NationStates Jolt Archive

The whole article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/coulter.row.ap/index.html)is a joke.

STORRS, Connecticut (AP) -- Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead.

"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday.

Before cutting off her speech after about 15 minutes, Coulter called Bill Clinton an "executive buffoon" who won the presidency only because Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote.

Coulter's appearance prompted protests from several student groups. About 100 people rallied outside the auditorium where she spoke, saying she spread a message of intolerance.

"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major who heads campus group Students Against Hate.

It wasn't the first time Coulter has had trouble at a university speech. In October 2004, two men ran onstage and threw custard pies as she was giving a speech at the University of Arizona.

UConn junior Kareem Mohni, 20, said he was disgusted by his peers' reaction to Coulter.

"It really appalled me that we're not able to come together as a group and listen to a different view in a respectful environment," Mohni said.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
I have to agree with that last student more than anyone else quoted. Yes, Ann Coulter is more often than not a rabid torture monkey of the far right, but which would be more effective in rebutting her: protesting her mere existance; or sitting down, listening to her, and writing a smart comeback column in the school paper?

Maybe you should debate her in front of a crowd during the question and answer session.

The [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/coulter.row.ap/index.html"]
Ahhh! I just love it when the left reveals its true face! :D

Yes, Ann Coulter is more often than not a rabid torture monkey of the far right, but which would be more effective in rebutting her: protesting her mere existance; or sitting down, listening to her, and writing a smart comeback column in the school paper?
Pieing her.

Maybe you should debate her in front of a crowd during the question and answer session.
OK, you go debate Michael Moore.

You can't debate someone who has the attitude that Coulter has.

Maybe you should debate her in front of a crowd during the question and answer session.
You can only truly debate someone who has respect for accuracy and the facts. Coulter has neither, as has been shown pretty much every time she opens her mouth or puts pen to paper, so there can really be no debate.

But that doesn't mean protest is the best weapon against her either. The best thing to do is ignore her and refuse to accept her as any part of a meaningful discourse. She wants attention--if she's denied that, she becomes meaningless.

You can't debate someone who has the attitude that Coulter has.

I whole heartedly disagree, SD. I have been often told that I am even more conservative than Ann Coulter, and I would challenge you to a debate...if you think you could handle it, that is.

And I think that you are misguided about how Ms Coulter does not use facts. That's a bunch of Hooey. This is a woman who makes her living on making Liberals (ie, you) feel stupid by showing them what they've done. I would suggest taking a look at her book "How to Talk to Liberals (If You Must)"...there are several entries in there that are simply statements of fact about who's done what when.

Ahhh! I just love it when the left reveals its true face! :D

Explain.

I whole heartedly disagree, SD. I have been often told that I am even more conservative than Ann Coulter, and I would challenge you to a debate...if you think you could handle it, that is.

It's not her being conservative, tough guy. It's her "I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am" attitude. You cannot have a meaningful debate with someone who has no respect for your intelligence or your argument. Her arrogance shows that she will believe she will win any debate regardless of how it actually materializes. And your arrogance shows me that any debate with you would be similarly fruitless.

I whole heartedly disagree, SD. I have been often told that I am even more conservative than Ann Coulter, and I would challenge you to a debate...if you think you could handle it, that is.
There is a difference between being conservative and being Ann Coulter.

Explain.
No one should have to hear the answer to that from Eutrusca.

It's not her being conservative, tough guy. It's her "I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am" attitude. You cannot have a meaningful debate with someone who has no respect for your intelligence or your argument. Her arrogance shows that she will believe she will win any debate regardless of how it actually materializes. And your arrogance shows me that any debate with you would be similarly fruitless.

SD..?

SD..?

Yes?

I whole heartedly disagree, SD. I have been often told that I am even more conservative than Ann Coulter, and I would challenge you to a debate...if you think you could handle it, that is.
As I said above, political leanings have nothing to do with it. Respect for accuracy and fact are the primary needs in any debate. You can be more conservative than William F. Buckley and still be debateable as long as you're intellectually honest. Coulter's intellectually dishonest, which is why you can't debate her. You can fight with her or ignore her, but there's no debating anyone who has no respect for fact or accuracy.

It's not her being conservative, tough guy. It's her "I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am" attitude. You cannot have a meaningful debate with someone who has no respect for your intelligence or your argument. Her arrogance shows that she will believe she will win any debate regardless of how it actually materializes. And your arrogance shows me that any debate with you would be similarly fruitless.


Wow...take a look in the mirror, there, hypocrite...

Yes?


I was questioning that shortening of your name. I've never seen it used before O_o.

Wow...take a look in the mirror, there, hypocrite...
Good job proving his point. Bravo.

I was questioning that shortening of your name. I've never seen it used before O_o.

Eh, I've seen it used before. Shaed used to call me it, for instance. I can understand when people don't want to bother trying to type out my nation name.

Wow...take a look in the mirror, there, hypocrite...

And that means what exactly? If I recall, I'm not the one who said:and I would challenge you to a debate...if you think you could handle it, that is.You're the one with the arrogance to challenge me to a debate "if you can handle it, that is". I've never once made mention of how a debate between yourself and I would result.

OK, you go debate Michael Moore.You know, that's something I don't understand about the left. Moore is the liberal answer to Coulter. He hates all Republicans, twists facts, and calls all conservatives morons. When Coulter says something, most conservatives ignore her, unless they're really desparate. But when Moore says something, every liberal jumps on it and tries to use it as "proof" the Bush administration/GOP/corporate America is lying/cheating/killing/eating puppies.

I'll admit Coulter has some good points every once in a while, as does Mr. Moore, but the right rarely makes her a mascot, thank God.

Ahhh! I just love it when the left reveals its true face! :D
So the left has a hive mind, but the right doesn't, and is entitled not to claim Coulter if it wishes not to?
Bit of a double standard, that.

You know, that's something I don't understand about the left. Moore is the liberal answer to Coulter. He hates all Republicans, twists facts, and calls all conservatives morons. When Coulter says something, most conservatives ignore her, unless they're really desparate. But when Moore says something, every liberal jumps on it and tries to use it as "proof" the Bush administration/GOP/corporate America is lying/cheating/killing/eating puppies.

I'll admit Coulter has some good points every once in a while, as does Mr. Moore, but the right rarely makes her a mascot, thank God.

You're talking to some strange liberals then..

You're talking to some strange liberals then..
Being at a university, I probably get exposed to more than my fair share of moronic liberals, I'll give you that.

And that means what exactly? If I recall, I'm not the one who said:You're the one with the arrogance to challenge me to a debate "if you can handle it, that is". I've never once made mention of how a debate between yourself and I would result.

No, but by and large, you're estimating that given my responses to this point that I'm going to be arrogant and call you an imbecile. Yet you don't even know me, and I don't know you. I don't know if you can handle a debate, that is why I said that.

You know, that's something I don't understand about the left. Moore is the liberal answer to Coulter. He hates all Republicans, twists facts, and calls all conservatives morons. When Coulter says something, most conservatives ignore her, unless they're really desparate. But when Moore says something, every liberal jumps on it and tries to use it as "proof" the Bush administration/GOP/corporate America is lying/cheating/killing/eating puppies.

I'll admit Coulter has some good points every once in a while, as does Mr. Moore, but the right rarely makes her a mascot, thank God.
Except that doesn't happen--the left doesn't make Moore a mascot, and Coulter pops up on mainstream tv shows all the time. Be honest--which one gets more airtime? Coulter by far, even though she's the rhetorical equivalent of Tommy Flanagan (that's the ticket!).

Except that doesn't happen--the left doesn't make Moore a mascot, and Coulter pops up on mainstream tv shows all the time. Be honest--which one gets more airtime? Coulter by far, even though she's the rhetorical equivalent of Tommy Flanagan (that's the ticket!).

Oh, now that is a load of BS!

The Democrats LOVE Moore. Why? Because he's fat, white, and stupid, just like the rest of the United States According to Moore.

Moore gets FAR more airtime than Coulter, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

You know, that's something I don't understand about the left. Moore is the liberal answer to Coulter. He hates all Republicans, twists facts, and calls all conservatives morons. When Coulter says something, most conservatives ignore her, unless they're really desparate. But when Moore says something, every liberal jumps on it and tries to use it as "proof" the Bush administration/GOP/corporate America is lying/cheating/killing/eating puppies.

I'll admit Coulter has some good points every once in a while, as does Mr. Moore, but the right rarely makes her a mascot, thank God.
There is a difference between twisting facts and insisting opinion is fact. Moore does the former. Coulter, and Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, insist their opinions are facts just because they had the opinions.

You know who made the left's mascot Michael Moore? The right. Which is mainly because the do a damn good imitation of a Macaw parroting O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and the rest of the pompous, hypocritical pundits who sit around making up facts then cross quoting each other's facts using their bullshit magic to turn them into "real" facts. It's like Pinoccio but with bullshit.

Love the title of this thread :D

Anyway, since there is such a thing as freedom of speech, why protest against Ann Coulter exercising this right? She is actually quite funny, if not a tad inflammatory. :p

Oh, now that is a load of BS!

The Democrats LOVE Moore. Why? Because he's fat, white, and stupid, just like the rest of the United States According to Moore.

Moore gets FAR more airtime than Coulter, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Let's see--Coulter pops up all the time on both CNN and Fox News, and Moore pops up on tv, umm, never. Which is about the level of proof you've provided that Moore represents the Democrats as a whole.

I'm trying to place exactly which puppet or new incarnation of a former troll you are--give me a minute and I'm sure I'll figure it out.

Oh, now that is a load of BS!

The Democrats LOVE Moore. Why? Because he's fat, white, and stupid, just like the rest of the United States According to Moore.

Moore gets FAR more airtime than Coulter, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
I dare you to tell me how many times Moore has been on: The Daily Show, any MSNBC pundit show, any FOX news pundit show, or any other talk show being passed off as news. I can't count on one hand the number of times Coulter has been on just Hannity & Colmes.

OK, so sorry...I used the wrong tense of verb: I meant to say that I didn't know if he could handle a debate...maybe he has slow internet and cannot research evidence to support his side fast enough or something.

OK, so sorry...I used the wrong tense of verb: I meant to say that I didn't know if he could handle a debate...maybe he has slow internet and cannot research evidence to support his side fast enough or something.
You are continuing to prove yourself an arrogant asshole and simultaneously the sterotype that the more conservative a person is, the more of an asshat they are.

I dare you to tell me how many times Moore has been on: The Daily Show, any MSNBC pundit show, any FOX news pundit show, or any other talk show being passed off as news. I can't count on one hand the number of times Coulter has been on just Hannity & Colmes.

Ah, indeed. Looking too narrow. Of course FOX is not going to put Michael Moore on their news show. They are the one news channel that is unabashedly pro-US, and not out with an agenda. And to call the Daily Show a serious news outlet is simply wrong.

