Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 7 of 274 (678962)
11-11-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 7:36 PM


To me, Coulter just responds to the ugly rhetoric of the left by exposing them and accurately calling them what they are.
Ann Coulter referred to biology as a fake science because it has the highest participation by women of a scientific field.
Could you explain exactly how that's a reflection of the "ugly rhetoric of the left"? Please be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 7:36 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 9:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 11 of 274 (678967)
11-11-2012 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Theodoric
11-11-2012 9:03 PM


Re: Coulter not banned
Facts? How hateful!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Theodoric, posted 11-11-2012 9:03 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 274 (678992)
11-11-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 9:42 PM


I think it was in Godless, maybe? Let me check. Yeah, Godless:
quote:
They’re almost always biologiststhe science with the greatest preponderance of women.
Again - how is that a "reflection of the ugly rhetoric of the left" and not simply a reflection of Ann Coulter's own self-hating sexism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 9:42 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 10:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 52 of 274 (679023)
11-11-2012 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 10:25 PM


Every single sentence of Coulter's is not a direct response to a single hateful quotation from a liberal.
Ok, but here's what you said:
quote:
I think Coulter is only showing these kind of people for exactly who they are.
"Only", as in "nothing but."
To be feminist is not equivalent to being female.
What does that have to do with female participation in the biological sciences?
But to counter your general point: Liberal Feminists have said some extremely hateful things about men, conservatives, fundamentalists and women who don't toe the party line. The book is a blast right back at them.
My "general point" is that Coulter, clearly, thinks women are too stupid to be real scientists and that therefore whatever scientific field they most participate in is, perforce, less of a science by their participation. Frankly I think that's kind of gross, particularly since my wife holds a PhD in a biological science, and was considered sufficiently qualified in her performance of same that she was commissioned by the United States Congress to the Army at the rank of captain.
But you're the one who's asserted that Ann Coulter has never said mum except that a liberal - or do you prefer "lie-beral" - said it first. So I'm asking you, how is her contention the reflection of anything said on the left, and not simply some ugly rhetoric of her own?
If you mistakenly think she is saying that the study of biology is a worthless science because it is predominately composed of women, then you are gravely mistaken about Coulter.
Or, unlike you I guess, I'm able to read. This is the same person who has asserted that the right to vote should be taken away from women because they're too stupid to use it. I guess you're supposed to add "except for her!" at the end of that yourself, because she never remembers to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 10:25 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by subbie, posted 11-11-2012 10:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(4)
Message 123 of 274 (679188)
11-12-2012 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by foreveryoung
11-12-2012 7:58 PM


Re: Another case of cognitive dissonance
I can't repeat the thoughts that go through my head after reading posts on here.
Then why do you keep coming back and reading them?
Do you understand that this is neither a healthy nor a normal reaction to reading arguments about science on the internet? Wow, what are you like when people disagree with you about things that really matter?
It is nothing but deceitful propaganda.
So prove it. So far you've made a complete hash-job of doing it in this thread, because you put yourself out there to defend Ann Coulter without being, as you admitted, actually familiar with her body of work. In retrospect does that seem like a good idea? Don't you think it's possible that it was actually us, who have read her books and researched her remarks, that had an accurate characterization of her, and you who, not actually knowing much about it, who had arrived at a mistaken impression about her?
Why does it seem like a good idea to defend someone or something you don't know anything about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by foreveryoung, posted 11-12-2012 7:58 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(6)
Message 132 of 274 (679202)
11-12-2012 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
11-12-2012 9:34 PM


