Intolerance at websites.

[Ben Kenobi]

A tradition already broken by Limbaugh and O'Reilly long before Coulter came along, I'll add.

Granted. But the tradition still is preferred by conservatives themselves, even as they indulge in Limbaugh and O'Reilly, and in Coulter

The quiet folks are our meat and potatoes, while Coulter is the dessert.

Precisely. Why does she want them to ignore what she writes about? Because it's ultimately insubstantive.

Nope. She's a bonafide troll, and likes to stir up liberals. Her substance is still there, which the liberals will not acknowledge.

So much for your assertion that liberals haven't responded by taking down her "facts."

Where did I say that they haven't? I said the conservatives, rather than pieing Michael Moore have preferred to tear apart Fahrenheit 9-11.

How is she popular? Gee, I'd guess having numerous best-selling books would indicate she's popular with somebody. Unless you think the majority of people buying her books hate her and just want to feel enraged? I doubt that. I've never felt the urge to buy a book by someone I dislike.

Precisely so. But you don't need to sell many books to be considered 'popular'.

Being "popular" doesn't necessitate being loved by 51% of the general population. It just means one has a large enough following to sustain a highly public image and to peddle one's wares to a significant number of people. I'll use Tom Cruise again as an example: I'd wager that fewer than 50% of the population cares for him as an actor, but he has enough fans to keep a good career going. Likewise, Coulter has folks like you and Ned to keep her aloft.

I haven't bought any of her books, so she hasn't earned a penny from me.

I guarantee there are far more hateful attacks against Moore than claims he is shacking up with someone outside of marriage (which, incidently, is absolutely true wrt Coulter, since she has lived with men out of wedlock. I don't care, but it just further shows she's a hypocrite).

A hypocrite can still be right. Whether a point is right or wrong is irrelevant to the character of the person making the statement. Granted, the question to Coulter ought to be, if you believe that this is the right way to live, why don't you live this way yourself?

Secondly, I never said, that there have not been any attacks on Michael Moore, but to claim that conservatives have poured more bile on him than liberals on Coulter is a very debatable point.

[Q Classic]

I haven't bought any of her books, so she hasn't earned a penny from me.

And yet you still consider yourself one of her fans... which doesn't change the fact that it's her fans, all told, who keep her aloft, whether or not they actually give her money.

A hypocrite can still be right. Whether a point is right or wrong is irrelevant to the character of the person making the statement.

I don't see it this way.

[Q Classic]

Actually, let me clarify that last remark.

A hypocrite preaching about morality, when he/she remarks repeatedly about what is right and does not follow it him/herself, then those moral pronunciations, in my opinion, fail to carry any weight.

It's why I can respect the pope, who at least practices what he preaches, but cannot respect most televangelists, who do not.

[Ned]

Well, the left struck again, this time trying to silence Schwarzennegger.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/15/schwarzenegger.booed.ap/index.html

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Granted. But the tradition still is preferred by conservatives themselves, even as they indulge in Limbaugh and O'Reilly, and in Coulter

The quiet folks are our meat and potatoes, while Coulter is the dessert.

I don't see any substantiation for this. Compare the book sales of the "trolls"--Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh--and the folks like Will, Buckley, etc. The former has exponentially larger sales than the latter. So how can it be that the latter is their "meat," when they are spending all their dining time on the former? You have it backwards.

Nope. She's a bonafide troll, and likes to stir up liberals. Her substance is still there, which the liberals will not acknowledge.

"No, she doesn't." We can go on like this, but it won't get anywhere since you just repeat your assertion over and over.

Where did I say that they haven't?

Uh, in your very first post in this thread.

the only way for liberals to counter her arguments is to throw pies,

That's rather clearly saying that you think liberals haven't countered her with facts, just "pie throwing." Can't you remember what you type from page to page?

I said the conservatives, rather than pieing Michael Moore have preferred to tear apart Fahrenheit 9-11.

Conservatives have launched a load of empty vitriol at Moore, for the most part. I've seen a lot of "critiques" of his film that don't hold up upon scrutiny.

Regardless, your claim (or rather, original claim) that liberals can't respond to Coulter except through pie-throwing has been demonstrated to be false, as the links I provided prove. You seem to be basing your view of responses to Coulter on one pie-throwing stunt rather than taking into account the full gamut of responses to her claims. Were I to employ the same tactic on an issue you hold dear, I could claim that the only response conservatives have in the abortion debate is to murder doctors. Doesn't make much sense, now does it?

Precisely so. But you don't need to sell many books to be considered 'popular'.

