McCarthy apologist and fan club president Ann Coulter once again emulates her idol, this time with John Murtha as the target. Would a progressive get away with this sort of smear distributed by a major syndicate? Never. But for the cons, this sort of thing is just what they do (more of Coulter’s work here).
Truly she is unworthy of any legitimate debate on her positions. The only interest she has for me is the curious nature of rationalizations that the ‘plausible denialists’ conjure in their feeble defense of her cult.
If that’s the case, please explain how Randi Rhodes still has her job after suggesting that someone should assassinate the President?
She threatened President Kerry? Wow.
Coulter represents the cultural elite of the GOP.
Randi never suggested someone should assassinate the president
I wonder how these people would get on with UK style libel and slander laws, where the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove it so, and not the accused to prove it wrong. Nobody could do a “I didn’t say it” and get away with it, but you would find the same proven stories being dredged up and aired quite frequently.
Sorry….what exactly was the smear?
The hell she didnt’t:
I’m sick and tired of hypocritical liberals who smugly declaim that conservatives are corrupt and full of hate, but make excuses for the same behavior when it comes from their side.
When one of Oliver’s former “progressive” colleagues was caught hacking into a Republican’s credit records, it was tossed off as no big deal, since she was suspended from her job. Oliver merely dismissed it as “stupid.”
When Sandy Berger was caught destroying national security documents, “progressives” saw it as no big deal, claiming that there were other copies of what he destroyed elsewhere.
When “progressives” claim that only conservative political behavior and only postings on conservative Web sites are full of hate, and examples of “hateful progressive” behavior are presented to them, they fall strangely mute.
The left belches again:
USA Today, April 13, 2004
Prof. John Daly, of Warren County Community College in Herndon, VA, in an e-mail to student Rebecca Beach
Diggin deep there aren’t ya? Who’s next? The Postman from Skanokie?
The left farts again:
–Prof. John Daly, of Warren County Community College in Herndon, VA, in an e-mail to student Rebecca Beach
P.S.: Daly has resigned.
It’s revealing that you think a professor with the power to affect a college student’s transcript is equal to a postman.
Anyway, the left makes another bowel movement:
Regular Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker, October 23, 2004.
The left lays a big stinking turd:
From TalkLeft. After reporting a story about a registered Democrat committing a felony by trying to run Katherine Harris down, on October 27, 2004:
The first comment, from lavacat, reads as follows:
Is this what passes for rational thought on the left?
By the way, genius, Rebecca Beach was Prof. Daly’s student. If you were a student, are you telling me it would be perfectly peachy with you if your professor wrote you a scathing e-mail threatening you about your political views.
I guess IOIYAD.
Robert Scheer & Paul Krugman regularly claim that Bush is sending American boys to die for Halliburtin’s profits. Sounds like a pretty hatefull thing to say if you don’t have proof.
Warren County Community College in Herndon, VA
The wingnuts have their talking points wrong again. There is no Warren County CC in Herndon, VA.
As usual, Mr. Rat has it wrong. There was no ‘threat’ to Ms. Beach ( a wingnut activist). Second, what of Daly’s political views? Is he not permitted to exercise his 1A freedoms?
Other commenters are exactly right: Tuco has to dig very deep and even then–misrepresent and lie–in order to try and show lefttwing ‘intolerance.’
Ask yourself–if someone had mentioned John Daly, you’d probably think about the pro golfer. OTOH, folks like Coulter are on the cable talking heads shows on a near daily basis.
Robert Scheer & Paul Krugman regularly claim that Bush is sending American boys to die for Halliburtin s profits.
Really? Perhaps you could produce one of their columns or other writings that say this.
This illustrates a pretty typical wingnut MO: conflate two notions to produce something bogus. In Stick’s case, he marries the idea that AWOL George is sending troops to Iraq to die in an ill-advised and incompetently planned operation with the fact Halliburton is making record profits (and producing overbilling/accounting discrepancies). Voila–this means AWOL George must be sending US troops to dies for Halliburton’s bottomline.
