Ann Coulter is an entertainer. She doesn't represent anyone who will claim her. She says the things she says because they shock people which in turn keeps them glued to the TV or radio channel for 5 more minutes out of morbid curiosity. Thats long enough to sneak in a commercial and thats her primary purpose in life.
Ann Coulter does not work for the republican party nor is she an expert in any field other then law. If she speaks about law I'll listen but when she opens her mouth about politics, liberalism, conservatism, religion or any other subject, she is no more qualified as an expert then I am. She is entitled to her opinion but I am not obligated to listen to her blather and I stopped doing so along time ago.
2007-11-16 15:39:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
She means that the only reason she has a career as a conservative pundit is because she used to be (not so much any more) a mildly cute blonde chick. Ann Coulter figured out that she could say the exact same crap every male Republican talking head (Limbaugh, Buchanan, et cetera) had said and that Republican males would pay to listen to it all over again because she was hot. Then she lost her looks and ran out of stuff to say, so she started having to say wacky, off the wall, stuff to get anybody to pay attention to her (no press is the only bad press). Personally, I never got the Ann Coulter thing even when she was in her prime, so I do not get why people still waste time talking about her (Robert Novak is the last conservative commentator I enjoyed because I do not need third rate eye candy with my politics).
2007-11-16 15:41:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Matthew R 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
It means she thinks she can get away with saying inflammatory things that a Republican man wouldn't dare say because she's beautiful. Republican women in general believe they can get away with making confrontational comments because Democratic men are less likely to attack them. And even more so if they are beautiful.
What's ironic about this whole belief is that politically outspoken women like Coulter that say such vile things are depending on chivalry from men to avoid retribution. Fortunately it doesn't stop men like me from taking the attitude that if she's man enough to dish it out she can take criticism like a man also.
2007-11-16 21:48:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Was she...playing the gender card!
What would Hillary bashers everywhere say?
God has that thing been around since 1997? Ten years of pure evil, malice and hatred let loose on the world in the form of a Valkyrie wannabe with an Adam's apple?
2007-11-16 16:59:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Hahahaha. That can definitely be interpreted in different ways. Either she believes she is too ugly to be thought less of or she thinks she's pretty enough to get away with more. She probably thinks the latter but, I wonder if she has considered the alternate interpretation of the former.
2007-11-16 15:50:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
She meant that she can say things that republican men think, without ending up like craig.
2007-11-16 16:47:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Boss H 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
in the same way that some pretty girls think they are immune from getting traffic tickets or waiting in line at a night club, ann thinks her long, bony legs will get her onto morning TV talk shows, even though she says stuff that proabalbly embarasses even neo-fascists like sean hannity and glenn beck.
the sad part is, for some reason she is right. just what i want to see during breakfast: a hateful bigot whose hoo-hoo is nearly exposed!
2007-11-16 15:25:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Archduke Gumbercules 2
·
9⤊
1⤋
She potential it to be understood by potential of peoples thoughts. She would not recommend it "actually" yet she is familiar with we will not stone human beings presently.... so she makes use of literary allusion. people who disagree together with her attempt to counter this very effectual style of verbal substitute by potential of attempting to alter her prose interior the eyes of the everyday public to be literal (for this reason discrediting her). commencing as much as get complicated? great! by using fact she might desire to in spite of the actuality that up her words with a view to not confuse the subject to the everyday public who can not distinguish between all of this by using fact the waters start to get muddy. by potential of how. the manhattan situations could a minimum of be investigated for Treason. in the event that they are stumbled directly to have harm the national protection of the U. S. then they might desire to be prosecuted to the completed quantity of the regulation. they seem to have self assurance the 1st exchange is something they are able to cover at the back of collectively as hurting OUR us of a in one minded marketing campaign to get George Bush. They lose any credibility while they are accusing Bush of the comparable issues.
2016-10-02 02:10:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by scherrer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
What does Ann ever mean? All I ever hear from her is pure gibberish in the from of hatred.
2007-11-16 16:22:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by Michael M 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Men, regardless of their politics, cannot critcize women without being labeled sexist (for example, see the last Democratic debate).
She by comparison, can get away with it.
2007-11-16 15:19:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by righteousjohnson 7
·
8⤊
0⤋