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

Ann Coulter Is Back

posted by ihavenobias

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 | 46 comments (46 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 ihavenobias on 01/06/2009 04:11:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ann Coulter recovered very quickly. (none / 0)
Ann is out on the book selling circuit, as glib as ever.

By contrast, Randi Rhodes still whistles through her dentures, but she is able to brush her remaining tooth in about five seconds.

by KenTX on 01/07/2009 03:47:06 AM EST

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

by ihavenobias 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 ihavenobias 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 ]
Liberal media in decline. (none / 0)
There's a reason that the New York Times has achieved junk bond status, and the rest of the liberal media is hovering on the brink of implosion. There are too many media outlets chasing too few liberal viewers, readers, and listeners.

Can you imagine the Today Show's Matt Lauer interviewing a liberal writer with this kind of over the top attack mode? Hell no!

But this kind of attitude is the prevailing norm at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and certainly the New York Times.

This is the reason that Fox News and NewsCorp is dominating the industry and making so much money. They are providing an alternative voice to an underserved market.

Meanwhile, they leave the rest of the liberal media to fight over the crumbs of the liberal viewing public.

As liberal news outlets continue to decline, you will see me celebrating their demise in this forum. 

by KenTX on 01/07/2009 05:29:29 PM 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 ihavenobias on 01/07/2009 05:49:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
compare and contrast (none / 0)
Would a liberal moviemaker who says things that are as outrageous as the things that Ann Coulter says ever even be invited on NBC's Countdown?

Would they be encounter non-stop attack, challenge, and confrontation when they went on the show, like Ann Coulter was? I guess the answer is no.

by KenTX on 01/07/2009 11:22:21 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 ]
KenTX catches a high hanging curve from Spencer, (none / 0)
and lifts it into low earth orbit.

You’ve seen NBC’s version of attack journalism, where Ann Coulter wasn't even allowed an opportunity to respond before Matt Lauer read his next prepared question.

Now for an example of how to run a fair and balanced, challenging but reasonable exchange on controversial issues. O’Reilly even allows Moore an opportunity to ask questions of him.

Notice that nobody is using notes or cheat sheets in this interview, because nobody is as stupid as Matt Lauer or Katie Couric, who said the planes were having “really bad navigation problems” after the second hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center.

by KenTX on 01/08/2009 03:17:46 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 ihavenobias on 01/07/2009 05:48:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
News Corp Annual Reports (none / 0)
I invite you to open up News Corp Annual Reports and Clear Channel Annual Reports and learn how companies make money in the news and information business. 

Business is all about the bottom line, and liberal mainstream media outlets are rapidly going the way of the buggy whip. It's only a matter of time until I piss on their grave, and post the photo on TYT.

by KenTX on 01/07/2009 06:02:04 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 ihavenobias 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 ihavenobias 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 ihavenobias 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 ]
ihaveaquestion (none / 0)
"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?"

It doesn't matter. Either way it makes Ann Coulter very, very rich.

by KenTX on 01/07/2009 03:33:47 AM EST

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

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

[ Parent ]
I bought one of her books. (none / 0)
It was called Treason, and it was dead on accurate.

I added it to my bookcase, and I use it as a reference book when discussing liberal hatred of America.

by KenTX on 01/07/2009 03:51:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
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 ]
Educating one liberal at a time. (none / 0)
"Freedom of speech ends at the point where your speech causes panic and destruction."

You don't get to control free speech. Congress does not get to control free speech.

It's in the Constitution. Really. Look into it.

Have a nice day.

buh bye now.

by KenTX on 01/07/2009 07:48:37 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 ]
Kicking liberal ass is easy, (none / 0)
but vigilant response can sometimes be time consuming.

Allow me to serve the Sisco Kid a slice of his own link. Here is his assertion on the concept of free speech.
“Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".

From your own link, here is the list of countries with hate speech laws. The observant reader might ask why the U.S. isn’t on that list of countries. Again, from your own link.

“In some jurisdictions, notably the United States, hate speech cannot be directly regulated because of a widespread consensus that suppressing viewpoints based on content alone is outright wrong or leads to a slippery slope (that is, who is to decide what content is a priori true or correct) which ultimately destroys the marketplace of ideas. In particular, the United States government and the state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can address the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to riot. Even then, incitement in the U.S. is prohibited only if it raises the risk of imminent lawless action, which means that Americans are permitted to express a large amount of hate speech that does not meet that standard (as occurred in the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)).
The fact that such laws apply only to the victimization of specific individuals has led to disputes regarding how such laws should be regulated, if they are to be regulated at all. Among those who hold that hate speech must be regulated, it is undecided as to whether hate speech should be regulated by the state or by voluntaristic communities. Criticisms of hate speech regulation include the view that such legislation would be unjust to those with controversial political or social views.”

