Ann Coulter: Name-caller
 

She actually plays well to the conservatives that like the anorexic look and to the homo-phobes. Since she's unable to defend the actions of the administration she loves so much (now 29%, less than Nixon during Watergate), at least she's good at name calling.
For sure, Edwards is laughing, as am I. Pathetic Ann, pathetic. Maybe a centerfold spread in the New Republic will help you regain your "credibility".
NAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cm/content/view/153/150/

Ann....you'd be funny if you weren't SO sad.

A bit more about her "spread". Go wide Annie!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...itches_pos.htm

I admit that she's far far over the line but as your original link pointed out...there are folks like Al Franken (sp?) on the left who are just as bad. I don't think we'll ever again witness a political contest that focuses on issues rather than people...and that's the sad thing, not the rantings of an individual!

SF, You might be correct in your assessment.
I know I didn't put the words into her mouth, nor did I choose to speak to the audience where it was played.
To me, it is indeed sad when intelligent debate goes to "name calling", but what's to be expected when current policies are indefensible?
I'm ready for the impeachment proceedings to begin, then the war crimes trials. Leave out Al Franken...let's hold the real culprits to accountability.

The only difference between guys like Al and the Bush folks is that one is in power, the other isn't!

SF,
Here's a link to Tom's blog. I think more like him than I do Annie.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com/

Same type of rhetoric...disgusting! The worst thing that could happen to this country would be the prosecution of a President for anything remotely political, Nixon broke the criminal law of this country and he was rightly pardoned...talk of criminal action against Bush is only a small step above talk of assassination...not a road civilized folks in a democracy should ever travel...this is the rhetoric of a third world country where the basic concepts of freedom are new and misunderstood and an affront to this great nation...shameful!!

Shameful? Disgusting? Huh?
"I am a uniter, not a divider."
'NUF said.

And DTS, all you have to do is check out the thread here on Hillary...the degree of hatred shown this woman already...if she does become President, what do you think these right-wing types will be saying then? Do you really think personal attacks are good for our society???

Good question SF.
I'll just say that both sides make plenty of excuses. And, as you said, one is in power, the other isn't.
So...
It seems to me that the ones in power have to come up with much more valid excuses than the ones that aren't.
There's plenty of hatred going on...from both sides.
Now, here is Ann's excuse...she was trying to be funny.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...he_weeken.html

To me, I don't see much humor in name calling, inciting hatred, killing innocents, nor waging wars of choice.
In my humble view, this used to be a great country before the excusers got a death grip on it. The shame is that we have reaped what we have sewn.
Did you catch any of the excuses that have been offered to the wounded vets at Walter Reed?
Let's hold those that took away liberties, care for the wounded, waged hegemonous wars in the name of "protection", and other high crimes and misdemeanors accountable for their actions.
Enough is enough.

I don't disagree regarding responsibility but...the way to deal with this mess is to debate the issues and elect a capable person to office (White House as well as Congress)...Bush and his excuse-makers should be "punished" by being voted out of office, history will have the conclusive say on his Presidency. My problem is this talk of Impeachment and worse...dangerous! Remember that the Republican zealots tried to remove a President from office for his sexual behavior...we simply don't need that kind of hate-mongering! If there is direct and compelling evidence that a crime was committed, then that's another matter but as much as we may disagree with the decisions made, that's not grounds for screwing with the Constitution...there is a reason why no President has been removed from office! The Vet thing is shameful...absolutely shameful! But I doubt it's the personal responsibility of the President. Iraq is a mess...but both parties agreed to the war and all the name calling doesn't replace action to change direction...and that action still hasn't happened! Personal liberties vs protection from Terrorism is a debatable subject, where should the lines be drawn? I think this Administration has gone way to far but again...that's not criminal, it's political! Congress could have forcefully addressed this issue and it did...it sided with the Administration despite the rhetoric! Do we remove Senators and Congresspersons from office? Do we charge everyone in office with "war crimes"? We the people have the power to correct this mess by demanding standards, demanding debate not name-calling, and voting for competent leaders...we get what we deserve quite frankly!

SF,
Your response was long and thoughtful.
Many of your questions deserve answers.
Regrets that I'm not privy to the information you seek.
OK...
Let's start with the assertion that both parties endorsed going to war with Iraq.
Has the "intelligence" provided for such been called to question as being faulty? Who provided it? Answer, the same guy that said it would be a "slam dunk". A Bush CIA appointee.
Who appointed the prvious Sec of Defense?
Yes, the American people are demanding answers. There is nothing wrong with that.
I disagree with you in that I think that Nixon should have been held accountable for his decisions rather than accepting a pardon from Ford (an admission of guilt).
The United States set precedent at Nuremburg, and the rest of the world saw. Times have changed, but the standards haven't.
In my view, the only way the USA can regain any semblance of credibility with the countries with which we share this planet is to hold our leaders, those who have made decisions that affect those others as well as ourselves,
to be held accountable for their decisions that were sold based on lies, that were bought by a fearful populace after 9-11, and that no amount of name calling will excuse their actions in any court of law.
The dead don't speak.
The murderers should answer.
The world is watching.
The world is waiting.
As you said, "We all deserve that."

