Understanding Ann -- Coulter and the Rhetoric of Hate

sem valor

In Portuguese, closest I can come up with is this translation for worthless.

Good article Killfile.

Whatever you say about her, at least she's a Christian whore - look at that big cross pendant on her necklace in the video.

I take it that the 'Christian whore' comment was meant as sarcasm. I, for one, believe that the practice of religion period... is the primarily culprit for there being such a pervasive level of strife, hatred, murder and instability in the world.

Not that I agree, but some folks would nominate Al Franken for the part.

Bill Maher.

..Randi Rhode`s is a very close second if not a match,its just that Ann gets in front of the camera with her tirades.

Bill Maher and Al Franken are comedians. They talk about politics, and they are politically involved, but there is no question that much of what they say is meant to be a joke. Ann isn't a comedian. She pretends to be serious about these arguments, and a lot of people seem to take her seriously.

I would agree with Adam Kemp below on giving the honor to Michael Moore. Al Franken certainly joins in with the partisan crap, and unfortunately, he's just not funny. His sense of humor sucks, and his books try to hit back at Coulter and other conservative jackals like it's a high school cat fight. Bill Maher, is actually funny. He has an entertaining show, at least makes decent arguments, although he doesn't stop to censor what he thinks.

Michael Moore though, is an embarrassment to liberals because he's not really funny, his arguments are lame, and he isn't entertaining.

Err...I said Michael Moore wasn't a good comparison. :)

Since you guys asked, I'd say Bill Maher and the Daily Kos folks wanting Cheney dead is far worst than calling someone a name.

From patterico, a few excerpts from among more, all provided at the link, where you may also find links to sources:

National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg:

[I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.

USA Today syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux, on Clarence Thomas:

I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease.

Members of the St. Petersburg Democratic Club:

And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq "We have our good days and our bad days." We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say "This is one of our bad days" and pull the trigger.

Director Spike Lee on Charlton Heston:

Shoot him with a .44 caliber Bulldog.

James Carville on Ken Starr:

He's one more mistake away from not having any kneecaps.

Howard Dean:

I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for . . .

\British pundit Charlie Brooker, during the presidency of George W. Bush:

John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. — where are you now that we need you?

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga crowed over the death of American contractors in Iraq:

I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

Duncan "Atrios" Black discussing ABC's The Note:

[M]y take on The Note has always been, with apologies to Douglas Adams: A bunch of mindless jerks who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Huffington Post blogger Tony Hendra wished for Dick Cheney to die:

O Lord, give Dick Cheney's Heart, Our Sacred Secret Weapon, the strength to try one more time! For greater love hath no heart than that it lay down its life to rid the planet of its Number One Human Tumor.

Adam ~

I'm actually not too familiar with Bill Maher, so I'll just have to give you that. But comparing the commenters at Daily Kos aren't really comparable. Any jackass can make s dumb comment, and we all know that there's jackasses of many different political ideologies. We have them on Newsvine, even this very thread.

The question with Coulter, however, is why this particular jackass got to the level of fame and prestige that she did. She should have never made it out of the freeper comment section, but for some reason, she did, and makes a decent living off of what she does. That's the issue I'm more concerned about, not really Coulter, because she can go @!$%# herself, but the seemingly endless support she seems to get from some in the right wing community.

Ann isn't a comedian.

Comedians have the freedom to offend but pundits don't? Maybe it has more to do with the message than the messengers job?

This article (no offense as usual Killfile) demonstrates that some don't "understand Ann". Maher's comments were hardly comedic - he seemed quite serious about wishing death or murder upon the Vice President. Ann, as usual, had a larger point and she, as usual, was right. I think it's safe to say that Ann was not commenting on Edwards sexuality - she was mocking the current culture that pushes people into 'rehab' for saying something offensive (and "faggot" is the word of the day). She's daring people to be outraged and offended and (gasp!) they are!

Maher's comments were nakedly offensive no matter how you analyze it. I think they both dig their own graves, but let's not get our panties in a bind over Ann Coulter while not even mentioning Bill Maher.

So if people want to have a real discussion about this latest Coulter outrage, then let's drop the 'who' (I hate Coulter, she sucks, etc etc) and address the 'what'. We know that people despise Coulter - that's nothing new or refreshing. What's your thoughts on rehab for people who offend other people?

Didn't this start with Michael Richards, who BTW Adam Kemp, is also a comedian, so this excuses him - right?

Ah yes, because we all know that Patterico there is the champion of civil debate.

Geeze, Pseudo, consider the source. Patterico's a pretty hateful little dude himself. You do know that he's part of that "Let's out the liberal bloggers in hopes someone will go after them" crowd, right?

You must honestly think no one reads the same conservative blogs as you.

So what are your thoughts on Coulter's wish that the terrorists had blown up the New York Times building then, Otto? How about her idea that baseball bats should be taken to liberals?

Say what you want about Coulter, but her popularity sends the message loud and clear to me. For years now we've been trying to figure out what is the tie that binds for conservatives, while liberals are herding cats. Could it be taxes? No, they've contradicted themselves on that. Perhaps less government? Again, they've contradicted themselves on that. So what is it?

Because if Coulter and her ilk are any indication, I think we have found it.

The tie that binds is hate. Hate of those are not like you. Join together and beat the "enemy", whether that enemy be liberal, homosexual, or just... not a neocon. Not the right kind of patriot. Not the right kind of Christan. Whatever.

The hatred of liberals is what holds your little group think masturbation fest together. Because really, who the @!$%# cares about things like, I dunno, the state of the nation when there's some liberals we can pwn?

Don't think for a second that it goes unnoticed.

Ah yes, because we all know that Patterico there is the champion of civil debate.

Geeze, Pseudo, consider the source. Patterico's a pretty hateful little dude himself. You do know that he's part of that "Let's out the liberal bloggers in hopes someone will go after them" crowd, right?

You must honestly think no one reads the same conservative blogs as you.

In the present context Patterico as source is irrelevant. The quotes stand on their own and were offered to help meet the challenge of providing examples of lefty Coulterisms.

Stacy, how can you seriously write that?

Pretend that the right is all about hate, "while liberals are herding cats."

What was it that Howard Dean said? "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for . . ." And this is a man who Democrats chose to lead their party and elected to lead a state.

Let's not pretend that the hate is one sided now.

Oh there is certainly hate from your liberals. Where else is this obsession over the assassination of Bush and Cheney coming from? Did conservatives wish for the death of Clinton? Oh, I'm sure there were some who did. But they weren't on television and making movies about it.

