Hardball: Chris Matthews slams Ann Coulter
Please watch this video....
If you have ADD, start about half way and see how Chris Matthews is unable to get past Ann's "mean words." He NEVER gets the point of Ann's sentence....It shows me that this "intellectual" that liberals claim to be is unable to understand a simple point...
Friday, July 28, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
I"m talking about the Jersey girls comment, about divorce...
I understand her point. She says it over and over and over again. Her point is still untrue.
Her point is "the left" supposedly puts up people who are, she claims, beyond criticism because of who they are or what they've experienced rather that what they know or believe.
She says the left uses Cindy Sheehan to make anti-Bush rants because, Coulter claims, as the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, she cannot be attacked. This is absurd of course because everyone on the right has actively, consistently, and endlessly attacked Sheehan including Coulter, Ingraham, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, and every other right wing blowhard with an audience.
She says the left uses Jack Murtha to criticize Bush policy because, Coulter claims, as a veteran and longtime stong defense supporter, he cannot be attacked. This is absurd of course because the Swiftboating of Murtha began almost immediately and everyone on the right has actively, consistently, and endlessly attacked Murtha including Coulter, Ingraham, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, and every other right wing blowhard with an audience.
She says the left uses the 9/11 widows to make anti-Bush rants because, Coulter claims, as widows of husbands killed in the WTC Towers, they cannot be attacked. This is absurd of course because there are people who agree and disagree with the widows and there is absolutely no reason why anyone is not free to debate the widows' positions and because everyone on the right has actively, consistently, and endlessly attacked the widows for their beliefs including Coulter, Ingraham, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, and every other right wing blowhard with an audience.
So not only does she make a lie of her own point, she does it with her usual practice of ad hominem attacks rather than debating their political stances or positions. She calls Murtha a coward, Sheehan a lunatic, and the 9/11 widows harpies whose husbands may very well have been intending to divorce them.
Coulter is a very well-educated and intelligent woman. What a waste of God's creation.
you can't take the reaction these people get with the reason they are brought out...
You really have a problem with the word lie...like you don't know when to use it...
and that wasn't exactly her point, but close enough
That was EXACTLY her point. I've heard her say it over and over again.
And I use the term lie appropriately, as I always do. She says you can't criticize these people all the while she criticizes them.
NO, she says that the Dem's bring them out to deflect criticism
Criticism of whom?
of what they are saying...
they can blame bush and say he sucks (like all liberals WANT to do), but some poll or some research says it might be risky to talk about a certain issue...so they send out sympathetic figures to get the message out, and people who think it is crap shut up because they feel bad for the people talking....after you hear a message enough, you start to believe it...so you add up all these people blaming bush for EVERYTHING, and more and more people take it as fact...people don't want to be in the minority of thought...
But the truth is these people are being criticized all the time, so the point is false.
Heard any criticism of Sheehan or Murtha? Of course you have. The point has no validity. It's phoney.
your missing atleat MY point...I didn't say that SOME conservatives are still attacking these people...talking about the motive...and if someone like Kerry said GWB was to blame for 9-11 or whatever, there would be MUCH more criticism
And it seems you are implying that the Democrats are finding the Sheehans, Murthas and widows to run interference for them. I don't agree and I don't believe it. The Dems didn't make up these people. They didn't recruit them. They came out on their own with criticism of Bush.
I don't know about the NJ girls...but Sheehan can not be as insane all by herself as she appears...there have to be far left wackos helping her...
okay, nice debate today...enjoyed it...goodnight Jim
OH I think Sheehan is plenty wacko all by herself.
Tomorrow is another day! See ya!
What an incrdible double standard you have. Oh. My God. Consider:
1. Howard Dean can't be a spokesman for the left because he's craaaaaaaazy. Ted Kennedy is a liberal drunk. Al Gore is a liar, or a robot, or a environutjob, or whatever other insult you want to apply. Clearly, we don't have to listen to what they say, because their personal histories make them unpalatable.
2. The Jersey Girls and Jack Murtha have pristine personal histories. But that's okay--we don't have to listen to what they say, either, as they are only saying these things because their personal histories put them above reproach!
