Ann Coulter Pwned thanks to Pat (r.i.p.) Tillman's mother

unfair

Because trife has read Ann Coulter's "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism" and knows that Chomsky isn't mentioned once. Also, no one on the right would lump Chomsky in with "liberals."

this woulda been neat, and no doubt Pat was looking forward to it.

that's because there are so many other colorful adjectives to use when describing Chomsky.

*preens*

Okay, okay I get the joke!

Hey, Ethan Padgett, I think that your headlong quest to provide us all with our "much-needed" devil's advocacy is leading you down some very dark roads. The writer of that article is not making up false invented quotes and you know it, because you understand the meaning of the word "probably." Damn.

http://scumby.com/~wes/Bman98/Seven/DSC00006.JPG

BTW how on earth did Coulter become editor of law review?

at Michigan, no less. it's clear that she isn't stupid. perhaps she was less troubled then. or maybe she was just as much of a bully.

Hahahahaha! Yes.

xpost

Being nasty about Ann Coulter's looks is not sinking to her level. To suggest so is to disrepect the awesome fearless rhetorical depths to which Ann Coulter is willing to dive. Give her some credit.

I'm listening to a lot of ICP right now so pretty much every mean joke referenced on this thread has been slaying me.

Possibly because the right-wing pundits of Coulter's type routinely equate Chomsky (or, more likely, groups like ANSWER and their NORTH KOREAN SPYMASTERS) with everyone to the left of Bush as well as equate Chomsky's opposition to US policy with outright treason on a regular basis. (Actually, they tend to equate things much less objectionable than Chomsky's beliefs to treason.)

When does devil's advocacy cross over into playing dumb?

trife why do you do this stuff?

x-post

...is the GREATEST...

(Ha, the Ethan edit: Chomsky is "the sort of person Coulter routinely accuses of treason.")

I haven't heard this but it sounds awesome!!!!! If you'd asked me 6 months ago what it would take to get interested in Psychopathic Records again, I probably would have described something exactly like this.

I actually agree with you that the "edit" version is better and realer and more specific and more damning and doesn't leave wiggle room for the person in question to say "look, I never said that" -- so you're right, rhetorically, it's way preferable. But the meanings and inferences aren't spread that far apart.

Technically, I think he was mocking you for sophistry.

XPOST DAMN YOUR FAST DIGITS

Good Times was recorded in front of a live studio audience

haha, so Ann Coulter is like a neo-con female Andy-Kaufman-cum-Karen-Finley? Where do the yams come in?

Actually, never mind. I just upchucked.

Keith Olbermann says Rush Limbaugh doesn't believe a word of his own shit, either. He's a frustrated sportscaster who lucked into a big-money gig giving handjobs to frustrated white men across the nation.

gypsy, you sound a little like somebody in a comedy club who, after the guy on stage has just slayed the room, walks out muttering "his stuff is weak"

haha, well I've never been in a room that was slayed by Ann Coulter. Until now, maybe.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy has demanded that the Bush administration waive attorney-client privilege and release internal memos John Roberts worked on while in the solicitor general's office 15 years ago, all of which were supposed to be held in the deepest confidence. Apparently, Kennedy thinks public officials have no right to keep even their attorney-client communications secret.

This surprised me because the senator is such a strong advocate of the (nonexistent) "right to privacy." And not just in the way most drunken, Spanish quiz-cheating, no-pants-wearing public reprobates generally cherish their own personal right to privacy. I mean privacy in the abstract.

I know as much about the "right to privacy" as I know about any other made-up, nonexistent right, but I would have thought that any "right to privacy" would protect confidential attorney-client conversations at least as much as, say, abortions in public buildings.

But I'll have to defer to the expert.

Consequently, applying the principle even-handedly to members of the executive branch as well as the legislative branch, I demand that Kennedy immediately waive all attorney-client privilege relating to his communications with his lawyer after he drove Mary Jo Kopechne off the bridge at Chappaquiddick. It's time to clear up, once and for all, the many questions that have swirled around Kennedy since Chappaquiddick.

Oops — "swirled" may have been a poor choice of words there. How about "floated"? Nope. "Surfaced"? Oooh — even worse, in terms of irony. "Come to light"? OK, now I'm just being obtuse. "Beset"? Yes, that's better.

Ha ha! Chappaquiddick! Never gets old.

Or how about this:

To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week's sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

I'm not sure what "moral authority" is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America's foreign policy, then no, it is not "absolute." It's not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

OMG! I hadn't thought of that! Or what if you had two dead sons, a maimed daughter and an incontinent terrier? ROFFLES

Etc. Plenty more here for those who can't get enough.

When the Pro Bowler joined the Army Rangers...

Uh, I don't think he ever went to the Pro-Bowl.

Keith Olbermann says Rush Limbaugh doesn't believe a word of his own shit, either. He's a frustrated sportscaster who lucked into a big-money gig giving handjobs to frustrated white men across the nation.

Is that aimed at Olbermann or Limbaugh?

Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of freepers leap to Moore's defense every time somebody makes a fat joke. And I'm sure those people are allowed to stick around and aren't immediately banned.

xpost Walter, did you see the Team America thread a while back? Even on a boardful of North Korea admirers there were like three guys going "whatever, that movie was pretty funny, chill out."

On free republic? Or here? I don't see what you're getting at. My point was that this thread is not the left wing equivalent of a freeper/moore thread. If it were half of the posters here would have been banned by now.

Oh yeah, like the crusader jihad rant that got her bounced from National Review. I was just picking randomly, looking for signs of hilarity. The immediate resort to Chappaquiddick just illustrates what I mean about her reliance on moth-eaten right-wing greatest hits. She rarely has anything remotely new to say, and when she does, it tends to be of the deliberately "provocative" Joe-McCarthy-was-right variety. So daring.

I could swear it was the regular NFL show on CBS with Boomer Esiason et al, because I'm pretty sure I saw it (I don't have cable/watch Sportscenter).

