Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Addie, don't read this, it will make you spit bile
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 13 08:24:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Crazy-Like-A-Fox News Viewers

By Ann Coulter
May 13, 2004

Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.

Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch Fox News are ignorant retards.

The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes," which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."

There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."

The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."

Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague.

Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October. When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.

Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in Iraq was in the words of CIA director George Tenet a "slam dunk case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a "misperception" created by Fox News Channel.

Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only 11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children handguns or buckets?)

By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" basically what you might see on an episode of the original "Batman" TV series. When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.

David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq, but we have found:



chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval;

reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);

new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;

a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans;

long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs;

documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea;

facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts. I'm doing it as a favor to readers of the Los Angeles Times.




 
addi Posted: Thu May 13 08:35:35 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  okay. thanks for the warning. I'll avoid this one : )


*dear god, all I ask for is 20 minutes alone with Ann in a padded cell with a polaroid camera, a broomstick, and a leash.

"get on your knees and bark like a monkey!"


 
libra Posted: Thu May 13 10:38:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  freaky. my grandfather's name is John Carroll...there seem to be a lot of them floating around...


 
DanSRose Posted: Thu May 13 13:03:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I have a friend named Carol Jon. She's not the smartest, but she has a good heart.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu May 13 15:15:48 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Let's take a brief look at the wisdom of Ann Coulter, writer of this article.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

Mmhmm.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 13 15:26:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Let's take a brief look at the wisdom of Ann Coulter, writer of this article.
>
>"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."
>
>Mmhmm.
>
Ever heard the expression "tongue in cheek" ?

Read the article again.
She speaks the truth.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu May 13 15:32:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Read the article again.
>She speaks the truth.

Anything written by Ann Coulter I am immediately skeptical of, as she's an insane bitch, but unless she's outright lying (which she often does) her point makes sense, and I personally have little reason to defend readers of the Los Angeles Times, living on the east coast as I do.

She does make have one group represent not only all mainstream media but also every liberal, which I find odd.

She doesn't, however, defend Fox News much so I will continuing considering it stupid.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 13 15:55:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>>
>She does make have one group represent not only all mainstream media but also every liberal, which I find odd.
>
>She doesn't, however, defend Fox News much so I will continuing considering it stupid.
>
I have no idea what you just said in the above post but I am usually in agreement with her. Not always, but most of the time. Even when I disagree, I still find her writing to be entertaining, sort of like Dennis Miller.
The article at the top of this post is very interesting.
And I do take exception to you saying that she often tells "outright lies".
Show me some. If she does it often as you say she does, then show me many.
And show me all the retractions that she had to publish because of those lies.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu May 13 16:13:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And I do take exception to you saying that she often tells "outright lies".
>Show me some. If she does it often as you say she does, then show me many.

No. No I won't. I've had far too many arguments over people about the idiocy of Ann Coulter. What usually happens is I cite the many, many examples presented by Al Franken. Then the other person says all this stuff he has said that is lies, and nothing changes in anyone's minds.

What's interesting is that Ann Coulter and Al Franken are so similar. They spend most of their time discrediting the other side, usually with humorous comments (though Al is funnier), and when they're accused of lying they both, for the most part, go suddenly quiet on the topic. Now I know you could cite examples where Ann 'fesses up, but I could do the same for Al.

The only solution to the problem would be for them to have a sudden death fight-to-the-death with paperclips and totem polls. Don't ask, those are the first two things I thought of.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 13 16:20:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>And I do take exception to you saying that she often tells "outright lies".
>>Show me some. If she does it often as you say she does, then show me many.
>
>No. No I won't. I've had far too many arguments over people about the idiocy of Ann Coulter. What usually happens is I cite the many, many examples presented by Al Franken. Then the other person says all this stuff he has said that is lies, and nothing changes in anyone's minds.
>
>What's interesting is that Ann Coulter and Al Franken are so similar. They spend most of their time discrediting the other side, usually with humorous comments (though Al is funnier), and when they're accused of lying they both, for the most part, go suddenly quiet on the topic. Now I know you could cite examples where Ann 'fesses up, but I could do the same for Al.
>
Not a lot of similarity in Ann and Al.
Ann has been involved in politics all her adult life, whereas Al is a newcomer, and yes he is funnier, seeing as he has made his living as a comic all his adult life.
His only reason for entering the world of politics is to unseat Dubya and if that happens he will leave the world of politics. The other major difference is that Ann deals in facts that are provable, Al does not.
With the liberal press hot on her heels, I can assure you that if she were to print an outright lie, she would be forced to print a retraction almost immediately.
Also she doesn't need 14 Harvard interns to help her write a book.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu May 13 16:42:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sigh.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071502.shtml

And there is so much more.