OK, so sorry...I used the wrong tense of verb: I meant to say that I didn't know if he could handle a debate...maybe he has slow internet and cannot research evidence to support his side fast enough or something.
People actually research their evidence whilst arguing here? Umm, this is fun, but I don't take it that seriously :p So I will let you guys do the work and learn from it. ;) I argue here based on knowledge I read in books, internet articles etc or that I acquire from debating with people, as well as attending the odd uni class :p Didn't know people here got so religious about it :p

Ah, indeed. Looking too narrow. Of course FOX is not going to put Michael Moore on their news show. They are the one news channel that is unabashedly pro-US, and not out with an agenda. And to call the Daily Show a serious news outlet is simply wrong.
Wow. Did you not read anything I said? I said name how many MSNBC pundit shows, FOX news shows, the Daily Show, or any other talk show trying to pass itself off as news.
And to call any pundit show on FOX News news is seriously wrong.

You're talking to some strange liberals then..
There's some other kind??? :eek:

You are continuing to prove yourself an arrogant asshole and simultaneously the sterotype that the more conservative a person is, the more of an asshat they are.

And now I'm going to call you an arrogant Liberal wimp. If all you have is to call me names? That's really very sad. I feel sorry to be sharing the same board space with you.

See? That's arrogant...but that's just an example as opposed to me actually talking to you.

So the left has a hive mind, but the right doesn't, and is entitled not to claim Coulter if it wishes not to?
Bit of a double standard, that.
Cite me sources which point out a "conservative protest riot," please! :D

There's some other kind??? :eek:
If you arn't delusional.

And to call any pundit show on FOX News news is seriously wrong.

Ah, here we go! But of course...if you're Pro-US, Pro-Soldiers, Pro-War...then it isn't news. I get it now.

Ah, here we go! But of course...if you're Pro-US, Pro-Soldiers, Pro-War...then it isn't news. I get it now.
Which troll puppet are you? O'Reilly isn't news. Hannity & Colmes isn't news.

Which troll puppet are you? O'Reilly isn't news. Hannity & Colmes isn't news.

Again with the name calling, Ladies and Gentlemen. I'd like to see what you call news, then. Oh, wait, we already have: The Daily Show.

I'm trying to place exactly which puppet or new incarnation of a former troll you are--give me a minute and I'm sure I'll figure it out.

Occasionally we get a new nutbar, this could be one. Eventually they flame too much, get banned, come back to accuse the mods of being commies who only banned them for political reasons, get banned again, come back again, play by the rules for 5 minutes, flame, get banned again and then get DoS....

Again with the name calling, Ladies and Gentlemen. I'd like to see what you call news, then. Oh, wait, we already have: The Daily Show.
The Daily Show is a comedy show. It airs news clips to make fun of them.

There's some other kind??? :eek:


We all know you're a closet left-winger :p

Occasionally we get a new nutbar, this could be one. Eventually they flame too much, get banned, come back to accuse the mods of being commies who only banned them for political reasons, get banned again, come back again, play by the rules for 5 minutes, flame, get banned again and then get DoS....

OK, well, just to air the dirty laundry: I've never been banned, I usually don't even post here because everyone posting drives me up the wall with their political stances, and so I was hoping that this would be different, but I guess not.

The Daily Show is a comedy show. It airs news clips to make fun of them.

Yes it does. Now, this begs the original question. What do you call news?

OK, well, just to air the dirty laundry: I've never been banned, I usually don't even post here because everyone posting drives me up the wall with their political stances, and so I was hoping that this would be different, but I guess not.

You're going to have trouble on a public forum if you are that annoyed by other political ideologies.

The whole article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/coulter.row.ap/index.html)is a joke.


I have to agree with that last student more than anyone else quoted. Yes, Ann Coulter is more often than not a rabid torture monkey of the far right, but which would be more effective in rebutting her: protesting her mere existance; or sitting down, listening to her, and writing a smart comeback column in the school paper?
Here's a bit I submitted to a school paper back in Summer, 2004:

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Something that may surprise many readers of mine is that I am not a liberal. Not only that, but I tend to not get along with people who identify themselves as Liberal. Discussions of politics and economics are the fastest and most surefire way for my socialist (pinko!) boyfriend and me to start a screaming match. Perhaps knowing this will make it more understandable when I say that I have, until today, reserved judgment about Ann Coulter. Granted, all the Coulter snippets I have read lead me to believe she deserves to be referred to with a four-letter word, but I try not to make up my mind about any political pundit until I have read at least one of their books; I think it's unfair to judge a person entirely by their sound bites.

However, today I read Coulter's latest book, Treason, and in retrospect I am glad I never used that four-letter word, because it would be an insult to all genuine four-letter-word people in the world. Ann Coulter isn't even worth insulting. According to pretty much everybody, Coulter is "the leading right-wing pundit" of our time, and if that's true then all I can say is: whoa, sucks to be the right-wing. The woman does nothing more than link various neo-con slogans together into a book-length production and then use her supposedly attractive picture on the cover to get people to pay money for the privilege of reading them. While I admire her ability to make money off the gullibility of the public, I really can't respect anything about her work. In my world you have to earn the status of a four-letter word by being a genuine pain in the ass, and you generally have to do so with flare and biting humor. As my friend Mike would put it, Coulter isn't funny "ha-ha", she's funny "uh-oh."

The first thing I noticed while reading Treason was that the three quotes used in the inner flap blurb were all from the first 5 pages of the book; this suggests that even the reviewers, who claimed the book was "even more controversial and prescient" than Coulter's break-out hit Slander, could not keep awake long enough to finish the second half of the first chapter. I know my eyelids started to sag when she accused liberals of "treating enemies like friends and friends like enemies." I guess nobody told Coulter about Bush's "you're with us or against us" speech or his alienation of our allies in the Middle East when he drew the borders of his Axis of Evil with an indiscriminate hand. She must be likewise unaware of that little Republican snafu called the Iran Contra affair, where our Republican administration financially supported a few of America's enemies. Her criticism of liberals for lifting trade sanctions is likewise snore-worthy, since Bush was the one who asked the UN to lift the sanctions against Iraq. Though I suppose that doesn't count any more, since we have accomplished our mission and nobody is dying in combat in Iraq any more, right?

As if all these snoozers weren't enough to leave you begging for the mercy of a quick death, Coulter even pouts about how liberals write nasty things about conservatives in the paper...clearly forgetting that she herself has a column that is pretty much dedicated to saying nasty things about liberals.

I did perk up long enough to laugh out loud when Coulter claimed that "liberals never wage war," however. I'm a little rusty on my history, but I am pretty sure it was Harry Truman, one of those loathsome Democrats, who was the only human being EVER to drop two atomic bombs on a foreign nation. Perhaps that doesn't qualify as warfare...?

There are, of course, the obligatory several chapters spent calling all liberals (or people who agree with liberals, ever) Communists. Coulter takes plenty of time explaining how Joe McCarthy was a true saint for defending America from the godless pinkos, and he has been smeared by an evil liberal conspiracy to doctor history books and vilify him. She re-writes a little history by claiming it was liberals who stopped McCarthy's crusade, when it was actually President Eisenhower who pushed to get the McCarthy hearings televised so the public could see Joe's tactics, and it was the Republican Senate that shut McCarthy down in the censure investigation. She also repeatedly states that the term "McCarthyism" is a made-up liberal buzzword, and "'McCarthyism' never existed," despite the fact that it was the title of McCarthy's own book.

One of the cutest parts of the entire book for me was when, I think in chapter 3, Coulter tries to support her view of history by saying that there is plenty of evidence for the Communist threat to America, thereby vindicating McCarthy and his tactics. The funny part is that said evidence consists of, in Coulter's words, "the detailed accounts given in sworn testimony by various ex-Communists...Chambers’s Pumpkin Papers...Soviet defectors who brought reams of KGB documents with them, identifying Soviet agents in America...There were confessions of arrested spies..." So after spending a chapter and a half talking about how horrid and immoral Communists are, Coulter rests her case entirely upon the word of--you guessed it--COMMUNISTS.

I dozed off and on through several more chapters on the godless Commie lefties, and I think she re-edited our history of the Vietnam War for a chapter or two as well. I won't bore you with more details, since it's pretty much all the same sort of material as I've already covered, except to share the final giggle of the whole story: Coulter concludes her little 14-chapter temper tantrum with the blithe assertion that "Liberals instinctively vote for anarchy and against civilization." I find that interesting, since she dedicated at least a full three chapters to accusing liberals of supporting totalitarianism (in the form of Communism). Very odd, this woman.

I was completely under whelmed by Miss Coulter, having expected more from the "foremost conservative pundit" than the same sort of blathering I heard from some of my classmates in freshman civics. Honestly, her book almost made me convert to liberalism, if only to distance myself as much as possible from such a shoddy writer; I certainly will never call myself a member of any party that can't come up with better than Coulter for a spokeswoman.

You're going to have trouble on a public forum if you are that annoyed by other political ideologies.

Hence the reason I normally don't post here.

Oh, now that is a load of BS!

The Democrats LOVE Moore. Why? Because he's fat, white, and stupid, just like the rest of the United States According to Moore.

Moore gets FAR more airtime than Coulter, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.


Actually sir, when you make an arguement, in this case "Moore gets FAR more airtime than Coulter", it is YOUR job to prove yourself right. You are not correct by default and wrong only if proven so. Where are your facts to support that arguement?

Cite me sources which point out a "conservative protest riot," please! :D
Perhaps you could explain how a few undergraduates heckling somebody is a riot, first?

Actually sir, when you make an arguement, in this case "Moore gets FAR more airtime than Coulter", it is YOUR job to prove yourself right. You are not correct by default and wrong only if proven so. Where are your facts to support that arguement?

Like I said before, I'm working on it...you know, doing the college thing of looking up sources and evidence, and trying very hard not to leap off the edge and just leave because these people want to simply call me an arrogant asshatter, when they can continue to prove my point about them being guilty of arrogant asshattery just as much as I could.

The Daily Show is a comedy show. It airs news clips to make fun of them.
And yet, fascinatingly, Daily Show viewers have been repeatedly shown to be better informed (on average) than O'Reilly Show viewers.

Guess we all know which show is really the comic one :).

Yes it does. Now, this begs the original question. What do you call news?
Maybe actual news shows? The ones that just call themselves "news" for the sake of not being anything else.

Perhaps you could explain how a few undergraduates heckling somebody is a riot, first?
Ok, ok. "Riot" is too strong a term. How about "conservative anti-speech protest?" :p

Maybe actual news shows? The ones that just call themselves "news" for the sake of not being anything else.

Examples please?

Ok, ok. "Riot" is too strong a term. How about "conservative anti-speech protest?" :p
How about "mad neo-con sow takes her ball home in a snit"?

Examples please?
Turn on the TV. Switch to local channels. You will eventually run across these elusive things known as "the news."

If I were you, I would get on proving that Moore gets more airtime than Coulter. That will take alot of researching to prove to anyone but yourself and likeminded individuals.

Turn on the TV. Switch to local channels. You will eventually run across these elusive things known as "the news."

If I were you, I would get on proving that Moore gets more airtime than Coulter. That will take alot of researching to prove to anyone but yourself and likeminded individuals.

