Intolerance at websites.

[GePap]

How many left wing vitriolic speakers can one think of?

How Many right wing vitriolic speakers can one think of?

I am making a very secure bet that the vast majority of people here can think of a lot more right wing spittle throwers than left wing.

And the right wind spit machine has been around longer.

What is pathetic is that the second "the liberals" sadly begin to act like the extreme right, the extreme right screams little whinny little girls about those "evil liberals"....



As for the point of the thread, I do like Poly because it is intelligent debate.

And if it is more liberal, well, accept the fact that the industrialized world is more liberal as a whole than the United States.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

It's all a measure of what you consider influential. I don't consider the number of tv appearances you make to be influential, because I don't ever watch this sort of television.

As for being a nationally syndicated columnist, you are closer to being 'influential' but I am asking for ideas. What ideas has she brought that cause other people to cite her as an authority? That is the influence I tend to regard more than the number of books sold or television appearances.

This is why I go back to my point that she is the dessert, and the others are the meat and potatoes. Conservatives rely on the others in order to articulate their ideas, while they indulge in Ann Coulter who says what they would love to say themselves.

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.

Oh they do? If you found thousands than surely you can find the time to cite one. I am curious as to how they cite her.

Secondly, if they do cite her, then clearly, she has some substance to her arguments, no?

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.

So unless the facts are presented in a style you refer to as sober, they cannot be substantial? Wrong. Style can assist or conceal substance, but does not denote the absence of substance.

" 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."

Nope. If they felt that the earlier efforts to counter Ms. Coulter's arguments were successful, why would they bother to resort to pieing her? The key here is in the word 'counter'. I did not say, that the only way for them to 'reply' to Ms. Coulter was to throw a pie, but the only way to counter her is to throw a pie.

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.

Then surely Alterman, and Krugman will decry, and distance themselves from the pieing as the prolifers do when a nutjob shoots an abortion doctor. Have they?

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.

And do these people represent themselves as prolifers? You cite examples of people who do celebrate the shootings, yet you deliberately evade using the term that I used, prolifer, because the evidence does not support your argument.

I am a prolifer, and I have worked for a variety of prolife organisations, of all different missions and stripes. Yet, each of these organisations have a specific clause, that not only do they publicly condemn violence against abortion doctors, they also will not associate with those who either support the shootings, or refuse to condemn them.

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

Why bother to cite a 'non-partisan' site? You lost track of your argument, which was trying to show how liberals attempt to refute Ms. Coulter. When you throw in a non-partisan site, you are padding your argument with fluff.

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?

Answer the question, Boris. If Ms. Coulter has been decisively refuted, why should she be pied, and why do these liberal columnists approve of the pieing? I think her point has merit, that the liberals have not, in fact, refuted her argument.

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.

To be popular overall is to be approved by at least half of the population. To be popular among a segment of society, is to be popular among less than half.

I do not dispute that among a segment of the population, Ms. Coulter is popular, but overall, she is less popular than unpopular.

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

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.

Nowhere do you confine this significant number of people to 'rightwingers' until the final point. If you meant rightwingers, why didn't you say rightwingers?

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?

First of all, I agree, why should you listen to someone who does not practice what they preach? However, that does not change the fact that something is right or wrong. Your problem is that you do not want to come to the conclusion that anything can be right or wrong in an objective sense, which is what is implied behind my statement that the character of the person is irrelevant to whether their argument is right or wrong.

Secondly, if you hold Ms. Coulter to one standard, why should we listen to anyone? We are all hypocrites as soon as we call ourselves Christians, because none of us live as we ought to live.

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.

And I have to agree with you here. Personally, she doesn't believe in what she is saying, because she does not choose to live this way. However, be very careful of the standard you are setting, and not to hold Ms. Coulter to a standard above that of anyone else to whom you put your trust upon.

However, even if she doesn't believe what she is saying, that does not change the fact that it is wrong to live with someone out of wedlock, and that it is right for people to live with each other when they are married. Regardless of what Ms. Coulter does, that does not change whether her argument is true or false.

