June 28, 2007

The Good Ship Agitprop

As even FOXNews (by way of RoboShep. Surprise!) joins the ranks of “journalists” who have now “reported” that Ann Coulter said she wished John Edwards would be killed in a terrorist assassination plot, the Liz and Johnny Haircut media-aided fundraising show continues apace — with Liz set to appear on “Good Morning America” (where the same dishonest Edwards’ campaign-edited clip will likely again be trotted out) and John set to appear with NBC’s David Gregory.

But let no one suggest that this has all been a choreographed campaign — one that, while it pretends its goal is to bring back into focus “the issues” and “stop the personal attacks,” is simultaneously being marketed and sold as a rallying cry for “us vs. them” politics by the very campaign ostensibly looking for “substantive debate.”

Because pointing out the signs of a choreographed media blitz? That’s just mean.

In fact, I smell grounds for another fundraiser! SCORE!

Ironically — but not surprisingly — the only person calling for John Edwards’ death in a jihadist attack is the Edwards campaign itself, though it continues to ascribe the sentiment to Ann Coulter, and is relying on the uncritical reporting of their own doctored clip to drum up sympathy contributions from the both the perpetually gulled and the cynically craven.

Similarly, it is clear that referring to your political opponents as “right wing wingnuts” and “crazies” is hardly the stuff of civility, though the Edwards campaign, with an assist from a fawning, dishonest mainstream press hellbent on seeing a Democrat succeed, will continue to milk the cash cow of victimhood until the poor dear begins hemorrhaging from udders so overtugged that they could pass for strangely speckled string cheese.

Incidentally, the AP story linked above? Written by one Nedra Pickler.

Which, I wonder if Media Matters will rush out an expose on her perfidy over this particular bit of reportage, or if Atrios and the Kossacks will sponsor another “Write Like Nedra Pickler” Day.

Because somehow I think they’ll have other things to do today. Like, you know, FIGHT THE POWERS or some such — most likely with pies.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 7:55am
208 comments | Trackback

Comments (208)

  1. Oh well, this will probably all take a backseat soon to the news out of Texas. You know, about Ronnie Earle being another Mike Nifong?

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4924444.html

    Should be in the headlines any minute now…

    Just a matter of time…

  2. “Write Like Nedra Pickler” Day.

    Well, that or Coulter is teh SuxXor – open thread!!11!1

  3. With Ann’s sparkling wit, delightful joie de vivre and careful, thoughtful argument(s), Miss Coulter is a national treasure. Sadly, she has not mated nor reproduced yet, which is ironic since she so slearly loves God, all families, and a vigorous and honest debate.

    I hope the fact that Ann cannot find a good man is no reflection on Republican men. I hope they are not a bunch of girly men like you know who. Rush, of course, has been burned in love multiple times over decades and ironically has never had children (at least none he knows about: heh heh!) But other Republican studs are out there: come on Tucker Carlson! Make Ann an honest woman.

  4. BTW, Liz was on with Gregory this morning. NBC appears to have gone All Silky, All The Time™

  5. Christ, B Moe! Did you see the comments?

    But at least, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Delay is gone from office with the disgrace he made for himself. It would sure make my day if he actually had to do some jail time, but I’ll settle for his removal from the public forum forever.

    I hope he runs again, just to make that guy’s head explode when he wins.

  6. Incidentally, the AP story linked above? Written by one Nedra Pickler.

    And then there’s the one written by the AP’s Mike Baker. Will these stories come in threes? Thiry threes? Three hundred and thirty threes?

    And nary a word regarding Coulter’s derogatory Bush comment, which you’d think they’d be trumpeting. But alas, there’s a higher narrative to be served than Bush bashing. I never thought I’d see the day.

  7. Damn, Tom, that sounds awfully close to hate speech , but surely I must be wrong since liberals don’t do that.

  8. tim from buffalo – Who is defending Anne, and what the fuck does Rush’s marital status or number of children have to do with Sen. Victim’s dog and pony show? The more they try to wring out of this, the less likely it was just a concerned mother calling to express her feelings, and more likely that it was naked political theatre.

  9. Any bets on when, if ever, tomj figures out what we are talking about?

  10. This entire sequence of events is facinating in a depressing “my dog’s deathly ill” kind of way. What’s clear to me, in part based upon comment #3 above and those in other threads, is the complete disregard for the actual statements because, well, it’s Ann Coulter for crud’s sakes! Edwards and Matthews know the base well enough to understand the resonance factor. Intention is stuffed into a burlap bag and tossed into the river dungeon so that the liberal hay baling and ka-chinging may commence and spread.

    The comments noted have a clear message; Ann deserves it! She’s an unapologetic rethuglican shilling slut who is a hater, people, hater! She has said enough that she deserves whatever she gets, whether or not it reflects the meaning of what she actually said! Thus vengeance is there’s and the cash flows for the greater goodliness.

    I seem to remember when Obama was slighted in that dumbass story about him attending a radical madrassa school both sides of the political aisle jumped on Fox for uncritically giving the story legitimacy. This is, without question, one of the most aggregious examples of media bias I can think of.

    And for shine, timb, tomjfrombfflo, et al, come to the table with more than your unsurprising opinion that Coulter is a miserable hater. Not everybody on this forum is in love with miss Ann but we will require more attention to the issues (channeling Liz, now) than sarcastic odes to Coulter’s witchiness.

    Not holding my breath for that, though…

  11. B Moe – He won’t figure it out. He still thinks we are defending Anne. Methinks that is one of those moonbat autorants.

  12. JD, BMoe

    IT’S ANN FRICKIN COULTER! WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH YOU WINGNUT CHICKENHAWK THUGS? IS THIS THE MESSAGE YOU WANT FOR YOUR PATHETIC, FAILED PARTY? HATER, HATER, FEED HER A TATER AND, UM, SEND HER ON A FREIGHTER!

    AND … AND … RUSH DOESN’T HAVE ANY CHILDREN! THAT HE KNOWS OF!

  13. Ya know, this really shouldn’t be surprising. We’re talking about people who have claimed — with straight faces — that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.

  14. And that he said Saddam was behind 9/11.

  15. No, guys my favorites are:

    1) Everybody knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq!

    2) They have found no, none, any WMD’s in Iraq!

    Followed by the ever popular…

    3) There was no al qaeda presence in Iraq before we invaded the country!

    The moonbat left: critically uncritical since the age of Stalin.

  16. I am not confused: I love family values and Republicans. I was wondering why so gosh darn many spokesmen (and in the case of Ann Coulter and her mysterious Adam’s Apple, I mean Men) have so much trouble finding and founding families of their own.

    And I love Ann. I even know how to spell her name. I am defending her.

  17. Gee, Tom, with defenders like you, who needs enemas?

  18. President Bush – “The economy remains strong”.

    Left – Pres. Bush said he wants to kill more brown people !!!! He must apologize to GiGi, immediately! We must fundraise now! Impeach Bush!

  19. tomjfrombfflo

    Careful weilding that irony mallet. Use has been known to cause a sports hernia.

    Or was it dementia…I forget … PIE!

  20. Why do I suspect you aren’t really “wondering” at all, Tom — but rather, that you have some hypothesis.

    Careful now, though. Just because you’re FOR gay marriage doesn’t mean you can start using intimations of trannyism or gaydom as clubs. Because that might suggest you find them weapons for the fact that they are abnormal in some way.

    I know. It’s difficult to tread that fine line between saying the right thing and keeping your real feelings bottled up.

    But come on. Be creative! You’ve got it in ya, pal!

  21. tom is buffalo – Is Anne a spokesman for anyone other than herself? The rest of your BS is just pro forma moonbat blathering.

    This is another standard tactic employed by the Left, and the Right does the same too. They take an absurd statement from an individual, and ascribe their meaning to all members of that person’s party. Every time Anne, Rush, etal say something, your ilk drops in to state that we are supporters, not knowing your audience. The demands to denounce Anne for something she did not say are surely about to start being tossed around.

  22. Jeff – Only liberal gays, and minorities, are normal. Conservative ones must be savaged at all costs, for straying from the reservation.

    timj in buffalo – 3 words …

    NORWOOD – WIDE RIGHT !!!

  23. YOU WILL DENOUNCE ANN COULTER’S CALL FOR JOHN EDWARDS TO BE KILLED! BY TERRORISTS!

    However, you will also all agree that that nazi Cheney really needs to be killed. BY TERRORISTS!

    Now cough up some cash! TO FIGHT THE WINGNUT CONSPIRACY AGAINST JOHN!

    Tom, what sort of flubbering, incoherent message are you trying to project(tile vomit.)

  24. Gee, Tom, with defenders like you, who needs enemas?

    Andrew Sullivan?

  25. I was wondering why so gosh darn many spokesmen (and in the case of Ann Coulter and her mysterious Adam’s Apple, I mean Men) have so much trouble finding and founding families of their own.

    I didn’t realize that this was a problem in republican spokesman circles, but it’s touching that you care so much, tom. As for Coulter, why don’t you make your pitch? It could be that she’s got the Mary Matalin going on, and she just hasn’t found the right progg yet. You might get her to mistake your obsession for adoration, and voila! Mr. Coulter.

  26. “You might get her to mistake your obsession for adoration, and voila! Mr. Coulter.” Pablo

    Would that make him the Patriarch of Hate Speech?

    Inquiring minds want to know…

  27. . I was wondering why so gosh darn many spokesmen (and in the case of Ann Coulter and her mysterious Adam’s Apple, I mean Men) have so much trouble finding and founding families of their own

    Two is “so gosh darn many?” But, perhaps in Ann’s cause, it is -as Maureen Dowd claimed- that men don’t like smart women.

  28. tomj

    Which “spokespersons” are you talking about? Dennis Prager: 2 children, Michael Medved: 3 children, Bill Bennett: 2 children …

  29. Naturally, I agree with tomjfrombfflo:

    Jeff, first you and the hypermasculine David Thompson arrogantly lift your legs toward everyone’s privacied right to an orgasmic thrill whenupon reading blatent nonsense; then you try to deprive us Other America folk of our Silky Leader’s sancti-monied right to hatefully rail against hatemongers, and get their [our] sweaty-backed money [back]. What’s next on your vicious hit list against the People’s simple pleasures – culturally traditioned [*orgasm*] Witch Hunting? Btw, just what did you really have against Nifong, anyway? Was he seeing Amanda, too?

