So funny, apparently everyone forgot to laugh
While it’s slightly incredible, I guess, that Ann Coulter would flippantly claim in an e-mail to have sent fake anthrax to the New York Times, this story brings up a more interesting point:
[W]hat should be done with Ann Coulter, who has argued that The New York Times should have been blown up by Timothy McVeigh and that Times executive editor Bill Keller should be executed by firing squad?
This was the question one Times source asked on Friday after an employee at the paper of record received an envelope with an X scrawled through it and a suspicious powder inside. “This thing makes all of Ann Coulter’s comments a little less funny,” said the source. “I wonder if she considers herself at all responsible when lunatics read her columns and she says that we should be killed.”
What’s gotten me all thinky is not the “what should be done” part, but the the other part: “This thing makes all of Ann Coulter’s comments a little less funny.” I know her standard dodge is to chide the seriousness of her critics (“Hey, lighten up, Poindexter, I’m only kidding”), but I’ve read enough of her work to conclude that it’s not really intended to be funny. At least, not the parts that people discuss. Let’s take a look.
In last week’s column, “N.Y. Times: Better dead than read,” Coulter opens with a defense of her lament that McVeigh hadn’t targeted the newspaper’s offices. Next, she unspools an argument that liberals have worked for decades to undermine American interests, before mocking Times columnist Frank Rich for suggesting the Bush administration uses proxies (such as Coulter herself) to intimidate the press, “hoping journalists will pull punches in an election year.” Here’s the bit that attracted the most controversy:
Rich’s evidence of the brutal crackdown on the press was the statement of San Francisco radio host Melanie Morgan — who, by the way, is part of the press — proposing the gas chamber for the editor of the Times if he were found guilty of treason, which happens to be the punishment prescribed by law. (Once again Frank Rich finds himself in over his head when not writing about gay cowboy movies.)
I prefer a firing squad, but I’m open to a debate on the method of execution. A conviction for treason would be assured under any sensible legal system.
These two grafs are also perfect examples of the dodgy word games Coulter plays. If you examine them closely, you’ll find some intended humor – specifically, her suggestion that Rich enjoys movies about gay cowboys more for the topical content than for the quality storytelling or subtle acting performances. Not my cuppa joke, necessarily, but some people don’t think I’m all that funny, either (I know; can you fucking believe that shit?). Her stated preference for a firing squad is intentionally flippant, I’ll admit – but she also encourages would-be vigilantes by insinuating that the Times’ alleged wrongdoing exceeds the reach of an insensible (and, if you read her other works, similarly treacherous) legal system. (Of course, this is also contextually relevant.) Even if she’s joking, her readers take her seriously enough to split hairs over the appropriate punishement to mete out:
Wolfie writes:
Traitors *must* be hanged
Open e-mail to Ms Coulter:Thank you for your extraordinarily witty and vibrant writings. They are invaluable to the esprit de corps of rank of file conservatives, since most conservative public figures are too milquetoast to adequately defend themselves, let alone counterattack.
As to traitors, however, they should be hanged, not shot. A firing squad is considered an honorable way to die and is thus clearly not appropriate for a traitor.
Two examples:
A spy who was caught and had been a friend of George Washington’s appealed to him to be shot instead of hanged (men being men then, he accepted that his death was a given). Washington refused, feeling that hanging was necessary for traitors.
Many Nazis convicted at Nuremburg, including Goering and Jodl, asked to be shot instead of hanged. Both were refused, on the grounds that criminals should be hanged. (Goering wrote in his suicide note: “I would have no objection to getting shot…�.)
Please, Ms Coulter, begin advocating the only punishment sufficient for traitors: hanging.
It’s a good thing I packed an extra, because that comment requires at least two rolls of “oooooooooooooo-kaaaaaaaaaaay.” Yeeow.
deportliberalstocanada writes:
Ann Coulter augments her irrefutable logic and documented facts in her writings with razor sharp (admittedly harsh) commentary designed to use elements of wit and sarcasm to illustrate her points. Liberals just call names and throw pies. In the case of Moore, he eats all the pies.
[Gavin adds: They fear the pies.]