But she DOES sell many books. I don't see your point here.

I haven't bought any of her books, so she hasn't earned a penny from me.

Fine, but that's dodging the issue. She does sell tons of books. Who buys them? Right-wingers. Ergo she's popular with right-wingers. It's not hard to grasp the logic here, Ben...

A hypocrite can still be right. Whether a point is right or wrong is irrelevant to the character of the person making the statement. Granted, the question to Coulter ought to be, if you believe that this is the right way to live, why don't you live this way yourself?

Nobody said her hypocrisy made her wrong about an issue. But you certainly should take into account the character of said hypocrite in terms of evaluating the merits of her opinions. You should also take into account that she lies, as the links I provided show.

Secondly, I never said, that there have not been any attacks on Michael Moore, but to claim that conservatives have poured more bile on him than liberals on Coulter is a very debatable point.

Now who said they "poured more bile" on him? Read carefully and you'll see that's not what I said at all. You have this consistent habit of falsely claiming strawmen and then making your own strawmen in the same posts.

[Ben Kenobi]

A hypocrite preaching about morality, when he/she remarks repeatedly about what is right and does not follow it him/herself, then those moral pronunciations, in my opinion, fail to carry any weight.

It's why I can respect the pope, who at least practices what he preaches, but cannot respect most televangelists, who do not.

Fair enough. I'm not asking you to respect Ms. Coulter. My point is that shacking up with another man is not right because Coulter does it, and neither is waiting until marriage wrong, because Coulter does not do this. What is right and wrong exists independently of the character of the person.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see any substantiation for this. Compare the book sales of the "trolls"--Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh--and the folks like Will, Buckley, etc. The former has exponentially larger sales than the latter. So how can it be that the latter is their "meat," when they are spending all their dining time on the former? You have it backwards.

First of all, you are assuming that book sales are the sole measure of influence among conservatives. I don't see that at all. There are plenty of conservatives with influence far beyond their book sales. In fact I don't see book sales having anything to do with the amount of influence, rather I see whether someone is quoted, and whether other conservatives apply their thinking, as far more influential than sales for a book.

I haven't seen many folks using Coulter's arguments elsewhere, which leads me to believe that she has less influence than the others.

"No, she doesn't." We can go on like this, but it won't get anywhere since you just repeat your assertion over and over.

Awesome! I was waiting for that. What kind of statement would you consider to be substantial?

Uh, in your very first post in this thread.

Nope, read it again.

That's rather clearly saying that you think liberals haven't countered her with facts, just "pie throwing." Can't you remember what you type from page to page?

Why would they throw pies at all, if they had confidence that she had been decisively refuted?

Regardless, your claim (or rather, original claim) that liberals can't respond to Coulter except through pie-throwing has been demonstrated to be false, as the links I provided prove. You seem to be basing your view of responses to Coulter on one pie-throwing stunt rather than taking into account the full gamut of responses to her claims. Were I to employ the same tactic on an issue you hold dear, I could claim that the only response conservatives have in the abortion debate is to murder doctors. Doesn't make much sense, now does it?

First you would have to prove that it is 'conservatives' who shoot abortion doctors. Secondly, you have to compare the difference in responses. The liberals celebrated the attempt to pie Ms. Coulter, whereas I do not see the conservatives celebrating those who shoot abortion doctors.

Granted you are right, that there have been some who have attempted to refute Ms. Coulter, including a 'non-partisan' site which is useless for your claim that it is liberals who actually bother to refute Ms. Coulter. However, that does nothing to deal with my point that if Ms. Coulter were decisively refuted, why pie her at all?

But she DOES sell many books. I don't see your point here.

My point is that she doesn't sell enough books to ensure that her popularity outweighs her unpopularity. I would think there are far more who hate her than like her.

Fine, but that's dodging the issue. She does sell tons of books. Who buys them? Right-wingers. Ergo she's popular with right-wingers. It's not hard to grasp the logic here, Ben...

Shifting goalposts. We were talking about popularity among everyone, not just rightwingers. Now you say it's just rightwingers, who are not the majority of the population, and even among them, not all of them like Ms. Coulter.

Nobody said her hypocrisy made her wrong about an issue.

But you certainly should take into account the character of said hypocrite in terms of evaluating the merits of her opinions.

Nope, you've contradicted yourself. If I am not to consider her opinion wrong because of her hypocrisy, then her character has no standing in assessing the merit of her opinions. Once again, whether someone is right or wrong, has nothing to do with their character. I am going to repeat this point, until it sinks in. Character has nothing to do with whether an argument is right or wrong.

