You Gotta Love That Coulter Chick

[jimmac]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/coulter.911.widows.ap/index.html

:rolleyes:

[dmz]

Yes but when Michael Moore, Harry Belefonte, or the Dixie Chicks do it, it's "Activism".

It kinda smells the same.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by dmz
Yes but when Michael Moore, Harry Belefonte, or the Dixie Chicks do it, it's "Activism".

It kinda smells the same.


Funny dmz I don't feel that way at all.;)

[dmz]

I forgot to mention: it sells a lot of movies, books and CDs.

Commoditized dissent.:wow:


BURKE
This is total paranoid delusion.
It's pitiful.

RIPLEY
(wearily)
You know, Burke, I don't know
which species is worse. You don't
see them screwing each other over
for a fucking percentage.

HICKS
(serious)
Let's waste him.
(to Burke)
No offense.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by dmz
I forgot to mention: it sells a lot of movies, books and CDs.

Commoditized dissent.:wow:

Let's see. Which part does Coulter play in your analogy?

Oh! I've got it!

The unfeeling, eat um' up alive alien!;)

[Vargas]

I loved the directors cut

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Vargas
I loved the directors cut

Me too!

[dmz]

Originally posted by Vargas
I loved the directors cut
It definitely made the movie that much better.

[dmz]

Originally posted by jimmac
Let's see. Which part does Coulter play in your analogy?
Howard Stern actually wasn't in that movie.:p

[jimmac]

Originally posted by dmz
Howard Stern actually wasn't in that movie.:p

Weak but sort of funny.


:lol:

[Northgate]

Republicans don’t like to claim her, but she is their base.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
Republicans don’t like to claim her, but she is their base.

Most Republicans have no problem claiming her...until now.

My first reaction to Coulter's comments as expressed on the Today show was "she's really gone too far with this. It's an outrage for her to use the inflammatory rhetoric she is using.

My second reaction came during the day, as I learned more about the story. It became clear that Coulter's point was that the left tends to use those who are grieving against the right, so that the right cannot respond. It's a way of invalidating and dimissing any potential criticism. "These are grieving widows here! What are you, a heartless basard!?"

She also made the point that some of the 9/11 widows were acting as if 9/11 only happened to them and they were using they're tragedy to advance a political agenda. On those points, I think she happens to be right.

In the final analysis, I think it can be said that Coulter was expressing a legitmate opinion in a totally inappropriate, heartless and sickening way. Saying that these women are enjoying their husbands deaths? Saying that they might as well pose for Playboy before their 15 minutes run out? Calling them broads? All of Coulter's points could have been made just as effectively without resorting to ad hominem attacks like that.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by SDW2001
She also made the point that some of the 9/11 widows were acting as if 9/11 only happened to them and they were using they're tragedy to advance a political agenda.

So what? It has been politicized by EVERYONE.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by audiopollution
So what? It has been politicized by EVERYONE.

Maybe you could actually respond to my post instead of plucking one thing out of context and slamming it. I'm not here to argue her points specifically, only what is behind her coments in total. I'm just pointing out that she had some legitimate points, whether you agree with them or not.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Maybe you could actually respond to my post instead of plucking one thing out of context and slamming it. I'm not here to argue her points specifically, only what is behind her coments in total. I'm just pointing out that she had some legitimate points, whether you agree with them or not.

I'm plucking your post? You made 3 points and wrapped it up. I understand completely that you feel she went about it in a horrific manner. I don't think there's much disagreement, from all sides, about that.

Was my short response, to your agreement with Coulters stand on these four 9/11 widows using the tragedy to political ends, too concise? You did state that, "On those points, I think she happens to be right."

Again:

So what? It has been politicized by EVERYONE.

Are there rules as to who can use this tragedy? If there are, I'd posit that the widows/widowers/family of victims are fairly high on the 'allowed to utilize' list.

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by dmz
Yes but when Michael Moore, Harry Belefonte, or the Dixie Chicks do it, it's "Activism".

It kinda smells the same.
But the difference is that those celebs go after the politicians...and rightly so. Coulter decides to pick on victims' wives. Bad form. She annoyed me before, but I really can't stand her now.

[Relic]

Wow, the chick is loony! I can't stand her voice anybody else want to afflict bodily harm when she speaks.

[giant]

It really shows just how far removed from reality Coulter, her defenders and those who agree with them have become. The widows' statement pretty much sums it up

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Most Republicans have no problem claiming her...until now. As if what she has said here represents some kind of departure from previous statements.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BRussell
As if what she has said here represents some kind of departure from previous statements.

I think it does.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I'm plucking your post? You made 3 points and wrapped it up. I understand completely that you feel she went about it in a horrific manner. I don't think there's much disagreement, from all sides, about that.

Was my short response, to your agreement with Coulters stand on these four 9/11 widows using the tragedy to political ends, too concise? You did state that, "On those points, I think she happens to be right."

Again:

So what? It has been politicized by EVERYONE.

Are there rules as to who can use this tragedy? If there are, I'd posit that the widows/widowers/family of victims are fairly high on the 'allowed to utilize' list.

I don't think you can say that "everyone" has politicized it. I'm not even sure that "politicize" is the right term.
I think what Coulter is trying to say is that they (a few 9/11 widows) are holding up their banner of being 9/11 victims as some sort of special credibility for their other political opinions, even those that really have little to do with 9/11. She's also pointing out that there were 3,000 other victims whose widows are not being given the same voice. Many of those victims support the President and the administration. Why do we not see them?

Take a look at this editorial. It makes the point much better than Coulter did.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950

The other point relates more to the left's exploitation of these ladies and those who are grieving in general. Sheehan is a prime example. When someone is used, or uses her own loss and grief as the sole justification for a strong political statement, that person becomes seemingly infallible. No one can really argue with a crying widow without looking like a complete bastard.

[addabox]

Originally posted by dmz
Yes but when Michael Moore, Harry Belefonte, or the Dixie Chicks do it, it's "Activism".

It kinda smells the same.

So now the knee-jerk "they all do it" means we have to be utterly incapable of distinguishing differences of tone, content and intent?

Natalie Mains saying she is embarrassed to be from the same state as Bush "smells the same" to you as "I've never seen people people enjoying their husbands deaths so much".

Maybe you should lay off the wine for a while.

[jamac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think you can say that "everyone" has politicized it. I'm not even sure that "politicize" is the right term.
I think what Coulter is trying to say is that they (a few 9/11 widows) are holding up their banner of being 9/11 victims as some sort of special credibility for their other political opinions, even those that really have little to do with 9/11. She's also pointing out that there were 3,000 other victims whose widows are not being given the same voice. Many of those victims support the President and the administration. Why do we not see them?

Take a look at this editorial. It makes the point much better than Coulter did.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950

The other point relates more to the left's exploitation of these ladies and those who are grieving in general. Sheehan is a prime example. When someone is used, or uses her own loss and grief as the sole justification for a strong political statement, that person becomes seemingly infallible. No one can really argue with a crying widow without looking like a complete bastard.

Yeah and the Bushoids never used 911 to go to war or to usurp unconstitutional authority? or to smokescreen their oily dealings, or to get Halliburton billion dollar contracts, or to scare Americans or, or,....

How is peace activism a political statement???
Peace is peace.
How is asking to get all the possible info on an event that has changed this world (and some people's fammily status) significantly a political statement???

As long as there are people with SDWs twisted moral logic in this world there will be wars over bullshit just for econimic gais as there have been for 20,000 years. Peace takes a lot more intelligence than war, far more. And also a lot more courage.

The republican US has set back humanity by at least 50 years. The childish reaction to 911 will forever haunt this nation. Osama spent 200,000 we spent trillions and are still nowhere 5 years later. He has won over a nation with rovers on Mars and smart bombs because we went to war.
I wonder if we would have simply written $ 100,000 checks to evry Iraqi and every afgahn if anybody would actually remember the taliban or bin laden or saddam or terrorism??

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
being 9/11 victims as some sort of special credibility for their other political opinions
Their opinions matter because they actually have had to take the issue dead seriously and have it fully consume their lives rather than just play distant rhetorical games online or on TV for entertainment and/or profit.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I think it does. It's pretty easy to find compilations of her quotes about how she supported the apartheid South African government, how she wished McVeigh had bombed the NY Times rather than the OK City Fed building, how we should invade kill and convert ragheads to Christianity, that women's suffrage should be repealed because they vote for Democrats, that someone should assassinate liberal supreme court justice Stevens, that liberals should be sent to Gitmo and tortured and killed, not to mention writing books with titles accusing liberals as a whole of slander and treason and godlessness. No, it's exactly the same rhetoric.

The fact is, NY and the victims and families are overwhelmingly liberal, and good ol' Ann is just applying to them the same rhetoric she applies to all liberals. Actually, since she didn't call for their murder or torture, she was easier on them than usual.

[groverat]

SDW2001:

In the final analysis, I think it can be said that Coulter was expressing a legitmate opinion in a totally inappropriate, heartless and sickening way.

Is there such thing as an illegitimate opinion?

The point isn't whether or not she's allowed to say what she says, the point is whether or not the statement of opinion has an intellectual credibility, which it doesn't.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
The rebuttal statement from the widows strikes right at the heart of the matter.
" Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day."

That's a little too serious and real for the talk radio world, which is where Coulter lives.

Just read those two statements and which one seems like an intelligent and thoughtful person?

I think what Coulter is trying to say is that they (a few 9/11 widows) are holding up their banner of being 9/11 victims as some sort of special credibility for their other political opinions, even those that really have little to do with 9/11.

The other point relates more to the left's exploitation of these ladies and those who are grieving in general.