That reader’s charming name illustrates how much they took to heart Coulter’s recurring theme that liberals are somehow foreign to America, and present a threat that must be removed through one means or another. Also, it can be assumed that the reader wouldn’t know logic or humor even if they invited him (or her) to join them in a threesome.
Lawman writes:
No one on the left talks like Ann Coulter. She states facts. The left speaks in propaganda sound bites that are totally meaningless, are unsubstantiated, lack evidence to support them and are soleley intended to appeal to the uninformed. They speak the same thing over and over with conviction in exactly the same manner as Adolph Hitler instructed. As he stated in “Mein Kampf�, “Its task (propaganda’s) is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly. But the most brilliant propagandist will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.� Thus we have sound bites such as “Bush Lied, people died.�
Hmm. I could’ve sworn I read something about projection just the other day. I wonder where that was? Oh, hey, it’s this guy (or gal) again! Sweet!
deportliberalstocanada writes:
All the News that Fit to Line a BirdcageTreason is impossible to charge and convict, especially these days. Espionage is easier to prove if the leakers were caught red-handed telegraphing similar information directly to a terrorist cell. The current problem is we have an “American� institution that has become an ideal delivery mechanism for such activity. Why bother going through all the trouble of “espionage� when traitors can just pick up a phone and have it printed on the front page of the NYT and feel completely safe?!
During the time of the Rosenbergs reporters weren’t winning Pulitzers for treason – so they HAD to go direct. As Coulter pointed out in her brilliant book “Treasonâ€?, the last war liberals were on board with was WWII when Hitler turned on their hero Stalin. They weren’t in it because of Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust, or even the invasions of Eastern Europe. We can only hope now that Muslim terorrists turn their ire towards Castro or Chavez…that would certainly tick the liberals off!!!
Hwoof. Scratch what I said before. I don’t think logic or humor would be interested. (Well, maybe logic would – but you know how logic gets when it’s been drinking.)
Warrior writes:
…What the average American does not know is that his country and his government is infiltrated by masses of adherents to the Communist/Marxist dogma and ideology. Those people that adhere to the tenet “from each according to his means to each according to his needâ€? hide behind less inflammatory titles, like Liberal and Progressive. Those snakes use our tax dollars to further their Communist cause and influence by appearing as loving and benevolent benefactors for the poor. This they do in contravention to our Constitution. The Communist in our government, the MSM, and Hollywood need to be illuminated , by name, identified by cause, and held accountable for their sedition and treason.
The comments sort of go on like that. What stands out is the absence of mirth. No one proclaimed her TEH FUNNY. Not one person was ROTFLMAO. Computer components remained undampened by coffee or other beverages, whether sprayed orally or through the nose. There was nary a “har-har,” no “ho-ho’s,” nor any uproarious remarks. I heard not the clickety snicker of an LOL. Reading through all 69 of them, I was reminded of that old Far Side cartoon that illustrates the gap between what we say to dogs and what dogs understand:
So when Ann Coulter writes:
But however many Americans agree with Reagan on prosecuting treason, we can’t even get President Bush to stop building up the liberal media by appearing on their low-rated TV shows — in the process, dissing TV hosts who support him and command much larger TV audiences. American consumers keep driving CNN’s ratings down, and then Bush drives them back up again. So I wouldn’t count on any treason charges emanating from this administration.
Her readers hear:
Blah blah blah Americans blah blah Reagan blah blah treason, blah blah blah blah President Bush blah blah blah blah blah liberal media blah blah blah blah blah-blah TV shows — blah blah blah, blah TV hosts blah blah blah blah command blah blah TV audiences. Blah blah blah blah CNN blah blah, blah blah Bush blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah treason charges blah blah blah administration.
Which leads me back to the other good point the Times source made in that article I originally linked to:
“I wonder if she considers herself at all responsible when lunatics read her columns and she says that we should be killed.�
Not yet, apparently. Not yet.
Not yet? More like, not ever.
Just sayin’….
Jesus Travis, you might not have found teh funny in those comments, but I sure did.
“She states the facts”! “Irrefutable logic”! “Brilliant”! “Extraordinarily witty and vibrant writings”!
