Coulter and O’Donnell Find A Point Of Agreement And Guess What It Was . . .

A couple of past students went to the debate between Ann Coulter and Lawrence O’Donnell and were surprised b one exchange. Despite being continents apart, I became a point on which Coulter and O’Donnell agreed. While some would say this is a sign of the apocalypse, I say it is merely an expression the great unifying healing force that I send throughout the world.


One student sent me this tape, which was taken at a bit of a distance. Around the 40 mark, O’Donnell agrees with my take on the Citizens United case. I am told that Coulter then also agreed with my take, though it comes in part 5 of the tape (which my student could not locate).

This has opened up a whole new horizon for me. In light of my success in uniting Coulter and O’Donnell, I have decided to first move on to the Middle East to open talks between Iran and Israel. Following resolving that dispute this week, I will tackle the more difficult and potentially explosive Martha Stewart/Rachel Ray divide.

120 thoughts on “Coulter and O’Donnell Find A Point Of Agreement And Guess What It Was . . .”

  1. Carol Levy: “(Lottakatz – I am thinking this may well be an open convention; they will draft someone else, maybe Christie, Bush (of the names I know) who does not have the baggage of the words out there of these present contenders. … I also remember when I was younger staying up til 2, 3 in the morning as the delegates fought for the guy they wanted. Those were the days when politics could actually fun and interesting to just the regular guy.)

    ———–
    I remember some delegate fights at the conventions also, one could only wonder what deals were being brokered on the way to the final count.

    I am torn by the thought of a draft though. Republicans were better organized then, now it’s cirque du freakshow. After all of the work for all of the existing candidates and expectations of respect for the ‘base’, would the delegates allow a draft if it wasn’t some total whack-job that would be totally objectionable to the party elders? Who in the party that hoped to run for president in 16 would dare alienate the base they are going to have to count on.

    I also heard an analyst say that the Republicans were going to hope for the best this year but were not going to bet the farm on it – they would instead work in the next two years to shift the majorities in the Congress to the point of total, unbreakable control as well as concentrate on the State races. They would work to consolidate power to the point that the Presidency was immaterial in other words. That actually sounds like a good strategy if they could pull it off.

    Like you, I was thinking that a brokered convention was a possibility but now I’m not sure. The Republican’s house is in such disarray they aren’t predictable as yet even if they are doing everything, including breaking their own rules with the caucus’, to fix the race for Romney. I suppose if they stop doing that it will be a signal that they might have given up on this race and are working on consolidation and 2016 as was predicted by the commentator (i can’t remember who it was) I heard. It gets curiouser and curiouser.

  2. Gene you’ve made you point and I understand it now stop being a distraction to the thread. Either add some substance to the topic of C.U. Coulter,O’Donnel or shut the fuck up.

  3. Tony C. That’s an outstanding quote, I bet Ms. Longworth was a hoot and a great dinner party guest. I’ll have to Google her and see if there are any books about her. I talk about sitting next to me in the Alice’s Restaurant style but with less of a stigma than being directed to the the actual ‘Group W’ bench. 🙂

  4. Bdaman,

    If you want to call me patronizing, it’s only fair I tell you what I think of you. In fact, you invited it. Just because I didn’t beat around the bush shouldn’t bother you. None of this would have happened at all if you’d realized that your problem with Dredd is your problem with Dredd, that no one here is interested in it, no one here can help you with it and this isn’t the appropriate forum to lodge a complaint. When you’ve been censored here or oppressed here, make a complaint here. By all means, I encourage you to do so. Otherwise, who you piss off and what they do about it on their Internet websites and/or blogs is between you and them. No one here is going to rush to your defense. Their editorial policies are theirs to make and enforce as they see fit. That we tolerate your constant threadjacking here is a testament to JT’s commitment to free speech. This is his play ground. He makes the rules. The rule here is free speech. You are free to say what you like within very limited rules which you have yet to my knowledge violate. You haven’t violated anyone’s anonymity and you haven’t assumed another poster’s identity, so you have nothing to be concerned about. Then again and conversely, I’m free to criticize whatever you say however I like. That’s the thing about free speech. It has two-edges.

