Media Matters Lies About Coulter Line at CPAC
Media Matters headline: Coulter suggests she might let three U.S. cities be bombed, depending on which cities they are.
Really? I’ve transcribed the video at the link:
My favorite Obama answer during the debates on national security was: “What would you do if, during this debate, God forbid, three U.S. cities were hit simultaneously?” And he said he’d send ambulances. And John Edwards said: “And I’d be right there chasing them.”
See, it shows you how different Obama and I are. I would have said: “Which three U.S. cities?”
She’s not suggesting that she would let three U.S. cities be bombed. She’s saying her response as President would depend on which three U.S. cities were bombed.
[Quickly dons top hat and smoking jacket] Now, I don’t happen to think that’s a particularly funny joke. And I still find it eerie that people are clapping and laughing at “jokes” like that — in essence, saying “ha, ha, I’d wouldn’t help the Democrats if they got bombed.” [Removes hat and jacket.]
But that doesn’t excuse Media Matters lying about it.
I’ve asked the tech wizard why I can’t embed the video. If he gets the problem fixed I’ll do it later.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:15 pmHow do you get Media Matters is “lying?”
They say she “suggests” she would let the cities be bombed.
Clearly she doesn’t say that, but just as clearly, she suggest it.
Then they link the video, so any reader can immediately confirm or debunk their case.
If they’re lying about it, why would they paste the video into the item?
Moreover, Coulter is notorious for this kind of sick humor. She made similar fun of 9/11 survivor’s wives, John Edwards and so on. It’s clearly her MO.
I’d certainly agree that Media Matters is trying to pretend it wasn’t a joke, when obviously it was. So in that sense, they’re not doing a very good job of serious media commentary.
At bottom, Coulter’s a comedian, though she does freely choose to pose as a political commentator.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:23 pmRecall Michael Moore’s comment about 9/11 and the hijackers’ choice of target cities.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:23 pmGood point SPQR. Moore and Coulter have a lot in common.
Both thrive on polemic bombast.
Coulter’s actually a lot funnier in a stand-up joke-telling way, whereas Moore’s sight-gags and grasp of cinematic humor are non-pareil. He invented the funny-serious documentary genre.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:29 pmI say chap, it is thoroughly disgusting how the lady denigrates the finest efforts of solicitors, what?
AD - RtR/OS (5e419c) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:29 pm“Then they link the video, so any reader can immediately confirm or debunk their case.”
But many won’t. They’ll just read the headline and run off and repeat it to people.
“Clearly she doesn’t say that, but just as clearly, she suggest it.”
Oh, yes. Clearly.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:29 pmHmmm, my dictionary is broken again, as it evidently has the wrong definition of “clearly” …
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:32 pmJohn Bolton’s mustache is deeply concerned about American national security, but still chuckled.
Dan Collins (4dc2da) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:32 pmActually, I already regret suggesting the troll said something sensible on another thread. It is obvious she was joking about what she would do, depending on which cities. If it was San Francisco, you would obviously send…
You finish the sentence.
She is a bomb thrower but the left lies so clumsily.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:35 pmclear-ly [kleer-lee] –adverb
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:35 pm1. I always do, I am going to say something unsupportable and claim.
Clearly she doesn’t say that, but just as clearly, she suggest it.
oh. Media Matters is a Soros-financed dirty socialist propaganda combine. It’s like the White House Press Office just with less accountability.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:37 pmPeople think it’s really terrible that Palin said Obama palled around with unrepentant terrorists who blew up buildings, then react this way when Coulter throws out an inflammatory line. Because what’s important is speech acts.
You know, I think Jeff may be a little bit cranky that Steele described the dead chimp cartoon as an abomination.
Dan Collins (4dc2da) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:41 pmOh, sure, Patterico, you’ve got the up to date dictionary and I’m stuck with last year’s…
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:42 pmYou know, I think Jeff may be a little bit cranky that Steele described the dead chimp cartoon as an abomination.
We all denounced it around here, since we always take orders from the race-hustlers.
And because we denounce EVERYTHING.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:51 pmHey you got peanut butter in my chocolate!
Can we revisit this?
Two great dirty socialist propaganda combines what go great together I think.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:52 pmSome don’t joke about not helping. After spending Billions of dollars in N.O. and finding most of it was, and is still, being wasted on a bunch sorry a**es who wouldn’t help themselves if they’re life depended on it. I wouldn’t contribute a penny to help N.O. in the future.
On 9-11 we double stocked two ambulances and a rescue truck and were ready to roll within 4 hours. Most of the people (white ones anyway) fell out in droves the help in NYC and D.C. Totally unlike N.O.’s majority residents who sat on their a** and screamed ‘give me’. Matter of fact thousands of them are still sitting on their a** screaming ‘give me’.
Today I wouldn’t expend any effort to leave my country town to help the big city crazy liberal folks who will get what they have been asking for. It’s just a matter of time until the terrorists figure out we are no longer protected by a president who gives a sh** about anyone other than himself.
I read that CNN was investigating why Michelle has such ‘fit’ arms. I’ll answer their question free. If you lifted that gigantic a** out of a chair several times per day you would have arms like King Kong also.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 2/28/2009 @ 5:52 pmIn light of Coulter’s similar vile “joke” about a terrorist attack, to say Coulter suggested such a meaning is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/28/2009 @ 6:25 pmClearly, Bradley, clearly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/28/2009 @ 6:26 pmMedia Matters is lying? In other news, the sky is blue, water is wet, and Alex Rodriguez has had an unpleasant month.