Hey Jadegold, talk to AlexCorrigan. He’s the dude who apparently thinks Ann Coulter is a hate monger & he says that Bush sent Americans to die for Halliburton’s profits. You just can’t satarize some people.
Looks like Tuco is off his meds. Can’t blame him for being a acting out on his frustration a little. I mean, he has to spend hours blogcrawling and googling trying to find some democrat somewhere who’s said something a outrageous or done something violent, and to counter all his herculean efforts all we have to do is point to…. the President of the United States.
PS: Randi Rhodes = Ann Coulter? I thought you guys were always telling us that nobody listens to Air America.
Well, Jade, when you’ve got nothing that fits, the best you can do is stretch something else. It works when your audience is used to applauding the emperor’s new clothes, but not when your audience is used to applying their critical thinking skills.
As far as the Halliburton thingie, what does ’stick’ think those ‘boys’ are over there dying for? Iraqi freedom? Protecting our ‘homeland’? Let’s recap: Iraq is sliding into civil war; the U.S. troop and Iraqi civilian body counts ain’t droppin’; the Bushie puppet Iraqi gov’t recently all but stated that killing U.S. soldiers is legitimate resistance; the U.S. taxpayers (or at least their children) are drowning in Iraq War debt; even some of the Bushies are putting out feelers about turning tail from Iraq.
Now, just who is benefitting from this phony war? Oh, that would be politically connected outfits like Halliburton, who are sucking up millions of taxpayer dollars with little oversight and often little results.
And Oh Yeah . . .
Scheer: “It takes stunning arrogance for a president to invade an oil-rich, politically strategic country on the basis of demonstrable lies, put his favorite companies in control of its economic future, create a puppet regime to do his bidding and then claim, as George Bush did last week in a speech, that this is all a bold exercise in spreading democracy.”
( http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Scheer_Mr_President_111103.htm ).
I’ll nail Krugman later.
That’s hilarious, Jadegold. As if liberal points of view have a hard time finding expression on college campuses.
In fact, it’s conservative viewpoints that face retaliation at many schools, as evidenced by the WCCC story.
And, speaking of First Amendment rights on college campuses, there’s the little story of Steven Hinkle:
What Cal Poly did to Hinkle is just a chilling example of what happens when liberals run colleges.
Nope, took about five minutes. You should try it yourself some time.
Its all great to point out hateful speech on both sides, but more disturbing is the fact that the right never distances itself from crazy attacks. The president is an incompetent miscreant, but he doesnt need a bullet to the head. I don’t know how true Tuco’s assertion is, but I was attacked similarly in college by a professor. I pointed out that he was flat wrong to suggest that testing and school structures in Germany are the same as in America. After the narcissist threatened to kick my ass after class if I didn’t shut my fucking mouth and good student and let him be the informed proffesor(in front of the class no less). I could cry to the rooftops about how slighted and mistreated I was, but he was a crazy narcissist. Coupled with living in Alabama I just needed to joke about his crazy notions were just that: crazy. I think the problem lies in that there are a great deal of examples where some wingnut suggests something crazy, and the right accepts/embraces it or defends the statement. Not laughing off the crazy notion, disapproving or being appalled(something I thought they had the market on). The right didn’t see a crazy idea that they didn’t like:)
Tuco;
Truly she is unworthy of any legitimate debate on her positions. The only interest she has for me is the curious nature of rationalizations that the plausible denialists conjure in their feeble defense of her cult.
You ably extemporize my point. It is so entertaining to watch the enablers scramble to rationalize the untenable.
As I continue to reiterate; ‘It’s just like my teenage son who, when confronted with his own wrongdoing, deflects reesponsibility by drawing attention to his younger brother’s infractions”
Thanks for the primer on republican rationale.
The school is in Washington, New Jersey. The dateline of a press release issued by the organization Ms. Beach was a part of was Herndon. My mistake. But the incident happened, as stated. So what point exactly were you trying to make about my “talking points?”
What part of “I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won’t dare show their face on a college campus” is not a threat?