Re: Another case of cognitive dissonance
The reason foreveryoung gets angry is that, if he is a true Christian, which I don't know yet but hope he is, he hasn't brought his emotions and thoughts "captive" to Christ, or under the Lordship of Christ, which is hard work for all of us and I've certainly blown it big time myself.
Yeah, but when you did it, it was a momentary lapse in a record of thoughtful posts. If Foreveryoung was a tenth as thoughtful as you usually are, it'd be one thing.
But he's only got one mode, here, and it's inchoate rage at anyone with the temerity to defend a different view than he has. He's got no arguments for any position he holds; he just thinks he can get mad enough to bully us into submission.
I also don't follow Coulter much but what I've seen of her I've found to be funny and smart and insightful, and yes, very acerbic. That's what polemicists and humorists do, and there are certainly many of those on the Left.
Except that she's not a humorist. She's serious, and unlike someone like Bill Maher - perhaps one of "those on the left" you were thinking - whose targets are the powerful, Coulter targets only those without the power to fight back or harm her in any way. Minorities. 9/11 widows. Atheists.
When has Coulter had harsh words for the Catholic Church? When has she had harsh words for Fox News? When has she had harsh words for anyone at the RNC, or anyone else in a position to harm her financially or materially? When has Coulter ever attacked someone on her own side?
She's just a stupid bully who picks on those who aren't afforded an opportunity to respond. I know you're an honest person, so tell me honestly - what is there to like about Ann Coulter except that she's unapologetically on your side?
Would you believe he meant by "Conservative" that the Jesuits were formed in the Catholic CounterReformation to preserve the status quo, which is a "conservative" definition after all. Do we use the term that way today?
Do we continue to use "conservative" to refer to the political temperament that seeks to preserve traditional values and time-tested social institutions from change? Um, yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what we all still mean by "conservative", even you.
And now unkind people are exposing his angry PMs.
Should they not? If he didn't want them exposed, why did he send them? Do you think Foreveryoung is reacting to disagreement the way a healthy person should? Surely you're not so blinded by the fact that he's "on your side" to think that he is, or that his anger is in any way excusable. It's not like we cornered him on this - this is the thread he opened up. None of us were talking about Ann Coulter until he brought it up. Why did he bring it up if he didn't want to talk about it?
Don't you think this is the bed he's made for himself? I know you're not the kind of person to ignore someone's faults and missteps just because they're "on your side." Level with me. As frustrating as it can be to be to talk to Theodoric and Jar - our own versions of Foreveryoung, to be sure - is this really the right reaction?
I eventually showed that the university itself is typically liberal although the liberals here didnt recognize it and seemed to take offense at the obvious fact, which puzzles me, and foreveryoung chimed in to agree with me that they don't know they're liberals, and got mocked and scorned for that too.
For what it's worth I think you're making a better case for your side than Jar is making for his. But also, for whatever it's worth, Jesuit colleges are more conservative than other colleges. But being colleges, they may still be what you would consider "liberal." I'm not sure it's possible for a college to be "conservative" in the way you think of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 11-12-2012 9:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 11-12-2012 11:29 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 145 of 274 (679414)
11-13-2012 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
11-12-2012 11:29 PM