(howling with laughter, pounding the floor, wiping the tears out of my eyes)
This stuff is comedy gold!
… wait a minute, this is the Communist/Marxist dogma and ideology page, isn’t it?
I restricted my classification to “intentional comedy.” Otherwise, yeah – this stuff is the best.
Has anybody notified the FBI of Coulter’s confession?
Last time I checked, it was a federal offense to send threatening materials through the U.S. mail – and other people have been prosecuted for similar offenses in the past. There was a man busted for sending letters like that to women’s health clinics about two years ago…I’m too lazy to look up the citation. It’s pushing 100 degrees here in Florida today, and that’s before you factor in the humidity.
Seriously, though – somebody needs to notify the authorities about this. If she did this, it’s a crime and she needs to go to jail.
Doesn’t the woman have enough legal problems to worry about, Jillian, what with her voting issues and what-not?
Oh, and you’re thinking of Clayton Waagner. I covered his sentencing, turned in what I thought was a terrific report and opened the paper the next day to find all my best writing had been edited out. (For example, they switched out my description of him as a “self-proclaimed terrorist” – which he is, since he calls himself a terrorist – to “abortion foe.” Big diff, huh?) They also pulled out some nice narrative about his escape plot, but it was pretty lengthy.
At least “deportliberalstocanada” should be given credit for grasping what is truly important here: Michael Moore is fat.
Coulter and her like cower behind obtuse and obviously misleading claims like,”It’s just humor” more then the mafia.
“We was just sayin what a shame t’would be if somethin’ were to happen to his nice little store there. Ain’t that right, Rocco?”
Has anybody notified the FBI of Coulter’s confession?
One hopes so. It’s about as clear an admission of guilt as you can get. Or was that her hilarious ‘satire’ at work? In which case, perhaps she can apply her ‘satire’ to death-threats against the president.
What stands out is the absence of mirth. No one proclaimed her TEH FUNNY. Not one person was ROTFLMAO.
You do find Amazon reviews saying how funny the She-Coulter is, although it’s in the fored, teeth-clenched way that generally stems from something that isn’t actually funny.
In the case of Moore, he eats all the pies.
wow. I didn’t think that people actually, for real, made “Michael Moore is fat” arguments.
wow.
Kathleen,
That’s why parody trolls are so tedious. Someone, somewhere, is making that exact same dumb argument. Everytime I think I’m just being cynical about wingnuts in general, one of ’em reminds me how much I hate America and babies and God and freedom and success.
wow. I didn’t think that people actually, for real, made “Michael Moore is fat� arguments.
Me either. No matter how hard you try, the mouthbreathers on the right seem intent on moving far beyond mockery.
As a liberal, I think “deportliberalstocanada” sounds like a swell idea. Solid economy not on the brink of collapse, good health care, educated populace. Except for the whole Rush being popular thing. But that’s a small price to pay…
“No matter how hard you try, the mouthbreathers on the right seem intent on moving far beyond mockery.”
Because satire and parody can be deadly when effective.
It’s the classic sitcom gambit:
Party A angers party B. Party B then pledges to Get Party A Back But Good Some Time Soon. Party A ends up punching himself in the face.
“You can’t make funna ME! See, I just did!”
Screw it, it’s too late to get worked up about anything else.
I’m just going to tell myself that they mean “Michael Moore is Fab” and go to bed happy.
As a liberal, I think “deportliberalstocanada� sounds like a swell idea. Solid economy not on the brink of collapse, good health care, educated populace.
Amen! If Canada would loosen restrictions for immigration and citizenship for Americans they’d be a superpower in 10 years. I’d be thrilled to pitch in on infrastructure improvements for a year or five for the privelege of living somewhere relatively sane until the wingnuts get their Rapturous Armageddon.
I’m just baffled. I mean, this whole “Liberals inherently hate the US and wish to destroy it” thing. What the hell do they think we’d do after that? Do they seriously think we plan to hand the country over to the Islamofascists? What would we do with our queer, abortion-lovin’ secular selves?
They really seem to have put about as much thought into the Why Liberals Are Evil theory as Bush has into Why The Terrorists Hate Us.
