Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSCathy Young trudges through the work of Ann Coulter and asks: Why does anyone read this garbage?
Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Get Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
|6.20.06 @ 9:02AM|#
[shrug] So she's the Andrew Dice Clay of right-wing pundits. And, of course, even Young's piece, spilling yet more ink hand-wringing over such 'horrors' as the fact that O'Reilly has guests who defend her, just further feeds Coulter's PR machine.
|6.20.06 @ 9:21AM|#
"Republicans have used war veterans, mothers of slain soldiers,
and Sept. 11 widows to bolster their moral authority as
well."
This is a classic example of Youngesque understatement or a bogus
equivalency.
The central Republican schtick since 911 has been to bolster their
moral authority with anyone who has been victimized by the attacks
of 9/11 and the war of choice that followed it in Iraq. To mention
this with an "as well" qualifier as if it were an afterthought
indicates that Young is either entirely clueless about how deep
this trend runs among her right-of-center friends, or that she is
knowingly creating a false equivalency.
Sheehan is a late entrant into this game. I'm only surprised it
took her and her sympathizers so long to figure out the rules.
|6.20.06 @ 9:26AM|#
"Cathy Young trudges through the work of Ann Coulter and asks:
Why does anyone read this garbage?"
One might ask the same after trudging through the work of Cathy
Young.
Whatever. Coulter sucks. I think we can all agree on that. Was
there any real need for this article?
|6.20.06 @ 9:38AM|#
Okay.. that skeletor ad picture is really starting to get to me.
It's worse than those idiotic flashing ads that make reading the
page very difficult.
Judging by the pic, Coultier has the Ring of Power, and it's
sucking the life out of her. Pretty sure she'll start slurping,
hissing, and refer to herself in the plural.
And a tip to dudes: if you're dating a broad, and her eyelids
barely touch her irises.. be afraid. Be very afraid.
|6.20.06 @ 9:40AM|#
Coulter gets away with it because she's quite funny. She can deliver a good line and she's almost able to laugh at herself - therefore she can spew out crap until the cows come home.
|6.20.06 @ 9:51AM|#
I do not really see a story here. There are people on the right
who have condemned Coulter's boorish behavior, and people who
support it. That is called partisanship. I would be much more
convinced there was a double standard if there were a litany of
quotes demonstrating that "conservatives called it a victory for
decency" when Ted Rall's column got pulled. It is one thing to
grieve in private. It is quite another to project your grief onto
others.
Whatever the right did in the way of pillorying Bill Clinton he
wholeheartedly brought upon himself. Much in the same way that two
total miscreants like James Carville and Mary Matalin can share the
same bed, Coulter's behavior is so transparent. She is in it for
the money.
|6.20.06 @ 9:51AM|#
Yah.. I personally think Coultier is smart enough to not
actually believe in half the crap she tosses out. She's only making
a buck. Period.
Once the well runs dry, I predict Coultier will pull a David Brock,
and do the circuit for the idiots on the other side. Then she'll
retire.
|6.20.06 @ 9:54AM|#
Yah.. I personally think Coultier is smart enough to not
actually believe in half the crap she tosses out. She's only making
a buck. Period.
Hit the nail on the head.
|6.20.06 @ 9:54AM|#
Ann Coulter says what many on the right really think.
It's her stock in trade.
But the fact that a large group of people actually - to the letter
- agree with her is the most unsettling part of her schtick.
Anyway, a book attacking the "Godlessness" of people written by a
person with no discernable attachment to (or faith in) God rings
pretty hollow. Sad that her legion of fans is so easily
manipulated.
|6.20.06 @ 10:02AM|#
Ann Coulter says what many on the right really think. It's
her stock in trade.
I think she would argue that she says what a lot of people on the
left really think too.
She's like George Galloway in the UK. She talks shit, but she does
it with aplomb.
Jennifer|6.20.06 @ 10:05AM|#
One would think that her vile remarks about the Sept. 11
widows would have given conservatives a perfect opportunity to
distance themselves from her venom. Apparently, they have no desire
to do so.
What? The side that's fond of using calm, moderate arguments like
"if you care about civil rights you're a terrorist" or "you
obviously hate America" or "gay people want to destroy the country"
has shown itself unwilling to distance itself from the pus this
human zit is squeezing over the face of this country? Wow. Jesus.
Who the fuck saw that coming?