The left's exploitation? What the hell are you talking about?

The selective outrage over the political use of 9/11 is absolutely laughable. These women actually have a stake in it.
You would cry and cheer for pro-war widows.

[sammi jo]

For all the things she has said, as regards terror threats etc, one would expect her to be on the TSA's No Fly List". Or is that a privilege reserved for Green Party members, peace activists and folk who generally oppose US government sanctioned violence and killing?

[dmz]

Originally posted by addabox
So now the knee-jerk "they all do it" means we have to be utterly incapable of distinguishing differences of tone, content and intent?

Natalie Mains saying she is embarrassed to be from the same state as Bush "smells the same" to you as "I've never seen people people enjoying their husbands deaths so much".

Maybe you should lay off the wine for a while.
If Mians' comments don't suffice, try Franken calling for Rove's 'execution', calling Limbaugh a 'Big Fat Idiot', or Belafonte calling Bush 'the greatest terrorist in the world', etc.; there are really too many to choose from -- even without tapping Moore's outright dishonesty and borderline paranoia.

The fact remains that vilifying people to score points is childish, and unconstructive.

I'm recommending the the Bodegas Castano 2003 Hecula. It scores a 90, and you can get it for 12.99 (not at Freds though)

[groverat]

The difference is between vilifying people in power and people who are only known because their families were killed in 9/11.

There is a HUGE difference there. Massive.

It's the difference between doing satire and being a bully.

[addabox]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think you can say that "everyone" has politicized it. I'm not even sure that "politicize" is the right term.

Certainly not. The Bush administration and the right have gotten no political mileage whatsoever out of 9/11. They rarely mention it. And when they do, it can scarcely be considered "politics", since notions like "liberals will get us all killed because they're weak on terror" are simply objectively true.

I think what Coulter is trying to say is that they (a few 9/11 widows) are holding up their banner of being 9/11 victims as some sort of special credibility for their other political opinions, even those that really have little to do with 9/11.

Yeah, they want a real investigation into 9/11 and changes to how homeland security is done, just random Bush bashing. Kinda like that bitch Maureen Kanka who agitated for changes in sex offender reporting after her child Megan was raped and murdered. Like she was the only one that ever happened to! You know, I've never seen the mother of a raped and murder child enjoy themselves so much.

She's also pointing out that there were 3,000 other victims whose widows are not being given the same voice. Many of those victims support the President and the administration. Why do we not see them?

Yes, these women have been given a national platform to endlessly push their agenda. Unlike, say, Ann Coulter, who has to spread the word by putting up signs on bus stations.

The other point relates more to the left's exploitation of these ladies and those who are grieving in general. Sheehan is a prime example. When someone is used, or uses her own loss and grief as the sole justification for a strong political statement, that person becomes seemingly infallible. No one can really argue with a crying widow without looking like a complete bastard.

Not much of a strategy then, since the right has had no trouble at all smearing Sheehan as either a hapless pawn or cynical schemer. "Bitch in the Ditch" T-shirt, anyone? And those 9/11 widow whores sure do seem to getting a free ride.

At any rate, it of course is simply impossible for a person who has suffered a loss to make calculations as to how that loss came about and become politically active towards reducing the potential of more, and similar losses in the future. Republicanism teaches us that "working for change for the greater good" is liberal bullshit meant to conceal "personal gain and partisan vendetta", the only actual human motivations. Ann Coulter is pretty upfront about that, why can't these sob sisters come clean?

The best we can say about these "victims" is that they are tools of the (vile, will stoop to any depths) left, because grieving women are too stupid or naive to actually be agents of their own destiny.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by dmz
[Yes but when Michael Moore, Harry Belefonte, or the Dixie Chicks do it, it's "Activism".

It kinda smells the same. I may be wrong...but maybe you have quotes from the aforementioned insulting, ridiculing and treating 9/11 victims like crap? Could we see them please? Otherwise there is no comparison other than in the eyes of a ...fan. :no:

This chick (if she is one indeed :)) is wacko. Her hate filled remarks beg one question. Why is she not in a padded room somewhere and why is anyone other than Fox giving her airtime to spew her crap? It's amazing.

Edit: ok, two questions. :D

[dmz]

Originally posted by Gilsch
I may be wrong...but maybe you have quotes from the aforementioned insulting, ridiculing and treating 9/11 victims like crap? Could we see them please? Otherwise there is no comparison other than in the eyes of a ...fan. :no:

This chick (if she is one indeed :)) is wacko. Her hate filled remarks beg one question. Why is she not in a padded room somewhere and why is anyone other than Fox giving her airtime to spew her crap? It's amazing.

Edit: ok, two questions. :D
I don't think Moore's dishonesty needs any explanation. As far as I'm concerned, he made his money in essentially the same way Coulter is now.

(#1 on Amazon, BTW.)

[groverat]

There's no logic to saying Moore and Coulter are similar in any way except they are both politically active.

Moore does not rely on shock to get his point across, he is a far more thoughtful and insightful commentator than Coulter. He's done real things for real people for over a decade.

Moore at his worst doesn't even play the same character Coulter does. At his worst he simpers and pouts, her entire schtick is East German dominatrix.

I'm not saying you have to like him, but to throw him in with Coulter is just asinine.

[sammi jo]

She may not have much tact, but she's certainly got balls.

Literally, perhaps.

[CosmoNut]

Originally posted by sammi jo
She may not have much tact, but she's certainly got balls.

Literally, perhaps.
(chuckle)

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
Moore does not rely on shock to get his point across, he is a far more thoughtful and insightful commentator than Coulter. He's done real things for real people for over a decade.

I probably shouldn't be drinking soda when I read lines like that. Too much Coke through nose...and sprayed across monitor.

[groverat]

Is that a rebuttal of some kind?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
Is that a rebuttal of some kind?

Oh...you mean you were serious?

Gosh, that's even funnier!

[Northgate]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's pretty easy to find compilations of her quotes about how she supported the apartheid South African government, how she wished McVeigh had bombed the NY Times rather than the OK City Fed building, how we should invade kill and convert ragheads to Christianity, that women's suffrage should be repealed because they vote for Democrats, that someone should assassinate liberal supreme court justice Stevens, that liberals should be sent to Gitmo and tortured and killed, not to mention writing books with titles accusing liberals as a whole of slander and treason and godlessness. No, it's exactly the same rhetoric.

The fact is, NY and the victims and families are overwhelmingly liberal, and good ol' Ann is just applying to them the same rhetoric she applies to all liberals. Actually, since she didn't call for their murder or torture, she was easier on them than usual.

DING DING DING!!!! BRussell hits the nail squarely on the head.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by dmz
I don't think Moore's dishonesty needs any explanation. As far as I'm concerned, he made his money in essentially the same way Coulter is now.

(#1 on Amazon, BTW.) As far as you're concerned you'll rationalize this however it is convenient to you. To compare the two is ludicrous.

I'm sure you bought a few copies to group read with other freepers while drinking cheap wine perhaps? :D

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
Yes but when Michael Moore, Harry Belefonte, or the Dixie Chicks do it, it's "Activism".
There's no comparison between those you mention and the savage, poisonous rhetoric that so often spews forth from Coulter. Dixie Chicks dissing the Prez v. Coulter's tirades? Puhlease.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Gilsch
...while drinking cheap wine perhaps? :D
Hey! Hey! Hey!

You can talk bad about Coulter all you want -- but dissin' Robert Parker's scores is fightin' words!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
Is that a rebuttal of some kind?

Don't worry groverat. All you have to say to Chris is " Prove it " and he's completely disarmed.;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jamac
Yeah and the Bushoids never used 911 to go to war or to usurp unconstitutional authority? or to smokescreen their oily dealings, or to get Halliburton billion dollar contracts, or to scare Americans or, or,....

How is peace activism a political statement???
Peace is peace.
How is asking to get all the possible info on an event that has changed this world (and some people's fammily status) significantly a political statement???

As long as there are people with SDWs twisted moral logic in this world there will be wars over bullshit just for econimic gais as there have been for 20,000 years. Peace takes a lot more intelligence than war, far more. And also a lot more courage.

The republican US has set back humanity by at least 50 years. The childish reaction to 911 will forever haunt this nation. Osama spent 200,000 we spent trillions and are still nowhere 5 years later. He has won over a nation with rovers on Mars and smart bombs because we went to war.
I wonder if we would have simply written $ 100,000 checks to evry Iraqi and every afgahn if anybody would actually remember the taliban or bin laden or saddam or terrorism??

You're hysterical.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
Don't worry groverat. All you have to say to Chris is " Prove it " and he's completely disarmed.;)

Right, because you post facts that support your arguments all the time.

[trumptman]

Ann Coulter isn't funny at all. Now if she had said the 9/11 widows should be tried for treason and shot, THAT... would be funny.

Of course that would be what Al Franken said on the Today show about Libby and Rove.

Perhaps it would have been funnier if Ann had simply joked about putting a bullet between the eyes of Bush like Alan Hevesi.

See Ann simply has the wrong type of humor. She does things like call people witches when what she really should be doing is saying they should be dead like Democrats do.

Hahaha... BANG... kill Gore... HAHAHAHA... shoot Hillary HAHAHAHA...

BTW, isn't posting a link with no additional comment against the posting guidelines?

Hilarious.