He’s free to express his political views. He’s also free to resign to save his employer from embarrassment, which is exactly what he did.
What was a misrepresentation and a lie, genius? Everything happened, as I reported. I made a mistake concerning the location of the school, but I guarantee that the school exists and has a Web site with a statement about Daly’s resignation:
What’s funny is that they’re not defending this jerk’s actions. Why are you?
This is rich, coming from the genius who thinks that one comment by an anonymous poster on Free Republic represents conservative thought.
Semanticleo (or should I call you Semanticliar?):
How many lies can you include in one post? I never discussed the content of Coulter’s column, let alone rationalized her comments.
I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of Oliver’s whining about the horrible things that conservatives do, implying that “progressives” are sainted and would never do the mean, horrible, nasty things that only their political opponents seem capable of.
So, if you want to discuss rationalizations, it’s apparent from the lack of condemnation of examples of “bad things that liberals do,” that what Coulter said (an expression of free speech, after all) is worse than a nationally-syndicated talk show host proposing the assassination of the President; it’s far worse than a registered Democrat who tries to kill political opponents with his car; it’s far, far worse than a liberal college professor trying to intimidate his student; it’s far, far, far worse than a college attempting to punish a student for putting up a flier.
That’s some crazy rationalization you got going on here.
Liberals want the sandy berger incident investigated. When a conservative does something apparently wrong, conservatives do not want it invenstigated, they want it stonewalled and covered up.
No professor should speak to any student the way this one is alleged to have done. If he does, he needs to resign or be fired. But looks like that’s what happened…
He s free to express his political views. He s also free to resign to save his employer from embarrassment, which is exactly what he did.
On top of that, the Steele credit report interns have been sacked. Sandy Berger has been punsihed, and yet the wingnuts keep whining about them.
Get back to us, Tuco, when Ann Coulter is fired, when Dick Cheney is fined, when George Bush resigns in the face of a Republican senate gearing up to impeach him.
TuClueless;
“I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of Oliver s whining about the horrible things that conservatives do,”
And I was merely thanking you for proving my point. You can’t even discuss Coulter because that might be a topic which would reveal the corrupt nature of your position.
Oh, yeah, that’s the liberal answer for all manner of “progressive” wrongdoing. Just give them a slap on the wrist and we don’t have to talk about it ever again. In the meantime, to “progressives,” conservatives are judged to be guilty and demands are made that they be thrown into jail, often before charges are even brought, and certainly before they’re allowed to be tried.
Do you honestly understand that Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist who works for herself? If a newspaper or Web site doesn’t want to carry her column, THEY DON’T HAVE TO! The DSSC interns and Sandy Berger VIOLATED THE LAW. “Progressive” justice, it appears, dictates that “progressives” who VIOLATE THE LAW get a slap on the wrist, but we don’t need ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER (OR TRIALS) to call for the jailing of politicians we don’t like.
I don’t really care about Coulter, Semanticliar. She has a right to her opinion, she has a right to express it, she hasn’t violated any laws, she hasn’t called for the President to be killed, she hasn’t tried to run over anyone in her car, she hasn’t deprived anyone else of their speech.
The fact that you think her opinion is more corrupt than any of these actions, quite honestly tells us more about you than you probably want people to know.
Wrong. Oliver introduced a sub-topic when he claimed:
To which I pointed out that Randi Rhodes, a nationally-syndicated talk show host, got away with much more than a smear.
Try to keep up, please.
Oliver introduced a sub-topic
To wit, you cherry-picked the subject that most appealed to your defense mechanisms in all their fullblown glory.
Thank you, cnce again my clueless one, for so many redundant contributions to my sub-point; republicans will discuss anything to avoid any introspective self-recrimination.
The left assaults women again:
Kerry supporter arrested in air rage case
What the hell am I supposed to be introspective about. I’m not Ann Coulter, so I have absolutely no guilt about what she said.
Tell me, what do you think should happen to Ann for her [First Amendment-protected] “corruption.” Be specific, seeing as you seem so gung-ho to discuss it and all.