OK, Moore doesn't get as much airtime as Coulter? Well, just for shits and giggles:

Moore made a movie. Lots of them. Coulter spends how much time on Hannity and Colmes? Twenty minutes, tops. Which, granted, if you totalled up, might be more than Michael Moore spent on-screen in Farenheit...but it reached a much wider (ie, more people watched it) audience.

Also, I'd love to continue this conversation, but I need to go to a Terrorism Brief. Because as much as Michael Moore would love to delude himself into saying that there is no terrorist threat...

...the truth is out there.

OK, Moore doesn't get as much airtime as Coulter? Well, just for shits and giggles:

Moore made a movie. Lots of them. Coulter spends how much time on Hannity and Colmes? Twenty minutes, tops. Which, granted, if you totalled up, might be more than Michael Moore spent on-screen in Farenheit...but it reached a much wider (ie, more people watched it) audience.
I don't believe any of Moore's movies have been shown as part of a television news programme, though. Different medium and context.
It could even be suggested that he wouldn't still be making bad documentaries at this point if he could get his phiz on the telly news regularly...

You can only truly debate someone who has respect for accuracy and the facts. Coulter has neither, as has been shown pretty much every time she opens her mouth or puts pen to paper, so there can really be no debate.

But that doesn't mean protest is the best weapon against her either. The best thing to do is ignore her and refuse to accept her as any part of a meaningful discourse. She wants attention--if she's denied that, she becomes meaningless.

Hmm. I've examines her book "Slander" in detail, and I haven't found any inaccuracies or misquotes. She seems to have a citation for nearly every assertion she makes in the book.

Ah, indeed. Looking too narrow. Of course FOX is not going to put Michael Moore on their news show. They are the one news channel that is unabashedly pro-US, and not out with an agenda. And to call the Daily Show a serious news outlet is simply wrong.

He asked anywhere.... I could count on one hand Moore's appearances across the several outlets. Coulter's I could not... Hell, I couldn't even count them across both hands, my feet and pulling my pants down.

How about "mad neo-con sow takes her ball home in a snit"?
Um ... you CAN read, can you not??? :rolleyes:

I don't believe any of Moore's movies have been shown as part of a television news programme, though.
THANK GOD! [ breathes a sigh of relief! ] :p

Ah, here we go! But of course...if you're Pro-US, Pro-Soldiers, Pro-War...then it isn't news. I get it now.

Pundit shows =/= news.... Pundit shows == Two people throwing ideological opinions around for entertainment

Anyone who claims to be both Pro-War and Pro-Soldiers, does not get the respect of this Veteran...

He asked anywhere.... I could count on one hand Moore's appearances across the several outlets. Coulter's I could not... Hell, I couldn't even count them across both hands, my feet and pulling my pants down.
Watch dat last "finger!" :p

Um ... you CAN read, can you not??? :rolleyes:
I thought we were discussing the initial post, about Coulter deciding she wasn't going to waste her speech on a hostile audience who want to let the terrorists win?

I thought we were discussing the initial post, about Coulter deciding she wasn't going to waste her speech on a hostile audience who want to let the terrorists win?
That was the original post, yes. But I was under the impression that you and I were discussing whether "conservatives" would indulge in the same sort of "protests" that "leftists" would engage in. :confused:

OK, Moore doesn't get as much airtime as Coulter? Well, just for shits and giggles:

Moore made a movie. Lots of them. Coulter spends how much time on Hannity and Colmes? Twenty minutes, tops. Which, granted, if you totalled up, might be more than Michael Moore spent on-screen in Farenheit...but it reached a much wider (ie, more people watched it) audience.
Let us see.
In the US box office, Fahrenheit 911 made $119,078,393.
In 2004, the average ticket cost was $6.21.
That is 19,175,264.6 tickets (I am not sure if this includes video sales and internet downloads are untrackable).
Assuming I understood what I found, Hannity & Colmes gets around 2.8 million viewers daily.
I found half a dozen links to different dates Ann Coulter was on Hannity & Colmes. So just for her time on Hannity & Colmes alone, she has racked up 16.8 million views. This does not include her appearances on The Daily Show, The O'Reilly Factor, Crossfire, The Today Show, American Morning, Real Time with Bill Maher, Scarborough Country, or etc.

EDIT: Upon further investigation, she has been on Hannity & Colmes 16 times.

That was the original post, yes. But I was under the impression that you and I were discussing whether "conservatives" would indulge in the same sort of "protests" that "leftists" would engage in. :confused:

Well, a recent protest by Democrat supporters in Denver included mostly foul language and hand signs in place of coherent rhetoric.

Still waiting for similar protests by Republicans.

OK, Moore doesn't get as much airtime as Coulter? Well, just for shits and giggles:

Moore made a movie. Lots of them. Coulter spends how much time on Hannity and Colmes? Twenty minutes, tops. Which, granted, if you totalled up, might be more than Michael Moore spent on-screen in Farenheit...but it reached a much wider (ie, more people watched it) audience.

Moore reaches a wider audience, simply because he is more creative... He lays out facts to conveniently lead where he wants [without providing any outright false information]... Which is abit the opposite, than Coulter... Since she will gladly provide outright false information [read lies] to support her position, sometimes even misattributing the actions of history... Bottle illustrates some of this in detail.

Well, a recent protest by Democrat supporters in Denver included mostly foul language and hand signs in place of coherent rhetoric.

Still waiting for similar protests by Republicans.
I thought you said you read Ann Coulter's books?

Moore reaches a wider audience, simply because he is more creative... He lays out facts to conveniently lead where he wants [without providing any outright false information]... Which is abit the opposite, than Coulter... Since she will gladly provide outright false information [read lies] to support her position, sometimes even misattributing the actions of history... Bottle illustrates some of this in detail.

He's put obviously false and misleading information in films such as Bowling for Columbine, and admitted it. He makes no excuses, saying he's not making a documentary with facts - he's making entertainment.

Sort of a cinematographic troll...

That was the original post, yes. But I was under the impression that you and I were discussing whether "conservatives" would indulge in the same sort of "protests" that "leftists" would engage in. :confused:
I'd imagine there's been a few cases of John Kerry getting heckled by right leaning sorts when he delivers a speech. As for left leaning media pundits, I couldn't say. Does Ralph Nader ever do University speeches?
Actually, my original beef was with this assumption you have that there's some sort of liberal hive mind and anything anybody who's ever been described as a liberal does or says is representative of the beliefs of the entire liberal hive. I find that every bit as offensive as you'd find being called a neocon.

Maybe you should debate her in front of a crowd during the question and answer session.
I think it was Abe Lincoln that said "never get in a pissing match with a skunk," or words to that effect. I'm conservative, and I think Ms. Coulter is a skunk.

IOW: Don't go there... You'd be fighting on her home turf.

I thought you said you read Ann Coulter's books?
Yes, I've read "Slander". No foul language anywhere in the book.

Pieing her.

Good point. Uconn is my Alma Mater. I would've expected at least a decent pieing. :p

Hmm. I've examines her book "Slander" in detail, and I haven't found any inaccuracies or misquotes. She seems to have a citation for nearly every assertion she makes in the book.
Citations mean dick when you're misquoting the original source or using it out of context of the point you're making--two things Coulter does with regularity. Here's an article from the Columbia Journalism review (http://cjr.org/issues/2002/6/slander-scherer.asp) that deals with Coulter's book* Slander. A sample:
oulter Claim: The New York Times columnist Frank Rich "demanded that Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists." (p. 5)

Footnote: She cites an October 27, 2001 column in which Rich makes no such demands. He does chastise Ashcroft for not meeting with Planned Parenthood, which sought to offer tips on combating anthrax scares, based on its own experience with them.

Coulter Claim: Liberals called the American flag "very, very dumb." (p. 4)

Footnote: She cites a New York Times story in which a liberal history professor, Daniel Boylan, makes no claim about the intelligence of the flag. He does criticize — as "acting very, very dumb in their patriotism" — those who have criticized Hawaii for not flying an American flag over Iolani Palace, the nineteenth century seat of the Hawaiian monarchy.

Coulter Claim: She introduces a New York Times editorial on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas headlined the youngest, cruelest justice, then writes: "Thomas is not engaged on the substance of his judicial philosophy. He is called 'a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests,' 'race traitor,' 'black snake,' 'chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom' . . . ." (p. 12)

Footnote: The passage is constructed to suggest that the Times authored these epithets, but the footnote refers readers to comments made in a Playboy article, which goes unmentioned in the book's text.





*Coulter's screed is a book insomuch as it has words written on paper and is bound. Beyond that, deponent sayeth not.

Well, a recent protest by Democrat supporters in Denver included mostly foul language and hand signs in place of coherent rhetoric.

Still waiting for similar protests by Republicans.
http://freerepublic.com

He's put obviously false and misleading information in films such as Bowling for Columbine, and admitted it. He makes no excuses, saying he's not making a documentary with facts - he's making entertainment.

Sort of a cinematographic troll...

Yeah, but it's at least creative....

And it's also DESIGNED to entertain, and put into a format that is used exclusively to entertain.... What I talked about earlier, while everything is obviously "false" and "misleading"; it's constructed around actual snippets of fact to create an illusion of truth.... Moore is very creative, and I respect him in that capacity...

Coulter, on the other hand, is no comparison... Punditry [to which she is most associated with], is where she sits on FOX's cable-news outlet.... However, while Pundit shows appear on these stations, they are not "news", they are the exchange of dogmatic positions of ideology between differing sources for the prupose of entertaining the outlets selective audience.... And like most Pundits, she appears as a angry 5 year old arguing with his/her playmates in a school-yard... Most "Pundits" end their careers after Elementary school... A few fail to grow up and then either have their own or are featured on other's Pundit shows on cable-news outlets...

And yet, fascinatingly, Daily Show viewers have been repeatedly shown to be better informed (on average) than O'Reilly Show viewers.

Guess we all know which show is really the comic one :).

Never underestimate the power of humor. :)

http://freerepublic.com

Show me a video of Republicans protesting outside, showing the cursing and hand signal for "fuck". That's what I'm talking about. En masse.

He's put obviously false and misleading information in films such as Bowling for Columbine, and admitted it. He makes no excuses, saying he's not making a documentary with facts - he's making entertainment.
I do find that annoying: you could take him a lot more seriously if he wasn't to fact checking what Steven Hawking is to tap dancing...

Show me a video of Republicans protesting outside, showing the cursing and hand signal for "fuck". That's what I'm talking about. En masse.


There's a hand signal for 'fuck'?

Ok, ok. "Riot" is too strong a term. How about "conservative anti-speech protest?" :p


Well, if you want an EXACT equivalent... try googling "Michael Moore heckled"

First hit, oh wow! An exact parallel from Arizona! (http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/98/36/01_2.html)


groups in the crowd constantly heckled Moore during his speech, and he took it lightheartedly at first, using it as an opportunity to sarcastically respond to their political views, until it became so disruptive he told them directly to stop.