Jennifer|6.20.06 @ 10:10AM|#
I mean, after legions upon legions of Limbaugh fans said to him
"Hey, dude, insult Bill Clinton all you want but holding up a
picture of his 13-year-old daughter and calling her 'the White
House dog' is beyond the pale," I thought the conservative
mainstream commitment to intelligent dialogue and strictly
above-the-belt fighting was well-known.
Maybe they're planning to criticize Coulter later, only right now
they're too busy adding quotation marks to articles about those
evil people who support gay "marriage."
|6.20.06 @ 10:12AM|#
Ann Coulter is fine. jeesh. She is pretty smart, and actually
pretty.
But that close up picture on the left.........for the love of Mary
Mother of Christ and all that is holy in the world......please take
it down, I beg of you.
|6.20.06 @ 10:15AM|#
Mark...interesting notion to ponder.
I've never thought of AC as "confident" though her style is. I see
her more as a desperate hack who's hit the right oil well and is
working it as long as she can. Without the validation (and the book
sales) she's just another worthless, loudmouth attorney.
|6.20.06 @ 10:18AM|#
She is pretty smart, and actually pretty.
Marginal on the first count.
Plain wrong on the second.
Guess I like a little meat with my string beans.
|6.20.06 @ 10:23AM|#
Once the well runs dry, I predict Coultier will pull a David
Brock, and do the circuit for the idiots on the other side. Then
she'll retire.
I agree that she's too smart to believe her crap, but I don't think
she'll change sides. First, she may not believe the specific
arguments that she makes but I think some of the venom is
real.
Second, I don't think the left would welcome her. I think they'd
tell her to shut up and crawl away.
Third, David Brock got to claim that he was young and naive and
seduced by a cause. Coulter is a bit older than Brock and has
presumably raked in more cash than he did, which means one of those
"poor me" schticks won't work as well for her.
Fourth, Brock's work was designed to deceive, so when he renounced
his former work he could at least claim to have a revelation there.
Coulter's work is a transparent act designed to rally those who
already believe and entertain many more. If she renounces it or
tries to pull back the curtain and reveal the game that she was
playing, the response will be a big "DUH!!!" from everybody.
|6.20.06 @ 10:24AM|#
Christ, how many people still use anything other than Firefox w/
AdBlock? It's not that hard, folks---quit complaining about ads or
pics you hate. I haven't seen any ads on H&R in months.
TF, Coulter is a sickening waif. Blond+thin≠pretty. Plus, the
forked tongue might be a little weird during fellatio.
Having said that much, I'm with Jennifer. Cathy revives one of her
favorite past-times here: taking a rather obvious point that could
be achieved with a paragraph, and which most people can (and have)
figure out for themselves, and turning it into some big-assed
EXTRA, EXTRA expos�. News-Flash: Ann Coulter is a jackass, and her
defenders/fans are equally so. Move on.
[note to the editor: just because Cathy Young assembles words into
a coherent article doesn't necessarily mean that it's worth
publishing.]
|6.20.06 @ 10:34AM|#
"Ah...person with standards."
Nah, standards are for the pretentious. Those people are smarter
than me, better looking than me, have a biger penis than me, and,
oh, they use AdBlock.
|6.20.06 @ 10:42AM|#
Coulter is the neo-con's id, a sort of George Castanza of the Right. I can't wait until she tries George's strategy of doing just the opposite of what she would normally do.
|6.20.06 @ 10:47AM|#
oh, they use AdBlock.
Got the word from zero just yesterday. Thanks for spreading the
gospel.
|6.20.06 @ 10:47AM|#
Ok - I have a doopid question but, as a non-American,
justifiable.
I am aware that Oprah is a big deal - does she ever fly a political
flag on daytime TV? WOuld she ever have Ann Coulter on her
show?
Jennifer|6.20.06 @ 10:51AM|#
Seriously, what was Cathy Young expecting from these people
here?
"The Army should be allowed to torture prisoners. And checks and
balances is stupid; the President is the law. The president has the
authority to lock people up forever with no evidence or trial, just
his say-so. Support the troops, but don't complain about them going
overseas without sufficient armor or anything, because such
criticism is un-American. All liberals are filthy evil scumbag
hippies. Wait a minute--did Ann Coulter just insult some widows who
criticized the President? All right, dammit, THAT is going too
far."