M. Scott Eiland (5ccff0) — 2/28/2009 @ 6:29 pmBy saying she’d ask a question after the cities were bombed, she’s suggesting she’d let them be bombed?
Hax, you really shouldn’t be suggesting that you’d like to be John Mark Karr when you grow up. It’s creeping people out.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/28/2009 @ 6:31 pmDid he? That’s unfortunate.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/28/2009 @ 6:33 pmI guess coverage of some fiery speeches at CPAC will succeed in distracting people from Obama’s actions as President in recent weeks, and the incompetence of his appointees.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/28/2009 @ 6:45 pm“If it was San Francisco, you would obviously send…”
Gerbils?
U NO HOO (55a434) — 2/28/2009 @ 6:49 pmAh, the dead chimp cartoon.
Everyone with any sense will realize that the cartoon referred to Pineapple Princess Pelosi.
The chimp ripped a lady’s face and hands off, correct?
U NO HOO (55a434) — 2/28/2009 @ 6:52 pmI agree with Patterico. The question assumed that the cities had already been bombed (assuing that’s what being “hit” means). Coulter simply implied that her reaction would depend on which cities were hit.
Andrew (96ab30) — 2/28/2009 @ 7:08 pmToo much hair-splitting going on about Coulter’s “joke”. The implication is vile even if you accept Patterico’s reading. And beter to reserve the claim of a “lie” for something that’s provably false and not a matter of interpretation.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/28/2009 @ 7:20 pmBlogging foul: quotation mark abuse. The word “joke” has neither positive nor negative connotations. A joke can be funny, or it can be rather unfunny, or corny-stupid beyond belief. It can be in good taste, bad taste, so-so taste, or downright awful. If it’s unfunny or in poor taste, that makes it a bad joke. It doesn’t change the fact that it is a joke. Unless you think the statement was intended to be serious, it’s a joke, not a “joke.”
Xrlq (62cad4) — 2/28/2009 @ 7:32 pmgerbils are illegal in California. They have no natural enemies, unlike some other people I could name.
If we sent them to San Francisco, pretty soon we’d be up to our assless chaps in gerbils.
No, it would have to be something else.
Kay-Y jelly ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/28/2009 @ 7:34 pmBlogging foul: quotation mark abuse. The word “joke” has neither positive nor negative connotations. A joke can be funny, or it can be rather unfunny, or corny-stupid beyond belief. It can be in good taste, bad taste, so-so taste, or downright awful. If it’s unfunny or in poor taste, that makes it a bad joke. It doesn’t change the fact that it is a joke. Unless you think the statement was intended to be serious, it’s a joke, not a “joke.”
Disagree. I think using the word can leave the reader with the impression that the writer thinks the joke is funny.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 7:35 pmAnd beter to reserve the claim of a “lie” for something that’s provably false and not a matter of interpretation.
I agree with that statement as a general principle, but not as applied here. What is the interpretation where Coulter is suggesting that she would let U.S. cities be bombed? Could you take us through that in detail, using the actual text of her remarks as your touchstone?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 7:41 pm“Xrlq”,
"Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R." (0ea407) — 2/28/2009 @ 7:43 pm“Patterico” warned you are tetchy on the use of “quotation marks”. I don’t think the “statement” was “serious,” but it was “unfunny.” Since a “joke” is supposed to be “funny”, Coulter’s “joke” is no “”joke” to me.
Patterico,
What is the interpretation where Coulter is suggesting that she would let U.S. cities be bombed?
That is what I meant by hair-splitting. It’s also shutting one’s eyes to Coulter’s history of saying nasty things, such as that McVeigh should have bombed the New York Times.
Of course, that was just a joke. Ha ha ha.
"Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R." (0ea407) — 2/28/2009 @ 7:50 pmThat is what I meant by hair-splitting.
Wait. I feel like I’m trying to grab a piece of buttered spaghetti with chopsticks.
Are you arguing that it’s a “matter of interpretation” whether she actually suggested that she would let U.S. cities be bombed?
Or are you arguing that it’s “hairsplitting” to distinguish between that suggestion, and a suggestion that, if she were President, her actions in response to such bombings would depend on which U.S. cities had been bombed?
I need to understand which argument you’re making before I can respond to it. Neither one makes sense to me, but I don’t want to respond to one argument if you’re making another.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 7:54 pmBrother Brad,
You may think she was joking or serious, or that if she was joking it was or wasn’t funny. The fact is, the question pre-supposes that three cities were already bombed and is about what should be done if that happened. To say that she would let three cities be bombed was a lie. Her “joke” (heh) suggests that her response might be different depending on which cities had already been bombed. It does not suggest that she would let them be bombed in the first place. Media Matters lied and is rightly being called on it.
It was obviously a joke and it was in the same vein as the audience took Bolton’s Chicago reference yesterday. I think it was the wrong venue, but Coulter is not Bolton either. If anyone expected her to give a straight speech and not throw a single bomb they have obviously never read any of Ann’s books or columns. It’s what she does and she’s good at it. If they’re going to have Coulter and Rush speak, they need to accept that there are going to be some wicked shots at the Dems. Having folks on the politician side saying stupid things, or smart things in a stupid way, is unhelpful.