First, I'm not sure Moore hasn't been pied--I've seen references to the occasion floating around the web.

Then show them.

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?

Which is the whole centre of the debate. You notice I did not say, Ms. Coulter has obviously had the better of it, I merely said, that the point was debateable.

[JohnT]

I am making a very secure bet that the vast majority of people here can think of a lot more right wing spittle throwers than left wing.

Yes. I, too, would make a bet that here a majority of people can think of more right wing spittle throwers than left wing spittle throwers.

[GePap]

Can you think of a lot of popular left wing spittle throwers? After all, YOU are not a lefty, so you should be brimming with knowledge of them.

In fact, it is a common right wing talking point to point out how popular they are while how unpopular the left wing screamers are.

So, come on JohnT, handle my question honestly.

Make a little list of those people you think as left wing pundits, and then right wing, and then at the end of the experiement, tell us which list is longer.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I think to be fair, if the challenge was laid out for JohnT to divulge his list then GePap in order to be "fair and balanced" should likewise lay out his list for comparison and discussion purposes.

[GePap]

My list, and these are person's whose name I remember. There are plenty of the Sunday Morning shows being left out, or shows like a round table of Wall Street Journal Editors and so forth.

Liberals: (8)

Micheal Moore
Al Franken
Michael Reagan
Phill Donahue
Paul Begala
James Carville
Alan Colmes
Bill Press

Conservatives11)

Laura Inghram
Joe Scarborough
Pat Buchanan
Tucker Carlson
Robert Novak
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O"Reilley
Michael Savage
Ann Coulter
Dennis Miller

Then judge how many of them have current, regular shows on TV:

Liberals: (2)

Alan Colmes
Michael Reagan

Conservatives: (7)

Tucker Carlson
Sean Hannity
Bill O"Reilley
Dennis Miller
Laura Inghram
Robert Novak
Joe Scarborough

And Radio Shows?

Liberals: (1)

Al Franken

Conservatives: (3)

Sean Hannity
Bill O"Reilley
Rush Limbaugh

I don;t count Savage because I don;t know if he also lost his radio show.

[Ned]

GePap, yeah, Savage is still on the air. He attacks Bush for being soft on the Mexican border. But he also thinks liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Ned]

GePap, I would add Howard Dean and Dick Durban to your flame throwers. Also, Ted Kennedy has always been prominent with the napalm.

[GePap]

My list is of 'famous' media personalities.

Politicians not included.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by GePap
Can you think of a lot of popular left wing spittle throwers? After all, YOU are not a lefty, so you should be brimming with knowledge of them.

In fact, it is a common right wing talking point to point out how popular they are while how unpopular the left wing screamers are.

So, come on JohnT, handle my question honestly.

Make a little list of those people you think as left wing pundits, and then right wing, and then at the end of the experiement, tell us which list is longer.

I went through my "OMFG, POLITIKS IS DA BOMB AND SO FUGGIN' IMPORTANT OVER ANYTHING ELSE" stage about 15-odd years ago. I'd be surprised if I could name 10 pundits of any stripe nowadays.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by GePap
My list, and these are person's whose name I remember. There are plenty of the Sunday Morning shows being left out, or shows like a round table of Wall Street Journal Editors and so forth.

Liberals: (8)

Micheal Moore
Al Franken
Michael Reagan
Phill Donahue
Paul Begala
James Carville
Alan Colmes
Bill Press

Conservatives11)

Laura Inghram
Joe Scarborough
Pat Buchanan
Tucker Carlson
Robert Novak
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O"Reilley
Michael Savage
Ann Coulter
Dennis Miller

The names I put in bold I have either never heard of them (Laura Inghram) or didn't know they were active pundits (Begala?).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's all a measure of what you consider influential. I don't consider the number of tv appearances you make to be influential, because I don't ever watch this sort of television.