Ted Kennedy's act of vehicular homicide is timeless and will be hilarious until he falls off the wagon and does it again. It's kind of sad that he got clean and sober, because that really limited the amount of time he can hang with rapist cousins.

Has Hannity ever taken a Republican to task for anything? I can't bear the sight or sound of that retard so I don't know. I can only assume that the answer is no.

I await the defense of "Mallard Fillmore" next...

umm, yeah. in further news, americans line up to watch man in pit bite head off chicken. ROFFLEZ.

(xpost)

that person is so much worse than ann coulter could ever be.

(he says, anticipating a 75-post digression into sabrmetrics)

-- Aug. 18, 2004
(she also calls Kerry "French" in the hedline of that one, hahaha)

There is a liberal bias in national media. Christians are an oppressed minority. Ann Coulter's opinion matters to anyone of consequence, anywhere.

Nope, still not funny.

Then lets see her try to tell an Ole & Lena joke and see if she's still high-lah-rious.

see, the more you contemptuously dismiss her, the more you sound exactly those academic lefties she tears down every week - condescending and clueless. i mean, listen to yourself. she's a "niche"? maybe like mad magazine was a "niche" magazine in the early 70s, i.e. it had inspired an entire industry.

But no, I don't think her "comedy" is her big selling point. I read some of her chapter defending Joe McCarthy, and there wasn't a laugh line anywhere, funny or otherwise. When she says liberals are guilty of treason, I don't hear a "ha ha" in there. I guess you can call it comedy the way pro wrestling is comedy, but it's really the simulated bloodlust that gets the crowds going.

xpost

Um, really? Evidence please. I seriously doubt that she's "astoundingly popular".

and profoundly depressing for you, if you both live in america and really believe that americans are, en masse, so hateful.

What an incredibly delusional argument. So the masses of people who love Limbaugh and voted for Bush are just taking the piss as well?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/db/220px-Ann_coulter_time_magazine.jpg

cover story 5 years stale, of course, but still...

What are these left wing think tanks?

hmm. no actual idea if any of them have done so yet, but there are groups like Brookings or Rockridge...

The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT at Harvard is 170. That's a difference of approximately 1 1/2 standard deviations, a differential IQ experts routinely refer to as "big-ass" or "humongous."

YELLOW CARD.

YELLOW FUCKIN CARD.

"You rang?" *cries while violin plays*

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Universities, network news channels and the NY Times buy liberal books in bulk to mess with the bestseller list? Follow the conversation dude.

http://www.clifburns.us/photos/coulter_pie.jpg

(haha ILE shitstorm in t-45 seconds)

Maybe she meant "rapper"

vs.

hustler's jerry falwell ad

=

not incredibly different!

I mean I'm pretty much with you in this thing, at least in theory, ethan but that's a little bit of a stretch. I mean if Bill Clinton gave a fuck about anything he coulda had her ass for something like that (assuming she doesn't immediately disclaim it in the article or her speech or whatever).

xpost also nabisco kind of OTM, those are the same thing. Also yeah I'm pretty sure he could--I mean didn't OJ take some people to court? And we all know that OJ killed those people, c'mon.

oh man, how's THAT for a mental image!

Or well significantly different, but along the same spectrum; obviously everyone understood Hustler was not making a specific legal claim that Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse (or whatever it was), whereas Coulter rides that line where she can call people types of things (treasonous, rapist, murderer) in enough of a vague dismissive context that it's not an actual libellous accusation.

"In 1997, Drudge wrote: "'There are court records of Blumenthal's violence against his wife,' one influential republican, who demanded anonymity, tells the DRUDGE REPORT.” Drudge retracted the story, but did not apologize to the Blumenthal family. Blumenthal filed suit against Drudge. While Blumenthal had to pay for attorneys out of his own pocket, Drudge relied on funding from right-wing groups (one of the main sources of funding was David Horowitz who recently libeled David Brock when he ironically accused Brock of libeling him). Blumenthal had to drop the lawsuit and pay court costs, not because of the merits of his case, but rather because of the right’s deep pockets. "

http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/

really? not even after that pro-life activist dude said on the radio last year that he used to fuck goats?

I mean for the record I don't give a shit if she libels people and yes OTM that there's really no point in suing Ann Coulter et al unless you're an equally powerful and well funded individual.

xpost

xpost dude that's massively different!

xpost

From what I can tell Coulter rarely says anything specific. She's unlikely to say "I believe that Bill Clinton raped X person on X evening based on X evidence," which would constitute an allegation -- she'll just say stuff like "Clinton's a sleazy white-trash rapist" or "Kennedy's a drunken murderer" or whatever else, these kind of half-interpretive things. The fact that she has an audience makes those things dangerous, because she normalizes the opinion without ever having to dip into the world of actual facts. But as rhetoric in themselves, they're just further along the same spectrum that contains, say, "George Bush is a total retard" (to which Bush might respond with an IQ test indicating average intelligence).

Nobody here has accused Coulter of being a serial rapist. We can throw around extreme accusations (humorous or not) all day long. Why are you trying to hold ilxors to a standard that the journalist you're defending doesn't meet?

but let's go back to this cop libel thing, how do we make this happen.

The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In most jurisdictions, private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent: that he failed to act with due care in the situation.

Really? You don't say?

Falwell didn't sue Hustler for libel. Falwell sued him for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The holding in the case established that the preexisting standards regarding parody in the context of libel also apply to other causes of action when the subject of the action is speech.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/485/46.html

"In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i. e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true."

-- _ (...), October 13th, 2005 4:27 PM. (later) (link)

Now that was funny!

a bottle in one hand
a can in the other
don't fool around 'cause they're real
mean mothers

Marjorie Strayer insisted she was just a Virginian on vacation in Miami... But Strayer, it turns out, is a top aide to New Mexico's Republican Congresswoman, Heather Wilson, and was one of hundreds of paid G.O.P. crusaders who descended on South Florida last Wednesday to protest the state's recounts. "The system is unfair, inaccurate, fraught with human error!" Strayer cried. In a Winnebago outside, G.O.P. operatives orchestrated the ranks up to the 19th floor, hoping to halt the tally of the largest potential lode of Gore votes.

