Coulter Said What?

[sirs]

Got an example of this phenominon? Liberals do not need to be as carefull with their language as Conseratives do.

Class A-one unmitigated bullshit, Plane.  Kerry makes a stupid joke about going to school or ending up in the military, and you guys are all over it - just take a look back in the archives. Look at how many times a Democrat has, intentionally or not, said something silly, or had something they said taken out of context, and the comments that go up in here, and who posts them.

I think you're ignoring the qualifying denominator H.  Yea, both the left and right go after each other when the other side says stupid things.  The diff is in how the mainscream media plays it up.  When it's a Republican, the MSM rakes them over the coals, making it a headline story for a couple of weeks, if not more.  When its Democrats, it's 1-2 day story at the most, some good cartoons, and fodder for the late night comediens.  But that's pretty much it

I used to have some respect for you as someone who took pains to try to see both sides of an issue. More recently, I've come to see you as just as big a hypocrite as the rest of them.

He's actually one of the best friends the left has here H.  More than few times he's helped out-of control right of center folks, refocus their rhetoric to the topic vs getting in some verbal pissing match.  If you can't respect Plane, of all folks, that's a pretty sad commentary on your objective disposition     

[_JS]

We've had this type of discussion before....does the failure to condemn another's speech mean that you condone their position?  My opinion is that it does not.  Please feel free to agree or disagree, as may be the case.

I don't disagree at all Missus. But then why do people on the right haw about Muslims not condemning nutters within their religion? Why is it that personal responsibility doesn't seem to apply to Islam, but it applies to political parties, entertainers, authors, political philosophers, teenagers, and others? 

[BT]

Why is it that personal responsibility doesn't seem to apply to Islam, but it applies to political parties, entertainers, authors, political philosophers, teenagers, and others? 

Who says it doesn't? To be held accountable ( for not denouncing) you should at the minimum have responsibity and have the authority to affect change. The average Muslim has as much influence over an Iman as i do with the Pope. But we both have influence over how we choose to live our lives. And that is the real key to change.

[Plane]

Got an example of this phenominon?

Liberals do not need to be as carefull with their language as Conseratives do.

Class A-one unmitigated bullshit, Plane.

Kerry makes a stupid joke about going to school or ending up in the military, and you guys are all over it - just take a look back in the archives. Look at how many times a Democrat has, intentionally or not, said something silly, or had something they said taken out of context, and the comments that go up in here, and who posts them. And you sit there and pretend Conservatives are some sort of saints that are so much better than the Liberals that they have to watch their every word lest they catch the same hell. Jee-zus H. Christ on a crutch.

I used to have some respect for you as someone who took pains to try to see both sides of an issue. More recently, I've come to see you as just as big a hypocrite as the rest of them.

That is a good example of a simular incident , thank you .


But whereas Kerry was at the time still a hopefull presidential canadate his carelessness with his words was very important.

I think that Ann Colters presidential ambitions are stillborn for this same reason , tho I am not sure she cares for the pay cut.


Don't be shy about criticiseing me , there are sure to be times when I need it.

[Stray Pooch]

Plane, you are a class act.

[Plane]

Plane, you are a class act.

   Thank you very much Stray Pooch , it warms the cockles of my heart to see you say this , I have a lot of admiration for your talents , tho I am not actually sure what a heart cockle is.

[Universe Prince]

Coulter said "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."

How does the first half of that sentence relate to the second?

Specifically, why does the consequence of using the word "faggot" prevent her from saying something about Edwards?

WHo says it has to? Does Ann have a record of speaking perfectly sequential English. Who is to say the clauses are related.

"I can't go to the store right now, what the heck is that on your shirt?"

That may be the most ridiculous defense of an Ann Coulter comment I have ever seen. I guess we could call it the bad grammar defense. Or maybe the ADD grammar defense. She was so completely unable to hold onto a single train of thought that the second part of the sentence had nothing to do with the first part. Yeah, now pull the other one.

[BT]

That may be the most ridiculous defense of an Ann Coulter comment I have ever seen. I guess we could call it the bad grammar defense. Or maybe the ADD grammar defense. She was so completely unable to hold onto a single train of thought that the second part of the sentence had nothing to do with the first part. Yeah, now pull the other one.

Thanks for weighing in. Fact is she seems to do that all the time. According to the Glenn Greenwald article that Lanya shared she did it three weeks ago. And on Chris Matthews she did a similar seque involving Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

BTW it wasn't a defense of her statement. I don't think she directly called Edwards a faggot. And i doubt seriously if you can quote where she directly did.

[Plane]

Coulter said "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."

How does the first half of that sentence relate to the second?

Specifically, why does the consequence of using the word "faggot" prevent her from saying something about Edwards?

WHo says it has to? Does Ann have a record of speaking perfectly sequential English. Who is to say the clauses are related.

"I can't go to the store right now, what the heck is that on your shirt?"

That may be the most ridiculous defense of an Ann Coulter comment I have ever seen. I guess we could call it the bad grammar defense. Or maybe the ADD grammar defense. She was so completely unable to hold onto a single train of thought that the second part of the sentence had nothing to do with the first part. Yeah, now pull the other one.

It might be the actual explanation.

If you were making your living by being funny to a particular audience , and it struck you as funny that certain insults sent one to rehab....

How would you set up the joke?

Remember , saying that Mel Gibson is less than perfect won't get a laugh.

[Amianthus]

Thank you very much Stray Pooch , it warms the cockles of my heart to see you say this , I have a lot of admiration for your talents , tho I am not actually sure what a heart cockle is.

Archaic term for "ventricle."

[Universe Prince]

It might be the actual explanation.

Then she is in need of severe mental help.

If you were making your living by being funny to a particular audience , and it struck you as funny that certain insults sent one to rehab....

How would you set up the joke?

Remember , saying that Mel Gibson is less than perfect won't get a laugh.

I'd make damn sure people knew it was a joke about that situation, not use it to insult a person.

The problem here, imo, is not that Ann Coulter made another juvenile joke, but that her attitude and her word choices have made her one of the most widely-attended, and by consequence one of the most influential, voices on the right. Many people think her schtick is funny. And so this bit with calling, however indirectly you might believe it to be, John Edwards a faggot is a joke, just like calling Democrats "cheese eating surrender monkeys" or making fun of John Kerry for looking French (whatever the frell that is supposed to mean). I realize name calling asininity has always been a part of American politics, but Coulter is making a career out of it, and among the political right she has more fans than she has detractors. And here in this forum, people I would otherwise consider reasonable conservative voices are defending her comments with the excuse that Coulter didn't really come right out and say John Edwards was a faggot. Oh but I'm mistaken because that isn't a defense of Coulter's comment of course. It is just saying that she didn't directly call Edwards a faggot. I'm not sure how that isn't a defense of the comment, but I'm told it isn't. Yeah, and maybe if you pull on my leg hard enough I'll fall for that, but I doubt it.

I'm not saying I've never called people names before, because I have. But I also know that is not really something I should do, and I'm trying to make myself rise above that. Ann Coulter, however, revels in that sort of behavior and gets applauded for it. She makes money because people love her for making deliberately outrageous and insulting comments. I don't want to stifle her speech, but I can't say I like it much that people react as if I'm some sort of snobbish prude for pointing out the juvenile nature of her comments.

Maybe BT is right that Coulter's words only reflect on her and no one else. But I'd say our reactions to her comments reflect on us. And if we respond to her level of discourse with applause or a giggle, what does that say about us? Does Coulter get away with her schtick because she says what other people wish they had the guts to say? I don't know for sure, but I have my guesses. Personally, I don't like Coulter. I think she represents the some of the worst the conservatives have to offer. But hey, if you and others want to excuse her behavior, I won't stop you. It is revealing to see who says what about her kind of rhetoric.

[Mucho]

JON FRIEDMAN'S MEDIA WEB
Ann Coulter's the Paris Hilton of political coverage
Commentary: We should treat Coulter like the punch line she has become
By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Mar 7, 2007

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Ann Coulter, the raging right-wing author, has become the Paris Hilton of political coverage.
Even among her most rabid red-state fans, she has become a cartoon character -- and journalists should treat her like one.
It's no longer enough for journalists to shake their heads in amazement at her most recent verbal atrocity. Since Coulter's already a bad joke, why not depict her wearing a dunce cap? Her quotes could begin to appear in a special section called "Coulter's Latest Stupid Comment."
Hilton will do anything to appear on gossip venues, like Page Six or Gawker, as a way to stay in the news and burnish her hard-earned rep as America's most outrageous party girl. Likewise, Coulter will do anything to enhance her dubious image as America's most outrageous pundit. The more we rip her, the more her books sell and the prices for her speeches go up.
It wasn't nearly enough for Coulter to mock the Sept. 11 widows. (Her previous low-water mark at desperately trying to steal attention from serious people.) Last week, she felt compelled basically to call presidential candidate John Edwards -- a Democrat, of course -- a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Edwards' team called the comment "a shameless act of bigotry." Representatives for Republican candidates John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney distanced themselves far from Coulter's sensibility.

As Slate columnist Jack Shafer pointed out Monday (relying on a file from the Washington Monthly), Coulter has a long history of mocking Bill Clinton, welfare recipients and Vietnam veterans, among others.
Coulter ban
She went too far this time.
Coulter already is regarded as being foolish; I suspect that she'd love to be considered outright dangerous. But she is too goofy to accomplish that goal. She's in danger of becoming obsolete, the most cutting description of all.
The subhead to Shafer's column in Slate was, "Why the press can't ignore her." I disagree: We can ignore her. We should ignore her. What possible value does Coulter contribute to any reasonable discussion?
The Associated Press imposed a ban on Paris Hilton "news" last month, lifting it when she was stopped by police for driving with a suspended license.
Media lessons
Coulter is not only boorish; she is also out of touch. As someone who professes to understand national politics, she should've understood that the November 2006 elections underscored the changing times in the United States.
As the countdown to 2008 goes on, political commentators who want air time should heed the lesson of Coulter. The media seem to grasp that Americans no longer seem to want red-meat candidates at all costs.
The more we rip Coulter, the more her books sell and the prices for her speeches go up.
The stunning gains of Barack Obama on the left and Rudy Giuliani on the right in the polls illustrate that the nation, above all, wants new national voices.
Even though Giuliani has (lots of) baggage and Obama has virtually no track record, the media love them because they're new and fresh.
Yes, I know -- I'm playing Coulter's little game simply by writing this column. I'm giving her more attention. She subscribes to the lucrative but pathetic notion that no publicity is bad publicity. She thrives on the headlines and eventually makes it to the respectable media. Coulter even made the cover of Time magazine.
If people write that they love Coulter, it's good for her. If people say they hate her, that's even better.
But like Hilton, Coulter has become a punch line, reaching a point where she is famous for being famous and for doing stupid things.
It's a living. Still, there must be a better way to make a buck.
MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: How should the media cover Ann Coulter?
WEDNESDAY PET PEEVE: How media people conveniently misuse the word "controversial," describing someone like Coulter as controversial -- when, in fact, she is horrendous.
THE READERS RESPOND to my column about Fox business anchor Neil Cavuto:
"I knew I liked Cavuto because his take on things was 'different,' just didn't know why he was different. Now I do, and it only increases my respect for the guy. He's willing to sit there and take the hits that guests generate for his show (because he invites criticism and commentary from every intellectual direction, and reports it ALL), and he's willing to cut through and turn off the Cramers and other screamers of the financial world." William Dick
"What I dislike about Neil Cavuto is his entire TV persona -- it is a grating, unequivocal, pro-business abrasive, high-energy bravado." Don Alberstadt
"The piece on Neil Cavuto is class journalism for a classy journalist. I commend you on bringing to light the oh-so-missed [Louis] Rukeyser perspective on the market and life." Linda Schafer
(Media Web appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.)
Jon Friedman is a senior columnist for MarketWatch in New York.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ann-coulter-paris-hilton-political/story.aspx?guid=%7b41E57582-067D-40D0-A999-6858C2232E5E%7d&siteid=myyahoo&dist=myyahoo&print=true&dist=printBottom
 

[BT]

Oh but I'm mistaken because that isn't a defense of Coulter's comment of course. It is just saying that she didn't directly call Edwards a faggot. I'm not sure how that isn't a defense of the comment, but I'm told it isn't. Yeah, and maybe if you pull on my leg hard enough I'll fall for that, but I doubt it.