Nick

[midwinter]

Yeah. That Hevesi comment was hysterical. I wish he'd make a career out of being an asshole, just like Coulter! But the bastard had to apologize, which Coulter has shown time and time again is completely unnecessary. Has Coulter ever apologized for ANY of the batshit crazy stuff she's said? Has she ever acknowledged a factual error--even when she's called on it? That's the way you do it! Stick to your point like a bulldog! Say, for instance, that you're on Hardball (for the final time) and you claim that George C. Scott refused to go to the Oscars and accept the award for Patton because he hated the liberal Hollywood types. Say that Chris Matthews shoves the Scott obit down your throat, pointing out that Scott hated all of that self-congratulatory Hollywood hoo-haa. Do you say "Wow. I must have that wrong! I apologize!"?

No!! You stay at it, until you force your interlocutor to utter this:


MATTHEWS: Facts mean nothing to you, Ann.
CORN: In this movie he shoots down an airplane with a gun.
MATTHEWS: I'm glad you are not making movies, Ann Coulter. Thank you, David Corn, Andrew Grossman. Jesus.


I've been screaming for a long time that good liberals need someone like Coulter. For too long, we've been saddled with reasonable people (and a few unreasonable ones). For too long, we've been suffering under the tyranny of not making crazy shit up.

Go forth, batshit crazy liberals! Get on TV and just make shit up! All the time! And don't stop there! Say all kinds of shit that makes people cringe! Even if it's not true! It doesn't matter! No one will remember 3 days later! And if they do, you can count on your legions of fans to draw equivalency arguments until the point--that you've said something that's just plain batshit crazy, cruel, and horrible--is utterly, utterly lost. No one will bother to fact-check (http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_1.htm) anything you say or do, and if they do, like any other liberal, they'll be drowned out by arguments that you were just kidding or that you're not really serious or that you don't represent the entire movement or, finally, the people on the other side are just as bad. Because that's really the point, isn't it? That we all suck? It's not that you're batshit crazy and just make cruel and horrible things up just to sell a book?

And all this time, no one will notice that you've written a book with the utterly absurd thesis that it is impossible to respond to your opponents when they trot out the liberal harpy widows of people who died in 9/11--AND YET YOU'VE WRITTEN A BOOK ABOUT IT! And even better, you've written a book simultaneously designed to demonstrate that thesis (you can't respond without looking like a heartless bastard) and attack it (look! see!!?? I can't respond without looking like a bastard!).

Oh it just goes round and round, doesn't it?

[southside grabowski]

The left has for years felt that only they could be rude, aggressive and over the top in their actions. Conservatives tended to be reserved and polite folks. Today, we have a new generation of conservatives who are not happy to be a silent majority and they are speaking out in new ways . The left is shocked

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Right, because you post facts that support your arguments all the time.


Pretty much yeah.;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The left has for years felt that only they could be rude, aggressive and over the top in their actions. Conservatives tended to be reserved and polite folks. Today, we have a new generation of conservatives who are not happy to be a silent majority and they are speaking out in new ways . The left is shocked

Yup! And the people don't like them either!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13216921/

:lol:

Coulter is nothing but a self serving slime. High time she went back under her rock.;)

[midwinter]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The left has for years felt that only they could be rude, aggressive and over the top in their actions. Conservatives tended to be reserved and polite folks. Today, we have a new generation of conservatives who are not happy to be a silent majority and they are speaking out in new ways . The left is shocked

In other words, Coulter may be a batshit crazy asshole...but it's the liberals' fault that she is! HAHAHAHA

[Outsider]

Originally posted by trumptman
Of course that would be what Al Franken said on the Today show about Libby and Rove. Yeah because Scooter Libby and Rove are poor victims. :rolleyes:

Maybe he should have said they should be tried for treason and if found guilty,shot. Would that have been acceptable?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Yeah. That Hevesi comment was hysterical. I wish he'd make a career out of being an asshole, just like Coulter! But the bastard had to apologize, which Coulter has shown time and time again is completely unnecessary.

So your point is that it is okay to be batshit crazy and say anything you want as long as you apologize for it afterward?

Has Coulter ever apologized for ANY of the batshit crazy stuff she's said?

I don't know. I'm not really sure I care. Are you saying you would feel much better about what she has written if she apologized afterwards? Sorry I made enough to by another million dollar condo in Manhatten?

Has she ever acknowledged a factual error--even when she's called on it? That's the way you do it! Stick to your point like a bulldog! Say, for instance, that you're on Hardball (for the final time) and you claim that George C. Scott refused to go to the Oscars and accept the award for Patton because he hated the liberal Hollywood types. Say that Chris Matthews shoves the Scott obit down your throat, pointing out that Scott hated all of that self-congratulatory Hollywood hoo-haa. Do you say "Wow. I must have that wrong! I apologize!"?

No!! You stay at it, until you force your interlocutor to utter this:


It isn't possible to hate liberal and self-congratulatory types at the same time? Perhaps you they are one and the same.

Al Gore is pretty self-congratulatory about his attempts to save the planet even while burning mountains of jet fuel to fly around and promote those attempts. Can I only choose one reason to hate that and not two? If I only mention one and someone else mentions the other am I then "wrong?"

I've been screaming for a long time that good liberals need someone like Coulter. For too long, we've been saddled with reasonable people (and a few unreasonable ones). For too long, we've been suffering under the tyranny of not making crazy shit up.

You guys elected Howard Dean as head of DNC. You've got the media, Michael, Al, Bill, etc. None of those folks are "reasonable" in my view.

Besides to crack a joke, you have to be willing to believe that exagerrating something is funny. Instead liberals believe that exagerrating something is just the truth and thus they say it with a straight face. You know like the New Orleans being this big fuck up with predicted 10,000+ dead and instead we get swift action and have slightly more than a 1,000 dead instead. How about that Superdome reporting? It was something like 2% factual.

See you can't tell a joke if the tongue isn't in the cheek. The drive-by media just does things like report "Bush knew levees would be breached" and show a meeting in which he was told they would be topped. It is an exaggeration and it is batshit crazy to say that topped means breached, but instead they just say it with a straight face.

How about the documents are fake but we know they reflect the truth? That one was pretty funny though.

Go forth, batshit crazy liberals! Get on TV and just make shit up! All the time! And don't stop there! Say all kinds of shit that makes people cringe! Even if it's not true! It doesn't matter! No one will remember 3 days later! And if they do, you can count on your legions of fans to draw equivalency arguments until the point--that you've said something that's just plain batshit crazy, cruel, and horrible--is utterly, utterly lost. No one will bother to fact-check anything you say or do, and if they do, like any other liberal, they'll be drowned out by arguments that you were just kidding or that you're not really serious or that you don't represent the entire movement or, finally, the people on the other side are just as bad. Because that's really the point, isn't it? That we all suck? It's not that you're batshit crazy and just make cruel and horrible things up just to sell a book?

Speaking of making up cruel and horrible things to sell a book, how is that http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805073396/002-4779237-8687263?v=glance&n=283155 (Kansas) book doing lately?

And all this time, no one will notice that you've written a book with the utterly absurd thesis that it is impossible to respond to your opponents when they trot out the liberal harpy widows of people who died in 9/11--AND YET YOU'VE WRITTEN A BOOK ABOUT IT! And even better, you've written a book simultaneously designed to demonstrate that thesis (you can't respond without looking like a heartless bastard) and attack it (look! see!!?? I can't respond without looking like a bastard!).

You may not be able to look like a bastard but you can look like you are batshit crazy. Um.... okay.

Also, I think the liberal harpy widows are just one section related to a broader theme which is Democrats finding a person with a loss and then exploiting it instead of offering an alternative plan for debate. Do we really know how Kerry or anyone else would do Iraq better yet or do we just all know who Cindy Sheehan is now?

Oh it just goes round and round, doesn't it?

I don't think it does. Coulter does let her humor get a bit too dark at times, but so does just about every other comic. I've stated dozens of times that she, just like every other person who straddles the social commentary/comic line occasionally screws up trying to walk on both sides. Her book won't change anything and the uproar about the comments will probably put more money in her pockets.

Next she'll be saying she is more popular than Jesus or something like that.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Outsider
Yeah because Scooter Libby and Rove are poor victims. :rolleyes:

Maybe he should have said they should be tried for treason and if found guilty,shot. Would that have been acceptable?

It's acceptable both ways. Obviously Lauer simply thinks one is funnier than the other because the tape shows him laughing at one and getting pissed off at the other. Obviously he finds humor related to his own beliefs more humorous.

Nick

[Outsider]

OK, so you disagree with execution as the punishment for treason. I can see how Al's comments, and Lauer's reaction them them, would not be funny to you then. That's cool.

I disagree with questioning a widow's greif, but that's my beef I guess.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Outsider
OK, so you disagree with execution as the punishment for treason. I can see how Al's comments, and Lauer's reaction them them, would not be funny to you then. That's cool.

I disagree with questioning a widow's greif, but that's my beef I guess.

I didn't say I disagree with anything. I simply remarked about how she could make Matt laugh. Obviously he laughs at people being killed, but not called witches.

I'd laugh at Franken but his voice is just impossible for me to tolerate. I do like Bill Maher alot though.

Nick

[thuh Freak]

i, for one, consider it bad taste to make fun of people's actual death, or their families' suffering. 911 was the largest tragedy in recent history; its too soon. poking fun at a politician, or someone who's brought themselves into the public eye is one thing; making fun of widows {for being widows} is disgusting.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
making fun of widows {for being widows} is disgusting.

What about criticizing (not making fun of) survivors if they appear to be exploiting the death of their loved ones? Is that OK or is do such survivors always get a free pass from critcism?

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What about criticizing (not making fun of) survivors if they appear to be exploiting the death of their loved ones? Is that OK or is do such survivors always get a free pass from critcism?

Yeah!

