Ann Coulter: Latent Idiot?

25 Responses to “Ann Coulter: Latent Idiot?”

1. James Young Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 1:32 pm

   I don’t know if this is any different that those on the far Left attacking those who oppose homo “marriage” as latent homosexuals. A little silly? Probably. You have to understand the far Left to appreciate the humor in her comments.

2. KG Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 3:05 pm

   No James, it’s just another in a long line of stupid things that she’s said. As a wise man once said, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

3. nk Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 4:28 pm

   So you’re finally coming around, Xrlq? There’s no way anyone who loves pussy so much, that he would screw such ugly skanks as Clinton has, be a homosexual. It could be that Ann Coulter has had some bad personal experiences, lately, which have clouded her thinking. Only a boy lover could consider that skin-over-bones body of hers sexually attractive. (Oh shucks, is it my own latent homosexuality which makes me like women who look, and more importantly feel, like women?)

4. Anwyn Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 7:04 pm

   I’m not coming around. It was a dumb thing to say. Her host knew her well–he dared her to do it. But I’m not coming around. For the record.

   Ace had the best line on the subject, it must be said. Hilarious.

5. Dave Munger Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 8:52 pm

   Guess what truly sexually compulsive guys occasionally do to other guys.

6. Patterico Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 10:36 pm

   So when she said her biggest regret was that she had a shot at Clinton . . . I was told by some she meant: for a date.

   Guess not.

7. nk Says:
   July 27th, 2006 at 1:00 pm

   I had forgotten that this is not a “guys only” site. My apologies to Anwyn for my language. To everyone else, too, for that matter.

8. Anwyn Says:
   July 27th, 2006 at 4:45 pm

   Thanks for the consideration, nk, I do appreciate it, but I wasn’t offended. I’ve read your opinion of Coulter’s body before, and really, as a woman who is not skin-and-bones, we like reminders that there are plenty of men who don’t prefer stick figures.

   Since we’re on the subject, Ann is painfully thin. I think I’ve read that she smokes, which would probably have at least something to do with it.

9. nk Says:
   July 27th, 2006 at 5:23 pm

   I appreciate your graciousness, Anwyn. And I was not entirely BSing about Ms. Coulter probably having personal issues. I remembered this photograph from ConfirmThem.

10. Anwyn Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    You’re welcome, nk, but I’m not too sure I see your point about the picture. Remarks in the comments suggest the man on the left is a fundraiser for John Kerry and also an ex-boyfriend of Ann Coulter’s and that the man on the right is Estrada. Also the picture reminds me that yes, Ann is thin. Personally, I don’t think she’s unattractive, but I ain’t a guy, so ….

    Maybe you want to enlighten me as to the significance of the picture.

11. nk Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    The cigars. And the boyfriend sure looks like a sissyboy to me. I’m still bar-room talking, I guess. I commented there that no gentleman smokes a cigar in the presence of a lady and here I am having this exchange with a lady.

12. Anwyn Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    Heh. You seem to be saying that the boyfriend is probably gay. But for the experience to have driven Ann to the comment, wouldn’t that mean he was hell on wheels in the sack until she figured out that he wasn’t in the sack but in the closet?

    Doesn’t compute. I don’t see a need to speculate about her personal life; I think she was shooting her mouth off outside the mics and the host dared her to do it with them on. She did. Dumb. She’s at her best with a big ol’ pile of footnotes. She probably figured it was less than honest to say something about good ol’ Bill offcamera that she wouldn’t say on. Laudable for honesty points but dumb.

13. nk Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    No more bar-room talk from me. Since this seems to have become an open thread, have you read Jack Vance’s Lyonesse trilogy? I enjoyed it much more than Lord Of The Rings. Honestly, Lord of the Rings, to me, was a letdown after The Hobbit. The Hobbit was a light-hearted adventure story such as a teenage fantasist (which I was when I first read it) would want to participate in but Lord Of The Rings was an over-serious drudge to a fairly predictable conclusion. Frodo’s weariness and heartsickness at the end may very well be a reflection of Tolkien’s own feelings about his books.

14. Anwyn Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 7:53 pm

    Oh my Lord, the smackdown is *on*.