So you don't consider it influential because it's not something you like? Wow, what a revelation. I don't watch baseball, ergo it must not be a popular sport.

What you watch and personally like has no bearing on the rest of the world.

As for being a nationally syndicated columnist, you are closer to being 'influential' but I am asking for ideas. What ideas has she brought that cause other people to cite her as an authority? That is the influence I tend to regard more than the number of books sold or television appearances.

I'm curious how you can ask me this when I said from the beginning that she's vacuous--devoid of ideas. But that doesn't preclude her from being influential. As I said, it's her style that is influential. She has taken political bile and vitriol, culled from Limbaugh and others, to a whole new level, and many have followed suit in imitation. That's where she has influence. And she can be credited above most for poisoning the debate.

This is why I go back to my point that she is the dessert, and the others are the meat and potatoes. Conservatives rely on the others in order to articulate their ideas, while they indulge in Ann Coulter who says what they would love to say themselves.

Very few conservatives, overall, rely on reading folks like Will, Buckley, Brooks, etc. That's because most Americans get their news and commentary through major media outlets--cable news--and the internet. So most of these folks are seeing the Coulter-types pontificating, not the Will types. So what is it they dine on most? Coulter and her ilk.

Oh they do? If you found thousands than surely you can find the time to cite one. I am curious as to how they cite her.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/809110/posts

An easy first hit on that.

A small sampling of others:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/24/171128.shtml

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/coultertreason.php

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4019

And is a glowing article from that oh-so-unimportant conservative rag, the Wall Street Journal, perhaps evidence enough that conservatives find her influential?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110003713

Secondly, if they do cite her, then clearly, she has some substance to her arguments, no?

No, Ben, already covered this: that doesn't mean anything is substantive. Popular does not equate to substantive.

So unless the facts are presented in a style you refer to as sober, they cannot be substantial? Wrong. Style can assist or conceal substance, but does not denote the absence of substance.

Funny how you singled out the one word "sober" and ignored the rest. Typical. No, that was just one aspect of the whole. In order to be substantive, one must present original ideas that merit discussion. Coulter doesn't--she just presents old ideas with new vitriol, and the few supposedly "new" ideas she's had (or at least, "unique") are hardly revelatory or worthy of debate (like, McCarthy was a swell guy, or we should be forcibly converting Muslims to Christianity, or conservatives should be threatening liberals with violence to shut them up).

Nope. If they felt that the earlier efforts to counter Ms. Coulter's arguments were successful, why would they bother to resort to pieing her? The key here is in the word 'counter'. I did not say, that the only way for them to 'reply' to Ms. Coulter was to throw a pie, but the only way to counter her is to throw a pie.

More hairsplitting. Pardon me if I see little different between "refute" (which is what I said) and "counter." At any rate, they have "countered" her, as the links I gave show. Your harping on pie-throwing by a very small handful of people as somehow indicative of a lack of counterargument is one of the more ludicrous fallacies I've seen you come up with.

Then surely Alterman, and Krugman will decry, and distance themselves from the pieing as the prolifers do when a nutjob shoots an abortion doctor. Have they?

Who knows? Frankly, pie throwing is a world of magnitude away from shooting people. And Alterman and Krugman generally concern themselves with weightier affairs. And I don't see why they have to address what are minor incidents that occur very seldomly, and are perpetrated by extremists. For all they know, the pie-throwers are radical anarchists or communists. Why would a liberal need to distance himself from thier actions? Oh, because some stupid conservatives might not know the difference, right...

I can present you with many choice quotes from Coulter that I would hope, at least, you would find repugnant. But all I see here is adulation from you for her. Should I take it you agree with her more purient notions, since you've not bothered to disagree with them yet?

And do these people represent themselves as prolifers?

Do the pie throwers represent themselves as liberals or Democrats? I know a few conservatives who loathe Coulter enough to want to give her a pie in the face.

