I'd like to route this thread into more of a gutter-level direction, and say that I, personally, wouldn't mind being the peanut butter, if you will, in an Ann Coulter/Laura Ingraham sandwich.
I can even overlook their blonde-ness (traditionally not my hair color of choice, as those of you who read the "Tiger Woods girlfriend" thread are aware of) for this one-time important summit meeting on the state of conservatism in America, the media and flavored lubri...
Well, let's see: she's got the best-selling book at amazon.com, she's on her pick of shows, she travels the nation in, I'm sure, first class and nice hotels, she's asked to speak at a number of engagements, etc.
Seems to me the girls is doing okay for herself. Probably better that the bulk of us here combined, so...
Probably isn't much to "redeem", is there? If she's got a loyal fan base and people who enjoy her stuff (I've never read her books, but see her on TV a bit), then she's probably in that same unique clique as Marilyn Manson and Paul Rodriguez.
Someone, SOMEWHERE, obviously thinks highly of them, otherwise they still wouldn't be around doing what they're doing.
The minute she starts angling for Carville's approval (and Manson starts singing children's music and Rodriguez starts to become funny), she might as well pack it in.
^Okay, as long as we are referencing what the thread asks, let's see my question clarification one more time : (see below)
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>(In reference to this thread's title, I don't mean in terms of quantity of books sold. I ask can she redeem herself from her behavior and words)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously, it has nothing to do with creature comforts and money, and it has everything to do with her words and behavior.
(On a side note, you just proved that Bill Clinton redeemed himself <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> )
[quote]It just so happens that every time a quote from her book is brought up, she CANNOT defend it. There is no avoiding the fact that Ann is powerless to defend her own "ideas" set forth in her book. This doesn't suggest misquoting, rather it suggests baseless ideas conjured up with no supporting evidence. <hr></blockquote>
I didn't say that she was defending quotes, I said they were trying to misquote her. Way to practice what she preaches. It is the adult equivelent of "Does your mother know your pick your nose?"
It is very easy to ask a question about an idea about someone's beliefs or ideas. It is not interesting to watch people parse their own sentences.
[quote]Oh please, you cry that interviewers try to make her look "stupid?" How touching. The fact remains though that all interviewers give Ann the chance to prove a point made in her book, and she gives up that very chance<hr></blockquote>
Yeah I was crying wasn't I. How about your own callousness. You display so much "sympathy" and "compassion" yourself. All conservative minded people should turn to you to see an example of openmindedness and caring.
[quote]Right . So you are conducting the interview now? I'm sorry [Laughing] , but only discussing lofty "ideas" and avoiding statements made in her book sounds fishy to me.<hr></blockquote>
She was happy to discuss full statements, not partial statements or misquotes.
[quote]The media IS NOT liberal. Prove that one for me. What does it matter WHO identified a large block of similarily voting Americans. The fact that there is no religious right "group" does not mean it DOESN'T exist.<hr></blockquote>
?It seems unbelievable, but the numbers don't lie. No network labeled Vice President Al Gore as a liberal during the entire 1999-2000 election cycle, yet they labeled George W. Bush as a conservative 19 times. Bernard Goldberg is absolutely right," said Brent Bozell, President of the Media Research Center. "Network anchors and reporters label conservatives because they think they're out of the mainstream, but don't label liberals because they think liberals are completely mainstream.?
Newscast Breakdown of Labeling
ABC World News Tonight
96 liberal labels (21%)
365 conservative labels (79%)
CBS Evening News
64 liberal labels (18%)
289 conservative labels (82%)
NBC Nightly News
87 liberal labels (20%)
338 conservative labels (80%)
This has nothing to do with their voting patterns. It has to do with how they actually label the people they are reporting on. You won't hear them say Liberal Senator Hillary Clinton, however you will hear them same Conservative Leader Newt Gingrich for example. It shows a clear trend. You asked, you received.
[quote]Have you actually thought your post through?<hr></blockquote>
Using the old "Ann Coulter documented" example of questioning the intelligence of a poster. Discuss the ideals please. If you don't like what she wrote, don't work so hard to prove it true.
quote riginally posted by trumptman:
However there are actual groups called NOW, NAACP, GLAD, Rainbow Coalition, AFL-CIO, etc.
[quote]OH, so now there are NO republican groups? I'll let you think about that one.<hr></blockquote>
My goodness, Ann should pay you royalties for working so hard to prove her book correct. Please quote for me where I said there were no republican groups. If you would like to MISQUOTE me you are welcome to do so. However the fact that there is no organization called "Religious Right" or even a group that exists that could be defamed as the religious right. If I would like to call NOW "femi-nazi's" or something like that, it still doesn't change the fact that there is a group called National Organization of Women. Keep up the good work though, Ann would be so proud of you.