    Since Xrlq hasn’t complained about hijacked threads in the past, I’ll take that action, nk, but right now I have to make dinner. For openers, though, I’ll just say no frickin way, those books were the pride of his heart. If Frodo’s feelings symbolized any of Tolkien’s, they were about the world in general and a longing for a better place.

15. Anwyn Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 8:02 pm

    And no, I haven’t read any new fantasy (or fiction, for that matter) in a good long time. I’ll look into the Lyonesse thing. Sounds Camelot-related.

16. Doc Rampage Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 2:54 am

    Hey, since Xrlq is gone on vacation, it looks like open-thread weekend!

    nk, I completely agree with you on Lyonesse, Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. In fact, I was never able to read the third one, although I waded through the first two as a teenager, and again when the movies came out, but both times I just didn’t care enough to read the third.

    Lyonesse was far from Vance’s best work. Have you read his Cugel books or the Five Demon Princes?

    I love Vance’s literary voice so much that I actually wrote a short story trying to mimic it.

17. Anwyn Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 4:13 am

    Bah.

    Two issues here: 1) Whether Frodo’s feelings represent Tolkien’s feelings about his books (they don’t).

    2) Whether nk and Doc Rampage personally liked Lord of the Rings (you don’t). You’re not the first, by far, I’ve encountered with the same preferences. :)

    nk, in response to your “predictable” shot, that’s to say they’re predictable *now*. You’ve seen Star Wars and read a bunch of similar tales. I don’t know how predictable it would have seemed in 1954.

18. nk Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 9:15 am

    I can just picture Xrlq loading his rifle for the site-jackers.

    Doc, I have read everything Jack Vance has written and the most I have reread are Cugel and the Demon Princes.
    I loved “How can a man have three fathers?” from Cugel’s Saga.

    Anwyn, Max Brand had invented the formula of a bad man on his way up and a good man on his way down with redemption awaiting both at the end in the early twenties.

19. Anwyn Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 11:04 am

    I’m pretty sure that sort of formula was “invented” long before the 1920s, actually, but I fail to see the specific application … no bad men on their way up earned redemption in The Lord of the Rings, and only a couple good men on their way down, either. Frodo was not on his way down; he was dragged down by the weight of the responsibility he choose to sustain. Gollum took a couple of fitful steps and starts at being on his way up, but in the end he was on his way down again. Boromir was on his way down but redeemed himself before his death … Theoden was under an enchantment of sorts … and Denethor and Saruman just went down, period. :)

20. Anwyn Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 11:05 am

    And I’m not saying the sacrificial hero story was an invention of Tolkien’s or that the end couldn’t have been predicted in 1954. Maybe we should talk about what you find predictable. I was talking details, not general tilt of the story.

21. nk Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    Fair enough. Perhaps I used “redemption” too loosely — for some who are so evil their only “redemption” may be their incapacitation so they will stop doing harm to their souls as well as to others. Hmm, maybe now we can take this thread to a discussion of the moral underpinnings of the death penalty.

22. nk Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    I fianlly found enough time to read your short story, Doc. Not bad. There was another Vance imitator, Michael Shea? He took The Dying Earth the other way — much more darker and horrific.

23. Doc Rampage Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 8:34 pm

    Glad you didn’t hate the story, nk.

    As to Xrlq loading his rifle for sitejackers, if he would post about Jack Vance or similar interesting topics, it wouldn’t be necessary to hijack the discussion forum. If he won’t do it, life will find a way. Information wants to be free. The internet sees a lack of discussion of Cugel as a failure and routes around it.

    And anyway, if Xrlq didn’t want transients peeing in his living room, he should have locked up when he left.

24. nk Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 11:45 pm

    Doc, what does “noncupatory” mean? It’s not in my College Webster’s.

25. Doc Rampage Says:
    July 29th, 2006 at 4:25 am

    You know, I recall finding a definition of noncupatory somewhere before I used it, but I can’t recall where. However, you may be pleased to know that the first hit for noncupatory on Google is a comment of yours at Patterico.

    As I recall, the definition was something like “not leading to a conclusion”, but my memory is faint, so don’t quote me on it. I just used it like Vance did.

Leave a Reply