Ann Coulter's Psychological Profile?

My Brain | today | Al Simmons

[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.

[soccermom]

OK -- so she really was in that district then? I'm not going to nitpick about that. I can understand her concern for privacy -- but I can see how liberals would jump on it and, techincally, be justified in doing so.

[A CA Guy]

OK -- you see no problem with personal attacks. I do.

For heaven's sake, it's like you are ignoring that the Jersey girls did things that endangered and probably killed some of our troops.
Why do you feel they can say and do things to get our troops killed & to grow terror, yet they should still be shielded from personal attacks?

I think they should be given one way tickets to France.

[A CA Guy]

Ann is not seeking elected office she can afford to be inflammatory.

She is a modern day Paul Revere alerting us to the dangers and devises of liberals.

[70times7]

None yet, or I'd be banned! However, since the moderators are generally chosen from the pool of Freepers and are theoretically representative, when you have a lot of people saying that type of thing it makes you wonder whether the moderator reading might agree.

OK, that falls squarely under the same category as; "we have no evidence that this has happened, but the allegations are so serious that we should have congressional investigations". Care to speculate on what side of the aisle came up w/ that gem?

BTW, agreeing is one thing, pulling posts and banning posters is quite another and you know it.

[ahayes]

Nope, it falls under the category of, "I'm not stupid, so I'll watch my step."

[soccermom]

"For heaven's sake, it's like you are ignoring that the Jersey girls did things that endangered and probably killed some of our troops. Why do you feel they can say and do things to get our troops killed & to grow terror, yet they should still be shielded from personal attacks?"

First of all, I don't know that they did things that endangered our troops. I know that Cindy Sheehan has said things in support of the insurgents, but I haven't heard that about the Jersey Girls. As far as I know, their main focus was on unfairly blaming Bush for 9/11. I honestly think Sean Hannity's cavelier attitude about the potential strategic damage to our relationship with the UAE could endanger our troops. You can take those kinds of accusations pretty far if you want to.

I don't think anyone in the arena of political debate should be subjected to personal attacks. If they say and do things that can get our troops killed and/or grow terror, call them on that. They should be held accountable for their words and actions. Do you feel incapable of doing that without using personal attacks?

[70times7]

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I would rather state an opinion planely on this forum than curtail what I think in order to avoid conjecture based opposition. I've seen people come down squarely on either side of this issue and I have yet to see someone axed for it by a moderator. This topic has been boppin' around for many days now on multiple threads - show me where this has happened.

[ahayes]

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I would rather state an opinion planely on this forum than curtail what I think in order to avoid conjecture based opposition. I've seen people come down squarely on either side of this issue and I have yet to see someone axed for it by a moderator. This topic has been boppin' around for many days now on multiple threads - show me where this has happened.

Good for you. I don't know that anyone's got the zot over Ann Coulter except for the return of one person who was banned already. However, unless one was actually there it would be hard to say exactly when and why it happened since posts can be erased or deleted, and I've been trying to avoid Coulter threads.

Now since you're in no danger by any stretch of the imagination you go do what you like, and I'll continue being cautious.

[70times7]

Well, you have my gratitude for supporting my point.

As for me, I will continue to do what I need to for avoidance of lightning strikes on clear sunny days. I know lightening happens and it is quite unpleasant when it does so I want to watch my step.

Years ago I was on the “wrong” side of the issue w/ Ilian Gonzolez – the boy that the perp’n chief & Reno sent back to Fidel. I was asking reasonable questions and received no small number of unreasonable flames. I didn’t watch my step then and have no intention of doing so now w/ any issue. Frankly I think it is sad that you believe otherwise based on nothing but supposition.

I am also a bit offended that you think I am “in no danger by any stretch of the imagination” – you have no way of knowing if I wear the official freeper flame resistant sam brown belt. Obviously, the direction in which an imagination can stretch is a choice.

Just out of curiosity, if one comes to a conclusion that someone is a “troll” based on one or two positions, how is that any different than what you seem to have insinuated regarding me?

(psssst, I hate the "rule" re coulter threads – but don’t tell anyone I don’t want the ZOT!)

[ahayes]

Before I said that you were in no danger, I checked the types of threads that you frequent and the positions you took. I'd say the dangerous threads are creation/evolution threads (for both sides, although lately the creationists have been suffering heavy attrition), immigration threads (for anyone not rabidly anti-immigration, but I don't post in those anyway), and Ann Coulter threads (just because of the general attitude of Ann-worship).

Regarding the rest of your last two posts, I'm disappointed that you feel so free to criticise my internal states, and can only offer the advise my mother used to give--MYOB. Goodbye!