Next big surprise: the Taliban has been buring girls' schools in
Afghanistan. The Taliban? Showing a lack of respect for the rights
of females? Gasp, I tell you. Gasp.
|6.20.06 @ 10:54AM|#
*yawn* Did anyone watch the debate on the war in the house the
other day? There was a lot worse stuff said, and I'm sure Ms. Young
will get around to it in a couple news cycles after it matters --
but we have Congresscritters saying if Murtha was in the House in
WWII we'd all be speaking some multi-culti version of Japanese and
German. Thats bad. Coulter will be working the casino circuit soon,
opening up for Brooks and Dunn, she's getting so tiresome Young, C
is writing about her.
/me checks into AdBlock
|6.20.06 @ 10:55AM|#
I am aware that Oprah is a big deal...Would she ever have
Ann Coulter on her show?
Heck, would AC ever want to be on Oprah? Appearance wise, the
C-word's a lightweight who sticks (mostly) to friendly venues
(except for the occassional Commencement gaffe).
I think she'd be scared shitless to be on Oprah. But what a
Celebrity Death Match!
|6.20.06 @ 10:59AM|#
"Thanks for spreading the gospel."
I can�t even figure out how people are italicizing, you think I
know anything about �AdBlock� ? (although some enlightened few have
been using it for �months�)
Also, I just ordered a subscription to Reason for my dad yesterday,
on a whim, because of that Father�s Day ad on the right. If I were
smart enough to use AdBlock, maybe I wouldn�t be down another 20
bucks. Where can I find this �AdBlock�?
|6.20.06 @ 11:02AM|#
Have Coulter and Franken been on together? Or Coutler and Stewart? I think those would be some interesting smack downs. Coulter vs. Predator, anyone?
|6.20.06 @ 11:05AM|#
Or Coutler and Stewart?
Stewart would wipe the floor with her. I know some people here
don't like what he says, but there's no denying that he is very
adept at the smackdown, whereas Coulter prefers preaching to the
choir.
Coulter vs. Predator, anyone?
Whoever wins, we lose.
|6.20.06 @ 11:10AM|#
Adblock at https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/10/.
Italics are easy.
Start your line with <i> and
End it with </i>
|6.20.06 @ 11:13AM|#
I FOUND IT! ADBLOCK!!
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/10/
but, I can't install it. you see, over the last few days of gazing
into Ann Coulter's eyes, I have.....well....I have....I'll just say
it......I've fallen in love with her.
|6.20.06 @ 11:38AM|#
Stewart would wipe the floor with her. I know some people
here don't like what he says, but there's no denying that he is
very adept at the smackdown, whereas Coulter prefers preaching to
the choir.
Steward has good writers. (So, for all I know, does Coulter.) But
there is no reason in particular to assume he would be all that
good left to his own devices.
|6.20.06 @ 11:39AM|#
"Coulter gets away with it because she's quite funny. She
can deliver a good line and she's almost able to laugh at
herself..."
Point of order:
H.L. Mencken is funny.
Ambrose Bierce is funny.
Mark Twain is funny.
PJ O'Rourke is a goddamned laugh riot.
Any of the above four, three of which have been dead for nearly a
century, still have more talent in their pinky toes than Coulter
does in her entire protein-starved body.
Also, Coulter doesn't laugh at herself. She laughs *at* her own
jokes. There's a difference. One can be amusing, the other is just
tacky and the sign of a poor comic.
|6.20.06 @ 11:49AM|#
I actually prefer not to use things like AdBlock... for one
thing, I figure that when I visit a site, using their facilities,
the least I can do is give their advertisers a chance to get my
attention.
Too, with AdBlock, you would miss the long-awaited return of the
RPG...
|6.20.06 @ 11:54AM|#
Another nice thing about FireFox: Eric the 0.5b has written a
most amazing script that you can use to block out comments that you
don't want to bother reading.
I'm just saying.
Why is nobody responding to this post? What, you can't see my
comment? What do you mean?
|6.20.06 @ 11:58AM|#
"I actually prefer not to use things like AdBlock... for one
thing, I figure that when I visit a site, using their facilities,
the least I can do is give their advertisers a chance to get my
attention."
People who condescend to me with shitty design deserve to get
blocked.
A pox on those motherfuckers.
|6.20.06 @ 12:09PM|#
Mediageek,
You are entirely right. With, however, one exception:
Mark Twain is funny
No. He. Is. Not.