... But the G.O.P.'s march turned into a mob. The screaming, the pounding on doors and the alleged physical assaults on Democrats suddenly made a bemused public queasy. "I'm all for anyone's right to protest," says Miami-Dade Democratic chairman Joe Geller, who had to have a police escort. "These were Brownshirt tactics."

The Jesse Jackson statement is probably defamation per se, meaning that it is a false, facially defamatory statement of fact. Morever, it appears to have been made with actual malice e.g. a blatant disregard for the truth, so it would probably survive a motion to dismiss. Problem would be proving damages; it's unlikely that Jackson could demonstrate that the statement caused him any real damage because ONLY CRAZY PEOPLE BELIEVE STUFF ANN COULTER SAYS.

that is a rather striking image

1. To hold the position of authority; act as chairperson or president.
2. To possess or exercise authority or control.

Mebbe, but only if we're talking about def. 2 of 'riot'. I think there's a case to made that it's an oxymoron. "Queen of the Anarchists" sure is!

Besides, oxymorons aren't neccesarily bad. Neither are malapropisms.

what, you don't work with anybody with a cameraphone?

i flipped through it the other day at the bookstore and chomsky is mentioned once in the first chapter along with a bunch of other liberals. given that the book's thesis is that all liberals are "traitors" i think it's safe to say that yes, ann coulter probably thinks noam chomsky is a traitor.

-- gear (speed.to.roa...), October 13th, 2005.

OTM! why else do they walk around naked, their anuses exposed, their cute lil' curly tails hanging above the heaven that lies within.

Oh, and I finally got amazon to work, and according to the index of the book Chomsky shows up on page 14. I have no idea what the context is, though.

As for Chomsky, whom Ann Coulter would undoubtedly label "treasonous,"

unfair

-- _ (...), October 12th, 2005 3:04 PM. (later) (link)

I don't see how that supports your more charitable take, Dan.

the kind of unsubstantiated, guilt-by-supposition grade-d bullhockey (that can be made deliciously appetizing with skillful comedic formulation) does not serve progressive interests, because it does not promote rationality and an understanding of the facts - conservatives and bullies always do better in a climate of fear and confusion, and ann is total master of that

Seemed to me to be very well put, and a beliveable statement.

She means shit over here, anyway, so back to lurking on this thread.

This is not the same thing at all -- there are no legitimate grounds for saying that, very much unlike the statement about Coulter. After 320-plus posts I don't suppose it really matters anymore and shame on me for still taking the bait. Just two things to say, though:

A.) I think it's pretty weird that you picked that one line out of the original piece and tried (successfully, so point to you) to divert the thread into "defend the indefensible: Ann Coulter" rather than any discussion of the (to me) much more interesting story of Pat Tillman and his family. I still haven't figured out what your motives are.

B.) The statement about Chomsky and Coulter was pretty simple deduction, ergo:

-- Ann Coulter has called lots of people like Noam Chomsky traitors.
-- Lots of people like Ann Coulter have called Noam Chomsky a traitor.
-- Ann Coulter would probably call Noam Chomsky a traitor.

That's not unfair -- treason is one of Coulter's favorite charges against anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman, as you surely know if you're as big a fan of hers as you purport to be. And Chomsky being well to the left of Lieberman, and being (along with Susan Sontag) the favorite lefty-intellectual whipping boy for the right post-9/11, there is plenty of grounds to believe that Coulter would call him and his statements about the war on terra treasonous. It's not in any way misrepresenting her stated and well documented views to make that assumption; it follows logically from them. If somehow that turned out to be false, and she's actually a grudging admirer of Chomsky (or even an enthusiastic devotee), then I think we would all be very surprised. But that statement is a statement of probability -- hence the "probably" -- which necessarily acknowledges the statistical possibility that it is not true, however slim that possibility may be.

Criminy.

2) everyone in this thread keeps saying she would "probably". the article does not say "probably", it says "undoubtably". this is not about what ann coulter might or might not think of chomsky, its about a misleading, falsified quote which she did not say (or if she did, they were too lazy to actually look up), even if she may well agree with it

Even if it were so, if Ann Coulter can dish out unfair, unjournalistic accusations on a weekly basis, then surely she should be able to withstand them? Your role as champion & defender of the Coulter grows increasingly ridiculous.

I'm sorry, I take it back: you are an asshole after all.

this is kind of bullshit

i think the statement in the article can be correctly labelled "unfair," as dude did in his first post, but not neccessarily inaccurate. nowhere does the writer state or even really imply that coulter HAS called chomsky treasonous. it's pretty clear that the intent is to imply that she very likely WOULD.

I was, however, pretty confused by trife's apologia for Coulter's libel, while at the same time being defending her against a far less serious defamation (misattribution).

I can't believe this insanity. THIS IS ANN COULTER we're talking about, people. It's unfair to call her "horse-faced", but it's not unfair to call her a lying sack of shit. Neither is it unfair to say that she calls liberals and leftists, including Chomsky, treasonous-SHE WROTE A BOOK ON IT. Furthemore, to contend that you have to source EVERY claim you've ever made defies common sense.

The thread was not about Chomsky, it was about PAT TILLMAN and HIS MOTHER.

Let me try asking the question this way: Ethan, do you think Ann Coulter would probably call Noam Chomsky treasonous, based on what you know of both her and him? Why or why not?

As for derailing the thread, you planted your flag on a 7-word nonessential clause. Have you even said anything about Pat Tillman? Has anyone?

it doesnt matter whether she wd or wdnt, its just not a fact

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=undoubtedly

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=probably

but that's just me!

journalist ascribes some reportorial process of facts. Chick's a pundit if there ever was one.

I think her purpose is double-edged; both as a troll to the left side, as well as some sorta uninhibited Id for the rightwingers.

I am reminded Dan Savage's essay(in terms of id) from just after the election essentially saying, "fuck 'em. let those who vote for the fuckheads face the results of fucked policy."

