Thursday, September 6, 2007

Ann Coulter is a complete idiot

not that this is news to anyone, but i'm gonna have some fun with it.

source

"Normally, using the word "deviant" in reference to any form of sodomy
would be a linguistic crime worse than calling someone a "nappy headed
ho." Luckily, Craig is a Republican."

sex in public bathrooms with strangers is deviant behavior. what kind of sex it was is irrelevant.

"As a backup precaution, Matthews has worked to ensure that there is
virtually no audience for "Hardball." I shudder to think of the damage
such a remark might have done if uttered about a non-Republican on a TV
show with actual viewers."

an extremely juvenile comment, but Ann knows none of her readers watch the show, so she can get away with it.

"The New York Times ran 15 articles on Craig's guilty plea to
"disorderly conduct" in a bathroom. The Washington Post ran 20 articles
on Craig."

wow, a combined 35 articles. yeah, totally 9/11 or moon-landing coverage. i will admit, it does seem to have been a slow news week.

"In other news last week, two Egyptian engineering students, Ahmed
Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed, were indicted in
Tampa on charges of carrying pipe bombs across states lines. They were
caught with the bombs in their car near a Navy base."

wake me when they're convicted; indicted != guilty. maybe mathews is guilty of that as well, but then, craig plead guilty to something.

"If liberals were any happier, they'd be gay."

i'm not even sure what she's implying here. she probably isnt either, its a poor attempt to appear clever which probably succeeds on her audience. in any case, its another extremely juvenile comment.


"Indignant that Craig had short-circuited their gleeful gay-baiting,
liberals quickly switched to a new set of talking points. In the blink
of an eye, they went from calling Craig a "deviant" to attacking
Republicans for not insisting that Craig stay."

most of the ones i read attacked reps for treating Craig differently from that other senator when the only difference was the type of sex they're having (heterosexual or homosexual). remember Ann? the type of sex doesn't matter? thats the point

UPDATE: David Vitter - thanks adrian.. back to the point....

"Liberals said the only reason Republicans were not blanketing the
airwaves defending Craig -- maybe running him for president -- was
because of Republican "homophobia." After howling with rage all week
about gay Republicans, to turn around and call Republicans homophobes
on Friday was nothing if not audacious.
"

same point


"Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's
just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like
"extremist" -- or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a
"hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?"

because he ran on a platform of family values, and then pleaded guilty to having sex in a public bathroom? public bathroom sex isnt very high on the list of family values is it? so he's saying one thing, yet doing another, which is pretty much the exact definition of hypocrite. can Ann really not understand this? or is she just being completely disingenuous? also, a great quote for GG's new book on gender bias, Ann certainly isnt afraid to pull out her giant ovaries and accuse "liberals" of being "womanly".


"Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on
outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only
opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk
about walking the walk!"

what?? this is amazing, she's bringing up the exact same points someone attacking Craig would (hey, he's having public sex with strangers in a bathroom, while married and with kids!), and using them to defend him and attack the would be attackers. you have to give her credit, i mean this is skillfully laid out bullshit.

"Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."
"

laughable.


the same points keep coming up over and over


but this brings up a great point. lets giving Ann's readership the benefit of the doubt and assume they're intelligent, well meaning people. i'm sure they dont have the time, energy, inclination, or skills to go out and get all the relevant news in todays world, i sure as hell don't. so they, like everyone else, have to attach themselves to some source of knowledge. its unfortunate, but true. if they attach themselves to people like Ann, they'll receive nothing but the dishonest, false, and duplicitous information like that present in the post she made above. and they won't know it for what it is, since they won't have anything to compare it to.

i'm susceptible to the same thing. right now, i get my news pretty much from adrian and Glenn Greenwald. but honestly, i trust my sources a hell of a lot more than i trust Ann Coulter.







Powered by ScribeFire.

3 comments:

Adrian said...

I'm flattered that you think I'm a more reliable source than Ann Coulter.

Pat said...

really? you shouldnt be, since it says absolutely nothing about your reliability.

"yeah that adrian guy.. i dunno.. he's less evil than hitler, at least" .....

subadei said...

I and 50 million other bloggers are a tad pissed that you didn't consider us more reliable.

As for Adrian, he's a sharp fellow but hasn't got Ann's legs which are about the only attractive element of her physical presence. Mrs. Ed comes to mind regarding the rest.

As for Craig, the whole thing has gone from pathetic to pitiful. The soon to be Senator that was should willfully, to quote the great philosopher Mike Tyson, "fade into bolivion."

This, in my own opinion, has a lot less to do with the "gay" aspect than it does the entire aspect of a married man with children looking for sex in an airport bathroom. Not a whole lot of moral highground in this is there. Especially given Craigs commentary regarding Bill Clinton's sexual misadventures.