Who will you listen to? What spokesperson for the left (or, increasingly, the center) is good enough for you? Or will you just stick your fingers in your ears every fricking time someone says Bush is wrong about anything?
Jim, Jay--
I don't take issue with the descriptive claim that the individuals the left chooses to run interference for them are criticized. I do take issue with the normative belief that the individuals the left uses to run interference should not be criticized. The left often tries to make the argument about who people are, rather than what they say.
A classic and common example of this is the ubiquitous "chickenhawk" defense. If a conservative criticizes a leftist's idea about foreign policy, they'll denounce you if you don't have a record of military service, like myself. Of course, they won't listen to conservatives with military service, but that's beside the point. If you're not "authentic," supposedly the propositions one believes must be discarded, no matter what the evidence and logic supplied to support them.
If you're not black, the left doesn't want you to talk about race. If you're not a woman, the left doesn't want you to talk about abortion, If you're not poor, the left doesn't want you to talk about economics. If you're not old, the left doesn't want you to talk about social security. And when you do satisfy their qualifications to speak but contradict the left, you're either an Uncle Tom race traitor, or a religious fanatic who wants to oppress women, or a redneck unconcerned about cosmic justice, or an elitist who has their retirement planned out but doesn't care about other people.
Such tactics are a relic of Marxism, which affirmed that life determines consciousness, and not the other way around. Marx held that everyone's thought is determined by their economic and social position (except for self-anointed socialists), which only implies there is no more to rational discussion than denouncing and burning the heretic. As Markos Moulitsas Zuniga described it, "it's all about winning."
I very much would prefer to have old bourgeois ideas like truth and justice as our object.
Jason said,
"Of course, they won't listen to conservatives with military service".
And who would that be?
that is the only thing Jim could say about jason's comment...and jason took down what jay said...PERFECT job
"I very much would prefer to have old bourgeois ideas like truth and justice as our object."
Since when are truth and justice, concepts of the social elite? Well, other than truth and justice for the social elite.....the idea that ALL people deserve truth and justice is barely over 200 years old, and has not been embraced by the socially elite, to this day.
Jim--
If we believe sites like DailyKos, Democrats have the courage to enlist and serve in a combat capacity, while Republicans are chickenhawks. Reality paints a more nuanced picture.
In the U.S. Senate, to take an example, there are 17 Republicans with military service, and 12 Democrats with military service. With respect to combat service, 5 Democrat senators had combat service, and 4 Republican senators had combat service.
In the House, there are 66 Republicans with military service, and 39 Democrats with military service. Of the Republicans, 18 had combat service, while 7 Democrats saw combat.
Last April I was in a public debate on the Iraq War. It was set up C-SPAN style, with two participants on each side with a moderator sitting between us. The debate itself was relatively civil. However, beforehand we agreed to open up the debate to questions from the audience, which turned out to be a big mistake. The unruly leftists in the audience used the opportunity to yell invective instead of asking substantive questions, frequently denouncing me a hypocrite for not serving in the military. The other person on my side was a marine, but that didn't matter-- I suppose he was guilty in their eyes for being a civilian today.
I think they want us to serve, not because they believe in the mission since they obviously do not, but because they perversely want us to die-- that way they can make us martyrs for their cause without us objecting, like Cindy Sheehan does with her son Casey.
when jason talks it is so clear...so simple to see how correct he is
Jason can talk as clearly as you want, but usually it's still crap. Read his last paragraph for a prime example.
jason, while having an opinion doesnt make it actually valid, there is considerable validity in the concept of diversity. You are a consumate excluder. You will get defensive and argue with people, not because they are wrong, but because their opinion differs from yours. game gets pissy with me cuz he says I dont always debate his(or whomever) thesis. When I do this, I am attacking the premise or reasoning behind his point. Merely by using faulty reasoning, his whole concept is invalidated. Why am I saying this? Because, after reading your last post to me, it is extremely clear that you are intolerant of diversity. Your negative labeling of dissenting viewpoints is a clear indicator. This doesnt make you extreme, but intolerant nonetheless. Hence jim comment, "Jason can talk as clearly as you want, but usually it's still crap. Read his last paragraph for a prime example."
Post a Comment