But, does that make him a hero? I guess it's a matter of perspective. For people in the United States, who seem to be unable to admit the stupidity of both the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, such a trade-off in life standards (if not expectancy) is nothing short of heroic. Obviously, the man must be made of "stronger stuff" to have had decided to "serve" his country rather than take from it. It's the old JFK exhortation to citizen service to the nation, and it seems to strike an emotional chord. So, it's understandable why Americans automatically knee-jerk into hero worship.

elmo = http://media.dailycollegian.com/pages/tillman_lobandwidth.html

its just not a fact

with

i flipped through [Ann Coulter's book 'Treason'] the other day at the bookstore and chomsky is mentioned once in the first chapter along with a bunch of other liberals. given that the book's thesis is that all liberals are "traitors" i think it's safe to say that yes, ann coulter probably thinks noam chomsky is a traitor.

You guys do realize that you're adopting the rightwingblog meme "forged but accurate" for your own purposes, right? Doesn't anybody else except for Ned actually monitor this stuff?

American hero Pat Tillman won a Silver Star this year. But unlike Kerry, he did not write his own recommendation or live to throw his medals over the White House fence in an anti-war rally.

Tillman was an American original: virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be. The stunningly handsome athlete walked away from a three-year, $3.6 million NFL contract with the Arizona Cardinals to join the U.S. military and fight in Afghanistan, where he was killed in April.

He wanted no publicity and granted no interviews about his decision to leave pro football in the prime of his career and join the Army Rangers. (Most perplexing to Democrats, he didn't even take a home movie camera to a war zone in order to create fake footage for future political campaigns in which he would constantly palaver about his military service and drag around his "Band of Brothers" for the media.)

Tillman gave only an indirect explanation for his decision on the day after 9-11, when he said: "My great grandfather was at Pearl Harbor, and a lot of my family has gone and fought in wars, and I really haven't done a damn thing as far as laying myself on the line like that." He said he wanted to "pay something back" to America.

He died bringing freedom and democracy to 28 million Afghans – pretty much confirming Michael Moore's view of America as an imperialist cowboy predator. There is not another country in the world – certainly not in continental Europe – that could have produced a Pat Tillman.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16492

Agreed, though in general when a lot of people hear the word "journalist" they immediately think of Coulter or Bill O'Reilly, not Anthony Shadid or Peter Gosselin. Which is why every reporter worth their salt fucking hates the word "journalist."

Do research plz thx

The Portland, Ore., chapter of Indymedia.org posted the news of Tillman's death accompanied by this headline: "Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan." Some who posted comments suggested alternate titles for the piece, like "Privileged Millionaire, Blinded by Nationalist Mythology, Pisses Away the Good Life," "Cottled Sports Star Allows Nationalism to Foster Jingoistic Irresponsibility Resulting in His Death," and "Capitalist Chooses to Kill Innocents Instead of Cashing Check."

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2004/04/28/11520.html

(i admit that the article might be confusing headlines with comments or forum topics)

Why do you want to defend her so much? I think you luv her!

(plz note presence of very same meme I just referenced)

xpost

why is coulter singled out for pwnage over her comments, when the alternative seems to have been-

uhm, this is an ann coulter thread, thus the shocking singling-out.

i live out here, and much of the local indymedia types are plenty fucked. hell, most of indymedia types across the country are plenty fucked.

And of course the same is true of anyone on the left who made knee-jerk attempts to try and tear down the jock-hero mythology being erected by the right. Both sides have tried to squeeze this person into some sort of narrative that fits with their beliefs, and -- as always -- it means he's existed as a media concept more so than a person. Now one piece of information develops that complicates things by revealing him as (shock) an actual complex three-dimensional person, and all those who did that shaping -- whether on the left or the right -- are going to have to come out into that realm of seriousness and fairness. We'll see who's decent enough to manage that and who clings to the media silly putty.

Simple enough.

Now that's just sorry.

xpost, nitsuh otm

I don't really trust your judgment on that.

uhm, this is an ann coulter thread,

anyway, dude kingfish, he's not talking about the thread, I mean things exist outside of ilx! He meant the article which I also think is a fair point until you realize where the article comes from and then it's like, duhh they love her.

Like Ann Coulter isn't proven wrong very often? Come on.

still, why the focus on her? I dunno. Probably just a prominent person who one side tends to like and one side REALLY doesn't like being caught in a bit of cognitive dissonance/BEAR IS DRIVING HOW CAN THIS BE!!!?1 moment, as nabisco mentioned upthread, and didn't handle it that well.

Like Ann Coulter isn't proven wrong very often? Come on.

yeah, but not necessarily live on the air.

And quite frankly it's kind of a lot funnier to me that people who said really horrible, awful shit about Pat Tillman have been "pwned" by reality than it being funny that people who supported him are also pwned.

XPOST NOBODY IS FUCKING SUGGESTING THAT. WHAT IS BEING SAID HERE IS THAT IT IS NEITHER BIG NOR CLEVER OR REALLY PARTICULARLY FUNNY AND Y'ALL REALLY DON'T NEED TO PAT YOURSELVES ON THE BACK COS ANN COULTER IS A CARTOON CHARACTER.

xpost with ally/dan otm as usual

(xpost. Glad you're all one big happy family who can all miss the point together.)

(I mean, this thread wouldn't have been nearly this long if we were talking about the article, for the reasons you state!)

xpost w/ dan haha

No Dan, I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about the fact that there's a vaguely written, but ultimately fair, statement in the article, and the line of argument on this thread is that because it's not well sourced anybody WHO AGREES WITH THE STATEMENT (which I do although I don't have much invested in it anyway) is equally wrong and unfair.

YOU GUYS I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FUCKING ARTICLE!

-- Allyzay knows a little German (allyza...), October 14th, 2005 1:42 PM. (allyzay) (later) (link)

Kisses, bitch.

Any woman that actually met the description Coulter just gave out would be shunned and possibly murdered by the psycho DC bitches with their enormous impossibly sprayed and slightly unnaturally colored hair and their bad Talbot's suits. Fuck's sake, Coulter, you know better than this.

