This is his new low? You sure about that? Lower than his response to an angry post about how the war in Iraq, among other things, had killed 2,000 American soldiers?
Originally posted by Shodan*
Given a choice between claiming it’s okay to call Arabs/Persians “ragheads,” and saying “neener neener neener” to the families of dead American soldiers, I’d say the latter is about 20% lower. Just my opinion though.
Why the re-writing of history on this one, again and again? Trent Lott’s remarks were seized upon as a means for his ouster from a leadership position by conservative commentators. The liberal press didn’t even blink until days after conservatives had been blasting the guy. And it wasn’t liberals that removed him from power, it was his own party. Most people think that he was becoming a thorn in the side of Bush, and thus some conservatives wanted a good pretext to dump him. But regardless, don’t dump this one on the doorstep of Democrats.
I’d like to see that post. I agree with you, but is it possibe the poster may have been referring to Adlai’s grandfather, Adlai? (when I was taking notes in history class, I used to refer to him as AES3K). I couldn’t find it in this thread.
To me, the apologizing is relatively irrelevant. That mayor dude is a twit. The major difference is twofold:
(1) While his remarks were racist and stupid and insulting, they were far less offensive to far fewer people than Ann Coulter calling every liberal an America-hating traitor.
(2) His remarks were mocked and derided by basically every liberal under the sun. Ann Coulter is a best-selling author with a huge following. THAT is the important difference.
Someone a while back tried to bring up Ward Churchill (some professor who called the victims in the twin towers “little Goebbels’s”) as being equivalent to the Coulters and Savages of the world. And his remarks really WERE of equivalent, or greater, offense. But the point is, he’s NOT POPULAR IN THE LIBERAL MOVEMENT.
Let’s not forget that it happened again, when he incited a riot at Freddy’s Fashion Mart that left seven people dead.
So do lots of people, including some not nice ones on both sides. Should all of them be given speaking slots?
And more importantly, if they are, is it a reflection of the party or group at large? Or is it just a speech sometimes?
How about Michael Moore. He’s no Anne Coulter but in many ways worse … he wraps his propoganda in the form of a documentary and probably has a wider reach. Didn’t the Dem. leadership buddy up to him at some kind of official gathering last fall?
What pisses me off about Coulter the most is the venues she’s given to spew her bile. In particular, someone had the gall to decide that this fucking bitch deserves to have a regular column in the Stars and Stripes.
Now, in the interest of ‘balance’ the Starts and Stripes usually pairs her with either a moderate or liberal but no one nearly as extreme. Also, no one else quite enjoys her status as a ‘regular’ though Huffington comes close [usually paired against Coulter]. Of course, that’s not to say I’d want them to pit her against an extremist from the other side of the aisle either. Maybe, just for a wacky change they could post a few oped pieces from people who weren’t batshit insane.
As it is I’m pretty limited in my selection of newspapers I just wonder if it’s too much to ask that, if we’re only going to be given the option of two voices, could they both be moderately sane please?
Please. With prices that low, Freddy’s Fashion Mart was going to be the scene of a riot sooner or later.
Good thing I didn’t say either of those things, then.
Changing the subject here a bit, aren’t you? I thought we were talking about Coulter calling Iranians terrorists “ragheads”.
Actually, how many more people are offended by Nagin’s racism than Ann’s stupidity is a matter of opinion. No doubt you are correct that liberal hypocrites who believe that blacks can’t be racists weren’t offended - they’ll swallow anything. I was talking about fair-minded folks.
And Ann’s remark has been repudiated by other participants in the conference, and by everyone in this thread. Nagin, on the other hand, is an elected official. So there isn’t any difference, really.
Although no doubt the Usual Suspects will keep trying to find one. Other than the real reason.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought we were talking about her in general. Her specific “ragheads” comment was small potatoes on the Coulter scale.
The big difference I see between Ann and many liberals-who-say-stupid-and/or-offensive-things is that Ann is deliberately and calculatingly and clearly insulting every liberal person in the country. That is, she’s not saying “John Kerry is a putz” or “the liberal position on X is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard”, she’s saying “liberals hate American and are traitors”. That’s a qualitative difference, and one which I think is very important when it comes to issues of the civility of national discourse and so forth. If someone reads and believes what Ann writes, how likely is that person to respect their liberal neighbors, to openly engage them in civic debate, and so forth? If I see someone reading an Ann Coulter book, one that specifically claims that I hate America (a pretty infuriating and loathsome claim), how am I going to approach that person and chat with them about the issues of the day?
Your basic point, that people will always be more offended by those they disagree with, is inarguably true.
Except that, as far as I know, Nagin didn’t run on a platform of chocolate New Orleans, and hasn’t been re-elected since making that remark. And probably won’t be. And even if he was, that would only reflect on people living in New Orleans itself. Ann is a nationwide best-selling author.
Real reason for what? I’ve lost you.
There’s at least one huge difference, which I keep harping on. Moore really doesn’t like Bush. His movie (F911) attacked Bush. But it did NOT attack Joe Republican. Moore certainly thinks that the average republican is WRONG to vote for Bush, but nothing in his writing or films (that I know of) gives a message of “all republicans are evil” or “all republicans are stupid” or anything of that sort.
Also, while I certainly wish he were more careful with his fact-checking, his films aren’t all THAT bad. The things that people are getting upset about and pointing to as signs of his dishonesty are often incredibly minor and tangential issues blown up into massive scandals. Oh, and he certainly has never even remotely claimed that his films aren’t opinionated. It’s not like he made a movie which claimed to be a perfectly evenhanded and balanced and objective view of the Iraq war which invited the viewers to draw their own conclusions.