You know what bugs me the most? It's when someone dies of cancer and the family asks that people donate to a charity that funds research for a cure. Or, perhaps, when someone gets hit by a drunk driver and people are asked to donate to MADD in memory of the victim.

All of this exploitation just pisses me off. Why do they hate florists?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Yeah!

You know what bugs me the most? It's when someone dies of cancer and the family asks that people donate to a charity that funds research for a cure. Or, perhaps, when someone gets hit by a drunk driver and people are asked to donate to MADD in memory of the victim.

All of this exploitation just pisses me off. Why do they hate florists?

You see...ummm...that was like nothing at all like what I asked. How do you do that? Is it the words...they just get jumbled in your head?

[trumptman]

I think you need to change your sig to my sig Chris. It just makes things easier when you understand the baseline assuption to their posting.

Nick

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You see...ummm...that was like nothing at all like what I asked. How do you do that? Is it the words...they just get jumbled in your head?

Too abstruse for you?

How are the four widows exploiting the deaths of their loved ones?

Stop exploiting ellipses.

[Chris Cuilla]

It was really a simple question. If you don't want to answer it, just say so. In case you do, here it is again:

What about criticizing (not making fun of) survivors if they appear to be exploiting the death of their loved ones? Is that OK or is do such survivors always get a free pass from critcism?

Too abstruse for you?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Yeah!

You know what bugs me the most? It's when someone dies of cancer and the family asks that people donate to a charity that funds research for a cure. Or, perhaps, when someone gets hit by a drunk driver and people are asked to donate to MADD in memory of the victim.

All of this exploitation just pisses me off. Why do they hate florists?

You make a good point here audio, but I ask you to follow it through.

You talk about people suffering loss asking others to consider and even contribute to prevent the future possibility of that loss.

These seems like sensible reasoning and allows all parties to help solve a problem.

What about if you say Kerry is good for cancer research and George hates people with cancer so vote for Kerry?

Is that attempting to solve the problem or is that taking sides?

Also how do you respond to that sort of request? Are you supporting people who hate cancer research if you don't agree with these people who have suffered an intimate loss?

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by audiopollution
How are the four widows exploiting the deaths of their loved ones?
By doing anything other than cheering on Bush's approach to the "war on terror". If these widows were in the public eye all the time, but appearing at Republican gatherings and campaign events, if they were cheering on the war in Iraq and hyping up "all the good were doing" there... well, that'd be different. Then they'd be responding bravely to a tragedy in their lives and trying to make the best of a bad situation, doing all they could do to ease the suffering of those who have been hurt, and helping to prevent future tragedies.

But if they think Bush and the Republicans have screwed up priorities, have incompetently executed poorly planned and ill-connected responses to 9/11, and have done more to protect Halliburton's profit margins than the American people, well... it's obvious that using their positions as widow to promote that kind of view is exploitative.

See? The difference is clear, isn't it?

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It was really a simple question. If you don't want to answer it, just say so. In case you do, here it is again:



Too abstruse for you?

Everyone is open to criticism. There's a difference between criticizing their actions or motivations and the shit that flowed out of the mouth of Coulter.

Personally, I don't see a problem with either side using 9/11 as a platform for their ideas. I can't see how one side, or the other, can lay sole claim to the emotional fuel that is available. I asked earlier in the thread if there were rules as to who could use the tragedy. I guess there are.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by trumptman
You make a good point here audio, but I ask you to follow it through.

You talk about people suffering loss asking others to consider and even contribute to prevent the future possibility of that loss.

These seems like sensible reasoning and allows all parties to help solve a problem.

What about if you say Kerry is good for cancer research and George hates people with cancer so vote for Kerry?

Is that attempting to solve the problem or is that taking sides?

Also how do you respond to that sort of request? Are you supporting people who hate cancer research if you don't agree with these people who have suffered an intimate loss?

Nick

Thanks. I'm glad you understood where I was coming from.

I would take issue with that request as, personally, I don't think it's a reasonable thing to ask. I wouldn't, however, confront the family with vitriol. Luckily, I'd retain the ability to choose whomever I wanted when I got to the voting booth and the florist would get some business.

[shetline]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I asked earlier in the thread if there were rules as to who could use the tragedy. I guess there are.
Rule 1: You can't use a tragedy to promote an agenda.
Rule 2: The right-wing approach is simply the right thing to do, the clear, obvious and patriotic thing. Anything else is an agenda.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Everyone is open to criticism.

Fair enough. Just checking.

Originally posted by audiopollution
There's a difference between criticizing their actions or motivations and the shit that flowed out of the mouth of Coulter.

Agreed.

Originally posted by audiopollution
Personally, I don't see a problem with either side using 9/11 as a platform for their ideas.

Well...it's out there...it cannot be ignored. The "how" and "why" are often the questions when using an event like that.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The left has for years felt that only they could be rude, aggressive and over the top in their actions. Conservatives tended to be reserved and polite folks. Today, we have a new generation of conservatives who are not happy to be a silent majority and they are speaking out in new ways . The left is shocked

:lol: :lol: :lol: ...holy shit, I can't believe I just read that...must come up for air....can't stop laughing....oh, it hurts....side splitting....can't breath....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
You've got the media

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Northgate]

Originally posted by shetline
By doing anything other than cheering on Bush's approach to the "war on terror". If these widows were in the public eye all the time, but appearing at Republican gatherings and campaign events, if they were cheering on the war in Iraq and hyping up "all the good were doing" there... well, that'd be different.

DING DING DING DING!

[rageous]

while the last 3 posts and the forth subsequently deleted one could potentiallly be very helpful in furthering the discussion, maybe a different approach might be more effective?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by trumptman
You've got the media

Absolutely! The Nation, Mother Jones and...*scratches head*...oh of course, I forgot, Utne Reader.

:lol:

[trumptman]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Thanks. I'm glad you understood where I was coming from.


Cool.

I would take issue with that request as, personally, I don't think it's a reasonable thing to ask.

So we are in agreement on this as well.


I wouldn't, however, confront the family with vitriol.

Well that really is the double-edged sword of dark humor.

Here's a little Maher for comparison, he can get a bit dark depending upon the week.


New Rule: Let Britney be Britney. Darwin's survival of the fittest depends on hillbillies being left alone to do stupid hillbilly things. Like sticking forks in toasters and leaving babies in front seats, and going hunting with Dick Cheney. She's Britney Spears. Of course, she's going to drive with the baby on her lap. We're just lucky she didn't it mixed up with an empty and throw it out the window.

Now if I didn't like Bill, this would seem awful mean and full of vitriol. I mean he is saying she is dumb enough to die and probably take her equally trashy, dumb kid with her. However I think it is hilarious.

Is the Coulter piece too dark? Perhaps if people treat it as a purely serious statement but obviously she writes tongue-in-cheek. She does the same sort of thing, Franken, Maher, and Limbaugh do. Most of the time it works, other times someone gets their nose a bit bent and you get fired from ABC. I'd rather have them poking fun than being safe myself whether I agree with them or not.

Nick

[a_greer]

Originally posted by shetline
There's no comparison between those you mention and the savage, poisonous rhetoric that so often spews forth from Coulter. Dixie Chicks dissing the Prez v. Coulter's tirades? Puhlease. I am a conservative and I speak for most conservatives when I say that she is the little foul mouthed slut that no one listens to, but the powers that be let her be a big face for them because most of the old geazers running the party want to bone her.

[rageous]

Originally posted by trumptman
Cool.



So we are in agreement on this as well.




Well that really is the double-edged sword of dark humor.

Here's a little Maher for comparison, he can get a bit dark depending upon the week.


New Rule: Let Britney be Britney. Darwin's survival of the fittest depends on hillbillies being left alone to do stupid hillbilly things. Like sticking forks in toasters and leaving babies in front seats, and going hunting with Dick Cheney. She's Britney Spears. Of course, she's going to drive with the baby on her lap. We're just lucky she didn't it mixed up with an empty and throw it out the window.

Now if I didn't like Bill, this would seem awful mean and full of vitriol. I mean he is saying she is dumb enough to die and probably take her equally trashy, dumb kid with her. However I think it is hilarious.

Is the Coulter piece too dark? Perhaps if people treat it as a purely serious statement but obviously she writes tongue-in-cheek. She does the same sort of thing, Franken, Maher, and Limbaugh do. Most of the time it works, other times someone gets their nose a bit bent and you get fired from ABC. I'd rather have them poking fun than being safe myself whether I agree with them or not.

Nick




Hm, I think you're making a decent point. But the difference I see is that when people like Franken, Maher or Limbaugh are called out for something they say, they can generally justify some narrow offense they may have committed by placing it within a larger context and doing so intelligibly and cohesively. You don't have to like or agree with them to at least see they have thought about what it is they are saying.

Coulter, on the other hand, when asked to explain something she said about a person or group tends to let out two or three quick Butthead-esque huffy laughs and follow it up with "well they are!" followed by some weird stare into the camera like she half expects everyone to all of a sudden go "Wow, she's right!"

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
Perhaps if people treat it as a purely serious statement but obviously she writes tongue-in-cheek.

So Coulter says this


"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much."

If she's calling them "harpies" and claiming they are taking pleasure in their husbands' death and she's writing it tongue-in-cheek, does she mean it, or not?

[Chucker]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The left has for years felt that only they could be rude, aggressive and over the top in their actions. Conservatives tended to be reserved and polite folks. Today, we have a new generation of conservatives who are not happy to be a silent majority and they are speaking out in new ways . The left is shocked

What is this? A parody? A psychological/sociological experiment?

There is no such distinction as "the left vs. Conservatives". Far too polarizing to be true.