Ooooh, bad Talbot's suits. PWND

really now, ilx.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
- Try fewer keywords.

you said:
I'm talking about the fact that there's a vaguely written, but ultimately fair, statement in the article, and the line of argument on this thread is that because it's not well sourced anybody WHO AGREES WITH THE STATEMENT (which I do although I don't have much invested in it anyway) is equally wrong and unfair.

so then I said:
no actually ethan never said that.

so then you were all like:
Ok, you're being dense. Please read Nitsuh's long post above and then explain to me why we're still talking about this.

so I'm all:
wtf does any of Nitsuh's posts have to do with the words that ethan actually wrote? [ed. note: because AFAICT, you are either referring to his post where he dissemates the word "undoubtably," which has nothing to do with "anybody WHO AGREES WITH THE STATEMENT [...] is equally wrong and unfair," or the one where ethan said he was OTM, about two sides exploiting the same person etc etc]

then you're like "Whut?" and ethan was like "You go girl!" and then it was like snap Talbot's suits!

Better?

dude my mom was watching Fox News the other night and she said he was on it, claiming he was abducted by aliens.

Just pick a random point in the middle of the thread and start reading there again. Same thing.

see? check the label!

AFAICT, you are either referring to his post where he dissemates the word "undoubtably," which has nothing to do with "anybody WHO AGREES WITH THE STATEMENT [...] is equally wrong and unfair,"

Ah, I get it. Hang on and I'll explain what I meant.

"Excellent!" she said. "Excellent. It is a good thing, not a bad thing, to be attacked by the enemy."

I'd say never, since nobody outside this thread really gives a shit.

Ethan took a thread that by all appearances was originally intended to be about a specific incident and almost immediately turned it into a thread about the the story written about the incident. That's precisely what Fox News does, it's what right wing blogs do, and it's what the White House does. Nitsuh's post was great because it demolished the argument about the story.

This is what I have been trying to talk about all along. This is what I meant when I was talking above about the "ostensible democrats," when I talked about the 'derail,' etc.

As for Tillman, I think he's a fascinating guy. I was sorry he was killed, although at first I admit I assumed he was the flag-waving musclehead that he was painted as by the White House. I admired his determination to get involved after Sept. 11, even if I'm not personally convinced that enlisting was the best way to do that. I did resent the way the right exploited him to advance its own causes (most specifically, the war in Iraq, even though he was killed in Afghanistan). And then as more came out both about him and the circumstances of his death, he became a more and more interesting figure, and his death became more and more sad. That his mother has ended up feeling ill-treated by the administration and the Pentagon is hardly surprising, given which administration and Pentagon we're talking about. And it certainly provides more proof if anyone still needs it of the disconnect between this administration's words and actions. I admire Pat Tillman. I admire his family. I have no time for Ann Coulter. I'm uninterested in indymedia (even though I wrote something for them once, full disclosure -- and was promptly strafed in the comments for reporting things that were at odds with what i.m. readers wanted to hear). And man do I wish we had a different president. I guess that covers it for me.

....

xpost

I'm sorry Dan, but I think it's a fair objection, and if you think I'm dumb for making it, well so be it. I also said upthread that if we had actually been talking about the underlying story, this thread never would have been this long because the story is well meh. Finally ethan, I'm not whining about anything, I'm just pointing out what you did. Care to deny it?

(xpost)

HAH!

With Tillman's new side being offered up to the public, has there been any conspiracy speculation that Tillman was assassinated rather than killed by friendly fire (esp. as it seems like the Army-brass' story kept changing as the facts were being sorted out)?

[1] This is not a word but it should be.

That's true, the story of Tillman's death and the questions surrounding it are interesting. It's the little Tillman vs. Coulter sub-issue that I was referring to as being uninteresting.

For the record, I have a cousin in Iraq and he's never done anything to shatter any of my long-held, lefty stereotypes of soldiers and Republicans. I'll be curious to see what he's like when he gets back though.

The Meeting That Never Was: Pat Tillman and Noam Chomsky
by Dave Zirin

"I don't believe it," seethed Ann Coulter.

I actually didn't catch much of that gloat at the time, but it is totally appalling stuff. That Ted Rall cartoon is disgusting, but as I said upthread, most of what he does is.

Fair enough. Am I still stupid?

(Given the vapid absence of moral ground on the battlefield) does the military investigate friendly-fire deaths with much rigor?

"Some of the left" I could live with.

That depends; do you agree with me now? ;-)

It's clear from the tone and the structure of the article that it is just as much about Coulter's offensive false enfetishment[1] as it is about the tragedy of Pat Tillman's death.

Actually, that's exactly WHY I don't care about this article. It seems too much like schadenfreud.

And yes I agree with you Dan!

I agree and I think it's interesting how upthread Coulter was said to be "astoundingly popular" (admittedly not by "_") but now she's being compared to a small time cartoonist and a free-for-all left-leaning website. I would have to see some evidence of a figure like Moore saying something disgraceful about Tillman for your point to have any weight.

I once wrote an article about a woman who was saved from drowning after she jumped off a bridge. The subject of the first line of the story was a duck. The duck actually played a small supporting role in the narrative that followed. The story was not about the duck.

This seems OTM to me; Tillman died in Afghanistan, a military action that everybody in their right minds supported, and at the time the pentagon/administration/brass somebody had indicated he died fighting enemy fire even though his own damned brother, who was in his unit, knew that wasn't the case.

Because your response to it pissed me off!

anyway this is a l'il cynical, even compared to what i wrote:

...the more moderate factions chose to ignore it because at the time it did not fit into their agenda

unless maybe being respectful of the dead constitutes part of an "agenda" or something.

except for the dudes in guantanamo and abu grahib, who are mostly just dudes.

james yee's interview on leonard lopate today was pretty fascinating.

As much as I would have liked it to be true, this turned out to be false, didn't it?

