I HATE ANN COULTER!!!!

Discuss.

No really. Please don't. Her whole existence, like that of Fox News and 43*'s malapropisms, is likely designed just to make intelligent left people mad. Then wingnuts can turn around and point at the shrill (yeah, i know), angry (superior?) left response and use it as another form of Other to play to their base.

But all the liberal womyn are jealous of her because she looks like a supermodel! Well, that's what she has said, anyway. It's kind of funny how far a little self-regard will get you...

If she isn't careful about continually saying shoddy things about how slavery wasn't so bad/Muslims should be wiped out/linking the Central Park raists to behvious of black men, I think she just may get gangbanged by a gaggle of hatahs herself somewhere, the first "journalist" to do so. Serious.

Ann: [Cops] shoot the wrong people more than civilians do, interestingly. But I'm not saying, "Get a gun and don't know how to use it." [cabbies] oughta be trained.

Jon: For what, like a week?

Chris: Drive and shoot at the same time?

[ Laughter ]

[ Applause ]

Ann: No, train the same way cops are trained.

Chris: I'm going to rob you, and he's gonna pull over and shoot me? No! What are you talking about? Are you on the pipe? What is wrong with you?

[ Laughter ]

Bill: How likely is it she's on the pipe? Really.

Chris: She's pretty skinny.

I liked the Salon.com review of her book (a NY Times Bestseller! but she hates the NY Times so this doesnt matter!), even though I don't know whether Charles Taylor is Classic or Dud.

not that thoroughness implies correctness. but i haven't read the book, so i have no idea what she's using to back up her arguments.

interesting how quickly her looks were mentioned in this thread. she's clearly taken advantage of her appearance and its selling value, as her pic is prominently on not only the cover but also the spine of the book.

http://www.hermes-press.com/coulter2.jpg

and though i've said it before, i'll say it again ... her credibility in the legal world is zilch. i love how these wingnuts think that they can style themselves "constitutional scholars," even though they've never published law review articles, worked on constitutional law treatises, teach constitutional law at an accredited law school, etc. (all the traditional ways of being a "constitutional scholar," not pimping the right-wing rubber chicken circuit). the real crime is that the media is allowing this nasty freak to get away with her schtick.

nb: she was one of the "elves" who was digging for dirt and surreptitiously helping Kenneth Starr. yet another reason to hate this rancid cunt.

Someone on the net (no link, sorry) took upon himself the pointless task of checking up on the footnotes and, lo and behold, most of the sources were taken out of context, distorted, or simply did not support what she was saying. This person quit doing this after the first chapter.

(If memory serves correct, that's a "no", but my memory is about as reliable as Ms. Coulter's fact-checker.)

And he was shot in Weehawken, NJ by Aaron Burr!

Yes! The winner of the annual Obscure Peanut Butter Commercial Reference Award is once again Dan Perry!

(But he did have a mouthful of peanut butter, right? RIGHT!?! BOO-YAH!)

Nah, that was Chris Rock's comment about Laura Ingraham (another blonde conservative pundit -- but a much better looking one, for whatever that's worth.)

I worry about Ann Coulter. I think she's really very unhealthy.

Ann is getting really old now, the new McCarthyism-wuz-right! shtick embarrassing for even her usual fanbase to unquestioningly support, but hey - the more obnoxious she becomes, the more entertaining it is for the rest of the sane world. I think she's going to resort to wearing a string bikini in a Fox interview someday, while again regurgitating her views re: how women should never have gotten the right of suffrage

ew nvrmind

Good governor? Experience? Who cares? What California needs is a charismatic personality who looks good on television. That's what gets problems solved. I'd prefer Warren Beatty, of course, but Arnold will do.

i think thats all her "liberal-baiting" shtick though, innit? i mean she said so herself in that interview, how she is just saying the obvious things which would horrify and piss the left to pieces and then play off of it . what she wasn't bright enough to anticipate tho, was that her game would eventually be seen through and fall apart, as it approaches farce, leading to even the right leaving her out there on her own as well, since no one wants to be caught supporting a joke..

right?

i didnt get a real response, but i didnt expect one

if warren beatty's term = something like Bulworth happening in real life haha, no contest

More background on the story here.

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/082002.asp

nb I'm only dissing cheap OAKTASTIC chardonnay so plz don't kill me winefreaks.

ROFFLE!!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22wine-sipping+liberals%22&btnG=Search

http://www.wesjones.com/frank1.htm

The Gore-voting people of the Blue states, meanwhile, were dismissed with what we will call the latte libel: the suggestion that liberals are identifiable by their tastes and consumer preferences and that these tastes and preferences reveal the essential arrogance and foreignness of liberalism. And since many of the pundits who were hailing the virtues of the Red states - pundits, remember, who were conservatives and who supported George W. Bush - actually, physically lived in Blue states that went for Gore, the rules of this idiotic game allowed them to present the latte libel in the elevated language of the confession. David Brooks, who has since made a career out of projecting the liberal stereotype onto the map, took to the pages of The Atlantic to admit on behalf of everyone who lives in a Blue zone that they are all snobs, toffs, wusses, ignoramuses, and utterly out of touch with the authentic life of the people.

this is not a serious country any more.

this is not a serious country any more.
We were ever...?

Failin, you couldn't hit it. There's nothing to hit!

"The fate of our troops isn't a game. The fate of the victims on 9/11 is not a game." But she told me several times that, as she put it in an e-mail, "most of what I say, I say to amuse myself and amuse my friends. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about anything beyond that."

interesting mix of reactions from righty blogs

Does Ann Coulter make a positive contribution to American political culture?
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/cgi-bin/graph/piegraph?height=150&width=420&bg=ffffff&fg=000000&d1=78250,990000,Yes%2016.6%&d2=390025,000033,No%2082.8%&d3=2629,999966,Don

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050425/story.html

And the Ace of Spades decides that the Coulter cover is actually "proof of media bias" against conservatives. Why? Because Coulter didn't get a cover until now.

Ha ha ha ha.