Now who said they "poured more bile" on him? Read carefully and you'll see that's not what I said at all. You have this consistent habit of falsely claiming strawmen and then making your own strawmen in the same posts

Fine, was not the whole point of introducing Michael Moore to establish a comparison between the way right wingers treat him, to how left wingers treat Ms. Coulter? Now whether the treatment is at all comparable, is very much debateable. As admitted by QCubed, conservatives have not bothered to pie Michael Moore.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First of all, you are assuming that book sales are the sole measure of influence among conservatives. I don't see that at all. There are plenty of conservatives with influence far beyond their book sales. In fact I don't see book sales having anything to do with the amount of influence, rather I see whether someone is quoted, and whether other conservatives apply their thinking, as far more influential than sales for a book.

Were Coulter's influence confined to book sales, you might have a point. But as usual, you fail to do any research.

Coulter appears on TV far more than most conservative pundits (excepting those with their daily shows, but those guys are also of the "troll" variety). She's a constant feature on Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, talk radio, etc. She's also a nationally syndicated columnist whose writing appears in newspapers and magazines across the country. She's been featured on the cover of Newsweek, for pete's sake. When was the last time George Will could say that?

If you're trying to tell me that, in spite of all this, she's not an influential conservative voice, then pardon me for thinking you're either delusional or dishonest.

I haven't seen many folks using Coulter's arguments elsewhere, which leads me to believe that she has less influence than the others.

Hahaha, funny. I did a google search on coulter quotes, and I found literally thousands of websites in which conservatives were quoting her in arguments and such. Do it yourself and see! So instead of relying on your (uninformed) opinion, you might want to actually research such things before making such pronouncements.

Awesome! I was waiting for that. What kind of statement would you consider to be substantial?

Oh, one that was supported by facts, free of distortions and based on original scholarship on her part. Now, she does like to take things other, more sober analysts are saying and repeat them with added vitriol...but that doesn't make one substantive, you know.

Nope, read it again.

I quoted it and you are just saying "no it doesn't."

Explain to me how this:

" However, I do agree with her and with you, that the only way for liberals to counter her arguments is to throw pies, which should give you a clue right there, that her arguments must have merit."

isn't saying that they can't respond to Coulter except with pie throwing? You're weaseling.

Why would they throw pies at all, if they had confidence that she had been decisively refuted?

Why do extremists on either side do what they do? It's not Alterman or Krugman who are throwing pies, you know. The point is that the pie-throwing isn't representative of the arguments opposing Coulter.

First you would have to prove that it is 'conservatives' who shoot abortion doctors.

Do you have proof that it's liberals throwing pies?

But regardless, change it to "pro-lifers" and the point
still stands.

Secondly, you have to compare the difference in responses. The liberals celebrated the attempt to pie Ms. Coulter, whereas I do not see the conservatives celebrating those who shoot abortion doctors.

I've seen plenty of celebrating of the shooting of doctors. Have you forgotten the website that had a "tally" of abortion doctors and had the big red X through the doctor murdered in Pensacola?

I've seen people all over the net glorifying in violence against abortion doctors. They think it's a righteous cause.

Granted you are right, that there have been some who have attempted to refute Ms. Coulter, including a 'non-partisan' site which is useless for your claim that it is liberals who actually bother to refute Ms. Coulter.

So one non-partisan site amongst several liberal ones is an issue for you? Man, talk about insubstansive criticism...

However, that does nothing to deal with my point that if Ms. Coulter were decisively refuted, why pie her at all?

But it's a vacuous point. Prove first that pie-throwing is indicative of a lack of such refuation on one side or the other. As I said, extremists throwing pies says nothing about what the actual liberal pundits and commentators are doing.

If Michael Moore has been decisively refuted, why threaten to kill him at all?

My point is that she doesn't sell enough books to ensure that her popularity outweighs her unpopularity. I would think there are far more who hate her than like her.

Which, as I said, isn't relevant when concerning whether one is popular or not, since one need not have 51% of the general populace loving you to be popular.

Shifting goalposts. We were talking about popularity among everyone, not just rightwingers. Now you say it's just rightwingers, who are not the majority of the population, and even among them, not all of them like Ms. Coulter.

Wrong again. I clearly stated it on the previous page, so you're "forgetting" it here is baffling:

How is she popular? Gee, I'd guess having numerous best-selling books would indicate she's popular with somebody. Unless you think the majority of people buying her books hate her and just want to feel enraged? I doubt that. I've never felt the urge to buy a book by someone I dislike.