OK.

but they do represent "much of the left" who commented on tillman's death, the more moderate factions chose to ignore it because at the time it did not fit into their agenda

I'd have to go back and look to see who wrote what. But to the extent there was silence among moderates, it wasn't just because it "didn't fit into their agenda," it's because the way Tillman was being presented by the White House (and people like Coulter) put critics of the war in a no-win situation. Respecting Tillman was explicitly made equivalent to supporting the War on Terror and the president. Critiquing the war was made equivalent to disrespecting Tillman. This is the same support-the-troops game that war boosters always use to box in war skeptics, and Tillman's death allowed them to really play it up.

DALLAS, Nov. 22—Elvira Brown's aging face seems almost to be a map of the parched, weatherbeaten Texas countryside that has been her home for 83 years. Through the eyes that squint in the harsh sunlight, she has seen Dallas grow from a tiny cowtown into a midland capital. The street outside of her tiny house used to be nothing more than a dust trail in summer and a mudhole in winter.

Years ago, she would sit on this porch and watch cattle drives pass. Today, a procession of quite a different sort passed along the now-paved course. It was a motorcade. It flew by at top speed on its way to Parkland Memorial Hospital. Top speed, because, it seems, the President of the United States was inside. And he was dead.

"The documents also show that officers made erroneous initial reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was near the attack on April 22, 2004, but did not witness it."

So I wasn't quite right about that.

This one is a great article.

that's pretty disingenuous. the right acknowledged tillman's death - tho hardly any others (remember the uproar about "nightline" episodes just with troop names pre-empted? - for a specific purpose. in a quite similar way to jessica lynch, actually.

I know he died in Afghanistan -- but the friend who quoted him saying the war was illegal indicated that they were in Iraq at the time.

We were outside of [an Iraqi city] watching as bombs were dropping on the town.... We were talking. And Pat said, 'You know, this war is so f***ing illegal.'

So I'm just wondering if he originally went into Afghanistan having already been turned on to Chomsky and being critical of the administration, or if his mind was changed by / during the run up to Iraq war?

Of course. Hence the argument here (among others) over whether the article -- to the extent it concerns her, which is very little -- is unfair to Ann Coulter. Like I said up above, although "undoubtedly" might be pushing it a little, the statement about Coulter's presumed views of Noam Chomsky doesn't seem unfair. I mean, c'mon -- does anyone seriously think Ann Coulter doesn't think Chomsky's a pinko America-hater?

So to me the issue isn't whether it's OK to be unfair to Ann Coulter just because Ann Coulter is unfair to vast swaths of humanity, it's whether the particular statement is even unfair to start with, and I don't think it is.

"Moved in part by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Tillman decided to give up his career, saying he wanted to fight al Qaeda and help find Osama bin Laden. . . . Instead of going to Afghanistan, as the brothers expected, their Ranger battalion was sent to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Tillmans saw combat several times on their way to Baghdad. In early 2004, they finally were assigned to Afghanistan. "

so is it too much to ask for the army to be upfront about the circumstances of a soldier's death? are they protecting Mary Tillman or themselves?

thing is, i don't think that the details, which do make him ever more human than just state prop, necessarily make him more contradictory. the dude really believed in what he was doing, thus the whole "forsaking" bit. Chomsky informed those beliefs.

Nice.

heh. Reminds me of Jello Biafra's last album: "Oh come ON. even NADER would have bombed Afghanistan!"

Yes, I know support for Afghanistan was much stronger than for Iraq. Do I know that's what Tillman thought? No. It was a sincere question, fuckface.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMNM1.DTL

UNTIL the moderate left realized they could use this against bush (they lied about a dead soldier) they just didnt comment AT ALL

I've seen no "moderate" "left" commentary on Pat Tillman before, during, or after the fact of his unfortunate demise. This may be because I view this whole thing as the sort of highly unfortunate mishap that happens on a battlefield, and not some kind of ideological parable.

this is ages old now but everyone keeps ignoring Ethan, so I wanna reiterate it: Coulter never said anything bad or disgraceful about the man. At all.

August Pollack's take on this thread. He's wrong, but it's kinda interesting anyway.

Who is this 'everyone' you speak of?

Right but Ethan was comparing Coulter's response to "the left's" response and using Indymedia and Ted Rall as his examples. My point is simply that the comparison doesn't make any sense. Coulter never said anything disgraceful but undoubtedly no comparably high-profile figures on the left did either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101302166.html

Oh, I missed your question. I'm mostly a pacifist but it's not like pacifists were the only people with any doubts in the lead up to the Afghanistan war. An in-depth discussion of the issue is probably better left to another thread but I'll just say that I think there are plenty of practical, reasonable reasons to be opposed to the war in Afghanistan.

xpost I'm not sure if comparing Ted Rall and Ann Coulter is a completely off comparison.

Now who's making assumptions? First of all, I don't buy that the moderate left was silent about Tillman; since everybody was talking about him for at least a couple of days, I find it hard to believe that the mainstream liberal punditry didn't weigh in somehow, but I'm gonna go look it up and see what I can find. Second, as a self-identified member of the moderate left, I know that my own reactions were along the lines of, "Well great, here's an obviously well-intentioned guy who went and got killed in Afghanistan, and the White House is going to use this to once again make anyone who questions the war in Iraq look like some kind of soldier-hating traitor." Which is of course what they did, Coulter included -- note her contrast of Tillman's service with what she imagines Kerry's service to have been (speaking of bizarro conspiracy theories, her thing about Kerry staging shit for the cameras so he can get a medal so he can run for president as a war hero...)

I don't think the moderate left was like, "Oh noes, a real war hero! Our effete conscending case against the war is all blown to blooey! We'd better shut up and hope no one notices!"

xpost: Rall is a more marginal figure than Coulter, sells way fewer books, is published fewer places, etc. It's not a completely crazy comparison, but I imagine she'd be insulted by the implication that they're on the same level in some way.

Yeah, that's what I figured. Which is why I specifically pointed out, by linking the post, that not only had I addressed ethan's point as to that very issue, but that I had impliedly agreed with him. So as to, you know, show that not *everyone* "keeps ignoring" him.

also I don't click links. I apologize for lumping you in with walter.

