Posted on 01/05/2005 12:53:33 PM PST by Phantom Lord
New Year, Same Ann Coulter
It's 2005, and Ann Coulter is still Ann Coulter, cuttingly witty, always ready with devastating comments about liberals and Democrats, who she says are pretty much the same, and still capable of inflicting deep wounds in the twisted psyches of both species.
In a recent interview with the New York Observer published in the current issue, Ann displayed her utter contempt for political correctness, firing verbal salvos at the nation's most sacred cows and complimenting Bill Clinton on being "a very good rapist."
The interview was vintage Coulter, and here are some of the highlights:
On liberals - "I sort of like liberals now. They’re kind of cute when they’re shivering and afraid. They’re so pathetic and sad. They can’t come up with a fight. I mean, if the best you’re going to give me to argue about is Rumsfeld’s auto-pen ..."
On the peace-loving left - "Forget what they say, they are violent. They were slashing tires on Election Day. I was physically attacked this year. It is a funny thing, that they ended up in prison—enjoying the benefits of gay marriage. Let ’em try it again, they’ll end up dead."
On Democrats - She's rooting for the Nancy Pelosi faction of the Democratic Party ("I think this is the dominant faction," she says) taking the position that Democratic ideas are fine - no need to change anything, even though the Dems got stomped on Election Day. Mocking Pelosi, Coulter lampoons, "We just need to advertise RU-486 at NASCAR or something — that’ll do the trick!"
"Democrats always have these open public discussions on how they can fake out the American people, so that’s one wing — 'Let’s not tell them what we believe' — and the other wing is, 'Our message is perfect.'"
On why 2004 was a great year - "I’m thinking about putting up a reward on my Web page for any liberal who will mention either Afghanistan or the Kurds. I mean, 85 percent of Iraq is free ... Kurds are free, are happy, are dancing in the streets, and liberals simply won’t mention them. They’ve had elections and women vote, and they didn’t vote for some crazy, lunatic mullahs. So that’s a pretty good year."
On Iraq, where Christmas wasn't very merry - "We’re going to transform the Middle East by the time Bush leaves office, or it will be within shouting distance of there. I think Arabs flying planes into our skyscrapers will be as likely as a Japanese kamikaze pilot."
On North Korea - "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning ... despite that wonderful peace deal Madeline Albright negotiated with the North Koreans, six seconds before they feverishly began developing nuclear weapons. They’re a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."
On another invasion - "Iran. Though that’s the beauty part of Iraq: It may well not be necessary."
On President Bush - "We have a President who can do what he thinks is right, whether or not there are a bunch of liberals carping, and no matter what the letter writers to The New York Times have to say about being ashamed for their country."
On Hilary Clinton - If the Dems nominated her for president "it would be a lot of fun. The advantage Hillary has is the crazies — which is to say, the base of the Democratic party — love her, adore her, no matter what she says or does. She can come out for curbing illegal immigration. She could come out for parental notification and against partial-birth abortion and the crazies will still say, ‘No, she’s our gal. She is Madame Hillary.’"
Asked if she had a perverse admiration for Hillary, Coulter shrieked: "Ewwww, no. As with John Kerry, I generally don’t admire people who get ahead on somebody else’s coattails. She’s like the anti-feminist. No, except she isn’t — because all feminists behave that way and pretend to be, ‘Oh, I’m a strong woman.’ They’re all weak and pathetic ... "
On a possible TV show - With Al Franken? "No, he’s physically repulsive. I have friends I trust who are smart who would put together a good TV show, and I can tell you straight out, we’ve basically given up. There is no liberal worthy of debating me, and I won’t do a TV show unless I have a liberal counterpart." With Maureen Dowd? "No. I promise you, she wouldn’t do it — she’s whiny, she’s not funny. What we’re looking for is good-looking, male, liberal, half a brain. They don’t even have to be smart.
Who, then? "The one person I really want to sit down with and figure out why he thinks he’s a liberal is Larry David [co-creator of "Seinfeld," star of HBO's hilariously nasty "Curb Your Enthusiasm"] ... that’s the most brilliant TV show — it is conservative humor, and you can’t tell me it’s not. It’s all politically incorrect. And people I know who’ve worked with him say he’s really sweet, so there is nothing about him that should make him a liberal — and yet he flew from Los Angeles to Boston to sit at the Democratic National Convention. He can’t be a liberal! I would bet you anything if Larry David were 20 years old, he would be a right-wing lunatic."