  30. JeffG

    In fact, I smell grounds for another fundraiser! SCORE!

    Yep… from the email I got from Elizabeth Edwards:

    “Last night I had an important talk with Ann Coulter and I want to tell you what happened.

    On Monday, Ann announced that instead of using more homophobic slurs to attack John, she will just wish that John had been “killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    Where I am from, when someone does something that displeases you, you politely ask them to stop. So when I heard Ann was going to be on “Hardball” last night, I decided to call in and ask her to engage on the issues and stop the personal attacks. I told her these kinds of personal attacks lower our political dialogue at precisely the time when we need to raise it, and set a bad example for our children.

    How did she respond? Sadly, perhaps predictably, with more personal attacks.

    John’s campaign is about the issues—but pundits like Ann Coulter are trying to shout him down. If they will not stop, it is up to us cut through the noise. Help us fight back—please give what you can today.”

  31. Nedra Pickler? The chick on American Idol with the cute drawl?

  32. NORWOOD – WIDE RIGHT !!!

    Don’t forget Hull’s skate in the crease! Heh heh.

  33. Darleen,

    On Monday, Ann announced that instead of using more homophobic slurs to attack John, she will just wish that John had been “killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    Well, at least Liz got the story right.

  34. Perhaps Liz doth projecteth too mucheth?

  35. You have to give the Edwardsess credit, this has been remarkable in terms of free advertising for them. The Dem primary should be fun just to watch them ripping each other. When Silky goes after Hillary, we will await the sexism charges. When he goes after Obama, the racism charges, etc …

  36. 1. I have been married to my wife for over thirty years. I am sure Medved, Bennett, George W. Bush, me, and the whole company of we who marry once “until death do we part” love our wives. (I am a Catholic and I think (mostly) we marry for life.)

    2. My criticism of Ann and Rush is silly; I don’t care whether they get married or not. However, it is strange how people who don’t have what most of us consider Family Values espouse them so much for others.

    3. Rush Limbaugh is a serious character, who has been effective. Miss C, with her Diva of Hatred song and dance, is a disaster for you guys. Maybe she is a so-called “tranny” and maybe she is a Liberal who figured out a way to get rich and embarrass conservatives.

    4. The more attention this blonde hair-flipping againg and fading “beauty” gets, the better it is for progressives. (Does anyone but Matthews lust for her? Miss C looks like a well-worn sixty who thinks others see her as a teen.)

    She wants attention for herself: her issues do not resonate. A campaign against the WTC widows, an attack on a dead 15 year old; most people ignore her or look the way they looked at Brittney’s car photos, wondering why would someone want that to represent them?

    5. It is difficult to say she is getting a raw deal when her carefully-nuanced position wishing death on a Presidential candidate whom she has already labeled a faggot is misconstrued. The average Americans who isn’t a Talmudic scholar cannot be blamed for failing to perform a deconstructionive reading. They don’t think she was critiquing Bill Maher, they think she was saying she wished death on someone.

    6. I sincerely believe that Rush is an asset to conservative causes, and this women is a debit for you guys. You should ignore her and Chris Matthews (whom you can have by the way, because if he is a liberal God help us all).

  37. Christ almighty. Speaking of projecting, you guys are hard at it over here, I see. Mixed in with a VERY healthy dose of armchair psychiatry. I thought your PHD was almost in literary studies, Jeff?

    You claim to know the intentions of Ann’s remarks and the “faux outrage” of the Edwards family. You claim to know of the awful, awful conspiracy between Hardball and the Edwards campaign. You claim to know all kinds of shit just because it feels right. BECAUSE OF THE IRONIC SENTENCE IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

    Nowhere do you imagine that people are allowed to fight back against opportunists like Coulter when they talk shit about your family. It never even occurs to you. Instead, kneejerk defense of rude behavior is your immediate response. Dressed up in self satisfying rhetoric by Jeff, of course. Good luck with that.

    I think the real problem is you are afraid of what is happening before your very eyes. Ann’s attacks, and by extension the mindless, vile rhetoric on PW and elsewhere, are shown for what they are. It is a powerful tool. Really gets the juices flowing, eh? Especially when you can justify it with pages of thinly disguised whining about a culture war you are losing. Badly.

  38. buffalowingnut is apparently incapable of reading the full quote in question. It takes no expert deconstruction to see the abundantly clear point she was making. Aggressive ignorance or wilfully obtuse? Take your pick.

    It is expected that heet would join in with the wailers about coursening discourse, as it sets such a fine example. heet joins timjbullshit in his inability to understand a phrase, taken in its full context.

  39. Chris Mathews is NOT a liberal !!! We can add this to the list of flat out lies that the Left promulgates as truth.

  40. I said it before and I’ll say it again : Ann is no dummy, she knew precisely what she was suggesting with her remark. It’s her schtick for chrissakes. She dances on and around the line for tons of money. The fact that the news orgs don’t give a rat’s ass about her Bill Maher whinge is unfortunate for her but irrelevant to the rest of her comment.

  41. Chris Mathews is NOT a liberal !!! We can add this to the list of flat out lies that the Left promulgates as truth. Because we all know lots of rock ribbed conservatives became Chief of Staff for Speaker O’Neill.

  42. heet – Irrelevant to the rest of the comment?! I am voting for aggressively ignorant.

  43. You claim to know the intentions of Ann’s remarks

    Ann is about Ann. She’s outrageous because it gets her face time in the media and $$$ in the account when people buy her books to be “outraged.” She misuses her talents like Paris Hilton missues her own celebrity status.

    However, Ann’s intentions are clear from the quote:

    But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.

    How is that an “attack” on Edwards? Ann notes ironically that if Maher is not attacked for wishing Cheney dead, maybe she wouldn’t either if she use that tact about Edwards rather than “faggot”.

    And considering the FUNDRAISING letter I got from “Elizabeth Edwards”, who was passed a direct phone # to call in to Matthews, it does look like this was more about flogging Ann to raise $$$ than any genuine “I’m protecting my silky pony” sentiment.

  44. “I said it before and I’ll say it again : Ann is no dummy, she knew precisely what she was suggesting with her remark. It’s her schtick for chrissakes. She dances on and around the line for tons of money. The fact that the news orgs don’t give a rat’s ass about her Bill Maher whinge is unfortunate for her but irrelevant to the rest of her comment.”

    Especially because you sir, who derided PW posts not one post up for faux psychiatry know what is truly in Ann’s heart of hearts.

  45. Darleen, that’s a waste of effort. heet is not interested in the facts. They were obvious and presented in clear terms, with references, in every post on this subject. That heet only saw that as “self-satisfying rhetoric” speaks volumes.

  46. “Nowhere do you imagine that people are allowed to fight back against opportunists like Coulter when they talk shit about your family. It never even occurs to you. Instead, kneejerk defense of rude behavior is your immediate response.” heet.

    Quickly now; what was your response to Bill Maher’s clearly expressed wish that Cheney be killed by a terrorist. Also, what does it say about your attempt to make “kneejerk defense of rude behavior” purely a conservative issue? Especialy if you’ve spent any time over at Kos or HuffPo or even, for that matter, heard Liz talk about her neighbor or Cheney’s daughter.

    But I understand, heet. There is a different, more relaxed standard for Liberals/Progressives because, darn it, they’re on the right side of everything!

  47. Egads…you assholes are hilarious. Hey Gomer Goldstein…ya need to up the dosage.

    Oh yeah…f*ck each and every one of you.

  48. Aaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd…..

    That was Jeebus! Everybody give him a round of applause for that big stinking curly que of cashew crap that he left with us. Thanks for elevating the discourse there, son of godsmack.

    Do you shake hands with your mother with those fingers?

  49. Hey, Jeebus. What is f*uck? If you are trying to sat fuck, just say it.

    heet – impervious to the truth, since birth.

  50. Woot…ya got me there BJ. Cashew crap? Ooooweeee…I got pwned!!

  51. Other than raising more money for his doomed campaign, exactly what does the Edward’s camp think they are doing by going after an individual citizen? The longer they keep this PR campaign going the more foolish they will appear. Presidential contenders, and their spouses, are supposed to be above little dustups like this — let a lower level staffer hold a press conference (think James Carville and Stephanopolis during Clinton’s era) denouncing the situation. By spending so much time personally going after Coulter will only result in less support, not more, for his campaign.

  52. I like Jeebus. He manages to pack as much informed debate into his posts as heet or buffalo, but does it ever so much more succinctly.

    Well done, lad!

  53. Somebody please direct son of godsmack to DU, where drive by personal attacks, infantile blathering and grade school insults are par for the course.

    I’d put the directions in writing as there may be a conprehension question…

  54. Mann KKKoulter is a tranny! It has an adam’s apple! Or a lezbo! We are tolerant. She shouldn’t talk about terrorism, because the esteemed Senator from NC who is from a blue collar family and has worked to help those less fortunate than him. He will unify us into One America, just as soon as those rotten knuckle draggin mouth breathin lawn mowin bigots and purveyors of hate succumb to our will and our narrative.

  55. Have your Dad carve my new dosage requirements in a stone tablet, Jeebus.

    I’m happy to see if Target won’t hand me over some more drugs.

  56. Ah… My latest missive from Camp Edwards… writes Jonathan Prince on behalf of Breck Boy:

    All week we’ve seen the personal attacks come flooding in from Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the right-wing smear machine.

    But the real story this week is not them—it’s you. It’s the explosion of grassroots support from folks all over the country who stood up to help us fight back and put us within $1 million of our goal.

    We now have 72 hours to hit our goal of $9 million. Seventy-two hours to fight slurs with substance. Seventy-two hours to keep this campaign on track to win. And it all comes down to you. Please give what you can:

    We’re fighting back the right way—by taking John’s message of change straight to voters. Earlier this week, our first TV ad in New Hampshire hit the airwaves with John’s inspiring call to action: it is time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war.

    Cuz we can be SO patriotic about giving more more more $$$$ to a guy who doesn’t think there’s any such thing as Islamist terrorism.

    It’s just a bumpersticker, I tell you! More money please.