"Four more years? They are off by four years, it's only three more weeks," Moore said.

Moore commented on the fact that they wouldn't stop yelling, no matter what he said, even when he gave them 60 seconds to get the chants out of their systems.

"It's like AM radio and the Fox News Channel, all day long all they do is scream," he said.

The hecklers toned down about 45 minutes into Moore's speech, only after several groups were ushered out of the stadium by security.

The Dean of Students formally warned some groups and some people were escorted from the stadium because they were so disruptive, said Allistair Chapman, ASUA president.




What a susprise - there are conservative AND Liberal students who like to heckle the more extreme pundits from the opposite political ideology...

Show me a video of Republicans protesting outside, showing the cursing and hand signal for "fuck". That's what I'm talking about. En masse.
How about a photo of some ill mannered **** at the other year's Republican party election meeting wandering around with a plaster stuck on her face to mock John Kerry's purple heart? I'm sure you've seen a few of those.

How about a photo of some ill mannered **** at the other year's Republican party election meeting wandering around with a plaster stuck on her face to mock John Kerry's purple heart? I'm sure you've seen a few of those.

No, I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of angry protesters all cursing, using foul language, and giving the target of the protest "the finger".

Not one or two examples - I can link to the video that CNN took of the Denver protest - it seems fairly common for Democratic protesters to devolve en masse.

No, I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of angry protesters all cursing, using foul language, and giving the target of the protest "the finger".

Not one or two examples - I can link to the video that CNN took of the Denver protest - it seems fairly common for Democratic protesters to devolve en masse.
Wait wait wait--you say you want multiple examples of Republicans doing this, but you're willing to argue that a single instance you can link to is representative of Democrats as a whole? Hypocrite. Fucking hypocrite. Go crawl back into bed with Coulter.

And Moore gets heckled

In Cincinati (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/28/loc_michaelmoore28.html)

At BYU (http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/53115)

In Toledo (http://www.independentcollegian.com/media/paper678/news/2004/10/28/News/Moore.Holds.A.slackers.Event-784641.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.independentcollegian.com)

Wow... that took me five whole minutes to find.

Think there are more?

And Moore gets heckled

In Cincinati (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/28/loc_michaelmoore28.html)

At BYU (http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/53115)

In Toledo (http://www.independentcollegian.com/media/paper678/news/2004/10/28/News/Moore.Holds.A.slackers.Event-784641.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.independentcollegian.com)

Wow... that took me five whole minutes to find.

Think there are more?
It isn't inconceivable.

I'm betting that Kimchi has already forgot the rude statements, accusations, firing of weapons, and driving a truck through a display by Republicans at Cindy Sheehan's camp in Crawford....

*Sigh*


Must be early onset Alsheimers.....

Wait wait wait--you say you want multiple examples of Republicans doing this, but you're willing to argue that a single instance you can link to is representative of Democrats as a whole? Hypocrite. Fucking hypocrite. Go crawl back into bed with Coulter.
Then show me one. I'll take a nap until you find the video of several thousand Republicans protesting outside a Democrat's appearance, all yelling foul language and giving the finger.

I'm betting that Kimchi has already forgot the rude statements, accusations, firing of weapons, and driving a truck through a display by Republicans at Cindy Sheehan's camp in Crawford....

*Sigh*

Must be early onset Alsheimers.....

Show me the video.

Show me a video of Republicans protesting outside, showing the cursing and hand signal for "fuck". That's what I'm talking about. En masse.


No but you do see them do things just as uncivilized. Ranting and raving about foreigners/people on welfare/liberals, using terms unbefitting a gentleman or lady. Their demeanor when talking about the French, or the United Nations.. I mean, I'm sure it can be done in an educated, calm, and appropriate manner. For God's sake, compare the rhetoric of liberals and conservatives in this very forum. Aside from the content, you can't tell the difference.

But pointing fingers at one another shouldn't be the focus of this thread. Ann Coulter is an arrogant and obnoxious propaganda artist with no scruples. This should be apparent to everyone. I'm not so certain that it is rude to boo while she is talking to a crowd who overwhelmingly realizes this fact. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing, and both Coulter and the crowd have the right to express their feelings and thoughts. I'm just glad they realize that what Coulter chooses to talk about is complete nonsense.

Show me the video.

Why? You've already demonstrated you're never going to admit that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. You've come up with a dismissive excuse for every example provided so far.

Show me the video.
Because something didn't happen if there's no film of it on the internet?

Why? You've already demonstrated you're never going to admit that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. You've come up with a dismissive excuse for every example provided so far.
I'm more than willing to admit that Republicans in some cases can be as bad as Democrats.

But it's far easier to find Democrats protesting outside by the thousands, with nothing better to say than "fuck this!" and "fuck that!".

Then show me one. I'll take a nap until you find the video of several thousand Republicans protesting outside a Democrat's appearance, all yelling foul language and giving the finger.
Take a nap then, because I'm not bothered enough--you've proven your hypocrisy yet again. You're Coulter on an internet forum, with no respect for accuracy or fact. When something that shows your full of shit gets tossed in your face, you blithely ignore it and move onto another point, as though you haven't been discredited. You get owned on this forum daily, almost as badly as Corneliu does, and yet you act as though you have credibility. So go take a nap.

But you won't leave, because you need this. You need the attention.

I'm more than willing to admit that Republicans in some cases can be as bad as Democrats.

But it's far easier to find Democrats protesting outside by the thousands, with nothing better to say than "fuck this!" and "fuck that!".


Well, SOMEONE'S Forgotten the Clinton years!!!


Protesting is always more extreme by the party not in power.

Take a nap then, because I'm not bothered enough--you've proven your hypocrisy yet again. You're Coulter on an internet forum, with no respect for accuracy or fact. When something that shows your full of shit gets tossed in your face, you blithely ignore it and move onto another point, as though you haven't been discredited. You get owned on this forum daily, almost as badly as Corneliu does, and yet you act as though you have credibility. So go take a nap.

But you won't leave, because you need this. You need the attention.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

I'd still bang her. :p

I'm more than willing to admit that Republicans in some cases can be as bad as Democrats.

But it's far easier to find Democrats protesting outside by the thousands, with nothing better to say than "fuck this!" and "fuck that!".

But several examples have already been provided demonstrating Republicans acting just as uncouth at events. Have you even tried searching for Republican protests? I type it into Google and get hundreds of hits.

But it's far easier to find Democrats protesting outside by the thousands, with nothing better to say than "fuck this!" and "fuck that!"
This is because there's a Republican GOP in power at the moment. Video feeds of demonstrations are put on the internet by media networks, and the bulk of these networks are playing nice with the government, whatever people like Coulter argue about liberal conspiracies in the media.
Perhaps you could try typing "the Dixie Chicks" into google: it's a fair bet that most of the types filmed smashing CDs and calling for Natalie Whatserface's death in the manner of excited Jihadim are going to be Republicans. These are Toby Keith fans, after all...

I'd still bang her. :p
Could you tolerate the pillow talk, though?
"Oooooh, talk dirty to me. Call me a communist..."

This is because there's a Republican GOP in power at the moment. Video feeds of demonstrations are put on the internet by media networks, and the bulk of these networks are playing nice with the government, whatever people like Coulter argue about liberal conspiracies in the media.
Perhaps you could try typing "the Dixie Chicks" into google: it's a fair bet that most of the types filmed smashing CDs and calling for Natalie Whatserface's death in the manner of excited Jihadim are going to be Republicans. These are Toby Keith fans, after all...

And I was told that Democrats are all far more intelligent, educated, well-traveled, and civilized than the Republicans!

But several examples have already been provided demonstrating Republicans acting just as uncouth at events. Have you even tried searching for Republican protests? I type it into Google and get hundreds of hits.
Of course he hasn't, because deep down he knows he's full of shit, and he can't handle it. It's easier for him to hide from the truth than admit that he's intellectually dishonest, even when it's as plain as Ann Coulter's adam's apple to everyone else.

Well, at least the Democrats you mention are protesting for something they believe in.

As opposed to Conservatves who have a whole group organized for the purpose of protesting protests. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/07/18/politics1339EDT0498.DTL)

Yep, doesn't matter what is being protested - they just want to go out and wave their own placards and maybe get on TV...

"Down With Protests!"

"Power To the .... errr .... Look at me mom!"


Activists planning to demonstrate against the upcoming GOP convention should be on the lookout for young conservatives gearing up to protest the protesters.

"To show that there is a group of people out there, there are Republicans that will protest them right back," said Tom Paladino, who leads the New York chapter of the newly formed Protest Warriors.

"We are the right-wing freedom fighters -- we are out there and are just as animated as the protesters can be," said member Jason Sager, of Brooklyn.

Protest Warriors, which claims about 3,000 members nationwide, expects about 200 in New York for the four-day convention, which begins Aug. 30 and is expected to draw tens of thousands of opponents of President Bush.

Leaders say they know they won't have equal representation, but hope the contrast helps them stand out. They will be armed with their own picket signs and T-shirts, even video cameras to capture their mission.

"It's going to be the protest Olympics. They're all going to be trying to outdo each other," said Kfir Alfia, of Austin, Texas, who formed the group last year with Alan Lipton after they crashed anti-war demonstrations in San Francisco, carrying signs that said: "Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything."

Activists hurled signs at them and hissed "Fascists!" as they marched along, Alfia and Lipton said. They said they were surprised to encounter animosity at a peace rally, and decided to publicize their experience.

They posted videos of their counterprotests on the Internet and began coordinating more actions. The movement attracted young conservatives from across the country, as well as stalwarts like Rush Limbaugh, who has hailed them.

This spring, the group protested anti-war rallies in several cities, including New York.

For now, Protest Warriors' convention plans are unclear because they depend on the anti-Bush groups. Some of those groups are still awaiting police permits for their demonstrations.



A group that waits around for others to protest, just so they can protest back in a little game they call the Protest Olympics... and all the while that they protest they make rude remarks about .... PROTESTERS!!!


Now THAT is about the lamest thing I have ever heard.... and, according to the article, it's catching on as the thing to do with young Republicans!

Of course he hasn't, because deep down he knows he's full of shit, and he can't handle it. It's easier for him to hide from the truth than admit that he's intellectually dishonest, even when it's as plain as Ann Coulter's adam's apple to everyone else.
You still haven't posted a link to a video...

Could you tolerate the pillow talk, though?
"Oooooh, talk dirty to me. Call me a communist..."
Something like this? (http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/)

Pieing her.


OK, you go debate Michael Moore.

debate michael moore? piece of cake. the man is a flaming pinko communist and it would be easy as hell to debunk his myths.

I have yet to see anyone actually take any of Coulter's arguments and make rational arguments against them. They call her names but can't beat her arguments (or won't).

And I was told that Democrats are all far more intelligent, educated, well-traveled, and civilized than the Republicans!

there are more poor, uneducated democrats than there are poor, uneducated republicans... think about it, and it makes sense.

edit: i wouldn't be surprised at all if the average IQs of American repubs and democrats are pretty close. Ad for educational level.. MBAs are probably mostly repubs (for obvious reasons), while lawyers are probably mostly democrats. (i have no idea how the other terminal degrees would shake out... probably most Women's Studies PhDs would be democrats. hehe)

debate michael moore? piece of cake. the man is a flaming pinko communist and it would be easy as hell to debunk his myths.