You may want to read her book Slander, one of the two books of hers I’ve read. She rather extensively documents the occasions on which liberals have said things about conservatives and/or Republicans that are at least as loathsome and infuriating. And yet liberals are always willing to play innocent.
Or, as mentioned, repeatedly state 'That’s different".
It’s like that Halperin memo that surfaced before the election. Sure, Kerry lies all the time - but that’s different. Sure, Nagin made a racist remark - but that’s different. Sure, Dean said that he hates all Republicans - but that’s different. And what would that difference be?
Or perhaps people will always be more willing to manufacture outrage at offenses committed by those they disagree with.
Regards,
Shodan
I dislike being in the position of defending Mr. Moore.
He may well have a wider reach, but his message is not hateful – merely foolish. He certainly has loads of bile reserved for the Bushes, and for what he sees as the elite in general, but I don’t ever get a sense he targets the average Republican voter. (I welcome correctionn on this point). Ms. Coulter has smeared many peaceful and honest people in her diatribe.
What’s wrong with propaganda in documentary form? “Documentary” does not equal “unbiased”. Isn’t that common knowledge?
Oh deary me. Not only did you get the country name wrong, as has been pointed out, but you missed that Michelle Malkin is a Filipina, by dint of her gender.
Give me an example of something of that sort, I’m perfectly willing to be outraged by it. Although, honestly, there are lots of idiots on both sides of any issue. If we compiled a list of the 100 most offensive things ever said by conservatives about liberals and the 100 most offensive things ever said by liberals about conservatives, they would both be pretty long and hate-filled lists. The difference is that Ann has written best-selling books whose entire message is “liberals are traitors who hate America”. Liberals have written best-selling books whose message is “Bush is a terrible president” or “Fox News is slimey” or other such things, but I don’t know of one that attacks Joe Republican in that fashion.
And if you’re comparing Howard Dean to Ann, there is (to risk turning into a caricature) “a difference”. The difference is, he’s a hothead and he gets riled up and says stupid things. How is that even remotely comparable to what someone writes IN A BOOK??? I mean, as much as I enjoy poking fun at Dick Cheney, and as much as I actually really loathe him, I don’t take the “go fuck yourself” incident as something that says deep and meaningful things about him… he was pissed off and swore at a guy. If Ann Coulter once and only once, in the midst of a heated exchange, said that liberals all hated America, I wouldn’t be having this argument with you.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Kerry lies “all the time”? (And, yes, even if he does lie all the time, lying is VERY different from accusing all liberals of hating America, and writing a book that says so, and having that book become a best-seller. How are those two things comparable?)
Yes, it is.
This one is the closest to not being different, but it’s STILL different, for two reasons:
(1) Anything spoken once, possibly in anger or in the heat of the moment or while drunk or what have you, is different from something which is the thesis of an entire book. I mean, that doesn’t seem like some piddling little whiney bleeding heart ivory tower razor-thin distinction to me
(2) OK, fine, suppose Dean DOES hate Republicans. That’s a statement about what his feelings towards them is. It’s not a statement about THEM. If someone asked me “what’s Shodan like” and I said “I don’t like him. In fact, I hate him.”, would that be as bad as if someone said “What’s Shodan like” and I said “he’s dishonest and hypocritical”?
Doubtless. Note, however, that there are plenty of books written by conservative pundits which express a variety of opinions, very very few of which cause me to become outraged. It’s not that I just say “oh, bestselling conservative book… hmm, what can I get all hissified about?”.
Using Slander as a reference? Why not just quote NewsMax instead so everyone knows upfront it’s all made-up bullstuff?
I don’t have the book - I got it from the library.
Oh certainly. The problem being that liberals, at least on the SDMB, are going to be liable to denying that about 40 of the top 100 are offensive at all. Same for conservatives, of course, but being outnumbered hereabouts, I have to concentrate to keep up my end. 
coughMooreFrankenMaureenDowdcoughcough
I know, I know - that’s different.
Well, we were talking about Ann being a hot head and getting riled up and saying something stupid in a speech. So that part is not different from Dean even slightly.
I was quoting the Halperin memo, as I mentioned. Where it said that Kerry lies all the time, but that’s different. As I mentioned.
You’re being unusually obtuse this afternoon.
Here’s the text. It’s a case of special pleading. Which is what I have mentioned several times.
Regards,
Shodan
What is your thesis? Is it your thesis that the Democratic Candidate and the Republican Candidate are bound, in some sort of Mystic/Skeksis symbiosis, such that they automatically tell exactly the same amount, sort, and depth of lie as one another? Is it your contention that this happened by purest coincidence in the last election? Is it your contention that there is no degree of lying, that if one person says, “I was on the river on July 14” when really it was July 13, that’s equally pernicious as another person’s false claim that “I saw Shodan kissing Howard Dean, with tongue”?
Unless you’re contending one of the things above, this memo is unremarkable. It is a claim that Kerry’s lies are of a lesser degree than Bush’s, and that reporters shouldn’t feel a need to act otherwise if they agree that this conclusion is warranted by the facts.
Sometimes it IS different. There is no Dark Crystal in politics. The scales are not always perfectly balanced; and if someone believes they’re not, it’s not a sign of automatic hypocrisy.
Daniel