Re: Another case of cognitive dissonance
That almost makes me cry, Crash. I can't remember getting any kind of compliment on my arguments here from the Loyal Opposition before.
Well, then I've done a poor job of expressing my impression of you. I mean, don't get me wrong - I don't think you're hardly ever right, but it's clear that you put a lot of thought into your posts, and unlike the rest of your fellow travelers I get the impression from your replies that the information is sinking in, not simply being chucked out by Morton's Demon.
That's all to your credit, which is why I was excited to see that you and Percy had opened the "Intro to Genetics" thread. I hope you'll continue to ask questions in that thread.
Well, first of all how often does anyone on the Left attack someone on the Left?
What? Like, constantly. I know you don't follow our "house organs" - the Daily Show, the New York Times - and you said you don't follow politics, but maybe you heard about Obama's performance in the first debate? I'm sure you heard conservatives and Republicans crowing about how terrible the President had been.
Well, that's what we were saying, too. Obama was savaged in the NYT. The Daily Show had a whole thing about it. Bill Maher riffed that kids were putting on blackface and popping a Valium for Halloween - so they could go as "Obama from the first debate."
Don't you remember the old joke? "No, I'm not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." The fact that liberals constantly organize in a circular firing squad is part of the charm, I guess.
I'd object if I thought she was bullying vulnerable people -- i'd FEEL it -- hasn't happened.
Well, let me give you some examples of what I'm talking about. These are actual Coulter remarks from different media:
quote:
In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors.
quote:
I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote.
quote:
God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."
quote:
If we take away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat President.
quote:
Apparently you have to go to rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't talk about Edwards.
quote:
These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.
That last was about the widows of a number of 9/11 heroes. I dunno. Maybe you think all of that is just rabble-rousing and bomb-tossing. But I've never seen Ann Coulter talk about people like that to their faces, with them in the room, and if you'll pardon the language I don't think it takes much in the way of balls to slag someone where they won't have the opportunity to respond.
Oh you poor poor people who have no sense of history and have no idea what it would mean if that happened, who have no sense of how western prosperity and freedom have depended on the legacy of the Protestant Reformation and are so gleefully scorning it and trying to kill it, and succeeding I might add.
I gotta say - what? No look, I get it that it would be terrible if the Catholic Church returned to the apex of its temporal power. No doubt it would be awful.
But, like, in what timestream is that even possible? Sure, there was a time when the Popes gave orders to armies. But I've seen the Vatican's mercenaries, Faith - they're guys with polearms who dress in clown suits. There's like 20 of them. In what possible world could the Catholic Church wield any power but the power of the pulpit? And given the fact that 90-some percent of even practicing Catholic women are ignoring the Church's teaching on birth control - i.e. they're using it - the power of the pulpit doesn't seem to go very far. 50 cents and the entire Catholic Church's moral authority, these days, will only buy you a really terrible cup of coffee.
I really think you can set your mind at ease about the danger of a resurgent Catholic Church and the safety of the Protestant Reformation. Some bells you can't un-ring.
But on my side of things it's hard to find others to align with at all. Too many differences among us.
I get that. Believe it or not it's something we've noticed around here - creationists can't seem to home in on a consistent, consensus version of creationism, in the same way that us evolutionists largely articulate the same notion of evolution despite whatever other agreements we have with each other. That's not to say we're in lock-step; it's a reflection of the knowledge and research pointing towards an evolutionary consensus even if you don't know about the consensus.
People here roundly scorn and mock conservative positions, I mean all the time, including on the Humor thread, without seeming to recognize that they are representing the liberal position in doing so, all those positions listed on that page for instance. How come I know those are liberal positions and the liberals don't?
I dunno, how come I know that Jesuits are conservative Catholics and you don't? There's a lot of variance in individual perspective. And you'll not find a lot of liberals who see multiculturalism, especially at a college, as anything too "liberal", when it's really just the recognition that you can't bring a lot of people together in one place without necessarily bringing together a lot of cultures and races. Your reaction, to me, sounds a lot like those guys who used to say "homosexuality? I don't believe in that." Believe in it? What's to believe? It happens, you either recognize reality or you don't. Recognizing that your college has a diversity of cultures and races and we shouldn't be dicks about it? I don't see that as "liberal" so much as "not being stuck in an imaginary world where only white people attend your college." I dunno, different strokes I guess.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 11-12-2012 11:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 11-14-2012 12:31 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 190 of 274 (679592)
11-14-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
11-14-2012 3:45 PM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
He compares her hyperbole with someone's belligerently saying something angry or threatening to a person's face, which is a stunning mischaracterization of her intent.
That's exactly right, I'd say. Her intent, obviously, is to say something angry or threatening to a person's back.
She has not the slightest "wish" to blow up the NYT building which is what your comparison implies. It's purely a symbol for Liberal Media influence. Hurting people and blowing up buildings is not going to get rid of Liberal influence, which is her real aim.
I just don't get any sense from her words that she's careful about making that distinction. Timothy McVeigh, after all, was not a person who deployed a theoretical bomb but an actual one. Am I certain that she would be glad if the New York Times, and liberalism in general, was "blown up", discredited, and eliminated of all influence? Sure I am. But it's pretty clear that if the building and its occupants were literally destroyed and killed by a terrorist bomb, she'd be enthusiastic about the result to the extent that it represented a misfortune for liberals.
Don't get me wrong - that happens on the left, too. A lot of people were pretty inappropriately and publically happy when conservative blogger and editor Andrew Breitbart died, unexpectedly, of a heart attack. But those people were roundly censured by the left, and were either fringe figures to begin with, or were rapidly demoted to same. Public apologies were given.
To my knowledge, nothing of the sort ever happens to Coulter, which is why her continued prominence in the conservative movement is largely considered problematic by both mainstream and conservative leaders, and why liberals - rightly, I think - dismiss the intellectual legitimacy of the movement conservatism of which she is a part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 11-14-2012 3:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:59 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(5)
Message 207 of 274 (679725)
11-15-2012 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
What is your objection to this quote?
That liberals should be subject to physical intimidation for being liberals.
You've mentioned that you don't take Coulter literally, but how do you square that here? How do you metaphorically physically intimidate someone? The phrase "physically intimidate", as near as I can tell, pretty incontrovertibly takes this out of the realm of "speaking figuratively."
It's discouraging to know people are voting against you for all the wrong reasons. Don't you agree?
Not at all. I mean, you get to vote even though I know you're doing it on the basis of paranoid delusion, outright misinformation, and a nativist, shallow conception of the issues. But I guess where liberals differ is that we believe that the benefits of broad access to social institutions outweigh the disadvantages of having our opponents use that access for all the wrong reasons.
I mean, how would we keep paranoid nativists - or, for that matter, those who "know nothing" of current events (by what standard?) - from voting, without also preventing voting by a lot of people who legitimately should vote, but have trouble with tests, or with reciting detailed history on command (despite their correct understanding of history in its broad strokes), or might be productive members of society but in between paychecks as a temporary situation that arose, coincidentally, around Election day?
And why would Coulter - trying to understand how she would be "speaking figuratively" here, again - refer to precisely those measures which were designing to keep black people from voting? If the question is awareness of current or historical events, how does a poll tax address that? Why would having money prove that you remembered 9th grade civics? Again, the most reasonable explanation is that she's speaking literally - she'd literally like less black people to vote, because she knows they tend to vote for Democrats.
This is a case where she went way over the line.
Well, I'm glad we agree for once.
She's objecting to the environmentalist extremists who seem to care more for the spotted owl than for human wellbeing.
But she doesn't say that. That's not even a "speaking figuratively" interpretation of her words - that's just a context you've invented to explain them away.
I found this really funny because it's so true and I've thought the same myself and then had to try to push it out of my head.
Why would it be true? Democrats won elections over and over again before women had the right to vote. In the US, women's sufferage was ratified by the 19th Amendment under President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, so clearly there's at least one Democrat who won the Presidency without the woman's vote.
If nothing else, you have to admit that it's an incredibly dumb thing for Coulter to say. Of course there would be Democratic presidents, because the Democratic party, like the Republican, would promote policies meant to attract male voters. It's just dumb.
Bad taste I'd say. But she's insisting on her right to violate the canons of Political Correctness by using the term "faggot" risking being put in the prison of rehab for it.
Sure, but my point is that Coulter has a pattern of picking on those not afforded an opportunity to respond. Would she call Edwards a "faggot" to his face? Doesn't that kind of ring hollow, anyway, calling "gay" a man most famous for his fertile extramarital affair with another woman? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Isn't this just Coulter doing same name-calling, again at someone who isn't there to respond, just for the sake of being provocative? Isn't that just kind of dumb and cowardly? Any old idiot can cause offense. What's the point?
Well, he is sort of.
How, exactly? His harem of girls on the side? His Southern accent? His chiseled features? It's like saying that the Brawny Guy is effeminate because his picture is on paper towels. "Oh, that Brawny guy, what a queer, with his beard and his lumberjack axe. Always felling trees, just like you'd expect from a swish." It makes no sense.
That's silly, they've got plenty of people to defend them, apparently the whole anti-Coulter crowd for starters.
Ok, but guess what, she doesn't say those things in the room with us. She won't go on any program where she might be called to account for those remarks. She won't defend her books anywhere where they might be subject to fact-checking.
Where's the courage in that? It's easy enough to be a bomb-thrower when you only surround yourself with people who will praise you for it.
She's NOT doing anything like what is being ijmnputed to here that imnplies it's the same as verbally abusing people to their face.
But that's exactly what I'm saying - she'll only verbally abuse people behind their backs. What about that could possibly be worth defending?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 211 of 274 (679750)
11-15-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
11-15-2012 1:42 PM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
Isn't the "physical intimidation" the execution of a traitor as an example?
Yes. So? Why should liberals be "physically intimidated" for being liberals? Why is that a compelling justification for executing traitors? Executing traitors may be justified for some other reason, that's not what I'm arguing about. Why is it important to physically intimidate liberals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-15-2012 3:30 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 11-16-2012 12:23 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(3)
Message 233 of 274 (679885)
11-16-2012 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
11-16-2012 12:23 AM