    I swear I’m hearing the faint voices of Liza and Joel singing “Money Money Money”

  57. And if you send us your hard earned money we will do everything in our power to continue to take hard earned money from the working people and we will send you Grandma Edwarsess personal recipe for pecan pie and we will fight for the Amerikkka that is being left behind because corporate robber barons take money from the people and then I take it from them and don’t you dare criticize me or my wife as we lost a child and she has cancer therefore anything you say will be twisted and contorted beyond recognition and used for our fundraising so we can create a better Amerikkka or at least siphon off some camapign cash from that lady with cankles and that poser Osama and we are truly scared that our neighbor mows his own lawn and has guns and will sue him to force him off his land so we can enjoy ours

  58. By the way, heet seems to have missed this in his rush to “psychologize” my “hate”.

  59. dear Darleen

    you write quoting the one whose name brings money to progressives everywhere that she said:

    “So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    and you ask:

    “How is that an “attack” on Edwards?”

    As I explained, her nuanced defense, ” Oh! Can’t I be hip too? All the cool kids like Bill Maher are doing it! When I call for Edwards death, I am a cool kid too just like Bill Maher” may work for the great Talmudic scholars of the right, but for normal Americans, “I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot,” sounds like she is saying “I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    But please, PLEASE, don’t change what you guys are doing. Quote he royal oldness everywhere and often and in all contexts, You are the best friends progressives have.

    I do not expect people to notice everything, but I conceded that Rush and many many others on the right are strong advocates who Americans do hear. But you know who isn’t and your defense is a great gift to me and us. Thank you for championing the divine Miss Connecticut of 1934 or whatever year she actually was 17.

  60. All the cool kids like Bill Maher are doing it! When I call for Edwards death, I am a cool kid too just like Bill Maher”

    So what do you think of Maher’s remark, you blithering idiot?

  61. Tomj, you went one post without calling implying that Ann was a transvestite. Good for you!

    Keep at it long enough, and maybe one day you will be able to engage in discourse more intellectual than that of Ann’s.

  62. “I do not expect people to notice everything, but I conceded that Rush and many many others on the right are strong advocates who Americans do hear. But you know who isn’t and your defense is a great gift to me and us.”

    WTF?

  63. Tomj is nothing if not consistent, Pablo. He’d have nothing but nice things to say about Maher’s remark. Remember, Ann’s hatred and villainy is OBVIOUS. So OBVIOUS that he gets to declare what the people will hear.

  64. Bison-boy – Apparently in the moonbat world, it is easier to just make shit up than to engage the substance, as Lezzie calls upon us to do. I do not think that Anne gets to vote in the Dem primary, so taking on Anne about something she didn’t say seems a bit silly, and the follow up fundraising campaign shows that this was nothing other than a cheap political stunt. Kudos to Trippi. I thought his career was over after HoDean, but like Shrum, he forges ahead.

  65. Of course, Mr. Boo, because Bill Maher is RIGHT! What you take as well within the average tone and content of Ann Coulter, Buffalo Boy takes as edgy and Truth to Power™.

    BECAUSE OF THE TRUTHINESS!

  66. Why do you keep bringing up Bill Maher? His remarks are not relevant, no matter how many times you say they are.

  67. buffalobill – Tell us, what is it like to argue with your own flawed mental picture of the way people around here think ?

  68. Way to go, heet. In typical fashion you rail against all things conservative and deflect the whole Bill Maher thing by saying that it’s not relevant. I wonder if the Republican party sent out any E-Mails saying that Democrats through their tool, Bill Maher, are attacking the VP because they’re afraid of his message and hey, while you’re at it, cough up some coin.

    But you’ve declared Maher irrelevant so we’re not allowed to actually make any arguments, are we.

    Stalin would be so proud…

  69. Why do you keep bringing up Bill Maher? His remarks are not relevant, no matter how many times you say they are.

    Except that Coulter’s actual statement referred to his remarks.

    See, we have this bizarre notion that you really should understand what someone’s referring to when they speak or write, rather than just impressing their words with whatever meaning is convenient to you.

  70. Maher’s remarks are not relevant because heet has declared it to be so! Apparently, heet has not bothered to actually read the quote, as it is readily apparent how relevant Maher’s comments were to anyone with brainpower stronger than a dandelion.

  71. My apologies to dandelions.

  72. Here’s my theory: Edwards is trying to build a big campaign account so he can offer it in exchange for the VP position.

    Or he’s just going to pocket it after losing a couple primaries.

  73. Apparently, heet has not bothered to actually read the quote

    Why should he? He’s already been told what to think about it.

  74. Pablo

    thanks for the high praise. What do they say about “by your enemies….”

    Did you happen to notice that I showed Darleen how her question was absurd?
    If you don’t want people to think you are not calling for someone’s death, don’t do it. How is that blithering? much less idiocy?

    I am a Catholic, and my faith has gotten me through the last 10 years of my life. Bill Maher is hardly a person I admire, sorry to disappoint you.

    Maher and Hitchens and Dawkins, et. al., are smarter than me so I seldom listen to them. I am so dumb, I believe in God.

  75. Mr. Boo

    read the remarks to Darleen. I never said any such thing as you attribute to me
    “that he gets to declare what the people will hear.”

    I love it when her royal hairness flips those blonde locks and spouts what she says. Using Darleen direct quote, I noted that for normal Americans, “I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot,” sounds like AC is saying “I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

  76. to Talmudic scholars

    I was not clear, and you are correct.

    In my reading of the world Rush Limbaugh hurts my side and helps his own conservative side. I may not like him, do NOT wish to silence him, but I admit he is powerful and a powerful advocate.

    However, (once more), every time the 90% of Americans who don’t get what fun she is see AC showing her shaved brain as she gets out of the car, they react with horror: “Oh, the horror! the horror!” She could not be a greater gift to Liberals if she were one of us. Nobody except her book-buying fans can stand her. I didn’t make that up.

    If I were her agent I would try to get her to endorse a line of vinegar and water treats.

  77. Tomjr –give it a rest. With every posting you are only demonstrating your lack of ability for even a small semblance of critical thought. The context in which AC used the questionable statement is clear to anyone with a 10th grade education. The fact you cannot see the context is indicative of a lack of intelligence or willful refusal to see the obvious. Whichever it is, you are not doing yourself any favors here.

  78. timj sez

    Did you happen to notice that I showed Darleen how her question was absurd?

    Clear case of projection.

  79. So, let me get this straight – Ann is allowed to publicly call Edwards a faggot, ponder his murder, mock his dead kid, etc… All for profit, making her millions. But Elizabeth Edwards is not allowed to publicly embarrass Ann and then use her to raise campaign contributions? You shits wagging you fingers and tut-tutting at the impropriety of it all need to get some perspective.

  80. let’s see, quoting from timj’s last missive:

    Rush Limbaugh, I like him. He is powerful.

    Proof positive of timj’s mancrush on Rush.

  81. heet

    Coulter has never had any position in the Republican party, let alone being the spouse of a Presidential candidate (such as Breck Boy pretends to be)

  82. Ken

    I would love to give it a rest. I wonder:

    1. Why do most people who hear her speak misunderstand AC, especially given how obvious her lack of malevolence is?

    2. What great advantage did she gain that the American people refuse to say by saying these words: “I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    and 3. Why you think if you assert something it becomes true. Life is hard and you right wingers have been coddled by mommy so much you mistake wishes for actualities.

  83. The context in which AC used the questionable statement is clear to anyone with a 10th grade education.

    There shouldn’t be any problem then, eh? Should be cleared up as soon as somebody puts out an article that states these damning facts you keep going on about.

    Let me give it to you straight – the facts are out and Ann is still a twat. In the NYT piece yesterday and AP pieces today mention the Maher crack. The stories even mention the fundraising angle right in their fucking titles. Quit yer bitching.

  84. “Elizabeth Edwards is not allowed to publicly embarrass Ann and then use her to raise campaign contributions?”

    She shoudn’t bitch and moan in public settings about the personal attacks on her husband and then use those same personal attacks for fundraising. Let me ‘splain this very slowly so that you can understand it — if the attacks are so bad, she shouldn’t want them to occur ever. But if the Edwards’ can financially benefit from the attacks, they will want the attacks to continue. Now, what does this tell us about their character?

  85. Coulter has never had any position in the Republican party, let alone being the spouse of a Presidential candidate (such as Breck Boy pretends to be)

    So what? Calling Edwards a funny name must mean you think you have a substantial argument. Perhaps you should try harder to make it?

  86. tom, that was a really, really lousy dodge.

    What do you think about Maher’s remark regarding Cheney?

  87. 1. Why do most people who hear her speak misunderstand AC, especially given how obvious her lack of malevolence is?

    Where did you get that idea? Most people don’t lack comprehension. That you do does not make you most people.

  88. But Elizabeth Edwards is not allowed to publicly embarrass Ann and then use her to raise campaign contributions?

    Who said she wasn’t allowed, heet? It’s the Edwards campaign that’s pleading “Please send us money so we can stop this speech we don’t like.”

  89. So, let me get this straight – Ann is allowed to publicly call Edwards a faggot, ponder his murder, mock his dead kid, etc… All for profit, making her millions. But Elizabeth Edwards is not allowed to publicly embarrass Ann and then use her to raise campaign contributions? You shits wagging you fingers and tut-tutting at the impropriety of it all need to get some perspective.

    Ann is “allowed” to heap criticism on Edwards since she is a pundit. All for profit. Elizabeth Edwards can respond how ever she wants. But, if Edwards skews Ann’s comments (takes them out of context, or pretends that they weren’t, in actuality, a slur intended to echo slurs made from the other side of the isle), and capitalizes on it, she will be called on it, since she is co-running for her husband’s presidential bid.

    If Elizabeth Edwards honestly believes that AC wished for the Silky Pony’s death by terrorist attack, then she is too stupid to be first lady.

  90. But if the Edwards’ can financially benefit from the attacks, they will want the attacks to continue.

    Now, here we get to the meat of the thing. Is there any way whatsoever to counter Coulter that is agreeable to the sewing circle here? Maybe messages scrawled on paper and put into bottles, thrown into the sea for some people somewhere to find?

    You proudly call yourselves “classical liberals” and pat yourselves on the back proclaiming your heroism in the face of commie thugs who want to take away your voice. But here we see, you are truly full of shit. A guy profits from the idiocy of his opponent and you cry foul. “Not fair! How dare he!” Pathetic.

