What? No Ann Coulter thread this a.m.? (Page 2)

I blame the liberal media for putting her on tv in the first place. If they want to put her on some entertainment show for her to "shock" people that's fine, but to even have her as a guest on a semi-journalistic show such as Chris Matthews just takes away from legitimate debates and rational discussions. Just having her appear helps to legimate her extremist viewpoints and give her credibility she doesn't have.

The 'so what' part is that she is speaking about a Presidential Candidate during his run for POTUS. We Americans, most of us decent folk, do not cotton to comments about assassinating our Presidents or Presidential Candidates. It's not just a personal aversion to assassinating our (would be) leaders. Greater than that, it's about the sanctity of our political process which upholds the Republic. Start assassinating (or calling for) the political candidates and you undermine that which we hold very dear (some of us) - the right to disagree and settle that disagreement at the polls. Seems the shrieking harpy would like to rob us of the opportunity to make those choices at the polls - perhaps she prefers a totalitarian system to our democratic republic?

Now, the fact that it came out of that shrieking harpy's mouth certainly makes it much less newsworthy than if an opposing candidate said those words, but it's still appropriate that she get her public lashings nonetheless.

Edited by Renee 2007-06-28 9:48 AM

um, you're the one who complained that her comments weren't put in some sort of supposed context, implying that somehow made a difference--you were "disgusted," you said.

you then said, "I just think that the media is quick to scream about statements like hers when they are from "conservative" people, and it tends to let more "liberal" people say similar things with no attention whatsoever."

i gave a few examples of "statements like hers" (your words). and i'm asking for examples of "similar things" (again, your words) that more liberal people have said--regardless of who finds it offensive. i thought it was pretty clear.

i hear the complaint, "liberals say the same sort of thing," all the time. i'm just looking for some evidence to back it up. otherwise, it's a baseless complaint.

Edited by jimbo 2007-06-28 9:52 AM

This user's post has been ignored.

Ah yes, you said it much better than I did. She is a caricature. No, her words aren't taken seriously by anyone with half a brain. The fact that she is just a clown does not excuse her, however, from her bad behavior. She has blithely and unapologetically called for sacrificing our sacred cow - free and untampered elections.  The shrieking harpy would like to restrict who some of us can vote for, and she promotes the violent means to do so.

Americans like to believe that we don't have a national religion. Not exactly true. Our great bible is our Constitution and our great commandment is very simple - VOTE.  That clown woman is unAmerican. She should be shunned by the media and society in general. Maybe she'd prefer a country like Uruguay.

Edited by Renee 2007-06-28 10:08 AM

What I don't get is why anyone takes her seriously in the first place! She willingly says things that she knows will offend everyone for the sole purpose of garnering more media attention and selling more stupid books. That's her schtick. It's a money making routine with a secondary goal of promoting a very conservative agenda. Why can't people wipe their eyes and see the marketing that she gets outraged liberals to do for her, for free?!

Kimi, I started to ask "Why was she even ON the Chris Matthews show?" The answer is obvious. Chris Matthews is in a slump, wanted someone inflammatory on the show to do some shitstirring to get people talking about his show again. Perhaps he welcomes the opportunity to have someone on his show express deep displeasure with Candidate Edwards without actually putting his neck on the line? Perhaps he thought he would use his show as a platform for titfortat action with Maher? Again, without actually putting his neck on the line.

Did Matthews disavow the harpy's comments? Apologize for giving a national platform/ microphone to the crazed woman?

Edited by Renee 2007-06-28 10:33 AM

Good point. But has she come to realize this yet? Does she know how miserable she is? (rhetorical questioning...)

Edited by NightOwl 2007-06-28 10:57 AM

This user's post has been ignored.

This is interesting. The longer this discussion goes on, the more it appears that you are defending Coulter. Overall, do you agree with her opinions?



I don't have time to address the rest of the post, but I'd be interested to hear what you think is wrong, specifically, with some of the quotes. I can tell you what's wrong with calling a guy a 'faggot' (regardless of how the statement is parsed). Can you tell me, for example, what is wrong with the quote about Dobson and Robertson?

This user's post has been ignored.

'Zactly. You wouldn't have Howard Stern on the Chris Matthews show talking politics so why her? Putting her on a news show just gives her views legitimacy they don't have. Her views aren't meant to debate a political point or analyze some political aspect, they are meant to make you go "ooooo". She should be on an entertainment show (like Bill Maher).

This user's post has been ignored.

Some peope say they're singers
I aint never seen 'em sing.
Some people think they're fingers
I aint never seen 'em fing.

(that's my rap on fingers)

This user's post has been ignored.

This user's post has been ignored.

Excellent point. That is why I think that if somebody wants to express an opinion about Dobson and Robertson calling their brand of Christianity a "warrior cult", I don't have an issue with it.

