sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Sep 24, 2011 2:56:06 AM
Somehow no matter what she's foaming at the mouth about, Ann Coulter always makes me think of the same one word:
"BUZZKILL"
Here ya go Hemond: from Betty Bowers:
>> that wound up Martha Stewart-on-helium Connecticut lockjaw voice of hers <<
Although I'm still partial to another line in the same review:
>> With a mouth so busy frothing it apparently has no time to eat... <<
[Edited by: sluggopyle at 9/24/2011 3:58:10 AM EST]
|
Pard
Champion Author
Detroit
Posts:85,782
Points:3,130,085
Joined:Aug 2004
|
Message Posted: Sep 23, 2011 10:50:33 AM
Love Ann Coulter except for how she's continually swiping her hair off her face. After a while that's all I can see. GET A BARRETTE, ANN!
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Sep 23, 2011 7:27:39 AM
Not sure where you get that "Manhattan accent" idea. It's more a Connecticut-yuppie accent, if there is such a thing. Never heard anyone in Manhattan talk like that.
But whatever, if the content is worthless the content is worthless, regardless how presented.
|
gcampbel99
Sophomore Author
Cincinnati
Posts:224
Points:94,465
Joined:Jul 2011
|
Message Posted: Sep 23, 2011 4:20:47 AM
lol...Hemond....Love it! Couldn't agree more.
|
Panama19
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:25,310
Points:2,543,310
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2011 10:40:54 PM
gougedQC, "...in spite of world wide, widespread scientific evidence supporting AGW..."
In point of fact, the evidence refutes the AGW theory in detail - the left's protestations that the discussion is over and that they have won the debate notwithstanding.
|
Hemond
Champion Author
Providence
Posts:8,184
Points:133,525
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2011 9:37:38 PM
Her writing is excellent and spot on. Her books are entertaining and fun to read. You find yourself chuckling at her wittiness.
.
.
Her live persona is annoying. I listen to her every chance I get, she's on the talk show circuit almost daily it seems, and she is sharp. But something about her, that Manhattan accent maybe, is irritating. And what's up with her , I don't know, quasi-slutty way of dress? Funny how some guys think she's hot, while others think she looks skanky.
|
sjlevine
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:13,199
Points:2,351,835
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2011 12:01:46 PM
I agree with you, gougeDOC. Ann Coulter is definitely an opportunist.
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2011 9:44:30 AM
Coulter is a smart cookie.
She knows full well that by taking a strong opposing position to AGW, ( in spite of world wide, widespread scientific evidence supporting AGW), and indeed taking a loud and opposing stance on any subject, that she can make ooodles of money..
and she does. I believe her pronouncements are based solely on her ability to use them to further her career and money earning capabilities.
|
nayla2011
All-Star Author
Toronto
Posts:587
Points:13,365
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Jun 24, 2011 12:07:18 AM
She is not intelligent enough for anyone to take her seriously, then again there are a lot of people who can relate to her.
|
sjlevine
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:13,199
Points:2,351,835
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2011 11:28:11 AM
So, you think everyone who disagrees with you and her is a liberal Marxist? Think again.
|
JetManCT
Champion Author
Hartford
Posts:3,625
Points:719,595
Joined:May 2011
|
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2011 12:20:19 AM
Coulter takes no crap from the liberal Marxists. I like her.
|
Damoney008
Veteran Author
Tucson
Posts:280
Points:35,860
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2011 2:57:24 PM
?
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2010 7:14:09 AM
Sorry I cannot share your opinion of Ms Coulter. She is certainly smart enough to have discovered that by being exceptionally obnoxious in her far right public speech, she can make bundles of money.
She is exceptionally obnoxious, and as such is controversial.. controversy attracts an audience- TV- media- books, speaking engagements.... and an audience means money.
She's basically an entertainer, a clown, a Don Rickles but taken beyond the extreme. I wonder to what extent she privately believes the manure she spreads publicly. It is unfortunate that she has chosen such a hateful manner in which to make herself rich.
Watch her, read her, for the entertainment value, if you're so inclined, but please don't imagine anything she says should be taken with any degree of seriousness
|
Hemond
Champion Author
Providence
Posts:8,184
Points:133,525
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Dec 25, 2009 11:10:10 PM
I've read most of her books, admire her, but just can't stand her live persona - she is a constant on the talk circuit. That Manhatten accent just grates on me, and she comes off as a bit of a snoot.
Nonetheless her writing is excellent. Entertaining and fluid, she is insightful and makes sense.
|
sjlevine
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:13,199
Points:2,351,835
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2009 9:01:36 PM
Ann Coulter is a joke.
The fact that she garners a following reflects poorly on mankind.