I have yet to see anyone actually take any of Coulter's arguments and make rational arguments against them. They call her names but can't beat her arguments (or won't).


What? Like when she was interviewed and argued with one of Canada's most respected newscasters and insisted that Canada had sent troops to Vietnam in the 60s which was part of why she was so shocked at us not going to IRaq?

No, I can't be bothered to "beat" arguments like that....

And I was told that Democrats are all far more intelligent, educated, well-traveled, and civilized than the Republicans!
They're not identical. It isn't like they're being grown to order in vats, somewhere.

You still haven't posted a link to a video...

Neither have you.

debate michael moore? piece of cake. the man is a flaming pinko communist and it would be easy as hell to debunk his myths.

I have yet to see anyone actually take any of Coulter's arguments and make rational arguments against them. They call her names but can't beat her arguments (or won't).


Perhaps you missed it, but someone did give examples of how Coulter is a liar. For example, her misleading quotes and footnotes. She'll quote the NY Times for saying something, but then you go look at the article and she gave the Times credit for something they were quoting someone else say that was asinine. Or she takes things completely out of context.

These things are DISHONEST.

Something like this? (http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/)
:D

Could you tolerate the pillow talk, though?
"Oooooh, talk dirty to me. Call me a communist..."

No problem with that, but I might have difficulty avoiding staring at her Adam's apple. :p

This is because there's a Republican GOP in power at the moment. Video feeds of demonstrations are put on the internet by media networks, and the bulk of these networks are playing nice with the government, whatever people like Coulter argue about liberal conspiracies in the media.
Perhaps you could try typing "the Dixie Chicks" into google: it's a fair bet that most of the types filmed smashing CDs and calling for Natalie Whatserface's death in the manner of excited Jihadim are going to be Republicans. These are Toby Keith fans, after all...
toby keith is a democrat

ya i know it doesnt mean anything but at least its a fact eh?

What? Like when she was interviewed and argued with one of Canada's most respected newscasters and insisted that Canada had sent troops to Vietnam in the 60s which was part of why she was so shocked at us not going to IRaq?

No, I can't be bothered to "beat" arguments like that....

hehe. so she doesn't know everything. i'm talking about her general political arguments/ideas.

The Daily Show is a comedy show. It airs news clips to make fun of them.


I will grant you that, but at risk of drawing fire, :sniper: I would like to point out that John Stewart has interviewed people like Henry Kissinger on the show. It may be a comedy, but that does not make it any less valid a forum than any other talk show. The Daily Show does not pretend to be anything other than entertainment.

As a moderate, both Moore and Coulter disturb me, but they have a right to say waht they say. I say put them in a pit and let them fight it out. If Coulter can keep moving Moore would have a heart attack. However, if Moore got his mitts on her... cannibalism. :eek:

hehe. so she doesn't know everything. i'm talking about her general political arguments/ideas.


Her "general argument" is that people who don't agree with her are traitors.

It's rather hard to have a meaningful discourse with that sort of mindset, so why should people bother trying?

toby keith is a democrat

ya i know it doesnt mean anything but at least its a fact eh?
Toby Keith is a democrat? Come off it.

You still haven't posted a link to a video...
Why bother? After a video would be linked (who'd be hosting such a video, and why?) you'll say "I want a series of shots, with documents to indicate numbers in attendence, and consent of release and intent forms for everyone involved." or some other new goalpost you'll have set up...

Perhaps you missed it, but someone did give examples of how Coulter is a liar. For example, her misleading quotes and footnotes. She'll quote the NY Times for saying something, but then you go look at the article and she gave the Times credit for something they were quoting someone else say that was asinine. Or she takes things completely out of context.

These things are DISHONEST.
That was me, and it was only one of what has become a cottage industry that has sprung up around Coulter. She's the queen of lack of credibility.

toby keith is a democrat
Yeah, but he calls himself a Zell Miller Democrat, or at least he did in his Playboy interview a few months ago, which in my book makes him a Republican. He could call himself a grilled cheese sandwich for all I agree with him on a lot of issues.

Neither have you.
It's on the CNN web site... It was bgi news for a couple of days.

Why bother? After a video would be linked (who'd be hosting such a video, and why?) you'll say "I want a series of shots, with documents to indicate numbers in attendence, and consent of release and intent forms for everyone involved." or some other new goalpost you'll have set up...
Nope. Just a group of Republicans acting like moonbats will do.

Toby Keith is a democrat? Come off it.
i know i know but he doesnt even make a secret of it. ive seen him say it right out of his mouth on tv.

I will say this about Coulter:

she is so damn sarcastic... negatively sarcastic... it's like her vibe is "I am smarter than everyone else... and I am the Ice Maiden."

hehe

i know i know but he doesnt even make a secret of it. ive seen him say it right out of his mouth on tv.
Are you sure he wasn't taking the piss or something?

Could you tolerate the pillow talk, though?
"Oooooh, talk dirty to me. Call me a communist..."


I'd take one for the team.

ballgag... check
shackles... check
dignity... nope

:cool:

there are more poor, uneducated democrats than there are poor, uneducated republicans... think about it, and it makes sense.

Red states are poorer: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2003/05/another-red-vs.html

Neither is more or less smart:
http://sq.4mg.com/IQpolitics.htm

So how about instead of sitting there, imagining things on your own, then stating them as flaming fact, you try looking something up. There may be counter examples to this (I found a factually incorrect chart showing blue states to have higher IQ's) but it took 2 minutes to look up.

Are you sure he wasn't taking the piss or something?
Seriously--in an interview with Playboy last year he called himself a Zell Miller democrat, aka, a republican.

Yeah, but he calls himself a Zell Miller Democrat, or at least he did in his Playboy interview a few months ago, which in my book makes him a Republican. He could call himself a grilled cheese sandwich for all I agree with him on a lot of issues.
having given toby credit for having a political leaning, im not sure i can give him enough credit for him to really know what being a zell miller democrat means. except that hes not fond of the liberal part of the party and that he supports the war in iraq.

i was just injecting a bit of fact into an otherwise pretty much fact-free thread. i dont really give a damn about toby's politics. that man can SING.

did anyone else notice that none of the coulter supporters commented on bottle's post critiquing her book?

Seriously--in an interview with Playboy last year he called himself a Zell Miller democrat, aka, a republican.
Is this some sort of archaic stance harking back to when the Republicans were the left leaning integrationist party and the Democrats weren't?

Nope. Just a group of Republicans acting like moonbats will do.

yeah but to get a herd of repubs to lay down in front of cars, screaming their heads off about not getting enough welfare money/other handouts from Joe Taxpayer -- or protesting a war that's being fought for the liberal bastion of freedom (lol at the irony) -- and otherwise acting like animals, you'd have to drug them. hehe

Toby Keith is a jingoist Bushevik Redneck that's for sure. Who else could come up with a racist Camel Herder Song and come out with the poster of the Dixie Chicks as "Saddam's Angels"?

It's on the CNN web site... It was bgi news for a couple of days.
I was going to quote some of your bullshit from two pages ago, but had jumped to 9 hoping you had dropped it. You havn't, so I will deal with you here.

You are a hypocrite (as already pointed out) and a right-wing troll (which you prove time again).
You demand video evidence as well as multiple examples while clinging to a single video of a single incident and waving off multiple cites of the same occuring in multiple places, except the screaming and fist waving is done by the right win. You entirely ignore that fact and go back to assaulting the left wing. I am quite frankly tired of your bullshit and this is the last post in which I will deal with it as anything more than flame baiting.

I'm more than willing to admit that Republicans in some cases can be as bad as Democrats.

But it's far easier to find Democrats protesting outside by the thousands, with nothing better to say than "fuck this!" and "fuck that!".
No shit! On any given day, you can count on there being at LEAST one rabble-rousing, loud, offensive and down-right grungy crowd of unruly leftists demonstrating about SOMEthing somewhere in the US. I often think that's what they do best ... find something to raise hell about, get together a few other mindless cretins, and stage a for-the-media protest of some sort. Heh!

Toby Keith is a jingoist Bushevik Redneck that's for sure. Who else could come up with a racist Camel Herder Song and come out with the poster of the Dixie Chicks as "Saddam's Angels"?

rofl, what do you expect? he's an ex-football (American football, Euros) player whose brain probably made contact with the inside of his skull one too many times.

Is there still a need for video? Or are the repub's ignoring the post about the right having an anti-protest protest group, because it doesn't fit in their mental model of themselves?

No shit! On any given day, you can count on there being at LEAST one rabble-rousing, loud, offensive and down-right grungy crowd of unruly leftists demonstrating about SOMEthing somewhere in the US. I often think that's what they do best ... find something to raise hell about, get together a few other mindless cretins, and stage a for-the-media protest of some sort. Heh!
Second verse same as the first.

It's on the CNN web site... It was bgi news for a couple of days.

And any of the videos you're looking for are just a Google search away.

I was going to quote some of your bullshit from two pages ago, but had jumped to 9 hoping you had dropped it. You havn't, so I will deal with you here.

You are a hypocrite (as already pointed out) and a right-wing troll (which you prove time again).
You demand video evidence as well as multiple examples while clinging to a single video of a single incident and waving off multiple cites of the same occuring in multiple places, except the screaming and fist waving is done by the right win. You entirely ignore that fact and go back to assaulting the left wing. I am quite frankly tired of your bullshit and this is the last post in which I will deal with it as anything more than flame baiting.
Oh, and you, of course are the very soul of decorum? I think NOT! There was a period of time when I had to put you on "Ignore" just to avoid becoming a frequent flyer on the Moderation channel! And YOU have the absolute GALL to call someone else a "Hypocrite?" Sheesh! :headbang:

Ahhh! I just love it when the left reveals its true face! :D
Yes, because everyone in the crowd who was booing was left.

Oh, and you, of course are the very soul of decorum? I think NOT! There was a period of time when I had to put you on "Ignore" just to avoid becoming a frequent flyer on the Moderation channel! And YOU have the absolute GALL to call someone else a "Hypocrite?" Sheesh! :headbang:
Oh shut up Eutrusca. The difference between you and DK is one of style, not substance.

having given toby credit for having a political leaning, im not sure i can give him enough credit for him to really know what being a zell miller democrat means. except that hes not fond of the liberal part of the party and that he supports the war in iraq.

i was just injecting a bit of fact into an otherwise pretty much fact-free thread. i dont really give a damn about toby's politics. that man can SING.
Possibly: I'd like him more if he sang something worthwhile, though.

did anyone else notice that none of the coulter supporters commented on bottle's post critiquing her book?
I did notice that, yes. Even stranger, nobody's riposted by singling out specific facts that were misrepresented in Bowling For Columbine...