But let's be reasonable. Most people are just people. They want to live their lives in peace and be left alone. Sure there is hate, but that is only the extremes huffing and puffing and overshadowing the vast majority.

But Killfile, this is a rather circular argument. Perhaps the right is then united in hate against those like Dean who hate the right. What's wrong with hating Dean, since he is so filled with hate?

So what are your thoughts on Coulter's wish that the terrorists had blown up the New York Times building then, Otto?

The same thoughts on most obsessions with Coulters statements - you're taking something literal that's obviously a rhetorical statement making a point. No comment about Maher's statements this weekend that were literal? What gets me is I know some of the people here, like Stacy, are smart enough to know the difference yet feign outrage as if they didn't.

Similar to (I think it was John Bolton) comments about blowing up several floors of the UN building and nobody noticing. Coulter wasn't advocating blowing up the NY Times building (duh) but was being critical of an institution, a criticism that happens to be shared by many people who actually understood (or wasn't pretending not to understand) what she meant.

"...while liberals are herding cats."

Herding cats? Ward Churchill calling 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" who deserved it? The DNC chairman and former presidential candidate stating that he hates Republicans? The countless liberals and Democrats who have called the president a terrorist and a Hitler? Suggesting that he sends people off to die for profit? I hope you excuse me for not buying into your selective outrage. Coulter is a mouthpiece. Some of the non-existent liberal offenses are committed by party officials and people who get just as much respect from the left as Coulter does from the right.

I don't know if anyone has really zoomed in on it - what specifically was it about Ann's recent comments that has you in such a tizzy?

Don't think for a second that it goes unnoticed.

Obviously it's noticed. Now we just have to combine comprehension into the mix. Maher wished for the death of a specific person on television, on his show with a far-left politician on the panel who seemed a little taken aback by his comments. Coulter makes a calculated statement about a cultural phenomenon in a presentation to a roomful of people and yet her comments (over Maher's) are blasted all over the place. She wouldn't be half as notorious as she is if people like you didn't make it such an issue based on knee-jerk reactionism to who she is rather than what she actually said.

Talk about groupthink...

As usual Otto, you wrong..Maher never said he wanted Cheney dead all he said was that if Cehey were dead more people would be alive,which is true.

As usualy, you're not making sense. If Maher didn't say or imply that he wanted Cheney dead, even if he believes that it would save lives, then why does Maher want to see so many dead people? If Kim Jong Ill were dead, maybe millions of Koreans wouldn't be starving, but I'd rather see him alive?

???

I hate intolerance, bigotry, and venom. What's not to hate about hate itself?

This can go both ways, right? I mean - I think the Left is consumed by intolerance, bigotry and venom. That could be the subtitle of a book on the history of Leftism.

Killfile - what do you think is a stronger example of hate - mockingly calling a heterosexual presidential candidate a "faggot" or seriously suggesting that the Vice President's death would be a good thing for the world? Put aside your ideological blinders for a second and try to answer it objectively.

Comedians say offensive things because it's funny. Coulter says offensive things because she gets applause. She says them seriously, and people take her seriously. When Coulter says bull@!$%# like liberals love to kill babies she's not joking. She really thinks that. When she said that the 9/11 widows were happy about the death of their husbands she wasn't joking. She was just being an idiot.

The "faggot" comment was obviously a joke meant for laughter, but most of the offensive things she says in articles are not jokes. They're just Ann Coulter being an idiot.

She says them seriously, and people take her seriously.

No, she doesn't say things seriously, she says things that mock liberalism to make a serious point and the only people who take her seriously are people who are pretending to take her literally because it's easier to reject her that way than to argue against the point she makes.

But then you go on to say that she was obviously joking for laughter...

The "faggot" comment was obviously a joke meant for laughter, but most of the offensive things she says in articles are not jokes.

Yeah, it was a stab at our politically correct culture that has gotten so ridiculous that people are actually going to 'rehab' for saying something mean!

Comedians say offensive things because it's funny.

Great - now we have context! Coulter is so offensive and over-the-top but Maher talking about how wonderful it would be if Cheney were killed is "funny". Because...Maher is a clown who has no opinions of his own, never projects his views and never says anything serious? He's just an empty vessel of jokes? I know people applauded him when he said this, but were people laughing?

Than let's explore this 'comedian' theory - were you fine with Michael Richards, a comedian, on stage doing stand-up - using the 'N' word in the manner that he did? Comedians shouldn't be taken seriously, even when they are being serious, right? It must have been "funny".

I have to give you points for trying so hard though.

On 9/11 widows:

I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.

Just a joke?

Talking about desegregation:

Few failures have been more spectacular. Illiterate students knifing one another between acts of sodomy in the stairwell is just one of the many eggs that had to be broken to make the left's omelette of transferring power from states to the federal government.

Just a joke?

On Muslims:

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Just a joke?

On women:

It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.

Just a joke?

I could go on, but you the point is made. These are not just jokes. They are examples of absolutely ridiculous statements that she was serious about. Ann Coulter is not a comedian. She makes stupid jokes sometimes, but much of what she says, though laughable, is not a joke. She really is that stupid.

"Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)"

"Maher: I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact."

Okay - you're turn. Explain to me how this implies that Maher doesn't want him dead. Describe how Maher is more satisfied seeing the victims of Cheney die than Cheney himself.

I could go on, but you the point is made.

If your point is that you lack any ability to put anything in context, it's not just limited to this latest comment, then yes - the point has been made. Tacking "just a joke?" at the end of each statement doesn't tell me what you think about each one, but then that would be actually discussing what she said and we want to avoid that at all costs so long as we can take them at their naked words.

9/11 widows: Have you read Godless? If not, then you have no business trying to use a point made in the book to make your own point because you know not of what you speak.

state vs. federal government: I'm not sure what the big outrage is here nor am I familar with this one.

on Muslims: Actually it's not "on Muslims". It's commenting on the way wars used to be fought before the 60s generation dug their paws into foreign policy and war becoming more about avoiding casualties rather than conquering. Actually, I think she was fairly serious about this one. Ooh...

women voting: Do you have figures that shows that she's wrong? We do take surveys and exit polls and census stats to find out which demographic voted for who. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that between you and Coulter, one of you's actually did some number crunching to come up with your position on this. I think it's perfectly plausible to suggest that women have helped Democrats get elected. So what?

