Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.

Show Only: News | Democrats | Republicans | Media

 

« Previous If you’re President and you know it… | Why yes, this is EXACTLY what I invented the internet for! Next »

A different kind of MILF:


Obama Pictures and McCain Pictures

A different kind of MILF: Moron I’d Like to Forget.

(Ann Coulter)

picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: violynn

» Recaption This

Incorrect source or offensive?
Reddit This
Stumbleupon This
Post This to Facebook

Add this to your blog:
(Copy & paste code)

» 564 Comments

  1. Musicmom870 says:

    Eww. Just ewww!!
    Good caption. I just don’t even want to see her.

    • Seth says:

      Her?!? Take a look at the dude’s neck. See that Adam’s apple? That’s a pretty prominent protuberance for a chick. Not that there’s anything wrong with being a transsexual.

      • Tessie says:

        Not to mention that her neck appears to be at least a foot long.

        • Seth says:

          I wonder if she can unhinge her jaw and swallow a person whole?

          • Tessie says:

            I believe so; but if you zig and zag, you can outrun her.

          • Trainwreck Chaser says:

            I laughed

            SEE I know how to take a joke. Some of you people need to calm down when I comment. I really am a sensible likable person……….unless you are an English Major, then I am your worst nightmare.

            • Charlie Foxtrot says:

              hey trainwreck, i’ve always thought that you were funny…a bit odd, but who on this site isn’t a bit odd? Well there is guinny, eddie, jane (but i may be prejudiced there), lowly grunt, ema, froofrau, they’re not really odd, hell just about anyone, except you…and me, of course.

            • Charlie Foxtrot says:

              hey trainwreck, i’ve always thought that you were funny…a bit odd, but who on this site isn’t a bit odd? Well there is guinny, eddie, jane (but i may be prejudiced there), lowly grunt, ema, froofrau, they’re not really odd, hell just about anyone, except you…and me, of course.

              • froofrou says:

                I take exception to being labeled ‘not odd’. ;-)

              • Charlie Foxtrot says:

                weird double post, I must be repeating myself in my senility.

              • minerva146 says:

                So I fall into the odd category as a given? :) I am a D&D nerd and politics junkie. I guess that qualifies me.

                • D&D nerd, BDSM Master to Lynn, video gamer, overall wacko… Wait, I think I just walked myself into self labelling. Wacko it is then.

                  • Charlie Foxtrot says:

                    I’m old school D&D, late 70’s before it turned commercial.

                    • herb says:

                      … back when one had to know advanced math just to find out if you successfully opened a door. Ah, I do so miss those days. Now it’s just so… table top WoW.

                      (And all I have left to show of those days is a copy of the Fiend Folio.)

                      • minerva146 says:

                        well, there’s things to be said foe each of the editions, but I am glad the integers are gone. Not that I can’t do math, just I’d rather spend more time playing and less doing math. I like 3/3.5e. I am still reserving my verdict on 4e. I’m going to have to gm it I think. I started playing on a campaign with a power gamer WoW guy for a DM, so….

                        It is definitely too commercial. I think they don’t get that not everybody is spending parental money on it and can’t really afford 100 books.

                        • minerva146 says:

                          Here’s a nostalgic look at stupid d&d monsters. check my link.

                        • I am a different kind of nerd. It annoys the hell outta me when tv shows have someone in a hospital, and the EKG is just random squiggly lines. My brothers got irritated with me when i saw that and said if the man’s EKG really looked like that, he is in ventricular fibrillation and about to DIE lol

                        • minerva146 says:

                          You mean you don’t just watch the medical shows for the sex?

                        • Also reserving judgment on 4th as I haven’t played it yet and haven’t had an urge really. I am digging 3-3.5 myself.

                        • FaileV says:

                          i like 4e and 3.5 as two seperate entities. 4e is more streamlined and I’m glad i started with it. it’s easier to just make a character and go for a one shot thing. 3.5 has a lot more in terms of character building i think, but it took god awful forever trying to figure it out. they have their goods and bads. I
                          d say 4e was an excellent start, i just wish there was more content.

                        • Seth says:

                          My first D&D set was the blue boxed basic set, my dad introduced me to it in the late 70s. I stopped playing D&D the moment Steve Jackson released GURPS.

                        • minerva146 says:

                          @ Faile So far I am finding the 4e too combat centered. All the powers the classes have are combat centered. It could be because of my GM, but I’d like to see more skill use, puzzle solving, other options for things to do for my char. I thought 3.5 better in that part. Like I said. Maybe if I GM a campaign I can see how it will work for a different play style. I am glad in either case to e rid of thac0.

                        • I am interested in some of the ideas for 4e but I am not convinced to leave behind my couple thousand dollar 3-3.5 collection for it though.

                        • minerva146 says:

                          Now all my links came through so it now looks like I was a serial poster about the dumb monsters.

                          4e is supposed to have online functionality so you can play at a distance?

                          We lost all my gaming stuff in a house fire. It never got totally replaced. I had a Drizzt mini that I bought cheap, that got vaporized. Now, I have a mix of 3/3.5 and the core books for 4e. I hope to replace more of what I lost in the future, but I’m too broke for any gaming stuff right now.

                      • minerva146 says:

                        PK eated my post 2x now. See if it goes through this time. Here is a nostalgic look at d&d monsters for those looking at old editions.

                      • minerva146 says:

                        Try to see if it will go through this way. Click the top link for a nostalgic D&D funny. Apologize in advance if my other posts go through multiple times, but I couldn’t get anything to post with that link, even in the body or the url line.

                    • FaileV says:

                      Unfortunately i didn’t get into it earlier (lack of groups and knowledge) but i make up lost time by carrying my dice set around and using them to make decisions.
                      “It’s…a pleasure to meet you!”