There's also no such thing as general conceitedness on left-wingers' part vs. lack of conceitedness on the right-wingers' part. Nor do right-wingers "tend to be more reserved and polite"; even if statistically true, it makes no sense that political views would have any affect on such social behaviour.

Finally, conservatives are most certainly not "silent". Heck, this very thread is about a conservatives who was too loud for her own good.

[addabox]

She's been making the rounds of the news shows practically tearing the face off of anyone who takes her to task.

I think you're confusing "joking" with "will say anything because being outrageous has made her a lot of money in the past". Both strategies are insincere, it's just that the former means she has questionable taste while the latter suggest she's a sociopath monster. Hey, no wonder she's so popular on the right!

I don't think Ann quite gets that the national moment is passing her by. She'll end her days getting paid to talk really fucked up bitter people about what a cunt Hillary is and how she fucks dogs and how liberals should be slowly tortured to death with dull knives.

It'll be hilarious!

[southside grabowski]

Must say I don't read her or listen to her. Bill O is my favorite.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by trumptman
Is the Coulter piece too dark? Perhaps if people treat it as a purely serious statement but obviously she writes tongue-in-cheek. She does the same sort of thing, Franken, Maher, and Limbaugh do. Most of the time it works, other times someone gets their nose a bit bent and you get fired from ABC. I'd rather have them poking fun than being safe myself whether I agree with them or not.
That Britney thing was funny. Very funny. However your comment about Coulter writing "tongue in cheek" is ludicruos.

A quick online search will give you plenty of her hate-filled wack quotes and videos. Tongue in cheek.....maybe sometimes....re: the 9/11 widows...yeah right.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by rageous
Hm, I think you're making a decent point. But the difference I see is that when people like Franken, Maher or Limbaugh are called out for something they say, they can generally justify some narrow offense they may have committed by placing it within a larger context and doing so intelligibly and cohesively. You don't have to like or agree with them to at least see they have thought about what it is they are saying.

You're probably right. However I can't say I have really read the entire context from which these items from Coulter have been written because I haven't read her book. Actually I haven't read any of her books but I have seen her column and the tone in there is similar.

Also remember that Franken, Maher and Limbaugh all have their own platforms from which to respond to whomever they want. Franken and Limbaugh have three hours a day of radio time, Maher has his Real-Time show. All Coulter gets is five minutes of interview time opposite whatever host wants to leap down her throat.

Coulter, on the other hand, when asked to explain something she said about a person or group tends to let out two or three quick Butthead-esque huffy laughs and follow it up with "well they are!" followed by some weird stare into the camera like she half expects everyone to all of a sudden go "Wow, she's right!"

I understand where you are coming from in that regard at least with the Lauer Today show interview which I saw. However I also saw how she basically grants him nor any of the ten people he wants to quote and ask for responses to any sort of authority.

This is why Maher (at least in my opinion) used to have her on PI so often. It is great to watch some ballsy people pop the authority balloons that some of these people try to use to dictate to others. I'm sure you might appreciate it when Bill O'Reilly is popped in the nose by such verbal jabs. It amounts to "Why the hell are you and why should I give a crap what you say?" Matt Lauer is no different in my view. He tried to derive some sort of authority by quoting various folks but she just told him to fuck off in not so many words.

Here is the video if you want to see it. You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xv05FK69KU&feature=Views&page=2&t=t&f=b)

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
So Coulter says this

If she's calling them "harpies" and claiming they are taking pleasure in their husbands' death and she's writing it tongue-in-cheek, does she mean it, or not?

Does Bill really think Britney should stick a fork in the toaster and toss her kid out the window?

Originally posted by Gilsch
That Britney thing was funny. Very funny. However your comment about Coulter writing "tongue in cheek" is ludicruos.

A quick online search will give you plenty of her hate-filled wack quotes and videos. Tongue in cheek.....maybe sometimes....re: the 9/11 widows...yeah right.

It is funny. Is the Ann book as funny? I don't know. Is Bill funny because we feel like we can laugh at stupid, trashy white people even if they are rich? Are there subjects that are too taboo to give permission to poke fun at? Some may say yes, but I say no. I mean this is what gets South Park in trouble but it is what I love about that show. They will take on ANYONE.

So you call it whatever you want. I think walking that line is hard and it doesn't always work. There are times I watch Maher where I think he just flat out hates everything about religion and would hit anyone religious with a shovel just to get it over with. To me that is his weak area where he can't balance well and just starts to sound pissed off and ranting.

Speaking of which... balanced or hateful.. you tell me...

New Rule: You don't get a million dollars just for being gay. Remember Dick Cheney's daughter Mary, the one John Kerry mentioned was a lesbian, and the Republicans pretended to get all irate about it? Well, she just got a million-dollar advance to write her memoirs. Memoirs? "Chapter One: my dad's vice president. Chapter Two: I like pussy." The End.

and..

New Rule: Britney Spears and her husband have to name their new baby "Shithead." It's the redneck version of "Apple." And while we're at it, stop bugging her about smoking. It's a little late to start worrying about the DNA when half of it is Kevin Federline's.

New Rule: Stop f***ing with old people. Target is introducing a redesigned pill bottle that's square, with a bigger label. And the top is now the bottom. And by the time grandpa figures out how to open it � his ass will be in the morgue. Congratulations, Target, you just solved the Social Security crisis.

New Rule: Angelina Jolie has to put the little Asian kid down. Is it a child or just something to hide a tattoo? You know, Paris Hilton loves her little rat dog, but once in a while even she just shoves it in her purse.

New Rule: Stop saying that teenage boys who have sex with their hot, blonde teachers are permanently damaged. I have a better description for these kids: lucky bastards. You know, I was once beat up after school, and believe me, I would gladly trade that pummeling for a session of oral sex with my French teacher - no matter how much his mustache tickled.

New Rule: Stop making those motorized scooters look so damned fun! When I see those TV commercials with old people zipping around, it makes me wish I was paralyzed with Type-2 diabetes.

New Rule: Just because we have an obligation to rebuild New Orleans doesn't mean we have to put it back in the same place. For $200 billion, we could put the French Quarter on the moon. Why don't we put it someplace it can stay out of harm and do some good? After all, New Orleans is the Big Easy, and a lot of America is uptight. Which is why I say we put New Orleans in Kansas.

Is it really okay to make fun of the infirmed elderly, a single adoptive parent, molested children, and the Katrina disaster? Are they any different than say... 9/11 widows?

Perhaps some things are off-limit but I'm not going to be the one to say so.

Nick

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
Does Bill really think Britney should stick a fork in the toaster and toss her kid out the window?

/me checks thread title...yup. This is a thread about Coulter and what she said.

/me checks my question...yup. I asked whether Coulter meant what she wrote. You claimed it was tongue-in-cheek. I asked whether she meant it or not.

Simple question.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
Is it really okay to make fun of the infirmed elderly, a single adoptive parent, molested children, and the Katrina disaster? Are they any different than say... 9/11 widows?

Perhaps some things are off-limit but I'm not going to be the one to say so.
You aren't really that tone deaf when it comes to irony and humor as to not snese the difference in the nature of the targets, the tone of delivery, the degree to which things are being made personal, etc., etc., between Bill Maher's jokes and Ann Coulter's sheer vitriol, are you?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by shetline
You aren't really that tone deaf when it comes to irony and humor as to not snese the difference in the nature of the targets, the tone of delivery, the degree to which things are being made personal, etc., etc., between Bill Maher's jokes and Ann Coulter's sheer vitriol, are you?

I wasn't going to say anything, since that's no doubt where Nick wants to take this--is she comedy or is she commentary--but that is the obvious question. And consdiering I have NEVER seen her categorized as "comedy" ANYWHERE on ANY show, one wonders why so many screaming head shows (well, Fox News shows, mostly) keep booking her. I mean, why on earth would they keep booking a comedian (who's apparently so bad no one can tell) to do political commentary and consistently labeling her either as a pundit or an author?

Anyone got a screenshot of her on Fox and labeled as a comedian?

So either she means it or she doesn't. And her defenders who claim she's just kidding either have a sense of humor or they don't. I know that I, for one, find shit like this hysterically funny:


* In describing the ability of reporters to get passes to White House press conferences, Coulter speculated that they must be easy to acquire since the "White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president." Helen Thomas is a White House reporter of Syrian ancestry.[25]

* Coulter has referred to the Middle East as a "swamp"[26] and advocated racial profiling on airliners.[27][28] Later, in an interview with the British Guardian newspaper, Coulter quipped: "I think airlines ought to start advertising: 'We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.'" When asked what Muslims should do for travel, she responded that they "could use flying carpets."[1]

* On February 10, 2006, the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference applauded her when she referred to Muslim terrorists as "ragheads" and said, "I think our motto should be, post-9-11: raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences." [10] [11]

* Coulter describes people who practice the religion of Islam as "camel jockey", "jihad monkey", and "tent merchant".[29]

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
/me checks thread title...yup. This is a thread about Coulter and what she said.

/me checks my question...yup. I asked whether Coulter meant what she wrote. You claimed it was tongue-in-cheek. I asked whether she meant it or not.

Simple question.

There is a kernal of truth in any humor. Is it true that the Jersey Girls took desire to grieve and turned it into something beyond even political pressure, but pure political power where they believed they could pick and roll heads? I think that kernal is there.

Is it true that the media and especially the left confers some sort of moral authority on victims? I say that is true as well.

Originally posted by shetline
You aren't really that tone deaf when it comes to irony and humor as to not snese the difference in the nature of the targets, the tone of delivery, the degree to which things are being made personal, etc., etc., between Bill Maher's jokes and Ann Coulter's sheer vitriol, are you?

