Fox hosted Lowry, Mattera to defend, downplay Coulter's homophobic slur
The March 5 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson featured National Review editor Rich Lowry and Young America's Foundation spokesman Jason Mattera downplaying and defending right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's March 2 attack on former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) as a "faggot" during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Mattera claimed that Coulter "was making a joke not about homosexuality, or calling John Edwards a fag," but was instead "pointing out that political correctness stifles speech." Mattera later claimed that Coulter was, in fact, making a joke about Edwards, but that "she was basically calling John Edwards a wuss, that he was a girlie-man, and that if he were elected president he would probably embolden Al Qaeda to attack us," adding that Coulter "knows how to communicate a message to an audience, especially to college students, and she got rousing -- rousing applause and rousing standing ovations throughout the event."
Lowry said Coulter's remark was a "schoolyard slur" and that "[y]ou don't really expect anyone over the age of about 12 to use it, especially in polite company," but referred to her remarks and the ensuing firestorm as "a typical kind of manufactured controversy all around." Lowry also chastised "the press" for ignoring HBO host Bill Maher's recent comment that if Vice President Dick Cheney "did die [in a February 27 attack on a U.S. base in Afghanistan where Cheney was visiting], more people would live," saying: "I mean, it's absurd that you have people on the left in this country advocating, basically, the assassination of the vice president of the United States, and no outrage." However, Lowry himself has joked about New Yorkers running over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) with their cars. In an August 5, 2005, speech to the National Conservative Student Conference, Lowry said: "In New York we also have a very famous junior senator, and when people ask me about her I always say I'm the wrong person to ask because the people I hang out with in New York, we put our 'Run, Hillary, Run' bumper stickers on the front of our cars."
Lowry's magazine dropped Coulter's column shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks when she advocated that the United States should "invade their [terrorists'] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
From the March 5 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Joining me now, Fox News political analyst Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, and Jason Mattera, a spokesman for Young America's Foundation. He was at the CPAC convention when Coulter spoke on Friday. So, Jason, you first. Did you find Coulter's remark shocking and deplorable and something she ought to be condemned for?
MATTERA: No, I was one of the people who laughed right away, because I understood her point, and many people who did understand her point. She was making a joke not about homosexuality, or calling John Edwards a fag. What she was doing was pointing out that political correctness stifles speech. In the case of Isaiah Washington in Grey's Anatomy, he used the word, and he was told in order to keep his job he had to go to rehab. That was the brunt of the joke. She wasn't -- in fact, she said it was a joke, and it would be mean to the homosexual community if she was comparing them to John Edwards.
GIBSON: Rich Lowry, where are you on this Ann Coulter remark?
LOWRY: Well, look, the word, John, it's a schoolyard slur. You don't really expect anyone over the age of about 12 to use it, especially in polite company. But it's not the biggest thing in the world. She meant it as a joke, and obviously the way that the Democrats and the press are using it is entirely opportunistic and ridiculous. On the one hand, you have John Edwards saying no one should pay attention to this or reward her with any attention for this remark, then his campaign is trying to raise $100,000 off of it. So the whole -- it's a typical kind of manufactured controversy all around, I think.
GIBSON: Let me put this on the screen, "Coulter and the 'F' Word." And the question, was it worse that Maher wishing Cheney was dead? Jason?
MATTERA: No, of course not. In fact, I would like to also point out she was basically calling John Edwards a wuss, that he was a girlie-man, and that if he were elected president he would probably embolden Al Qaeda to attack us. He's not a real man. And many at CPAC held that sentiment. I mean, it's grassroots -- many -- I want to point this out, too. There were thousands of college students there, and she knows how to -- communication 101 principle -- she knows how to communicate a message to an audience, especially to college students, and she got rousing -- rousing applause and rousing standing ovations throughout the event.
GIBSON: Rich, let me ask you this thing. Why all the outrage about what Coulter said -- and I could see why somebody would want to condemn it -- and none about what Bill Maher said?
LOWRY: Well, because the press would prefer to talk about Ann Coulter and portray Ann's remark in that instance as typical of all conservatives, and the press has very little interest in doing the same with Bill Maher. And, you know, also the Democrats -- Howard Dean went out of his way to highlight Ann's remark and make it a controversy. Republicans should be doing the same thing with Bill Maher. I mean, it's absurd that you have people on the left in this country advocating, basically, the assassination of the vice president of the United States, and no outrage.
GIBSON: Jason, the -- are you guys going to have -- you continue to sponsor Ann Coulter, right?
MATTERA: That's correct, happily.
GIBSON: Do you expect Ann Coulter to continue to make outrageous comments like this?
MATTERA: We have to understand that Ann Coulter packs out student audiences every time she goes to college campuses. There are thousands of kids -- in fact, you would think that we were handing out free condoms every time she comes to speak because there's so many people who want to hear her. She has five -- let me repeat that -- five bestselling books, so she knows how to communicate a point, and I think this, I thought, was a well-crafted joke on her end.
Jason, WHO ARE YOU??
Doesn't Matter A Jason to me what you think? You seem to be in your first minute of fame, so stick with Ms. Coulter, the SPOLESPERSON of the RIGHT, and you will go the whole 15.
I do hear the glee in your support of Ms. Coulter. How excited do you really get when she spews?
Hopefully, your name MATTER A JASON will become part of our lexicon.
Signed, Wheels of Prince
Bill Maher did not advocate the assassination of Dick Cheney. Here's what he actually said:
Have you heard about this, this week? The Taliban tried to blow up Dick Cheney. Don’t worry, he’s okay. [laughter] [audience reacts “aw”] [laughter] No, he was never in danger. At the time of the attack he was safely asleep in his coffin. [laughter] So… [applause] I’m joking. I just hope that this attempt on his life doesn’t turn him bitter, vicious and paranoid. Because that… [laughter]
No Maher didn't; but Coulter has. Multiple times. Things like Jack Murtha is why soldiers invented fragging, Tim Mcveigh should have gone to the NYTimes, rat poison in a chief justices crem brulet ( I can't remember which) and the only debate over Clinton should be impeachment or assassination.
Off the top of my head.
Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh and all their republican pals across the country are eliminationists. Authoritarian rightwingers would love nothing more than to haul us lefties away and leave us somewhere forever.
Violence is their rhetorical mainstay. They fear inclusive progressive politics, they despise rule by consent of the people and they loathe civil discourse. So, like the cowards they truly, through intimidation they attempt to end debate before it starts.
Congratulations GOP, these thugs are your spokespeople, these thugs are you.
Oh I remember, it was Stevens
Mattera, "She was making a joke not about homosexuality, or calling John Edwards a f#g."
Coulter, "Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word "f#ggot," so I'm -- so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."
Mattera is right about one thing, Coulter didn't call Edwards a f#g. She called him a f#ggot.
I'm wondering when Al Franken will once again challenge Rich Lowry to a fight for saying that Democrats are feminizing politics. Might want to challenge that other guy, too.
I'm wondering when al franken will once again say he "hates homosexuals" and was glad one was murdered.
I'm wondering when you'll have your first informed, halfway intelligent comment.
The "Al quote" has been debunked. Do some research. Quit repeating your talking points after they've already been discredited.
Savagerocks, did you black out for a day or two? You tried this before and had it explained to you. It's not going to fool anyone this time either.
"...did you black out for a day or two?"
No... probably just tired from the daily a55 whippings he's been getting around here lately. You'd think he'd learn...
Probably never. He did it once 30 years ago. How long until Coultergeist uses a homophobic epithet on a Democrat again? She's been doing stuff like this for quite awhile.
Franken's great on Coulter. His big complaint is that she's not even FUNNY!
FOX isn't the only problem-- all the networks are completely ignoring the fact that Edwards isn't even gay to begin with. By doing so, they are in effect validating Coulter's point, while condemning the specific way she put it.
Why is this? It would be as if someone made an anti-Semitic slur against Hillary, and no one in the media pointed out that she wasn't even Jewish.
That's the point...he's not gay. Yes, she should never say that particular word but she wasn't actually saying she thought he was gay. I don't like Coultier or think she's funny but she WAS trying to be. She wasn't trying to convince the audience he was gay. She's basically a shock jock that couldn't go to radio because the lawsuits would be through the roof.
She said she can't call Edwards a f#ggot so she can't talk about him. Where I come from, if you say that to me, that kinda talk will guarantee you an #ss kickin'.
Ever notice how "She Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken" only makes these inflammatory comments in safe, highly controlled circumstances. If the testosterone tomboy really had guts and made this comment on the street, in real life, a leather-clad, motorcycle "f4ggot" might just kick the crap out of her skinny a55.
Good point! I watched a few minutes of the Tucker Carlson Show yesterday. That was all I could stand without risking throwing up on my carpet, so I turned the TV off for a while. Anyway, Pat Buchanon said that he thinks Ann Coulter is courageous. There is nothing courageous about shouting insults and bigoted slurs at people and then hiding behind a wall of burly bodyguards. It's quite elitist actually. In the real world thoughts about personal saftey will make people behave civily even if they won't do it because it's the right thing to do and is in keeping with "Do Unto Others as you would HAVE them do unto you".
I think Ahhnold might say she was a guhlee mahn.
