Nonsense. The Hill newsitem you linked to is a report about the Edwards campaign using Coulter’s nasty remarks about Edwards as a “cash cow” to raise sympathy funds.
In that context, what’s relevant is not whether Bill Maher said something nasty about Cheney, but simply that Coulter said something nasty about Edwards. Thus your accusation that the reporting in this story demonstrates some kind of liberal “media bias” is simply absurd.
Pathetic spite and bile from the likes of Coulter, desperate unsubstantiated accusations from the likes of Starving Artist. These are not the glory days of conservative argument. I guess we liberals should be happy about that, but it’s really kind of sad.
Partially right. Coulter clearly addresses people with single digit IQs.
I doubt liberals buy many, and the sales figures show that not all conservatives are borrowing them from the library. One I can see, but buying this crap again and again doesn’t say much for the taste or intelligence of conservatives. They must have too much money, yet another argument against Bush tax cuts.
Okay, I am really getting tired of this kind of thing. Please stop badmouthing rabid pitbulls by equating them with Ann Coulter. They’re so much better than that.
And a Tardcore Celebutard at that. I don’t have cable or dish, so my TV exposure of Ann Coulter is limited, though I’ve read & heard about her. Since, visually, it was new to me, I, after a slow dial-up connection of the OP’s link, affording slow-mo glimpses of Ms. Coulter’s body language, was weirded out by her hair flaunting, sunglasses, and demeanor. She really seemed like a Celebutard idiot, with nothing substancial to say, just blustering on for the shock :rolleyes: value of it. She says stupid hateful things.
What is the attraction? If she wasn’t a long-boned blond in a cocktail dress, would anyone even give her airtime? She’s just Nasty, wrapped in a visually stereotypical mode of attention getting. Bleeeechhhh.
Ahem…I’m afraid you are conflating two different things and coming to an erroneous conclusion. The Hill article shows how liberals can and do benefit from the existance of Ann Coulter, as Shodan said above; the media bias I spoke of is separate and apart from that and is characterized by the The Hill making it look like Coulter “wished Edwards was dead” with absolutely no context in regard to Maher’s comments about Cheney, which inspired Coulter’s remark.
I don’t understand this point of Liberal/Progressive thought as being “weak”. I’m not red and shaking: when I hear her speak, now, I just think she is a simple Dolt, using Hate Speak to rile people up. It’s rather stupid. I’m not aghast, more like :rolleyes:
Though that’s what a schoolyard bully mentality may feel in their “Victory” with words, it really ain’t much, though that whooping monkeymind might feel satisfied at the moment. I’m hoping that smart people always see beyond that.
So, Shodan, you’ll get a book out of a library because it has content that upsets people whose politics you disagree with, even though you think that content is crap.
Thanks, SA; I returned to the thread to post the same info. It seems Coulter is not the only one seeking to make a few dollars off her rhetoric.
Just my point - the Usual Suspects are doing their best to help AC sell books, whether they like it or not, just as AC, like it or not, is helping Edwards & Edwards raise money.
Only if the ones upset are complete idiots.
By the way, do you have any books that upset you? I’m headed to the library this Saturday.
I was just going to offer a trade of our right-wing shrill bitch for the Left’s race-baiting preacher (Sharpton) & call for a mutual shunning of them both. Now, who am I gonna offer for Maher?
Btw, Sharpton’s latest gig (done tonight I believe on Hardball)- debating Hitchens about God. Imagine how conflicted that makes me!
Maybe that’s because such a defense is a non sequitur on Coulter’s part anyway. “Someone said something bad about Cheney, so I’m perfectly justified in saying something bad about someone else entirely!”
Makes the Chewbacca Defense look coherent and logical.
Really? OK, so what “inspired” Ann Coulter’s remark that John Murtha is “the reason soldiers invented fragging”? It seems that whenever Ann begins free association, political assassination is one of the first things that pops into her pointy head.
Coulter has gone the way of Rush Limbaugh. She used to be articulate and, I don’t know, human and then she sold out to the highest bidder and the lowest common denominator. Whatever credibility she had left was destroyed years ago and was cemented when she used Edwards’ son as fodder for an attack. There are some decisions from which there is no return.
Of course, staging the confrontation was pretty low. First of all, from a purely human POV, why stage a confrontation when one of the opponents is suffering from Stage 4 cancer? Stress is not good for anyone, let alone someone who is currently fighting for her life. Secondly, like Rosie O’Donnell, Coulter seems to CRAVE notoriety, so why keep feeding it?
So what purpose did “the confrontation” serve? To show that Coulter is a bitch without a pulse? We knew that already. To make Edwards look good? Sorry, but having your cancer-ridden wife fight your battles doesn’t strike me as a positive thing. Edwards knew going in that there was no chance in hell that Coulter was going to be conciliatory or contrite, so why bother? It actually made me wonder if there isn’t a grain of truth in Coulter’s accusation, that the Edwards are using their very personal ordeals to try and gain sympathy from voters. (I don’t buy for one solitary moment that her husband didn’t KNOW that she was calling in to confront Coulter. And his decision to green light it makes me think less of him.) Matthews staged that confrontation for RATINGS, which puts him, sadly, on the same level as Coulter.
I wish the media would try to elevate the level of discourse and politics in this country instead of constantly contributing to its deterioriation.
Where did I say all? (And my dear Shodan, you yourself have been known to perhaps paint somewhat overbroad over the entire liberal community.)
I apologize if there was misunderstanding there. My beloved father, for example, is a (relative) conservative. Hard to be in the military for 30 years otherwise.
I see one of two possibilities here: either Coulter believes what she says and she’s batshit crazy or she DOESN’T believe what she says and she’s just fucking evil. I find the latter indescribably worse – there is at least a tiny tinge of honor in standing up for what you believe, even if what you believe is batshit insane, but to stand around cynically making money from the absolute worst of humanity (and here I do not speak of conservatives, only of those people who believe in their hearts that America should “nuke 'em till they glow and let God sort 'em out”, that “God First” should be governmentally enforced, and that the other side is just a bunch of stinky hippie terrorists that oughtta be lined up and shot – but shave 'em first or all that hair will catch the bullets) and egging them on.
If she’s really just in it for the money she’s worse than Phelps. She’s standing on the sidelines of a fight and screaming ‘KILL HIM!’ She’s a rabble-rouser. She’s the sort of person who, in a group of people ready to riot, would throw the first brick through the first window to get the whole thing started.
it’s interesting that people don’t distinguish betwee Bill Maher who makes harsh comments about people based on things they say and do and Coulter who does the same thing based on stuff she makes up.
Naturally, Maher steps across the line into unfair comment occasionally as do all comics. Coulter also steps across the line once in awhile, but in the other direction.