I consider Bill and Ann's tone very much the same. Both have been fired multiple times when they basically fell off the tightrope that reflects how hard it is to balance what they do in terms of humor and commentary. I could mention The Daily Show or Colbert Report as other examples, but to me they really have no edge to them.

Originally posted by midwinter
I wasn't going to say anything, since that's no doubt where Nick wants to take this--is she comedy or is she commentary--but that is the obvious question. And consdiering I have NEVER seen her categorized as "comedy" ANYWHERE on ANY show, one wonders why so many screaming head shows (well, Fox News shows, mostly) keep booking her. I mean, why on earth would they keep booking a comedian (who's apparently so bad no one can tell) to do political commentary and consistently labeling her either as a pundit or an author?

Anyone got a screenshot of her on Fox and labeled as a comedian?

So either she means it or she doesn't. And her defenders who claim she's just kidding either have a sense of humor or they don't. I know that I, for one, find shit like this hysterically funny:

So you're saying there is no schtick to what she does? You consider her the same as Eleanor Clift, George Will and others. No difference?

Al Franken is described as a comedian, but also as a fellow with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and possible Senate Candidate. What do you call what he does on Air America? Is it only comedy?

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
I consider Bill and Ann's tone very much the same.
Then you really are tone deaf to humor. Coulter is simply vicious most of the time. There's no irony there, hardly any humorous twists. Calling those widows witches and harpies, enjoying their husband's deaths? Ha, ha, ha! Oh, yes, that's... hey, wait, that's just vitriol. There's every indication that she means every bit of it.

When Maher jokes about Britney Spears throwing her baby out the window, he certainly does mean to be calling her stupid, but he sure as hell isn't advocating actual defenestration of infants. The actual bite of the humor -- taking a stab at Britney's intelligence -- is fair game with any celebrity, especially one who has obviously said and done some pretty stupid things.

Coulter on the other hand, in humorless screed after screed, has advocated things like death for all liberals, since in her book they're all traitors. Even if one could claim she's merely exaggerating for effect (and there's good reason to doubt that), there's still nothing but hate there -- no comic twist, no backing down, no thoughtful, counterbalancing moments of ever trying to sound more calm or reasonable, even when questioned about her statements.

And no, that's not the same as someone, also seriously and without humor, suggesting that someone in power should be considered a traitor when given arguably plausible reasons for questioning whether truly culpable conduct has been conducted by those so charged.

Maher got fired for saying the 9/11 hijackers weren't necessarily cowards. He had a point. He never said they weren't evil, weren't savage, weren't ignorant and stupid -- just that they weren't necessarily cowardly. America didn't want to hear that -- when we're angry, we don't want to hear anything that might possibly be construed as positive about those who have done us wrong.

What Maher tried to get people to think about is true -- not every single bad guy in the world is a coward, no matter how satisfying it might be to throw the word "coward" into every list of insults against anyone as despicable as the 9/11 hijackers. It is possible to be evil and brave (in a twisted way) at the same time, even if no one wants the hear that and everyone gets pissed at you for bring it up.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
Then you really are tone deaf to humor. Coulter is simply vicious most of the time. There's no irony there, hardly any humorous twists. Calling those widows witches and harpies, enjoying their husband's deaths? Ha, ha, ha! Oh, yes, that's... hey, wait, that's just vitriol. There's every indication that she means every bit of it.


You are entitled to your opinion regarding Coulter and even to me. She obviously still finds an audience and plenty of work. I cited several examples where Maher is easily as vicious if you didn't want to find him funny. South Park gets lambasted as unfunny and simply crude all the time as well. Perhaps you can't see the irony because you are unwilling to look in the mirror and see the truth about the left.

When Maher jokes about Britney Spears throwing her baby out the window, he certainly does mean to be calling her stupid, but he sure as hell isn't advocating actual defenestration of infants. The actual bite of the humor -- taking a stab at Britney's intelligence -- is fair game with any celebrity, especially one who has obviously said and done some pretty stupid things.

He specifically cited Darwin for a reason, he was advocating that if we leave her alone, her stupidity will take care of her and her offspring for us. (She'll end up dead) In fact he cited that we have an obligation to allow the stupid to kill themselves off.

Again, it is funny if you are willing to let it be, but it certainly has an edge to it and is dark. So was the rule about solving the Social Security crisis by simply making it impossible for Grandpa to open his meds. It is really easy to say that joking about infirmed old people being allowed to die so we can save a buck, is absolutely cruel, mean and vicious. It works as humor for me but others will declare the topic too sacred to make a joke about. Like I said, I like certain people because no topic is off-limits.

You seem to a be comedy connisour, why don't you design a better 9/11 widows joke for us. Show us how it is done.

Coulter on the other hand, in humorless screed after screed, has advocated things like death for all liberals, since in her book they're all traitors. Even if one could claim she's merely exaggerating for effect (and there's good reason to doubt that), there's still nothing but hate there -- no comic twist, no backing down, no thoughtful, counterbalancing moments of ever trying to sound more calm or reasonable, even when questioned about her statements.

You are welcome to your opinion, but there is truth in all humor. Her humor likely isn't funny to you because you don't want to admit the truth about the subjects.

Maher got fired for saying the 9/11 hijackers weren't necessarily cowards. He had a point. He never said they weren't evil, weren't savage, weren't ignorant and stupid -- just that they weren't necessarily cowardly. America didn't want to hear that -- when we're angry, we don't want to hear anything that might possibly be construed as positive about those who have done us wrong.

Don't forget the second half of the statement, that we WERE cowards. We were the ones lobbing missles from miles away.

Here it is for full effect.

"We have been the cowards lobbing, cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

The truth in there, that Americans might have come to a point where they are unwilling to sacrifice actual people on the ground for what they believe rings true in my ears. People didn't want to believe or hear that truth so he was fired.

There is truth to the fact that we have watched people take their victim status and turn it into speaking and book tours as well.

What Maher tried to get people to think about is true -- not every single bad guy in the world is a coward, no matter how satisfying it might be to throw the word "coward" into every list of insults against anyone as despicable as the 9/11 hijackers. It is possible to be evil and brave (in a twisted way) at the same time, even if no one wants the hear that and everyone gets pissed at you for bring it up.

It is also possible to be cowardly in defending what is right. That part got him fired but not by me. I'll watch him even when he is banging on my beliefs.

I combed through some Coulter columns and found some funny bits for you. If you don't like them, oh well, if you don't think she is ever funny, oh well.

However the Duke lacrosse rape case turns out, one lesson that absolutely will not be learned is this: You can severely reduce your chances of having a false accusation of rape leveled against you if you don't hire strange women to come to your house and take their clothes off for money.
Also, you can severely reduce your chances of being raped if you do not go to strange men's houses and take your clothes off for money. (Does anyone else detect a common thread here?) And if you are a girl in Aruba or New York City, among the best ways to avoid being the victim of a horrible crime is to not get drunk in public or go off in a car with men you just met. While we're on the subject of things every 5-year-old should know, I also recommend against dousing yourself in gasoline and striking a match.

So Hillary Clinton thinks the House of Representatives is being "run like a plantation." And, she added, "you know what I'm talking about." First of all: Think about what a weird coincidence it is that Hillary would have made these remarks in a black church in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day. What are the odds? Did she even know it was a holiday? Bravely spoken, Senator. I haven't been this surprised since finding out Hollywood likes a movie about gay cowboys.

I'm getting a little insulted that no Democratic prosecutor has indicted me. Liberals bring trumped-up criminal charges against all the most dangerous conservatives. Why not me? Democrat prosecutor Barry Krischer has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to find some criminal charge to bring against Rush Limbaugh. Political hack Ronnie Earle spent three years and went through six grand juries to indict Tom DeLay. Liberals spent the last two years fantasizing in public about Karl Rove being indicted. Newt Gingrich was under criminal investigation for 3 1/2 years back in the '90s when liberals were afraid of him. Final result: No crime.

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago. But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices. Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years. For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

Nick

[BRussell]

I'm so glad that Nick is defending Coulter, because the argument is usually made that she doesn't represent conservatives, and current American conservatism therefore isn't really the cesspool that it seems.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'm so glad that Nick is defending Coulter, because the argument is usually made that she doesn't represent conservatives, and current American conservatism therefore isn't really the cesspool that it seems.

You make her point for her. Perhaps I should practice what she does, let you make some lame assertion like that, and just stare at you because you are saying something ridiculous while hoping you figure it out.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
You make her point for her. Perhaps I should practice what she does, let you make some lame assertion like that, and just stare at you because you are saying something ridiculous while hoping you figure it out.

Nick


Let me get this straight. You're trying to portray her as funny?

If she's trying to be it's in very poor taste.

She's just a talking head for the conservatives.

Nothing more.

Time she went back under her rock.

She's going to find tough times soon as no one will want to listen.;)


Nothing to figure out here.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
There is a kernal of truth in any humor. Is it true that the Jersey Girls took desire to grieve and turned it into something beyond even political pressure, but pure political power where they believed they could pick and roll heads? I think that kernal is there.

So you are saying that Coulter meant it when she called them harpies and claimed that they are taking pleasure in the deaths of their husbands?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
So you are saying that Coulter meant it when she called them harpies and claimed that they are taking pleasure in the deaths of their husbands?

I meant exactly what I said.

Nick

[dmz]

For you lovely lefties here -- I'm pretty disappointed. You consistently vilify the right in general, and in particular, you are consistently, and profoundly disrespectful of Christians.

This is how you communicate to your opposition -- and it's called contempt.