Oh, and you, of course are the very soul of decorum? I think NOT! There was a period of time when I had to put you on "Ignore" just to avoid becoming a frequent flyer on the Moderation channel! And YOU have the absolute GALL to call someone else a "Hypocrite?" Sheesh! :headbang:
Just because you ignore me doesn't mean you don't get to go to moderation for flame baiting, which I can cite half a dozen instances of in this thread alone.

No shit! On any given day, you can count on there being at LEAST one rabble-rousing, loud, offensive and down-right grungy crowd of unruly leftists demonstrating about SOMEthing somewhere in the US. I often think that's what they do best ... find something to raise hell about, get together a few other mindless cretins, and stage a for-the-media protest of some sort. Heh!

As opposed to all those nice rightist's DAILY vigils hurling abuse outside of abortion clinics? You know... when they aren't hurling bombs at them or shooting the doctors?

Or waiting for the next Gay Pride parade to hurl abuse at them?

No.... those sorts of things would NEVER happen.....because the right doesn't have any mindless cretins of their own loose on the streets.

Nope, they elect 'em to office where they can keep an eye on 'em!
:p

Just because you ignore me doesn't mean you don't get to go to moderation for flame baiting, which I can cite half a dozen instances of in this thread alone.

Let's not go running to the mods...

Let's not go running to the mods...
I have held off with it, but without threat of mod intervention, he just gets worse.

Yes, because everyone in the crowd who was booing was left.
Of course they were, only lefties would be ill mannered enough to boo.

While I tend to float around an awful lot on this board, I've noticed a distinct lack of genuinely ideological argumentative debate as of late.

It does not speak well for conservatives that they have rallied together and changed that fact...in a thread relating to Ann Coulter.

I have held off with it, but without threat of mod intervention, he just gets worse.
If I ask for a link, it's considered trolling? And if anyone else asks for a link, it's good posting?

Show me where I was trolling. Foul language, raving insults, etc.

It does not speak well for conservatives that they have rallied together and changed that fact...in a thread relating to Ann Coulter.

All I've said on that matter is that I'd bang her (and try to avoid staring at her Adam's apple while I did).

No mention of swearing or untowards gestures, but... bullhorns... as if a massive protest group isn't big enough to be heard... I suppose if they want to hear themselves, they might need it, but I'm sure Gore didn't need that.
Also, no video... I bet they don't keep video feeds for that long...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0011/25/cst.21.html


Bill, we have a very noisy crowd of Republican protesters outside the naval observatory, the official residence of Vice President Al Gore. It's a young, very Republican, very conservative, very noisy crowd. They're taking advantage of a day off, this Saturday, to make their voices heard, chanting things like, "Get out of Cheney's house," and "No more Gore" -- Bill.

But, actually, today the vice president is taking advantage of this holiday weekend -- his family is still around -- to go out. We're not sure where he's going exactly yet, but he is actually leaving the mansion momentarily through, I might say, a back door, and will bypass the demonstrators. But he can't miss them -- you can hear them all the way up in the mansion. They're very noisy -- they've got bullhorns and everything.

No mention of swearing or untowards gestures, but... bullhorns... as if a massive protest group isn't big enough to be heard... I suppose if they want to hear themselves, they might need it, but I'm sure Gore didn't need that.
Also, no video... I bet they don't keep video feeds for that long...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0011/25/cst.21.html

That one wasn't the Denver protest.

All I've said on that matter is that I'd bang her (and try to avoid staring at her Adam's apple while I did).

And for that, you win a prize!!!

Congratulations! (http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b174/Delator/e9cb7563.jpg)

GOTCHA!!!


http://images.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/story.jpg

Republican protest. Please note the left side of the picture.
You have your picture proof, as requested. Case closed.

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/

GOTCHA!!!


http://images.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/story.jpg

Republican protest. Please note the left side of the picture.
You have your picture proof, as requested. Case closed.

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/

Excellent. Point taken.

That one wasn't the Denver protest.
No--it was a counter example for you, but I suppose since it didn't have video, it doesn't count, huh? :rolleyes:

That one wasn't the Denver protest.

Who cares which protest it was? I thought you said you wanted proof of republicans protesting like democrats? Now there's a geographical limit imposed? Where'd that come from?

Excellent. Point taken.

Nice. :)
Time to wrap Christmas presents. :P

No--it was a counter example for you, but I suppose since it didn't have video, it doesn't count, huh? :rolleyes:

I took my lessons about being picky as an argument technique directly from Stephistan, who randomly dismisses any link no matter how valid.

And for that, you win a prize!!!

Congratulations! (http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b174/Delator/e9cb7563.jpg)

Just what I've always wanted! :D

Possibly: I'd like him more if he sang something worthwhile, though.

toby keith has sung some of my favorite songs of all time.

All I've said on that matter is that I'd bang her (and try to avoid staring at her Adam's apple while I did).
come on, aren't you afraid youd get hurt on some of the sharp edges??

I took my lessons about being picky as an argument technique directly from Stephistan, who randomly dismisses any link no matter how valid.

"They did it first" is a Bushevik staple in the arsenal of excuse and apologies.

:rolleyes:

come on, aren't you afraid youd get hurt on some of the sharp edges??

Ooooo....BURN! :p

come on, aren't you afraid youd get hurt on some of the sharp edges??

Nah, she's so frail that I'd probably just end up grinding her pelvis into bone dust. :p

come on, aren't you afraid youd get hurt on some of the sharp edges??
She's too skinny, and besides, with an attitude like that, she's not likely to want to do much.

Unless she's into BDSM, which seems likely.

Leave it to Eutrusca to bust out the blatant flames.

"They did it first" is a Bushevik staple in the arsenal of excuse and apologies.

:rolleyes:

You keep using this term, "Bushevik". If you've read all the posts I make on NS, you'll find that I'm not always apologizing for Bush.

In fact, in some cases he goes too far, and in other cases, not far enough by half.

So how does that make me a "Bushevik"?

Sounds like petulant name-calling in the absence of cogent argument.

toby keith has sung some of my favorite songs of all time.
Fair enough: I think all I've heard is Beer For My Horse and the jingoist number...

Nah, she's so frail that I'd probably just end up grinding her pelvis into bone dust. :p
that was my second choice of question "arent you afraid youll break her?"

You keep using this term, "Bushevik". If you've read all the posts I make on NS, you'll find that I'm not always apologizing for Bush.

In fact, in some cases he goes too far, and in other cases, not far enough by half.

So how does that make me a "Bushevik"?

Sounds like petulant name-calling in the absence of cogent argument.
Like your and Eutrusca's conviction that all liberals are ideologically identical, you mean?

You keep using this term, "Bushevik". If you've read all the posts I make on NS, you'll find that I'm not always apologizing for Bush.

In fact, in some cases he goes too far, and in other cases, not far enough by half.

So how does that make me a "Bushevik"?

Sounds like petulant name-calling in the absence of cogent argument.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. You might not always apologize for Bush, but most of your posted positions tend to agree with Bush's missteps and rash decisions. Adding the need to marginalize all dissenting voices and you're still enough of a Bushevik. And you have the right to say whatever you want, just as I have the right to think of you as a Bushevik.

Fair enough: I think all I've heard is Beer For My Horse and the jingoist number...
yeah i dont like much of his stuff from the past couple years. although i find "beer for my horses" kinda fun

just bringing up his name made me sing "does that blue moon ever shine on you?"

yeah i dont like much of his stuff from the past couple years. although i find "beer for my horses" kinda fun

just bringing up his name made me sing "does that blue moon ever shine on you?"
To be honest, I'd not heard of him prior to the Dixie Chicks fuss, so I've not heard anything he did before that. I prefer the Whiskeytown/Cowboy Junkies side of country to the more straightfoward stuff anyway, so I doubt even his better stuff is likely to interest me all that much.

Adding the need to marginalize all dissenting voices and you're still enough of a Bushevik.

I think you're the one with the deep seated need to marginalize all dissenting voices by making up names for them.

that was my second choice of question "arent you afraid youll break her?"

Break her? Hell, I'd pulverise her.

I whole heartedly disagree, SD. I have been often told that I am even more conservative than Ann Coulter, and I would challenge you to a debate...if you think you could handle it, that is.

And I think that you are misguided about how Ms Coulter does not use facts. That's a bunch of Hooey. This is a woman who makes her living on making Liberals (ie, you) feel stupid by showing them what they've done. I would suggest taking a look at her book "How to Talk to Liberals (If You Must)"...there are several entries in there that are simply statements of fact about who's done what when.I saw Anne Coulter get interviewed on the CBC, and she was asked about Canada, since it was a) a Canadian news station, and b) she has strong opinions on Canada. And I guarantee she made up just about every Canadian "fact" she presented. (For example, she said that Canada officially sent troops to Vietnam, when everybody knows that Canada wasn't involved, and in fact, accepted American draft dodgers during that time. In later interviews, she tried to cover her ass by saying that she was just referring to Canadians who crossed the border to join the US army to fight, but I saw the original interview, and that's not what she said at all. In fact, when the interviewer gently tried to correct her misconception of Canada's involvement, she argued with him.) If her other interviews and her books have the same level of accuracy as that interview, she's either extremely stupid and believes someone else's lies without question (which I doubt) or she knowingly makes shit up on a regular basis (which I suspect is true).

The problem isn't arguing with a conservative. I argue with people of all political stripes on a regular basis. The problem is arguing with someone who lies. Because then you constantly have to check your facts before calling them on it, and you can't do that in the middle of an open debate. If you say person B is lying, and person B says you're wrong, whoever has the most obvious authority is most likely to win the debate from the audience's perspective, even if what they are saying turns out to be horseshit later.

Break her? Hell, I'd pulverise her.
Even if she used her safeword?

Even if she used her safeword?

I'm afraid that it's the men that will have to use the safeword. I hear she will only top.

Sounds like petulant name-calling in the absence of cogent argument.

Somebody got a thesaurus for their birthday. :rolleyes:

Somebody got a thesaurus for their birthday. :rolleyes:

Nope. But I have been known to read more than the funny papers...

I'm afraid that it's the men that will have to use the safeword. I hear she will only top.
I suppose neocons lack the imagination to switch...

Show me a video of Republicans protesting outside, showing the cursing and hand signal for "fuck". That's what I'm talking about. En masse.

I can't show you a video, but just off the top of my head, I recall quite a few right-wing protests outside of abortion clinics where there was plenty of cursing and finger-waving going on...

For the record, I'm a Libertarian, not a liberal. Just pointing out some facts...

Even if she used her safeword?

Ann Coulter's safeword: intelligent design. :p

Nope. But I have been known to read more than the funny papers...

Touché. ¬_¬

I suppose neocons lack the imagination to switch...
She probably can't switch. Besides, she already has the SS uniform and the whip...

Nope. But I have been known to read more than the funny papers...
Unfounded rumours.

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Alright I gotta give you guys credit on this one.

What she's done is absolutely rude just as much as some parents, teachers, proletarians think that they're ever so much more mature than teenagers yet they think doing the same things are cool.

