Ann Coulter's reply to Christopher Hitchens

Wayne Simmons's picture
Submitted by Wayne Simmons on Fri, 2007-08-10 05:03

( categories: )

I'll take that as a "No?"

atlascott's picture

But on the plus side, look at all the attention your thread-hijack is getting, uncle-fucker.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!


Elijah Lineberry's picture

give Ann Coulter some credit where it is due...

She makes a very valid point that the use of the term "Neoconservative", pejoratively by Socialists, is a codeword for "Jewish".

An anti semitic wink which can be easily denied Eye

Glenn ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You can manacle to me. I'll show you what life's all about! Leave that trollop Claudia to her tartery.


Olivia's picture

Sorry G. I'll invite you for dinner to have some social intercourse with him too - before any manacling takes place. Eye

Bloody trollop...!!!

Jameson's picture

Our bed's still warm!!! Smiling


Olivia's picture

I couldn't disagree more.

I'd sell my own grandmother to be manacled against Christopher Hitchens for 12 months!! Oh to hear christians and islamofacists abused in that deep, big balled, beautifully timbred voice so closely, intimately in my ear... phaaaw! If he didn't have yet another wife, I'd go throw myself at him shamelessly. (In fact, If he ever comes to NZ, I think I will - with any luck, he might've left her at home anyway).
Smiling Smiling


Jameson's picture

You really think Hitchens can be summated so thinly?


Elijah Lineberry's picture

think this is a perfect example of two people who deserve each other.

One is an alcoholic windbag and the other a mad woman obsessed with liberals and gays.

I think they should be manacled together for 12 months as a punishment.

Fred Weiss prize winner - lashing out in seething irrationality

PhilipC's picture

It's a rare person who can display four examples of blatant irrationality in only a few sentences over a day or two of posting:

i) Not being willing, even when requested to take 30 seconds to explain the actual content of a link.

ii) Actually and unbelievably replying to the request with a barrage of furious insults and ad hominems unrelated to the request.

iii) Adamantly refusing to grasp the principles that (a) knowing the nature of someone in very general terms (Ann Coulter) does not provide psychic powers enabling one to know what she is saying in any particular video or whether it’s reasonable -and- (b) that asking for a sentence of explanation is not an unreasonable request.

I could understand that I might have angered him with my provocative phrase ‘lazy posting’. Yet, after having had time to let his seething resentment and sense of insult cool, a fair-minded person could still acknowledge the above points.

But the –following- is the most blatant . . . and unprovoked . . . example of someone who seems to be slamming his awareness shut and *escalating his irrationality* to up the ante with an *even stronger* attack on motives or integrity:

iv) "I think it's a safe bet that you and Phil had a good idea what it was about."

This statement questions the honesty of not one, but *two*!!! people without cause or explanation or attempt at justification.

Mr. Simmons, please tell us that you *not* an example of an OAC grad student in philosophy.


Wayne Simmons's picture

I completely agree. Hitchens even autographed my copy of "God Is Not Great". I thanked him. He replied saying that there was no need to thank him, it was an honor and a privilege.


Wayne Simmons's picture

What it's about? You mean to tell me that you don't know anything about Ann Coulter or Christopher Hitchens? I think it's a safe bet that you and Phil had a good idea what it was about.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Christopher Hitchens says: "Religion poisons everything."

Exactly! People who say things like this pretty much deserve a mega-ton of loyalty and friendship. I think Hitchens is an immense fighter for truth, reason, virtue, and human happiness.

Phil makes a good point.

Mitch's picture

I'm much more likely to check out the link if you write something telling me what it's about.

And Wayne, I think the nature of your post prevents you from calling others lazy.

Boy, how quickly some of these threads degenerate into name-calling.

Philip's Lazy Viewing

Wayne Simmons's picture

I don't post solely for your pleasure, Phil. So, fuck off, if your lazy ass, non judgemental, kelleyite, sensitivity was offended by the content. Coulter is pathetic, that's the point of the thread you fucking moron!

> Wassamatta? You didn't

PhilipC's picture

> Wassamatta? You didn't find anything to whine about recently?

Real mature, shithead.


Peter Cresswell's picture

COULTER: "I'm not plotting his destruction, but the creator is."

The woman is pathetic. And vindictive.


atlascott's picture

What about "Ann Coulter's reply to Christopher Hitchens" doesnt describe what the link it?

Wassamatta? You didn't find anything to whine about recently?

Are you REALLY suggesting that it is too much trouble for you to spend 10 seconds clicking a link?

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Lazy Posting of Videos

PhilipC's picture

We live in an age in which the written word is the most effective means of communication.

And some of us would actually like to save time by reading something. (Or don't have broadband or a computer with a lot of memory...)

As a courtesy, if you are going to simply post a video, could you at least take fifteen seconds to offer a ***single sentence*** summarizing what was said or what the point is?

Ann Coulter...

Robert's picture

... would be a waste of space if she actually occupied any.

Maybe if she'd eaten before the show she'd have had the energy to come up with a funny riposte.

On the bright side, if she is the best the religious right in America have to offer as a spokesperson, they ain't much of a threat.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.