Does this represent the worst of the worst to you? My God! Burn the witch at the stake!

Here's one for you Adam:

"Maher: I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact."

Just a joke?

And I'm still waiting for you to defend fellow comedian Michael Richards racist tirade based on how "funny" it was.

Maher is just saying that people should have the right to say it. What do you expect from a Libertarian? Censorship?

Then I take it you agree with him, as do I.

Dennis - he did not 'just' say it, he emphatically agreed with it, which I think we've already covered in this thread. He said "it's a fact". That's not taking a speech position, that's taking a position on the benefits of the death of the vice president.

tetsuo -

copying and pasting the transcript that I just quoted to you doesn't do anything for your argument. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU. If he think that it's a fact that people wouldn't die if Cheney were dead, then why does he want people to die?

Why not just admit that he screwed up and backed himself into a corner here rather than foolishly trying to pretend that he didn't say something that he said?

Ignoring all the Bill Maher crap for a moment.

I've been thinking about this some bit and I've come to the decision that I really don't like the premise of the question/task, "Find a liberal version of Ann Coulter."

Why? Because it makes it seem that this sort of behavior is ok. If you can find a liberal Ann Coulter then maybe her statement is not so bad, but if you can't then it's terrible. Yeah, so maybe no one is coming out and saying that, but that is really what this entire thread right here is about. We're racing to the bottom, to the lowest common denominator.

Really does it make anything all that better of Bill Maher or Michael Moore are as big of bastards as Coulter is a @!$%#?

Instead of arguing over who the liberal Coulter is, I'm going to go spend my time on serious people discussing serious issues. Forget who the liberal Coulter is and tell me who is the liberal Walter Williams.

@ OTTO

Maher's comments were nakedly offensive no matter how you analyze it. I think they both dig their own graves, but let's not get our panties in a bind over Ann Coulter while not even mentioning Bill Maher.

How convenient... look at what is BOLD... yes his comments were offensive, as a human being to human being, wishing their death is horrible. Even contemplating the upside of someone dying is wrong. Although the inference of his not being upset about Dick Cheney's death is just that, it needs to be deduced, inferred from the comments he made. There was no blatant "Cheney should die" used to in his comments. However, there was the blatant use of the word "faggot" to describe a respected politician. And the sub-text of it being a "controversial" outing of a public hysteria over re-hab, is pure BS. You are denying that bit of common sense now. She found a clever way to mask her attempt at insulting someone in a way people already are "touchy" about... its inflammatory, and specifically said to GET a reaction. Bill Maher didn't say his comments with clear intentions for people to infer that ("Cheney should die") about his comments to get a reaction (I think that is where the disconnect is). Ann did, she clearly wanted to make a pot-shot at Edwards, and on the side bring to light a "public issue".

Didn't this start with Michael Richards, who BTW Adam Kemp, is also a comedian, so this excuses him - right?

Richards was "nuts" for five minutes on stage in a stormy tirade that was ultimately uncalled for, AND APOLOGIZED for what he said... WTF are you even mentioning him? When is Mann Coulter going to apologize to Edwards for blatantly inferring he was a "faggot"?

Suggesting that he sends people off to die for profit? I hope you excuse me for not buying into your selective outrage.

Yet, HE DID. Why shouldn't people be outraged? AND if you haven't noticed humans are like... not capable of being... umm... anything other than selectively outraged. Its called a REACTION to a TRIGGER. People don't just get triggered by something indifferent to what has happened. Why do drivers who commute everyday for twenty years SNAP one day and kill the guy who just cut them off? Because outrage IS selective. I imagine you don't get outraged at crap SOME politicians do, ie. Repugnicans. But others, Democrats, just piss you off entirely (talk about your selective outrage!!!).

Obviously it's noticed. Now we just have to combine comprehension into the mix. Maher wished for the death of a specific person on television, on his show with a far-left politician on the panel who seemed a little taken aback by his comments. Coulter makes a calculated statement about a cultural phenomenon in a presentation to a roomful of people and yet her comments (over Maher's) are blasted all over the place. She wouldn't be half as notorious as she is if people like you didn't make it such an issue based on knee-jerk reactionism to who she is rather than what she actually said.

Talk about groupthink...

I really don't know what to say about all that... wow. Ok agreed its noticed... As if no one is capable of comprehension (without Otto's assistance, you presumptuous bastard)... He never WISHED for anything, if anything he suggested that if one man died, others might live (how is that the same as WISHING someone was dead?!!?)... Coulter made a calculated statement? when, where, and how to I get her fcking sources!!! because I read her books and her sources are freakin ridiculously biased. She skews interpretations of data (as everyone does) to suit her needs for support of her insane claims... Stating an opposing view as being "reactionary" and "knee-jerk" is about as effective as trying to make a statement in public and EXPECTING no one to respond. There is going to be a response if the statement made isn't agreed with, and discrediting responders with labels like those is just counter to sensible debate. Try debating the issue rather than casting someone off as a "insert-derogatory-liberal-label-here". And the groupthink thing (from 1984)... its way overplayed by both sides. Groupthink is called "Sociology" or the science of social groups (and how they think), try to use the right word everyone (not just Otto). Groupthink is a fckin buzz word used by the informed to keep others from knowing the real science behind sociological exercises such as: using words to describe certain types of meaning-oriented pseudo-language (groupthink, newspeak, doubleplusgood...sic 1984) for control.

This can go both ways, right? I mean - I think the Left is consumed by intolerance, bigotry and venom. That could be the subtitle of a book on the history of Leftism.

Killfile - what do you think is a stronger example of hate - mockingly calling a heterosexual presidential candidate a "faggot" or seriously suggesting that the Vice President's death would be a good thing for the world? Put aside your ideological blinders for a second and try to answer it objectively.

Yes the left is consumed by all those things, yet we somehow find time to come up with social programs that make sense (vice spending money at an aimless war), connect with actual voters (not just political finance contributors), write legislation that supports the communities we care about (instead of tax breaks for our buddies!) and to top it all off dislike our political opponents. Boo Hoo, we don't like Repugnicans, at all... its not like you send us chocolates on Valentine's Day either. The history of Left/Right is unimportant, both parties have changed significantly over the years, and I don't think either of us are qualified to debate history at length for things that are so complicated historians don't think they even have everything 100% correct. Killfile shouldn't have answered that one... the answer is they are both examples of idiocy in politics. Ann shouldn't have said it, Bill shouldn't have said it. Happy? Ann was blatant, idiotic. Bill was inferring specific outcomes, and shouldn't have alluded to his desire for the VP to die. BOTH are wrong for making such arrogant strong statements. But in their entirety, Ann was the more venomous because she said it to a crowd TO GET laughs and a response. How's that for an objective response?

