping with the research.

Let's count up the percent of your posts that start with a personal insult, and end with an incoherent rambling.

I'm guessing that number starts with an 8 or a 9.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is she self-hating?


This ought to be funny.

Because in her heart she's a feminist. Intellectually she's a conservative. The two conditions aren't reconciable.

I was right. That's funny.

How do you know what's in her heart? Do you have any quotes from her to back up your assertion?

Or is this yet another case of an arrogant, smart-ass liberal confusing his opinion for fact because he can't tolerate differing viewpoints?

Yes. Yes, I think it is.

No, you're a fat old dullard who doesn't have the brains to distinguish an opinion from a claim of fact without being spoonfed a big blinking IMHO.

 

[Meister]

Because in her heart she's a feminist. Intellectually she's a conservative. The two conditions aren't reconciable.

I was right. That's funny.

How do you know what's in her heart? Do you have any quotes from her to back up your assertion?

Or is this yet another case of an arrogant, smart-ass liberal confusing his opinion for fact because he can't tolerate differing viewpoints?

Yes. Yes, I think it is.

No, you're a fat old dullard who doesn't have the brains to distinguish an opinion from a claim of fact without being spoonfed a big blinking IMHO.

So says NYcarbineer. You say some of the lamest stuff on this board.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep. The best things about an eating disorder:

Less money on groceries, more money for booze and cigarettes.

The heartbreak of menstruation only troubles you once or twice a year.

There's less of yourself to hate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was right. That's funny.

How do you know what's in her heart? Do you have any quotes from her to back up your assertion?

Or is this yet another case of an arrogant, smart-ass liberal confusing his opinion for fact because he can't tolerate differing viewpoints?

Yes. Yes, I think it is.

No, you're a fat old dullard who doesn't have the brains to distinguish an opinion from a claim of fact without being spoonfed a big blinking IMHO.

So says NYcarbineer. You say some of the lamest stuff on this board.

And yet I can't compete with that, in that category.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I’m working on the mathematical formula to calculate- to the second- the time between mention of ‘Coulter’ and a lefty using some sort of personal attack. The equation seems to involve lots of zeros behind the decimal point.

Thanks for helping with the research.

Irony alert.

Righteous indignation that someone would direct a personal insult at the rightwing Queen of personal insults.

Classic!

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

The velociraptor clawhand lol.

That's why men in the know, who date her, know enough to politely decline the handjob.