What in hell does the celebrity status of an individual have to do with the egregious nature of their offenses?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?”

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.

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?

Why are you and he not equally, or more concerned about the free speech rights of those whom Coulter has called  treasonous ?

How exactly does Coulter opining that certain people are traitors hinder those persons free speech rights?

It would be funny if it weren t so sad. You seem to have a Jim Jones complex going here.

Brilliant. You respond by making up yet another scenario in your head. Go team Mike S.

So, me saying Coulter s lies are reprehensible is so a challenge to her right to free speech?

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?

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?

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.

To them Bill Richardson lying about his youthful baseball career is equivalent to sending 2000 troops to die on the basis of doctored intelligence.

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?

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.

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?

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!

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. You seem to have a Jim Jones complex going here.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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!