[quote]I knew it. You only watch Fox News Channel don't you?<hr></blockquote>
Being a little stereotypical aren't we? A little closed-minded? Have you walked in my shoes? Do you really know me, and where my beliefs come from?
It may interest you to know that I am an elementary school teacher. I taught in Long Beach for 5 years. (Up the street from VIP records in fact, I also didn't just teach there, I lived there for 5 years just off of PCH. I even student taught at Long Beach Poly High School)
I also taught for 5 years for LAUSD in South Central Los Angeles. I taught off of Slauson Ave and MLK Blvd at a school.
Finally for the last 4 years I have been teaching limited English children.
But because I'm registered Republican, I must be a rich, closed-minded white guy right? I could for example have majored in music? (which I did) or be a school teacher?
What are the American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Opertion Rescue, and the National Association of Christian Educators/Citizens for Excellence in Education?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about them? I would be perfectly happy to have any group, conservative or liberal have their views presented on the topic of the day. However this is seldom what happens. Instead a member of say, NOW will be interviewed. Instead of inviting a balancing member, often the newsreporter will sit and intone in ominous ways about the "religious right," or not confront the person being interviewed about assertions made about said groups.
I didn't say that she was defending quotes, I said they were trying to misquote her. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I will consider that she may get misquoted. But the fact remains that she cannot defend misquotes and her own quotes alike. (the former somewhat understandibly) Yet, she should be sufficiently familiar with her own material to defend it regardless of errors in quoting. Set the record straight, Ann.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
She was happy to discuss full statements, not partial statements or misquotes.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, television does not allow for discussion of "full statements" that entail pages of material. However, Ann should be sufficiently familiar with her content so that she can paraphrase and summarize. This does not happen. I think the larger problem is that she is powerless to defend her baseless drivel.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Yeah I was crying wasn't I.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I meant it figuratively, Mr. English teacher. (I am an English major myself) Also, sarcasm is completely unnecessary.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
How about your own callousness. You display so much "sympathy" and "compassion" yourself.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have refrained from personally attacking you throughout this thread. Yet, you label me "callous," "close-minded," "unsympathetic," "compassionless," "prejudiced," and "uncaring." <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> How is any of that relevant? To set the record straight, I am none of the above. And I'll keep my names for you to myself.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
This has nothing to do with their voting patterns. It has to do with how they actually label the people they are reporting on
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It could be that liberals are closer to the mainstream than conservatives or that Republicans appear far more often on network news- hence the appropriate labeling. Please identify and provide links for your source. I wish to further examine the data.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Being a little stereotypical aren't we? A little closed-minded?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please. Spare me the patronizing. I said "you only watch Fox News" as a joke to highlight that network's message and your seemingly compatible compliance. Didn't the nature of the statement give it away? I mean NO ONE only watches one news network. (To do so would severely limit one's views)
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Please quote for me where I said there were no republican groups.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please. One must not say something directly for it to be said. In other words, you implied it. You may not have meant it, but that's really what you said. Instead of wasting time and energy- just apologize for your lack of clarity, and correct the statement. Works for me everytime.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
If you would like to MISQUOTE me you are welcome to do so. However the fact that there is no organization called "Religious Right" or even a group that exists that could be defamed as the religious right.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I can find groups that encompass the latter requirement. I'm somewhat certain they exist. And I have no intention of "misquoting" you.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
It may interest you to know that I am an elementary school teacher. I taught in Long Beach for 5 years. (Up the street from VIP records in fact, I also didn't just teach there, I lived there for 5 years just off of PCH. I even student taught at Long Beach Poly High School)
I also taught for 5 years for LAUSD in South Central Los Angeles. I taught off of Slauson Ave and MLK Blvd at a school.
Finally for the last 4 years I have been teaching limited English children.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that's nice. Maybe I will wish to learn more from your experiences some day. But not today.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
But because I'm registered Republican, I must be a rich, closed-minded white guy right?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have said and think you are none of those things (except a white guy), and I only assumed you were a guy because of your name, "trumptman." Though, I realize you said that to provide an extreme example of stereotyping. (see above for my thoughts)
It assumes Coulter ever had a something that could be redeemed.
She has always been a shrill right-wing windbag: Rush Limbaugh's doppelganger. She makes her money by peppering her poorly-reasoned arguments with shocking statements: a sure sign of flawed reasoning.