Coulter's behavior in this instance shows how her objective was to crusade through a lecture hall so she could be comfortable around students. Growing up should be the #1 thing on her to-do list especially after this exhibition. Getting over whatever :gundge: triggered :gundge: this should be #2. Many of her points are disputable, but carrying yourself as a roll model or at least as a opinionated and concerned personae requires a certain restraint and a certain level of responsibility. Lecturers understand that they are subject to outrageous behavior and that the best way to deal with the problem, IS NOT to confront the individual hecklers, but to go to whoever's responsible and report the insulting actions.

Yes it can be argued that a person can only take so much before she explodes, but lecturing demands that you do not react and do not let someone else command you. Ann did appear to be a rabid monkey (tyvm. Sorry for lack of quote since I couldn't find wherever it was after I had read it the first time around) since she stooped down to the students. Her integrity should have been the only thing that mattered as nothing was keeping her from walking out with her head held high. Instead, she let her pride and ego get the best of her and now, she is not regarded exactly as the best of opinionated conservatives any more than before.

Well, it seems everyone's been busy while I've been at my Terrorism and Counter-Intelligence brief. So, after reading the whole thread up to now, I'm going to debunk a few things, and throw some other things into the light:

1) Protest Warriors.
I, for the most part, support these guys. Other than their views on Israel, they have some fairly valid points. Now, someone mentioned that they are counter-protesters (which they are) and that they go wild (which they do not). If you took the time to download their videos, you'd see that what they do is use sarcasm in posters to show their opponents that their arguments are in fact, silly and baseless. Mostly, they protest ANSWER, and their friends. Also, because they have the right to protest and counter protest in a peaceful manner (protected by that First Amendment right-thingy, I hope you've heard of it), they can do this all they want. However, their main objective is to stand there, hold their signs, and attempt to engage those protesters in a debate, similar to what we're trying to do here. However, for the most part, they are simply yelled at, heckled, assaulted, have their signs torn down, etc. by the 'peaceful' demonstrators. I would wholeheartedly suggest going to their website at www.protestwarriors.com and downloading several of their movies.

2) Michael Moore Lies
Similarly, while I've reading further, several of you still think that Ann Coulter is worse than Michael Moore. However, as several of us have noted, none of you have taken an argument of Ann Coulter's and attempted to refute it. So, I'm going to refute two movies of Mr. Moore's by using two websites designed for the cause:

First, about "Bowling for Columbine":
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Second, about "Farenheit 9/11":
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

3) Mass Media is Liberal and has an Agenda
Now, this is going to be a new point. I'm going to tell you that the media has a bias...and this bias is against the soldiers. When the number of dead in Iraq reached 2,000, the New York Times released an article about a Marine Corporal Jeff Starr who "..'I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''

What the New York Times failed about was the REST of that paragraph: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

Now, this website (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003793.htm) that I found this at has the rest of a statement from the uncle who pointed out this whole thing, and its rather moving, especially for Marines.

She probably can't switch. Besides, she already has the SS uniform and the whip...
A good point.

Well, it seems everyone's been busy while I've been at my Terrorism and Counter-Intelligence brief. So, after reading the whole thread up to now, I'm going to debunk a few things, and throw some other things into the light:

2) Michael Moore Lies
Similarly, while I've reading further, several of you still think that Ann Coulter is worse than Michael Moore. However, as several of us have noted, none of you have taken an argument of Ann Coulter's and attempted to refute it.
Not actually true. Are you sure that you've read all the posts made in your absence?

3) Mass Media is Liberal and has an Agenda
Now, this is going to be a new point. I'm going to tell you that the media has a bias...and this bias is against the soldiers. When the number of dead in Iraq reached 2,000, the New York Times released an article about a Marine Corporal Jeff Starr who "..'I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''

What the New York Times failed about was the REST of that paragraph: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

Now, this website (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003793.htm) that I found this at has the rest of a statement from the uncle who pointed out this whole thing, and its rather moving, especially for Marines.
And this proves that the mass media is opposed to the troops on the ground in Iraq how?

A good point.
I have this mental picture of Michael Moore and Al Franken naked and chained to a wall, with Ann Coulter in an SS uniform and a whip teasing them about what lame excuses they are for men... and Mike and Al secretly enjoying the humiliation...

I have this mental picture of Michael Moore and Al Franken naked and chained to a wall, with Ann Coulter in an SS uniform and a whip teasing them about what lame excuses they are for men... and Mike and Al secretly enjoying the humiliation...
Unfortunately, so do I now, and it isn't an image I wanted in my head.
I'm going to get a stiff drink to see if I can banish it...

And this proves that the mass media is opposed to the troops on the ground in Iraq how?

It makes the troops look like they're resigned to die in Iraq. Which they are not. He just said that if he did die, then he died doing what he believed is right. If the NYT can't get this right, then I shudder to think what else they're doing.

Well, it seems everyone's been busy while I've been at my Terrorism and Counter-Intelligence brief. So, after reading the whole thread up to now, I'm going to debunk a few things, and throw some other things into the light:You know, I'd much rather hear about why you think she would knowingly misrepresent Canada's non-involvement with the the Vietnam War. The first time she could have spoken in error, but when the interviewer politely told her she was mistaken, she did not back down. Then in later interviews, she lied about the first interview.

Do you have an explanation beyond Coulter refusing to admit that she was wrong? I mean, we don't expect her to know everything about Canada. It's not a crime to be mistaken about something. What bugs me is that she went on to lie about that original interview in later interviews. And I mean it - she wasn't 'clarifying', she outright knowingly lied.

You know, I'd much rather hear about why you think she would knowingly misrepresent Canada's non-involvement with the the Vietnam War. The first time she could have spoken in error, but when the interviewer politely told her she was mistaken, she did not back down. Then in later interviews, she lied about the first interview.

Do you have an explanation beyond Coulter refusing to admit that she was wrong? I mean, we don't expect her to know everything about Canada. It's not a crime to be mistaken about something. What bugs me is that she went on to lie about that original interview in later interviews. And I mean it - she wasn't 'clarifying', she outright knowingly lied.

Well, I have no idea, but I'll ask her if I ever get a chance and I'll get back to you on it.

Well, I have no idea, but I'll ask her if I ever get a chance and I'll get back to you on it.
How about an apology for your claim that nobody had cited an instance of Coulter bending the truth any instead?

It makes the troops look like they're resigned to die in Iraq. Which they are not. He just said that if he did die, then he died doing what he believed is right. If the NYT can't get this right, then I shudder to think what else they're doing.
No, it actually provides a quote from somebody who is resigned to the possibility of dying in Iraq. It doesn't imply that this is the view of all of the troops there. Editorial columnists filter facts to suit their prejudices just like pundits do.

How about an apology for your claim that nobody had cited an instance of Coulter bending the truth any instead?


Sorry. One point to you. You want to get on with the rest of the debate?

Editorial columnists filter facts to suit their prejudices just like pundits do.

Too bad it was in a news column...and it was used to represent all soldiers, sailors and Marines.

Also, on the fact that Canada wasn't involved in the Vietnam war:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1588/?200511

Ahhh! I just love it when the left reveals its true face! :D
:rolleyes: Here we go...

Too bad it was in a news column.
Really? I'd have thought that one was editorial rather than news. My mistake.
Just out of interest, are there many papers with a national distribution in the 'States, or do they tend to be regional?

You know, that's something I don't understand about the left. Nothing more needs to be said. This is exactly what you don't understand...that the 'left' does not exist as a cohesive, homogenous group you can label, and make assumptions about. Rather like the 'right'.

And this is directed at EVERYONE (EUT!) who likes to say, 'oh the left, look the left':rolleyes:

Nothing more needs to be said. This is exactly what you don't understand...that the 'left' does not exist as a cohesive, homogenous group you can label, and make assumptions about. Rather like the 'right'.

And this is directed at EVERYONE (EUT!) who likes to say, 'oh the left, look the left':rolleyes:

"Oh, look! It's one of those Canadian seal-beaters!"

OK, well, just to air the dirty laundry: I've never been banned, I usually don't even post here because everyone posting drives me up the wall with their political stances, and so I was hoping that this would be different, but I guess not.
So much for respecting a diversity of opinions. So what...you just want to have people agree with you?

Really? I'd have thought that one was editorial rather than news. My mistake.
Just out of interest, are there many papers with a national distribution in the 'States, or do they tend to be regional?


There are 4/5 papers that are nationally syndicated: NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today. The rest are local or regional.

(NOTE: THANK YOU Cahnt for toning down the rhetoric on this to actually have a Debate!)

"Oh, look! It's one of those Canadian seal-beaters!"
Na, we just shoot them.

I was reading a bit of what I missed while wrapping presents, and I was going to say, "C'mon guys... this thread isn't about calling each other names... how about some debate on issues?"
And then I looked at the topic thread...
And I suppose it is an invitation to name calling. :P ;)
So I take my leave.

Na, we just shoot them.
That's not what PETA says! All Canadians are evil seal-beaters who only beat the cute ones! ;)

So much for respecting a diversity of opinions. So what...you just want to have people agree with you?

Well, that'd be nice, but its a pipe dream. I'd like people to not post such vehement BS...cause I think that there should be nice debate as opposed to people calling each other names and crap

Nope. But I have been known to read more than the funny papers...
I've seen Calvin & Hobbes strips with bigger words than those.

There are 4/5 papers that are nationally syndicated: NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today. The rest are local or regional.
Right. I find this interesting as I'd assumed that anything with the name of a city in the title would be a regional paper. (Mind you, we used to have the Manchester Guardian over here, at least until it moved it's offices to London...)
The NY Times is left leaning, then? How about the others you mentioned? I'm assuming USA Today is considered centrist?

That's not what PETA says! All Canadians are evil seal-beaters who only beat the cute ones! ;)
Yeah well. It makes no sense to kill the little ones...you get more fur and meat off the older ones anyway. That doesn't mean that commercial seal-hunting isn't wrong...but I don't support trophy hunting either...in both cases, perfectly good food is wasted. That should be illegal.

Well, that'd be nice, but its a pipe dream. I'd like people to not post such vehement BS...cause I think that there should be nice debate as opposed to people calling each other names and crap
Vehement BS is part and parcel of politics...even in the amateur leagues:)

********************Joke of the day**********************

LOOK IN THE FOCKING MIRROR!!

If your doing this: :fluffle: With my wife, i'll :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: you and do :fluffle: with your wife!!! I'ma asshole!!! :headbang:

Well, that'd be nice, but its a pipe dream. I'd like people to not post such vehement BS...cause I think that there should be nice debate as opposed to people calling each other names and crap
In all honesty, I do think the point about objecting to tarring the whole of the left with one brush is a fair one, particularly as a lot of the people who go around making "why do liberals hate Christmas" or "The left's latest outrage" threads are the ones who get offended at being lumped in with the wrong right leaning clique. If they're unwilling to make any attempt to differentiate between the vast number of people on the other side of the fence, complaining that they're an objectivist rather than a neocon or a Bushevist (not heard that one before, but it's great) seems a bit pointless, really.