Great - now we have context! Coulter is so offensive and over-the-top but Maher talking about how wonderful it would be if Cheney were killed is "funny". Because...Maher is a clown who has no opinions of his own, never projects his views and never says anything serious? He's just an empty vessel of jokes? I know people applauded him when he said this, but were people laughing?

Than let's explore this 'comedian' theory - were you fine with Michael Richards, a comedian, on stage doing stand-up - using the 'N' word in the manner that he did? Comedians shouldn't be taken seriously, even when they are being serious, right? It must have been "funny".

I have to give you points for trying so hard though.

You know... Adam wasn't being condescending at all to you, but you must have not been able to resist? Michael Richards admitted it was not funny, and has since been banned from the Comedy Store for his act that night. He apologized to the two men he offended and (i don't know for certain) may have been sued over it. Now... he was NOT funny. Mann Coulter's statement was not funny (yet people laughed?!?), however the PC issue she raised wasn't what people laughed about (is my guess, but you CAN object). It was the ever so sly way of masking the insult... granted she did it well, more props to her for getting her insult across with nearly no legal backlash (yet). It still doesn't make it right... I BET, and you can hold me to it... that Bill Maher will catch wind of this shiot about his "wanting the VP" dead and say something to the effect to clarify his statement. Something I KNOW Mann Coulter won't do. BTW, comparing the two incidents is psychotic (Richards with Maher v. Coulter) as they have nearly no context, yes you were talking about comedians, but Richards has had nearly nothing to do with politics in his career, as Maher has had nearly his whole career dealing with political comedy (as has Mann Coulter has with ??? political nonsense?). Mann Coulter should be held to a higher standard though, as she is a law major and not a comedian, to make statements that aren't comedic in nature. Comedy is all good in speeches, but if you aren't a comedian... why try crack jokes at all?

9/11 widows: Have you read Godless? If not, then you have no business trying to use a point made in the book to make your own point because you know not of what you speak.

Talk about a substantive response... from both sides (mind you). Godless is a monumental feat of hatred. I have read it, and I think that Mann Coulter needs serious psychological help. The ideas that are hammered home in the book can't be expanded on here, it would take longer than this ALREADY LONG post. Also, Otto, "you know not of what you speak"... talk about dismissive... wow. OK, well since you didn't quote the book, or site a reference as to why he should be dismissed merely because he hadn't read it... tell me... shouldn't I need to know why? it at least have a few reasons why the topic is so carelessly tossed away? If you can't respond to an already inadequate statement with an adequate response, just say you don't have one. Don't make this nonsensical "I know the issue better than you, so I don't have to explain it" statement that does nothing for people to "Get Smarter Here". I want to know what you know from Godless that was so advantageous in dismissing his statement because of all the issues she hammered in the book (to death) she never really sold me on the idea that the wives were "happy" their husbands had died.

on Muslims: Actually it's not "on Muslims". It's commenting on the way wars used to be fought before the 60s generation dug their paws into foreign policy and war becoming more about avoiding casualties rather than conquering. Actually, I think she was fairly serious about this one. Ooh...

No that quote was in regards to CURRENT US policy in the middle east. Here's the quote from NRO...

"This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
--Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter (National Review Online, 9/13/01)

Sounds to me like she's talking about what we shoud do, not what we DID do 40 odd years ago. But I could be wrong... I never claim to know every side of the story.

women voting: Do you have figures that shows that she's wrong? We do take surveys and exit polls and census stats to find out which demographic voted for who. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that between you and Coulter, one of you's actually did some number crunching to come up with your position on this. I think it's perfectly plausible to suggest that women have helped Democrats get elected. So what?

Do you have figures supporting that she is right... I mean, when in a debate or informational challenge typically the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The quote was provided... she made the claim in the quote... ok where is the proof? I have seen some of the theoretical information, correlating census data and voting patterns, but there is no indication that a significant population would have marginalized the leading edge Democrats have. Give me the proof, if you are making the claim. If I am asserting that your claim is false (as is the way it works with anything someone needs proof for) you need to prove me wrong. When it comes to claims like these, US legal system doesn't apply... you are not innocent (or automatically correct) until proved guilty (without question). You are guilty (unsubstantiated) until proved innocent (data is provided to back up the claim). NO ONE should believe a claim like that (Repugnicans would have run things for about fifty years) without the person's who is making the claim's data. Then they can provide counter claims (opposing views). I can't even say I oppose you or Coulter until I see that data support the claim. But I can say that is sounds HIGHLY unlikely given the amount of social changes that have happened, African American Civil Rights for one.

Stop attacking Bill Maher on a article about Mann Coulter. His statement was irrelevant. And I mean irrelevant by means of proxy. He was talking about a current VP, who's potential of being elected (or lack thereof) is unaffected by a subtle smear campaign. Mann said bad things, Bill said bad things, all in all they are not equally bad. Maher was not speaking for every single liberal Democrat in existence, nor was Mann Coulter speaking for every Repugnican in existence. Its a flagrant show of devotion on both sides, but really let's drop it. Each commentator said something bad in a different way... whichever is truth is in the viewer, I suppose. If you feel the world would be better off with a dead VP dick Cheney, more power to you, good riddance right? If you feel its ok to call Edwards a faggot in public, hell that's fine by me. Freedom of speech is great. Just try not to piss off too many people by being insensitive, because typically people like other people and get offended if you offend them. There is nothing more I can write about this except that this issue is kinda silly now. It seems like a "my dad will beat your dad" type escalation argument. Mann Coulter said, "Edwards is a faggot"... well Maher said, "He'd be happy if Cheney Died"... what's next... Mann Coulter said "so-and-so is a (insert insulting derogatory word here), and I'd get stuck in re-had for that..." to which people will rebut, Bill Maher said "Less people would die if So-and-so got killed when he was..."

Whatever yall.

Grow up kids, this isn't the third grade. And for the record, my daddy really would whoop all yall daddy's as$.

Maher said if Cheney wasn't alive it would be better for some people. He didn't go as far as to actually say how great it would be if someone went and killed Dick Cheney. Ann Coulter makes that kind of joke. I agree that Maher's comment was offensive, but it's not nearly as offensive as the things that Coulter says.

eSantiago - I'll try and get back to your lengthy response later tonight.

