Ann Coulter spazzes out on 'The Today Show'

[b i o n i c]

Ann Coulter spazzes out on 'The Today Show' this morning...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YyjrhvmDM8&search=ann%20coulter

... is she on coke or something?



whoa

[kaiser soze]

someone must of upped her testosterone injections

[HAL 9000]

She seems nice

[SobaViolence]

i stopped it right before her response...


i'm kinda excited, kinda horrified by the possibilities.


*holds breath*

[SobaViolence]

man...so she's saying because someone died and it's inconvenient for her cause, they aren't allowed to speak out or criticize or complain...but if they supported bush/fox/her, one could presume, that it would be ok when they support the use of napalm and bunker busters and endless war?


what a bitch.

[monkey]

hahahahahhaha. that woman is an all out idiot. the thing is, liberal women with such extreme point of views and short dresses are completely disregarded. why does anyone listen to this chickenhead?

[Ace42X]

She tells them what they want to hear. When people are unwilling to listen to the truth, they are bound to listen to a lie that disagrees with it. Look at the Creationists.

[Planetary]

why does anyone listen to this chickenhead?

hahah. chickenhead.

[kleptomaniac]

hahah. chickenhead.

you would know

[Planetary]

you would know
just fuck off. sheish.

:P

[EN[i]GMA]

To be honest, I can't say that I recall ever seeing any of these '9/11' widows on any commercials.

I may have, but I certainly don't consider them at all relvent; why does she?

Oh, I know: Because she's a sickening attack 'artist', that's why.

[kaiser soze]

the skank will never know what it's like to become a widow because nobody will marry the bitch!

fuck her...how is she any better when she's using 9/11 for her book?

[D_Raay]

GMA']To be honest, I can't say that I recall ever seeing any of these '9/11' widows on any commercials.

I may have, but I certainly don't consider them at all relvent; why does she?

Oh, I know: Because she's a sickening attack 'artist', that's why.
That struck me as well E. She stated that the 9/11 widows were "all over" the news. Now as you can all probably guess, I follow multiple news outlets and the most they have ever been mentioned is when Ms eyepatch started spitting out rhetoric.

I'd still teabag her though.:D

[catatonic]

Honestly... I thought she made a good point.

And if you think spazzing out is acting the same as she always has and will, I guess she's constantly spazzing out.

[D_Raay]

Honestly... I thought she made a good point.

And if you think spazzing out is acting the same as she always has and will, I guess she's constantly spazzing out.
Point being?

[catatonic]

If Christopher Reeve comes out in support of stem cells for instance, no one can question the legitimacy of stem cell research to his face. Objectivity becomes irrelevant. The sufferer gets all the attention and becomes the issue instead of logic.

I actually do think stem cell research is worthwhile, but couldn't think of a working example.

[catatonic]

If someone came from communist Russia, and kept sticking it to you when you tried to argue against globalism, or someone came from a Latin American country where Reagan put a fascist dictator in, and stuck his poverty in your face to prevent argument against nationalization, would either of these help us reach the best decision?

[catatonic]

I tried talking against the war in Iraq to a lady on the bus once, I like to remember it as having come up but my memory's fuzzy, and all of the sudden she got all teary eyed and said she had family who died in September 11 and how dare I question the president.

What about the women who asked Kerry during the Presidential debate if the government would pay for abortion? She was totally crying, so obviously he was screwed by that question in the face of the rest of the pro-life.

[zorra_chiflada]

lol at her saying "these broads" and saying "you're getting testy at me!"

oh, and why was she dressed like a three dollar hooker? is that the new republican approach? do women dressed like that get taken seriously? if so, that's news to me.

[D_Raay]

If Christopher Reeve comes out in support of stem cells for instance, no one can question the legitimacy of stem cell research to his face. Objectivity becomes irrelevant. The sufferer gets all the attention and becomes the issue instead of logic.