Do you think her punishment should more or less than the registered Democrat who wanted to run down Katherine Harris with his vehicle?
TuClueless;
You don’t care about Coulter because she would derail your semi-cogent thinking.
If you hadn’t noticed she is the topic of this thread.
Tuco;
If you are in no way connected to the bleatings of Coulter, and thus feel no guilt, why should I feel any remorse about the misdeeds of liberal, mid stream, or conservative democrats? I do not condone the unethical, illegal or immoral acts of any political stripe. I am more than willing to call a steaming pile by the correct nomenclature.
What I object to is the tendency of conservatives to walk up to a republican steaming pile and declare it to be an opportunity to grow flowers.
I am not recommending any punishment for the likes of Ann Coulter. She reaps daily rewards by virtue of who she is. That seems punishment enough, for now.
You might want to separate yourself from fellow corruption-enablers by taking a definitive stand on Coulter. I mean, other than championing her right to express herself. That would go a long way toward enhancing your credibility when you criticize venal acts regardless of political persuation.
This Tuco fool is kind oif funny. Now the obvious cult member is linking things about drunk Kerry supporters.
That’s the thing about cultists. They are so wrapped up in how Godly their cult leaders are that they have to find anything, no matter how obscure, that may put the “enemies” of their cult in a bad light. The cult itself could never be a problem. Everything good in the world eminates from the cult so anybody that questions that cult must be evil.
If anyone wonders why the Republican party has jumped into bed with Rev. Moon all they have to ask themselves is what kind of benefit he could give them. The answer can be found by looking at “moonies” and comparing them to the New Republican Party. The resemblance is striking.
What the hell am I supposed to be introspective about.
About this, for starters: You maintain silence about the outrageous statements of people in the higher echelons of the right-wing pantheon, like Coulter, and attempt instead to deflect attention by wailing about the misdeeds of has-beens and unknowns on the Democratic side. Well two can play at that game, Tuco. Nixon once said “fuck” in the oval office, and some Republican guy knocked over my coke and called me an “asshole” last October. Hah! Take that!
What should happen to Anne Coulter? She should sit there in front of Fox cameras with a shit-eating smirk on her face while some principled conservative says to her “Have you no sense of decency, madam, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” That would be sufficient. No censorship, no jail-time necessary. Unfortunately I become more and more convinced that in today’s America “principled conservative” is an oxymoron. You, Tuco, are one small piece of evidence supporting that conclusion.
In other words, Coulter’s words are fatal, yet you condone acts of bodily harm performed upon wicked Republicans.
Why?
Again, why? Just because you declare it to be important. So far, no one here has explained exactly what it is that Coulter said that is so venal, especially compaired to trying to kill someone, run someone down, or intimidate someone.
Why are you so afraid of taking a stand against these sort of actions? It would go a long way toward enhancing your credibility when you criticize “venal” acts whose venality you can’t even explain.
Do you have anything to say except for scenarios you make up in your head? Are you another supportrer of violent acts against Republicans?
Yeah, I guess you’re right. Someone expressing an opinion contrary to yours is just so much worse than many “unknown” Democrats violating laws and attempting to harm (and in some cases actually harming) others. Oh, the outrage! Oh, the horror! Mean, nasty Republican said things that made me feel bad, Mommy!
You complain about bands of boozy boorish Democrats on airplanes and horrible hordes of twenty-year old credit-report-stealing interns and I’m the whiner?
The issue here is Coulter, an issue you’d like to avoid, obviously. After a column full of rank lies and distortions, Coulter farts out the following from her mannish derriere:
They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.
Treason is a capital criminal offense. So evidently Coulter would like to see everyone who wants to discsuss an exit strategy from Iraq tried and, preferably, hung.
That is a bit more serious and plausible threat than Randi Rhodes’ goofy suggestion that Poppy and Jeb (for Chrissakes!) take care of the family idiot.
I’m glad to see you admit that you consider other peoples’ opinions more dangerous than actual deeds of physical violence and threats of physical violence.
