Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Ann Coulter: You Can See Her Bra Through That Top

Not bad. Otherwise she's got a bit of a turkey-neck. Apparently, she was at Western U., and talked about stuff. There are also a few pictures of Ezra through the link. In each one, he appears to have an erection.


RuralSandi said...

Now, if only she'd use a little of that mega bucks she earns to do something with those black roots - how long since she's done something with that hair? A little trim for those split ends might help too.

Anonymous said...

I see dr roy is his barely literate self again... Can't the bad dr afford a spell checker?

It's funny how all these so called free-market warriors seems to like sucking back on government largesse... dr roy should find a nice country that does not pay his salary.

I wonder how many of the "manly" conservative men jerked off that evening.

Frank said...

I have to admit she's a bit over-the-top for my liking. Coulter and Limbaugh should buy a small island some where and start their own country.

More to the point. Are their any lefty hotties out there that will actually stand up in front of an audience that hasn't been hand picked for them? How about that lesbo babe on MSNBC every night. She's kinda cute, grey suit and all.

CanadianSense said...

Some in the left decry George Galloway being barred from Canada.

Some decry the Liberal Party agreeing labelling him a security threat.

Cherub blames the Israel "lobby".

Redtory, MOS, refer to the US Visa Policy on G.G. as an excuse to allow G.G entry.

How many in the left don't think a "right wing" view deserves the same protection?

Nice to see Cherub with his personal fantasies provided a forum. Get some therapy.

RuralSandi said...

Well, CanadianSense - I have a special loathing for this woman. It's not a matter of left or right, but a matter of vile, bigotted and dangerous comments.

My girlfriend lost her only son (one of the 24 Canadians lost) in 9/11 and her comments about the widows made me sick to my stomach.

So, CanadianSense - you keep enjoying this vile person. It shows your character.

I think it was stupid for the president of the U of O did because people should hear her and hear the ugliness of the Rep/Conservative party represents here and in the US.

Balbulican said...

Poor woman. Book sales of her latest tanked (the shtick is getting pretty tired), and she's reduced to touring the boonies.

CanadianSense said...


Your personal feelings are unimportant.

Do we ask the idealogical left decide what we hear?

Your definition of "vile, bigotted and dangerous" views is your opinion.

Either you accept the laws/system in place to protect against hate speech or you don't.

Attend, record her speech and file a complaint.

Restricting her views and opinions without application of the laws is censorship.

George Galloway got judged by the system and Ignatieff agreed with the decision by the civil servants.

49 Steps said...

Morning Folks,

You should all know that CS is regularly over on 308, as am I.

He blames all the ills of thw world on the LPOC.


I hope he sticks around this site for a while.

It will give you all a chance to enjoy his always off topic and off point BS

CanadianSense said...

Re: 49 cries for help...

Another stalker, how cute.

Shouldn't you be helping fill sandbags for the Red River flood?

Shiner said...

49 Steps, we're all well acquainted with CS. I don't think there are many around here who actually read its posts anymore, might as well subscribe to Duffy's e-mail list, he, at least, knows how to speak english.

Tof KW said...

Free speech isn’t a left/right issue Canadiansense, but thanks for sharing your usual ignorance and typical scatterbrained commentary.

I actually think the Americans have the right attitude on this issue, more so than we do. I think Oliver Wendell Holmes summed up this attitude the best when he stated “the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” The US does not tolerate hate speech or incitement to violence, and they do have very strong laws against that sort of thing - but they certainly allow you to say things that could cause problems here in the great white north. Case in point: Ann Coulter.

She has every right to speak up here, just as George Galloway should have been allowed to speak. I disagree strongly with both individuals, but freedom of speech is all about defending the voice that you don’t agree with. I also think Mark Steyn had a point against the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Because quite frankly all these people I’ve mentioned are bigots and racists, and their voices need to be spotlighted in the crucible of public debate. For as Oliver Wendell Holmes also said; “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”

Coulter’s comments about Canada being lucky to be allowed to exist, or that Muslims should not be allowed on airplanes and should fly on carpets instead should be broadcast constantly over CBC, CTV and Global/Canwest. Let us all see what an abominable, depraved, and repulsive waste of human skin she is. And likewise, let us see her followers wide out and in the open… like you Canadiansense.

49 Steps said...

I believe in free speech.

I actually think Ann Coulter should be allowed to speak.