Re: Ann's hyperbole / what is treachery
It's to "physically intimidate" POTENTIAL TRAITORS, Crash.
But she doesn't say "potential traitors", now does she? Again, we need to have this discussion based on her actual remarks, not what you wish she'd have said because it would be easier to defend.
She said "liberals." Not "potential traitors."
And there is no "physical" anything going on, but somehow you treat it as if she'd advocated throwing you all in irons or something when she's only talking about executing traitors as an EXAMPLE.
Yes. As an example to liberals. Not as an example to traitors, but to Coulter's legitimate ideological opponents. Why do you see nothing problematic with that?
Yes, I know you all don't see it that way, and are probably quite loyal Americans, but then what would be wrong with executing actual traitors as a possible deterrent to any possible actualizing of traitorous impulses in the minds of "college liberals?"
What would be wrong with executing people to serve as "example" to your ideological, political opponents? Really, you have to ask? Think about turning the tables, for a second - ruminate on the idea of executing the Unibomber to serve as an example to people like you and Rush Limbaugh - and see if you can't spot why physical intimidation of your ideological opponents is inimical to American values.
If in fact there ARE no such actual traitorous impulses, great, then there's nothing to be deterred.
Yes, that's sort of the point. So why is Coulter calling for the physical intimidation of liberals who aren't traitors?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 11-16-2012 12:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(4)
Message 252 of 274 (680028)
11-17-2012 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
11-16-2012 7:30 AM