" Where I come from, if you say that to me, that kinda talk will guarantee you an #ss kickin'. "
Yeah, sure! You mean they would wrestle you down to the floor and lick your but, not kick your but. LOL
Auto, why don't you go into a gay bar and call someone a f4ggot , just to test your theory?
LOL. I would pay to see that.
Interesting visual imagery. Project latent homoerotic tendencies much?
The above post was written with special concern and care for autopsychic's very tender sense of male identity. It is OK to question your sexuality, Auto.
The answer you find may just set you free.
"She wasn't trying to convince the audience he was gay".
Correct... she was actually saying John Edward's is a "pretty boy" type with sissified liberal ideas, and insulting Edwards by referring to him derogatorily as a "f4ggot". It can be taken in no ther way than as an insult to John Edwards... referencing other lame Republican attempts to minimalize Edwards, such as by calling him the "Breck Boy" as they have done in the past. Any other explanation is pure unadulterated bullsh*t.
(I have just broken my pledge not to comment on "She Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken". Couldn't resist... no apologies, either.)
Coulter was clearly making a homosexual allusion about Edwards. Sure, she was also using the word as a synonym for weakling, but by not pointing out that Edwards is indeed straight, the media is leaving the impression that Edwards might be gay, thus validating Coulter's remarks as meaningful and suggestive. If Edwards were gay, her "joke" might be a joke. But he's not, so it's literally pointless.
Yes, she should never say that particular word but she wasn't actually saying she thought he was gay.
Your are the biggest moron I have ever encountered, and the worst waste of human flesh ever, WeinerRocks.
You see, like Coultergeist, I'm allowed to insult people and WeinerRocks defends me for it. Can't wait to hear how I'm not actually saying your intelligence is dismal.
So if I call you a Mo***er F****er is it ok because I dont really believe you have sexual congress with your mother? That argument is ludicrous on the face of it.
Ann Hatemonger
Was on Hannity and Colmes, spewing more hate tonight, calling it a joke. I expected her to be on FOX ,they will appease this hater to no end.
And here's the "pundit" defenders, joining the coultergeist fans to whom I referred to in an earlier post.
We all know this was supposed to be a joke. And we also know that in order for it to be funny, or even amusing, one must be predisposed to one or more of the following:
a. Consider being a homosexual an insult.
b. Find that Edwards displays stereotypically gay traits.
c. Find the word "f*ggot" funny.
d. Think (mistakenly) that Isaiah Washington was "sent" to rehab for using the "f-word".
My money is that coultergeist considered her audience, and staked her comedy reputation on all of the above.
"Was on Hannity and Colmes..."
And probably laughing her skinny a55 off the moment she was off camera, amazed at how not only can she make "f4ggot" jokes and get major attention, but get away with the lamest, most dishonest explanation imaginable on FOX News. Hope she gets a yeast infection...
"hope she gets a yeast infection..." - Irony101
And a particularly itchy one at that.
wow! you guys are mean! LOL!
I thought you had to have a vagina to get a yeast infection?
Does anyone see how ridiculous that this whole matter has become? That people are actually arguing over her use of this derogatory, hateful term? How ridiculous that ANYONE, ANYONE, with a modicum of conscience, would dare to defend this woman? How dare these 2 even think about defending this woman? Why is ANYONE defending this woman? There's no one else in a nation of 250 million people that can do what she does? My god, this counrty is f*&)ed up man.
"My god, this counrty is f*&)ed up man" -Isthisagreatcountryorwhat
Now thats funny. Comment and name
The essence of her joke was that John Edwards is gay. How is that even funny? It's not necessarily offensive (The Aristrocrats has pretty much immunized me to anything), it's just not at all funny. Where's the joke there?
Donald Trump had more prescient comments about Rosie O'Donnell for crying out loud.
On the other hand, now I get where The 1/2 Hour News Hour is coming from,
Toronto, as a confessed fan of horrible righty humor, I'd been trying to catch that 1/2 hour news hour. Last night I got into bed, and turned the tv on, and finally saw it.
wow. wow. stunningly, achingly unfunny.I can't wait til next week.
It would only be a joke if Edwards were gay; there would be a core meaning to her line, an allusion to something. But as Al Franken always says about her, where's the joke here?
MATTERA: ...What she was doing was pointing out that political correctness stifles speech. In the case of Isaiah Washington in Grey's Anatomy, he used the word, and he was told in order to keep his job he had to go to rehab. That was the brunt of the joke.
I don't watch Grey's Anatomy but had heard about this incident. Washington should of course have apologized to the actor he made the comment about, and the rest of the cast for the bad publicity his remark caused the program...But be forced into rehab in order to keep his job??? Oh please! Sorry folks if that's true, then this is PC run amuck. The Thought Police declare you mentally unbalanced and send you to rehab. Rehab might help cure one of alcohol abuse or a myriad of other bad physical habits, BUT you can't magically remove prejudice bigoted thoughts & cure someone of them. Totally ridiculous. Just more PC psychobabble.
LOWRY: Well, look, the word, John, it's a schoolyard slur. You don't really expect anyone over the age of about 12 to use it, especially in polite company. But it's not the biggest thing in the world.
It is a typical schoolyard slur. I used it myself about 30 plus years ago. It didn't mean you thought the other guy was a homosexual, it simply meant you considered the guy you were directing it at to be a wuss or a sissy.
MATTERA: No, of course not. In fact, I would like to also point out she was basically calling John Edwards a wuss, that he was a girlie-man...
I believe that's exactly what Coulter was doing. Along with making reference to the Grey's Anatomy "rehab" story. She wasn't suggesting Edwards was Gay.
But she should know better than to use a word considered to be inflammatory & offensive especially when you're old enough not to be thought of as "school age".
The problem with Coulter is that she is using a "schoolyard" slur as an adult, in an adult setting & directed it at an adult.
he was not forced into rehab. he went because pretending that one has a substance abuse problem or something similar and that's what's the cause of one's idiotic and inappropriate behaviour is the new way to save face, a-la mark foley and numerous others. going to rehab is the new get out of jail free card.
...going to rehab is the new get out of jail free card.
Absolutly! Couldn't agree more.
Isaiah Washington was NOT "forced into rehab." He voluntarily sought counseling for something that he realized was clearly a problem. You may not realize this, Jeter, but it's generally unacceptable to repeatedly call your co-worker a "f*ggot." Not real conducive to workplace harmony, especially in a collaborative field like acting. It's not some PC conspiracy like you seem to believe.
Well said. Washington going into rehab was solely done to get him out of the public eye for awhile, placate his critics, and do a little public relations. He has every right to be ignorant and hate whomever he feels like, it's his business. Rehab is ridiculous. It is a pathetic attempt to absolve him of his accountability in saying something offensive and stupid. It's ultimately his loss if he is that bigoted.
He didn't go into "rehab."
To seek counseling then. It's intent and appearance remain the same.
No, they don't. People go into rehab to deal with genuine addictions, which is a much more serious business than merely seeking counseling for a lesser problem. The righty commentators who refer to Isaiah Washington's difficulties always use the word "rehab" in their little anti-PC rants, even though it is wrong. Why would they purposefully use the wrong term, over and over? Because of its implications. By using "rehab" they can imply that those crazy PC lefties consider using the word "f*ggot" as an "addiction" or something. Those crazy lefties! Aren't they silly!
As righty cheap shots go, it's small potatoes, but it is a cheap shot.
You know Jeter I remember when a person was fired from their job for supporting John Kerry. When people got angry because they felt it went directly against the political process many people on the right said that since it was a private organization the owner had a right to do what he wanted. Now when an employee uses a derogatory word towards another actor the employer is being pc because they threaten the employee. I think workplace hostilities are better grounds for termination than contributing to the political process.
I also do not care if AC was making a joke. The reason it was offensive was because it is using a derogatory term. It is no better than the other words for people's races and or religious backgrounds. I really have a hard time figuring out why you are not offended by her use of this profane language.
You know Jeter I remember when a person was fired from their job for supporting John Kerry. When people got angry because they felt it went directly against the political process many people on the right said that since it was a private organization the owner had a right to do what he wanted.
I've never heard of the employee who got fired for supporting Kerry story. Enlighten me please.
Now when an employee uses a derogatory word towards another actor the employer is being pc because they threaten the employee. I think workplace hostilities are better grounds for termination than contributing to the political process.
Geez did you even read my post? Or just skim it over and produce a knee jerk reaction reply. I said it's PC to be forced into rehab. Rehab in this instance is pointless, it's like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. A few weeks or months of rehab is not going to cure anyone of being a bigot. BTW, Are you suggesting Isaiah Washington should have been fired?
I also do not care if AC was making a joke. The reason it was offensive was because it is using a derogatory term. It is no better than the other words for people's races and or religious backgrounds. I really have a hard time figuring out why you are not offended by her use of this profane language.
Let's start with your final sentence. You're correct I am not PERSONALLY offended because the remark wasn't directed at me. HOWEVER that doesn't mean I condone it. The word F#ggot has been used [and probably still is] as a schoolyard slur/taunt and means sissy or wuss. Of course it is also directed towards Homosexuals and is a derogatory term. I'm really sorry if you don't want to hear that the word is often used a couple of different ways, with clearly different meanings.
In this case Coulter was using the "schoolyard" taunt definition.