Let her show what a vile, and reprehensible, bigoted human being she is.

That way she can be throughly discredited, for the filth that she is.

Remember a quote from "Voltaire"

"I agree with not a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"

Gayle said...

"How many in the left don't think a "right wing" view deserves the same protection?"

i'm sorry - was Anne Coulter banned from Canada?

Tof KW said...

Hey Gayle, that was just one example of what I meant regarding CS's ignorant and scatterbrained commentary.

None of it was to be accurate or even coherent, it just has to somehow show the Grits of being guilty of everything.

Ti-Guy said...

"I agree with not a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"

I don't think that's ever happened in the history of the World.

I'd like to think I would, but when it comes to people like Coulter, who is, let us remember, a pathological liar, they're on their own.

People like that won't come to the defence of your or anyone else's rights, after all.

Not much to say about her appearance except to marvel at those man-hands of hers.

deBeauxOs said...

That particular bra Coulter wears in the photo is designed with padding to add volume to boyish breasts.

Victoria's Secret manufactures them.

Ti-Guy said...

Are their any lefty hotties out there that will actually stand up in front of an audience that hasn't been hand picked for them?

Well, since their detractors are primitive wingnuts who no longer know how to behave in public, probably not.

I'm sure no one civilised is all that anxious to invite blasts of halitosis-infused screech from ignorant gastropods who've mistaken the public forum for a toilet.

wilson said...

and yah wonder why no grassroots Liberals were invited to the thinkers conference.....go no futher than Libloggers.

Tof KW said...

^ ^ ^
| | |
Speaking of ignorant gastropods who've mistaken the public forum for a toilet ...hello wilson

Ti-Guy said...


This has been a years-long discussion at this blog.

I actually think the Americans have the right attitude on this issue, more so than we do.

I don't, at all. I think that country has become incoherent when it comes to freedom of expression, in ways too numerous to mention here. However, a few:

1. Free speech absolutism requires hate speech to prove that an unfettered right to free speech exists. The approach encourages hate speech, which, regardless of how it's treated in law, most people agree, does not contribute much of anything worthwhile to public discussion.

2. Hate speech either frightens or angers other people, both of which impede thinking and reasoned, valuable expression. Being a bleeding-heart liberal, I'm particularly concerned about people who get shut out of discussion because they're too frightened to participate.

3. The American public has become so polarised by intemperate speech that groups of people no longer dialogue with each other. People have retreated into echo chambers so isolated and uniform in their tone and content to the point where I don't believe the participants even exist within the same realities anymore. The American liberal/left, of which I'm more familiar, has always struck me as a little bizarre, but the Right now is simply out-to-lunch altogether, to an extent that I believe is irremediable; that it has become entirely unreachable and unteachable nor can it actually communicate to the rest of us what exactly its issues are.

4. There are many ways in which free speech, not limited technically by the state, is still limited by the power of the media. I think particularly of how the only viewpoints permitted on their mainstream media range from the hard-right to just barely left of centre. If that's a commitment to free speech, it's a highly hypocritical, selective one. That used to be somewhat mitigated by the "fairness doctrine," but that was abandoned by Reagan in the 80's.

If I had to point to one thing to explain what is contributing most to the dumbing down of North American culture, I'd have to say it's this unexamined worship of free speech. Ultimately, I think it's led to a fairly uniform standard where the only really widely-acceptable speech is propaganda, platitudes and appalling dishonesty.

That being said, I think their defamation laws are superior to ours.

Southern Quebec said...

Ya gotta respect a woman who found a hair style in High School she liked and stuck with it! :)

For some reason this is a female conservative thing...keeping the same hairstyle from HS. See Sarah Palin and Michelle Bacchamann (sp).

Tof KW said...

Frankly, I'd like Coulter a lot more if she had the balls to talk like that, as opposed to her usual genocidal rhetoric.

Ti, you can guess what I think of wingnut commentators like Coulter and her ilk, but I think it gives their voices more power if governments step in to muzzle them. I think any serious discussions on how such people have gained prominence in the first place will inevitably turn into a larger, philosophical discussion on the American psyche and how the media manipulate this. And yes I know there are domestic wingnuts up here that actually support her views, but then again did we really expect to see Canada free of racist rednecks?