And yeay, I'd "hit it", but then I have the hots for todd rundgren as well, heh.

I thought the same thing!

I got super-annoyed when I first saw this (Tom Delay barely gets a mention in the corner, and he actually has some REAL influence over American government!). Now my attitude's more like, "Eh. Let the baby have her bottle."

It also makes me laugh at Time since they're about two years behind on even CONSIDERING a front page story on someone like her.

She is the Paris Hilton of neocons.

(I wonder when Time is going to do their cover story on La Hilton?)

http://www.timecanada.com/story.adp?storyid=001&part=1&area=

Baaaaaahahahahaha!

She had her moment in 2002; after that book came out, none of her following ones were even that successful. She's so passe; now it's all about, you know, reading Teh Bible, not Ann Coulter.

(I like looking back at this thread - I said Arianna could take Maureen two years ago!!)

Having read the story, I don't get much of an impression of Coulter other than that she seems constantly desperate for attention. Her political beliefs don't seems particularly well-formed, either, for someone who's allegedly written entire books on the subject.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

interview with Time's John Cloud, who wrote the piece.

in summary, "fuck you. ann doesn't fuck up all that often. david brock sucks dicks."

David Brock wrote a whole book saying, 'Oh, my other books? They were lies.' So I don't think David Brock has a lot of credibility on the question of Ann Coulter. And what they are doing is a smear job. That's his other history -- David Brock has a history of smear jobs. And this is a smear job against me personally.

[...]

The idea that this is a puff piece is just absurd. And it's part of this left-wing attack machine that David Brock has invented for himself in his shame.

John Cloud
John Cloud is a staff writer for Time magazine, where he has worked since 1997. Before coming to Time, he was a senior writer at Washington City Paper. He wrote this week's much-discussed Time cover story about Ann Coulter.

Brian Montopoli: First things first: Why did you write the story? Did you pitch it, or did the editors come to you and say, "We want to do a cover on Ann Coulter?"

John Cloud: Last summer, you know, we put Michael Moore on the cover. And, by the way, at that time we didn't get quite the reaction, certainly not from the left, which seemed rather pleased with the cover we did on Michael Moore. You get it from both sides.

As for how the story got suggested, I suggested it after the election. Ann Coulter [it seemed to me] had epitomized the way politics was discussed last year during the election. It was slash-and-burn, on both sides. Her side won, rather decisively, and it seemed the right time to figure out who was this force behind the way our political dialogue was being conducted. Ann Coulter is the person who is shaping the tone of this dialogue in many ways, and I thought it was time to examine her.

BM: One of the criticisms that people have made is that Time has bottom line considerations [that go into] who it puts on the cover, and choosing to put Coulter on the cover reflected either a pursuit of conservative readers or a desire to just put a hot woman on the cover, which is pretty much what the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz said. And let me read you something from Eric Alterman, and just ask you to respond: "Time's cover story/whitewash of Ann Coulter ... will make it impossible for serious people to accept what the magazine reports at face value ever again. It is as if Time had contracted a journalistic venereal disease from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and is now seeking to lower itself to their level in pursuit of their ideologically-obsessed audiences."

JC:Well, this is just absurd. A few weeks ago, we put Jeffrey Sachs' book on how to end poverty on the cover. I mean, is that going to be a huge seller for conservatives? We did a piece on television indecency that basically concluded that the FCC had gone too far in regulating television. That was on the cover recently. I don't pick the covers, unfortunately -- I don't have that much power here -- but we did Michael Moore on the cover last summer, we've done, over the years, incredibly flattering covers on Hillary Clinton, on both of the Clintons, multiple times. We did Ann Coulter because she's an interesting figure. I could not care less what conservatives or liberals think of Time magazine's covers, and if people read my work over the years -- I've been a journalist for ten years -- and if you read that body of work I think you'll see that I'm not trying to kiss up to conservatives. And if you look at Time magazine, even over the last month, this idea that we're kissing up to conservatives is wrong.

Plus, who are their sources for this? Did Alterman do any reporting before he made this assertion? I think a pertinent thing about Alterman is that he has said publicly that he will not engage Ann Coulter in debate. He won't go on television with her. So his solution to Ann Coulter is to act as though she doesn't exist ... I don't agree with that approach to people that we don't necessarily like. I think you engage those people in open debate, you get those people to talk about their ideas, and then you weigh those ideas. And my story does that. My story is very fair about her.

I think maybe Eric and Ann are in the same bunch. They also, by the way, use the same language. He calls Ann Coulter a name-caller, but he doesn't do anything in that screed against me except use sort of fancy name-calling. He says [the piece] is a "moral, professional, intellectual abomination" without making an argument about the actual substance of the piece. Instead, he picks up something from David Brock's Web site [Media Matters] and reprints it on MSNBC's website. Now David Brock is a very famous hater of Ann Coulter. They used to be friends, they're not friends anymore. He is also a serial liar. David Brock wrote a whole book saying, 'Oh, my other books? They were lies.' So I don't think David Brock has a lot of credibility on the question of Ann Coulter. And what they are doing is a smear job. That's his other history -- David Brock has a history of smear jobs. And this is a smear job against me personally.

BM: I realize you don't have a lot of faith in what the Media Matters people have been saying. But the one line [from the Time article] that seemed to upset a lot of people on the left was, "Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words 'Ann Coulter lies,' you will drown in results. But I didn't find many outright Coulter errors." I looked at the Media Matters stuff on Coulter. There were a lot of examples of what seem to me to be errors. Even if you don't think highly of David Brock, how do you respond to that?

JC: This one sentence in a 5,500-word piece has been worried over more than any other. Which is fine, I'm happy to defend it. My piece does not say that there are no Ann Coulter errors. In fact, I offer some Ann Coulter errors that we haven't seen before, and I quote people like Ronald Radosh at some length on the problems with the more recent book of hers, which is Treason. David Brock, who knew Ann Coulter from years ago, goes to a book that's years old, and prints some mistakes from that book, and of course [there are] mistakes. And a lot of them are corrected. If you go out and you buy a copy of Slander now, you won't find those mistakes in it, because the publisher has corrected them.

