Blogcritics Comments on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Comment by NotAConservativeThankGod on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:07:45 EDT

So, Arch, you are ready to support those who condone terrorism, so long as other things they say are accurate? ]]>

Comment by Arch Conservative on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:21:11 EDT

"Arch, pointing out a "sin" from the other side of the aisle as a defense of one from yours isn't a defense, it's moral reletavism, which is something I thought conservatives were against." Yes Pete but I condemned Coulter's sin which was far less a sin by the way... I ddin't keep electing her to congress for forty years. ]]>

Comment by NotAConservativeThankGod on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:03:08 EDT

Ummmm.... Arch... I was saying that the right-wing conservatives are anti-American. Not un-American, but outright Anti. They simply don't like the moderate, tolerant mainstream of American life. That's why, going back to Nixon, a large segment of the GOP uses the rhetoric of revolution. That's why Coulter's rhetoric fits so well with Republican strategy, and that why Republicans don't denounce her. I mean, could you imagine an Eisenhower, Rockefeller, or Ford lobbing the bombs that Coulter, DeLay, Gingrich, Lott, and the rest toss around? Of course, not. They were conservatives. But in recent years the GOP has adopted a range of extreme positions and even tried to impeach a president and (arguably) stealing a couple presidential elections. Simply put, there is little concern about mainstream politics because the objective is quasi-revolutionary change. As for me, I like the United States. I'm not ashamed that we grant rights to minorities, that we really don't care what happens in someone's bedroom, that we have an open market hemmed in by (on the whole) reasonable rules and regulations. The other side, well... ]]>

Comment by RogerMDillon on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:11:56 EDT

"The USA Today hired (and then fired) her to cover the Democrat National Convention in 2004." That's because the article was poorly written and not on topic. Some places have quality standards. She was replaced by Jonah Goldberg. ]]>

Comment by zingzing on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:09:32 EDT

oh pete, they're also against hypocrisy, but that also goes out the window as soon as they are the guilty party. plus, if bing ever gets through a comment thread without ever mentioning a)t.k., or b)pedophilia, i will kill my girlfriend and rape her little sister. not really. but. you know. ]]>

Comment by Pete Blackwell on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:13:12 EDT

"relativism", I mean ]]>

Comment by Pete Blackwell on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:12:38 EDT

Arch, pointing out a "sin" from the other side of the aisle as a defense of one from yours isn't a defense, it's moral reletavism, which is something I thought conservatives were against. ]]>

Comment by Arch Conservative on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 08:43:06 EDT

Ok well when Ted Kennedy, liberal superhero, apologizes for drwoning Mary Jo Kapechne maybe Ann Coulter will apologize for what she said. Oh and as far as the anti-american schtick... we wouldn't use it if it weren't appropriate in some cases such as like cindy sheehan saying america is nothing but an imperialist bully bullying other nations and spreading violence? what term would you use to describe that if not antiamerican? ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:33:05 EDT

"How is coulter part of the gop gameplan? you think the gop plans to run her for office?" There was talk a few years ago of Coulter running for a Congressional seat in Connecticut... ]]>

Comment by NotAConservativeThankGod on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:28:08 EDT

Arch.... C'mon.... As you say yourself, Byrd is a FORMER member of the Klan. That's in his past. I'm still waiting for Coulter's apology about the McVeigh statement. And, yeah, I'm sure the Clintons aren't too happy that Kenneth Starr was jailing some of their associates. Oh, and if Coulter doesn't fit the game plan, I'm sure we'll see Frist et al. denouncing her sometime tomorrow afternoon. When GOPers drop their anti-American schtick, they will be a little easier to stomach. ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 01:24:17 EDT