I reposted your comment here because this reminds me of something US radio ultrarightwingnut extraordinaire Michael Savage once said on-air. I can’t recall the exact wording but it went something like “I pray to God I see the hatches opened and missiles flying” as his answer on how to end the ‘Global War on Terror’ TM.

My question; is this a fault of the US first amendment or their hate speech laws that this man is still on the air, or is it the fault of the wider media for not exposing this weasel for the genocidal racist he is? I still maintain the US has a better attitude about free speech than we do, but the bigger problem is their media for allowing such ignorance, prejudice and fear to be given a soapbox – and a specifically example being FOXNews.

And though I don’t completely like the idea of the Human Rights Commissions becoming quasi-judicial bodies, I also completely disagree with the moves our federal government has made in removing public funding for people fighting real hate crimes within the proper legal channels. It the free-speechers want the HRC’s defanged, fine …provided hate crimes can be properly fought in court with public funding restored for the groups on the receiving end of that hate.

Also, our media need to expose the Steyns and Levants for the racists they are. And while they’re at it, the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress (which went to the OHRC in the first place) has made some rather anti-Semitic comments himself that need to be reproduced for the public to digest.

Now how we get our media to become more responsible to the public good is another dilemma altogether. A good start would be to get them to shut up about Tiger Woods already.

ridenrain said...

She should have put on a burqua just to confuse you all.

Ti-Guy said...

but I think it gives their voices more power if governments step in to muzzle them.

What power are they lacking? Coulter and people like her have developed lucrative careers in the US and have all the fame and fortune people, who actually work hard and spend a lot of time studying and thinking about what they're saying would dearly like to have. And would put to much better use, that's for sure.

With all due respect, these are just free speech tropes you're repeating that don't really bear up under much scrutiny.

My question; is this a fault of the US first amendment or their hate speech laws that this man is still on the air, or is it the fault of the wider media for not exposing this weasel for the genocidal racist he is?

I think it's neither. I think it's the inability of the US to enforce any kinds of standards (besides banning nipple-slips and potty mouth) on the public airwaves, which, it must be repeated, is a commons. It goes much further than hate speech as well; the inability to arbitrate disputes with respect to journalistic malpractice is even worse.

Anyway, I've argued these things over and over on this blog, so I'm not going to rehash them. Suffice it to say I am a resolute opponent of censorship (real censorship that is, not the phony or notional one of *chill* that the hate- and bigotry-spewing speechies can never shut up about) but believe that the exercise of rights has to come with responsibility and that dispute resolution and other types of arbitration (which could include having people like Coulter face real challengers once in while) are better alternatives than the primitive free-for-all that's making us all dumber and/or angrier if we're not tuning out altogether.

Gerrard787 said...

Let her show what a vile, and reprehensible, bigoted human being she is.

That way she can be throughly discredited, for the filth that she is.
- 49 Steps

Large segments of the left, because their worldview does not believe there can or should be opposing views, are incapable of discrediting anyone. All smoke and fury, they run endlessly to our HRCs to silent public discourse.

We see this same intolerance at times in the environmental movement who demand that people who disagree with them should be jailed.

The demand for dissenting views to be silenced is a constantly recurring issue with the left. It's in the left's DNA.

Tof KW said...

The demand for dissenting views to be silenced is a constantly recurring issue with the left. It's in the left's DNA.

Question Paul, who kept out George Galloway from speaking?

I'll give you a hint, though Canadiansense blames Iggy, he's not our PM and the Libs are not the government anymore. Look at your own wingnut faux-Conservative Party for silencing dissenting views before you accuse the loony left of doing it.

Wow, the populist, racist neo-liberal wingnuts masquerading as conservatives these days are just getting stupider as time goes on. Must be from listening to too much Coulter.

49 Steps said...

Paul S,

I never said to not let Ann Coulter speak.

I said let her speak, she discredits herself.

She practices hate speech, everytime she opens her mouth.

Her comments on gays, 911 widows, blacks, muslims, Jewish people, catholics, liberals, all non republican americans, and basically anyone who takes issue with her.

Those comments speak for themselves.

I say let her rip.

She is a walking caricature, of your typical right wing ignorant crackpot.

If you notice I also quoted Voltaire.

"I agree with not a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

49 Steps said...


Canadian Sense blames the LPOC for everything.

We actually already had this discussion over at 308.

His ramblings are always non sensical, not on topic and always off point.

He adores Ann Coulter, and does believe George Galloway should have been banned.