It's one thing to lie about one's age, but on Ann Coulter's license it says she was born 1963. If this true, she registered to vote at the age of 16. Either way, she is either breaking the law.




 
addi Posted: Thu May 13 16:43:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

> The other major difference is that Ann deals in facts that are provable, Al does not.

No hif. not true. Actually just the opposite of what you said is usually the case.

>Also she doesn't need 14 Harvard interns to help her write a book.

that's because she has no need for verification and research. Al strives to be factual and have proof of his statements. Ann is happy making things up on her own.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu May 13 16:44:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Also she doesn't need 14 Harvard interns to help her write a book.

And it's riddled with stupidity. Al Franken, however, is a genius. Harvard offered him the chance to teach a class, and he made the class 'How to Research Al Franken's Book.'

You gotta love that.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 13 16:51:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Al Franken's Lies
by David Frum

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right
By Al Franken
Dutton, 368pp. $ 24.95
"Telling the truth is something I take seriously, and I try to hold myself to an impossibly high standard."

This time, Al Franken may have set the bar too high. By his own account, the self-appointed scourge of right-wing lies and liars has something of a truth problem himself. But let him tell the story:

April 21, 2003

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,

I am currently a fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, where I am working on a book about abstinence programs in our public schools entitled, Savin' It: The book's fourth chapter, "Role Modelin' It!," will feature the personal stories of abstinence heroes for our nation's young people to emulate . . . I would very much appreciate it if you could share your abstinence story. So far, I have received wonderful testimonies from HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, William J. Bennett, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, Cardinal Egan, Senator Rick Santorum, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. (I'm still hoping to hear back from the President!)

And so on. The letter was a pretty obvious con, and none of the 28 people to whom Franken sent it was fooled. Somebody even tipped off the Kennedy School that Franken was misusing its stationery. He apologized to Harvard--but not to any of his intended victims.

Anybody can type out a deceitful letter. (Well, almost anybody.) To lie to people's faces--and to do it over and over again--requires a more hardened character. Franken, though, is up to the challenge. He devotes a lengthy chapter of this book to an "elaborate ruse" (his words) intended to extract embarrassing material about Bob Jones University. (Just why he thought this material--or, for that matter, his abstinence-education material--might be relevant to a book about right-wing lying is something of a mystery.) First he asked his son to submit a bogus application to Bob Jones; then, when the boy begged to be released, Franken had one of his research assistants apply, this time traveling with the assistant to South Carolina to pursue the joke in person.

They got caught. "Look," Franken reports the man from the public-liaison office saying, "We've had enough of being made fun of . . . If you're legit, I'd be happy to show you anything you want to see. But we're not going to put our heads on the chopping block again." Franken acknowledges that "even while being hostile, [the man] was extremely nice about it."

Franken might well excuse these excursions into deception as comedy--pure entertainment. But that only raises another mystery: how does a man who values truth so highly as Franken says he does, and is so plainly eager to have his readers think him a nice guy, convince himself that it is OK to deceive people in order to lure them into doing foolish things that will cause others to laugh at them? Is that not compounding deceit with cruelty?

But Franken has an excuse for that, too: "I never lie. That is, unless it is absolutely necessary." And this time, one gathers, it has been absolutely necessary. For the latest book from America's most famous left-wing comic needs all the help it can get.

That may sound like a strange thing to say about a number-one bestseller. Franken is surely entitled to feel that his book has succeeded beyond all expectations. And, just as advertised, he and the fourteen research assistants provided him by Harvard University have caught some important conservative journalists and politicians in a number of embarrassing errors. Anne Coulter, for example, has identified Newsweek's Washington bureau chief Evan Thomas as the son of Norman Thomas, the famous socialist politician of the 1920's and 30's. Evan Thomas is not Norman Thomas's son. He is his grandson. Gotcha.

And yet, even Al Franken's keenest fans may sense that, in most of the "lies" he detects, there is (shall we say) a lack of oomph. Who would lay out $ 24.95 to be told that George W. Bush's claim to have eliminated income taxes for millions of low-income taxpayers is a lie because it says nothing about payroll and excise taxes? If that kind of thing gets you excited, there are ten Democratic presidential candidates who will say it to you for free--and, if yon live in Iowa or New Hampshire, even throw in a steak dinner or fish fry to thank you for listening.

No, the appeal of Franken's book cannot rest in its repetition of familiar Democratic talking points. It must rest, instead, on Franken's purported ability, to transform familiar Democratic talking points into knee-slapping hilarity. But it is just there that Lies repeatedly fails.

Not that Franken is unamusing: there are bits of Lies that might elicit chuckles even from those who do not share his politics:

"God chose me to write this book . . The reason I know God chose me is because God spoke to me personally. God began our conversation by clearing something up. Some of George W. Bush's friends say that Bush believes God called him to be President during these times of trial. But God told me that He/She/It had actually chosen Al Gore by making sure that Gore the popular vote and, God thought, the electoral college.

"THAT WORKED FOR EVERYONE ELSE!," God said. "What about Tilden?," I asked, referring to the 1876 debacle. "QUIET!" God snapped."

As I say: chuckles. Humor is notoriously subjective, but I suspect that even the most die-hard Democrat will go many, many pages between belly laughs -- pages that are instead filled with more characteristic charmers like this one:

"In contrast to [John Walker] Lindh's depraved [California] childhood environment, [conservative talk-show host Sean] Hannity trumpets his Long Island childhood in the protective embrace of the Catholic Church. Gee, nothing weird happened to cute little boys in the Catholic Church, eh, Sean? Nothing that would explain your bizarre fixation with our nation's homosexuals."

Not to be invidious, but the best right-wing funny men -- P.J. O'Rourke, Rob Long, Mark Steyn -- truly are laugh-out-loud funny. I have been on airplanes on days when Steyn's column is running in the local paper and heard the laughs exploding from the seat in front of me like artillery shells out of a howitzer. There is nothing howitzer-like about Franken. If he resembles anyone, it is Russell Baker, the New York Times humorist who churned out almost four decades' worth of columns that his admirers praised as "wry" and his non-admirers skipped for their intolerable smugness.

So why, then, if it is not for the content, and not for the humor, are liberal-minded Americans buying up this book by the boxcar-load? (An Al Franken wannabe might reply, "What else are they going to read? Hillary?" But that would be mean-spirited.) Obviously, a book so successful is filling some vast, unmet need. What is it?

Let me attempt an answer. Today's liberal-Left confronts a baffling predicament. For the first time since the early 1950's, Republicans hold the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. For the first two years of the Bush presidency, liberals could dismiss this amazing breakthrough as the product of a freak presidential election. But then the Republicans went on to enlarge their majorities in the 2002 off-year elections--something that had not occurred under a Republican president since at least Teddy Roosevelt's time.

How to explain this crushing turn of events? In the 1980's, many Democrats had responded to a prior wave of Republican success, the one that gave the country first Richard Nixon and then Ronald Reagan, with similar bafflement and rage. But, back then, Democratic governors based in the practical world of state politics were able to exert some restraint upon their party's tendency, when cut off from power, to veer into bitterness, paranoia, and extremism. The governors created the Democratic Leadership Council, from which Bill Clinton rose to win the presidency.

Today's Democrats are looking not for answers but for villains and scapegoats. This is the need that Al Franken's book satisfies--like Michael Moore's Stupid White Men, Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media?, and Joe Conason's Big Lies before it and like many more that are sure to follow. All of them propound a single message: "We Democrats did not lose power because of our own mistakes. We lost because we were cheated. We lost because the other side lied -- and because it controls the media that allow it to lie and get away with lying."

Of course, conservatives and Republicans also devour books that bash the other side and the media, like Bernard Goldberg's Bias and Anne Coulter's Slander. But there is a noticeable difference between, for example, Goldberg's take on CBS and Franken's assessment of Fox News. Goldberg attacks media bias as an evil in itself. Franken blames right-wing media deceit for depriving liberals of the political power that is rightly theirs. "The members of the right-wing media are not interested in conveying the truth. That's not what they are for," writes Franken in a pair of sentences that (substituting "left-wing" for "right-wing") could easily have appeared in Goldberg's book. But the sentence that follows it could not: "They" -- the media -- "are an indispensable component of the right-wing machine that has taken over our country." In short, where Goldberg's is a book about the media, Franken's is a book about political power, about how those who should rightfully hold it have lost it, and about how to get it back.

"What went wrong?" is the question with which the eminent scholar Bernard Lewis titles his book about the intellectual history of the Muslim Middle East. How had the once-wealthy and all-conquering Muslim world been overtaken by the despised Christian West? Al Franken's Lies can be read as one Democrat's attempt to grapple with an analogous problem. Unfortunately, like the enraged Muslims whom we meet in Lewis's book, Franken repudiates both self-examination and self criticism. It is all somebody else's fault. The faithful have nothing to learn from anybody. The solution to their problems is not reform, and it is certainly not self-criticism. It is a return to the fundamentals of the faith -- and war against the unbelievers.





 
Zacq Posted: Thu May 13 17:12:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That was... quite the article. Let's take a look, shall we?

It begins by giving an example of a joke letter Al Franken sent out and how no one was fooled. I really doubt Al Franken really expected anyone to be. It was, as it turns out, a joke. Wow. He's satan!

The first time they actually use examples to criticize the book, not including calling it humorous (that's not very critical if you ask me), is when they cite a lie he said about Ann Coulter. Al Franken at one point says that Ann claims Evan Thomas is the son of Norman Thomas. Her reply to this was that she did find he was the grandson and was sorry, but Al was implying no relationship. This would be true, except that at the very end of the book, Franken includes two endnotes. One states their actual relationship, grandfather and grandson. The other points out how easy it is to lie using endnotes. This is to support how Ann Coulter's 780 endnotes in the book Treason make it easy for her to fabricate the truth. And what's hilarious is that he fooled Ann! You have to laugh at that.

The next paragraph summarizes some of Franken's points and acts like all he included was a summary which alone could have been found easily.

The rest is either:
a) insulting the book because it's funny - sidenotem, what's wrong with humor
b) things that are supported by lies they don't refer to (except one which isn't really) and by the assumption that liberals are wrong.


 
Zacq Posted: Thu May 13 17:14:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
And what's hilarious is that he fooled Ann! You have to laugh at that.

He also fooled David Frum, who probably didn't read the book. Or if he did, only supports Al's point.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 14 06:52:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Zacq said:
>And what's hilarious is that he fooled Ann! You have to laugh at that.
>
>He also fooled David Frum, who probably didn't read the book. Or if he did, only supports Al's point.
>
He didn't fool anybody and Bill O'reilly ripped him a new asshole.


 
addi Posted: Fri May 14 07:19:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>He didn't fool anybody and Bill O'reilly ripped him a new asshole.

I must have missed that one.

Billy Boy makes pathetic attempts to rip him a new asshole every chance he gets on the O'Reilly Factor. When Franken isn't there to defend himself (How Daring!). it's pretty easy to rip someone a new asshole when the person you're doing it to isn't there.

I watched the entire tape of their face to face meeting and it was Franken that made Bill look like a fool, backing up his assertions with facts, while Bill eventually ended up getting all veined out and losing his temper on C-Span. He caught him point blank about the whole Peabody Awards lie.
Bill loves to dish dirt out, but when someone calls him out on it he goes balistic and resorts to name calling.



 
Zacq Posted: Fri May 14 10:44:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>He didn't fool anybody and Bill O'reilly ripped him a new asshole.

On Ann Coulter's website, she says that Al Franken implyed no relationship between Norman and Evan Thomas. She says this emphatically. In the end of Al's book, he states the relationship. She didn't bother to read the whole book before making a judgment. Yes she was fooled, and with the technique that she uses and Franken was showing.


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri May 14 14:14:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think she's hot. A cook, but a hot one.

I like it how O'Reily whines that no celebrity will come on his show to promote their cause then go on 5 minutes rants per celebrity telling why they are liars, hypocrites, and fools. He's an odd man that is highly intimatating and very scary.
Also, Franke kinda whipped him last summer.


 
Maya Posted: Fri May 14 14:29:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Wow, so i had picture her to be 50, looking menapousal and angry but she aint! Boy, her words sure to paint another picture....looked at pic of her after Dan said shes hot and WAS SHOCKED!

she aint hot tho


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 14 15:33:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Maya said:
>Wow, so i had picture her to be 50, looking menapousal and angry but she aint! Boy, her words sure to paint another picture....looked at pic of her after Dan said shes hot and WAS SHOCKED!
>
>she aint hot tho
>
a little on the thin side, but not bad . .


 
FN Posted: Fri May 14 15:42:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  She's a bit too old for me, otherwise I'm sure I'd turn her frigide self into a free-love-hippy.


http://www.townhall.com/acimgs/webimages/gun.jpg


Laughed so hard about this though.

Holding a gun while sitting down like that in a mini-skirt and high heels while mah' and pah' are sitting on the porch a few metres behind her.

I hope it was a high cal gun and the sights smacked into her eye. She's not even holding the trigger.


 
FN Posted: Fri May 14 15:46:15 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The expression on her face is saying a lot about her aiming skills and familiarity with guns as well.


Don't really see why that picture should be on there except to please her gun-toting republican support group or something. Must be dumb ones if they're fooled by that picture though.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 14 16:37:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That's not a mini skirt dude, those are what we call daisy dukes, cut-off blue jeans.
And that is a very young Ann Coulter, probably just playing with a 22cal.


 
FN Posted: Fri May 14 17:44:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And that is a very young Ann Coulter, probably just playing with a 22cal.


The smart thing to do in a crowded area.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 14 23:49:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>And that is a very young Ann Coulter, probably just playing with a 22cal.
>
>
>The smart thing to do in a crowded area.
>
what makes you think that's a crowded area ?
If that's on her mom and dad's back porch, and I'll wager it is, it's out in the country.


 
Mesh Posted: Sat May 15 06:08:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  that pic of anne gave me wood. a blnonnde, with a gun. holy shit thats hot. god damnit tnat is sooo hot. a blonde with a gun. she can shoot me any day id hit that shit. even rthough shes a poophead.


 
FN Posted: Sat May 15 06:55:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>what makes you think that's a crowded area ?
>If that's on her mom and dad's back porch, and I'll wager it is, it's out in the country.


If you take a look at the background behind the house you'll see that there are very few trees around, for a start.

I don't think it could actually be her mother either since she looks a bit too young for that. Ugly as a mule as far as I can tell, but still too young.

The house by itself seems to be some white-trash gathering hole considering the maintenance it seems to have had over the years, veyr little to none. (croocked window shutters, unhealthy looking plants, unchecked lawn, the TV or phone cable looking like it has just been stapled to the side of the house by the first amateur that offerd his help, etc).

Also notice that to her side she seems to have something resembling a can of beer, which is only one of the possibilities ofcourse, but nonetheless worth mentioning. It ain't a coke.

Hard to tell if it's a crowded area or not, but it seems to be some kind of redneck hide-out so I think there would probably be some uncles and cousins in the vicinity.

Just my opinion ofcourse.

Still don't see the point of it being on that site.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 15 10:16:20 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>what makes you think that's a crowded area ?
>>If that's on her mom and dad's back porch, and I'll wager it is, it's out in the country.
>
>
>If you take a look at the background behind the house you'll see that there are very few trees around, for a start.
>
So how many trees can you cram into the space allowed in the limited view that is provided ? you can't see more than 4 feet in any direction from her.
If you look over the roof of the house you see trees. Even still, what do trees have to do with anything ? Could be on a farm.

>I don't think it could actually be her mother either since she looks a bit too young for that. Ugly as a mule as far as I can tell, but still too young.
>
Perhaps, could be a sister or an aunt, but there's no way to tell her age and assuming this is a childhood pic for Ms. Coulter, it could still be her mother.

>The house by itself seems to be some white-trash gathering hole considering the maintenance it seems to have had over the years, veyr little to none. (croocked window shutters, unhealthy looking plants, unchecked lawn, the TV or phone cable looking like it has just been stapled to the side of the house by the first amateur that offerd his help, etc).
>
Unchecked lawn ? Wtf are you talking about ? The grass couldn't be much shorter there.
The shutter aren't crooked either.
As for the plants, unless you know what kind of plants they are, you have no idea whether they are unhealthy or not.
As for the TV cable, how many different ways can you attach a cable to the outside of a house ?

>Also notice that to her side she seems to have something resembling a can of beer, which is only one of the possibilities ofcourse, but nonetheless worth mentioning. It ain't a coke.
>
Whateve is in that can, why is it worth mentioning ?

>Hard to tell if it's a crowded area or not, but it seems to be some kind of redneck hide-out so I think there would probably be some uncles and cousins in the vicinity.
>
It is obviously a modest house, owned by people of modest means. That doesn't make them rednecks.
Ms. Coulter is one of the most accomplished lawyers in America, far removed from your redneck description, probably derived from your snobby roots.

>Just my opinion ofcourse.
>
>Still don't see the point of it being on that site.
>
Why not ? it's her website.


 
Maya Posted: Sat May 15 10:25:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hate to rock the boat but Christophe....does it really matter?


 
FN Posted: Sat May 15 10:30:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Maya said:
>hate to rock the boat but Christophe....does it really matter?

Lol ofcourse it doesn't just aggravating hif ;o)


 
Maya Posted: Sat May 15 11:00:06 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Maya said:
>>hate to rock the boat but Christophe....does it really matter?
>
>Lol ofcourse it doesn't just aggravating hif ;o)

yeah...you two sure do argue A LOT!!!


 
FN Posted: Sat May 15 11:56:59 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Maya said:
>Christophe said:
>>Maya said:
>>>hate to rock the boat but Christophe....does it really matter?
>>
>>Lol ofcourse it doesn't just aggravating hif ;o)
>
>yeah...you two sure do argue A LOT!!!

It's all in good fun :o)

Hif likes to play the devil's advocate.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 15 12:19:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Pay no attention to him Maya, Chris is rarely correct about anything.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]