« Byron York Misquotes Me | Main | Caption Contest: World Cup Edition »
June 09, 2006
Line of the Day: V=IR edition
This one comes from Pharyngula:
without Ohm's Law to restrain her, what's to prevent Ann Coulter from indulging her wanton, bestial lusts?
June 9, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Ann Coulter would have to be a human being for this post to make sense!
When two animals have sex, that is NOT beastiality.
http://www.thehindsightfactor.com
Posted by: urthwalker | Jun 9, 2006 7:29:25 AM
urthwalker,
It is if one of them is ann coulter.
aimai
Posted by: Kate G | Jun 9, 2006 7:42:50 AM
urthwalker, does this mean that "Man on Ann" is bestiality?
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 9, 2006 10:14:59 AM
Coulter just wants to sell books. I don't personally know anyone who buys her books, reads her columns, etc. I'm sure they are out there just as Michael Moore has his fan base or Al Franken or even that Texas crackpot Alex Jones.
Does anyone really take these people seriously?
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 9, 2006 10:19:12 AM
..about her comments.. eeek.
About her commercial sense, and ability to use comments to coerce every blogger and news show as her own private advertising agency:
..Nice!
Posted by: david b | Jun 9, 2006 11:09:44 AM
Michael Moore, Al Franken and Ann Coulter all make outlandish and over the top statements. Ann's statements and conclusions are based in fact.
Everyone seems upset about the jersey girls 'enjoying their husbands demise' statement or whatever Ann wrote. I have not seen that much footage on the jersey girls but maybe Ann has. She can't know it(that they are enjoying their husbands demise), but she believes it.
Her is an example of why she may have drawn that conclusion.
Cindy Sheehan has been used and is loving it by the left. But in her mind she should the center of attention, not her dead son. Remember how upset she was at Kos or DU (wherever she was) when breaking news pushed her out of the limelight for awhile? Even one of the far-left bloggers scolded Cindy for proving, by way of her tantrum that she was not being paid attention to, that she is using her son's death for personal gain. Her family disowned her for it.
Remember when Cindy Sheehan was arrested and being carried away from the protest, I believe in front of the White House? Remember that big smile on her face? I've never seen someone relishing the death of their child like she has. I don't know that, but based on her statements and actions, I believe it.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Jun 9, 2006 11:20:33 AM
Hahahaha. Farther down:
"I use the Nernst equation to justify my immoral behavior."
Well, when you've got (electro)chemistry, immoral behavior just happens.
Posted by: TJ | Jun 9, 2006 11:21:57 AM
Welcome back, Captain!
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 9, 2006 12:52:59 PM
Thanks Fred.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Jun 9, 2006 1:59:05 PM
"Toke and Ann, sitting in a tree..."
Posted by: Adrock | Jun 9, 2006 2:00:55 PM
"Toke and Ann, sitting in a tree..."
Ew! Ick! That almost made me hurl!
Posted by: CParis | Jun 9, 2006 2:45:59 PM
Captain toke is right. I know for a fact that when my sister died of a brain tumor at age six my mother *revelled* in the attention. And you wouldn't believe the attention she got from the far left! I can't wait for my own husband to die in a fiery, terrorist inspired explosion or maybe one of my kids can be sent to Iraq or afghanistan. Then I'll be rolling in dough and I can probably get that playboy spread I've always wanted. I understand that the faux grief might help me lose that extra 40 pounds.
aimai
Posted by: Kate G | Jun 9, 2006 3:17:27 PM
Captain toke is right. I know for a fact that when my sister died of a brain tumor at age six my mother *revelled* in the attention.
Well, did you also make a million bucks and have worldwide attention? Perhaps is you did, Ann would include you as well.
Of course, Ann's personal attacks were certainly over the top and no one can condone them, but the facts she points out are valid. All of these women made lots of money and seemed to enjoy the global attention. No one is saying that they would have traded this for the lives of their sons, but their behavior since thier deaths is the issue here....and it's appalling.
I'm saying she has a point. I just didn't like the way she made it.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 9, 2006 4:27:57 PM
I love that line, "based in fact." For anyone who's ever watched a made-for-television film "based in fact" this says everything you need to know about Coulters veracity: it bears a resemblance fact.
To think I used to consider Toke an addlepated partisan whose ganja intake kept him divorced from reality.
Welcome to the fold, Captain!
Posted by: wcw | Jun 9, 2006 5:10:56 PM
Cindy Sheehan has disgraced the memory of her son. He volunteered twice to go to Iraq, he knew what and why he was fighting and he believed in the cause. His mother has told lies about the President and the war and is trying to use her son's death to demean and degrade the very cause he fought and died for, and she is loving it! Watch the footage of her being arrested for protesting at the White House. She is smiling and waving to her fans and supporters. She thinks she is a rock star!
KateG, did the rest of your family disown your mom for her disgraceful behavior? Did your mom blame the President and the Jews for your sister's death?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Jun 9, 2006 5:20:48 PM
I am often frustrated in contending with Coulter or many conservative writers in general as I neither patronize nor concur with most of the people whom they choose as their objects of scorn. It sometimes seems that they choose whom they pay attention to with an eye toward creating in themselves the greatest and most violent ideological dyspepsia. I was and remain principally unaware of the widows whom Coulter has so infamously lambasted, and I am in this state for the simple reason that I recognize the limited real thoughtfulness and utility of them in considering matters of policy.
Neither does culture seem to have much of use to offer to the seriously politically interested. Looking at what she has thus far produced, very little seems handily or sensibly applicable for real policy. Her business is that of overblowing the more visceral and combative sideshow of flashy activism and grandstand political brawls that has by its simple and inciting manner been exploded into the primary spectacle. The production of contempt and fury is far easier and done in far greater abundance than that of ideas.
If not else, I find cause in the rejection and ignoring Coulter et al in their tone and seeming intent. They are political pornographers happily intent to provide carnal ideological satisfaction while essentially preaching in such a manner that encourages fully the idea that the ideological opposition is an ancient enemy, whereof hatred is nigh sacred. In seeing that, I cannot see what the point then is. Such encourages a sprit of irreconcilability and I think wants us to believe that those whom we disagree with will either in due time vanish or be destroyed and thus need not be considered unless some pleasant rage is wanted. I think we should prefer milder writers who might not so excite us, but at least seems to provide the possibility that the other side of the issue might hold their convictions on some rational, debatable grounds.
Posted by: Paul Brömmer | Jun 9, 2006 5:52:28 PM
Thanks to Ann Coulter for exposing the republicans as the soulless zombies. She's the perfect poster bitch.
Posted by: BroD | Jun 9, 2006 7:23:48 PM
"...the idea that the ideological opposition is an ancient enemy, whereof hatred is nigh sacred."
They are. As old as Egypt and Sparta.
"those whom we disagree with will either in due time vanish or be destroyed"
Hope is not a plan.
"...the other side of the issue might hold their convictions on some rational, debatable grounds."
They don't. "Look thunder! Woe" and "My son the king" and "Not from around here,are ya'" bout sums them up.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 9, 2006 8:13:04 PM
I lived in Phoenix in 2004 and worked for Barnes & Noble. It was a pretty interesting job. There was the couple who came in and said while browsing, that the were going to every bookstore in the metro area to see where conservative books were placed in relation to liberal books.
Of course there was the typical working-retail-during-holidays craziness.
But one day, after Coulter's last book came out, a lady came in looking for it, was delighted to find it prominently displayed. She then said, "I'm so conservative I make Ann Coulter look like Michael Moore."
In all my years of working retail, only time I've ever been afraid at my job. That lady scared the shit out of me.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 9, 2006 9:59:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
