01/06/2009 02:44:05 PM EST

Ann Coulter Is Back

posted by Tom Hanc

Ann Coulter had her scheduled Today Show (on NBC) appearance cancelled which prompted Sean Hannity to suggest the hilarious idea that Liberals can't listen to different views yesterday with Mr. Coulter on H & C.

But CBS happily took sloppy seconds and Coulter appeared on The Early Show this morning.

Oh, and she's pushing her new book in which "Coulter repeatedly refers to President-Elect Obama as B. Hussein Obama, and mocks Michelle Obama's style while praising Cindy McCain's".

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
So, what percentage of people that will buy her book actually believe the content? How many people will buy it to mock and rip it apart?

And no, I would never buy a book from her. The farthest I'll go is creating a short thread to prove that I can't listen to different views.
< Bobo Wanted to Know Where Obama's "Change" Was | What Was Israel Supposed to Do? >
 Display:
Ann Coulter Is Back | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
I have to admit (none / 0)
I smiled a little when I read that she broke her jaw and it was wired shut. What a fitting thing to happen.  I believe in karma more and more. That hilarious idea that Sean Hannity put forth has been mimicked by trolls here.

P.S NBC changed their mind she is back on

by 14K on 01/06/2009 03:35:18 PM EST

Yeah (none / 0)
That's sad.

by Tom Hanc on 01/06/2009 04:11:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Coulter On The Today Show This Morning (none / 0)
Click Here.

by Tom Hanc on 01/07/2009 03:23:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Can't believe Bill Maher fucked her... (none / 0)

After watching this, is it possible to still think that she's attractive?  She's just so obnoxious.  Fish wifey comes to mind.  She's just become a nonsensical attention grabbing quote machine at this point.

The irony of her playing the victim for the first half of the interview ("Wah, you didn't want to book me!" etc.) and then talking about how libs always love to play the victim is quite rich and tasty.

And, really, Drudge has never had to retract a story?  Seriously?  Moron...

by Spencer on 01/07/2009 04:35:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He did?! (none / 0)
What?

by Tom Hanc on 01/07/2009 04:55:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah (none / 0)

They used to date or "something".  ; Bill Maher has talked about it before, but I can't remember where.

Or did you mean "He did have to retract a story before!?!"  Because that's true as well.

by Spencer on 01/07/2009 05:01:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Chalked up as "new information" for me! (none / 0)
EEEWWW!

by tifosies on 01/10/2009 09:51:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Would a liberal writer (none / 0)

who says things that are as outrageous as the things that Ann Coulter says ever even be invited on the Today show?  Doubtful, but they have whack job right wingers on to promote books all of the time. 

by Spencer on 01/07/2009 05:45:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0)
Bat shit craziness and hate speech is only acceptable from the right.

by Tom Hanc on 01/07/2009 05:49:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Swing and a miss. (none / 0)

That's Olbermann.  He has a point of view.  I don't complain about Ann Coulter getting a smooth non-combative interview on Lou Dobbs or Hannity.  See how that works?

I guess Ann would have to go on Countdown to see if your "point" holds water.  I'm more than fine with that.

by Spencer on 01/08/2009 12:38:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Funny (none / 0)
Ken, your NY Times argument is so obviously absurd. ALL newspaper readership is in decline, across the board.


If it was a liberal/conservative issue, I'm sure you'd be telling us how the Washington Times has exploded with hundreds of thousands of new readers (it hasn't).


Also, you watch TYT so you're aware of the fact that Fox News lost about almost half a billion dollars the first 5 years of it's birth. Give a liberal media outlet half a billion dollars over 5 years and something tells me they could be just as if not more successful.


Then again maybe not, because who would sink as low as Fox News with inflammatory partisan propaganda? Combine that with blonds in short skirts and lots of sexy stuff and you have a recipe for ratings.

by Tom Hanc on 01/07/2009 05:48:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You do realize (none / 0)
there is no such thing as a "liberal MSM outlet", right? The closest thing there is to that would be prime-time on MSNBC (not ALL of MSNBC unlike ALL of Fox "News"), only prime-time which is actually doing quite well in the money demographic.

Most of the MSM is watered down "centrist" that buys into Republican framing on 7 out of 10 issues.

by Tom Hanc on 01/07/2009 06:14:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who sane? Hussein! (none / 0)
Prepare yourself for four or, preferably, eight years of the President being referred to by his middle name. I love it. Right wing craniums exploding left 'n' right - peep, pop, poop!

by ashbul on 01/06/2009 03:56:44 PM EST

It's way too early to ask this but (none / 0)
I wonder what strategies the right will use in 2012?