Now, I just realized that I haven’t put my, “It’s my fault Obama got elected” bumper-sticker on my truck yet. Wait… Xrlq hasn’t sent it to me yet. 😉
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:06 pmPatterico,
As I said, you need to take into account Coulter’s history of her so-called jokes, such as bombing the New York Times, in deciding what she is suggesting. And that word is important, since suggestion is not the same as outright statement. It depends on the context. To simply look at this latest vile statement in isolation is to ignore that context.
We’ll simply have to agree to disagree on this one.
"Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R." (0ea407) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:07 pmI’m fully familiar with her history of comments.
I note, however, that you haven’t really answered my questions (which argument are you making; how is this a matter of interpretation, etc.)
If you won’t even identify which is your argument, or otherwise engage my questions, then yeah, I guess I have no choice but to “agree to disagree.”
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:11 pmI never know what to think of Coulter – she sometimes says things that are quite reasoned, yet in the next sentence says something to provoke outrage – and sell more books.
Dmac (49b16c) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:12 pmStashiu3,
Interpreting jokes is notoriously difficult, because people respond to them differently. Of course, it was obviously a joke, Ann Coulter style. And Media Matters said Coulter suggested she might let the cities be bombed — I interpreted that as meaning she wouldn’t retaliate if liberal cities were bombed. In light of her previous jokes, that to me is a reasonable interpretation.
To claim Media Matters is lying means that they knew their statement was false. Patterico hasn’t established that. Reasonable people can disagree on what Coulter’s joke meant. That’s not a lie, that’s a difference of opinion.
"Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R." (0ea407) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:15 pmThis is a really good night. We had Old School, Happy Gilmore, and Caddyshack on at the same time. Epic.
JD (e91ae1) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:17 pmI took it as a joke, but one in bad taste. Typical though, Coulter gets the last laugh – she’s a flamethrower who knows precisely how to phrase a “joke” or comment to get the most bang for her buck while simultaneously provoking both sides. At the end of the day it gets people talking and helps to make her a best-selling author. She’s quite clever.
I expect Media Matters to lie about anything to do with Coulter just as I expect Coulter to take advantage of any opportunity to incite.
Dana (137151) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:18 pmPatterico,
Twice now I have stated my argument, that Coulter’s history of similar utterances should be taken into account in interpreting her joke.
You are free to disagree with my argument, but please don’t say I didn’t make it.
"Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R." (0ea407) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:20 pmNot retaliating is different than letting them be bombed. The President would have control over the retaliation, but the bombing is inherent in the question… already a done deal. It would be like someone claiming that Obama would let three random cities be bombed because he said he would send ambulances (I guess instead of saying that he wouldn’t let them be bombed in the first place.) He accepted the premise of the question and said what he would do. That’s the point of the post. Media Matters lied.
You may find Ann’s joke in poor taste, but she never said or implied that she would let any cities be bombed… just implied that her response afterwards as President might be different if the cities were liberal.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:24 pmPatterico,
Twice now I have stated my argument, that Coulter’s history of similar utterances should be taken into account in interpreting her joke.
You are free to disagree with my argument, but please don’t say I didn’t make it.
I understand you’re saying that, and I responded to that by saying I am familiar with her history of comments.
Let me try this again.
Are you arguing that it’s a “matter of interpretation” whether she actually suggested that she would let U.S. cities be bombed?
Or are you arguing that it’s “hairsplitting” to distinguish between that suggestion, and a suggestion that, if she were President, her actions in response to such bombings would depend on which U.S. cities had been bombed?
I need to understand which argument you’re making before I can respond to it. Neither one makes sense to me, but I don’t want to respond to one argument if you’re making another.
I’ll take it as a given that, whichever argument you’re making, you are also saying that Coulter’s history of similar utterances should be taken into account in interpreting her joke.
See, I still don’t know whether you’re claiming that she did say what Media Matters claims — or admitting that she didn’t, but saying it makes no difference. You’ve used language (“matter of interpretation” vs. “hairsplitting”) suggesting each.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:25 pmDoes it make any sense that in a hypothetical nuking of three cities, you need to know which cities before you can deliver a hypothetical response?
Isn’t that a far less plausible than the explanation that it was yet another of Coulter’s tasteless jokes.
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:26 pmTo those implying that Patterico is wrong because Coulter has suggested that the NYTimes should be bombed in the past: that makes no sense.
There is no ambiguity on the question asked: What would you do in case the cities were hit. She was not asked what she would do to prevent the bombs from falling. And no New York Times joke from the past will change the nature of the joke in the present.
Andrew (96ab30) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:26 pmDoes it make any sense that in a hypothetical nuking of three cities, you need to know which cities before you can deliver a hypothetical response?
I don’t even understand that, but let’s not bring the word “nuking” into the conversation since that’s not what she said.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:28 pmI heard that joke, and it was clear to me that her intention was to state that Hacks buggers goats.
JD (e91ae1) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:28 pmAndrew and Stashiu are understanding me perfectly.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:28 pmYes, it does. In fact, it makes no sense that you could even begin to deliver a response plan without knowing where you should be responding too.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:30 pmAndrew and Stashiu are understanding me perfectly.