I stopped by a bookstore on the way to work today and flipped through Mlle. Coulter's Treason. Mssr. Chomsky is indeed mentioned on page 14, as indicated above. The context is as follows: His name is included in a list of people (Susan Sarandon, Casey Kasem, etc.) that Coulter identifies as "Hollywood has-beens and never-weres" (I guess Chomsky would be among the Hollywood never-weres) who signed a statement for the group Not in Our Name opposing various aspects of the War on Terror. Coulter sizes up the assemblage as "a group nearly indistinguishable from those who had enthusiastically backed the Soviet Union during the Cold War."

*cue NBC "the more you know" music w/rainbow*

Hi there. I have no idea what happened in this thread.

five bucks to the first person sad enuf to get the comic book ref

After reading it over a few times, I've come to the conclusion that no one did. I, for one, missed one of Dan's posts entirely the first time around, which I suspect is what led to him later saying that I was stupid. trife and I ultimately decided that despite all of the angst that we pretty much agreed with each other but I still didn't like the fact that the entire thread got hung up on one or two words, nitsuh did exactly what is great about nitsuh, ally did what is great about ally, and generally we all got really confused and started sniping at each other. Wish you were here!

sheed wins.

- Steven Katz, The Holocaust in Historical Context, Vol. I, p. 435.

when i put a snarky one-line post up not so long ago abt courtney love being a magnet for misogynists, i attracted a pretty similar self-righteous hostility, from love-haters angrily insisting they were not misogynists: and it's true, some of them certainly aren't => but i still think mention of her brings misogyny buzzing out of the woodwork, and it thinks it's "allowed" bcz she's manifestly an awful person

-- mark s (mar...), June 11th, 2003.

Sample Q & A:

One student asked what she would do if she had a child who came out as gay.
Coulter replied: "I'd say, `Did I ever tell you you're adopted?'"

She should go all out and invest in laugh-track generator to give her live comedy that frisson of Brechtian bullshit.

FORK REPLACES DONKEY AS DEMOCRATIC PARTY SYMBOL
January 11, 2006

I'm not sure Sen. John Cornyn was helping with that lengthy presentation attempting to establish the many similarities between Samuel Alito and Sandra Day O'Connor.

It doesn't matter. Liberals are being routed. They can change the lineup, the manager, the coach, but the losing streak never ends. By and large, Republicans aren't even bothering to send in their A team anymore. Alito can start wearing his iPod to the hearings. By the end of the hearings, he'll be addressing the senators as "dude."

For fun, we ought to replace all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee with "American Idol" contestants (assuming they wouldn't object to serving on a committee that includes a degenerate like Teddy Kennedy). Democrats would still not be able to persuade a single normal American that Sam Alito is "out of the mainstream."

With all their hysteria about Valerie Plame, I had nearly forgotten what the Democratic Party stands for. It's good to be reminded that the sole item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion.

According to Dianne Feinstein, Roe vs. Wade is critically important because "women all over America have come to depend on it." At its most majestic, this precious right that women "have come to depend on" is the right to have sex with men they don't want to have children with.

There's a stirring principle! Leave aside the part of this precious constitutional right that involves (1) not allowing Americans to vote on the matter, and (2) suctioning brains out of half-born babies. The right to have sex with men you don't want to have children with is not exactly "Give me liberty, or give me death."

In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today's Democrats. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc.

The Federalists drafted the greatest political philosophy ever written by man and created the first constitutional republic. The anti-Federalists – or "pre-Democrats, as I call them – were formed to oppose the Constitution, which, to a great extent, remains their position today.

Andrew Jackson, the father of the Democratic Party, may have had some unpalatable goals, but at least they were big ideas. Wipe out the Indians, kill off the national bank and institute a spoils system. Love him or hate him, he never said, "I'll be announcing my platform sometime early next year." The Whigs were formed in opposition to everything Jackson stood for.

The Republican Party emerged from the Whigs when the Whigs waffled on slavery. (They were "pro-choice" on slavery.) The Republican Party was founded expressly as the anti-slavery party, which to a great extent remains their position today.

Having won that one, today's Republican Party stands for life, limited government and national defense. And today's Democratic Party stands for ... the right of women to have unprotected sex with men they don't especially like. We're the Blacks-Aren't-Property/Don't-Kill-Babies party. They're the Hook-Up party.

Leave aside any moral questions about baby-killing – a term I have come to understand the baby-killing party dislikes. Smoking is fun too, but even I wouldn't support a political party whose sole raison d'etre was to eliminate non-smoking sections across the nation. That's not exactly the Magna Carta.

This week's conventional wisdom is that the Democrats weren't even trying to nail Alito at the confirmation hearings. Au contraire! The Democrats were tigers! They proved exactly what they set out to prove.

In fact, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-Hillary's state, was so deft in his questioning, he even has me convinced that Alito is going to vote to overrule Roe vs. Wade. (And just when I thought I couldn't be more enthusiastic about the nomination!)

I'll go out on a limb and bet that, after the Democrats' expert cross-examination, Judge Alito has lost the support of every single member of NARAL.

The problem for the Democrats is: NARAL members aren't like most people. "Give me liberty or give me the right to have unprotected sex with men I don't want to have a child with" just isn't that attractive a principle in the light of day.

as usual shes glaringly right about one thing -- modern dems hopelessly need to find new issues to differ from republicans on besides abortion

My god, is she insincere about EVERYTHING?

Having won that one, today's Republican Party stands for life, limited government and national defense. And today's Democratic Party stands for ... the right of women to have unprotected sex with men they don't especially like. We're the Blacks-Aren't-Property/Don't-Kill-Babies party. They're the Hook-Up party.

because, you know, they had 24-hour cable news and the internet back then. the town crier was all 'Whigs undecided on midterm agenda; 'Hunters of Kentucky' at number 1 for 22nd week in a row' (xpost)

yeah the Bush administration has totally been about limited government, they tow a strong conservative line on that'n eh

Is that aimed at Olbermann or Limbaugh?

-- Cunga (visionsofjohann...), October 13th, 2005.

lol

tho this is a different rightwing blonde...