Re: woops, they're in high suspicion mode again
Gee whillikers, foreveryoung, we've got a whole gaggle of the Thought Police on our trail now.
Wait, unpack this for me. Tell you that we disagree with your ideas, that's "the Thought Police", but telling us that our ideas are tantamount to treason against the country, and that a few guys ought to swing from yard-arms to scare us into silence, that's not? How do you make that make sense?
Perhaps I'd say something like: if it's "progressive" to you then it's most likely "subversive" to us.
And you don't think calling our positions "subversive" is "the Thought Police"? Explain to me how that works for you.
Back eventually no doubt to face the PC gang.
Just to unpack this, what you're calling "political correctness" is the position that in America, we don't execute people in order to intimidate others from expressing completely conventional, mainstream views. (Or really, any views.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 11-16-2012 7:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 253 of 274 (680029)
11-17-2012 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
11-16-2012 3:42 AM


Re: Ann's hyperbole / what is treachery
As I've reviewed my own posts over the last page or two I see how I've been struggling to get my thoughts together on this subject. When I finally do then I sound articulate. Took a lot of half-baked verbiage to get there though and I'm not sure I've yet made the necessary points.
I saw upthread you got burned for this a little, and I just wanted to express an alternate view; this is another example of the thoughtfulness and reflection that I've always enjoyed in many of your posts. It's to your credit, IMO, even if others may consider it baby steps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 11-16-2012 3:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 273 of 274 (680711)
11-20-2012 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Taq
11-20-2012 4:11 PM


Re: Ann Coulter is the Ali G of the GOP
Isn't the difference, though, that fake wresting is funny and entertaining?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Taq, posted 11-20-2012 4:11 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024