Now, I had a choice of, do I want to, in my article, list every single Ann Coulter mistake ever made, even ones that have been corrected by the publisher -- which is, by the way, what almost every other journalist who has written about her has done -- or do I want to say something fresh and interesting about her? Do I want to engage her on issues and try to figure out what makes her tick and whether this is all an act? That was what my story was about. My story was not primarily about picking apart ... all 1,000 of Ann Coulter's columns or the hundreds and hundreds of pages that she's written in her books. My job in this story was not to be a fact-checker. I don't say in this story that she's never made a mistake. In fact, I point out some mistakes. This is a story that calls some of her writing highly amateurish. I say I want to shut her up occasionally. I quote a friend of hers calling her a fascist [and] another friend of hers calling her a polemicist. I quote Eric Alterman, Salon, James Wolcott, Andrew Sullivan, and Jerry Falwell all criticizing her. The idea that this is a puff piece is just absurd. And it's part of this left-wing attack machine that David Brock has invented for himself in his shame.

BM: Ann Coulter has obviously said, as you well know, some pretty offensive things. There have been a lot of things on the blogs about why people are so upset. One blogger wrote ...

JC: Are these conservatives or liberals who are upset? Because both sides are very upset with this piece.

[Interviewer]: I've been seeing the conservatives complaining about the cover picture and the liberals complaining about the content. One thing I read on a blog that maybe gets to why this is bothering people so much is, as you know, Ann Coulter said at one point that her "only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." And one blogger wrote, "I reserve the right to be slightly upset about Time glorifying a woman who once expressed dismay that one of my parents wasn't murdered in a terrorist bombing. So please, with no due respect, fuck the fuck off." It obviously gets a little coarse. But, you know, Time has put on the cover a woman who a lot of people feel is sort of beneath contempt.

JC: Brian, Brian, we have put Josef Stalin on the cover. We have made Adolf Hitler the person of the year. We are a news magazine. The cover of our magazine is not glorification. It is news. This whole idea is bizarre to me. If the New York Times did a front-page story on Ann Coulter, would it be glorifying her or would it be covering her? And, by the way, the picture that we used on the cover is apparently such a horrible image for conservatives that they can't even read the story.

As to the New York Times quote, our package has a whole list of outrageous quotes from Ann Coulter. It's called "What Did She Say?" and we have a whole list of them. The New York Times quote she said to another reporter, George Gurley. She said at the time that it was a joke. You can say it was a despicable joke or that it's not a very funny joke. But if she's kidding around with another reporter, and says something to him that he puts at the end of his article, am I then obligated to print that in my article? I mean, we've already seen that quote. Again, this is about trying to get a fresh look at Ann Coulter. I didn't reprint every outrageous quote, but, by the way, she told me outrageous quotes that are in my story. We don't need to go to the New York Observer to find outrageous quotes from Ann Coulter. They are in Time magazine...

(Cloud seems awfully defensive for someone who claims to have presented an unbaised look at Ms. Coulter.)

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-quotable-coulter,0,1820649.story

"Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit with a penchant for creating controversy, caused a ruckus when she called 9/11 widows "witches" and accused them of using their husbands' deaths for their own political gain.

It is just the latest of the high-emotion, sharp-rhetoric attacks that she has leveled in four previous books and frequent appearances on cable television programs. Her firebrand style even inspired NBC's "The West Wing" to create a "a blond, Republican sex kitten" in her mold.
In her latest book, Coulter criticizes the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed their husbands at the World Trade Center. The women also backed Democrat John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter wrote.

Among Coulter's previous statements, she advocated the invasion of non-Christian nations after Sept. 11 and the deportation from the U.S. of "all aliens from Arabic countries." She said American Taliban John Walker should be executed to show liberals what happens to traitors. And she said the only real question about President Clinton was "whether to impeach or assassinate."

I'd be amazed if even the most radical Republicans could defend this.

Apparently "freaked-out gonzo-insane blowhard" is preferable to "just a blowhard"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5099674.stm

Really though, it's the fact that she's smart AND she believes what she's saying that makes her so scary.

it's because the left-leaning half of the christian spectrum has started gaining more and more traction... jim wallis et al... so naturally, somebody's gotta basically make the case very loudly that if you're christian, you better not be voting democrat. (or anything but what you're told to.)

m.

Later, over a beer, we will discuss how it is you drummed up the temerity to call the woman who wrotethis:

I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

articulate.

Of course, I am being foolish, because you are a troll and I am talking to myself. Good job, Jeff.

DOBBS: I had people saying I should just absolutely eviscerate you here tonight and just destroy you, which really isn't my job.

COULTER: No, I think you are eviscerating, and you're doing a very good job of it.

DOBBS: Thank you very much. But, you know, the idea that the media has this reaction to you, I find fascinating because you are basically the -- forgive me -- but the opposite of Michael Moore.

COULTER: I reject that.

DOBBS: I know you do. I know you do. But I'm giving you one man's perception and possibility.

COULTER: I think I am the right-wing Mencken, the right-wing Mark Twain. I am not the right-wing Michael Moore.

Author:

1. Ann Coulter
2. H. L. Mencken
3. Mark Twain

Quotation:

A. "The political and commercial morals of the United States are not merely food for laughter, they are an entire banquet."

B. "A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in."

C. "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

????????

http://www.hblaw.org/images/peanut.gif

http://www.renewamerica.us/images/columnists/vernon.jpg

To sum it up: Godless cites facts that schoolchildren should be taught. Among them:

1. The entire fossil record shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we ought to see.

2. The truth about Haeckel's embryos is that they were a fraud perpetrated by a German eugenicist.

3. One by one, so-called "proof" of evolution has melted under honest scrutiny.

There is much more, of course. We've just skimmed it. Ann Coulter has done the research. Her book is a page-turner, not just for her one-line zingers, but for its depth.

