Ann Coulter Calls John Edwards a ""...

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Claeren

What is most interesting to me is that Cheney himself has a homosexual daugher... talk about integrity...

What does this have to do with anything? Cheney loves his daughter and his soon to be grandchild. Did this somehow encourage Coulter to call Edwards a bad name?

[Azure]

Wow, Claeren, you're really trying to spin this your way.

I SAID that because you don't condemn those that do hate homosexuals you may as well hate homosexuals yourself because your silence is FAR more dangerous than the words of a single crazy lady. It is your very silence that gives crazy people the courage to say what they say.

Why should I condemn anyone? I would much rather distance myself from these idiots, than involve myself in a ridiculous debate over whether or not these people represent the conservative viewpoint.

And on the political spectrum, I would call myself conservative....but socially liberal. The whole idea of conservatism, along with liberalism is a popular misconception amongst many people, including you, based on your comments in this thread.

If you're conservative, you're a war-mongering, homosexual hating, religious nut...and if you're a liberal, you're an anti-war, kool-aid drinking, America-hating, defeatist.

Great way to unite the country.

[transplant99]

She is getting exactly what she wanted with these ridiculous comments as evidenced by this thread and about a million others on the net.

She sure knows how to play a crowd if nothing else.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Claeren

I NEVER said you hate homosexuals.

I SAID that because you don't condemn those that do hate homosexuals you may as well hate homosexuals yourself because your silence is FAR more dangerous than the words of a single crazy lady. It is your very silence that gives crazy people the courage to say what they say.

It's ironic to me, that the same conservatives who always stay silent over something like this, are usually saying things like "muslims need to do more to speak out against terrorists, or they're just supporting it"

[Bobblehead]

Companies to pull ads from Coulter's website

I doubt it will make much difference, but at least it is something.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by SteveToms

Book Link

Doesnt seem like the book is any good:

http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/0061243507.asp

Also peculiar that HarperCollins - a NewsCorp/Fox News Company would publish this.

Although if you listen to an interview he makes a very valid point, News doesnt have to Balanced, it does have to be Fair though - great great point.

She does disservice to Regan Conservatives everywhere, on both sides of the border.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Hey, if you really want to get into this Dis, I'll happily play. We can easily outline the political leanings of the pundits from each network, compare that to the neo-conservative funded organizations like Fox, the Washington Times, and Weekly Standard, and see who provides the most air time to whom, and which side of the political spectrum is better represented. I'd advise against it though, you won't like the way the numbers come out.

Excuse me, NewYork Times, LA Times, Hollywood just to name 3 from the Left absolutely dwarf the media on the Right (that doesnt even count the European violently pro left as well as Canada's pro left (Star, CBC, etc).

I think those 3 far outweight the number of people they reach rather than FNC, NYPost SkyNews etc.

The whole reason for FNC was to get the conservative viewpont out that is non existent in Hollywood and the land line Cable (ABC, NBC, CBS) networks.

MYK

[mykalberta]

After watching it again, it almost looked like she had a braincramp before the "&Gravy remark. Very strange, when I first watched it I thought she was using " in kind of a name calling exercise - people have been called " before and its meant as an insult rather than a truth thing.

Very strange.

Also, whats even more peculiar is I wonder why she is even bothering with Edwards, he has no shot - unless something has changed in the last week where he doesnt play 4th fiddle to Hillary and Barak?

Very strange indeed.

For me she is grouped in the Pat Robertson category on the Right - why do they even open their mouths?

MYK

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Excuse me, NewYork Times, LA Times, Hollywood just to name 3 from the Left absolutely dwarf the media on the Right (that doesnt even count the European violently pro left as well as Canada's pro left (Star, CBC, etc).

I think those 3 far outweight the number of people they reach rather than FNC, NYPost SkyNews etc.

The whole reason for FNC was to get the conservative viewpont out that is non existent in Hollywood and the land line Cable (ABC, NBC, CBS) networks.

MYK

Well, you might feel like the LA Times and NY Times are leftist, but research on media bias (Lanny may know more about this than me) has actually revealed that the so-called "liberal" bias that Fox is always railing against does not exist. Bill Clinton often said that there's an "establishment media" and a "far right media." The left-wing media? Trapped in pulp screeds printed on recycled paper like Mother Jones or Utne. Totally marginalized. If they had their own cable television station, we could talk.

And Hollywood is the thing in your list that just doesn't belong. Politics in hollywood is very complex, and belongs to a totally different discussion. They're not part of the news media.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's ironic to me, that the same conservatives who always stay silent over something like this, are usually saying things like "muslims need to do more to speak out against terrorists, or they're just supporting it"

Good example!