Comment by Patterico — 2/28/2009 @ 8:28 pm
Ok this time Patterico, but if that sentence is ever written seriously on this site again I’m submitting myself for a psych eval. 😉
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:32 pmPatterico said:
She’s not suggesting that she would let three U.S. cities be bombed. She’s saying her response as President would depend on which three U.S. cities were bombed.
Coulter said:
See, it shows you how different Obama and I are. I would have said: “Which three U.S. cities?”
Look, I’m not a fan of Ann. And, I won’t go into the reasons for this discussion. But, if you were the President, wouldn’t that be the first question you asked? Just saying.
I didn’t see the speech, so I may not be understanding the context. With apologies to our host.
Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:35 pmAg80,
If I could embed the video you’d see that (like everything she said) she was making a joke — and the nature of the joke was as I described it in the post.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:38 pm#50 Stashiu3:
C’mon, you can’t tell me you never found time to do a Myers-Briggs…
Oh, a “joke.”
Nevermind…
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:41 pmPatterico
Are you arguing that it’s a “matter of interpretation” whether she actually suggested that she would let U.S. cities be bombed?
Or are you arguing that it’s “hairsplitting” to distinguish between that suggestion, and a suggestion that, if she were President, her actions in response to such bombings would depend on which U.S. cities had been bombed?
The second one. While you choose to look only at what Coulter actually said in that one particular joke, I look at her history. This is not a legal brief argued before the Supreme Court, but an alleged joke by someone with a record of making jokes citing violence in an approving way.
"Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R." (0ea407) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:43 pmIf one of those cities was San Francisco, I’m not sure I’d be outraged. I’ve said publicly that if Al Qaeda attacked San Francisco (or Hollywood), I’d have to think about what side I’d root for.
Peter (92c60c) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:45 pmI took up Patterico’s hint and watched the video. I got got the sense through her delivery that Coulter could have been mocking her own reputation. That is something that doesn’t come through with just the words.
With that, I’ll bow out of this debate, because my head hurts.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:49 pmIt was a joke, not a “joke”. 😉
My first Myers-Briggs was interesting. I had no idea what the questions were about, yet I was at or near the far end of the bell-curve in each section (INTJ).
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:51 pmPatterico said:
If I could embed the video you’d see that (like everything she said) she was making a joke — and the nature of the joke was as I described it in the post.
Fair enough. I’ll look around and see if I can find it. I’m also watching the repeats on CSPAN, so maybe they’ll show it.
Like I said, I have my doubts about Ann, and I do trust your judgment.
Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:52 pmOf course it would! Allah has the video, btw.
Look, I think she was engaging in sort of a double entendre. I think that if she were to flesh that joke out, she’d probably say that if it were San Francisco, she’d send in Code Pink. Chicago? She’d send in ACORN. But framing it as though she said she’d let the cities be bombed if she were President is bomb throwing no less than anything she’s been accused of. And it’s utterly dishonest.
Pablo (99243e) — 2/28/2009 @ 8:52 pmStashiu and the genesis of “dummerer than a sack of Andrews” agreed with each other? Careful, Stashm
JD (e91ae1) — 2/28/2009 @ 9:01 pmThe video is at the link in this post. I just can’t embed it because of a technical problem.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/28/2009 @ 9:22 pmI’ve said publicly that if Al Qaeda attacked San Francisco (or Hollywood), I’d have to think about what side I’d root for.
Well, you wouldn’t be any different from — but, in fact, you’d be more selective than — the “goddamn America” reverend who our beloved president (the guy who, believe it or not, sits in the Oval Office) not only apparently took in stride for a good number of years but even embraced quite freely and enthusiastically. So much so that Mr. Goddamn America — at least before controversy ensued — was chosen as the president’s close advisor.
Mark (411533) — 2/28/2009 @ 9:22 pmWell we’ve parsed a dumb joke ad infinitum.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/28/2009 @ 9:24 pmFor Obama bumper stickers, go here:
AD - RtR/OS (5e419c) — 2/28/2009 @ 9:27 pmhttp://www.discountbookdistributors.com/keepmygunsbumpersticker-1.aspx
Look you are never going to win an argument with a delusional leftist as they lack the ability to understand reality.
Only a complete moron would think that Coulter would allow three cities to be bomb considering she has always been one of the most vocal proponents of doing everything possible to protect America and American lives. But Leftists are like fanatics Islamists in that they believe that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to “unbelievers” to further the cause. Any lie is acceptable to vanquish the only “real” enemy, conservatives.
Now I, not having to be politically correct can state that if a large liberal city was attacked the only response should be to have them talk to the “Great Uniter” as HE was going to get all OF our enemies to love them since HE got rid of everybody’s enemy, the “evil” George Bush. That was after all what Barry ran on and he loves playing that card to this date. Not One Dime.
LogicalSC (f80a6e) — 2/28/2009 @ 10:09 pmAs a San Francisco resident, let me remind you all that in 2005, a city supervisor named Gerardo Sandoval said on Hannity & Colmes before millions of viewers that he didn’t think that the United States of America should have a military force. This was such a stunning statement even Alan Colmes couldn’t defend it, calling it a “ridiculous fringe point of view.” When challenged by Colmes “What do you want [us] to defend ourselves with?” Sandoval responded, “You got cops…”
BTW, Sandoval is no longer a Supervisor. He was elected a S.F. Superior Court judge this past November.
Yeah, I know.
