Skip to main content

View Diary: "Are you calling me a liar?" - Colmes makes Coulter whither. (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think personal attacks are off base (none)
    Even though I did insinuate one.  It was tongue in cheek.  However, I don't think it is inappropriate to discuss the reasons people listen to her.  If she were a man, she wouldn't get any publicity.  She never would have had a book published.  

    I don't find those things to be hateful.  

    •  was'nt referring to your post (none)
      moreso the one talking about "the larger adam's apple" and the attacks about her sex life and S&M activities.

      There are so many legitimate reasons to attack her I don't know why anyone needs to basically call her a man or try to invade her bedroom. I am opposed to attacking anyone's sexual activity, sexuality or gender. It's not adding to the debate and only makes us into the mudslingers.

      "Religion's in the hands of some crazy ass people..." Jimmy Buffett

      by Show Me Dem on Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 09:02:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's a difference (none)
        between attacking somebody's sexual activity when they "live and let live" and pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning others for engaging in activities one's self indulges in.
        •  I'm sorry (none)
          I'm not buying it. It's off limits period, once you open it as an acceptable topic for any reason they you head down that slippery slope toward it always being acceptable to bring it into debate.

          You may see a difference but anyone opposed to you doesn't see your code of ethics only that you are attacking someone based on a criteria that you have deemed off limits and then everybody is the hypocrit.

          "Religion's in the hands of some crazy ass people..." Jimmy Buffett

          by Show Me Dem on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 03:54:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Personal attacks, gender, and Ann Coulter (3.80)
      I'm sorry, but the primary tool Coulter has successfully used is attacking people PERSONALLY. Now she's even gone further w/ implying that violence is a legitimate tool for coping w/ dissenting opinion. To a large extent, she's gained her following by demonizing and labeling people who share beliefs different from hers and her audience. She had effectively used tactics are designed to intimidate her opposition....and she's done it using their own ideals against them. Here's why....

      This tactic obviously WORKS and I think should NOT be off limits in dealing w/ a person who's successfully used it against others. Coulter should be held to her own litums tests....does SHE live up to the standards that she's trying to bash others w/? If not, she should be EXPOSED as the liar and slanderer she is.

      Yes...I DO think her gender comes into play here too. Personally I think because she's a woman, she's been given far more leeway than a man saying the same things. People are far more likely to handle her w/ kid skinned gloves than someone like say Rush or O'Reilly. I think the right wing has successfully used her status as a "minority" voice to get their agenda across in a form that makes people squeamish to go into full out attack mode. The same goes for Black, Latino, Asian wingers. They have used gender/race as a SHIELD to hide behind in espousing views that would be seriously questioned coming from a White male.

      Ann Coulter has actually used one of the most treasured ideals of liberals, ie political correctness, as a stick to bash them over the head w/.....to me, anything about Ann is fair game because she's decided to move out of the realm of political discussion/debate into wholesale smearing and demonizing of people for their beliefs. Her statements, unlike many of her male counterparts, have even implied or stated violence is a tatic that's legitimate against people who's politics differ from hers. This is fucking outrageous....yet, perhaps a form of reverse (and perverse) sexism gets her off the hook. Guess this less of a threat coming from a woman than a man?!

      I'm not the least bit squeamish about giving Ann a dose of her own medicine, considering her success in reaching the masses. She should be held to the same standards she demands, be they high or low, for others. She should be exposed as hiding behind being female to get away w/ saying things that would be strongly denounced coming from a male.

    •  If Ann were a man (none)
      If she were a man, she wouldn't get any publicity.  She never would have had a book published.

      She'd have been decimated by now, IMHO. I think she's using a form of cultural affirmative action to get away w/ her nonsense, ironically enough! If it weren't so effective and dangerous, it would be funny!

      •  One last thing...Coulter vs Stewart situations (none)
        I recall so many threads totally being happy about Jon Stewart calling Tucker Carlson "a dick", but how many of them would have said the same if someone had called Coulter "a cunt"?

        Personally, I thought Stewart handled that very poorly, inappropriately, and was puzzled by all the love he was being shown here. It gets no more personal than this, yet it was applauded and loinized. I have very little doubt that many people cheering Stewart would have been outraged if he'd said the same thing to Coulter.

        Double standards, anyone?

        •  Loinized? (none)
          "...yet it was applauded and loinized."

          Loinized?  ROFL.

          I agree with your point completely, by the way.  I just thought that Freudian typo was one of the best ever!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site