Also, if somebody wants to take Michael Moore's opinions to task with a counter opinion, I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately what you usually get is some riff on how fat and rich he is.

okay, to refresh, here's what i said, "i'd love to see some examples from any prominent liberals who "say similar things with no attention whatsoever" on national television and are repeatedly given a platform and paid to speak at democratic conferences," followed up by, "i'm asking for examples of "similar things" (again, your words) that more liberal people have said--regardless of who finds it offensive."

so the criteria for comparison are 1)similar things, 2)said by liberals, 3)no attention whatsoever.

so let's walk through this here:



ah yes, michael moore, the great boogeyman to the right. i was wondering when his name would come up. moore wrote this on his blog---not in a nationally syndicated column or on national television. and i expect that he was probably roundly criticized for it on fox news. plus, when's the last time that michael moore was paid to speak at a national democratic conference, something equivalent to CPAC where ann coulter made the edwards comment? who among the left considers michael moore to be a leader in the liberal movement? he's a filmmaker.

and on the point he's making, it is incorrect to lump together all the groups fighting in iraq as "the enemy." one day the enemy is the sunnis, the next day the military is arming the sunnis. and the majority of the people fighting in iraq are actually iraqis.

is it right to compare them to the Minutemen? no, that's a stupid metaphor. is this the same thing as calling a group of widows "grieferazzie" and "witches and harpies"? no.




newsflash: there were no WMD. ergo, the primary justification for the iraq war was...fictitious. furthermore, it's been some time now that the majority of americans have believed that invading iraq was a mistake and that bush-cheney were less than forthright with the reasons to go to war.

sure, this was a bit controversial in 2004 when iraq was still on its way to becoming a complete clusterf*ck, but is this similar to saying "liberals hate america" and that tim mcveigh's only mistake was not bombing the NYT building? no.

and this received plenty of attention when he said it in 2004, so it fails that test for comparison.




so you're dismissing an entire legitimate political debate as being offensive or similar to ann coulter calling indirectly calling john edwards a faggot? computer says, "no."




i thought CNN was part of the so-called liberal media? so why would they have coulter on to comment on presidential debates? shouldn't this person be applauded for slamming CNN?

or is it the language that has given you the vapors? if so, do you really believe that nobody uses coarse language on the internets? when dick cheney told a senator, "go f*ck yourself" on the senate floor, were you equally appalled?

or is it that someone who was hired and since resigned from john edwards website said some dirty words before being hired? and does someone writing something on their personal blog rise to the same level as ann coulter writing a book about "godless" liberals? no.




another example of someone who wrote something on a personal blog before being hired and then resigning from edwards' website. same thing as ann coulter mocking john edwards' grief over his dead son? no.

and i don't want to head down into the depths of the types of things said in right-blogistan, so let's not even go there.

next?




and this is offensive because...? i don't get it. are you saying that stephanopolous is wrong? that anyone who won't vote for a black isn't someone likely to vote for democrats?

and is that the same thing as ann coulter saying of the middle east, "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"? same thing as calling someone a faggot, directly or indirectly? same thing as calling democrats "traitors" and "godless"? no.




did evan thomas say that it's the media's job to make comments about the president being assassinated, similar to coulter's statement about edwards? is this the same as coulter saying in reference to decorated war veteran john murtha, that murtha was "The reason soldiers invented ‘fragging.’”?

same thing? no.




$500 billion has already been spent on the war. billions are unaccounted for. the cost continues to rise. for what exactly?

jim clancy as a liberal? no.

and are you honestly saying that the words "poured down the hole" are on a par with ann coulter saying of genocide in darfur, "These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished"? same thing as ann saying, "I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences'"? same thing as ann calling a presidential candidate a faggot?

same thing? no.




chris hedges is not a liberal commentator. and other religions are denounced by pat robertson and james dobson. as for "warrior cult," there is the imagery of "god's army."

as for the rest, i defer to jim's previous discussion of this quote.




first, joe scarborough is a former republican congressman.

second, bill maher is a self-identified libertarian, and i don't recall him ever being asked to speak at any national democratic conferences. so is that a case of liberals saying similar things? no.

third, you might want to read the washington post's four-part series on dick cheney. if there were ever any question about who's really pulling the strings, that settled it. i know, that's the liberal rag washington post (which supported the invasion of iraq and has argued vigorously in defense of scooter libby), but it's a fascinating read.

and is that the same thing as saying of bill clinton and al gore, "I don't know if he's gay. But Al Gore - total fag."? no. not the same. (look! an example of ann directly calling someone a fag!)




hillary clinton is a politician, and she is hardly a liberal---thus, she fails the test for comparison. plus, this quote was played all over talk radio and fox news when she said it, so it fails the "no attention" test as well.

regardless, is that the same thing as coulter saying of democrats in congress, "There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle"? no. is that the same thing as coulter saying of college liberals, "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

same thing? no.

and to provide just a few more examples of the rhetoric to come from rightwing talk radio which i would argue is plainly worse than any of the quotes you provided:

first, your pal, neal boortz:

"[T]his Muhammad guy is just a phony rag-picker."

boortz said a black former congresswoman looks "like a ghetto slut," like "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory," like "Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence," and like "a shih tzu." he also called her, "the cutest little Islamic jihadist in Congress."

boortz suggested a woman displaced by katrina should turn to prostitution, saying, "If that's the only way she can take care of herself, it sure beats the hell out of sucking off the taxpayers."

on national disasters, boortz said, "hell, yes, we should save the rich people first."

on the virginia tech shootings, "What a nation of candy a$ses we have become. I mean not only do they stand there, in terror, waiting to be executed without doing a damn thing to protect themselves, except maybe hiding behind a desk." when asked by a caller to apologize, boortz said, "Oh, my God, Jay. Were you really offended? Should I apologize to you?....How does this offend you? ‘Bite me.’"


and how about CNN's glenn beck?

to keith ellison, the first muslim elected to congress, "No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. ... With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.' And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "

beck called victims of katrina "scumbags" and said, "I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims."

and then there's this creepy exchange between beck and a female guest.

and there's plenty more without even getting to rush limbaugh and michael savage.

so i still stand by my statement that the "liberals say similar things with no attention whatsoever" argument is baseless.
.