  91. 1. Why do most people who hear her speak misunderstand AC, especially given how obvious her lack of malevolence is?
    2. What great advantage did she gain that the American people refuse to say by saying these words: “I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
    and 3. Why you think if you assert something it becomes true. Life is hard and you right wingers have been coddled by mommy so much you mistake wishes for actualities.

    I will borrow a statement from another thread that you should add to this and all future postings:

    “It’s your job to figure out what I wrote, not my job to clearly communicate.”

  92. Ann is “allowed” to heap criticism on Edwards since she is a pundit. All for profit. Elizabeth Edwards can respond how ever she wants. But, if Edwards skews Ann’s comments (takes them out of context, or pretends that they weren’t, in actuality, a slur intended to echo slurs made from the other side of the isle), and capitalizes on it, she will be called on it, since she is co-running for her husband’s presidential bid.

    No kidding. Problem is, the facts and context are out and the story still lives because people know what Ann meant. If this was just a big misunderstanding, there wouldn’t be a story.

  93. Pablo

    sorry. I was not trying to dodge. I really do not like Maher because he is anti Religion and implies that religious people are dumb as hell.

    so here is my answer: Maher should not have said it. Maher is too clever by 1/000th of a thousandth. If he wanted to say something like that he should have said. “People would have been better off if Cheney had not been Vice President.”

    and Maher should not be surprised that people do not get his subtle nuance.

  94. You know, I’ve got to add one more thing : it seems you guys are pissed because many people actually DO sympathize with Edwards and his family. It just irks you that they don’t think he deserves the treatment Ann gives or you give. What a shame.

  95. You proudly call yourselves “classical liberals” and pat yourselves on the back proclaiming your heroism in the face of commie thugs who want to take away your voice.

    heet, you fucking nitwit, who said they want money so they can stop the speech they don’t like? Who has said they want to silence anything, other than the Silky camp?

  96. Why do most people who hear her speak misunderstand AC, especially given how obvious her lack of malevolence is?

    Gee…I don’t know, could it be the way the media is reporting it. Which is the whole point of Jeffs post.

    I noted that for normal Americans, “I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot,” sounds like AC is saying “I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    Selective ommission on your part. Which, again IS THE POINT OF THE POST. Her complete thought(not the selected part that you are focusing on) was to point out the double standerd in the media. Simply that a progressive can wish death on the VP and thats OK, but not for a conservative to call breck boy a faggot.

  97. Maher should not have said it.

    And where’s the outrage, tom? Anywhere? Did Coulter, or anyone else have to mangle the context, or outright lie about what Maher said to make it distasteful?

    That was Coulter’s point, and she’s right. She’s certainly stepped over the line on a number of occasions, but this isn’t one of them. She’s right, and those who want her to be wrong want that not because of what she said, but because of who she is.

  98. “………commie thugs who want to take away your voice.”

    You are referring to the Dems desire to reenact the Fairness Doctrine, aren’t you?

  99. Pablo

    re AC

    maybe she is popular.

    I have read reams of Conservative bloggers who wish she would shut up.

    I have been with Republicans who shudder and say “She doesn’t speak for me,” whenever she speaks.

    People here claimed that I was mistaken and that they didn’t admire or defend her.

    Most television shows feature her as if she were an aging kielbasa swallowing former beauty who will “say something outrageous.” Maybe people love her.

    If I am wrong, maybe Republicans will feature her in national advertisements. I would love that. Ann says: vote for the party that has the guts to call widows names. It is hard to think people side with her, but you may be right.

    Do you side with her?

  100. Speaking. Typing. Slowly. For. Tombfflo. and. heet.

    We get it that neither of you like Coulter and tom, the self professed liberal, is more than happy to offer us an analysis as to which conservative pundits are best for the conservative cause.

    Gee, thanks, tom.

    However this is the way it works. Whether either of you love, hate or want to kill Coulter is irrelevant. What is important is the intention of her words. Let’s break it down, shall we?

    “But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    1) She establishes that she used the word “faggot” as a joke and meant it as a joke (remember the whole “rehab” connection.)

    2) Next she points out that when Bill Maher made his comment he was quite serious, a point that no one is disputing.

    3) This establishes a context as to an acceptance of Maher’s remarks even though they are obviously personal and quite vicious.

    4) She immediately creates a mock moral justification along the lines of “Well if it’s OK for Bill to use this sort of comment than I guess I’ll just have to do the same someday.

    5) The context clearly shows an intent to parody 2 things; the kerfuffle over her “faggot” comment and the moral relativism of Maher’s comment in comparison. Of course, there is also the opportuniy to get in a dig at Edwards.

    So is all of his cute and fuzzy? No, it isn’t. Is there a cringe factor (for me) with this sort of talk. Yeah, there is. The bottom line is that Edwards is being dishonest about the meaning of Coulter’s phrase purely for the opportunity to raise coin, a dishonesty that is clearly shown by the campaign’s refusal to use the entire quote!

    What’s the big deal? They could have used the entire quote and still made some hay. The hay they make, though, is with the choir. Tom, don’t quit your day job. As an analyser of political fallout you, quite frankly, suck in a purely partisan way. The vast majority of people truly don’t care about Ann Coulter and her provocative, sometimes tasteless parodic rants. Just as the vast majority of voters don’t care about the equally (or worse) tasteless mutterings of Oliver Willis, Amanda Marcotte, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Jane Hamsher and any one of a dozen firebrands form the left. You are projecting your smug desire to celebrate a perceived victory for liberal discourse when the vast unwashed masses are yawning. Those of us more involved in the machinations of day to day political discourse make statements and express opinions about the appropriateness of one thing or another. None of that will stand the test of time and, ultimately, this too shall pass.

    Either argue the point honestly without all of the partisan projecting or go home.

  101. Do you side with her?

    On what?

    Do you mean do I buy her books? No.

  102. heet is too lathered up to let guy his Coulter chew toy. So instead, he’s trying to distract us with his paws, kicking up clumps of sod as strawmen.

    Edwards and his wife are attempting to profit off a lie. They edited the clip to make it look like Coulter was calling for Edwards’s death by jihadists. She wasn’t, as the preceding sentences made abundantly clear. Which is why they cut them off.

    That the media has now — after having access to the full transcript and full tape — continued to report the Edwards’ spin, it has shown itself either complicit or unprofessional.

    And pointing out that we believe it is craven to base your fundraising around a divisiveness you are pretending to campaign against is not the same as “not allowing it.” It is ridiculing it in the marketplace of ideas. Which is what classical liberals who believe in free speech do.

    We don’t call the lies of Edwards’ “hate speech” in order to try to shame him into shutting his maudlin piehole. We call it opportunistic, and explain why we believe it to be so.

    See, we have this bizarre notion that you really should understand what someone’s referring to when they speak or write, rather than just impressing their words with whatever meaning is convenient to you.

    Well done, Grasshopper.

  103. That the media has now — after having access to the full transcript and full tape — continued to report the Edwards’ spin, it has shown itself either complicit or unprofessional.

    My vote would be “both.” But that’s four and a half decades of watching the Establishment Media shilling consistently for one side, while proclaiming itself “objective.” YMMV.

  104. tom

    Most television shows feature her as if she were an aging kielbasa swallowing former beauty who will “say something outrageous.”

    Good point. That’s the point your not getting. Irony thy name is tom.

    I have read reams of Conservative bloggers who wish she would shut up.

    Where? Just curious.

  105. dear John

    She said those words in that order. They were not edited. When you exploit a sound bite medium the wy she has, she knew what the “money shot” was. She calls for Edward’s death, she calls him a “faggot”, you can have her.

  106. I’m willing to try to explain one more time. Maher’s comment is relevent because Coulter was savaged by the left for calling Edwards a faggot. Maher got no criticism when he wished Cheney had been assassinated. Therefore Coulter, wishing to highlight the lack of criticism of Maher, said next time she should wish Edwards was assassinated rather than calling him a faggot. So that she would face no criticism from the heet like masses that control the MSM. Get it dummy heet?

    Then many here criticized Elizabeth Edwards for lying about what Coulter said. That heet doesn’t care that Elizabeth Edwards lied is one of the biggest problems America has. Why? Because eventually a Democrat will be elected whose morals are so bad, they will institute fascism just to increase their personal power. And heet will not be within that circle of fascist power, oh no. None of us here will be allowed any power at all. If heet makes any trouble he will be shot trying to escape. He will be shot by the very people he is working so hard to put into power.

  107. “If heet makes any trouble he will be shot trying to escape.”

    Are you sure you understand how this game works?

  108. dear John

    After the CPAC Conference many conservatives, including the solid red conservatives like Captain Ed, signed a letter to CPAC. They were tired of her showing up and making her the show “All About Ann” rather than “Introduction and Celebration of Conservatism.”

    Here is a link to the open letter and the number of Conservative bloggers who signed and wrote about how disgusted they were with her is amazing:

  109. Maher did NOT directly do what our little annie did. He made a point that because of Cheney’s War, people are dead now who would not have died in that war.

    That point can be made by saying another person should be VP.But it was a point.

    Darling Ann just called for Edward’s death as an example of why she will say anything to have us write about her.

  110. heet, you fucking nitwit, who said they want money so they can stop the speech they don’t like? Who has said they want to silence anything, other than the Silky camp?

    You show me where Edwards said they want to “stop speech they don’t like” and then we can talk. Til then, keep on projectin’.

  111. That the media has now — after having access to the full transcript and full tape — continued to report the Edwards’ spin, it has shown itself either complicit or unprofessional.

    I’ve mentioned the articles upthread that clearly include this highly nuanced and important context you talk about. Are all news articles perfect at all times? No. Is there a dark conspiracy to unfairly take down Coulter? No.

  112. She said those words in that order. They were not edited. When you exploit a sound bite medium the wy she has, she knew what the “money shot” was. She calls for Edward’s death, she calls him a “faggot”, you can have her.

    And tomj admits it. It doesn’t matter what she meant. It just matters how cynical prigs can manipulate it. Once again, tomj proves to have a… well… a typically leftist amount of decency.

    John, most of Hotair’s commenters have 2 minute hates on Coulter. Every time she’s “in the news” barring now, of course, they rag on her.

  113. Folks, Tomj isn’t here to debate. He’s running with the goalposts all over the place and excusing Maher for ACTUALLY wishing Cheney was killed by saying that one must see the context, while saying that Ann’s context doesn’t matter.