Now H-man go back and read the final 2 paragraphs from my original post. I in no way am excusing Coulter for her behavior. Nor am I jumping up & down in rage like some of you here are doing. If you don't approve of my reaction...well that's your problem, not mine.
Jeter: http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050724/lynne.shtml
Fired plant worker in Alabama.
Jeter, the word F*ggot is also used when gay people are being beaten to a pulp by gangs of young adult heterosexual men.
So, no it's not a "schoolyard" taunt. It's a word meant to dehumanize. Coulter used it with the sole intention of dehumanizing and demeaning gay people and Edwards.
Jeter, the word F*ggot is also used when gay people are being beaten to a pulp by gangs of young adult heterosexual men.
I understand that. In this case however it was being used like a schoolyard slur. Doesn't make it right or excuse it. But to pretend that Coulter was suggesting Edwards was a Homosexual is absurd. In the end it was an offensive remark and Coulter should not be defended. Which BTW I am not doing.
So, no it's not a "schoolyard" taunt. It's a word meant to dehumanize. Coulter used it with the sole intention of dehumanizing and demeaning gay people and Edwards.
Wrong. It can ALSO be used as a schoolyard taunt to mean sissy or wuss. That's a fact. Coulter used it to demean Edwards as a sissy.
Re-read my last 2 paragraphs in my original post.
"But to pretend that Coulter was suggesting Edwards was a Homosexual is absurd."
I'm not pretending or suggesting that Coulter was saying that Edwards is gay. I specifically said that the term was used to dehumanize Edwards and gay people. The word f*ggot is used to dehumanize and demean regardless of its "meaning" or who it is directed at.
She wasn't suggesting Edwards was Gay.
I'm going to give you the same treatment I gave WeinerRocks earlier in the comments: Jeter2, I hope you die a slow, painful death while your family watches.
Now please explain why, just like Coultergeist, what I just said isn't horrible and offensive.
iflurry8094
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Trying to equate calling someone a slur and wishing them dead is ludicrous.
But your posts here rarely make sense to me anyway, and this one can be added to the pile.
Jeter,
Please do continue downplaying AC and her comments. It's really not a big deal because its just a school yard talk right?
I wonder if the guys that killed Matthew Shepard called him a fa##ot?
It was just a schoolyard taunt, and those nice boys were just roughhousing with Shepard.
Stop being so PC.
You know Rusty I fully expect ignorant & inane posts from the likes of IFlurry & MHK, it's their MO. But for you to insinuate that I was blowing off Coulter's remarks as simply schoolyard taunts is disappointing. I find it rather sad that one can't discuss this subject seriously without being misinterpreted. Coulter should be called out for this. BUT the point should also be made that she was basically calling Edwards a wuss/sissy...not questioning his sexuality.
Why does someone pointing out the obvious threaten you all?
If a 12 year old kid calls another kid a f#ggot he means wuss or sissy. It's demeaning, but not generally hateful. And rarely, if ever, means homosexual.
Coulter should have known better than to think people wouldn't be offended, no matter how she meant it.
Saying that is not defending her.
You can rationalize it any way you want, but it seems pretty obvious from the outcry it has raised (including from many on the right) that the term "f*ggot" is not as innocuous as you think it is.
You may be right about what the term means to 12-year-olds on the schoolyard. However, Coulter and her audience at CPAC are not 12-year-olds, and they weren't on the schoolyard.
I covered that in an earlier post lost among the many here.
But she should know better than to use a word considered to be inflammatory & offensive especially when you're old enough not to be thought of as "school age".
The problem with Coulter is that she is using a "schoolyard" slur as an adult, in an adult setting & directed it at an adult.
Point taken, J2, you certainly did. I apologize for losing it in the thread.
No problem Rusty, it's easy to miss posts in a long thread, we've all done it.
Thank you for the apology, it's appreciated :-)
You're still splitting hairs over the intention of Coulter's use of a homophobic epithet. I think that's pretty defensive of her statement.
Trying to equate calling someone a slur and wishing them dead is ludicrous.
Both Coulter's and my comments were intended to dehumanize those whom they referred to. I didn't mean to imply I wished you were dead any more than Coulter honestly thinks Edwards is gay. But in each case, it was a hateful thing to say.
*ahem* I'm waiting for your apology.
Jetter,
The "rehab" was actually a PR thing. After a number of cast members expressed outrage at his comments in public, the studio brought in some people to help. Basically a number of gay rights groups. They sat with him and offered educational opportunities. But mainly they talked about ways he could help correct or negate any damage done to the show/himself/cast/and his gay cast member.
Public service announcements, speaking to schools, etc. From what I understand he was very receptive and wanted to do something.
Hey McCain,
Thanks for the clarification of the story.
When I was younger I looked at Homosexuals as... weird, strange, different.
Then I grew up, went out in the world, met people I liked...found out some were Gay. Liked them anyway.
I wouldn't exactly call it an epiphany, but rather me evolving.
What it taught me is that race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation shouldn't be how we judge one another.
Rehab or sensitivity groups are fine, as far as they go....BUT you can't unteach bigotry. You can only hope that people eventually come to realize that in the end we are all human, and should be judged on who we are, not on the many labels hung on us.
Jetter, one last thing,
The history (I'm trying to think of the right word, but I'm only on the 1st cup of coffee) of the word "f&gg0t" is debated. But to a few in the gay community its underlining meaning is an implied threat of violence.
(Now, I know most people who use the word don't realize what they are saying, but it still means something to the people hearing the word. Especially when the word said has a history.)
As you probably know it means a bundle of sticks or wood. Some researchers have said that the word as applied to gay men originates from the middle ages or soon after. That fun period of history when the church/government advocated the burning of homosexuals at the stake (thats sarcasm). So a connection is made between the two meanings of the word. That history is not accepted by all, but enough to suggest something truly nasty.
Plus given that the word is often used when heterosexuals commit violence against gay people. (I've never heard of a case in which the attackers yell, "you f-ing homosexual" as they beat a gay person to death.
Education session over :) (I really wish I could put a little star graphic and say, "the more you know" or whatever they say on NBC.)
Hey McCain,
Great post [even on one cup of coffee!]
I don't think I've used the term "f#ggot" since I was a kid, and then only as a slur meaning sissy or wuss. But I do understand how the term can be demeaning or threatening to a Gay person.
I hope you know that I'm not excusing Coulter here, just making the point that she used the term in a schoolyard taunt kind of way.
That doesn't mean it didn't offend people or that she should be given a pass.
Coulter talks trash and has probably at one time or another offended most every group. Unfortunately, she remains popular. But more & more she is becoming an an embarrassment to many Conservatives.
I hope you know that I'm not excusing Coulter here, just making the point that she used the term in a schoolyard taunt kind of way.
That doesn't mean it didn't offend people or that she should be given a pass.
I still fail to see how that is relevant. It seems to me you're trying to downplay her statement.
I had no idea that Vulcans could be neo-cons. Did you notice that Mattera looks like a Vulcan except he doesn't have the pointy ears or the logic that would go with being one.
Oh and one other thing. Just because Maher opposes Bush doesn't mean he is a liberal, he isn't, it just means he has some critical thinking skills that is all.
Bill Maher is speaking at natioinal political events, the same events that previous presidents and current presedential candidates speak at. If Bill Maher wants to say that on his show, so what. Ann should get her on show then she can saw whatever she wants.
Actually, as it was noted earlier in this thread, Bill Maher did not say what he is accused of saying.
Ooooh! So witty, and "crafty". Hey, I seem to remember from studying history that a certain hate-monger tossing about slurs had many, many times "communicate(d) a message to an audience" and "got rousing applause" and "rousing standing ovations." Great orators of old were very keen on keying in on the fears, prejudices, and hate of the masses. So, in this day and age, PEOPLE will not tolerate this modicum of public speaking! But, I guess the "Right" ( not to be confused with having the meaning "correct") has a long way to evolve to come to the level of "people". These animals should be given a little place of their own, complete with closed circuit TV, so they can have their mutual-masturbatory Hateapalooza, and watch themselves later on the tube while they fawn over each others' complete lack of decency and humanity.....oh, wait...there is a place like this....THE CORPORATE MEDIA! Do we really expect anything other than drivel? Do our collective passions about the lies and deceptions of the modern "news" derive from our compassion for the one's who are just too ignorant to see past the bread and circus? Adolph Hitler had a great following and a "best seller", does this mean, if he were alive today, he would be welcome on FOX? Seems the only criteria for their guests.
The sad thing is... it really is a joke. On the rest of us. Ann distracts us with her words and we move away from legitimate discussion. Ann Coulter is an act. She knows she's an act and she lives off the fact that there are many who think she's for real. She's like Alice Cooper, but without the make-up (oh wait), but without the ridiculous costumes (dang it), uh... she doesn't have sexually explicit lyrics (crap, she does do that). Heck, she is Alice Cooper in a dress. MMFA would be doing everyone a favor by ignore her and rendering her irrelevant. Just tell us where she's going to appear, so we can protest this act.
And meanwhile Iraq continues to crumble...
Alice Cooper in a dress? Well, maybe. But Alice is funny and talented. Ann...not so much.
That might be where the comparisons end. However, some people think she's funny, much like some people don't think that "She Who Must Not Be Named" is not funny.
***ALERT***
Conservatives, countrymen, lend me your hate. Your efforts to reel in the youth through not-so-thinly-veiled-bigotry-wrapped-in-satire are not working!
