« A Fistful of Wingnuts | Main | Sleepers Awake »

June 10, 2006

Comments

Interestingly stupid! Did Malkin really say that? Didn't she see Mr. Coulter's interview schedule? She's all over the MSM. Honestly, I'm sick of seeing her screechingly justify her horrid statements. You can't swing a cat without hitting a show she's appearing on!

Point Five's my fav. Hilarious. Pretty much sums up what most righties I know would think.

It's pathetic how easily Coulter can manipulate these people to buy her books. She understands her audience well. If she thought the left was more gullible than the right, she'd be spewing her venom from the other side of her mouth.

...
...
...
Processing
...
...
...
Does not compute
...
Analysis
...
...
Ann Coulter will be one of the virgins bin Laden's stuck in hell with.

Fascinating: post after post, time and again the wingnuts claim that they and Coulter have somehow been prevented from responding to the 9/11 widows' political points. How? When?

Such claims fail to distinguish between disagreement and attack. You wanna go after the widows' political viewpoints? Have at it. Ya wanna dis 'em for *having* viewpoints? *And* for being widows, ferchrissake? We all call "bullshit".

Poor Jonah! Distracted from his snack attacks, and by such a disturbing woman, too.

My favorite is Expose the Left--it's such an Al Franken observation in its truth and simplicity. But of course truth flies over these idiots' heads like motes of dust on a light breeze.

Brilliant recap, Mr. Freude. I bet you had to take a long, hot, disinfecting shower after wading through all that Right Shite.

I'm just glad that someone has the huevos to speek to the real issues at stake. On every show, she seems to be the only live wire. The rest just repeat cocktail party witisims ment to deminstrate what wonderful people they are; TV is, after all, a popularity contest.

Ann is taking one for the team in not giving free passes; I gotta respect that.

Kind of like Bush, taking on an unpleasent but necessary (and appearently thankless) task.

In response to other remarks, I think she looks hot. Thanks for the pic.

In response to other remarks, I think she looks hot. Thanks for the pic.

You don't think she needs a meal?

Asolo: you do know that Ann Coulter is a man in drag, right? just check out that adam's apple!

...and the tell-tale bulge under her trademark cocktail dress.

B'Fruede: Sorry you had to wade through all of that excrement to come up with this post. Thanks though.

Ann Coulter will be one of the virgins bin Laden's stuck in hell with.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Surely you jest. Virgin?

HelenWheels is right. She's playing the suckers.

B'freude is also right. She's not eating enough babies.

Man, you should have some kind of a medal if you waded through all that shit to make this post. I looked at about 3 of them and had to stop or I would have certainly spewed my guts all over the screen. I did not realize just what horridly foul assholes the wingnut division really is.

Holy crap...how do manage to wade through these septic tanks of NeoCon excrement?

I'm curious -- are you objecting to Coulter's tone, or to the fact that she dares to criticize these women and their political/policy pronouncements?

If the former, you may have a point.

If the latter, you prove Coulter's point.

And I'm also curious -- doesn't the screaming outrage of the Left and the demands that Coulter retract and apologize for her comments -- as well as the demands that bookstores stop selling the book, libraries not carry the book, media not review the book or interview her -- constitute censorship every bit as much as the response to the Dixie Chicks in 2003? And if so, how can you call them heroes for speaking unpopular views and not call Coulter a hero for doing the same?

Unless, of course, it is all about ideology, not principle.

For what it is worth, I'm not a Coulter fan. I'm not buying the book because of this -- but then again, I would never have bought the book. I'm not defending her, because I don't know that the comments merit defending. I'm just asking unpopular questions that I think need answers.

What more can be said. Only nuts could defend and support Ann, regardless of their political party. Thanks for all of your research. I wouldn't have the stomach for it, her defenders are more idiotic and deluded and hateful then she is.

I'm curious -- are you objecting to Coulter's tone, or to the fact that she dares to criticize these women and their political/policy pronouncements?

Obviously you didn't read the post.

Her tone? It's over the top - while she can certainly say anything she wants to in any way she wants, she can't expect not to be criticized for her polemics.

And who cares if she criticizes the 9/11 widows? - she's certainly free to do that. The issue isn't her criticism, misplaced as it is, but her contention that such people are immune from public criticism because they've lost someone in the so-called War on Terror. That's obviously not true - Cindy Sheehan's certainly taken it on the chin. Coulter's claim that the Dems put these people forward simply because they can't be criticized is equally dumb - the right tears into them with the same sadistic glee as they do anyone else who strays from the path blazed by the Dear Leader. Find me one instance of a 9/11 widow saying "You can't criticize me because you didn't lose someone on 9/11 ..." I'd be surprised if you did.

