If ignorance is bliss, why is Ann Coulter so bitter? The smartest thing to ever come out of her mouth was Liz Cheney’s cock.
“Americans should thank God that McCarthy, Hoover, Nixon, Chambers and Reagan were men enough to make real sacrifices.”
Ann Coulter
Duh by association. When you want to sell something, you want to send your best representative, not your worst. A good representative will acknowledge that the opposition is also educated. A good representative might even win converts from opposition leaders, and further swell his own ranks as the opposition’s followers join yours. A good representative can defend a position clearly and concisely, with sources at hand for anyone present to examine on their own. If your mouthpiece can’t defend your position, you’ll look like an idiot. Thus, Ann Coulter is a godsend to liberals, a profound example of “duh” by association.
I mean, can you imagine being at a dinner party, and quoting Rush Limbaugh? For all intent and purposes, it’s like quoting Hulk Hogan when discussing physics. You won’t impress anyone. People will just wonder if you listen to radio politics because you have no convictions of your own, can’t afford a radio with an FM tuner, or never heard of a CD player.
The truth is, even Rush’s fans know he’s full of shit, they remember the “Contract with America” and who sold it. That is, in fact, the main reason he lost his television show: the so called “truth detector” spouted a lie for every fat cell in his enormous, thigh-chafed ass. As for his remaining radio fans, people tune in because they…well, actually, I have no idea why they tune in. He may be a football commentator now, and may return to television…which is just one more reason to hit the “mute” button when watching the game.
Since Rush Limbaugh, the liberals have had a “Big Fat Idiot” to offer as an example of the extreme right’s love affair with demagoguery. Now they have a scrawny Aryan demagogue with the historical acumen of a spit bubble.
Arnold Beichman of the Washington Times put it best:
“Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason.” That’s a sentence from Ann Coulter’s best-seller, “Treason.” Now if I were to write such a wild accusation against liberals, that they are “on the side of treason,” [which] reminded me of the fevered prose of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” against the Jews, I could properly be accused of doing Miss Coulter a grave injustice, that I was guilty of propounding as wild-eyed a statement as any made by the late Sen. Joe McCarthy, Miss Coulter’s hero. And hero he is, as she writes: The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. The portrayal of Sen. Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism.”
He also writes..
“I know of few conservatives who have bought into the Coulter thesis of treasonous liberalism. I know of many more conservatives who have been sickened by her book because Miss Coulter has brought back into the culture the politics of the smear.”
As Lincoln so aptly put it: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” So behold the new McCarthy. And thank you, Ann, for removing all doubt.
If ignorance is bliss, why is Ann Coulter so bitter?
 Coulterism: (noun) a statement, thesis, or claim so profoundly stupid, its mere utterance reduces the aggregate human IQ by half. “‘Joe McCarthy of Nazareth died on the cross for our sins,’ she argued solemnly, offering yet another Coulterism.” |
I hate party cheerleaders.
Whether or not you vote down the party line every election, nothing says “I’m an imbecile, fear me!” like blind, unquestioning allegiance to a political party, dogma, partisan movement or anal lubricant.
In Ann Coulter’s world, there are liberals and there are conservatives. There’s no moderates, no independents, no free thinkers, no swing-voters who try to to choose the best man for each particular office despite political affiliation. If you’re Republican, you’re a good guy and if you’re not, you’re a bad guy; a traitor. The implication that not being Republican amounts to treason is blatant neo-McCarthyism, it is a dog returning to its own vomit. It’s no wonder that Coulter grabbed a bib and is on a crusade to redeem McCarthy. She’s hungry again though he made her sick the first time.
Because I think she’s an idiot, I’m sure Ann would label me a liberal, and I’m fine with that. Her definition of one is so ambiguous it applies to Republicans and Democrats. But like far too many Americans, I despise the Democrats and the Republicans because it took two parties to fuck up the country. Because there is no third-party to vote for, you try to vote for the lesser evil. It’s despicable when your only choice is a shit sandwich and another with more shit.
The Extremist Defined
People who think in black and white, whom cannot tolerate ambiguity, define extremism. It is a common flaw in our logic that should, like impromptu public masturbation, be avoided in any serious debate.
If we are to believe Ann Coulter, the mere label of “conservative” or “Republican” pardons the most grievous offenses against humanity and nation. Seriously, this is what the wacky bitch truly believes.
She’s an apologist for tyrants and criminals like Nixon, mafia crony J. Edgar Hoover, demagogue Joe McCarthy, coke dealer Oliver North, etc. Ann Coulter being heralded as the most intelligent voice of conservatives is an affront to the GOP, not just to Republican women.
This is a shame too, because when she is correct on her sources, like the fact that Supreme Court Justices Earl Warren and Hugo Black supported Japanese internment in WWII, you can’t cite her as a credible reference before grown-ups.
Why? a proud and unabashed embrace of bias.
She ignores that Republicans also supported internment. Coulter’s grasp of American history is so laughably skewered that citing her books to buttress an argument is like using Aquaman or Wolverine comic books in your bibliography or footnotes.
As the title ‘Treason” suggests, this book is not even masked as an intellectual debate on history or political ideology, it is simply an assault on the character and intelligence of people who disagree with her. It’s childish and sad. The heart of this book is the embrace of “liberal” dehumanization and a celebration of political intolerance. Perhaps we should all take a moment to pause and reflect now, on intolerance in general, this most tragic aspect of human nature; but as I do so, I shall take note of my own zealotry, and of course, burn her in effigy and masturbate.
Joe Mahma