    I’d like to lay down an order, IGNORE tomj. He’s clearly lacks the perception to even see past the EVILCOULTER construct to see his own ridiculous intellectual dishonesty and moral inconsistency. Toss him aside like the child he is.

  114. Tomj,

    Are you saying Bill Maher’s words must be taken in context? Also, where did Ann “directly” call for Edwards’ death? I believe she said “I’ll just…” which means, she hasn’t done it yet. But maybe she will later, since it doesn’t seem to get lefty pundits in trouble. Get the point? Don’t answer. Please.

  115. tom

    She said those words in that order.

    Agreed!

    They were not edited.

    This is where you are wrong. They were disected from a statement she made and negleted to put her words into context. More importantly, they do not convey the point she was making. I think you know this and are just being obtuse.

    Because by that rational, I could take a statment of yours and blow it out of context. For example you might say; “I can’t belive that he said ‘I like to have sex with goats’ in front of her”. By your reasoning everyone can now assume that you like to have sex with goats. Because hey, you said those words in that order….No editing right?

    My appologies to goats!

  116. Here you go, heet.

    If you’re a right-wing wing-nut, this is the scariest thing you can imagine—that the Democratic candidate with the boldest vision for America is also the most electable.

    So they will stop at nothing to tear John down. We can stop them—but only if you stand up. We have 5 more days to reach our goal of $9 million. Give what you can today, and help us beat back this vicious tide.

    What’s that you were saying about projection? And you know what? We don’t really need to talk.

  117. Pablo,

    So that means they are going to “silence” Ann with new laws or bullets or something? Or maybe it means they are going to counter the attacks against Edwards? If you are used to being scared out of your wits, the former might seem logical. I imagine in your tiny, afraid mind Edwards has a crack squad of anti-first amendment goons ready to kick down Ann’s door once they raise the $9 million.

  118. dear John and Liondude and Pablo

    here is what Maher said

    “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. “

  119. dear fellows

    here is what Coulter said Maher said

    “Ann Coulter: But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

  120. You tell me, heet. Mybe you can ask the edwards campaign how they plan to “stop them”. But they’ll probably want a check first.

    I imagine in your tiny, afraid mind Edwards has a crack squad of anti-first amendment goons ready to kick down Ann’s door once they raise the $9 million.

    No, fool. They want idiots like you to think they’ll have the power to do such things, if only you’ll send them some cash.

    For me to worry about Edwards, I’d have to believe that he’s got a chance of someday being in charge. As it stands, I’m more afraid of Paris Hilton’s pooter.

  121. Is that fact a fact, tom? No.

  122. I believe you are honest people, so how does

    “If he did die” = “he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack.”

    Maher says “if he did die” and AC reports this as “he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack.”

    That is not even close to what Maher said. V Coulter invented it and then used it as her justification for saying “If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    If this was a fight, you guys would have bled to death by now.

  123. Maher comment is taken out of context. The context of a terrorist bomb missing Cheney, and how that was a shame.

    So, if Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack, in Mahers unlogical mind, fewer people would die in Iraq … becuase of why? I don’t know.

  124. Maher did NOT directly do what our little annie did. He made a point that because of Cheney’s War, people are dead now who would not have died in that war.

    You seem to be making the same argument as we are but on Bill’s behalf. Interesting how the progressive mind works.

    BECAUSE OF THE TRUTHINESS!!!!

  125. John,

    I believe an even better example is when Tommyj says “I would never call Ann Coulter a tranny. That would just be mean to trannies. But on an unrelated note, my pal heet likes to brag about having sex with goats and no one seems to mind. So from now if have anyything to say about Ann Coulter, I’ll just say that I like to have sex with goats.”

    Tommyj wants to have sex with goats.

  126. “You show me where Edwards said they want to “stop speech they don’t like” and then we can talk. “

    I don’t see anything about kicking down doors, there, heet.

    MATTHEWS: Yes, what did you make of her attack on Hillary? She made fun of her build, her weight. She made fun of a couple of things. She made fun of Osama — Osama, I’m sorry — of Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein. What do you make of that, that sort of general invective you get from her now?

    J. EDWARDS: Well, I think, first, as to Senator Clinton, this is demeaning and offensive to women at large. It’s offensive to Senator Clinton, who’s a terrific senator and a great leader in this country and a great role model for a lot of women. And for her to demean her that way is completely unacceptable. And Senator Obama — I mean, here’s an African-American man who’s running for president of the United States who is in many ways a role model for a lot of young African-Americans in this country. And for her to make fun of — first of all, it’s something he has no control over, his name…

    MATTHEWS: Right.

    J. EDWARDS: And to make fun of and demean him in that way is just — it’s completely consistent with what we see from these crazies. And somebody has to speak out about it and stop it.

    Don’t see how it could be much clearer than that, that is from the transcript linked in the post, and is not the only time he says it.

  127. Pablo

    I AGREE with you! Maher cannot say what would happen if things did not happen the way they did. None of us can. So, yes you are correct, Maher cannot assert that had Cheney not been VP, we would know what would have happened.

    His assertion is a fallacy, a reference to facts not in evidence.

    BUT answer my question about Coulter’s assertion. Maher said no such statement!

  128. Honestly, this is just idiotic. Ann didn’t use the EXACT SAME WORDS AND PHRASES that Maher did. Ya, I’ll give you that.

    The sentiment was about the same, though.

  129. tom,

    Your moving the goal posts. But since you are trying to change the subject. The reason I was angered by what Bill said was not the exact words he used or the order that they were used, but the intent behind the words he used. Which is why (even though I don’t like AC) I don’t get really worked up over what she said about Edwards.

  130. BUT answer my question about Coulter’s assertion. Maher said no such statement!

    BUT you are the only one asserting this, tom. If someone had said: “Ann, that is an unfair analogy because Maher didn’t say that.” then no one here would have probably even noticed, the whole thing would have blown over, and Edwards would have had to come up with another indignation to raise money about.

    If you trolls really want to get an idea what this is about, go register at Edwards campaign blog and get on his fundraising list. Those fuckers are worse than any low-rent tent revival evangelist ever dreamed off. It is not stop spamming for donations to battle sin and buy salvation.

  131. Don’t see how it could be much clearer than that, that is from the transcript linked in the post, and is not the only time he says it.

    I don’t know why I’m humoring you but here it goes : what, pray tell, do you think he is saying here? Cause to me he is talking about verbally hitting back at Ann publicly to blunt her attacks. What is wrong with that? You guys have still not made an argument that makes any sense substantiating your claim of immorality or impropriety on the part of Edwards. It’s always something very vague you object to – his wife as the messenger, he is profiting off of the publicity, his hair, his faggotyness, Ann is just so misunderstood, whatever. I suppose whining about media bias is a good “go to” but it sorta falls flat here, too.

  132. Comment by LionDude on 6/28 @ 4:33 pm #

    Thanks dude! Yea yours was better. Mine was just a weak attempt to say that tom like to sleep with goats! But only if it gets really cold……at least, that’s the word on the street.

  133. heet

    Up until the Pence amendment of TODAY we have listened to increasing talk about reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine (sic) by Pelosi, Reid, Kucinich, Feinstein, and John Kerry. John Edwards constant drum beat to “do something” about “wingers” was more in the usual Progressive totalitarian line.

    Hell… remember the Dem senators that started threatening ABC’s broadcast license over “Road to 9/11″???

    Not one of them are talking about competing in the “marketplace of ideas” they are talking about Governmental CENSORSHIP.

    Why shouldn’nt we assume Edwards isn’t just part of the Dems slouching towards Venezula’s approach to “fair” media? What have they done to show they like the First Amendment for anyone but themselves lately?

  134. Those mindreading powers you possess are truly outrageous. Truly, truly, truly outrageous.

  135. We now have 72 hours to hit our goal of $9 million. Seventy-two hours to fight slurs with substance. Seventy-two hours to keep this campaign on track to win. And it all comes down to you. Please give what you can:

    One rat’s derriere coming up.

    We’re fighting back the right way—by taking John’s message of change straight to voters. Earlier this week, our first TV ad in New Hampshire hit the airwaves with John’s inspiring call to action: it is time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war.

    Well, I own a Dodge. And I like apple pie. Baseball’s pretty good too, though the Rangers make it tough. And I remember the Alamo.

    I guess what I’m getting at is why do you think it’s time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war? Could it be the company you keep?

  136. If you say truly four times it makes it even more true heet. FYI

  137. If this was a fight, you guys would have bled to death by now.

    Truly, a legend in his own mind. And the word on the street is that he has a thing for sleeping with goats. Weird.

  138. Those mindreading powers you possess

    You know, heet, time was when a person would call the police and tell them about stalker threatening them and the police would shrug and say “call us if they actually DO something, what are we, mindreaders?”

    Enough broken and dead bodies got the law changed.

    Or maybe you are too insulated to know about all manner of criminals… old and new…that walk into businesses and say “nice place you got here, too bad if something were to happen to it. Just passing the time with you, you know.”

    Maybe one swallow doesn’t make a spring, but a nice murder of crows sitting on the fence eyeing your cornfield should not be ignored.

  139. I don’t know why I’m humoring you but here it goes : what, pray tell, do you think he is saying here? Cause to me he is talking about verbally hitting back at Ann publicly to blunt her attacks.

    No heet, he’s talking about stopping it. That’s what he meant when he said “And somebody has to speak out about it and stop it.”

    You were saying?

    You show me where Edwards said they want to “stop speech they don’t like” and then we can talk.

    Whoomp, there it is, beeyotch. What say you?

  140. Darleen,

    So, we can’t afford to NOT assume John Edwards wants to “silence” Coulter? I have goosebumps!

  141. “I don’t know why I’m humoring you but here it goes : what, pray tell, do you think he is saying here? Cause to me he is talking about verbally hitting back at Ann publicly to blunt her attacks.”

    Since I don’t possess mind reading powers, I think he is saying he wants to stop personal attacks, because he doesn’t say he wants to blunt them, or rebut them, or dismiss them, he says he wants to fucking STOP THEM, just like you asked to see you disingenuous little piece of fluff.

  142. Pablo, shut the fuck up, moron. You are suggesting Edwards will do something devious like “silence” Coulter. Your simple minded word games are fun for you but stupid for everyone else.