She didn't directly call Edwards a faggot, and until that is proven otherwise, that is not a defense.  it is a statement of fact. No leg pulling necessary.

And there is no way i should either take ownership for her remarks or apologize for them under fear of being accused of tacitly approving them. I didn't speak them. I didn't applaud them. I am simply aware of them.

I happen to believe people are responsible for their own actions and what i am reading here is that those who tout the supremacy of individualism are sure tryig to herd the sheep.

And somehow that seems inconsistent.

[Universe Prince]

She didn't directly call Edwards a faggot, and until that is proven otherwise, that is not a defense.  it is a statement of fact. No leg pulling necessary.

Then why bring it up? It's a bit of semantics to claim she didn't call him a faggot because she didn't specifically say "Edwards is a faggot." If you're not intending to make that point, why bring it up? If you are intending to make that point, how is that not defending her statement?

And there is no way i should either take ownership for her remarks or apologize for them under fear of being accused of tacitly approving them. I didn't speak them. I didn't applaud them. I am simply aware of them.

I happen to believe people are responsible for their own actions and what i am reading here is that those who tout the supremacy of individualism are sure tryig to herd the sheep.

And somehow that seems inconsistent.

I don't recall having said, either directly or indirectly, that you were responsible or should take ownership for what Coulter said. We, as individuals, are, however, responsible for our reactions to her remarks. And maybe you personally did not applaud her remarks (and I am pretty sure I did not claim you personally did so), but other people did. I'm not trying to herd anyone. I've only expressed my disdain for Coulter and my dislike of what I perceive to be the defense of her comments. And I see nothing inconsistent about holding Coulter individually responsible for her own words and holding those individuals who respond responsible for those responses. I am treating the individual as an individual in both cases. In other words, yes, Coulter is responsible for her actions, but you are also responsible for yours. Seeing you both as individually responsible for what you say as individuals seems to me completely consistent with individualism. No herding necessary or attempted.

[BT]

Then why bring it up? It's a bit of semantics to claim she didn't call him a faggot because she didn't specifically say "Edwards is a faggot." If you're not intending to make that point, why bring it up? If you are intending to make that point, how is that not defending her statement?

My reason for posting the story in the first place was to disagree with the demands for denouncing. Please try to follow the thread.
And the reason for the demands was that she directly called Edwards a faggot, which she didn't. 

I don't recall having said, either directly or indirectly, that you were responsible or should take ownership for what Coulter said. We, as individuals, are, however, responsible for our reactions to her remarks. And maybe you personally did not applaud her remarks (and I am pretty sure I did not claim you personally did so), but other people did. I'm not trying to herd anyone. I've only expressed my disdain for Coulter and my dislike of what I perceive to be the defense of her comments. And I see nothing inconsistent about holding Coulter individually responsible for her own words and holding those individuals who respond responsible for those responses. I am treating the individual as an individual in both cases. In other words, yes, Coulter is responsible for her actions, but you are also responsible for yours. Seeing you both as individually responsible for what you say as individuals seems to me completely consistent with individualism. No herding necessary or attempted.

Oh please. Pull the the other finger to use your favorite phrase. Your previous post laid accusations of defending Coulter upon anyone who dared stray from your disdain for her and then called those same people no longer worthy of being considered reasonable conservatives  because they obviously thought exactly like Coulter but didn't have the courage to express those thoughts outright.

I'm not saying I've never called people names before, because I have. But I also know that is not really something I should do, and I'm trying to make myself rise above that. Ann Coulter, however, revels in that sort of behavior and gets applauded for it. She makes money because people love her for making deliberately outrageous and insulting comments. I don't want to stifle her speech, but I can't say I like it much that people react as if I'm some sort of snobbish prude for pointing out the juvenile nature of her comments.

Maybe BT is right that Coulter's words only reflect on her and no one else. But I'd say our reactions to her comments reflect on us. And if we respond to her level of discourse with applause or a giggle, what does that say about us? Does Coulter get away with her schtick because she says what other people wish they had the guts to say? I don't know for sure, but I have my guesses. Personally, I don't like Coulter. I think she represents the some of the worst the conservatives have to offer. But hey, if you and others want to excuse her behavior, I won't stop you. It is revealing to see who says what about her kind of rhetoric.

or is that not what you meant to say with the above.