Kelly said that after the hearing, Supervisor Arthur Anderson also will determine whether to refer the case to the state attorney's office for criminal prosecution.

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/AnnCoulter_LetterfromArthurAnderson_032706.jpg

HMMM

I'd like to hear Bill Marr say, "Ann, you know we're old friends and, as I say, 'I kid you' a lot, like I do... but, I'm not kidding when I say to you, and to the world, (turns to camera): 'Ann coulter is a cunt.' Now get the fuck off my stage."

I love that statement.

Incidentally, who else believes that if Ann Coulter could achieve just one orgasm she might stop spewing her hatred?

Rep. Mike Honda, a Democrat who represents the San Jose district where Tillman's family lives, has pressed the Pentagon for answers on the status of its investigations.

"I'm very impatient and at times cynical," Honda said. But, he said, the honor of the military — and the confidence of the public in the military and the government — are at stake.

"So if we pursue the truth and wait for it," he said, "it may be worthwhile."

And now that the Democrats have the House...

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), November 9th, 2006.

. . . where the hell *is* Ann?!

So she was on Hardball last night, and Elizabeth Edwards called in to call her on her shit. Hijinks ensued.

I like Liz.

"The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking,"

Transcript

"You know, in the south, when someone does something that displeases us, we want to ask them politely to stop doing it."

I wish she had punctuated that one with "And I am asking you to stop being a bitch."

I saw part of this last night. Her weak argument for her reasoning on calling Hillary's legs "chubby" infuriated me so much, I changed the channel.

so nice to see her pwned.

She's such a clown. Does she know how much of a joke she is? And what was with that smug bitch in the background, snickering at all of AC's lame quips? I'm getting annoyed just thinking about it.

Hahahahaha that is awesome

she really seems afraid of Edwards in particular; perhaps she senses that a dude like him might think her posse is not so pretty?

does she wax her posse?

oh wait I read that wrong gabb

although I do think it's kind of lame that Edwards sent his wife in to do his dirty work.

(even though I suppose there's some sort of "equal time" consideration if they let Johnny Lawsuit on the air)

although I do think it's kind of lame that Edwards sent his wife in to do his dirty work.

C: Yeah, why isn’t John Edwards making this call?

E: I haven’t talked to John about this call. I’m making the call as a mother. I’m the mother of that boy who died. My children participate — these young people behind you are the age of my children. You’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.

do I need to repeat myself?

I wish she'd depended less on self-help drivel ("asking" children to participate in "dialogue that is based on hatefulness," etc) and just reminded Coulter what she is: a bitch and a lackey.

exactly.

that's right, Don, Ann Coulter deserves to be on par with a Senator and Presidential candidate. they should have sent a 19-year-old intern.

Well that would have been participating in a dialogue based on hatefulness and ugliness. xxpost.

Liz Edwards is a presidential candidate?

no. the upshot of your comment is that ann coulter deserves to be in the same room as john, rather than elizabeth. because why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j9UXMrTHNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6otjSCjgm48&mode=related&search=

that's your conflation, gabbneb.

Swimming in the gutters with an ass helmet like Ann Coulter doesn't do anything but a) validate her existence and b) bring sympathy to John Edwards as a presidential candidate.

I think anyone who reads the transcript would understand that Edwards a) essentially invalidated Coulter's existence and b) made the issue very much about everything other than her husband

dude, her existence was already validated when she went on hardball

elizabeth edwards didnt call up a public access show in montana, she called one of the most famous & influential political talk shows in the country--a talk show that had as its guest ann coulter.

Swimming in the gutters with an ass helmet like Ann Coulter doesn't do anything but a) validate her existence and b) bring sympathy to John Edwards as a presidential candidate.

so all presidential candidates should just stop being on tv? I'm cool with that. tv should basically just be horatio miami 94/7 anyway

haha yeah exactly max I mean wtf is the woman doing in ANY media anymore? except being trotted out for abuse, which is actually fine by me, turnabout is fair play and all that

she makes money off being a shock jock masquerading as a political commentator, end of story.

elizabeth edwards didnt call up a public access show in montana, she called one of the most famous & influential political talk shows in the country--a talk show that had as its guest ann coulter

apart from the fact that edwards rhetorically invalidated coulter's existence on precisely that 'famous & influential' talk show, do you know how many people actually watch hardball?

I just think it's embarrassing the RNC has her at events and shit.

gabbneb im just pointing out to dandy don that elizabeth edwards isnt validating ac's existence--her existence was already validated when she was a guest on hardball. i get that no one watches hardball.

If it were only about motherhood and losing a child, then Liz Edwards didn't need to say her name. She said her name because it serves the political cause.

Liz would have gotten a lot more mileage if she'd have gone after Matthews. It's one thing for AC's existence to be validated for appearing on a tv show; it's another thing entirely to have a candidate do it.

I don't see how anyone could walk away from this exchange feeling that Ann Coulter's existence had been validated

(other than Ann Coulter)

If it were only about motherhood and losing a child, then Liz Edwards didn't need to say her name

LOL, oic 'Liz' Edwards should have called in anonymously. like, "hi, I'm a mom from Raleigh"

with a handkerchief over the mouthpiece

tv should basically just be horatio miami 94/7 anyway

I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Had she done that, Don, and it were later revealed who the caller was - you'd most likely be berating her cowardliness for not using her real name, hiding behind anonymity etc.

xpost

what I don't understand is why A&E insist on producing all this dog the bh/criss angel bullshit original programming when they could easily just play Magnum P.I. and CSI reruns alternating back and forth and get much higher ratings. I mean it's like HMMM, shit that never gets old, or shit that gets old before you even watch it? Ehh.

I wouldn't be calling her a coward if I didn't know who she was. Obviously. And I don't think John is a coward for not entering the debate. I don't see the point of anyone entering a debate with Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter is an embarrassment to the country, and women everywhere.

I don't see the point of anyone entering a debate with Ann Coulter.

Amen to that.

Elizabeth Edwards wasn't debating Ann Coulter, she was asking her to shut up.