I mean, I think the conservatives are assholes, and I think they’re tearing the country apart. But I don’t think they’re doing it just because, I dunno, hormonal imbalance or something.
I figure the rich guys think they can get rich enough that they’ll be insulated from the “stranded costs” society has to cover, things like pollution and poverty and crime.
I think the theocrats figure they can build a perfect Christian Society, and they don’t see what they want as bad. They’re not hellbent on destroying the US because they want to, they’re determined to rebuild it as their utopia.
I think the doctrinaire republicans and libertarians figure they can remake the world so they can create a small-government paradise, and hopefully get rich in the process, or at least stoned.
The common thread here? I think they’re all wrongheaded, but it’s not like they’re just vandals who are wrecking up the place ’cause it’s fun and they’s all drunk an’ shit.
Why is it the conservatives don’t require that much logic when demonizing us? They think we want to destroy the country and hand it over to the terrorists who, let’s be honest, would probably hate all us uppity feminists and tolerant liberals and atheists more than they’d hate the congregants at the local megachurch. Why? Who the hell knows. Apparently we’re just genetically flawed or something. Maybe being fat makes you hate our freedoms or something, who knows.
C’mon, kids. At least give us the marginal respect of assuming we have, I dunno, some version of self-interest in mind. Try hard, children. Try really really hard. I’ll start paying attention to your scolding when you can give me one actual reason I would want the terrorists to win. Okay?
Why is it the conservatives don’t require that much logic when demonizing us?
Because logic is for pussies, of course. Who needs thinkin’ when there’s names to be taken and asses to be kicked?
Their thought process seems to involve two steps: (1) Hulk mad! (2) Hulk smash!
And the funny thing(to me, at least, but I have a twisted sense of humor) is that what some of the radicals on the right call for might very well be driven by “hate” for the US as it exists and the wish to change it so utterly as to destroy it: e.g. turning this nation into a theocracy would actually destroy what the Constitution set up, as would buying into the super-strong Unitary Executive thinking.
As D Sidhe pointed out, the wingnuts recognize that if we aspire to hand the country over to our enemies, as they believe we do, then we bad liberals would be the ones who would suffer the most. They see that but they don’t see that it’s illogical for us to do that. They also don’t see that the correlary of that, of liberals suffering the most, is that they would feel right at home with the new rulers. In fact, with their obeisance to Bush they seem to have been practicing for the transition.
“Those people that adhere to the tenet “from each according to his means to each according to his needâ€? hide behind less inflammatory titles, like Liberal and Progressive.”
As Al Franken pointed out in one of his books (Lying Liars, I believe), this oft-quoted phrase originated not in the Communist Manifesto, but in another piece of left-wing propaganda – namely, Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament.
Of course, most fundies have never read the New Testament, apart from Revelation. Leviticus is much more to their liking.
Thank you for your extraordinarily witty and vibrant writings. They are invaluable to the esprit de corps of rank of file conservatives, since most conservative public figures are too milquetoast to adequately defend themselves, let alone counterattack.
Now waitaminute here. Lemme just reach over to the old bookshelf, over the dog, [rummaging about, crashing sounds, clouds of dust] juuuuusst about here…AH. Got it. My old, well-worn dictionary. Now, let’s see, conservative, conservative, conserv…HERE it is:
Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-‘s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners <a conservative suit>
What’s that say there? Something about tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners? Now these asshat loony thugs are a lot of things, but conservative they ain’t. Come on, I know in the wingnuttisphere black is white and up is down, but jeezus christ’s tits in a mason jar, that’s about as inaccurate a description of the evil venal people who are ruining my beloved country as you could come up with.
Goddam it, if “Liberal” is an insult, if Michael Moore is “fat”, then these clowns have GOT to come up with a new word to describe themselves. I’d go with Authoritarian – it seems to sum up their worldview more accurately in a single word than anything else, but I’m open to suggestions…
mikey
Those of us who are old enough remember when conservatives started “fearing the pies”:
Anita Bryant
choking on Coulter’s rhetoric?
try This One on for size
Did anyone else notice that the last quoted comment was from “Warrior”? Could it be the former wrestler himself?