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, you might feel like the LA Times and NY Times are leftist, but research on media bias (Lanny may know more about this than me) has actually revealed that the so-called "liberal" bias that Fox is always railing against does not exist. Bill Clinton often said that there's an "establishment media" and a "far right media." The left-wing media? Trapped in pulp screeds printed on recycled paper like Mother Jones or Utne. Totally marginalized. If they had their own cable television station, we could talk.

And Hollywood is the thing in your list that just doesn't belong. Politics in hollywood is very complex, and belongs to a totally different discussion. They're not part of the news media.

I am not talking the bias for the articles, rather the people behind. CBC on the front appears to be as balanced as anyone, but when you hire someone like Neil McDonald as your US and Isreali correspondent, you definatelty have bias.

I cant comment specifically on the NYT as I dont read US newspapers but did they not endorse John Kerry in the last US Fed Election? Also I did a quick search and I dont see them endorsing many Republican candidates yet theey compare 2 Democratic candidates to replace Spitzer and dont even mention a Republican candidate?

https://www.markgreen.com/newsdetail...70&pgname=news

I am not saying that the NYT bias is wrong, their main readership is in NYC which (like Canada) has predominently shifted to the left. As such its writers etc who are in it to make money write stories that appeal to its readership much like FNC prduces shows that appeal to its readership.

About bias, I cant comment scientifically but only what I have read in books like "Manufactuing Consent".

As per Hollywood (I group actors, recording artists as Hollwood), I dont mean the movie productions as much as the actors themselves. People like Bono who's opion should mean less than Ann Coulter's (since he doesnt cover politics (although its hard to call what Ann does 'covering')) is put centre stage North of the 49th as if he is some Iotola on Africa.

The simple fact is that celebrities who choose to voice an opion carry a bigger stick because they are celebrities (the biggest ones being from Hollywood). If JI came out and said he doesnt believe cats should be allowed in Calgary cause he doesnt like em, a good percentage of Flames fan likely would agree with him simply because he is JI and not what they actually believe.

As always, this is just my opinion and should not be taken as fact

MYK

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by transplant99

She is getting exactly what she wanted with these ridiculous comments as evidenced by this thread and about a million others on the net.

She sure knows how to play a crowd if nothing else.

Exactly, this is just fuel for her fire. People like her shouldn't be given more attention they should be dismissed and ignored.

The reason news stations have her on as a guest is to drum up ratings. She represents a small number of Americans. But the more people talk about her the bigger her following will become.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Claeren

I realize - but hardly someone who should be questioning peoples sexuality.

I am pretty sure the right-wing in America hates homosexuals about as much as they hate the transgendered/transexuals/cross-dressers/lady-boys/etc (and i doubt they care much about the differences).


I once almost got banned for a rant i went on about her a few years back so... (Death threats are discouraged at CP - just so everyone knows!! )




Claeren.

As as Canadian spokesperson for right-wing North America I would say the right-wing doesnt hate homosexuals. We dislike the fact that groups associated with them attempt belittle whatever religion we believe in - in an attempt to justify their own actions (why do they need to justify them). Just deal with the fact that some people will never approve of what you/they do, it doesnt matter why we believe it, we just do.

Face facts, some people consider that lifestyle and the lifesytles listed in your post to be disgusting, its called freedom of thought and people can think whatever they want - its actions, not words or thoughts that people are condemed or should be condemed for. And while certain segments of right-wing North America may hate that, most try to ignore it an go about life and just plain get through becuase quite frankly, like alot of the different crap out there, its really tireing to hear it over and over and over and over again.

MYK

PS: not assoicated with any particualr North American Right-Wing organization save for MYKnet Inc: "taking back the right from the left cause their wrong and were right?"

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

We dislike the fact that groups associated with them attempt belittle whatever religion we believe in - in an attempt to justify their own actions (why do they need to justify them).

Who exactly is "them", and what groups are associated with them?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

As as Canadian spokesperson for right-wing North America I would say the right-wing doesnt hate homosexuals. We dislike the fact that groups associated with them attempt belittle whatever religion we believe in - in an attempt to justify their own actions (why do they need to justify them). Just deal with the fact that some people will never approve of what you/they do, it doesnt matter why we believe it, we just do.

Face facts, some people consider that lifestyle and the lifesytles listed in your post to be disgusting, its called freedom of thought and people can think whatever they want - its actions, not words or thoughts that people are condemed or should be condemed for. And while certain segments of right-wing North America may hate that, most try to ignore it an go about life and just plain get through becuase quite frankly, like alot of the different crap out there, its really tireing to hear it over and over and over and over again.