Adam -

He said that Cheney's death would save lives. If you subscribe to that notion, then how can you not see that he would think that Cheney's death would be a good thing? Can you answer this please?

I agree that Maher's comment was offensive, but it's not nearly as offensive as the things that Coulter says.

Yes - because you are more concerned about the 'who' instead of the 'what'.

What's more offensive - calling a heterosexual man a "faggot" or saying that the Vice President's death would be a good thing (unless you think that people "needlessly" dying isn't a bad thing)? I've heard the word "faggot" used countless times throughout my life (including, as Coulter stated, as children in the schoolyard). It's not often that I run into people so bitter that they actually rationalize killing an elected leader (or anyone for that matter).

I frankly couldn't care less that Bill Maher said this - I think he's been moving more and more to the fringe in recent years, which is too bad, because I used to really like him. And I completely agree with him on the removed comments from Huffington Post. The only reason this discussion has legs is because people (for whatever reason) are bending over backwards to defend this guy, whether they are denying he said it, denying the context, denying the pros and cons of what he said, denying the seriousness...the least his defenders could do is all get on the same page on this. Bill's a big boy who has caused controversy before. He can handle himself.

Why people insist on pretending that he didn't say what he said is just baffling. He said it, yet it's Newsviners who are running away from it. At the very least, it's refreshing to know that no one on Newsvine pines for Cheney's death.

I said it was offensive. It still isn't actually telling people "I wish someone would go kill Dick Cheney". That's pretty much what Coulter has done in the past (like when she said it would be great if someone put cyanide in a Supreme Court Justice's coffee, or when she said it would be great if someone bombed the NY Times building). That goes well beyond just saying "maybe if these people were dead there would be an upshot". It's actually promoting the idea that someone should kill them.

There is a difference between saying "I think person X's death might actually be beneficial to some people" and saying "I personally wish someone would murder person X." I think if you said the latter about the President, for instance, you are likely to get a not-so-nice visit from the government. It can be viewed as an actual threat.

Again, I think both were offensive. You won't see me "running away from it". However, again, Maher isn't endorsed by presidential candidates, is he? It's not surprising or shocking that someone said something offensive. What's surprising and shocking is that someone who is so heavily involved in politics, to the point of being introduced by a presidential candidate, would get away with this. That's the shocking part, and that's the real issue here. It's not just what she said, or even who said it. It's where she said it, and who was endorsing it. The context is the issue.

And the sub-text of it being a "controversial" outing of a public hysteria over re-hab, is pure BS.

I don't think I said that she "outed" anything (maybe I did, I don't recall), but okay - now explain why you believe this. She was mocking the PC culture. Do you think she was just shooting from the hip or do you think that this was planned and calculated? I can guarantee that she planned this, she had a point to make and she knew full-well the kind of misguided hysteria it was going to create. She's like a puppet master, she pulls the strings and her opponents dance! Meanwhile, others like myself, understand what she was getting at, even if you deny it.

Richards was "nuts" for five minutes on stage in a stormy tirade that was ultimately uncalled for, AND APOLOGIZED for what he said... WTF are you even mentioning him?

Did you read the whole thread? Someone was suggesting that a comedian can get away with being offensive where a pundit can't, so I asked him if that applied to Richards as well? Which is in context, since I think he sort of kick started this whole rehab [re-education] crap.

When is Mann Coulter going to apologize to Edwards for blatantly inferring he was a "faggot"?

Maybe when you apologize for calling her 'Mann Coulter'! I'm kicking around an article on this, but I'm just transfixed by this theme of people going on rants about how Ann Coulter shouldn't go around offending people mixed in with childish (and rather embarrassing) name-calling. Besides, she didn't 'infer' he was a faggot, she called him a faggot.

Is he?

Stop attacking Bill Maher on a article about Mann Coulter.

Umm...no! We're discussing offensive comments, both of which were made almost simultaneously and I'm reveling in people's eagerness to demonstrate inconsistencies in their outrage. Saying that someone being dead would be a good thing is a far more egregious statement than calling a straight man a 'faggot'. I'm consistent - I think we should discuss what each person said and what their points were and I think they both should have the right to say it. But I'm watching people scramble to make Maher's comments either cryptic or non-existent while analyzing every word of Coulter's remarks in a strict, literal manner.

I said it was offensive. It still isn't actually telling people "I wish someone would go kill Dick Cheney".

WHO said it was? I'm backing up Maher for saying what he said, against others who either deny he said it or refuse to acknowledge what it means.

There is a difference between saying "I think person X's death might actually be beneficial to some people" and saying "I personally wish someone would murder person X."

Why do you keep arguing against something that no one has said? Maher said that Cheney's death would save lives (from "needlessly" dying). That suggests quite strongly that Cheney's death would be a good thing for the alternative would be for people to continue to "needlessly" die.

The thing here is that if Maher just stands by his comment and his chronic apologists here did the same, it wouldn't be so easy to put Maher out on a limb on this. You can't have it both ways - either Cheney's death would save lives or it wouldn't. Which is it? If you disagree with Maher, than just say he's wrong or he's full of it and leave it at that and this discussion would have been over a long time ago.

Again, I think both were offensive.

Well, I'm not Cheney or Edwards, so I don't take offense at either. I'm satisfied in my own refusal to let others offend me so I have no interest in absorbing it for other people.

What's surprising and shocking is that someone who is so heavily involved in politics, to the point of being introduced by a presidential candidate, would get away with this.

What do you expect should happen to her? I don't think the rank and file Republicans are embracing her over this.

That's the shocking part, and that's the real issue here. It's not just what she said, or even who said it. It's where she said it, and who was endorsing it. The context is the issue.

If that's the real issue, why has it hardly been addressed? The title of this article refers to 'the rhetoric of hate'. Which is why I thought it pertinent to throw Maher's comments into the mix.

I disagree - I think it's absolutely the who. Maybe not with you (though you did start out defending Maher) but with most of the commenters here. You and I seem to have a weird agreement here - we both see parallels between the two, but you are approaching it from a sense of being offended and I'm approaching it from a sense of 'who cares?'.

This is borrowed from someone else, but I've adopted it for myself: clarity is key. Clarity over agreement. If Maher and Coulter want to say over-the-top things, then it's clear that they both can say things that you or I might not say and they have to stand by it. My complaint here is that the same people who think that Coulter has made the sky fall are putting forwards rather strange arguments to defend or excuse Maher, and I think when all is said and done and the context is addressed, Maher's comments were far worse than Coulters.