                • Charlie Foxtrot says:

                  minerva, you ARE odd, as stated before… welcome, my friend…to the machine!

                • rhorho says:

                  It’s okay to be odd, Min. We can make fun of all of those “evens” out there. Besides, we odd ones are vital. Without us, they would spiral into mathematical collapse!

              • Kuromisa says:

                May I be declared odd as well, please? :)

      • Dana says:

        That’s not an Adam’s apple. It’s just the curve of her neck. You can barely see the voicebox but it’s not sticking out.

        I’m not *defending* her, mind you, but I really wonder about all the guys who say this… wishful thinking, maybe?

        For Pete’s sake, she’s probably anorexic. At the least she’s got a massively high metabolism. There is no padding in her neck. You’re gonna see stuff.

      • Kenneth says:

        protuberance or not, I’d still do him er her

  2. rhorho says:

    There have been lots of captions on this one. This was in the top three, easily! Has anyone noticed Ms Anne has gone radio-silent this whole political season? Surely she could figure out how to draw attention to herself, yes?

    • n8 says:

      My suspicion is that she didn’t want to burn crazy-cred with any McCain support. I suspect she liked Palin better, but she would’ve preferred Huck. Just my $.02.

      • rhorho says:

        I’m wondering if she has moved to Montana, barricaded herself in a hillside compound with a stock of military-grade arms & ammo and some crazy followers.

        • ShadowVenus says:

          We’d could only be so lucky.

        • BigBuddhaDomo says:

          Hopefully, she’s forgotten rations and anything she could use to communicate to with the outside world. She always made the me wonder “Why the hell does she keep talking?”

        • JJ says:

          she hasn’t. She coming’s to my school on December 3rd so we are already planning protestst like crazy.

          • Xavier says:

            Why? Why give attention to someone you hate? I’ve never understood this…you aren’t going to change her mind.

            • Xavier says:

              /me acknowledges the irony of saying this in these comments…

              But then, I don’t hate her. I just don’t pay attention to her.

            • desikitteh says:

              generally the idea is to get a message to other people (in this case other students) not mad ann herself.

              • Xavier says:

                But…(and I ask the people doing the shouting)…do you actually listen to what someone is trying to tell you when all they are doing is shouting and screaming? I know I don’t — instant tune-out.

                It seems to me that on the whole, protests often are more about the protesters than the issues.

                • rhorho says:

                  I think the protesters in Tiananmen Square raised international awareness of their plight. Do you disagree?

                  • Xavier says:

                    But were they shouting? The most enduring image of Tiananmen was the one lone person standing in front of a tank. Not much shouting is going to work there, I think.

                    • Dana says:

                      OK, how about the protesters in Argentina that year their economy collapsed and they went through how many Presidents? They all went out into the streets and banged on pots and pans and made a hell of a racket.

                      Or the Serbians when they finally had enough of Milosevic.

                      And y’know, sometimes it’s just nice to see protesters when you agree with what they’re saying. You don’t feel so alone.

                      • Xavier says:

                        Therefore, the only way to get anything done is to raise a ruckus, shout down the opposition and throw a tantrum until your oppressors give up and let you have your way?

                        The examples you provide here, were not solved by shouting. Argentina is still a goddamn mess. There STILL are NATO forces keeping peace in the former Yugoslavia. Did shouting solve any of that?

                        • dropping in says:

                          Who said the only way? I think we should encourage our young pp to use their First amendment OBLIGATION to speak out when they disagree with something- Bush would have LOVED your viewpoint to take dominance before the invastion of Iraq- then those of us at his ranch would not have been there causing international embarrassment- protesting does not mean shouting down the other guy- it just means saying something else. And quietly can be effective- but so can loudly- MLK I have a dream speech was part of a rally that I woudl say was a protest..

                    • rhorho says:

                      You may, perhaps, acknowledge that one photo, no matter how poignant, cannot fully capture the deaths of 2000-3000 people, with many thousands more injured. And, yes, they were shouting, until they couldn’t.

                    • rhorho says:

                      I’ll wager that, in your life experience, you have witnessed shouting which you deem unnecessary. Truly, most people would agree that campus parking issues don’t warrant a screaming protest. However, you may have the ability to see beyond your own experience, and realize that some causes are worth raised voices. Raising awareness is key, especially against oppression.
                      Now, c’mon…give me that broad brush. I’ll return it when you can use it appropriately.

                • odie says:

                  So true! Protesters so often seem to fall into the ’smelling their own fart’ genra.
                  They seem to care (get off on) caring, and being seen caring and current then they do about making any progress.

                  ::sigh::

                  • odie says:

                    **They seem to care more about**

                    • JJ says:

                      well, we plant to walk out and try to take like 80%-90% of the
                      audience with us when we walk out. I am also furious that my
                      tuition money is going towards a rcist like her who speaks for
                      about 5% of my campus

                      • Xavier says:

                        Are you sure that your tuition money is paying her fee? Or is it a privately- or separately-funded organization that is paying for it?

                        And what is wrong with being exposed to alternate ideas than your own? Are you that afraid of it?

                        • Dana says:

                          Are you seriously trying to tell me that racism is some kind of “alternative idea” that people desperately need to be exposed to? Are you trying to imply that we aren’t exposed enough to it already?

                          Dude. Get stronger meds.

                        • Xavier says:

                          Do words threaten you that greatly? Dude, get a thicker skin.

                        • Matt says:

                          I agree with the challenge to the question of tuition money – whenever a student organization to which I belonged wanted to bring in speakers or host events, we had to appeal to their better nature and/or raise some funds, after clearing the whole thing with the administration. As strongly as I disagree with her politics, as long as she doesn’t have strong support among the students or teachers, all her presence will do is stimulate dialogue – not poison the very air you breathe.