We must understand that Conservative Comedy as domestic policy has failed. Our FoxNews soldiers have diligently tried to trudge forward with "1/2 Hour News Hour". satAnn Coulter has lead our infantry of "funny" but my friends, it is time to...
cut and run.
Let's regroup and just be overtly bigoted without satire, you know, like before. Much easier.
"What she was doing was pointing out that political correctness stifles speech."
So it's okay to jokingly use the word (insert slur for blacks that forms part of the word "racoon") to joke about Condi Rice? Okay to use the word (insert slur for Hispanics that rhymes with "trick") to jokingly refer to Alberto Gonzales? Okay to refer to Dick Cheney's daughter as a (insert slur for lesbian that ryhes with "bike")? Okay to say (insert slur for Jews that rhymes with "mike") with reference to Douglas Feith? Okay to call Mark Foley as a "f4ggot"? Okay to question the size of George Bush's penis? How about Laura Bush's vagina? How about Bush's daughters?
Why not? Just pointing out how "political correctness" stifles speech. And once you tear down "political correctness" then everything is fair game, right? No? Wrong? Then who decides the boundaries? "She Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken"?
"Political correctness" is nothing more than common decency... a concept that apparently escapes many on the right.
Well said!
Consider the firestorm when Cheney's daughter was even mentioned in the last campaign - and that, without pejoratives! Surely those who so earnestly sought "consideration" there, should understand the concept of returning the same to all about them?
and who is the determiner of 'common decency'? you? Coulter? Pelosi? Clinton? Moulitsas or Bozell? or is it the Constitution, a neutral guide that used to guarantee free speech and was the foundation of liberal ideas challenging conservative bulwarks?
yep. people may open their mouths and shout 'Nazi' or 'liar' or 'murderer' at a president, or slur a presidential candidate with 'fggot', but it remains protected speech, as uncouth or bitter as it is to our ears.
the left, unfortunately, with its great leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Markos Moulitsas, Cynthia McKinny, Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, et. al. stands with hypocrisy on this issue. start arguing issues with ideas rather than faux emotional offense. coulter, in the end, is a little person on this kind of issue - which is both the publics perception of democrats as sissies, and free speech encompassing crass speech. maw
"hypocrisy"?
The hypocricy lies with this woman who claims to be a Christian yet spouts hateful speech that lowers the bar of common decency... and then she lies about her true intentions. Where exactly is the line of common decency drawn? I don't know... but I know when the line has been crossed and I think America knows it has been crossed. And she crossed it gleefully. Did you see her tonight on Sean Hannity's show saying that she wasn't finished yet, either?
I also noticed her "f4ggot" remark about John Edwards got a big round of applause at the right wing event where she spoke. But how could any decent human being not be turned off by her crudeness. Bottom line is anyone who expressly or impliedly defends her is just as guilty as she is. And that's why some Republicans are running away from her.
The ball is in the Republican court now... how does the party that purports to represent decency in America handle their crude hit-girl who has promised even more remarks? The problem is that the once monolithic Republican Party doesn't even know what it stands for anymore.
Very well said, 4397. It obviously struck a cord because of the reply you got....
" The hypocricy lies with this woman who claims to be a Christian yet spouts hateful speech that lowers the bar of common decency... "
And what part of this discussion make her religous claims an issue? It's well known most (if not all) liberals have no religious connections and lower the bar of common decency every time they vote on an issue (abortion, gay rights, freedom of {not from} religion, ect...). The hypocricy is in you when you claim her motives are to lower "the bar of common decency" while claiming she is a Christian. How many, here, are Christian that use the same vial, hateful wording they absolutely protest a conservative using!?!
I've heard her several times refer to her Christianity. That she claims to be a Christian is not in dispute. In my opinion, a true Christian would not make the hateful comments she does. If your idea of a good Christian is one who is the manifestation of crudeness, cruelty, intolerance and hate then the bar for what constitutes a good Christian has indeed been lowered. Christians should disavow this despicable woman. I'm not the one to judge but maybe you should consider whether you are not a good Christian if you support this woman. That's between you and God. However this woman is hypocrite to claim Christianity as she does. She gives Christians a bad name. Apparently you have no problem with that but, as I said, that's between you and God. Lemme know how that works out...
Her Christianity as everything with Ann seems only to use it as a political tool. She's probably attempting to endear herself to Christian right, which strangely judging by the ones that post here that defend her don't have a problem with her less than Christian behavior.
Yeah, no.
I don't know of any liberals personally who do not have faith or religion. So that assertion of yours, that liberals are not religious people, holds little water, if any at all. Now, there are atheists out there, but I don't know any personally. Looking at polling numbers for people who believe in a religion or "god" for that matter there are only about between 3-4% of the entire country that would identify themselves as atheists, so your argument, again, holds no water. Most liberals do have faith, and or religion, and do believe in God. The difference is that most of those liberals believe that their faith and the God that they worship should be a personal thing, and should not be foisted upon others who may, or may not want it. In your arguments, you sound just like little miss Coulter, who is also wrong in her assertions that liberals are indeed "Godless".
Apparently the view that religion is about man's personal relationship with God is considered a far left wing liberal concept. To the religious right, religion appears to be more about mega-Churches, Republican mailing lists and pastors who preach right wing Republican ideology... all conveniently rationalized as an unbending belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. That thing about re-making America into a nation whose laws, customs and institutions are based on the Bible is also a little troublesome... and, of course, the vehicle for that agenda is the Republican Party, which, in reality, would actually sell them out in a second when they no longer need their block of votes. Can you say Rudy Giuliani...?
i don't even see where or what religion had to do with coulter claiming to be a christian on this subject, any more than dragging catholicism or protestantism or whatever into the subject whenever Ted Kennedy opens his mouth, or Pelosi, or Bush. its misdirection.
the subject matter IS free (albeit offensive) speech, and how it is templated differently by the liberals who no longer believe in free speech or independant thought, from politics to science to education to blogging.
the impression that is given is that by liberals is that they fear the free exchange of ideas - the same type of exchanges that made such gains in areas like civil rights, in the so-called pro-choice arguments, the debates on sexual preference, global warming, etc.
it is apparent why: in the infancy, successful debate sits well on the shoulders of the prepared; conservatives had no need to debate any of this issues since they were accepted norms, and were really caught flat footed. as time when on, and as evidence (social study, science, debate) those statements liberals invested so heavily in get challenged, some shown to be false, and they don't like it.
coulter can say what she wants, as much as you and me - like Murtha, like Pelosi, like Carter, like the bloggers at Kos, and like the thousand other liberals and conservatives you can pull out of a hat. if its stupid, you make fun of it, ignore it, whatever and move on. but to try to shut someone up - well, i'm still waiting for the outrcry against Bill Maher, against those women on the view who say IN MY OPINION much worse. don't see a thread as popular as this about Maher, do you?
luckily for you all, i'm not the enforcer of what is or isn't free speech. you're even luckier theres not a liberal doing it. but at least i'm even handed. maw
"the subject matter IS free (albeit offensive) speech, and how it is templated differently by the liberals who no longer believe in free speech or independant thought, from politics to science to education to blogging." --mawendt4397
So you are just making a stawman argument? Is that all you have?
Constitutional arguments do not apply to this debate as the Government is not trying in any way to censor Coulter. Nor are tax dollars being used for that purpose. What we have here is criticism by MMFA and posters no matter how pathetically you are trying to turn the argument into something it obviously isn't.
good point. no government dollars there. so then, free speech doesn't apply, and any system that doesn;t receive federal funds can shut down any speech they don't like. i like that.
so on the merits of decency, then, who decides? there are some following posts that touch on it. is it any better or worse to call someone Hitler? a liar? a murderer? a crook? a pussy? and who sets the limits - i'd say, in the case of this forum, the operators of Media Matters.
and thats what i mean about hypocrisy. if the left would hold everyone to the same standard, then i'd be saying 'rah, rah, go team!' but instead the holier-than-thous step up and righteously slam when their opponents talk stupid.
i think stupid speech should be slapped around but not slapped down. i am still going to cricisize that the left and MSM is both selective against those on the right, as well as selective in reporting on the foibles of the left. what couletr has said is no less insluting or demeaning to a common decency standard of other words tossed around by the left. and you guys are offended when first, its all in good political mud-throwing fun, and second, you don't make your own team play by the same rules. maw
Who isn't holding the left to the same standard?
You can't compare this site to the real world, because this is moderated by people, and this is not a free speech zone here. You can, and sometimes will, be censored by the site if you say the wrong things, or if they think you went over the line, which is OK, because this is not about free speech, it's someone's site, and THEY allow YOU and I to post here. Simple as that.
This is not a free speech debate at all. Who decides what gets heard in this case of Coulter et all? Well, their advertisers, because advertising is what brings profits for radio and TV right? It's a free market, as republicans like to point out, and people are effectively "voting" with their money. If Coulter's sponsors don't like what she's saying, they don't have to have their sponsorship tied up with her, it's their choice. It's not stifling free speech, because she is still free to say what she wants, but she might be stuck on a corner with a sign saying it (as most of us are for the most part). We generally as a whole don't have a forum with which to express our thoughts and what we think of things, so it is only through some success that Ann Coulter and others like her are granted such things. The mob is fickle, and when the mob grows tired and weary of your blatherings, then sponsors don't see the value of having you around anymore, and off you go. It happens all the time, and has little, or nothing to do with free speech.