I’m very grateful that people like you are not in charge of my civil liberties. There’s a job waiting for you in the Ministry of Truth.
Have a good night’s sleep–if you can sleep knowing that your position is so weak, you must resort to sexist insults like “mannish derriere.”
Why aren’t you defending Coulter’s right to free speech, or did that begin and end with the Dixie Chicks?
So, me saying Coulter’s lies are reprehensible is so a challenge to her right to free speech?
But Coulter calling people who speak out against the war “treasonous” is … just her opinion?
I think that tells us all we need to know about you, Tuco.
“But Coulter calling people who speak out against the war treasonous is & just her opinion?”
Yes, it is. When you or Coulter win an electin as a DA, or are given a gun and a badge and arrest power, we’ll talk. Its just an opinion. What Tuco has been pointing out are actual deeds or randi’s ironic threats of violence. There is a difference.
Do you have anything to say except for scenarios you make up in your head? Are you another supportrer of violent acts against Republicans?
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. You seem to have a Jim Jones complex going here.
nawoods, you’re not paying attention: Tuco is accusing us of attacking Coulter’s right to free speech by criticising her opinions. Why are you and he not equally, or more concerned about the free speech rights of those whom Coulter has called “treasonous”?
It’s the standard right-wing BS: They criticize us and it’s “just my opinion.” We criticize them and it’s “help! I’m being censored! I’m being oppressed!”
What a bunch of bed-wetters!
Do any of you people understand what an adjunct “professor” is?
On one hand, we’ve got Time cover girl, nationally syndicated columnist, and cable TV favorite Ann Coulter.
On the other we have an Air America whiner, a part-time remedial writing instructor, and a drunk on an airplane.
Are these things the same or different?
I was paying attention, thank you. Perhaps we can agree then that the headline of this post should read “Coulter” belches again, and not “The Right” belches again. I do not want to speak for him, but in my estimation, Tuco was turning OW’s tactics right back at him in an attempt to show the absurdity of villifying a large segment of the population based on the rantings of one individual. Its a favorite method of attack around here.
Are these things the same or different?
Oh to right wingers they are very much the same. To them Bill Richardson lying about his youthful baseball career is equivalent to sending 2000 troops to die on the basis of doctored intelligence.
Morally retarded, all of them.
And another thing about what Coulter said: at a time when our government is locking people away without due process, possibly subjecting them to duress and/or torture for allegedly hostile or traitorous activity, it does worry me when one of the most prominent and outspoken supporters of the party that controls the whitehouse, congress, the military and -soon- the supreme court, starts calling people “traitorous” for exercisisng their first amendment rights and their civic duties.
If these so-called “conservatives” were really interested in limited government, it would worry them too.
Does this mean I want to censor Coulter? No. What I want is for people of principle to speak out and let her and the public know in uncertain terms that they find her ideas and tactics abominable. That will be most effective if it comes from principled conservatives, unfortunately those are few and far between these days.
Wrong again, Wilbur. That Bill Richardson lied is established fact. He admitted it.
That the President sent 2000 troops to die “on the basis of doctored intelligence” is opinion.
There are many well-known Democrats who believe that going to war was a mistake, but not all of them believe that it was undertaken “on the basis of doctored intelligence.”
Are they liars, too?
This must be some new brand of liberal moral equivalency that I haven’t come across yet.
Let me explain it to you s-l-o-w-ly, s-o y-o-u w-i-l-l u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d.
A columnist expressing opinion hurts no one, except perhaps the feeling of those she writes about.
An adjunct professor who intimidates those of his students who dare to have a different political opinion that him has the power and potential to hurt those students through subject grading, etc.
A talk show host who talks about assassinating the President is potentially breaking a law.
A belligerent drunk is capable of physically harming someone in that state.
As I keep saying, some of these comments really leave me with the impression that “progressives” genuinely believe that words are more harmful than deeds.
I disagree.