On what to remember about Bill Clinton - "Well, he was a very good rapist. I think that should not be forgotten. I don’t think it’s fading.
"Clinton talk[ed] on the phone with Congressmen about sending American troops to the Balkans while being serviced by Monica Lewinsky under the desk. And liberals didn’t mind that — but they’re upset that George Bush waited 48 hours to fly back from Crawford, Tex." to make any announcements about tsunami relief.
On Rudy Giuliani - "I love Guiliani, but I just think he needs to switch his position on abortion. We’re a pro-life party. And I don’t think half the country realizes he claims to be pro-choice. These New York Republicans, they don’t have a feel for the red states like I do. They say, ‘Oh, now, we could run a pro-choice candidate and that would get moderates in the Northeast to vote for us — and those right-wing Christians, they’ll vote for us anyway.’ No, they won’t!"
On what it was like to spend Christmas in New York - "Oh, it was so much fun this year, because saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is like saying ‘F... you!’ I’ve said it to everyone. You know, cab drivers, passing people on the street, whatever. And they come up with the ‘Happy holidays.’ ‘Merry Christmas,’ I mean, it really is an aggressive act in New York."
Point taken on NK. What about Iran, Syria, Saudi?
Agreed entirely!
That's one reason I posted this article on the December Dilemma
It seems to me that -- particularly in New York of all places -- it's ill-conceived to go around prattling about how you are using "Merry Christmas!" as an act of aggression.
Beyond the basically repugnant nature of the idea on its face, I cannot for the life of me figure out how it is "smart" to equip those most ardently seeking to strip Christ from the public square of this alledgedly Christian nation with further ammunition by exposing such a tactic.
I'm just asking for a little common sense, that's all. I've given up caring terribly much about the sensibilities (or lack thereof) informing the minds of those who jump on the bandwagon to Clymerize the birth of Christ by taking a page from Coulter and wishing me a "Merry Christmas."
Once you've morphed yourself from human being to a brand, the self-promotion can never stop. Vicarious self-congratulation made sexy for mouth-breathers that can't manage it themselves.
"What about Iran, Syria, Saudi?"
We should've carpet-bombed Mecca on 9-12-01 when we knew that the hijackers were Saudis, not Iraqis, but Bush failed to take action against the 9-11 perps.
I think that, before we do anything with Iran or Syria, we need to finish the job in Iraq first, rather than overcommit our troops. We don't need a war on 4 fronts in the middle east.
I don't trust the UN or IAEA to properly monitor Iran's nuke facilities either.
I'll play the game...
Exactly. Which is NOT the behavior that a leading conservative mouthpiece should be espousing while claiming to be a Christian with values.
In a hostile world, where people are trying to kill you, emotions tend to get the best of some people.
Ya think God would think it 'fun' to nuke a bunch of people?
No, probably not. The Great I Am would probably be sorrowful.
The Lord also said, "sell your cloak and purse, and buy a sword." And, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
There is a chance that Ann Coulter will read this thread, and get a kick out of it.
5.56mm
"The Lord also said, "sell your cloak and purse, and buy a sword." And, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
Not in the New Testament.
"The Lord also said, "sell your cloak and purse, and buy a sword." And, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
Not in the New Testament.
You will find the first quote in Matthew. The second quote is from the Old Testament (Leviticus).
We have strayed far from the topic of what Ann Coulter said. Have a good evening.
5.56mm
No, hon you are ALL THAT...the anonymousity of the www keeps that illusion alive.
F&ck that.
If you wish, go ahead.
That should hold you 'til you make your rounds again and actually coax your cyber guys from their basements and GO's.
Trust that second post marks the end of your crypto-creepy posts to me.
I do not have the same patience for delusional bullies and stalkers that others do.
Nor do I intend to serve as whipping boy for whatever pent-up frustrations clearly yet drive you concerning those you believe form the "Six Degrees of Askel" or are my "cyber-inlaws".
I suggest you go find yourself another target at which to spew ... so long as the Mods on this site afford you the means to do so, anyway.
This will be my only reply to you. Henceforth I shall simply hit the abuse button in lieu of response.
Unfortunatly, I have to disagree quite a bit....her analysis skills are mediocre at best and her books do not typically carry a thought far enough to hold a valid arguement...