That's not what PETA says! All Canadians are evil seal-beaters who only beat the cute ones! ;)
And they must be treated with the deadly yellow snow (from down there where the huskies go...)

your a pointless writting gay fat ass! i'm a libral and i love christmas :headbang:

Right. I find this interesting as I'd assumed that anything with the name of a city in the title would be a regional paper. (Mind you, we used to have the Manchester Guardian over here, at least until it moved it's offices to London...)
The NY Times is left leaning, then? How about the others you mentioned? I'm assuming USA Today is considered centrist?

USA Today is the pre-coffee paper. Articles are rarely longer than 12 paragraphs.

NY Times is a left-leaning paper. On occasion, they have a violent snap-back to conservatism, but its rarely longer than a week.

Washington Post is further to the center than the NY Times.

Wall Street Journal is mostly financial.

And they must be treated with the deadly yellow snow (from down there where the huskies go...)

I have a husky and i think that was mean!!! So go fuck your mom! :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :fluffle:

And they must be treated with the deadly yellow snow (from down there where the huskies go...)
Zappa!!!!!!!! I officially love you.

-Nanook of the North

You are a fucking bitchy mother fucking sluty husky hating hore! :eek:

You can't debate someone who has the attitude that Coulter has.
A Canadian journalist for CBC -- which, contrary to opinion, is centrist in orientation -- attempted to interview Coulter and was obliged to correct her on Canadian involvement in the Vietnam War, the journalist repudiating her claim that the Canadian Armed Forces were involved in that war. (The Australians, South Koreans, and a few other American allies were, but Canadian companies just made money off of arms component sales to the US armed forces.) Needless to say, Coulter refused to be corrected. Very amusing.

It's interesting to view the differences in nations with a tradition of direct interpellation of the government, such as Britain, the Commonwealth, and even France, and how political opinions are voiced.

USA Today is the pre-coffee paper. Articles are rarely longer than 12 paragraphs.

NY Times is a left-leaning paper. On occasion, they have a violent snap-back to conservatism, but its rarely longer than a week.

Washington Post is further to the center than the NY Times.

Wall Street Journal is mostly financial.
I see. Thank you.

I think it is interesting the deep political debates you get in this forum, as i was told about this game by someone in stargatewars, which has a forum consisting of one huge slanging match.

I think coulter os wrong in what she is saying, but i beleive she has the rite to say it without booing before she is finished, it is immature and just shows peoples lack off respect. But i dont think this means that all lefties are evil or all righties are evil, but it was rong of them to boo, and it depresses me, that people cannot talk about a person without a slanging match and insults about others mums.

USA Today is the pre-coffee paper. Articles are rarely longer than 12 paragraphs.

NY Times is a left-leaning paper. On occasion, they have a violent snap-back to conservatism, but its rarely longer than a week.

Washington Post is further to the center than the NY Times.

Wall Street Journal is mostly financial.What about the New York Post and the Washington Times? From what I've seen of them, they cross the center line and sits firmly on the right, so I'd say it's doubtful that all US newspaper media was lefty.

In all honesty, I do think the point about objecting to tarring the whole of the left with one brush is a fair one, particularly as a lot of the people who go around making "why do liberals hate Christmas" or "The left's latest outrage" threads are the ones who get offended at being lumped in with the wrong right leaning clique. If they're unwilling to make any attempt to differentiate between the vast number of people on the other side of the fence, complaining that they're an objectivist rather than a neocon or a Bushevist (not heard that one before, but it's great) seems a bit pointless, really.

Well, I'm not really keen to those either. I really don't like any of the name calling, mostly because it inspires things like hatred. And Miscommunications.

I mean, take me for instance. I am probably the weirdest conservative out there. I'm Catholic, but support birth control and sex ed. I don't like Abortion, but currently, its law of the land. I don't want to initiate Artic Drilling, but I would if OPEC raises prices again (You know how much it costs to produce a barrel of oil? $5. To ship that barrel? $1.25. To refine that barrel? $3. How much does a barrel of oil cost? $60+...that's wrong). I don't like the UN, but think that it needs to be reformed as opposed to simply leaving it. I hate debt, but like spending money when I need to. I like education, but that's one of those State's Rights things.

Wonder why I'm so messed up?

Right. I find this interesting as I'd assumed that anything with the name of a city in the title would be a regional paper. (Mind you, we used to have the Manchester Guardian over here, at least until it moved it's offices to London...)
The NY Times is left leaning, then? How about the others you mentioned? I'm assuming USA Today is considered centrist?
Righties like to claim that the NY Times is left leaning, when in fact it's all over the place depending on the subject. They were beating the Iraq war drums louder than practically anyone else, for instance. I don't know if you'd call USA Today centrist--I'd generally call it crap more than anything else.

Righties like to claim that the NY Times is left leaning, when in fact it's all over the place depending on the subject. They were beating the Iraq war drums louder than practically anyone else, for instance. I don't know if you'd call USA Today centrist--I'd generally call it crap more than anything else.

A lot of people forget Judith Miller and her mobile weapons lab stories...

Most papers are crap. It's the editorial pages where I note the left or right leaning. Most papers at least are consistent about leaning a bit to the left on editorials (if the editorial is about anything of substance, which is becoming rare).

Just to put a final end to the whole "who has been on TV/made more movies" thing,
http://imdb.com/name/nm0601619/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1326010/
while I do not have the content of each appearence for both, I do know that not all of Moores were nessicarily political

It is important to realize that the left wing is what lables Coulter the "right wing spokeswoman" and the right wing that lables Moore the "left wing spokesman". I think we all realize that to some extent, both are full of shit.

A lot of people forget Judith Miller and her mobile weapons lab stories...

Most papers are crap. It's the editorial pages where I note the left or right leaning. Most papers at least are consistent about leaning a bit to the left on editorials (if the editorial is about anything of substance, which is becoming rare).
By the editorial page standard, the NY Times is pretty balanced--Tierney and Brooks are conservative, Krugman and Herbert are liberal, Kristof and Friedman are centrist and Dowd out of her damn mind half the time.

But by that same standard, the WSJ is somewhere to the right of the NY Post. Their reporting is pretty solid, so far as I can tell. In fact, on a lot of things, I think they're more credible than most of their competition.

Righties like to claim that the NY Times is left leaning, when in fact it's all over the place depending on the subject. They were beating the Iraq war drums louder than practically anyone else, for instance. I don't know if you'd call USA Today centrist--I'd generally call it crap more than anything else.
Right. This is why I find this confusing: UK papers are very aggressive about tub thumping, while I get the impression that the US ones like to look like they're objective, regardless of where they stand.
USA Today's a tabloid, then? More interested in media stories than politics and news?

Right. This is why I find this confusing: UK papers are very aggressive about tub thumping, while I get the impression that the US ones like to look like they're objective, regardless of where they stand.
USA Today's a tabloid, then? More interested in media stories than politics and news?
Not really a tabloid--more like a paper written for 8th graders. The stories don't tend to be long or in depth. They're generally accurate, but they're not known for breaking big stories or taking chances.

And that's one of the things I love about UK papers--they put their bias out front where you can see it. I wish US papers were like that--US television media, for that matter. I wouldn't have a beef with Fox News if they didn't put that "Fair and Balanced" tagline on their newscasts.

Not really a tabloid--more like a paper written for 8th graders. The stories don't tend to be long or in depth. They're generally accurate, but they're not known for breaking big stories or taking chances.

And that's one of the things I love about UK papers--they put their bias out front where you can see it. I wish US papers were like that--US television media, for that matter. I wouldn't have a beef with Fox News if they didn't put that "Fair and Balanced" tagline on their newscasts.

I hate Time Magazine and Newsweek, largely because their content is puerile.

The closest thing we have to a decent magazine in the US is the Atlantic Monthly. The New Yorker has gone downhill, IMHO.

I hate Time Magazine and Newsweek, largely because their content is puerile.

The closest thing we have to a decent magazine in the US is the Atlantic Monthly. The New Yorker has gone downhill, IMHO.
We agree on the first part, that's for sure. We recently reupped the New Yorker, but I can't say I read it regularly. My big magazine lately has been Wired, and always National Geographic, but that's not really a news magazine.

You are a fucking bitchy mother fucking sluty husky hating hore! :eek:

We're sending you on vacation, so pack your things up immediately.
Destination: Out of your computer room
Vacation Time: 2 weeks
Once you return, we expect you to be on your best behaviour.

rotflmfao... that's classic!

Anyway...my favorite news magazine is Soldier of Fortune. They get stories from all the high-speed, low-drag SF guys, and they give a fairly good representation of combat and stuff.

Although, I read things like the Richmond Times-Dispatch (aka the Times-Disgrace) and that has got to be the most conservative paper I have ever read...worse than Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Limbaugh, Ms. Coulter, and Mr. Hannity all combined.

The whole article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/coulter.row.ap/index.html)is a joke.


I have to agree with that last student more than anyone else quoted. Yes, Ann Coulter is more often than not a rabid torture monkey of the far right, but which would be more effective in rebutting her: protesting her mere existance; or sitting down, listening to her, and writing a smart comeback column in the school paper?

The sort of person inclined to lend credence to what she has to say in the first place isn't likely to be perssuaded by things like "nuance" and "reason." They pretty much like to go for the vitriol. (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20032)

I have to agree with that last student more than anyone else quoted. Yes, Ann Coulter is more often than not a rabid torture monkey of the far right, but which would be more effective in rebutting her: protesting her mere existance; or sitting down, listening to her, and writing a smart comeback column in the school paper?
Who reads school newspapers, anyway? Certainly not Anne Coulter. Far better to pie her. There's a magical quality to direct interaction that you don't get from a write-up in the student union rag.

The whole article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/coulter.row.ap/index.html)is a joke.


I have to agree with that last student more than anyone else quoted. Yes, Ann Coulter is more often than not a rabid torture monkey of the far right, but which would be more effective in rebutting her: protesting her mere existance; or sitting down, listening to her, and writing a smart comeback column in the school paper?

Agreed.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

You fight fire (Coulter's vitriol) with fire (intelligent rebuttal).

Agreed.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

You fight fire (Coulter's vitriol) with fire (intelligent rebuttal).
You will not rest until the whole forum has read these words eh? :p Good on you though, it might give those against free speech something to ponder on.

Ahhh! I just love it when the left reveals its true face! :D

Because the right never protests a speaker. :rolleyes: :headbang:

Tell that to Linda Rhonstat and Whoopi Goldberg.

You will not rest until the whole forum has read these words eh? :p Good on you though, it might give those against free speech something to ponder on.

:D

I am using them a bit freely tonight. ;)

*shudder*

I hate how she thinks she's a sex symbol. I mean, if you want evidence that she's lost touch with reality, that's it right there. She's also trying to steal Janette Lee's nickname. There can only be one Black Widow, damnit.

*shudder*

I hate how she thinks she's a sex symbol. I mean, if you want evidence that she's lost touch with reality, that's it right there. She's also trying to steal Janette Lee's nickname. There can only be one Black Widow, damnit.
She is good comedy :D