Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Fresh off public complaints about her own love life, Meghan McCain has a new target for her most recent gripes: conservative commentator Ann Coulter.

In a new blog post for the Daily Beast as Ann Coulter and HBO host Bill Maher are kicking off a week-long debate tour today in New York, McCain calls President Obama “the hippest politician around” and says being a Republican is “about as edgy as Donny Osmond.”

And she blasts Coulter for helping to “perpetuate negative stereotypes” about Republican women. “I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity,” says McCain. “I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time.”

She concedes that Coulter seems to be followed by a “cult that cannot be denied,” and was a popular headliner at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, but adds that “when your competition is a teenager who has a dream about the Republican Party and Stephen Baldwin, it’s not really saying that much.”


It’s not Coulter’s politics, says McCain — it’s her personality. “Maybe her popularity stems from the fact that watching her is sometimes like watching a train wreck,” she says.

“…Where has our extreme thinking gotten us? President Bush will go down as one the least popular presidents in history. I constantly hear stories about Republicans who previously worked for President Bush and my father feeling ostracized, unable to get jobs in D.C. right now.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... insulting/

I'd like to take an offshore fishing gaff, ram it up Coulter's clam, twist it, and pulll out her reproductive guts all the while making her call me Bill Clinton while her middle finger is up my butt, massaging my prostate.







Whew. Felt good to get that out.

in other news... the sun rose this morning...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:in other news... the sun rose this morning...

..and Ann Coulter rolled over and said good morning to Gwenyth Paltrow

Gil Dobie wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:in other news... the sun rose this morning...

..and Ann Coulter rolled over and said good morning to Gwenyth Paltrow

or pulled her head out of the toilet bowl, cleaned up the ketamine she spilled last night, and put in her whitening strips... then fixed her breakfast-tini.

Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh represent the absolute worst of the GOP. AC is nothing more than a shock jock on the talk circuit and media outlets. I highly doubt she is as conservative as she claims she is. Plus, she has a bad dye job.

catamount man wrote:Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh represent the absolute worst of the GOP. AC is nothing more than a shock jock on the talk circuit and media outlets. I highly doubt she is as conservative as she claims she is. Plus, she has a bad dye job.

I think they are both hysterically funny and entertaining.

bulldog10jw wrote:

catamount man wrote:Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh represent the absolute worst of the GOP. AC is nothing more than a shock jock on the talk circuit and media outlets. I highly doubt she is as conservative as she claims she is. Plus, she has a bad dye job.

I think they are both hysterically funny and entertaining.

Me too, although I'll confess to being jealous that she can palm a basketball.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20090311/c ... deductible

Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollar spending bill by raising taxes on "the rich." I know, I know ... I was pretty shocked, too.

The bad news is, by hiking taxes in a recession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there's good news, too. The "rich" include most of Obama's biggest supporters.

While liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don't want talked about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.

No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they're giving up the poor's mantle of angry self-righteousness. This is especially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or the taxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.

Democrats' claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.

At the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" -- which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as "working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for $300,000 a year."

bulldog10jw wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20090311/c ... deductible

Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollar spending bill by raising taxes on "the rich." I know, I know ... I was pretty shocked, too.

The bad news is, by hiking taxes in a recession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there's good news, too. The "rich" include most of Obama's biggest supporters.

While liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don't want talked about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.

No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they're giving up the poor's mantle of angry self-righteousness. This is especially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or the taxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.

Democrats' claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.

At the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" -- which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as "working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for $300,000 a year."

First, Dog, you're to be commended for having a post that contains more than one sentence. Rare for you. Oh, hang on, they're not your words. OK. More hit-and-run Conk nastiness that makes you giggle.

Second, like Tman, how can you hate people the way you do with liberals? There are enough generalizations in here to make even Rush Limbaugh choke.

bulldog10jw wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20090311/c ... deductible

Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollar spending bill by raising taxes on "the rich." I know, I know ... I was pretty shocked, too.

The bad news is, by hiking taxes in a recession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there's good news, too. The "rich" include most of Obama's biggest supporters.

While liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don't want talked about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.

No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they're giving up the poor's mantle of angry self-righteousness. This is especially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or the taxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.

Democrats' claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.

At the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" -- which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as "working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for $300,000 a year."

Raising taxes on the richest, even if they are included in that minority, is a fullfilled campaign promise.

coulter represents the gop more then mccain does

wildkyle wrote:coulter represents the gop more then mccain does

And that is the problem...

dbackjon wrote:

wildkyle wrote:coulter represents the gop more then mccain does

And that is the problem...

BINGO!

wildkyle wrote:coulter represents the gop more then mccain does

IMO, McCain doesn't present himself as a leader.

Gil Dobie wrote:

wildkyle wrote:coulter represents the gop more then mccain does

IMO, McCain doesn't present himself as a leader.

I say the old bastard is dead by July, the sonofabitch.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
IMO, McCain doesn't present himself as a leader.

I say the old bastard is dead by July, the sonofabitch.

Hey, I just started eating healthy and working out, I'll make it to my birthday in July.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

bulldog10jw wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20090311/c ... deductible

Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollar spending bill by raising taxes on "the rich." I know, I know ... I was pretty shocked, too.

The bad news is, by hiking taxes in a recession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there's good news, too. The "rich" include most of Obama's biggest supporters.

While liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don't want talked about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.

No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they're giving up the poor's mantle of angry self-righteousness. This is especially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or the taxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.

Democrats' claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.

At the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" -- which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as "working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for $300,000 a year."

First, Dog, you're to be commended for having a post that contains more than one sentence. Rare for you. Oh, hang on, they're not your words. OK. More hit-and-run Conk nastiness that makes you giggle.

I strive to live up to your expectations. (One sentence).