Coulter poses nude for Esquire !!

Search
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Ann Coulter Poses Nude for Esquire
<script type="text/javascript"> <!-- if ('Max Lindenman') { document.write('By Max Lindenman
'); } //--> </script>By Max Lindenman
<noscript> </noscript> Nov 28, 2006, 06:41


<!--TABLE 4--> <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="140"> <tbody><tr><td>
coulter_140_001.jpg
</td></tr> </tbody></table> LOS ANGELES - This grave, grand room with its Isfahan carpet, mahogany desk and bookshelves, and sofa of wine-colored leather, could almost be a judge's chambers. Or my shrink's office.

Except reclining Cleopatra-style on that sofa is none other than Ann Coulter. She's wrapped in a kimono of royal blue silk—"The color of the Virgin Mary," she laughs softly—and nothing else. In less time than it takes me to write this, she will unwrap herself and pose for the photographers, who are fussing with their lights.

Yes, I am speaking of the Ann Coulter: pundit, author of Godless, frequent foil for Fox News' Alan Colmes, and right-wing America's queen of mean. She's lanced many a Hollywood celebrity for pulling this kind of stunt, so what gives now? Is Coulter making the ultimate ironic gesture? Or is the one-time top jurist truly convinced that disclosing her willowy corpus, for photos due to appear this spring in Esquire, will enable her to command higher fees on the lecture circuit?

<hr>
<!--TABLE 4--> <table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="175"> <tbody><tr><td>
coulter_esq.jpg
</td></tr> </tbody></table> ML: Why, Ann? Why?
AC: I'm not doing it because I drank too many Red Bulls, I can promise you that much. Hi, Britney! Nice to see you back in form.

ML: Seriously.
AC: Seriously? OK. I'm doing this because I can. I'm a beautiful woman with a beautiful body in a field dominated by stiffs in suits and tortoiseshells. Hundreds of thousands of people actually want to see me naked. Who would want to see George Will naked? His mother, or if she's dead, maybe his doctor.

ML: You really think that many men find you desirable?
AC: If mash notes were votes, I'd be president-for-life. I get more imploring messages each month than the Wailing Wall.

ML: I guess certain people do have a lot of time on their hands.
AC: Very funny. The wards of the state are too busy listening to Air America to know who I am. My demographic is the quality—investment bankers, corporatate lawyers, captains of industry. Just last week an Episcopalian bishop boxed his little bishop in front of a webcam and sent me the video, wasn't that nice? Actually, that was probably a mistake. If he was Episcopalian, he must have meant to send it to Jonah Goldberg.

<!--TABLE 4--> <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="185"> <tbody><tr><td>
coulter_185.jpg
</td></tr> </tbody></table> ML: Touche, touche, touche. So why are these hotshots looking to media figures for their jollies?
AC: Why else? Because contemporary American women don't do it for them anymore. They can't possibly. They've read so much [1960s feminist] Bella Abzug that they've started to look like her.

ML: So we're all looking for a new ideal and you're it?
AC: You could do a lot worse. Look at Hollywood harpies like Julia Roberts and Jennifer Aniston. None of them has the brains to spell GOP, much less vote that way.

ML: You don't think Michelle Malkin could fill the role?
AC: Ah, Michelle. Her writing's good, but she's too into the mom role to start a revolution. But, hey, you might want to sit near her on an airplane in case she starts nursing. Turn your head now. I have skin to show.

ML: I don't get to watch?
AC. You're nowhere near my demographic
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
YOU CAN'T FUEL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME

by Ann Coulter
June 25, 2008

Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are "anti-choice."

For the same reason, no one should believe the Democrats' "energy" policies.

Democrats couldn't care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles.

Environmentalists are constantly clamoring for higher gas taxes as the cure-all to their insane global warming theory. Clinton proposed a 26-cent tax on gas. John Kerry said it should be 50 cents. Gore endorsed the Malthusian proposal of Paul and Anne Ehrlich in "The Population Explosion" that gas taxes be raised gradually to match prices in Europe and Japan.

The result is consumers now pay about 46 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes. That's not including taxes paid directly to the government by the oil companies and passed onto consumers. As the inestimable economist John Lott has pointed out, in the past 25 years oil companies have paid more than three times in taxes what they have made in profits.

B. Hussein Obama's response to soaring gas prices is to have the oil companies collect even more money from us at the pump, proposing a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies. "Corporate taxes" sound like taxes on rich people, but all they do is force corporations to collect taxes on behalf of the government.

Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished!

In response to skyrocketing gas prices, liberals say, practically in unison, "We can't drill our way out of this crisis."

What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, "You can't eat your way out of being hungry!" "You can't water your way out of drought!" "You can't sleep your way out of tiredness!" "You can't drink yourself out of dehydration!"

Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn't going to increase the supply of oil?

It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan. Their plan is: the permanent twilight of the human race. It's the only solution they can think of to deal with the beastly traffic on the LIE (Long Island Expressway).

How do liberals propose we acquire the energy required for the economic activity and production that results in light appearing when they flick a switch? The larger enterprise involved in producing that little miracle eludes them.