L.N. Smithee (f1c54e) — 3/1/2009 @ 12:14 amPatterico–
Did you ever stop and wonder why, when “progressive” Democrats have their conventions, you never, ever see their words thrown back at them by the press? Now, maybe they are just all calm and rational speakers, but you have to think that a convention that polls 46% for Kucinich might have some harsh and unfunny things to say about the other side.
So, I really don’t understand why you get all bent out of shape when your political enemies cherry-pick the worst of 5 days of conservative speakers, some of which are bound to be towards the fringe of the movement.
Rather you should spend more time covering the other guys. Or someone should.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 3/1/2009 @ 12:25 amIn this post, I’m covering the other guys.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/1/2009 @ 12:26 amCoulter is the classic case of riling up the “base” at the expense of turning off swing voters.
It actually works when you’re the dominant party.
But when you’re playing catch-up, it only sets you further behind.
The GOP has to come to grips with the fact that it’s a minority party and has to win new converts and/or reconstruct a coalition to regain majority status.
The Democrats spent many losing years trying, and failing, to regenerate the Clinton coalition and duplicate its success, without acknowledging that Clinton’s political victories were unique to his time and his personality.
It took the Obama campaign to shake the Democrats out of trying to be Republican-lite, and as soon as they did, viola: victory. Well, that and the fact the economy literally collapsed under Bush, who started two wars and ended none.
Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:26 amI wonder how the Ponce’s pet ocelot is doing these days. All that furious stroking must be bad for the fur.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 8:40 amDoes anyone think the troops in Gen. Sherman’s ranks didn’t make jokes about burning American cities, as they headed out of Atlanta? Anyone who looks at the American historical record can see that we are overdue for another civil war. I’m ready to start laughing now.
Benzino Napoloni (c128a5) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:20 amIf one of those cities was San Francisco, I’m not sure I’d be outraged. I’ve said publicly that if Al Qaeda attacked San Francisco (or Hollywood), I’d have to think about what side I’d root for.
Are you clinically insane?
Apart from the fact that this would be a batshit crazy comment even if only liberals lived in these places, they don’t. I have conservative readers who live in these places. Yes, they’re outnumbered, but they exist.
I was in San Francisco recently myself. If it got bombed when I was there would you care?
Jesus.
Well, keep speaking truth to power. Nobody will accuse you of being mamby-pamby. Just insane.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/1/2009 @ 10:15 amPatterico, I sense a certain degree of Melville-ism.
Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 3/1/2009 @ 10:25 amI keep getting the feeling that some people here think it would be wrong to bomb the NY Times.
LareBear (11d835) — 3/1/2009 @ 10:56 am#57 Stashiu3:
Alright, already! I got it! I got it!
I’ve often been told that if you watch closely, you can see the blue crackles at the edge of the universe when an INTJ walks by as the universe molds itself to fit around them.
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 3/1/2009 @ 10:58 amCareful, EW. An ENTJ will tell you what to do with your blue fire, next.
Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 3/1/2009 @ 11:18 amHey, folks, how about this:
http://www.eagletribune.com/pulife/local_story_059172734.html?keyword=secondarystory
Now, the 10 March “debate” should be interesting. They know each other, so it will be interesting to see how their “friendship” dissolves in partisan acid.
It’ll be something like matter and antimatter, methinks.
Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 3/1/2009 @ 11:50 am#76 Eric Blair:
Heh. Ain’t it the truth!
EW1(SG) (e27928) — 3/1/2009 @ 12:55 pmI keep getting the feeling that some people here think it would be wrong to bomb the NY Times.
Good.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:00 pmLareBear, or whoever you are: It would be wrong to bomb NYT. It would be wrong to bomb NYT. The vast majority of NYT articles are far left, but it would be wrong to bomb NYT. NYT spreads all sorts of lies, falsehoods, disinformation and liberal propaganda, but it would be wrong to bomb NYT. NYT is in the back pockets of liberal Democrats, or vice versa, but it would be wrong to bomb NYT.
Did I get my message across to you clearly enough, LareBear?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:05 pmIn case my message wasn’t clear enough, anyone bombing NYT should be charged and found guilty of terrorist acts and sentenced to the maximum time allowable. If anyone perished in the bombing, the bomber should be executed forthwith.
It would be wrong to bomb NYT.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:08 pmIt would be wrong to bomb the NYT.
For that matter, the NYT’s mgmt seems to be working on blowing it up themselves.
Karl (8966b4) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:27 pmAll Ann Coulter said was that she would rather The NYT building had been bombed instead of the OK City building. Just what is so horrible about that? The bombing was a given, she just suggested an alternate location. The way grown men get the vapors when talking about Ann Coulter’s “nasty” comments is sickening.
Grow a dick for God’s sake.
ccoffer (a131b0) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:28 pm“It would be wrong to bomb NYT.”
Yeah, but it wouldn’t be wrong to wish it had been instead of Oklahoma City. Thats just common sense. If someones got to go, decent people should hope its the crappiest among us who get it first. The vermin at the NYT certainly qualify.
ccoffer (a131b0) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:31 pmccoffer, take the time to take things into context. Patterico and I both referred to a particular statement. And that last suggestion is very interesting indeed. Is that what you want the female commenters to do? Are you indeed that sexist?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:31 pmccoffer, nobody deserves to be killed in a terrorist attack.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:33 pmOh good grief. It’s like trying to talk to the criminally insane.