[70times7]

I stand corrected - I never meant to be so bold as to intentionally draw you into a point I was making with another freeper. I will try my best not to do that in the future. What does MYOB stand for again? Does it work the same way regarding the telephone w/ you - you call someone and get ticked that they answered?

You must show me where the listing is of the types of posts I frequent. I know where to find where any freeper posts to, but all the article I frequent? Is there a log of what I read over at the DU too?(this could be bad!)

I had no idea someone would imply that I should be lumped in w/ the righty tighty knee jerk (pun intended) flamers because I argue specific points.

Of the three "danger" threads you cite I think the crevos are and imigration threads are worthwhile subjects (the Ann debate is mostly silly) - unfortunately the crevos typically degenerate into namecalling, link posting and gang wars (also known as "ping lists"). Perhaps the attrition is because the creationists were sooner smart enough to realize the threads are a repetetive waste. I've never really spent much time on the imigration threads.

I'm guessing you didn't take the time to find the root of the discussion with beholdapalehorse - it had nothing to do w/ ann.

Lastly, by golly we have wondered off topic - we started with my contention that the moderators do not gererally axe people for cogently stated opinions. I HAVE seen right wing flame posts yanked when they were inappropriate and abusive. I simply asked you to support your position, on the Ann posts specifically, or even if you want to cite your experience elsewhere - go for it. I'm interrested in the truth. If I've missed that post direct me back to it. if it hasen't appeared yet ummm.... zap me instead. That's won the day for you so far.

[Joe Driscoll]

I suspect that few Freepers would want their daughters to behave as Ms. Coulter does

Conservative, out-spoken, driven, confident, and pretty

Yes I would like my daughter to be like that.

[ahayes]

You could have saved me a lot of time reading your post by merely replying, "Injured innocence! Veiled insult! Attibution of motive!" Too bad, in our initial exchange you seemed like a decent person.

[ahayes]

Whew, I first read that as "petty." I'm glad that you do not aspire to that for your daughter!

[Al Simmons]

You forgot rude, self-absorbed, nevermarried and childless...

[ahayes]

Yes, by the time my hypothetical children are 40-something, I hope they all are married and have a couple of kids!

[Joe Driscoll]

You forgot rude, self-absorbed, nevermarried and childless...

Rude? I don't consider it rude to point out the faults of your opponent.

self-absorbed? I see self-confident

nevermarried and childless? First of all, I don't think that is a crime. Secondly, you state this as two "crimes", would you prefer her to have a child out of wedlock? Thirdly, there is no time-table for Mr (or Mrs) Right.

Are you divorced?

[murphE]

A phrase I chose out of modesty. For you though, I'll spell it out: "sleeps-around"

I find it odd that you say you are concerned about the virtue of modesty, when what you said about Miss Coulter if false is slander, and if you know it to be true is detraction, both very grave sins.

[Al Simmons]

"I find it odd that you say you are concerned about the virtue of modesty, when what you said about Miss Coulter if false is slander, and if you know it to be true is detraction, both very grave sins."

OK, let me help you out here (as you are probably not a lawyer as both Ms. Coulter are (and both non-practicing to boot), you probably do not realize that:

1. Slander is verbal; LIBEL is what you meant to say;

2. Since Ms. Coulter is a public person, the only way it can be libel is if I, knowing it to the false, maliciously published with wanton disregard or intent to injure her reputation (close enough to the definition, I think)

This will not lie, because: a) I, to the contrary, believe the statement to be true based on various comments I have heard her make on various talk-radio shows, and b) I have no malicious intent against her anyhow - you are reading waaayyyy to much into the remark:

Secondly, your point about my being somewhat hypocritical may or may not lie, but hey - I am human, and we all have our contradictions - ask me if I particularly care (*NOT*)

Thirdly - do you realize how insulting, condescending and inappropriate your "grave sins" comment is? You presume WAAAYYY too much about what I may or may not believe, AND you are neither my rabbi, pastor, nor priest, plus I did NOT ask your opinion on the matter.

If you want to know how I feel about folks who 'wear their faith on their sleeves' and why, I commend you to read through my FR homepage.

Finally, my initial reaction after reading the last line of your comment may be characterized in this way:

[murphE]

Thirdly - do you realize how insulting, condescending and inappropriate your "grave sins" comment is?

Sorry you are insulted, but revealing the sins of others, even if you know them to be true, is detraction, and it is a serious sin. And a better word for slander in the case of revealing something knowingly false would be calumny, if you're not sure of the things you revealed about Miss Coulter you'd at least be making a rash judgment. I was not condescending, I was assuming that you did not know this was sinful, for surely a person of good will would not do this if they knew it was sinful. Two spiritual works of mercy are to admonish sinners and to instruct the ignorant.