Obviously it depends on what happens the last four years, but my specific question is if they'll use the smear tactics based on race (skin color, name, fake associations, etc.).

by Tom Hanc on 01/06/2009 04:49:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
no (none / 0)
those things are based sheerly on doubts about Obama, and his relatively unknown past as an inexperienced politicain. There will be few attacks like that now that we know "the real Obama."

by nmaks on 01/06/2009 06:49:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The problem is (none / 0)
that's a logical and reasonable position.

How often has the Republican party shown it's capable of being either?

by Tom Hanc on 01/06/2009 06:53:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Same old play book (none / 0)
The Heritage Foundation is now calling for lower capitol gains and corporate tax rates, assuming that they would have to make an actual profit first.  Yet in the same breath, now acknowledging borrowing money for tax cuts is spending. Of course that is in reference to middle class tax cuts, not corporate.  That is the current frontal assault, that and screaming about the massive spending package.  I guess they have not noticed that by following the above mentioned policies along with the quest toward multinational imperialism the national debt went from 5 to 12 trillion dollars in 7 years.

Last year’s estimate on highway infrastructure shortfalls was 1.2 trillion dollars, something to keep in mind when they cry about the infrastructure stimulus.  Batra tried to correlate productivity and wages against our deficits. That may be true on the private side, but on the federal side our budget deficits can be correlated to our trade deficits. Any solution that does not addres the exportation of US technology for development elsewhere and 100% electric/alternative fuel hybrids will fall short of anything more than a band aide. Lobbyist be damned.

by sisco66 on 01/07/2009 06:53:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My take: "Who's sane? Hussein!" (none / 0)

by tifosies on 01/10/2009 09:57:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So (none / 0)
Do YOU believe her bullshit or do you acknowledge that she's a giant, inflammatory joke?

by Tom Hanc on 01/07/2009 03:43:08 AM EST

No bad student, only bad teacher (none / 0)
Oh, that explains a WHOLE lot.

by OneHitKill on 01/07/2009 04:06:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
what is treason (none / 0)
If you support policies that have destroyed our economy and decimated our military for the soul purposes of lining the pockets of multinational companies and billionaires what does that make you? A traitor I would say.  Therefore I would say that Ann, Sean and Rush are all traitors.  They have profited by spouting propaganda that has led to our current state of turmoil. You do know that Fox is owned by a pseudo foreign government who has conspired with other multinationals to fleece and undermine the foundation of our country.

Freedom of speech ends at the point where your speech causes panic and destruction. That is exactly what these pundits have done

by sisco66 on 01/07/2009 06:35:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Free $$$$$ Speech (none / 0)
Actually, nothing is free anymore. 
When the media is controlled by the same corporations that control the government it is not speech, it is fascist propaganda. Coulters publisher’s, or the companies that own them, more than likely bought her way onto the air. Except for Fox of course, they like little boys down there, and Andy is the closest thing they can find without breaking the law. I guess the  jaw was fair game, not so ruff boys.

“Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech". Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.”
Apparently, you have not noticed that the right wing theater has already burned down, taking with it our economy, military and the souls of our children.




by sisco66 on 01/07/2009 05:48:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
He Hate Me (none / 0)
Ken spin

As usual, Kenny boy you are off in never, never land. The issue is not hate speech Ken.  You might as well argue about flag burning as far as I am concerned. The issue is whether or not we should have a corporate controlled media that is dependent on advertising dollars from the same people who have a financial choke hold on our elected officials, or even owned by the same entities. The idea of free speech was never intended to apply to corporations who’s bottom line is short term profits at any cost,and often foreign owned.   
The ability of these entities to spread and repeat unchecked and unquestioned propaganda in every newspaper and on every network has built the delusional world within which you live. I don’t necessarily want to silence anyone; I would, however, like to see the people who led the country into this economic meltdown take some responsibility for their actions.

http://www.myconfinedspace. com/2008/09/29/jump-you-fuc kers/

by sisco66 on 01/08/2009 10:18:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
typical silliness from ken (none / 0)
where you say "people could purchase a cable subscription to watch fox news". Really? C'mon man. And liberals are supposed to be against people purchasing Rush Limbaugh podcasts? Hey, we allowed you to buy a TYT membership. Give it a rest. Apart from that, your initial point has validity, that we didn't care much when the big three (NBC, ABC, CBS) were all there was on TV. However, they weren't exactly "telling people what to think". They had news divisions that asked hard questions of people in power, democrat and republican alike. Its not the same thing. As we say often around here, reality and facts have a well-known liberal bias.

by hazmat on 01/08/2009 11:26:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"you liberals" (none / 0)

I do not wish to outlaw Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh. I have never heard anyone propose this, here, or anywhere else. But obviously you have.