"Of course both sides use unseemly tactics at times in which personal attacks are often employed. I just think that those on the right admit it more often when we do it." I agree. And leftists are more likely to get a free pass from the media and political elite when they do it. Let's use Ann Coulter and Michael Moore as examples, because both are hard-core partisans who are rich and successful, but utterly despised by their ideological opponents. Ann Coulter is a right-winger who says/writes provocative things. For this, she has been fired from the conservative National Review, and widely denounced in the media and political circles for being cruel and hateful. The USA Today hired (and then fired) her to cover the Democrat National Convention in 2004. Michael Moore is a left-winger who says/writes provocative things. For this, he has won an Oscar and been largely praised in the MSM. The USA Today hired him (and did NOT fire him) to cover the GOP National Convention in 2004, despite the fact that he was a guest of honor at the Democrat National Convention, seated with former Democrat President Jimmy Carter. Doesn't seem that their treatment is all that equal, at least to me... ]]>

Comment by fos on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:22:51 EDT

Just received my copy of Decusting Photo Magizine today. If interested check page 36 and 37. Naked pictures of Senator's nancy pussyiosi and Senator hildabeast. YUM. ]]>

Comment by Arch Conservative on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:30:07 EDT

Well what about Robert Byrd.....having a former KKK member as a senator in your party is not scary? I have said that coulter was wrong and am not a follower.......... i agree with alot of the things she says but sometimes she goes too far and says things that i find over the line like her most recent remarks. How is coulter part of the gop gameplan? you think the gop plans to run her for office? how is she part of the gameplan? I think hillary is a far more detestable creature than coulter and she is very much part of the dem gameplan. One can not even count the people that the clintons have stepped on, mistreated, used, had sent to jail for things the clintons did, and even had killed in thier quest for power. ]]>

Comment by NotAConservativeThankGod on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:47:37 EDT

Arch.... Thanks for making our point. The "little Eichman's" line was roundly criticized by thinking people on both sides of the aisle. BUT, Churchill has no following. Coulter, on the other hand, is the darling of many on right and very vew established Republicans care to rebuke her. Why? Likely because GOPers who think like Coulter are an important segment of the party, and because Coulter helps whip up base. Churchill has no place in the Democratic game plan; Coulter -- who thinks thinks the Bill of Rights goes too far and that Timothy McVeigh did not go far enough -- is important to the Republican Party. Now THAT is scary! ]]>

Comment by Pete Blackwell on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:24:10 EDT

I think very, very few people would argue that the Left never crosses the line of decency. I'm certainly not one of them. As for some of the more troubling remarks you listed (ie. the racist ones), were they said by people as prominent as Coulter? I don't think they were. ]]>

Comment by Arch Conservative on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:38:15 EDT

You're right two wrongs don't make a right Pete. It's just the case that the left is often incapable of critisizing their own when they make inappropriate over the line remarks. That is the point I was trying to make. Kudos to you for being condemning Churchill as well as Coulter. Of course both sides use unseemly tactics at times in which personal attacks are often employed. I just think that those on the right admit it more often when we do it. I mean let's not split hairs........neither side is as pure as the driven snow no matter hwat theyd like to tell us. It's just that left pretends to be holier than thou and ignore any such behavior when it occursther are numerous examples, here are just a few...... the ward churchill remark the cindy sheehan cross at camp casey incident so called tolerant "liberal" bloggers referring to leuitenant governor of maryland michael steele as little black sambo and other racils slurs for no other reason than he is a republican the same so called "liberal" bloggers calling michelle malkin a "slanty eyed gook" because she's conservative michael moore misrepresenting the sentiments of soldiers he interviewed in his movies and making money off of the iraq war.... the attempts of democratic senators to smear the character of sam alito, john roberts, and robert bork with baseless accusations intended to paint these men as racist and sexist and keep them off of the supreme court for no other reason than the fact that they don't hold liberal views the general leftist strategy of using certain labels designed to stigmatize to label anyone who doesn't agree with them (racist, bigot, homophobe etc etc etc) yup the right sure is evil and we have ann coulter (who most of us have recently condemned for her remarks) but the left never crosses the line of decency...... ]]>

Comment by Pete Blackwell on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:53:20 EDT