I actually do think stem cell research is worthwhile, but couldn't think of a working example.
See catatonic it is an illusion that no one CAN come out against Christopher Reeves and stem cell research because it happened. They may not have addressed him directly, but they surely came out.

Ann Coulter is a special brand of firestarter. She knew full well what people's reaction would be to her statements and her book, but she said it anyway. She did it purely to energize the fringes of her base. To bring out the fire and passion in them to combat the percieved "infallibility" of the left as she calls it.
Quite frankly, the left IS infallible as far as Ann Coulter is concerned because she has neither been in their position, nor has she the merit with which to make such judgements.

See my post about the media to understand why she was even given an audience to voice her opinions.

[D_Raay]

If someone came from communist Russia, and kept sticking it to you when you tried to argue against globalism, or someone came from a Latin American country where Reagan put a fascist dictator in, and stuck his poverty in your face to prevent argument against nationalization, would either of these help us reach the best decision?
Well these examples you listed; you are working on the assumption that we have actually done the right thing since 9/11?

[D_Raay]

I tried talking against the war in Iraq to a lady on the bus once, I like to remember it as having come up but my memory's fuzzy, and all of the sudden she got all teary eyed and said she had family who died in September 11 and how dare I question the president.

What about the women who asked Kerry during the Presidential debate if the government would pay for abortion? She was totally crying, so obviously he was screwed by that question in the face of the rest of the pro-life.
You would think we would all have stepped at least a few feet out of the jungle.
What exactly has Bush done other than proclaim victory in Iraq where there is none, and vow a war on terror that is not winnable.

I sympathize a great deal with anyone who lost a loved one on 9/11 and would never say such a thing to them. They have earned the right to put their faith in whatever they so choose . I would just hope that they gained some clarity and realize that it is our government that put us in a position to be attacked, not the people of this country.

[Qdrop]

while i understand Coulter's point (she "thinks" that widows are using the deaths of thier husbands as a shield of political correctness and social shame if you dare counter them, while speaking against the war)

except i really don't think these wives have gotten that much coverage at all....i recall only passing stories or mentions....they CERTAINLY were not used as spearheading weapons by the democratic party the way Ann described it...not any great extent....and if they were, i'm not sure how much effect it had.

none the less, while Ann may have had a slightly legitimate point about using tragic figures to make indefensible attacks on the opposition....knowing Ann's history, i doubt she really gives a shit about that....
it's just another in a long line of verbal marketing ploys she uses when trying to sell/market herself...
she's a political "Simon Cowell"...who's long destroyed any chance of credibility for what amounts to non-stop commercialization of herself.
she has her own "brand name"...and her "outlandish" comments are what typifies that.
she's just keeping her "product" moving.

[Funkaloyd]

Even supposing they did exploit their situation, sometimes the ends justify the means.

[Qdrop]

Even supposing they did exploit their situation, sometimes the ends justify the means.

i don't really think they did, though.

it's not like these women were hardened democrat anti-war activists before their husbands died.

but after thier husbands were killed, these women (4 of them) have been spearheading a movement to investigate the administrations forknowledge of the attacks and thier response.
seems like a pefectly adequate response by 4 people who lost thier husbands due to a possibly preventable attack.

i mean, these "broads" aren't hardened democrats who "luckily" lost thier husbands in a terrorist attack while republicans were in office and now get to use tragedy as a weapon.

Ann knows this....she's just trying to sell her book at any cost.

[Funkaloyd]

Yeah, I hadn't heard of these women until she brought them up. Thank Jesus "Invade Their Countries" Christ we have her watching the liberal media for us, eh?

[QueenAdrock]

I love when people say that Cindy Sheehan is nothing more than a political tool of the left, since they seem to forget that she bad-mouthed Democrats who had voted for the war, too. (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0538,lombardiweb,68015,2.html) They don't remember her talking trash about Hillary Clinton, conveniently. :rolleyes:

And PS, Ann Coulter is the devil. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/QueenAdrock1/other/coulterwhore.jpg) She's a total succubus.