Liberals complain that -- as B. Hussein Obama put it -- there's "no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road."

This is as opposed to airplanes that run on woodchips, which should be up and running any moment now.

Moreover, what was going on five years ago? Why didn't anyone propose drilling back then?

Say, you know what we need? We need a class of people paid to anticipate national crises and plan solutions in advance. It would be such an important job, the taxpayers would pay them salaries so they wouldn't have to worry about making a living and could just sit around anticipating crises.

If only we had had such a group -- let's call them "elected representatives" -- they could have proposed drilling five years ago!

But of course we do pay people to anticipate national problems and propose solutions. Some of them -- we'll call them Republicans -- did anticipate high gas prices and propose solutions.

Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska's barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill!

We'd be gushing oil now -- except the Democrats stopped us from drilling.

Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR's 19 million acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot of oil.

The other party -- plus John McCain -- ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else. Instead of Drill! Drill! Drill!, their motto could be: Kill! Kill! Kill!

They refuse to believe our abortion studies? I refuse to believe they care about Americans having to pay high gas prices.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

:party: :party: :party: :party: :party:
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,932
Tokens
Ann can handle both Joey C and Doc at the same, its called double penetration, add willheim and Ann is doing triple penetration, thats how Ann likes it, its called foursome!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,932
Tokens
at barfland.com/forum I did find a video of her look alike having anal sex.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,932
Tokens
went to barfland.com/forum

did a search for ann coulter
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Muddy:

ever seen Coulter "at her best"


http://youtube.com/watch?v=84EjWeTMBZs
Ann Coulter on Canadian Troops in Vietnam .. SHE CLAIMS CANADA SENT TROOPS TO VIETNAM!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


How about this "Classic"??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H95RsXv0axo&NR=1 -- COULTER SAYS
"THINGS ARE GOING SWIMMINGLY IN AFGHANISTAN ..." WATCH HER SAY: "SEAN?" :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://youtube.com/version-check.swf" style="" id="checker" name="checker" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" quality="high" height="0" width="0">
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/watch-vfl44017.swf" style="" id="movie_player" name="movie_player" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" quality="high" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="q=coulter%20and%20vietnam&BASE_YT_URL=http://youtube.com/&vq=null&sourceid=ys&video_id=84EjWeTMBZs&l=44&sk=f3v-_seGUBGzcbVnZ205DDNUdKK77jubC&fmt_map=&t=OEgsToPDskKDIfZ4kKz8zjKe3hGTUfJ0&hl=en&plid=AARQvsDVpgX9Zai-AAAAoAAIIAE&playnext=0&enablejsapi=1" height="385" width="480">
 

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,164
Tokens
Canada did send troops


n 1973 the International Commission of Control and Supervision Vietnam (ICCS) was responsible for securing the armistice that lasted two years from 1973 to 1975, known as Operation Gallant. Canada, a member of the commission, contributed 240 Canadian Forces whose role was to monitor the cease-fire in South Vietnam, according to the Paris Peace Conference, and to arrange the release and exchange of more than 32,000 prisoners of war. In addition, ten to forty thousand Canadians, voluntarily served in Vietnam or during the Vietnam era with the American military, of whom 111 Canadians, were lost. One Canadian soldier, Toronto born Peter C. Lemon, won the Congressional Medal of Honor.

The Canadian government believed that because of its membership in ICCS, that Canada had to remain impartial during the Vietnam Conflict. While Canada as a nation was not involved in the fighting, Canadians themselves formed the largest foreign contingent in the U.S. military during the Vietnam era. Although exact numbers are not obtainable, some estimate that between 30,000 and 40,000 served and that 12,000 Canadians actually were in American uniforms in the war zone. The Canadian Armed Forces won a Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in Vietnam.

When the Canadian Vietnam veterans returned to their homeland, they were even more unwelcome than here in the United States, where at least returning veterans had access to government resources. Today, there is a memorial, “The North Wall”, at Assumption Park, Windsor, Ontario, overlooking the Detroit River. It honors the 103 Canadians who lost their lives in Vietnam and the seven who went missing in action. It is a fine tribute to those Canadians who served and sacrificed all for their belief in freedom.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
Wow ...

Darwinian and Coulter both graduating in the same class of Dumbasses!!


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
The troops sent ??? FOR PEACE KEEPING !!!

Coulter referred to CANADIAN TROOPS participating in the war .... BULLSHIT ..
THEY WERE THERE TO MONITOR THE ARMISTICE!!!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 

New member
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
673
Tokens
12,000 Canadians actually were in American uniforms in the war zone. The Canadian Armed Forces won a Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in Vietnam.

I'm sure this is just what ann was talking about lol

If Canadian citizens fighting in the American army =Canada sending troops than

she is wrong about Iraq as there have been Citizens of Canada fighting in Iraq now and have been from the start.

So she cant possibly be right about both Iraq and Vietnam using this argument.

Any peace keeping effort doesnt qualify.

This of course is not what she meant.....boy its hard for some ppl to admit when there wrong.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,528
Members
100,877
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com