When Brussell doesn't agree on spanking he places spanking on a moral equivalence of burning children with cigarettes. When midwinter doesn't like something the Christians are doing, he has repeatedly stated that Christians will literally bring back the conditions of the 15th Century. ...'fundie', 'Bible thumper'...the examples I could site from these very forums are virtually endless.

Trying to debate whether Coulter is out of line with people who are guilty of commonly using virulently bigoted language themselves is, by definition, pretty pointless.

(Not that I mind the bigoted approaches -- that's just a fact of life -- but to have those same people complain isn't quite believable.)

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
When midwinter doesn't like something the Christians are doing, he has repeatedly stated that Christians will literally bring back the conditions of the 15th Century.

Not "the Christians." The fundamentalist, Wildmon and Dobson following types. I like Christians. I don't like fundamentalist anything.

Trying to debate whether Coulter is out of line with people who are guilty of commonly using virulently bigoted language themselves is, by definition, pretty pointless. [/B]

Stop being such a harpy and taking pleasure in the deaths of thousands just to win an argument. Hah! I kid! See? I kid!

[addabox]

Uh huh. So in addition to Nick's "It's all good cause she's joking", we get "Coulter is fine because people on internet chat boards get mad and say intemperate things".

Again, and as usual, in order to normalize Coulter it becomes necessary to make everyone else worse than they are, in yet another example of the right wing apologist's race to the bottom. Our political system is shit and entirely manned by shit-heads, our foreign policy is just one long sorry march of feckless, cynical manipulations, "the public good" is a nonsense phrase that simply means standard and inevitable graft and corruption, and the public discourse is entirely conducted by savage, amoral demagogues. Hell, apparently this board is entirely comprised of savage, amoral demagogues.

So I have to ask again: why do you have such contempt for America and her institutions, and, now, why do you post here?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
I meant exactly what I said.

Nick


Well that's funny in a not so funny way.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by dmz
For you lovely lefties here -- I'm pretty disappointed. You consistently vilify the right in general, and in particular, you are consistently, and profoundly disrespectful of Christians.

This is how you communicate to your opposition -- and it's called contempt.

When Brussell doesn't agree on spanking he places spanking on a moral equivalence of burning children with cigarettes. When midwinter doesn't like something the Christians are doing, he has repeatedly stated that Christians will literally bring back the conditions of the 15th Century. ...'fundie', 'Bible thumper'...the examples I could site from these very forums are virtually endless.

Trying to debate whether Coulter is out of line with people who are guilty of commonly using virulently bigoted language themselves is, by definition, pretty pointless.

(Not that I mind the bigoted approaches -- that's just a fact of life -- but to have those same people complain isn't quite believable.)

Well if most of the people you're talking about displayed real christian values that probably wouldn't happen. Instead they twist real christian values into anything they want. You know kind of like the crusades.;)

Belief in god is one thing religion is another.

[dmz]

Originally posted by addabox
Uh huh. So in addition to Nick's "It's all good cause she's joking", we get "Coulter is fine because people on internet chat boards get mad and say intemperate things".

Again, and as usual, in order to normalize Coulter it becomes necessary to make everyone else worse than they are, in yet another example of the right wing apologist's race to the bottom. Our political system is shit and entirely manned by shit-heads, our foreign policy is just one long sorry march of feckless, cynical manipulations, "the public good" is a nonsense phrase that simply means standard and inevitable graft and corruption, and the public discourse is entirely conducted by savage, amoral demagogues. Hell, apparently this board is entirely comprised of savage, amoral demagogues.

So I have to ask again: why do you have such contempt for America and her institutions, and, now, why do you post here?

You're protesting too much, addabox.

Yes, it would be nice for only the unfair stereotypes that you employ to enter the cultural lexicon. But for those on the receiving end it seems a little odd for you to complain of that practice in general.

You really need to do the math on this.

[addabox]

OK, let's cut the shit. This tired old equivalency game is just pathetic.

Here's what the "liberal Ann Coulter" would have to say to be somewhere in the ballpark of any number of right wing pundits:

"I think it's disgusting the way the parents and spouses of service people killed in Iraq use their status as officially 'grief stricken' to barge their way on camera and say their scripted lines about how great the war is and how they support that filthy little alcoholic Bush. It looks to me like they don't give a crap about their so-called 'loved ones'-- how do we even know if they were really killed in action? Maybe they got hired by the RNC to jam phone lines! These bozos think having a dead kid or wife or husband makes them immune from criticism? Well guess what, no more--it's time to call them what the are: whores. Bush whores."

Right? Not, for the love of God, a Bill Maher joke about Brittany Spears, or people getting testy on an internet chat board.

So, if we want to play "everybody does it", how bout one of you suck-ups to the worst people in the country find me a high profile "liberal" with access to mainstream media that goes around saying shit like that.

Otherwise, for the good of souls of everyone on the planet, Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

[addabox]

Originally posted by dmz
You're protesting too much, addabox.

Yes, it would be nice for only the unfair stereotypes that you employ to enter the cultural lexicon. But for those on the receiving end it seems a little odd for you to complain of that practice in general.

You really need to do the math on this.

See my post above. You're doing what you always do, which is to make diffuse and generalized remarks about the state of the world, wherein somehow the worst offenses of people who you are more or less in political alignment with are get a pass because everything is all nasty and all, so what do you expect?

You get to sort of sit back in your easy chair and say "Ah, the slaughter of innocents, so unfortunate, still-- they lacked a sense of the centrality of God, so it is inevitable, is it not? They players matter not a whit, all of the fallen will slaughter innocents, given the chance."

Like I say, a race to the bottom-- although your version is sort of disarmingly ugly.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
You make her point for her. Perhaps I should practice what she does, let you make some lame assertion like that, and just stare at you because you are saying something ridiculous while hoping you figure it out.

Nick So let's recap. One of the most popular conservatives in the US says that terrorism victims enjoyed the deaths of their families (among many, many other much worse comments), and then virtually the entire conservative establishment defends her. When she and those who defend her are criticized, it's ridiculous and lame and making her point for her.

This is pretty simple, Nick, it's moral vs. immoral. You've made your choice, but choices like this aren't irrevocable. The danger is that the longer you let your choice remain, the more difficult it becomes to reverse. Even though contemporary American conservatism may have already gone overboard, there's still time for you, I think. Good luck.

[midwinter]

Actually, it'd need to be something like "I'll bet there are conservative families brainwashing their children to go to Iraq just so they can die and the families can use their deaths to help the conservative agenda."

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, it'd need to be something like "I'll bet there are conservative families brainwashing their children to go to Iraq just so they can die and the families can use their deaths to help the conservative agenda."

Right, because the anti-Christ worshipping demons of the Right, who so hate America and all her works that they will breed with dogs to create a compliant race of cannon fodder, will not rest until the blood is ankle deep. They meet after hours at their Walmarts and Nascar tracks to celebrate the enslavement of mankind. They can't help it because the inbred, meth addled denizens of the "red state" enclaves are so filled with rage that they are willing to sacrifice us all on the alter of their grotesquely deformed "god". The country would be well served if terrorists started to blow up their churches so that their body parts rained down on their "general stores" and "town squares".

But it would be OK if Michael Moore went around saying this because it is the functional equivalent of making a joke about Angelina Jolie.

[BRussell]

And it would have to be one of the most popular liberals in the country and then the entire liberal establishment, not to mention all of us here, would have to defend those comments.

[dmz]

I think I see the problem here. It's understandable for a Klansman to use the term 'nigger' because he believes what he is saying. It's a completely natural thing -- that's just the result of a distorted worldview. You guys on the left could not seeing not seeing my point for the same reason, which is completely understandable.

So, I have a more didactic approach for you lovely lefties: I'll put my part in this conversation on hold until something like the topic of the 'American Taliban', or maybe a guilt-by-association 'Christian' video game reference appears on PO.

You shouldn't have to wait long. Do the math.

[shetline]

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, it'd need to be something like "I'll bet there are conservative families brainwashing their children to go to Iraq just so they can die and the families can use their deaths to help the conservative agenda."
You should start saying things like that for real, MW. You've got such a talent for comedy there, and you've been hiding it! Anyone can see how funny that is, right?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dmz
So, I have a more didactic approach for you lovely lefties: I'll put my part in this conversation on hold until something like the topic of the 'American Taliban', or maybe a guilt-by-association 'Christian' video game reference appears on PO. Anonymous postings on an internet forum are not the same as one of the most popular conservatives in the country using rhetoric that all the other most popular conservatives in the country defend.

And that last part is important. For example, some lefties here on AI have said that the US government was behind 9/11. But most of the regular liberal posters here disagree and debate those who make such claims. Is it really that hard for you or Nick to do the same when some conservative makes silly statements? It seems that way to me, and that says something about the state of conservatism.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by addabox
Otherwise, for the good of souls of everyone on the planet, Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

“The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush,”

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11,”

“No Iraqis Left Me on a Roof to Die”

“If you fall on the side that is pro-George, and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out.”

“The 56,000,000-plus citizens who voted against you and your agenda have given me a mandate to move forward with my agenda,”

“I'm just so honored that the universe chose me to be the spark that has set off a raging inferno.”

“If he thinks that it's so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go this war. They need to fight.”

"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy...You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine"

"Every member of Bush's executive branch (past and present) and every member of Congress who voted to give George the authority to invade Iraq have innocent blood on their hands. For the next State of the Union address, maybe the hypocrites in Congress should shamefacedly display blood-soaked hands, instead of proudly wriggling fingers stained with ink to symbolize sham Iraqi elections."

Those are all Cindy Sheehan quotes. In finding them I think I've discovered that Adda ghostwrites for her.