But it's pretty obvious to any thinking person that someone who goes out and murders an abortion doctor or bombs an abortion clinic is "prolife" in the sense of being against abortion. That's a big duhh. However, you can't make the same claim about pie-throwers. As I said, even a conservative could pie another conservative if he found him repugnant enough.

You cite examples of people who do celebrate the shootings, yet you deliberately evade using the term that I used, prolifer, because the evidence does not support your argument.

Huh? I used the term prolifer. What the hell are you talking about? False accusations of deliberate evasions on my part from you are funny, considering your own evasion. See below.

I am a prolifer, and I have worked for a variety of prolife organisations, of all different missions and stripes. Yet, each of these organisations have a specific clause, that not only do they publicly condemn violence against abortion doctors, they also will not associate with those who either support the shootings, or refuse to condemn them.

Great.

I'm a liberal, have worked with a variety of liberal, progressive organizations of all different missions and stripes. Yet, none of these groups has ever condoned pie-throwing or any other form of assault, minor or otherwise.

But I also don't feel the need to overtly distance myself from pie-throwers, because only an idiot would assume that pie throwing by a few individuals of radical bent is somehow indicative of overall liberal sentiments. Most liberals aren't throwing pies, after all.

Why bother to cite a 'non-partisan' site? You lost track of your argument, which was trying to show how liberals attempt to refute Ms. Coulter. When you throw in a non-partisan site, you are padding your argument with fluff.

No, Ben. Simple logic--you claim that, out of frustration of their not being a refutation of Coulter's arguments, liberals resort to throwing pies. So any refutations of her arguments--from liberals or otherwise--counters your claims. Even if the author is non-partisan, the existence of the refutations would diffuse the pie-throwing, were your ludicrous "hypothesis" to be correct. The point of showing a site that was non-partisan was also to show that refutations of her noxious writing exist outside of a supposed liberal bias against her.

You also claimed that liberals responding to her only went after her style, not what she wrote about. All the links I gave refuted that claim of yours, since they all address specific points she has made.

Answer the question, Boris. If Ms. Coulter has been decisively refuted, why should she be pied, and why do these liberal columnists approve of the pieing? I think her point has merit, that the liberals have not, in fact, refuted her argument.

I answered the question, Ben. You ignored it, as usual. First, pieing by a few radicals is in no way indicative of their being a lack of refutation. The logical connection just isn't there, since those who are in the trenches of political discourse don't have a jot of control over free-wheeling radicals and what they choose to do.

Second, you haven't shown in any fashion that the liberal columnists do approve of pieing. Whether or not they've addressed it (and I, frankly, don't find it important enough to do any research on the matter) is quite irrelevant. Columnists usually have more important things to worry about than a once-in-a-while pieing.

Thirdly, now to your own evasion. You didn't answer the question. If, as you have claimed, Michael Moore has been so cogently rebutted, to conservatives still issue death threats to him? If you think pie-throwing is indicative of a paucity of argument, I would only hope you would think at least the same of death threats.

To be popular overall is to be approved by at least half of the population. To be popular among a segment of society, is to be popular among less than half.

Bull****. Is Tom Cruise popular? I would say so. Does he enjoy popularity amongst 50+% of the population? Highly doubt it. As I said, popularity is just having a large enough following to sustain a visible persona and peddle one's identity and wares. I'd say having four NYT best-sellers is indicative that one is popular.

At any rate, by your standard, there's no such as a popular conservative, anyway. So Coulter still comes out ahead of the rest in the popularity stakes.

I do not dispute that among a segment of the population, Ms. Coulter is popular, but overall, she is less popular than unpopular.

Nowhere do you confine this significant number of people to 'rightwingers' until the final point. If you meant rightwingers, why didn't you say rightwingers?

This is still hairsplitting. She's popular enough to have four massive best-sellers, be featured on the cover of magazines, have columns published in conservative sources all over the country (including, until she behaved like a total spoiled brat, the NRO). Of course, she's only going to be popular with conservatives, though. That's a given. But isn't the entire point of this that I was saying she's very popular with conservatives? And you accuse me of losing sight of arguments?