                          That being said, the “alternate ideas” comment is a straw man, as is the “do words threaten you?” response: they’re great ways to create a fight you cn win without addressing the issue at hand. Free exchange of ideas isn’t just about politely hearing her out because someone invited her; it’s about making the dissenting opinion known as well. Walking out is a valid form of dissent, and if 90% of the audience dissents, well so be it.
                          Granted, it may be more courteous to hear her out, but people have to make their own judgments about just how much courtesy is required.

                          As for the “words” thing, sometimes threatening is what words DO. Language is the foundation of ideas and intent. My relatives and former classmates back home may be entitled to spout all the ignorant bile they can get away with, but that doesn’t mean they get to do so unopposed, and anyone who thinks the thoughts behind those words are never put into action is hopelessly naive. While a thicker skin might make the words feel less threatening, I doubt it helps much once the threat is acted upon.
                          Yes, this is an extreme case, and I doubt Ann Coulter’s appearance at JJ’s school will spark some kind of riot, but where that line gets drawn is a personal decision.

                          But the fact remains that protesting Coulter’s presence is as much the expression of “alternate ideas” as it is the fear of them. And to be honest, there is a point at which you are allowed to think “I’ve heard enough of this crap” and walk out. While people may be entitled to express their views, that doesn’t mean other people are obligated to listen. And the walk-out that is to be staged is as valid (and harmless) an expression of those ideas as the speech itself. And much more polite than hanging around to argue or heckle.

                        • lowly grunt says:

                          *opens bag, finds treat*
                          An internet and a half to you, sir.
                          *applauds*

                        • Johnathan says:

                          I think it is unfair to conservatives for her to be there. If she is the main (or only) conservative speaker to address the campus, conservatism isn’t being well represented. It would be like representing animal rights activists with PETA. I’m a moderate, if she was the only conservatism I was exposed to I would be extremely liberal

                        • viking gal says:

                          I don’t see her as a conservative. I see her as the Howard Stern of politics. She is a shock jock, not a political commentator.

                      • rhorho says:

                        Every group has its posers, but having some posers in the midst does not negate the matter under dispute.

                • FaileV says:

                  I agree with you I don’t listen to crap being yelled at me unless it’s something along the lines of “hey, free icecream!”

                  However i think more calm forms of protest can be very striking. Does anyone remember a protester that is known for accomplishing something through yelling? I can’t think of one, however Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, so on. the peaceful protests seem to strike a chord.

                  I think they mentioned walking out on the event. I dunno how much that would help. people that are unaware of coulter’s suck wouldn’t know beforehand. Holding a seperate engagement, and passing out flyers. trying to get the talk as empty as possible the day of would seem the better plan.

                  • Xavier says:

                    Exactly. When I see or hear countless shouted arguments between factions (here in the Bay Area there is no shortage of them), the first thing I think of is King, and the quiet dignity that his followers employed, in changing the course of a nation.

                    Did Rosa Parks shout? No, she simply said “I ain’t movin’”. Three words that changed history.

                  • Dana says:

                    MLK and Gandhi were as successful as they were because in each case there was a more militant group that they were contrasted against, both among U.S. civil rights leaders and among the independence movements (yes, plural) in India. Basically they were playing Good Cop, Bad Cop. The peaceful guys would get no attention at all if there weren’t other people yelling. This is probably a big reason Obama won the election. People have been yelling about Bush for eight damn years now.

                    • Xavier says:

                      Yes, Indian rioters and Malcolm X provided a nice contrast for the more peaceful tactics of Ghandi and MLK, but you really can’t expect anyone to believe that it was *because* of those rioters or the black militants, that Ghandi and King succeeded. It was the non-violent approach to change that effected the change. That would have happened without either the Indian rioters *or* the Nation of Islam.

                      • Uncle Fester says:

                        Shame old Mal was offed by the Nation of Islam really…

                        As a side bar, NoI always been a source of amusement to me. Talk about not getting who was supplying the Western slavers to such a degree that Islamic slavers were allowed to raid the remoter bits of Western Europe for ‘white gold’ until the major players in Europe abolished slavery. For the most part US slaves were captured by either Islamic traders, or sold as ’spoils of war’ by tribal leaders to ‘whitey’.

                        and that’s why I’m not a ‘liberal’ in the American sense… :) I’m quite happy to dance with the history.

            • rhorho says:

              Silence implies acceptance.
              Rage against the machine, etc.

            • Uncle Fester says:

              Some folks (like me) like taking a big stick to a hornet’s nest.

      • Lefty says:

        She did say that she would support the Democratic party if McCain were selected as the Republican nominee. (Click my name for the video) I don’t know if she feels the same way about Obama as she did Hillary, but she might have felt that it was a sure bet that McCain wasn’t going to get nominated.

        • rhorho says:

          Oh that’s right–She famously hates McCain. I had forgotten about that! Now it makes perfect sense that she went radio silent for this campaign season. She couldn’t move over to the left far enough to support McCain, even as the lesser of two evils. I think Anne Coulter is the only one who truly believes all of that maverick business, including McCain. I think your other point is well made. The McCain campaign was probably going down for the 2nd time when that show aired. Thank you for linking!

    • comment cop says:

      It’s funny I didn’t even notice until you mentioned it. We really have had a lovely break from that …“woman”. I’m using that term very loosely as I don’t know if the creatures from her planet utilize sexual reproduction. I hope they do b/c if she starts eating a ton of Thai food and splits in two we are totally hosed

  3. dazoob says:

    sry who the fuck is she even?

