Dang, I know she doesn't like gay people, but does she have to use that word? That's just mean.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Ah, Ann Coulter. You make it so easy!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What was the definition of troll, again?
Wasn't it something like "Someone who says incredible, obnoxious things just to get a reaction from people"?
Hmm....
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't think this is trolling. I find it interesting that Romney considers Coulter 'a good thing'.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I find Ann Coulter and her articles to be great comedic relief. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I find her pathetic and sad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I don't think this is trolling. I find it interesting that Romney considers Coulter 'a good thing'.
I took MPH's comment to be about AC being a troll.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
As my old sensei would say "Ayaah!"
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
This fits my theory of "life trolls". The theory goes that some people troll in the real world. I am not sure Coulter is actually a "life troll". She might be, but I sometimes get the feeling that she is just really, really conservative.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
And what Kwea said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:She might be, but I sometimes get the feeling that she is just really, really conservative.
According to David Brock, who might be realistically expected to know, she's not.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
She may indeed be really really conservative. I have no problem with that.
She is also incredibly rude and deliberately malicious. That is not a conservative trait, I hope.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I don't think this is trolling. I find it interesting that Romney considers Coulter 'a good thing'.
I took MPH's comment to be about AC being a troll.
Yup. Coulter is acting exactly like a troll -- saying offensive, over-the-top crap in order to get a reaction from people.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pardon my misunderstanding, please.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pardoned. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
God what a b#*%^. I've heard the name before but never knew anything about her till now. Yikes. Well, I guess we know how she wants to make her money. I will continue to ignore her. Maybe I'm too harsh...first impressions and all.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: Maybe I'm too harsh...first impressions and all.
No. Not really. IMO I don't think it's possible to be too harsh when discussing Coulter. I'd find her amusing if she wasn't taken as seriously as she is.
I think any politician would be wise to disassociate themselves from her.
And Romney seemed like such a nice guy Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: [QUOTE]And Romney seemed like such a nice guy
I dunno, I've heard he switched his stance on gay marriage a few times, being against it in Utah, for it in Massachusetts, and is now against it again while he's running for president. Anyone know if that's true for sure?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
He was never explicitly for gay marriage in MA. He did say, while campaigning that he would respect and execute the laws of the Commonwealth, even if he didn't agree. One can argue, particularly on gay marriage, whether he upheld the spirit of that statement.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Romney actually allied with a gay republican caucus when he was running against Ted Kennedy back in the 90's.
I think Coulter's speculation that Bill Clinton is gay was supposed to be humorous. The man seems quite tragically heterosexual to me. As for Hillary, that was strongly hinted at in Primary Colors which was not strictly based on the Clintons. I mean, not that I have a problem getting a footrub from a lesbian, it's just that they choose to show that. What was the point? I don't know, since folks who support her don't have a problem with that kind of thing.
Perhaps that was what Coulter was trying to play at, liberals don't think it's an insult to call someone gay... except they apparently do.
She shouldn't use the 6 letter f word, and anyone who's never called her a name she wouldn't like has a right to complain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Perhaps that was what Coulter was trying to play at, liberals don't think it's an insult to call someone gay... except they apparently do.
I think that's a bit of a straw man. Liberals don't think it's a bad thing to BE gay, but they recognize that some people do -- and are aware that those people who DO think that, when they call people gay, are deliberately insulting them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, we can put two straw men in the ring together and let them swing at each other I guess. I was just trying to speculate on her motives. Ann Coulter gives me the same kind of "are they on cocaine?" willies that Robin Williams does.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think her motive is mean-spirited sensationalism. It's almost inconceivable to me that she's actually trying to make a coherent point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm much more interested in Romney's approval of Coulter than I am in her maniacal rantings.
Coulter to me is the Republican Michael Moore, though I think she is far, far more inflammatory than Moore is. He's just schmuck.
If Clinton came out in support of Michael Moore like that, you'd hear ravings from left and right and all over the media. It's a great way to ensure that no liberal will ever vote for him though. But it might be a moot point anyway with the way Giuliani is beating the pants off McCain lately.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think her motive is mean-spirited sensationalism. It's almost inconceivable to me that she's actually trying to make a coherent point.
Which makes the word troll a perfect match.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Troll is a good word for her...except she's taken so seriously in some circles. People cheered for her when she said that, and read her books, because they agree with her. She does seem like the Republican Michael Moore, but she also seems to get taken much more seriously by members of that party.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
While Moore is definitely very 'liberal' and biased, I don't recall him saying anything like Coulter's 'fag' bits or wishing people dead.
Coulter is pretty much in a class by herself, imho.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
It makes me ill that she's considered "conservative". I cannot stand that she could conceivably have anything in common with me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:She does seem like the Republican Michael Moore, but she also seems to get taken much more seriously by members of that party.
While I agree that Coulter is more virulent than Moore, I find it strange you seem to think Moore is taken less seriously than she is, what with his numerous famous and oft-respected documentaries.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't know about seriously, but the breakdown of general attention in the last three years is Moore vastly more in 2004, Coulter a little more in 2005, and Coulter a lot more in 2006 (speaking about the US).
Also, Moore's movies are frequently viewed as works of entertainment, while Coulter's books are often presented as works of scholarship. I don't think you could say most of his documentaries are famous, either, at least not on a national scale outside of a certain demographic. Most people have at least heard of several of Coulter's books, in my experience, but only one of Moore's films.
So I don't know. I do think Coulter is a much more vile person than Moore, though, and that the seriousness she's taken with is, despite that, at least on a level with Moore, who's mostly just annoying lint in my eyes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: While Moore is definitely very 'liberal' and biased, I don't recall him saying anything like Coulter's 'fag' bits or wishing people dead.
Coulter is pretty much in a class by herself, imho.
Well, there's also Michelle Malkin.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Never heard of her. Sorry.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Also, Moore's movies are frequently viewed as works of entertainment, while Coulter's books are often presented as works of scholarship.
I couldn't speak to what her works are often presented as, since I have never read any of them-what I've heard her say in print and on television and radio is more than enough for me.
Perhaps it's just a perception difference, but it seems to me that Moore's documentaries are often viewed as "truthful entertainment", perhaps, by the same sort of people, from the opposite side of the aisle, that would view Coulter's "work" as scholarship. And as for most people knowing one or the other, well, I couldn't comment on that very much except to say that anecdotally, a lot of people have heard of, say, Farenheit 9-11 and Bowling for Columbine.
Perhaps, though, that's just because Moore so blatantly ties the names of his films to tragedies.
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
I'm with Hewitt. She's being exploited to make conservatives look bad, when there are plenty of sensible female conservative pundits who are actually sane.
I hope those in the conservative movement who thought she ever had something useful to say have given up now.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Cactus Jack: if she's being exploited to make conservatives look bad, why does she keep being invited to speak by conservatives at conservative functions, and why are her books constantly advertised as good conservative literature (they appear like that with moderate freqency in the google ads here on hatrack, for instance)?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
She's been on Hannity's program a few times, for instance.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Dang, I know she doesn't like gay people, but does she have to use that word? That's just mean.
She is such a d*ck.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Unfortunately, there will always be some people who celebrate that kind of comment for "telling it like it is."
People who are willing to be led around by the nose by someone who panders to their worst nature, in essence.
Coulter is being predictably Coulter. Give her another 3-6 months, she'll say something else the talking heads will pretend to be shocked, just shocked! that she had the gall to say.
It's the people who applauded her who ought to be held up to the light.
After all, they're the ones who give her the podium.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What was the definition of troll, again?
Wasn't it something like "Someone who says incredible, obnoxious things just to get a reaction from people"?
Hmm....
So... "Ann Coulter: Putting the troll in trollup."
I like it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Cactus Jack: if she's being exploited to make conservatives look bad, why does she keep being invited to speak by conservatives at conservative functions, and why are her books constantly advertised as good conservative literature (they appear like that with moderate freqency in the google ads here on hatrack, for instance)?
Seriously, for anyone who says she's being misrepresented and that actual Conservatives don't agree with her level of invective, that's exactly where their argument loses all substance. They keep inviting her over and over again to be on Conservative talk shows, work with conservative think tanks, write for conservative slanted newspapers, and talk at conservative functions as if she's the first lady of the party (lord knows Laura Bush is clueless).
Before they can start claiming she doesn't represent them, they really need to stop treating her like a monarch of the party.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Has AC done something of this magnitude on the rude scale before, with the same amount of public coverage?
I mean, I know she's written biased books; but I didn't realize she frequently insulted individuals in this way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Using such deragatory language? Not that I remember, but she frequently calls people liars, traitors, and uses other inflammatory language to insult people on a regular basis. I think the reason she's getting such publicity on this one is because of the word she used.
I also think she used it specifically to get that free media attention.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Wow, I guess there really is no such thing as bad publicity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:She is such a d*ck.
Quack!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm with Hewitt. She's being exploited to make conservatives look bad
And the poor conservatives are trapped, being unable to not invite her to their functions?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:She is such a d*ck.
Quack!
<grin> I figured someone would do that.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I agree with Sterling, who talked about the audience that applauded Coulter.
First, Coulter has a history of making outrageous and hateful remarks about public persons and even whole categories of people - even though the event organizers couldn't know what outrageous thing she would say that day, they knew that something really outrageous was likely to come out of her mouth.
Second, the audience reaction to name-calling and use of the slur was to respond with applause - not shocked silence. It looks to me like she gave this particular audience what it wanted.
I really don't characterize all conservatives this way. There are only a couple here on Hatrack I can come close to imagining being part of the audience that applauded Coulter.
This stuff worked well for conservatives during the Clinton years and for a few years after 911 - I think the audience for this is shrinking, even though the audience may disproportionately consist of conservatives who can be counted on to do some fundraising and get out votes.
Times seem to be changing a bit. A few years ago, having people like Coulter out there as a highly visible spokesperson for conservative sentiments might have worked on some level.
That time might be over.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:
quote:I'm with Hewitt. She's being exploited to make conservatives look bad
And the poor conservatives are trapped, being unable to not invite her to their functions?
And they were compelled by forces outside of their control to applaud and cheer the statement??
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
Guys, go back and read both my post and Hewitt's.
Fugu, read my final sentance.
Samprimary, read Hewitt's post.
The point is she's NOT invited to the types of serious discussions that Hewitt is, where dialogue takes place that is actually meant to get somewhere, instead of just shock or titilate or "entertain."
And even for those who want more "entertaining" conservative women, Hewitt gives alternatives those groups can look to in the future.
There's a world of difference between the Dennis Pragers and Hugh Hewitts of the conservative media and the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
WARREN RED CLOUD: Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, b**ch, you knew I was a snake."
[ March 04, 2007, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Cactus Jack: she's been saying things like this for quite some time. I'm not sure why this would change things, but I hope it does.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The point is she's NOT invited to the types of serious discussions that Hewitt is, where dialogue takes place that is actually meant to get somewhere, instead of just shock or titilate or "entertain."
You're right. She's only invited to events where she is supposed to represent conservatives as an influential spokesperson of the movement.
And she's only had this terrible record under her belt for years now.
Look, in all seriousness, I don't think anyone's making her out to be a regular at the Roundtable or the Lehrer News Hour. Everyone's well aware that she's a one-trick firebrand with a level of political discourse best reserved for middle school. What we are noting is that conservatives keep giving her positions of honor and representation, and keep giving her an audience. And, by all means, if they don't want to be in any way represented by her, they should not.
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
Look, how many appearences does she do a year compared with Hewitt or Prager? How many people read her column vs the number who read Hewitt's column or blog? Or listen to his radio show, for that matter?
And what percentage of those who read Coulter actually agree with her, and how many are reading out of sheer morbid curiosity?
I really don't believe it was conservatives who made Coulter into a pop culture icon. I think she got a little bit of noterity for being controversial, and from there, the media started playing her up because she was a good reinforcement of the idea that consevatives are bigoted and homophobic.
In the meantime, guys like Hewitt and Prager, who reached (and influenced) far more people on a daily basis, were quietly ignored by the media, because they were just making intelligent, valid points.
But, because she was getting so much media play, her name recognition went up, and because her name recognition was up, she started getting more media play and more speaking gigs and more book deals.
In other words, her popularity is based on the media putting her forth as a spokesperson for conservatism far more than it is about conservatives lifting her up on their shoulders.
Rather, actual conservatives seem to cycle past her, picking her up for a while, but then, realizing what she is, setting her back down again.
Sure, there's a few who stick with her, just like there are a few who stick by Moore or Franken, but she's hardly the great spokeswoman of the conservative movement.
The media just wants you to think she is.
And some people, on both sides, believe it.
I hope the average American Democrat will realize that she's not as fast as most of us average American Republicans have.
Because I really have no hope that the media is going to stop getting their soundbites from her and start getting them Hewitt, no matter how many of us listen to him.
Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
I will tell you this, though--after what she just did to Romney, getting his name attached to a controversial statement like this--she will never again get any type of endorsement or recognition or even aknowledgement from another candidate during this entire campaign.
He was trying to latch on to her "popularity" and name recongition, and got burned for it. No one else will make the same mistake.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I really don't believe it was conservatives who made Coulter into a pop culture icon.
This is contrary to my experience. Conservatives made her popular; once she was popular, the media made her a celebrity. But conservatives took her seriously first, and continued to listen to her even after she became a desperate cartoon.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
'Desperate Cartoon--'
This phrase begs to be made into a webcomic.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Michael Moore quotes: "I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a deserter. What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants." "These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control." Al Franken quotes: "Over the weekend, Vice President Dick Cheney shot a man in Texas. Asked why he shot the man, the Vice President said, "Just to watch him die."" ""And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed” because “outing a CIA agent is treason,” left-wing author and radio talk show host Al Franken asserted Friday night, to audience laughter, on CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman. Franken qualified his hard-edged satire: "Yeah. And I don't know how I feel about it because I'm basically against the death penalty, but they are going to be executed it looks like." Franken later suggested that President Bush is at risk of receiving the same punishment, since Karl Rove likely told him what he did, but he added a caveat: “I think, by the way, that we should never ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President." "
This is only an issue because Ann Coulter, a conservative, said it. Many people have said more outrageous things that are barely covered because they are liberal or given a pass like Michael Moore has in this very thread. He has won many awards for his documentaries. They were not considered entertainment, they are considered documentaries. If you are liberal and bash or name call a conservative, that's ok because you were just making a joke, being satirical, or everyone can see the humor. No apology necessary.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
or how about Hillary Clinton "in 2004 saying that Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The amusing thing, DK, is that you seem completely deaf to the deliberate tone of knowing self-parody in the quotes above. Nor do you seem to understand why insulting Bush by calling him a "pants-pooper" is different from insulting Bush by calling him a "faggot."
Do you understand why the latter actually insults a whole different category of people in a very different way?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
DK -
Al Franken is a comedian, what do you really expect? Coulter is portrayed (by herself and her party as well as her opposition) as a conservative icon, you think they should have the same level of scrutiny?
Moore, before he became the smug schmuck he is today, really did have good things to say. Bowling For Columbine, I thought, was a great documentary with important things to say about America. F911 was a Bush bash fest, but again, there were important things in there to be said, though for that movie, I took it with a fairly large grain of salt. I don't see anyone in this thread giving Moore a pass. In fact, most of what I've seen in this thread chastises Moore pretty good.
And the "Coulter might be bad, but so are these guys" defense is the same thing as admitting you're wrong. You're just trying to take the other guy down with you.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The more amusing thing, TD, is that you are doing exactly what I said in my post. You completely overlook a comment like "the Vice President said "Just to watch him die" and latched on to one small phrase and made that your whole point. I think the complete lack of understanding is on your part. I post how many lines of insults and you take part of one phrase and dismiss the rest. Do you see how you completely fit into the post I made? I suppose you don't though. I suppose reducing Mahatma Gandhi to a gas station attendent is not at all insulting to millions and millions of people?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
L - You are again making the mistake TD did. How about the Clinton comment? That was not my defense, as a matter of fact I have not defended Ann Coulter at all. I simply pointed out that this is a news story because she is a conservative
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's a news story because she's conservative, and popular, and attractive, and keeps getting invited to events where she can make her very public and deliberately provocative statements. Note that her written columns, which are often much worse than this, rarely get media coverage. It's when she stands up in front of the cameras that the media bothers to pay attention, and she's in front of the camera more than the other bloviating bloggers, especially around book-selling time. You're right, though: her style is most definitely not restricted to either political view (Paterico is making a list of leftist versions). And it's certainly not new. As much as people decry the state of current American politics, you need to go back and read newspapers from Lincoln's time to see some serious hate speech.
I say dump 'em all.
You want me to take your newspaper, your organization, your candidacy seriously? Stick with guests and columnists and speakers who do not sink to that level. Stick with satirical or ironic humor and let the scornful bitterness die a quiet death.
I don't read Coulter or Malkin. I don't listen to Rush or Franken. I have never seen any of Moore's documentaries. Attacks reveal a lot more about the person attacking than the person being attacked, and frankly I don't want to know that much about these people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I don't read Coulter or Malkin. I don't listen to Rush or Franken. I have never seen any of Moore's documentaries. Attacks reveal a lot more about the person attacking than the person being attacked, and frankly I don't want to know that much about these people.
Amen. *cheers*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, I think the "gas station attendant" is the one truly offensive quote you provided, DK. The others are clearly meant to be exaggerated jokes in a way that "John Edwards is a faggot" is not.
Coulter acknowledges that calling someone a "faggot" is out of line -- which is essential to the whole self-parodying, excessive joke bit, you'll notice; it's why all the other, funnier comics do the same thing in their quotes -- but doesn't do so with aplomb. She does so in a way that implies that calling someone a "faggot" should not be out of line, that it is in fact a shame that people who say the word "faggot" are scorned, and then attempts to get away with calling someone a "faggot" anyway.
That's entirely the wrong way to make that joke. It's almost a textbook way to turn an audience against you. I haven't done stand-up in a long, long time, but the trick to that sort of thing is to make it clear that you as the performer are aware of the excesses of the character you're portraying. The trick is to make it clear that you realize your character, by insulting someone in a repugnant way, is in fact worse than the person you're insulting. Coulter doesn't do that; if she's playing an odious character, she doesn't make it obvious but rather attempts to defend her character's odious behavior. That's a highly unpopular way to pull off offensive material, if indeed it's material; Sasha Cohen and Andy Kaufman walked that road most memorably, and they were better at it.
If she's not playing a character, then there's even less excuse; she's just a boor.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I do, because they sometimes have things to say that rise about name calling.
Then again, I listen to their opposite number for the same reason, too. I listen to Michael Savage, for instance, and he's about as nutty as you can get.
Now, admittedly, sometimes this isn't much more than a few minutes, because sometimes you can tell the particular tune that they're singing and there's no need to stick around to hear the refrain a million times.
Like I said, though, Coulter is pretty much in a league of her own, though Savage comes pretty close. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, I think the "gas station attendant" is the one truly offensive quote you provided, DK. The others are clearly meant to be exaggerated jokes in a way that "John Edwards is a faggot" is not.
*nods
"shot a man ... just to watch him die" is a pop culture reference (Johnny Cash) often invoked in a satirical or exaggerated joke way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Man, now I've got Folsom Prison Blues stuck in my head.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
But the real question is, are you smoking a big cigar?
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
quote: Originally posted by Epictetus: And Romney seemed like such a nice guy
All I can say to this is that I was there long ago at one of the Romney/Kennedy debates for the MA senate. It was held in the forum of HCC where I got my Associate's. I don't remember most of the topics or the replies, but I do remember that Romney talked around the issue - whatever issue it was that was being debated. The way I describe his responses to questions is like this: (please understand that this is my way of explaining how the man responded not an actual question/response ) Moderator (M): Mr Romney is the shirt you are wearing blue? Romney (R): Well, what we need to do is form a focus group to decide whether it is feasible to fund a study to determine the answer to that question. As soon as they have an answer, the public should be made aware of the decision and then we can move forward to tackle the problem at hand. M : Yes, but is the shirt you are wearing blue? R : As I said, that conclusion must be made so that the State and the public can work together to come up with a solution. M :
This seemed to go on for the entire debate. I also understand that he has helped to bring MA out of the hole it was in in the "red", but I also remember that the first things he cut funding for were things like Fire Stations, police budgets, etc. The area my sister lived in in Springfield had it's fire station closed due to his budget cuts. Luckily the town I lived in has the "Big E" - a 6 state state fair that brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars to the town coffers every year, or we would have been in the same situation. I don't like the man or his politics, and I don't trust him as far as I can throw him...and since I have a bad back that would be not at all!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I really don't believe it was conservatives who made Coulter into a pop culture icon.
That's not a very good premise to attach your analysis to, since conservatives made Coulter into a pop culture icon.
There's a big ol' chunk of wingnuts that just won't stop buying her books or taking her seriously, and she feeds off the negative attention and continues pulling herself into conservative circles.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: L - You are again making the mistake TD did. How about the Clinton comment? That was not my defense, as a matter of fact I have not defended Ann Coulter at all. I simply pointed out that this is a news story because she is a conservative
Here's the thing: Clinton made that joke, and then she said, and I quote, "No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century."
Ann Coulter is given an opportunity to clarify a remark like "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", and she states that she meant exactly what she said.
Franken and Moore go after visible, powerful leaders. Coulter assaults women who lost their husbands to tragedy. Coulter states that she "only" wishes the Oklahoma City bombers had gone to the New York Times building. Coulter describes entire segments of the American public in terms that would make a propagandist trying to dehumanize enemies so soldiers wouldn't hesitate to kill them on the battlefield blush.
You think this is about her being conservative? You think she's equivalent to Moore or Franken? How can I put this? Your sense of scale is wildly out of whack.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The reason Moore only goes after public figures is that he lies about them incessantly, and public figures can't sue for slander. Since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about that.
You may want to look up some of the criticism of Coulter's books. Or, heck, redefine your use of the word "claim," since "John Edwards is a faggot" would seem to count.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about that.
Coulter's books are so full of bald factual errors and unsubstantiated claims that it makes this idea completely wrong. She makes plenty of claims about people without proof, and she likes to make insulting claims about people without proof. And just in case anyone would like to make the wayward claim that Coulter isn't just using blatantly homophobic vitriol, keep in mind that we're only months away from an incident in which she outright proclaimed that
1. Bill Clinton is obviously gay, and 2. Al Gore is, quote, a "total fag."
But I'll go ahead and reiterate the most important part of this post: Ann Coulter makes claims about people without proof.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: The reason Moore only goes after public figures is that he lies about them incessantly, and public figures can't sue for slander. Since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about that.
"'That's slander!' 'It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel.'"-Spider Man
Public figures can and do sue for defamation. It's just usually not a good idea, since a) the publicity is likely to be damaging, and possibly bring the original allegations to a greater audience; b) the need to disprove the accuracy of claims may bring unpleasant truths and partial truths to light, and c) public figures are required to prove the defendent's claims are both untrue and malicious in nature.
As far as Coulter having a greater respect for veracity than Moore, I believe I'll let the emoticon speak for me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know nothing about Coulter. I do know that Moore does not trouble himself with the truth.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
As I clearly said, I don't watch TV, so I can't speak to what she does there, except in this case.
We don't have to read criticism of her books to know if she documents her claims; why would we, when the books themselves are easily available? We have these methods for verifying whether she does this:
* read other people's opinions about her and believe them * make claims without evidence * post or icons * check it out for ourselves
Which option you pick says a lot!
Note that I'm not saying her conclusions are always right -- I don't think they are -- but that her facts are heavily documented.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Which option you pick says a lot!
*Does Coulter read other people's opinions and believe them (and do other people read Coulter's opinions and believe them?) *Does Coulter make claims without evidence? *Does Coulter mock/belittle other people's points? *Does Coulter check things out for herself?
Some of those answers might be yes, some might be no. But I think there's some irony in here somewhere.....
By the way, the argument that one has to have read her books to form a legitimate opinion about her positions is ridiculous. But I know you know that.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I didn't say you couldn't have a valid opinion about her positions without reading her books. I didn't endorse her opinions, either. What I *did* say is "since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about [slander lawsuits]" -- and suggested that the reliable way to know if I'm right is to, well, find out. That's all.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I didn't say you couldn't have a valid opinion about her positions without reading her books.
You seemed to imply so with:
quote:We don't have to read criticism of her books to know if she documents her claims; why would we, when the books themselves are easily available?
You said (by implication -- just like Coulter only implied that Edwards is a faggot) a bit more than "since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about [slander lawsuits]".
But I don't want to play revisionist games about what you said, or meant, or meant to say, so I'll just drop it here and beg you, next time, to just say what you mean to say.