  5. Aww Gene douche bag conspiracy boy. I’m at a disadvantage at the momment operating by my handheld device but what type of behavior is this name calling coming from a guest poster. Professor Turley must be proud.

  6. Pierre Sargent,

    I’m not sure why you think you know me, but unless you work at a gas station in the Ozarks, we’ve never met. I’ve driven through the region, but I don’t know anyone in the Lake of the Ozarks. I’m also not impressed with the fact you know what my hair looks like. Anyone with Facebook can see my picture. As to the rest of what you say, you are free to operate under any delusion about me you care to foster. So here’s an experiment for you – why don’t you hold your breath until I give a rat’s ass what you think of me? Try it. Just messin’ with ya bro.

  7. “sweetie” patronizing is bad. “douche bag” not so much.

    You people really are fucked up. 🙂

    Gene Howington, It’s nice to see you found a home where you feel welcome. People here at the Lake of the Ozarks miss your occasional visits. (Do you always go by Gene H. now, or do you occasionally go back to being Buddha is Laughing?) Are you still trying to sell people on that Tsun Tzu crap? It makes me laugh so hard when it comes from a white guy with a receding hairline, and curly locks thick enough to make it look like an attempt at a Mohawk. -Just messin’ with ya bro. I remember when you told us about this blog. I don’t get by here often, but when I do, it’s a hoot.

    People talk down to others because they have a need to feel superior. In real life, they are not superior at all. Those people have a tendency to tell stories about how great they once were, but without fail, they cannot back it up with any documented evidence to support it. -Try it. Experiment. See who claims superiority, and then see if you can find any documented evidence of the claimed success.

  8. Bdaman,

    “As far as Gene goes, Gene likes to tell people what to do and when to do it. ”

    Actually, what I like is not to have to tell people they are acting like inappropriate douche bags, Bdaman. I wish you’d give me what I want occasionally.

    Also, the difference in me calling Smom “sweetie” and doing it to a stranger is that I know Smom offstage and I do think she’s a sweetie and she knows this. It wasn’t patronizing, but a sign of affection. See, if I called you “sweetie” it would be patronizing, because that’s the inverse application of the term and it’s pretty apparent I think you’re a douche bag. Again, no bad words, just bad intent.

    Does that clear things up for you, Conspiracy Boy?

  9. (Lottakatz – I am thinking this may well be an open convention; they will draft someone else, maybe Christie, Bush (of the names I know) who does not have the baggage of the words out there of these present contenders.
    I personally am hoping for Romney or Santorum, Obama will have to do very little politcking. I also remember when I was younger staying up til 2, 3 in the morning as the delegates fought for the guy they wanted. Those were the days when politics could actually fun and interesting to just the regular guy.)
    And Prof Turley, I am sure your words will be more thoughtful and diplomatic then those of Cantor this morning about war with Iran and the president being weak on this.

  10. @Lottakatz: You reminded me of one of the best quotes ever:

    “If you haven’t got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me.” – Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

  11. Elsie DL: “Hi, I have been following this blog for a while now and while I am not an intellectual heavy-weight and have no background much on legal issues I like many of the issues discussed.”
    ——-

    Hi! Then you can come sit by me and by all means feel free to comment.

  12. Mike Lots of people go off topic. Case in point is on another thread where Viagra is mentioned by Blouise. I post a comment in response and I get accused of trying to derail the thread, Blouise comes to my defense. I ask a question jokingly about AGW in this thread after some how the thread got derailed by someone calling SWM sweetie and Dredd responds. By the way I do the right thing and bounce to Dredds sight thinking he actually would like to discuss/debate the matter by pointing me to a particular thread. I also thought that maybe he was trying to increase readership in his own blog. I mean he rarely gets involved in commenting here but when he does post a comment it’s always some type of link back to his blog. So I posted a comment waited maybe 12-24 hours to see if it posted only to find the response I posted above. So obviously if your not like minded like Dredd your comments will not be posted. Hence the low participation rate in his comment sections.