Wishing the NYT would stop printing lies != wishing the NYT were bombed. Actual living people would be murdered. Is that your wish?
I dislike the NYT & its mendaciousness. But I have to believe that there are still 10 righteous men there.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:33 pmYou don’t understand because you don’t want to. Why would you rather the Oklahoma City Federal Building be bombed instead of the New York Times? If you say neither, then you’ve basically decided to ignore the entire context of the quote so as to remain as offended as possible.
ccoffer (a131b0) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:41 pmccoffer, you respond to that.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:44 pmI would choose “neither.” It’s like deciding which child you’d like to abandon. I don’t see what’s so hard about that.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:46 pmsteve miller, correction. It’s like deciding which child you’re willing to let get murdered.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:49 pmwell, yeah, but I didn’t want to go all Sophie’s Choice on the guy.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:52 pmYes, there are still 10 righteous men at The New York Times, and they’re all security guards.
Official Internet Data Office (c29d16) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:54 pmheh.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 1:55 pmAs Eric Blair said, we’re getting some Melville-ism here. They’re probably now reporting to their lefty counterparts: “Look how the right-wing nuts are debating the merits of blowing up the New York Times!”
I hope Patterico banishes these agent provocateurs pronto.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:02 pmYeah, it’s classic Moby. “Look at Teh Crazy Republitards who want to blow up NYC.”
Disagreeing with the editorial policies of the NYT doesn’t mean they should be blown up. They should be opposed and – one can hope – overcome through reasoned argument.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:05 pmsteve,
I thought it was “Rethuglicans”, not “Republitards”. Did that change now that the Dems have the majority? I missed the memo. Again. I blame JD.
😉
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:14 pmStashiu, I’m assuming that the Democrat Party will abrogate for themselves all the invective of the Right, transmogrifying “Libtard” into “Republitard.”
They already co-opted “balanced budget” and “reasonable spending.”
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:18 pm[Joke comment deleted. — P]
AD - RtR/OS (0ac8fd) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:30 pmYeah, but it wouldn’t be wrong to wish it had been instead of Oklahoma City. Thats just common sense
You’re either criminally insane or a Moby – either way, STFU and get outta here.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:45 pmWhat the hell is wrong with you people? Are you really this obtuse? No one advocated anyone bombing anything. The discussion occurred after a real bombing not a theoretical one.
So again, why would you prefer the bombing take place in Oklahoma instead of New York? Is there anyone reading this capable of linear thought?
ccoffer (a131b0) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:53 pmGeez?
The topic really is what the hell is wrong with you, ccoffer. What’s wrong with us is another argument.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/1/2009 @ 2:56 pmNonsense. By that logic, referring to Pearl Harbor as a movie rather than a “quote movie unquote” would leave the reader with the impression you liked the movie, or describing tofu as “food” would imply that you think it’s yummy, nutritious, and everything else an ideal food ought to be. If you’re really that worried about the hypothetical risk that anyone on the planet thinks you like anything about Ann Coulter, or a specific joke of hers in particular, the English language offers a wide variety of modifiers to choose from that will put such concerns to rest. Examples include “bad,” “corny,” “crappy,” “tasteless,” “inappropriate,” “shitty,” and too many others to count. Air quotes, however, are not among them.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:01 pm“Linear thought?”
Hmmm. Who else is fond of that expression?
Eric Blair (a79349) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:02 pmOh geez. Not another shapeshifter.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:03 pmccoffer, whether you’re truly that clueless or a Moby, my recommendation is that you get help. Regardless, this site is clearly not what you’re looking for… try some of the neo-nazi ones which are much more likely to appreciate your nuance.
BTW, you really shouldn’t use the term linear thought until you understand it (and can demonstrate it in your own comments). The Oklahoma City Bombing was wrong. Bombing the NYT building would be wrong. Making the reprehensible argument that bombing either one, under any circumstances, is wrong. You are clearly making this argument in a serious fashion, unlike AC who used hyperbole and dark humor to express anger at the NYT revealing a classified government anti-terrorist program. You are wrong.
Get help for your sad and twisted worldview.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:11 pmWell, I haven’t read any of the comments here, nor will I, but I just wanted to say that as you accuse Media Matters of lying, you actually mislead your readers in what Coulter implied.
You wrote: “Media Matters headline: Coulter suggests she might let three U.S. cities be bombed, depending on which cities they are.”
While Media Matters has corrected it’s headline to read, “Coulter says if three U.S. cities were attacked, her response would be, ‘Which three U.S. cities?'” the premise remains the same.
You’d like to think that she meant to ask which three US cities so she could respond to action, but it’s obvious by the delivery of her line and the reaction from the crowd, that her “joke” intended to imply that some cities aren’t worth saving. It doesn’t help your cause to criticize Media Matters while at the same time, being disingenous to the sprit of what Coulter was saying.
No matter, she’ll probably tell us to lighten up because it was just a joke anyway.
Broadway Carl (d0b787) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:14 pmDefinition of a drive-by:
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:19 pmYou’d like to think that she meant to ask which three US cities so she could respond to action, but it’s obvious by the delivery of her line and the reaction from the crowd, that her “joke” intended to imply that some cities aren’t worth saving. It doesn’t help your cause to criticize Media Matters while at the same time, being disingenous to the sprit of what Coulter was saying.