[TimDoolan]

I don't know too much about this Ann Coulter thing. I haven't read her book, but she is very hot in the video.

What I loved was the liberal response to her book. Hillary Clinton actually responding to what Ann Coulter said, on the Today Show about the "Jersey Girls," is one of the biggest political faux pas a major politician could make. WTF:rolleyes:

"I've got to come to the defense of my constituents, the Jersey Girls. Why, I know they're not New Yorkers but they're Democrats; they supported John Kerry and so forth," and she thought she was being decorous and valorous and so forth, but all it did was give Ann Coulter a chance to say, "Hey, if Mrs. Clinton is going to start being concerned about angry women, perhaps she should go talk to her husband who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and was groping Kathleen Willey at the moment Kathleen Willey's husband was committing suicide." Slap down. Smack down. Score one for Ann Coulter. They can't win. The left clearly can't win. The comments on the Jersey Girls and so forth about the "enjoying" the deaths of their husbands, I'm not sure that's a fully in-context comment.


You can say whatever you want about Ann Coulter, but she doesn't lie about what liberals say. She doesn't make it up, and she doesn't take it out of context. It is between-your-eyes truth, just as all of us on the left are between-the-eyes truth when we talk about and identify the right.


Personally I don't agree with bashing widows, I think they've suffered enough. But what I love is witnessing something that's not a phenomena, it's a fact, and that is the left screeches and wails the loudest when you tell the truth about them, when you nail them. They just can't stand it!

When the truth is spoken about them, why, it's an outrage! -- and they stop the presses, and they start talking about cruelty. They never examine their own extremists or their own mainstream types who have said far worse things than Ann Coulter has said, (executing Bush, various slander etc etc. and they don't have the ability to say these things with humor.

[kaiser soze]

a letter from Henry Rollins to m'Ann Cuntler

http://images.worshiptheglitch.com/EP3LettersFromHenry.swf

[Funkaloyd]

She doesn't make it up, and she doesn't take it out of context.
Wanna bet?

[kaiser soze]

I don't know too much about this Ann Coulter thing. I haven't read her book, but she is very hot in the video.

whoa there champ, you like a woman with man hands? ok, you can have the skank

What I loved was the liberal response to her book.

Well the book is promoting one of the Biggest UNTRUTHS about liberals...that they are Godless, they will speak up just like Ann feels she has the right to spew vitriol.

Hillary Clinton actually responding to what Ann Coulter said, on the Today Show about the "Jersey Girls," is one of the biggest political faux pas a major politician could make. WTF:rolleyes:

"I've got to come to the defense of my constituents, the Jersey Girls. Why, I know they're not New Yorkers but they're Democrats; they supported John Kerry and so forth," and she thought she was being decorous and valorous and so forth, but all it did was give Ann Coulter a chance to say, "Hey, if Mrs. Clinton is going to start being concerned about angry women, perhaps she should go talk to her husband who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and was groping Kathleen Willey at the moment Kathleen Willey's husband was committing suicide."

Oh, yeah Ann got her....Ann's a real articulate pundit, sounds more like a playground bully. You're Damn Straight Hillary will come to the defense of the widows...she has class.

The comments on the Jersey Girls and so forth about the "enjoying" the deaths of their husbands, I'm not sure that's a fully in-context comment.

BUT I thought ANN doesn't lie about liberals

You can say whatever you want about Ann Coulter, but she doesn't lie about what liberals say.

But..Ann...Doesn't...Lie....Between....The...Eyes. ..Truth

When the truth is spoken about them, why, it's an outrage! -- and they stop the presses, and they start talking about cruelty. They never examine their own extremists or their own mainstream types who have said far worse things than Ann Coulter has said, (executing Bush, various slander etc etc. and they don't have the ability to say these things with humor.

