The blogs are abuzz with Ann Coulter, that walking, talking shitstain ok, shitstain of a human being.
Poor Ann is upset that she can’t say the word “faggot” in the context of insulting and belittling and trivializing a married man with children for whom there is no indication of anything but painfully average heterosexuality.
So let’s think about this. If she’s not calling him gay, what could she possibly be up to when calling John Edwards a “faggot”? Wait. One aside: She didn’t actually say the words, ‘John Edwards is a faggot’. She was being coy—well, what she thinks is coy—by first mentioning John Edwards, then saying “it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’”.
Ow, my sides from laughter. Who’s writing her material, Paul Haggis?
This is what comes of a Republican trying to be snarky. Give it up, folks, just like you gave up on trying to understand irony so very long ago.
So where’s the improvement, you ask? She’s being direct instead of circumspect. How can someone that’s been such a soulless cunt for so long not have been direct all along? I’d ask you to go read some of her columns, but I don’t hate you that much. Hell, I don’t hate her enough to ask her to read her own effluvia, so you’ll have to trust me. Her typical pattern is to hang something that’s so painfully obvious out there as if she’s walking you down Hell’s Garden Path™ and then ooo! Pounce! She just nails you (ew) with the point you (and by “you” I mean, her typical learning-impaired reader) with the point of her tirade. Forgiveness for the imagery of Ann Coulter pouncing on you and nailing you.
So, that improvement. It’s in the economy of words she can expect to employ in her columns from here on forward. She just has to write “We Republicans are better than faggots, niggers, ragheads, chinks, dykes, gooks and Liberals” and she’s done with anything she’ll ever have to say again.
As a woman who espouses “family values” but has never been married nor had children and a heterosexual who’s never seen with male companionship, she’s finally out of the closet. Or at least her hate is.
The beauty of this is that hate, when exposed to the bright glare of other human beings, tends to transform itself into something else. At one end of the spectrum of possible results, the hater learns what’s wrong with the hating. At the other end, that person is destroyed.
I’ll leave it to the reader to decide which is the better fate for Ann.
I’ll also leave it to the reader to simply watch Ann in action at CPAC (and to listen for the cautiously gleeful tittering of the crowd when she says the f-word):
You realize, don’t you, that Ann doesn’t really believe John Edwards is a ‘faggot’? This is Ann desperately trying to remain topical and—cough, cough—relevant by circumspectly commenting on all the high profile anti-gay statements of late. Ann “if you can’t think of anything hateful to say, don’t say anything” Coulter always has to say something, so she shoehorned John Edwards into it. That’s really all there is to it.
It’s difficult to watch anything die slowly, unless you’re Ann. Now it’s the Conservative movement that’s dying, and there’s pain and throes and writhing. It’s not easy to watch and there is no glee. But I will be happy when its destructive power is gone.