It doesn’t help your cause to misrepresent my post, which clearly does acknowledge EXACTLY that. I’ll now quote the portion of my post you evidently didn’t read:
I didn’t misrepresent a thing. I’m assuming you just overlooked that part of my post.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:20 pmBroadway Carl is a lifelong concerned Christian cnservative, no doubt. And a liar.
JD (0d1f38) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:30 pmNo, he overlooked the entirety of your post.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:31 pmHitchcock – no drive by, I’m still here. I just didn’t want to influence my initial post by reading other comments, and will only read comments responding to mine.
Patterico – On the tasteless joke, we agree. But your post stated that Media Matters lied. So which is it? A tasteless joke in which Coulter inferred some cities aren’t worth saving which is the basis of MM’s claim, or a statement in order to plan her next course of action if she were president? It can’t be both.
Broadway Carl (d0b787) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:31 pmHe came over to score points & post the results at his blog. “Lookitthat! I can has smackdown at Patterico’s blog!”
Give it time; he’ll be posting a boasting soon.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:32 pmbut it’s obvious by the delivery of her line and the reaction from the crowd,
Ah, so there you have it – obvious proof, based entirely on your opinion. Try again.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:33 pmJD – Nope, not a liar.
Dmac – I read it entirely. Still no one has argued with my premise, except for our host to which I’ve responded.
Broadway Carl (d0b787) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:33 pmOh good grief. How very special. “I will only respond to posts responding to mine.”
Here. Let me help you. Do not respond to mine. I don’t think you’re worth the brainpower to think about. It’s not always about you, you know.
Now run on back to your blog and play.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:34 pmI miss the old days when trolls at least read through the posting before they randomized the conversation.
Now we have trolls that announce in advance that they will only respond to posting that directly talk about their own postings.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:35 pmDmac – so please explain to me how you interpret it. You’ve seen the video, no? The crowd laughs, do they not? It was intended as a joke. Please enlighten me.
Broadway Carl (d0b787) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:35 pmI just didn’t want to influence my initial post by reading other comments,
Translation – I’m either too lazy or mentally – challenged to actually hear articulated opinions that may differ from my own, so that I may post my unbridled outrage based on an inaccurate reading of the titled post in question. Brilliant!
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:36 pmThanks for visiting my blog steve miller. Come by often and feel free to leave a comment. Love your band, by the way.
Broadway Carl (d0b787) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:37 pmI will only respond to the people that comment on Bradway Carl’s mendoucheity.
JD (0d1f38) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:38 pmThanks for responding, Dmac. But I still haven’t heard a rebuttal.
Broadway Carl (d0b787) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:39 pmSo let me get this straight: we are graced with the presence of someone who will stop by and post something entirely without reference to the previous conversation, and we should feel – honored? blessed? elevated? – that we can now only talk about his postings and his topics?
Yeah, I can see how that will sell! You should put a donate button on your site so people who want to talk only about you and your topics can pay for the privilege.
Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:39 pmPlease enlighten me.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that boasting of willful ignorance and disrespect to every other commenter here is deserving of a respectful response in kind. Similar to telling someone that their baby’s ugly, but you don’t mean to insult them in any meaningful way.
Try again, Poindexter.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:40 pmAnd I will only respond to posts responding to Giancarlo Menotti.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:41 pmI say, the Fop is acting in a willfully douchebaggery way, what?
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:41 pmI will only respond to those commenters who address me as The Lord High Executioner. That is all.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:43 pmI will give you some helpful and unsolicited advice (just like what you come here to give us!) — you might want to just start over.
Here’s what you might want to post:
That way, you at least have the thin veneer of civility and grace.
Instead, you come across as a boor and a party-crasher. Not invited, and not interesting.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:44 pmI have not heard a rebuttal to my assertion that you are mendoucheous.
Lalalalalalalalalalala
I can’t hear you, therefore, you have not responded to my premise. Ironically, my premise is demonstrably true, whereas yours is based on a rectal extraction.
JD (0d1f38) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:45 pmOkay, I’m leaving now. This was my first time here. And disregarding the first line of my original post, no one actually had a rebuttal to my argument regarding Coulter’s intention of her “which cities?” line, except for Patterico.
Enjoy circling the drain.
Broadway Carl (d0b787) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:46 pmDrive-by Carl: Nobody feels the need to respond to your point because it has already been thoroughly discussed (and debunked) above. If you had read the earlier comments, you would see that and not continue to beclown yourself.
Carl proudly states his ignorance and demonstrates his narcissism at the same time. That’s so special… wait, no it’s not. We get that all the time from drive-by trolls. Never mind.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:46 pmDrive-by Carl:
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:48 pmWe are not worthy!
Steve, you’re absolutely right. I did get off on the wrong foot.
Good luck, all.
Broadway Carl (d0b787) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:49 pmOn the tasteless joke, we agree. But your post stated that Media Matters lied. So which is it? A tasteless joke in which Coulter inferred some cities aren’t worth saving which is the basis of MM’s claim, or a statement in order to plan her next course of action if she were president? It can’t be both.
Your argument has already been addressed.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:50 pmEnjoy circling the drain.
Awww, now his widdle feewwings are all hurt, despite his failure to acknowledge his insulting preamble that led to the abuse in the first place. Please come back Carl, so we watch you get pantsed some more. Fop.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:52 pmPrediction: This will soon be a post on Drive-by Carl’s blog where he will assert his moral superiority and “prove” that right-wing Rethuglicans cannot disprove the simplest truths uttered by the Reality-Based Community.