  143. Oh I almost forgot : this moronic fearmongering about the secret Edwards plan to take away free speech comes from the same Krew who harps on an on about “intentions” and the evil left reading too much into innocuous statements.

  144. heet grabs his Mattel Pull-N-Play Talking Points toy and runs crying back to Momma.

  145. What? No nonsense about intentions and the narrative? I’m concerned people are misconstruing the very plain words of John Edwards!

  146. His very plain words were that he wants to stop this type of rhetoric. If his intention was not to convey his desire to stop this type of rhetoric, he has had plenty of opportunities to revise it.

    On the other hand, Anne’s comment has been distorted to the point that it no longer even resembles her original point about the double standards employed by the media and the pundits.

  147. The plain words about stopping hate speech? Have a look, heet: http://tinyurl.com/2nrtl4

    Seem to be a consensus there to me.

  148. Pablo, shut the fuck up, moron.

    Brilliant retort, twatwaffle! If you can’t stand the heet, just lose your shit!

  149. If this were heet’s ball, he could just take it and go home. Alas…

  150. But how do you truly know what Edwards really intended with his words? Jeff should write a post about these professional victims who claim to be offended by Edwards!

  151. I am trying to figure out who is more tiresome – heet or buffalo-boy. Today, I think that the most fatuous, the Troll of the Day would have to go to buffalowings. Heet is just being heet, and really has not given us anything other than its standard talking points. BuffaloBill is a newbie, but has displayed an incredible ability to twist facts, lie, and obfuscate.

  152. Talking points? I assure you, this is all original stuff. I don’t read Kos or DU or any other lefty sites.

  153. Comment by tomjfrombfflo @99

    I was mistaken.
    I am wrong.
    It is hard to think, but you may be right.

    That’s very white of you, tom.

  154. Jeff should write a post about these professional victims who claim to be offended by Edwards!/blockquote>

    Did someone claim victimhood? Other than Mr. and Mrs. Silky?

  155. But how do you truly know what Edwards really intended with his words?

    Seriously, heet, what does he mean by “stopping hate speech”? This is a pretty pathetic ploy even for you. Have you no shame at all?

    Jeff should write a post about these professional victims who claim to be offended by Edwards!

    Now you are infringing on shine’s franchise I am afraid, he has rights to all completely incoherent ramblings this month.

  156. Why are you all arguing with tomj? after all he did say:

    “With Ann’s sparkling wit, delightful joie de vivre and careful, thoughtful argument(s), Miss Coulter is a national treasure.”

    “I love Ann”

    “My criticism of Ann and Rush is silly”

    “I was not clear, and you are correct.”

    “I was mistaken”

    “I am wrong”

    LET THE HEALING BEGIN!!!!

  157. Tom said, and therefore sincerely beleives:

    “Miss Coulter is a national treasure. Sadly, she has not mated nor reproduced yet.”

    “Ann, an honest woman.”

    “Religious people are dumb as hell.”

  158. Comment by heet on 6/28 @ 7:07 pm #

    Talking points? I assure you, this is all original stuff. I don’t read Kos or DU or any other lefty sites.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (gasp) HAHAHAHahahahahaha
    OOoooooo… can’t… breathe….

  159. Were I to write an intentionalist post on this incident, I would only have to add on to the ones I’ve done already.

    First, I have argued what I believe were the intentions of the Edwards campaign. To make that argument, I’ve noted a pattern of appearances, emails, the timing of the confrontation, Edwards’ penchant for playing victim, and Elizabeth’s history of incivility, and enjoying the incivility of others when the target is “right wing wingnut crazies.”

    Those bits of evidence were offered in support of my interpretation of the intentions of Liz, Johnny, and the campaign. You are free to argue that my interpretation is wrong and to show me how, but that, dear heet, is how one appeals to intent in the absence of any professed intent — or even a hidden intent — on the part of those producing the “text” I’ve been examining these last few days.

    Second — and here is what I need to add on, because it is clearly not sticking with dullards like you — is that Coulter’s intent was clear from the context; if you believe her intent was something other, you need to argue why you believe so, and how your argument reconciles the fairly straightforward if/than construction of her comparison, which had as its referent the Maher incident — and was uttered in the context of having to defend a previous remark she made (meaning it was a response that came from a pointed prompt).

    What I object to — as I’ve said before and which you’ve either ignored or hurried over — is that the Edwards campaign recut the clip to remove the context and, in so doing, changed the entire point Coulter was making.

    And of course, that manipulation of a soundbite has nothing to do with Coulter inherently.

    You’re one feeble attempt to answer that concern — well, the one that you have tried to slip in as substantive between all the strawmen, red herrings, and non sequiturs — is to note that the context has gotten out, and still people are writing that Coulter meant something else.

    But that is merely proof of an interpretive will to power by a community that has presumed to wrestle control over meaning from the utterer — to privilege their intentional misreading over Coulter’s actual meaning — and then pretend that what they’ve done is fairly aired the “facts.”

    But they haven’t. And in fact, to a certain ideological way of thinking, a “fact” is itself a construct used to promote a form or rationalism that protects the bourgeois status quo. Which is why we hear more and more about the “fallacy of proof” and other such nonsense from those who believe consensus determines truth — from which it follows that rhetorical manipulation used in order to forge consensus (like, for instance, lying about Coulter’s meaning) is, in some perverse way, serving their twisted idea of “truth,” which has been reduced simply to “what most people believe / perception of truth.”

    This is the poison in the postmodern project. And as you seem to keep harping on it, I ask that before you throw out any more snark — and given that I’ve taken the time to answer your questions — you show me precisely where I’ve gone wrong in my analysis.

    Otherwise, tuck your tail between your legs, take a week or so off, and then show back up in another thread throwing out your ludicrous generalizations about the “Krew” here — who, intellectually speaking, dwarf you like a grain silo dwarfs the aphid trying desperately to get inside it.

  160. “Otherwise, tuck your tail between your legs, take a week or so off, and then show back up in another thread throwing out your ludicrous generalizations about the “Krew” here — who, intellectually speaking, dwarf you like a grain silo dwarfs the aphid trying desperately to get inside it.”

    (wipes tears) *sniff* That was beautiful, man.

  161. What I find most troubling about this kerfluffle is the obviously manufactured “confrontation” between Coulter and Elizabeth Edwards. If heet is not troubled by the character of a presidential candidate who is so guided by polls that he sticks his campaign’s highest positive Q rating into the equation through Chris Mathews’ direct number, then all bets are off and perhaps I should seek accommodation on the next starship leaving this rock. Having said that, Edwards is being so outclassed by Clinton and Obama that the whole episode seems like Trippi’s preparation for 2008′s “YEEEARGH.” And can someone please define “hate speech” for me? Along with a concise presentation of what the left is actually for? And maybe a beer.

  162. Jeff G

    You write

    “Second — and here is what I need to add on, because it is clearly not sticking with dullards like you — is that Coulter’s intent was clear from the context; if you believe her intent was something other, you need to argue why you believe so, and how your argument reconciles the fairly straightforward if/than construction of her comparison, which had as its referent the Maher incident — and was uttered in the context of having to defend a previous remark she made (meaning it was a response that came from a pointed prompt).”

    The problem here is in your phrase “refernt to the Maher incident. Coulter made up completely that Maher “wished” that Cheney had died in a “terrorist attack”. She simply lied.

    Here from the transcript is what Maher did say, with Republican Joe Scarborough free to take issue with his opinion. I pulled the transcript from
    NewsBusters, so this is right wing approved transcription

    Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)
    Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…
    Frank: I think he did.
    Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…
    Maher: No, no. I quoted that.
    Frank: You don’t believe that?
    Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.
    Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)

    Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…
    Frank: I think he did.
    Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…
    Maher: No, no. I quoted that.
    Frank: You don’t believe that?
    Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

  163. dear RTO

    I tried to go to your page but it makes my browser crash. There is no equivalence between quoting the lines I wrote and quoting Coulter. Here is why.

    Here is the quote in all its glory that you maintain provides all the difference in the world:

    “I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    Nowhere did Maher “wish” Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. The verb “wish” is Coulter’s invention, her lie. Then she uses that lie to assert that “[She'll] just wish he had been killed in a terrorist attack.”

    Her full quote is ugly and as I say, if you are on that side, you can have her and claim her and champion her.

  164. Living breathing proof that you can give somebody all of the necessary tools for rational thought, but if they do not use them, or are ideologically blinded, then it was simply a waste of bandwidth.

  165. Coulter made up completely that Maher “wished” that Cheney had died in a “terrorist attack”. She simply lied.

    Unlike the people claiming she wished Edwards would die, right? The irony, it is thick.

    Much like Tom.

  166. Tom–

    You miss the point. Whether Coulter misunderstood Maher or not is beside the point. She believed Maher to be saying one thing, and she used that as a point of comparison. You can take issue with her interpretation of Maher’s remarks, but that’s not what you are being asked to do. Instead, you are being asked to make a compelling case that Coulter wasn’t, in fact, referencing her own interpretation of the Maher statement as a point of comparison for the if/than construction of her own statement.

    Personally, I don’t find her interpretation of Maher’s remarks too far-fetched; she may have overshot on the “wish” part, but there is no doubt that Maher is saying that HAD CHENEY DIED IN THAT ATTACK, less people would die (a dubious assertion); he also seems to think this a good thing — which, presumably, is where Coulter took the liberty of adding “wish” (when perhaps the more exact description would have been something like, “would think it for the greater good”).

    None of which speaks to what’s at hand here. The Edwardses did not take issue with Coulter’s interpretation of Maher’s remarks as a basis for her if/than formulation. Instead, they left out that context entirely.

    Presumably because they thought that people would recognize from the context that the claim they were making about Coulter wishing Edwards dead in a terrorist attack is absurd and misleading.

    Unfortunately for them, the underestimated the gullibility and, frankly, interpretive density, of people like you, who are able, still, to misunderstand the gist of the argument here, and to go on defending the utterly transparent decision to take Coulter’s words out of context in order to argue that she meant sonmething totally other than she did.

    And this analysis stands REGARDLESS of whether or not you think Coulter was interpreting Maher correctly. Which I don’t think she was. Maher just chose his words carefully, but the sentiment was the same: he would not mind had Cheney died in the attack, because it would have saved lives, Maher asserts, and that would be a net gain — and so “good.”