It's a good argument...my response has to be in the form of a question though....do you really think that if we prosecuted members of the Bush Administration for "war crimes" or other misdeeds that the countries of the world would really care? Would it be seen as anything more than symbolic? Isn't the only way to undo the mistakes of the past is to chart a new course, new policies, new attitudes toward the world community? Tangible instead of symbolic...drug availability for AIDS victims, food for the starving, respect for all beliefs and a place at the table for the disenfranchised?

SF,
Here's one of my favorite quotations, "The longest journey begins with the first step."
The world has been held hostage to the decisions of the Bush administration equally as it once was to the decisions of Hitler and his supporters.
The United States set a standard of accountability.
Does the rest of the world care?
I can't answer that.
I'll just speak for myself. I do.
Can we undo mistakes?
No.
There are no do overs.
Can we forge new policies, new attitudes...even (dare I say? a new VISION rather than spreading greed, death and chaos)?
I certainly hope so.
The way to peace demands resolving the violence of the past. It also involves holding those that created war to account.
Once that step is taken, the next step can be taken.
If not, the feet become tangled and we all fall down.
Remember, "the longest journey begins with the first step."

Your visions of future needs like AIDS, food for the starving, respect for the beliefs of others...heck, let's also throw in cures for other diseases like cancers and cardio...also a renewable energy agenda based on hydrogen, and a resolution of global warming...

Unfortunately, unless the anchor rope that holds us to the past remains uncut, the anchor continues to hold the ship. There is no sailing.
There is also no safe harbor.

Peace.

Somerfrost,
Please excuse my double post.
Your questions got me thinking.

I know you have a background in psychology and counseling.
So, if you don't mind my asking (and I only ask because I'm somewhat analytical), do you see familiar patterns between Ann, Bush, domestic violence, and other situations....?

The pattern:
1) Tension building (name calling, saber rattling, threat behaviors)
2) Outbreak of violence (invasion, aggression)
3) Period of remorse (excuse making, forgiveness seeking, promising to change...honeymoon coming)
4) Repeat steps 1-3...endlessly

Thanks for your anticipated response.

DTS

Hummm, I would say it qualifies as an analogy but understand that you are comparing a personalized event with one of much larger scope...domestic violence almost always centers around control and the need to possess another person, there isn't a specific belief involved. Bush et al believe they are "right" and they have ultimate (as much as the Constitution allows anyway) power, an abusive spouse is seeking that control, that domination, that "ownership" if you will....different dynamics I think. Abuse comes from a bastardization of love while the actions of Bush could best be described as a bastardization of power...I agree the analogy is defensible but I would question whether it defines what has happened.

Thanks Somer,
I look at the actions rather than the motivations. You raise some interesting commonalities, control, power preservation (domination), breakdown of belief structures to remain "right".
There remain some that "love" Bush, and refuse to see his "bastardization of power".
Thanks for your insight. There just might be more similarities than I had previously seen.

Back to Ann...
The Dems are appalled.
The Repubs are running away from her comments.
Now...the Conservatives weigh in...
http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=101563

Good bye Ann!

On a side note, if the peace makers are "blessed", where does that leave the war makers?

This is justice, her remarks should have consequences! Regarding your last sentence...don't try and simplify things that much...remember Ecclesiastes 3.

Someone at school told be she needed a good beehatch slap.

I think I understand what they meant now.

Yeah...right after they kick Mahr in the nuts for his comments about Cheney!

leave out al franken?....funny, the thread was started to attack an attacker--but when another is named, now let's not go in that direction?! whatever...

calling someone a ****** for instance is completely unnecessary, and certainly does nothing to further dialogue. i can't stand ann coulter, and i really wish they would not give her air time. it's a shame that those with legitimate viewpoints aren't allowed on air, only those who are far right or far left....
and yes, bill mahr is disgusting. to call for the death of an american, just because his thoughts don't jibe with ones own, is despicable.

I had absolutely no problem with what he said. What he said is the sad truth.

Somer, I don't think Franken ever advocated murdering the leaders of soverign nations and converting their leaders forcibly to Christianity. If you would be so kind, please find specifics of things he's said that you find particularly egregious and I'll be happy to find egregious comments by Coulter and you can let me know which you think is worse. I think you'll find it hard to find anything he's said that compares with what comes out of her mouth. Which, I'm sure, is why she gets more press. Americans love a freak show.

Danzig, that's not at all what Maher said- it's what the right-wing media wants you to THINK he said. Here's his actual quote:

Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)

Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…

Frank: I think he did.

Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…

Maher: No, no. I quoted that.

Frank: You don’t believe that?

Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

Says conseravtive John Cole on balloon-juice, "Saying that X would happen if Y had happened is not the same thing as saying Y should have happened or you wished Y had happened. There is no way around that, even when you selectively quote and remove the jocular context from the program."

Here's the link to Cole's comments on the subject- good reading:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7944

Franken is a dope and I think it's great he's running for senator, afterall he won't have time to act anymore which is a plus. I love actors they think they know better than the american public, over inflated feeling of self worth. Yeah, you're on TV, in movies, or the theatre....who really gives a $#@ what you think.

Now Mahr didn't advocate murder just agreed if Cheney was dead it'd be a good thing.

Coulter is a dope too....I read this board and it's so evident why nothing ever gets done. It's more important being correct than making the world better. No different than the people on here.

I think you are missing my point....folks on both sides routinely are engaging in what I consider hate speech and personal attacks, I'm not sure what could be gained by judging who is "the worst"...it's all bad...shameful and dangerous! In the 50's...if you disagreed with someone, you accused them of being a Communist and lives were destroyed, Dr King was called all sorts of names and his sex life the subject of J Edgar Hoover's interest (which, considering JEH's lifestyle...well, you know), Malcolm X was called a "terrorist" by mainstream media....go back further in history and folks were tortured and murdered cause someone called them a "witch"...the list is long and all of history contains examples of this folly...rather than debate differences and respect same, attack and accuse....worked for Hitler, Pol Pot and apparently the leaders of Sudan and now Iraq. This nation is becoming more divided every day and the rhetoric more and more vicious...there's a storm coming!!!

Franken's a writer, not an actor. A comedian, too, but I'd mostly classify him as a writer. I think he's really smart.

Though I don't think the film and TV arts missed Reagan or Gopher all that much. ;) Glad Clint came back, though.

I don't know, Dr. Fager-- I enjoyed reading Somer and DTS's dialogue in this thread. Yes, often people get locked into "I must win" but I often see discussions go in directions I wouldn't expect here. I like to think of the OT board as a 21st century version of the 19th century salon. :)

Somer, I applaud and admire your passion for a kinder world, but I get tired of the hateful, awful, bigoted things flung around by the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh getting dismissed with, "Oh, liberals are just as bad." Because I really don't believe they are-- I don't hear anything coming out of leading liberal commentators that rivals the filth that Coulter spews. And it's probably why she makes more money, because, as I said, America loves a freak show. If you can find things from liberal commentators on the level of Coulter or Limbaugh that equals the things she's said, please post it. (Not the crazy blogger with an audience of six- we'll be here until the end of time if we start doing that). Otherwise, I think Coulter occupies a very special place in the "Making money by promoting hatred" Department.

Regarding the attacks on "Communists" and Martin Luther King-- was it liberals or conservatives that led those movements? Your examples aren't helping the "liberals are just as bad" argument.

Somer, believe it or not, political discourse has been this ugly in the US before-- check out the late 1800's. Whenever the divide between rich and poor gets great, the discourse gets uglier, because the haves must figure out a way to keep the have-nots voting for them. And there's nothing like morality and personal attacks to get people to vote against their own economic interests. From the NYTimes (I'll post the link, too), about the AMT:

<<Meanwhile the stated goal of the original tax is not being met under the successor tax enacted 21 years ago. A far greater number of well-off families still pay only small amounts of tax. More than 41,000 taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more in 2003, the last year for which figures are available, paid less than 10 percent of their income in individual income taxes. And the number of untaxed high-income families — once 155 — grew to 2,824.>>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/we...ew&oref=slogin

And yet, people on this board claim the wealthy are currently "taking it on the chin" and continute to vote for policies that keep the wealthy paying less tax than I do. Go figure.

Hugs to you for your always thought-provoking, kind posts. :)

This thread has taken some interesting twists and turns.
Some comments remind me of an exchange I had with a third grader once.
Q: Did you call --- a name?
A: Johnny did too, so did Max, so did Mary....
Q: Wait a minute, the question was "Did you call --- a name?"
A: Uhhh...fade to silence.

It fascinates that avoidance behavior, once learned, is played again and again.

Bill Mahr said...
Al Franken said...
On and on....

So, back to Ann Coulter....
She laughed about her remarks.
A PA newspaper has withdrawn her column.
Verizon no longer has their sponsorship on her web page.
Mitt, John Mc, and Rudy have spoken against her attacks, labeling them as "offensive".
Many Conservatives have also denounced her words.

