Showing posts with label barren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barren. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
In today's vomit inducing screed Ann Coulter tries to make hay of the Virginia Tech students. This time she has "serious scholars" on her side though.
Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.
Here is the problem with using Lott's data as Washington Monthly and several others have pointed out. Ann Coulter is likely very well aware of this because of the attention it garnered.
Lott and two coauthors produced a statistical model ("Model 1") that showed significant crime decreases when states passed concealed carry gun laws.
Back in April, two critics discovered that there were errors in the data Lott used. When the correct data was plugged into Lott's model, his results went away.
After a long silence, Lott admitted the data errors and posted a table with new results. Oddly, though, his new results were similar to his old ones and continued to show significant drops in crime. So who's right, Lott or his critics?
Answer: his critics. It turns out that since he really had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, he decided to invent a different model ("Model 2") for use in this new table — but without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact. Note: In less refined circles this would be called "lying."
Most people who follow politics and hot button issues know about John Lott being discredited, about him embarassing himself by using sockpuppet accounts to praise his own work, and his reputation for dishonesty. The study was totally screwed up. Coulter has to know this. She just doesn't care. In fact, I think she deliberately used this bogus argument because Media Matters or like minded individuals will point out how terribly dishonest she is being, which gets her attention. That is what she craves. Intellectual honesty isn't something that interests her.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Ann Coulter is off the fag bashing kick for a while. I guess Matt Drudge had a word with his beard. Anyways, today she is using right wing logic to prove that the US Attorney scandal is no big deal.
When will Republicans learn to stop apologizing?
The Bush administration is embroiled in the most ridiculous non-scandal scandal in human history -- set off when the administration stupidly apologized for firing its own employees.
U.S. attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. The president may fire them for any reason at all.
I thought that Ann Coulter was allededly a lawyer. If proven true that Carol Lam was fired for going after Republicans, and David Iglesias was fired for not timing an indictment to coincide with the November elections under pressure of a house and Senate member of course it's not just about "the pleasure of the president".
I am so sick of this pleasure of the president thing anyways. What pleasures the president is bombing people and taking a shit on the constitution. I frankly don't care what pleasures him. This probably emboldens the enemy. But who gives a flying fig.
The kicker for me though was Ann Coulter not forgetting a patriot who has been swept up in all this evil witch-hunting. Btw, if we were going after witches, wouldn't Coulter be in Gitmo by now?
They say this as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid draws interest on the sale of a property he sold in a complicated land swindle -- but American hero Randy "Duke" Cunningham rots in prison.
First things first Annie dear. That John Solomon piece on Harry Reid has been thoroughly debunked. Secondly, Duke Cunningham took a fracking antique shitter as a bribe. Funny yes. The shitter was french though, and I don't see how you can support such duplicity in a time of war.
I think you should go back to bashing fags. It was offensive, but at least coherently offensive.
Free Duke now, Free Duke now, Free Duke Now!
Saturday, March 03, 2007
In another episode of what are the bat shit crazy folks thinking, I present some quotes of Free Republic members in response to Ann "the adam apple" Coulter calling Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards an offensive anti-gay slur. Btw, I wonder what her buddy Matt "the Egg" Drudge really thinks about this.
Ann tells it like it is. Old testament prophets were hated for the same reason.
Thank you, Ann!! I love you!
Read the quote again and place into context. People hear what they want to hear, especially the propaganda media and Dems. It's brilliant.
It would have been much better if she inferred that he was a Nazi or Hitler.....that's been given a pass!
Tell those detractors to bite me.
When AL GORE states that republicans want to kill people , starve children and throw old people in the street, where is the media outrage?
Giving it back with a lesser insult is not more of an insult.
Would you prefer I call you faggot or pansy before I double tap you?
He is a faggot. It is so funny that these days we sit around in awe at the faggots who rule our lives because we let them.
Wait a minute. I thought it was OK to be a faggot. Maybe she ment it as a compliment.
I hope Ann Coulter does not apologize for this. She did nothing wrong.
If the faggot title fits, stick it on. What did you expect from a couple of "John's that the local "working girls" refused to have anything to do with?
Hey, John, you know how to get hearing AIDS?
From listening to homosexuals.....
I'll defend her all day long. Only politically correct faggots attack Ann Coulter.
"faggot?"
But....but...It is only "hate-speech" if he IS!
This is just a small sampling of over 800 comments. The thing is they actually censor comments in threads, including this one that go over the line. These are comments that are considered ok discourse. I wonder if the media is going to get the vapors of the foul mouthed mouth breathers on the right side of the aisle? Don't hold your breathe for Howie Kurt'z column, or Joe Klein's blog post decrying these lunatics.
Friday, March 02, 2007
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards," Ann Coulter said today at CPAC.
That is pretty bad. You have a prominent Republican activist, at the biggest conservative gathering place to nominally give an endorsement speech to Mitt Romney. She in her speech calls John Edwards a 'faggot' in front of cheering fans.
Hotline believes it's unfair to blame Romney at all though.
Next, there'll be calls for Republican candidates to disassociate themselves from Coulter's remarks. Unfairly, ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney faces the biggest burden: he spoke right before Coulter and praised her... not knowing what she planned to say.
What a load of codswallop. Romney praised her knowing that she has called for the death of John Paul Stevens, wishing Tim McVeigh blew up the NY Times instead. She has suggested that we should forcibly convert muslims on pain of death to christianity. She has joked about being an anthrax mailer. Everybody knows more highly offensive things she has vomited out of her 78 pound frame.
So Romney should get a pass here according to the MSM because heaven's to Betsy he didn't know the word 'faggot' was coming out of her mouth. Please. Shoot me now.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