I urge you to go back to a previous topic this week about Savage and his anti gay rants. Someone posted an entry from Al Franken that some might say was derogatory to gay people in general. From both the right and left, people decried it. You see, there is no double standard. Liberals on here know when people have crossed the line, be it, one of their own, or someone like Coulter, and we call them out on it. This is our own little way of trying to right what we perceive to be wrongs. Heere is the problem with lots of republicans that I've run into on these forums. When Coulter et all, say these stupuid things, they are defended until the grave, yet, I don't see liberals or democrats doing the same thing. Just because you THINK that it's happening, doesn't really mean that it is. And if you're talking about the double standard with Bill Maher's "thing" of this past week, someone needs to go back, read the transcript, and see for themselves what he said because it was NOT about Cheney getting killed.
I wonder if you realize what your freedom of speech really is. I'm thinking you don't.
If 1,000,000 "liberals" contact every publisher known to man and convince them ALL that Ann should never be contracted to publish another book, Ann's freedom of speech has not been impaired.
If 1,000,000 "liberals" contact every news organization known to man and convince them ALL that Ann's voice and face should never been heard or seen again on public airwaves, Ann's freedom of speech has not been impaired.
If ONE government agency tells Ann to keep her mouth shut under penalty of law, then Ann's right to freedom of speech has been violated under the terms of the constitution.
You conservatives who keep whining about freedom of speech seem to be confusing rights very often. We have the right to complain about Ann, and we even have the right to convince news networks to get her vile form off of the air, and out of print. We have the right to convince publishers, much as was done with OJ Simpson's latest book, to change their mind because of the content of the medium and stop publishing a certain author's writings. None of this violates the right to free speech that all of us enjoy in this country, because none of it involves the government stomping down on the citizenry's right to voice an opinion.
It's a wonder the founding fathers haven't drilled themselves into the Earth's core from all the spinning in their collective graves they must be doing due to this massive, wide-spread misunderstanding of fundamental American rights.
heh. i do know what free speech is - and the concept of free speech, as written in the constitution, was intended for free political speech, not all speech. and yes, it had to do with government restricting it.
the concept has been abridged judicially to extend beyond that - identifying 'speech' to include action such as flag burning, marches, protests, boycotts, whistleblowing (both public and private secto) etc. and it has also extended the definition of restriction beyond government to anyone who receives any federal funds, as well as any individual or organization that attempts to suppress any contrary speech or action. the arguments in court usually end up being lawsuits determining what are the approved venues, and not content, usually attempting to cause one side or the other to go broke.
and, yes, if an organization (even private) attempted to silence Coulter by doing what you said, organizing a million complaints to supress her right to speak, or to supress her content in that or any other way, it would violate her free-speech rights, particularly if it addresses her contrary politcial opinion. individuals not acting in concert have no such restriction, as it becomes a general expression of common held opinion. although there would be civil liberty, EO, and other issues, repression of free speech is not retricted to government agencies. the true restriction on ideas or political philosophy is in the market - if it doesn't sell this time (or gets elected), it won't be carried next time.
but this is back to topic: is the critcism and castigation of Coulter's words equitable, fair, balanced against the lack of of critcism and castigation of the words and opinions of, say MoveOn.Org or DailyKos? or Helen Thomas? Dan Rather? Howard Dean?
is it now the left who sets the level of decency that says calling someone a "fggot" is indecent, but calling someone a 'murderer' or 'Hitler' is alright?
make your argument as you well, but there is a disparagement here beyond coulter's crude words. since she is allowed to say them, since they are her personal opinion publically expressed, since it is legal to say them, it has as much weight as everything written here. or at Huff. or at Kos. or at MoveOn.
my observation is she shouldn't be shut down because she is Ann Coulter, and that she shouldn't be shut down for what she said, but that if she is to be shut down, its because a better argument comes around. the left is using her dumb-speak as a vehicle in an attempt to marginalize her other opinions the left finds so very offensive but so hard to debate. and since it is only used against the right, it is hypocrisy, or any democrat that ever said 'ngger' in a public venue would have received greater or more attacks. that any democrat that equated someone to "Hitler' would be assaulted, that any democrat that belittled a presidential candidate as 'clean' would receive at least as much attention. its doesn't happen, so as much as coulter's words are ignorant, the cries of 'burn her! burn the witch!' are... hypocritcal. maw
You do like to use strawmen a lot don't you?
If an organization, a private one, wants to cut someone off because they don't like what they're saying on their time and money, they can do it, and it's not adujicating that person's freedom of speech. You don't know what you're talking about. It happens all of the time. Look at any talk show where guests are frequently shut off, or cut out, so the host can have his or her say on the matter, without a rebuttal. Those people then you are saying are losing their freedom of speech? Indeed not. There are no laws against what they are saying, or agains what Coulter is saying, so she and others are indeed free to say what they want. Coulter couldn't be stopped, but her forums for exposure could be reduced if the people who are paying her don't like what she is saying or writing. It has happened to her before in her career, and it will happen (hopefully) again. She can still say what she wants, and therefore her freedom of speech is unabated. Her getting paid for her hate speak can be cut off though, and it's not the same. You're trying to equate freedom of speech with a job, and that's just not going to fly.
You keep espousing these alleged examples of liberals calling someone a murderer, or Hitler, but you don't say who. Who and where? I do believe that anytime anyone brings the words "Hitler, Nazi, or Facist" into an argument, they've essentially lost my ear, because those are words that don't fit very well into the vernacular today, and calling someone a Nazi or Hitler for that matter pretty much drops whatever debate that you're having into the nether regions.
Again.
"and, yes, if an organization (even private) attempted to silence Coulter by doing what you said, organizing a million complaints to supress her right to speak, or to supress her content in that or any other way, it would violate her free-speech rights, particularly if it addresses her contrary politcial opinion."
No, it does not violate her constitutional right to free speech. You claim (with a "heh" even) that you know what your right to freedom of speech entails, but you obviously do not. Private organizations are not obliged to provide platforms upon which we have freedom of expression. CNN does not have to guarantee Ann her right to open her gaping maw and spew forth her ichorous filth on their advertisers' dollars. Free Republic is not obligated equal space for political speech to allow Michael Albert time to wax nostalgic on Participatory Economics.
I highly recommend that you educate yourself on this with some non-biased texts before you argue this any further. I don't care what side of the political spectrum a person is on, because I've certainly heard this stupidity from both - ignorance of your civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution is inexcuseable when you're of an age that you attempt to come to a forum like this and pretend to know something about them.
You dont mind if I use my free speech right to put up a liberal billboard in YOUR front yard do you?
"what religion had to do with coulter claiming to be a christian"
The issue was about common "decency". From first grade through high school the nuns, priests and other religious orders taught me that decency is a defining quality of Christianity. Ann Coulter is a pronounced Christian who, if memory serves me correctly, once advocated conversion of the Muslim world to Christianity. Many would agree that her 'f4ggot" moment (among other episodes) fell below any acceptable line of decency expected of a Christian. Let God decide if she's a hypocrite... I've made up my mind already.
In all the ridiCulous argUmeNts provided by the "righT" in supposed support of free speeCh, there came bUt one commoN thread: The "right" wishes nothing but absolute protection to say anything they wish...the wholesale bulk of lies propagated by the fascist conservative-agenda "news" continues to be "protected" free speech. Aren't you happy with just telling lies constantly and without fail? Do you really have to drag everyone else through your fantasies? Did Edwards snub Mz. Coulter, CaUsing her scorN comes seeThing through by insulting him as less than worthy for a woman (in her mind) ? Oh, dear...I see my true feelings have come through.
It's well known most (if not all) liberals have no religious connections- autopsychic
Here's a little math test that you need to take before graduating from Freeperville to this site;
Depending on which survey you're looking at,between 85 and 95% of Americans are religious.
In most national elections, the country seems to be, using very general standards, about 50/50 conservative and liberal.
Use a calculator if you need it. Show your work.
"It's well known most (if not all) liberals have no religious connections and lower the bar of common decency every time they vote on an issue (abortion, gay rights, freedom of {not from} religion, ect...)."
AP - Are you really that stupid?
Yes MHK, yes he is
Its only well known among brainwashed rightwingnuts. Can you cough up some evidence that MOST liberals have no religious connection? You cant? Imagine my suprise you pulled that directly out of your rectal database where you wingnuts get MOST of what YOU call well known facts and are actually delusional fantasies
Adults identifying with a specific faith group are almost evenly split among Republicans, Democrats and Independents. But those who do not identify with a religion are 43% Independent, 39% Democrat, and 17% Republican.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
So tell me do you EVER know what you are talking about or do you just usually make up nonsense?
MAW: nobody said Anne's speech is not constitutionally protected. They're just taking her to task over it.