Sadly, his website is “under serious reconstruction,” but I do hear he’s quite wingnutty these days. (I tried to do a search for some of his speeches, but the first links that came up were to Stormfront.org. I passed.)
Why is it the conservatives don’t require that much logic when demonizing us?
I suspect their deductive abilities stop around here:
1. I hate terrorists
2. I am the opposite of a liberal
3. Therefore, liberals love terrorists.
As a liberal, I think “deportliberalstocanada� sounds like a swell idea. Solid economy not on the brink of collapse, good health care, educated populace. Except for the whole Rush being popular thing. But that’s a small price to pay…
I guess I find it much preferable to have a popular Rush (the band) to a popular Rush (the druggie)
I think Right mentality is better summized as: “Kill the pig! Cut its throat! Spill its blood!.” Repeat until you have meat.
Which makes Dubya’s G-9 performance even more a national embaresment.
Dammit. G-8.
Kelloggs Frosted Flakes. T..HHEERRRE G-8!!!!
mikey
Limbaugh’s short-lived television program used to gather all the knuckle-dragging College Repugs in our student union day room during lunchtime. It just so happened that I was taking an Intro Logic course at the time and would sit at the back critiquing Limbaugh, shouting out things like “False Analogy!”, “Straw Man!”, “Red Herring!” and the like in response to the idiotic arguments spewing from the television. The Repugs would try and shout me down but never once did they attempt to refute claims of logical fallacy. Logic has no place in their world.
What I find pathetic is that every Conservative mumbles “personal responsibility” with foolish consistency but we see how they side-step their hate rhetoric, failing to take any responsibility at all. If, God forbid, some mouthbreather actually did follow through and murder a journalist or pundit (hmmm… Alan Berg, anyone?), you know the Coulters and Morgans would absolve themselves that they couldn’t be held accountable for the acts of some rogue loon. However, if some lunatic on the left made similar calls of violence with similar results, you know we’d never hear the end of it.
Dear D.Sidhe,
.
I’m just baffled. I mean, this whole “Liberals inherently hate the US and wish to destroy it� thing. What the hell do they think we’d do after that? Do they seriously think we plan to hand the country over to the Islamofascists? What would we do with our queer, abortion-lovin’ secular selves?
They mean that liberals hate them, which I regret to say, we do. We wish to remove them from power, consign them to their mother’s basements where they can play with Sims and Grand Theft Auto and leave the running of the real world to the adults. I wouldn’t hate them if they weren’t such stupid, hate-worthy assholes, but they are. So accept their paranoia as a badge of recognition: they know we know what sorry wankers they are.
The rest of America, we love.
The weird thing about the right’s eliminationistic rhetoric is that it sounds a lot like one of their supposed enemies: Communists.
Oh sure, Communists talked about capitalist lackeys and the ineluctable historical dialectic and most modern wingnuts wouldn’t dream of using the words thesis and antithesis. But beneth the choice of words Capitalist Dogs vs Liberal Media Elites, there’s a bunch of similar assertions:
1) My party is right and all other parties are the enemy unless they can be used to further “the cause.”
2) The people who disagree with my party are trying to undermine the country/proletariate
3) That anyone who disagrees with the party is a class enemy/traitor who must be deported/shot/hung for treason.
Even weirder, both strive for really, really, really imaginary goals: In the communist’s case it’s perfect socialism where the workers own the means of production and we live in a utopian society. In the wingnuts case it is usually the establishment of a utopian Christian state that the US supposedly was once. Of course, in the process of creating these supposedly utopian goals, both are willing to act immorally to “save” their cause. Although in a strange difference, the wingnuts believe that Jesus’ second coming heavily factors into their dystopia—er utopia, while the communists don’t believe in that sort of thing…
>Amen! If Canada would loosen restrictions for immigration and citizenship for Americans they’d be a superpower in 10 years. I’d be thrilled to pitch in on infrastructure improvements for a year or five for the privelege of living somewhere relatively sane until the wingnuts get their Rapturous Armageddon.
Canada loves American immigrants, are you kidding? We got our landed immigrant visa in a year. You just need to have IIRC 65 “points” based primarily on age, education, income, and work history. I think they just lowered the point requirement too. And then there are the immigration fees, but I think also dropped those too (Harper did it, in fact).
