Why odd? We're a big tent!

Oh, I'm not talking about the juxtaposition of viewpoints, rather the focus/viewpoint of the Vent post itself.

It's rare that I find myself agreeing with Hillary Clinton.

And it makes me uncomfortable.

Coulter is Rall with blonde hair, twiggy legs, and a vagina. Why anyone would look at her to prove a point for them is beyond me. Venom is venom, regardless of who's spitting it.

I can understand the knee-jerk reaction - she agrees with a lot of things that conservatives agree with - so they're willing to overlook her transgressions. I see the same reaction in football. You can watch the replay in slow-mo, see your guy reach up and grab the facemask, reach up with the other hand and do the same, and still somehow find a way to get pissed at the personal foul call.

But it makes them look..... err well, a lot like the liberals they're trying so hard to destroy.

Just because she might have a point somewhere doesn't absolve her from being a total bitch.

I'm having trouble grasping the problem here. Ann Coulter makes some excellent points, and delivers them with Andrew Dice Clay style prose. So... what? She's not running for office or anything, she's just selling a book.

I'm not a fan of her Creationist viewpoint, but in most other matters I'm in firm agreement with her. The ascerbic wit just makes her more fun to read. What's the big deal?

"Ted Rall makes some excellent points, and delivers them in Andrew Dice Clay style. So... what? He's not running for office or anything, he's just selling a cartoon/column."

"Michael Moore makes some excellent points, and delivers them in Andrew Dice Clay style. So... what? He's not running for office or anything, he's just selling a movie/book."

Why do you like Michelle M. anyway Bill? She's a demagouge and a hack as far as I can tell...a wannabe Coutler.

a wannabe Coutler.

Briefly, without addressing the complexities of my likes/dislikes about MM's politics (which are detailed in a variety of posts on this site): I don't find this comparison valid.

Bill,

The "right" have been deploring the vindictive brand of public discourse for decades. During those last few decades, have such tactics flourished or famished?

I'd say that they have flourished and become mainstream.

That being the case, I still don't much care for those tactics, but they would seem to be effective. If Ann Coulter can cause further appoplexy among the left by using their own tactics against them (and shinning a whole lot of attention on them in the process), more power to her.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
rodney.g.graves@gmail.com

No "high ground" for you, huh Rodney? Public discourse by lowest common denominator?

Ann Coulter's use of despicable tactics isn't going to shine light on the left's use of them, they're going to be held up obviously as the right's use of them.

Don't know anything about Ted Rall (unless he's the guy who wrote an angry cartoon involving a paraplegic), but Michael Moore does not make any good points.

Michael Moore's facts are suspect (he lies) and that's why he is attacked from the right. Ann Coulter's facts are not suspect, so her attitude and egregious style is attacked. To quote you, "I don't find this comparison valid."

Ann Coulter's facts are not suspect, so her attitude and egregious style is attacked.

I wasn't aware that Ann Coulter used many "facts" in proportion to ad hominem characterizations, nor that of the few that she used, many aren't suspect. To wit:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031023.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020713.html

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

I find your finding of invalidity invalid.

The premise of her claims may have validity, but her execution is an error-riddled caricature.

Whether Coulter is, on the whole, as bad in degree as Moore is certainly very debatable (my feeling: "no"). Whether she has plumbed similar depths of misrepresentation and nastiness at various points, less so.

"Whether Coulter is, on the whole, as bad in degree as Moore is certainly very debatable (my feeling: "no"). Whether she has plumbed similar depths of misrepresentation and nastiness at various points, less so."

Word. Moore has to go there because he has nothing else. What are Coulter's motivations?

Sloth.

Apparently I'm jealous of Coulter. Why else would I criticize her? I ask you.

dorkafork,

Moral high ground? I could have sworn we were talking about politics. Which, when last I checked, is a pig stye.

So when the left begins cleaning up their side of the debate, I'll gladly join in taking Ann to task.

Which of course will happen shortly after the denizens of that stye start flying under their own power.