    • Charlie Foxtrot says:

      the evil spawn of Eva Braun

      • dazoob says:

        k, thx. So she also wanna have kids from a ugly dwarf that is tottally insane,
        hey wait history is reapatin, mc cain is down so no addequet father available.
        mehehee

    • rhorho says:

      Her name is Anne Coulter, and she’s so far to the right, she can’t even live in Earth’s atmosphere. Okay, I may be exaggerating. There are a lot of videos about her on YouTube.

      • froofrou says:

        I don’t ascribe to Ann Coulter’s views, but I do have to admire her zeal. She believes something, and she doesn’t waver. I may not like it, but I respect it. How many people do you know who believe something and won’t let public opinion change their minds?
        -
        Dont’ flame me. I don’t particularly like her :-)

        • Charlie Foxtrot says:

          No flamet the only thing that she believes in is sucking money out of really dumb conservatives. ;)

        • PortlandMark says:

          Hmm, you admire her, I want to disappear somewhere with her for several days, and then scrub myself in a hot tub full of alcohol. Which of us is more reprehensible? :)

        • LifeAndCausality says:

          That’s a point of view I see often but just don’t understand.

          Why is not wavering and being totally inflexible a good thing? Why is not letting in any new or different ideas admirable? Why is being totally venomous and hatefilled ok if it’s sincere?

          I hope you don’t consider this flaming, but I just don’t understand that viewpoint. If you care to take a crack at explaining it, that would be appreciated.

          • ---------- says:

            I agree wholeheartedly. Blind devotion to an idea even when presented with facts to the contrary points to an inflexible mind, incapable of assimilating new ideas. there is a difference between flip-flopping and actually allowing yourself to be open to new ideas and persuaded by evidence/facts/science.

            Intransigence is NOT a virtue. Regardless of how loud/obnoxious/judgmental you are.

            • froofrou says:

              The only reason I can respect blind devotion is because I see people in my own religion (to use it as an example) swayed by the ‘masses’ all the time. People give up what they truly believe simply because it isn’t popular. Like I said, I don’t agree with it, I don’t particularly like it, but it’s interesting to see someone who can’t be swayed from her beliefs.
              -
              As far as blind devotion goes, I’m not stupid. I realize that it has caused massive amounts of devistation over the last several centuries, the least of which was the Crusades. God forbid you actually have good reason for your blind devotion, no, let’s just follow like little lemmings off the cliff.
              -
              I’m simply pointing out that you don’t see people who actually have a belief system and stick with it any more. That’s not commenting on the right-ness or wrong-ness thereof, simply that it IS :-)

              • LifeAndCausality says:

                I see – sort of. The reason you cite for changing one’s mind (popular opinion) is indeed a stupid one, and I can respect someone for not changing their mind on that account. I just don’t see that that’s the same as a person who won’t change her mind for any reason.

                I actually know a lot of people who refuse to change their minds because their opinions are unpopular, but can be swayed by other reasons. Maybe I’ve just been lucky in the people I’ve found, and if so, I’m grateful for that.

              • jamlayfa says:

                New and proper evidence should always change one’s mind…

              • Uncle Fester says:

                Blind devotion to anything usually leads to lynch mobs and mass graves.

              • I have yet to find a reason to respect a person for beating their head into the wall because they can’t be deterred from further head to wall smacking. I call that ignorance.

                Adapt or die. Principles can be worth dying for but if your principles require a lot of dying, perhaps you need new principles…

                • froofrou says:

                  Reread what I said. I never said I agreed with her, only that it’s difficult these days to find someone who isn’t swayed by mass opinions and the popular beliefs. Ann Coulter isn’t leading a crusade to convert or die, but she is sticking with her particular set of morals. I can respect her for not swaying.

                  • Uncle Fester says:

                    She has morals? Somehow monomania and narcissism don’t seem to be indicators of strength of character.

                    • froofrou says:

                      HER morals, not mine :-) I dont’ agree with her! And you can’t tell me that you don’t fit at least one of those……possibly mysogeny thrown in the mix for some spice :-)

                      • Uncle Fester says:

                        I know your morals are flexible… I was just surprised one could scratch up respect for someone who clearly has less respect for others than I do …

                        • froofrou says:

                          My DETAILS are flexible; my basic morals haven’t changed and won’t.

                        • Uncle Fester says:

                          No, I’d say you were flexible…

                          Gays – let god judge em

                          Murderers – I want to slip the needle in myself…

                          that’s flexible…

                        • froofrou says:

                          Wait a second, look at the apples you’re comparing to oranges. One has a choice in what they did, the other doesn’t. See the difference?

                        • In Froofrou’s defense, she hasn’t stated any violent intent against gays. Simply stated her stance and that it wasn’t her place to judge. It was God’s. As for Murderers, I am for the death penalty if we can actually prove that the person did the deed.

                        • Seth says:

                          See the difference? Not really. Isn’t that for God to decide? Does God’s
                          forgiveness not extend to murderers who truly repent? Can you see into their hearts? Can you see into the past with perfect clarity, so as to know the truth of their actions, and what was in the heart at the time?

                          I understand your feelings. I really do. But people’s feelings are not always accurate guides towards right actions. Consider, even if you see someone murder, even if it is in cold blood, even if it is your family member. The murderer is a son of God too. What happens if you kill them? What if they have not accepted Jesus as their savior, and are not in a state of grace? What are you taking from them? What if they were just about to realize their sins, and ask forgiveness, and you kill them before they can? You do not know the future. You do not know if they will, or when they will, ask for God’s forgiveness. It is not your place to kill them.

                          And that is only considering the spiritual harm that you may cause them, not the certain spiritual harm you cause yourself if you do not forgive them. Sure, one can make the argument that one can forgive and yet carry out capital punishment. But that argument can only be made on pragmatic grounds, and based on the emotional content of your posts, I do not believe you have forgiven the people who do evil in the world.