If anyone else gives me a Twain book and says 'seriously, this one
is CRACKING' I'm going to swallow a watermelon. He's the literary
equivalent of sodium pentothal - he might speak the truth but he
makes you dribble.
|6.20.06 @ 12:16PM|#
mediageek - PJ's a funny, funny man, although - like The
Simpsons - he is the not now that strength which in the old
days moved rib-cracking hilarity...
Which reminds me of a wonderful incident I witnessed on British TV
many years ago - PJ was being interviewed by some nice British lady
(who was totally out of her depth with him, puir lass), and some
kind of Reagan/Clinton comparison came up, and PJ remarked 'it just
proves that a conservative with half a brain is still better than a
liberal with two.'
(Don't worry, Clean Hands, if the RPG comes back the Adblockers
will know of it within the first five comments of the first thread
we read...)
|6.20.06 @ 12:22PM|#
Stewart would wipe the floor with her. I know some people
here don't like what he says, but there's no denying that he is
very adept at the smackdown, whereas Coulter prefers preaching to
the choir.
Stewart is an excellent comedian, but him versus her in an
off-the-cuff argument would be two shrill, partisan goons duking it
out.
I'd pass.
|6.20.06 @ 12:24PM|#
I don;t particularly care for coulter...but much of this debate
seems to be about 'how' she says things...not what she says.
Are we all so easily offended or do we just see in "them" (people
like Coulter on both sides) an evil and inhumanity that isa really
about allowing us to feel superior and righteous?
|6.20.06 @ 12:24PM|#
I actually prefer not to use things like AdBlock... for one
thing, I figure that when I visit a site, using their facilities,
the least I can do is give their advertisers a chance to get my
attention.
I do, to. I rarely use it, myself. But it's excellent for
borderline-NSFW ads and horrifying images like the Coulter pic. And
by default, you block specific images so that you see any new ones
that show up.
Jennifer|6.20.06 @ 12:30PM|#
I don;t particularly care for coulter...but much of this
debate seems to be about 'how' she says things...not what she
says.
Agreed. Nobody is taking offense at her statements that the 9-11
widows enjoyed watching their husbands die and were probably on the
verge of getting a divorce anyway; the problem is that she said
these things in a rude manner.
|6.20.06 @ 12:40PM|#
No. He. Is. Not.
Twain's "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" is easily the
funniest and one of the best pieces of literary criticism I have
ever read.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Indians/offense.html
|6.20.06 @ 12:41PM|#
I read the first chapter of Godless (it was at townhall.com or
jwr.com.) It appears Coulter is now defending Creationism. That, to
me, proves she doesn't believe everything she writes. She's smart,
but I won't buy any of her books.
PJ was hilarious in his time. As for Twain, if you want shrill and
offensive, read his account of the Portuguese in The Innocents
Abroad.
|6.20.06 @ 12:48PM|#
Coulter in the picture looks like the woman who says "I just love little babies" and lures them to her gingerbread house.
|6.20.06 @ 12:49PM|#
Thank you Ridgely, I was about to say the same thing about Twain's criticism of Cooper. Also great is Life on the Mississippi.
|6.20.06 @ 12:50PM|#
Eric,
Ahh, se when I got AdBlock, I also got an automatic updater of ad
libraries, so not only do ads get blocked, they never show up in
the first place.
As to feeling guilty about not seeing ads. I don't click them in
the first place and it's the same thing as using a Tivo to skip
through commercials.
Besides, I see all the ads at work since they only have IE.
Warren|6.20.06 @ 12:51PM|#
AC is like the Flat Earth Society. You start with a completely
outrageous premise flagrantly false on the face of it, and then
make your opponent prove you wrong. If you are well prepared and
willing to use any argument to support your position (rigorous when
possible, fallacious when necessary), the task is extremely
difficult. It is a good exercise in demonstrating the Herculean
effort that's required to logically assess even the most simple
hypothesis.
The problem with AC isn't the woman herself. It's the legions of
people who take her at face value. It would be a mistake to assume
that she is sincere in her vitriol, as it would be to assume the
same of all her advocates. Like the Flat Earthers, it's hard to
tell them apart.
|6.20.06 @ 12:52PM|#
Twain's "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" is easily the
funniest and one of the best pieces of literary criticism I have
ever read.
Aren't we talking more wit here? I dunno.
