As I stated in a previous post I am more concerned with what elected officials have to say or do. I love her, but shes a hack, and to compare her to legislators would be a disservice (to her). Ive been a fan for years and I cant recall one instance where she was officially embraced or endorsed by the Republican Party, Republican candidates or officials. Are the message-less democrats now going to become the anti-Coulter party, is that the new party platform (was there an old one). Probably.
Now for the point of my argument lets try to find someone similar to Coulter on the other side. Michael Moore will do. Its probably pretty apparent what my opinion of is him. Like I told him to his face, I think he's a big fat lying commie. For this post I will save my breath and let him talk for himself.
"there is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie weve been told."
"(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet"
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."
"Fuck all these small businesses - fuck 'em all! Bring in the chains. The small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. Fuck 'em all. That's how I feel."
"White people scare the crap out of me."
He's more than free (thanks to the military he so despises) to express his anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-military, pro-terrorist, anti-small business racist rantings all he wants, first amendment and all, but how does the Democratic party feel about his "hate speech" I cant recall a single democrat ever denouncing Michael Moore, in fact being the star-fuckers that they are, they loved it, they embraced it, they endorsed it. They give him a seat in disgraced ex-President jimmy crack corn carter's box at the Democratic National Convention. Hateful rhetoric is acceptable to liberals only if it is anti-American, anti-Caucasian, anti-Israel, anti-Christian and anti-Republican. You cant have it both ways, demonize Coulter but lionize Moore. Will the Democrats ever learn?
Jackassocrites!!!
on a side note, how great was Ann's response to Hillary. It sure as hell shut her up.
7 comments:
Coulter can do what she wants, and people who like her can and should buy her books. You are right in that unlike elected officials, liking Coulter is a matter of preference whereas being critical of elected officials is an obligation of the taxpayer who entrusts with the public purse.
I don't like Tom Cruise, and to sit around all day discussing her merits is kind of pointless to me.
But if I make fun of Tom Cruise, then I have to get into a long winded argument about why Tom Cruise has less or more validity than Tom Hanks?
Hell no. And that is the part that I don't get about COulter bashing. I make fun of her not because I think liberals are saintly, but because she's laughable. Does this mean if I do not write blog posts about every person that makes me laugh, I am a liberal hypocrit that just "doesn't get it"?
Oh yeay according to you, it does. So i should restrict my freedom of speech on Tom Cruise unless i give equal time bashing Tom Hanks by your logic.
Nope. Your argument might be half off on sale, but I am STILL not effin buying it.
You take things way too personally, just because you think you are so enlightened has nothing to do with the systematic idiocy of the Democratic Party. Im not in the business of Lily bashing (just a hobby) Im here to point out the jackassery of the dems. Everything is not an indictment of Elizabeth Branford.
The Crusie Hanks reference is just stupid, firstly because up until his meltdown Cruise wins hands down. Secondly it makes no sense, I thought you of all people would understand my point. The more accurate analogy would be that if you and your ilk constantly lauded the bravery of Tom Hanks for his outspokeness on the merits of Buddhism, but chastised ridiculed and attempted to censor Crusie for his same approach for Scientology, and would you know, you and your ilk just happen to be a Buddhists. Well that is modus operandi for the Democraitc Party. Once again, not to confuse you, this isnt aimed at you specifically, relax Im not saying you are an actual Buddhist, rather that the liberal party are a bunch of hypocritcal jackassess.
Put Jesus in a jar of urine and Democrats cry free speech, Coulter calls some broads harpies and its "hate speech" Its a crock of shite, and these are the people you support so ipso facto you are a Buddhist.
No I was not trying to personalize, it came off like that though I see. Apologies. Must have taken my self centered pills today. I'm not trying to be like that though.
I mean "people like me" or the people you "assume to be my ilk".
I am just trying to defend what I do because I cannot speak for others on the left. Not personalize, just speak for myself. I have no idea why people do what they do.
I think many on the left are pretty damned idiotic, and I have no obligation to defend their actions just as you don't on your side. It is what it is, right? Stupid is stupid, whether in Perry Ellis or Birkenstock.
I don't think calling something hate speech means it should be restricted. I agree with Donsky who said the other day that we should not seek to silence her.
I think hate speech should be permitted BUT I also think people have the right to nudge it off to the side when it is upsetting. Like a yippy puppy.
Like with the constant mockery of domestic violence at TBR- my problem was NOT the expression. but the defense that laughing at beaten women is providing an indictment of abusers. I would like to see the satire directed at the abuser in that case, more than the victim. Free speech is free speech but sometimes people wrap it in humor to seem like a poltically correct liberal. (I said spick for SATIRE, I'm not a racist! believe me, I have hispanic friends...blah bah blah...See I happen to hate that, say what you say- but don't puss out when called on it)
I asked if they would show dead babies to satirize the silliness of war and most would agree that that is not in good taste.
My point in the "freedom of speech" tangent is to say that I don't think it makes a person (anyone, not just me!!!) necessarily a hypocrite if they call Tom Cruise a jackass if that is how they feel without mentioning Tom Hanks.
Coulter sucks. Moore sucks slightly less so.
What people find "heroic" about Michael Moore is that he spoke out against the war at a time when it was unpopular to do so. NOW many are speaking out, emboldenbed by their little gaggles. Can't I say that it is admirable to speak out publicly when many disagree? Can't I say that takes guts without wanting to lap dance on Michael Moore and lick his asscrack? THAT is my point.
I still think you are missing my point. What Im trying to convey is the double standard applied to differing views by the liberal media and the democratic party. Im not interested in a pissing match between Coulter and Moore, but I am interested in the double standard of perceived "hate speech" in this country. It seems to me that only caucasian conservative can be guilty of it, and you know this to be both true and wrong.
The Moore comment and visual was just plain wrong.
lily.... not really figuring it out today huh?
I simply don't consider either hate speech I guess.
Rhino- did you say something? Whatever.
I enjoy reading Donkey's thoughts but I really don't have the time/patience for your insults.
insults? oh it must be that time of the month. i'll get back to you in a week or so.
Post a Comment