Not that the fascists on your side would ever do anything like that. Say, to an ex-president who wrote a book about the middle east.
heh. nor more than the stalinists on your side seek to deny free thought and expression - for everyone, even your dissenting liberals.
hey, slam conservatives. conservatives eat their own, anyhow, when they act or speak stupid (as coulter apparnetly did). anyone here has to admit, though, that holding people accountable for their words is one sided and prejudiced against conservatives, not just on this site but throughout MSM.
and that takes the air out of the liberal arguments. many of the concepts of liberalism are attractive to people - helping the poor, free speech, affordable housing, protection of the environment - but your spokes people don't walk their talk. they scream loudly about free speech, then try to shut up their opponents. they rail about gobal warming, then hop into their SUV's and rush to their private jets. they sneer at Haliburton, then buy $6 million or whatever of their shares. and thats what i mean about hypocrisy, which is not just on the left, but is just more apparent on the left.
just because you challenge something doesn't make you a bad person, or a nazi, or a facsist. i don't call people crude names, but as in baseball, i'lll call a strike a strike. coulter should be castigated for speaking stupid - and she would, by a regular person. its just that coming from those of a democrat or liberal position fails to carry the weight since their media icons have said more and worse for longer without being held accountable. maw
its just that coming from those of a democrat or liberal position fails to carry the weight since their media icons have said more and worse for longer without being held accountable.
Really? Name an instance when a "liberal media icon" said worse and was not "held accountable" in the same way that Anne is now.
sad thing is, there are no liberal media icons of the same success and caliber of coulter. the subject is even more delicious in that Edward's former blog-babes he defended were so crudely vicious against the right. in response to your request, i would have to answer: The whole slew of inferences and cheap shots in MSM on Abrahamoff, Halliburton, and the like slurring Bush as being involved in criminal activity, or at least being so close to criminals he can't help to be guilty. The common and repeated refrain that Bush lied and intentionally manipulated intel to conduct a war. Or the initial claim that Bush blessed the non-story of Plame (it was a tough stick but easier to pin on Cheney). Helen Thomas (rather past her prime) asking why Bush murders children, grandchildren, and encourages indiscriminate bombing against civilians? its like asking when you stopped lying about beating your wife. Dan Rather (national guard memos?) painted Bush as shirker, liar, self-serving and unworthy of leading troops. Allowed to quietly slip away... not held accountable, but since he embarrassed a major news org by failing journalistic standards... and is still praised by the left for this courageous stand... Olbermann - definitely not an icon (except to the left)... but watch him for a week. Always has something offensive to say about Bush and the administration... Kinsley, Krugman, Cohen addressed Bush 'lies' on the Op-Ed pages of the WaPo (though hardly 'icons' individually, the WaPo used to be responsible for editorial content). Micheal Moore ? Barbara Streisand and a mob of her Hollywood buddies? Huffington and her posters? Daily Kos and its content? MoveOn.Org and the Bush=Hitler? JohnKerryHowardDeanTedKennedy? Not exactly icons, maybe, but given legitimacy by the MSM and the left that allows them to at least be placed on a pedestal against the likes of coulter and her stripe - mostly 'cause Franken and his ilk couldn't carry the water, and certainly none of them challenged for their drivel. When they say something stupid, it is ignored so as to let them develop a favorable image. ya know, in one sense you're right... no 'icon' has directly called Bush anything. instead, they place stories, interview people, and have sound bites that chip away at the man's character. like if i interviewed others in a public forum discussing that YOU might be an incompetent, and idiot, liar, murderer, betrayer of public trust, self-serving, allowing character assassination, taking advantage of issues and your position to make money for himself and his supporters - all without actually stating my opinion, but channeling questions. in the end, if i spend endless discussion of if "is-at-all-true-about-the-story-of-when-did-you-stop-lying-about-beating-your-wife", the perception many people will have left in the end is that you probably lied about beating your wife. so, yeah, so if we can agree a liberal media icon is a person or entity with great influence using media to spread their point, i've listed a few. in taking a second look, i see now how careful popular politicians and common media types are about what they say. still doesn't explain their unrelenting content. which is (yay!) covered under free speech (or free press).
finally, i'm glad all this attention is spent on coulter's crass words. it again leaves a gaping hole covering the content of the other arguments she put out - that liberals in particular, democratic candidates in general, and the democrat party philosophy specifically are all lacking in functional ideas as well as any recent historical moral authority to determine the direction of national security, promoting freedom, defending our borders, protecting our environment, education, taxation, and the like. she is being slapped around for one stupid statement - where's your criticism on her claims in the rest of her speech? - it must have been so accurate it can't be debated. i'll bet the 'vast left wing majority' here have read only her blurb about Edwards. maw
So no examples, huh? I thought not.
As for your railing about free speech in your response to BLR above, you are wrong. If there's no government action, there's no free speech issue. I'll reconsider if you can cite a case to the contrary.
You know, Maw, it's unfortunate that in 13 short years the GOP's ideas have dwindled from the "Contract With America" to "Democrats are f*gs." A once-proud party, in ruins.
So let me get this straight...
Criticizing the President is the same as Coulter calling Edwards a fa$$ot? Please... You've got to be kidding me. Because every little thing that you cite, is basically something that the President has been criticized for in the recent past, and lots of those things have been actually proven out, in case you were sleeping and all.
Now, if you can provide a link to someone at Moveon.org talking about Bush being Hitler, I can get behind criticizing that. Because no matter what Bush does, he's not nearly as bad as Hitler, because that was one bad man, and most rational people, know this. But then again, I doubt you can come up with something from their website where they said that. Maybe some comments on their page, but someone who actually works for them, I doubt it. But it is possible.
And all of the other things you cite, were criticisms. Most, valid, and questioning of the president and the job that he's doing, because looking at a lot of polling numbers lately, he's not doing so well with the vast majority of Americans, not just democrats or liberals. He's failing the entire country.
What you failed to show us is where a liberal media icon called someone from the opposing team one of the following things: a racial slur, a homophobic remark, or anything that would be considered "controversial". Instead you prop up alleged examples of the "left" not being held accountable for criticisms leveled at the administration in general, and Bush specifically. You've got nothing over there. Nothing at all. What are they supposed to do? Let the current administration run all over the country and not say anything about it? Look at Dan Rather, he got his story wrong, and was essentially made to leave. That's not a consequence of a fine career whittled down to one mistake? And don't forget, a lot of the staffers who worked on that story were also fired from their jobs at CBS News, that's something you righties seem to forget from time to time, oh wait, all of the time.
So show us, oh wise one, an example with text and everything, where a liberal "icon" threw around such words like Coulter and the others do. You love your strawmen, yet can't seem to come up with a coherent statement.
Man you are so delusional. Cheap shots on Abramoff, the man is going to prison for bribery. Bush DID lie as has been PROVEN over and over. Just because reality has no ability to penetrate the atmosphere on Planet Wingnut doesnt mean its not known here on Planet Earth. Bush lied when he made up an IAEA report that never existed. Bush lies so much I was suprised when I found out his name really was George. The media goes easy on Conservatives. You are consumed by fantasies
The free speech of everyone criticising Coulter is the same as her right to her hatespewing bigotry. She gets to say what she wants then whoever wants to can use THEIR free speech rights to criticise her. Whoever told you that YOU conservatives have some weird free speech right to spew your propaganda WITHOUT anyone responding lied to you. The bottom line here is you have NO idea whatsoever how free speech works it NEVER protects you from criticism. MAN this is simple, what about it cant you understand?
No one took her free speech rights away. This is SOOO simple. She was not arrested for being a hatemongering harpy. She has every right to act the ignorant bigotted moron she is, then I, as part of MY free speech rights have every right to say what WE think about what she said. Why is it you conservatives with your ignorant leaders like Bush, Darth Cheney, Santorum et al, think that free speech ONLY applies to what YOU say and not to our responses to the ignorant drivel spewed BY your type?
MATTERA: No, of course not. In fact, I would like to also point out she was basically calling John Edwards a wuss, that he was a girlie-man, and that if he were elected president he would probably embolden Al Qaeda to attack us.
1) Coultergeist calls Edwards a homophobic epithet.
2) Somehow, it's okay because she only meant to emasculate him.
3) Al Qaeda is too afraid to attack us because our president is big, manly Bush Jr. (Maybe 9/11 happened during the Clinton administration in the alternate dimension Mattera is from)
Mattera should join a gymnastics team, the way he twists and spins is astounding.
"Isaiah Washington in Grey's Anatomy... That was the brunt of the joke."
Wrong... John Edwards was the brunt of the joke. Isaiah Washington's situation was simply the vehicle used for the derisive joke directed at Edwards.
If she was simply attempting a joking commentary about political correctness stifling free speech there was no reason to mention Edwards at all. The post-affair pretense that this was not about Edwards is pretty lame.
GIBSON: Jason, the -- are you guys going to have -- you continue to sponsor Ann Coulter, right?
MATTERA: That's correct, happily.
Apparently Verizon, Sallie Mae and NetBank feel differently and have pulled their ads from this woman's web site...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/05/coulter.ads/index.html
But Irony, how dare those companies pull their ads from ann's site! When business decisions affect conservative hate mongers its an offense against the first amendment! (but only right wing conservatives, not liberals, companies can abuse liberals all they want).
(End sarcasm)
It sort of funny. In our last election, the wanna be republican governor Devos was called the "best thing for business" and that if he was elected he would create more jobs, etc. A lot of people believed that.
Until they found out his wife supports a group attacking Ford, for supporting gay rights for their employees. Why do conservatives operate under a different set of rules than liberals?