Anyway, whatever, I like farting in the bath.
|6.20.06 @ 12:54PM|#
"No. He. Is. Not."
TwainQuotes.com
You're kidding me, right? Pithy witticisms delivered with a florid
slice of turn-of-the-last-century charm.
|6.20.06 @ 12:58PM|#
Jennifer did she actually say what you typed?
Agreed. Nobody is taking offense at her statements that the
9-11 widows enjoyed watching their husbands die and were probably
on the verge of getting a divorce anyway; the problem is that she
said these things in a rude manner
|6.20.06 @ 1:14PM|#
If anyone else gives me a Twain book and says 'seriously,
this one is CRACKING' I'm going to swallow a watermelon.
Well, I won't give you a book, but I am reading "Tom Sawyer" to my
son and I've had to stop on several occasions because either I'm
laughing or he is. It's not the "witty sayings" he's famous for
that are making us break up, but rather his superb
characterizations.
|6.20.06 @ 1:28PM|#
Aren't we talking more wit here? I dunno.
Anyway, whatever, I like farting in the bath.
Humor (or, if you will, humour) often doesn't travel well. For that
matter, what one person finds funny another won't, and blah, blah,
blah. I, for example, simply don't find Jon Stewart very funny
(though he did deliver a funny commencement address at my alma
mater several years ago) but do find Lewis Black very funny.
[SHRUG] To each, and more blah, blah, blah.
|6.20.06 @ 1:30PM|#
Stewart's humor is so-so. His correspondents are actually
funnier much of the time.
His interviews can be deadly when he wants to really go after
somebody.
Colbert is my favorite of all of them. He speaks truthiness to
power.
Jennifer|6.20.06 @ 1:33PM|#
Jennifer did she actually say what you typed?
Yes, Gaijin, she did. That's what the latest brouhaha is about:
Coulter's claim that 9-11 widows really got off on watching their
husbands die, and furthermore those "harpies" were all on the verge
of getting a divorce anyway.
What did you think we were talking about?
|6.20.06 @ 1:45PM|#
"Well, I won't give you a book, but I am reading "Tom Sawyer" to
my son"
"Tom Sawyer" is easily one of my all-time favorite books. Most
people think of it as a children's story, but try reading it as
satire some time. It's risky to try to guess the intent of
something written more than a hundred years ago, but I think Twain,
on one level anyway, was making fun of the small town life that he
grew up in when he wrote that book.
|6.20.06 @ 1:50PM|#
Well, Jennifer, I watched a few of the interviews and thought that the way you typed what she said didn't sound like the words I heard her speak. I thought maybe you had actually read her book or something and that your typing wasn;t just your interpretation of her words...but I guess it was and you're just proving my point from the first post...I'll yield to your superiority (complex).
|6.20.06 @ 2:08PM|#
Mark, insulting Twain before an American audience is a bad idea.
We may have to invade the UK now in retribution. And yes, I support
the invasion--the man was a genius.
In other news: USA over Ghana! Italy loses to the Czech Republic!
It will happen. Yes, it will.
|6.20.06 @ 2:32PM|#
Well, we can't really hold a candle to the Brits when it comes to things like football or wit. What was it Oscar Wilde said? Something like, "The last refuge of tyrants is in the arms of a young boy." I think that's how it went.
|6.20.06 @ 2:50PM|#
Warren, I'm suggesting that the U.S. will advance in the World Cup. Something I was rather dubious about after our first game. We played very well against Italy, despite Bizarro-World referee's idea of a good soccer game--10 on 9 (the "9" being the United States). We played so well that I think we would have won a traditional 11-on-11 match up. Not to say that Italy wasn't robbed in the game, too--they were.
|6.20.06 @ 3:04PM|#
the Brits don't even play football, they play soccer. What are y'all talking about?
|6.20.06 @ 3:12PM|#
The yanks play a game where they touch the ball with the foot about 1 percent of the time. They call it football and insist that what we play, where all we use is our foot, is not football. And you wonder how your politicians can say the war in Iraq is going so well.
|6.20.06 @ 3:14PM|#
Speaking of Mr Clemens; see if you can find a copy of "The War Prayer." Not funny in the least, but well worth reading.
|6.20.06 @ 3:27PM|#
We didn't invent the term "soccer", you know. If we
choose to call American football, "football", well, we're the
greatest economic and military power in history, and we can call it
whatever the heck we want. From now on, soccer will be called,
"Frankenball". See?