This opinion says more:
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news....d=576361&rfi=6

DTS,
Please don't take my remarks as an attempt to "justify" the ugly rhetoric of Coulter...you know how I feel about her ideology, I'm simply pointing out that falling into the trap of personal attacks and hate speech only clouds the important issues of the day. History will judge Bush, it is counterproductive to spend time attacking him...better to put forth workable solutions to the mess we are in! Attacking those in power is a poor substitute for regaining that power and making meaningful change...I hate seeing folks get sidetracked in this way! Coulter and those like her will self-destruct (as you pointed out above) as long as the discussion doesn't drop to her level...at that point, she actually gains credibility!

GR,
Actually, a lot of so-called liberals joined the "commie search" to distance themselves from those further left, Bobby and J. F. Kennedy were in positions of power when the attacks on Dr King took place...hard to believe they couldn't have curbed JEH if they so desired. Again, my point isn't which side is worse...it's that we ALL need to rise above such behavior if we are ever to make changes! I've often said, the only thing I dislike more than liberal ideology is conservative ideology...but both have valid points.

Mahr, Coulter and Franken are all of the same ilk.
They love attention.

Mahr gets his little crowd together so they can all clap for him and make him seem so insightful and sly. Franken was made famous by another major dip on FOX who tried to sue him (how stupid can a man like Bill OReilly be, or it just a bad temper?). And Coulter is pure acid.

All of these people love to create divisions thru attention. They must have an audience and be devisive to have any sort of self worth.

Somer,
First, I wasn't attempting to use your remarks incorrectly.
I enjoy exchanging ideas with you. I respect your views, and though I don't agree with all of them, you present them clearly and intelligently.
My comment was regarding all the twists this thread has taken.
Everything you said from "I'm simply"...on, I agree completely.
Consider this, in order to regain power, is it not important to demonstrate that those currently holding it have abused it and no longer deserve it?
To me, that's the first step towards change.

The people that get stuff done face hostile crowds and try and explain themselves in a rational manner. If one really believes they can make a difference in Government, one must attempt to sway the opposition that contains rational people why their different ideas merit consideration.

Ann Coulter plays games and is irrational.
Mahr loves the attention of people who agree with him and find him witty, I dont.
Franken is an attack dog. Wait till he actually attempts to get things done.

***********NEWS FLASH**********

Ann Coulter stripped!!!!!!!!
YES!
Her site has been stripped of sponsors.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...-113316-9302r/

Now, I'm hoping that the rumor I heard about her "relationship" with O J Simpson develops. I've heard he has an attraction to "blonds".
Howard Kurtz reports that Ann has saggy t-tties.
Will these people just grow up and leave OJ and Ann alone for about a half hour???????? Gee whiz!!!!

Mes amis, Maher first and foremost is running a COMEDY show. It's political, yes, but it's COMEDY. He'll sacrifice a subtlety to make a joke. He's a comedian; it's his job. Likewise Franken's books- they're political yes, but they're humor books first. Some, "Lying Liars" better than others "The Truth- With Jokes!" (I found that one kind of boring and didn't finish it) I also am confounded by people who expect comedians to be running serious news shows (see Hannity's interview with John Stewart a few years back).

Pgardn, who is Franken attacking for? I'm not aware of him having links to any specific Dem. He seems to be doing the same thing Coulter is, but with less bad language and with more facts to back him up. Michael Moore, sure, one can make a very strong argument that he plays fast and loose with timelines at the VERY least. But Franken? I haven't found anything in his "Lying Liars," anyway, that has been contradicted. (Happy to be wrong, of course, as I prefer having all the facts, too. And as I said, I didn't finish "The Truth" because I thought it was kind of dull)

His chapters on Ann Coulter are pretty funny, actually. As is his account of the O'Reilly lawsuit. He says O'Reilly was upset because the picture of him on Franken's book made him look "blotchy." And yeah, that lawsuit was comedy gold. Who wouldn't have taken advantage of it? Here in NYC, while it was going on, a local hotdog joint put up a banner that said, "We love you Al Franken! To us, you are always 'Vare and Valanced.'!" Almost got me to go buy hotdogs from them, except I don't like hotdogs. (I know, I know, why do I hate our freedom?)

I humbly disagree. Maher is a comedian who takes himself and his political views seriously. Just like Dennis Miller, just on the opposite side. Neither are funny anymore. And his HBO show is much more of a political discussion than comedy.

Franken. Franken is a destroyer. Once you step over the line and run for office, solutions must be addressed for specific problems. He got into all this by becoming critical, not by saying, I have got ideas that are way better than this and I would like to try them, hear me out. I am dismissing this guy who starts as a destroyer and now must attempt to produce solutions. He never says I got a better way, he just says this is a joke and it aint working. I very much dislike this type of personality. They are not useful in what I do at all. So in my sheltered world of trying to produce solutions to problems, this man is an alien. And not useful as a functioning Government official. How many politicians have come to Al Franken to discuss policy because of his expertise?

I'm tired of you guys picking on my girl...How bout a little respect...