It's certainly on the same level. Here's an article I wrote about the use of Nazi comparisons in politics that mentions Churchill and the awful Ted Rall (who's a better comparison because of his terrible cartoons about "Terror Wives"). I'm not sure what the point of the argument is, though. Showing that the other side is bad doesn't make your side any better if it's doing the exact same things. For my part, I don't really have a side. I dislike all intellectually vacant political hacks. That includes both Coulter and Michael Moore. ]]>

Comment by Arch Conservative on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:39:03 EDT

Pete I have already condemned the things Coulter has said from where I sit... on the right....... my point in talking about the NJ senate and michael more was not to change the subject but to expose the hypocrisy of the left. the left will only critisize poeple on the right when they say things which are over the line here's a little test...... waard churchill, the liberal CU professor called the 911 victims "little eichmans" now pete........... don't you think that is just as bad as what coulter said if not worse? ]]>

Comment by Pete Blackwell on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:33:07 EDT

A few words on context: First, she didn't claim she was being taken out of context on the Today show. What she did was defend everything she had written. If she was being taken out of context in some meaningful way, she would be arguing that the sentences everyone is quoting don't mean what they appear to mean. She is not arguing that. Probably what she means is that people are focusing on the horrible attacks she made and not on her "argument" that widows should not be sacrosanct simply because of their personal loss. As I'm sure you're aware, my article does address that point, and I agree. What I have an issue with is the awful animus of her personal attacks against these women. That's what the whole blow up is about. The only meaningful context that could change the force of those words is if she was quoting someone else, which she was not, or if she preceded her comments with a "this is just a joke in bad taste" disclaimer, which she did not. Her public, and vehement, avowal of her words in the aftermath proves that she does in fact mean what she says. When it comes to the personal attack angle, the "out of context" argument is a canard, pure and simple. RJ, that was not a cliché. You're just jealous ;) ]]>

Comment by juspassinthru on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:15:57 EDT

What Coulter did was blaze a wide trail for others to follow. The 'others' won't have to be as 'enthusiastic' as Coulter was, but will have plenty room under the bar Coulter has set to make their point. ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:10:55 EDT

"Her public owning of the lines everyone is talking about, with no claims of being taken out of context" Actually, in a recent interview/debate/scream-fest on Hannity and Colmes, she DID state that the left and the media were taking her out of context... ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:08:10 EDT

"Abusive language in a debate is the first sign that you showed up to a battle of wits unarmed, as it were." How about clichés? ;-) ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:02:01 EDT

"BTW, the Republican Party basically invented the whole "victim's family" approach to criminal justice, so don't tell us that only the left wing appeals to pathos in political argument." Well, you have a point here. Generally, liberals oppose "victim impact statements" during the sentencing phase of trials that have led to the conviction of murderers, child molesters, rapists, and other bad people, while conservatives usually support them. These statements are a relatively recent development that arose out the of "victims' rights movement" which was/is largely comprised of conservatives. But it's worth pointing out that these are criminal trials in which a person has already been found guilty of a heinous crime. So it's not purely a political thing; it's a criminal justice thing. ]]>

Comment by NotAConservativeThankGod on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:49:04 EDT

I guess the cons in this conversation assume that somehow Coulter's rants will make sense once you put them in context. So, from now on, I suggest that, at a minimum, when they cite a "fact" like the alleged Jersey censorship, they will take a few seconds to find some source beyond Coulter or Newsmax. I'm sure that guy who sells the Video Professor CDs could them how to operate a new technology we call Google. ]]>

Comment by Pete Blackwell on Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:43:49 EDT

You're correct that you're not in a position to criticize the Da Vinci Code if you haven't read it. I have and it's terrible. Not for ideological reasons, but for lines like this:

...the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils.

A silhouette cannot, by definition, stare, or have red eyes. Jeesh. But, had Dan Brown gone on a national book tour and given interviews in which he said Jesus was married and—worse—French, then you'd be perfectly within you right to take issue with those statements, not having read the book. You'd also be well within you rights to make fun of the passage I quoted above, not having read the rest of the book. Even if it's not representative of the book as a whole (it is), it's still a glaring error worthy of censure in its own right. As are Coulter's comments about the terror wives. ]]>