                        • Actually I don’t look at murderers from the viewpoint of Godlyness, I think you would have realized that by now, Seth. So your religious argument doesn’t mean anything to me. I approve of Froofrou’s view on gays because it means she leaves them alone and doesn’t judge them. As for murderers, I see it from a practical standpoint.

                          If you take a life, your life is forfeit unless you are defending the life of yourself or those you love. It isn’t that hard and doesn’t require some cosmic justice from a boogey man in the sky to do justice for me.

                          So I am afraid that you wasted a lot of words about a system of beliefs I only agree with sometimes because of the practical nature for the common good. I do not know the future thus I don’t pretend that a guilty murderer will repent but I certainly believe that he should face consequences for what he has done.

                          I certainly do not believe that I should pay for his repentance as a taker of lives as I am not compensated for obeying the rules. I understand that petty crimes do not deserve death and money for their incarceration is required so I deal with that as a necessary annoyance. However, I do not believe in coddling any criminal based off their “potential” good nor do I believe that murder deserves less than what they gave their victim.

                          And I suppose I will wait for your slippery slope argument.

                  • Seth says:

                    She doesn’t have morals. She considers herself an entertainer, not a pundit. She doesn’t really believe most of the things she says, especially the really radical things. She is a professional troll, she makes money by stirring up controversy. That is why I don’t like her. Not because she really thinks liberals are traitors. Because she doesn’t think that, yet she says it anyway. I think in her head, her audience ‘gets’ that it is all a joke. They don’t. She is stirring up real hatred, fear, and divisiveness to get a laugh.

                  • I did, you said that you respect the fact that she isn’t swayed. That sounds like appreciating Ted Bundy for keeping to the cause despite all illegality and him being a psychotic.

                    I can respect unwavering zeal when I see it applied to something worthwhile. When I see it applied to something overall appalling, I don’t say that I appreciate their gusto. I simply ask myself why they can’t see what I see when they probably have as much or more access to information as I do.

                    If I somehow got your husband into a position where I was just kicking his nuts in, day in and day out, unstopping, unflinching, would you want me stopped or would you play Devil’s Advocate and admire my unwavering drive as I hammer your man’s crotch into the wall?

                    That is how I feel about good ole Ann the Man. She is just kicking them nuts in, over and over again, not stopping to evaluate if she should or not, just making up more reasons to keep kicking. Why on Earth would I respect that level of foolishness?

                    • minerva146 says:

                      Well stated, DWN. :)

                      • Thank you, I try to simply things as best I can. @_@

                      • Xavier says:

                        I disagree. It’s not a good analogy at all. In the two cases described, both are breaking laws and/or causing bodily harm to another. Neither of those are equivalent to holding onto an ideology, which hurts no one and breaks no laws.

                        • minerva146 says:

                          It’s holding on to the ideology that the kicking is the best course of action, he meant the idea of it, not the action itself.

                        • Xavier says:

                          Hmm, not seeing it — pretty clearly stated that in both the nut-kicking as well as the mass-murderer, the actions continued while zeal was admired. Except, in the case of Coulter, unless I missed something somewhere, she hasn’t killed anyone or (at least directly) kicked anyone’s nutz — she’s just, well, Ann…

                        • minerva146 says:

                          The point is sort of that her ideas are also dangerous, albeit by a varying degree. She incites hatred in the slow-witted and/or sheep like followers. Fanaticism is dangerous in almost any subject as it can lead to violence and a whole lot of other things in the name of an ideal.

                        • Xavier says:

                          And the same can be said for any number of zealots, activists, whatever, on the left as well. Someone here (froo I think) pointed out that Ann looks so “dangerously” right to so many in here, because so many of you are so far left. Likewise, someone like, say, even Al Franken, looks like a potential crazed liberal pipe-bomber to someone to the right of Froo — just as “dangerous” in perception, but in reality, not.

                          Coulter is no more dangerous than any other pundit. If some crazed wackjob (of any political persuasion) decides to go on a killing spree, it’s because they were predisposed to do so beforehand, not because of what someone said on the radio or TV.

                        • minerva146 says:

                          You can disagree if you want, but I haven’t seen even the most liberal pundit saying the type of hateful vitriol that Ann spews. She almost literally says liberals eat babies.

                        • You can’t be serious… Did you… Did you just take my exaggeration as something more than an exaggeration meant to simply my point so it would be more clear?

                          I guess I have to dumb it down even further.

                          I do not see zeal when used for negative affect as anything positive to admire. I do not admire zeal for zeal’s sake.

                          You have no idea how much contempt I have for your thickheadedness right now Xavier. I wasn’t saying that ball kicking or murder is admirable and if you think that, then you didn’t comprehend my words which just… Galls me and leaves me without any recourse than to ignore you going forward since you won’t understand what I am saying in the first place. I… I’m just going to stop.

                    • froofrou says:

                      I see your point, and I think we’re agreeing on part of it :-) The bit about ‘unwavering zeal…..applied to something worthwhile’ has my vote as well. Ann Coulter is putting forth a line of thought that is extremely right wing, but not completely off the wall (some of the time). THAT is the part that I admire, coming from a right wing stance myself. I guess because I’m further to the right than you are it doesn’t seem AS extreme to me. It’s extreme, but not the gut-busting ‘oh my god she’s a damn freakazoid’ that you’re seeing. It’s all perspective.
                      -
                      And if you had a good reason to bust my hubby’s nuts day in and day out, I guess I’d have to let you do it ;-) Especially since I figure that you and Seth would get together and bury me in a mountain of corroborating evidence stating that it was necessary for the good of humanity and the planet and any after life for you to bust in my hubby’s nuts ;-)

        • Dana says:

          That’s not a virtue. I have more respect for someone who is willing to look at the available evidence (and not poll results either) and adjust their beliefs accordingly.