Personally, I do not think we can prevent climate change, even if human beings cause it. Past disasters with massive dieouts have taught us one thing, and that is how to increase one's chances as a survivor. Smart people will study the effects of climate change and position themselves to better survive it. This includes moving to areas that will be the least adversely affected and perhaps will benefit from the changes. This means moving inland and avoiding areas likely to experience severe weather. Scientists with their climatology models can help us with that.
sjl
[Edited by: sjlevine at 12/18/2009 10:07:02 PM EST]
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Sep 23, 2009 8:14:57 AM
hot, but completely wrong. Opinions are one thing, obvious research shows definite trends of climate change and AGW
|
Chef_Efraim
Sophomore Author
Greensboro
Posts:191
Points:15,445
Joined:May 2009
|
Message Posted: Jun 29, 2009 6:46:04 PM
I think she's hot.
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 15, 2008 10:02:12 PM
Ah, good. And I admire Leni Riefenstahl.
|
Ernman
Champion Author
Orlando
Posts:3,494
Points:981,940
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 15, 2008 7:09:28 PM
I admire Ann...
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2008 12:58:32 AM
HR, I personally don't think it's out of bounds at all; to me it makes sense and is common practice on other message boards. For whatever reason though, it seems to be frowned upon here by the ModGods, which makes it a rare occurrence on this site. Nothing more than that.
Back to topic, trust me, I could never think of Ann Coulter and sex in the same day. The reference to her lips is only about the words and that general attitude of venom that continuously emanates from them. Anyway, time for me to fess up: I kinda stole that line from Betty Bowers, although the original, now that I look it up, is clearer and far more satisfying:
"With a mouth so busy frothing it apparently has no time to eat..."
Thus my paraphrase was clumsy. Mea culpa.
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2008 8:47:48 AM
Sluggopyle, I know now it's been a while since you posted it (sorry, I wasn't noticing the dates), but let me remind you of your comments on 3/10/07:
"Wish some fool would take her, maybe she could work out some of that pent-up frustration. Get those lips that spend so much time spewing vitriol that they have no time to eat something else to do."
If I misread that, I'm sorry. It sure sounded like a sexual reference to me, which again, I would consider very personal.
As far as bumping - I had a comment to add that was responding to what I read; I don't consider that a bump - not knowing the etiquette, I thought that it was allowed to add to an existing thread if it wasn't locked. Besides, Ann Coulter is still around and as outspoken as ever, and global warming is still a topic of heated debate, so why would it be "out-of-bounds" to revive it?
[Edited by: HotRod10 at 1/30/2008 9:48:40 AM EST]
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2008 1:27:09 AM
HR, I just figured out that you might have been addressing me with your post of 10:28 (you didn't say), so:
the reason I brought up ten months of lapse is that's kind of unusual in message board exchanges, responding to a post from March of last year. Joining a current conversation would be more to the point.
Also for whatever reason of design, these boards are immortal and only fall out of sight when lack of input drops them down the page. You revived this thread after it was dormant for 9 months --nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but the general practice around here is to let sleeping dormancy lie; in fact reviving one like this often brings a lockdown from the GB mods with the admonition "Please don't bump old inactive topics". I don't agree with that design but it's their site.
I do agree about not jumping in; I was a member for over a year before posting messages. It's just that, at that point, I do presume that people have moved on from the previous year, and either start something new or join something current. I don't mind answering for a year-old comment, but I'll note, however facetiously, the unusual timing thereof. Cheers.
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2008 12:47:42 AM
HotRod, where the hell did I mention sex?? What on earth are you talking about?
Sex and Ann Coulter in the same paragraph? Ewwww.
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2008 9:28:51 AM
Btw, I was a member for about 10 months before I started participating in the message forums. I signed up to post gas prices for a couple of local stations that weren't being reported by anyone else. I didn't look at the message forums until a few months ago, a month or so before I started posting. Do you consider it a bad thing to take some time to look at something before jumping in the middle, or do you always jump in to things without knowing anything about it?
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2008 9:10:42 AM
Pardon me catspaw, I only have one degree in engineering, but it doesn't even require that to recognize speculation and assumptions when I see them.
And I wasn't defending Ann; I know she gets it all the time, and some people just hate it that she able to give as good as she gets. Everybody is allowed their opinions; I was just making an observation about what I saw as hypocrisy. Sluggopyle, your comments were not just about "what she does", it was a comment on her personal life in which you implied that she is frustrated from not having sex. That's something you "have no way to know", so don't try to say that you only commented on "words and actions, which are public".
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2008 8:02:57 AM
Hotrod, as a person with a couple of degrees in science, I'm able to recognize "that person's" comments as more than just opinion. If YOU think that water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, then you're sadly underinformed on the topic.
But then, what can one expect from somebody who defends Ann Coulter against vitriole or who even thinks that Coulter needs any defense from vitriole. In case you haven't noticed, Coulter is practically the personification of vitriole. If she chooses to make her fortune by being such a ^&*(%, then it should b eno surprise that some people find her offensive and return the favour.