Nick

[dmz]

Originally posted by BRussell
Anonymous postings on an internet forum are not the same as one of the most popular conservatives in the country using rhetoric that all the other most popular conservatives in the country defend.

And that last part is important. For example, some lefties here on AI have said that the US government was behind 9/11. But most of the regular liberal posters here disagree and debate those who make such claims. Is it really that hard for you or Nick to do the same when some conservative makes silly statements? It seems that way to me, and that says something about the state of conservatism.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Coulter running her mouth is no different than Stern, or Franken or you doing the same thing. Starting or perpetuating bigoted sterotypes is unfair, and unconstructive. Adding hypocrisy just makes it worse. (!)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
[B]“The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush,”
[B] I disagree with that substantively, and I don't like that type of rhetoric. See, was that so hard?

[dmz]

Thou art the man, Brussell!

Confess!!

Confess!!!

[addabox]

Originally posted by dmz
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Coulter running her mouth is no different than Stern, or Franken or you doing the same thing. Starting or perpetuating bigoted sterotypes is unfair, and unconstructive. Adding hypocrisy just makes it worse. (!)

Put up or shut up. Where are the statements that serve as the balance for Coulter's remarks (or, if you want to get into it, great moments in right wing talk like Savage telling a gay caller to "hurry up and get AIDS and die". What are the statements by liberal pundits that are "no different" than calling 9/11 widows "witches" and "opportunists" who are "enjoying the death of their husbands"?

It always goes this way. A pundit on the right makes a not atypical outrageous statement, and the apologists start to chant Moore, Franken, Moore, Franken. But somehow we never get the actual pull quotes that would put things into perspective, just a kinda sorta "sense" that, you know, over the long haul everybody says things.

[dmz]

Originally posted by addabox
It always goes this way. A pundit on the right makes a not atypical outrageous statement, and the apologists start to chant Moore, Franken, Moore, Franken. But somehow we never get the actual pull quotes that would put things into perspective, just a kinda sorta "sense" that, you know, over the long haul everybody says things.

Noooooooooooooooooo, when a conservative pundit vilifies to make a point and then the usual suspects here on PO who, when they're not posting in this thread are posting on the "Worst President in History" thread or are known reeepeat O-fenders when it comes to off-color remarks about the American Taliban, Bush is Hilter, whatever -- immediately have genuine hissy fit, then it's is time for someone to remind them that it's nice to be nice.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
So let's recap. One of the most popular conservatives in the US says that terrorism victims enjoyed the deaths of their families (among many, many other much worse comments), and then virtually the entire conservative establishment defends her. When she and those who defend her are criticized, it's ridiculous and lame and making her point for her.

This is pretty simple, Nick, it's moral vs. immoral. You've made your choice, but choices like this aren't irrevocable. The danger is that the longer you let your choice remain, the more difficult it becomes to reverse. Even though contemporary American conservatism may have already gone overboard, there's still time for you, I think. Good luck.

You seem to be following my sig quite well. First one of the most popular, she doesn't even have her own show but she is an example of folks who are mixing comedy and political commentary. This is a growing field (Daily Show, Colbert Report, Real Time, O'Franken Factor, etc.) and perhaps I don't have the exact word of what to call it yet, but it is clear it is out there.

What is making her point for her is exactly what you did. You can't defeat the truth beneath the satire. Your little statement about cesspool facades aside, the reality is that the Jersey Girls, and Sheehans have used their platform for a hell of a lot more than the original intent.

As for needing luck, I'll make my own thanks. I do not consider it immoral to refuse to grant any sort of authority to a person on secondary matters simply because they have cause for grieving. Cindy Sheehan's son died and out of respect I'll listen to her and her claims about why she believes his death senseless. It isn't immoral to refuse to grant her an audience or consider her nonsensical on Katrina matters, on matters involving other families, on political matters involving Middle Eastern policy, etc.

The same is true for the Jersey Girls. They wanted some questions answered as part of their grieving process and were more than accomodated. Allowing them to implicate and condemn basically every state and government agency, allowing them to play politics and endorse candidates as some sort of terrorist prevention authority is nonsense. I'll accord them no authority in that area and again, doing so is not immoral.

Appeals to misleading authority are an absolute logical fallacy. Claiming that one should grant authority there is nothing more than attempting political gain. You claiming it is now a moral matter on top of the pressure to grant fallious authority does indeed prove the point of Coulter. No one is above human nature and when these people, grieving though they may claim to be, demand such authority they should be taken down a notch. They have no such authority and shouldn't be demanding it. The best candidates for doing that are often these political commentator/comedian types. If you think they are successful the laugh, and if not then don't.

You don't have to consider her funny, but I'm not going to condemn that process. I appreciate it too much. I'll even appreciate it when it is against people or beliefs I have. We can't be afraid to let people stick some pins in what we believe. The ideals should be stronger than that.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I disagree with that substantively, and I don't like that type of rhetoric. See, was that so hard?

I do agree with Coulter that there are attempts to derive authority from victim status. I dont' have to agree with her rhetoric but I will defend her right to use it.

See, that wasn't so hard either.

Nick

[addabox]

Originally posted by dmz
Noooooooooooooooooo, when a conservative pundit vilifies to make a point and then the usual suspects here on PO who, when they're not posting in this thread are posting on the "Worst President in History" thread or are known reeepeat O-fenders when it comes to off-color remarks about the American Taliban, Bush is Hilter, whatever -- immediately have genuine hissy fit, then it's is time for someone to remind them that it's nice to be nice.

So you're not able to distinguish between going after Bush for his policies and rhetoric arising out of a fundamental contempt for "liberals" as a the enemy of "normal Americans" (Gingrich's suggestion as a matter of Republican strategy)?

And you can't distinguish between snarky internet postings and the state of mainstream punditry?

I mean, dude, the Coulter book containing her remarks is called "Godless: the Church of Liberalism", you know? And the one before that was called "Treason".

So you run along and find me mainstream liberal commentary that takes it as a given that Red State traitors are not really Americans, that they represent a clear and present danger to the health and safety of real Americans, that they scheme endlessly to bring the country down, and that given all that, we might be best served if we started to empty out their enclaves by deporting them or having them brought up on charges.

Or you can keep whining about how people are mean to Christians and Bush on the internet.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
I do agree with Coulter that there are attempts to derive authority from victim status. I dont' have to agree with her rhetoric but I will defend her right to use it.

See, that wasn't so hard either.

Nick 1. Coulter didn't say "there are attempts to derive authority from victim status." She said the victims of 9/11 enjoyed the deaths of their families. No one would have any problem whatsoever with Coulter saying what you said. But she didn't say that, now did she?

2. You defend "her right to use it." Remind me, who said she should be jailed or otherwise should not "have the right" to say what she said? No one. People are criticizing the content of what she said, not her right to say it.

3. Once again, you're simply going out of your way to defend her. And you're not unique, because all the conservative establishment - O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Dobbs, Matalin - have defended her. At this point, it becomes about conservatives, not just one obnoxious loudmouth.

[midwinter]

Don't forget the eliminationist rhetoric.

[dmz]

Originally posted by addabox
So you run along and find me mainstream liberal commentary that takes it as a given that Red State traitors are not really Americans, that they represent a clear and present danger to the health and safety of real Americans, that they scheme endlessly to bring the country down, and that given all that, we might be best served if we started to empty out their enclaves by deporting them or having them brought up on charges.

repeat after me: "it's nice to be nice", "do unto others....."

If I might quote Epictetus again (who was neither a cigarette-burning child molester, nor a member of the American Taliban ;))

"Keep neither a blunt knife nor an ill-disciplined looseness of tongue."

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
repeat after me: "it's nice to be nice", "do unto others....."

Maybe you should email that to Coulter.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
You seem to be following my sig quite well. First one of the most popular, she doesn't even have her own show but she is an example of folks who are mixing comedy and political commentary. This is a growing field (Daily Show, Colbert Report, Real Time, O'Franken Factor, etc.) and perhaps I don't have the exact word of what to call it yet, but it is clear it is out there. Coulter is not a comedian, no matter what you claim in your attempt to defend her.

What is making her point for her is exactly what you did. You can't defeat the truth beneath the satire. Your little statement about cesspool facades aside, the reality is that the Jersey Girls, and Sheehans have used their platform for a hell of a lot more than the original intent.

As for needing luck, I'll make my own thanks. I do not consider it immoral to refuse to grant any sort of authority to a person on secondary matters simply because they have cause for grieving. Cindy Sheehan's son died and out of respect I'll listen to her and her claims about why she believes his death senseless. It isn't immoral to refuse to grant her an audience or consider her nonsensical on Katrina matters, on matters involving other families, on political matters involving Middle Eastern policy, etc.

The same is true for the Jersey Girls. They wanted some questions answered as part of their grieving process and were more than accomodated. Allowing them to implicate and condemn basically every state and government agency, allowing them to play politics and endorse candidates as some sort of terrorist prevention authority is nonsense. I'll accord them no authority in that area and again, doing so is not immoral.

Appeals to misleading authority are an absolute logical fallacy. Claiming that one should grant authority there is nothing more than attempting political gain. You claiming it is now a moral matter on top of the pressure to grant fallious authority does indeed prove the point of Coulter. No one is above human nature and when these people, grieving though they may claim to be, demand such authority they should be taken down a notch. They have no such authority and shouldn't be demanding it. The best candidates for doing that are often these political commentator/comedian types. If you think they are successful the laugh, and if not then don't.

You don't have to consider her funny, but I'm not going to condemn that process. I appreciate it too much. I'll even appreciate it when it is against people or beliefs I have. We can't be afraid to let people