  167. dear Jeff

    I disagree with you over Coulter, I guess we established that. You asked me for a reference to right wingers who object to her and I gave you that.

    Your second point about Edwards has two dimensions. The first is whether one agrees that her remarks were misunderstood by the Edwards’s and the second was did they exploit her. I think, as they do, that she calls for and wishes for, the deaths of her enemies. Her famous NY Times remark, this and so many others. If I were John Edwards, I would think she was “wishing I died in a terrorist attack.”

    Would I exploit her and say she was a hater, especially when her television personna is so hateful?

    Yes.

    If you guys can get a mainstream Democratic voice to give you so many free sound bites and easy publicity, I would use them if I were you.

    I wish we could debate this in from of a panel of debate judges, because I do not see how you win with Coulter.

  168. dear Rob Crawford

    I am sorry that you cannot understand this. It is not irony to quote someone directly. Coulter says, “since I cannot call Edwards a faggot, I’ll just do what Bill Maher does.” But her paraphrase of Maher is an invention. She says this, and here it is in the context you claim rescues it from her expression that she will “wish” Edwards death since she cannot call him a faggot:

    “I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    no “irony” in quoting her invention of the word “wish”, no “just like Tom”.

  169. I wish we were having this discussion with an actual buffalo, as it would be more likely to understand an if/then construct than tomj.

    Ripping a phrase from an overall context, and attempting to ascribe a meaning different than what was obviously intended is exactly what Silky is doing. If you are okay with that, then you are the exact target audience they were shooting for.

  170. “I think, as they do, that she calls for and wishes for, the deaths of her enemies.”

    Then you can’t read, dude. Because she couldn’t have possibly said it any plainer, and you are still too fucking stupid to understand. So why should I give a shit what you think?

  171. dear JD

    what overall context? She said what I quoted. I took the transcript from a right wing cite, newsbusters. You are not producing any evidence that I am wrong for one reason: there is no such evidence.

    You argue, “You cannot accurately quote Ann Coulter, even when you do so in full and in context because only true believers like us can hear what she really means.”

    And then because you are frustrated to have nothing, and I mean not a single point to make, you try to mock. But really, I don’t even think you are good at that. Buffalos, fake charges of irony, goats; what about thinking?

  172. buffalobill – A panel of debate judges would certainly be dazzled by your references to Anne being a transvestite, or her marital status, or Rush’s love life, or the ability of conservatives to procreate. They would be blown away by your skillz! Just as they would with your reading comprehension.

    If I say “if I need to buy a new set of golf clubs at some point in the future, I will just do like Tiger and buy Nike’s”, does that mean that I am purchasing Nike’s?

  173. Bison dude:

    If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

    Is that clear enough for you and heet, both of you being willfully partisan ignorant. “If I’m going to say…” is so completely different from “If I were John Edwards, I would think she was “wishing I died in a terrorist attack.”

    IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

    Get it yet or are you and heet just going to keep regurgitating what an awful harridan Coulter is or what a shriveled keilbasa sucking stick woman she is or how she has no children or what she said in the NYT and continue to say it to the people who comment regularly in this blog, the vast majority of whom don’t give a sackful of Silky’s clippings for Ann Coulter?

    Get over yourself.

  174. Buffalo-boy – I did not argue that quote you provided.

    Your inability to take even the full quote, in the context in which it was given, and understand the clear meaning is more indicative of either the failure of the Buffalo school system, or your lack of desire to employ actual critical thinking.

    I know, we are beating our heads against a fortified brick wall.

  175. Would I exploit her and say she was a hater, especially when her television personna is so hateful?

    Yes.

    If you guys can get a mainstream Democratic voice to give you so many free sound bites and easy publicity, I would use them if I were you.

    You admit then, that you are intellectually dishonest.

  176. I wish we could debate this in from of a panel of debate judges, because I do not see how you win with Coulter.

    tom

    You went from “AC doesn’t live the values she preaches” then to “AC said she wants Edwards to be assasinated by terrorists” and finally, when you were forced to argue against her ENTIRE quote, you resort to “she misinterpreted what Bill M was saying”(ironic that you do the same with AC comments).

    Each time your argument is proven to be irrelevent or wrong you move the goal posts and that will not win you any debates in front of debate judges.

    Debating with you is a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

  177. John you do not address my points, assign points to me I never made, and then declare yourself the winner. You do not refer to the facts because they facts are against you.

    BJ you are the typical angry conservative. Coulter’s use of the word “if” leaves the fact standing. She has two opinions of Edwards: One that he is a faggot which she won’t say anymore for personal reasons, because some of her biggest fans are self-hating homosexual males who have a history of loving Judy Garland and other campy females, and Two she wishes he would be killed in a terrorist attack.

    You really are not winning this argument because you have no facts. You have a typical cultish assertion that the truth is not the truth.

    Dial one of the ten thousand all anger, all the time talk shows and get your heroin-like fix of anger, and stop embarrassing yourself. Our words are visible here, and yours do not do you honor.

  178. JD skills has no z

  179. JD skills has no z

    and I explained why this is not a good analogy:

    >>If I say “if I need to buy a new set of golf clubs at some point in the future, I will just do like Tiger and buy Nike’s”, does that mean that I am purchasing Nike’s?>>

    because Coulter claims she has two choices with Edwards, Faggot or calling for his death.

    But, since you asked, the future conditional does imply intention. If it rains I will stay home means that when it rains you will find me at home. I will call for someone’s death means I will call for someone’s death.

    Words mean something. Republicans tend to be postmodernist deniers of language’s ability to carry meaning, but language only does so if you assign opinions to others that they never expressed and then shout, “I scored!” In fact, you are not even in the game.

  180. Wow.

    He didn’t even comprehend my remark about the irony. If Coulter misinterpreted Maher’s comment by taking it out of context/twisting his intent, how is that different from what’s being done to Coulter’s comment?

    And now he’s reduced to arguing tenses. Ever heard of a “hypothetical conditional”, Tom?

  181. Nowhere did Maher “wish” Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack.

    So, he talks about how much better things would be if Cheney were killed, and you assume that he doesn’t want things to be better? That’s ridiculous, tom.

  182. John you do not address my points, assign points to me I never made, and then declare yourself the winner.

    tom your being dishonest here as I never claimed to have won, only that you are a witless moron. But you seem to have declared yourself the winner twice now with;

    I wish we could debate this in from of a panel of debate judges, because I do not see how you win with Coulter.

    And my personal favorite as you seem to fancy yourself and internet lyrical tough guy;

    If this was a fight, you guys would have bled to death by now.

  183. “JD skills has no z”

    I think that about says it all for our boy tom.

  184. assign points to me I never made

    Really? lets check the transcript.

    First you were bitching that AC does not live the values that she preaches.

    it is strange how people who don’t have what most of us consider Family Values espouse them so much for others.

    Second you assert that AC want Edwards to die in a terrorist attack by misquoting her reapetedly and then come right out and say it;

    and Two she wishes he would be killed in a terrorist attack.

    And finally you whine about how she took Bills comments out of context(which is exactly what you are doing with AC comments, which has been pointed out to you numerous times, but does not seem to penetrate your daily Kos aluminum foil helmet);

    That is not even close to what Maher said. V Coulter invented it and then used it as her justification for saying “If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

    They are your words tom. So how did I assign point to you that you never made?

  185. “But, since you asked, the future conditional does imply intention. If it rains I will stay home means that when it rains you will find me at home. I will call for someone’s death means I will call for someone’s death.”

    tominbuffalo – the first clause is IFIFIFIFIFIFIF it rains, then we will be able to find you at home.

    In your next example, you conveniently leave out the IFIFIFIFIFIFIF, and again assert that Anne wishes that Edwardsess would be killed by a terrorist. She specifically indicated that IFIFIFIFIFIFIFIFIFIF she was going to say anything about Edwardsess in the future, she would wish that he will die in a terrorist attack.

    The context was in pointing out the double standards applied by the media, and people such as yourself. The media was all atwitter when she questioned his sexuality, and nary a word when Maher indicated that the world would be better off had Cheney died in a terrorist bombing. So, in the future, IFIFIFIFIFIFIFIFIF she were to speak of Edwarsess, to avoid the outrage over questioning his sexuality, she would employ the same rhetoric as Maher.

    Yet, the double standard remains in place. You uncritically have no problem with Maher asserting, AS A FACT, that the world would be a better place had Cheney been killed in a terrorist bombing, and are full of piss, vinegar, and self-lefteousness in Anne using precisely the same construct.

    Your inability to understand an IF/THEN construct does not make your interpretation right. And since the intent of Anne’s statement is clear from the context of the conversation and the specific words she used, your changing the meaning and ascribing an intent not clear from the context and the words, is just BS.

    I had a better impression of Buffalo prior to encountering you. A city where Buffalo wings originated could not be all bad.

  186. tom-

    JD skills has no z

    Go and re-read your posts here and make a note of all the spelling errors and then back to me with how foolish you feel. Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass nuthouse.

  187. John you do not address my points, assign points to me I never made,

    This one struck me as comical too, since bison-boy credited me with an entire quote that was either fabricated, or authored by somebody not named JD.

    I saw a baby bison at the wolf park (www.wolfpark.org), and attempted to have a conversation with it. It was far more amenable to rational thought than yourself, and for that, I apologize to the bison for comparing you to them.

  188. Republicans tend to be postmodernist deniers of language’s ability to carry meaning, but language only does so if you assign opinions to others that they never expressed and then shout, “I scored!” In fact, you are not even in the game.

    Tom, do you not understand that this is a perfect discription of you behaviour in this thread. I doubt it. That’s what is making you look so foolish. Good times!

  189. Oh, and by the way, I intentionally used the construct “skillz” in a phoenetic manner, as I thought the traditional spelling might be too difficult to understand. That, and it being commonly used in pop culture, but maybe those kind of trendz have not reached the Great White North yet.

    Tom – U got madd skillz.

  190. JD what’s even more comical is that i simply quoted his words back to him.

  191. john – You should make an agreement with tomjinbuffalo, similar to the one I have with my better half. When he is posting something, at least one of you has to pay attention to what he posts.

  192. tomj – Buffalo got your tongue ?