Go Ann, get some.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
rodney.g.graves@gmail.com

Envy?

Oh wait, that's the same thing.

Then I have no idea.

My all-encompassing laziness forces me to agree without checking that your links prove that Ann has made some mistakes. But don't you think "error-riddled caricature" is a bit of an overstatement?

I agree that mistakes should be attacked with vigor until corrected or apologized for. However, the size of the mistakes/lies is important as well. I remember one site claiming Ann was an idiot because of something like "Ann said man x was the daugter of communist y, when in reality man x was the GRANDdaughter of communist y." Sure, correct it if it's wrong, but who really cares?

It's just not on the same level with things like implying that Iraq was a happy-go-lucky wonderland before we attacked. If Ann said/implied/lied about something, I'd jump on the bandwagon and attack her, if it was an issue important to me (Except for creation/evolution, which is an unwinnable debate if there ever was one). I just don't really care how rude the words surrounding the information are, as long as it's funny and accurate.

Can anyone who writes with a sardonic, agressive tone and has printed factual errors be considered the moral equivalent to Michael Moore? I hope not. That would mean I am the moral equivalent to Michael Moore. And well... them's fightin' words.

I regret I must invalidate your invalidation of my invalidatituding. Furthermore, I demand that you cease and desist all invaliditudinous practices and destroy your invalidificationistic machinery.

I thank you for and will certainly check out your links later on her inaccuracies, since accuracy is the most important ingredient in forming a reasonable opinion. But it's Friday...

Kevin -

Don't have time for a lengthy response, but I do not find your comment unreasonable, though perhaps diluted with a fallacy or two (example of illogical criticism of Coulter indicates broad point about Coulter)

That said, I also have stated that Coulter is not the voluminous equivalent of Michael Moore, though she has certainly trod enough in his territory to merit comparison.

Talking about soldiers "fragging" Murtha being the latest Moorian feather in her little black cocktail dress ...

"Talking about soldiers "fragging" Murtha being the latest Moorian feather in her little black cocktail dress."

*sigh* She's not really helping my case, is she :(

Ann Coulter's facts are not suspect

No, in the case of evolution, her "facts" are outright lies. This makes her different from Moore exactly how?

I'd say they both appeal to a class of people that think largely in dogmatic soundbites, each easy-to-think chunk compartmentalized in a tiny mental box such that they never touch, lest actual thinking and reasoning occur.

Oh, and Ann has a bigger Adam's apple.

P.S. Shall I countdown to the first person to complain about my suggesting that Ann is really a man?

I make a joke about someone's gender and I'm a pariah. Ann suggests its a shame McVeigh didn't bring down the New York Times building too and she's the wingnut posterchild for political discourse and enlightened thought.

But, really, hers is bigger. Have a look.

So's her weiner.

It's come to this.

Allah, why should I read cmc's comment when I don't know his own "bio or credentials"?

Jesus, the internet sucks ass lately.

It is best to make a sock puppet if you are going to flame yourself andy, you don't look like quite as nutty that way.

It is best to make a sock puppet if you are going to flame yourself andy, you don't look like quite as nutty that way.

Errr... I believe "shall I countdown to" implies that, based on experience in the blogosphere, I wouldn't be surprised for such a flame to be coming from some right-wing quarters.

It was a pre-emptive strike, rather like a little war in Iraq, but without all the shock and awe and breathless Michelle Malkin support.

"So when the left begins cleaning up their side of the debate, I'll gladly join in taking Ann to task."

Rodney, some left-wingers say the same thing with the word 'left' replaced with 'right'. If something's gotta give, why not Ann?

As far as disowning Ann, a replacement could only be an improvement.

I don't get her appeal. She's not particularly funny or insightful. And I've tried to find the funny or insightful in her quotes but I'm not seeing it. These seem pretty lame, as do these... The only thing I've read of hers I've found remotely funny was 2 bits from her interview with John Hawkins:

John Hawkins: If you were to pick three concepts, facts, or ideas that most undercut the theory of evolution, what would they be?

