I have been the beneficiary of ironclad mental health all my adult life, and have availed myself of the benefits of a prudent psychoactive hygiene. Hence, I cannot recommend any good therapists.
The Blues Brothers is a MUCH better movie**.**
Ideas and beliefs? Probably not. Teeth? I kinda think so.
God, that O’Reilly’s a chump, isn’t he?
But, do people actually take Ms Coulter seriously?
I had my first exposure of her care of a feature article in the Sydney Morning Herald. I mean, I knew I of her, but I’d always just thought she was a Miranda Devine in blonde.
But then I read one of her columns.
It’s not even grounded in fact! It’s pure fantasy! Sure, I’m a “liberal,” but I can at least acknowledge when a commentator is writing something based on fact. Little ol’ Annie may as well be writing the next Star Wars, for all the sense her columns make.
Please don’t tell me people actually read this shit for any reason other than a laugh. It’s all a joke, right?
So BogieBlanca…you opened a thread with some accusations that don’t seem to hold a lot of water. Care to reply in your own thread?
O’Reilly must not be keeping up his subscription to the VRWC newsletter. They’ve designated Coulter as their Sistah Souljah
She’s certainly said some things that, were they said by a liberal about conservatives, would send OReily into a frothing rage. But sure, not a softball either.
Can anyone quote me something of Coulter’s that’s supposed to be funny though? I’ve read quite a few of her articles and bits of her books, and I have to say that she simply cannot write for shit. She’s repetative, clunky, can’t paint extended metaphors or caricatures worth a damn, and is worlds too shrill and obsessive to be fun. David Horowitz is far better and even wittier when he wants to be. Will and Safire can actually write. Even Sullivan is a better writer by far far far.
I missed the interview, but my friend and occasional SDMB poster NPavelka actually cited it as an example of O’Reilley being hard on an interview subject. (And not “hard” in the sexy way, mind you.) I don’t know how much the tone of his words comes across in a transcript, but according to my friend O’Reilley seemed shocked that Coulter could seriously be claiming the things she does in this latest book.
But anyways, Coulter is just a shock-jock, in print media rather than radio. She’s the political equivalent of Howard Stern, just saying things to get attention (of course, Stern is a libertarian at heart, so I prefer his politics.)
I thnk she’s the sort that will retreat into “it’s a joke” when you have spent time and effort systematically demolishing her ridiculous claims.
In that sense, most of her stuff has the potential to be “funny”.
- Rick
“Some accusations that don’t seem to hold a lot of water.”
Right.
O’Reilly lets Coulter completely and utterly slide on her character assasination of Jimmy Carter.
Completely.
Ok, he tries to call her on it, but it’s a 1/9 effort at best. If a " liberal" had said the same sorts of things about say, Ronald Reagn, O’Reilly would have been apoplectic and may have actually had a heart attack on air. (Oh, to dream. 
)
And yes, O’Reilly does call her on the whole Joseph McCarthy as a great American hero bit, but again, he isn’t even play slapping her. If a liberal had made remarks along those lines about say, Strom Thurmond, O’Reilly would again be apoplectic.
BogieBlanca, you’re a nitwit.
The Carter business was effectively refuted earlier in this thread. When you say:
That’s simply untrue.
In fact, you acknowledge it’s untrue a moment later, when you reverse your own characterization of “completely” and say that his effort was “1/9” at best.
It now appears that he wasn’t as harsh as he might have been… which EVERY FRICKIN poster in this thread has already acknowledged. The point was that you suggested it was a love-fets. It wasn’t. It was simply not as harsh as you wanted it to be.
If you were intellectually honest, you could admit that.
Instead, being merely a nitwit, you are stuck repeating yourself.
My sig seems strangely appropriate here.