"I hear the voices!" -George W. Bush.

by hazmat on 01/09/2009 10:51:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This straw man is a fire hazard (none / 0)
This documentary is about fighting a source of information that is one of 200-300 cable or satellite channels you have an option of viewing.

There aren't 200-300 cable news channels competing with Fox. I'm sure more conservatives would turn to Nickelodeon for their current events fix if it weren't so gosh darn cerebral.

by OneHitKill on 01/10/2009 09:29:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
fighting fox news (none / 0)
Fox is full of disinformation. That's okay, its their right. I think "fight" in this context was meant to refer to the marketplace of ideas, as in fight the disinformation. First and foremost is the fight to label them as opinion media, which is utterly appropriate. Yes I have seen the film, and that is how I took it to mean. You come on here and "fight" against liberalism everyday. You have openly expressed the desire to see it squashed. And yet your right to express yourself in this forum has been actively defended by the regular participants on many occasions. Despite what you may think, it is not because you're a "paying customer". Clearly, you're making shit up in (as usual). Sorry Ken, you lose this one.

by hazmat on 01/10/2009 12:33:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Robert Greenwald (none / 0)
came out with that film at a point that will be regarded in by History as a watershed in American conservative politics. Conservative voices dominated every corner of the airwaves and print media. The tip of the spear of the corporate controlled agenda was fox news. If by "obstruct" and "block" you mean offer an alternative viewpoint, then you are correct, because that was Robert Greenwalds aim. What fox news does of course is not to offer both points of view. They offer straw men in place of liberal opinion, and spin in place of facts. They are entitled to do that. And we are entitled to name them for what they are: Not A News Organisation. In fact, I propose that to be Fox's new call letters. NANO.

by hazmat on 01/10/2009 05:29:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
free speech (none / 0)

is the foundation of everything. Conservatives are against it. I welcome you to my "free speech zone". I really have no idea what you're talking about "red handed". If your referring to Dan Rather, the story he broke is 100% true, but, sad day for him, he took Karl Rove's bait and ended up with egg on his face. CBS effectively fired him (squeezed him out you might say) because they are concerned for their reputations, and importantly, deathly afraid of right wing backlash. Fox News? They cover unsubstantiated propaganda all the time. In fact its par for the course over there. The difference is that they're not losing any sleep over public perception of their low-to-non-existent journalism standards.

I'll say it again, nobody has asked to take them off the air. You sound like a real nutter. Hey, I won't cry if they fold because they lost 2 billion this year, but I fully expect someone else to replace them if they do go under. That's the beauty of the marketplace. It just sent fox a $2 bn messg.

Pwnd.

by hazmat on 01/10/2009 08:00:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Newspeak (none / 0)
Kenbot,

I would say NBC is the number one offender, because they are owned by GE, a defense contractor. The mainstream media, fox not being main stream, has been more or less a Trojan horse, whereas most people now know that Fox is a comedy show. How many times did you here Chris Mathews tells us the economy was going great, just look at the market, despite the lack of consumer confidence and massive borrowing? These guys systematically helped hide the fact that we were quickly becoming a third world country. You know the type of country where the foreign corporations come in and exploit the resources and the people. The problem is that we are out of resources.
Let me put it to you this way. The entire media spectrum is so far to the right that anyone that attempts to tell merely the truth about anything is immediately vilified. How in the world did we impeach a President for more or less having an affair without a media circus for cover? How could we not impeach a President for the long list of clear crimes that have occurred over the last 8 years without media cover.
If the media had been performing due diligence, we would not be where we are today. We are so fucked right now, yet the very same pundits and legislators that led us to slaughter still have jobs and are still spewing the same propaganda that got us here. If people could wrap the heads around the whole truth, going postal would be an understatement. I am really surprised that we don’t have 100’s of people a day going of the deep end.
Dude you really need to take a look around you and see whether or not you want be part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem. We, meaning you and I, have been sold out by the very same people you want to protect.

by sisco66 on 01/09/2009 07:35:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
NY Times (none / 0)
Just another example of "news agency" that helped misslead us into a war.  I think Judith Miller should be in jail, along with Scooter and Rove. But the paper itself should be named in multi-billion dollar wrongful death lawsuit. That is what I mean by taking responsibilty.

If a media source comes out and promtes smoking while filling your gas tank and it kills a buch of people, then people need to go to jail. I also think we need the death penalty for white collar crimes and make it retroactive.

Forget right and left, look at the results on the ground and think about how you got there. Then start arresting people.

by sisco66 on 01/10/2009 11:42:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ann Coulter is back (none / 0)
That's nothing a hard right cross wouldn't fix.

by bfaul on 01/07/2009 05:38:10 PM EST

Ann Coulter Is Back | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: