PDA

View Full Version : Do Ann Coulter's views on anything matter anymore?


Jenson71
06-28-2007, 05:37 AM
She's a hideous human being all the way through, and a stain on the University of Michigan Law school's alumni list. Like Paris Hilton, the day when she stops making headlines is the day the American public wins a nice battle against attention whores and worthlessness in our media.

chagrin
06-28-2007, 05:50 AM
I will only comment on the one part of your post. Have you seen the list of alumni fom UofM Law?

Some of the best and well respected media folk ever went there; she's hardly a stain that matters. Also in the end I suspect that the Law School only cares about how much tuition they collect, heh.

420am
06-28-2007, 05:51 AM
She needs to join Westboro Baptist Church. They both use the same tactics for media attention.

Silock
06-28-2007, 06:12 AM
They mattered to begin with?

Direckshun
06-28-2007, 08:13 AM
Yes, they do. But only to a lot of really stupid people.

Mr. Laz
06-28-2007, 08:19 AM
Did Ann Coulter's views on anything matter ever?
FYP

Cochise
06-28-2007, 08:21 AM
LMAO

Obviously they do matter, she's got a bunch of liberals having a circle jerk about her.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2007, 08:58 AM
Only about as much as the ideas of Michael Moore..... :shrug:

Chief Henry
06-28-2007, 09:06 AM
LMAO

Obviously they do matter, she's got a bunch of liberals having a circle jerk about her.



The MSM has blown her statements so far out of contexts is really pathetic...... :shake:

Cochise
06-28-2007, 09:13 AM
The MSM has blown her statements so far out of contexts is really pathetic...... :shake:

She's a 'shock jock', without a microphone. There's a point behind what is being said but it's meant to be shocking. That's all. I generally find her columns entertaining/humorous on the rare occasion that I see one.

Mr. Laz
06-28-2007, 09:13 AM
Only about as much as the ideas of Michael Moore..... :shrug:
oh please ...... no comparison

you may disagree with Michael Moore but at least he has substance.

Coulter is a psycho dumbass

if you must pull out your GOP defender shield at least attempt to be reasonable.

lemme try and fix it for you

Only about as much as the ideas of James carvell... :shrug:

BucEyedPea
06-28-2007, 09:24 AM
The MSM has blown her statements so far out of contexts is really pathetic...... :shake:
MSM?

Jenson71
06-28-2007, 09:47 AM
MSM?

Main-stream media.

Adept Havelock
06-28-2007, 09:48 AM
Even less than Michael Moore or Sean Hannity's, IMO.

And that thought likely tortures her. I think pundit-envy is one of the main drives for her obvious anger. Besides, It's not like she (or any Pundit for the most part) has much worthwhile to offer.

Yeah, her opinion matters. Mainly to the folks that condemn Al Franken for doing the same pathetic act.

Cochise
06-28-2007, 09:53 AM
MSM?

He means the willing neocon accomplices in the neocon media.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2007, 09:54 AM
He means the willing neocon accomplices in the neocon media.
Then that would be: WNAITNM

Chief Henry
06-28-2007, 10:01 AM
He means the willing neocon accomplices in the neocon media.


ROFL

NewChief
06-28-2007, 10:40 AM
oh please ...... no comparison

you may disagree with Michael Moore but at least he has substance.

Coulter is a psycho dumbass



I agree. Moore at least tries to address specific issues. The extend of Coulter's commentary seems to be aimed solely at people and lie in the realm of "Liberals are evil. Liberals are stupid."

Cochise
06-28-2007, 10:46 AM
I agree. Moore at least tries to address specific issues. The extend of Coulter's commentary seems to be aimed solely at people and lie in the realm of "Liberals are evil. Liberals are stupid."

This sounds remarkably like the drumbeat you hear from the mainstream media.

NewChief
06-28-2007, 07:50 PM
Hilariously enough, my wife got an automated spamcall from freeanncoulter.com tonight asking a bunch of questions, then asking for a donation. WTF are we freeing her from? Insanity? Maybe they're trying to raise money for a frontal lobotomy.

Bowser
06-28-2007, 08:19 PM
Her Adam's Apple freaks me out.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2007, 08:24 PM
Anyone who considers Michael Moore less of a demagogue/partisan shill/ideological blowhard....than Coulter, is purely and simply FOS, IMO.

They are both intellectual blowhards who are laughing all the way to the bank, because they can get reactions out of folks that are predictably outraged due to their own blind partisanship.

In other words, they are the real world version of Logical/Jim--who've gotten rich milking that schtick.. :D

NewChief
06-28-2007, 08:47 PM
Anyone who considers Michael Moore less of a demagogue/partisan shill/ideological blowhard....than Coulter, is purely and simply FOS, IMO.

They are both intellectual blowhards who are laughing all the way to the bank, because they can get reactions out of folks that are predictably outraged due to their own blind partisanship.


I still completely disagree. I don't think that anyone has ever read or listened to Coulter and thought, "Damn. I've never thought of that before." Well, I'm sure someone has, but I don't think many have. On the other hand, I think many, many people have watched a Michael Moore film and come away with different ideas and thoughts than they might have had before. To say that Moore's work plays only with his partisan base is ludicrous. You might not like it, personally, but the fact remains that there are quite a few non partisan Americans who have been influenced by Moore.

Cochise
06-28-2007, 09:04 PM
You might not like it, personally, but the fact remains that there are quite a few non partisan Americans who have been influenced by Moore.

Holding sway over people does not say anything about the quality of your work or the veracity of the information communicated.

Is he influential? There can be no doubt. But a lot of unsavory characters have been influential over the years.

NewChief
06-28-2007, 09:12 PM
Holding sway over people does not say anything about the quality of your work or the veracity of the information communicated.

Is he influential? There can be no doubt. But a lot of unsavory characters have been influential over the years.

Yes, but Kotter's accusation was that Coulter and Moore play solely to partisan bases with no one other than their partisan shills paying attention. I'm countering that. Moore is a far more dominant figure within our culture than Coulter.

The politics of Moore are, of course, what this forum is all about. That debate is played out daily here, and there's no reason to go into it in this thread.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2007, 09:44 PM
NewChief: sorry, as a blind partisan you simply can't see the forest for the trees, IMO.

ChiefaRoo
06-28-2007, 11:22 PM
oh please ...... no comparison

you may disagree with Michael Moore but at least he has substance.

Coulter is a psycho dumbass

if you must pull out your GOP defender shield at least attempt to be reasonable.

lemme try and fix it for you


Michael Moore is a glutton and a smart ass propagandist who isn't really all that smart. Ann Coulter is mean and tough but to say Michael Moore has substance in comparison to her is a joke. She may be a biatch but she is one of the smartest and best debaters out there.

Sam Hall
06-29-2007, 12:43 AM
egads

Adept Havelock
06-29-2007, 09:12 AM
egads

:Lin:

Careful...after the laptop thread, frazod might see that.

Radar Chief
06-29-2007, 10:15 AM
They mattered to begin with?

:shrug: My first thought also.

Radar Chief
06-29-2007, 10:17 AM
egads

Wow, that’s one impressive wonder bra. :eek:
MAnn Coulter isn’t normally pack’n like that.

Mr. Laz
06-29-2007, 10:18 AM
NewChief: sorry, as a blind partisan you simply can't see the forest for the trees, IMO.
wow ........ pot meet kettle

Radar Chief
06-29-2007, 10:22 AM
I still completely disagree. I don't think that anyone has ever read or listened to Coulter and thought, "Damn. I've never thought of that before." Well, I'm sure someone has, but I don't think many have. On the other hand, I think many, many people have watched a Michael Moore film and come away with different ideas and thoughts than they might have had before. To say that Moore's work plays only with his partisan base is ludicrous. You might not like it, personally, but the fact remains that there are quite a few non partisan Americans who have been influenced by Moore.

Does that speak to the content of their rhetoric, or how widely it’s publicized?
And that last sentence is not a provable statement. It’s speculation.

Chief Faithful
06-29-2007, 10:49 AM
Yes, but Kotter's accusation was that Coulter and Moore play solely to partisan bases with no one other than their partisan shills paying attention. I'm countering that. Moore is a far more dominant figure within our culture than Coulter.

The politics of Moore are, of course, what this forum is all about. That debate is played out daily here, and there's no reason to go into it in this thread.

The only difference between Coulter and Moore is their choice of medium. They both make their living off partisan rhetoric.

NewChief
06-29-2007, 11:44 AM
Does that speak to the content of their rhetoric, or how widely it’s publicized?
And that last sentence is not a provable statement. It’s speculation.

I'm speaking directly to content. Moore's works do things like tackle corporate corruption, gun violence, health care. Coulter's works do things like say, "Damn liberals are evil scum sucking pieces of shit."


As for the last sentence, it may be speculation, but I'd feel pretty safe in saying that quite a few non partisans were incensed by Roger and Me or found some interesting ideas worth mulling over in Bowling for Columbine. I imagine that Sicko will find an even broader, more diverse audience.

Radar Chief
06-29-2007, 11:57 AM
I'm speaking directly to content. Moore's works do things like tackle corporate corruption, gun violence, health care. Coulter's works do things like say, "Damn liberals are evil scum sucking pieces of shit."

I’m sure MAnn would be disappointed in the content skipped over to reach the only conclusion that her work is, “we’re better than you ‘cuase you guys, like, suck.”
Ironically though, most I talk to on the right say the exact same thing about Double Cheeseburger. That the only content is, “blah, blah, republicans id teh Debil!”
Crazy how that works, huh?

As for the last sentence, it may be speculation, but I'd feel pretty safe in saying that quite a few non partisans were incensed by Roger and Me or found some interesting ideas worth mulling over in Bowling for Columbine. I imagine that Sicko will find an even broader, more diverse audience.

Again, I could say the same of MAnn Coulter’s latest partisan diatribe, doesn’t make it true.
And “Sicko”? :rolleyes: I’m sure he’ll win another “award” for this “documentary” but so far from the advertisements I’ve seen, its just more of the same. He even try’s to claim that US health care ranks just above Slovinia? :spock: Yea, exactly how was that ranking system calculated, there Double Cheeseburger? ROFL

dirk digler
06-29-2007, 12:28 PM
I'm speaking directly to content. Moore's works do things like tackle corporate corruption, gun violence, health care. Coulter's works do things like say, "Damn liberals are evil scum sucking pieces of shit."


That pretty much covers it. Up until recently I would have put them in a similar box but after the latest comments by Coulter about wishing death on Edwards and making fun of his dead child she is in a league of her own.

Baby Lee
06-29-2007, 12:32 PM
I still completely disagree. I don't think that anyone has ever read or listened to Coulter and thought, "Damn. I've never thought of that before." Well, I'm sure someone has, but I don't think many have. On the other hand, I think many, many people have watched a Michael Moore film and come away with different ideas and thoughts than they might have had before. To say that Moore's work plays only with his partisan base is ludicrous. You might not like it, personally, but the fact remains that there are quite a few non partisan Americans who have been influenced by Moore.
Geez, not to take Ann's side, but.
At least in her written columns, she is occasionally capable of a novel analogy or juxtoposition that, if it doesn't resonate, at least provides a morsel of contemplation.
OTOH, Moore for the most part brings up issues/events/things I'm generally already aware of, proposes a socialist solution, and other people are blown away.

dirk digler
06-29-2007, 12:33 PM
And “Sicko”? :rolleyes: I’m sure he’ll win another “award” for this “documentary” but so far from the advertisements I’ve seen, its just more of the same. He even try’s to claim that US health care ranks just above Slovinia? :spock: Yea, exactly how was that ranking system calculated, there Double Cheeseburger? ROFL

I haven't seen the movie yet but it is obivous you haven't read the reviews because including those working for non-Moore-ideology friendly media (The Wall Street Journal and Fox News) have universally praised "SiCKO."

The movie from what I have read isn't partisan he lumps the blame on both parties and while you may disagree with his ideas at least he is trying to do something and raise awareness on the issue of the shitty and corrupt health care system we have in the US.

Before you get stupid and ask for a link here you go :)


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html

Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity.

Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience.

"This film is a call to action," Moore said at a press conference on Saturday. "It's also not a partisan film."

Indeed, in "Sicko," Moore criticizes both Democrats and Republicans for their inaction and in some cases their willingness to be bribed by pharmaceutical companies and insurance carrier

Sam Hall
06-29-2007, 01:15 PM
Wow, that’s one impressive wonder bra. :eek:
MAnn Coulter isn’t normally pack’n like that.

It gets worse

Baby Lee
06-29-2007, 01:17 PM
I haven't seen the movie yet but it is obivous you haven't read the reviews because including those working for non-Moore-ideology friendly media (The Wall Street Journal and Fox News) have universally praised "SiCKO."
And more and more of even his hardiest cohorts are pointing out it's entertainment much more than enlightenment.

Or at the least, laud him for pointing out the problems, with serious reservations about any of his solutions.

Loved this tidbit from TheStar ROFL ROFL

He once again presents Canadians as the cheery hobbits of North America, who live happily in the shire and look with fear upon the dark place below.

http://www.thestar.com/article/230677

Oh, and this

Nor does it seem to occur to him that if Guantanamo were to deny health care to its prisoners, the U.S. would be in violation of international law and basic human rights.
underscores my initial reaction to his shaming tones about the free health care the Gitmos get . . . better than our heroes!!!

It's the latest in a long line of cake/eat it criticisms I've observed.

You can't fight a tactic [terror] -v- we should've stayed on the trail of bin Laden

Gitmo prisoners are brutalized -v- Gitmo prisoners are pampered

Bush admin is incompetent -v- Bush admin masterminds things you can't even comprehend

Bush is poodle of Christian right -v- Bush only panders to Christian right while ignoring them substantively.

dirk digler
06-29-2007, 01:24 PM
And more and more of even his hardiest cohorts are pointing out it's entertainment much more than enlightenment.

Or at the least, laud him for pointing out the problems, with serious reservations about any of his solutions.

Loved this tidbit from TheStar ROFL ROFL



http://www.thestar.com/article/230677

That is pretty funny.

Like I said I haven't seen the movie though I know one of his solutions is universal health care but IMHO he is doing a very good thing by doing this movie. It can't hurt.

dirk digler
06-29-2007, 01:32 PM
underscores my initial reaction to his shaming tones about the free health care the Gitmos get . . . better than our heroes!!!

It's the latest in a long line of cake/eat it criticisms I've observed.

You can't fight a tactic [terror] -v- we should've stayed on the trail of bin Laden

Gitmo prisoners are brutalized -v- Gitmo prisoners are pampered

Bush admin is incompetent -v- Bush admin masterminds things you can't even comprehend

Bush is poodle of Christian right -v- Bush only panders to Christian right while ignoring them substantively.

BL I think his point is that Gitmo prisoners shouldn't be getting better treatment than citizens of the US which they are.

n a key moment in the film, Moore takes a group of patients by boat to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba because of its outstanding medical care. When they can't get into the U.S. naval base, Moore proceeds onto Havana where the patients are treated well and cheaply.

I also thought and maybe I am wrong but hasn't this administration said that Gitmo prisoners don't fall under any international treaty or
law?

Like I said I haven't seen the movie yet so I am interested in what type of solutions he is proposing if any besides universal health care.

Baby Lee
06-29-2007, 01:38 PM
BL I think his point is that Gitmo prisoners shouldn't be getting better treatment than citizens of the US which they are.
Gitmo prisoners might get better care than some can afford, but not better care than is available to US Citizens.
Point is, Gitmo prisoners don't have the liberty to earn wages and choose what to spend those wages on. They are dependent on those holding them for their daily needs. We can't neglect their care, and they can't obtain it independently, so it's on us to provide it.

dirk digler
06-29-2007, 01:55 PM
Gitmo prisoners might get better care than some can afford, but not better care than is available to US Citizens.
Point is, Gitmo prisoners don't have the liberty to earn wages and choose what to spend those wages on. They are dependent on those holding them for their daily needs. We can't neglect their care, and they can't obtain it independently, so it's on us to provide it.

The problem is alot of Americans can't afford great care like what is given for free to terrorists.

Doesn't that bother you in the least BL?

Baby Lee
06-29-2007, 02:11 PM
The problem is alot of Americans can't afford great care like what is given for free to terrorists.

Doesn't that bother you in the least BL?
I'm at a loss for why it would.
Is what's bothering you that Gitmo gets this care, or that some Americans don't?
Gitmo prisoners are beholden, they have no liberty over earning, no choice about spending. That we've taken this from them is the source of our obligation to care for them.
I don't want that same kind of beholden-ness to creep into our society.

go bowe
06-29-2007, 02:16 PM
I will only comment on the one part of your post. Have you seen the list of alumni fom UofM Law?

Some of the best and well respected media folk ever went there; she's hardly a stain that matters. Also in the end I suspect that the Law School only cares about how much tuition they collect, heh.your and idiot...

go bowe
06-29-2007, 02:33 PM
Anyone who considers Michael Moore less of a demagogue/partisan shill/ideological blowhard....than Coulter, is purely and simply FOS, IMO.

They are both intellectual blowhards who are laughing all the way to the bank, because they can get reactions out of folks that are predictably outraged due to their own blind partisanship.

In other words, they are the real world version of Logical/Jim--who've gotten rich milking that schtick.. :Dfos, eh?

maby i should take a crap more often than once a week...

but even in my abject shittiness, i know that you are far more fos than me...

as to the rest of your post, anyone who thinks that moore's pov is in any significant way as despicable as coulter's is a retart...

not only are you a retart, you are a maron...

or is it moran?

dirk digler
06-29-2007, 02:41 PM
I'm at a loss for why it would.
Is what's bothering you that Gitmo gets this care, or that some Americans don't?
Gitmo prisoners are beholden, they have no liberty over earning, no choice about spending. That we've taken this from them is the source of our obligation to care for them.
I don't want that same kind of beholden-ness to creep into our society.

I am at loss why it doesn't bother you. I mean you really think that terrorists should receive better health care than average tax paying Americans?

**** the terrorists I could care less. We provide them the basic necessitates and that should be it. They want to kill Americans so I could care less what we supposedly took from them.

go bowe
06-29-2007, 02:50 PM
* * *
He even try’s to claim that US health care ranks just above Slovinia? :spock: Yea, exactly how was that ranking system calculated, there Double Cheeseburger? ROFLyes, that's what the world health organization says, just above slovenia... list (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 04:33 PM
Geez, not to take Ann's side, but.
At least in her written columns, she is occasionally capable of a novel analogy or juxtoposition that, if it doesn't resonate, at least provides a morsel of contemplation.
OTOH, Moore for the most part brings up issues/events/things I'm generally already aware of, proposes a socialist solution, and other people are blown away.

Thread OVAH..... :clap:

Moore disciples who are too big a pussies to admit they love his despicable and incendiary propagandizing demagoguery.....you may now pull your heads out his deep, slimy, sweaty, and raunchy crusted crevice.

patteeu
06-29-2007, 04:38 PM
That pretty much covers it. Up until recently I would have put them in a similar box but after the latest comments by Coulter about wishing death on Edwards and making fun of his dead child she is in a league of her own.

She didn't wish death on Edwards. I didn't see anything wrong with her comment at all.

Bowser
06-29-2007, 05:51 PM
She didn't wish death on Edwards. I didn't see anything wrong with her comment at all.

I thought she wanted all liberals to die. I thought she even wrote a book about it.

mlyonsd
06-29-2007, 05:54 PM
I think a valid comparison is Bill Maher and Coulter. They each play to the hard core elements of their prospective sides.

Have about the same relevance too.

dirk digler
06-29-2007, 11:43 PM
She didn't wish death on Edwards. I didn't see anything wrong with her comment at all.

Huh?

“if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

Mr. Kotter
06-29-2007, 11:45 PM
Huh?

You gotta admit, that his "it's a bumper slogan" bullshit....invited that sort of commentary....as much in bad-taste, as it may be. You can't possibly think she was serious? At least anymore so than half of the ridiculous stuff Moore has suggested over the years? Or do you? :spock:

Logical
06-29-2007, 11:53 PM
You gotta admit, that his "it's a bumper slogan" bullshit....invited that sort of commentary....as much in bad-taste, as it may be. You can't possibly think she was serious? At least anymore so than half of the ridiculous stuff Moore has suggested over the years? Or do you? :spock:
Hey, I hate Moore but when has he wished death on anyone?

dirk digler
06-30-2007, 12:02 AM
You gotta admit, that his "it's a bumper slogan" bullshit....invited that sort of commentary....as much in bad-taste, as it may be. You can't possibly think she was serious? At least anymore so than half of the ridiculous stuff Moore has suggested over the years? Or do you? :spock:

Yeah that comparision is great. Is that like a girl dressing up sexy invites rape?

I haven't heard Moore wish death on someone or talk about a guy's dead kid have you?

I am not saying Moore is some great person he is just a cut above the hateful Coulter.

I agree with mlyonsd the better comparison is between Maher and Coulter.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2007, 12:04 AM
Hey, I hate Moore but when has he wished death on anyone?

No one except American troops....

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14

...the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end...

But you go right ahead, and explain to us...how he is NOT really saying American soldiers need to die....go ahead.

LMAO LMAO LMAO

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2007, 12:05 AM
Yeah that comparision is great. Is that like a girl dressing up sexy invites rape?

I haven't heard Moore wish death on someone or talk about a guy's dead kid have you?

I am not saying Moore is some great person he is just a cut above the hateful Coulter.

I agree with mlyonsd the better comparison is between Maher and Coulter.

See post #59 :rolleyes:

dirk digler
06-30-2007, 12:09 AM
No one except American troops....

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14



But you go right ahead, and explain to us...how he is NOT really saying American soldiers need to die....go ahead.

LMAO LMAO LMAO

Edit: After reading the full context of the quote I get it. Sorry I am stupid. :)

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2007, 12:16 AM
Call me stupid but I don't see anywhere in this statement saying he wants American soldiers to die.

:shake: :shake: :shake:

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2007, 12:17 AM
Edit: After reading the full context of the quote I get it. Sorry I am stupid. :)

You are NOT stupid, really. Thanks for the edit. Seriously. Jim won't admit it, though. You watch.

That's the difference between you, and him.

You aren't stupid....just a victim of Moore's very skillful manipulation of the media, and propaganda: you are NOT alone. :shake:

Logical
06-30-2007, 12:38 AM
No one except American troops....

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14



But you go right ahead, and explain to us...how he is NOT really saying American soldiers need to die....go ahead.

LMAO LMAO LMAOYou really are delusional. He is saying the blood of our young will continue to be spilled for Bush's personal vendetta. The forgiveness he asks for is for Bush's arrogance.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2007, 12:47 AM
You really are delusional. He is saying the blood of our young will continue to be spilled for Bush's personal vendetta. The forgiveness he asks for is for Bush's arrogance.

See, dirk. It's SOOOOOOOO predictable. It's like clockwork. The rising of the sun; and Jim's stupidity. LMAO

Logical
06-30-2007, 01:13 AM
See, dirk. It's SOOOOOOOO predictable. It's like clockwork. The rising of the sun; and Jim's stupidity. LMAO

Like alway you declare victory rather than defending your weak and lame attempt. By the way where did Moore call directly for anyones death like Coulter did?

patteeu
06-30-2007, 08:17 AM
Huh?

I'll let cartwrightdale at the DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/27/174633/434) explain:

I hate, hate, hate being in a position to "defend" Ann Coulter under any circumstances, especially against someone I respect and admire as much as Elizabeth Edwards.

But after watching the actual clip of Ann Coulter, I am forced to conclude that Edwards' description of her comment is simply not true. It's just not. I wish it was. I'd love another reason to hate her. Some of the things she said about Edwards' deceased son Wade really were inexcusible. But she did not "wish that John had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." There is simply no way you can watch the video and conclude that she did.

...

The clip is here:

http://www.breitbart.tv/... (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2258.html)

Now, fair warning: watching this will give you no reason to like her. She's rude and mean and just a horrible person. But... no rational person could watch that clip and really conclude what the Edwards camp is claiming. And hypocrisy and exaggeration piss me off even more when it comes from our side than when it comes from theirs.

The transcript:

Coulter: I did not call John Edwards the f-word. I said you couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for saying that word.

GMA: You say you were joking.

Coulter: Oh, yeah -- I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. --laugh-- But, you know, around the same time, Bill Maher was not joking when he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson: if I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot. --laugh--

I got the Edwards email today, as some of you probably did, because I'm an Edwards contributor and supporter. I believe John Edwards to be absolutely inspiring, and he's my current top pick for our nomination. But let's attack Coulter and her hate-based brand of political "commentary" on its own terms. There's no reason to take stuff out of context when she's said so much worse in context.

dirk digler
06-30-2007, 08:18 AM
You are NOT stupid, really. Thanks for the edit. Seriously. Jim won't admit it, though. You watch.

That's the difference between you, and him.

You aren't stupid....just a victim of Moore's very skillful manipulation of the media, and propaganda: you are NOT alone. :shake:

I had to re-read that quote a half-dozen times to finally get what he was saying.

Yes Jim basically he is saying that since the majority of Americans went along with the war the first time so now they have to send their children to the altar of Iraq and sacrifice them so that maybe one day the Iraqi's will forgive us.

Also Rob I am not a victim of Moore at all. Sicko is actually the first film that I would actually watch by him. I understand what he is trying to do the majority of the time but even reviewers like Fox News has praised the film.

Anyway I am no defender of Moore at all and I can't quite understand why people continue to defend Coulter. Yet people constantly have to defend her.

patteeu
06-30-2007, 08:20 AM
I agree with mlyonsd the better comparison is between Maher and Coulter.

LOL, ironically, that's the comparison she's making when she *doesn't* wish death on Edwards.

patteeu
06-30-2007, 08:21 AM
By the way where did Moore call directly for anyones death like Coulter did?

She didn't.

dirk digler
06-30-2007, 08:22 AM
I'll let cartwrightdale at the DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/27/174633/434) explain:

Thanks Patteeu. After reading the full context of the interview I get what she is saying.

I stand corrected again

patteeu
06-30-2007, 08:25 AM
Thanks Patteeu. After reading the full context of the interview I get what she is saying.

:thumb:

Logical
06-30-2007, 05:30 PM
She didn't.
Well to say she didn't is not factual, but I will admit after watching the interview, she said it in gest. Props to Patteeu for finding a link to the video interview and posting it. Far more effective than using a diversionary argument about Michael Moore like Kotter chose to do.:thumb:

patteeu
07-01-2007, 07:32 AM
Well to say she didn't is not factual, but I will admit after watching the interview, she said it in gest. Props to Baby Lee for finding a link to the video interview and posting it. Far more effective than using a diversionary argument about Michael Moore like Kotter chose to do.:thumb:

Speaking of "not factual," let's talk about your post.

She didn't "call directly for [Edwards'] death". Not even in jest. She illustrated a point about inconsistent outrage among her detractors.

And, not that I need the credit for it or anything, but Baby Lee didn't post the link, I did.

scott free
07-01-2007, 10:56 AM
No.

And they never did.

Eric
07-01-2007, 11:06 AM
I heard she dated the indian conservative dude and bob guccioni jr.

Logical
07-01-2007, 02:24 PM
Speaking of "not factual," let's talk about your post.

She didn't "call directly for [Edwards'] death". Not even in jest. She illustrated a point about inconsistent outrage among her detractors.

And, not that I need the credit for it or anything, but Baby Lee didn't post the link, I did.Sorry for crediting BL for the link but I disagree with you, she clearly said it in gest.

Fishpicker
07-01-2007, 02:33 PM
Coulter vs. Corolla

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B4hacmvSPaI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B4hacmvSPaI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

penchief
07-01-2007, 09:24 PM
LMAO

Obviously they do matter, she's got a bunch of liberals having a circle jerk about her.

My dismay has more to do with the fact that the corporate media would cater to such a dishonest and despicable person on a regular basis when they know that she spews lies and hatred. The act of dishonestly besmirching another's character for personal or political gain is about as low as it gets, IMO. The fact that it actually works to win elections is maddening.