[Edited by: catspaw at 1/29/2008 9:04:34 AM EST]
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2008 1:39:04 AM
Well HotRod, I can see why it took you over ten months to find that post interesting and write a response. Deep, very deep. This just in: in this country we get to have opinions.
Let's review what "personal attacks" actually look like:
"Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males." - from a National Review column that was deep-sixed, which led Coulter to call National Review editor and his staff "girly boys.";
"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00;
"...he cited statistics from taxi sting operations that showed a 96 percent compliance rate among cabbies in picking up blacks. (Remarkable, considering that New York cabbies' compliance rate on daily bathing is less than half that.)" -Coulter's column, 25 July 07;
"I don't think most Jews are as stupid as Donny Deutsch" -reflecting on guest appearance with Deutsch (who is Jewish) where she wished he would convert to Christianity to be 'perfected';
"The 9/11 widows are witches and harpies" -defending the same statement in one of her "books"
~~~ and on and on ad nauseum....
This is all Ann Coulter on *who people are*. My comment was on *what she does* (words and actions, which are public), not what she is (which I have no way to know). Ponder the difference therein. See you back here in ten months.
[Edited by: sluggopyle at 1/29/2008 2:39:51 AM EST]
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2008 12:33:14 PM
sluggopyle, I find it very interesting that you accuse Ann of "spewing vitriol" in the middle of a very personal attack on her. Reminds me of an old saying about a pot and a kettle...
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2008 12:28:38 PM
You can buy into that person's opinion, or the others who responded and disagreed. There seems to be alot of speculation about whether other gases amplify the greenhouse effect of the water vapor or add to the effect, but the water vapor is primarily responsible for the greenhouse effect. The argument the writer made that "WV is not the *dominant* GHG; its more like a submissive GHG :-)" does not argue that WV is not the primary greenhouse gas, only that it is affected by the other gases.
The statement: "Carbon emissions plus methane and nitrous ozide comprise those greenhouse gases." would indicate that those are the only greenhouse gases, which they certainly are not.
|
catspaw
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:29,929
Points:3,149,735
Joined:Apr 2004
|
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2008 10:34:42 PM
HotRod10 - "the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect."
Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is a myth put out be the GW deniers and is quite transparent to anybody who has any slight knowledge of atmospheric science and the water cycle.
Water vapour is not the dominant greenhouse gas
"Water vapour is a "reactive" GHG with a short atmospheric lifetime of about 1 week. If you pump out a whole load of extra water vapour it won't stay in the atmosphere; it would condense as rain/snow and we'd be back to where we started. If you sucked the atmosphere dry of moisture, more would evaporate from the oceans. The balance is dynamic of course: humidity of the air varies by place and time, but its a stable balance.
In contrast, CO2 has a long lifetime (actually calculating a single "lifetime" for it doesn't work; but a given CO2 pulse such as we're supplying now will hang around for.. ohh... a century or more). It doesn't rain out (amusing factoid: the surface temperature of the deep interior Antarctica in winter can be colder than the freezing point of CO2; but this doesn't lead to CO2 snow (sadly, it would be fun) because the freezing point is lower because of the lower pressure because its higher up). So if you put in extra CO2 the climate warms a bit; because of this move WV evaporates (it doesn't have to, but just about all models show that the relative humidity tends to be about constant; so if you heat the atmos that means that the absolute humidity will increase). This in turn warms the atmosphere warms up a bit more; so more water gets evaporates. This is a positive feedback but a limited one: the increments (if you think of it that way) get smaller not larger so there is no runaway GH effect.
So: adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms it a bit and ends up with more WV. Adding WV does nothing much and the atmosphere returns to equilibrium."
|
HotRod10
Champion Author
Wyoming
Posts:2,275
Points:40,450
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2008 11:15:37 PM
CruisinLinda wrote: "Carbon emissions plus methane and nitrous ozide comprise those greenhouse gases."
Actually the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor, responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Btw, ItisAJeepThing, Ann never said Albuquerque didn't have power because of Leo, just that his home required that much (so she exagerrated to make the point, nobody's ever done that before, right?)
|
wilcorp1
Champion Author
Edmonton
Posts:2,116
Points:42,010
Joined:Feb 2003
|
Message Posted: May 1, 2007 9:39:49 AM
... I had an epiphany last weekend and thought about all this push for the environment. Well, don't we use CO2? It's in the atmosphere naturally? Isn't the real problem pollution in the environment and we are just dealing with a minute transverse effects caused by CO2. Shouldn't we be dealing with chemicals, lead, mercury, etc. Also we have a problem with the exponential expansion of the oilsands in Alberta, my problem isn't the carbon emmissions here; it's the ecological damage as a result from digging up an area larger than the size of Florida in order to extract this oil, that's like having a big scar on your face. Also the Athabasca River which used to be huge and allthe wetlands around it has dried up because the oilsands needs the water to extract the oil away from the dirt. This water is also used for the communities around it and also the flora ans fauna that thrive on it. Well, that's my two cents worth on this whole global warming issue.
|
Sounddude
All-Star Author
Tampa
Posts:845
Points:205,130
Joined:May 2004
|
Message Posted: Apr 4, 2007 12:43:36 PM
"Why don't we send her to the parts of the world that suffer the most from global warming."