"From Marx to Hitler, the men responsible for the greatest mass murders of the twentieth century were avid Darwinists."

And drank milk presumably.

Why oh why oh why do i look at those links...

Oh, why are you men so foolish — you breeders who breed our men
Let the fools, the weaklings and crazy
Keep breeding and breeding again?

Blaming Darwinism for Hitler, though, is a little like blaming E=MC2 for Hiroshima.

xpost

UPDATE: Coulter's Syndicate Requests Report From Plagiarism Prober -- As She Hits Back at 'NY Post'

By Dave Astor

Published: July 05, 2006 5:15 PM ET

NEW YORK Universal Press Syndicate has requested a copy of a report about Ann Coulter's alleged plagiarism, according to a post on the TPMmuckraker.com blog. Meanwhile, in her latest column, Coulter has hit back at the newspaper that aired the latest plagiarism charges -- but did not refute them.

The report was conducted by John Barrie, creator of the iThenticate plagiarism-probing system. A New York Post story this Sunday said Barrie found several examples of alleged plagiarism in Coulter's new "Godless" book as well as in her Universal column.

Universal Director of Communications Kathie Kerr, when contacted by E&P, said she called Barrie on Wednesday morning and left him a message asking him for a copy of his report. "Once we see a copy of the report, we'll be happy to comment on the findings," she added. "We take allegations of plagiarism very seriously." E&P has also left a message for Barrie, who appeared on MSNBC late Wesnesday.

There he explained that the Post had asked his company to put Coulter's book and the past 12 months of columns through his program. But his staffers stopped before completing the task--"we gave up after awhile, we'd seen enough," he explained. The many examples added up to "advanced plagiarism," he said, the kind of stuff that would "flunk any English student."

The alleged plagiarism is the latest development in a tempestuous 2006 for Coulter. Universal distributes Coulter's column to more than 100 newspapers.

Today, the latest installment of Coulter's column takes aim at the New York Post, although her July 5 piece doesn't mention the Post's July 2 plagiarism story.

Coulter wrote: "Once considered a legitimate daily, the Post has been reduced to tabloid status best known for Page Six's breathless accounts of Paris Hilton's latest ruttings, and headlines like 'Vampire Teen -- H.S. Girl Is Out for Blood.' How crappy a newspaper is the Post? Let me put it this way: It's New York's second-crappiest paper."

Of course, the Post could hardly be "reduced to tabloid status" since it is, in fact, a tabloid.

She added: "Maybe the Post's constant harassment of me is an attempt to shake me down for protection money like they did with billionaire businessman Ron Burkle. I have sold a LOT of books -- more books, come to think of it, than any writers at the New York Post."

There's nothing anti-Darwinian about the stupid and weak breeding. Survival is survival, and any dreams of "perfecting" or "improving" the human race certainly aren't based on any credible evolutionary theory.

Mr and Mrs Coulter for a start - who let them breed?

http://anything80s.com/catalog/images/80s/Toys-Culture/Boardgames/1546.jpg

The Adam Corolla thing in case anyone hasn't heard it:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Adam-Carolla-Coulter-7-6-06.mp3

whoa awesome

wtf dude

otm

won't that be, umm, awesome

--

Maybe we're seeing what happens after she's wrung the last bit of mileage out of that real estate? Would Colbert have her on?

oh, that's a new one. i'll use it the next time I say something stupid

The Estonian judge only gives her a 5.7 for attempted snark.

God did not "cause" evolution because evolution doesn't exist. Thus, for example, He also didn't "cause" unicorns. My faith and reason tell me that God created the world and I'm not particularly interested in the details. I'll find out when I meet my Maker.

Americans like comfort: comfort food, comfort shoes, comfort pundits to reinforce everything we already believe. Ann Coulter is not comfort. I love that she pisses people off. I love her outsized confidence, rare in females who've gone through puberty, which means she doesn't turn into a pile of stuttering mush when an interview turns to her body...

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=77F41DA41A95CEC6

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

- AC

Her entire life is almost like a cruel joke. It's as if she wished for fame and the genie said, "Oh yes, you'll be famous...famous for being a wretched bitch!"

Eh. I'd like to think that she's miserable for having to live with herself, but maybe she's laughing all the way to the bank.

I have a friend who has been arguing that we need to take away the Women's Vote for several years now, so that's kinda unshocking to me. I guess I'm just more used to her calling Jon Stoltz spineless or something. xpost

I think that in 10-20 years, she'll write,

Ha, ha, you stupid wankers! It was all a joke!

It's not my leading hypothesis, but I do think there's a good chance she's one of the better performance artists of our time.

i saw her back in '01 and she seemed positively timid compared to now, she was just another pundit type on bill maher. i think she recognized how to get noticed and upped the bile. i think one would like to believe she's putting us on but i don't think that's the case.

Yeah, me either...not every baffling or awful person has heard of Andy Kaufman or is trying to adopt his vibe.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it.

Because, of course, nothing is more shameful than attracting women rather than men.

She has a new "book" out. It seriously is nothing more than transcripts of things she has said on various cable shows. Seriously. Like every paragraph has like "Hannity & Colmes March 13, 2004" after it.

Promotionwise, I fully expect her to say something OUTRAGEOUS if she can still get on the Today Show or whatever.

i'd give her one

I know I'll be let down, but I hope she includes the quote where she claimed Canada fought in Vietnam.

maybe someone should compile a companion book full of all the maybe someone should compile a companion book full of all the made-up "facts", bone headed statements and obviously retarded things she's barfed out over the years.
as opposed to the covertly retarded things that fill its' current books.

i'm going to call "her" an "it" from now on.

I know I'll be let down, but I hope she includes the quote where she claimed Canada fought in Vietnam.

"American Woman" makes SO much more sense now!

Ann Coulter epitomizes the c-word

Coulter?

Look, wouldn't they make a great next First Couple?

http://i11.tinypic.com/6ww0ayf.jpg

where is his hand

where's hers?