Your problem is that you do not want to come to the conclusion that anything can be right or wrong in an objective sense, which is what is implied behind my statement that the character of the person is irrelevant to whether their argument is right or wrong.

No, the problem is that I don't give a rat's ass what Coulter says about morality because she doesn't even live up to her own standards. I'll listen to the Pope, though I disagree with what he says. I never said a thing about Coulter's arguments being wrong because of her behavior--merely that it means she has no moral authority on which to make such statements.

Secondly, if you hold Ms. Coulter to one standard, why should we listen to anyone? We are all hypocrites as soon as we call ourselves Christians, because none of us live as we ought to live.

Well, I can't argue with that.

Glad you agree with me.

You seem to once again lost sight of the argument. Agathon mentioned her out-of-wedlock deliances just to show she was a hypocrite. Nobody said it was indicative of her being wrong about something (there's plenty else for that), just that it made her a hypocrite. You're the one trying to turn the statement into something it wasn't.

Then show them.

As I said, they're merely references, made on blogs and such. Not much substantial. The point was that I honestly don't know whether or not he has been pied--maybe he has, if those references are correct. Yet you seem so definitive.

I do know he HAS received death threats. And that one from a radio host was pretty prominent. This to me seems to be the conservative mode of attack. Helms gave a vague threat to Clinton should he visit NC, Right-wing nuts blow up federal buildings and shoot abortion doctors, or they send death threats (see how many Judge Greer in the Schiavo case got).

Now, if I were in the mood for being infantile and judgmental, I could say that this indicates that the only counter conservatives have to liberal arguments is to try to kill them. When weighed against pie-throwing...well, I can't say I see an occasional pieing as something so horrible, as wrong as it may be!

Which is the whole centre of the debate. You notice I did not say, Ms. Coulter has obviously had the better of it, I merely said, that the point was debateable.

Er, and I'm debating it... I don't think she's had the worse of it. I never said Moore had the better of it, either. However, you seem to be engaging in dishonesty, here. Your first posts were very much indicative of your feeling that Coulter had more attacks against her than Moore (hence your asking if anyone had mentioned more "shacking up" with someone). Looks to me like you're backpeddaling once again.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT


The names I put in bold I have either never heard of them (Laura Inghram) or didn't know they were active pundits (Begala?).

Michael Reagan and Laura Inghram have a show together in MSNBC, one of those "get one liberal, one conservative" shows.

Tucker Carlson just got his own show in MSNBC and he used to be in crossfire with begala as the liberal. Bill Press used to be the liberal when it was him and Robert NOvak.

Carville I think did some guesss spots as host on Crossfire, and I remember him on TV for a little bit. But he is a common enough guest.

Joe Scarborough has his own show on MSNBC- he used to be a republican congressman.

[GePap]

Boris, that's a lot of words to waste on Ben, you know?

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
My list, and these are person's whose name I remember. There are plenty of the Sunday Morning shows being left out, or shows like a round table of Wall Street Journal Editors and so forth.

Liberals: (8)

Micheal Moore
Al Franken
Michael Reagan
Phill Donahue
Paul Begala
James Carville
Alan Colmes
Bill Press

Conservatives11)

Laura Inghram
Joe Scarborough
Pat Buchanan
Tucker Carlson
Robert Novak
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O"Reilley
Michael Savage
Ann Coulter
Dennis Miller

Then judge how many of them have current, regular shows on TV:

Liberals: (2)

Alan Colmes
Michael Reagan

Conservatives: (7)

Tucker Carlson
Sean Hannity
Bill O"Reilley
Dennis Miller
Laura Inghram
Robert Novak
Joe Scarborough

And Radio Shows?

Liberals: (1)

Al Franken

Conservatives: (3)

Sean Hannity
Bill O"Reilley
Rush Limbaugh

I don;t count Savage because I don;t know if he also lost his radio show.

What about Real Time with Bill Maher