Look at the price she is paying -- is she REALLY able to criticize these women? Isn't she being Dixie-Chicked by the Left?

Look at the price she is paying -- is she REALLY able to criticize these women? Isn't she being Dixie-Chicked by the Left?

Are you kidding? She's got a bestselling book. It's full of criticism. Terrible price to pay. And don't forget, the Dixie Chicks were trashed for criticizing Bush. Coulter is part of the Swift Boat crowd - she's trashing the 9/11 widows for criticizing Bush. She's part of the problem because she seeks to limit the scope of the debate - "shut up and support the president, especially you Jersey Girls - who are you to say anything?" The solution is more discourse, not less.

Yeah, aren't you feeling a little ill after reading through all those NeoCon blogs?

Maybe I missed something, but I have yet to see any monster-trucks driving over piles of Coulter's books; nor have I heard any radio stations sponsoring book-burning barbecues. CD versions of such events were de rigeur here in the South a while back, when the Dixie Chicks dared to criticize the warmongering of our "leaders" and the Average American had not yet realized how much he'd been lied to and duped.

For Ann Coulter, the controversy is making her a fortune, just as she intended.

How sad that Coulter's riches come at the expense of decency and dignity. However, the 9/11 widows have always conducted themselves with both. And they most certainly never prevented anyone from openly dissenting, nor did they ever resort to ad hominem attacks or name-calling, as Coulter does.

Just goes to show you that a boatload of royalties, a neverending stream of TV face-time, and a law degree do not a true lady (or, for that matter gentleman) make.

Blogenfreude gets it absolutely right: we need more discourse, not less.

Price she's paying? How about the price she's being paid? She's laughing all the way to the bank - allowed solo interviews with softball interviewers on major outlets. She's never on a panel with 2 or 3 lefties and asked to defend her views in 20 seconds before being cut off, like any left-wing commentator is. And showing up in a cocktail dress at 6 AM? Looks like the Walk of Shame to me! Let alone the fact that a 45-year-old woman, no matter how emaciated, really ought to leave the skimpy minidresses to the younger gals.

I say, fix her up with Bill O'Reilly. A manly guy like Bill would teach her the meaning of the word 'respect'!

Blogenfreude, I salute you. I spent a year listening to right-wing talk radio so I could get an idea about what I was up against, and now I cannot go there any more.

Thanks for wading through all the garbage to put this post together. It is something I don't want to contemplate ever doing. That's some mighty stiff constitution you have there.

Rhymes, you're letting Coulter manipulate you. Of course she or anyone can criticize those women. But she wants to be able to criticize them in her vile, hateful, sensational way (better to sell books with, my dear), and then, when someone calls her on it, she wants to be able to hide behind her wide-eyed innocent look and whine that she should be able to criticize them. It's a cheap, cynical trick, and she gets away with it all the time.

Well, i will concede that she is doing well -- but the Chickks still had a successful tour in 2003.

And no government official called for their albums to be banned -- which Democrats in New Jersey have done.

https://www.assemblydems.com/press/0606/PRQuigleyStenderOnCoulter.htm

In response to these incendiary, hate-filled attacks on women who suffered a terrible personal tragedy four-and-a-half years ago and have selflessly advocated to improve national security in the intervening years, [Assemblywomen Joan M. Quigley and Linda Stender] issued the following statement, denouncing Coulter's attacks and asking New Jersey retailers to ban the sale of her book throughout the state.

Hmmmm....

What government official called for the banning of the Dixie Chicks?

Stupid of those pols to do that, but the Chicks paid a real price, as shown by one of your wonderful "conservative" blogs:

https://wizbangblog.com/2006/05/31/dixie-chicks-sales-drop-33-album-debuts-at-no-1.php

And yet it was still the top-selling albunm that week. Some price, blogenfreude.

After all, all album sales are down over the last three years, as more downloadable music has become available.

There is a great big honking diff between shouting "Fire!" in crowded theaters day after day after day to make yourself a celebrity and a fortune and expressing a simple, personal opinion that almost costs you your career and your life because the aforementioned person with the megaphone and other persons with megaphones have almost sociopathic disregard for the feelings and welfare of others.

So says my Magic 8 Ball.

RwR ... time to shut up. Your president will be remembered as the worst in history, you ideology will be cast upon your much-beloved ash heap, and, with luck, your acolytes will be tried and convicted in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. I can't wait. Die neocons, die.

I see that when it comes right down to it, ther eis a certain type of leftist who would rather see his/her opponents murdered than engage in debate.

That would be Communists, Socialists, and folks associated with Kos and Democratic Underground.