Oh, I see. She's holding his dick, he's holding hers.

doesnt ethan think shes really hot?

Ann Cougar

I haven't seen her in about a year. What happened to her? I am missing her lolz.

Last I can remember of her was when she said she'd support Hilz if McCain won the Republican nom.

yknow i've been thinking she's been awfully quiet this election cycle. mccain too "soft" for her?

xp ha

no the other day i decided to listen to fox news radio on itunes and she did a phone-in interview on one of the shows. she has a new book coming out after xmas!!!! better pre-order it!!!

oh joy!

lol her website has a section called REPORTERS WHO ARE ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW ANN AGAIN

Translation: REPORTERS WHO WOULD BOTHER INTERVIEWING ANN AGAIN

I think they sat on her for this cycle to not damage anything more, but she'll be back in time for the inaug, just you wait.

she's still out there:

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/10/30/red_hoax_blue_hoax

---
Red Hoax Blue Hoax
by Ann Coulter
Thursday, October 30, 2008

As the case of Ashley Todd reminded us again last week, racial bias crimes are almost always hoaxes....

my wife says she flipped over to fox news the other night for laffs and hannity had coulter on in full meltdown WHAT ABOUT REV. WRIGHT??? mode.

Still gets quoted; it's just that pretty much all media have figured her shtick out and it don't sell anymore.

she hates mccain for being too liberal and back in february or march wrote that it's better if he loses, or else he'll be blamed for all of the democratic congress' messes and will have only 1 term, and the dems will win a super-majority for the next 30 years.

http://i34.tinypic.com/35a144x.jpg

Oh no.

ha ha hhahahahaa!

fucking liberal-biased doctors!

As many as 50000 people have Marfan syndrome, the so-called brittle bone disease.

I must be a terrible person, but this made me very happy this morning.

http://i38.tinypic.com/30urfp1.jpg

Politically Incorrect: Bill Maher, Ann Coulter, Jon Stewart, Chris Rock, Lennox Lewis on Youtube for anyone interested:

lennox lewis?

Texted from a friend at her bookstore job: "Ann Coulter is here. Eek."

It's not even like a restaurant job, where you could at least spit in her food.

As it turns out, though! My friend later commented with this:

"...she was very polite and gracious. i guess she saves all the garbage for F(au)x News. when she's amongst the people she's sweet as punch and pie. probably a good strategy."

I think the Boondocks episode featuring Coulter pretty much sums it up.

http://www.eurweb.com/?p=8192

this is like the most fascinating BFF pairing ever

Wow

Dyn-O-Mite!

That IS fascinating. What a couple. Suddenly she doesn't seem so bad. Like, if Jimmie digs her then maybe her whole public persona really is just an act (I'm convinced Glenn Beck's an actor but I've never been sure about Coulter). Countdown to the self-righteous "pallin' around with terrorists" Daily Kos post dredging up his Black Panther connections?

????!!!!

On second thoughts, this actually does not make her look better, but it sure makes him look bad.

I went to see her speak at my school a couple weeks ago, thinking it'd be at least stimulating in some way. I just got a headache and really depressed and bored. But she mentioned by aunt's name toward the end of her speech! Glad I stayed for that weird moment

dogg u gotta tell that bitch to keep your fam's name out her gotdamn mouth

There was a totally manufactured outrage here in Canada recently with her pretending to be censored but thankfully it didn't really blow up beyond the Canadian press. Maybe her appeal on on the wane.

bitch i thought i told you don't you ever in your life come out your mouth with some shit about my fam coulter i will fuck you up and sell your hair to an uptown beauty parlour

yeah, the proctor of Ottawa U sent her a letter saying you better watch what you say in Canada bc we will sic the Tribunal on you and make you apologize. Played right into the hands of those "free speech" yahoos who brought her up as a drone to draw controversy

Were you at the U of Calgary event?

he's got a conservative blog on his website - JJ's Views - so really not too surprising after all

London. The crowd was about 50-50. It sucked.

Hah. I'd totally go and see her just in case there was any shit-disturbing worth experiencing. But yeah, I'm not surprised it was a dud.

It was pathetic. She'd been brought up by this right-wing group whose purpose is to agitate against the "hate speech" laws in the legislation that governs human rights, and she was supposed to talk about that, I guess? I'm interested in the human rights machinery in Canada so I thought it might be good for a larf to hear her go off all indignant about something she would have just learned enough about to fake indignation. But no, she just gave her speech about US politics she must give everywhere she goes! Totally boring and pointless, and she tried to rile the audience up about stuff that's been accepted and uncontentious in Canada for ages--even the rednecks didn't rise to the bait. "I say God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! Over my dead body will I see a gay marriage in my hometown! Who's with me?" *crickets*

the way the U of O guy handled things could not have been any more ham-fisted. it's like he didn't really know who/what she is or something.

big time lols from that article:

Walker lavished his repeated praise with a straight face and appeared to be serious

xpost. It's so typical when US folks can't change their act one iota for a foreign audience. You see that with comedians a lot. eg. Lewis Black, who actually apologised at the start of his show here in Vancouver that he was only gonna talk about America. As for Ann, I don't think she really understand that the trolling standards are totally different up here. Like, a lot of people have legitimate concerns about the Human Rights situation here in Canada, but there's not a lot of outrage about gay marriage any more.

But see, if she gave any indication that she realizes outrage over moral topics is a RELATIVE THING among different groups of people, it might look like a lessening of her fervor for those things being MORALLY AND UNCOMPROMISINGLY WRONG. She can't afford to be seen to be letting any of her pet issues off the hook.

I didn't get the impression she meant, believed, or even understood a word she said. The nadir, as always with these right-wing pundits, was the section of her talk, after 20 minutes of the unfunniest fucking jokes you have ever heard in your life, about how liberals have no sense of humour. Because we don't find it funny anymore to hear someone's pithy observations regarding gay guys' facility in throwing a baseball.