" Lowry also chastised "the press" for ignoring HBO host Bill Maher's recent comment "
You know, he has a point here. Where is the article by mmfa that shows this media coverage that is "not accurate, reliable, or credible" on Maher saying that if Cheney had died there would be less dead in Iraq? I'm sorry, I went and read the 'about us' statement, and they don't do stories about liberal lack of accuracy, reliability or credibility. I guess that would make them too busy and would have no space left for all the conservative misinformation.
Umm, you read the mission statement right? So you should know, already, that this is a liberal website, exposing conservative misinformation within the realm of the mainstream media. They don't do liberal misinformation, and yes, there is some of that out there as well. If you want to check out that stuff, go over to Newsbusters, or other like websites, but in my opinion, they don't do nearly as good of a job as this site does in pointing out their misinformation, and lots of times can't back up their "facts" that they put out there. At least with MMFA, you get full context, audio, and or video if that is the case. And then you can make up your own mind about things. Right?
And it's funny that people are saying that Maher said that Cheney should die. He said nothing of the sort actually. If you read the transcript from the show, it appears to me, and to other actually rational people, that they were talking about the posts on Huffington that said Cheney should have died, and she got chastised for that as well, even though she took down the comments (open comments section), and Maher went on to say that if Cheney were not in power, less people would die. He at not time advocated for the death of Cheney, but, hey, keep believing what you'd like to believe happened. It's OK.. What is funny though, is that all of these right wing blogs and websites that are so "disgusted" with Maher's comment are not actually posting the full context of what he said, and when he said it, and how he said it. They are picking out bits and pieces that make it sound worse than it actually is, what he said. And they are tagging it with "Maher wishes that Cheney died" or something similar, which again, is not what he said at all.
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070306000334661
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/transcripts/t_hbo_realtime_030207.html
I posted a link for the transcript for all of you to take a look at.
I went to the maher link you provided. He sounds a lot like glenn beck only from the left side. Very rude guy, slandering everyone on the right. I don't like him. I stopped reading just a little into his "act". He's a moron, probably steals all his jokes from others. Why would they let someone like him on a cable station?
Doesn't matter how he sounds, it's what he said. He didn't imply, or even say that Cheney should have died. They were discussing posts on Huffington and that's where all of this "outrage" has come from. Again, it appears that the right are very good at putting words into other people's mouths, only to be disproven, yet again, that what they were saying that Maher was saying just wasn't what was said at all.
I don't disagree that he's a bomb thrower though, and that's what he's good at. But also, at the same point, he does actually have differing viewpoints on his show, and they do actually have good discussions as opposed to righty talk shows that shout down anyone who disagrees. Maher, counts as one of his friends, Ann Coulter believe it or not, and has had her on his show lots of times.
Not just a cable station, but a Premium cable station. Subscribers pay each month to listen to Bill Maher. I don't see any of them complaining.
"Maher went on to say that if Cheney were not in power, less people would die."
That's what I heard him say. Joe Scarborough, who was on the panel with Maher at the time, played the tape last night, and defended Maher against the misinformed attacks by right wing bloggers. Maher's comments were made in the context of a group discussion about whether Arianna Huffington should have removed from her web site comments from a few anonymous posters (like us) suggesting that it would have been better had Cheney been killed in the assasination attempt. As Maher was reading or explaining what the posters had said another guest misunderstood and thought Maher was making the comments which Huffington deleted from her site. Maher immediately corrected the other panelist that those were not his comments. Maher conceded, howver, that were Cheney not in power fewer people would be dead today. Considering what we now know about Cheney's influential machinations in getting us involved in the Iraq war I would say Maher's statement was dead accurate.
Scarborough backed up what Maher actually said but did agree with aother guest that the controversial remarks of "She Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken" were extensively covered in the mainstream media while the blatantly incorrect headline attacks against Maher seemed to be confined to right wing bloggers. But, in my opinion, that simply confirmed that the woman's "f4ggat" remarks and the ensuing contoversy were reported fairly and accurately in the mainstream media while right right wing bloggers lied about what Maher had said. I'm sure that point was lost, however, on the right wing guest was attempting to discredit the mainstream media for not reporting Maher's remarks, which actually were not controversial. Only the right wing bloggers tried to make Maher's remarks controversial with sensational, tabloid-style, misleading reorting.
What you said.
It has been mostly bloggers and right wing hack sites who are attacking Maher. Maybe the more MSM have ignored this because there is nothing to the story. If they did report it, they would have to maybe report about why all the hype over a discussion about anonymous posters on Huffington's website? As more comes out about this so called Maher thing, I'm believing that most people decrying it, have either A. Not read the transcript, or B. Have no idea what he actually said. They're just "mad" because right wingers tell them to be, which leads me to C. It appears that lots of people on the right handed side of the aisle like to believe what is told to them, and don't have much in the way of rational and or critical thinking skills.
Could not have said it any better than that... *** (gold stars)
It has never ceased to amaze me that the biggest pussies i have ever seen line up as conservatives. Would anyone consider Savage, Gibson, Covuto, Hannity, Limbaugh or these two goofs as real men? It is so sad when Coulter, Malkin and Ingram are the ones with the biggest testicles on the conservative bandwagon.
Who have you got on the left? Woman, only. At least you're honest and don't claim to have the biggest balls, or any. It's probably better that the left lets women do all the talking for them, it makes them sound more compassionate.
Who are you talking about? We really don't have anyone, as the media is dominated by the right wing hacks mostly. We've got Olbermann, who I would place bets on in a fight over O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Savage, or anyone else the right could put up.
I'd place money on Al Franken. He doesn't look very wussy to me.
Are you going to tell us that your dad can beat up our dads?
It looks to me like that's where you're headed with this.
And it also looks like you're implying that Coulter, Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, et al are real tough guys. They all have one thing in common, they play at being tough guys. But it requires more than acting, sometimes you actually have to have shown that you can do more than talk.
Here's a clue, no one buys that anymore.
Actually, I don't need anyone to speak for me. Unlike right wing nuts that are insecure in they're belief system and need someone to tell them what they believe, I can stand up for my own beliefs. I don't need a thousand and one radio shock jocks to help me.
"Coulter, Malkin and Ingram are the ones with the biggest testicles"
That would definitely be the impression. But, I'd like to see "She Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken" make her tough cracks in the real world. Her well-paid right wing JOB is to p1ss people off, but from within a safe coccon. There's a reason she needs body guards wherever she goes.
hey, how does pussies compare to fggot? oh, yeah. i forgot. i shouldn't paint the left off the words of one of its many supporters, and should just call for an elevated discussion, slamming you for your choice of words.
bah. i don't have the energy. i'll just move on...
to address the substance of your comment, it may be that since the female conservatives are already cleaning liberal clocks, the guys can sit back and laugh over their cigars and chivas regal. heck, why do the heavy work? save up strength for 2008... maw
Cleaning liberal clocks? man you get more delusional with every post. Third grade namecalling is just juvinile and thats all the Coulters and Malkins have. Now Coulter did do a couple of debates with Franken and even her supporters admitted he took her to school. She got drubbed. You have clearly lost all touch with reality
These little College Republicans need to close their Ayn Rand novels, get out in the world, and grow up.
Books? Har.
"Books?"
HBL, that reminds me of a "discussion" I had with my sister-in-law who, after an early retiremnt found herself with time on her hands. She has become an avid FOX News junkie, a huge Bill O'Reilly fan, and now considers herself extremely well-informed and politically astute. I asked her what books and periodicals she reads to supplement her knowledge... and I was met with a cold, silent stare. Quite funny, had you been there...
But, to be fair, I undertand there is a considerable body of science fiction by the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, "She Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken", and other far right lunatics in which they describe a fictionalized America, and its collective media, dominated by sinister, power hungry, left wing forces who hate America and subversvisely work for its downfall. I understand these fictional works are quite popular in some circles of easily manipulated readers who often confuse these works of fiction for reality.
They need to enlist is what they need to do.
Yeah, but look at that little punk in the picture above. He'd never make it through basic training.
Hey Lowry, for the press to be all up in arms about Bill Maher calling for or advocating the assassination of the Vice President, he would have had to actually done such a thing. But, I suppose, if you and the rest of the right keep LYING about what Maher said, you'll never have to express outrage over the fact that Coulter actually DID advocate the assassination of USSC Justice Stevens and President Clinton (while President).
And Mattera? Thanks for clearing up that you, the audience of CPAC and Coulter all agree that the word Coulter used IS, indeed, a slur intended to insult one's masculinity as lacking - therefore borne of the sexism held against male homosexuals AND that she was REALLY defending Isaiah Washington - who used the term to verbally attack someone who IS homosexual.
Also good to know Mattera, that you think college students need "Communication 101" phrased in schoolyard insults to get any "political" point.
What have we learned from these two? That lying about your opponents' statements is somehow NOT "manufactured outrage". That College Republicans need to interact on grade school communication levels, because they are incapable of following all that fancy schmancy stuff about actual policy. And that calling a heterosexual man a gay slur is not a slur against homosexuals if you're doing it in defense of someone who used it against a homosexual.
And the Byzantine thought process of the right continues to flounder in audacity.
"the Byzantine thought process of the right"
Correct... and yet contemporarily sophomoric at the same time.