The problem is that the corporate media is willing to play along with such dishonesty and lowlife tactics (see Swiftboating). In my mind, that only reinforces the notion that the media is equally as corrupt as the corporate lackeys in the White House who carry out the corporate agenda at the expense of our democratic traditions, our public health, and our individual liberties.

It really is time for Americans to wake up. It's getting late in the game. People like Ann Coulter only cloud the real issues in favor of diversionary tactics that buy time for the corporate/right-wing agenda to be fully implemented. Meanwhile, We The People, continue to lose ground at an alarming rate.

penchief
07-01-2007, 09:30 PM
Only about as much as the ideas of Michael Moore..... :shrug:

I'll have to disagree with you here. At least Moore offers something other than slimy personal attacks. Like or hate him, agree or disagree with him, he's considerably more substantive when it comes to issues. Coulter is worthless other than to make personal attacks unrelated to anything truly important.

MadMax
07-05-2007, 01:41 AM
I'll have to disagree with you here. At least Moore offers something other than slimy personal attacks. Like or hate him, agree or disagree with him, he's considerably more substantive when it comes to issues. Coulter is worthless other than to make personal attacks unrelated to anything truly important.



I disagree ROFL! I take it you don't agree with her? :p

MadMax
07-05-2007, 02:20 AM
I disagree ROFL! I take it you don't agree with her? :p



BTW I disagree even Moore, he is so anti-American he is PATHETIC!

penchief
07-05-2007, 03:47 AM
BTW I disagree even Moore, he is so anti-American he is PATHETIC!

I'll agree that he's anti-corrupt government but I think he's pro-American people. Coulter is nother more than a hate-monger with no substance at all. She may be a good writer but when all a person does is spew untrue personal character attacks it clouds the real issues in favor of fear and hatred. JMO.

I don't begrudge anyone that doesn't like Moore. I personally don't like his style. But he's willing to provide a service that no one else in the mainstream media is willing to provide. He speaks truth to power. And that is one thing we desperately need in this country at this time. Coulter is part of the problem. She's a corporate whore doing their bidding in a most irrelevant way and at the expense of our country's future.

go bowe
07-29-2007, 12:19 PM
I'll agree that he's anti-corrupt government but I think he's pro-American people. Coulter is nother more than a hate-monger with no substance at all. She may be a good writer but when all a person does is spew untrue personal character attacks it clouds the real issues in favor of fear and hatred. JMO.

I don't begrudge anyone that doesn't like Moore. I personally don't like his style. But he's willing to provide a service that no one else in the mainstream media is willing to provide. He speaks truth to power. And that is one thing we desperately need in this country at this time. Coulter is part of the problem. She's a corporate whore doing their bidding in a most irrelevant way and at the expense of our country's future.at the expense of our county's future?

rabid-ann-man has an effect on our country's future?

you give her too much credit...

Chiefspants
07-29-2007, 08:32 PM
No, no one takes her seriously anymore, the sad thing is she thinks everyone cares for what she has to say.

penchief
07-30-2007, 11:19 AM
at the expense of our county's future?

rabid-ann-man has an effect on our country's future?

you give her too much credit...

Running a diversion for the corporate agenda is definitely detrimental to the substantive issues that are more meaningful to the future of this country (like government corruption and corporate dominance).

She's a media lackey for the corporate juggernaut. But who in the corporate media isn't anymore? It's just that she exemplifies the the right-wing smear machine in it's most base and insidious form.

Mr. Kotter
07-30-2007, 11:39 AM
Running a diversion for the corporate agenda is definitely detrimental to the substantive issues that are more meaningful to the future of this country (like government corruption and corporate dominance).

She's a media lackey for the corporate juggernaut. But who in the corporate media isn't anymore? It's just that she exemplifies the the right-wing smear machine in it's most base and insidious form.

:spock:

You know what? You are the kind of dude....I'd love to talk to if I were to ever get totally tanked (or back in the day....stoned.)

You would have me rolling on the ground in absolute stitches, a gut-busting belly laugh hysterical, laughin' at your trippin' ass. You are one trippin' dude.

You must have gotten some really GOOOOOOD acid/mushrooms/ecstasy "back-in-the-day"---because you are STILL trippin.... LMAO

ROFL