Sorry, lost control there for a moment. I'm okay. Really. Though I
do think that the U.S. should conquer the Mediterranean basin. For
kicks.
No, no, I'm really okay now. Sorry. World peace, libertarian
freedom, yada, yada, yada.
|6.20.06 @ 3:33PM|#
but do find Lewis Black very funny.
Amen to that!! Like George Carlin before he started ranting for 3
hours straight.
|6.20.06 @ 3:39PM|#
The yanks play a game where they touch the ball with the
foot about 1 percent of the time. They call it football and insist
that what we play, where all we use is our foot, is not football.
And you wonder how your politicians can say the war in Iraq is
going so well.
Don't be a prat. There are multiple forms of "football", including
association football (which Brits and later Americans abbreviated
to "soccer"), rugby football (often called just "rugby"),
American-rules football, and Australian-rules football.
We'll call our game simply "football" and your game "soccer", and
in return, we'll let you call that unrefrigerated stuff simply
"beer", without tacking "American" and "English" everywhere.
Ann Coulter|6.20.06 @ 3:45PM|#
We need to invade England, kill their athletic leaders, and force them to convert to proper American football.
|6.20.06 @ 4:06PM|#
Ann, you really need to eat more.
As for invading England, I believe we did that when the Glazers
bought Manchester United. I'd sympathize, but I can't criticize the
Glazers since they helped my Buccaneers win the Super Bowl. In
that, um, other football sport thingee.
|6.20.06 @ 4:47PM|#
Stewart would wipe the floor with her.
wtf?!?! Tucker carlson kicked stewarts butt and all he did was let
John talk.
Stewart is very funny but don't let him out of that desk at comedy
central...he couldn't debate his way out of wet paper bag.
Ron Hardin|6.20.06 @ 5:54PM|#
Coulter has nice lines, is why.
She's the early R Emmett Tyrrell, or H.L.Mencken, in style.
Like most bolts from the blue, most of them are on target, which is
why they work.
She does go on too long about a single bolt, however, executing
what Thurber compares to a trombone solo on each.
A whole book is too much. Even a column is too much. But a little
is worth reading each week.
|6.20.06 @ 8:45PM|#
She's...H.L.Mencken, in style.
Mencken vs Coulter
in three rounds
Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties - provided we're
only talking about criminals.
-Ann Coulter
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
-H.L. Mencken
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New
York Times Building.
-Ann Coulter
In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a
favorite device of persons with something to sell.
-H.L. Mencken
Taxes are like abortion, and not just because both are grotesque
procedures supported by Democrats. You're for them or against them.
Taxes go up or down; government raises taxes or lowers them. But
Democrats will not let the words "abortion" or "tax hikes" pass
their lips.
-Ann Coulter
It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in
favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This
makes me forever ineligible for public office.
-H.L. Mencken
And the winner is, by unanimous decision...
H.L. Mencken
(I googled "mencken quotes" and "coulter quotes" and selected
quotes without reading them.)
|6.20.06 @ 9:42PM|#
Mencken was a giant. Coulter isn't. I'm just guessing here, but no one is going to be quoting Coulter in ten years, let alone a hundred.
|6.20.06 @ 11:22PM|#
Mate, I think someone needs a hug. Maybe we should call hugging
'football' too. And beer. Will that soothe your tensions?
To be fair, Blair's been Bush's booty call - and everyone here
knows it.
|6.21.06 @ 2:38AM|#
PL,
We need Italy to beat the Czechs and to win over Ghana to advance.
CR has 3 points, Italy has 4, we have 1 and Ghana has 3. If it goes
like I stated above, the final rankings will be Italy 7 pts, USA 4
points and the other two with 3 each.
|6.21.06 @ 4:02AM|#
Perhaps during her first semester of law school Ms. Coulter incorrectly percieved that, when the legal advocacy instructor admonished students to "make your argument pithy", (s)he was thpeaking with a lithp.
|6.21.06 @ 9:55AM|#
Mo,
Correct! Which is why I predicted that we'd beat Ghana and Italy
would lose to the Czechs. Any other outcome would mean that we're
screwed. Though I suppose a USA win and an Italy-C.R. tie could do
it, assuming we score a bunch of goals and hold Ghana to nil. Not
that I care--I just want to go get our ass kicked in the second
round. Woo hoo!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245