So that is what Wingnut Nation looks like. Scary place, where everyone is ignorant. I'll stay here, where only about half are that way.

The Donks are now trying to ban Coulter's #1 best-seller in New Jersey. They even issued an official press release. The Left is once again trying to destroy freedom and civil liberties.

The Left is once again trying to destroy freedom and civil liberties.

Right Alberto.

You know, I have this recurring dream - one day, a conservative will stand up and say - "Hey, we were wrong - we're the reason the country is polarized, the treasury is empty, the armed forces are being sacrificed in a useless war, the poor are getting much poorer, and the Bill of Rights has been rendered meaningless."

Yeah, I'm sure that apology is coming real soon.

We can't have it both ways: we can't say that we need more discourse and then tell someone who disagrees with our points (Rhymes with Right) to shut up. While I respectfully disagree with RWR's statements and point of view, his comments have been far from insane. He has raised unpopular, but debateable, questions.

We on the left cannot be reduced to name-calling. It undermines any chance at persuasion. I know we are frustrated; I know we are outraged. But until we become organized and focus our outrage without namecalling, we will be unable to change the course of this country.

"I'm curious -- are you objecting to Coulter's tone, or to the fact that she dares to criticize these women and their political/policy pronouncements?" From what I've seen, Ms. Coulter did not criticize the 9/11 widows for their political points of view. She attacks them for "milking" their widow-hood. She contends that they'd rather criticize presidential policies than have their husbands back. That is not discourse, that is personal attack.

There were countless grass-roots efforts to boycott the Dixie Chicks for criticizing the President. While there was no "official" ban that I'm aware of, the fact remains that the right wing always attempts to silence anyone, and any point of view, that differs from their own.

We can't do that. We can't tell someone who presents thoughtful, differing points of view to shut up. Trolls (like that greasy-haired Texan who stalks Helen Wheel's blog) are a different matter -- he's constantly making personal attacks. While I disagree with Rhymes with Right, I must defend his right to have another point of view.

Jood - snap out of it - I haven't banned them or dumped their comments, and I never would. But when they tell you you'd rather murder them than engage in debate, that's not meaningful debate, nor is it thoughtful. Anyone who can read can tell I didn't mean kill neocons, I meant kill off their ideology's stranglehold on government. And as for the arguments in this thread, while anyone who wants to can argue that Coulter is prevented from criticizing certain types of spokespeople, that's a brain-dead argument as far as I'm concerned. She's got platforms galore, and she uses 'em. Dixie-Chicked she is not.

Miss Manners would never say, "shut up." She'd say something like, "Rhymes with right, your interesting perspective sounds familiar and should be discussed with someone just as sincere and intelligent. Try the begonia." Or Miss Manners might say, "Life is short, Rhymes with right, but it seems endless in a way that would confuse physicists whenever you speak." Or in a pinch, Miss Manners might let on, "Since you're only here for tea and cruelty and show little interest in Earl Grey, permit me to recommend you avoid pretzels and the human beings with actual souls."

That's what Miss Manners might say.

Miss Manners would never say, "shut up."

She should get her own blog ...

Don't threaten me shut ups y'all

Oh, fuck, never mind. I'm a grandmother, for god's sake. I just drove to the desert and back. I'm going to my room now to have caffeine.

Let's just say I'm all too happy to note that Mann Coulter is in hot water for voter fraud. Evil always comes back to bite one in the ass, doesn't it?

And Rhymes, I like to think of another person who insulted 9/11 victims, by calling them "Little Eichmans." I don't remember many liberals (if any) defending Ward Churchill, and at least he could explain why he said that by defining the entire Corporate America as an entity which causes - indirectly - the deaths and poverty of many around the globe, as Eichman, indirectly (as an administrative person, not the actual hand-on-trigger person), caused the deaths of many Jews. I am totally paraphrasing but I can find his explanation if you want. People went nuts insulting him and tried to get him fired, especially on the right (of course). Was it unwarranted? Hmm.

What I think many are saying here is that the right does NOT tolerate the 'free speech' it claims it does, and how dare you accuse liberals of the same? At least we have the guts to criticize our own when we don't agree with them - such as in Ward Churchill's case. I do believe many liberals said they were shocked at his statement. Why don't the righties do that? EVER? Can you ever admit one of your own makes a mistake? Or is it too frightening to step momentarily out of the black-and-white thinking?

Is calling the 9/11 victims "Little Eichmans" any worse than Coulter calling them "witches," and opportunists glad to sell their husbands' deaths for a buck? I think not.

Die neocons, die.

Gee -- what was I thinking? A call for the death of your political opponents didn't really mean you were calling for the death of your opponents.

