Ann
Coulter – what an ass monkey. The plan
is for this to be an occasional series of articles, each one on a different
“antichrist”, which for my purposes will be defined as someone who really,
really pisses me off. This could be
because they are evil or malicious or mean-spirited or just really stupid. Stupid really bugs me, so that’s why the
likes of Britney will find themselves on the end of my diatribe soon.
Now
where was I? Oh yes, Ann Coulter, what
an ass monkey. There isn’t a lot of
original thinking I can add on this topic as the fact that she is a total
imbecile has been well documented, and so much idiotic swill has oozed out of
her snout that going through it all would be redundant. So I’m just going to remind us all of some of
her highlights, point out why she’s actually good for the left (more on that
later), and I’ll also insult the horse-faced buffoon a little, just because it
makes me feel better. I’ll also link
liberally (no pun intended) so folks can get to much of her verbal excrement
from one place.
Some
of her most precious pearls:
- Her
solution to the problems in the Middle East - “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and
convert them to Christianity."
- On
the Oklahoma bomber - "My only regret with Timothy
McVeigh is he did not go to the New
York Times building." To which she added
later, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and
reporters."
- From
her book Slander: "Even Islamic
terrorists don't hate America like liberals
do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have
indoor plumbing by now."
- This
gem spoken at a conservative conference: "I
think our motto should be, post-9/11, 'Raghead talks tough, raghead faces
consequences."
- In
The Independent, this
beauty which goes quite well with the previous entry: “They're never
very high in anyone's caste system, are they? Poor little Pakis."
- On
Geraldo’s show:
"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."
- From her
column (10/29/99): "[The] backbone of the Democratic
Party [is a] "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient."
- Of
the four 9/11
widows: “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so
much." And then queried, “how do we
know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?"
- Speaking at a university: "You don't want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?"
- On the Danish cartoon controversy: “The 'offense to Islam' ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire."
- On TV show Hannity & Colmes: “Are all the American people that don't support him [President George W. Bush] dumb? COULTER: No. I think, as I indicated in my last book, they're traitors.
- On Canada:
"[Canadians] better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush
them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."
Granted,
that last one is quite funny. There, now
Canadians hate me too.
A
nice selection of the filth she spews. Does she mean it? Does it matter even
if she doesn’t, the damage is done? Has
she now become nothing more than a figure of ridicule? If one must use up any thought time on the
harridan, I suppose these are the answers as I see them. She doesn’t mean all of it. Probably. Her “career”, her existence in the public consciousness which is her
very lifeblood, now depends upon the controversies that spring forth when she
opens her trap. And when, as of late,
she has a book to promote, watch out! If
one can set aside one’s animosity towards her for a second it might be possible
to admire her marketing and promotional savvy. She certainly knows how to move “books”. Would it be more acceptable if it were calculated incitement of
controversy to induce book sales than if it is just the crazed ravings of a
certifiable lunatic? That will depend on
each individual and what they consider acceptable in the pursuit of making as
many bucks as possible while one is marketable. Freedom of speech and all that. But is it Hate speech? And if it
is the case that she infects the ether with her obnoxious rantings only for
self-promotion, does there come a point when she will have tipped over the peak
of Mount Gone-Too-Far and both her and her career will careen downhill into
oblivion faster than you can say “aardvark look-alike bitch”?
This
could well become the case if people would make more of her recent plagiarism
controversy. Turns out she’s a
thief. And a cheat. And a liar. See here, here and here for sites dealing with that. In short, the pea-brain has been found out,
and great swaths of her writing appear to be pilfered with no credit given
whatsoever. Ordinarily this spells the
end for a writer, but it looks as though she may slime her way through this.
But
then there’s this option – she’s good for the left, she’s the worst thing
that’s happened to the right and she should stay exactly where she is and keep
up her buffoonery. Could this be the
case? Here’s the theory, though I’m not
necessarily sold on it yet. The theory
goes that her crazed ravings bring everyone’s focus to what is worst and most
divisive and ugly and damaging about politics and partisan politics and
punditry. She is so extreme that the
only people who take her remotely seriously already hold her beliefs anyway and
are just as certifiable as her. Nothing
she says could ever convert anyone’s beliefs or win over any supporters from
the other side. Ever. The only thing she can
and does accomplish is to drive away fence-sitters. Those in the middle, swaying, not knowing
where to go, hear her vomitus emitting from her gaping hole and get driven away
very quickly. The more she becomes any
kind of face of the right, the more she turns the right into a joke. If I lived on the right I would want her
living alone on an island with only a volleyball or coconut to talk to as soon
as practicable. The poor volleyball
would be begging the coconut to stomp on it's head to save it from her droning,
nasal, vacuous bullshit.
I
don’t know if that theory holds water, but it seems sound to me. So maybe the left should be embracing her
(and rapidly bathing afterwards). But
that’s only the case if one wants to win at all costs. If one believes that she and all those like
her – Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. – are simply divisive idiots who cause
greater chasms between us all and make the airwaves and the country in general
a less pleasant place to be, then one should start the process for an enforced
muzzling law. Particularly when she gets
downright mean-spirited, as with suggesting that the four 9/11 widows were
grateful for their husbands deaths.
All
that said, I wrote this to get things off my chest and for what little comedy
my limited talents can muster (and here's a rather funny Ann related video that's well worth watching). But there’s still that freedom of speech thing and another unique invention
known as a remote control. I suppose we
could always just throw the remote at the TV and leave the room. Or just tune in to Air America. But what I wouldn’t give for all the
aforementioned people to be locked in a small room for a year with Paris
Hilton, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. The pundits would probably have gnawed each
other’s throats out within a week. Unless they bring their cellphones, in which the girls had better not
answer O’Reilly’s phone calls.
******************************
Anyone interested in seeing me carry on this new series of Antichrists, feel free to let me know. Potential
future victims include Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Katherine Harris,
Paris/Britney/Jessica/Lindsay, and many more.
Recent Comments