DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN [Ann Coulter]

Ann Coulter.com ^ | December 7, 2005 | Ann Coulter

[Wolfstar]

When it comes to substantive comments from you on what she has written, we so far have only heard the chirp chirp of crickets breaking the silence ...

Some yokel piped up about "the rule." Some other yokel then hastened to post her photo. I responded harshly. If the discussion were limited to what she wrote, I'd be happy to join in.

As for protesting too much, why have a number of people gotten their shorts in a knot because I harshly disagreed with their lame insistence on the by now very trite post-a-photo nonsense? If you're all so sure of your own sense of beauty and feminine sweetness, why does it matter to you what someone else thinks?

[jla]

BUMP!

[Texas WOP]

'K, and thanks. So Earle needs to prove that Delay, on his own, without any aid, washed the cash? Look, I'm a born agin' Texan, but I hail from Jersey. My outlook into Democrat politics is gloomier than most. And I'm of Italian heritage. Short concise statements are appreciated and better absorbed ;-)

[Wolfstar]

So what then would compel you to click on to a thread titled DELAY HAMMERS EARLE OF AUSTIN [Ann Coulter]?

Because, as I've already made clear earlier on this thread, I'm interested in her intellectual argument. I agree with much of what she has to say -- by no means all, but much. I do not come on this or any thread with her articles to oogle her, but to read what she has to say.

[Texas WOP]

Tomas, Gratzi. So, in essence Earle ts trying to pull the proverbial needle out of the hay stack. Thanks. Your prognosis?

[jla]

These are my favorite images of Ann. I'd thought I'd share them with you and the group.

[Wolfstar]

Don't "share" them with me. (Which, of course, is not really what you're doing.) I do not look at them and see what you see. No amount of pushing by you will change that.

[tarheelswamprat]

So, in essence Earle ts trying to pull the proverbial needle out of the hay stack.

More like he's trying to pull a rabbit out of his hat, a la Bullwinkle.

[ml/nj]

The "rule"

I look at "the rule" as good natured fun. If it bothers you, why not ignore it and be glad she's on your side?

ML/NJ

[jla]

Here Wolfie, is our Ann at a pro-life event at Tavern on the Green last year. Another great conservative lady, Phyllis Schlafly, was one of the speakers. I don't think the genteel Mrs. Schlafly would appreciate disparaging remarks being made towards Ann.

[Babu]

Once again, I quote your complaint, "(BTW, notice how easy it is to get shunted from what she wrote to how she looks.)"

And yet once again, you have no substantive comments on what she wrote: "If the discussion were limited to what she wrote, I'd be happy to join in."

This is called "Free" Republic for a reason -- you don't get to choose what the discussion is limited to.

[decal]

"These are my favorite images of Ann..."

Here's mine.

[Texas WOP]

Squirrel, Natasha and Boris! LOL! Thanks, I needed that. Merry Christmas to one and all. Hey "Tarheel", Best years of my life were at Ft. Bragg. Cape Fear, Myltle Beach.... sigh

[mc5cents]

Thanks. The one on the upper right is the best in MHO. She looks like she has gained some weight in that one. Perhaps a matter of camera angle?

[Libloather]

Mr. Earle will presumably assemble a seventh grand jury as soon as he locates someone in the county who hasn't served on a previous one.

Sheehan?

[jla]

Even Grace Kelly has taken one or two somewhat unflattering pictures, (I think).
Besides, when viewed in it's entirety it's more appealing -

[Rosemont]

" I think Schneider should also be forced to wear an ill-fitting suit with his Order of Lenin on the lapel."

With that Kruschev style commie cold weather hat Schneider always wears.

[IGOTMINE]

I'd like to put 170lbs on her.

[Wolfstar]

This is called "Free" Republic for a reason -- you don't get to choose what the discussion is limited to.

Who the heck is limiting discussion? If by "discussion" you mean pro-forma oogling, knock yourself out.

It also seems to me that those who insist that we must all fall at the feet of the "goddess Ann" are the ones trying to limit discussion.

Ooooo, Ann hit it out of the park again. Ohhhhhhh, quick! Let's get that photo up. If that's the kind of stuff you want to discuss, all I can say is barf!

Your entire series of posts to me, so far, has been focused on my failure to find her attractive and my dislike of her personality. When you engage in substantive discussion, I'll be happy to oblige. Anything in particular in her article you want to discuss?

Let's see: She opens with a shot at Ronnie Earle. Not much to say there, since I agree with her.

She goes on to say, "It probably goes without saying that it is extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence." It may go without saying, but since she wrote it anyway, once again, I agree.

She takes a shot at Bill Schneider. Going good, so far. However, I do strongly disagree with this statement of hers, "In the past few years, all TV news has become less biased due to the salubrious influence of Fox News."

She then goes on to give a short legal tutorial. Again, what's to discuss. Sounds good to me.

I don't like or appreciate her entirely gratuitous, unnecessary parenthetical shot at President Bush.

In any case, I opened the thread to read the article -- you know, focus on the substance of what she wrote. Nothing more. Unfortunately, almost immediately the business about her looks was brought up -- not substantive discussion as you keep pushing for from me. So look to your sychophantic Coulter buddies for an answer as to why, not me.

[decal]

"...when viewed in it's entirety it's more appealing."

If you like storks.

Ah, well, de gustibus non disputandem est.