You're free to hate whoever you like--or if you prefer the term, to "find disgusting" whoever you like. I consider that semantics, but I nevertheless agree that you are entitled to have an opinion on whatever you want--that's part of living in a free society.

However, it sort of follows that they are free to do as they like regardless of your disapproval--have sex, get married, adopt children, etc.--that is, if you agree that we live in a free society.

How is demanding equal rights an offense to your religion or your family? I fail to see how one affects the other. Also, why should government be involved in what you admit is a viewpoint informed by religion. Separation of Church and State indicates to me that the state ought to make decisions based on questions not related to religion--that they should exercise a civic mandate while churches concern themselves with a religious one.

Back on topic: what Ann Coulter does is not simply to hate one group or another. She SPREADS hatred of that group. The word she used is offensive and inflammatory and she knows it. She's a bad, bad person.

[Cowperson]

An infamous op-ed piece by the Public Editor at the New York Times in 2004 on the perceived liberal bias of that particular paper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/we...d=all&position=

Most partisans on both the left and right claim the other side controls mainstream media . . . . they do it so they can disqualify the opinion of the other side, thereby leaving only their own opinion standing as representing the truth.

Some interesting numbers regarding voting patterns of journalists at a site claiming liberal media bias:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

It would be easy, of course, to find the counter-argument from left wing partisans.

Hostile Media Perception is a large factor in your opinion on something like this:

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jpiliavi/965/hwang.pdf

Cowperson

[mykalberta]

Them being the individuals who live an alternative lifestyle listed above (I assumed the word them meant a group I had previously mentioned, guess not so its time to go back to 3rd grade Language Arts class )

Groups associated are normally the same groups (some trial lawyers, non profits, lobbyists, etc) that fight for causes simply to fight for causes - their called Activists.

I honestly couldnt name a group but it would seem obvious to me that those "groups" try everything under the sun to discredit religion in an attempt to embarass people so those same people wont act with those beliefs in mind.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You're free to hate whoever you like--or if you prefer the term, to "find disgusting" whoever you like. I consider that semantics, but I nevertheless agree that you are entitled to have an opinion on whatever you want--that's part of living in a free society.

However, it sort of follows that they are free to do as they like regardless of your disapproval--have sex, get married, adopt children, etc.--that is, if you agree that we live in a free society.

How is demanding equal rights an offense to your religion or your family? I fail to see how one affects the other. Also, why should government be involved in what you admit is a viewpoint informed by religion. Separation of Church and State indicates to me that the state ought to make decisions based on questions not related to religion--that they should exercise a civic mandate while churches concern themselves with a religious one.

Back on topic: what Ann Coulter does is not simply to hate one group or another. She SPREADS hatred of that group. The word she used is offensive and inflammatory and she knows it. She's a bad, bad person.

Equal Rights is not offensive, its offensive to demand a religious based word (this case marriage) be associated with a secular lifestyle and then attempt to villify religion because it has a different view. I wholehardedly agree that there should be a separation of Church and State, however in both our countries when it comes to marriage there is not.

As I have said in previous threads that go along this same tangent, the word marriage should be replaced with the Union. The state should not issue marriage licenses but rather Union licenses. That would easily solve the issue for me personally (I am upset that Alberta hasnt taken the lead with this as its the one province that the ruling party has enough political clout where it could).

Agreed, AC is a female dog in the largest type face I can use and she does disservice to Regan Conservatives around the world when her quotes are represented as those of the Conservative majority

Again, why is she even talking about Edwards.

MYK

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

...stuff...

Do you still have those links where media bias was studied and both the left and right saw the same articles as biased towards the "opposing" view?

I think you posted them in one of the Palastinian/Isreal threads.

Anyways I found those very interesting.

If you are on the far right then everything to your left appears "left" even if it is actually firmly to the right of middle. Said another way, from Alberta Saskatchewan is east, even though Sask. is a western province.

It is all a matter of perspective.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Equal Rights is not offensive, its offensive to demand a religious based word (this case marriage) be associated with a secular lifestyle and then attempt to villify religion because it has a different view. I wholehardedly agree that there should be a separation of Church and State, however in both our countries when it comes to marriage there is not.

I think you and I to some extent agree--that the state should administer civil unions to all comers regardless of gender, without discrimination. Churches, not being associated with the government, are as free to not marry same-sex couples as they are to not marry members of other religious denominations--IMO.

It follows that church marriage would have a different status--and that those people married in a church would need to get their "union" approved by the government in order for it to have any legal standing, but that's another issue. Historically, marriage isn't really a religious institution in any case, but that's well traveled ground on this board.