I never "defended" Maher. I'm pointing out that the comparison is invalid. The comments aren't the same. The context isn't the same. The support isn't the same. This has nothing to do with whether Maher was right or wrong or offensive or not. They're just not comparable. That's my point.

I never "defended" Maher.

"Bill Maher and Al Franken are comedians. They talk about politics, and they are politically involved, but there is no question that much of what they say is meant to be a joke. Ann isn't a comedian. She pretends to be serious about these arguments, and a lot of people seem to take her seriously."

This sounded like a defense to me. What's notable here though is that when Maher said his, nobody laughed. They clapped, but no one laughed because...it wasn't a joke. Yet Ann said hers, and it got laughs.

I agree that they are not comparable - one was serious and direct and fantasized about another man's death; the other was a calculated slur that didn't harm anyone nor discuss the benefits of someone being harmed. A comment about the pros of someone dying is not comparable to a cheap shot.

I'm not trying to draw comparisons between the comments themselves. I'm trying to demonstrate that people feign outrage over one comment based on it's offensiveness and ignore or excuse the other that was far more offensive! They don't have to be the same context to demonstrate that people are consumed by the 'who', not the 'what' as far as what was said by who.

If you think pointing out differences to show that the comparison is invalid is the same as "defending" him, then that's your problem.

If you think pointing out differences to show that the comparison is invalid is the same as "defending" him, then that's your problem.

No, I think that minimizing the impact of someone's words by saying 'but he is a comedian, we expect him to be offensive and because they are a comedian, it's obviously just a joke'...is defending him! Try and stay a little focused.

Please they are just two sides of the same coin.

What you were responding to was a quote from something Adam Kemp said. So maybe realizing that, you'd like to expand your criticism.

Otto is still going off the disproved premis that Maher actaully said he wanted cheney dead.

And I've given you plenty of opportunities to explain how he doesn't. Unless you want to make the case that he is okay with other people needlessly dying.

I didn't say it - Maher said it. He can't say something like this and then have it both ways!

I absolutely expect a comedian to be funny on a television show that's meant to be funny, and I absolutely do not consider his comments to be serious. I do think implying that someone's death would be a good thing is over the line, but in context it doesn't at all imply that Maher really wants Cheney to die. You're just making that up.

Wow. I feel irresponsible. I posted a challenge, but I haven't been back to this page in a few days, and since then, a ton of people have responded.

The Bill Maher comparison is bogus. I was watching the show when he said it. His statement was purely hypothetical and in no way implied that he wanted Cheney dead.

Randi Rhodes is a good example, I think, of someone who approaches Coulter (though doesn't quite reach her level), but she does not have the kind of national exposure that Coulter enjoys. I have a general dislike for her (and a slew of other liberal radio talk show hosts who rarely encourage intelligent debate).

She is old. She's 48.
She's wrinkled. Seen the crowfeet around her evil eyes?

Wow. 48. That is old to someone one third that. Maybe to the rest of us Newsviner, that is closer to the prime of a long life.

Your right Jay. I know Abdul didn't mean anything by it, but my first thought was hey, wait a minute, I'm older than that.... :-D

I know. I will give him the chance to 'get smarter here'. One has to think before the fingers start tapping.

As you pointed out, there are many of us close to or beyond the tender age of 48. Making derogatory comments about age will quickly erode one's credibility and get one on a few ignore lists.

Abdul Majid:

The size of Mann Coulter's Adam's Apple diverts attention from her Crow's Feet and Anorexia Nervosa symptoms.

Awwe c'mon. I wasn't taking a pot shot at you guys. Sorry. I told stolte-sawa that I won't be mean anymore. So, I have to live up to my word to her. (Man, she's mind-blowing.)

Even my dad is older than 48. I was just taking a potshot at Coulter.

Frank Black,

"Mann Coulter" -- hahaha, that's seriously funny, dude. Hadn't heard that one before.
I digg that.

I know Abdul didn't mean anything by it, but

See? We don't take things so literally when we don't have a problem with the messenger - with Abdul, we just 'know' he didn't mean anything when he trashed people for being older.

But what I love about this whole Coulter obsession is that this thread pretty much wraps up her oppositions responses to her. Ann is poopy. One person starts a thread with a tirade that would bore a junior high student and then others pipe in with clever little phrases like 'Mann Coulter". This constitutes making a serious point for the left. And then someone chimes in with a "that's seriously funny dude". Abdul - if you've never heard that one before than you obviously haven't been in the game very long. Maybe Frank can hook you up with some of the non-offensive sites of the left (we know their non-offensive because liberals don't mind them) like smirkingchimp.

I've have seriously been keeping an eye on this for years (I used to exchange with people on a forum devoted to Coulters columns) and anytime Coulter says anything, 90% of the responses are juvenile little insults and back-slapping and these people never opine on the subject at the heart of the controversy or disagreement. Really - is there anything new and revealing in this thread here?

Meanwhile, others are trying to convince us that conservatives have a monopoly on cheap and offensive attacks and liberals are all sunshine and substance. Way to support that, guys...

Ann is poopy.

Hahahahahaha.. You really said that?

Call it an assessment. ;o)

Stacy, how can you seriously write that?

Pretend that the right is all about hate, "while liberals are herding cats."

I have no idea if you're still around this thread or not Adam, but I wanted to respond to this quick.

You are right, it is unfair of me to put all conservatives under same umbrella, and I acknowledge that. I'm more thinking of the current administration, and those that are supporters of them, mainly what I would call neocons. And as far as that goes, I stand by my statement. But I think I'm going to write up a little blurb to explain where I'm coming from with the main idea I was presenting, so clarify it a bit more. It's been something I've been thinking about for a while, and my rum-induced rant there wasn't really the best way to present it, heh.

Why wasn't I invited to that party?!

well, its not exactly a quote "party". That was trying to be polite, its more like luncheons, airport terminals, fund-raisers, communion line, ...well pretty much anywhere they'd serve her alcohol.

...she reminds me of the disgustingly-drunk girl at the party unabashedly grabbing people's junk.

If this were the case, liberals would be defending her.

Devo - what about her comments makes you think she "hates gays"?

(BTW, I agree with your wonderment as to why she draws so much attention and anger)

OttO Said...

"Devo - what about her comments makes you think she "hates gays"?

Maybe it's the way she, you know, calls them- FAGS!!