And where is that? The world has benefited from global warming because it's a natural happening system of this planet. If there was no global warming, then we'd be still living in an ice age. This planet is evolving and is not supposed to last forever and to try and stop natural global warming will have disastrous effects.
So please be specific when you use terms like global warming, which does exist but is a naturally occurring process of the planet. Now, if you are talking about the green house effect, this has still not been proven to even exist, and a world gathering of non-political scientists will be releasing a real evaluation of this theory later this month, declaring that we are causing no or little harm to the ozone layer.
But does that mean we should not try to be as clean as we can with our emissions? Of course not. And industry is working toward being as clean as it can and is the cleanest it's been in a hundred years, at least in this country. The rest of the world, specifically China, India, Africa, South America, Mexico and Russia, are decades behind in emissions cleaning. I've been to all of those countries and areas and you just want to gag. THEY are the ones politicians and environmentalists need to go after now!
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 10, 2007 1:19:13 AM
"Ann Coulter's take"? Wish some fool would take her, maybe she could work out some of that pent-up frustration. Get those lips that spend so much time spewing vitriol that they have no time to eat something else to do.
Apparently a slew of newspapers are dropping her now like the plague. Took long enough.
|
owt
Champion Author
Tennessee
Posts:10,290
Points:1,591,530
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 9, 2007 6:00:47 AM
Ann makes more sinse than Al.
|
sluggopyle
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:23,608
Points:1,075,890
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2007 12:52:02 AM
I think his point is that Ann Coulter is full of cheap gas.
We knew that, but the fact that more than three people know who Ann Coulter is demonstrates the myth of the so-called 'liberal' media. If such existed, Coultergeist would not.
[Edited by: sluggopyle at 3/7/2007 1:53:42 AM EST]
|
wachinggas
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:4,947
Points:1,321,855
Joined:Jan 2004
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 7:25:44 AM
what is the point about gas price?
|
sahileman
Champion Author
Indianapolis
Posts:1,466
Points:987,150
Joined:Feb 2006
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 7:13:38 AM
Ann Coulter is a brilliant woman
|
jmg144
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:9,702
Points:2,901,130
Joined:Jul 2004
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 7:00:55 AM
Not impressed with Ann unless your a energy eecutive
|
XGasManX
Champion Author
Rhode Island
Posts:1,532
Points:386,730
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 7:00:50 AM
Ann Coulter is a moron!
|
emmettgalloway
Champion Author
Louisiana
Posts:1,905
Points:327,905
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 6:59:30 AM
when was the last time liberals were right about anything?
|
gk
Champion Author
Indianapolis
Posts:3,932
Points:1,106,410
Joined:Feb 2003
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 6:24:14 AM
go, Ann!
|
acjr2474
Champion Author
Waterbury
Posts:8,301
Points:1,523,375
Joined:Aug 2006
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 6:11:09 AM
get a life
|
GaryG7
Champion Author
New Jersey
Posts:13,849
Points:2,702,225
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 6:09:43 AM
Why don't we send her to the parts of the world that suffer the most from global warming. The Ice Queen could cool down the tropics.
|
TerryLee
Champion Author
Ohio
Posts:14,600
Points:2,790,150
Joined:Mar 2004
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 6:08:26 AM
More jokes.
|
bruiser73
Champion Author
Kentucky
Posts:2,243
Points:564,080
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 5:55:36 AM
Coulter should run for office someday. She could have a hell of a book then.
|
nyuknyuk49
Champion Author
Rhode Island
Posts:13,681
Points:2,761,865
Joined:Mar 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 5:47:42 AM
It's a bunch of crap
|
njteech
Champion Author
New Jersey
Posts:10,861
Points:2,482,035
Joined:Aug 2004
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 5:42:24 AM
What a dork....she knows, sure.
|
roosan
Champion Author
New Jersey
Posts:7,702
Points:1,547,265
Joined:Aug 2003
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 5:38:59 AM
The planet suffers from "global warming." Did man cause that, too?
|
abeazar
Champion Author
Tampa
Posts:18,588
Points:3,622,125
Joined:Apr 2003
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2007 5:04:50 AM
Global Warming is a bunch of bull!
|