It's all very well and good to refrain from endorsing something -- but that ain't a position. I'm sure you can see how that kind of thing can lead to misinterpretations. And I hope you will forgive me for imagining that there might be some kind of meaning behind your words.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I did say what I meant to say, precisely. I didn't say you couldn't have a valid opinion about her positions w/o reading her book, but that you can't have a valid opinion about whether the facts in her book are documented without checking. Being right and having your facts documented are different things.
For example: is the drop in crime rate in the US because of increased prison population? You can have a valid position on this without ever having heard of Ann Coulter -- of course! Why not? This isn't an opinion about Coulter, but about crime.
But if you want to know if she documented the facts she used in the book Godless on this issue, the way to know is to check the book.
And, in fact, I disagree strongly with her conclusion on that issue. I can't dispute the facts she draws on; they're too well documented, but I disagree with the reasoning.
And if her conclusions about an issue are wrong, but her facts are documented, she's safe from slander lawsuits.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I know Al Franken studiously footnotes/documents all his facts in his book...
So Coulter and Franken both document facts to support diametrically opposite realities...
Simple documentation isn't enough (for either side), one really needs to dig deeper these days.
-Bok
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Everyone documents their facts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Note that I'm not saying her conclusions are always right -- I don't think they are -- but that her facts are heavily documented.
Heh, yeah. With what she says passes for 'footnotes.'
Her facts are not actually very studiously documented at all. She will do things like purposefully overload lexnex searches and use it as a claim of specific liberal ignorances in the media.
She misrepresents and distorts statements of her sources, she engages in egregiously incorrect paraphrase, she omits information in sources that refute claims that she places in her books, she misrepresents news coverage to allege bias, the relies upon outdated and unreliable sources, and she invents facts.
Posted by rjzeller (Member # 8536) on :
Isn't this all just so lovely...
But I'm sure I should go read the lengthy threads condemning Bill Maher for suggesting that the murder of the VP would have been a good thing. Or perhaps the threads condemning him for calling Bush a rube, a dolt, a vain half-wit, a "Gilligan who cannot find his c**k with two hands", and so on.
Oh, but of course, none of them ever used the daunting "F" word. So maybe I'll have to look realy hard to find the condemnation. But I'm sure I will.....
Or the threads condemning Al Franken
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Tissue?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe those who disagree with the moron who called for the assisination of the vice president are AWARE that the speaker is an idiot and does not give them the attention they were craving with the comment in the first place.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: * make claims without evidence
Like "public figures can't sue for slander?"
Alright, cheap shot.
However, as numerous people are gently implying, "documentation" is not remotely the same thing as "proof". "Dude, Where's My Country" has 26 pages of notes and sources. So?
Neither Moore nor Coulter are the subject of a lot of lawsuits by the people they defame. But it's for exactly the same reasons. And documentation has very little to do with it.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: Originally posted by JenniK
quote: Originally posted by Epictetus: And Romney seemed like such a nice guy
I was actually trying to be a little sarcastic. The blatant fact of the matter is I don't know that much about Romney to begin with, other than he's Republican, Mormon and thus immensely popular in Utah. That being said, I didn't want to rule him out just because he was Republican. That debate story certainly informs my opinion of him a little more.
(There was going to be a really insightful paragraph here about Anne Coulter's sense of humor, or lack thereof, but I realize now that it's already been said.) Just thought I'd share
Anyway,
This particular incident just seems like a really vain attempt at humor done in extremely poor taste. If that's what politicians want to do to raise their popularity, fine, I'm not going to listen.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I read somewhere recently that Mrs. Romney came under some fire in the recent past for making a comment something to the effect of "My husband is the only man running who has only had one wife."
The comment was a jab at the fact that both McCain and Giuliani have been divorced and remarried, and a joke because of the common perception of Mormons and polygamy. It might have been a bit mean spirited, but frankly, I thought it was funny and clever.
Wasn't sure which of the many Romney threads to put that in, but I thought it was worth mentioning, since his wife isn't getting any attention.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mitt and Ann Romney have known each other since elementary school and have been together since high school. Also, she has MS.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh yeah I forgot to mention that too, actually I didn't know she had MS, but I knew they'd known each other since elementary school, which I thought was sweet.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
or ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)