I would have liked (guiltily) to hear someone laying into the Tribunal;s policy and the free speech discrimination provisions. My reservations about its effectiveness and worth are one of like five political subjects I'm sympathetic to "conservative" viewpoints about

I mean I don't expect her to get someone to put together a whole hour of material that's relevant to an audience she's going to be speaking in front of three times (two, it turned out), but at least give us SOMETHING. Oh! I shouted out a good heckle, though: she was talking about Obama's executive leadership experience, after having spent some time talking about Jesus, and she said "There were 12 apostles-- even Jesus had more leadership experience than this guy!" and I called out "Darker skin, too"

LOL. Good one! Totally agree re. the Human Rights Tribunal. eg. A great restaurant down the road from my house is currently weathering a controvertial HR case brought by a woman claiming human-rights abuse caused by a comedian telling a bunch of gags about lesbians. If Coulter's rhetoric wasn't so lazy and US-centric she could actually have brought some attention to stuff like this.

Oh, I've been following that, sort of. Didn't his lawyer pull a "I'm out of order? YOU'RE out of order! This whole damn SYSTEM is out of order!" and storm out of the hearing? That's the last thing I heard.

oh i was reading about that!
something about some carpet munchers heckling a comedian and then not appreciating the return volley.

xpost!!!

Basically the BC HR Tribunal have no juristiction to even be hearing this case. They would have to define the comedian as being an employee of the restaurant, which he clearly is not. They are going ahead with it anyway, despite not establishing any authority. The comedians lawyer walked out at that point. It's a total farce.

Importantly, the BC HRT had previously been told by a court that they had establish juristiction before proceeding. An order which they ignored.

Thermo pls webmail me your mailing address & expect a summons in the mail irt my pending claim on the basis of your hate speech on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 5:50 PM

You know there's something wrong when you find yourself in agreement with the likes of Margaret Wente.

To return to the original point, it would have been so easy for Coulter to get some mileage out of this case when she was here in Canada. Especially since her Canadian promoter, Ezra Levant has been all over the BC Tribunal case for ages now.

It's a very important system to have in place-- it's great that it's there, and in theory it's an vital resource to be made available in a liberal democracy for the use of private citizens in resolving what are usually serious and meritous claims. it's just that they were doing it really inefficiently before, so in response to complaints about delay and procedure they changed it and fucked it up way worse. it's way underfunded and understaffed on every level, so people don't get the support that they need and wind up flustering their avenues of access to the justice available, and frivolous claims get through too often because of inadequate investigation and they make big news, and it all just serves to undermine the credibility of the system further. wanto to get rid of something that's a pain in your ass but people won't let you get rid of it because they think they need it? get some bureaucrats to go in and fuck it up so bad everyone winds up hating it

then maybe her whole public persona really is just an act

would make her just as reprehensible IMO. maybe more.

Yep. I posted without really thinking. She's probably the vilest person on the continent. I mean, if JJ's a conservative, so what? I have no problem with that. But Coulter's race-baiting stuff is just awful. Or maybe JJ doesn't give a shit? Why should I assume he would?

I think maybe we should stop calling Jimmy Walker "JJ" and start calling him "Uncle Ruckus"

“Among gay conservatives, she is an icon,” said Christopher Barron, chairman of GOProud’s board, who spoke at Homocon. “We could not think of anyone who we would want to party with more.” Jimmy LaSalvia, the group’s executive director, exclaimed: “Just look at her shoes!”

Coulter seeks new Image

Coulter said that might be a weakness in the Republican Party as a whole — that certain individuals become celebrities and are allowed to profit off that status and yet still interfere in GOP politics, which Democrats have been able to avoid.

“And just a more corporate problem is I think our party and particularly our movement, the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party,” she said. “I mean, the incentives seem to be set up to allow people — as long as you have a band of a few million fanatical followers, you can make money. The Democrats have managed to figure out how not to do that.”

She cited Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as examples where despite having a loyal following, Democrats haven’t honored him with even an MSNBC show.

“No, no, no — you embarrass us and drag this thing out, you are finished in the Democratic Party,” she said.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/coulter-on-palin-brokered-convention-gop-has-a-problem-with-con-men-and-charlatans/#ixzz1

it is weird to see Ann saying something lucid, although it is very lol and in character that said lucidity is happening because she's trying to ice out competition from hurting her punditry's bottom line

When even Malkin thinks you've gone too far...

http://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/twitter-lynch-mob-square-version-eyebrows.jpg?w=190&h=190&crop=1

I have to say, I'm surprised that's all she said

suffers from Don Imus syndrome

Wow, Coulter on Piers Morgan digging in. She's said "creton" twice in the last three minutes--some kind of mythical creature that crosses Ramones imagery with Caesar salads and sofa beds.

did she mean cretin

Croatan?

Sure--and she corrected herself each time. Just thought it was funny. She's also claiming--insisting--that no one ever uses "retard" to belittle people with Down Syndrome, etc., and that neither would she; it's just another synonym for "loser" or idiot.

Or "faggot."

did piers ask her about dinesh y/n

Not yet; still a few minutes to go.

lol @ sarah palin

If you are a child of #God, you are filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. [Colossians 1:9-10]—

@God
Thx 4 callback. RT@SarahPalinUSA: If you are a child of #God, you are filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. [Colossians 1:9-10]

The whole creepy thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h282C3ta3mg

what a pathetic attention whore. imagine how bad she must have been in high school

she is a despicable human and i really wish her the worst.

Really interested in her new book about racial demagoguery titled MUGGED.

I missed the beginning last night...I'll queasily give her a draw for the first 3:30; from "more child molesters in America than racists" forward, she's off the reservation, and her disingenuous on how people use "retard" is disgusting.

Tried to cast my mind back to which Ann Coulters I might have gone to high school with, couldn't make that leap. I'm sure she was a real piece of work.

"disingenuousness"

she is a despicable human and i really wish her the worst.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:33 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

your favorite pastime

it's plenty good enough to wish obscurity upon her. that, plus having to live with herself for the rest of her days.

