Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03

Opinions?
yes--because that's EXACTLY what they did to Coulter on the cover of TIME. Oh, good one, goth. As always--you got us liberals good.
Let's give credit where credit is due, that comes off the uber-Bitch's website at www.anncoulter.com
Admit it, Ann! You are in secret lesbian love with Hilary! It's ok! You guys could be married in Massachusetts tomorrow!
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
I guess I'm not as smart as you guys. What point do you think Ann Coulter was trying to make with this picture? Why would she take the time to do this?
because she hates her TIME cover--it was shot with a fisheye lens, making her legs look longer. She thinks it makes her look like an insect. Just another reason for her to bitch and blame the "liberal media" (which doesn't exist) even though she seems to have no trouble engaging with the evil liberal media to propagate her hate and make money.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
I don't know much about photography or magazine covers. Why did they use a fisheye lens for Coulter but not one for Hillary Clinton? What's the point of using a fisheye lens?
Blah blah blah. She's so done.
Gotham, seriously, come on! Do you honestly think that's anything BUT childish? I love the woman. On the same page she's whining about the childishness of people throwing pies (quite funny, I think, and far better, Ann, than that they should point a loaded gun at you), she's there, "embellishing" covers of her own.
The only point she proves to me is that she's an A-1, certified hypocrite.
Well, Coulter thinks they did it to make her look bad. It's probably just an artistic choice--creates a fun image. The article's intention was to show her in a new light. Fun would be just that. If she's capable of being anything other than a flesh eating monster, that is.
Videos