Americans are so protective of the right to free speech that they allow Stalinists like sisco to make hateful, inflammatory, treasonous, seditious comments about his country during time of war.

Now Sisco would very much like to silence the free speech of his opponents. Sisco would love to shut down Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews, and KenTX. Sisco would love to imprison all Republicans for supporting George Bush in the War on Al Qaeda. Sisco would love for the country to move radically in the direction of socialism, so that he could receive money and benefits from the redistribution of the wealth of others.

Sisco doesn’t give a damn for the principals of freedom outlined in the Bill of Rights. He longs for a totalitarian state where the government dictates behavior and thought to the individual.

My friends (McCainSpeak), you will witness amazing assaults on individual liberty in the coming months. You are about to come to understand the true goals and ambition of the Democrat Party. Your old buddy, KenTX, will be here to educate you every step of the way.

by KenTX on 01/07/2009 10:43:48 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 ]
Corporations have always owned the media. (none / 0)
Rent the movie Citizen Kane. (Ben's grandfather wrote the screenplay.) You guys didn't care as long as NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NYT were telling Americans what to think. But the minute an alternative media developed, and people could purchase a cable subscription to watch FoxNews, or buy a membership to podcast Rush Limbaugh, you Stalinists started squealing like a pig under a gate about "corporate media ownership" and "equal time" and "Fairness Doctrine". You guys want state-regulated media sources that broadcast politically correct RightSpeak, so there are no alternative voices. You can't handle opposition, for very good reasons.

by KenTX on 01/08/2009 11:17:07 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 ]
Let me explain it one more time. (none / 0)
This is not yet Stalinist Russia. We are still allowed to listen to Rush and watch Fox News. I know you liberals would love to outlaw those activities, but you still have some work ahead of you. The fact that liberals desire to deny free speech to the opposition sickens me. Nobody from the Right has ever suggested government regulation of MSNBC or AirAmerica. We want both points of view, presented freely to the marketplace, so the consumer can choose. Its not our fault that ratings for liberal propaganda sucks.

by KenTX on 01/09/2009 10:22:05 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 ]
outlaw, ban, obstruct, whatever (none / 0)
The Young Turks is webcast courtesy of a gentleman named Robert Greenwald.

Maybe you've seen Robert Greenwald’s Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War On Journalism.

Take a look at the grand finale: “A Call To Action”, by fast forwarding to 1:09. This is the last section, scored with the piano solo from Eric Clapton’s Layla. It explains what actions liberals can take to fight FoxNews.

Did you get that? 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. Robert Greenwald wants to put FoxNews out of business. He doesn’t want alternative sources of information. He wants to abridge their right of free speech. He is afraid of information that he disagrees with.

I don’t know what you call the bullshit that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews broadcast every night, but I can guarantee you that nobody from the right is working to put them out of business. Nor do we worry about AirAmerica. The Nielsen ratings and Arbitron ratings speak for themselves.

by KenTX on 01/10/2009 03:17:14 AM 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 ]
Outfoxed (none / 0)
If the "remedies" proposed by the Greenwald movie involved putting MSNBC up against Fox and AirAmerica up against Rush, I would support them 100%. But they want to block and obstruct (and even outlaw if possible) the conservative viewpoint. If they were confident in their own point of view, they would simply concentrate on their own message and not worry about the other guys. I want you to notice that conservatives never even consider blocking liberal media. They simply offer alternative information, side by side, and let the people decide.

by KenTX on 01/10/2009 05:16:55 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 ]
Get Greenwald in this thread. (none / 0)
This is his website. Let him defend himself. MSNBC, CNN, CBS-Pravda, NYT, AirAmerica all existed when he made Outfoxed. He was sqealing like a pig because he didn't like alternative opinion. NANO? The heads of CNN and CBS News were fired when they were caught red handed, spreading liberal propaganda they knew were outright lies. Notice how I made you accept freedom of speech as the foundation for discussion on this issue. In case you don't recognize what happened, it means we won the Media Freedom issue for all time. I now keep you in my front pocket (the one with the hole in it).

by KenTX on 01/10/2009 07:06:38 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 | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: