Posted on 06/18/2006 2:24:55 AM PDT by Al Simmons
OK gang. Time to put the old iconoclastic part of the old thinker to work.
Yeah, I have enjoyed Ann's acidic barbs and laughed out loud at some of her more outrageous pronouncements over the years - though frankly, her act is getting a bit old with me - but that is not what this vanity is about.
I suspect that we are all secretly aware that her public persona displays more than a little evidence of exhibitionism and narcissism....the woman clearly has some personality issues. I personally think that she likely has a low sense of self-worth, which her public persona would appear to compensate for....
I would like to hear opinions on this topic from any FReepers who are psychologists or psychiatrists.
Oh, and in case some of you didn't get it, I'll repeat myself:
THIS VANITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MS. COULTER'S POLITICAL VIEWS. It is meant to provoke some thought about her method of promoting them (and herself).
I suspect that few Freepers would want their daughters to behave as Ms. Coulter does - both in terms of her outrageous rudeness and her never-married lifestyle.
I think your assessment of her is spot on:
- - - -
Actually, Ann Coulter reminds me of my sister, who can be a pill sometimes, but as a businesswoman, works hard, is tenacious, scrupulously honest, and successful. In times of trouble, she is loyal and supportive to family and friends, and I have known her to go out of her way to do kind things for people even when she is irritated at them.
As for Ann, I do not imagine her suffering fools, slackers, or ill-treatment in private life. Yet, like most good lawyers, when not on stage, she is likely able to turn off the argumentative side. Ann has fun doing what she does, and I do not see sourness in her personality. I bet that she has a good laugh -- even if we do not hear it when she swings the hammer against the libs with bone crushing force.
So I have sworn off of them completely for the time being...
Yes Al, we see. -- You deny them your essence.
Smart move.
Just basic self-presevation.
As you say, preservation of precious bodily fluids should always be basic.
Why do so many Darwinists feel the need the adopt screen names (DoctorMichael, Right Wing Professor etc) or to fill their FReeper pages with public paens to their supposed advanced mental capacities? Are they insecure? Do they fear below the level of their weighty and astonishingly voluminous cerebra that their true religion may not be so true after all?
Ann has you all pegged. She threw a rock and you all yelped.
"I don't have to approve her sleeping around to approve most other things about her. Are you trying to say that all who sleep around are pathological? I suspect quite a number of FREEPRS would disagree. I may consider it spiritually pathological but that's not what you asked at the start of this thread."
- - - -
There seems to be some huge overlape in your construction on the Ann realities between the supposed fact (how current?) that she sleeps around and the conjecture that she's pathological.
I think sleeping around is spiritually pathological but not necessarily mentally pathological--depending on a number of factors.
If you are going to say hereon that all who sleep around are always and thoroughly pathological, I think you'll have a number of sleeping around FREEPERS down your throat fairly rapidly.
Probably. But I've forgotten what that correlates with. Haven't given such a test battery in more than 20 years.
Funny to me...when a woman has all the associated benefits of a "man's lifestyle", having an education, have opinions against the norm, have a public forum (acceptance) and get to "play the field" collecting freely sown seed...MEN and insecure women find this threatening, troubling and "unacceptable"...I find it rather interesting that someone HERE doesn't recognize a double standard.
.........or else.
(Or at least any other opinion other than the Herd's)
There is 'Crazy' and then there is 'Crazy like a Fox'.
-= - - -
imho, Ann is clearly on the side of the latter.
oh now come on! you want my credentials for presenting a pop-psych analysis when the entire premise of your thread is a pop psych analysis of ann coulter! LOL! my credentials are the same as your's! it is just stating the obvious to say that if you have been hurt by strong women in the past that you will perhaps feel differently towards them than someone who has had a successful relationship with a strong woman. and this is complicated by the apparent love-hate relationship you have towards them ; ) i am just funnin' ya. you present even more interesting pop psych questions than ann. why isn't she married? I don't know, maybe she has had similar experiences to your's and nothing worked out, but she at least managed to avoid marriage which is much harder emotionally, etc. to extricate oneself from. i was astounded at thos that were critical of harriet miers for never having been married, i really find that an unacceptable criticism. i believe God has a plan for our lives which may or may not include marriage. i will be celebrating my 21st wedding anniversary with my first and only husband this week. i consider myself lucky and figure i could just as easily have ended up single like ann.
You are right - most successful men would not want to marry someone who would be competing with them. I was married to a chick like that for 13 years and barely survived. Anyone who thinks that Ann could take second place to any man is smoking something. She is a type of woman that I could have a great friendship with - but nothing more.
"Would you perfer your daughter to go the route of Madonna, her contemporary?"
Those are not the only two options, you know.
"Laura Ingraham, who is Ann's age, is also not married, btw, and is probably glad for it considering the gutless loser she almost ended up with."
Actually Laura is about 6 years younger than Ann. I never heard, but assumed that her fiancee got cold feet when she got sick - an absolutely despicable reaction on his part - but it does make you wonder about Laura's judgment in men in the first place. I admire the fact that she has adopted her Catholicm with a seriousness that is lacking in most folks today.
I wish her well. I do not see her as being similar to Ann in terms of personality. Laura seems quite secure compared to Ann.
(Seriously, can you imagine having an argument - much less winning one - with Ann Coulter - about ANYTHING? I don't care how great her other charms might be - it would wear you out very quickly. Marriage is NOT all about 'winning' at the expense of your mate. This is a lesson that I would guess Ann would not learn - at least not based on her public persona...)
If Thomas Huxley was Darwin's bulldog, tpaine is Darwin's attack chihuahua.
Go ahead and bring over all the Darwinists for a yelpfest, tpaine. Keep proving Ann Coulter's thesis in real time.
You're right Al. This isn't about Coulter's politics. This is about the Darwinist religion.
She seems to either be a angry person needing anger management or it's all an act and that "act" is netting her milllions
- - - -
1. needing anger management
2. using anger as a tool to make millions
3. Justifiably furious anger at the idiotic treason and suicidal destruction of our Republic by the Marxist, globalist DIMRATS and their satanic chohorts--literal demons and otherwise.
HINT--IT'S !NOT! per se, the first 2. #2, for Ann, I'm convinced, is a nice side-effect of #3.
You could almost be talking about Global Warming.
I don't have any problem with evolution, but I do question the "survival of the fittest" answer to everything. The argument for it always comes down to "it has to be, because it is". Not a scientific approach in my book. Indeed it was the answer to why the sun had to circle the earth. If I ask why "survival of the fittest" gives advantage to a millimeter extension of an animal's neck, but doesn't weed out homosexuality, the answer is, "well it did, so that's my proof." Or to you "foolish". I think Darwinists overplay their hand.
This makes me a heretic and leads to Darwinists coming unglued. Thus, I have a soft spot for people who refuse to kowtow to Darwinists.
Nothing so dramatic. Just disappointment that a person hailed as a conservative icon is either very ignorant or very unsrupulous, or very both
But we conservatives do not place our trust in the inate goodness of others, so no biggie.
I agree that preservation of my blood fluids is key to my survival. If you ever had a psycho wife who was ARRESTED for trying to kill you you might understand...
For the time being? You are in trouble ;-)
Frankly I've seen a lot more evidence of that around here lately....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.