I know you are in love with her...hahahahahahaha
btw, she looka like a man in your picture...
Later
Whoopdie doo. She still rocks. She's still right.
Well put! *Applause*
The neutron bomb is NOT some gee-whiz, ultra-tech device. It was conceived of in the '60's and '70's. There were even some planned warheads using a neuron warhead , or better known as "enhanced radiation" warhead, but they have not been deployed in any modern weapons system, to my knowledge.
An enhanced radiation weapon ,is a type of hydrogen weapon, that ,instead of multiplying the yield of a fission primary, actually lowers the yield, in EXPLOSIVE force-- BUT, there is a LOT of deadly high-level radiation from these devices.This is how they "kill people, but leave structures intact" They DO produce a nuclear blast, BUT it is much smaller, than a normal nuclear weapon, of similar radiation yield would be.
When Ann talked about nuking NK, I do not think she was talking about a strategic, wide-scale attack. Just to inform you, ONE nuke will NOT destroy a whole nation.
More likely, she was referring to a small, TACTICAL warhead, under 10kt, or so, that could be quite clean, as far as fallout was concerned, to be dropped on Mentally Ill's nuke facilities, or his palace. NEVER, in a million years, do I think she was talking about a massive attack, with something like a Trident II, which COULD do a lot of damage, to SEVERAL cities, in NK, what with 8, 475kt. warheads on EACH missile.
Such a small,but effective attack, might be enough to give NK pause, as to starting something, that WOULD result in a MAJOR nuclear exchange.
Yes.. the long term effects of the enhanced radiation warhead are minimal, compared to that of other weapons.
It has a very small, insufficent primary,(insufficent to trigger the fusion secondary into a nuclear yield, that is) and no depleted uranium jacket, so there is little fallout.The primary need for this weapon, is in a battlefield situation, where armor protects troops form the effects of a somewhat distant nuclear blast. BUT, the enhanced gamma and heavy neutrons from the neutron warhead, are able to negate this protection, to a degree. AND-- this WOULD be a good device, to use in a situation, where a large number of terroriists were holed up in a city, or such, because they could not hide form the gamma and neutrons produced by such a warhead, in the kill radius. AND, the small balst, although it WILL destroy anthing in the blast radiius, is very small, so, it would do little damage to structures, beyond, say 1/8th mile, or so, from the blast. The actual nuclear explosive yield from the enahnced radiation warhead is 1 kt, or even less.
This was to be deployed in the LANCE battlefield missile, and WAS in service, on alert, during the cold war, BUT, since that time, the Lance has been retired, and the Neutron weapon is not currently in active service(though, if need be, it could be deployed, i'm sure).
However, many modern, tactical nuclear warheads of a conventional nature, are cleaner than many of the older, large, multimegaton warheads, hearlded during the late'60, and such, during the height of the cold war. Although the US still has a few large(9 mt) warheads in long-term storage, for use in a nuclear emergency, the modern, high yield weapons available for conflict are in the 1 mt. range, due to the much more precise delivery methods.
During the height of the cold war, a 1 megaton warhead was considered SMALL. no longer is this the case. During the cuban missile crisis, for example, the bomber forces on alert, were carrying bombs ,up to 20 MEGATONS apiece, and each bomber carried FOUR of them. The sandal(I think that was the classification for them,)missiles that the soviets installed in Cuba carried a 5 megaton warhead, EACH.
(Bear in mind, however, that the hiroshima bomb was ONLY 15 kt, or kilotons, and so, a 1 Mt. warhead, although much smaller and lighter than the hiroshima bomb, is more than 50 TIMES more powerful as the hiroshima bomb was.)
"... is more than 50 TIMES more powerful as the hiroshima bomb was."
Big boom...eh?
HUGE boom. To put it in terms most people would understand:: ONE of those detonated in Manhattan, ANYWHERE--and the ENTIRE island would simply CEASE TO EXIST!!
And think, that in the cold war days-- the Soviets wanted to build a bomb, of 100 megatons or MORE-- THAT (100 mt.)would be more than 5,000 TIMES as powerful, as hirohsima.
Can you say"bye-bye", to ALL of NY, or maybe IL.?(not to mention, a blast of that size, would probably trigger a "nuclear winter, for ALL of the planet)
Thank GOD, those days are behind us(at least for NOW.)
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.