Sheesh, what a dufus

Who did she call a FAG??

Al Gore for example?

Okay, we'll change the course of the discussion since you either couldn't answer the question asked or are unfamiliar with what we are talking about. Since it doesn't change my point:

Is married father Al Gore gay? Ann doesn't seem to think so. Edwards isn't gay. So where again did she say she "hates gays"?

Otto.. using derogatory terms associated with certain people, ideas or life styles usually implies at the very least a lack of respect, if not worse. Is it really necessary to explain that to you? Do you run around calling African American the N-Word and then expect people to believe you don't don't at the very least 'don't like them'? Please.

Otto, if I made a reference to stupid right-wing pig@!$%#ers would you be offended? Would you think that perhaps I had a problem with - maybe even hated - Republicans?

You would (or at least should) be offended. It's an offensive (and stupid) thing to say.

I'm hoping you see the parallel here.

I'm hoping you see the parallel here.

Something tells me he doesn't.

If this were the case, liberals would be defending her.

Devo - what about her comments makes you think she "hates gays"?

First off, liberals can get tail just fine on their own.

Secondly, You're right; saying someone is gay could be saying they're happy. Or it could be saying they have great fashion sense. Except calling someone a faggot is like calling you taxi driver a towel-head and then wonder why you got kicked to the curb. It might be debatable, but she has shown a pattern of using homosexuality as an insult.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is gay: "I'd say that's about even money" on Sen. Clinton "[c]oming out of the closet" in 2008.

former President Bill Clinton on the July 26 CNBC saying that he "show[s] some level of latent homosexuality,"

former Vice President Al Gore a "total fag" on the July 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews.

I thought it was obvious, but she was using the transitive property. If a = b and b = c, then a = c.
Only she was using all the class of, "Homosaid what?" (Insert Beavis and Butt-head laughs) "heh heh heh, I almost said what."

Otto.. using derogatory terms associated with certain people, ideas or life styles usually implies at the very least a lack of respect, if not worse.

Agreed. So what? Are we mandated by law to treat people with respect? Up until now, that's not what anyone was talking about.

Do you run around calling African American the N-Word and then expect people to believe you don't don't at the very least 'don't like them'? Please.

Nope, and Ann Coulter doesn't run around calling homosexuals "faggots" either. Unless you want to make that case that Al Gore or John Edwards are gay.

Otto, if I made a reference to stupid right-wing pig@!$%#ers would you be offended?

I rarely get offended by name-calling, but if you were to call someone that...why would I care? I've been called worse. Now, if it were to be in the same context as what Coulter said, you would call a liberal a "stupid right-wing pig@%$#er".

You would (or at least should) be offended. It's an offensive (and stupid) thing to say.

I don't get offended. If I were to blow up in outrage the way others do every time someone says something to offend me, I wouldn't last very long on forums like this. That would imply that an opinion like that mattered to me. While I might fire back on it, I appreciate your right to express yourself, even in ways that may make you look bad. I feel the same way about Coulter and Maher. What I'm doing here is trying to get people to acknowledge the problems in what Bill has said, but I see his words as saying more about him than about Cheney. I'm all for people being as clear as they possibly can be.

First off, liberals can get tail just fine on their own.

Okay. Whatever that's suposed to mean. Way to prop feminism!

You're right; saying someone is gay could be saying they're happy.

With all due respect, is this supposed to be a response to something I've said?

I'll ask again, since you or Angie or Jimster don't seem interested in answering: what about Ann's comments makes you think she "hates gays"?

Why is it when I ask people about the comments in question, instead of addressing those, they copy and paste past things she's said? Yet, between her attacks on Edwards, Gore and the Clintons, to the best of my knowledge, not one of them attacked a homosexual! People have been called 'fags' to imply things other than sexual preferences.

I'm not really familar with these past comments, so I'm not going to argue them, but her comments about Edwards was a critique on the culture. I knew that the second I heard them and she confirmed that later while making the media rounds.

I seem to recall Edwards and Kerry in 2004, referencing Mary Cheney's sexuality. Why? While Coulter directed a derogatory homosexual comment at a heterosexual, Edwards brought up Mary Cheney with the hopes of using her sexuality against her father. Which is more outrageous and were the people wringing their hands over Ann responding in kind to Edwards attack on someone over homosexuality? And these weren't pundits, they were presidential candidates! I also seem to recall some pretty nasty attacks on Jeff Gannon, including many derogatory attacks on his sexuality. Yet, I'm gathering that Coulters attack on Edwards is far worse, right?

Because it's about the 'who', not the 'what'.

Hitler was a Neo-Con!

Marx was a liberal. What's your point?

Otto, I so want to dismiss her. She deserved my disbelief comment, but each line more makes me puke a tiny bit in my mouth. But your response is more reasonable than I originally took it for.

..liberal tail. - I mistook "defending" as a glib "they'd love to be participants at that party". I was saying no one needs that party.

Saying they're happy was towards it being true that someone could use faggot to mean something else.

No, she didn't say she hates gays, and calling some a fag can certainly imply something other than sexual preference. I believe that's what she was doing. I think it was closer to panty-waist, weak, fine-boned, feminine. I dont think his sun-dont-shine was really the point. I think she has contempt for homosexuals for how she used the term. Calling someone a faggot who was wearing delicate pink dress shirt says something else. (A thoughtful Georgia O'Keeffe tie in addition to the shirt might warrent a different response) Does she hate em, I dunno. I really dont. She could just be good at publicity. She doesnt need to prove it so before I'll leap to that conclusion as it seems so much of her commentary is offensive (as in attack-oriented) and dirrogetory. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck sorta thing for me.

We are not by law required to treat people with respect. I don't care she called him a faggot. I dont care (if....I'll concede) she hates gays. My intent was to quickly gloss over anything she said, means, believes, etc. rendering her inconsequential.

I really wasnt analyzing her comments. Killfile's column is usually an engaging read, and I'll be happy to consider nuance elsewhere. She is fascinating to me, such as a news outlet reports a fabricated blog comment, then another news outlet reports the credible source and the fabrication becomes (or gross hyperbole) becomes truth. The peddling of nothing, circumnavigating the net is fascinating to me. Her opinion is doesn't even register and her personal appeal remains beyond my understanding.

You had fair comments, and stayed with em. I appreciate that, so I'll try to respond in kind. I'd just rather we do in on an issue either of us care about.

Perhaps cold-weather infuence on the urgency to urinate?