          Do you know, I don’t believe that woman has ever spoken to an actual liberal in her entire life? She rants about strawmen, not about real people.

        • Deek says:

          I don’t think she actually believes most of what she says, as much as she says it because there’s a big market for it, and because she gets lots of attention when she talks. She’s an IRL troll. That’s why normally I would support a counter-demonstration to a speaker like her, but in this case I think ignoring her completely would be better.

      • dazoob says:

        yo watched her on utube. dmn that would be a quiet disturbin fetish bondage
        milf porn. nooooo i don´t want imagine any farther, bad thoughts go out of
        my head. rofl.

  4. Uncle Fester says:

    I think it’s interesting anyone can look that much like a George A Romero undead without make up and be alive…

  5. minerva146 says:

    She sort of has “man hands” to go with her adam’s apple.

    @ Musicmom. Ewww is always my first reaction to this person.

  6. rhorho says:

    Click my name for another caption. If you haven’t read the quote before, it’s pretty much Anne in a NUT shell (her natural environment).

  7. Xavier says:

    Jesus Ann, try the lasagna…

  8. rhorho says:

    There was one up for voting that said, “Oh, no! I couldn’t *possibly* eat that whole carrot!”

    I made two LOLs. Click my name for one of them.

  9. Siren48 says:

    You know she’s crazy when conservatives don’t even want to be associated with her.

  10. rhorho says:

    I read that Anne Coulter and Bill Maher dated in 2002. After you go EWWWW!! (regardless of persuasion), click my name for one of many sources.

  11. rhorho says:

    I’m going to go to the potty now, and not drink while facing the screen, just in case someone who likes Anne makes a comment on here.

    • comment cop says:

      Hurry back, we’ve got one. Either that or someone isn’t very good with the sarcasm

      • rhorho says:

        LOL–Sorry I missed the action, but I had to do some yardwork before dark here. I see the thread starter to which you refer, but it doesn’t look very smart. Oh, well–cover me, I’m going in!

        • comment cop says:

          I ened up cutting out too, silly work meetings. How do they expect us to get anything done if we’re forced to sit in a room for 2 hours with no internet?

  12. mrbecker712 says:

    Ann, don’t feel bad. Liberals just don’t like it when you get all “truthy” on ‘em. They sure do love Michael Moore and Al Franken though! And God knows Olbermann isn’t a nutbag at all!

  13. Micky says:

    Go away Ann – you boney wh*re.

  14. Bud Tugly says:

    mymymymymymy – can’t back off for a bit and leave it alone can you?

    just remember, 2010, 2012, 2014, etc are yet to come.

  15. Kaitlin says:

    Is she still around? I think she wised up and stopped flapping her yapper.

  16. Musicmom870 says:

    Alright, y’all made me curious. I had to go and look up what she’d been up to lately. Click my name, apparently the new book drops after Christmas. Link includes some humorous guesses as to it’s title.

  17. Lupine says:

    Did the site eat my post?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmLJDrsaJmk
    Best potrayal of her yet.

  18. msgypsy says:

    I Heart U!

  19. Bob says:

    Amen to that.

  20. Mr. J says:

    Coulter.
    Limbaugh.
    One gallon of Astroglide.

    Enjoy the visual and have a nice day.

  21. Tee says:

    Epic win on that caption!

    I’m generally a democrat, but among many others, I certainly add her to the list that truly destroyed the GOP… which sucks, because she’s not even a politician!

  22. Hilary says:

    In the newsroom where I work, we call her “The Fox News Crack Ho.”

    • PKisfullofLibs says:

      Thats funny whenever I am with my friends we refer to Chris Matthews as the CNN crack ho! And Keith Olberman is his pimp!

      Ha that’s good stuff

  23. James says:

    Why must the majority of pics on here be anti-republican?

  24. red_shinigami says:

    This bitch looks like the anorexic version of Fabio…

  25. jared says:

    I’m a moderate conservative and that woman sends chills up and down my spine. She’s pure evil.

    • Living the Dream says:

      Why don’t you just say you are a liberal “moderate conservative” means that you support liberal ideas and actions….

      • viking gal says:

        Nah. I’m a liberal, and I have a good friend who is a moderate conservative. There really is a difference. Unless you are a right-wing nutjob like Ann up there?

      • Tessie says:

        ““moderate conservative” means that you support liberal ideas and actions”

        Jared’s grasp of language seems adequate to express his opinions, but since you’re apparently psychic, how about putting that to constructive use by telling us which stocks to pick…

        Oh, crap. Never mind.

  26. Meg says:

    God, I hope someone sets her on fire.

  27. SK says:

    If any of you actually read her books, you’d realize she isn’t a fascist (Fascism and Nazism is socialism and inherently left-wing). She backs up every statement with fact…something libtards conveniently ignore when it shoots down their little ivory-tower worlds.

    • Ignatz says:

      Jonah? Is that you? (Seriously, if fascism is inherently left wing, why were Communists all over the world opposed to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco? And why were Communists and Socialists summarily executed after the Spanish Civil War? History FAIL.)

    • minerva146 says:

      Fascism is on the opposite end of the spectrum from communism.

  28. Fc Barcelona says:

    She has nice cans but her face could use a few brown grocery bags. Her neck does seem to be extremely long!

  29. foomanchu says:

    I like Ann Coulter.

  30. Living the Dream says:

    I LOVE YOU ANN COULTER!!!!