It's the same for both sides....there is not black and white when corrupt people cover their ass

[Funkaloyd]

whoa there champ, you like a woman with man hands? ok, you can have the skank
Yeah, and that adam's apple! Ugh. She's got nothing on Michelle Malkin. I'd tap that totalitarian piece of ass any day.

[ms.peachy]

a letter from Henry Rollins to m'Ann Cuntler

http://images.worshiptheglitch.com/EP3LettersFromHenry.swf
You just made mr.peachy's day (y)

[TimDoolan]

whoa there champ, you like a woman with man hands? ok, you can have the skank
Not a fan of the man hands I have to admit. But the rest of her body is smokin.

Well the book is promoting one of the Biggest UNTRUTHS about liberals...that they are Godless, they will speak up just like Ann feels she has the right to spew vitriol.

What does god have to do with it? The video was about widows abusing their grieving state by making millions of dollars off their dead husbands and pushing their political views trying to convince people through guilt. Ann was sick of it so she wrote a book about it. I totally agree with her, its sick!

Oh, yeah Ann got her....Ann's a real articulate pundit, sounds more like a playground bully. You're Damn Straight Hillary will come to the defense of the widows...she has class.

No, she has no class. She is a hippocrite. Just the other day she was on the senate floor speaking against the high salaries of company CEO's, while meanwhile Clinton now comes under this fancy "Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan," which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies.

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? WE DO!


It's the same for both sides....there is not black and white when corrupt people cover their ass

Yeah but its just much more funny when liberals do it.

[DroppinScience]

a letter from Henry Rollins to m'Ann Cuntler

http://images.worshiptheglitch.com/EP3LettersFromHenry.swf

I <3 Henry Rollins! :D

[abcdefz]

I thought she made a good point, too. And I don't think she was "spazzing out" or acting "crazy"; she was getting somewhat excited because he kept trying to cut her off rather than allow her to finish her statements. Funny -- if it were a man doing the exact same thing, we'd probably call him "assertive."

[D_Raay]

I thought she made a good point, too. And I don't think she was "spazzing out" or acting "crazy"; she was getting somewhat excited because he kept trying to cut her off rather than allow her to finish her statements. Funny -- if it were a man doing the exact same thing, we'd probably call him "assertive."
Whatever point you think she is making (one that is highly dubious at best), you don't say that they are enjoying their husbands deaths and use words like harpies. The fact of the matter is whatever side of the aisle you are on, she is a nut. If you don't think so maybe you should count the marbles in your head.

[Funkaloyd]

What does god have to do with it? [...] Ann was sick of it so she wrote a book about it.
STFU Donny, you're out of your element. You have no frame of reference here: you're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie.

[TimDoolan]

STFU Donny, you're out of your element. You have no frame of reference here: you're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie.


Hey Walter, go tell some sheep jokes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_humour

[GetYourWarOn]

she's a cunt, and it's too bad there's no such thing as hell cause i'd love to see her burn in it.

[GetYourWarOn]

I thought she made a good point, too.



the problem with the political scene in this country is that most of us are too hung up on attacking the person, rather than attacking the issue.... ann coulter can't comprehend having a rational discussion about post 9/11 politics with these widows(or anyone else for that matter), because in her world, the way to win an argument is to belittle your opponent with personal attacks until everyone in the room has forgotten what the topic of discussion was.

[QueenAdrock]

she's a cunt, and it's too bad there's no such thing as hell cause i'd love to see her burn in it.

The hell you talking about? We can send her to Iraq quite easily.

[ToucanSpam]

And PS, Ann Coulter is the devil. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/QueenAdrock1/other/coulterwhore.jpg) She's a total succubus.

That picture scared the shit out of me.:(



Anyways, she just needs a man or woman to love her and satisfy her. She's a fiesty one, that's for sure.

Oh, and just because those widows don't support the war or Bush because their husbands died doesnt mean their opinions are any less valid. I'm sure they could and would argue for much better reasons other than the pure emotional ones they have; assuming they don't is pretty ignorant.