Being "popular" doesn't necessitate being loved by 51% of the general population. It just means one has a large enough following to sustain a highly public image and to peddle one's wares to a significant number of people. I'll use Tom Cruise again as an example: I'd wager that fewer than 50% of the population cares for him as an actor, but he has enough fans to keep a good career going. Likewise, Coulter has folks like you and Ned to keep her aloft.

So the goalposts have remained the same, for me at least. That you're making the patently silly assertion that if one isn't loved by a majority of the population than one isn't popular is irrelevant to my argument.

Beyond that, the overall point is that Coulter is quite popular with conservatives, so my statement was certainly valid. You've asserted that the more "traditional" conservatives are more popular among conservatives, and I don't buy it. I've got her book sales, TV appearances, national columns, following on the web and Newsweek cover to support me. All you've done is gainsay. Care to offer any, you know, facts?

Nope, you've contradicted yourself. If I am not to consider her opinion wrong because of her hypocrisy, then her character has no standing in assessing the merit of her opinions. Once again, whether someone is right or wrong, has nothing to do with their character. I am going to repeat this point, until it sinks in. Character has nothing to do with whether an argument is right or wrong.

It's not contradictory at all. Why should I care about the opinions of someone on issues of morality when that person doesn't abide by their own pronouncements? If Warren Buffet said it was smart not to invest in company X but then did so anyway, why would I believe what he said and not consider what he did?

Coulter has an ulterior motive with her moral claims, and that's just to throw more red meat to her fans while she continues to live in contradiction of those morals. I can only believe that what she really believes is shown in how she acts, ergo she doesn't really think it's wrong to live out of wedlock with someone.

Fine, was not the whole point of introducing Michael Moore to establish a comparison between the way right wingers treat him, to how left wingers treat Ms. Coulter? Now whether the treatment is at all comparable, is very much debateable. As admitted by QCubed, conservatives have not bothered to pie Michael Moore.

First, I'm not sure Moore hasn't been pied--I've seen references to the occasion floating around the web. Second, regardless of that, one pie-throwing is hardly indicative that Coulter is subjected to really worse treatment than Moore. After all, as I showed, he has conservative commentators threatening to kill him. Not a nut on a message board, mind you, but a radio show host. Has Al Franken said he'd kill Coulter, if given half the chance?

[MrFun]

Conservatives are stupid, throw pies at them.





(yes, I'm JOKING)

[Ned]

Well, it appears, the only people trying to disrupt speeches and actually try to silence the opposition are the fascist left. Most pundits are disappointed that Arnold didn't politely decline to speak at his alma mater when the fascists began their screaming and hollering.

BTW, Rosie the Pig fascist did the same the Sean Hannity. Screamed whenever he tried to talk.

[JohnT]

Nice threadjack! 8.5/10

[Boris Godunov]

Ned's full of it as usual, since conservatives have disrupted speeches at the same venue where Coulter was nearly pied:

http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/98/44/01_1.html

"Following filmmaker Michael Moore's visit Oct. 11, at which students interrupted with vocal protests and more than 100 people protested outside the speech, Coulter's visit has stirred up political controversy for her conservative views."

During the election, of course, it was Kerry's campaign that had to deal with constant hecklers sent out by the Repugs to disrupt his speeches and events. There is footage of Kerry and Edwards having to stop their speeches because the hecklers were so loud they couldn't be heard. Bush didn't have to deal with that (of course, that's largely do to his stupid "loyalty pledge" nonsense).

[Ned]

Boris, I must admit my surprise at Republicans acting so rudely. But, maybe times are a-changin'.

[Boris Godunov]

You have a short and/or selective memory. Conservatives have been doing nasty things for as long as I can remember (Remember the Willy Horton ads?). Hell, Clinton's 1992 campaign was beset by the same kind of hecklers. I have to marvel at the revisionism of the cons--they spend years engaging in hostile, negative politics, but when the Dems fight back (like Dean), they immediately start crying about how mean and nasty the other side is being. Yet I didn't see them being too upset when a sitting congessman referred to the President of the United States as a "scumbag" in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives.

[Ming]

Conservatives have been doing nasty things for as long as I can remember

And so have liberals... so what's you point. BOTH SIDES DO IT... this "your side is worse than our side" stuff is just pure crap. It's politics... Dirty politics... been done long before you were born, and will continue long after you're dead...

BOTH SIDES ARE BAD about this... there is no HIGH MORAL GROUND for EITHER SIDE... so stop trying to make it sound like either side can take the high ground on this matter... BOTH SIDES DO IT!