Whenever you are trying to discuss anything he always derails the conversation, with irrelevant nonsense.

When I checked in here this morning to read, I could believe my eyes, when I saw his BS.

Now he accuses me of stalking him.

Hell most people want to get rid of him.

Ti-Guy said...

The troll, Paul S (Paul Sunstrum of Calgary, Alberta). is responding for my benefit, because he knows how much it bugs me when he repeats the same things he's been cyber-stalking and harassing me and many other people with for years now.

I'm sure he thinks my last comment is a political argument, when in facts it's basically an articulation of the rules and constraints that operate for real people, in real communities.

But that's a big part of the problem. People like Paul S. and Ann Coulter don't operate within the real world anymore. They don't have to.

CanadianSense said...


A) you can't get simple fact rights about who determined the Hamas financier being turned away.

B) The minister did not overrule his department. Get over it!

C) Paul S. is correct it is the DNA of the lefnuts who censor their blogs, delete posts on a regular basis.

How many of you begg the hosts stop the con-trolls from posting?

Stop blaming voters who keep rejecting your failed socialist idealogy.

49 Steps said...


Found another site to do some trolling on?

I guess it would be asking you too much to start staying on topic, on point, and to start to make some sense.

My god you are a pathetic sack of you know what.

You say other sites have banned you.

I didn't know that.

Gee I wonder why?

CanadianSense said...

When facts fail, repeat a lie.

If you don't know how border services work you are beyond help.

Border Services is not a political organization.

Hamas is a terrorist organization as per our laws. G.G. is giving them funding.

I accept you can't accept anyone can't disagree with your socialist agenda or funding of Hamas.

The decision was NOT over turned by the minister to appease the socialist, Hamas supporters in Canada.


Ti-Guy said...

I have to say, as the day goes on and the torrents of shit pouring forth from the mouths and keyboards of Conservatives over this issue get stronger, not to mention cornier and more peanutty, the title of this blog post becomes even more amusing:

"Ann Coulter: You Can See Her Bra Through That Top."

Indeed, sir. Indeed.

Tof KW said...

CanadianSense said...
Some in the left decry George Galloway being barred from Canada.Some decry the Liberal Party agreeing labelling him a security threat.

Oh so you think the Grits are wrong here and you support free speech? OK

But wait!

CanadianSense said...
The minister did not overrule his department.

Oh so indeed the Conservatives indeed banned him from coming instead of reversing the decision. So the Conservatives are banning free speech.

Thanks for contradicting yourself and proving my point.

Still want to keep up this argument that only Liberals ban free speech? Want to post a negative commentary over at Stephen Taylor's blog and see how long that lasts?

Your comments deserve to be deleted CS. Not because your a populist, neo-liberal wingnut who embarrasses real conservatives - but because your arguments are scatterbrained, contradict themselves and are never on topic. Basically you posts don't add to the debate and are as worthless as shit. Actually I take that back as manure is worth something as fertilizer. So your posts are worth less than shit.

CanadianSense said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CanadianSense said...

The intolernat left are free to censor.

Another example

Civil libertarians decried the University of Ottawa’s treatment of Ms. Coulter, saying it’s out of line for an educational institution to be telling people to watch their words.

“It could be interpreted as an attempt to curtail speech,” Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to warn speakers. Regardless of how bigoted and terrible a speaker she is, she’s entitled to freedom of expression and Canadians have a right to hear her views.”


Gayle said...

CS is harmless. Like Coulter, he discredits himself.

It is not even interesting pointing out how inane his comments are anymore. He is boring, and not worth the time.

Though an occassional mocking does make me laugh...

CanadianSense said...

Strange how the intolerant left love to discredit and make personal attacks.

Here is the link

Re: Canadian Border Services vs Kenney did it.

Mr. Galloway, a rabble-rousing politician and outspoken supporter of the Palestinian people, was told last March he would not be allowed to enter Canada for a speaking tour because he had provided financial support to Hamas, a listed terrorist organization.

The Canada Border Services Agency cited his involvement in an aid convoy that delivered clothing, medical items, relief money and vehicles to the elected Hamas government, as well as Mr. Galloway's donation of three cars and $44,000 to prime minister Ismail Haniya.

Edison Stewart
Stephane Larue, director general of the case management branch, who suggested asking the border services agency to do "a very quick inadmissibility assessment."