Gibson, Lowry and Mattera discussing Coulter. Yes, it's Fair & Balanced as only Fox can deliver. Aside from the fact that Maher apparently said nothing approaching what Lowry, Gibson, et. al. claimed he said, the false outrage of their rant against someone proposing violence as a political tool is pretty ironic, given that it is frequently the first response of today's political right. Coulter, of course, has been well-documented when she has wished violent death on a wide range of people (the NY Times, Middle Easterners generically, etc.). John (War on Christmas) Gibson publicly wished that terrorists would attack Paris.
As for Lowry, compare these two quotes in the same segment and ponder his cynicism:
LOWRY: Well, look, the word, John, it's a schoolyard slur. You don't really expect anyone over the age of about 12 to use it [anyone or Ann Coulter, who he is defending], especially in polite company. But it's not the biggest thing in the world. She meant it as a joke, and obviously the way that the Democrats and the press are using it is entirely opportunistic and ridiculous... So the whole -- it's a typical kind of manufactured controversy all around, I think.
...And, you know, also the Democrats -- Howard Dean went out of his way to highlight Ann's remark and make it a controversy. Republicans should be doing the same thing with Bill Maher.
I would like to ask Mr. Lowry whether he thinks manufacturing a controversy is a good thing or not. On one hand he condemns it when he says the Democrats are doing it, while on the other he advocates the Republicans doing it. Coulter (as even many conservatives admit) makes her living by being controversial, so accusing the Democrats of "making" her latest intentionally controversial comments "a controversy" is really a rather ineffectual argument.
Lowry also complains that the press the press wants to portray Ann's remark as "typical of all conservatives." Hopefully it is not, but Lowry, Gibson and Mattera are all here defending her on the conservative media flagship Fox News, so it must be fairly widespread. Hint to Lowry: If you don't want to be tarred with the same brush as Ann, don't go on television and make excuses for her.
As for Mattera, he is a featherweight with delusions of grandeur. My favorite moment for him was when, while touting the war in Iraq, Chris Matthews asked him if he would serve, to which he replied "I'm fighting the battle for ideas..." Of course his greatest salvo in this battle was the "White Scholarship," a piece of apparent political theatre aimed at affirmitive action. It was a sophomoric stunt worthy of his hero Coulter, rendered flacid by the fact that Mattera is a Puerto Rican student who was the recipient of a minority scholarship.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/18/whites.only.scholars/
Matera is an absolute hypocrite. Thanks for the link. No one is forcing him to accept his $5000 scholarship. If he really thinks it is unfair, he should give it back. You can't accept a scholarship and criticize it at the same time and expect to be taken seriously.
Is this some version of conservative Puerto Rican guilt?
"It was a sophomoric stunt worthy of his hero Coulter..."
Exactly... and very revealing, too. Last night I heard "She Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken" refer to "f4ggot" as a "schoolyard taunt". Taking her at her word, apparently she is describing the intellectual level of her political "commentary". She is an educated woman who get paid millions to hurl "schoolyard taunts" about people with opposing political views.
Actually, she is nothing more than a roght wing Republican freak sideshow. She's entertainment for the bizarre tastes of the right wing Republican crowd. She is Don Rickles with a better education... but lacking any discernable comdeic talent.
Precisely correct, as were your earlier comments that were mixed up in the "suppression of free speech by liberals" harrangue above.
People should remember that "free speech" is a limitation on governmental power to suppress the same, and has nothing to do with people of conscience finding it morally reprehensible that a large segment of society would laugh (and then like CNN promote for financial gain) comments that are hateful to a large segment of our citizenry. It's like the "right of the right" to quit buying Dixie Chicks stuff in terms of the legal issue (the moral equivalent is highly distinguishable between someone making fair political comment at the risk of losing a career versus someone making near-obscene comment to make more money)...as long as the government doesn't tell the chicks they can't bash bush, their "rights" are not violated. As long as the government doesn't stop Coulter, neither are hers. And interest groups have the right to use the power of their purse to influence advertising even if they are short-sighted and stupid and totally backfires when it comes to the chicks).
The real issue in my view is not whether this was offensive to Edwards, but whether it was unreasonably offensive to the very large percentage of Americans who would view it as crude and obnoxiously offensive to use a slur like that and then for others to defend it as okay because school kids routinely use it in an obnoxious, offensive manner. If she had said "As a previous poster intimated, had she said Edwards is a "n....r" would she have been saying he was one? If she said it because she was trying to suggest that he bore similarities to old stereotypes venomously associated with blacks, do you think the people present would have laughed? Once upon a time they would have. Hopefully, one day, more people will be offended when somebody uses this term in a derogatory manner, not because it demeans the person at whom it is specifically directed, but because it demeans all of the people in the class depicted by the slur.
"...whether it was unreasonably offensive to the very large percentage of Americans who would view it as crude and obnoxiously offensive..."
Thank you, Olive... you "get it". I believe many Republicans were understandably offended, too. The disturbing part is that elements on the far right who control the flow of party propaganda do not view this offensive crudeness in politics as offensive.
The Republican Party used to be ahead of the curve... and one reason was because they were so good at defining issues that were important. Now the Republican Party is behind the curve... people are fed up with Iraq and with nasty, personally destructive politics. On those issues the Republicans are way behind the curve.
They are either too stubborn or too stupid to learn and that has weakened their party greatly. Worse, yet, there is growing divisiveness within the Republican Party as it attempts to re-define itself to win the 2008 Presidential election. Whereas it was very much an ideological monolith they can't hold that together today. George W. Bush was the proverbial "perfect storm" at their moment in history. Now they're again struggling to to define themselves and keep everyone inside the tent. But they're p1ssing off too many people... including some of their own far right base.
I hope this woman continues trash talking over the next year, as last night she promised to do, As personally annoying as it is to read her vile utterances, it's better for us in the long run. Let her keep talking... and let's continue to keep the record straight.
I grew up in Texas and had the "schoolyard taunt" of "f*ggot" aimed at me a number of times. It's meant to say that you are gay, whether you are or not, and gay is meant to be the worst thing a man can be. Often the taunt is accompanied by physical violence. It's interesting that so many right wingers diminish what Coulter or Washington said by saying, "I heard that in school all the time". That indicates to me that they were the ones dishing it out or they were laughing at someone else who was.
I think what Coulter does, that she's unaware of, is she holds a mirror up to the far right. When they laugh and cheer when she calls someone a "f*ggot" she exposes their bigotry. When she talks about the Bible 5 minutes later, she exposes their hypocrisy. Growing up around the religious right I learned a long time ago how many of them are bigots and bullies.
Holy moly.
AC's website now only has advertisements for Young America's Foundation (right wing org) and a bunch of ads for the "Conservative Book Club" -- in addition to a classmates.com ad banner at the top.
When her sponsors said they were pulling the plug, they weren't kidding.
This muct be such distressing news for her,,, perhaps she might want to give Michael Savage a call to compare notes and both ventilate a little about the left. It's bad to bottle things up inside you... she should express herself more. Don't hold back this time, girl...
Maybe, and I do say maybe, people are starting to realize that indeed she is a horribly bigotted person, who doesn't deserve this exposure, and monies that are coming to her, and that her sponsors are now realizing this, and are pulling funding and or sponsorship of what she does, and what she represents. Because she does not represent mainstream America, or I don't even think she represents mainstream republicans for that matter, but it does make them look bad. If republican political figures were smart, they would divest themselves of her as quickly as possible, stop giving her speaking engagements, and stop using her to rally the troops, because in a word she is, horrible.
She tosses out far right lunacy as far as the eye can see, and that's going to be bad for republicans in the next year and a half or so. People are tiring of her, and others like her, bringing the discussion down to attack ads, and just plain old attacking other people, not on their ideas, but on a personal level. I have yet to hear her and many others like her, utter any kind of argument that is well thought out, persuassive, and based in actual fact and reality. They instead have taken the Karl Rove playbook, as it were, and decided to attack the messengers instead of their ideas.
I can only hope that more people realize this, and send in letters to her sponsors urging them to pull their sponsorships of her hate speak, and that maybe eventually, she will become a thing of the past, and we'll not miss her one bit. The talking and writing that she does, does absolutely nothing to further discussion in this country, and does nothing to improve it, but instead, she breeds hatred.
People are tired of this crap. Look, Michael Savage, Melanie Morgan and even this woman may blame the left for their woes, but it's still all about money. Sponsors and agents aren't going to touch controversial figures if their research and instincts tell them the public in general is sick of the person. I am very optimistic that people are coming to their senses about the political situation in America and are tired of the nastiness in politics.
They only have themselves to blame for any woes that they encounter. You know that, I know that, but I don't think that they realize that. I do believe that they believe that they are above it all, and can say, and or do whatever they want with no consequence. And then when something does happen to them (Coulter's sponsors pulling ads and such) they will of course blame the "liberal media". You know, that same old liberal media that keeps giving them a forum for mostly their hate speak (as far as it pertains to Coulter). They should realize maybe where their paychecks are coming from? Yes, the same media that they decry and bleat about all of the time. I do sincerly hope that this is the start of the undoing of Ann Coulter, and I hope she keeps ratcheting it up, and keeps saying stupid thing after stupid thing, because it is starting to come back to bite her now, and I want to see more of it. I'm hoping for her downfall into obscurity, because it will be much better for everyone out there.