[Qdrop]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/12/business/media/12carr.html?ei=5090&en=53b158563a9ef71f&ex=1307764800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

^pretty accurate.

[abcdefz]

Whatever point you think she is making (one that is highly dubious at best), you don't say that they are enjoying their husbands deaths and use words like harpies. The fact of the matter is whatever side of the aisle you are on, she is a nut. If you don't think so maybe you should count the marbles in your head.



This is actually the only thing I know about her whatsoever. And her point, the way I understood it, was widows using the "grief card" as some sort of debating method. Yes, she could've been more tactful -- but I wonder how much these same people would protest if it had been, say, Howard Stern -- but the interviewer was definitely pushing and interrupting and trying to steamroller her with essentially the same argument she's decrying, so, yes, it got volatile.

Marbles=26, by the way.

[kaiser soze]

It's not like the widows husbands all died from unrelated causes, they were TARGETS of a terrorist attack that could have been stopped. They have every right to speak out against the failures this government exhibited on 9/11 and beyond.

grief does motivate people to challenge the "facts" and find the truth

[abcdefz]

I think you miss the point.

In other words, let's say that 2+2=4. 2+2 does NOT equal 4 because a person is widowed/black/gay/disabled/female etc., which means that making (whatever) a main point of the "discussion" is exploitation, and that to so willfully exploit and manipulate, that person's motivations are suspect.

See also: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore.

[D_Raay]

I think you miss the point.

In other words, let's say that 2+2=4. 2+2 does NOT equal 4 because a person is widowed/black/gay/disabled/female etc., which means that making (whatever) a main point of the "discussion" is exploitation, and that to so willfully exploit and manipulate, that person's motivations are suspect.

See also: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore.
You are assuming that her point is valid. 2+2=4 in the widow's case because of the many questions left from 9/11 and the real possisbility that with different leadership that it may have been averted.

Her only valid point does NOT apply to the widows at all. So if she wanted to make this point she shouldn't have used the widows , let alone personally attack them.

[abcdefz]

The point is: a fact is a fact if it's true, not because emotionalism and sentimentality make it true. If the widows have a valid point to make about leadership, etc. -- and I think they do -- it's because there is valid evidence (including deaths), but NOT because they are greiving. How can that not make sense? How a person FEELS is not evidence. In fact, a person exploiting the feelings of themselves or others is pretty suspect, whether it's bereaved family members or the President.

[D_Raay]

The point is: a fact is a fact if it's true, not because emotionalism and sentimentality make it true. If the widows have a valid point to make about leadership, etc. -- and I think they do -- it's because there is valid evidence (including deaths), but NOT because they are greiving. How can that not make sense? How a person FEELS is not evidence. In fact, a person exploiting the feelings of themselves or others is pretty suspect, whether it's bereaved family members or the President.
No the point is: they are already grieving, and have every right to question what brought about the deaths of their loved ones. 3,000 people died that day and there are still alot of unanswered questions. Just because they are grieving they should not pursue it because they are, in fact, grieving?

[GetYourWarOn]

The point is: a fact is a fact if it's true, not because emotionalism and sentimentality make it true. If the widows have a valid point to make about leadership, etc. -- and I think they do -- it's because there is valid evidence (including deaths), but NOT because they are greiving. How can that not make sense? How a person FEELS is not evidence. In fact, a person exploiting the feelings of themselves or others is pretty suspect, whether it's bereaved family members or the President.


if i lost my sister to breast cancer, would it be ok for me to use her name to try and get our government to contribute more money towards stem cell research? would it be ok for me to support a democratic candidate for president, and god forbid use her loss as a reason for my doing so? is that really such a bad thing?

maybe the losses these women suffered were the reason they chose to support kerry in 04....isn't it possible that they're just fed up with the current administration, and that by supporting a change in leadership, they felt that they were actually honoring their late husbands?