I’ve long thought we should just have an exchange program. Send the Canadians who like to play battered wife to US bullying down there with their fellow wingnuts and exchange them for hard-working liberals who value a stable society, secure social safety net and respect for world opinion. The US would be in the toilet faster than you could say cut my taxes, while Canada would… well, probably still be Canada, which would be fine by me.
To be fair, His Grace, the similarities between communism and the Right-wing’s psychotics is merely a matter of practical application of idealogy and the living, breathing people behind them.
Communism has been applied mostly through a fascist, authoritarian political process. Or rather, fascist authoritarians have frequently co-opted the ideals of communism to support their own government. In order to defeat support of any entity not under their grasp, which is again, a fascist thing to do, they have to make the entity not under their grasp “the enemy”.
Now, communism as an idealogy has been slowly filtering its way out of the mainstream fascist cover. Sure, there’s still China, North Korea and Cuba to factor for, but China’s been doing the capitalist thingy for years now, North Korea’s “communist” in the sense that they like the color red, and Cuba’s well… Cuba’s still under Castro, so could be painted more properly as a dictatorship with socialist tendencies.
But, there’s still plenty of fascists out there, and while they’ve spent decades trying to make other idealogies that don’t rely so much on helping other countries with the same ideas (after all, that’s what got the Soviet Union and Cuba in so much trouble), they’ve only managed to find two or three other good covers for what are fundamentally fascist thought processes.
Money and God.
Now, the money’s pretty obvious. Countries, where the “free-market” roams, haven’t been as successful in creating a strongman leader at the rate fascists want. There’s always other warlords around who’ll do things cheaper. And that dilutes the message or *gasp* gives people declared as unmutual under your strongman someplace to go.
But God? Shit, there’s plenty of ways to make one guy the center of the fascist system under God’s rule. Whether they’re gods themselves, speaking for God, or speaking for speakers of God, the fascists working under cover of divinity has a long and illustrious history. Way longer than any commie cover.
These wingnuts are fascists. Same way Stalin was a fascist. Yes, they’re arguing for a system that looks different, but they don’t believe it. They’re just arguing something that covers their asses when they get called out on their authoritarian bullshit.
I’m sorry for the Groganesque qualities of my post, by the way.
I hate it when patriots like Coutler catch on to the traitorist Communist leanings of we moderates/liberals! And of course, our agenda to destroy America, even though we live here. D’oh!
D. Sidhe, I copied your post so that the next time some moron posts some bollocks about the left being sympathetic to terrorists, I can just post your piece (with attribution of course) and be done with them.
As Al Franken pointed out in one of his books (Lying Liars, I believe), this oft-quoted phrase originated not in the Communist Manifesto, but in another piece of left-wing propaganda – namely, Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament.
As I read that famous line, I thought “What so bad about that?” I guess only evil commies like me would like a world where everyone needs are filled.
comment was from “Warrior�? Could it be the former wrestler himself?
Doubtful. The comment contained a number of words with more than two syllables, most of which were spelled correctly and used properly.
only evil commies like me would like a world where everyone needs are filled
Exactly. It’s not enough that conservatives win – everybody else must lose.
Which is usually what happens when conservatives win, come to think of it.
In the same vein as Hysterical Woman, I noticed the following quote:
“from each according to his means to each according to his need�
And this is a bad? Don’t they realize where this comes from?
Why do the wingnuts hate the New Testament Apostles?
The Repugs worship Mammon, not God. It’s that simple.
Not that this anarcho-communist atheist thinks bowing down to imaginary alien beings is a step above crass Machiavellian bourgeois materialism. I like my pie in my plate, not in the sky.
In any case, conservative pundits should really consider communism. “From each according to their abilities” means they’d get a free lunch!
Very flattered, random guy. Don’t worry about attribution. I’m an open-source personality. Unless, you know, you need deniability for when someone points out the bad grammar or something.
Coulter’s spew is not humor on any level, it’s pathological insanity. When has suggesting someone be killed EVER been funny, in ANY context? It never has. It never will. It cannot be “explained” away.
And to claim that Christianity is the basis for everything she does…that defies description.