Obviously I am on the left, but when I want to understand where the right is coming from on an issue, I certainly never listen to her. There are plenty of conservatives who actually have brains to choose from. It's just that they don't have hearts. But what would you expect?
Comments
I can even overlook their blonde-ness (traditionally not my hair color of choice, as those of you who read the "Tiger Woods girlfriend" thread are aware of) for this one-time important summit meeting on the state of conservatism in America, the media and flavored lubri...
Well, let's see: she's got the best-selling book at amazon.com, she's on her pick of shows, she travels the nation in, I'm sure, first class and nice hotels, she's asked to speak at a number of engagements, etc.
Seems to me the girls is doing okay for herself. Probably better that the bulk of us here combined, so...
Probably isn't much to "redeem", is there? If she's got a loyal fan base and people who enjoy her stuff (I've never read her books, but see her on TV a bit), then she's probably in that same unique clique as Marilyn Manson and Paul Rodriguez.
Someone, SOMEWHERE, obviously thinks highly of them, otherwise they still wouldn't be around doing what they're doing.
The minute she starts angling for Carville's approval (and Manson starts singing children's music and Rodriguez starts to become funny), she might as well pack it in.
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>(In reference to this thread's title, I don't mean in terms of quantity of books sold. I ask can she redeem herself from her behavior and words)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously, it has nothing to do with creature comforts and money, and it has everything to do with her words and behavior.
(On a side note, you just proved that Bill Clinton redeemed himself <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> )
Interesting Link:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51387-2002Jun26.html"; target="_blank">The Thrilla in Rockefella (Couric vs. Coulter)</a>
I didn't say that she was defending quotes, I said they were trying to misquote her. Way to practice what she preaches. It is the adult equivelent of "Does your mother know your pick your nose?"
It is very easy to ask a question about an idea about someone's beliefs or ideas. It is not interesting to watch people parse their own sentences.
[quote]Oh please, you cry that interviewers try to make her look "stupid?" How touching. The fact remains though that all interviewers give Ann the chance to prove a point made in her book, and she gives up that very chance<hr></blockquote>
Yeah I was crying wasn't I. How about your own callousness. You display so much "sympathy" and "compassion" yourself. All conservative minded people should turn to you to see an example of openmindedness and caring.
[quote]Right . So you are conducting the interview now? I'm sorry [Laughing] , but only discussing lofty "ideas" and avoiding statements made in her book sounds fishy to me.<hr></blockquote>
She was happy to discuss full statements, not partial statements or misquotes.
[quote]The media IS NOT liberal. Prove that one for me. What does it matter WHO identified a large block of similarily voting Americans. The fact that there is no religious right "group" does not mean it DOESN'T exist.<hr></blockquote>
?It seems unbelievable, but the numbers don't lie. No network labeled Vice President Al Gore as a liberal during the entire 1999-2000 election cycle, yet they labeled George W. Bush as a conservative 19 times. Bernard Goldberg is absolutely right," said Brent Bozell, President of the Media Research Center. "Network anchors and reporters label conservatives because they think they're out of the mainstream, but don't label liberals because they think liberals are completely mainstream.?
Newscast Breakdown of Labeling
ABC World News Tonight
96 liberal labels (21%)
365 conservative labels (79%)
CBS Evening News
64 liberal labels (18%)
289 conservative labels (82%)
NBC Nightly News
87 liberal labels (20%)
338 conservative labels (80%)
This has nothing to do with their voting patterns. It has to do with how they actually label the people they are reporting on. You won't hear them say Liberal Senator Hillary Clinton, however you will hear them same Conservative Leader Newt Gingrich for example. It shows a clear trend. You asked, you received.
[quote]Have you actually thought your post through?<hr></blockquote>
Using the old "Ann Coulter documented" example of questioning the intelligence of a poster. Discuss the ideals please. If you don't like what she wrote, don't work so hard to prove it true.
quote
However there are actual groups called NOW, NAACP, GLAD, Rainbow Coalition, AFL-CIO, etc.
[quote]OH, so now there are NO republican groups? I'll let you think about that one.<hr></blockquote>
My goodness, Ann should pay you royalties for working so hard to prove her book correct. Please quote for me where I said there were no republican groups. If you would like to MISQUOTE me you are welcome to do so. However the fact that there is no organization called "Religious Right" or even a group that exists that could be defamed as the religious right. If I would like to call NOW "femi-nazi's" or something like that, it still doesn't change the fact that there is a group called National Organization of Women. Keep up the good work though, Ann would be so proud of you.