Yeah, I think that the world ceasing to pay any attention to her is about the worst thing that could happen to Ann Coulter. Her eyes tell me that death would be nothing but a sweet release.

your favorite pastime

lol

http://www.chacha.com/question/does-ann-coulter-have-cancer

Yeah, I think that the world ceasing to pay any attention to her is about the worst thing that could happen to Ann Coulter. Her eyes tell me that death would be nothing but a sweet release.

― Come Into My Layer (Old Lunch), Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:57 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, that's true. it's always regrettable (albeit understandable) when folks post her latest outrage to this or that website--there's really no reason to give her any attention, she feeds on it.

she is a despicable human and i really wish her the worst.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:33 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

your favorite pastime

― turds (Hungry4Ass), Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:49 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

concern trolls are concerned.

MEGALOLZ

http://gawker.com/here-is-a-collection-of-twitter-trolls-teaching-photosh-1575074274

What?! I thought she was dead.

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/06/25/coulter-growing-interest-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137/

lmao

I've held off on writing about soccer for a decade — or about the length of the average soccer game — so as not to offend anyone. But enough is enough. Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay.

• Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer. In a real sport, players fumble passes, throw bricks and drop fly balls — all in front of a crowd. When baseball players strike out, they're standing alone at the plate. But there's also individual glory in home runs, touchdowns and slam-dunks.

In soccer, the blame is dispersed and almost no one scores anyway. There are no heroes, no losers, no accountability, and no child's fragile self-esteem is bruised. There's a reason perpetually alarmed women are called "soccer moms," not "football moms."

Do they even have MVPs in soccer? Everyone just runs up and down the field and, every once in a while, a ball accidentally goes in. That's when we're supposed to go wild. I'm already asleep.

• Liberal moms like soccer because it's a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys. No serious sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level.

• No other "sport" ends in as many scoreless ties as soccer. This was an actual marquee sign by the freeway in Long Beach, California, about a World Cup game last week: "2nd period, 11 minutes left, score: 0:0." Two hours later, another World Cup game was on the same screen: "1st period, 8 minutes left, score: 0:0." If Michael Jackson had treated his chronic insomnia with a tape of Argentina vs. Brazil instead of Propofol, he'd still be alive, although bored.

Even in football, by which I mean football, there are very few scoreless ties — and it's a lot harder to score when a half-dozen 300-pound bruisers are trying to crush you.

• The prospect of either personal humiliation or major injury is required to count as a sport. Most sports are sublimated warfare. As Lady Thatcher reportedly said after Germany had beaten England in some major soccer game: Don't worry. After all, twice in this century we beat them at their national game.

Baseball and basketball present a constant threat of personal disgrace. In hockey, there are three or four fights a game — and it's not a stroll on beach to be on ice with a puck flying around at 100 miles per hour. After a football game, ambulances carry off the wounded. After a soccer game, every player gets a ribbon and a juice box.

• You can't use your hands in soccer. (Thus eliminating the danger of having to catch a fly ball.) What sets man apart from the lesser beasts, besides a soul, is that we have opposable thumbs. Our hands can hold things. Here's a great idea: Let's create a game where you're not allowed to use them!

• I resent the force-fed aspect of soccer. The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO's "Girls," light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton. The number of New York Times articles claiming soccer is "catching on" is exceeded only by the ones pretending women's basketball is fascinating.

I note that we don't have to be endlessly told how exciting football is.

• It's foreign. In fact, that's the precise reason the Times is constantly hectoring Americans to love soccer. One group of sports fans with whom soccer is not "catching on" at all, is African-Americans. They remain distinctly unimpressed by the fact that the French like it.

• Soccer is like the metric system, which liberals also adore because it's European. Naturally, the metric system emerged from the French Revolution, during the brief intervals when they weren't committing mass murder by guillotine.

Despite being subjected to Chinese-style brainwashing in the public schools to use centimeters and Celsius, ask any American for the temperature, and he'll say something like "70 degrees." Ask how far Boston is from New York City, he'll say it's about 200 miles.

Liberals get angry and tell us that the metric system is more "rational" than the measurements everyone understands. This is ridiculous. An inch is the width of a man's thumb, a foot the length of his foot, a yard the length of his belt. That's easy to visualize. How do you visualize 147.2 centimeters?

• Soccer is not "catching on." Headlines this week proclaimed "Record U.S. ratings for World Cup," and we had to hear — again about the "growing popularity of soccer in the United States."

The USA-Portugal game was the blockbuster match, garnering 18.2 million viewers on ESPN. This beat the second-most watched soccer game ever: The 1999 Women's World Cup final (USA vs. China) on ABC. (In soccer, the women's games are as thrilling as the men's.)

Run-of-the-mill, regular-season Sunday Night Football games average more than 20 million viewers; NFL playoff games get 30 to 40 million viewers; and this year's Super Bowl had 111.5 million viewers.

Remember when the media tried to foist British soccer star David Beckham and his permanently camera-ready wife on us a few years ago? Their arrival in America was heralded with 24-7 news coverage. That lasted about two days. Ratings tanked. No one cared.

If more "Americans" are watching soccer today, it's only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration law. I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time.

Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist. Contact her through her website at www.anncoulter.com.

Liberals get angry and tell us that the metric system is more "rational" than the measurements everyone understands. This is ridiculous. An inch is the width of a man's thumb, a foot the length of his foot, a yard the length of his belt. That's easy to visualize. How do you visualize 147.2 centimeters?

This is officially the point at which she crosses over into grotesque self-parody.

How do you visualize 147.2 centimeters?

Simple, just imagine 10 penises laid end-to-end

simpler still, just picture 95.28 men's thumbs

this is hard to believe

This is officially the point at which she crosses over into grotesque self-parody.

Isn't that what she's always been? Obnoxious attempts at trolling and unfunny comedy.

That would be cool if we called inches "thumbs".

I was at a used book store the other day and they had a bunch of books by personalities like AC. All the titles were basically unfunny parodies of liberal catch-phrases, which seems to sum up their entire approach.