    As far as Gene goes, Gene likes to tell people what to do and when to do it. When in a room of 100 and your smarter than 99% then you are very rarely ever wrong. My Amos and Andy speak is my bowing to superiority. Visual would be me lowering the chin sideways into chest and shying away in retreat. Thats all, nothing more.

    On a final note I’ll let you two figure out who said what. It’s between the two of you.

    Using “sweetie” to address a woman, is the equivalent of using “boy” or “little guy” to address a man. Dishonestly insulting and patronizing.

    “In the end the fact remains that men who call women “sweetie” are lousy in bed, know it in their hearts and try to make up for it by being patronizing.”

    “Smom, Apples and oranges, sweetie.”

  13. See that you do.

    You might want to consider dropping the faux “Amos n’ Andy” speak while you’re at it. It’s childish. Your actions and my statements over this issue have absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with your actions being inappropriate.

    1. Bdaman,
      Seriously? Stereotypical Black dialogue ala Rochester on Jack Benny. When have you ever been discriminated against here? Never.

      I will let Gene speak for himself, but if you’re playing that game it’s bullshit and you know it. Why don’t you just drop the trolling games and let the intelligence we know is there come through? I get that you don’t like Obama, but this birther stuff is nonsense and seriously bigoted. Attack him all. you want but don’t demean yourself with this.

  14. Bdaman,

    I don’t care what your opinion is of my previous counters to your denier nonsense or engaging in any more of your off topic trollery at the moment. This isn’t about me.

    This is about you and the question of appropriate forums.

    This is not the appropriate problem for the airing of your grievance with Dredd. Period. That you’d think it is shows just how little respect for this forum you have (as if your constant thread jacking wasn’t demonstration of that enough). No one here gives a flying rat’s ass about you getting censored on somebody else’s blog or website. That’s is a problem between you and them and this isn’t the right place to bring it up. Not only is it not our problem, there is nothing we can do about it. It is Dredd’s website, not JT’s, and neither he nor any of the editors here can remedy your complaint.

    Is that clear enough for you to understand?

    1) Your problem is with Dredd.

    2) The appropriate venue for your problem is his website, not this one.

    3) Your bitching about him blocking your nonsense on his website has nothing to do with this blog or this thread.

    Prove that what I just said is wrong.

    It’s really pretty simple.

  15. Blah Blah Gene you can’t debate the facts either. I asked he responded but refused to debate.

  16. Bdaman,

    In other words, irrelevant.

    Too bad your problem has nothing to do with this blog let alone the the topic of this thread other than illustrating we’re much more tolerant of your trollery nonsense than Dredd appears to be on his blog – which is his right. If you’ve got a problem with that, I suggest that it is your problem and the correct party to take it up with would be Dredd and that the correct forum for addressing your complaint would be his blog.

  17. Here’s Dredds response to a FACTUAL post on his website HAHAHAHAH

    DreddMar 6, 2012 04:37 AM

    Kathy,

    Psychopaths do not care for facts that would indicate people are being harmed, and are going to be harmed even more.

    Check out the Hare Psychopathy Checklist for an indication of why we are going in the W direction full speed.

    Read Thin Ice, The Exceptional American Denial, and Agnotology: The Surge.

    Others who have commented take note that the Dredd Blog does not publish senseless comments by deniers.

    *****************************************************************

    In other words he couldn’t refute what I posted which was the factual truth so he doesn’t want anybody else to see it either. He asked for debate but obviously feels the science is settled and there will be no more debate. ROTFLMFAO

  18. Hi,

    I have been following this blog for a while now and while I am not an intellectual heavy-weight and have no background much on legal issues I like many of the issues discussed. Today’s comments by a person who calls himself Jordan are interesting and I must add that Mike Spindler’s response to Jordan’s patronizing Swarthmore mom is the best response. I do think there are plenty of women who don’t mind male partners/husbands/religious leaders it’s ultimately their choice as it should be my choice to challenge these kind of men. Thank you for standing up for women who don’t accept patronizing.

Comments are closed.