    I DON’T CARE WHAT THESE CRAZIES SAY ABOUT YOU. YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL AND INTELLIGENT AND COULD MAKE THEM QUAKE IN THEIR BOOTS WERE YOU TO ARGUE THEM ON FACTS AND NOT EMOTIONS.

    SORRY PK BUT ANN COULTER IS THE REAL DEAL!

  31. raineri says:

    i’d hit it

  32. PKisfullofLibs says:

    Ann Coulter makes you all so upset because you know you could not hold a candle to her in an intellectual conversation. Is it the fact that she is right so often that makes you all mad or is the fact that the media tells you to hate her?

    • Pat in Washington state says:

      Anyone capable of independent thought gets upset listening to or reading Ann Coulter. She doesn’t fact-check anything, and spews the most vile crap. “…the fact that she is right so often”…. can’t recall a time that happened. Your logic = fail.

      • PKisfullofLibs says:

        So now would be a good time for you to porve to me where she has been wrong, your inability to recall a time when she was right is not proof that she is wrong, cite me one example of her being incorrect, just one I DOUBLE DARE YOU

        Your rebuttal= FAIL

        Oh and bye the way I am very capable of independent thought, hence the reason I refuse to believe everything my newspaper/CNN/Foxnews/internet tells me until I research on my own.

        • Kuromisa says:

          Actually, a better way for you to prove your point would be to cite an instance where she was overwhelmingly right. I don’t know much about her myself, but that seems to be how debating works.

        • Tessie says:

          “So now would be a good time for you to porve to me where she has been wrong,”

          Well, for starters, she called John Edwards a “fag”.

        • Tessie says:

          “So now would be a good time for you to porve to me where she has been wrong”

          Well, for starters, when she said John Edwards was gay.

    • jamlayfa says:

      People who cite themselves aren’t reliable, nice fail attempt at trolling.

      • PKisfullofLibs says:

        Sorry, I know how upset commenters on PK get when someone who can actually think shows up. I’ll make sure to keep my opinion to myself since it upsets your pretty little liberal world. I know how devastating truth can be.

        • minerva146 says:

          Sounds like somebody missed their nap today.

          • PKisfullofLibs says:

            Nope, I just get tired of people slamming someone with no factual evidence. Ann Coulter does a great job at commentating and also comes up with very impressive points. Maybe not everyone sees it that way but at least they could prove it before they start calling her a liar.

            • Uncle Fester says:

              Someone gnawed through the straps and stunned a guard to get to the internet room?

            • minerva146 says:

              She makes up her facts, cites few references of source material, except sometimes her own books as sources. She has NO info to back up her claims. It’s complete fiction that she markets to gullible frothers like you, evidently.

              • PKisfullofLibs says:

                Again I will pose my challenge. PROVE IT. You can make bold statements all you want, it sounds like mumbling at this point. You no longer warrant attention to your argument unless you can prove her facts are incorrect.

                Your argument fails Minerva146 unless you can prove to me that her facts are incorrect. Go on prove it. If you can show me factual evidence of an Ann Coulter lie I will apologize for defending her. Until then, just keep talking to your drone friends here about how “evil” she s. I will assume you think she is evil because she tells the truth on you and you don’t like it.

                Oh and by the by, what is a frother? Sounds like an insult but I find no definition for it out there.

                • Tessie says:

                  “You no longer warrant attention”

                  I, personally, wouldn’t miss attention from this poster. How about the rest of you guys?

                  • Kuromisa says:

                    Not a bit. Too much of a “NO U” kind of mindset going on there.

                    • Kuromisa says:

                      I realized I probably should have explained that more a second after pushing “Add Comment.” What I meant was, we’ve been saying, “Show us an instance where she was right,” and in response, we get, “NO U.” Plus, I lose all sympathy right after someone uses “liberal” or “conservative,” or any derivative thereof, as an insult.

                      • sweetaction says:

                        Yeah totally, oh wait not once did anyone ask for an instance where she was right. But if you want one she was right about John McCain, he didn’t win the White House. She was also right about Joe McCarthy, he wasn’t a witch hunter, he was a patriotic American doing his job, and everyone on his list was found to be linked with Communism, what did he get for that? A medal? nope he got blacklisted so that the very mention of his name inspires the words “witch hunt”

                      • Tessie says:

                        Ah, the “invisible IOU”. That’s my shorthand for any argument that asks the other party to prove/disprove it, as in, “I have a piece of paper in my pocket where you wrote ‘IOU one million dollars’ and signed your name to it. Prove that I don’t.”

                    • Uncle Fester says:

                      Actually, there’s a smorgasbord of stuff available on Coulter’s lies, half lies and avoiding the point…

                      But to dignify the necrophile with more than mockery is just pointless…

                      • PKisfullofLibs says:

                        again, a plethora of information available on her lies but no single citing of ONE of them. Way to go Uncle Fester, you have proven to me that I am wrong…Oh wait, yet again you fail to provide any evidence. Necrophile huh? We are going to resort with sticks and stones, because you can’t make a strong argument. I think I will stick to just viewing the captions as opposed to posting, since the majority here are not smart enough to argue their points. And my energy is wasted on trying to explain to you. All I asked for was a cited example of Ann being wrong, and not one person provided it, oh sure there were plenty of allusions to her being wrong “out there” but not one citing. It must be nice to live in a world where it does not phase you to be so ignorant.

                        • Uncle Fester says:

                          No puppetmaster, I’m just mocking you for the loud idiot you are…

                          but please, feel free to take your massive intellect somewhere that appreciates it…

                          And I’m not indulging you by citing anything, since it’s like teaching a pig to sing

                          It wastes my time and the pig would be none the wiser…

                        • FaileV says:

                          i love that saying, i’m stealing it.