I love how she's outright said BECAUSE FOREIGNERS. She gives zero fucks.

Also, wat: "I note that we don't have to be endlessly told how exciting football is."

DOes she live on planet no-media?

The only parts of that article that really annoyed me were where she displayed complete ignorance of the sports she was talking about (not only soccer, but the real amurcan sports she claims to love). Everything else was just pro forma coulter.

i love the completely random segue from ranting about soccer to ranting about the metric system

Vincent Vega: "You know what they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?"
Ann Coulter: "No, but if it has anything to do with the metric system, go fuck yourself."

But metric system is bad bcs furriners, dousee.

http://i.imgur.com/bpNxl5C.jpg

Chinese-style brainwashing notwithstanding, soccerball measures things in yards exclusively

This thing about you aren't American if your great-grandparents sounds supremely batshit, is there any way to get numbers on that? Like it seems like it would actually be pretty rare to find someone whose family is 100% American tracing back 100+ years. I'm trying to find some data on this but not sure how to search...

I don't know how old YOUR great-grandparents were, but I had great-grandparents alive in the 1980s.

not sure it's an assertion that warrants that much statistical scrutiny

FWIW I think the average black family has been in America for longer than the average white family

Coulter to her Syndicate: "I told you I could get a bunch of people to read a stupid article if I just recycled a bunch of 'lol, soccer' jokes. They'll click on anything. The dumber it sounds, the more they want to read it, so they can share their opinions about how dumb it is. Fucking magic. Pay me."

Hope he doesn't mind, but this was my friend's response:

"Hey you reactionary ghoul- my great grandfather was born in the US and was a pillar of his community and a member of the KKK, and I'm watching all I can of the World Cup. But I suspect that what I like about that fact is exactly what you hate about it. God forbid Americans would participate in a shared global experience that they don't dominate, control, subvert or police with arms. And, of course, immigrants have had no impact on American culture, where our food, sports, music and art all sprang forth from the soil."

But I suspect that what I like about that fact is exactly what you hate about it.

was gonna say, p sure all her observations that are actually about the sport itself were creaky canards 20 years ago and I daresay were around when MLS blew up in the 70s

Excuse me, but I think that was the NASL.

A country in which football/soccer isn't by far the biggest sport seems like such a bizarre parallel universe to me.

Coulter isn't even a grade A troll -- that was some hack shit. It's amazing she's as famous as she is.

parallel universe

Would make an interesting thread of its own, providing ilx knew enough about such countries to identify and compare them. e.g. Isn't cricket bigger than football in India? Isn't hockey the biggest sport in Canada?

she's useless and i'm pretty confident she will end up sad destitute and alone so i'm going to go out and have fun today

Hockey is the biggest anything in Canada.

Man I'm late on the party to this but I wonder what she'd say if she knew about the German-Americans, Colombian-Americans, Icelandic-Americans, and Mexican-Americans on our World Cup team, let alone our madman new ager German coach.

also aerosmith is as OTM as love in an elevator means going down

@DennisThePerrin
The only people keeping Ann Coulter relevant are American liberals. She's writing for YOU, kids, and you seem to love it.

No argument there.

She bombed hard on the Rob Lowe roast. I almost felt bad for her (but not really).

“The unacceptable threats of violence that have led to the ‘hecklers’ veto’ of Ann Coulter’s speech at Berkeley are inconsistent with free speech principles that protect us all from government overreach. Hateful speech has consequences, particularly for people of color, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and others who have been historically marginalized. But if the government gets to decide which speech counts as hate speech, the powers that be may later feel free to censor any speech they don’t like.

“For the future of our democracy, we must protect bigoted speech from government censorship. On college campuses, that means that the best way to combat hateful speech is through counter-speech, vigorous and creative protest, and debate, not threats of violence or censorship.”

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-ann-coulter-speech

I have a feeling she--just like Milo before her--had no intention of actually speaking at Berkeley. Book the gig...agitators gonna agitate...cancel the date and Oh Hai! loads of free publicity giving me the illusion of a upper hand.

^^
Most likely scenario. Still, I have to wonder why Berkley is even booking her (or Milo) in the first place?

Is it UC-Berkeley booking her or is it some shitstirring student group booking her?

http://www.snopes.com/2017/04/21/berkeley-coulter-speech-lawsuit/

apparently they offered a venue that could accommodate better security, but she turned it down because

UC Berkeley had imposed “new, more burdensome conditions” on her constitutional rights.

Is it UC-Berkeley booking her or is it some shitstirring student group booking her?

it's the latter

ie this guy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/27/i-invited-ann-coulter-to-speak-at-uc-berkeley-heres-why/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.9bf8c1d1bb45

who just seems more naive than shit-stirring but the results are the same

we need to alleviate polarization by inviting dumb, incendiary, polarizing idiots to speak

jfc there are a million people you can invite to encourage dialogue and respectful conversation. coulter is not one of them

what an ass

yeah like invite ross douthat or something you feeb

disrespectful conversation not permissible, check

did you read what the guy said?

jfc there are a million people you can invite to encourage dialogue and respectful conversation. coulter is not one of them

exactly. this is what you get when either side engaged in this ostensible "debate" engages in bad faith. The college Republicans aren't interested in dialogue, they're interested in inflammatory, attention-getting stunts. (The inverse of this on the left can, and I'm sure does, exist as well)

(fwiw I agree w the ACLU's position on this in terms of the university's actions)

i mean, freshman year you get an article in the washington post. the opportunities are there for those with the least shame.

Speak of the devil: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/04/26/milos-appearance-at-berkeley-led-to-riots-he-vows-to-return-this-fall-for-a-week-long-free-speech-event/?utm_term=.e0fbc6a9fb92

trying to think of some comparable right-wing public college the left can go cause problems at

Bob Jones University? Oral Roberts University? Liberty University?

Trump University? Oh wait...

trying to think of some comparable right-wing public college the left can go cause problems at

― Οὖτις

there isn't one, because free speech isn't actually a value of the right

Well, yeah.