Maybe not, but it still seems to me that you think Coulter’s opinions (how can an opinion be a lie?) are far, far worse than threats of physical violence or actual violence.
Why don’t you just admit it?
Brilliant. You respond by making up yet another scenario in your head. Go team Mike S.
How exactly does Coulter opining that certain people are traitors hinder those persons free speech rights?
Hunh? Why are you putting dashes between all the letters?
Oh! I get it!! It’s like you’re speaking slowly to someone who can’t comprehend what you’re saying!!! Ha!! Ha Ha, everybody!!!
OK. You did your sarcastic, condescending bullshit, and I did mine. Can we get on with it now?
Oliver’s post referred to “The Right.” (Personally, I don’t care for drawing general conclusions from limited examples, but that’s what this post is about.)
Ann Coulter has gained acceptance as a spokesperson for a definable school of conservative thought. (I’ll leave the sneer quotes off the word thought against my better judgment.)
She has indeed been on the cover of Time, she is a syndicated columnist, she does appear frequently on cable TV, and her opinions accurately reflect those of some undeterminable number of conservatives.
In response to Oliver pointing that out, you reference Randi Rhodes (personally, I think she’s a proper analog to Coulter, but her visibility compared to Coulter’s should tell you something about the so-called “liberal” media), a part-time remedial writing teacher who speaks only for himself, and a drunk on a plane who speaks for no one at all.
So if your purpose was to show that “The Left” is culpable for all the same abuses with which Oliver accuses “The Right”, you’ve failed in spectacular fashion.
That slow enough for you, hotshot?
Can I ask you a serious question? What in hell does the celebrity status of an individual have to do with the egregious nature of their offenses?
I’ll ask again: Do you think what Coulter wrote is a greater wtong than what those “little people” did, regardless of how you dismiss them as being “small time?”
I ll ask again: Do you think what Coulter wrote is a greater wtong than what those little people did, regardless of how you dismiss them as being small time?
I’ll answer that one: no, they’re all bad. If Coulter is worse in any way it’s that her words are likely to have greater repercussions for more people. In our republic, however, we punish outrageous deeds with jail and fines. We punish outrageous words only by speaking out strongly against them.
Now it’s time for you to answer a question, Tuco: Do you agree with Coulter that people who oppose the Iraq war are guilty of the capital crime of treason?
And I’ll answer. Again, Mr. Let-Me-Say-This-Slowly.
Oliver wrote about an opinion–that of Ann Coulter–that he characterized as typical of “The Right.” Is Ms. Coulter a legitimate spokesperson for “The Right”?
You might think she’s not, but Oliver seems to think so, as do the editors of Time, bookers for various cable TV yak shows, and the editors of several major daily newspapers.
So Oliver puts forth the proposition that Ms. Coulter’s idiot opinion is representative of thinking on the right.
With me so far? Good.
Along comes Tuco who retorts, “Yeah, but what about Randi Rhodes, an adjunct professor at some community college, and this drunk guy? Aren’t they equally representative of thinking on the left? Aren’t they just the same as Ann Coulter?
No, Tuco, they’re not the same. None of those people has the same access to the channels of public debate as Ms. Coulter. Has Randi Rhodes been anywhere other than on her own radio show? Does the adjunct professor have a syndicated column? Does Drunk Guy on a Plane get praised in the pages of Time?
No, Randi Rhodes is exiled to the backwater of Air America, the adjunct professor has been fired and Drunk Guy on a Plane was thrown out at the closest airport and arrested.
Only Ms. Coulter enjoys celebrated status as a pundit, cover girl, and spokesperson.
Try, Tuco, just try to stick to the point of the thread, willya?
Sorry Tuco, I forgot to spank you on this one:
Answer: nothing.
But then, nobody except you is comparing actions on the basis of their “egregious nature.” The rest of us were discussing whether the opinions of these people were representative of The Right or The Left.
If you want to compare “egregiousness,” we can go on forever dragging out all the child molesters, wife beaters, and self-dealing hypocrits from the closets of both parties.
But that would be a topic for a different thread. Not this one.