1
   

Ann Coulter: Boobs in the News

 
 
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 10:30 am
Boobs In The News
February 4, 2004 - Ann Coulter

JUST TO give you a snapshot of the current Democratic Party, in the primaries this week, Dennis Kucinich got three times as many votes in North Dakota as Joe Lieberman did.

After that, Lieberman quit the race. In sympathy with Lieberman and facing similar odds -- I'm quitting the race too. To my supporters: Hey, we didn't go all the way, but just look how much we accomplished! In his concession speech, Lieberman thanked each one of the Democratic presidential candidates for contributing to the race and thanked Al Sharpton in particular for inciting no additional violence against the Jews.

Former front-runner Howard Dean sat out this week's primaries, but still managed to make news by ridiculing the FCC's plan to investigate MTV's halftime show at the Super Bowl. Dean pronounced the proposed investigation "silly." He explained that, as a doctor, a naked breast is "not exactly an unusual phenomenon for me."

That's an interesting standard. Presumably a primetime exhibition of Janet Jackson having a full pelvic exam and pap smear would not be "exactly an unusual phenomenon" for Dean either. Let's just be grateful Dean's not a proctologist.

Meanwhile, the rest of the country was not so copacetic about being flashed with what The New York Times called Janet Jackson's "middle-aged woman's breast." Janet Jackson said she decided to add "the reveal" following the final rehearsal, which I found pretty shocking. Not the reveal -- the fact that the number in question was actually rehearsed. Even CBS executives were enraged by MTV's halftime show, saying they could have gotten the identical show from National Geographic for a fraction of the price.

Speaking of boobs, after sustaining his first losses in two primaries Tuesday night, senator and trophy husband John Kerry has said he's going to concentrate on solidifying the support of his base. People like David Gest, Claus von Bulow and Tom Arnold. Liberals laughed at George Bush for citing Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher, but are impressed that John Kerry's favorite philosopher is Louis Prima ("Just a Gigolo").

Kerry thinks people are dying to hear his economic plan. In fact, the only economic plan most male voters want to hear about is how Kerry snookered two babes worth hundreds of millions of dollars into marrying him.

Kerry may as well start giving out dating tips. He's running out of other ideas. A few weeks ago, The Washington Post reported that Kerry has taken more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years. In a face-saving move, Senator Botox has quietly dropped the part of his stump speech where he inveighs against Washington special interests: "We're coming, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out." Interestingly, these were also Senator Kerry's words to his first wife after he hooked up with Teresa Heinz.

Not only that, but according to Kerry's principal cheerleaders -- Teddy Kennedy and The New York Times -- Kerry absolutely refuses to talk about his Vietnam service. Kennedy insists that Kerry "just won't talk about" Vietnam. Apparently Vietnam was a brief, death-defying interlude that Kerry would simply prefer not to discuss. You might say it's his Chappaquiddick.

In the objective part of a factual news story, The New York Times reported that Kerry "has been careful to avoid being seen as exploiting his service politically." He simply will not do it. This came as a shock to most Americans who were discovering for the very first time that Kerry had served in Vietnam.

While there is indisputably nothing cooler than having fought for your country, John Kerry's status as a Vietnam veteran is unlikely to change a single vote. Military guys will support Bush, and liberals don't admire bravery. The only reason Democrats will tolerate someone who fought on the same side as the United States is to fuel their rage against Bush.

After starting the Vietnam war, the Democratic Party suddenly decided it was an illegal, immoral, undeclared war, and soldiers like John Kerry were baby killers. Today, vast majorities of Democratic primary voters tell pollsters they opposed the war in Iraq -- which their darling Kerry voted for. Kerry's sole appeal is that he gives pacifist cowards cover to fume about Bush.

Just a few years ago, the Democrats thought a pot-smoking draft-dodger would make a splendid president. But now they are enflamed at the thought that Bush didn't fight in Vietnam! In other words, it's honorable to march in anti-American protests in Europe when America is at war, but not to be a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.

Democrats know they can't beat Bush, but they intend to enjoy being hysterical about him throughout the campaign. Calling Bush a draft-dodger, which he is not, will join the Democrats' list of other cogent, reasoned arguments, such as "You're stupid" and "Halliburton!"

Democrats think they invented war heroes, but being a war hero didn't help Bob Dole. It didn't help George Herbert Walker Bush. It didn't help John McCain. The Democrats didn't invent war heroes. What they invented is the scam of deploying war heroes to argue for surrender.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,127 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
theollady
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 11:57 am
BBB. thanks

The strung out sentences in this article remind me of when I was a preteen playing "I can say a bigger one than you".
We were not trying to be truthful, but the most outlandish and the nastiest.
'My brother can too spit fatha' than yo brother- he kin hock and cock fer ten minutes then spit all the way to grandad's house!' 'NN I don CARE whut you say!!!'

(I get all crossed up between 'gitting nasty' and 'ignoring'.)
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 12:06 pm
BBB, we've already had a stimulating discussion on this particular article...

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=551465&highlight=#551465
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 12:41 pm
Oops
Oops, thanks, Gus, didn't know about the other thread.

BBB
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2004 05:40 pm
Inquiring mind.
Is Coulter transgender?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2004 05:55 pm
Re: Inquiring mind.
pistoff wrote:
Is Coulter transgender?


Would that make you want her even that much more?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 08:32 am
This may not be best place to ask this question, but I don't like starting threads.

Has anyone else heard what is going on now? They are talking about having hearings or something like that about the Janet Jackson superbowl thing. Is anyone else worried about the slippery slope of censorship or am I just overreacting?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 10:36 am
revel

No, you aren't over-reacting. Item this morning in the paper re a censoring of an ER episode, as consequence.

The 'christian right' really doesn't like sex much at all (a fun history of personal pathology going back through Augustine to Paul) and they feeling their oats these days, power-wise. Meanwhile, of course, they sit happily beside the folks from Marriot and Hilton at Republican donor events, even as the hotel boys hand over dollars which are partly created through hotelroom porn rentals.

Here's a great statistic, by the way (thank you, Al Franken)...the average viewing time of hotel porn is...twelve minutes. Ain't that a hoot.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2004 04:06 pm
I watched part of that hearing on cspan1 until they broke away. One thing I noticed was although those on the left agreed that the Janet exposer was appalling they were adding two things that those on the right didn't. The first and the one I personally think is more harmful than sexual content was that no one is outraged at the violence that is shown on TV on a regular basis and the other is that it was unfair to single out Janet Jackson and not Justin Temberlake. Although after those on the left said that about Justin Temberlake those on the right quickly agreed, but they never did say anything about the negative impact violence has on young children.

I saw a book the other day at the library written Rush Lembauge (I can't spell worth diddly and I know that won't be on spellcheck) brother had a book entitled something like the war that liberals are waging against Christians.

There is so much wrong with that. Number one I am both a Christian and a democrat but liberal in my policy beliefs. So I guess I am at war with myself. (republican right wingers like to make out like they are only ones who have any religious beliefs) Number two, it is not us that is waging a war, but they are and they are winning.

Its like people can't see that freedom is more important than trying enforce morality which can't be forced in any case nor should it be. I will be glad when this phase is over. I wonder what is next, dress codes?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2004 08:23 am
revel

Yes, the violence fine/sex abominable thing is really astonishingly nuts, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Ann Coulter: Boobs in the News
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2024 at 08:27:25