Thanks Devo,

I might be brash and direct, but I'm not unreasonable. And it seems that you aren't either.

I'd just rather we do in on an issue either of us care about.

Then I'll see you around...

How often do you see Michael Moore on mainstream television and at mainstream political events with presidential candidates introducing him? For that matter, has Michael Moore ever called anyone a "faggot" or similar? His arguments are terrible, and he's deceptive, but he's still not comparable to Coulter.

How often do you see Michael Moore on mainstream television and at mainstream political events with presidential candidates introducing him?

Have you forgotten the 2004 Presidential Convention?

Promoting his movie Fahrenheit 9/11 at the Democratic National Convention, radical filmmaker Michael Moore launched into a shouting, red-faced denunciation of Republicans Tuesday, saying supporters of the GOP are different from "real Americans"; that they are "people who hate"; that they are "up at six in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they're going to screw today";

[link]

That's sad, but he still doesn't get nearly as much mainstream, continuous attention as Coulter. I will concede that he's probably the closest comparison, but I still am not convinced that he's completely analogous.

I don't think they are exactly analogous. Recall when Micheal Moore spoke up for Westley Clark in the 2004 elections, and how fast that campaign sank after that. We just don't see this type of thing with Coulter. If the pattern that we see with Coulter plays out the same as it has been (which, I admit it may not, we'll see), everyone will *tsk* at her words, she'll lay low for a while, and then once again invite her to high profile political events.

I don't think they are exactly analogous.

Seriously, what in the real world ever is?

We just don't see this type of thing with Coulter.

She tends not to endorse candidates which helps.

That's sad, but he still doesn't get nearly as much mainstream, continuous attention as Coulter. I will concede that he's probably the closest comparison, but I still am not convinced that he's completely analogous.

I didn't know who Ann Coulter was before newsvine, so I'm not sure just how much mainstream attention she actually gets.

And again, very few things in the real world are completely analogous.

And really in the end does it even matter? Neither Ann Coulter nor Michale Moore represent conservatives or liberals. Both are entertainers and controversy makers more so than anything else.

Does anyone even think that Coulter or Moore even believe all the crap that comes out of their own mouths?

Honestly, I think both Coulter and Michael Moore believe most, if not all, of what they say. I really think they're both @!$%#ing morons. :)

I think the most important difference, though, is that Michael Moore is famous for making movies. He's pretty much the perfect example of a "Hollywood liberal". In terms of name recognition among average Americans, Michael Moore is probably more well-known than Ann Coulter. But Moore isn't a big player in the actual politics (except perhaps in fund-raising, and politicians will take money from just about anyone). Coulter is a big part of the right politically. She makes frequent appearances on major TV networks representing the Right's point of view. She's had several jobs writing columns for major newspapers (until they finally came to their senses and fired her) representing conservative points of view. She's not popular because she made some films and has a lot of money. She's popular because a lot of people agree with her, including mainstream Republicans.

I was wondering about this as well. What misfortune of Edwards was Coulter rejoicing in? Or was she rejoicing in the misfortune of the thought police who offended by folks like Isaiah Washington and Tim Hardaway, and have somehow 'progressed' an offensive remark into requiring rehab...oops, silly me, I got awfully close to touching on the purpose of her statement. That has no place on a forum where we are instead supposed to be discussing the various levels of hatred we feel for her.

Daniel, could you explain to me

1. Where you got the idea that 'Schadenfreude' was a Nazi term? Schadenfreude is an ordinary German word, a noun to be precise and it's been around since the 1890's. Or do you generally use the term 'Nazis' and 'Brown Coats' when you're referring to Germans?

2. What in the world does 'Seien sie gut, Meine Freunde' mean where you come from? Where I come from (Germany) it means jack %#$@, simply because it doesn't make sense at all. It's random German words put together to form a sentence.

When Coulter says something awful about a Democratic Candidates, Democrats, Liberals, Human Beings, Puppies, Victims of A Terrorist Attack etc she pisses off a whole bunch of people.

And when you write propaganda for Ahmadinejad, it pisses off people too. But charges of offensiveness are based on relativism, are they not?

None of her fanboys really care all that much what she said - it's always dismissed as a "joke" or "figurative" (as you've done about a million times above here Otto).

I'm calling it what it is. Rather than just a passing rejection, explain why I'm wrong.

Coulters fans don't care what she really has to say, they just enjoy watching Liberals scream in frustration ever time she opens her mouth.

And liberals must enjoy screaming in frustration every time she opens her mouth.

Because of this "faggot" issue, Ann has 3 companies adds being pulled from her site.

See? The market in action!

"We Germans are a peaceful people but even we have our limits!"

Hitler was a Neo-Con!

Marx was a liberal. What's your point?

..

"We Germans are a peaceful people but even we have our limits!"

And what exactly is YOURS?

It was worth a try. I guess.

And what exactly is YOURS?

Well, he said he was German and Daniel and I have a little history so I threw out a silly quote from the Simpsons.

Any other questions?

Nope. All questions answered.

schadenfreude "malicious joy in the misfortunes of others," 1922, from Ger., lit. "damage-joy," from schaden "damage, harm, injury" (see scathe) + freude, from O.H.G. frewida "joy," from fro "happy," lit. "hopping for joy,"

That's exactly right. Sadism is something completely different, even without the sexual stigma.

There are plenty of idiotic liberals, some of which can even be hateful. I think it would be going way too far to say that they don't exist or would be hard to find. The question is how mainstream they are, and whether a mainstream political candidate would dare to allow any association with one of them. That's what I don't see on the left.

absolutely Adam. Its the association that floors me.

Rosie is a stretch, and not a pundit. Also some would call here a comedian. I find her comedy funny, but over the last years she seems to stray into social commentary. To me she's blurring the line between the two. (which is very different from making a provocative point in a comedic way)

I dont think she equates, but im not seeing one either on the left.

yes, excellent distinction

she put three high-profile RINO candidates in an uncomfortable position. That's gotta be worth something!

Well, yeah, if you're into schadenfreude...

You're either kidding, you've never watched his show, you've never actually read anything by Ann Coulter, or you're an idiot. Moore is close. Olbermann is so far off that it's laughable.

I very rarely agree with Killfile but one thing he has always done is research his articles and provide facts and links to support his assertions. His articles are always very well written as well. If you don't like it, don't read it. Go troll somewhere else.

I bet absentee carries Coulter's picture as Miss 1939 in his wallet.