To be followed by a post complaining that he can never seem to get a date with girls.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:52 pm“so we can watch you.”
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 3:53 pmEvidently no one on Broadway taught Carl to read the whole thread.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:06 pmwhy should he read the whole thread? It wasn’t about him.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:14 pmIt was amusing to see all the right wing love for New York after 9/11.
imdw (de7003) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:16 pmYou mean NYC as a place with real people? Sure we love it – why would we hate people?
NYC as a symbol of liberal groupthink? That we don’t love.
The NYT the day after 9/11 published an editorial that made it clear they weren’t standing behind George Bush and the Republicans. The NYT felt it more important to score political points than to simply say “let’s do what we can to find the guilty.” I felt like it was a slap to my face for supporting the people of NYC, but I didn’t think the NYT should then be bombed.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:22 pmI am going to refrain from my gut reaction and simply state that imdw is a douchenozzle.
JD (0d1f38) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:28 pm“You mean NYC as a place with real people? Sure we love it – why would we hate people?
NYC as a symbol of liberal groupthink? That we don’t love.
The NYT the day after 9/11 published an editorial that made it clear they weren’t standing behind George Bush and the Republicans. The NYT felt it more important to score political points than to simply say “let’s do what we can to find the guilty.” I felt like it was a slap to my face for supporting the people of NYC, but I didn’t think the NYT should then be bombed.”
Yeah. Stuff like this. Hilarious.
imdw (e62720) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:30 pmHow is it hilarious?
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:32 pmimdw, still incoherent, I see.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:35 pmI don’t like the groupthink of the NYT and the liberal NYC. How is that hilarious?
I’m failing to see the humor here. Perhaps there’s a secret whistle only dogs can hear?
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:36 pmimdw thinks that the Jooos are the root of all evil, in case anyone needs the Cliff Notes version of it’s inanity. Tell us how hilarious your particular brand of anti – Semitism is, Trollbaby.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:46 pmLots of things are hilarious for imdw. Some of them are not even real but just noises in his head.
I am not a Coulter fan so have left this thread pretty much alone. IT was nice to see “Broadway Carl” stop by and leave a deposit similar to those my dog leaves on evening strolls. He seems to have a supply.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:47 pmAh. So perhaps imdw sees it all as a plot by Jews? Or something like that? Did Bush also blow up the towers, imdw?
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 4:53 pmNo, just the evil Neocons/Israelilobby/BillKristol/Rove wing of the GOP.
Dmac (49b16c) — 3/1/2009 @ 5:07 pm“imdw thinks that the Jooos are the root of all evil, in case anyone needs the Cliff Notes version of it’s inanity. ”
The upper east side, specifically.
imdw (de7003) — 3/1/2009 @ 5:15 pm“imdw thinks that the Jooos are the root of all evil”
With Easter coming up she’s probably just going all Christianist on us.
daleyrocks (6dc4cc) — 3/1/2009 @ 5:20 pmIncoherence definitely dialed up to “11”…
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/1/2009 @ 5:20 pmHey, wait. The term “hilarious” (at the end of a post) is trademarked to a different troll!
Eric Blair (a79349) — 3/1/2009 @ 5:22 pm“imdw thinks that the Jooos are the root of all evil”
Speaking of which…
(And the following also is one more reason it’s difficult to get hot and bothered over the flippancy of a woman of the media whose stock-in-trade is being mockingly glib — and inflammatory in a world otherwise dominated by inflammatory rhetoric mainly from the left — when we’ve got bigger [as the cliche goes] fish to fry…)
Mark (411533) — 3/1/2009 @ 6:22 pmYou’ve got a fucked up sense of humor, imdw. But then, that doesn’t surprise anyone, does it?
Pablo (99243e) — 3/1/2009 @ 7:17 pmRepublican consultant Mike Murphy (troll?):
On Meet the Press:
“At the end of the day here’s the one statistic we all got to remember: the country’s changing. Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 51 percent of the vote. We all worship Ronald Reagan. But if that election had been held with the current demographics of America today, Ronald Reagan would’ve gotten 47 percent of the vote.
“The math is changing. Anglo vote’s 74 percent now, not 89. And if we don’t modernize conservatism, we’re going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, enjoying every, every applause line, ripping the furniture up. We’re going to be in permanent minority status.”
Dios mio!
Are Republican talking heads having a reality attack, i.e. turning into “trolls?”
Here’s former congressman Joe Scarborough (Republican) from the same show:
“Here’s the problem, though. Republicans owned Washington for the past eight years. They failed miserably. The people that were running the Republican Party for the past eight years on Capitol Hill still seem to be running the Republican Party on Capitol Hill. So I, I wonder if Americans really are going to look in that direction for a new change.”
Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:18 pmScarborough needs a history lesson too. Apparently he did not notice when Pelosi and Reid took over the House and Senate.
JD (0d1f38) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:44 pmdetails details…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:50 pmTeh Narrative: No matter what is happening or has happened or will happen, it is/was/will be Bush’s fault.
Kind of the secular Gloria Patri.
steve miller (4bda12) — 3/1/2009 @ 9:54 pmIn excelsis debt – O
carlitos (f13ec4) — 3/2/2009 @ 8:44 am