Would you be so non-literal if someone wrote "Die Muslims, die" or Die n*ggesrs, die" or "Die liberals, die"?

Die neocons, die.

Oh yeah ... silly me! I DID mean I was going to climb a tower with an automatic weapon and start picking off neocons! Duh. Thanks, RwR, for telling me what I really meant. You conservatives are so good at that Big Brother shit. We have always been at war with Eastasia!

All I can say is...

Hamadahamadahamada...

By ignoring my last point, you pretty well confirm it.

By ignoring my last point, you pretty well confirm it.

Sadly, No!

They way you set it up, Muslims, niggers, and liberals are epithets. You are not using the terms "literal"ly. Not so here. "Neocon" is literal. If I'd wanted to call for death, I'd have done it in different terms.

But hey - don't take MY word for it! You're so fucking all-knowing ... and smart! Why do I even bother to debate such a vast (or is that "half-vast"?) and all-encompassing intellect? Want to take over the blog? I just CAN'T FUCKING COMPETE.

You put forward tired nonsensical talking points. Congratulations. You can be my new troll. At least you spell reasonably well. FSM, please send me smarter trolls ...

Rhymes with Right (spite?) -

Your thesis seems to be that Ann Coulter is being victimized by the left by losing her right to free speech and that her situation compares to the Dixie Chicks situation. You're wrong on all counts, and you're being purposefully obtuse for the sake of arguement.

Consider: The Dixie chicks are a country band, with a country audience. In general, people who listen to country tend to be conservative (and christian). When the right raised such a furor over their comments you can imagine how such an audience, their audience, reacted. Their revenue loss must have been enormous.

Contrast that to Ann "fuck me in the ass" Coulter. Her audience also consists mainly of conservative folk. When democrats raise a furor over her comments she will sell more books, because her audience would tend to do the opposite of what the local liberal pundit would recommend. Ann knew this. Unlike the Dixie Chicks, her comments were planned to increase her profits.

This is all obvious, and I'm sure you'd admit it if you weren't busy being disingenuous for the sake of a pitiful internet argument.

Speaking of trolls, be lucky you don't have this guy

"they and Coulter have somehow been prevented from responding to the 9/11 widows' political points. How? When?"

No we have not been prevented. We are expected NOT to criticize them because you lefties paint them as victims! They were free to support Kerry for president just like some of the 9/11 widows supported Bush. But the minute the Democrats put the widows show on the road to criticize Bush, call him nasty names, and make ridiculous allegations about him they became fair game! Coulter is a brilliant author who uses very colorful language in presenting her case. The fact that there is no one on the left who can take her on drives you loons nuts!

Coulter is a brilliant author who uses very colorful language in presenting her case.

And some of that language is actually her own!

"her comments were planned to increase her profits."

Yes, and you played right into her hands!

Yes, and you played right into her hands!

Somehow, I don't think anyone reading this blog will be rendered more or less likely to buy her book.

And Michael - no defense of the plagiarism charge that's been leveled at your one and only?

I followed the link over to Atlas Shrugged, and that.......thing that runs the joint has a video post up that features her dancing around like an idiot to celebrate Zarqawi's death. OK, I'm cool with that.

But wait, there's more: the video includes her young (7 or 8 year old) daughter joining in the hilarity. Now, I'm no Zarqawi apologist, but grabbing your kid to join you in celebrating death? Nauseating. That's our enemy, folks. Very scary.

"And Michael - no defense of the plagiarism charge that's been leveled at your one and only?"

Without having to read through each post maybe you can point me to the one that levels that charge?

Without having to read through each post maybe you can point me to the one that levels that charge?

You can read everything The Rude Pundit's done for the past week - Raw Story also has some excellent research.  Gee - wonder if the publisher will pull her book?

"You can read everything The Rude Pundit's done for the past week - Raw Story also has some excellent research. Gee - wonder if the publisher will pull her book?"

Oh boy! So she took some quotes from conservative sites. So what! You people have never sourced left wing blogs/sites? You can't challenge what she says so you attack her for where she gets her data?

You people have never sourced left wing blogs/sites?

Yeah, but we link, attribute, or both. Fuckwit.

Your attitude toward Ann Coulter is mean-spirited.

Your attitude toward Ann Coulter is mean-spirited.

I'm sure she'd be kind to me were our roles reversed.

So, then you are saying that your behavior toward her is based on how you imagine she would behave toward you?

The comments to this entry are closed.

We Believe in Nothing

Consortium

Ye Olde Blogroll

Crass Commercialism

  • Find Zylotrim Reviewed

December 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Categories

Blogilicious

Blog powered by Typepad