  193. dear JD

    1. quote me the passage where Maher says what you say and what Coulter ascribes to him. You cannot. It does not exist.

    2. I doubt that I have many spelling errors because this page has a correction of spelling built into it. I was joking. “mad skillz” and that type of slang is comical to me.

    3. I have said many times here that what Maher said was wrong, but that very few of you quoted what he said accurately.

    4.Your outrage is manufactured, as is Coulter’s. Maher did not get the outraged reaction from the media or public since it is a fantasy of yours and Coulter’s that he said any such thing.

    5. I am a Catholic and live day after day quite nicely without paying attention to Maher whom I dislike for his contempt for religion, but I looked it up to see if what Coulter said was true. It was not. There is Barney Frank(!!!) telling Maher, “You don’t mean that” and Joe Scarborough saying nothing, and Maher saying “no no I quoted that.”

    6. When Maher said “Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” It is NOT a fact. Maher was wrong to say it and we are a poorer society because we allow people to endlessly spout such constructions, but his error was one in logic. He said, “If a, then b” without any facts in evidence that a lead to b.

    7. Let me say it again however, because like my students you never hear anything but what you want to hear: Maher said no such version of what Coulter and you attribute to him.

    So the question you are asking is: “Why is there no outrage when Maher did not say what we said he said?” And the answer is, “Because Maher did not say it.”

    8. Coulter could only be a hero to people who have no idea what the world is. Once her observations are tested against reality, she looks smaller and smaller and campier and campier.

  194. Let’s just boil bison dude down to the shorter summary:

    Maher: Didn’t mean it, never said it that way and Coulter misquoted him.

    Coulter: Delibrately misquoted Maher! The “If” is irrelevant! She wants Edwards to die in a terrorist attack and thinks he’s a faggot! If you can’t see that you are a partisan hack hater drunk on the heady brew of Conservative Talk Radio and Hater Blogs!!! Especially since whe is a shriveled up twat with no children!!!

    Somebody check and see if Edwards has a buffalo working in his PR Department.

    Oh and not a word about Edwards only using part of the quote, especially since bison dude assures us that the first part of the quote doesn’t change anything with regards to Coulter’s intention. How about that, bisin dude? Why leave that part of the quote out of the E-Mail if it’s so non-partisan clear what AC’s evil intention was?

    If these arguments were to go before an adminstrative judge, they’d be assigned to that cleaner pants lawsuit idiot. Nobody else in their right mind would put up with tom’s willful twisting if language and intent for partisan gain.

    Oh, I’m sorry! I forgot. We here at PW are the only partisans in this debate. I comnpletely forgot aboput bison dude’s pure heart and lack of idealogical axes to grind, as reflected by the high minded tone of his remarks.

    My bad…

  195. John

    do you realize that the postmodern remark was intentional parody of what conservatives say. You do not, if you are examples of conservatives, argue from and with the facts very well.

    and as for this comic gem:

    “I saw a baby bison at the wolf park (www.wolfpark.org), and attempted to have a conversation with it. It was far more amenable to rational thought than yourself, and for that, I apologize to the bison for comparing you to them.”

    no wonder you think Coulter is funny. You and Coulter both need the laugh track on The Half Hour News Hour. It would not be funny anyway, but in view of the specific arguments that I have been making, citing facts, using logic, drawing distinctions based on real words, it is not even true.

  196. A more verbose actus …

  197. BJT

    1. “my bad” is very clever use of language. I sure hope it catches on. Your apoplectic fit makes my argument for me. You are Coulter’s target audience. You have mad ‘riting skillz dude. Like Xtreme.

    2. I have nothing to do with Edwards or any candidate.

    3. There has never been a candidate who said, “There is a woman who hates me, who has called me a faggot, made fun of my son’s death, and said ‘IF’ she were to speak of me again–since she could not call me the faggot she thinks I am–she would ‘wish’ for my death in a terrorist attack. But, oh by the way, here is the context behind her attack on my son’s death, her calling me a faggot and her death wish.”

    5. I think Coulter meant it. She thinks he is a faggot and she often wishes her enemies were dead by some kind of murder. She has a long record of such statements. We should take her at her word.

  198. my fave part of this is that tomcjoyce@aol.com felt compelled to track down my blog and leave a long winded comment about this post on a post about my dog’s favorite toy. because apparently he wasn’t getting enough attention here.

  199. BJT

    I didn’t cast aspersions on her private parts. Except for the hysterical nature of your exclamation points I do think

    1. Maher was misquoted
    2. The ‘if’ is not irrelevant but part of and either or construction “either I call him a faggot or I…”
    3. I do think many people turn to Talk Radio to get their conformist views validated, and I do think there is great anger among listeners and blog posters.

    See we do agree on some things.

  200. so, buffalo-boy, since you dispute the characterization of Maher’s comments, how should us rubes take his words?

  201. You do not, if you are examples of conservatives, argue from and with the facts very well.

    We just have a different definition of what a fact is. You seem to think that if the majority of people believe something to be true, is widely reported in the media or used in an email by the Edwards campaign, then it must be true. You lack the ability to engage in critical thought. I was wrong yesterday, you don’t have a thing for goats. You have a thing for sheep because you are one.

    As for this;

    “I saw a baby bison at the wolf park (www.wolfpark.org), and attempted to have a conversation with it. It was far more amenable to rational thought than yourself, and for that, I apologize to the bison for comparing you to them.”

    I didn’t say it. JD did. So before you start stomping around with your panties in a bunch, get YOUR facts straight. Idiot.

    Also;

    no wonder you think Coulter is funny. You and Coulter both need the laugh track on The Half Hour News Hour. It would not be funny anyway, but in view of the specific arguments that I have been making, citing facts, using logic, drawing distinctions based on real words, it is not even true.

    Only the first sentence makes any sense so I will address that assumption. As I have said before ,up thread, I do not like AC. I do not think she is funny and I agree with you that she is not a good spokesperson for the right. Not because she is some seething, hateful, spawn of satan, but because progressives, like you, are so willing to be dishonest and misrepresent what she says. So yes, you are correct that she provides really good sound bites for you to take out of context and use as a means to crucify the entire convervative base who is not defending her, as you assert, but attacking the lefts dishonesty.

  202. John and JD

    my apologies for mixing names.

    whew! I think we are done. I don”t like Maher and you don’t like AC. Writing is fun, however.

    until next time, good afternoon, good night, and happy Independence Day. I am pretty sure our comments help Protein Wisdom with his advertisers, so you can say you got something out of this.

    I wonder what would happen if we had a beer some time…….

  203. by the way, I would buy the beer since I am the visitor here.

  204. I think Coulter meant it.

    [translation]

    I really hope she meant it because that will gives me the ammunition I need to point out all conservatives as hatefull, slack-jawed yokels.

    She thinks he is a faggot and she often wishes her enemies were dead by some kind of murder. She has a long record of such statements.

    Often! Come on tom, lets get back to reality. One quote, taken out of context and completly misunderstood by cretins like you, makes up this long record of such statements.

    We should take her at her word.

    Your right, and that is what we are doing. You, on the other hand, want to read some sort of malicious intent into her words. Again, and for the last time, you are dishonest or just really stupid.

  205. Comment by tomjfrombfflo on 6/29 @ 1:57 pm

    7. Let me say it again however, because like my students you never hear anything but what you want to hear…

    Jesus wept.

  206. dear John

    I repeat: Happy Independence Day. Someday I would love to buy you a beer and talk about life and see how much we really disagree.

    I do not want to be rude, so I would like to answer your question. However, am I simply stupid or am I just dishonest is hardly a question I can answer. I think I am neither. I think I am smart and honest.

    Several times here, I said outright that I do NOT think AC represents all or even many conservatives. I even posted a link to a conservative website where I discovered how many conservative bloggers, including the big ones like Captain Ed wished we would all stop paying attention to her.

    There are many conservatives I think do a great job arguing for conservative ideas. I am here scouting the opposition the way an NFL team does: studying the tapes, looking for strengths and weaknesses.

    I probably will not speak here again, not out of frustration or any bad motive, but I will read and check to see what Pablo and you and the others are writing.

    With that, and as graciously as I can, I bid you goodnight.

  207. I think I am smart and honest.

    Really. I am now going to do to your words what you, and many others, have done to AC’s words. And yes, I do understand that the below quote is in reference to Bills remarks about religious people bieng dumb. Just as AC’s words in reference to something Bill said. Again, Irony thy name is tom.

    Maher and Hitchens and Dawkins, et. al., are smarter than me so I seldom listen to them. I am so dumb, I believe in God.

    Tom admits to being Dumb! See! See everyone. Tom admits he is dumb. HAHA! Score! He said it. Those words, in that order. THOSE EXACT WORDS. He said “I am dumb” everyone. Tom is dumb. WHAT!!! He said it.

    Now dear tom, am I being a little dishonest here. Yes. By the smugness you have displayed here I think you believe yourself to be quite the intelectual heavywieght. What I have done here is, in principle, what you and your “left wing noise machine” have done to AC, Brit Hume, Tony Snow and others. Your ideology has substituted itself for critical thought and reasoning. And in your rush to assign some kind of malic to thier words you miss the greater truth of the entire debate. And your a teacher! B Moe got it right.

  208. sorry no blockquotes on that last one

    I think I am smart and honest.

    Really. I am now going to do to your words what you, and many others, have done to AC’s words. And yes, I do understand that the below quote is in reference to Bills remarks about religious people bieng dumb. Just as AC’s words in reference to something Bill said. Again, Irony thy name is tom.

    Maher and Hitchens and Dawkins, et. al., are smarter than me so I seldom listen to them. I am so dumb, I believe in God.

    Tom admits to being Dumb! See! See everyone. Tom admits he is dumb. HAHA! Score! He said it. Those words, in that order. THOSE EXACT WORDS. He said “I am dumb” everyone. Tom is dumb. WHAT!!! He said it.

    Now dear tom, am I being a little dishonest here. Yes. By the smugness you have displayed here I think you believe yourself to be quite the intelectual heavywieght. What I have done here is, in principle, what you and your “left wing noise machine” have done to AC, Brit Hume, Tony Snow and others. Your ideology has substituted itself for critical thought and reasoning. And in your rush to assign some kind of malic to thier words you miss the greater truth of the entire debate. And your a teacher! B Moe got it right.

Leave a Reply