[quote]I knew it. You only watch Fox News Channel don't you?<hr></blockquote>
Being a little stereotypical aren't we? A little closed-minded? Have you walked in my shoes? Do you really know me, and where my beliefs come from?
It may interest you to know that I am an elementary school teacher. I taught in Long Beach for 5 years. (Up the street from VIP records in fact, I also didn't just teach there, I lived there for 5 years just off of PCH. I even student taught at Long Beach Poly High School)
I also taught for 5 years for LAUSD in South Central Los Angeles. I taught off of Slauson Ave and MLK Blvd at a school.
Finally for the last 4 years I have been teaching limited English children.
But because I'm registered Republican, I must be a rich, closed-minded white guy right? I could for example have majored in music? (which I did) or be a school teacher?
Nick
<strong>
What are the American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition, Opertion Rescue, and the National Association of Christian Educators/Citizens for Excellence in Education?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about them? I would be perfectly happy to have any group, conservative or liberal have their views presented on the topic of the day. However this is seldom what happens. Instead a member of say, NOW will be interviewed. Instead of inviting a balancing member, often the newsreporter will sit and intone in ominous ways about the "religious right," or not confront the person being interviewed about assertions made about said groups.
Nick
<strong>
I didn't say that she was defending quotes, I said they were trying to misquote her. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I will consider that she may get misquoted. But the fact remains that she cannot defend misquotes and her own quotes alike. (the former somewhat understandibly) Yet, she should be sufficiently familiar with her own material to defend it regardless of errors in quoting. Set the record straight, Ann.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
She was happy to discuss full statements, not partial statements or misquotes.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, television does not allow for discussion of "full statements" that entail pages of material. However, Ann should be sufficiently familiar with her content so that she can paraphrase and summarize. This does not happen. I think the larger problem is that she is powerless to defend her baseless drivel.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Yeah I was crying wasn't I.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I meant it figuratively, Mr. English teacher. (I am an English major myself) Also, sarcasm is completely unnecessary.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
How about your own callousness. You display so much "sympathy" and "compassion" yourself.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have refrained from personally attacking you throughout this thread. Yet, you label me "callous," "close-minded," "unsympathetic," "compassionless," "prejudiced," and "uncaring." <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> How is any of that relevant? To set the record straight, I am none of the above. And I'll keep my names for you to myself.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
This has nothing to do with their voting patterns. It has to do with how they actually label the people they are reporting on
</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Being a little stereotypical aren't we? A little closed-minded?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please. Spare me the patronizing. I said "you only watch Fox News" as a joke to highlight that network's message and your seemingly compatible compliance. Didn't the nature of the statement give it away? I mean NO ONE only watches one news network. (To do so would severely limit one's views)
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Please quote for me where I said there were no republican groups.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please. One must not say something directly for it to be said. In other words, you implied it. You may not have meant it, but that's really what you said. Instead of wasting time and energy- just apologize for your lack of clarity, and correct the statement. Works for me everytime.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
If you would like to MISQUOTE me you are welcome to do so. However the fact that there is no organization called "Religious Right" or even a group that exists that could be defamed as the religious right.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I can find groups that encompass the latter requirement. I'm somewhat certain they exist. And I have no intention of "misquoting" you.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
It may interest you to know that I am an elementary school teacher. I taught in Long Beach for 5 years. (Up the street from VIP records in fact, I also didn't just teach there, I lived there for 5 years just off of PCH. I even student taught at Long Beach Poly High School)
I also taught for 5 years for LAUSD in South Central Los Angeles. I taught off of Slauson Ave and MLK Blvd at a school.
Finally for the last 4 years I have been teaching limited English children.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that's nice. Maybe I will wish to learn more from your experiences some day. But not today.
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
But because I'm registered Republican, I must be a rich, closed-minded white guy right?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have said and think you are none of those things (except a white guy), and I only assumed you were a guy because of your name, "trumptman." Though, I realize you said that to provide an extreme example of stereotyping. (see above for my thoughts)
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
I give Coulter an 8 on the idiot scale. Couric gets a 4 for taking on such an easy target.
Christianity makes conservatism look bad.
It assumes Coulter ever had a something that could be redeemed.
She has always been a shrill right-wing windbag: Rush Limbaugh's doppelganger. She makes her money by peppering her poorly-reasoned arguments with shocking statements: a sure sign of flawed reasoning.
Obviously I am on the left, but when I want to understand where the right is coming from on an issue, I certainly never listen to her. There are plenty of conservatives who actually have brains to choose from. It's just that they don't have hearts. But what would you expect?
(putting on flame-retardant pyjamas)
Mandricard
AppleOutsider