                  • Tessie'srealfeelings says:

                    Yeah I see why no one would miss him, since not a person has made a case other than name calling or emotions to refute his initial point.

                • Seth says:

                  Get ready to apologize, then. Oh wait, you are totally incapable of that, and all you will do is claim that my sources are biased. But everyone rational will believe, so you fail. I don’t need to convince you, you are only one person. Click my name, that is one lie. Google ‘anne coulter lies’ or ‘anne coulter debunked’ for plenty more examples of her dishonesty.

                  • PKisfullofLibs says:

                    Correct, blogs are biased. Pull it from a dependable website and prove it, don’t give me the Ann Coulter talked about NYT but cited Playboy crap. Or Frank Rich said we should meet with planned parenthood, not that we should talk to people who support abortion (planned parenthood)

                    • Seth says:

                      You fail. That page was not from a blog, but from Media Matters, a non-profit organization. And it goes on and on, debunking dozens of Coulter’s traitorous, slanderous lies. You are a fool who has made up his mind and will never change his beliefs, but as I said, I don’t need to convince you. I need to convince the hundreds of normal people who read this site. I can do that, and you can’t. You fail at your attempt at propaganda, and your failure makes me all war and happy inside.

                      If you can disprove what this respectable website has found, I suggest you do so, or you lose in the eyes of the readers here. Go ahead, prove ANYof these allegations are false. I dare you to try. If you can’t, then everyone will know you have lost. You don’t want to big a loser, do you? Then prove me wrong.

                      • PKisfullofLibs says:

                        Exactly we will argue over who is right or wrong in the matter of Evolution vs Creation, yeah and if i can prove my side or you can prove yours then that will prove whether Ann is a liar. Seriously the debate comes to who can prove or disprove evolution. A totally one-sided argument about how dumb Coulter is because she doesn not believe in Darwin’s theory is the basis for her being worng. This site only slams Coulter for not expounding on the fact that evolution is the only explanation. Yeah I can see that there is no bias in media matters.org they are totally balanced especially when it comes to evolution. But its cool, toss around word like fail and loser and throw in some good ones like non-profit and you got yourself a factual argument.

                        • Seth says:

                          Evolution is not a theory. It is a set of very curious facts that need explaining. The specific interrelationship of species. Ring species. The archeological record. The evolution of entirely new traits, such as the ability to digest nylon. Speciation of fruit flies in the lab. The list of facts that need explaining goes on and on. The THEORY is called natural selection, not evolution. Get it? We have seen evolution happen in the lab. SEEN IT HAPPEN, okay? You can argue that scientists are all liars or something, but the facts stand: we have witnessed evolution happen.

                          It’s like gravity. Things falling is a fact. Gravity is a set of theories that attempt to explain why, and make predictions. I say ’set of theories’ because there are at least two in common usage. And we know both of them are wrong, but we still use them. Newton’s theory is the most commonly used every day, even though it is the most incorrect. Einstein’s theory works in more circumstances, but still not all circumstances, and so it must be wrong too.

                          You have a fundamental misconception as to what science actually is. Theories are never proven true in science, they are merely shown to be useful at making accurate predictions in certain well defined circumstances. Understand? Science can never tell us what the truth is. It doesn’t pretend to.

                          Evolution makes accurate predictions. Intelligent Design makes no predicitons. Because of that, evolution is science, ID is not. We don’t know, or even care if evolution is ‘true’ or not. What we do know is that it makes accurate predictions that have not been proven false in over a hundred years.

                          If you want an argument about evolution, do not try to raise any of the arguments that have been debunked over and over again if you want to be taken seriously. I suggest you take a look at a site like talkorigins.org, where all the common arguments against evolution have been debunked again and again. I’m not into repeating myself, so have a look there before you try to step to me with some stupid, out dated, debunked failure of an argument.

                      • Tessie says:

                        Let me consult my magic 8 Ball to predict the answer:

                        1.A. You can’t cite a source to back up your contention, therefore it’s only your opinion; B. The source you cite backs up your contention, therefore it’s biased and unreliable.

                        2.A. You’re not disputing my point, therefore I must be right; B. You are disputing my point, therefore I must be really getting to you.

                        3.A. I have more facts at my disposal than you do, therefore I’m right; B. You have more facts at my disposal than you do, therefore you overthink everything and/or it’s not really a question of fact.

                        Is there a name for this sort of thing, other than being a colossal pain in everyone’s ass?

                • Seth says:

                  Here is another site showing Coulter’s lies.

                • Seth says:

                  Aaaaand some more. Click my name for more Coulter dishonesty! I could do this all week and not even begin to touch on all of her lies.

                • Seth says:

                  I know how much you love being proved wrong and forced to apologize, so here is some more good old Coulter debunking fun!

                  • PKisfullofLibs says:

                    Ahh you are so right I do need to apoligize, you have cited 3 blogs as credible sources, wow that’s so Wikipedia-ish of you. And then you come up with the final link to a factchecking group that splits hairs between the New York Times and Playboy. That’s all you have on her lies. That she started talking about the New York Times and then cited Playboy as well. Or that Frank Rich wasn’t insisting that we meet with pro-abortion planned parenthood, he was just insisting we meet with pro-abortion planned parenthood? Come on, little nuances taken out of context to make her look bad, let’s get with program, if your gonna slam her just stick to insulting her like your frineds here. Come on Seth lets dig a little deeper. Maybe you can find something really bad on her, or you might have to resort to calling her names and making fun of her looks. I will refuse to accept any facts from a blog, since anyone can put those out there, but God knows you will probably accept them as truth. Oooh I know, maybe you can come up with an obscure reference that shows her to be Rush Limbaugh’s drug dealer, oh and while you’re at it why don;t you make Sean Hannity the money launderer, now that would get everyone going here!