Ann Coulter: 1. It's illogical. 2. There's no physical evidence for it. 3. There's physical evidence that directly contradicts it. Apart from those three concerns I'd say it's a pretty solid theory.

I thought that setup was funny... back when I first heard it in 1943. The other one:

John Hawkins: Do you think evolution, intelligent design, or something else should be taught in schools?

Ann Coulter: I would say teach them the one that has the strongest scientific basis to it, and if there's any time left over at the end of the day you could also teach them about the theory of evolution.

This one I actually thought was funny, maybe I just haven't heard that formula used in a couple of decades. But I'd bet vaudeville performers thought it was old.

And Allah is funnier than Ann Coulter. OH YEAH I SAID IT!

Stephen Colbert is still funnier than Ann Coulter. OH NO I DI-N'T!

I can re-enact that scene from Ace Ventura where Jim Carrey pulls apart his butt cheeks and does butt ventriloquism and that's funnier than Ann Coulter. OH SNAP!

Oh my, dorkafork's been in the wine coolers again.

Apparently I'm jealous of Coulter. Why else would I criticize her? I ask you.

Alternatively (also?) you are turned on by her.

Liberals are so intolerent while probibly having those PRACTICE TOLERENCE stickers in their windows and while also supporting abortion and opposing the death penalty

Hahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha, well put, Birdzilla.

He's like Hue on Oxy.

Suck it up Bill, the "Victorian Gent" died a few years ago. I knew him, he was a freind of mine and you are not Victorian Gent.

I need to suck up what, exactly? That I'm of the opinion that Ann Coulter's a shrill harpy, I'm guessing.

Which ...

...

... when you think about it ...

... amounts to curbing my mean opinions in favor of Saint Ann's, in order to tiptoe around any gossamer wingnut sensibilities.

Who needs to suck what up, again?

PS - Am I still allowed to criticize Michael Moore? Or does that mark me as a Victorian-pining panty-waist as well?

Well, I suppose someone has to be the Right's bombthrower.

Her arguments are interesting. But she's very tendentious and it's not a coincidence her most inflammatory remarks occur on her book tours. She knows what she is and she laughs all the way to the bank. I think that's why she's so successful: notice she rarely seems angry. She's always laughing and smiling, enjoying the infuriation she creates in others, and interspersing rhetorical bombshells with reasonable-sounding arguments. Angry Left take note: that's how you sell extremism.

Plus, she's a skinny blonde girl, which appeals to her key demo, conservatives being more male on average.

Good Lord. I'm going all Kerry now. I watched Markos Zuniga a minute ago at the political teen, and was thinking:

This heartless bastard said 'screw them' about those poor contractors who were killed and violated in Falluja. That he was not soundly denounced by his party, since his lame excuse was that they were war profiteers.

It really is despicable. It took a few minutes to realize that changing a few names, the horrible statement and the self-righteous reason for saying it, and it becomes Ann's story. I guess my general agreement with her statements had me blinded to how inappropriate her jersey girl comment must sound to a liberal.

Ann's detractors are right, and I was wrong.

Oops, last sentence of blockquote should read "That he was not soundly denounced by his party, since his lame excuse was that they were war profiteers, dramatically lowered my view of the Democratic party.

ionolsen21 HI! I love this place!

ionolsen23 So interesting site, thanks!

generic viagra .

viagra .

viagra online .

buy generic viagra .

awlszm bmgseohzq sthvzi qboiljn mwojbksq bjzfp zpfjsedg

awlszm bmgseohzq sthvzi qboiljn mwojbksq bjzfp zpfjsedg

Nice resource, very interesting reading. http://s1u.net/inob

Alec Baldwin asks for his voice to be removed from an "unfair" documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger...

Alec Baldwin asks for his voice to be removed from an "unfair" documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger...

Alec Baldwin asks for his voice to be removed from an "unfair" documentary about Arnold Schwarzenegger...