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
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.